German MoD: Hitler's good tradition to speak with Russia from a position of strength should remain for the future.

[Civvy Scum]

I see no mention of Hitler.

Are you making shit up again?

He's bleating on about WW2. It's a Russian thing, they're obsessed with it. Well that and beetroots and turnips. Oh, and vodka, anti-freeze and murdering dissidents.

 

[Civvy Scum]

Ze Jeermans are in no position to threaten Russia. Their military is in dire straits.

What, worse than the Russian military? They must be in a bad way!

 

[Civvy Scum]

Oh and @KGB_resident can you explain why we should be even remotely interested in your agitprop. Apart from the comedy value of course.

 

[Egg on Leggs]

Oh and @KGB_resident can you explain why we should be even remotely interested in your agitprop. Apart from the comedy value of course.

This one is quite a clumsy oaf, no sport at all.

 

[Civvy Scum]

This one is quite a clumsy oaf, no sport at all.

Russian and clumsy oaf tend to go together I find.

 

[Stainmaster]

So, maybe it would be logical for London to speak with Moscow from the position of strength ?

I don't think you quite understood my post; would it be rude of me to assume that English is not your first language?
Isn't it always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength, just as it's always best to be a seller when there is a scarcity of supply and a surplus of demand? These are constants in life, regardless of time, geography, situation or nationality.
As a certain Mr Churchill put it plainly 'You cannot reason with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth' .
Best to be the tiger.

 

[HectortheInspector]

Hardly he was a German ... though who knows.
But as for Frederick Barbarossa then no doubt he acted from the position of srtength.

I see the illiterate waste of space lying imposter is back on cubicle duty.

 

[Egg on Leggs]

I see the illiterate waste of space lying imposter is back on cubicle duty.

There's fun to be had.

 

[Glad_its_all_over]

During the 'little oopsie' Hitler apparently acted from the position of strength and in this context the remark made by Frau minister looks at least as ambiguous.

Nah. She'll have had in mind the position 1871-1914. There's an argument that WW1 happened because the Russian economy, fuelled by the Stolypin/Witte reforms after 1905, looked fair to overtake the German by the mid-1920s and would have been autarkic, to boot. Other nations can have a glavnyj vrag and Russia was certainly that for the Second Reich.

 

[KGB_resident]

UK's diplomatic relationship with Mr P would certainly be a different one if we were fielding that kind of muscle.

I'm sure that I understand this phrase, its meaning pretty well.

I don't think you quite understood my post; would it be rude of me to assume that English is not your first language?

Yes, English is not my first language.

Isn't it always desirable to negotiate from a position of strength, just as it's always best to be a seller when there is a scarcity of supply and a surplus of demand? These are constants in life, regardless of time, geography, situation or nationality.

Agreed. It's preferable to negotiate from a position of strength. However, there 2 possible situations
- negotiations when you are indeed overwhelmingly stronger than your opponent;
- negotiations when you from strategical point of view are not significantly stronger.
In the last case such a position is fruitless, frequently self damaging and sometimes even silly (as in the case with Frau minister).

As a certain Mr Churchill put it plainly 'You cannot reason with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth' .
Best to be the tiger.

Yes, in this context it's better to be a tiger. Btw, British defence spendings are bigger than Russian ones. So British Lion eats more than Russian Bear. But would it be logical for the Lion to speak from position of strength with the Bear? I'm not sure. To negotiate from a position of strength you must indeed be much stronger, not only eat more.

 

[Stainmaster]

I'm sure that I understand this phrase, its meaning pretty well.

Yes, English is not my first language.

Agreed. It's preferable to negotiate from a position of strength. However, there 2 possible situations
- negotiations when you are indeed overwhelmingly stronger than your opponent;
- negotiations when you from strategical point of view are not significantly stronger.
In the last case such a position is fruitless, frequently self damaging and sometimes even silly (as in the case with Frau minister).

Yes, in this context it's better to be a tiger. Btw, British defence spendings are bigger than Russian ones. So British Lion eats more than Russian Bear. But would it be logical for the Lion to speak from position of strength with the Bear? I'm not sure. To negotiate from a position of strength you must indeed be much stronger, not only eat more.

I think that lots of previous episodes show that negotiation, and even communication with Russia is akin to peeing into the wind. Russia only understands strength, with the net result that only force of arms, or the sincere threat of its devastating use gets the bear's attention. . Many Russians don't give a damn about political freedoms, civil rights or corruption within their own 'state', as long as Russia appears strong on the world stage.
In this context, Germany nogatiated very well with Russia until Stalingrad. Kennedy negotiated well in Cuba. The people who 'negotiated' most successfully with Russia were the Mujahideen. Their particular brand of diplomacy proved to be a winning strategy in 1989.

 

[KGB_resident]

Nah. She'll have had in mind the position 1871-1914. There's an argument that WW1 happened because the Russian economy, fuelled by the Stolypin/Witte reforms after 1905, looked fair to overtake the German by the mid-1920s and would have been autarkic, to boot. Other nations can have a glavnyj vrag and Russia was certainly that for the Second Reich.

Causes of WW1 is an important separate issue. Still the problem of the main causes is a subject of fierce discussions among historians. But anyway I'm sure that industrial development of Russia before WW1 was not the main cause.
Returning to Frau minister let's recall cases when 'good tradition of German politics' to negotiate from a position of strength was implemented. I recall negotiations with France (1871), Russia (1918 ) and again France (1940).
To negotiate from a position of strength one must demonstrate it first.

 

[Paymaster]

Causes of WW1 is an important separate issue. Still the problem of the main causes is a subject of fierce discussions among historians. But anyway I'm sure that industrial development of Russia before WW1 was not the main cause.
Returning to Frau minister let's recall cases when 'good tradition of German politics' to negotiate from a position of strength was implemented. I recall negotiations with France (1871), Russia (1918 ) and again France (1940).
To negotiate from a position of strength one must demonstrate it first.

Did you enjoy your visit to Salisbury? Yes that spire is quite a sight isn’t it but why did you choose to stay in east London and why such a short trip?

 

[Stainmaster]

I'm sure that I understand this phrase, its meaning pretty well.

Yes, English is not my first language.

Agreed. It's preferable to negotiate from a position of strength. However, there 2 possible situations
- negotiations when you are indeed overwhelmingly stronger than your opponent;
- negotiations when you from strategical point of view are not significantly stronger.
In the last case such a position is fruitless, frequently self damaging and sometimes even silly (as in the case with Frau minister).

Yes, in this context it's better to be a tiger. Btw, British defence spendings are bigger than Russian ones. So British Lion eats more than Russian Bear. But would it be logical for the Lion to speak from position of strength with the Bear? I'm not sure. To negotiate from a position of strength you must indeed be much stronger, not only eat more.

Outstanding! Your response is so logical, systematic (bullet points!) and structured that if you weren't just a regular guy on ARRSE, one could easily think that you'd had training in propaganda and misinformation. Maybe there's a career opening there for you if you are furloughed or made redundant from your present employment.

 

[KGB_resident]

I think that lots of previous episodes show that negotiation, and even communication with Russia is akin to peeing into the wind. Russia only understands strength,

... as many other nations does. In 1982 Argentina did understand only strength, only language of force. Russia is not an exception in this context.

with the net result that only force of arms, or the sincere threat of its devastating use gets the bear's attention. . Many Russians don't give a damn about political freedoms, civil rights or corruption within their own 'state', as long as Russia appears strong on the world stage.

You may see it this way while there is no direct connection. Russia (as many other countries) has to be strong enough just to be competitive on the World stage. It doesn't depend on political regime. Later or sooner Russia (I hope as a result of evolution) will be democratic country but national interests will remain and Russia will have to be strong in any case.

In this context, Germany nogatiated very well with Russia until Stalingrad.

It is exactly the point that I tried to make in this thread.

Kennedy negotiated well in Cuba. The people who 'negotiated' most successfully with Russia were the Mujahideen. Their particular brand of diplomacy proved to be a winning strategy in 1989.

They are relevant examples and there are many others where Moscow negotiated with a position of strength.

 

[Stainmaster]

I believe that USSR's only real attempt to find common ground and compromise with an adversary, to wind down cold War tension was going to be Kruschev's (a lone voice reformer) summit with Ike. Unfortunately this was sabotaged by Gary Powers U2 mission. Ike was aware of the deep state forming behind the scenes in USA, as evidenced by his warning speech about the Military Industrial Complex. One school of thought suggests that the Powers was sacrificed by the CIA to derail the positive moves towards a thaw. All things said many times before, but it's possible.

 

[KGB_resident]

Outstanding! Your response is so logical, systematic (bullet points!) and structured that if you weren't just a regular guy on ARRSE, one could easily think that you'd had training in propaganda and misinformation. Maybe there's a career opening there for you if you are furloughed or made redundant from your present employment.

I'm very much appreciate your ironical remark.

 

[KGB_resident]

I believe that USSR's only real attempt to find common ground and compromise with an adversary, to wind down cold War tension was going to be Kruschev's (a lone voice reformer) summit with Ike. Unfortunately this was sabotaged by Gary Powers U2 mission. Ike was aware of the deep state forming behind the scenes in USA, as evidenced by his warning speech about the Military Industrial Complex. One school of thought suggests that the Powers was sacrificed by the CIA to derail the positive moves towards a thaw. All things said many times before, but it's possible.

Khrushchev was not a reformer but old school hard-core sly communist who tried to fool 'stupid capitalists'. That time 'the strength' argument was on American side. Only in 70's military might of the Soviet union closely approached to US one and in the context of detente policy Brezhnev and US presidents were able to find common ground. Neither side negotiated from a position of strength because from strategical point of view the sides had comparable potentials.

 

[kiwidoug]

Seeing that presumably @KGB_resident has a line into some level of Soviet Russian government, maybe he can tell us all when Vlad will finally get himself made Tsar?

 

[KGB_resident]

Seeing that presumably @KGB_resident has a line into some level of Soviet Russian government, maybe he can tell us all when Vlad will finally get himself made Tsar?

In fact done.