29-12-2004 04:23									#181
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Yeah, but that powerful neighbor has a veto at the UN. It is interesting, isn't it, that a state like the EU would not and could not defend against an attack on one of its members.

maybe we should wait until Ukraine becomes a member of EU before we jump to conclusions - if they join EU, they probably also join NATO.

Theoretically you may have a point, there are not a defence part in EU, but that is taken care of by NATO.

I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

	29-12-2004 04:26									#182
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ned There seem to be some in the EU who would oppose Ukrainian membership in the EU if the Ukraine were to also join NATO.

Do you have any references ?

	29-12-2004 04:47									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat maybe we should wait until Ukraine becomes a member of EU before we jump to conclusions - if they join EU, they probably also join NATO. Theoretically you may have a point, there are not a defence part in EU, but that is taken care of by NATO. I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

Yeah, you have that superpower Canada in NATO to help out.

But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO.

As to whom is against the Ukraine joining NATO, there was a piece in the Guardian about this. Apparently many in Europe are still into appeasing the Bear.

	29-12-2004 05:06									#184
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Yeah, you have that superpower Canada in NATO to help out. But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO. As to whom is against the Ukraine joining NATO, there was a piece in the Guardian about this. Apparently many in Europe are still into appeasing the Bear.

Yup, you can always rely on the Canadian Mounted Police.

Actually, there are no reason that Ukraine has to join NATO if it joins EU. Both Sweden and Finland are not members, but yes, there are a trend.

I can't find anything supporting your claim that there are a serious trend to aviod Ukranian membership in EU to appease Russia except some unsupported claims in a Guardian article, but who cares. Actually, people are thinking that Ukraine is a more natural part of EU than Turkey.

	29-12-2004 05:21									#185
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Hey, my grandparents come from Ukraine, so does one Serb's grandparent.

But weren't they Poles living in the Ukraine before WW2?

	29-12-2004 06:05									#186
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Actually, there are no reason that Ukraine has to join NATO if it joins EU. Both Sweden and Finland are not members, but yes, there are a trend.

Ireland and Austria are also members of the EU but not members of NATO, aslo Norway and Turkey are in NATO but not in the EU.

	29-12-2004 19:19									#187
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ned But seriously, the Ukraine cannot join the EU without joining NATO, IMHO.

Malta and Cyprus are no members of NATO, yet they belong to the EU. True, Malta and Cyprus are small members of lower geopolitical importance than Ukraine, but NATO membership is not a prerequisite to entrance in the EU.

The EU's foreign policy is strongly intertwined with NATO's, but it is made clear that a EU-member can be a non-member of NATO:

From the European Constitution (Art. I-41):

quote: The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

quote: 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

	29-12-2004 19:22									#188
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat I certainly prefer NATO against some EU traty because NATO goes much further than EU.

Huh?

The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

NATO goes further in military matters, as there is an integration of the military command. But in all other matters (economic and political integration), the EU is lightyears beyond NATO, and for a good reason: NATO is a military alliance, and nothing more than that. The EU is an economic and political union.

	29-12-2004 19:37									#189
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

Do they?

However that may be, the Swedish government still feels free to assert it has not signed away our right to remain neutral should any other country be attacked, and that the EU isn't a defensive alliance.

	29-12-2004 20:04									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

TLC:

quote: quote: 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

That's in the Constitution project. It was signed by all Heads of State, and is now to be ratified via referendum or parliamentary vote (I don't know how Sweden will ratify)

	29-12-2004 20:04									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Then, they are talking BS. Since the WEU was integrated in the EU treaties, there is automatically a duty to assist EU members when they are attacked.

	29-12-2004 20:15									#192
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor TLC: quote: quote: 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That's in the Constitution project. It was signed by all Heads of State, and is now to be ratified via referendum or parliamentary vote (I don't know how Sweden will ratify)

In accordance with Article 51. IE everyone should aid vicitims of aggression. Not quite the same as "an attack upon one is an attack upon all" Sweden isnt the only neutral. Ireland has always been unwilling to enter a pledge to go to war for the UK. You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.



" After its new formulation, Article 40.7 is no longer a simple clause on military security guarantees. Its reference to the UN Charter is in a way self-evident and involves no problems if it is specifically stated that the provisions of the Charter are also applied among the Union's Member States. The draft articles will still need careful analysis and formulation. It is also justified to expect that all Member States are included in this process. Thus, a more appropriate solution might be to incorporate this article in the general solidarity clause of the draft treaty.

Finland will take an active part in the formulation of proposals concerning co-operation in defence issues. In this respect, it is highly possible to reach a conclusion that will take Finland's premises into account and will be satisfactory to all parties"

	29-12-2004 20:37									#193
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark In accordance with Article 51. IE everyone should aid vicitims of aggression. Not quite the same as "an attack upon one is an attack upon all"

Err, Article 51 merely states that the current charter doesn't prevent collective defense.

quote: Sweden isnt the only neutral. Ireland has always been unwilling to enter a pledge to go to war for the UK.

In the EU, Member-States agree to do plenty of things they're unwilling to. I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid.

quote: You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.

I am aware of the distinction between the two, but I don't see where I confused them in this thread. I also don't see why the distinction would be relevant in this thread: we are discussing about collective defense, not about the specifics of the military organization of the allies.

quote: " After its new formulation, Article 40.7 is no longer a simple clause on military security guarantees. Its reference to the UN Charter is in a way self-evident and involves no problems if it is specifically stated that the provisions of the Charter are also applied among the Union's Member States. The draft articles will still need careful analysis and formulation. It is also justified to expect that all Member States are included in this process. Thus, a more appropriate solution might be to incorporate this article in the general solidarity clause of the draft treaty. Finland will take an active part in the formulation of proposals concerning co-operation in defence issues. In this respect, it is highly possible to reach a conclusion that will take Finland's premises into account and will be satisfactory to all parties"

Do you know when this quote has been written? The way it is said, it is likely to come from before the Constitution was signed (last October IIRC), when we were still in the negociations about the final wording.

The wording is now definitive, and the treaty is awaiting ratification. There is no way to impact this Constitution now, save for accepting or rejecting it as a whole.

	29-12-2004 20:40									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In the EU, Member-States agree to do plenty of things they're unwilling to. I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid.

Which means it's not collective defense.

	29-12-2004 20:45									#195
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Which means it's not collective defense.

Which means it's about as precise as the "grave consequences" for Iraq if it didn't comply to resolution 1441.

The Neutral countries would probably give only civilian aid to an attacked EU member, while all other countries would scream, saying the Neutrals don't aid with "all means in their power".

This imprecise wording is what you make out of it. We can only hope that this article will never have to be implemented.

	29-12-2004 20:47									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

quote: You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.

I am aware of the distinction between the two, but I don't see where I confused them in this thread. I also don't see why the distinction would be relevant in this thread: we are discussing about collective defense, not about the specifics of the military organization of the allies.


This -

"The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

NATO goes further in military matters, as there is an integration of the military command. But in all other matters (economic and political integration), the EU is lightyears beyond NATO, and for a good reason: NATO is a military alliance, and nothing more than that. The EU is an economic and political union"

It seemed from the above that you distinguished the NATO commitment from the EU commitment, by NATO having a military organization. But the Atlantic Alliance is NOT a military organization. Therefore it seems you imply the military commitment of the EU is the SAME as that of the Atlantic Alliance, ie an attack upon one is an attack upon all. Whereas it seems instead that "I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid."

Thats the key point. No one can construe the Atlantic Alliance as anything other than a military commitment. Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only. The NATO members already have an obligation to provide each other military aid. So the only additional obligation involved in the EU treaty will be the obligation, not reciprocated, that states like France and Germany adopt to go the aid of non-NATO states like Finland and Austria.

So, to get back on topic, IF Ukraine joins the EU, Ukraine will likely see itself as having no military obligations towards the other EU members. France and Germany MAY interpret the EU Const such that THEY have an obligation to render military aid to the Ukraine in the event of an attack on the Ukraine.

	29-12-2004 20:50									#197
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Which means it's about as precise as the "grave consequences" for Iraq if it didn't comply to resolution 1441. The Neutral countries would probably give only civilian aid to an attacked EU member, while all other countries would scream, saying the Neutrals don't aid with "all means in their power". This imprecise wording is what you make out of it. We can only hope that this article will never have to be implemented.

The point is Spif, if youre in Kiev, the Atlantic Alliance provides a rather clearer guarantee than the EU does. AFAICT the EU clause is there to aid in the further political development and foreign policy integration of the EU, not to provide NATO style collective defense. Which again, means that if you are a country that WANTS NATO style collective defense, youve got to join NATO.

	29-12-2004 20:59									#198
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Thats the key point. No one can construe the Atlantic Alliance as anything other than a military commitment. Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only. The NATO members already have an obligation to provide each other military aid. So the only additional obligation involved in the EU treaty will be the obligation, not reciprocated, that states like France and Germany adopt to go the aid of non-NATO states like Finland and Austria. So, to get back on topic, IF Ukraine joins the EU, Ukraine will likely see itself as having no military obligations towards the other EU members. France and Germany MAY interpret the EU Const such that THEY have an obligation to render military aid to the Ukraine in the event of an attack on the Ukraine.

I understand now what you mean. This is true, and it is likely to happen, unless the Consitution changes before any attack happens on the EU soil.

	29-12-2004 21:11									#199
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: lotm wrote: Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only.

I'd decapitalize that 'will'. A ministry of defense official told me he "could not imagine" that Sweden would remain neutral in the case of an attack on a fellow EU country.

	29-12-2004 21:16									#200
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist quote: lotm wrote: Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only. I'd decapitalize that 'will'. A ministry of defense official told me he "could not imagine" that Sweden would remain neutral in the case of an attack on a fellow EU country.

Does Sweden consider itself at war with Al Qaeda, after the Madrid attack? Did Sweden consider itself at war with AQ after the 9/11 attack on the United States? What im getting at is that I wonder if the same "could not imagine" applies to the US and Canada as well - yet Sweden is not in NATO. OTOH perhaps a conventional attack by a state would be considered differently, since some hold that its not legally meaningful to be "at war" with a non-state actor - in which case its not clear what it means to be neutral.

	29-12-2004 23:01									#201
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, once this is over, my plans to visit Yalta in Brezhneville can get back on track.

	30-12-2004 03:32									#202
	Put an end to popups!

I don't think we will send any troops if another EU state is attacked. A few years from now, there won't be any Swedish troops left to send, save for a conscript mech inf. army. But that one will be too busy parading around in Sarajevo, with a smiling combat dressed Göran Persson* in the front...

*Our beloved prime minister. He is the most exalted and wise.

	30-12-2004 03:39									#203
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS Russia has only itself to rely upon, to blame, and to worry about. Western impact on Russian internal politics is quite minimal.

quote: Listen to yourself talk, Vagabond. Russia's lack of democracy has nothing at all to do with the West's long standing thirst.

So you want to say that the external situation has alomost no impact on internal politics?? Quite a strange statement. Especially from an American, who must know how the external terrorist threat changed certain internal practices. Some critics even cry "democracy in danger". And this is America at a peak of its power. Then what about such country as Russia, in harsh transition and at a peak of its vulnerability?

I appreciate your modesty in this matter. But the harsh geopolitical challenge posed by the West inevitably affects Russian internal politics. In particular, it just reinforces the overall mobilizational trend. E.g. in economy. This harms the 'normal' economy. In politics, the pro-western liberal parties did not even get into the Duma. It is partly due to the policies of their western idols that the people turned away from them. Their absence in the Duma leads in turn to other consequences in Russian politics, etc., etc.

Why do you Russia supports Lukashenko in Belarus? Because we like him or his regime? The answer is quite simple: either Lukashenko, or Belarus in NATO.

So if you think that the feeling of a besieged fortress does not affect internal politics, you are quite mistaken.

I envy Poland. After the fall of communism, it has been developing in what can be called 'hothouse conditions'. As for Russia... well, you know.

quote: Colon will vouch for me when I say that I was willing to give Putin the benefit of the doubt on this. I agree that past wrongs have to be fixed, at least somewhat. Russia was robbed blind by her oligarchs. At a minimum, proper taxes have to be collected. In the absence of other totalitarian tendencies, I would support a rebalancing of some of the oligarchs' power to the people. But add the reality together and you get a totalitarian stench that scares Westerners.

Add also how it is all blown out of proportion by the 'free' western media.

quote: Rather weak opposition parties being crushed.

Crushed?? The people simply didn't vote for them (see above). These parties are alive and well by the way, except that they are not represented in the Duma.

quote: A strictly controlled TV press.

As I already had an occasion to say in this thread, the printed press is still free. There are free radio stations. TV became more controlled indeed. But, you would hate to hear this (and it seems that this offended Sikander), it has basically been reduced from a total permissiveness of the Yeltsin era to an American-style self-restraint.

quote: Consolidation of power in the Czar's hands.

This isn't necessarily bad. Different countries require different approaches, in accordance with national traditions and mentality. Personally, I don't approve all of his policies though.

quote: A resurgent secret police.

You are making me afraid. Secret services are needed for a proper functioning of the state. They were almost crushed under Yeltsin.

quote: Rampant corruption in the top ranks of government.

This is not a recent phenomenon. But, as you, I am disappointed how Putin fights it. He seems to be too soft and indecisive.

quote: Talk of a "controlled Democracy" (that must be a Russian creation ).

If you think that American democracy is not controlled, you are mistaken: There are two established gangs (sorry, parties) of the elite, and no third force is really allowed. This is precisely a variant of a controled democracy.

quote: I wonder when the number of allowable presidential terms will be extended...

Putin recently once again pledged that he would go in 2008, in accordance with the constitution. I am inclined to believe him.

quote: At best, all of this stuff is a waste of valuable time for Russia. Russia gains nothing from these measures.

Well, there may be different opinions on the matter.

quote: Even if I were to accept your conspiracy theory, the way for Russia to "fight back" would be to become strong internally.

Becoming strong internally is what Putin is trying to accomplish. But in his own way, not yours.

quote: If Russia were strong internally, then Putin wouldn't have to rig elections in the Ukraine.

So now not only the election in Ukraine was rigged, but it was rigged by Putin himself!

quote: Indeed, as I pointed out above, most of what is happening under Putin will not make Russia stronger, but rather weaker. He should be raising wages, downsizing, and professionalizing the security services. Instead, he is monkeying around with centralization. I thought Putin was smarter than this. Collecting power is a fool's game.

Well, he has his own opinion of what will make Russia stronger, which does not coincide with yours and partly with mine. But this cannot justify the despicable campaign of Russia's vilification under way in the West for a long time (more precisely, forever).

	30-12-2004 03:41									#204
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid I don't think we will send any troops if another EU state is attacked. A few years from now, there won't be any Swedish troops left to send, save for a conscript mech inf. army. But that one will be too busy parading around in Sarajevo, with a smiling combat dressed Göran Persson* in the front... *Our beloved prime minister. He is the most exalted and wise.

I've read some articles that sossarne may loose the next election - would that change this ?

	30-12-2004 03:45									#205
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond As I already had an occasion to say in this thread, the printed press is still free. There are free radio stations. TV became more controlled indeed. But, you would hate to hear this (and it seems that this offended Sikander), it has basically been reduced from a total permissiveness of the Yeltsin era to an American-style self-restraint. ).

So I take it you have 4 networks that are largely hostile to Putin, and one that automatically defends him?

	30-12-2004 03:48									#206
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond You are making me afraid. Secret services are needed for a proper functioning of the state. They were almost crushed under Yeltsin.

Err, secret services are needed indeed, but only to gather information about violent groups that cannot be fought with the rule of law. A secret police (the way we Westerners understand it) is not the same as ordinary secret services: it strikes people in a completely non-transparent manner, and without following the Law.

The rule of Law is extremely important to a functioning democracy (and the State can still function properly), and a secret police is by nature incompatible with this principle.

I don't know where DanS has it from, that your secret police is resurging. However, if he has good clues of tsuch a resurgence, it is something that you as a supporter of the democratic principles (even though you want a specific brand of democracy adapted to Russia), should be very wary of.

	30-12-2004 03:48									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Huh?

Sorry. I realize that it can be misunderstood. What i meant was that other than EU countries are members such as Canada, Iceland, USA and Turkey - wouldn't mind if others joined.

	30-12-2004 03:49									#208
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat I've read some articles that sossarne may loose the next election - would that change this ?

I'm not sure what all the other parties think, but probably our army will be dismantled so fast that it won't matter.

	30-12-2004 03:54									#209
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I don't know where DanS has it from, that your secret police is resurging.

SF Chronicle

DEMOCRACY ON THE BRINK: SPY MANIA
Arrest wave called Soviet-style tactic
Russian journalists, scholars face new version of the KGB
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 7, 2004


Obninsk, Russia -- The room is empty now. Only shadows of the happiness that once filled this cozy apartment flicker in the children's paintings on the walls and the smiling family portraits on the desk where Igor Sutyagin used to while away his evenings in carefree telephone and e-mail conversations with colleagues around the world.

It was a dream come true for Sutyagin, an arms researcher in Obninsk, 60 miles south of Moscow. But the dream shattered one morning four years ago when Russian security police barged in, confiscated Sutyagin's research and even some of his daughters' drawings, took Sutyagin away and later accused him of spying for the United States.

Now, the telephone he once used is tapped; someone listens to any conversations that his wife, Irina Manannikova, have at home. And Sutyagin has been in jail more than three years awaiting trial.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the domestic successor of the Soviet KGB, says Sutyagin is a spy who passed on information about Russian nuclear submarines and weapons and missile warning systems and should be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. But international human rights groups say he is one of a number of innocent victims in a chain of trumped-up cases intended to bring back the paranoid secrecy of the Cold War era.

Sutyagin's case, they say, symbolizes the resurgence of Soviet-style tactics since Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, first ascended to power as prime minister in 1999.

With Putin headed for almost certain re-election to another four-year term as president next Sunday, rights advocates fear the FSB will be free to prosecute more spy cases like Sutyagin's.

"The FSB has regained a lot of its old powers (under Putin). They've become a very powerful force," said Diederik Lohman, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, based in New York. "Old habits die hard."

Rights advocates have dubbed the chilling string of arrests of scholars, journalists and lawyers "spy mania.'' At its core lies the FSB's nostalgia for Soviet-era secrecy and desire for total control over any information it perceives to be "sensitive," Lohman said.

In its 2003 annual report on human rights, the U.S. State Department warned that the "alleged espionage cases ... caused continued concerns regarding the lack of due process and the influence of the FSB in court cases. "

Putin has said that such prosecutions are justified and that scholars, environmentalists and journalists often pose as fronts for foreign spy cells. In December, FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev boasted that the agency had caught five foreign spies "red-handed" and had put an end to spying and subversive activities by 14 career spies and 37 agents of foreign states, Interfax news agency reported.

Human Rights Watch and other critics say that the defendants are often not allowed to see the charges against them, and that FSB officials sometimes publicly label the defendants guilty even before their cases go to court. '

	30-12-2004 03:58									#210
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. there are probably people who support reducing corruption, but voted against Yusch cause they fear he will reduce language rights of russian speakers in east Ukraine. If he can assuage those concerns, he can develop a broader coalition on economic issues.

If he can really assuage those concerns, good for him. Russian speakers have a vivid example of what happens to Russian speakers under the patronage of the EU and NATO (see Latvia and Estonia). They really don't want to become second-sort citizens.

quote: 2. The big change is political - the large numbers of people protesting in the streets, for days, in conditions of severe cold, to take back a fraudulent election. THATS a change in the polity, whatever happens in terms of corruption.

You should keep in mind that all those protests are in Kiev, where 80% are for Yushchenko. A city which voted in mass for Yushchenko was disappointed that their candidate lost.