Russia - General discussion

[freddie]

Originally Posted by Argos

Not really, it's just a problem with western credibility - "Paleface talks with forked tongue, howgh!" Independency of one country can't automatically give every other minority on earth, who feels unprivileged, the right to become independent.

Indeed it doesn't but it was Russia who automatically made the correlation between the two situations, during the saga with Kosovo's independence.

Originally Posted by Тривими

Mr.Cyrillic-Nickname liked this BBC video http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=49wOzZdWWYM Saakashvili eats own tie

LMAO
That's hillarious. What the hell was he thinking?!


In a moment of political dementia Medvedov labels Georgian politicians as "morons". This will not go down well with those who he'd like to convince of his moderate views. This is no less ridiculous than Bush's "they hate freedom" / "axes of evil" speeches.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by freddie

ILMAO
That's hillarious. What the hell was he thinking?!

Told ya, Misha is ga-ga!
******************

Well, Russia isn't just the centre of the evil, it is also the place where kind policemen think of ways to make traffic safer. Identifying the main source of risk the Krasnoyarsk police decided to publish rules for a particular part of the car-driving population...

Krasnoyarsk police’s ’Driving rules for a true lady’

#1
A true lady never breaks traffic rules because she respects the law.

#2
A true lady uses rear-view mirrors to check the road, not her appearance.

#3
A true lady won’t start a race against a male driver.

#4
A true lady will make way for another car when rules call for it - even if it means making way for a man.

#5
A true lady shall never use a mobile phone without a hands-free kit, even to learn the latest news on sales and discounts.

#6
Keeping her car fit is as important for a true lady as taking care of her looks.

#7
A true lady doesn’t flirt at the wheel and doesn’t get distracted by the looks of passing men. She knows it’s in bad taste.

#8
A true lady never sees the middle of the road as “a convenient spot to park the car”.

#9
A true lady always keeps her papers in order and in one place.

#10
A true lady keeps to her lane and uses indicator signals when she wants to change.

Source Russia Today.

[freddie]

Norway says Russia to cut military ties with NATO.

On top of that they're blatantly threating a member state of the European Union.

The cold war talk is back again, apparently. It's interesting how quickly people start bitting the hand that once fed them. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the mighty Russian Federation humbly accepted humanitarian aid from the USA & EU. Now a decade and a half later they regain some economic footing, largely thanks to their huge natural resources, combined with soaring energy prices and look what happens...

(Though I will admit the US missile shield is a preposterous idea in it's own right. Conflict is inevitable. Seriously, what the hell were they thinking? If they want to target Iran and other semi-threats in the middle east they should build it in Turkey.)

[Argos]

Originally Posted by freddie

Norway says Russia to cut military ties with NATO.

On top of that they're blatantly threating a member state of the European Union.

This tells us two important facts:

1. Whatever Russia plans, they are in a hurry, they want to make their corrections to the world order before the USA can react accordingly. The opportunity is perfect. America is in presidental elections, their arms are bound in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the financial capabilities due to the budget problems are limited.

2. Whoever thought that Medvedev would be just Putin's puppet has now the opportunity to rethink. Putin's foreign politics in his early years was quite 'lenient' and full of concessions. This changed when he made Medvedev and Ivanov his vice presidents in 2005. Russia began more and more to put pressure on it's neighbours. Now, since Medvedev became president, they began to actively exercise their power outside the boundaries of the country. We don't need to be prophets, the next step will be to revise the situation in Ukraine.

Originally Posted by freddie

It's interesting how quickly people start bitting the hand that once fed them. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the mighty Russian Federation humbly accepted humanitarian aid from the USA & EU.

A little correction here. It was the USA and the International Monetary Fund who pressed Yeltsin and Gajdar into an economic 'shock therapy', which ruined completely Russian economy, moved the wealth of this country into the hands of just a few persons (and to foreign investors, not to forget!!!) and left the population to hunger in less than 10 years. Gratefulness?

Originally Posted by freddie

(Though I will admit the US missile shield is a preposterous idea in it's own right. Conflict is inevitable. Seriously, what the hell were they thinking? If they want to target Iran and other semi-threats in the middle east they should build it in Turkey.)

Strategically I don't see the sense. Even if Iran could reach Poland or other EU-countries the interceptors are way too slow for a missile which has to be shot over 1500 km. A defense against Russian missiles is also quite unlogical, the direction of the whole defense ensemble points towards the south-east, so it makes only sense for a defense system against Ukraine.

By the way, here is an in-depth analysis of the global background of the Georgia conflict, quite helpful for thinking about what we have to expect the next few months, by Stratfor: The Real World Order

[freddie]

Originally Posted by Argos

This tells us two important facts:

1. Whatever Russia plans, they are in a hurry, they want to make their corrections to the world order before the USA can react accordingly. The opportunity is perfect. America is in presidental elections, their arms are bound in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the financial capabilities due to the budget problems are limited.

Sounds like a nice imperialist plan indeed. Unfortunately that kind of "correction" will be very hard to achieve with the economy who's sole reasons for moderate success was ridiculous energy prices. Not to mention their army is not nearly as impressive as it used to be during the hayday of the Soviet Union. They have a bunch or old submarines and a quarter of their navy rusting at abandoned sea-ports, not to mention a large chunk of what was once Soviet Union has deflected to the other side in these two decades since the totalitarian madness ended. They can still be a pretty annoying globally, no doubt about that. But they'd only achieve former glory if they form some kind of a loose coalition with China. Which they won't given the natural resentment between the two (infact only thing the two countries share, besides their communist pasts is a centralized totalitarian rule.)

Originally Posted by Argos

2. Whoever thought that Medvedev would be just Putin's puppet has now the opportunity to rethink. Putin's foreign politics in his early years was quite 'lenient' and full of concessions. This changed when he made Medvedev and Ivanov his vice presidents in 2005. Russia began more and more to put pressure on it's neighbours. Now, since Medvedev became president, they began to actively exercise their power outside the boundaries of the country. We don't need to be prophets, the next step will be to revise the situation in Ukraine.

Time will tell. I still consider Medvedev a man of reason and sound legal mind. For now he goes the Putin way, but maybe he just needs time to adjust himself in the new role and reaffirm his reign, before oppossing his master. The change in foreign policy in mid 00s has a lot to do with other reasons (more on that bellow) than Medvedov's vice presidency.

Originally Posted by Argos

A little correction here. It was the USA and the International Monetary Fund who pressed Yeltsin and Gajdar into an economic 'shock therapy', which ruined completely Russian economy, moved the wealth of this country into the hands of just a few persons (and to foreign investors, not to forget!!!) and left the population to hunger in less than 10 years. Gratefulness?

They pressed them into modern economic reforms. Something all former communist countries had to go through, yet none of them (at least the ones that weren't war-torn) needed humanitarian aid. What exactly was the alternative here? Planned economy? Fixed prices? An average Russian working at the People's Combine Harvester company #3 until they run out of steam? God forbid five decades of a heavy-duty totalitarian communist regime that controled all the economy, ridden with corruption, spending an obscene amount of money on the military had anything to do with that "surprising" decline in the 90. Economic reform is a necessary step of any post-communist country if it wants to be competitive in the broader market. It's not like the USA or EU came up with the rules. Smith's invisible hand was operational long before the rise of the Soviet empire and it'll last well past Russia's descent into economic oblivion in five decades or so, as the world finds a decent alternative energy source.

Originally Posted by Argos

By the way, here is an in-depth analysis of the global background of the Georgia conflict, quite helpful for thinking about what we have to expect the next few months, by Stratfor: The Real World Order:

Interesting article, but I don't see it quite as dramatic as they put it. Georgia was indeed a significant event but it was more a sign of Russian desperation than them "inviting us into a new world order". These non national entities and coalitions were everpresent and I don't see the significance of overaccentuating the issue.
I see this war as a consequence of two major factors:
1) Russia's desperation in NATO coming to it's doorstep, amids their struggles to regain a significant global player status
2) Pure economy: Europe has been struggling with it's heavy dependance on Russian oil and natural gas resources. The building of the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline was a significant event for both Europe as well as the countries in the Caucasus in trying to distance themselves at least somewhat from heavy dependance on Russian energants. It was a significant blow for the Russian monopol of energy supply. It comes as no surprise British Petroleum (UK) and TotalFinaElf (France) were major investor in the BTC, accompanied by US petroleum companies. Russia tried it's hardest to pressure Azerbajdzan into not signing the accord that started this biggest private-investor project in the world. But they failed. After that the rose revolution took away unofficial yet significantly influential Shevardnadzej links which stem back to Gorbachov days, while a true pro-western democrat with no ties to Moscow came to power. That was when all hope of stopping BTC (or at least limiting it's influence) were finally squashed. It's estimated the BTC pipeline countries will make a 150 billion USD profit till 2024 (and no one even knows how much the western investors are planning to earn in that time). Russians see this as money out of their pocket. Every global cent gained from oil that doesn't get filtered through Moscow is a cent lost.

Putting that in perspective these two seperatist regions in Georgia are just as convenient for Russians as gay pride parades are for religious extremists.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by freddie

Sounds like a nice imperialist plan indeed.

Welcome to planet Earth, stranger! Of course it's imperialism! Politics of regional or global superpowers were always like this and will always be. Well, the rusty weapons can be replaced and they are constantly modernizing. What experts did surprise that their military structures and strategies have extremely improved since their last enterprises in the Caucasus. That will make thing definitely harder for the NATO. I don't really believe that Russia wants back the former time of glory (which by the way never really existed), they want to gain control back in their immediate surroundings, which has been almost completely occupied by the NATO.

Originally Posted by freddie

Time will tell. I still consider Medvedev a man of reason and sound legal mind. For now he goes the Putin way, but maybe he just needs time to adjust himself in the new role and reaffirm his reign, before oppossing his master. The change in foreign policy in mid 00s has a lot to do with other reasons (more on that bellow) than Medvedov's vice presidency.

I never saw Putin as the sole architect of the developments of the second half of this decade. From the moment the three guys from St. Peterburg shared the top positions in the Kremlin I did see them as one body. Putin just used the blade more elegantly than Medvedev does. In the internal politics, here I agree with you, Medvedev's way will be more constitutional, more in accordance with the rule of law, even with more liberty for the media, but in foreign politics I don't see a turning point, not now and not in the nearer future.

Originally Posted by freddie

...
2) Pure economy: ...
...Every global cent gained from oil that doesn't get filtered through Moscow is a cent lost.

Economy is of course important, but the money itself isn't the big problem for Russia, it's the loss of control. The total dependence of Europe on Russia providing the vast majority of energy ressources brought them always in a good position for negotiations on any topic, the emanzipation of Europe will make it far more difficult to pull partners on their side, when it comes to questions important for Russia.

And global strategy should not be underestimated. The economic success and power of the USA is based on their global (military!) strategies. Russia's economical success, that is, a positive development of their economy with reduction of the huge dependence on their wealth of natural ressources and overcoming poverty, this can only be obtained with a higher influence on their neighbours. The question here is just, how much success brings a forced partnership (bullying and blackmailing) economically, and how much a partnership of trust and friendship.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by Argos

Welcome to planet Earth, stranger! Of course it's imperialism! Politics of regional or global superpowers were always like this and will always be. Well, the rusty weapons can be replaced and they are constantly modernizing. What experts did surprise that their military structures and strategies have extremely improved since their last enterprises in the Caucasus. That will make thing definitely harder for the NATO. I don't really believe that Russia wants back the former time of glory (which by the way never really existed), they want to gain control back in their immediate surroundings, which has been almost completely occupied by the NATO.

It doesn't have to be imperialism. Not in the 21st century. This is not ancient Rome. I think it's high time we move on. It's true USA also supported it's fair share of dictators and extremist guerrillas (Saddam and the mujahedin in Afghanistancome to mind), but once it bit them in the ass they were the first to admit their mistake and changed their stance. While Russia (together with China) seems to abuse it's veto power in the Security council even way after their "allies" have turned into genocidal dictatorships (Serbia, Somalia) or religiously mad potential nuclear forces. (Iran)

Originally Posted by Argos

I never saw Putin as the sole architect of the developments of the second half of this decade. From the moment the three guys from St. Peterburg shared the top positions in the Kremlin I did see them as one body. Putin just used the blade more elegantly than Medvedev does. In the internal politics, here I agree with you, Medvedev's way will be more constitutional, more in accordance with the rule of law, even with more liberty for the media, but in foreign politics I don't see a turning point, not now and not in the nearer future.

It's like this; if he wants to obey the rule of law then he'll have to ease up on the cold war speech of his ministers and generals combined with ceasing operations that involve infiltrating neighbouring countries. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Argos

Economy is of course important, but the money itself isn't the big problem for Russia, it's the loss of control. The total dependence of Europe on Russia providing the vast majority of energy ressources brought them always in a good position for negotiations on any topic, the emanzipation of Europe will make it far more difficult to pull partners on their side, when it comes to questions important for Russia.

Yeah. When I said "cent" I meant it in a broader way.

Originally Posted by Argos

And global strategy should not be underestimated. The economic success and power of the USA is based on their global (military!) strategies. Russia's economical success, that is, a positive development of their economy with reduction of the huge dependence on their wealth of natural ressources and overcoming poverty, this can only be obtained with a higher influence on their neighbours. The question here is just, how much success brings a forced partnership (bullying and blackmailing) economically, and how much a partnership of trust and friendship.

I don't think the military strategies have attributed as much to the success of the USA as you might imagine. It firmed up their grip on some specific (although significant) parts of the market, like energy supply (just like Russia), but on the other hand they've spent billions of dollars during their war escapades. What's really behind the success is the world-leading high tech and outsourcing of heavy industries with less added value. The irony of all ironies is taliban rebels putting up websites, wishing death to America and it's imperialist allies, while maintaining the site on a server equipped with an Intel Xeon CPU on a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 platform.

[volk1]

Offtop:
Kind of off-topic but is this the correct Russian translation of "One love?" Одна любовь.

[manatsu103]

Originally Posted by Argos

The opportunity is perfect. America is in presidental elections, their arms are bound in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the financial capabilities due to the budget problems are limited.

Russia isnt going to go to war with the U.S. are they?
I think that would not turn out well for them...

[freddie]

Originally Posted by manatsu103

Russia isnt going to go to war with the U.S. are they?
I think that would not turn out well for them...

I think they won't. But If they did it wouldn't turn out well for the whole globe, not just Russia.

[EstBoy]

Offtop:

Originally Posted by volk1

Offtop:
Kind of off-topic but is this the correct Russian translation of "One love?" Одна любовь.

Yes, it is.

[forre]

The President of Russia started his own video blog:
http://www.kremlin.ru/sdocs/vappears.shtml

Such an advaaaaanced internet user