Discussion:
Surprise, surprise, Russia is rich!!!
(too old to reply)
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2019-08-12 03:46:45 UTC
Permalink
For the first time in eight years, the Bank of Russia’s total stockpile of cash, gold and other securities is about to surpass Saudi Arabia’s...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-leapfrog-saudi-wealth-league-030000969.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

I thought they were at the end of the rope, as it was meant to be. Putin hasn't been that bad for Russia, after all. And the Russians are happy, so what's the issue. Yes, they could be happier without the sanctions but they are conscious of their sacrifice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

#GoBananaRevolution

THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 07:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
For the first time in eight years, the Bank of Russia’s total stockpile of
cash, gold and other securities is about to surpass Saudi Arabia’s...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-leapfrog-saudi-wealth-league-030000969.h
tml?.tsrc=fauxdal
I thought they were at the end of the rope, as it was meant to be.
NATO need you to hate Russia; to hate Putin, and imagine he is about to
attack.

NATO’s policy is to keep Westerners living under a sense of perennial fear,
because that way the proles are easier to control.

Unfortunately, their organisation is so riddled with paedophiles and other
sexual deviants, that they have difficulty keeping everything a secret these
days.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Putin
hasn't been that bad for Russia, after all. And the Russians are happy, so
what's the issue. Yes, they could be happier without the sanctions but they
are conscious of their sacrifice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#GoBananaRevolution
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aK
c/edit?usp=sharing
Roger
2019-08-12 13:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
For the first time in eight years, the Bank of Russia’s total stockpile of
cash, gold and other securities is about to surpass Saudi Arabia’s...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-leapfrog-saudi-wealth-league-030000969.h
tml?.tsrc=fauxdal
I thought they were at the end of the rope, as it was meant to be.
NATO need you to hate Russia; to hate Putin, and imagine he is about to
attack.
Ukraine didn't happen?

Putin's statements are worthless?
Keema's Nan
2019-08-12 14:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
For the first time in eight years, the Bank of Russia’s total stockpile of
cash, gold and other securities is about to surpass Saudi Arabia’s...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-leapfrog-saudi-wealth-league-03000096
9.h
tml?.tsrc=fauxdal
I thought they were at the end of the rope, as it was meant to be.
NATO need you to hate Russia; to hate Putin, and imagine he is about to
attack.
Ukraine didn't happen?
Not how you have been brainwashed into believing... No.

Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing
arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land
powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control
over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European
Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these
powers is expanding?

There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine.
From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable
loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors,
wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very
existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without
Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’

This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, NATO,
like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir
Putin asked sulkily, "Against whom is this expansion intended?"

I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which NATO was
founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now?
Why does it even still exist?

There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe.
Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief
for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do
this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it
is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either
NATO or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer
size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an
adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an
understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of
defensible borders.

But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which
would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state
is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny [an example of the sort of obeisance to
to orthodoxy required of 'dissident' journalists if they wish to remain
employable - Ed] . But so is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, which locks up
far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable
Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies,
in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin
disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with
Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?

Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has
not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s
economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists
in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure
that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there.
So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically
turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and
wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.

It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and
land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused
by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt
refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as
‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter
under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a
nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real
confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were
interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western
interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So
though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya,
raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own
re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits.
Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for
ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.

This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an
independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and
scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really
began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi —
policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security
expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this
would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant,
‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and
thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability
in Ukraine.’

Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that
overthrow last February of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in
history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see.
The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it
if the other side did it.

If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the
West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association
Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the
irrecoverable loss to NATO of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol,
Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally
said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement,
shouldn’t we find this action understandable in a sovereign nation, even if
we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why
Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the
European Union and NATO into this dangerous and unstable part of the world?

Peter Hitchens The Spectator 7/3/2015
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2019-08-13 04:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Roger
Ukraine didn't happen?
Not how you have been brainwashed into believing... No.
Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing
arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land
powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control
over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European
Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these
powers is expanding?
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine.
From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable
loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors,
wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very
existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without
Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, NATO,
like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir
Putin asked sulkily, "Against whom is this expansion intended?"
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which NATO was
founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now?
Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe.
Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief
for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do
this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it
is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either
NATO or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer
size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an
adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an
understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of
defensible borders.
But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which
would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state
is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny [an example of the sort of obeisance to
to orthodoxy required of 'dissident' journalists if they wish to remain
employable - Ed] . But so is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, which locks up
far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable
Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies,
in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin
disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with
Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?
Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has
not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s
economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists
in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure
that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there.
So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically
turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and
wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.
It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and
land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused
by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt
refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as
‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter
under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a
nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real
confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were
interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western
interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So
though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya,
raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own
re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits.
Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for
ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.
This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an
independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and
scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really
began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi —
policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security
expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this
would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant,
‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and
thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability
in Ukraine.’
Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that
overthrow last February of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in
history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see.
The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it
if the other side did it.
If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the
West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association
Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the
irrecoverable loss to NATO of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol,
Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally
said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement,
shouldn’t we find this action understandable in a sovereign nation, even if
we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why
Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the
European Union and NATO into this dangerous and unstable part of the world?
Peter Hitchens The Spectator 7/3/2015
👍👍👍

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2019-08-13 02:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
For the first time in eight years, the Bank of Russia’s total stockpile of cash, gold and other securities is about to surpass Saudi Arabia’s...
Maybe Russia struck gold, in which case the next gold rush will happen in Siberia.

This is not part of the Rothschilds design.

(conspiracy theories)
Loading...