Quote: "However desirable cooperation with Russia may be, it should not come at the price of accepting the legitimacy of a Russian sphere of influence,"
......And that from British politicians and apparently our Defence Select Committee!
The very same people who seek a global shere of influence similar to that in the days of the British Raj and that British Empire. I wonder when these people are going to get up to date!
Never, I fear - and the same appears to apply to their ability to be realistic. For they are the very same ones who still lecture foreign politicians about how they treat their own public at home while ours do the very same things to us, but covertly, ie: seriously abusing human rights etc.
In one word: B u l l s h i t t e r s.

I thought the battle for one state supremacy's over another foreign state was fast becoming obsolete? ie., no more WWI/WW11's with country against country. What with multinationals having commercial interests in many area of the world and mixed ethnicity on the increase worldwide, it's difficult to find a country where ALL the citizens are united in holding a shared view, unlike say, Germany and Japan's (and Britain's) populace during WWII.
'
In the UK for instance, there are many who are openly sympathetic to foreign powers over British foreign policy for no other reason than they have a shared ethnicity with that foreign power. It doesn't mean they are a threat - just different. Allegiance to the 'state' is a diminishing belief. Allegiance to a variety of religous faiths and beliefs, irrespective of the that state's borders is resurgent. Russia is a polyglot of ethnicity, and acquired states; it's having a tough time holding on to them under one banner - I doubt it will remain the size it is today, over the coming century.

However, despite all the bad press it has had, there is one country in the world, unlike no other, that possesses such a melting pot of varied ethnicity's and religous faiths amongst it's populace - yet amazingly its people still openly swear allegiance to their flag and unite as one - America. So it can be done.

Russia is the more fragile in that regard, with all it's breakaway states and such like from it's former USSR days. So we are witnessing Russia's muscle-flexing attempts (paticularily through its gas and oil supplies) to show others that it is still as 'one' - and a force to be reckoned with.

- Incidentally, China (in the news again this week) is another 'state' that may not stay intact over the coming century either, it's constantly in the news over trouble with, (just like Russia), it's satellite neighbours, and this week/last week a portion of it citizens were 'at war' with another 'foreign' portion of 'Chinese' citizens. The death toll, and it's hamfisted state intervention in trying to quell the disturbances only highlighted how bubbling underneath is a massive variety of beliefs and ethnicity's just aching for their own independence from Chinese state control.

National sovereignty? State control? The people, they are revolting, sir.

I LOVE RUSSIA

That's all I'm saying...

ma278 - The Georgia war with Russia was never a factor, Georgia was reclaiming its own territory, nothing to do with Russia, Russia provoked the situation, and incidently why did the Russians invade Georgia from Abkhazia which had nothing to do with this conflict, it was all carefully orchestrated and carried out by a Russian regime which will never change, the same scenario will occur in the Ukraine, incidently I am not from that part of the world but have lived in all those countries mentioned and I love the Russian people but not their so called democratically elected government.

We would all do well to remember the huge sacrifice that Russia made in both world wars. The Russian Communist party dragged the people up from the serfdom that the Romanovs were so content with and turned the USSR into a major industrial nation. It is extremely unlikely that @#$% Germany would have been defeated without the aid of the USSR.

But then came Potsdam and all the political chicanery and resultant mess that effectively started the "Cold War" - a state of being that no nation could afford. The USSR saw itself surrounded by enemies who were once allies and took the steps that it saw essential to protect itself and it's people. Any nation would do the same in similar cir@#$%stances.

I remember those days very well indeed - the almost constant worry that some lunatic would actually launch a nuclear attack. But, somehow, the world seemed more stable than it does today.

The break up of the USSR had to happen. The system was not working and the nations within the USSR were beginning to regress. Change was inevitable and when it came most people welcomed it. Unfortunately, the dispersal of the USSR left only one major player on the world stage - the USA. One superstar is always a dangerous thing. The USA proved this point with their foriegn policy, particularly during the two Bush administrations that have both cost the world far, far too much.

We should welcome Russia back as a major power to the world stage. I believe that the world will be a much safer place with them than without.

i like a bit of russian slab cake from time to time

The real tragedy of Russia is that it has never experienced true freedom and democracy. It went from centuries of despotic rule under the Tsars to despotic rule under the Communists. Now it has 'Democratic Communism' and the Russian Mafia controlling it. Like everyone else I was relieved when the Communists Governments fell like nine-pins in 1989/90 but I was wary at the same time. I said then, 'We'll have to wait and see what happens, after they've embraced everything Western, got their hands on our technology and joined our markets. because maybe, just maybe, this whole 'dropping of communism' and is just a KGB plot, once they've lulled us into a false sense of security, they'll do what they always planned to do, take us over and enslave us!' The last 20 years could, if we're not careful just turn out to be a 'Prague Spring'. So as much as I admire Russia and I do, I'm nevertheless sceptical and we and our Governments should be too.

To all those people out there who are saying britain is not a power and how our war with Iraq was illegal etc ( btw what really makes any war legal, i mean the whole notion of a legal war is absurd, war is about taking resources or keeping an enemy weak to protect interests, how can a war be legal or just) , you are right britain isnt a power but half the reason is because we live in a country which is essentially a ventilation machine for the lazy s@#$% that our society produces, how much do you think thats costing us and more to the point how much do you think we are losing out on in potential industry? The other half of the reason is because our country is filled with a generation of hippy surrender monkeys like yourselves who would like to see britain in chains for its crimes for some absurd reason. As a people you seriously lack any national pride but if you would just look at what we have achieved and still achieve maybe youd stop being so pathetic. Oh and also stop blaming Gordon Brown , were in a recession people, Neville Chamberlain would be hard pressed to make a noticeable improvement.

The old 'Balance of Power' ploy, as well illustrated during the Cold War? While this article has a semblance of reason, it seems to propose support of Policies which have little to do with 'people', and more to do with 'Nations', and 'Statesmen'.
::
There is every reason to be strong. To do otherwise is folly, given the current state of Man's evolution (still motivated by agression, greed, envy, hate, etc.). As has been (and still is) demonstrated all over the world, the weak are exploited by the strong(er). So strength is essential, not in terms of surviving our environment, but to survive Man's predation.
::
However, the 'Balance of Power' approach, while superficially very reasonable, is as open to abuse as pretty much anything, and as we can see, Man is pretty good at exploitation and abuse. If he can, he will, and does. It also leads to bankrupt and dangerous reason. It led to the 'Arms Race', which in a Nuclear context is risible. When is more enough? No, we had to match the 'enemy' weapon for weapon in the (deluded imo) proposition that this would prevent conflict. Did it? Well there was no Nuclear War, but come on, no conflict? As if... Add to that the staggering amounts of money to be made in the weapons industry, and weak (greedy/arrogant/self-serving) executives and you have a recipe for weapons production that continuously escalates. And who are the beneficiaries of that? Our 'Security'?
::
Now, what can be argued is that it is 'easier' to deal with 'Russia' (whoever that is now) as a strong(er) unified 'Nation'. From a Diplomatic perspective, this is probably true, but is it the best way taking all things (as much as possible) into consideration. I am certainly in favour of 'pragmatism', given the broken condition of Human Nature at the moment, but I am not in favour of stopping thinking or trying when an 'easier' way is chosen which seems to deal with any situation. Russia may be a case in point. Russia is NEVER going to invade the West. It knows it can't win, and it would suffer massively too. That is because we are too strong. However, in this return to power politics reminiscent of the Cold War mentality, what prospect is there for promoting the welfare of humanity? Perhaps it would be better to try and deal with the pieces resulting from the break up of the Soviet Union, even if that were to be more inconvenient and challanging? Perhaps there may be a better long term prospect for the welfare of all?
::
Any large authoritarian structure is suspect. It does not guarantee any effort towards universal welfare, and tends towards unaccountability, elitism, secrecy, and corruption. What may be 'easier' for the Diplomats may make no contribution towards the progress and welfare of anyone apart from the priviledged. Has it not always been thus? If so, what gives us any confidence that it would be any different now?

Historically Russia has provoked far fewer wars than we have and if it had not been for her the results of the Second World War would have been vastly different. The Cold War is over and the rationale for NATO is open to question, What we should be doing is to invite Russia to join the EC. Give Russia a sense of security and she will be a staunch ally and with China increasing its power we need a friendly power in the east.