Comments on: Making the Best of a Bad Situation

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Mon, 17 May 2010 23:15:32 +0000

“Борис Андрианович” This cat was posting his J.R. Lyndquist stuff over at Belmont Club, too.

By: iskatel

iskatel — Sat, 15 May 2010 18:48:28 +0000

$500 billion in bilateral trade between UK and USA in 2008? In that year, only between US and Canada (US biggest trading partner) was about that amount (even bigger), i.e. $ 600 billion, then between US and China (second trading partner) was $ 407 billion and between US and Mexico(third trading partner) was $ 367 billion. Perhaps your are taking the trading amount between US and EU-27 (27 members, and not just UK) which happens to be $ 639 billion. And from 27 EU member, Germany was the biggest US trading partner in 2008 with $ 151 billion, bilateral trade between USA and UK was $ 89 billion, and between USA and Russia was $ 36 billion for that same year. Go here : http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/#top

By: Mark Arsenal

Mark Arsenal — Sat, 15 May 2010 02:04:54 +0000

“It presents the possibility of electoral reform to modernize Britain’s outdated “first past the post” system.”

Now how can we get this done in the US or Canada?

By: AK

AK — Fri, 14 May 2010 06:09:16 +0000

Thanks for the comment.
I’m not sure what you mean by advocating British values (what are they anyway?), otherwise concur.

By: AK

AK — Fri, 14 May 2010 06:06:51 +0000

1) The European publics are, surprisingly enough, at least as and perhaps more Russophobic than the British. See poll. 2) I think Trident is very useful to have. Even assuming the more pessimistic assessments of future costs are correct, i.e. 150bn $ over 30 years, that's just 5bn $ a year - or 0.2% of GDP (total military spending is about 2.5-3% of GDP). A pretty good bargain for the ultimate deterrent. Otherwise, I agree with your comment.

By: AK

AK — Fri, 14 May 2010 05:43:26 +0000

OK, so let's go through your arguments: 1) You claim " investment into Russia is at an all time low", but just yesterday BusinessWeek noted that "Russia Faces Capital Influx as Investors Flee Europe". 2) Economic weight, believe it or not, is not equivalent to the amount of trade between you and the US. Otherwise, Mexico would be an economic superpower. 3) I'm sure Russia is absolutely distraught at being denier the chance to roll out the red carpet for that Scottish curmudgeon Gordon Brown. Or maybe not... EDIT: Do NOT use the names of other real people when commenting. I think I am pretty safe in assuming that you are not Malkhaz Gulashvili.

By: (False) Malkhaz Gulashvili

(False) Malkhaz Gulashvili — Fri, 14 May 2010 02:29:20 +0000

The Russian edition of Newsweek magazine has reported that Russia is planning to move toward a more pragmatic foreign policy in dealing with Western countries.

The magazine claims it has obtained a confidential Foreign Ministry report outlining Moscow’s new doctrine on foreign policy. The report supposedly lists countries with which Russia plans to develop closer ties to secure future investment.

Newsweek further claims that the report mentions membership in the World Trade Organisation and the easing of EU visa restrictions as being among Russia’s priorities.
A preliminary draft of the document is said to have been already approved by President Dmitry Medvedev.

Russia’s political elite are running scared investment into Russia is at an all time low, in 2009 bi-lateral trade between Russia and the USA fell to a miserable $16 billion dollars down from $36 billion (2008) compare that with the bi-lateral trade between the USA and its closest ally the UK which is around the $500 billion mark and you can see what little economic weight the Russian federation carries.

This planned move on foreign policy skinks of desperation, its an attempted reversal of KGB Putin’s aggressive foreign policies, Putin alienated Russia’s major investors for example between 2003-6 the UK was the largest single investor into Russia, now the relationship is so poor that no official visit by a UK prime-minister has taken place for years and vis- versa.

But words are cheap; President Medvedev needs to send a strong political signal that Russia really wants closer ties with the west bringing about the massive investment Russia badly needs. He should sack Putin and force this odious little man to leave the political arena for good.

By: AK

AK — Thu, 13 May 2010 19:35:06 +0000

Boris, I've had enough of your blatant plagiarizing from the Nyquist nutjob. It is impolite, it is off-topic, it is spam, it is against S/O comments policy. This is your last warning. Do it one more time, and you're IP-banned. UPDATE: My words fall on deaf ears. You continue to plagiarize without attributing your sources. Your submissions have been henceforth designated as spam.

By: Glossy

Glossy — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:56:27 +0000

Every major power and ideological movement engages in what you just called information warfare. I see that in your comment you mostly criticized Russian efforts on that front. Do you imagine that the US government, guys like Soros, the neocons, etc. do not engage in information warfare? Perhaps you think that they spend less effort on it than the Kremlin does or that they’re more honest in what they say? If you do think that, then you’re wrong. If you do not think that and were simply making a general point about politics worldwide, then there’s little to argue with.

Of course, unilateral disarmament is as dumb on the information front as it is on a field of battle. In politics if someone’s calling you a fascist dictator or whatever, not shouting something back at him is gross negligence.

By: Борис Андрианович

Борис Андрианович — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:43:11 +0000

Information warfare is being waged against you, constantly, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not... AK edit: I don't have enough imagination to write my own stuff so I stoop to plagiarizing wholesale from Nyquist without original commentary.