EU and Russia?

The European Council on Foreign Relations A crisis of values?: "People may become more assertive in demanding better from their political masters, emphazising what Angela Merkel termed in her meetings with the Russian government last month the “inseparable link between modernizing the economy and making civil society more democratic”."

Merkel's conclusion is the same as people in Sweden have when they think of the development of China, ie that human rights follow in the wake of a trade relations. However ECFR also feature a discussion of What Russia Thinks. Here one finds a corroboration of Leon Aron's, at the American Enterprise Institute, conclusion a while ago that Russia wants to build their own consensus and not imitate the EU. Democracy, EU style, is simply not the Russian cup of tea.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from this article is that the Russians view the balance of power between three different blocks, Russia, the EU and Turkey, all dissimilar. This might be good to now when considering an enlargement of the EU involving Turkey. They simply might not fit, like Russia, in the EU.

The institutions of the EU has taken a beating as of late. However, in comparison they are twice as popular among the people than is the government of Vladimir Putin, although Putin himself enjoys a 70% approval rate. Putin means Russia to the Russians. There is no politician in Europe with a similar approval rate and even Obama is down to 43%, again displaying how different Russia is to the EU. Russia is coming alive again now when the oil prize is over $70.

Thus the "dominant discourse on Russia among Western liberals focus on what Russia lacks -- be it Western-style democracy, the rule of law and property rights". The point again is that Russia is developing their own model. where these values from John Locke and others simply are not admired. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, said the other day in an interview conducted by the German paper Der Spiegel that in Iran they think that the West is politically immature. They probably refer to their own 2,500 year old authoritarian rulings by various potentates. Russia has their own history of Czars.

The so called "Putin Consensus" is formed by the double failure of Soviet authoritarianism and the anarchic democracy of Yeltsin during the last 20 years. It is modernization supposedly based on innovation rather than on imitation. Russians want to free themselves from the West. Putin calls it "sovereign democracy". Putin decides and the people like it? So far the Putin Consensus is a negative phenomenon. Intellectuals can agree on what they don't want but not on how Russia would look like in the future.

I have earlier written about the developing relationship between Germany and Russia and the take home message of the cited article What Russia Thinks is probably that economic collaboration would work but there would not be a consensus on the political development. Russia will never become the Texas of EU.

Germany is accused of being mercantilistic. They gained from the fall of the Euro.

Op-ed: The G-20 and "Chermany": "It was easy to rail against mercantilism that, regardless of its intellectual pedigree, has doubtful moral connotations: mercantilism involves doing well but at someone else's expense. Fiscal consolidation, on the other hand, has the aura of moral correctness and virtue."

It is strange. The world does not care much for Midsummer in Sweden and has placed the G8 and G20 meetings this weekend. The US advocates spend now, save later, be mindful of growth. They are worried that Germany's fiscal austerity will cause a recession in Europe. Angela Merkel has defended Germany's position: it is foolish to spend money you don't have in a crisis. It causes bad vibrations among the people. Balanced budget on the other hand causes good vibrations and will cause people to spend to revive the economy. As usual lay people, have to make up their mind by non economical means when the schools clash. Most probably for political reasons?

So, the lucky Germans with their lowly valued Euro, boosting their exports, preach fiscal austerity to further boost their mecantilistic approach? As Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Finance, said: "there is no Euro crisis"? China, apparently, decides to loose more than they have done on the lower Euro and raised the value of the renminbi. This could according to the article above depend on the fact that the discussion has moved from a bilateral "Chimerica" problem to a multipolar affair involving countries like Brazil and India as well. Some form of responsibility for balancing the world economy that would not in fact warrant the connotation "Chermany", a dual mercantilistic approach? Is China out picking easy public relation points among the world poor like during the COP15 conference?

I have heard people saying that the US is bankrupt and that they would default on their debt. I guess some US billionaires recently gave evidence to the opposite. There are apparently 403 billionaires in the US. If they lent the government 2-3bn each on average, the US would be saved. Angela Merkel probably have many good economical advisors. However, if it boiled down to who to believe, President Obama or Chancellor Merkel, it might be good to remember that Merkel was born and raised in East Germany. It is funny though that both Obama and Merkel currently flirts with Russia.

Germany is far ahead of the EU on Russia

"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."

George Friedman at Stratfor discusses the relationship between Russia and Germany relative France and Poland which of course also has a great importance for Sweden. The above citation provides one explanation for the driving force of common interest between Russia and Germany.

This might mean that Germany preferentially would invest rather in Russia than in the EU. Especially in the southern parts. The question is if Sweden has enough clout to tackle Russia in the same way?

Today we learned on the news on SVT that foreign trade is improved by immigration in Sweden which would point in an other direction that is more favorable. Immigrant labor in Sweden can work here and in immigrant countries of origin. The information given did not specify if immigrants came from Russia or not. Imagery provided spoke rather of the type of immigration Germany apparently fears would threaten their societal stability.

Doing business in Russia is not easy according to IKEA which will stop expansion in the country and just maintain operations. Leon Aron at the AEI writes that a climate of fear stifles innovation in Russia. This would mean that one would find only beneficial opportunities in simpler endeavors where salaries are not all that low. Seems like the German's fear for foreigners might put them at a disadvantage?

The falling populations in Germany and Russia are interesting though. Great Britain is projected to pass Germany as EU's largest country by 2050 and the US will increase its population as well. Their in house solutions sound more viable.

The absolute basis for a foreign policy?

It is with deep worries that I read of the Red-Green change in their foreign policy and it is my sincere hope that the Allians wins the election in September. Based on the information in the media I have discussed the prospects in Afghanistan thoroughly, which might have sounded critical at times, but in the end I back Obama's ambitions for other reasons.

If you want to build a foreign policy, I guess you start out by defining what countries you want to be specially friendly to. People in Sweden seem to be very fast in complaining on the US but they don't dare to say anything negative about Germany or Russia. Especially Germany.

When the trans-Atlantic balance is wobbly and Germany challenged the US after the financial crisis, people in Sweden have become even more German. This might have resulted in the shift in Red-Green policy. I have a feeling that the Germanophilia is nothing you talk about, for old historic carefulness reasons sake, which make the policy close in on the old neutrality nerves and kum-ba-yah peace movement instead.

Being for a development of the Club Baltic does not have to mean becoming anti-American. For me anti-Americanism equals being against human progress. The political, scientific and cultural leadership that emanates from across the Atlantic is worth admiring. It is possible to criticize America for this and that but as a country go out and demand that they should change their security doctrine is utterly wrong.

It has become old fashion to bring up the fact that American security thinking has kept Europe in general and Sweden in particular out of trouble from the brutal Soviet Union expansionist rule over the years. Russia is brushing off Stalin as a strongman that conquered Nazi Germany and has reinstated the public worship of armory in motion on that old Red Square. Red from blood of some 40m victims of Stalin's executions.

American scientists have lately made progress in understanding how life is maintained and it should be remembered that Stalin's Soviet Union threw modern biology and genetics in the vast paper bin via Lysenko's ideas. The only science that flourished in the Soviet Union was that of the weapons industry and space, which is closely linked to missile development. I don't see life develop in Russia of today and as I have said it would be a great disappointment if Club Baltic development led to reprisals against human progress.

Yes, it is possible to become a monk and say that there should be peace on Earth. From a global perspective this is however not possible. The bad guys would take over the business. We see this taking place in failing states such as Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan and God forbid Pakistan. It is necessary to stand tall against such threats. Sweden seems to confront a more important election than I originally thought it would. The difference between an anti-American Sweden and a Sweden that would move too fast into the sustainable society versus a more sensible and balanced Sweden is grand.

Ukraine-Russia relations

Ukraine and Russia: A normal day's debate in Kiev The Economist: "And extending the stay of the Russian fleet is backed by some 60% of Ukrainians."

Apparently the brawl at the Ukraine parliament the other day was a hangover from the unfair election, since the majority of Ukrainians don't mind keeping the Russian Sebastopol base. It might be more interesting to ask the Russian taxpayers whether they like the marriage or not? The gas subsidy is derived from removing the export duty from Gazprom.

Marrying Ukraine and Russia might be strategic in terms of securing the food potential of Ukraine once called the food store of the Soviet Union. The attitude from the West now seem to be favorable for the marriage when the economics of not having the burden of Ukraine is important rather than the political domain speak. The Obama administration is in principle letting Russia in on their old turf without fussing for potential gains in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Europe is more on their own now since they did not help out so much yonder?

The Obama doctrine is getting clearer. He is not sentimental at all as evident with Europe and Israel. Friendship is redefined. It is super pragmatic. As I pointed out once before, the slow but sure disappearance of the US from Europe has thrown Europe into a crisis of identity that is now enforced by the economic problems of southern Europe together with a prestige fight with the US about whether or not the Euro zone was a good idea. Europe's attitude towards the US was a little too harsh during the financial crisis perhaps.

What is interesting, however, is how Russia in reality views Europe. In his speech on Victory Day May 9th, 2007, when the Red Army beat Nazi Germany, Vladimir Putin said: "It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as during the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world". A New York Times article at this point was a trifle paranoiac and suggested Putin talked about the US, but maybe he was talking about the EU and Germany? Maybe he fears economic rather than military threats?

Putin has also said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst catastrophe of the century. In the above speech he said: "Victory Day not only unites the people of Russia but also united our neighbors in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States". In other words 20m people did not die in vain, a sacrifice so large that is possible to question its reasonableness. This is all becoming more of a reality now and personally I am ready to question the wisdom of the earlier alienation from the US on its pursuit for freedom in far away places. As you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

What seems to remain now is to establish a working economic relationship with Russia as Putin tries to repair what he can from his greatest catastrophe.

New Cold War?

Some recent articles that would speak in this direction:

Ukraine and Russia to extend Black Sea fleet lease

Russia's new push for power

Russia is said to have fuelled unrest in Kyrgyzstan

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

Great Britain--Club Med--GPR axis?

A Franco-Italian axis in Europe? EurActiv: "An unusual Franco-Italian duo has emerged in recent weeks to influence EU decisions on everything ranging from aid to Athens to climate change, as Germany appears increasingly reluctant to take any new major European initiatives."

Apparently Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy found each other in the recent debate on how to deal with the predicament of Greece. Together they forced Angela Merkel to accept a 5% interest rate for loans rather than the market level on approximately 7.5%. A subsidy according to the German voters and actually not allowed according to EU rules, thus an inkling of federalism despite the rulings of Germany's Constitutional Court.

New formations are being probed now in the wake of the Greek debt crisis. The English press now also discusses the German-Polish-Russian axis. We are talking about some 240m people, half of EU just counting GPR, with a large chunk of the European GDP. The question is if the appreciation of these new power divisions are already trickling down to the public in Britain since the EU and even Euro friendly Liberal Democrats are doing so well right now? A last minute attempt to catch the train? I would not be so sure myself though, since I don't think Russia has changed much since Georgia. Poland probably is in an unholy alliance where Scylla and Charybdis are preying on each other each with different thoughts in mind for the future? The EU project was much more of a sunshine story. My feeling is that Russia wants to politically control its former Soviet states but want EU to provide FDI. The recently elected Mr Yanukovich of Ukraine made his first trip to EU not the Kremlin despite being a Ukrainian that only speak Russian, not Ukrainian.

The Swedish Election debate should include a discussion on the new GPR reality. Sweden and Finland gave their blessings to the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, but probably not to Russia. Is Sweden reverting to a neutrality politics or are they entering into a new discussion on the earlier suggested security arrangements involving Russia. Dimitry Medvedev, the Russian president, have been wanting to bring these discussions up but have been discouraged by Hilary Clinton, the US State Department head. The uncertainty of the foreign policy of the Red-Green alliance due to 'Vänsterpartiet', the Left Party, might not mind such a development. Anders Fogh Rasmussen have even suggested that NATO should engage Russia in a missile defence against Iran. Where is Sweden on this not being a NATO member? Perhaps Russia and Germany are already so involved with each other on much of the regional development that NATO remains a simple paper tiger? In this case Merkel might soon pop the question if Sweden is in or out.

What about Britain then? Ross Douthat on the New York Times discuss the Tories in his latest column. The Tories are not really in bed with the American GOP, if I understand it correctly. What is important for the above discussion though is the relative euroscepticism of the Tories. David Cameron removed his party from the EPP group in the European parliament seemingly to distance himself from Sarkozy and Merkel. The move is part of the precipitation of the GPR axis. I have been trying to understand Cameronism, his "Big Society". It seems like it is more political philosophy than something practical that would bring Britain back in shape. Why would Big Society need Cameron? Politicians are taking care of the state, be it Small Government. Is he trying to say Popes and Politicians unite?

The communist ghost is still alive

Putin Observes Anniversary of Katyn Killings - NYTimes.com: "Some Russian leaders have continued Soviet responsibility for the murders, even though Russia released archival documents in 1992 showing that Stalin's politbureau ordered the massacre in March 1940. Russia’s Communist Party chastised Mr. Putin on Wednesday for “going to Katyn to apologize.” In a statement on its Web site, the party said, “You can apologize as much as you want about the so-called Soviet guilt, but no one can hide the fact of German responsibility for the shootings of Polish soldiers.”"

Well, Putin did not give an official apology and said that the Russian people were not at fault. It was 22,000 people that vanished. It seems like this is not significant compared to the 25m Russians that died during the war. Hitler did not factor in such a sacrifice.

Not so well known in Sweden and perhaps most of all a Polish tragedy, the massacre was first blamed on Germany because the Soviets were allies with the West against them, then later allies against Japan. Today Russia has laid formal evidence on the table and Putin's gesture of going there might have new meanings in the present axis of Germany-Poland-Russia described by Joschka Fischer, a former foreign minister of Germany, recently in an article on DN.se. Such a formation is going to put divisional stress on Poland. There will be German friends and Russian friends and no friends at all.

So, it is a little hard to see whether Vladimir Putin is mildly remorseful towards Poland or if he is signalling responsibility towards Germany. In the best of worlds it could be a sign of rapprochement between Poland and Russia that the old Communists apparently tease Putin about with their reference to Canossa. In the worst case Putin is just saying I can go this far but not longer.

The gesture might, however, be enough to smoothen the Russia-EU ties which are often hampered by Polish-Russian animosities. It follows the September 2009 condemnation of the Nazi-Soviet pact that led to the partition of Poland in 1939. Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, has also indicated the importance of good ties with their neighbor Poland. Studio Ett on the Swedish public radio claims that Polish media saw the meeting between Putin and Tusk, the Polish PM, as a Polish propaganda victory.

Russia joining NATO?

The Dutch retreat - The Globe and Mail: "A military alliance without a clear common enemy, or a clear goal, becomes almost impossible to maintain. NATO is still dominated by the U.S., and European allies still fall in line, if only just to keep the alliance going – and in the hope of exerting some influence on the only remaining superpower. This means Europeans participate in U.S.-initiated military adventures, even though national or European interests in doing so are far from clear"

Well, this thoughtful suggestion from Ian Buruma is probably on many a European mind. Spiegel ONLINE today provides a possible development for NATO. Some influential defence people argue for letting Russia join NATO. Today is also the day Sweden has begun having bilateral meetings with Russia. Something makes me think that the article in question is rather about a possible bilateral defence union for Russia and Germany.

With their energy needs, Germany has been approaching Russia for some time now. When former chancellors engage in Gasprom, people tend to get the general idea. Russia has been talking about a new security arrangement for Europe which the US recently described as unnecessary waste of time. However, the experts tries to motivate Russia with the notion that it needs defence against up and coming Asian powers.

The German experts brings up the problem of Russia needing to conform to NATO values. I guess it is possible to ask if Turkey has conformed or deviated during its time in NATO as a possible comparison. Carl Bildt reports from Russia today on his blog and is pleased with what he saw. The situation from the devious Georgian invasion has healed remarkably fast. Georgia has become a small problem and getting Sochi ready for the next Winter Olympics is probably more important.

The large question is of course, and I have discussed it before, is for Russia to decide whether they are European or Asian. There is a border in Yekatherineburg and the question is if Russia wants to have one foot in each door. As it has been relayed in the available press during the last years, it appears that Germany is more willing to accommodate Russia than the US. There are obvious benefits of solving the political problems of the Eastern European states that were former parts of the Soviet Union at the same time. Russia remains wary of the recent NATO advancement as long as they would not be members themselves.

However, as much as a federal politically united Europe would be a good thing if it worked, a Russia joined with Europe with its fundamental differences is for me a fairytale. A Russia joined with a Republican US is of course an impossibility. It is therefore my initial feeling was that the German experts in their article rather wants to feel out the European interest for a German-Russian axis. Who knows, France might also be interested since they have begun sales of weapons to Russia.

Breakfast with the Chinese Ambassador to the EU?

Gunnar Hökmark: "En dag som började med ett frukostmöte med den kinesiske ambassadören till EU som menade att Europas fasthållande vid demokratiska värden skapade problem i relationerna och var ett uttryck för bristande förståelse för Kina."

I was turning pages in the UN declaration of human rights yesterday and couldn't help interesting myself of the problem faced by Hökmark this morning. It is of course necessary to have an opinion that is built on strength during such an accusation. So yes, our democratic rights have served us well over the years and that we have many hundred years of successful trade with various nations before People's Republic of China. So much for the past but what about the future? What is our plan compared to that of China?

However, I would have spared the good ambassador these comments and instead answered that we honor tolerance, an old venerable virtue from the 17th century, and we hope that China would not require us to change our ways in order to do business together. But what happens when Geely buys Volvo Cars? Clash of cultures in Göteborg? Is it possible to have China as a player in the West or is just the opposite possible since our ways are more free?

The next question one would have is if showing an understanding of China's situation really is in one's interest. Apparently they operate their country in another way, they stake different claims in the world. They are for example good friends with Iran. Basij kind of guys! Knowledge of their ways is of course valuable but showing interest perhaps not. I actually find it very intriguing that so many want to do business with Russia and China. It must be very profitable but definitely risky. A new type of warfare?

Further Integration of Europe?

Letter From Europe - U.S. Slights a Disunited Europe - NYTimes.com: "Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain is facing an election campaign. Besides, he has little interest in Europe. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have supported the United States in seeking stronger sanctions against Iran. Apart from that, neither leader has shown great interest in pursuing the further integration of Europe that is crucial for making the bloc more united in defense and security policy."

Judy Dempsey paints a disheartening picture of the idiom "two is company three is a crowd". Joschka Fischer, a former foreign minister of Germany, says that Guido Westerwelle, the present foreign minister, wants to form an axis of Poland, Germany and France, the so called Weimar triangle. He himself thinks there should be an axis Russia, Poland and Germany instead that can keep Ukraine democratic. Fischer seems to mean that the future of Europe, or an Eastern oriented Europe, where France and Great Britain is left for themselves. In the middle of this Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, seems to think that there is only one Europe, but perhaps not, since President Obama does not want to show due to the disunity?

Then all of a sudden Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy pleasantly announce an integration document with 80 points on how they see further integration of central Europe possible. It is a ten year plan called the "2020 Agenda". Among other things it is meant that the number of College and Doctor's degrees is supposed to double at Franco-German universities during this time. Common school-books and simpler rules for Franco-German marriages are also planned. France is also going to support a seat for Germany at the UN Security Council.

Personally I believe in further integration of Europe, and to enter the current Swedish debate on whether or not Sweden should join the EMU, I do not believe Sweden needs further evaluations but should see this as a political decision. A Swedish referendum on the issue would produce a positive outcome according to polls right now.

What about the Dempsey-Fischer scenario? Well, Germany and Russia might very well continue doing business together but involving Russia politically in European affairs might not be such a good idea. I agree with Hillary Clinton's idea that a new security arrangement with Russia would just complicate matters. I guess Russia wants this for being able to shake off any attempts of letting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Both Viktor Yanukovich and Julia Tymoshenko are steps backwards for Ukraine and time will tell whether or not they will become European or Russian. Politically, I don't think Russia ever will become European.

Lady Catherine Ashton and EUs position on foreign affairs so far

Catherine Ashton was interviewed today at the EU parliament for three ours as part of the parliament's investigation of the new commission of Jose Manuel Barroso. Gunnar Hökmark said in his blog that Ashton pointed to Russia and China as strategic partners which is in line with her position as trade commissioner. EU is lining up with Obama's administration on this one as with the Iran question.

EUobserver / EU's new top diplomat remains cool under fire: "She hinted she would back further sanctions against Iran if the country continues to ignore international calls to open its nuclear programme to scrutiny. 'If we don't have the rules kept to, then we have to take action in some form,' she said."

Unfortunately there is not much that actually can be done if Iran goes their own way, especially if you want to be partners with Russia and China. Ashton also had a milder tone on Israel than she had when questioned by MEPs before Christmas. She is for a two-state solution but did not criticize Israels occupation of Judea and Samaria.

Ashton apparently is going to focus on Ukraine and their election as well as on the Muslim extremist infested countries between Somalia and Pakistan during the upcoming weeks.

Charlemagne weighs in

Nordstream?

JohanNorberg.Net#3386: "Men inget av dessa mål nås av denna energihandel. Gazprom är inte ett vanligt ryskt bolag. Det är ett statsmonopol sammanvuxet med Kreml och befolkat med gamla KGB-män. Putin monterade ned embryot till ett oberoende rättssystem för att skapa dess olje- och gasmonopol."

That is probably perfectly true but if I have understood this correctly it is the wish of Germany that this gas duct is installed. With that point of view it is clear that Germany probably knows what they are doing and that they in principle now is in charge of area security in the east. The Americans seemingly lost interest. This seems perfectly clear from between the lines of recent diplomatic activity, i.e., what the public have been able to see.

I also think there is a point in thinking of Russia as a European country. The selection of an economically oriented foreign minister in Germany probably highlight the business orientation of the relationship between Russia and Germany.

Nuclear Power??

Naturskyddsföreningen claims that nuclear power, if renewed in Sweden, would be subsidized by the state.

I must say that I don't think energy should be subsidized at all. I guess there are two reasons for subsidizing. It could be national safety, if one considers the risk for conflict with Russia if the less expensive natural gas would be utilized. It could be investing in a cleaner Earth on taxpayers money.

In earlier discussions that I listened to on the radio the costs were not featured. Jan Björklund argued that we need power in the future for the heavy industry and supported the lobbying of some major energy utilizing Swedish companies.

However, Maria Wetterstrand said in the Saturday interview that there will be a surplus of electricity and that nuclear power should not be used rather should there be investments in renewable power sources.

A CEO in one of the lobbying companies said that it is very difficult to estimate the exact need for energy in the future if you have to predict some 20 years ahead. What we have then is Björklund's guess on the energy need against Wetterstrand's guess that renewables will be sufficient for our need.

If this becomes an election question next year, I would like to see a discussion on how much we are ready to pay with taxes for clean energy or safety against the Russians. Subsidizing energy demanding companies with tax money does not seem to be something that we should involve ourselves in?

As someone said--I was young and very naïve?

Forget Guy Fawkes – remember, remember the Ninth of November for the fall of the Berlin Wall - Telegraph: "Communism took power away from the people, eroding democracy with the promise that the system would improve their quality of life in exchange. It failed dismally. Remember, remember the 9th of November, and remember all the idiots – some now running this country – who supported communism in their youth."

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London is tough to fellow politicians like Peter Mandelson, former EU Commissioner, now Minister of Economics and Alistair Darling, the current Minister of Finance.

I once wrote in a blog post that I had never been a social democrat in Sweden, always voted for the civilists, and took some pride in this. However, the day after Heidi Avellan wrote in Sydsvenska Dagbladet that Winston Churchill had said that if you haven't been a socialist in your youth you had no heart and if you do not become right wing later on you had no mind. I must admit that I was a little struck by this shrewd rhetoric but I have since realized that the right wing is a little social these days as well. At least in Sweden.

Is it then possible to forgive Jan Guillou for fraternizing with the KGB in his early years. I guess you can forgive but it is more difficult to understand. The KGB was pure filth. CIA on the contrary is an honorable organization.

Georgia and Russia

I don't like what seems to be the fact in a new report from the EU where equal blame, or even Georgia's fault, is advocated in the war now gone for a year for the reason that it seems like a measurement of the position of EU between the US and Russia. More Russia now, then more blame on Georgia.

I see no change from what was said a year ago in the report. Russia had an agenda for the two provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and carried it through, thus they are most to be blamed.

Obama and Nuclear Weapons?

President Obama must look to home agenda despite adoration overseas Bronwen Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator - Times Online: "In opening the UN Security Council session yesterday he called for “the day when nuclear weapons have been banned”. He put this theme, toxically eccentric a few years ago, right at the top of his personal agenda."

Where does this zeal for removing nuclear weapons fit in currently? There are at least two ways of viewing this focus on removal. At the same time as Obama is negotiating with Russia the "new" trend of removing weapons at a time when Iran is trying to get weapons might make them think - what a foolish thing to start up now when everyone is leaving the business.

However, there is another way that Ahmadi-nejad might think. The fewer weapons the US and Russia have the more our weapons will count.

I still find this amazing. No one will occupy Iran and change its regime but they can't stop threatening Iran concerning the possibility that they construct a nuclear bomb. If China and Russia pitch in at the security council, maybe Iran would be content with a civilian nuclear project but Saddam Hussein flouted 17 UN resolutions. However, China let North Korea build one of these sties in the eye of the Great Satan. North Korea and Iran for China seems like Hamas and Hizbollah for Iran. So this would indeed by positive change if it happened.

Replacing Bush with Obama at the UN, having payed up what the US owns the organization and expressed good will, probably have had a beneficial effect on inhibiting Ahmadi-nejad's scheme of turning one small country after the other against Israel. The General Assembly was quite empty when Ahmadi-nejad spoke this time according to a photo I saw on a Canadian web site.

The "Good" War in Afghanistan is very expensive?

The three trillion dollar war Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online: "The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million)."

The Iraq war turned out to very, very costly. I still believe that Saddam Hussein, a monster, had to be stopped. Ahmadi-nejad is not of the same caliber. So far he does not outright attack another country even if I understand that the Israelis are worried due to his distasteful speeches. Now lately he called the holocaust a myth, again. I believe Ahmadi-nejad is working patiently on swinging the public international opinion to his favor with these speeches, hoping that anti-semitism will continue to grow in for example Europe. He is working very hard on legitimizing the placement of Israel in Palestine.

Since I don't believe that the Afghanistan effort is worth its while anymore it makes me into a person that think the "good" war is the bad war and vice versa.

So why do I make this post? Well, as I said earlier the bad reputation that comes from being involved in a war is costing more indirectly that the cost in lives and money. That can be understood from on-the-street-talk in a periferal country like Sweden. There are Swedes that like Russia more than the US because of this. Therefore, it is a very expensive undertaking that goes on in Afghanistan right now. What Stiglitz and Bilmes point out is that the war cost much more than it is advertised at. I suggest that the effect on the reputation makes it even more expensive. So expensive that wars are not really possible anymore. Only policiary actions not causing civilian causalities would work.

Why Obama's International Policy is Changing?

Anne-Marie Slaughter on International Networks — Big Think: "Anne-Marie Slaughter on International Networks"

Prof. Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Director for Policy Planning at the State Department. I brought her interview on BigThink.com up earlier but it is worth remembering now when Obama is implementing change in his foreign policy.

She uses something she learned at law school. Thirteen year old boys organize themselves in hierarchies, i.e., the bully in the playground, whereas thirteen year old girls organize themselves in networks. The most networked girl is the leader. The goal now for the US is to become the center in a world network. Therefore they appease most countries so far. She points out that the hierarchic approach with a military and hard power is going to be less important.

From the experience in Iraq and now in Afghanistan it is becoming evident that invasions don't work anymore. Therefore the boy approach is not useful. By inspiring fear. With this approach Slaughter is turning traditional "hawks" into dinosaurs. Workable relationships becomes the norm. Condoleezza Rice actually spoke of similar measures with her realism. We need to talk to China, to Russia, in order to solve common problems that we cannot solve ourselves.

I guess the problem here is that the hawks feel like this change is the equivalent of jumping over a cliff and hoping there is going to be water where they land. If there are more hawks among the Republicans, this would be an additional divisive factor on the US society.