Ukraine Belongs in Europe

Ukraine Enlargement Plea Falls on Deaf Ears,” by Andrew Rettman, EU Observer, 27 October 2006,

As Congressional Republicans threaten the future of our Continental Union by building an insane fence against Mexico, and Congressional Republicans threaten the future of our relationship with Vietnam by holding up Normal Trade Relations with Hanoi, it’s depressing to note that know-nothingism is alive and well in Europe, too.

Russian Imperialism can never hold without Ukraine. While I applaud Brussels for adding two Black Sea Republics, I condemend the Dipleumats for their insane shunning of Urkaine:

Ukraine president Viktor Yushchenko continued to hammer on enlargement as the EU-Ukraine meeting in Helsinki drew to a close on Friday (27 October) afternoon, but got zero political commitment in return.

The dioxin-scarred Orange Revolution veteran told press he was “occasionally worried about the intention to determine EU borders” adding “we hope these discussions will not result in the creation of some new Berlin Wall along the EU borders.”

But European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso gave a blunt response to the president’s call, saying “Ukraine is not ready, and we are not ready [for discussions on enlargement],” AP reports.

Meanwhile, Britain restricts European immigration. Just great, guys.

The future of globalization is not threatened by “global guerrillas” or other imaginary enemies. Only by moral weakness.

One thought on “Ukraine Belongs in Europe”

  1. “The future of globalization is not threatened by “global guerrillas” or other imaginary enemies. Only by moral weakness.”

    You identified the heart of the 5GW issue. Moral weakness translates militarily into Grand Strategy weakness. It really doesn't matter how quick your OODA is, without a viable Grand Stategy you are only spinning your wheels. This enables the possibity of being threatened by “global guerrillas” and provides the only legitimate excuse to wage war in the “Art of War.”

  2. RevG,

    I agree with you on how moral weakness becomes grand strategic weakness, but I disagree with you. Moral weakness does not enable Global Guerrillas. Nothing enables Global Guerrillas. Because Global Guerrillas do not exist. Moral weakness does not allow Global Guerrillas to win. Because they have never won anything.

    To the extent that Robb's theory are internally coherent, which admittedly is limited, GGs are not just another name for a non-state actor, they are not just some group that uses “open source warfare.” They are a non-state force that attempts to attain victory by depriving states of capital.

    Robb's GGs attempt to hit the State where the State is strongest: wealth. It cannot work against dictatorships generally, as dictatorships show amazing resiliency in the face of economic deprivation. It cannot work against democracies generally, because democracies withstand economic pain. [1]

    I want to end this comment with something snarky, like “global guerrillas are as much a threat as space aliens.” But that wouldn't be fair. If aliens actually did exist, presumably they could use death rays or whatever to win. If Global Guerrillas actually existed, they would just lose. That's why Robb has failed at creating any.


  3. I think something like the GG concept could be applied in state-vs-state warfare part of a multi-approach.

    Think China and that books' UW approach. Light Infantry-ish GG unleashed in your enemies rear could cause mischief and distract opposition decision makers. This is different then Robb's idea though.

    This is the first stuff I have typed since going to Firefox 2.0. There is a built in spell checker! Woo-hoo!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *