Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"

An anonymous reader writes with a Ukraine news roundup. "'Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,' anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television. ... His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia. He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words 'into radioactive ash.' ... Kiselyov has earned a reputation as one of Russia's most provocative television news hosts, in particularly with his often blatantly homophobic remarks. But he is also hugely influential with his weekly news show broadcast at Sunday evening prime time. Putin last year appointed Kiselyov head of the new Russia Today news agency that is to replace the soon to be liquidated RIA Novosti news agency with the aim of better promoting Russia's official position. — Russia has threatened to stop nuclear disarmament treaty inspections and cooperation. Russian troops are reported to have seized a natural gas terminal in Ukraine outside of Crimea. There are reported to be 60,000 Russian troops massing on Russia's border with Ukraine."

Comments

And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ackthpt]

I see the Putin Propaganda Machine is in full-Stalin mode.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly I'd be more worried about their intentions to sink the US dollar by selling all their reserves held in that currency. A lot cheaper than firing several ICMBs, and much more effective...Regarding the economic warfront, I don't see any tactical advantages for the US here. Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them, and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[kheldan]

I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, apparently, bring back the Soviet Union, and perhaps wanting to bomb the U.S. back into the stone age, however..

..yes, the U.S. could still, so far as I know, nuke Russia just as much as Russia could nuke the U.S.. However it would still be the End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, and anyone who doesn't get that is deeply and dangerously in denial. Furthermore don't forget that China (and maybe India, too) would be sitting there munching on popcorn the entire time, waiting for the show to be over so they could pick up the pieces, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Well, considering that conventional warfare is a nono, and nuclear warfare is a BIG NONO, but economic warfare is fair game, I'd say you have a point.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[mikael]

But once you have done that once, that's it, the economic weapon has been used, and you've got nothing left. Of course, there's always the threat of using it, or selling off a few million dollars of shares every now and again just to prove the point.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not possible,i am from east . if they do this , their own economy will fall

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Chrisq]

this is not possible,i am from east . if they do this , their own economy will fall

It would certainly hurt both countries. But arguably Russia could survive in "economic lockdown" easier than the West, it would be like going back to just before glasnost. For the West it would be something unprecedented.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Ottawakismet]

Dont be stupid. Russia holds a mere $200b in treasury bills. Selling them would destabilize Russia more than the US. The US would buy that amount up in a few months. You have to understand the scale of debt - trillions in US debt exist, and 200$b is more like a little wave in a lake. China is opposed to Russia about the intervention, but they will not act on their opposition. The American economy is much larger than the Russian, and many other central banks hold way more US debt then the US.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

>wouldn't have the balls

Most of us would say "isn't insane," rather than "doesn't have the balls." Do you self-identify as a violent wacko?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rob Riggs]

It's very easy for the U.S. to pay off the U.S. debt. It is denominated in U.S. dollars.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[gtall]

Really? As of last year, Russia held $225 billion in U.S. dollars. So, you think Russia will tank a $17 Trillion dollar economy with $225 billion. I find it helpful to have a sense of perspective when dealing with numbers.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[borcharc]

This risk is outdated. With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy. Russia's $100 billion and even China's $1.2T are small potatoes compared to the $16T+ the fed and friends have printed with little consequence as of yet.

Russia relies on Europe energy sales for 25% of its GDP, Europe relies on Russia to provide 6% of its energy. Sanctions targeting this will hurt Russia very badly and they know it. They have been strong arming Europe for years on energy, delaying their economic recovery. Its time the tables were turned.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GodfatherofSoul]

It doesn't help that certain segments of Congress keep talking up Putin like he's the second coming of Alexander the Great. Russia is a broke EX world power. Pushing around pissant satellite states and a spigot on a pipeline are about the extend of their power. We need to treat them that way and stop giving them far more credit than they deserve. All we're doing is emboldening Putin.

The dude goes around shirtless. That should be clue enough he's an attention whore and we all know what happens when you give an attention whore more attention.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

Have you thought about the costs to Russia? Such a mass sell off would indeed slaughter the price of the dollar, and thus would cut the value of Russia's greenback reserves enormously. Sure the US and the rest of the global economy would be in agony, but Russia would have cut off its own nose despite its face.

Russia is not some infinitely powerful state. By and large, it's a petro-state, and any move that causes precipitous global economic decline will do it significant damage in the process.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

How would Russia survive it better when it relies upon energy exports to keep its economic ship afloat? Guess what the first victim of a major economic slowdown is...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

They already sold them and NOTHING happened. There are $15T of treasuries out there.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Economic "weapons" are not single use. They're actually usually used in a very long, drawn out way. Kinda like siege warfare. Think of Cuba. They're not really in a bad economic position right from the start, but we "besieged" them after they turned Communist, shutting them off essentially from international trade. And that in turn does hurt a country. Not immediately, but over time.

What Russia could do is dump a bit of its dollar reserves, then hang the Damocletian sword of dumping the rest over the world economy. That would be far more devastating than them simply dumping their reserves, since that would hurt them, too, considerably. Instead, they now make the rest of the world consider not only dumping what they have in USDs but also trying to switch to other currencies and diversify so a single cash dump can't have such an impact.

Now ponder that impact on the USD when the whole world wants to get out of it.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[datavirtue]

I get the feeling that Obama would jump at the chance. Probably a bit of hyperbole but true nonetheless.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

They absolutely can not.
The issue is will Putin use that as an excuse for expansion? The follow up question being, is he going to expand regardless?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

A few ICBMs aimed at key Russian cities and I'd say the Russian state is in serious trouble.

This is why no one did it during the cold War, and why no one will do it now. It's just posturing, more likely for the benefit of any Russians who might be thinking that Putin may have bitten off more than he can chew.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

The West didn't intervene in the Prague Spring, and they won't likely directly intervene now. Ukraine isn't worth the pain of open warfare.

Beyond that, the US has been for weeks now trying to push for vast overarching sanctions. It's the EU that lacks the backbone. For full sanctions to really work, it has to be both the US and the EU.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

Of which they can print any amount they want to.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[SpankiMonki]

I see the Putin Propaganda Machine is in full-Stalin mode.

It could just as well be full Khrushchev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko propaganda mode. Why does Stalin get all the credit? Oh yeah, he's the scariest in the minds of the west.

I guess we can hope that maybe this brouhaha over Russia/Putin will displace some of our other irrational fears. Constantly worrying about terrorism is getting monotonous.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

"I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to,
or common sense.

It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.

I like how people have suddenly for got that turning either country into a 'radioactive waste land' will throw the whole world back to the stone age. Possible even eliminating humans from the planet.

" China (and maybe India, too) would be "
eating popcorn? no. More like panicking to figure out how to survive the massive radioactive cloud.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

"to spite its face"

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Problem is, once the USD goes into free fall, that dream is over. Being able to money print your money out of debt only works as long as those owing you accept that money as payment.

Also, you might want to take a look at SDRs and how they're used for currency value determination.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[joe_frisch]

Cool, a return to cold war science funding. Bring on the threats, bluffs, and talks of nuclear Armageddon. Maybe they are developing secret weapons that are better than our secret weapons. We need to spend trillions on research or be left behind.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

The thing is those 6% overwhelmingly go to Germany and other Central-Eastern Europe nations. France has nuclear and the UK had North Sea natural gas. Italy and Spain use North African natural gas. Scandinavia uses coal and natural gas from Norway.

Still Putin chose a bad time to do this since the harshest part of the Winter has already come and gone. If they want to stop using Russian gas now is the best time in the year to start working on it.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's imagine what happens when the US currency suddenly lets them be an export driven nation instead of an importing one and the trade imbalance between the US and Asia rapidly decreases?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

They just print more dollars until the amount of dollars Russia is holding becomes irrelevant. Similar to stock dilution.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Sarten-X]

There are those, myself included, that would consider talking to be a strength.

Right up to getting vaporized, there are several alternative options for stopping nukes that don't involve vaporizing even more innocent civilians. Talking our way out is one of the least hazardous and least expensive methods, and it has the added benefit of being done in parallel with other methods like interception and diversion.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Eunuchswear]

Bragging about the arsenal size is just idiotic.

Yup.

The US probably has 2000 odd warheads ready to go. Are there 2000 interesting targets in Russia?

Fuck, even France has 290. Destroy the top 290 targets and what is left?

Target 290 by size: Vidnoye,Moscow Oblast, population 52,198.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kvasio]

China has a choice here, as they could switch to Euro.
Russia won't switch to Euro, so what would they buy instead? Gold? they are gold supplier. Would make no sense. Yen? They did not end WW2 yet.

And TV idiot forgot, that in global nuclear conflict there are no winners. With the possible exception for rats, cockroaches and tardigrades.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

I blame Merkel and the German addiction to Russian natural gas for it.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Hodr]

I'm not sure I understand all of this talk of "dumping", or maybe it's the people proposing the action that don't understand it. They can only do 3 things with those bonds, cash them in, sell them to someone else for a loss (dumping?), or burn them.

The first option does nothing, as claiming matured bonds is what you are supposed to do. The third option is awesome, free money.

The second option, if they had enough to kill the world market (which I don't think they do) for US bonds might have an impact, but only if they price very low and somehow managed to keep the US itself from buying them.

The fact of the matter is, as soon as they post 100B in US T-Bills for substantially lower than the market rate someone will buy them all instantly and they will no longer exert pressure on the market for new debt.

If they doled them out slowly, there isn't enough to cause an issue.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

And therein lies the problem. The US is far better insulated from the blowback of severe sanctions. Europe, because of its heavy reliance on Russian gas, feels much more vulnerable. My understanding is the EU is stalling for spring, when weather will be warmer and demand is lower, so as to spare its citizens the pain of much higher energy prices (or even potential shortages).

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Xest]

China wont join Russia because if it sells it's US dollars then it just means it's tanked the main country in the world it's dependent on for exports meaning it'll kill it's own economy.

Russia doesn't have enough dollars to matter.

Economically, Russia finds itself on the losing side of history once again here if it tries to push it's luck.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[David_Hart]

The West didn't intervene in the Prague Spring, and they won't likely directly intervene now. Ukraine isn't worth the pain of open warfare.

Beyond that, the US has been for weeks now trying to push for vast overarching sanctions. It's the EU that lacks the backbone. For full sanctions to really work, it has to be both the US and the EU.

Yes, but the US has been pushing for actions through the UN, in which Russia has a veto. Granted, everyone understood that any submitted UN resolution, because of this, would be more of a political statement rather than something that would be substantial. As a result, any sanctions would have to be agreed to outside of the UN.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[j35ter]

I think you underestimate the size of Russia. Even if you take out Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd and other major cities, you would still have a functioning economy and militatry, try this with NY, DC Dallas and LA! The Russians learned teir lesson the hard way, starting with Napoleon and up to the Nazis!

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the market will take it as a strength of capitalism that the US economy is no longer influenced by Russia.

Besides, the Russian oligarchs hold all their funds in US dollars. They won't tolerate a drop in their net worth over something like this.

Putin will be looking for a way to save face while backing down.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

Wipe out its major cities, and whatever functioning infrastructure remains, it will be heavily damaged and the Russian state will be compromised. Hitler almost managed it, but didn't have the resources to pull it off. Even with Russia's natural protections, Germany came damned close to driving the Soviet regime east of the Urals.

All these war games were played out half a century ago. In an open exchange of ICBMs, both countries, and pretty much everyone in between, gets all but wiped out. That the Russian leadership might hole up in some Siberian outpost is a given, but by the same token the Continental US is a big fucking place too, and you don't think the plans are still on the books to move the Executive, Judicial and enough for the Legislative for a quorum to some undisclosed location?

A major nuclear exchange between Russia and the US would be catastrophic for both countries, and I doubt whatever crawled out of the glowing rubble of such an exchange would much resemble the two nations that went in.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[lgw]

With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy.

At this point I imagine the Fed chair cackling like the Emperor in Star Wars "witness the firepower of this fully operational buying-station!" OK, the new one isn't quite old enough to look like the Emperor yet, but give her time.
 

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Pieroxy]

Of which they can print any amount they want to.

At a huge cost for Americans. Printing money == instant inflation.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

The US has been putting an enormous amount of pressure on the EU directly to produce harsh sanctions against Russia, but even the US's most staunch ally in Europe; the UK, is very nervous about "going all the way" and all but shutting down trade with Russia.

The UN vote was a PR stunt. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, so the UN is castrated before the diplomats even have their first cup of coffee. The real sanctions will come when the EU finally admits that Russia isn't leaving Crimea, and worse, is likely eyeing up other parts of southern and eastern Ukraine. Since Europe is one of Russia's biggest buyers of natural gas, such sanctions will hurt very badly.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[RobinH]

Well that would be great for US exports now, wouldn't it? Might bring back the manufacturing economy.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[KingMotley]

Of course he would. Their missiles and ours have self destructs that can be used mid-flight. Once russia sees the incoming mess, they know they must self-destruct theirs, and we supposedly will do the same.

Of course, if the missiles do hit us, well, then we have no way of self-destructing ours.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

As ugly as it may be, fundamentally the US economy is far more capable of absorbing a major blow like this than the Russian economy. But the direct blow wouldn't be that big for the US. For Europe, on the other hand...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

The list of buyers isn't that big either, particularly if full blown sanctions are put in place. I guess China could buy them, but with its own economic slowdown, does it really want to be saddled with more US currency?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Hategrin]

Yes, letting people walk all over you isn't "insane" at all. And hey, if they kill your entire family and everything you know and loved, well, at least people will remember that you were "bigger man", right? I mean, you could actually hurt somebody if you stood up for yoruself! SMH

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[catchblue22]

Well, considering that conventional warfare is a nono, and nuclear warfare is a BIG NONO, but economic warfare is fair game, I'd say you have a point.

Money is soft power. Military weapons are hard power. This difference is quite obvious to Ukranians in Crimea.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[sjames]

This could be a good thing for U.S. Citizens. If we revive all the Russia/Soviet Union propaganda, then our own leaders will have to stop doing all those things that the Soviet Union (aka Russia) did that made them bad and us good.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Hategrin]

Really? Some madman fires nukes at you because he thinks you think you have a bigger dick than he does. The only way you could have stopped them was to gurantee that you would retaliate, but you decided being a pushover was morally superior, so that didn't happen. The missiles are in the air. How do you stop them?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kvasio]

well said.
Unfortunately, this time Europe is more corrupted by Russia.

British are weak, as "Russians are your major investors and bought a couple of football clubs". Besides, I question their army's ability to do their trade.
German responce seemed hard, but unfortunately CDU's coalition partner, SPD are in reality russian agents. Former chancellor from that party is now employed by russian gas company. Besides, for russian-german relations it is business as usual (LetterOne is russian).
France would traditionally do anything to retreat or surrender. And communist trade unions would do anything to support rebuilding "USSR 2".
Italy is a corrupt farce that was unable to impeach a paedophile moron from the post for over a decade. They have very amicable relations with Russia.
Austria does plenty of business with Russia, they are HQ for russian company's subsidiaries in EU.
Greece, Bulgaria will remain silent, as "Russians are their brothers in orthodox faith".
Sweden lost ability to defent itself from own crowd, and with strong socialist sentiment they are unlikely to fight, in physical way, anyone.
Spain, Portugal fart in general direction of any troubles on the opposite side of continent.
Hungary seemed to act "independently" to some point, but few months ago prime minister Orban was "pacified" by Putin with major russian investment.
Czechs are trained in France to prepare quick welcome parties to any occupiers.
Poland, Romania and Lithuania are too weak to stand against Russia. They are heavily dependent on Russian petrol/gas. While they mostly understand the severity of situation, will remain not understood by the rest of EU, as "they are idiots who are always agains Russia".
Estonia, Latvia are checkmated, as they have huge (40%) Russian minority. If they speak too loud, Moscow will "hear Russians living in Tallin, requesting help"..
Finland and Slovakia will remain silent in hope, that in case of conventional military conflict Russian troops will opt to drive through other countries.
Cyprus is Russian bank.

Don't expect any Churchills :-(

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?

Issues like this are not singular, but if you are going to call out Russian propaganda then call it out on both sides. US propaganda is portraying Russia in Crimea like the US invasion of Iraq, but it's not even close. I keep waiting for US media to start falsely claiming that Russians are out murdering everyone in the Ukraine and that actually started happening today when reporters were telling stories about people disappearing.

First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should. We have those bases for the same reason Russia has bases in Crimea. In fact the US has over 800 bases (depending on the source over 1,000) and is exerting pressure on not just Russia but China. You would be well suited to read that whole article by the way, since it backs most of my statements.

The US denounces military expansion by other countries, but we continue to expand ourselves. This is in addition of course to drone strikes in dozens of countries, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and funding and providing weapons for the majority of colored revolutions which caused lots of death and destruction.

Next, Crimea was about to be an independent autonomous country free of the Ukraine in May. They tend to side with Russia since Russia has lots of military there, and until Nikita Khrushchev gave the land to the Ukraine was part of Russia. This part gets magically lost by any US media discussing Crimea. I work with many people from Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. They tend to laugh at how bad US propaganda is, and how it portrays very little truth. Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much. What you hear in the US is the Western spin, and what you hear in Russia is Eastern spin. Somewhere in the middle is the population of the Ukraine and Crimea, who want both sides to leave them alone and let them decide their own future.

Let me be very clear, I'm not backing Russia nor do I think Russia is necessarily correct. At the same time, I'm not backing the methods the US has been using for imperialism either.

Didn't we see the most growth in Democracy during times of peace where the US was the example for other countries to follow? We were founded with expressly that concept in mind, we are not supposed to invade or go to war. We are supposed to defend ourselves and be an example for other countries to follow.

We are failing in that regard today, and the increases in turmoil all over the world is in great part due to US meddling and instigating conflicts. Imperialism has changed, where instead of the US taking over a whole territory US and US Friendly businesses take over instead. No need for troops when you control the economy, but making millions off people poor causes lots of resentment.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[sjames]

Except if they don't take dollars, they get nothing at all. Meanwhile, we have nukes, are net energy and food exporters, and have plenty of natural resources. We have plenty of unemployed that would love to take up the slack when cheap Chionese lablr is no longer accessible to the U.S.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

It wouldn't matter. A strike the size required to take out the US would doom human kind anyway. It would be more than enough to trigger a nuclear winter. When are talking thousands of warheads, a one or a two at the front if that number really won't make the end result all that different.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[VortexCortex]

Fools. This has been orchestrated since before Gorbachev. They only need one shot. Then the dollar will plummet and bring down with it the upper and middle class leaving all but the elites to Capitalize on the fact that humans will do what it takes to survive. Repent! Bitcoinageddon draws Nigh!

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Megol]

The thing is those 6% overwhelmingly go to Germany and other Central-Eastern Europe nations. France has nuclear and the UK had North Sea natural gas. Italy and Spain use North African natural gas. Scandinavia uses coal and natural gas from Norway.

Norway uses fossil fuels as the largest source followed by hydro electric. Denmark mostly uses fossil fuel followed by wind power. Sweden uses nuclear and hydro electric power for over 90% of the energy needs. Finland uses nuclear and hydro electric power for over 40% of their needs filling the rest with imported power and fossil fuels.

Still Putin chose a bad time to do this since the harshest part of the Winter has already come and gone. If they want to stop using Russian gas now is the best time in the year to start working on it.

The problem is that this isn't something that is easy to fix. Building infrastructure for changing energy sources can take many years, even decades.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Hategrin]

You're missing the point. If you decide to let a madman wipe off half the planet, he will, and nomatter how much you hate your country or try to satisfy him he's going to do it, unless you say "if you hit me I'll hit you back", then no nukes get fired, because you *ghasp* stood up for yorself and the only thing bullies understand is strength. I never thought I'd see libs stoop so low to actually sacrifice their lives and the lives of their family for the glory of Mother Russia. SMH

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kvasio]

Gdask was also "not worth it" in 1939.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[sjames]

Don't worry, the combination on the nukes is all zeros. Everyone knows that.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Patch86]

Unless my calendar is lying to me, it is now spring and has been for several weeks. The weather is nice, too. If anything, the longer they stall from now the more likely it is that sanctions will spill into next winter.

I don't buy that as the reason for stalling. I think it's just genuine reluctance to go past the point of no return.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[alexander_686]

IIRC, The amount of US dollars that Russia holds is very small- they export oil and gas and turn right around and buy consumer goods. . China has the large stockpile of USD.

I heard a quote this weekend – That Europe could inflict more damage on Russia then Russia could on Europe, but that Russia was more willing to bear the pain.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[grep_rocks]

How is this a threat? the value of the dollar goes down and US industry magically becomes more competetive via cheaper production- China has been buying dollars for years precisely to keep the value of thier currency _down_ - the problem is Russia's and China's they have a bunch of dollars which can buy American goods and services what are they going to buy? guns from the US? - plus most dollar reserves are owned by Americans - approximately 80% - how was this labeled insightful?

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[PhilHibbs]

It wouldn't matter. A strike the size required to take out the US would doom human kind anyway. It would be more than enough to trigger a nuclear winter. When are talking thousands of warheads, a one or a two at the front if that number really won't make the end result all that different.

There's no way that Russia would pre-emptively enough warheads to destroy the planet for human habitation. They aren't just going to commit suicide like that. So the only realistic scenario to consider is if they send enough to knock the stuffing out of the US, enough that if the US retaliated in kind then that would tip the scales over to making the earth unfit for human habitation. THEN the question is: do you take the hit and allow human life continue in some form, or do you retaliate and end the game of life for all humanity for ever?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Your calendar is lying to you. I just googled for "first day of spring".

Thursday, March 20
The First Day of Spring (Spring Equinox) 2014

Three days away.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Meyaht]

If their government kills our civilians, you would want our government to kill their civilians simply as retribution? Would you feel the same way if we launched first? That's like people in other countries holding you personally responsible for the actions of our gov't / military, because that sounds really fun...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[aliquis]

What?

The FED have tried to flood the market with cheap dollars and increase inflation for long.

It would just help the US economy!

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Quila]

It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.

Very true. This is why Obama just wanted to bomb Syria instead of looking for a more peaceful resolution like Putin did.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[PPH]

To be fair, we haven't seen Putin's response to Kiselyov's statement yet. And even if Putin did start some saber-rattling, lets see how the rest of Russia responds at the voting booth in the next election cycle.

Also, keep in mind what happened with Bush. He is a moron and most Americans thought he was. But during a time of conflict, he was our moron who deserved our support and re-election. We, and the rest of the world, would be better off to let Russia deal with their own politics rather then leaning on them with military threats.

Anyway, Putin isn't a dummy. He learned a lesson from the past and held the Olympics first and invaded afterward.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[aliquis]

But back in reality it's the ruble which crashed.

And afaik they did bought ruble to keep it from falling even worse.

Economy of EU and US vs Russia?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[alen]

a huge part of russia is people who aren't really russian but the descendents of the mongols and have closer ethnic ties to the middle east and china. getting rid of moscow and the other "russian" cities would be a blessing for them. even if they are transplanted russians, they most likely don't care about what moscow thinks thins their grandparents were sent out to the middle of no where as a punishment

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

With Russian units now making incursions outside of Crimea, I think it's only a matter of time before Europe goes along with the US plan for harsher sanctions.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Erikderzweite]

Resources are indeed the key. Napoleon took Moscow, but Alexander had enough country to retreat and gather supplies. So Napoleon had to retreat, had to take the same road his army has already ransacked. And without provisions, without precious calories his army froze to death in a relatively mild weather.

Stalin had successfully managed first to trade technologies for resources with Germany and then, after the war begun, to move the war production behind the Urals. While Germany was quickly running out of resources, the USSR was producing more and more supplies fro their troops each day. In the end, even the united European war production was not enough to keep up. It is questionable though how close Hitler was to actually winning that war given that the war production was moved in advance.

As for the nuclear war: I don't see how any side could emerge victorious from such an ordeal. Economy, not nukes is the weapon of choice. The troops are merely following to finish a weakened country.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[aliquis]

I think the FED currently purchase $65 billion of bonds / month, was $85 before they started the taper.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[dissy]

Well, considering that conventional warfare is a nono, and nuclear warfare is a BIG NONO, but economic warfare is fair game, I'd say you have a point.

But once you have done that once, that's it, the economic weapon has been used, and you've got nothing left. Of course, there's always the threat of using it, or selling off a few million dollars of shares every now and again just to prove the point.

As others have mentioned, it may not be single use after all...
But even assuming it was, once the economic weapon has been used, doesn't that still leave conventional warfare and the ICBMs that weren't used?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[El Puerco Loco]

More Krushchev mode. Ironic, considering he is the ultimate architect of this mess.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[aliquis]

For Europe what?

They are worrying about inflation here, the euro gain against the dollar and economy of Europe is bigger than the economy of the US.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[El Puerco Loco]

Only when it is not denominated in your own currency. But you knew that, just like every mendacious deficit hawk in congress. Printing more U.S. currency is the equivalent of mining gold in a gold standard economy.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[aliquis]

.. or well, except ECB may not be allowed to print & buy them =P

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[El Puerco Loco]

Nobody has an interest in U.S. currency going into freefall. If that were to seem even remotely possible, China and everyone else would be tripping over their own balls to prop it up. Inflation favors the borrower.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

Stalin managed lots of things; like selling Germany steel up until the morning of the German invasion. Churchill famously reminded Stalin of this fact when Stalin went into one of his infamous telegraph tirades demanding more of the Arctic convoys shipping materials from the US and Canada to Britain be redirected to Russia.

Russia did not survive WWII all on its own. It too was a beneficiary of Western aid; both directly via Lend Lease, as well as aid in gaining control of the Trans-Iranian Railroad, and ultimately opening the Second Front with the Normandy Invasion, which finally forced Germany into the nightmare two-front war.

Russia has never been as invincible as it liked to portray itself. Even when it ultimately drove out invaders, the costs were massive.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[kbolino]

It's very easy for the U.S. to pay off the U.S. debt. It is denominated in U.S. dollars.

Such blatant currency manipulation, while "easy" to do from the perspective of accountants and legislators, would have severe economic consequences.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[asylumx]

Yes, I saw the new Jack Ryan movie, too. Thinking it has analogy to real life is pretty lame, though.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[alexander_686]

You have it mostly right, and I don’t think Russia has the power, but let us take this a step further. Damage, in theory, could be inflicted. Consider 2 things – supply and demand and that bonds are basically cash. Dump the bonds, demand for cash / bonds remains the same, Supply goes up, ergo the price of USD cash goes down. The US dollar becomes weaker relative to other currencies, fueling inflation. Everybody can buy the bonds that Russia is selling, so newly issued bonds would have to have a higher real interest rate.

See what George Soros did – he broke the bank of England. Now the US is nowhere near the irrational state the Bank of England was, but you can get an idea of the damage that can be done.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[hackus]

Ah, no, that isn't how the market works.

A mere $50 Billion of treasury dumped in one month, could trigger Derivatives expansion and pretty much destroy the London and USA financial centers.

It would be complete chaos.

It would depend on how much treasury is sold in what amount of time.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kvasio]

What I'm saying is that Italy is unable to clean their own politics, so there is not political power that would be strong in any issue. Especially since relations with Russia became "very friendly" under Berlusconi.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[prezkennedy.org]

So you're saying the United States isn't a power house in agriculture? http://www.mapsofworld.com/wor...

Why, I don't even see Russia on that list.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ShieldW0lf]

I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, apparently, bring back the Soviet Union, and perhaps wanting to bomb the U.S. back into the stone age, however.. ..yes, the U.S. could still, so far as I know, nuke Russia just as much as Russia could nuke the U.S.. However it would still be the End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, and anyone who doesn't get that is deeply and dangerously in denial. Furthermore don't forget that China (and maybe India, too) would be sitting there munching on popcorn the entire time, waiting for the show to be over so they could pick up the pieces, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that.

Personally, I believe that if the US tried to destroy Russia with their nukes, they would just blow themselves up. Their weapons are poorly maintained and they haven't had the human talent to address the issue for a long time.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[CaptainLard]

I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button

Translation: Obama is not a moron. And thank goodness for that. Personally I have something to live for and could care less about Putin waving his di...er...nipples around (but I do feel for the Ukraine who is staring at a deep dark hole) . Furthermore, I think humanity is a worthwhile endeavor despite everyone's ability to "talk".

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

Prevailing theory on first strike is that you fire everything you can, targeting not only cities and military installations, but also the nuclear fields of the enemy to try to knock out as much of their ability to strike back as you can. The reason for this is that you assume you will not get a second chance, as the opposing country will answer in kind. You would fire all of your land-based missiles, along with a portion of your sub-launch weapons to get an early first strike on extremely high-value targets. That still leaves you with airborne bombers and, most importantly, the remainder of your SLBMs for 2nd strike. Russian nuclear ballistic subs carry 16-20 SLBMs with 8 warheads each. That's plenty of reserve power.

Ignoring all that: Have you looked at a map recently? The US is big. To have the effect you are talking about a strike that would require hundreds of warheads. That would be more than enough according to Sagan et al.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

Just pointing out to anyone taking the above poster seriously that he's quoting a nazi site. Friatider.se.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[CaptainLard]

Yeah Russia did such a great job, stalling for years while supporting a dictator actively killing his own citizens until they were able to fall into a solution based on an off-hand remark describing a completely unrealistic scenario. Way to see that one coming.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Code Yanker]

The United States is, by a wide margin, the largest manufacturer of goods in the world. We produce nearly 25% more than China and the Russian Federation combined, with a small fraction of the population. This was BEFORE the fracking boom.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-a...

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[TangoMargarine]

There's no way that Russia would pre-emptively enough warheads to destroy the planet

Not even accidentally? :)

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

Take a pill, pal. No one is launching nuclear weapons.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ubersoldat2k7]

I would add to this that southern Spain and many parts of Portugal are becoming Russia's Florida, where old millionaires come to spend the last years of their lives.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[TangoMargarine]

When we're talking more than a couple nukes at a time, you can't call *any* scenario logical. And I especially wouldn't have any faith in Putin to make a choice for the human race over Russia (for whatever crazy value of "winning" we're talking about).

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Hognoxious]

print your money out of debt only works as long as those owing you accept that money as payment.

You've got it the wrong way round, DeVry boy.

If they owe you, then they'd be making payments and you'd be accepting them.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[TangoMargarine]

*You* completely ignored the point he was making.

What is needed is a president who gives the impression that retaliation would be inevitable, whilst not actually retailiating if it did happen

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[TangoMargarine]

And I thought the "Normal" definition of brinksmanship was insane...let's not just stand on the edge of the cliff, let's actually jump off and trust that our untested parachute will work.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Maxo-Texas]

California's economy is essentially the same size as China.

Maybe later- but for now all China could do was lose a Trillion dollars; 50% of their export market (crashing their economy); and really hurt themselves badly while inflicting modest pain on the U.S.

Give then 20 years and they will be more capable. But not yet.

Give them 40 years and the situation will probably be reversed and the U.S. economy will be 1/3 the size of china's.

If china does everything perfectly for 40 years and has no civil unrest; over turn of the government; etc.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Bill_the_Engineer]

As worthless as the Russian ruble is I doubt Russia is capable of waging any kind of economic warfare.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Not that China's economy is healthy enough to even consider joining Russia in the first place.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Having lived through the Cold War, I highly doubt that the economic shunning of Russia by the West is anything close to unprecedented. For the record the Soviet Union folded for economic reasons and it looks like Putin is setting himself up for a repeat.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Culture20]

Some madman fires nukes at you because he thinks you think you have a bigger dick than he does.

And suddenly Anthony Weiner is the hero. "Mr. Weiner, please explain how we can send photos of our penises to this madman to reassure him!"

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[robsku]

You're missing the point. If you decide to let a madman wipe off half the planet, he will, and nomatter how much you hate your country or try to satisfy him he's going to do it, unless you say "if you hit me I'll hit you back", then no nukes get fired, because you *ghasp* stood up for yorself and the only thing bullies understand is strength.

Bullies understand almost only strength, politicians understand strength, but you were talking about madman - need I elaborate on what they might or might not understand?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ultranova]

Ah, no, that isn't how the market works.

A mere $50 Billion of treasury dumped in one month, could trigger Derivatives expansion and pretty much destroy the London and USA financial centers.

The mistake you make here is thinking "the market" is an independent entity. It's not. There's no reason US can't, in an extreme case, simply declare any Russia-held bond void. Yes, it would have consequences, but then again, maybe not that much - after all, in this hypothetical situation, Russia is intentionally using them as weapons of mass destruction against their issuer. That's not a situation really relevant for an average nation or investor using them as mere value store.

The real question is: will Putin stop his empire-building in time, or will he misjudge and start World War III? Because that's how the previous two began.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them

Sorry for the long post, bu there are a few fundamental misunderstandings of modern currency systems embedded here. First of all, for every dollar sold, there must be a dollar bought. Clearly the purchasers would prefer to have the US dollars than whatever assets they exchange for them, or else they would not participate in the transaction. Who will be buying these dollars? Why would they do so if the dollar was falling in value, unless they speculate that dollars will rise later? (E.g. because they expect the US to retaliate successfully).

Second, it is very likely that a fall in the dollar would prove expansionary to the US economy. Why? Because it would lead to reducing the trade deficit, with a concomitant increase in domestic manufacturing and employment, as imports became relatively more expensive than domestic products. Especially considering that the US is a net energy exporter, it is hard to see why a fall in dollar FX prices should harm the US economy. Many prominent economists argue the exact opposite, including those who run the US central bank (after all, the Fed's policies are expressly designed to stimulate inflation). Additionally, inflationary pressures such as those generated by lower dollar FX prices or central bank policies, actually reduce the interest on government debt.

Finally, we have to ask why Russia and China hold US dollars in the first place, in order to guess whether a sell-off would even be in their own economic interests. China, and to a much lesser extent Russia, hold US dollars because they have export driven economies. In other words, they sell us stuff. As a result, we have stuff, and they have dollars (again, both sides are satisfied by these transactions, or they would not choose to make them). Why are these export-led economies willing to trade scarce physical resources and labor time for US paper?

One major reason is access to US technology via dollar-denominated markets. Another is that China and Russia both operate fixed exchange rates (or fixed rate bounds) against the dollar. They use their dollar reserves to maintain their target FX rates. Selling dollars will drive their currencies above their target rates. Their exports will become more expensive for foreigners to purchase. Their export-led economies will suffer as a result. And, their banks will have to other assets to hold for international capital requirements, or else their (non-US) trading partners will perceive them to be insolvent. I guess they could try Euro or Japan bonds...but the truth is, there are not really any assets as safe as US dollars and US treasury debt.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

And that weaker dollar will reduce our trade deficit by disincentivizing imports and making exports cheaper, increase domestic production and employment, and help ease the significant private debt overhang which is still crippling US economic growth. Oh, and it will help the Fed and Treasury keep rates on US debt even lower for even longer.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

A sale requires two parties. Why would it be worse for us if, say, European nations (or other developing economies like India and Brazil) hold our paper instead of Russia and China?

Especially since Russia and China would have to sell at a loss to induce potential purchasers to buy...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Printing money == instant inflation.

All the US money (bonds and dollars) we have were "printed." Every year that the Federal gov't runs a deficit, it prints that amount of new money. And yet, no inflation crises materializes.

At a huge cost for Americans.

Which Americans? Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc. - especially considering that our economic growth is currently hampered by a persistent debt overhang caused by a deflationary credit crises.

Also, higher inflation will server to reduce the trade deficit by disincentivizing imports in favor of domestic alternatives, and by making our exports cheaper in foreign markets. Both of these effects will increase domestic production and employment.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Plus, if we do run into trouble, we can always unprint the money later via taxation.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Minwee]

Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[HornWumpus]

China might remove their currency peg. That would be terrible (for China).

Pegging you currency to another is an 'act of economic war', it's counter is 'running the printing presses till the bearings seize (crappy Chinese bearings)'.

The economic consequences would be much worse if every major currency in the world wasn't doing the same.

As it is, capital is being parked in farmland for lack of any other safe places. It will be a mess. Obamacare was just that last big ticket purchase, right before the easy credit goes away.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Minwee]

A single nuke from any country would most likely escalate into multiple nuke exchanges from other countries which would no doubt escalate into full blown nuclear nuclear destruction of the planet. Those pesky things called treaties and such would pretty much assure some ally has more nukes in the waiting.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[AdamHaun]

What I'm saying is, I don't think that even if the missiles were headed this way, Obama still wouldn't have the guts to give the order for a counter-strike.

He doesn't have to actually do it. All he has to do is project enough uncertainty to stop Russia from launching a first strike. That's enough for MAD.

Personally, if the missiles were in the air, I wouldn't actually retaliate, at least not massively. If the U.S. is already doomed, what benefit is there from killing 140 million Russians, almost none of whom had any say in the launch decision? We couldn't even enjoy watching Russia burn, since their missiles will arrive first. Maybe I'd launch a couple missiles at Moscow to try to decapitate their government.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Really? How do you think we pay off our debts now? You realize that fixed-term Treasury instruments are constantly coming due and being redeemed, right?

The truth is that a (Federal government) debt instrument is the money that pays itself off. $100 of securities disappear, $100 of reserves take their place. No change in net financial assets.

So, no, there is no harm in "printing" money to "pay off" these "debts." We do it all the time. As a result, of course, there is no need to worry much about the national debt, or to destabilize things by trying to pay them off rapidly.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[HornWumpus]

Good thing they started building liquified natural gas plants years ago. Qatar is online, 5 smaller American plants will be online in the next 2 years.

Russia will still be able to use its natural gas for political ends. By selling at below market rates to it's allies.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[S.O.B.]

...in global nuclear conflict there are no winners. With the possible exception for rats, cockroaches and tardigrades.

Don't forget lawyers.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[alexander_686]

We can debate if a weaker dollar would have a overall positive or negative impact, or on whom it would have impact on.

However, it would mean higher interest rates. Bonds that have been issued would go down in value but we don’t care about those – we care about the new bonds that will be issued.

As you pointed out, a weaker dollar means more expensive imports, more expensive imports means higher inflation, and higher inflation means a higher interest rate.

Also, a weaker dollar reduces the return of US bonds held by foreign owners, so they would demand a higher interest rate to compensate.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Carewolf]

Depends on what definition you use. Here spring is traditionally thought to start on the 1st of March, always using three full calender months for each season.

Also with 16C outside, it is practically a cold summer already.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Then you may pay your junk with food and energy. Works for me, too. Fork over your grub, works for half of Africa too, we're not picky what third world countries pay with.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyYar]

I don't think "spring" has a standardized or universal definition. There is certainly no "official start of spring" or other such nonsense. I believe the National Weather Service in the US goes with March 1. Austrailia seems to agree, though obviously it is swapped with autumn down under. The UK seems to "officially" recognize both the astronomical and traditional definitions.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

And what if I'm not accepting your toilet paper? Fork over some goods I want or be prepared to be running dry soon.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GameboyRMH]

Hey, they almost accidentally the whole thing once before...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

That way you can easily get rid of old debt, no doubt about that. But it becomes near impossible to rack up new debt.

Russia knows that all too well. The Soviets decided not to honor Czarist bonds when they took over, claiming that it wasn't them who issued them, so they needn't pay them back. Well, the world reacted by pretty much disallowing new bonds on the international market. You may want to consult your history book to check how well that worked out for them.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[sjames]

Or we can just make it here where the exchange rate doesn't matter. As I said, we have energy, resources, food, and workers. All we need to have a great economy and prosperous people is an exchange rate that favors local production.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[NoImNotNineVolt]

While I personally disagree with any calendar that has "midsummers eve" falling on the night before the "official" start of summer, who am I to argue?

Google Has Spoken. Spring starts on the 20th this year.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah if Obama had bombed Syria, the war wouldn't have been over until hundreds had been killed!

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[JimSadler]

We found out in the Great Depression that some small foreign nations suffering economic collapse could cause the US to have an economic breakdown. It also touched off WWII which was expensive and remains expensive even today. But do note that when an economy simply vanishes the world does not stop turning. The Confederate States of America had a total economic collapse in 1865 and all Confederate currency became worthless. Debts were never repaid and the south cam e back from it all. Many nations vanish. Many economies vanish. Many banks and markets vanish and the world keeps right on running along. Yes there is human suffering when such things occur but then again we have plenty of human suffering when nothing collapses anyway. It is rather like the hand gun issue. Guns are seen as an issue when the wrong people get shot. Collapse of an economy really only threatens groups that are living well. there is a bit of a homeless camp down the way and an economic collapse would mean little to them as their own economy collapsed already.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[NoImNotNineVolt]

And Punxatawny Phil says spring starts on another date entirely.

When did Google get demoted from the position of sole arbiter of truth?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyMartian]

Good thing the US has the largest and most technologically advanced navy in the world. The US, oddly enough, planned for an all out nuclear war between itself and Russia long before most of us posting here were even born.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GameboyRMH]

A lot of right-wing nutjobs in the US actually admire Putin's silly displays and say their President should be more like that.

Almost ready to elect Camacho...almost.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GameboyRMH]

Cue staring at goats and attempts to spy with psychic powers.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GameboyRMH]

If only they had some nuclear power plants to give them home-sourced carbon-neutral power!

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[oh_my_080980980]

And why would China follow suit? The U.S. is their #1 importer. China and Russia are not exactly close.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[oh_my_080980980]

Not if the US, France and China are against Russia.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Sarten-X]

The only way you could have stopped them was to gu[a]rantee that you would retaliate

...or use diplomacy to convince the madman that it's really not in his best interest to launch them, but that's never been a popular option here on Slashdot.

The missiles are in the air. How do you stop them?

Talk nicely to the madman, and question whether such a measurement is really important enough to kill thousands, if not millions, of innocent people. Perhaps the madman will stop the attack on his own. Perhaps other madmen will see the insanity of such massive death over such trivial disputes, and reconsider their own nuclear warfare plans. In short, keep playing on the moral high ground.

Meanwhile, launch every kind of interception technology you have against the missiles. There have been successes in this area, with varying degrees of efficacy and danger. In the best case, you stop the attack and maintain both population and the moral high ground that brings allies in the imminent war. In the worst case, you're just as dead as you were without interception, but you still have those allies who can share the righteous outrage that someone would dare nuke someone who didn't even fire back, and since much of the US arsenal is either protected from attack or spread across wide areas of otherwise-uninteresting landscape, most of it will still be ready for use by the valiant defender who really didn't want to fight, but now must.

What was so scary about the Cold War was that talking wasn't a viable option. If someone got too offended, it was the end. The standing orders were that if a missile was detected, a retaliation would launch. There would be no confirmation and no superior reviewing orders. We came incredibly close to an all-out nuclear war on multiple occasions, each time saved by someone refusing to return fire against what were ultimately found to be false alarms. We now call these folks "heroes", not "pushovers".

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[oh_my_080980980]

Somebody is sniffing glue...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Sure, proliferation is always an option. But generally not very useful.

Russia now holds the economic trump cards. The EU is basically dependent on them, so any kind of "economic sanctions" are probably going to hurt the EU more than they could possibly hurt Russia. The US can to some degree put pressure on them, but I doubt the US currently has the muscle or will to do that, considering that it has some problems on its own to deal with, and pressure on Russia is something you should only do if you have a LOT of spare muscle to back it up with, something the US currently doesn't really have considering the amount of stress that's already on its military and economy.

Putin is not dumb. He's a megalomaniac, no doubt about that, but he's not some blind ideological idiot like Hitler was.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

Cuba might disagree.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because conservatives are really raring for a fight over the Ukraine.....

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[oh_my_080980980]

Awfully pro Russia for someone who claims otherwise....

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyYar]

Disappointing, I know. It's like the first time I saw the audience option fail on "Millionaire".

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[budgenator]

As Regan said, "but how many Russians would they kill?"

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Quila]

Yeah Russia did such a great job, stalling for years while supporting a dictator actively killing his own citizens until they were able to fall into a solution based on an off-hand remark describing a completely unrealistic scenario.

We tried the "support a dictator" method in that region, but we just ended up invading anyway.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MrBigInThePants]

Considering that a recent study showed only one side had to fire its nukes to create a mass extinction event both side are engaging in pointless posterior-driven posturing.

I do like how they manage to vocalise so convincingly with their anal muscles though. Very impressive.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

It depends on latitude. Like you said the seasons are swapped in the southern hemisphere and near the equator they don't have 4 seasons. Near the poles there aren't 4 seasons either only two.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cheesybagel]

As long as the oil price is tied to the dollar it does not matter. If you want to tie oil price to some other currency you can get a cozy grave next to Saddam and Gaddafi.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[rahvin112]

I always laugh when someone suggests dumping 162 billion in bonds could crush the US economy. That's literally like 3 days worth of auctions. As you said, they dump them all at once and someone pays 72 billion for them, and over a period of a month doubles their money. Now if they owned the 1.3 trillion that china does they could probably hurt the dollar for a month or two while turning their trillion dollars into a 100 billion. And in the process China would destroy their own export economy as the dollar fell and the trade deficit imploded as US imports stopped.

See that's the problem, they try to "crash" the market and they are guaranteed to lose massive amounts of money on the bonds. And in the long run the bonds recover and there is no long term issue. In the short term it may actually help the US economy by devaluing the dollar short term and harming imports.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[infinitelink]

"I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, or common sense.

It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.

You mean, like talking to a psychopath's tanks? There are wackjobs and radicals who don't want solutions, they want their way: if in their irrational furor they'll nuke you but they're rational enough to want to self-preserve, and know that you in your rational prejudice respecting such things you'll nuke back out of principle, then they probably won't make that move. Certain great leaders wrote in their own journals how the damn accursed evil unfair B52s circling them (loaded with nukes) at all times made them think before every move, and kept them from expanding further...blasted capitalist rats!

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ackthpt]

The more inflation, the more the other holders of dollars would be harmed. I think Russia would do themselves far more harm than they would the US and once it's done -- that's all they can do. Russia is currently an exporter of raw materials, not much in the way of manufactured goods. A pretty weak economy. The people of The Crimea will eventually share that benefit, too.

Listening to business people in the Crimea, they're quite aware what leaving Ukraine means to them - closing up shop, laying off workers, pulling up stakes and starting again somewhere where the heavy hand of Russian Customs and Duties will not interfer with supply and distribution.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[JSHenry]

Actually, this is nonsense. Russian elites are far more concerned about the fact that when we add up the value of the hundreds of billions of "private" -- eg mostly stolen -- flight capital that has poured out of Russia since the early 1990s, Russia's foreign "flight wealth" is more than $900 billion. This dwarfs even the $538b of official Russian gross reserves, much less the mere $116b on net foreign reserves that's left over when you net out Russia's $422b gross external debt. So the oligarchs are literally shitting themselves over the chance that such funds might face a variety of Western sanction if this continues to escalate. Furthermore, while the Russian gov is a net lender to the West (after reserves), many corporations have become huge net borrowers. They are very vulnerable to a freeze on new finance. As for foreign direct equity finance, Russia has not been a very easy place to invest for mos Western countries, so it is correspondingly not very vulnerable there. But if we wanted to make the Russian economy "scream," freezing new loans and the repatriation of private foreign assets, including real estate and private yachts as well as bank accounts and trusts and Russian(Putin)- owned Swiss trading companies pending "careful investigations of their true ownership, tax and business practices" would be one way to bring this outrageous New Tsar to his knees. True, Western Europe still gets 30% of its energy from Russia, and its banks (especially Austria, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and, indirectly, Germany) have loaned Russia, Ukraine, and Ukraine's neighbors a fortune. But with economic growth already falling to 1% before this crisis! Russia can't really afford not to export the energy, and it is desperate for foreign finance in part because its elite takes the money out and pays so little tax. So oligarchs are right now selling their foreign shares, scrambling to cover their loans, and watching like deer in the headlights as the ruble and the value of their domestic wealth plummet by billions. They have got to be thinking: Putin has lost his mind, My own prediction if he doesn't back off (and he really does have many ways to do so): Putin may well have just made a mistake the size of his life;

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ClickOnThis]

TIL what tardigrades are. They look like Heimlich from "A Bug's Life" only they're much, much smaller.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[rahvin112]

The proper analogy is "Cut off their own nose to spite their face". Not despite.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Lotana]

Besides, the Russian oligarchs hold all their funds in US dollars. They won't tolerate a drop in their net worth over something like this.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. This is precisely the reason why I don't think Russia will ever do any kind of economic threats nor will enter any direct conflict with the United States.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

You spent too much time listening and believe GW. If you are not with us you are against us is a completely false statement, and completely irrational way of thinking. The post I responded to and TFA both bash Russia so why should I? Showing that media is biased and spreading propaganda on both sides does not require such.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[MightyYar]

Yes, my wife is from near the equator and they only have the "wet" and "dry" seasons. I suppose they also observe hurricane season :)

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

Two problems. First, comparing an airline and country is a completely false analogy, it's impossible to do. Second I don't roll my eyes in regard to media giving pointless conjecture and wild speculation on the subject of a missing airline. I roll my eyes at how it can flood every network with no useful information and many people don't notice, while real news happens all around them.

If Russia provides false hype and does not cover stories except in a favorable light to the Russian government you call it propaganda. When the US does it you claim they are just jackasses. Your logic is broken.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[rahvin112]

Early warning systems prevent first strike. The initiation of the strike would be on NORAD's screen within 45 seconds of the missiles launching. (They have dozens of SATs that watch for heat signatures to indicate ICBM launch. This is one of the reasons launching a satellite into space has to be announced in advance lest it be interpreted to be a nuclear ICBM in boost which would ruin everyone's day.)

Considering flight time is about 45 minutes you can be damn well certain that US nukes would be airborne long before the first missile hits US soil. That's the entire point of MAD, there is no first strike possible because you can't deliver the missiles without the other side knowing long before they arrive.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[CaptainLard]

You posted about Syria specifically and how Putin did a better job than Obama. Bush(s) invaded Iraq/Afghanistan. You want to open the floor up to every transgression the US and Russia have ever committed? I'll admit that would be pretty interesting....

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Ottawakismet]

The thing is that Russia dumping all its treasury bills isnt going to cause a panic on treasury bills --- people will buy them right up, the problem is when there is a crisis in confidence, when people believe there will be a default, that things will get worse, that the bonds they bought will be worthless or worth less then now, but if Russia sells their assets, it wont trigger a crisis. The example you bring up, is not at all the same. The banking crisis was when all of a sudden banks realized they had way more worthless assets then they thought, for some of them it threatened their solvency. I dont think you can say it made any currency worthless -- all that money is still worth about the same. A few banks needing bailout money, and a drop in economic production, a short recession, none of these are the crisis' you seem to be describing, like an entire monetary system collapse/destruction of the entire banking system of the US. Almost every bank is still around it seems.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Ottawakismet]

Andropov is Putin's idol, he sees him as the way he wish the USSR had gone

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Ottawakismet]

And their lack of willpower. Berlin says they want to be the leader until they have to make hard decisions, then they wish they were in the backseat again just complaining about the driver

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

Early warning systems prevent first strike. The initiation of the strike would be on NORAD's screen within 45 seconds of the missiles launching. (They have dozens of SATs that watch for heat signatures to indicate ICBM launch. This is one of the reasons launching a satellite into space has to be announced in advance lest it be interpreted to be a nuclear ICBM in boost which would ruin everyone's day.)

Considering flight time is about 45 minutes you can be damn well certain that US nukes would be airborne long before the first missile hits US soil. That's the entire point of MAD, there is no first strike possible because you can't deliver the missiles without the other side knowing long before they arrive.

OK, change "first strike" to "firing first". It doesn't change the rest of my post (keep in mind the context going back a few comments in this thread). If the US or Russia was crazy enough to launch a nuclear strike on the other, they would not hold back to save humanity, because they know the other country would reply in kind.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Carewolf]

Ask google which day is the first day of the week ;)

It all depends on which culture answers.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[xeno]

No.

All common loans (mortgage, credit card, signature loan, auto loan, etc) in the US are fixed principal. E.g. Say you borrow $200,000 for a house, and you get fees tacked on, plus the cost of financing ata fixed rate... you could pay ~3x the original loan but only as a result of compounding. The loan terms never change even if the value of the dollar completely tanks or shoots up. It is a common option to have a variable interest rate, making it possible to have the interest rate tied to the prime rate and have that skyrocket.. which could get me into trouble over the long term of I cannot afford adjusted monthly payments. But otherwise it's the same story: the principal amount is *never* adjusted for the value of the dollar. I'm quite sure that would be illegal (but IANAfinance lawyer), and if it's not, any creditor exercising that kind of option would find their buildings burned down by morning, Venezuela style.

If the value of my work stays steady, a strong dollar actually makes it harder for me to pay my mortgage, but a weak dollar lets me pay off my loans faster. Imho this sort of relationship has a stabilizing effect on the US economy and dollar.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[flaming error]

If by "they" you mean the US Government,no they can't. The government ceded control of the money supply to the Federal Reserve banks.

A dollar isn't "printed" into existence, it's borrowed into existence. We could try paying our debt by borrowing the payoff amount, but repeatedly taking out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is a step backward.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[HeckRuler]

Having played a substantial amount of Defcon, I can vouch for the validity of this.
Unless you have a potential ally you have doubts about. Then you want to keep a few just in case he stabs you in the back. You're screwed regardless, but it at least is an incentive for him not to be a dick. If course, even if you sneak a sub up there and get a "first strike", you can't actually negate the opponent's capabilities and millions are screwed even if you play a flawless game. But that's one of the overarcing points of the game. Everybody dies.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Obama doesn't have to retaliate, there are plenty of Western allies that would do it. not to mention Sub Commanders that would probably go Rouge.

In Soviet USSA defective officers wear makeup.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Mike Buddha]

You are wrong :)

The amount of money you owe is set in stone. A loan of $20 is a loan of $20, even if inflation has made that $20 worth the equivalent of $10 when you first borrowed it.

If you were to borrow money in a foreign currency, then have your inflation shoot up 600%, you'd have to come up with the same amount of foreign currency, which would now be considerably more expensive in your native currency, so it would in effect cause your loan to rise 600% the way you describe.

Many loans have adjustable rates tied to indexes (in particular LIBOR), but that only affects the interest rate that is paid on the loan, not the principle itself.

Consider yourself corrected :D

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Anonymous Coward]

All the US money (bonds and dollars) we have were "printed." Every year that the Federal gov't runs a deficit, it prints that amount of new money. And yet, no inflation crises materializes.

The CPI is manipulated to show little or no inflation and the core CPI doesn't include food or energy because they are "too volatile" even though it's reported as a year over year percentage which smooths out of the volatility. The US also exports a ton of inflation via treasuries to other countries which lowers the rate of inflation here.

Which Americans? Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc. - especially considering that our economic growth is currently hampered by a persistent debt overhang caused by a deflationary credit crises.

This might only work in the short term until banks start raising their interest rates to compensate so any new borrowers get screwed instead.

Also, higher inflation will server to reduce the trade deficit by disincentivizing imports in favor of domestic alternatives, and by making our exports cheaper in foreign markets. Both of these effects will increase domestic production and employment.

This also only works in the short term until other countries retaliate by debasing their currency as well.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Jeremi]

and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

What is the current value of a paper toilet? (I can't imagine wanting to use one more than once)

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[flyingsquid]

Russia is not some infinitely powerful state. By and large, it's a petro-state, and any move that causes precipitous global economic decline will do it significant damage in the process.

Well, the West could frack the hell out of them. The ICBMs are just bluster; Russia's main leverage is those fossil fuels- they sell them to generate money, and they can temporarily shut off (or threaten to shut off) gas pipelines to punish the Ukraine and Europe. However, there are huge shale gas reserves in Poland, France, and the Ukraine. Developing them as an alternative to Russian gas would deprive Russia of it's main weapon against Ukraine and Europe. In the long term, the bigger impact would be to drive down the price of gas in Europe, reducing the amount of money flowing to Putin's regime.

Obviously, this can't happen overnight; it took years for the U.S. to build up the shale gas industry so it's not going to drive Putin out of Crimea tomorrow, but since the world is probably going to be stuck dealing with Putin for years to come, and he's unlikely to get any less paranoid and aggressive, it's probably worth thinking about.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Darinbob]

Ya things are seriously messed up in their media. Ie Kiev parliament votes out the president and it's proclaimed as mob rule; but actual mobs invade the Crimean Parliament and other government buildings and this time it's the will of the people. Those in Crimea or eastern Ukraine who are not fond of Russia are being intimidated, houses of Tatars are marked with Stalin era warnings, the Russian nationalism is in full boom, media in Russia is under firm state control and internet sites are being shut down, and yet Kiev is the one they accuse of being fascist.

It's completely bizarre in so many ways, surrealism from the soviet era come back to life. And so few are speaking out about it all, it's like everyone is in lockstep saying exactly what Putin tells them to. Say what you will about how awful America is, at least we manage to have large numbers of voices that are speaking out.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Areyoukiddingme]

For example if the inflation goes to 600%, wouldn't your loan immediately become 600% of the total amount you borrowed in the past?

Most loans do not. "Normal" mortgages, student loans, car loans, and business loans are fixed rate loans. Only credit cards normally have floating interest rates, and they're usually pegged to the prime rate, which may or may not react to inflation. (Depends on what the Fed does. For the last generation or so, the prime rate has been all about inflation, but it goes down when inflation is higher, not up.) Loan amounts never float at all. (With the exception of the loan you got from Guido, which has illegal terms.)

If the interest rate is fixed, the holder of the loan can do nothing to adjust the terms of the loan for inflation. In inflationary times, fixed rate loans are the friend of the buyer. As long as your salary is keeping pace with inflation, you have more money available with which to make payments on your loans, while your loan amount and loan interest rate have not changed. In deflationary times, fixed rate loans are the friend of the seller. Because the cost of living is declining, in currency terms, employers feel justified in reducing wages, but again, neither your loan amount nor your loan interest rate are changing to match the change in your salary, so you have less currency available to make loan payments.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, we're living in inflationary times, but American salaries have not kept pace with inflation for many years. Your cost of living has been going up, while the dollars you have available to pay for it have not kept pace. But your neither your loan amounts nor your loan rates have changed, so you're not as bad off as you could be.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

Soviets could have survived WW2 on its own, they'd just have to pay a higher price in lives for it. Germans lost when they couldn't take over all the major centers before winter, and to prevent evacuation of the industry to Urals. After that, with the war shifted from blitzkrieg to slow positional grind, Soviets had the upper hand simply because they had better reserves (both manpower-wise and industry-wise). German industry and society was simply not scaled up to sufficient level to sustain such a prolonged all-in war. Soviet industry and society, on the other hand, was (that's what Stalin bought at the cost of millions of lives with his rapid forced industrialization policies).

As for Normandy, it happened a year after Kursk, which is generally considered the turning point at the Eastern front, after which the tide turned, and Soviets were advancing rather than retreating.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[benzapp]

Umm, you don't understand the purpose of sovereign debt. It has nothing to do with borrowing. Obviously, the United States is the wealthiest and most powerful empire in the history of mankind. We have no need to borrow anything from anyone, and could erase all the national debt tomorrow on mere whim with far fewer consequences than you might support.

Money is power. It has value as long as sovereignty collects it in taxes and adjudicates civil disputes with it. The more powerful the sovereignty, the more valuable the currency is.

In the case of the USD, the American Empire does something different. We do not simply create demand for our currency via taxes, as is typical. We compel the world to use the dollar for international trade. What you miss, because you are blinded by this misconstruing your personal money use with that of the US, is that the dollar is working better than ever. Last year was the banner year - over 75% of all foreign exchanges were settled in USD. And all of that money eventually has to flow through our financial system. And the so-called 1% takes a cut, which directly drives about 15% of the GDP and upwards of a 1/3 indirectly. The rest trickles down to the masses in terms of government handouts, or "services", like servants, hookers, drug dealers, etc.

Everything that is going on in the Ukraine is directly about maintaining this system. We cannot allow Russia to create a meaningful alternative market for energy denominated in currency other than USD. To do so would directly cut into the GDP at a time when we cannot afford to do so. Afterall, the deficit spending has been nominal for the past 5 years. Unemployment is at depression levels, and the middle class is being decimated as the quantity of money in circulation has not been increasing at the rate of the exponential growth in interest. Thus, they are drowning in debt. The domestic consumer economy has been destroy, as this same tribal group fears internal dissent, and has decided the country is best turned into a land of peasants with overlords.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

Yup, it is like trying to boycott Ford by threatening to sell your car. Sure, if EVERYBODY sold their Fords it would hit their financials for a few weeks, but it isn't like Ford didn't already get paid for all those cars the first time around.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should.

Well, a bit of a problem here is that the new Ukrainian government didn't really do anything to directly threaten the Russian naval base. That agreement was going to stay in force for several more years, and Ukraine is always in need of more money (which is why it was always prolonged in the past).

Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much.

This is a very simplified view. It would be more precise to say that Eastern Ukraine has a dominant russophone population. Not all of it is Russian (at this point the only way to tell is to ask a person how they self-identify), and not even all of those who self-identify as Russians are pro-Russia. There's a significant proportion that want to follow Crimea, for sure, but it's not overwhelming, and it's not clear whether it is even a majority.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

Russia has less to lose and would be better positioned once the crisis was over.

You mean, once they pay back all those loans with penalties and interest, or were you envisioning a world in which Russia doesn't import anything and has zero outside investment? Refusing to pay your bills doesn't exactly endear you to those you would like to call business partners.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

They don't have to sell their dollars, they just have to stop buying them, stop using them for trade.

What else are they going to use for trade? The mighty Ruble? I doubt they're stocking up on Dollars because they're sentimental about Ben Franklin. And who is going to trade with them anyway once all the sanctions are in place?

Sure, Russia can make waves, but only at their own expense.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

To be fair, we haven't seen Putin's response to Kiselyov's statement yet.

Kiselyov is Putin's appointee, and is little more than a puppet. What he says is pretty much the official position.

Granted, you should understand that the video in question was for internal consumption. It is not a threat to US, it is pandering to Putin's fans inside Russia who see him as a "strong hand" who is "bringing the country up from its knees". Militarist rhetoric goes very well there.

lets see how the rest of Russia responds at the voting booth in the next election cycle.

Russian elections are not particularly free at this point, so it's not a very valuable data point. Still, if Russian blogosphere is anything to go by, a lot of people are ecstatic with how Putin handled Ukraine. His support is at an all-time high, mostly because a lot of previously unaligned / "don't care" people have come out in support.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[benzapp]

The question I always ask people is this: Why would the US ever have issued 90-day treasury notes? Why on earth would the most powerful empire in history have to borrow money for 90 days? Who borrows money for 90 days besides hookers and drug addicts? Even a small time drug dealer will often get more time than that.

Sovereign debt is about managing the international supply of money. The "mix" of the outstanding debt signals to the world our fiscal objectives. When most of the debt is in short term notes, this means the debt will turn over sooner, and thus there is uncertainty as to what the future will hold. This is what has been going on lately, as rates will have to rise at some point (or a debt jubilee is called). What percentage of the outstanding treasury debt consists of say, inflation indexed 30-year treasury bonds?

Never listen to anyone who doesn't understand the difference between sovereign debt and household debt. They are two totally different things. Further, debt has always been a social system. The myth of bankers lending out deposists has always been a myth. Money lenders have ALWAYS created their money from nothing. Money itself was always created from nothing.

Think about. Let's say you set up a new country tomorrow. You are the undisputed king with the total loyalty of your people. You want them to pay you taxes in your currency. But, none of them have any. How do you get a functioning economy in your new realm? Well, you have to give people money first. THEN you demand it in taxes. Why do you think so much of "civilization" is the government just paying people to do pointless shit like build temples and what not? It's just getting them to be part of the system. That's all money and debt is. It's a system to organize societies in large groups than what we are biologically capable of without external structure - or about 200 people, aka Dunbar's Number.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

"Interesting targets" are first and foremost not cities, but launch sites. How many of those there are somewhere in Siberia is an interesting question.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

Russia now holds the economic trump cards. The EU is basically dependent on them, so any kind of "economic sanctions" are probably going to hurt the EU more than they could possibly hurt Russia.

Well, seems quite possible that Ukraine will move in the direction of joining the EU/NATO. Certainly every other country on Russia's border is going to strongly consider it. Russia may very well end up with Crimea, but completely isolated regionally, which was not their goal here.

The fuel trade with the EU makes up a much bigger portion of Russia's economy than the EU's. However, there certainly is a lesson here - it is foolish to be dependent on any particular country/region for a large share of your energy needs. All those in the US pressuring the EU to impose sanctions ought to be thinking about their dependence on the Middle East and think about the position they would be in if they ever need to impose sanctions over there. Indeed, if it weren't for the Straight of Hormuz I doubt Iran would be tolerated the way it is.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[antifoidulus]

And at the same time crashing their economies. You do realize that Xi Jinping can't exactly just go to the Berlin Sparkasse put his bank of China ATM card in the slot and withdraw a trillion euros at the current rate right? They would have to find buyers for the dollars they are selling, and if their intention is to crash the value of the dollar then they aren't exactly going to find a lot of willing buyers, are they? Not to mention the export based economy would come to a halt, seriously imperiling the CCP, as their management of the economy is the only thing that's really keeping them in power right now.... So I somehow doubt the CCP is really eager to risk their status helping out Putin.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

Well, a bit of a problem here is that the new Ukrainian government didn't really do anything to directly threaten the Russian naval base. That agreement was going to stay in force for several more years, and Ukraine is always in need of more money (which is why it was always prolonged in the past).

This was determined at what point after the old government was overthrown? It was not, you just made that up. Even if it was stated by a person in the Euromaiden party, during turmoil that statement is pretty useless. I believe you realize that, without men mentioning it, so I'm not sure why you would make such an easy to spot false claim that does not change my point. Russia will protect their interests, just like the US would protect theirs. Simple!.

This is a very simplified view. It would be more precise to say that Eastern Ukraine has a dominant russophone population. Not all of it is Russian (at this point the only way to tell is to ask a person how they self-identify), and not even all of those who self-identify as Russians are pro-Russia. There's a significant proportion that want to follow Crimea, for sure, but it's not overwhelming, and it's not clear whether it is even a majority.

Are you not simply repeating my point? My point was not that all of Ukraine should follow Crimea, it was that the Ukrainians need to decide their own fate. Propaganda on both sides simply distort that view. EU people running in and promising tons of "free" money to get them into the EU is not very helpful when you realize that that "free" money has strings and the Ukraine would be in more debt than they already are. At the same time, they were declining under Russian influence. Much of that we can attribute to corrupt leadership. If they are corrupt on the inside and the majority of the Ukrainian people are suffering does it matter what side they join? Not at all. They need to fix themselves then look for allies that suit their long term goals.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

China is opposed to Russia about the intervention, but they will not act on their opposition.

Well, if by some miracle Russia actually does something to the value of treasury bills China won't be too happy with that either, considering that for every dollar Russia loses they lose 10. Oh, and a falling US dollar would require them to buy a BOATLOAD of treasuries to prop it up relative to their own currency or they'll see their entire economy crash as their exports dry up.

Before you know it you might see Chechnya receiving a delivery of shiny new main battle tanks...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

China wont join Russia because if it sells it's US dollars then it just means it's tanked the main country in the world it's dependent on for exports meaning it'll kill it's own economy.

Yup - they're not buying all those dollars just to be nice. It is in their financial interest to maintain the current relative currency values. If Russia sells, China will buy, and the Chinese economy can outlast the Russian's on that front trivially. China isn't likely to think too fondly of the experience, though, and in a conventional war they're a far bigger threat to Russia than the US is.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

"Early warning systems prevent first strike. "
nope.

" The initiation of the strike would be on NORAD's screen within 45 seconds of the missiles launching."
not that quick.

"Considering flight time is about 45 minutes "
nope.

Wargames was a fun movie, but you need to stop thinking it was accurate in anyway.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

"... and the only thing bullies understand is strength. "
Are you from 1950? Using strength against bullies makes them worse.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

Yup. The old addage is that once one flies, they all fly.

The problem is the question of what your opponent will do after you just nuked him. You nuked a naval group, so he nukes two of yours and a remote sea outpost. So you nuke a few of his mainland military bases distant from cities. So he nukes a few of yours close to cities. How do you just turn a blind eye to a nuclear attack?

Since continuous escalation seems likely at all points, once one missile is launched it is likely that every one of your cities will lie in ruins, eventually. So, if you're going to fire nuclear missiles, you should at least try to wipe the enemy out on the first pass to hopefully reduce the impact of his retaliation. It is still a suicidal move, which is why we've never had a nuclear war.

Sure, there is a chance that a tactical nuclear attack at sea might be met with a reprisal at sea and everybody will leave it at that. However, it doesn't seem terribly likely. The retaliating country will only stop at tit-for-tat if they feel they came out even or ahead in the exchange, and it is unlikely that the first party to strike would do so if that were a likely outcome.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

I see. So what you are telling me is that you are a bully and don't like to think.
Well done.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

Yep, and the pubs know it and they have been positioning themselves to use the logical response against Obama.
That's why we suddenly heard some senators pining for he cold war.
All the pubs have is manufactured damned if he does damned if he doesn't scenarios as opposed to actual fact based complaints.

Yes, Russia has made EU their bitch, ad it will remain that way until the EU decides to suck it up and deal real sanctions; which will someone how be Obama's fault, according to the pubs.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[geekoid]

You think it's been spring for 'several weeks'. Seriously?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

This was determined at what point after the old government was overthrown? It was not, you just made that up

What was determined? That agreement remains? It didn't have to be determined - it's status quo unless and until the new government claims otherwise. Which they didn't until long after Russia occupied Crimea.

Are you not simply repeating my point? My point was not that all of Ukraine should follow Crimea, it was that the Ukrainians need to decide their own fate.

No, I'm not repeating your point. You said that "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian", and I noted that this is not necessarily correct. And even in those areas where pro-Russian sentiment may be in majority, whatever they do, it should also respect the concerns of the minority, especially when that split is 60/40 rather than, say, 90/10. So yes, they should decide their fate, but doing that right is very tricky, and Crimea is certainly not a good model for that.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Tom]

Obviously, just dumping it is stupid.

However, if you have billions of the stuff around, you can do interesting things with it. And if you're a petro nation, you can do even more interesting things. One of them is switching your oil trade to Euros. The US is so deathly afraid of that, some rumour mills say the Iraqs plans to do just that were a major reason for starting that war.

The US$ isn't strong because it is backed by the US economy, it is strong because it is the international exchange currency of choice, and the only currency with which you can buy oil at nation-state amounts.

Losing that advantage would hurt the US a lot more than a couple billions dumped on the market.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[rahvin112]

Oh the US doesn't give a rats ass about anyone denominating oil in Euro's because the Europeans are never going to run he deficits necessary to use the Euro as an exchange currency. The second someone tries to denominate a major commodity in $currency the demand for the $currency is going to sky rocket which dramatically increases inflation without massive printing to support it.

The ECB would NEVER print money like the Fed, for one thing it's against their charter. In fact if your goal was to crash the european economy by making the euro so valuable all exports halt the best way to do it would get oil traded Euro's.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Tom]

Even when it ultimately drove out invaders, the costs were massive.

Yes, but - just like the West supplied material to Russia, so did Russia take (and bind) most of the German fury. Look up the destruction and losses in Russia when you feel like it, it's crazy. Just two numbers to get you started: Russia lost 15,800 locomotives and almost half a million wagons. That they could still move an army around at all is incredible.

Imagine that all the destructive power that Germany unleashed upon Russia had awaited the US troops on D-Day. They would've never even reached the beach if Germany hadn't had most of its troops tied up in Russia.

So while Russia isn't as invincible and almighty as its propaganda paints it - neither were the western allies. Neither could've done it without the other.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[kaatochacha]

For all intensive purposes, your all wrong.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

The whole federal government who made that agreement was thrown out. How can you assume that agreements that old government made would exist under a new government? Even if you make such an assumption,it's an _assumption_. Again, use my analogy of the US when less happens than the overthrowing of a Government. How often have Aircraft Carrier groups been moved to different "hot spots" to protect US interests? It happens constantly by the way, so be cautious with an answer.

No, I'm not repeating your point. You said that "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian", and I noted that this is not necessarily correct

The generalization provided is the same generalization that the majority of Ukrainian citizens themselves claim. Are you going to discount people that actually live there as opposed to your belief? Are you claiming that the minority should rule, especially in terms of a Federal Government? Are you really trying to claim that the majority (even in a 60/40 split which is extremely rare) have to sell to Wallmart instead of K-mart because the Minority wants it that way?

Think about what you are trying to claim, is it really _that_ different if the Ukraine is allied with Russia or the EU? This is what the US and EU are trying to influence. They are trying to make themselves the Ukrainian peoples "friend" at a _COST_. Which is how different than the Ukraine being friends with Russia at a _COST_?

30 years ago when I was still dewy eyed and believed that the US was perfect I would have agreed with you. 30 years of facts and watching what our country has become has changed that pretty drastically. Are we still better than Russia? Depends on the point you wish to argue, we do things under the covers that Russia does in the open. We are not that much different today, and the US has moved in the wrong direction faster than Russia has moved in the correct direction.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cavreader]

People really overestimate the amount of US debt "owned" by other countries. In total it is about 4% with the Federal Reserve holding the rest. You cannot destroy the US dollar without destroying the entire world economy and the vaunted 1% would pull out all stops to prevent any thing that could adversely effect them. Do you think for a second the US government would be allowed to stand still and let this happen and not declare all out economic warfare on the rest of the planet. The US economy would certainly take a hit but it could also eventually adjust to the changes a hell of a lot faster than some other countries. US backed securities and bonds which regulate the dollar are one of the safest investments in the world and even the countries that purport to despise the US still invest their money if the US allows them to. Energy imports are no longer the Achilles heel it once was and the major oil exporters in the world are well aware of that fact. All the US needs to do to screw Russia is start exporting natural gas to Europe and reduce the amount of oil it imports because both actions would cause the price of oil and natural gas to plummet and the Russian economy would be deprived of it's only real source of revenue no matter what currency they try to use. China's demand cannot make up for the absence of US demand and the price for oil would nose dive to around $20 dollars a barrel and totally destroy the countries that depend almost entirely on oil exports to prop up their economies. With other countries being thrown into economic free fall China would also be devastated by the rapid decline in the exports they depend on to run their economy. MAD applies not only to nuclear warheads but also to international finance.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[mathfeel]

China also won't join Russia because they don't want what Russian is proposing for Crimea, referendum for independent, become an international precedent for its many regions: Taiwan, Tibet, etc.

Why are we still in this Cold War mentality that the two formal communist countries are join at the hip. They have many diagonal interests, even during the Cold War.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[dk20]

I would think any american who plans to collect "old age security" (or whatever it is called) would be hurt. US old age security has long been a great place to stuff US bonds as it is considered "internal" debt.
Loans/mortgages and the like sometimes have a "Prime+" component to them.

A massive US dollar devaluation would be a tough political sell, not sure all those foreign nations who hold US bills would be happy.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[DamnOregonian]

I think you are unfamiliar with the basic concepts behind MAD.

In this particular case, second-strike capability.

MAD does not rely on knowing your enemy will launch his birds as soon as he sees yours and that they will wave as they pass each other above the poles. MAD relies on *knowing* (need more emphasis) that even if you sling everything you've got at the enemy, after the mushroom clouds have cleared, your own death is equally assured.

There are multiple second-strike vectors. The former Soviet Union (and I assume Russia) relied on highly mobile land-launchers and some mobile boomers, and sky-darkening swarms of long-range nuclear-armed bombers, while the US relied on a vast fleet of more boomers and a near equal amount of bombers.

So frankly, yes. Talk the madman down. If you, as a President, are man enough to sit there and wait until you *are* incinerated in nuclear fire before the command must be given to retaliate, then you are a fucking hero.

MAD relies on no side having a definitive first-strike capability, and this remains true between the major nuclear superpowers.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

The whole federal government who made that agreement was thrown out. How can you assume that agreements that old government made would exist under a new government?

You can't. But you also can't make the assumption that they won't exist, unless and until explicitly stated otherwise.

Basically, you're claiming that Russia reacted to a threat. What I'm saying is that there was no threat, merely an anticipation of one.

To give an analogy. If I'm walking in a dark alley and run into a guy who jumps on me with a knife, I'm in my right to take out a pistol and shoot him. But if I'm walking in a dark alley and a guy is camping at the corner, he might be waiting for me to come by and jump on me with a knife, but until he does I have no moral or legal right to shoot him.

Again, use my analogy of the US when less happens than the overthrowing of a Government. How often have Aircraft Carrier groups been moved to different "hot spots" to protect US interests? It happens constantly by the way, so be cautious with an answer.

How often do American CSGs violate the borders of other countries in such circumstances, though? It's one thing if Russia stationed more forces on its own territory next to Crimea, or increased the troop count in Sevastopol. But we're talking about full-fledged invasion and occupation here.

The generalization provided is the same generalization that the majority of Ukrainian citizens themselves claim.

Which citizens? I know quite a few, and they all disagree with your simplistic point.

Are you claiming that the minority should rule, especially in terms of a Federal Government? Are you really trying to claim that the majority (even in a 60/40 split which is extremely rare) have to sell to Wallmart instead of K-mart because the Minority wants it that way?

First of all, we don't know that there even is a majority. Last time there was a poll on joining Russia, the only place that voted over 50% in favor was Crimea...

60/40 split is actually pretty typical in SE Ukraine. That's why you see strong demonstrations from both sides, and occasional violent clashes, like what we've seen in Kharkov and Donetsk. In any case, what I was saying is that in a 60/40 split, 60 cannot unilaterally decide for that 40. The solution has to account for the interests of both parties.

Think about what you are trying to claim, is it really _that_ different if the Ukraine is allied with Russia or the EU? This is what the US and EU are trying to influence. They are trying to make themselves the Ukrainian peoples "friend" at a _COST_. Which is how different than the Ukraine being friends with Russia at a _COST_?

Yes, it is really that different. The difference has been amply showcased by Russia's actions in the last several weeks.

30 years ago when I was still dewy eyed and believed that the US was perfect I would have agreed with you. 30 years of facts and watching what our country has become has changed that pretty drastically. Are we still better than Russia? Depends on the point you wish to argue, we do things under the covers that Russia does in the open. We are not that much different today, and the US has moved in the wrong direction faster than Russia has moved in the correct direction.

What makes you think that Russia is moving in a "correct direction", and what exactly does that direction entail?

BTW, please understand that I'm not a part of your "we". I'm Russian (both ethnically and citizenship-wise), not American, even though I have been living in US for a few years.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[dk20]

Perhaps you can explain the 2008 collapse? Wasnt it driven by sub-prime loans? How many billions of sub-prime loans exist?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[benzapp]

China does not need the US as a trading partner. Our #1 export to China is garbage. If you think in terms of "trade", we give nothing of value to China except for some foodstuffs.

No, the US is an Empire, and we force the world to trade in USD. China must use our currency trade with the rest of the world. The US economy is a small fraction of the global economy, so the price China pays for this arrangement - participating in our empire - is selling us shit for free.

China is actively working to resist US domination of global trade to be free of this, but truth be told - it's simply a small price to pay. China has no need to trade with the US, but they need to trade with the world.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[mjwx]

Really? As of last year, Russia held $225 billion in U.S. dollars. So, you think Russia will tank a $17 Trillion dollar economy with $225 billion. I find it helpful to have a sense of perspective when dealing with numbers.

And the energy exports to the EU accounts for around 20% of Russia's GDP.

Besides this, Russia wont go all nuclear, this is just something some stupid presenter said, do Russia go into tizzy every time someone on Fox News says something stupid about Russia (I'm going to bet that's at least a daily occurrence).

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[mjwx]

It wouldn't matter. A strike the size required to take out the US would doom human kind anyway. It would be more than enough to trigger a nuclear winter. When are talking thousands of warheads, a one or a two at the front if that number really won't make the end result all that different.

A strike to doom the US wouldn't require a thousand warheads, a dozen could probably do it. France has enough nukes to wipe out the US... and all the neighbouring countries. Radiation would probably be bad enough that birth defects would start appearing in France within a few months.

If someone decided to take out any country the size of the US with the minimum amount of nukes required then the effects of those bombs alone will be felt worldwide.... that's just the direct effects of the bomb, not even considering the economic and humanitarian fallout (millions of refugee's escaping the fallout zone).

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

You can't. But you also can't make the assumption that they won't exist, unless and until explicitly stated otherwise.
Basically, you're claiming that Russia reacted to a threat. What I'm saying is that there was no threat, merely an anticipation of one.

To not see the threat as real is delusional at best. I'm not claiming Russia is good, I'm claiming from a political perspective their reaction was correct. Especially considering that the revolt was due to the Ukraine voting not to join the EU and break economic ties with Russia. I realize it's hard to go back to the start of the conflict in history, but not impossible.

Wrong analogy, sorry but that won't work. The facts really don't need an analogy of a bogey man, they portray themselves rather well.

How often do American CSGs violate the borders of other countries in such circumstances, though? It's one thing if Russia stationed more forces on its own territory next to Crimea, or increased the troop count in Sevastopol. But we're talking about full-fledged invasion and occupation here.

Lets see, Yemen and Pakistan surely count as does Kenya, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia, and wholly crap I could list a lot of middle eastern and African countries here.... Toss in Syria since we are arming their rebels, Libya and Egypt since we armed theirs and provide money to those. I'm sure you know about Iraq and Afghanistan, but if not those are a Google search away. You see, the point is that while the US has been claiming to be a peaceful nation we have not been very peaceful. Good grief, at least in the first Gulf war we were actually defending a smaller country from an invasion (which we helped to instigate a bit). The rest has been blanketed imperialism, plain and simple. Full of fabricated information to start wars and fabrications to maintain them. All the while mind you, restricting US citizens and undermining our own Constitution.

Which citizens? I know quite a few, and they all disagree with your simplistic point.

How many people do you know? My company has over 300 in Russia (SPb), and here in the US we have over 100 from various locations in that region (as mentioned Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc... Surely I can't gauge a whole nation, but neither can you. How unbiased can you be if you have friends in one party in the region? Not very, but lets ignore that and call us even. News reports outside of US media seem to match what they claim, not what you claim. These are Al Jazeera, RT, and even the BBC at times. Sure, a generalization is always with error. Anything allowed to leave the Ukraine is filtered by both parties.

Now that said, most in Kiev that ally with Russia are afraid to speak up. I guess you missed the reports of pro Russians being beaten and run out early on. I'm sure you have no knowledge of the Jewish synagogues being vandalized and Rabbis being beaten either. I keep hearing about how Russia invaded, and when nobody could provide a picture of a soldier they made some up. Now we are hearing that troops are massed along the border, again with no evidence. How many times will you fall for non factual statements from the same source before you stop believing them?

In other words, don't trust everything you hear on US and EU "news" because it's biased just like Russian news is being biased. I said weeks ago when things started that if you read Russian news then read US news and draw a line down the middle you may find some truth.

60 cannot unilaterally decide for that 40. The solution has to account for the interests of both parties.

So you are claiming that the minority should rule. Hogwash, plain and simple hogwash. The majority in the Ukraine voted against joining the EU and was overthrown because of that vote. That is okay to you, because obviously the majority had to be corrupt which is why they voted the way they did. Now if they vote pro Russi

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[hodma727]

Has no one yet cottoned on to why China's leadership isn't backing Russia against the USA, when they almost always back nasty little tin pot dictators elsewhere against the US? Look up Tannu Uriankhai. Then look up Mongolia. China lost 15% of their territory when Russia interfered in Mongolia. The average Chinese doesn't know their own history, but the government sure do. Now add in restive areas like Tibet. Then add in Taiwan. China has many reasons not to support Russia's fake "referendum". 97% it such poor propaganda you have to wonder if Russia has learned nothing about successful propaganda since their last empire collapsed.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

I would think any american who plans to collect "old age security" (or whatever it is called) would be hurt.

Not really. To explain, our 'social security' is an intergenerational assurance program (those who currently work transfer some potential consumption to those currently retired), implemented through a so-called payroll tax (6.2% collected from employees and employers up to the first $117,000 earned only) which is used to sock away bonds as internal debt. So 12.4% of wages are taken from the private sector and placed into this trust. The 12.4% doesn't cover all the benefits that get paid, but interest income will make up the difference probably for about another decade. After that, the payroll taxes will have to pay benefits directly (at about 75% the level of current benefits) unless we allow social security to be paid from discretionary deficit spending instead of the trust fund.

To summarize, no matter the general price levels or rates on US Treasury debt, social security provides for 12.4% of wages to be diverted from workers to retirees. No matter what, any form of old age pension requires workers to abstain from consuming some goods, transferring them instead to retirees. Assuming for the moment that retirees should be supported by society, the question then is what proportion should be transferred. Under current US law, the proportion is greater than or equal to 12.4% (plus I think 2.9% for Medicare).

A massive US dollar devaluation would be a tough political sell, not sure all those foreign nations who hold US bills would be happy.

Agreed - but we were talking about Russia and/or China causing the devaluation, right?

From a US perspective, both dollar devaluation and dollar revaluation can be seen as positive. The former increases employment and domestic production, while helping debtors, and the former increases our ability to import the production of others and benefits creditors.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ahabswhale]

They have less than a half trillion dollars in reserves...it's not gonna do much other than fuck themselves over. Plus, the west can enact sanctions that are far more economically devastating than anything Russia could hope to do. Net effect: the Russian ruble becomes nearly worthless. And really, that's just the start.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

Rather than writing a point by point rebuttal of this and wasting time, I'm just going to show you that your sources of information are far more biased than you acknowledge. You say:

I'm sure you have no knowledge of the Jewish synagogues being vandalized and Rabbis being beaten either.

The only picture of a synagogue being vandalized is this one (and its variations from different angles). And you know where that is? It's in Simferopol, the hearland of the secessionist movement in Crimea. And you know when that graffiti appeared? Why, the next day after Russian forces - excuse me, "spontaneously organized local self-defense" - showed up.

In the meantime, here is what the chief rabbi of Ukraine had to say about this...

Here is another picture you might find interesting. This is a small arms salute at the burial of one of the Maidan protesters; the non-uniformed guys in masks are the dreaded "Right Sector", ostensibly a neo-Nazi, fascist group. The guy whom they are saluting is Oleksandr Shcherbanyuk, an Ukrainian Jew who was avidly religious. He was buried with a kippah, and a rabbi was presided over the ceremony. And the "Nazis" saluted over the coffin.

Chew over that a little bit. And start looking for some better sources. By your rhetoric so far, it's clear that you're simply regurgitating Russian state propaganda wholesale, without even bothering to do any cursory verification.

Yet another case in point:

I keep hearing about how Russia invaded, and when nobody could provide a picture of a soldier they made some up. Now we are hearing that troops are massed along the border, again with no evidence. How many times will you fall for non factual statements from the same source before you stop believing them?

I don't know who that "nobody" is, because the pictures and videos number in the thousands. Here is a video from Kerch where guys in Russian uniform (sans chevron with a flag) try to weasel out from answering the question, but eventually admit that they're from Russia. There are many others like it.

Again, the fact that you're not aware of their existence shows that you didn't even bother to do a cursory search, and are just watching RT 24/7.

The majority in the Ukraine voted against joining the EU and was overthrown because of that vote

The majority in Ukraine voted from Yanukovich in 2010, yes. One of the cornerstones of the platform on which he was elected was pursuing association with EU. Heck, the guy's first foreign visit after being elected was to Brussels! The turnaround only happened in the end of 2013, and, quite understandably, a lot of the same people who voted for him back then were pissed off.

So that part about "Ukraine voted"? It's bullshit.

This is not even to mention that since he was elected, Yanukovich, among other things, pretty much unilaterally (by forcing the constitutional court, a quarter of which resigned in protest of the pressure) rescinded the new constitution of 2004, and reverted to the old one - which, coincidentally, granted him considerably more powers as the president.

I stated very clearly that the US has declined much faster than Russia has improved. You could not have missed that point, so you are selectively choosing fragments to argue with. Russia has certainly not become a democracy, but they are not the Russia we grew up fearing. Does Russia have more mob bosses running around than the US? Probably not, the difference between here and there is we keep our shit in the closet and deny it at every available opportunity. Depending on where you are in Russia

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

If outstanding bonds are redeemed, their balance becomes reserves. Relatively more plentiful reserves will induce relatively higher bids on new issues of US Treasury debt, that is, relatively lower rates. This is the supply-and-demand mechanism by which quantitative easing reduces Treasury rates.

The Fed can always set the yield curve on Treasuries by buying bonds from the private sector (and setting IOR) such that takers receive a spread. If some institutions don't like those terms, they can try to collude to keep rates up, but there is a prisoners' dilemma in that the first one to break ranks will reap the gains.

It would be even simpler for the Fed to control rates if we altered the Federal Reserve Act to allow direct purchases of Treasury debt (such as are allowed by most countries).

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

If the value of my work stays steady, a strong dollar actually makes it harder for me to pay my mortgage, but a weak dollar lets me pay off my loans faster.

Since that's pretty much what I said, I assume you meant to reply to Lotana in explanation of why we're right...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Fortunately, the US government and most US citizens only borrow in US dollars.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Real rates are calculated by subtracting inflation from the nominal rate. E.g. if inflation is 2% and the rate on a US bond is 1.75%, then folks are paying the US government to safely hold their money a -0.25% (realistic numbers at the present time).

There are some rare inflation adjusted debt instruments, for example the US Treasury sells TRIPS which are inflation-protected securities. AFAIK in the USA and most other countries, nearly no debt is inflation protected.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

We are already giving tons of money to the Chinese in exchange for goods. If they wanted to turn around and spend those dollars here, they could. Instead, they turn them into bonds in order to manipulate FX prices and to capitalize their banks. Keep in mind that as a result of Chinese demand for US paper, we are trading them our official stamps for their sweat, toil and natural resources, which we consume instead of they and which they can never recover.

The misunderstanding this AC has, is that redeeming a bond adds to the net financial assets of the bond holder. This is false. If I have $100 in bonds, then on redemption my $100 in bonds is destroyed, and replaced with $100 in reserves. The only difference is the interest rate. Just redeeming bonds (or buying up bonds China is willing to sell) can't change the net financial assets of the private sector, and is thus very unlikely to lead to inflation.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

In other words, you have NO explanation for how quantitative easing has had no significant effect on inflation for six years. Time to face facts, your ideological model cannot predict price movements.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

The CPI is manipulated to show little or no inflation and the core CPI

Ah, another tinfoil hat.

The US also exports a ton of inflation via treasuries to other countries which lowers the rate of inflation here.

Sorry, this is logically incoherent. If a foreigner buys US bonds, they have less US cash, leading to lower dollar denominated prices in their markets. Supply and demand. Part of the problem here is misunderstanding that "inflation" means an increase in price levels, regardless of changes in the money supply. Just increasing the money supply is not "inflation" although it may lead to it, again via supply and demand.

This might only work in the short term until banks start raising their interest rates to compensate so any new borrowers get screwed instead.

The problem now is a debt overhang which is hampering growth by depriving banks of profitable lending opportunities, and depriving the private sector of its ability to innovate and invest. After private balance sheets are repaired and full employment is reached, I will begin to favor deflationary policies.

This also only works in the short term until other countries retaliate by debasing their currency as well.

You should look up the Plaza Accord and reverse Plaza Accord.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[VTBlue]

So your argument is that the the US would import less. China would be shooting itself in the foot if it sold all it's USD reserves and treasury bills. Russia would be doing the same thing because they are both net exporters. Even if the countries did that, US has many other places it can import from and also has the ability to ramp domestic production. Any currency warfare would cause far more suffering to Russia or China than to the US.

I'm not sure you fully understand why they hold on to USD denominated financial assets (t-bills and reserves).

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[je ne sais quoi]

I know most people don't realize it, but a weaker dollar would HELP the U.S. The whole reason we're in an economic mess in the first place is because the U.S. corporations have shipped a lot of the U.S. manufacturing overseas. China selling off their U.S. debt would appreciate the renminbi & depreciate the dollar, thus making U.S. manufacturing more attractive and providing much needed jobs. Of course, none of this benefits you if you are a rentier making profits on the backs of high U.S. unemployment & cheap labor in China, & those people have convinced the largely ignorant populace to support a strong dollar against their best interest.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[theshibboleth]

The problem is Putin may think he can wage conventional warfare across Europe without having to worry about a nuclear response.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[theshibboleth]

Also coincidentally a Russian nuclear submarine was on fire in the north of Russia http://barentsobserver.com/en/...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Citizen of Earth]

I think you're drastically overstating it. If Russia were to unload its $100B in reserves, it could depress the value of the USD by perhaps a couple percent for a couple of days, but it would do way more damage to itself. The global foreign exchange market is measured $5.3-*trillion* *per day*(!) and there are lots of aggressive players desperately trying to profit from arbitraging a few hundredths of a penny. If they figured out that Russia was dumping $100B at a deep discount for purely political reasons, the buyers would go into a huge feeding frenzy, mitigating the decline on the USD. Immediately after Russia finished unloading, the USD would jump right back up to its true value. The main result would be that Russia would have donated billions or tens of billions of dollars of value to speculators for a very temporary impact on the value of the USD. I wouldn't even call this a Pyrrhic victory; it'd be an unmitigated loss for Russia. China could do the same thing and have a bigger impact with its $1.3T, but also a bigger loss to itself.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Calavar]

Yes, both the US and Russia have tens of thousands of warheads, but they are mostly just dead weight. The US and Russia only have 500 ICBMs a piece and (thanks to the SALT and START treaties) none of them are multiple reentry. The US submarine and B-2 fleets are far, far too small to launch the rest of the warheads (both number in the dozens), and I doubt that Russia's strike capabiles are any better considering that they spend far less on their military. The huge nuclear arsenal is a relic of the 50s and 60s when any nuclear strike plan involved strategic air command deploying thousands of nuclear armed B-52 bombers. The idea of doing such a thing today is laughable. B-52s are sitting ducks to modern air defense systems, but B-2 stealth bombers are far too expensive to mass produce (2 billion dollars a piece). That means that the vast majority of existing warheads are dead weight. The problem is that no country wants to unilaterally destroy the excess nukes because it makes them look weak. So we have to wait for treaties like SALT and START before any weapons are destroyed, and the diplomatic process takes a long time.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[theshibboleth]

The question at that point is whether the world's latest little dictator will be satisfied with Ukraine (and perhaps former Soviet possessions in Eastern Europe like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.) or whether he will proceed to invade Germany and France. If he does invade any country besides Ukraine it would obligate a NATO response but I'm unsure if Obama would follow treaty obligations (direct war with Russia) or if it would be the effective end of NATO. Anyway there's a ceasefire until Mar 21, so the nuclear holocaust will likely not occur until at least this weekend.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[gmhowell]

To bring the comparison back to warfare, this sort of economic action on the part of the Chinese is unlikely to happen any time soon due to the theory of Mutally Assured Destruction.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[gmhowell]

...in global nuclear conflict there are no winners. With the possible exception for rats, cockroaches and tardigrades.

Don't forget lawyers.

He already said cockroaches.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[gmhowell]

You have failed to take into account the mine shaft gap.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Opportunist]

No, but once I learn I'm allergic to bananas, I won't accept them as payment anymore for future contracts. So I'm out 10 bananas, but you're out this customer for your bananas forever.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ShieldW0lf]

It's already underway. China is trading energy for Yuan, and Russia made a deal to give them unfettered access to their oil and natural gas reserves. There were several articles about it last year, here on Slashdot.

And the false flag operations in Libya weren't about oil as much as they were about fresh water. Under Qaddafi's leadership, they built infrastructure to tap into underground aquafers and provide fresh water for everyone. Now that water can be shipped to Israel. There will be feel good news articles about the dynamic young entrepreneurs and all the success they are achieving with their bottled water enterprises, while most of the nation watches helpless as the resources they worked so hard to make available are pillaged by foreign thieves.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Patch86]

Indeed. It is spring in all the waits that actually matter here in the UK- the weather is warm and bright, the cherry blossom is out, the first bumble bees can be seen, and plants are all entering their active growth phase.

Importantly- the weather it's warm. Which from a "need for Russian gas" point of view is all that actually matters.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Erikderzweite]

As said, the resources were burned quickly, while many German machines managed to work throughout the war.
Keep in mind that the bulk of Lend Lease shipments happened after 1943, the Western Front opened 1944, well after Stalingrad and Kursk. The USSR was already winning back then, it was all about who gets the control over Western Europe.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Chrisq]

Unprecedented? Just look back to WW2.

Yes of course you are right - i was thinking of more recent history.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Xest]

China doesn't give a shit about US exports, it gives a shit about having a major world economy to sell stuff to. If it no longer has the US to sell stuff to then it no longer has reason to manufacture, no longer has jobs, and will suffer rebellion due to deteriorating living standards and lack of employment.

It's what the US imports from China that matters, and that's just about everything nowadays.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[karpis]

Yes Crimea is pro Russian, but there is Budapest memorandum and a lot international law which prohibits Russia's actions in Crimea. And no propoganda can justify referendums at gun point of one of involved side. And don't even start about Yugoslavia and double standards (heard a lot about this from Russia) no western power after splitting Yugoslavia had territory gains - no anexation happened. Excuses about fashism and radicalls possing threat are nonsense because I have not heard about ethnic violence in Crymea. In my opinion current Ukraine govenrment is very tolerand and desperatelly tries to evade conficts - Ghandi would tap them on the shoulder for their actions. Russia are installing another frozen conflict (Trans-Dnestria, Osethia and South-Georgia) to destabilize region, because they just don't want or understand how to deal international relations in partnership and not slave-master fashion. I hope one day Russia will split into fistful of independend states to loose power and imperial ambitions. I hope for peace, but Russia must change drastically. And it is hard to achieve democracy in a country which has never had free citizens and all their leaders are either drunks or despots. Personally I prefer drunks - at least their ambitions are obvious. P.S.: I always enjoy the fact that during turmoil Russians blame America, but meantime runs to buy USA dollars to be safe.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Eunuchswear]

"Interesting targets" are first and foremost not cities, but launch sites. How many of those there are somewhere in Siberia is an interesting question.

Both you and the AC above are talking about fighting a nuclear war, making a counter-force strike to stop the Russians firing back. (*)

Apart from the US and Russia nobody has enough weapons for that - they (UK, France, possibly China) have enough to threaten MAD but not enough for a counter-force strike. (The 3rd tier, Israel, India, Pakistan have enough for regional MAD, not global MAD).

In fact the only thing France and the UK can do is destroy the population and economy of the US, Russia, or, maybe, China. It would be stupid for them to attack military targets.

(*) Forgetting, for a moment, the SLBM problem.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[gl4ss]

..so as they would be sinking the dollar AT THEIR OWN FUCKING EXPENSE the winner would be the EURO? FUCKING AWESOME!

no, somehow not gonna happen..

plan
1) get lot of currency x.
2) crash it.
3) cash in. with what? after having sold the fucking mountains of magnets for dollars already?

Putin likes to suck cock so he is putting up a big cock show now. the tighter grip _inside_ Russia is because he is slipping.. and thus going to extremes like gaming the poll in crimea to ridiculous results, even though they would have won 60%+ with a fair vote. but no, can't go without cheating...

(and the funny thing is that crimea is strategically important.. for a sea that is not)

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Eunuchswear]

In fact the only thing France and the UK can do is destroy the population and economy of the US, Russia, or, maybe, China. It would be stupid for them to attack military targets.

Oh, yes. for comparison, what a crazy France could do to the US:

Target 289, Kenosha, Wisconsin. pop 100,150

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Eunuchswear]

I think you underestimate the size of Russia. Even if you take out Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd and other major cities, you would still have a functioning economy and militatry, try this with NY, DC Dallas and LA!

I think you underestimate the size of the USA. There would still be Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Portland, Portland, Honolulu, Anchorage, and tens of thousands of other cities and towns.

I think both of you are underestimating the size of the arsenals on each side.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Malaak]

Well, the nuclear option makes no sense more than once either...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[tibit]

Yeah, that's what I always tell people: the scale of things in the U.S. is quite hard to understand without actually being here. U.S. municipal budgets are like country budgets in eastern Europe. NYC tracks Poland, etc.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

The only picture of a synagogue being vandalized is this one [thedemocrate.com] (and its variations from different angles).

Why are you posting information that is easily proven false? Do you need more links to show that you are a liar? Here is another, and another. And of course the number of synagogues being vandalized is low, there are not many in these areas.

I don't know who that "nobody" is, because the pictures and videos number in the thousands. Here [youtube.com] is a video from Kerch where guys in Russian uniform (sans chevron with a flag) try to weasel out from answering the question, but eventually admit that they're from Russia. There are many others like it.

Showing people in military uniforms with no markings of Russian makes them Russian, got it. More false information, not surprising. The only place that saw any Russian troops was Crimea near the bases. There is more proof of Blackwater being in Kiev than there is for Russian troops being in unauthorized locations in the Ukraine. Neither side is rock solid either.

One point I made is, and was, that there is a ton of propaganda being set up on both sides, and you are simply proving my point. Thanks for playing!

The other point is, and was, that claiming the US is wrong is not the same as claiming Russia is right. You can't seem to comprehend that point, at all, so there is no sense trying to continue dialogue.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[dadragon]

Already covered by "rats, cockroaches and tardigrades".

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[coinreturn]

Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc.

How so? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that all loans closely follow inflation rates.

For example if the inflation goes to 600%, wouldn't your loan immediately become 600% of the total amount you borrowed in the past?

A most definite NO. Some loans are linked to inflation (more accurately to particular interest rates), but they generally have lifetime caps on the order of 10 percentage points.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Pieroxy]

Wow... You really think of yourselves as invincible?

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

Sure. And the massively radioactive dust ejected into the stratosphere will be carried to you in the jetstream. Over the following months and years, it will sicken your families, pollute water supplies , wipe out livestock and decimate your economy. Those same massive clouds of radioactive debris will trigger nuclear winter on an unpredictable global scale So, yeah, it's possible to "win" with a first strike, but in the long term the only true victors will be giant mutant cockroaches.

I never said it was a good idea. Just that if some superpower decided to go nuclear against another, it would not be a small-scale initial attack like the other commentator suggested. No one is foolish enough to think that anyone can "win" a large scale nuclear war.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

It would require a few hundred, unless all you want to accomplish is to kick the ant hill. You could create a financial collapse by hitting the top 10 or so cities, but that only gets you so far. It would not be enough to knock out the government, commanders would be protected and most military installations are purposefully scattered all over. Between regular, reserve, and national guard forces there would be more than enough to ensure law and order for the most part. Most important, the ability for our military to strike back in a conventional sense would still be intact

Even if we go with that totally unlikely scenario, an in-kind response would require what, hitting two or three cities in Russia? Certainly not a healthy thing to do but also not the tipping point to global environmental catastrophe like the other commentor suggested. Remember, it's not like we haven't detonated plenty of nukes in testing. A dozen airbust weapons in the 400kt range won't end life on earth.

But again, that's a scenario that is just not on the table for anyone.

Now, if you wanted to knock the US completely down, you are going to need hundreds of warheads. You have to hit all the major cities, some of them very hard. You have to hit military bases as well, not just in the US but around the world. You would target underground government installations with big, ground burst weapons that would kick up massive amounts of dust and fallout. Ditto for our nuclear reservations to try to take out ground based ICBMs.

An exchange of that size, even if the US did not respond, would be catastrophic for the entire planet.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[EvilSS]

We are still taking numbers that, in a full exchange (which is the only way it would go down) would be devastating.

I also think you are downplaying the SLBM threat quite a bit. ICMBs are, in themselves, relics.. US subs can carry 24 launch vehicles, Russians 16-20. The current generation Russian SLBM carries 8 warheads, while the US has limited itself to 3-4 per Trident II (it's capable of carrying up to 12).

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[sunsurfandsand]

We'll meet again Don't know where, Don't know when, But I know we'll meet again Some sunny day Something to look forward to....

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[jwhitener]

What you say is true. But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632

I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear. There is at least some evidence of threat against the US (see wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.

About your point that the US would get involved if it was their military base in a country in turmoil... I can't think of any examples. I assume they would attempt to protect the lives of the service people on the base, or attempt to evacuate them. But there is no historical precedent that has the US annexing a large region of land around a base and declaring it part of the US. Or is there? Curious.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[M_Krieger]

Nothing like the prospect of mutually assured destruction to build up an appetite for lunch. I think I'll go find my VHS copy of Fail Safe and pop that in the ol VCR for some entertainment...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Maxo-Texas]

It's true even comparing "old" U.S. to "new" U.S.

Many of the original states are the size of counties in the later states.

I think it gives them over representation in the Senate these days.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[s.petry]

Your point is valid, but does change or address what I said. The US complaining about Russia, the same US who funded the Orange revolution with your tax dollar and no Congressional oversight or approval, holds how much credibility?

The US did break international law by invading Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War. The US justification given to Congress and US citizens was a complete fabrication contrived explicitly for the purpose of starting a war. The same can be said for the Afghanistan war. And before you "but.. but.. Bin Laden" you need to remember and pay attention to the country he operated out of and was captured in. Hint: It was not Afghanistan.

Go back and read what I said again. I never said Putin was right! I stated that the US was wrong, on just about every level. Anyone complaining about Russia in the US is a hypocrite.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[termineite]

Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them, and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

If the dollar bill sinks, US exports soar.
If US exports soar, US economy boosts.

Top US imports are Oil, Machines, Electronics and Vehicles.
Makes the country pretty self-sufficient in case of such a mishap.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[GodfatherofSoul]

1. Open Wikipedia
2. Look at a map of US states
3. Compare Montana and Massachusetts.

Now, which one is the bigger economy?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cryptizard]

The surprising thing on that chart is that the Netherlands are so close to the US despite being only a tiny fraction of it's size and having less than 5% of it's population.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[infinitelink]

Thinking at a tank pointed at your face--or your friends' or allies'--is wishful thinking of the kind that certainly is appropriate to faux intellectualism. Have at it. :)

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[lsatenstein]

Certainly I'd be more worried about their intentions to sink the US dollar by selling all their reserves held in that currency. A lot cheaper than firing several ICMBs, and much more effective...Regarding the economic warfront, I don't see any tactical advantages for the US here. Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them, and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

The US dollar is not held by most countries, because of the high debt. The USA itself is responsible for the dollar's decline in value and popularity. Who wants to hold a dollar from such a highly indebted country?

I am told that China takes the US currency and buys US companies and land. Land is the forever investment. Businesses and governments come and go.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Jmc23]

Interesting, encouraging people to commit a fallacy of genus get's you a +5.

Proof most slashdot mods lack logic.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Rich0]

I'm not convinced that defaulting on loans makes your country stronger economically.

Sure, it will hurt the banks who loaned out the money. However, they can't really just raise interest rates, because those are set by the market (if they unilaterally raise rates, nobody will borrow money from them as other banks unhurt by the default won't raise their rates). The rates would probably go up, but less directly - those banks would have less money to lend out, and thus the supply of loans is lowered and everybody pays a bit more.

As long as the sanctions are in place, nobody will be lending to Russian corporations. Even after the sanctions are lifted, Russian corporations will probably have to pay higher rates, even if they are new corporations that never defaulted. The problem is that Russia is now regarded as the kind of country that might provoke a major diplomatic standoff with half the world. Sure, that isn't some corporation's fault, but anybody lending money to them has to consider that Putin will invade some other country in three years and trigger more sanctions and more defaults.

Bankers like stability. There is only one way to be considered stable - you have to go half a century or so without ticking off every other country on the planet. Russia won't be considered stable until there is a major regime change and it lasts for a decade or so.

Re: And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[bhiestand]

Prevailing theory on first strike is that you fire everything you can, targeting not only cities and military installations, but also the nuclear fields of the enemy to try to knock out as much of their ability to strike back as you can.

References? Who is seriously proposing this as the best option?

It's been a few years since I did any research on the subject, but last I saw the prevailing (strategic choice) theory was that you always leave the other side incentives to acquiesce. E.g. target select military installations on the first strike, but leave population centers intact... "this was justified, if you don't escalate things we won't nuke your cities" might just work.

The reasoning for this is that neither the US nor Russia is believed to have an effective first strike capability. The US's strategic triad makes this virtually impossible, and Russia's got a hell of a lot of SLBMs as well.

Ignoring all that: Have you looked at a map recently? The US is big. To have the effect you are talking about a strike that would require hundreds of warheads. That would be more than enough according to Sagan et al.

You would need to boil the oceans and destroy all the submarines at the same time. Failure to get even a single submarine means absolute devastation. Nobody serious believes any country has an effective first strike against the US or Russia.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[strikethree]

And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?

None of this is propaganda. Russia could launch a devastating nuclear strike on America. America can do the same to Russia. No propaganda at all, merely a counter point.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[liamoohay]

To give an analogy. If I'm walking in a dark alley and run into a guy who jumps on me with a knife, I'm in my right to take out a pistol and shoot him. But if I'm walking in a dark alley and a guy is camping at the corner, he might be waiting for me to come by and jump on me with a knife, but until he does I have no moral or legal right to shoot him.

This looks eerily like the US justification for the Iraq War.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Alioth]

Nope. The Chinese and Indians would be dying from the resulting nuclear winter. If Russia turned the USA into "radioactive ash" it would be suicide for Russia, since that level of attack would cause a nuclear winter that would end Russia.

(Nuclear winter is a bit of a misnomer - the quantity of soot injected into the stratosphere from our highly flammable cities laced with hydrocarbons would mean in the months that followed, daytime conditions would be no lighter than a moonlit night. Modelling in the late 2000s showed that the predictions of nuclear winter made in the 1980s were actually optimistic. Before anyone points out that there were thousands of nuclear tests and this didn't cause a nuclear winter, well, the nuclear tests were not all conducted in the space of a few days and the nuclear tests were not conducted on live cities. It's not the bomb itself that causes this effect, but the soot from so many cities being on fire at the same time).

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Alioth]

He's also quoting the Daily Mail which is just as bad.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Alioth]

Meteorological Spring starts March 1st.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[shutdown -p now]

Pretty much. Iraq war was a legal travesty as well. A humanitarian one, too (since shots were actually fired and people died). OTOH, it didn't end with annexation - though some would argue that Iraqi Kurdistan is independent in all but name now.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[silanea]

...thereby making their money about as valuable as toilet paper with everyone else wanting to get rid of it ASAP. Which is pretty much the scenario they were facing to begin with.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[BundyGil]

Russian finances are a mess, Rouble almost worthless, and the Kremlin almost broke, especially after the Crimea adventure. Currency and stock market have sunk like a stone.. Putin going to the lolly shop with a few pennies. China could do something, but they wouldn't as that would hurt their growth, so that's not going to happen. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

What's a fallacy of genus?

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Jmc23]

http://www.nizkor.org/features...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[cavreader]

All of the countries who don't like the US (as if it were a popularity contest) still invest their reserves in the US. The oil producing countries are well aware that US dependency on their oil is rapidly disappearing and their leverage over the US has also disappeared. One more thing, an 18% drop in exports is enough to rollback every economic advancement China has made over the last 20 years.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[Mike Buddha]

The US government borrows money by issuing bonds, which are all in USD.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[arthurh3535]

Did I miss where the USA added a new territory or state recently? I'm sorry, while the US does like to keep airbases in other countries, we don't invade them and force the area the airbase or navel base is in to join our country as a full territory..

The best sign that Russia is BSing about this expansion is that it only took them a week to get a 'referendum' through their proxies, while it usually takes years or decades for it to happen civilly.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[ausekilis]

Be careful about those pictures though... the homophobia is strong over there and you wouldn't want them thinking you're flirting...

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[kbolino]

As a result, of course, there is no need to worry much about the national debt, or to destabilize things by trying to pay them off rapidly.

Rapidly is the context in which I took the statement to which I responded, hence why I qualified the currency manipulation with "blatant". Gentler and more subtle forms of currency manipulation happen all the time.

Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor

[reve_etrange]

Fair enough. It's just that since redeeming public debts has no impact on private net financial assets except for the loss of future interest income, any consequences of a drastically larger QE program would probably have more to do with institutional risk assessments than, say, consumer price adjustments.

So.....

[segedunum]

Kind of like a Russian Sarah Palin then?

Re:So.....

[Virtucon]

Can he see Alaska from his house?

Re:So.....

[erikkemperman]

Kind of like a Russian Sarah Palin then?

Exactly. Idiot says somthing stupid. State-controlled news at eleven.

Re:So.....

[Mashiki]

No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

Re:So.....

[Lumpy]

Palin could tell because she can see them from her house.

Re:So.....

[Opportunist]

Relax. Russia is no problem. That's more for internal use than external use. I mean, ponder what it would be like if the US were in Russia's boots.

The country "lost" the cold war, depression sets in, crime lords get rich and take over economy and partly politics, the general population is doing worse and worse... I think it's not hard to see how a lot of people are yearning for the "good ol' times" where Russia was some big shot country.

Now ponder what it would be like if this was the US, and how a president could score with the lowbrow rednecks and of course the military with some speeches about greatness and how we can snuff out that big bad enemy of the days of yore.

Saber rattling with respect to what's going on on the Crimea peninsula, but little substance.

Re:So.....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

Sorry, all I heard was, "Blah blah blah... I'm butt hurt cause Obama won... Blah blah bah, i like what-if scenarios... Whine whine whine, completely ignoring previous President's massive vacation history... I can't pull this tea party dildo out of my bum, bitch bitch bitch."

Re:So.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably has something to do with him having an IQ larger than his shoe size, and not being a bloody psycho nut-job.

Re:So.....

[AnontheDestroyer]

In what respect, Charlie?

Re:So.....

[Anonymous Coward]

> depression sets in, crime lords get rich and take over economy and partly politics, the general population is doing worse and worse... I think it's not hard to see how a lot of people are yearning for the "good ol' times"

Have you looked around lately?

Re:So.....

[MightyMartian]

Oh come on. Everyone knew Russia was going to be a problem. There was debates during the Clinton years about the amount of aid the US should be sending to Russia, but it was decided it was better to secure former Soviet nuclear stockpiles than to allow bandits and oligarchs to start selling them off for a quick buck.

Re:So.....

[jedidiah]

> Tell me again why Obumbles gets more RSPECT than Palin?

Even Bush the Younger gets more respect than Palin.

Re:So.....

[cellocgw]

So what you're saying is, we should invade Mexico? :-)

Re:So.....

[cheesybagel]

Romney has invested money in Russia. I would call that fraternizing with the enemy.

Re:So.....

[Xest]

I wouldn't call invasion of a sovereign territory in violation of international agreement related to nuclear disarmament and a fake referendum for annexation, coupled with another 40,000 troops amassing on the eastern border of Ukraine after weeks of exercises merely "sabre rattling".

Re:So.....

[Kvasio]

you seem to underestimate the gravity of situation.

Russia was perhaps "loser" in the 1990s, but for over a decade Putin has done what he could to grow european dependence on russian natural resources and capital.

And Putin mastered the art of "dividing the EU". It is only a couple of years that EU finally decided to try to speak with one voice. Still, Putin knew what he was doing buying people where needed.

I heard a diplomat who spent some years in Moscow said, that Clinton's major failure was not making Russia democratic state. At that time Yeltzin was "a modelling clay". Even later, Putin at the very start of his presidency has even asked if Russia could join NATO. Clinton's error no.2.

Re:So.....

[Registered Coward v2]

No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

Or GW Bush. After all, he "... looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. "I was able to get a sense of his soul." Guess he missed something there.

Re:So.....

[PRMan]

I don't think very many people live worse in Russia now than in 1990.

Re:So.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you might think about Obama, at least he is still at his job trying to do something. Mrs. Palin jumped at her shot at the big time and tossed the people of Alaska aside. Why would I want to give her any respect at all?

Re:So.....

[Opportunist]

Actually, I have. If you look around the East Bloc and especially Russia, you have quite a few voices that wish for the good ol' times. The general sentiment is "yes, we didn't have liberty and we could not travel ... but we can't travel now either. Back then we at least had a job, money and halfway decent security".

Re:So.....

[Opportunist]

It's a farce, no doubt about that, but fake, I doubt. It's actually very likely that the referendum results in what Putin wants, but that's about as surprising as the joy of the people of the Sudetenland when Hitler Germany "invaded" them.

Re:So.....

[Bratch]

''Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.'' --Sarah Palin http://www.smh.com.au/world/sa...

Re:So.....

[Bratch]

How about the HBO movie "Game Change" where we can quote Julianne Moore instead? If even half this movie is true it's scary. And Woody Harrelson was great.

Re:So.....

[Darinbob]

The US however has a long history of independent minded people, with lots of protests and disagreements. Even in WWII we had protests. But protest is virtually gone in Russia, with the vast majority of citizens appearing to stand behind Putin and his actions. It is very difficult to see the US in the same circumstances, without first having a century of totalitarianism.

Re:So.....

[painandgreed]

> Tell me again why Obumbles gets more RSPECT than Palin?

Even Bush the Younger gets more respect than Palin.

Well, he is smarter and more experienced than Palin. He at least managed to finish his term as governor.

Re:So.....

[Opportunist]

The countries just have a different way, culture if you want, to deal with protests. Russian government suppresses them, US government ignores them.

Re:So.....

[coinreturn]

No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

Where were you complaints when Bush Jr was becoming the president with the most time off from work? Google it.

Have we said the same thing?

[ranton]

I would be surprised if someone like Rush Limbaugh hasn't said something similar about Russia on their US based cable/radio news programs in the past few weeks. I'm sure both of our nations have their own crackpot news agencies.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Dan East]

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Lumpy]

Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single manatee with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

FTFY

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[supersat]

In Capitalist America, news agencies control the state!

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[erikkemperman]

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

I would say that one of the major problems of having state-controlled media is having too few people determining the content. In that sense, at least, shows like Limbaugh's suffer from the same problem.

Of course the main problem is that in places with strong state-media there is typically no mainstream alternative, which makes dissent or even mild criticism of the regime very difficult to get across.

But actually, in that sense, most media outlets that are more or less partisan have a similar problem -- as long as their guys are in office, they seem typically incapable of criticism, and while the other guys' guys are in office their attacks are so obviously conditioned / reflexive that it renders them rather unconvincing and insincere.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Hognoxious]

And are they talking like kids in the school playground?

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither his opinions nor what he says represent the government's true intentions. It's just propaganda, probably to show their people that the US wouldn't attack them as that'd be suicidal. Russia wouldn't attack the US for the same reasons.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Rockoon]

Exactly.

When speaking with an Egyptian co-worker (a Christian who finally got the rest of his family out of Egypt only recently) he had remarked that the reason that most people in the world take what Americans say on television so seriously because in most of the world (Egypt for example) you cannot say things on television that the State doesnt agree with without getting into serious trouble, so they myopically assume that the same must also be true in America. If Timmy Talking Head says that he hates Muslims on American T.V, and the American government didnt arrest him immediately, then most of the world assumes that the official State position of America must be to hate Muslims.

Now here we have some myopic American assuming that the rest of the worlds media is just like American media. Its not.

Now as far as Putin, NPR recently had an interview with chess Grand Master Gary Kasparov who has for a long time been outspoken against Putin. He pointed out that the KGB had a file on Putin long before he became the glorious leader which included a personality profile. The KGB had determined that Putin had an unusually low sense of danger, the kind of guy that thinks he can get away with just about anything, and that might include launching a nuclear first strike against America.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[X.25]

The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

Wait - you believe that something being said on state owned TV station is in the name of government and entire country?

What is wrong with you people?

You probably never lived in a country with 'state owned TV' if you can make statements this retarded. Sigh.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[MightyMartian]

They may be at times corrupted by it, but if you look at actual state-controlled media outlets in countries like Russia, there's no comparison.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Hodr]

I guess it's a good thing the President hasn't recognized Mr. Limbaugh as head of our state sanctioned official news organization.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Creepy]

I would say it a different way - the corporations own the media and through corporate PACs that utterly destroy any individual contributions, also control the government.

I for one welcome our (not so new) corporate overlords.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Charliemopps]

Of course there is. But Limbaugh is not part of it, and based on his seemingly predictable stance on most issues, I'd be willing to bet he's just as disgusted with Air America as you are.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[geekoid]

Nope. They manipulate the people who then vote for an official.
It's why I have come to believe that the word 'News' should become a protected word with strict journalistic guideline.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Petron]

This is the gist of the book "Propaganda" (1928, Edward Bernays). A good book to check out.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[geekoid]

The US used to have a great answer for that: They paid Broadcaster to have a news show. Not content, just here is some cash, have a news show with journalists.

Then that got cut, and the news shows needed to rely solely on ads; which ahs gotten us to where we are.

Personally, the US having a federal news program would be a good thing.
As long as it is open, and maintains journalistic integrity.
No, I do not want other news agency to be forced to repeat what it says, nor wold I want it immune to criticism.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Dan East]

You changed my words "of an" to "and". I said "government of an entire country" meaning the federal government of a country, NOT "government and entire country", as you twisted my words around. Certainly state controlled media speaks for the federal of government of that country. So yes, what I said is exactly right.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Bratch]

Sarah Palin did at the last CPAC earlier this month - https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[robsku]

"He pointed out that the KGB had a file on Putin long before he became the glorious leader which included a personality profile. The KGB had determined that Putin had an unusually low sense of danger, the kind of guy that thinks he can get away with just about anything, and that might include launching a nuclear first strike against America." [citation needed]

Not that I doubt that could very well possible...

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Ottawakismet]

He may find that he could not get Russians to go along with it. Even Hitler found it almost impossible to coerce his country into war, he practically had to drag them into war single handedly, and over the objections of many generals. Putin may find everyone is willing to follow orders, except to take the country into a crazy war.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[Ottawakismet]

The CBC and BBC have more independence then the media in Russia, in Russia the state owned broadcasters say the Putin line and only the Putin line, and nothing contradictory

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[shutdown -p now]

At the same time, please do understand that just because the media is run by the state, doesn't mean that it doesn't intentionally hire people like Rush Limbaugh. This kind of rhetoric is what a certain, fairly significant proportion of the population is very welcoming to, so it'll be used by any populist government.

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[shutdown -p now]

No, he said that something being said in prime time news on state controlled TV station can be assumed to be at least vetted by the government.

There are many countries which have state-owned media, but state-controlled is usually something that only authoritarian regimes do. In Russia, the latter is the case (and there's virtually no non-state-controlled media left - they just finished dismantling the last two remaining popular independent/opposition resources in the last month).

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[jwhitener]

I can definitely see the BBC or other country's state owned TV having a clean separation of power from the State. But in Russia or China I have a feeling that there is less separation. Or at least consequences if you stray too far from the State's views.

Would you agree that Putin would pull strings and have a reporter fired if they said something he didn't like?

Re:Have we said the same thing?

[bhiestand]

I've been saying this for a long time, so it's great to hear someone else propose it independently. I would love a return to the fairness doctrine, but I've lost hope on that... either have strict guidelines for what can be called "News", or put a "For entertainment only" marquee on all the crap.

Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[bkmoore]

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc. We cannot realistically or morally change Russia from the outside. The most powerful weapon against fanaticism would be allowing regular law-abiding Russians to vote with their feet. We could always use some more scientists and engineers anyway...

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Erikderzweite]

The Crimeans have just voted with their feet. A pity that they took the whole peninsula with them :-)

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Morally"? No dictatorship has any moral validity. It is no more self-determination than a stadium of people held hostage by terrorists are practicing self-determination.

Free people have every moral right to free people who are held hostage. Whether to do so is a practical problem, not a moral one.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

The problem then is that all that's left in Russia are the idiots, it's chilling enough knowing that Russia is about 70% full of idiots with it's thousands of nukes, letting that stretch to 100% is probably not a good idea.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Ottawakismet]

a fake vote where supposedly all the ukrainians and tatars also wanted to join Russia. Ya right. 97% approval is the kind of election result dictatorships produce, honest elections never get that result. Support for separation was 40%, so its a total lie that suddenly everyone wants separation.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[JustNiz]

>> It is no more self-determination than a stadium of people held hostage by terrorists are practicing self-determination.

Well they actually are practicisng self-determination, given that a whole stadium full of unarmed people could (admittedly with high losses) still overwhelm a bunch of armed guys.
It all comes down to perceived vs. actual risk/reward and the innate nature of people to prefer to act like sheep rather than do anything in the event of a threat.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[jeffmflanagan]

Plenty of Russians came out to protest Putin's actions. He appeals to their ignorant social conservatives, and sadly also appeals to the worst of our Republican types.

Stupid people love violence and superstition, and Putin exploits that just like American Republicans do.

There are plenty of sane Russians, just like there are plenty of sane Americans. We just both suck at marginalizing our wackos.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[CryptDemon]

Snowden has found his way back in.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[gtall]

And we should trust this vote why? Putin is not above stuffing the ballot box or disregarding ballots he doesn't feel representative.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[hodet]

Wouldn't you just be keeping out the low level dumb criminals?

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[X.25]

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc. We cannot realistically or morally change Russia from the outside. The most powerful weapon against fanaticism would be allowing regular law-abiding Russians to vote with their feet. We could always use some more scientists and engineers anyway...

What is worrying is that you might be serious about things you say. Is that what you really believe?

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[GodfatherofSoul]

So, you're buying those results?

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Erikderzweite]

Keep in mind that the new Ukrainian government has announced massive austerity program. Pensions in Russia are about four times higher and the economy is much healthier compared to the Ukraine. Besides, massive economic support was promised by Russia.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[mlts]

There is this constant push for H-1Bs, why not offer the Russian scientists asylum here? History has shown this to work in the past when Germany was a very hostile place to live in the 1800s, so the artisans, engineers, and tradespeople moved to the US.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

Of course there are idiots on both sides, but my comment was based on Putin's 70%+ approval rating.

Americans can at least be proud of only giving Obama an approval rating of what, 40 - 50% last check and Bush even lower previously with his level of idiocy became particularly obvious.

Hence why I said Russia is 70% full of idiots, because 70% of them approve of Putin and his actions.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That a hostage views his resistance as too dangerously risky does not mean external free people cannot intervene and free him. It just means he's in a sad state and in need of help.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[dunkelfalke]

For both economic reasons - Ukraine is piss-poor compared to Russia, and for ethnic reasons - Ukrainians are a minority in Crimea.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Erikderzweite]

The reasons are historical (Crimea is to 60% populated by ethnic Russians), political (a very stupid move by the coup leaders to revoke Russian language's regional status) and economical (Ukraine is bankrupt with massive social cuts pending while Russia is looking much better in comparison due to oil and gas exports). The latter is the decisive factor: the population on Crimea has seen for a long time that sailors and officers on Russian ships which are stationed there earned more money than their Ukrainian counterparts. Kiew cuts pensions in half, Moscow offers billions of economical aid.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc. We cannot realistically or morally change Russia from the outside. The most powerful weapon against fanaticism would be allowing regular law-abiding Russians to vote with their feet. We could always use some more scientists and engineers anyway...

As someone who actually been to that part of the world, I can assure you that very few Russians would actually take advantage of it as believe it or not, most of them are not very interested in living in the USA and they don't see themselves living under an "oppressive government". The ones who don't like the government and have real skills have already left for other parts of Europe. The ones who probably would come here under your offer are people you'd likely regret being here as they wouldn't really be coming for love of America and its freedom but for some less honorable reason like escaping military service.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

To be fair support for separation was higher (roughly 50%) but support for joining Russia was only 41% before Putin's thugs turned up armed and en-masse to rig the vote.

You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what? 82% turnout and 97% vote for joining Russia does indeed imply that Ukrainians and Tatars that are almost universally opposed to joining Russia voted for exactly that. This alone shows what an absolute complete and utter farce it was.

As if the hijacking of all Crimean comms in and out, radio, TV, and surrounding of military bases and refusal to allow international observers in whilst beating up journalists wasn't obvious evidence enough that a fraudulent vote was about to follow. I'm not sure who exactly they're trying to convince short of the few useful idiots that are dotted about here and there, but what do they matter? It's almost like they're just trying to convince themselves they're doing the right thing, as it sure as hell ain't convincing anyone else that matters.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[SpankiMonki]

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc.

Great idea! Let's also do that for law abiding Iranian citiz...oh wait...

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Erikderzweite]

I know both Russian and Ukrainian while being neither, have been reading a lot from both sides. The Crimeans do see Russia as a more stable alternative to the defunct Rada in Kiev.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Erikderzweite]

It's not as simple as that: most Ukrainian people, especially the elderly are very likely to have voted in Russia's favour. Not only because they were living side by side with Russians and are nostalgic for the good ol' times, but also because of the pensions which are about four times higher in Russia. The right-wing radicals that are very vocal among the Ukrainian government gave a strong trump to Russia as well.

As for Tatars: Tatarstan's president (federal Republic in Russian Federation) was in Crimea promoting tolerance to Russians. He is well respected among the Tatar community and was busy explaining that Tatars and Russians can indeed live peacefully together. Plus the above-mentioned economic factor. Of all groups, the Tatars are, of course, most opposed to the Russians, but you won't feed your family with politics alone.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[loonycyborg]

It's not that simple. There are many actions that can be attributed to Putin. Crimea issue is just one of them. And his stance on it definitely gives him more support. The only news from Ukraine Russians get is frequent coups, horrible economic situation, squabbles about discounted gas prices and Ukraine's failure to pay for it in time anyway. So you pretty much can expect that yet another Ukrainian coup followed by period of anarchy will get little sympathy in Russia.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[quantaman]

To be fair support for separation was higher (roughly 50%) but support for joining Russia was only 41% before Putin's thugs turned up armed and en-masse to rig the vote.

You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what? 82% turnout and 97% vote for joining Russia does indeed imply that Ukrainians and Tatars that are almost universally opposed to joining Russia voted for exactly that. This alone shows what an absolute complete and utter farce it was.

As if the hijacking of all Crimean comms in and out, radio, TV, and surrounding of military bases and refusal to allow international observers in whilst beating up journalists wasn't obvious evidence enough that a fraudulent vote was about to follow. I'm not sure who exactly they're trying to convince short of the few useful idiots that are dotted about here and there, but what do they matter? It's almost like they're just trying to convince themselves they're doing the right thing, as it sure as hell ain't convincing anyone else that matters.

I don't think the 97% number is supposed to be believable, it's supposed to be intimidating. 60% implies there was strong opposition and dissenters aren't alone, or worse, that even rigging it 60% was the best they could do. No one was going to believe the result regardless so they might as well get a big number.

97% says "sure we rigged it, but you don't know how much, do you really want to share your non-conformist political opinions with strangers on the hope that your odds are better than 1 in 20 of finding someone with a like mind?"

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Solandri]

You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what?

Not to pull a Godwin, but all of this has happened before. I really fear that all of this will happen again. The parallels are just eerie.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[bkmoore]

And we should trust this vote why? ...

Crimean Special Election Ballot (English Translation):
1. Mark Here_____ if you want to be an notionally 'independent' country that is in a slowly decaying orbit around mother Russia.
2. Mark Here_____ if you really really really want to join Russia now!!!

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Lotana]

For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc.

You don't know what you are asking for! All the really smart Russians have been emigrating away in thousands since the fall of the iron curtain. If you open your doors your country will get swamped and you will be complaining about all those damn immigrants taking your jobs for cheap.

Have a look at refugee crisis in Australia.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Lotana]

You are right about Crimea. Crimea was part of Russia until relatively recently (1954). Their leaving of Ukraine was inevitable.

I am more curious about your opinion on Eastern Ukraine. That part too has quite a bit of Russian population, but was never historically part of Russia. Do you think Russia would be welcomed if they invade?

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Darinbob]

The vote was in no way legitimate. First off, no referendum passes legitimately at 95%, ever. The election was hastily set up with little prep time. Russian troops were in the streets. Mobs were intimidating people who disagreed with the proposition. There was not even a choice on the ballot of "keep things as they are" (the two choices were to leave Ukraine and become a part of Russia, or to leave Ukraine and be independent).

And the whole cause of the uproar was basically that Moscow's hand-picked criminal who was stealing all the money was removed from power.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Darinbob]

If only we knew where Yanukovych hid the money, since he stole far more than the 13 billion than Putin promised.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[shutdown -p now]

97% is actually entirely believable even without any rigging, so long as you assume that most people who'd vote against have simply boycotted the referendum. This seems to be true at least for Crimean Tatars, and quite possibly also for many Ukrainians.

Now, 123% that they've got in Sevastopol (where more people have voted than are on the lists) is something else. But that is explained simply by the fact that anyone with an Ukrainian or Russian passport could vote, which includes all the Russian forces currently stationed there...

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[shutdown -p now]

They are not necessarily idiots, they just use government-served propaganda as their main information channel. Trust me, I have quite a few very smart friends in Russia who are very much into Putin and that whole empire-rebuilding thing lately.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[shutdown -p now]

And Russia offers Green Cards to all the refugees from NSA and their cronies, and we'll see who ends ups with more people?

Are you seriously suggesting moving to Russia to escape state surveillance?

Look up SORM on Wikipedia to begin with, then you'll understand why it's such a patently bad idea.

In any case, for most immigrants, the primary reasons are economical, even where political reasons are also at play. Simply put, more people are going to move from a poorer country to a richer country than the other way around. I'm really glad now that I moved from Russia when I did (and I already had a dislike of what was brewing up there back then), but if I'm honest with myself, a six figure salary and all that comes with it was at least as enticing.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[shutdown -p now]

As someone who's actually a Russian citizen, I can assure you that you're wrong. Yes, plenty of people who wanted to leave have already left, but plenty more did not because moving is expensive, and because scoring an immigrant visa is not all that easy. Around 5000 Russians get green cards in US every year still, and that's only counting those who could qualify for them, and bearing in mind the ever-growing queues. 2000 Russians get Canadian permanent residency every year. Stats for other countries are similar.

And there will definitely be a spike in the aftermath of the current events.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Tom]

Keep in mind that the new Ukrainian government has announced massive austerity program.

This. Among the first things the new Ukrainian leadership did was bend over backwards to let the IMF fuck them in the ass, agreeing to the same politics that already ruined Greece and Spain.

If I were living in the Crimean, that alone would've been reason enough to vote for Russia.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Darinbob]

"Coup leaders" is a bit misleading. It's still uncertain exactly what happened but nothing really indicates it was a coup. Yanukovych's previous allies were voting against him. Yes the parliament should not have voted him out of power so easily, but Yanukovych had already fled his office by that point, presumably out of fear that he'd lose the upcoming election and have to face the consequences (given that he jailed his political enemies).

Next the did not revoke Russian language's regional status. They just cancelled pending legislation that was going to give Russian equal status. Basically the cancelled or put on hold most things that were happening in the Yanukovych administration (I got this wrong earlier by believing the propaganda that this was a new law that was quickly passed). Powers had been moved to the presidency and away from parliament with a newer constitution and this was rolled back.

And Ukraine is in a big problem economically partly because much of the money is missing. Yanukovych by many accounts has stolen more money than Russia was offering in economic aid, and likely would have taken a big chunk of that new money if it had arrived. Yanukovych had several luxury dachas and was building a new huge one, and if the Crimeans had seen what a corrupt person he was they would have cheered to see him go.

Yes, Ukraine is going to be unstable for awhile. This is not to be blamed on the new government in Kiev but on the old government. One of the reasons Tymoshenko was jailed by Yanukovych was for making a gas deal directly with Russia and cutting out oligarch middle men and saving Ukraine money (even Putin said he didn't understand why the sentence was so long). So what's better overall; strong-man corrupt government and poor people, or less powerful president and poor people? Russia prefers the strong-man, it's easier to deal with just one person, and they have always hated the democratic orange revolution (and rose revolution).

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

I guess it depends how you define idiot, I know plenty of smart idiots :)

Take Obama for example, he actually seems a pretty smart guy, but he's still a fucking idiot for failing to close Guantanamo etc.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

Is it still plausible when you consider that they're claiming there was 82% turnout? That 25% of non-ethnic Russians turned up and nearly all voted to join Russia?

Seems more likely if the poll was legit they'd have voted for independence given that that's always been the most popular polled preference in Crimea.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Xest]

"Surely you do not advocate overturning election results just because you do not like the outcome? If you do, pot meet kettle."

I do if they're not verifiable because international observers have been kicked out and the vote has been held at gunpoint. That type of election result is no more legitimate than simple declaration by dictator.

Democracy isn't just about holding or pretending to hold a poll. It's about holding a verifiable poll, this wasn't that.

I didn't like the election of Yanukovych a few years back, but at least his election was determined to be free and fair so there's little that can be said against his initial election. This however is a farce, it was set up purposely to be unverifiable, it was set up to be legitimate from the outset. If Putin could've won the poll legitimately why take over all the broadcasters in the area, occupy the place with tens of thousands of soldiers, and refuse to let anyone in to verify the election was legitimate? In that case yes I absolutely support ignoring it - they can always hold it again in a legitimate and verifiable fashion if they're confident of their ability to win legitimately right?

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[shutdown -p now]

There was no option in the referendum for independence. It only had two options - join Russia, or stay in Ukraine but revert constitution to 1992 version (this was one of the biggest gripes about it).

82% turnaround is smelly, I agree, but it could also be sort of legit, in a sense that it's also possible considering the rules established for the vote. I can think of two reasons here.

First, the 25% of non-ethnic Russians includes russophone Ukrainians. Some people in that category are Russian in all but name, and in Crimea especially this is very common - many "inherited" their ethnic designation from Soviet times, where it had to be explicit in your internal passport, and most people just took for themselves whatever their parents used, but culture-wise their identity does not necessarily match.

Then also, remember that they've let Russian troops stationed in the peninsula vote. This actually gave some quite funny official results already, like 123% turnaround in Sevastopol, because they're calculating turnaround based on lists of citizens.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Ottawakismet]

Many countries are hunting for that money. Canada is trying to seize yanukoych's assets. It may end up like Gaddafi's assets in Canada and South Africa, returned to the Libyan government. A few solid assets for the Ukrainian government would have a bolstering effect, of propping up Kyev's current finances., something they could either liquidate or borrow against.

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Ottawakismet]

Yes, and the lesson of the Anschluss was that it emboldened Hitler to pursue the Sudetenland. Putin may take the lesson that he has a free hand to deal with the 'near abroad', the former Soviet Republics, at least the non NATO-members. The message was less focused on the West, and more at Astana, Tashkent, Tblisi, Bishkek etc... It is Moldova who is most immediately threatened, as Transdinistria wants a Crimea-style referendum to join Russia. They like Crimea already have Russian troops there since Soviet times, that the Russians have never quite gotten around to withdrawing. (never withdraw from territory if you don't have to was Stalin's thinking)

Re:Allow Russians to vote with their feet

[Ottawakismet]

on the wikipedia page on the Crimean referendum, there is a pile of pro-Russian voices who are whitewashing the whole affair, claiming the monitors were valid though they were totally biased. Material I put up about the sketchy background of the monitors got repeatedly taken down. Some are Communist Party members, or Russian advocates. It seems clear that Moscow allowed in only a group of voices who would certify their sham referendum. The page does not say how the OSCE monitors were shot at by Pro-Russian militias, and tries to say the whole referendum was super legitimate.

America's fault

[Tailhook]

If only the US hadn't antagonized Stalin the Soviets wouldn't have built nukes and the world would be at peace. Shame on us.

Also, the US Military Industrial Complex is using Putin to scare the US into a defense build-up; the Russians are innocent pawns of US capitalists and none of this is their fault.

That should about cover it. Please forgo repeating the above in 80% of the threads that follow. Thanks.

Re:America's fault

[Opportunist]

Erh... no. Stalin would have been Stalin, no matter what. He was a megalomaniac madman long before WW2

Re:America's fault

[jedidiah]

Also, it was his successor that started the arms race with a bunch of mindless bluster directed at the west. Stalin was gone by the time the nuclear arms race got started.

Re:America's fault

[dunkelfalke]

orly?
you mean the same guy who pushed for peaceful coexistence?

no, the nuclear arm race started in 1949.

Re:America's fault

[geekoid]

You don't really know anything about Stalin, do you?

Re:America's fault

[gmhowell]

I'll take "Reading Comprehension Failures" for $200, Alex.

So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[JudgeFurious]

And the United States is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the USSR....err "Russia" into radioactive ash. For crying out loud are we really going to do all of this again? Why?

Re:So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[Opportunist]

Because nobody buys the terrorist gambit anymore and we need a reason to keep the military complex funded.

Re:So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[gtall]

Well, nukes are only about 5-10% of the U.S. defense budget. Now are there any more strawmen you are hiding in your closet?

Re:So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[IndigoDarkwolf]

If it means only having to pass a scan from a geiger counter instead of a full-body pat down at the airport, I'm all for replacing terrorist fearmongering with thermonuclear fearmongering.

Re:So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[Opportunist]

NOW. Yes. But if you told that someone half a year or a year ago, they would've asked if your tinfoil hat was on too tight.

Re:So Russia needs some what? Lebensraum?

[Opportunist]

What makes you think we'd get "instead of" rather than "on top of"?

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last time: Slashdot is not a technology news website. It is a news site for nerds. There is a difference.

Celebrity Death Match

[zerosomething]

In this corner Bill O'Reilly for the U.S of A and in the other corner Dmitry Kiselyov for the Russian Federation. In a match to see who can talk their own country into radioactive ash first!

READY, FIGHT!!!

Re: Celebrity Death Match

[O('_')O_Bush]

I doubt the U.S. would be goaded into a nuclear war. When pitting dead-hand versus a nuclear MIRV arsenal at sea, everybody loses.

Unconfirmed weaponized H1N1 (bird flu) with 80% mortality rate, undetectable delivery, an easy/excusable way to prevent collateral damage (closing borders, which is already the plan if a non-weaponized strain is detected), and an extreme difficulty in tracing the aggressor (missiles can be tracked by RADAR, viruses can't) make nuclear war a non-option.

I the U.S. wanted to destroy Russia, the first and final attack would be a tourist (or cell) wiping their gloves on a railing at a national monument at lunch time.

Re:Celebrity Death Match

[Opportunist]

Could they just turn each other into radioactive ash instead?

Whoever loses
We win

Re: Celebrity Death Match

[O('_')O_Bush]

*Swine flu, mixed the two up.

Re:Celebrity Death Match

[FirstOne]

Radioactive fallout doesn't obey political boundary's.

It's not the N-weapons themselves, (couple of thousand megatons worth, on each side, yield split between fission(%50), fusion(50% relatively clean)), which will make real mess. But the 400+ Nuclear power plants around the globe melting down and/or being destroyed as a result.

Each nuclear power plant has several hundred megatons worth of highly radioactive fission byproducts stored inside the reactor and next to them in spent fuel rods. As demonstrated in Fukushima, all it takes is an extended loss of electricity to start the melt down process.

A megaton's worth of fission byproducts is created for every ~0.4TWh of electricity produced. Production of electricity via nuclear power worldwide is currently in the range of ~2200TWh. Thus ~5500 Megatons of potential fission fallout per year is added to an pre-existing inventory of ~150,000 Megatons, awaiting to deal humanity a coup de grÃce.

Dick wagging

[korbulon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

They're scared they won't be able to.

[JavaLord]

If the US gets missile defense systems into the Ukraine they could theoretically win a nuclear war with a first strike. This is what has Putin's panties in a bunch. This is also why Russia was so upset with the US considering putting their missile defense systems in Poland.

It would still be a crazy gambit, as Russia still has nuclear subs, and who the heck would want to take the risk? Is Putin just paranoid, or would the US really try to win a nuclear war? There are some crazy motherfuckers in positions of power in the US.

Re:They're scared they won't be able to.

[Xest]

"This is also why Russia was so upset with the US considering putting their missile defense systems in Poland."

Well the US actually negotiated with Putin and pulled back from doing this to allay his concerns.

Now he starts invading neighbours who gave up their nuclear weapons, annexing their territory and talking about nuclear war.

Sounds like maybe the Ukraine should've kept their nukes, and the US kept their interceptor program - the more Putin has been appeased, the more dangerous he has gotten.

Re:They're scared they won't be able to.

[gtall]

Only if the missile defense systems were 100% effective, which they aren't. One MIRVed big nasty is enough to take out the U.S. And that doesn't count the nukes Russia has on subs or cruise nukes they have on ships. So, no, the U.S. has no first strike.

Putin's panties are in a bunch because it appears the rest of the world doesn't need nor care about Russia. His problems with a world's economy is that he doesn't control it. So he puts two and two together and figures he needs his own empire of satellite countries that he can make care and which depend on Russia for an economy. In a sense, he wants to create his own little world where Russia is the big boy...nothing new that any petty dictator hasn't thought of before, he just has more tools to play with.

Re:They're scared they won't be able to.

[borcharc]

Why do people keep saying that only a 100% effective missile defense system is acceptable? Why is 50% not acceptable? MIRV ICBM's are no different for launch and mid stage interceptors, the thing we put all of our effort into. The Russians have ~350 ICBM's, we should have 5x as many interceptors that are designed for each stage. These can be capable on subs launched ICBM's as well, its just a matter of investment. I would be very happy to have a even a 20% success rate from a missile defense system in an all out attack. Thats a lot of people, equipment, and industrial capacity saved.

On the topic of MIRV's, we gave our up to appease Russia but they backed out of returning the gesture. Its time we bring them back, they were an effective deterrent.

Re:They're scared they won't be able to.

[RightSaidFred99]

You over-estimate the power of a nuclear weapon. One MIRV will not "take out the US". It'll hurt, for sure, but a plane flown into a building "hurt" - didn't take us down.

To cripple the US and send us into a post-apocalyptic state you'd need about 10 probably.

Re:They're scared they won't be able to.

[guacamole]

If the US gets missile defense systems into the Ukraine they could theoretically win a nuclear war with a first strike. This is what has Putin's panties in a bunch. This is also why Russia was so upset with the US considering putting their missile defense systems in Poland.

Wouldn't the missile defense systems in Europe just protect Europe? It's also no clear if the missile defense actually works, and if it works, how hard/easy it would be to wipe out with a strike by conventional weapons as Poland is a stone throw away from Belarus.

Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[Maimun]

for many years. The writing has been on the wall all the time. Those idiotic threats are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be wrong to downplay them with the arguments like "some idiot lost his nerves". The bellicosity has been on the rise in Russia for many years and no, the reason is not that they were unjustly insulted by the West. The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Well, international relations are heating up again, coffee-break is over and the West should better wake up and start doing something. If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. The people voting for Putin in Russia have almost the same mindset that the people that voted Bush/Cheney did in the U.S. The two countries are surprisingly similar.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[drinkypoo]

The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Yeah, we hope we can kick them out of the US government too, but so far no good. We've effectively lost the whole bill of rights already. You really think TPTB in the west are going to help Russians? They don't even give a fuck about us.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[Kiuas]

The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Agreed. Putin is basically doing "blitzkrieg" on the world political stage and currently has the ball. He's constantly been referring to "the situation in Ukraine" and "the situation in Crimea" as being something that justifies the actions of "pro-russian militias" (note: the Kremlin denies that they have any direct control over the troops occupying Crimea, officially they're supposed to be militias regradles of the fact that they're using equipment thus far only seen in service with the Russian special forces). Putin's playing the victim card to the west, and the nationalistic chest-beating "for the motherland" -card to his own citizens - all the while giving a strong signal to people like me living next to his country (in my case Finland) that any Russian promises regarding the respect for international law and sovereignty are better used as toilet paper.

West should better wake up and start doing something.

Yes.

If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

The west does not need to accumulate power. The west (that is the US/NATO) already controls the largest military force in the history of mankind. We have power, we need the will to use it. If we let this slip Russia will keep chiseling ex-USSR nations piece by piece using the same lame "we're just protecting out citizens" -excuse as the west re-enacts the 30s and tries to appease a man who clearly doesn't give a shit about talk. The west can "condemn" the actions as many times and as "harshly" as we want, but until a line is drawn and it is made clear to Russia that the crossing of this line will lead to military action, Putin will keep controlling the ball.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[cold fjord]

The ever popular false equivalence, or in your case the moral equivalence of idiocy (on your part).

I can see why you didn't back that up, it would have broken the suspension of disbelief.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[quantaman]

I'd never make the claim that Bush was as bad as Putin but both have similar aspects to their base. A strong aggressive persona, conservative social beliefs, a willingness to exert military power, etc. It's a common template for conservative populism. In a country like the US it's a lot more restrained but you still get things like the Iraq war and the culture wars. In Russia instead of invading Iraq they annex Crimea, and instead of banning gay marriage they ban gay speech.

There's similarities to left wing populism and Chavez as well, but in the US I don't think the left wing populism infiltrates the political elite the way right wing populism does.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[guacamole]

I really hate drawing parallels between Russia now and Nazi Germany, but there is one that's hard to overlook: the concept of Weimar Russia. Allies, such as France, after the win in WWI insisted on placing impossible and humiliating sanctions on Germany which directly led to the creation of the humiliated and angry Weimar Germany and its impoverished populations, and this created all the right conditions for a lunatic like Hitler to come to power.

Yes, the writing has always been on the wall that those Russian fascizoids are real. I really used to think that the far right Russian nationalists or simply ultra-nationalists like Zhirinovsky, Limonov, Rogozin, Zyuganov, etc were simply a breed of clowns who would eventually die out. Instead of dying out, their views are now mainstream to most of Putin's ruling elite and Duma politicians.

The question is though, why did the West allow the situation in Russia to deteriorate so much without providing any real economic aid in the 90s? The former Eastern European satellites of USSR received massive economic support in the form of foreign direct investment, foreign aid, military aid, speedy admission into EU, NATO, and WTO, but Russia was left by the wayside to rot. Watching the 20 year long saga of Russian accession into the WTO was ridiculous. All participants in the talks clearly wanted to extract as much as they could out of Russians. And where were the angry US and EU politicians and their threats of economic sanctions at the time when a small group of Yeltsin's cronies pillaged the Russian economy, stole billions, and created the infamous class of Russian Oligarchs? Instead of placing sanctions on them and their ill-gotten money, the way the West would treat a central African ex-dictator who stole billions, places like London met the Russian Oligarchy and their money with wide open arms.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[guacamole]

Another comical note:

6. America is the only country in the world to have used nuclear bombs while sweeping under the rug the issue that indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians as long with a nearby military-industrial personnel may have constituted a war crime.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[Darinbob]

Not that similar though. Where are the protests against Putin? We had many protests against Bush, we had many protests against Obama. We've never even come close to having a dictatorship.

Re:Russia has been turning into a fascist state

[Darinbob]

You know, I kind of miss Yeltsin a little bit right now.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Xest]

Yes, because everything wrong on Earth is the West's fault, and Russia is a perfectly little angel that produces nothing other than rainbows and unicorns.

In other news Kim Jong Un was re-elected with 100% of the popular vote for being such a glorious leader of the people.

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not Stalin at all, he's Putin it into top gear!

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not Stalin at all, he's Putin it into top gear!

And if you didn't like the pun, well Crimea river.

Re:Well....

[Darinbob]

He's a star in an economically priced car. Wait, he's leaving the track, crossing into another country! Oh no, he ran over the Stig!

Re:Well....

[strikethree]

LOL. And to think some people block Anonymous Coward. They will miss this. Very funny. :)

Meanwhile, US stock markets...

[jeffb (2.718)]

...are singing and dancing. If the Invisible Hand isn't sweating, why should I?

Re:Meanwhile, US stock markets...

[geekoid]

Because the invisible hand never sweats, it just suddenly lets go.

The problem with Radioactive Ash is..

[bobbied]

In mother Russia, radioactivity finds you.

It might be half a world away, but it WILL find you. Not to mention that there would likely be retaliation in kind.

This is just Putin Fist Pumping national pride. Putin is poking the US in the eye with the Ukraine thing and they are upping the rhetoric while they can, just in case the US actually manages to do something with teeth. If they can isolate Russia some, it might cause a public relations problem for Putin so he just getting as far ahead as he can.

To answer a question from a past movie... Let's play Tic Tac Toe and skip that Thermo-Nuclear war thing...

Re:The problem with Radioactive Ash is..

[bobbied]

Hey, I'm not begrudging them their fist pumps. Yea, they out flanked the USA in this one so have fun celebrating the tactical win. What are we going to do? Expel a couple of low level diplomats? Maybe. Get the UN to slap sanctions on them? Not. About all that *might* happen is we might talk some of Europe into financial sanctions. But I give that effort about a snowball's chance

I won't go into the reasons why this is happening.... Frustrates me too much.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Opportunist]

Hush! This is the Russia-bashing thread. The EU-bashing thread is next door.

Re:if...

[SuricouRaven]

He'd have actually pushed for a real socialised healthcare system, rather than throwing money at the insurance companies and hoping they lower prices.

ISS

[tekrat]

Next up: Russians "deport" American astronauts from ISS, as they are the only country with a manned space flight program. How ironic; we spend many billions to build it, and then scrap our only way of getting to it. Nice plan. No wonder USA is number 37.

Someday USA might be a great country, but this decade and the next is not that day.

USA is now filled with religious, science-denying blowhards that will turn this country into a backwater 3rd world with nuclear weapons and offshore billionaires that own the government. Just look at Greenspan's comments. We'll all be shooting each other for food in a few years, while CEOs sit on piles of cash that guarantee they are comfortable for 6 or 7 generations.

Re:ISS

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is now filled with religious, science-denying blowhards that will turn this country into a backwater 3rd world with nuclear weapons and offshore billionaires that own the government.

So the US will turn into Russia?

Re:ISS

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Open the airlock HAL...

In Soviet ISS airlock deports you!

Re:ISS

[GodfatherofSoul]

How else are we going to fund military adventurism if we don't cut back on exploration?

Re:ISS

[scottpig]

Next up: Russians "deport" American astronauts from ISS, as they are the only country with a manned space flight program.

The solar panels that power the ISS are in the American section. So sure, they could keep us off the ISS but we could make it awfully uncomfortable for them to stay.

The Russian Embassador

[Lucas123]

There were those of us who fought against this. But in the end, we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time, our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our Doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a Doomsday gap.

Dear Kiselyov,

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

You do realize if the US burns, you'll freeze, starve, and wind up with cataracts in the inevitable nuclear winter right?

Sorry - Has to be posted

[bjdevil66]

This CANNOT be posted enough. Obama was 100% wrong, and Romney was 100% right.

Call it sour grapes for the 2012 election, but the guy that lost saw the potential problems coming - and our current administration mocked him for it. And Romney haters mocked him online and in the media.

Bottom line: As of today, when it comes to international relations, the executive branch looks like it's being run today by an amateur - supported by amateurs, all living in the same intellectual bubble full of yes men.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[wonkey_monkey]

Hindsight is 20/20.

How many other things were said at the time by either candidate but weren't borne out by time?

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[GodfatherofSoul]

Why not post Sarah Palin's "bold and insightful predictions" that Putin might invade Ukraine while you're at it? Russia isn't the same country any more. This wasn't an invasion of Poland. This is Russia dicking around in their own backyard like they've been doing the last 10 years or so. Russia doesn't have the money to be a world power any more.

All we're doing by talking him up is getting him more confident in what he thinks he can get away with based on his limited resources. If it goes to the mat, the US and Europe could squash this with sanctions, but Europe is going to have to nut up and accept some economic hardship to make it happen.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[korbulon]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Romney would have been a reasonable candidate had he not been shackled to the current Republican party, who are largely responsible for the current overextension and perceived weakness of US military forces engendered by the minimistically planned and even more poorly executed incursions in the Middle East in the 2000s (aided by a feckless and obsequious Democratic party, AKA Diet Republicans).

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[RightSaidFred99]

Demonstrably and completely untrue. I am not a fan at all of our adventurism in the middle east, especially Iraq.

But it's silly to argue they have not _improved_ our readiness and strength. You need to fight to be strong, and we've been fighting. Having a military just sitting on bases and doing training exercises does not lead to the military power. You have to go fight on the ground, in the air, and at sea. And we've been doing that.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[bjdevil66]

Whether Romney was just lucky or not doesn't matter. The real problem is that the guy that won was so arrogant and clueless about Russia. And his administration has made multiple, big mistakes abroad. AND it probably doesn't help that they're appointing top campaign contributors as foreign ambassadors even if they know nothing about the country they'll be living in.

Seriously - They're running their foreign policy like a bunch of amateurs playing catch-up.

And yes - The GOP was really wrong to push for and lead the invasion of Iraq. It was a total waste of political capital, a trillion+ dollars, and the scarring of thousands of American soldiers' lives. The problem with that "I hate the GOP no matter what" argument, however, was that Romney was willing to stand on his own at times, and he was definitely not a Sarah Palin like candidate.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[geekoid]

That's completely false.
You, and people of your ilk, are simple minded folks who are barely smart enough to be called human.

Russia is not the biggest GO political threat facing the US. It's absurd to think so.
Trying to shoe horn this issue into the is well, stupid.
It's not even ignorant, it is stupid. It s twisting what is happening into a political 'right/wrong' argument tat doesn't apply.

It's more FUD from the pubs. If lies, misinformation and out of context quotes is all the pubs can ever muster up against Obama, then he is doing a pretty good job.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[korbulon]

Demonstrably and completely untrue. I am not a fan at all of our adventurism in the middle east, especially Iraq.

But it's silly to argue they have not _improved_ our readiness and strength. You need to fight to be strong, and we've been fighting. Having a military just sitting on bases and doing training exercises does not lead to the military power. You have to go fight on the ground, in the air, and at sea. And we've been doing that.

Wat.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[korbulon]

He wasn't much of a candidate at all. They're all pretty useless, these politicians and their buddies. It happened with "heckuva a job" W, it's happening with Obama, it would have happened with Romney and his Bain buddiess, and it will happen with Clinton II.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[fnj]

Are you high? That exchange doesn't show hindsight. It shows foresight and understanding by Romney, and vapid ignorance by the current occupier of the White Hut.

Putin made a monkey out of the Stupid Regime twice. Once in Syria and now again in Crimea.

Having said that, Crimea has basically been a colony of Russia for many decades. It's how the Russians worked under the USSR. They basically colonized far and wide. It's quite predictable that a Russian colony feels like part of Russia. I can't imagine what anyone thinks a bunch of busybodies in the west could possibly do about the fait accompli, or why Russia would pay any mind to the pointless bluster of the west over the past week or two.

It's pretty hard to be cheery about competent thugs in the Kremlin having Russia by the balls, and INcompetent thugs in DC having the US by the balls. But which ones are feared more by the people of the world, and by the poor saps living in the US? The White Hut brand of thuggery, by far. Putin protected his own ethnic brothers against real danger from Kiev. 0bama almost wreacked added pointless hell on the people alreay undergoing hell in Syria, where he had absolutely no business sticking his nose in, but both Syria's and the US' bacon was saved by - Putin!

Now if Putin builds on his empire by marching into Ukraine with guns blazing, that will be different, but there is no real precedent for predicting that.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[fnj]

My ass. The west couldn't squash shit with sanctions. Europe can only get through a winter without large parts of the population freezing to death because of Russian natural gas.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[wonkey_monkey]

Are you high? That exchange doesn't show hindsight.

I was talking about the poster's hindsight, not Romney's.

It shows foresight and understanding by Romney

Taken on its own there's little to differentiate it from a mildly informed guess.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[HornWumpus]

England kept Afghanistan as a training ground for about 200 years. They never pacified it and never wanted to.

Every new Army unit would do a tour in Afghanistan. They would all lose some soldiers, but the troops that came back were much stronger then the ones that went out.

The English only gave up Afghanistan once the Irish upped their game and they had a training ground closer to home.

Any army with sergeants that are not combat veterans isn't really ready to fight.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[HornWumpus]

If we succeeded in restarting the Sunni/Shia war, Iraq was a success. Based on what is happening in Syria and Iraq today, I'd say we have.

Your mistake is assuming the stated reasons for going were the actual ones.

Re:Sorry - Has to be posted

[GodfatherofSoul]

So, do you think the Western world could hack *next* winter before Russia goes broke? I don't think so. I'm assuming that since that's the strategy the Western world has adopted, then it'll work.

Fox News Moscow

[ToasterTester]

From the people who mentor Karl Rove, Fox News, and Clear Channel. History our way.

Re:Mr Obama

[thrich81]

As someone who lived through the '80s with a couple of close calls of mutual annihilation, I'd rather not have those foreign policies back.

Re:Mr Obama

[wiredog]

That seems to be the foreign policy he's following, actually.

Not true!

[wonkey_monkey]

Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash

The US could do it too. Haven't they seen T3?

The US did, so why not Russia?

[rvw]

The US invaded Iraq without UN approval and with false proof (remember the WMD) to "liberate" it. Now Russia does the same with Crimea, only the proof is much more valid, even if this poll was a complete farce. What's new?

Disclaimer: I'm EU citizen and totally against all this idiotic behavior. But let's be honest - the US has no moral standing in cases like this anymore, even if Obama is not to blame for Iraq. And the EU, well, they simply have no backbone in foreign policy.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

This obsession with "moral standing" is ludicrous. Do you think the British Empire had heap loads of moral standing on September 1, 1939? Do you think the US and the USSR had barrels of "moral standing" hanging around when they joined the fight against the Nazis?

Nations do shit things, sometimes for perceived benefit, or simply out of greed. If we allowed every ill actions we had done in the past hold us back, no one would ever intervene when some other nation state violated the general rules of international conduct?

Russia signed an agreement in the 1990s guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpiles. Thus, even excluding any notions of territorial integrity that have been a part of international law since the end of WWII, Russia is in violation of its own treaty with Ukraine.

So yes, it sucks ass that the US invaded Iraq, but do you seriously want the US to sit in the corner and refuse to come out when Russia starts enlarging itself with trumped up referendums, because a decade ago it did a naughty thing?

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[alen]

there are a few dozen nations in Europe with tiny armies compared to their populations. they need to be the ones mobilizing first to stop russia, not the USA

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

The United States, via NATO, has underwritten European freedom for six decades. Why should that stop now? It's in the US's interest to keep Europe free and peaceful.

I'm not, at this juncture, suggesting military intervention; not directly anyways. But certainly help Ukraine through military aid defends its sovereignty and integrity seems a good idea, as well as pushing Europe for harsh sanctions.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[maccodemonkey]

The US invaded Iraq without UN approval and with false proof (remember the WMD) to "liberate" it. Now Russia does the same with Crimea, only the proof is much more valid, even if this poll was a complete farce. What's new?

Disclaimer: I'm EU citizen and totally against all this idiotic behavior. But let's be honest - the US has no moral standing in cases like this anymore, even if Obama is not to blame for Iraq. And the EU, well, they simply have no backbone in foreign policy.

Yes, because the EU has such moral standing when it comes to invading other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

It's not that I don't think that people have lost respect for the US's foreign policy. But to assert that America alone invades countries for "peacekeeping" reasons is absurd. Heck, the country I live in (United States) was shaped by European overseas involvement in our early history (either French or British involvement, depending on how you want to look at the American Revolutionary War.)

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[circletimessquare]

1. people who are not americans, and hated the invasion of iraq, are not happy with what kgb thug putin has done

2. morality does not mean "that guy over there did something bad so it's ok that this guy does something bad"

3. the world doesn't actually revolve around the usa. the usa is not the standard you use to determine right and wrong in this world

that putin did something wrong is not automatically made ok because the usa did something wrong. different entities. if i murder your neighbor is it ok because some other guy murdered someone else once? does that make any sense to you? then why does putin doing something wrong mean we can't judge because the usa did something wrong once? why do you have a need to start babbling about the usa?

again, in case you missed it: the world does not actually revolve around the usa

it's actually possible to be angry at putin and condemn his invasion of crimea without thinking about or referencing the usa

amazing concept, huh?

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

Double standards are what they are. Whether you, Russia or the King of Jupiter like it or not, it is not in anyone but Russia's best interests to have it absorbing up chunks of Eastern Europe based on the same flimsy arguments that Germany put forward over the Sudetenland seventy five years ago.

Moral standing arguments are nothing more than thinly veiled arguments to sit on our hands and do nothing. Well fuck you and fuck the double standard. Russia should be put under crippling sanctions, its foreign assets should be seized, its foreign nationals put on the next planes back to Russia. At some point the oligarchs that Putin relies on for his powerbase will blink and then we can back to reasonable talk, without Russian forces sitting in a state that Russia itself guaranteed the territorial integrity of twenty years ago.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Bryan Ischo]

"So yes, it sucks ass that the US invaded Iraq, but do you seriously want the US to sit in the corner and refuse to come out when Russia starts enlarging itself with trumped up referendums, because a decade ago it did a naughty thing?"

Speaking for myself, I'd say it's a "case by case basis" sort of a thing. I don't believe in absolutes; there is no single policy that we should always employ regardless of situation.

And in this case, I'd say we should do nothing. It's a complex enough situation in which there is a majority of people making a collective decision, and it can be carried out on peaceful terms, so let it be so.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

The Kosovo referendum was done with international observers, and what lead to it was Serbian aggression that, if not outright genocidal in direction, was damned close.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

If we do nothing, what happens to every other country in Eastern Europe that has some measurable Russian minority? Do they just get to either enslave themselves or Moscow or see their territory cut into pieces?

Explain to me how what happened in Crimea is any different than what happened in Sudetenland?

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[MightyMartian]

I might also add that the Kosovo referendum lead strictly to independence, and not to Kosovo being swallowed up by a large neighbor.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[quantaman]

I think the issue is that this is part of the price to be paid for Iraq. When you launch an invasion based on a false pretext one of the consequences is that other countries feel freer to do the same. There's a possibility that if the US hadn't gone into Iraq that Putin wouldn't have felt he had the necessary rationalization to go into Crimea.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Ottawakismet]

did the US annex Iraq or make it a colony? Did they seize its oil and reserve it for Americans? Is Russia going to let Crimea be independent, and make its own decisions as Iraq does? The stupidest argument against standing up to Russian aggression is to say the US has at some points been aggressive. Thats neither here nor there. The question now is about naked expansionist Russian aggression and bullying. In this case, the US is not being a bully and aggressive, but needing for everyone to love her, and not make any difficult decisions that might piss anybody off.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Tom]

The USA should be put under crippling sanctions, its foreign assets should be seized, its foreign nationals put on the next planes back to America. At some point the billionaires that Bush/Obama relies on for his powerbase will blink and then we can back to reasonable talk, without american forces sitting in a state that they invaded under completely made-up evidence.

There, fixed that for you.

No, I'm not saying we should ignore russian aggression. I'm saying we should bomb the US a bit in retaliation for Iraq and then we can sanction Russia for its current actions. Or is it you who is doing double-standards all of a sudden?

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[guacamole]

Nations do shit things, sometimes for perceived benefit, or simply out of greed. If we allowed every ill actions we had done in the past hold us back, no one would ever intervene when some other nation state violated the general rules of international conduct?

This is such a great philosophy to live by. Let's enforce the international law when it's convenient to us, but ignore it when it does not suit us. Let's always do that.

Russia signed an agreement in the 1990s guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpiles. Thus, even excluding any notions of territorial integrity that have been a part of international law since the end of WWII, Russia is in violation of its own treaty with Ukraine.

Putin argues that the treaty was between Russia and the legitimate government of Ukraine, not those who are in power in Kiev right now. Sounds like a shaky legal ground, but then, where is the "global court of justice" to decide the legality of his actions? International law was always something that was always selectively applied by the strong countries.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Darinbob]

Not the same thing at all. Russia acted on its own with no provocation (other than that their best friend and lap dog Yanukovych was out of office). The US invaded Iraq after getting allies and first presenting a case to the UN. Sure, a lot of the evidence turned out to be wrong or misleading, and ultimately the UN said "no go", but there most definitely was not a unilateral invasion.

It took the US a couple of months to set things set up and get going, including time spent trying to get resolutions passed at the UN, whereas Russia managed to effectively take full control of the Crimea in less than a week after Yanukovych left. Someone in Russia clearly had a plan ready and waiting to go at a moment's notice.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Bryan Ischo]

Enslave? The people voted. They want to become part of Russia. Let them.

If other states voted that they wanted to be part of Russia, I'd think that was fine too.

If Russia started invading countries to annex them, well that would be different.

But I thought I already said it was a case by case basis sort of thing??? Were you expecting some kind of absolutism answer after I already said that?

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[jwhitener]

But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632 (changing boundaries / invading without being attacked).

I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear whether it was truly illegal. There were 2 attacks by Iraq against the US. An attempt on the life of a president, and firing at our planes over the UN approved no-fly zone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
I was 100% against the Iraq war btw.

If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.

Re:The US did, so why not Russia?

[Alioth]

Should Russia not have sat in the corner on Iraq by the same token? Should Russia have sent its military to repel the US from Iraq?

Re:Mr Obama

[gtall]

You mean leading from the U.S's behind doesn't constitute a foreign policy? The foreign policy is clear, there just isn't much to it other than hope. Obama hopes countries behave and hopes the U.S. doesn't get pulled in if they don't. His biggest fear is being held responsible for something going wrong. It doesn't occur to him that inaction can also cause things to wrong and for which he will be held responsible...although not so responsible as to can his retirement package...

The Day After

[hort_wort]

If you want to watch the scariest movie you'll ever see, then check out The Day After right now. It's a 30 year-old film about what would happen if the US and Russia nuked each other. The imagery and savagery are horrific -- not for the amazing visual effects, but that they are applied to innocent bystanders just living life at home.

It should be required viewing for everyone beating the war drums.

Re:The Day After

[laejoh]

The Day After is a silly, happy disney version of what would happen after a nuclear war. Do yourself a favor and watch youtube for Threads.

Re:The Day After

[borcharc]

This film gave me nightmares throughout my childhood. Its why I unconditionally support missile defense. We should be making an effort to make such events impossible, or at least very difficult, rather than being held hostage by their threat.

Re:The Day After

[turp182]

Mod this up, Threads, while dated, is very scary.

Re:The Day After

[Erikderzweite]

You do realize that missile defence cannot even make a dent in a massive first strike. It is only effective if your country attacks first as an attempt to block the retaliation strike.

So, in effect, a missile defence is making the hawks in your country feel saver and be more aggressive while making hawks on the other side more nervous so both sides now want to strike first. Which makes a full-scaled conflict more, and not less, possible.

Re:The Day After

[borcharc]

I disagree with your assertion. Why can't an interceptor system not address a massive first strike? Are you current on missile defense? The currently deployed ground based midcourse defense system works, its just a matter of rolling out sufficient launch facilities and interceptors. The US has between 30-200 operational ground based midcourse interceptors operational. If we rolled these systems out to deal with a massive first strike, we would likely have good success if it were needed. We should continue to develop this technology, rome wasn't built in a day.

Re:The Day After

[k6mfw]

The Day After is a silly, happy disney version of what would happen after a nuclear war.

I'm old enough to remember when The Day After was shown, it was scary. Of course there are some flaws/mistakes but climate at the time was quite heated. Reagan was very aggressive at building up military plus calling them the Evil Empire. I think what the film did get right, and still valid today, is if such war breaks out, it will because a few people in Washington DC and Moscow will decide to go to war. Us commoners have no say in the matter and there really isn't any place to seek refuge.

Re:Mr Obama

[borcharc]

They never left, we just pretend they are gone.

Jack Ryan

[__aagmrb7289]

Too bad Jack Ryan isn't president. Crazy stuff here - the Russians apparently read too much Clancy: http://www.amazon.com/Command-...

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[assemblerex]

Slashdot has gotten so soft, so much like reddit and other useless sites. It pains me to see the decline after so many years. Food is relevant to nerds, so why not cooking news? Best way to arrange you star wars underwear? All these new useless users make me sick.

Re:Interfering West Again

[n1ywb]

My wife is Polish. Her grandmother lived through both the German and Russian occupations. She said she preferred the Germans; more polite, less rapey.

Tina Fey

[Anonymous Coward]

For how dumb Palin is supposed to be, I find it ironic that the only quote brought up about her is what Tina Fey said dressed up as Palin.
Dismissing that as the you being so stupid you don't realize it, I guess Palin is smarter than at least you are.

Breaking News

[king neckbeard]

It only took them a few decades to figure this one out.

doubtful

[slashmydots]

First of all, China could too and probably more successfully. Secondly, Russia pretends to have this big military and lots of armor and blah blah blah. When Russia said something about the size of their military or number of tanks being higher than the US, I remember whoever they were interviewing from the US military said "We don't call them units. We call them targets, actually." They have to be modern and working to be considered threats. I don't think we're real scared of leftover tanks that didn't sell at Russia's garage sale after WW2.

Re:doubtful

[spitzak]

Besides China, I think also if Russia capable of reducing the US to Radioactive Ash, then the United States is capable of doing it to itself, if for some reason it decided to do so. So he is obviously wrong with his claim that only Russia can do it.

Solution = more weapons

[burni2]

If Russia is really the only country that can nuke the USA and where the nuclear afterstrike from the USA would vaporize Russia.

We need more countries with those weapons capability!

@Obama:
Hey pal think broader, just send Assad the shiny GBU with his name tag on it, just don't confront russia, only poke it where it's vulnerable.

Syria, harbours a russian naval base, and a "free" new government would extend that treaty .. wouldn't it !?

So the best answer to the russian invasion is really a bomb to Mr. Assad.

Btw. the rebells in Chechnia are really in the need of manpads and rpgs.

And deliver some nice "presents" to the new ukrainian government, I think Russia should pay a hefty price.

And the best weapons to deter an offensive enemy are defensive capabilities where the attacker runs into 100s or skrimishes, and therefore russias airforce offensive capabilities must be obliberated.

Russia will remember Afghanistan, make sure they will remember the ukraine too.

Re:Interfering West Again

[cheesybagel]

Kim Jong Un was re-elected with 100% of the popular vote for being such a glorious leader of the people

What else did you expect in 'elections' where the list only had one candidate and votes saying 'none of the above' had to be explicitly put into a separate bin?

Metro 2033

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I am unpleasantly reminded of Metro 2033 a novel from 2005 in which the world experienced a nuclear holocaust in the year 2013.

Let's just hope it wasn't prophetic...

Re:Metro 2033

[cez]

Please check your calendar.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Erikderzweite]

Oh, it's far from perfect. But nonetheless the only country with a functioning manned space flight program.

EU and US did support the coup, the acting Ukrainian president doesn't even want to hide that he is sponsored by NATO, NED and State Department: http://openukraine.org/en/abou...

So the Russia supports a coup of their own.

Re:Interfering West Again

[rjhubs]

I don't really view this as troll. Certainly Russia has its share of responsibility, however, since the fall of the Soviet Union. The "West" has been deliberately acting in a way that would seem provocative from a Russian perspective. We keep adding NATO member closer to Russia's borders, despite the promises we made to Russia after the fall. We've expanded missile defense equipment to many of these countries. We have NGOs working on our behalf trying to establish pro-West leaders in the Ukraine, Imagine how the US would feel if Russia was trying to put a pro-Russian candidate in Mexico?

We'll see your Kiselyov ...

[PPH]

... and raise you a Limbaugh.

We won't go to war with Russia. We are kindred spirits. Both of us will let any moron get hold of a microphone.

Re:We'll see your Kiselyov ...

[Entropius]

No, that's not true.

In the US any moron can get hold of a microphone. In Russia only morons who agree with Putin can get hold of a microphone.

This is one of the wonderful things about the US.

Re:Who are we to say no?

[MightyMartian]

The are a number of questions about the validity of the vote. Considering Crimea's ethnic makeup, 95% approval seems a questionable number. No international observers of any note during a referendum that carves out a chunk of a sovereign state. A sovereign state, I might add, that Russia itself guaranteed the territorial integrity of in the 1990s.

If Russia gets away with this, it will essentially mean that anywhere in Europe where there is an ethnic Russian population of any note, the country in question will be forced to either tow Moscow's line, or risk a Russian invasion to "liberate" the ethnic Russians.

Re:Who are we to say no?

[PPH]

It worked for us. Or should we give Texas back to Mexico?

Extinction.

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

China won't be able to pick up the pieces because a large-scale nuclear war means a decade of nuclear winter, the end of the ozone layer, and the possible annihilation of our entire species.

With our last breath, we 'won!' because it was better to go extinct than to look 'weak.'

I'll vote for cooler heads.

Nutcases everywhere ... so what?

[kbahey]

There are nutcases everywhere ... so what ...

Here in Canada we have them too. For example, this is a Canadian member of parliament who said military action may be needed against Russia.

But when you know Anders' views, you will not be surprised. He is a Conservative MP, who voted against granting Mandela honorary citizenship, calling him a communist and terrorist.

Here are the rest of his extreme views.

So, one news anchor spewing nonsense is not surprising.

What matters is not letting these type of pro-escalation voices drown out a more level headed reasonable approach ...

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

All these new useless users make me sick.

Pot, kettle, 1275164.

Cue the low UID battle!

Nobody won the cold war

[bussdriver]

Nobody won the cold war. When wise men say nobody wins a war, they are correct. The USSR just imploded 1st, we don't win because we imploded last. 2020-2025 is probably the time when people consider the USA's downfall.

Re:Nobody won the cold war

[Neo-Rio-101]

The US couldn't implode, because it could just keep printing dollar bills.
US currency won the cold war. Take that away and.....

Crimea Crisis

[prefec2]

We all know that Putin's goal is an Eurasian-Union on the territory of the former USSR. The two main trigger of this goal are the continuous expansion of NATO in Europe and the declining power of Russia, which he thinks must be compensated. The NATO did a lot of frightening moves in recent years, like installing an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe, the entry of the former Baltic state into the NATO, destabilization of Russian partners in Europe. And finally Baroso topped it by forcing the Ukraine to decide either be with Russia or with the EU. All these moves are aggressive towards Russia. And since the West fucked up in Kosovo with "let the people decide where we want to belong to" Putin had the easy opportunity to do the same on Crimea. Now the situation is highly volatile. And some people in the USA and the EU think. Maybe war is also an option. The Russian are therefore sending a reminder message: We have really many nuclear warheads and can remove you from the face of the earth. To solve this crisis we should stop kicking Russia. Yes, the Ukrainian people should be protected, but remember the present government in the Ukraine includes fascists (e.g., Oleh Tyahnybok, Svoboda Party) and oligarchs (Yulia Tymoshenko) which have no interest in a pluralistic democratic Ukraine, just like Yanukovych.

This is not what the Maidan demonstrators wanted.

A solution can only be found with Russia. And a useful solution would include a neutral position of the Ukraine where Russia and the EU are both partners of the country. Then the TV comments will also become more civilized.

Pot, meet kettle

[pablo_max]

Ever turned on Fox news?

But...

[doom]

But what does Rush Limbaugh say about it?

Russia is NOT the only country.

[Anonymous Coward]

America's quite capable of turning herself into radioactive ash thankyouverymuch . . . it depends on whether those who entered the launch co-ordinates can tell Moscow, Russia from Moscow, Idaho.

An alternate Ukraine summary

[doom]

If you're looking for some insight on what's going on in the Ukraine from people who aren't insane warmongers, you might start here: Chris Bertram on who to read, what to believe.

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[Kvasio]

this makes nerds aware, that in the forthcoming months their electronic hardware may experience several EMPs followed by long-lasting black-out.
And if your computer cave is not that deep, nerd should also consider he may ceise to exist.

This is news for nerds by all means.

That's about ALL Russia can do.

[MarkvW]

It can't take care of its people. It's army is a shambles.

But it does have nuclear weapons. Just like Pakistan.

Whoop-de-do!

Russian Rush?

[oDDmON oUT]

Looks like vitriolic parochial media pundits with narrow world-views, fostering nationalistic agendas, are no longer solely a US phenomenon.

And would China

[Kartu]

And would China, that unexpectedly did not support Russia in UN this time, intervene?

And if it is a war, it won't be just US, it would be a joint EU + USA and (likely Canada, Australia, Japan too) vs Russia.
China has no interest whatsoever in supporting Putin and needs countries to export goods to.

Dreaming about USSR-2

[Kartu]

And invading neighbors is relaxing indeed.
This time, unlike 2008 when downplaying it and getting back to business as usual was as easy as setting up Tagliavini commission, it's a breach of treaty from 1997, where US, UK, AND RUSSIA stated they'd respect AND DEFEND Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That was the reason Ukrain said no to nuclear weapons (which it has plenty, along with the rockets).

Now ponder how well did Chamberlain style negotiation worked with Hitler's depressed Germany.

Talking about Nukes Means They're Desperate

[prezkennedy.org]

Everyone knows Russia has nuclear weapons. They have a ton. They could blow up the world. So could the United States. That's really irrelevant. Nobody is crazy enough to use them.

What needs to happen is Ukraine needs to ask for EU assistance, and the EU needs to come together on this. If they don't recognize the Russian threat and push back, Vladimir Putin is going to keep chomping up the small fries. Russia is dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as the Soviet Union was. If the EU moved forces into Ukraine along their Eastern border, Russia would be contained. It would need to be a sizable EU force, and strictly an EU force. No direct US participation on this one, unless it got bloody (which it wouldn't).

By staying out of it, the US could play the role of mediator and the crisis would likely be resolved peacefully. The US and EU both just need to have a backbone when dealing with Vladimir Putin. The man is a tough-guy wannabe.

Re:Talking about Nukes Means They're Desperate

[guacamole]

It's not an act of desperation, just an average populist TV host/politician on TV.

If EU moved its forces quickly to Ukraine's eastern border, Russia could be contained. However, I don't see it happening.

1. Just like in the case with Crimea and Georgia, Russians have already pre-planned and rehearsed the Russian occupation of east Ukraine. Right now, they already sitting along Ukraine border en masse waiting for a provocation you're talking about. The NATO troops probably won't get past Kiev or maybe even into Kiev.

2. Maybe if EU could quietly package all of its mobile troops and ship them to Ukraine by train or air, they could have some element of surprise, but such massive operation can not be coordinated and executed quietly and quickly. Russians will be aware of what's going on long before NATA troops arrive.

3. The majority of population in East Ukraine speaks Russian and many are ethnic Russians. Putting NATO troops among them will only radicalize them and decidedly divide Ukraine. Unless the NATO troops plan to linger around forever, this rift will turn Ukraine apart eventually.

Land war is simply no longer economically viable

[gestalt_n_pepper]

For Russia, China or the USA. Economic sanctions imposed on any one of these countries would damage the others. A real land and sea war would soon show just how little extra oil we have to throw around and would use up the remaining cheap, high net energy oil faster. Rising oil prices would again, severely all three economies. If the war continued long enough, this would be a permanent condition.

So, "yay!" to the oil crisis and monetary interdependence. We probably won't have a big shooting war again - just a few minor proxy wars here and there in Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East. Of course, this is a definite "Not Yay!" if you happen to live in one of these places.

A lot of whinging about Putin

[argStyopa]

...and the comment was certainly ill-advised, but the FACT is - if we're just counting the number of warheads, and the capability - he's pretty much right. They're the only country that could turn the US to ash. (shrug)

We're the only country that could do it to them, too.

That used to be what 'superpower' meant, before Russia turned into a great big Thugocracy. Well, they always sorta were, weren't they? Russia is Russian. I'm not sure what Pollyanna's thought that by changing flags, their essential nature was going to change? It didn't from despotic Monarchism to Socialism. Why should it change from Socialism to Oligarchy?

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[dunezone]

Slashdot has gotten so soft, so much like reddit and other useless sites.

Can you explain to me why Reddit is a useless site? The site has thousands of different subreddits that you can customize to your tastes. Don't like /r/WTF? Unsubscribe. You enjoy discussions on movies? Subscribe to /r/movies. Its literally two clicks to do either. On top of that you can find knowledgeable people in specific subreddits. I had an old artillery shell that I wanted identified and I went to /r/military and within an hour someone had posted a link to exactly what I had. Reddit is light years ahead of where Slashdot is now.

Slashdot has gotten so soft

Slashdot is out of date. When it was first came out it had a new model no one was using but when everyone started to change and new sites started to come up Slashdot stuck to its old ways and has slowly been dying since.

M.A.D.

[Dissident]

You M.A.D.bro?

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[Zalbik]

Cue the low UID battle!

Hey you kids, get off my lawn!

Human shields

[bluegutang]

And then there is Putin’s threat to use Ukrainian women and children as human shields when he invades Ukraine

Economic Warfare, that dog might hunt again

[shoor]

Ronald Reagan waged economic warfare on the Soviet Union. I think that dog might hunt again, what with all the money Russia is spending on its military right now, and maybe trying to digest the Ukraine which I think could be expensive.

Re:Economic Warfare, that dog might hunt again

[geekoid]

No, he just lapped up the credit from an economic war older then he was.
Just like he took credit for the wall coming down, after the wall started coming down.
Worst. President. Ever.

Re:Who are we to say no?

[HornWumpus]

Texas would conquer Mexico.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Lotana]

I will hazard a guess that your grandmother was not Jewish or Roma.

Limbaugh? The former vice presidential candidate!

[whathappenedtomonday]

Sarah Palin: "Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke."

Maybe we can use this to our advantage

[Rinikusu]

Maybe we can convince Putin to level some of our blighted cites so we can rebuild them. Like Detroit. And SFO.

At least we'd die fast

[khelms]

If the US didn't fire a single nuke in return, Russians (and everybody else in the world!) would die slow painful deaths from the radioactive fallout.

Re:They seemed to have forgoten the result of nucl

[khelms]

I think I saw that episode: "You will be responsible for an escalation that will destroy everything. Millions of people horribly killed. Complete destruction of our culture here and yes, the culture on Vendikar. Disaster, disease, starvation, horrible, lingering death, pain and anguish!"

'Nucular' dollar silos.

[TiggertheMad]

"At a huge cost to Americans". Does inflation 'cost' anything? It erodes the value of money, but it also erodes the value of debt. 23% Inflation is lousy if you have a lot of money saved up, but it is great if you just took on a huge fixed rate loan. While inflation could create short term money flow chaos, it doesn't really affect the intrinsic value of production. I would say that the problem would be a predictable system changing faster than people are used to.

Russia or China couldn't create that much chaos by cashing in all at once. Likely there would be a slight dip in the value of the dollar, and then everyone else in the world would swoop in an buy it all up at a bargain price to make a killing after the dollar stabilized.

Aside: good to know that the US doesn't have a monopoly on blowhard nationalist idiots like Limbaugh.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Ottawakismet]

Are you talking about North Koreas election or the Crimea's? it was about the same level of choice, nowhere could anyone vote to stay with the Ukraine in this sham referendum

Re:Mr Obama

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I too lived through the 80's as well as the 60's and the 70's. I've seen how effective Reagan's policies were. I remember Democrats ridiculing him when he challenged Gorbachov to tear down the Wall. I remember how when the Wall finally came down, those same Democrats were saying "we knew it had to come down sometime".

I remember something else.
I remember the debates the last Presidential election. I remember Romney bringing up the threat of Russia. I also remember Obama's response "Mr Romney. The 80's called they want their foreign policy back."

It was the statement of an asshole who was certain he was "the smartest man in the room" ( google that phrase to see what I'm referring to ), and it deserves to be an albatross hung around his neck. I will keep citing it, because if people would remember more of these things our elections would be better.

ICMBs would be more effective and cheaper.

[tempmpi]

If China and Russia would sell off their dollars it would make USD much cheaper. This would make imported goods more expensive but at the same time it would also provide a huge boost to the economy because everyone would try to use these cheap USD to buy goods from the USD. But if everyone is trying to buy goods from the US using cheap USDs, prices and thus the value of the USD would increase because of supply and demand. Supply of US-manufactured goods does not magically increase just because Russia and China throw throw loads of USDs into the market.

Re:Mr Obama

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

See my reply to borcharc.

not afraid

[Kevin Fishburne]

Go ahead guys, launch every nuke you've got. Or look up "balance of power" or "stalemate" or "mutually assured destruction" and shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.

Re:Mr Obama

[thrich81]

I'll grant that Reagan happened to be the guy in charge when the Soviet Union finally cracked (I'm counting Bush I as a continuation of Reagan), and Reagan's forceful policies probably helped, but:
1) Reagan's policies (aggressive military build up, foreign policy, and rhetoric) were not hardly any different from Kennedy's and Johnson's in the 60s, so why did they work in 80s and not the 60s?
2) I have in-laws from the Soviet Union and they don't credit Reagan much, they say it was just time for the Soviet Union to collapse.
We don't want to go back to the 60s or the 80s, too many close calls. By the way I was in the military through the 80s and saw the Russians up close.
 

look up definition of fascism

[avgapon]

.. before declaring someone a fascist. Today's Russia matches a definition of fascist state perfectly.

Re:look up definition of fascism

[prefec2]

Is this out of the book, when A did something wrong then the dip shit produced by B is less wrong? For example, if you kill someone, and subsequently I do the same, then we are both guilty and no court will reduce my punishment just because you did something equal bad in advance. The fascists in Ukraine are a problem as well as the Oligarchs in the Ukraine. True, in Russia they have also a non-free society. And Putin is playing the "suppress minority card". True Putin sucks, but in this crisis we should support the Ukraine in a way which will result in a free and tolerant society in the Ukraine. This can only be achieved together with Russia. Actually, I don't like this, but it is the only way out.

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[Melkman]

Sigh, I'm getting to old for that...

we we we

[avgapon]

You speak from a point of view that it's all between the West and the Russia (it's Ukraine, not the Ukraine, stupid). Like those countries and their people that joined NATO didn't have any opinion and choice of their own.

*humps Russia*

[strstr]

Because they can defend from any attack and maybe put a blow to the Department of Defense, who basically is running our government into the ground, using the American people as slaves for psychotronic weapon genocide.

Russia might be one of the other countries that can compete with the United States mind control weapons, too. For psychic / electronic warfare. I hope. :D

Americans directed-energy and psychotronic weapons system details, deployed in satellites and radar (nationally? yes. globally? probably.) http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Global American radar weapons systems with brain and body scanning/targeting ability. Directing energy at people to tear them the fuck up under a system with automatic targeting. In the advent of a true modern war, literally entire Army's can be shredded automatically with these systems, and human instinct attacks to kill off entire populations without nuclear warfare are reality and in deployment today. NSA/DOD DEW systems standing by, waiting for kill command, locking on to all Americans brains ..

Re:Who are we to say no?

[guacamole]

If Russia gets away with this, it will essentially mean that anywhere in Europe where there is an ethnic Russian population of any note, the country in question will be forced to either tow Moscow's line, or risk a Russian invasion to "liberate" the ethnic Russians.

But, there are only two European countries who are not NATO members with significant Russian population, Belarus and Ukraine, and Belarus is already a Russian satellite.There is certainly a possibility that Russia will try to stir up more trouble in eastern Ukraine. There is a question though about whether Eastern part of a poor and chaotic country is worth risking to create a second Cold War.

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[geekoid]

"..so much like reddit.."
If you think reddit s 'soft', you don't really even understand it.

http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://features.slashdot.org/s...

So we have had cooking on /. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[geekoid]

you first.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Darinbob]

Was it really a coup though? It wasn't stricly legal according to Yanukovych's own constitution, but was legal under the previous constitution. There was no mob invasion of parliament as Russian media reported, but a vote by the parliament after Yanukovych had fled the city.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Darinbob]

But it's really just Russian paranoia that fears NATO? Ukraine wasn't even going to join NATO, they wanted to be an equal partner to east and west, but Russia wanted Ukraine as their own best buddy (and likely wanted to point to a period of Czarist rule when Ukraine was a part of Russia and I think many still do not like to think of it as an independent state).

What is wrong with pro-west leaders? Most of those former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact nations remember have no love at all for Russia, they naturally are looking to the west for better economic ties and potential security against the angry bear to the east. Russia doesn't see it that way, to them anyone who prefers the west to Russia is clearly a Nazi.

Re:Interesting

[GodfatherofSoul]

The only people who think Palin is prescient are the same people who don't follow foreign affairs and wouldn't have a clue otherwise. Putin has been pushing his way back into satellite states for what 10 years now? You're assuming that everyone wasn't expecting another card to fall. And Crimea is their only warm weather port as I recall (with Russia's access protected by treaty). If Russia pushes into any nation without 50% of the population speaking Russian and their own ports and trucks rolling through there, then maybe we have to worry.

Russia didn't invade Poland.

Not just a single target

[SDPost]

The U.S. is not a single target. The nuclear strike capabilities of the U.S. are scattered all over Europe and major oceans (roaming submarines). There is also a good likelihood that Canada, France and the UK will strike Russia anticipating that they could be next.

He forgot the United States as a contender

[loosescrews]

The United States is definitely capable of turning itself into radioactive ash.

This term homophobe is getting annoying

[JasonGoatcher]

I realize I'm probably just jumping for the flame-bait with this, but homophobe literally translates to "afraid of homosexuals." Maybe I'm pissing in the wind by saying this, but just because people disapprove of homosexual behavior DOESN'T mean that they're "afraid of homosexuals." If people want sane discourse, they need to stop describing their opposition with offensive terms. I'm not a homophobe and I won't describe others with deragotory(sp?) language.

That claim is not true

[gatkinso]

France could do the same as Russia, as could China and the UK.

Then the US could turn around and do the same to all four of them, plus a few left over for North Korea and Iran.

This capability of nothing to be proud of.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Xylantiel]

Wait whose economy was it that imploded at the end of the cold war? So the "western" (i.e. pro-individual-freedom, multi-party-rule) mindset was supposed to just leave eastern europe to rot because Russia used to be in charge there. Then we just ignore them re-aquiring territory at gunpoint. Last I checked NATO was not invading eastern european countries to integrate them into the EU. Europeans are doing exactly the opposite, trying to help countries get their economies in good shape so that they can move toward closer ties to the EU at their option.

This whole thing in the Ukraine started with the president of Ukraine back-tracking on the parliament's attempts (and the electorate's desire) to have closer ties to the EU. Why did he do this? because he was turning into Russia's puppet. This is not to mention that this guy was elected president under suspicious circumstances. You cannot compare Russia's under-handed meddling with Ukraine to the west trying to help Ukraine get its economy on track as if they are both bad things. One is bad, one is not.

Destroying is easy

[manu0601]

Russia is not the only one that could turn US into dust. Any nuclear power could do the same: UK, France and China all have nuclear heads and the capability to send them anywhere. Destroying is easy, after all.

But nobody could turn the US into dust without being destroyed too within minutes, hence nobody would even seriously think about doing it. This is just bragging for the medias.

Kiselyov this

[ThePackager]

Dmitry Kiselyov can kiselyov my A$$

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[gmhowell]

Sigh, I'm getting to old for that...

Said the newb.

Re:Interfering West Again

[Erikderzweite]

China's program is in heavy development, still with 2 flight in 2 years it is still not there yet IMO (Russia has launched 9 missions in the last two years). Would not be enough to keep the ISS manned.

So much misunderstanding

[Loki_666]

First off, to all those who thing that the markets are rational - study a little economic theory and practice. They are far from rational.

Second, Russia (Putin) is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face (ie: sell off all dollars and bonds). If he thinks it will get him what he wants. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.

Third, a couple of years back Putin ordered all oligarchs and similar to get rid of their dollars and unwind western investments. If anyone lost money or loses money from economic sanctions, Putin will just shrug his shoulders, he warned them, Putin plays the long game, never forget that.

Fourth, do not think Putin is stupid. Megalomaniac perhaps, but certainly not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. He might misjudge things, make a mistake somewhere, but you can be sure he has carefully laid his plans and has been doing so for a long time.

Fifth, Russia, Iran and China are having talks about moving to a new petro-Rouble as the currency of trade (for oil/gas) in order to move away from the dollar. Russia wants to get away from the dollar, just like many countries would like to, but simply cannot afford to or simply wouldn't find trade partners for an alternate currency. If this happens, it could have a major impact on the dollar worldwide (yes, could also be negative effects for Russia and China, but see my second point).

Sixth, those who are saying if X (eg: Russia sells off dollars) happens then Y (eg: will be good for US) do not understand if it was that simple, then why wouldn't the US already do those things? And why are those people not multi-millionaires themselves if they understand how well the financial markets works? Perhaps because those who control the US economy do not want that to happen, either for their own nefarious reasons or because it would be bad for the US economy.

I'm not saying I know what will happen either. I'm as much in the dark as most people. I'm just a westerner who lives in Russia so i understand the people on both sides and get to see and read both sides' propaganda. Personally i think both sides are being idiots and the people on all sides are being badly manipulated and used by those with vested interests (hey ho, well, that's usual anyway).

Re:Interfering West Again

[rjhubs]

I wasn't trying to apply morality to the situationt. From my perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with pro-west leaders or expanding NATO, etc. I was just trying to convey how this might be viewed as provocative from Putin's perspective. The Ukrainian People have every right to pursue whatever political course they desire, if they seek US or NATO help, the involved parties need to acknowledge the potential affects on the region. That is all I am saying.

Ah, yes, the good 'ol Cold War days...

[ToddInSF]

When Russia was an amazing place to live...

And when the US was a paradise of economic prosperity and technological achievement...

It's really too bad nobody follows the money, that curtain hides some fascinating inner-workings.

All I can say is..

[Stubbyfingers]

Ditto. Dude. Ditto.

Re:Fascist Coup in Kiev

[iamacat]

Unless you support Russia taking over Germany as well, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Re: What does this have to do with tech news?

[DG]

As if you have any right to talk....