EU issues Russian troop ultimatum (2nd Roundup)

George BSep 2nd, 2008 - 07:42:54

Hasn't Medvedev just remind you about remembering where you getting your oil supplies from??? Just keep talking and you'll be buying the US expensive one!

Report this comment

When winter comesSep 2nd, 2008 - 08:19:26

We will see who needs what from whom?

Well, let me explain. It is these 27 little snot nose countries from the so-called European Union that will soon need gas to heat their small homes for the winter.

It is NOT the insignificant EU that is in the position to make any demands.

It also looks silly trying to do the US' dirty work in Georgia.

But than the US is in NO position to do crap either, being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the middle of a presidential campaign and hurricanes making things difficult for its coastal populations.

I see Russia's position much better.

Rich in oil and gas. Having successfully nationalized those companies. Its weapons industries doing brisk business with China, India, Venezuela, Iran, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Central Asian countries.

From the brink of bankruptcy a decade ago to having nearly 500 billion dollars worth in foreign cash reserves, a large portion of it in US Treasury Bonds. That thanks to GWB who said that he could see in Putin's soul and saw him as a friend that he could trust.

I like Russia's chances.

Even more so because of close partnerships within the SCO. That would make economic sanctions by the EU and US against Russia ineffective.

I really like Russia's chances!

Report this comment

RussophileSep 2nd, 2008 - 13:04:20

What your article neglects to informs its readers about, is that fact that shutdown for maintenance of the Yamal pipeline was announced NINE months ago, and has been acknowledged as fact by the Europeans...not that acknowledgement by the Europeans is necessary, and the Russians announced that gas would be increased via other pipelines whilst this one is shut down. But hey, we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of an anti-Russian diatribe, would we?

Report this comment

BiancaSep 2nd, 2008 - 15:46:46

It is surprising to see such emotion-ridden, and reason-free articles in the Western press. Good example is the decision by EU to suspend the EU/Russia partnership talks. Keep in mind that these 'talks' were supposed to be happening for the last year and half. The chief obstacle to talks were differences among EU members on the approach. The pro-US group (Poland, Baltics) were pushing for US-favored outcome, that is, an agreement that would end up micro-managing EU countries and limiting bilateral economic ties. The outcome of the EU meeting is to effectively put an end to minority-driven demands on EU to regulate individual countries trade relations with Russia. The language is suprisingly positive, emphasizing the need for partnership. Some amount of bluster is expected, but there are zero impacts on the existing Russia-EU trade or relationships.

The article is also shortsighted, as it fails to observe the world reaction to this bluster. The bottom line is, EU and US need to re-examine their policies towards collective security. If the current trend towards isolationism continues, the world will have to come up with an alternative collective security structures. It may come as a surprise to many that the US/EU policies are isolationist, even though they have their interests worldwide. However, the definition of isolationism is based on the prevailing character of the alliance: consulting and negotiating only within their own club. The Western club of nations, calling themselves 'the international community' has for a long time developed into a 'mutual admiration society', that does not accept, consider or accomodate legitimate interests of others. Collective security, by contrast, involves all members of UN Security Council, understanding that there will be periodic vetos. Veto is a mechanism that insures that nobody threads on the interests of others, and that more work, more cooperation, or at time even more confrontation will happen, before the powers are ready for a compromise solution. This is the way compromises, and eventually better world, is made. Bush administration, and even Clinton administration before him, had persistently violated basic principles of 'first do no harm'. They have started many a hot-spot, and we are now staring to reap the fruits of such a world. Before we plunge into the truimphalism, again, it will be wise to rethink the idiocy that passes for the US foreign policy.

Report this comment