Thread: Most Russians believe US is hell-bent on world domination

I don't think the USSR should have invaded Afghanistan. It was not a juste war in my view.
(I think the USSR believed it had some reasonable justifications to intervene in a troubled neighbouring country, but personally I would not think those reasons were strong enough to justify an invasion that killed civilians...)

The Ossetia war seems more complicated and the Russian invasion was a response to Georgias actions. The Ossetians themselves clearly supported Russia and that has got to count for something. I don't understand that war very well to be honest.

I think Russia was "imperialist" and a bit aggressive during the early years of the USSR and under Stalin, but that it gradually stopped after that.

And make NO mistake; I have no sympathy for aggressiveness by Russia! If Russia got aggressive towards Sweden, Finland or Norway I'd be furious.
But there is NO sign whatsoever of that happening; Not during the cold war era, and not now.

Originally Posted by Hanna

All America needs to do is just stop being so aggressive abroad and focus on it's internal affairs. Withdraw all foreign bases and become a normal country and nobody will have a problem any more.

They can't stop it as they can't stop an ocean tide. US economy depends badly on those bases and its military forces. If USA had no army to back it up, many countries would reject US Dollar as an international payment standard. This would make tge FRS to default and then a whole World's economic institution would go into a depression we'd never seen before. In some wicked sense we all depend on the US army. Sad, but true.
Still this is the present situation, what frightens me is that nobody is doing anything to introduce at least one more international currency (Euro doesn't qualify). As far as I know South America is making such an attempt and some Arabian countries try that as well, but I foresee that USA would try to stop it at every possible moment and still these currencies will not become truly an international payment standard.
And also I don't understand why Gazprom sells gas to Europe for US Dollars or Euros. Why they don't demand the payment in roubles? This is a mystery for me, because this action alone would make rouble a fully convertible currency (European central banks would be obliged to have roubles to pay, thus creating a demand for rouble).

...

>Why they don't demand the payment in roubles? This is a mystery for me,
Maybe because the developed countries don't want to use a currency that a government can capriciously redefine, as Russia did ten years ago.

Originally Posted by chaika

>Why they don't demand the payment in roubles? This is a mystery for me,
Maybe because the developed countries don't want to use a currency that a government can capriciously redefine, as Russia did ten years ago.

If Russia asks Roubles for gas Europeean central banks would have no other choice but to buy some. What they want or do not want is no concern of Russia, really.

...

Originally Posted by Ramil

And also I don't understand why Gazprom sells gas to Europe for US Dollars or Euros. Why they don't demand the payment in roubles? This is a mystery for me, because this action alone would make rouble a fully convertible currency (European central banks would be obliged to have roubles to pay, thus creating a demand for rouble).

Suppose, that happens. Then Russia would exchange oil for rubles. So, what would Russia do with those rubles? I mean, do you think European banks would purchase more rubles than they are actually planning to use to buy the oil and other raw materials from Russia? What difference would that make?

The rouble is not money.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

And also I don't understand why Gazprom sells gas to Europe for US Dollars or Euros. Why they don't demand the payment in roubles? This is a mystery for me, because this action alone would make rouble a fully convertible currency (European central banks would be obliged to have roubles to pay, thus creating a demand for rouble).

Suppose, that happens. Then Russia would exchange oil for rubles. So, what would Russia do with those rubles? I mean, do you think European banks would purchase more rubles than they are actually planning to use to buy the oil and other raw materials from Russia? What difference would that make?

This would make Rouble more easily convertible and to transfer part of Russian reserves in roubles thus making our economy less dependant on USD. Also, convertible rouble would make it possible to import goods for roubles.

Originally Posted by Ramil

This would make Rouble more easily convertible and to transfer part of Russian reserves in roubles thus making our economy less dependant on USD. Also, convertible rouble would make it possible to import goods for roubles.

I think storing Russian national reserve in rubles is roughly equivalent to a programmer saving money from selling his software would buy some of his own software to have something saved for a rainy day. Reserve is first of all about the diversification of the portfolio. If you think of raising a value of a ruble this way, I don't think it's going to work. Besides, I'm not sure why are you worried so much about the strong ruble. Actually, a weak money can be much more beneficial to the economic growth. Also, Russia has a potential for a huge internal market that could make its people rich, so why not go after those options?

The Bretton Woods system was (is) just so amazingly clever (for US/capitalism) and I wonder if any other country can come up with something that essentially lets it control the world economy without actually risking anything... ?

Maybe China is plotting something. Those so called "communists" have one of the best national economics institute in the world right in Beijing - and can pick the most talented people out of a billion to cook up a plan..! Surely they are plotting out how to dominate the world in a decade, or what do you think?

The dollar simply MUST be abandoned as the standard soon, mustn't it?
I mean, it's built on nothing (not backed by gold) and the USA is not the biggest economy anymore.

Or will it survive as the world currency simply because there is no alternative?

Could the Chinese currency (Renminbi) take over?
Or will it be gold or some other mineral?

I agree that it probably won't be the Euro; it's not strong enough yet and not all EU countries have joined it, for various reasons.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Or will it survive as the world currency simply because there is no alternative?

Could the Chinese currency (Renminbi) take over?
Or will it be gold or some other mineral?

I agree that it probably won't be the Euro; it's not strong enough yet and not all EU countries have joined it, for various reasons.

I'm not an economist, but I agree that It would be logical to have some international currency for international payments. If an only nation has the right for emission of international currency, it's seems somewhat unproper.

Yeah I've read that the first Iraq war was actually triggered just as much by Iraq's decision to request oil payments in some other currency (not dollar), as by the events in Kuwait. And I've read more comments to the extent that they US is prepared to do almost anything to keep the dollar as the international currency.

Russia could temporarily switch to Euro for the gas/oil payments from Europe; I can't see why that would be a problem; I mean the EU is the biggest trading partner for Russia other than CIS, isn't it? So why not keep some stores of Euro along with dollar and gold?
Then if Russia wants to use roubles further on they could come to some kind of agreement with the EU. Not sure how stable the rouble is right now but why not?

But if Russia moved away from the dollar, that may be the end of a beautiful friendship....



But an internationally neutral currency would be the best. But that leaves the interesting question of who rules that currency and who rules those who rule the currency...? For example, neither the UN nor IMF is completely inbiased and have been accused of being dominated by a certain country/countries and their agendas.

I think the idea of a neutral currency might just be one of those nice ideas that are not possible to implement. The USA has the biggest army as well as (in the past) the biggest economy.... I wonder how much of a role that plays? Probably quite an important one!

If economy + army is part of the equation, then China's currency will take over sooner or later.

If Arizonians table a bill for 'world domination' it would not pass Congress which means no Democrat or Republican would vote for it. Get it? Democracy matters so much to Americans!! Now that there are competing poitical parties in Russia neither one would vote for it or else the electorate would not elect them to power. Maybe in China or Cuba where there is only one dominant political party, the Communist party.!! Or during the heydays of Lenin and Stalin!! It was a one man rule, man!!

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yeah I've read that the first Iraq war was actually triggered just as much by Iraq's decision to request oil payments in some other currency (not dollar), as by the events in Kuwait. And I've read more comments to the extent that they US is prepared to do almost anything to keep the dollar as the international currency.

Russia could temporarily switch to Euro for the gas/oil payments from Europe; I can't see why that would be a problem; I mean the EU is the biggest trading partner for Russia other than CIS, isn't it? So why not keep some stores of Euro along with dollar and gold?
Then if Russia wants to use roubles further on they could come to some kind of agreement with the EU. Not sure how stable the rouble is right now but why not?

But if Russia moved away from the dollar, that may be the end of a beautiful friendship....



But an internationally neutral currency would be the best. But that leaves the interesting question of who rules that currency and who rules those who rule the currency...? For example, neither the UN nor IMF is completely inbiased and have been accused of being dominated by a certain country/countries and their agendas.

I think the idea of a neutral currency might just be one of those nice ideas that are not possible to implement. The USA has the biggest army as well as (in the past) the biggest economy.... I wonder how much of a role that plays? Probably quite an important one!

If economy + army is part of the equation, then China's currency will take over sooner or later.

President elect Medvedev stared at Obama to see if 'the pig' had a hard time swallowing his hamburger just like the way he swallowed hard when King Abdullah asked him, "Are you a Cuban spy". He did swallowed hard.."I fed the pig"-God while throwing a tantrum at the (Deleted. L.), Barack Obama.

Originally Posted by крупскяа

... while throwing a tantrum at the (Deleted), Barack Obama.

If you think that insulting the President here makes you a hero, you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by крупскяа

... while throwing a tantrum at the (Deleted), Barack Obama.

If you think that insulting the President here makes you a hero, you are wrong.

I was not aiming at President Medvedev. It was aimed at Barack Obama. And Obama is indeed a Cuban spy! I have evidence to butress the fact that he is. Besides a fledgling nation like Russia should learn about free speech and free press. In America this kind of talk has been ok. They can tolerate it. If Obama is really innocent, I have been challenging him to file a lawsuit against me. Still there is none. Because it is true. I would not dare insult Conservatives Medvedev (look at his blue tie) and Putin together with the US Republicans. They are not closet communists unlike Obama who tabled universal health care which is communistic. All that talk of 'free enterprise' is baloney. He just wants to hide under the mantle of a free marketeer. Given the chance to turn USA into the Leninist centralist economy, he wil do it. We caught him so many times heaving a sigh of relief when his fellow democrats tell him, "No worry, He won't squeal on you. He (крускя) is a commie too who is 'corrupt'. You can buy him".He's aiming at me, Lampada. I was the one who personally busted him. So help me.

Originally Posted by крупскяа

..to turn USA into the Leninist centralist economy, he will do it...

I am going to start counting how many Americans come onto this forum and claim that Obama is a socialist / communist.
I think this is number 4 that I can remember.

In case you didn't know... there is a bit more to socialism than a bit of severly restricted free healthcare....

However, I am interested in -- where does this idea come from? Is this idea floating around mainstream American media (that would be truly disturbing) or do you pick it up off whacky websites?

It's a fascinating example of misinformation that clearly a large number of people have fallen for.

The USA was said to acquire her superpower status due to the virtues she inculcates on her citizens like hard work, rule of law, diligence, thrift, education, etc. Unlike the employers of the old USSR, the capitalists of America do not force their consumer products on her people. They improve their quality, hoping, I mean hoping, that the consumer would be attracted to his products and not force feed them on them like what Stalin and his predecessors Marx, Mao and Lenin did. They are not assured of their profits. Imagine a capitalist going bankrupt after paying his executives tens of thousands of dollars each for them to be able to buy cars and houses while he ends up begging on the streets because of bancruptcy. He indeed satisfied the wants of the consumers.The problem why communism or capitalist-hatred thrives in some countries is because the capitalist is rich and the communist is poor. Even in the old Soviet Union there are rich apparatchiks who after the Cold War sold their dachas for profits instead of giving them to the masses. Man is by nature greedy. I would not trade my situation in life as a salaried employee with a good misguided man like George W. Bush. He has personal problems which I myself cannot handle. One reasoon why I don't envy the rich. Some of their unattended children are on drugs. Do not envy the rich. We also remain salaried employees under a communist takeover. The truth is evident on the fact that Mao and Fidel Castro each has his own Mercedes-Benz. Kim-Jong Il's son goes shopping in Japan and Marx smoked cigarettes chosen among a variety of brands thereby choosing the ones that satisfy him most. In the old USSR your are force-fed to smoke unpalatable cigarettes. (I was in USSR from 1987-1991 attending labor conferences in Alma Ata.-крускяа) End of quote-George Bush Sr. CIA director and Sharon Stone, the most beautiful lady I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by крупскяа

They improve their quality, hoping, I mean hoping, that the consumer would be attracted to his products and not force feed them on them like what Stalin and his predecessors Marx, Mao and Lenin did.

How was Mao Stalin's predecessor? In what quality, office or whatever?