physicsmonk

They already own Bengal by proxy.The communist government in Bengal is very Pro chinese.

glyn

[quote=JohnFlint1985;424008]



Nationalism which I see in continental Europe and in Russia is very real. It is built on few factors. 1. Anti-Americanism - De Gaulle creation 50 years ago only for France, now adopted for whole Europe 2. No backbone policy whatsoever with Arab and Muslim countries in order to get oil and gas which support European economies without interruption. 3. Complete lack of support for joint (USA-Europe) military cooperation among European elites 4. Euro as currency is created to directly challenge and possibly beat American dollar 5. Protectionism on the whole European level against any challenge. 6. Certain ideas from Russia are adopted for whole Europe as a policy today, due to dependency on Russian natural gas supply. For example Germany takes 65% of Russian gas. Thus more and more hostile rhetoric from Western Europe to-wards USA based on Russian point of view - for instance future anti ballistic missile radar and interceptors in Eastern Europe against Iran, but which arose huge Russian outcry.

I think that you are beset by many demons (which can't be a lot of fun for you) and you tend to take certain facts and observations and extrapolate them to extremes. You are at complete liberty to write off Europe in your own mind, or to make whatever assumptions you wish. Those of us living here draw different conclusions - from our own observations. To claim that the Euro currency was created to 'directly challenge and possibly beat (the) American dollar' shows a complete misunderstanding of the facts. It was introduced to ease internal trade, and you may have noticed that it has not yet been accepted by all the EU member states. Point to note: Charles De Gaul isn't around anymore. The new leader M. Sarkosy seems to be a breath of fresh air and I await further events with interest. As a certain person of my acquaintance is prone to saying "Let a little joy into your life!"

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Dwarven Pirate

I think if we want to make predictions we need a map based on fresh water resources...

JohnFlint1985

[quote=glyn;424131]I like your post
Yes in a way my demons are around me all the time. Bu they are quite fresh and appeared lately after reading posts on another forum for a few months and studying the developments in Europe. Yes Euro was introduced to make trade easier. And yes Charles De Gaulle i snot around anymore. But his ideas took roots all over Europe. UK and Denmark to lesser extent are exceptions to the rule for now. See - for De Gaulle USA was a greater evil than Soviet Union. He was deeply humiliated in the end of WWII when he was not treated as one of the major winners of this war - and he was not the one in reality. So he decided to create a policy which will take France out of American equation. To do that France itself is insufficient so EU was created. Different countries had different ideas when they entered it, but in the end it turned out exactly as he wanted. The new European nationalism was born based on Europe as a whole and on his vision of getting rid of American "protectorate". Once again people hardly know about it - it was put inside their brains step by step by combining all available methods. and It took almost 50 years to do that.
So I do agree that Sarkozy decided to put an end to that - but will he succeed? It will take very long time and education to change the minds of Europeans. Please note that USA is not an ideal country. Lately our government did a lot of things that provided a lot of ammo for this phenomena. But it didn't start with GWB. So I don't really believe that it will end with Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel.
According to many Europeans they want to see Europe to grow into one country with one government and one political will. So national governments will be useless after that. What do you say about that? My opinion - this is crazy.

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

JohnFlint1985

The European Union is losing ground in its relationship with a resurgent Russia and should unite behind a new strategy to secure its interests with Moscow, a study by a new think-tank said on Wednesday.

The European Council on Foreign Relations report said Russia had become the EU's most divisive issue since former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld split "old" and "new" Europe in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.

Europe's 1990s strategy of trying to democratize and westernize a weak and indebted Russia is now in tatters and individual member states have undercut a joint approach by striking national deals with Moscow, it said.

"Today, it is the Kremlin that sets the agenda for EU-Russia relations, and it does so in a manner that increasingly defies the rules of the game," said former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, the ECFR's co-chairman.

Authors Mark Leonard and Nicu Popescu contend the EU should adopt a new long-term strategy of holding Russia to the rule of law and agree an early warning system for bilateral ties with Moscow to spare other European partners nasty surprises.

But while they argue the 27-nation bloc has lost leverage through disunity, the study does not explain why big European powers that have built close energy and business ties with Russia would now be willing to change that approach.

The report says the EU is divided between two dominant approaches to Russia -- either managing a perceived threat by a policy of "soft containment," or embracing a potential partner in a process of "creeping integration" into the European system.

It debunks the notion that this is an east-west split between tougher east Europeans, who lived under Moscow's shadow in the communist era, and more indulgent west Europeans.

The authors brand Greece and Cyprus "trojan horses," whose governments often defend positions close to Russian interests, while they call Poland and Lithuania "new Cold warriors," overtly hostile and willing to use their veto to block EU negotiations with Moscow.

But between those two extremes, they say there are several shades of behavior.

PRAGMATISTS

Germany, France, Italy and Spain are described as "strategic partners" that have built special bilateral relationships with the Kremlin, sometimes undercutting common EU objectives such as energy policy and relations with ex-Soviet eastern neighbors.

Ten small countries spanning east and west -- Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Portugal -- are "friendly pragmatists," who tend to put business before politics with Moscow.

A further nine states including both old and new members -- Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden and Romania -- are "frosty pragmatists," critical of Russia on human rights and democracy but still keen to do business with it.

The report says the EU should push for the implementation of all international agreements and standards to which Russia has committed itself and make Russia's participation in the Group of Eight conditional on its commitment to the rule of law.

The other major industrial nations should meet at lower level in the G7 format, without Russia, if Moscow does not cooperate, it says.

EU states should give the European Commission the right to pre-approve major energy deals and power to use EU competition regulations to investigate energy deals with Russia, it said.

The EU should also use its Neighborhood Policy to draw former Soviet states such as Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus towards Europe, it added.

glyn

[quote=JohnFlint1985;424169][quote=glyn;424131]
According to many Europeans they want to see Europe to grow into one country with one government and one political will. So national governments will be useless after that. What do you say about that? My opinion - this is crazy.

I don't know what the future will hold but I am willing to bet that each member country of the EU will insist on keeping their own traditions and identity. Membership of the EU is generally thought to be a good thing but I have never heard anybody express views that we should become one large country with a central government and integrated defence forces. Heaven forfend (says this raging atheist! )

JohnFlint1985

[quote=glyn;424249][quote=JohnFlint1985;424169]do you want to read entire forum full of these views? I can give you the link. I can bet - you will be frightened by it and mostly it is young people 20-30 years old.

astralis

feanor,

taking a quick look at your post, i see problems with 5, 6 (which are intimately connected, anyway). both of them can be true at some points in time, untrue at others.

a large population is not needed for a "good" (whatever that means) economy, yes. however, a large population can be extremely conducive to having a large economy. singapore, for example, has a world-class economy. however, due to its size, it simply cannot field the resources that japan or the US can.

if the russian population shrinks and worker productivity does not make up the loss, then the russian economy- and by default, the tax income of the russian government- will also shrink. which means that russia will not have the wherewithal to do what it used to be able to do.

in regards to "There is no relationship whatsoever between population size, population density, and economic performance. Any assertion to the contrary is just ignorant." actually, there is. i'll point out two.

there is the specter of TOO much population growth. chinese per capita GDP fell like mad in the 1700s-1800s because china underwent a population explosion (due to the import of New World foods and better hygenic practices). however, because economic efficiency didn't increase at the same rate, the chinese countryside became impoverished.

second, a large population/economy provides better buffers to the shocks of international trade. if the US decides not to pass a free-trade bill with, say, honduras, and loses $10 million as a result- few people are going to notice in a $13 trillion economy. a lot more people are going to notice that loss in a $22 billion economy.

regarding myth 6,

the long-term question is, do you see russian productivity and efficiency increasing at a rate fast enough to offset population loss? historically, world economic efficiency increases at roughly 1.5-2.5% a year, while this year russia had a population growth rate of -0.5%. also note that as nations become more technically efficient, efficiency growth decreases (as well as reproduction rates, connected with a higher per capita GDP).

right now the russian population is falling- and it's not because per capita GDP is high. population loss is only "good" if you're faced with the prospect of low increases in economic efficiency/productivity (ie the imperial china example above). if efficiency rates rise higher than population growth rates, then actually a falling population will do harm to the economy.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Feanor

Astralis if you read my previous post this was not written by me, and I do not agree with it. If Russia is to be a large and powerful nation then it needs a positive population growth.

ExNavyAmerican

JohnFlint;

It's been my distinct impression that Eastern Europe is much more friendly to America then Western Europe -and as the former is where America is aspiring to place its ABM systems, little else will matter. With the exception of Belarus, Eastern Europe (former USSR) would do much to offend Russia.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Feanor

Not quite the case. If we mean Ukraine, Baltics, or Poland, then yes. The rest of Eastern Europe isn't anti-Russian, it's just not pro-Russia.

JohnFlint1985

You are right about what you say. But as of now there are new tendency in EU which is turning or is going to turn into one centralized state. With very few exceptions. Western Europeans don't want to have American military presence in Europe and are waiting for the moment Chan this can happen. So it is not justabout the radar and interceptors. The whole NATO idea should be modified in my mind. As I said before Europe is becoming a liability.

Another scenario when we will base our presence only in Eastern Europe for example is also not good, since the pressure from more developed Nations of the western part will be unbearable on much more poor eastern neighbors. Europeans created as unified nationalism ideology today which is very hostile to Americans. In general and in detail. So in a context of big Geo political discussion we have over here - it is quickly becoming a liability for us.

But let me hear your thoughts on that - I would very much want to hear other people - you may have different opinions which I don't know. So at least we will have some sort of meaningful discussion.

Feanor

Any other large nation aspiring to the status of a global power will end up in direct conflict with U.S. interests. Even if externally they are friendly.

lwarmonger

I would assert that Eastern European (meaning former Warsaw Pact) nations have a more favorable view of the United States than they do of Russia though, especially with Russia attempting to re-establish its sphere of influence.

WhamBam

Though I am from a country that has always viewed former USSR and now Russia in friendly terms, I am not sure I would feel too friendly to the Russians if I were a East European. What with tanks in the streets, no personal liberty, police states, spy agencies monitoring citizens, iron curtain etc. I would have seen with envy the Western Europeans getting ahead and blamed it all on Russia.