More Bad News for Russia

[lordtiberius]

the Empire will strike back

[sleepycat]

I've fixed up your quote with the correct current figures Doll. No need to thank me... 

$1 = 50 60 rubles
I barrel iil is $80 53
It is today

[Doll]

I think all of it is on steady    ground

[lordtiberius]

Wow. Now I know why others flipped out when you did this.

[lordtiberius]

AC, if you were a high heeled botox crazed 63 year president of a gas station with nukes, what would you do to get that price up?

[JayH]

I've fixed up your quote with the correct current figures Doll. No need to thank me... 

SC--in case Doll missed it-- new year hiatus over and rubble heading to oblivium again!!

1.00 USD   =   60.5433 RUB
US Dollar   ↔   Russian Ruble
1 USD = 60.5433 RUB   1 RUB = 0.0165171 USD
Convert again
RUB/USD thumbnailView Chart
Mid-market rates: 2015-01-01 04:20 UTC

[Doll]

AC, if you were a high heeled botox crazed 63 year president of a gas station with nukes, what would you do to get that price up?

launch another modern weapon

[AC]

AC, if you were a high heeled botox crazed 63 year president of a gas station with nukes, what would you do to get that price up?

Stop Russian soldiers from vacationing in E. Ukraine and give Crimea back to the rightful owner -- Ukraine.

[lordtiberius]

To raise the gas price to $ 80, I would need to create geopolitical instability.  A nuclear, biological or chemical attack by a middle Eastern proxy state. 

[AC]

To raise the gas price to $ 80, I would need to create geopolitical instability.  A nuclear, biological or chemical attack by a middle Eastern proxy state.

Iran and Syria. 

[Brasscasing]

Report: Russia May Supply Su-24 Aircraft To Argentina In Exchange For Food

..."WARSAW and LONDON — Russia and Argentina are eyeing a deal under which Moscow would lease 12 Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer aircraft to Buenos Aires in return for beef and wheat, the London-based paper Sunday Express has claimed.

As a result, the British Defence Ministry has reportedly launched a review of the air defenses of the Falkland Islands.

In a statement, the MoD said it regularly reviews the military situation around the south Atlantic islands and would adjust force levels on the Falklands to meet any new threat posed by Argentina.

"The MoD undertakes regular assessments of potential military threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain an appropriate level of defensive capability to address any threats. We continue to remain vigilant and committed to the protection of the Falkland Islanders," it said.

The UK and Argentina, who call the islands the Malivinas, were involved in a short but bloody war in 1982 over ownership of the disputed islands in the South Atlantic.

The dispute has been given new life in recent years by Argentinean President Cristina Kirchener making reclaiming the islands a central plank of her policy.

British analysts said Argentina's acquisition of a credible combat jet force could significantly tilt the strategic balance in favor of Buenos Aires, unless London reinforces the Falklands.

The Falklands are protected by four Royal Air Force Typhoon jets, Rapier surface-to-air missiles, and fewer than 1,200 troops, supported by a warship.

Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and an expert on Russian aircraft and weapons, said that even with only four Typhoons, the British would come off better in any fight with a squadron's worth of the Su-24.

"I'd back four Typhoons every day of the week against the threat posed by the 1960/1970s technology of the Russian jet," he said.

The Su-24MK is a twin-engine, all-weather land and maritime attack aircraft with a flight range of 2,775 kilometers, according to data from Sukhoi.

Barrie said just how effective the Su-24 would be in the hands of the Argentine Air Force depended on the weapons package that came as part of any deal with the Russians.

"The Su-24 is not what Argentina needs. They have competent crews but they need a multi-role platform not a single-role air-to-surface aircraft, which is expensive to fly and expensive to maintain," he said.

Argentine press reports said Defence Minister Agustin Rossi has denied there is any new defense deal with Russia for fighter jets.

The Argentine Air Force is known to be in the market for a fighter jet to replace the obsolete fleet of Skyhawk and Mirage III aircraft it has operated for several decades.

The possible sale of second-hand Mirage 2000 and Kfir aircraft have been discussed.

Most recently a possible sale of Saab Gripen aircraft was raised by Argentina, but any possibility of that deal taking off was rapidly scotched by the British government.

British companies supply about 30 percent of the new Gripen NG model and the London said it would block any move to sell the advanced Swedish jet to Argentina.

Russian jets or the Chinese FC-1/JF-17 are often touted as potential platforms for the Argentine Air Force.

The hard-up Argentine government won parliamentary approval recently for an economic and investment deal with China.

In 2010, Moscow and Buenos Aires signed a deal under which Russia delivered two Mil Mi-17 helicopters to the country's Air Force, marking Argentina's first purchase of Russian military hardware.

This month, the two sides also struck a deal for Moscow to provide four second-hand tug/supply ships to the Armada Argentina.

In July, Russian President Vladimir Putin paid an official visit to Argentina, possibly paving the way for the deal.

Imports of Argentinian food and goods are viewed as an attempt to bypass Western sanctions imposed on Russia following the country's intervention in Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula."...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2014/12/30/russia-argentina-jets-food/21045405/

Facinating...Does Buenos Aires believe that acquiring 12 Jets from a bygone era will change the balance of power in the region (until London deploys, oh let's say, one more Typhoon jet to the island  ) or is this Moscow's latest connivance to take the spot light off Ukraine?

Maybe it's exactly what it looks like and Russia needs beef and wheat. Last year Russian Government Edicts 560 and 778 banned, restricted or embargoed food products from the EU and other specified countries cutting off food supplies/trade to the Russian Federation to show the west who's boss. It was common knowledge that, besides some reduced trade for some western/EU countries, the only people the Russian sanctions would hurt were the Russians themselves.

Now it seems Russia's looking to pawn military surplus for food to feed themselves.

I wonder if they'll also be supplying the SU-24's ordnance or will that come under a separate trade agreement involving bullets for BBQ sauce?   

Brass

[fathertime]

Report: Russia May Supply Su-24 Aircraft To Argentina In Exchange For Food

..."WARSAW and LONDON — Russia and Argentina are eyeing a deal under which Moscow would lease 12 Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer aircraft to Buenos Aires in return for beef and wheat, the London-based paper Sunday Express has claimed.

As a result, the British Defence Ministry has reportedly launched a review of the air defenses of the Falkland Islands.

In a statement, the MoD said it regularly reviews the military situation around the south Atlantic islands and would adjust force levels on the Falklands to meet any new threat posed by Argentina.

"The MoD undertakes regular assessments of potential military threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain an appropriate level of defensive capability to address any threats. We continue to remain vigilant and committed to the protection of the Falkland Islanders," it said.

The UK and Argentina, who call the islands the Malivinas, were involved in a short but bloody war in 1982 over ownership of the disputed islands in the South Atlantic.

The dispute has been given new life in recent years by Argentinean President Cristina Kirchener making reclaiming the islands a central plank of her policy.

British analysts said Argentina's acquisition of a credible combat jet force could significantly tilt the strategic balance in favor of Buenos Aires, unless London reinforces the Falklands.

The Falklands are protected by four Royal Air Force Typhoon jets, Rapier surface-to-air missiles, and fewer than 1,200 troops, supported by a warship.

Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and an expert on Russian aircraft and weapons, said that even with only four Typhoons, the British would come off better in any fight with a squadron's worth of the Su-24.

"I'd back four Typhoons every day of the week against the threat posed by the 1960/1970s technology of the Russian jet," he said.

The Su-24MK is a twin-engine, all-weather land and maritime attack aircraft with a flight range of 2,775 kilometers, according to data from Sukhoi.

Barrie said just how effective the Su-24 would be in the hands of the Argentine Air Force depended on the weapons package that came as part of any deal with the Russians.

"The Su-24 is not what Argentina needs. They have competent crews but they need a multi-role platform not a single-role air-to-surface aircraft, which is expensive to fly and expensive to maintain," he said.

Argentine press reports said Defence Minister Agustin Rossi has denied there is any new defense deal with Russia for fighter jets.

The Argentine Air Force is known to be in the market for a fighter jet to replace the obsolete fleet of Skyhawk and Mirage III aircraft it has operated for several decades.

The possible sale of second-hand Mirage 2000 and Kfir aircraft have been discussed.

Most recently a possible sale of Saab Gripen aircraft was raised by Argentina, but any possibility of that deal taking off was rapidly scotched by the British government.

British companies supply about 30 percent of the new Gripen NG model and the London said it would block any move to sell the advanced Swedish jet to Argentina.

Russian jets or the Chinese FC-1/JF-17 are often touted as potential platforms for the Argentine Air Force.

The hard-up Argentine government won parliamentary approval recently for an economic and investment deal with China.

In 2010, Moscow and Buenos Aires signed a deal under which Russia delivered two Mil Mi-17 helicopters to the country's Air Force, marking Argentina's first purchase of Russian military hardware.

This month, the two sides also struck a deal for Moscow to provide four second-hand tug/supply ships to the Armada Argentina.

In July, Russian President Vladimir Putin paid an official visit to Argentina, possibly paving the way for the deal.

Imports of Argentinian food and goods are viewed as an attempt to bypass Western sanctions imposed on Russia following the country's intervention in Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean peninsula."...

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2014/12/30/russia-argentina-jets-food/21045405/

Facinating...Does Buenos Aires believe that acquiring 12 Jets from a bygone era will change the balance of power in the region (until London deploys, oh let's say, one more Typhoon jet to the island  ) or is this Moscow's latest connivance to take the spot light off Ukraine?

Maybe it's exactly what it looks like and Russia needs beef and wheat. Last year Russian Government Edicts 560 and 778 banned, restricted or embargoed food products from the EU and other specified countries cutting off food supplies/trade to the Russian Federation to show the west who's boss. It was common knowledge that, besides some reduced trade for some western/EU countries, the only people the Russian sanctions would hurt were the Russians themselves.

Now it seems Russia's looking to pawn military surplus for food to feed themselves.

I wonder if they'll also be supplying the SU-24's ordnance or will that come under a separate trade agreement involving bullets for BBQ sauce?   

Brass

Thanks for posting that....A couple impressions, this could be a dig at the United Kingdom as much as anything.  Does Russia need the food they are talking about exchanging the weapons for?  Why does the United Kingdom and their transplanted citizens continue to control these disputed islands 1000's of miles from home but right off the coast of Argentina?  Argentina still claims the islands are their today, but doesn't have the military strength to enforce it. 


Fathertime! 

[krimster2]

will work for food?

[mendeleyev]

Does Russia need the food they are talking about exchanging the weapons for?

Desperately? Not yet. Key word is "yet."

The mood in Russia seems to be slowly evolving, and Putin is smart to short up supplies now rather than later. He could very well come under more pressure as time goes on. Russia simply has been too slow over the past decades to develop the kind of agricultural systems for be self-sufficient. That could cost him politically if he doesn't look for deals like this one.

Actually it is a smart move from his policy perspectives:

- He takes a swipe at the Brits by arming the Argentine military.

- It is a yet another nail in the coffin of the US Monroe Doctrine.

- He gets rid of some outdated military hardware, leased at that, so he can use the funds and still own the assets.

- He gets the food -- he will need it in the near future.

- His ministers are in a panic due to the reserves rapidly shrinking while he continues to modernize the military, and this will relieve some of that financial pressure.

[fathertime]

Actually it is a smart move from his policy perspectives:

- He takes a swipe at the Brits by arming the Argentine military.

- It is a yet another nail in the coffin of the US Monroe Doctrine.

- He gets rid of some outdated military hardware, leased at that, so he can use the funds and still own the assets.

- He gets the food -- he will need it in the near future.

- His ministers are in a panic due to the reserves rapidly shrinking while he continues to modernize the military, and this will relieve some of that financial pressure.

Thanks, these are all good points....it seems to me, like many things, the Monroe Doctrine has been selectively enforced regarding the Falkland Islands....Had the occupiers been Russia, China, or another nation not aligned with us, I suspect we would have taken Argentinian's side....which of course leads me to the conclusion that at this point the Monroe Doctrine is not for the Southern nation's benefit, but for our own.


I doubt the Argentinians want to fight *although it is still a modern day issue for them*, but it is an interesting concept if they decided they were going to, backed by old Russian military equipment...I think they would have a lot of South American support. 


Fathertime!

[JayH]

Dead and wounded Russian soldier numbers during the eight year Soviet incursion as disclosed by Gen. Aleksei D. Lizichev during a press conference. I wonder how much of a lowball General Lizichev was asked to throw out there on his numbers 

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/26/world/soviet-lists-afghan-war-toll-13310-dead-35478-wounded.html

Elena Vasilieva and her group of mothers have the number of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine at over 4,000 already. I am sure you can look her up in Russia for yourself. The UN says it is 3,000. Maybe Elena's estimate is a bit high? My money says it is probably higher with many families too afraid or proud to speak up for their loved ones.

Ukraine has gone more than 5 thousand Russian soldiers - Vasiliev
Number of missing in Ukraine Russian military is already more than five thousand

This is in the air "Channel 5" said Russian human rights activist, founder of the "load-200 from Ukraine to Russia" in "Facebook" Elena Vasileva, reports Espreso.TV .

"Today missing in Ukraine Russian military, according to our data, more than five thousand," - she said.

Vasiliev said that the UN also confirmed the figure 4800 people missing and dead Russian soldiers in Donbass.

According to her, the important issue is not currently figure of dead Russians and mothers the opportunity to pick up and bury "those who gave their lives for some unknown reason."

http://espreso.tv/news/2014/12/08/v_ukrayini_znyklo_ponad_5_tysyach_rosiyskykh_soldat____vasylyeva

[AkMike]

That's a good start! 

How many more Muskovi will die because of Putler's vision of a rebuilt CCCP? 

[Brasscasing]

Thanks for posting that....A couple impressions, this could be a dig at the United Kingdom as much as anything.  Does Russia need the food they are talking about exchanging the weapons for?  Why does the United Kingdom and their transplanted citizens continue to control these disputed islands 1000's of miles from home but right off the coast of Argentina?  Argentina still claims the islands are their today, but doesn't have the military strength to enforce it. 


Fathertime!

The Island has a complicated history but at the end of the day the UN has guaranteed the island inhabitants the right to self determination and they choose to remain a protectorate of the UK. The Argentines do not recognize the Falkland inhabitants right to self determination or sovereignty.

..."Sovereignty dispute

Main article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[85][86] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[87] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[88][89] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[88]

In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown had a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[90] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[91][92] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[93] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum."...

You can read up on it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Brass

[JayH]

Military ask Putin to take them home in Russia (Video)

http://q99.it/Pcd7d0p

War in Donbass  - fighting on the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine continued to April 2014. In early September 2014 was signed a ceasefire agreement, after which the intensity of the fighting has decreased, but in certain areas of the collision and the shelling continued.


http://yavatnik.net/voennyie-prosyat-putina-zabrat-ih-domoy-v-rossiyu-video/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2dvh9s_3%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%B2-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%82-%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%B2-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8E_news

[Doll]

Jay, I can not open your first link

[Doll]

Fake videos

[fathertime]

The Island has a complicated history but at the end of the day the UN has guaranteed the island inhabitants the right to self determination and they choose to remain a protectorate of the UK. The Argentines do not recognize the Falkland inhabitants right to self determination or sovereignty.

..."Sovereignty dispute

Main article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[85][86] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[87] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[88][89] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[88]

In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown had a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[90] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[91][92] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[93] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum."...

You can read up on it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Brass

I think I have a better wiki link here as it goes into more depth regarding the dispute itself:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute


As usual, there are two sides to the story.  Overall, the reason The United Kingdom still has control of these island is their military superiority. The Falklands are sparsely populated yet they are VERY restrictive in allowing new immigrants. Of course when this dispute first erupted Argentina was an unwilling 'colony' of Europe...[size=78%]   [/size]
[/size][size=78%]
Here is Argentina's position:[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:[/color][/size]That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1810,[67][/size] a principle known as uti possidetis juris[/i].[/b]
[/size][/font]

• That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.

• That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

• That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.[/size][68][/size][69][/size][70][/size] :34–35[/b][/font][/color]

• That, in addition to uti possidetis juris[/i], sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.[/size][71][/size][72][/size][73][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.[/size][74][/size][75][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[76][/size][not in citation given[/i]][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.[76][/size][77][/size][not in citation given[/i]][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[76][/size][77][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.[76][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.[78][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.[/size][79][/size][/b][/font][/color]

• 
  
  
  
  
  Fathertime! 
   

[fathertime]

Overall, if The United Kingdom can still hold claim to Islands 12,000 kms from home and restrict new inhabitants (to ensure they retain control)...then other nations might feel that they can take similar stands now and 100 years in the future it will be accepted, sorta like the Falklands.  Of course it just so happens there is at least 10 billion in oil The United Kingdom will benefit from, and Argentina will not:  It is almost humorous how selective people's outrage and sense of what is right/wrong is.   


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/the-falkland-islands-brace-for-oil-wealth


Fathertime!   

[Brasscasing]

I think I have a better wiki link here as it goes into more depth regarding the dispute itself:

Suit yourself. 

As usual, there are two sides to the story.  Overall, the reason The United Kingdom still has control of these island is their military superiority. The Falklands are sparsely populated yet they are VERY restrictive in allowing new immigrants. Of course when this dispute first erupted Argentina was an unwilling 'colony' of Europe...

That's the second time you've mentioned UK military superiority. You do realize that the it was the Argentines who invaded and tried to militarily seize the island by force in 1982, yes?

Up to that point the only military presence on the island consisted of an icebreaker and if memory serves a platoon of Royal Marines on rotational duty. It would seem that the use of military strength was initiated by the Argentines not the UK.

An excerpt from another wikilink...

..."The maintenance of only a token military force before the Falklands War, and the suggestion that HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn, persuaded Argentina to start that conflict, assuming that Britain would not respond or be easily able to recapture the islands"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

It was Argentina who opened the can of whoop ass. Up to that point the UK was quite happy to let the UN and alklanders deal with any claims/complaints etc.

Here is Argentina's position...

Indeed. As you mentioned at the beginning of your comments there are usually (at least) two versions of an event(s).

At the end of the day it's what the Falklanders have chosen that counts though. The rest, as they say, is history.

Brass

[Chelseaboy]

I see comrade fathertime is still not letting facts get in the way of his anti-western rants.

Now it's the turn of lil' ole UK,which still includes Scotland by the way,to feel his ire.