Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[XXSockXX]

If you think there's nothing useful in Russia except oil and gas (and maybe lumber), you're wrong.
Russia has vast deposits of coal, iron ores, bauxite, copper, gold, silver, platinum, uranium, manganese, chromium, tungsten, molybdenum, nickel, rare earth elements (mostly tantalum, beryllium and niobium), diamonds, etc. etc. etc.
Even if the US industry won't use it all, controlling all these deposits can be quite a boon.

Even if we assume that the US would invade countries to control their natural resources, do you think they would risk a world-ending nuclear war to get a few Russian valuables (or what would be left of them)? Come on, seriously.

In a way I kind of can understand your worries about Belarus being affected by a potential land war with Russia from historical experiences, but these times are totally over, nobody wants to invade Russia and frankly I don't think anybody can.

Putin is basically the ideal dictator to keep the exports flowing.  He keeps keeps a corrupt oligarchy but not one that is too corrupt to get in the way.  He retards development of the Russian economy that would break the dependence on the export oriented natural resources sector. 

That is a good point. Putin is very cooperative, if you let him do what he wants.

[Owlbread]

Yeah, didn't see your edit until after my post Owlbread. Figures that it was Bush (no surprise) and I didn't know about that pipeline thing.

I'd love to see that meeting between a Taliban delegation in Texas and 1990s-era Bush in a film or something.

In a way I kind of can understand your worries about Belarus being affected by a potential land war with Russia from historical experiences, but these times are totally over, nobody wants to invade Russia and frankly I don't think anybody can.

Putin and Lukashenko's grip on Belarus and Russia depends entirely on nostalgia and constant appeals to the past. Their grip will only be broken when all Belarusians and Russians finally realise that those times are dead and gone and their memories are being used to exploit them.

[mainiac]

Afganistan is a pretty good example of why invading people isn't the way to get resources.  While it's true that Afganistan was a black box exports-wise before, they only export a third of a billion dollars a year right now and very little of that goes to the US.  That's a horrible return on investment if you think it's about natural resources.  Even if it was 100 times higher it would be a horrible return on investment.

If you want to acquire resources, blowing a bunch of shit up should not be step 1.

Look at Iran which has been hostile towards the US and the west since the whole coup-business.  By not invading them, they were willing to export +100 billion dollars of oil a year until the sanctions cut down on that.

[Sergarr]

The Americans can just wait until Putin dies or gets overthrown anyway. After that it's all over.

The US doesn't need to wait for shit.  The US is still buying those resources despite the crisis.  In fact if the US wanted nothing more then to exploit Russian resources we would actively support Putin.  Putin is basically the ideal dictator to keep the exports flowing.  He keeps keeps a corrupt oligarchy but not one that is too corrupt to get in the way.  He retards development of the Russian economy that would break the dependence on the export oriented natural resources sector.  Short of turning Russia into an outright Euro-American colony there is nothing more we could ask for.  Well actually we would want to see Russia completely occupy Ukraine and incorporate their country, that would mean even more resources for us at the expense of Russian and Ukrainian poverty.  It's all very ironic, where the anti-colonial movements revolted against their exploitation the Russians are now violently reacting to keep themselves in an unequal relationship.  Because their exploitation comes wrapped in a Russian flag and is done by Russians the Russians cheer their own exploitation.

People say that Afganistan and Iraq are exploitation but they're the marginal cases.  Look at Saudi Arabia.  Look at China.  You don't need to politically dominate them, you just need them to sell to you, like the Russians do.

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

[mainiac]

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

I didn't say it's the best course of action.  I said it was the best course of action if the EU/US wanted to just exploit Russian natural resources as apparently is the paranoid fantasy of the day.

[XXSockXX]

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

It is only the best course of action if one assumes that everything the US does is completley based on economic interest, with no regard to morality. Obviously it is not like that, even if some people may believe it is.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

[Sergarr]

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

I didn't say it's the best course of action.  I said it was the best course of action if the EU/US wanted to just exploit Russian natural resources as apparently is the paranoid fantasy of the day.

oh

so it's just an ideological difference

ok

[Guardian G.I.]

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

It is only the best course of action if one assumes that everything the US does is completley based on economic interest, with no regard to morality. Obviously it is not like that, even if some people may believe it is.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Which country and which major political leader have ever made any decisions based on morality and not political and economic interests? Or, putting more precisely, was there a single case when moral concerns actually overrided political and economic interests?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think it is hard for you to imagine... But in USA, and any other democratic country, politicians have to do what voters want.

Even if Obama and congressmen are heartless robots who care only about Economical might, they have to do stuff that is moral

[mainiac]

Which country and which major political leader have ever made any decisions based on morality and not political and economic interests?

I can't think of a single country that hasn't done that at some point or other.

It is only the best course of action if one assumes that everything the US does is completley based on economic interest, with no regard to morality. Obviously it is not like that, even if some people may believe it is.

No it's even a step beyond that.  Exploiting Russian resources isn't even the best outcome for US economic interest.  The best case for the US is that Russia be successful, not subservient.  Japan is a country notable for it's lack of natural resources but Japanese trade is very valuable to the US.  Putin is just ideal for the "exploit Russian resources and be evil" agenda.

[XXSockXX]

If keeping Putin in Russia is the best course of action, then why do US constantly enact more and more sanctions, preventing trade?

It is only the best course of action if one assumes that everything the US does is completley based on economic interest, with no regard to morality. Obviously it is not like that, even if some people may believe it is.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Which country and which major political leader have ever made any decisions based on morality and not political and economic interests?

I didn't say economic interests played no role, just that it is not completely based on them. "Morality" could possibly be subsumed under political interest, which means doing what the people want. Like people might be less inclined to vote for you if you support brutal dictators, at least in some cases.
An example might be the German decision to stop using nuclear energy. Economically, that is not a good idea. For some people nuclear energy is immoral, because of the dangers. For some politicians it was a question of losing votes, so they just did it.

[PTTG??]

So you're in Ukraine, and you want to live in Russia.

Isn't it easier to move to Russia than have Russia come to you?

Better question: Why do you want to live in Russia? Can't you just be a Russian that lives in Ukraine?

Are there any resourses in Ukraine that Russia doesn't have, anyway? I don't expect that they have all that much oil there...

[mainiac]

Well if we were to approach the matter psychohistorically we could reduce the conflict to an aggregate of individuals optimizing their   preferences in a Becker model of human choices.  A subset of the population strongly prefers the non-economic utility they get from being Russian living in a certain territory.  The preferences of this group influence the memes of the population as a whole so that even those who would be completely indifferent make their choices based on a political discourse that frames matters as a choice between Ukraine and Russia.

Of course psychohistory is quite young so I'd suggest waiting around twenty thousand years or so until we can develop the science.

[Sheb]

Okay guys, just wanted to remind all of you that there is a reason all of the Ukraine thread were closed and I only reluctantly allowed Ukraine-related stuff here. Try to be nice and civil, even if you feel the person opposing you is an ass. No, actually, be nice and civil especially if you feel the person opposing you is an ass. I won't hesitate to lock the thread if things heat up too much.

[Sergarr]

politicians have to do what voters want.

they have to do stuff that is moral

>implying voters always want to do moral stuff

cue middle east