Comments by N29

:-)

Is France 18% racist?

Not just 18% and not just racist (try xenophobic).

This article is a refreshing Thursday evening bout of jolly old British rosy-eyed wishful thinking!!!

Don't put Russia into a normal country framework because it is not. There will be no end to Putin until he holds the army and the security services.
Russians can protest in hundreds of thousands if they so wish.

And even if he is no longer the president, United Russia is creating an oligarch structure meant to truly run the country irrespective of how it looks from an outside perspective. With him on the top.

The only reason there is no harsher crackdown on protesters is because Putin wants to spur a modernisation and privatisation programmes. For this he needs Western capital, expertise and technology but make no mistakes:
He will be the man in charge for years to come!

And the question is not an easy one to answer. It will survive but not intact. After this crisis, everything will be different.
People that say the crisis sped Europe's integration and laid the ground for the United states of Europe got it all wrong in my opinion. Countries will stick together to weather the crisis for a few more years.
After that they will know that they are on their own. Staying in will be a huge risk.

It will survive 2012. But not 2020.
It will be a whole new game in Europe after the changes agreed on in December are made.

When these changes (loss of sovereignity and reduction in living standards) have to be implemented with no imminent disaster looming, policy makers somewhere will begin to appreciate going the other way - to the gradual dismantling of the Zone.

With all due respect, you haven't experienced Russian domination and I have, so I will be worrying about it.
In fact I will be worrying in a decline of American power (I don't say Anglo-Saxon because Briatin has no power worth mentioning) because that leaves powers like Russa, Germany and Turkey much more freedom than I would be willing to see.
Look back to history - the whole region I come from depends on outside powers underwritnig it. When outside powers waned like Britain and France in the 20th century, there was suffering (ask anybody from Poland or the Czech Republic).

Excuse me for the reality check my dear friend but you turned all of Eastern Europe into a Gulag of sorts.
I am a Bulgarian and my views on the red army are very diferent from yours. I am very very sorry that the "agressors" didn't come to my homeland first. We had to endure your workers-peasants regime for decades before we were finally able to welcome the "agressors" to our homelands.
Now we'll help them stay in.

The idea that this shield is aimed at protecting Europe from a nuclear attack from Iran is laughable and anybody who believes it lives in la-la land.

Russia doesn't care about the shiled's interceptors. It cares about American boots on the ground in Eastern Europe.
If these countries, from Estonia to Bulgaria, begin to coordinate more on defence backed by American power, they will by necessity stand in opposition to Russian resurgence in the former Soviet states.
At best such a formation will turn into a cordon sanitaire. It makes sense for the US to nip Russia in the bud - it spent trilions on the Cold War and is not about to give Russia any more room to maneuvre like it did with Georgia and Ukraine.
At worse - such a scenario will turn into a national security threat for Moscow in 10-15 years when it will be facing a demographic crisis on an epic scale.

It will be interesting, that's for sure!

So they'll announce their comprehensive strategy on 23rd (Sunday) rather than on 17-18 (Monday-Tuesday) as initially planned.
That strategy will obviously have effect on the markets. The announce will probably contain a plan to restructure Greek debt, as this newspaper has long suggested, but will it contain anything about ejecting Greece from the Eurozone?

I sincerely hope not but I am also very aware of the fact that the Greek government has been dragging its feet lately precisely counting on the fear of widespread depression if Greece is ejected from the Zone. They rest assured that bailing them out is cheap as opposed to the risk involved into throwing them out.
The Merkozy duo however may be thinking it is time to teach everybody else a lesson and that they have the ability to fireproof the rest of Europe, while leaving Greece to reap what it sow.

Surely Germany cannot risk bailing Greece out regardless and pave the way for a transfer union. And from a long-term perspective Greece cannot go back to growth any time soon while using the euro. From an economic perspective bailing Greece out makes a lot of sense. From a political one - not so much.

Well I would just like to say that the Awkward Squad has a lot of things going on for them in the longer term when compared to the Relaxed Squad (that would be Western Europe):

1) They are fiscally very well compared with most of the West - this means they will not lose their sovereignity to Germnay as will (has?) most of Club Med. The new EFSF is not an EU institution, it is backed by the faith and credit of the German government and is fully controlled by it. CLub Med will either have to play ball to whatever Berlin commands or lose access to it and risk default.
The Club cannot grow out of its misery - most of these coutries are facing a demographic catastrophe combined with the inability to devalue their currencies and thus become more competitive.

2) The "awkward" societies have passed through a tough retrenchment and are a lot more resilient than westerners. An unrest of the scale seen in the "relaxed" societies is not an issue. The "awkward" weathered the crisis quite well, without a German bailout and most without any bailout.

3) Like the "relaxed", the "awkward" are facing a major demograhic crisis but unlike the "relaxed", the "awkward" do not have the anti-immigrant sentiment that has built up in the West. All of Europe will need an influx of migrants to tackle the coming demographic crisis but Eastern Europe is better posed to take it. It can also benefit from an infux from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and the Western Balkans - societies that are closer culturally and linguistically

4) The "awkward" are behind with infrastructure and technology but this is being transferred through the EU cohesion funds and through foreign investemnt into growing, stable and prospective economies. This catch-up means sustainable improvement in productivity and => economic growth despite bad demography. It also means steady return of now educated and prosperous diasporras from Western Europe and elsewhere, bringing know-how.

5) 20 years after the collpase of the USSR, suppressed creativity is now beginning to surface. Investment in innovations and new techology will speed this process up.

6) The US has strategic interests in the region trying to limit the Russian resurgence in its former sphere, Russia's clout on the region's energy, the blossoming russo-german relationship and the increase of turkish-islamic influence in the Balkans. BMD is only one aspect of this. This relationship is bound to bring more investment and evolve from strategic to economic.

7) China is interested into investing in the "awkward" zone as both a more perspective and less fussy destination and as a backway into the whole EU. That is best expressed in China's interest into the privatisation of the Greek port in Thessaloniki as a gateway into East Europe.

In this decade we'll see the awkward squad (from Estonia, through the Czech Republic and Croatia, to Bulgaria) grow while the relaxed squad to stagnate with a few exceptions.
Perhaps we'll even see a few favourable articles from the Economist?

Having experiensed life in London, where I currently reside, I have constantly repeated to my fellow countrymen that, they don't have so many reasons to whine about how miserable life is to them. There is so much pessimism there it sometimes catches up.

My brother was outraged a couple of years ago because several streets were blocked by a real snow storm and he had to go to work not using his usual route. Cursing country and government "and we call ourselves a European country!"

That same year all buses in London were suspended because of literally three inches of snow. So I told him to shut it!

A combination of modesty and self-criticism contributes very much to a bad (where any) reputation - and articles here about how surprised people were when they first went to Bulgaria - they expected a complete dump. They teach modesty is a virtue here because people really tend to exaggerate anything they have achieved. As far as Bulgaria (and most other Easern European countries) are concerned, I think it is a vice

The article claims that Brits are more interested in American politicians than their own?

That's because Brits are intelligent people - they've already worked out (though don't like to admit) that the faith of their country depends far more on American politicians

I've heard that some newspapers are publishing stupid articles in August both because of the high temperatures and because the proper journalists are on leave but copmaring Poland to Turkmenistan and Lybia (a state long controlled by the whims of a madman) rather than to Sweden is shall we say male cow's excreta (so I don't receive yet another email from the moderator)

Turkmenistan, on the other hand, which the article foolishly gives as a comparison is a country isolated by Russia with nowhere else to go and as long as Russia maintains its dominance there (and in all of Central Asia) it will remain a dictatorship. It has no economic options because any infrastructure to link it with Azerbaidjan and Europe should pass through the Caspian Sea (which is Russian controlled) or, worse - through Iran, and any infrastructure that is to link it with China has to pass through Kazachstan (also Russian controlled) or Uzbekistan (an enemy) and from there Kyrgyzstan (rugged and also Russian controlled). Isolated, weak, with no economic options and outside USA's reach and protection. Does that sound like Poland? I don't think so

Poland is strategically situated on the North European Plain and a vital link between Western Europe and Russia. Germany owes its economic prowess to a great extent precisely because it controls a similar portion of the same plain - it is at a crossroads through which transportation and trade flow. Poland is also an EU country and a democratic state - maybe there is some influence lingering from the Cold War days but this is diminishing with time and is bound to die out sooner rather than later. The country is looking at improving productivity and rule of law, not going back to the old soviet days

I am also quite disgruntled with the Economist's constant negativity about Bulgaria but let's not forget that there was much hope about the country's direction after Borisov's election and yet everybody is dissatisfied with the pace of reforms and the mixed signals the government sends abroad. And so is the Economist
Our country's treachorous position with regards to Moscow also isn't helping. And I suspect these are the main reasons for Economist's ire. It sometimes makes me question the objectivity of the newspaper. Yet time and again the Economist have proved right every time I doubted it.
Bulgaria both economically and strategically tries to sit somewhere in between, instead of making a firm chocie and then sticking to its guns. It looks as if it tries to win the best of two worlds and usually ends up woth the worst of both.
Are we making an economic reform so we can grow or are we trying to keep the tobacco producers happy? Are we going for the euro with a balanced budget or are we trying to keep labour unions happy? Are we making a reform in the health sector or are we trying to keep the doctors happy? Are we a NATO country or a "trojan horse" that tries to make its energy sector even more dependent on Russia than it already is?
I keep my view postive and repeat myself that when (mind you not if) the Economist have a good reason to publish positive articles for Bulgaria, then the weight of these articles will be much bigger.
Besides the country, which is a great unknown for most foreginers, has been constantly seen in negative light for almost a century - we can't seriously expect this view to change because of a few events of questionable value

I doubt Putin will go for the presidency in 2012. Maybe he'll let Medvedev hold it for another term (which may not last till the end). Russia needs modernisation, which inevitably means foreign influence, as well as western money and technology. Putin was paving the way for his return in 2012 but that was long time ago - now he has realised that he underestimated the crisis and overestimated Russia's economic prowess, so he first need to take care of the economy, while consolidating the sphere of influence in the former soviet union
The West preffers to deal with Medvedev but Putin is the man that holds the security services, so he can deal with Medvedev at his leisure if and when the need arises.
But western influence also means destabilisation from the Kremlin's perspective; it means a looser grip for Moscow.
At any point in its history when Russia has attempted to get closer to the West and to adopt its ways for economic gain, destabilization always, always followed. And Putin will then come back to save "rodinu"

At Michal31
It is precisely when two countries are linked economically and politically that frictions occur. Do you have any idea how much linked were Russia nad Germany in the beginning of 20th century? A bit more than a decade before WW1?
That serious armed conflict does not sound probable now, doesn't mean it won't happen in 10-15 years. And it certainly doesn't mean that Eastern European countries and NATO should not be prepared if something like this happens, no matter how inprobable it may seem now. And I don't think this is all that inprobable - Russia and Belarus trained for invading the Balts and nuking Poland just last year!!!
The Georgian war started Cold War 2 (though one might argue that this started in 2004 year-end with the Orange Revolution) - hope it won't heat up, but plan that it will

Mikein
where do you have this info from?

@ Steve6400
It's not the only country. After WW1 the two eastern European allies of Germany were (thanks to French meddling and Anglo-Saxon indifference) completely surrounded and left indefensible on purpose. For Hungary the French devised the Little Entente consisting of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. For Bulgaria it was the Balkan Entente consisting of Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey. Granted Bulgaria was more defensible to its west and south-west border (mountain ranges) and had sea access it got away a little bit better but it also has (to this day) significant minorities in all countries that surrond it.
It has always been my feeling that some kind of a federation (or a confederation if the former is too much of a push) in eastern Europe will be the only way to keep everybody happy and prevent the region to end up like a giant Yugoslavia. It is very important though that there is no dominant force in it - the EU will not become a federation because Germany and Frnace are attmpting to turn this diverse union into a vehicle to promote their national interests and they are the dominant countries in it. Like Serbia was in Yugoslavia, Russia in the USSR, the Czech republic in Czechoslovakia and Prussia in Germany - none ended well.