Gelion
Retired Captain
Thats a global or at least European and American phenomenon unfortunately.And the large sectors of the population priced out of living there that is such a fashionable thing in modern European cities
- Status
Presumably to some extent it is a feature of a successful city. If more people want to live somewhere and the somewhere cannot easily expand then prices will rise.
True, Moscow is a great attractor of money and workforce from all former USSR and most comfortable place for living. Thus, most expensive too.And the large sectors of the population priced out of living there that is such a fashionable thing in modern European cities
But other places are also getting improved. I know it, because I sometimes leave Moscow to visit Russia
Verbose
Deity
Yes, well, Iraq in 2003. It generated the largest recorded anti-war demonstration in history – 3 million people in Rome. Another 1,5 million in Madrid. Massive demonstrations all over Europe against that one – and in the end Bush's "coalition of the willing" was a rather underwhelming affair – might sound good if you make yourself blind from all the countries who wanted nothing to do with that one. Sure, Russia had demonstrations against it too in 2003: 400 people assembled in Moscow, and that was the largest one... Not all that concerned back then perhaps?
You are tarring with a VERY large brush here. And really it is still ALL about the Russian obsession with the US. Just like Russia is currently proposing to "negotiate" the future of Europe with just the US, without any European involvement for preference.
There was no coup in Ukraine. There was a break down of the Yanukovich government from one day to the next, surprise-surprise – but everyone west of Ukraine was just as surprised as everyone east of it. It's just that the Russians need someone to blame for some reason. The "coup" thing is a kind of comforting story Russians tell themselves. Because somehow the alternative is apparently unbearable...
Colonialism was a thing, historically, certainly. It isn't anymore. Again with that VERY big brush, since all European nations did not have colonies. Funnily enough Russia is one of those empires that really cannot be exempted from colonialism in the 19th c.
Yet somehow you mange to make this line up in your head in such a fashion that the glaring overstatements and contradictions of what you just posted don't blind you with their obviousness?
Which is to say, not very surprised. The Maidan went on for a long time. The Maidanists also had strong moral support in the West; it is not altogether improbable they received both advice and some money. Certainly not billions that Putin had promised Yanukovich, but maybe enough to buy tea and print flyers.
Cries about "western-orchestrated" coup are nonsense though, I agree.
Compated to the historic low point of 1990s, sure. What about last 7-10 years though?
Could that be... because it wasn't Russia who was invading Iraq in 2003?
I would personally go to demonstration against it, if it did matter a tiny bit.
It's hard to measure these things objectively.
My impression is that things only started to noticeably improve somewhere in 2010.
Before that either government wasn't investing money in infrastructure, or it was, but the effect was delayed.
And last two years the picture is a bit distorted by you know what.
Definitely, one major reason of Putin's popularity in Russia is that most people remember what the country was like before he came to power.
Russia's deputy foreign minister said Moscow couldn't exclude military deployment to Cuba and Venezuela if tensions with the USA remain high.
US national security advisor commented it as "If Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-u-s-russia-talks-over-ukraine-kyiv-gets-a-voice-11642061460
US national security advisor commented it as "If Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-u-s-russia-talks-over-ukraine-kyiv-gets-a-voice-11642061460
Snowygerry
Deity
That is actually a good idea - it would be no concern of NATO either, unless said military deployment is used to attack a member.
And with the Russian army now in South America, chances of war in Europe are seriously reduced
And with the Russian army now in South America, chances of war in Europe are seriously reduced
I'll tell you a secret - modern Russia cannot realistically defeat even Germany alone. Or Turkey. Or Japan.
Technically it can, but the costs and casualties would be so high that there are no chances Russia would willingly initiate such conflict.
The only viable scenario of Russia's getting into war with them is if it will be defending itself.
Ukraine is a bit different matter. In Crimea about 90% of their military were ok with the offer where they would get salary increase and new equipment in exchange for replacing their 2-striped flag with a new 3-striped one.
Snowygerry
Deity
That's hardly a secret, RF has a highly efficient fighting force, well trained and supplied, and by now experienced in actual combat, arguably the only one in Europe that can operate independently beside the French, and possibly the Brits.
It can project it its power several hundered km around, as we saw in Syria, under that "umbrella" it can operate pretty much with impunity, as long as none are willing to attack the actual AA batteries.
That will never happen as long it is stationed somewhere on the Don river.
It can project it its power several hundered km around, as we saw in Syria, under that "umbrella" it can operate pretty much with impunity, as long as none are willing to attack the actual AA batteries.
That will never happen as long it is stationed somewhere on the Don river.
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
It'd be foolish for Russia to involve itself in South America beyond after sales training,
because Russia can not protect its supply lines against US air and US sea power.
The whole topic of the Russian army in Cuba or Venezuela is a red herring.
because Russia can not protect its supply lines against US air and US sea power.
The whole topic of the Russian army in Cuba or Venezuela is a red herring.
Gelion
Retired Captain
I think it is understood that it might be a one way road. Like in 1962.
Snowygerry
Deity
The French currently in the process of disentangling themselves from Mali, don't quite sure what the Brits are doing,
possible guarding NI from EU invasion, or chasing rubber boats and fishing barges around the Channel Islands
possible guarding NI from EU invasion, or chasing rubber boats and fishing barges around the Channel Islands
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
Lot of British military helping with Coronavirus.
Heard some also logistical support on Polish border with Belarus.
Heard some also logistical support on Polish border with Belarus.
Russia will not involve for several reasons, but mostly because Putin is able to think few moves ahead.
Also, Cuba may simply not give permission.
In 1962, missiles in Cuba made it possible to threaten US mainland with nuclear strike - a capability USSR had previously lacked. This is why this move was seen as a huge escalation. Today, Russia has this capability anyway (see nuclear sub fleet and ICBMs with 11-16k km range).
Stationing anything on Cuba/Venezuela would change nothing except increase costs and make those assets more vulnerable.
If it was supposed to be a threat, it is rather strange one.
- Status
Similar threads
