Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“From the US point of view, Nord Stream 2 endangers Europe because it makes it dependent on Russian gas and endangers Ukraine - which in my opinion worries many Germans,” Pompeo said. “We hope Nord Stream 2 will not be completed and we are working on a coalition to prevent this from happening. We hope that the German government will also come to this assessment, be it because of what happened to Mr. Navalny or because of the security implications that dependence on Russian gas brings."
or because... because of... who cares because of what.
The major point is that Russia is standing on our way of the world domination.
It’s not just because, if Nordstream 2 goes through it signifies an independent Germany with an independent foreign policy of that of the US and untangling it’s self from the status of a US puppet. Historically it always made sense for there to be some kind of alliance/ understanding between Russia and Prussia/Germany. The West has always tried its best to build a wedge between the two, and that continues on today. When Germany and Russia are on opposing sides that’s when things start to go haywire (WWI, WWII)
It’s not just because, if Nordstream 2 goes through it signifies an independent Germany with an independent foreign policy of that of the US and untangling it’s self from the status of a US puppet. Historically it always made sense for there to be some kind of alliance/ understanding between Russia and Prussia/Germany. The West has always tried its best to build a wedge between the two, and that continues on today. When Germany and Russia are on opposing sides that’s when things start to go haywire (WWI, WWII)
P.S. In this video Sharij's people are asking tough questions some big wigs from Social-Democratic Party of Germany ( during the town hall meeting I assume.)
Things like why there is no reaction to brutal attacks on political opposition in Ukraine, while attacks on political opposition in Russia or Belorussia is a big deal.
They've said that they need to look into it and to come up with the appropriate answers, although they are saying from the get-go, that they see a problem in difference of approach to Navalny case vs, say to Khashoggi case, who, ( according to them, was not "only attacked, but taken out of the embassy in pieces. Yet no particular reaction in the West followed, as it was not a big deal.")
And of course (wink-wink) we understand that the absence of persecution towards the nationalists in Ukraine stems from the fact that they are supported by Americans, so....
Yes, Germans have things to think about of course; but here they make it very clear I think that they understand what REALLY stands behind the attempts to sanction them because of the NS 2 project.
Although here they mention only purely monetary reasons behind it; - i.e. desire of Americans to sell them the liquefied gas instead.
But we all know that there is more to the story than that, looking at that older video of George Friedman.
Russia does what it does because it has to. That's due to the hostility of others. Don't try to tell me different.
When the Soviet Union fell, an acquaintance of mine went to St. Petersburg to teach economics and finance at the local university. He was part of the army of professionals sent to Russia by the West to help them set up their banking system, stock market, oil industry, finance, etc.. He came back a few years later, complaining that the emerging class of oligarchs were running the country like the Mafia, and that a hoped-for alliance with the rest of the industrialized first-world nations wasn't going to happen because Russia would have to abide by the rule of law that the West uses to prevent corruption. NATO was never on their minds. It was much more lucrative to loot the country's natural resources and return to the police state that existed during the Soviet days, thereby controlling the population with nationalistic patriotic drivel to keep them from questioning the state of affairs that has existed there ever since. It's too bad, too, because the Russian people are smart, decent people who are caught up in an evil system of corruption that punishes successful entrepreneurs, driving them out of the country because their success was stolen by the Russian Mafia. The Russian ruling class doesn't appreciate the fact that they have driven their talent out of the country and into places like Silicon Valley. I've worked with, and have become friends with Russian immigrants over the years---some of the best people I've ever worked with, and some of the best friends I've ever had.
When the Soviet Union fell, an acquaintance of mine went to St. Petersburg to teach economics and finance at the local university. He was part of the army of professionals sent to Russia by the West to help them set up their banking system, stock market, oil industry, finance, etc.. He came back a few years later, complaining that the emerging class of oligarchs were running the country like the Mafia, and that a hoped-for alliance with the rest of the industrialized first-world nations wasn't going to happen because Russia would have to abide by the rule of law that the West uses to prevent corruption. NATO was never on their minds. It was much more lucrative to loot the country's natural resources and return to the police state that existed during the Soviet days, thereby controlling the population with nationalistic patriotic drivel to keep them from questioning the state of affairs that has existed there ever since. It's too bad, too, because the Russian people are smart, decent people who are caught up in an evil system of corruption that punishes successful entrepreneurs, driving them out of the country because their success was stolen by the Russian Mafia. The Russian ruling class doesn't appreciate the fact that they have driven their talent out of the country and into places like Silicon Valley. I've worked with, and have become friends with Russian immigrants over the years---some of the best people I've ever worked with, and some of the best friends I've ever had.
Please stop right there.
Americans with all their "help to set banking system" and so on were the LEAST concerned with any "rule of law" in Russia at that point.
Their major concern at that point was to destroy the Soviet system, to make currency easily convertible, and to have direct access to the natural resources of Russia via people they found convenient ( and often - downright appointed by them.)
That's all they cared for at that point in time.
If they REALLY cared for the rule of law in Russia, none of the disaster that Russia became back in the 90ies would have happened.
But if the rule of law had to be established in Russia FIRST, then Americans wouldn't have been able to fish in the muddy waters, making billions in private profits in the process ( those who came to "help" there.)
It's all well-documented.
They didn't have any designs for Russia to become a legal and prosperous democratic state; they envisioned it as a future colony, in the same manner as they perceive Ukraine at this point, and then some more.
"Karl Popper wrote the book Open Society and Its Enemies [in which] he described two main enemies of open society, which were fascism and communism. In the last 10 years, Russia found out that an open society has one more enemy. This enemy is capitalism which is not limited by laws, by civil institutions, by tradition, by belief, by the judicial system, by trade unions, by nothing -- simply the wild will for profit at any price. That was the key idea of privatization here; that was the key idea of all the changes here. That's why it put Russia into a situation of crony capitalism. It put Russia on the way of an inside-dealing economy.
Please stop right there.
Americans with all their "help to set banking system" and so on were the LEAST concerned with any "rule of law" in Russia at that point.
Their major concern at that point was to destroy the Soviet system, to make currency easily convertible, and to have direct access to the natural resources of Russia via people they found convenient ( and often - downright appointed by them.)
That's all they cared for at that point in time.
If they REALLY cared for the rule of law in Russia, none of the disaster that Russia became back in the 90ies would have happened.
But if the rule of law had to be established in Russia FIRST, then Americans wouldn't have been able to fish in the muddy waters, making billions in private profits in the process ( those who came to "help" there.)
It's all well-documented.
They didn't have any designs for Russia to become a legal and prosperous democratic state; they envisioned it as a future colony, in the same manner as they perceive Ukraine at this point, and then some more.
"Karl Popper wrote the book Open Society and Its Enemies [in which] he described two main enemies of open society, which were fascism and communism. In the last 10 years, Russia found out that an open society has one more enemy. This enemy is capitalism which is not limited by laws, by civil institutions, by tradition, by belief, by the judicial system, by trade unions, by nothing -- simply the wild will for profit at any price. That was the key idea of privatization here; that was the key idea of all the changes here. That's why it put Russia into a situation of crony capitalism. It put Russia on the way of an inside-dealing economy.
So "capitalism" was all Americans wanted in Russia at that point.
No matter what kind of capitalism.
As long as it was not socialism of any kind.
I was an adult back then, and witnessed what was going on in real time. Of course we wanted to destroy the Soviet system, that was the whole point. The plans the West had for Russia would have been better for the Russian people overall, but all you have today is a proverbial Potemkin village. It looks nice on the surface, but the corruption, which is estimated to account for anywhere between 20 and 30 percent of the economy, is destroying the nation. People I know personally were driven out of Russia by rampant corruption. Your attempts to deny the truths I've laid out aren't working and aren't convincing. Contrary to your post, modern Capitalism is most certainly governed by laws and civil institutions. It wouldn't work otherwise. Your premise is false and reeks of the idealism of a college freshman. The big difference is that Russia rejected those very institutions that would have given the country more economic stability, hence the "Wild West" capitalism that exists in today's Russia. Your country deserves much better, and you know it.
I was an adult back then, and witnessed what was going on in real time. Of course we wanted to destroy the Soviet system, that was the whole point. The plans the West had for Russia would have been better for the Russian people overall, but all you have today is a proverbial Potemkin village. It looks nice on the surface, but the corruption, which is estimated to account for anywhere between 20 and 30 percent of the economy, is destroying the nation. People I know personally were driven out of Russia by rampant corruption. Your attempts to deny the truths I've laid out aren't working and aren't convincing. Contrary to your post, modern Capitalism is most certainly governed by laws and civil institutions. It wouldn't work otherwise. Your premise is false and reeks of the idealism of a college freshman. The big difference is that Russia rejected those very institutions that would have given the country more economic stability, hence the "Wild West" capitalism that exists in today's Russia. Your country deserves much better, and you know it.
Is it so?
"Under supervision of Harvard mafia Russian economy has all but collapsed, the class of oligarchs emerged, population standard of living slided to Central African levels and its infrastructure and key assets were looted at bargain basement prices..
..The story of Andrei Shleifer in Russia is a classic story of "academic extortion": betrayal of trust and academic principles by Harvard professor of economics (probably not without the influence of his wife, hedge fund manager Nancy Zimmerman, longtime friend of Larry Summers). While the guy was just a pawn in a big game run by intelligence agencies, the issues of criminality of economists acting as economic hitmen and relevance of RICO statute against such offences is a much bigger issue..
Throughout the Soviet Union the neoliberal model established “equilibrium” in a way that involved demographic collapse: shortening life spans, lower birth rates, alcoholism and drug abuse, psychological depression, suicides, bad health, unemployment and homelessness for the elderly (the neoliberal mode of Social Security reform).
After the dissolution of the USSR, there was a vacuum of ideology in Russia and it was successfully filled with Harvard promoted neoliberalism and associated neo-classical economics. This was a powerful fifths column, oriented on helping the West to extract as much wealth from Russia as possible was created. The USA essentially forced Russians into so called shock therapy using Harvard academic mafia (plan was authored by Jeffrey Sachs who was lecturer at Harvard and implemented by Larry Summers protégé, Russian émigré Shleifer and several other Harvard academic brats with a couple of British poodles to make the gang international) and internal compradors in Yelstin government as fifth column. As a result poverty level jumped from 2% to 40%. Everything that can be stolen, was stolen by implementation of rapid privatization policy. During the heydays of corrupt Yeltsin regime implementation of shock therapy GDP dropped 50%. Suicide rate doubled, life expectancy for males dropped below 60 years (12,8% death rate increase), homeless children which were unknown in the USSR became mass feature of new social order.
The key seller of shock therapy was about Harvard Mafiosi, Professor Jeffrey Sachs who was a prominent neoliberal who because his role in destruction of Russian economics, contributed to immense sufferings in Bolivia, Chili, Poland and several other countries. Instead of something like Marshall plan, a merciless and unlawful grab of capital and national resources was successfully implemented in less then five year period after the dissolution. This was an amazingly greedy and short-sited policy by Clinton administration."
So please, try to convince me a bit harder that "the plans that West had for Russia would have been better for Russian people overall."
"After seven years of economic "reform" financed by billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans and rescheduled debt, the majority of Russian people find themselves worse off economically. The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western aid and plundered Russia's wealth. The architect of privatization was former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, a darling of the U.S. and Western financial establishments."
A man who received further lucrative positions in Putin's government by the way.
So no need to talk about the "Potemkin village" in today's Russia.
I perfectly see WHO/WHAT was ruling Russia during Putin's presidency.
I haven't been fooled for a second, unlike many other Russians.
I was an adult back then, and witnessed what was going on in real time. Of course we wanted to destroy the Soviet system, that was the whole point. The plans the West had for Russia would have been better for the Russian people overall, but all you have today is a proverbial Potemkin village. It looks nice on the surface, but the corruption, which is estimated to account for anywhere between 20 and 30 percent of the economy, is destroying the nation. People I know personally were driven out of Russia by rampant corruption. Your attempts to deny the truths I've laid out aren't working and aren't convincing. Contrary to your post, modern Capitalism is most certainly governed by laws and civil institutions. It wouldn't work otherwise. Your premise is false and reeks of the idealism of a college freshman. The big difference is that Russia rejected those very institutions that would have given the country more economic stability, hence the "Wild West" capitalism that exists in today's Russia. Your country deserves much better, and you know it.
The institutions and laws have been corrupted in the systems to favor the dominant companies in the industries. This is called regulatory capture where the regulators are beholden to the interests of the largest companies in the industries they are supposed to regulate. The revolving door between these companies and the regulators reward the regulators with lucrative positions in the private sector while seating high-level executives from these companies in the regulatory agencies. That's why the system is sometimes referred to as oligarchic.
Regulatory capture occurs because the largest companies have a large interest in how regulations are enforced and laws are created while the vast public and the smaller players in the industry see themselves as having only a minor stake. It's worth it to the large players to devote large staffs and billions in expenditures and political donations to get favorable treatment.
In Asia, you have a similar environment where large conglomerates dominate the economy. It's true whether they're private companies (keiretsus, chaebols, etc.) or Chinese government-owned firms.
When the Soviet Union fell, an acquaintance of mine went to St. Petersburg to teach economics and finance at the local university. He was part of the army of professionals sent to Russia by the West to help them set up their banking system, stock market, oil industry, finance, etc.. He came back a few years later, complaining that the emerging class of oligarchs were running the country like the Mafia, and that a hoped-for alliance with the rest of the industrialized first-world nations wasn't going to happen because Russia would have to abide by the rule of law that the West uses to prevent corruption. NATO was never on their minds. It was much more lucrative to loot the country's natural resources and return to the police state that existed during the Soviet days, thereby controlling the population with nationalistic patriotic drivel to keep them from questioning the state of affairs that has existed there ever since. It's too bad, too, because the Russian people are smart, decent people who are caught up in an evil system of corruption that punishes successful entrepreneurs, driving them out of the country because their success was stolen by the Russian Mafia. The Russian ruling class doesn't appreciate the fact that they have driven their talent out of the country and into places like Silicon Valley. I've worked with, and have become friends with Russian immigrants over the years---some of the best people I've ever worked with, and some of the best friends I've ever had.
Okay Mr Smith you need to keep in mind you're in the big leagues now.
What happened in Russia in the 1990s was a construct intended by the west (America) to make a place for Russia within a system. The place for Russia was to be a colony, a banana republic. Obedient, servile and performing to a standard well below what it was capable of but compatible with expectations of the conquerer.
Russia is not in NATO for one reason. Russia got up off its knees. There's no other reason no matter what red herrings are thrown about. Your answer predates any thought of it to my knowledge and tosses the blame at the feet of the wrong people on top of that.
The institutions and laws have been corrupted in the systems to favor the dominant companies in the industries. This is called regulatory capture where the regulators are beholden to the interests of the largest companies in the industries they are supposed to regulate. The revolving door between these companies and the regulators reward the regulators with lucrative positions in the private sector while seating high-level executives from these companies in the regulatory agencies. That's why the system is sometimes referred to as oligarchic.
Regulatory capture occurs because the largest companies have a large interest in how regulations are enforced and laws are created while the vast public and the smaller players in the industry see themselves as having only a minor stake. It's worth it to the large players to devote large staffs and billions in expenditures and political donations to get favorable treatment.
In Asia, you have a similar environment where large conglomerates dominate the economy. It's true whether they're private companies (keiretsus, chaebols, etc.) or Chinese government-owned firms.
It seems to me you find this system everywhere. It's in all economic systems today in one form or another. It's why our systems are not capitalist in its true form. I consider this corruption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
