Europe rule out sanctions against Russia
Ian Brockwell
August 25, 2008
It was perhaps no surprise that the current EU President (France) has ruled out sanctions against Russia, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying "the European Union did not foresee sanctions against Russia, even though Moscow continues to have troops in Georgia."
Apparently, the European Union are "divided" on how to "deal with Russia" with "some members" wanting a tougher position than others.
It probably doesn´t require any great skill to guess which members are seeking a "tougher position". One is almost certainly France, the other would be Britain, and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany (even though a poll indicates that the German people may not completely agree with her thoughts).
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was no doubt disappointed at having to relay this news to the world, but the "division" mentioned would probably reveal that a large majority do not want to upset Russia any more than they have been already. Thankfully, some common sense still exists in Europe.
Those most supportive of the Bush administrations thoughts on Russia (Sarkozy, Kouchner, Brown, Merkel and a few others) will hope to change the rest of Europe´s views on this situation, when the EU leaders meet next week, but it is unlikely that this will alter in any way.
Some have been critical of Russia´s reluctance to completely withdraw from Georgia, but can anyone blame them for wanting to be cautious?
Georgian President Saakashvili assured Russia that he would not attack South Ossetia just hours before he did. Even now, as others talk of peace, he has been practically telling the world that he will do it again! Surely, he doesn´t honestly believe Russia will be foolish enough to withdraw completely, so that he can have a second shot at it?
Whilst the majority of Europe are able to see the consequences of pushing Russia too far, the same can not be said for the US or Israel, who are trying to use Europe (and Georgia) for their own benefits. The Bush administration seem to be doing everything they can to anger Russia and clearly have no interest in a peaceful solution. Their tactics have become very obvious and almost childish, with Rice securing the missile deal in Poland (while the Georgian conflict was at a delicate moment), and apparently celebrating the deal by drinking Georgian wine!
As most people know, if you want to defuse a "violent" situation, you have to use soothing words and reason. Provoking one of those in the dispute is the worst possible thing to do, unless it is your intention to make matters even worse.
We have also heard reports of NATO ships entering the Black Sea (near Georgia) and should be asking what are they doing there? Georgia is not yet a member of NATO, but obviously they feel that a country deserves their protection just because they have applied for membership?
Although certain politicians (and the Media) would like us to believe that this latest response from Russia, to the attack by Georgia on South Ossetia, is the reason for applying more pressure on Russia, it most certainly is not.
What we are really witnessing is a battle for global supremacy, a political "game" played by a small number of people. The prize is to rule the world and take control of all the resources (mainly oil). Although Russia would prefer not to take part in this game, they have been given little choice, they must fight back or be destroyed, it is a matter of survival.
Surely, Russia has a right to survive, just as Europe did during the Second World War (a war that cost many millions of Russian lives). Had Hitler not turned his fury on Russia, Britain (and much of Europe) may have suffered a much different fate and the history books would look very different today. Russia did not plan it that way of course, but maybe they are "owed" a little more respect than they have been getting lately.
Russia and Europe can share a great future together (this is already evident in some areas), why risk all of that just because the US and Israel are not prepared to "share" and want to take it all. Europe, Russia and most other countries in the world have managed to avoid another World War, they are trying much harder to get along with each other. It takes time, but progress has been made. Should we allow (or support) two countries, with short histories, to undo all of that and endanger every life on the planet? I think not, do you?
Apparently, the European Union are "divided" on how to "deal with Russia" with "some members" wanting a tougher position than others.
It probably doesn´t require any great skill to guess which members are seeking a "tougher position". One is almost certainly France, the other would be Britain, and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany (even though a poll indicates that the German people may not completely agree with her thoughts).
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was no doubt disappointed at having to relay this news to the world, but the "division" mentioned would probably reveal that a large majority do not want to upset Russia any more than they have been already. Thankfully, some common sense still exists in Europe.
Those most supportive of the Bush administrations thoughts on Russia (Sarkozy, Kouchner, Brown, Merkel and a few others) will hope to change the rest of Europe´s views on this situation, when the EU leaders meet next week, but it is unlikely that this will alter in any way.
Some have been critical of Russia´s reluctance to completely withdraw from Georgia, but can anyone blame them for wanting to be cautious?
Georgian President Saakashvili assured Russia that he would not attack South Ossetia just hours before he did. Even now, as others talk of peace, he has been practically telling the world that he will do it again! Surely, he doesn´t honestly believe Russia will be foolish enough to withdraw completely, so that he can have a second shot at it?
Whilst the majority of Europe are able to see the consequences of pushing Russia too far, the same can not be said for the US or Israel, who are trying to use Europe (and Georgia) for their own benefits. The Bush administration seem to be doing everything they can to anger Russia and clearly have no interest in a peaceful solution. Their tactics have become very obvious and almost childish, with Rice securing the missile deal in Poland (while the Georgian conflict was at a delicate moment), and apparently celebrating the deal by drinking Georgian wine!
As most people know, if you want to defuse a "violent" situation, you have to use soothing words and reason. Provoking one of those in the dispute is the worst possible thing to do, unless it is your intention to make matters even worse.
We have also heard reports of NATO ships entering the Black Sea (near Georgia) and should be asking what are they doing there? Georgia is not yet a member of NATO, but obviously they feel that a country deserves their protection just because they have applied for membership?
Although certain politicians (and the Media) would like us to believe that this latest response from Russia, to the attack by Georgia on South Ossetia, is the reason for applying more pressure on Russia, it most certainly is not.
What we are really witnessing is a battle for global supremacy, a political "game" played by a small number of people. The prize is to rule the world and take control of all the resources (mainly oil). Although Russia would prefer not to take part in this game, they have been given little choice, they must fight back or be destroyed, it is a matter of survival.
Surely, Russia has a right to survive, just as Europe did during the Second World War (a war that cost many millions of Russian lives). Had Hitler not turned his fury on Russia, Britain (and much of Europe) may have suffered a much different fate and the history books would look very different today. Russia did not plan it that way of course, but maybe they are "owed" a little more respect than they have been getting lately.
Russia and Europe can share a great future together (this is already evident in some areas), why risk all of that just because the US and Israel are not prepared to "share" and want to take it all. Europe, Russia and most other countries in the world have managed to avoid another World War, they are trying much harder to get along with each other. It takes time, but progress has been made. Should we allow (or support) two countries, with short histories, to undo all of that and endanger every life on the planet? I think not, do you?
Print
Email
