Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Economy General News: #3

    Share

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:09 am

    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:VW and BMW's are built like shit.  I know cause my family owned some.

    Add to that, how do you even.....know quality by a few screenshots?  Have any of you driven these Lada's?  I bet not and Granta has been selling very well, so that say something.  Might I suggest you guys stop talking about stuff you have no idea about?  I can tell from experience - German cars are no better than American made ones.  They are garbage.  Especially VW.  Built like crap and overpriced.  Asthetics and technology my ass.  What makes it so technological Mike?  A digital display?  I can tell you that I owned a Mercury Couger, 85 edition, with a digital displays.  So what?  My Dodge Journey has digital displays.  This technology isn't even advanced and is cheap shit if you ever worked on one, which I highly doubt you have judging by your stupid post.

    Also, if you idiots even decided to look at the price, you cant even compare the two.  I would choose a Granta over a Garbage Wagon that is 30K while the Granta is 9K.

    I can't comment on the current crop of Russian cars.  But the VW quality is a function of your model selection.   You have to
    pay for the higher end versions of the Jetta, etc., to get reasonable quality.   The affordable prices for the low end versions
    of the Jetta are because it is of crap quality.   VW is going to give German car manufacturing a bad name.

    Most of them are built like shit, much the same with BMW, especially in NA market as most of them are made in mexico. Maybe engine is imported.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:21 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:VW and BMW's are built like shit.  I know cause my family owned some.

    Add to that, how do you even.....know quality by a few screenshots?  Have any of you driven these Lada's?  I bet not and Granta has been selling very well, so that say something.  Might I suggest you guys stop talking about stuff you have no idea about?  I can tell from experience - German cars are no better than American made ones.  They are garbage.  Especially VW.  Built like crap and overpriced.  Asthetics and technology my ass.  What makes it so technological Mike?  A digital display?  I can tell you that I owned a Mercury Couger, 85 edition, with a digital displays.  So what?  My Dodge Journey has digital displays.  This technology isn't even advanced and is cheap shit if you ever worked on one, which I highly doubt you have judging by your stupid post.

    Also, if you idiots even decided to look at the price, you cant even compare the two.  I would choose a Granta over a Garbage Wagon that is 30K while the Granta is 9K.

    I can't comment on the current crop of Russian cars.  But the VW quality is a function of your model selection.   You have to
    pay for the higher end versions of the Jetta, etc., to get reasonable quality.   The affordable prices for the low end versions
    of the Jetta are because it is of crap quality.   VW is going to give German car manufacturing a bad name.

    Most of them are built like shit, much the same with BMW, especially in NA market as most of them are made in mexico.  Maybe engine is imported.
    In general? VW's are (IMHO and my relatives own one) superior to their common counterparts such as Honda's and Toyota's (hate em')... Even the Mexican-made models are of good quality, and they are built to VW standards by VW-approved workers. Online, Dub' dealers say that they see no noticeable difference in quality compared to their German-made counterparts, and I agree... The Jetta sedan is by far their worst model, so it isn't a good reference.

    BMW's have gone down in quality and performance, but they are still great cars nonetheless. 

    Russian models aren't great, but they will constantly be improved upon.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:30 am

    Mike E wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:VW and BMW's are built like shit.  I know cause my family owned some.

    Add to that, how do you even.....know quality by a few screenshots?  Have any of you driven these Lada's?  I bet not and Granta has been selling very well, so that say something.  Might I suggest you guys stop talking about stuff you have no idea about?  I can tell from experience - German cars are no better than American made ones.  They are garbage.  Especially VW.  Built like crap and overpriced.  Asthetics and technology my ass.  What makes it so technological Mike?  A digital display?  I can tell you that I owned a Mercury Couger, 85 edition, with a digital displays.  So what?  My Dodge Journey has digital displays.  This technology isn't even advanced and is cheap shit if you ever worked on one, which I highly doubt you have judging by your stupid post.

    Also, if you idiots even decided to look at the price, you cant even compare the two.  I would choose a Granta over a Garbage Wagon that is 30K while the Granta is 9K.

    I can't comment on the current crop of Russian cars.  But the VW quality is a function of your model selection.   You have to
    pay for the higher end versions of the Jetta, etc., to get reasonable quality.   The affordable prices for the low end versions
    of the Jetta are because it is of crap quality.   VW is going to give German car manufacturing a bad name.

    Most of them are built like shit, much the same with BMW, especially in NA market as most of them are made in mexico.  Maybe engine is imported.
    In general? VW's are (IMHO and my relatives own one) superior to their common counterparts such as Honda's and Toyota's (hate em')... Even the Mexican-made models are of good quality, and they are built to VW standards by VW-approved workers. Online, Dub' dealers say that they see no noticeable difference in quality compared to their German-made counterparts, and I agree... The Jetta sedan is by far their worst model, so it isn't a good reference.

    BMW's have gone down in quality and performance, but they are still great cars nonetheless. 

    Russian models aren't great, but they will constantly be improved upon.

    Russian models? Do you even know what you are talking about anymore?  They make mercedes in Russia, maybe BMW's.  No, the North American made VW are garbage.  Look at this from last year: http://dougdemuro.kinja.com/here-s-why-volkswagen-s-strategy-is-doomed-to-fail-1485901046

    Check out the Lemon cars book next time you are in a library.  Yeah, they are not very highly rated.  If they are compared to similar quality from German ones, then I have no hope for Volkswagen.  Hence why industrial production is down, cause auto sales from VW and the like is also down.  Also hence they are willing to invest 9B to try to fix the issues.

    Lada granta is more or less a Chrystler Sebring with a Mitsubishi engine and Transmission.  Same ones you can find in most north American vehicles like Ford, Dodge and Chrystler, or European FIAT.  The display in the Granta is guaranteed to be the same crap quality that can be found in nearly every new car, all comes form China and rebadged with a different name.  Hell, even the more expensive Alpine car stereo equipment is like that.  But for $9K vs $30 - 50K for a VW, I would choose the Granta, even if it may break down more (even though it seems to have held out quite well for a lot of people, cant say the same for VW), it would still be cheaper overall to fix and run over the VW.  My 85 Mustang GT for crying out loud was better than my bosses or coworkers VW Golf.  Because well, you cant seem to afford the more expensive ones.  Yeah, if you got the money, why the hell not?  But for the average joe?  No.

    My job as a student, if it wasn't building computers/workstations/servers, installing shit for people or some basic programming, it was working in the mechanics shop at my school on my Mustang, or Couger.  I would install all of this cool crap in it, but in the end it was pointless.  After getting older, and having a family, I realized: A flashy car is just that, to show off and to make it feel like you have a big you-know-what.  Then that is when I decided to look into Kia, Hyundai and Dodge (only simply because I love dodge not because of quality but because of history - Hell yeah, 1971 Charger is a kick ass automobile.  Still didn't stand up to my cousins 71 Ford Mach 1 though).  Dad purchased a Hyundai Santa Fe, 2003 (back in 2003) for a fraction of what Toyota or any other brand offered, and it is a 2.7L v6 engine.  Guess what? It is sitting in my backyard and still runs, at 340,000 KM.  Got a Dodge Journey cause I have a family. Regret it as I think a Kia Rio or Forte would have been better as it is cheaper and much better on gas (the 3.6L v6 Proline is a gas guzzler).  When I look at my friends, yeah a VW may be great if they want to try to outdo the Asians in their Honda Civics and Scion's, but when you become an adult, you will realize such cars are nothing more than an image.  And this, is what Germany is based off of.  Creating an image that German Engineering is so great.  Yeah, 21st century lie.

    Kia and Hyundai are not growing because they make expensive flashy vehicles.  They are growing because they are making vehicles meant for the people (wasn't that the Volkswagen theme?) at reasonable prices.  Hence why I would buy a Kia Rio over the Lada Granta but that is because of availability.  Avtovaz is owned by Renault-Nissan conglomerate.  Not even Russian anymore.  Just it still stays in Russia.

    Edit: I really truly am sorry for being a dick. But I have never felt so infuriated that you guys compare vehicles based upon an interior look, and flashy gadgets. Half of that isn't even used by most people. What actually makes a vehicle good is the drive quality, the build (if it rusts in a year or not) and how well it handles itself for over a year (how many times it has to be taken in and looked at). I would seriously choose a 1970 Chevy Nova over most cars these days, as they are just built like garbage. Toyota and Honda are no better anymore due to the fact they are all trying to compete against China's cheap methods of manufacturing in order to compete internationally. Not working out well for them.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:44 am

    Sorry about that... Russian "model" equals a car designed and produced in Russia by a Russian company.*

    You're linking a friggin' Jalopnik article! I love them, but they are still butt hurt about Dubs' no longer being air-cooled. Same dudes praised the new GTi (built in Mexico) earlier this year.

    Not rated well, huh? Not according to the 10+ owners of Mexico-made models that I personally know and talk to... The US built models are built better, but the difference is still negligible. My only problem with new VW designs is the design itself, not the quality. 

    Calling a vehicle a "Sebring" is the biggest insult that I can imagine. The Granta seems like a nice vehicle, and I never said otherwise... Is it ready for the international-market? No! The Soviet car industry (civilian cars not trucks) was lacking, in, well, everything... So, it is a big step to finally market a vehicle like the Granta. Would I (assuming I live in Russia) buy it over its competitors(?), also no... That being said, it is affordable enough for the Average "Vlad Shmoe" to seriously consider.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:51 am

    Mike E wrote:Sorry about that... Russian "model" equals a car designed and produced in Russia by a Russian company.*

    You're linking a friggin' Jalopnik article! I love them, but they are still butt hurt about Dubs' no longer being air-cooled. Same dudes praised the new GTi (built in Mexico) earlier this year.

    Not rated well, huh? Not according to the 10+ owners of Mexico-made models that I personally know and talk to... The US built models are built better, but the difference is still negligible. My only problem with new VW designs is the design itself, not the quality. 

    Calling a vehicle a "Sebring" is the biggest insult that I can imagine. The Granta seems like a nice vehicle, and I never said otherwise... Is it ready for the international-market? No! The Soviet car industry (civilian cars not trucks) was lacking, in, well, everything... So, it is a big step to finally market a vehicle like the Granta. Would I (assuming I live in Russia) buy it over its competitors(?), also no... That being said, it is affordable enough for the Average "Vlad Shmoe" to seriously consider.

    Yeah, 10+ people, vs more that I know who have had nothing but bad experience.  Once again, Granta is moving to international market  now being made in Egypt as example, and they import plenty of the other crap.  Sorry, but once again, learn a bit.  VW are garbage and nothing makes them advanced but a flashy heads up display that people with knowhow can install that afterwards.  I am far from impressed with most vehicles these days.  Have fun with your flashy Alpine display and overpriced plastic casings to your car.  I'll look to re-investing in the solid steel stuff of the 60's and 70's.  I see you are biased with your 10+ friends with a VW.  Good for you. I hope they enjoy the German engineered garbage.  If I was making an overpriced crap that costs $30K, yeah, I can throw all that stuff in too.  But doesn't mean one should.  If you got the money for such a thing, then maybe you should look at something more practical, which isn't a German car.

    Cars these days are not meant to last more than 5 - 10 years.  Hence why resale value of them are all crap.  If I am looking at a vehicle that is new, I am looking for something cheap and practical.  Not expensive and worth a mid range computer in 4 - 5 years.

    Edit: OK, I am sorry. I shouldn't be so rude. Sometimes, these type of things just get me riled up. Anyway, I hope you and your friends enjoy your VW. Since you payed for them, you should be able to enjoy them. I am just more of a fan of classic automobiles. If I was to buy a German vehicle, the vehicle has to be made in the 80's when they were good in my experience. Outside of that, whatever. Preferences are just that. I got no experience with Russian cars, so I cannot say, but so far, Granta is doing well, thanks to foreigners fixing Avtovaz. Vesta looks like their more premium line and Kalina is a hatchback. Aparently they are working on their electric car but who knows. Lada's are for the cheaper market, hence why you wont see all these little gadgets inside them. Some of them can make your life easier (like my Dodge allowing me to use my USB to listen to my music) and some of them are features that will never be touched.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:48 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Sorry about that... Russian "model" equals a car designed and produced in Russia by a Russian company.*

    You're linking a friggin' Jalopnik article! I love them, but they are still butt hurt about Dubs' no longer being air-cooled. Same dudes praised the new GTi (built in Mexico) earlier this year.

    Not rated well, huh? Not according to the 10+ owners of Mexico-made models that I personally know and talk to... The US built models are built better, but the difference is still negligible. My only problem with new VW designs is the design itself, not the quality. 

    Calling a vehicle a "Sebring" is the biggest insult that I can imagine. The Granta seems like a nice vehicle, and I never said otherwise... Is it ready for the international-market? No! The Soviet car industry (civilian cars not trucks) was lacking, in, well, everything... So, it is a big step to finally market a vehicle like the Granta. Would I (assuming I live in Russia) buy it over its competitors(?), also no... That being said, it is affordable enough for the Average "Vlad Shmoe" to seriously consider.

    Yeah, 10+ people, vs more that I know who have had nothing but bad experience.  Once again, Granta is moving to international market  now being made in Egypt as example, and they import plenty of the other crap.  Sorry, but once again, learn a bit.  VW are garbage and nothing makes them advanced but a flashy heads up display that people with knowhow can install that afterwards.  I am far from impressed with most vehicles these days.  Have fun with your flashy Alpine display and overpriced plastic casings to your car.  I'll look to re-investing in the solid steel stuff of the 60's and 70's.  I see you are biased with your 10+ friends with a VW.  Good for you. I hope they enjoy the German engineered garbage.  If I was making an overpriced crap that costs $30K, yeah, I can throw all that stuff in too.  But doesn't mean one should.  If you got the money for such a thing, then maybe you should look at something more practical, which isn't a German car.

    Cars these days are not meant to last more than 5 - 10 years.  Hence why resale value of them are all crap.  If I am looking at a vehicle that is new, I am looking for something cheap and practical.  Not expensive and worth a mid range computer in 4 - 5 years.

    Edit: OK, I am sorry.  I shouldn't be so rude.  Sometimes, these type of things just get me riled up.  Anyway, I hope you and your friends enjoy your VW.  Since you payed for them, you should be able to enjoy them.  I am just more of a fan of classic automobiles.  If I was to buy a German vehicle, the vehicle has to be made in the 80's when they were good in my experience.  Outside of that, whatever.  Preferences are just that.  I got no experience with Russian cars, so I cannot say, but so far, Granta is doing well, thanks to foreigners fixing Avtovaz.  Vesta looks like their more premium line and Kalina is a hatchback.  Aparently they are working on their electric car but who knows.  Lada's are for the cheaper market, hence why you wont see all these little gadgets inside them.  Some of them can make your life easier (like my Dodge allowing me to use my USB to listen to my music) and some of them are features that will never be touched.
    Just saying, and 10+ is a conservative estimate. VW quality *has* dropped within the decade, but IMHO that is due to designs being downgraded and not the location of production. I get your point, VW's are no miracle cars, but they aren't crap either. In the US Market, they tend to have higher quality interiors, more sound dampening, better power-trains (the new 1.8 is an Audi design), superior handling characteristics etc (vs Honda, Toyota, and the like). My personal favorite "common car brand" here in the States in Mazda. As they focus more on the drive their the simple aspects of the car itself. They also have nicer interiors etc and look better IMO. Our model is Golf-based, which isn't a bad thing... The Golf has arguably been their best model for decades now, and the new one doesn't disappoint in person. German engineered "garbage"? I'd say the Krauts can build a better cars than any other nation, save for maybe the UK or Italy you get the idea. Lol, a practical car is something like a Corolla, which also happens to be the biggest piece of crap on the roads... I'm all against practical cars, along with most enthusiasts (if you get what I mean)....

    Depreciation is terrible in recent times, and the #1 reason is options that are expensive to add-on, yet get nothing when the car is sold. 

    "A fan of classic automobiles" - I am the same way, but *when it comes to modern-crap commuters, Dubs' and Mazda's are my preference*. The perfect car IMHO, is the Lotus Elise and/or F-40, both of which demonstrate what cars should be able to do (albeit sports cars).

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  TR1 on Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:09 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:VW and BMW's are built like shit.  I know cause my family owned some.

    Add to that, how do you even.....know quality by a few screenshots?  Have any of you driven these Lada's?  I bet not and Granta has been selling very well, so that say something.  Might I suggest you guys stop talking about stuff you have no idea about?  I can tell from experience - German cars are no better than American made ones.  They are garbage.  Especially VW.  Built like crap and overpriced.  Asthetics and technology my ass.  What makes it so technological Mike?  A digital display?  I can tell you that I owned a Mercury Couger, 85 edition, with a digital displays.  So what?  My Dodge Journey has digital displays.  This technology isn't even advanced and is cheap shit if you ever worked on one, which I highly doubt you have judging by your stupid post.

    Also, if you idiots even decided to look at the price, you cant even compare the two.  I would choose a Granta over a Garbage Wagon that is 30K while the Granta is 9K.

    I can't comment on the current crop of Russian cars.  But the VW quality is a function of your model selection.   You have to
    pay for the higher end versions of the Jetta, etc., to get reasonable quality.   The affordable prices for the low end versions
    of the Jetta are because it is of crap quality.   VW is going to give German car manufacturing a bad name.

    Most of them are built like shit, much the same with BMW, especially in NA market as most of them are made in mexico.  Maybe engine is imported.

    My BMW experience has been good overall. Family member got a new X3 recently. Drives very very well, packed with great technology, lots of useful stuff, and just feels like its built SOLID.
    Jury is still out how it will do over the years, car is brand new. I doubt as good as the legendary Lexus/Toyota longevity, but we shall see.

    A million light-years head of anything Russian. Drove in so many Lada Prioras this summer, ugh.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:23 am

    TR1 wrote:My BMW experience has been good overall. Family member got a new X3 recently. Drives very very well, packed with great technology, lots of useful stuff, and just feels like its built SOLID.
    Jury is still out how it will do over the years, car is brand new. I doubt as good as the legendary Lexus/Toyota longevity, but we shall see.

    A million light-years head of anything Russian. Drove in so many Lada Prioras this summer, ugh.
    You cannot compare BMW's and something like the Priora... Might as well compare a Kilo to a Whiskey-class, or (in car terms) a Prius to a Vette' (C7 is a great car, managed to sit in one at the Detroit show). 

    Lexus/Toyota reliability has hit a low in the last couple of years, then again it seems like way with every major car manufacturer.... I'd say that Honda's are still more reliable, more so if you get a Manuél tranny. 

    They are catching up, there will be a point where the quality between the cars should be negligible. The Russian car industry is still in its (out of Soviet) infancy mind you.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Regular on Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:32 pm

    It wasn't me who started comparing Golf to Granta. I don't like Golf and didn't let my wife buy it even if she wanted one. Opel Astra range beats it out of water even if it's GTC version cost as much as Scirocco.
    And I do have experience with western and russian cars. I grew up with Soviet mopeds, motorcycles, tractors,
    And yes new cars are very dependant on services and their life is limited to boost car purchases.
    I remember when I used to go to germany to buy cars that even 10 y.o. cars were in pristine condition. Old people kept their cars clean and tidy. Now even simple DIY things like changing bulb is restricted by design and it requires special tools. I had Audi Q7 and I had to go to mechanic to change my break light and I was car dealer for 6 years Very Happy
    But then again when Lada Granta starts having probs after 5000 km then it's not forgivable. Check russian car forums. I would rather buy used but reliable car.
    What Russia is really good is trucks. I believe they have a chance to successfully compete in Europe. Kamaz should become like MAN.. It needs to expand into Europe


    Last edited by Regular on Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:55 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Phone error)

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:15 pm

    Russia's strategic view of US.

    Interview with Nikolay Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council

    https://www.facebook.com/sharmine.narwani/posts/741370525911333

    Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 15, 2014
    Cold War II: Interview with Nikolay Patrushev
    by Ivan Yegorov
    “The sobering up of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful”
    In an interview for Rossiyskaya Gazeta the secretary of the Russian Security Council explained how Russian analysts were predicting the development of the situation in Ukraine a year ago. And he also gave an assessment of the role of the United States and NATO in the events in eastern Ukraine, explained why these events are a continuation of Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan for the disintegration of the USSR and Russia, and assessed prospects for the development of the multipolar world and the possibility of a future struggle for hydrocarbon resources.

    [Yegorov] Nikolay Platonovich, the realities of recent months are a coup d'etat in Ukraine, military operations by the Ukrainian authorities against the inhabitants of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and a frenzied anti-Russian course by Kiev. Would it have been possible to predict this turn of events only a year ago?

    [Patrushev] Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political and economic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability of an imminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time. Let me remind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.

    We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economic difficulties that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens of billions of dollars were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that its importance for the country's survival was simply forgotten.

    As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States and its closest allies.

    For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics of the former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretexts were created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.

    Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during the period 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on "supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, more democratic government". According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for various American programmes of "aid" to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable with the annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the State Department nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.

    According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Open World Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard to guess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been "opening the world" throughout the 23 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

    [Yegorov] Maybe this money went to a good cause and helped to build a real "democratic" society in Ukraine, as the Americans understand it?

    [Patrushev] I do not know what kind of a good cause that could be, if as a result of this activity in Ukraine an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with the mythology of "European values". It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actually designed for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people in Europe, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.

    I think the "sobering up" of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, and a whole string of objective factors could promote that. I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events, the significance of the one for the other - Russia and Ukraine - will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfully without Russia, whether anyone likes it or not.

    Such is the objective interdependence of economic, logistical, and other links that has developed over the centuries. But whereas for Russia the total severance of these links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is no accident that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question of postponing the implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. It is to be expected that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to a more sober assessment of the real state of affairs.

    [Yegorov] Some experts think the Ukraine crisis was only a pretext for a new deterioration in the West's relations with Russia. Is that so?
    [Patrushev] It is true that if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy of "containment" of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of its implementation change.

    As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of a "cold war". The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed on the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATO's practical activity indicates that in creating the alliance the United States was pursuing two main objectives.

    First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.
    Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competed with the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateral military control over the allies, is not included in NATO's zone of responsibility.
    After the breakup of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which united Europe's socialist countries and which by definition represented the main danger to NATO, not only was the bloc not disbanded, it began to expand even more in quantitative and military terms.

    [Yegorov] But surely NATO was not the only factor that influenced the breakup of the Soviet Union?
    [Patrushev] In the cold war period a whole string of ideological doctrines emerged in the West that served as justification for an anti-Soviet political course. One of the authors of this kind of research was Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American political scientist and statesman of Polish extraction. He established the so-called strategy of "vulnerabilities" in relation to the USSR, and under President Reagan this became the basis of American policy towards our country. The implementation of the strategy was guided by the National Security Council headed by the president of the United States. The identification and definition of "vulnerabilities" and the task of organizing ways of converting them into substantial problems for the USSR were entrusted to the US Central Intelligence Agency.

    It is noteworthy that the then CIA Director William Casey decided to enlist prominent scholars in this work, first and foremost economists but also experts from the business world who had real experience of business wars with competitors. As a result of large-scale analytical work, the USSR's "vulnerabilities" in the political, economic, ideological, and other spheres were defined and systematically studied.
    Our country's main "vulnerability," as defined by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modelling, the American experts identified its "weakest link", namely the USSR budget's extremely high dependence on the export of energy resources. A strategy of provoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state was formulated, envisaging two interconnected objectives: the bringing about of a sharp reduction in revenue to the USSR's budget from foreign trade, combined with a substantial increase in expenditure on resolving problems created from outside.

    A reduction in world oil prices was envisaged as the main measure for reducing the income side of the budget. This was successfully achieved by the mid-1980s when, as a result of US collusion with the rulers of a number of oil extracting countries, an artificial surplus of crude was created on the market and oil prices fell almost by a factor of four.

    A growth in the Soviet Union's expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernment demonstrations in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures on stabilizing the situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the SDI [Strategic Defence Initiative] bluff, and so forth.
    It should be said that at that time the Americans succeeded in achieving their objectives. The outcome of their activity was a substantial excess in the USSR's expenditure over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis that extended into the political and ideological spheres. Shortsighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through foreign financial aid gave Washington additional levers of influence over Moscow. The "recovery" measures proposed by the West and implemented through the IMF and the World Bank to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth transition from the previous monopoly system led to the final collapse of the economy.

    In the assessment of American experts, it was the strategy of "vulnerabilities", which demonstrated the colossal effectiveness of economic variety of cold war compared with "hot" war, that was decisive in promoting the elimination of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.
    [Yegorov] After the breakup of the USSR, could Russia still somehow have opposed the new redivision of the world, or was the surrender of its positions and its former allies, such as Yugoslavia, already predetermined?

    [Patrushev] By the end of the 20th century a kind of sociopolitical "fault line" had formed in this region, standing out most clearly in the disintegration of the multiethnic and multifaith Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The leaders of the United States and the leading NATO countries exploited a military-political situation that was developing favourably for them in order to realize their long-term aims in Southeast Europe.

    In the 1990s the Russian Federation, for well-known reasons of an internal and external nature, lost the dominant influence in the Balkans that the Soviet Union had enjoyed and embarked on the path of conciliation with the West. It was in the Balkans that the unilateral and totally uncompensated surrender by Russia of its positions in the international arena was manifested most distinctly. In 1991-1996 the bodies that shaped our country's foreign policy did not officially even have any such concept as "national interest". They nurtured groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from the Western partners and some kind of special benefit for our country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In practice our American partners almost immediately stopped taking us seriously and only gave us a condescending "slap on the shoulder", so to speak, from time to time.

    The NATO bloc, under cover of peacekeeping and without encountering serious objections from our side, operated increasingly confidently outside its own zone of responsibility, sought the rights to lease strategic infrastructure facilities for lengthy periods, and effectively brought the organs of military command and control of a number of Balkan countries under its own control by various means. The Alliance's subunits became firmly established in the region. Other states taking part in peacekeeping missions, including Russia, set themselves no such objectives, having reconciled themselves to the role of junior partners and preferring not to see the self-evident fact: The war in the Balkans could perfectly well be regarded as a rehearsal and a prologue to larger-scale steps to redivide the world.
    [Yegorov] Is it likely that it was these steps that led to the clash of interests between Western countries and Russia in the entire post-Soviet space?

    [Patrushev] The United States has been behaving particularly assertively and shamelessly over the past 20 years in and around this space. Encouraged by the weakening and subsequent elimination of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible to ensure dominance over the major sources of raw materials resources in our country and in Central Asia, as well as the transit routes for their export. Washington planned to extend its sphere of direct influence to the regions of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the Caspian.
    All these territories were named a US zone of strategic national interests. The only remaining obstacle to the realization of the Americans' plans to take complete control of the corresponding deposits and transport corridors was Russia, which preserved its military potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

    American strategists saw the solution to this difficulty in the final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequent dismemberment of our country. The first region that was supposed to leave Russia was the North Caucasus.
    Particular importance was attached to Chechnya, which declared its independence and was temporarily under the effective control of the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were offered support by the special services of Britain, the United States, and allies in Europe and the Islamic world.

    In these conditions the Russian leadership adopted a firm, principled stance of defending the unity of the state. Ultimately, as a result of the firm political will displayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and at the cost of enormous efforts, it proved possible to stop attempts to detach Chechnya from Russia and then to consolidate the Republic's place within the Federation.

    After 11 September 2001 the world community recognized the terrorist threat as the main threat and a global threat, reaching the understanding that countering this threat requires common efforts. As a result there was, in particular, a slight weakening of the West's attacks on Russia because of its campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, while we did not object to the operation by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. The announcement of the formation of a broad antiterrorist coalition followed.
    At that time Washington displayed a certain readiness to collaborate, although in actual fact it did not intend to abandon the policy of "containment" with regard to Russia. More and more new NATO facilities moved up to our borders. International law was supplanted by the law of force (let us recall the aforementioned dismemberment of Yugoslavia, followed by Serbia, the occupation of Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the so-called coalition forces).

    After 7-8 August 2008, when the Georgian leadership, with US support, attempted to annihilate South Ossetia, the world once again changed substantially. For the first time in many decades Washington provided direct support to a foreign state that had perpetrated an attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
    Everything was staked on surprise. The Georgian dictator believed that a military incursion on the opening day of the international Olympic Games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, would carry out their "blitzkrieg". However, the Russian leadership reacted promptly to the sharp deterioration in the situation and the necessary measures were adopted to halt the aggression.

    [Yegorov] It was at that time that people started talking about the shaping of a new geopolitical reality - the multipolarity of the modern world. How did the United States react to this?

    [Patrushev] After the August events in the Caucasus, Washington was clearly alarmed by Russia's obvious intention to take its place among the world powers of the 21st century and uphold the principle of equal opportunities and full autonomy in global politics. And also to convert the state's financial income from the exploitation of natural resources into real economic and defence potential and human capital.
    The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions (the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union.

    In the context of the growing world financial and economic crisis, major new players in the international arena such as the PRC, India, Brazil, and Iran as well as the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea became increasingly significant factors for the United States. Hence, incidentally, the emergence of new conceptual principles such as the American-Chinese special partnership, the strategic collaboration between the United States and India, the establishment of direct dialogue between Washington and Iran, and so forth.
    Indications of the need to resume the beneficial dialogue with Russia on a whole range of issues began to emerge from the new administration of President Barack Obama. This positive inclination on the part of the American authorities could only be welcomed.
    However, it soon became clear that Washington is not inclined towards real cooperation. It confined itself to mere statements of friendliness and the devising of certain negotiation tracks from which the benefit to Russia, in the end, proved almost zero. After a while even totally nonbinding positive dialogues of this kind came to an end and the US attitude towards our country began once again to be reminiscent of cold war times.

    [Yegorov] And the logical culmination of this policy was the Ukraine crisis?
    [Patrushev] The coup d'etat in Kiev, accomplished with clear US support, followed the classical pattern tried and tested in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. But never before has such a scheme affected Russian interests so profoundly.
    Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory steps the Americans are pursuing the very same objectives as in the 1980s with regard to the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to identify our country's "vulnerabilities". At the same time, incidentally, they are pursuing the objective of neutralizing European economic competitors who have, in Washington's opinion, grown excessively close to Moscow.

    I would like to remind you that Washington has always sought to have levers of pressure on Russia. Thus, in 1974 the famous Jackson-Vanik Amendment was adopted, restricting trade relations with our country. It appeared to have completely lost its relevance immediately after the breakup of the USSR, but it was still in force right up to 2012, when the so-called "Magnitsky List" was promptly adopted in its place.

    The current sanctions are in the same category. The US Administration's activity in the Ukrainian sphere is taking place within the framework of an updated White House foreign policy course aimed at holding on to American leadership in the world by means of the strategic containment of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centres of power. In this context Washington is actively making use, on its own terms, of NATO's potential, seeking to use political and economic pressure to prevent any vacillations on the part of its allies and partners.
    [Yegorov] Why is the American elite clinging so stubbornly to the right to control other people's natural resources at a time when the Western expert community is declaring the importance of the development of alternative energy sources that are supposedly capable of taking the place of oil and gas in the near future?

    [Patrushev] In actual fact, specialists are certain that no real substitute for hydrocarbons as the basis of power generation will emerge in the next few decades. Furthermore the understanding prevails in the West that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other power stations will meet no more than one-fifth of world demand.
    Nor should another important aspect be forgotten. In the modern world we can observe a steady growth in the shortage of food and drinking water for the growing population of the planet. The absence of the most elementary means of existence pushes desperate people into manifestations of extremism and involvement in terrorism, piracy, and crime. This is one reason for the acute conflicts between countries and regions and also for mass migration.

    The shortage of water and irrigated land is not infrequently the cause of friction, for instance, between the Central Asian republics. The problem of water resources is acute in a number of other countries in Asia and particularly in Africa.
    Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories "under Moscow's power" that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore "do not serve the interests of all humanity". Assertions continue to be heard about the "unfair" distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called "free access" to them for other states.
    The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring on Russia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form "coalitions" to support the corresponding claims on our country. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russia's expense but without taking its interests into account.
    Even during periods of a relative thaw in relations between Russia (the USSR) and the United States, our American partners have always remained true to such notions.

    Therefore irrespective of the nuances in the behaviour of the Americans and their allies the Russian leadership still faces this task as a constant: To guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to defend and multiply its riches, and to manage them correctly in the interests of the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:48 pm

    Regular wrote:It wasn't me who started comparing Golf to Granta. I don't like Golf and didn't let my wife buy it even if she wanted one. Opel Astra range beats it out of water even if it's GTC version cost as much as Scirocco.  
    And I do have experience with western and russian cars.  I grew up with Soviet mopeds, motorcycles, tractors,
    And yes new cars are very dependant on services and their life is limited to boost car purchases.
    I remember when I used to go to germany to buy cars that even 10 y.o. cars were in pristine condition.  Old people kept their cars clean and tidy.  Now even simple DIY things like changing bulb is restricted by design and it requires special tools. I had Audi Q7 and I had to go to mechanic to change my break light and I was car dealer for 6 years Very Happy
    But then again when Lada Granta starts having probs after 5000 km then it's not forgivable. Check russian car forums. I would rather buy used but reliable car.  
    What Russia is really good is trucks.  I believe they have a chance to successfully compete in Europe. Kamaz should become like MAN.. It needs to expand into Europe

    What, like two people had problems after 5K? Check out sdelanounas review, after 25K, not a problem. Recalls were less than 30K while now, Dodge, GMC, Toyota, Ford are in the millions. Granta is by far the best car they ever made, maybe Volga may have been better. But in the end, it is selling very well for a reason, making it best seller in Russia for 2 years and now beong exported in international market. They didnt have this success since soviet times.

    I too would choose a 10 year old car of many makes/models than cars now. But, those cars wont last forever and eventually you will need to get a new car. I will never get a BMW, Audi or Mercedes. I am a simple man in terms of automobiles. I want a vehicle I can work on myself without having to go to the dealer to do basic things. I want it to be well laid out in terms of accessing the components that gave a high failure rate like Alternator, drive belt, starter, etc. It is a shame even my old Hyundai is poorly laid out especially where the alternator is located.

    There are people who have good and bad experience with all types of vehicles. I myself have seen lots of bad experience from friends and family with Europeanade cars. I had bad experience with various NA and Asian made cars like Ford, Toyota and Honda. But never had bad experience with Dodge yet many people hate them like my sisters friend who had a 2013 challanger. Kept needing repairs every couple of months. Didnt turn me off though and so far, im good.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:32 pm

    Regular wrote:It wasn't me who started comparing Golf to Granta. I don't like Golf and didn't let my wife buy it even if she wanted one. Opel Astra range beats it out of water even if it's GTC version cost as much as Scirocco.  
    And I do have experience with western and russian cars.  I grew up with Soviet mopeds, motorcycles, tractors,
    And yes new cars are very dependant on services and their life is limited to boost car purchases.
    I remember when I used to go to germany to buy cars that even 10 y.o. cars were in pristine condition.  Old people kept their cars clean and tidy.  Now even simple DIY things like changing bulb is restricted by design and it requires special tools. I had Audi Q7 and I had to go to mechanic to change my break light and I was car dealer for 6 years Very Happy
    But then again when Lada Granta starts having probs after 5000 km then it's not forgivable. Check russian car forums. I would rather buy used but reliable car.  
    What Russia is really good is trucks.  I believe they have a chance to successfully compete in Europe. Kamaz should become like MAN.. It needs to expand into Europe
    It isn't by any means a bad car, if anything, it just "blends" into the crowd of boring models too well.

    Trucks are not a huge market, hence the reason they need to be competitive in the car market as well. Simply forgetting about one (very important) type of vehicles isn't going to help the Russian car industry.

    It has reliability problems? That should always be the first thing to get fixed.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:23 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Regular wrote:It wasn't me who started comparing Golf to Granta. I don't like Golf and didn't let my wife buy it even if she wanted one. Opel Astra range beats it out of water even if it's GTC version cost as much as Scirocco.  
    And I do have experience with western and russian cars.  I grew up with Soviet mopeds, motorcycles, tractors,
    And yes new cars are very dependant on services and their life is limited to boost car purchases.
    I remember when I used to go to germany to buy cars that even 10 y.o. cars were in pristine condition.  Old people kept their cars clean and tidy.  Now even simple DIY things like changing bulb is restricted by design and it requires special tools. I had Audi Q7 and I had to go to mechanic to change my break light and I was car dealer for 6 years Very Happy
    But then again when Lada Granta starts having probs after 5000 km then it's not forgivable. Check russian car forums. I would rather buy used but reliable car.  
    What Russia is really good is trucks.  I believe they have a chance to successfully compete in Europe. Kamaz should become like MAN.. It needs to expand into Europe
    It isn't by any means a bad car, if anything, it just "blends" into the crowd of boring models too well.

    Trucks are not a huge market, hence the reason they need to be competitive in the car market as well. Simply forgetting about one (very important) type of vehicles isn't going to help the Russian car industry.

    It has reliability problems? That should always be the first thing to get fixed.

    It doesnt. Just some people have em and some dont. Like all other vehicles. I guess VW and the rest should fix their reliability issues too. Hah.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    The status of Russian Economy and its perceived Oil dependency #3

    Post  Austin on Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:01 pm

    RF enough reserves to production to 600 million tons of oil per year for 30 years
    http://ria.ru/economy/20141022/1029584241.html



    Natural Resources Minister Sergei Donskoi said Russia steadily scouts oil and gas reserves more than mines, but the majority (about 80%) are not new discoveries and additional exploration at existing fields.

    MOSCOW, October 22 - RIA Novosti. Proven reserves RF enough to provide annual production level of 600 million tons of liquid hydrocarbons (oil and condensate) over the next 30 years, said Natural Resources Minister Sergei Donskoi, speaking at the National Petroleum Congress environment.


     "Explored resource base, in principle, sufficient to provide annual production level of 600 million tons of liquid hydrocarbons in the next 30 years" - said Don.  At the same time, he stressed that in the last eight years in Russia there is more additional exploration of existing fields than opening new ones.


    "In the past eight years, we have steadily scout oil and gas reserves more than the extract. However, the bulk (about 80%) are not new discoveries and additional exploration at existing fields, furnished and tied to the infrastructure. Of course, this is also an important part of reproduction of stocks and a key component to meet the needs of today, "- he said.


    "But without new discoveries can not be fully in the long term to replace the inevitable depletion of 10% of the large and unique deposits that give us today, 85% of oil and gas," - said the head of the Ministry of Environment.


    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  zg18 on Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:21 am

    Central Bank of Russia added 37 metric tons of gold in September , making total reserves at 1151 metric tons.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:21 pm

    http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/755964

    Is it me, or are westerners becoming more stupid. If anything, they need to start lifting sanctions as Russia signed the minsk deal, so russian stance was helping west. But it appears they want to tighten more sanctions, till what? Till they leave Crimea, which isnt Ukraine? Guess the west is so pissed off they screwed up so badly they are using sanctions to showcase their temper tantrum.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Austin on Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:42 pm

    sepheronx wrote:http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/755964

    Is it me, or are westerners becoming more stupid. If anything, they need to start lifting sanctions as Russia signed the minsk deal, so russian stance was helping west. But it appears they want to tighten more sanctions, till what? Till they leave Crimea, which isnt Ukraine? Guess the west is so pissed off they screwed up so badly they are using sanctions to showcase their temper tantrum.

    Its a rare opportunity for US where the Europeans and US have applied comprehensive sanctions on Russia .... And Obama has personally made sure Europe put those tough sanction even arm twisting EU as Biden said it.

    So dont expect the sanctions to go not even 1 % as long as Obama is the President.

    Dont Ask and Dont Expect is what Russian leadership should look out for.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Austin on Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:46 pm

    Russia’s 2015-2017 budget relies on optimistic forecasts

    I would say Russia should budget with Ural Price at $80 and if its higher they should invest that money in economy or save the money.

    Today the budget is pegged at $96 for next 3 years , I have my doubts

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:46 pm

    Austin wrote:Russia’s 2015-2017 budget relies on optimistic forecasts

    I would say Russia should budget with Ural Price at $80 and if its higher they should invest that money in economy or save the money.

    Today the budget is pegged at $96 for next 3 years , I have my doubts

    They mentioned before that they were going the old method of pegging it at $60. But I agree with you.

    Saudi Arabia is now dropping output so prices may surge again.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Austin on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:09 pm

    http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/15/patrushev.html

    Interesting Interview with ex FSB Chief Nikolai Patrushev

    How the CIA and Saudi Manipulated the Oil Price to create serious problem to Soviet Economy and ultimately brought it down.

    I always wonder why didnt the Soviet Attacked Saudi Oil Fields and brought the who thing down.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:48 pm

    Austin wrote:http://www.rg.ru/2014/10/15/patrushev.html

    Interesting Interview with ex FSB Chief Nikolai Patrushev

    How the CIA and Saudi Manipulated the Oil Price to create serious problem to Soviet Economy and ultimately brought it down.

    I always wonder why didnt the Soviet Attacked Saudi Oil Fields and brought the who thing down.

    At that time, major US presence over their. Add to that, Soviets didnt think it would bring it down. The ex fsb guy is just giving the loose term. In reality, soviet economy was military first, everything else dead last and this, could not sustain itself in its current form (current at the time). It fell because shitheads like Gorby and Yeltsin made it fall. Instead, they coild have reformed the economy by brining military tech to the civil market and allowed more freedom in business prospects (making it easier to create a company in ussr) while changing it to competitive wage system.

    But, of course, you have politicians who just like in everything else, ruin something.

    Right now, this isnt a sequal of this. As much as Russians love gaining moola for oil, in the end, they know they cannot rely on it. Hence why they said they can go back to old measurments of aroun$60 per barrel. They also have a totally different economic system than soviet union thus why many new businesses are springing up to make goods as alternatives to the west. This sich system can sustain itself more than a direct gov control all one.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2671
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  kvs on Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:41 am

    That was then, this is now:



    There is no room today for 1980s style market manipulation. Remember all of the OPEC oil wars of the past? When was the
    last one you remember?

    I hear that Saudia Arabia is already cutting production.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:18 am

    As I suspected, the whole "corruption charges placed on Hungary" were nothing more than politicized non-sense directed toward Viktor Orban for not being more Russophobic:

    US diplomat tells Hungary to back EU, criticizes PM Orban over Russia stance

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Austin on Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:52 am

    Good Read

    Dollar exceeded 42 rubles for the first time in history, who attack our currency

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:27 am

    http://rbth.com/politics/2014/10/21/list_of_foreign_agents_grows_thanks_to_justice_ministry_40771.html

    Here is the thing, if these NGO's do not want to be on that list, then they should not accept funds from foreigners.  If they got nothing to hide, even if they accept the funds, then they should simply provide evidence to their activities so that even the label as foreign agent, will be nothing more than that, a label.  A label should only be damaging if the person with it is given the title for notorious reasons.

    Russia isn't the only one with this law, USA has similar, and I believe so does Germany.  India is also looking towards a similar law after it was found out both the Aap party and the people protesting the Russian nuclear power plant being built in Southern India, were funded by the same groups, from the US.  So those saying that this is undemocratic needs to get it through their thick skulls that it is these very organizations that create destabilization in countries, and try to get their grubby hands into government by creating issues, so they can prosper their own ways. Forget about rights of the people.

    If an NGO is really there for helping, like investing in small businesses, providing funds to help hospitals, etc, then that is fine.  As long as the organization showcases where its revenue comes from, where it goes to, what their activities are and who they are helping, while keeping transparent, then they shouldn't face any issues, even with the label of foreign agent attached. If there is nothing illegitimate or morally corrupt going on, then they have nothing to hide.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Economy General News: #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:34 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:34 pm