Russia Discussion

Fergie's gum said:
Gorbachev and Yeltsin fit that description in the MSM. Look how good their tenures turned out for the Russian people (Khodorkovsky et al excluded)
Click to expand...

Not sure what this is supposed to mean since Gorbachev's tenure precipitated the end of the Cold War, unless you think that's a bad thing.

Unfortunately, the corruption that was endemic within the Soviet system merely transitioned to the Russian state. It would take at least a generation of reforms and leaders with the nerve to implement them, that could bring Russia to the next level. Unfortunately, having a KGB operative masquerading as a statesman in charge over the past 15 years has only taken them in the opposite direction.
 
MoskvaRed said:
You think Russia is democratic? Tell me, are you from this part of the world or a Seamus Milne type for whom anyone who sticks two fingers up to the West is a hero? You don't for one moment think that Ukrainians might look across the border to Poland (with whom they have just as many historic ties as with Russia) and think "I could be living in a stable, relatively wealthy state rather than a kleptocratic sh*thole?".
Click to expand...

Do you think China is democratic? How about Saudi Arabia? Russia is easily more democratic than either of those countries. First is USA's biggest trade partner, second is America's biggest ally in the Arab world.
 
antihenry said:
Do you think China is democratic? How about Saudi Arabia? Russia is easily more democratic than either of those countries. First is USA's biggest trade partner, second is America's biggest ally in the Arab world.
Click to expand...

No they aren't democratic, but they aren't threatening economic commerce in Europe either.
 
Raoul said:
By starting a war on Europe's doorstep.
Click to expand...

First of all, Ukrainian president and his government still didn't admit publicly that they're at war, nor do they call what is now happening there a war, they still call it an 'anti-terrorist operation'. Neither did they declare war on Russia despite moaning to everyone who'd listen about Russia's involvement.

As for who started it all, let's not get into all that again, I know your views and they're not going to change and neither are mine.
 
antihenry said:
First of all, Ukrainian president and his government still didn't admit publicly that they're at war, nor do they call what is now happening there a war, they still call it an 'anti-terrorist operation'. Neither did they declare war on Russia despite moaning to everyone who'd listen about Russia's involvement.

As for who started it all, let's not get into all that again, I know your views and they're not going to change and neither are mine.
Click to expand...

Putin has admitted Russian troops were in Crimea. Not that such an admission was needed, but still nice to know he admits he was lying all along. All the more proof that nothing he says in terms of wanting peace can be taken seriously by the likes of Merkel, Obama, Cameron et al.
 
antihenry said:
Do you think China is democratic? How about Saudi Arabia? Russia is easily more democratic than either of those countries. First is USA's biggest trade partner, second is America's biggest ally in the Arab world.
Click to expand...

The original comment was comparing Russia to the West. But, to answer your question, of course those 2 countries are not democratic and less so than Russia. However, to state the obvious, China and Saudi Arabia are far away. Until 25 years ago, Russia subjugated half of Europe and imposed a police state on those countries unfortunate enough to fall on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Unlike the other two, it also has a long history of expansionism into Europe. That's why Europeans are much more concerned about Russia. Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese would no doubt be more worried about China.
 
Found this video that was shot from a drone a couple of days ago at the Donetsk airport. There has been heavy fighting in the past weeks between Russian and Ukrainian forces for the airport and by the looks of it there is not much left of the it.

 
I have been reading Robert Peston's analysis on oil and the Russian economy. He says that BP thinks the oil price will remain low for 3 years at least and Russia has used up 20% of its cash reserves so far. If this is correct 8 to 12 months and they will be bankrupt. He can't see a way out because the sanctions implemented because of the Ukraine fiasco will stop other economic sectors growing anywhere near fast enough to stem the losses in oil revenues.
 
The time to negotiate is from a position of strength.

Putin isn't completely irrational - I think, anyway. This is the moment for Obama to be the statesman and let him off the hook IF Putin commits to de-escalation and withdrawal. He can save all the face he wants with the Russian public by ensuring that there's no UN/NATO inspections, etc., but reduction in the severity of sanctions has to be tied to demonstrable, concrete withdrawal.
 
naturalized said:
The time to negotiate is from a position of strength.

Putin isn't completely irrational - I think, anyway. This is the moment for Obama to be the statesman and let him off the hook IF Putin commits to de-escalation and withdrawal. He can save all the face he wants with the Russian public by ensuring that there's no UN/NATO inspections, etc., but reduction in the severity of sanctions has to be tied to demonstrable, concrete withdrawal.
Click to expand...


He isn't irrational to that extent, but at the same time he has staked his domestic popularity on his bizarre soft invasion/land grab in Ukraine - presumably as a device to consolidate his grip within Russia and fend off any internal attempts to question his actions. What he didn't factor into his logic is the drop of oil, which combined with sanctions and years of kleptocratic mismanagement, will send Russia back a decade or two, at which point he will feel far more pressure than had he simply not done anything in Ukraine. The US and EU should keep the sanctions in place until he gets completely out of Ukraine or until there is new leadership within Russia.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I have been reading Robert Peston's analysis on oil and the Russian economy. He says that BP thinks the oil price will remain low for 3 years at least and Russia has used up 20% of its cash reserves so far. If this is correct 8 to 12 months and they will be bankrupt. He can't see a way out because the sanctions implemented because of the Ukraine fiasco will stop other economic sectors growing anywhere near fast enough to stem the losses in oil revenues.
Click to expand...

I don't think oil will remain as low as it is for much longer. It will probably bounce back into the 60s at some point this year, but that's still well below the presumed $100 figure the Russian budget is based on.
 
Raoul said:
He isn't irrational to that extent, but at the same time he has staked his domestic popularity on his bizarre soft invasion/land grab in Ukraine - presumably as a device to consolidate his grip within Russia and fend off any internal attempts to question his actions. What he didn't factor into his logic is the drop of oil, which combined with sanctions and years of kleptocratic mismanagement, will send Russia back a decade or two, at which point he will feel far more pressure than had he simply not done anything in Ukraine. The US and EU should keep the sanctions in place until he gets completely out of Ukraine or until there is new leadership within Russia.
Click to expand...
Thing is though, Raoul, there's a third possibility: that the oil price can go up just as suddenly as it went down. A bomb can go off in Riyadh, OPEC can change their minds, etc. And then the moment is lost.

I think Obama has done a superlative job in reacting to the Ukraine crisis, within the constraints of the possible. He's corralled European leaders into some form of unity as best he could have done to get meaningful sanctions on Russia, while at the same time not forcing Russia into further acts of irrationality. This, right now, is the culmination of those efforts, and he should exploit it to the maximum while he can.
 
naturalized said:
Thing is though, Raoul, there's a third possibility: that the oil price can go up just as suddenly as it went down. A bomb can go off in Riyadh, OPEC can change their minds, etc. And then the moment is lost.

I think Obama has done a superlative job in reacting to the Ukraine crisis, within the constraints of the possible. He's corralled European leaders into some form of unity as best he could have done to get meaningful sanctions on Russia, while at the same time not forcing Russia into further acts of irrationality. This, right now, is the culmination of those efforts, and he should exploit it to the maximum while he can.
Click to expand...

The sense I get from Obama is that he's more interested in keeping US and European sanctions in sync, which means the US can't twist the knife into Putin any more than the Europeans are comfortable with, and the Europeans are more sensitive to Russian exports than the US and as such are a bit more timid in terms of deeper sanctions.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think oil will remain as low as it is for much longer. It will probably bounce back into the 60s at some point this year, but that's still well below the presumed $100 figure the Russian budget is based on.
Click to expand...

It could though, it might even drop further on the news that growth in China is slowing significantly. On balance I think you are probably right but even if the oil price recovers further to mid seventies it doesn't save the day.

How long do you think Russian billionaires will support Putin when most of them need their oil money?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
It could though, it might even drop further on the news that growth in China is slowing significantly. On balance I think you are probably right but even if the oil price recovers further to mid seventies it doesn't save the day.

How long do you think Russian billionaires will support Putin when most of them need their oil money?
Click to expand...

It all depends on how much the Russian economy is squeezed. If prices go up sufficiently and the ruble isn't stablized, the walls will definitely close in around him, both from average Russians whose rents and mortgages are going up, to the wealthy crooks he uses to consolidate his grip on power.
 
MoskvaRed said:
The original comment was comparing Russia to the West. But, to answer your question, of course those 2 countries are not democratic and less so than Russia. However, to state the obvious, China and Saudi Arabia are far away. Until 25 years ago, Russia subjugated half of Europe and imposed a police state on those countries unfortunate enough to fall on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Unlike the other two, it also has a long history of expansionism into Europe. That's why Europeans are much more concerned about Russia. Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese would no doubt be more worried about China.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was the result of an institutionalized foreign policy brought forth by repeated invasions from the West. Not saying it is right, but to view it in a vacuum is silly. If Russia/The USSR was and is a monster, Western Europe played a significant role in creating said monster.

At the same time, US foreign policy isn't much different. It's all a matter of perspective.
 
Anyone interested in something a bit more in-depth should check out Putin's Kleptocracy by Karen Dawisha . It clearly articulates that this is a Russian problem with roots going back to the intra-governmental corruption stemming from the KGB happy Soviet days, into the wild west 90s, and resulting in the emergence of Putin's corrupt system.
 
Nucks said:
To be fair, it was the result of an institutionalized foreign policy brought forth by repeated invasions from the West. Not saying it is right, but to view it in a vacuum is silly. If Russia/The USSR was and is a monster, Western Europe played a significant role in creating said monster.

At the same time, US foreign policy isn't much different. It's all a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

That's the old Soviet line but Russia has historically been the invader much more than it has been invaded. Just check out of a map of the 15th century Grand Duchy of Muscovy relative to Russia (let alone post-1945 foreign policy) while wondering whatever happened to large chunks of Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish territory. Also the same story southwards and, particularly, eastwards. There may have been very sound strategic reasons for those expansions (particularly access to the sea) but they are hardly explained by the future events of 1812 or 1941 (leaving out 1914 of course where Russia was very much an instigator in whipping up the whole mess, at least if you believe Christopher Clark's analysis).

The US may be similar in seeking to dominate its continent and set out spheres of influence but, speaking from the perspective of a Western European who grew up in the 70s and 80s, pax Americana was a very benign experience compared to the what was happening east of Berlin. People in other parts of the world may disagree but this debate concerns Europe.

Back on topic, Putin is essentially a man out of time who hasn't come to terms with Russia's greatly diminished status and inability to dominate what he perceives to be its rightful sphere of influence nor with the strange beast that is the EU. To return to that status and enforce his zero sum modes of behaviour would require greatly enhanced economic power but he and his fellow kleptocrats have utterly wasted the golden opportunity for genuine development presented by the boom years.
 
He will keep attacking until they have a land bridge to Crimea. Once Donbass is secure, Kharkiv will be next.
 
And he will insist that it is Ukraine's fault that he's invading and annexing Ukrainian territory.
 
Raoul said:
He will keep attacking until they have a land bridge to Crimea. Once Donbass is secure, Kharkiv will be next.
Click to expand...

If the Russians of Ukraine want their independence your government should support it. Because America supports democracy. It's the will of the people.
 
Mihajlovic said:
If the Russians of Ukraine want their independence your government should support it. Because America supports democracy. It's the will of the people.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainans should be sorting out their issues on their own terms without the coercion of an invading country attempting to bully them into submission as a means to help Putin's poll numbers.
 
Raoul said:
The Ukrainans should be sorting out their issues on their own terms without the coercion of an invading country attempting to bully them into submission as a means to help Putin's poll numbers.
Click to expand...

By the same logic I'm sure you also agree that the US should have stayed out of the internal matters of a souvereign state instead of financing and supporting an unconstitutional take over by far right extremists.
 
Mihajlovic said:
By the same logic I'm sure you also agree that the US should have stayed out of the internal matters of a souvereign state instead of financing and supporting an unconstitutional take over by far right extremists.
Click to expand...

Supporting someone or a process is completely different than a neighboring country actually invading Ukraine, lying about having done so, and continuing to foment unrest as a means to help Putin's popularity back home. So no, there is no rational comparison between the two. The European and North American states are spot on here.
 
Raoul said:
Supporting someone or a process is completely different than a neighboring country actually invading Ukraine, lying about having done so, and continuing to foment unrest as a means to help Putin's popularity back home. So no, there is no rational comparison between the two. The European and North American states are spot on here.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is neither an EU nor NATO member. The U.S. had no business there whatsoever in actively participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected president.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Ukraine is neither an EU nor NATO member. The U.S. had no business there whatsoever in actively participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected president.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant whether or not they're an EU or NATO member, although the way things are moving now, they will likely be a member of both in a couple of years. Yanukovich was extremely corrupt and I can't blame them for chasing him out of town. As we've since learned, he was little more than a Russian stooge who lived in opulence after embezzling billions from his citizens. He is extremely fortunate to have not wound up like Ceausescu.

As for the US - Two sovereign countries (the US and Ukraine) have every right to do business with one another. That is not Russia's business. The most recent Ukrainian elections have proven that a majority of Ukrainians want feck all to do with Putin or his corrupt, megalomanical, post-Soviet clown show.
 
naturalized said:
The time to negotiate is from a position of strength.

Putin isn't completely irrational - I think, anyway.
Click to expand...

On second thoughts.... go to town on Russia. Ruble 65.8 to the dollar now, keep it coming.

The latest attack is scandalous and ridiculous. What the hell was this supposed to prove?
 
naturalized said:
On second thoughts.... go to town on Russia. Ruble 65.8 to the dollar now, keep it coming.

The latest attack is scandalous and ridiculous. What the hell was this supposed to prove?
Click to expand...

The one thing that should be clear at this point is the Minsk talks were merely a stalling tactic to provide western leaders the illusion a deal could be made. In the end it was just a ruse to buy Putin time to resupply and consolidate his gains in Donbass and prepare for further advancements.
 
Raoul said:
The one thing that should be clear at this point is the Minsk talks were merely a stalling tactic to provide western leaders the illusion a deal could be made. In the end it was just a ruse to buy Putin time to resupply and consolidate his gains in Donbass and prepare for further advancements.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you would hope by now that Western leaders (by which I mean Obama, Merkel and Tusk) fully understand that Putin does not recognise international norms and will lie quite blatantly for tactical advantage.

I agree with the poster above - now is the time to turn the screws. Although I would like to see more sanctions targeted specifically at members of the wider regime and their families, including travel bans and prohibition of access to Western financial services. Making Ivan Ivanov in some provincial town pay an even greater percentage of his meagre income on daily necessities won't bring down the regime but significantly changing the cost/benefits analysis for those benefiting from the current regime's patronage system might force a palace coup.
 
I saw an interesting Ross Kemp show about the Ukrainian far right and the Azov Battalion fighting against the Russian separatists.
They seemed better equipped than the official Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol. It was interesting to see a handful of foreign fighters joining up with Azov to fight the Russians as they feared their countries could be next!
 
Raoul said:
The one thing that should be clear at this point is the Minsk talks were merely a stalling tactic to provide western leaders the illusion a deal could be made. In the end it was just a ruse to buy Putin time to resupply and consolidate his gains in Donbass and prepare for further advancements.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'll concede I had a shocker there.
 
MoskvaRed said:
That's the old Soviet line but Russia has historically been the invader much more than it has been invaded. Just check out of a map of the 15th century Grand Duchy of Muscovy relative to Russia (let alone post-1945 foreign policy) while wondering whatever happened to large chunks of Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish territory. Also the same story southwards and, particularly, eastwards. There may have been very sound strategic reasons for those expansions (particularly access to the sea) but they are hardly explained by the future events of 1812 or 1941 (leaving out 1914 of course where Russia was very much an instigator in whipping up the whole mess, at least if you believe Christopher Clark's analysis).

The US may be similar in seeking to dominate its continent and set out spheres of influence but, speaking from the perspective of a Western European who grew up in the 70s and 80s, pax Americana was a very benign experience compared to the what was happening east of Berlin. People in other parts of the world may disagree but this debate concerns Europe.

Back on topic, Putin is essentially a man out of time who hasn't come to terms with Russia's greatly diminished status and inability to dominate what he perceives to be its rightful sphere of influence nor with the strange beast that is the EU. To return to that status and enforce his zero sum modes of behaviour would require greatly enhanced economic power but he and his fellow kleptocrats have utterly wasted the golden opportunity for genuine development presented by the boom years.
Click to expand...


Western invasion of "Russia" predates 1812, by a little bit. Russia as a political entity didn't exist, but the culture extends back. The Teutonic Order famously invaded "Russia", along with Lithuania, Poland, the PLC, Sweden.

Everyone in Europe has been invaded at one point or another, but "Russia" has never really been apart of Europe, not really. It's like in grade school, "Russia" historically has been the kid it is socially acceptable to pick on. However it goes beyond that, Russia in the last few centuries has suffered from these invasions like no other country in history has.

I do not subscribe to the idea that Russia really played into starting WW1. I support the idea that Germany hijacked the Austro-Hungarian war as a way to pick a fight with Russia while Germany was still he most dominant European land power. Basically it was a way for Germany to knock Russia down which was on course to surpass them at the dominant European power.

In anycase, the losses they took in the 19th century invasions, and then the 20 century invasions are incomprehensible. They are unreal numbers. I'd challenge you to show me any country on Earth that would sit back after being invaded twice in a century to the tune of tens of millions of dead and not take a pro-active stance to creating buffers.

It's wrong, but it's easy for us to cast judgement. I can also totally understand why this would radicalize their foreign policy.
 
Nucks said:
Western invasion of "Russia" predates 1812, by a little bit. Russia as a political entity didn't exist, but the culture extends back. The Teutonic Order famously invaded "Russia", along with Lithuania, Poland, the PLC, Sweden.

Everyone in Europe has been invaded at one point or another, but "Russia" has never really been apart of Europe, not really. It's like in grade school, "Russia" historically has been the kid it is socially acceptable to pick on. However it goes beyond that, Russia in the last few centuries has suffered from these invasions like no other country in history has.

You are confusing the vaguely formed entity of Kievan Rus with modern "Russia". And lots of countries have suffered devastating invasions - the German lands for example in 1618-1648 suffered far more than Russia ever did before 1941. Poland likewise suffered far greater deprivations between 1650 and 1790. Hungary and most of SE Europe has also been subject to prolonged subjugation since the onset of the Ottoman invasions.

I do not subscribe to the idea that Russia really played into starting WW1. I support the idea that Germany hijacked the Austro-Hungarian war as a way to pick a fight with Russia while Germany was still he most dominant European land power. Basically it was a way for Germany to knock Russia down which was on course to surpass them at the dominant European power.

No, Serbia was Russia's cat's paw. And it still is to some extent.

In anycase, the losses they took in the 19th century invasions, and then the 20 century invasions are incomprehensible. They are unreal numbers. I'd challenge you to show me any country on Earth that would sit back after being invaded twice in a century to the tune of tens of millions of dead and not take a pro-active stance to creating buffers.

It's wrong, but it's easy for us to cast judgement. I can also totally understand why this would radicalize their foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Well if you keep conquering other people's land, your buffers tend to get smaller. Maybe if Russia hadn't destroyed Poland, it wouldn't have ended up with the German army on its doorstep. As for pre-WWII, I am fairly sure that France lost the most in the Napoleonic wars and WWI as a proportion of population than anyone else. As for WWII, yes horrific losses but the modern state of Russia didn't "inherit" all of them - millions of Ukrainians and Belorussians died (not to mention Jews), as well as hundreds of thousands of Georgians, Armenians and Turkmen. Also, the numbers murdered "internally" were unreal.

Their current foreign policy is a result of a prolonged failure to develop a cohesive civil state or develop the economy. Easier to divert attention by inventing a fascist bogeyman in Kiev than explain why 10 years of high commodities prices were embezzled by the ruling elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.