Quantcast
Putin wants return of Soviet Union, but not Soviet Union!

Forums - Politics Discussion - Putin wants return of Soviet Union, but not Soviet Union!

Branko2166 said:
 

You have either misunderstood or are ignoring what I have said. I did not say Russia alone follows it's national interest but that all nations do. I also never claimed that Russia should be trusted or that it was a democracy but that the west had an oppurtunity to integrate Russia and not alienate it.

What you are basically advocating is precicely the mistake that I have said the west has made. If you had your way, Russia just like Japan and Germany would be a nation under American military occupation/control. There are also countless cases of the west supporting dictatorships where it suits them. Best examples being Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Bottom line is that we have a case of a missed oppurtunity and I hope that it's something that we won't live to regret.

 

 


All nations are looking out for themselves to a degree. However western nations have a bigger sense of comrodery, they realize we are a global community and what will benefit our country most might be to invest and support another country. Look at the EU for example Germany is loosing hand over fist bailing out the weaker economies of the EU. Germany and many other EU nations would be far better of not bailing out Greece or Italy or any other struggling EU country. Right now a few countries are dragging down a huge amount of countries and causing financial instability globally.

Look at Nato and the fundamentals behind it. A military alliance where if any member is attacked the others are expected to come to its aid. It costs the US and other countries billions upon billions of dollars a year. Yet other then Pearl Harbor and Afghanistan has the US ever been attacked by a foreign power directly? How about Canada, Canada has never been attacked on home soil by a foreign power since confederation.

See the western countries realize that the other democratic countries and even some non-democratic countries well beings are just as important as there own. Russia wasn't as supportive of other states during the USSR and when they entered democracy they were far more concerned with their own well being then the well being of other democratic countries which they proffessed to now be.

I'd love to see you go to Japan or Germany and claim that their countries are being occupied by America. Germany is far from under US control any more so then any other western country. Angela has proven to be a big critic of US policies and the German Government has not been all that supportive of the US's ambitions. As for Japan yes there are tons of troops and weapons based in Japan, however a presence is not an occupation. Those American troops for the most part are there at the beconing of the Japanese Government , those that aren't are there to protect Japan from countries that would like nothing more then to squash Japan out of existence.

Again I'd love to see you go to Germany or Japan and tell the citizens there that they are under occupation and the control of the US. The majority of them would likely disagree. What about the EU under UK occupation is that the case as well? I mean the UK has a lot of influence militarily and financially, politically over most of the EU. Does that mean they are being occupied? This is the age of globalization what is good for one country likely benefits your country as well, unless your Government is anti-globalization and anti-democratic!

mai said:
 

I beg your pardon for personal comment, but only Joel is capable of writing frigging wall of text with rather discussable argumentation and again not free from factual mistakes, that could have been easily put in a few sentences. Any hopes to have any discussion with the guy dies before they're born - you understand, that you just can't help. One can't argue religion, you just believe in it or not.

Kudos, that was fun :D Will repost it in my blog if you don't mind?

Mai what does this conversation have to do with religion in any way shape or form? What factual mistakes did I make that you are refering to? The West did support dictatorships but they did not support Communist countries. Russia wasn't trust able and maintained strong ties with enemies of the West. I'd like to hear which facts I supposedly screwed up. Not saying I didn't because I do make mistakes from time to time but you haven't pointed any out.

In fact you just show your hatred for me in general and nothing relating to the thread. Of course I write a wall of text, always have its my writing style and I have always posted replies and topics in great detail. I could not convey my message or thoughts in a few sentences without looking like a fool.

I find it funny that you resort to these pot shots without adding anything to the argument. Religion has nothing to do with the discussion which is a major flaw in your reply alone. Why is it every time a user disagrees with me they resort to pot shots about religion or other topics rather then addressing the issues brought up in the actual threads?

Also with that kind of bias and hatred towards me, I do mind if you post it in your blog. I have a feeling you will twist what I have said and honestly due to your bias against me you would not be a good user to represent my topics on any medium of the internet!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network

@JC7

We are all entitled to opinions but you keep getting yourself caught up in passing many of your opinions as fact.
You speak about camaraderie between nations like Japan and the US and yet you disregard actions like the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Do not assume that everyone in Japan is in love with America.

Regarding Germany helping out with the bailouts it is a bit more complicated than them doing it out of good will. They are doing it out of economic necessity, period.

You also mention how NATO is so costly for the US but maintaining empires has always been a huge financial burden throughout history.

I try to judge countries not by their talk but by their actions, and while German and or Japanese leaders may to an extent criticise the US from time to time they always end up falling in line in the end.

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

One country after another is being taken over by the United States through military action and the only thing that can protect anyone's independence is military might. That's why we can now see other powers forming counter alliances to try and deter military aggression. I suspect that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was formed for this reason.

Again I believe it would benefit everyone if there was more deterrence in the world and the less unilateral action the better.



 

 

Well idk guys, when i use to live in Russia people lived him so much.



I trust no one, not even myself.

Branko2166 said:

@JC7

We are all entitled to opinions but you keep getting yourself caught up in passing many of your opinions as fact.
You speak about camaraderie between nations like Japan and the US and yet you disregard actions like the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Do not assume that everyone in Japan is in love with America.

Regarding Germany helping out with the bailouts it is a bit more complicated than them doing it out of good will. They are doing it out of economic necessity, period.

You also mention how NATO is so costly for the US but maintaining empires has always been a huge financial burden throughout history.

I try to judge countries not by their talk but by their actions, and while German and or Japanese leaders may to an extent criticise the US from time to time they always end up falling in line in the end.

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

One country after another is being taken over by the United States through military action and the only thing that can protect anyone's independence is military might. That's why we can now see other powers forming counter alliances to try and deter military aggression. I suspect that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was formed for this reason.

Again I believe it would benefit everyone if there was more deterrence in the world and the less unilateral action the better.

I'm really not trying to pass any opinions as fact. As for the two a-bombs that was way in the past, its like bringing up the war of 1812 in which troops from Upper and Lower Canada with the help of the British attacked the United States and torched the White House. So by that logic are Canada and the US enemies?

I don't think I said that all Japanese are pro-American, I stated that if you went to Japan or Germany the majority wouldn't likely agree that they are under military occupation by the United States. The Japanese Government has for the most part requested US forces be in the country something that benefits Japan's interests and protects them from hostile neighbors.

Of course their are anti-American in every country, in fact their are some Canadian's who believe Canada is under military occupation by both UK and the US because we allow both countries to train and station troops on our soil. A presence of military forces isn't occupation, is that the opinion you think I am passing off as fact?

As for Germany helping bail out Greece and Italy, indeed it is very much more complicated. However Germany doesn't have to do so for its economy to flourish. I just watched BBC analysts as well as CBC program on Germany's options and the options of several countries in the EU. It would be beneficial according to BBC/CBC for the EU to split or be dissolved entirely. The analysts argued that member states of the EU that fail to maintain their economic responsibilities to the Union could be cut off and dropped from the union. This option would strengthen the strong EU member states but damage the credibility of the Union and be called into question legally and morally. However analysts argued it might be the best option for the survival of the EU and actually benefit the global economy.

The second option analysts suggested it was only briefly mentioned like one sentence on BBC but CBC dedicated about 3-5 minutes to it. Is the dissolution of the EU in its current form, try to maintain trade deals and partnerships but break the countries reliance on one another and dissolve the euro. This move is by far the most controversial however analysts pointed out that while the EU flourished it is proving to be a major burden on the global economy and the analysts suggested trade partnerships like NAFTA in North America might be more beneficial then maintaining the current EU structure.

The major problems with these options are obvious. One the legal issues and the credibility factor both would be damaged really badly, I'm not 100% sure how either action could be carried out. Another flaw is that the international community would basically be abandoning Greece and Italy and other EU countries and allowing them to collapse.

But both these options are viable and would benefit Germany's economy in the short term and likely long term. Germany doesn't have to bail out anyone. They have several options on the table as do all the other EU countries but right now they are choosing to save EU member countries if at all possible. Rather then throwing Greece and Italy under a bus.

As for globalization comment. I to believe in national sovereignty and protecting a nations businesses and economy. I am against a single global currency and such. I also don't think a country is evil for not embracing globalization, however I think it is a foolish thing for a country to do in the long term. Most countries benefit from globalization more then remaining entirely dependent on themselves. Look at the countries that are trying to stop or ignore globalization Iran, Syria , Venezuela etc...etc.. those countries are suffering and while the populations of Venezuela for example still appear to support their Governments moves will they ten years from now?

There are many problems with globalization, a big one off the top of my head is this recession. Our economies are linked so deeply that if one country goes down it creates a ripple effect that causes issues around the globe. Only thing with this is it is impossible to avoid even Venezuela exports millions and if the countries who import there products no longer need or can afford them then even the protectionist anti-globalization countries will go down in flames.

Sorry for the long response, I try not to pass off opinion as fact. But I do hear that every now and then I'll try to watch that more so in the future!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Joelcool7 said:
Branko2166 said:

@JC7

We are all entitled to opinions but you keep getting yourself caught up in passing many of your opinions as fact.
You speak about camaraderie between nations like Japan and the US and yet you disregard actions like the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Do not assume that everyone in Japan is in love with America.

Regarding Germany helping out with the bailouts it is a bit more complicated than them doing it out of good will. They are doing it out of economic necessity, period.

You also mention how NATO is so costly for the US but maintaining empires has always been a huge financial burden throughout history.

I try to judge countries not by their talk but by their actions, and while German and or Japanese leaders may to an extent criticise the US from time to time they always end up falling in line in the end.

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

One country after another is being taken over by the United States through military action and the only thing that can protect anyone's independence is military might. That's why we can now see other powers forming counter alliances to try and deter military aggression. I suspect that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was formed for this reason.

Again I believe it would benefit everyone if there was more deterrence in the world and the less unilateral action the better.

I'm really not trying to pass any opinions as fact. As for the two a-bombs that was way in the past, its like bringing up the war of 1812 in which troops from Upper and Lower Canada with the help of the British attacked the United States and torched the White House. So by that logic are Canada and the US enemies?

I don't think I said that all Japanese are pro-American, I stated that if you went to Japan or Germany the majority wouldn't likely agree that they are under military occupation by the United States. The Japanese Government has for the most part requested US forces be in the country something that benefits Japan's interests and protects them from hostile neighbors.

Of course their are anti-American in every country, in fact their are some Canadian's who believe Canada is under military occupation by both UK and the US because we allow both countries to train and station troops on our soil. A presence of military forces isn't occupation, is that the opinion you think I am passing off as fact?

As for Germany helping bail out Greece and Italy, indeed it is very much more complicated. However Germany doesn't have to do so for its economy to flourish. I just watched BBC analysts as well as CBC program on Germany's options and the options of several countries in the EU. It would be beneficial according to BBC/CBC for the EU to split or be dissolved entirely. The analysts argued that member states of the EU that fail to maintain their economic responsibilities to the Union could be cut off and dropped from the union. This option would strengthen the strong EU member states but damage the credibility of the Union and be called into question legally and morally. However analysts argued it might be the best option for the survival of the EU and actually benefit the global economy.

The second option analysts suggested it was only briefly mentioned like one sentence on BBC but CBC dedicated about 3-5 minutes to it. Is the dissolution of the EU in its current form, try to maintain trade deals and partnerships but break the countries reliance on one another and dissolve the euro. This move is by far the most controversial however analysts pointed out that while the EU flourished it is proving to be a major burden on the global economy and the analysts suggested trade partnerships like NAFTA in North America might be more beneficial then maintaining the current EU structure.

The major problems with these options are obvious. One the legal issues and the credibility factor both would be damaged really badly, I'm not 100% sure how either action could be carried out. Another flaw is that the international community would basically be abandoning Greece and Italy and other EU countries and allowing them to collapse.

But both these options are viable and would benefit Germany's economy in the short term and likely long term. Germany doesn't have to bail out anyone. They have several options on the table as do all the other EU countries but right now they are choosing to save EU member countries if at all possible. Rather then throwing Greece and Italy under a bus.

As for globalization comment. I to believe in national sovereignty and protecting a nations businesses and economy. I am against a single global currency and such. I also don't think a country is evil for not embracing globalization, however I think it is a foolish thing for a country to do in the long term. Most countries benefit from globalization more then remaining entirely dependent on themselves. Look at the countries that are trying to stop or ignore globalization Iran, Syria , Venezuela etc...etc.. those countries are suffering and while the populations of Venezuela for example still appear to support their Governments moves will they ten years from now?

There are many problems with globalization, a big one off the top of my head is this recession. Our economies are linked so deeply that if one country goes down it creates a ripple effect that causes issues around the globe. Only thing with this is it is impossible to avoid even Venezuela exports millions and if the countries who import there products no longer need or can afford them then even the protectionist anti-globalization countries will go down in flames.

Sorry for the long response, I try not to pass off opinion as fact. But I do hear that every now and then I'll try to watch that more so in the future!

It's all good!

We're just debating some economic and political issues. It's normal to have differing opinions.

Regarding the countries you just stated have been opposed to globalisation, it is interesting to note that they all own their central banks as opposed to most western countries whose central banks are privately owned. They also have no foreign troops on their soil. So basically they are militarily and economically independent from the west. This I believe is the reason why they are in America's sights and not for the reasons often cited, including supporting terrorism or being authoritarian.

Just a thought.



 

 

Around the Network
Onibaka said:
I would like to just add one thing:

Communism =/ Socialism.

A communist state NEVER existed in the history.

It may seem weird to hear this, but it's the true. A person may be communist but not necessarily socialist.

No.  A communist state did exist.  Several actually.

They just never got past the first stage of communism... because communism never took over the world.

You can't have a dictator free communist state next to a capitalist state because 90% of the talented people are just going to pick up and leave to somewhere they can make a better living for themselves.

Communism needs a strong opressive force and first that fades away after people get socialized into the new system... and having around a capitalistic culture somewhere else in the world would just lead to the communist cultures demise.

Well that and you need several generations of programming before the majority of people would be willing to accept a communist like society.



Branko2166 said:
 

It's all good!

We're just debating some economic and political issues. It's normal to have differing opinions.

Regarding the countries you just stated have been opposed to globalisation, it is interesting to note that they all own their central banks as opposed to most western countries whose central banks are privately owned. They also have no foreign troops on their soil. So basically they are militarily and economically independent from the west. This I believe is the reason why they are in America's sights and not for the reasons often cited, including supporting terrorism or being authoritarian.

Just a thought.


Good eye, I think there is a less diabolical reason in America's position and in fact the countries opposed to globalism. Countries opposed to globalism realize that the whole world is changing and going global, they realize that they need to stick together and vie for influence in this globalized world.

Despite the fact that the Government's own a lot of the corporations and the corporations are often public. Those public corporations still make profit exporting products to other countries. The militaries of countries other then Iran are also in capable of developing their own technology and require purchases from other countries.

So despite being against globalization these countries realize they need allies and supporters from other countries around the globe especially one another. This is why you see them banding together and sticking up for one another no matter what the cost, like Iran a Government that executes people for converting from Islam talking to Venezuela  who's constitution guarantees religious freedom.

A fact is that these countries are very small compared to the juggernauts that support globalization. So how can they influence the world? Through provocative acts that gain their countries allies and influence without having to bow to Capitalist Global countries. Example Venezuela's support for FARC and other rebel groups in South America and Iran's support of militant organizations that attack Israel and her allies.

America knows this is a political game just as much as the countries themselves do. Look at North Korea as an example using the constant threat of Nuclear weapons and its ability to destabilize East Asia to get hand outs from the rest of the world. Will North Korea actually launch a nuke? Not likely but they know that if they continue to threaten and stick up to the number one enemy of anti-globalization (USA) they will gain valuable allies in the rest of the world and hand outs from all the countries desperate for them to disarm and maintain a dialogue.

In other words if your country takes an anti-global position it is in your best interest to be on America's bad side and provoke America. America as the biggest supporter of globalization can't exactly ignore your provocations and will react causing a ripple effect. In the end these anti-globalization countries walk a thin line between provoking and causing a war, they know they can't take on America and the global community no matter how they grand stand. But if they don't do anything provocative they won't get the support they need and will have a much harder time surviving!

Conclusion these protective countries need each other and help from globalized states. Their motives are in direct competition with the rest of the globalized world. The best chance for survival is to provoke the US and other globalized states and stick up for one another at all costs. This makes them very un-popular with the modern western countries!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Wall of text incoming...

Branko2166 said:

There seems to be a very misguided view which is held by many that somehow democracy solves everything and that democratic nations are natural allies. A democratic Russia will still pursue it's own national interests as all other countries do and should.

Let's keep these talks where they belong, it's more ideology than anything else. We both know that Russia will never get approved of 'democratic state' rank keeping it's sovereignty at the same time, while the US would never lose one even if the nation will celebrate every election of a new Emperor by eating unborn babies of families voted for the wrong candidate alive. At least as long as current global political system is intact.

Branko2166 said:

The west had a 10 year window of oppurtunity from the dissolution of the Soviet Union to truly engage and embrace Russia while it was weak. Instead, the US continued expanding NATO and even started accepting former Soviet republics into the military alliance. All this served to reinforce Russia's greatest fears. That the west was talking about engagement while it was more than happy to box Russia in. This situation allowed the hardliners including Putin to come to power.

He never was Washington's puppet, though always tried to play by the rules of generally accepeted politeness. But what you seem don't quite understaned is how pro-Western Putin was when he came to power. He just got much more pragmatic through the time. I'm not even ruling out the idea that he might have shared certain wishful thinking on part of KPSS nomenklatura bosses, who downed USSR, about the West embracing Russia or smth along those lines. (Why people never learn history lessons?!)

The things got ugly in 2008, when Crisis has officially struck, just after he've assumed Prime Minister's post, so he had a lot of time to recosider his position. The attempts of financial centers to solve the issue by regular monetarist methods didn't give results, so in the end we see two conflicting trends: 1) keep all the power in hands of current global oligarchy; 2) ressurect much-talked multipolar world order where all global powers will be more or less even. Have you noted the recent 'currency war' among global players? Basically they've refused to play by the rules, rocking the boat of 'globalized world', in what btw Russia didn't take part thanks to Kudrin, Minister of Finance (probably one of the most highly acclaimed Ministers of Finance out there... the reason? The indirect message is "you play by our rules - get your cookie").

What I expect to happen. Putin finally said farewell to any ides of keeping current liberal (a tad different from what is considered 'liberal' elsewhere) politikum in power, Russia just don't have much of a chance to survive the incoming storm without serious losses if they stay. And what smart person does when he sees that he can't win the game following the rules? He makes it's own rules. Administrative reform have started with Kudrin's dismissal from the office, which was scandalously done by Medvedev live on TV, and will go on sort of the Great Purge, though without brutal scenario this time, but your never know.

Things you should know about Kudrin to understand the situation: 1) he officially confirmed his plans to refuse any post in next goverment if Medvedev will become a Prime Minister (meaning if Putin will become a President); 2) he is a prominent member of old liberal team, keeping Kudrin in power has been always a point of criticism of Putin, since Kudrin always was more supportive to global financal elites (see above) rather than national, or at least perceived as such.

These actions are pretty much in line of both Medvedev's words on recent Davos forum and latest Putin's remark at the UR party congress on'reformating' global finance system. Add to the mix Putin's attempts to accumulate various unaffiliated social organizations, groups and famous persons around UR party by founding ONF (National Front) as a force that suppose to 'support' UR party on next parliament elections (though I'm thinking about 'replacing' eventually), while Medvedev surpsiginly is going to take care of UR party leadership instead of Putin on next elections. As we see it now despite certain hopes coming from inner and external political forces that've tried to make an alternative to Putin out of Medvedev, those hopes have been proven futile.

Final step of administrative reform is a reform of Central Bank of Russia, and eventually a repatriation of gold and foreign exchange reserves from the US to Russia, which means an open conflict with the US regardless of results (a hard decision only three years ago, but possible in current situation). I'm not talking about direct military conflict, but a massive blowout of local conflicts for multiple reasons not always connected to Russia is a given: Near East, Karabakh, AfPak, Central Asia etc., including intensified info war on all fronts (if Putin wins, expect the results to be declared unlawful or smth).

Branko2166 said:

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

Globalisation ain't something natural force that's impose onself on the world by itself. Globalisation is an US way of how to rule the world, in a sense there were several globalizations in history of mankind, the last alternative have died with USSR which encompass 500M+ people at the time. It didn't had a chance to grow bigger, in fact the main reason it've died it's beacause it has stopped growing. Well, there was communist China near the border that could have entered Comecone globalisation, but for the reasons not discusses here China has become economically a part of the West since 70s (btw the main reason they cannot oppose the US, simply because they're the biggest advocates to keep US-led system alive).

With that being said Putin's mid-, long-term plan here is waiting for crisis in EU and chaos in Muslim world to hit harder to take control of politically, economically and military ex-USSR or even some ex-Comecon countries, since the bigger market you control the better chances you have to survive the storm, current 140M+ (not even exclusive to domestic companies like it was in USSR) is just not enough for that.

Branko2166 said:

What you are basically advocating is precicely the mistake that I have said the west has made. If you had your way, Russia just like Japan and Germany would be a nation under American military occupation/control. There are also countless cases of the west supporting dictatorships where it suits them. Best examples being Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Speaking about occupation. Not that they didn't try last time in 1918, I believe there were Australian troops as well. It didn't work out. But in today's world of permanent nuclear threat it's just way too risky, so they've opted for soft power (Chechentelekom, Movladi Baysurov, Boris Berezovsky etc.).

 

//Must admit the thread is getting better than typical Joel-like crapyness we usually get here on VGC whenever politics is discussed :D



mai said:

Wall of text incoming...

Branko2166 said:

There seems to be a very misguided view which is held by many that somehow democracy solves everything and that democratic nations are natural allies. A democratic Russia will still pursue it's own national interests as all other countries do and should.

Let's keep these talks where they belong, it's more ideology than anything else. We both know that Russia will never get approved of 'democratic state' rank keeping it's sovereignty at the same time, while the US would never lose one even if the nation will celebrate every election of a new Emperor by eating unborn babies of families voted for the wrong candidate alive. At least as long as current global political system is intact.

Branko2166 said:

The west had a 10 year window of oppurtunity from the dissolution of the Soviet Union to truly engage and embrace Russia while it was weak. Instead, the US continued expanding NATO and even started accepting former Soviet republics into the military alliance. All this served to reinforce Russia's greatest fears. That the west was talking about engagement while it was more than happy to box Russia in. This situation allowed the hardliners including Putin to come to power.

He never was Washington's puppet, though always tried to play by the rules of generally accepeted politeness. But what you seem don't quite understaned is how pro-Western Putin was when he came to power. He just got much more pragmatic through the time. I'm not even ruling out the idea that he might have shared certain wishful thinking on part of KPSS nomenklatura bosses, who downed USSR, about the West embracing Russia or smth along those lines. (Why people never learn history lessons?!)

The things got ugly in 2008, when Crisis has officially struck, just after he've assumed Prime Minister's post, so he had a lot of time to recosider his position. The attempts of financial centers to solve the issue by regular monetarist methods didn't give results, so in the end we see two conflicting trends: 1) keep all the power in hands of current global oligarchy; 2) ressurect much-talked multipolar world order where all global powers will be more or less even. Have you noted the recent 'currency war' among global players? Basically they've refused to play by the rules, rocking the boat of 'globalized world', in what btw Russia didn't take part thanks to Kudrin, Minister of Finance (probably one of the most highly acclaimed Ministers of Finance out there... the reason? The indirect message is "you play by our rules - get your cookie").

What I expect to happen. Putin finally said farewell to any ides of keeping current liberal (a tad different from what is considered 'liberal' elsewhere) politikum in power, Russia just don't have much of a chance to survive the incoming storm without serious losses if they stay. And what smart person does when he sees that he can't win the game following the rules? He makes it's own rules. Administrative reform have started with Kudrin's dismissal from the office, which was scandalously done by Medvedev live on TV, and will go on sort of the Great Purge, though without brutal scenario this time, but your never know.

Things you should know about Kudrin to understand the situation: 1) he officially confirmed his plans to refuse any post in next goverment if Medvedev will become a Prime Minister (meaning if Putin will become a President); 2) he is a prominent member of old liberal team, keeping Kudrin in power has been always a point of criticism of Putin, since Kudrin always was more supportive to global financal elites (see above) rather than national, or at least perceived as such.

These actions are pretty much in line of both Medvedev's words on recent Davos forum and latest Putin's remark at the UR party congress on'reformating' global finance system. Add to the mix Putin's attempts to accumulate various unaffiliated social organizations, groups and famous persons around UR party by founding ONF (National Front) as a force that suppose to 'support' UR party on next parliament elections (though I'm thinking about 'replacing' eventually), while Medvedev surpsiginly is going to take care of UR party leadership instead of Putin on next elections. As we see it now despite certain hopes coming from inner and external political forces that've tried to make an alternative to Putin out of Medvedev, those hopes have been proven futile.

Final step of administrative reform is a reform of Central Bank of Russia, and eventually a repatriation of gold and foreign exchange reserves from the US to Russia, which means an open conflict with the US regardless of results (a hard decision only three years ago, but possible in current situation). I'm not talking about direct military conflict, but a massive blowout of local conflicts for multiple reasons not always connected to Russia is a given: Near East, Karabakh, AfPak, Central Asia etc., including intensified info war on all fronts (if Putin wins, expect the results to be declared unlawful or smth).

Branko2166 said:

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

Globalisation ain't something natural force that's impose onself on the world by itself. Globalisation is an US way of how to rule the world, in a sense there were several globalizations in history of mankind, the last alternative have died with USSR which encompass 500M+ people at the time. It didn't had a chance to grow bigger, in fact the main reason it've died it's beacause it has stopped growing. Well, there was communist China near the border that could have entered Comecone globalisation, but for the reasons not discusses here China has become economically a part of the West since 70s (btw the main reason they cannot oppose the US, simply because they're the biggest advocates to keep US-led system alive).

With that being said Putin's mid-, long-term plan here is waiting for crisis in EU and chaos in Muslim world to hit harder to take control of politically, economically and military ex-USSR or even some ex-Comecon countries, since the bigger market you control the better chances you have to survive the storm, current 140M+ (not even exclusive to domestic companies like it was in USSR) is just not enough for that.

Branko2166 said:

What you are basically advocating is precicely the mistake that I have said the west has made. If you had your way, Russia just like Japan and Germany would be a nation under American military occupation/control. There are also countless cases of the west supporting dictatorships where it suits them. Best examples being Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Speaking about occupation. Not that they didn't try last time in 1918, I believe there were Australian troops as well. It didn't work out. But in today's world of permanent nuclear threat it's just way too risky, so they've opted for soft power (Chechentelekom, Movladi Baysurov, Boris Berezovsky etc.).

 

//Must admit the thread is getting better than typical Joel-like crapyness we usually get here on VGC whenever politics is discussed :D

Thank you for your very insightful reply. When politics are discussed I try to be as clear and concise as possible and this is especially important on forums where only relevant information should be posted with as little rhetoric as possible.

I have been interested in international politics ever since I was forced to leave my home town during the Bosnian civil war. I find it fascinating to analyse trends that are happening in the world and to do so requires a deep discussion.

And I will admit that as much as I try to be as balanced as possible I do have a bit of a soft spot for Russia as they are to an extent a legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire.



 

 

Russia will soon rise!!!