[StJacques]

I believe the back-and-forth about late Soviet era contacts with the emerging EU is overrated. What is going on with Russia's interference in Ukrainian internal affairs in the recent election is much more in line with long standing Russian foreign policy objectives that go back at least as far as Peter the Great. Without access to year-round warm water ports, Russia is geographically isolated. It is the Ukraine that has them, especially Odessa. We should not be in the least surprised that the Russians want the Ukraine to function as a client state.

What is really dangerous about the EU's attitude is not anything rooted in late Soviet era contacts, but much more recent developments associated with Chirac, Schroeder, and the "Multi-Polarist" synthesis for a new international order. They have frequently identified Russia as one of the "polar centers of power" and this may mean that they are willing to write off the Ukraine as falling within the Russian "sphere" of interest. "Multi-Polarism" represents a new "Balance of Power" in international affairs and we should do everything we can from giving it legitimacy. Like standing by the opposition in the Ukraine as they unite to forestall a Russian takeover of their political system.

[A. Pole]

"Multi-Polarism" represents a new "Balance of Power" in international affairs and we should do everything we can from giving it legitimacy.

The alternative to the multi-polar world is uni-polar world where one country dominates the others. Can America afford it or should?