Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? (346625)	Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(346625)	view threaded
Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008 edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d They call what they've heard "unconfirmed", but Stratfor's sources are very good. What would Merkel and Medvedev be meeting for, if not over the security of Germany in the face of Russia's (unjustifiable) belligerence? Link to article Germany: Merkel's Choice and the Future of Europe August 20, 2008 \| 2216 GMT Summary As countries the world over begin reassessing their relationships with a resurging Russia and a bogged-down United States, Germany in particular has some tough choices to make. While Germany has a place in the European Union and NATO, Stratfor sources have said that Russia has offered Germany a security agreement — and German Chancellor Angela Merkel knows how vulnerable her country is to Russia. Analysis As countries around the world rethink their positions and ties with the resurgent Russia and the bogged-down United States, one of the countries with the largest dilemma is Germany. Unlike many former Warsaw Pact or Soviet states that were forced to adjust dramatically and quickly to a Russia on the move, Germany’s geographic location, ties to Moscow and history as a leader and divider of Europe make it the next state to have to make a tough decision. Berlin will have to decide whether it wants to continue acting like an occupied state and relying on the NATO-Washington security guarantee, or act on its own and make its own security pacts with Moscow. In the past, Germany and Russia traditionally have cooperated when they were not at war with each other — something that makes geopolitical sense but terrifies the rest of Europe. Today’s Germany closely resembles pre-World War II Germany; it is economically and politically strong, unified and unoccupied, which means it can actually decide whether to align with Russia or the West instead of having the choice made for it, as it was in 1949. Moreover, the awakening Germany is one of three major powers left in Europe today (the other two being France and the United Kingdom), and it has been looking to reprise its role as Europe’s natural leader. It makes sense for Berlin to claim this title by dint of population, location and economic heft. Of the major European powers, Germany is the one with the difficult decision to make between Russia and NATO. It is a member of the latter, and it makes sense to stick to its current alliances. But Germany never really made the decision to join NATO. Only half of Germany was part of the alliance during the Cold War (as decreed by the United States); after German reunification, East Germany joined NATO when Russia was weak and chaotic. Germany had no choice but to continue its Western alliances after the Cold War. The world changed Aug. 8 as Russia proved its strength when it launched a military campaign in Georgia and the West did not come to Tbilisi’s aid. Moscow’s muscle-flexing in its former Soviet state forced many countries to reassess their positions immediately by either solidifying their ties to Russia — like Armenia and Belarus — or turning to Washington to guarantee its security — like Poland. Naturally, former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries were the first ones to react; not only are they closer to Russia, they also have the most to gain or lose in the short term. But during the Cold War, one country — Germany — was divided between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This put it in a very different position from most of Europe. During that time, a defeated Germany not only was split and occupied, but also was not allowed to field a meaningful independent foreign or military policy. Instead, all of its energies were harnessed into the European Union and NATO. During the decade following its reunification, Germany has slowly crawled its way back to being a normal state allowed to have an opinion. But with Russia regaining strength, Germany stands on the front lines of whatever Moscow has planned. Germany is vulnerable to Russia on many fronts. It has a very deep memory of what it feels like to have the Russians easily march across the northern European plain to German territory, which led to the Soviet occupation of half the country for four decades. Germany and Russia are also currently each other’s largest trading partners, and Russia provides more than 60 percent of Germany’s natural gas. So Berlin is now reassessing its allegiances to Washington and NATO, which would keep the country locked into the policies it made as an occupied state. Or Germany could act like its own state and create its own security guarantee with Russia — something that would rip NATO apart. Berlin does not have to make a decision right now, but it does need to start mulling its options and the consequences. Rumors are floating around Moscow that a discussion between the Kremlin and Berlin on such a topic is occurring — not that a deadline has been presented, just that a dialogue on the issue is under way. Of course, such a discussion would be tightly guarded until Berlin actually made a decision. On Aug. 15, as the war between Georgia and Russia wound down, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Sochi, but the meeting was highly tense (as shown during their press conference). Germany acted peculiar during the entire Georgian-Russian conflict. When the war began, Berlin issued a fluff statement on “needing to find a solution” between the two states; however, as the war escalated, Merkel fell silent on the issue. Many within the German government released statements in favor of either Russia or Georgia, but it is Merkel who calls the shots in the country — and she was waiting for her meeting with Medvedev before speaking. Merkel is an interesting leader to have in Germany at this stage because she is the first German chancellor born in East Germany. This leads her to be more critical and firm against the Russians, but nonetheless she understands how vulnerable her country is right now. Germany may be an economic powerhouse, but it is still militarily weak, so its security is in the forefront of its mind. Stratfor sources in Moscow have said that Medvedev has offered Merkel a security pact for their two countries. This offer is completely unconfirmed, and the details are unknown. However, it would make sense for Russia to propose such a pact since Moscow knows that, of all the European countries, Germany is the one to pursue — not only because of the counrty’s vulnerabilities and strong economic ties with Russia but because the two have a history of cozying up to each other. While such an alliance might sound like a stretch in today’s U.S.-dominated world, there are two things to consider. First, like Russia, Germany is wary of Washington’s strengthening presence in Europe. The United States already has the United Kingdom as its lackey, France has returned to the NATO fold, and Washington is gaining the allegiance of many Central European states — all of which undercuts Germany’s dominance on the continent. This is not to say that Germany is ready to ditch NATO just yet, especially since Berlin has no military heft. However, Berlin must at least be considering how to balance the U.S. presence in Europe. Second, most of the world thought it impossible for Germany and Russia to ally in the 1930s, but the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the treaty of nonaggression between Germany and the Soviet Union). This was not the first Russo-German treaty, but actually the third (after the League of the Three Emperors in 1872 and the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922), confirming the two countries’ tradition of turning to each other when both are not at war or occupied. These two considerations together should cause concern in most of Europe. Since Germany and Russia are the two big powers on the block and want to keep any other power (like the United States) from their region, it would make sense for Berlin and Moscow to want to forge an agreement to divide up the neighborhood — such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania into either the Nazi or Soviet spheres of influence. Most of those countries have since sided with Washington, but if Germany and Russia make some sort of deal, it will be open season on American influence in Europe. All of this is not to say that Berlin is about to flip on the West. It has time to mull its decision. The point is that Germany is not the solid rock of NATO and the European Union that the West assumes it is. Russia’s recent actions mean that history is catching up with the Germans and that a choice will eventually come. Everything depends on Berlin’s choice between maintaining its dependence on the United States or flipping the entire balance structure in Europe by striking a deal with Russia. Berlin has been itching to reassert itself as a real and unbound power on the continent once again. However, though it has new economic and political strength, Germany is in many ways more vulnerable than it has been in more than 60 years. Berlin’s choice will shape the future of Europe and possibly the world.
Post a New Response

(346627)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 02:52:51 2008, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Russia has oil. America has republicans. What's to guess? :(
Post a New Response

(346628)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Aug 22 03:10:47 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 02:52:51 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Wrong. Unless you're calling Stratfor's analysts liars? After all, you're the one telling us not to worry about Germany. Republicans have nothing to do with this development.
Post a New Response

(346629)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 03:31:51 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 03:10:47 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The power vacuum caused by OUR morons are the direct result of all of this. And in PARTICULAR, those "missiles in Poland" ... but sure, go ahead and believe whatever you wish ... and no, Stratfor has a FAR better batting average than "our" spooks, and their analysis (as always) is NARROWLY focused. You need to know more than just what they're talking about right now to get the "bigger picture" ... SO one LAST time, we screwed the Russians over and over again, WE gave Saakashvili the "green light" and Russia has finally had enough of it. Add to that that every OTHER nation has seen Bush yammer and do nothing, and they're doing what's best for themselves. If we hadn't had morons in charge the past 8 years, perhaps this wouldn't be happening now. But what's going on is a DIRECT result of all of this. Lemme know when you find out what REALLY happened in Georgia that first night and we'll talk. The WORLD has had enough of US fuckups. THAT is what's happening. :(
Post a New Response

(346635)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 05:21:05 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 03:10:47 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Upon reflection, guess a second post is in order. :( I never said "don't WORRY about Germany" (thanks for putting words in my mouth) ... what I said was there are BIGGER priorities. You, sir are stuck in an obsession. And the whole "Republican dream" of "spreading democracy" like some cheap storefront religion has EVERYTHING to do with all of this. We'll conveniently forget that the United States is a REPUBLIC, and NOT a "democracy" and that our republic is designed to mitigate the "tyranny of the majority" and is a far better system than "democracy" ... so WHY is there some need to "spread" it to cultures and nations which want no part of "OUR way or the highway?" As to US, our bankers, hosers and 419'ers rode in on a Teddy Roosevelt horse peddling junk bonds, worthless paper and scams, ripped other nations off for their resources and then pulled the rug out. Not to mention our continuing support of corrupt regimes which further piss off people in other places? Like ARABIA as but one example? And we WONDER why they want to kill us? And now, we've done it to the Balkans and the Caucasus ... and we're ... (gasp!) ... SURPRISED that it ain't going over? So we march into Iraq after going out of our way to lose Afghanistan SOLELY on the premise that "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" and that was as deep as it got? We allowed a CON MAN in Iraq to peddle all sorts of unproven shit to authorize this endeavor instead of taking care of the problem and being a "good neighbor" again with our neocon arrogance as "last remaining superpower?" Russians were the ONLY thing that kept us in line! Once they faded, did we stand down and look for peaceful solutions? Nope. It's one thing to go after those who have attacked us ... quite another to "make them up." And even WORSE pushing Russia into a corner where they had no CHOICE but to react. Meanwhile, if shit comes down, do we HAVE "spare soldiers?" Nope. ANY nation (including ours) has the political responsibility to take care of their OWN first ... and once that's taken care of, reach out to others to trade what we need and live in peace unless that peace is destroyed. Then "go get 'em" is in order. Katrina? US can't even take care of our OWN ... why should any other nation put their eggs in OUR basket when all we do is steal from them and then hang them out to dry? There's yer problem ... if Obama is elected, even if he continues the "doctrine" at least he gives us a fresh start, an ability to back off from neocon "religion/politic" and the opportunity to change our ways. Boy, I'll bet THIS pisses you arf. Heh. GOOD for Germany! They're doing what we SHOULD have done, and actually HAD been doing before Bush. Remember "cheap gas?" You can thank Lukoil for that ... You can thank PNAC for the rest. whoops. :( Sorry ... the GOP show needs to be cancelled for low ratings. And Germany (and China) get to reap our fuckup. :(
Post a New Response

(346649)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Orange Blossom Special* on Fri Aug 22 07:15:57 2008, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d "a bogged-down United States" I'll have to get to the rest later, but that was interesting. Not if we move our forces in a moment via machines and vehicles. And not if we did conscription like Russia! Which doesn't sound that great does it?
Post a New Response

(346679)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by LuchAAA* on Fri Aug 22 11:39:42 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 05:21:05 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d you're the ultimate red diaper baby.
Post a New Response

(346681)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by AlM* on Fri Aug 22 12:06:47 2008, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d So given your title, who do you believe is getting Poland?
Post a New Response

(346685)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Aug 22 12:21:43 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 05:21:05 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I never* said "don't WORRY about Germany"* Correct; that was an extrapolation. I apologize for that. But your track record of trying to insert a completely unrelated reference to "Republicans" when I mention Germany in an unflattering light begs too many questions. And the whole "Republican dream" of "spreading democracy" like some cheap storefront religion has EVERYTHING to do with all of this False. That, besides being an impotent dream (which I've always criticized for the record), is not what allowed Russia to rise as it did, nor Germany as it is. Russia was "on the way back" during the 90s, when the Neocons were just a blip on the radar screen; Germany has been asserting itself since 1991, before Clinton replaced George H.W. Bush. As to US, our bankers, hosers and 419'ers rode in on a Teddy Roosevelt horse peddling junk bonds, worthless paper and scams, ripped other nations off for their resources and then pulled the rug out Um, why are those nations you speak of strong instead of weak, then? Truth is that they bought into whatever the US was selling voluntarily, and it's they who have benefited, not us, because of the political leverage it has given them over us. But you're picturing them as being set up for some sort of conquest. Joke's on you, then—and all of the USA. And your insult of TR is noted. Not to mention uncalled-for. You need to unlearn a lot of lies you've been indoctrinated with. Not to mention our continuing support of corrupt regimes which further piss off people in other places? Like ARABIA as but one example? And we WONDER why they want to kill us? You're just bristling with self-hatred today, aren't you. Guess what: All regimes are corrupt. That's human nature. If you're seeking an incorrupt human regime to "support", you'll be searching in vain. (Is this a veiled attack on Israel, too?) And "they" (so-called) also support corrupt regimes to benefit "themselves". They've been at it for far longer than the US, too, and the regimes they support are far more corrupt than those the USA supports, and more dangerous. So if you're going to venture into pot-calling-kettle-black territory, make sure you're neither pot nor kettle. (Who is Pooty-poot's biggest customer for munitions and nuke technology in Asia Minor? never mind being Russia's customer for same long before he came on the scene?) And now, we've* done it to the Balkans and the Caucasus* For the record, "we" in this instance is the USA being led by the nose by Germany. That's the very thing I'm warning about here. Germany's the head and we're the tail, in this matter. (Yes, I'm not denying our involvement; but I'm not going to deny the undue German influence over us either.) So we march into Iraq after going out of our way to lose Afghanistan SOLELY on the premise that "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" and that was as deep as it got? We allowed a CON MAN in Iraq to peddle all sorts of unproven shit to authorize this endeavor instead of taking care of the problem and being a "good neighbor" again with our neocon arrogance as "last remaining superpower?" Russians were the ONLY thing that kept us in line! Once they faded, did we stand down and look for peaceful solutions? Nope Still holding on to preconceptions, are we? To control Iraq, we would have had to be ten times more aggressive as we have been. But instead, pleading with the UN (as though they ruled over us) and trying to appease the anti-war crowd, never mind mixing in the PNAC's zeal to "export democracy", got us where we are today. (Besides, the UN agreed that it was justifiable to hit Iraq over the possibility of Saddam restarting a weapons program, IINM. The greater focus should have been on Iran, notwithstanding.) Remember I posted an article about Curveball a while back? A German double agent. Germany's continuing to protect him, too. It's one thing to go after those who have attacked us ... quite another to "make them up." We made up no enemies. Our problem is that we made believe that certain enemies are friends . . . And if we had to wait for someone to "attack us" (hope people start remembering Pearl Harbor again), we would have never gone to war with Germany and fought on only one front in WWII. Believe it or not, preemptive warfare is often justified. (Still and all, Georgia never attacked Russia! just to steer us back a bit on topic again. Still waiting for Pooty-poot's "justification". And Serbia never attacked Germany in the early 90s!) And even WORSE pushing Russia into a corner where they had no CHOICE but to react Bull. Nobody "pushed" Russia anywhere. Pooty-poot was a deliberate belligerent for no reason at all except his greed to bring former Soviet satellites back under Moscow's control. The only thing that can be described as "pushing" (and very thinly so) is Germany's efforts to bring said former Soviet satellites into the European Union as member states, Georgia included (and Pooty-poot just can't have that, can he? and frankly, the USA should not help Germany in that endeavor—so who's being pushy, if not those two?) You saying that the Russian Empire is a valid entity that should remain intact for perpetuity? How about the old Holy Roman Empire, then . . . ? Stratfor isn't going to mince words, you know. ANY nation (including ours) has the political responsibility to take care of their OWN* first* Tell Pooty-poot that. (Oh that's right; he does regard Georgia, Ukraine and the rest as "his own".) Tell Germany that, too. As for the US, isolationism resulted in two world wars being plonked down on our doorstep. Remember, Woodrow Wilson "Kept Us Out Of War" with his incessant dovish notes to the Kaiser . . . so why didn't the Kaiser order his U-boats to lay off the Lusitania? (There's a story about TR, your least-favorite Republican there [JK], attending one of the Wilson re-election rallies; when commenting on Wilson's pleading notes to Kaiser William, he said, "I was president for 7½ years, and if I were president today, I would send the Kaiser just one note . . . and he would know that I meant it!") Katrina? US can't even take care of our OWN ... why should any other nation put their eggs in OUR basket when all we do is steal from them and then hang them out to dry? Same old rock-and-a-hard-place thingy. This is a result of trying to please everyone. Never mind allowing (I already said who) to lead us around by the nose all the time. I already told you why other nations lend eggs to us. So that they can ask for other things in return when we can't pay them for their eggs. This is why Russia isn't worried over the various investments (non-T-bill ones) in this country, nor China, nor Germany, nor . . . you get the idea. if Obama is elected, even if he continues the "doctrine" at least he gives us a fresh start, an ability to back off from neocon "religion/politic" and the opportunity to change our ways What ways are those? We do need to change our ways, but not in the direction Obama represents (talks with Iran without preconditions? Negotiating from a position of weakness makes your enemies laugh, you know; remember Frederick the Great's admonition about "music without instruments"). We need to be more hawkish than the Neocons will ever be capable of, at this point. Right now, as far as the world is concerned, we don't even exist. That's due to our weakness, not our strength.
Post a New Response

(346696)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Fri Aug 22 12:32:41 2008, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Bogged down? LOL
Post a New Response

(346697)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Aug 22 12:33:38 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by AlM on Fri Aug 22 12:06:47 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d That's up to Merkel and Medvedev, not Tusk or Kaczynski. Still going to be a hard fight, because Poland's already in the EU. (You are aware that Russia threatened Poland with a nuclear strike recently, right?)
Post a New Response

(346716)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Aug 22 13:32:14 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 12:21:43 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Just to be fair, George Friedman did write about Russia's big excuse. (And surprise surprise, it's not all the GOP's fault! The Dems have their hands deep in it too, especially Clinton . . . and who is the ringleader, but Ger—OK, I won't say it; why hurt sensitive people more often than necessary. Ah, but all that "genocide" had to be dealt with, right? That "genocide" for which there is still no evidence . . . and of course, Kosovo, and whatever "reasons" existed there . . .) A snippet from another Stratfor article: To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire. That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union. The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia. The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored. From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia. Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Post a New Response

(346749)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by vfrt* on Fri Aug 22 15:36:07 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 22 12:32:41 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d --The world changed Aug. 8 as Russia proved its strength when it launched a military campaign in Georgia-- 'Strength' against the tiny Georgian military? Russia picked an easy fight. But NATO is once again proving it's worthlessness by doing nothing.
Post a New Response

(346808)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 19:23:01 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 22 11:39:42 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Heh. Ad hominim name-calling and labelling, eh? Ah well ... here's hoping you and your ilk manage to evolve some day ...
Post a New Response

(346809)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 19:36:03 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 12:21:43 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d By deliberately leaving "Daddy Bush" and CHENEY out of it and passing along to Clinton (who was no saint either) you're PROVING that you're partisan and a neocon stooge. You make many points I won't argue with, but you've omitted too many more significant bits which don't fit into your argument. Suffice it to say that America has been SO weakened now from within, that it doesn't MATTER what any of us think or want anymore. We're DONE. And putting in yet ANOTHER round of republicans will finish us off for good. It's that simple. Even Nader couldn't screw it up as badly as the GOP has. :( Now let's go back to the beginning of this worldwide mess and give credit where it's DUE ... Ronnie RAYGUN ... who gave us "tear down this wall" (the first real threat to Russia as it was imploding) and Osama Bin Laden (Afghanistan, Mujahadeen) and acquiescing to the Ayatollah in exchange for the release of the hostages ON Inaugural day in exchange for putting the Ayatollah back in charge of Iran. Curious how you NEVER mention any of this in your rantings, so fortive me if I just can't buy any of the shit you're peddling ... :(
Post a New Response

(346810)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by LuchAAA* on Fri Aug 22 19:41:56 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 19:23:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d It just seems like you are against the United States, and pro everyone else based on your posts. It's like you're happy when you can find fault with the United States, and attack Olog's post, taking the anti-US stance. I don't think red diaper baby is name-calling.
Post a New Response

(346811)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by LuchAAA* on Fri Aug 22 19:42:09 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 19:23:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d It just seems like you are against the United States, and pro everyone else based on your posts. It's like you're happy when you can find fault with the United States, and attack Olog's post, taking the anti-US stance. I don't think red diaper baby is name-calling.
Post a New Response

(346812)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by LuchAAA* on Fri Aug 22 19:43:03 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 22 19:42:09 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d And what the fuck does McCain have to do with me calling you a red diaper baby?
Post a New Response

(346814)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 19:51:12 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 22 19:41:56 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I'm very much in FAVOR of the United States. I was born here, live here and intend to DIE here. I say what I say because I'm highly disappointed in what our King and his party have done to this formerly great nation. Now if you want to believe everything is peachy keen, that's fine ... but it's going to be very rough times indeed especially for you if the status quo isn't changed and quickly. These clowns opened the sea cocks and are scuttling this ship. Somebody's GOT to stop them. :(
Post a New Response

(346815)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 19:52:12 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 22 19:43:03 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Heh. Go put on your radio and chill ... everyone is a moron except for yerself. :)
Post a New Response

(346820)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by LuchAAA* on Fri Aug 22 20:36:45 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 19:52:12 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Well, if I offended you with the red diaper baby, I'm sorry. You're cool.
Post a New Response

(346830)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 20:54:54 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 22 20:36:45 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Is cool ... biggest rule of sub/OTchat is never take anything seriously, and beware of those who do. Moo. :)
Post a New Response

(346837)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Aug 22 21:23:12 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 22 19:23:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d *NOT . . . COOL!* (Never mess wit da Geico cavemen.)
Post a New Response

(346847)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Fri Aug 22 22:23:46 2008, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 21:23:12 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Heh. Didn't THEY get cancelled too? :)
Post a New Response

(508719)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Oct 10 00:21:51 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 22 12:32:41 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d GFP has an in-depth update. (Remember, this kind of alliance always preceded the development of war in Europe. Don't forget the old saw, "history is prophecy".) The Berlin-Moscow Economic Axis (II) 2009/10/07 The incoming German government will continue to pursue close cooperation with Russia. This was predicted by Berlin's most prominent expert on Russian affairs in the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). According to this expert, the cooperation between Berlin and Moscow corresponds "in its entirety to national interests" and is not up for discussion, even for an FDP foreign minister, whose party is known for its declarations critical of Russia. In fact, enterprises in Germany have been particularly profiting from the rapprochement with Russia for years. This, for example, has provided German energy companies the possibility of maintaining privileged access to Russian resources. The most recent result of this cooperation is the entry of Russia's Sberbank as an investor in Opel (Rüsselsheim), which was put through under pressure from the German government. The development of these German-Russian business relations reveals durable shifts in power constellations. Whereas transatlantic trade is continuing to shrink, business with Russia is growing much faster than the norm. German commodity exchange with Eastern Europe is now two and a half times more than trade with the USA — a clear indication of Berlin's weakened transatlantic bonds. National Interests As the German Council on Foreign Relations' expert for Russia, one of the most prominent proponents for closer cooperation between Berlin and Moscow, Alexander Rahr predicted, the current change of government in Germany will bring "no alterations" in the relationship between Germany and Russia. The "course of this strategic partnership" is consistent, "in its entirety, with national interests," declared Rahr. "Every German government, regardless of who may be a member, is simply obligated to take the national economic interests into consideration." That includes "also Germany's progress on the East European markets, particularly the Russian markets." In 2005, German Chancellor Angela Merkel "accepted every project ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had developed together with Russia." Even a foreign minister from the FDP, a party that likes to criticize Russia, will be obliged to follow suit. Besides, "the foundation for this strategic partnership between Germany and Russia" was laid already in the 90s — during a CDU/CSU and FDP coalition government. All Time High The continual rise in the economic significance of the German-Russian cooperation can be clearly seen in the commerce and investment statistics. In 2008, the German-Russian foreign trade volume grew by a well above average 19.8 percent to more than €68 billion, placing Russia ahead of Poland as Germany's leading trading partner in Eastern Europe for the first time. German exports reached a volume of €32.3 billion, just under the export volume to the much more populous China (€34 billion). According to Russian statistics, more than 6,000 German companies are registered in Russia, who had invested US $17.4 billion by the end of 2008. But the true volume of investments is significantly higher, due to the fact that a large portion of German investments are transacted over third countries, such as Austria or the Netherlands. Motor of Growth The long-term sustained growth of German-Russian as well as German East European trade stands in sharp contrast to the development of transatlantic business relations. The German-East European trade volume has more than doubled over the past five years, and last year rose to €307 billion — with a German foreign trade surplus of €25 billion. This region accounts for 17 percent of German foreign trade, while German-US commodity exchange amounts to just 6.5 percent. Even the booming China accounts for merely five percent. The trade volume between Germany and the USA sank not only in relative terms but also in absolute numbers, from €126.5 billion in 2006, to €117.5 billion in 2008. With the opening up of Eastern Europe, 20 years ago, an "unprecedented success story" began, assessed Klaus Mangold, Chairman of the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations of the Federation of German Industry (BDI). This region is the German industry's "decisive driving force of growth". Solid Basis According to the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations, this holds true in spite of the global economic crisis' trade slump. Even if the German-Russian trade volume would suffer a 30 percent drop this year, the bilateral economic relations are on a "solid basis", explained Mangold. Many enterprises are seeking, particularly during the crisis "to use the opportunity, for enhancing their positions and offer their partnership in modernizing Russia." As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the year, several companies have broadened their activities in Russia (VW, Henkel, Siemens) or made a relaunch (Lanxess). Berlin and Moscow are providing standby credits of up to €500 million through the KfW-IPEX and the Vneshekonombank (VEB) banks. New Point of Focus A new point of focus for expansion is the Russian agriculture and food sector. Russia, which has more arable land than all EU nations together, has recently declared the modernization of its dilapidated agriculture a strategic development objective, earmarking nearly €20 billion in subsidies for this purpose until 2012. Not only the numerous agro-technological companies (seed, agro-technology, plant protection), who have been active in Russia for years will benefit from these subsidies, also the German agro-engineering industry that delivered €750 million worth of goods to Russia last year — an increase of 20 percent. In all, German companies delivered €2.7 billion worth of agricultural products in 2007 to Russia, which has contributed to the fact that Germany now ranks third on the world scale — behind the USA and the Netherlands — in the export of agricultural goods. Energy Agency The energy sector is continuing its expansion. Berlin is also attempting to obtain sales possibilities beyond the natural gas sector, where Eon recently improved its privileged position with its investment in one of the world's largest gas fields, the Jushno Russkoye. The newly founded Russian-German Energy Agency (RuDEA) is supposed to open the way for German enterprises to have access to a broad range of environmentally sound sources and uses of energy in Russia. RuDEA is modeled after the semi-governmental Deutsche Energie-Agentur (German Energy Agency — DENA), which holds 40 percent of the RuDEA shares. Nuclear Alliance Not least of all, the German-Russian nuclear cooperation is steadily progressing. The Russian Inter RAO UES electrical company, is examining the possibility of delivering electricity from the nuclear power plant planned for the Russian exclave Kaliningrad to Germany via a cable running along the Baltic Sea Gas Pipeline.[10] The intertwining of the nuclear economic cooperation between Germany and Russia has reached a highly sensitive area. Shutting down German nuclear power plants could, in the future, take place with decisive Russian participation. The Russian Rosatom nuclear holding, an ally of the German Siemens Corp. has bought the German Nukem Technologies Company, which until 2006 had been owned by the German RWE electrical company. Nukem has rich experience in shutting down nuclear reactors and stocking radioactive materials. In the 80s it was in the spotlights of one of West Germany's largest nuclear scandals for its negligent storage practices. The Nukem company, now in Russian hands, stands a good chance of receiving the contracts for shutting down German nuclear power plants.
Post a New Response

(508744)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Oct 10 01:22:28 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by vfrt on Fri Aug 22 15:36:07 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d But NATO is once again proving it's worthlessness by doing nothing. Describe your military options here. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(508745)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Oct 10 01:23:04 2009, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d You've been posting this stuff for a while now and ever notice how none of it comes true? Kinda like saying playing Risk prepares you for West Point. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(508753)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Oct 10 01:35:59 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Fred G on Sat Oct 10 01:23:04 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d ever notice how none of it comes true All of it's coming true. That's what the latest post in the thread was about. (You denying that Italy's fascist again too?)
Post a New Response

(508786)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Posted by SMAZ* on Sat Oct 10 03:38:22 2009, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 00:21:51 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d
Post a New Response

(508822)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Oct 10 11:50:15 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 01:35:59 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Yeah and then the alarm clock rings and it's time for work, eh? Well for those of us who work that is. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(508829)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Oct 10 12:18:17 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Fred G on Sat Oct 10 11:50:15 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d So all the news agencies and people like Stratfor are dreaming this up? Don't you wish.
Post a New Response

(508831)	view threaded
Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Oct 10 12:26:47 2009, in response to Re: Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 12:18:17 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Yeah I see the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" splashed all over the news. Ayep. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(612332)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri May 28 04:00:43 2010, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Now those are an actual threat to Russia, rather than the benign missile shield that was backed off on. But look at the big machinations in play here. Stratfor (of course; impeachable as ever; but one thing George Friedman gets wrong is that bit about the US and Poland "hav[ing] their own relationship", forgetting that Poland's already a member of the EU.) Germany After the EU and the Russian Scenario May 25, 2010 \| 0857 GMT By George Friedman Discussions about Europe currently are focused on the Greek financial crisis and its potential effect on the future of the European Union. Discussions these days involving military matters and Europe appear insignificant and even anachronistic. Certainly, we would agree that the future of the European Union towers over all other considerations at the moment, but we would argue that scenarios for the future of the European Union exist in which military matters are far from archaic. Russia and the Polish Patriots For example, the Polish government recently announced that the United States would deploy a battery of Patriot missiles to Poland. The missiles arrived this week. When the United States canceled its land-based ballistic missile defense system under intense Russian pressure, the Obama administration appeared surprised at Poland’s intense displeasure with the decision. Washington responded by promising the Patriots instead, the technology the Poles had wanted all along. While the Patriot does not enhance America’s ability to protect itself against long-range ballistic missiles from, for example, Iran, it does give Poland some defense against shorter-ranged ballistic missiles and substantial defense against conventional air attack. Russia is the only country capable of such attacks on Poland with even the most distant potential interest in doing so, and at this point, this is truly an abstract threat. In removing a system that was really not a threat to Russian interests — U.S. ballistic missile defense at most can handle only a score of missiles, meaning it would have a negligible impact on the Russian nuclear deterrent — the United States ironically has installed a system that could affect Russia. Under the current circumstances, this is not really significant. While much is being made of having a few U.S. boots on the ground east of Germany within 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) of the Russian Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, a few hundred technicians and guards are simply not an offensive threat. Still, the Russians — with a long history of seeing improbable threats turning into very real ones — tend to take hypothetical limits on their power seriously. They also tend to take gestures seriously, knowing that gestures often germinate into strategic intent. The Russians obviously oppose this deployment, as the Patriots would allow Poland in league with NATO — and perhaps even by itself — to achieve local air superiority. There are many crosscurrents in Russian policy, however. For the moment, the Russians are interested in encouraging better economic relations with the West, as they could use technology and investment that would make them more than a commodity exporter. Moreover, with the Europeans preoccupied with their economic crisis and the United States still bogged down in the Middle East and needing Russian support on Iran, Moscow has found little outside resistance to its efforts to increase its influence in the former Soviet Union. Moscow is not unhappy about the European crisis and wouldn’t want to do anything that might engender greater European solidarity. After all, a solid economic bloc turning into an increasingly powerful and integrated state would pose challenges to Russia in the long run that Moscow is happy to do without. The Patriot deployment is a current irritation and a hypothetical military problem, but the Russians are not inclined to create a crisis with Europe over it — though this doesn’t mean Moscow won’t make countermoves on the margins when it senses opportunities. For its part, the Obama administration is not focused on Poland at present. It is obsessed with internal matters, South Asia and the Middle East. The Patriots were shipped based on a promise made months ago to calm Central European nerves over the Obama administration’s perceived lack of commitment to the region. In the U.S. State and Defense department sections charged with shipping Patriots to Poland, the delivery process was almost an afterthought; repeated delays in deploying the system highlighted Washington’s lack of strategic intent. It is therefore tempting to dismiss the Patriots as of little importance, as merely the combination of a hangover from a Cold War mentality and a minor Obama administration misstep. Indeed, even a sophisticated observer of the international system might barely note it. But we would argue that it is more important than it appears precisely because of everything else going on. Existential Crisis in the EU The European Union is experiencing an existential crisis. This crisis is not about Greece, but rather, what it is that members of the European Union owe each other and what controls the European Union has over its members. The European Union did well during a generation of prosperity. As financial crisis struck, better-off members were called on to help worse-off members. Again, this is not just about Greece — the 2008 credit crisis in Central Europe was about the same thing. The wealthier countries, Germany in particular, are not happy at the prospect of spending taxpayer money to assist countries dealing with popped credit bubbles. They really don’t want to do that, and if they do, they really want to have controls over the ways these other countries spend their money so this circumstance doesn’t arise again. Needless to say, Greece — and countries that might wind up like Greece — do not want foreign control over their finances. If there are no mutual obligations among EU member nations, and the German and Greek publics don’t want to bail out or submit, respectively, then the profound question is raised of what Europe is going to be — beyond a mere free trade zone — after this crisis. This is not simply a question of the euro surviving, although that is no trivial matter. The euro and the European Union will probably survive this crisis — although their mutual failure is not nearly as unthinkable as the Europeans would have thought even a few months ago — but this is not the only crisis Europe will experience. Something always will be going wrong, and Europe does not have institutions that could handle these problems. Events in the past few weeks indicate that European countries are not inclined to create such institutions, and that public opinion will limit European governments’ ability to create or participate in these institutions. Remember, building a super state requires one of two things: a war to determine who is in charge or political unanimity to forge a treaty. Europe is — vividly — demonstrating the limitations on the second strategy. Whatever happens in the short run, it is difficult to envision any further integration of European institutions. And it is very easy to see how the European Union will devolve from its ambitious vision into an alliance of convenience built around economic benefits negotiated and renegotiated among the partners. It would thus devolve from a union to a treaty, with no interest beyond self-interest. The German Question Revisited We return to the question that has defined Europe since 1871, namely, the status of Germany in Europe. As we have seen during the current crisis, Germany is clearly the economic center of gravity in Europe, and this crisis has shown that the economic and the political issues are very much one and the same. Unless Germany agrees, nothing can be done, and if Germany so wishes, something will be done. Germany has tremendous power in Europe, even if it is confined largely to economic matters. But just as Germany is the blocker and enabler of Europe, over time that makes Germany the central problem of Europe. If Germany is the key decision maker in Europe, then Germany defines whatever policies Europe as a whole undertakes. If Europe fragments, then Germany is the only country in Europe with the ability to create alternative coalitions that are both powerful and cohesive. That means that if the European Union weakens, Germany will have the greatest say in what Europe will become. Right now, the Germans are working assiduously to reformulate the European Union and the eurozone in a manner more to their liking. But as this requires many partners to offer sovereignty to German control — sovereignty they have jealously guarded throughout the European project — it is worth exploring alternatives to Germany in the European Union. For that we first must understand Germany’s limits. The German problem is the same problem it has had since unification: It is enormously powerful, but it is far from omnipotent. Its very power makes it the focus of other powers, and together, these other powers can cripple Germany. Thus, Germany is indispensable for any decision within the European Union at present, and it will be the single center of power in Europe in the future — but Germany can’t just go it alone. Germany needs a coalition, meaning the long-term question is this: If the EU were to weaken or even fail, what alternative coalition would Germany seek? The casual answer is France, as the two economies are somewhat similar and the countries are next-door neighbors. But historically, this similarity in structure and location has been a source not of collaboration and fondness but of competition and friction. Within the European Union, with its broad diversity, Germany and France have been able to put aside their frictions, finding a common interest in managing Europe to their mutual advantage. That co-management, of course, helped bring us to this current crisis. Moreover, the biggest thing that France has that Germany wants is its market; an ideal partner for Germany would offer more. By itself at least, France is not a foundation for long-term German economic strategy. The historic alternative for Germany has been Russia. The Russian Option A great deal of potential synergy exists between the German and Russian economies. Germany imports large amounts of energy and other resources from Russia. As mentioned, Russia needs sources of technology and capital to move it beyond its current position of mere resource exporter. Germany has a shrinking population and needs a source of labor — preferably a source that doesn’t actually want to move to Germany. Russia’s Soviet-era economy continues to de-industrialize, and while that has a plethora of negative impacts, there is one often-overlooked positive: Russia now has more labor than it can effectively metabolize in its economy given its capital structure. Germany doesn’t want more immigrants but needs access to labor. Russia wants factories in Russia to employ its surplus work force, and it wants technology. The logic of the German-Russian economic relationship is more obvious than the German-Greek or German-Spanish relationship. As for France, it can participate or not (and incidentally, the French are joining in on a number of ongoing German-Russian projects). Therefore, if we simply focus on economics, and we assume that the European Union cannot survive as an integrated system (a logical but not yet proven outcome), and we further assume that Germany is both the leading power of Europe and incapable of operating outside of a coalition, then we would argue that a German coalition with Russia is the most logical outcome of an EU decline. This would leave many countries extremely uneasy. The first is Poland, caught as it is between Russia and Germany. The second is the United States, since Washington would see a Russo-German economic bloc as a more significant challenger than the European Union ever was for two reasons. First, it would be a more coherent relationship — forging common policies among two states with broadly parallel interests is far simpler and faster than doing so among 27. Second, and more important, where the European Union could not develop a military dimension due to internal dissensions, the emergence of a politico-military dimension to a Russo-German economic bloc is far less difficult to imagine. It would be built around the fact that both Germans and Russians resent and fear American power and assertiveness, and that the Americans have for years been courting allies who lie between the two powers. Germany and Russia would both view themselves defending against American pressure. And this brings us back to the Patriot missiles. Regardless of the bureaucratic backwater this transfer might have emerged out of, or the political disinterest that generated the plan, the Patriot stationing fits neatly into a slowly maturing military relationship between Poland and the United States. A few months ago, the Poles and Americans conducted military exercises in the Baltic states, an incredibly sensitive region for the Russians. The Polish air force now flies some of the most modern U.S.-built F-16s in the world; this, plus Patriots, could seriously challenge the Russians. A Polish general commands a sector in Afghanistan, something not lost upon the Russians. By a host of processes, a close U.S.-Polish relationship is emerging. The current economic problems may lead to a fundamental weakening of the European Union. Germany is economically powerful but needs economic coalition partners that contribute to German well-being rather than merely draw on it. A Russian-German relationship could logically emerge from this. If it did, the Americans and Poles would logically have their own relationship. The former would begin as economic and edge toward military. The latter begins as military, and with the weakening of the European Union, edges toward economics. The Russian-German bloc would attempt to bring others into its coalition, as would the Polish-U.S. bloc. Both would compete in Central Europe — and for France. During this process, the politics of NATO would shift from humdrum to absolutely riveting. And thus, the Greek crisis and the Patriots might intersect, or in our view, will certainly in due course intersect. Though neither is of lasting importance in and of themselves, the two together point to a new logic in Europe. What appears impossible now in Europe might not be unthinkable in a few years. With Greece symbolizing the weakening of the European Union and the Patriots representing the remilitarization of at least part of Europe, ostensibly unconnected tendencies might well intersect. This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR
Post a New Response

(612473)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland)
Posted by WillD* on Fri May 28 13:08:06 2010, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland), posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 28 04:00:43 2010.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Now those are an actual threat to Russia, rather than the benign missile shield that was backed off on. Huh? The MIM-104 Patriot missile is a surface to air missile, a defensive weapon. You cannot threaten a neighbor with a defensive weapon. And as for Poland challenging Russia, we saw in Iraq just how poorly an individual weapons system can achieve air superiority when removed from its command and control structure. The Russians' current weapons may lack the sophistication of some of our stuff, but they would still have little problem taking the Polish air defense network apart, Patriots and F-16s or no. A Polish air defense network including the Patriot is about as meaningful as the Iranian S-300PMU1 system is to us. The lack of discussion of the Patriot-launched ERINT PAC-3 is telling of just how little factual basis this article may actually have behind it.
Post a New Response

(612506)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland)
Posted by RockParkMan* on Fri May 28 15:49:56 2010, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland), posted by WillD on Fri May 28 13:08:06 2010.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Don't confuse Olog with the facts. He wants us to attack our #1 ally because he thinks they are taking over his ancestral homeland.
Post a New Response

(612559)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland)
Posted by AlM* on Fri May 28 17:55:27 2010, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Patriot missiles in Poland), posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 28 04:00:43 2010.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I see how much Russia has "resurged" and the US has become "bogged" down since the original post. I bet the ratio of the US GDP to Russia's has gone up considerably in those nearly 2 years.
Post a New Response

(622961)	view threaded
New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Stratfor: Germany, Russia move closer)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Wed Jun 23 16:41:10 2010, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Link . . . and it keeps on comin' in spite of the deniers. Germany and Russia Move Closer June 22, 2010 \| 0856 GMT By George Friedman German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle will brief French and Polish officials on a joint proposal for Russian-European “cooperation on security,” according to a statement from Westerwelle’s spokesman on Monday. The proposal emerged out of talks between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier in June and is based on a draft Russia drew up in 2008. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be present at the meeting. Andreas Peschke said, “We want to further elaborate and discuss it within the triangle [i.e., France, Germany and Poland] in the presence of the Russian foreign minister.” On the surface, the proposal developed by Merkel and Medvedev appears primarily structural. It raises security discussions about specific trouble spots to the ministerial level rather than the ambassadorial level, with a committee being formed consisting of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Russia’s foreign minister. All of this seems rather mild until we consider three things. First, proposals for deepening the relationship between Russia and the European Union have been on the table for several years without much progress. Second, the Germans have taken this initiative at a time when German foreign policy is in a state of flux. And third, the decision to take this deal to France and Poland indicates that the Germans are extremely sensitive to the geopolitical issues involved, which are significant and complex. Reconsidering Basic Strategy The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French — along with the rest of Europe — to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany’s memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity. Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it. After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe — in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe — then the rationale for European integration became problematic. The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment. The Pull of Russia In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany’s economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany’s population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia’s population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia. The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner — if not a new one. At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe — France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war. The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France’s security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France. Even more delicate is the question of Poland. Poland is caught between Russia and Germany. Its history has been that of division between these two countries or conquest by one. This is a burning issue in the Polish psyche. A closer relationship between Germany and Russia inevitably will generate primordial fears of disaster in Poland. Therefore, Wednesday’s meeting with the so-called triangular group is essential. Both the French and the Poles, and the Poles with great intensity, must understand what is happening. The issue is partly the extent to which this affects German commitments to the European Union, and the other part — crucial to Poland —is what this does to Germany’s NATO commitments. The NATO Angle It is noteworthy the Russians emphasized that what is happening poses no threat to NATO. Russia is trying to calm not only Poland, but also the United States. The problem, however, is this: If Germany and Europe have a security relationship that requires prior consultation and cooperation, then Russia inevitably has a hand in NATO. If the Russians oppose a NATO action, Germany and other European states will be faced with a choice between Russia and NATO. To put it more bluntly, if Germany enters into a cooperative security arrangement with Russia (forgetting the rest of Europe for the moment), then how does it handle its relationship with the United States when the Russians and Americans are at loggerheads in countries like Georgia? The Germans and Russians both view the United States as constantly and inconveniently pressuring them both to take risks in areas where they feel they have no interest. NATO may not be functional in any real sense, but U.S. pressure is ever-present. The Germans and Russians acting together would be in a better position to deflect this pressure than standing alone. Intriguingly, part of the German-Russian talks relate to a specific security matter — the issue of Moldova and Transdniestria. Moldova is a region between Romania and Ukraine (which adjoins Russia and has re-entered the Russian sphere of influence) that at various times has been part of both. It became independent after the collapse of communism, but Moldova’s eastern region, Transdniestria, broke away from Moldova under Russian sponsorship. Following a change in government in 2009, Moldova sees itself as pro-Western while Transdniestria is pro-Russian. The Russians have supported Transdniestria’s status as a breakaway area (and have troops stationed there), while Moldova has insisted on its return. The memorandum between Merkel and Medvedev specifically pointed to the impact a joint security relationship might have on this dispute. The kind of solution that may be considered is unclear, but if the issue goes forward, the outcome will give the first indication of what a German-Russian security relationship will look like. The Poles will be particularly interested, as any effort in Moldova will automatically impact both Romania and Ukraine — two states key to determining Russian strength in the region. Whatever way the solution tilts will define the power relationship among the three. It should be remembered that the Germans are proposing a Russian security relationship with Europe, not a Russian security relationship with Germany alone. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Germans taking the initiative to open the talks by unilaterally negotiating with the Russians and taking their agreements to other European countries. It is also important to note that they have not taken this to all the European countries but to France and Poland first — with French President Nicolas Sarkozy voicing his initial approval on June 19 — and equally important, that they have not publicly brought it to the United States. Nor is it clear what the Germans might do if the French and Poles reject the relationship, which is not inconceivable. The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States. Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can’t have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners — some intensely — is naïve. The Germans are not naïve. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests. With this proposal, the Germans are looking to change the game significantly. They are moving slowly and with plenty of room for retreat, but they are moving. It will be interesting to hear what the Poles and French say on Wednesday. Their public support should not be taken for anything more than not wanting to alienate the Germans or Russians until they have talked to the Americans. It will also be interesting to see what the Obama administration has to say about this.
Post a New Response

(622963)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Stratfor: Germany, Russia move closer)
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Wed Jun 23 16:45:33 2010, in response to New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Stratfor: Germany, Russia move closer), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jun 23 16:41:10 2010.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Look at the bright side, brah ... sure does look like the Pope has been dealt out of the axis. :)
Post a New Response

(623040)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Stratfor: Germany, Russia move closer)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Wed Jun 23 21:04:57 2010, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Stratfor: Germany, Russia move closer), posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 23 16:45:33 2010.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Heh. Now if the Bavarians get stronger in Germany, that could indeed change . . .
Post a New Response

(633933)	view threaded
Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Merkel's jaunt to Russia and China)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Wed Jul 14 14:23:31 2010, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Here's the next step in this move. Deutsche Außenpolitik Go East! 2010/07/14 The German chancellor will be using her trip to Russia and China, which begins today, to enhance business relations beyond the realms of the EU and North America. This thrust is taking into account China's rapid rise and the subsequent shift of the focus of the global economy from countries of the Atlantic Basin to those of the Pacific Basin. Already now, with the USA, China and Japan, the world's three largest economies border on the Pacific Ocean. Having been saved from the effects of the world economic crisis through its exports to China, Berlin now sees itself forced to take measures to rapidly expand its German-Russian cooperation, because Russia is also being drawn into China's economic maelstrom. Business circles are already warning that, in its influence in Moscow. the West could lose out to Beijing. The newly established Berthold Beitz Center of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) will promote German business expansion in Russia. The agenda of Chancellor Merkel's current trip also includes concrete measures toward this objective. Important Days Chancellor Merkel, over the next few days, will visit Russia, China and Kazakhstan. The trip, which begins today, will be focused particularly on expanding business cooperation with Russia and China. These will be "important days for German business relations", she announced.¹ Moscow and Beijing are playing an important role in Berlin's long-term plans: Russia is by far Germany's most important energy supplier and China is expected to become the center of global economy. Last year, the People's Republic surpassed Germany to become the world champion in exports. Experts suggest that China could replace Japan as the world's second leading economy before the end of 2010 and even surpass he USA during the coming ten to fifteen years. Germany has been profiting quite well from its booming business with China, and exports to the People's Republic helped Germany to overcome the global economic crisis without more serious crashes.² Junior League But in the meantime, China's rapidly growing economy is also worrying Germany. Already at the beginning of the year, the director of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI), Thomas Straubhaar, predicted that over the next decade, Europe will be pushed "from the center to the periphery" of global economic activity and inevitably be demoted into the "junior league".³ Germany is seeking to prevent this demotion through the enhancement of German-Chinese business relations. China's rapid rise is clearly demonstrated by the Chinese BeiDou satellite navigation system. Hardly noticed in Europe, this system has already been further developed and could become operational earlier than the European Galileo System.⁴ Global aviation provides another example of China's rise. Two years ago, the European market leaders, Lufthansa, Air France and British Airways were the world's most profitable airlines. Today, the two Chinese Airlines, Air China und Cathay Pacific, rank second, right behind Emirates (United Arab Emirates). According to experts, "in 2020, there will be as many passenger planes in China as there are throughout all of Europe"⁵ — and this with ascending tendency. A Question of Orientation Berlin is not only trying not to be left behind in China's developments, but also in Russia's. Over the past few years, Beijing has been intensifying business relations with Russia and has replaced Germany as Russia's main supplier. Chinese-Russian business relations are being enhanced — on an unequal basis: Whereas China is mainly importing energy resources from Russia, it is mainly exporting industrial products, because the modernization of the Russian industry is not really advancing, therefore lacking domestic Russian competition.⁶ Beijing is more and more playing the role Germany had been reserving for itself — it is receiving Russian raw materials and selling its products to Russia. Berlin's government advisors, such as Alexander Rahr, an expert on Russia, have for some time, been warning that Russia could begin to orient itself eastward and turn its back on Europe if European-Russian relations are not intensified.⁷ Berthold Beitz Center Certain circles in Berlin are renewing their efforts to speed up the enhancement of German-Russian relations. July 1, the "Russia/Eurasian Center" of the DGAP was upgraded and symbolically renamed. Founded in the mid-90s as an instrument of the new German eastward expansion, the center has, since 2008, been mainly financed by the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations and the Deutsche Bank. These two financiers are now paying €100,000 each per year. The center is to intensify the strengthening of the bonds, above all to Russia and in this context, also to the Ukraine and the countries of Central Asia. "Through its profound analyses", it is supposed to particularly facilitate the strengthening of "German business engagements" with these countries.⁸ It has now been renamed the "Berthold-Beitz-Center — Kompetenzzentrum für Russland, Ukraine, Belarus und Zentralasien in der DGAP" ("The Competence Center for Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and Central Asia within the DGAP"). Since the 1950s, Berthold Beitz held a leading position in Krupp and then in ThyssenKrupp and is considered one of the mightiest men in German industry. He had been decisive for the expansion of business between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Director of the Berthold Beitz Center is Alexander Rahr, one of the most prominent advocates of close cooperation with Russia in Berlin's establishment. Concrete Steps The agenda of Chancellor Merkel's current trip also includes concrete measures. Among the questions seeking answers is a decision on Moscow's coveted fusion of Russia's Sistema Corp. with Germany's Infineon AG. The project is being sharply criticized primarily in transatlantic oriented circles, because this could provide Russia access to security-relevant technology. So far, Berlin has been supportive of the fusion because it intensifies German-Russian cooperation. This project is being flanked by billions in business deals, for example to the benefit of the Siemens Corporation in Russia.^[9] Even Deutsche Bahn AG maintains its interest in close cooperation, permitting regular transport to China.¹⁰ These undertakings promise high company profits and tighter bonds to Russia, bringing Berlin geostrategic advantages — a successful project for the maintenance and enhancement of German global power. Wirtschaftsbeziehungen intensivieren; www.bundesregierung.de 10.07.2010 see also Future Conflicts see also Zweite Liga see also Europa bleibt zurück Flugmacht China; WirtschaftsWoche 12.07.2010 Zwischen den Stühlen; WirtschaftsWoche 31.05.2010 see also A Question of Orientation and Der Sinn der Aussöhnung Berthold-Beitz-Zentrum in Berlin gegründet; www.ost-ausschuss.de 30.06.2010 see also The Berlin-Moscow Economic Axis (III) "Das sind keine Brosamen"; WirtschaftsWoche 28.06.2010
Post a New Response

(704534)	view threaded
Re: Central Europe scared by Russo-German friendliness (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Mon Dec 6 01:14:07 2010, in response to Merkel and Medvedev working on New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 22 02:38:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Lotta detail in this Stratfor report from the first of the month. Central European Fears and the German 'Question Mark' December 1, 2010 \| 1230 GMT Perusing the collection of U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, we came across what we at STRATFOR consider a gem of recent history. Gerard Araud, now the French permanent representative to the United Nations, briefed several U.S. officials in late February 2007 on the difference between the purpose of NATO in 2007 and during the Cold War. Recounting an adage, he said that during the Cold War, NATO was supposed “to keep Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in.” But in 2007, NATO’s purpose was “for the newer European and Baltic members, given their fear of Russia, ‘rational or not’ — to keep the Americans in.” Araud added: “For other members, NATO provides a way to meet their defense — without having to pay for it.” The assessment of NATO’s contemporary role by a high-ranking French official from 2007 resonates very much in November 2010. On Tuesday, there were a number of events that reminded STRATFOR just how worried Central and Eastern Europeans are about their security. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia had moved ground-based tactical nuclear warheads to its borders with NATO member states sometime in the spring. Quoted in the same article, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis said, “Being a NATO member, of course, someone could say, ‘Don’t worry.’ But when you’re living in the neighborhood, you should always be more cautious.” STRATFOR has written before of the Russian plans to deploy the nuclear-capable Iskander-M (known as the “Tender”) short-range ballistic missile throughout the country. While The Wall Street Journal report is likely referring to this missile system and therefore does not expose a new threat, the timing of the report is very telling. It comes mere hours after Russian President Dmitri Medvedev warned in his State of the State address that if an agreement with the West was not reached on ballistic missile defense, the world would “plunge into a new arms race.” But Tuesday was not only illustrative of the Russian threat; it also brought examples of how Central Europe, from Warsaw to Bucharest, may be planning to push back against Russia. Faced with the U.S. obsession with the Middle East, which the WikiLeaks cables illustrate, Central Europe is beginning to organize its initiatives to bring the United States to the region and to create independent means to push back against Russian resurgence. First, Poland and Sweden continued their diplomatic pressure on Ukraine, a key border state that is firmly in the Russian sphere, but that Sweden and Poland want to target as part of their jointly coordinated European Union Eastern Partnership initiative. It was revealed Tuesday that the Ukrainian foreign minister will visit Sweden on Dec. 6 following a Nov. 18 visit by the Swedish and Polish foreign ministers to Ukraine. Polish Senate Speaker Bogdan Borusewicz was also in Ukraine Tuesday and suggested that the Odesa-Brody oil pipeline could be extended to Gdansk in Poland. The Swedes and Poles want to give Ukraine a reason to have better relations with the European Union and the West. With other options available, Ukraine is a border state that Russia cannot fully count on, which forces Russia to concentrate more on Ukraine and less on expanding its sphere of influence in the rest of Central Europe, such as in the Baltic states. Expanding the Odesa-Brody pipeline to Poland would allow Poland to tap some of the oil that flows through it, thereby avoiding the Druzhba pipeline the Russians have cut off in the past for political reasons. It gives Poland access to potentially non-Russian crude, especially for the Polish-owned Orlen Lietuva refinery in Lithuania affected by the Druzhba cutoff, and it gives Ukraine a new destination for shipping crude products to the West. Second, Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo was in the United States on Tuesday for a weeklong visit, during which he will meet with his U.S. counterpart and the United States will stress network security. Aaviksoo wants American involvement in defending Central Europe against cyberattacks; this is an especially important issue for Estonia, which was presumably the target of such an attack by Russia in April and May 2007. Also on Tuesday, Romanian President Traian Basescu said he saw Moldova becoming part of Romania within the next 25 years. This comes after Moldova held contentious elections over the weekend that have seen its pro-Western factions fail to strengthen their position against the pro-Russian Communist Party. Moldova is strategic for Russia because it strides the Bessarabia Gap, a key transportation corridor between the Carpathians and the Black Sea. A move by Romania to acquire influence in — or outright annex — Moldova would be a serious setback for Moscow. The efforts by Central Europeans to draw the United States into the region and mount countermoves against Russia should be considered in the context of NATO’s evolving role. As Araud hinted in 2007, Western European member states, particularly Germany and France, do not want NATO to retain its function as an alliance against Russia. This was crystal clear at the recent NATO Lisbon summit, which failed to come up with a coherent Strategic Concept to in any way reassure Central Europeans that countering conventional threats in Europe was still dear to all fellow NATO allies. The lack of guarantees extends beyond the American obsession with the Middle East. Central Europeans are having difficulty finding another Western European power, outside of Sweden, with an ear for their security concerns. They feel they need to counter Russia on their own, with limited backup. There is always Germany, which Central Europeans should theoretically be able to turn to for support. At least on paper, Berlin is an EU and NATO ally. However, specific to the Central European fears — and a reality that is rarely spoken publicly in Central Europe — is the fact that Germany is becoming unhinged from the Cold War-era institutions. Russia may be the obvious security threat, but it is Germany’s evolving role — and, crucially, its warming relations with Moscow — that troubles Warsaw and other Central European capitals, most precisely because it is unclear which way Berlin is heading. Or, as Araud put it in 2007, Germany may have been “America’s model ally” during the Cold War, but it is quickly becoming “a question mark.”
Post a New Response

(843597)	view threaded
Poland FM: Germany is Russia's Trojan Horse (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sun Sep 18 13:00:33 2011, in response to Re: New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, posted by SMAZ on Sat Oct 10 03:38:22 2009.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Yeah, that's yourself for not believing what's happening around you and giving the nod to needless bloodshed. Forgot the significance of Israel being surrounded with enemies, for one? Germany being cozy with Russia is another; it's always a harbinger of war. EU Observer Polish FM in Wikileaks: Germany is Russia's Trojan horse 16.09.11 @ 14:14 By Andrew Rettman Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski, in a private conversation with US diplomats in 2008, said that Germany protects Russian interests in NATO in return for access to the Russian market. According to a US cable recently published by Wikileaks, Sikorski, in a conversation with the then US under secretary for global affairs Paula Dobriansky in Warsaw on 23 April 2008 "Wryly commented that many accused Poland of being the US Trojan horse in the EU when it joined in 2004, but there is another Trojan horse in NATO". The cable went on: "Asked what the US strategy should be towards Germany and Russia, Sikorski responded that Germany appears to have a deal with Russia. 'They'll play with Russia and in return German companies will get hundreds of billions of euros of business there; a pretty good deal'." Sikorski made the comment after Germany opposed giving Georgia and Ukraine a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at a NATO summit in Bucharest. The NATO decision came shortly before the Russia-Georgia war in the summer of 2008. Several commentators later said a positive MAP decision would have prevented the conflict, which has ended up with Russia occupying two Georgian provinces. Germany at the time was ruled by a coalition of the center-right CDU and center-left SPD parties. The then SPD foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was openly pro-Russian and is a close associate of former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who now works for the German-Russian gas pipeline firm, Nord Stream. Polish-German and Polish-Russian relations have warmed up in the past two years. But Germany in March sided with Russia in abstaining on the UN Security Council vote giving NATO a mandate for Libya air strikes. And Sikorski has a long-established name in EU circles for being outspoken on German-Russian relations. At a meeting in Brussels in 2006, he compared the German-Russian deal on the Nord Stream pipeline to a secret World War II-era German-Russian pact to carve up Poland. "Poland has a particular sensitivity to corridors and deals above our head ... That was the Molotov-Ribbentrop tradition", he said. In 2009 Russian newswire Interfax apologized to the Polish minister for misquoting him as having said that Poland wants US troops to be stationed on its soil to act "as a shield against Russian aggression". While the quote was incorrect, other cables in the massive Wikileaks cache slowly coming to light indicate that Sikorski's thinking goes precisely along this line. Speaking to US diplomats in May 2009 on the subject of relocating US soldiers from their Cold War bastion in Germany to Poland, the minister said: "As a 'border state' with Russia, Poland feels less secure than other NATO members". In a cable dated 25 November 2009, he said: "In the event of a Russian attack against Crimea or another part of Ukraine, Poland would find it difficult to stand by. Although he recognized that the probability of such an attack was low, he alluded to Soviet actions in 1956, when Moscow took advantage of US distraction in the Middle East by sending Soviet tanks into Budapest". In a cable dated 12 November 2009, he "Quoted [former US secretary of state] Zbigniew Brzezinski, who observed that what really assured Germany during the Cold War was not [the NATO treaty's mutual defense clause] Article 5, but the presence of 300,000 American troops. Sikorski emphasized that 'We have, at the latest count, six American troops' in Poland, not including US embassy staff in Warsaw".
Post a New Response

(843606)	view threaded
EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU
Posted by dand124* on Sun Sep 18 13:54:25 2011, in response to Poland FM: Germany is Russia's Trojan Horse (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 18 13:00:33 2011.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d EUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEU
Post a New Response

(843614)	view threaded
Poland FM: Germany is Russia's Trojan Horse (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 18 14:28:02 2011, in response to EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU EU, posted by dand124 on Sun Sep 18 13:54:25 2011. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Russia's in the European Union? Do you know how to read? This is about nation states, believe it or not. How dumb are you allowing yourself to get?
Post a New Response

(874678)	view threaded
Re: Poland, Russia competing for Germany's business (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 17 01:52:05 2011, in response to Re: Central Europe scared by Russo-German friendliness (New Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Dec 6 01:14:07 2010. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Stratfor Poland, Russia Competing for Courtship with Germany November 15, 2011 \| 0302 GMT During an interview with German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung published Monday, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko called for a comprehensive energy alliance between Russia and Germany. Shmatko proposed that the two countries jointly construct nuclear power plants and that Russia’s energy industry seek to work on major projects with leading German companies like Siemens. Shmatko added that Russia was ready to invest in these projects and that the first joint Russian-German power plant projects could be ready in as few as four years. Russian cooperation with Germany in the energy sphere is not new. A few weeks ago, both countries inaugurated the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, which sends Russian gas supplies directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea. Nord Stream serves as the cornerstone of Russian-German energy ties, yet is by no means the only recent development. Indeed, on the same day Shmatko’s interview was published, Russian gas giant Gazprom purchased Envacom, a German electricity and telecommunications firm. But Moscow would like to increase the scope of its energy ties to Berlin and is actively working to build this relationship. Russia has proposed numerous joint ventures with Germany and has been seeking to purchase some of Germany’s energy utilities that operate more widely throughout Europe. The reasoning behind this is just as geopolitical as it is commercial. While Russia stands to benefit financially from greater access to Europe’s largest energy consumer, Germany also offers Russia technology and expertise that are crucial to Russia’s modernization drive. Perhaps more importantly, a Germany linked to Russia in the energy and economic fields is less likely to challenge Moscow in wider strategic areas, such as Russia’s relationship with and resurgence into its former Soviet periphery. Russia seeks joint ventures with German energy firms not only so that Moscow will be left alone to manage its dealings in Central Europe, but also as part of an active expansionary policy in the region. Russia’s obvious desire to team up with Germany in the energy realm has not been greeted enthusiastically by all. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe have watched nervously as the two states that dominated them in the not-so-distant past reinvigorate their relationship. Granted, joint ventures and gas pipelines do not equate to the recreation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but these states have to consider the possibility of a greater threat materializing in the future. Poland is particularly concerned, and in fact Warsaw has feverishly attempted to counter a growing relationship between Berlin and Moscow. Poland realizes it cannot challenge Russia alone, and so has tried to include Germany in any energy-related plans. Poland took German energy firm E.On’ s cue in taking Gazprom to court over natural gas prices, trying to block Russia’s wider ambitions in the country. At the same time, a joint letter recently issued by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called for a revamped EU strategy toward Russia. Poland wants to limit Russian-German ties, or at the very least be involved in them within the EU format. Germany is clearly important to both Russia and Poland. But what’s less clear is where exactly Germany stands on the issue at the moment. With the eurozone in crisis and Germany, its leader, trying to find a solution, energy relations with Russia or Poland — no matter how important they may prove to be in the future — are not currently at the top of Berlin’s agenda. And while Russia is trying to use its alliance offer to build leverage and show Germany it can help it through hard times, Germany is not operating on Russia’s timeline and will find ways to retain its own leverage vis-à-vis Moscow. For now, Russia and Poland will continue to maneuver in their relationships with Germany — even as Berlin’s focus is set squarely on the crisis in the eurozone.
Post a New Response

[ Return to the Message Index ]