Being a Russian, I so much agree with these words from the latest press briefing by Jen Psaki:
"There are costs, of course, attached to Russia's attempt to annex Crimea and its continued support of separatists. But the economic situation in Russia and many of the choices they're making are not due solely to sanctions. It's more complicated and involves oil prices and general economic mismanagement in Russia, and those all play a significant role. So the lack of economic diversification and development of innovation and entrepreneurship over the past decade has also left Russia overly dependent on hydrocarbons. And some of these issues all factor into the economic challenges that they're facing today.
"Obviously, the sanctions are not targeted at the Russian people. They are targeted – they're making clear that there are costs attached, and Russia has a choice they can make to change the course of these sanctions. Obviously, that's up to President Putin to make that choice."
It's not like "external reasons" aren't being a wee bit overzealous about their agenda, to be fair.
It's not all possible that both governments are getting exactly what they want at the expense of the Russian people, either, is it? Or wait, maybe it is.
A collapse like this is a result of a warrior's rule - I wish he was an economist and not an army-man.
I can't comment on his friends and ties, as the information available to me is too much swinging pro or contra putin, so I can't deem those sources reliable. But I'm just confused to his later moves. I mean post Jeltsin he did a pretty good job getting a form of stability going after that disastrous period. Even though with my 'western' eyes I dislike any despot out of principle, I think that he did a better job still than the oligargs and the completely corrupted communist party. But during the latter parts of his tenure... he just seems to make so many bad calls with no long term game in mind.
Maybe he just lost touch of what is good politics, good for his people, and what moves just gain him short term power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, or somesuch:P
Well, yesterday Putin has given a long and detailed press conference.
It seems he has made his choice and this choice is not towards progress.
"You just said the Berlin Wall fell, but some new walls are being put up now. I will respond, and I hope you will agree with me.
It is not now that this happened. You are an expert on Germany and on Europe. Didn’t they tell us after the fall of the Berlin Wall that NATO would not expand eastwards? However, the expansion started immediately. There were two waves of expansion. Is that not a wall? True, it is a virtual wall, but it was coming up. What about the anti-missile defence system next to our borders? Is that not a wall?
You see, nobody has ever stopped. This is the main issue of current international relations. Our partners never stopped. They decided they were the winners, they were an empire, while all the others were their vassals, and they needed to put the squeeze on them. I said the same in my Address [to the Federal Assembly]. This is the problem. They never stopped building walls, despite all our attempts at working together without any dividing lines in Europe and the world at large.
I believe that our tough stand on certain critical situations, including that in the Ukraine, should send a message to our partners that the best thing to do is to stop building walls and to start building a common humanitarian space of security and economic freedom."
"About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.
Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?
So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?
So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.
Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?
Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?
Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we?
Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?
If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.
We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?
We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this."
I guess USA and Russia won't reach any compromise. Now Obama has signed his anti-russian law. I expect further fall of economics in Russia, no matter that Mr. Putin says we would survive. The evidence speaks otherwise. The oil rates speak otherwise. With such an isolation, Russia won't be able to fulfil what Mr. Putin declares.
It is unfortunate that Putin has driven himself into such a situation. I guess he's afraid he will appear weak if he compromises now. Obviously it will only get harder as time goes by, on the expense of the Russian people.
It is unfortunate that Putin has driven himself into such a situation. I guess he's afraid he will appear weak if he compromises now. Obviously it will only get harder as time goes by, on the expense of the Russian people.
That's what we thought, he's always had the strong man attitude and appearance. Now he misjudged how we'd react, has gotten himself backed into a corner and can't see a way out that lets him save face. . .
I can understand that the west seeks to destabilize the middle east because they just want cheap oil and weapons exports at the price of those people wellbeing.
cynical as it may be, I get that.
But why is putin destabilizing his own country? With this nonsense? Yes, Russia is a major arms exporter, no, that doesnt mean you have to cripple your economy with bullshit like this.
The +/- 400 bln dollars in reserve should go to public projects, schooling, to create an industry that creates their own things, instead of just raw materials and being 2nd world tier to the west. Even the usa, the worst offender of all, is downsizing their military (and increasing their security budget, but that's another story).
No offence to anyone, but I think the USA is as crazy as Russia. How in Tyr's sake can you tap the phone of the Chancellor of Germany, and justify it????
I think there is no more place in this world for supernations.
@CaloNord and @bengoshi I have read both Putin's statements from yesterday, and NATO's rebuke. The reality is that both are one-sided statements made from their own perspective, and the truth lies somewhere in the grey area in-between.
I have mentioned (in previous comments in this thread) how foreign policy of most nations is driven by Political Realism, and through the lens of Political Realism, NATO's actions post-1991 are entirely predictable, and so is Russia's response. However, as bengoshi's position demonstrates, countries are not monolithic entities acting with a single purpose. Within each nation, there will be competing ideological, class, regional and personal interests, among others. In theory, this erodes the credibility of Political Realism, which precisely simplifies international relations by considering nations as individual powerful actors within a chaotic system. However, the fact that no nation is truly singular, (in my opinion), means that they tend to behave as predicted by Political Realism. Allow me to explain...
Put simply, given a scenario, the politically realist option would be the selfish dick move that sought to maximise your national interest. The liberal option would be cooperation with other nations, including adversaries, to achieve goals like justice, liberty or the betterment of all, but not necessarily the optimal solution for your own nation. So in 1991, President Bush Sr will have had advisors making competing arguments for how to proceed given the opportunities and risks that emerged with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Realists will have argued that the world was now ripe for the United States to shape in its own favour, with no comparable power to interfere. The Liberals will have argued that the US had an golden opportunity to set an example for the world and lead it into a brighter future (for all), safeguarded by international institutions, rules and laws that governed all nations.
So what did Bush Sr choose? A mix of both of course, but on the whole, Bush, and indeed most US administrations, picked the "safer" option of the realists. Putin has a point in that if NATO was built to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, now that the Soviet Union no longer existed, why does NATO need to exist, let alone incorporate new member states and expand towards the borders of the Russian Federation? The Kiev uprising that sparked the current Ukraine crisis was essentially a popular coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and yet the West opted to support it because the coup turned out in their national interest, even if they did not engineer the revolution, as Russia alleges. The West cannot claim the moral high ground if it defends/encourages democracy when it is convenient, and turns a blind eye when the democratic principles get in the way, such as in Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Palestine (Hamas) and Ukraine.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the United States is some kind of "evil empire" out to dominate the world. There are liberals who would have supported American military interventions out of the ideals of spreading democracy and saving lives, "humanitarian intervention" is a liberal concept after all. So whilst Realists will have rejoiced at the "success" of the Kiev revolution from the perspective of dealing a blow against Russia geopolitically, many liberals will have also celebrated Ukraine's move towards a more western model of liberal democracy and capitalism, and future incorporation into the institution of the European Union (liberals love international institutions).
The United States is not alone in being driven by competing visions for the world, and what you will often find is that different institutions tend to naturally develop different cultures and attitudes. The diplomats of most nations are liberals, because their very purpose depends on Political Liberalism having some truth in the real world. By the same token, military institutions such as the Pentagon and the CIA tend to be manned by cynical Realists, whose job it is to prepare for the worst and play in a world without rules. I find it amusing when I watch a debate in the UK or US between a diplomat and a general, and the same debate in China or Russia, and see the same exact same arguments play out over and over, just from different perspectives.
Something like: Chinese Realist General: The Japanese only respect strength, we must demonstrate our determination to fight for our national interests! We must deploy more warships to the Diaoyu Islands and prepare for war if necessary!
Chinese Liberal Diplomat: You are crazy! What do you think that will achieve? World War Three?! The Americans' experience in Iraq has demonstrated that nothing good can come from war. We must work with our neighbours to overcome our differences. Scaring them will only force them to group together against us and push them even closer to the United States!
Realist: You are a naive fool! He who is scared of war will face war, and lose! If we categorically demonstrate that we will never compromise on our core national interests, then perhaps war can be avoided. If we keep giving concessions, our enemies will demand more and more from us. We must make a stand!
At the end of the day, liberal diplomacy is keeping the diplomat in his job, just as military uncertainty justifies the general's salary, so it is no surprising which is a dove and which is a hawk.
Given that nations' foreign policy is driven by competing ideologies, their leaders, no matter how powerful, are politically constrained by internal and external limitations. Even somebody relatively liberal like Obama, is forced to adopt foreign policy that looks little different to Bush Jr. Yes Obama might be more personally inclined to side with liberals in his administration, and say more liberal things, but whether he bombed Libya to free the Libyan people from tyranny and prevent a massacre (liberal humanitarianism), or he did it to counter Chinese influence in Africa and depose a regime hostile to the United States (realist power), what matters is that he bombed Libya, and Chinese and Russian policy makers will interpret it as they will and adjust accordingly.
And so we come to the crux of the problem, as I see it anyway. Political liberalism is like going into the gladiatorial pits with a wooden training sword against realists armed with steel. By definition, realism seeks to maximise one's national interest, so even if only one actor behaves in a realist manner, everybody else must also find steel weapons, or they simply won't survive. It does not matter if only 50% of American policy makers are realists (it is higher than that), Russian and Chinese policy makers must at least match that, or face serious disadvantages. And because Chinese and Russians appear to behave in a realist manner, the US cannot trust Russian intentions in Eastern Europe, or Chinese ambitions in the Pacific, and so they establish military alliances, deploy warships and planes, etc... which only proves to the Russian and Chinese realists that America really is out to get them... and so the cycle of distrust becomes firmly entrenched.
I hope I am wrong, but my feeling is that it is virtually impossible for the international system to advance beyond realist calculations. The liberal institutions of the world like the UN and liberal ideals have been hi-jacked by Realists to better justify and legitimise their actions through a liberal lens. For example the humanitarian justification for the Iraq War, the non-intervention in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The most powerful actor in the international system sets the rules, and unless the United States or another power reclaims unrivalled power over other nations, and uses it in a more enlightened manner than any human society has managed thus far, then the only rule in international politics will be that there are no rules, not really.
We recently had our election of who is to sit in our goverments, the only problem is that this time we could'nt really agree on who to pick so somehow both the right and left side of politics ended up being to low in % to actually have any real say.
So the left side said they would take over since they had a little more %, only problem is that somewhere around 12% went to the Swedish Democrats. Who is neither on the left or right side and is seen as the racist group.
The reason they are called racists is because they are the only political group willing to take up the recently very important question about immigration to Sweden. So all the media slammed them with a racist tag the second they emerged with this. Only problem is no one else wants to pick up this question and according to votes atleast 1/10 swedish people wants to take it up and with the new polls their getting close to 1/9.
At the same time I can agree that the Swedish Democrats are going way out of line on some of their stuff. Still they are willing to pick up an important question. The other political groups on the other hand seems to have decided that it is a really good PR trick to trash down on SD so they can get more votes. This seeing as how the SD being the major politcal group in an area during a meeting that was recorded on tv, the SD person being the highest political person there and in charge should be adress as mr Spokesman or mr President, we only have 1 word for it but the translation is for both. But instead every other group refused to do this and even went out of their way to mock him.
While it was a way to show their dissaproval that SD is in charge it felt extremly childish that our politicians would do this infront of all of Sweden. This was also just a small thing and this has been going on for years now. At the same time alot of the political groups are trying to make deals/pacts behind everyone's back with SD since they got so many votes this year, which they have admitted to doing on numerous occasions. My own opinion is that even if I dont like someone political view and agenda if people have voted them in, you should atleast try to be respectful and listen to their side, seeing as so many people want it heard.
So now were at the point were we are forced to take a revote of our goverment because of the different parties being unable to agree on certain important topics. And with how our politicians have been behaving recently they have made me wonder if the politcal world here is more of a kindergarden.
Here in the UK, we have the labour party run by Ed Miliband(A spineless prat who somehow managed to forget about the deficit in his speech).
There's the Liberal Democrats run by nick Clegg the deputy PM (who is now hated by many because he had to compromise when forming the coalition). There's the conservatives run by the PM David Cameron (An arsehole but at least he seems to have something that resembles a brain and the economy has seen growth under the coalition).
And now we have the UK Independence Party the people who want to get out of the the EU and stop immigration (in my opinion for the wrong reasons) UKIP having done quite well recently are now considered a major party, UKIP is quite popular and now all the other parties are trying to make a serious stand on immigration in order to regain votes from people that had drifted towards UKIP.
I'm seriously tempted to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party
No tap the phone of the Chancellor of Germany, and justify it????
We are going to be in a new panopticon if this trend keeps going on. As long as everybody is ok with those huge datacenters and doesnt burn them to a crisp we will be entering a new age.
Just ask yourself: Would you do a google search for child pornography videos, or a video on how to build a fertilizer bomb? obvious answer: no. why? Because you think that you are being watched.
That is the first proof you need that you are already self moderating because of digital surveillance.
We had the atomic age, now the digital age, and soon we will be in the self-moderation age, where people all feel watched, and will moderate their own behaviour accordingly.
Idunno what this will bring us, maybe it will be ok, maybe we will go completely nuts just like a gerbil without hay in its glass cage. Or maybe it's time to understand that the internet is like a glass prison.
Also, all "ages" have required self-moderation already due to peer pressure.
And that's arguably a good thing. Think about the biggest asshole you know. That's probably just someone who isn't as good at "self-moderation" as the rest of us.
@ManDieKilt Whoa, the reason I don't search google for child porn is NOT because I think I'm being watched..
The funny thing about childporn or terrorism is that people accept the government collecting and using data under the idea that this is taboo. Fucking a child or bombing a church is so bad, those people have less rights, as I have nothing to hide.
But that is just the gateway being unlocked to not only taking in all the userdata, but using it openly and within the law.
The focus is not so much the ability of the government to backtrace your digital steps in every way, (as they just scoop up all usersdata), as the threat that it can use it at any time and, for whatever reason, in the future.
All this data will be logged for as long as the memory banks exist, and who knows what your government might not like tomorrow? or in 20 years? I'm pretty sure Stalin would have had a wet dream if he had access to the data available today.
And who is to say just the government will have access to this data? Why not firms, or individuals? Would my neighbour be able to download my older personal medical records for a few cents in a decade? That's a very real option considering how poor this data is secured and how many access points there are.
Peer pressure is obviously normal, healthy social behaviour as every group of people has self-moderation, however there is also a private space. Take work and private for example, two entirely different worlds. Or staying in and going out, or bedroom and living room.
If you are aware that your phone can tap you at any moment (unless you actually physically remove the battery) and all your internet time is logged... there isnt a whole lot of this private space left as opposed to what used to be considered 'private' 20 years ago.
I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but we are stepping into a new era as the public grows more aware of these new facts.
Just don't forget to put your tin-foil hat on when you go to sleep, or the government will steal your thoughts! :P
except this is all real and happening right now. I guess you missed the whole snowden thing and the NSA taking millions of snapshots via webcams for no apparent reason other than collecting.
I'm not saying the data is being used in that way right now (mostly industrial spionage and political bribery afaik), im saying the data is being stored, and *could* be used at a later date. But dont take my word for it, take all the security experts which have been saying this for the last 10+ years.
ANY report released by anyone other than the independent body assigned to determine how the plane crashed should be taken with a grain of salt. Anything released by Russia should be taken with the entire shaker of salt.
That isn't evidence, it is hearsay given to a biased organization by a biased individual.
Evidence is what is found at the crash site or a first hand eye witness account of what transpired. Anything else can be used as a distraction to discredit any official findings.
I sometimes wonder whether we ever get to the truth of anything these days. From my reading of news articles on various issues from around the world, 'news' seems to consist of a battle of lies, half-truths and omissions fuelled by preconceptions and misconceptions.
I sometimes wonder whether we ever get to the truth of anything these days. From my reading of news articles on various issues from around the world, 'news' seems to consist of a battle of lies, half-truths and omissions fuelled by preconceptions and misconceptions.
Comments
"There are costs, of course, attached to Russia's attempt to annex Crimea and its continued support of separatists. But the economic situation in Russia and many of the choices they're making are not due solely to sanctions. It's more complicated and involves oil prices and general economic mismanagement in Russia, and those all play a significant role. So the lack of economic diversification and development of innovation and entrepreneurship over the past decade has also left Russia overly dependent on hydrocarbons. And some of these issues all factor into the economic challenges that they're facing today.
"Obviously, the sanctions are not targeted at the Russian people. They are targeted – they're making clear that there are costs attached, and Russia has a choice they can make to change the course of these sanctions. Obviously, that's up to President Putin to make that choice."
Or wait, maybe it is.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/americans-are-totally-ready-for-the-cuban-embargo-to-end/383836/
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/12/17/ap_sources_cuba_releases_american_alan_gross_after_5_years_in_prison.html
even if it does turn out to be only limited.
Maybe he just lost touch of what is good politics, good for his people, and what moves just gain him short term power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, or somesuch:P
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_109141.htm
It seems he has made his choice and this choice is not towards progress.
"You just said the Berlin Wall fell, but some new walls are being put up now. I will respond, and I hope you will agree with me.
It is not now that this happened. You are an expert on Germany and on Europe. Didn’t they tell us after the fall of the Berlin Wall that NATO would not expand eastwards? However, the expansion started immediately. There were two waves of expansion. Is that not a wall? True, it is a virtual wall, but it was coming up. What about the anti-missile defence system next to our borders? Is that not a wall?
You see, nobody has ever stopped. This is the main issue of current international relations. Our partners never stopped. They decided they were the winners, they were an empire, while all the others were their vassals, and they needed to put the squeeze on them. I said the same in my Address [to the Federal Assembly]. This is the problem. They never stopped building walls, despite all our attempts at working together without any dividing lines in Europe and the world at large.
I believe that our tough stand on certain critical situations, including that in the Ukraine, should send a message to our partners that the best thing to do is to stop building walls and to start building a common humanitarian space of security and economic freedom."
"About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.
Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?
So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?
So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.
Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?
Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?
Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we?
Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?
If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.
We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?
We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this."
All the conference is here: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23406
I guess USA and Russia won't reach any compromise. Now Obama has signed his anti-russian law. I expect further fall of economics in Russia, no matter that Mr. Putin says we would survive. The evidence speaks otherwise. The oil rates speak otherwise. With such an isolation, Russia won't be able to fulfil what Mr. Putin declares.
cynical as it may be, I get that.
But why is putin destabilizing his own country? With this nonsense? Yes, Russia is a major arms exporter, no, that doesnt mean you have to cripple your economy with bullshit like this.
The +/- 400 bln dollars in reserve should go to public projects, schooling, to create an industry that creates their own things, instead of just raw materials and being 2nd world tier to the west. Even the usa, the worst offender of all, is downsizing their military (and increasing their security budget, but that's another story).
I think this guy has just lost it.
I think there is no more place in this world for supernations.
I have read both Putin's statements from yesterday, and NATO's rebuke. The reality is that both are one-sided statements made from their own perspective, and the truth lies somewhere in the grey area in-between.
I have mentioned (in previous comments in this thread) how foreign policy of most nations is driven by Political Realism, and through the lens of Political Realism, NATO's actions post-1991 are entirely predictable, and so is Russia's response. However, as bengoshi's position demonstrates, countries are not monolithic entities acting with a single purpose. Within each nation, there will be competing ideological, class, regional and personal interests, among others. In theory, this erodes the credibility of Political Realism, which precisely simplifies international relations by considering nations as individual powerful actors within a chaotic system. However, the fact that no nation is truly singular, (in my opinion), means that they tend to behave as predicted by Political Realism. Allow me to explain...
Put simply, given a scenario, the politically realist option would be the selfish dick move that sought to maximise your national interest. The liberal option would be cooperation with other nations, including adversaries, to achieve goals like justice, liberty or the betterment of all, but not necessarily the optimal solution for your own nation. So in 1991, President Bush Sr will have had advisors making competing arguments for how to proceed given the opportunities and risks that emerged with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Realists will have argued that the world was now ripe for the United States to shape in its own favour, with no comparable power to interfere. The Liberals will have argued that the US had an golden opportunity to set an example for the world and lead it into a brighter future (for all), safeguarded by international institutions, rules and laws that governed all nations.
So what did Bush Sr choose? A mix of both of course, but on the whole, Bush, and indeed most US administrations, picked the "safer" option of the realists. Putin has a point in that if NATO was built to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, now that the Soviet Union no longer existed, why does NATO need to exist, let alone incorporate new member states and expand towards the borders of the Russian Federation? The Kiev uprising that sparked the current Ukraine crisis was essentially a popular coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and yet the West opted to support it because the coup turned out in their national interest, even if they did not engineer the revolution, as Russia alleges. The West cannot claim the moral high ground if it defends/encourages democracy when it is convenient, and turns a blind eye when the democratic principles get in the way, such as in Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Palestine (Hamas) and Ukraine.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the United States is some kind of "evil empire" out to dominate the world. There are liberals who would have supported American military interventions out of the ideals of spreading democracy and saving lives, "humanitarian intervention" is a liberal concept after all. So whilst Realists will have rejoiced at the "success" of the Kiev revolution from the perspective of dealing a blow against Russia geopolitically, many liberals will have also celebrated Ukraine's move towards a more western model of liberal democracy and capitalism, and future incorporation into the institution of the European Union (liberals love international institutions).
The United States is not alone in being driven by competing visions for the world, and what you will often find is that different institutions tend to naturally develop different cultures and attitudes. The diplomats of most nations are liberals, because their very purpose depends on Political Liberalism having some truth in the real world. By the same token, military institutions such as the Pentagon and the CIA tend to be manned by cynical Realists, whose job it is to prepare for the worst and play in a world without rules. I find it amusing when I watch a debate in the UK or US between a diplomat and a general, and the same debate in China or Russia, and see the same exact same arguments play out over and over, just from different perspectives.
Something like:
Chinese Realist General: The Japanese only respect strength, we must demonstrate our determination to fight for our national interests! We must deploy more warships to the Diaoyu Islands and prepare for war if necessary!
Chinese Liberal Diplomat: You are crazy! What do you think that will achieve? World War Three?! The Americans' experience in Iraq has demonstrated that nothing good can come from war. We must work with our neighbours to overcome our differences. Scaring them will only force them to group together against us and push them even closer to the United States!
Realist: You are a naive fool! He who is scared of war will face war, and lose! If we categorically demonstrate that we will never compromise on our core national interests, then perhaps war can be avoided. If we keep giving concessions, our enemies will demand more and more from us. We must make a stand!
At the end of the day, liberal diplomacy is keeping the diplomat in his job, just as military uncertainty justifies the general's salary, so it is no surprising which is a dove and which is a hawk.
Given that nations' foreign policy is driven by competing ideologies, their leaders, no matter how powerful, are politically constrained by internal and external limitations. Even somebody relatively liberal like Obama, is forced to adopt foreign policy that looks little different to Bush Jr. Yes Obama might be more personally inclined to side with liberals in his administration, and say more liberal things, but whether he bombed Libya to free the Libyan people from tyranny and prevent a massacre (liberal humanitarianism), or he did it to counter Chinese influence in Africa and depose a regime hostile to the United States (realist power), what matters is that he bombed Libya, and Chinese and Russian policy makers will interpret it as they will and adjust accordingly.
And so we come to the crux of the problem, as I see it anyway. Political liberalism is like going into the gladiatorial pits with a wooden training sword against realists armed with steel. By definition, realism seeks to maximise one's national interest, so even if only one actor behaves in a realist manner, everybody else must also find steel weapons, or they simply won't survive. It does not matter if only 50% of American policy makers are realists (it is higher than that), Russian and Chinese policy makers must at least match that, or face serious disadvantages. And because Chinese and Russians appear to behave in a realist manner, the US cannot trust Russian intentions in Eastern Europe, or Chinese ambitions in the Pacific, and so they establish military alliances, deploy warships and planes, etc... which only proves to the Russian and Chinese realists that America really is out to get them... and so the cycle of distrust becomes firmly entrenched.
I hope I am wrong, but my feeling is that it is virtually impossible for the international system to advance beyond realist calculations. The liberal institutions of the world like the UN and liberal ideals have been hi-jacked by Realists to better justify and legitimise their actions through a liberal lens. For example the humanitarian justification for the Iraq War, the non-intervention in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The most powerful actor in the international system sets the rules, and unless the United States or another power reclaims unrivalled power over other nations, and uses it in a more enlightened manner than any human society has managed thus far, then the only rule in international politics will be that there are no rules, not really.
We recently had our election of who is to sit in our goverments, the only problem is that this time we could'nt really agree on who to pick so somehow both the right and left side of politics ended up being to low in % to actually have any real say.
So the left side said they would take over since they had a little more %, only problem is that somewhere around 12% went to the Swedish Democrats. Who is neither on the left or right side and is seen as the racist group.
The reason they are called racists is because they are the only political group willing to take up the recently very important question about immigration to Sweden. So all the media slammed them with a racist tag the second they emerged with this. Only problem is no one else wants to pick up this question and according to votes atleast 1/10 swedish people wants to take it up and with the new polls their getting close to 1/9.
At the same time I can agree that the Swedish Democrats are going way out of line on some of their stuff. Still they are willing to pick up an important question. The other political groups on the other hand seems to have decided that it is a really good PR trick to trash down on SD so they can get more votes. This seeing as how the SD being the major politcal group in an area during a meeting that was recorded on tv, the SD person being the highest political person there and in charge should be adress as mr Spokesman or mr President, we only have 1 word for it but the translation is for both. But instead every other group refused to do this and even went out of their way to mock him.
While it was a way to show their dissaproval that SD is in charge it felt extremly childish that our politicians would do this infront of all of Sweden. This was also just a small thing and this has been going on for years now. At the same time alot of the political groups are trying to make deals/pacts behind everyone's back with SD since they got so many votes this year, which they have admitted to doing on numerous occasions.
My own opinion is that even if I dont like someone political view and agenda if people have voted them in, you should atleast try to be respectful and listen to their side, seeing as so many people want it heard.
So now were at the point were we are forced to take a revote of our goverment because of the different parties being unable to agree on certain important topics.
And with how our politicians have been behaving recently they have made me wonder if the politcal world here is more of a kindergarden.
Democratic politics at it's best!
There's the Liberal Democrats run by nick Clegg the deputy PM (who is now hated by many because he had to compromise when forming the coalition).
There's the conservatives run by the PM David Cameron (An arsehole but at least he seems to have something that resembles a brain and the economy has seen growth under the coalition).
And now we have the UK Independence Party the people who want to get out of the the EU and stop immigration (in my opinion for the wrong reasons) UKIP having done quite well recently are now considered a major party, UKIP is quite popular and now all the other parties are trying to make a serious stand on immigration in order to regain votes from people that had drifted towards UKIP.
I'm seriously tempted to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party
Just ask yourself: Would you do a google search for child pornography videos, or a video on how to build a fertilizer bomb? obvious answer: no. why? Because you think that you are being watched.
That is the first proof you need that you are already self moderating because of digital surveillance.
We had the atomic age, now the digital age, and soon we will be in the self-moderation age, where people all feel watched, and will moderate their own behaviour accordingly.
Idunno what this will bring us, maybe it will be ok, maybe we will go completely nuts just like a gerbil without hay in its glass cage. Or maybe it's time to understand that the internet is like a glass prison.
Also, all "ages" have required self-moderation already due to peer pressure.
But that is just the gateway being unlocked to not only taking in all the userdata, but using it openly and within the law.
The focus is not so much the ability of the government to backtrace your digital steps in every way, (as they just scoop up all usersdata), as the threat that it can use it at any time and, for whatever reason, in the future.
All this data will be logged for as long as the memory banks exist, and who knows what your government might not like tomorrow? or in 20 years? I'm pretty sure Stalin would have had a wet dream if he had access to the data available today.
And who is to say just the government will have access to this data? Why not firms, or individuals? Would my neighbour be able to download my older personal medical records for a few cents in a decade? That's a very real option considering how poor this data is secured and how many access points there are.
Peer pressure is obviously normal, healthy social behaviour as every group of people has self-moderation, however there is also a private space. Take work and private for example, two entirely different worlds. Or staying in and going out, or bedroom and living room.
If you are aware that your phone can tap you at any moment (unless you actually physically remove the battery) and all your internet time is logged... there isnt a whole lot of this private space left as opposed to what used to be considered 'private' 20 years ago.
I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but we are stepping into a new era as the public grows more aware of these new facts.
I'm not saying the data is being used in that way right now (mostly industrial spionage and political bribery afaik), im saying the data is being stored, and *could* be used at a later date. But dont take my word for it, take all the security experts which have been saying this for the last 10+ years.
I've managed to find an English translation of this article: http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2014/12/meet-pilot-who-shot-down-malysian.html
The Russian officials said back in the day there had been an Ukrainian war plane in the distance of 3-4 km from the place of the tragedy.
As the lawyers say, innocent until proven guilty. Yet, in order to get the clear picture, every evidence must be taken into consideration.
Evidence is what is found at the crash site or a first hand eye witness account of what transpired. Anything else can be used as a distraction to discredit any official findings.