Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[OUTLAW 09]

@outlaw
I looked up the definition of "to disarm" and I found but one which offered an unspecified reduction of forces as "to disarm", whereas all the other meanings are about to give up forces or the capability to be hostile altogether.
It makes no sense to write "to disarm" when mere reductions in forces are meant, as there are better fitting words. I presumed and still presume that you meant more than an ordinary reduction. The choice of the word "disarm" was meant to imply that Europe made itself impotent militarily.
In that sense, Europe didn't "disarm" at all. To the contrary; the EU countries could overrun Russia up to Khazan with their armies because they reduced their forces to a level very high above what little forces the Russians have in their Western and Southern (Caucasus) regions.
This is a fact and totally tears apart all the repeated stupid talk and illusions about a supposed European military weakness.

Europe isn't motivated to use more than its left hand's little finger to deal with issues because nobody is even only poking it. The Americans prefer to use their whole left hand, but using a mere little finger only is very different from having no fists.


There's a huge difference between a multi-ethnic state with ethnicities being concentrated in certain regions and thus able to claim independence and a multi-ethnic immigration state in which immigrants can claim to be a majority at most in parts of some cities. The former is no nation-state, while the latter can be (and is in Europe).


You're totally moving goalposts on the money topic. This is what you wrote
"Then the European companies went on a spending and investing binge in Russia as it "appeared" to be the great next business market and they did in fact make great money in their investments"
then I brought forward a source that shows how FDI were only large in a few recent years and mention why and you come back with trade stuff and Cold War trade.
That's bollocks. You wrote about investments in -not trade with- Russia and how these were supposedly "make great money", and you are mistaken. Investments from 2006-2009 are unlikely to have yielded more returns than the original investment already. That would require a ROI of about 15%.




I want everybody to understand that JMA's contributions here should not be taken seriously. He's merely jesting and never serious. For if he was serious, he would be lying and not merely writing nonsense of a failed kind of humour.
Luxembourg has a mere battalion as an army, of course.

fuchs---this was taken from an article posted today in the Moscow Times website---notice the highlighted sentence concerning Europe---an interesting take on Putin's understanding of Europeans if you ask me.

After a lapse of more than a century, the Great Game has begun again — in Kiev of all places.

In the 19th century, the Great Game was the rivalry between the British and Russian empires for Central Asia. England was wary that Russia's relentless expansion would one day threaten the jewel in the imperial crown, India. Both sides vied to dominate Central Asia's markets.

Seizing their "rightful" portion of Kazakhstan would bring Russia great riches and enormous geopolitical advantages.

The game went into a state of suspension during Soviet times. Some commentators spoke of a new Great Game after the Soviet collapse and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but that was more romanticism than realism.

There was a jockeying among Russia, China and the U.S. for markets, resources and military bases, but what was lacking was any grand geopolitical design or strategic imperative. All that changed with Kiev.

Though the final outcome of the Ukrainian crisis is uncertain, two things are already clear. Russia has revealed itself as non-Western, if not anti-Western. When push comes to shove, Russia will not play by the rules of the West because it does not see the world as the West does.

In Putin's Darwinian mind, the drift of Ukraine into the Western camp would complete NATO's encirclement of Russia, which, from the survival point of view, is inadmissible. Foolishly, perhaps, he is not overly concerned about the economic damage the sanctions will cause.

No doubt he believes that ties with European business are too tight and complex to permit sanctions that bite deep. Putin, the enemy of the rules of globalization, is counting on globalization to save him.

All the same, Putin's not taking any chances. He is aware that something has broken in his relations with the West. It will take time, but the West has already begun weaning itself from Russian energy. And so the main effect of Kiev has been to accelerate Russia's turn to China.

So again what is the European position or better yet the German position on Putin as one cannot really see a German "strategy" other than delay, use talking and then when things go badly talk again.