RSS

June 21, 2010

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters, University of Łódź, Gold Contributor (84)

While your article raises important points regarding Europe's future, there are several points I wish to raise. Firstly, your promotion of former Chancellor Schröder is strange regarding his involvement in the Nord Stream pipeline project, For many his credentials as an objective and professional politician and diplomat were ruined by his acceptance of the Nord Stream AGcommittee post. Secondly, your suggestions for association attributes sound similar to the European Economic Area (EEA). However, membership of the EEA rests on shared values such as freedom of speech and democracy. These are aspects that Russia currently does not share with the EU.

While I wholeheartedly support closer ties with Russia, I would urge caution with regards to Germany playing too much of a lead role. Many in central and eastern Europe still recall previous treaties made between these two countries and their dire consequences.

June 21, 2010

Member deleted

This time I have to say it sounds quite realistically.

- The French lead the Club Med initiative
They succeed in initiating a clear policy on cultural identity not giving up liberal democratic
values through active secularism. Therefore are socially prepared for facing MENA
- Italy penetrates Egypt and Syria
- Close Jordanian relations to Club Med and Spain integrate further.
- Turkey has set the axis with Saudi Arabia towards the East.
- The Club of Rome as chimney organization cares for Desertec.
- With Sarcozy the French joined NATO and perform a bold Transatlantic agenda

If Germany is able to open the Middle East for export, would take Syria as value adding hub for Chinese pre-products and Turkey for more diversification on oil and gas supplies it could(!!!) develop the resolve to set up a scheme with Washington that will be able to withstand Russia's search for strategic debt. [Strategic Debt: Russia lacks natural borders and follows steady expansion as security joker.]

However, if Turkey develops towards the eastern hemisphere Germany would be unable to withstand Russia. Therefore it seems the US was right ... bring Turkey into the EU.

If not Europe is not only more than the EU but it would most likely perform back into what it has been before WWI, however. This is were Jeremy's critic starts...rightfully. So the Russia question will most likely be answered through the Turkey question... regrettably!

So the "Morgenrötler"-AKP could make every EUROPE initiative "Morgenrötlerei".

Nevertheless, for Germany, given projects of other European players, to "make" Russia is the logical answer. And with the US becoming more and more passive it is for Germany to wake up from the "After WWII" geopolitical coma after 60 years.

June 21, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

From a previous publication on " Absurdities of German Foreign and Security Policies" one cannot help but to be surprised about the naivete of some young Germans.
Do they really understand, that their country was in a 60 year post war coma, while floating on
quicksand spiked with the Jewish reminder.
The unconditional defender of this reminder is and perhaps will be the US.

As to the relations between the EU and Russia, one cannot agree more with the authors
proposing an in depth arrangement. with the Russian Federation and the CIS States.
This is also for the good of the United States.
Because continued foreign wars cannot be considered the sustenance for a nation,
especially as young as the United States.
President Obama is aware of that, as he is focusing on domestic concerns...., while trying to
reform the American Society.
Or could it be more than that, like trying to avoid for the US to implode.
Keep in mind in a few years, the white population in the US will be in the minority.... yet the deficit will
continue...... and will have to be paid by the majority, who will also be held accountable.....

HRF

June 22, 2010

Darrell Calvin Brown, City College of San Francisco/SFSU, Gold Contributor (130)

Quite a bit has been pointed out in this article which causes one to reevaluate one's postion concerning Global Affairs. I am not so sure if the enthusiasm found in the text is that of all of Russia which in and of itself has such a beautiful texturization of people and culture.So much else must come to fruition , it seems, as the global economy is being redefined before new terms may be utilized in the restructuring of a new Treaty between Russia, Germany, & the EU. We will see how well things will work themselves out in light of the Forums taking place, the situation in Turkey, and the situation in Israel. I pray for peaceful minds, hearts and spirits to prevail.

June 22, 2010

Kazimierz Wiesak, Pennsylvania State University, Silver Contributor (75)

My own idea is called EU + 3, that is EU + Russia, Ukraine, Belarus. But names are not important.

I suggest to look at geography, history, culture and economy.

Geography - Belarus, Ukraine and 80 percent of Russian population live within Europe. For comparison, only 10 percent of Turkish population lives within Europe.

History - since Peter the Great 300 years ago Russia is an integral part of Europe. Even more so Belarus and Ukraine that were then a part of Poland.

Culture - for centuries religion was a dominant part of culture. All three countries are (orthodox) Christian. Russian culture, from literature to science, has been closely intertwined with broader European culture.

Economy - Russia is very rich in all kinds of minerals, not only in oil and gas. She is also well advanced in certain technologies. EU is a technological and industrial power. There is obvious economic complementarity of EU and Russia.

Taking all of the above into account, the conclusion is obvious: EU and Russia Ukraine Belarus need an Association Agreement. As I mentioned, I call it EU + 3. It is in the interest of all the parties to cooperate as closely as possible. At the minimum, (almost?) free trade and free movement of people.

June 22, 2010

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

Thank you very much for your comments. Let me refer to some of them:

1. The Association Agreement is not meant to extend the EEA to Russia but to establish a common basis of EU and Russia.

2. Instead of a new technical and reserved Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), the Association Agreement should promote general integration and freedom:

- Integration: unconditional mutual (!) investment ("security through interdependence")

- Freedom: abolishment of internal restrictions regarding trade (customs duties), movement (visa requirement, non-recognition of exams, industrial standards etc.)

3. Thus, there isn't meant any exclusive Treaty between Germany and Russia, but between the EU states and Russia.

4. This Association Agreement is neither idealistic nor innovative (nor absolutely not caused by any presumptuous German foreign policy awakening) but just European realism and necessity. Also today we have contractual relations with Russia through the PCA. Numerous Association Agreements between EU and third states were signed before. E.g., Enlargement and ENP Commissioner Füle recently announced an Association Agreement between EU and Ukraine for 2011.

5. Of course, the Association Agreement with Russia has to be adjusted with both EU and Russian relations to the other Eastern European countries (i.e. Ukraine and Belarus as well as the whole Eastern Partnership).

June 22, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

A wonderful idea. If Israel merits a special relationship with the EU, then Russia certainly does so. Problem may be the big ego’s of the major European players France and UK. Hence probably also the reluctance to let Turkey in: too “great”, too powerful…

June 23, 2010

Member deleted

If EU intended to enlarge somehow at all, the natural course that she would follow would be to expand into her proximities like Urals and beyond as well as the Mediterranean Region for the time being….

June 23, 2010

Olga Kolesnichenko, freelance journalist, Gold Contributor (124)

Dear article's authors,

Your very smart and great article and proposal have been translated and published in the site of Russian Youth Atlantic Treaty Association.
http://aeac.ru/?cat=9
I very appreciate yours ideas and hope that Germany will manage to reestablish the entirely new level of EU-Russia relationships. The Russians and Germans really have the most close, most warm ties. I think that only Germans can bring Russia into European family as deep as possible. And I assure that it can make only Germany, nobody else.
So, Russia is open now. Europe has near herself almost empty but huge territory, continental territory. Please, arrive and build the new Europe together.

June 23, 2010

Member deleted

Germany and Russia Move CloserPRINT

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100621_germany_and_russia_move_clo...

June 22, 2010 | 0856 GMT

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
http://www.stratfor.com/

ShareThis

By George Friedman

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle will brief French and Polish officials on a joint proposal for Russian-European “cooperation on security,” according to a statement from Westerwelle’s spokesman on Monday. The proposal emerged out of talks between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier in June and is based on a draft Russia drew up in 2008. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be present at the meeting. Andreas Peschke said, “We want to further elaborate and discuss it within the triangle [i.e., France, Germany and Poland] in the presence of the Russian foreign minister.”

On the surface, the proposal developed by Merkel and Medvedev appears primarily structural. It raises security discussions about specific trouble spots to the ministerial level rather than the ambassadorial level, with a committee being formed consisting of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Russia’s foreign minister.

All of this seems rather mild until we consider three things. First, proposals for deepening the relationship between Russia and the European Union have been on the table for several years without much progress. Second, the Germans have taken this initiative at a time when German foreign policy is in a state of flux. And third, the decision to take this deal to France and Poland indicates that the Germans are extremely sensitive to the geopolitical issues involved, which are significant and complex.
Reconsidering Basic Strategy

The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French — along with the rest of Europe — to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany’s memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity.

Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it.

After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe — in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe — then the rationale for European integration became problematic.

The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment.
The Pull of Russia

In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany’s economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany’s population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia’s population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia.

The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner — if not a new one.

At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe — France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war.

The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France’s security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France.

Even more delicate is the question of Poland. Poland is caught between Russia and Germany. Its history has been that of division between these two countries or conquest by one. This is a burning issue in the Polish psyche. A closer relationship between Germany and Russia inevitably will generate primordial fears of disaster in Poland.

Therefore, Wednesday’s meeting with the so-called triangular group is essential. Both the French and the Poles, and the Poles with great intensity, must understand what is happening. The issue is partly the extent to which this affects German commitments to the European Union, and the other part — crucial to Poland —is what this does to Germany’s NATO commitments.
The NATO Angle

It is noteworthy the Russians emphasized that what is happening poses no threat to NATO. Russia is trying to calm not only Poland, but also the United States. The problem, however, is this: If Germany and Europe have a security relationship that requires prior consultation and cooperation, then Russia inevitably has a hand in NATO. If the Russians oppose a NATO action, Germany and other European states will be faced with a choice between Russia and NATO.

To put it more bluntly, if Germany enters into a cooperative security arrangement with Russia (forgetting the rest of Europe for the moment), then how does it handle its relationship with the United States when the Russians and Americans are at loggerheads in countries like Georgia? The Germans and Russians both view the United States as constantly and inconveniently pressuring them both to take risks in areas where they feel they have no interest. NATO may not be functional in any real sense, but U.S. pressure is ever-present. The Germans and Russians acting together would be in a better position to deflect this pressure than standing alone.

Intriguingly, part of the German-Russian talks relate to a specific security matter — the issue of Moldova and Transdniestria. Moldova is a region between Romania and Ukraine (which adjoins Russia and has re-entered the Russian sphere of influence) that at various times has been part of both. It became independent after the collapse of communism, but Moldova’s eastern region, Transdniestria, broke away from Moldova under Russian sponsorship. Following a change in government in 2009, Moldova sees itself as pro-Western while Transdniestria is pro-Russian. The Russians have supported Transdniestria’s status as a breakaway area (and have troops stationed there), while Moldova has insisted on its return.

The memorandum between Merkel and Medvedev specifically pointed to the impact a joint security relationship might have on this dispute. The kind of solution that may be considered is unclear, but if the issue goes forward, the outcome will give the first indication of what a German-Russian security relationship will look like. The Poles will be particularly interested, as any effort in Moldova will automatically impact both Romania and Ukraine — two states key to determining Russian strength in the region. Whatever way the solution tilts will define the power relationship among the three.

It should be remembered that the Germans are proposing a Russian security relationship with Europe, not a Russian security relationship with Germany alone. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Germans taking the initiative to open the talks by unilaterally negotiating with the Russians and taking their agreements to other European countries. It is also important to note that they have not taken this to all the European countries but to France and Poland first — with French President Nicolas Sarkozy voicing his initial approval on June 19 — and equally important, that they have not publicly brought it to the United States. Nor is it clear what the Germans might do if the French and Poles reject the relationship, which is not inconceivable.

The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States.

Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can’t have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners — some intensely — is naive. The Germans are not naive. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests.

With this proposal, the Germans are looking to change the game significantly. They are moving slowly and with plenty of room for retreat, but they are moving. It will be interesting to hear what the Poles and French say on Wednesday. Their public support should not be taken for anything more than not wanting to alienate the Germans or Russians until they have talked to the Americans. It will also be interesting to see what the Obama administration has to say about this.

June 23, 2010

Olga Kolesnichenko, freelance journalist, Gold Contributor (124)

Dear Samir!
Thank you, I have known about this STRATFOR article - I have received it to my email. With pleasure and with a lack of time I have blueprint to translate it and send to YATA-Russia site soon.

June 23, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

Mr. Friedman's publications " Share This" deserves our compliments, especially as he tries to
present his view and stroking of the European theater, past and present.

The " three-player-game" is quite well understood and apllied and remains a
welcoming tool in settling disagreements through agreements or more disagreements, such as war.
In all cases however, these games are under guidance of an MC or MP ( Master of Manipulation).

When Germany was still considered just a concept, it was well appreciated by people from Europe and the UK. But when Germany became an economically successfull country, England became the foremost MP for Europe and has left Germany's doorsteps since.

Yet England is not even mentioned in the articel at all. Hopefully Ms. Kolesnichenko does not fall for this.


HRF

June 24, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

above articel needs to be corrected to:

....and has NOT left Germany's doorsteps since...

HRF

June 24, 2010

Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (358)

See the theses in http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/bonn...

The future of the world is increasingly defined by the competition between four economic and cultural areas: the People's Republic of China, the Republic of India, North America and Europe connected in each case with their neighboring countries. As an economic and cultural space, Europe extends from Gibraltar and Iceland, west of the Eurasian continent, all the way to the Russian Chukotka Peninsula in the East thus, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The "Europe" that I am speaking of here is more than just geographical Europe. Only a region with expert knowledge and future technologies, raw materials and energy sources, integrated logistics and efficient management at its disposal will be competitive. Moreover, an important precondition for strength is that justice and solidarity are recognized and observed as moral values, there is a stable legal system, and state and economic actions are transparent.

The balance between freedom and responsibility must be safeguarded. Together, the countries of Europe possess these virtues, as well as high intellectual potential. They therefore stand a chance to succeed within the global competition of these regions. However, the precondition here is that these countries must identify and establish themselves as a European cultural and economic area, with the common values of cohabitation that are accepted by the people of Europe. This self-identification is conditioned on trust between the countries. Europe needs confidence-building measures. An especially important requirement for the development of a European cultural and economic region is the partnership of the raw material and energy rich Russian Federation and the technologically savvy European Union. The EU needs Russia and Russia needs the EU. The teaming up of these two powerful centers is the key to a strong Europe.

June 24, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Mr. Reuter-Fix,

Thank you for bringing England into the discussion. However the former Empire is sandwiched today. It can indeed only survive as MP, however, their methods are well known.

Ant the Kremlin indeed remembers the history of interests behind the peoples uprising. Therefore I do not think Olga will fall.

Mr Friedman writes from an US perspective and the special relationship with England and the US is gone. The BP reparations could match England military spending if private actors and funds decide to issue lawsuits against the former East India ;-)

June 24, 2010

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

Today, the media reports on the Russian-Polish impetus toward visa facilitation for the inhabitants of Kalinigrad for Poland. This is a first good step as Kaliningrad could/should be a model region for Russian-European integration.

June 25, 2010

Member deleted

This article seems to present the framework of G2, namely US + (EU and Russia), similar to that of the G3, i.e. US + (EU and Russia) + (China + Japan + S. Korea).

As the saying goes, US probably wants a single polar world, namely the US, while EU and Russia may want a multipolar world, like that Japan and S. Korea may want. And China perhaps like to have a single polar Asia - China, along with a multipolar world elsewhere.

How things would work out remains to be seen, and may the best one or combination(s) win.

June 26, 2010

Member deleted

It has been clearly observed in the last several decades that regional international organizations & regionalization functioned not only as bases for mutual benefits but also as some sort of rather effective Peace Insurance Policies.

Therefore it may be inferred that globalization –even partially and in some forms- may lead the mankind to achive lasting World Peace in the long run.

The world governance, on the other hand, under an umbrella of a unipolar, bipolar or multi-polar order may have to preferred to a chaotic international relations and can also be made to generate some degrees of World Peace if and only if exercised with unqualifed principles of universal justice in the transitional stages…

July 30, 2010

Zahid Hussain

The lead article and comments provide a glimpse of emerging geo-political formations as Mr. Ting Shiang Lee has called it a framework of G-2 namely US + (EU and Russia) and G-3.

Interestingly whatever the framework is the reasons behind its creation are mostly and predominantly geo-economically motivated. Western and Eastern Europe are dependant on each other for their energy and financial needs respectively. The only way to benefit from each other is to have a disruption free flow of oil and gas from Russia to Western Europe and consequent supply of much needed money from Western Europe to Russia. As such, the formations of G-2 and G-3 frameworks are need of the hour.

There is another interesting aspect of the emerging geo-diplomatic and geo-political scenario and that is the nature of trade relations between Germany, Russia and Iran. Here again the oil comes in! On top of that, if everything falls in place, one cannot ignore the possibility of the participation of other countries in the Russian economic zone of influence in the quest for broad based cooperation. Interestingly the consensus on Northern Transportation Network between USA, Russia and other regional players is another indication that geo-economic factors are playing an important role in this very interesting development. However, one cannot obviously ignore the historical, military and political factors discussed by the authors and the commentators.