Isn’t that because Europe’s interests are relatively clear and uniform? Basically up to now the situation hasn’t required any basic decisions. All of Europe wants a democratic and western Ukraine achieved in a peaceful manner.

What if there is a less desirable development which requires tougher choices? It seems to me that the reactions would depend to a large extent on who gets how much gas and oil over which pipelines.

Still Rumsfeld’s characterization had some humor value and was basically polite. Far better than Chirac’s ad hominem, calling Rumsfeld “what’s his name.” No class this guy.

Take, for example, the Netherlands. Is it a member of “New Europe” because they happen to have sent troops to Iraq? Or is it part of “Old Europe” because it, like most of the rest of the EU-15, retains a high-tax, high-wage welfare state and has lots of Muslims living in it? The Muslim population of the former COMECON countries — which is evidently what Rumsfeld means by “new Europe” — is approximately nil. (Not counting Bulgaria.)

And what about Hungary? It has troops in Iraq now, but plans to withdraw them early next year. Will it suddenly switch — as Spain did — from “new” to “old”?

Finally, for a bit of comic relief, check out what Adam Yoshida — Canada’s biggest loonie (as it were) — has to say about Ukraine. Short version: Putin is planning an Anschluss, but he really ought to obliterate Chechnya and France and Germany instead.

His “analysis” is so insane that (warning: cheap shot coming up) I’m surprised Glenn hasn’t linked to it yet.

This is just another attempt on the part of MSM to write policy on their own, which is exactly what MSM does all the time.

http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/default-how.html

I am sure that one of the main protagonists of ‘Old Europe’, namely Germany has a pretty good idea what democratic freedom means. Or, more correctly, half of Germany. The Eastern half.

That the new countries that have joined the EU come from a slightly different background, communism, is certainly a factor. And I do hope that, through their experiences, they will bring new impetus and ideas into the EU.

The terms ‘Old Europe’ and ‘New Europe’ were used to amplify differences of opinion in the EU, maybe even to drive a wedge between different EU countries, because France and Germany refused to support the invasion of Iraq. Any reference made to ‘Old Europe and New Europe’ is therefore tainted and suspect.

If France, Germany and Belgium had chosen to participate in the Iraq war there would not have been an ‘Old versus New Europe’.

As for struggling for democratic freedom (intervention) and not rocking the boat (isolationism), the US has some history there as well:

http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/default.html

And here is another one:

http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/Callous%20Bystanders/isolationism.html

I suppose contemporay US Dems should henceforth be called ‘Blue -not rocking the boat- America’ and Republicans ‘Red -fight for democratic freedom- America’? (The terms ‘Old’ and ‘New’ clearly do not apply, as shown in the stories linked to above)

Nick, thanks for the link - this criticism from the mad liberal warhawks & islamophobes at Harry’s Place is of particularly note… Is Bush thinking about his own election, or does he think that a Yanukovych admin fearing US help in its deposal would be more willing to comply with demands?

All the more reason to hope for democratic rule of law for the Ukraine.

I love the fact that the activist pictured there, somewhere in Belarus… wears a NY Yankees baseball cap!