On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
I guess, there is a difference. You just think about "Russia" as a country with face which is forming now and i think differently about this word :D But yep, i understand.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
I promise you that Japan is reevaluating that sentiment right now in light of China's growing Pacific ambitions and America's new-found impotence.
Because they're not anymore.Realistically Russia's future lies within the European Union. I know that's not their self-conception, especially it's not the idea that Putin has in mind, but Russia is never going to be the big scary guy in the East anymore.
Russia is undeniably a Great Power, and all the angry rhetoric telling her that she is not is merely hitting her with the only weapons available to the Western arsenal in this crisis: attacking her self-esteem. Even if you authentically believed that Russia by some weird metric of power has fallen below those ranks, this is irrelevant to the present scene. Russia thinks of herself and therefore behaves as a Great Power, and as Hamlet tells Rosencranz: "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Russia might be better integrated into Europe today if there were no European Union, as she was in the 19th century. She would then have the luxury of conducting her relations with Berlin, without heeding the furies of Warsaw which must now always come attached to them.
Russia would be better integrated into Europe if it didnt keep reminding itself that "The West" is its enemy. And if it actually respected human rights and the freedom of speech. See it looks bad on businesses who work closely with Russia every that that another political opponent gets thrown in jail for no reason other then decrying the great leader. It makes them weary of embracing Russian markets fully.
Yes, Russia could abandon her self-respect, national ambition and sense of mission in favour of becoming an outer march of the American Imperium, in the same sense that a cat can voluntarily take a bath. But she is not going to, because the world, for better or worse, has endowed us with a Russia as she is and not the Russia you would wish her to be.
is 'national ambition and sense of mission' an euphemism for imperialism? And what American empire are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm living under American hegemonic rule at the moment.
Call me naive, but I think people like freedom. There is not a single fully developed autocratic country on this planet. If you think being an autocratic empire is a core value of the Russian culture then sadly there is no way how the West and East can come together, and that's not the fault of Europe or the US.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
I promise you that Japan is reevaluating that sentiment right now in light of China's growing Pacific ambitions and America's new-found impotence.
I agree with that. And who could be angry about it, especially now. Nobody wants to be a 2nd crimea. Help against china is nowhere to be seen, not much else to do.
Because they're not anymore.Realistically Russia's future lies within the European Union. I know that's not their self-conception, especially it's not the idea that Putin has in mind, but Russia is never going to be the big scary guy in the East anymore.
Russia is undeniably a Great Power, and all the angry rhetoric telling her that she is not is merely hitting her with the only weapons available to the Western arsenal in this crisis: attacking her self-esteem. Even if you authentically believed that Russia by some weird metric of power has fallen below those ranks, this is irrelevant to the present scene. Russia thinks of herself and therefore behaves as a Great Power, and as Hamlet tells Rosencranz: "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Russia might be better integrated into Europe today if there were no European Union, as she was in the 19th century. She would then have the luxury of conducting her relations with Berlin, without heeding the furies of Warsaw which must now always come attached to them.
Russia would be better integrated into Europe if it didnt keep reminding itself that "The West" is its enemy. And if it actually respected human rights and the freedom of speech. See it looks bad on businesses who work closely with Russia every that that another political opponent gets thrown in jail for no reason other then decrying the great leader. It makes them weary of embracing Russian markets fully.
Yes, Russia could abandon her self-respect, national ambition and sense of mission in favour of becoming an outer march of the American Imperium, in the same sense that a cat can voluntarily take a bath. But she is not going to, because the world, for better or worse, has endowed us with a Russia as she is and not the Russia you would wish her to be.
is 'national ambition and sense of mission' an euphemism for imperialism? And what American empire are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm living under American hegemonic rule at the moment.
Call me naive, but I think people like freedom. There is not a single fully developed autocratic country on this planet. If you think being an autocratic empire is a core value of the Russian culture then sadly there is no way how the West and East can come together, and that's not the fault of Europe or the US.
What about anarchy, dude? It's absolute freedom. And i still don't know a single person who wants to live in such country because they have brains.
I guess, there is a difference. You just think about "Russia" as a country with face which is forming now and i think differently about this word :D But yep, i understand.
how do you think about it?
Sadly, i don't know people who think that it's nationalistic game between Western countries and Russia :D What do you mean by "nationalistic" btw? Because i probably hadn't understood it.
Because they're not anymore.Realistically Russia's future lies within the European Union. I know that's not their self-conception, especially it's not the idea that Putin has in mind, but Russia is never going to be the big scary guy in the East anymore.
Russia is undeniably a Great Power, and all the angry rhetoric telling her that she is not is merely hitting her with the only weapons available to the Western arsenal in this crisis: attacking her self-esteem. Even if you authentically believed that Russia by some weird metric of power has fallen below those ranks, this is irrelevant to the present scene. Russia thinks of herself and therefore behaves as a Great Power, and as Hamlet tells Rosencranz: "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Russia might be better integrated into Europe today if there were no European Union, as she was in the 19th century. She would then have the luxury of conducting her relations with Berlin, without heeding the furies of Warsaw which must now always come attached to them.
Russia would be better integrated into Europe if it didnt keep reminding itself that "The West" is its enemy. And if it actually respected human rights and the freedom of speech. See it looks bad on businesses who work closely with Russia every that that another political opponent gets thrown in jail for no reason other then decrying the great leader. It makes them weary of embracing Russian markets fully.
Yes, Russia could abandon her self-respect, national ambition and sense of mission in favour of becoming an outer march of the American Imperium, in the same sense that a cat can voluntarily take a bath. But she is not going to, because the world, for better or worse, has endowed us with a Russia as she is and not the Russia you would wish her to be.
is 'national ambition and sense of mission' an euphemism for imperialism? And what American empire are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm living under American hegemonic rule at the moment.
Call me naive, but I think people like freedom. There is not a single fully developed autocratic country on this planet. If you think being an autocratic empire is a core value of the Russian culture then sadly there is no way how the West and East can come together, and that's not the fault of Europe or the US.
What about anarchy, dude? It's absolute freedom. And i still don't know a single person who wants to live in such country because they have brains.
thanks for making a comment that has a total of 0 bearing on the quote or the discussion.
On March 19 2014 03:24 oneofthem wrote: i find that bit about merkel ridiculous. she would never say something so crudely emotional.
It's a figure of speech mate.
didn't germany say they were mislead by the U.S. on iraq etc. if you expect them to not be allies or publicly denounce the U.S. as in a civ5 game, then that's a silly standard to have for criticism.
Wow, thanks for reminding me about that game. I should play it some time. Really great series. What does this do with Civ 5 though? (Haven't played the game in a really long time)
But my point was that such countries are never going to cross the US, even if they were ever inclined to. They rely on us a ton, and we like having them as political and strategic assets in Europe ever since post-WW2.
On March 19 2014 04:46 Nyxisto wrote: For the developing countries of Eastern Europe the free market transition and trade agreements with the Western European countries(for example Romania after 1998 and their trade relations to Germany and Italy) resulted in a huge economic boost.
Romania is sitting at a national debt of 37% their GDP xM(Z. That's perfectly fine. What you're describing here isn't really i check with reality.
Personally I'm a little sad that people are still so inclined to nationalism, after all economic growth is the number one thing to help rising the living standards.
If you take into consideration different organizations' calculation of GDP, or GDP (PPP), then that percentage is even less . Like in 2012, Romania's GDP (PPP) was over $360 billion and nominal was $192 billion. Probably higher now. Russia's is well over $3 trillion last I checked. I look at World Bank stats btw, I don't know what IMF, WTO, etc. say.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Who talks about economy? And you are wrong about Russians economics because it's operates different, but that's other subject. But yes, if you look GDP, it is correct, but resources that Russia has are warrant for long future instead of USA one so they must invade other countries to keep stability. On subject, in deciding factor there are EU, which is pretty much 90% Germany, USA, Russia and maybe now China. Some others may join soon, like India or Turkey, if EU compensate them for not letting them in EU some others interest spheres. I think FatCat wanted to say that. No one can do anything if one of these superpowers disagrees. Russia might have weaker eco, but much more respectable force then Germany or China, and I dare to say little more then USA.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Japan doesn't feel terrible about being an empire. They deny genocide like Nanking massacre left and right. It's just they're incapable of being an empire. USA owns them, and they're scared of China. lol
Who talks about economy? And you are wrong about Russians economics because it's operates different, but that's other subject. But yes, if you look GDP, it is correct, but resources that Russia has are warrant for long future instead of USA one so they must invade other countries to keep stability.
Fossil fuels are anything but a warrant for a long prosperous future. That as a sidenote.
It's obvious that russia has a bigger force than germany etc - but with economy comes global power. Military only gives you so much range, basically "your" (european) continent. No russian tank will ever reach the other continent, if it comes to a war (obviously wars don't work like this anymore, but i think you get what i'm trying to say).
USA owns them, and they're scared of China. lol
Is it just me, or are you literally the best example i've ever seen for what is commonly known as superiority complex?
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Japan doesn't feel terrible about being an empire. They deny genocide like Nanking massacre left and right. It's just they're incapable of being an empire. USA owns them, and they're scared of China. lol
IMF says its 2.4 vs 2.6 but whatever, my point is being close to Italy and Brazil doesnt put you in the range of USA/China/Germany in economy size.
And Japan, the point is Japan is richer, with a population of roughly the same size and technologically more advanced. If they went full Russia they would be much more imposing on the world than Russia.
Who talks about economy? And you are wrong about Russians economics because it's operates different, but that's other subject. But yes, if you look GDP, it is correct, but resources that Russia has are warrant for long future instead of USA one so they must invade other countries to keep stability.
Fossil fuels are anything but a warrant for a long prosperous future. That as a sidenote.
It's obvious that russia has a bigger force than germany etc - but with economy comes global power. Military only gives you so much range, basically "your" (european) continent. No russian tank will ever reach the other continent, if it comes to a war (obviously wars don't work like this anymore, but i think you get what i'm trying to say).
Is it just me, or are you literally the best example i've ever seen for what is commonly known as superiority complex?
A superiority complex would imply that I'm concealing feelings that the US isn't very powerful. Unfortunately, this is not true. The US is the world's most dominant state, and was sealed especially due to Russia collapsing twice (1991 and 1998) and starting from rock bottom 15 years ago. After WW2, we pretty much took lead of Japan. Very important asset in the Far East.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Japan doesn't feel terrible about being an empire. They deny genocide like Nanking massacre left and right. It's just they're incapable of being an empire. USA owns them, and they're scared of China. lol
IMF says its 2.4 vs 2.6 but whatever, my point is being close to Italy and Brazil doesnt put you in the range of USA/China/Germany in economy size.
Yea, agreed. Russia is still recovering. You of all people should know this (and I assume you do). IMHO, if Gorby and Yeltsin had half the intelligence of the ant I'm about to take care of right now, the situation in Russia would be magnitudes better economically and socially, which would be good for the livelihood of common Russian people.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Japan is no Germany. It is full of Japan war crime deniers and apologists even in the government party and official positions. US pardoned too many war criminals in Japan and Japan never underwent the "soul-searching" that Germany did. And recently it is getting worse. Even denying things like Nanjing massacres.
On March 19 2014 07:34 FatCat_13 wrote: There's no East vs West. There are Russia, USA, Germany and China. Sorry if someone feels insulted about it but the other countries decide nothing.
Somehow it has historically happened those 4 countries provide the neccessary stability in the world nowadays. In both aspects - economic and military power. It is their mission at this moment of time to play the roles of the opposites to keep everybody calm.
I've been in Russia, USA and Germany many times. The people are all the same.
economic power? Russia is on par with Italy and below Brazil. Japan is richer and could be mightier too if they didnt feel so terrible about the last time they tried to be an Empire.
Japan is no Germany. It is full of Japan war crime deniers and apologists even in the government party and official positions. US pardoned too many war criminals in Japan and Japan never underwent the "soul-searching" that Germany did. And recently it is getting worse. Even denying things like Nanjing massacres.
On the flipside they have been stuck in a rut for nearly 20 years with their economy. They also have a rather big problem with the sociological makeup of their society, far too many people middle aged or above not nearly enough infants (If my memory serves they have the most skewed age pyramid of all western countries).
Though I must ask what exactly we are discussing here? Russia might not be one of the richest or most industrious countries in the world, but trying to decide if they are a world power or not is idiotic at best. First we'd need to actually define some criteria what makes a country one of those. Maybe we should return to the topic of the thread (or at least to the Krimean offshoot we have been discussing lately)?
On March 11 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote: Also this isn't just one country annexing some other country. This is the guy who called the fall of the soviet union the "biggest tragedy of the 20th century" who tries to invade a country which has suffered millions of deaths during the Holodomor.
Just imagine Germany being lead by someone who would call the fall of the third Reich 'the greatest tragedy of the 20th century' and then proceeds annexing a part of Poland. Would we be discussing the pro's and cons of that?
Why do people have such problem with calling fall of Soviet Union a tragedy (the "biggest" is clearly nonsense) ? I am not saying that Baltics should have been kept in Soviet Union. And possibly others. But in general dissolution of Soviet Union was a great tragedy that caused untold suffering in economic collapse that followed. I always thought that tragedies are measured by suffering they cause, but apparently if that happens to "them" it is all ok. I am sure that Putin might ave had slightly different reason to call it that, but the phrase itself is not without merit.
That's absolute nonsense, people suffered IN the soviet union. The economy collapsed IN the soviet union. The fact that many countries finally received their freedom, and their people were no longer oppressed, is not in any way a tragedy.
No your version is pretty much nonsense. People suffered much more in 1990s than in 1980s in nearly all of the former Soviet Union territory. If Soviet Union was left to exist (with some republics, where it was popular to leave, leaving) and continued on a path of slower reforms to democracy and market, without the Yeltsin/Kucma robber-barons era, it is quite likely a lot of unnecessary suffering would be spared and current state would be possibly much more democratic than it is now. Or are you going to claim that Russia and Belarus are better of than they were in this regard ? And Ukraine is not much better, ruled by robber barons of one color or another. Baltics turned out okay, but I am not arguing that they should have stayed in.
But there was no way to do 'slow' reforms because after 10 years of Gorbachev's reforms the robber baron era had already began, the directors of big state companies had already 'privatized' their businesses as Gorbachev removed Communist Party supervision over them, the first Russian oligarchs all made their first millions in the late 80s, not the 90s, the reason they became billionaires was they were the few people in the country with hard currency to either afford to privatize a business or afford to bribe the people to let them 'win' the privatization. The local political dynasties were also entrenched in many of the Republics, the Central Asian states and Azerbaijan would have the exact same people in charge of them. The hyper inflation that happened in many of the Republics happened because the Central Bank of the USSR was detached from its regional banks but the ruble remained in place, so each republic just kept printing rubles to the obvious inflationary effect. The only thing they could have done differently was to drastically cut military spending but the mass unemployment/poverty was going to happen anyway since most of the industry economically destructive welfare for its employees and cuts in the military budget would have transferred not only to the poverty of those serving -- which happened anyway -- but also poverty for all the one industry towns that almost wholly depended on military demand -- which happened anyway. But even then, trade with the West would be basically the same pattern as its in Russia/Kazakhstan today, sell oil/gas and import everything. And since oil prices didnt begin growing until 2001, the neo-Soviet state would still have to somehow survive for another 10+ years while dealing with spikes of nationalism all over the place -- Azeri-Aremnian war would be what, internal civil war? Would the Soviet troops go in and shoot them like they did in the late 80s or would they be allowed to leave as well? Ditto Georgia. Ditto Tajikistan. The only winners would be the Turkmen because they wouldnt get some Kim Jong Il wannabe to completely destroy their education system.
Unfortunately did not have time to respond at the time, so just short comment. Russia went similar route as other post-communist countries (as MoltkeWarding noted privatization was similar to Czechs) and I do not think it necessarily had to end as it did as other countries avoided the worst. If Soviet organizational structures and institutions were kept in place it might have allowed the leader (whoever it would be) to have stronger stance against the proto-oligarchs and at least keep some things working (healthcare, education) on some relevant level. Also Ukraine might not be a basically failed state today. But it is all "what-if" so lets leave it be probably.
On March 19 2014 07:06 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Why do everyone here think that Russia is completely against the West? If Russia finally positions herself as "I was on my knees for so many years, let's get up and show that I have brains and pride as well", it's not same to say that "Russia is absolutely anti-Western".
Seriously, sometimes i just wonder why noone brought an argument that we have bears on the streets.
In current world, everything is linked. We can't just drop Europe, Russia, China or US and expect same results.
You can get up and try to maneuver yourself into a global power without all the propaganda Russia is using and without having to turn into a dictatorship with no freedom of speech where political opponents live in fear of there lives.
It's like other countries don't use propaganda. It's just part of political strategy, deal with it. It was always, it is and it will be. Easiest way to achieve something.
Who lives in fear of lives lol? Navalny? He was freed already once by prosecutorship, no reason to think that he will be jailed. And whole Bolotnoe file is just farce. I will never believe that you can't solve it in 3 years with staying on same place. It's just impossible.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending everything what is happening here, but still.
The only other countries with as extreme of propaganda as russia are china and north korea, possibly some other dictator countries.
Russians really need to invest more money in their PR people. "I am a Cossack, and to the fascists and their Jew-Mason masters we will show them something after this!"
On March 19 2014 07:06 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Why do everyone here think that Russia is completely against the West? If Russia finally positions herself as "I was on my knees for so many years, let's get up and show that I have brains and pride as well", it's not same to say that "Russia is absolutely anti-Western".
Seriously, sometimes i just wonder why noone brought an argument that we have bears on the streets.
In current world, everything is linked. We can't just drop Europe, Russia, China or US and expect same results.
You can get up and try to maneuver yourself into a global power without all the propaganda Russia is using and without having to turn into a dictatorship with no freedom of speech where political opponents live in fear of there lives.
It's like other countries don't use propaganda. It's just part of political strategy, deal with it. It was always, it is and it will be. Easiest way to achieve something.
Who lives in fear of lives lol? Navalny? He was freed already once by prosecutorship, no reason to think that he will be jailed. And whole Bolotnoe file is just farce. I will never believe that you can't solve it in 3 years with staying on same place. It's just impossible.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending everything what is happening here, but still.
The only other countries with as extreme of propaganda as russia are china and north korea, possibly some other dictator countries.
On March 19 2014 07:06 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote: Why do everyone here think that Russia is completely against the West? If Russia finally positions herself as "I was on my knees for so many years, let's get up and show that I have brains and pride as well", it's not same to say that "Russia is absolutely anti-Western".
Seriously, sometimes i just wonder why noone brought an argument that we have bears on the streets.
In current world, everything is linked. We can't just drop Europe, Russia, China or US and expect same results.
You can get up and try to maneuver yourself into a global power without all the propaganda Russia is using and without having to turn into a dictatorship with no freedom of speech where political opponents live in fear of there lives.
It's like other countries don't use propaganda. It's just part of political strategy, deal with it. It was always, it is and it will be. Easiest way to achieve something.
Who lives in fear of lives lol? Navalny? He was freed already once by prosecutorship, no reason to think that he will be jailed. And whole Bolotnoe file is just farce. I will never believe that you can't solve it in 3 years with staying on same place. It's just impossible.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending everything what is happening here, but still.
The only other countries with as extreme of propaganda as russia are china and north korea, possibly some other dictator countries.
It has more to do with different forms of propaganda. The american soft power or "coerseduction" is not comparable to Russian attemps at propaganda. What we can compare is how they treat the flow of information, and though Russia is clearly extreme in its actions (RT being state-owned, for example), the american media is very rarely critical of its own government when considering the most popular sources of information - Fox News, CNN, MSNBC.
Funniest part is that i bet, 95% of Russians if not more have no idea what RT is.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x3m4sMU.jpg)
. Like in 2012, Romania's GDP (PPP) was over $360 billion and nominal was $192 billion. Probably higher now. Russia's is well over $3 trillion last I checked. I look at World Bank stats btw, I don't know what IMF, WTO, etc. say.
