LOL! another joke!

Of course, if these rebels could lay their hands on a single American soldier - forget 150 - in Debaltseve, they will be parading them on camera for the world to see. There's no better morale booster for these "Russian fighters" than presenting a captured US military personnel.

"Stunning report" indeed.

I am interested in this case. To all experienced lawyers in the house, if you were to take up this case, can please you quote an approximate figure for your services?

The demands will be as follows

i) To immediately secure the release of the defendant

ii) To seek an injunction that denounces the arrests and detention of the defendant as illegal

iii)To seek an injunction against further arrests until the case is fully debated at the state high court

iv) To immediately institute proceedings against the state police & the bank for the illegal arrest and detention of the defendant in a direct breech of constitutional guarantees as a citizen of Nigeria.

Appleyard:


Are you sure about this?
There is no nation in ths world that can internally generate or produce all that it needs. No nation is internally 'isolated', either from ' outside profits' or outside crisis'.
Now,if Russia implodes, and the EU suffers massively, the next on the line of the fall would be the US. The reasons are here:

The influence of global shocks on American economy is so minimal that it can be ignored - starting from Asian crises in 1997, Russia crises in 1998, European debt crises in 2009 etc.. America's economy is robust and diversified. While many countries are exposed to a shock in American economy, America by itself is relatively immune from a shock in other places.

There's no point using military options - too costly..

Realy? Or that u just cant walk into a nation with enough nuclear arsenals capable of exterminating the entire globe?
Lets face it! The US can not militarily directly respond to any Russian military incursion, anywhere,anyday, Let alone at its own door steps. The little it could do was train and supply arms to Russia's foes-Georgia and Ukrain. Even its so called mercenaries (we all know they are regular foreign forces-US and NATO) covertly deployed to the East of Ukrain, are being ripped apart by the seperatists.
And the US didnt think it costly to put down men there and supply weapons.

You still don't get it! - There's no point going to war if victory can be achieved by sitting patiently at home while you watch your enemy implode.

In both militarily and economically, the US has huge advantages over Russia. So the US gets to choose the battle ground. If it chooses to respond militarily then there will be enormous costs - human cost, property & financial - to both sides. If it chooses to respond economically, the cost will be only to one side - Russia! The US has nothing to lose from this angle, Russia has much more to lose.

It is like fighting a pig - if you get down dirty with the pig, you will be soiled and you will stink at the end of the day - the best strategy is simply to let the pig starve.

Russia has no means to fight back.

Are you kidden me?
For instance, Russia could make America’s retreat from Afghanistan a hellish experience. A key supply line, known as the Northern Distribution Network – which brings food, water and war materials that keep America’s longest war going – runs partly through Russia or allied former Soviet republics. If Putin decides to shut down the network, the only alternative for the US military would be to be totally dependent on the Pakistan route. America’s nightmare scenario is to be trapped between the Taliban in Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban in the north.

LOL! That same route argument.

That route was opened - 8 years after NATO went into Afghanistan. If the US/NATO could survive 8 years without that route, i am pretty confident they can really do without it. Of course it will be inconvenient, but probably not the worst thing that can happen. Russia on the other hand will lose out of millions of dollars that is paid annually just to use that route. I think most people expected Russia to have closed the route already - the fact that they haven't done so shows that they consider that the benefit to them outweighs the costs to the US/NATO,

But Russia is the world's largest exporter of energy and industrial metals, and if Putin disrupted the supply of any of its international commodities, it could indirectly hit the U.S. by raising the prices of oil and the materials needed to build airplanes, cars, and scores of other big-ticket items.
Tell me that wont affect the US?

It will be the dumbest thing for Russia to do - at a time when the global supply for commodities is far more than the global demand. The cost of commodities have fallen by a large amount in the last 3 years - If Russia causes a supply shock, it will simply bring the prices back to their fair value - Russia on the other hand will see much bigger economic pain.

That's very much like shooting yourself in the foot.

Right now, The EU is already sweating from the seemingly inevitable prospect of getting its much needed Russian gas through Turkey, a well defined EU 'hardliner'.
What abt the Iran's P5+1? Russian can choose to derail talks.

Russia could derail the talks - but that will work to Iran's disadvantage not to its advantage. Iran's economy is practically stymied.

It wasnt Russians that are now burning the EU flag and trowing unsold agric products at government officials and buildings. So the claim that Russia had suffered most from that sanction is infounded.

Of course some angry farmers lost their markets - but most of them are compensated by the European council...nothing to see here, move along.

The Russian people are getting poorer, many have lost their jobs and mortgages.
If there is one thing i hate in my life, it is outright lies and falsehood. This is the penchant of the Main Stream Media, in collaboration with the US controlled Rating Bodies. Why?
Russia is poorer on the short run. But on the long run, it shall be stronger.

This is nothing from he main stream media -

You can check here for Russia media on the story:

http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/770555 : Migrants leaving Russia due to economic hardship
http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/769170 : Putin blaming the West and corruption for economic hardship

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/officials-suggest-russians-could-face-economic-crisis-by-eating-less/514850.html

: Russians are being advised to eat less

So also is your 'unskated' US whose economy, responding to both internal and external factors, crashed in 2007/2008.

I never denied that the US is too big to fail. The only difference is if the US fails, it will bring down many countries along with it, including China.

Dont worry, at the end of the year, by God's grace, i will chat you up to say 'rosiya'. Because this current oil price wont last long.. Not with the US shale already suffocating from its effect.

Oh dear! Are you crying for Russia?

Its better to buy a Russian gas that is twice cheaper than the shale the US can offer.

The US is actually less reluctant to sell its shale - It is Europe that is begging to buy.

The world is fast becoming less dependent on oil and gas.

What a fairy tale-dream! They said this 30yrs ago. But there had been no time that the world had become more dependent on oil than it currently is. For better understanding,

It appears that critical & indepth thinking is not your forte. The collapse in oil prices is not just due to shale boom, but also due to global demand factors. The demand for oil is now lower than it has ever been in the last decade. Cars are now being built to run more efficiently with lower mpg. Fuel efficiency is the dominating theme in Europe and North America

wow. You interest me the more. Pls tell us. Why then are they targeting the Nations in the de-Dollarization mode? Saddam-Iraq taking out, Gadafi-Libya taking out, Sudan torn in two, Nigeria now suffocating, Venezuela, Agentina brazil and Angola in birth-pains, and now Russia. Red alert in China-Hongkong, Egypt-Muslim brotherhood.

The US have made several enemies and several partners - but speculations that the US will purposely target a country due to "de-dollarization" is simply brainless. Those who speculate "de-dollarization" in the media are mostly ignorance dunces who know nothing about global trade. Most of the countries that you mention survive only because they have a huge trade-surplus relative to the US. i.e they sell more to the US more than the US buys from them. In addition, many of them sell more goods to the US more than any country. For example, more than a fifth of china's total export is to the US - in return, China will be paid in US dollars . If China wishes to "de-dollarize" it will simply have to stop trading with the US - if it does so, many others - such as India will quickly take its place.

Any economic sanctions imposed on Russia over its response to the crisis in Ukraine will also impact the United States and its followers. But while Moscow will dust itself off and move on, the recession-hit West needs the money desperately.
People in all free thinking countries should applaud the US call for sanctions against Russia. Why? Because it exposes the West’s complete inability to use the military option. Even if President Vladimir Putin sends all four divisions of the Russian Airborne Forces into Ukraine, the US and its allies can do very little in terms of retaliation.

The US is a country that grows internally. It is less impacted by events or shocks in the global economy. If Russia implodes economically, Europe will suffer, but the US will barely feel a scratch.

There's no point using military options - too costly, pointless loss of lives, and might even give your adversary some opportunity - In an economic war on the other hand, Russia has no means to fight back. It's attempt to fight back by leveling food sanctions came back to hurt its economy more than it did to the west- with food inflation now in the mid 30s. It seems to me that economic sanctions is the best strategy - It gives the West the leverage to fight in a position of strength, where Moscow is pretty much nothing but a sitting duck.

Of course, Vladimir Putin can take Kiev tomorrow if he wants to - but he will be repeating the same mistakes his soviet ancestors made - conquering a territory is only a part of the war, keeping the territory is not always as easy. The Soviets learnt this in Afghanistan, the Americans learnt it in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

As the US Congress leads the strident push for an economic boycott and the Western media keeps up the blitzkrieg of hatred against Russia, what is being ignored is that sanctions are a double-edged sword that will hurt everyone in a globalised economy. Sure, Putin will lose sleep but only because he’s laughing at the West’s clumsiness.
Face it, Russia is too big to fail
Only those who live under a rock – such as Senator John McCain, Victoria Nuland of the US Department of State and Ukrainians who have attained positions of power after a violent coup – will disagree that Russia is a wealthy country. Currently, Russia’s GDP per capita is the highest of all the BRICS countries. By 2020, the Russian economy will become the largest in Europe. Foreign direct investment into Russia rose by 83 percent in 2013 reaching $94 billion, the third highest total in the world after the US and China. That looks like a country everyone wants to do business with, not boycott.

The Western mdeia keeps up the blitzkrieg of hatred against Russia just as much as the Russian media keeps up its information war and hatred against the West and the USA. Its all fair game - except of course, the western media have much more resources and wider reach.

Putin looses sleep everyday, and for good reasons too. Two of its biggest banks - Gazprombank and VTB are failing and they need urgent bailouts, it's reserves are dwindling, and its currency is crashing. The Russian people are getting poorer, many have lost their jobs and mortgages denominated in foreign currency have become more expensive. If i were Putin, i would lose sleep too.

Russia is not too big to fail. Russia's economy failed in 1998, and it is heading towards the same direction. If sanctions are not lifted and if Oil prices remain at the current level, Russia will fail again by the end of this year. I find it curious that you quoted foreign direct investment but you used a figure from 2013, care to use a figure from 2014? Yep, i know, that doesn't suit your pointless rant.

This isn’t 1980, when President Jimmy Carter – a peasant way over his head in events he couldn't begin to understand – led the US and its allies to impose blanket sanctions on the erstwhile Eastern Bloc. Today, on the other hand, there is a great deal of interdependence between the Russian and European economies.
The US business community has clearly stated it wants to avoid unilateral sanctions against Moscow because it believes competitors in Europe could gain market share as a result.

“We in the business community do not want to be caught in the crossfire,” says Myron Brilliant, executive vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Arnaud Leclerc, managing director of Swiss private banking firm Lombard Odier, says sanctions would harm the US. “In 2013, Russia exported goods worth $27 billion to the US and imported goods worth $11 billion from the United States,” he says.
Europe has its own interests to protect. The European Union currently ranks as Russia’s number one trading partner, accounting for almost 41 percent of all trade. Germany has invested heavily in Russia’s manufacturing sector while nearly 6,000 UK traders exported goods to Russia last year. Nearly 10 percent of Britain’s car exports are to Russia, and an even higher proportion of Germany’s.
Energy weapon

Exported goods worth 27 billion to us and imported 11 billion dollars worth of goods from the US - Now, apply some common sense, if the relationship breaks down, who stands to lose more? Yep! Sanctions against Russia is almost one sided, it has absolutely no effect on the US.

Europe has business interest with Russia, but that is not what is at stake.

The Russian oil and gas pipeline network – which is 259,913 km long and can loop around the Earth more than six times – is the lifeline of Europe. Germany gets half of its daily consumption of 2.8 billion barrels of oil from Russia mainly via the Druzhba pipeline through Belarus. In 2012, Russia accounted for 24 percent of all gas exports to Germany, 19 percent to Turkey, 11 percent to Italy, 6 percent to France, 6 percent to the UK, 10 percent to other countries in Western Europe and 24 percent to Eastern Europe.

Who cares if the Russian oil and gas network can extend to Mars? First fact - the world is fast becoming less dependent on oil and gas. Alternative technology is likely to be the dominating trend for the next century. Second fact - the need for oil and gas is actually much more lower with lower trends in global growth. Of course, Europe and Asia still needs Russia as its gas station - beyond that, it is pretty much a useless country.

Russia has large reserves of dollars and is active in the US debt market. Currently, it holds $490 billion, the fifth largest reserves in the world. According to presidential adviser Sergei Glazyev, one option before Moscow is to abandon the US dollar as a reserve currency, or to figure out a way to use a new payments system that is not reliant on US dollars for international transactions.

If Russians will put their money where their mouth is, they will simply sell off all their US dollar reserves and change their currency into roubles - of course, this will be suicidal. The fact that they hold some dollar reserves is why their economy keeps running. The US cannot be bothered if Russia chooses to abandon the dollar.

I am surprised at the quality and depth of Iweala's answers - she certainly isn't as sophisticated as i thought and hoped she was

The real tragedy is not that we have incompetent people in government, but that a country with over 160 million people cannot come up with more suitable alternatives.

Buhari is not going to be a better alternative - simply because he lacks a workable vision for the economic development of the country.

It is sad but true - Nigeria may never be the land of dreams in our lifetime.

I think this is an interesting topic, i wonder if the mods could promote it a little?

dollz:
@drlawizzle,if ur that pissed,pls free to join the band of protesters
car has been sold
Not sure whts wrong with nairaland peeps this days.* u want to buy/inspect a car and u cant spend 100naira to call...
"Gripes''

Your number is no longer here.

I'd love to call, not for the car though.

Dictatorships have their advantages over democracies (decisions and executions are done much more quickly). But ultimately any dictatorship will fail. It was dictatorship that allowed Stalin to murder tens of millions of innocent Russians and it was dictatorship that allowed Gorbachev to transform a superpower into a basket case in just one day. In a dictatorship everything changes when a new ruler comes to power; but not so in a democracy, where things are more stable and balanced and there are many centers of power besides the president (parliament, media, courts, NGOs, public opinion, local governments, etc). Putin might be patriotic and even smart, but he can go crazy any moment or his successor might go crazy, and the Russian people won't be able to do anything about it because Russia is now a dictatorship, and its elections are fake.

Russia has around 23% of all the natural resources of planet earth. It's not only oil and gas. There are plenty of precious metals, rare earth metals, diamonds, fresh water, wood, coal, fish, building material, etc. Russia is the only country on earth with borders very close to all three global economic centers (North America, Western Europe and East Asia). If Russia had a Western mentality it could take advantage of its geological and geographical advantages to become the richest country in the world, with the highest GDP per capita in the world. We would all be speaking Russian by now, instead of English. But instead of developing his country from inside, Putin tries to use force abroad. maybe to divert the attention from his economic failure.

Even China moved away from communist dictatorship to a capitalistic technocracy ruled by a group of people with the power to balance and check each other. In Russia there is no one to check or balance Czar Putin.

That is a fact. If you think it is false, post your counter claim.
Submarine probing is less aggressive because they are usually deployed for deterrent and first strike/counter strike capabilities or intelligence gathering. How can u even compare it to a strategic flight? Strategic flights test responses, update target portfolios and spy on troop movements. They are preludes to any bombing campaign. The cost of scrabbling an interceptor to wade off the flight is another thing.

There is no reason to believe any policy will work. If peace is what the Europeans want, every offer should be on the table. Its either u guarantee/strategize stability or not. American scholars are usually quick to see Russia as aggressive but you cant change the mentality of a country that was build and expanded because of its security. Words are not enough to assure any state that its security is guaranteed, actions are important was well. And NATO has to assure that!

I could dig around for evidence of Russian strategic flights during those periods, but my belief is that they were rather under-reported as opposed to non-existence.

Of course, subs are equally as provocative - they could intercept communications in undersea cables, spy on warships and equally test detection capabilities - forget the psychological effect they could have once their target country become suspicious of their presence, they carry real threats that could devastate entire countries.

I seem to deduce from your post that peace initiatives has to be the responsibilities of NATO alone - this would be a dangerous notion - a fine line has to be drawn between appeasement and and actual peace initiatives that work. NATO must remain armed to the teeth and reinforce its objective to defend each and every member from external aggression. History has shown with Hitler that appeasement never works, deterring a potential adversary with the will and capacity to fight back if under attack - may yet be the best way to guarantee peace.

It has nothing to do with Good cop bad cop. Most of Russia debts and loans are From French and Italian banks due to the good relationship between Belsconni/ Putin and Medvedev/Sarkozy. Apart from the Mistrals that the French are building, the former Russian defense chief signed around 5-6 different frigate deals with the french (Half built in Russia and Half in France) and most of are overpriced because Medvedev have always tried too hard to please the West. Poland is very inconsequential in the scheme of things. they are the attack dogs with no diplomatic might to influence much (Apart from Influencing Ukraine).

Of course, asides from the mistrals, there is also the need to keep relationship open to mitigate against an unintended potential confrontation (my bad cop good cop reference) - Since G20 in Brisbane, which was followed closely by Merkel's hardline speech, Russia was pretty much getting isolated from the Western world. The feeling was that if Merkel couldn't reason with Putin, the deadlock may probably get harder.

Additionally, france was pretty much in a tight spot with the Mistrals, hence the pressure to resolve issues as soon as possible

Do you really think the Eastern Europeans and the Baltics have any weight in NATO and the EU? They are Subordinates to the great powers like Germany,UK and France. In fact, they would never be seen as the same EVER!

They tried to force NATO adopt MAP (Membership Action Plan) in Bucharest that would have allowed Georgia and Ukraine join NATO in 2008 they were overruled. Those countries are lightweights in the alliance. . I am not even sure Article 5 could be triggered if one of the Baltic states is attacked. What they have is a false sense on security.

What bargaing chip does Ukraine have left? Mention one! Sanctions wont really increase, they won't get front line weapons(counter productive coz Russia will just send in more tanks), and they still have to pay for gas. The only card they have the have already played. They froze utilities and payments to the Donbass. No matter what hand they play next, they will never control the Donbass again because the independence is now tied to Putin's credibility and political career and he will not give it up. They are still Russia's largest trading partner so if Russia burns(unlikely), they are going down with it.


You seem to be supporting the narrative that the West are perfect and Russia is the unpredictable actor. You are very far from the truth. How is Russia a revisionist? Since 1940, America have always burned the soviets/Russians. The difference is they are sitting up.

There are no good guys or bad guys. Every country have different interests.

You are right, they probably don't have much voice to influence major policies, but they could stink up the joint if they want to. I would not be too quick to suggest that the article 5 will not be triggered in the case they come under attack. This is a pretty fine line which even the Russians are careful to cross.

Of course, Ukraine is in a better negotiating position. You only need to read the Russian press to see that the Russians are doing all they can to ensure a lasting cease fire. The sanctions and the current oil price is bleeding the Russian economy dry - Capital inflow to Russia is pretty much frozen and the central bank has drawn a huge chunk out of its foreign reserve. Companies are unable to refinance their debts, which are getting passed on to the government and - according to the economic minister - their Asian friends are not lining up to extend credit services . SO Russians want this resolved as soon as possible! - This is why Ukraine is in a better negotiating position, it can afford to stall, the Russians can't.

Donbass is fast becoming a burden on an economically weak Russia. Economic activity there is dead. Infrastructures are badly damaged and will cost a lot to rebuild. Russia probably wants to shed this off their tank, but their influence within Donesk and Lughansk is not necessarily unlimited. Which was why Lavrov stressed that Moscow wants Donesk and Lughansk to remain a part of Ukraine

Russia's annexation of crimea is an opportunistic move - it has very little to do with Russian fears of NATO vessels - The Russian's saw an opportunity and they went for a land grab, this is an unpredictable move, spurred on by a Russia that is bent on fixing errors in its past. This is why NATO expanded up to Russia's doorstep - because its neighbors can not afford to relax and hope the bear will be kinder to them.
Putin already made a veil threat towards Kazakhstan - who knows who's next?

I am not support the notion that the West is perfect, I am simply taking a perspective, and my points may come across as such

Russia DID NOT conduct any LRRPs over the us between 1993 to around 2010. This is a fact because they could not afford it. US is too far to spy at with a plane. you have to rely on modern methods (subs, sats, etc). Unlike Russia, USAF can conduct flights near Russia from their NATO member state and have been doing it since the cold war.

Do you know this for a fact or are you simply quoting Mr Putin?

If we do take it for a fact, there's is a high probability that they probed North American waters with their subs, is this any less aggressive than the supposed strategic flights?

So you agree that the alliance is against Russia, and you saying any scenario that would bring total peace (Russia Joining NATO and added to the European defense framework) is unacceptable because it will mean the end to NATO? If that will solve the problem, why is it not on the table? Must NATO always exist?

There's no reason to believe that Russia's inclusion in NATO will definitely bring about total peace. Quite the contrary, recent event indicates that an aggressive Russia might only seek to break up the bloc.

There's no reason to believe that breaking up the bloc will solve the European security problem. Quite the contrary, NATO's existence is the reason why Russia is still kept in check. A revisionist Russia is unpredictable

That isnt goodwill, That is a checkmate. If a burglar is standing outside your gate and eventually leaves because you stand firm, that is not goodwill. You also deliberately forget to mention that the US got a deal in return .They expanded US supply routes to Afghanistan thru Russia, allowed extended flights over their airspace and even joined in sanctions against Iran which they have always opposed if it wasn't UN backed.

Of course it was a bloody concession. A President Bush or President Romney couldn't have given a toss. The US might have gotten something back, but most people understood Obama's decision to be a concession. He was desperate to pursue his Russian reset Policy.

Yes! It was due to its open door policy which they called three major pillars of the economy (opening up, privatization and free market) by the major stakeholders like the IMF and the World Bank and defended by countries like the United-States and the United-Kingdom. The West deceived and plundered the country.

You still haven't provided specifics on how opening up, privatization and free markets amount to plundering Russia. These three major pillars have been successful models for ages - These policies, when combined with the Rule of law, institutions and social justice - is how economies develop.

Russia is a country that is run like a mafia corp - this obviously becomes toxic when combined with privatization as in the case of Russia where corrupt oligarchs picked up state assets for cheap. Russia's economy is a poorly managed system - both under Yeltsin and under Putin's regime.

Jeffery D sachs published the accounts of his works on this page in Russia on this page in which he debunked the supposed Washington consensus.

http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/what-i-did-in-russia/

Russia is far from being isolated. Far from it. Moving significant partnership away from the West doesn't mean there would be any isolation. Trades will still be done but there wont be any reliance. the world is bigger than the west and the West still needs Russia no matter what they say. They cant reach an agreement with Iran if Russia is not fully on board since most of the nuclear plates in Iran will be transferred to Russia under the current negotiation among other diplomatic stuffs (terrorism, START, ISS ,etc )

I haven't argued that Russia is isolated - you pointed out that its problems in the 90s was because it opened up to the West, and i argue that its long term prosperity is actually tied to opening up to the West. a country that leans inward will merely stagnate over time. Of course, the West needs Russia, no doubts about that, but for Russia, you simply can't eat and shyt in the same plate especially when you don't have much to offer besides oil & gas and warplanes.

Analysts said that they will push most of the food thru Belarus, Russia have cut imports from Belarus as well. So where will they send it to?
a decade is over exaggerating. Lets see how the first and second quarters of the year will play out before making that assumption. The Europeans are more willing to return to normalcy and it might change everything within a very short time.

Again, food is fungible. It is simple science - whichever country sells to Russia will have much less to sell to its customers elsewhere, European food products will simply fill the gap. Agricultural products are not cars - you can't simply produce more overnight because you want to sell more to another country. You can only sell what you currently have, which will mean that there is always a supply gap.
Additionally, those exporting to Russia will simply hike up their prices and demand for payments in foreign currencies given the devaluation or the ruble.

Relatively, the Russians are more desperate for things to return to normalcy, of course they have to appear stoic in the public otherwise, it will be very very bad for Putin's reputation to be seen grovelling up to the West. The west on the other hand can always play good cop(france, italy and co) bad cop (Germany, US, Canada, Poland & co) to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Where would they diversify their energy reliance in the short term? US gas will be more expensive besides it wont be feasible for at least 5 yrs or more. Iran is another prospective seller (should sanctions be lifted this year) but Iran cant produce enough to meet EUs needs and even if it does, where will it transit? Russia basically controls the Caspian sea in other to prevent a Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan and Turkey wont allow a transit to Europe from the middle east for obvious reasons.
Besides, price will dictate the market and a political decision would never take precedence over a business one. Its just logical. They have been saying they would diversify away from Russia since the 80s still hasn't happen.

In the short term Europe is stuck with Russia, but in the long term, many countries will continously seek out ways to diversify their energy needs. As you may have already seen in the case of Lithuania with the buy-lease agreement of a floating LNG platform. Poland, Finland and several other countries are considering and working on similar approach.

The world is evolving fast and the ability of new technology cannot and must not be under estimate. I remember some fund managers i spoke with a really long time ago, argued that the world's proven energy reserve per capita is so low that oil prices could trade in the regions of 300 dollars in about 2030. LOL, i wonder how foolish they must feel right now. Even Gasprom boss argued back then that shale is not profitable and that the idea will soon be abandoned - how foolish he must feel right now?

Dont be surprised if sanctions are lifted within 24 months in return for decentralized Ukraine, No one is even talking about Crimea again that is gone already. The problem with EU/US policy is that it is not generating significant pressure to Putin. His election is 3 yrs away (should he choose to re contest) and unlike the cold war that was between politicians alone,he has been able to build the narrative that the economic and political problem was caused by the west hence the enjoys a huge support.

France as been vocal lately calling for no more sanctions and dialogue, Germany is still belligerent (surprisingly)

It is unlikely that the sanctions will be lifted simply because the EU requires a unanimous vote from all its members - good luck convincing Poland and the Baltics to vote in favor of lifting sanctions. It is more likely that the sanctions will simply be left in place till they expire.

Of course, Putin is sweating it out - the fact that he is not saying anything in Public means nothing. The pressure on Russia has managed to buy Ukraine some bargaining chips at the negotiating tables which meant that Russia is not simply dictating the terms.

The Flights never ended and the US never denied it (because they are not being reported in the US doesn't mean they are not happening). NATO initially did not have problems with Russia resuming the strategic flights (they have been flying since 2011 after all).

The Russia delegation with NATO is just a paper delegation. Their tasks can be performed thru diplomatic channels and it does not amount to much. It is simple, Who is NATO defending itself against? I think it is naive to say that because there is a NATO-Russia council, everything is dandy.

If NATO is just a security alliance and not against Russia, why not offer Russia a deal to become a full NATO member in the future? After all, Putin asked for this in 2011 after he assisted the US in securing military bases in central Asia to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was brushed aside.

military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia

The nature of the so called flights it would appear is intelligence gathering - this doesn't explain the security paranoia that you mentioned is understandable unless you can argue that Russia ceased intelligence gathering efforts on its side. Additionally, i agree that because they are not reported in the US doesn't imply that they aren't happening - one could argue the same thing that Russia probably flew several flights of its own that went unreported or under-reported. Saying that Russia unilaterally ceased reconnaissance flights post cold war will be naive.

Of course, NATO is a security alliance - primarily against Russia - But its mandate relative to Russia is defensive in nature (particularly with respect to the Baltic states). I think anyone who denies this is definitely not being honest. No one is actually really ready to start a war in Europe - not even the US.

Letting Russia join NATO will then defeat the purpose of NATO which is to defend the territories of its member state. If Russia as a member of NATO annexes huge swathes of a NATO member state, what will NATO do? of course, such a scenario will lead to the break up of NATO.

In fact Russia even did one better. They agreed to the said missile defense as long as Russia is integrated into it. After all, "It was defending against Iran and North Korea" They agreed (in principle) to the interceptors if Russian personnel would be allowed to work with American personnel on the site and even agreed to allow the US use their radar stations in Azerbaijan at the time as part of the missile defense. According the Stephen Hadley who was the NSA then, Putin drew a blue print of how US, EU and Russia defense assets can work together. But they stalled and Obama cancelled it instead.

Of course, everyone knew the interceptors was part of a Russian containment policy - hence why i stated that the cancellation of one of the major components was a goodwill towards Russia -

Your analysis of Putin's policies are way off. When the country open its doors in the 90s, it was plundered and Russia was never criticized under Yeltsin. Most of them will tell you they are better off when order was restored by the old KGB faction which Putin currently leads. The problem is complacency (easy oil money) and naive policy makers (the west is our friend). Russians are beginning to be less Eurocentric which means they are starting to understand that they have few friends in the west.

Russia was plundered in the 90s as it still is today. Under Yeltsin, the Oligarchs made fortune from buying state asset at cheap valuations - same thing happened under Putin, just that things were a lot more organized. You sound as if the plundering of Russia back then was due to its open door policy.
Russian lives were only much better during the most part of last decade because of the sharp increases in crude prices. Otherwise, nothing much has changed.

You are right in stating that Russia's problem was due to naive policy makers - but you are wrong when you attributed it to "the west is our friend". This latter part assumes that Russia was somehow deceived by the west into doing something that is not in its economic interest. This sounds very much like blaming someone else for your own problems. Russia's relationship with the West was mostly businesslike - and the West paid cash in return. Why is it the West's fault that Russian policy makers got afflicted by the Dutch disease and refused to diversify their economy? suffice to say when Russia's economy went burst in 1999, it was the West that bailed it out?

No country can prosper in isolation - that's a fact! China is mostly prosperous because her productivity is high and she has a sound economic relationship with the US after ascending to WTO. Japan rose to become the second largest economy even after the devastating effect of the world war two because it's productivity is high and it opened up its economy to trade with the West. By contrast, Iran's economy was destroyed in the years that followed numerous sanctions and in which it embraced isolationism.

And just a food for thought - if Russia thinks they have very few friends in the West, the probably have even fewer in the East.

The food policy might be a short term loss but within few years, it will stabilize and things will be back to normal. Europe will be the biggest loser and Ukraine will NEVER join NATO despite all the efforts. Crimea will never return, and the Donbass will be lost eventually. That is the fact.

The food policy was just plain stup1d. Food is a fungible product and unlike cars, you can't manufacture Rice or beans overnight. European farmers will simply sell to those places that will sell to Russia at inflated prices, thus hurting the Russian economy even more.

I don't agree that the loss will be short term. I think if Russian central Bank leave interest rates at 17%, Russia may face a huge contraction over the next decade. Capital flights may continue and it already suffers from an aging population and a massive brain drain.

The aggregate European economy is in shambles - but this has nothing to do with Russia, more to do with effects of the last financial crises, a new low growth normal, and debt imbalances within the Euro area. Europe will not really suffer a direct effect from this debacle - it may even force European countries to further diversify their energy sources away from Russia - which will only hurt Russia more in the long term. You have to realise that in all of this, Europe is mostly the costumer which gives Russia a huge trade surplus - so relatively within their relationship, Russia is the beneficiary.

Ukraine will be the one to suffer the most - I don't doubt that it wouldn't join NATO, and it may not even get to join Europe as a full member. Crimea will never return - but Crimea itself may never see economic prosperity - same thing apply with the Donbass.

The future is still a long way away, so we can only wait.

Missy89:


I do agree with most of what you said but this part is not really true.

NATO has not stop conduction strategic flights close to Russia's airspace since the 50s. Russia stopped their flights in 1992 and only started flying their bombers again in 2011.


If NATO wanted peace, they would cancel the flights in the 90s but they did not.

NATO has failed to give Russia a security guarantee and add Russia to the framework of Europe's security. These things are legitimate concerns for a country that has lost so much to their Western neighbors throughout their history and their security paranoia should be understandable.

Given the asymmetrical nature of information in these cases, it is impossible to independently verify the truthfulness of these claims. e.g if Russia claims the event occured and NATO denies it, are we really then to believe it really happened? ( or didn't happen? )

I somehow find it difficult to believe that NATO continues to deliberately provoke Russia with airspace probe while Russia sat gently and did nothing in return.
I will challenge you to provide independent reports that actually provide a thorough analysis into the nature of those strategic flight....e.g are these strategic flights bombers or spy plane?

----If bombers, why would this be in the interest of NATO, since it already "won" the cold war and there are no reasons to make any statements. ----If spy planes, isn't this just an ineffective use of resources - since the open skies policies already give participating members access to each others airspace. E.g Russian spy aircrafts are allowed to fly over Area 51 and take area footage even though it is restricted to American public. I would think in this day and age it is more effective to use other means like subs, surface ships, and low orbit satellites.

of course, i would expect that normal reconnaissance missions were still flown in that period - but it is likely not in the scale that the Russians are reporting and it is unlikely that the Russians did nothing in return. In other words this may just be one of the very many Russian fictions that have now been turned into facts. The Russians are really good at this.

On your second point and for the sake of facts, the following are clear

-- NATO established the NATO-Russian council for consultation and consensus building between the two parties - It was hoped that this council will act quickly to diffuse tensions, and to build bridges and common understanding.

-- NATO pledged not to move military defense assets to Eastern Europe - this is despite protests from several members in that region

-- Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in Poland, even though this led to a strain in US-Polish ties and it made several NATO members question US's commitment to joint defense. The US had hoped that Russia will see this as a measure of goodwill.

-- NATO has demonstrated an averse attitude to confrontation with Russia by the statements of its members explicitly ruling out military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia


Now, i understand that more could probably be done to re-assure Russia, but could you elaborate some steps that Russia has taken to re-assure NATO members that it meant no harm?

The real problem is not about some strategic flights close to Russia boarders - the real problem is that Russia sees the existence of NATO as a continuous reminder of the outcomes of the cold war and the humiliation it suffered. The current Russian regime really doesn't give a toss about the economic welfare and future of the Russian people - they are more preoccupied with settling historical scores. So they build more ICBMS and buy more guns to show that Russia is a great power instead of building a real economy.

If Russia continues in its current path, it may very well end up like Argentina or a very big Venezuela with lots of nukes.

In 1950, Argentina and Venezuela were relatively wealthy countries with per capita levels of GDP of $6,164 and $8,104 respectively. These two countries had a GDP per capita that was well in excess of that of Japan, South Korea and Singapore - but the sixty years that followed saw Argentina and Venezuela dropping from the ranks of a developed economy status to a developing economy status while the Asian countries surged well ahead.

Russia is very deficient in economic policy making, and this was really evident in its extremely fo0lish decision to ban food imports from Europe, thus sending food inflation in Russia through the roof.

I think i have deviated too much

NairaMinted:


You chose not to go into this "argument" cos I took your "points" one after the other and issued rebuttals hence you have nothing else to say.

I would love to tear the nonsense you wrote apart, but frankly speaking, I just don't have the time honestly.

Your points are too weak and in some cases outright silly, that i just can't dedicate the mental resources into straightening them out for you.

You also come across as someone who is too weak in economic analysis that I really don't want to dedicate that time of the day to educate you on why China's prosperity is economically linked to the United States prosperity and the whole brouhaha about the petrodollar system collapsing is just rubbish from cognitively inadequate people who make up fiction that they choose to believe in.

My opinion is that you don't do much analysis in real life - as per the work you do or something - and you are more likely to take on the opinion of others. This makes you very subjective to confirmation bias, so that you only seek out information that confirms what you want to know, hence your constant reference of Craig Roberts and such. For me it's always too hard and unproductive to argue with someone like that.

I would frankly rather spend my time on something else

@Appleyard and Nairamint

I really don't want to go on with this argument, it's just not worth it.

You can read NATO's version of the stories from here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?#cl5


I respect your opinion, but i like my opinion much better

1) Russia did not dissolve the Warsaw pact - The Warsaw pact ended following the death of communism in post cold war era in Eastern Europe.

2) The whole idea that NATO gave Russia assurances about its expansion was a Russian narrative - which for all purposes may have been fiction that has now been turned into fact - NATO has consistently denied that it ever gave Russia such assurances. Moreover, NATO has consistently stressed that its founding principles are based on open door policies, so there was no reason it could have given Russia those assurances.

3) Russia has no reason to keep its free trade zones with members of the Baltic nations if it fears that European goods are going to flood the Russian markets. The Baltics nation made a sovereign choice to join the EU, it is not in Russia's position to dictate the terms. Russia has every right to close its own markets to the Baltics should it wish to do so.

4) A downed plane with already decomposing bodies? Are you for real? Are you fcking being funny or just plain dumb?

5) Russia still has its troops in Osseta and Abkhazia, which are a part of sovereign Georgia, Russia has its troops in Transnistria, a part of Moldova, Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a violent civil war in Eastern Europe, Russia has consistently violated the airspace of Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Latvia, Finland, and the UK. Yet, Russian media reported that not a single Russian airspace violation occurred in 2014. And yet, Russia still claims to be the victim?

6) NATO has no reason to expand to Russia's borders IF Russia was at peace with its neighbors and did not attempt to dominate them by the use of military force - it could have learnt the use of soft powers from countries like China and US (use of economic aids) to persuade foreign governments. Russia is a country with the largest landmass on earth spanning over 9 time zones. It also probably has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world - enough to destroy the entire world over and over again - A country the size of Latvia does not have many good options other than joining a security alliance like NATO if it wishes to secure its sovereignty. Ukraine didn't make that choice when the Baltic nations did, and Ukraine paid a dear price with Crimea and Sevastopol.

7) Russia promised and signed a treaty with Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum, along with China, US, Britain and France, never to invade any part of Ukraine or take its properties which belonged to the Ukrainian people. Ukraine in turn gave up its nuclear arsenal. Russia betrayed its pledge and annexed Crimea! Yet Russia claims it is not the aggressor?

The slide in oil prices have more to do with US shale production than some dodgy power play.

US is just not importing as much oil as it used to and by 2020 it aims to achieve full energy independence.

Russia is an economic junior that is trying to punch above its weight. The Russian elites overestimated Russia's geo-economic weight when oil was priced above 120 dollars and everything looked fine and dandy. The took on the wrong enemy -the USA - at precisely the wrong time -

The US of today is much stronger economically than it has ever been in the last 10 years. Its economy is growing faster than any other developed economy, its shale oil is booming, its economy remains the most diversified in the whole world and inflation is well controlled. The US dollar was the best performing currency in 2014, the Ruble was the worst

Russia should have learnt a thing or two from China - strategic patience! Grow your F*cking economy first before you start off a fight. Invest more in education, infrastructure and the middle class. - not submarines and fighter jets, which by the way, will become obsolete in another 10 years or so.

NATO is not really a threat to Russia - when was the last time a NATO country violated Russia's airspace or threatened Russia with a nuclear strike? Yet Russia does this on a regular basis and still claims to be the victims - it defies common sense

corneremperor:
This guy probably bought that birth certificate and wants to try his luck with it..he's just fishing for information. @Op, u will need other evidence of your birth in the UK, a birth certificate alone will not serve as evidence that you were born in the UK, and you only complicated the issue by putting "born in the UK" on your naija passport. Whoever advised you to do so has mislead you.
Your best chance is to go and get a new Nigerian passport without "born in the UK", then just apply for a visiting visa. Whatever you chose to do when you get there [if they give you the visa], is then up to you.

Looks like you are spot on. The OP appears suspicious. In the very least, i would have thought he would be putting the minimal effort into digging up further evidence of his birth in the UK. It appears however, that the OP is looking for some untested "shortcuts" - such things only end up really bad in the end.

@OP - If your case is genuine, then do the needful. As advised, present further evidence of your birth in the UK. The least thing you could do is to email the hospital of your birth and ask them for further confirmation through birth records.

However, if you are only looking for criminally driven shortcuts, you should be reminded that Immigration officials are specifically trained to identify crooks. They have handled much more complex cases, your chances of getting through is zilch!

The UK is a really strange place when it comes to meeting decent single Nigerian ladies with traditional values.

@OP, good luck in your search

can you at least state range for the price? That helps everyone and it prevents time wasting

This is going to start a price war with OPEC!

Wise Nigerians should start changing some of their money into foreign currencies, its going to be a helluva a ride!

What happens when one of them dies?

Nigeria is such a sh1t hole.

People are so desensitized that the value of human life no longer mean anything. Crowds gather over two fresh dead bodies like some form of gory art to be studied. Makes you wonder what the state of mind of the average Nigerian must be, little wonder violence fill everywhere.

In some other regions of the world, there would have been an ambulance response, the bodies would have been covered, the area would have been secured, the Police would have begun investigation into what happened so as to possible prevent or reduce the occasion of such in the future. But here in Nigeria, the wild wild west of Africa we simply gather like some family fest, we whip out our cameras and take pictures so as to fill the social media with the gory scenes! We forget that those lying cold on the ground were someone's son or brother, someone's father or lover.

Till my dying day i still wouldn't be able to figure what makes people take such gory pictures and put them online. What are they seeking to show? That humans can die? Would they do the same if it was their brother on the floor? Where is the respect for the dead?

Nigeria is one hell of a sh1t hole. No one it ranks the least in the places to be born index. Of all Sh1t holes of the world, it is truly unfortunate to be born in Nigeria.

It's always amusing how these sorts of projects surface around election periods only to die down quietly a few months after.

We had 7 point agenda, then it was modified to 5 points agenda - After all agendas failed, they promised Fresh Air! Four years after we got promised the so called Fresh Air, the Naira has been devalued and everyone with a naira denominated fixed income is much poorer!

Go on and vote for them again you gullible idi0ts. Listen to their lies with so much fervor, listen to their passionate promises. Collect the cash they hand out to you, the tubers of yam and bags of rice - go on and vote for them, because they are your kinsmen! Give them another chance in the office. Your misery will end quicker, since you probably won't live for another 60 or 70 years. Your children and your grandchildren will be the ones who will have to deal with the outcomes of your stup1dity, your lack of insight and the misuse of the only tool you have - your vote!

hayokunleoni:


Young man, do u have a faint idea of economics. PPP is useless. Its a model with wrong and dreamy assumptions. That was the basis for the Keynesians later idea of Comparative Cost Advantage coz resources are not equal across nations and their values are totally different. Just answer this question, is the value of goods in China same with the value in UK, US or in Nigeria. PPP says let's assume value of raw materials, wages, machines (factors of production) are equal world over and that price of goods are equal. If u still don't get it, can't help u anymore. Pleasant morning

Two words - Who cares?

Value is a consumer driven utility - If you can get your haircut for 100 naira in Nigeria versus 20 pounds in the UK, who cares about the value?

To explain further - Take a look at the two cars below. One is produced in China, its called LandWind X7 and it sells for 120,000 yuan, the other is produced by Jaguar and it sells for 40,000 pounds. They both look exactly alike and will very likely give equal utility/value to their owners, who cares?

If China can produce similar goods at a cheaper cost, then the fair value of its exchange rate should strengthen to reflect this cost advantage. But its exchange rate has not adjusted to reflect this. This is deliberate, in order to keep exports competitive.








The 120,000 yuan should really be equivalent to 40,000 pounds. It should defy logic if this isn't the case. But of course, it isn't the case - the 120,000 yuan in this instance is only equivalent to 14,000 pounds.

If goods and services are compared with market based rates, China will be ranked lower than the US in GDP terms. But market based rates are subject to volatility and central bank manipulations which could drive them well away from their long term fair value. The Yuan, relative to the US dollar is relatively well below its fair value. If the Yuan were trading at its fair value and the Chinese economy compared on such basis, i see no reason why China shouldn't have a higher GDP than the US

I wonder if this woman's salary is still being paid in USD as in the Obasanjo days?

Missy89:

I disagree here. You seem to be using North Korea's public actions to judge how the establishment thinks. That is totally wrong. The first action of every state is to preserve state power and maintain the status quo. when it comes to nuclear matters, NK sabre rattling has more to do with desperation and finding a way to bring the US back to the negotiating table because the current arrangement as regards the cease fire is not favorable to the regime. US on the other hand see the isolation of NK as a very effective tool because sooner or later, the supreme leader might be overthrown(China already has a contingency for this. It was leaked few years ago that they would invade the country should the regime fall and cease their nuclear installations.) . They would NEVER use it because the state will cease to exist the minute they do. Shutting down the program however gives the leader little legitimacy in his country so they have to keep testing missiles.

You seem to KNOW for sure that North Korea's public actions are nothing more than a bit of bluff, yet you haven't presented any evidence behind your thesis. North Korea has proven to be capable of several irrational incidents in modern history -from Sinking of the Cheonan, Ballistic missile tests, Shelling of South Korean Islands and many more...On the balance of probability, there's absolutely no reason to expect the regime to act rationally, if it ever felt threatened. We are talking here, about a country that has lived with a permanent siege mentality - a country that has lived under a constant threat of war since the 1950s when American bombing raids flattened pretty much all the buildings in its capital.

No one knows for sure what North Korea will do with his nuclear weapons if it feels threatened and no one is waiting to find out. It is suicidal to presume, "they will never use it" - despite trading off economic well being for the preservation of those programs.

Not exactly true as well. Regime change can still happen but there are few factors to consider. This is the reason why NK is a closed society. her nukes is not enough to deter any power and opening the country will allow western influence, infiltration in the establishment among other things that are needed to change a regime. If Gadaffi was running a closed country with little outside influence with nukes, then maybe(but he will be isolated). Nations like Russia are still struggling to contain western interference even thou they have an enormous stockpile. Strong economy and a well functioning social/democratic system is the deterrence not nukes.

Regime change can be influenced in almost any country with some liberalism. But outright military invasion will not happen when a country is heavily armed with nuclear weapons and that also has the will and ability to deliver those weapons. No one knows for sure (except perhaps, China), how advanced the North Korean programs are - this itself is a form of deterrence against any rational state actor.

Your argument that a strong economy/democratic system is the deterrence and not nukes is actually self defeating considering that we are discussing North Korea which lacks precisely the former but holds on steadfastly to the latter.

You cannot prove this theory of urs as everything would depend on the authority that would be in charge of pressing the button. Human rationale cannot be predicted this way because 1) the scenario has never happened before 2)different C-in-Cs have their doctrine. Cuba is not that big for example. few missiles could end the whole country in response to hitting few american cities so how does the US have more to lose?.
Even during the cold war, some generals still believe US could win even if it got to a point where only one city is left not to talk of Cuba.

The theory of rationality in this case is based on the logic of economic and human cost - A nuclear attack on on New York and California will have roughly the equivalent of human cost as a retaliatory nuclear attack on Cuba - but the economic costs are not on par. Whereas, the US will see its entire economic and socio-political system crumble, Cuba is only but a tiny country with a GDP of about 70 billion - who never really mattered in world affairs.

I think i replied to this already. like i said, the this damage can be done with their conventional force and not their nuclear force since that would end the state. their conventional force is what is deterring the west not their nuclear force.
the only reason why it seems like NATO is a rational actor is because of its superior conventional capability

I don't agree with this point. A nuclear armed state with less conventional military capability will ALWAYS act as a deterrence against NATO which will always be expected to play the rational actor. The UK will never have ventured blindly along with the US into Iraq if there was ever a real possibility that London end up as a hail of radioactive ash. The UK in this case will act RATIONALLY that the risks are not even worth it

Missy89:


I stated that "APART FROM THE FEAR OF LOOSE NUKES" there is no relevance. I never said they are entirely irrelevant.

As for North Korea, of course they have a limited military capability just like every country even the ones with nukes. Their nukes are not a deterrent so using it is only a death and it is just symbolical and it would never be used. at the same time, they wont give it up because it might lead to the overthrow of the government which leaves them in a limbo. Another reason is that the survival of the regime is dependent on Chinese support and should they fire their missile, China would abandon them to their fate.

Of course the nukes are a deterrent! As a matter of fact, nukes in the hands of an unpredictable state actor -(North Korea) is the best form of deterrent! No one expects that the Yankees will ever use their thousands nukes stored away in rusting silos. The North Koreans on the other hand, have very little reason to act rationally.

Military conflicts are unpredictable but in terms of capability, It is not a secret that the only reason why North Korea will not be invaded is because the causalities on the side of the South and the Americans will be too high to consider such operation and the South's capital will probably be totally destroyed because of the overwhelming artillery pointed at it from the north and the reason why the North won't invade is because of the risk that South Korea might endure the destruction of Seoul and counter attack. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

Yes, it has everything to do with nuclear weapons! Having nuclear weapons and the ability to cause some really serious damage makes you invincible in a sense! NATO will never have invaded Libya if Qaddafi own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

Nuclear deterrence itself is not a security guarantee for any nuclear armed state because it is not a military theory it has more to do with human behavior (Rational leaders, etc). It is not a guarantee for security. If it is, there would be no development of nuclear defense shields and the weapons would be allowed to proliferate so that everyone would be secure. This alone discredits the theory that every nuclear armed state regardless their deterrence capability can be relevant (apart from loose nukes) or cant be invaded (especially when they dont have a deterrent like Pakistan and north Korea which will force them to fight conventionally and will probably lose. )

Of course, it is a guarantee for security.
First, Human behavior does dictate that the party that stands more to lose in the event of a conflict will act rationally - Assume that a country like Cuba has a few nuclear tipped missiles - in the event of conflict with a country like the US, the US is the party that is much likely to act rationally because it has more to lose.

Second, missile defense systems will never offer complete protection from a salvo of missiles from a well armed and determined foe! - of course, i am not talking the types of cheap missiles being fired at Israel. Nuclear armed states like North korea may not yet have the capability to strike at the US homeland - but they can well cause a lot of damage to neighboring states and a huge global chaos with significant amount of human cost.

Missy89:


No nuclear armed state be deemed irrelevant?
Please tell me what is relevant about North Korea and Pakistan apart from the fear of loose nukes.


Any nation with Naval Carriers can project force anywhere in the world?
Please tell us how Brazil and Thailand are projecting power with their carriers.


And Yes! Britain is a US vassal state. take it or leave it. UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent and the nukes are merely symbolic.

The fear of loose nukes is exactly what makes them relevant! Military planners across the world can afford to ignore a missing Nigerian president - When the president of North Korea goes missing, they quake in their boots!

Suffice to say no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded in history! The US might have the world's largest military force, but it still wouldn't mess with North Korea. North Korea might not have the capability to project force into US mainlands, but the whole of South Korea, Japan, United States 7th fleet and the Hawaii could come under nuclear attacks.

Who says a nuclear armed state is irrelevant?

Diffdeef:
seriously they're irrelevant,I don't know why they're on the list of top 5 power countries,USA,Russia,China,Uk,France,the funny thing is USA controls most of these countries especially UK,then France,Israel,not too much for china but they can never control Russia,that's why the US are tryna go against Russia through Ukraine crisis,imposing sanctions etc,now NATO members are all against Russia,I think The US are doing all this to still maintain their "world power" thing,they're struggling to maintain it,cos Russia and china are closing the gap militarily,weapon advancement even in world economy.

Russia closing the gap economically? loooool!!!

Missy89:


When you say u cant take gold bars to hospital etc.. It seems are not getting the message. There is nothing wrong with paper money as long as it is backed by something of value and not pure faith in a government. Gold unlike " faith of government" are a thing of value over the centuries. fiat money on the other hand are only as good as their demand

Your argument misses the point. The value of gold is highly relative, and there's no real reason why they must be of higher value than faith in government. Gold is not food that can be eaten, neither can it keep you warm at night. It is simply a rock with limited utility to humans (mostly in jewelry production). The value of gold can collapse by more than half as it did between 1980 and 1985. Last year alone, the value of gold collapsed by close to 30%. There's no good argument to back each dollar of money by such a speculative measure of value. Faith in government alone is valuable enough.

When you say people use Dollars to buy Oil because of the trust in the government, this is not true. The dollar became the dominant currency for oil in the 70s because of a deal not trust. The Fed print dollars almost everyday to satisfy demand so it is not rare (valuable) but in demand. The minute the commodity lose it's relevance , the dollar will go belly up even if there is faith in the US government and the reason is the exported inflation will have to go back home. since there is little use for it in the international market anymore.

There are many flaws in your argument:

First of all, the dollar became dominant, for the Brenton Woods agreement in which the US dollar was deliberately placed as an anchor of the international financial system. The US government guaranteed other central banks that any point in time, they can exchange their dollar reserves for a fixed amount of gold. Many countries agree to this, and some like Japan and Europe, even devalued their own currencies relative to the dollar so that they can boost exports. When the US abandoned the Brenton woods agreement, the only thing remaining that backed the US dollar was the faith United States government. That was the only reason why other OPEC states went along with Saudi Arabia to back Nixton's arrangement in 1971, even though the Saudi's had other goals.

Second, it doesn't make much sense to me to say that what is in high demand is not valuable - at least literally. Additionally, it doesn't make much sense, that what is rare is always considered valuable - as in this case gold. Value is driven by human want/needs. The end utility of gold to humans is very limited even though it is a rare commodity.

Third, I am not sure which commodity you refer to, but the US government has tools in its reserve to manage inflation, one of them is interest rates. The US dollar will remain appealing as long as the US treasury is seen as a safe haven for assets, and the US federal reserve retains its capability to manage inflation.

When u say stability of the US government, you make it sound like it is the only stable government around the world

It is not the only stable government in the world, but it is the most trusted to remain stable. The federal reserve is arguably the most independent central bank in the world. Independence in this case, refers to independence from local politics. Obama cannot simply dictate to Yellen. Unlike what you could find in several other countries. Also, the activities of the federal reserve is open, transparent. All of this is why more than 17 countries feel comfortable to peg their currencies to the dollar.

Most international post world war conflicts are fought with gold (or gold backed paper). I gave u an example of how the British and the french bought almost everything the needed with Gold from the US during the 2 wars and not with the Pounds or Francs. and if you are talking about Post WWs, since the dollar is in high demand, why would the US use gold when u can just use their paper?

I think you are contradicting your own argument by the post world war argument in this post.

Missy89:

Yes Gold is not a currency but it is MONEY. currencies come and go but money is always money. Currencies are fiat and their value is dependent on the credit of any government.
Gold can be divisible to match prices of any goods like it was done war before the first world war. most currencies were backed by gold then and u can take it to the bank and get a gold in return which means, gold can purchase goods too.

The example that America didn't use gold to fight wars and dollar instead its just wrong. since we have are global economy now and the most important commodity (oil) is purchased with the dollar, It keeps the value of the currency and makes it acceptable. compare that to say ww2 when most economies are not interconnected. most US shipments to Europe and the USSR then was exchanged with gold and not with pounds or rouble.
The dollar only keeps its vale because there is high demand for it (oil purchase) and the biggest US export is inflation (lost of dollars). Should all the dollars return home, a toilet paper will be more valuable as compared to gold

"Gold is not a currency, but it is money".

..so also is silver, copper, salt, cannabis, barley or any other item that can be battered for their perceived value. I really don't see how this adds to the debate.

"Currencies come and go, but money is always money"

...again, this doesn't make much sense. Money, either fiat money or commodity money will always be traded for their perceived value. While fiat money is backed by the credibility of a government and its central bank, commodities money are backed by everyday forces of demand and supply which makes them speculative in nature. The former is arguably more reliable than the latter. The argument that gold - as money, will always be money - assumes that you take less risk by holding gold as opposed to fiat currency, this is total nonsense.

"Gold can be divisible to match prices"

So also can cannabis, wine or artwork. But yet still, you wouldn't take a gold bar to the hospital for medical check up, neither will you take it your mechanic workshop. You need an acceptable medium of exchange in which services or goods are valued - you need your fiat money.

"The example that America didn't use gold to fight wars and dollar instead its just wrong."

So can you give an example of a period in time, when America paid in gold for merchandise during a war as opposed to the dollar?

The dollar only keeps its vale because there is high demand for it (oil purchase) and the biggest US export is inflation (lost of dollars). Should all the dollars return home, a toilet paper will be more valuable as compared to gold

This is rubbish. Forget about the dollar for a moment and move on to any other currency with a global reserve status - the Yen, sterling, Swiss Francs and the Euro, none of which are directly linked to the price of oil - why are these currencies holding their values? The Japanese government has the highest debt to gdp ratio in the world (above 200% of gdp), yet, the Yen is still held by several central banks, surely, by your theory, this shouldn't make any sense?

Here's a quick lesson - The USD is not holding its value because oil is priced in USD. It is the other way round - oil is priced in USD because people trust in the stability of the US government. It is the same reason why several countries peg their currencies to the value of the dollar - as opposed to the value of gold which is very speculative.