Oops! Russian Military In Nato Country

There's this suggestion that Putin could be one of the richest people in the world.
And he didn't get this money from his salary as Dictator for Life.
There's this Marxist impulse in this old Stasi guy - don't allow any other center of
power in your country, be it NGO's, churches, genuine political opposition or,
most importantly, large corporations.
If you bought out, like Gasprom, and run the company efficiently and honestly and
made it even bigger than it is - at some point your company is just too rich and you
just too powerful, for Putin et al to ignore. Trumped up charges could follow. Have
your money stashed off shore and your private jet ready.

 

Show me one post where I suggested Russia needed to be be subservient to, or grovel before the U.S. In my post I refer to the West not the US, and (albeit most Americans might not be aware of it) the West is not just America. The term refers to all the modern developed, free enterprise economies around the world that have democratic political systems and reasonably transparent and independent legal systems. And the only ones stealing Russia's wealth are its on Political elites and the oligarchs. Do you have any idea how much of Russia's wealth has been parked offshore by Russia's elites, where it is invested in assets that enrich them but no Russia?

Finally who said steal? Is that your really definition of trade? Here's how it works. The 'West' comes and buys goods and services you want to sell. Then Russia buys goods and services from the West that they want to sell. Trade is not a zero some game people have been doing it since we first learned to make tools.

I know there's two Russia's. There's the one constituting of the political and business elites, their family members and key staff. Then there's the rest of you. And yes I am aware no system of country is perfect in this regard but at least we have legal systems in place that keep the kleptocracy in check.

Firstly GDP is a measure of the productive output of an economy and hence the size of its economy not its standard of living.
You need to study a bit of basic economics. Currency manipulation protects you domestic industries (and in this case the oligarchs who run them) from competition. It also restricts how large your economy can grow because it limits imports of goods and technology that can increase your GDP. China has done it successfully until recently because oof the wests appetite ffor cheap manufactured goods. Now that noose is tightening.

Manipulation also makes imports far more expense than they need to be. Result Russian's citizens pay more for imported goods and services, cars, TVs, white goods, drugs, medical equipment, you name it. So again the average Russia is the one losing out over the long term , not the the rich.

Yes, as long as you don't disagree with Putin,

 

Really? that's the best you can do?. Name one country (of the 40 or so?) modern devolved economies in the World that still has conscription due to unique geopolitical factors. Yes that really disproves my point. Not.

 

You previously mentioned "Democracies actually have to pay their soldiers a living wage instead of conscripting them."... and I'm guessing now that Israel pays dirt low wages while conscripting soldiers, debunking your claim.... since you refuse to answer my question. Rather rude to now want me to answer new and other questions. I'm declining. You lost your point. And FYI there are western democracies that conscript at the moment. Fun fact, Donald is a draft dodger.

You're evading the point that Russia would prosper if the west wasn't banning Russia. The claim that this is due that it's only due to of it not being a true democracy is simply incorrect.

If the west was made to invest all the riches they thieved from their colonies in their old colonies, than the tables would be turned for sure. A country like China shows you can economically prosper well even when you're not a democracy. Their economic progress is simply amazing these past 50 years.

 

Imagine an India that was never colonized. It didn't even exist as a modern nation.
Forget about railways, modern education and parliament. India at one stage under
British rule dominated the textile trade with England, helping the rise of English trade
unions to fight it.
Ever read how the Indians fought each other, developed a caste system and burned
widows? British helped to stop all that.

Fact is - those nations which were not colonized turned out to be poorer.

 

I cant even remember what you point was? That's if there ever was one so you'll have to repeat it.

No my claim is that its not an open country, in terms of the ability of the Western companies being able to do business there. I'm saying its economy is closed to outsiders in any circumstances where their activities might potentially impact on the profitability of Putin key business partners. I'm saying any Western investor is aware going in that they are potentially putting their capital at risk because there is no independent arbitrator in business disputes, little or no clarity around how along any agreements entered into with Russia partners will be honored and little or no chance of of them being allowed to compete effectively against established players (except in niche sectors) dependent on who has the Kremlin's patronage and who does not. I'm saying if you are looking for new markets in the developed world then there are far easier places to go that Russia. And that's down to its government not the West.

Right, Imperial Russia did no 'thieving' as you put it back in day when it was an expanding colonial power.

And yes China can prosper - to a point as a Dictatorship because it came off such a low economic base. When it started opening up its economy in the late 80s the bulk of its population were still peasant farmers and its industrial technology lagged behind the west by a good couple of decades. Centralized planning and authority made it easier to prioritize and organize its modernization (then).

Now? The close they get to Western levels of affluence and development the harder it is to make progress without opening up their economy to Western investment, ideas and westerners. And the harder the Chinese communist party has to work at staying in power. Every year it finds itself investing more and more capital and effort in just staying in power and trying to lock out 'corrupt Western ideologies'. Oh they want technology and innovation, they just don't want the free thinking and the free exchange of ideas and views that go hadn in hand with innovation.

But you cant have it both ways. If your people can't say what they think, go where they need to go and do what they need to do when they need to do it then you suck all the oxygen out of the creativity needed to keep science, technology and the economy as a whole progressing. You also end up having to steal as much tech and as many patents etc as you can because you can't generate them yourself organically.

Now what country am I thinking of that gets criticized for that regularly?

 

To suck on the American taxpayer's tit, that's why. Duh! Then they can piss off tons of their money on other things while we pay for their protection. NATO is nothing but a wealth re-distribution scheme.

 

The U.S. needs NATO for the simple reason that it makes more sense to fight your enemy over there than fight them over here.

 

NATO is a cancer on the U.S. and it needs to be killed. It is useless and a total joke.

 

And I think Americans going to fight in WW1 and WW2 was also a joke. Nothing to do
with America. Even putting the US fleet in Peal Harbor was meant to provoke the
Japanese. World wide Fascism or Communism is not a problem.
The whole notion of supporting allies, defending freedom, saving lives is not something
that your average Isolationist American thinks is worthy of consideration.

 

ArchShanton, if you haven't heard it before there is an old saying. 'He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.'

In the case of NATO during the Soviet era NATO was absolutely essential to the US's long term military and political interests. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union this was no longer the case. But!

You overlook one critical point as per the saying above. While it's true that the US carries the current financial burden of the NATO Alliance this also means it gets to LEAD IT. For better or worse within certain broad parameters the US gets to dictate long term military/strategic defense policy among NATO members. It pays for that privilege yes, but it gets to influence if not control the long term military priorities of a group of nations with 21 % plus of the Worlds GDP, 10% of it's land mass and collectively the 2nd richest and technologically advanced group of nations on the planet.

Now the US can decide the costs are not worth the benefits. But if it does so then it also gives up a significant part of its influence over a group of nations that collectively have a higher GDP that the US (China is number 1, the EU number 2). By default then the (former) NATO members would have to shoulder the burden of increased defense spending themselves. But by the same token in doing so they would no longer be obliged to take the US's military and geopolitical interests into consideration when making decisions, including the possible increased need for their own nuclear option via Britain and France.

So ask yourself is it better to have have these nations - too an extent reliant on US support or alternatively free to make their own military decisions regarding who they should or should not be aligned with regardless of what is in the US's long term best interests.

You cant have it both ways. Being No.1 costs. You don't want to be No.1 one anymore? Fine you can settle for number 2 or 3.

 

Because that help often evolved into countries later treating the US as a cash cow that needed to be milked constantly.
https://www.foreignassistance.gov/

 

With all due respect, you're dreaming. Have you ever been to any of the 'NATO' countries?

Nordsteam.
Bypassing sanctions on Iran.
Kosovo.
Turkey.
Montenegro.

 

Well it really doesn't "suck" on IS taxpayers....to a point.....it also creates local jobs that benefit both parties.....militarily and economically.

You're just pissed it right at rooski doorstep....and good reason.

There was no economic payoff for those nations in the former WP and SU. It was basically one huge prison.)

 

I didn't realize "Nordstream" was a NATO country. When did a gas pipe apply for MEP?

 

"Banned" account??.....Whatsa matter arch....pressure gettin to ya?

 

The fact is that the west colonized about the entire world right up to WWII.
About all the world were paying massive amounts of taxes to the west and hardly got a thing in return.
Something that went on for centuries.

The amount of universities build anywhere in the world before 1960's in those countries proves it.
They kept those people dumb and uneducated and made them work the lands to thieve the resources.
Kind of it.

 

This is:
You mean... when there is a regime change that does our bidding... than we will remove all the restrictions we put in place that restrain the country from prospering. Ergo... the type of government itself has no to very little influence if it prospers.

The west is blocking Russia not because of that. You're ranting utter nonsense.

Not remotely close to how the west colonized about the entire world.

That Chinese government still has basically has full control in who owns what. Get real. And the reason for their progress was that they went from sowing tshirts to making innovations of their own. First it was innovations for the sake of innovations. Than they made a Resolution on the Reform of the Science and Technology Management System in 1985 to fine tune their innovations with their industries. That and of course, thieving technology.

 

colonization doesn't work that way.

 

Vladimir Putin has no business partners, but he does respect those who respect Russian laws and pay their taxes as well as give fair wages to their workers. He does not respect those who send their money to off shore accounts. Billions were stolen from the Russian economy, while many Russians went hungry before Putin came to power.

That Putin was even able to fight the powerful oligarchs and governors, probably had to do with his reputation for integrity - something that was rare at a time when most bureaucrats were getting rich on their seats. Vladimir Putin also had the support of the Intelligence Agencies, since the worse elements within them left to make their fortunes, during Yeltsin's free for all in the 90's.

As for the oligarchs, one example is Mikhail Khodorovsky who didn't pay his taxes and was involved in politics - which was against the law. He was arrested by Vladimir Putin for tax invasion when he tried to sell Russia's largest oil company to Exxon Mobil. Later on, Putin as a favor to his mother who was supposedly dying, (she's still around I believe), released him from jail.

Today Khodorovsky is wanted in Russia on a murder charge. A wife of a former mayor who was killed when trying to collect taxes from his company, has brought charges against him.

The same people who were robbing Russia of billions and ran out, are no doubt freaking out over the new laws that will not allow anyone with dual citizenship and who has not been a resident of Russia continuously for 30 years, to become president. Too bad! Expect now to hear a lot more of the following idiocies because of it:





Listen my friends and please pay heed.
We have to search, we have to weed
them Russians from among us folks,
and catch them in their traitorous works.

For if we don't then they will rule,
and turn our land into a tool,
for Putin and his personal gain,
and that will be an awful shame.

For we're Americans and know what's good.
We know what's right, and what we should
be doing now, is start to fight
so we can do the fair and right.

So let us bomb them day and night,
and keep them always in our sight
to make them pay for what they say
against us in their foolish way.

And even if we turn to dust,
it matters not, for it's a must
to show them that we'll use our might,
and always do what's fair and right.

The End! - Jeannette



(Disclaimer: Most of what I write comes from my memory of what I read in credible sites, and my understanding of situations. Everything might not be 100% accurate, since my memory has failed me at times).

 

You don't realize a lot of things....like my reply was directed about the misconception that since the U.S. pays for all the NATO country's defenses (for the most part), we can dictate military policy. Yeah, that's why all those POS countries skirt our sanctions on Iran and Turkey buys missile defense systems from Russia. The notion we can dictate foreign military policy on NATO countries is mostly a joke.

When you can differentiate between a sanction, a pipeline, and a country.....then you can reply to me. Up until then, don't bother.

 

Never heard that Indians paid taxes to English. I do know that whole British Raj thing
was a lot of fabulously wealthy Indians riding around on elephants - they were wealthy
because they still had the same tax base but there was no need to raise armies anymore.
Peace, prosperity, railways, industry, democracy - but British rule. It reminds me of that
funny scene in Life of Brian about "What have the Romans done for us."
I would rather live under British rule in India than be some Indian peasant soldier fighting
my own countrymen. I would rather be a Roman subject, paying taxes to Rome, than a
warrior fighting other warriors in a land without even a decent road.

This is what anti-imperialists of the Marxist variety go on about - and Marxism wound up
with a Marxist empire that covered a third of the earth. And not a good empire either,
going by the death toll of 150 million people.

 

Arch, firstly when you highlighted my comments in your post above 'within certain broad parameters the US gets to dictate long term military/strategic defense policy among NATO members.' You missed the highlighted bit.

Also a line down I commented that 'it gets to influence if not control the long term military priorities'.

I think I made reasonably clear by doing so that the US leadership role in NATO is NOT a case of the US saying 'jump' with all other member states then immediately saluting and asking 'how high sir'.

That's not how international diplomacy and co-operation works. Despite the fact you seem to believe it should. In simple term the US's primacy in NATO gives it the ability to influence or guide broad NATO policies in directions it wants it to go. You listed an handful member state policies that the US has issues with. Ignoring the huge list of other areas where the group has moved in direction Washington concurs with - and no I'm not going to start listing them others can if they want.

Even your criticism of Nord smacks slightly of hypocrisy. NATO member states are heavily reliant on Russia for supplies of oil and gas, which is critical particularly in the northern winter. The US is not. Until recently the US wasn't in a position to supply natural gas to Europe so the Europeans are stuck between securing energy supplies and annoying Washington.

Do I really have to go into details about the lengths Washington has gone to in the past to secure its own energy needs? Up to and including cosying up to all those enlightened middle eastern nations? You know the ones I mean - all those free and open democracies out there with their excellent human rights records and strong commitment to peaceful co-existence with their neighbors. So please explain how the European states conduct in this case is so different.

 

Poo, will you FGS please go way and read some history. The US fleet was based in Hawaii in 1899. Japans Empire by contrast was still nascent at this time. It had only just occupied Taiwan in 1895, didn't have any territory in Manchuria until 1905 and didn't finally take over Korea till 1910, it was even an ally of the West during the 1914-18 war. Not an enemy. In fact it was as a reward for joining the allies that it acquired the further out in the Pacific Island chains that became its forward bases luring WW11. So to put it simply for you - the US was there first.

Secondly, unless I'm mistaken Hawaii is (A) an American State, hence the US has every right to base military vessels there. (B) Hawaii is more than 4000 miles from Japan. So exactly where do you suggest they should have based the Pacific fleet in order to avoid as you put it 'intimidating Japan'? Colorado perhaps? Is that far enough away?

Lastly if one had to be picked, the single direct cause of the Pacific war was NOT the existence of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour (although the Japanese's recognized that eventually a clash with the US was likely if they were to have the freedom to expand the Empire as much as they desired.

What tripped the war was the decision by the US and British to threaten Japan with an oil embargo over the conduct of its war in China. Japan was and still is utterly dependent on oil imports for its continued economic existence. From the Japanese perspective both options (withdrawal from China & shutting down its economy) were unacceptable. Certain unpleasantness then ensued.

As for the rest of claims. The US entered the war because it was attacked, pure and simple. Why you believe there had to be some virtuous motive behind it escapes me. As for allies? A quick look at the dictionary tells me that allies combine and unite for mutual benefit. Again no noble sentiments require just pure self interest. Yes the US helped its Allies but those Allies also helped it!

 

You missed my point. I was being sarcastic.
If America was closely allied with Britain there might not even been
the two world wars. I suspect that if America stayed in the British
Commonwealth, like Canada, Australia and NZ, that there might not
have even been an American Civil War, or slavery after about 1820.
Engagement is the correct approach.
But one point - the moving of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii was seen by
Japanese as provocation - as it was meant to mean.