Russia cuts gas to Europe

[Respenus]

One again Skybird, you pleasantly surprise me with your insight and the ability to write long coherent sentences about your understanding of things around you. For that I salute you.

Yet, I cannot seem to fathom why you consider the EU be a killer of democracy (let's leave Lisbone and Ganley)? Considering that right now, the European Parliament is fighting for even more power which would make a more stable and democratic EU, for what is more democratic than direct elections? A consider you a very bright person, a level of intellect I hope to one day achieve, yet am I blinded by everything I have read on the subject of democracy in the EU or is it you who doesn't want to let go of the old idea that it is the national state that must always be in control, known as Gaullisme.

Now we come to what I wanted to ask you. Do you honestly and in your insightful opinion think that EU diplomacy would be stronger if every state acted on it's own? Here we come to the question of the loosing of power of European states in general as far as diplomacy (and many, many other things) goes. So, what is better? Leave everyone be on his own, let once more bitter rivalries come forth, if even on the international level, or at least try and stand together and try to hold the breach, even if it is for the last time?

In all honesty, I am for a changed Europe. Yet a new Europe. Not the Europe of national states nor of the supranational/intergovernmental system that is now the EU. Knowing you used to be in psychology, can you answer me this. If every single European has food, housing, clothes and basic services which open up the horizon for him, is the question of someone in Brussels pulling some strings really that important? It's the same on the national level and lobbying, the only difference is, we the public don't have access to certain information on the EU, that would make us feel safer about the EU. I agree it's a difficult subject, yet you could claim that before 1992 it was even less democratic. Once again, is the elected EU Parliament any less democratic than the national one?

One final question, do you believe that European states would be better of with the system that the UK publicised in the form of EFTA?
_____
As far as the Russia/Ukraine dispute goes. Once more we can see flexing of muscles from both sides and most of you posters have already said most what has to be set. An interesting article on the BBC said that there are many sides to this "economic" dispute. Russia wants it's sphere of influence, yes? Yet she has Ukraine, a former USSR state wanting to join the EU and NATO. Right now, it's only strategic importance is as a natural gas hub. What happens if you remove this importance with new pipelines? If we are to believe Skybird on the subject on EU diplomacy (and here I'm afraid he is right), the EU will just look the other way as Russia slowly brings Ukraine back under it's control, one way or another.

[XabbaRus]

Sky, I'm not from Russia, I'm a Brit....

I was being sarcastic. I fear that if the Ukraine entered the EU she would bring the same mindset as Poland.

Whenever I hear Kazynscki moaning it seems more of a victim mentality than anything else and one thing I hate more than anything is when people have to play the victim all the time to get anything.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Sky, I'm not from Russia, I'm a Brit....

Oh, sorry, I somehow cannot escape to think of you as a Russian who moved to Britain. No offense was meant.

Haven't we been there before, some years ago? I have some deja vu...

Yet, I cannot seem to fathom why you consider the EU be a killer of democracy (let's leave Lisbone and Ganley)? Considering that right now, the European Parliament is fighting for even more power which would make a more stable and democratic EU, for what is more democratic than direct elections? A consider you a very bright person, a level of intellect I hope to one day achieve, yet am I blinded by everything I have read on the subject of democracy in the EU or is it you who doesn't want to let go of the old idea that it is the national state that must always be in control, known as Gaullisme.

How could you leave out Lisbon when talking about the EU? Lisbon is the new face of and new set of rules by which the EU wants to run itself. I politely refuse to go into all the details one more time, since I have done that repeatedly in the past, and we had many threads on the Eu and the constitution coup (that's what it is is in my eyes: a coup). So I leave it necessarily to just some notes. The problem with it is not what is said in the big print, although there might be some ideals to which I do not subscribe in that blatant form. The problem is in the many appendices, and small print, and much of that simply is against the EU parliament, against national parliaments, against national constitutions (which for example should have prevented the German government from signing the draft in ignoration of german people's will, who by majority are against the constitution - that's why we were not given a word over it. We talk of a bureaucracy, a system of offices, that is not the EU parliament, that is not the national governments, but simply this: a prevailing bureaucracy that never received and never will receive legitimation and countercontrol by the european public, or even the parliament or the commission. Nevertheless this structure outsits any EU or national government, and is given more and more powers to bypass national governments and parliaments - even when violating their national constitutions - in form of an endless stream of regulations and new laws that get constantly produced below the level of commissions and parliamentary debate. This is where the real power of the EU sits, this is where the long-ranging projects and perspectives get formed, this is where the lobbies really connect to, and although national parliaments for the most now need to simply wave through any decisions from the EU, this European powerstructure is under no public surveillance, is not democratically legitimised, and is not responsible to the citizens of europe. It is very much an ursupator. You can't get a bigger absence of transparancy, then in this established scheme of processes! I call if the raise of a tyranny that rules by the tool of bureaucracy and social-psychological engineering, as I call it: the forming of a way of thinking about things that is considered to be en vogue by the crowd and gets accepted uncritically and unreflected, unquestioned and untested, but by content is what the EU is wanting people to think. It is affecting the way we define ethics, morals, values, goals, etc. It puts the control over people inside their heads, so that they control themselves in the way the Eu wants it. at the same time the so affected cinsider to act voluntarily and free. That is the best form of dictatorship you can think of: invisible, internalised, not offering any profile you could aim criticism at. It does not hinder you to act freely and move away - it makes you being convinced that you cannot be any more free than you are, and that "good" and "bad" cannot be defined any other way than that you have internalised.

If this sounds too much like a fantasy for you, I also must point out that former German president Roman Herzog has been president of Germany's highest court, the constitutional high court, as well before becoming state president, so he is a professional jurist and constitutional judge, he also is a known high profile expert on the EU constitution draft. He has fired off so many salvos of substantial criticism and has pointed out so many flaws and weaknesses and contradictions in the drafts, and has voiced so very basic criticism of EU procedures and elitist power grabbing that inside the EU structures are more and more the norm and get tailored to that goal even more by the constitution, that is is not possible to simply ignore all this - for his insight and competence simply is too much beyond doubt. I do not claim to have all that stuff constantly on my mind, even when having read a lot about it in magazones, interviews, or heared and saw him on TV. I refer you to Roman Herzog, therefore. I also remind that "founding fathers" of the earlier stages of the EU, Giscard d'Estaing and Schmidt, also heavily ciritice the distortions the EU has turned out to become, and also criticising the constituions draft, especially the French does so, although he was heavily engaged in the first work over it. But the thing has moved far away from those stages, it seems.

The problem of excessive lobbyism, I already have mentioned. I just remind of it again.

Democracy is more than just being allowed to make a cross on a piece of paper. That is not democratic in itself, but a mechanical implementation of procedures that are meant to ensure democracy unfolding. Seen that way, voting is overestimated, even more so when people deny the reasonability in not to vote - especially when there is no choice worth to be supported, and you only are left with the choice between plague and cholera.

I also dislike the EU for it's systematic effort to reject and delete historic cultural identities, and run Europe as an all-out business company only, coupled with social engineering experiments (migration and islam) on a scale that outclasses any such effort we have ever seen anywhere in the world, in all history. That I criticise, because I do not see it working well in the present, and cannot imagine it working in the future, but see it heading for a future social meltdown and cultural collapse that "Europe" can and will not survive. And why should it even survive, if it even refuses to see value in its own grown identity/ies and diversity that now gets regulated into bureaucratically managed monoculturalism?

Now we come to what I wanted to ask you. Do you honestly and in your insightful opinion think that EU diplomacy would be stronger if every state acted on it's own? Here we come to the question of the loosing of power of European states in general as far as diplomacy (and many, many other things) goes. So, what is better? Leave everyone be on his own, let once more bitter rivalries come forth, if even on the international level, or at least try and stand together and try to hold the breach, even if it is for the last time?

I think part of "strength" is to know your potentials - and your lacking potentials as well, and pick your missions according to these. You do not become strong by intention alone, and if you engage in missions you are not suited well for, you will just ridicule yourself. Have you noted that Obama so far has said nothing on Gaza? There was an extremely good comment in german news yesterday , explaining it like this: although many expect him to say something on it, he does not, for he could only lose by that. He still is not president, and has no influence. He could only show his weakness and helplessness, when Israel ignores his eventual call for seize-fire (if he would do that, what I doubt for the current moment). He could only defend terrorism if calling Hamas to talks, although Hamas does not want to talk, but want to annihilate Israel and kill Israeli civilians. By his silence, he in fact lectures Hamas for their ongoing provocations, for he has visited Sderoth last summer, and gave a certain demonstration of support for Israel by that, consider it to be a non-verbal message. Hamas ignored the message - and now Hamas and the Palestinians that brought Hamas to power in elections have, to pay for their megalomania and constant terrorising of Israeli settlememnts, where people live in expectations of the next missiles since years. Hamas, so the commentator, thought that Obama and all world was revolving around their insane murderous ideas. By his silence, Obama sends them a very strong message instead, and does not allow a weakness in his present or future position at the same time. The Europeans send delegations, and ignore for the most the years of constant rocket shelling by Hamas, and think a seize-fire should be the priority, by that hoping not to anger the growing Muslim community in europe. At the same time they depend on good will only, and cannot unfold any more influence - than just their damn good intentions. Sarkozy, and the official EU mission, even followed partially contradictory diplomatic goals and ways of acchieving them. So - who played the stronger diplomatic hand here - the EU, or Obama? I vote for the latter. In fact, I find Obama's choice to remain silent extremely impressive, and clever. It is strong, it is tough, it is economic, and demonstrates a clear awareness of his own position, and potentials. He sends a message without hectically prattling, and without compromising his own position in any way. Really, very impressive, seen that way. On the other side, neither the single effort by Sarkozy nor the "coordinated" mission by the official Eu delegation, have to say anything important or significant, and are very much toothless. Israel does like it wants and sees need to, and has its eyes more on the UN and the american position there, than on the EU. Both the Us and the EU have desastrous ME policies. The americans misperceive the situatioins in many places and see it as their mission to spread americanism, and the Eu overestimates it's own influence and respectability in these regions, and also tries to spread EU-ism. Both are goddamn missionaries. I hate missionaries, and not only the religous type of breed.

So, a single country indeed can eventually act much more powerful than a club of 29 cooks who already fall apart over the initial debate on what brew to cook today, not to mention the question of how to spoil it this time. the British have been extremely successful in playing out the EU against itself and gained some special boni that way. sarkozy clearly wins the media race against the current EU mission in Israel. You see, the EU is not a united club, it is an angry, noisy kindergarden, everybody is a Napoleon or an ancient Pharao, everybody suffers from patzhologic narcissism, and everybody wants the biggest piece of the cake, and then some. German pays most for this, financing one quarter of the whole budget, but being underrepresented in the official power hierarchy of the EU and EU offices, and being too "polite" to go for more. Compare that to the unscrupleousness of the French and British to go for their special interests, and offices! Or the Polish!

the bigger the club, the greater the chance it becomes unable to effectively act without watering down any intentions in endless demands for compromises and special care beeing payed to individual reservations. In fact, this is the rule, and I fail to see the constitution draft changing that, for the actor's ill craving for attention is not being adressed by it. If whole offices and committees get formed up just to give one single politicians with too big an ego a title to represent and to shine with, then there is something wrong, and you see people starting to run around in Italian opera fantasy uniforms.what'S more, today, often what the EU says does not mean anything by content anymore, even more so if two actors use the same words, but have different understandings of these, and claim the right not to stick to official long-proven defintions of terms, but to invent their own interpretations of such terms. It just pollutes the air with meaningless verbal noise. Add to that my criticism of social engineering experiments and destruction of european cultural identities.

In all honesty, I am for a changed Europe. Yet a new Europe. Not the Europe of national states nor of the supranational/intergovernmental system that is now the EU. Knowing you used to be in psychology, can you answer me this. If every single European has food, housing, clothes and basic services which open up the horizon for him, is the question of someone in Brussels pulling some strings really that important?

Yes, absolutely, for the seed you ignore today may carry fruits tomorrow, so better have a sharp eye on not only what is landing on your dinner table, but on the field where it grows as well. I see a strong tendency, especially from the political left, but some centrists and conservatives as well, to lead people into greater and greater dependance from the state and the EU as well by making that option attractive by increasing comfort and making it easy and lull and dull, but by that you take away the creative potential of people and a society and culture as a whole, you kill any dynmaic there is and without which a society simpyl does not imporve, you sedate the ablity to think independantly and to critically reflect, question and analyse. I don't know about you, but for myself I rule out to accept being paralysed this way, and being led into dependance that comes in the form of thankfulness for all the helpand comfort I have been given. In fact I live independant and comfortable - but state and society have nothing to do with it, but family situation, and not living beyond my means. If I am in need to accept help and say "thanks" for it, it means I was and maybe still am in a position of weakness and helplessness, and I do not intend to arrange myself with a situation like that, but intend to move out, become independant again, for this is the basis of creativity, and sharp mind, and sense of responsibility. I find no comfort in being locked in a situation of being helped by the state while being dependant. I find more comfort in learning how to improve so far that I do not need help anymore. In return it also gives me a position of strength from which I can say that "the others" have no right to demand help from me, but i am being free to decide by myself wether I want to invest into helping somebody, or not. Of course, all this what I say is much against the european idea of the omni-present wellfare-state where you only have rights, but no responsibilities, and is more leaning towards the american way of doing (which maybe is a surprise for people thinking of me as hardcore anti-american, but in fact my view of americanism is much more differentiated than I am often accused of). To sum it up: the truth lies somewhere between the european idea of paradise (which I see as a dystopia), and the american extremeist laissez-faire. Not as much mandatory "social-ism" as in europe, but not as much absence of social obligations as in the US. healthy responsibility is to be found between these two extremes.

It's the same on the national level and lobbying, the only difference is, we the public don't have access to certain information on the EU, that would make us feel safer about the EU.

[quote]I agree it's a difficult subject, yet you could claim that before 1992 it was even less democratic. Once again, is the elected EU Parliament any less democratic than the national one?]/quote]

Wrong question. the real imporant question is why the constitution drafts in the fineprint allows the commission to govern by a hidden system of special and emergency decrees that bypass both national and Eu parliaments and makes obedience to them mandatory, and ruling by them a normality even if no emergency is existent (maybe that is why they also did not define what would constitute that kind of emergency). The queston is why it is tried to establish powers for the commission that enables it do evade public legitimation processes by the european public. These design features are not accidentally, since they do not result from an interaction of other factors, but result from explicit rules put down in the appendices. Almost all of the critical stuff is hidden in the appendices - and the appendices are so complex and so huge in size that is virtually impossible to oversee them all, and fully understand them. I am convinced that that confusion feature also is intentional, to prevent every Joe Avergae and even political professionals from fully understandiung it. to understand the major pages and the big-print of the draft, is not difficult, and it all sounds well and echoes nice and friendly inside your skull. The problems are in the fine-printed appendices.

One final question, do you believe that European states would be better of with the system that the UK publicised in the form of EFTA?

The European Family Therapy Association?

I am not too familiar with EFTA's specific details, I must admit, and only have a general overview at best, so I refuse to explicitly comment on that.

I think we would be better off with a system that roots more in the original design of the early EEC, with a managable low number of members and an understanding of cooperation not leading signficiantly beyond that of economic cooperation, and a "Europe of cooperating national fatherlands" (de Gaulle). This also is what Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt were about. But the EU today becomes an authority in all fields of national and politcal acting and then goes beyond that and claims powers and authorities it is not legitimised to claim, and not competent to fulfill. It claims the right to redefine european national identity, rewriting history, creating an EU-desired social and culture general climate, ignoring cultural and historic roots in different places of europe, in short: the EU more and more not only conducts policies of national cooperation and political and especially economic synchronisation, but interferes with the moral and private sphere as well, redefining culture, history and identity of europe (which must be seen as a europe in plural). that I see as almost highly questionable in itself, but even worse, I cannot see the artifical constructions of values and morals and desirable goals it tries to implement inside the heasds of people as a good and healthy thing, and question their very own quality and content. A symptom of this moral megalomania is what usually is being critised as this damn thing called "political correctness", which gets breeded both on national levels, and EU levels as well. really, it has started to remind me of Philip Dick'S social dystopias indeed. Anybody knowing his novel "The Man Who Japed", for one example? the "Poor Sinner"-podests in it,m the public moral inquisiations over absolutely unworthy bagatelles, the eletronic "Pimpfe" snuffing for violations of public moral? It all reminds so very much of the well-meaners and politically correct, the TV reporter terror and talkshows, the internet "your daily ten minutes of fame" platforms and debates we have today.

At the same time there is so very much hypocrisy when considering the high flying morals of the EU, and the massive economic lobbying making ridicule not only of democratic basic principles, but these morals themselves as well, and simply representing a frontal assault against the institution of d de ocratucally elected state representation itself. The relation between EU parliament members and economic lobbyists in Brussel usually is described in the ranges of 1:30 to 1:50, which means that as an average estimation you have 40 times as many lobbyists in Brussel, than EU parliament mmebers. And if taking care of the news, you can see with regularity that this lobbyism time and again erodes democratic principles, erodes existing rights and laws, distorts laws initially meant to protect the people and public interest into laws proptecting business from the people while violating poublic interest, and so on.

Europeans are quick to call for governments handling and regulating things, and I agree that some regulation is needed - more than americans want, but less than europeans want. Because what point is in leaving regulation to governments or institutions, if these are not any more competent to regulate than the regulating entitity or authority before them?

As far as the Russia/Ukraine dispute goes. Once more we can see flexing of muscles from both sides and most of you posters have already said most what has to be set. An interesting article on the BBC said that there are many sides to this "economic" dispute. Russia wants it's sphere of influence, yes? Yet she has Ukraine, a former USSR state wanting to join the EU and NATO. Right now, it's only strategic importance is as a natural gas hub. What happens if you remove this importance with new pipelines? If we are to believe Skybird on the subject on EU diplomacy (and here I'm afraid he is right), the EU will just look the other way as Russia slowly brings Ukraine back under it's control, one way or another.

For the sake of stability and avoiding unwanted, unneeded tensions with Russia, I hope the Ukraine does not get accepted into NATO at least (and Georgia as well). It is insane to expect from russia to accept what america in return never would accept and even threatened to will nuclear war about. Nobody should expect of the Russians what america in return never would accept, and the american model is - different from american selfunderstanding - in no way a model for all the world. At least this little minimum can be expected in political reason: not engaging in useless provocations that have no chance to lead to something good, and only can cause confrontation that simply is not needed and must not be wanted. Defend the existing status of geography against eventual Russian claims to change it (although they pretty much have accepted even the new realities in the Baltic states and Poland, haven't they), if it cannot be helped, okay, if things go nasty, then do it. But stop practicing maximum arrogance and double standards by trying to sneak even closer towards Russian territorial borders, just for the sake of American global dominance. For that kind of american arrogance, not america pays the price, but people in Georgia, the ukraine, and parts of europe - because we europeans live much closer to russia, than distant america, and we have more mutual ties with russia than america, and also are more vulnerable to Russia, than America. So to kick america's lower bottom a bit if it starts another thing with Russia again, is in europe's very vital self- interest. there are conflicts of need, and conflicts of choice. (Nonexisting) threats against Poland or the Baltic would be conflicts of need. But the american policy towards the Ukraine and Georgia, are conflicts of choice, and thus silly and arrogant. And for us europeans, preventing such nonsens must be much more important, than american geostrategical goals. We people on this continent will have to pay the price (and do) - not America.


what was it with this "ability to write long coherent sentences about your understanding of things around you"...?

[Skybird]

And, Respenus, regarding my current signature: salus publica suprema lex.

I initially picked it by choice, but learned some days ago, that it also was the motto of the third leaflet printed and distributed by the anti-Nazi resistance group "White Rose".

With some adaptation to the conditions of the EU, I realised that is has some valid content for my views of the EU as well, especially the first half.

The original:
http://www.bpb.de/files/70GDTF.pdf

The translation:
http://libcom.org/library/white-rose-leaflet-3

Salus publica suprema lex
All ideal forms of government are utopias. A state cannot be constructed on a purely theoretical basis; rather, it must grow and ripen in the way an individual human being matures. But we must not forget that at the starting point of every civilisation the state was already there in rudimentary form. The family is as old as man himself, and out of this initial bond man, endowed with reason, created for himself a state founded on justice, whose highest law was the common good. The state should exist as a parallel to the divine order, and the highest of all utopias, the civitas dei, is the model which in the end it should approximate. Here we will not pass judgment on the many possible forms of the state - democracy, constitutional monarchy, and so on. But one matter needs to be brought out clearly and unambiguously. Every individual human being has a claim to a useful and just state, a state which secures freedom of the individual as well as the good of the whole. For, according to God's will, man is intended to pursue his natural goal, his earthly happiness, in self-reliance and self-chosen activity, freely and independently within the community of life and work of the nation.
But our present "state" is the dictatorship of evil. "Oh, we've known that for a long time," I hear you object, "and it isn't necessary to bring that to our attention again." But, I ask you, if you know that, why do you not bestir yourselves, why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right - or rather, your moral duty - to eliminate this system? But if a man no longer can summon the strength to demand his right, then it is absolutely certain that he will perish. We would deserve to be dispersed through the earth like dust before the wind if we do not muster our powers at this late hour and finally find the courage which up to now we have lacked. Do not hide your cowardice behind a cloak of expediency, for with every new day that you hesitate, failing to oppose this offspring of Hell, your guilt, as in a parabolic curve, grows higher and higher.
Many, perhaps most, of the readers of these leaflets do not see clearly how they can practice an effective opposition. They do not see any avenues open to them. We want to try to show them that everyone is in a position to contribute to the overthrow of this system. It is not possible through solitary withdrawal, in the manner of embittered hermits, to prepare the ground for the overturn of this "government" or bring about the revolution at the earliest possible moment. No, it can be done only by the cooperation of many convinced, energetic people - people who are agreed as to the means they must use to attain their goal. We have no great number of choices as to these means. The only one available is passive resistance. The meaning and the goal of passive resistance is to topple National Socialism, and in this struggle we must not recoil from any course, any action, whatever its nature. At all points we must oppose National Socialism, wherever it is open to attack. We must soon bring this monster of a state to an end. A victory of fascist Germany in this war would have immeasurable, frightful consequences. The military victory over Bolshevism dare not become the primary concern of the Germans. The defeat of the Nazis must unconditionally be the first order of business, the greater necessity of this latter requirement will be discussed in one of our forthcoming leaflets.
And now every convinced opponent of National Socialism must ask himself how he can fight against the present "state" in the most effective way, how he can strike it the most telling blows. Through passive resistance, without a doubt. We cannot provide each man with the blueprint for his acts, we can only suggest them in general terms, and he alone will find the way of achieving this end:

(etc etc)

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is not the Russians to blame for, but their own corrupt politics and inner divisionsThe Ukraine still is object to world markewt prices for all things it buys and sells. And the financial crisis - effects everybody, not just the Ukraine. It also effects Russia, so why should they waste their ressources headlessly? They have nopthing to waste. And is somebody selling steel to Germany cheaper than before, just because German car makers face a loss in sales of one quarter? Hardly. If the Ukraine lacks income to pay for the ressources it needs, it needs to ask for help at the ICF or the WB, and needs to accept to submit to the obligations and rules that come with that step. I do not like both institutions, but for the time being, this is the correct procedure. You do not simply demand for yourself not needing to pay anymore, and steal what you need from others.

And there I thought you were a humanist, Sky. Instead you reveal yourself to be a cynic of the worst kind. I do not need to tell you there are a couple differences between steel for car production and gas required to keep ppl from literally freezing to death and keep the few remains of industry this country has for making money up and running. If you view this problem as a purely capitalistic one that is fine with me and it's a legit stance, but when it comes to money versus ppl I usually chose ppl. The last time a western european country treated a neighbour this way was before WW2.

Not really. The Ukraine since years pays less than half of the regular market prices for their gas from Russia, the european nations had to pay much more. That in the times of conflict and negotiations (or lack of these), and after the loss of trust by the Russians in their Ukrainean partners they now step up there demands to compensate the risks, is understandable, and it also is to teach them a lesson about their ongoing provocations (I just remind of the Ukrainean high profile offense during the Georgian war, to lecture Russian Black Sea Fleet about asking Ukraine for permission for future military operations). If you live close to russia, are economically weak and dependant, and have many russians living in your country - you simply do not bully around at every opportunity like the Ukraine does. It is stupid to trigger unneeded conflicts, just in an attempt to blöackmail the West to give you membership. It is the same kind of irresponsible and almost criminal behaviour we have seen by Saakashvili. Act like an irresponsible moron, create facts and hope the West swallows it when you declare yourself the victim nevertheless.

Yes, really. The fight you refer to about half the gas prices was 3 years ago. Since then the Ukraine has been asked for and paid world market prices.
And I completly and totally disagree to your notion that because you are a neighbour of Russia and have ppl with a russian passport living in your country means that you have to accept russian demands and political agendas. Ppl chose to live independantly from russia for a reason. What you suggest leads this drive for freedom ad absurdum. No country has the right to interfer within another countries internal politics, at least not when the goals of this interference are of imperialistic nature with the goal of restauration of former glory and sphere of influence. Either countries and their ppl have the same basic rights as we have, or they don't. There is no middle road if you want to keep up integrity. And about Saakashvili, he was an idiot, but he asked for help for a very long time beforehand and we simply chose to ignore him. It's not as if the georgian conflict just came out of the blue. Russia simply managed to wage a more succesfull propagandistic war.

that is quite the usual and heavily onesided, distroted way to see the Georgian conflict. Georgia'S brutal opression both regarding minorities and democratic movements, it'S try to blackmail the West by creating sfacts on the ground to givbe it membership in NATO, it'S intentional targetti8ng of civilians and members of minorities, it'S autocratic antidemocratic government making ridicule of wetsern understanding of "democracy" - all this you comfortably ignore. - As I see it: Georgia at least is as guilty as Russia. For Russia, the new provinces that became indepedant have turned into stings in it'S flank, showing to be run by Mafia-style corrupt clans just soaking up Russian money, so regarding that Russia has hardly gained anything. But it has successfully turned away the threat of more american influence spreading in the Kaucasus. As sphere of influence you complain about in the next paragraph when it is for the russians, but that you comfortably ignore whgen it is an influence connected to America and NATO. Double standards, this is called.

Pff, don't put words into my mouth. I critized american involvement more then once, you are aware of that, so don't go this road of building your argument on stuff I neither said nor support. That said, I rather have american influence "anywhere" in the world then russian. And I have a certain feeling I am not alone in this regard. If you however consider Russia a legit contender when it comes to human rights, democracy and freedom, and base your argumentation on that instead of pure power politics, then you must be dillusional, despite the US's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, even Guantanomo.
And I'd really like sources of your notion that all new russian provinces are mafia style parasites the way you suggest. This generalisation is unfair and plain and simply wrong considering the very difficult positons these countries are in, far away from any possible support from the west, their "only" way of support if they want to keep the russians out of their borders, something I can completly relate to.

I agree on the energy thing, it should have been started already after the oil crisis in the 70s.

However, my trust in EU competence to manage such things is fading faster than ever, and regarding it's diplomatic influence, nobody takes that more serious than the european chief diplomats and officials themselves. In the middle East, they are castrated and are laughed about, nobody takes them serious. Russia - to say the very least - talks to them on same eye level, or from higher position. Bush ignored Europe, and Obama will give europe not more than more polite behaviour and compliments that are cheap and can be given for free, while not adjusting fundamental principles of American policies (and that inlcudes: american interests first - well he is not the European but the American president, so I even cannot attack him on that), and demanding more european contributions to american-directed causes. the EU is really strong only in two things: eroding democracy in europe and replaing it with tyranny by establishing a relatvely small inn size but very strong bureaucratic mechanism that is bypassing national parliaments and democratic legitimation by the eurpean people and is independant from voting results in nations, and in negotiating egoist agricultural and economic deals and treaties with those that are weaker than the EU and often have to accept extremely disadvantageous conditions: the third world. And in the Far East, china is beyond the EU anyway, and the Pacific region is the playfield of China, Japan and America.

A megalomaniac mouse that roars and moralises its own people, while being turned away by other global players it has no influence over. It all reminds me of the ridiculous social and state models you can find in the novels by Philip K. Dick. much of the absurdities he described, I used to luagh about in the past. Today, I see much of that stuff being turned into absurd realities. Great.

Let's try to see it positive and turn it into a compliment for a visionary writer.

P.S. just for the record, I am no exiled Russian, nor do I have Russian ancestors. I do not transfigure neither the Soviet Union, nor Putinistan. I just refuse to subscribe to the western onesided blindness of opportunistic egocentrism, and I believe it is stupid to demand the other should behave stupid and violate his own vital interests - just for the sake of the wellbeing of yours.

Just read your very last paragraph. And indeed I was wondering if you suddenly got your money from the russian taxpayer considering how violently you got yourself onto the russian side. Though I share your sentiment about western ignorance you completly forget the fate of the ppl living within countries making those politics. I also do not consider western values outdated visions without a place in judgement of modern politics even in regions not living up to these values. And even if all you said was right, then it can't be in our interest to let the big thug subjugate the samller thugs to become a monster thug. Russian is way overrated. Their economy is the size of Portugal. They have nothing backing up their international endavours but old nukes, country size, natural ressources and most of all...lots of sabre rattling. Nothing of real substance making any claims to be a superpower with special rights in any way legit. Making Russia the big and natural contender to the US or even Europe is a joke. Even during the cold war Russias place in the world was more defined by fear and lies then anything substantial and it feeds from this reputation to this very day.

The discussion about the EU is a different topic alltogether.

[Skybird]

Bewolf, I took note of your answer, and intentionally do not reply, for it would easily lead to this thread blowing up, and also I already have typed in another long reply here. I leave it to saying that you and me obviously do not talk about the same planet.

[FIREWALL]

I think their all full of Gas. :p :rotfl:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bewolf, I took note of your answer, and intentionally do not reply, for it would easily lead to this thread blowing up, and also I already have typed in another long reply here. I leave it to saying that you and me obviously do not talk about the same planet.

Fine with me.

[Deamon]

All this brings me on some good ideas for some steel beasts scenarios with leos. Since a longer while I was looking for a reason to attack the east again.

[Kapitan]

Xabbarus is right take a look at the index mundi website i think you will find ukrain GDP went up by more than 6% in 2008 which means her econamy is growing so she can afford it.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=up&v=66

There is an alternative however:

Russia wants to stay a power in the mediteranean and black seas perhapse prime minister putin and premier mevedev (spelling?) could shall we say over look payment for the gas in return for the ukraines to extend the 2017 dead line for sevastopol.

Personally i think it is just this that is forcing some of the bartering but i think we should be warey of Russia as several U.S and british analysts in the last 8 years have said and i quote norman friedman " Russia has the potential to grow back to what it once was or simply dissapear" and at the moment i think she is doing a good job of making a return.

[baggygreen]

I j ust want to point out that I personally feel the Russians are simply taking advantage of the situation, as they probably should given the way they've been treated. Europe (more NATO) has been trying to push further eastwards, it's convenient for Russia to disrupt things a bit.

Ukraine are always whinging and moaning, not to mention antagonising. Not to say the russians dont do the same, but neither one is an innocent.

[Catfish]

Hello,
my opinion is it is quite easy with Russia. They want the Ucrainian, and maybe some more nations back that formerly belonged to their cordon sanitaire.
As well Putin keeps on testing how far he can go with bis power games until someone plants a fist in his face. I would say the sooner someone does it the better. And since we are at that, please do not forget our previous german chancellor Schroeder, working for Gazprom now he can get two of those from me .

Russia has stopped the deliveries through the Ukrayina altogether, and claims the Ucrainians would have stopped the flow to the EU - which is complete bullsh*t. They do not get any gas, with current temperatures of -30 degrees Celsius. Everyone knows Russia is blackmailing Ukrayina since they parted from the Soviet Union, and want to become part of the NATO.

This whole presentation in the russian press is a joke - just saw this "masterpiece" on the TV. The situation is played in front of running cameras like an ancient piece in a theatre:

Putin sits at a table, the Gazprom boss walks stiffly in and sits down (name is not necessary, Gazprom is no free enterprise, this "boss" is exchangable). Both men are trying hard to look honest and sober, with a solemn, grave expression on their faces (like imagine our politicians being asked for their salaries :rotfl: )

Now there's following dialogue:

Gazprom boss sitting down and facing Putin: "The Ucrainians did not pay the gas bills! I propose stopping all gas deliveries to Ukrayina!"

Putin not moving, staring at a wall: "You say Ukrayina did not pay, and there is still gas delivered to Ukrayina. We are pumping gas to our european friends (the word "friends" is pronounced even more grave), and Ukrayina has closed the taps. I say stop all deliveries to Ukrayina."

Gazprom boss standing up: "Yes. We will stop all gas deliveries to Ukrayina."

The Gazprom boss is seen leaving the room, and the camera zooms in on Putin's face, who is trying hard to produce an intelligent facial expression, or what he thinks that is.
Then there are some "experts" discussing this comedy :rotfl: :rotfl:
Only problem is the russian mafia would be even worse without Putin :hmm:

Sorry, but this TV show was simply too much for me.

Greetings,
Catfish

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Deamon

All this brings me on some good ideas for some steel beasts scenarios with leos. Since a longer while I was looking for a reason to attack the east again.

I personally can only hope the EU learns something and as Neil already said, gets it's alternative energy programs on line to prevent future clashes with Russia and gain back some space for diplomatic movement.

Do you mean "lebensraum?"

I say: go for it! The US wouldn't get envolved, as we a pacifists now. Maybe the third time will be a charm.

[XabbaRus]

Since three years ago the Ukraine has not paid world market prices.

Market price is about $400 per cubic metre. Ukraine wants for $200 and has had below this for the past year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7809131.stm

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Since three years ago the Ukraine has not paid world market prices.

Market price is about $400 per cubic metre. Ukraine wants for $200 and has had below this for the past year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7809131.stm

I'm just throwing it out there, is it possible the Ukrainians feel they deserve it for less as a tax for the pipes crossing their territory?