Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[Tagaziel]

So what the hell do you want the moderators to do ? Nag him ?

On NMA we used to give out very special ranks. Ah, I remember Rosh and his rather lengthy collection of special ranks reserved for special people.

[obyknven]

I lol'd, some guys do want ban me sanctions against me, because i am Black Russian. How same people can talk about democracy, freedom of speech, and other rights in same time  i don't known.
 
Meanwhile in Donetsk noticed english-speaking US Greystone merks, where they play role of punishers.

 
Bit of info. Greystone is part of Xe Services LLC, or by other words they are just renamed Blackwater. Yeah, execution punishing of civilians is usual work for them.
 
Kievan usurpers send police and armed forces from Western Ukraine to punishment of peaceful protesters in Kharkiv (local police don't want make war against own people).  
It's video show how citiezens of Kharkiv respon to violence from side of these punishers.

http://youtu.be/yA4HddapXtM

 

On this video citizens of Kharkiv report about punishers brutality, many people arrested and imprisoned just because they been in wrong place in wrong time.

http://youtu.be/oqNz2QHVLHs

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/xzoptZ-u_aE

Cool!

[Janmanden]

 

Well.. blah-blah-blah. There is really a nation-wide father/mother figure absent here.  

 

Thanks, I wish we would get input from people living there more often. So you believe the disturbances in south east Ukraine are being blown out of proportion by the media?

 

In addition, what exactly do you mean by "responsibilities inherent to the budget deficit", though? I'm really interested because it's something that's deeply ingrained in the austerity discourse, but in my experience, it amounts to "cut down on welfare, because". Can you shed some light on the fiscal situation of Ukraine and the measures announced by Kiev? What is the really unjustifiable public spending that absolutely must go to <insert meaningless economic jargon> the economy? Not being able to read Russian or Ukrainian, it's difficult to see the whole picture.

 

 

That's a big turd, that I will have to give some thought, but I am afraid I am too busy now. I'll be back.

[Mor]

You fundamentally don't understand what 'third world' even is. Russia, is second world, not third.

No, you don't understand that in post cold war the term 'third world' countries has been used interchangeably with developing world (unlike first\second world).

 

More importantly it seems that the comparison which was the subject matter of that post was lost on you. Whatever terminology you may choose third world, undeveloped, developing etc, for a former world power Russia is generally ranked like backwater country. (i.e. the reference to Agiel post

Edited April 9, 2014 by Mor

[Walsingham]

You know there could be almost anything in those videos oby keeps posting. We'd never know.

[Mor]

Apparently there is a growing number of people who would gladly join Russia to dodge the responsibilities inherent to the budget deficit and whatever other action that would just fix it, but I don't see it, everyone around here where I live are too busy trying to make a living to make time for protests. It must be some very privileged people that can afford to spend so much time causing riots and they are all too happy about shouting and complaining and doing nothing to fix anything and most likely sponsored by the Russian Tsar (Putin). Maybe it makes sense, because a lot of the former U.S.S.R. leaders came from Ukraine and they have a strange fondness of totalitarian regimes.

I agree, Ukraine have been playing the blame game for quite(Russia, EU and now Yanukovich). The monetary crisis didn't just happen, it has been brewing for years, but they were afraid to take action because IMF demanded reforms which would be extremely unpopular in the short term, Yanukovich tried to pit EU against Russia to secure larger loan but I don't see how it would solve anything other than more short term life line and burned their reserves. So they need to take responsibility and make the hard choices (and IMHO transparency for the government elite would help a lot)

 

It's actually a pity for Ukraine about the collapse of the U.S.S.R. because it was the only time they were brought together to act like one people and work together, but it also gave rise to the present situation partially caused by the Russian presence from immigration, which was quite normal, when it was part of the U.S.S.R. and the former government who drove the country into ruin - also sponsored by Putin. I think that little KGB dude is still working in his original field and I am afraid that he might be successful with his schemes to force the Ukrainians into joining Russia. There is really a nation-wide father/mother figure absent here.

Lets just hope it not going to get the abusive "father figure"..

[Valsuelm]

 

You fundamentally don't understand what 'third world' even is. Russia, is second world, not third.

No, you don't understand that in post cold war the term 'third world' countries has been used interchangeably with developing world (unlike first\second world).

 

More importantly it seems that the comparison which was the subject matter of that post was lost on you. Whatever terminology you may choose third world, undeveloped, developing etc, for a former world power Russia is generally ranked like backwater country. (i.e. the reference to Agiel post

 

 

I understand well how folks such as yourself often misuse terminology and refuse to acknowledge the reality when it's pointed out to you.

 

You are a fool if you think Russia is a 'backwater country'. It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par. Also, you just demonstrated my observation of hubris amongst some of those in the First World when they discuss what they think is the Third World.

 

Agiel's post is a bunch of male cow diarrhea. You lace it with enough MSG to make it palatable to you? It's got some half truths to be sure, but it's not too relevant. Furthermore, near half of what he accuses Russia of one could say is true of the nation I live in these days as well as most of the nations in the EU.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Meshugger]

What i have learned from these threads is that you cannot use the traditional good/evil-dichotomy when dealing with non-western, non-first world countries and their relationships. They are all inheritly corrupt, only respond to power instead of reason, and have no real interest in serious rule of law. They are simply collectively retarded compared to the western hemisphere.

 

As such, they should be treated like the mentally abled children they are: go back to their respective rooms until they appologize, behave well and they will get their candy back so that they can behave in an adult and responsible manner when they grow up.

[213374U]

Furthermore, near half of what he accuses Russia of one could say is true of the nation I live in these days as well as most of the nations in the EU.

 

I think this is the key. It's not that Babchenko's post is inaccurate, it's that inflammatory tirades can, and have been written by journalists/activists/political contrarians for just about any country. If anyone produced any of Michael Moore's rants, they'd be grateful that posts here cannot be downvoted to oblivion (yet). For the more academically inclined, one can always cite Noam Chomsky, which is certain to trigger a deafening *YAWN* from our audience. Yet this guy automagically gets our full support because he hurls much vitriol at those we have been taught to hate, regardless of the quality of his analysis, the veracity of his claims, or the degree to which subjectivity taints his views.

 

Ah, but it seems the two minutes of hate just ended. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm surprised anyone thinks the Western world isn't exactly the same.

 

EU and US are just as corrupt and powerhungtu as Russia, if not potential more so. If you tell yourself otherwise you're only fooling yourself.

They only also only care about "law", "democracy" or "power of the people" if it's in their own best interest. If not, well, things WILL be invented to make it go their way, threats, 'repercusions'...

 

Yeah, so civilised.

 

(EDIT: Was a response to Meshugger)

Edited April 9, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Meshugger]

Okay, okay, okay. Maybe not children then. Teenagers full of hormones and not being able control their emotions.

[Rostere]

It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par.

 

Sorry, but no.

 

Russia has great potential considering it's strategic resources but that's pretty much it. If anything I'd personally say Russia is currently a second-rate world power (but that of course depends on how you classify a "world power"). That analysis is based solely on the size of their economy, which is the basis for every kind of power, whether economic or military. During the Cold War, Russia was the leader of an important political movement, which made it the second most powerful country on earth. Today, Russia is the leader of pretty much nothing at all. And if you consider Russia by itself it's not very big (except geographically), or very important in any sense. It's just you being ignorant when you see the size of Russia on a map or reminisce about the Cold War days.

 

Secondly, it's certainly not important due to it's leadership, I'd rather say despite it. Saying otherwise is completely and utterly ridiculous. Putin has shown us time and time again that he is more keen on keeping hopeless dictators in place, or adding more unimportant places on the world map to Russia. He's like a newbie kid playing Europa Universalis, only interested in these banal issues and not in more important but more difficult questions such as developing the economy. Idiots reading the news will think that "Ooo, Putin stopped Obama's plans in Syria, that must mean Russia is very powerful". They don't take into consideration at all what would have happened if China, or Japan, or Germany, or even France, the UK or Brazil would have spazzed out instead of Russia.

 

The big problem with Russia is that despite their current post-Cold War relative obscurity, they still retain their seat on the UNSC. So it's free for them to turn the UNSC into their own kindergarten which is kind of why countries such as Syria came under their wing in the first place. Now, the more political capital Putin expends on idiotic foreign policy adventures, the less stability and long term growth there will be for the Russian economy. Meanwhile, stupid commentators will continue to talk about how "powerful" he is. Just look at PNAC in the US. They had pretty much the same jingoist goals for the US as the current Russian leadership has for Russia. But they still ended up shooting themselves in the foot - because long-term power does not follow from bellicose politics, posturing and buffoonery. Buffoonery and jingoism gives the impression of power at the expense of building trust and stability, which is so much more important in economy and foreign politics.

 

(As I said before, I believe Crimea should be independent or a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, but I think that Putin's current politics of confrontation is deeply harmful to Russia)

[BruceVC]

 

It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par.

 

Sorry, but no.

 

Russia has great potential considering it's strategic resources but that's pretty much it. If anything I'd personally say Russia is currently a second-rate world power (but that of course depends on how you classify a "world power"). That analysis is based solely on the size of their economy, which is the basis for every kind of power, whether economic or military. During the Cold War, Russia was the leader of an important political movement, which made it the second most powerful country on earth. Today, Russia is the leader of pretty much nothing at all. And if you consider Russia by itself it's not very big (except geographically), or very important in any sense. It's just you being ignorant when you see the size of Russia on a map or reminisce about the Cold War days.

 

Secondly, it's certainly not important due to it's leadership, I'd rather say despite it. Saying otherwise is completely and utterly ridiculous. Putin has shown us time and time again that he is more keen on keeping hopeless dictators in place, or adding more unimportant places on the world map to Russia. He's like a newbie kid playing Europa Universalis, only interested in these banal issues and not in more important but more difficult questions such as developing the economy. Idiots reading the news will think that "Ooo, Putin stopped Obama's plans in Syria, that must mean Russia is very powerful". They don't take into consideration at all what would have happened if China, or Japan, or Germany, or even France, the UK or Brazil would have spazzed out instead of Russia.

 

The big problem with Russia is that despite their current post-Cold War relative obscurity, they still retain their seat on the UNSC. So it's free for them to turn the UNSC into their own kindergarten which is kind of why countries such as Syria came under their wing in the first place. Now, the more political capital Putin expends on idiotic foreign policy adventures, the less stability and long term growth there will be for the Russian economy. Meanwhile, stupid commentators will continue to talk about how "powerful" he is. Just look at PNAC in the US. They had pretty much the same jingoist goals for the US as the current Russian leadership has for Russia. But they still ended up shooting themselves in the foot - because long-term power does not follow from bellicose politics, posturing and buffoonery. Buffoonery and jingoism gives the impression of power at the expense of building trust and stability, which is so much more important in economy and foreign politics.

 

(As I said before, I believe Crimea should be independent or a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, but I think that Putin's current politics of confrontation is deeply harmful to Russia)

 

That's an excellent post Ros, very erudite

[Valsuelm]

 

It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par.

 

Sorry, but no.

 

Russia has great potential considering it's strategic resources but that's pretty much it. If anything I'd personally say Russia is currently a second-rate world power (but that of course depends on how you classify a "world power"). That analysis is based solely on the size of their economy, which is the basis for every kind of power, whether economic or military. During the Cold War, Russia was the leader of an important political movement, which made it the second most powerful country on earth. Today, Russia is the leader of pretty much nothing at all. And if you consider Russia by itself it's not very big (except geographically), or very important in any sense. It's just you being ignorant when you see the size of Russia on a map or reminisce about the Cold War days.

 

Secondly, it's certainly not important due to it's leadership, I'd rather say despite it. Saying otherwise is completely and utterly ridiculous. Putin has shown us time and time again that he is more keen on keeping hopeless dictators in place, or adding more unimportant places on the world map to Russia. He's like a newbie kid playing Europa Universalis, only interested in these banal issues and not in more important but more difficult questions such as developing the economy. Idiots reading the news will think that "Ooo, Putin stopped Obama's plans in Syria, that must mean Russia is very powerful". They don't take into consideration at all what would have happened if China, or Japan, or Germany, or even France, the UK or Brazil would have spazzed out instead of Russia.

 

The big problem with Russia is that despite their current post-Cold War relative obscurity, they still retain their seat on the UNSC. So it's free for them to turn the UNSC into their own kindergarten which is kind of why countries such as Syria came under their wing in the first place. Now, the more political capital Putin expends on idiotic foreign policy adventures, the less stability and long term growth there will be for the Russian economy. Meanwhile, stupid commentators will continue to talk about how "powerful" he is. Just look at PNAC in the US. They had pretty much the same jingoist goals for the US as the current Russian leadership has for Russia. But they still ended up shooting themselves in the foot - because long-term power does not follow from bellicose politics, posturing and buffoonery. Buffoonery and jingoism gives the impression of power at the expense of building trust and stability, which is so much more important in economy and foreign politics.

 

(As I said before, I believe Crimea should be independent or a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, but I think that Putin's current politics of confrontation is deeply harmful to Russia)

 

 

Nope, Russia isn't a major world power at all. Putin didn't just successfully thumb his nose at the EU, US, and NATO and get away with it 100%. He didn't run diplomatic circles around the US et al in Syria, where war would be happening right now in the form of 'UN Intervention' if he didn't. Russia hasn't played a major role at all in Iran. Russia isn't at all a concern of Europeans all by it's lonesome. Russia's discussions with China to drop the dollar all together and their policies moving in that direction isn't going to do much of anything because Russia is just a backwards nation. Russia didn't wipe the walls with the foreign backed coups in Georgia a few years ago, telling GWB to bend over and dinker himself. Of course the ultimate threat of Russian military power, still second only to that of the U.S. globally doesn't make it a major world power either. And no, the world hasn't generally looked to see how Russia would react to every major U.S./NATO/UN aggression over the last 20 years either, increasingly moreso these last few years.

 

Gone are the days of the inept leadership Russia suffered through in the 90s and very arguably the 80s. While we here in the west are generally suffering under our own inept leadership, Russia, China, and a few others are growing in power, where the U.S. is losing it.

 

You truly are a fool if you think Russia isn't a major player. Heck, half of this thread is people spouting 'ZOMG the evil Russians are coming, they must be stopped!'. If they weren't a major power, that wouldn't be a concern, and U.N. 'peacekeepers' would likely already be in Crimea stopping the presumed non major power Russia.

 

The idea proposed that Russia isn't a major world power is probably the most misinformed and truly fantastical idea that's been said in this thread. And that's saying something. From LaLaLaLaLaLa Land this idea hails from.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Sarex]

Sorry, but no.

 

Russia has great potential considering it's strategic resources but that's pretty much it. If anything I'd personally say Russia is currently a second-rate world power (but that of course depends on how you classify a "world power"). That analysis is based solely on the size of their economy, which is the basis for every kind of power, whether economic or military. During the Cold War, Russia was the leader of an important political movement, which made it the second most powerful country on earth. Today, Russia is the leader of pretty much nothing at all. And if you consider Russia by itself it's not very big (except geographically), or very important in any sense. It's just you being ignorant when you see the size of Russia on a map or reminisce about the Cold War days.

 

Secondly, it's certainly not important due to it's leadership, I'd rather say despite it. Saying otherwise is completely and utterly ridiculous. Putin has shown us time and time again that he is more keen on keeping hopeless dictators in place, or adding more unimportant places on the world map to Russia. He's like a newbie kid playing Europa Universalis, only interested in these banal issues and not in more important but more difficult questions such as developing the economy. Idiots reading the news will think that "Ooo, Putin stopped Obama's plans in Syria, that must mean Russia is very powerful". They don't take into consideration at all what would have happened if China, or Japan, or Germany, or even France, the UK or Brazil would have spazzed out instead of Russia.

 

The big problem with Russia is that despite their current post-Cold War relative obscurity, they still retain their seat on the UNSC. So it's free for them to turn the UNSC into their own kindergarten which is kind of why countries such as Syria came under their wing in the first place. Now, the more political capital Putin expends on idiotic foreign policy adventures, the less stability and long term growth there will be for the Russian economy. Meanwhile, stupid commentators will continue to talk about how "powerful" he is. Just look at PNAC in the US. They had pretty much the same jingoist goals for the US as the current Russian leadership has for Russia. But they still ended up shooting themselves in the foot - because long-term power does not follow from bellicose politics, posturing and buffoonery. Buffoonery and jingoism gives the impression of power at the expense of building trust and stability, which is so much more important in economy and foreign politics.

 

(As I said before, I believe Crimea should be independent or a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, but I think that Putin's current politics of confrontation is deeply harmful to Russia)

 

 

On what information do you base the size of their economy. I hope you don't think what you read on the internet can really show the intricacies of a countries structure and military might. Also military might doesn't only equal economic might. China is great power because it has it's massive population and also because of it's top down culture. People here seem to think that war has become cleaner then in the past, that technology has somehow fundamentally changed it, but that is only the construct of the media. What still counts the most in any war is how many boots you have on the ground. You are very misinformed if you think that America could wage a full out war with either Russia or China. If America ever attempted a land invasion of either Russia or China they would get eaten alive. The same would be true in reverse for Russia, for China I'm not so sure. World Power America may be, but it is not all powerful as can be seen in the Ukraine conflict, while it may be willing to strut and posture in the south the same cannot be said for regions near Russia or China. What I'm trying to say is that while it's power may be greater then that of Russia and China, it is still not great enough for direct conflict. Russia may not be able to project it's military might like America can(yet), but it sure as hell is boss of it's own back yard.

 

As for Putin I don't know how you would think that Russia hasn't prospered under him in the years since the cold war. I don't think you are aware of just how far down the ****-hole Russia was after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under Putin the Russian leadership was united and made to work. While Russia might not be the standard of economic prosperity (yet) it has certainly moved leaps and bounds in stability since the collapse. Putin wouldn't have been able to hold the rains of such a large country, if he didn't have something to show for the years he has ruled. That is very naive view you hold for the Russian governing body.

 

I think that Putin is scoring big points back home right now and is showing the Russian people that Russia is still a force to be reckoned with. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to say the least.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Sarex

[Mor]

 

No, you don't understand that in post cold war the term 'third world' countries has been used interchangeably with developing world (unlike first\second world).

 

More importantly it seems that the comparison which was the subject matter of that post was lost on you. Whatever terminology you may choose third world, undeveloped, developing etc, for a former world power Russia is generally ranked like backwater country. (i.e. the reference to Agiel post

 

I understand well how folks such as yourself often misuse terminology and refuse to acknowledge the reality when it's pointed out to you.

 

You are a fool if you think Russia is a 'backwater country'. It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par. Also, you just demonstrated my observation of hubris amongst some of those in the First World when they discuss what they think is the Third World.

 

Agiel's post is a bunch of male cow diarrhea. You lace it with enough MSG to make it palatable to you? It's got some half truths to be sure, but it's not too relevant. Furthermore, near half of what he accuses Russia of one could say is true of the nation I live in these days as well as most of the nations in the EU.

 

I don't care about your little rebellion phase from the EU. I was burn in Russia my father served and was wounded in Russian army and before that we fought in ww2 for soviet Russia, so I have a little more perspective about Russia then you do. So chill with your male cow diarrhea rant in defense of the underdog fighting strawmen argument. If you are not familiar with term 'third world countries' used in the sense of developing world countries then I suggest you start reading the economic section once in a while, and if you have issue with grasping reality of Russia being ranked as developing country almost in every aspect(despite being an influential player in world arena) then you might want to do some research instead of making ignorant claims. Edited April 9, 2014 by Mor

[Valsuelm]

 

 

No, you don't understand that in post cold war the term 'third world' countries has been used interchangeably with developing world (unlike first\second world).

 

More importantly it seems that the comparison which was the subject matter of that post was lost on you. Whatever terminology you may choose third world, undeveloped, developing etc, for a former world power Russia is generally ranked like backwater country. (i.e. the reference to Agiel post

 

I understand well how folks such as yourself often misuse terminology and refuse to acknowledge the reality when it's pointed out to you.

 

You are a fool if you think Russia is a 'backwater country'. It is still very much a major world power, given it's leadership probably moreso than anyone but the U.S. at this point, with China rising to be near on par. Also, you just demonstrated my observation of hubris amongst some of those in the First World when they discuss what they think is the Third World.

 

Agiel's post is a bunch of male cow diarrhea. You lace it with enough MSG to make it palatable to you? It's got some half truths to be sure, but it's not too relevant. Furthermore, near half of what he accuses Russia of one could say is true of the nation I live in these days as well as most of the nations in the EU.

 

I don't care about your little rebellion phase from the EU. I was burn in Russia my father served and was wounded in Russian army and before that we fought in ww2 for soviet Russia, so I have a little more perspective about Russia then you do. So chill with your male cow diarrhea rant in defense of the underdog fighting strawmen argument. If you are not familiar with term 'third world countries' used in the sense of developing world countries then I suggest you start reading the economic section once in a while, and if you have issue with grasping reality of Russia being ranked as developing country almost in every aspect(despite being an influential player in world arena) then you might want to do some research instead of making ignorant claims.

 

 

'Rebellion phase from the EU.' What on earth are you talking about?

 

Good for you for growing up in Russia, that really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

Insofar as the rest. Again, hubris. Are there economists that refer some third world nations in a derogatory sense? Sure thing. There are a lot of moronic economists out there, and at least as many that are full of themselves. Their hubris and misapplication of the term Third World doesn't change what the term means. Really though, I'd wager more often than not it's just your misinterpretation rather than the authors, even though authors are not above misinterpretation, especially authors of books on economics.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Rostere]

Nope, Russia isn't a major world power at all. Putin didn't just successfully thumb his nose at the EU, US, and NATO and get away with it 100%. He didn't run diplomatic circles around the US et al in Syria, where war would be happening right now in the form of 'UN Intervention' if he didn't. Russia hasn't played a major role at all in Iran. Russia isn't at all a concern of Europeans all by it's lonesome.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get powerful by putting everything you've got against everyone else. Russia is absolutely not comparable to "Europe" (I presume you mean the EU) by itself, not even in the same league. The EU has an economy over 8 times the size of Russia. It's an order of magnitude larger economically, like comparing Luxembourg and Belgium (almost the same size ratio between their economies). You are way overestimating Russia. With the economy as a measure of power, the EU should be less afraid of Russia than Germany should be afraid of Sweden.

 

You don't get powerful by behaving like a rebellious child. You only get attention. Only idiots - and children perhaps - believe that this gives them any real power. Yet Russia is doing just this, flailing about like an unruly zebra. If countries like Germany or Japan were doing the same thing, there would be a lot more to worry about, since they are way more powerful and important than Russia. I'll tell you what: there are a hell of a lot of countries who could prevent an intervention in Syria if they bet everything on it. There are a hell of a lot of countries who could seize territory which is rightfully theirs (like Crimea) without the US willing to do a thing about it. But it's only one leader, Putin, who is stupid enough to do so, expending valuable international trust for what he thinks is prestige, so that fools like you will say "Wow, he's powerful".

 

But we're talking in circles if we don't give definitions of the term "world power"/"great power". Here, I'd say that the five top countries on this list are great powers. What is your definition?

 

 

Russia didn't wipe the walls with the foreign backed coups in Georgia a few years ago, telling GWB to bend over and dinker himself.

 

What the heck are you referring to?

 

 

Of course the ultimate threat of Russian military power, still second only to that of the U.S. globally doesn't make it a major world power either. And no, the world hasn't generally looked to see how Russia would react to every major U.S./NATO/UN aggression over the last 20 years either, increasingly moreso these last few years.

 

No, the world has not looked to Russia any more than to the real "major powers". If Russia has gotten any attention it is due to the irrational leadership of the country, not due to it's importance. If Khadaffi had had nuclear arms which could reach Europe, you would also hear about his opinion every day. Not because he could actually win a war, but because people believe he's enough of a crackpot to start one.

 

There's also a thing you don't understand about military expenditures: any country could potentially buy any amount of arms they could afford. Russia spends a larger amount of money on this than many other countries, money they can spend on education and infrastructure instead. If you spend a lot on arms, you will be a winner if there is a war. But if it's not a war, then your big toys will just slowly rust into obsoletion. If the EU started to spend as much on defense as Russia, they would spend eight times as much. Imagine Russia surrounded by eight other Russias, that would be the size of the EU military. But - crucially - the EU does not spend those amounts on buying big toys which will be obsolete the next year, the EU spends that money on education, research and infrastructure instead. They play the long game. Russia might look like a world power, but Saudi Arabia would also be a great power if we look at absolute numbers of military spending.

 

If I bought a gun and started running around threatening people, I would be "powerful" in the same sense as Russia. I bet I would find a place in the newspapers too, as you claim Russia do. Naïve children (naïve like you are politically) who saw the scene might say the man with the gun was "powerful" and "threatening". Meanwhile, the billionaires who are the actual powerful individuals in society would go by completely unnoticed. Now compare that to today's geopolitics.

 

 

Gone are the days of the inept leadership Russia suffered through in the 90s and very arguably the 80s. While we here in the west are generally suffering under our own inept leadership, Russia, China, and a few others are growing in power, where the U.S. is losing it.

 

You truly are a fool if you think Russia isn't a major player. Heck, half of this thread is people spouting 'ZOMG the evil Russians are coming, they must be stopped!'. If they weren't a major power, that wouldn't be a concern, and U.N. 'peacekeepers' would likely already be in Crimea stopping the presumed non major power Russia.

 

The idea proposed that Russia isn't a major world power is probably the most misinformed and truly fantastical idea that's been said in this thread. And that's saying something. From LaLaLaLaLaLa Land this idea hails from.

 

Gorbachev was good, because he wanted to approach the West and realized that true prosperity comes only through friendship. Yeltsin was bad, because his rule signaled incompetence, corruption and instability. Putin's initial rule was good, because he brought stability (and by extension, economic prosperity). But I'm increasingly thinking he is a liability to the Russian economy if he's going to increase his bellicose posturing. Trade and investments will likely plummet.

 

You are completely right that countries like Russia, China, India and so on are gaining power (relatively). But since they were way poorer and less powerful to begin with, that is natural. But do you even realize how much smaller Russia is than the US, if we look at population? If the Russians would be as prosperous as the Americans, they would still have more than half as small an economy. And then you would have to take into account the very low population growth in Russia.

 

You are extremely naïve to think that people's fears have anything at all to do with real power. Through the last ten years or so, Americans have feared Al- Qaeda, Iraq and then Iran. Countries and organizations which are very insignificant and harmless in a global perspective.

 

On what information do you base the size of their economy. I hope you don't think what you read on the internet can really show the intricacies of a countries structure and military might. Also military might doesn't only equal economic might. China is great power because it has it's massive population and also because of it's top down culture. People here seem to think that war has become cleaner then in the past, that technology has somehow fundamentally changed it, but that is only the construct of the media. What still counts the most in any war is how many boots you have on the ground. You are very misinformed if you think that America could wage a full out war with either Russia or China. If America ever attempted a land invasion of either Russia or China they would get eaten alive. The same would be true in reverse for Russia, for China I'm not so sure. World Power America may be, but it is not all powerful as can be seen in the Ukraine conflict, while it may be willing to strut and posture in the south the same cannot be said for regions near Russia or China. What I'm trying to say is that while it's power may be greater then that of Russia and China, it is still not great enough for direct conflict. Russia may not be able to project it's military might like America can(yet), but it sure as hell is boss of it's own back yard.

 

Military might is only a good short-term indicator. The military might of the UK and the US was rather laughable at the outbreak of WW2, yet in 1944 they were bombing the **** out of Germany, and not the other way around.

 

I'm not saying that any of the great powers is going to fight an all-out war against any other, in fact, I hold that as an impossibility barring massive collective mental illness of any country's leadership. It's ridiculous to talk about it, since there wouldn't be anything left to fight for, or maybe not even anything left to invade, if such a war were to occur.

 

If you think that "boss of your own back yard" is the criterion for being a great power, then you have very low standards. But let's hear a concrete definition of what a "great power" really is so that we can have a real discussion.

 

 

As for Putin I don't know how you would think that Russia hasn't prospered under him in the years since the cold war. I don't think you are aware of just how far down the ****-hole Russia was after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under Putin the Russian leadership was united and made to work. While Russia might not be the standard of economic prosperity (yet) it has certainly moved leaps and bounds in stability since the collapse. Putin wouldn't have been able to hold the rains of such a large country, if he didn't have something to show for the years he has ruled. That is very naive view you hold for the Russian governing body.

 

I think that Putin is scoring big points back home right now and is showing the Russian people that Russia is still a force to be reckoned with. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to say the least.

 

Yes! His first years were great. Russia could be moving as swiftly forward now as then, they have only Putin's own isolationism and aggressive posturing to blame. That part wasn't so pronounced during his first years. Now the investors are withdrawing their moneybags.

 

Of course he is "scoring big points". Just like GWB did with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Right? Get real. Look at the economical facts. Meaningless jingoistic posturing will always appeal to stupid nationalistic knuckleheads, and nostalgic populations who wish for the days when the USSR was #2 and fail to see today's economic reality where Russia is competing with India and Brazil not to fall out of the top ten and not for the #1 spot. It would be easy peasy for Japan, Germany or China to freak out and start carving out their own South Ossetias and Abkhazias, countering the US at the UN (well, at least for China), getting much more attention than Russia. But they don't, they focus on tomorrow, and on building their economies. Meanwhile, Putin is looking for cheap sympathy with nationalists showing that "Russia is still a force to be reckoned with". Yeah. Who's playing the long game here, do you think?

[Walsingham]

I think we could reasonably settle this with reference to some actual facts, if anyone is willing to field them:

 

1. Economy

1a. GDP

1b. GDP per adult

1c. Growth figures for GDP over last twenty years and predicted

1d. Population growth rates, last twenty years and predicted

1e. Inward foreign investment

1f. Dependence of economy on raw materials

1g. Concentration of wealth

1h. Corruption figures or assessments, by people paid to judge these things, in context of countries like UK or Nigeria

1i. Market assessed rating for Russian government bonds

 

2. Diplomatic

2a. Countries aligned with Russia (open to suggestions on how you judge this)

2b. Quantity of foreign aid given out by Russia over last twenty years

2c. Unilateral treaties between Russia and other countries

 

3. Military

3a. Endurance - Raw numbers of military

3b. Striking power - carriers, long range aircraft and missiles (conventional)

3c Technology - any suggestions welcome, but suggest some sort of adjusted budgetary figure

[Mor]

I think we could reasonably settle this with reference to some actual facts, if anyone is willing to field them:

...

How about UN human development index, it covers a broad range of subjects without touchng on more subjective topic such as politics or who got a bigger military pen**

 

...

Good for you for growing up in Russia, that really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

...

Which discussion at hand? My replay which providing some background about quality of life in Russia and conditions in its military in response to a post that spoke about that(because just like people who never been to USA, think that USA is all urban skyscrapers like NY with people with a single TV show accent, people have no idea about Russiam which is bigger and nothing like Moscow) , or your apologist rant, not liking how what I said reflect on Russia and trying to prove some crap about Russia being a major world power and hubris :/ Edited April 9, 2014 by Mor

[Walsingham]

Power

 

 

I think we could reasonably settle this with reference to some actual facts, if anyone is willing to field them:
...

How about UN human development index, it covers a broad range of subjects without touchng on more subjective topic such as politics or who got a bigger military pen**
 

 

I assume you're playing to the feminist gallery or something>?

 

Firstly, as we've just witnessed, having a stronger military lets countries change the World around them. Or are you suggesting that Russian troops in the Crimea had no influence on the crisis?

 

Secondly, as a matter of general principle, the importance of military power as a sibling of economic and diplomatic power is argued very coherently and interestingly in Joint Doctrine Publication 0-01. I genuinely recommend reading it, even to foreigners.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jdp-0-01-fourth-edition-british-defence-doctrine

[Mor]

I think the argument that Russia being a world superpower is a mute one i.e. a nuclear power, top 3 military power, top 10 GDP, holder of permanent UN security seat and major player in geopolitics.. but IMO the making of real power is the ability to maintain it(case and point soviet union) and while I don't doubt your military doctrine plays a role in it, my money is one more direct factors such as investment in education, infrastructure, research and factors such as life expectancy (which reflect a wide range of factors).

Edited April 9, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

I even don't want comment all these cool stories about economics. Just to say - by words of Western economists USA have first economics in the world, highest GDP blah-blah etc. But in same time US produce nothing ( exept arms ), all their economics is just virtual speculations on markets, real situation is totally different.

 

But talks about economics with poorfags (aka typical citizen of the West) are boring, they just dont have trustful sources of information about this.

 

I better post last news from Donetsk instead.

People of Donetsk block bus with American merks.

 

 

 

 

but these Americans are shy

 

People await attacks of government forces today at night.

streams from this place

Donetsk

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/donetsk-city

News

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/restream-antimaidan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgcnnUjlZzc

http://live.russia.tv/index/index/channel_id/3

Lugansk

http://www.ivideon.com/tv/camera/200-a09aab08eb06aee541bdb87eed7e3493/0/?lang=ru
http://lc.lds.ua/#!/perekrestok-donbass

http://lc.lds.ua/#!/kukolny-teatr

http://lc.lds.ua/#!/dk-stroiteley

http://krym.ru/vebkam.php

 

 

[Rostere]

Yeah, I know I've said it before, but if you can get the raw materials it's not very hard to build a nuclear bomb. I think it would be far harder to build a reliable and accurate means of delivery (I'm referring to ICBMs of various kinds). There are probably 15 or so countries in the world today which could easily build a nuclear bomb within a few months. Likewise with military power, it's just a question of how much you're willing to pay at the moment. If everybody paid as much as Russia they would drop again to 8th place or something like that. There is no true temporal cumulativeness in military expenses, the fact that you bought cannons and war zeppelins years ago does not necessarily add up to an advantage today - money you spend right now is always more valuable than the money you spent yesterday. The inverse is true about research and infrastructure. The money you spent yesterday will accumulate additional money and resources for you to spend tomorrow. So if you're smart you will want to limit your defence spending to the least feasible nuclear deterrence plus a rapid response task force until you think war comes.

 

Alternatively, you can think of peace as simply an economic war of competitiveness - then you realize education, free trade treaties and infrastructure will give you competitiveness, and building more tanks and isolating yourself will not. It is therefore very naïve to say that the one who currently are being most bellicose and flamboyant in waving around his new war toys is the most "powerful" when the serious actors are busy building their economies in order that they can afford bigger war toys later.

 

Then again, roughly half of the Russian state budget comes from income due to sales of oil-related resources to the EU, so in the event of any escalation of conflict the Russian economy would be pummeled to rubble before the first shot was even fired. That is the downside if your country's long-term economic strategy is to be a big gas station. Comparing this and this we can see that Russia's exports sector is actually less diversified than that of the UAE. That's a very, very damning indictment of Russia's high-tech companies.