Entente cordiale?

[123everton]

I was thinking the other day, when one looks at the news you see the expansion of N.A.T.O to try and include the likes Georgia, you see missile shields being placed in Poland (ok, that got scrapped), you see the expansion of the E.U all of which is reaching ever closer to Russia and none of the language emanating from these authorities is overtly or overly complimentry.
Russia is in negotiations with Belorus (spelling?) over it's gas supplies, they get it much cheaper than everywhere else and then sell it on at a huge profit, yet we in the west wil only hear of the gas getting cut off if they can't agree.
In Ukraine there's an election, and, as always seems to be the case in the former Soviet Bloc the choices are pro-Moscow or pro western, where will it all end?
Ultimately eastern nations generally feel threatened by the western powers (with some justification), with pressure being put on China over it's emissions etc, I wonder, China needs commodities to modernise, Russia and Iran have this in abundance and can transport it with ease to their borders.
When one looks at South America and the resurgence and sucesses of socialism there (a bit wobbly in Venezuela at the moment) given the history of capitalism there and U.S dislike of socialism wil we begin to see the polarisation of countries?
An American axis, an E.U axis followed by a Chinese/Russian axis with disaparate non-aligned states (mineral rich) thrown in, are we heading into a new Bismarckian form of diplomacy?
And, could it result in the same disastrous consequences as the need for resources grows greater?

[jake-the-peg]

It is a world of large power blocks.

Small individual countries have little sway with global multinationals or large power blocks.

Like when Bush imposed a illegal Steel tarriffs or Microsoft got up to anti-competetive behaviour we were able to act through the EU in a way that would just have been ignored were it just Britain kicking up.

International policing is another area - if national goverments are not suitably alligned criminals can just laugh at them from across the border - remeber "Costa-del-crime" with all the British Criminals settling down in their Spanish Villas. Things like European arrest warrents make that a thing of the past now.

Why the Tories (supposedly the party of law and order ) oppose(d) that I'll never know.

In short the world has become a very small place and nations need to be part of a big power block to have any influence at all.

However I don't see the same "disasterous consequences" Your Bismark analogy seems to be refering to a time when major powers were fighting over colonies which is not the case now.

In my view the largest threat over the next 20 years will come as climate change makes North African countries and others increasingly unsustainable (western china and Bangladesh too) - This will result in a massive increase in illegal immigration into Western Europe and North America which will make today's conditions look trivial.

We may see the first European border walls built around 2030

[123everton]

I feel the tensions will come from the battle for resources and the desire to maintain primacy in world trade.
If Russia started to forge alliances with nations like China and Iran, if oil and mineral rich nations in South America and Africa (China's already heavily involved in African oil exploration) then you are going to have three blocks all vying for the same things, if Russia turns off it's taps, what would the other nations do?
The same goes for water, why should France own so much of the world's water?
The smaller nations will probably have more in common with Russia and China, and may get better terms, if they back their calls for a fairer deal on their water supplies, again more hassle.
Carbon trading seems nothing more than excuse to keep the third world poor and undeveloped, in much the same way criticism of China and India over emmissions will fall on death ears and annoy them greatly.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you've answered your own question.

Different countries have different resources, this results in trade and wealth generation. Russia does not have a monopoly on gas and oil and cannot afford the emnity of other countries that they rely on for other things not least technology.

You'er not a writer for "Spooks" are you this all sounds a bit like one of their "lunchtime down the pub" plots!

Carbon trading has the opportunity to greatly aid third world countries who will be able to sell their unused carbon credits to 1st world countries. However the devil is in the detail and it all depends on what levels are set and how the credits are shared out. I don't think the western world is not about to let that happen on a tonnes per head basis.

And you're simply wrong about China and India and deaf ears.

China announced a firm target for carbon cuts last November http://www.reuters.co...idUSTRE5AP11H20091126
immediately followed by India
http://www.abc.net.au...009/12/04/2761558.htm

[123everton]

Gotta be honest it made more sense to me when I was snowbound in the Old Swan.
I'll persevere, I look at Georgia and I see no real strategic reason to bring it into the E.U or N.A.T.O other than to keep them away from Russia, I would not deal with Sakashvilli (spelling?), Ukraine appears to facing Moscow again, and the tone of the news appears to think that's a bad thing, why?
Yes China and India have agreed to cut their emmissions but the pressure beforehand was somewhat unjustified as was much of the criticism, the west (I feel) is trying to stay in the business of telling others how to live their lives in order to maintain our luxuries and primacy.
If a new eastern trading bloc formed, what efects would it have on the west.
P.S.
I liked the Spooks analogy, very drole ;-), although I've never watched it.