So what happens if Putin decides he wants Latvia?

[James Stuart]

I seem to remember reading, several times, that foreign trade as a percentage of GDP was higher for most of the major European combatants on the eve of WW1 (Imperial Germany, so no Godwin's Law here) than it is for those same nations (or was it the global average?) today. Obviously, it still didn't stop the war from happening. Apropos, this being the 100th anniversary of said war and all. 1914-1918 nevar forget.

There was a debate, which I (unfortunately for this thread) was never a part of, when I was at university. The debate was between those who argued that the world was now more globalised than ever, and those who believed the time of the European colonial empires (the so-called "Long 19th century," or 1789-1918) was even more globalised than today.

According to this argument, British and French culture were more widespread and dominant then than American culture is today, international trade accounted for a far greater share of the economy, and an Indian or Australian-born politician could aspire to be the Prime Minister of the UK, even if he never set foot there until his thirties. An Englishman could feel just as home in Singapore as in London, and a French soldier might prefer life in the tropics to Metropolitan France.

It's a compelling argument, though I'm not economist enough to judge it. On paper, the pro-colonialist argument certainly looked better, but that could simply have been because the people making it were smarter than those who disagreed.

 

[LoneRebel]

There was a debate, which I (unfortunately for this thread) was never a part of, when I was at university. The debate was between those who argued that the world was now more globalised than ever, and those who believed the time of the European colonial empires (the so-called "Long 19th century," or 1789-1918) was even more globalised than today.

According to this argument, British and French culture were more widespread and dominant then than American culture is today, international trade accounted for a far greater share of the economy, and an Indian or Australian-born politician could aspire to be the Prime Minister of the UK, even if he never set foot there until his thirties. An Englishman could feel just as home in Singapore as in London, and a French soldier might prefer life in the tropics to Metropolitan France.

It's a compelling argument, though I'm not economist enough to judge it. On paper, the pro-colonialist argument certainly looked better, but that could simply have been because the people making it were smarter than those who disagreed.

I think life would have been pretty good if you were white (and maybe Japanese, later on) but not if you were anyone else. To paraphrase that well-known saying, it was globalization for Europeans, whatever the opposite of globalization is for everyone else.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think life would have been pretty good if you were white (and maybe Japanese, later on) but not if you were anyone else. To paraphrase that well-known saying, it was globalization for Europeans, whatever the opposite of globalization is for everyone else.

Subjugation?

I have been taken to task for saying this before, but will say it again...the only way to keep Europeans from trying to subjugate each other is to get them all together in a plot to subjugate everyone else.

 

[James Stuart]

Subjugation?

I have been taken to task for saying this before, but will say it again...the only way to keep Europeans from trying to subjugate each other is to get them all together in a plot to subjugate everyone else.

But doesn't our ability to compromise with each other prove that we're ideally suited for the latter job?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But doesn't our ability to compromise with each other prove that we're ideally suited for the latter job?

That's a very impressive argument.

 

[James Stuart]

That's a very impressive argument.

I learnt it in my Colonialism Apologism 101 class.

Source.

US to keep troops in Poland and Baltic states for at least another year

Persistence presence’ mission is part of efforts to reassure Nato’s eastern European allies and counter any Russian threat to the region

The US will keep troops in Poland and the Baltic states for at least the next year as tensions with Russia remain, the commander of US land forces in Europe said on Sunday.

Several hundred US troops were deployed in Poland and the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia earlier this year after Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimea region in March. The deployment was part of Washington’s efforts to reassure the nervous eastern European allies that Nato would offer protection from any Russian threat.

Originally planned until the end of this year, the “persistent presence” mission of overlapping units on rotation is going to continue, Lieutenant-General Frederick Ben Hodges, commanding general of US army Europe, told reporters in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

“We have planned rotations out through next year. Units are designated that will continue to do this,” Hodges said. “There are going to be US army forces here in Lithuania, as well as Estonia and Latvia and Poland for as long as is required to deter Russian aggression and to assure our allies.”

All three Baltic states used to be part of the Soviet Union. Permanent stationing of US and other units in the Baltics and Poland remains off the table, in part due to concerns this would breach a 1997 Russia-Nato agreement.

 

[red_elk]

That's a very impressive argument.

Even more impressive that it's coming from <supposedly> Australian.

 

[James Stuart]

Even more impressive that it's coming from <supposedly> Australian.

As a whitey, I am an honorary European.

 

[red_elk]

I think I'm not considered as a European in Tim's argument (getting Europeans in a plot to subjugate everyone else), neither in yours (Europeans ability to compromise with each other).
Despite being whitey and also living in a second largest European city

 

[James Stuart]

I think I'm not considered as a European in Tim's argument (getting Europeans in a plot to subjugate everyone else), neither in yours (Europeans ability to compromise with each other).
Despite being whitey and also living in a second largest European city

Nope, Russians are untrustworthy Tartar hordes from the East. You have invaded Europe. You are interlopers, not Europeans. We Australians are Europeans, by dint of our unparalleled ability to mistreat our indigenous people, and retain a policy against immigration decades after officially repealing it. By God, man, we're more European than most of the population of Europe!

 

[Yeekim]

Nope, Russians are untrustworthy Tartar hordes from the East. You have invaded Europe. You are interlopers, not Europeans. We Australians are Europeans, by dint of our unparalleled ability to mistreat our indigenous people, and retain a policy against immigration decades after officially repealing it. By God, man, we're more European than most of the population of Europe!

You really need to provide some other criteria for Europeanness, or we're going to have very hard time to keep Russia out...

 

[James Stuart]

You really need to provide some other criteria for Europeanness, or we're going to have very hard time to keep Russia out...

They're Tartar hordes, I tell you! If we weren't arbitrary, we wouldn't be European.

 

[red_elk]

Nope, Russians are untrustworthy Tartar hordes from the East. You have invaded Europe. You are interlopers, not Europeans.

This is slander and blasphemy. We are trustworthy Tartar hordes from the East.

 

[James Stuart]

This is slander and blasphemy. We are trustworthy Tartar hordes from the East.

We trust you to break your word, and be really, really hard to conquer. That's about it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

This is pretty old (2007) but may have some interesting points:

The similarities between 1933 Germany and today's Russia are striking.
Mortified, defeated, survived economic crisis, shrunk military, authoritarian government, desire for national greatness, territories to reclaim, history of military strength even without major allies, arms limitations treaties in force...let them ally with PR China and they could grab Eastern European territories just like Germany was able to grab Saarland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel before appeasement was given up. Imagine a reunification of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. We'd quickly face a nation much stronger in population, geo-strategic means, economy, arms industry and military - and probably backed up by an allied China.

The feeling of complete security in Europe and the assumption that it would require decades to threaten us with conventional war is completely wrong. History's lesson is clear-cut: Such safety cannot exist, there are historical precedences for what it would take to create a conventional total war in as few as a couple years.

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2007/08/no-major-war-in-europe-in-next-ten.html

However I see no way -- no ideology in present day Russia which can sell big scale sort of confrontation with the West to the Russians themselves.

 

[James Stuart]

This is pretty old (2007) but may have some interesting points:

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2007/08/no-major-war-in-europe-in-next-ten.html

However I see no way -- no ideology in present day Russia which can sell big scale sort of confrontation with the West to the Russians themselves.

That blog is just scaremongering. China and Russia are more likely to come to blows than ally with one another, the Chinese, while somewhat belligerent in their territorial disputes, do not want a war with the US, Japan, etc., and Russia, for all their posturing, feel the same. Putin is also essentially following an opportunistic, reactive foreign policy, and likely didn't even give the orders for the rebel groups in Eastern Ukraine to begin action; once hey did, however, he was stuck supporting them or letting them be wiped out, hence his start-stop action there. None of the European powers, or even semi-powers like Italy, are going to stand by and watch Russia gobble up the Baltic states or Poland, and as long as Ukraine doesn't force the issue the Russians have probably reached their fullest extent there as well.

A re-unification with Belarus is always possible, and Kazakhstan has also indicated some interest in that in the past. This re-unification will not be by force, however, but by the choice of at least the ruling classes, and particularly in Belarus's case, probably the populace as well.

I think the countries that should be most concerned about Russia right now are the Caucasian states, which are small, weak, diplomatically isolated and have various minority groups that all look to Russia for protection. If Putin really feels the need to flex his military muscles again, it will be in that direction.

I must also state that there are very few similarities between Hitler and Putin, propensity for annexations aside. Hitler had a long-term goal of conquest, whereas Putin is essentially a garden-variety autocrat, intent on maintaining his own grip on power. He doesn't have any long-term strategy for reclaiming territory or starting wars, but is willing to do so if he sees an opportunity. Hitler was an opportunist, but only in pursuit of an end-game, which Putin, like Stalin before him, simply doesn't have.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wouldn't say economic integration is always the key to peace. I hate to repeatedly bring up Nazi Germany, but even before Hitler took power in 1933 the German government was trading with Austria, Poland, and the Balkan states. One of the stated goals of this trade being to make their markets dependent upon Germany, thus easing any difficulties when Germany annexed them later. Hitler was so enamoured of this policy that he tried to increase trade with the USSR on several occasions before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the same reason.

It's also not uncommon for an economically stronger state to push around a weaker one. You seem to cover this when you write of power imbalances. The current Russian monopoly is a fine example, as is the previous South African-Russian attempts to monopolise the platinum trade.

I guess we distinguish these keys components using "necessary" and "sufficient"

 

[red_elk]

We trust you to break your word, and be really, really hard to conquer. That's about it.

See, at least this is a consistent and predictable behavior. You Europeans are too volatile.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

We trust you to break your word, and be really, really hard to conquer. That's about it.

While you can totally trust Europeans to stick to their ideals:

 

[red_elk]

So, I guess the "hard to conquer" part is a reason why we don't have a proper democracy yet