8 ms·

Not sure if you're trolling, but Serbia is not Russia. Serbia was part of Yugoslavia before the breakup, and it was vaguely heading in the direction of EU membe

by smcl 10y ago

Not sure if you're trolling, but Serbia is not Russia. Serbia was part of Yugoslavia before the breakup, and it was vaguely heading in the direction of EU membership until recently. However I think that effort has stalled in recent past and relations with Russia got a tiny bit cosier, so you might not actually be so wrong after all :)

x0x0 10y ago
I assume (hope?) he misread Siberia.
- smcl 10y ago
  Yep
Reason077 10y ago
This reminds me of the time I went hiking in Austria. A lovely country, but it wasn't what I was expecting. All beaches and desert!
- smcl 10y ago
  :D I actually had no idea anyone had trouble with those countries until I visited Vienna and the tourist shops had a bunch of ironic t-shirts with Kangaroos and boomerangs on them and stuff.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Holy shit. Now that you say that, I saw the same thing in Salzburg and just didn't make the connection. Maybe it was because I was in "speaking German" mode, so Austria is "Österriech" vs Australia is "Australien".
gaius 10y ago
Crimea is not Russia either. Oh wait yes it is now. All bets are off in that part of the world right now. And prospective EU membership just makes things worse; it was Ukraine snuggling up to the EU that provoked Russia into intervening...
- smcl 10y ago
  (edit: deleted my comment, decided that Russia is an inflammatory topic unrelated to the article posted)
- michaelt 10y ago
  To get from Russia to Serbia you'd have to go through Hungary or Romania both of which are EU member states. I know the EU doesn't have a history of coordinated military action. But if tanks crossed EU borders France, Germany, Britain and Italy couldn't ignore that.
  - gaius 10y ago
    NATO is the mutual defence pact, the EU was spectacularly ineffective in the former Yugoslavia.
    - michaelt 10y ago
      Yugoslavia wasn't part of the EU at the time though? You can't really judge how an alliance will respond to conflict crossing their borders on the basis of how they've responded to conflict outside their borders. Governments and militaries think borders are a pretty big deal! More generally, there are some people in "the European project" who would like to see a United States of Europe with its own foreign policy and military. But this is pretty unpopular with voters in most member states, so everyone involved is happy to keep that level of integration on the back burner, leaving member states to respond how they like to foreign military conflicts while the EU maintains "We're a pacifist trading union, not a belligerent military alliance or a superstate, shucks we don't even have a military" Politicians are happy to keep kicking the can down the road on EU military coordination for as long as it's politically convenient. But if an EU member state was invaded, they couldn't do that any more; they would have no chance but to make a decision. And public opinion is far more likely to support (and may even demand) a tough, belligerent stance if Russian tanks have are invading our allies.
- powertower 10y ago
  > Crimea is not Russia either. Crimea was part of Russia longer than the US has existed. While its previous host, Ukraine, has only existed as a country for 20-some odd years. Once the government of Ukraine was overthrown, the people of Crimea had every right to decide to stay or leave. And you will not find a single poll before-or-after not showing an overwhelming support for the latter. > it was Ukraine snuggling up to the EU that provoked Russia into intervening... A foreign-lead coup of a twice elected democratic government that put in a puppet regime for the sole purpose of creating problems for Russia is what lead things to the way they went. Right now, what is happening in the eastern parts of Ukraine is a civil war - resulting from ethnic cleansing, neocon agenda, etc. And what is happening in the west of Ukraine is a total economic collapse from the so called free-trade deals with the EU.
forgetsusername 10y ago
But the point stands that owning a resource extraction facility in a foreign country on the other side of the planet isn't a trivial undertaking.

by smcl 10y ago

x0x0 10y ago

I assume (hope?) he misread Siberia.

smcl 10y ago
Yep

Reason077 10y ago

This reminds me of the time I went hiking in Austria. A lovely country, but it wasn't what I was expecting. All beaches and desert!

smcl 10y ago
:D I actually had no idea anyone had trouble with those countries until I visited Vienna and the tourist shops had a bunch of ironic t-shirts with Kangaroos and boomerangs on them and stuff.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  Holy shit. Now that you say that, I saw the same thing in Salzburg and just didn't make the connection. Maybe it was because I was in "speaking German" mode, so Austria is "Österriech" vs Australia is "Australien".

gaius 10y ago

Crimea is not Russia either. Oh wait yes it is now. All bets are off in that part of the world right now. And prospective EU membership just makes things worse; it was Ukraine snuggling up to the EU that provoked Russia into intervening...

smcl 10y ago
(edit: deleted my comment, decided that Russia is an inflammatory topic unrelated to the article posted)
michaelt 10y ago
To get from Russia to Serbia you'd have to go through Hungary or Romania both of which are EU member states. I know the EU doesn't have a history of coordinated military action. But if tanks crossed EU borders France, Germany, Britain and Italy couldn't ignore that.
- gaius 10y ago
  NATO is the mutual defence pact, the EU was spectacularly ineffective in the former Yugoslavia.
  - michaelt 10y ago
    Yugoslavia wasn't part of the EU at the time though? You can't really judge how an alliance will respond to conflict crossing their borders on the basis of how they've responded to conflict outside their borders. Governments and militaries think borders are a pretty big deal! More generally, there are some people in "the European project" who would like to see a United States of Europe with its own foreign policy and military. But this is pretty unpopular with voters in most member states, so everyone involved is happy to keep that level of integration on the back burner, leaving member states to respond how they like to foreign military conflicts while the EU maintains "We're a pacifist trading union, not a belligerent military alliance or a superstate, shucks we don't even have a military" Politicians are happy to keep kicking the can down the road on EU military coordination for as long as it's politically convenient. But if an EU member state was invaded, they couldn't do that any more; they would have no chance but to make a decision. And public opinion is far more likely to support (and may even demand) a tough, belligerent stance if Russian tanks have are invading our allies.
powertower 10y ago
> Crimea is not Russia either. Crimea was part of Russia longer than the US has existed. While its previous host, Ukraine, has only existed as a country for 20-some odd years. Once the government of Ukraine was overthrown, the people of Crimea had every right to decide to stay or leave. And you will not find a single poll before-or-after not showing an overwhelming support for the latter. > it was Ukraine snuggling up to the EU that provoked Russia into intervening... A foreign-lead coup of a twice elected democratic government that put in a puppet regime for the sole purpose of creating problems for Russia is what lead things to the way they went. Right now, what is happening in the eastern parts of Ukraine is a civil war - resulting from ethnic cleansing, neocon agenda, etc. And what is happening in the west of Ukraine is a total economic collapse from the so called free-trade deals with the EU.

forgetsusername 10y ago

But the point stands that owning a resource extraction facility in a foreign country on the other side of the planet isn't a trivial undertaking.