Putin's evolving strategy in Europe

I was surprised to read how honest and frank in the opening paragraphs the statements about Putin and his Russia and it continued up until the sixth paragraph when “The Kremlin considers the United Kingdom the fourth main power, but London's firm and traditional alliance with the United States has made it resistant to Russia's overtures.” From there on it started to slide down like snow board on a snowy mountain side.
The UK a power? In what is the UK a power? Western BS or is it theoretical BS? The UK is no more a power than Greenland or Serbia. In fact Serbia has more influence amongst surrounding countries than the UK in its local sphere. The UK had to tag along with the US because otherwise it would be poorer today than Somalia as the US threatened to take away ball investment if it did not do what it was told. George Bush openly said to the then PM, Gordon Brown, that if the UK withdrew its troops out of Iraq before time the US would take away all it investment and bye, bye UK. The UK has some economic power up until 2008 or the GFC and after that its nothing.
Then the article goes on to talk about “friendships” amongst Putin and Belesconi and the German leaders. The real situation, yes there is some validity in being good friends with these leaders as it may shorten processes, but the one most important bond between countries is common interests. There are exceptions where historically countries or peoples have strong ties in general the rest is only interests.
“The Putin-Berlusconi friendship led to relationships between Russian and Italian energy companies, banks and military industrial projects. Most notable, Putin was able to use his relationship with Berlusconi to get Gazprom access to Italian state-linked energy giant ENI's assets throughout North Africa, particularly in Libya.”
These concessions were given to Putin not out of love. It was done as the other side had something to gain in giving them.
Then it goes on about the missile systems and alludes to the forces of light having the upper hand and so on and so forth. The missile system is a very expensive toy that does not live up to its spin, but who cares considering its expensive and the US taxpayer will foot the bill. Several missile scientists who worked on the system have openly said the propaganda was better than the system.
Putin has so far done everything he set out to do and now he will speed up the process to completely influence Europe and control it. As far as the US is concerned, with the EU into another recession, as if it left the last one, they are too busy cooking the books on good employment figures and an improving economy and borrowing more.
The EU is extremely vulnerable now and will become even worse as the economy bites deeper, and it will.

That is ironic how some country's leaders spew hatered toward Putin who brought Russia respect back from Jelssin era of shame. People of Russia respect him for that and wanted him back, which is more than I can say for many other leaders in the world.

(Observer, 18 May 2012 20:01)
I appreciate what you have said, but if he was talking about Europe then why mention the UK.
Here is the quote” ……The Kremlin considers the United Kingdom the fourth main power, but London's firm and traditional alliance with the United States has made it resistant to Russia's overtures.”.
In actual fact the UK military is incapable of fighting 10 kilometers outside its own borders and this was shown up during the Falkland War with Argentina back in the 1980s. It went to Iraq with a half prepared military where vital equipment was just not there and soldiers sending emails back home complaining that they had very little protective equipment against roadside bombs. It may spend 62……….$ but you can be assured one of two things is happening; the first it’s purchasing very expensive crap from a US military complex or UK money is being used to subsidize NATO countries like Turkey or Albania or Montenegro and so on.
The UK is no longer a real power that it used to be say 70 years ago. It’s only given this high status because the US needs “friends” that tow the party line. The French are in exactly the same position. Today we have the Chinese pouring money into the EU so it does not fail. I know for a fact that the only thing masking the real problems in the UK are the Olympic Games, but what happens once that party is over?
The Russian elites have houses in New York, Florida, California, Oddessa, Monte Carlo, Paris, Switzerland, Turkey, Montenegro, etc. The élites also send their children overseas to study because of the same reason you have US students studying in Australia or Europe – it called experience with different cultures. A parent no matter how rich wants to best prepare his/her child to deal with the world.
I know of three young people from Sydney Australia who are currently studying piano at the Moscow Conservatorium of Music because it’s the best. I know of several Americans studying ballet in Russia.

SJ, I do see your arguments about the UK. Still, the author referred to Europe and your comparison between the UK and Serbia or Greenland really made me smile.
The UK has the fourth largest military budget in the world after the US, China and France and spends more than Russia on these things. It spends 62 700 000 000 $. For your comparison, Serbia spends 920 000 000 $. Which means it spends 68,2 times more. Not to talk about economic power. And although the UK has it's difficulties with the EU, it is still part of it and has quite a strong voice in it.
Apart from that, most of the Russian elites have a house in London and therefore strong relations. That's where they send their children for education and so on...

Partially true. But the case of Russia is a bit different. The exodus of Russian money and people is not comparable with the usual student exchanges. It is quite a sad story: The Russian elites often suck the money out of the country and leave to the West. Usually London or to the USA.

The American influence is even bigger. Most European countries have to follow whatever Washington dictates them. Same applies for example for Spain, Poland and especially Germany. The people in the UK, France or Germany were all opposing the war in Afghanistan, still they had to follow the US. Germany, a country which has written in its constitution that there should be never a war of aggression from German soil was forced to spend a lot of money on the US military during the Gulf Wars and so on. Also the NATO bombing of Serbia faced great opposition in public, still the US forced them to participate. Remember the Iraq war. It was the first time France and Germany opposed a war. The result was a freezing of transatlantic relations, trade bans, propaganda in the US about the "old Europe"... I just read an interview with a high US official. He was complaining that Europe and especially Germany does not spend enough money on its military. He was stating that Germany is a "normal country" now (what is a "normal" country? A country that fights wars to secure resources?) and that it should spend more. Luckily, this interview was received with great opposition.
I don't think you can "spread democracy" if you constantly attack other countries. You can only lead with a good -and peaceful- example and convince others to do the same. I know you are not a great fan of the EU, but I really hope that the EU will enhance and pool its military resouces in a way that the EU countries have the power to oppose their participation such invasions.
In the case of Russia, I hope and I see an even better cooperation with the EU in the future. They recently worked on the establishment of "Common Spaces", which is a further step in integration. This does not have to lead into Russia's membership in the EU but an increased exchange and which end hopefully in a more peaceful contintent. EU-Russian relations do not happen only on the highest level with Putin going on some Bunga Bunga trips with Berlusconi... ;) Russia and the EU are each others greatest trading partners and investors and intensive economic exchange leads usually leads to an intensified political cooperation.

I was surprised to read how honest and frank in the opening paragraphs the statements about Putin and his Russia and it continued up until the sixth paragraph when “The Kremlin considers the United Kingdom the fourth main power, but London's firm and traditional alliance with the United States has made it resistant to Russia's overtures.” From there on it started to slide down like snow board on a snowy mountain side.
The UK a power? In what is the UK a power? Western BS or is it theoretical BS? The UK is no more a power than Greenland or Serbia. In fact Serbia has more influence amongst surrounding countries than the UK in its local sphere. The UK had to tag along with the US because otherwise it would be poorer today than Somalia as the US threatened to take away ball investment if it did not do what it was told. George Bush openly said to the then PM, Gordon Brown, that if the UK withdrew its troops out of Iraq before time the US would take away all it investment and bye, bye UK. The UK has some economic power up until 2008 or the GFC and after that its nothing.
Then the article goes on to talk about “friendships” amongst Putin and Belesconi and the German leaders. The real situation, yes there is some validity in being good friends with these leaders as it may shorten processes, but the one most important bond between countries is common interests. There are exceptions where historically countries or peoples have strong ties in general the rest is only interests.
“The Putin-Berlusconi friendship led to relationships between Russian and Italian energy companies, banks and military industrial projects. Most notable, Putin was able to use his relationship with Berlusconi to get Gazprom access to Italian state-linked energy giant ENI's assets throughout North Africa, particularly in Libya.”
These concessions were given to Putin not out of love. It was done as the other side had something to gain in giving them.
Then it goes on about the missile systems and alludes to the forces of light having the upper hand and so on and so forth. The missile system is a very expensive toy that does not live up to its spin, but who cares considering its expensive and the US taxpayer will foot the bill. Several missile scientists who worked on the system have openly said the propaganda was better than the system.
Putin has so far done everything he set out to do and now he will speed up the process to completely influence Europe and control it. As far as the US is concerned, with the EU into another recession, as if it left the last one, they are too busy cooking the books on good employment figures and an improving economy and borrowing more.
The EU is extremely vulnerable now and will become even worse as the economy bites deeper, and it will.

That is ironic how some country's leaders spew hatered toward Putin who brought Russia respect back from Jelssin era of shame. People of Russia respect him for that and wanted him back, which is more than I can say for many other leaders in the world.

SJ, I do see your arguments about the UK. Still, the author referred to Europe and your comparison between the UK and Serbia or Greenland really made me smile.
The UK has the fourth largest military budget in the world after the US, China and France and spends more than Russia on these things. It spends 62 700 000 000 $. For your comparison, Serbia spends 920 000 000 $. Which means it spends 68,2 times more. Not to talk about economic power. And although the UK has it's difficulties with the EU, it is still part of it and has quite a strong voice in it.
Apart from that, most of the Russian elites have a house in London and therefore strong relations. That's where they send their children for education and so on...

(Observer, 18 May 2012 20:01)
I appreciate what you have said, but if he was talking about Europe then why mention the UK.
Here is the quote” ……The Kremlin considers the United Kingdom the fourth main power, but London's firm and traditional alliance with the United States has made it resistant to Russia's overtures.”.
In actual fact the UK military is incapable of fighting 10 kilometers outside its own borders and this was shown up during the Falkland War with Argentina back in the 1980s. It went to Iraq with a half prepared military where vital equipment was just not there and soldiers sending emails back home complaining that they had very little protective equipment against roadside bombs. It may spend 62……….$ but you can be assured one of two things is happening; the first it’s purchasing very expensive crap from a US military complex or UK money is being used to subsidize NATO countries like Turkey or Albania or Montenegro and so on.
The UK is no longer a real power that it used to be say 70 years ago. It’s only given this high status because the US needs “friends” that tow the party line. The French are in exactly the same position. Today we have the Chinese pouring money into the EU so it does not fail. I know for a fact that the only thing masking the real problems in the UK are the Olympic Games, but what happens once that party is over?
The Russian elites have houses in New York, Florida, California, Oddessa, Monte Carlo, Paris, Switzerland, Turkey, Montenegro, etc. The élites also send their children overseas to study because of the same reason you have US students studying in Australia or Europe – it called experience with different cultures. A parent no matter how rich wants to best prepare his/her child to deal with the world.
I know of three young people from Sydney Australia who are currently studying piano at the Moscow Conservatorium of Music because it’s the best. I know of several Americans studying ballet in Russia.

Partially true. But the case of Russia is a bit different. The exodus of Russian money and people is not comparable with the usual student exchanges. It is quite a sad story: The Russian elites often suck the money out of the country and leave to the West. Usually London or to the USA.

The American influence is even bigger. Most European countries have to follow whatever Washington dictates them. Same applies for example for Spain, Poland and especially Germany. The people in the UK, France or Germany were all opposing the war in Afghanistan, still they had to follow the US. Germany, a country which has written in its constitution that there should be never a war of aggression from German soil was forced to spend a lot of money on the US military during the Gulf Wars and so on. Also the NATO bombing of Serbia faced great opposition in public, still the US forced them to participate. Remember the Iraq war. It was the first time France and Germany opposed a war. The result was a freezing of transatlantic relations, trade bans, propaganda in the US about the "old Europe"... I just read an interview with a high US official. He was complaining that Europe and especially Germany does not spend enough money on its military. He was stating that Germany is a "normal country" now (what is a "normal" country? A country that fights wars to secure resources?) and that it should spend more. Luckily, this interview was received with great opposition.
I don't think you can "spread democracy" if you constantly attack other countries. You can only lead with a good -and peaceful- example and convince others to do the same. I know you are not a great fan of the EU, but I really hope that the EU will enhance and pool its military resouces in a way that the EU countries have the power to oppose their participation such invasions.
In the case of Russia, I hope and I see an even better cooperation with the EU in the future. They recently worked on the establishment of "Common Spaces", which is a further step in integration. This does not have to lead into Russia's membership in the EU but an increased exchange and which end hopefully in a more peaceful contintent. EU-Russian relations do not happen only on the highest level with Putin going on some Bunga Bunga trips with Berlusconi... ;) Russia and the EU are each others greatest trading partners and investors and intensive economic exchange leads usually leads to an intensified political cooperation.