RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook
Blog > Archive by tag 'Russia'

Posts Tagged ‘Russia’

Obama warns Russia on interference

July 7th, 2009 | No Comments

US president goes on first trip to Russia and calls on Moscow to stop viewing America as an enemy

Barack Obama today set out his vision for a new post-cold war world, and urged Russia not to interfere in neighbouring states and to move on “from old ways of thinking”.

In a keynote speech during his first trip to Russia as US president, Obama called on Moscow to stop viewing America as an adversary. The assumption that Russia and the US were eternal antagonists was “a 20th-century view” rooted in the past, he said.

Obama delivered a tough, though implicit, critique of Kremlin foreign policy, rejecting the claim it has “privileged interests” in post-Soviet countries. He said the 19th-century doctrine of spheres of influence and “great powers forging competing blocs” was finished.

“In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonising other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over,” he said, speaking to graduates from Moscow’s New Economic School.

He added: “As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. That is why I have called for a ‘reset’ in relations between the United States and Russia.

“America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.”

Obama acknowledged that the US needed to play its part in bringing about a fresh start with Russia – “a great power”. And he paid tribute to the achievements of Russian writers and scientists, even managing to quote a line from Pushkin when he told the students: “Inspiration is needed in geometry just as much as in poetry.”

Crucially, though, Obama indicated that Washington would not tolerate another Russian invasion of Georgia. Russia is winding up full-scale military exercises next to the Georgian border amid ominous predictions that a second conflict in the Caucasus could erupt this summer.

On Monday Obama reaffirmed Georgia’s sovereignty – severely undermined by last year’s war and Moscow’s subsequent unilateral recognition of rebel-held Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Today Obama defended “state sovereignty”, describing it as “a cornerstone of international order”.

He also said that Georgia and Ukraine had a right to choose their own foreign policy and leaders, and could join Nato if they wanted. Russia is deeply opposed to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s accession, and wants the White House to rule out their future membership. Today Obama responded by saying that Nato sought collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

Earlier, Obama had breakfast with Vladimir Putin, the man whom most people regard as Russia’s real ruler. Last week Obama described Putin, Russia’s prime minister, as having “one foot in the past”. Today, however, he talked to him for two and a half hours – longer than planned and an admission of Putin’s continuing importance. The meeting, their first, was “excellent”, Obama said.

During his speech, however, Obama delivered a withering assessment of Putinism. Without mentioning Russia by name, Obama spelled out the US’s commitment to “universal values”. These included the rule of law, the equal administration of justice, and competitive elections – all things missing from Putin’s vertically managed authoritarian state.

Obama also stressed the importance of “independent media in exposing corruption at all levels of business and government”. Russia’s state-controlled TV has largely snubbed Obama’s first trip to Moscow, apparently on Kremlin orders, either failing to mention him at all or relegating him to the lower regions of the news schedule.

On Monday Obama and Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, agreed a framework document that would see both sides cut their nuclear arsenals by up to a third. Today Obama warned again of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and urged Moscow to join with the US to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and to end North Korea’s nuclear efforts.

He also reaffirmed that the US would only go ahead with its planned missile defence shield in central Europe – opposed by the Kremlin – if there was an Iranian nuclear “threat”. He said neither the US or Russia would benefit from a nuclear arms race in east Asia or the Middle East.

“In the short period since the end of the cold war we have already seen India, Pakistan and North Korea conduct nuclear tests. Without a fundamental change, do any of us truly believe that the next two decades will not bring about the further spread of nuclear weapons?” he asked.

“That is why America is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation, and ultimately seeking a world without nuclear weapons … And while I know this goal won’t be met soon, pursuing it provides the legal and moral foundation to prevent the proliferation and eventual use of nuclear weapons.”

The White House billed Obama’s Moscow address as a “major foreign policy speech”. It is the third in a series of major speeches that began in April in Prague, where he discussed disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, and continued in Cairo, where he offered a fresh US approach to the Middle East and Muslim communities.

Later, Obama met the former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. He is due to meet business leaders and hold talks with civil society activists, including the opposition leader and former world chess champion Gary Kasparov.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Obama urges US-Russia ‘fresh start’

July 7th, 2009 | No Comments

Moscow speech calls for co-operation to stop nuclear proliferation and a move away from cold war policies

Barack Obama today urged Russia to move on from the cold war and stop interfering in the affairs of neighbouring states.

In a keynote speech during his first visit as president to Moscow, Obama delivered a carefully worded critique of Russian foreign policy.

“In 2009, the great power does not show strength by dominating or demonising other countries. The days when empires could treat other sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over,” he said.

But, speaking at Moscow’s New Economic School on the second day of his visit, he acknowledged that the US needed to play its role in making a “fresh start” in US-Russian relations. He admitted this would not be easy, and acknowledged previous tensions.

“America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia … on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for co-operation,” he told his audience.

The president said old assumptions that the US and Russia were antagonists vying for spheres of influence were wrong.

“Given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one value or people over another will inevitably fail.

“That is why I have called for a ‘reset’ in relations between the United States and Russia. This must be more than a fresh start between the Kremlin and the White House, though that is important.

“It must be a sustained effort among the American and Russian people to identify mutual interests, and to expand dialogue and co-operation that can pave the way to progress.”

Obama made pointed remarks on democracy and press freedom. “Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable,” he said.

“If our democracy did not advance those rights, I, as a person of African ancestry, wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a president.

“The arc of history shows us that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not. Governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend into failed states, to terrorise their citizens, or to wage war on others.”

On nuclear proliferation, the US leader said: “The future does not belong to those who gather armies or plant missiles.”

He urged Russia to unite with the US to end North Korea’s nuclear efforts and to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

“If the threat from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme is eliminated, the driving force for missile defence in Europe will be eliminated,” Obama said.

“In the short period since the end of the cold war, we have already seen India, Pakistan and North Korea conduct nuclear tests. Without a fundamental change, do any of us truly believe that the next two decades will not bring about the further spread of nuclear weapons?

“That is why America is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation, and ultimately seeking a world without nuclear weapons … And while I know this goal won’t be met soon, pursuing it provides the legal and moral foundation to prevent the proliferation and eventual use of nuclear weapons.”

Obama’s Moscow address is being billed as the third part in a series of major speeches that began in April in Prague, where he discussed disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, and continued with last month’s speech in Cairo, in which he offered a fresh US approach to the Middle East and the Muslim communities.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

US and Russia offer to cut warheads

July 7th, 2009 | No Comments

• Obama signs framework accord at Moscow summit
• Deal could lead to arsenals of both being cut by a third

The US and Russia today agreed a nuclear disarmament road map that would see them cut their arsenals by up to a third, in a preliminary agreement signed by Barack Obama during his Russia trip.

Pledging to reverse a “sense of drift” in Washington’s relations with Moscow, the US president said he hoped a new nuclear arms reduction treaty to replace the Start-1 pact, which expires this December, would be ready by the end of the year. “We must lead by example and that is what we are doing here today,” he said in Moscow.

Under terms of the outline deal the sides have agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles to between 1,500-1,675 warheads each and that strategic delivery systems – ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and heavy bombers – be cut to between 500 and 1,100.

But it was unclear today whether negotiations between the US and Russia would actually yield a new treaty – or whether both sides could bury their differences over the former’s missile defence plans. The Kremlin has made it clear that a deal is impossible if the US administration goes ahead with its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Obama said today that a review of that shield would be completed as early as this summer. But he gave no indication whether he was willing to dump it – instead merely predicting that the diametrically opposed positions of the two nations on the shield “could be reconciled”.

Obama also insisted the purpose of the shield was to intercept missiles from Iran or North Korea or other states rather than from Russia. But he conceded that convincing Moscow of this would be hard work. “It’s going to take time to break down existing suspicions,” he noted.

Despite Obama’s pledge to reset “US-Russian relations”, there was little sense from today’s summit that the two sides had managed to overcome the hostility and suspicion that characterised relations between George Bush and Vladimir Putin. Nor was there much of the sparkle that has accompanied previous summits between US and Russian leaders.

Asked whether he trusted Dmitry Medvedev, Obama responded by calling Russia’s president “straightforward and professional”. But he also had problems pronouncing his Russian counterpart’s name – dubbing him on one occasion: “Mededev” – and appeared tired after the flight from Washington.

Analysts said the nuclear deal at the very least revived the notion of disarmament, which had been lost amid the hostilities of recent years, and was realistic.

“The negotiations are going to be tense,” said Paul Ingram, the executive director of the British American Security Information Council. “The Russians will be playing hardball but the Americans know Moscow has a strong interest in getting a treaty signed. Both sides have too much invested in reaching an agreement.”

Once the treaty is signed, the next question will be how much further the US and Russia have to go. Obama has dedicated himself to a world free of nuclear weapons, but that remains a theoretical target.

Hovering in the gilded rooms of the Kremlin like an unwelcome ghost was Putin, whom Obama meets tomorrow for a brief working breakfast. Asked whether he thought Putin or Medvedev ran Russia, Obama replied: “Medvedev is the president and Putin is the prime minister.”

Russia did offer one significant concession, agreeing to let the US fly troops and munitions across its airspace to provide an air corridor for its forces in Afghanistan. The two sides also agreed to resume military co-operation, suspended following Russia’s invasion of Georgia last year.

Obama reaffirmed US support for Georgia’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”. There was no mention of Ukraine, whose admission to Nato Moscow ardently rejects along with that of Georgia’s.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

US and Russia offer to cut warheads

July 6th, 2009 | No Comments

Framework signed on US president’s Russia visit would leave each side with as few as 1,500 warheads capable of launch

The US and Russia have agreed to work towards cutting deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 1,500 each under an agreement signed by Barack Obama on his first trip to Russia as president.

Obama and the Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a framework deal aimed at cutting warheads to a maximum of 1,675 within seven years of a nuclear arms reduction treaty coming into force.

Current treaties allow for a maximum of 2,200 warheads, though both sides are thought to have more than that deployed, or capable of launch. According to some expert estimates of current numbers, the new commitment would mean each side scrapping almost 1,000 warheads.

The pact signed today also calls for the number of strategic delivery systems to be reduced to between 500 and 1,100 on each side, from 1,600 under current treaties. Such systems include intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and heavy bombers.

Obama said he intended to host a summit on global nuclear security next year. Among a flurry of other bilateral announcements today, Russia said it was prepared to let the US fly troops and weapons across its airspace to Afghanistan.

“We must lead by example and that’s what we are doing here today,” Obama said of the preliminary nuclear accord. “We resolve to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest.”

Medvedev said today’s summit was a “first step, but a very important step” towards resetting relations.

Obama and Medvedev agreed during their last meeting in April to hold talks on a successor treaty to the 1991 Start-1 pact, which expires in December. But attempts to reach a deal have been aggravated by disagreements over the Pentagon’s planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Yesterday, Medvedev said any new arms reduction treaty was definitively “linked” to America’s missile defence ambitions in central Europe.

“We consider these issues are interconnected,” he said. “It is sufficient to show restraint and show an ability to compromise. And then we can agree on the basis of a new deal on Start.” Obama responded by saying that he would complete a review of the need for the missile defence shield in the next two months, and would then re-address the issue with the Russian government in search of a definitive agreement on the issue.

In an interview today with the Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Obama stressed that the missile defence system was not aimed at Russia but rather intended to protect the US and its allies from an Iranian nuclear missile.

He acknowledged “Russian sensitivities” over the shield but said he hoped Moscow would “become a partner in the project”. He made clear he would not accept Moscow’s linkage between arms control and missile defence, a statement that suggests there is little prospect of a rapid breakthrough.

Tomorrow, Obama he will meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister and the man who most people believe still runs the country. Obama described Putin slightingly last week as having “one foot in the past”.

Russia’s state-controlled media have so far given Obama a less than overwhelming reception. The Kremlin-controlled Channel One TV last night failed to mention Obama’s visit in its headlines, leading instead with a report on Medvedev’s attempts to encourage energy conservation.

The US and Russia account for more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear warheads to a maximum of 2,200 warheads under the Start treaty. But until now they had not been able to agree on a reduction in the systems used to launch them.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Obama faces Russian arms impasse

July 6th, 2009 | No Comments

Medvedev seeks to tie arms reduction treaty to US missile defence ahead of Obama’s first presidential trip to Moscow

Barack Obama is due to arrive in Moscow today for his first trip to Russia as US president amid dwindling hopes of a breakthrough deal on nuclear weapons.

The summit’s centrepiece is supposed to be a groundbreaking pact on nuclear arms reduction, but Russia said there could be no agreement unless the US was prepared to heed its concerns on missile defence.

Obama and the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, agreed at their last meeting, in April, to hold talks on a successor treaty to the 1991 Start-1 pact, which expires in December. But attempts to reach a deal appear to have come unstuck over the same problem that defeated the Bush administration: the Kremlin’s unbending hostility to the Pentagon’s planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

While Obama has agreed to review the plan, he is not prepared to abandon it. Yesterday Medvedev said any new arms reduction treaty was definitively “linked” to the US’s missile defence ambitions in central Europe.

“We consider these issues are interconnected,” he said. “It is sufficient to show restraint and show an ability to compromise. And then we can agree on the basis of a new deal on Start.”

Medevedev’s comments place Obama in an uncomfortable position on one of the biggest foreign policy trips of his presidency. If he makes concessions he risks a political backlash at home and the charge of capitulation. If he doesn’t, he may emerge from the US-Russia summit no more successful than George Bush.

Russian officials revealed that they had not been able to reach agreement on a “framework document” setting out a blueprint for nuclear talks – an ominous sign. Obama, however, made clear his determination to improve relations.

“I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments have not pursued as actively as we could have,” he told the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

On Tuesday he will meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister and the man most people believe still runs the country. Obama described Putin slightingly last week as having “one foot in the past”.

In his interview, Obama acknowledged “Russian sensitivities” over the shield, but said it was needed to protect the US and Europe from a nuclear-armed Iranian missile. He made clear he would not accept Moscow’s linkage between arms control and missile defence, a statement that suggests there is little prospect of a rapid breakthrough.

Analysts said there were profound, irreconcilable differences between both sides, not just over the shield but also on technical issues including counting, verification and delivery systems.

“It requires a miracle to resolve these differences,” said Sergey Rogov, director of the US and Canadian Institute in Moscow.

The US and Russia account for more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear warheads below the 2,000 agreed in the Start treaty to 1,500-1,700 each. But they have not been able to agree on a reduction in delivery systems, which include intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines missiles and heavy bombers.

According to Rogov, Russia wants to reduce the number of launchers to 600. The US is insisting on around 1,000. Additionally, Moscow is against the US having what it calls a “return potential”, which would allow nuclear weapons scrapped by the US to be redeployed in the event of a nuclear crisis. “I’m not sure Obama understands it,” Rogov said.

Writing last week in Novaya Gazeta, the Moscow defence analyst Pavel Felgenhaur predicted the summit would be a failure. He said the Russian government, emboldened by the recent oil price rise, expected the US to make “one-sided” concessions while making none itself.

During his two-and-a-half day trip to Moscow, Obama is expected to seek Russia’s co-operation on Iran, and support for a stronger sanctions regime against North Korea. Yesterday, however, Medevev hailed Iran as a “major partner”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Nuclear arms reduction deal row

July 6th, 2009 | No Comments

• Nuclear arms cuts treaty hits familiar problem
• Medvedev expects US concessions before deal

Hopes of a new nuclear arms reduction deal between Moscow and Washington appeared to be in doubt today, after Russia said there could be no agreement unless the US was prepared to heed its concerns on missile defence.

Barack Obama flies into Moscow tomorrow for his first trip to Russia as US president. The summit’s centrepiece is supposed to be a groundbreaking agreement on nuclear arms reduction.

Obama and Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, agreed during their last meeting in April to hold talks on a successor treaty to the 1991 Start-1 pact, which expires in December. But attempts to reach a deal appear to have come unstuck over the same problem that defeated the Bush administration: the Kremlin’s unbending hostility to the Pentagon’s planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. While Obama has agreed to review the plan, he is not prepared to abandon it. Today Medvedev said that any new arms reduction treaty was definitively “linked” to the US’s missile defence ambitions in central Europe.

Medvedev said: “We consider these issues are interconnected. It is sufficient to show restraint and show an ability to compromise. And then we can agree on the basis of a new deal on Start.”

Medevedev’s comments place Obama in an uncomfortable position on the eve of one of the biggest foreign policy trips of his presidency. If he makes concessions he risks a political backlash at home and the charge of capitulation. If he doesn’t, he may emerge from the US-Russia summit no more successful than George Bush.

Today Russian officials revealed that they had not been able to reach agreement on a “framework document” setting out a blueprint for nuclear talks ‑ an ominous sign. Obama, however, made clear his determination to improve relations.

“I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments have not pursued as actively as we could have,” he told the Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta.

On Tuesday he will meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister and the man who most people believe still runs the country. Obama described Putin slightingly last week as having “one foot in the past”.

In his interview, Obama acknowledged “Russian sensitivities” over the shield, but said it was needed to protect the US and Europe from a nuclear-armed Iranian missile. He made clear he would not accept Moscow’s linkage between arms control and missile defence, a statement that suggest there is little prospect of a rapid breakthrough.

Today analysts said there were profound, irreconcilable differences between both sides, not just over the shield, but technical issues including counting, verification, and delivery systems.

“It requires a miracle to resolve these differences,” Sergey Rogov, director of the US and Canadian Institute in Moscow, said.

The US and Russia account for more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear warheads below the 2,000 agreed in the Start treaty to 1,500-1,700 each. But they have not been able to agree on a reduction in delivery systems, which include intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles or heavy bombers.

According to Rogov, Russia wants to reduce the number of launchers to 600. The US is insisting on around 1,000. Additionally, Moscow is against the US having what it calls a “return potential”, which would allow nuclear weapons scrapped by the US to be redeployed in the event of a nuclear crisis. “I’m not sure Obama understands it,” Rogov said.

Writing last week in Novaya Gazeta, the Moscow defence analyst Pavel Felgenhaur predicted the summit would be a failure. He said the Russian government, emboldened by the recent oil price rise, expected the US to make “one-sided” concessions while making none itself.

During his two-and-a-half day trip to Moscow, Obama is expected to seek Russia’s co-operation on Iran, and support for a stronger sanctions regime against North Korea. Today, however, Medevev hailed Iran as a “major partner”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Now you’re talking …

July 4th, 2009 | No Comments

Want to speak like a native but don’t fancy spending your entire trip in a classroom? These holidays combine lessons with activities and the chance to hang out with locals

French

Surfing: Biarritz

If only school could have been this relaxed. At a solar-powered surf camp in a 300-year-old farmhouse close to Les Casernes beach, near Biarritz, language lessons take the form of informal two-hour chats over beers in the afternoons. Mornings are spent riding the waves, and five days of surf lessons (for 1½ hours per day) are included. The camp has plenty of places for practising tenses in your free time – in the garden, hydro-pool, hammam, tree hut, canoe or hammock. Suitable for beginners and improvers.

• A week costs £606pp, including surfboard and wetsuit hire. 08445 020 445, golearnto.com.

Outdoor adventure: Verdon

Perhaps you’re more likely to remember new words if you learn them while scared out of your wits. A French immersion course in Moustiers, in the Parc Naturel Regional du Verdon, includes morning lessons (beginner to advanced available) in a converted hilltop monastery, plus afternoon exploration of the river Verdon by canoe, treks into the Garrigue with a forest guard, games of pétanque in the village square, dances at a bal populaire or viewings of French films, all accompanied by teachers to ensure French is spoken throughout. At the weekend, the adventuring ratchets up a gear with canyoning, rafting, kayaking and abseiling where no doubt you will learn the French for “Help!” and perfect your pronunciation of merde

• Course €1,670pp for 14 days, accommodation €458 per week, 0121 430 7660, experiencelanguage.co.uk.

Wine: Bordeaux

Many people’s language priority is being able to order food and drink. But imagine how impressive you’ll sound when you can not only stammer out “Un verre de vin, s’il vous plaît”, but are also capable of ordering a fine Bordeaux, commenting on its complexity of flavour and describing the time you visited the very vineyard where it was created. This seven-day French and Bordeaux wine course will set you well on the way to talking about terroir like a native, with four 45-minute sessions of French a day (there’s a test on day one to establish your level), three afternoon sessions on Bordeaux wines, including tastings at l’Ecole du Bordeaux, and excursions to Saint-Emilion and Médoc vineyards.

• Courses start 20 July, 17 August, 14 September, 12 October, £705pp. Homestay accommodation from £170 per week, flight from £115pp return. 0871 230 8512, statravel.co.uk.

Spanish

Walk the talk: Pyrenees

“When we visit my neighbour Hilaria’s vegetable garden, if you pick tomatoes, you’ll learn how to talk about them,” says Georgina Howard, who runs the Pyrenean Experience, a language course in the Baztan valley that teaches Spanish by living Spanish. Language tutors are always on hand to help guests in conversation practise while they ramble through the Pyrenean mountains, meet local farmers, visit bars and hamlets, have lunch with the neighbours or host parties at the seven-bedroom farmhouse, and generally live the Basque life. There are more formal morning lessons on a terrace, and weeks for beginners, intermediate and advanced speakers are run separately.

• Full board £850pp per week, 0121 711 3428, pyreneanexperience.com.

Surfing: Tenerife

Insted runs language courses in Austria, Spain and France that are combined with skiing or surfing. Its Tenerife course runs year-round from a central base in Puerto de la Cruz, a thriving town with busy bars and restaurants serving Latin American and African-influenced dishes. Minutes away from the classroom are the beaches, where the breaks have earned the Canaries the title “Hawaii of the Atlantic”. Accommodation is with a local family, or in an apartment sharing with other students from the course.

• Homestay with family from €165pp per week B&B in private room, €200 half board. Apartment from €165pp for private room. Two week minimum, €220 per week for the course. 00 33 450 530 366, insted.com.

Tango: Buenos Aires

“Bailamos?” is Spanish for “Shall we dance?” – as those returning from this trip will know. In the historic centre of Argentina’s capital, near the bohemian San Telmo district, pupils take a daily four-hour classroom lesson of Spanish, and Argentinian and Spanish culture, politics and history in groups of up to seven. Afterwards they don their dancing shoes to learn one of the world’s sexiest dances at a nearby milonga, or tango hall.

• Six nights including homestay with from £467pp, tango classes £4 per hour. Hotel accommodation available. Journey Latin America (020 8747 8315, journeylatinamerica.co.uk).

Portuguese

Capoeira: Brazil

Practise whirling your limbs to the moves of capoeira while learning to twirl your tongue around the Portuguese language on a two-week course combining the two in Salvador. Classes of eight study beginners’ Portuguese for 20 hours a week, then concentrate on the acrobatic Brazilian dance/martial art twice a week; both take place in a language centre. A samba lesson and cookery class are also included, and homestay accommodation is available so that you can practise over dinner (the language, not capoeira).

• Course £285 pp for 14 days, homestay accommodation from £89 per room per week. 08445 020 445, golearnto.com.

Italian

Food and cookery: Tuscany

For an indulgent foodie break with a side serving of language lessons, Sanctuary Villas puts up large groups of friends or two families in a luxurious converted farmhouse villa with an outdoor pool, sauna, steam room and Jacuzzi, near the medieval village of San Gimignano. The company can arrange extras including cookery classes with local chef Giuseppina and language lessons, taken in your villa, the garden which overlooks rolling, cypress-lined Chianti hills or wherever you prefer. Villa La Terme consists of two large houses, together sleeping 10 plus two children.

• From £5,824 per week (£69 pp per night) accommodation only, language lessons from £41 pp per hour with Sanctuary Villas (01242 547 902, sanctuary-villas.com).

Photography and cycling: Umbria

Northern Umbria is a very untouristy part of Italy, a bonus for language learners as locals are unlikely to revert to English when you chat, and because they have more time to do so. Guests at the Labbazia school in the Upper Tiber Valley will meet plenty of them on trips to local markets and bars in the nearby medieval villages, where they’ll put into practise all they learned that day in class (three levels available). There’s usually some sort of local pageant, dance or festival to attend, and many other activities are arranged on demand, from photography classes to tai chi, cycling or horse-riding.

• From €1,050pp per week, full-board at the agriturismo where lessons are held, including 20 x 45min lessons, transfers from Perugia and guided trips. 00 39 075 857 3004, labbaziaschool.com.

Greek

Beach and culture: Syros

On this two-week course at the OMILO centre on the Cycladic island of Syros, there are classes at the Pension Echo in Azolimnos (which is also one of the self-catering accommodation options) from 9.30am to 1.30pm each day. Then it’s time to hit the beaches right by the centre for swimming and sunbathing, before moving a short distance to the village’s lively tavernas. Excursions such as Greek dance lessons, museum visits, guided walks and local concerts are included and everyone goes along to a sociable first night meal. The island’s capital, Ermoupolis, an affluent harbour of neo-classical buildings, mansions, marble-paved streets and white houses, is 4km away.

• Catch a ferry from Athens. Next dates September, €590 for two weeks. Rooms from €35 per night. 00 30 210 612 2896, omilo.com.

German

Watersports: Bavaria

Lindau is a beautiful town on its own island in the eastern side of Lake Constance, with a historic medieval centre and pretty harbour. It’s a great base for learning German – after classes, pupils cool off by sailing and waterskiing on the lake, cycle around it or go on excursions to Meersburg, Salem Castle and Liechtenstein.

The Dialoge language school provides 20-25 lessons per week, and has a sports hall for basketball, volleyball and football games. Social evenings with barbecues, wine tastings and the cinema are arranged too.

• From €490 per week including accommodation with a host family or the school’s apartments, €330 without. 0808 234 8578, studytravel.com.

Arabic

Interaction: Cairo

Pupils of the Bridge Abroad programme will learn the Egyptian dialect (one of the easiest to pick up) as well as classical Arabic on a week’s beginners’ course in Cairo. The focus is on learning through interaction with some of the city’s 14.5million residents, after daily lessons in a school 15 minutes from the centre. Afternoons are spent among the throng, picking up more vocabulary in the souks, cafes and squares, and at lectures, concerts, cinemas and the famous sites.

• Three weeks (minimum) including accommodation costs from $878pp, $399 without accommodation, or from $711 per week private tuition, from $855 with accommodation. 0808 120 7613, bridgeabroad.com.

Japanese

Cooking and karaoke: Tokyo

Nowhere gives a culture shock like Japan, so throwing yourself into the local way of life is as important as learning the lingo if you are to have a hope of ever fitting in. Alongside a beginners’ course that also covers Japanese culture in a centrally-located school, pupils can take workshops on calligraphy, tea ceremonies, noodle cooking, judo and karate, and interact with native Japanese speakers on nights out bowling, to quizzes and, of course, singing karaoke.

• From $2900 for two weeks including accommodation with a host family, in student dorms or apartments with World Link Education (0046 5580 3720, wle-japan.com).

Mandarin

Live-in learning: Beijing

Moving in with your teacher would have been an abhorrent notion when you were a teenager, but now it could be the best way to develop your language skills. Instead of trawling through a textbook twice a day, you can chat to your tutors from breakfast to bedtime while staying in their home on Go Learn To’s “home language courses”. These suit all levels and give the option of staying with your teachers, couples and families around Beijing as well as informal tuition. Guests get a set of keys and are free to come and go as they please, but are usually invited to join in with their teacher’s life, to meet relatives and friends, go shopping and explore the nightlife.

• Seven days from £864pp per week full board, 08445 020 445, golearnto.com.

Russian

Culture: St Petersburg

Russia is one place where you’re unlikely to pick up much of the language without some serious tuition. A course that includes 20 lessons per week in St Petersburg is a good place to start. After class, it’s time to absorb the city’s rich culture at its many sites.

Bi-weekly group activities include visits to the theatre and ballet and to other places such as the riverside city of Novgorod. Go in the summer and you can join in many vercherinkas – small parties with caviar, vodka and Russian folk songs. Beginners’ and advanced courses are available, but everyone is asked to learn the Cyrillic alphabet before arriving.

• Two weeks from $2,170pp all inclusive, but excluding flights, languagesabroad.com.

• Don’t miss our free phrasebooks every day next week, plus Italian the week after

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Obama interview risks Russian ire

July 3rd, 2009 | No Comments

US president signals tough stance by speaking with prominent opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta ahead of state visit

Barack Obama is to give an interview to the Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta before his trip to Moscow on Monday, in the clearest sign yet that his administration will take an unexpectedly tough approach in its dealings with the Kremlin. Obama will talk to the editor-in-chief, Dmitry Muratov, and meet the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who co-owns the paper.

Novaya Gazeta is famous for its critical reporting of the Russian government. Its special correspondent Anna Politkovskaya is one of four reporters from the paper to have been murdered. A critic of the prime minister, Vladimir Putin, she was shot dead in Moscow in October 2006.

Formally, Obama is following in the footsteps of Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, who granted Novaya an interview in April. This week the paper published its own investigation into the origins of last summer’s war between Russia and Georgia. The Kremlin blamed Georgia’s pro-US leader, Mikheil Saakashvili. According to Novaya, however, the Kremlin planned its invasion of Georgia long in advance, sending columns of tanks.

There has been a wide-ranging debate inside Obama’s administration on how to engage with Russia, after the disastrous Bush years. By last autumn relations between Moscow and Washington had sunk to their lowest since the 1980s.

Foreign policy realists argue that in order to “reset” relations with Moscow, and secure Russia’s support for US priorities like Iran and Afghanistan, Obama should soft-pedal his support for human rights. Idealists want a vigorous, values-based engagement with the Kremlin.

Writing in the Moscow Times last week, Russian analyst Lilia Shevtsova noted: “The outcome of Obama’s visit will depend on the willingness of the US to see the differences between the national interest of Russia and the interests of Russia’s ruling elite.”

A Russian presidential spokesman, Sergei Prikhodko, said Obama and Medvedev would sign “framework agreements” on Monday, covering nuclear arms reduction, military co-operation and the transit of US supplies to Afghanistan. They have pledged to agree a replacement to the Start-1 nuclear treaty, which expires on December 5. But experts are sceptical. Prikhodko confirmed that a deal could only take place if the US acknowledged Russia’s “concerns” over the US missile defence shield in central Europe. The Kremlin wants Obama to dump it.

Human rights groups want Obama to raise the issue of murdered Russian journalists. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says 17 journalists have been killed since 2000.

On Thursday Obama described Putin as a cold war figure with “one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot on the new”. Putin responded: “As regards our standing one foot in the past and the other ahead, we cannot stand, as they say, perhaps not in a very literary way, with out legs apart. We stand firmly on our feet and always look to the future.”

Putin said he was looking forward to Obama’s visit “with very warm feelings”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

The high price of holding Helmand

July 3rd, 2009 | No Comments

A British commander’s death is not a crisis for the Afghanistan offensive, but a harsh reminder of the challenge facing the army

The death in action of the commanding officer of the Welsh Guards is a great sadness to his family, friends and his community in the regiment and the army. But it can hardly be deemed the “devastating blow” to British operations in Helmand portrayed by the BBC – nor even the “huge blow” described by the Times on Friday.

“This what brave and capable officers do,” a senior general told me this morning. “They lead their men in the best way they can, and this often means putting themselves in harm’s way. It is part of the job.”

By all accounts, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, 39, was an outstanding officer. His legacy is in the battalion he trained and took to the fight in the Helmand valley where he died on 1 July – the great British military anniversary. On the same day 93 years ago, just shy of 20,000 of its sons were killed in a few hours on the first day of the long Somme offensive.

The Welsh Guards have been involved in some pretty hard pounding in Helmand, and still are. In just over two months, they have lost their commanding officer, a company commander, a platoon commander and a senior lance sergeant. Out of the 30 men in the reconnaissance Platoon, 19 have sustained injuries in combat. A brilliant insight into the nature of the fighting and the two big British and American operations along the Helmand river is given by Tom Coghlan in the Times.

On hearing of the colonel’s death, Coghlan said the guardsmen just carried on with the business in hand. This is exactly what happened when the last British commander was killed in battle. As it happens, I was some 300m back from where Lt Col H Jones of 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was killed in the battle at Goose Green in 1982. The battle had stalled when he died, and after a brief rearrangement of who was in charge, Major Chris Keeble went forward, made adjustments to the plans in consultation with the company commanders and, slowly and surely, the paratroopers regained the initiative.

I do not recall anyone in the battalion talking about “a devastating blow” that afternoon on the Darwin Isthmus in the Falklands – they had too much work to do. H Jones gave orders about what should happen if he should be killed: the battery commander would direct the immediate battle, until the second-in-command, Major Keeble, could come forward to command the whole battle. Colonel Thorneloe will have made the same provision, with his second-in-command now in charge.

But this doesn’t mean that aren’t some serious tactical and strategic issues raised by his death. First, there is the proven vulnerability of the Viking tracked vehicle, which is too thinly armoured to resist the new booby trap bombs of the Taliban. Last month, the Oxford coroner welcomed the army’s announcement that the vehicles – originally designed to move ski troops in the Arctic – are to be replaced.

The most worrying aspect is the simplicity of such bombs used by the Taliban. The bombs are buried in the dirt and sand with very little in the way of electronics and only pressure plates to set them off when a vehicle trundles over or near them. This makes them very hard to detect by mine clearance teams.

The strategic question is raised by the big operations involving up to 10,000 British, American and Afghan troops now under way. The aim is to clear the Taliban out of the villages along the river, the prime poppy-growing territory, so they can hold relatively trouble-free national elections for the presidency and the assembly on 20 August.

The aim is described as “pushing back” the Taliban. No one is talking of an outright defeat of the Taliban across southern Afghanistan. Soon, the international forces will have close to the numbers the Russians had the height of their occupation and war against the Mujahideen in the 1980s – some 110,000 troops on the ground.

Unlike that war, the fighting has spread well beyond Afghanistan itself, into the North West Frontier territories and the Swat valley of Pakistan, and is now part of a broad regional conflict. Russia’s entanglement in Afghanistan ran for a disastrous decade and ended in a withdrawal that could only be called defeat; today, the commander-in-chief of the most powerful international force contingent, President Obama, has given himself a deadline of two years to get this, the military, phase of the job done.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

How to handle Russia

July 3rd, 2009 | No Comments

When he meets Medvedev in Moscow, Obama should know this is not a mighty superpower, but a weak and corrupt federation

US president Barack Obama arrives in Moscow on Monday 6 July. Here, in Russia, he is awaited with some foreboding – he is, after all, the most powerful man on earth. The Kremlin hopes he will announce a “reset” in US-Russian relations, and recognise today’s Russia as a respected, worthy ally. Russia’s liberals, by contrast, want him to admonish the Kremlin for shortcomings in its authoritarian regime.

Many Russians see Obama as a kind of secret messiah, chosen to guide the nation towards a new phase in its historical development. Surprisingly, among Russia’s ruling elite there is no real anti-American sentiment: both those in power and Russia’s opposition crave, more than anything else, America’s love. If sometimes America aggrieves them, and from time to time they criticise Washington, they do so only because they are afraid of the US not returning their love.

Contrary to the beliefs of many politicians, today’s Russian Federation has absolutely nothing in common with the late USSR. If anything, the Russian Federation is the world’s most anti-Soviet government. The USSR was based on socialism, state ownership, collectivisation, the cult worship of Marxism-Leninism, the export of communism and the need for military and political influence in satellite countries and regions. The Russian Federation is based upon very different ideals: namely, capitalism, private ownership, total individualism, the cult of money, the rejection of traditional state paternalism and widespread corruption at all levels of power.

Another important factor is the desire to secure the ruling elite’s business interests all over the world. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Dmitry Medvedev have real power. Power belongs to big capital –which, in Russia, means those who benefited from the massive privatisations of Soviet infrastructure. Resetting relations with the US is important for the Kremlin since it is a way for Russia to gain entry to western markets and investment. Therefore, this issue can and should be discussed with Medvedev – and only Medvedev. Putin shouldn’t even get a look-in.

Today’s Russian rulers don’t hate democracy or freedom. Rather, they simply don’t believe such values exist, are necessary or of use. But they do believe inmoney and technology. This must be taken into account when entering into any dialogue with them. The Russian elite doesn’t conceive of itself in political or geopolitical terms. So there isn’t any point in asking the leadership about any strategic game plan in its relations with Iran or the satellite countries of the former USSR. They do not know themselves. There are no political positions that they would not, in principle, be willing to abandon in exchange for proper compensation.

Over the past 90 years, Russia has never been as weak as today. Officially, the Kremlin has a tight grip over the country; in reality, this is a myth. The only ruling principle and source of power in Russia is corruption. It only takes into consideration the wishes of the Kremlin when it needs to. Moscow’s influence on former parts of its empire is finished: the latest events in Belarus and Kyrgyzstan eloquently confirm this. Control over large parts of the north Caucasus has been lost. Russia’s armed forces have withered away, technologically and morally. And the post-Soviet economic model, based on the export of raw materials and the import of everything else, is careering towards a crash: unemployment figures are rising by 250,000 to 300,000 per month; while industrial output is declining by 15-17% per month. The current rise in the price of oil does nothing to improve the picture.

Russia has no political opposition that could bring about regime change. Critics of the Kremlin – from ultra-liberals to communists – have been co-opted into the power system. This has happened because of corruption, and because the opposition fears open political conflict. At present, a protest movement across Russia is beginning to stir, but without a proper legal and political superstructure the only way it can be expressed is, to use Pushkin’s phrase, through senseless and ruthless riots.

Russia’s elite has recently come up with several daft ideas, including making the rouble an international reserve currency. The most talented and able members of Russia’s political establishment have been systematically disposed of over the past decade, leaving only the dregs. Their main goal has been to reduce inter-elite competition and to conserve their own power.

Before Obama takes the Kremlin or its utterances too seriously, he should remember this: to this day, the Kremlin believes the Orange revolution in the Ukraine to be the result of an American conspiracy; and that, until the beginning of November 2008, the leaders of Russia genuinely thought the next president of the United States would be John McCain because, in their opinion, a black man would never become American president.

If Obama really wants to improve relations with Moscow, he must take the lead. Obama should suggest to Russia’s leaders that they should be permitted to make investments in the west, allowing them (by means of an exchange in assets) to invest in the US gas market, letting Gazprom join a consortium for the modernisation of, for example, Ukraine’s gas transport system. Obama must also stress to Medvedev and his entourage that the White House considers him and other Kremlin leaders to be strong political partners. If Obama makes these overtures, Moscow will make political and defence concessions at a faster and more extensive rate than many experts believe.

Russia is no longer a superpower. And Russia poses no threat to Europe or America when strong. Rather, the danger lies in a weak Russia precipitating the destruction of its own statehood. If the gigantic territory that lies between eastern Prussia and the Siberian/Ussuryisk Taiga becomes uncontrollable, Europe and the US will find themselves confronted with a greater danger than that posed by the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea. It is crucial to monitor Russia’s decline, so that a catastrophe does not catch western powers off-guard.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Obama: Putin has one foot in the past

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

• Hopes fade for ‘reset’ in US-Russian relations
• Remarks follow praise for successor Medvedev

Barack Obama has chided Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, for “cold war approaches” to relations with the US, saying Putin had “one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new”, just days before the two men meet in Moscow.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama said the US was developing a “very good relationship” with Putin’s successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, over issues such as nuclear arms reduction. But the American president acknowledged the balance of power in Russia by saying that he would also meet Putin, because he “still has sway”.

“I think that it’s important that, even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated – that it’s time to move forward in a different direction”, said Obama. “I think Medvedev understands that.

“I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new. To the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship, but wants co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, we’ll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

In April, Obama met Medvedev and spoke of “the beginning of new progress” in relations, praising the Russian president as “critical” to that movement. After that meeting, the two men issued a statement saying they were ready “to move beyond cold war mentalities”.

Obama’s latest remarks clarify that he sees Putin standing in the way of progress, particularly on issues such as weapons reduction. His comments may in part be driven by a belief that Putin is behind Russian objections to US plans to place a missile system in eastern Europe.

However his remarks, likely to infuriate the Kremlin, come amid growing pessimism that next week’s Moscow trip will lead to a genuine “reset” in relations.

Putin will discuss “tactical and strategic issues” with Obama, the prime minister’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said last night. He added: “Putin will want to share his vision of current Russian-US relations on the basis of his experience of intensive contacts at the highest level when he was president. He has tremendous experience of contact with US presidents and a brilliant knowledge of the agenda.”

Peskov told Ekho Moskvy radio: “Of course, he will be interested to understand the new US head of state, in order to make his modest contribution to the vision of possible prospects of development.”

Medvedev became president last year, when Putin took the job of prime minister. While Medvedev has adopted a more liberal-seeming rhetoric, differences with his predecessor are stylistic, rather than substantive. Few in Russia doubt that Putin is the supreme arbiter of foreign policy.

During his Moscow trip, Obama is likely to discuss Iran, Russian co-operation over transit supplies to Afghanistan and a new nuclear arms reduction agreement. Both sides have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads each, after Obama and Medvedev’s meeting in April at the G8 summit in London.

In reality, there is little prospect of a swift arms reduction deal. The Kremlin wants the US to cancel its missile defence shield in eastern Europe in return for concessions in arms reduction – a demand Obama is unlikely to meet.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Obama chides Putin’s ‘cold war ways’

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

President chides Russia’s PM but says Dmitry Medvedev understands that cold war behaviour is outdated

On the eve of a trip to Moscow, Barack Obama chided Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, today for keeping “one foot in the old ways of doing business”. By contrast, he said Putin’s handpicked successor as president understands that cold war behaviour is outdated.

In a White House interview with The Associated Press, the president said he will meet with both Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, on his trip, in hopes they can “move in concert in cooperating with us on some critical issues.”

On an important domestic issue, Obama said the US supreme court was “moving the ball” on affirmative action in this week’s decision favouring white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, but he added that the court had not ruled out the use of racial preferences. “I don’t think that hiring on the basis of race … alone is constitutionally plausible,” said Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law.

He spoke sympathetically at one point of the white firefighters, who said they had been discriminated against: “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue than it has been made out to be in news reports.”

Nearing the end of his first six months in office, the president said he had made some progress in stabilising the economy, but he conceded too many jobs are still being lost.

He also expressed concern about his own policy on dealing with the prisoners now held at Guantánamo Bay, saying the idea of retaining at least some of the detainees indefinitely in different locations gives him pause. But he did not rule out issuing an executive order to that effect if Congress refuses to pass legislation.

Scheduled to depart next week on a trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana, Obama praised Moscow for its cooperation in attempting to persuade North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear development programs. The United Nations recently approved “the most robust sanction regime that we’ve ever seen with respect to North Korea,” he said.

The president said his agenda in Russia includes talks on a new treaty to curtail long-range nuclear missiles.

Asked why he intends to meet Putin, Obama said the former president “still has a lot of sway … and I think that it’s important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated — that’s it’s time to move forward in a different direction”.

“I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we’ll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process,” he said.

Obama expressed reservations about his recently announced policy that could lead to indefinite detention for some of the detainees currently at the Guantánamo Bay prison. “It gives me huge pause,” he said, to the point where he may not see it through.

“We’re going to proceed very carefully on this front, and it may turn out that after looking at all the dimensions of this that I don’t feel comfortable with (it),” Obama said. The president has pledged to close the prison in Cuba and hopes to send most of those currently held there to other countries.

With joblessness rising, the president said he was “deeply concerned” about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about “whether they will be next”. Still, he said that since he took office almost six months ago “we have successfully stabilised the financial markets,” and “started to see some stabilisation on housing”.

“But what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost,” said Obama, commenting after new government figures showed the unemployment rate had risen to 9.5% last month.

Since Obama signed the $780bn economic stimulus bill in February, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs.

Asked if he was resigned to Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, he said: “I’m not reconciled with that, and I don’t think the international community is reconciled with that.”

In his comments on the supreme court case, Obama said the 5-4 ruling was written narrowly, and “didn’t close the door to affirmative action” to help minorities.

Obama said of affirmative action: “It hasn’t been as potent a force for racial progress as advocates will claim and it hasn’t been as bad on white students seeking admissions or seeking a job as its critics say.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Read More »

‘Chevrolet Group’

June 17th, 2009 | No Comments

Is the pending creation of a ‘New GM’ via a spell in Chapter 11 also a good point at which to consider some corporate re-branding? Yes.


It could be a way to jettison some of the negative baggage that comes with maintaining the name of the failed company, while emphasising that the new company really is a full-on fresh start – a new beginning. Hell, there’s a whole new name and the General is really gone.


Unlike Ford, ‘GM’ itself doesn’t figure too much as a brand on yer actual vehicles. It’s primarily a group umbrella brand that is perhaps crying out to be dropped or changed.


A re-branding would also provide an opportunity to elevate a constituent brand – one that is vital and already pre-eminent in the company’s future plans. Chevrolet fits the bill. Chevrolet is a globally crucial brand for New GM. It’s already established as a high performing brand in long-term automotive growth markets like Russia and China. It also has that striking gold bow-tie logo that is surely ready-to-go for corporate branding.


‘Chevrolet Motors’? You could maybe add the word ‘American’, too – highlighting the new company’s geographical origin and that it is actually more than just Chevrolet. ‘Chevrolet American Motors’? Mind you, there has already been an ‘American Motors’, and maybe throwing the word American in there doesn’t quite work for a global company.


Dunno. Maybe Chevrolet Group is the way to go, keeping it simple. Or how about GM2? No, that’s horrendous.


And no, I don’t think Government Motors – a mocking term bandied about by critics of the Obama administrations actions – quite works. 


Anyone else out there got any suggestions?   

ANALYSIS: New GM needs a new name

Read More »

ASBIS Enhances ODD Product Offer Thanks to Distribution Deal with Pioneer

November 28th, 2005 | No Comments

ASBIS has struck a deal with Pioneer Europe NV providing for the distribution of the whole range of Pioneer optical disc drives (ODDs) throughout the countries of ASBIS’ presence across Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia and Ukraine, and Africa.

Read More »
Page 45 of 45« First...4142434445