PDA

View Full Version : Comrades, what about Russia in EU to 2050 year?



Anton, Bear's den
27-01-11, 15:28
What you think about that comrades? :lmao:

iapodos
27-01-11, 21:17
What you think about that comrades? :lmao:

There will be no any EU in 2050.

Michael Folkesson
28-01-11, 03:53
My guess is no. Personally, I think that if there is a future of Russian EU membership it is not in the near one. But who knows what Russia will look like in 2050, or even the EU.

Russia has since the introduction of the CIS after the Soviet collapse, been dabbling in regional cooperation with it's neighboring countries; the EAEC or EurAsEc, the Union State, and the customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, attempting to field a joint membership into the WTO. I think personally that regional cooperation is unlikely to work well until - in my impression - Russia stops trying to dominate and control what should be it's peer neighbors.

Up till recently there seem to mutually have been no interest in a Russian membership into the Union. Putin has denied any such ambitions, and the seemingly cow-turn suggestion by Putin late last year for a EU-Russia form of union seems to have no support in the EU - save with Berlusconi - and I can only assume that it is some form of a political play for negotiation rather than a serious suggestion.

Russia is a European country, but I see it as another Europe, more Russia than anything else; the remnants of a multicultural old Empire with most of it's territory in Asia, a procedural democracy, a country where influence and resources are divided between Siloviki, Oligarchs and Mafia, all intertwined.

I think that few in Europe are particularly impressed with the Russian use of it's energy politics as a diplomatic and coercive tool in it's foreign policy, nor by it's meddling in the inner affairs of it's neighbor countries, or the Russian habit of sprinkling citizenship and passports to anyone that wants it around the region; Georgia and Transnistria being obvious examples. All in all, Russia comes out less than a modern mature democracy. I don't see Russia parting and pooling sovereignty in European solidarity under the authority of Union institutions anytime soon.

I think that the European confederacy and Russia have both common and different interests, but differs greatly in geopolitical conditions and strategies, in part due to the shear size of Russia and it's nature of a transcontinental country - in a different way than that of Turkey. I think that the future bears FTA:s and political cooperation, but I don't believe there is a reality in accession into our Union and some form of union state between us.

I believe that Russia has a future either as the union the old empire already is, or possibly a part of a refined and revamped EurAsEc.

It is of course not impossible for Russia to join in time. It also depends on the situation for Russia in 2050. I make the assumption that Russia will be a fully working democracy by that time, and that Russia lives up to the conditions of the Copenhagen Criteria - be that the contents of them may have been amended or changed by that time.

I think that we should remember that the European project is fundamentally a peace project, even if it has become something much more. By that time it might be in the spirit of European peace, stability and prosperity that they enter a mutually beneficial membership. I just doubt it.

Garrick
28-01-11, 18:51
But who knows what Russia will look like in 2050, or even the EU.



Michael Folkesson

I think it is a very long period that could be given more reliable forecast.

This decade is crucial for Europe (EU), when many things must be done, many difficult decisions maked, to show firm determination to make the starting paths of success.

Not to forget the start of last century, the whole world revolved around Europe and the main global production was in Europe.

In order for Europe to be competitive with China, India and other growing powers it is likely to become more the federal and probably will strengthen headquarters in Brussels.

Europe has its way and Russia has its way and probably Europe and Russia will be in cordial/good relations.

Russia is in an good position, and among the other things, because it spreads between the EU and China which will probably wear a bulk of global economy for years to come.

Anton, Bear's den
28-01-11, 20:22
My guess is no. Personally, I think that if there is a future of Russian EU membership it is not in the near one. But who knows what Russia will look like in 2050, or even the EU.

Russia has since the introduction of the CIS after the Soviet collapse, been dabbling in regional cooperation with it's neighboring countries; the EAEC or EurAsEc, the Union State, and the customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, attempting to field a joint membership into the WTO. I think personally that regional cooperation is unlikely to work well until - in my impression - Russia stops trying to dominate and control what should be it's peer neighbors.

Up till recently there seem to mutually have been no interest in a Russian membership into the Union. Putin has denied any such ambitions, and the seemingly cow-turn suggestion by Putin late last year for a EU-Russia form of union seems to have no support in the EU - save with Berlusconi - and I can only assume that it is some form of a political play for negotiation rather than a serious suggestion.

Russia is a European country, but I see it as another Europe, more Russia than anything else; the remnants of a multicultural old Empire with most of it's territory in Asia, a procedural democracy, a country where influence and resources are divided between Siloviki, Oligarchs and Mafia, all intertwined.

I think that few in Europe are particularly impressed with the Russian use of it's energy politics as a diplomatic and coercive tool in it's foreign policy, nor by it's meddling in the inner affairs of it's neighbor countries, or the Russian habit of sprinkling citizenship and passports to anyone that wants it around the region; Georgia and Transnistria being obvious examples. All in all, Russia comes out less than a modern mature democracy. I don't see Russia parting and pooling sovereignty in European solidarity under the authority of Union institutions anytime soon.

I think that the European confederacy and Russia have both common and different interests, but differs greatly in geopolitical conditions and strategies, in part due to the shear size of Russia and it's nature of a transcontinental country - in a different way than that of Turkey. I think that the future bears FTA:s and political cooperation, but I don't believe there is a reality in accession into our Union and some form of union state between us.

I believe that Russia has a future either as the union the old empire already is, or possibly a part of a refined and revamped EurAsEc.

It is of course not impossible for Russia to join in time. It also depends on the situation for Russia in 2050. I make the assumption that Russia will be a fully working democracy by that time, and that Russia lives up to the conditions of the Copenhagen Criteria - be that the contents of them may have been amended or changed by that time.

I think that we should remember that the European project is fundamentally a peace project, even if it has become something much more. By that time it might be in the spirit of European peace, stability and prosperity that they enter a mutually beneficial membership. I just doubt it.

I suspected that Swedes are very vindictive people, almost knew it! :laughing::laughing::laughing: They still don't forget the Poltava battle of 1709 year and transfer of Finland to Russian empire in 1809. That's the stale revenge from Swedish side!:lmao:hahahaha (joke)

If seriously, there is some truth in your message of course. We of course not ready and very well understand it. That's why Russia don't want right now to join European Union, not shows such initiatives. Moreover, Russia is not Estonia or any other small country to join just for money/profit, subsidies from Brussels or any other kinds of "tasty carrots". Russia have cultural attraction to Europe somewhere on the level of consciousness. That's the main reason why I write on this forum.

Yes, we really created community of post soviet states after USSR collapse, but it works bad. Almost all our former satellites are uncontrollable and unpredictable. All of them created personal authoritarian regimes. Nice example is Belorussia which constantly talking that will rush to the NATO tanks with grenade in the hand and screaming "For the Motherland!" in case of NATO agression to Russia :laughing:, but in reality the Belorussian dictator just wanna cheap oil and gas from Russia. The project of "union state" between Russia & Belorussia have not prospects until Belorussia have dictator at power which just wanna save "village & trough" under own control. Russia have established a common customs area with Belorussia and Kazakhstan for 2 reasons: Russia's economy will have huge profit (I heard about 400 billions of $ per year, but not sure) and we obtained plan "B" if Europe will be too capricious in the future. What here is bad? All is logical :grin:.

Russia will be member of WTO in the middle of this year (maybe in April), our custom union does not contradict with WTO requirements, Belorussia & Kazakhstan can stay outside of WTO. President Medvedev already negotiated with USA and EU bureaucrats about that.

No need to blame Russia in imperial ambitions, we already empire in some sense with our 160 nations inside and 17 million square kilometers. The same as USA today or EU in the future, maybe.
Difference of federation from empire is that federation involves all nations inside to solve the problems of country for common prosperity and with general law for all without exceptions. That's the key of common coexistence. Historically empires was made for one titular nation which oppresses others and they start constantly to resist. It's main reason why empires are fall.

Russia did not nothing terrible or bad for last 20 years :innocent:
Well, there was short war with Georgia in 2008 year, but EU report was that it's Georgia's blame, not Russia. Passports? Do you know such guy Gamsakhurdia? It's Georgian president of early 90s which was nazi, he screamed "Georgia for Georgians!" etc... he started brutal ethnic war in Georgia and lost 2 territories: Abhazia and South Ossetia. It was Georgian decision to don't give georgian passports to populations of these two regions during 90s, so they got Russian passports lol :innocent: Georgians can blame only themselves.

Transnistria? Don't know much about that small part between Moldova and Ukraine. There all very confusing. Transnistria wants to stay independent, Moldova wants Transnistria, Romania wants Moldova etc... I think, until population of that tiny region (Transnistria) don't want to live with Moldova, nothing will change. We Russians can't do nothing with that.

Mr Berlusconi is awesome, so many sex scandals and still at power... simply insubmersible politic :laughing: love him

And no need to blame Russia for supply problems of Europe by gas. Company Gazprom sent the volume of gas which was demanded. That's all Ukranian "black hole" where gas is disappears without a trace :laughing:
But soon, the North Stream will be finished (possibly in that year), to 2016-17 the Southern Stream. That must secure against "black hole" on 100%.

Russia want to be a peer of it's neighbors? Is not USA a peer of western Europe? Is not that the main reason of EU establishment?

As for Russia itself...well, after USSR collapse we got alcoholic Boris Yeltsin in power :laughing:, but were made painful main reforms which turned us from Soviet command economy to market economy. Later, Mr. Putin stabilized the situation, concentrated power, showed to oligarchs their place, did many other useful things. Today, Mr. Medvedev focuses on economy, reduction of corruption and development of civil society. This is a long-term projects, for 5 minits is impossible to solve millennial issue of corruption or change the mentality/habits of the population.
Oligarchs today looks more like Kremlin dogs than political power. They work for Russia:
Roman Abramovich: 44 years. $11.2 billion, oil business. Kremlin forced him to be the governor of Chukotka from 2002 to 2008 (it's our the most eastern region, have the border with Sarah Palin's Alaska region :laughing:), Abramovich proved to be very good there, local population love him.
Viktor Vekselberg: 53 years old, $6.4 billion. Vice-president of oil company TNK-BP. Coordinator of the project to create a Center for Innovative Technology.
Vladimir Lisin: 54 years, $15.8 billion. Made a fortune in the steel industry, owns a controlling stake in the fourth volume of production of metallurgical plant in Russia.
Oleg Deripaska: 42 years, 10.7 billion dollars. The owner of the holding "Basic Element", which includes Rusal, the world's largest aluminum plant.
Mikhail Prokhorov: 45 years, 13.400 billion dollars. The owner of a controlling stake in Polyus-Gold, the largest gold producer in Russia. Invests a lot of money in production of electric vehicles-hybrids in RF.
Michael Freedman: 46 years, $ 12.7 billion. Founder of "Alfa Group" (Alfa-Bank y Tyumen Oil Company).

"Siloviki" lol you probably mean Mr. Putin and his KGB friends in different structures of executive authority. I don't see here a problem, these people are just patriots of their country. Anyway, Russia changing, old generation slowly replaced by a new generation. Mr. Medvedev is nice example, he is a lawyer by profession. "bloody KGB" gave him a power to rule the country and I bet in 2012 he again will be elected, not Putin.

I think "democracy" is good thing. Separation of powers (on executive power, legislative power and judicial power) with authority of law and fair free elections is best what humanity created. But no need to transform it into new religion or ideology. Russia chose communism in the start of 20th century the same as Germany chose Nazism, it ended very bad. We have saying here "by good intentions is paved road to a hell".

On place of EU I would better focused on the things that make Europeans as Europeans. Democracy has nothing to do with it, it good but too universal thing.

Michael Folkesson, you as a Swede should be proud today of how Russia big is, our first ruler was viking (Rurik) from modern territory of Sweden hahaha :grin: :lmao:

Elias2
29-01-11, 04:02
I think Russia has more of a right to be in the EU than turkey does, but I don't think russia needs to be in the EU. Its already massive and does well on its own. A good partnership I see developing, sharing energy needs and business, ect.

What I'd like to see in the near future is this cold war attitude that NATO has with Russia to be over. USSR is gone but people still are edgy. An example is one of the wiki leaks shows plans of an American defence of the baltic countries if Russia were to try and invade them, why would russia invade those countries? Why is USA still keeping its distance with Russia?

Michael Folkesson
29-01-11, 22:44
I suspected that Swedes are very vindictive people, almost knew it! :laughing::laughing::laughing: They still don't forget the Poltava battle of 1709 year and transfer of Finland to Russian empire in 1809. That's the stale revenge from Swedish side!:lmao:hahahaha (joke)


Well, good for Finland. They will soon celebrate a full century of independence. Concerning your comment on the Baltic states I suspect that the biggest reason for them to join EU and NATO was because Russia is their neighbor.

Regional cooperation between Russia and it's neighbors is a very good thing, but would be better if it worked as intended. My assumption is that it would likely work better with a change from authoritarian regimes. I would prefer to see a realization of the proposed Central Asian Union or Turkestan, but I think a deeper cooperation between this region and Russia would be good too. That is likely not going to be the case any time soon, as the region seem to diverge in their respective national interests. The exciting current development in Kyrgyzstan can possibly change this and be a great important influence on it's neighbors for the future of the region and - it seems to me - the future success of possible regional cooperation.

My comment regarding WTO was merely referring to that there is no precedence of countries ever joining the WTO as a customs union, which was the bid. It is good that Russia becomes a WTO member.



No need to blame Russia in imperial ambitions, we already empire in some sense with our 160 nations inside and 17 million square kilometers. The same as USA today or EU in the future, maybe.

Difference of federation from empire is that federation involves all nations inside to solve the problems of country for common prosperity and with general law for all without exceptions. That's the key of common coexistence. Historically empires was made for one titular nation which oppresses others and they start constantly to resist. It's main reason why empires are fall.

Russia did not nothing terrible or bad for last 20 years :innocent:
Well, there was short war with Georgia in 2008 year, but EU report was that it's Georgia's blame, not Russia. Passports? Do you know such guy Gamsakhurdia? It's Georgian president of early 90s which was nazi, he screamed "Georgia for Georgians!" etc... he started brutal ethnic war in Georgia and lost 2 territories: Abhazia and South Ossetia. It was Georgian decision to don't give georgian passports to populations of these two regions during 90s, so they got Russian passports lol :innocent: Georgians can blame only themselves.


Calling Russia an empire was not an attempt to criticize, but to call it for what it is. I was pointing at that it is less of a stabile unitary state and more of an old empire resembling a union already if the different nations wants to stay as an integral part of modern Russia.

There are problems and possible threats to Russian society and stability now and in the future. Russia is increasingly getting into serious crises concerning industry and a failing population. An unprecedented number of people have been leaving the country, the issue being even more dire in eastern Russia where the population has fallen by several tens of millions since the end of the cold war, and whole towns and communities are being drained, and much of the people left are those too old to leave. The aging population, the increased fragmentation of their society along geographic grounds, the shear size of the country, and it's poor infrastructure run the risk of calling into question Russia's sustainability as a unitary state in the long run. This and the interests and pressure from the bulging population of China and what form that will take in the future, suggests that if trends continue as they have been, Russia will have a deep crisis on its hands by 2050. How that will affect the stability and democracy in the country is anyones guess.

Russian reliance on it's oil and gas for export is another problem, and it needs to become more modern and competitive in other areas and replace it's - beyond aging - infrastructure. On the bright side - as Garrick says - Russia is in a good position where it's vast resources will just be growing in demand in SE Asia; China, India, ASEAN.

The Caucasus is a smoldering pit of antagonism. I think that there will likely be more bombs, possibly another future armed conflict. I can understand the logic and the sentiments after the Cold War and the break up of the Soviet Union, that a further independence of Chechnya and Dagestan carried a risk of pulling off a domino effect, tearing up the fabric of the empire by the seams. One could discuss the historic backgrounds and various reasons behind the radicalizations and terrorism of the Caucasus region, but it doesn't change the fact that there is an old, strong and broad resentment for Russia involved, and a movement for independence which will continue to make it a region of deep concern for Moscow; recent bombings being a vivid example. It is curious of Russia to support breakaway regions from Georgia for reasons of freedom and independence while just over the border two wars have been fought inside Russia quelling similar movements. I do however support the will of the people in the regions of Abhazia and South Ossetia to secede to independence or into Russia if that is their wish. But these are all issues that need to be adressed and solved in the future of a European context.

Yes, it is true is that Georgia started the actual armed aggression. There are no innocent parties in any of the Caucasian conflicts, but I think it's evident that it was as much a demonstration and a message to NATO as it was to Georgia and the region. Full NATO membership for Georgia seem to be quite unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future.



Mr Berlusconi is awesome, so many sex scandals and still at power... simply insubmersible politic :laughing: love him


Yes, the question of Berlusconi's awesomeness is a dive into the curiousness of Italian political culture, democracy and popular opinion, and what seems to set it apart from other political cultures of Europe.



And no need to blame Russia for supply problems of Europe by gas. Company Gazprom sent the volume of gas which was demanded. That's all Ukranian "black hole" where gas is disappears without a trace :laughing:
But soon, the North Stream will be finished (possibly in that year), to 2016-17 the Southern Stream. That must secure against "black hole" on 100%.


I guess one can see the gas conflict as a temporary supply problem, and not part of continous Russian attempts to interfere, change and control the inner political conditions of Ukraine. I think that the reality of a Russia using it's great power as an energy supplier of gas and oil as a foreign policy tool is quite undeniable, and I think that this is an obvious and deep security problem for Europe. New Caucasus pipelines bypassing Russia, and Turkeys role as a growing energy hub is a part of addressing that political concern. The decline of EU oil production combined with the increase of demand, makes it increasingly urgent and sensitive.

The North and South Stream are important developments of infrastructure. The circumventing pipelines of the "-streams" gives Russia more control over the distribution of gas, increasing the possibilities for Russia to flip the lever as they please with client countries.



Russia want to be a peer of it's neighbors? Is not USA a peer of western Europe? Is not that the main reason of EU establishment?


I think you misunderstood my quip about Russia being a peer to it's neighbors. Can you specify what you mean by "the main reason"?



As for Russia itself...well, after USSR collapse we got alcoholic Boris Yeltsin in power :laughing:, but were made painful main reforms which turned us from Soviet command economy to market economy.


The painful reforms of Yeltsin seems to mostly have been letting Russia - with the approval of the west - fall into a plunder and thug economy making it a little threat to anyone.
The government "forcing" oligarchs to take high political positions in the country, is not a great example of a healthy Russian democracy, but more an example of a power structure of controlled influence similar to that of the Soviet regime.



"Siloviki" lol you probably mean Mr. Putin and his KGB friends in different structures of executive authority. I don't see here a problem, these people are just patriots of their country. Anyway, Russia changing, old generation slowly replaced by a new generation. Mr. Medvedev is nice example, he is a lawyer by profession. "bloody KGB" gave him a power to rule the country and I bet in 2012 he again will be elected, not Putin.


That the country's resources, influence and income are divided between groups and clicks has been the order of things since the break up of the Soviet system. It might be stable, but a far cry from justice, equality and what we can decently call a modern European state. The country needs some shedding to to, something I am secure will happen in time, but as always, Russia will do it their own way.



I think "democracy" is good thing. Separation of powers (on executive power, legislative power and judicial power) with authority of law and fair free elections is best what humanity created. But no need to transform it into new religion or ideology. Russia chose communism in the start of 20th century the same as Germany chose Nazism, it ended very bad. We have saying here "by good intentions is paved road to a hell".

On place of EU I would better focused on the things that make Europeans as Europeans. Democracy has nothing to do with it, it good but too universal thing.


I think that democracy has everything to do with it. The EU is not an empire of Europe. It is a confederacy of European countries, drawing it's legitimacy from the values of European democracy. Would we not have that, there would be no European Union. The enlargement of the European Union is the most important foreign policy tool of freedom and democratic values we have, and that is why it often takes years to even become eligible to apply and where it still can come to a no. The Copenhagen Criteria says sums it up quite clear. The democratic and structural problems of Russia puts a membership negotiation at least a decade into the future, likely a couple, in an accession process that would make the Turkish membership negotiation look like a love story.

Even though Russia would be ready for membership in 40 years time, the shear size of the country as well as that of the people makes me wonder if a full membership is in any a party's interest. On the matter of EU influence - unless we use something like the Penrose method - with the current voting weights fixed in the Treaty of Nice appearing somewhat arbitrary, an enlargement of the Union of that magnitude would require great efforts of bargaining in order to come to an agreement where Russia most likely will have a greatly watered down influence to the benefit of the smaller countries when it comes to voting weights and the "degressive proportionality" of the parliament.

It seems - to me - unlikely that Russia will take that plunge, adopt the Euro, pledge it's economy and Russian special national interests under EU institution scrutiny. I also have a hard time imagining a military integration with Russia as well. The nuclear arsenal alone is a problematic issue hard to reconcile with European policy, if it can be overcome at all. EU membership is not going down well with nationalists in general inside the EU, and with Russian nationalism in mind, it seems a bit rich and spicy.

I think Russia is too big and in part due to that, with interests incompatible with those of the rest of Europe - even with the weight loss it's bound to go through to 2050 - and I suspect there would be a lack of enthusiasm over the idea in the EU altogether.

I think that all Russian and European interests will be mutually beneficially met in a privileged partnership between the two Europa.

Besides my aversion against Russia in the EU, I do have an affinity for Russia, it's people and history. Non the least the wonderful language and culture.

Anton, Bear's den
29-01-11, 23:32
I think Russia has more of a right to be in the EU than turkey does, but I don't think russia needs to be in the EU. Its already massive and does well on its own. A good partnership I see developing, sharing energy needs and business, ect.

What I'd like to see in the near future is this cold war attitude that NATO has with Russia to be over. USSR is gone but people still are edgy. An example is one of the wiki leaks shows plans of an American defence of the baltic countries if Russia were to try and invade them, why would russia invade those countries? Why is USA still keeping its distance with Russia?

Today, both EU & Russia full of own problems which do not require more close relations to solve them. I just want to show perspective, for the future. As for Turkey, that not Russia's deal.

NATO was created to resist against possible aggression of Soviet Union. Also USA used it for other own targets. For example when USA military invades 3rd country, they usually take with them Europeans and other allies for greater legitimacy of invasion. To show that not only Americans invaded, the "world community" :laughing:.
Also, NATO countries must conform to NATO standards. The main profit for USA is that these countries will buy U.S. equipment, not own. Such countries like France (joined in NATO again, a year ago) and Sweden which were outside of NATO for decades saved and developed own military-industrial complex while other NATO members just buyng military equipment (tanks, planes....) in the U.S., not produce own. That's why USA is top world weapons seller. For example Poland bought 50 jet-fighters F16 just several years ago. On one hand that not advantageous position for Europe, on the other hand the USA pay for European security :laughing: (military bases in Europe, very expensive missile defense etc...). European countries spend on the military expenses just around 1% of GDP in the average.
I think these plans in case of "Russia's agression" were made because hysterics of Eastern European states. Someone in NATO wanted to satisfy their paranoia. Politicians in these countries using "Russophobia" for elections, earning of political points (such people like family of Kaczynski in Poland). Although we (Russians) of course have our part of responsibility and guilt :ashamed2:, that's all about history.
"USA still keeping its distance" I think it's because Russia is not under American control, plus possibly there is demand to have the enemy or maybe too many people of old generation in the US government, many versions. I personally have some American buddies and don't see USA as "enemy".

Michael Folkesson I will answer tomorrow lol

Garrick
30-01-11, 00:38
Politicians in these countries using "Russophobia" for elections, earning of political points (such people like family of Kaczynski in Poland). Although we (Russians) of course have our part of responsibility and guilt :ashamed2:, that's all about history.


Anton, Bear's den
“Russophobia” in Eastern Europe should be a thing of the past.
Simply, it not brings benefits more to its holders and they will learn lessons.
My opinion is that the Europe (EU) and Russia will be in cordial/good relations, and relations will improve.

Anton, Bear's den
30-01-11, 19:02
Let's start

Well, good for Finland. They will soon celebrate a full century of independence. Concerning your comment on the Baltic states I suspect that the biggest reason for them to join EU and NATO was because Russia is their neighbor.

When people talk about Finland and Russia is usually remembered the shameful Stalinist aggression in 1939 year (talvisota), but need also remember that it's Russia gave to Finland democratic constitution, feeling of sovereignty, protected that land the whole XIX century, Finns did not pay taxes in Russian treasury, had own army. No need to represent Russia as a "monster which eat the small countries".
Baltic countries really were attached to the Soviet Union against their will by Stalin. That's why they left the USSR in avant-garde when it started to collapse. But need also to remember that during civil war in Russia when "white" (supporters of tsar) fought against "reds" (communists) the some Lithuanians and a lot of Latvians supported commies very strongly. Communists even had military divisions of "The Lettish sharpshooters" which fought very heatedly for ideas of communism of that time, Lenin, etc... This suggests that the pro-communist sentiments were pretty widespread in Baltic. Today their governments wanna represent Russia as total occupier, the cause of all problems and to forget own history, because it is more convenient for them today. Only Estonia can pretend on the status of 100% victim from my point of view.
Anyway, Russia can't change history, only to repent in crimes for which our ancestors really responsible. I don't think that in my compatriots mentality to defend criminals or dictators. Ultimately, it purifies us morally.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS_trmkeBYc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS_trmkeBYc&feature=related)
By the way, since we have mentioned the Baltic countries I want to say that Russian minorities in these countries suffer from discrimination. In Latvia 1/3 of population have discriminatory status of "Non-citizens". EU closes its eyes on this problem and loves to blame Russia in "lack of democracy". Is not it double standards? :thinking:

About Caucasus and Russia's stability
First I wanna say that we don't fight on the Caucasus with "freedom fighters" or "rebels" as western media sometimes says. Among all Chechen leaders only ex-soviet general Dudayev was a secular rebel which really wanted independent Chechnya, but he was killed in April of 1996 year by air strike. 31 August of 1996 year we signed "Khasavyurt Accord" with Chechens and Chechnya became de facto independent. There was no Russian soldiers in Chechnya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khasavyurt_Accord
It ended very bad in 1999 year by bloody raid into Dagestan Republic by 2500 of Chechen terrorists, different Arabian mercenaries and crazy Wahhabi Islamists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)
Dagestani resisted to the terrorists by own forces, police and militia detained terrorists until the arrival of federal troops which crushed those islamist geeks. Unfortunatly, during the terrorist raid in the way of the terrorists was a small outpost with young 18 years old conscripts. The majority of them escaped but several were beheaded by Islamic terrorists and filmed on the video for intimidation, there is still video of beheading in the internet. If you or any else have some sympathy for the terrorists on the North Caucasus then I can give you a link, it usually works better than an icy shower for different "liberal-democratic dreamers" (Note: I have met many such people from western Europe).
After that raid & several bombings of houses in Moscow we started second war. Fortunately, Mr.Putin came to power and we crushed the terrorist nest very fast. I also must to say that Chechen terrorists constantly kidnapped people in Russia during the whole 90s, sent letters to their relatives with the requirement to pay money (200,300, 400, 500... thousands of $) or relatives will be killed / will lost some parts of body. It was kinda "economy of independent Chechen republic".
That's how Chechnya used own chance to be independent. From 1996 to 1999 year they were preparing an attack on the neighboring republic, built a training camps for terrorist training, spread the Wahhabi version of Islam that preaches hatred to all other religions (Imams of Wahhabi Islam came to Chechnya from Saudi Arabia, the same as money for terrorism).
No need to represent Russians as aggressive conquerors, "oppressors of national free self-determination" or something like that. We just established order there for our own security. Chechnya more like a weight on our feet today which we can't simply leave, it will transform into much bigger problem again. Aslo, Russian companies are not producing oil in the North Caucasus, maximum 1% of our total extraction of oil. We also spend a lot of money on them, in 100 times more than Chechens are paying in taxes to federal centre. Medvedev for example until recent aiport bombing wanted to invest 13 billions of $ in that problem region from general treasury (I sometimes have the impression that it is the Chechens won the war :thinking: if we pay so much money :lmao:). Note: Russia withdrew federal troops from Chechnya in 2008 because it showed the some stability, today there stayed only small anti-terrorist troops.
Problem is not solved up to end because there is still 100-500 terrorists in the mountains/forests, a lot of corruption there, supporting from the abroad, retarded traditions of Chechen people themselves (such like vendetta of clans between each other, bride abduction, primacy of old customs from Middle Ages over authority laws), too much the role of religion. They also do not have a tradition of hard work like "Russian Ivan which gets up early in the morning and goes to the plant". Chechen society is very raw, party it because of the geographical position and history. The whole time they just sat in remote, wild mountains without contact with civilisation. If to check roots of suicide bombers you will find that 75% of them from godforsaken highland villages, on the borderline. Plus, we probably too, were a little bit too much aggressive in Chechnya. Russia's troops killed around 200 thousand of Chechens for 15 years and roots in history are too full of blood. But that does not give the right to our "western partners" to name terrorists as rebels/freedom fighters and blame Russia all the time. If I not mistaken, our "western partners" from Europe too have some problems with muslim immigrants:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2IHnWY-i6Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2IHnWY-i6Y)
I don't know who is Lars Vilks and what he wanted to show in pictures to audience, but reaction of muslim immigrants definitely looks very agressive. Thank god there was the police.

Russia today is not like in 90s.
Russia's birth rate grew on 45% for 10 years, thanks to social benefits for mothers.
1999: birth - 1214689, deaths - 2,144,316, a natural decrease - 929 627;
2000: birth - 1266800, deaths - 2,225,332, a natural decrease - 958 532;
2001: birth - 1311604, deaths - 2,254,856, a natural decrease - 943 252;
2002: birth - 1396967, deaths - 2,332,272, a natural decrease - 935 305;
2003: birth - 1477301, deaths - 2,365,826, a natural decrease - 888 525;
2004: birth - 1502477, deaths - 2,295,402, a natural decrease - 792 925;
2005: birth - 1457376, deaths - 2,303,935, a natural decrease - 846 559;
2006: birth - 1479637, deaths - 2,166,703, a natural decrease - 687 066;
2007: birth - 1610122, deaths - 2,080,445, a natural decrease - 470 323;
2008: birth - 1713947, deaths - 2,075,954; a natural decrease - 362,007;
2009: birth - 1761687, deaths - 2,010,543, a natural decrease - 248 856;
There is also immigration every year, that's why Medvedev said in 2009 year that total Russia population increased on 20 thousand people, not declined. Russia only on the 43 place in the world by the attractiveness of immigration, but people in the post-Soviet states live worse than in Russia, so they prefer to immigrate. And that no only central Asia, 60-70% of our immigrants from Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan (1/4 population of Kazakhstan are Russians). 2 million of Belorussians work in Russia (total population of Belorussia is 10 million people). Life expectancy for men/woman is also growing: for 2006-2009 from 58.87 to 62.77, woman from 72.4 to 74.67. I don't really think that we will die out like dinosaurs to 2050 year. Also when you hear that in Russia 30 million of muslims, need to understand that those who think so usually just take population of nations who are formally on the paper are Muslims and summarize their total number. Sense is that very difficult to find big differences between the Russians (christians/atheists) & Tatars (muslims/atheists) with which we live in close cooperation already 500 years, Buryats etc... problem only with North Caucasus which is 1 % of our population in total, all others are more or less happy / well fed. We in general very mixed nation, for example the director of Central Bank (his name "German Greff") have German roots, our representative in NATO (Dmitry Rogozin) is a Pole (well he have roots from Polish noble family of Rzeczpospolita), many Jews here etc...
Well Russia today: :thinking:
1. Have economic growth (from 2000-2009 was 7% in average, in 2011 will be 4-6% of GDP).
2. Creates the basis of innovation economy (departure from resource economic)
3. Very stable political system
4. Creates the web of fast-railways between the cities (thanks to German companies lol)
5. Starting the programm of re-arming of army in 2011 year, to 2020 year Russia will have professional contract army with the 70% of modern equipment (tanks, planes, small arms, subs, rockets, everything).
Russia have prototype of 5 generation fighter and have already sold 300 of such planes to India :rolleyes2:
http://photo.gallery.youngester.com/2010/12/photo-essay-sukhoi-pak-fa-t-50.html
6. Building a new spaceport "Vostochny" near at the border with China, for new environmentally friendly rocket.
7. To 2014 year RF will have biggest car market in Europe.
8. "Evil Putin" spend a lot of money on new roads, their production technology, bridges and other infrastructure.
9. Russia is second world weapons producer and seller.
10. Russia got Winter Olympics in Sochi 2014 and Football World Cup in 2018 (construction of new infrastructure, stadiums and hotels).
11. Russia nearly finished the construction of own Global Positioning System "Glonass", analog of GPS. Need only to launch the last 2 satellites. As I know, it already using in military areas. Civilian version will use GPS and Glonass together for greater accuracy.
12. Government and private business is investing huge amounts of money in nanotechnology, company Rosnano.
13. Government trying to create special economic zones like Silicon Valley in California and stop the brain drain in such countries like USA. The future will show. It's idea of oligarch Viktor Vekselberg if I not mistaken, he is coordinator.
14. Russia pretend and very likely will get as minimum half of Arctic resources which is 25% of all hydrocarbon resources of the planet earth.
15. Russia build 10 new nuclear power plants which tens of years ahead in technology of old Soviet ones. Also we already built several floating nuclear power plants.
16. Russian parliament "DUMA" is reforming the police and Interior Ministry. Parliament in general pretty active force, modifies the old and take on new laws, around 250-300 per year.
17. To 2013 year will be reduced the number of civil servants by 20%.
18. Russia's GDP on the level of GDP of France/Britain, but that is only the beginning of course.
19. Russia is 3rd grain exporter in the world (well, the last year was drought in summer here, Russia did not export grain in 2010 year)
That's all what came to my head at this time :grin: Russia already is not "wounded bear" like in 90s.


I think you misunderstood my quip about Russia being a peer to it's neighbors. Can you specify what you mean by "the main reason"?.

Is not EU was founded because very small influence of European states on the background of the U.S. & Soviet Union during Cold War? I know that EU began as a union of steel & coal producers between France and Germany after the WWII. But the main sense in alliance of forces, is not it? Barroso even talking about "democratic empire".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU)
Now there is one more reason - rising of China and Asia in general :petrified:.


I do have an affinity for Russia, it's people and history. Non the least the wonderful language and culture.
You can not imagine how I like Sweden :grin: you guys almost commies in my eyes with your social spending :laughing: (Note: I am not a commie myself). Russia definitely has something in common with Scandinavian countries (I know there is many blondes in Scandinavia, we have some here too :lmao:). :beer1:

Michael Folkesson
31-01-11, 09:54
I'll try to confine the answer as much as possible to what the thread is about; the possibility and likelihood of a future Russian accession into the Union.

To make predictions - even just 10 years into the future - is just a guessing game, and my comments and examples of current and possible future Russian shortcomings is an attemp to point out and predict what might make the country unstable and greatly affect the only thing that technically matters in the end concerning a membership i.e. meeting the Copenhagen Criteria.

I understand your point-by-point review is an answer to my short walkthrough of Russian social and structural weaknesses, since most of the rest of your post seem to account and demonstrate for the power and influence of Russia and the development therein. I think however that the power and influence of Russia as a global player is of little interest for a future Union membership and frankly - in my opinion - is an ambition that is potentially problematic for future EU-Russian congruence.

Chechnya is not independent, and I think that waging two full scale wars, installing a puppet and having him sign a piece of paper is not the approach of a modern democracy, but the modus operandi of a self-serving actor of the cold war. But without revisiting the issue of Caucasus, refraining from opening up a debate on it and going into detailed polemics, I think we can both agree on that the region is and will be of deep concern for Moscow for unforeseeable time, that it affects the internal security of Russia, where a future approach to the issue can be pivotal for the direction of Russian policy and society, and thus a future EU membership.



Is not EU was founded because very small influence of European states on the background of the U.S. & Soviet Union during Cold War? I know that EU began as a union of steel & coal producers between France and Germany after the WWII. But the main sense in alliance of forces, is not it? Barroso even talking about "democratic empire".
www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU
Now there is one more reason - rising of China and Asia in general


The EU has step-by-step been building on the 1951 Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and following treaties up till the harmonizing Lisbon Treaty of 2007. The reasoning behind the Coal and Steel Community and the following treaties, had little to do with the US or the Soviet Union. The idea was to integrate in order to make future war in Europe near impossible, and formed despite the post-war animosity between the European nations, who fought and killed each other not yet a decade earlier. It is a project of peace, democracy and prosperity, a Union resting on what we consider European values, this year celebrating 60 years. It has been a slow ant patient journey with numerous set backs. The mule would be an excellent symbol for the Union, because most of the difficulties we have had and have, come from the fact that we are all sovereign democracies with certain amounts of nationalistic ideals. This is why it is not an empire, and that the quote of Barroso of a "democratic empire" is a form of simile for the expansion of democratization and cooperation of the whole of Europe. I think that it should be easily understood that a term like "democratic empire" is an oxymoron - like a "fine mess", "hasting slowly" or "English cuisine".

The European Union is not an attempt to create a superpower.

Democracy is not only of interest and importance to the people of a country, but to the peoples of that country's neighbors. It is a question of mutual security, common long term interests and trust. I think that a shortage of these aspects is the problem of the regional cooperation between Russia and it's neighbors.

We are steadily approaching - drifting, some might say - a multi-polar world, potentially more dangerous, but without a clear domination of a lone superpower, or the bi-polar foxtrot of the unscrupulous rivalry of the US and the Soviet. I think it's likely that the new great powers of the world only need to be strong enough, where they neither will or can be the type of global super powers we all know and love. Keeping in mind the multi-polarity of the world that exploded into the WWI, we should also recognize that we are not in that place today, but that the risks are similarly real. Freedom and democratic values are the putty we need to make that stable - not power of force or retaliation - and I believe we are maturing into a world where that is possible, where it wasn't before.

Concerning Russian development besides the potential of Russia to become the great supplier of SE Asia, Russia could very well be an even greater geopolitical winner from a global climate change point of view as the pantry of Asia, where the vast expanses of Siberia could turn out fertile and prosperous, turning the tide of development. It could be that Russia's greatest clients by this time is a Chinese democracy, and ASEAN is a vibrant example of a cohesive democratic regional entity out pacing EU, ushering in a new golden age for Russia and some of it's closest neighbors.

Who knows.

The rise in Russian birth rates is a very good development, but can they sustain an overall population increase to counter the sharp decline in the 1990's? Regarding the dwindling population, there are several organisation making similar estimates, and according to Parag Khanna, the World Bank predicts the Russian population to decline towards around 120 million people. These predictions are of course worst case scenarios - and Khanna is being provocative and IMO not always very careful with the facts - but they seem all to agree on that Russia is facing heavy demographic challenges. But they are not alone. We do have a similar situation in the Union, where tough predictions warning for a population drop to around 450 million people, even with immigration. The problem specific for Russia is still that population is moving west ward draining the east, with outdated and crumbling infrastructure and industry with a heavy use of "Pемонт" stickers, a porous border and a growing Chinese interest and influence in the south east, possible being a source of destabilization, and what effect that will have on the democracy and stability of Russia.

I think that the biggest problems and obstacles to a working democracy in Russia are the division of resources in the country, the political culture, the deep rooted corruption of power top down and restrictions of the media freedom, and that to move from this form of procedural democracy will take decades, because democracy is not only a system, but a culture. I think that harmonizing Russia and the European Union is in our interests. But membership? It can definitely be done. But do we want to? Is there, will there be enough support in the Union for such an idea, given that the Criteria is met?

My assessment is based on what I know - or think I know - about Russia of the past and today, and I deeply doubt the purpose and rationality behind a Russian membership, the mutual benefits for the two. I see obvious conflicts of interests, which would be avoided with a close partnership and which would give us both the geopolitical security and stability that we all seek, without any need of integrating our political institutions and policy; giving away and pooling economic policy and national sovereignty for benefits that will easily be met in bi-lateral agreements.

It has been questioned where the borders of Europe are and where the enlargement of the European Union ends. I think those are questions with different answers. It is still an open debate, but from my point of view enlargement definitely ends at the western border or Russia. I think that Russia is a very important partner and future friend, but that it is another Europe. If that is a view shared by the concerned parties in 2050 remains to be seen.

Anton, Bear's den
31-01-11, 19:11
The European Union is not an attempt to create a superpower.

Democracy is not only of interest and importance to the people of a country, but to the peoples of that country's neighbors. It is a question of mutual security, common long term interests and trust. I think that a shortage of these aspects is the problem of the regional cooperation between Russia and it's neighbors.

Totally disagree, if it not attempt to create a superpower then what it is? Children-interest club? Barroso by his quote about "democratic empire" meant that attempts of many countries and civilizations to build huge mega country by force always ended badly (Roman empire, Ottoman empire, Persian etc...) because nations inside start to resist, so they wish to do the same by other methods (democratic), without element of compulsion. But target is the same. If you think that it's all about democracy and nothing about ambitions then you mistaken very strongly (just think, for which sake to unite then? "Democracy" works well and without unions :laughing:).
Of course, one of the reasons was because Europeans tired after all wars (we too) and probably one of the main reasons of EU was to exclude the possibility of the next World War in Europe, but targets are changing with time. Europe also was in ruins after WWII, stoped to be center of the world. So is not it attempt to create a groundwork for leadership in the world again?

In 50s, 60s, 70s Asia was not so developed as today, GDP of China after destructive "cultural revolution" was just around 500 billions (end of 70s), today Chinese GDP in PPP is 9 trillions of $, growing per 10% every year, population of China grow on 6 million people every year despite of policy "one family - one child" (and that only China without Japan, South Korea and other Asian countries). China will overgrow USA soon in economy, 10 years and it will happen (10 years for history is like a 1 second for a simple man). Besides, Uncle Sam cheating with dollar (prints dollar in huge amounts, exporting inflation in other countries because dollar still is most used as international currency). This "source of gold" for America will over, sooner or later dollar will be replaced by another international currency which consists of several national currencies (bye bye Uncle Sam's unlimited military spending).

Also, why you think that democratic countries = innocent lambs???
List of some American (democratic) invasions and interventions for last 50 years: (I don't want to judge Americans, just draw attention)
Guatemala
Cuba
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Panama
Yugoslavia
Afghanistan
Iraq
American democratic government support dictators when this beneficial to national interests, CIA have secret prisons in the different countries (including european), human rights have no role in these prisons, famous Guantanamo base still not closed etc... Or maybe USA is not democracy? :laughing: :confused2: :laughing:

Russia don't like NATO organisation because it was originally 100% against Russia (Russia is successor of Soviet Union). And today USA just using it for own targets. The worst thing is that USA have imperial behavior, especially when the president was George W. Bush. Military bases which USA puts on the territory of NATO members and other countries near at the border with Russia are not just airfields, warehouses or barracks for soldiers. There is also sophisticated intelligence equipment, for interception of communications, e-mail messages, exploration etc... on the huge area. Sometimes local authorities even don't know about that (or don't want to know). Nice example is American base "Manas" in Kyrgyzstan. So, better stay away with your NATO, for Russia it's a threat until America plays in the empire. And that very nice that NATO's expansion plans are frozen. In the same time, in case if Europe will have own military alliance (without USA) then there no will be such problem because Europe is not threat to Russia. But I think Europe have too warm place to leave NATO, USA pays a lot of money for European security.

Michael Folkesson, I did not talk that we want tomorrow join European Union like Turkish government requires. I talk about possible future. We have too retard economy right now, as minimum 60% of Russia's GDP it's fees from the sale of resources. If I not mistaken, EU have free movement of resources, without taxes on the border line (that's why rich by oil Norway don't want to join EU or that impenetrable offshore zone, Switzerland).
"Privileged partnership"? Nice, for Russia is more than enough for nearest 15-20 years. I also think that EU itself still very green organisation, Russia's government very easy uses the contradictions between European countries when it is necessary hehehehehehe :laughing::lmao:. So, that not only for Russia need to change and grow.

World Bank in 80s predicted that the population of Spain will strongly decline to 2000 year, but the population of Spain grew from 38 millions to 45 millions instead. I think all these predictions are not very reliable. Don't worry, in extreme case the last Russian will push the red button :laughing: (joke)


because democracy is not only a system, but a culture.
Agree, that's why it very difficult to reproduce. We in Russia almost the whole our 1000 years history were authoritarian and even once totalitarian. As I said already, for "5 minutes" old habits is impossible to change. But I again want to say that no need to create an ideologies to answer all questions of humankind. Simple example, "the book of democracy" says: "State must hold democratic elections to the regional authorities and everyone can participate, so population will choose the best candidates". In reality it not always work, because local mafia and other criminal elements can easy to promote their candidates in the power if "civil society" is not developed enough (like in RF yet). That's why in Russia elections in local authorities based only on political parties lists.

Reinaert
31-01-11, 20:49
Anton, I agree with you.

America and especially Britain were busy stirring the European soup for almost 300 years.
It's fine for them when Europeans kill each other.

A man like Truman, who after Roosevelt became president of the USA, stated around 1935 in the New York Times, that America would better support the party that was on the losing side if a war between Russia and Germany would break out.

In his words.. If the Russians win, we support the Germans.
Or otherwise..

And they did.

Until the Russians gained terrain..
Then they immediately launched the attack on French Normandy.

Michael Folkesson
01-02-11, 12:24
@Reinaert
I understand that by Russia you mean the Soviet Union. In what way do you consider this pertinent to a future Russian accession to the EU? Do you consider that to be realistic? If so, why?

Anton, Bear's den
01-02-11, 23:36
America and especially Britain were busy stirring the European soup for almost 300 years.
Well, I think British became a "victim" of America in some sense after the WWII because they lost their colonial empire, "thanks" to American efforts ("Atlantic Charter" treaty). USA wanted to get markets for their goods in colonies, so old British empire was a obstacle.


It's fine for them when Europeans kill each other.
I don't think that USA or Britain having fun when "Europeans kill each other", but countries which don't participate in the war directly (I mean don't have a total destruction from it) definitely have some profit from it. I recommend to check in the internet the American economic indicators before WWII and after, it's like heaven and earth.


In his words.. If the Russians win, we support the Germans.Or otherwise. And they did.
Until the Russians gained terrain..
Then they immediately launched the attack on French Normandy.
It's typical anglo-saxon pragmatism. Before the war was not clear who is worse Stalin or Hitler so they spoke such statements.
Americans waited when communists and nazis will kill each other and did not interfere to save own people.

One of the main experiences from WWII is that, until Europeans will fight against each other, the third countries will use it for own goals and eventually to dominate over Europeans.

Reinaert
02-02-11, 00:21
@Reinaert
I understand that by Russia you mean the Soviet Union. In what way do you consider this pertinent to a future Russian accession to the EU? Do you consider that to be realistic? If so, why?

Russia is more European than some European countries..
Without the full membership of Russia we are not complete in the EU.

The membership of Turkey in the EU is an American agenda.

barbarian
02-02-11, 09:24
The membership of Turkey in the EU is an American agenda.

i think so.

but i wonder why do you think so? or why do you think US wants turkey in EU?

Anton, Bear's den
03-02-11, 13:08
why do you think US wants turkey in EU?

He think so because USA really want Turkey in the EU: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnLrZYL1wQc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnLrZYL1wQc&feature=related)
and UK ("mammy of USA" :laughing:) too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1V-KLmfqvo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1V-KLmfqvo)
:thinking:
On the place of 100% europhiles I would be very and very suspicious because American politicians is definitely not interested in an independent Europe, a potential hi-tech competitor. In my subjective opinion the USA probably understands that growth of European identity can not be stoped, so they trying to neutralize it in the egg. There are many methods: to turn EU into multicultural zoo and then there will be a complete mess, to use the Great Britain's politicians for injection of anti-EU hysteria etc... That's my personal opinion.

Reinaert
03-02-11, 21:40
i think so.

but i wonder why do you think so? or why do you think US wants turkey in EU?

They try everything to destabilize Europe.

In other words.. Divide and rule.

Garrick
04-02-11, 00:01
I think that Europe will be all the stronger in the years to come.

barbarian
04-02-11, 12:22
He think so because USA really want Turkey in the EU: www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=wnLrZYL1wQc&feature=related
and UK ("mammy of USA" :laughing:) too: www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=D1V-KLmfqvo
:thinking:
On the place of 100% europhiles I would be very and very suspicious because American politicians is definitely not interested in an independent Europe, a potential hi-tech competitor. In my subjective opinion the USA probably understands that growth of European identity can not be stoped, so they trying to neutralize it in the egg. There are many methods: to turn EU into multicultural zoo and then there will be a complete mess, to use the Great Britain's politicians for injection of anti-EU hysteria etc... That's my personal opinion.

that is what i think. additionally, US wants additional qualification to vote in EU.

LeBrok
04-02-11, 17:55
Just think guys. Germany and Japan were under control of US after WW2. It doesn't look like US cared to direct their economies, or drug them down. If there was an influence it was a positive one. Germany and Japan are now Hi Tech super-houses in spite of US military bases being their. Someone explain, how US "won't let others prosper", if we have 2 brilliant examples, Germany and Japan (many years under US control), telling us otherwise.

I noticed that in many cases people love to escape into a "victim" position. It is so easy to blame others, especially the "all mighty, evil empire, all controlling" US/CIA, for their own shortcomings. It's so hard to see our own inadequacies and faults, and it's so easy to point fingers at others. "No, no, it can't be me because I'm so special. It can't be my country, because this is the best country in the world. It is so logical that this must be them, drugging me down and keeping poor."
Korea, Singapore, China, Ireland, Germany,..., shows that prosperity is up for grabs. Just move up your butts and pick the right economic system. And if you do it right, the rest of world will help you.

If it comes to Russia and EU. Everything is pretty much in Russia's hands. There are rules and criterias for EU members. If Russia fulfils them, qualifies, and wishes to belong to EU, then they are in. Simple like that.

If Russians don't do that, they will find themselves in a predicament. They'll be standing alone against New China with economy 20 times bigger than Russian. Good luck then.

Reinaert
04-02-11, 19:02
Just think guys. Germany and Japan were under control of US after WW2. It doesn't look like US cared to direct their economies, or drug them down. If there was an influence it was a positive one. Germany and Japan are now Hi Tech super-houses in spite of US military bases being their. Someone explain, how US "won't let others prosper", if we have 2 brilliant examples, Germany and Japan (many years under US control), telling us otherwise.

I noticed that in many cases people love to escape into a "victim" position. It is so easy to blame others, especially the "all mighty, evil empire, all controlling" US/CIA, for their own shortcomings. It's so hard to see our own inadequacies and faults, and it's so easy to point fingers at others. "No, no, it can't be me because I'm so special. It can't be my country, because this is the best country in the world. It is so logical that this must be them, drugging me down and keeping poor."
Korea, Singapore, China, Ireland, Germany,..., shows that prosperity is up for grabs. Just move up your butts and pick the right economic system. And if you do it right, the rest of world will help you.

If it comes to Russia and EU. Everything is pretty much in Russia's hands. There are rules and criterias for EU members. If Russia fulfils them, qualifies, and wishes to belong to EU, then they are in. Simple like that.

If Russians don't do that, they will find themselves in a predicament. They'll be standing alone against New China with economy 20 times bigger than Russian. Good luck then.

Well, as an American.. Don't interfere with Europe.
All you tell about Germany and Japan is bullshit.

It's just American self interest.

In The Netherlands there was propaganda about the "Marshall Plan".

But everyone keeps silent about the about 500 merchant ships and crews the Dutch lost in aiding the allied war effort.
Nobody talks about all the aluminum they took from the Dutch territory of Suriname during WW2. The miners there were used as slaves.

So the famous "Marshall Plan" was only some compensation for a much bigger American debt.

Some other figures!

I was born in the beginning of the 50's.
And in that year the Dutch government spent 25% of all the tax money in weaponry!!!..

So I guess the Americans had a great lobbyist back then.
A Royal Criminal we all know very well.
Does the name "Bilderberg" ring a bell?

So, the story is quite simple, The Dutch have one stupid government after another, manipulated by America.
No matter what the outcome of elections is. We're ****** over and over again.

We have had enough of it.

Reinaert
04-02-11, 19:07
I think that Europe will be all the stronger in the years to come.

Then we have to remove all wire taps in government buildings in Europe. ;)
Take over the financial control of the media, and make it independent from America again.

In other words.. Kick the Americans out of Europe.

Regulus
04-02-11, 19:18
Just think guys. Germany and Japan were under control of US after WW2. It doesn't look like US cared to direct their economies, or drug them down. If there was an influence it was a positive one. Germany and Japan are now Hi Tech super-houses in spite of US military bases being their. Someone explain, how US "won't let others prosper", if we have 2 brilliant examples, Germany and Japan (many years under US control), telling us otherwise.

I noticed that in many cases people love to escape into a "victim" position. It is so easy to blame others, especially the "all mighty, evil empire, all controlling" US/CIA, for their own shortcomings. It's so hard to see our own inadequacies and faults, and it's so easy to point fingers at others. "No, no, it can't be me because I'm so special. It can't be my country, because this is the best country in the world. It is so logical that this must be them, drugging me down and keeping poor."
Korea, Singapore, China, Ireland, Germany,..., shows that prosperity is up for grabs. Just move up your butts and pick the right economic system. And if you do it right, the rest of world will help you.

If it comes to Russia and EU. Everything is pretty much in Russia's hands. There are rules and criterias for EU members. If Russia fulfils them, qualifies, and wishes to belong to EU, then they are in. Simple like that.

If Russians don't do that, they will find themselves in a predicament. They'll be standing alone against New China with economy 20 times bigger than Russian. Good luck then.


LeBrok, Don't you know better than to confuse people with the facts?

GW Bush's biggest blunder was not worker harder to cultivate a better relationship with Russia. Russia should seek whatever economic advantages that they can.

Maciamo
04-02-11, 19:23
It's a long time into the future. Who could have foreseen that France and Germany would be a founding members of the EU in the 1930's or 1940's; yet it happened in 1957.

At present I don't see how Russia could join the EU within the next 20 years. But 40, who is to say ?

Anton, Bear's den
06-02-11, 02:02
Just think guys. Germany and Japan were under control of US after WW2. It doesn't look like US cared to direct their economies, or drug them down. If there was an influence it was a positive one. Germany and Japan are now Hi Tech super-houses in spite of US military bases being their. Someone explain, how US "won't let others prosper", if we have 2 brilliant examples, Germany and Japan (many years under US control), telling us otherwise.

I noticed that in many cases people love to escape into a "victim" position. It is so easy to blame others, especially the "all mighty, evil empire, all controlling" US/CIA, for their own shortcomings. It's so hard to see our own inadequacies and faults, and it's so easy to point fingers at others. "No, no, it can't be me because I'm so special. It can't be my country, because this is the best country in the world. It is so logical that this must be them, drugging me down and keeping poor."
Korea, Singapore, China, Ireland, Germany,..., shows that prosperity is up for grabs. Just move up your butts and pick the right economic system. And if you do it right, the rest of world will help you.

I don't understand how this text is related to previous posts, no one here blame USA for damaging of the economies of other countries. Really American influence played a good historical role after WWII in Japan & Western Europe. But times are changing, now America is no longer needed where it's still have positions. For example, military bases in Germany which full of nukes aimed on Russia. I really don't think that it helps a lot for security in Europe today, it the same as Soviet rockets on Cuba in 1962 year which were aimed on American cities. I remember Yankees wanted to invade our Cuban friends island with 150000 of marines vs 10000 of Cuban military & 40000 of Soviet soldiers :laughing:.
Also, USA used Europe & Japan for sale markets of own goods (GDP growing) and spreading of own influence at first and only after for "noble goals" (they of course had secondary and tertiary importance, played the role of "justification").
Japanise prime minister Yukio Hatoyama wanted to remove American military bases from own territory not so long ago, but in Japan total lacks of decisiveness & political crisis.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704546304575261332428348428.html#
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/11/08/japanese-want-the-us-military-out-of-japan/


If it comes to Russia and EU. Everything is pretty much in Russia's hands. There are rules and criterias for EU members. If Russia fulfils them, qualifies, and wishes to belong to EU, then they are in. Simple like that.

If Russians don't do that, they will find themselves in a predicament. They'll be standing alone against New China with economy 20 times bigger than Russian. Good luck then.

First, funny that Canucks are interested in Russia-EU relations :laughing:.
Second, a powerful China is headache for USA & Japan + India at first and only after to Russia. U.S. wants to maintain its enormous sphere of influence while China is growing like on the steroids, dreams about Taiwan (Americans sell arms to Taiwan), China hate American military presence in Japan, support North Korea, spends on defense more and more with every year (build aircraft carriers already, developing 5 generation fighter... many other things), China underestimates the rate of own currency for cheating in trading with USA while USA in debts. No, China is headache for USA much more than for Russia. We just have border with China, but there is no "millions of Chinese" in the Far East of Russia like western media often want to image.

Anton, Bear's den
06-02-11, 12:10
It's a long time into the future. Who could have foreseen that France and Germany would be a founding members of the EU in the 1930's or 1940's; yet it happened in 1957.

At present I don't see how Russia could join the EU within the next 20 years. But 40, who is to say ?

:thinking:
I started topic to see reactions of Europeans, to see, whether it makes sense to think about it further or not. Russia can exist autonomously from Europe, but we have only 140 million people here. That's not enough for long ambitious prospects, 500 millions of European brothers would be very helpful especially considering that we Europeans, too. All these "Copenhagen criteria" are trivia if we talk about "idea" of such union in the future. "Copenhagen criteria" and other are just matter of time if Europeans really agree to have integration with Russia, 20-30 years and possibly Russia will be higher of any criteria.

I don't think that signing of documents of membership in the EU have big importance. Real integration of economies and all other spheres during next decades much more important. Russia even can be outside of EU formally on the paper until the end of times :grin:.

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 16:01
Russia is an undemocratic dictatorship, oppressive tyranny, authoritarian capitalist empire. No way for it to enter EU. Only if Yabloko assumes power, which is very unlikely.

Anton, Bear's den
28-04-11, 17:19
Russia is an undemocratic dictatorship, oppressive tyranny, authoritarian capitalist empire.

LMAO man that made my day hahahaha :laughing:
I hope you are just a trol, not a Serbian victim of democratization. Otherwise that scares shit out of me, seriously. Never thought that democratic bombings have such a brain damage effect :laughing:

Rastko Pocesta
29-04-11, 00:51
LMAO man that made my day hahahaha :laughing:
I hope you are just a trol, not a Serbian victim of democratization. Otherwise that scares shit out of me, seriously. Never thought that democratic bombings have such a brain damage effect :laughing:

"Victim of democratization?" Your point is that democracy is a bad thing? Democracy is the founding principle of all civilized societies. Rest in peace Anna Politkovskaya, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Anastasia Baburova and hundreds of other victims of Putin's "democracy." How many journalists are killed each year in Russia? Compare that to United States which has double more citizens. I didn't say USA Is great and Russia is bad. I am very fond of Russian culture and I hope I will speak Russian well enough one day to read Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Chekhov... and Novaya Gazeta, of course! I support Yabloko and I hate both Putin and the oligarchs.

Anton, Bear's den
29-04-11, 14:06
"Victim of democratization?" Your point is that democracy is a bad thing?
My point is that under different "democratic" mottos very often hiding primitive hypocrisy. That's why need to be careful with it.


Democracy is the founding principle of all civilized societies.

Maybe, but democracy everywhere is different. South Korea was not democratic in the western sense of the word (it was ruled by military) after WWII and nevertheless built nice a economy.
Japan the same, from 1946 to 2008 year had one dominant political party in parliament.
Such developed island-county as Singapore even today rather authoritarian than democratic. Fairy tale that democracy = 100% indispensable.


How many journalists are killed each year in Russia?
That number in 3-4 times lower than in times of super mega democratic Boris Yeltsin in 90s, favorite of liberals. West as well very loved that alcoholic.


Rest in peace Anna Politkovskaya, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Anastasia Baburova and hundreds of other victims of Putin's "democracy."

Anastasia Baburova was killed by neo-nazis, not Putin; about Yuri Shchekochikhin have no idea who is it; Anna Politkovskaya :thinking:difficult to say, maybe Chechen vicegerent Kadirov or victim of typical corruption. Journalists and human rights defenders often become a targets when shoved noses into other people's sins. Anyway you have not evidence, just talking that Putin is offspring of devil like all other liberals.
And gave please these "hundreads of other victims" names, very interesting to see.



I support Yabloko and I hate both Putin and the oligarchs.

What a retard really need to be to name the political party "Apple" (Yabloko) and wait after it that people will vote for it, next time they will name party "Potato" probably :laughing:
Yabloko have a reputation of useless vain talkers, like Gorbachev: talking talking talking talking.... and they were big friends of oligarchs in 90s for sure.
By the way, is not it pretty strange, you said: "Russia is an undemocratic dictatorship, oppressive tyranny, authoritarian capitalist empire" but in the same time you talking about political loser party of opposition. If we are such a evil empire with Darth Vader (second Stalin :laughing:) at power then why the hell we have these "useless political parties", such newspapers like Novaya Gazeta as you said, some mainly opposition radio stations like "Эхо Москвы" etc... wtf? what a useless pieace of **** it's not need for our evil empire :laughing:.
You know what I think? I think liberals wanna to justify their own total political bankruptcy by demonising of current regime.
I disagree with Mr.Putin & his party in many things, I even really can say that guy got too much respect among population that started to remind about old times of tsar, but such liberals like that Yabloko even worse. Do you know that leaders of our liberal "opposition" are frequent visitors to the American Embassy. I guess you know that guy on your avatar, Julian Assanje and his wikileaks. According to Wikileaks Russia's liberals constantly getting money from American Ambassador in Moscow and reports to him on the done work, such a pitiful creatures :laughing:.
http://polithexogen.ru/info/46606.html
http://www.platon.kz/news/wikileaks/1209-wikileaks.html
http://www.mixnews.lv/ru/world/news/2011-01-24/56889
26 myths about Russia (French)
http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/26-mythes-sur-la-russie-67250

Rastko Pocesta
29-04-11, 14:46
Who said I support South Korea and Japan? Both have even worse and crueler capitalism than Russia. Japan maybe is in some way democratic, but it still extremely conservative and reactionary, just like South Korea.

Boris Yeltsin was a war criminal and a thief, the worst leader Russia (Russian Federation, not including Soviet Union and the Russian Empire) ever had. That guy slaughtered civilians in Chechnya.

"Yabloko" is an acronym of the names of its founders: "Я" (Ya) for Grigory Yavlinsky; "Б" (B) for Yuri Boldyrev, and "Л" (L) for Vladimir Lukin

Wikipedia has a very long list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia) with references for each of them.

Anton, Bear's den
29-04-11, 15:11
Boris Yeltsin was a war criminal and a thief, the worst leader Russia (Russian Federation, not including Soviet Union and the Russian Empire) ever had. That guy slaughtered civilians in Chechnya.

Don't know where you saw "civilians in Chechnya". Just look at this innocent lambs faces
4796.


Wikipedia has a very long list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia) with references for each of them.
There all cases with journalists: someone forgot to put out the cigarette and died, someone was murdered, shot to death (military action), accidents and plane crash (accident), a terrorist act etc... there did not write that Putin killed them all, and it says in many cases that the perpetrators were convicted.

Rastko Pocesta
29-04-11, 16:36
Lulz, how does it happen that so many journalists and human rights defenders die in "accidents"... and somehow those are always the ones who critizice the regime. In United States, which has double more citizens than Russia, it hardly ever happens.

Chechen terrorists like Dokka Umarov are one, the innocent civilians (how many children were killed in shelling of Grozny?) are the another story. Umarov was probably behind Domodedovo and Metro bombings. I suggest you a book titled "Brides of Allah" by Yulia Yuzik. Probably the best analysis of chechen terrorism and its causes ever written.

Anton, Bear's den
29-04-11, 17:06
Lulz, how does it happen that so many journalists and human rights defenders die in "accidents"... and somehow those are always the ones who critizice the regime. In United States, which has double more citizens than Russia, it hardly ever happens.

Many who critizice the regime, but rarely who scream that it's all Putin behind all bad things except liberals. I already gave you that link:
http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/26-mythes-sur-la-russie-67250
It says that during Putin presidency 2000-2008 were killed 17 journalists, during the period of Yeltsin's 30 journalists.
Quote from the article:
"According to CIA, Russia stands on the 4 th place in the world in the number of journalists killed since 1992, but at 14 the ratio of killed journalists per capita, to Israel and Algeria, and just behind Turkey, which claims to membership in the EU.
And compared with other former Soviet countries, Russia is at 5 place (out of 13), just behind Latvia - EU member country."

USA is a bad example for imitation, they up to ears in problems with human rights
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_13822179.htm


Chechen terrorists like Dokka Umarov are one, the innocent civilians (how many children were killed in shelling of Grozny?)
It's a war, there is always civilian victims. If we will take number of civilians killed by NATO in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya then it will be much higher than in Chechnya.

Rastko Pocesta
29-04-11, 17:38
Everyone speaks about Iraq for 7 years and I am one of the most vocal among them in Serbia. United States conducted an illegal aggression against Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Same applies to Afghanistan. Serbia and Libya are different. However, no one even mentions Chechenya with so many children being killed.

How many journalists died in "accidents" during Bush presidency? Okay, he built the concentration camp in which he tortured and abused prisoners without providing them fair trial or any of the basic human rights guaranteed by both US constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, Miranda v. Arizona ec. So, he shall be tried and sentenced to maximum prison sentence for that crime. We both know that he will never be imprisoned, same applies to Putin, but we are here to discuss the crimes they committed.

Dagne
29-04-11, 18:12
I think it would be great if Russian government/people wanted to change towards European values! I as a Lithuanian would support such movement very much.

But nobody in Russia really discusses about joining the EU, do they? Somehow in my understanding Russians themselves would take more pride in Russia being a strong, authoritarian superpower that Europe is afraid of, rather than being a part of Europe which discusses and shares ...

Stalin is still a very popular among Russians, isn't he? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm)
That tells a so much to me... For comparison, it would be totally inconceivable to imagine that Germans voted Hitler to be the third greatest ever countryman.

Rastko Pocesta
30-04-11, 20:08
I think it would be great if Russian government/people wanted to change towards European values! I as a Lithuanian would support such movement very much.

But nobody in Russia really discusses about joining the EU, do they? Somehow in my understanding Russians themselves would take more pride in Russia being a strong, authoritarian superpower that Europe is afraid of, rather than being a part of Europe which discusses and shares ...

Stalin is still a very popular among Russians, isn't he? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm)
That tells a so much to me... For comparison, it would be totally inconceivable to imagine that Germans voted Hitler to be the third greatest ever countryman.


Actually choosing Hitler or anyone from the Nazi regime in the "Unsere Besten" was banned.

Anton, Bear's den
01-05-11, 00:41
Stalin is still a very popular among Russians, isn't he? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7798497.stm)
That tells a so much to me... For comparison, it would be totally inconceivable to imagine that Germans voted Hitler to be the third greatest ever countryman.

Problem with Stalin that he was a winner in WWII, winners usually getting a lot of glory and rarely judged. But he have a lot blood on the hands and it should not be forgotten. Communists convicted him only in a narrow club of own trusted people, not in masses. There is some government plans of destalinization (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/16/the_third_wave_of_russian_de_stalinization), exist the memory day of repressions victims, literature of such writers like Solzhenitsyn in free access. But hardly to do something with people who was born in Soviet Union, they see in Stalin a man who saved them from Hitler and turned country into superpower.
I think here need of course government anti-Stalin propaganda, but really can help only alternation of generations, people of new "Pepsi generation" are more skeptical to Stalin and communist rule in general.
Unfortunately, very difficult to discuss historical issues with our Baltic friends because some Baltic governments condone to ex-nazi veterans parades (every year at 19 March), rename city streets by names of Chechen terrorists, oppress the rights of Russian speaking minority. This complicates everything.


But nobody in Russia really discusses about joining the EU, do they? Somehow in my understanding Russians themselves would take more pride in Russia being a strong, authoritarian superpower that Europe is afraid of, rather than being a part of Europe which discusses and shares ...
System in modern Russia probably looks a little bit authoritarian, but in the root it democratic. Because Mr.Putin cares about his reputation very much, he constantly play in macho and uses Chuck Norris style PR: extinguishes fires by plane, shows the skills of judo, communicates with bikers, poses with bare-chested, play in ice hokey, shot in whales by special gun to set the beacon on the body ect... next time that guy will probably launch himself in the space :laughing: Putin just focuses on the nationalist electorate & pragmatism, Medvedev on the people which want changes.
People also such creatures that until their incomes are growing they will not be much against their authorities, freedom and democracy good things but you can't be fed only by it.
No one will send application for EU membership as minimum nearest 15-20 years because that useless for Russia and gave to sly Brussels lever of pressure on Russia. We will look like a plaintively mewing hungry cat and Brussels as hand that shakes the fish in front of our nose :laughing: