What is going on with Russia!!!

[VW Cali]

Having read this nonsense again, I think that it is completely implausible that Ukraine would have somehow inherited a nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Well, it's a tough one to call. One side would have wanted it. The other definitely not.

It is clear that no way would the Russians have wanted Ukraine to keep nuclear arsenal.

 

[Amarillo]

Well, it's a tough one to call. One side would have wanted it. The other definitely not.

It is clear that no way would the Russians have wanted Ukraine to keep nuclear arsenal.

Kazakhstan appears to have surrendered its nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for US$25 million from the US.

There's an interesting article here:
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66967

Perhaps it is not so implausible that Ukraine could have inherited Soviet nuclear missiles, and command over them.

 

[VW Cali]

Kazakhstan appears to have surrendered its nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for US$25 million from the US.

There's an interesting article here:
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66967

Perhaps it is not so implausible that Ukraine could have inherited Soviet nuclear missiles, and command over them.

Thanks.

I was wondering about Kazakhstan too. Ukraine had about 1/3 from memory. By the way, political situation in mid 90s was very different. Francis Fukuyama had published his "End of history" celebrating, in major part, the purported end of the Cold War.

In Russia too, despite looting of state assets by newly minted oligarchs, there was an optimistic and sonewhat blind faith in Western capitalism. This coupled with ideological theories by the likes of Jeffrey Sachs and Co reinforced strange beliefs in both Russia and the West.

I was warned by the ex Head of the China division at the World Bank that this simultaneous capitalism and democracy was unwise. He felt it was non analytical slogan making that equated democracy and the free market. He felt that liberalising too quickly, and simultaneously, across both political structures and markets had no analysis behind it.

He was actually shouted down in Washington DC. He predicted that China which was ooening its markets would grow at 7% through the 90s, and Russia and Eastern Europe would have problems because of tge lack of institutions able to cope. Famously, Larry Summers (and many others) disagreed with him. But they were proven spectacularly wrong.

So Russia's issues stem partly from a misguided belief in Western free market theories as espoused by famous and fad wearing economists.

The most prescient of all commentators was John Gray of "Straw Dogs" fame.

Ukraine and Kazkhstan deals vis a vis nuclear arsenal need to be seen through this 1990s lens. Now long since gone.

 

[Amarillo]

He predicted that China which was ooening its markets would grow at 7% through the 90s, and Russia and Eastern Europe would have problems because of tge lack of institutions able to cope.

China has been the Great Engine of Global GDP growth for over three decades, reducing the percentage of its population living in poverty from 84% in 1980 to 10% now.

I have been fortunate enough to have caught a bubble in that country and exited before the bust.

 

[VW Cali]

China has been the Great Engine of Global GDP growth for over three decades, reducing the percentage of its population living in poverty from 84% in 1980 to 10% now.

I have been fortunate enough to have caught a bubble in that country and exited before the bust.

Good stuff!

They have problems now, but investing everywhere. Apart from Africa, Australia and Latin America, now serious investment in South Asia.

Latter has also sorts of geopolitical implications as India and US none too pleased. Look up CPEC and Chinese investments in warm water ports close to the mouth of the Persian gulf.

Russia has now agreed to joint military exercises with its long term enemy in the area, an erstwhile US ally for 50+years but now out of fabour. Much to the chagrin of India and the US.

 

[AlanH99]

I assume, from your full reply, that you have no material to support your original theory that Russia "will be looking for any pretext to test [an EU army] in battle".

Putin sent his troops into the Crimea because there were demonstrations in the Ukraine for closer EU integration and they got rid of a corrupt President. So it's difficult to imagine him standing by if Juncker sent in an EU army as he said he would like to do.

 

[Amarillo]

Putin sent his troops into the Crimea because there were demonstrations in the Ukraine for closer EU integration and they got rid of a corrupt President. So it's difficult to imagine him standing by if Juncker sent in an EU army as he said he would like to do.

And it is on that which you base your assertion: "Russia will be looking for any pretext to test [an EU army] in battle"?

 

[VW Cali]

Below from John Gray's review of one of Chomsky's articles (around 2012. Gray critical of Chomsky who then wrote a strong response). But important point is the quote from Gray. Think it highlights how difficult it is to isolate developments in isolation. The one bad guy story, or bad nation, may have a basis in reality but it us usually too simplistic where geopolitics is concerned.

Here is the quote:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Reported in October 2004, this statement from a senior adviser to George W Bush – often attributed to Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff until his resignation in 2007 – forms the epigraph to Noam Chomsky's latest collection of articles. Though the context is not explained, the statement was made in the summer of 2002 in an interview with the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind, in which the Bush aide mocked the writer and others like him for belonging in "what we call the reality-based community", a group composed of people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality".

 

[Velma's Dad]

...a group composed of people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality".

That surely is what we, the West, have always struggled with in trying to understand Russia. As Churchill famously recognised: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

I haven't read widely about Russia (and haven't been there for more than 15 years) but one of my fave recent reads was Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia (Peter Pomerantsev, 2014). It isn't at all about geopolitics but it is an intriguing and very entertaining look inside modern, post-truth, Russia. I'd recommend it to anyone who's trying to grapple with the question in the OP.

 

[AlanH99]

And it is on that which you base your assertion: "Russia will be looking for any pretext to test [an EU army] in battle"?

Putin doesn't want Ukraine to have more EU integration and has sent his army in to stop it. Juncker says he wants an EU army to confront Russia.
Sounds like a recipe for bullets flying to me. I hope they have more sense that to let Juncker have his way.

 

[Adamvanman]

Looks like they have a new Nuke
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l?ito=social-twitter_mailonline#ixzz4O5pS1tgV

 

[Amarillo]

Looks like they have a new Nuke
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l?ito=social-twitter_mailonline#ixzz4O5pS1tgV

It sounds like a good reason for Britain to renew Trident and for the people not to elect Corbyn.

 

[VW Cali]

It sounds like a good reason for Britain to renew Trident and for the people not to elect Corbyn.

In geopolitics no such thing as international law or rights in practise. All sides flout as and when they choose, constrained only by opposing forces.

Deterrence plays a major part at negotiating tables. Britain should always have a viable deterrent at home, or be part of larger group that has it.

As it is, no one in Europe or US will let Russia push the agenda, militarily speaking, versus Britain. The ex Soviet Union was surrounded by Nato, but when they brought their own to Cuba, Bay of Pigs nearly resulted in World War 3. So for the Russians it is their deterrent, contrary to what the Daily Mail describes.

Britain should always have a viable deterrent at home, rather than running around to Afghanistan, Iraq, or other parts of the world.

The problem with the 1 dimensional political system is one can have ineffectual and unwise but well meaning to the left. To the right can be a bunch of "us vs them" harping on about old glories. Furthermore, the right is always concerned with power and benefits for itself foremost backed by jingoistic rhetoric.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Looks like they have a new Nuke
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l?ito=social-twitter_mailonline#ixzz4O5pS1tgV

Interesting to see what the RUSI guy says in the article: while noting the new missile is basically an update of the old SS-18, "...Putin of course is happy for it to be portrayed as an aggressive move. He wants to stress his unpredictability and his importance."

I must say though that having for years been inclined against a Trident replacement, my views have shifted on that in line with my perspective on Russia. Or maybe it's just that I'm now an old git.

 

[zoki]

To wipe out a country the size of France he would need much more than 400 megatons! Just shows these reporters have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Amarillo]

I must say though that having for years been inclined against a Trident replacement, my views have shifted on that in line with my perspective on Russia. Or maybe it's just that I'm now an old git.

I was against Trident or similar deterrent until I properly understood how it worked.

This is a precis of my understanding:
1. There are four submarines capable of launching trident.
2. At any one time there is always at least one armed submarine on patrol.
3. At any one time there are never more than two submarines in known or easily discoverable locations.
4. The captains have sealed orders from the prime minster on how to act in the event of the British Government being annihilated. The only person who knows what those orders are is the Prime Minister.
5. Points 1, 2, 3 & 4 above are known to foreign powers and believed to be true.

It seems like a pretty good insurance policy for 65 million people.

 

[GrannyJen]

I was against Trident or similar deterrent until I properly understood how it worked.

This is a precis of my understanding:
1. There are four submarines capable of launching trident.
2. At any one time there is always at least one armed submarine on patrol.
3. At any one time there are never more than two submarines in known or easily discoverable locations.
4. The captains have sealed orders from the prime minster on how to act in the event of the British Government being annihilated. The only person who knows what those orders are is the Prime Minister.
5. Points 1, 2, 3 & 4 above are known to foreign powers and believed to be true.

It seems like a pretty good insurance policy for 65 million people.

MAD is a throughly good working strategy...

until one of those with finger on button is MAD.

 

[Amarillo]

MAD is a throughly good working strategy...

until one of those with finger on button is MAD.

The Flight 9525 co-pilot springs to mind.

I do not know what safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorised firing, or wrongfully authorised firing, but would hope that there are sufficient safeguards to make such an event either impossible or highly unlikely.

 

[GrannyJen]

The Flight 9525 co-pilot springs to mind.

I do not know what safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorised firing, or wrongfully authorised firing, but would hope that there are sufficient safeguards to make such an event either impossible or highly unlikely.

One would hope that in the real world there are steps towards armageddon that are clear, practiced, understood by all and within a framework of transparent communication.

Then I look at the origins of WW1...

 

[VW Cali]

One would hope that in the real world there are steps towards armageddon that are clear, practiced, understood by all and within a framework of transparent communication.

Then I look at the origins of WW1...

Human beings are over rated.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Interesting BBC news piece about Russian perspectives on the West:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37766688

Here's a snippet. A TV station owner (pro-Kremlin, but there's really no other kind now) said:

"The truth is a question of belief. Post-modernity shows that every so-called truth is a matter of believing. So we believe in what we do, we believe in what we say. And that is the only way to define the truth. So we have our special Russian truth that you need to accept."

 

[Trailertrash]

You have to understand that Putin first and foremost is a politician. You then have to understand that all politicians are like baby's nappies and like babies nappies they become full of poo and should be changed frequently. Unfortunately Putin has not been changed and he has become a huge bloated colostomy bag who someone should puncture before he becomes a public health hazard. Much like Donald Trump really. I hope that helps Thelma's Dad.

 

[Velma's Dad]

You have to understand that Putin first and foremost is a politician. You then have to understand that all politicians are like baby's nappies and like babies nappies they become full of poo and should be changed frequently. Unfortunately Putin has not been changed and he has become a huge bloated colostomy bag who someone should puncture before he becomes a public health hazard. Much like Donald Trump really. I hope that helps Thelma's Dad.

Quite true. Another factoid is that politicians are like sperm. Only one in a million turns out to be human.

 

[motacyclist]

Anyone taking their Cali to Russia best make sure their fuel tanks are full when they cross the border, especially our Spanish NATO friends!

 

[Amarillo]

Quite true. Another factoid is that politicians are like sperm. Only one in a million turns out to be human.

The average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime; if the average male helps produce two offspring, your statistic is out by a factor of about 250,000: only one in a quarter of a trillion politicians turns out to be human.