Slashdot Mirror


Putin Government Moves To Take Control of Russia's largest space company Energia

schwit1 writes Vitaly Lopota, the president of Russia's largest space company Energia, was suspended Friday by the company's board of directors. From the article: "The move appears to be part of an effort by Russia's government to obtain majority control over Energia, of which it owns a 38-percent share. The directors elected Igor Komarov as its new chairman of the board. Komarov is chief of the Russian United Rocket and Space Corporation (URSC), the government-owned company tasked with consolidating Russia's sprawling space sector." The government is also conducting a criminal investigation of Lopota, which might be justified but appears to be a power play designed to both eliminate him from the game as well as make sure everyone else tows the line so that URSC can take complete control.

252 comments

  1. minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone else here miss the 1980s USSR? Looks like Putin does ...

    1. Re:minutes to midnight by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey it's nowhere near as bad. I for one, living in the USA, would have been shot long long time ago for running my mouth like I do here on Slashdot, had I been doing all this in 1980's KGB Soviet Union. (I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, I remember standing in line for bread.) At the very least I would have ended up at some Siberian Gulag.

    2. Re:minutes to midnight by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      "1970s USSR?"

      there, fixed that for you

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete with Gastapo as well... damn guys you sure let your government go crazy on your asses!

    4. Re: minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you're a racist fucking scumbag. Shut the fuck up with your racist bullshit.

    5. Re:minutes to midnight by Lennie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might think it is funny, but this really is sort of the plan of Putin.

      It has always been his plan, from the start.

      He never made a secret of it and clearly states that this is what he is trying to do.

      It might not be communism he wants. What he wants a is strong Russia, a country other countries respect (maybe this can be explained as: fear).

      Which includes re-integrating most of the former USSR countries.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    6. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

    7. Re:minutes to midnight by sshir · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's bullshit. There were no bread lines in 80's (lines, indeed, were everywhere, but not for basic stuff). And Gulag for dissidents was practically over too (for casual rumblings anyway). Sure, it was a shitty place to live, but not for reasons you stated. Stop trivializing.

    8. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give us a description of your jail cell, since the government stormtroopers obviously broke down your front door and took you away?

    9. Re:minutes to midnight by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, we're already there. Name one thing the Russians did that the US Congress doesn't assume that it has the authority to do to a US company.

    10. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't you agree that we're well on our way though?

      Ah, a flair for the dramatic...

    11. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's only exercising his executive powers like in a good western democracy.

    12. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

      ... Aaaugh the black helicopter!

    13. Re:minutes to midnight by umghhh · · Score: 2
      Yea I remember that too - I just came back from shop where I bought my lunch and I had to stand in the line too - terrible!

      Other than that - there is more media than back then but there is no more freedom of press now than it used to be - there is no state censorship but corporate one instead. Modern media are abused more than they server democracy and human rights.

      What else - ah torture and extrajudicial killings by 'Securitate' - I recall the guys in the freedom movements were seriously pissed off by that - guess what - we still have that - progress has been made as people do not die accidentally during water boarding anymore, I have to give you that.

      Och and overwhelming surveillance - yea communists did not do it right, did they? Incompetent idiots!

      I can sue the government this much is true and I did and I won. Still when I went to a lawyer to get back the house that communists took from my grandpa he (the lawyer) said - I want your money but your case has no chance as your grandpa was of wrong nationality - so this much about rule of law and all this other shit in EU. It is still more than we had before. Elections albeit not rigged now can be seen for what they are - exercise in futility as govs do what they want anyway.

      The real progress and there is no 'but' this time is in pr0n - I can watch as much as I want to albeit it is admittedly of bad quality. Still where we had to run a bit embarrassed to get video now we can just watch it directly.

    14. Re:minutes to midnight by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "No, we're already there. Name one thing the Russians did that the US Congress doesn't assume that it has the authority to do to a US company."

      Since those companies _own_ congress, they would do it to themselves.

    15. Re:minutes to midnight by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one, living in the USA, would have been shot long long time ago for running my mouth like I do here on Slashdot, had I been doing all this in 1980's KGB Soviet Union. ... At the very least I would have ended up at some Siberian Gulag.

      Oh, please, what a silly stereotype of the USSR, completely inappropriate for its last decade. Shooting dissidents and sending them off to gulags in the Soviet Union came to a nearly complete end with the death of Stalin in the 1950s. By the 1980s, persecution of dissidents had long since become more subtle, such as commitment to psychiatic hospitals on false grounds or pushing them into exile in the West.

    16. Re:minutes to midnight by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not this basement-dweller stupidity again.

      The US is ***NOWHERE*** near as bad as the old Soviet Union or it's satellites. So just STFU about the whole 'cops confiscated my spliff == GULAG' thing.

    17. Re:minutes to midnight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Shot? In the 1980-ies USSR? Not bloody likely. Especially not when Gorbachev came to power. Worst case would be the psych ward, but the most probable outcome would be 6 months or so of prison. Death penalty was mostly reserved for murder, rape, organised crime and similar felonies, although also bribery and grand larceny.

      You can actually see that while in the 1960ies there were over 2000 executions every year, in the 1980ies there were usually less than 500 a year.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    18. Re:minutes to midnight by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You can actually see that while in the 1960ies there were over 2000 executions every year, in the 1980ies there were usually less than 500 a year.

      And since the USA also has the death penalty, how many executions where happening over there during that time? And of those, how many were in Texas alone?

    19. Re: minutes to midnight by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Don't be too hard on him, he doesn't even know the difference between "your" and "you're".

    20. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No we are not, not even close not even to todays Russia.
      From personal experince in both countries.

    21. Re:minutes to midnight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Much less. Texas had somewhat over 500 executions 1976-2014. Then again, Russia had no capital punishment since a serial killer has been executed in 1996.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    22. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Company... as in limited liability corporation? As in, get their charter from the government?

      And despite they being a figment of our collective imagination, companies are still deemed to have religious freedom and political speech freedom?

      Yeah, that's exactly the same as the USSR, with central planning and state-owned and controlled industries.

      I understand that some people on here probably weren't alive during the time of the Cold War, but at least peek at the USSR Wikipedia entry.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:minutes to midnight by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the 1980s Russia was run by KGB thugs, in the 2010s Russia is run by former KGB thugs

    24. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I was skimming the parts about mass starvation and government purges and giant walls where people get shot to keep them inside the country and I didn't see the parallels. Did I just miss something about the two being comparable?

    25. Re:minutes to midnight by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Drag someone off the street and shoot them in the head in plain daylight.

    26. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. The congress is owned but our corporations. What the heck are you taking about.

    27. Re:minutes to midnight by andydread · · Score: 2

      You seem to be Mighty ignorant of the differences between communisim and fascism. Short summary: in a communiist country the government owns the corporations, in a fascist country the corporations control the govt. We don't have communism here in the USA. We have socialism and fascism. Here in the USA we have two main political parties. The socialist party (Democrats) and the fascist party (Republicans) So when we vote we are basically choosing between socialism or fascism. Whats missing? Authoritariianism. We have Democratic Capitalism in place of Authoritarianism and people actually get to vote for either of the two (socialism or fascism)

    28. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You only missed my sarcasm. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:minutes to midnight by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Since those powerful companies _own_ congress, they would do it to their weaker competition.

      FTFY

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    30. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Define basic stuff!?
      Poland used ration stamps till 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration_stamp). Among rationed goods were: flour, sugar, butter, soap, gas - they seam quite basic stuff to me. Here is how your monthly supply looked:
      http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reglamentacja_towar%C3%B3w_w_PRL#mediaviewer/Plik:Kartka_P3_11-83.jpeg

      Add to above endless lines for even toilet paper and good luck living like that.

    31. Re:minutes to midnight by fuzzywig · · Score: 2
      It's worth noting that Energia originally started out as OKB-1 of NII-88 and was the centre for the Soviet space program that put man into space, so it was originally part of the government.

      This (presumed) takeover is actually a move back to the old days of government control, although I'd assume more as a way of establishing control rather than paying lip service to socialist ideals.

    32. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Where in my comment do I mention either fascism or communism?

      I'd argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties differ very little in actual practice - only the wedge issues show any real difference, and those are usually social issues with only a minor effect on the nation as a whole. For instance, I don't know how you can single out the Democrats as the socialist party when the Republican party is responsible for what at the time was the largest expansion of Medicare ever.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US gov't treats its own citizens comparatively well but it terrorizes and kills people abroad. The Russian gov't is a lot more authoritarian within their own borders but they don't start wars.

    34. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to elucidate? I have significant experience in both places as well and I see no real difference.

    35. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but they don't start wars.

      - stares in disbelief at monitor -

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and you know this how? Some of us grew up in the USSR and then moved to the USA and guess what? Once you file off the serial numbers there is not a whole hell of a lot of difference.

    37. Re: minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia sez: "Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany embodied the state and claimed immense power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

      Corporations did not "own" Hitler & Mussolini, those leaders told the corporations in their countries what to do, or the corporate leaders would be shot.

    38. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stay in view until the anti-terror squad arrives.

      Thank you for helping make Amerika terrorist free!

    39. Re:minutes to midnight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Well, not USSR. Ration stamps were only used starting 1989.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    40. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was nothing wrong with ration stamps. You could live perfectly fine and have plenty left over at end of the month. What ration stamps tried to prevent was some asshole buying up everything, then selling it back at 5x the price. As I said, tried.

      Also, your ration card does not seem to have any meat on it - something that was actually rationed too, not just tobacco, alcohol, sweets , chocolate and flour. Different things were rationed at different times.

      Anyway, if you want to bring up examples of how price fixing results in rationing, you should try to bring up examples more from the west too, like rationing of gas in the US and Canada, not just pick on the "evil commies"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

      Shortages, which naturally result in rationing, is a side-effect of price controls. Black markets in these goods is also a side-effect. It's what you get when you try to sidestep the supply-demand price curve.

    41. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it depends on the city/region/product.

      If you were in Moskow and other open-to-foreigners cities there weren't such lines, if outside of them - you could find one. Of course there was a black market, and those who have good connection didn't face the issue, but if you aren't of privileged class then even getting salt/sugar could be a problem. Bred was usually available in big cities.

      yes, by the 1980s Gulag was mostly gone s.a. majority developed good hiding thoughts skill, but there remains nations who were forgiven to return to their motherland (like qirim tatars in Crimea),

    42. Re:minutes to midnight by andydread · · Score: 1

      You didn't thats why i was complled to. I won't deny that there is some overlap between the parites however the democrats are generally socialist by nature and the republicans are generally nationalist facists by nature.

      Medicare part D was a giveaway of taxpayers dollars to big pharma. Yes Medicare is a socialist program and one that I could argue helps numerous people however the fascist party (republicans) used that program to funnel taxpayer dollars to big pharma at exorbitant prices in order to break Medicare while suring up profits to their corporate overlords.

    43. Re:minutes to midnight by towermac · · Score: 1

      "in a fascist country the corporations control the govt."

      You made that up, or maybe it was fed to you. That is not what fascism is.

      "The socialist party (Democrats) and the fascist party (Republicans)"

      Ah, now I see; stumping for your side. Which means there is nothing you can say that is too outrageous or hateful. I guess all is fair in love, war, and politics...

      Carry on then.

    44. Re:minutes to midnight by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Velvet gloves.

      That seems to be the difference from my perspective.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    45. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      nearly

      Apologists always have to qualify their arguments when rationalizing Soviet crimes. Those "psychiatic [sic] hospitals" were hell holes of involuntary drugging, neglect, abuse and high mortality. When the Soviets wanted you to suffer your suffering was severe, post Stalin or otherwise.

    46. Re:minutes to midnight by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      I'm not at all an apologist, my good man. As I am a linguist working with minority peoples of Russia, I am acquainted with many indigenous activists whose were put through hell by the Soviet state. Pointing out that hellish treatment progressed from one form (gulags, outright execution) to another (forced internment in psych wards, exile) is hardly defending the latter.

    47. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull*hit. The "bread lines" happened in the late '80s, and only in the poorest parts of the Eastern Bloc. You have to thank Gorbachev for those. He dismantled the socialist system with his corrupt "perestrojka" and caused a deep recession as a result. He was probably on CIA payroll, just like Yeltsin. Until the early '80s russians enjoyed good standards of living instead, especially factory workers and employees.

      Sorry if the current Russia's president doesn't take orders from Washington.

    48. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our government has given themselves the authority to behave in the way of the USSR. Our government just does less of the most serious stuff, but never think that they won't. 9/11 witnesses were dropping like flies. JFK, oh god the list is too long to even begin. Our government is playing dirty - they just don't admit to it. In fact though, here, if you say the things they don't like and also start getting much media attention, your life expectancy shortens drastically. The ones that get popular before they can get to them are pretty safe though. Alex Jones for example. A young and upcoming Alex Jones that hasn't gotten too popular yet though had better be careful around here.

    49. Re:minutes to midnight by billakay · · Score: 1, Troll

      - stares in disbelief at monitor -

      Crimea was not a "war", there was no shooting, it was a country waiting to be annexed. As for Eastern Ukraine? Don't believe everything you hear on CNN.

    50. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Putin is a slow moving trainwreck, and his plan is so blatantly obvious I have to assume everyone else wants it to happen, because nobody is stopping him.

    51. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      By that logic, the only moral problem with Iraq was that the opponent had the audacity to resist invasion. If they'd just surrendered, the US would have been in the right and could have gone further and annexed the territory.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    52. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      While I agree that pharma holds a lot of sway with Republicans*, you are overlooking a huge reason for Medicare expansion: most of their supporters were (and still are) elderly. US politics is more about what "team" you are on then it is ideological in nature, and the Republicans were simply making a play that was popular with their fans.

      * and Democrats, for that matter - witness the ACA

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    53. Re:minutes to midnight by nightsky30 · · Score: 1

      Anyone else here miss the 1980s USSR? Looks like Putin does ...

      ISR Pepperidge Farm remember you!

    54. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties differ very little in actual practice - only the wedge issues show any real difference, and those are usually social issues with only a minor effect on the nation as a whole.

      Yeah, silly wedge issues like "human rights for women and gays" and "freedom of religion". Pfft! Who cares about things like that? I'm not a woman or a gay, and my religion is mainstream; therefore, wedge issues don't matter.

    55. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Gays I agree - but women and religion? Where do Republicans differ from Democrats on women's rights? Where do Republicans and Democrats differ on freedom of religion?

      Gay marriage... while I fully support it, it is hardly an issue critical to the nation's future. I certainly would not make it my litmus test when selecting a politician unless the two were otherwise very similar. Which, incidentally, happens to be the case most of the time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horse shit. Cut it the fuck out "Strong Russia" propaganda. (This is literal textbook, non-ironic propaganda)

      This has nothing to do with Russia as a country. Nothing to do with the Russian people, their security, or their wellbeing.

      Putin is a thug and a figurehead. He works for about 20 people that control 99% of the assets and money in that cursed land. Everything he does only works to enrich them.

      This, and everything else he is doing is literally a business venture.

    57. Re:minutes to midnight by billakay · · Score: 1

      By that logic, the only moral problem with Iraq was that the opponent had the audacity to resist invasion. If they'd just surrendered, the US would have been in the right and could have gone further and annexed the territory.

      Well sure, if Iraq had put out the red carpet, thrown a big party, then had a referendum where 90% of them voted to join the US as the 51st state, then the two situations would be exactly comparable.

    58. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You forgot to put "referendum" in quotes.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    59. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now try saying something racist and watch what happens to your career

      it's illegal to employ a racist in any white-collar or public-facing service job

    60. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 dead on

    61. Re:minutes to midnight by machineghost · · Score: 1

      ... and? Fredom of speech protects your ability to say what you want without reprecussions from the *government*. It doesn't protect you from all possible consequences of your speech from anyone else (nor should it).

    62. Re:minutes to midnight by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What about Georgia? And Chechnya (internal wars are still wars). And when you get to USSR there's the whole Afghanistan war as well.

    63. Re:minutes to midnight by billakay · · Score: 1

      You forgot to put "referendum" in quotes.

      Because it really was a referendum. Do you understand Russian politics? Do you speak/read Russian? Do you have friends who lived or live in Crimea? No? Then maybe you shouldn't continue to push anti-Russian propaganda. The residents of Crimea were thrilled to become citizens of Russia. Many of them were hoping for it for a long time. Opportunity and quality of life is up big time in Crimea since they joined the Russian Federation. Why do you think all media suddenly became silent on actual conditions there? Don't you think if things sucked there we would hear about it every day in order to further the anti-Russia story? The worst hit piece they were able to manage was a couple weeks after the transition, where people standing in line to have their passport (national ID) changed, and people were complaining how long it was taking.

    64. Re:minutes to midnight by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I know people from Soviet bloc but who were not USSR or Russian. They are very much happier now that the masters in Moscow are not in charge.

    65. Re:minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Of course, it was also part of a sovereign country that they had treaty obligations to protect and the "referendum" took place after the territory was already completely occupied and under foreign control. And naturally, there was a big hurry to the whole process.

      And then of course, it happened in a complete vacuum, totally separate from the continued occupation of and material support in other areas of Ukraine. No Russians there, where there IS actual shooting and resistance. Nope.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    66. Re:minutes to midnight by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      And slashdot being open social media you would be kind of naive if you dont expect a few posts from paid and bought propaganda'ists

    67. Re:minutes to midnight by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I rode the public transit system today. At first you see all these scared "agents" checking you out. It kinda makes you feel good that somebody cares and watches out for everybody. In a sense I'm starting not to mind the cameras either, but only in a very crowded city. It's a whole lot different in the country side, because it's hard to do terrorism where people are not very crowded together, so they shouldn't need cameras on back country dirt roads for instance. Oh what freedom that is, camera free, crowd free, terrorism free. Privacy. Go ahead, pick your nose at a red light, clean it out good, nobody's watching. It's only possible when you don't overpopulate and get too crowded. Then only public gatherings have to be watched, like church or wedding, or sports, but you can go about your everyday life without being constantly on camera. Who wants to be on camera? Everyone makes mistakes, and it's like a 5th amendment right not to have your mistakes too meticulously on record.

    68. Re:minutes to midnight by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      The whole fucking government is a puppet show, provided to the masses and run by big money. Here, stupid, go to the voting booth and we give you the illusion that you have some kind of control over what happens in the politics that affect your life, when in reality, we own your ass, call all the shots, and make all the decisions for you, through providing you with the options we feel suit you the best. And you can't really blame them, after all, they do try to provide everyone with the options that they think suit them best. That's what you call caring. Oscar Wilde said democracy is the idea that people know what they want, and they get it good and hard too. In the USA we have a paternalistic fake democracy, where people are brainwashed into wanting what somebody else think they should want, like a smartphone, something that's best for them, and this fake democracy controlled by a select elite, by big money, wiser then you, guiding your life, probably works better than pure absolute democracy where you let the idiots decide for themselves and run amok. I tell it like it is.

    69. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now Russia is trying to start a war in Ukraine. They've already invaded Ukraine and annected part of it, now they shot down a civilian airplane. Real peace lovers.

    70. Re:minutes to midnight by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      One might conclude that there must be less criminals deserving the death penalty in Russia than in Texas.

    71. Re:minutes to midnight by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. Good standards of living in the Eastern Bloc would not have caused a rebellion and overthrow of communist governments in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's, and have free elections elect a noncommunist one, to where Russian tanks had to invade the country and reinstate a communist government, and execute all the rebels, except those that escaped, mostly ending up in the same place, in the USA, where they faced a different fate. And the countries in the West said, well, if it was Croatia, or Slovenia, of west Yugoslavia, that could be considered West or close enough to the other side of the iron curtain, and they might have done something, but Hungary and Czechoslovakia are too deep under Russian territorial sphere of influence, and they did not want to turn the Cold War into a full fledged thermonuclear Hot War. And the West has a very good point about just letting it go, and not start a full fledged war between two superpowers, over some minor issue like Soviet tanks invading and replacing a freely elected government with a communist one, even if Korea and Vietnam was about the same topic, but obviously far enough from the Soviet territorial sphere of influence. But the reinstated commie regime after the rebellion was radically different, in the Eastern Bloc. Even though continuing to live in the misery and economic deprivation that a commie system provides, there was relative liberty, along the lines of the 1st Amendment of the USA. Free speech ran rampant to an even greater degree on public, national TV than it does today in the USA. But so did in the USA, back in the 70's, you had lots of free speech, I mean things like All in the Family, in a joking way, but top rated show on prime time TV. You could not get away with such stuff today. I mean you have some idiots like Rush Limbaugh, but nobody really pays attention to them, they are not prime time TV of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS or CNN. But you have late night shows like the Tonight Show w/Jay Leno, and Mad TV, maybe even SNL, so it's still around, and as long as things like these are around, and freedom of speech to ridicule the presidents is protected, you have an overall sense of freedom for the population, even if critical thinking instead of a 'balanced harmonious view of let's hear the other side' is not as intense as back in the 70's. But freedom, liberty, alone does not equal economic well being too, as you can be free and very poor, or free and rich, or a slave and poor, or a slave and rich. In the USA we still have quite a sense of free and rich, but it's eroding on both fronts, unless by rich you mean look at all the marvelous stuff I can buy on minimum wage, like a computer, or internet, or a bicycle, and a used car, and gasoline to go with it. Back in the Eastern Bloc you had to park your car in a queue at a gas station, for two weeks, until gasoline arrived, and then only the front few in the line got any, and the ones at the back of the line told sorry, come back later, we're out of gas. You had to do the same thing with your propane tanks used for cooking gas, usually 10-20 people paying somebody for 2-3 weeks to hold their position in the line, and be there at night and watch their propane cylinders (and it was a huge, 50 gallon one, painted black, carried on a dolly, that would last for a while in the kitchen). Imagine a CNN talking like Rush Limbaugh, or a similar quack everyone laughs at, at least sometimes, if not all the time. Or if we had someone like G.W. Bush in charge, a counter-equivalent of him, on the democratic party side, like some uber-gay-pride-march ultra-feminist enviro-tree-huggers, or something antirepublican anti-gun. As both sides would have a point and the public would learn the truths and how to ignore extreme thought. That would be liberty, loud and clear, coming at you from mainstream media, and responsible individual citizens learning about all the extreme news, but also learning how to filter the brainwashing aimed at them and how make up their own minds, and that's only possible when you get really extreme

    72. Re: minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking stupid are you? Have you managed to breed? Please stop ASAP.

      If you'd bother to read the news, assuming you aren't an idiot conspiracy theorist, you will notice that you can't say anything in Russia that is critical of he Putin government without risking being thrown in jail. Social media, news, etc - you piss off the government, you go to jail. With you running your stupid mouth, how many times have you been thrown in jail for it? And if anybody does, you deserve Putin's jail for your sheer stupidity.

      How about a corruption standpoint where every time Putin consolidates an industry or has a political rival, they end up in jail. Was Romney thrown in jail? Was john Kerry? No? Then STFU.

      So damn stupid, how is humanity to survive with dumb shit knuckle drag hers like you breeding and fucking up the gene pool. Fucking ridiculous.

    73. Re: minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBF, it was poorly done sarcasm. On paper sarcasm that dry is barely detectable. You have to insert a few outlandish points to make it stand out so we can chuckle and release our collective sigh of relief that you weren't being serious.

    74. Re: minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time I see someone write the term overlord I know they did or will show they are incapable of rational conversation.

      You don't have to stoop to flights of fancy to make points. You can have a consistent rational view of the world. You can be better than this.

    75. Re:minutes to midnight by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Probably not, and the majority of Russians is actually for capital punishment, but Putin - for all his faults - is against it so it is unlikely that death penalty would return any time soon.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    76. Re: minutes to midnight by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I thought I was being outlandish. O_o

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    77. Re:minutes to midnight by shitzu · · Score: 1

      If Putin is against it, then probably because he has no trouble getting people dead or jailed without involving the pesky little thing called law.

    78. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the "referendum" was conducted with pretty heavy threats of violence from pro-separatist forces if people didn't vote how they wanted. And the vote wasn't even 90% in favor. And voter turnout was abysmal. Etc., etc.

  2. Jump start the US space industry again? by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe we'll finally stop relying on Russia for access to space...

    1. Re:Jump start the US space industry again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll just outsource it to China. The space program is often the redheaded stepchild of funding unfortunately.

    2. Re:Jump start the US space industry again? by WarJolt · · Score: 0

      and catch a ride with those SpaceX guys? I'd rather deal with the Russians.

    3. Re:Jump start the US space industry again? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      (insert "American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!" joke here)

    4. Re:Jump start the US space industry again? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Copenhagan... and I think another... well, they're not all that far behind SpaceX.

      Privatization of space is coming, and bullshit like this is only going to push it harder.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Jump start the US space industry again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian just got a free space station.... paid for by the western world.

  3. Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This sort of thing is why shares of russian companies trade at a huge discount compared to shares of western and asian companies.

    1. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Russia has a stock market?

    2. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by davester666 · · Score: 2

      of course. It's used the same way as it is everywhere else, chiefly to transfer wealth from a large of small clients to a small number of large clients.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does, the Moscow Exchange, or MICEX.

      This kind of rampant corruption and cronyism is also the same reason why, despite an abundance of available resources and labour, Russia can't drag its economy out of the doldrums and up to a level that it ought to be capable of achieving. Russia's GDP is on a par with the that of countries like the UK, Germany and France - realistically it ought to be at least an order of magnitude above that. Ultimately though this is mostly an asset grab - you watch as control over Energia is transferred to Putin's supporters over the next few months - and probably an attempt to try and recoup funds lost through the latest round of sanctions imposed over Ukraine.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Russia's GDP is on a par with the that of countries like the UK, Germany and France - realistically it ought to be at least an order of magnitude above that.

      Russia's GDP is about half that of Germany, with almost twice the population. On a per capita basis it's less than half that of Germany or the UK.
      You're right that it ought to be considerably higher, but absolutely nowhere *near* an order of magnitude larger.

    5. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say. Remember that Russia has a wealth of natural resources which Germany and the UK don't. If properly exploited they could easily out pace western European countries.

    6. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If properly exploited" is the key. It isn't. Russians like to give and take bribes and steal from each other and from government. And they like drinking vodka much more than anything. Russia is still 60-100 years behind from other civilized countries. Mostly because Russian people like it this way. Russia is like monkey with AK-47.

    7. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asian companies? Most of them are patent violating, research falsifying sweat shops

    8. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I worked at an algo-traders, the Micex link was by far and away the absolutely worst performer of the lot of them. Micex couldn't find their arse with both hands.

    9. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sort of thing is why shares of russian companies trade at a huge discount [economist.com] compared to shares of western and asian companies.

      The stock market itself is a bubble so that's a good thing. Russia's economy is undervalued and has room for growth when Europe and America crash again, as they will do

      Also, it's becoming more aligned with Asian economies who share a common interest in real economics, and not the share price bubbles in the West.

    10. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somalia is monkeys with AK-47's. Russia is gorillas with nuclear weapons.

    11. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rabid gorillas.

    12. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot to add "apart from Japan" somewhere in that sentence.

    13. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that the natural resources are a big part of the solution, but it's not just figuring out to how exploit them and looking at the overall national GDP that many seem to have latch onto; the really telling numbers are when you compare the GDP ranking for the country as a whole with the per-capita rating - there's a serious problem with the human side of the equation too. The country as a whole is right up there with the EU's big three (6th in the world, according to Wikipedia's 2014 estimate), but is languishing down in 58th per capita, on a par with second world countries (which is what Russia really is these days) and/or countries that have massive over population and subsistence employment issues. Ultimately, there's a fundamental problem with the distribution of wealth in Russia (Occupy Wall Street has nothing to complain about in the light of a hypothetical "Occupy Red Square"), and stunts like this are not going to help fix the problem, especially since those that have the money also have the all the power and are not afraid to use the latter to keep them both. At this point, perhaps the only option left might be for the people of Russia to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution with another one...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    14. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyet Gorilla... Bear... big red bear

    15. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bucket shop is a bucket shop whether you call it a "dark pool" of derivatives or the russian stock market.

      "I know it's rigged, but it's the only game in town." - "Canada Bill" Jones, famous 19th century con artist

    16. Re:Trillion-dollar boo-boo by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      on a par with second world countries (which is what Russia really is these days)

      The Second World refers to the former Socialist, industrial states (formally the Eastern Bloc), mostly the territory and the influence of the Soviet Union. Following World War II, there were nineteen communist states, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, only five socialist states remained: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. Along with "First World" and "Third World", the term was used to divide the states of Earth into three broad categories. In other words, the concept of "Second World" was a construct of the Cold War and the term has largely fallen out of use since the revolutions of 1989, though it is still used to describe countries that are in between poverty and prosperity, many of which are now capitalist states. Subsequently, the actual meaning of the terms "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic definition.[1] The three world theory has been criticized as crude and relativity outdated for its nominal ordering (1, 2, 3) and sociologists have coined the term "developed", "developing", and "underdeveloped".

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  4. people who can't write because they didn't read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... really... you "toe the line" not "tow the line" as the submitter writes.

  5. Russia = Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody still seriously doubt that Russia is a neo-Fascist country?

    1. Re:Russia = Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Anybody with at least some brains, yes

    2. Re:Russia = Fascism by rvw · · Score: 1

      Anybody still seriously doubt that Russia is a neo-Fascist country?

      They do!

  6. "to take control" by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like the "to take control" euphemism for steal.

    Putin is stealing private property, that's the actual headline here. There can be no real economic development if private property rights are not protected, specifically not protected from government theft. This wouldn't be the first time Putin stole something, by the way, even before Crimea I mean. Of-course he basically stole democratic elections in Russia, I guess nothing can beat that.

    1. Re: "to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear

    2. Re:"to take control" by sillybilly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called nationalizing. Sometimes it's done in the best interest of the public of the nation. Such as USRA was a nationalizing of all private rail during WWI in the USA, only to be spun off again in the 1920's as private enterprises. In fact USRA was a nationalization of rail twice, once during WWI, and one in the 70's related to Conrail. See the first two entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    3. Re:"to take control" by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is called theft, it is a very simple concept really. When property is taken away by force of government it is even worse than if a small time crook does it, the justifications are plenty, the law was broken, the morality pushed into dirt and stepped all over, war or no war, irrelevant. It is theft, nothing else.

    4. Re: "to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the summary chose to use the malaprop idiom "tow the line", I suggest you alter your correct usage and change it to be "here here" instead.

      It's only befitting, and for all intensive purposes people will understand what you were trying to say.

    5. Re:"to take control" by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      By the way, theft by government for war is also just theft and there is nothing "in public interest" about it. If the public is so interested in using a factory to produce tanks rather than automobiles, the public then shouldn't use mafia tactics to steal the factory and call it 'nationalization', but it should make it worthwhile for the factory owner to produce tanks rather than cars. Everything else is theft. You want your war and your tanks? You didn't build that factory to take it, but you may provide the owner of the factory with a contract big enough to have him build your tanks, but then you actually have to pay for war, rather than steal for it from the market. Maybe people would be less inclined to start wars if they actually had to pay for them.

    6. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone going to war is a person willing to kill rather than solve the issue peacefully. If you expect anyone picking up arms to respect property laws then you aren't very bright. It is a bit like expecting a bank robber to not jaywalk.

      Considering how many people there are that argues realpolitik I would have expected to see more support for might makes right, it's essentially the same thing.

    7. Re:"to take control" by hughk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Consolidating a fragmented industry can be a good idea and has worked to a greater or lesser extent in the past. The problem is that the government is usually too far behind the curve to make the best decisions and a good example would be some of the nationalisations that happened in the UK.

      However, in Russia, it is about redistributing the assets privatised in the early nineties. The privatisations were a "fire-sale" in which only a favoured few could take part, however subsequently, the shares traded on a secondary market and became assets belonging to pension funds and the like. Unfortunately, in the early nineties, when Putin and his backers (the so-called Siloviki) came to power, they discovered there was nothing new to privatise so they took some companies back such as Yukos. On the smaller scale, many companies found themselves forced with new directors who had relationships with the Siloviki.

      Either way, by undermining corporate governance and the protection of property, the government has made it far more difficult for a normal financial infrastructure to exist.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    8. Re:"to take control" by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The...dysfunctional...interaction of state and market go way back. Round one was during the post-soviet privatization, where most of the state assets worth either controlling or plundering were sold off for peanuts to a number of particularly well connected parties. Once the honeymoon was over on that, round two was the people who had turned political influence into economic power making investments in political influence. Now round three is the people who won round two using political influence to consolidate their economic hold.

      It will be interesting to see if the situation stabilizes, or if the squabbling will eventually burn off most of the property value that can't be directly sucked out of the ground and exported, in classic dysfunctional petrostate style. It would also be interesting to know how many of the bright-eyed and optimistic free marketeers that we shipped over to handle the consulting were just naive and how many just didn't care. I know that some of them spent at least the 90's and early 00's thinking that it actually would work; but I don't know how common that was.

    9. Re:"to take control" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I like the "to take control" euphemism for steal.

      I don't think you understand the complete situation.

      The space agency was originally a national instution. OK, by your logic it was made with money stolen from the population, but that's not the point here. At the collapse of the USSR there wasn't so much a sell-off of institutions as outright theft by a bunch of oligarcs.

      One could easily argue that it's simply reclaiming something those people stole in the first place.

      Then again, Putin's a power mad oligarc, so it's all a wash anyway.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe people would be less inclined to start wars if they actually had to pay for them.

      As mentioned earlier, if you are willing to have people killed on a large scale, why would theft be so horrible?
      Saying that preventing the government from taking over private property will act as a deterrent for war is like saying that putting up a sign that prohibits entering the bank with firearms will prevent robbery.
      If the government is willing to go war and you accept that then you shouldn't have any qualms about the government seizing property.

      Perhaps your real problem is that the government might take your property specifically as opposed to killing someone else and take their property in a nation far far away. I personally doubt that the people in the government cares much more about your wellbeing than it does about theirs.
      There is a saying that is used to guide people when dating. "A person who is nice to you but is not nice to the waiter is not a nice person."
      It's helpful because it shows you how that person will treat you when they doesn't want something from you.
      You should think the same way about your politicians. A politician that appears respect you but acts like a psychopath to everyone else is still a psychopath.

    11. Re:"to take control" by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nationalisation pays the previous owner. It's a compulsory purchase, not just seizing control.

      What the Russians are doing is just theft, extralegal, unconstitutional, just as they did with all the energy companies which are the only thing propping up their economy, and media companies. The method is a variation on how organised crime takes over a business, but with the backing of the courts.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    12. Re:"to take control" by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Considering how corrupt some of the privatisation was, with corrupt oligarchs colluding with western finance organisation to basically steal assets, this is more akin to repossession of stolen property. Privatisation has been pretty crooked across the globe with the only real winners being the corrupt banks that financed the mass media propaganda and the lobbyists as well as the off shore tax haven bribes. The illusion is 'private property', the reality is society allows individuals to control property for the benefit of that society, not some insane psychopathic scheme where a tiny minority own all the assets of the society in order to ruthlessly exploit the rest of that society, basically the rebirth of feudalism.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just ownership of a company being transferred justified by "public interest".

      Do you also have such anger when the US / UK annex other countries? (e.g. Kosovo from Serbia) Or when they turn a blind eye to their allies annexing the land of countries? (e.g. Cyprus by Turkey) Or are you somehow able to "justify" those actions?

    14. Re:"to take control" by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      It is also theft when the government gives away things to privileged individuals. Such as land rights for building railroads, or rights to the spectrum for privileged companies.

    15. Re:"to take control" by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Fighting over land in Europe means the taking of private business in North America?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    16. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fighting over land in Europe means the taking of private business in North America?

      No, but if one is willing to do one of them then you can't expect them to refrain from the other.
      Ethically doing a landgrab is much worse so if someone is willing to do that then by extension taking over private business isn't a big deal.
      On the other hand, someone who is willing to taking over a business might not be willing to go as far as starting a war.
      Taking over a business isn't only a thing governments do, I know about a case where some crooks claimed to own a company and tried to fraudulently sell it to HP. The scary thing is that if it had gone through HP would have had paperwork that showed that they owned the company and it would have been hard for the original owner to fight them in court. That is an example of a white collar crime, the crooks aren't necessarily willing to walk over dead bodies.

      Or to make another controversial statement. I do not think shoplifters are as bad as Hitler.

    17. Re: "to take control" by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

      Grammar is a doggy dog world, but posts like yours are a diamond dozen.

    18. Re:"to take control" by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      /. must be full of welfare recepients with mod points, there is no other reason to mod the parent comment 'troll' unless your lifestyle depends on a large government stealing on your behalf.

    19. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you checked into this? The government is already 38% owner of Energia. What this looks like is more like a traditional hostile takeover (e.g. buy enough shares to take over) rather than a Chavez style nationalization.

    20. Re:"to take control" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What the Russians are doing is just theft

      Eh, that's OK. The companies were essentially stolen from the state by oligarchs during the collapse of the USSR. It's all a wash really...

      The method is a variation on how organised crime takes over a business,

      Well, it is the putin government...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:"to take control" by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Buying more shares in a company is not stealing private property. The article states that officials are talking of increasing their stake in the company from 38% to 51%.

    22. Re:"to take control" by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or it's filled with adults who realise that nationalisation is not theft. In your ridiculous tank/war example, you are asking a country to bet its future on a tank manufacturer not hiking his prices up 10,000% or suddenly saying he's for the other guy and not selling anything. That clearly is far too dangerous to risk, and so the government has to ensure that the supply is met, lest people start dying. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Also, in the west, when things are nationalised, the owners are compensated. That is part and parcel of nationalisation in the west at least. You really should read more, as you just thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

    23. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, we don't have organized crime -- we just have the courts.

      Do we have a choice to have two muggers replace one pepper spraying cop? No. I find that undemocratic.

    24. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of-course he basically stole democratic elections in Russia

      considering you don't support allowing the "wrong" people to vote anyways, it looks more like putin is a role-model for you than anything. if you actually supported democracy you would have a leg to stand on, but you have been an open opponent of it for some time - presumably as your religion would never achieve political power otherwise.

    25. Re:"to take control" by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      "A car manufacturer built the factory to manufacture cars not tanks.....No individual human should be compelled to do what he is unwilling to do under normal free market conditions. "

      That reminds me the case of mercenaries. As in, two soldiers are talking, one is a volunteer, the other a mercenary. The volunteer asks the mercenary: What are you fighting for? He says: Money. The volunteer says: That's despicable, that you're willing to lower yourself like that, I fight for liberty and honor. To which the mercenary says: Well, everyone fights for what they lack.

      So that would be the free market point of view of war, and in that I agree somewhat with the idealist volunteers and not the free market mercenaries, in that when you're dying, it's better to die for liberty and honor, for the well being of your people and your nation, than it is for just money, for the well being of the bank account of your heirs. But I've met some people, like a foster child with a sister who've been through 40 foster homes, and he's open and honest about having gone to Afghanistan to shoot people two shots in the chest and one to the head during night vision infrared night raids, and he did it to make a living, and provide a roof for himself and his sister, after being tired of being through so many foster homes, or sleeping in the Walmart parking lot to finish highschool, washing up in the Walmart bathroom. Now he has it made, but he'd be reluctant to go to Iran to do the same thing, as in Afganistan all you had to do was shoot disorganized hillbillies, but Iran has an organized army, like the USA, and he did not go to war to die, he went to war to scratch out an existence for himself and his sister. And he cares about the hillbillies too, like when he downed one of them packed with explosives coming toward him, and that guy fell, that guy started getting up. And he was like dude, stay down, I already shot you, what the fuck is wrong with you. So these guys pick up even when shot, and then they keep coming towards you and your only option is to take them out. You can't really reason with an Afghani hillbilly who gets up after being shot down, and pulls all his energy together to make a run at you. He also advertised, that it's best for girls to hook up with a soldier before he goes to war, because, should he die, the government will provide benefits. And I'm adding that, having a girl back home has a huge psychological effect on a young soldier, even if she lied to him and does not really care about him that much, but she cares about having a secure future for herself. I don't know if girlfriend/boyfriend qualifies, it's like you have to marry the guy to qualify as a widow for death benefits, but then that's another complicated topic, but as far as individual soldiers are concerned, it's pretty simple to them: having a girl to write to, even if she don't write back, was good, however that was in the days of letters and mail, and of course, censoring, in the days of instant messaging and emails censoring is not possible anymore, to the point of even me working with a soldier's wife, him being in Iraq, she mentions how he writes her that he's talking to this other girl, and what not, and she's waiting for him back home, and it's like they got married and he ran away all the way to Iraq, it's how you look at it, and it's complicated.

    26. Re:"to take control" by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      "What the Russians are doing is just theft

      Eh, that's OK. The companies were essentially stolen from the state by oligarchs during the collapse of the USSR. It's all a wash really...

      The method is a variation on how organised crime takes over a business,

      Well, it is the putin government..."

      I hope we never have a phrase like "collapse of the USA." And what does "it's all a wash.." mean? That's what I was told I when I could not longer make the payments on a residential/agricultural lot, no letter of acknowledgement or account status update, no final letter, just a verbal over the phone "it's just gonna be a wash.."

    27. Re:"to take control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the Russians are doing is just theft, extralegal, unconstitutional

      Which laws and which constitution are you talking about? Russia's? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're not an expert on those.

  7. Somebody mod this up by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Administrative takeover of corporations by autoritative central state, with intimidation through abuse of executive power, is textbook fascism. Mussolini would be proud.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
    1. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mussolini would be proud.

      As would John Kerry.

    2. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are very very wrong. Wealth without freedom is meaningless. Besides you will first lose your freedom and then you will lost your wealth also. So poor commoner will be starving and very poor commoner. Russia's neighbors have seen it already.

    3. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascists are still better than lobbyists. Putin is transferring wealth from oligarchs - those who owned majority stakes in several recently nationalized companies - to the government, hence to the russian taxpayers. The US transferred wealth from taxpayers to bankers instead. Time will tell if these policies are economcally sound, until now they have produced a 15-year-long boom. But we can already say that he's doing his job: taking care of Russia's national interests, and not someone else's.

      Putin is gradually eliminating all the billionaires that were created by the corrupt, US/IMF-led policies of the '90s, when Yeltsin sold out its country. Some have been jailed, other ousted. The US is more and more controlled by its own oligarchs instead: bankers. They have been bailed out instead of being jailed for the rest of their lives, as they would have deserved. And american people seem to be ok with that, due to a decades-long brainwashing by a trashy and biased mass-media system, which is controlled by the very same lobby that bankers are part of (yeah, that one whose name nobody can even pronounce, otherwise one is accused of being anti-semitic or racist).

      Did you know that Crimean people's pension benefits and minimum wages have been nearly doubled since they became part of Russia? I guess they don't say this on CBS.

      How many billionaires and/or bankers have been jailed since the 2007 crisis? Oh, well, obviously they were all innocents. And my name is cinderella.

    4. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is bull****. Putin transferred wealth to other oligarhs and himself. Putin was just average 'chinovnik' before he gained power. Now he has 70 billion dollars of wealth. Russian state is unbelievably corrupted. US banks may be bad but compared to Russia it's nothing.

    5. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Administrative takeover of corporations by autoritative central state, with intimidation through abuse of executive power, is textbook fascism. Mussolini would be proud.

      And remember when he took over 2/3 of the automotive sector and intimidated creditors into forfeiting tens of billions in secured loans, turning over controlling interest and all that wealth to his political cronies? What more do you need?

    6. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now he has 70 billion dollars of wealth.

      Oh, really? Did you read that on some american newspaper or magazine? Oh, well...

      By the way, last time I read news stories about that, those billions were supposed to be on swiss bank accounts, so I guess now after the sanctions they have all been found and frozen, right? Oh, they haven't? Then yours is bullshit.

    7. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you read from Russian newspaper that comrade Putin have 3 bedroom flat and LADA I guess. :) Actually Putin's billions come from controlled shares of Russian gas and oil companies. Maybe Putin doesn't have net worth of 70 billions but he has definitely more than 10 billion and no way he could have obtained this legally. From zero to billionaire without inventing anything or building up company or nothing similar. Possible in Russia only!

    8. Re:Somebody mod this up by billakay · · Score: 1

      Administrative takeover of corporations by autoritative central state, with intimidation through abuse of executive power, is textbook fascism. Mussolini would be proud.

      From TFA:

      It’s not clear whether URSC will gain a majority share of Energia during the shareholders meeting. Officials have spoken of increasing the government’s share of the company from 38 to 51 percent.

      Ok, so lets step back a minute and consider. The CEO of Energia has problems with corruption. The government is upset because a company of such importance to the national security and national prestige as Energia is no place for corruption. The government starts an investigation into the corruption and moves to buy enough shares to bring the company under state control. What is wrong with this? This is not Chavez-style nationalization, this is a traditional hostile takeover via buying enough shares. Lets all stop buying into the anti-Russian propaganda, shall we?

    9. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Putin's billions come from controlled shares of Russian gas and oil companies.

      Oh, really? What's the source of this? And what are these companies that *he* allegedly owns?

      Do you realize that if you said the very same unsubstantiated bu***hit about an american politician you would be sued for defamation? But since it's about a foreign leader, one can say whatever the f**k he wants.

    10. Re:Somebody mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, all lobbyists belong to the mafia.

  8. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... really... you "toe the line" not "tow the line" as the submitter writes.

    Just so long as you remember to toad the sprocket, but only when it's wet.

  9. Got it by X.25 · · Score: 0

    Russhia bad, Ameriika good.

    Got it, thank you.

    1. Re:Got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget about the terrorists. Forget about fundamentalists (who are taking over Iraq as we speak). We now focus on Russia as our #1 bad guys. .

    2. Re:Got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. Did you read a different article than the rest of us? Of course any negative press about the Motherland is obviously capitalist propaganda!

    3. Re: Got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's American internal propaganda. Here in Europe, we ignore that most of the time. That noise only gets too loud a few months before the US presidential elections - then we cannot block it anymore.

    4. Re:Got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fundamentalists don't have nuclear weapons. Russia does! In global scale loss of Iraq is quite meaningless. War in Europe means global problems.

    5. Re: Got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this insightful??? This is a troll and / or flamebait.

  10. Response to sanctions by aralin · · Score: 0

    This is a direct response to the US sanctions on Russia and to the US threatening to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It is basically Putin's way of saying: "Look, I am in control of how to get to space.", meaning, you can put the rockets 300 miles from Moscow, I'll just take them to space. It is a typical power play. US simply does not understand the Russians. Sanctions cannot possibly work against them. They always one up whatever move you do and the only way to end the cold war was when the US stopped the race and started de-escalating the conflict and offer a treaty after a treaty, until finally Russia felt safe enough to let go. But now they feel betrayed and I don't think there will ever be a de-escalation of the conflict possible. This time it is gonna be played to the utter economic destruction of one of the two nuclear super powers or an all out nuclear war.

    It looked like such a smart move by the US state department to take over the Ukrainian government, too bad they didn't understand that the move would inevitably start a war. Now we will all pay the price.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    1. Re:Response to sanctions by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Aside from its symbolic value, is that really such a scary move? The Russians offer pretty good prices for satellite launches; but are not the only player by any means(and their launch industry can choose between serving as a diplomatic pawn or not scaring customers, so they pay a penalty if they try to push that too hard). For manned launches, their position is better; but those are painfully close to ceremonial, and of limited scientific and less than zero commercial value.

    2. Re:Response to sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "US does not understand russians"? My outside perspective as neither american nor russian is, yes, they do. It turns out Russians are people too! *Russians* may live with weak courts, laws, and live with daily corruption, but it doesn't mean they like it or they they're unaware of it and don't realize things could and should be better. Last time the US and "russians" went to "war" .. well it took a few decades, but we still have the USA, but not the USSR.
      It turns out lots of energy reserves can buy a lot month to month forgivings of a population, however if you gave outsiders like me a choice of where to live between Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc or the USA, despite all its imperfections, there is no question.
      Effectively sanctions/isolation brought down the USSR. As *people* see how much better life is in East Germany now than before, how things have improved in Poland, how moving toward capitalism has improved life in China, and even how things will become in Ukraine in a generation if they follow Estonia, Poland, etc, the writing is on the wall for governments that don't work in the people's interest.

    3. Re:Response to sanctions by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      They always one up whatever move you do and the only way to end the cold war was when the US stopped the race and started de-escalating the conflict and offer a treaty after a treaty, until finally Russia felt safe enough to let go.

      Erm...

      The cold war ended because the Soviet Union was broke and in disarray.

      Diplomacy was the only option left to Yetlsin. They couldn't feed an army, let alone civilians.

      As it will be with Putin or Putin's successor. Breadlines, not hard-lines with break them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Response to sanctions by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget that Yeltsin came to power off the back of a semi-failed military coup against Gorbachev.

    5. Re:Response to sanctions by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is basically Putin's way of saying: "Look, I am in control of how to get to space."

      He's not. I'm pretty sure Chinese, Indians, Americans and Europeans are going to continue to go to space with or without Putin.

      US simply does not understand the Russians. Sanctions cannot possibly work against them.

      US is not working against 'Russians'. It's just containing a power-hungry dictatorial imperialistic regime. Attacking the wealth of a regime is always a good way to reduce its ability to conquer neighboring nations.

      They always one up whatever move you do

      Do you seriously think they didn't consider all the options Putin has? Or maybe at least the obvious ones like cutting his exports and imports? It's just a typical reactionary BS

      This time it is gonna be played to the utter economic destruction of one of the two nuclear super powers or an all out nuclear war.

      Yeah, imagine US losing their 28th business partner by volume of trade . Economic destruction my @ss.

      It looked like such a smart move by the US state department to take over the Ukrainian government, too bad they didn't understand that the move would inevitably start a war. Now we will all pay the price.

      Typical dictatorship thinking - if I lose control over a government it must be because some other country took it. There's no way people would just elect their own representatives...

    6. Re:Response to sanctions by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, it is the Americans fault the new Russian Tsar stole back the Crimea, a piece of Georgia, is threatening a piece of Ukraine, is threatening Moldova, is threatening the Baltic states, and consolidating all power in the Kremlin.

      Is there anything else you'd like to blame the U.S for?

    7. Re:Response to sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to do the early shift this morning, and waking up early makes me grumpy. I'm pretty sure that's all down to them too.

    8. Re:Response to sanctions by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      "US does not understand russians"? My outside perspective as neither american nor russian is, yes, they do. It turns out Russians are people too!

      Sting, is that you?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:Response to sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes. My cereal was soggy this morning. That's the fault of the Great Satan, too.

    10. Re:Response to sanctions by aralin · · Score: 1

      It is basically Putin's way of saying: "Look, I am in control of how to get to space."

      He's not. I'm pretty sure Chinese, Indians, Americans and Europeans are going to continue to go to space with or without Putin.

      Yes, others have some capability, in some extent. Nobody is close to what the Russians can do at this time. US would have to restart some abandoned programs to get to the same level, but they at least have the potential.

      US simply does not understand the Russians. Sanctions cannot possibly work against them.

      US is not working against 'Russians'. It's just containing a power-hungry dictatorial imperialistic regime. Attacking the wealth of a regime is always a good way to reduce its ability to conquer neighboring nations.

      Attacking someone when your attack is doomed to fail, is never a good policy. Sanctions might have worked against Iran, once Russia and China started to cooperate, but they won't work against Russia. They just shift their economic activity. There is much more dependency of the EU and rest of world on Russia than there is of Russia on the rest of the world. That also plays into it. Iran is not nearly as self sufficient as Russia is.

      They always one up whatever move you do

      Do you seriously think they didn't consider all the options Putin has? Or maybe at least the obvious ones like cutting his exports and imports? It's just a typical reactionary BS

      I seriously think that US makes policy without carefully considering what will happen. Otherwise they could not make such colossal blunders like Iraq most recently.

      This time it is gonna be played to the utter economic destruction of one of the two nuclear super powers or an all out nuclear war.

      Yeah, imagine US losing their 28th business partner by volume of trade . Economic destruction my @ss.

      US economy is very fragile. Look at 2001, 2008 and a crisis like that is bound to come again. They are coming increasingly faster too. Russia would strike at the right time at the height of a crisis like that to push you over the edge. They know what leverage they got and don't. For example I would bet that Putin is just trying to keep the current conflict going till the end of fall, so that some major gas pipeline can be "accidentally" damaged in fighting by Ukrainian shelling just in time for winter. Putin will blame Kiev, will promise to use Northern pipeline as much as possible, but it "just won't be enough, so sorry".

      I'm trying to tell you, they are fully capable of doing this without batting an eyelash or feeling bad about it afterwards.

      It looked like such a smart move by the US state department to take over the Ukrainian government, too bad they didn't understand that the move would inevitably start a war. Now we will all pay the price.

      Typical dictatorship thinking - if I lose control over a government it must be because some other country took it. There's no way people would just elect their own representatives...

      US state department worked for 10 years in Ukraine, spending 10 billion dollars, by their own admission, to support and train the opposition. It is not always that if you lose control, someone else helped to make it happen, but in this case, yes, it was the case. It looked like a smart move, but it wasn't.

      And they didn't even ask EU if they actually want Ukraine. EU has serious economic issues with several countries that drag everyone down. Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria. Taking in Ukraine would add economic woes and impoverished population equal to those 4 countries combined. Just dealing with Greece itself almost sent the EURO to tailspin. Imagine adding Ukraine, which was terribly broken even before the current civil war.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    11. Re:Response to sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it is the Americans fault the new Russian Tsar stole back the Crimea, a piece of Georgia, is threatening a piece of Ukraine, is threatening Moldova, is threatening the Baltic states, and consolidating all power in the Kremlin.

      Is there anything else you'd like to blame the U.S for?

      I think his hairline might be receeding too.

    12. Re:Response to sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the GP does have the germ of a point about US interference in Ukraine. That's been going on at least since the Orange Revolution, and it's one (of, basically, two) reasons why Ukraine has never had a decent democratic government: the West props up its own brand of thugs in very much the same way as the Russians do.

  11. Your turn will come ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I for one, living in the USA, would have been shot long long time ago for running my mouth like I do here on Slashdot, had I been doing all this in 1980's KGB Soviet Union ...

    Don't be so impatient, buckwheat, your turn will come

  12. Re:thanks Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Romney and Palin are wrong! Uncle Putin isn't any threat. He's a cuddly teddy bear riding a pony! Russia is our friend!

  13. Re: mua va ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is spam! Someone delete this spam please! Thank you.

  14. Can Russia become a fascist state ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism

    According to many scholars, fascism â" especially once in power â" has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right

    Are you guys sure that Russia under Putin is a fascist state ?

    Or are you using slashdot as your soapbox to degrade Russia - just like you Obama fanbois like to do ?

    Putin is not firmly rooted in the far right movement

    To be a fascist one has to have support from the far right militancy to be able to exert control over the nation

    1. Re:Can Russia become a fascist state ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism

      According to many scholars, fascism â" especially once in power â" has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right

      Are you guys sure that Russia under Putin is a fascist state ?

      Yes, we are sure. Russia is pure-blood fascist state right now. It's about dictatorship. It's about freedoms ( or loss of freedom for russians )

    2. Re:Can Russia become a fascist state ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or are you using slashdot as your soapbox to degrade Russia

      Russia is doing that all on it's ickle own.

      Anyway, don't you have some gays you should be beating up, Vlad?

    3. Re:Can Russia become a fascist state ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, don't you have some oil-rich country to invade, Dubya?

      Anyway, don't you have to change the leadership of some African country, Cameron?

  15. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can all own our own Eastern-Bloc knockoff PDP minicomputers! :)

    I mean what could be better than that?

  16. Re:Biased Summary? by war4peace · · Score: 2

    Putin Government Moves To Take Control of Russia's largest space company Energia

    "Putin Government" ... instead of just "Government"?

    Because it happens right now, yes. 100 years ago it would gave been "Tsar's representatives".
    It's exactly why "Obamacare" is mentioned as such, and not simply as "care".

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  17. Not a bad idea by Alarash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

    1. Re:Not a bad idea by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

      While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Not a bad idea by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

      Services that people need in order to live should start off on the free market. Once it becomes clear which method of providing the service is most efficient, then it should be transitioned to a publicly-owned service. e.g. What's the best way to provide fresh water? Wells? Desalination? Buy it from your neighbors and pipe/truck it in? The answer to that isn't at all clear and is constantly changing, so you need market forces to indicate to you the best (cheapest) method of acquiring fresh water. Distribution OTOH tends to be more static - there aren't any up and coming new ways to send water through pipes. So laying down and maintaining pipes is more amenable to a public service.

      GSM is a good example of the trouble you can get yourself into if the government prematurely decides something should not be subject to market forces. The EU mandated all wireless phone carriers adhere to GSM. The U.S. did not. Consequently a different method of transmitting phone calls and data - CDMA - was also tried in the U.S. CDMA turned out to be superior to the TDMA used in GSM, particularly when it came to data services (TDMA divides bandwidth equally between users, even if they aren't using the bandwidth; CDMA bandwidth effectively gets allocated as needed as a side-effect of how the technology works). And eventually CDMA was incorporated into the GSM standard (most HSPA and HSDPA implementations use wideband CDMA - yes your GSM phone uses CDMA). If the U.S. had gone along with the EU and required GSM, data services would've been several years behind where they are now, and we'd probably still be stuck at around 1 Mbps cellular data speeds.

      The distinction needs to be based on the size of the technological solution space and the uncertainty over the best solution - factors which are inherent to the technology required to provide a service. Not based on whether or not those services are necessary for life - a factor completely independent of the technology needed to provide the service. Once you realize this, you realize that other things not necessary for life should probably be publicly owned - e.g. cable TV lines. When cable TV first began, it wasn't at all obvious what was the best way to distribute high-bandwidth content to houses. But now it's pretty clear that fiber to the home is the end-game. So the government should be installing fiber to each home, then allowing multiple cable TV vendors to compete selling service over that fiber.

    3. Re:Not a bad idea by SiggyRadiation · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you talk about "Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical".

      There is a lot that people need to live. Would you argue nationalising all of them? Energy, water and medical aren't the only things that would make that list. What about food, transportation and clothing? You'll die very soon if they aren't in order. Houses - in a lot of climates you need them for shelter and defects in houses could cause them to collapse so they are crucial to survival - hygienic products, etc.

      Now, why stop there? If you want energy, water, medical and maybe al those other things that I listed to be state supplied, why should their suppliers be excluded? Why nationalize the hospitals but not the farmaceuticals? They use up a large chunk of our health care budgets and the quality of their products is just as critical to our survival. So we add the farmaceuticals. And the producers of diagnostic equipment of course, can't have any defective MRI's. But MRI's have software. So those are in as well. We also need dependable medical oxygen suppliers. Suppliers for mainframes, PC's, lightbulbs, desktops (the ones you can tough), concrete, glass, sand, catering, bread, beef, cows, grass, fertilizer, oil.

      My point is: we are very much used to putting our lives in the hands of commercial entities. From a car or an airliner to the contractor that built my house to the caterer that made that nice chicken filet that I just ate. They're all commercial entities, large multinationals or small mom-and-pops. They are regulated so I know what quality I can expect at minimum and if they don't deliver that quality either they get busted by the state or I sue them. This system actually works very well!

      Now, why is water or a hospital that much different?

      I ask this as someone who works at a healthcare provider in a "socialized healthcare" country.

      --
      This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
    4. Re:Not a bad idea by Alarash · · Score: 2

      I won't have escaped you that the market is less and less regulated because, as the means of growth grow thin, you need to be more "open." Sure, let's make house loans a financial product - then you get the subprimes crisis and people lose their homes AND their retirement money. Pharmaceuticals don't do research on diseases that are not, literally, worth it. The meat sector you mention? Sure, let's shoot the cows with antibiotics and GMO crops. That'll make more meat per cow, better margins. Etc.

      The problem with the free market isn't the free market. It's that it makes money the one and only goal, safety, health and logic be damned. I keep trying to make my electrical bill lower, and that's good for the environment, and I actually use less power now than 5 years ago. But I pay more to my electricity provider because they've got to keep that growth up, and by that I mean dividends. It's completely schizophrenic and it's driving me mad.

    5. Re:Not a bad idea by SiggyRadiation · · Score: 2

      Another poster discussed that letting government provide vital services often results in those services being used / abused for political gain. Abusing regulations is a lot less effective for politicians and so they tend to be manipulated less in my opinion.

      Let the free market do the producing.

      But let the government keep them in check with regulations. You are right that regulations tend to be thinned out when politicians see no other way to promote growth anymore but I'm still not convinced that that is in any way worse than when the government would be responsible for production itself. Governments are perfectly able and willing to cut back on vital infrastucture below any responsible levels. The New Orleans levee's were not built nor maintained nor were policies and budgets set by commercial entities!

      If the government is your only supplier you are left with no recourse should you be dissatisfied with their services. You can actually buy meat that has not been "improved" with all kinds of chemicals and pharmaceuticals. But you probably choose the convenience of buying the cheap meat at you local grocery store.

      --
      This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
    6. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.

      I don't really think utilities should be done on a "cheapest amount possible", and as I understand it, the US Medical system is one of the most expensive ones, the US energy network seems to suffer from poor upkeep, the US network infrastructure for private individuals is a money grabbing operation.

      You can get around the problem with private companies and regulation supporting competition, like local loop unbundling (network competition), high fines for neglecting maintenance of infrastructure (transmission/transport networks), and fund basic healthcare directly with tax, with a encouraged/mandatory corporate paid health-insurance using private medical providers.

    7. Re:Not a bad idea by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

      They most definitely should be in a free market as much as possible as that has proven time and again to be the only way to make it as cheap as possible. What you're looking for is "nonprofit".

    8. Re:Not a bad idea by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I notice that you don't list "food" here. It's very much something people need to live, it's on a mostly-free market almost everywhere, and it works just fine.

    9. Re:Not a bad idea by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Water being provided by the public sector makes sense for a completely separate reason: it's a thing that is very difficult to define property rights over. Who owns the groundwater under Tucson, AZ? Does your average Jose have the right to drill a well on his land and pump out however much he wants and sell it? What about slurping water out of the Santa Cruz River? (You're probably saying that you've never heard of the Santa Cruz River. That's because it's not there any more -- we poured it all on crops. It's now something of a hilarity among Tucsonans to name things "River X" that are near the dry riverbed.)

      Water rights are hard as hell and very difficult to incorporate into a reasonable scheme of private property. Same with radio spectrum, for that matter. Things like food are easy: own some land, plant fruit trees, sell fruit out of truck. Certainty over the solution space doesn't necessarily mean that something should be in the public sector -- farming practices for apples and the design of toilets are pretty well optimized* by this point, but there have been no moves to nationalize the apple or shitting industry.

      *The Japanese robo-toilets may disagree.

    10. Re:Not a bad idea by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Services people need to live should start out as government run companies, and either stay government owned or be heavily regulated to ensure the "quest for profit" doesn't kill people. A perfect example is the US medical system. It's the best in the world if you are rich, but for the bulk of the people they may as well be living in Somalia. They privatized the electrical grid in California, and prices went up while reliability went down. If it's important, keep public control of it. Everything else you can allow private control.

    11. Re:Not a bad idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

      In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much. Did you never notice how the childish attitudes your politicians display are far above the levels displayed in other countries' politicians? Sure, some countries have political freak shows, but many others just get on with it - working with other parties for the good of the country.

    12. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously offering the US electric grid as an example of a private utilities run amok? It is probably the most regulated and government directed industry on the planet. While 75% of the grid may be technically in private ownership, they have to run an extremely tight gauntlet of state/federal laws & regulations. In my state I think the private utilities have to go hat in hand to the state every year to ask if they can increase their rates by a penny or two.

    13. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the U.S. had gone along with the EU and required GSM, data services would've been several years behind where they are now, and we'd probably still be stuck at around 1 Mbps cellular data speeds. "

      While your love of CDMA2000 is clear, let's see what Europeans have been able to do that most Americans have not:
      - phone portability - I can use any phone I want on any network I want, when I want, without anyone's permission. On CDMA2000 I have to plead for forgiveness to be allowed to use a phone that I have had to buy from the network operator at their inflated prices, because RUIMs aren't mandatory so you have to go through that "activation" crap. Even with LTE, which is portable, Verizon/Sprint try to make as difficult as possible.
      - network portability - Because I can use any network I want, I can move networks when I want. I don't need to buy the exact same phone with a different logo on the back simply because the network operator doesn't want me to use someone else's phone. I can obtain a SIM card, stick it in, and that's it.
      - data speeds - contrary to the quoted statement, we've had superior data speeds to people on Verizon or Sprint for years. HSPA is capable of 42Mbps down, which is an evolution of the UMTS standard, which is in itself an evolution of GSM. In the US, meanwhile, CDMA2000 and the still born UMB are dead and dying - and all it ever offered was 3Mbps down. if you're lucky. So the CDMA operators had to build LTE networks to get the speeds up (LTE being a GSM/UMTS evolution, not CDMA2000) - including lots of bodging to get the incompatible CDMA and LTE core networks to interact to allow users to have a combined CDMA/LTE handset - meanwhile GSM/UMTS/LTE were designed to work seamlessly. The UMTS operators in the US and Europe had a much less arduous and expensive task - later UMTS hardware is heavily software upgradable. I think Nokia even claims they can be upgraded for LTE in software.

      It's important to make the distinction between the transmission technology and the phone standard. CDMA is shared between CDMA2000 and UMTS, sure, but I'm not sure where the "American exceptionalism" is coming from. There's a big reason why GSM/UMTS/LTE gained traction worldwide and became "the standard" whereas CDMA2000 is mostly a North American thing (and even then, some operators dumped it long before LTE came around and overlaid UMTS/HSPA networks on top - e.g. Bell/Telus in Canada). Perhaps you should be thankful that GSM and its successor standards were pushed so heavily by European countries (and the European companies that make a lot of the equipment (e.g. Nokia, Ericsson) so that the US had the LTE standard to move to?

      Backwardness? You mean like how the US networks are determined to throttle/shape everyone while trying to charge as much as possible for minimal data allowances? Meanwhile I can pay a fraction of the cost and get faster, unlimited data?

    14. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I wish my government did the same.

      We know how much you wish someone would care for you. Keep you warm and safe to play interwebs all day.

      They did exactly what you wish in Venezuela. Now they're wiping their asses with their hands and selling out to China trying to keep the power on.

    15. Re:Not a bad idea by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much. Did you never notice how the childish attitudes your politicians display are far above the levels displayed in other countries' politicians? Sure, some countries have political freak shows, but many others just get on with it - working with other parties for the good of the country.

      Possible, but my experiences with politicians around the world its the "do what I have to to stay in power" gene tends to be dominant and the "work together for the good of the country even if it means I may lose" gene is recessive.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    16. Re:Not a bad idea by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      See Venezuela.

      If you can catch a flight (kinda tough at the moment because the Government has effectively nationalized airline ticket revenue so the airlines have canceled most regular service) you might take a trip and stay if you like it so much.

      Bring extra toilet paper.

      energy, water, medical

      All of the above has either been or is under imminent threat of nationalization. Lets look at the results;

      Energy: Venezuelan president’s live speech about blackouts interrupted by blackouts
      Water: Caracas Goes Thirsty as Taps Run Dry and Bottles Vanish
      Medicine: Patients urged to show up at hospitals with their own disinfectant, gauze and pain killers

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    17. Re:Not a bad idea by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.

      That is not my experience, mind pointing to examples? My experience with government owned utilities is exactly the opposite of what you claim. There are several local power companies owned by the city government, they are cheaper and better run than the corporate power utility that serves the rest of the area. After heavy storms they often have power restored in half the time of the private company. Did I mention the lower power rates? Government does a rats ass job of predicting demand and supply for widgets but they do a damn good job of predicting demand and allocating resources for major utilities like power companies because it's a pretty well fixed demand and is an essential service.

      People always trot out the old refrain you did, but I see little experience that it's true. Rather than accept that what you hear repeated so often is true you should try to find evidence that is true because you will probably be surprised at how often it's wrong.

    18. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much.

      Ha! Please post your country of origin so that I may mock you with specific examples from your own country.

    19. Re:Not a bad idea by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      GSM is a good example of the trouble you can get yourself into if the government prematurely decides something should not be subject to market forces. The EU mandated all wireless phone carriers adhere to GSM.

      [citation needed]

      And eventually CDMA was incorporated into the GSM standard (most HSPA and HSDPA implementations use wideband CDMA - yes your GSM phone uses CDMA)

      Yes, because the Japanese developed W-CDMA and released 3G upon the world, which was incorporated into the UMTS standard while CDMA2000 was still a snot-slow dog that still couldn't pass packet-switched data and run a phone call at the same time.

      If the U.S. had gone along with the EU and required GSM, data services would've been several years behind where they are now, and we'd probably still be stuck at around 1 Mbps cellular data speeds.

      No, the Japanese still would have utilized the fantastic Russian Code Division Multi-Access scheme known as CDMA to provide better services to their tech-savvy customers while also finding a way to incorporate it into the world standard of portability (GSM + SIM for Network ID).

      We didn't invent CDMA. W-CDMA being in the UMTS is not because a couple of US network providers really liked CDMA2000.

      At the point when CDMA2000 stopped sucking (EvDO), competing GSM networks were likewise rolling out EDGE support good to several megabits as well, and hey, at least they had SIM cards, and in more enlightened parts of the world, they could even move them to phones without having to suffer from the horse shit that is subsidy locking. Try moving your Verizon phone to Sprint. It's an awesome experience.

    20. Re:Not a bad idea by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Great idea, just like Hydro Quebec (oh wait)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    21. Re:Not a bad idea by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      But GSM allows phones to be used on different providers, something TDMA/CDMA didn't allow. Besides what good are fast speeds if you're only allowed pathetic quotas? GSM also allowed *competition*.

      I'd rather have European telecom prices instead of getting gouged here.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    22. Re:Not a bad idea by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.

      That is not my experience, mind pointing to examples? My experience with government owned utilities is exactly the opposite of what you claim. There are several local power companies owned by the city government, they are cheaper and better run than the corporate power utility that serves the rest of the area. After heavy storms they often have power restored in half the time of the private company. Did I mention the lower power rates? Government does a rats ass job of predicting demand and supply for widgets but they do a damn good job of predicting demand and allocating resources for major utilities like power companies because it's a pretty well fixed demand and is an essential service.

      My comments come from working with execs at a number of public utilities. As I pointed out, political considerations often trump "cheapest rates." Many of them do not operate plants but buy power, often subsidized federal power that can't be sold to other markets at such rates.

      People always trot out the old refrain you did, but I see little experience that it's true. Rather than accept that what you hear repeated so often is true you should try to find evidence that is true because you will probably be surprised at how often it's wrong.

      You missed my point in your rush to label my response. I pointed out, in response to the OP, that "cheapest amount possible" are not necessarily the goal of a public utility given their political nature; not that they can't be cheaper than private power companies. Also note that many people confuse Rural Electrification Cooperatives and their brethren as public power when in fact they are not.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    23. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

      That sounds like a business plan! Regulated free market combined with social services create the same results without the increasing stagnation of the service levels by a government owned institution. It takes strongly motivated people at all levels of the organization to break free from that stagnation. The stagnation might linger decades after a possible privatization in such an organization as part of the corporate culture.

  18. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by fey000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, line tows you!

  19. Can Russia become a fascist state ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "To be a fascist one has to have support from the far right militancy to be able to exert control over the nation"

    In reality the militancys ideology doesn't matter, as long as they help in exerting control. Fascism could be based on far left ideologies as wel las far right. And I guarantee Putin is far right instead of far left himself. I don't see him giving the power to the people any time soon.

  20. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's wet sprocket to you!", said Mr. Toad.

  21. You ignorant children yelling US Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about this the next time you want to spout off about America being fascist, this is the difference between ownership and regulation.

  22. Re:Biased Summary? by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see. So if you were privileged or able to work your way into a company supplied med insurance program. You win the lottery and all is well. However, if you were unprivileged or had to work your life away in low, menial jobs to support your poor family and never had a chance to work your way into a company supplied insurance program, then you lost the lottery of life; you should just accept that you will die early. Then there is the lottery of your company shipping your job overseas to some low wage country when you are in your 40's or 50's. You then have little chance of further employment and your insurance is gone with your job. And you might have been allowed to get an medicaid, if you have lost enough of your wealth...except that was made harder by some governors rejecting the wider coverage. So, better hope you stay healthy and employed and aren't steamrolled by corporate America.

    Most modern countries have healthcare for their citizens. How is it the U.S. cannot figure this out?

  23. Re:Biased Summary? by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 0

    Work hard in school, you can get a scholarship. With your scholarship you can get a meaningful degree. With a meaningful degree you can get a good job. It's done everyday in the US. There's no luck, lottery involved. It does require hard work.

  24. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by paiute · · Score: 1

    Nah - you drag the line

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  25. Re:Biased Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US has a healthcare system for its citizens as well. Has had it for years and in many ways, though not all ways, it's quite a good system. All sorts of amazing treatments have come out of it in fact. Wait times also tend to be remarkably short with an abundance of treatment options. It is unfortunately rather expensive.

    Oh, wait, you mean there's one aspect of the US system that you don't like so you disregard its existence entirely? You know that sort of thing just makes you sound like an idiot, right?

  26. Re:Biased Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You describe this as a foolproof plan. So all those struggling to support their families are either lazy or millionaires on the wait?

  27. not Lopota's property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're crying foul like Putin is taking from this Lopota guy his family's company. Which is surely not the case here. The company was most likely government owned a couple of decades ago and was given away by Yeltsin & co for kopecks.

  28. Re:Biased Summary? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    Most scholarships I have come across have involved certain race/sex/religious requirements and an essay. Academic records where usually secondary documentation, and frequently not required.

    Life lesson to the young ones: Looking and acting the part is far more important than results. You get hired, accepted, etc... based on how much people feel they like you. Results are something they may or may not prioritize later on. And, hard work is cheap and plentiful in case slavery and the like was not enough of a clue for you.

    You are better off working smart over hard when your own performance is necessary. And in general, if who does it is not important, you are better off learning how to get others to do the grunt work for you. Schooling is a bit of an oddity in that your own performance is being tested.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  29. You = Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian government has a 38% percent share in the company, which could very well be the controlling stake. So as the board of directors seek to replace the current head to improve earnings for the shareholders, you call them fascist? Did you mean to say "capitalist", instead?

  30. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    no, you walk the line

  31. Re:Biased Summary? by war4peace · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you talking about?
    I am Romanian and we have healthcare for all our citizens. Not stellar but it's there.
    I merely pointed out that a certain action with big impact is usually named after the high profile person who initiated, oversaw or approved it. It's a fact.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  32. Next Stop Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because URSC is so near to UAC, it's spooky.

  33. Re:thanks Obama by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Because Bush left us with a strong and well funded space program??

  34. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, you snort the line.

  35. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Maybe they graduated from The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.

  36. Hypocrite by tepples · · Score: 1

    I know what could be better than that: Hypocrisy. Alexey Pajitnov developed Tetris on such an Eastern PDP clone, yet he goes around and sues anyone who clones his own stuff.

  37. UN representation of CIS members by tepples · · Score: 1

    Which includes re-integrating most of the former USSR countries.

    But in order to keep their representation in the United Nations, the members of the New USSR would have to remain sovereign states in a confederation analogous to the European Union, not join into one sovereign state like the USA or the old USSR.

    1. Re:UN representation of CIS members by Entropius · · Score: 2

      That's not a bad idea. Could the USA reformulate itself as a confederation with the same legal structure and operations, but with 49 seats in the UN rather than one? (I think everyone would agree that not having Florida represented is in the best interests of everyone except comedians.)

    2. Re:UN representation of CIS members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you are being sarcastic, but the Articles of Confederation just didn't work out for us the first time we tried them. Our second attempt at a Confederation was disastrous. Doing it again seems a poor decision.

    3. Re:UN representation of CIS members by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the history and, yes, I'm being sarcastic. Except about Florida.

    4. Re:UN representation of CIS members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes; I've lived in Florida, and all I can say about Florida is thank god for Mississippi!

  38. Russian Turbo Polka Metal by Allasard · · Score: 1

    I leave you with this vaguely relevant and addicting song.....Energia!!!

    http://youtu.be/BVWfqOSdzs4

  39. Remember when America used to be ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... the subject of criticism?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Remember when America used to be ... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Tragic isn't it? Wasting Slashdot time-wasters time with non-US bashing stories.

      Quick, someone find a Climate Change or Snowden story before these people lose it.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  40. False dichotomies by Livius · · Score: 1

    People are jumping to pull out the false dichotomies.

    Are Russia and the US the same? No.

    Are Russia and the US completely different? No.

    Russia is worse. But sadly not by a lot.

  41. Not fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone who thinks this is a step towards fascism has it wrong. It's a step even further backwards: Towards monarchy.

    Putin wants to be a monarch, he wants to be a king. In the russian tradion that is an Emporer, called the Tsar. Putin wants the russian empire back, with an emperor on its head, not because he is a monarchist but because it simply is the position with the most power for himself. What plays into his hands is the fact that Russia never really pluralised, but maintained a few important centres, while the rest of the giant realm stayed mostly undeveloped and unconnected in regard to governmental power.
    Tsar -> A bit chaos -> Stalin -> A powerful party -> A bit Chaos -> Putin.

  42. thanks Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't the plans to scrap the shuttle program created back during the Bush Administration? And didn't the Bush Administrations replacement, Constellation, fail miserably with massive cost overruns & constant delays? Not that the Obama Administrations replacement (Space Launch System), is fairing any better. It should also be noted that Congress is doing their best to sabotage the one NASA launch system program that is actually staying fairly on time and under budget (CCDev2) despite working with half the budget they've been requesting.

  43. House of Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without any rules to play within

  44. Re:Biased Summary? by dave420 · · Score: 1

    It's also woefully inefficient with its spending. Its treatments are comparable to many other countries, and in those other countries it's available to everyone without a bill needing to be settled afterwards. A medical system practically doesn't exist if you can't afford to use it.

  45. He wants to re-establish the Russian empire ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might think it is funny, but this really is sort of the plan of Putin ... It might not be communism he wants. What he wants a is strong Russia, a country other countries respect (maybe this can be explained as: fear).

    In other words he wants to re-establish the Russian empire. Which is really what the USSR was. Whether the empire is run by a czar, premier or president hardly matters.

  46. Re:Biased Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    remember the day the EBT card failed, and who wasn't at the grocery store?

  47. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by hey! · · Score: 1

    Well maybe Putin's going around cutting everyone's hawsers. That would leave them towing the line.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  48. Re:Biased Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > So all those struggling to support their families are either lazy or millionaires on the wait?

    Possibly. One thing is for sure. The vast majority started poor and chose to start families. If you're poor and choose to have a family you're an irresponsible shit, not two ways around it. Kids cost money.

  49. In Russia, government controls corporations by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    In Russia, government controls corporations. In USA, it is the other way around.

  50. Tow or toe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the tow vehicle in this case and where is what being towed?

  51. Luckily they are closing the airspace by Optali · · Score: 1
    Luckily they decided to close their airspace as a vengeance against western sanctions.

    This way we will avoid our planes hit by one of their satellite launchers.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast