Yeah. It’s all propaganda that the USSR used to have a boot to their head.
While I appreciate to a degree your wish for a counter balance to the U.S., Russia just ain’t it. Russia can’t project force globally and is at least as much of a shit to places it can project force.
Did you actually read the report in question? It states that neither the Georgians or the Russians were justified in their use of force. Here:
Are there any theories as to why? Too much vodka, or what?
I’m not sure I’d place a lot of stock in a map designed by someone who believes Japan is in the Atlantic Ocean.
So who is? China and India can’t project force globally either. (Yet.)
Perhaps the EU-as-a-whole? (If it had such thing as an EU military force.)
Useless and utter bullshit. Or IOW, propaganda.
Just like the US they’ll have to learn as they go along. Hopefully they’ll do a much better job – if Crimea is any indication, they just may do that.
That site supports the article you’re trying to debunk.
Life expectancy in 2011:
63 males, ranked 140th, 74.8 females, ranked 108th.
Life expectancy at age 15:
Russia
64 years-Males
75.8-Females
Haiti:
67.4 - Males
69.5- Females
And it’s got the estimates for Russia’s populations dropping from about 140 million in 2010 to 116 million in 2050.
Well, if 1389blog posts a jpeg with a map, it must be true!
Yes. Good luck to them. Hopefully all future spots of trouble will have large Russian military bases and be Russia adjacent.
Pretty much - that’s why the male life expectancy is so much lower than female. While Russian women also drink, Russian drinking culture is primarily a male drinking culture.
Russia is a nation slowly drinking itself to death while reminiscing of its glory days.
Vanity Fair? Who takes their global political analysis from a place called Vanity Fair?
Anyway this is why I have always take Russian criticism with a big helping of salt. It so often seems to be rooted in a preexisting deep-seated resentment of not just the Russian government but of the whole of the Russian people and nation and spiral down into glee over the misfortunes of average Russians. Like when that old senile fool you have, McCain called Russia a petrol station or something.
The truth of the matter however is that while Russia has big problems with a low birth rate - not so big as other Western and East Asia countries but still - then the birth rate has risen all through Putin’s government. It was during the Western backed Yeltsin that it was really bad. And if you want to go a place where it is still really bad, then Ukraine would be that place. Or some of the ex-Soviet nations that went the Western way, such as the Baltic nations, Poland, Romania, East Germany, etc.
Do take pleasure in the fact that Russia has deep existential problems if you must, but the West has no absolutely no answer to those problems. On the contrary.
Russia just announced a US$ 5 billion investment plan for Crimea. On top of doubling pensions, etc.
Ukraine is in a really bad place now. It’s already the second poorest country of Europe; IMF mandated rising gas prices are going to hit the poorer part of the country hard. And on top of that lost investments, economic corporation and trade opportunities from Russia are going to put a lot of people out of work over the coming months.
Unless the EU is going to come up with a massive investment plan comparable to what Russia announced for Crimea (> US$ 100 billion investments, not the measly US$ 18 billion IMF loan), then I see increasing separation movements and breakup in the cards.
The good news is that we have the choice to do something about it; the bad news is that we aren’t going to.
From your web site:
Life expectancy of a 15 year old boy in Russia: 64.0
Life expectancy of a 15 year old boy in Haiti: 67.4
So the statement you highlighted is correct. What is your problem with it?
[quote=“Captain_Amazing, post:2182, topic:682513”]
Did you actually read the report in question? It states that neither the Georgians or the Russians were justified in their use of force. Here:
ceiig.ch[/
False: The EU found that Georgia started it:
Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili blamed for starting Russian war
Read the report, not the summary from the Guardian. It statees that neiher side was justified in its use of force.
I wonder if Americans might have a different take on this if all the countries bordering or near them were lining up to join a reinvigorated Warsaw Pact, bristling with missiles aimed at the heart of their country? They might at least then have some idea of how Russians feel about NATO. Few countries suffered more in the Second World War than Russia. That has permeated their thinking ever since and the country will go to extreme lengths to defend its borders and to protect any Russians threatened by foreign persecution. (Persecution by their own government is another matter. For that they have vodka.)
Yes, that is a good point that should not be ignored.
But it’s also the same argument that (in part) allowed Russia to take control of eastern Europe after World War II. The whole “poor Russia suffered so much during the war” and “they’ve been attacked by Germany twice in 30 years, they need a buffer zone” has been used before. And it has been exploited from Moscow. And the consequences were disastrous.
The simple fact is that no NATO member will be crazy enough to invade Russia. From a national security point of view, Russia should probably be more worried about China than about anyone in NATO.
Well, wrote a whole post on this that just got ate by the board. sigh To sum up, you are making the same argument Red has tried to make throughout this thread. That somehow Russia is justified in what they are doing because NATO/Western Europe/America has deliberately set about to encircle them with foes and ‘bristling with missiles aimed at the heart of their country’. This, of course, ignores the fact that the reason those countries (former Soviet puppets and provinces) have been eager to join NATO was because of the fact that they were kept in the Soviet sphere of influence by the force of the old Soviet Union and it’s military. Yes, the Russians are paranoid about being surrounded by foes. But it’s no justification for them to force those former nations or republics back into the fold so they feel better. What should NATO/Western Europe have done with, say, Poland? Turned them away because taking them in would make Russia feel bad??
And then there is a deeper look at this paranoia that Russia has. To me, it’s similar to the paranoia that Iran supposedly has that makes them need to have nuclear weapons to hold off the big, bad US. The Soviet Union fell in 1991. During that time, no attempt has been made to conquer, invade or otherwise attack a (very weak militarily as well as economically) Russia. Instead, the West has reached out to try and trade with the Russians. In fact, I think that the West would LOVE it if the Russians would start acting and playing nicer with them and their neighbors, and fully join the world community as a full on partner. There is zero initiative in Europe, let alone the US to attack Russia. So, their paranoia about being surrounded by foes is just that…it’s paranoia without a real, rational basis in fact.
It’s actions however like what they are trying to pull in the Crimean and the Ukraine, as well as games they are playing in other former republics that makes the west nervous and basically get Western European (and US of course) paranoia going.
Quote where you see that?