The EU started membership negotiations with Iceland on Tuesday. The country applied for membership last year as it stood on the verge of state bankruptcy. But the accession is subject to a referendum and its outcome is uncertain, the press writes.

No such thing as partial accession

The daily Kurier can’t entirely understand the Icelanders’ sudden EU-weariness:

“The mood can swing that quickly: Only last autumn a majority of the 320,000 Icelanders saw swift accession to the EU as their way out of state bankruptcy. Now that the membership negotiations have officially begun at least six out of ten Icelanders are against it.

… It’s no wonder people are already betting that Iceland’s binding referendum on EU membership will produce a negative result. In Reykjavik people are pointing to their close brothers in Norway, who are doing very well without the EU. But the Icelanders – and anyone else who wants to shelter under the EU’s roof – must be clear about one thing: There’s no such thing as ‘a little EU membership’. It’s either all or nothing.” (Kurier – Austria | 28/07/2010)

Little interest in Europe

Iceland’s accession to the EU is very uncertain, the daily Keskisuomalainen writes, because the people of Iceland will have the last word on whether it should happen:

“The general positions are clear. Iceland is a stable democracy, already belongs to the European Economic Area and the Schengen zone, which facilitates cross-border travel, and its legislation for the most part already fulfils EU requirements. Special issues like whaling and the consequences of the economic crisis are the problem areas. … The Icelanders must themselves want to join the EU, but at the moment a clear majority want the government to withdraw its application for membership, which it filed a year ago in the midst of the economic crisis. So it’s doubtful that the people will vote for membership. Norway, too, has rejected the EU twice, in 1972 and 1994.” (Keskisuomalainen – Finland | 28/07/2010)

Negotiations more difficult than expected

Given the Icelanders’ EU scepticism and their bankrupt Icesave bank the daily Delo foresees difficulties with the country’s membership talks with the EU:

“There are many awkward issues, perhaps even more than Iceland’s Foreign Minister Össur Skarphéðinsson expects for the accession negotiations, where the EU member countries will impose special conditions (see Icesave bank). Iceland may not have knocked at the EU’s door empty-handed: in addition to its key geostrategic situation the country is prepared to contribute its knowledge and experience on the introduction of renewable energies, an area where Iceland already surpasses even the EU’s boldest plans. But as the negotiations begin it’s difficult to shrug off the unpleasant feeling that a sad epilogue will follow the dialogue that was initiated with such great ambitions and intentions on both sides.” (Delo – Slovenia | 28/07/2010)

Membership beneficial to both sides

Rapid EU accession for Iceland would be beneficial to both sides, writes the left-liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung: “It only stands to reason that the Icelanders look to the large family of Europe for protection, bearing in mind their experience in the rough winds of international financial markets. In helping the faltering North-Atlantic nation the EU is above all pursuing geostrategic interests. Every square kilometre of water opened up by the melting ice cap brings new trade routes through the Arctic Ocean and better access to resources. With Iceland on board the EU could secure for itself an appreciable share of Arctic business. And it could have greater influence in seeing to it that the Arctic Region is handled with care. Over and above that Iceland itself would be a boon to the EU… as far as both renewable energies and fisheries are concerned. The Icelanders live primarily from fishing, and do much to ensure that fish stocks are maintained. In this regard they are well ahead of their continental European counterparts, who are mostly content to empty the seas as quickly as they can.” (Süddeutsche Zeitung – Germany | 28/07/2010)Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

The Internet platform Wikileaks in cooperation with three major media sources published on Sunday secret reports about the war in Afghanistan. They convey an unadorned image of the situation in the country and have triggered an international uproar. Europe’s press is divided about this new transparency.

The war in Afghanistan is lost

After the publishing of more than 90,000 obviously compromising documents the daily Der Standard declares the Afghanistan war a failure:

“No matter what strategies the US, Brussels and Kabul come up with their credibility has been destroyed. How are they supposed to explain that a special task force has been hunting down the Taliban for years now without success? How can they justify publicly praising cooperation with the Pakistani authorities when it turns out that the Pakistani secret service is ‘probably the Taliban’s most important non-Afghan helper’?

… Criticism of the risky operation will grow in all countries involved. For Nato, which since the end of the Cold War has seen it’s role as that of the global policeman, this raises the question of its legitimacy. Despite the official exhortations to hold out it’s long been clear that this war cannot be won. The parallels with Vietnam are becoming obvious: In 1971 a US court forced the publishing of secret documents on the situation in Vietnam, nowadays the Internet ensures transparency.” (Der Standard – Austria | 27/07/2010)

Publication undermines war morale

The tabloid The Sun roundly condemns the publishing of more than 90,000 mostly secret documents on the Afghan war:

“The publication of intelligence reports by left-wing journals in Britain, Germany and America can only have one effect – to undermine the morale of the frontline men and women who are prepared to give their lives for freedom. Military chiefs warn yesterday’s disclosures will put at risk the lives of even more British and American soldiers. And it will help undermine the trust between the coalition partners fighting in Afghanistan – as well as increasing public anxiety. The clown who published the files said they seemed to show ‘evidence of war crimes’. But it is the man who leaked them in the first place who should be in the dock. And quickly. He has done enough harm.” (The Sun – United Kingdom | 27/07/2010)

Wikileaks ruins investigative journalism

Wikileaks has made a scoop with its documents on the Afghan war yet the renowned papers researched and published the same facts years ago, writes the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

“The masochism of a profession that doesn’t attach much value to its own achievements and the public’s one-sided perception have acquired new dimensions with Wikileaks. There have always been people who out of revenge, greed for profit or genuine indignation have leaked the confidential documents of their employers to a newspaper. Investigative journalism would be unthinkable without these whistleblowers. But Wikileaks is taking this phenomenon to a new level. The platform maintains that in three years it has published 1.2 million documents – for which Wikileaks would have had to receive, examine and publish more than 1,000 reports daily. One may doubt the veracity of these figures but the platform’s impact can’t be denied. It reverses the normal media ranking order: the New York Times and the Spiegel don’t do the investigative journalism, they just print the investigative products of others.” (Neue Zürcher Zeitung – Switzerland | 27/07/2010)

Disclosures also affect Estonia

The disclosures about military deployments in Afghanistan should prompt Estonians to revise their views about Nato, according to the news portal Delfi:

“Until now above all official Estonia has spoken about the rights and duties of a Nato member, including our participation in the Afghanistan mission. Now however we are confronted with a far more complicated situation. If Nato offers the right to protection and the duty to participate in joint missions, does that mean there is also a collective responsibility for the killing of civilians? Estonian soldiers are not mentioned specifically in the published documents, but we are allies of the Americans, British and other Nato partners accused of having shot civilians, including children. As long as the focus was on civil reconstruction we were happy to share the laurels. But how do things look now when it’s time to share the burden of guilt?” (Delfi – Estonia | 27/07/2010)Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have announced at a meeting in Yekaterinburg that they plan to step up economic cooperation between their countries. The press writes that while contracts running into the billions will improve relations, democratic reforms in Russia remain indispensable.

Reforms secure the market

As Russia’s biggest foreign investor Germany should push for constitutional reforms in the country, writes the conservative daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung following the German-Russian government consultations in Yekaterinburg: “The Russian agenda for improving the infrastructure and modernising the plants seems perfect for German companies. We hear time and again that lighthouses, high-profile projects with political backing, are lacking. In Russia symbols are important and the state plays an important role in the economy. But what determines success or failure in the long term is how good the products and services are. It is also important that to have the right general conditions for a free market system in Russia. Germany’s political leadership should be pressing for this. And Russia’s appeal as a market also depends on it.” (Neue Zürcher Zeitung – Switzerland | 16/07/2010)

Business ensures harmony

The prospect of billions in business contracts is dispelling Germany’s reservations about Russia, writes liberal-conservative daily Corriere della Sera on the summit in Yekaterinburg: “Angela Merkel has set aside her reservations about Russia. Perhaps partly because President Dmitry Medvedev’s manners are pleasanter than those of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. But also thanks to the prospect of contracts Moscow holds out to Germany. … After years of scepticism and caution Frau Merkel is now inclined to intensify relations with Moscow. The chancellor is bowing to the massive pressure coming from Germany’s business community. The German government sees exports as the best way to boost the economy. Securing Russia’s market will be Berlin’s top priority.” (Corriere della Sera – Italy | 16/07/2010)

Germany must mediate

Germany has an important role to play in Moscow’s rapprochement with Europe, writes the left-liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Yekaterinburg: “Merkel is well advised to project this new rapprochement as a deal based on mutuality. Accordingly an unremarkable pilot project is taking on high significance. On the edge of Russia’s sphere of influence the Transnistria problem lies dormant, an almost forgotten conflict which divides Moldova and has left an anachronistic regime left over from the final phase of the Soviet Union under Russian military protection. … The US is far away from Europe these days. So it’s up to Germany to find a balance between the West and the East of Europe. … Now Angela Merkel is taking on the role of chief nurse. She has the good fortune to be dealing with a Russian president who apparently is not abusing these relations to further his plans for power.” (Süddeutsche Zeitung – Germany | 16/07/2010)Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

Spain has defeated the Netherlands to win the FIFA World Cup for the first time. The press urges politicians to learn from the harmonious play of the Spanish team, praises the unaccustomed unity of the Netherlands during the World Cup and takes heart that at least in football, Europe is right at the top.

Harmonious national team a model for all Spain

Spain won the World Cup for the first time on Sunday. The conservative daily ABC would like to see the same kind of harmonious teamwork in politics as in the stadium:

“Football is a team sport and the Spanish team worked together like a well-oiled machine with each piece doing the work it should do and even going that extra mile which tends to bring victory. And this is so unusual in today’s Spain, where each piece does its own thing, that it’s worth more than all the World Cup trophies in the world. That players from different teams and regions fit in so well with each other and fought in unison for the national colours has shown us that football has gone beyond a sport to become an example for civic coexistence.” (ABC – Spain | 12/07/2010)

World Cup unites Dutch

For the third time in the history of the World Cup the Netherlands has lost the final. Despite the understandable disappointment this championship has done the country a world of good, writes the left-liberal daily De Volkskrant:

“For a while the Dutch saw themselves as participators in the success of Oranje rather than the inhabitants of a divided country. The World Cup was an experience that united the Dutch. And they needed that experience. … We needn’t have any illusions about how long the cheerful mood will last.

… Yet it is undisputed that the last few weeks were marked by a rare sense of unity.

… There are few experiences the millions of Dutch all share with each other. But many years from now almost every Dutch citizen will still remember where and with whom they witnessed the spectacle and what they felt when the final whistle was blown. In the old days wars and occupations brought people together. Now a game of football can do the same.” (De Volkskrant – Netherlands | 12/07/2010)

Europe still best in football

With Spain, the Netherlands and Germany, three European teams have won medals at the FIFA World Cup in South Africa. This is at least one thing the old continent can be happy about, the business paper Hospodářské noviny writes:

“The spectre of decline is haunting Europe. The euro is in crisis. France and Germany, traditionally the political and economic motors of the Union, cannot agree on how to reform the financial sector or get the economy out of recession. Outside Europe’s borders people are saying that Europe’s best days are over, and that it is losing its political and economic clout on the global stage. Nevertheless the Europeans can still be proud that they play the best football.

… And football is the realm where the ideal of an open market free of internal borders is best exemplified.

… If Europe learns from football it can also sow the seeds of long-term optimism.” (Hospodářské noviny – Czech Republic | 12/07/2010)

Africa’s new image

The World Cup has improved Africa’s image, writes the daily Dagens Nyheter:

“The image of Africa as a continent torn by war, chaos and poverty is no longer the only one. Certainly poverty is still widespread and in some regions the conflicts appear unsolvable. But many African countries are faring relatively well.

… Arduous reforms have got these countries back on the right track. Sustainable economic development seems possible in Africa too. And naturally the Africans themselves are capable of taking the helm and steering in the right direction. The World cup has shown how much can be achieved with strength of will.” (Dagens Nyheter – Sweden | 12/07/2010)Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed

General Synod (parliament) of the Church is meeting in York (founded by the Romans in 71 CE) in United Kingdom from July nine to 13 and women bishops’ legislation is one of the major debate in the agenda.

Women were equal partners in the society and they should be equal partners in the Church also. Make them bishops without any limits and conditions having exactly equal roles as men bishops, Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, pointed out in a statement in Nevada (USA) today.

Quoting Hindu scriptures, Rajan Zed said: Where women are honored, there the gods are pleased.

Presently, women can be ordained as priests but are barred from holding office of bishop. Principle of changing Church of England law to permit female bishops already has synod support. Synod will probably give a final approval in February 2012.

About 1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month and Dr. Rowan Douglas Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury.Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

So you’ve heard all rumors about HTML5 would take over Adobe Flash. While most web community argues that it’s possible or not, you must be wandering what makes HTML5 so powerful that even giant company Apple wants to use it to replace Flash.

Hongkiat put together a great list of sites that are already using HTML5 (click here to view) and it is quite clearly a huge step forward.

In fact, I was just on a site that shook and moved around because I altered the size of my browser. I think it is safe to say: Goodnight, Flash.

Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

The Slovak Prime Minister Iveta Radičová

The new centre-right government follows the 4-year Coalition Agreement that was signed between the SDKU-DS (EPP), the KDH (EPP), the SaS, and MOST-HID. SDKU-DS leader Mikuláš Dzurinda is the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and KDH leader Ján Figeľ is the new Minister of Transport.

“I warmly congratulate Prime Minister Iveta Radičová and her new EPP-led government, which includes many high-profile and experienced EPP personalities. I am convinced that the Radičová government will offer effective and credible policies, which will steer away from Fico’s populist/socialist policy debacles,” the EPP President underlined.

“Iveta Radičová has the political skills, the European commitment, and the dynamism to make this centre-right coalition government a great success. I look forward to receiving her at the next EPP Summit of heads of state and government, and also receving her Ministers at the upcoming EPP Ministerial meetings,” Martens added.

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

Secretary General of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Nikolay Bordyuzha and First Deputy Director of Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation (FSMTC of Russia) Alexander Fomin took part in the ceremony of the Agreement signing.

Intellectual and productive assets of the CSTO states will form the basis of the Interstate Corporation of Development. Currently the Manufacturing Association named after A.S. Popov (Russia) and Corporation “AK-Maral” (Kyrgyzstan) have confirmed their intention to enter the Corporation. In the framework of the business program of the First International Forum “Engineering Technologies 2010” there were business meetings with representatives of Military-industrial complexes of Armenia and Kazakhstan who expressed readiness for entering the Interstate Corporation of Development.

The Agreement is expressed so as the Corporation will be formed by December 30, 2010 and provide the creation of more than 3,000 jobs, total production volume by 2020 is to amount to 50 billion Rubles.Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

New president brings fresh prospects

After the victory of Bronisław Komorowski in the Polish presidential elections the country should return to harmony and stability, writes Estonian politician Marko Mihkelson in his blog:

“Komorowski’s success is also a triumph for Prime Minister Donald Tusk because both belong to the same party and this means that the leadership of the country lies in the same hands. This is particularly important for economic policy decisions and to steer the country towards the euro. The budget deficit is at over seven percent and introducing the single currency will hardly be possible before 2015. Komorowski’s victory also contains the clear message that Poland’s influence in the EU will increase because along with Jarosław Kaczyński the eurosceptic camp has suffered a defeat. In the coming year Poland will take over the EU Council presidency and the results of the presidential election open up new prospects for that.” (Blog Marko Mihkelson – Estonia | 06/07/2010)

Poles led by sense of reason

In the presidential elections the Poles were not led by their feelings but by their sense of reason, because the victor Bronisław Komorowski stands for a future with Europe and for peace in his own country, writes the daily NRC Handelsblad:

“The upshot is that Poland won’t have to face another cohabitation along French lines. Because the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, party comrade of the former parliamentary speaker Komorowski, was hindered in its functions by the former president, who had a veto right and sometimes even literally stood in the way of the prime minister at European summit meetings in Brussels.

… How long this situation of political stability will last in Poland is a moot point. Parliamentary elections will take place next year, and in the meantime even Poland will not be able to avoid unpopular crisis measures. Opposition leader Kaczyński will try to turn that to his advantage.” (NRC Handelsblad – Netherlands | 07/2010)

All clear for reforms

The election of Bronisław Komorowski as Polish president clears the way for much needed reforms, writes the left-liberal daily Népszabadság: “As opposed to Jarosław Kaczyński, Komorowski is duty-bound to the West. And he has the backing of the educated classes. … In electing Komorowski as head of state the Poles have not only voted for Western-oriented policies, but also for – possibly painful – changes. And above all they have voted for an end to the politically motivated social division in the country. Komorowski’s election is a major victory for his party, the liberal Civic Platform, and for Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

… The government can no longer put off pressing reforms, for example of the health and pension systems.” (Népszabadság – Hungary | 07/2010)Popular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle

The proposal emerged out of talks between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier in June and is based on a draft Russia drew up in 2008. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be present at the meeting. Peschke said, “We want to further elaborate and discuss it within the triangle [i.e., France, Germany and Poland] in the presence of the Russian foreign minister.”

On the surface, the proposal developed by Merkel and Medvedev appears primarily structural. It raises security discussions about specific trouble spots to the ministerial level rather than the ambassadorial level, with a committee being formed consisting of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Russia’s foreign minister.

All of this seems rather mild until we consider three things. First, proposals for deepening the relationship between Russia and the European Union have been on the table for several years without much progress. Second, the Germans have taken this initiative at a time when German foreign policy is in a state of flux. And third, the decision to take this deal to France and Poland indicates that the Germans are extremely sensitive to the geopolitical issues involved, which are significant and complex.

Reconsidering Basic Strategy

The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French — along with the rest of Europe — to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany’s memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity.

Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it.

After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe — in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe — then the rationale for European integration became problematic.

The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment.

The Pull of Russia

In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany’s economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. 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.

The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner — if not a new one.

At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe — France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war.

The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France’s security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France.

Even more delicate is the question of Poland. Poland is caught between Russia and Germany. Its history has been that of division between these two countries or conquest by one. This is a burning issue in the Polish psyche. A closer relationship between Germany and Russia inevitably will generate primordial fears of disaster in Poland.

Therefore, Wednesday’s meeting with the so-called triangular group is essential. Both the French and the Poles, and the Poles with great intensity, must understand what is happening. The issue is partly the extent to which this affects German commitments to the European Union, and the other part — crucial to Poland —is what this does to Germany’s NATO commitments.

The NATO Angle

It is noteworthy the Russians emphasized that what is happening poses no threat to NATO. Russia is trying to calm not only Poland, but also the United States. The problem, however, is this: If Germany and Europe have a security relationship that requires prior consultation and cooperation, then Russia inevitably has a hand in NATO. If the Russians oppose a NATO action, Germany and other European states will be faced with a choice between Russia and NATO.

To put it more bluntly, if Germany enters into a cooperative security arrangement with Russia (forgetting the rest of Europe for the moment), then how does it handle its relationship with the United States when the Russians and Americans are at loggerheads in countries like Georgia? The Germans and Russians both view the United States as constantly and inconveniently pressuring them both to take risks in areas where they feel they have no interest. NATO may not be functional in any real sense, but U.S. pressure is ever-present. The Germans and Russians acting together would be in a better position to deflect this pressure than standing alone.

Intriguingly, part of the German-Russian talks relate to a specific security matter — the issue of Moldova and Transdniestria. Moldova is a region between Romania and Ukraine (which adjoins Russia and has re-entered the Russian sphere of influence) that at various times has been part of both. It became independent after the collapse of communism, but Moldova’s eastern region, Transdniestria, broke away from Moldova under Russian sponsorship. Following a change in government in 2009, Moldova sees itself as pro-Western while Transdniestria is pro-Russian. The Russians have supported Transdniestria’s status as a breakaway area (and have troops stationed there), while Moldova has insisted on its return.

The memorandum between Merkel and Medvedev specifically pointed to the impact a joint security relationship might have on this dispute. The kind of solution that may be considered is unclear, but if the issue goes forward, the outcome will give the first indication of what a German-Russian security relationship will look like. The Poles will be particularly interested, as any effort in Moldova will automatically impact both Romania and Ukraine — two states key to determining Russian strength in the region. Whatever way the solution tilts will define the power relationship among the three.

It should be remembered that the Germans are proposing a Russian security relationship with Europe, not a Russian security relationship with Germany alone. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Germans taking the initiative to open the talks by unilaterally negotiating with the Russians and taking their agreements to other European countries. It is also important to note that they have not taken this to all the European countries but to France and Poland first — with French President Nicolas Sarkozy voicing his initial approval on June 19 — and equally important, that they have not publicly brought it to the United States. Nor is it clear what the Germans might do if the French and Poles reject the relationship, which is not inconceivable.

The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States.

Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can’t have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners — some intensely — is naive. The Germans are not naive. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests.

With this proposal, the Germans are looking to change the game significantly. They are moving slowly and with plenty of room for retreat, but they are moving. It will be interesting to hear what the Poles and French say on Wednesday. Their public support should not be taken for anything more than not wanting to alienate the Germans or Russians until they have talked to the Americans. It will also be interesting to see what the Obama administration has to say about this.

By George Friedman

This report is republished with permission of STRATFORPopular Posts:

• Presidential election stabilises Poland
• Goodnight, Flash: HTML5 – The Next Language Generation Explained
• Enterprises of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia to form the Interstate Corporation of Development
• Merkel and Medvedev see eye to eye
• Slovakia: President Wilfried Martens congratulates new EPP PM Iveta Radičová and her centre-right government