Has Vladimir Putin finally met his nemesis?

josip

Putin's long hold on power has been based on a strong man persona, both politically and also personally. His image is very carefully controlled to the point where, at least outside of Russia, the annual "Putin in adveturous pose" photos have become a source of humour. I have no idea what the opinion within Russia is on this. Many commentators remark that Russians have historically preferred a strong man at the helm. He is undoubtedly very powerfully politically, but while quite fit and in good shape, it's probably more PR than substance.

The latest battleground for Russia is Ukraine, and here it's looking increasingly likely he will come up against a genuine strong man. Possibly for the first time. Vitali Klitschko's pedigree of Heavyweight Boxing titles makes Putin appear like some kind of ageing Walter Mitty character. While Klitschko does not have the political experience of Putin, he does have the support of Tymoschenko and other Ukrainian political heavyweights. Considering that Putin may also be past his political prime, is it reasonable to expect Putin to be ineffective against a Klitschko inspired Ukraine?
Would a defeat in Ukraine reverbate within Russia and damage Putin's reputation sufficiently that he would be in trouble at the next elections?

Iwasfrozen

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

and then asia, and sure why not north america and mars maybe?

Iwasfrozen

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

and then asia, and sure why not north america and mars maybe?

Well Russia would include parts of Asia.

Dannyboy83

I think Klitschko will just be portrayed as nationalist scum by the Russians and Ukraine would probably split in two anyway along ethnic lines - Nationalist in the north-west, Russian in the south-East, before the whole country would join.

You have to experience Russian hero worship to believe it. I don't think Putin is in any serious trouble. Subjectively, he still looks preferable to the Yeltsin years/Gorbachev years.

The take I've seen on events from the Russian perspective is hilarious at times. Numerous Russian acquaintances have 'corrected me', that the Ukranians are protesting because they don't want to join the EU!:rolleyes:
Putin and co are masters of manipulating the average Russian through propaganda.


While we're on this topic, who within the EU decided that the Ukrainians should be allowed to join?
Should we not take a vote on this.

The idea makes me quite uncomfortable, they are the most corrupt society I have encountered. Mutual distrust of Russia isn't a good enough reason to justify attaching such a dangerous parasite to yourself imho - and before anyone says 'what about the PIIGS?', there is no comparison to be drawn here. Look at everything from their crime to HIV to corruption rates and think again.

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

While we're on this topic, who within the EU decided that the Ukrainians should be allowed to join?
Should we not take a vote on this.

Who is "we"?

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who is "we"?

... and that opens another debate on the whole concept of the perceived democratic deficit in the EU.

Manach

double post

micosoft

Manach wrote: »

... and that opens another debate on the whole concept of the perceived democratic deficit in the EU.

I fail to see the democratic nature of allowing "us" to vote on the future of another country...

Seaneh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well Russia would include parts of Asia.

As would Turkey... which you seemed to miss.

Seaneh

micosoft wrote: »

I fail to see the democratic nature of allowing "us" to vote on the future of another country...

Er, surely the democratic side of it would be "do we let them join" and if randomly appointed non-elected committees are the people making that decision instead of either the national assemblies of member states or the individual citizens of all of the EU, then it's undemocratic.

But the EU, over all, lacks any real democracy anyway, so feck it, let them in, there's shale gas to be had, hurrah.

A Primal Nut

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

Why does it need to?

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

As would Turkey... which you seemed to miss.

Yes.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Why does it need to?

To combine Russian raw materials with Western industry and technology.

A Primal Nut

micosoft wrote: »

I fail to see the democratic nature of allowing "us" to vote on the future of another country...

By the same logic, if Saudi Arabia voted to join the EU, the existing EU states shouldn't have a say in that either?

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes.

To combine Russian raw materials with Western industry and technology.

Ah shure wouldn't the Russians just give away their goal, oil and gas to us if only they were in the EU. :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't the Russians not want to develop their own industry and technology ?

And since you are such a fan of adding members mind telling us then what Turkey brings to the party ?

riffmongous

jmayo wrote: »

And since you are such a fan of adding members mind telling us then what Turkey brings to the party ?

Well what does Ireland add to the EU?

jmayo

riffmongous wrote: »

Well what does Ireland add to the EU?

Dammed if I know at this stage

Iwasfrozen

jmayo wrote: »

Ah shure wouldn't the Russians just give away their goal, oil and gas to us if only they were in the EU. :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't the Russians not want to develop their own industry and technology ?

And since you are such a fan of adding members mind telling us then what Turkey brings to the party ?

The Russians wouldn't be giving away their resources, they would be selling it to a stable market content in the knowledge the West can't place import duties on them. They would also be in political union with the other former Soviet nations and would be able to project their voice as part of a growing superpower again.

Aside from Russia itself Turkey has the most powerful military in Europe with the possible exception of Britain, they also wield huge influence in the Turkic Balkan and Caucasus regions and the wider Islamic world. Having them on board gives the EU a huge geopolitical boost.

But this is asking the wrong question, a country doesn't need to bring anything to the Union to make it a valuable member.

Defiler Of The Coffin

riffmongous wrote: »

Well what does Ireland add to the EU?

The English language, low tax rates, great educated workforce, bending over backwards/forwards for the ECB.

Oh, and the 'craic'

riffmongous

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

The English language, low tax rates, great educated workforce, bending over backwards/forwards for the ECB.

Oh, and the 'craic'

How do those things benefit the rest of the EU though?

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Russians wouldn't be giving away their resources, they would be selling it to a stable market content in the knowledge the West can't place import duties on them.

Ehh Europe or rather the EU countries need some of Russia's exports more than they need EU.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They would also be in political union with the other former Soviet nations and would be able to project their voice as part of a growing superpower again.

Didn't you notice any of the stuff going on in Ukraine ?
They have enough nuclear weapons to be a super power.
They have a seat on UN security council.
They can still project their power as in Syria and do so without added interference of Brussels sticking their nose in.
They don't need or probably want to be part of EU to wield power.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Aside from Russia itself Turkey has the most powerful military in Europe with the possible exception of Britain, they also wield huge influence in the Turkic Balkan and Caucasus regions and the wider Islamic world. Having them on board gives the EU a huge geopolitical boost.

So we want Turkey for it's conscript army ?
Would this be the same army that only a few years had top members arrested for plot to overthrow democratically elected government ?

And the converse could be argued that it also gives us part of the Islamic world, some of which wants to wipe us out.

Iwasfrozen

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh Europe or rather the EU countries need some of Russia's exports more than they need EU

Didn't you notice any of the stuff going on in Ukraine ?
They have enough nuclear weapons to be a super power.
They have a seat on UN security council.
They can still project their power as in Syria and do so without added interference of Brussels sticking their nose in.
They don't need or probably want to be part of EU to wield power.

They're a great power now and nothing more, Britain and France have the power to project themselves unilaterally in Syria as well and Turkey could do it much more efficiently than either of them given it's influence in the region. But Britain, France and Turkey know the benefits of greater European integration. Russia hasn't come round yet but I hope they do one day.

So we want Turkey for it's conscript army ?
Would this be the same army that only a few years had top members arrested for plot to overthrow democratically elected government ?

Lithuania has conscription don't hold that against them. We don't want Turkey for their army, we want Turkey because it furthers the EU's goal of uniting the continent. Their army is an added asset but their influence in the Middle east, North Africa and Caucasus is a more important asset.

And the converse could be argued that it also gives us part of the Islamic world, some of which wants to wipe us out.

Don't be paranoid, those nasty Muslamics don't want to wipe you out and Turkey is the most economically and socially progressive country in the Islamic world.

oscarBravo

Seaneh wrote: »

Er, surely the democratic side of it would be "do we let them join" and if randomly appointed non-elected committees are the people making that decision instead of either the national assemblies of member states or the individual citizens of all of the EU, then it's undemocratic.

On what planet do "randomly appointed non-elected committees" get to make that decision?

Is this the level of debate we're reduced to on the EU? We can just make stuff up and say "if the random stuff I just made up is true, then that's proof that the EU is undemocratic"?

RandomName2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Aside from Russia itself Turkey has the most powerful military in Europe with the possible exception of Britain, they also wield huge influence in the Turkic Balkan and Caucasus regions and the wider Islamic world. Having them on board gives the EU a huge geopolitical boost.

Geopolitical boost? :rolleyes:

Turkey is hated by almost all its neighbours (with the exception of Azerbaijan).

Cyprus (non-occupied), Greece, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Israel are particularly hostile; but it has no particular friends in its old colonies across the Bosporus.

Turkey's only traditional European allies (France, or more recently, Germany) are not greatly keen on its inclusion in the EU.

From a numbers point of view adding the equivalent of Britain and France to the EU would be a large step. When recent expansion has already pushed the balance towards developing rather than developed (and consequent economic migrant issues) it would seem a strange move to advocate the inclusion of a country as large as Turkey which arguably has similar economic challenges.

The strong military presence in Turkey, and its tendency towards secular junta at the expense of Islamic factions is the only thing that makes it seem even remotely a possibility - and that does not, to put it mildly, auger well.

Seaneh

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what planet do "randomly appointed non-elected committees" get to make that decision?

Is this the level of debate we're reduced to on the EU? We can just make stuff up and say "if the random stuff I just made up is true, then that's proof that the EU is undemocratic"?

Most EU policy is dictated, almost exclusively, by the EC, commissioners not elected.

Who in Ireland elected Máire Geoghegan-Quinn?

Nobody.


If you try and pretend that democratic deficiency in the EU isn't a real and current issue, you're either a liar or massively uninformed.

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what planet do "randomly appointed non-elected committees" get to make that decision?

Actually having randomly selected people on committees, historically speaking, is a good idea. From my reading of the EU texts, the centralised officials of that organisation have very much a blinked pro-European world-view. Not surprising and actually I've found them grand to interact with. However, it does not dispose them well to consider alternatives that to not meld into view point. One instance is the loops ran through to get Greece into the Euro. Another would be ignoring the deep and historical ties that the Russian elites have with that area.

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We don't want Turkey for their army, we want Turkey because it furthers the EU's goal of uniting the continent.

Unless I am mistaken the most of Turkey is actually in Asia or have you developed the same sense of Europe as UEFA, FIFA and the Eurovision.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Their army is an added asset but their influence in the Middle east, North Africa and Caucasus is a more important asset.

Ehh what influence as the other poster said ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be paranoid, those nasty Muslamics don't want to wipe you out and Turkey is the most economically and socially progressive country in the Islamic world.

Do we really want a country in the EU that had a leader who said the following "Caricatures of prophet Muhammad are an attack against our spiritual values. There should be a limit of freedom of press" about the publication of a cartoon in a newspaper in "another" European country ?
Oh and some kid decided it was a good idea to shoot a catholic priest in response to the cartoons.


Claiming Turkey is the most advanced and socially progressive country in the Islamic world is about as great a recommendation as saying franco was the best fascist leader.
Oh and Malaysia would probably argue that point anyway.

oscarBravo

Seaneh wrote: »

Most EU policy is dictated, almost exclusively, by the EC, commissioners not elected.

Neat sidestep. You claimed that the decision to allow new member states was decided by "randomly appointed non-elected committees". I called you on that, and suddenly we're talking about "most EU policy" rather than the specific question of accession.

As it happens, you're still wrong after the goalpost-moving exercise. EU policy is decided by the member state governments. Legislation to implement that policy is initiated (mostly) by the Commission, and subject (largely) to approval by the Parliament.

Who in Ireland elected Máire Geoghegan-Quinn?

Nobody.

Who elected Máire Whelan? Nobody.

There are good reasons for having some offices filled by appointment rather than election. If your only metric for anything is democracy, you've got a cripplingly one-dimensional view of the world.

If you try and pretend that democratic deficiency in the EU isn't a real and current issue, you're either a liar or massively uninformed.

Why is it an issue? Because you say it is? Who elected you the arbiter of democratic deficiency?

Manach wrote: »

Actually having randomly selected people on committees, historically speaking, is a good idea.

I don't disagree.

From my reading of the EU texts, the centralised officials of that organisation have very much a blinked pro-European world-view.

European officials in pro-Europe shocker - film at 11. Next thing you'll be telling me that US officials have a pro-US worldview. Where will it end?

Manach

Ah the joys of selective quoting. You seem to have missed the following sentence starting with "No surprise". Perhaps a refresher course in indepth reading in order?

Mr.Micro

Manach wrote: »

Actually having randomly selected people on committees, historically speaking, is a good idea.

Yes indeed, when competent, altruistic and decent people are selected, it's great. The other side of the coin though is cronyism. Jobs for the boys on boards and committees.

Dannyboy83

Lucky for us, Russia has bought them off

http://rt.com/business/ukraine-15-billion-gas-381/
Ukraine scores $15 bln from Russia, 33% gas discount

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

Jaysus, sure why stop there? Why not continue Eastwards, and pick up Syria, Iraq and the middle east? One or two of the 'stans? :eek:

Hannibal

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

Turkey will never happen in the EU. It is a Muslim country bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran and that alone would worry every other country in Europe.
Turkey is potentially an economic power due to it's size, population, location and tourism.
It has a history of strength particularly with Constantinople and the Roman Empire. More recently ie 100 years ago it was the centre of the Ottoman empire which at it's peak contained historic and cultural cities like Istanbul, Athens, Cairo, Alexandria, Tripoli, Baghdad, Bucharest and Rome apart probably the three most sacred cities for religion in the world in Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. Europe would run a mile from the history and potential of Turkey.
Russia in the EU haha?? I presume thats a joke. The EU would eventually be absolved into Russia and become an outpost. Germany would be shaking at the thought of it.

czx

Hannibal wrote: »

Russia in the EU haha?? I presume thats a joke. The EU would eventually be absolved into Russia and become an outpost. Germany would be shaking at the thought of it.

Russia could be absolved into germany #2ndwurld4lyfe

BuilderPlumber

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope so, I would love to see Ukraine join the EU. The EU needs to expand more, develop the union with the goal of eventually bringing in Turkey, the other post Soviet states and eventually Russia.

I think the EU's original plan was to expand to include Russia, all the Soviet republics, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Israel and other such countries. The reality at present means that these plans are totally derailed.

Russia: sees itself as a self contained power bloc and does not really need to be part of the EU.
Other ex USSR countries: Many have close ties to Russia instead. Others like Ukraine are unsure of their future. Yet, more like the Central Asian Republics are too remote at present to be members of the EU and forge closer ties to either Russia, America, China or surprisingly all three for different reasons.
Iran: under its new moderate government, wants to improve ties with EU but again sees its future as a regional power and would like to have Russia's status.
Iraq: is to all intents and purposes 50% a colony of the EU.
Israel: more an American satellite.
Turkey: the direction here is unsure. Earlier, we saw popular moves within it to want to join the EU but more recent Turkish politicians are not as enthusiastic as they were.
EU itself: I cannot see it take on anyone bar the former Yugoslavia nations in the near future. The Euro crisis, poor economic growth and instability in potential candidate countries (Ukraine, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon) in recent years makes matters too risky. Maybe instead we will see a looser trade based Eurasian free trade organisation or something?

BuilderPlumber

Hannibal wrote: »

Turkey will never happen in the EU. It is a Muslim country bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran and that alone would worry every other country in Europe.
Turkey is potentially an economic power due to it's size, population, location and tourism.
It has a history of strength particularly with Constantinople and the Roman Empire. More recently ie 100 years ago it was the centre of the Ottoman empire which at it's peak contained historic and cultural cities like Istanbul, Athens, Cairo, Alexandria, Tripoli, Baghdad, Bucharest and Rome apart probably the three most sacred cities for religion in the world in Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. Europe would run a mile from the history and potential of Turkey.
Russia in the EU haha?? I presume thats a joke. The EU would eventually be absolved into Russia and become an outpost. Germany would be shaking at the thought of it.

I don't think Turkey's status as a Muslim country will stop it joining the EU. Yes, there are some Islamophobes who will argue this but will turn a blind eye to Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. joining the EU simply because not too many know they are even Islamic countries (though moderate). Indirectly/unofficially, 50% of Iraq is technically already in the EU. The EU would love to have a moderate and well economically developed Iran as one of its main members (in 10-20 years time, it may be the EU's only option to financially survive). Realistically, I can see Iran enter into a transition period in the late Khamenei years (similar to Franco's latter days in Spain) with a new much more moderate post-Khamenei era that could lead anywhere (provided nothing like 9/11 or a GW Bush derails the current steps towards reform like happened under Khatami, thus leading to the election of Iran's poorest and weakest president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). However, it will more likely become a partner not a member. Turkey may desire membership. However, the fact that the EU is barely out of its crises and the Euro has barely survived means that the inclusion of other countries within it will not be on the cards for the foreseeable few years.

As regards Russia. EU would more likely form loose trade relations with Russia. Russia would not be interested in joining a union that would weaken their current superpower position. True, Russia could well absorb the EU into its borders and history has not been kind to anyone who tried to take over Russia (think Hitler, Napoleon, etc.).

Jonny7

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

IThe EU would love to have a moderate and well economically developed Iran as one of its main members (in 10-20 years time, it may be the EU's only option to financially survive)

Iran will join the EU when.. *spins wheel*.. Japan does

josip

Knock down to Klitschko!
Is Putin out of the fight or will he now start the dirty stuff?

bobcoffee

Turkey joining the EU has and will be a long term goal of the EU/turkey.
Its been in the works for a long time and nothing new with that at all.
When.. only god knows :P

as for the op in hand, eh no.. not even close..
if putin position comes under attack well he can always create another throne for him to rule with in russia.
he just basically owns Russia and don't think anyone would dare go up against him in any real fashion.

BuilderPlumber

bobcoffee wrote: »

Turkey joining the EU has and will be a long term goal of the EU/turkey.
Its been in the works for a long time and nothing new with that at all.
When.. only god knows :P

as for the op in hand, eh no.. not even close..
if putin position comes under attack well he can always create another throne for him to rule with in russia.
he just basically owns Russia and don't think anyone would dare go up against him in any real fashion.

I agree that Turkey joining the EU is a long term goal for both. With the Euro crisis, I think Turkey have had second thoughts about total membership. As for the EU itself: Expansion is not their current priority.

All that said and done, the EU has always been expansionary and longterm this will continue. I can see virtually all European, Middle Eastern and Eurasian countries potentially joining (bar one obvious one: Russia).

Most likely short-term ones to join: former Yugoslavia, Albania.
Medium term: Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, the Caucasian states, Belarus, ex-USSR central Asian states, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, etc. Some depend on the regime in charge but it may make sense for to be at least partial members for all.
Longterm: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (officially), Afghanistan (officially), Pakistan, India, etc.

At present, many of the above echo the pre-EU Status of many current EU members. Later Franco era Spain echoes very much current late Khamenei period Iran (is Hassan Rohani perhaps going to be the post-Khamenei moderate King of Iran after his term of presidency ends and should other events not derail Iran's current moderate policy). Belarus at present is ruled by Lukashenko, a hardline nationalist with a fondness for Hitler. But latterly, he recognises that this impoverished country does need to open up. As for Central Asia's regimes: they are very dictatorial and would be an embarrassment for EU membership but are needed by the West because of Afghanistan. As for other countries like India and Pakistan: the issue of a European takeover may echo colonialism too much. This will also be an element in others too. So, it will depend on how it is sold. The EU's image we must remember is currently very poor, and the downturn is especially felt in states bordering potential new members (Greece obviously but also Latvia and others).

In August 2001, I would have said many of the above would be members (and that the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be in the depression ward where they belong and not destroying countries' economies because of whatever chip is on his shoulders). BUT 9/11 either caused war, bad feeling among countries, or recession and woke up the real intentions of another mentally unstable dude called George W Bush. The wars and elections of depressed hardline idiots with no experience set things back fro years.