Jump to content
H1nd

Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

Recommended Posts

Or Russia simply has an inferiority complex as it's economic power puts it outside of "great power" status. Russia is not and never will be the power that the USSR was. That bloc was politically and economically unsustainable. China is a rising economic power, which unfortunately is also not paying attention to long term demographics and their economic model, however they are far and away in a different economic status than Russia.

Russia can try and stay "independent" and in a few decades will be a trivial little backwater with nothing of significance to contribute to the world economy. That is not the model China is following. Isolating oneself from the world economic community and hoping your one cash cow will keep you afloat is not a serious economic plan, however it is the only one Putin has. China will probably take Siberia from you leaving the European facing rump state to jump up and down and make lots of noise hoping to get someone's attention living on it's past glories. That is the future Putin is delivering for you.

Where did I say that Russia want to isolate itself from world and world economy? By independence I mean that Russian people whant to have a goverment that will make decisions for the profit of Russia. We don't want a goverment that will do what US president tells them to do against our national interests as EU leaders used to already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again on the sanctions, they could have been a lot worse, look at the current Iran sanctions for example, but there is a desire in the EU and US to not go overboard.

 

Also over the past few weeks, you have had signals from both the White House and Berlin that seem to indicate they were open to a deal that would roll back sanctions and still leave Crimea in Russian hands. There was even talk of a peace summit in Kazakhstan.

 

So there does seem to be a face saving way for Putin to come out of this and still be able to claim a "victory".

 

The question then becomes: what does Putin hope to achieve in East Ukraine?

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are maybe going overboard with the Russia bashing.

 

Last I heard, Russia still had most of its tactical nukes aimed at China, that might deter China from making a grab at Siberia. :)

 

I also doubt the US would stand by and let China invade another sovereign country, I mean fair is fair.

I personally think that russian people mentality and russian culture much more close to the West than to the East and we would better cooperate with US and EU to balance growing power of China, and Russia actually wanted to cooperate with US and EU after USSR failure, however it was showed to Russia quite clear that West doesn't want any fair cooperation with Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that russian people mentality and russian culture much more close to the West than to the East and we would better cooperate with US and EU to balance growing power of China, and Russia actually wanted to cooperate with US and EU after USSR failure, however it was showed to Russia quite clear that West doesn't want any fair cooperation with Russia.

 

That is what Russia's leadership wants you to believe, but the opposite is true. The West simply doesn't want wars being fought within its territory. It does not want to have its right wing parties funded by Moscow. It doesn't want Russian dissidents assassinated on its soil. It doesn't want nuclear armed planes flying near its territory.

Look at things from another point of view. During the Cold War the West was lined up against:

Russia

Ukraine

Belarus

Georgia

The "Stans"

Poland

Hungary

East Germany

Czechoslovakia

Bulgaria

Romania

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

How many of these nations are now close friends/allies of the West? Almost all of them. A couple, like Belarus, are in an inbetween position. Neither friendly, nor adversarial. Only Russia is a problem. You can believe that the West has only animosity against Russia, and only Russia, but I don't see the evidence.

 

Wow I cannot believe the things I am reading, Its like you guys are repeating what Kerry and Jen Psaki say unbelievable.

Well, when you believe what Russian media tells you then you're bound to come to this conclusion. Personally, I've not read ANYTHING that Kerry or Paski have said. I read a wide range of sources of information, including Russian and Separatist. I also have a very good understanding of economics. Oh, and have I mentioned that I expected this to happen many years before it did? Did Kerry or Paski tell me that too?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, when you believe what Russian media tells you then you're bound to come to this conclusion. Personally, I've not read ANYTHING that Kerry or Paski have said. I read a wide range of sources of information, including Russian and Separatist. I also have a very good understanding of economics. Oh, and have I mentioned that I expected this to happen many years before it did? Did Kerry or Paski tell me that too?

Steve

Reading Ukraine's post is not better then that because like I said they are pro EU and will do everything they can to demonize DPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the Poles opinion very seriously, they had the pleasure of Russian "guests" for 45 years or so.  They seem to be all but begging to host two or three U.S. Divisions permanently. But I am sure that one has nothing to do with the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insult me, or anybody else, like that again and you'll be banished.

 

I am sure I know more about life in the US than you do. I am now quite suspicious that I know more about life in Russia than you do. Or at least I'm better able to compare the two together.

Back in the Soviet days there was a similar argument coming out of Moscow. Yet all around where I lived I had Russians, Ukrainians, Baltic people, Poles, and a smattering of other people form areas dominated by the Soviet Union. It gave me the idea, as crazy as it might sound, that the Soviet Union wasn't the "worker's paradise" that it said it was.

Back in those days people were smuggled into the US in the boot of a car. In Soviet Russia? They were smuggled out in the boot of a car. While it is true that Russians are not barred from leaving the country like the old days, clearly not many people want to move to Russia except people looking for low wage jobs. And even then, mostly from ex-Soviet Republics. Now, thanks to Putin's actions in the last 2-3 years the number of educated/skilled foreigners moving to Russia has slowed and now totally reversed. And thanks to the collapse of the Ruble, in large part due to Putin's policies, even the low paid workers are thinking twice about moving to Russia.

So if the US is the most horrible place on Earth to live... what does that make Russia by comparison?

 

This common argument coming from Russians saddens me the most. You so fully believe state media that you think that nobody in the world wants justice for themselves. Nobody wants fair treatment under the law. Nobody wants economic opportunities. Instead you believe all people are as content as Russians to be taken advantage of by a tiny number of people who are using government as both a source of personal enrichment and a means of keeping it that way. Therefore, in your thinking, anybody who is inspired to fight against their government must be doing it because the CIA tricked or paid them to.

This is a terrible, terrible mindset to have. And it shows how well Putin's policies have translated into a compliant and docile population. Which is just the way he wants it to be.

Steve

I didn't say US is a horrible place to live now. Nope. There is quite a high level of life there. Higher than in Russia for sure The point actually is that it's not the most democratic/free country in the world how US likes to present itself. However ordinary people don't care about democracy that much. They care about level of life (job, salaries, medicine, roads e.t.c.) and don't really care whether goverment watching them or not even if it breaks their right for private life e.t.c. Snowden showed US people that goverment watching them and what happened? Goverment was retired? Some new laws were implemented to prevent goverment from this? Nothing happened in fact. Ordinary people don't really care about freedom.   Btw can you explain why US is at the 1st place in the world for the number of people kept in prisons per 100 000 of it's population. Russia is at the 10 place in this rating for example. Are there so many criminals in US or are US laws so severe or what? I personally have no exact idea but it makes me think bad about US justice though Russian justice is bad either I won't deny it.

 

For your note I don't belive russian state media and don't usually read\watch them. The same I actually don't belive US or other state medias cause they all lie more or less. I make my conclusions on many sources of information and I had an oportunity to visit various countries (China, US, EU ) and talk to people from these countries directly. You probably will be shocked but I never voted for Putin and don't support his internal policy while I find his external policy reasonable more or less.

It's not like I hate US or EU either, I just say about them here what I see in their actions without being blinded by US/EU propaganda (yes, western countries also has propaganda). I see that US nor tries to bring some real democracy anywhere, it just uses people dissatisfaction in various countries to change goverments there in profit of US first of all. I won't call US an evill empire for it however. I think the world is a cruel place and all countries in the world are fighting for their own interests except those that chosen a role of US sattelite already and betray their own interests in profit of US.

Edited by Rusknight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say that Russia want to isolate itself from world and world economy? By independence I mean that Russian people whant to have a goverment that will make decisions for the profit of Russia. We don't want a goverment that will do what US president tells them to do against our national interests as EU leaders used to already.

You used the word independent, so has Putin. This is referencing his position. Ask the U.S. congress how they feel about the French. Our idiots were so dumb they banned french fries. Hardly a sign that France caters to US policy. (Or that the U.S. congress knows where french fries come from). The U.S. does have a tremendous amount of influence. We carry a significant burden of the financial costs in most of our alliances which makes sense considering the size of our economy. That does not mean we always get our way.

Regarding the comment about Russia, China and western relations, the thing the west is adamant on in economic relations is transparency and clear legal/financial rules. This is a point where Russia is clearly doing all the damage to itself. As long as Russia does not abide by the same financial behavior that everyone else does, there will be hesitancy from the international community to invest, the risks are too high for corporate standards. This predates the sanctions and drop in oil prices. The Yukos affair was really bad news in the western financial circles. Perhaps Russians do not see the shock waves it generated in the west, but it was a big deal here. That has been followed by other instances clearly indicating state involvement in rearranging businesses to suit it's purposes regardless of legal standing. This has included charges of theft where the supposed victim of the theft (a French company) denies any theft ever took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used the word independent, so has Putin. This is referencing his position. Ask the U.S. congress how they feel about the French. Our idiots were so dumb they banned french fries. Hardly a sign that France caters to US policy. (Or that the U.S. congress knows where french fries come from). The U.S. does have a tremendous amount of influence. We carry a significant burden of the financial costs in most of our alliances which makes sense considering the size of our economy. That does not mean we always get our way.

Regarding the comment about Russia, China and western relations, the thing the west is adamant on in economic relations is transparency and clear legal/financial rules. This is a point where Russia is clearly doing all the damage to itself. As long as Russia does not abide by the same financial behavior that everyone else does, there will be hesitancy from the international community to invest, the risks are too high for corporate standards. This predates the sanctions and drop in oil prices. The Yukos affair was really bad news in the western financial circles. Perhaps Russians do not see the shock waves it generated in the west, but it was a big deal here. That has been followed by other instances clearly indicating state involvement in rearranging businesses to suit it's purposes regardless of legal standing. This has included charges of theft where the supposed victim of the theft (a French company) denies any theft ever took place.

You speak about France here... acually France refused to provide Russia with Mistrals ships recentry under the pressure of US. These ships are no way a strategic weapon and the fact that France broke the contract will hurt France reputation at the world weapon market and France will have to play a big forfeit for Russia so it's against french interests and they didn't want to do so, they delayed a final decisions and still didn't state it clear enough,but US makes them to say NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real sanctions weapon is SWIFT banking system access. Russia has already sated that it will consider being cut off from it an act of war. So in reality it is not really a sanction in Russia's eyes, but a thermonuclear strike.

Steve

 

I don't doubt it. I found FT com quoting anonymous sources in October. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/930a1496-5aa9-11e4-8625-00144feab7de.html#axzz3PUlAMfye

 

Can you quote/ link any others. Very interested in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, given your obvious foresight into how this conflict was predictable, do you have any predictions as to what will happen now that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big deal, really, other than the uncertainty that might rattle the shipbuilders trade unions. Those top of the line French ships have plenty of potential buyers. I wouldn't be surprised to see them acquired by Vietnam or the Philippines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak about France here... acually France refused to provide Russia with Mistrals ships recentry under the pressure of US. These ships are no way a strategic weapon and the fact that France broke the contract will hurt France reputation at the world weapon market and France will have to play a big forfeit for Russia so it's against french interests and they didn't want to do so, they delayed a final decisions and still didn't state it clear enough,but US makes them to say NO.

Really?

 

I could say the France, being somewhat nervous and concerned about the unfolding Ukrainian crisis and Russia's possible involvement in said crisis, maybe came to their own conclusions about the ramifications of that deal and needed no US 'convincing', as you seem to claim has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is what Russia's leadership wants you to believe, but the opposite is true. The West simply doesn't want wars being fought within its territory. It does not want to have its right wing parties funded by Moscow. It doesn't want Russian dissidents assassinated on its soil. It doesn't want nuclear armed planes flying near its territory.

Look at things from another point of view. During the Cold War the West was lined up against:

Russia

Ukraine

Belarus

Georgia

The "Stans"

Poland

Hungary

East Germany

Czechoslovakia

Bulgaria

Romania

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

How many of these nations are now close friends/allies of the West? Almost all of them. A couple, like Belarus, are in an inbetween position. Neither friendly, nor adversarial. Only Russia is a problem. You can believe that the West has only animosity against Russia, and only Russia, but I don't see the evidence.

 

Well, when you believe what Russian media tells you then you're bound to come to this conclusion. Personally, I've not read ANYTHING that Kerry or Paski have said. I read a wide range of sources of information, including Russian and Separatist. I also have a very good understanding of economics. Oh, and have I mentioned that I expected this to happen many years before it did? Did Kerry or Paski tell me that too?

Steve

The truth is that most countries in this list are not friends or allies of the west but it's sattelites.

For example Bulgaria was really interested in building a new gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria (and further to other EU countires) via Black Sea called "South Stream" cause it would give a lot of energy for Bulgaria and EU and Russia wanted it as well, but EU blocked it cause US didn't want it to happen. Cancelation of this project is bad for Russia, it is bad for Bulgaria, it is bad for Europe, but who cares about Russia, EU or Bulgaria profit while US says NO. This is the difference between being a friend and sattelite.

Edited by Rusknight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Regarding the comment about Russia, China and western relations, the thing the west is adamant on in economic relations is transparency and clear legal/financial rules. This is a point where Russia is clearly doing all the damage to itself. As long as Russia does not abide by the same financial behavior that everyone else does, there will be hesitancy from the international community to invest, the risks are too high for corporate standards. ....

 

This.

Hell, the whole East - West concept is itself a hangover from the Cold War.

It doesn't have to be Russia versus EU or US or whatever, it could just be business. Sure, it can be adversarial as people are trying to get the best deal and so forth, but no one gets a free ride on that train. It's not a case of deliberately singling out Russia specifically as a target to keep weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak about France here... acually France refused to provide Russia with Mistrals ships recentry under the pressure of US. These ships are no way a strategic weapon and the fact that France broke the contract will hurt France reputation at the world weapon market and France will have to play a big forfeit for Russia so it's against french interests and they didn't want to do so, they delayed a final decisions and still didn't state it clear enough,but US makes them to say NO.

Not quite, the U.S. And other countries (particularly the UK) simply embarrassed them about how they could continue to do an arms deal with Russia as Russia is invading Ukraine, and over here in the west we mostly agree Russia is invading Ukraine. So France had a bit of a public relations disaster. Sending those ships would have hurt France's image badly in the west, not just to US, but also Poland, Germany, the UK etc. I won't even mention their neighbors in the Netherlands who know Russia had a hand in the fiasco that resulted in the downing of that aircraft. Putin's denials fall on deaf ears after all the lies about involvement in Crimea.

When you act like a bully, you tend not to have many friends. We in the US have had our moments and we know how it works. As to the penalties, we will see. If Russia is not going to play by the same financial rules as others, they won't be protected by them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that most countries in this list are not friends or allies of the west but it's sattelites.

For example Bulgaria was really interested in building a new gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria (and further to other EU countires) via Black Sea called "South Stream" cause it would give a lot of energy for Bulgaria and EU and Russia wanted it as well, but EU blocked it cause US didn't want it to happen. Cancelation of this project is bad for Russia, it is bad for Bulgaria, it is bad for Europe, but who cares about Russia, EU or Bulgaria profit while US says NO. This is the difference between being a friend and sattelite.

Oh the story of that pipeline is beautiful. We have Russian agents bribing Bulgarian officials and starting fake "green" movements while intervening in Bulgarian affairs. It finally fell apart when Russia's cronies got greedy and started attacking one another causing a run on a Bulgarian bank. I'll see if I can dig that one up, it is such a classic example for what kind of a friend Putin is.

Yeah here we go, that wasn't hard. This is just such a perfect example of how the Kremlin treats it's "friends". No wonder so few people want anything to do with Putin's economic plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/europe/how-putin-forged-a-pipeline-deal-that-derailed-.html?_r=0

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the story of that pipeline is beautiful. We have Russian agents bribing Bulgarian officials and starting fake "green" movements while intervening in Bulgarian affairs. It finally fell apart when Russia's cronies got greedy and started attacking one another causing a run on a Bulgarian bank. I'll see if I can dig that one up, it is such a classic example for what kind of a friend Putin is.

Yeah here we go, that wasn't hard. This is just such a perfect example of how the Kremlin treats it's "friends". No wonder so few people want anything to do with Putin's economic plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/europe/how-putin-forged-a-pipeline-deal-that-derailed-.html?_r=0

And you prove your version with the link to a US news-paper, seriously?

Edited by Rusknight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you prove your version with the link to a US news-paper, seriously?

Nice, so the only acceptable source to criticize Russia is a Russian source?

Read the article and check the sources it used. Those will check out unlike the sources you find in russian news that usually turn out to be non existent or faked. They include Bulgarian govt statements including ones from those defending the pipeline. It might make you look more serious if you actually can challenge the content versus just not liking the author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I no longer bother to argue about MH-17. There's the most obvious, and therefore most likely, scenario which is supported by plenty of evidence. This is the *only* scenario the West believes in. Then there are the half dozen or so Russian stories which are not supported by the evidence or even by the laws of physics. Someone who wants to believe the least likely, or even downright impossible, scenario is not someone worth having a debate with. No more than it's useful to debate a holocaust denier or someone who believes people are regularly abducted by aliens.

Steve

 

Well, although there is no 100% legal proof publicly available I fully agree that there is only one believable scenario for which there is plenty of indirect proof. I hope one day this case will be legally solved and the culprits punished, although I think the chances for that are low. I'm quite 'involved' in this incident as I'm born in the Netherlands, have lived in Malaysia for quite some time (family in both countries) and have been on the MH-17 flight (MAS AMS-KL) about 10 times in my life. Could have been me there. Apart from who shot the plane down, I think the local people (including firefighters, etc) have done quite a well job assisting securing the remains and belongings considering the hostile environment and geopolitical interests.

 

Since some posters seem to ignore it ;), my point was that during the aftermath of the downing there was one movie I saw (professional soldiers guarding the train in Torez) which made it 100% clear to me there were Russian troops (no separatists) operating in Ukraine. I know a 'duck' when I see it clearly ;-). At that moment this was new for me. And although I thought it was a good thing Putin ordered some professional, capable, troops to guard those trains I also realized Russia IS directly involved in the fighting in Ukraine. Further first hand movies showed a lot more evidence towards this conclusion, available for everyone with some google fu and a critical eye.

So personally I think that denying Russia is directly militarily involved in the Ukraine is on the same page as believing in lizard-people leading the Illuminati NWO ;). Doesn't matter whether it's a few hundred or some tens of thousands of troops: they have troops there and are directly involved in the fighting, way beyond clandestine operations. Denying that is on the same page as Americans still believing Powell's WMD speech regarding Iraq, the original explanation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident or CIA not being involved in Iran the coup d'etat in Iran (1953), when Mossadegh was ousted in favor of the Shah. I'm just adding those last bits to make clear I'm not thinking the West is or has been holy.

 

So, returning to those that exclaim 'yes but Nato does the same'. It is true that Nato (members) have also fought dirty wars. Also, on a geopolitical level I think the West is a bit hypocrite regarding the Ukraine incident. We have had chances to befriend the people of Russia more than we actually did. But all this is irrelevant here; we are discussing whether Russia is currently directly and significantly involved in the war in Ukraine and in my opinion the only valid conclusion for a sane person is: Yes, it is. :)

Edited by Lethaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...