A premature history of the second Cold War and Putin

[Tiresais]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

Hmmm, let’s see  I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.

Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.

[Toppa]

Video has emerged of what appears to the head of Ukraine's state TV company being beaten up in his offices by MPs from the far-right Svoboda party. After roughing up Aleksandr Panteleymonov, the men force him to sign his resignation. Euronews says one of those involved in the assault is the deputy head of Ukraine's committee on freedom of speech.

[/size]

Link to video: http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/19/ukranian-tv-boss-assaulted-and-forced-to-resign-by-far-right-svoboda-mps/

The head of Ukraine’s state TV company has been attacked by at least three MPs from the far-right Svoboda party and forced to resign.

Members of Svoboda barged their way into the offices of Aleksandr Panteleymonov, the acting president of the National Television Company of Ukraine on Tuesday night.

They were angry that public broadcaster, First National Channel, had broadcast the Russian Parliament signing a treaty with Crimea on Tuesday.

Yelling and beating Panteleymonov around the head, the men accused him of serving Putin, while there were Ukrainians “dying at the hands of Russian occupiers” and called him “Moscow trash.”

They then forced him to sign a letter of resignation.

Ironically, one of the men involved in the assault was the deputy head of Ukraine’s committee on freedom of speech.

Members of the Svoboda party filmed the attack and then posted it online.

Ukraine’s prime minister has condemned the incident calling it “unacceptable for a democratic society.”

National Television Company (NTU) is state-run and operates Ukraine’s largest public broadcaster, First National Channel.

During the Maidan anti-government protests, Panteleymonov, who ran First National Channel, was seen by many Ukrainians as pro-Yanukovych and biased in his coverage.

The Svoboda party currently has around 40 members of parliament.

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

Hmmm, let’s see  I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.

Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.

Look at that: further evidence of your impaired judgement.

Tell you what, to reduce the challenge, I'll supply the consonants. G_RM_NY. See wha yuh could do with that.

Think before you leap, eh.

[ribbit]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

Hmmm, let’s see  I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.

Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.

Look at that: further evidence of your impaired judgement.

Tell you what, to reduce the challenge, I'll supply the consonants. G_RM_NY. See wha yuh could do with that.

Think before you leap, eh.

Buh wha de arse, asylumseeker how you get your own question wrong?  No way can germany be considered an "ally" of russia. Only european country that could say that would be serbia. NATO defines countries that are anti-russia. The only country that might have any sympathies with russia that is in NATO is france purely for selfish reasons.

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

Hmmm, let’s see  I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.

Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.

Look at that: further evidence of your impaired judgement.

Tell you what, to reduce the challenge, I'll supply the consonants. G_RM_NY. See wha yuh could do with that.

Think before you leap, eh.

Buh wha de arse, asylumseeker how you get your own question wrong?  No way can germany be considered an "ally" of russia. Only european country that could say that would be serbia. NATO defines countries that are anti-russia. The only country that might have any sympathies with russia that is in NATO is france purely for selfish reasons.

  Looks like we've stumbled upon a "learning moment". Like Dutty frequently states: "little known fact" (at least, perceptionally). However, I could see how you would arrive at that conclusion using the "pro- and anti-Russia" paradigm, absent consideration of pragmatic national interests ... but then you sort of consider this in your last sentence.

Guess I should have phrased my caution as "check before you leap".

The question as asked is consistent with the answer as provided ... which is consistent with what the state of play in the thread was at the time the question was asked. 

[Toppa]

Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.

Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...

[asylumseeker]

Lehwe reset here ...

Deep Russia-Germany Ties Behind a Prisoner’s Release
By ALISON SMALE

BERLIN — Germany and Russia, friends or foes for centuries but always near neighbors, have special, deep ties unlike those between the Kremlin and any other outside power. It was that relationship, and the select few people who enjoy access to it, that won freedom for Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the former oil billionaire suddenly granted clemency by President Vladimir V. Putin and flown to Berlin.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Russian speaker who has a matter-of-fact, occasionally frosty relationship with Mr. Putin, and her Social Democratic predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, who maintains warm ties to the Russian leader, both raised Mr. Khodorkovsky’s case with Mr. Putin over the decade of his imprisonment. But it was a highly experienced former foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who at the age of 86 achieved an agreement with Mr. Putin.

That involved two meetings between Mr. Genscher and Mr. Putin — one at Tegel airport in Berlin at the end of Mr. Putin’s first visit to Germany after he was re-elected in 2012, the other in Moscow, according to the German news media and statements from Mr. Genscher himself.

Ms. Merkel was kept informed of the secret talks, as was the top echelon of the German Embassy in Moscow, which expedited a visa for Mr. Khodorkovsky late last week once it became clear from Mr. Putin’s surprising talk of clemency on Thursday that it would be granted.
...

Mr. Genscher is one of a cluster of older, experienced figures who enjoy great respect in Germany and remain well connected. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who turned 95 on Monday, is another such figure. On a self-described farewell tour of various countries, he was in Moscow recently to see retired officials he knows from the Soviet era, and was then invited to meet Mr. Putin. The two discussed Russian-German ties, and how whether they are enemies, as in World War II, or on the same side, as in rejoicing in Napoleon’s defeat in Russia in 1812, they will always be dealing with each other, Mr. Schmidt said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/deep-ties-between-russia-and-germany-on-display-in-prisoners-release.html?_r=0

ALSO ...

Reconsidering Basic Strategy

The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French -- along with the rest of Europe -- to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany's memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity.

Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it.

After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe -- in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe -- then the rationale for European integration became problematic.

The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment.

The Pull of Russia

In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany's economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany's population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia's population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia.

The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner -- if not a new one.

At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe -- France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war.

The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France's security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France.

...

The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States.

Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can't have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners -- some intensely -- is naive. The Germans are not naive. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests.

...

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100621_germany_and_russia_move_closer

[Tiresais]

Asylum you are even more stupid than you look - seriously how are they an ally? Are you so simple as to not know what an ally is?

As I said - what is your moronic definition of an ally?

[asylumseeker]

And a special one for Tiresais to digest ... or better yet, to breathe finally ... since he professes to have been holding his breath.

Unlike Yeltsin, who was overwhelmed by the Soviet past, Putin was profoundly imbued with European history and its historical figures. For him, Europe was a source of historical inspiration in forming Russia‟s domestic and foreign policy. He wanted, similarly to Yeltsin, to create a European Russia, thereby developing a European vector in Russian foreign policy. 

Being a Germanophile, Putin adopted a postwar German model for post-Soviet Russia. At the forefront of his new ideology he placed economic pragmatism. President Putin realized, thanks to the German example, that there was no alternative to pragmatic cooperation with the West and, above all, with Europe. Putin saw the latter as the most important strategic partner which could contribute to Russia‟s economic recovery, and subsequently to its restoration of power. In addition to being the main client of Russian energy supplies, Europe was a key to global market integration and Western investments. Europe was perceived as a source of Russia‟s modernization and recovery. Russia sought to regain its international status by rebuilding a new empire which would meet the challenges of globalization – an energy empire or, as Chubais termed it, “a liberal empire.”

Belarus with its fraternal rhetoric but with very hostile relations with the West became an obstacle. Lukashenko‟s populist, pro-integration dithyrambs had no effect on Russia‟s new leadership, which saw integration through an economic prism. Putin‟s pragmatism led to the deideologization of Russo-Belarusian relations, instead basing them purely on market-economy principles. Historical and linguistic commonalities of the two nations were used to the extent that they served Russian interests in either domestic or international contexts.

Although President Putin stressed the close relationship between the two states, he realized that there were advantages in Russo-Belarusian disunion. Putin viewed the Soviet past from a critical perspective, whereby Russia had carried the economic burden of the Soviet empire by subsidizing the numerous “parasites,” which eventually brought about its fall. The Kremlin, therefore, was strongly determined to prevent a recurrence of this scenario. It did not want any territorial annexation but only economic integration, analogous to the EU model, as Putin asserted: “We do not want to include anyone else in Russia because for us it is merely an additional economic burden. However, we want our so-called natural competitive advantages in the global economy to be utilized. We can talk only about economic integration.”

Minsk, however, has always insisted on the implementation of the “Soviet” model of integration, which in the eyes of the Kremlin meant that neither Ukraine nor any other CIS country would ever join. Putin, hence, explicitly warned Lukashenko about trying to revive the Soviet Union. Lukashenko‟s opposition to Moscow‟s new course caused frictions in relations and “Belarus lost its status as the main foreign policy ally of Russia in the CIS and became merely one of Russia‟s partners in the post-Soviet space.”

http://www.academia.edu/1172488/Two_Decades_of_the_Russian_Federations_Foreign_Policy_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Independent_States_The_Cases_of_Belarus_and_Ukraine

Game, set, match.

[asylumseeker]

Asylum you are even more stupid than you look - seriously how are they an ally? Are you so simple as to not know what an ally is?

As I said - what is your moronic definition of an ally?

Please stop. You're playing in stratospheric traffic.

[asylumseeker]

Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.

Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...

As to the first line: PRECISELY! (the word I would use is "tempered").

As to the allusion in line two (Toppa ah know you are de messenger, not the sender): This formulation belies how foreign policy is constructed, implemented and exercised. Ribbit, ah lil disappointed ...

[Toppa]

Lehwe reset here ...

Deep Russia-Germany Ties Behind a Prisoner’s Release
By ALISON SMALE


http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100621_germany_and_russia_move_closer

Hmmm...that was a deep article; rings true, too.

[Toppa]

Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.

Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...

As to the first line: PRECISELY! (the word I would use is "tempered").

As to the allusion in line two (Toppa ah know you are de messenger, not the sender): This formulation belies how foreign policy is constructed, implemented and exercised. Ribbit, ah lil disappointed ...

Yeah, I know the term "ally" is a loaded one so I won't even delve into that. What I am sure of is that it is not in Germany's or Europe's self-interest to have poor relations with Russia, and I think if it comes down to it (as it has), they'll be willing to forsake Ukraine over it.

And yes, "tempered" is a better word.

[Tiresais]

Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.

Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...

As to the first line: PRECISELY! (the word I would use is "tempered").

As to the allusion in line two (Toppa ah know you are de messenger, not the sender): This formulation belies how foreign policy is constructed, implemented and exercised. Ribbit, ah lil disappointed ...

*Face palm*. Hitler liked Britain, so was Hitler allied with Britain before and part-way into WW2?

You've taken a word that has a definite meaning, perverted the meaning beyond being useful, and kicked out your self-masturbatory conclusion that Russia and Germany were allied.

Some definitions for you;

Ally

A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose (Oxford Dictionary)

Alliance, in international relations, a formal agreement between two or more states for mutual support in case of war. (Encyclopaedia Brittanica)

Find me someone with an entry-level understanding of politics who defines an "ally" as two chummy countries. By your definition any number of absurd countries are 'allies', hey ever heard of the Sino-Trini alliance? I mean you've just met each other and got on, so clearly you're allies!

[asylumseeker]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." --- Aldous Huxley

[Tiresais]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." --- Aldous Huxley

The facts are that you have mis-defined "ally". Germany's allies are their NATO signatories.

[asylumseeker]

Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided.      

[Ramgoat]

 Major    countries do not have Allies , they have interests and when those interests  coincides with other countries then they can be considered as allies .
 America on the other hand  do not seek allies , instead , they look for puppets  which they acquire through either military or economic warfare

[Tiresais]

Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided.      

Your definition of ally is moronic. Seriously if you lack the capacity to even know what an alliance is then you should step away from the computer and read a damn book, 'cause you're too stupid to waste my time arguing with.

[asylumseeker]

Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided.      

Your definition of ally is moronic. Seriously if you lack the capacity to even know what an alliance is then you should step away from the computer and read a damn book, 'cause you're too stupid to waste my time arguing with.

In your most recent posts you seem to have lost your bearing and bearings. It's easy to discern the unsteadiness in your presentation and the utter lack of conviction in your "argument". With each step you are betraying your descent and your proclivities. There's surely a better way of saving face than striking a sophomoric tone.

There is no further need for me to address the substance developed in the topic given your present intransigence.

There's an adage: don't judge books by their cover. You would do well to delve into that proposition in an absorbent way.

[Tiresais]

Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided.      

Your definition of ally is moronic. Seriously if you lack the capacity to even know what an alliance is then you should step away from the computer and read a damn book, 'cause you're too stupid to waste my time arguing with.

In your most recent posts you seem to have lost your bearing and bearings. It's easy to discern the unsteadiness in your presentation and the utter lack of conviction in your "argument". With each step you are betraying your descent and your proclivities. There's surely a better way of saving face than striking a sophomoric tone.

There is no further need for me to address the substance developed in the topic given your present intransigence.

There's an adage: don't judge books by their cover. You would do well to delve into that proposition in an absorbent way.

You said Russia's ally in Europe was Germany, this is clearly not true. Russia and Germany share no defensive pacts, no formalised obligation to come to one's aid in times of war. Your proposition is thus false. What is your response to this exactly?

Now you can play word games and change the definition of 'ally', but the fact remains - you sir are being intellectually dishonest in changing a definition that has a clear meaning in order for your position to look less stupid.

[asylumseeker]

I'm sitting here wondering whether you're going to use a rope or a shovel.

[Tiresais]

I'm sitting here wondering whether you're going to use a rope or a shovel.

Neither, you're a coward. I've called out your stupidity and you pretend it doesn't exist or too stubborn to admit you're wrong. The record speaks for itself.

Now on the issue of which country has the most to lose from Russian sanctions, Italy has much, much more to lose by Russian sanctions than Germany - http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/20/news/economy/russia-west-banks/. Italy is the most exposed in the region, which is why you've not heard much out of them in regards to Crimea. Energy is one thing, but moving into summer it's certainly less of a threat than banking collapse.

[Bakes]

I think people are confusing "friendly" with "ally".

[asylumseeker]

@ Tiresais:

Ah feel yuh want to end up crying in the privacy of yuh own home ... the more you continue, the more amazed I am. There have been some spectacular Hall of Fame sequences on the forum, but honestly, in all my time, I've never seen a poster literally rely on the word "stupid" so much, yet brazenly been sinking in quicksand thinking he's in a "better place". Yuh gehhin paid to be a jackass or yuh doing community service? Yuh cyah bring no incorrect talk rong me because you ALWAYS ALWAYS wrong ... Since you reach, iz like Wikipedia teaching yuh how to reinvent de wheel, buh yuh cyah figure out what to make ah de spokes. Then, yuh asking more questions than ah blasted prisoner on parole.

Your answer was "Belarus" ... SLAPPED out of the park ... you then said well, pretty please asylumseeker explain your point, I can't figure it out. Then, I did. Then, I did again with support. Since then, not a word on that, ENT?!!! ... but let me re-familiarize you with the relevant content.

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

...

I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

THE SUPPORTING CONTENT: (from the last line of Reply #128)

... Lukashenko‟s opposition to Moscow‟s new course caused frictions in relations and “Belarus lost its status as the main foreign policy ally of Russia in the CIS and became merely one of Russia‟s partners in the post-Soviet space.”

Yuh REALLY want to have an exchange about pretense and something not existing? Big bloodclaat steups.

Your response indicates a lack of appreciation of ANY of the triggers involved. You're so far off base you actually "thought" there was a structural problem with the question.

I didn't even bother to fully emphasize the significance of the "in the CIS" (you'll note in the post I refer to an "illusory independent relationship", but I didn't get into post-Soviet arrangements specifically ...  or, especially as they applied to Belarus!). You can't seem to distinguish between theory and practice, yet there's theory that addresses the very issue you're contending!

If you were sensible, you would appreciate the other nuance that's derailing your assessment of this matter, but I'll be happy to pull a few more Exhibits before consigning you to amateur status.

There are so many ways I can approach this but yuh might start wetting yuh bed. Leave well enough alone, nah.

Even if we applied one of the basic definitions you assert, you would flop on the "or other purpose" language.

[Tiresais]

And you still either lack the cognition or are too stubborn to understand that you were and still are misusing the term ally, which is the source of this conflict. More than that, your position is that Germany is their "principle ally", which is just complete rubbish, as I've pointed out numerous times. At least Belarus is mobilising its military and accepting Russian Jets. Indeed, Foreign Affairs explicitly refers to Belarus as "one of Russia's closest European allies". This is Belarus, who in the same article is apparently moving AWAY from Russia, is still fulfilling the definition of ally. I challenge you to find an academic source that refers to Germany as a Russian Ally - go head - try to pick a source from after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or if you're feeling adventurous, from the past decade (no, East Germany as a Soviet puppet doesn't qualify, in case you want to redefine ally again).

Asylum, you're just being stubborn now, just admit you're wrong and move on.

[ribbit]

so according to asylumseeker: germany, which still has US military bases, is an "ally" of russia according to some articles he read (in english) from stratfor. take win asylumseeker.

[Tiresais]

Vlad the impatient: why timid western politics won’t wash with Putin
The world waits to see how far the fire that has been lit by Russia’s invasion of Crimea will spread in Ukraine and elsewhere.

New Statesman

The world waits to see how far the fire that has been lit by Russia’s invasion of Crimea will spread in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The first Ukrainian I met was called Peter. On my first visit to Kyiv, exactly 20 years ago, Peter introduced himself to me in front of the monument to the 150,000 Jews massacred at Babi Yar. He was a retired accountant from Croydon but had been born outside Kharkiv, in rural eastern Ukraine. In 1943, when he was 16, the Red Army swept south to end the Nazi occupation. Russian soldiers dealt summarily with anyone suspected of co-operating with the Germans.

Peter was drafted. He protested. “Who is this boy?” an officer asked. A village woman replied, “His uncle was our police inspector, whom you shot in the orchard this morning.”

Peter deserted at dawn the next morning and walked 2,000 kilometres west, to Vienna. There a Wehrmacht officer found him a job in military records, writing to bereaved mothers to tell them their sons were heroes of the Reich. He arrived in England, a refugee, in 1947.

This was his first visit back to Ukraine. He looked at the Babi Yar monument strewn with roses. “And my grandfather was a Jew,” he said.

We wait to see how far the fire that has been lit by Russia’s invasion of Crimea will spread. At first our managerial government was less inclined to support Ukrainian sovereignty than it was to defend a different hearth, that of the City of London. In the end, David Cameron was persuaded, along with other EU leaders in Brussels, to announce cumulative economic sanctions if Russia refuses to talk and ultimately to withdraw its troops.

Read More

[asylumseeker]

You haven't pointed out anything. In fact, you haven't proposed a substitute PRINCIPAL since the failure of the inadequate Belarus response. Why don't you do that? While you're at it? Try to ponder the relevance of Belarus "moving away" while still effectively a contemporary "satellite state" (in the antiquated construction of reality that you so favour). Again I point you to the language I used in my posts that didn't need to rely on other authority.

And you still either lack the cognition or are too stubborn to understand that you were and still are misusing the term ally, which is the source of this conflict. More than that, your position is that Germany is their "principle ally", which is just complete rubbish, as I've pointed out numerous times. At least Belarus is mobilising its military and accepting Russian Jets. Indeed, Foreign Affairs explicitly refers to Belarus as "one of Russia's closest European allies". This is Belarus, who in the same article is apparently moving AWAY from Russia, is still fulfilling the definition of ally. I challenge you to find an academic source that refers to Germany as a Russian Ally - go head - try to pick a source from after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or if you're feeling adventurous, from the past decade (no, East Germany as a Soviet puppet doesn't qualify, in case you want to redefine ally again).

Asylum, you're just being stubborn now, just admit you're wrong and move on.

If there's any progress in this is that you've gone from your Neanderthal adventurism of wrong answers and collective refutation to seeking solace in the turn of one word ... which in itself underscores your underlying misadventure and misdirection.

Indeed, the word "ally" was not the source of your initial confusion. You went down one road, then when reproached opted for another (and that's evident in your inability to engage on the esoterics of the original substance). So don't now come seeking to educate me on Belarus ... I was the one who pointed you to the nuance regarding Belarus. Indeed, there was no question as to Belarus being an ally (the degree/significance of the relationship arose incidentally), but you're unable to grasp that we are speaking of a differently constructed relation effect beyond mere sustainable overt diplomacy.

Dumdum, if we are talking about a Western European state, how can you sensibly assert to leverage a definition through a limited traditional prism? Further, if you were a serious broker with a substantive understanding of this ... you wouldn't have attempted to distract with deprecatory comments such as these rather than address the substance (of which there is ample support, that does not turn on semantics):

*Face palm*. Hitler liked Britain, so was Hitler allied with Britain before and part-way into WW2?

Find me someone with an entry-level understanding of politics who defines an "ally" as two chummy countries. By your definition any number of absurd countries are 'allies', hey ever heard of the Sino-Trini alliance? I mean you've just met each other and got on, so clearly you're allies!

You do your thing. I'm sitting here in my SOAS hoodie chuckling. Have you ever been compensated in this arena?

Try to re-read that article. Also, when you find the time, investigate the concept of a "tacit ally" ... when you're done that, you do yuh own investigatory research. Then re-read Toppa. Then read a bit more about the military-industrial complex and security arrangements that with some diligence (or assistance of your friend) you should locate. Then take your shovel and bash it against your thick skull. Doh worry, you'll incur minimal harm.

[Tiresais]

You haven't pointed out anything. In fact, you haven't proposed a substitute PRINCIPAL since the failure of the inadequate Belarus response. Why don't you do that? While you're at it? Try to ponder the relevance of Belarus "moving away" while still effectively a contemporary "satellite state" (in the antiquated construction of reality that you so favour). Again I point you to the language I used in my posts that didn't need to rely on other authority.

And you still either lack the cognition or are too stubborn to understand that you were and still are misusing the term ally, which is the source of this conflict. More than that, your position is that Germany is their "principle ally", which is just complete rubbish, as I've pointed out numerous times. At least Belarus is mobilising its military and accepting Russian Jets. Indeed, Foreign Affairs explicitly refers to Belarus as "one of Russia's closest European allies". This is Belarus, who in the same article is apparently moving AWAY from Russia, is still fulfilling the definition of ally. I challenge you to find an academic source that refers to Germany as a Russian Ally - go head - try to pick a source from after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or if you're feeling adventurous, from the past decade (no, East Germany as a Soviet puppet doesn't qualify, in case you want to redefine ally again).

Asylum, you're just being stubborn now, just admit you're wrong and move on.

If there's any progress in this is that you've gone from your Neanderthal adventurism of wrong answers and collective refutation to seeking solace in the turn of one word ... which in itself underscores your underlying misadventure and misdirection.

Indeed, the word "ally" was not the source of your initial confusion. You went down one road, then when reproached opted for another (and that's evident in your inability to engage on the esoterics of the original substance). So don't now come seeking to educate me on Belarus ... I was the one who pointed you to the nuance regarding Belarus. Indeed, there was no question as to Belarus being an ally (the degree/significance of the relationship arose incidentally), but you're unable to grasp that we are speaking of a differently constructed relation effect beyond mere sustainable overt diplomacy.

Dumdum, if we are talking about a Western European state, how can you sensibly assert to leverage a definition through a limited traditional prism? Further, if you were a serious broker with a substantive understanding of this ... you wouldn't have attempted to distract with deprecatory comments such as these rather than address the substance (of which there is ample support, that does not turn on semantics):

*Face palm*. Hitler liked Britain, so was Hitler allied with Britain before and part-way into WW2?

Find me someone with an entry-level understanding of politics who defines an "ally" as two chummy countries. By your definition any number of absurd countries are 'allies', hey ever heard of the Sino-Trini alliance? I mean you've just met each other and got on, so clearly you're allies!

You do your thing. I'm sitting here in my SOAS hoodie chuckling. Have you ever been compensated in this arena?

Try to re-read that article. Also, when you find the time, investigate the concept of a "tacit ally" ... when you're done that, you do yuh own investigatory research. Then re-read Toppa. Then read a bit more about the military-industrial complex and security arrangements that with some diligence (or assistance of your friend) you should locate. Then take your shovel and bash it against your thick skull. Doh worry, you'll incur minimal harm.

Really I'm done, this is like talking to a brick wall. Clearly you failed to learn much at SOAS, so don't drag their name through the mire. You have failed to prove or back up your assertions, and are instead engaging in intellectual dishonesty as you try to move the goalposts.

Please re-read the books you think are relevant from your SOAS education, because you've missed the basics.