NationStates Jolt Archive

what will be the NATO in the near future?

Prolly about the same as it is now. A bunch of other countries asking the US for more money.

what will be the NATO in the near future?

SATO if the poles keep shifting. :D

Or even WATO in the far, far future

i consider it as useless now, has fulfilled its function.

cheers

i consider it as useless now, has fulfilled its function.

cheers
I agree.

so to be more explicit, what role do you people think the NATO will have?

obviusly directed to the guys that posted that it will be the same as Now :)

It'll be somewhat similar. As some British diplomat (can't remember the name) said, it is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". I don't think we need not to worry about the last goal. I still see Russia as a threat, for even though they're allies, the wave of nationalism and resentment for the West may work against our favor. The good news is that the battlelines are much further east now. The role of NATO in the foreseeable future is to act as an alliance to advance common security goals worldwide. In principle, European nations and the US have the same security goals: a peaceful Middle East, a stable Pacific region, and the end of Islamic extremism. Even though we disagree right now on those matters, it's important to keep NATO alive for, if nothing else, it can act as a common security forum.

I still see Russia as a threat, for even though they're allies, the wave of nationalism and resentment for the West may work against our favor. The good news is that the battlelines are much further east now. The role of NATO in the foreseeable future is to act as an alliance to advance common security goals worldwide. In principle, European nations and the US have the same security goals: a peaceful Middle East, a stable Pacific region, and the end of Islamic extremism. Even though we disagree right now on those matters, it's important to keep NATO alive for, if nothing else, it can act as a common security forum.
I don´t see Russia as a thread. That is a much too negative assessment. You actually got a lot of support from them since 9/11. And quite frankly spoken: Russia has no interest in an expansive China since it is potentially threatened by it. So you have in it an ally for that purpose as well.
It is however ever true that one never knows how a country develops. I consider it unlikely but still we should be weary. I mean you don´t get rid of the fire departement if you didn´t have a fire for a while. One of the reason to keep Nato. I also see some common interests in the Middle east. However as Nato decisions remain consensus it can only be used thus far all consent. And if there isn´t you need to act outside it.
I don´t see common interests in the Far East and the Asian Pacific region. Most european countries don´t care about it and have aside of economic interests no or little security interests over there. So, I assume how have to act there alone or with your regional allies Japan, Korea, and in future your possibly strategic partners Russia and India.

I don´t see Russia as a thread. That is a much too negative assessment. You actually got a lot of support from them since 9/11. And quite frankly spoken: Russia has no interest in an expansive China since it is potentially threatened by it. So you have in it an ally for that purpose as well.
It is however ever true that one never knows how a country develops. I consider it unlikely but still we should be weary. I mean you don´t get rid of the fire departement if you didn´t have a fire for a while. One of the reason to keep Nato. I also see some common interests in the Middle east. However as Nato decisions remain consensus it can only be used thus far all consent. And if there isn´t you need to act outside it.
You're right on that, that we can keep it around just in case. And I've also seen that, at least with the way some of your fellow countrymen have posted on NS, that there is a desire for a strong Germany again. I wouldn't mind it, but some of these same posters seem quite nationalists. I consider it a remote possibility that NATO will have to act on Germany, but dissolving NATO makes a resurgent and dangerous Germany all the more likely. No offense to you, of course, but I'm convinced that this should be why NATO should exist, if for no other reason at all.
I don´t see common interests in the Far East and the Asian Pacific region. Most european countries don´t care about it and have aside of economic interests no or little security interests over there. So, I assume how have to act there alone or with your regional allies Japan, Korea, and in future your possibly strategic partners Russia and India.
I don't quite see that yet. I'd feel that economic interests should be enough for Europeans to play some role in the region's security affairs. Europe has a lot of money invested in East Asia, moreso than anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the US and Latin America). War in this region would be extremely bad for the European economy.
Besides, an agressive China would be good for no one. China is making noises that it wishes to play in the Middle East. It is discussing building an oil refinery in Iran, and a small naval base to protect it. With their security policy being as agressiive as it is, this would not be good to have a new power player in the region.
Besides, China says it's developing space weapons. This may be noises just now, but if they do, that widens their sphere of influence dramatically. I think that, if nothing else, NATO should keep an eye on the region. Otherwise, you're right about US security interests being in the area.

You're right on that, that we can keep it around just in case. And I've also seen that, at least with the way some of your fellow countrymen have posted on NS, that there is a desire for a strong Germany again. I wouldn't mind it, but some of these same posters seem quite nationalists. I consider it a remote possibility that NATO will have to act on Germany, but dissolving NATO makes a resurgent and dangerous Germany all the more likely. No offense to you, of course, but I'm convinced that this should be why NATO should exist, if for no other reason at all..
Look to our military. 1,5% of the GDP as a defense spending. The US is actually begging Germany to do more for its defense. And those people who advocate such a policy are by the way pro-French. So it rather would be a Franco-German hegemony if you want to call it that way. But quite frankly spoken those guys here in the forum are against spending more for defense. So by all means: Germany can´t force anybody. There you should be more afraid of Russia. It has nationalism as well and the means to act. However the Russian leadership acts very reasonable (actually since Gorbatshov). So it would really be time not to see behind any Russian a threat. The same should be the case for Germans as well.
The US is actually a country which rather choses to include than to exclude: so you shouldn´t take over the European practise to hate other nationalities for things which happened 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago or even longer. But that is the way European politics works. And by the way: Eastern Europe and East Germany is much more nationalists. Communism has in a way preserved this attitude. There is a positive side on it: Patriotism. It were at the end the East Germans who pulled down the wall because of it. But it can have a negative side. A patriot is someone who loves his country a nationalists one who hates the countries of others. You should be weary about nationalism in the US as well. Some of the anti-French statements I´ve read here in the forum are quite irrational and exaggerated.


I don't quite see that yet. I'd feel that economic interests should be enough for Europeans to play some role in the region's security affairs. Europe has a lot of money invested in East Asia, moreso than anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the US and Latin America). War in this region would be extremely bad for the European economy.
Besides, an agressive China would be good for no one. China is making noises that it wishes to play in the Middle East. It is discussing building an oil refinery in Iran, and a small naval base to protect it. With their security policy being as agressiive as it is, this would not be good to have a new power player in the region.
So what! Should China be excluded from investment in that region??? Doesn´t fit in the concept of free trade the US traditionally stands for. By the way: in difference to Iraq German companies have a lot invested in Iran actually. And other European countries as well. That was done in the hope of the reform process and in order to have pipelines from Central Asia which don´t go through Russia in order not to become completly dependent on it. If the mission in Afghanistan is successful it would be possible to get around Iran for that matter. But we are years away from that. So a pre-emptive strike against Iran would mean even more trouble on the energy markets. I don´t think that to be a good idea right now. You should rather look whether it is possible to make a deal with them. That would make things easier in Iraq as well. Sometimes it is possible to negotiate. Unconditional surrender is not always a good strategy to go for in a conflict.

And regarding China: look you have the following countries concerned about the rise of China: Russia, India, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan. Aside your traditional allies you have improved your relationship with the others as well and you can do more in that direction. Being the only super power means to have world interests and to be active around the world. That is not the case for medium powers. And Germany belongs to that category.
Britain and France are sometimes playing world powers. But they aren´t really. And I doubt that even they would go for that. Even Britain didn´t actively supported you in Vietnam for example.

another joke in a giant political jokebook

Look to our military. 1,5% of the GDP as a defense spending. The US is actually begging Germany to do more for its defense. And those people who advocate such a policy are by the way pro-French. So it rather would be a Franco-German hegemony if you want to call it that way. But quite frankly spoken those guys here in the forum are against spending more for defense. So by all means: Germany can´t force anybody. There you should be more afraid of Russia. It has nationalism as well and the means to act. However the Russian leadership acts very reasonable (actually since Gorbatshov). So it would really be time not to see behind any Russian a threat. The same should be the case for Germans as well.
The US is actually a country which rather choses to include than to exclude: so you shouldn´t take over the European practise to hate other nationalities for things which happened 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago or even longer. But that is the way European politics works. And by the way: Eastern Europe and East Germany is much more nationalists. Communism has in a way preserved this attitude. There is a positive side on it: Patriotism. It were at the end the East Germans who pulled down the wall because of it. But it can have a negative side. A patriot is someone who loves his country a nationalists one who hates the countries of others. You should be weary about nationalism in the US as well. Some of the anti-French statements I´ve read here in the forum are quite irrational and exaggerated.



I knew you'd reassure me. It's not that I have anything against German nationalism, but it comes with a set of bad memories. Of course, since some of these same people don't like the US, it makes me shiver to think if one of them was elected Chancellor. But under NATO, a Fourth Reich would be impossible.
And I also have no problem against German defense buildups, especially now. Since the end of WWII, West Germany, and later unified Germany, has had the benefit of the US military defending it. There will still be some troops left in Germany after 2015, but nothing heavy. It wouldn't hurt if Germany spent more for defense. In fact, I wouldn't mind it should Germany decide to build a nuke or two.

I think it is the alternative answer to the UN. It should be to the UN as the IRA is to Sinn Fien, though less violent. In other words, it should be the military might and the UN is the political entity...in a perfect world.

I knew you'd reassure me. It's not that I have anything against German nationalism, but it comes with a set of bad memories. Of course, since some of these same people don't like the US, it makes me shiver to think if one of them was elected Chancellor. But under NATO, a Fourth Reich would be impossible.
We have a pretty good system of cheques and balances (other than during the first republic: that was really crap). So even a chancellor is less powerful in his position than for example a US president. Nobody would give one person so much power (well I know you have balances as well - but still it is a very powerful position).
Without parliament approval he can´t even sent troops to the ally Turkey.
And the traditional democratic parties are dominating the scene. There is not even a rigth-wing party anywere close the 5%-barrier. I know that people are weary about it especially about Germany. But if you are objective you see more such tendencies outside Germany but not in it (in difference to France: Front National 17%, short term success of the anti-muslim populists Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, natinalistic party success in Poland, nationalism in the Czech Republic (former prime minister suggested Israel the Czech solution (after 1945 - ethnic cleansing campaign on about 2 million germans who were force to leave) for the palestinian problem and also to some degree in Poland.
Germany lost after world war II a third of its territory. Just to make that clear: of the Versailles territory which only left German-populated arreas. Most to Poland. More than 12 million people were forced to leave their homes after 1945 due to the campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Soviets who moved Poland westward and pushing 4 million Poles out of the East Poland territories which they annected in 1939 due to the Hitler-Stalin-Pact.
This decision was by the way sanctioned by the Potsdam conference by the western powers Britain and the US in 1945.
If you take all those things into account it is still remarkable how well we get along. But it is of course a historic burden on all, especially on us but not only on us.
I don´t want in any way rewrite history. That was the aftermat of a war of agression, genocide, occupation and opression in a much bigger form. None the less: Two wrongs do not make a right. And it is therefore also important to recognise the suffering of the refugees - also by Poland and the Czech. That is important for a true reconciliation. As well as of course we have to adress and to recognise (which I believe we did and continue to do) the suffering of those countries. The communists rule has made reconciliation impossible due to a communists propaganda which also kept anti-german rhetoric (actually only against West Germany not against the "good" communists Germany. But anyway. We stand actually still at the begining of the reconciliation with the east - which has happened before with the west.



And I also have no problem against German defense buildups, especially now. Since the end of WWII, West Germany, and later unified Germany, has had the benefit of the US military defending it. There will still be some troops left in Germany after 2015, but nothing heavy. It wouldn't hurt if Germany spent more for defense. In fact, I wouldn't mind it should Germany decide to build a nuke or two.
The last one would be against international law and against the t 2+4-treaty which paved the way of reunification. And by the way: do you see that you contradict yourself. On the one hand you don´t want a Germany that is too strong on the other hand you say we should spent more on defense and even get nukes. You can not have it both ways.
Many people would -regardless of what we do - consider it wrong. We have to life with that just as you have to do so.
If you want to keep the binding you should never withdrawl all your troops. Otherwise it is going to weaken some day. But probably that process is inevitable and a historic necessity.
We are by the way closely bound into the EU. The US should support the EU. It is binding all the main powers: France, Germany, Italy and it also binds even in a way Britain. A policy which is designed to weaken the EU - and that is a policy of some in the US - would actually weaken this binding and could lead to a lot of damage. Therefore - quite frankly spoken - the policy of the US during the Iraq crisis to play on divisions in Europe should not be continued. It is a dangerous strategy as it is weakening the EU and causing fragmentations and splits. At the end there could be a division of Europe into a score-Europe led by France and Germany and East Europe and Britain siding with the US. That would be a dangerous development. It is true that we have a responsibility to prevent that. But you have a responsibility as well.
A policy which threatens to "punish France and to ignore Germany" (Condy Rice) is only deepening those divisions and if followed would rather push a development which can in the medium term lead to such a confrontation.
I don´t consider such a development likely. But that is theoretically possible. Germany is not going to go mad. It would never act alone after all the things that happened. But this score-Europe thing with France and a split among that line is a real danger. If you would really follow the development of Germany closely you would see that fears of Germany readopting a hegemonial policy alone is fictional. It would rather become junior partner of France, actually.

The role of NATO is for the US to try to hang onto some control over the Europe. Hopefully once Europe delves into the realms of a military as well as an economic alliance, NATO can be dissolved.

In fact, I wouldn't mind it should Germany decide to build a nuke or two.

aren't em forbidden by some international treaties?
(not sure about that)

We have a pretty good system of cheques and balances (other than during the first republic: that was really crap). So even a chancellor is less powerful in his position than for example a US president. Nobody would give one person so much power (well I know you have balances as well - but still it is a very powerful position).
Without parliament approval he can´t even sent troops to the ally Turkey.
And the traditional democratic parties are dominating the scene. There is not even a rigth-wing party anywere close the 5%-barrier. I know that people are weary about it especially about Germany. But if you are objective you see more such tendencies outside Germany but not in it (in difference to France: Front National 17%, short term success of the anti-muslim populists Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, natinalistic party success in Poland, nationalism in the Czech Republic (former prime minister suggested Israel the Czech solution (after 1945 - ethnic cleansing campaign on about 2 million germans who were force to leave) for the palestinian problem and also to some degree in Poland.
Germany lost after world war II a third of its territory. Just to make that clear: of the Versailles territory which only left German-populated arreas. Most to Poland. More than 12 million people were forced to leave their homes after 1945 due to the campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Soviets who moved Poland westward and pushing 4 million Poles out of the East Poland territories which they annected in 1939 due to the Hitler-Stalin-Pact.
This decision was by the way sanctioned by the Potsdam conference by the western powers Britain and the US in 1945.
If you take all those things into account it is still remarkable how well we get along. But it is of course a historic burden on all, especially on us but not only on us.
I don´t want in any way rewrite history. That was the aftermat of a war of agression, genocide, occupation and opression in a much bigger form. None the less: Two wrongs do not make a right. And it is therefore also important to recognise the suffering of the refugees - also by Poland and the Czech. That is important for a true reconciliation. As well as of course we have to adress and to recognise (which I believe we did and continue to do) the suffering of those countries. The communists rule has made reconciliation impossible due to a communists propaganda which also kept anti-german rhetoric (actually only against West Germany not against the "good" communists Germany. But anyway. We stand actually still at the begining of the reconciliation with the east - which has happened before with the west.
Agreed. I think Schroeder attending the ceremony for honoring those in the Warsaw Uprising was a good step in reconciliation.




I don't see myself as being contradicted at all. I want a Germany with a strong defense, but not an agressive Germany, or one that desires to establish a Fourth Reich.
Also, getting a nuke contradicts international law, but what does it mean these days? I think Germany can have nuclear weapons because it can use them responsibly. Besides, it'd free Germany from the US's nuclear umbrella, which I feel that it is in our best interest to let Europe wean off that.
[quote]If you want to keep the binding you should never withdrawl all your troops. Otherwise it is going to weaken some day. But probably that process is inevitable and a historic necessity.
Relax. Just the heavy ground forces are leaving. The air bases will still be open, and a Stryker brigade will be there.
We are by the way closely bound into the EU. The US should support the EU. It is binding all the main powers: France, Germany, Italy and it also binds even in a way Britain. A policy which is designed to weaken the EU - and that is a policy of some in the US - would actually weaken this binding and could lead to a lot of damage. Therefore - quite frankly spoken - the policy of the US during the Iraq crisis to play on divisions in Europe should not be continued. It is a dangerous strategy as it is weakening the EU and causing fragmentations and splits. At the end there could be a division of Europe into a score-Europe led by France and Germany and East Europe and Britain siding with the US. That would be a dangerous development. It is true that we have a responsibility to prevent that. But you have a responsibility as well.
A policy which threatens to "punish France and to ignore Germany" (Condy Rice) is only deepening those divisions and if followed would rather push a development which can in the medium term lead to such a confrontation.
I don´t consider such a development likely. But that is theoretically possible. Germany is not going to go mad. It would never act alone after all the things that happened. But this score-Europe thing with France and a split among that line is a real danger. If you would really follow the development of Germany closely you would see that fears of Germany readopting a hegemonial policy alone is fictional. It would rather become junior partner of France, actually.
All that shows is that the European continent can't expect cooperation yet, at least on foreign policy issues. Notice how Eastern Europe supported our actions more than the West. It just shows that the EU still has a way to go to synchronize its foreign policy.
But about France and Germany, you keep saying that "regime change" is likely in these two countries. If that's so, and the new governments in Paris and Berlin are willing to support the US, should rhetoric from the White House matter in the long term to the continent?

aren't em forbidden by some international treaties?
(not sure about that)
Probably the NPT. But who's following that nowadays?

aren't em forbidden by some international treaties?
(not sure about that)
Yes: First of all by the treaty which you signed as well: the non-proliferation treaty bans non nuclear powers from developing them. Except Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea (they declared they abandoned it last year) all countries have signed. Aside the 2+4-treaty for the German unification (shortly before with the four winning powers) includes a provision under which Germany declares not develop nukes.
Technically spoken it would be possible to ignore it and built nukes very soon. But such a breach of international law and declaring treaties as "just a sheet of paper" (or shit of paper) rather raminds of another time. That would really damage Germany in Europe and the world. Aside of the fact that public opinion here would be 90% against it.
There was a discussion about nukes in the end of the 1950s. Conservative defense secretary Strauss suggested nukes but that was rejected by wide public opinion which feared about a new militarisation. So the plan was abandoned and it is as dead as dead can be. Instead of that the US stationed nukes.
It would be a hypothetical question to speculate how that might have influenced German policy. Actually: it likely had made no difference. France went its policy of Gaullism with nukes (ok. without would not be possible) and Britain a transatlantic policy with nukes. Due to the necessities of the cold war and the divisions and the Berlin question Germany would have needed the US as much as without nukes. And waging a war wasn´t an option since it would have led to a nuclear holocaust.
Nukes are more or less a deterrent, which we not needed till now but who where of course a detterent for others.
That is more or less the case for all WMDs. Even Hitler didn´t use his biological and chemical weapons in the war against the allies. And they were such weapons - aside of the poison for the holocaust there were also WMDs.
But the fear of a reprisal lead to the decision not to use them.

I don't see myself as being contradicted at all. I want a Germany with a strong defense, but not an agressive Germany, or one that desires to establish a Fourth Reich.
Also, getting a nuke contradicts international law, but what does it mean these days? I think Germany can have nuclear weapons because it can use them responsibly. Besides, it'd free Germany from the US's nuclear umbrella, which I feel that it is in our best interest to let Europe wean off that.
Well, other countries are threatened with "regime change" if they develop WMDs. So such a policy would be seen as biased. And it would be biased. Aside of the fact that there is not the willingness in the political class to go that way: especially not to get nukes and not to spent much more on defense.

All that shows is that the European continent can't expect cooperation yet, at least on foreign policy issues. Notice how Eastern Europe supported our actions more than the West. It just shows that the EU still has a way to go to synchronize its foreign policy. Shure, we stand at the begining. But that makes this process were vulnerable. And the question is whether
a policy of divisions which is in the short term interests of the US is its long-term interests as it is undermining this process. And the US has after all to take more care about other parts of the world and can´t always look after Europe.
But about France and Germany, you keep saying that "regime change" is likely in these two countries. If that's so, and the new governments in Paris and Berlin are willing to support the US, should rhetoric from the White House matter in the long term to the continent?
The word "regime change" is a bit polemical. But I spoke about Germany not about France. Though I think that France would be a bit more flexible after that. And it wouldn´t mean that they would be ready to support it regardless of what you do. It would not mean a complete turn-around. The Iraq dispute has widened the Atlantic. The rhetoric has caused injuries on both sides. After all: they were from both sides not only directed against current governments but also against the nations.
And the other question is: was that just rhetoric? If it just was thats good. If not it isn´t. They are signs that it was just rhetoric.
But quite frankly spoken even Wolfgang Schäuble (foreign policy advisor of the CDU/CSU opposition and a staunch supporter of the US) made clear that Germany would not support a policy which would try to isolate or punish France. Becasue that would really lead to the break-up of all rivalries which were buried after World War II with the process of European integration. It would be very unwise to reopen them by playing them out and undermining this process.
Helmut Kohl said in the 1990s in his great wisdom. The European unification should be made irreversible (through the Euro - but other steps need to follow). "This is a question of peace and war in Europe."

That was seen as a great exaggeration at that time. But we have seen a lot of the older Europe (by the way also in East Europe) breaking out during this Iraq dispute. So: quite frankly spoken I think Helmut Kohl was and is completly right. Bringing Europe together (or not) is a question of peace and war in Europe in the 21 rst century.
Because otherwise we fall back in two blocks and those would be more vulnerable. Not that they really fight each other. I rather think about terrorism or potentially Russia which could try to play them against each other.

Well, other countries are threatened with "regime change" if they develop WMDs. So such a policy would be seen as biased. And it would be biased. Aside of the fact that there is not the willingness in the political class to go that way: especially not to get nukes and not to spent much more on defense.
So it's true: Germany is made of passifists. Okay, it was just a suggestion to develope nukes. I don't see it being a destabilizing factor for Europe, though. I guess that Germany can get away with a weak military, though. In addition to the US assets based in the country, Germany is geographically insulated from potential threats.
Shure, we stand at the begining. But that makes this process were vulnerable. And the question is whether
a policy of divisions which is in the short term interests of the US is its long-term interests as it is undermining this process. And the US has after all to take more care about other parts of the world and can´t always look after Europe.
That's true. Many in Europe complain that the US is treating the continent like children. With the EU underway, we can treat you like teens: you're independent, but your "parent" (the US) still has a major influence.
The word "regime change" is a bit polemical.
You've used it before.
But I spoke about Germany not about France. Though I think that France would be a bit more flexible after that. And it wouldn´t mean that they would be ready to support it regardless of what you do. It would not mean a complete turn-around. The Iraq dispute has widened the Atlantic. The rhetoric has caused injuries on both sides. After all: they were from both sides not only directed against current governments but also against the nations.
And the other question is: was that just rhetoric? If it just was thats good. If not it isn´t. They are signs that it was just rhetoric.
But quite frankly spoken even Wolfgang Schäuble (foreign policy advisor of the CDU/CSU opposition and a staunch supporter of the US) made clear that Germany would not support a policy which would try to isolate or punish France. Becasue that would really lead to the break-up of all rivalries which were buried after World War II with the process of European integration. It would be very unwise to reopen them by playing them out and undermining this process.
Helmut Kohl said in the 1990s in his great wisdom. The European unification should be made irreversible (through the Euro - but other steps need to follow). "This is a question of peace and war in Europe."

That was seen as a great exaggeration at that time. But we have seen a lot of the older Europe (by the way also in East Europe) breaking out during this Iraq dispute. So: quite frankly spoken I think Helmut Kohl was and is completly right. Bringing Europe together (or not) is a question of peace and war in Europe in the 21 rst century.
Because otherwise we fall back in two blocks and those would be more vulnerable. Not that they really fight each other. I rather think about terrorism or potentially Russia which could try to play them against each other.
We don't seek to isolate France in the long term. But if you look at our foreign policies, France and the US can't mix. France acts as if it has a right to decide policy for the whole EU, and has repeatedly warned Eastern Europe to "cooperate" with Paris. Of course, it also goes out of its way to undermine US efforts. This was proven in Istanbul, where they even refused to allow NATO to send more peacekeepers. Even though it did, thanks to France's actions, it was only a few additional battalions. I find it hard that the US CAN'T punish France.

bump

We don't seek to isolate France in the long term. But if you look at our foreign policies, France and the US can't mix. France acts as if it has a right to decide policy for the whole EU, and has repeatedly warned Eastern Europe to "cooperate" with Paris.

Being an European nation it has for sure more right than the US to do this, don't you think?

That's true. Many in Europe complain that the US is treating the continent like children. With the EU underway, we can treat you like teens: you're independent, but your "parent" (the US) still has a major influence.
If anything England is your parent. And France social services that took you away from them. Now the US is a overweight dislectic teenager with an abundance of hormons and adrenaline. Who thinks it has all the answers.



We don't seek to isolate France in the long term. But if you look at our foreign policies, France and the US can't mix. France acts as if it has a right to decide policy for the whole EU, and has repeatedly warned Eastern Europe to "cooperate" with Paris.
France warned them about cooperating with Paris?

Of course, it also goes out of its way to undermine US efforts. This was proven in Istanbul, where they even refused to allow NATO to send more peacekeepers. Even though it did, thanks to France's actions, it was only a few additional battalions. I find it hard that the US CAN'T punish France.
I find it hard to like the US for the way it's IIC (Idiot In Charge) blubbered his mouth about the EU needing give Turkey membership. F*ck off.

Being an European nation it has for sure more right than the US to do this, don't you think?
Of course it does. But Chirac didn't seem to be eager about inviting the new members in. It's almost as if he counts them as a liability.

If anything England is your parent. And France social services that took you away from them. Now the US is a overweight dislectic teenager with an abundance of hormons and adrenaline. Who thinks it has all the answers.
I meant that we're a parent in regards to how some Europeans percieve the US-European relationship. By using your logic, the US is the young adult, and Europe is the mother rotting away in a nursing home.


I find it hard to like the US for the way it's IIC (Idiot In Charge) blubbered his mouth about the EU needing give Turkey membership. F*ck off.
And I find it hard to accept that France didn't want NATO to send more peacekeepers to Afghanistan, even if it meant that their troops didn't have to go.

Of course it does. But Chirac didn't seem to be eager about inviting the new members in. It's almost as if he counts them as a liability.

maybe this isn't a bad course of action.
the EU needs more stability before allowing new members, at the moment.

and that's also the US bet, more Nations joins the EU the longer (and hopefully harder) will be to have a coordinated EU.

Another question, if Switzerland will push the US to bring into their nation The Ecuador, or Ghambia, or Laos... what do you will think?

cheers
Ps: (choosed random nations)

By using your logic, the US is the young adult, and Europe is the mother rotting away in a nursing home.
By using my logic Europe is the adult(choose gender) who after years of mistreatment by it's unwanted stepchildren the USA and USSR, finally is starting to get well again. One of the stepchildren had a stroke (USSR). But the other stepchild, USA, wants to speed up it's demise, Turkey, so they can have their way with the corpse.

By using my logic Europe is the adult(choose gender) who after years of mistreatment by it's unwanted stepchildren the USA and USSR, finally is starting to get well again. One of the stepchildren had a stroke (USSR). But the other stepchild, USA, wants to speed up it's demise, Turkey, so they can have their way with the corpse.
So you think that Europe is a pawn on the international stage?

maybe this isn't a bad course of action.
the EU needs more stability before allowing new members, at the moment.

and that's also the US bet, more Nations joins the EU the longer (and hopefully harder) will be to have a coordinated EU.

Another question, if Switzerland will push the US to bring into their nation The Ecuador, or Ghambia, or Laos... what do you will think?

cheers
Ps: (choosed random nations)
I'd be enthralled. It means that a liberal economic system can be implemented, and the expansion of both manufacturing jobs, and a marketplace for goods. If Eastern Europe doesn't get to the same economic level as the West in a couple generations, it should be even sooner. I find that annexation can be a good thing. In fact, I'm on the verge of thinking that imperialism wasn't as bad as some on here make it sound.

So you think that Europe is a pawn on the international stage?
Thats at least what the US is trying to turn Europe into IMO.

Thats at least what the US is trying to turn Europe into IMO.
You're less of one than twenty years ago, when the Soviet Union was around.

You're less of one than twenty years ago, when the Soviet Union was around.
:confused: What? :confused:

:confused: What? :confused:
Yep. Twenty years ago, it was nearly impossible for Western Europe to escape US influence. The continent was utterly dependent on us economically and militarily.

Yep. Twenty years ago, it was nearly impossible for Western Europe to escape US influence. The continent was utterly dependent on us economically and militarily.
I meant this.
You're less of one than twenty years ago

And beeing utterly dependent economicly is realy stretching it.

I meant this.


And beeing utterly dependent economicly is realy stretching it.
Not exactly. There was the Marshall Plan, which provided money for rebuilding Europe. From WWI until at least the early eighties, Europe relied on American banks to loan them money. It is why the Great Depression happened in Europe, because American banks had no money to loan. And it helped keep the European economy stable during the stagflation of the late seventies. Nowadays, Europe is loaning us money. It tells us that we've succeeded.

So it's true: Germany is made of passifists. Okay, it was just a suggestion to develope nukes. I don't see it being a destabilizing factor for Europe, though. I guess that Germany can get away with a weak military, though. In addition to the US assets based in the country, Germany is geographically insulated from potential threats. >.
First of all, Germany is not pacifist as you could have seen during the Kosovo war, where a majority of the public supported. Though pacifist tendencies are certainly much more strong than in the us. And quite frankly spoken: Is that a bad thing for a country with such a history?
Germany bases its foreign policy on two pillars (since the 1950): European integration (economical: foundation of the EEC in 1957 with France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg- the german-french deal was the key for founding the EEC (today EU): European integration DOESN`T work without close relations between Germany and France) and the alliance with France (1963 Elysee treaty) and in the defense field the transatlantic partnership with the US (1955 membership in Nato). But of course: we also have a lot of business with the US and some cooperation with France in the military field.
So: we have a double-binding. That was the strategy of the first chancellor Konrad Adanauer (1949-63) who made all those treaties. And that is the way German foreign policy follows since them (well, till 2002).
However there were disputes in the 1960s within the ruling conservative party which should be considered more important. After all: France under de Gaulle left the integrated military structure of Nato but remained a member of it. The discussion was whether Germany should side with France or the US. The supporters of the US were called the "Atlantics" the supporters of the French the "Gaullists". Former chancellor Konrad Adenauer called the discussion nonsense. European integration and transatlantic partnership are two sides of one coin. Besides of the fact that the dual binding gives Germany more room to manoveur. It is like two legs. You can better walk with two than with one, hehehe. Well: that was also the policy Germany followed till 2002. And since then the discussion has broken out again between the Atlantics and the Gaullists: also within the opposition. But also within the government there was some criticism: not on the decision not to participate on the mission in Iraq but on the confrontative policy at the UN.>.[/QUOTE]



That's true. Many in Europe complain that the US is treating the continent like children. With the EU underway, we can treat you like teens: you're independent, but your "parent" (the US) still has a major influence..>.
Historically spoken Europe is the parent of the US and you are the children. Though: shure you are currently in the stronger position. And you should more diplomatic understandig for Europe. After all: Parents have also to understand their "children", especially when they are in a certain age and to encourage them to build up there on life and to "grow up". So, the US should suppport European integration and not sabotage it. A weak Europe is not in the US interests, since it is more vulnerable to terrorists blackmail and potentially to Russia (which could try to play the countries against each other). The US has interests in other parts of the world. So you are not able to keep as much troops as today and to take care about Europe as much. So, you have to encourage the continent to take more care about itself. But this is only possible with European integration.
The fact that the US played on divisions in Europe has caused also bad blood and led to the rise of anti-americanism. After all: people here are stupid. They see that. I don´t think this policy is in the long-term interests of the US, because you need a stronger Europe. A weak and divided Europe which is more vulnerable to terrorism and Russia playing the camps against each other and a decreased US presence in the short and medium-term (because you have to take care about other regions: Middle East, East Asia) can be the result of this development.
After all. There are also two schools in the US regarding European integration. The one support it seeing it in the long-term interests of the US the other reject because they fear that it would become a rival and enemy of the US. If you look to Europe you can cleary see that a CFSP (common foreign and defense policy) WOULD NEVER FOLLOW the french position. It would also not completly follow the British though. It would be between those two extremes. Well: like the German policy till 2002 and the Italian policy till 2002. I know that it is not the optimal thing for the US. But too asume it could ever follow completly the British line is unrealistic. And given the other option which would be a divided and weak Europe, vulnerable to terrorism and Russian blackmail (because if Europe is divided Russia could be encouraged to play on those divisions) is certainly a much worse alternative.




We don't seek to isolate France in the long term. But if you look at our foreign policies, France and the US can't mix. France acts as if it has a right to decide policy for the whole EU, and has repeatedly warned Eastern Europe to "cooperate" with Paris. .
And Britain and Poland tried the opposite. For example Poland tried to push for the Polish-German-Denish bataillion going to Iraq against the will of the German government. The result of the Iraq disupute shows that noone can force the other side. And that is what the Iraq dispute shows.

Of course, it also goes out of its way to undermine US efforts. This was proven in Istanbul, where they even refused to allow NATO to send more peacekeepers. Even though it did, thanks to France's actions, it was only a few additional battalions. I find it hard that the US CAN'T punish France.
Because it would be stupid to do that. Nato requires consensus. If you don´t have it why don´t you act outside it?
I like actually the philosophy which says "coalition of the willing". Noone is forced to participate. You shouldn´t try to force unwilling countries into it. Actually the fact that European countries participate in the mission against the will of the majority of the population is causing much mischief. I have an Austrian friend who is a huge supporter of US foreign policy and also for regime change in Iran and Syria. But he rejects that continental European countries participate in it because he thinks that that is only leading to mischief since there is no public support (not even in Poland or Italy) for this policy. Just think for a moment President Bush would go to war against the will of 70-90% of the US population?
So, you can´t be shure of those allies. It is causing mischief and anti-americanism that you invite them to Iraq. Aside of the fact that it costs you money: The East Europeans don´t have money too make a big contribution. They have even problems with their small contribution. As a matter of fact: the US pays Poland and others for the deployment. What sense those that make? What sense those it make to have 10 Estonians (or 50) or a few hundred Mongolians in Iraq????
Isn´t much of a help and costs you more than when you sent your own troops. Aside of the coordination problems.
So: why not going completly unilateral or just with Britain and a few others instead of this ridiculous 45 countries umbrella under which most don´t contribute combat troops (and only give symbolic support or non-combat troops in ridiculous numbers and in many cases you even have to pay for that)?

Not exactly. There was the Marshall Plan, which provided money for rebuilding Europe. From WWI until at least the early eighties, Europe relied on American banks to loan them money. It is why the Great Depression happened in Europe, because American banks had no money to loan. And it helped keep the European economy stable during the stagflation of the late seventies. Nowadays, Europe is loaning us money. It tells us that we've succeeded.

Which great depression are you referring to? Marshall Aid started in 1948 after the Second World War, so it had nothing to do with the Great Depression in the 1930s. Incidentally, many European countries suffered far less than the USA during this time.

Don't forget, not all European countries took any Marshall Aid anyway, for instance Finland did not receive any, despite fighting two wars against the Russians during the period, in fact their rapid post-war economic growth in Finland was inspired by having to grow their industrial sector to be able to pay reperations insisted on by the Russians as a condition of peace. (The Finns were the only country to fully pay their war reperations).

How does Europe loaning you money tell you you have succeeded? Doesn't it point to Bush's loony tax cuts (not for the poor, but for the rich) devastating the positive budget surplus that was the legacy of President Clinton.

bump

Which great depression are you referring to? Marshall Aid started in 1948 after the Second World War, so it had nothing to do with the Great Depression in the 1930s. Incidentally, many European countries suffered far less than the USA during this time.
Like you said, American aid never reached Finland, and so it was unaffected. Scandanavia in general never recieved that much money from the US at all. Anyhow, I'm referring to the Great Depression of the 1930s. You guys in Scandanavia rode it out fine. However, it caused a massive financial crisis elsewhere in Europe, and helped give rise to Hitler.


How does Europe loaning you money tell you you have succeeded? Doesn't it point to Bush's loony tax cuts (not for the poor, but for the rich) devastating the positive budget surplus that was the legacy of President Clinton.
It tells us we've succeeded because all of the extensive loans, aid packages, and military protection has worked. Europe has become very prosperous, to the point of reclaiming its financial title of the 19th century: international money-lender.

First of all, Germany is not pacifist as you could have seen during the Kosovo war, where a majority of the public supported. Though pacifist tendencies are certainly much more strong than in the us. And quite frankly spoken: Is that a bad thing for a country with such a history?
Germany bases its foreign policy on two pillars (since the 1950): European integration (economical: foundation of the EEC in 1957 with France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg- the german-french deal was the key for founding the EEC (today EU): European integration DOESN`T work without close relations between Germany and France) and the alliance with France (1963 Elysee treaty) and in the defense field the transatlantic partnership with the US (1955 membership in Nato). But of course: we also have a lot of business with the US and some cooperation with France in the military field.
So: we have a double-binding. That was the strategy of the first chancellor Konrad Adanauer (1949-63) who made all those treaties. And that is the way German foreign policy follows since them (well, till 2002).
However there were disputes in the 1960s within the ruling conservative party which should be considered more important. After all: France under de Gaulle left the integrated military structure of Nato but remained a member of it. The discussion was whether Germany should side with France or the US. The supporters of the US were called the "Atlantics" the supporters of the French the "Gaullists". Former chancellor Konrad Adenauer called the discussion nonsense. European integration and transatlantic partnership are two sides of one coin. Besides of the fact that the dual binding gives Germany more room to manoveur. It is like two legs. You can better walk with two than with one, hehehe. Well: that was also the policy Germany followed till 2002. And since then the discussion has broken out again between the Atlantics and the Gaullists: also within the opposition. But also within the government there was some criticism: not on the decision not to participate on the mission in Iraq but on the confrontative policy at the UN.>.
I was just saying how most German people are passificsts. The government can't be as passifiscst on many issues because they are more knowledgeble on how certain situations affect security.

Historically spoken Europe is the parent of the US and you are the children. Though: shure you are currently in the stronger position. And you should more diplomatic understandig for Europe. After all: Parents have also to understand their "children", especially when they are in a certain age and to encourage them to build up there on life and to "grow up". So, the US should suppport European integration and not sabotage it. A weak Europe is not in the US interests, since it is more vulnerable to terrorists blackmail and potentially to Russia (which could try to play the countries against each other). The US has interests in other parts of the world. So you are not able to keep as much troops as today and to take care about Europe as much. So, you have to encourage the continent to take more care about itself. But this is only possible with European integration.
The fact that the US played on divisions in Europe has caused also bad blood and led to the rise of anti-americanism. After all: people here are stupid. They see that. I don´t think this policy is in the long-term interests of the US, because you need a stronger Europe. A weak and divided Europe which is more vulnerable to terrorism and Russia playing the camps against each other and a decreased US presence in the short and medium-term (because you have to take care about other regions: Middle East, East Asia) can be the result of this development.
After all. There are also two schools in the US regarding European integration. The one support it seeing it in the long-term interests of the US the other reject because they fear that it would become a rival and enemy of the US. If you look to Europe you can cleary see that a CFSP (common foreign and defense policy) WOULD NEVER FOLLOW the french position. It would also not completly follow the British though. It would be between those two extremes. Well: like the German policy till 2002 and the Italian policy till 2002. I know that it is not the optimal thing for the US. But too asume it could ever follow completly the British line is unrealistic. And given the other option which would be a divided and weak Europe, vulnerable to terrorism and Russian blackmail (because if Europe is divided Russia could be encouraged to play on those divisions) is certainly a much worse alternative.
However, I see the US position as being that Europe isn't ready for full intergration. Economically, yes. Europe has enough financial resources to admit a poor nation like Senegal as a country, and economically, you guys no longer need any assistance should you do that. But in security, I don't think the continent is ready. For one, there's the language issue. I see you have fluent English (better than I can. I'm not fluent in anything yet:D). However, do most Germans know English? Do most English know German? It was a problem faced with the Italian army in both World Wars that made them irrelevant militarily: translators were needed just for a Sicilian to speak to a Venetian.
The other is political. Work on political intergration first before security. Remember, the Continent Army during our Revolution didn't come before the Continental Congress.
Don’t get me wrong, Europe has been trying very hard to have a united policy, and whether or not you guys choose to admit Turkey, Bulgaria, or Romania, the big wave of admissions is probably over, making this a downhill battle. But Europe has a lot of deep divisions on a lot. Not just East-West divisions, but the UK and continent divisions, government/people divisions. Europe has historically been the most divided continent to have ever been on God’s green earth. I do not feel that you guys should all be singing “kumbaya” tommarow. You’re getting closer, but I feel, and the US government feels, that Europe isn’t ready yet for a completely intergrated defense system.
As for US troops, I’m actually surprised at how little are withdrawing from Germany. It’s mostly just two army divisions. There’s a light brigade that’ll replace them, and most of the airbases will remain open. Besides, some troops will go to Eastern Europe. If you’re worried about Russian encroachment, Germany won’t be at the front lines of an international rivalry again. The lines will definitely be much further East.



And Britain and Poland tried the opposite. For example Poland tried to push for the Polish-German-Denish bataillion going to Iraq against the will of the German government. The result of the Iraq disupute shows that noone can force the other side. And that is what the Iraq dispute shows.
I’m beginning to think that invading Iraq saved Europe from itself. It showed the EU’s critical faults, and what needs repairing.

Because it would be stupid to do that. Nato requires consensus. If you don´t have it why don´t you act outside it?
I like actually the philosophy which says "coalition of the willing". Noone is forced to participate. You shouldn´t try to force unwilling countries into it. Actually the fact that European countries participate in the mission against the will of the majority of the population is causing much mischief. I have an Austrian friend who is a huge supporter of US foreign policy and also for regime change in Iran and Syria. But he rejects that continental European countries participate in it because he thinks that that is only leading to mischief since there is no public support (not even in Poland or Italy) for this policy. Just think for a moment President Bush would go to war against the will of 70-90% of the US population?
So, you can´t be shure of those allies. It is causing mischief and anti-americanism that you invite them to Iraq. Aside of the fact that it costs you money: The East Europeans don´t have money too make a big contribution. They have even problems with their small contribution. As a matter of fact: the US pays Poland and others for the deployment. What sense those that make? What sense those it make to have 10 Estonians (or 50) or a few hundred Mongolians in Iraq????
Isn´t much of a help and costs you more than when you sent your own troops. Aside of the coordination problems.
So: why not going completly unilateral or just with Britain and a few others instead of this ridiculous 45 countries umbrella under which most don´t contribute combat troops (and only give symbolic support or non-combat troops in ridiculous numbers and in many cases you even have to pay for that)?
We have been going unilaterally on many issues. I feel that, in fact, the US prefers unilateral action. Whatever the policy of NATO is has no affect on us. Remember, it was only NATO troops in dispute for sending to Afghanistan. More American troops can be sent there anytime, and all it takes is the president’s approval.
However, NATO is something to be cherished. It is the greatest (and most important) bond of the trans-Atlantic relationship. And that’s the point of this thread: our best chance of preserving the relationship is to give NATO something to do. France, it seems, wants to do everything in its power to undermine this relationship, including taking NATO by the balls, and making sure that it never breathes again. I’m sorry, Kybernetia, but I just can’t see how France can be expected to act like this, and yet not expect consequences. It’s obvious that France and the US are like lovers angry at eachother. We disagree to the point of breaking up. It seems, however, that with all of her feminine rage, France wishes to bitch-slap the US. That is very dangerous for the future of Europe.

However, I see the US position as being that Europe isn't ready for full intergration. Economically, yes. Europe has enough financial resources to admit a poor nation like Senegal as a country, and economically, you guys no longer need any assistance should you do that. But in security, I don't think the continent is ready. For one, there's the language issue. I see you have fluent English (better than I can. I'm not fluent in anything yet:D). However, do most Germans know English? Do most English know German? It was a problem faced with the Italian army in both World Wars that made them irrelevant militarily: translators were needed just for a Sicilian to speak to a Venetian.
Well: from the 16 th to the 19 th century French was the lingua franca on the continent spoken by the upper class (aristocrats) aside their native language. That was the case in St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, e.g.
Today English has become in this position. Not just in Europe but worldwide. Especially in smaller countries people are very eager to learn other languages. Well they have to. But also in Germany taking English at school is mandatory for six years. And you have to take a second language as well (which traditionally is Latin or French (however today sometimes also with other options) as well. And one of those languages you have to continue till the end of your school education. So if you go for a high school degree you have to learn one language for 8 years (and you can also have two languages for that time). Usually people chose English for the longer period. French is on the decline.
Even in France more and more people are learning English. I can say that it is on the increase since the end of the 1990s. The French were intrasigent very long in that respect but they realize that there is no other way around. Also in South Europe it is on the increase. And in Scandinavia people and in the Netherlands people are traditionally good at foreign languages. In Central East Europe (the new members) English is also the first foreign language (while Russian is disappearing). And the second foreign language in that region is German by the way.






The other is political. Work on political intergration first before security. Remember, the Continent Army during our Revolution didn't come before the Continental Congress.
Don’t get me wrong, Europe has been trying very hard to have a united policy, and whether or not you guys choose to admit Turkey, Bulgaria, or Romania, the big wave of admissions is probably over, making this a downhill battle. .
Well: There were discussions about a step-by step enlargement or the "big bang". 12 countries were on the lists. And it was disussed whether to do it in two or three steps (like the six most advanced first). The decision however was to go for the "big bang". So this year 10 countries joined. Only two are left out: Romenia and Bulgaria. Croatia has also made progress. So the EU started negotiations with them as well. Historically Croatia and Germany have very good relations. We were the first country - together with Austria - recognising their independence.
So I assume that till the end of this decade the EU is going to grow a little bit: from 25 to 28 members. But then it really needs a period of consolidation. If you look to its history you can see that it had consolidation periods before. There were several waves of enlargements (1973 Britain, Denmark, 1986 Spain and Portugal, 1995 Austria, Sweden, Finland and 2004 the ten new members). So I really think that we need a decade for consolidating that before we consider to take new members. After all: the potential candidates in the balcans really need to be stabilized first before that can be taken into account.




But Europe has a lot of deep divisions on a lot. Not just East-West divisions, but the UK and continent divisions, government/people divisions. Europe has historically been the most divided continent to have ever been on God’s green earth.
It probably was in the past. But the most divided region in the world of today is really the Middle East.

You’re getting closer, but I feel, and the US government feels, that Europe isn’t ready yet for a completely intergrated defense system.
Europe was actually close to that at the end of the 1950s. It were the stupid French who missed that opportunity.

As for US troops, I’m actually surprised at how little are withdrawing from Germany. It’s mostly just two army divisions. There’s a light brigade that’ll replace them, and most of the airbases will remain open..Well: it are after all about half of the troops. But I´m not concerned about it since there is still a significant portion remaining. After all: the cold war is over when several hundred thousand american troops were in Germany. So it is only natural that the US reduces its presence. That also happened during the 1990s.


If you’re worried about Russian encroachment, Germany won’t be at the front lines of an international rivalry again. The lines will definitely be much further East.
That is true and we know that. That´s why Germany is today of course in a much more comfortable position than during the Cold war.



I’m beginning to think that invading Iraq saved Europe from itself. It showed the EU’s critical faults, and what needs repairing.
There is a truth in that: But are you really interested that we repair it?

However, NATO is something to be cherished. It is the greatest (and most important) bond of the trans-Atlantic relationship. And that’s the point of this thread: our best chance of preserving the relationship is to give NATO something to do.
Exactly that is the problem. There are disputes about the future role of Nato. Not just in France by the way.
So they may be situation where it can be used and where it can´t be used. There is no point in pushing it somehow. That is only creating mischief in Europe.

It’s obvious that France and the US are like lovers angry at eachother. We disagree to the point of breaking up. It seems, however, that with all of her feminine rage, France wishes to bitch-slap the US. That is very dangerous for the future of Europe.
What is new about that? That is the situation since the 1960s. However it never broke. There are still common interests even between the US and France. Not only in Afghanistan but also on the Balcans or even Haiti.
Therefore braking up is not such a good idea from a rational perspective.
And after all: that would divide Europe even more and create much mischief on the continent.

i consider it as useless now, has fulfilled its function.
ditto

Well: from the 16 th to the 19 th century French was the lingua franca on the continent spoken by the upper class (aristocrats) aside their native language. That was the case in St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, e.g.
Today English has become in this position. Not just in Europe but worldwide. Especially in smaller countries people are very eager to learn other languages. Well they have to. But also in Germany taking English at school is mandatory for six years. And you have to take a second language as well (which traditionally is Latin or French (however today sometimes also with other options) as well. And one of those languages you have to continue till the end of your school education. So if you go for a high school degree you have to learn one language for 8 years (and you can also have two languages for that time). Usually people chose English for the longer period. French is on the decline.
Even in France more and more people are learning English. I can say that it is on the increase since the end of the 1990s. The French were intrasigent very long in that respect but they realize that there is no other way around. Also in South Europe it is on the increase. And in Scandinavia people and in the Netherlands people are traditionally good at foreign languages. In Central East Europe (the new members) English is also the first foreign language (while Russian is disappearing). And the second foreign language in that region is German by the way.
Good start. I assume that's where you learned your English. Too bad they don't do that in American schools. However, most colleges do now require you to know one language before you get your bachelor's degree.





Well: There were discussions about a step-by step enlargement or the "big bang". 12 countries were on the lists. And it was disussed whether to do it in two or three steps (like the six most advanced first). The decision however was to go for the "big bang". So this year 10 countries joined. Only two are left out: Romenia and Bulgaria. Croatia has also made progress. So the EU started negotiations with them as well. Historically Croatia and Germany have very good relations. We were the first country - together with Austria - recognising their independence.
So I assume that till the end of this decade the EU is going to grow a little bit: from 25 to 28 members. But then it really needs a period of consolidation. If you look to its history you can see that it had consolidation periods before. There were several waves of enlargements (1973 Britain, Denmark, 1986 Spain and Portugal, 1995 Austria, Sweden, Finland and 2004 the ten new members). So I really think that we need a decade for consolidating that before we consider to take new members. After all: the potential candidates in the balcans really need to be stabilized first before that can be taken into account.
Asside the Balkan states and the others you mentioned, who else can be added? I think the EU has most of the countries in Europe. The only other two I can think of that may join are Norway and Iceland, but they'd be easy to absorb, I'd think. After all, both countries have small populations.




There is a truth in that: But are you really interested that we repair it?
In the long term, we should be. If thirty countries share a common economy (and perhaps military) and then expect to work with eachother, yet they can't, it'd lead to weakness. It'd be the same as if Virginia and New York had a major dispute. As two separate countries, it might be safe to continue it, but not when they are in a close union. I choose that, btw, because under the Articles of Confederation (when the states were really their own countries) New York and Virginia had a major land dispute. Anyhow, such a deep disagreement could lead to weakness, and as we've seen many times in the past, Europe is an easy target when it is rich, but weak. Ask the Vikings.

Asside the Balkan states and the others you mentioned, who else can be added? I think the EU has most of the countries in Europe. The only other two I can think of that may join are Norway and Iceland, but they'd be easy to absorb, I'd think. After all, both countries have small populations.
Switzerland.

Switzerland.
Doubt it. They are fiercely independent and neutral.

Being the only super power means to have world interests and to be active around the world.

You know, you are one of the few people sensible enough to understand that. You have my respect.

Switzerland.

Impossible. They have a strict neutrality policy, which they will not break for any reason. They stayed neutral even when Hitler was rampaging through the countryside. Besides, they have an excellent economy as it is. Not to mention that their military is fully capable of taking care of itself.

Asside the Balkan states and the others you mentioned, who else can be added? I think the EU has most of the countries in Europe. The only other two I can think of that may join are Norway and Iceland, but they'd be easy to absorb, I'd think. After all, both countries have small populations.
Probably in a hundred years Switzerland, hehe. Well, seriously. The EU is an union of European nations. Its called the European Union and should be open to all European nations. Russia wouldn´t fit in it, for example. It is an European and an Asian country. That doesn´t mean that we can´t cooperate with it but it just would not fit in it.
You already mentioned some countries who could be added in the future. In the long-run also the Balcanic countries if they are stabilized (Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania) and the Ukraine. Turkey is a disputed case - but that is to be resolved in the long-term (whether to give them a full membership or a "Priviliged partnership"). In 15-20 years we probably konw that.
But that would be it. The EU can´t expand indefinately. After all: the EU only works because it is NOT THE UN - which includes almost all nations of the world.
To bring about 30 nations (or a bit more) under one umbrella is difficult enough. There are limits to that.




In the long term, we should be. If thirty countries share a common economy (and perhaps military) and then expect to work with eachother, yet they can't, it'd lead to weakness. It'd be the same as if Virginia and New York had a major dispute. As two separate countries, it might be safe to continue it, but not when they are in a close union. I choose that, btw, because under the Articles of Confederation (when the states were really their own countries) New York and Virginia had a major land dispute. Anyhow, such a deep disagreement could lead to weakness, and as we've seen many times in the past, Europe is an easy target when it is rich, but weak. Ask the Vikings.True: and then the Francs - a germanic tribe - united huge parts of Central and Western Europe. So it wasn´t weak anymore. I just say Charlemane. The Franc Empire fall apart in 843 and was divided between the the grandsons of him: The Western Franc Empire later became France, the Eastern Franc Empire Germany (from the 10 th century onward it was not called East Franc Empire but rex teutonicorum or rex teutonicum (as found on old coins)- old german: Teuschland - today: Deutschland (Germany) and the Middle part was given to Lothar (Lorraine) and later was disputed between the two.
The crown of the "Holy Roman Empire" which Charlemane was given by the pope went to the Eastern part and remained there on paper till 1806 when Napoleon took it away and crowned himself as emperor. So, you see the basis for the arch-enemieship between France and Germany and how important it is for Europe that both countries work together. The Franco-German partnership can´t be the only basis for Europe - but without it it would fall apart completly.
The Federal Republic of Germany (founded 1949) follows a foreign policy of the so-called double-binding: meaning having good relations with the US and France. That was a very succesfull strategy, though it is sometimes very difficult. The government went to close to France durig the Iraq dispute - that is what I criticize. Though afterwards it took steps back to our traditional position. For example it negotiated in the UN between the US and France so that you could reach a compromise on the various Iraq resolutions. Also within Nato the government doesn´t support the french veto strategy (it wants to abstain - which wouldn´t block any decision) and it supports the training of the Iraqi army and the police in the UAE. So I personally see even our government finally talking steps in the right direction. Germany has its own foreign policy strategy: and that is not identical with Britain, so you can´t expect the same from us.
By the way: when the decision for the Euro was made in 1993 there was a big discussion in Germany whether it is right to do that without a closer political union. After all: having one currency requires more coordination of the economic and fiscal policy. That was partly established via the ECOFIN-council (council of finance ministers) and the stability pact. The other argument was that an economic union would actually create an development which in the long-run leads to a political union. Chancellor Kohl saw the Euro as the step which makes the European integration irreversible.
It is interesting if you go back into German history. The economic union (customs union 1834) was first. The political union came later (1866 North-German Federation, 1871 unification - and that was the so-called Second Empire (Reich by the way means Empire).
The economy is usually more advanced and progressive then the politics, which is lacking behind. Well: that was a fact Karl Marx pointed out correctly in 1848. Though he completly jumped to wrong conclusions from that point onward.

Impossible. They have a strict neutrality policy, which they will not break for any reason. They stayed neutral even when Hitler was rampaging through the countryside. Besides, they have an excellent economy as it is. Not to mention that their military is fully capable of taking care of itself.
Well: you miss certain things. Switzerland is surrounded by the EU. So it has to be in good relations to it and it already had to make some concessions to it (especially regarding the capital gains taxation). The US by the way is using its position to make shure that American nationals pay the capital gains tax even if they have accounts in Switzerland. Up until now that isn´t possible for EU nations. However Switzerland had to agree to tax those accounts with 15% from 2005 onward and has to increase the capital gains tax for EU nationals to 35% till the year 2010. 80% of the revenues have to be transferred to the home nation of the investor.
Currently Switzerland doesn´t tax EU nationals at all - and due to the bank secret they can avoid the tax. Of course that is illegal but Switzerland doesn´t see avoiding capital gains tax as an illegal thing. And so it is impossible to get those people. The compromise between the EU and Switzerland garantees the banking secret (holy cow for Switzerland) but also garantees that EU nationals can´t use anymore the transfer of money to Switzerland to avoid the capital gains tax. And quite frankly spoken: Switzerland has benefited enormously from the money fled from EU-Europe (especially Germany) to Switzerland to avoid taxation. That´s going to be over soon.
Switzerland has very low unemployment. But it also has little economic growth - in the 1990s even less than Germany. Economically it has to cooperate closely with the rest of Europe - and that means the EU.
Currently they do that via bilateral treaties - like those about the capital gains tax (in return Switzerland was able to negotiate to enter the Shengen treaty (meaning no border controlls anymore on its borders) at the moment when the capital gains tax is introduced in Switzerland - supposingly on July 1, 2005. And it was able to negotiate a transit agreement with the EU which allows it to regulate the transit of trucks through the alps and the charge of them without having to fear that the EU would impose counter-fees or other restrictions.
So Switzerland has to have a very close cooperation with the EU for economic reasons. They can not pretend that they live in the middle of nowhere.
Currently a majority thinks that this is possible via "bilateral" treaties. But also in Swiss politics there are people who think that in the long-run Switzerland needs to become a member of the EU.
That is - if at all - a long-term perspective. But it can´t be excluded. Due to the fact that it would take a referendum it would be a long process. But opinions can change.
For example in 1985 there was a referedum about whether the country should enter the UN. The neutralism in Switzerland was so strong that even an UN membership seemed to be unacceptable before that, although Switzerland is the seat of many UN instituitions. However in 1973 all of Switzerlands neighbours were UN members (1973: The Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR (East Germany) became UN members).
So the government began to reconsider and finally voted and campaigned for UN membership. In 1985 a majority of the population rejected that in a referendum. The government went for a second referedum in 2000. And this time there was a majority for joining the UN. Switzerland became the 190 th member of the UN in 2002.
Swiss neutralism is still strong. But the need to cooperate with the EU gets stronger and stronger. So probably in 50 years or even earlier the situation is differently.

Probably in a hundred years Switzerland, hehe. Well, seriously. The EU is an union of European nations. Its called the European Union and should be open to all European nations. Russia wouldn´t fit in it, for example. It is an European and an Asian country. That doesn´t mean that we can´t cooperate with it but it just would not fit in it.
You already mentioned some countries who could be added in the future. In the long-run also the Balcanic countries if they are stabilized (Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania) and the Ukraine. Turkey is a disputed case - but that is to be resolved in the long-term (whether to give them a full membership or a "Priviliged partnership"). In 15-20 years we probably konw that.
But that would be it. The EU can´t expand indefinately. After all: the EU only works because it is NOT THE UN - which includes almost all nations of the world.
To bring about 30 nations (or a bit more) under one umbrella is difficult enough. There are limits to that.
The EU can't work as another UN. But it certainly has room to grow. Besides, what is happening now in the EU is exciting and intriguing. Not since the Roman Empire has Western Europe been this united. Never before in history has most of the continent united on the same flag. My only real concern is that, at this point, the EU seems to be quite socialist, and that may lead to big problems in the future. Other than that, it is an exciting experiment. It'd be interesting to see the evolution of the EU in the future. It may even be considered as a full-blown country, complete with a common currency, military, government, and probably a language. All the nations today may just end up becoming the equivilant of states here in the US. Europeans even refer to the US as simply "the states".


True: and then the Francs - a germanic tribe - united huge parts of Central and Western Europe. So it wasn´t weak anymore. I just say Charlemane. The Franc Empire fall apart in 843 and was divided between the the grandsons of him: The Western Franc Empire later became France, the Eastern Franc Empire Germany (from the 10 th century onward it was not called East Franc Empire but rex teutonicorum or rex teutonicum (as found on old coins)- old german: Teuschland - today: Deutschland (Germany) and the Middle part was given to Lothar (Lorraine) and later was disputed between the two.
The crown of the "Holy Roman Empire" which Charlemane was given by the pope went to the Eastern part and remained there on paper till 1806 when Napoleon took it away and crowned himself as emperor. So, you see the basis for the arch-enemieship between France and Germany and how important it is for Europe that both countries work together. The Franco-German partnership can´t be the only basis for Europe - but without it it would fall apart completly.
The Federal Republic of Germany (founded 1949) follows a foreign policy of the so-called double-binding: meaning having good relations with the US and France. That was a very succesfull strategy, though it is sometimes very difficult. The government went to close to France durig the Iraq dispute - that is what I criticize. Though afterwards it took steps back to our traditional position. For example it negotiated in the UN between the US and France so that you could reach a compromise on the various Iraq resolutions. Also within Nato the government doesn´t support the french veto strategy (it wants to abstain - which wouldn´t block any decision) and it supports the training of the Iraqi army and the police in the UAE. So I personally see even our government finally talking steps in the right direction. Germany has its own foreign policy strategy: and that is not identical with Britain, so you can´t expect the same from us.
By the way: when the decision for the Euro was made in 1993 there was a big discussion in Germany whether it is right to do that without a closer political union. After all: having one currency requires more coordination of the economic and fiscal policy. That was partly established via the ECOFIN-council (council of finance ministers) and the stability pact. The other argument was that an economic union would actually create an development which in the long-run leads to a political union. Chancellor Kohl saw the Euro as the step which makes the European integration irreversible.
It is interesting if you go back into German history. The economic union (customs union 1834) was first. The political union came later (1866 North-German Federation, 1871 unification - and that was the so-called Second Empire (Reich by the way means Empire).
The economy is usually more advanced and progressive then the politics, which is lacking behind. Well: that was a fact Karl Marx pointed out correctly in 1848. Though he completly jumped to wrong conclusions from that point onward.
You are correct on this. The WTO, or even NAFTA here in North America, doesn't need a complex system of governance. After all, trade unions are formed for the purpose of more free trade, leading to less government regulations. The only thing that needs to be supervised is if free trade is being observed. Right now, trade bodies are busy, as the US, EU, and especially Japan adopt uber-protectionist policies, while trying to have free trade in the third world. But it's a big first step for industrialized nations to say that they support free trade, and even bigger to actually join a free trade pact.

NATO doesn't get very much done; there has to be 100% agreement between all parties just to get something passed.

The EU can't work as another UN. But it certainly has room to grow. Besides, what is happening now in the EU is exciting and intriguing. Not since the Roman Empire has Western Europe been this united. Never before in history has most of the continent united on the same flag. My only real concern is that, at this point, the EU seems to be quite socialist, and that may lead to big problems in the future...
Europe is probably not as socialists as you think. By the way: you yourself pointed out to the success of Scandinavian countries. They are more "socialists" than Germany for example. Aside of the fact that today there are big cuts into the social states in Germany and France.
We see the danger of the demographic development quite well. That means a lot of changes and that is way you hear probably about some protests in Germany for example. But that is necessary. The reforms in Britain during the 80s were also acompanied by protests. It is important for the governments to stand firm on the reform agenda. Up till now they are pretty much standing firm on them and therefore are highly unpopular. But quite frankly spoken in Germany the reform agenda is supported by the conservative opposition. So: when there is a change of government it is going to be continued even faster and deeper and if not - which seems unlikely - it still is going to be continued.

Other than that, it is an exciting experiment. It'd be interesting to see the evolution of the EU in the future. It may even be considered as a full-blown country, complete with a common currency, military, government, and probably a language. ..
First of all I don´t see us ending up with one language. There is no need to end diversity. However: We need a lingua franca. In the past Europe had that as well: till the 17 th century Latin, till the middle/end of the 19 th century French and since the middle of the 20 th century English (with the exception of the East). But up until the 20 th century it was mainly the educated class who spoke the lingua franca. But with the improvement of education (we are not in the middle ages anymore) more and more people are able to. And since 1990 the barriers for a more unified Europe (Europe after all is not just Western Europe. We know that since 20% of our own population were also forced to be part of the eastern block for 40 years).
And not just in East Europe English has (by the way interestingly aside German as second foreign language) become the first foreign language and more and more people are learning it but also in France the number of people speaking English is growing.
Actually it was a Frenchman to which I talked to last year (and who by the way pointed out that the US is probably right in going against Iraq if there are WMD) who told me that we - Europe - need a common language and that English should be the language. For Germany that would not be such a problem, more for France. But since that is the development - also within France itself - that might be the result in the long-run.


All the nations today may just end up becoming the equivilant of states here in the US. Europeans even refer to the US as simply "the states"..
With that you almost hit concept of European federalists. That conception almost is the german conception for the future of the EU. A federal Europe - not a centralized one. In that sense simular to the US. However some of them even suggest to go for devolution withind the national states. So: giving regional governments more power. In that conception the national states could become even irrelevant and the EU and national or even European regions more relevant. Germany is a federal state itself. So actually some prime ministers of the states would favour that (more power for them, more for EU, less for national government). However other european countries have another tradition (like Britain and France). So that seems to be unrealistic. But the national states in their current form are going to lose relevance. The question is who should become the relevance: a centralised model (centralised parliament and EU commission - more or less the french idea), a federal modell (two-chamber system with one parliament and a state chamber (today actually the council of ministers - developed to a kind of federalist system - German idea) or via inter-governmental cooperation (not more power for the EU parliament - more through national parliaments and inter-governmental cooperation - British idea (Blair).
Quite frankly spoken the current balance of power in the EU is not completly different than in the Federal Republic. However the national governments (and the national states) are still the "rulers of the treaties". So a bit more power for the commission (which is a kind of EU government) and the parliament would follow the german conception - though not as much as in the French modell. Britain however rejects that and wants to keep the national governments as key players. That could work actually - however only if there are more majority decisions (and by defining what a majority is: the compromise in the constituition was: 55% of the states (at least 15%) who represent 65% of the population). However there are still fields excluded from majority decisions who require unanimity. Though the number has been decreased. In the long-run - who knows - even foreign and defense may be included into that. Actually: certain areas of foreign policy are even now handled via majority decisions - like trade for example - and policy decision which follow after a decision of a common strategy (which however needs to be unanimous).
So Europe is growing closer together, however it is of course unclear how close. But the development is going in that direction and the economy is pushing for that as well.
However it need to be discussed what modell the EU follows and a compromise needs to be found between the three models (french, british, german).


You are correct on this. The WTO, or even NAFTA here in North America, doesn't need a complex system of governance. After all, trade unions are formed for the purpose of more free trade, leading to less government regulations..
That is true. However the EU is not just a trade union. European integration has also the purpose to bind the countries together and to prevent that Europe falls back into the old ways of rivaling powers. That risks doesn´t exists in North America where there is just one dominating power - the US, while the EU has four big players - France, Britain, Italy and German- two medium players - Poland and Spain - and 19 more or less small players.
In the long-run a modell of cooperation may be also one for the world (not a multi-polar world of rivaling powers but one of cooperation). But we haven´t reached that point. For it we would need a democratic world.
The only thing that needs to be supervised is if free trade is being observed. Right now, trade bodies are busy, as the US, EU, and especially Japan adopt uber-protectionist policies, while trying to have free trade in the third world. But it's a big first step for industrialized nations to say that they support free trade, and even bigger to actually join a free trade pact.
Protectionism is indeed a risks. However countries are also concerned about whether they trade partners really keep the rules (and not try to give hidden subsidies or create non-tariff barriers for trade). So bilateral agreements alone are often not enough. So - as sad as it is - you need a bit of bureaucracy for it: an organisation.
The EU is described as very bureaucratic. But actually it is compared to its purpose very small. And just about 1% of teh GDP of the EU is going through its hands. How much of the American GDP is going through the hands of the Federal government?
So the reason for problems in Europe really mainly lays within the national states and their governments. It is actually the EU which pushes them for privatisation (for example during the 90s in the telecomunication sector or today in the energy market and in other areas).

NATO doesn't get very much done; there has to be 100% agreement between all parties just to get something passed.
Well: a country can abstain - but otherwise everybody has a veto right.
The same problem exists in the UN Security Council which has five veto powers.
The EU is working well in that areas where there are majority decisions in the council of ministers (in future likely to be defind as majority of states (55% minimum 15) who comprise of 65% of the EU population), like in economic and trade issues.
In the area of foreign and security policy where it is required to have 100% agreement it isn´t working so well.

bump

Europe is probably not as socialists as you think. By the way: you yourself pointed out to the success of Scandinavian countries. They are more "socialists" than Germany for example. Aside of the fact that today there are big cuts into the social states in Germany and France.
We see the danger of the demographic development quite well. That means a lot of changes and that is way you hear probably about some protests in Germany for example. But that is necessary. The reforms in Britain during the 80s were also acompanied by protests. It is important for the governments to stand firm on the reform agenda. Up till now they are pretty much standing firm on them and therefore are highly unpopular. But quite frankly spoken in Germany the reform agenda is supported by the conservative opposition. So: when there is a change of government it is going to be continued even faster and deeper and if not - which seems unlikely - it still is going to be continued.
A lot has changed since the seventies. The whole of Europe would probably be happier left to the Soviet Union. But more, much more, needs to be done. Not just in Germany and Scandanavia, but nearly all the countries in Western Europe. France has a 6 week vacation, and a 35 hour workweek. All companies seem to have their businesses at the total mercy of labor unions. As for Germany itself, you say that the "social safety net" benefits only those that can't afford anything in life. But what would happen if it were gone? It'd create less abuses of the system, and more people looking for work. Of course, that's impossible with the huge labor unions, demanding high pay, and making it very hard to fire a worker.
On top of that, key industries are still controlled. I'm surprised how much regulation is on the power industry. Here in the US, power has been deregulated in a few states. Some had different approaches than others, but all had a high amount of sucess. The exception was California, but that was caused mostly by corrupt traders at the infamous Enron.
Every country, it seems, has a public airlines. The French government has Renault. It was only very recently, too, that they allowed privatization of their telecom and banking industries. Even if there are reformist governments in Europe, they can never hope to have a truely capitalist society. The labor unions in the US are a relic of the days when we were a manufacturing economy. Only about 10% of the workforce is part of them now, because most working Americans work in services. The proportion in Western Europe is higher than ours. Yet unions still exist, and even though they are barely needed, they linger. Some businessmen, I presume, also benefit. But this society of socialism is hurting your economies. The best way for the European economy to compete with the Americas and Asia in the long run is to get rid of the club of big labor and businesses leftover from the pre-WWII era.


First of all I don´t see us ending up with one language. There is no need to end diversity. However: We need a lingua franca. In the past Europe had that as well: till the 17 th century Latin, till the middle/end of the 19 th century French and since the middle of the 20 th century English (with the exception of the East). But up until the 20 th century it was mainly the educated class who spoke the lingua franca. But with the improvement of education (we are not in the middle ages anymore) more and more people are able to. And since 1990 the barriers for a more unified Europe (Europe after all is not just Western Europe. We know that since 20% of our own population were also forced to be part of the eastern block for 40 years).
And not just in East Europe English has (by the way interestingly aside German as second foreign language) become the first foreign language and more and more people are learning it but also in France the number of people speaking English is growing.
Actually it was a Frenchman to which I talked to last year (and who by the way pointed out that the US is probably right in going against Iraq if there are WMD) who told me that we - Europe - need a common language and that English should be the language. For Germany that would not be such a problem, more for France. But since that is the development - also within France itself - that might be the result in the long-run.
It's harder for people to occilate between two languages, especially in a land of over thirty. If you guys will adopt a franca lingua, just go for the gold, and make it a common language. Then, just make sure that regional dialects of English don't develope throughout Europe. The spread of Greek, and the disintergration of Latin, were what really killed hopes of a reunified Europe after the Roman Empire. That's why I feel that language destruction is a beautiful thing. And if you ask me, I wouldn't mind if English was one of the languages destroyed. Parlo dicere lingua Italiano (I only know a little, but I'm eager to learn more. In any case, it just goes to show that I don't mind learning a new language).


With that you almost hit concept of European federalists. That conception almost is the german conception for the future of the EU. A federal Europe - not a centralized one. In that sense simular to the US. However some of them even suggest to go for devolution withind the national states. So: giving regional governments more power. In that conception the national states could become even irrelevant and the EU and national or even European regions more relevant. Germany is a federal state itself. So actually some prime ministers of the states would favour that (more power for them, more for EU, less for national government). However other european countries have another tradition (like Britain and France). So that seems to be unrealistic. But the national states in their current form are going to lose relevance. The question is who should become the relevance: a centralised model (centralised parliament and EU commission - more or less the french idea), a federal modell (two-chamber system with one parliament and a state chamber (today actually the council of ministers - developed to a kind of federalist system - German idea) or via inter-governmental cooperation (not more power for the EU parliament - more through national parliaments and inter-governmental cooperation - British idea (Blair).
Quite frankly spoken the current balance of power in the EU is not completly different than in the Federal Republic. However the national governments (and the national states) are still the "rulers of the treaties". So a bit more power for the commission (which is a kind of EU government) and the parliament would follow the german conception - though not as much as in the French modell. Britain however rejects that and wants to keep the national governments as key players. That could work actually - however only if there are more majority decisions (and by defining what a majority is: the compromise in the constituition was: 55% of the states (at least 15%) who represent 65% of the population). However there are still fields excluded from majority decisions who require unanimity. Though the number has been decreased. In the long-run - who knows - even foreign and defense may be included into that. Actually: certain areas of foreign policy are even now handled via majority decisions - like trade for example - and policy decision which follow after a decision of a common strategy (which however needs to be unanimous).
So Europe is growing closer together, however it is of course unclear how close. But the development is going in that direction and the economy is pushing for that as well.
However it need to be discussed what modell the EU follows and a compromise needs to be found between the three models (french, british, german).



That is true. However the EU is not just a trade union. European integration has also the purpose to bind the countries together and to prevent that Europe falls back into the old ways of rivaling powers. That risks doesn´t exists in North America where there is just one dominating power - the US, while the EU has four big players - France, Britain, Italy and German- two medium players - Poland and Spain - and 19 more or less small players.
In the long-run a modell of cooperation may be also one for the world (not a multi-polar world of rivaling powers but one of cooperation). But we haven´t reached that point. For it we would need a democratic world.

Protectionism is indeed a risks. However countries are also concerned about whether they trade partners really keep the rules (and not try to give hidden subsidies or create non-tariff barriers for trade). So bilateral agreements alone are often not enough. So - as sad as it is - you need a bit of bureaucracy for it: an organisation.
The EU is described as very bureaucratic. But actually it is compared to its purpose very small. And just about 1% of teh GDP of the EU is going through its hands. How much of the American GDP is going through the hands of the Federal government?
So the reason for problems in Europe really mainly lays within the national states and their governments. It is actually the EU which pushes them for privatisation (for example during the 90s in the telecomunication sector or today in the energy market and in other areas).[/QUOTE]

A lot has changed since the seventies. The whole of Europe would probably be happier left to the Soviet Union. But more, much more, needs to be done. Not just in Germany and Scandanavia, but nearly all the countries in Western Europe. France has a 6 week vacation, and a 35 hour workweek. All companies seem to have their businesses at the total mercy of labor unions. ..
That is a complete exageration. The labour unions are more and more losing power. Less than 30% of the work-force are organized. And some unions are asided their rethoric ready for compromise and concessions. It is not at all true that tey are running the companies.

As for Germany itself, you say that the "social safety net" benefits only those that can't afford anything in life. But what would happen if it were gone? It'd create less abuses of the system, and more people looking for work. Of course, that's impossible..
That is impossible because it would create a revolution.
The capitalists system was only able to survive in Europe because it made concessions. It is as easy as that.
And by the way: some of the reforms go for deep cuts in the system. Germany for example doesn´t have minimum wage laws like the US or Britain (socialists). There are people in East Germany who work for 3-3,50 Euro per hour.
And the new reforms of unemployment reforms (implemented from January 1, 2005) cut the support for people who are unemployed for more than 1 year to 331 Euro (+ rent). That is given the costs of living not really generous. Aside of the fact that people are forced to take every work they can. And they are allowed to work till 1000 Euro without losing the support.
Another instrument is the instrument of work opportunities by the local governments (like cleaning streets or something). Unemployed people are going to be offered those opportunities. They have no right to reject them. For those work they are going to get the unemployment support + a minimum of 1 Euro. That is of course an instrument to keep people used to work and on the other hand to give those people an incentive to look for work themself. So there is much more pressure imposed.
On the other hand: Unemployment is not caused by lazy people. That really is a stereotype. That is assuming that all people are abusing the system. Even the US has unemployment although of a much smaller social state. And the socialists US has minimum wage laws in contrast to Germany.
All developed economies (and the underdeveloped even more) have an amount of unemployment. The reasons are various. Changes in the economy change the demand for certain labourers. So a mismatch between the offer and demand exists. Old industries close down while new are still developing. Also structural problems as an economic and social system was designed for an industrialised society with industrial workers. That is certainly a problem.
None the less, even without the structural problems they are always an amount of unemployment due to the economic changes and the mismatches on the labour market. And the question is: do we help those people in any form or do we reject it. The problem of the welfare state was that it was more designed to help and support the people. But it didn´t demand anything in return. And that needs to change and the reforms going in that direction. Supporting and demanding - that is also in a way the title of the reform of the unemployment support in Germany. Who wants to get it has to prove that he/she has no savings (beyond a certain amount or property, e.g.) and needs the money to life. The person has to take any job and has to work for the local city if demanded.
I think that is just. And it fulfills the principal of reciprocity.
There are already some results of this reform although it is going to be implemented in 2005: more people are looking for work. The problem however is that they are not enough work-places. But if we have an economic recovery it is going to have an effect on the labour market.



with the huge labor unions, demanding high pay, and making it very hard to fire a worker...
If you look at a statistic of the development of the pay of german workers you are going to see a very flat development. It is by the way possible to fire workers if it is needed (to much personal for production). However the employer has to take into account social criteria: age, family and years in the company.
It is possible to employ a worker short-time (like 6-months contract or even shorter). It is possible to make another contract without any special reasons up until two years and with special reasons for five years.
And while it is certainly not as easy as in the US to fire worker the working times are more flexible and getting more and more flexible. It is not uncommon that it fluctuates between 35-40 hours or even more.

Quite frankly spoken a lot of reforms were done in the last ten years to deregulate the economy and are still under way. However a lot of stereotypes still exists which have their origin in the times before those reform process began and which don´t take into account that many changes have taken place, are taking place and are going to take place.



It's harder for people to occilate between two languages, especially in a land of over thirty.
How many countries have English as their official language? And how many other languages are standing behind it. No nation is going to give up its language.
And I don´t see a reason for that either. For business the main language is English internationally.
Most people mostly communicate in their language and in the area of their language. And there are billingual or multi-lingua countries around the world. You don´t need to go to Africa for that.
Switzerland has three languages and none has disappeared.
If you guys will adopt a franca lingua, just go for the gold, and make it a common language. Then, just make sure that regional dialects of English don't develope throughout Europe. The spread of Greek, and the disintergration of Latin, were what really killed hopes of a reunified Europe after the Roman Empire.
Probably also a sign that diversity is also a demand of culture. All big empires used to collapse. Europe is diverse. And it is not based on a development in which one country tries to take over others (like the Romans did, later the Francs, the French, also we Germans or later the Russians) but on the volunary union of nations. That is quite frankly spoken an unique thing in human history.
Any attempt by a nation to dominate the others would lead to the termination of it and would kill this development. That would mean the fall-back into rivaling powers.
Europe has to be diverse or it is going to fall apart like the old empires which were at the end of the day not capable to force their cultural hegemony on others.

That's why I feel that language destruction is a beautiful thing.
You seem to want to prove the stereotype that Americans have no culture and that they only aim to destroy cultures.

And if you ask me, I wouldn't mind if English was one of the languages destroyed. Parlo dicere lingua Italiano (I only know a little, but I'm eager to learn more. In any case, it just goes to show that I don't mind learning a new language).
English has a lot of french and latin in it - more than german for example. So you have actually a benefit learning a romanic language. I don´t speak italian. It is even less important than German given the use of it as a language. Spanish is quite strong in America. Maybe you are going to be rolled over by that in the States one day. Buenos diaz. Non parlare espagnol. Well, in Europe it isn´t that important. The most spoken languages are English, French and German. Je parle un petit peut de francais. Mais c´est un language tres difficile. La France est un pays très grand. C´est le "grande nation".
France is the biggest country in the EU.
Germany is the country with the highest population and the highest economic power.
And German is the language with the most native speakers after all.
And if the US is going to turn Spanish English may not become the lingua franca in Europe after all. Who knows.

That is a complete exageration. The labour unions are more and more losing power. Less than 30% of the work-force are organized. And some unions are asided their rethoric ready for compromise and concessions. It is not at all true that tey are running the companies.
That part is good, and perhaps Germany is improving. Others on Europe certainly aren't, like Italy, France, and the UK. Scandanavia seems to be quite socialist, but they can get away with it because a.) they have lots of mineral wealth, and b.) they have rather small populations.

That is impossible because it would create a revolution.
So that's what's driving the socialist engine on the continent: political fear. I don't quite see why it should. A more laissez faire style economy would have tremendous benefits. It didn't work in the 19th century because that was the time when capitalism was young, and mass consumption didn't start. I feel it'd work much better today. Investors could divert their money to whereever they feel that they'd get a high return. More and more, investors are the average joes, who join a mutual fund.
The capitalists system was only able to survive in Europe because it made concessions. It is as easy as that.
And the socialists and statist systems in East Asia, the Americas, and even South Asia have ditched their old systems in favor of greater economic liberalism.
And by the way: some of the reforms go for deep cuts in the system. Germany for example doesn´t have minimum wage laws like the US or Britain (socialists). There are people in East Germany who work for 3-3,50 Euro per hour.
And the new reforms of unemployment reforms (implemented from January 1, 2005) cut the support for people who are unemployed for more than 1 year to 331 Euro (+ rent). That is given the costs of living not really generous. Aside of the fact that people are forced to take every work they can. And they are allowed to work till 1000 Euro without losing the support.
Another instrument is the instrument of work opportunities by the local governments (like cleaning streets or something). Unemployed people are going to be offered those opportunities. They have no right to reject them. For those work they are going to get the unemployment support + a minimum of 1 Euro. That is of course an instrument to keep people used to work and on the other hand to give those people an incentive to look for work themself. So there is much more pressure imposed.
On the other hand: Unemployment is not caused by lazy people. That really is a stereotype. That is assuming that all people are abusing the system. Even the US has unemployment although of a much smaller social state. And the socialists US has minimum wage laws in contrast to Germany.
All developed economies (and the underdeveloped even more) have an amount of unemployment. The reasons are various. Changes in the economy change the demand for certain labourers. So a mismatch between the offer and demand exists. Old industries close down while new are still developing. Also structural problems as an economic and social system was designed for an industrialised society with industrial workers. That is certainly a problem.
None the less, even without the structural problems they are always an amount of unemployment due to the economic changes and the mismatches on the labour market. And the question is: do we help those people in any form or do we reject it. The problem of the welfare state was that it was more designed to help and support the people. But it didn´t demand anything in return. And that needs to change and the reforms going in that direction. Supporting and demanding - that is also in a way the title of the reform of the unemployment support in Germany. Who wants to get it has to prove that he/she has no savings (beyond a certain amount or property, e.g.) and needs the money to life. The person has to take any job and has to work for the local city if demanded.
If only more countries in Europe (and admittedly, the US) would be like Germany.
I think that is just. And it fulfills the principal of reciprocity.
It is okay for now, but it can't go on forever. The longer some form of a safety net is in place, the less incentive people feel to work, and therefore, the smaller the workforce, and the less productive society is. That was the type of logic behind the Welfare Reforms of 1996 in the US. It stated that no person was eligible for unemployment benefits longer than two years of a person's life. It's okay for now, but pretty soon, we may have to cut it further. If welfare is to be applied, it should be at the state level, and prefferably towards education. Major parts of the US education system are a mess partly because of uneven property taxes, partly because of the drug culture that's all too prevelant in the US. That's what I admire about Europe: little to no drug problems.

If you look at a statistic of the development of the pay of german workers you are going to see a very flat development. It is by the way possible to fire workers if it is needed (to much personal for production). However the employer has to take into account social criteria: age, family and years in the company.
Here in the US, an employee is immune to firing only if they've reached their tenure. Labor unions can make the process harder, but they do this on a business-by-business basis.


Quite frankly spoken a lot of reforms were done in the last ten years to deregulate the economy and are still under way. However a lot of stereotypes still exists which have their origin in the times before those reform process began and which don´t take into account that many changes have taken place, are taking place and are going to take place.
Just like much of the world is fed on a diet of New Dealism, I'm fed on a diet of Reaganomics: government isn't the solution, it is the problem. Similarly, the government must get out of the economy as fast as it came in, that is, in the space of a few years, not decades.


How many countries have English as their official language? And how many other languages are standing behind it. No nation is going to give up its language.
And I don´t see a reason for that either. For business the main language is English internationally.
Most people mostly communicate in their language and in the area of their language. And there are billingual or multi-lingua countries around the world. You don´t need to go to Africa for that.
Switzerland has three languages and none has disappeared.
Why stop at business matters? No matter how many languages exist, someone won't be able to decipher one. Plus, it'd also be mentally easier not to switch from one language to another. As you're reading this, you must be thinking about this post in German, while I'm thinking in English. To switch from one language to another is harder mentally, and takes up space in the brain. Space that can be used to develope other talents, not just make it so that you can understand another language. I eventually want it so that there are only a few languages on the planet. It'd be just like Italy in the 1960s. Who speaks Sicilian anymore? Or Venitian? Or Neapolese?

You seem to want to prove the stereotype that Americans have no culture and that they only aim to destroy cultures.
I want to prove it because it is true. We have no culture because we're the world's sponge. We are not a "melting pot" of culture, but more of a "smelting pot": we boil every incoming culture down to a crisp, and pick the parts we like. This always happen first with food, and if you notice, fusion cuisine seems to be everywhere. It seems as if this idea is gaining popularity throughout the world.
Perhaps it is hard to understand, as Germany has such a rich, vibrant culture. The good news for the US, however, is that we never had one, and it makes us into a sponge. I fear that such a global melting pot can't be emulated, as some countries have rich and independent cultures (like France or Japan). I believe, however, that some of these people are proving me wrong. Look at the changes to Japan and Europe in the past fifty years, or to China and Eastern Europe in the past twenty.

That part is good, and perhaps Germany is improving. Others on Europe certainly aren't, like Italy, France, and the UK. Scandanavia seems to be quite socialist, but they can get away with it because a.) they have lots of mineral wealth, and b.) they have rather small populations..
That is mainly the case for Norway though.
Finnland for example has a very developed service sector. They are leading in the mobile phone industry and in the service sector. With their very good education system they are able to keep the economy strong enough and produce enough growth to maintain their social system.


So that's what's driving the socialist engine on the continent: political fear. I don't quite see why it should. A more laissez faire style economy would have tremendous benefits. It didn't work in the 19th century because that was the time when capitalism was young, and mass consumption didn't start. I feel it'd work much better today. Investors could divert their money to whereever they feel that they'd get a high return. More and more, investors are the average joes, who join a mutual fund...
Up until 1991 there was the thread of communism.
The german social state actually began with the hawkish conservative von Bismarck in the 1880s. He tried to crack down on the socialists movement with the anti-socialists laws (1878-90) which restricted the activities of the socialists party but didn´t ban it. On the other side he pushed for some social security laws like a worker health insurance (1883) or a worker retirement insurance (1889) for workers above the age of 70 (well: most people didn´t get that old at that time).
The result of that was actually that there was later a split among the socialists movement (happened during world war one) into social democrats and communists. The socialists took over 1918 after the November revolution.
The communists tried to establish a soviet system and wanted to socialize the economy but it were the social democrats who actually stopped them. They pushed for parlamentarian democracy with a market-economic system with some state welfare.
That led of course to a deep split among the political left. Communists use to hate social democrats and vice versa.
Actually the communists leaders were even killed in 1919.

At the end of the republic in the begining of the 1930s the communists were actually partly even protesting together with the nazis.
After world war two this split remained in Germany - in east Germany there was a forced unification of the social democrats with the communists. The soviet installed communists regime never had a majority of the population on its side. East Germany was actually the first country in eastern Europe which had a rebellion against the communists rule (1953) which was ended by the soviets via the use of force like later in Hungary (1956) or Prague (1968).
Anti-communism was quite strong even among the democratic political left. The SPD-chairman used to say: "The communists are the red-lacked fachists."
And the social state was a way to bind the moderate left and the working-class into the new state: the Federal Repubic.
So, this policy has actually prevented communism from ever getting much support in West Europe.
Without the Soviets there would not have been one single other communists regime in Europe.
So, I would say it was a quite succesful strategy.
The problem certainly is that the social state was expanded too much.
I would rather like to see a return to the basic: back to the basics of Bismarcks social state. Basic health care yes and a social minimum via a retirement insurance, but not more.


And the socialists and statist systems in East Asia, the Americas, and even South Asia have ditched their old systems in favor of greater economic liberalism. ...
Japan has a retirement and pension system as well. They have there the same problems as Europe actually.
And China is privatising more of its business but it is also considering to establish a social system for the older population. A problem which didn´t exist so much in the past since the life expentancy was much lower.
And social security, especially health care and pensions are also becoming more and more an issue in the US. You have also an ageing population - not as fast as in Japan or Europe or Russia - but the development is there.
So, in the future you won´t get around this issue either.



Major parts of the US education system are a mess partly because of uneven property taxes, partly because of the drug culture that's all too prevelant in the US. That's what I admire about Europe: little to no drug problems.
That however is an area where government spending is needed. The development of an economy also depends on the education of its future work-force.
Scandinavian countries or even Japan (though with huge differences in the system) are the leading countries in the field of education. And their governments also spent a lot for it.


Just like much of the world is fed on a diet of New Dealism, I'm fed on a diet of Reaganomics: government isn't the solution, it is the problem. Similarly, the government must get out of the economy as fast as it came in, that is, in the space of a few years, not decades....
However Reagan has increased government spending in the area of defense and has created a huge budget deficit. His successor Georg H.W. Bush had huge problems with that and later lost to Clinton.
The interesting thing about the "Reagonomics" is that it actually isn´t just a policy from the demand side of the economy (which many economic experts are advocating since the late 1970s - in contrast to Keynesianism which was only going from the supply side): The tax cuts of Reagan and Bush II were both designed to give a stimulous to the economy and in that way to boost the supply side.
In Europe the discussion is still a lot between the advocates of a supply and a demand orientated economic policy. The second group (the demand orientated one) are currently really the pre-dominant group.
The idea to use tax cuts to stimulate the economy doesn´t fit quite in both concepts.
Interestingly Schröder came up with the idea in 2003 to make an already passed tax cut for 2005 one year earlier and to finance it at least partly with more depth (in the short term) to stimulate the economy.
For that he got much more applause from the Wall Street Journal than domestically - at the end only 2/3 of the tax cut were done one year ealier and most was counter-financed by cuts in other areas.




Why stop at business matters? No matter how many languages exist, someone won't be able to decipher one. Plus, it'd also be mentally easier not to switch from one language to another. As you're reading this, you must be thinking about this post in German, while I'm thinking in English. To switch from one language to another is harder mentally, and takes up space in the brain. Space that can be used to develope other talents, not just make it so that you can understand another language. I eventually want it so that there are only a few languages on the planet. It'd be just like Italy in the 1960s. Who speaks Sicilian anymore? Or Venitian? Or Neapolese?....
No, I´m not thinking in german. When you really learn a language you begin to think in it. So you don´t translate: you´re completly thinking in that language. That is the difference between someone who is beginning to learn a language and an advanced speaker.
I´m by the way pretty shure that the dialects between South and North Italy differ. Though people can speak the High language.
In Germany there are actually also a lot of dialects. And they are still many people speaking them. So far they haven´t become instinct and it doesn´t look that way, though. But people can speak High German as well, even in Switzerland - though Swiss German is pretty different to German.


I want to prove it because it is true. We have no culture because we're the world's sponge. We are not a "melting pot" of culture, but more of a "smelting pot": we boil every incoming culture down to a crisp, and pick the parts we like. This always happen first with food, and if you notice, fusion cuisine seems to be everywhere. It seems as if this idea is gaining popularity throughout the world.
Perhaps it is hard to understand, as Germany has such a rich, vibrant culture. The good news for the US, however, is that we never had one, and it makes us into a sponge. I fear that such a global melting pot can't be emulated, as some countries have rich and independent cultures (like France or Japan). I believe, however, that some of these people are proving me wrong. Look at the changes to Japan and Europe in the past fifty years, or to China and Eastern Europe in the past twenty.
I see that cultures influence each other. France and the US have actually more in common than they think. From the 17 th to 19 th century France was the dominating culture and lingua franca and influenced all other cultures and even languages on the continent. Today the US is actually in the same position on the world.
But more than 150 years of French dominance (on the political arena) didn´t lead to the end of the other cultures. On the conterary: the French attempt under Napoleon to take over the rest lead to an anti-French rebellion and to anti-French sentiments who are partly there even today.
So, quite frakly spoken how many centuries do you believe it would need for an harmonisation of the world?
And you forget the vice versa factor. The cultures of the immigrants laid the basis for the US. And the dominant group where at the end the WASP.
Today much of the immigration to the US is coming from Asia and even more from Latin America. What influence is that going to have?
In some areas Spanish has become the second language or even the dominant one. President Bush is sometimes trying to speak Spanish.
To what is that going to lead in the long-run?
A spanish-speaking US?
Or a bilingual US?

Or a kind of Esperanto. That is an european idea to merge the european languages (romanic, germanic, slavic) into one language. A pretty artifical thing though. No chance of realisation.

[quote]I would rather like to see a return to the basic: back to the basics of Bismarcks social state. Basic health care yes and a social minimum via a retirement insurance, but not more.

That's where you and I differ. I believe in some social services for needy children and the disabled that can't work, but little else. Call me an objectivist, if you wish, but that's my belief.
Japan has a retirement and pension system as well. They have there the same problems as Europe actually.
And China is privatising more of its business but it is also considering to establish a social system for the older population. A problem which didn´t exist so much in the past since the life expentancy was much lower.
And social security, especially health care and pensions are also becoming more and more an issue in the US. You have also an ageing population - not as fast as in Japan or Europe or Russia - but the development is there.
So, in the future you won´t get around this issue either.
Call me a wacko, but I'm in favor of dropping benefits for the elderly, and here's why:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
Prof. Martin Feldstein, btw, is a Harvard economics professor, and a fmr. member of the Federal Reserve.


That however is an area where government spending is needed. The development of an economy also depends on the education of its future work-force.
Scandinavian countries or even Japan (though with huge differences in the system) are the leading countries in the field of education. And their governments also spent a lot for it.
I agree spending is needed, and it must be continued. However, I'm just saying that the nation's worst schools are urban schools filled with high crime and drug usage. The money they're forced to spend on security is probably enough to build a whole new school. That's what's gotten me attracted to vouchers, and under the No Child Left Behind act a few years back, vouchers are offered for those in failing schools. It's too early to tell if they work, but if the kids are sent to private schools, it's almost a given that they'll succeed.

However Reagan has increased government spending in the area of defense and has created a huge budget deficit. His successor Georg H.W. Bush had huge problems with that and later lost to Clinton.
That's the one area that, considering that a full fledged liberal democracy is in order, the government can't use that to be economically intrusive. Besides, the massive funding of the military under Reagan was a work of art. The Soviets couldn't keep up. Reagan helped to give us a strong economy and an advanced military, neither of which the Soviets made up. It came with a deficit, but that was a small price to pay to end the greatest standoff in the history of mankind.

No, I´m not thinking in german. When you really learn a language you begin to think in it. So you don´t translate: you´re completly thinking in that language. That is the difference between someone who is beginning to learn a language and an advanced speaker.
Oh. I'm guessing you've spoken English for an extremely long time.
I´m by the way pretty shure that the dialects between South and North Italy differ. Though people can speak the High language.
Some differences in vocabularly, sounds, and slang exist, but overall, they aren't too different.


So, quite frakly spoken how many centuries do you believe it would need for an harmonisation of the world?
Less than one is perfectly adequate, so long as everyone can agree on the same language. Culturally, it'll take a few centuries.
And you forget the vice versa factor. The cultures of the immigrants laid the basis for the US. And the dominant group where at the end the WASP.
Today much of the immigration to the US is coming from Asia and even more from Latin America. What influence is that going to have?
A significant impact, of course. But it will not be a culture shock to us. It never came as one, except maybe among a minority, like the Know-Nothing party of the nineteenth century.
In some areas Spanish has become the second language or even the dominant one. President Bush is sometimes trying to speak Spanish.
To what is that going to lead in the long-run?
A spanish-speaking US?
Or a bilingual US?

Or a kind of Esperanto. That is an european idea to merge the european languages (romanic, germanic, slavic) into one language. A pretty artifical thing though. No chance of realisation.
I'm betting a bilingual society will form. An Esperanto type language was tried many times, and it has never,l ever worked.

bump

Ever since Kosovo, I have been convinced that NATO is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

"Oooo. We want you to stop committing genocide so we will attack your country and kill people just like you."

Then the liars claim that every one of those killings were accidental. Lying sons of bitches!

Ever since Kosovo, I have been convinced that NATO is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

"Oooo. We want you to stop committing genocide so we will attack your country and kill people just like you."

Then the liars claim that every one of those killings were accidental. Lying sons of bitches!
Far more people would've died if NATO didn't act in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

I don´t see Russia as a thread. That is a much too negative assessment. You actually got a lot of support from them since 9/11. And quite frankly spoken: Russia has no interest in an expansive China since it is potentially threatened by it. So you have in it an ally for that purpose as well. Read:

Beware Russia's pocket empire (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0701/p09s02-coop.html)

The article is written by a conservative writer but it still quite accurate.

There you should be more afraid of Russia. It has nationalism as well and the means to act. However the Russian leadership acts very reasonable (actually since Gorbatshov). Gorbachev was indeed a revolutionary. However, Boris Yeltsin was a drunk fool who threatened the West on several occassions. Putin is very shrewd. He might shake hands with Bush and act all friendly but the man has three times the intellect of Bush and has his own agendas. I admire ex-KGB Putin a great deal. Only time will tell how Russia emerges under his leadership.

I agree that NATO is an obsolete relic of the Cold War. It should have been disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact was. It seems obvious that nations like France and Germany would rather work under an EU military alliance, instead of having the US directly involved in their military affairs. Also, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe is seriously annoying Russia. When the Baltic nations joined NATO recently, the Kremlin started making veiled threats about beefing up its military along the border. Russia has also increased its cooperation with other members of the CIS in an attempt to provide an alternative military alliance. The Cold War is now over but Russia is still paranoid about NATO encirclement. The tension over NATO expansion is unnessecary and just demonstrates that NATO is no longer needed in post-Cold War Europe.

Far more people would've died if NATO didn't act in both Bosnia and Kosovo. I supported NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia although supporting groups like the KLA was a big mistake.

I agree that NATO is an obsolete relic of the Cold War. It should have been disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact was. It seems obvious that nations like France and Germany would rather work under an EU military alliance, instead of having the US directly involved in their military affairs. Also, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe is seriously annoying Russia. When the Baltic nations joined NATO recently, the Kremlin started making veiled threats about beefing up its military along the border. Russia has also increased its cooperation with other members of the CIS in an attempt to provide an alternative military alliance. The Cold War is now over but Russia is still paranoid about NATO encirclement. The tension over NATO expansion is unnessecary and just demonstrates that NATO is no longer needed in post-Cold War Europe.
Why should the expansion of the EU or NATO be a problem? Sure, Russia may have quasi-imperialist policies, but is this enough to justify what the West does around their actions? Russia is considerably weak. Its submarine fleet, once the envy of the world, is all but dead. The rest of the navy is just down to a coastguard like fleet. The army, while rather powerful, is nowhere near the size it was under the USSR. Even their nuke arsenal is now aging, and expensive to maintain.
With this, I don't think you can use the growing wealth arguement. Perhaps, in about fifteen years or so, the Russian economy will double. By 2029, I'll be twice as old. Does that make me twice as smart, twice as tall, or twice as likeable? Probably not. We can't assume the same for the Russian military, or the Chinese military, for that matter.
Russia is welcome as an economic powerhouse, as it is fast becoming. But it has to accept the fact that in the sphere of politics, they can control little outside their borders. Even today, they are staying almost exclusively in Soviet Republics, but not in the rest of Eastern Europe, or Central Asia. There's no huge Russian army in Poland, North Korea, or Mongolia (if there is any at all). In quite a few of the republics, the West has pivotal interests in them. Russia must realize that they can't sustain their operations without an element of transparancy. Thus, they either have to choices: cooperate with the West in general (and the US in particular), or withdraw to the Russian border. They have enough problems in Russia. As we've seen, they can't even passify their entire nation.

I supported NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia although supporting groups like the KLA was a big mistake.
Perhaps it was, but we were fighting a post Cold War guerilla war on Cold War guerilla tactics: find a littler fish to fry the big fish.
It's a problem in the Pentagon even to this day. They worry that the "Big One", as Thomas Barnett calls it, will appear. The 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis was pure masturbation for the Pentagon: a distressed democracy threatened by a powerful Communist regime. Sound familiar? The Pentagon liked this familiarity, and aren't yet used to the idea that a.) they are the most powerful military on the planet, and b.) that the rest of the world, particularly from the Carribean, Latin America, Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, pose a greater threat than the Big One could ever do in fifty years.

Gorbachev was indeed a revolutionary. However, Boris Yeltsin was a drunk fool who threatened the West on several occassions. Putin is very shrewd. He might shake hands with Bush and act all friendly but the man has three times the intellect of Bush and has his own agendas. I admire ex-KGB Putin a great deal. Only time will tell how Russia emerges under his leadership.
I disagree in respect to your judgement on Yeltsin. Without him the reactionaries in the communists party would have taken over in 1991 - that could have caused a nuclear civil war in the USSR. Yeltsin played a very important role in ending this. Also he secured the failure of a role-back in 1993 (next uprising) and in the presidental election of 1996. At the end of his term he was however a bit confused for health reasons.
Putin actually supported the reformers in 1991 and 1993 in those difficult times.
He is indeed pretty smart. His historic icon seems to be Czar Peter, the great. So that speaks very much for the fact that he is looking for good relationships with the West.
Thus far I don´t see a major thing to complain about. He was much more willing to be cooperative as some old elements in the military.
Also the fact that Russia increased its oil exports especially in the last three years is very important for global stability.
That doesn´t mean that there aren´t disputes with them, but quite frankly spoken I don´t expect another country to agree with everything. That would actually be highly unnatural. I don´t see major disputes though.

I disagree in respect to your judgement on Yeltsin. Without him the reactionaries in the communists party would have taken over in 1991 - that could have caused a nuclear civil war in the USSR. Yeltsin played a very important role in ending this. Also he secured the failure of a role-back in 1993 (next uprising) and in the presidental election of 1996. At the end of his term he was however a bit confused for health reasons.
Putin actually supported the reformers in 1991 and 1993 in those difficult times.
He is indeed pretty smart. His historic icon seems to be Czar Peter, the great. So that speaks very much for the fact that he is looking for good relationships with the West.
Thus far I don´t see a major thing to complain about. He was much more willing to be cooperative as some old elements in the military.
Also the fact that Russia increased its oil exports especially in the last three years is very important for global stability.
That doesn´t mean that there aren´t disputes with them, but quite frankly spoken I don´t expect another country to agree with everything. That would actually be highly unnatural. I don´t see major disputes though.
Well Putin is nice, but he certainly isn't the most democratic of the very short list of democratic Russian leaders. Actually, I take that back. He's very democratic. He's just not liberal. He has made the legislature week, and the judiciary dependent. For example, Putin controls most of the judge's paychecks.
The only good news about Putin is that he is advancing free market reforms. The liberal theory of history holds that free market societies turn into democracies. Not one democracy is not a market society, with absolutely no exceptions. As I said, Russia is a democracy, as Putin is democratically elected. But he is a breed Fareed Zakaria calls an "elected autocrat". Luckily, Putin uses his power responsibly, but that may not be the case for his successors. As we've seen in a dynasty of autocrats, the first autocrat sees his nation as a burden he must bear. But as we're seeing with Kim Jong-Il, and beginning to see with Qusay Hussein, the second autocrat sees the nation more of his personal plaything, rather than a collection of living humans.

I agree that NATO is an obsolete relic of the Cold War. It should have been disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact was. It seems obvious that nations like France and Germany would rather work under an EU military alliance, instead of having the US directly involved in their military affairs..
That is the French policy since the 1960s when they left the integrated military structure of Nato.
But it isn´t the German policy. Germany would for example not object that Nato takes over the mission in Iraq (the government is unwilling to sent combat troups though, but is already supporting the training of the Iraqi army and police - quite frankly spoken a few hundred german troops wouldn´t make a difference in Iraq anyway).
It is France alone which is blocking that: that certainly doesn´t change before the US presidental election though.



Also, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe is seriously annoying Russia. When the Baltic nations joined NATO recently, the Kremlin started making veiled threats about beefing up its military along the border. Russia has also increased its cooperation with other members of the CIS in an attempt to provide an alternative military alliance. The Cold War is now over but Russia is still paranoid about NATO encirclement. The tension over NATO expansion is unnessecary and just demonstrates that NATO is no longer needed in post-Cold War Europe.
What happends if the political development in Russia goes into a negative direction. With that I don´t mean Putin. But there are other forces within the country. The policy of european countries - especially of Germany - was to help Russia financially to prevent the possibility that simular developments accur like in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe when extremly nationalistic forces took over power in many European countries - like Mussolini in Italy or Hitler in Germany.
Seems to have worked thus far. Russia has stabilized. But well, who knows. It is always better to have a fire departement even if you didn´t had a fire for a long time.
By the way: Russia is more using rhetoric in this issue. In the 1990s it was also mainly to detract from the fact of their problems in Chechenya and to prevent that the West too much criticized that.

Well Putin is nice, but he certainly isn't the most democratic of the very short list of democratic Russian leaders. Actually, I take that back. He's very democratic. He's just not liberal. He has made the legislature week, and the judiciary dependent.
How was it under Yeltsin? The parliament comprised of communists and nationalistic parties who undermined the reform policy of the administration.
Today the party Unity- The Bear has a majority. Putins new created party. Certainly: Putin is playing the "strong man" on top. The Russian constituition of 1993 has in that respect actually followed the example of the American constituition which also establishes a pretty powerful head of state.
Though in a country with Russias tradition that can of course be dangerous.
On the other hand I simply don´t believe that Russia can be brought on the way to reforms without a period of really strong leadership. You shouldn´t forget that Turkey did also reform itself through the autocratic rule of Atatürk. Without that Turkey would still have the same structure and the same problems as countries in the rest of the Middle East: Economically and politically. Tukey even had 30 years of one-party rule under his leadership. First liberalisation, then democratisation. And it would never become a partner of the west. Even today it has some problems because this move of the Turkish leadership has divided the society (-Huntington). But they are certainly better of with that than without it.

"The liberal theory of history holds that free market societies turn into democracies."
I believe in this theory as well. And there is a point Gorbatshov can be criticized for. He went for political reforms first and not for economic reforms. Aside of the fact that he put too much attention to foreign policy and too little in the domestic development of his country. That is a big complaint reformers in Russia voiced against him. And that is one reason why he lost popularity even among this group. So Yeltsin took over. Well, and now Putin.
Actually the main critics of him are Jabloko, a left liberal-party. The right-lieberals (Union of right forces) actually supported his policy. Well: both those parties failed to come into parliament in 2003. Too little public support. There is no alternative to Putin anyway.
I actually see that he is moving many things in the right direction: he really goes for economic reforms. That is a very important thing. Without it there would be no chance at all that Russia may develop into a full democracy in the long-run.
Withouth it Russia could actually develop into a deep crisis, like it was in the 1990s and that could lead to a lot of mischief: a development like in Germany after 1929 could not ruled out than.
Therefore I would like to conclude with a statement of one great european statesman of the 19 th century:
Sometimes it needs a "revolution from above" to prevent a "revolution from below".

How was it under Yeltsin? The parliament comprised of communists and nationalistic parties who undermined the reform policy of the administration.
Today the party Unity- The Bear has a majority. Putins new created party. Certainly: Putin is playing the "strong man" on top. The Russian constituition of 1993 has in that respect actually followed the example of the American constituition which also establishes a pretty powerful head of state.
Though in a country with Russias tradition that can of course be dangerous.
On the other hand I simply don´t believe that Russia can be brought on the way to reforms without a period of really strong leadership. You shouldn´t forget that Turkey did also reform itself through the autocratic rule of Atatürk. Without that Turkey would still have the same structure and the same problems as countries in the rest of the Middle East: Economically and politically. Tukey even had 30 years of one-party rule under his leadership. First liberalisation, then democratisation. And it would never become a partner of the west. Even today it has some problems because this move of the Turkish leadership has divided the society (-Huntington). But they are certainly better of with that than without it.
The legislature being weakened doesn't bother me as much as having control of the courts. I am a firm believer that the first liberal reform of any country should be the rule of law. This has only begun to appear in Russian society, as judges do have autonomy. However, Putin decides their paychecks, so if there is one ruling he doesn't like, he can respond with a pay cut. And being poor in Russia certainly isn't fun. Still, the court system is far better than, say, under Brezhnev.
"The liberal theory of history holds that free market societies turn into democracies."
I believe in this theory as well. And there is a point Gorbatshov can be criticized for. He went for political reforms first and not for economic reforms. Aside of the fact that he put too much attention to foreign policy and too little in the domestic development of his country. That is a big complaint reformers in Russia voiced against him. And that is one reason why he lost popularity even among this group. So Yeltsin took over. Well, and now Putin.
Actually the main critics of him are Jabloko, a left liberal-party. The right-lieberals (Union of right forces) actually supported his policy. Well: both those parties failed to come into parliament in 2003. Too little public support. There is no alternative to Putin anyway.
I actually see that he is moving many things in the right direction: he really goes for economic reforms. That is a very important thing. Without it there would be no chance at all that Russia may develop into a full democracy in the long-run.
Withouth it Russia could actually develop into a deep crisis, like it was in the 1990s and that could lead to a lot of mischief: a development like in Germany after 1929 could not ruled out than.
Therefore I would like to conclude with a statement of one great european statesman of the 19 th century:
Sometimes it needs a "revolution from above" to prevent a "revolution from below".
It was really a mixed bag for us. On one hand, it created an atmosphere of mob rule. Yeltsin was a good president at first, but he had to taper off with his number of surgeries. All the while, old line communists and such were trying to get back into the Kremlin. When the free market reform did arrive, it was accompanied by a state of anarchy. It lead many Russians to the sad impression that the free markets are a form of theivery.
On the other hand, I'm sort of glad glasnost came first. If Gorbachev focused solely on perestroika, the Soviet economy would be reformed, and lots of good things would happen in Russia. China had a smilar perestroika long ago, but no one calls it capitalism. My fear is that it would a.) do nothing to stop the many proxy wars, as the Soviet system would probably always be called "communism", and b.) the Soviet military would still exist. Whether or not they are friendly to the free world, they would pose problems. They could still run a policy of two superpowers, and deny the US unquestionable acsess to the seas. It's bad from our standpoint, of course, because in hindsight, we know there are problems in the world that affect us, and our military dominance helps, not hinders, a resolution.

I disagree in respect to your judgement on Yeltsin. Without him the reactionaries in the communists party would have taken over in 1991 - that could have caused a nuclear civil war in the USSR. Yeltsin played a very important role in ending this. Also he secured the failure of a role-back in 1993 (next uprising) and in the presidental election of 1996. At the end of his term he was however a bit confused for health reasons. I agree with you on those points. However, Yeltsin also created alot of the problems in post-Soviet Russia. It was Yeltsin who helped undermine the entire power structure of the USSR to advance his own personal interests. His role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union should not be overlooked. The West might have been pleased but it has been disastrous for Russia.

Yeltsin's attempt at economic reform was also a disaster.

I agree with you on those points. However, Yeltsin also created alot of the problems in post-Soviet Russia. It was Yeltsin who helped undermine the entire power structure of the USSR to advance his own personal interests. His role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union should not be overlooked. The West might have been pleased but it has been disastrous for Russia.
The fracturing of the USSR was inevitable with or without Yeltsin. The Baltic states were the most eager to get out, as they left way back in 1990. The rest just withered away. I'm surprised that more Russian republics didn't try to break free, actually.
Yeltsin's attempt at economic reform was also a disaster.
This is the trap that Yeltsin critics fall into. Yeltsin couldn't maintain state industries simply because the money didn't exist. In the USSR, health benefits, housing, even food were tied to work, so payment wasn't a real issue. Here, it was. When Yeltsin tried sustaining the former Soviet industrial complex, he ended with hyperinflation. He had no choice but to sell many key industries to private individuals.
But this wasn't bad. For one, Yeltsin was so eager to get rid of them that most industries were sold at low prices. Russian entrepenuers could buy them, not just foreign investors. It remains to be seen how good this is in the long term, but it was a success in the short term. Moscow is now second only to New York as the city with the most billionaires according to Forbes. The atmosphere of privatization may have been a bit like the Wild West, but that was because Yeltsin (and probably Gorbachev) forgot that the rule of law was needed first.
Yeltsin's real failing was the 1998 currency crisis, but that was because his reforms weren't enough. He floated billions in bonds to prevent hyperinflation, and defaulted on all of them. He should've sold the factories as well. They're not doing good under the state, as Russia is the world's only producer of vacuum tubes.

Now, Drabikstan, I have to ask you why you're so interested in Russia. Are you a Russian, or do you come from a military family that dreams of the day when Russia is a threat again?

bump

The legislature being weakened doesn't bother me as much as having control of the courts. I am a firm believer that the first liberal reform of any country should be the rule of law. This has only begun to appear in Russian society, as judges do have autonomy. However, Putin decides their paychecks, so if there is one ruling he doesn't like, he can respond with a pay cut. And being poor in Russia certainly isn't fun. Still, the court system is far better than, say, under Brezhnev..
That is a thing i agree with you: the rule of law and the courts were the begining of the "legal state" in Europe as well. The "mercy of God" (for the kings and dukes) became more and more limitted by constituitions which gave step-by-step the right to go to court against a decision by the state bureaucracy. Russia has a long way to go. China as well. But it can´t be said that Russia today has not made progress since Breshnevs time (Breshnev actually draw back some of Chrustchevs reforms who went for Destalinisation (sp?)).


It was really a mixed bag for us. On one hand, it created an atmosphere of mob rule. Yeltsin was a good president at first, but he had to taper off with his number of surgeries. All the while, old line communists and such were trying to get back into the Kremlin. When the free market reform did arrive, it was accompanied by a state of anarchy. It lead many Russians to the sad impression that the free markets are a form of theivery...
Thats the case: and it should not be forgotten that some of the oligarchs who are arrested or forced to leave the country today were using their positions as members of the communits party to take controll over companies. The former head of Yukos actually belonged to this group as well. The only problem I have with it that the judiciary is not going after them in an unbiased manner but obviously only going after those who are critical of Putins policy.
Yeltsin did mistakes in that respect in the organisation of the market reforms. Other east european countries where better with that. On the other hand: there was no blueprint for changing a commando-economy to a market-economy. So mistakes were to a certain degree unavoidable.

On the other hand, I'm sort of glad glasnost came first. If Gorbachev focused solely on perestroika, the Soviet economy would be reformed, and lots of good things would happen in Russia. China had a smilar perestroika long ago, but no one calls it capitalism. My fear is that it would a.) do nothing to stop the many proxy wars, as the Soviet system would probably always be called "communism", and b.) the Soviet military would still exist. Whether or not they are friendly to the free world, they would pose problems. They could still run a policy of two superpowers, and deny the US unquestionable acsess to the seas. It's bad from our standpoint, of course, because in hindsight, we know there are problems in the world that affect us, and our military dominance helps, not hinders, a resolution.
Well, you are right in many points. Doesn´t change the fact that Gorbatshev can be criticized for doing to little on the economic sector.
Regarding the Soviet Union: it was due to collapse some day. One Russian writers have written about that even in the 1950s. Quote: If we leave East Germany, we are going to loose East Europe. If we loose East Europe we are losing the Baltics and then the Caucasus, e.g.
He missed Central Asia though. The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan was in a way an action of despair. They feared that the islamic revolution could spring over to the muslim republics in Central Asia. There reason for their intervention. Didn´t work though - also due to the US and Saudi-Arabia. On the other hand: parts of the problems of today are also caused by this development since those islamists tend to believe that because they could win against one super power they could take the other one as well.
And they are determined. So this conflict is certainly one for decades not years, even in Afghanistan.

But back to the Soviet Union: The Soviet Union was built on the ruins of imperial Russia who actually collapsed during World War I because it couldn´t stand the Germans and Austrians. Lenin signed a seperate peace in 1918 (Brest-Litowsk - ironicly the Brest-Litovks (sp?) line almost marks today the western border of Russia). The Soviet Union was actually smaller than it (though 22 million square kilometers are quite big). It contained many territories Russia conqured during the 19 th century (like the Caucasus or Central Asia). Usbekistan or Turkmenistan only became part of it in 1895. So they were actually like colonies of Russia (and also with very little Russian population). Many of those actually seeked independence in 1918 (also Georgia 1918-20) or Central Asia (lead by a Turkish general). The communists were able to roll back this development and were able to prevent their independence from Russia for 70 more years. But that it would happen one day was unpreventable in my view - well: like the wars in the Balcans and the independence of Croatia, Slovenia and the others from Serbia and Serbian dominance. Fortunately there were Gobatshov and Yeltsin and not a Milosevic in Russia. Otherwise that could have been really bad.
It is actually surprisingly how peaceful that happened.
Not as peaceful as Britain handeld the decolonisation after 1945 but almost - better than the French actually.
And Russia still has its 17 million square kilometers, all of the nukes and a population that is more than 80% Russian. Except in the Caucasus (mainly Chechenya but probably in future two or three other republics) there is no Russian republic which could - on an ethnic base - seek independence. So in that respect - nationality conflict - Russia is today much more stable because it let the others go.
Chechenya is nasty. It is going to develop into a simular thing the Kurd problem is for Turkey. But it can´t completly destabilize the country or lead to its collapse. But it is nasty, shure.

I agree with you on those points. However, Yeltsin also created alot of the problems in post-Soviet Russia. It was Yeltsin who helped undermine the entire power structure of the USSR to advance his own personal interests. His role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union should not be overlooked. The West might have been pleased but it has been disastrous for Russia.
Yeltsin's attempt at economic reform was also a disaster.
I have commented on many points on my posts above: I disagree with your assessment. Your overestimate the importance of the individuals here. The USSR was due to failure because it was a prison for the different nationalities. The desire of independece was old - however repressed by a communists ideology, which also ideologically tried to bind the people together. The territories were mostly conquored at the 19 th century during the period of European empirialism. I don´t see a difference between the French colonisation of Algeria (or other european countries in Africa) and the Russian one in Central Asia or the Caucasus. That couldn´t last for ever. Independence movements were already gaining ground in the 1980s. And in 1988 (Nagorny Karabach) the nationality conflict in the Caucasus openly broke out. The end of the Soviet Union as one state was inevitable.
Gorbatshovs suggestion was actually to say: A new USSR should be a "Union of sovereign states (instead of socialist; which means of course a confedederation and not a federation). And that was actually the thing that happened afterward: however under Yeltsins leadership. And therefore there is no new "Union of sovereing states" but the so-called "Commonwealth of Independent States" (CIS) which includes 12 former republics (all but the baltics). Anything else was impossible. Russia wouldn´t have been able to force anyone back to the USSR. During 1991 all had declared independence - many by the way even before the uprising - one reason for it was that certain people didn´t want this union of sovereign states (Confederation) but the old USSR because the correctly saw that it would mean the independence of the other republics as well. But it was unavoidable. Everything else would have led to a big civil war like in Yugoslavia - well: a nuclear civil war though.
And Yeltsin played an important role to prevent that.

In regards to the thread title I think one can find the role of NATO in the treaty itself.

The issue is how our politicians define the treaty that is the issue.

NATO has acted outside of its defined role once already. I shall not argue the rights and wrongs of that but it also defined the US as a global policeman.

Not an enviable position.

In regards to the thread title I think one can find the role of NATO in the treaty itself.
The issue is how our politicians define the treaty that is the issue.
NATO has acted outside of its defined role once already. I shall not argue the rights and wrongs of that but it also defined the US as a global policeman.
Not an enviable position.
The US has interests all around the world: so it is in that role. And it is not enviable. But not all Nato members are in that role. A country like Germany for example is mainly interested in European security (Balcan mission), France and Britain however have still many interests in their former colonies - regardless whether they are in Africa or the Middle East.
Britains return to Iraq can actually be seen in that respect - however of course as junior partner of the US.
Since the US is having the role of the leading power (which it wants to use to fight terror by establishing an unipolar world in which rivaling or dangerous powers can be eliminated also via preventive strikes) the question is whether NATO countries join this strategy and become the assistances of the US in the mission they want to go for or whether they want to stay out of them (not just individually but to veto Nato out of them). Interestingly there is a difference between France and Germany. Germany wouldn´t veto a Nato mission in Iraq (however don´t sent troops for it) however France would also Veto it (and refuse the use of the Nato infrastructure). The French strategy is therefore undermining NATO.
And that is causing many problems of course.
So, Nato can only exist if the transatlantic alliance exists. And that means that is has to play a role in the mission of today. And it can´t stay out of Iraq at all.
I think France is probably going to reconsider after the election. After all: they have moved a bit already issues like training the new Iraqi polica and army by Nato (however outside Iraq). I think they are going to move further. Otherwise the existence of Nato would be at stake actually.

In regards to the thread title I think one can find the role of NATO in the treaty itself.

The issue is how our politicians define the treaty that is the issue.

NATO has acted outside of its defined role once already. I shall not argue the rights and wrongs of that but it also defined the US as a global policeman.

Not an enviable position.
Well, name me one other NATO country with as many widespread military interests as the US. I can tell you that no NATO country has entire armies forward deployed to certain places, not even the UK.