Central and Eastern European Countries Issue Rare Warning for U.S. on Russian Policy

[theeedude]

That naturalization law is effectively a racist apartheid law, where ethnic balts are granted citizenship rights with no requirements, while ethnic minorities are not, even if they were born in the country and lived there their whole life. It grants or denies people citizenship rights based on their ethnicity.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
A lot of those Baltic states weren't too excited that the the Russians decided to appropriate their countries and force ethnic Russians into their populations and ultimately civic/social structures to render them more compliant to Moscow. There are still a lot of very hard feelings about that, even to the point where many of those indigenous people considered the Nazis to be the lesser of the two evils.

Any state on Russia's border that doesn't cower before them diplomatically and economically is considered a threat. To quote a former US ambassador to Russia: "Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals".

Russia does not want enemies on its door steps. Wars in Russia have historically turned out to be wars of attrition, and it's better to fight them on someone else's turf, from Russian point of view.
Not all that different from the Monroe doctrine.

Fight who in Europe exactly?

Fiercely nationalistic and expansionist Nazi Germany?
Imperialistic power mad French war lords?
A rabid coalition of aggressive Eastern European nations?

There is absolutely no imminent threat to Russia's territorial integrity anywhere near it's European borders. I understand they're a little butt hurt about losing the cold war and the rapid flight of the eastern bloc countries out of their total control but it's time to move on.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That naturalization law is effectively a racist apartheid law, where ethnic balts are granted citizenship rights with no requirements, while ethnic minorities are not, even if they were born in the country and lived there their whole life. It grants or denies people citizenship rights based on their ethnicity.

Wow, you really don't have the slightest clue, do you?

Anyway, saying something plainly wrong like this doesn't make it so - provide some evidence such as your referenced "law" to back up your opinion, and don't forget that in some matters, like citizenship, the EU law overrides national statutes that have as yet not been amended to be in compliance.

I think that you will find that there is only

1) a very modest requirement in some countries to prove that you know some basics of the local language (and even that is sometimes waivable)

and

2) you must renounce your foreign citizenship (ie Russian.)

It is the second part that stops the legal process for a number of people, very seldom the language requirement since they have lived there so long. If you want to stay a Russian citizen or the citizen of some other country, well, there is no obligation for the host country to treat you as a citizen. Unlike here in the US, which seems to accept merely showing up, legally or illegally. :roll:

I'll offer you a few WWW sites to get started on your homework -

The Evolution of EU Citizenship

European Union citizenship, a wide set of rights and obligations

Right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

Have at it!!!!

 

[PJABBER]

By the way, thanks guys and gals for running with this thread. I just really enjoy the opportunity to provide a brief on this topic to ATers. I think European/Russian tensions, particularly over energy, are a flashpoint that will resurface in the not too distant future.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Unfortunately, it seems the U.S. right now has lost its own way. And though it may not change the course of what will come, these foreign leaders are trying to give the Obama administration a wake up call.

PJABBER, your spin is very disingenuous. You have repeatedly pointed at the current administrations short comings in dealing with central/eastern Europe. However, the most cowardly act of betrayel to that region in recent history was Bush almost completely ignoring the invasion of Georgia.

Additionally the letter talks about how their leaders are looking forward to the reseting of American relations as their own people turned to hate America due to policies involving Iraq/etc.

The letter seems to show they are hopeful and are using the new semi-favorable reset of their people's view on America to reach out and establish ties to Obama.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Unfortunately, it seems the U.S. right now has lost its own way. And though it may not change the course of what will come, these foreign leaders are trying to give the Obama administration a wake up call.

PJABBER, your spin is very disingenuous. You have repeatedly pointed at the current administrations short comings in dealing with central/eastern Europe. However, the most cowardly act of betrayel to that region in recent history was Bush almost completely ignoring the invasion of Georgia.

Additionally the letter talks about how their leaders are looking forward to the reseting of American relations as their own people turned to hate America due to policies involving Iraq/etc.

The letter seems to show they are hopeful and are using the new semi-favorable reset of their people's view on America to reach out and establish ties to Obama.

Actually, I am pointing out that our NATO allies, including Western European countries but particularly the Eastern Europeans, are increasingly concerned that they are likely being abandoned by the current Administration and they do want to re-establish a special relationship with the U.S. based on the wide variety of interests noted as well as common heritage.

I happen to agree with that position based on numerous direct discussions and a review of the vapid policies and actions of the Administration to date. But, I want to let the European opinion in that letter be heard over mine.

It is dangerous to get involved with wars, hopefully we have some moral and military authority to assist in stopping wars and invasions before they occur. The U.S. was not in a position to intervene militarily with Georgia and if you don't have the guns you don't go to the gunfight.

Russian Invasion of Georgia Shattered Old Assumptions, Prompts New Concerns

Not to go off topic, but the F-22 Raptor program that just got canceled, do you think those air superiority planes designed to go against the Sukhoi SU-27 family of aircraft (SU-27/30/33/35/37) are going to be needed in the future but not available? Say to defend NATO allies Poland or Ukraine? Or Taiwan? or South Korea? I wonder how we will match up to the SU-47 Berkut (Golden Eagle) when it gets fully deployed (financing courtesy of Russia's oil and gas export revenue.)

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
A lot of those Baltic states weren't too excited that the the Russians decided to appropriate their countries and force ethnic Russians into their populations and ultimately civic/social structures to render them more compliant to Moscow. There are still a lot of very hard feelings about that, even to the point where many of those indigenous people considered the Nazis to be the lesser of the two evils.

Any state on Russia's border that doesn't cower before them diplomatically and economically is considered a threat. To quote a former US ambassador to Russia: "Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals".

Russia does not want enemies on its door steps. Wars in Russia have historically turned out to be wars of attrition, and it's better to fight them on someone else's turf, from Russian point of view.
Not all that different from the Monroe doctrine.

Fight who in Europe exactly?

Fiercely nationalistic and expansionist Nazi Germany?
Imperialistic power mad French war lords?
A rabid coalition of aggressive Eastern European nations?

There is absolutely no imminent threat to Russia's territorial integrity anywhere near it's European borders. I understand they're a little butt hurt about losing the cold war and the rapid flight of the eastern bloc countries out of their total control but it's time to move on.

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
A lot of those Baltic states weren't too excited that the the Russians decided to appropriate their countries and force ethnic Russians into their populations and ultimately civic/social structures to render them more compliant to Moscow. There are still a lot of very hard feelings about that, even to the point where many of those indigenous people considered the Nazis to be the lesser of the two evils.

Any state on Russia's border that doesn't cower before them diplomatically and economically is considered a threat. To quote a former US ambassador to Russia: "Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals".

Russia does not want enemies on its door steps. Wars in Russia have historically turned out to be wars of attrition, and it's better to fight them on someone else's turf, from Russian point of view.
Not all that different from the Monroe doctrine.

Fight who in Europe exactly?

Fiercely nationalistic and expansionist Nazi Germany?
Imperialistic power mad French war lords?
A rabid coalition of aggressive Eastern European nations?

There is absolutely no imminent threat to Russia's territorial integrity anywhere near it's European borders. I understand they're a little butt hurt about losing the cold war and the rapid flight of the eastern bloc countries out of their total control but it's time to move on.

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

NATO is going to attack Russia proper?

Russia's xenophobic paranoia seems to know no bounds.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: senseamp
That naturalization law is effectively a racist apartheid law, where ethnic balts are granted citizenship rights with no requirements, while ethnic minorities are not, even if they were born in the country and lived there their whole life. It grants or denies people citizenship rights based on their ethnicity.

Wow, you really don't have the slightest clue, do you?

Anyway, saying something plainly wrong like this doesn't make it so - provide some evidence such as your referenced "law" to back up your opinion, and don't forget that in some matters, like citizenship, the EU law overrides national statutes that have as yet not been amended to be in compliance.

I think that you will find that there is only

1) a very modest requirement in some countries to prove that you know some basics of the local language (and even that is sometimes waivable)

Requirement that was not applied to ethnic Balts to get same citizenship. [/quote]

and

2) you must renounce your foreign citizenship (ie Russian.)

[/quote] Also not a requirement applied to ethnic Balts, who were also citizens of USSR at time of dissolution just like ethnic Russians living there, and not uniformly applied to citizenship in other countries.

It is the second part that stops the legal process for a number of people, very seldom the language requirement since they have lived there so long. If you want to stay a Russian citizen or the citizen of some other country, well, there is no obligation for the host country to treat you as a citizen. Unlike here in the US, which seems to accept merely showing up, legally or illegally. :roll:

Again, these requirements are not uniformly applied to all countries and ethnic Balts. These are russophobic policies.

I'll offer you a few WWW sites to get started on your homework -

The Evolution of EU Citizenship

European Union citizenship, a wide set of rights and obligations

Right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

Have at it!!!!

OK, are ethnic Russians living in Baltic states EU citizens?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
A lot of those Baltic states weren't too excited that the the Russians decided to appropriate their countries and force ethnic Russians into their populations and ultimately civic/social structures to render them more compliant to Moscow. There are still a lot of very hard feelings about that, even to the point where many of those indigenous people considered the Nazis to be the lesser of the two evils.

Any state on Russia's border that doesn't cower before them diplomatically and economically is considered a threat. To quote a former US ambassador to Russia: "Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals".

Russia does not want enemies on its door steps. Wars in Russia have historically turned out to be wars of attrition, and it's better to fight them on someone else's turf, from Russian point of view.
Not all that different from the Monroe doctrine.

Fight who in Europe exactly?

Fiercely nationalistic and expansionist Nazi Germany?
Imperialistic power mad French war lords?
A rabid coalition of aggressive Eastern European nations?

There is absolutely no imminent threat to Russia's territorial integrity anywhere near it's European borders. I understand they're a little butt hurt about losing the cold war and the rapid flight of the eastern bloc countries out of their total control but it's time to move on.

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

NATO is going to attack Russia proper?

Russian's xenophobic paranoia seems to know no bounds.

You hope for the best but prepare for the worst when it comes to foreign policy and defense.
You can say same thing the other way, is Russia going to attack NATO? Just like NATO plans for potential attacks, so does Russia, even if both hope it doesn't happen. Russia didn't think Hitler would attack them either, and US didn't think Japan would bomb Pearl Harbor. I mean who would have thought Napoleon was dumb enough to invade Russia, I mean what have the French forgot in Russia? We don't think Russians are going to nuke us, but we keep our own nukes as a deterrent.

 

[Moonbeam]

An important factor here, I believe, is the cost comparisons between building rather efficient and cheaper solar out in the deserts and then building the transmission lines needed, or to build a rather more expensive solar on roofs and locally and forgo the transmission costs.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

Well, I don't think Russians are going to chance it by giving NATO the power to decide if they are "sub-human bastards" worth invading.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
A lot of those Baltic states weren't too excited that the the Russians decided to appropriate their countries and force ethnic Russians into their populations and ultimately civic/social structures to render them more compliant to Moscow. There are still a lot of very hard feelings about that, even to the point where many of those indigenous people considered the Nazis to be the lesser of the two evils.

Any state on Russia's border that doesn't cower before them diplomatically and economically is considered a threat. To quote a former US ambassador to Russia: "Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals".

Russia does not want enemies on its door steps. Wars in Russia have historically turned out to be wars of attrition, and it's better to fight them on someone else's turf, from Russian point of view.
Not all that different from the Monroe doctrine.

Fight who in Europe exactly?

Fiercely nationalistic and expansionist Nazi Germany?
Imperialistic power mad French war lords?
A rabid coalition of aggressive Eastern European nations?

There is absolutely no imminent threat to Russia's territorial integrity anywhere near it's European borders. I understand they're a little butt hurt about losing the cold war and the rapid flight of the eastern bloc countries out of their total control but it's time to move on.

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

NATO is going to attack Russia proper?

Russian's xenophobic paranoia seems to know no bounds.

You hope for the best but prepare for the worst when it comes to foreign policy and defense.
You can say same thing the other way, is Russia going to attack NATO? Just like NATO plans for potential attacks, so does Russia, even if both hope it doesn't happen. Russia didn't think Hitler would attack them either, and US didn't think Japan would bomb Pearl Harbor. I mean who would have thought Napoleon was dumb enough to invade Russia, I mean what have the French forgot in Russia? We don't think Russians are going to nuke us, but we keep our own nukes as a deterrent.

NATO and EU expansion into eastern Europe is a direct result of Russia's heavy handed foreign policy with regard to it's neighbors. You can't perpetuate a disadvantageous situation for those states then self righteously claim a foreign conspiracy when they go looking to make other friends.

Also, Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. As long as any other country maintains their arsenal we will as well.

 

[PJABBER]

senseamp said,

OK, are ethnic Russians living in Baltic states EU citizens?

PJABBER says,

"What, you want me to do your heavy lifting for you?"

MWAHAHHHAHAHAHA!

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

Well, I don't think Russians are going to chance it by giving NATO the power to decide if they are "sub-human bastards" worth invading.

Fortunately for Putin/Medvedev there won't be any journalists left alive in Russia for word of such conduct to leak out so it's a moot point.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052
NATO and EU expansion into eastern Europe is a direct result of Russia's heavy handed foreign policy with regard to it's neighbors. You can't perpetuate a disadvantageous situation for those states then self righteously claim a foreign conspiracy when they go looking to make other friends.

From those states point of view I don't blame them for wanting other friends, but from US point of view, we have our own interests, and if we want to engage Russia to achieve those, Eastern Europeans don't get a veto on that.

Also, Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. As long as any other country maintains their arsenal we will as well.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we think they'll actually use those arsenals on us. But we plan for the worst. Just as Russia doesn't necessarily think it's going to be invaded, but since last time it did it lost tens of millions of people, it's not ready to take a chance.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

Well, I don't think Russians are going to chance it by giving NATO the power to decide if they are "sub-human bastards" worth invading.

Fortunately for Putin/Medvedev there won't be any journalists left alive in Russia for word of such conduct to leak out so it's a moot point.

NATO expansion is empowering Putin and Medvedev and their militarism. These people are Cold warriors who want a new cold war as much as Eastern Europeans want to refight it again. The losers are going to be Russians and Eastern Europeans both. Winner probably China.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052
NATO and EU expansion into eastern Europe is a direct result of Russia's heavy handed foreign policy with regard to it's neighbors. You can't perpetuate a disadvantageous situation for those states then self righteously claim a foreign conspiracy when they go looking to make other friends.

From those states point of view I don't blame them for wanting other friends, but from US point of view, we have our own interests, and if we want to engage Russia to achieve those, Eastern Europeans don't get a veto on that.

Also, Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. As long as any other country maintains their arsenal we will as well.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we think they'll actually use those arsenals on us. But we plan for the worst. Just as Russia doesn't necessarily think it's going to be invaded, but since last time it did it lost tens of millions of people, it's not ready to take a chance.

I don't think "engaging Russia" should necessarily mean selling eastern Europe back into Russian domination, a possibility that obviously concerns some people over there.

If Russia wants to look for borders to be concerned about they have their eye on the wrong end of their country.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
An important factor here, I believe, is the cost comparisons between building rather efficient and cheaper solar out in the deserts and then building the transmission lines needed, or to build a rather more expensive solar on roofs and locally and forgo the transmission costs.

Yes massive solar farms in the sahara! Lessen reliance on Russian oil/gas, which will in turn bankrupt their military machine! Brilliant!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

Well, I don't think Russians are going to chance it by giving NATO the power to decide if they are "sub-human bastards" worth invading.

Fortunately for Putin/Medvedev there won't be any journalists left alive in Russia for word of such conduct to leak out so it's a moot point.

NATO expansion is empowering Putin and Medvedev and their militarism. These people are Cold warriors who want a new cold war as much as Eastern Europeans want to refight it again. The losers are going to be Russians and Eastern Europeans both. Winner probably China.

A lot of these countries want to do business with the rest of Europe/US/China and not be under the Russian boot while doing it. EU and NATO membership lends signifigant stability and makes foreign investment much more attractive.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
An important factor here, I believe, is the cost comparisons between building rather efficient and cheaper solar out in the deserts and then building the transmission lines needed, or to build a rather more expensive solar on roofs and locally and forgo the transmission costs.

Yes massive solar farms in the sahara! Lessen reliance on Russian oil/gas, which will in turn bankrupt their military machine! Brilliant!

You clever little devil you. But I was thinking that if it's the Sahara there there will be not only need to negotiate those lines and pay for them, but they too will be subject to the same kind of potential extortion, but if we can get solar going locally for a good and reasonable price, everybody will have the potential to be energy independent. It is not only the US that is hostage to it's energy needs and in deep need of getting off the stick. At least we have our own deserts so we are a go either way.

 

[theeedude]

That's fine, but now that these countries are in NATO, they need to turn down their russophobia and hostility. They think that being a NATO is not just a defensive improvement, but an excuse to refight the cold war now that they have some big friends, so they are constantly creating friction between Russia and NATO which is also causing Russia to get more militarized in response. Putin and Medeved would like nothing more than to be seen as fighting NATO instead of dealing with horrendous problems inside Russia itself. And yes, China is a giant threat to Russia compared to NATO. Would you rather they focus their energies responding to NATO in Europe or defending their eastern frontier? Is China's industrial capacity + Siberian national resources in the best interest of the US?

 

[PJABBER]

I don't think "engaging Russia" should necessarily mean selling eastern Europe back into Russian domination, a possibility that obviously concerns some people over there. If Russia wants to look for borders to be concerned about they have their eye on the wrong end of their country.

Right, but when you are surrounded by enemies which front do you attack first?

China may have a very surprising strategy of infiltration, taking advantage of their population concentrations along the Russian-China border.

Lifted and paraphrased from WorldTribune.com -

The huge oil and gas developments on the island of Sakhalin off the northeastern Siberian coast have become important chips in the Moscow-Beijing political economic scenario. Sales of Russian oil from Western Siberia to China have been an important element in the trade. And Moscow has been planning an off and on major pipeline that would feed China?s oil center at Dachang as well as other world markets with an eastern terminus on the Pacific. But the high-tech nature, capital-intense oil and gas developments produce little employment for the local Russian Far East (RFE) populations. And local governments and businesses have been characterized by corruption and mafia-type operations, sometimes in league with Chinese, Korean, and Japanese organized crime.

Some 50,000 Chinese work legally in Russia's Primorye region along the Pacific coast. But their actual number is believed to be twice that, according to Russian officials. The Chinese workers earn an average of about $100 a month, half the regular Russian salary but far more than what they could get back home. Other resident Chinese are traders operating the gray markets between the two countries.

Agreement on setting the 2,700-mile border in October 2004 was supposed to have resolved issues ? including immigration ? dating back over 300 years to the Russian empire?s push into relatively uninhabited areas. But the Chinese still lament ?the lost one and a half million kilometers transferred to the Russian Empire? in the so-called ?unequal treaties? of the 19th century at the high-water mark of European colonial penetration of China. Chinese authorities are supposed to be cooperating with Moscow in preserving the demographic imbalance between northeast China's growing 110 million and the Russian Far East?s dwindling 6.6 million.

But the overall decline in the Slav population of the Russian Federation and an out-migration to other parts of Russia from the RFE have taken a heavy toll. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the RFE Russian population has dropped by 14 percent in the last 15 years. The Russian government has discussed a range of re-population programs and economic development to avoid a projected drop to 4.5 million people by 2015. But like other Russian economic programs repeatedly announced and revamped, this has not been happening.

Putin made a personal inspection tour of the area last year in an effort to get a huge construction and demonstration project for the Asian and Pacific Economic Council (APEC) summit in 2012 underway. Despite several announced appropriations of funds for the project, including a new city on an island off the Vladivostok coast, nothing has been started.

Meanwhile, Chinese illegal aliens have been entering Russia since the border opened to tourists after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1994, officials estimated that 90 percent of the Chinese who came in tour groups just disappeared. Most went to trade in the markets and did not return home. Some migrated to other parts of Russia or even tried to go to third countries via Russia. In cities ranging from Omsk in central Siberia to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka in the northeast, Chinese traders have filled many of Russia's outdoor markets.

At least 100,000 Chinese are estimated to illegally live in the RFE region alone as traders and laborers, with thousands more regularly arriving on legal temporary worker visas. The head of the Russian Federal Migration Service warned in 2000 that the Chinese could become the dominant population in much of the Russian Far East later in this century.

(I wonder if the Chinese are getting automatic Russian citizenship just by being there? )

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp

NATO is a threat to Russia. It's a russophobic alliance. And if you don't think NATO is a threat to anyone, ask Serbia.

Correct, they are a threat to genocidal sub human bastards like those who were ruling in Serbia.

Well, I don't think Russians are going to chance it by giving NATO the power to decide if they are "sub-human bastards" worth invading.

What makes you even possibly think that Russia is actually worried about NATO invading their territory? What they are upset about is losing their sphere of influence over the countries that border them. EU or NATO would have nothing to gain by picking a fight with Russia and the Russians and everybody else with a little common sense would realize that.