Germany invites Russia to join security decision making

[Walsingham]

From a dispatch by stratfor.com

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian Premier Vladimir Putin are both going to attend the hundredth session of the International Labor Conference, set to begin today in Geneva. There is a likelihood that Merkel and Putin will have sideline talks while they

Edited June 13, 2011 by Walsingham

[Wrath of Dagon]

Any word on when they're planning to divide Poland?

[Morgoth]

The German leadership speaks Russian, and the Russian leadership speaks German.

 

Yes, they have very close relationships.

[Humodour]

From a dispatch by stratfor.com

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian Premier Vladimir Putin are both going to attend the hundredth session of the International Labor Conference, set to begin today in Geneva. There is a likelihood that Merkel and Putin will have sideline talks while they’re both attending the Geneva conference.

 

There’s plenty for Merkel and Putin to talk about: Russia and Germany are currently negotiating a potentially new institution within the European Union. It is the European Union and Russia Security and Political Committee. The actual organization — its name and its purpose — is quite vague. But what is clear is it would introduce Russia to the political and security decision-making of the European Union.

 

Evidently Merkel is planning on selling Europe's future, via energy and policy making, to Russia.

 

FFS.

 

Russia and the European Union have been making intimations that their goal is an eventual superunion for a few years now.

 

It's not just Germany that supports this longterm goal - so does the leadership of other European nations and Russia itself.

 

I think the basic point is that Russia sees itself aligned economically and militarily with Europe in the long-term.

 

(I don't think Russia is happy to just kick back and let China dominate - and Russia isn't able to compete economically, at least not while it is such a loner, so the logical move is to forge more links with a powerful friend. And if your nextdoor neighbour meets that criteria and wants better relations with you, and is too stable and democratic to ever be a threat to you, especially if you become close with it, why not?)

Edited June 14, 2011 by Krezack

[Gorth]

I think the basic point is that Russia sees itself aligned economically and militarily with Europe in the long-term.

Historically, Russia has always been part of "Europe". A few decades of Iron Curtain will soon be forgotten and real-politics will reassert itself. Denmark has mostly had cordial relations with Russia, not at least during it's 12 major and 20 minor wars with Sweden (Denmark and Sweden holds the world record for most wars fought against each other). Personally I think the world outside Europe is viewing Russia with way more trepidation than Europeans themselves.

[pmp10]

Russia and the European Union have been making intimations that their goal is an eventual superunion for a few years now.

 

It's not just Germany that supports this longterm goal - so does the leadership of other European nations and Russia itself.

Don't you think that's a far reaching conclusion?

EU can't get the likes on Norway to join and keeps the very willing Turkey at arms length.

Somehow I don't see it jumping to unite with Russia in a hurry.

Historically, Russia has always been part of "Europe"

Geographically perhaps.

But then Turkey can make a similar claim.

After all it's armies has also reached far and wide into Europe.

[Humodour]

This is also occurring as a result of Russia's bid to join the WTO (World Trade Organisation):

 

The Partnership for Modernization Program, signed in 2010, stipulates various projects, mainly economic ones. In the course of the summit, representatives of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank and the Russian Vnesheconombank agreed on more than two billion euro worth of investments in the projects.

 

Through Partnership for Modernization, the EU will support and take part in Russia

[Gorth]

So Russia is acting reasonably swiftly to, over the next 10 years, align Russia strongly with the EU. With strong EU support, it should be noted.

Just speculation on my part, but I guess that with the resources and manpower that Russia has, they don't want to play second fiddle in world economics. Especially not with the potentially booming (and crashing?) economies in India and China. Putin isn't stupid, trade and modernisation of infrastructure is a priority.

[Humodour]

Russia and the European Union have been making intimations that their goal is an eventual superunion for a few years now.

 

It's not just Germany that supports this longterm goal - so does the leadership of other European nations and Russia itself.

Don't you think that's a far reaching conclusion?

EU can't get the likes on Norway to join and keeps the very willing Turkey at arms length.

Somehow I don't see it jumping to unite with Russia in a hurry.

Historically, Russia has always been part of "Europe"

Geographically perhaps.

But then Turkey can make a similar claim.

After all it's armies has also reached far and wide into Europe.

 

Turkey is in a similar situation. And while I don't know if Russia and Turkey will ever join (or be allowed to join!) the EU, that's not what I am talking about here.

 

I'm simply talking about a situation where the relationship between the EU and Russia is more like the relationship between, say, America and Australia or perhaps even New Zealand and Australia.

 

So in terms of things like freedom of movement, economic barriers, foreign policy, military cooperation, the two entities become much more in sync.

[Gorth]

Historically, Russia has always been part of "Europe"

Geographically perhaps.

But then Turkey can make a similar claim.

After all it's armies has also reached far and wide into Europe.

Nah, the presence of Turks in Europe is a historic novelty. When did their invasion start, early 1200-1300, reaching the western parts in early 1400? Even then, late 1400, the Ottomans had to contend with other Turkish tribes before establishing themselves as the dominant rulers in the former Byzantine provinces.

[pmp10]

They essentially held the source of western European cultural civilization since 1453.

What crucial impact on western European civilization Russia had back then?

[Gorth]

They essentially held the source of western European cultural civilization since 1453.

What crucial impact on western European civilization Russia had back then?

Novgorod, Muscowy or Lithuania (there was no 'Russia', although Muscowy eventually scooped up the others when it expanded)?

 

Holding off The Golden Horde from Western Europe? Trade? Art? Litterature? Philisophy?

 

About as much as any other European country.

[pmp10]

Mongols hit Europe proper anyway.

Lithuania is not synonymous with Russia.

As for cultural impact - no.

Relative to its size, wealth and historical power Russian impact is simply miniscule, especially compared to the level of modern US influence.

And the contributions to the common culture that has emerged are most certainly not equal.

Unless your willing to argue that impact of say Denmark is about the same as that of Germany?

[Humodour]

I think you're underselling Russia a bit pmp10... they do have a pretty rich history of innovation and culture.

[Gorth]

Mongols hit Europe proper anyway.

Lithuania is not synonymous with Russia.

As for cultural impact - no.

Relative to its size, wealth and historical power Russian impact is simply miniscule, especially compared to the level of modern US influence.

And the contributions to the common culture that has emerged are most certainly not equal.

Unless your willing to argue that impact of say Denmark is about the same as that of Germany?

It depends on scope and timeframe. 'Germany' is a modern construct and most of its predecessor principalities and kingdoms did indeed have way less impact on European history than Denmark. Basically, you have Denmark-Norway and Russia (or ethnic russian states) defining "world history" north of Central Europe, England and France defined history in Western Europe and the Iberian defined Southern Europe's history (post Imperial Rome). In the east, world history pretty much consisted of Byzans from 400-1453. Central europe was the place where everybody met and fought it out, resulting in the mess of fractured states, duchies, baronies, principalities and theocracies that made up the Holy Roman empire (sort of the predecessor of the EU).

 

Not sure what you mean by "Lithuania is not synonymous with Russia.". The Duchy of Lithuanian was one of the largest empires in Europe in its time, even if nominally subject to the king of Poland. It's territories (and people) was absorbed in the expaning Muscowy though and because part of Russia.

 

And no, after receiving a sound thrashing by Muscowy, the mongols never really threatened Europe again. Only the Turks did

[Zoraptor]

While I agree that pmp10 is grossly underestimating Russia's historical impact- and by extension that of non western Europe in general- Muscovy got rather smacked by the Golden Horde, sufficiently that they had to pay tribute for around a century, it was Alexander Nevski from Novgorod who stopped them, with a large helping hand from General Winter and Brigadier Boreal. For western Europe it was pretty much only the timely death of Ogodai (iirc) resulting in Subotai being recalled which was the only saving grace as the two most powerful european armies of the time- Poland's and Hungary's- had both been eradicated and the next significant power to the west was France given the HRE's disunity.

 

Russia only really became a major player in western europe in the 18th century, once Poland and Sweden were well on their way downhill power wise.

 

Now I'm getting urges to fire up Crusader Kings again...

[Gorth]

Russia only really became a major player in western europe in the 18th century, once Poland and Sweden were well on their way downhill power wise.

Heh, if La Grande Armee hadn't been put on ice, we would all speak French (badly) and eat frog legs today

 

Not trying to leave out Germany and Italy, but as nation states they are relatively new constructs resulting from unification wars (Bismark and Garibaldi iirc).

[pmp10]

I think you're underselling Russia a bit pmp10... they do have a pretty rich history of innovation and culture.

I was referring to the cultural impact on western civilization they had thorough history, not to the nation itself.

 

It depends on scope and timeframe. 'Germany' is a modern construct and most of its predecessor principalities and kingdoms did indeed have way less impact on European history than Denmark.

Basically, you have Denmark-Norway and Russia (or ethnic russian states) defining "world history" north of Central Europe, England and France defined history in Western Europe and the Iberian defined Southern Europe's history (post Imperial Rome). In the east, world history pretty much consisted of Byzans from 400-1453. Central europe was the place where everybody met and fought it out, resulting in the mess of fractured states, duchies, baronies, principalities and theocracies that made up the Holy Roman empire (sort of the predecessor of the EU).

 

Not sure what you mean by "Lithuania is not synonymous with Russia.". The Duchy of Lithuanian was one of the largest empires in Europe in its time, even if nominally subject to the king of Poland. It's territories (and people) was absorbed in the expaning Muscowy though and because part of Russia.

 

And no, after receiving a sound thrashing by Muscowy, the mongols never really threatened Europe again. Only the Turks did

Oh dear.

First of all: German is not a modern term.

It was originally an Roman term used to describe the land and it's people.

Even back then Romans could clearly see the difference between Germanic and Slavic tribes that inhabited the same area. Whatever identity the tribes had at that point is subject to speculation but they clearly had roots in Scandinavia and similar religious believes (belief in Woden ect.). That they were spared romanization finally to bring down the empire only highlighted differences they had with other tribes of those areas.

Secondly: history is not defined by any one nation.

No matter how much the superpower of the century may wish it could the history is written by historians and not subject to political revision.

That cultural view on past people and events differs from history is another matter.

As is the fact that interested parties often refuse to acknowledge it for nationalistic reasons.

Also note that HRE was badly fragmented not because it became a battlefield for various sides but mostly because papal interventions ensured a lack of effective centralized government. It was something papacy would bitterly regret come reformation.

Thirdly: Lithuania was never an empire.

Term Grand Duchy should clearly point out that in the mind of the papacy and monarchs of Europe it wasn't even fit to be called a kingdom let alone an empire.

Nor was it as independent as you insist but the point is: Lithuania became part of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth by choice.

It was "absorbed" into Russian Empire by force of arms.

Finally: Mongols got as far into central Europe as polish capital.

No "Muscowy trashing" halted their advance, they failed to make good on their victories due to fractional infighting and political instability.

Edited June 14, 2011 by pmp10

[Gorth]

Oh dear.

Yup

 

First of all: German is not a modern term.

It was originally an Roman term used to describe the land and it's people.

Thats a bit of a simplification. Nobody really knows the exact origin of the word (probably celtic), but the Romans used it geographically to describe the land east of the Rhine and usually in a generalizing way to describe people north of Helvetica who werent Gaul (i.e. non-Celts).

 

Even back then Romans could clearly see the difference between Germanic and Slavic tribes that inhabited the same area. Whatever identity the tribes had at that point is subject to speculation but they clearly had roots in Scandinavia and similar religious believes (belief in Woden ect.). That they were spared romanization finally to bring down the empire only highlighted differences they had with other tribes of those areas.

The period of migration is a bit more complex than that, the Teutons, Vandals, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Saxons etc. either being displaced by people from the east (Huns and Mongols amongst them) in a domino effect or just milling around. Nobody knows for sure what instigated it. Probably global warming

 

Secondly: history is not defined by any one nation.

Which was sort of part of my original point. Leaving out somebody, pretending they don't exist makes no more sense than singling somebodys accomplishments out. The dynamics are too complex.

 

Term Grand Duchy should clearly point out that in the mind of the papacy and monarchs of Europe it wasn't even fit to be called a kingdom let alone an empire.

Mindaugas disagrees. I use empire rather frivolous to describe a realm of signicant size and dominance. It was after all the largest country in Europe.

 

No "Muscowy trashing" halted their advance, they failed to make good on their victories due to fractional infighting and political instability.

I should probably have used a smiley. Look up Ugra River (or "The Standoff"). It makes the Phoney War look like aggressive military campaigning by comparison. The outcome (and lack of confidence in the leadership) however was the fracturing and internal war in the Golden Horde that resulted in infighting and decline.

[pmp10]

Thats a bit of a simplification. Nobody really knows the exact origin of the word (probably celtic), but the Romans used it geographically to describe the land east of the Rhine and usually in a generalizing way to describe people north of Helvetica who werent Gaul (i.e. non-Celts).

I disagree, it was referring to much more (their etnicity, culture) even when they were a part of the empire or even served it.

There was no trouble singling them out when the need for scapegoats came.

Which was sort of part of my original point. Leaving out somebody, pretending they don't exist makes no more sense than singling somebodys accomplishments out. The dynamics are too complex.

We don't need to inspect the dynamic only the end result.

The point is that when I think of Bach, Mozart and Wagner I think 'German' not about their respective principalities of birth.

With Russia I can come up with Tchaikovsky and then draw a blank.

And I'm sure thats not because Russia lacked good composers but the western culture always treats them as semi-outsiders (orthodox faith, cyrillic alphabet, Julian calendar) and I haven't been exposed to them.

[Gorth]

And I'm sure thats not because Russia lacked good composers but the western culture always treats them as semi-outsiders (orthodox faith, cyrillic alphabet, Julian calendar) and I haven't been exposed to them.

It depends a bit on who you ask I suppose (and during which time in history). For about 800 years, it was a major trade partner for the nordic countries. We can always agree or disagree whether they (the Nordic countries) are part of the western culture. Oh yeah, and occasional enemy in the case of Sweden, who always disagreed with the Russians over who the Duchy of Finland belonged to

 

Intermarriage between Russian rulers and Byzantine ruling families was also the reason why they considered themselves "successors" to the Roman empire (after the fall of Constantinople).

[Zoraptor]

With Russia I can come up with Tchaikovsky and then draw a blank.

Russian list I'd expect most to have heard of:

 

Mussorgsky

Prokofiev

Rachmaninov

Rimsky-Korsikov

Shostakovich

Stravinsky

(Tchaikovsky)

 

German* list I'd expect most people to have heard of:

(JS Bach)

Beethoven

Brahms

Handel

(Mozart)

Strauss

(Wagner)

 

*Including Austrian and those working overseas eg those who worked in England

Could also add a couple of others eg Schumann; Mendelsson + Pachelbel too though they'd be marginal, as I know both because one piece each is used in weddings.

 

But well, not a huge difference and I suspect they'd be 1 and 2 on the most recognisable classical composer lists. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart probably shade anyone on the Russian list to give them an edge, but it's hardly a walkover.

 

Wikipedia lists, for comparison: German Russian

Edited June 14, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Nightshape]

I think the basic point is that Russia sees itself aligned economically and militarily with Europe in the long-term.

Historically, Russia has always been part of "Europe". A few decades of Iron Curtain will soon be forgotten and real-politics will reassert itself. Denmark has mostly had cordial relations with Russia, not at least during it's 12 major and 20 minor wars with Sweden (Denmark and Sweden holds the world record for most wars fought against each other). Personally I think the world outside Europe is viewing Russia with way more trepidation than Europeans themselves.

 

Well apart from all those small neighbouring countries. I know the Estonian's dislike the Russians.

[Walsingham]

I love how this is essentially about how we are witnessing what was impossible for 200 years due to the sacrifice of staggering blood and treasure - the unification of Europe under a single Imperial power. Yet you asshats are talking medeival history!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Russia has no rule of law, any Western interests investing in there better beware, they could lose their entire investment. Apparently Russia can't even keep their oil infrastructure from crumbling, because of the rampant corruption.

 

Also as far as I know Alexandr Nevski stopped the Teutonic Knights invasion, Ivan the Terrible expelled the Golden Horde.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon