Memebership in NATO gives a country all the guarantees it needs, right? Right?!

[Dachs]

I would think its fair to say that generally France has had a better relationship with Russia than UK or US, in the last few hundred years anyhow.

A "generally" that is so riddled with exceptions as to be practically useless.

 

[RedRalph]

A "generally" that is so riddled with exceptions as to be practically useless.

Just to be clear - I interpret this as him saying that France is closer historically to Russia than the UK and US have been to Russia - yeah?

 

[Dachs]

Just to be clear - I interpret this as him saying that France is closer historically to Russia than the UK and US have been to Russia - yeah?

Oh, if you take it that way...I thought he was saying that France is 'closer' historically to Russia than France has been to the Anglo-Saxon countries.

 

[RedRalph]

Oh, if you take it that way...I thought he was saying that France is 'closer' historically to Russia than France has been to the Anglo-Saxon countries.

well I don't agree with that if that's what he means.

 

[Winner]

It's partially true even in the historical sense. Sure, there's Napoleon and his little trip to Moscow (but hey, he DID bring France('s soldiers) closer to Russia ) and the Crimean War, but aside from that: Russian aristocracy loved French culture, Russian rulers often looked to France for role models (absolutism and all that), later France and Russia saw themselves as natural allies against Germany/Austria and even during the Cold War, France made attempts to break the bipolar international system by making overtures to Moscow.

Today's French policies concerning Russia are still partially influenced by the relatively good historical relations. Economically speaking, there aren't many reasons why should France seek closer relations with Kremlin.

 

[Yeekim]

Economically speaking, there aren't many reasons why should France seek closer relations with Kremlin.

Economically speaking, there are lots of reasons to seek them (large potential market & huge raw material deposits to name the most obvious) and none I can think of not to seek them.

 

[Dachs]

It's partially true even in the historical sense. Sure, there's Napoleon and his little trip to Moscow (but hey, he DID bring France('s soldiers) closer to Russia ) and the Crimean War, but aside from that: Russian aristocracy loved French culture, Russian rulers often looked to France for role models (absolutism and all that), later France and Russia saw themselves as natural allies against Germany/Austria and even during the Cold War, France made attempts to break the bipolar international system by making overtures to Moscow.

Partially true being the important bit - so partially that it's not much use as a general rule.

And for every bit about French culture, French role models, French alliances, there's always a caveat, like Russian mistrust of French republicanism, French dissatisfaction with Russian autocracy, France's usual preference of Poland over Russia when such a choice is available, and so forth. You mentioned the Crimean War and Napoleon in 1812; but Russo-French relations from 1798 past Vienna were with a brief, transitory exception abysmal, too, and hell the first time Russian troops came to Western Europe - in the War of the Polish Succession - was so they could fight Frenchmen. (They did the same thing ten years later for the next war, a slightly more famous one.) And for every Fashoda, Napoleonic war, Quasi War, and so on there's an entente cordiale, a Crimean conflict, a Statue of Liberty, you get it.

 

[Winner]

Economically speaking, there are lots of reasons to seek them (large potential market & huge raw material deposits to name the most obvious) and none I can think of not to seek them.

Eh, that's not what I meant - poor wording, my fault. I mean that the economic ties between France and Russia are not that important to warrant some sort of strong rapprochement. The reasons why France might seek closer ties with Moscow are rather political in nature (wish to counter-balance the US and China, strengthen France's position in global affairs etc. - the usual motives behind French foreign policy). In contrast to that, Germany's ties with Russia are mostly driven by the economy and trade relations.

 

[Yeekim]

A little news story that might be relevant to this thread

OTTAWA (Reuters) – The splits inside NATO over the Afghan war have turned the alliance into a rotting corpse that will be virtually impossible to revive, says the former head of Canada's armed forces.

General Rick Hillier also said the 28-member alliance was "dominated by jealousies and small, vicious political battles" and bemoaned its "lack of cohesion, clarity and professionalism" at the start of the Afghan mission.

Hillier made the angry comments in a new book called "A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats and the Politics of War," which was purchased by Reuters Tuesday ahead of its scheduled publication date next week. Hiller stepped down as chief of the defense staff last year.

Canada often complains that its 2,700 soldiers in southern Afghanistan are bearing the brunt of the war while other NATO members insist their troops be stationed in more peaceful parts of the country and limit what they can do.

"Afghanistan has revealed that NATO has reached the stage where it is a corpse decomposing and somebody's going to have to perform a Frankenstein-like life-giving act by breathing some lifesaving air through those rotten lips into those putrescent lungs or the alliance will be done," Hillier wrote.

"Any major setback in Afghanistan will see it off to the cleaners, and unless the alliance can snatch victory out of feeble efforts, it's not going to be long in existence in its present form."

So far, 131 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan. The combat mission is due to end in 2011 and Ottawa says it has no plans to extend it.

Asked for a reaction, Brussels-based NATO spokesman James Appathurai replied: "I suppose if you're trying to drum up interest in your book, this is one way to get attention."

Hillier, who commanded the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from February to August 2004, said he was alarmed to discover the extent to which the body had split into factions.

"It was more important within the alliance that every nation get to build up its fiefdom than it was to put together a solid team for a successful mission," he said.

"Some nations were meticulous about selecting the best people for the job ... many did not, and some of my headquarters officers didn't show up at all."

Hillier also complained that when NATO took over control of ISAF in 2003 it had "no strategy, no clear articulation of what they wanted to achieve ... it was abysmal."

He added: "NATO had started down a road that destroyed much of its credibility and in the end eroded support for the mission in every nation in the alliance. Sadly, years later, the situation remains unchanged."

I thought about starting a new thread, but the rotting corpse thing made me think about necroing that one...

 

[RedRalph]

Do you agree with General Hillier, Yeekim?

 

[Yeekim]

I am afraid he may not be exaggerating much.