More Bad News for Russia

[fathertime]

I have noticed that you failed to answer my questions, again a demonstration of you willingness to expel hot air opinions, but from a position of ignorance. That seems to be your avatar.

A few years back, and I wrote about it then, I was among a handful of journalists who traveled with then-president Medvedev to China. We made that trip via rail. Prime Minister Medvedev is an avid photographer and he spent a lot of time among the press pool that made the journey. If you cannot fall in love with Siberia and the Far East on a train, then you simply will never love that part of the world.

The elderly friend who was my sponsor/godfather when I entered the Orthodox Church had grown up in a region which had historically been Chinese, then the area was part of Russia, and later was ceded to China after conflict along the border between China and the Soviet Union. One cannot have these sort of ties to just wishfully hope that conflict arises and borderlines change again.

Both Putin and Medvedev have extensive experience with China. Both understand that China needs energy resources, something it lacks at the moment--thus the pipeline to China, from the very area that China covets. If you ask Medvedev, and he and Putin are close, the Kremlin understands that they are building a pipeline that could someday be in jeopardy should China have intentions on the area. The ramp up of Russia's rail response units, and the building of bases with air support capability, is not being done because Russia is nervous about North Korea or Mongolia.

Simpletons sometimes argue that China is rarely the aggressor, and that China would never covet something that they used to own. Tell that to Mr. Putin--he is not taking any chances. What he does most assuredly understand is that China is very patient, and the Chinese tend to act in their own interests when the time is right, not before. Russia's modernization of the Far East and her defense of the region is designed to make the Chinese realize that the time will never be right. However, the Chinese also understand that all the preparations in the world cannot negate situations of massive economic and/or political instability.

Now Neville, have you done your homework? I'd like to see your answers on the name of that great river, and the denomination of ruble with the picture of the bridge. If you know nothing about an area, then please refrain from sharing unfounded analysis about it.

I'm under NO obligation to answer your silly questions, nor am I interested in doing so.  Based on the manner in which you wrote earlier, I continue to believe that YOU would be happy to see China attempt to seize land from Russia.  Despite what I believe are your hopes, I don't think that is going to happen.  If you want to disguise your true feelings on the matter, you are free to continue to do so. It seems to me that the nations are aligned for the most part, regardless I did read, and appreciate your history lesson on the region.  China is not going to risk war with a powerful nation like Russia, war is NOT how they better their station.   


Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

Pure speculation, and wishful thinking.  The two nations are for the most part allies, and that bother some I guess. 


I've been hearing for years how California is going to become a part of Mexico because of the literally millions of Mexican migrants here.  That isn't happening either. 


A powerful nuclear nation like Russia isn't losing territory unless it decides to.  China has plenty of space (Ghost cities even), and their mainland population is likely going to shrink in the decades to come, unless they take on swarms from poorer nations. 


Fathertime!   

I'm under NO obligation to answer your silly questions, nor am I interested in doing so.  Based on the manner in which you wrote earlier, I continue to believe that YOU would be happy to see China attempt to seize land from Russia.  Despite what I believe are your hopes, I don't think that is going to happen.  If you want to disguise your true feelings on the matter, you are free to continue to do so. It seems to me that the nations are aligned for the most part, regardless I did read, and appreciate your history lesson on the region.  China is not going to risk war with a powerful nation like Russia, war is NOT how they better their station.   


Fathertime!

Why is it, FT, that every time I read one of Mendy's posts (and I do look forward to reading his posts it's great to get an informed, first hand observation/opinion from someone who knows what their talking about) I end up seeing one of your boneheaded, ill informed comments in response right below it?

Please don't post you have the right to comment where you like and it's your opinion blah, blah ,blah. When you follow mendy around the board posting nonsense such as your quotes above, it's my humble opinion your simply trolling.

Stop it. You're letting yourself down.

Better yet, actually read what Mendy's offering instead of posting your knee jerk dissent and putting your ignorance on display. You might just learn something. 

Brass

 

[fathertime]

Why is it, FT, that every time I read one of Mendy's posts (and I do look forward to reading his posts it's great to get an informed, first hand observation/opinion from someone who knows what their talking about) I end up seeing one of your boneheaded, ill informed comments in response right below it?

You are full of crap on this one.   


You can check for yourself, but I rarely respond to Mendy's posts, but I did this time, and make no apologies for doing so. 


He is a journalist, and knows how to convey thoughts through the written word.  When he states the Russian's are 'crapping themselves' he is showing his bias.  Had he merely said, the 'Russians were concerned' I would have passed it right over, like I do most other posts.  I see no harm in pointing out a somewhat cloaked, yet biased viewpoint when I see it.  If your political viewpoint were different, instead of soiling yourself, you might be ok with it.


Oh, and yeah, I have the right to dissent, even if only a few agree with it, and it is ok with me if I'm a troll in your eyes.   Through your posts I can tell you are extremely self-righteous, and hard-headed, but I don't hold that against you, as you have every right to be how you choose to be and you might consider those traits to be of strong character.     


Fathertime!   

[jone]

Quite honestly, I see the Kremlin as crapping their pants right now.  I wish it weren't the case.  But this entire posturing of belligerence is one of desperation.  (I might not have used that specific phraseology.)

Regardless of the origins, I see the whole Maidan uprising as a wrench in Putin's plan for the resurgence of Russia and all policies coming after that watershed event are knee jerk to try to regain control over 'his' satellite countries. 

I would very much like Russia to accept the status quo and go back to open trade with the Western countries.  You don't fly your jets on the doorstep of your neighbors and expect them to welcome you to the trade table.  To most Europeans and Americans, that is how the Kremlin is viewed currently... belligerent.

Mendy is spot on in his assessment of the greater game being played.  China would like to recover some of the land.  So that land will always require greater attention and support to keep it in Russia's domain.  It is one more cross that Putin's government has to carry.  There are HUGE forces at play.  Enough to topple a government.  Russia knows this.  That is the cause of the emergence of the military state and the elimination of the free press.

Should Russia go through a Maidan type event, I would not put it past the Chinese, in areas China influences, to attempt to influence the local population to attempt a separation from Russia.

Earlier Fathertime used the absolutely inappropriate analogy of California becoming part of Mexico.  I would instead use a closer analogy of Saipan returning to Japan's control.  While the residents of Saipan are United States citizens, prior to WWII, Saipan was awarded to Japan by the League of Nations. 

An interesting note:  After WWII, the US repatriated all of the Japanese citizens to Japan so there would not be a local uprising.   The native islanders who originally lived there currently make up the great majority of the population.  But I do find it interesting that the US used the same tactics that are criticized when executed by Russia in areas it seizes through war.  I guess the difference is the elimination/removal of the local population, like was done in Koenigsberg.

Dollars to Rubles today:  1 Dollar equals 64 Russian Rubles.
Brent Crude Price of Oil:  48.39 and heading South

Let's see some more foreign food imports get crushed by those bulldozers!

[fathertime]

Dollars to Rubles today:  1 Dollar equals 64 Russian Rubles.
Brent Crude Price of Oil:  48.39 and heading South

What has been heading south is our stock market...lost 1000 points in last couple months. That equates to over 1 trillion in losses.     That said, the dollar is at all time highs against many currencies, including the Colombian Peso, which benefits me directly.  We shall see if indeed the fed raises interest rates in September (Perhaps December). as is slated, if not then the dollar will likely take a dive. 


Not sure that oil is going too much lower though, major US oil companies like Chevron are now barely making a profit, and are actually losing money after dividends are paid, that isn't sustainable for very long. 

   

I would very much like Russia to accept the status quo and go back to open trade with the Western countries.  You don't fly your jets on the doorstep of your neighbors and expect them to welcome you to the trade table.  To most Europeans and Americans, that is how the Kremlin is viewed currently... belligerent.

You have isolated one fact, and placed it in a vacuum, there are many other hostile acts to be considered.  Certain European nations, and Americans don't constitute the world, and may not be as important to Russia going forward.

   There are HUGE forces at play.  Enough to topple a government.  Russia knows this.  That is the cause of the emergence of the military state and the elimination of the free press.
 

[/size][size=78%]  [/size]
[/size]From many groups, we have been hearing about how our own govt. is close to toppling.  I don't see the signs that either Russia or the US are close to being toppled. [size=78%][/size] [size=78%]

An interesting note:  After WWII, the US repatriated all of the Japanese citizens to Japan so there would not be a local uprising.   The native islanders who originally lived there currently make up the great majority of the population.  But I do find it interesting that the US used the same tactics that are criticized when executed by Russia in areas it seizes through war.  I guess the difference is the elimination/removal of the local population, like was done in Koenigsberg.

It is more than just interesting, and I wouldn't blame other nations for thumbing their collective noses at us, the hypocrisy and word-smithing to make things legal is astounding. 


Fathertime!   

[jone]

Price per barrel of oil:  48.38. 

Price per gallon of Gasoline in California:   $3.50 (average)

You say that the oil companies aren't making a profit?   What are you thinking? 

If the oil companies can't make a profit when the cost of crude is this low and the cost at the pump is this high, then someone is not telling the truth.

And don't give me mumbo jumbo about the cost of extraction.  Oil will self-correct when the cost of extraction becomes too high compared to the price of oil.  As for now, we haven't even seen the Iranian reserves hit the market.

[fathertime]

Price per barrel of oil:  48.38. 

Price per gallon of Gasoline in California:   $3.50 (average)

You say that the oil companies aren't making a profit?   What are you thinking? 

If the oil companies can't make a profit when the cost of crude is this low and the cost at the pump is this high, then someone is not telling the truth.

And don't give me mumbo jumbo about the cost of extraction.  Oil will self-correct when the cost of extraction becomes too high compared to the price of oil.  As for now, we haven't even seen the Iranian reserves hit the market.

That is a bit of a populist sound bite there.  I don't like the gasoline price here the same as you, I was over the border this weekend, and the price was significantly less out of California, with our expensive, but needed pollution controls.   That said, Chevron's profit was down 90% last quarter, it really was, and their stock price shows it. They have the financial reserves to withstand it, for now, but not for too much longer. They could cut the dividend for the first time in 27 years, (and face an even larger selloff) or they can find another way to cut costs, but neither option is good.   


Regarding US oil companies and Iran, our companies will have VERY limited opportunity in Iran compared to European companies, since US sanction relief is very limited.     From my perspective, that is the worst part of the Iran deal. 


The overall point being, in many respects, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. 


Fathertime!   

[JayH]

Funny ( not laughing funny) to read some ideas and comments made in this forum previously now appearing in mainstream media! It makes you wonder where the material comes from for some journalists!!
The collapse of the Russian economy is now not an "IF"-- but a "WHEN"!! And most importantly--the immediate aftermath of that collapse.
Article deals with the immediate situation for the Russia and what is required to extract itself from the Putin/Kremlin created situation. It It is amazing to see how many are now writing on the same themes-- and the degree of the failure of the Kremlin disinformation internationally .
 
Once sanctions are lifted there will probably be a large influx of foreign money, especially if a new government provides strong guarantees for investors. But before it can achieve this, Russia will need, as an absolute minimum, to end support for terrorists in Eastern Ukraine, stop sending weapons, ammunition and fighters there and allow Kyiv to dismantle the self-proclaimed People’s Republics on its territory. Additionally, it will probably have to abandon the Transdniester region, its toy enclave in Moldova.

Another minimum prerequisite will be to recognize that the annexation of Crimea was a violation of international laws and to agree with Kyiv on a timetable fo its rapid return to Ukraine.

Once it admits its culpability, however, Moscow will have to pay compensation to Ukraine.

Even after sanctions are lifted, it doesn’t mean that Russia will be welcomed by the community of civilized nations with open arms. There are ongoing issues which neither Barack Obama nor Angela Merkel can resolve. There is a Hague Court verdict requiring the Russian government to pay $50 billion to foreign shareholders of Yukos, whom it swindled. The UK police inquiry into the 2006 death of ex-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko laid the blame for his poisoning on high-level Russian government officials going all the way up to Putin. Finally, whatever form the investigation into the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Donbass will take, it is likely to find either Russian-backed separatists or Russia itself guilty.

Post-Putin Russia will need to accept verdicts in all these crimes, recognize its responsibility and agree to pay enormous financial compensation. It will have to ask for a delay given the sorry state of the Russian economy..

This is a tall order, to say the least. The Russian people are not ready to accept any of this, especially after enduring relentless barrage of Putin propaganda about insidious Westerners trying to enslave innocent, peace-loving Russia and steal its oil, territory and history. It almost seems inevitable that Russia will have to go through a devastating economic crisis and national soul-searching before it could shed its pariah status.



Russian economy's point of no return

Russia's economy is like a passenger airliner on a trans-Atlantic flight which has lost one engine and has the other sputtering to a halt. It generates enough speed to go on gliding, and the height of 33,000 feet affords its passengers an illusion of safety. There is still enough time to serve dinner and to finish the movie before the plane inevitably crashes to earth.

During the fat years between mid-2010 and mid-2014, when international oil prices averaged over $100 per barrel, Russia accumulated plenty of reserves. The Russian middle class also has quite a few rubles - and, importantly, dollars and euros - saved up, which permit them not to curb their consumption more drastically. This is the equivalent of the 33,000 feet of height from which the aircraft of the Russian economy has been gliding down.

A major factor delaying the onset of the crisis is the relative calm of the Russian population. A large proportion of Russian consumers trust Putin because they believe that he engineered the boom they have been enjoying since 2000, not realizing that their prosperity is directly correlated to the price of oil. The two most recent economic crises in Russia, in 1998 and again in 2008, were quite acute but remarkably short-lived. Russians think that this crisis, too, as Putin assured them at the end of 2014, won’t last for more than two years, and that Russia has the resources to tough it out. And so there is no rush for the exists on this particular airplane - i.e., people don’t stampede to buy foreign currency or to withdraw their savings from banks.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/alexei-bayer-russian-economys-point-of-no-return-395336.html

[jone]

That is a bit of a populist sound bite there.  I don't like the gasoline price here the same as you, I was over the border this weekend, and the price was significantly less out of California, with our expensive, but needed pollution controls.   That said, Chevron's profit was down 90% last quarter, it really was, and their stock price shows it. They have the financial reserves to withstand it, for now, but not for too much longer. They could cut the dividend for the first time in 27 years, (and face an even larger selloff) or they can find another way to cut costs, but neither option is good.   


Regarding US oil companies and Iran, our companies will have VERY limited opportunity in Iran compared to European companies, since US sanction relief is very limited.     From my perspective, that is the worst part of the Iran deal. 


The overall point being, in many respects, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. 


Fathertime!

You have to understand how ridiculous you sound.  Chevron can claim they are bankrupt but it wouldn't dissuade people from seeing the cost of raw materials versus the cost at the pump.  For your information, California pollution controls in the form of taxes are only $.39 per gallon.  That would make the base price at $3.11.

For those reading this, it is an old business trick to show slumping profits by write offs in a time of prosperity.  Great time to write off drilling expenses, fracking, new development, and maintaining infrastructure while buying cheap overseas oil. 

The simple fact is that Chevron is getting their sweet crude at under $50.00 per barrel.  Which equals out to be about 42 gallons. 

Now Chevron may have terrible business management (I rather doubt it) but I would be interested if anyone other than you believes that Chevron is approaching insolvency because the price of oil is so low.

Go sell your ideas to people that are stupid enough to believe them.  I do not believe in 'Populist' ideas.  Like most people here, I simply look at reality.

[fathertime]

You have to understand how ridiculous you sound.  Chevron can claim they are bankrupt but it wouldn't dissuade people from seeing the cost of raw materials versus the cost at the pump.  For your information, California pollution controls in the form of taxes are only $.39 per gallon.  That would make the base price at $3.11.

For those reading this, it is an old business trick to show slumping profits by write offs in a time of prosperity.  Great time to write off drilling expenses, fracking, new development, and maintaining infrastructure while buying cheap overseas oil. 

The simple fact is that Chevron is getting their sweet crude at under $50.00 per barrel.  Which equals out to be about 42 gallons. 

Now Chevron may have terrible business management (I rather doubt it) but I would be interested if anyone other than you believes that Chevron is approaching insolvency because the price of oil is so low.

Go sell your ideas to people that are stupid enough to believe them.  I do not believe in 'Populist' ideas.  Like most people here, I simply look at reality.

I believe you are a bit ignorant about Chevron and gasoline in general.  It has been sold off by people in the know, they aren't doing it because they think the company is doing well. 


You are of course exaggerating what I said.  Where did I say insolvency?  Not even close, but they are technically losing money after dividends this quarter.  Of course there are some tax ramifications, but these are not prosperous times, and it is foolish to think they are.  If it were merely 'business trickery' as you said, then why would the stock be selling off so drastically, relative to the overall market? Other US oil stocks and pipeline stocks are also nosediving, I was just using Chevron as an example as I'm most familiar with the details.  It is a fact that our US companies are also suffering due to some of the geopolitical events in the world. 

.  For your information, California pollution controls in the form of taxes are only $.39 per gallon.  That would make the base price at $3.11.

 

For your edification, it was foolish for you to post an incorrect number like that.  The base price is NOT 3.11, and taxes per gallon are much more than .39 cents in California, even after a recent state decrease.    Do I need to post links to drive the point home? In addition you forgot to account for the 'special fuel formula' the few refineries we have, use.  3.11 was the most simplistic and inaccurate number you could come up with.   

  I simply look at reality.

No you don't.  You slant reality to fit a defective narrative, and may not even recognize you do it. 


Fathertime!   

[jone]

http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

http://www.californiagasprices.com/Prices_Nationally.aspx

 

[JayH]

More on the basis of collapse of Russian economy.Putins attempts to use energy to control the politics is an abject failure-- a year ago we still had to listen to the Putin rationalisers telling us that Russia had all the control--but a short year later the Norwegian gas streams are growing all the time--and will be capable of replacing Russia in the not too distant future.
The price of oil and gas is being driven lower still-- and Putin is nearly out of time.
FWIW-recently in a thread comment was made quoting Russian source that cash reserve was about $350 B -- about half of what was claimed prior to Russian invasion of Ukraine -- I do not believe anything like that is left-maybe  only a 1/3rd or less.That puts Russia on the knife edge in the here and now-- and that all points to this crisis deepening for Russia very soon.
I do not expect Putin to handle any of this rationally- the west must prepare for that in the military sense.It may well be Ukraine that will bare the brunt of future Putin idiocy.

How Russian energy giant Gazprom lost $300bn
Once the state-run conglomerate was expected to become the world’s first trillion-dollar company. Now its market value has plummeted. EurasiaNet investigates how this happened

Gas politics
The Kremlin, which holds a controlling stake in Gazprom, tends to blame the sharp drop in oil prices and “warm winters”. However, energy giants ExxonMobil and Petro China, Gazprom’s financial contemporaries back in mid-2008, have remained top performers. Norway boosted its market share and overtook Russia as western Europe’s top gas supplier over the 2014-2015 winter.

Experts say Gazprom’s main problem is that it continues to serve as Putin’s favoured geopolitical weapon. Examples include the company’s purchase of major Russian media outlets that were then turned into Kremlin mouthpieces, bullying or buying the loyalty of neighbouring states and sponsoring the egregiously expensive Olympic Games in Sochi.

Most ominously for the company, the Putin administration still keeps pushing Gazprom to implement new projects that are important for the Kremlin but risky from a financial viewpoint. Two prominent examples concern Ukraine and China.

The conflict in eastern Ukraine has cost Gazprom dearly. Exports to Ukraine fell from 36 billion cubic metres in 2010 to 3.7 during the first six months of 2015, before stopping altogether on July 1. Moscow’s efforts to effectively mount an energy blockade against Kiev did not work but cost Gazprom close to $6bn in lost revenue and fines, while pushing European customers to diversity their energy imports.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/07/gazprom-oil-company-share-price-collapse?CMP=share_btn_fb

Russia: Gazprom, A Behemoth No More

This article was originally published by Eurasianet.org.

It was not too long ago that Gazprom, the state-controlled energy conglomerate, was one of the Kremlin’s most potent geopolitical weapons. But those days now seem like a distant memory: Gazprom is a financial shadow of its former self.

The speed of Gazprom’s decline is breathtaking. At its peak in May 2008, the company’s market capitalization reached $367.27 billion, making it one of the world’s most valuable companies, according to a survey compiled by the Financial Times. Gazprom’s deputy chair, Alexander Medvedev, repeatedly predicted at the time that within a decade the Russian energy giant could be worth $1 trillion.

That prediction now seems foolhardy. Since 2008, Gazprom’s value has plummeted. As of Aug. 3, it had a market capitalization of $51.12 billion. A little over four years ago, in April 2011, the figure stood at $194.5 billion. No company among the planet’s Top 5,000 has suffered a bigger collapse in market capitalization, according to Bloomberg Business News.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/business/article/russia-gazprom-a-behemoth-no-more/526989.html

[fathertime]

[size=78%] [/size][/size]

You have to understand how ridiculous you sound.  Chevron can claim they are bankrupt but it wouldn't dissuade people from seeing the cost of raw materials versus the cost at the pump.  For your information, California pollution controls in the form of taxes are only $.39 per gallon.  That would make the base price at $3.11.

[/size]

[/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size]The gas buddy link is not useful in terms of detail.  [size=78%]

[/size]I don't expect you to be intellectually honest, as I get that you are a little too invested in being 'right' about how much profit oil companies are making at this time.    [size=78%]

[/size]Here is a friendly link discussing the hidden gas taxes in California, when all is tallied up, amount to around 75 cents a gallon.  Although some people estimate the hidden gas taxes alone adds 75 cents MORE a gallon....that seems too high.  [size=78%]

[/size]Regardless your 3.11 base price is way off.  [size=78%]

[/size][size=78%]






[/size]





 


 

[jone]

[size=78%] [/size][/size][/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size]The gas buddy link is not useful in terms of detail.  [size=78%]

[/size]I don't expect you to be intellectually honest, as I get that you are a little too invested in being 'right' about how much profit oil companies are making at this time.    [size=78%]

[/size]Here is a friendly link discussing the hidden gas taxes in California, when all is tallied up, amount to around 75 cents a gallon.  Although some people estimate the hidden gas taxes alone adds 75 cents MORE a gallon....that seems too high.  [size=78%]

[/size]Regardless your 3.11 base price is way off.  [size=78%]

[/size][size=78%]






[/size]

Who in the world cares?  You're trying to decide how much the gas tax is.  The simple fact is that Chevron is paying X for the oil.  It costs them Y to produce the gasoline.  When the price of X goes down and the price remains the same, you have absolutely no basis for an argument that they are going broke. 

Talk about drinking the Kool Aid.  Everyone but you knows the truth.

[fathertime]

Who in the world cares?  You're trying to decide how much the gas tax is.  The simple fact is that Chevron is paying X for the oil.  It costs them Y to produce the gasoline.  When the price of X goes down and the price remains the same, you have absolutely no basis for an argument that they are going broke. 

Talk about drinking the Kool Aid.  Everyone but you knows the truth.

You are once again exaggerating what I said when you use the term going broke.  They are currently losing money, and it is likely a result of geopolitical events.  They will not go broke, because they can do things to ensure that won't happen, like cut their dividend, or lay off employees, or raise their profit margins...all harmful things for the American public. 


It is ok if you don't want to talk anymore, it can be a boring subject.  I was merely making a point regarding Chevron's OVERALL profitability, which entails more than California, and much more than just the price of extraction, and taxes.  Chevron and other oil companies are among the companies suffering from geopolitical events, and that can and, will have ramifications on regular Americans, including me. 


Fathertime!   

[sleepycat]

I'm under NO obligation to answer your silly questions, nor am I interested in doing so. 

Easier just to say to Mendy you don't know the answers to his questions, rather than trying to keep up this façade...
 

[mendeleyev]

Neville:

When he states the Russian's are 'crapping themselves' he is showing his bias.

As a member of this forum, which is not a widely read journalistic publication but rather a forum about life in regards to the FSU, I showed bias for Russia when it came to the Syrian question, and took a lot of flak for it--including from some members here. I was proud as a resident, not only as a working journalist, who traveled with the press pool to Vladivostok in the autumn of 2013 as Mr. Putin toured flooded regions, then the next week to the G20 Summit in St Petersburg where again on forums like this I defended Mr. Putin over his public disagreements with USA president Obama.

I'll let you know when it is no longer appropriate for a professional to have formed views based on experience and first-hand knowledge. I have editors who have eyes like hawks when it comes to spotting bias in official venues.

Now, back to the discussion at hand--were you to see and hear the regional reaction, you might say the same thing.  It is silly to watch, because like you I do not believe that the Chinese are ready (at this time) for a fight over land. But come with me to Okhotniy Ryad, #1, in Moscow. Inside the Duma (Parliament) building, you can see plenty of "crapping themselves" examples over the design of that war monument in the Far East.

Only the naive would declare that the Chinese will never go to war with a nuclear nation over land. They already dared to fight a nuclear country called the Soviet Union in 1969, and it came close to a full scale war before both sat down at the negotiating table. A calculated gamble, but also a risk that could have been taken much further.

The two nations experienced smaller "expressions of disagreement" again in 1991, 1995, 2003 and 2008. Each small regional crisis was initiated by China, and each resulted in further negotiations which China used to chip away at regaining lost territory. Are you willing to bet that they are tired?

If you think that Putin isn't concerned, then please feel free to let him know that his efforts at border security, rail response forces, and facilities for air support in the region are not necessary. I am certain that he'd rather be spending the money on other issues. Undoubtedly he's looking forward to hearing from you.

It is a balancing act for the Kremlin. On one hand, there are concerns about loss of sovereignty. On the other, there was Putin's decree that made Vladivostok a "free port" last month in hopes of attracting additional outside investment, and in particular from Japan and South Korea as a counter balance to growing Chinese influence.

[fathertime]

I'll let you know when it is no longer appropriate for a professional to have formed views based on experience and first-hand knowledge. I have editors who have eyes like hawks when it comes to spotting bias in official venues.

 

So NOW you are admitting bias, which is what I was noting in your initial post.   

Now, back to the discussion at hand--were you to see and hear the regional reaction, you might say the same thing.  It is silly to watch, because like you I do not believe that the Chinese are ready (at this time) for a fight over land. But come with me to Okhotniy Ryad, #1, in Moscow. Inside the Duma (Parliament) building, you can see plenty of "crapping themselves" examples over the design of that war monument in the Far East.

Only the naive would declare that the Chinese will never go to war with a nuclear nation over land. They already dared to fight a nuclear country called the Soviet Union in 1969, and it came close to a full scale war before both sat down at the negotiating table. A calculated gamble, but also a risk that could have been taken much further.

The two nations experienced smaller "expressions of disagreement" again in 1991, 1995, 2003 and 2008. Each small regional crisis was initiated by China, and each resulted in further negotiations which China used to chip away at regaining lost territory. Are you willing to bet that they are tired?

If you think that Putin isn't concerned, then please feel free to let him know that his efforts at border security, rail response forces, and facilities for air support in the region are not necessary. I am certain that he'd rather be spending the money on other issues. Undoubtedly he's looking forward to hearing from you.

It is a balancing act for the Kremlin. On one hand, there are concerns about loss of sovereignty. On the other, there was Putin's decree that made Vladivostok a "free port" last month in hopes of attracting additional outside investment, and in particular from Japan and South Korea as a counter balance to growing Chinese influence.

As to the Chinese and Russia getting into a war over land, that sounds like the Western nations would like to see and not at all likely to happen. 


Fathertime!   

[Rick4G]

In regards to China, 2 things are undeniable as fact.  China has increased the amount of its citizens in Russia's far east by over a million in just the past 3 years alone and these Chinese are the ones with the money to influence the economy of the region.
China controls and has all the bargaining power in virtually any agreement with Russia.
China is replacing Russian military components with Ukrainian in has decreased its dependence on Russian made equipment and components by 50% in the past 5 years.
Russia doesn't have many options and the Kremlin is painfully aware of that!

[mendeleyev]

So NOW you are admitting bias, which is what I was noting in your initial post. 

As to Syria, and to Mr. Putin vs Obama in 2013, yes I did.

As to the current topic of which you are painfully ignorant--hell no. 

[Brasscasing]

You are full of crap on this one.   

Having checked, I'll withdraw the comment...and amend it to It seems every time I read...

You can check for yourself, but I rarely respond to Mendy's posts, but I did this time, and make no apologies for doing so. 

Well when you do reply to his (anyone's) posts try and have a bit more than contemptuous quips in response. You just don't hold the bonafides to castigate anything Mendy might post as personal bias.

He is a journalist, and knows how to convey thoughts through the written word.  When he states the Russian's are 'crapping themselves' he is showing his bias.  Had he merely said, the 'Russians were concerned' I would have passed it right over, like I do most other posts.  I see no harm in pointing out a somewhat cloaked, yet biased viewpoint when I see it.  If your political viewpoint were different, instead of soiling yourself, you might be ok with it.

Nope, I wouldn't be ok with it. I recognize muddying a topic with white noise when I see it.

Your idea of bias seems to include anything that critiques the Russians. I, for one, view Mendy's narratives as succinct and to the point. On the other hand I view your comments for the most part as insolent and not based on fact/truth.

You should probably stick to trying to discredit posters like myself. You might get more traction.   

Oh, and yeah, I have the right to dissent, even if only a few agree with it, and it is ok with me if I'm a troll in your eyes.   Through your posts I can tell you are extremely self-righteous, and hard-headed, but I don't hold that against you, as you have every right to be how you choose to be and you might consider those traits to be of strong character.     

"Pure speculation, and wishful thinking." or "I'm under NO obligation to answer your silly questions, nor am I interested in doing so." is not dissent. It's just pestering another member trying to get his point across that you have no real argument to parry or knowledge to add. You simply don't like the fact his comments are accurate so you muddy the water under the pretext of bias.

Here's the thing; If you studied, travelled, worked and resided in Russia/FSU for as many years as Mendy you might have a leg to stand on attempting to hassle him with your nonsensical observations/comments. As it stands you don't.

Well, I maybe self righteous at times, however, I always try to post accurate, factual information and debate the subject. You, on the other hand, post inaccurate subjective slurs cloaked under the guise of 'dissent'.

Brass

[fathertime]

As to Syria, and to Mr. Putin vs Obama in 2013, yes I did.

As to the current topic of which you are painfully ignorant--hell no.

yeah, it usually take about 30 years for the US to admit a mistake so we can give you some time. I'm still saying you will take some delight if Russia were to lose some land to China.  

Having checked, I'll withdraw the comment...and amend it to It seems every time I read...

 

[size=78%][[/size][size=78%]/quote][/size]
[size=78%]Fine, much better.[/size]

Well when you do reply to his (anyone's) posts try and have a bit more than contemptuous quips in response. You just don't hold the bonafides to castigate anything Mendy might post as personal bias.

 

Your idea of bias seems to include anything that critiques the Russians. I, for one, view Mendy's narratives as succinct and to the point. On the other hand I view your comments for the most part as insolent and not based on fact/truth.

Not necessarily true, overly harsh critiques I do disagree with though. 

You should probably stick to trying to discredit posters like myself. You might get more traction.   

"Pure speculation, and wishful thinking." or "I'm under NO obligation to answer your silly questions, nor am I interested in doing so." is not dissent. It's just pestering another member trying to get his point across that you have no real argument to parry or knowledge to add. You simply don't like the fact his comments are accurate so you muddy the water under the pretext of bias.

Here's the thing; If you studied, travelled, worked and resided in Russia/FSU for as many years as Mendy you might have a leg to stand on attempting to hassle him with your nonsensical observations/comments. As it stands you don't.

This is mostly you speculating which of course is fine to do.


 I don't agree that his comments/characterizations are always accurate. In this case I don't think they were/are.  By the manner in which he posted, I do think that he would like to see strife between China/Russia.  I do think that is wishful thinking though.    I also don't think knowing the name of a river in Siberia is important, and it is kinda funny that he felt the need to attempt to use it as a bludgeon to discredit, rather than simply stated his case, and admit where he stands.   

Well, I maybe self righteous at times, however, I always try to post accurate, factual information and debate the subject. You, on the other hand, post inaccurate subjective slurs cloaked under the guise of 'dissent'.

Brass

Yeah you are just a little angel. I've noticed that some people are pretty easy on themselves, while rather critical of others.   No guise here, I do dissent from most of the opinions here, and attempt to back it up with links when I can.  I've reviewed my original comment, and it wasn't out of line, but mendeleyev must think he can say whatever he wants, and never be questioned at all.
 He said it as a fact that "China was going to tear chucks of Russia off"...I don't think that is happening, or is going to happen. 




Fathertime!     

[sleepycat]

This is the state of the Russian military that is going to prevent the Chinese from biting off chunks of Russian territories... 

http://www.businessinsider.com/5-ways-the-russian-military-is-falling-apart-2015-8

[JayH]

In posts above in this thread the idea of the breakup of the Russian federation was countenanced. Guessing at where Putin goes next in creating his diversions from the internal reality of a failed corrupt Russian system  is the possibility thrown up in the article below--  given the west hast not taken the bait to escalate in Ukraine--is Putin really that stupid to try and confront the west directly?

But sparking a manufactured international crisis over the Arctic, one that pits Russia against the United States and Canada, might be just what the doctor ordered.

Why? Because Vladimir Putin badly needs to make a new action movie to distract his people.

The Kremlin leader is boxed in on so many fronts right now that he badly needs to change the subject.



Why Putin Is Losing

Are little green men about to appear on the North Pole?

Russia's claim last week, using an extremely creative interpretation of international law, to exclusive economic rights to nearly half a million square miles of the Arctic Sea, was certainly a head scratcher.

Sure the territory is valuable due to its untapped reserves of fossil fuels and for the shipping lanes that will open as Arctic ice melts. But the claim is likely to ultimately be rejected by the United Nations.

But sparking a manufactured international crisis over the Arctic, one that pits Russia against the United States and Canada, might be just what the doctor ordered.

Why? Because Vladimir Putin badly needs to make a new action movie to distract his people.

The Kremlin leader is boxed in on so many fronts right now that he badly needs to change the subject.

The Donbas Quagmire

For starters, Putin has no good options in eastern Ukraine.

The old fantasies about seizing so-called Novorossia, the strip of land from Kharkiv to Odesa, and establishing a land bridge to Crimea are dead. And the more modest goal expanding the territory Russia and its proxies currently hold, perhaps with a push to Mariupol, is probably out of the question too.

Either campaign would be costly in terms of blood and treasure, it would certainly spark a fresh round of sanctions, and it would involve occupying hostile territory. The recent uptick in fighting this week reeks more of desperation than of a serious move to acquire more territory.

Russia could, of course, just annex the territories controlled by Moscow's proxies; or it could freeze the conflict and establish a Russian protectorate there.

http://www.rferl.org/content/why-putin-is-losing/27181633.html

[sleepycat]

Oh dear!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-10/russian-economy-shrinks-4-6-as-oil-slump-risks-deeper-recession