3 ms·

As always with Stratfor this analysis is not about security of North America but about global dominance. My opinion on stratfor is not really profound. But half

As always with Stratfor this analysis is not about security of North America but about global dominance. My opinion on stratfor is not really profound. But half a year ago I was so shocked about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&feature=youtu.be&t=45m23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&feature=youtu.be... I had to write something then against this horrible propaganda: http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/futurism-and-world-war-one.html#stratfor http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/futurism-and-... My English is too poor to take part in further discussions here. I'm sure most will not agree with my opinions. In a manner my writing is propaganda too. But perhaps it's anyway interesting to read what (some) Europeans think.

fsloth 11y ago
Well, I don't think it takes an evil genious to divide europe. It already is divided. There is no common will nor true common foreign policy of the european states. USA simply takes the few simple actions at a time it wants to enforce it's position while european statesmen do nothing. As I see it, war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies - they need a buffer zone of emergencies to maintain an internal stability of their kleptocratic political system.
- stephenwinter2 11y ago
  Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. What happend after that time ("no common will" etc.) is not a native European quality but the result of British and US policy. Think of the UK efforts in the 19th century that almost ruined Britain just to fight Napoleone Idea of a united Europe. - "No common will" -to repeat this again and again is simply a wish (that unfortunately came true). - Ukraine topic: watch how the borders shift over time. It tells enough about intentions behind it.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    As usual, Yes, Minister explains it in an entertaining way: Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal? Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes. Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    "Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. " This is a new notion for me. This would imply there was a single cultural entity that would encompass all of europe and a single economic system that encompasses the geographic area for this period. What would they be called? I am sorry I brought current affairs to the discussion - it's a bit offtopic for HN and I was about to delete my first response until I found replies and felt it would be more rude at this point to remove it than not. Discussing europe circa 19th century is ok I suppose.
    - chrismaeda 11y ago
      This is a lot more fun than debating which browser-based MVC framework is better. ;-)
- powertower 11y ago
  The idea that Russia wants chaos on its borders, and a ring of fire around it, is insane. Its entire economy is based on selling energy to all the regions around it. It does not need to destabilize anyone to do that. It just needs them to do better, so they buy more. There is only one party in the world that would benefit from this type of destruction and chaos in Europe (and all over the middle east). And it is not Russia. > war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies The destabilization in Ukraine happened the moment when its democratically twice-elected government was overthrown in a violent coup. Consider that millions of people have already fled from Eastern Ukraine, into Russia, and almost zero into the western regions, to get an idea of what the real situation is on the ground.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    As per logic of the foreign policy of russia I have not found analysis that would persuade me to abandon Kennan's view presented in his long telegram[1] (although the political structure has shifted I doubt the psychological aspects have not that much): 'Soviet power... is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force.' If there is a better author to read about understanding russia I would be glad to recieve any references. [1] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan....

fsloth 11y ago

Well, I don't think it takes an evil genious to divide europe. It already is divided. There is no common will nor true common foreign policy of the european states. USA simply takes the few simple actions at a time it wants to enforce it's position while european statesmen do nothing. As I see it, war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies - they need a buffer zone of emergencies to maintain an internal stability of their kleptocratic political system.

stephenwinter2 11y ago
Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. What happend after that time ("no common will" etc.) is not a native European quality but the result of British and US policy. Think of the UK efforts in the 19th century that almost ruined Britain just to fight Napoleone Idea of a united Europe. - "No common will" -to repeat this again and again is simply a wish (that unfortunately came true). - Ukraine topic: watch how the borders shift over time. It tells enough about intentions behind it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  As usual, Yes, Minister explains it in an entertaining way: Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal? Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes. Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
- fsloth 11y ago
  "Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. " This is a new notion for me. This would imply there was a single cultural entity that would encompass all of europe and a single economic system that encompasses the geographic area for this period. What would they be called? I am sorry I brought current affairs to the discussion - it's a bit offtopic for HN and I was about to delete my first response until I found replies and felt it would be more rude at this point to remove it than not. Discussing europe circa 19th century is ok I suppose.
  - chrismaeda 11y ago
    This is a lot more fun than debating which browser-based MVC framework is better. ;-)
powertower 11y ago
The idea that Russia wants chaos on its borders, and a ring of fire around it, is insane. Its entire economy is based on selling energy to all the regions around it. It does not need to destabilize anyone to do that. It just needs them to do better, so they buy more. There is only one party in the world that would benefit from this type of destruction and chaos in Europe (and all over the middle east). And it is not Russia. > war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies The destabilization in Ukraine happened the moment when its democratically twice-elected government was overthrown in a violent coup. Consider that millions of people have already fled from Eastern Ukraine, into Russia, and almost zero into the western regions, to get an idea of what the real situation is on the ground.
- fsloth 11y ago
  As per logic of the foreign policy of russia I have not found analysis that would persuade me to abandon Kennan's view presented in his long telegram[1] (although the political structure has shifted I doubt the psychological aspects have not that much): 'Soviet power... is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force.' If there is a better author to read about understanding russia I would be glad to recieve any references. [1] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan....