Is Romania an enemy of Russia?

Why do many Romanians hate Russians? Are there any Romanians that like Russians? Is the hatred simply too deep in their culture for Romania to be a friend?

andalusia wrote:Why do many Romanians hate Russians? Are there any Romanians that like Russians? Is the hatred simply too deep in their culture for Romania to be a friend?

For the most part it's merely a "five minutes hatred", mainly induced by the rabid propaganda undertaken by both politicians and media. It's not unusual to see Russians and Romanians starting a discussion with an exchange of insults and ending it with a friendly chatter. That's not to say there aren't historical reasons for antagonism between Russia and Romania although our historians have a tendency to glide over the positive and stress the negative of the Romanian-Russians relations. However, most of us have enough sense to understand that harping on the Russian annexation of eastern Moldova 200 of years ago or on the lost of our gold treasury 100 of years ago aren't getting us anywhere. Of course there are people unwilling to let go of squabbling over things happened hundreds of years ago but they're in minority.

All our historical grievances with Russia are moot for now so once the argument over who stole what from whom is done, we could easily find loads of topics to discuss as our countries have many things in common. Many Westerners don't even try to understand the particularities of the East European issues as to have a proper approach and that's why whenever the Russian Ambassador speaks out, he wins points for his country whereas the US emissaries are getting laughter and ironies every time they open their mouths. Moreover, on the topic of the Malaysian airliner, most people refrained from making accusation against Russia and irrational media propaganda only served to enrage us more. Many people berated instead the American hypocrisy and  double standards, saying that US brainwashing is by no means better than Soviet brainwashing.

As nobody, the government included, loves Ukraine and nobody in his right mind would deny that in Kiev occurred a putsch this winter, the whole thing about "supporting the Ukrainian democracy" is entirely spoken tongue-in-cheek. Ukraine has always treated badly the Romanian minority residing there and generally Ukraine is the neighbor with which we have the worst relations.  That two years ago we were branded as "putschists" and muddied across the entire Western media for organizing a referendum in order to oust an individual far worse than Ianukovich ever was while the Ukrainian bloody comedy was labeled as the most democratic action marked the point where the red line was crossed. Western and American hypocrisy will have long term consequences, methinks.

Anyway, the idea is that even if there are pending issues between Russia and Romania, Romanians do not hate Russians. Only a very small number of us would be stupid enough to blame the average Russian for things done by the Czars or the bolsheviks hundreds of years ago. Exceptions notwithstanding, most of us would be ashamed to hate someone or to make someone feel bad only because he's Russian so excepting a few cretins, there's no general feeling of enmity against Russians. On the contrary, as the Soros sponsored NGOs are periodically publishing "surveys" and "analysis" telling us how much we love Americans and Germans and detest Russians, the effect is exactly the opposite as in "how dare you to tell me how I'm supposed to think".   As for the government, only fools wouldn't be able to see the benefits of having good relations with Russia but unfortunately for now everything that was underway between Romania and Russia was frozen. Only if we're speaking in geopolitical terms, Romania and Russia may find themselves on opposite grounds, as in Poland's case; the ghost of another agreement between Russia and Germany on our expense is alive and kicking in our case.

Thank you Intrigado for your reply. I was reading on different websites about Romania and Russian relations being very tense. That there was a deep hatred in Romanian culture for everything Russia. I know there is a lot of bad history between Poland and Russia. Can Poland and Russia be allies or is the bad blood too deep?

http://romanianinrussia.blogspot.com/

Romania's not important enough to be an 'enemy' of Russia. It's simply a country that neither Russia nor Russians - pay much mind to.
Although having said that - Lithuania, Georgia, etc... consistently top or did top the charts of the most unfriendly countries to Russia, so perhaps Romania can fit in there too.

Funny how the peoples most similar to each other are the ones with the most problems with each other. I blame Western divide and rule policies, and fanning the flames of anti-Russian nationalism that has long lost its relevance.

Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

flamming_python wrote:Romania's not important enough to be an 'enemy' of Russia. It's simply a country that neither Russia nor Russians - pay much mind to.
Although having said that - Lithuania, Georgia, etc... consistently top or did top the charts of the most unfriendly countries to Russia, so perhaps Romania can fit in there too.

Funny how the peoples most similar to each other are the ones with the most problems with each other. I blame Western divide and rule policies, and fanning the flames of anti-Russian nationalism that has long lost its relevance.

People still think that US and A is a heaven on earth. Russian chicks fall in this category first.
There is a lag in the reflexes of average people which means that it will take quite a lot of time after USA reached her peak somewhere in the 90s

flamming_python wrote:Romania's not important enough to be an 'enemy' of Russia. It's simply a country that neither Russia nor Russians - pay much mind to.
Although having said that - Lithuania, Georgia, etc... consistently top or did top the charts of the most unfriendly countries to Russia, so perhaps Romania can fit in there too.

Funny how the peoples most similar to each other are the ones with the most problems with each other. I blame Western divide and rule policies, and fanning the flames of anti-Russian nationalism that has long lost its relevance.

There's no such a thing as an "unimportant" potential enemy. Granted, by itself Romania cannot match by any means Russia's capacities but in alliance with a "real" enemy of Russia, things would be completely different; just think of what exactly was that enabled Hitler to attack the USSR. Moreover, back in the nineteenth century it was on Romanian ground the place where the imperial Russia's expansion towards the Black Sea Straits was stopped. Russia stumbled upon us many times in the last centuries, including when we both were members of the Warsaw Pact. In the last years Russia quietly tried to buy several of our strategic assets, especially our biggest company of oil and gas which it's said to own important oil fields in Iraq or Libia bought by Ceausescu from his best friends. Funny that they ended up in the same way and even funnier that they were planning a version of a monetary fund to offer financial assistance to developing countries - exactly what the BRICS countries are doing now. That's why I'm a bit ill at ease in respect to the BRICS leaders' physical security. Anyway, to never say that history isn't a bitch, that company fell in the hands of our usual looter, Austria, although seemingly OMV and Gazprom are very much in love.

That being said, these days, apart from some suspicions having to do with the secret services' domain, I very much think that the government doesn't have much appetite to make a real unfriendly gesture towards Russia in behalf of Ukraine of all countries. Better to tread carefully on these waters and mind our own business. Whether the elephants are fighting or making love, they tend to stomp all the grass around them. We can only try to avoid being stomped by whatever means we can.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

Not really. Bessarabia (the most part of it being today the Republic of Moldova) was Slavicized beginning with the 19th century when it was attached by the Russian Empire but even now the majority of the population in the Republic of Moldova is non-Slavic, most people of this majority calling themselves Moldovans. Bukovina was made into a multiethnic region by the Austro-Hungarian Empire but prior to WWI it had many Germans and Jews so it couldn't have been called a Slavic region. Southern Bukovina is today part of Romania and definitely Non-Slavic. Only northern Bukovina and parts of former Bessarabia annexed by Ukraine after WWII could be called mostly Slavic today.

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

Not really. Bessarabia (the most part of it being today the Republic of Moldova) was Slavicized beginning with the 19th century when it was attached by the Russian Empire but even now the majority of the population in the Republic of Moldova is non-Slavic, most people of this majority calling themselves Moldovans. Bukovina was made into a multiethnic region by the Austro-Hungarian Empire but prior to WWI it had many Germans and Jews so it couldn't have been called a Slavic region. Southern Bukovina is today part of Romania and definitely Non-Slavic. Only northern Bukovina and parts of former Bessarabia annexed by Ukraine after WWII could be called mostly Slavic today.

Actually there was and still is is a very large number of bulgarians in besarabia as well as gagauzi. Many of bulgarias greatest intellectuals and revolutionaries worked or lived in besarabia.

Is the whole bukovina/besarabia thing the main talking point for romanian russophobes?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

Not really. Bessarabia (the most part of it being today the Republic of Moldova) was Slavicized beginning with the 19th century when it was attached by the Russian Empire but even now the majority of the population in the Republic of Moldova is non-Slavic, most people of this majority calling themselves Moldovans. Bukovina was made into a multiethnic region by the Austro-Hungarian Empire but prior to WWI it had many Germans and Jews so it couldn't have been called a Slavic region. Southern Bukovina is today part of Romania and definitely Non-Slavic. Only northern Bukovina and parts of former Bessarabia annexed by Ukraine after WWII could be called mostly Slavic today.

Actually there was and still is is a very large number of bulgarians in besarabia as well as gagauzi. Many of bulgarias greatest intellectuals and revolutionaries worked or lived in besarabia.

Is the whole bukovina/besarabia thing the main talking point for romanian russophobes?

Of course, but the number of Moldovans is still above 50%. And yes, Bessarabia and Bukovina are the sorest points in our relations with Russia and Russians but today, as most of Bessarabia is independent and the rest belongs to Ukraine, I don't see much sense in arguing over things that cannot be reversed any longer.

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

Not really. Bessarabia (the most part of it being today the Republic of Moldova) was Slavicized beginning with the 19th century when it was attached by the Russian Empire but even now the majority of the population in the Republic of Moldova is non-Slavic, most people of this majority calling themselves Moldovans. Bukovina was made into a multiethnic region by the Austro-Hungarian Empire but prior to WWI it had many Germans and Jews so it couldn't have been called a Slavic region. Southern Bukovina is today part of Romania and definitely Non-Slavic. Only northern Bukovina and parts of former Bessarabia annexed by Ukraine after WWII could be called mostly Slavic today.

Actually there was and still is is a very large number of bulgarians in besarabia as well as gagauzi. Many of bulgarias greatest intellectuals and revolutionaries worked or lived in besarabia.

Is the whole bukovina/besarabia thing the main talking point for romanian russophobes?

Of course, but the number of Moldovans is still above 50%. And yes, Bessarabia and Bukovina are the sorest points in our relations with Russia and Russians but today, as most of Bessarabia is independent and the rest belongs to Ukraine, I don't see much sense in arguing over things that cannot be reversed any longer.

Well, Romania can leave NATO, join the Eurasian union, take back Ukrainian Bukovina, the territories that were appended to the Odessa region as well as any districts of Moldova that would vote for unification with it; while Russia will force the independence of Novorussia - the territory of which will include the rest of the Odessa region. The rest of Moldova including Pridnestrovie/Transdniestr could then either stay as a seperate country or vote on a district by district basis to join Novorussia.

How's that?

My impression was that many Romanians today view the Ceaucescu regime as Russia's fault. I would say that the communism in eastern Europe is Hitler's fault. Forgetting that USSR=/=Russia, the USSR would hardly allow unfriendly regimes to be installed in former greater Reichland after the conclusion of a genocidal war against it. Let's not forget that Romania and other states in this region were open allies of Hitler before the war and had hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting along with his troops on USSR soil.

Ceaucescu was actually independent from Moscow. Around the time of the 1968 invasion of Czechosolvakia he was in favour of the Prague spring. Then he went full retard after visiting North Korea around 1970. Maybe he got a brain transplant, but it certainly is not Russia's fault that from 1970 on his regime became more and more repressive. Ceaucescu was feted by NATO leaders due to his lack of subservience to Moscow while he was making life more and more miserable in Romania.

I have encountered Romanians, Italians and others who have this knee jerk reflex to equate communism with Russia. Communism was an idea and the USSR hardly controlled Italy or Romania for that matter. It is typical for people to play the victim card and absolve their tribe of all responsibility for their fate. Of course, this is childish nonsense.

Lots of westerners like to blame the Soviets for the cold war, but if the Western allies had invaded France in 1942 when Stalin first asked then the east west divide could have been much closer to Moscow.

Of course the western allies didn't want to lose millions of men like they did in WWI so they left D Day till 1944 when the land war in Europe had already been decided in their favour.

their weaker power at the bargaining table meant the final iron curtain came where we know it to have been... but they pretty much signed off on who got control of where at Yalta.

I have encountered Romanians, Italians and others who have this knee jerk reflex to equate communism with Russia.

And Putin with Stalin... Putin played by the rules, which are not democratic anyway... New Zealand is a democracy and there is no limit on how many consecutive terms a leader can hold office... that just sounds like US crap.

I agree that most of the time political leaders are like babies nappies... they have to be changed and for the same reason...

In the case of Putin however I really don't see any alternative candidate that could do as good a job as he does.

flamming_python wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Because besarabia and bukovina are slavic.

Not really. Bessarabia (the most part of it being today the Republic of Moldova) was Slavicized beginning with the 19th century when it was attached by the Russian Empire but even now the majority of the population in the Republic of Moldova is non-Slavic, most people of this majority calling themselves Moldovans. Bukovina was made into a multiethnic region by the Austro-Hungarian Empire but prior to WWI it had many Germans and Jews so it couldn't have been called a Slavic region. Southern Bukovina is today part of Romania and definitely Non-Slavic. Only northern Bukovina and parts of former Bessarabia annexed by Ukraine after WWII could be called mostly Slavic today.

Actually there was and still is is a very large number of bulgarians in besarabia as well as gagauzi. Many of bulgarias greatest intellectuals and revolutionaries worked or lived in besarabia.

Is the whole bukovina/besarabia thing the main talking point for romanian russophobes?

Of course, but the number of Moldovans is still above 50%. And yes, Bessarabia and Bukovina are the sorest points in our relations with Russia and Russians but today, as most of Bessarabia is independent and the rest belongs to Ukraine, I don't see much sense in arguing over things that cannot be reversed any longer.

Well, Romania can leave NATO, join the Eurasian union, take back Ukrainian Bukovina, the territories that were appended to the Odessa region as well as any districts of Moldova that would vote for unification with it; while Russia will force the independence of Novorussia - the territory of which will include the rest of the Odessa region. The rest of Moldova including Pridnestrovie/Transdniestr could then either stay as a seperate country or vote on a district by district basis to join Novorussia.

How's that?

It's an option that might come in handy at some point but not even Viktor Orban was stupid enough to say it aloud.

kvs wrote:

I have encountered Romanians, Italians and others who have this knee jerk reflex to equate communism with Russia.   Communism was an idea and the USSR hardly controlled Italy or Romania for that matter.    It is typical for people to play the victim card and absolve their tribe of all responsibility for their fate.   Of course, this is childish nonsense.

Yes and no. I mean, yes, Russia\USSR is viewed as the main responsible for communist regimes being installed in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe after WWII but nobody can blame Russia for us starving and freezing in the last decades of Ceausescu's regime. No Soviet troops were stationed any longer on our territory and USSR had no more means to influence him. Moreover, the rest of the communist countries, USSR included, were having a better standard of living than Romania. At least, people could find food in the stores while we were finding only....Vietnamese shrimps.

I think the priority for Russia in terms of Eastern Europe would be to make pacts with Hungary and Romania over the Ukraine, and in return pull them into at least a neutral orbit vis-a-vis Russia and NATO (albeit in the later case this would neccessitate the discreditation of Basescu and the other Russophobic Romanian elite), so as to surround the Ukraine with unfriendly to it countries, and let Hungary and Romania get their old territory back from this charnel-house of a collapsing state, same as Russia did.

At the same time Russia should pursue better relations with the Czech Republic and Slovakia; trying to pull them away from NATO is not neccessery but certainly further economic and political links should be prioritized. In time, they can become loud advocates of pro-Russian political courses and business agreements inside the EU. We are already, slowly witnessing the transformation of their politics in this regard; drifting from the Russophobe bloc to those countries that advocate further integration with Russia such as Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, etc...

Once that is done Poland will find its politics isolated, and it will be easier to use a lil' divide and rule and seperate them from the Western support of Sweden, UK and the US.

And then Russia can bring the full weight of pressure to bear on the Baltic states; economic and political, to force them to drastically change the Russophobic models of their societies.

As for Bulgaria and ex-Yugoslavia - too poor, unstable and easily influenced or couped by the West for now. Even if Russia did succeed to help some pro-Russian forces get in power in one of these countries, they can just as easily be overthrown by crowds on 'corruption' or Russophilia-related charges in a year time.
SO, best to tread lightly there for now, and just focus on furthering economic interests without any big politics or upsets.

It is not even remotely as complicated as you describe it flamming python. Just outbribe their corrupted politicians and you are done
Or to be more precise bribe those who are outcasts to turn against the established ones. Replacing pimp you also replace the guys on top anyway.

Most of EU/NATO/Western countries have leadership that besides their minor differencies have one thing in common. They all suit USA regime agenda or can be made to do so with ease.

Lucky thing for Russia is that military potential of all of those countries even when put together is negligible. (Romania is no exception)

No they don't suit USA regime agenda.
They mimic, replicate and compliment USA agenda. Actually they derive from the american political system in a way a franchise brand does.
It a completely different level.
This is what was happening with the communist regimes and USSR as well but when USSR entered the long stagnation period in the early 60s
all this regimes turned inwards to protect their power and "punish" Moscow for not supporting them materially.
This created the Ceausescu's and the Hotza's and the Tito's ...any similarity with the current situation is purely accidental  
When Soviet control retreated altogether Western gang still decided to behead all this regimes entirely regardless of whether they where already
distant from USSR or not because you create your puppets you never adopt them!
...You see, history teach us interesting things

Here is how I see it.

Many countries in former soviet regions joined NATO thinking that they need a military bloc to protect them from any external threats since they would be incapable of doing it themselves. There is also the thought that if they are in NATO, they can do as they wish (almost) and get away with it because they are deemed democratic anyway (high corruption in these former soviet countries who are in NATO and EU. Bulgaria and Romania are two that comes to my mind). The thing is, they may know (there is a possibility they may not know) that they are a satellite state, no different than they were under the Soviet Union (the very union they blame for all their problems). I mean, they get their economic policies from Brussels and military policies from NATO. Like one friend of mine whom is a Bosnian Croat said to me: "The EU and NATO is a load of garbage. Both these groups is no better than when we lived in warsaw pact countries back in USSR era. Although now, Croats do not even run their own country but people from outside do". So in other words, there is a belief, even from expats from these countries, who see that EU and NATO are no better than USSR and that the only reason they joined is because of the insecurities that were left in place of these institutions when they were left in the dark after Soviet Union and Warsaw pact broke up.

Is Romania an enemy of Russia? No. Are Romanians be able to be convinced to go to war with Russia? No. Actually, many of these countries are hard to convince even by USA to commit to conflicts like Iraq. What ends up happening though is that these countries end up being pressured to do what US wants. Look at Bulgaria regarding South Stream pipeline! They were pushing and pushing for South Stream pipeline to be built (along with Italy, Hungary, Serbia and Austria) but as soon as they got a visit from the old crow McCain, their stance took a complete 180 turn the very next day! Now? I believe the president of Bulgaria is in trouble regarding "corruption" cases.

Don't forget, there are people even in countries like Poland who talk out against NATO/EU and its policies and how they are ruining relations for the "sake" of US. http://www.sott.net/article/280793-Poland-is-a-Slave-Prostitute-to-the-USA-according-to-Polish-Foreign-Minister

No. The system is much simpler and cynical.

American elite -> Puppet's political system -> (via media, public policy, money) indigenous public opinion.

The local political system is responsible for the public opinion towards USA and not vice versa. Their mechanisms are responsible for the public manipulation.
American system just give the franchise: a two party system, a quasi-right wing, a quasi-left wing and a liberal, globalist policy and an economic policy who
guarantees permanent dependence from Washington. This in order to give self sustainability and maximum freedom for political maneuvers giving a false impression
of democracy and self-determination. Simple in it's logic but yet effective.

flamming_python wrote:I think the priority for Russia in terms of Eastern Europe would be to make pacts with Hungary and Romania over the Ukraine, and in return pull them into at least a neutral orbit vis-a-vis Russia and NATO (albeit in the later case this would neccessitate the discreditation of Basescu and the other Russophobic Romanian elite), so as to surround the Ukraine with unfriendly to it countries, and let Hungary and Romania get their old territory back from this charnel-house of a collapsing state, same as Russia did.

At the same time Russia should pursue better relations with the Czech Republic and Slovakia; trying to pull them away from NATO is not neccessery but certainly further economic and political links should be prioritized. In time, they can become loud advocates of pro-Russian political courses and business agreements inside the EU. We are already, slowly witnessing the transformation of their politics in this regard; drifting from the Russophobe bloc to those countries that advocate further integration with Russia such as Hungary, Greece, Cyprus, etc...

Once that is done Poland will find its politics isolated, and it will be easier to use a lil' divide and rule and seperate them from the Western support of Sweden, UK and the US.

And then Russia can bring the full weight of pressure to bear on the Baltic states; economic and political, to force them to drastically change the Russophobic models of their societies.

As for Bulgaria and ex-Yugoslavia - too poor, unstable and easily influenced or couped by the West for now. Even if Russia did succeed to help some pro-Russian forces get in power in one of these countries, they can just as easily be overthrown by crowds on 'corruption' or Russophilia-related charges in a year time.
SO, best to tread lightly there for now, and just focus on furthering economic interests without any big politics or upsets.

Not that getting back some territories from Ukraine wouldn't sound appealing but it's entirely too dangerous. Nobody cares about Ukraine but the danger of disturbing the very fragile balance created after WWII in Europe is too great. Hungary is still remembering WWI and that's not merely Ukraine's but also Romania, Serbia and Slovakia's problem. What if Germany wants back its old territories from Poland and Poland its own from Ukraine or Belarus? There's also Kaliningrad... The entire region could be Balkanized in a flash. That's why I think Putin might have miscalculated when he annexed Crimea. In my opinion he should have tried to beat the US at their own game and in time he would have gained far more if he had "accepted" Ianukovici's ousting as expressing "democracy" and "the will of the Ukrainians". Russia would have accumulated a huge amount of soft power in this region if Putin had taken a more cunning approach regarding the Crimean issue, I'd say. Now everyone got spooked and Russia missed a great opportunity to win a great deal of influence in the area....only if it had a bit of patience and used its intelligence instead of its army. Oh and by the way, f-ck Basescu. The f-cktard has less than 3 months in power and then off to jail he goes. Besides, some months ago we discovered that the b-stard was by proxy on Gazprom's payroll.

Bulgaria is now under a lot a pressure from both EC and the US. I've no doubt that those two are going to make their life miserable if Bulgaria doesn't obey their orders regarding South Stream. The EC and US have enough means: the Schengen issue, EU funds, US rating agencies downgrading them to the ground, the usual things. When you are the EU's charity case (along with us, of course) and someone takes care to remember you every day how poor and corrupted you are and how lucky should you feel that EU was merciful enough to take you in, you cannot have a very strong position.

As I said, Russia had before Crimea a terrifying potential to become the dominant power in Central and Eastern Europe. Western Europe needs strong economic ties with Russia and doesn't particularly care about this region. But the fact that Europe's borders were practically changed overnight has spooked all the European countries. Whoever dares to advocate calling off the sanctions applied to Russia is told that economic interests cannot be placed above "the values of democracy". Nobody feels good to be called as being against "democracy" and "rule of law". I don't know how Russia could undo all the harm done in these last months; it'll be a tragedy for Russia to considered again in Europe in the same terms as it was bolshevik Russia 100 years ago. Perhaps Russia wants to look from now one only towards Asia and South America?

sepheronx wrote:Here is how I see it.

Many countries in former soviet regions joined NATO thinking that they need a military bloc to protect them from any external threats since they would be incapable of doing it themselves.  There is also the thought that if they are in NATO, they can do as they wish (almost) and get away with it because they are deemed democratic anyway (high corruption in these former soviet countries who are in NATO and EU.  Bulgaria and Romania are two that comes to my mind).  The thing is, they may know (there is a possibility they may not know) that they are a satellite state, no different than they were under the Soviet Union (the very union they blame for all their problems).  I mean, they get their economic policies from Brussels and military policies from NATO.  Like one friend of mine whom is a Bosnian Croat said to me: "The EU and NATO is a load of garbage.  Both these groups is no better than when we lived in warsaw pact countries back in USSR era. Although now, Croats do not even run their own country but people from outside do".  So in other words, there is a belief, even from expats from these countries, who see that EU and NATO are no better than USSR and that the only reason they joined is because of the insecurities that were left in place of these institutions when they were left in the dark after Soviet Union and Warsaw pact broke up.

Is Romania an enemy of Russia?  No.  Are Romanians be able to be convinced to go to war with Russia?  No.  Actually, many of these countries are hard to convince even by USA to commit to conflicts like Iraq.  What ends up happening though is that these countries end up being pressured to do what US wants.  Look at Bulgaria regarding South Stream pipeline!  They were pushing and pushing for South Stream pipeline to be built (along with Italy, Hungary, Serbia and Austria) but as soon as they got a visit from the old crow McCain, their stance took a complete 180 turn the very next day!  Now?  I believe the president of Bulgaria is in trouble regarding "corruption" cases.

Don't forget, there are people even in countries like Poland who talk out against NATO/EU and its policies and how they are ruining relations for the "sake" of US. http://www.sott.net/article/280793-Poland-is-a-Slave-Prostitute-to-the-USA-according-to-Polish-Foreign-Minister

Quite true. Besides, we were stupid enough to believe all that garbage about democracy, European values and such. We were stupid enough to believe that once joining EU and NATO we'll be treated as equals by the rest of the member countries. Now we're wondering why the French farmer receives twice more EU funds as the Romanian farmer.

Well reading what FP wrote it is almost as if you want to integrate Russia into the EU...

Really what is the point of creating closer ties with a group of countries led by a country that clearly hates you?

At the end of the day if the EU will let the US lead it around by the nose what is the point of trying to talk to the horse when the rider can lead it away at any time?

Certainly Russia should trade with some countries in the EU, but at the end of the day it needs to look elsewhere... the far east, central and south america, africa have lived in a world of imperialism for hundreds of years.

Just look at the banana industry... if your country is in the British sphere of influence then you can only buy bananas from British sphere countries... not French sphere or US sphere countries... free trade my ass.

Russia is not tied into any sphere and has no ideology to push so it can buy from anyone it likes... I am sure the traders will find that refreshing...