Belly-Aching
Posted on March 31st, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
European nations have already shown little stomach for a tough line on Russian bullying of Ukraine and Georgia. ~Ida Garibaldi
Whenever I read lines like this, I wonder what the author could possibly mean. European nations have little stomach for backing irrational policies for which they alone will have to pay the price? Yes, this is true. They have little stomach for backing unnecessary expansions of a defunct Alliance into countries that for most of the modern period were part of Russian territory? They are guilty as charged. Europeans are not interested in jeopardizing their own access to energy for the sake of unrealistic fantasies of a North Atlantic alliance that borders on the eastern shores of the Black Sea? No doubt. They are unwilling to put their necks on the line for the nationalist aspirations of a hot-headed demagogue who likes provoking one of the major nuclear powers on the planet? That is surprising.
Taking a “tough line” could have real consequences for Europeans in ways that simply don’t apply to America. It is always a good idea to remember this, and it would quite useful to understand that continued pressure for NATO expansion into these countries could provoke the Russian use of energy as leverage. For the most part, Russian “bullying” of Ukraine with respect to energy has been a matter of cutting subsidies for Ukraine, which means that Ukrainians are finally starting to pay something closer to the market price for a commodity they are used to getting for very low prices. Naturally, having become accustomed to cheaper prices, Ukraine has fought such moves, which has led to occasional interruptions in supply. How this is solely or primarily Russia’s fault must continue to elude us.
Filed under: Europe, foreign policy, politics
First off, let me say that I think that there is a huge amount of insanity in US and EU and Russian Foreign Policy. For example.
1) The US is in many cases acting against its own interests by repeatedly involving itself in the affairs of Israel, turning its back on Israeli spying, weapons sales, AIPAC lobbying, etc, then using US jobs to bribe foreign nations to follow our foreign policy initiatives which are strongly linked to Israel, jewish wall street bankers, likud warhawks in both the democratic and republican party.
2) Europe, the Euro and NATO have little if anything in common with a US led alliance. Europe has threats from immigration via the Islamic South and it has real threats of low birthrates, uncompetitive worldclass universities, expensive social programs bankrupting and ossifying their economies, and energy/resource shortages.
3) Russia has a the same and/or similar illnesses to that of Western and Central and Eastern Europe. Russia fears a US empire but not an EU empire.
4) Europe needs Russia
5) Russia needs the EU.
Never before have the stars aligned for a peaceful partnership between west, central, eastern and Russian Europe.
Europe doesnt need the US or a US led Nato.
The US doesnt need Israel.
If Europe continues to follow the US then Europe will pay for the US failings as the US follows on the leash of its jewish lobby and Israel to isolate and punish Russia toward China and leave its continental problems unresolved.
If Europe breaks with the US and embraces Russia then the Euro will stabilize the continent, a continent wide immigration and security policy will form, europe will get its energy and natural resources, russia will modernize and protect its eastern frontier from china…and Europe/Asia will remain stable. If Russia fails, then war will come to Europe and Asia.
If the US continues to follow its jews and Israel, then it will follow its path to Weimar like destruction as the jews sacrifice the US nation for their primary loyalty: Israel and the jewish people.
I have to agree with your general point about our unnecessarily confrontational policy toward Russia. There are points where the friction may be necessary and historically valid. For instance, Ukraine and Georgia are unquestionably in the Russian sphere of influence. But Poland and the Baltics are arguably western, westerward looking societies. I don’t see why Latvian Lutherans need to feel the heel of the Kremlin in the 21st Century. Finland also was under the yoke of the Czars but they have nothing to do culturally with Russia.
Some consensus within the EU needs to be drawn as to whom is and is not “Western.” Ancient linguistic and religious ties can be clear demarkators. Obviously the Serbs align with Russia, as do the Bulgarians, etc.
One of the things I am interested in breaking down is the false idea that the Orthodox world is so far removed from the West. It belongs to European and Christian civilization every bit as much as we and western Europeans do. I have no interest in modern ecumenism, but recognizing cultural kinship is important.
It has suited Orthodox apologists and Slavophiles as well as Pravoslavophobes to maintain the separation between East and West. Without diminishing the real religious and cultural differences between East and West, the antipathy and divisions in Europe along these lines have been maintained so strongly because of mutual insistence on treating the other sibling culture as the antithesis of one’s own. Of course, siblings can and do have nasty rivalries, but it is in our common interest to put those aside.
I wouldn’t be interested in reinforcing this divide by making Russia’s sphere coterminous with the Orthodox world in Europe and the Caucasus or the Alliance’s boundaries coterminous with non-Orthodox countries. For one thing, the lines are blurry, and if we link these things too closely to cultural or religious lines we run the risk of sparking a new round of separatist wars. Ukraine has many Catholics in the west. There is a Finnish Orthodox Church, and there are a great Russians in Estonia and Latvia.
You can call them legacies of empire, but they are not going anywhere, so what we should be trying to do is to encourage a de-escalation of tensions that will make these lines less politically relevant. Ideally, countries with divided populations, including the Baltic states, should never have been considered for entry into NATO, but now that the Baltics are in we do have an obligation to them.
I wrote not so much against the “Russosphere” but in favor of letting majority populations in central and eastern Europe chose their own orientation. There are real differences between the East and West Christian peoples. We should never exacerbate them. We should establish brotherly relations between us as Christians.
That said, the hand of Russia via the old USSR was not a light one on those areas of Europe where it rested. The Estonians and Latvians are saddled with a Russian population imposed upon them by Stalin. Russia seems excempt from the decolonization rules of conduct affecting the other defunct empires. Literally every Pole I have ever met bears a deep animus toward Russian. This and other legacies make understandable the desire of many Europeans to give Russia a wide birth. We should respect their wishes.
I regret the moment when we could have help Russia has passed. Such “help” as we gave humiliated and degraded her, resulting in the Oligarchs and the re-imposition of a sort of one party state. It’s genuine shame.
As the only global geopolitical entity with unabridged access to manufacturing and natural resources ( the whole of the Americas), it remains in the US’s interest to divide Russia from the European Union.
If Russia became a member of the union and its resource exports were denominated in Euro’s, the USD’s status as the global reserve and superpower would cease overnight.
Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Ukraine, defense shields etc, only serve to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia.
Niko. Are you saying that Russia wants to be just another satellite of Brussels? I credit the Russians with more self respect than that. Still, a greater Europe, with the resources of Russia and the developed economy of western Europe would be a colossus.