What will be the Ukraine crisis' long-term internal political effect in Russia?

[BrokenBriton]

@Grim_Render

Each of this could bring into question whether Crimea was worth the cost.

Crimea is nothing except a load of western monkey’s - politicians and compliant media - beating their chests and screaming at the fence. It was a necessary geo-political gambit foreced onPutin by the somewhat surprising capitulation of Yats to US-backed agitation.

The main event is to manage the breakup of Ukraine, and that will require cooperation.

In the medium term there is no alternative to Russian gas, just as there is no alternative to Russia launching Americans into space. Got to look beyond the screamng monkeys.

[RedFury]

@BrokenBriton

Crimea is nothing except a load of western monkey’s - politicians and compliant media - beating their chests and screaming at the fence. It was a necessary geo-political gambit foreced onPutin by the somewhat surprising capitulation of Yats to US-backed agitation.

<snip>

In the medium term there is no alternative to Russian gas, just as there is no alternative to Russia launching Americans into space. Got to look beyond the screamng monkeys.

Must admit that their unisom yell is rather annoying, never mind tiresome and obsolete – to many a newcomer to politics anyway.

[Grim_Render]

@BrokenBriton

Crimea is nothing except a load of western monkey’s - politicians and compliant media - beating their chests and screaming at the fence.

This does raise the question of why it was so important. If it is nothing but western monkeys, why damage Russian interests so badly to get something that opposed to Russia?

@BrokenBriton

It was a necessary geo-political gambit foreced onPutin by the somewhat surprising capitulation of Yats to US-backed agitation.

Why was it neccessary? Crime has been Russian for most of its history, and contains a significant number of Russians. Puting could have had it legally. A few promises, talking about how well itd do in terms of Russian tourism, jobs for everyone…Crimea is an economic basket case. A few years of smooth talk and it would have slid over honestly.

Instead, this breaking and entering. Russia just spent what, 60 billion dollars on the olympics to raise its image. And then turned it all to rubble for an economic wasteland that they wanted to steal instead of earn? Seems more like a Soviet style reflex, and now Putin has no idea on how to come out ahead.

There is really nothing he can gain that makes up for antagonizing a Europe that is eight times as powerful as Russia, and with a singificant number of countries that has intimate knowlege of what the Russian bootheel is like.

@BrokenBriton

In the medium term there is no alternative to Russian gas, just as there is no alternative to Russia launching Americans into space. Got to look beyond the screamng monkeys.

In the medium term, Norway supplies as much gas as Russia and has a number of new fields. Fracking has increased US production hugely but is politically unpopular in Europe. The fact that Europes big supplier is presenting itself as a land-grabbing hunnic country is just what is needed to trumph that. Lots of coal fired powerstantions have been decomissioned because coal is a more expensive alternative. Raise the price of gas, and suddenly they are profitable again! Nuclear power has been politically impossble in many countries, now suddenly it is not. (This is at least christmas day for the energy companies.)

Medium and long term, Russian gas is absolutly replacable. Doing so short-term would cause Europe some pain though. It would wreck Russias economy, but the question all the way here is if Europe is willing to take the pain of flattening Russia.

[Claverhouse]

@QuickSilver

I’m left in almost any case. But you still haven’t told me what specifically I should be manning the barricades about.

Well, I’m not left per se, I’m a legitimist, and have rather disliked most of the left — which is something shared with most of the left paradoxically — ( although monarchists can be left or right socially, economically etc. ); but I may be left in current American terms, as would be Genghis Khan.

However it is scarcely my place as a foreigner to tell Americans what they should think about; but I’m guessing a list might begin with economic policy; unrestrained capital; military adventurism; the oligarchy; massive income disparity; the political nomenklatura of the approved parties; the elimination of welfare; lack of jobs; the American healthcare system; the war on drugs; restraints on unionism as in the old USSR; the plight of the dispossessed; gerrymandering; the penal codes; mass surveillance and monitoring; Justin Bieber, etc. etc…

And no doubt other concerns, some minor to the average American, such as too many guns floating around or agribusiness growing monopolies on the food market, but of importance to some dissidents.

Anyway, that begs the question, which is not what should be protested, but** is** mass protest any more viable as a method of change in the USA as in the former USSR; where the original statement claimed the inhabitants are skeptical of it happening or working.

[BrainGlutton]

@Claverhouse

Nope, as above protest is not revolution. But if large angry slavic men can go into public squares and scream at each other, and topple governments whilst not overthrowing the state; and other countries from France to South Korea have a venerable tradition of throwing things at cops and in return receiving baton charges, one may think that Americans do not have the stomach for challenging their masters.

Not yet. But I think the long-running American delusion that we already are our own masters, just because we get to vote, is at long last beginning to erode. OWS is a symptom of that, if good for nothing else.

[BrainGlutton]

@QuickSilver

What pressing issues come to mind as we gather our torches and pitchforks to take to the streets? IOW, what are we protesting?

(Don’t say, “What have you got?”)

Plutocracy.

[BrokenBriton]

@Grim_Render

Puting could have had it legally.

Right. International Law. Maybe he should have rented Colin Powell for an afternoon and played it for laughs. Legal schemgal …

@Grim_Render

Medium and long term, Russian gas is absolutly replacable. Doing so short-term would cause Europe some pain though. It would wreck Russias economy, but the question all the way here is if Europe is willing to take the pain of flattening Russia.

zero political interest in upsetting the energy apple cart. Markets won’t wear it. Period

[Claverhouse]

Speaking of energy, and to continue the hijack, I was reminded of this old article about a genial looking gentleman ( photo with his niece, Miss Upton ), noted as an American Oligarch, a Mr. Aubrey McClendon, of whom I had never heard.

Alternet
I don’t know business, although his practices seem rather Microsoftian, so I can’t make any moral judgement. I would just say that despite his not being a fine manager, losing $2 billion, an’ all, he didn’t have to retire to the poorhouse since his colleagues nobly rallied around him and rewarded him for failure.

The people who want to ensure the lazy poor aren’t rewarded with the tax-payers’ dime have no problem with inefficient management soaking away millions of dollars. Or if any do, they never do anything about it.
McClendon, co-founder, CEO and until a few weeks ago Chairman of Chesapeake, was discovered running a hedge fund inside of Chesapeake, personally profiting on the side from large trading positions that his public company Chesapeake took in the gas and oil markets.

Reuters also discovered that McClendon took small personal stakes in natural gas wells bought by Chesapeake, then borrowed against the wells’ reserves from the same banks that Chesapeake borrowed from—basically, the banks kicked back sweet lending deals to McClendon on the side as McClendon arranged less-than-sweet loans to his publicly-owned company, Chesapeake, kicking profits from Chesapeake’s shareholders and employees’ pockets into the banks and into Aubrey’s accounts.

…

It’s not the first time McClendon has been caught plundering Chesapeake at the expense of shareholders, pension fund investors and employees: In 2008, McClendon bet and lost about $2 billion worth of Chesapeake Energy stock he owned—94% of Aubrey’s personal stake in Chesapeake– on a margin call when natural gas prices collapsed. Aubrey bet that natural gas prices would continue soaring, you see.

But like his peers in the oligarchy class, Aubrey’s loss became everyone but Aubrey’s loss: He was awarded a “CEO bailout” by his board of directors, who honored Aubrey with a $75 million “bonus” to bring his total pay in 2008 to $112 million, making Aubrey McClendon the highest-paid CEO in Corporate America that year. Even though Chesapeake’s earnings dropped in half, and its stock fell 60%, wiping out up to $33 billion in shareholder wealth.

[levdrakon]

Putin is winging it. He’s playing a regional game on a global gameboard. Expect him to look for a way out, and the West to give it to him.

Oh, this is in GD. I’m out before I accidentally mention a penis comparison or something.