Russia - General Discussion.

[Ananda]

Well off course you and anyone with western superiority complex will see very grim future for those in Global South. It is your right anyway.

However the Global South is increasingly independent doesn't mean they are in bed with Russia or China. They just want to stay away from being told what to do and dictate by some condescending attitudes.

Just like some in West talk those that doesn't follow them as corrupt, while those that in bed with them are democratics.

 

[Vivendi]

Well off course you and anyone with western superiority complex will see very grim future for those in Global South. It is your right anyway.

I see a very grim future for Global South mainly because of climate change, unless urgent action is taken. Bedding with Russia in particular, but also China, will not help in this respect.

However the Global South is increasingly independent doesn't mean they are in bed with Russia or China. They just want to stay away from being told what to do and dictate by some condescending attitudes.

Well, they can try that and see how well it goes. Being "independent" will turn out to be very hard, apart from the largest countries. So I guess most will end up either with the "West" or with China/Russia. Bedding with Russia and China comes with a high cost. Russia and China are not focusing on things like fighting corruption or supporting democracy. That does not mean that they don't have their own "interests". China's policy of "non-interference" only applies as long as China's own interests are not at stake. When they are, things change quite rapidly. The same goes for Russia.

If they want to not be dictated, moving towards Russia and China makes no sense. "Multipolarity" means the world becomes more like a jungle. Eat or be eaten.

 

[Ananda]

Multipolarity" means the world becomes more like a jungle. Eat or be eaten.

Well that's from West Point of view. The other POV is also means more bargaining power for little power (relatively) in Global South. Do you honestly believe currently it is not already law of the juggle with Western Hegemony Unipolar? Look on the reality.

Most will come with either West or Russia-China? Multipolar is not same with Bipolar World. The bargaining power from some in Global South also increasing, that they can create their own polar. However for one thing again is the world will represent more market power that control by not one center. Unipolar actually is more prone to the law of jungle.

Bedding with Russia in particular, but also China, will not help in this respect.

So the answer is to follow Western market demands, that keep the industrial edge in the West, right? Well for that most of Global South can say no thank you. Besides is the green economy only come from the West? That's really condescending thought.

Global South will need industrialisation. Industrialisation is the most effective way to increase population from poverty trap. If West doesn't like China dominate Global South infrastructure development, then do the same thing. Out bid China on Global South development, instead complaining on China and Russia drive.

Why should Global South going to use more expensive Western Tech, if they can come to industrialisation stage using Chinese, Russia, or Indian tech. If it is much cheaper for African countries, buying train from India for example then buying from France, then they will go if it's make sense. Off the course the quality is different, but if it's can work with fraction of costs, then why not.

Why should Global South buy solar panel or wind turbines from Europe, when they can buy it from China in much cheaper costs. China also going green, and what base your claim that the green tech only available from West? That only West can provide Climate Change environment? Get into reality.

West is already rich, while most of Global South are not. However most of Global South that control the commodities needed. So stop lecturing this is for democracies against authoritarian. This is about who can control the market in future.

Btw, non interference only come from Russia and China? West is the most interfering forces on Global South for decades. What they've done now is claiming more bargaining power, which some in West off course doesn't like it.

 

[Vivendi]

@Ananda you are reading things into my post that simply was not there... I will leave it at that.

 

[Ananda]

Off course what's new. You will always say that I'm reading on your post that's not there. When simply it is there.

 

[tonnyc]

I just want to point out that the recent BRICS statement trying to make it look like Russia and China are part of the Global South is bullshit.

Russia and China are not part of the Global South. They benefit greatly from their position in the northern hemisphere and while they are valuable trade partners, they aren't part of the Global South and they consider other northern hemisphere countries to be the ones closest to them in outlook and culture. Ask a Russian which country is the most like them and they'll pick an Eastern European country, probably Belarus or Hungary. Ask a Chinese the same question and they're likely to answer Korea.

Russia's largest trade partners prior to the war are the EU. China's largest trade partners (if we exclude HK) are the USA, then Japan and South Korea. All of which are part of the northern hemisphere. If a country from the Global South ask for a serious sacrifice from either of Russia or China, they'll refuse.

 

[Ananda]

Russia and China is not part of Global South, it is some pundit in West that make it. Global South will try more and more to balance and bargain between Russia-China and US/West.

However it is also a big BS that say Global South is in bed with Russia-China, because they don't follow Western policy and demand. Global South it self is huge in number but most of them are small in Power. The expectations of Global South can create another Non Allign Movement like in Cold War is also not going to happen.

Some in Global South (can be India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia) increasing also gain their niche power base. Which then make them want to beindependent in bargain, and not to be dictate. Behind them the other emerging Global South like Chile, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, Nigeria, South Africa and several others will want more bargaining power.

So, they have no illusion that Russia-China will be their savior, as much illusion that West will be their savior. The world always be rule by law of the strongest. No illusion that that's change. Whether the stronger one will dictate the weaker ones by arms or by trade, it is not much different.

Some saying this is a new cold War. Could be that, but also the power distribution is different from cold War. Jeffrey Sachs also right on one thing. For most of Cold War US Strategist do their best to make Soviet and China not in bed together. Now they (US) push China and Russia together.

I know for some Proff Sachs is not popular, but for us in market, especially from non West desk, he also has some points. Unipolar world not working because US and West weaponise the market. Market should be the neutral thing that work only for business needs. When you weaponise that market, alternative will come out. Thus when alternative market comes out, then alternative polar is the results, which push for Multipolar. So West it self that push creation of Multipolar.

 

[Vivendi]

Interestingly China has been "weaponizing the market" for quite some time... Countries that act in a way that China strongly disagrees with, are punished through the market. For instance Australia suggested that the origin of COVID should be investigated, and they were immediately punished through the market by China for making such a statement.

Also Russia is "weaponizing the market" -- in particular the global food market, by holding parts of the "global south" hostage by leaving the grain export agreement with Ukraine and even bombing infrastructure needed to store and/or ship grain.

However I personally see a huge difference between the "weaponizing of the market" that the West is doing regarding both NK and Russia, vs. what China and even more so Russia is doing.

 

[Ananda]

No they are not. China and Russia is not weaponise the market. The market mechanics, the payment system and the financial trade is still control by West. What West done is weaponise the market mechanics. The medium exchange system that make market work.

However I personally see a huge difference between the "weaponizing of the market" that the West is doing regarding both NK and Russia, vs. what China and even more so Russia is doing.

Clearly you don't understand what Proff Sachs and market people means by weaponise the market. Weaponise the market is to distrub market mechanics toward your political rival. China and Russia by that time is working on Western lead market. China and Russia can't weaponise the market, cause the mechanics of the market control by market center in the West.

Market trade can work due to financial exchange systems. Weaponise that, thus push others to create alternative financial system. This create another polar. Do you think West control the market by controlling physical trade? No West control the market by controlling the financial and payment systems. Those are the main strength of the West.

Your example are on physical trade. Barrier in physical trade is one thing and not stopping you to access trade, as you still can move to another buyer within the market. You disrupt the financial systems, then you disrupt the financial access. That's isolate you from physical trading.

West hope to do that to Russia, however the others don't agree, thus creating alternative payment and financial systems for Russian trade. That's create alternative market. That's create another polar.

Off course there's different on how West weaponise the market, cause it is much destructive the effects. Again West not control physical trade, but control financial and payment access of the market. It is much destructive then what China and Russia can done then. Unless Russia-China create their own financial markets systems, which is what happens now.

They're not going to build or attract others for alternative market, if West not weaponise it first. It is create distrust for Western systems, which make some decided to find alternative. Some because they are being lock out by West (this has no choice). Some because want to find alternative to maintain bargaining power.

In the end the results is same, alternative market create alternative polar. In short West disrupt their own strength base. That's what Proff Sachs and some in market point out but ignore by Western politicians.

 

[Vivendi]

Regarding Prof. Sachs: I strongly recommend people that are interesting in him and his viewpoints to read the following letter, signed by a very long list of economists: Open letter to Jeffrey Sachs on the Russia-Ukraine war | Berkeley

 

[Ananda]

Like I said not everyone like Proff Sachs. However doesn't mean his wrong on West destructive policy on Market. Something that push others to create alternative.

 

[Vivendi]

No they are not. China and Russia is not weaponise the market. The market mechanics, the payment system and the financial trade is still control by West. What West done is weaponise the market mechanics. The medium exchange system that make market work.

They are weaponizing the market within their capabilities. As you point out Russia/China do not control the payment system and the financial trade so they cannot weaponize it like "the West", still, they do their best to weaponize trade. If Russia had control over the payment system, do you really think they would not consider to weaponize it? Of course they would, and if they decided it would serve their interests, then they would do so. Same with China. So, what's your point?

Like I said not everyone like Proff Sachs. However doesn't mean his wrong on West destructive policy on Market. Something that push others to create alternative.

He is wrong and/or biased on so many things that I think he should be ignored. Why don't you quote somebody with a bit more credibility?

 

[Ananda]

So, what's your point?

Read it again, West disrupt their own financial system. Thus creating the alternative market, which push faster multipolar order.

is wrong and/or biased on so many things that I think he should be ignored. Why don't you quote somebody with a bit more credibility?

Lack Credibility? Because he is not like by some Ukrainian and Pro Ukrainian economist? Read again his track record, his work with IMF, and other Governments through out Global South.

His credibility is enough, even though not by some Western bias like you.

Interview: Economist Jeffrey Sachs on how India can rebalance the world | THE WEEK — Jeffrey D. Sachs

Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs is one of the most influential voices that predict the end of American hegemony and a unipolar world. A global expert in sustainable development, he is an unabashed critic of the apathy of rich countries, especially the US, in financing solutions for issues like poverty an

www.jeffsachs.org

He is quite have follower in Global South. Off course for Western bias like you, means not credible. Only those who agree on everything West is credible ones, right?

 

[swerve]

No they are not. China and Russia is not weaponise the market. ...

If not, it's only because their attempts to do so have mostly failed.

China has been trying for years to bully countries into being obedient, censoring their press, restricting free speech, etc. by refusing to buy their products.

Russia has recently tried to forcibly stop Ukrainian food exports to make various countries dependent on Russian food exports.

What else would you call that?

I know for some Proff Sachs is not popular, but for us in market, especially from non West desk, he also has some points. Unipolar world not working because US and West weaponise the market. Market should be the neutral thing that work only for business needs. When you weaponise that market, alternative will come out. Thus when alternative market comes out, then alternative polar is the results, which push for Multipolar. So West it self that push creation of Multipolar.

He's become unpopular since he started dodging questions about Chinese repression & instead talking about lesser repression by other countries, saying bloody stupid things such as that Ukraine should negotiate with Russia while Lavrov was demanding that Ukraine should capitulate & dismissing suggestions of negotiation, & many more similar things. He started behaving like a propagandist for Putin, Xi & other dictators.

 

[Redshift]

Read it again, West disrupt their own financial system. Thus creating the alternative market, which push faster multipolar order.



Lack Credibility? Because he is not like by some Ukrainian and Pro Ukrainian economist? Read again his track record, his work with IMF, and other Governments through out Global South.

His credibility is enough, even though not by some Western bias like you.

Interview: Economist Jeffrey Sachs on how India can rebalance the world | THE WEEK — Jeffrey D. Sachs

Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs is one of the most influential voices that predict the end of American hegemony and a unipolar world. A global expert in sustainable development, he is an unabashed critic of the apathy of rich countries, especially the US, in financing solutions for issues like poverty an

www.jeffsachs.org

He is quite have follower in Global South. Off course for Western bias like you, means not credible. Only those who agree on everything West is credible ones, right?

Do you really need to call out "western bias" every time somebody disagrees with your position?

This is a rhetorical question, there is no need to answer it.

 

[Dead Money]

North Korea will ‘pay a price’ if it supplies arms to Russia, says US

Providing weapons to Moscow for Ukraine war will not ‘reflect well on North Korea’, national security adviser says, amid reports of active talks

www.theguardian.com

I don't know if I going to be bit chuckled on this or perplexed. What price that US going to give Kim at this stage as side directly invade North Korea? NK is total isolation by US for decades already. What US can still give 'punishment' to NK as side direct invading? US already lost any leverage to NK. Seems some in Washington believe that NK will follow US efforts to isolate Russia.

Put this as some US officials talking on "International Isolation" on Russia even during Asean meeting. When Lavrov also being invited, thus shown Asean not isolating Russia.

US Vice-President Kamala Harris calls North Korea-Russia military support ‘huge mistake’

Ms Harris added that it would further isolate both countries. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Seems some in US and West keep believe, that their Isolation equal to International isolation or even Global isolation. Are US and West still have illusions that the rest of Global South will follow what they want as two decades ago?

US pressuring South Asia in order to promote its own interests: Lavrov

Sergey Lavrov becomes first Russian foreign minister to visit Bangladesh since its independence in 1971 - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

Like it or not by West, most Global South are more and more independent on putting their own Agenda on this increasingly multipolar world.

I think you are correct. My understanding is that food aid to North Korea has dropped from 2022 and 2023:

A glimmer of hope for North Korea in 2023 | East Asia Forum

2022 marked another challenging year for North Korea, but the resumption of trade with China and the easing of COVID-19 restrictions provide a small measure of hope going into 2023.

www.eastasiaforum.org

I don't see any national interest reason as to why North Korea would hold off on providing weapons and ongoing supply of such to Russia in return for food, money, or technology. I'm not happy about it - but the world doesn't move based on what we think 'should' occur, it moves on interests and opportunities.

The only consolation I have on the impact in Ukraine is my understanding of the 'quality' of North Korean weapons.

 

[Feanor]

I think you are correct. My understanding is that food aid to North Korea has dropped from 2022 and 2023:

A glimmer of hope for North Korea in 2023 | East Asia Forum

2022 marked another challenging year for North Korea, but the resumption of trade with China and the easing of COVID-19 restrictions provide a small measure of hope going into 2023.

www.eastasiaforum.org

I don't see any national interest reason as to why North Korea would hold off on providing weapons and ongoing supply of such to Russia in return for food, money, or technology. I'm not happy about it - but the world doesn't move based on what we think 'should' occur, it moves on interests and opportunities.

The only consolation I have on the impact in Ukraine is my understanding of the 'quality' of North Korean weapons.

No reason to think they can't provide adequate quality dumb shells for Soviet D-1s, D-20s, D-30s, etc. They can't provide advanced kit realistically (Iran for example sent Kornet ATGM clones to Russia). But for the basic stuff they could be quite a source. Especially since Russia has the cash.

 

[Ananda]

not, it's only because their attempts to do so have mostly failed.

The context is from Market Players and some Economist including Proff Sachs on the Western politicians that weaponise western lead market, which lead to others creating alternative market. This it self fasten multipolar order. Thus Western lead Unipolar is destroy by West politics it self. That's the context.

Russia and China can't yet weaponise the market mechanics, because they are not controlling the 'western' lead market mechanics. Refusing to buy someone goods is part of physical trade (as China do) or physical war (as Russia do), and not interfering with market mechanics. That's totally different context.

Russia-China can only weaponise market mechanics if their already creating their own market mechanics (which they are now trying to build and try to attract others to participate). Market mechanics again is more related to medium mechanics that make trade works. That's why the market actually is financial markets. Financial markets is the medium that makes trade works in this modern world.

Again West main strength on global trade is because they are controlling financial market not physical trade itself. However without financial markets, then physical trade it self is very hard to do. This is the context on West weaponise the market. Comparing China and Russia do on physical trade and West done on financial market is comparing apple and orange.

He started behaving like a propagandist for Putin, Xi & other dictators.

Like I said from beginning, not everyone like Proff Sachs. I my self even said in one of post in this thread not agree in everything with him, especially his political stances.

However doesn't make his wrong on the matter of West weaponise their own market mechanics. He is not wrong that Western politicians tempering with their own market fundamental principles, which is main stregth of the West especially after WW2. This is also supported by some market players (mostly big banks and financial analysts) that warn the Western politicians on this matter.

His politics is not popular by some in the West, but not making him lossing credibility (especially in Global South) related to economics and market.

 

[Ananda]

you really need to call out "western bias" every time somebody disagrees with your position?

I'm calling that only to one, and not everyone so far in my history in this forums. I reply that because you say everytime. That's accusation that I need to clarify.

 

[ngatimozart]

North Korea will ‘pay a price’ if it supplies arms to Russia, says US

Providing weapons to Moscow for Ukraine war will not ‘reflect well on North Korea’, national security adviser says, amid reports of active talks

www.theguardian.com

I don't know if I going to be bit chuckled on this or perplexed. What price that US going to give Kim at this stage as side directly invade North Korea? NK is total isolation by US for decades already. What US can still give 'punishment' to NK as side direct invading? US already lost any leverage to NK. Seems some in Washington believe that NK will follow US efforts to isolate Russia.

Put this as some US officials talking on "International Isolation" on Russia even during Asean meeting. When Lavrov also being invited, thus shown Asean not isolating Russia.

US Vice-President Kamala Harris calls North Korea-Russia military support ‘huge mistake’

Ms Harris added that it would further isolate both countries. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Seems some in US and West keep believe, that their Isolation equal to International isolation or even Global isolation. Are US and West still have illusions that the rest of Global South will follow what they want as two decades ago?

US pressuring South Asia in order to promote its own interests: Lavrov

Sergey Lavrov becomes first Russian foreign minister to visit Bangladesh since its independence in 1971 - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

Like it or not by West, most Global South are more and more independent on putting their own Agenda on this increasingly multipolar world.

Don't know how the US is going to sanction NK more. About the only thing they haven't sanctioned is air and dunny (toilet) paper. The Russians will ignore any sanctions completely and the PRC will pay lip service at best. What is interesting about this is Kim's opportunity to play Russia off against the PRC, just like his granddaddy did. The only difference was back then the USSR and PRC weren't very tolerant of each other, but today they are bedroom buddies. One thing that could possibly happen is that the PRC funnels ammo to Russia via NK. Gives them plausible deniability and if any PRC ammo fails to go bang in Ukraine providing evidence with Chinese characters on it, then the PRC can claim that "we sold it to NK and naughty Kim exported it to Russia without our permission; how sad, too bad, never mind."