The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless. — ssu
I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia and Russians were truly open for a new relationship with the West. It was the time when Dzerzinsky's statue was taken out of the front of the KGB headquarters. But the West, self centered and haughty as usual, thought Russia was over and nothing would come of it. You simply would have had larger than life politicians to make these two countries friends as they were no American tanks on the Red Square. Then Russia has always had two sides, the Westernizers and those who see the West as trouble. These two views go long into Russian history. (And should be noted, that the West Europe has also had this difficult relationship to Eastern Europe and especially Russia, to Orthodoxy and East European culture since the time of East-Rome, which we called Byzantium)If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you? — Apollodorus
LOL! Oh yes, as we would have any say about that.A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland. — Apollodorus
Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered. — Manuel
are determined to establish the foundations of an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe (déterminés à établir les fondements d'une union sans cesse plus étroite)
Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war. — frank
The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.
These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc. — Manuel
A director of the CIA has actually been later the President of the US. (Not a career spy, but anyway)I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. — frank
And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. Just to put things into context, the largest military exercise the Soviet Union held towards the West had 150 000 troops (Zapad-81). The largest military exercise since WW2 held in the West was Reforger 1988 with 125 000 troops.Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank
A good question.Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???
It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission. — Apollodorus
believe that the establishment of a united Europe must be achieved through the development of common institutions, the progressive fusion of national economies, the creation of a common market, and the gradual harmonization of their social policies
by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …
We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations … We are not in any way the rival of the world organization. We are a subordinate but essential element in its ultimate structure.
Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank
And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. — ssu
some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat
You seem to be simply a bit illogical or confused here, even if I think you have the historical facts correct.As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so. — Apollodorus
France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany. — Apollodorus
And this shows clearly your bias. As if Europeans didn't have anything to do with this. Also leaving obviously out that the actual orders and commands, more than just not to join the West, were given in the countries that the Soviet Union occupied tells a lot too.So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. — Apollodorus
This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.
No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.