I just translate this one paragraph "Gewiss, ein „lupenreiner Demokrat“ ist Putin nicht. Würde er es vielleicht gern sein, wenn auch Russland es schon sein könnte? Schwer zu sagen. Bei meinen häufigen Kontakten mit russischen Wirtschaftsführern, Rechtsanwälten, Regionalpolitikern und Wissenschaftlern höre ich jedenfalls immer öfter diese eine Kritik: Man verstehe im Westen offenbar nicht, wie groß die rechtsstaatlichen Fortschritte unter Putin schon seien, wo es doch vor zwanzig Jahren in Russland kein geordnetes bürgerliches Recht, keinen geregelten Strafprozess, keine funktionsfähigen Gerichte und keinerlei regionale Selbstverwaltung - um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen - gegeben habe. Und ich höre dies nicht nur von jungen, meist westlich ausgebildeten Russen; ich höre das auch von vielen Deutschen, die in Russland arbeiten."
Sure Putin is not a "flawless democrat". Does he maybe want to be one, if Russia already were a democracy? Hard to say. During my many contacts with Russian economy leaders, lawyers, regional politicians and scientists I hear more and more this one criticism: People in western countries do not understand how big the constitutional changes / changes in the rule of law have been under Putin. Twenty years ago there was no regular civil code, no orderly criminal proceedings, no functional courts and no regional self-administration in Russia - just to name a few examples.
And I hear this not only from young Russians often educated in western countries; I also hear this from many Germans who are working in Russia.
I hope there can be a diplomatic solution to all of this mess.
On May 11 2014 03:12 Saryph wrote: So Dmitry Rogozin, who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia (and head of the Military-Industrial Commission) is on the list of sanctioned persons. He was trying to leave Transnistria and the Romanian government refused to allow him to use their airspace. He then decided to try to fly over Ukrainian airspace and was turned around by Ukrainian fighter jets.
Anyway, he sent out some interesting messages which you really have to wonder The link in that leads to this message:
Dmitry Rogozin · @DRogozin 10th May 2014 from TwitLonger Upon the US request Romania has closed its air space for my plane. Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160
By the way a TU-160 is a Russian strategic bomber.
as well as this one:
Twitter is stupid and everything, but it really seems unprofessional for a deputy prime minister to make such threats, especially considering the circumstances.
Well the USA has opened the department for hashtag# and selfie diplomacy. Do not be surprised my friend.
@ Banaora Russia may be doing better than during the Yeltsin years or after the collapse of the Soviet Union but that's hardly coming as a surprise because they basically hit rock bottom anyway. But it really is a shame that the years after the Perestroika turned into some kind of crazy Kleptocracy and explains why many Russian people are so okay with the authoritarian state they're living in right now. They kind of tried democracy and it failed, so it seems like they've given up the idea altogether.
Well the USA has opened the department for hashtag# and selfie diplomacy. Do not be surprised my friend.
But to be fair saving Girls in Africa is a little bit different from #fuckRomania and #theBombersarecoming
On May 11 2014 03:12 Saryph wrote: So Dmitry Rogozin, who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia (and head of the Military-Industrial Commission) is on the list of sanctioned persons. He was trying to leave Transnistria and the Romanian government refused to allow him to use their airspace. He then decided to try to fly over Ukrainian airspace and was turned around by Ukrainian fighter jets.
Anyway, he sent out some interesting messages which you really have to wonder The link in that leads to this message:
Dmitry Rogozin · @DRogozin 10th May 2014 from TwitLonger Upon the US request Romania has closed its air space for my plane. Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160
By the way a TU-160 is a Russian strategic bomber.
as well as this one:
Twitter is stupid and everything, but it really seems unprofessional for a deputy prime minister to make such threats, especially considering the circumstances.
Well the USA has opened the department for hashtag# and selfie diplomacy. Do not be surprised my friend.
I must be confusing the intent of your post because I can't possibly see how someone could be trying to compare someone trying to raise awareness about 200 kidnapped girls who are facing slavery to a deputy prime minister threatening to fly nuclear bombers over your country and 'show you what they really think about you.'
On May 11 2014 03:12 Saryph wrote: So Dmitry Rogozin, who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia (and head of the Military-Industrial Commission) is on the list of sanctioned persons. He was trying to leave Transnistria and the Romanian government refused to allow him to use their airspace. He then decided to try to fly over Ukrainian airspace and was turned around by Ukrainian fighter jets.
Anyway, he sent out some interesting messages which you really have to wonder The link in that leads to this message:
Dmitry Rogozin · @DRogozin 10th May 2014 from TwitLonger Upon the US request Romania has closed its air space for my plane. Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160
By the way a TU-160 is a Russian strategic bomber.
as well as this one:
Twitter is stupid and everything, but it really seems unprofessional for a deputy prime minister to make such threats, especially considering the circumstances.
Well the USA has opened the department for hashtag# and selfie diplomacy. Do not be surprised my friend.
I must be confusing the intent of your post because I can't possibly see how someone could be trying to compare someone trying to raise awareness about 200 kidnapped girls who are facing slavery to a deputy prime minister threatening to fly nuclear bombers over your country and 'show you what they really think about you.'
I was referring to the unprofessional part, not comparing them.
On May 11 2014 03:31 Nyxisto wrote: @ Banaora Russia may be doing better than during the Yeltsin years or after the collapse of the Soviet Union but that's hardly coming as a surprise because they basically hit rock bottom anyway. But it really is a shame that the years after the Perestroika turned into some kind of crazy Kleptocracy and explains why many Russian people are so okay with the authoritarian state they're living in right now. They kind of tried democracy and it failed, so it seems like they've given up the idea altogether.
If you are interested and have a couple of minutes you should watch starting from minute 52. Ukraine and Russia in 1990 had about the same starting conditions. Today Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, Russia is not. In my opinion the reason is that this crazy Kleptocracy actually happened and still happens in Ukraine and is far better controlled in Russia, though it is also happening there to some extent. You see examples in the video done by NDR which I linked.
No Russia and Ukraine didn't started at the same conditions, that's a completely retarded statement and one of the worst made in this thread. USSR was at 95% Russia and it was considered as a super-power.
The first reason why Russia is better off is because the USSR was a Russian empire that colonized the countries it seized so as a conqueror the big majority of the economical activities were in Russia along with all political and decisions centers. The second reason is that with the huge natural resources Russia possess even the dumbest person in the world could have turned the situation around and the only reason why the Yeltsin period was bad, was because Russia had yet to adapt to the liberal ways and had yet to possess the technology and the money to develop its gas and oil infrastructures (yes it took some time but before Putin was even in power there were signs of growth, after the Asian crisis). If Russia didn't become an oligarchy, I could argue you that more money would have been spent in the public sector and to modernize more the economy which would have first reduced the demography problem in Russia, and also created growth with more spending power. But no the nomenklatura stayed in power and still don't give shit about Russians real problems and continue to steal money. You can't compare Ukraine and Russia on the politics success because Russia has everything it needs to be able to be a super-power while that's not the case for Ukraine and as of now Russia is a dictatorship while Ukraine isn't one. A Kleptocracy isn't controlled more in Russia, it's just that the oligarchs there have managed with the enormous resources at their disposal to make Russians believe that it's the very best they could have hoped for when it is close to the worst with a shattered industry and only oil and gas to save the day.
During the Cold War Charles De Gaulle never talked about soviets but Russians because the USSR was Russia, hell Russia is still a fucking empire and took the name of federation. USSR was a Russian empire and it shows in this crisis with dumb pro-Russians waving USSR flags and Stalin portrait. Ukraine the little sister of Russia is complete BS, maybe the ones in the East that have Russian great grand parents think that, but actually it was simply colonization. What's even more funny is that after the collapse of the 90s, Russians in other soviet republics didn't come back because of the shitty economical situation but stayed, and Putin just take advantage of the presence of these descendant of Russians (be it in Ukraine, in the Baltic states, in Chechnya or idk where else).
Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
You have to know that after the end of the USSR, Yeltsin had to reform everything because the economy depended solely on the state. And what a huge majority of people forget is that at the time there was the costing first war of Chechnya and the Asian crisis with a big decrease in the demand for oil, metals and gas. Those things resulted in the cessation of payments of the Russian state which resulted in the departure of the capital in Russia and the fall of the ruble, a big devaluation which aggravates the commercial balance (oil, gas and metals sell at a lesser price on the international market because the trades are made in dollars and dollars costed more rubles).
Now plz stop with the bullshit about Putin the economic savoir of the Russian state, it's just dumb, Yeltsin didn't do worse in any way. The conjuncture was just awful and even at the end of his mandate, there was growth.
On May 11 2014 05:24 Acertos wrote:During the Cold War Charles De Gaulle never talked about soviets but Russians because the USSR was Russia, hell Russia is still a fucking empire and took the name of federation. USSR was a Russian empire and it shows in this crisis with dumb pro-Russians waving USSR flags and Stalin portrait. Ukraine the little sister of Russia is complete BS, maybe the ones in the East that have Russian great grand parents think that, but actually it was simply colonization. What's even more funny is that after the collapse of the 90s, Russians in other soviet republics didn't come back because of the shitty economical situation but stayed, and Putin just take advantage of the presence of these descendant of Russians (bet it in Ukraine, in the Baltic states or idk where else).
De Gaulle was wrong about USSR = Russia; Stalin and Beria were Georgians, Khrushchev was a Ukrainian, and Brezhnev was half-Ukrainian
On May 11 2014 05:41 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
Absolute BS indicative of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Eastern Ukraine was THE most industrialized part of the Soviet Union, that's why Russia still has to import important military hardware from Ukraine. At the time of the collapse, the Ukraine GDP per capita was around 8k, it has since gone DOWN. Russian GDP per capital is multiple times what it was.
On May 11 2014 05:41 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
Absolute BS indicative of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Eastern Ukraine was THE most industrialized part of the Soviet Union, that's why Russia still has to import important military hardware from Ukraine. At the time of the collapse, the Ukraine GDP per capita was around 8k, it has since gone DOWN. Russian GDP per capital is multiple times what it was.
On May 11 2014 05:41 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
Absolute BS indicative of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Eastern Ukraine was THE most industrialized part of the Soviet Union, that's why Russia still has to import important military hardware from Ukraine. At the time of the collapse, the Ukraine GDP per capita was around 8k, it has since gone DOWN. Russian GDP per capital is multiple times what it was.
Ukraine does not exclusively consist of East Ukraine. In fact Ukraine's industrial output resembles that of other countries of the Eurozone while it's agricultural sector doubles or triples most member states output. I didn't disagree with the second part of your post.
On May 11 2014 05:41 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
Absolute BS indicative of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Eastern Ukraine was THE most industrialized part of the Soviet Union, that's why Russia still has to import important military hardware from Ukraine. At the time of the collapse, the Ukraine GDP per capita was around 8k, it has since gone DOWN. Russian GDP per capital is multiple times what it was.
so good
there is someone who actually knows history here
Yes, a completely noncompetitive and out dated industry that comes directly from the cold war era and some coal mines. Great, so that's better or equal with the country with the world's largest reserves of gas (36%), 6% of global stock of oil, first in global stock of iron, second for nickel, third for lead, most stock of wood, also uranium, etc...
I wonder where the money should have had to come from in order to modernize the Ukrainian industry in the 1990s and where it will come from after this whole mess is finished. Must have been the Ukrainian politicians, they were too dumb to make their economy flourish, perhaps they followed the example of their bigger brothers in Russia.
On May 11 2014 05:41 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah the comparison doesn't make much sense. The USSR basically turned Ukraine into a giant breadbasket while Russia sits quite literally on a pot of gold. These countries have very little in common economically speaking.
Absolute BS indicative of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Eastern Ukraine was THE most industrialized part of the Soviet Union, that's why Russia still has to import important military hardware from Ukraine. At the time of the collapse, the Ukraine GDP per capita was around 8k, it has since gone DOWN. Russian GDP per capital is multiple times what it was.
I'd like you to source the ukrainian gdp per capita. Thanks in advance.
so good
there is someone who actually knows history here
Does he? If i look at the ukrainian/russian gdp per capita, i get an entirely different picture than him. To me it looks like he's throwing indexes together willy nilly to make an argument.
GDP per capita (PPP) of russia was 8k in 1990, 22k in 2011. Ukraine was 5,2k in 1990, 7,2k today. Easily explainable by just a small look on a map and distribution of natural ressources. Russia dipped until 1997, and went up from there - ukraine dipped until 1999-2000 and went up from there. Higher than in 1990. So i'd like a source for his claim, because to me, it looks like he's comparing GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) for russia and GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international $) for the ukraine. Otherwise i couldn't explain where he pulled those numbers.
Lol people who never lived in USSR giving support for Yeltsin? He was drunk in plane before meeting - DRUNK! Likely the reason why economy started to improve is Yeltsin missing meetings of selling Russian resources for nothing. He sold Russian crude oil with 50%-80%+ discounts to Japan - and they laughed at him! Guess what happened to prices on oil when Putin came... there's a reason to hate the guy who isn't giving you free resources. Gorbachev and Yeltsin alone cut down Russia's agriculture by 60-70%+ and only with Putin era it started to grow and it is profitable to be in agriculture business again. Yeltsin was buying chicken meat from US and EU for higher than local prices. That Chechen war was solid gold when Yeltsin decided to send 18 year old boys to a war - pure genius loving president! I am still puzzled how a retard could become a president of a superpower?! Unless he was pushed by someone who wanted Russia to fall down. Same with Ukraine - no matter how small you are, it's up to you to raise your economy and mind taking a look at SMALL Finland for a second plus Russia gave Ukraine a part of their territory - Crimea to strengthen their economy with port city but they fucked up and lost support of their population and mind the part that Eastern-Southern Ukraine is the most industrialized part of country which Westerners call poor - watch what happens when they leave Ukraine! Ukraine and Baltic States closed all Soviet industrial facilities while Finland kept em.
On May 11 2014 07:11 Hazzyboy wrote: Same with Ukraine - no matter how small you are, it's up to you to raise your economy and mind taking a look at SMALL Finland for a second plus Russia gave Ukraine a part of their territory - Crimea to strengthen their economy with port city but they fucked up and lost support of their population and mind the part that Eastern-Southern Ukraine is the most industrialized part of country which Westerners call poor - watch what happens when they leave Ukraine! Ukraine and Baltic States closed all Soviet industrial facilities while Finland kept em.
Finland and Ukraine are in no way comparable. Finland was never a part of USSR but declared independence in 1917 during the soviet revolution in Russia.
No former soviet state had russia's starting conditions post fall. Just sheer size and resources alone would set it apart, let alone that the kremlin is in russia.
On May 11 2014 12:02 semantics wrote: No former soviet state had russia's starting conditions post fall. Just sheer size and resources alone would set it apart, let alone that the kremlin is in russia.
I think the sheer size is not an advantage , im no economic expert, but from logic, isn't it easier to get smaller country up and running ? Sure the resources and all, but with it comes the corruption ...
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UkeEOKtmzIk/U1xsDXKlUdI/AAAAAAAAARI/O8wbvn0C4Lc/s1600/psaki+ukraine.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://radio.foxnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Michelle-Obama-bring-back-our-girls-200x224.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG)
