When and where will Putin make his move?

Hygro said:
I read a few years back the roads between Moscow and St Petersburg deteriorated to the point the trip takes 3x longer than it used to.
Click to expand...
Which road? A new highway M-11 is being built now between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Generally, my impression is that quality of roads got better last several years, especially comparing to the 00-s.

Edit:
The trip indeed takes longer now, because the current highway M-10 doesn't have enough throughput. Traffic load has reached about 150000 cars a day which three times exceeds maximum load.

The quality of road you can see here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:M10_highway_(Russia)
 
Last edited:
Lohrenswald said:
America is leading most of Europe
Republican party shenanigans don't really matter for America's leading role, I think
and again the "other pariahs" are countries like Iran, Cuba and North Korea I assume, also countries mostly defined by not being on terms with America

As for foreign investments I kinda don't care about that? Like, Egyptian investments for example might be less competitive than Russian ones in most of europe, but we don't talk about Egypt as a "pariah state"
Click to expand...

Neither Russia nor Egypt is going to compete to invest in European countries. Germany, France, and the US are going to provide all the investment there. As for Egypt, they are far from a pariah and I doubt they have any trouble attracting investment but they aren't likely to be investing anywhere themselves. I'd guess that their biggest investors right about now are the Chinese and Germany. But outside Mediterranean Africa the competition from Germany and other Europeans dies off pretty fast, and in most of the developing nations China is uncontested since the US started being stupid. Pretty much everything being built in Central America right now is being built by Chinese companies, and I'm sure that's true in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa as well.

Russia has missed a huge opportunity, because taking investment from Russian companies has far too many complications attached...among which is that taking Russian investment immediately reduces the chances of attracting investments from Europe, the US, and China. You go with the pariah you effectively become one unless you have enough juice to mitigate the damage. That's why Germany can make this pipeline deal without taking serious damage, but it's also why the pipeline deal is heavily lopsided in favor of Germany.

"Not being on terms with America" no longer defines a pariah, by the way. The US has pissed away far too much influence for that to be true any more. Iran seems very inclined to take advantage of that. North Korea not so much, and Russia not at all.
 
Lohrenswald said:
also getting to what traitorfish is talking about I think: Russia being a "pariah state" or not in good terms with "the international community" is just code for America antigonises them
Click to expand...
Rather about America trying to speak on behalf of international community, with or without invitation. Russia must be regularly reminded that it lives in international isolation, otherwise it may forget it and become world leader in grain exports, like it did last year. Or, god forbid, start selling weapons to US allies.
 
Tim I agree with most of what you're saying except this:
Timsup2nothin said:
"Not being on terms with America" no longer defines a pariah, by the way. The US has pissed away far too much influence for that to be true any more. Iran seems very inclined to take advantage of that. North Korea not so much, and Russia not at all.
Click to expand...
American grip over europe at least is as firm as ever. Some people make a show of "resistance" or whatever but it's just theater basically

also the thing about investments (which I'm not sure why we got into that when I was talking about like foreign policy, I guess maybe they go hand in hand), russian investments being like a bad marker is like, because america has brabded the russians as bad

I know just saying "America" is pretty reductionist, but as I pointed out earlier almost all other countries get that treatment so instead of doing the more productive thing of trying to broaden the scope on other countries, I'm taking the easy route and being reductionistic on america as well
red_elk said:
Rather about America trying to speak on behalf of international community, with or without invitation.
Click to expand...
This is true, but a lot of other countries let them get away with it and play along, like most EU and Nato countries

also most probably when a democrat becomes president in america again all the eu leaders will stop trying to act as if they're independent I guess
 
Lohrenswald said:
American grip over europe at least is as firm as ever. Some people make a show of "resistance" or whatever but it's just theater basically
Click to expand...

I might have a longer "ever." In the cold war era western Europe could be treated like a bunch of vassal states.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
I might have a longer "ever." In the cold war era western Europe could be treated like a bunch of vassal states.
Click to expand...
I don't see that as having changed besides empty posturing

we got dragged into Syria and all

Edit: I'm repeating myself I realise

maybe the grip is slightly less firm, I still don't think it matters too much
talking about investments and the like, I kinda doubt it's much different than say 40 years abo between western europe and america

But I sort of remember you having expressed basically this viewpoint yourself: that there is a sort of american-centric world system (which is "the international community"), and some states lie at least somewhat out of this (these are the "pariah states" like Iran, Venezulea and Russia (Russia I think sort of tried to get into the "american vassal" position in the 90s, but they've broken away from that since Putin got elected))
 
Last edited:
Lohrenswald said:
Russia I think sort of tried to get into the "american vassal" position in the 90s, but they've broken away from that since Putin got elected
Click to expand...
Russia was trying to get into "partnership with the West" position in the period 1991-2007. After that, it realized that only position of "yet another american vassal" is being offered. Chose another path.
"Munich speech" in 2007 was a turning point.
 
Cheetah said:
I've reread yours and his posts. I see nothing other than what I've already said:

You're focusing on a specific term he used and trying to criticise a position that I don't see Phrossack holding.

@Hygro says he reads the posts much like you do, so I'd be interested to see how he has managed to interpret it that way.

In the meantime, this still feels like a huge derailing of the thread, so I'm not sure if we should really continue... :undecided:
Click to expand...
I went back and now see that the word "punish" was a mis-triggering word meant in the game theory sense in which equal actors can punish each other.

But it was a weird word and it would have been better for discussion to address Traitorfish's (and mine via my gallery position) concern over what is meant by a word that connotes a known hierarchy of moral authority. Instead there was a bristling "this is whataboutism" mixed with both of your "you look like a Russian stooge for asking about this".
 
red_elk said:
Russia was trying to get into "partnership with the West" position in the period 1991-2007. After that, it realized that only position of "yet another american vassal" is being offered. Chose another path.
"Munich speech" in 2007 was a turning point.
Click to expand...
Probably true
I'd think some people might be okay with being "subservient" but most people obviously wouldn't (In my own country I think that ratio is reversed)

anyway I'm infamiliar with that speech, do you have a recording or transcription around?
 
Lohrenswald said:
I don't see that as having changed besides empty posturing

we got dragged into Syria and all

Edit: I'm repeating myself I realise

maybe the grip is slightly less firm, I still don't think it matters too much
talking about investments and the like, I kinda doubt it's much different than say 40 years abo between western europe and america

But I sort of remember you having expressed basically this viewpoint yourself: that there is a sort of american-centric world system (which is "the international community"), and some states lie at least somewhat out of this (these are the "pariah states" like Iran, Venezulea and Russia (Russia I think sort of tried to get into the "american vassal" position in the 90s, but they've broken away from that since Putin got elected))
Click to expand...

Dragged into Syria, but look at the GWBush debacle in Iraq. Back in the day that would have been a slam dunk everyone votes in favor on the security council and Russia vetoes, then everyone leaps in anyway. Only the UK providing cover to keep the US from having to admit to a unilateral action in open defiance of the UN was an event that wasn't even imaginable in the 1980s. Military action is sort of bringing up the rear and the US has a strong voice there, but social and economic actions are lead by coalition at this point and the US can't even pretend to have leadership there.


red_elk said:
Russia was trying to get into "partnership with the West" position in the period 1991-2007. After that, it realized that only position of "yet another american vassal" is being offered. Chose another path.
"Munich speech" in 2007 was a turning point.
Click to expand...

Demonstration of a terrible lack of foresight. Since most of the "American vassals" have since thrown off the yoke a position "among" them would have put Russia in position to jockey for a greater leadership role in the vacuum left by USian abdication of the responsibility. The lack of foresight is made doubly bad if you are really citing 2007 as the turning point, because by then the US losing their leadership position was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
 
red_elk said:
Becoming vassals wasn't considered as an option.
Click to expand...

The choices were to join the community and strive to become a respected member, or go it alone and remain a pariah. Russia made the choice they made, and I'm not even saying that choice was wrong...except when Russians whine about their pariah status. It was chosen and if you defend the choice, don't whine. If you are whining about being a pariah then consider what you might have done differently when your leader made that choice for you.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
If you are whining about being a pariah then consider what you might have done differently when your leader made that choice for you.
Click to expand...
We know that we made the right choice.
US acts offended and calls us pariah, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
red_elk said:
And if we made the right choice, but US is whining about it, what should we do?
Click to expand...

Go about proving you made the right choice. I think the jury is waaaaaaaay out on that one, myself. "Globalism" may be getting a bit of a black eye in some quarters, but the idea that "go it alone" as a national strategy is the long term winner is dubious to say the least.
 
putin already made his move when he installed his puppet drfump as potus.

hh
 
Last edited:
This should be related to the topic.
Surprisingly impartial BBC report about political landscape in Ukraine on the verge of elections.
One of these 3 people is most certainly going to become the next Ukrainian president, Zelensky currently has the most chances.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whomp
Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Mise
Mise
Top Bottom