Nope. Or else it wouldn't be breaking news. Can't even remember last time there was any interception incident. I guess they want to enjoy the weather. Almost November and people still using t-shirts and shorts.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Nope. Or else it wouldn't be breaking news. Can't even remember last time there was any interception incident. I guess they want to enjoy the weather. Almost November and people still using t-shirts and shorts.
I think Raoul was being ironic mate
Heh yeah you are right. Awful work day, so tired i just read things like a robot
Back to the title of this thread which is about Ukraine. The fundamental question that seems to have been swept below the carpet is whether Russia has a right to take parts of Ukrainian land through its hybrid war strategy of covertly undermining and publicly denying.
I find viewing political views through the classic 'left/right' prism to be increasingly meaningless. A good example would be classifying support for a regime like Putin's over NATO as somehow 'left-wing.'
It's easier to ignore that question or try to obfuscate the issue with straw men and misdirection.
Russia has as much of a right to take over Crimea as the US has the right to bomb Yugoslavia, invade Iraq and Lybia, sponsor the terrorists in Syria, etc. You want to start passing judgments on what's right and wrong, you should start with your own country, because US government is the worst offender by far. At least in Crimea, people didn't die.
That's a good point, but I can see where DFK is coming from: nobody, particularly the Westerners in this thread, appears to be supporting Russia's right to intervene in the Ukraine because they genuinely support classically Right notions like authoritarianism or the right of the strong to rule the weak, etc. It's mostly based off moral-relativistic notions of "we're no better - we can't complain," which is a notion classically - and correctly - mapped to the geopolitical Left. To be clear, this is an attitude I genuinely admire and respect, even though I sincerely believe it is misplaced in this thread. To that extent, there is value in a left-right analysis of the politics of the Caf and this thread. Of course, someone like antihenry would perhaps be classed on the right of his own political spectrum, but no analysis is 100%.
I myself identify with the centre-right in international affairs (left on domestic economics and far-left on social issues, but that's not the point), and I don't mind admitting as such. But when the likes of alastair are drummed out of the British politics thread, when the American politics thread is 100% Democratic, when the religion thread openly mocks organized religion, it's difficult to see how the Caf can remotely be described as dominated by the Right.
"I reject the right of the global West to criticize Russia's intervention in Crimea and the Ukraine because they have behaved no better in the past."
I think it's important - very, very important - that people identifying with the above statement understand that that is not a centrist position. On the contrary, it is a far left position that no serious news organization, geopolitical expert or thought leader sincerely holds. Disagreeing with it does not put someone on the Right.
As an example, I supported American intervention in Syria before the anti-Assad movement became dominated by the Nusra Front and its allies. I can find hundreds, probably thousands of essays, articles and thought pieces reasonably, logically and thought-provokingly rebutting my opinion, which is fair enough. I cannot do the same for the Ukrainian situation because support of modern-day land grabs based on nothing but sheer revanchism is a position no one not on the extreme left can seriously hold.
Also, here's a fun fact for you: close to 80% of the Ukrainian military personnel that served in Crimea, are currently still serving there under Russian authority. That's some hostile annexation.
Last edited:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-idUSKBN0IG1AW20141027
I guess if the Tatars don't shut up and do what Russia says they'll end up getting forcibly removed from their homes and sent to Siberia. Again.
Surely you're not using these examples as justification to invade Crimea? You're still dealing with land that officially belongs to another country.
Basically the argument often seems to be the only country that has a right to criticize another is a country that has not done anything wrong in the recent or not so recent past. So essentially every country is free to do what they want, where they want and nobody should complain about it or attempt to do anything about it. Heaven forbid anyone just say the action of one country is wrong regardless of what any other country has or has not done.
I remember one person going on about slavery in the US as if slavery and serfdom in Russia hadn't gone on far longer and was on a much larger scale than in the US. The number of serfs in the 1850s was basically equal to the population of the US.I agree and it's a long-established Russian tactic. I wonder how Russia would react if a bigger, more powerful neighbour seized some of their territory on the basis of a historical claim - China with the Amur region, for example.
What's the vibe like in Russia at the moment ? Is it basically all pro-Putin media framing it as western interference ? Fascists in Ukraine etc ?
Yes, you've got it in one. Repetition of the word "fashisti" is the soundtrack to 2014. There was a peace march here a few weeks ago (the Sunday of that infamous Leicester game) but, on the whole, virtually everyone supports Putin on this issue (even people who generally have contempt for him). It will be interesting to see how it plays out as the money dries up.
It's an interesting experience living somewhere where your perception of reality is the complete opposite of most people (even though I'm no fan of a lot of US/UK foreign policy). It has focused my mind to clear out of here in the New Year at least.
Seems like Putin is resorting to making money by nationalising Oligarch assets on the back of trumped up charges. An easy way to make a quick $9 Billion apparently.
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-court-orders-seizure-oligarchs-oil-stake-131057014.html
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-court-orders-seizure-oligarchs-oil-stake-131057014.html
Russias economic advantages are that they have little debt (10-20% of BIP) and the public spending is under control. Still I really dont understands Russia´s economic endgame.Their fundamentals arent great; they have fbig structural problems and Putin isnt adressing these issues at all.
Their fundamentals are certainly not in good shape. The Rouble is tanking, they are rapidly depleting their reserves, experiencing intense capital flight, and since their budget is pegged to the price of oil at $100, the fact that oil is now in the $70s means a massive cut in revenues. When you factor all of these into one analysis, the Russian economy is rapidly headed off a cliff. Hopefully their next leader is a proper statesman who understands how to build his country up rather than tear it down.
I am not even talking about these issues. They can change fast and its hard to predict how they´ll change in 1/5 years. I am talking about the basics of a competitive economy. Education. Infrastructure. Rule of law.
Its so obvious, that Putins policy of creating national champions is bound to fail. These companies are only build around the energy/military sector and even in this sector their competitiveness is highly questionable. They are only giants from the distance.
Its so obvious, that Putins policy of creating national champions is bound to fail. These companies are only build around the energy/military sector and even in this sector their competitiveness is highly questionable. They are only giants from the distance.
It's "kto kovo", to quote Lenin - the desire to hold onto power is driving this policy. Economically it's a disaster. The official propaganda depicts it as a pivot towards the East which ignores the fact that (1) China can't supply the oil and gas technology they need to replace the huge but depleting West Siberian oil fields, (2) China doesn't really like them anyway, regarding them as one of the European colonial powers who humiliated in in the 19th century, (3) without the Western option, they will have zero negotiating power, as shown in the recent gas deal. and (4) for all the vocal "Eurasian" differentiation, most Russians regard themselves (rightly so) as culturally European. I think sanity will be restored at some point and there will be some kind of reconciliation but, as things stand, they are on a trajectory to reach back beyond the 17th/18th century westernization towards the days of being a vassal state of an Asiatic power as in the time of the Golden Horde.
That is my take on it - Russia media framing is exactly the same as the media framing in the UK and USA on 'our' foreign policy.
I have no love for either but cannot comprehend the people who only see Russian media framing or vice versa.
Basing the economy on natural resource extraction is one of the reasons that Central and South America have failed to develop economically like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. Spain set up the economies to extract wealth without giving them the ability to function on their own. Russia's focus on exporting oil and natural gas seems pretty similar even though it has much more secondary industry than those countries have even today. It would take the Russian economy a long time to pivot away from natural resources to production of anything desirable to the rest of the world. Outside of their major oil/gas and weapons industries, they don't have the industries to sustain a functional economy. The things you mention are why it would be a long-term project for Russia to reform its economy. Investors won't come to Russia when there are more secure and lucrative investments.
The only people with the education, experience, and knowledge to run the economy are his hand-picked stooges. And if they toe the party line, they become expendable.
But that is not quite the case. UK media is not controlled by Cameron appointees, even if some outlets agree with him. Same in the US. Whereas independent media outlets in Russia have been cracked down on - first TV, then radio, now newspapers and next Internet. Or to put it another way, there is no UK equivalent of Dmitry Kiselyov, who is in charge of government news output. The man is a genius in terms of propaganda but there is no equivalent in the Western countries unless you go back to the 1930s.
Its unfortunate the Russian public are being bombarded with so much propaganda and that free speech is being so vigorously suppressed. If it weren't, the public would obviously be having a proper debate about the pros and cons of the government's current policies.
not entirely sure if you are agreeing with me or if I am missing your point.
Of course its a long term project but there is no alternative to start this process. The problem with a economy based on natural ressources is, that it sustains little jobs for the middle class. Its a industry sector that needs big investments, so the investors usually get most of the money, while the "normal" jobs are segmented. You need either a very good education or almost non. Its not a industry that will naturally create a wide middleclass, but one that creates corruption and clientelism.
I disagree with the bold part. More skilled worker and a save/stable environment is exactly what investors want.
not entirely sure if you are agreeing with me or if I am missing your point.
Of course its a long term project but there is no alternative to start this process. The problem with a economy based on natural ressources is, that it sustains little jobs for the middle class. Its a industry sector that needs big investments, so the investors usually get most of the money, while the "normal" jobs are segmented. You need either a very good education or almost non. Its not a industry that will naturally create a wide middleclass, but one that creates corruption and clientelism.
I disagree with the bold part. More skilled worker and a save/stable environment is exactly what investors want.
No, I'm agreeing but saying it can't happen quickly. Short-term, investors won't come because of the things you mentioned. Why would a company invest millions knowing it can just be seized by the state? As for the bold part, it should have had "elsewhere" at the end.
So you are saying Cameron has no appointees even though Andy Coulson went from media to a role in Government with him?
Maybe the genius is the fact you don't see the relationship between media and government here - and in fact Russia are a step behind in this regard due to inadequate subtlety.
Missed all those massacers that Ukraine was doing on Crimea. Fecking fascists, they put on TV only things that they want.
I don't think you can compare the systematic crackdown of information in an authoritarian state with a one off abuse of power in a nation that has a free media.
We have lots of abuse of power though, funnily enough it is rarely covered in the media.
The merry go around between big business and government in all area's reek of conspiracy and strangely enough that is how you are portrayed when see it.
Free media is also a bit rich considering what was done to the Guardian offices when they had the Snowden files.
If you make exceptions or excuses for this under the guise of national security then I would have to say that's hypocrisy.
We have the idea of free media just as we have the idea of democracy, in reality we are just a prettier version of the very things we try to fight.
We are getting older and ugly by the day though unfortunately.
I agree with you, but still - contrary to what antihenry said - it is far better than on dictatures like Russia.
It would appear that way from the media.....
Although I have not been so could not confirm.
We definitely have for the most part first world gripes I will agree with that.
I have a comfortable life and should not grumble.....
I just don't see it. There's nothing wrong with individuals in a free society moving between government jobs and the private sector. In fact, people who do so can add tremendous value to the other side. Journalists going to government and former members of government becoming journalists or working for news organizations. That has no connection to the quasi Goebbels like state sponsored propaganda in authoritarian Russia, where the state completely cracks down on the flow of information within its society in order to preserve the perceived legitimacy of its elites.
You don't see a problem with setting up tax laws and then working for tax accountants exploiting loopholes in the system you have helped implement to help the richest people in the country and businesses pay ridiculously low percentage of tax?
Or MPs getting rich from directorships from companies that have benefited from industry tax breaks. It stinks, no better than Russian crony-ism.
Apples and oranges. Independent journalists here have an unfortunate habit of turning up in morgues. Not sure why you are aiming for this relativism - most Russians not on the government payroll would laugh at the comparison and it's frankly insulting to the risks that the few remaining real journalists run here.
None of what i say is insulting so calm down fella.
Seems like you are trying to shout down my opinion.
Maybe Russia should be completely ostracised from the international community if their human rights abuses are what you suggest not sure why the rest of the world do business with them they sound despotic.
Obviously the press is russia is far more oppressed than in the USA. Its still important to remember that the USA (and other western governments) have an influence on media. Its shocking what happened to Gary Webb in the late 90s. Its also worth remembering that Obama is cracking down on a critical press like no other president eventually ever did (e.g. james Risen/whistle blowers).
Last edited:
There's really no comparison between Russia and western media, who are free to report anything they want. A better comparison would be between Putin's Russia and China - both coercive regimes with no safeguards for freedom of speech or press.
Not shouting you down - just surprised at the moral relativism. I think it's fairly clear Russia and the West are qualitatively different, whatever the imperfections of the latter. Speaking up here can be genuinely dangerous, even on issues that you would not think are unduly sensitive (e.g. Environmental campaigns to stop a highway being built through a forest leading to beatings so brutal they end up with limb amputations). As for not doing business with them, Russia is far from the worse offender in terms of trading partners (the Gulf states, for example) so it's probably not fair or realistic to single them out for ostracisation - it's just the example I'm most familiar with.