Moscow voices alarm as NATO Romanian missile defense base goes live

It was in the 1990s. Since the beginning of the 2000s, the Russian economy began to recover. And now, although not yet reached Soviet levels, but it has already become quite viable.

15 years ago, Russia could not even afford to hold the Olympics in Sochi in 2014.

Today Russia can afford:

— To build a new spaceport "East"
— Build around the world dozens of nuclear power units
— Get off at the first place in the world in the export of grain (What would have been impossible without the restoration of agriculture)
— To carry out a military operation in Syria solely due to the Ministry of Defence budget.
— And much more - it's hard to translate it all into English

Despite all Western sanctions and a large increase in the dollar in rubles, domestic prices in Russia barely grew in comparison with the conventional inflation. With that said a large enough economic stability. 15 years ago, all the domestic prices in Russia directly dependent on the dollar. Dollar Grows 50% - All prices are rising by 50%. Now the dollar has grown by 100%, prices in Russia rose by 15-20%. Salaries for the same period increased by 10-15%. Therefore, ordinary people hardly notice the falling dollar in rubles. In 2013, the year a liter of gasoline in Russia worth more than $ 1, now - about $ 0.5. Because the price in rubles increased almost

But for the export potential of growth of the dollar - on the contrary useful. Foreign suppliers are not paid in rubles and in dollars. And so the contract price in rubles increased sharply. The same grain or boosters are made in rubles in Russia. And are sold for dollars. And suddenly, for one dollar began to give a lot more rubles. Therefore, the grain dealer or missiles began to receive the same goods exported a lot more money. And spending on domestic needs at the same prices.

 

Can you prove it?

 

Sorry, I did not realized through an electronic translator meaning of the phrase. Are you saying that the US President may, at its sole discretion, contrary to the will of the Senate to go to war with another state?

 

The UK Prime Minster can. So it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Yes.

It is not something that happens as a President usually confers with the U.S. Congress before committing U.S. Forces but he can do this.

AA

 

YES!!!


It is extremely easy to prove.

These companies are paying taxes on profits to the Russian Government.

Putin goes out of his way to talk about how since he seized all these formerly privately owned Russian Energy Companies that they no longer owe taxes on their export profits.

But what Putin does not mention is that there is NOT ANY PROFIT MONEY going back into Russia's General Accounting Office because if these energy companies are now state owned....then all their profit must go back to the state...RIGHT??

AA

 

If it is a "laughable notion" that Putin is the most powerful leader in the world then that is a "laughable notion" that Forbes, one of the most knowledgeable and widely-respected sources of opinion in the world has had for the last three years in a row. But you have the right to think you know more then Forbes, and to know better if you wish....

I agree that there will not be a war between Russia and the U. S., and I have not inferred that there would be. What I'm pointing out is very obvious, really. For the last fifteen years or so, Russia's military might has been on a J-curve increase, and we've been on a decline, with respect to everything from mission-ready airplane pilots, to foot-soldiers, to naval ships.

Our weaponry is still the best overall, and it is the most advanced technologically. The Russians are catching up quickly, however, and the whole thing may become quite equalized in about another five years or so -- especially if we continue to put Democrat regimes in the White House.

 

Well several advanced weapons systems being made by Russia have been cancelled.

I prime example is the T-50 Stealth Fighter which after 4 were made was found to have a massive design flaw.

6 have been made and the Russian Defense Ministry does not even want the last 6 for a total of 12 that will only be made.

AA

 

You work through them daddy issues yet? If not you should confront him.

 

As I understand it, the sanctions hurt the participant countries more than they hurt Russia. The EU couldn't even get that right!! roll: Oh well, that's 'bureaucracy' for you.

 

Then the United States more than a totalitarian state than Russia The Russian president alone can not start a war in a foreign country. This will require the sanction of the Federal Assembly

 

Here it speaks directly to the amount of profit. I do not understand what the absence of revenues from the export of you write.

I can not find fast figures on the total share of taxes on exports to the Russian budget, but here's the part where the right upominetsya size of tax revenues for the export of electricity from the Amur region to China in 2014:

It turns out that here you are already telling the truth. State budget gets its share from the export tax.

 

T-50 is not accepted for service. Therefore, the individual test samples. Serial production only opened this year. And it will be built on the first request up to 2020 only 55 fighters.

Russia does not plan to air battles with the United States, and in countries such as Syria, much cheaper and with the same efficiency use modernized older platforms, such as the Su-24 aircraft, or fourth generation, such as the Su-30 or Su-34.

It is easy to understand when a Russian fighter jet is an experimental machine, and when - or series entered service. All serial planes begin with the letters indicating the design office. MiG-XX, Su-XX, Yak-XX, Il-XX An-XX and so on. The aircraft with the designation T-XX - is the experimental aircraft design bureau Sukhoi with a triangular or trapezoidal wing. When the plane goes into a series, it will be some Su. Say, maybe the Su-50. Although it is a violation of the rules, as is traditionally at the fighters are odd numbers, the even - in all the others (bobmardirovschiki, transport aircraft, passenger, scouts and the like). Although in the past there were exceptions. There is a joke, for instance, that the An-225 - the greatest fighter in the world: D

 

No, I think Russia with sanctions, have lost more than the West. We are more dependent on the West than on the fuse, but the living standards of Russians sanctions affected is still not as much as planned to the West. In fact, the standard of living has not fallen as expected in the West, and stop growth. If not for the sanctions, over the past two years has been like to live in Russia is even better. A left - as it was before

But the cessation of growth - not a setback. So dissatisfied standard of living in the country there is practically no. But there was a lot of satisfied by the fact that Russia in the world arena is no longer a rag on which other countries wipe their feet.

Western politicians are now very bad mood in Russian society. And it turned out that their sanctions the West has not loosened Russia, bringing down the economy and lowering the standard of living, but rather consolidate Russian society, stimulated the growth of patriotism. The most terrible blow inflicted sanctions on anti-Putin opposition. The Russians saw that the opposition actually supports Russian opponents. This led to a split in the ranks of the opposition, many opposition leaders began to anti-Western and pro-government positions. Ordinary people do not believe the opposition over who supports the West, playing against Russia

West wanted to hit with sanctions for Putin. But in the end only incredibly strengthened his position.

 

Thanks for that. The following excerpt from a report on the effectiveness of the sanctions is probably what I was remembering, and obviously there was a net negative impact which adversely affected Russia rather than the participating countries:

"around one third when comparing the first quarter of 2015 with the first quarter of 2014. However Russia’s importance as a destination market is quite limited for most European countries and, more importantly still, European businesses have been able to find new markets for their products, both within Europe and beyond – a phenomenon referred to by economists as trade diversion."

http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm

 

As I've said, I think they wanted a provocative title. One doesn't need to be a genius or a professor to understand that Putin isn't more powerful than Obama, and I explained why. The measure of power is how many people you can influence the behaviour of, and to what degree. Obama easily wins over Putin. What forbes perhaps meant was the amount of power actually applied. As I've said, Obama has more power, but he doesn't use much of it. Putin has perhaps used more of his lesser power than Obama has, but that still doesn't make Putin more powerful.

 

It's obvious to me that you failed to understand how things work in the real world. Obama is only a puppet who was literally installed in the White House by the corporate America. Corporate America gives orders to whoever is in the White House. A fact. On the other hand, Russian president gives orders to corporate Russia. They do as they're told. See the difference? No one denies that the USA is more powerful country but the power is distributed differently.

 

Meanwhile, the Russian advances made with "carrier killer" missile frigates ("Moskva"), and the Sukhoi SU-35 aircraft are impressive. The T-50 was a prototype-in-development. Evidently the Russians discovered flaws and cancelled it, which makes more sense than spending many hundreds of billions on a defective weapons platform like we appear to have done with our F-35....

They've deployed a new generation of greatly improved submarines ("Borei-class"), and the even more modern "Yasen class" boats will be ready soon. Both are capable of launching missiles from beneath the ocean's surface, of course, and they'll work closely with the new Arctic Joint Strategic Command that they stood up in December 2014.

Are we still "the best"? Yes, I think so. For the moment.... But that hopeful observation notwithstanding, I would advise Obama to be very damned careful about this new idea he's had about (*)(*)(*)(*)ing around with missiles in Romania for the sole purpose of pissing Putin off. Obama surely doesn't need or want another "Red Line" sort of adventure to further taint his already lamentable "military" history. After all, our wonderous President Warlord has a legacy to protect....

 

I think that's bs, but just for argument's sake, this still mean that some corporate guy in the US is more powerful than Putin doesn't it? So putin still isn't the world most powerful person.

 

In the sense you've explained I'd agree that Obama certainly has a greater potential to exert and project more power, for the present. But, looking at it head-on, who controls the "chess board" in the Middle East today? Surely it is Russia. Who controls Eastern Europe? Surely that is Russia also. How effective have the big, hooptie "sanctions" against Russia by Western central bankers and their stooge governments actually been?

Today, any American president has the ability and potential to project more power than any other leader on Earth, but it requires someone other than an inept, shallow, overtly deceptive person who is respected by almost no one anymore, at home or abroad, to do it!

Oh, but just wait until we get "Hilarity" perched in the White House!

 

I honestly believe that Obama has a very little say or no say whatsoever when it comes to the U.S foreign policies. Zbigniew Brzenskis and his cronies run the show. What I find particularly disturbing is that a senile old man who is stuck in 70’s and 80’s can hold the nation of 300+ million people a hostage. He was able to project his own Russian hatred onto the whole country. For heaven’s sake, the world moved to the 21st century. Americans are dragging the world backwards to 1970’s/80’s. The Soviet Union is gone. There is no communism. Move on.

 

Potential power is what I mean yes. As i've said, Russia has some power in areas close to Russia. Russia can definitely change the behaviour of middle eastern and eastern european countries. But does anyone further away from Russia doesn't care much about what Russia says or thinks. But I would argue that the US has more power in both the middle east and eastern europe. Much of these places are after all allied to the US, and they have military present there. The US is allied with the gulf states, Turkey, and Israel. The US is allied with pretty much all of eastern europe. One just needs to look at each country as ask: how could the US or Russia economically, diplomatically, and military influence the behaviour? Diplomatic power is basically the power to get third parties to use their economic and military power against another country. Certainly, both russia and the US have huge influence in eastern europe. The whole reason why Russia is acting like they are now is exactly because they feel threatened by US influence on their borders, because Russia does not have enough power there (except military power, but economic and diplomatic is preferable because it's smoother). Ukraine was drawn to the west by economic power, and all of the old red bloc except belarus is aligned with the west either militarily or economically or both. The US conducts military excercises with georgia.

- - - Updated - - -

it's Russia that's dragging the world back to the cold war when they attack their nieghbors like georgia and ukraine, and threaten others.

 

Give us a break, please. Re-running the same scenario with Taleban and Pakistani ISI but this time with even more extreme Sunni radical Muslims and Turkish MIT in order to achieve geostrategic goals. Do you honestly think that the U.S policy of allying with Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra/ISIS will result in the happy end for all of us in Europe? It's idiotic and reckless policy. How did that alliance with the Taleban in 1970's/80's work out? A bloody disaster which hasn't been solved to this day.

Anyone thinking that alliance with Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra/ISIS and other radical Sunni Muslims groups to get one over Russia is somehow going to be beneficial for Europe and Europeans is out of his/her mind.

 

Give us a break from the nonsense conspiracy that the west is allied with isis.

 

It's not me. It's the U.S general who knows few things about the war and what's been going on behind the scenes. Unlike you.

We're already paying the price. And things are going to get worse. We'll have to deal with thousands and thousands od radicalised Sunni Muslims (battle hardened) for many years to come.

'Huge Error': Former US Military Chief Admits Iraq Invasion Spawned ISIS
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...itary-chief-admits-iraq-invasion-spawned-isis