According to the Ukrainian constitution, foreign policy is the President’s prerogative. The attitude of the candidates to the further integration of Ukraine with the EU is therefore of core importance. It is the key question for the country’s future because European integration means much more than just foreign policy: It also means the prospects for the internal transformation of the country.
The candidates’ stand on Ukraine-EU integration is a major indicator of where they want to take the country in the coming years. It may seem like a categorical statement, but given the tough present-day conditions in Ukraine, any deviations, substitutions or alternatives from the EU reform agenda mean that the candidate is not serious about taking the country forward.
The election programmes of the main candidates describe their ideas on Ukraine-EU integration as follows:
| Candidate | Provisions of the election programme regarding Ukraine’s membership in the EU |
| Viktor Yushchenko | “Ukraine’s membership in the EU is my goal”
|
| Yuliya Tymoshenko | “And when we build Europe in Ukraine, Ukraine will become a member of the European Union”
|
| Viktor Yanukovych | “Ukraine’s strategic choice – full membership in the European Union taking account of the specificities of its geopolitical location, with the utmost preservation of its historic, national and cultural originality”
|
| Arseniy Yatsenyuk | “We must form a single space of Greater Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific. After all, Europe is not confined to borders of the European Union”
|
| Volodymyr Lytvyn | “Achievement of an agreement of co-operation, free movement of people, goods, services and capitals with the EU …Implementation of the idea of a single economic space with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan”
|
| Anatoliy Grytsenko | “For five years, we will join no military-political alliances”
|
As we can see, Ukraine’s accession to the EU is set as the unconditional goal of Ukrainian foreign policy only in the programme of Viktor Yuschenko. The other candidates either overlook the subject (Lytvyn and Grytsenko), invent unrealistic alternatives (Yatsenyuk), or put conditions on the country’s integration (Tymoshenko and Yanukovych).
The conditions are so vague and can be interpreted so broadly that they would allow (in case of a win) either of the two latter candidates to direct foreign and domestic policy in any way they think fit. Their policies may end up matching their personal interests, but not the interests of the country. As a result, there is no guarantee that Ukraine will presume its European course, if one of the two main candidates wins the presidency.
What are the interests of the international actors?
One new aspect of these elections is the sharp decline in the US factor. It is difficult to define the US approach to the forthcoming elections, if, indeed, there is one. And this is no wonder, given the drop in US interest in eastern European affairs as a whole.
As a result, the EU and Russia have come to the forefront as international players in the 17 January poll.
Russia has fundamentally changed its approach to the Ukrainian elections. Trying to avoid the mistakes of 2004, Russia is not openly supporting any of the candidates. Instead it has announced a sort of “tender” for the kind of Ukrainian president who will best protect Russian interests. These interests have remained quite stable, but Russia has defined them in more detail and taken a tougher line on them in the past two years. They include:
- Guarantee of military-political loyalty of Ukraine, including military neutrality and commitment of non-accession to NATO. Growing opposition of Russia to EU enlargement has become another trend of the passing year;
- Guarantee of the economic interests of Russian business in Ukraine;
- The Black Sea Fleet must stay on Ukrainian soil after the agreed term of its redeployment from the Crimea in 2017;
- Access to the Ukrainian gas transportation system on the basis of ownership or rental;
- Guarantee of stable status for the Russian language;
- Guarantee of the rights of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine (ROC revenues in Ukraine make up nearly half of the total ROC budget).
The European Union has generally not changed its approach to the Ukrainian elections: Its main demand is that the elections are democratic and free and that a legitimate president wins. Over the years, the EU has consistently put forward demands for the country as a whole, rather than for its president. The EU wants Ukraine and its future leadership to:
- Stabilise the political system and implement the required constitutional reform;
- Enhance the effectiveness and transparency of state machinery, in order to implement far-reaching reforms throughout the country;
- Defeat corruption;
- Improve the investment climate.
Russia and the EU have two fundamentally different objectives. The former wants to drag Ukraine into the past. The latter wants to push it into the future.
It’s up to Ukrainians to choose…
#1 by Arnaud Jasperse on January 9, 2010 - 1:55 pm
You’ve got to wonder why certain pro-Russian (even if not declared at being so) candidates are still quite popular in the polls…
Also it is curious to me why Russia is so desperately trying to move towards re-annexing the Ukraine. It’s not like that will ever happen…
#2 by Kazimierz on January 9, 2010 - 5:29 pm
Gross Domestic Product per person in 2008.
Ukraine – $7400
Belarus – $11800
Russia – $16100
Those numbers show that realistically Ukraine should try to associate/join EU together with Belarus and Russia.
At present, Yushchenko tries to sell Ukraine to USA and hopes that in that way he will get into EU. More realistic would be to support association of EU and Russia as a way to include Ukraine into that joint organization.
#3 by Nick Gabrichidze on January 9, 2010 - 9:51 pm
The decision about Ukraine membership in EU is not on Ukrainians to make unforchunately. It is ironic that this article came out under umbrella or European liberals who are most vicious opponents of EU enlargement, including but not limited to Ukraine. Just check the website of Dutch liberal party VVD to find a clear a simple message http://www.vvd.nl
For a time being Europe is not even able to accept a visa free travel for Ukrainian visitors or access for a market for Ukraine business not to talk about EU membership, so I believe until the average salary in Ukraine will be around 2500 euro per month it is better for Ukrainians to stop wasting time and forget about this bid. The stress on the labor market from the 2004 enlargement is too bog for one generation to handle…
#4 by al on January 10, 2010 - 2:56 am
Hmm…anyone think that things are heading in this direction? Re-partition? After all, this bit of history was repeated on 2008…
#5 by Kazimierz on January 10, 2010 - 3:56 am
@ al,
If you want to change the topic:
Germany and Russia fought two wars in 20-th century, very vicious ones, especially the second.
Today’s Russia wants to play a global role, Germany seems to be satisfied with her European role. Germany is firmly in “American camp” and has no desire (or ability) to get out of that camp.
The only possible association is EU + 3, i.e. EU + Russia Ukraine Belarus. But USA is opposed to it so it is not very likely.
#6 by al on January 11, 2010 - 1:24 am
And right before each conflict, there were non-aggression agreements. Now there’s a new one, but it doesn’t get as much publicity. Are they shaping up for a new conflict in the 21st Century? Germany desperately wants to get out from under Russia’s thumb where it comes to oil and gas supplies (hence the Nabucco pipeline). Making “join the EU” overtures to Georgia was a huge provocation to Russia, because that’s venturing a bit too far into the Russian Empire’s territory, but it was an aggressive move against the Caucasus.
I don’t know where you get your information from. Germany is spread around the globe still, especially in Afghanistan and in many African and South American countries, so it not only has a very dominant European role, but also a worldwide (and quite imperialistic) role. If you think they’re in the “American camp”, then you need to look at what Germany’s doing with the realisation that it’s independent. Germany controls the European Union, you know. They’re also one of the biggest sources of anti-US propaganda, via the Bertelsmann group especially (the ones that handled the Nazi party’s propaganda).
The leaders of Russia today have a singular purpose, and that’s to rebuild the former Soviet Union into a more right-wing Russian Empire. (Did I say a bad word? The number of Russians that believe it’s “natural for Russia to have an empire” has jumped from 37 percent in 1991 to 47 percent last year.) If by global you mean aggressive hegemonic, then yes, it’s on its way indeed.
Like the Stratfor article I quoted said, the USA’s influence is dead thanks to the current agreement between Moscow and Berlin. Otto von Habsburg didn’t call the EU “the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire” for no reason.
#7 by Kazimierz on January 11, 2010 - 3:33 am
@ al,
We agree to disagree. I stand by every word I said in post # 5.
#8 by Roman on January 11, 2010 - 10:13 am
There is no difference between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. Both are pro-Russian politicians who want to make money with Russia the old fashioned way — get backroom deals with Putin for a cut of the gas supplies to Europe.
Yushchenko is the only Ukrainian politician who understands that the EU is the only chance for Ukraine to break Russian’s lock on Ukraine’s energy resources and transportation pipeline.
With a God-forbid President Tymoshenko or President Yanukovych, Europe will continue to be at the mercy of Russia for its gas supplies. Brussels bureaucrats once again let Ukraine out of its grasp by not inviting Yushchenko into the EU — now with the Russian duo — Tymo & Yanuk — Europe will continue to be a slave to Putin’s self-interests!
#9 by Arnaud Jasperse on January 11, 2010 - 10:51 am
1st; The Ukraine has been screwed over before and after ww2 by Russia, and during ww2 by Germany. If anything, the Ukraine is only somewhat leaning towards Russia because of its massive russian population still living there… Stalin was no fool to “export” russian citizens to the Ukraine and the Baltics…
Talks of partitioning are also nonsense, because where were those Ukrainians when Russia was openly supporting breakaway regions of Abchazia and South Ossetia?
No, Russia would like to have influence over all of the Ukraine instead of just the east and southeastern parts…
Also, last I checked, the ALDE party (of which the VVD is a part) was not opposed to future enlargements by starting to accept new candidates after 2014. The current enlargement agenda is the western Balkans, Iceland and Turkey, but it is unlikely for the Ukraine to be in the EU any time sooner then Turkey…
The EU missed an opportunity there. As much as Russia can influence Ukranian elections, so could the EU by at least dangling EU perspective in front of it…
It is not odd that Russia has a super-power complex, and wants to retain some of its soviet era magnificance, but their main problem with NATO (and possibly EU) expansion (and I am quoting this) is ‘not that it continues eastward, but that it stops there’…
Russia in the EU would make the EU the new #1 power int he world, economically, politically and military…
But the EU does not want to give that to Russia, and instead wants to do it under their own steam. And having the worlds biggest economy, being the richest continent, having the 2nd most used reserve currency, TWO permanent UN security council members, providing by far the most aid to other countries, and having brought peace to a continent that has been plagued by wars since the days of the Roman Empire, they have a definite reputation…
So does the Ukraine want to join this? Hell yes, even if it’s just for the money… Does the EU need the Ukraine? Not really, but it would be a serious smack in the face of Russia, sending the message that the EU dictates policy all the way to the Russian borders, and that Russia’s “hard power” stance is a thing of the past…
So will we ever see the Ukraine join the EU? In 15 to 20-odd years, barring any unforeseen crises, yes…
#10 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on January 11, 2010 - 11:46 am
@ Nick Gabrichidze
I would tend to disagree. The decision of any country getting into the EU is (and has always been) shared between the EU itself and the candidate country. So, although the current populations of the EU do have a certain level of say in the matter of eventual Ukrain accession, the Ukrainian population also does. Chosing a President and eventually a government which works toward meeting accession criteria is their part of the job. VVD people alone are hardly representative of the Dutch opinion, even less the whole European one. Of course, it would be naive to think that a great number of Europeans are not opposed to further enlargement. They have very good reasons for this. It is up to Ukrainians themselves, from the citizens to the President, to show them that these reasons do not exist anymore.
#11 by Kronion on January 11, 2010 - 2:30 pm
USA won’t let Russia to join the EU. It wants that Ukraine and, maybe, Belarus joins the Union, but not Russia. European can’t change this, the decision is above them. Paradoxically, this is a blessing for Russia, it will have the chance of becoming closer to China, the real hiperpower in the 21st century. Russia will be a brilliant future together with China, but it would be other irrelevant european country within the EU.
#12 by Kazimierz on January 11, 2010 - 3:39 pm
“USA won’t let Russia to join the EU.”
Neither would EU countries like Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and so on…
“Russia in the EU would make the EU the new #1 power int he world, economically, politically and military…”
EU has already problems absorbing new members, Russia with its’ corruption, territorial disputes, AIDS pandemic, poverty would be destructive influence. Furthermore it’s too big and would get too many votes, allowing it and Germany to dictate others what to do. Third-EU is a loose group of countries with different ideas about the world, economy, ideologies. There is no need for EU to be “no1″ power. In fact as a EU citizen I would oppose it with all my strenght. Europe doesn’t deserve to be world power.
“But the EU does not want to give that to Russia, and instead wants to do it under their own steam. And having the worlds biggest economy, being the richest continent, having the 2nd most used reserve currency, TWO permanent UN security council members, providing by far the most aid to other countries, and having brought peace to a continent that has been plagued by wars since the days of the Roman Empire, they have a definite reputation…”
What a chilling thought. I guess we could have “peace” sooner on European continent(using your logic)-if Stalin and Hitler continued to be friends and together ruled Europe. I would prefer conflict between democratic EU and authoritarian Russia, then allowing Russia to dictate “peace” on the continent.
#13 by Anonymous on January 11, 2010 - 8:52 pm
Nice piece of propaganda Ms Prystayko. Basically your telling the average Ukrainian voter that they are stupid for preferring Yushchenko and Tymoshenko to Yanukovych.
Isn’t democracy about people’s choice? Why are you advocating so stoutly for Yanukovych then?
Stop it with the silly lies that EU membership makes people rich and makes states operate well. It simply does not!! Look at Bulgaria and Romania, that ought to show you.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for united Europe, but in order to be part of it Ukraine needs to change big time and Yanukovych simply isn’t gonna do that. He had 5 years to show the Ukrainians that he can – he didn’t! So good bye and fare well come election day! That simple! That’s the first rule of democracy for that sort of scam artists.
#14 by Anonymous on January 12, 2010 - 12:07 am
Ms. Prystayko, you do not sound like you have any confidence in the ability of Ukraine to govern itself. Do you expect EU to whisk in and fix everything for you? Reliance on outside “help” is what precipitated the situation in the country (and in Russia and elsewhere), and put the pipelines and gas industry (and the governments) in the hands of big personalities. Ukraine needs better ideas.
#15 by al on January 12, 2010 - 5:09 am
Eh? The US isn’t even a factor. Russia never wanted to join the EU; who ever said they did? Russia’s not going to submit itself to Germany’s rule.
One thing you are right about, though, is that Russia and China are getting much closer. That is all upon Russia’s initiative though, not due to any rebuff by “the EU”. And it won’t be good for the world.
#16 by noelwood on January 12, 2010 - 8:52 am
Bad piece of propaganda, anonymous #14.
1st problem I have is taking political advice from someone who doesn’t know the difference between President Yushchenko and a Russian lap dog. (Whoops! I mistook Victor Yanukovych for a…enough said.)
2nd problem? Democracy is, but is not ‘only’ about people’s choice, and it is Ms Prystayko’s right and duty as a Ukrainian (and her job as a blogger) to “voice her choice” so as to help inform the electorate so that they can make an educated decision at the polls.
3rd problem? Silly lies. EU membership does make people rich, and it does make states operate well, but only if the government involved follows the rules decided upon by the EU government, which your star witnesses, Bulgaria and Romania, have repetedly failed to do. Maybe we should look at a county that is actually following the EU guidelines, like Slovakia. Check out the numbers and call me on it if I’m wrong, but I think they’ve been doing pretty well for themselves in the last 6 years. Not bad considering they’ve only been independant for 17 years. Bulgaria and Romania do have an important lesson to teach us, though. The EU will not ‘whisk in and fix everything’ because the words on those treaties are not magic spells, they are simply instructions for building a peaceful and prosperous nation, and it is the responsibility of ‘hopeful’ governments to follow these instructions and the responsibility of ‘hopeful’ citizens to elect responsible polititions willing to make the tough decisions needed to get them going in the right direction. Not once, but over and over. And not just the president, but every member of the Verkhovna Rada is either pulling for EU membership or, seriously folks, fighting against it. So study up and vote with your head, I hope your dreams come true.
#17 by Marcel on January 12, 2010 - 7:36 pm
Ukraine must not be in the EU because we western European taxpayers (ie the majority) are sick of seeing our money disappear. We have problems and debts right here. Only a tiny minority of politicians and anti-democratic bureaucrats/diplomats are in favor of such enlargement.
Turkey must be kept out at all cost as well. We the resistance against totalitarian EU (Reich IV) will give no quarters.
#18 by Marcel on January 12, 2010 - 7:38 pm
#17 stated:
3rd problem? Silly lies. EU membership does make people rich, and it does make states operate well, but only if the government involved follows the rules decided upon by the EU government
———————————-
It must be fun to have a mindset like you. Everyone MUST OBEY THE UNDEMOCRATIC EU REICH!!!!
And being in the EU has made us (Netherlands) poorer. Fuck the EU.
#19 by Arnaud Jasperse on January 13, 2010 - 12:26 am
I must apologise for my simpleton of a countrymen here in Marcel…
Apparently an average of 200 euro’s a year per citizen is a small price to pay for peace and prosperity on a continent that has been at war with one another at least once every generation since the end of the Roman era till the end of the Balkan war…
Considering his apparent education, his contribution cannot be more then a quarter of those 200 euro’s but he forgets that being part of the EU, and as a major exporting nation the EU has earned the country as a whole an average of tenfold our average contribution…
All we have to do is put a bit of effort in it and play the markets…
Somehow that the EU is undemocratic is beyond me, an argument also often spoken by many europhobes from the UK…
The part that decides what directly affects YOUR life is aproved by the people YOU elected…
Since the Lisbon treaty legislation aproved by the European Parliament (people you directly elected), executed by the European Comission, and your own government (again indirectly or directly elected)…
But when you add the total summ up…
I do not mind the EU being less democratic in some vaguer areas… If people like Marcel get to vote and decide along with me, then I rather have a few elite people at the top deciding for us all, then have a bunch of oversensitive paniccy dimwitted listen-to-whoever-screams-loudest idiots like him tag along for the ride…
But yeah, lets get out of the EU and out of the Euro;
We’ll have to convert everything back to the Guilder, something that’ll cost just a few billion to execute…
We, as an exporting nation, would of course not mind paying import tariffs to 95% of the countries we trade with, rather then 10% of the countries cuz of our membership…
We of course would be happy to accept whatever imported goods there are for sale in the rest of europe, rather then have a say in what standards a product must adhere to, after all, who needs consumer protection, I dont mind not knowing what I eat……
Oh and I also wouldnt mind having to stand in line EVEN LONGER at airports and other border crossings, just so they can probe my sensitive regions again for I might be a suspected terrorist. No, away with the customs union too, I love having to buy visa’s again when travelling…
And lets not forget how we do not need the voice of 27 nations… We, as a small nation of 17 million people are important enough to represent our interests on the world stage, liek the world trade organisation, or the UN…
Or perhaps I just like the filth that Germany can then dump in its rivers and have it float on by through our landscape… I always hated healthy trees and grasses…
Think the EU is undemocratic now?
Think how much the Netherlands will be bullied and not listened to if we had no seat at the table anymore, or any other countries to back us up…
idiot…
How about next time you stay on topic, which is wether to see the Ukraine muddle on through, pick closer ties to Russia, or pick closer ties to the Western World…
And here’s a hint; Russia has been a long time ally of France and the UK before and during the world wars, but was only not so much between 1945-1991… Russia is a western nation and should find its place in the western world…
Wether the Ukraine beats them to it is entirely up to the Ukraine…
#20 by Kazimierz on January 13, 2010 - 1:44 am
“Russia has been a long time ally of France and the UK before and during the world wars, but was only not so much between 1945-1991… Russia is a western nation and should find its place in the western world…
Wether the Ukraine beats them to it is entirely up to the Ukraine…”
————
Indeed Russia is two times richer than Ukraine. Also, Russia is a European country since Peter the Great 300 years ago (with a break for communism). EU has technology, Russia is a mineral power, that is, economies of Russia and EU are complementary.
#21 by zzzz on January 13, 2010 - 4:30 am
And I would like to add that in the coming years, the earning power of the average Russian is supposed to surpass the French and the Germans, while the Koreans become the richest people in the world. (Remember that South Koreans spent more than the first half of the last century as the poorest people in Asia.)
#22 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on January 13, 2010 - 10:49 am
I thought Marcel was Maltese… Maybe it is a different Marcel.
But I agree with Arnaud, we in the Netherlands haven’t been made poorer by the EU, on the contrary. For sure, we do pay some taxes (like everyone else) and get less subsidies back than others, which is only fair, as in any taxation system, the richer pay more and get less than the poorer. But the EU system has also been a gold mine for the Dutchs. Rotterdam has massively benefited from the transport revolution, and of the common market. Amsterdam and Den Haag have also been huge beneficiaries of the EU, by hosting numerous European company headquarters. Last but not least, the lack of local manpower has been largely compensated by an influx of EU citizens, allowing growth rates unheard of in other countries. I am not even speaking about the improved knowledge and education exchanges, because they are pretty obvious for everyone here. But what most people tend to forget, is that it is all due (at least partially) to the EU.
#23 by Arnaud Jasperse on January 13, 2010 - 1:31 pm
#22:
200 euro’s a year is what our country pays to the EU, on average, per citizen, per year…
The actual number is higher, but we get some compensation in the form of subsidies…
These subsidies are granted to a LOT of projects throughout the EU… I have been to Poland (I visited the wider areas around Krakow, from Birkenau to Bielsko) and I can tell where my EU money is going. Roads, buildings, you name it, its happening, and its happening fast…
Some of that money could be yours too if yoy have the proepr job… But thank the brits for blocking an EU-wide minimum wage…
I can tell you honestly that I have no idea how it is to be poor, but for countries that broke away from devastating communist regimes, and have joined the EU only five (or three) years ago, you cannot blame the EU for your current problems…
Infact, look at your situation now, and how it has improved in your country over the last five years amd then tell me if you still despise the EU…
You also mention Norway…
They have a trade union with much of Europe (EFTA) but are not part of the EU itself… This means that product and service standards are determined and set at a table that they do not have a seat at… They get the fax that pretty much says “we want you to sell your fish at these standards, and if you do not, we dont trade with you anymore”, thats the kind of bullying I am talking about…
The same is exactly true now for South Korea since they have a trade deal with the EU on cars…
And yes I have to agree with you about Russian being “expansionistic” (really, 2 small provinces in Georgia is the only ground they gained in 30 years? Look at the EU)…
Russia has a problem that it (and parts of the world) still thinks its a super power, where the EU is failing to make a powerfull stance against it due to 27 nations wanting a different say in it said stance…
The day that Europe can speak to Russia in one voice, will be the day that Russia loses it’s super power status…
#24:
Turkey IS a european nation, whichever way you turn it… The fact that some parts of it are in asia does not matter at all, because for that matter, Cyprus would be 100% asian (its found below Turkey)…
Turkey is however, big and somewhat scary to some people, because it is apparently filled with secularist muslims…
I do not know if you heard the questions on Turkey asked of the incomming enlargement comissionair, but he is right in every way that Turkey could one day join the EU, if, and when it is up to European standards…
I do not get why some people here keep looking to what happened during and before the cold war… Times have significantly changed and there is no longer a two-sided world…
Everythgin is connected, and everything and everyone has their own agenda…
Exhibit A; Iran, where the whole northern hemisphere is against them developping nukes… Yet on a number of other issues, everyone is rather devided…
I hope for Poland that it can one day join the Euro… It did not at first, but in the long run (we’re talking just 8 yearslater now) the Euro has greatly benefitted my country. The same will be true for Poland, and with 40 million more people using it, the Euro itself will strengthen a whole lot more…
Europe is already the richest continent on the planet, and has a currency that will soon take over the dollar as most accepted currency in the world (even if it is not the #1 reserve currency)
Our euro’s will become worth more, and with Nabucco and Desertec (look it up) executed we will not be as dependant on Russia’s #1 export, meaning that russian gas will become less expensive for us over the years to come…
This confines the Russian economy to history yet again…
Europe, the United States and China will be the future super powers, but whoever comes out on top is yet to be determined…
I do know one thing, and that it will the the EU that will be the most STABLE one of these three…
#24 by zzzz on January 13, 2010 - 3:18 pm
“I don’t think attaching oneself to Russia-a country plagued by AIDS pandemic, corruption, alcoholism, and run by authoritarian regime is a better solution.”
Yes, those Asiatic AIDS-ridden Mongoloid beasts. We have heard it all before. Why don’t you drop the veiled racism. This is no zero-sum game.
#25 by hi on January 13, 2010 - 8:56 pm
I recall Poland signing up to occupy Iraq, which has ripped the whole society out from under 30 million people. It has also cost at least 1.5 million lives. Don’t tell me that no one who stepped off a plane in Poland (and the Baltic states) has gone to a CIA torture centre. I guess small countries are always blameless.
#26 by hi on January 14, 2010 - 8:17 am
“Also, in the future I don’t think there’s any alternative to a EU-Russia partnership. Russia’s enormous untapped mineral reserves are far to valuable. The EU in the future will find itself continually unable to compete with the US and China for resources – Russia is it’s natural partner. As soon as the sniveling voices of the former warsaw pact countries (Poland, Baltic states in particular) are muted out in the coming years, a genuine strategic partnership will come into fruition.”
In this economy, where even Germany is ailing badly, and the European miracle seems uncertain, pipeline politics seem so stupid. North Stream, South Stream, Nabucco, etc. are going to be passed onto the consumer, leaving less room for economic growth. Solar panels in the desert is a ridiculous idea that should come when other supplies are running low. The Soviet Union was able to maintain steady supplies when Europe was still growing. The capacity is already there to get the cheapest energy supplies on the planet, so the competence of those filling the pipes in both Ukraine and Russia is the only thing that has changed. Why doesn’t the EU look THERE (in BOTH), instead of wasting all of our money? They would benefit too if they cleaned up their acts, having more money to develop their own economies. Also, stop saying the words “energy security” or independence. It sounds so Orwellian, and they know it drives Russians crazy enough to spite everyone.
#27 by Kazimierz on January 14, 2010 - 4:46 pm
It seems that your knowledge about Russia and its behavior comes from media. I noticed several years ago that mainstream English language media are waging information war against Russia. We need to take a correction for that. There is a reality and there is a media image of the reality. One needs to be aware of that distinction.
#28 by Kazimierz on January 14, 2010 - 6:51 pm
I agree. But “in the future” can be too late because Russia may associate herself with China.
For many years Putin has called for a common economic space with EU. Western media didn’t even report that.
Problem with association EU + 3, i.e. EU + Russia Ukraine Belarus, does not come from Poland and Baltics (they are too weak), it comes from the media and from USA. The latter two have power and they use Poland and Baltics as their tools.
#29 by Anonymous on January 14, 2010 - 8:19 pm
@ Arnaud Jasperse #29
“The day that Europe can speak to Russia in one voice, will be the day that Russia loses it’s super power status…”
Almost, but not quite. The day Europe starts speaking with a single voice it’ll be the USA losing its super power status.
#30 by Alexandros Marti on January 14, 2010 - 11:02 pm
Russia in the EU? I’m not expecting to see it any time soon! But if such a thing happened would the USA really have the ability to dominate such a global hyper-power?
#31 by Luc Verhoeven on January 14, 2010 - 11:18 pm
How can the US allow Russia to join the EU? It is unthinkable that they would allow such a thing.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said:
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.”
“It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”
“How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent.”
So it will never be possible. It would be “above the pay grade” of the EU or Russia to make it happen.
#32 by Kazimierz on January 15, 2010 - 1:28 am
Looking from global perspective:
IS the world evolving toward “One Global Rome”, that is the world ruled from one center, i.e. World Dictatorship?
Or is the world evolving toward World Republic, that is about 200 countries (some stronger some weaker) all subject to international law?
If the former, then USA will dominate the world.
If the latter, then EU will be most influential. (Due to differences within EU, EU is not suited to dominate the world). In a sense, we can look at EU as a kind of prototype for the World Republic.
#33 by David on January 16, 2010 - 6:49 pm
@Kazimierz
I fully agree with you, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, as well as Serbia (with Kosovo as a part of it) should be integrated into the EU, by doing this we could brake free of chains of NATO and other similar organizations, not only that but we would be an unsurpassed economic powerhouse. This would be far more beneficial than trying to integrate Turkey, that is not even considered to be part of the European continent and doesn’t share religious, ethnic nor cultural similarities within the rest of the EU.
#34 by Arnaud Jasperse on January 16, 2010 - 11:32 pm
@#50:
I agree with you on the economic powerhouse thing, and its certainly something to look forward too, but Turkey IS a european country as much as it is an asian country…
Surely in these days with UK seperatism rearing its ugly head time and again, the EU will NEED turkey if it is ever going to back its economic power up with military power…
#35 by stanley on January 17, 2010 - 1:31 am
\I agree with you on the economic powerhouse thing, and its certainly something to look forward too, but Turkey IS a european country as much as it is an asian country…\
Yes, because it forces minorities to either become Turks or leave. It’s hold on Thrace is the result of thorough erasing the Greek, Armenian, and Bulgarian traces from Constantinople. That actually does sound European.
The only reason it is being considered is because of the pipelines and because the US says so. It still forcibly occupies a portion of another EU country (which, is also still forcibly occupied by the British). It still threatens its neighbors despite being in the same alliance.
#36 by keller on January 17, 2010 - 9:28 pm
NATO is a tool to push the US agenda in Europe and Central Asia. It is almost indistinguishable from the countries that have flagrantly violated UN laws and proceeded into dirty and violent wars since 1990. You can choose the club that uses their boots to crush some poor Iraqi and Haitian necks, but please stop whining.
#37 by al on January 19, 2010 - 2:51 am
After a rant like that, you have no right to call anyone an “idiot” or “simpleton”. Basically, what you claim is that the sole “benefit” of being in the EU is that you won’t be bullied?? The EU “less democratic in some vaguer areas”? You are either democratic or you are not; there is no middle ground. Troll.