Well California is better than Texas. Oops, sorry Texas.
Nato, for one thing. Russia sucks, for another thing.
NATO member (a very happy to be there one at that). An attack on Estonia might as well be considered a declaration of war on 28 nations. Putin’s bold but not that bold. That’s not to say he won’t start trouble short of a military attack there.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. To suggest that California, or any other state like Texas, holds a similar position of power as Russia had in the USSR (note that in English the direct article is used here if in the future you want to give the impression you are a home grown Putin apologist) is silly.
No California is better than Texas. That’s a fact.
Well, maybe that’s too much, but we can at least agree that California is pretty much synonymous with the US. I mean, look at how huge California’s budget is, it’s electoral college. It practically runs the other states. We might as well just say California and the US are the same thing.
Estonia is also a text-book example of how a country can go from being a Soviet puppet to becoming one of the most free, developed places on the planet. Even if the USA has no geopolitical interest in Estonia (which it does, just look at the Baltic sea), the country is worth protecting to be set as an example for others.
I realize this is hyperbole to somehow show that it is wrong to thin Russia ran the USSR, but the comparison just doesn’t hold up. Take a look at this map of the US where each state is scaled to the size of their electoral college delegation. Does California make up most of the map? Does it even make up a quarter of the map?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram%E2%80%942012_Electoral_Vote.svg
10% of the votes is still a lot, does this translate to getting to pick the president? Nope:
Why do you think Russia inherited all the legal rights and obligations of the Soviet Union? You don’t think one of the other pwned republics wanted the UN Security Council seat?
The separate republics signed an agreement with the G-7 that each would be responsible for its own debt.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/about/pifs/education/llm/2003---2004/sp26.pdf
October 9, 1992 - Bishkek Agreement
Leaders of the CIS countries decided to abandon the multiparty mechanism for Soviet debt and assets management
April 2, 1993 - Declaration of the Government of Russia
Russia declared itself responsible for the entire debt of the former Soviet Union
The Transition of Eastern Europe, V1. Blanchard et al. (1994)
Emphasis mine.
Yes, because for all intents and purposes Russia was the “Union government”.
Doesn’t follow.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your objection, ThisUsernameIsForbidden.
I’m guessing Russia assumed(“took over”) the debt for calculated reasons that served its self interests. But how does that refute its central political control over the former republics when they were part of the USSR?
Why didn’t they share the Security Council seat? Why did the UN give it to anyone at all when the USSR dissolved?
I don’t get it either. They all said they’d chip in afterwards but reneged except for Russia. OK, so what?
Again, Siberia was not settled prior to the 17th century primarily because it was cold and remote. Even when it was settled it was primarily used as a source of timber and a place to keep prisoners and those who displeased the Russian regime.Its mineral wealth was unknown until the late 19th century and largely untapped until after WWI.
Had China known or suspected that the area was so wealthy and had the climate been favorable, there’s no reason believe that it wouldn’t have expandedearlier. Given its burgeoning population, its booming economy and its need for freshwater resources it would be rather shortsighted to believe that it wouldn’t have ambitions in that area.
Since it is lightly populated and since Russia’sattention is clearly in its West, if China decided to move into the area there wouldlittle to stop them,short of a nuclear exchange
Watch Crimea slowly disappear from the headines and then we’ll see how much we care. Politicians are fueled by the news cycle. If it’s making splash headlines they need to be seen to be doing something, however illusory and ineffectual. When the topic sinks down the page and on to the inside pages they get back to the important stuff, party politics.
Russia was a republic of the Soviet Union. It wasn’t the Soviet Union.
Ukraine has had a seat at the UN since 1945, from what I can tell, same with Belarus.