Moscow Claims Victory At EU Climbdown

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

MOSCOW (AFP) — Moscow claimed victory Tuesday after EU leaders stepped back from imposing sanctions over Russia's partial occupation of neighbouring Georgia.

As Russia and its critics kept up their diplomatic offensives, US Vice President Dick Cheney was to head to Georgia in a show of support while Russia's foreign minister visited Turkey.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who retains huge power after leaving the presidency earlier this year, praised what he called the European Union's "common sense."

EU leaders decided at an emergency summit in Brussels on Monday to freeze talks on a new strategic EU-Russia accord.

But the bloc did not accept proposals by Britain and eastern European nations for harder measures, including sanctions, over Russia's August military offensive in Georgia and recognition of two separatist regions.

"Thank God, common sense prevailed. We saw no extreme conclusions and proposals, and this is very good," Putin said in comments shown on NTV television.

Read more: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJGlxkKo3pZ-233zJ8FASpz3SnNQ

[Selatius]

1. Economic sanctions will simply accomplish making Russia a permanent enemy of Europe.

When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union dissolved, there was a window of opportunity to reach out and bring Russia into the international community, but what did the US and the west do when Russia pulled all her nukes and armies and moved them beyond the Urals away from Europe?

They treated Russia like the Weimar Republic after World War One. They expanded NATO onto Russia's doorstep. Former Warsaw Pact countries and several former Soviet Republics are now inside NATO. Pro-west businessmen flocked to Russia and stripped that country of its wealth through corrupt privatization deals. Hundreds of billions were siphoned out of the country. Then, they craft this oil pipeline that travels through Georgia and Azerbaijan and cut Russia out of the loop, right in Russia's backyard. Now, they are sending troops to countries in Eastern Europe to serve as "advisors" to East European armies and to countries like Georgia, and they want now to establish a missile defense shield in Russia's face.

How would the US react if Europe withdrew from NATO and realigned itself with the Warsaw Pact? Then Russia began sending military advisors to train armies in Latin America? Then they established new oil routes to ship South American crude to Pacific ports to be shipped home to Mother Russia? Then finally began setting up "defensive" missile shields in Mexico and Cuba? How would the US feel then?

[AlphaCentauri]

2. It looks like a plot to get the ex soviet republics in a war against Russia

while the corporate world opens China's markets

[go west young man]

3. You hit the nail on the head on everything. Well put.

[Igel]

4. So here's a question.

Russia has long wanted the various states on its borders as a buffer. Whether that includes the Baltics or Poland, Central/South Europe or states like Georgia and Kazakhstan, the claim has always been that for strategic defensive purposes it has "legitimate" interests in hegemony--whether that means control, colonialism, or mere imperialism--over these countries.

So let's assume that it's right. It wants to control the Baltics and E. Europe, and considered this to be its right in the '80s. It was considered a great loss to have failed to retain this buffer in the '90s. And now it's trying to reassert control.

Europe in the '80s wasn't much of a threat; the US put missiles there, and there were protests. Europe in the last 50 years has seldom actively stood up to Russia in any way that would entail any kind of threat to Russia. Even the Berlin airlift was mostly a US/British thing, with loss of life, and not just a great deal of support from the rest of Europe.

In the early '90s, Europe wasn't much of a threat. It still isn't: Every chance it gets it says no to military action. Even in Kosovo, it was a late-comer. It sort of stood by in Bosnia. It intervened diplomatically in Macedonia, and was toothless in Georgia and Trans-Dniestria.

Yet Russia continues to want a military buffer against Europe, from the time it was nominally composed of allies or defeated countries, to the present. In Napoleon's time, perhaps building peace on Polish bodies was a cool thing to do. But now?

The Russia perception of NATO and the constant claims of victory, on the one hand, and the actual actions by Europe are at odds. Russia's treated W. Europe as an enemy for a long time, and it really doesn't much matter what Europe does. So now we hear that Europe, should it treat Russia like an enemy, would suddenly start a vicious circle of escalation?

Of course. If we choose to start the clock at the right point in the recent past. But when we start the clock largely determines the answer we get. 99% of the starting times point one way; we have to be very, very careful to select just the right starting time. Then again, we did it in the Russo-Georgia conflict; the Russians do it in contemplating US-Soviet relations during WWII. The only constant is that we generally pick times that suit Russia. This strikes me as strangely asymmetrical. Asymmetries are often informative.

[lovuian]

5. When it all comes down to it the only thing standing between

Europe and Russia are those buffer states and the US which we have trouble keeping Iraq and Afghanistan in line how could we do it with Russia