Russia - General Discussion.

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
But Putin and his cohorts do have an ideology, the ideology of a mafia organisation or criminal gang. It may not a political or religious ideology, but it is an ideology nonetheless. After all, to quote Tom Clancy, war is robbery writ large.
I disagree, respectfully. I think Feanor is spot on (perhaps, aside from off-shore bank accounts).

On the subject, I would strongly recommend a book called A Short History of Russia: How the World’s Largest Country Invented Itself, from the Pagans to Putin. The author is Mark Galeotti. I would also recommend getting the latest edition where he commented on the invasion - the book was originally published in 2020, I believe (it doesn’t really add a ton to the book, but nonetheless). It’s a short read, I believe about a couple hundred pages of sparsely printed text. But it is an excellent read, in my opinion. Surely, it is available in most libraries.


Interesting media discussion that I also noticed in the other thread last week or so. I’ll try comment on it when I have a little more time.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
But Putin and his cohorts do have an ideology, the ideology of a mafia organisation or criminal gang. It may not a political or religious ideology, but it is an ideology nonetheless. After all, to quote Tom Clancy, war is robbery writ large.
I'm not well enough familiar with the mafia specifically. But in general an ideology means a framework of ideas that allow someone to believe in something beyond the basic material facts of the situation. Something greater to provide explanation to questions like who we are and why we are better then the other guys. In general ideological frameworks exist to service economic arrangement throughout history. The Catholic church for example provided the ideological framework for western European feudalism. The Russian Orthodox church did the same for the Russian Empire. Putin does not have something of this sort in his corner. And we can see this lack of ideology in the conflicts Russia engages in. In theory (I stress the word theory here) Russia is a democratic capitalist state intending to pursue western style liberal democracy, individualism, and capitalism. But this ideology never really took root, and the thinly veiled nature of Russian authoritarian oligarchy made it less-than-believable even for those that agreed with the framework and were ready to accept it. Hence why Russian involvement in Ukraine during the '14 war had everything, from straight Marxist-Leninst Communists, to Russian nationalists, to Russian Empire nostalgists (in rare cases literal monarchists), to pan-slavists that saw the westernization of Ukraine as some existential conflict of civilizations. Which is the ideology of Putin & Co.? None of the above. They're far too authoritarian for a liberal democracy, and Russia doesn't have the middle class to support a stable democracy anyway. During the better years it looked like Russia might end up developing said middle class through natural economic growth, but this hasn't worked out, partly due to a series of nasty crises (world financial crisis, COVID-19), partly due to Russian foreign policies causing sanctions. They're certainly not willing to give up their massive wealth, so out the window goes communism or even any kind of real socialism. Russian nationalism doesn't really work because Russia isn't even close to an ethno-state. Russia is very mutli-ethnic, arguably still an empire of sorts. Slogans like Russia for Russians will only get you internal strife. Russian derzhavniki, supporters of a basically a neo-imperial approach are the closest, but monarchy doesn't really work for a modern population and the new "aristocracy" are a collection of oligarchical crooks. Hardly likely to inspire loyalty or allegiance, far more likely to inspire contempt and vague dreams of a moustached gentelmen to send the lot to Vorkuta, to dig for potatoes. As a result Russia internally has had a sort of quiet arrangement. As long as the economy keeps growing in the medium term and the government doesn't come down too hard on the general public, the people are willing to let Putin be Putin and not ask too many questions. Those particular upset can always protest, and face the relatively mild (emphasis on relatively) consequences that this causes, or emigrate and complain about Putin from abroad in safety. But this isn't an ideological framework. It's the explicit absence of one. It's why it's so hard for the Russian state to get the public united behind the war effort in any meaningful way, despite having pretty hefty domestic information control. Under this arrangement you can't really explain to anyone why they should fight and die in Ukraine. Now some people will do it because they will comply with state institutions, many do. And some will find their own reasons, which is why you've got everything from Soviet-nostalgia to the black-yellow-white flags being flown by Russian troops in Ukraine and even more so their irregulars formations. But again this is a symptom of a lack of unifying ideology. The typical Russian soldier will either have incoherent mumbo-jumbo to explain why they're at war, or some reason that has nothing to do with Russia's official position.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member

Quite deviance statement from BrahMos Aerospace CEO, and he's Indian. I put this on the perspective on Collective West effort to crippled Russian MIC export market. This kind of 'deviance' shown Russian MIC export market will not 'bow' down easily on West demand. Especially the long term traditional Russian MIC market.

New export market or smaller Russian MIC export market, perhaps more easily give disincentive by collective west to stay away on Russian MIC. Even that will not be easily done. Sourcing from Russia as alternative from West, in many non western countries is part of sign 'independence' policies. Sometimes that they can shown to their constituency that they are not dictate by any big boys.

Just like Russian Hydrocarbons, which will always found new market (by being close from Western market), Russian MIC will also going to find export market. Some market will stay away from Russian MIC but not their long term traditional ones. Simply not just matter of politics, but also because dependency of their existing inventories.
The whole business of this guy rests on the collaboration with Russia. it would be surprising if he did not defend his business. He will probably be one of the last in India to admit that things have changed.

Things are changing for sure, but not always in the way some people expect. Some time in the future India will wake up and realize that having China's new lap dog supplying their armed forces may not be such a great idea...
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
If you understand how things work in Asia including India, you will know to have possition on JV company that handles big defense project means he has Political backing. Thus what he said also means in line with big Political faction that back him up.

Some time in the future India will wake up and realize that having China's new lap dog supplying their armed forces may not be such a great idea...
This is really Western condensending thinking toward non western country. Wake up and realized ? Do you think India already not realizing their own interests, because they're not in line with what West want ?

Do you think only China that have leverage with Russia and India not ?
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Things are changing for sure, but not always in the way some people expect. Some time in the future India will wake up and realize that having China's new lap dog supplying their armed forces may not be such a great idea...
I sincerely hope you wrote this without giving it much thought. India has been dealing with Russia and China for decades. Both the Indian and Chinese airforce have flankers as their main back bone. Both operate S-400s. India and China are both well aware of what they gain from Russia.

Like Ananda said in the previous post, India is not without their leverage. Russia is heavily dependent on them as well and with India rising and russia getting even more sidelined from the West, India's importance to Russia is only set to increase.

This is nothing new in Asia. My country's main military and economic backer is China and they back our biggest threat as well. There are no friends in geopolitics. Every country has its own interests.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
The context is West effort to isolate Russian MIC from export market, will not going to be taken lightly by Russian arms export market. Especially the large and traditional ones like India as example. So this's part of Russia West interaction.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
My country's main military and economic backer is China ...
China sells goods to Bangladesh, at a profit. To pay for those Chinese goods, Bangladesh sells other goods to other countries. Last time I checked, China wasn't in the top five buyers of Bangladeshi exports: they're Germany, the USA, the UK, Spain & Poland.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
China sells goods to Bangladesh, at a profit. To pay for those Chinese goods, Bangladesh sells other goods to other countries. Last time I checked, China wasn't in the top five buyers of Bangladeshi exports: they're Germany, the USA, the UK, Spain & Poland.
yes, but by main economic backer, I mean that China invests the most in economic infrastructure. and I am not just talking about mega projects. China has been building and funding infrastructure for decades. The mega projects are more recent, everyhting from small bridges to buying stake in the stock exchanges outright. Even for projects funded by other countries, its Chinese firms that end up building a huge protions of those. The Tot in infrastructure building is a huge but much unreported deal as well. a decade or more back, even those small bridges were built by China engineers, today all mega projects have significant Bangladeshi engineers working on them, and most labour are Bangladeshi too.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
yes, but by main economic backer, I mean that China invests the most in economic infrastructure. and I am not just talking about mega projects. China has been building and funding infrastructure for decades. The mega projects are more recent, everyhting from small bridges to buying stake in the stock exchanges outright. Even for projects funded by other countries, its Chinese firms that end up building a huge protions of those. The Tot in infrastructure building is a huge but much unreported deal as well. a decade or more back, even those small bridges were built by China engineers, today all mega projects have significant Bangladeshi engineers working on them, and most labour are Bangladeshi too.
There is always some risk in foreign debt and its effect on national sovereignty certainly other countries have found themselves into debt traps ,Im not suggesting that Bangladesh is in this risk but China would have a motive in Bangladesh with India in mind
Is Bangladesh falling into a Chinese 'debt trap'? – DW – 07/11/2019
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
There is always some risk in foreign debt and its effect on national sovereignty certainly other countries have found themselves into debt traps ,Im not suggesting that Bangladesh is in this risk but China would have a motive in Bangladesh with India in mind
Is Bangladesh falling into a Chinese 'debt trap'? – DW – 07/11/2019
Of course China would. No one does anything here out of charity. As a smaller nation we have to play the part with all the powers to as maximize our benefit and minimize our security risks. We need the West as they are our biggest market, we need China and Russia as they are willing to share tech.

Bangladesh historically has always been very pro Russia despite being unaligned officially, as they had a hand to play in our independence. Russia just finished building a Nuclear powerplant, but already we face trouble for this. Several russian ships with nucelar fuel could not even dock in our ports due to sanctions. It was extremely humiliating for us. But alas what can we do we are small and poor and dont have much say in things.

The west had no problem when they were waging war in the middle east and conducting coups in the Americas. We traded with them normally and no one was talking of sanctions then, but when Russia does the same, just because it is near their doorsteps, all of sudden, the whole world must stand up to meaningless wars and follow the leads our great Moral leaders.

its not like we have a special preference for Russia or China, its that they are the only ones who are willing to share tech.The west will not offer to build nucelar powerplants at the prices of the Russians, but will punish us when we try to develop ourselves. They will not build bridges and infrastructure, but warrn us when China is doing it.

Its not like we are asking the West to give us things for free, we will take the loans and pay them for the Nuclear plants and the bridges but we are too beneath them for them to even make the offer, and when we take the only opportunity offered to us, we are punished for it. We have played by your rules, not waged any wars, followed neo liberal economics and followed your lead everywhere, but only to be insulted again and again. Now the Europeans are buying the gas from the Middle East that we used to buy and we cant even power our plants anymore and if we try to seek alternative fuel from Russia, we risk sanctions. You tell me how can we win??
 
Last edited:

Redshift

Active Member
Of course China would. No one does anything here out of charity. As a smaller nation we have to play the part with all the powers to as maximize our benefit and minimize our security risks. We need the West as they are our biggest market, we need China and Russia as they are willing to share tech.

Bangladesh historically has always been very pro Russia despite being unaligned officially, as they had a hand to play in our independence. Russia just finished building a Nuclear powerplant, but already we face trouble for this. Several russian ships with nucelar fuel could not even dock in our ports due to sanctions. It was extremely humiliating for us. But alas what can we do we are small and poor and dont have much say in things.

The west had no problem when they were waging war in the middle east and conducting coups in the Americas. We traded with them normally and no one was talking of sanctions then, but when Russia does the same, just because it is near their doorsteps, all of sudden, the whole world must stand up to meaningless wars and follow the leads our great Moral leaders.

its not like we have a special preference for Russia or China, its that they are the only ones who are willing to share tech.The west will not offer to build nucelar powerplants at the prices of the Russians, but will punish us when we try to develop ourselves. They will not build bridges and infrastructure, but warrn us when China is doing it.

Its not like we are asking the West to give us things for free, we will take the loans and pay them for the Nuclear plants and the bridges but we are too beneath them for them to even make the offer, and when we take the only opportunity offered to us, we are punished for it. We have played by your rules, not waged any wars, followed neo liberal economics and followed your lead everywhere, but only to be insulted again and again. Now the Europeans are buying the gas from the Middle East that we used to buy and we cant even power our plants anymore and if we try to seek alternative fuel from Russia, we risk sanctions. You tell me how can we win??
I think one problem is that's SE Asian countries don't understand how fearful Europe is of Russia, The east European states in particular remember the brutal regimes and the rolling tanks of the Soviet era.

East European countries flocked to NATO for protection from Russia, not to join a crusading empire with the intention of overcoming the Russians.

Western Europe has disarmed over the last twenty years whilst Russia has rearmed.

When did any European leader last brag about super weapons which could destroy any nation in the world?

Putin has announced super tanks, super ballistic missiles super nuke powered and nuke armed autonomous torpedoes , a plethora of hypersonic missiles, he and Russian media make repeated threats of annihilating European countries, Russia has forward based nuclear weapons in the exclave of Kaliningrad.

The truth is that Russia and Putin have been threatening Europe for some time now, they now make it look like we are the aggressors against them, no European leader has ever threatened Russia with war.

By allowing Putin to roll over Ukraine many here believe that he won't stop there, that he has every intention of recreating control, through force, of several other former Soviet states, possibly pushing through to Kaliningrad.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
The west had no problem when they were waging war in the middle east and conducting coups in the Americas. We traded with them normally and no one was talking of sanctions then, but when Russia does the same, just because it is near their doorsteps, all of sudden, the whole world must stand up to meaningless wars and follow the leads our great Moral leaders.
This attitude of either you with us or against us is reminiscing Post Cold war attitude. It is Collective West rights, however the Geopolitical and Geoeconomics calculation also already changed.

BRICS is just an example on that, China and India are at odds with each other, but also still keep business interaction to each other. US and West try to isolate Russia, but other BRICS members basically say we don't want to isolate Russia, and what can you do ?


This is what US do to India for India that doesn't want to isolate Russia. Practically "nothing" and in fact increase relationship and co-op level. Why? Because US need India as leverage against China. US talk India is incremental on reducing Russia oil revenues, as it is buying at discount price.

However that's kind of US comments for many in market is a 'joke'. Everybody (non West) buying Russian oil at discount level not because West 'oil cap', but because Transport costs. Off all Western sanctions, the most effective ones is sanction against insurance on Russian oil transportation at sea. India and China buying at discount to compensate increase costs on Tankers and insurance against it.

Whose benefits on that ? Mostly Chinese insurance market, and Tankers owners that many of them also Russian oligarchs that have those tankers on shadows companies flying other flags. Also don't forget, Chinese and Indian refineries buying those crudes from Russia and export them back to rest of Asia and some even found market in North America.


Many Asians buy those refineries hydrocarbon as it is easier to let Indian and Chinese taking the financial risks (as they bought in bulks bigger capacities), rather then taking financial (and potential Political risk) by themselves.

Is the rest of the World (especially non collective West and allies) agree on what Russian doing ? Off course not. Do they realistically understand what's Russia threat? yes they are. However they also understand Western threat. The West can say they don't threaten anyone, however for non western world, the actions of US and West after cold war practically waving guns to anyone that's 'consider' creating threat to Western interest.

This is shown in UN general assembly voting trends. When talking is Russia fault in invading Ukraine, mostly non West say yes. However the latest votes that practically ask the 'world' to follow Western sanctions movement toward Russia, most of non West increasingly abstain and stay in the fence.

Geopolitical calculation matter, and some of BRICS members like India and Brazil use that toward their own leverage. In fact for many of non West it was as reminiscing of Cold War era, where they're practically playing one side against another. After all everyone are using this for their own leverage.

On personal sides many Asians in many online forums are divide on how they are feeling on this. Off course most against Russian invasion, however quite many also remember how Euro treated initially on non 'white' refugees from Ukraine. How some Euro media don't understand how this war can happen to Euro back door, as supposedly should only happen in others non Euro back yards.

So in the end many simply say, "what do we care", it's the 'whites' fighting each other for change. Do the White going to care if it's happening to us ? Yes Ugly as it seems those sentiments, but this is the results of Geopolitical sentiment after the cold war. West is not a moral guidelines for many Non West especially after Cold War.

Now we are entering what seems new multipolar world order, which for me basically more and more become 'Cold War 2.0".
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This article provides some details on the profits of shipping and refining oil in Asia and effects on Russian revenue
Oil Shippers Rake In Billions From Russian Oil Trade | OilPrice.com
Russia has announced cuts to production of oil which is also likely to impact its budget
Russian Fuel Exports Stumble in Early Days After European Ban - Bloomberg
This article claims that less developed countries may be more impacted by the restrictions of capping
Russia to cut oil production in retaliation for Western sanctions | Washington Examiner
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
I think one problem is that's SE Asian countries don't understand how fearful Europe is of Russia, The east European states in particular remember the brutal regimes and the rolling tanks of the Soviet era.
--snipped for brevity--
@Redshift your point here is true. We in South/East Asia can understand the practical security and economic concerns but the impact of Russia/Cold War on western political/social thinking and conscious and the existential nature is something only Europeans can truly appreciate. (Us outsiders will never really "feel" the fear or trauma of a neighour like Russia)

It is a useful illustration that this sort of historical and geographical basis influences our decision making and thought process. The points that @Ananda and @T.C.P is trying to make is while we can share basic and "common truths" (e.g Russia is ultimately culpable for this situation and in is fully in their hand to end the conflict), the practical actions that SEA / South Asia / BRICS can and will do would be different.

Because because we might have a different level of action or conclusion doesn't mean we don't know of our bias or why. (looking at @Vivendi , his occasional "mansplainsing" reinforces this sterotype of the white man that feels the need to educate us non-Europeans on how we should wake up who is the "real enemy")
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Here’s an article suggesting fighter jets for Ukraine in exchange for peace talks along with territorial concessions to the Russians. Likely a non starter IMO and hardly a guarantee Russia won’t start things again once they rebuild their military. Replace the fighters with nuclear weapons and maybe Ukraine would consider giving up Crimea. Ukraine should never have given up the Soviet nukes they had.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Here’s an article suggesting fighter jets for Ukraine in exchange for peace talks along with territorial concessions to the Russians. Likely a non starter IMO and hardly a guarantee Russia won’t start things again once they rebuild their military. Replace the fighters with nuclear weapons and maybe Ukraine would consider giving up Crimea. Ukraine should never have given up the Soviet nukes they had.

Ukraine had no realistic way to keep those nukes. As for talks with Moscow... I suspect they will happen once the US wants them to happen. Ukraine is completely dependent on foreign military aid. The real solution is to make NATO membership part of the deal. That would make a second Russian go impossible. And would force Ukraine to resolve the territorial aspects.
 

Pukovnik7

Member
Here’s an article suggesting fighter jets for Ukraine in exchange for peace talks along with territorial concessions to the Russians. Likely a non starter IMO and hardly a guarantee Russia won’t start things again once they rebuild their military. Replace the fighters with nuclear weapons and maybe Ukraine would consider giving up Crimea. Ukraine should never have given up the Soviet nukes they had.

I suggested that once and was told that Ukraine didn't have launch codes in any case - these were just Soviet nukes on Ukrainian territory. So even if Ukraine could have kept them and in operable state, they had no way of using them.
 
Top