Thread: Russia in EU

короче... все эти приросты имеют смутное отношение к России...возьмите 10 финнов ...спросите их "каково иметь Россию соседом" и "хотели бы вы чтоб Россия вошла в евросоюз"...они всё расскажут ...и про ихнюю войну и про ощущения от...

[quote=Kamion]

Emphasis on "potential" in the original quote. Hell, just look at the Soviet time numbers.

And where exactly would we get those numbers from? If I remember correcly the Soviet Union wasn

Originally Posted by QWERTYZ

короче... все эти приросты имеют смутное отношение к России...возьмите 10 финнов ...спросите их "каково иметь Россию соседом" и "хотели бы вы чтоб Россия вошла в евросоюз"...они всё расскажут ...и про ихнюю войну и про ощущения от...

А какое отношение к этому будут иметь ощущения финнов? Можно тогда и немцев начать спрашивать. И заодно каких-нибудь голландцев с бельгийцами про ощущения о немцев.

финнам пахнет сильнее одна из немногих не восточноевропейских стран имеющих с нами границу...

http://www.regions.ru/article/any/id/1236996.html

а ощущения голландцев от немцев не имеет отношения к топику

Originally Posted by QWERTYZ

финнам пахнет сильнее одна из немногих не восточноевропейских стран имеющих с нами границу...

Вот так прямо через границу и пахнет? Насколько я знаю, пахнет в основном лесом, газом, нефтью и электричеством. И эти запахи финнам очень по душе. Ещё раньше, когда в Финляндии выпивка была дорогой, им очень нравился запах водки, они на него как мухи на мёд летели. Да и сейчас продолжают, привыкли-с. Я довольно часто бываю в Петербурге, и картину финнов упившихся до состояния полного нестояния лицезрею довольно часто, особенно в отелях подешевле.

http://www.regions.ru/article/any/id/1236996.html

Ага, вот именно такого рода. Только с ними ещё проститутки обычно бывают.

а ощущения голландцев от немцев не имеет отношения к топику

Вот именно. Равно как и таковые финнов.

да я это к чему ...что войди Россия в евросоюз, вся эта пурга мгновенно полезет через границу ...тот же
ил-86 возвращающийся к примеру из эмиратов - это надо видеть ...а всего то сотня-другая туристов да челноков с шубами ...а если больше чем сотня? ...плюс бесконечные таджики, китайцы , вьетнамцы и прочие ...границ с тем же Казахстаном и Китаем давно нормальных нету ...
ни одна европейская страна в здравом уме не захочет такого подарка ни за какие деньги
а сумасшедших там вроде нету среди них ...

Не понимаю я Вас. Ну кто-то там шубу купил (не понимаю, зачем русским шубы в Арабских (?) Эмиратах покупать, ну не важно) -- что в этом плохого? "Полнейшая выгода и очевидный профит." Проблема-то в чём?

Что же касается бесконечных китайцев, вьетнамцев и прочих, то их в ЕС побольше будет, чем в России. Странный аргумент.

Впрочем, моё мнение, что этот союз не нужен ни России, ни нынешнему ЕС. Ни политически, ни экономически. Хотя и жаль, с точки зрения маленького человека.

а ты(Вы) ведь не в России живёшь ща?

-
Ну кто-то там шубу купил (не понимаю, зачем русским шубы в Арабских (?) Эмиратах покупать, ну не важно) -- что в этом плохого?
-

ну раз не видал, то объяснять длинно ...
-
Что же касается бесконечных китайцев, вьетнамцев и прочих, то их в ЕС побольше будет, чем в России.
-

да ричем тут конкретно количество китайцев в ЕС ...я говорю "границы дырявые", считай никакие ...а это
наркотрафик, трафик людей, просто нелегалы-гастарбайтеры, серые товары и хзчто ещё

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Well, excuse me while I smirk annoyingly.

Smirk all you want, I personally dont give a f*ck!

I like Russia, but it's not as if it's even a shadow of it's former 'glory' anymore, is it?

Nice straw man. Please point to where I denied that? Indeed as bad manners pointed, I emphasised Russia's economic POTENTIAL. Please read my post carefully next time before going off on pointless ranting!

And you think they'd dominate the EU?

Under the right circumstances, yes! If Russia did join, I'd like to know what EU nation would be able to counter Russia's geo-political pull. Indeed I doubt the EU would last long if Russia did join, since inevitably conflict would erupt between Russia and the West European members. Russia has not paid tribute to any foreign power for 500 years, and there's little need for Russia to begin now.

They wouldn't even dominate a Russo-Dutch Union.

LOL! I've never heard anything more ridiculious in my life! First off I'd like to know how the Netherlands could possibly dominate Russia, and sorry economics dont count. As our lord Christ once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." Contrary to what the Wall Street Journal declares, the world does not revolve around economics(at least not all the time).

If we look at Russian history, we can see at least once where Russia was economically under-developed and had less market potential than Western Europe; yet still geo-politically dominated the continent. No Im not talking about the Cold War(although that would count as well), but back in 1812 up untill the Crimean War. In a reversal of that China during the 18th and into the mid 19th century was the world's largest market, yet was geo-politically weak(terribly weak). Economic wealth does not necessarily equal geo-political power. Economic wealth plus sufficient military power does, and Russia has POTENTIAL in both areas.

As the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck onced remarked, "Russia is never as strong nor as weak as she appears."

Syncronize your dogmas gents, there's a thinker loose in here.

It's funny how some can read the perfectly reasonable question;

How high on the Russian agenda is getting into the EU? What are the earliest feasible dates for such entrance? 10 years, 20?

as:

When will the snivelling and broken Russian nation surrender to the EU, and how will you attack anyone who happens to find it an interesting theoretical topic?

Well, since the original question has been so efficiently stamped out, I have another;

Is there something specific to Russian culture that makes it such a magnet for idealogues incapable of dispassionately discussing any topic, or is the malaise specific to this forum?

Smirk all you want, I personally dont give a f*ck!

Nice way to introduce yourself, being a newbie and all.

LOL! I've never heard anything more ridiculious in my life! First off I'd like to know how the Netherlands could possibly dominate Russia, and sorry economics dont count. As our lord Christ once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." Contrary to what the Wall Street Journal declares, the world does not revolve around economics(at least not all the time).

How else if not economically? Militarily? In modern, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength. Maybe you're stuck in the Cold War period, but this is a time of peace and cooperation, at least in Western Europe anyway.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

How else if not economically? Militarily? In modern, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic. So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Is there something specific to Russian culture that makes it such a magnet for idealogues incapable of dispassionately discussing any topic, or is the malaise specific to this forum?

(synchronis/ze and ideologues .. I only point this out so that .. ahem 'somebody' else doesn't)

My answer to your question above is rather boring .. it is specific neither to Russia nor to this forum. It's just the way a lot of people are on the internet.

To Jasper: I think you're opening yourself up to some big attacks with that last paragraph
The idea that world power is exercised economically and not militarily .. I think that's very controversial. Personally, I think America's military dominance is currently more important than her economic dominance.. e.g. AFAIK America is up to its eyeballs in debt, but of course it gets rather better terms than, say, Russia... and as a British citizen I don't really know if this is 'peacetime' what with us killing civilians by the dozen every day..

Typos aside (thanks Waxwing ), the point I was making is that the question isn't really one of need, it's one of desire.

No-one really doubts Russia's ability to stand on her own two feet economically, geo-politically, and militarily, and her potential to become a rich and self-confident economic power in her own right. Of course that is the case, just as it is the case in Germany, or France, or the UK, or any other current member of the EU. None of those countries need to be in the EU either.

The question that will be asked across Europe and Russia, eventually, is whether or nor Russia could attain any additional prosperity, trade, security, or international influence, by becoming a member of the EU, and whether or not the EU would find it mutually beneficial.

Is America civilised then?
I meant Europe, or Western Europe specifically. I don't see why it's that controversial. If we (Holland) were so oriented on military protection or even agressive power, we'd have asked the US to annex us... Holland is one of the founding, and more important, members of the EU, not on account of the size of it's army, which is laughable (20,000 soldiers currently on duty, in wartime for Christ's sake), but of it's wealth, business oppurtunities, etc.

Oops, btw, I noticed you said 'world power'. I mentioned nothing of the sort. Of course world power is based on military might.

I must say that scotcher, strange though it may seem, asked the only relevant question in this thread. It may be argued that Russia might acquire some additional funds by joining the EU, just like Portugal did, but the recent example (Poland et al) shows that it does not work that way anymore.

In the case of trade, it will work backwards, to Russia's disadvantage. Security is not really a concern, Russia still being a nuclear superpower. International influence is a tricky issue, but it appears unlikely that a state may acquire any by becoming subordinate to something.

For the EU as a whole it might be beneficial, because it would obtain better security, better trade, better economy (biggest in the world), a wide array of natural resources (security again), and, most importantly, a huge chunk of territory from which to exert geopolitical influence. But from the point of view of the current EU players, and the current Russian players, that would reduce their respective assets proportionally, and that is why it will not happen any time soon.

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by Jasper May

How else if not economically? Militarily? In modern, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic. So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

I've learned some new things in this forum. The US is weak economically compared to China? Russia the largest economy in the world? Don't confuse trends and potential with reality. Projecting current trends far into the future almost never works. China has a much more robust growth rate than the US (advantages of backwardness), but the US economy dwarfs that of China even in absolute terms (let's not even meniton per capita). Sure, if current growth trends continue, China would pass the US in 50 years or so, but if US growth trends from the 1950s had continued, we'd all be millionaires by now. The US does have disturbing long term, structural economic problems with debt and trade deficits, but the fact is that growth in many other countries (especially China!) depend on robust US consumer demand.

As for Russia, it has enormous natural wealth and a well educated population, but that guarantees nothing. There are poor countries with incredible natural wealth (Congo, Venezuala), and rich ones with hardly any (Japan). Right now, California alone has a much larger economy than Russia. I know there is serious underreporting of Russian wealth, but you think everyone and every large corporation in California reports their wealth honestly to the tax man? Triple official Russian figures if you like, it doesn't change anything.

Russia also risks a brain drain of its talent. That danger would be exacerbated by premature EU membership. Exposing Russian industries to EU competition too soon would also be harmful. But the EU remains far and away Russia's largest trading partner, and I bet in the long run free access to those markets (and employment opportunities for Russian citizens) will be awful tempting.

Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Holland is one of the founding, and more important, members of the EU, not on account of the size of it's army, which is laughable (20,000 soldiers currently on duty, in wartime for Christ's sake), but of it's wealth, business oppurtunities, etc.

If you have wealth and don't have an army then somebody will come and take your wealth. That's why Holland needs EU and NATO to be protected and Russia doesn't.

Originally Posted by begemot

I know there is serious underreporting of Russian wealth, but you think everyone and every large corporation in California reports their wealth honestly to the tax man? Triple official Russian figures if you like, it doesn't change anything.

If we take all dollars in the world and all good manufactured by US, we'll see that dollar costs much less than it is said to cost today. So, all estimations based on dollar as equivalent are wrong....

Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?

Russia isn't standing outside. Recently we formed economic block with China and some other countries (The Shanghai Five or Eurasian Economic Community). The difference is - Europe wants us to play their game with their rules, while with China it's easier to be equal partners.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

Nice way to introduce yourself,

Excuse me, you're the one who made a smart-ass remark to me.

being a newbie and all.

Irrelevant and pathetic attempt at an ad hominem.

How else if not economically? Militarily? In modern, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

LOL! Then please explain to me why NATO still exists, considering that the Cold War is over? Explain to me why the EU itself is planning on building a fast reaction military strike force INDEPENDENT of NATO if military power did not matter? Please explain to me this, since military power is irrelevant in the modern civilized world, when the EU itself is trying to build itself into a military power.

And thats not all:

"The recent breakup of multiethnic states provides further evidence of the capacity of political passion to prevail over economic expediency. Throughout the 1990’s, economic interdependence meant little in the face of awakened nationalist yearnings. The Slovaks wanted out of Czechoslovakia despite the certainty of facing economic hardships. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia all sought to secede from Yugoslavia despite the economic dislocation that would follow. Since the end if the Bosnian war, the country’s Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have shunned rebuilding economic links with each other. They prefer poverty to trading with the enemy. Many of the former Soviet republics have faced severe hardship as they distance themselves from the Russian economy. They have nonetheless proceeded in their search for autonomy."
--Charles A. Kupchan The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century pg.104

Economics determine how the world works, HA!

Maybe you're stuck in the Cold War period, but this is a time of peace and cooperation, at least in Western Europe anyway.

LOL! I can tell you know absolute shit about history(especially with your talk about modern orders and other nonsense like that).


"This historical record also makes clear that even when states are comfortable enough with each other to allow high levels of economic interdependence to emerge, the resulting ties are no guarantor of lasting harmony. International communities knit together by their integrated economies can unravel with surprising speed. Consider Europe during the decade prior to World War I. Trade and investments inside Europe were, in relation to the size of national economies, greater one hundred years ago than they are today. Germany was Britain’s second-most-important trading partner(after the United States), and Britain was the top market for German exports…Borders in the early 1900s were permeable. Europeans moved more freely from country to country, without passports and without having to bother with border controls.

Such intense levels of interdependence, however, did not avert Europe’s rapid descent into World War I…. If economic interdependence could not save Europe from war in 1914, there is no compelling reason to be confident that globalization would do any better at preserving a stable peace today."
--Charles A. Kupchan The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century pg.103

Indeed there's much in common with how economies and societies operated at the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries. So whats so new and "modern" about this try around. Your assertions are proof that the saying "Those who dont remember the past are doomed to repeat" is 100% true!