NationStates Jolt Archive

...on the UN Security Council.

Even the Chinese (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/05/gates.china/index.html) are with the US, UK and France in wanting to pressure Tehran away from its nuclear program. So, why, might I ask, are the Russians the odd man out on this issue? Is it some intrinsic, historic link? No, not in the slightest. In fact, until recently they've found themselves regularly at odds. Is the Putin government particularly pacifist? Lord God, no they aren't.

No, it's simple and straightforward. As Canuck's sig says: It's all about oil. Continued instability in the Middle East will keep oil prices up, which will drive Putin's reborn Russian imperialism, since Russia is an oil exporting country, the monetary benefit that they'll receive is tremendous.

Meanwhile, the oil importers on the UNSC are more hostile to the Iranian goal of attaining a nuclear weapon, because of the fears of a regional nuclear arms race, and what that will do to oil prices. (Coincidentally, instability and oil prices also happens to be yet another reason why there won't be an Iranian war) What a shocker.

Have you seen most Russian women? No wonder Russians are loners.

Have you seen most Russian women? No wonder Russians are loners.

There's also a severe problem with people drinking off-market aftershave, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6752515.stm) because of its high alcohol content.

In the Communism era in Poland, sidewalk drunkards were said to drink window cleaning liquid :)
Another of traditional Polish beverages is "jabol" (check wiki), a cheap fruit wine said to contain unhealthy amount of sulphur oxides

There's also a severe problem with people drinking off-market aftershave, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6752515.stm) because of its high alcohol content.

This also gets back to the ugly Russia women.

This also gets back to the ugly Russia women.

It all comes back to ugly Russian women.

China is desperate to bring down mineral commodity prices as it's threatening to strangle their industry. Chinda's industry is export driven and focuses on low-cost high-volume production, and high commodity prices threaten that most of all. It's no wonder they are desperate to get some stability int he mid east to get prices down, or to secure control of their own fields, which si why they have been involved so heavily in Sudan in recent years...

This also gets back to the ugly Russia women.

Not only that, but they're hot for the first 23 years of their lives, so guys get married young, then, all of a sudden when they turn 24 *blurpt!!* it's all gone.

http://www.hulc.org/blog/Putin%20Rules.jpg

It all comes back to ugly Russian women.

Yup, Russian women are the devil in disguise...

Not only that, but they're hot for the first 23 years of their lives, so guys get married young, then, all of a sudden when they turn 24 *blurpt!!* it's all gone.

And American girls? They are already fat and ugly at 6 or something...

And American girls? They are already fat and ugly at 6 or something...

Well, yeah, but you know what you're getting when you shop at the store with American girls. With Russians, though, buyer beware!

Couldn't Russia's appeasement of Iran also have something to do with their providing Iran with nuclear reactors for power?

And American girls? They are already fat and ugly at 6 or something...

Meh -- one generalization for another. I'd rather know she was chunky from the start than have her turn into a babushka on her 25th birthday. I think that happens as a result of all the nuclear power they use over there.

Well, yeah, but you know what you're getting when you shop at the store with American girls. With Russians, though, buyer beware!

And try Anna Kournikova she's 28 and still *yummie*

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp0095+tennis-kit-anna-kournikova-poster.jpg

Bush has helped Russia and Venezouela to get more rich that they would never imagine.

And try Anna Kournikova she's 28 and still *yummie*

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp0095+tennis-kit-anna-kournikova-poster.jpg

Exception.

Besides, she was an athlete...an over-hyped, never-won-a-major-tournament, advertising and music-video ho, athlete. Talk to us when she's 38.

EDIT: Besides again, she's less "yummie" and more "bitchie". She has a perpetual spoiled brat look on her face that makes me wanna watch her wax a floor by hand more than wax my carrot.

Andaluciae, I completely agree with you. Since Putin came into power, I knew we had another Russian imperialist in power. There's a historian (can't remember the name) who argues that the Russian mentality results in this mostly imperialistic nation. Since as far as I can remember, Russia has mostly been strongly nationalist (both in a conservative and expansionist way). However, he also argues that Russia sees brief periods of radical liberalisation (e.g post February 1917 and 1991). We have seen the end of one of these eras... It's such a shame that the world's attention is on the Middle East and the Russians are getting away with their actions.

In conclusion, it sucks to live next to Russia (Finland). :D

I don't think people who talk about Russian women have ever been to Russia.

There's far more beautiful, natural women in St. Petersburg alone than just about anywhere in the world.

Is the Putin government particularly pacifist? Lord God, no they aren't.
Russia and pacifism in the same sentence need also a negation somewhere.:D

No, it's simple and straightforward. As Canuck's sig says: It's all about oil. Continued instability in the Middle East will keep oil prices up, which will drive Putin's reborn Russian imperialism, since Russia is an oil exporting country, the monetary benefit that they'll receive is tremendous.

Meanwhile, the oil importers on the UNSC are more hostile to the Iranian goal of attaining a nuclear weapon, because of the fears of a regional nuclear arms race, and what that will do to oil prices. (Coincidentally, instability and oil prices also happens to be yet another reason why there won't be an Iranian war) What a shocker.

Here I have to put another option. It's not just about keeping prices high. It's about wrestling the control on oil prices from the hands of the OPEC/USA duo.
See, Iran and Russia might also have convenience on selling oil at lower prices than OPEC (so to attract buyers), or selling it in euro instead of dollars - thus making the dollar plummet and the US trade balance go amok... it's about controlling some of the most important sources of power in the contemporary world.

This is why, I think, the US are more scared by an Iran with CIVILIAN nuclear power than by an Iran with MILITARY nuclear power. See, if Iran blasts a nuke at someone, in 30 minutes' time Teheran will be turned into radioactive glass: the US know that, the EU knows that, Russia knows that, even Ahmadinejad knows that.
But... What if Iran isn't dependent for its energy on its oil reserves? It will have huge amount of crude to sell on the world market - and this will have the US face an unprecedented loss of grip on the energy market, comparable just with Russian new superpower policies.
Here, Russia and Iran share a goal: becoming arbiters of the oil market, and prime refuellers of oil-thirsty EU, India and China.

...on the UN Security Council.
So, why, might I ask, are the Russians the odd man out on this issue?

Simple.

They see Iran as this year's Russia.

Why did the Soviet Union kick the ass of the US in the space race? Because the US had the weapons, the swaggering attitude, and an assurance that the commies couldn't fight back. The Russian space program was a deliberate gesture of defiance. That's why the US shat their pants when the Soviets were first into space.

Now, the US is back to swaggering and the pissing-contests, just with a different target. And Russia doesn't seem happy to simply let the UN rubberstamp yank imperialism anymore. The decision to build American 'missile defences' just outside Russia (this year's Cuba?) is just another blackmark in the genius that is US foreign policy.

Might it have something to do with a subclause in a recent Russia-Kazakhstan nuclear power treaty? I'm just asking...

Ah, we'll hear what the IAEA have to report in a few weeks.

http://www.hulc.org/blog/Putin%20Rules.jpg

*Drools*

Lol, isn't a Russian SC veto great....

Lol, isn't a Russian SC veto great....

Damn veto power.

But... What if Iran isn't dependent for its energy on its oil reserves? It will have huge amount of crude to sell on the world market - and this will have the US face an unprecedented loss of grip on the energy market, comparable just with Russian new superpower policies.
Here, Russia and Iran share a goal: becoming arbiters of the oil market, and prime refuellers of oil-thirsty EU, India and China.

I do not think that Iran switching it's own power stations over to nuclear would make a significant difference to the global balance of power in the oil market. The amount of extra oil it would leave Iran free to expot would be insigificant in terms of global daily output, even in a tight supply situation. In addition, the cost of switching to nuclear would significantly outweigh the extra revenue brought in by selling the additional oil.

I do think Iran is thinking in the long term of utilising nucelar power in both civilian and nuclear roles, and given her international situation, she would be stupid *not* to develop a nuclear force as a deterrent to invasion. I do not think it is intended as an offensive weapon, the Iranian elite are very skilled politicians and know exactly what the stakes are. They also know that a nation that does actually posess such a weapon would be much safer from western agression, as North Korea has shown, than one that does not, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown.

Simple.

They see Iran as this year's Russia.

Why did the Soviet Union kick the ass of the US in the space race? Because the US had the weapons, the swaggering attitude, and an assurance that the commies couldn't fight back. The Russian space program was a deliberate gesture of defiance. That's why the US shat their pants when the Soviets were first into space.

While, yes, it was a matter of national prestige, I feel that had the US felt that the Russians couldn't fight back, then we wouldn't have been so concerned about them.

Oh, and the USSR didn't kick NASA's ass for long. It was the US, after all, who landed a man on the moon.

Now, the US is back to swaggering and the pissing-contests, just with a different target. And Russia doesn't seem happy to simply let the UN rubberstamp yank imperialism anymore. The decision to build American 'missile defences' just outside Russia (this year's Cuba?) is just another blackmark in the genius that is US foreign policy.

Calling the Missile Defense Installations "another Cuba" is ridiculous, and is little more than pure politicking. The differences between the Missile Defense and 1962 are drastic and substantial:

-The single most important contrast is that the deployment of a Missile Defense Unit is being done in the open, while the deployment of offensive nuclear weapons to Cuba was done secretly. There is open debate on the matter of whether there should even be a deployment of this system to Europe or not: No such thing with the deployment of offensive nuclear missiles to Cuba.

-Another substantial difference is that the scale of threat between the the Missile Defense and the offensive nuclear missiles. The simple fact is that this Missile Defense would be totally useless against the Russians. It's far too limited a system to even hope to challenge them, which should seem obvious: 15 or 20 Interceptors is hardly a challenge to the thousands of Russian missiles ready and available. The Russian missiles deployed to Cuba, though, well, they were sufficient in number to be able to strike at the major US cities and bases throughout the Eastern half of the country with virtually no notice.

Lol, isn't a Russian SC veto great....

A pathetic sop to the "sovereignty" of the great powers. If we wanted a democratic UN we'd do away with the Veto.

And try Anna Kournikova she's 28 and still *yummie*

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp0095+tennis-kit-anna-kournikova-poster.jpg

She's clearly not a real Russian.

While, yes, it was a matter of national prestige, I feel that had the US felt that the Russians couldn't fight back, then we wouldn't have been so concerned about them.

Oh, and the USSR didn't kick NASA's ass for long. It was the US, after all, who landed a man on the moon.


The perceived threat, before Sputnik, was that communism was contagious. Look at how the US (for example) mainly dealt with the situation - by attacking the perceived Atheist threat (pledge and currency), by weakening the access points for communism (by actually increasing internal social aid... one upside of the Cold War, perhaps) and by indoctrination and persecution.

On October 4th, 1957 - Russia put an object in orbit. (Sputnik).

In 1957 - Russia put a living creature in space. (Laika).

In 1959 - Russia sent the first probe to the moon. (Luna 1).

Later in 1959 - Russia landed the first craft on the moon. (Luna 2)

In 1960 - Russia put two living creatures in space, and retreived them. (Belka and Strelka).

On April 12th 1961 - Russia put the first man in orbit. (Yuri Gagarin, Vostok I)

In 1963 - Russia put the first woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6)

On October 12th, 1964 - Russia put the first three-man crew into space (Voshkod 1).

On March 18th 1965 - Russia completed the first spacewalk (Aleksei Leonov, Voshkod 2).

In 1968 - Russia flew an occupied spacecraft around the moon. (Vond 5).

Later in 1968 - a three man US crew orbits the moon. (Lovell, Borman and Anders)

In 1969 - the US puts the first man on the moon.


That's 12 years. For 12 years, NASA failed to make the kid of impact that Sputnik had made. (The US did get the first operational craft in the vicinity of Venus, and did beat the Russians by one day to claim the first retreived payload - but nothing of the paradigm shift status of Sputnik, until 1969).

12 years. It's quite a long time. Especially considering that the US had been considering the Soviet Union as a technological inferior. And it could be argued that, if Khrushchev had stayed in office, and if the US hadn't been panicked into their National Defense Education Act by Sputnik... Russian dominance would have continued beyond 1968.


Calling the Missile Defense Installations "another Cuba" is ridiculous, and is little more than pure politicking. The differences between the Missile Defense and 1962 are drastic and substantial:

-The single most important contrast is that the deployment of a Missile Defense Unit is being done in the open, while the deployment of offensive nuclear weapons to Cuba was done secretly. There is open debate on the matter of whether there should even be a deployment of this system to Europe or not: No such thing with the deployment of offensive nuclear missiles to Cuba.

-Another substantial difference is that the scale of threat between the the Missile Defense and the offensive nuclear missiles. The simple fact is that this Missile Defense would be totally useless against the Russians. It's far too limited a system to even hope to challenge them, which should seem obvious: 15 or 20 Interceptors is hardly a challenge to the thousands of Russian missiles ready and available. The Russian missiles deployed to Cuba, though, well, they were sufficient in number to be able to strike at the major US cities and bases throughout the Eastern half of the country with virtually no notice.

Calling the current US missile defense plan another Cuba seems fairly appropriate, actually. Both are basically placing WMDs just outside the borders of the Cold War counterpart, both are sternly opposed by the counterpart nation as direct threat to sovereignty, both are strategic arms-race gestures.

You can say that the payload is no threat in the current model... but then, the threat in Cuba was non-operational - although the US media and government seemed eager that Americans should think Kennedy was facing an enemy with active, armed weapons.

I have to agree, Soviet technology was (and it's legacy still is) very good... We'll be going into space using Soyuz ships and Glushko's engines long after the Shuttle is but a memory, I suspect.

That's 12 years. For 12 years, NASA failed to make the kid of impact that Sputnik had made. (The US did get the first operational craft in the vicinity of Venus, and did beat the Russians by one day to claim the first retreived payload - but nothing of the paradigm shift status of Sputnik, until 1969).

12 years. It's quite a long time. Especially considering that the US had been considering the Soviet Union as a technological inferior. And it could be argued that, if Khrushchev had stayed in office, and if the US hadn't been panicked into their National Defense Education Act by Sputnik... Russian dominance would have continued beyond 1968.

What about the abject failure of the Soviet N1 rocket, in comparison to the near total success of its American counterpart, the Saturn 5?

Amongst other things, the Zond Program never orbited a human being, in which all but one of the attempts ended in failure, and that was Zond 7, which occured in 1969. Oh, and there were only 4 Zond missions in 1968.

The Russians screwed up a lot, they just were really good at keeping their failures secret because of the nature of Soviet society.


Calling the current US missile defense plan another Cuba seems fairly appropriate, actually. Both are basically placing WMDs just outside the borders of the Cold War counterpart, both are sternly opposed by the counterpart nation as direct threat to sovereignty, both are strategic arms-race gestures.

One teensy-eensy, itty-bitty little problem with that. The Ground Based Midcourse Defense systems being deployed to Eastern Europe are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are rockets tipped with non-nuclear kinetic warheads.

Furthermore, this weapon system is incapable of inflicting harm on Russian territory, it has no reentry capability, and so few are even being considered for deployment that it couldn't challenge anything the Russians have.

Here's some information on the GBMCD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense)

You can say that the payload is no threat in the current model... but then, the threat in Cuba was non-operational - although the US media and government seemed eager that Americans should think Kennedy was facing an enemy with active, armed weapons.

The US was facing an enemy that, upon realizing the US had discovered the missiles, had placed them on a crash program to make them operational as rapidly as possible.

Furthermore, what made the Cuban missile crisis so disturbing was that the deployment was carried out in secret, something that would, especially to the generation that came of age during World War II, symbolize preparation for a surprise attack. If the Russians were to thick to realize that this would be the case, then they are the morons.

What about the abject failure of the Soviet N1 rocket, in comparison to the near total success of its American counterpart, the Saturn 5?

Amongst other things, the Zond Program never orbited a human being, in which all but one of the attempts ended in failure, and that was Zond 7, which occured in 1969. Oh, and there were only 4 Zond missions in 1968.


What about the failure of N1? Would that be in the post-Khruschev era that I discussed, already? No point acting like I've tried to pretend anything - I was open about the US beating the USSR to payload retreival, for example - I just paid attention to the groundbreaking moments.

You'll notice I specified that the US put the first manned craft in vicinity of the moon. You'll also notice that I specified that the USSR orbitted the moon with an occupied (but not manned) project (Zond 5, which you somehow ignored?) Perhaps your definition of success is different to mine?

I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, blindly patriotic, or just capricious...


The Russians screwed up a lot, they just were really good at keeping their failures secret because of the nature of Soviet society.


I didn't say the Russians didn't screw up. Failure is a shortcut to success, as someone said... and for all their screwing up they kicked the ass of the US in the space race for more than a decade.


One teensy-eensy, itty-bitty little problem with that. The Ground Based Midcourse Defense systems being deployed to Eastern Europe are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are rockets tipped with non-nuclear kinetic warheads.

Furthermore, this weapon system is incapable of inflicting harm on Russian territory, it has no reentry capability, and so few are even being considered for deployment that it couldn't challenge anything the Russians have.

Here's some information on the GBMCD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense)


Ah well, if the US says their GBMD is cute and fluffy, I'm sure it must be. The US is incapable of deception or covert activity. Right? That's how we know the CIA never interfered in the election process in India to block Marxist candidates, and how we know that sensitive subjects have never been detained in secret prisons elsewhere in the world, on behalf of the US.

No... wait....

Ah well, they're probably completely upfront about this. No doubt the GBMD actually can only carry a payload of kittens.


The US was facing an enemy that, upon realizing the US had discovered the missiles, had placed them on a crash program to make them operational as rapidly as possible.

Furthermore, what made the Cuban missile crisis so disturbing was that the deployment was carried out in secret, something that would, especially to the generation that came of age during World War II, symbolize preparation for a surprise attack. If the Russians were to thick to realize that this would be the case, then they are the morons.

No - what made the Cuban missile crisis so disturbing was that the American president was willing (publically at least, he personally knew that he was playing against a bluff hand) to threaten mutual assured destruction on a global scale, to stop a communist state arming another communist state.