Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Nadiru]

Imperialist much? There's other countries in the world with their own interests, can you believe it? I know it's hard to not consider US the master of the universe, but give it a try.

The Amero-centrists have it right. For better or worse, the world pivots on the United States, or at least the geographic entity known as North America. And at any rate, why should the United States freely give up any power it has over the world? There's no benefit from an American perspective.

[Tierbook]

Oh, I know other countries have their own interests, I just don't give a crap about them. I am unashamedly ultra-Statest.

I wish the world worked like the Civilization games.... would be nice going for a conquerors victory.

[Haven]

Oh, I know other countries have their own interests, I just don't give a crap about them. I am unashamedly ultra-Statest.

This mentality works when everyone's at your mercy. But what happens when someone else gets the upper hand? He who lives like a wolf, dies like a wolf.

The Amero-centrists have it right. For better or worse, the world pivots on the United States, or at least the geographic entity known as North America. And at any rate, why should the United States freely give up any power it has over the world? There's no benefit from an American perspective.

That power is brute force; american culture is still in its barbaric, immature stage. The only thing that protects them from instant repercussions of their infantile foreign policy is geographical position - none of the countries they've wronged can reach them over the oceans. At certain point, this policy creates more enemies than in can handle. And nothing lasts forever, even american hegemony. Other countries develop, too. And they don't want to be commanded. Of course US won't give up any of its poower since it's utter madness to do so, but they're hostages of their mentality. You can't keep everyone down forever. USSR has made some bitter enemies this way, but US wasn't yet taught this lesson.

I wish the world worked like the Civilization games.... would be nice going for a conquerors victory.

And yet you speak of annexion as if it was something bad. You western folks have a flexible way of thinking. Turning to "might makes right" when you're winning, then switching to moralism when something goes against your interests.

[Kellhound]

This mentality works when everyone's at your mercy. But what happens when someone else gets the upper hand? He who lives like a wolf, dies like a wolf.

That power is brute force; american culture is still in its barbaric, immature stage. The only thing that protects them from instant repercussions of their infantile foreign policy is geographical position - none of the countries they've wronged can reach them over the oceans. At certain point, this policy creates more enemies than in can handle. And nothing lasts forever, even american hegemony. Other countries develop, too. And they don't want to be commanded. Of course US won't give up any of its poower since it's utter madness to do so, but they're hostages of their mentality. You can't keep everyone down forever. USSR has made some bitter enemies this way, but US wasn't yet taught this lesson.

And yet you speak of annexion as if it was something bad. You western folks have a flexible way of thinking. Turning to "might makes right" when you're winning, then switching to moralism when something goes against your interests.

That's why the smart country undermines their competition.

You can stay on top, if you are willing to "kill off" those who try to take your place.

[Deleted]

That power is brute force; american culture is still in its barbaric, immature stage. The only thing that protects them from instant repercussions of their infantile foreign policy is geographical position - none of the countries they've wronged can reach them over the oceans. At certain point, this policy creates more enemies than in can handle. And nothing lasts forever, even american hegemony. Other countries develop, too. And they don't want to be commanded. Of course US won't give up any of its poower since it's utter madness to do so, but they're hostages of their mentality. You can't keep everyone down forever. USSR has made some bitter enemies this way, but US wasn't yet taught this lesson.

And yet you speak of annexion as if it was something bad. You western folks have a flexible way of thinking. Turning to "might makes right" when you're winning, then switching to moralism when something goes against your interests.

You are defeating your own argument by pathetically defining the situation in terms of opposition to the United States.

I'm not crazy about US foreign policy or the country in general. That doesn't mean I approve of a homophobic tyrant who murders journalists, embezzles billions of dollars from his own people, violates the territorial sovereignity of neighbouring nations and set up his own personal Hitler youth.

The US is greedy, selfish, often useless. The EU is bureaucratic, and almost always useless. What neither are, is unambiguously fucking evil, which is what the Russians are doing in Ukraine.

[ringpriest]

This mentality works when everyone's at your mercy. But what happens when someone else gets the upper hand? He who lives like a wolf, dies like a wolf.

That power is brute force; american culture is still in its barbaric, immature stage. The only thing that protects them from instant repercussions of their infantile foreign policy is geographical position - none of the countries they've wronged can reach them over the oceans. At certain point, this policy creates more enemies than in can handle. And nothing lasts forever, even american hegemony. Other countries develop, too. And they don't want to be commanded. Of course US won't give up any of its poower since it's utter madness to do so, but they're hostages of their mentality. You can't keep everyone down forever. USSR has made some bitter enemies this way, but US wasn't yet taught this lesson.

And yet you speak of annexion as if it was something bad. You western folks have a flexible way of thinking. Turning to "might makes right" when you're winning, then switching to moralism when something goes against your interests.

My fellow citizens just love to practice the Black Swan fallacy - if something hasn't already happened to (or in) the US, it can't ever happen to (or in) the US. They and their parents were born and grew up during a rare, long span of global peace and prosperity - therefore they think there will always be global peace and prosperity. (That's part of why 9/11 was such a shock, and why its always compared with Pearl Harbor; Pearl was pre-WWII, pre-superpower, pre-delusional stasis; the American ruling anima can handle "bad" - within certain limits - but not new and unprecedented ills.) They can't see what the Roman Republic and Empire, the British, (and the French, and the Spanish) Empire, the Ottomans, and the Chinese dynasties all have in common.

"No king rules forever."

[Kellhound]

My fellow citizens just love to practice the Black Swan fallacy - if something hasn't already happened to (or in) the US, it can't ever happen to (or in) the US. They and their parents were born and grew up during a rare, long span of global peace and prosperity - therefore they think there will always be global peace and prosperity. (That's part of why 9/11 was such a shock, and why its always compared with Pearl Harbor; Pearl was pre-WWII, pre-superpower, pre-delusional stasis; the American ruling anima can handle "bad" - within certain limits - but not new and unprecedented ills.) They can't see what the Roman Republic and Empire, the British, (and the French, and the Spanish) Empire, the Ottomans, and the Chinese dynasties all have in common.

"No king rules forever."

The only thing the surprised me about 9/11 was how small scale it was.

[Nadiru]

That power is brute force; american culture is still in its barbaric, immature stage. The only thing that protects them from instant repercussions of their infantile foreign policy is geographical position - none of the countries they've wronged can reach them over the oceans. At certain point, this policy creates more enemies than in can handle. And nothing lasts forever, even american hegemony. Other countries develop, too. And they don't want to be commanded. Of course US won't give up any of its poower since it's utter madness to do so, but they're hostages of their mentality. You can't keep everyone down forever. USSR has made some bitter enemies this way, but US wasn't yet taught this lesson.

Russians of all people ought not lecture others on the evils of brute force. Glass houses, and all that. American hegemony won't last forever, but it is definitely in the best interests of Americans to maintain it for as long as possible, precisely because it is so shielded by oceans. And for all of your talk about the US "keeping everyone down," being a part of the American international order brings economic growth; rejection brings economic decay. Look at Cuba, Iran, North Korea vs. China, South Korea, and Chile.

[Haven]

That's why the smart country undermines their competition.

You can stay on top, if you are willing to "kill off" those who try to take your place.

You can't go on like this forever. Like an alpha male in a wolf pack - sooner or later another will rip its throat out. It's only a matter of time until you show a moment of weakness or let your guard down.

You are defeating your own argument by pathetically defining the situation in terms of opposition to the United States.

I'm not crazy about US foreign policy or the country in general. That doesn't mean I approve of a homophobic tyrant who murders journalists, embezzles billions of dollars from his own people, violates the territorial sovereignity of neighbouring nations and set up his own personal Hitler youth.

The US is greedy, selfish, often useless. The EU is bureaucratic, and almost always useless. What neither are, is unambiguously fucking evil, which is what the Russians are doing in Ukraine.

"Unambiguously fucking evil" is children's lexicon. And what is exactly that "unambiguously fucking evil" thing that Russia does in Ukraine? Sending hordes of invisible ninja troops on untrackable stealth tanks that still can't be found? Forcing noble Ukrainian National Guard to torture Donbass POWs and shell their villages and cities? Or maybe it was invisible hand of Kremlin that threw molotovs at that building in Odessa?

Russians of all people ought not lecture others on the evils of brute force. Glass houses, and all that. American hegemony won't last forever, but it is definitely in the best interests of Americans to maintain it for as long as possible, precisely because it is so shielded by oceans. And for all of your talk about the US "keeping everyone down," being a part of the American international order brings economic growth; rejection brings economic decay. Look at Cuba, Iran, North Korea vs. China, South Korea, and Chile.

It is exactly Russians that should teach other people that; we're disillusioned descendants of an empire that was the most recent to fall. EU is now slowly realizing what it is to be the part of American international order, as it's forced to reject its own interests in favor of American interests. Trading with Russia is simply more efficient due to cheaper logistics, and Russia is a huge market. Now EU has to look for substitite and more expensive sources of energy, different markets to dump their wares that are forbidden from going to Russia, and otherwise pay for US' favor. And you can't command money like that. Wallets and stomachs always had more power than ideologies. The moment it becomes more favorable to switch to a less demanding partner, parts of EU will do it, one country after another until Brussels and UK are left alone to echo US' demands.

[Skroe]

Maybe we are getting a Space Race, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...an/512657.html I assume that is additional funding on top of what their space program already gets?
.

Nah we're not. Every time the US does something... really *anything* noteworthy in space, Russia floats out some half baked proposal it never follows through on in a van attempt to not look like like they've done little but put Soyuz's and Mir up since 1960.

Here are ones from just the last 15 years.

2003: Columbia accident.. Broad agreement by the end of the year for the US to retire the space shuttle and replace it with something new.
2003: The "Orbital Space Plane" program, which predated Columbia's destruction, moves from ancillary program to central focus.
2004: The "Vision for Space Exploration" is announced, and an associated NASA study proposes a new capsule based system, called the CEV or Crew Exploration Vehicle (this is essentially Orion v0.5)
2004: Russia, which never even discussed replacing Soyuz, announced that it will create a successor space vehicle, the "Kliper" that will fly by 2008. Klipper is a lifting body reusable space vehicle. It attempts to bring Europe into the program. Europe declines. Russia nominally procedes


2006: Klipper essentially dead. In fact, it appears no work on Kliper actually ever commenced. Not even trade studies. Kliper wasnt even a real vehicle: it was CG art and some physical mock ups.

2006: Russia tries again to enlist European support in a new capsule, called the Crew Space Transportation System. mockups are shown. No work is ever done.

2008: NASA begins active development on Orion. Up to this point, Orion existed as a concept, rather than an organized project. In 2008, NASA begins to put money and engineering staff on the project and Lockheed Martin is award the first contracts.

Later in 2008: Russia announced the Prospective Piloted Transportation System (PPTS), a capsule based Soyuz successor closer in size to the Apollo capsule than Soyuz. It's announcement is given a lavish announcement. Mockups are built. Lots of chest thumping.



2012: NASA and the ESA agree to have the ESA turn the European ATV into the service module of Orion, thus bringing Europe into the US's manned deep space exploration program through the 2020s at the very least. This makes ESA Astronauts on Orion a sure bet.

later in 2012: The last news of the PPTS. Despite 4 years, essentially no work has commenced on the PPTS. A team had not been assembled. But Russia announces that a potential future launch vehicle (Angara A5) was chosen.

Also in 2012: Obama stages his major NASA speech. He outlines a plan for NASA to develop Orion and SLS by late 2017, have it dock with an Asteroid in lunar orbit by 2025, and have man orbiting Mars in it by the mid 2030s. This speech, written by NASA for Obama to publicly lay out its congressionally approved plans, is still the roadmap for American/European manned space exploration in the post ISS era.

Litterally a few days later in 2012: Russia announces that at the conclusion of the ISS program it will detach the Russian segment and use it as a core for a new Russian space station where it will build orbital-only vehicles. It's only piece of evidence as to being something that exists is a piece of concept art, now basically impossible to find, that looks nearly identical to the Star Trek Space Dock design (seen below). I shit you not: Russia decided to rip off Star Trek for their next big thing in a tit-for-tat move with the US. Of course, no one has heard anything about this scheme since then.



So what's Russia's REAL current status for it's future space program? Well it is developing Angara... but that's it. The PPTS and the "space dock", if teams ever existed working on these things, they certainly don't anymore, and there is no budgeting for these things. Russia is desperately developing Angara so it can stop leasing Baikonur Cosmodrome from Kazakhstan. That's pretty much it's only project that is serious. These other pie in the sky dreams of theirs? It's just Russia "checking" the west in it's own very sad way.

Russia will keep doing things like this. We'll do something, they'll make some announcement or gesture. But here's my prediction: in the late 2020s, after Americans have orbited the moon (maybe landed on it again), docked with several asteroids, and is planning a Mars orbit mission for the early 2030s, Russia will STILL be launching Soyuz, to either a small Russian Salyut-style station or a Mir-sized joined Chinese-Russian station. They will not have new vehicles or a new destination. They'll do what they've been doing for the past 20 years, which is live off Soviet era investments instead of making anything new.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what I've been saying about their fighter program. Note how they develop and fly the T-50, but it won't enter the Russian Air Force in substantial numbers (defined as: several dozen) until the mid 2020s, exactly when the US will be developing it's F-22 successor, thus putting Russia's Air Force a generation behind. And between now and then what is Russia doing? Not buying or accelerating the T-50, but rather tinkering with and "modernizing" (a word I use loosely) the old Soviet investment, the Su-27 into variants that they throw a new number on and pretend it's a new dangerous aircraft.

A Su-27 with integrated circuits instead of vacuum tubes is still an Su-27. Call it Su-33, Su-35, its the same antique. By Comparison Europe and the US, which could have bought plenty more of those late model F-16 Block 60s or F-15SEs at bargain prices, decided to do actually something new and embrace the real future with real Fifth generation aircraft. Troubled and expensive for sure, but a real advance.

So there is a straight line between the things Russia says it is going to do and actually does with it's military, and the things Russia says it is going to do and actually does with it's space program. Space Race? Russia doesn't even have the wherewithal to get off the goddamn sofa and walk out onto the street. If there is a Space Race, it will between the US/Europe and China (which gets far too easy good press despite doing nothing really impressive), and frankly, I have my doubts about that too. China doesn't really even have an EELV-class launcher (it is working on it), and when it does have one, it'll be insufficient for Lunar or Mars operations. They simply aren't working on the systems needed to do deep space exploration either... people just pretend they are for mostly political reasons.

[ringpriest]

Also in 2012: Obama stages his major NASA speech. He outlines a plan for NASA to develop Orion and SLS by late 2017, have it dock with an Asteroid in lunar orbit by 2025, and have man orbiting Mars in it by the mid 2030s. This speech, written by NASA for Obama to publicly lay out its congressionally approved plans, is still the roadmap for American/European manned space exploration in the post ISS era.

...

Russia will keep doing things like this. We'll do something, they'll make some announcement or gesture. But here's my prediction: in the late 2020s, after Americans have orbited the moon (maybe landed on it again), docked with several asteroids, and is planning a Mars orbit mission for the early 2030s, Russia will STILL be launching Soyuz, to either a small Russian Salyut-style station or a Mir-sized joined Chinese-Russian station. They will not have new vehicles or a new destination. They'll do what they've been doing for the past 20 years, which is live off Soviet era investments instead of making anything new.

I agree that Russia isn't a real competitor with the US for anything beyond, "current level of operations in Earth orbit" unless it throws far more resources into its space progam (resources that it doesn't look likely to have anytime in the near future). I suspect that China will end up in more or less the same boat. (If nothing goes wrong with their economy (or anything else), and they have the national will to do so, they might be competitive in a decade or two.) But all that said...

I'm still cynical on where US manned space exploration will be in 20 years. Notice that the first big date in Obama's plan is the year after he leaves office. I think we'll get another president who will, like every previous president for the last 30 years, talk about their really cool space program... which will really start rolling after they're out of office, only this time they really mean it, honest. (Although that won't stop them from throwing a few billion at NASA and some contractors.)

In this case, I do hope that I'm wrong and you're right (or even pessimistic!) and that the US space program does (for once) live up to its plans for people in space. Heck, if SpaceX doesn't suffer a major setback, Elon Musk just might be blowing everyone's socks off. (I'll be glad if he succeeds, and I give him and SpaceX better odds than NASA et. al, but I'm still not going to hold my breath for the first Mars landing.)

[Skroe]

I agree that Russia isn't a real competitor with the US for anything beyond, "current level of operations in Earth orbit" unless it throws far more resources into its space progam (resources that it doesn't look likely to have anytime in the near future). I suspect that China will end up in more or less the same boat. (If nothing goes wrong with their economy (or anything else), and they have the national will to do so, they might be competitive in a decade or two.) But all that said...

I'm still cynical on where US manned space exploration will be in 20 years. Notice that the first big date in Obama's plan is the year after he leaves office. I think we'll get another president who will, like every previous president for the last 30 years, talk about their really cool space program... which will really start rolling after they're out of office, only this time they really mean it, honest. (Although that won't stop them from throwing a few billion at NASA and some contractors.)

In this case, I do hope that I'm wrong and you're right (or even pessimistic!) and that the US space program does (for once) live up to its plans for people in space. Heck, if SpaceX doesn't suffer a major setback, Elon Musk just might be blowing everyone's socks off. (I'll be glad if he succeeds, and I give him and SpaceX better odds than NASA et. al, but I'm still not going to hold my breath for the first Mars landing.)

I put it in the other thread (the NASA / Orion thread), but I'll restate it briefly here:

the reason I'm optimistic is based on fact not hope, namely one particular fact the Orion detractors have spent the past few years ignoring (I'd say on purpose, to win the argument).

What fact is this? That NASA / SLS political support in Congress is the strongest it's been since Apollo. Maybe even stronger. This is huge. This is new. Every year the Administration has tried to lowball NASA or SLS funding because the SLS is not it's chosen program (Commercial and technology development is). Every year Democrats vote with Republicans against the President and increased funding for the SLS / Orion WELL beyond even optimistic funding projections. Obama doesn't come close to winning the vote. It's a squash job.

The chief argument detractors make against SLS/Orion is that Congress won't fund it in this "era of austerity", well like most times people use the word "austerity", they're really trying to win their political argument in a very cheap way by saying it's unaffordable in lieu of explaining why it's undesirable. As I've said many times recently, a budget is a list of priorities, not a wish list, and Congress has decided that SLS/Orion is one, and it is going to pay whatever it costs to see it through.

The fact is, their projections for years, have not been born out and the goal post keeps moving. Once upon a time, they argued, Orion would never be built. Then that it would never fly. Then that SLS will never be built. Then it will never fly. Then both will fly once. Then maybe twice. The point they're at now is that "it might fly a few times but will fail financially in the 2020s. That's a decade long retreat of an argument that hasn't had a shred of evidence on it's side. Despite the lack of evidence to their argument, they just keep pushing the "day of reckoning" ever further to the future with more caveats. Meanwhile Congress funds Orion/SLS above projections, year after year, even in the time of sequestration, and as a result the program 6 months ahead of schedule and under budget.

That's why I'm optimistic. Not because it has one President's support, but because it has a lot of very powerful Congressmen and Senator's support who have shown no inclination to do anything other than circle the wagons in support of it and give it more money than it asks for every time it comes asking. Like Richard Shelby. He is a leading Orion / SLS's White Knight. He and his ilk, many of them young (he is not), will defend the SLS/Orion for decades. That is why it will fly. Because they want this, not because a President asked them to support it.

The important thing about Orion/SLS, as I said in the other thread, is that it is NOT the Obama Administration's plan, which is why the date of SLS-I being after he leaves office is entirely irrelevant. A common Anti-SLS argument is that the next President will try to kill this plan. That makes no sense as an argument, because what do they thing the Obama Administration spent 2 years trying to do out right, and two years after that (and into next year) trying to do stealthily? They've ALREADY been trying very hard to kill it and are no where close to succeeding in that scheme. NASA and the White House's scientific political leadership, which are all political appointments (as is the President's right) still want NASA to be out of the rocket launching business, and in the buying commercial + scientific development business. Every year they try again with the budget or by passive aggressive actions, such as failing to deliver reports Congress asks for. Every year Congress stops them, and it's gotten increasingly caustic about it in the process (knowing they are being fucked with), to the point of demanding the NASA Administrator deliver regular updates on SLS Progress, in person, just to make sure no hijinks are happening. That is where we are. The NASA Administrator reports to the principal's office, once every two months.

SLS/Orion will succeed because unlike any program since Apollo, it is the first real congressionally mandated space program, instead of one a President used political capital to initiate and becomes threatened as soon as he leaves. Apollo happened chiefly, because of strong support by powerful elected officials in Congress (who all died or lost-reelection by 1972, leaving NASA vulnerable to predation by Nixon), not because of four President's very tepid support for it (Kennedy didn't understand space, much less love it, as a New Deal Democrat).

That is why this time I truly believe "this time is different", and I say the "Senate Launch System" mocking name is actually one that should be bourne with pride. The worst thing an initative that will take decades can do, is latch itself onto one man's 4-8 year tenure in one office. Instead, Congressional support could last decades. It may not get us an inspiring speech or a "Obama Memorial Mars Base", but it will get us to Mars.

[Nadiru]

It is exactly Russians that should teach other people that; we're disillusioned descendants of an empire that was the most recent to fall. EU is now slowly realizing what it is to be the part of American international order, as it's forced to reject its own interests in favor of American interests. Trading with Russia is simply more efficient due to cheaper logistics, and Russia is a huge market. Now EU has to look for substitite and more expensive sources of energy, different markets to dump their wares that are forbidden from going to Russia, and otherwise pay for US' favor. And you can't command money like that. Wallets and stomachs always had more power than ideologies. The moment it becomes more favorable to switch to a less demanding partner, parts of EU will do it, one country after another until Brussels and UK are left alone to echo US' demands.

It would seem to me that Russia's empire didn't fall, it simply changed its brand. You might have had luck convincing people that Russia's a changed people before your leaders engaged in bald-faced imperialism themselves. I wouldn't even have to engage the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to point it out, that's just the latest event in a decade-long re-emergence of the Russian Bear. The Orange Revolution, the South Ossetia War, and now the invasion of Ukraine. As much as the EU doesn't like the United States, you don't portray your state as a more useful or compelling ally, and destroying buffer states between Russia and Germany historically has not led Germany to align with Russia. Something of the opposite, in fact.

The change you think, this time, is natural gas, a resource you have in such abundance that allows you to harm Europe economically if they don't dance to your tune politically. That also will not work in Russia's favor, Russian aggression with regards to the cheap energy tap will be and has been perceived as a security risk to EU member-states. Russian military aggression on the periphery of Europe edging back into the center does not make you look like an invincible bear, it makes you look like a dangerous one, and dangerous animals must be culled.

For all of your talk about wallets and stomachs, it is Moscow who has been desperately trying to court Berlin for their technology and access to credit markets. Nobody courts Russia except to squeeze resources from it.

[jugzilla]

*blah blah and words*

EU is now slowly realizing what it is to be the part of American international order, as it's forced to reject its own interests in favor of American interests. Trading with Russia is simply more efficient due to cheaper logistics, and Russia is a huge market. Now EU has to look for substitite and more expensive sources of energy, different markets to dump their wares that are forbidden from going to Russia, and otherwise pay for US' favor. And you can't command money like that. Wallets and stomachs always had more power than ideologies. The moment it becomes more favorable to switch to a less demanding partner, parts of EU will do it, one country after another until Brussels and UK are left alone to echo US' demands.

Europe isn't actually a continent, its actually just a puppet of the US and the 51st state. Next on Russia Today, Putin stares down a polar bear. And wins.

Have you noticed though, recently, and maybe it has something to do with the fact that Russia started shooting down airliners in their quest to redraw European borders, that the Europeans and Americans have started sounding the same? Have you noticed that even our own unique little citizens and subjects, examples of wich you see stumbling around on these forums, realize that we are natural allies and that Russia is a common threat?

[Deleted]

It would seem to me that Russia's empire didn't fall, it simply changed its brand. You might have had luck convincing people that Russia's a changed people before your leaders engaged in bald-faced imperialism themselves. I wouldn't even have to engage the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to point it out, that's just the latest event in a decade-long re-emergence of the Russian Bear. The Orange Revolution, the South Ossetia War, and now the invasion of Ukraine. As much as the EU doesn't like the United States, you don't portray your state as a more useful or compelling ally, and destroying buffer states between Russia and Germany historically has not led Germany to align with Russia. Something of the opposite, in fact.

The change you think, this time, is natural gas, a resource you have in such abundance that allows you to harm Europe economically if they don't dance to your tune politically. That also will not work in Russia's favor, Russian aggression with regards to the cheap energy tap will be and has been perceived as a security risk to EU member-states. Russian military aggression on the periphery of Europe edging back into the center does not make you look like an invincible bear, it makes you look like a dangerous one, and dangerous animals must be culled.

For all of your talk about wallets and stomachs, it is Moscow who has been desperately trying to court Berlin for their technology and access to credit markets. Nobody courts Russia except to squeeze resources from it.

Its hilarious,isnt it.

Back in USSR days it actually produced modules and examples - almost 3 billion people in developing, third world subscribed to it.Freely or not,doesnt matter.
Moscow was the exporter of political,economical and even technological modules - the stuff that turns country in to actual power.

After 1991 when USSR finally died - all of that died with it. Its also worth noticing, that its pretty schizophrenic that Putin is still lamenting the collapse of that hideous monster, considering that precisely that after the failed coup, Russia the one he claims to love so dearly was born - and without Yeltstin and all those events he most likely wouldve remained a simply clerk somewhere in KGB office. Quite foolish to spit on your own roots.

And Russia post-1991 was built on that dependence of Western technology and finances. So claims that Moscow could all of sudden turn in to what it used to be are silly at best, deluded I`d say honestly. It simply doesnt have the muscle and fibre needed to lift such a project and claim. Its military 80% dependant on foreign technology, its financial markets having the same kind of dependancy. ''Import replacement'' is a bluff, more and more analytics even from Russia itself are coming out and saying that it wont work, especially under the current regime - to achieve that, first of all massive reforms would be needed in insitutions and especially that of in police and court-system.Transparent,corruption-free. But the latter is totally controlled by Kremlin.
Even better, current Russia is the antithesis of USSR - its ideology, if any at all, nowhere resembling what used to be, its economic model...you see the point.

EU cant stop swatting wanna-be members away,its running out of excuses at this point why some countries cant join. Because Berlin,Brussels are the gravitational centre of European continent - always has been and will continue to be that.

Not to mention US being the planetary player in that - everyone, even the much hailed China is quitely sitting in the corner, whimpering in jealousy and despair that even with stolen schemes, their stuff can barely measure up the the original.Yesterdays Orion launch is just a small example of US technological superiority over ..well,pretty much everone. There is no other country in this damned planet that fills in that niche of superpower, no one else has the muscle for it.

Russia? Well, it has to apply some titanic efforts to get Belarus and Kazakhstan in to some sort of organization. Countries that have nowhere to go, really.
Nazarbajev and Lukashenka arent going to give up their power, something that would be required if they decide to join EU,you know building democratic and transparent institions - the stuff that would inevitabely sabotage their rule.
3 weak, unreformed and ailing economies uniting - where is the charm in that? There isnt.

- - - Updated - - -

-----------

Most likely Hollande was ''sent'' so to speak by Merkel and Obama - sure there was a talk betweent the three what and how to say.

Merkel has talked to him a lot and most likely she has given up on Putin - hopeless case indeed.
Obama, I get impression doesnt really care about all that.

Pretty sure they also made a deal about Mistrals - they`ll be transfered, its a matter of time - most likely talked when and how and reached some sort of deal not to get to the case to courts,simply wait for a while.

[Kellhound]

You can't go on like this forever. Like an alpha male in a wolf pack - sooner or later another will rip its throat out. It's only a matter of time until you show a moment of weakness or let your guard down.

"Unambiguously fucking evil" is children's lexicon. And what is exactly that "unambiguously fucking evil" thing that Russia does in Ukraine? Sending hordes of invisible ninja troops on untrackable stealth tanks that still can't be found? Forcing noble Ukrainian National Guard to torture Donbass POWs and shell their villages and cities? Or maybe it was invisible hand of Kremlin that threw molotovs at that building in Odessa?

It is exactly Russians that should teach other people that; we're disillusioned descendants of an empire that was the most recent to fall. EU is now slowly realizing what it is to be the part of American international order, as it's forced to reject its own interests in favor of American interests. Trading with Russia is simply more efficient due to cheaper logistics, and Russia is a huge market. Now EU has to look for substitite and more expensive sources of energy, different markets to dump their wares that are forbidden from going to Russia, and otherwise pay for US' favor. And you can't command money like that. Wallets and stomachs always had more power than ideologies. The moment it becomes more favorable to switch to a less demanding partner, parts of EU will do it, one country after another until Brussels and UK are left alone to echo US' demands.

The smart alfa male kills all the other males, as I have said.

[Ulmita]

Have you noticed though, recently, and maybe it has something to do with the fact that Russia started shooting down airliners in their quest to redraw European borders, that the Europeans and Americans have started sounding the same?

This is one of the silliest things I've read in thread so far, by miles, period. You sir deserve a reward. Not even you blame a country that noone else is for the downing of the plane, but also you believe Ukraine is in EU. I am speechless.

Have you noticed that even our own unique little citizens and subjects, examples of wich you see stumbling around on these forums, realize that we are natural allies and that Russia is a common threat?

Lol no - just no. Natural allies? ahahhahahha. USA was/is a British colony and that's pretty much it, this is were it stops. I don't deny very close ties with Britain and USA but there is nothing like that with any other.

Its Britain, Germany and some ex USSR countries that are driving these sanctions. The rest of us don't have an issue with Russia and we want things to go back to normal.

Even in Germany they don't support Merkerl's stance .

http://translate.google.com/translat...ussland-dialog

Italy just doesn't want more of this shit and its leading an anti-Sanction coalition (go us!!)

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b191...#axzz3L8PkTRl1

Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Austria, Slovenia are among countries that oppose and are many that are indifferent.

So this Anti-Russian fiasco is only in the heads of some people in here and in some western media.

Besides, it's not the sanctions that hurt Russia, but rather the oil price war. Russia could give 2 f#@ks about EU sanctions

[Shalcker]

I do wonder if Americans will make better offer then latest Russia-Turkey-South Europe gas pipeline plans.

I don't think Turkey will miss such great chance to gain leverage over EU, and such deal going through might cement them joining Russian shared economic space rather then EU that had them hanging in "association" status for decades.

[Nadiru]

I do wonder if Americans will make better offer then latest Russia-Turkey-South Europe gas pipeline plans.

I don't think Turkey will miss such great chance to gain leverage over EU, and such deal going through might cement them joining Russian shared economic space rather then EU that had them hanging in "association" status for decades.

The US can't really make Russia a better offer, but the US has structural leverage over the EU in the form of US army bases and missile silos dotting the West European landscape. Russia can annoy the US, for so long as its own demographics remain functional (Russia has about 30 years before an aging workforce puts them in the same spiral as China) but in any long-term scenario the US has the upper hand. Russia, to their credit, knows this and they're trying to create a diplomatic gap between the US and Western Europe, especially Germany. Russian manpower and resources, bolstered by German technology and capital, could create a compelling and durable anti-US coalition (ironically, an axis between Moscow and Berlin.)

Russia's pitching it all wrong, though. Germany may engage in traditional power politics, but at present it's inclined to do so against Russia, not against America.

[Baneth]

This is one of the silliest things I've read in thread so far, by miles, period. You sir deserve a reward. Not even you blame a country that noone else is for the downing of the plane, but also you believe Ukraine is in EU. I am speechless.



Lol no - just no. Natural allies? ahahhahahha. USA was/is a British colony and that's pretty much it, this is were it stops. I don't deny very close ties with Britain and USA but there is nothing like that with any other.

Its Britain, Germany and some ex USSR countries that are driving these sanctions. The rest of us don't have an issue with Russia and we want things to go back to normal.

Even in Germany they don't support Merkerl's stance .

http://translate.google.com/translat...ussland-dialog

Italy just doesn't want more of this shit and its leading an anti-Sanction coalition (go us!!)

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b191...#axzz3L8PkTRl1

Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Austria, Slovenia are among countries that oppose and are many that are indifferent.

So this Anti-Russian fiasco is only in the heads of some people in here and in some western media.

Besides, it's not the sanctions that hurt Russia, but rather the oil price war. Russia could give 2 f#@ks about EU sanctions

Why do you continue to call the US a british colony? This genuinely confuses me.

Actually it's both. Both the sanctions and the oil price are hurting Russia, A lot. The sanctions are causing around 40 billion in lost revenue while the oil price drop is around 100 million. If they genuinely did not give "2 f#@ks" they would not constantly ask for them to be removed.

You may not like the sanctions, but they will not be going away anytime soon.

French Defense Minister Says Russia May Never Receive Mistral Warships

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/wo...hips.html?_r=0

Putin's Stash of Oil Money Is Shrinking

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...sia-needs-cash