Follow 590 comments Followed by 0 Following 1 Ignored by 0 Ignoring 1 Ignore michaelsch
Registered Sep 21, 2007
michaelsch's most recent comments:
- On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, 2:00pm PST
Don't arm the Ukraine,
Sanctions already cripple Russia, that kind of thing usually keeps countries from upgrading their military since there won't be any money left to do that.
I'm telling you Russia is history now. Sanctions hit harder than bombs when it comes to average income of an average citizen.
Where did you get this BS?
AFAIK, sanctions per say have no effect on Russian economy, at the most they punish a couple of very corrupt guys there, which may be only a good thing for the economy there. The oil prices, however, do affect it, but there are both positive and negative results of the low oil prices and accordingly low ruble (down more than 45% in a year). At any rate I don't think their military production has slowed down. Also Russian military exports keep growing (afaik), note that in this and many other cases they spend rubles to export in foreign currency, so their profits are much higher. What sanctions (including artificially low oil prices) really do, they cripple Moscow middle class, i.e. any possible opposition in Russia. They also damage EU economy, which will eventually backfire on the U.S. interests there.
- On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, 1:19pm PST
Don't arm the Ukraine,
The article is a bit too pro-Putin for my taste.
What I see as a real tragedy is that there are millions of suffering people in Eastern Ukraine and other parts of the Ukraine and neither side gives a shit about their suffering.
As of the USA role please read the following: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside
The guy is extremely cynical, as the result he issues some very interesting statements, like: "I tried a different tack, trying to explain that the Russians had embarrassed U.S. President Barack Obama in Syria. .... I asserted, and the Russian attempt to embarrass the president by making it appear that Putin had forced him to back down triggered the U.S. response in Ukraine." In essence he claims here that the Maidan coup and the following war was the U.S. response. It does not necessary mean he is telling the whole truth, but the claim is very telling by itself.
Even more disturbing are statements like: "The United States has been conditioned to be cautious of any rising hegemon.", -- especially the passive in it. The U.S. as he represents it has no intelligence. It has been conditioned to act one way or another. In case of a real crisis it may become suicidal having no mechanisms of rethinking reactions one is conditioned to.
He repeats this at the end of the article: "For the United States, any rising power in Eurasia triggers an automatic response born of a century of history." But here he talks about a rising power in Eurasia. Does he understand that Russia is not such a rising power? Does he understand that one and the only such a power is China? I think he does, but prefers to not say it this time. However, he effectively says that an U.S. automatic response against the rising power of China is inevitable.
- On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, 7:31pm PST
Well, may be you're right, but do you have the link to that video?
The article does not give one, which makes it a bit suspicious.