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.
You flatter yourself. Most Russians will not even find Bulgaria on the World map.
As well as Bulgaria. Say thanks to the Greeks.
Pretty sure I've written about this before: Greek created glagollic not Cyrillic, worse case scenario will be: Macedonia which still isn't Greece.
I don't care about 'most russians', I am saying the position of their government. The drunk russian priest who said this about bulgaria is..well not most russians anyway.
Excellent question, the EU gets stable neighbors (security) and trading partners (economic benefits). This is the goal of the EU, long term peace and prosperity. Europe has never had more of both than it does now. Access to the EU single market should be the goal for any country that is eligible.
EU is turning into a German protectorate...security in Europe is guaranteed by NATO not the EU.
Corruption in many EU countries is rampant...take your blinders off...
Good speech from an advertising poster. But, unfortunately, this has nothing to do with reality. If EU wants security, then why they was destroy Libya, bombed Yugoslavia and blowed up Middle East? Millions of Islamic migrants is poor security. And you can trade with any authoritarian country (for example, with China, Russia or Saudi Arabia). You don't need to invest billions for this.
Geopolitics has another goals.
Bombing Libya and Yugoslavia can be ascribed to the goals I laid out, although those were NATO actions, not EU. Defending people in nearby countries from being slaughtered by their government aligns with the ideas I gave you regarding European security. Not sure who in the Middle East you are referring to that Europe has "blowed" up but perhaps you are talking about Yemen or Syria neither of which have to do with European military action. Syria indeed demonstrates the results of the lack of European initiative.
EU is turning into a German protectorate...security in Europe is guaranteed by NATO not the EU.
Corruption in many EU countries is rampant...take your blinders off...
The rest of the EU wants Germany in the EU, they pay for more of it than anyone else. Germany has no incentive to return to its darker ways in this setup. Other countries are more secure when Germany is focused on making money instead of war.
The rest of the EU wants Germany in the EU, they pay for more of it than anyone else. Germany has no incentive to return to its darker ways in this setup. Other countries are more secure when Germany is focused on making money instead of war.
There are other concerns other than military security....and Germany was already tied up with NATO and prevented from making more disasters...EU was really not necessary, at least not as a political union...
Yes I can.
I think I need to make already a sticky about the nineties, so that I wouldn't have to repeat myself refuting the endless BS, how it's "all-Russia's- fault" and "it couldn't-be -any-other-way-during-transitional-period."
And your question, Maxim, was absolutely correct "if the EU pays for the "reforms," what does it want in return?"
Truth to be told, it's not just the "EU," but it's the US together with EU that is paying via "IMF" "World bank" - whatever, and obviously they are paying with their goals in mind, which are not as benign as DKM is trying to convince us. We are no fools of course, and we understand that when money are invested, it's about more than just "good neighbors" and "trading partners." This is only true up to a certain degree - when Germany needed to expand its economy, it expanded it with specific FOUR countries in mind. And yes - I am sure that in these four countries the reforms were meaningful, since they served the mentioned above goal.
But those were the ONLY countries Germany really needed, so as for the rest... The rest were serving a different purpose; number one - to keep them to be cut off from Russia, and number two - as a source of plunder, since no one should forget that the money stream should move in one, and one direction only - enriching American upper class and those with it.
In all honesty I can't even blame Germans/EU for their actions, because it was not Germany/EU that started the whole money race/ "international competition" that American corporate world likes so much to refer to. Because it was not EU, but American corporations that went around the world, looking for sources of cheap labor.
But I digress, and speaking about the "meaningful reforms" - we all remember them applied not to Poland and not to other Vysegrad-4 countries, but specifically to Russia;
"...The Summers visit was critically important [as one commentator noted]: “Just before Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Congress September 21, the administration sent . . . Summers to Moscow to talk about the conditions for impending IMF aid. . . . Gaidar was immediately brought back as first deputy prime minister, and for the first time he really applied the shock therapy the IMF had been demanding. Bread prices were raised to the point where the daily minimum wage was roughly equal to the price of a loaf of bread in Moscow, and Gaidar promised a vigorous reduction of subsidies beginning January 1 of [1994]."
Because it was not the "EU" paying for those reforms - no-no, America couldn't trust such important matters as post-Soviet Russia to anyone else, but it were the *American advisers* sitting in Kremlin back then.
But whatever, too late now - what's done is done.
I've already said many times before, that I GREATLY dislike Putin, that he is not good news not only to Russia but the rest of the world, and I see that some people are finally beginning to realize that. That those nineties had very dire consequences. ( Unless of course they are not talking about the second coming, as here for example)))
I understand Russia's history and need to be anti-western. But I'll never understand how it's still a 2nd world country. I get the corruption part, but you would think that a country like Russia would try to become 1st world as another "haha we did it" to the west. I guess when you have a bunch of nukes it really doesn't matter.
It takes money, and a well-functioning economy, including people in power who understand the value of small business, to advance to 1st world status. Russia's budget is too dependent on oil. When the global price drops, the bottom drops out of the Russian economy. They haven't had a chance, or the vision, to build an economy that's more based on manufacturing exports, than raw natural resources.
In Vlad's first two terms, he put money into infrastructure improvement and expansion. Then Medvedev became Prez, and wanted to develop light industry. Brilliant! FINALLY! But no ; the price of oil dropped dramatically just after he arrived, so those plans (if there ever were any actual specific plans) got scrapped.
It takes money, and a well-functioning economy, including people in power who understand the value of small business, to advance to 1st world status. Russia's budget is too dependent on oil. When the global price drops, the bottom drops out of the Russian economy. They haven't had a chance, or the vision, to build an economy that's more based on manufacturing exports, than raw natural resources.
In Vlad's first two terms, he put money into infrastructure improvement and expansion. Then Medvedev became Prez, and wanted to develop light industry. Brilliant! FINALLY! But no ; the price of oil dropped dramatically just after he arrived, so those plans (if there ever were any actual specific plans) got scrapped.
And so it goes. Up, down, boom, bust.
Those who DID have a vision ( I am talking about Yavlinsky Ruth,) were not supported by the West.
The West supported only those, who were ready to sell the natural resources.
It takes money, and a well-functioning economy, including people in power who understand the value of small business, to advance to 1st world status. Russia's budget is too dependent on oil. When the global price drops, the bottom drops out of the Russian economy. They haven't had a chance, or the vision, to build an economy that's more based on manufacturing exports, than raw natural resources.
In Vlad's first two terms, he put money into infrastructure improvement and expansion. Then Medvedev became Prez, and wanted to develop light industry. Brilliant! FINALLY! But no ; the price of oil dropped dramatically just after he arrived, so those plans (if there ever were any actual specific plans) got scrapped.
And so it goes. Up, down, boom, bust.
If you follow Putin speeches and meetings he is pointing exactly at that...bureaucratic reforms and private entrepreneurship stimulation...he continuously encourage people to take initiative and follow their dreams, pursue their aspirations and at the same time he promises to keep unshackling and dismantling the red tape and cracking down on administrative inefficiency...only words?? Who knows but at least he seems laser focused on that.....obviously the western media talked only about the new weapons and ignored the rest of Putin state of the union speech.
The economy diversification effort seems is finally starting to bear some fruit. I recently watched a documentary with some numbers and statistics on what Russia now is capable to produce at home compared to the not so distant past...maybe is propaganda but if it is to be believed at least in part, it seems remarkable.
You do not turn an oil tanker on a dime...and Russia is definitely not the only country suffering from the so called "Dutch disease", even among first world countries.
Last edited by saturno_v; 03-09-2018 at 09:51 PM..
I've already said many times before, that I GREATLY dislike Putin, that he is not good news not only to Russia but the rest of the world, and I see that some people are finally beginning to realize that.
Putin is no saint for sure (what saint could govern Russia anyway??) but I do not think he is dangerous or ill-intentioned....if by being "no good news" means not willing to bend over and sell out Russia future and status then I guess he is "bad news"....but "bad news" that in a way I have respect for.....
Last edited by saturno_v; 03-09-2018 at 10:01 PM..
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.
But, unfortunately, this has nothing to do with reality. If EU wants security, then why they was destroy Libya, bombed Yugoslavia and blowed up Middle East? Millions of Islamic migrants is poor security. And you can trade with any authoritarian country (for example, with China, Russia or Saudi Arabia). You don't need to invest billions for this. 
; the price of oil dropped dramatically just after he arrived, so those plans (if there ever were any actual specific plans) got scrapped.