Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephenwinter2 | Hacker News Reader

As always with Stratfor this analysis is not about security of North America but about global dominance. My opinion on stratfor is not really profound. But half a year ago I was so shocked about this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&feature=youtu.be... I had to write something then against this horrible propaganda: http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/futurism-and-... My English is too poor to take part in further discussions here. I'm sure most will not agree with my opinions. In a manner my writing is propaganda too. But perhaps it's anyway interesting to read what (some) Europeans think.

View on HN

Well, I don't think it takes an evil genious to divide europe. It already is divided. There is no common will nor true common foreign policy of the european states. USA simply takes the few simple actions at a time it wants to enforce it's position while european statesmen do nothing.

As I see it, war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies - they need a buffer zone of emergencies to maintain an internal stability of their kleptocratic political system.

Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. What happend after that time ("no common will" etc.) is not a native European quality but the result of British and US policy. Think of the UK efforts in the 19th century that almost ruined Britain just to fight Napoleone Idea of a united Europe. - "No common will" -to repeat this again and again is simply a wish (that unfortunately came true). - Ukraine topic: watch how the borders shift over time. It tells enough about intentions behind it.

As usual, Yes, Minister explains it in an entertaining way:

    Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for 
    at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In
    that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the
    Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans,
    and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule,
    you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

    Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

    Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing
    [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the
    outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a
    complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against
    the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against
    the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

    Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?

    Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.

    Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?

    Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations,
    in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the
    more futile and impotent it becomes.

    Hacker: What appalling cynicism.

    Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.

"Inside Europe there was war at all time. But it was One economic and cultural zone. Especially from 1100 to 1800. "

This is a new notion for me. This would imply there was a single cultural entity that would encompass all of europe and a single economic system that encompasses the geographic area for this period. What would they be called?

I am sorry I brought current affairs to the discussion - it's a bit offtopic for HN and I was about to delete my first response until I found replies and felt it would be more rude at this point to remove it than not.

Discussing europe circa 19th century is ok I suppose.

This is a lot more fun than debating which browser-based MVC framework is better. ;-)

The idea that Russia wants chaos on its borders, and a ring of fire around it, is insane. Its entire economy is based on selling energy to all the regions around it. It does not need to destabilize anyone to do that. It just needs them to do better, so they buy more.

There is only one party in the world that would benefit from this type of destruction and chaos in Europe (and all over the middle east). And it is not Russia.

> war in the Ukrane is mostly due to Kremlins need to destabilize all slavic regions that are in danger of becoming well to do modern democracies

The destabilization in Ukraine happened the moment when its democratically twice-elected government was overthrown in a violent coup. Consider that millions of people have already fled from Eastern Ukraine, into Russia, and almost zero into the western regions, to get an idea of what the real situation is on the ground.

As per logic of the foreign policy of russia I have not found analysis that would persuade me to abandon Kennan's view presented in his long telegram[1] (although the political structure has shifted I doubt the psychological aspects have not that much):

'Soviet power... is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force.'

If there is a better author to read about understanding russia I would be glad to recieve any references.

[1] http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com