 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17673
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: New Russian President |
 |
|
Dmitri Medvedev, most likely. The Russian election doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot of coverage, does it? Is that because it's a foregone conclusion? Anyway, the New York Times has a longish profile that seems to be mostly speculative.
| Quote: | ... Now, Mr. Medvedev, the presidential successor personally selected by Mr. Putin, is creating his own public identity according to a choreographed script. And here, in a mix of Soviet and Russian symbols, the man rising to Kremlin power avoided the stern themes that have often accompanied Mr. Putin’s appearances.
... The outcome of the monthlong presidential campaign, which culminates Sunday, when voters will cast ballots, is already known. Barring something extraordinary and unforeseen, Mr. Medvedev, 42, an unprepossessing bureaucrat who has never held an elected office, will win by a landslide and become the Kremlin’s new leader.
Mr. Medvedev, who lacks the imposing K.G.B. résumé of his sponsor, has said he will appoint Mr. Putin as his prime minister.
As he has become the country’s second most-watched man, he has implicitly presented himself as both a Putin loyalist and a president-in-waiting who will wield power in a manner more gentle than the world has seen under Mr. Putin’s brand of rule.
... But he has made unanticipated moves. In a speech on Feb. 15, he said liberty was necessary for the state to have legitimacy among its citizens. And he has laid out domestic policy goals in what seems like a communiqué to Russia’s expanding consumer class.
... Analysts are split. Michael A. McFaul, director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, said Mr. Medvedev had a more Western orientation than many Kremlin insiders. But he suggested that his official embrace of freedom was more packaging than substance. “That’s public relations,” he said. “That’s not strategic shift.”
Sergei Markov, a political scientist who is close to the Kremlin and a member of Parliament, said Mr. Medvedev, a lawyer with roots in St. Petersburg, had an affinity for the West. He expects that Mr. Medvedev will push for more political freedom, to a point. |
New York Times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There isn't any point covering the "election". The succession has been assured for years.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sergei Markov, a political scientist who is close to the Kremlin and a member of Parliament, said Mr. Medvedev, a lawyer with roots in St. Petersburg, had an affinity for the West. He expects that Mr. Medvedev will push for more political freedom, to a point. |
It's cute the way they talk as if those two things had anything remotely to do with each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DTA
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 694
Location: ////
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wasn't Putin going to try and become Prime Minister? I swear I heard that a while back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17673
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The NYT articles says that it's expected Medvedev will appoint Putin Prime Minister. And there's speculation around which of the two of them will actually end up running the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehanu wrote: | | The NYT articles says that it's expected Medvedev will appoint Putin Prime Minister. And there's speculation around which of the two of them will actually end up running the country. |
That's nice way of saying Medvedev will be a puppet.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17673
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, no surprise here. Medvedev has swept the election.
| Quote: | Dmitry Medvedev, the man Vladimir Putin hand-picked to be his successor, scored a crushing victory in Russia's presidential elections Sunday, a result that was long anticipated but that still raises questions about who will run this resurgent global power.
With ballots from over half of Russia's electoral precincts counted, Mr. Medvedev had 68.2 per cent, according to the Central Election Commission. Communist party chief Gennady Zyuganov had nearly 20 per cent, it said.
Mr. Medvedev was on course to win about 70 per cent of the vote, according to a poll by the All-Russia Opinion Research Centre, or VTsIOM.
He is expected to rule in concert with his mentor, an arrangement that could see Mr. Putin calling the shots despite his constitutionally subordinate position as Russia's prime minister.
... Mr. Medvedev ran against three rivals apparently permitted on the ballot because of their loyalty to the Kremlin line. But the two candidates — Mr. Zyuganov and ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky — still alleged violations after the voting ended.
... Liberal opposition leaders Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Kasyanov were barred from running on technicalities, and voters across Russia say they were being urged, cajoled and pressured to vote in an effort to ensure that Mr. Medvedev scored a major victory.
Mr. Kasparov held his own protest against the election Sunday near Red Square. Escorted by a dozen riot police, he carried a plastic shopping bag that read: "I am not participating in this farce." |
Globe and Mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: President Medvedev takes office in Russia |
|
|
Not that Vladimir Putin is going anywhere -- he's become the new Prime Minister, a position he has spent the last few months of his presidency beefing up and handing extensive new authority to.
Gee, I wonder why this type of thing never occurred to Little Boots -- step down as Prez, and take up a new career as Prime Minister, power behind the puppet position of President?
(What, that string-puller job is already taken, you say?)
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17673
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From puppet-master back to master? Seems Putin's considering another run at President.
| Quote: | Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, tonight gave his strongest hint yet that he is pondering a comeback that would see him return to the Kremlin as president in 2012.
Putin said there was no decision yet on whether he or his close ally Dmitry Medevedev, the current president, would run for office when Medvedev's four-year-stint in the job expires.
... In recent months, some commentators have said that Medvedev has been trying to nudge Russia in a more liberal and less authoritarian direction. Sceptics, however, have noted the differences between the two leaders are merely stylistic.
... Today Putin said the economic crisis that has battered Russia would decide which of the two men stood in 2012. "I have known him for a long time and I know he will look at his political future based on the interests of the country," Putin said. |
The Guardian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3748
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've suspected that to be Putin's intention all along.
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Evil Twin wrote: | | I've suspected that to be Putin's intention all along. |
As have I. I thought the whole point of having Medvedev be president was to allow Putin to come back after one term, since Russia's term limits only specify that you can't have three consecutive terms.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I think everyone figured he was just on vacation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know how many know this, but Putin was both President and Prime Minister at one time. Back when Yeltsin finally collapsed Putin was Prime Minister, and kept that position even as he succeeded Yeltsin as President.
There was some meeting, in Sweden I believe, that Putin didn't attend, and this was taken as a snub. But, as he told reporters, "Our constitution requires that the President and Prime Minister cannot both be out of the country at the same time."
Putin is without doubt one of the most brilliant leaders of the twentieth century. He inherited a country that was in a state of collapse, and brought it back to life in a few short years.
There was a book published back in 2000 which consisted of interviews with Putin, interviews with his associates, and stories of his youth. This should be required reading. One of the things that sticks with me from this book is his response to a question from reporters as to Russia's stance re: NATO. He was asked whether Russia would, along with many other eastern countries, join NATO.
His reply was very instructive. He said that Russia had no intention of joining NATO because 'defence agreements have hardware requirements, and we don't want to use someone else's hardware. We want to develop our own.'
In addition he said that the only agreement Russia would accept with NATO was one in which Russia had a 50% voice in NATO actions. That means that no matter how many countries joined NATO, they could never have more than 50% of the decision-making power.
Remember, in those days Russia was almost dead. They couldn't pay their military, the country was falling apart, and the US (and NATO) was ascendant. In that light his statement was strictly fantasy, or at least one would have thought so.
However, in the aftermath of 9/11, Russia was offered an agreement with NATO that would greatly enhance their authority in Europe. Putin's response was that Russia didn't need that agreement, they had nuclear weapons. To which the Secretary-General of NATO replied that NATO had an urgent need to come to an agreement with Russia.
Within 6 months, Russia had exactly the agreement that Putin had put forward back in 2000.
Now, that should be food for thought.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just on the NATO decision-making power thing, I don't know if Putin grasps how NATO makes decisions. Everything, and I mean everything, has to be approved by a unanimous vote of the North Atlantic Council. Every member of NATO has a veto and requires the support of every other member to pass anything.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | Just on the NATO decision-making power thing, I don't know if Putin grasps how NATO makes decisions. Everything, and I mean everything, has to be approved by a unanimous vote of the North Atlantic Council. Every member of NATO has a veto and requires the support of every other member to pass anything. |
Yes, but Putin was given the right to basically veto any NATO policy while Russia was not even a member. He didn't care what process they used, as long as he had control over the result.
I remember this was portrayed in the western press as a good thing because 'at last the Russians are on side, facilitating our invasion of Afghanistan.'
Given that it was the US finally trying to clean up a mess that had cost Russia so much, one wonders why the western media found it to be a Russian capitulation.
Oh yes, and wasn't it Russia that landed paratroops in Kabul 3 weeks before everyone else, after the US had told everyone to stay out of Afghanistan until they had control. That too was glossed over in the press.
One more thing. Wasn't it a NATO general who refused an order to secure the airport in Pristina in the year 1999? Something like this:
| Quote: | General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.
''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.
''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.
''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''
But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange. |
As the story goes on to say, the Russians became part of K-FOR, patrolling in areas controlled by NATO states, but not under NATO command.
It was only a little over a year later when Russia was offered authority over NATO decisions.
And as far as the command structure of NATO, let's be real and agree that NATO does what the US wants for the most part. Outside of the US and the UK, the NATO 'partners' are window dressing.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: | I don't know how many know this, but Putin was both President and Prime Minister at one time. Back when Yeltsin finally collapsed Putin was Prime Minister, and kept that position even as he succeeded Yeltsin as President.
There was some meeting, in Sweden I believe, that Putin didn't attend, and this was taken as a snub. But, as he told reporters, "Our constitution requires that the President and Prime Minister cannot both be out of the country at the same time." |
That's quite bizarre.
| Quote: | | Putin is without doubt one of the most brilliant leaders of the twentieth century. He inherited a country that was in a state of collapse, and brought it back to life in a few short years. |
He's pretty slick, but given the circumstances I'm not sure that required brilliance per se. It required a hardass who was competent and fairly nationalist. The reason things were still as bad as they were when he took over was that Yeltsin was not just incompetent and useless but effectively a traitor. In terms of economic policy the country was being deliberately ruined; they needed someone who had what it took to say the party was over and the stealing-everything-in-sight-and-squirreling-it-away-in-the-Caiman-islands binge would have to stop.
Once that was done, it really helped that oil prices went up dramatically. Arguably Putin owes Hugo Chavez big time for being a key player in resurrecting OPEC as an effective force. Beyond his one key action of making the economy become an economy again rather than a banditocracy, and his one piece of luck in petroleum prices, he's been IMO just OK as an economic manager. Russia's economy in general outside of resources hasn't really been doing anything much; the oil has masked that to a fair extent.
I might be willing to agree, though, that the man is brilliant in his geopolitical maneuvering. He is very sharp, very cagey, gutsy but not rash, very tactically sound, ruthless but not a captive of bloody-mindedness, thinks ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as Putin's economic success, I'll just point out that if one compares his outcomes to the Bush administration's, one would have to agree that he looks brilliant.
But the standard western media spin that it was oil that pulled Russia out of collapse is just spin. Quite a few countries have oil, and they don't show the level of economic success Russia has had.
In the book I mentioned before Putin was very clear about Russia's chances. He said that 'without our education system and our high-tech sector we are finished'. In other words, he himself didn't see oil as a big factor. It was his cultivation of Russia's technology and their education system that brought them out of their tailspin.
He was quite clear (remember Putin's comment about 'hardware requirements') that Russia intended to sell arms around the world. He accomplished that by following Bush around and making deals with those countries that Bush threatened, which was almost everyone.
It is a common theme of western media that only capitalism can create economic advantage. Thus, any country that does well without capitalism must have some temporary advantage that is given to them more or less as a gift. Therefore Russia, and Venezuela, and others can't have real economic progress, it must be the oil they sell to 'us'.
The only other option is to admit that there are other ways than capitalism to 'get rich', and western media is not going to do that.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But Russia *is* capitalist. Well, more or less, which is about what anyone else can say. I don't recall hearing about any major initiatives to re-establish national ownership outside, again, from the oil sector and OK, I guess the military sector. Nor have I heard anything about any other approaches that might be considered alternative to capitalism. But it was overemphasis on the military economy as much as anything else that trashed Russia's economy in the first place (and is a major factor in what's trashing the US economy today). Putin has done little or nothing to fix that. If he managed to defray some of those costs by selling arms, that's better for the Russian economy than not doing so, but probably not as good as emphasizing the genuine civilian economy that makes useful stuff would have been. It's basically continuing to be an economic mirror image of the US, but doing it a bit smarter with fewer boondoggles. Looking at the US today, imitating their model does not strike me as the best long term approach.
If anything, Putin's record involves cracking down on unions and reducing worker rights. Fairly standard approach for the capitalist economies lately, really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | But Russia *is* capitalist. Well, more or less, which is about what anyone else can say. I don't recall hearing about any major initiatives to re-establish national ownership outside, again, from the oil sector and OK, I guess the military sector. Nor have I heard anything about any other approaches that might be considered alternative to capitalism. But it was overemphasis on the military economy as much as anything else that trashed Russia's economy in the first place (and is a major factor in what's trashing the US economy today). Putin has done little or nothing to fix that. If he managed to defray some of those costs by selling arms, that's better for the Russian economy than not doing so, but probably not as good as emphasizing the genuine civilian economy that makes useful stuff would have been. It's basically continuing to be an economic mirror image of the US, but doing it a bit smarter with fewer boondoggles. Looking at the US today, imitating their model does not strike me as the best long term approach.
If anything, Putin's record involves cracking down on unions and reducing worker rights. Fairly standard approach for the capitalist economies lately, really. |
The story of how the Soviet Union failed because they 'spent too much on military' in an attempt to keep up with the US is a good story, but nothing more.
In order for that story to be true, one would have to show that military spending in the Soviet Union showed significant increases in the years leading up to the breakup. But that never happened, so it's mostly just a story.
What is much more germane is the US backing for fundamentalist Islamic groups who carried on local guerrilla warfare in the southern Soviets, and the spread of same to the Balkans.
However, no one wants to admit that the US was responsible for nurturing Islamic groups, so they try and shift the focus to something which never happened.
As far 'overemphasis' on the military, if that were the case, the US would have collapsed long before the Soviet Union. The US spends each year on military more than the rest of the world combined, and it hasn't hurt them any. It was credit default swaps that brought them to their knees.
The military spending is just another way of 'buying' resources around the world. and making sure that others have to ask you for what you dont' use yourself. The military is just another cost of doing business.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the USA spends as big a portion of its GDP on the military as the Soviets did.
Which isn't to say that your other arguments aren't correct. Do you have a source for the claim that Soviet military spending didn't rise appreciably during the 1980s (I know that i could probably find that on the inter-tubes but maybe you got something on the top of your head rite now?)
I'm not sure about Putin's economic management either. He's clamped down on the mafia who were running the country into the ground, but the high price of oil has definitely helped him. I admit to not following any of this stuff the way that I used to.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maestro wrote: |
The story of how the Soviet Union failed because they 'spent too much on military' in an attempt to keep up with the US is a good story, but nothing more. |
Read some Seymour Melman. It is something more. Melman is worth reading for a number of reasons, but his well-backed-up descriptions of the impacts of high military spending in both the US and the Soviet Union are certainly among them.
"Profits Without Production" is a very interesting read.
| Quote: | | In order for that story to be true, one would have to show that military spending in the Soviet Union showed significant increases in the years leading up to the breakup. But that never happened, so it's mostly just a story. |
Or the effects could just be slow, which they are. Military spending does create employment (although in the US that has gradually declined as the cost-plus model and the orientation towards very high tech toys, plus plenty corruption, allows military contractors to make more money for less work) and in general spending on the military does cause economic activity. The problem is that it takes away resources from infrastructure creation and more useful kinds of capital formation (Melman notes that this is not just monetary resources; there is a brain drain as well). The impacts of that kind of thing are slow but nonetheless serious.
| Quote: |
What is much more germane is the US backing for fundamentalist Islamic groups who carried on local guerrilla warfare in the southern Soviets, and the spread of same to the Balkans. |
But what damage did that do, exactly? Did it not involve causing the Soviets to spend a bundle on military operations? Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
| Quote: | | However, no one wants to admit that the US was responsible for nurturing Islamic groups, so they try and shift the focus to something which never happened. |
I would like to note that Melman, the scholar I got this from, was sufficiently far to the left that the last book he wrote was called
"After capitalism : from managerialism to workplace democracy", and he was talking about the problems of military overspending before the Soviet Union even collapsed.
| Quote: | | As far 'overemphasis' on the military, if that were the case, the US would have collapsed long before the Soviet Union. The US spends each year on military more than the rest of the world combined, and it hasn't hurt them any. It was credit default swaps that brought them to their knees. |
Nonsense. First, US military spending has continued to go up since the Soviet Union went under; during the seventies it was already very high, but was not more than the rest of the world combined. Second, the US has a much bigger economy than the Soviet Union did. The simple fact is that the Cold War was never a remotely equal contest, and while the US spent more, the Soviet Union was spending a bigger proportion of its economy. Third, it certainly has hurt them lots. Fourth, credit default swaps are a symptom, not the disease. If the real US economy were robust, the money wouldn't all be going into financial scams. If the real US economy were robust, capitalists would be making money from production rather than debt and consumption would be powered by income rather than debt. But the real US economy isn't robust, it sucks. Only part of that is from offshoring and similar things. Part is also the distorting impact of military production.
| Quote: | | The military spending is just another way of 'buying' resources around the world. and making sure that others have to ask you for what you dont' use yourself. The military is just another cost of doing business. |
True enough as far as it goes. The military is a tool for international blackmail and extortion, which does make some money. The question is, money for whom? It's much like when companies buy legislation that gets them tax loopholes or bailouts; the cost is low, the benefit very high--to them. The military is a cost of doing business, but it is a very high cost of doing business. It only "makes sense" to the interests that profit from the blackmail because the cost is not to them but to the taxpayer. It doesn't make sense in terms of the interests of the nation as a whole; in fact it is one of the causes of (and at the same time it continues to mask) the decline of the US as an industrial power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2403
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Soviet Defense Expenditures:
Soviet Defense Spending: A History Of CIA Estimates, 1950 - 1990
Contained herein are the CIA estimates of Soviet military spending over a period of 40 years. Note that the greatest rate of increase of expenditure occurred 1960 - 1969. The rate of growth falls off from 1970 - 1974, then deccelerates even further 1975- 1984. for three years (1985-1988) there was a rise, but then a fallback in the next three years.
As the report notes: "The trend in real Soviet military spending...is quite different from the generally held sense of persistent, uniformly rapid upward movement since the 1950s"
I don't believe this picture represents the Soviet Union breaking up because of military expenditure. Note the decrease in the rate of defence growth during the beginning period of the Afghanistan invasion.
Here is a report from the Washington Post: November 15, 1989
Soviet Defense Spending Cut As Promised
| Quote: | New estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confirm that overall Soviet military spending has declined this year by 1.5 percent, as Moscow officials stated, and some U.S. intelligence officials think that the Soviets will make even deeper cuts of about 7 percent in 1990, according to sources.
In addition, new assumptions about reduced levels of Soviet arms manufacturing have prompted the CIA to begin reevaluating its 1987 and 1988 estimates of Soviet defense spending, the sources said.
|
As far as the damage done by the loss of the 'Stans', the Balkans and the Ukraine I'll just point out that those were regions which were supplying the Soviet Union with much of it's natural resources. Those resources kept the Soviet industrial economy going. In that the Soviet Union was spectacularly unsuccessful in gathering resources around the world ( a la the USA), losing the supply of the mentioned areas was an economic disaster.
It wasn't expanding military expenditure that destroyed the Soviet Union. It was the collapse of the Soviet Union which caused the collapse of Soviet military expenditure. The economic collapse was a direct result of the loss of huge tracts of Asia, and even internal losses, such as Chechnya.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3748
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm, seems Russians are staring to get disillusioned with the seemingly endless rule of Putin and Medvedev's United Russia Party :
| Quote: | When Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stepped into the ring to congratulate mixed martial arts champion Fedor Emelianenko last Sunday (November 20), he probably did not expect to hear hissing and booing from the crowd of Moscow spectators. It was an apparent show of public protest, just two weeks ahead of Russian parliament elections on December 4, and what many observers have called a watershed moment in the history of Putin's Russia.
The scene was broadcast live on Russian television but the director of the Olympisky stadium, which hosted the event, said the audience was reacting to Emelianenko's American opponent, Jeff Monson, leaving the ring.
The main news show on Russia's Channel One later tightly edited the speech, substituting the booing with a cheer from the crowd. But the uncensored broadcast made its way onto YouTube, provoking a storm of commentary and generating over three million views.
Blogger and anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny declared the booing incident "the end of an era", while the rest of the internet community has ridiculed the attempts of Putin's spokesperson to describe the booing as reaction to Monson's defeat.
"There is nothing and nobody to debate in the Duma."
- Boris Kagarlitsky, director of the Institute of Globalisation Studies
But whatever did take place in the Olympisky arena, it is now clear that most Russians, at least in the country's febrile internet chatrooms, believe that Putin, who has ruled Russia for the last 12 years, was indeed booed in public. And that is a clear sign of the real challenge the former president and now prime minister faces, both ahead of presidential elections next March, and as he seeks to ensure the victory of the country's ruling United Russia party in next Sunday's parliamentary elections.
That vote is crucial for the Kremlin, which wants to keep control of the lower house of Parliament, the State Duma. United Russia's two-thirds majority has turned the Duma into a pure legislative appendix of the executive branch, allowing it to pass laws and make changes to the constitution virtually unopposed. The Duma Speaker, United Russia's Boris Gryzlov, even famously said that "parliament is no place for discussion". That "scandalous statement", writes the director of the Institute of Globalisation Studies, Boris Kagarlitsky, only expressed what everybody already knew: "There is nothing and nobody to debate in the Duma".
Yet it is critical for the Kremlin to win these elections to maintain the overall legitimacy of the power structure it has created over the past 12 years. It also needs to keep control of the Duma to push through some painful measures in the coming months. Under the rule of Putin's United Russia, economic growth has slowed, and most economists agree that the Kremlin will have to make some sacrifices to balance the budget, such as cutting social programmes and raising the pension age. |
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3748
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
double post
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
Last edited by The Evil Twin on Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Evil Twin
Stoned Immaculate
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3748
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anti-Putin protests erupt across Russia
| Quote: | Tens of thousands of people took to the streets across Russia against Vladimir Putin's 12-year rule amid signs of swelling anger over a poll won by his ruling United Russia party.
The protesters on Saturday demanded an end to Putin's rule and a rerun of the parliamentary election in the biggest popular protests since those that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Protesters waved banners, such as "The rats should go!" and "Swindlers and thieves - give us our elections back!", in cities from the Pacific port of Vladivostok, Perm in Siberia, Arkhangelsk in the Arctic north, in Kaliningrad and St Petersburg in the west, and Karelia in the northwest.
"Nationwide there have been protests in dozens of towns and cities, all across Russia's nine time zones," Al Jazeera's Neave Barker, reported from Moscow.
"They're calling not for revolution, but for political evolution," he said.
In Moscow, people gathered on Bolotnaya Square, on an island across the Kremlin after receiving permission from the authorities for the event.
Police said there were at least 25,000 at the Moscow demonstration, while protest organisers claimed more than 60,000 were present.
Opposition leader Mikhail Kasyanov, who took part in the protest, said the Russian public "have run out of patience" with the current government.
"Especially in large cities where people are well-educated, well-informed who understand they are not ready to tolerate such lawlessness when they are ignored and their votes are cynically stolen," Kasyanov, who is also a former Russian prime minister, said.
Authorities had detained about 1,600 activists over the past few days who had joined unsanctioned rallies against the December 4 vote.
The rallies were a rare outpouring of mistrust in a system put in place by Putin when he first became president in 2000.
Konstantin Kosachyov, a United Russia lawmaker authorised to speak on behalf of the Kremlin, ruled out
negotiations on the organisers' demands and said: "With all respect for the people who came out to protest, they are not a political party."
The authorities' decision to permit Saturday's rallies to go ahead nationwide is a first for the Putin-era and suggests the Kremlin would prefer to avoid street battles between protesters and riot police.
"Faced with this kind of opposition, it was very important for the authorities to show that they were allowing some kind of controlled dissent," our correspondent reported.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ivan Safranchuk, a Russian political analyst, said: "People will be allowed to protest, but direct political change won't happen."
For Fred Weir, who has been a Moscow correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor for 25 years, the protests recalled the historic demonstrations of 1991.
"What we're seeing here is a game changer," he said. "He'll [Putin] have to take into account that the public mood is no longer acquiescent," he said.
Alexey Zakharov, a political analyst in Moscow who is part of an independent organisation called "Citizen Oberserver" which monitored the recent vote, said the protests were "quite a serious threat" to Putin.
Putin was only accepted by Russia's elites in large part because of his genuine popularity among the people, Zakharov said.
"The public will turn out to demonstrate if they believe the opposition is honest with them," he said, "If its not going to strike any side deals with the Putin administration."
Putin's United Russia has been bruised by allegations of corruption, after opposition parties and international observers said the vote was marred by vote-rigging, including alleged ballot-box stuffing and false voter rolls.
The official results of the elections to Russia's Duma showed that the ruling party United Russia lost 77 of its 315 seats, just retaining a small majority. |
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics