• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

the Kremlins problem with the West - discuss

#1
In 1946, George Kennan, the architect of containment of the Soviet Union, wrote: "At the bottom of the Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies… Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form, fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison with political systems of Western countries."

In Kennan's analysis, the belligerence of the Kremlin is driven by internal demons, which cannot be placated by gestures of good will from Westerners. The West itself is a threat - by its very existence. The present government is a worthy heir to this centuries-old tradition. For them the 20,000 young Russians who flock to the British Council offices to learn English are part of the same subversive network, a potential fifth column. In their little black book of enemies, they have to be dealt with too.
In full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/19/do1909.xml
 
#2
Well its certainly up for debate at the moment. What I see is the foreign secretary being rolled out with great big doe eyes and letters of support from Britains allies. Its no big deal to the Russians of course, they are flexing their muscles and aiming their malcontent at one despised nation at a time, in this case the UK.

First up they (allegedely) send an assasin into the UK to kill a UK citizen with a substance that had the potential to kill hundreds. This tells me most of what I need to know. The Russians have no regard for Britain or the British people and in one fell swoop (although I accept that the jury will be out untill the killer is apprehended and convicted) my regard for Russia and Russians drops a notch or two. No matter, the Russians don't care about British opinion but I think it illustrates the snowball this current politcal crisis is gathering up.

I read in the news that yesterday the Russians openly accused the issue of the British Council offices in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg as being politicised by the British (and deriding them for it) and in the same article admitted that they were doing what they were doing deliberately and for political reasons. This reinforces my view that the Russians think they are more important than the British and that they are entitled to do things that the British are not entitled to do (in their view) within or without Russia. So my opinion of Russia and the Russians drops another notch or two and on it goes.

At this point I am very glad we have a nuclear deterrent as I think this is what will stop this whole sorry business going too far. That said, at this time, I am of the mind that we should screw the Russians in any way we can. F**k them over as they have f**ked us over, ban them, barr them, obstruct them and be f**king ruthless about it until they get their heads out of the clouds and join the rest of us on planet earth. F**k 'em.

Its just my opinion though.
 
#3
1. They lost an empire - a national humiliation - so will be a bit miffy.

2. They're paranoid about gas and the West finding alternate supplies.

3. The US neocons make them mutter into their vodka (quite rightly).

4. The EU encroaching on their borders makes them depressed.

5. Self confident China on the other side makes them glum.

6. US bases ringing them in the former Soviet republics induces Slavic buttock-clenching.

Looked at like that they've much to feel jumpy about. And they can't even call their neighbours 'capitalist running dogs' at rocket parades any more.

I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon. The end of the Cold War was a mixed blessing. If Britain was less close to the US then relations with Russia would improve. It doesn’t help we’re in Afghanistan occupying trenches dug by Soviets to fight the Mujahideen. Again, it's a humiliation for the old guard.
 
#4
Annakey I agree with everything you said except the bit about being better off if Britain were less close to the US. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying I'm not so sure. The Kremlin's attitude seems to be rather more minty and dismissive and I think that if we did anything at all to placate (see appease) them, it might just make their attitude toward us even worse. I still say f**k them.

We can't trust them in trade or politics so f**k them. F**k the doe eyes and the letters of support, we've got to get ruthless and hard nosed. My only worry with that is that I do not think this British government is capable of standing up to anybody and that is the crux of this matter IMO. The Russians can see that this British government is weak willed and weak minded. They can see the British armed forces being systematically stripped of investment and that is why we are a target for them at the moment, we are open season for them.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
annakey said:
1. They lost an empire - a national humiliation - so will be a bit miffy.

2. They're paranoid about gas and the West finding alternate supplies.

3. The US neocons make them mutter into their vodka (quite rightly).

4. The EU encroaching on their borders makes them depressed.

5. Self confident China on the other side makes them glum.

6. US bases ringing them in the former Soviet republics induces Slavic buttock-clenching.

Looked at like that they've much to feel jumpy about. And they can't even call their neighbours 'capitalist running dogs' at rocket parades any more.

I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon. The end of the Cold War was a mixed blessing. If Britain was less close to the US then relations with Russia would improve. It doesn’t help we’re in Afghanistan occupying trenches dug by Soviets to fight the Mujahideen. Again, it's a humiliation for the old guard.
Well, put, but I too disagree about the Britain thing. I'm grumpy that we lost an empire, I'm fed up with US dominance, worried about a resurgent infuencial Russia, worried how China, being on the up will, will affect our profitability, and TBH, would much rather that Britain was the preeminent power in Europe again, if not, the world. All these big countries going capitalist, and succeeding makes the UK pot smaller.
 
#6
I'm not interested at all in Britain being the pre-eminent anything I just want us to be fighting out own corner and that of our allies effectively, without poodling up to anybody else. Currently this is not happening.
 
#7
armchair_jihad said:
In 1946, George Kennan, the architect of containment of the Soviet Union, wrote: "At the bottom of the Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies… Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form, fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison with political systems of Western countries."

In Kennan's analysis, the belligerence of the Kremlin is driven by internal demons, which cannot be placated by gestures of good will from Westerners. The West itself is a threat - by its very existence. The present government is a worthy heir to this centuries-old tradition. For them the 20,000 young Russians who flock to the British Council offices to learn English are part of the same subversive network, a potential fifth column. In their little black book of enemies, they have to be dealt with too.
In full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/19/do1909.xml
Alex Goldfarb is co-author, with Marina Litvinenko, of "Death of a Dissident: the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the Return of the KGB", published by Simon and Schuster
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1955863,00.html

Mr Goldfarb was director of a George Soros-funded project to tackle TB in the Russian penal system.
...
Mr Goldfarb is executive director of the International Foundation for Civil Liberties, set up by the exiled Russian oligarch Mr Berezovsky in 2000 as an umbrella group for human rights activists. It is based in New York.
But even mr.Goldfarb (apparently quite biased toward Kremlin) thinks (or at least thought) that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6165836.stm

Alex Goldfarb, who has been visiting Mr Litvinenko in hospital and who has alleged Russian government involvement, admitted there was "no direct evidence" of that.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "He actually had a couple of meetings [on 1 November] where he had drinks and this poison could be sprinkled there."
 
#8
Biped said:
All these big countries going capitalist, and succeeding makes the UK pot smaller.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. There is no reason why we should not grow richer as they do.

msr
 
#10
The Russian psyche is traditionally paranoid and that has been a constant theme throughout the various ideological epochs, hence the need for expanded borders as a buffer-zone to protect Rodina. It amused me when the Cold War ended that so many people seemed to be of the opinion that Russia had been tamed and that we'd never hear a peep from her again.

Whilst I don't agree with many of the methods used (but then I take issue with many of the methods used by other countries) by Russia's leaders, I have always respected the Russian survivalist mentality.
 
#12
msr said:
Biped said:
All these big countries going capitalist, and succeeding makes the UK pot smaller.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. There is no reason why we should not grow richer as they do.

msr
That certainly seems to be Gordie's hope.

Russia seems to have exhibited institutional paranoia toward 'the different' at every stage in its history. Like Dozy, I didn't see any reason why the collapse of Communism would change this.

The key indicator for me is the attitude, brought up by Tazzers, of "we can do it, 'coz it's us - but it's wrong and evil if you do it, 'coz you're not". A playground mentality if ever there was one, but not one restricted to Russians.
 
#13
Tazzers said:
Annakey I agree with everything you said except the bit about being better off if Britain were less close to the US. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying I'm not so sure. The Kremlin's attitude seems to be rather more minty and dismissive and I think that if we did anything at all to placate (see appease) them, it might just make their attitude toward us even worse.
Agreed. For Britain to de-couple from the US, destroy the special relationship, cease to be a land-locked US aircraft carrier and listening post on Europe's northern boundary, and move to a genuinely independent nuke system not reliant on Yank targeting satellites or technicians, would be to throw a brick in the pond. It's impossible to work out beforehand exactly what would happen once the ripples ceased.

The answer (guaranteed to make UKIP members gobble like turkeys)? Gradual British de-coupling from the US combined with the gradual increase in defence co-operation with Yerp.

With everyone so fed-up with Blair’s adventures - from peacenik lefties to Blimps muttering “Churchill would never have been a Bush poodle!” - now’s the time to start that process.

Will Brown do it? Arguably he’s started with Iraq troop withdrawals, but there’s a long way to go. I’ve not read the new EU treaty but presumably the federalist-militarists kept their options open in the small print?
 
#14
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
What a fantastic idea! Let's bring back the good ol' days of nuclear saber-ratteling, assymetric wars that kill millions and ruin the lives of millions more, and the simple pleasure of building a fallout shelter with your dad.

Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
 
#15
Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.

I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on bullies, those who believe might = right. Free marketers - up to and including libertarian capitalists or market anarchists (of whom there are a number on this site) - should agree with me that the free market - global free trade - is skewed if one power infects world markets in this manner.

The obvious answer is for another power: aggressive, nuclear-tipped, occupying a large land mass, to stick two fingers up at the US and demand that interests other than those of US citizens are also taken into account when carving up world resources.

As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with it’s historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. I’d certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.

So, to answer your question directly:

how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of ‘Might = Right’ with ‘Might = Justice.’

2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.

Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?
 
#16
annakey said:
Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.

I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on bullies, those who believe might = right. Free marketers - up to and including libertarian capitalists or market anarchists (of whom there are a number on this site) - should agree with me that the free market - global free trade - is skewed if one power infects world markets in this manner.

The obvious answer is for another power: aggressive, nuclear-tipped, occupying a large land mass, to stick two fingers up at the US and demand that interests other than those of US citizens are also taken into account when carving up world resources.

As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with it’s historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. I’d certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.

So, to answer your question directly:

how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of ‘Might = Right’ with ‘Might = Justice.’

2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.

Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?
My bold - and it never will. Europeans would be frozen to inactivity by any perceived threat. Are you seriously suggesting we (don't even include the Frogs in this debate - NON NON NON! would be thier sensible reply) should give over control of our nuclear assets to the Europeans?

1. Who would authorise Selective or General Release?

2. Who would authorise immediate retaliation (we have 4 minutes not the 15 from LAND BASED systems that NORADcan give?

3. To play this game we need:

a. More boomers.
b. Land based silos and an advanced bomber fleet to maintain some sort of Tricap.
c. Introduction of nuclear tipped SLAM.
d. An independent missile construction capability.

Did you win the Rollover last night? - bacause you have more fecking chance 8)
 
#17
rickshaw-major said:
annakey said:
Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.

I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on bullies, those who believe might = right. Free marketers - up to and including libertarian capitalists or market anarchists (of whom there are a number on this site) - should agree with me that the free market - global free trade - is skewed if one power infects world markets in this manner.

The obvious answer is for another power: aggressive, nuclear-tipped, occupying a large land mass, to stick two fingers up at the US and demand that interests other than those of US citizens are also taken into account when carving up world resources.

As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with it’s historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. I’d certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.

So, to answer your question directly:

how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of ‘Might = Right’ with ‘Might = Justice.’

2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.

Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?
My bold - and it never will. Europeans would be frozen to inactivity by any perceived threat. Are you seriously suggesting we (don't even include the Frogs in this debate - NON NON NON! would be thier sensible reply) should give over control of our nuclear assets to the Europeans?

1. Who would authorise Selective or General Release?

2. Who would authorise immediate retaliation (we have 4 minutes not the 15 from LAND BASED systems that NORADcan give?

3. To play this game we need:

a. More boomers.
b. Land based silos and an advanced bomber fleet to maintain some sort of Tricap.
c. Introduction of nuclear tipped SLAM.
d. An independent missile construction capability.

Did you win the Rollover last night? - bacause you have more fecking chance 8)
You'd obviously need to hit the current tin-pot European national sovereignties on the head and go for a federal structure - rather like the States - with each country sending elected delegates to a Euro Assembly which then appoints and controls a unified military command. Bolt to that a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and a single legal system/judiciary and you're laughing. Except if you're UKIP. :lol:

But of course I agree with you. About 5% of the UK population would wear what I’ve just written. It’s one reason I favour referendum on EU treaties: to get these sorts of arguments into public discourse. To pin the debate to the strong anti-Americanism present in Britain at present - a political feeling cutting from political right to left - is an obvious core tactic.

Oh, and before you laugh too loudly who would have thought the Frogs would have given up their currency? These things can change very quickly.
 
#18
annakey said:
rickshaw-major said:
annakey said:
Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.

I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on bullies, those who believe might = right. Free marketers - up to and including libertarian capitalists or market anarchists (of whom there are a number on this site) - should agree with me that the free market - global free trade - is skewed if one power infects world markets in this manner.

The obvious answer is for another power: aggressive, nuclear-tipped, occupying a large land mass, to stick two fingers up at the US and demand that interests other than those of US citizens are also taken into account when carving up world resources.

As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with it’s historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. I’d certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.

So, to answer your question directly:

how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of ‘Might = Right’ with ‘Might = Justice.’

2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.

Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?
My bold - and it never will. Europeans would be frozen to inactivity by any perceived threat. Are you seriously suggesting we (don't even include the Frogs in this debate - NON NON NON! would be thier sensible reply) should give over control of our nuclear assets to the Europeans?

1. Who would authorise Selective or General Release?

2. Who would authorise immediate retaliation (we have 4 minutes not the 15 from LAND BASED systems that NORADcan give?

3. To play this game we need:

a. More boomers.
b. Land based silos and an advanced bomber fleet to maintain some sort of Tricap.
c. Introduction of nuclear tipped SLAM.
d. An independent missile construction capability.

Did you win the Rollover last night? - bacause you have more fecking chance 8)
You'd obviously need to hit the current tin-pot European national sovereignties on the head and go for a federal structure - rather like the States - with each country sending elected delegates to a Euro Assembly which then appoints and controls a unified military command. Bolt to that a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and a single legal system/judiciary and you're laughing. Except if you're UKIP. :lol:

But of course I agree with you. About 5% of the UK population would wear what I’ve just written. It’s one reason I favour referendum on EU treaties: to get these sorts of arguments into public discourse. To pin the debate to the strong anti-Americanism present in Britain at present - a political feeling cutting from political right to left - is an obvious core tactic.

Oh, and before you laugh too loudly who would have thought the Frogs would have given up their currency? These things can change very quickly.
Geting rid of the Franc is one thing - at least they got shared hegemony of the EU (minus us). However even if we combined effort we haven't got the Big Boys answer.

However what is really scary is that we seem to have partially agreed on something. Now before you get cock a hoop (probably the wrong expresion on this forum :D ) I have this effect on people - Alsacien is getting more squaddifed and right wing as Time Marches On. :twisted:
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
annakey said:
Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.
annarkey,

The US bullied much of Latin America, Asia and Africa at the height o the Cold War. Indeed the Cold War and perceived threat from Soviet influence was the justification used to excuse some pretty hideous activities (especially in Latin America).

Your rose tinted reminiscence of that supposed Halcyon era is viewed via the relative comfort of a West European living room.

As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with it’s historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. I’d certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.


So, to answer your question directly:

how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of ‘Might = Right’ with ‘Might = Justice.’

2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.

Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?
Actually I think the EU is a very effective 'counter-balance' (why there needs to be a ying and yang for the world to work is beyond me) economically. How on earth you think a powerful Russia (of all the potential superpowers that there could be!) would be a "bully to heal" bring international justice and free trade is also beyond me. Unless flattening Grozny was your idea of healing and justice.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Tazzers said:
Well its certainly up for debate at the moment. What I see is the foreign secretary being rolled out with great big doe eyes and letters of support from Britains allies. Its no big deal to the Russians of course, they are flexing their muscles and aiming their malcontent at one despised nation at a time, in this case the UK.

First up they (allegedely) send an assasin into the UK to kill a UK citizen with a substance that had the potential to kill hundreds. This tells me most of what I need to know. The Russians have no regard for Britain or the British people and in one fell swoop (although I accept that the jury will be out untill the killer is apprehended and convicted) my regard for Russia and Russians drops a notch or two. No matter, the Russians don't care about British opinion but I think it illustrates the snowball this current politcal crisis is gathering up.

I read in the news that yesterday the Russians openly accused the issue of the British Council offices in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg as being politicised by the British (and deriding them for it) and in the same article admitted that they were doing what they were doing deliberately and for political reasons. This reinforces my view that the Russians think they are more important than the British and that they are entitled to do things that the British are not entitled to do (in their view) within or without Russia. So my opinion of Russia and the Russians drops another notch or two and on it goes.

At this point I am very glad we have a nuclear deterrent as I think this is what will stop this whole sorry business going too far. That said, at this time, I am of the mind that we should screw the Russians in any way we can. F**k them over as they have f**ked us over, ban them, barr them, obstruct them and be f**king ruthless about it until they get their heads out of the clouds and join the rest of us on planet earth. F**k 'em.

Its just my opinion though.
Spot on! They don't like, and certainly don't respect us. They're not good to do business with. Let's wash our hands of any dealings with these people to as great a degree as we can.

Yes there's money to be made there, but there's bigger pickings on offer in China and India. Those two countries have the potential (by no means inevitable) to be economic super powers in thirty to fifty years time when Russia more than likely, will have sunk back into its Serf ridden ignorance and stagnation.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top