# Forum About Russia Politics  Russia in EU

## begemot

How high on the Russian agenda is getting into the EU?  What are the earliest feasible dates for such entrance? 10 years, 20?

----------


## bad manners

What makes you think there is such an agenda?

----------


## begemot

just asking if there was.  There must be some discussion about this, no?

----------


## Alware

There's no need to get into the EU for the Russian Federation.

----------


## QWERTYZ

это даже не смешно ...классика ...
войдёт ли Россия в ЕС? Если надо - то и войдём!!!
Войдём по самые нидерланды!!!

----------


## Dogboy182

What about NATO ?  =))

----------


## QWERTYZ

::  ну в первоисточнике и было НАТО кстати ...

----------


## Pravit

Hell, войдем по самые штаты, you say! Dogboy will be sitting quietly in his history class when the teacher looks out the window and sees parachutes. He runs outside only to be mowed down by Cubans. Dogboy then runs into the forest and leads a guerilla group named after his high school hockey team. Yeah!

----------


## Jasper May

Ah, only now I understand 'войдём по самые нидерланды!'. Couldn't figure out пo+acc., thought it was used in a distributive sense. Вий думм кан ман зайн.

----------


## Czar Nicholas

Russia is never going to be accepted into the EU. Why? Simple. Russia has no need for it, since alone Russia has enough economic potential with its natural resources and industry to do well on its own. Plus Russia's vast amounts of natural resources and industrial potential makes its possible for Russia to dominate the EU. So Russia doesnt have a real reason to join and the EU has no real reason to allow Russia in. Simple as that!

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> What about NATO ?  =))

 Alexander Grushko, whose Deupty Director of the European Cooperation Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed this issue in his 2002 report for the Foreign Ministry titled "On the New Quality of Russia-NATO relations"  *
"For reasons of its military self-sufficiency and with account taken of the general situation of the world, Russia does not need NATO's collective defense gurantees."* 
Most talk about Russia joining NATO and/or the EU is largely fanciful dreaming IMHO.

----------


## Scorpio

> How high on the Russian agenda is getting into the EU?  What are the earliest feasible dates for such entrance? 10 years, 20?

 Very low.
I pretty well understand, why EU needs Russia so much. But I have absolutely no idea, why EU is needed for Russia. (As well as WTO, for that sake).

----------


## Jasper May

> Russia has no need for it, since alone Russia has enough economic potential with its natural resources and industry to do well on its own. Plus Russia's vast amounts of natural resources and industrial potential makes its possible for Russia to dominate the EU.

 Well, excuse me while I smirk annoyingly. I like Russia, but it's not as if it's even a shadow of it's former 'glory' anymore, is it? Let's compare some numbers. This is compared to Holland, mind you, a country with just 16 million inhabitants, and a labour force 10 times smaller than Russia's.
GDP - three times as much as Holland
GDP per capita - three times smaller
Revenues - half of Holland's
Exports - 2/5 that of Holland
Imports - 3/10 that of Holland
(for bad manners, source: www.cia.gov - world factbook - I know, they're evil anti-Russian conspirators) 
And you think they'd dominate the EU? They wouldn't even dominate a Russo-Dutch Union.

----------


## bad manners

> Russia has no need for it, since alone Russia has enough economic potential with its natural resources and industry to do well on its own. Plus Russia's vast amounts of natural resources and industrial potential makes its possible for Russia to dominate the EU.
> 			
> 		  Well, excuse me while I smirk annoyingly. I like Russia, but it's not as if it's even a shadow of it's former 'glory' anymore, is it? Let's compare some numbers.

 Emphasis on "potential" in the original quote. Hell, just look at the Soviet time numbers.   

> Revenues - half of Holland's
> Exports - 2/5 that of Holland
> Imports - 3/10 that of Holland

 BS. There is N/A in the Russian Oil Exports. The data are completely bogus without that. Not to mention that the Russian economy does not depend on export/import as the Dutch does.

----------


## QWERTYZ

And you think they'd dominate the EU? They wouldn't even dominate a Russo-Dutch Union.   ::   ::   Have you ever been in Russia? 
First of all we are not exporting goods or labor or whatever like that ...we are exporting mentality and attitude that is kinda sticky ...I mean we have enough mental power to change reality in places where there is too many of us ...and i doubt that such changes are of any good to that places 
We are agressive, with no respect to laws and authorities, very well prepared to survive in any circumstances and lazy to learn foreign languages
(poor Finland http://tygra.newmail.ru/hki-bear.jpg )
And don't forget that russian borders are weak enough to let in crowds and crowds of caucasians, middle asian ppl, chinese ppl and other ppl with non-russian citizienship etc etc etc

----------


## Scorpio

> Russia has no need for it, since alone Russia has enough economic potential with its natural resources and industry to do well on its own. Plus Russia's vast amounts of natural resources and industrial potential makes its possible for Russia to dominate the EU.
> 			
> 		  Well, excuse me while I smirk annoyingly. I like Russia, but it's not as if it's even a shadow of it's former 'glory' anymore, is it? Let's compare some numbers. This is compared to Holland, mind you, a country with just 16 million inhabitants, and a labour force 10 times smaller than Russia's.
> GDP - three times as much as Holland
> GDP per capita - three times smaller
> Revenues - half of Holland's
> Exports - 2/5 that of Holland
> Imports - 3/10 that of Holland
> (for bad manners, source: www.cia.gov - world factbook - I know, they're evil anti-Russian conspirators) 
> And you think they'd dominate the EU? They wouldn't even dominate a Russo-Dutch Union.

 Jasper,
for the last 10 years, the #1 top secret of Russia was the REAL state of things in the industrial sector. According to official statistics, ALL plants and factories were near death, have no funds and profits, not even paying salaries... whence not in need of paying taxes and like.  ::  
You think CIA knows situation much better than Goskomstat? I doubt. 
Now, the situation with statistics is better a bit, but still far from perfect. According to some estimates, the shadow economy is 50-75% of real production. So, if you want to know real GDP of Russia, multiply it by 2-4 (at least). 
Finally about GDP of Holland: what part of it is consumer goods and what part -- services? Which is goods to services ratio?

----------


## bad manners

We don't even have to talk about the "real" GDP. If we take the growth rate, which is 8% now, the GDP in ten years from now will be 2.2 times the current GDP (at cia.gov), that is to say $3.1 trillion. Which is 1.5 times the current GDP of Germany, the biggest economy in the EU.

----------


## Jasper May

First you criticize my numbers for being unfounded (Goskomstat better than CIA, nuh-nuh), then you give your own prognosis of future stats which of course _can't_ be proven.  ::  Doesn't matter, I'll just wait ten years and see if you're right. No point in discussing it. (where did you get the 8% GDP growth rate? I really hope you didn't double the rate found on the cia site...)

----------


## Kamion

> (where did you get the 8% GDP growth rate? I really hope you didn't double the rate found on the cia site...)

   ::    

> Emphasis on "potential" in the original quote. Hell, just look at the Soviet time numbers.

 And where exactly would we get those numbers from? If I remember correcly the Soviet Union wasn

----------


## bad manners

> (where did you get the 8% GDP growth rate? I really hope you didn't double the rate found on the cia site...)

 I took it from today's Putin speech. I do believe he knows the stuff better than the CIA.

----------


## QWERTYZ

короче... все эти приросты имеют смутное отношение к России...возьмите 10 финнов ...спросите их "каково иметь Россию соседом" и "хотели бы вы чтоб Россия вошла в евросоюз"...они всё расскажут ...и про ихнюю войну и про ощущения от...   ::   ::   ::

----------


## bad manners

[quote=Kamion] 

> Emphasis on "potential" in the original quote. Hell, just look at the Soviet time numbers.

 And where exactly would we get those numbers from? If I remember correcly the Soviet Union wasn

----------


## bad manners

> короче... все эти приросты имеют смутное отношение к России...возьмите 10 финнов ...спросите их "каково иметь Россию соседом" и "хотели бы вы чтоб Россия вошла в евросоюз"...они всё расскажут ...и про ихнюю войну и про ощущения от...

 А какое отношение к этому будут иметь ощущения финнов? Можно тогда и немцев начать спрашивать. И заодно каких-нибудь голландцев с бельгийцами про ощущения о немцев.

----------


## QWERTYZ

финнам пахнет сильнее   ::  одна из немногих не восточноевропейских стран имеющих с нами границу...   http://www.regions.ru/article/any/id/1236996.html 
а ощущения голландцев от немцев не имеет отношения к топику   ::

----------


## bad manners

> финнам пахнет сильнее   одна из немногих не восточноевропейских стран имеющих с нами границу...

 Вот так прямо через границу и пахнет? Насколько я знаю, пахнет в основном лесом, газом, нефтью и электричеством. И эти запахи финнам очень по душе. Ещё раньше, когда в Финляндии выпивка была дорогой, им очень нравился запах водки, они на него как мухи на мёд летели. Да и сейчас продолжают, привыкли-с. Я довольно часто бываю в Петербурге, и картину финнов упившихся до состояния полного нестояния лицезрею довольно часто, особенно в отелях подешевле.    

> http://www.regions.ru/article/any/id/1236996.html

 Ага, вот именно такого рода. Только с ними ещё проститутки обычно бывают.   

> а ощущения голландцев от немцев не имеет отношения к топику

 Вот именно. Равно как и таковые финнов.

----------


## QWERTYZ

да я это к чему ...что войди Россия в евросоюз, вся эта пурга мгновенно полезет через границу ...тот же 
ил-86 возвращающийся к примеру из эмиратов  - это надо видеть ...а всего то сотня-другая туристов да челноков с шубами ...а если больше чем сотня?  ::   ...плюс бесконечные таджики, китайцы , вьетнамцы и прочие ...границ с тем же Казахстаном и Китаем давно нормальных нету ...
ни одна европейская страна в здравом уме не захочет такого подарка ни за какие деньги   ::   ::  
а сумасшедших там вроде нету среди них ...

----------


## bad manners

Не понимаю я Вас. Ну кто-то там шубу купил (не понимаю, зачем русским шубы в Арабских (?) Эмиратах покупать, ну не важно) -- что в этом плохого? "Полнейшая выгода и очевидный профит." Проблема-то в чём? 
Что же касается бесконечных китайцев, вьетнамцев и прочих, то их в ЕС побольше будет, чем в России. Странный аргумент. 
Впрочем, моё мнение, что этот союз не нужен ни России, ни нынешнему ЕС. Ни политически, ни экономически. Хотя и жаль, с точки зрения маленького человека.

----------


## QWERTYZ

а ты(Вы) ведь не в России живёшь ща? 
-
Ну кто-то там шубу купил (не понимаю, зачем русским шубы в Арабских (?) Эмиратах покупать, ну не важно) -- что в этом плохого? 
-   ::  ну раз не видал, то объяснять длинно ...
-
Что же касается бесконечных китайцев, вьетнамцев и прочих, то их в ЕС побольше будет, чем в России. 
- 
да ричем тут конкретно количество китайцев в ЕС ...я говорю "границы дырявые", считай никакие ...а это
наркотрафик, трафик людей, просто нелегалы-гастарбайтеры, серые товары и хзчто ещё

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> Well, excuse me while I smirk annoyingly.

 Smirk all you want, I personally dont give a f*ck!  ::     

> I like Russia, but it's not as if it's even a shadow of it's former 'glory' anymore, is it?

 Nice straw man. Please point to where I denied that? Indeed as bad manners pointed, I emphasised Russia's economic *POTENTIAL*. Please read my post carefully next time before going off on pointless ranting!    

> And you think they'd dominate the EU?

 Under the right circumstances, yes! If Russia did join, I'd like to know what EU nation would be able to counter Russia's geo-political pull. Indeed I doubt the EU would last long if Russia did join, since inevitably conflict would erupt between Russia and the West European members. Russia has not paid tribute to any foreign power for 500 years, and there's little need for Russia to begin now.    

> They wouldn't even dominate a Russo-Dutch Union.

 LOL! I've never heard anything more ridiculious in my life! First off I'd like to know how the Netherlands could possibly dominate Russia, and sorry economics dont count. As our lord Christ once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." Contrary to what the Wall Street Journal declares, the world does not revolve around economics(at least not all the time).  
If we look at Russian history, we can see at least once where Russia was economically under-developed and had less market potential than Western Europe; yet still geo-politically dominated the continent. No Im not talking about the Cold War(although that would count as well), but back in 1812 up untill the Crimean War. In a reversal of that China during the 18th and into the mid 19th century was the world's largest market, yet was geo-politically weak(terribly weak). Economic wealth does not necessarily equal geo-political power. Economic wealth plus sufficient military power does, and Russia has *POTENTIAL* in both areas.  
As the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck onced remarked, "Russia is never as strong nor as weak as she appears."

----------


## scotcher

Syncronize your dogmas gents, there's a thinker loose in here. 
It's funny how some can read the perfectly reasonable question;   

> How high on the Russian agenda is getting into the EU? What are the earliest feasible dates for such entrance? 10 years, 20?

 as:   

> When will the snivelling and broken Russian nation surrender to the EU, and how will you attack anyone who happens to find it an interesting theoretical topic?

 Well, since the original question has been so efficiently stamped out, I have another; 
Is there something specific to Russian culture that makes it such a magnet for idealogues incapable of dispassionately discussing any topic, or is the malaise specific to this forum?

----------


## Jasper May

> Smirk all you want, I personally dont give a f*ck!

 Nice way to introduce yourself, being a newbie and all.   

> LOL! I've never heard anything more ridiculious in my life! First off I'd like to know how the Netherlands could possibly dominate Russia, and sorry economics dont count. As our lord Christ once said, "Man does not live by bread alone." Contrary to what the Wall Street Journal declares, the world does not revolve around economics(at least not all the time).

 How else if not economically? Militarily?  ::  In _modern_, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength. Maybe you're stuck in the Cold War period, but this is a time of _peace_ and cooperation, at least in Western Europe anyway.

----------


## JJ

> How else if not economically? Militarily?  In _modern_, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

 The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic. So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

----------


## waxwing

> Is there something specific to Russian culture that makes it such a magnet for idealogues incapable of dispassionately discussing any topic, or is the malaise specific to this forum?

 (synchronis/ze and ideologues .. I only point this out so that .. ahem 'somebody' else doesn't) 
My answer to your question above is rather boring .. it is specific neither to Russia nor to this forum. It's just the way a lot of people are on the internet. 
To Jasper: I think you're opening yourself up to some big attacks with that last paragraph  ::  
The idea that world power is exercised economically and not militarily .. I think that's _very_ controversial. Personally, I think America's military dominance is currently more important than her economic dominance.. e.g. AFAIK America is up to its eyeballs in debt, but of course it gets rather better terms than, say, Russia... and as a British citizen I don't really know if this is 'peacetime' what with us killing civilians by the dozen every day..

----------


## scotcher

Typos aside (thanks Waxwing  ::  ), the point I was making is that the question isn't really one of _need_, it's one of desire. 
No-one really doubts Russia's ability to stand on her own two feet economically, geo-politically, and militarily, and her potential to become a rich and self-confident economic power in her own right. Of course that is the case, just as it is the case in Germany, or France, or the UK, or any other current member of the EU. None of those countries _need_ to be in the EU either. 
The question that _will_ be asked across Europe and Russia, eventually, is whether or nor Russia could attain any *additional* prosperity, trade, security, or international influence, by becoming a member of the EU, and whether or not the EU would find it mutually beneficial.

----------


## Jasper May

Is America civilised then?  :: 
I meant Europe, or Western Europe specifically. I don't see why it's that controversial. If we (Holland) were so oriented on military protection or even agressive power, we'd have asked the US to annex us... Holland is one of the founding, and more important, members of the EU, not on account of the size of it's army, which is laughable (20,000 soldiers currently on duty, in wartime for Christ's sake), but of it's wealth, business oppurtunities, etc.  
Oops, btw, I noticed you said 'world power'. I mentioned nothing of the sort. Of course world power is based on military might.

----------


## bad manners

I must say that scotcher, strange though it may seem, asked the only relevant question in this thread. It may be argued that Russia might acquire some additional funds by joining the EU, just like Portugal did, but the recent example (Poland et al) shows that it does not work that way anymore. 
In the case of trade, it will work backwards, to Russia's disadvantage. Security is not really a concern, Russia still being a nuclear superpower. International influence is a tricky issue, but it appears unlikely that a state may acquire any by becoming subordinate to something. 
For the EU as a whole it might be beneficial, because it would obtain  better security, better trade, better economy (biggest in the world), a wide array of natural resources (security again), and, most importantly, a huge chunk of territory from which to exert geopolitical influence. But from the point of view of the current EU players, and the current Russian players, that would reduce their _respective_ assets proportionally, and that is why it will not happen any time soon.

----------


## begemot

> Originally Posted by Jasper May  How else if not economically? Militarily?  In _modern_, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.   The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. *The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic.* So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

 I've learned some new things in this forum. The US is weak economically compared to China? Russia the largest economy in the world? Don't confuse trends and potential with reality.  Projecting current trends far into the future almost never works. China has a much more robust growth rate than the US (advantages of backwardness), but the US economy dwarfs that of China even in absolute terms (let's not even meniton per capita). Sure, if current growth trends continue, China would pass the US in 50 years or so, but if US growth trends from the 1950s had continued, we'd all be millionaires by now. The US does have disturbing long term, structural economic problems with debt and trade deficits, but the fact is that growth in many other countries (especially China!) depend on robust US consumer demand.  
As for Russia, it has enormous natural wealth and a well educated population, but that guarantees nothing.  There are poor countries with incredible natural wealth (Congo, Venezuala), and rich ones with hardly any (Japan).  Right now, California alone has a much larger economy than Russia. I know there is serious underreporting of Russian wealth, but you think everyone and every large corporation in California reports their wealth honestly to the tax man? Triple official Russian figures if you like, it doesn't change anything. 
Russia also risks a brain drain of its talent. That danger would be exacerbated by premature EU membership. Exposing Russian industries to EU competition too soon would also be harmful. But the EU remains far and away Russia's largest trading partner, and I bet in the long run free access to those markets (and employment opportunities for Russian citizens) will be awful tempting. 
Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Holland is one of the founding, and more important, members of the EU, not on account of the size of it's army, which is laughable (20,000 soldiers currently on duty, in wartime for Christ's sake), but of it's wealth, business oppurtunities, etc.

 If you have wealth and don't have an army then somebody will  come and take your wealth. That's why Holland needs EU and NATO to be protected and Russia doesn't.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> I know there is serious underreporting of Russian wealth, but you think everyone and every large corporation in California reports their wealth honestly to the tax man? Triple official Russian figures if you like, it doesn't change anything.

 If we take all dollars in the world and all good manufactured by US, we'll see that dollar costs much less than it is said to cost today. So, all estimations based on dollar as equivalent are wrong....   

> Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?

 Russia isn't standing outside. Recently we formed economic block with China and some other countries (The Shanghai Five or Eurasian Economic Community). The difference is - Europe wants us to play their game with their rules, while with China it's easier to be equal partners.

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> Nice way to introduce yourself,

 Excuse me, you're the one who made a smart-ass remark to me.  ::     

> being a newbie and all.

 Irrelevant and pathetic attempt at an ad hominem.     

> How else if not economically? Militarily?  In _modern_, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

 LOL! Then please explain to me why NATO still exists, considering that the Cold War is over? Explain to me why the EU itself is planning on building a fast reaction military strike force *INDEPENDENT* of NATO if military power did not matter? Please explain to me this, since military power is _irrelevant_ in the _modern civilized_ world, when the EU itself is trying to build itself into a military power.  ::   
And thats not all: 
"The recent breakup of multiethnic states provides further evidence of the capacity of political passion to prevail over economic expediency. Throughout the 1990’s, economic interdependence meant little in the face of awakened nationalist yearnings. The Slovaks wanted out of Czechoslovakia despite the certainty of facing economic hardships. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia all sought to secede from Yugoslavia despite the economic dislocation that would follow. Since the end if the Bosnian war, the country’s Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have shunned rebuilding economic links with each other. They prefer poverty to trading with the enemy. Many of the former Soviet republics have faced severe hardship as they distance themselves from the Russian economy. They have nonetheless proceeded in their search for autonomy." 
--Charles A. Kupchan _The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century_ pg.104 
Economics determine how the world works, HA!  ::     

> Maybe you're stuck in the Cold War period, but this is a time of _peace_ and cooperation, at least in Western Europe anyway.

 LOL! I can tell you know absolute shit about history(especially with your talk about _modern_ orders and other nonsense like that).  
"This historical record also makes clear that even when states are comfortable enough with each other to allow high levels of economic interdependence to emerge, the resulting ties are no guarantor of lasting harmony. International communities knit together by their integrated economies can unravel with surprising speed. Consider Europe during the decade prior to World War I. *Trade and investments inside Europe were, in relation to the size of national economies, greater one hundred years ago than they are today.* Germany was Britain’s second-most-important trading partner(after the United States), and Britain was the top market for German exports…Borders in the early 1900s were permeable. Europeans moved more freely from country to country, without passports and without having to bother with border controls. 
Such intense levels of interdependence, however, did not avert Europe’s rapid descent into World War I…. If economic interdependence could not save Europe from war in 1914, there is no compelling reason to be confident that globalization would do any better at preserving a stable peace today."
--Charles A. Kupchan _The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century_ pg.103 
Indeed there's much in common with how economies and societies operated at the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries. So whats so new and _"modern"_ about this try around. Your assertions are proof that the saying "Those who dont remember the past are doomed to repeat" is 100% true!

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?

 True. Another way of putting it is Hunnington's "Clash of Civilizations", where the world is divided geo-politically along cultural lines. According to Hunnington, Russia stands at the center of the Orthodox bloc, which comprises Greece, Serbia, and the former Soviet republics.  
This is also supported by the Russian geo-political thinker Alexander Dugin, who sees Russia at the center of the Eurasian bloc(Russia, China, and the Middle East) to counter the Atlantic bloc(mainly US and UK but also Western Europe).

----------


## Alexi

> Oops, btw, I noticed you said 'world power'. I mentioned nothing of the sort. Of course world power is based on military might.

 But world power isn't based on just military might; there's cultural and economic influences. This all relates to terms like 'hegemony' and whatever else social theorists think up. 
Anyways, on the original point of the post, it wouldn't make sense for Russia to join the EU. For starters, there's the geographical issue: most of the country ain't even in Europe! Even the 'European-es' of the areas closest to Europe is debatable. 
The very term 'European' is dodgey because it's extent, culturally and geographically, is questionable. The very definition of 'Europe' should be carefully considered and, if countries like Russia or Turkey were admitted to the EU, would need to be redefined. 
I mean, one time, places like Russia and Asia Minor were what defined Europe because they were the 'others', outside of Europe and 'European-es'. 
The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that Europe won't be, well, 'Europe', if places that are not traditionally European join it politically, economically, etc. 
PS- Don't say that Russia is European, 'cause I don't think it really is; it's similar, but is too unique to be given that label.

----------


## Alexi

> Originally Posted by begemot  Look at it this way. The world is dividing into huge economic blocks--NAFTA, the EU, China may become the center of an Asian block--will Russia be able to compete standing outside of those, or build its own with countries of the former Soviet Union?   True. Another way of putting it is Hunnington's "Clash of Civilizations", where the world is divided geo-politically along cultural lines. According to Hunnington, Russia stands at the center of the Orthodox bloc, which comprises Greece, Serbia, and the former Soviet republics.  
> This is also supported by the Russian geo-political thinker Alexander Dugin, who sees Russia at the center of the Eurasian bloc(Russia, China, and the Middle East) to counter the Atlantic bloc(mainly US and UK but also Western Europe).

 Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations" is pretty interesting. Isn't one of his main theories that the new power of the East, Islam, will inevitably come into conflict with the West? 
It's a theory that is, obviously, abused by people trying to assert that fundamentalist terrorism represents all Arab countries and that, thus, Islamic nations are a great threat to Western civilisation.

----------


## Alexi

> LOL! Then please explain to me why NATO still exists, considering that the Cold War is over?

 NATO's still around because it's a useful facit for cooperation between nations. I know that sounds a little naive but, still, it's a great way to keep good relations between different European nations and the US. 
It's great for internal European security as well. Who went in to sort out the rubbish that Sloba-wats-his-named guy was causing? NATO did. 
If anyone thinks that NATO is around to 'keep Russia at bay', then they're paranoid. Russia's in no shape to be a problem to Europe, not mentioning the fact they have no reason to be a problem.

----------


## JJ

> I've learned some new things in this forum. The US is weak economically compared to China? Russia the largest economy in the world?

 First, I didn't say anything about Russia. Second - I told about the "real" economy. The simple example: I give you a buck for cleaning my shoes. The GDP is growing for $1. Then I clean your shoes and you give me $1. The GDP is growing for another $1. We both did nothing real but GDP has grown for $2. Do you get what I mean? Let's look in the CIA world factbook, although they forget to wright there new data:
USA
GDP $10.45 trillion (2002 est.) 
GDP - composition by sector:   
agriculture: 2% 
industry: 18% 
services: 80% (2002 est.)  
Well, the real economic is only 20%, the 80% of it is like I said befor. So the "real" GDP is not $10,45 trillion but *$2,09 trillion*
China:
purchasing power parity - $5.989 trillion (2002 est.) 
GDP - composition by sector:   
agriculture: 15.2% 
industry and construction: 51.2% 
services: 33.6% (2001)  
The "real" economic is 66.4% so it means *$3,98 trillon*. The China *1,9 times* more economically powerfull than US. It was in 2002. Now the gap is greater.   

> Don't confuse trends and potential with reality.

 Don't apply the blind eye on the facts. The facts that CIA admits and published. Just think and analyse.  

> The US does have disturbing long term, structural economic problems with debt and trade deficits, but the fact is that growth in many other countries (especially China!) depend on robust US consumer demand.

 BS. Well, not completely BS, especially US problems but that growth in China (especially!!ha-ha-ha) depends on US consumer demand. The USA is not the only one country in the world. There are India(GDP - $2.664 trillion), Russia(GDP - $1.409 trillion, and like Scorpio said the real GDP in 2-4 times larger), EU, etc. What can USA offer to whole the world? The answer is nothing material. China has almost destroied your economy. I read some months ago that in the USA was closed the last Lewi's jeans factory. They moved the factory on to China.   

> Right now, California alone has a much larger economy than Russia.

 BS. It will be happened when California will launch its own spacecrafts. At least 4 times in a year.  
...to be continued

----------


## Czar Nicholas

> Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations" is pretty interesting. Isn't one of his main theories that the new power of the East, Islam, will inevitably come into conflict with the West?

 Yes thats true.    

> It's a theory that is, obviously, abused by people trying to assert that fundamentalist terrorism represents all Arab countries and that, thus, Islamic nations are a great threat to Western civilisation.

 Indeed thats also true. The Islamic(or really Islamist) terrorists are adherents to a militant form of Islam known as Wahabbism. This creed is not the mainstay of Islamic throught, nor more than Evengelicalism is the mainstay of Christian thinking.    

> If anyone thinks that NATO is around to 'keep Russia at bay', then they're paranoid. Russia's in no shape to be a problem to Europe, not mentioning the fact they have no reason to be a problem.

 I respectfully disagree. NATO indeed has an anti-Russian agenda and the fact that the allianc keeps incroaching further into the Russian sphere of influence(after they promised not to expand into Eastern Europe if the Warsaw Pact was disolved) is enough to prove or hint at it. Plus I remember one State Department spokesman a few years ago stating that NATO's main purpose was for gaining a geo-political advantage when negotiating with the Russians. Breszinski in his books on geo-politics calls on NATO to actively seek to weaken Russia's world-power status while Russia is still vulnerable because of the breakup of the USSR.  
So yes I respectfully disagree. Russia indeed has a geniune right to be concerned about NATO, and I really wouldnt consider it paranoia.

----------


## begemot

JJ, 
You can't take services and commerce out of modern economies. In fact, the larger the percentage of what you call the "real" economy is in a country's economy, the more likely it is to be in the third world.  
Even within countries, you can see this by comparing cities.  London is overwhelmingly service and commerce dependent, and it has flourished, while the industrial north has declined dramatically. Or compare New York and Boston to Detroit and Cleveland. 
China has tremendous production capacity, but an underdeveloped consumer market.  It therefore needs to export a lot to maintain its very high growth rates. If you look at the tables here http://www.chinatoday.com/trade/a.htm  and these are Chinese figures, you see the US is by far China's largest export market.  
Overall, Japan is China's largest trading partner, with the US and EU a close second and third.  Trade between Russia and CHina is less than 10% of trade between CHina and the US.

----------


## Jasper May

Irrelevant and pathetic? Moi?  
Beh. Sucky sucky.  
Ooh, I am enjoying myself.

----------


## Pravit

Oh, Jas-Jas, really, I expected better of you! Though I suppose it's more difficult to resist the urge if you're living in the Netherlands...  ::

----------


## BlackMage

[quote="Jasper May
Of course, I have smoked something I shouldn't.[/quote] 
It works better if you eat it.

----------


## waxwing

True, smartdude, but more dangerous too .. rather like drinking vodka instead of beer. Ah reminiscences .. bhang lassi, Jaipur, tunnel vision  
hmmm 
-> wax "80g down 220 to go" wing  ::

----------


## 44 Canon

> There's no need to get into the EU for the Russian Federation.

  YEAH!!!   

> I respectfully disagree. NATO indeed has an anti-Russian agenda and the fact that the allianc keeps incroaching further into the Russian sphere of influence(after they promised not to expand into Eastern Europe if the Warsaw Pact was disolved) is enough to prove or hint at it. Plus I remember one State Department spokesman a few years ago stating that NATO's main purpose was for gaining a geo-political advantage when negotiating with the Russians. Breszinski in his books on geo-politics calls on NATO to actively seek to weaken Russia's world-power status while Russia is still vulnerable because of the breakup of the USSR.  
> So yes I respectfully disagree. Russia indeed has a geniune right to be concerned about NATO, and I really wouldnt consider it paranoia.

  I am with you entirely, although based on ALLOT of first hand experience with Russian weaponry, I wouldn't be that intimidated if they were to pick a fight. TBH, I trust Russia to keep their hands to themselves more then just about any UN country, except probably out-back countries like Norway, Switzerland etc. I think Russia has far more reason to be worried about the UN then the UN has to be worried about Russia.

----------


## scotcher

The UN, or NATO? 
Do try at least to keep your ingorances internally consistent. It would make it *a lot* (two words) easier for everyone else to follow your train of 'thought'.

----------


## Zhenya

What's all this comparising with the Nederlands all the time?...
As we all know there are only 2 things that annoys the world, People beeing intolerant of other peoples culture, and the Dutch!  ::

----------


## Линдзи

> What's all this comparising with the Nederlands all the time?...
> As we all know there are only 2 things that annoys the world, People beeing intolerant of other peoples culture, and the Dutch!

   ::   
I'm not a great fan of my Dutch great-great grandfather, who was, as far as we can tell, a one of the landowners imported by the British to "tame" the locals, i.e. my other ancestors.  Blegh.  The rest of the Dutch are fine, I'm sure   ::

----------


## Jasper May

> What's all this comparising with the Nederlands all the time?...

 Because the one making the comparisons was a Dutchman.   ::

----------


## bad manners

I am getting increasingly more frustrated with the Dutch. Really, each time I order tea in Holland I receive a smallish cup half-full of barely warm water and an array of _tea bags_. Horrid. And that once was the second tea-drinking nation in Western Europe (or the first, when fog would have "the Continent cut off").

----------


## drew881

Just a comment on security.  If Russia ever joined the EU, which will never happen anyway, the EU would not be gaining security.  Sure, they would the support to Russia's military force, but they would also be weakened in border security.  Russia has the largest land border of any country in the world, and borders some unstable countries, with a lot of traffic back and forth.  Under a visa free travel system in the EU with Russia included, the EU's security would be at a huge risk, as there would be so much more land to cover.

----------


## Scorpio

Anyway, if Russia ever join the EU, it should become the EAU.
Are they ready for name change?  ::

----------


## bad manners

> Russia has the largest land border of any country in the world, and borders some unstable countries, with a lot of traffic back and forth.  Under a visa free travel system in the EU with Russia included, the EU's security would be at a huge risk, as there would be so much more land to cover.

 What unstable countries? Or perhaps you think that the South European states, which border or simply are members of the EU now, are stable quiet countries? As well as some other countries who have visa-free travel treaties with the EU? Have you ever been to the EU and Russia? I guess no, or you would have noticed that the number of those coming from these unstable countries is orders of magnitude higher in the EU than in Russia.

----------


## drew881

You cannot deny that it opens up a larger, more difficult to control border for the European Union.  This affects both security and immigration issues.   
I have been to both Europe and Russia on multiple occasions, and have seen that the number of minorities are growing, particularly in asian populations, where the southern borders in the far east have been difficult to control, as China's population is overflowing along the border, with people looking to come over.  Opening a border with Russia could only hurt those wanting to live in Europe from Asia, and from Russia itself.    
As for unstable countries.  One could argue that Georgia is not a stable country, with recent change in leadership and the ousting of Shevernadze.  In addition they have had problems with autonomous republics.  Also, Georgia has recently arrested nuclear material smugglers who were trying to sell parts from an Armenian power plant.  In addition there have been similar arrests with authorities claiming that material either came from Ukraine or Russia.  If you look up nuclear trafficking online, there are a whole bunch of examples, as people look to sell small radioactive materials that came from various generators or plants.  This is not the kind of material that the EU would want coming across its borders.  Not to say that it would, but they would be making it easier.  Your argument will now be that the Georgians arrested these people, and that their security was sufficient, but there are still many former Soviet republics like Georgia that have nuclear material left over that is not in the most secure places.    
In addition, one could argue that Russia is not a stable country in terms of its security.  Do the same search and youll come across many of the same stories that have happened in Russia.  The enforcement caught suspects in the cases mentioned, but the fact that these opportunities exist would be enough of a red flag.

----------


## bad manners

> You cannot deny that it opens up a larger, more difficult to control border for the European Union.  This affects both security and immigration issues.

 Possibly. But not by a lot.   

> As for unstable countries.  One could argue that Georgia is not a stable country, with recent change in leadership and the ousting of Shevernadze.  In addition they have had problems with autonomous republics.

 All that is sandbox fooling around compared with the former Yugoslavia. Or with Turk/Greek tensions. Or the Muslim ghettos in the largest European cities. 
Finally, I would not be entirely surprised if Georgia entered the EU in a few years. They are going to be in NATO, and that's a bundled deal with EU these days.   

> In addition, one could argue that Russia is not a stable country in terms of its security.  Do the same search and youll come across many of the same stories that have happened in Russia.  The enforcement caught suspects in the cases mentioned, but the fact that these opportunities exist would be enough of a red flag.

 Irrelevant. Planes crashing into cities proved to be a lot more dangerous than all the nuclear trade. And the air crash over Switzerland shows just how bad that situation in Europe is. You can crash a shitload of some nasty stuff right into Berlin and they are not going to notice that until after they are neck-deep in it. Pathetic.

----------


## Alexi

> Originally Posted by drew881  Russia has the largest land border of any country in the world, and borders some unstable countries, with a lot of traffic back and forth.  Under a visa free travel system in the EU with Russia included, the EU's security would be at a huge risk, as there would be so much more land to cover.   What unstable countries? Or perhaps you think that the South European states, which border or simply are members of the EU now, are stable quiet countries? As well as some other countries who have visa-free travel treaties with the EU? Have you ever been to the EU and Russia? I guess no, or you would have noticed that the number of those coming from these unstable countries is orders of magnitude higher in the EU than in Russia.

 I think he means all the 'stans.   ::  But I agree with his main idea, that Russia would cause more trouble than good because of it's massive size. Not because it borders 'unstable countries', but because it would concievably be an easy portal into the other EU countries.

----------


## bad manners

> I think he means all the 'stans.

 Whoa, whoa there, Herr Doktor! 
I bet the EU would be happiest of happy to lure those in, with all the resources they've got. Serious 'bout it.

----------


## Alexi

> Originally Posted by Alexi  I think he means all the 'stans.     Whoa, whoa there, Herr Doktor! 
> I bet the EU would be happiest of happy to lure those in, with all the resources they've got. Serious 'bout it.

 Lol... _Mein Fuher_  ::   
Anyways, there's something that's confusing me about the EU. Is the 'European' part of the title just a name-sake, or are they actually just wanting a union of 'European' states? 
Are the 'stans' really all that European, culturally and geographically? Including countries like Turkey will, probably, be good economically, but that's really pushing a lot of boundaries. Same with ideas of Russia joining, although more geographically than culturally, I think. 
I know the main idea behind the Union is, well, to 'work towards an ever closer union', but I'm not sure how including countries to the east is going to achieve that. 
I guess what I want to know is, how serious is the talk about including countries like Russia and, eventually, eastern states? Also, apart from the 'ever closer union' thing, what are the ultimate ambitions of the EU?

----------


## BJ

The recent elections in the UK have shown a rising up of people against the European Union. The UK Independance Party has won a lot of seats in the EU parliament and they don't want the UK in the EU. If there was a referendum NOW I think the majority here would vote to leave. So its strange to see all these countries wanting to join. I think the name European Union is a misnomer or will be. Turkey isn't geographically European. It isn't culturally similar to European nations but it will eventually be admitted I am sure. Russia too if they chose to join. I don't think the EU will ever work fairly or successfully. Too much corruption. Too much difference between the member countries. I could see it happening in a couple of hundred years time so maybe we have to go through all this strife for the sake of future generations.

----------


## scotcher

> If there was a referendum NOW I think the majority here would vote to leave.

 Errr, don't get carried away now. The only UK party who advocate leaving the EU completely are UKIP, and they only polled 16.1% of the vote (that is, 16.1% of the 40% who actually bothered to vote).

----------


## Scorpio

Hi, Latvia, welcome to EU!  http://www.bb.lv/index.php?p=1&i=2738&s=1&a=102903
(sorry, in Russian -- if you can't read, don't bother) 
BETEP, your comments?  ::

----------


## carlos-england

Without reading every post on this thread
the EU and it's creation is for the involvment
of Russia, a country with vast amounts of mineral
wealth without oil. an EU with Russia is super strong. 
The benefits of Western Europe for Russian involvment
is of course oil (why do you think Napoleon and Hitler
tried to invade the place) the benefits for Russia is
increased business opportunities without selling 
everything off to American corportations. 
I for one would welcome Russia into the EU
and NATO. And it will come sooner than you think  ::

----------


## Alexi

> Without reading every post on this thread
> the EU and it's creation is for the involvment
> of Russia, a country with vast amounts of mineral
> wealth without oil. an EU with Russia is super strong. 
> The benefits of Western Europe for Russian involvment
> is of course oil (why do you think Napoleon and Hitler
> tried to invade the place) the benefits for Russia is
> increased business opportunities without selling 
> everything off to American corportations. 
> ...

 There's a couple of things I don't understand in your post that I was hoping to clear up. First off, was crude oil as valuable a thing when Napoleon was around as it is today? 
'The EU was created for Russia to join'? No, the EU formed gradually over decades from the innitial idea of uniting the states of Europe. 
To bring you up to speed on where this forum topic has gone, we (or I, I'm not sure who else specifically cares   ::  ) are a lil' lost on whether Russia is actually European enough to join the EU. If it isn't, and joins, the name 'European Union' doens't live up to its name-sake and its purpose would have to be reassessed. 
Yeah, sure, Russia and a lot of other countries to the East, have useful resources; but those resources technically have to be inside 'Europe'. It's like saying that Australia should join the EU because it has lots of Uranium. 
What 'Europe' is, its cultural and geographical boundaries, need to be properly understood and defined.

----------


## carlos-england

I was using the oil reference towards Hitler
more than Napoleon, however the gold standard
was brought around the time of the napoleonic wars
and with Russias vast amount of gold deposits, France
would have been the richest nation in the world so
therefore it was in Frances best intrests to get hold
of all that Russian gold. 
The EEC originally was used as a club for France and Germany
to trade against Britian and the Commonwealth, when 
Britian joined the EEC they lost all their trading with
the likes of Australia and New Zealand. 
Now the EU has become a political entity, I have
always thought that the main role of a political EU
is to have Russia as a member as it's final destination.
With the acceptance of the likes of Latvia, Hungary,
Estonia, unthinkable 15 years ago is now reality. 
It is nothing like saying Australia to join the EU,
don't be so ridiculous, Russia however far east it goes
has it's political and industrial centres in the west of
Russia, the goverment sits in European Russia
therefore I would say is a legitamte part of Europe.

----------


## the_intrepid

> Originally Posted by Jasper May  How else if not economically? Militarily?  In _modern_, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.   The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic. So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

 About the only economy that the USA's economy is weak compared to is the USA's economy of about 6 years ago. 
It astounds me that you actually believe such rhetoric.

----------


## the_intrepid

> First, I didn't say anything about Russia. Second - I told about the "real" economy. The simple example: I give you a buck for cleaning my shoes. The GDP is growing for $1. Then I clean your shoes and you give me $1. The GDP is growing for another $1. We both did nothing real but GDP has grown for $2. Do you get what I mean? Let's look in the CIA world factbook, although they forget to wright there new data:
> USA
> GDP $10.45 trillion (2002 est.) 
> GDP - composition by sector:   
> agriculture: 2% 
> industry: 18% 
> services: 80% (2002 est.)  
> Well, the real economic is only 20%, the 80% of it is like I said befor. So the "real" GDP is not $10,45 trillion but *$2,09 trillion*
> China:
> ...

 That was alot of hogwash. Seriously, how is industry the only important factor in an economy? Are you suggesting that other sectors of the economy do not create wealth? 
Your shoe shining example is alot of bunk, as well. You can enlarge it to include everything we buy, sell and labor for and the end turns out basically the same, except of course for the creation of wealth.   

> Don't confuse trends and potential with reality.
> Don't apply the blind eye on the facts. The facts that CIA admits and published. Just think and analyse.

 Yes, like you, since you've done such a great job of it. *snort*   

> BS. Well, not completely BS, especially US problems but that growth in China (especially!!ha-ha-ha) depends on US consumer demand. The USA is not the only one country in the world. There are India(GDP - $2.664 trillion), Russia(GDP - $1.409 trillion, and like Scorpio said the real GDP in 2-4 times larger), EU, etc. What can USA offer to whole the world? The answer is nothing material. China has almost destroied your economy. I read some months ago that in the USA was closed the last Lewi's jeans factory. They moved the factory on to China.

 Again I ask, do you really believe that industry is the only sector of the economy that can create wealth? If so, you need to do some of that "thinking and analyzing", and preferably with better clarity.   

> BS. It will be happened when California will launch its own spacecrafts. At least 4 times in a year.

 Private companies from California are launching their own spacecrafts. It's called the X-Prize (and it's not just limited to California, mind you). Also, I think you might be ignoring the fact that many private companies from California (and elsewhere) have satellites in space (or else you don't allow them to count). Much of the technology used in these private satellites and spacecraft is more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia or China.

----------


## bad manners

> Private companies from California are launching their own spacecrafts.

 Those "private spacecraft" are made by "private companies" that have been floating in the US government cash for decades. The technology that is used in those "private spacecraft" has been lavishly subsidized by the US taxpayers.   

> Much of the technology used in these private satellites and spacecraft is more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia or China.

 I don't think you will be able to name anything in particular, will you?

----------


## the_intrepid

> Those "private spacecraft" are made by "private companies" that have been floating in the US government cash for decades. The technology that is used in those "private spacecraft" has been lavishly subsidized by the US taxpayers.

 The "X-Prize" foundation is not even a decade old, so surely you don't believe that all the teams that joined could have been "floating in the US government cash for decades" as you've claimed. (Most of the teams are 'garage hobbyist' teams, and aren't the ones with the capability of getting extremely high tech.). 
Scaled Composites who developed the first [privately owend] spacecraft that made it to space is a completely privately owned company. Even though it is actually over two decades old (founded in 1982), there are no government subsidies involved. I suspect you're trying to play a game of causality, but it's not going to work. 
It's also worth mentioning that any form of government subsidizing is strictly prohibited when it comes to all X-Prize Teams. 
Maybe you're confusing the Ansari X-Prize with Space-X?   

> I don't think you will be able to name anything in particular, will you?

 When I'm referring to privately owned satellites and spacecraft, I'm more referring to satellites. I suppose I was being a bit ambitious including privately owned spacecraft (with only a few of which are actively being developed). 
I should note here that those ['private'] corporations that develop and own satellites are actually not allowed to launch the satellites themselves, but that doesn't mean they're getting a free ride from big government. 
As far as the technology used in these private satellites, well I would recommend looking at the 'Ikonos' imaging satellite. Also, you can look at all those other satellite -whatever service- providers out there (internet, imaging, multimedia, etc) and compare that technology to those of the Russian satellites in orbit. 
Chinese satellites are still behind new commercial American satellites, but are comparable to aging commercial satellites. I suppose it's becoming more difficult for the Chinese to steal American and Russian technology? 
Chinese imaging satellites "9m" resolution. The five year old Ikonos has a resolution of "1m" Until very recently Russia did not have a working imaging satellite close to "1m" as it has had some problems. 
I don't mean to sound like I'm looking down on the Russians (and I suppose the Chinese, too). In fact, I actually greatly admire Russian (and previously Soviet) technological innovation. I would go so far as to say that, on average, Russian scientists have a much greater understanding of theory and are exceptionally good brainstormers. However, they've often (and especially in modern times) lacked the accompanying economy to support the implementation of those ideas. It's quite a shame really -- if Russians could expunge all the old bureaucrats and opened up their economy, they'd make the European Union and China tremble. I might even go so far as to say that not only would they once again become the United States' only rival, they could also possibly be our greatest friend. 
I apologize if I was making it sound like the Russians were technologically inept in some way. My stance is quite the contrary. My basic point is that America has proven time and again that it has the ability to implement a vast array of advanced technologies in both the private and government sector. Russia has been lacking the economy to support the implementation, and China just has been weak in both areas.

----------


## bad manners

> The "X-Prize" foundation is not even a decade old, so surely you don't believe that all the teams that joined could have been "floating in the US government cash for decades" as you've claimed. (Most of the teams are 'garage hobbyist' teams, and aren't the ones with the capability of getting extremely high tech.).

 And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.   

> Scaled Composites who developed the first [privately owend] spacecraft that made it to space is a completely privately owned company.

 So? The companies that created the spacecraft that transported the Americans to the Moon were privately owned as well. It is the money that matters, and the money came from the US government. A very fat lot of money.   

> Even though it is actually over two decades old (founded in 1982), there are no government subsidies involved. I suspect you're trying to play a game of causality, but it's not going to work.

 I do not need to play any games. Check the history of the company and see what it had been doing prior to that, and you will see that it was the US government money that had kept it afloat and had let it develop their talent and technology.   

> It's also worth mentioning that any form of government subsidizing is strictly prohibited when it comes to all X-Prize Teams.

 I said quite plainly that it was the US government money that allowed these companies to conduct this "private" business, not that the US government paid for that idiocy.   

> Chinese imaging satellites "9m" resolution. The five year old Ikonos has a resolution of "1m" Until very recently Russia did not have a working imaging satellite close to "1m" as it has had some problems.

 This is the biggest BS I have heard to date. The Russian military satellites have had sub-meter resolution for decades now. The very first satellite (26-Apr-1962)  had 5-7 meter resolution. One-meter resolution was available to the Russians since late sixties. Your "private" technology is barely comparable to what they have 40 (forty) years ago.

----------


## the_intrepid

> And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.

 Some of those teams have several millions of dollars, and are comprised of engineers and physicists of various capacities. They know plenty. 
Scaled Compoisites, a completely private company (which never accepted government subsidy) made it to space with only a fraction of the cost of what it cost NASA.   

> So? The companies that created the spacecraft that transported the Americans to the Moon were privately owned as well. It is the money that matters, and the money came from the US government. A very fat lot of money.

 The companies who built the landing craft that landed on the moon were, indeed, contracted by the government. That's not the same thing as being subsidized, but I'll ignore the issue for now. The important thing here is that you understand Scaled Composites (being only 22 years old) was formed much later than that, and never accepted any government money. You continue to not be able to grasp this.   

> I do not need to play any games. Check the history of the company and see what it had been doing prior to that, and you will see that it was the US government money that had kept it afloat and had let it develop their talent and technology.

 No, again I say that Scaled Composites (first private company to put a man in space aboard the "SpaceShipOne". The US governmentn ever gave them any money, as you can tell not only by the rules of the X-Prize Foundation, but also by reading the company's history on their website and elsewhere. You continue to make claims without actually reading any of it.   

> I said quite plainly that it was the US government money that allowed these companies to conduct this "private" business, not that the US government paid for that idiocy.

 Private space flight into space is idiocy? When it's doing so more efficiently, and for a whole lot less money than when government organizations (NASA) did it? I think you're confused or disillusioned.   

> This is the biggest BS I have heard to date. The Russian military satellites have had sub-meter resolution for decades now. The very first satellite (26-Apr-1962)  had 5-7 meter resolution. One-meter resolution was available to the Russians since late sixties. Your "private" technology is barely comparable to what they have 40 (forty) years ago.

 I don't believe I ever mentioned military satellites, and if I had, I would have gladly pointed out that the United States, once it caught up to the Soviet Union during the 'Space Race', surpassed it in terms of many things -- including military satellite technology. I'm talking about commercial satellites.  
But since we're on military technology, the U.S. military has over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit. Until the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had about 100 or so. That number has since dropped to less than a DOZEN in the late 1990s. 
We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so. 
The first American military satellites (KeyHole: KH series) began with a resolution of about 2m (KH-1, launched in 1960). Type KH-11 and KH-12 Spy Satellites 4 inch resolutions. The Air Force and CIA Discoverer 13 series has a 12 inch resolution. KH-11 and KH-12 images are not available to the public, but I believe you can order Air Force/CIA Discoverer 13 images for a few thousand dollars.  
(The next version in the KH series, KH-13 improves upon that resolution slightly (not significantly) but incorporates stealth technology. 
Modern Russian military satellites have something like 1/3 or 1/4 of a meter resolution. This means they have a resolution of something like 10-12 inches. In Russia, modern non-military satellites have resolutions no better than 1m. In fact, Mashinostroeniya, the first private Russian imaging satellite (of the turn of the century), could get no better than a 2m resolution. Mashinostroeniya has been after Lockheed Martin (maker of Ikonos) about doing some sort of joint imaging satellite project. 
Modern American military and intelligence imaging satellites have a 4inch resolution. In Russia, the best they have to offer is 10 inches. 
Are you aware that there's a whole lot of commotion about China employing Russian satellite engineers to develop Chinese imaging satellites (the first high resolution Chinese satellite will not be launched for another year or two!). 
More information you might not like to hear is that modern Russian commercial satellites are actually used for military purposes, because the military cannot afford to have many full time imagine satellites in space at once -- so they do contract work with private Russian companies (not that the companies have much of a choice).

----------


## bad manners

[quote=the_intrepid] 

> And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.

 Some of those teams have several millions of dollars, and are comprised of engineers and physicists of various capacities. They know plenty.[/quote:ubd8k9jv]
Yeah, plenty from their previous involvement in US govt sponsored business. Just what I am talking about.   

> Scaled Compoisites, a completely private company (which never accepted government subsidy) made it to space with only a fraction of the cost of what it cost NASA.

 X-47A? Would you enlighten me how Scaled never received anything from the USD 35 million spent on the vehicle they designed and built?   

> The companies who built the landing craft that landed on the moon were, indeed, contracted by the government. That's not the same thing as being subsidized, but I'll ignore the issue for now.

 Oh really? They were receiving money from the US govt for research, design and fabrication of the stuff. Many many many years.   

> The important thing here is that you understand Scaled Composites (being only 22 years old) was formed much later than that, and never accepted any government money. You continue to not be able to grasp this.

 See above. It was just one example of the "private" business of Scaled. There are many more.   

> No, again I say that Scaled Composites (first private company to put a man in space aboard the "SpaceShipOne". The US governmentn ever gave them any money, as you can tell not only by the rules of the X-Prize Foundation, but also by reading the company's history on their website and elsewhere. You continue to make claims without actually reading any of it.

 Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.   

> Private space flight into space is idiocy? When it's doing so more efficiently, and for a whole lot less money than when government organizations (NASA) did it? I think you're confused or disillusioned.

 I am not confused. You are.  The money that NASA have spent enable these "private" companies to repeat what NASA did 40 (forty) years ago for "less" money. Simply because they can borrow the technology. But even that is done in a half-assed way. 
A few minutes of flight with a payload of less than a ton. A _real_ breakthrough, that.   

> I don't believe I ever mentioned military satellites, and if I had, I would have gladly pointed out that the United States, once it caught up to the Soviet Union during the 'Space Race', surpassed it in terms of many things -- including military satellite technology. I'm talking about commercial satellites.

 The discussion is about "private" versus "state-sponsored" space technology. As you can see, the state-sponored technology is light years ahead of this "private" stuff (which is still state-sponsored in the end.)   

> But since we're on military technology, the U.S. military has over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit. Until the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had about 100 or so. That number has since dropped to less than a DOZEN in the late 1990s.

 What does that have to do with technology? Do you think that making 100 replicas of one satellite is a technological wonder?   

> We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so.

 Sure.   

> The first American military satellites (KeyHole: KH series) began with a resolution of about 2m (KH-1, launched in 1960). Type KH-11 and KH-12 Spy Satellites 4 inch resolutions. The Air Force and CIA Discoverer 13 series has a 12 inch resolution. KH-11 and KH-12 images are not available to the public, but I believe you can order Air Force/CIA Discoverer 13 images for a few thousand dollars.

 The information on the actual resolution of KH-11 and KH-12 is classified. The 4 inch resolution is derived from "back of envelope" calculations. But even if it is true, it is hardly a tribute to engineering. These sats are huge, the size of a four-storey building orbiting the Earth. You can put your Hubble telescope into that kind of sat, big deal. The usefulness of that kind of resolution is close to zero. It is only useful for the types in CIA and their subcontractors, who were given a nice stack of money to spend.   

> Modern Russian military satellites have something like 1/3 or 1/4 of a meter resolution. This means they have a resolution of something like 10-12 inches.

 Classified just the same. I do not know, you do not know (or if you did, you would not say it here). That is comparable to the mainstream US sats anyway.   

> In Russia, modern non-military satellites have resolutions no better than 1m.

 Simply because they would all be sent to Siberia for doing any better.   

> Modern American military and intelligence imaging satellites have a 4inch resolution. In Russia, the best they have to offer is 10 inches.

 This statement is not based on anything but rumours.   

> More information you might not like to hear is that modern Russian commercial satellites are actually used for military purposes, because the military cannot afford to have many full time imagine satellites in space at once -- so they do contract work with private Russian companies (not that the companies have much of a choice).

 I do not care. So far you have failed to mention anything that would be a lot "more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia".

----------


## the_intrepid

> Yeah, plenty from their previous involvement in US govt sponsored business. Just what I am talking about.

 Some of the engineers worked for the US Government, yes. They might have even worked for organizations sponsored or subsidized by the government (which is pretty much never a good thing for business).    

> X-47A? Would you enlighten me how Scaled never received anything from the USD 35 million spent on the vehicle they designed and built?

 Now I think I see what's wrong. You think that if a privately owned company sells to government, it's being subsidized by that government. I see the government as a consumer.   

> Oh really? They were receiving money from the US govt for research, design and fabrication of the stuff. Many many many years.

 The US government was paying for services from them, so were other more private interest groups.   

> Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.

 How is SpaceShipOne idiotic?   

> I am not confused. You are.  The money that NASA have spent enable these "private" companies to repeat what NASA did 40 (forty) years ago for "less" money. Simply because they can borrow the technology. But even that is done in a half-assed way.

 If Scaled Composites, and all the other competitors were borrowing the technology, then the race would have been over for decades, would it not?   

> A few minutes of flight with a payload of less than a ton. A _real_ breakthrough, that.

 How about you and a few of your friends get together and try to accomplish the same feat.   

> The discussion is about "private" versus "state-sponsored" space technology. As you can see, the state-sponored technology is light years ahead of this "private" stuff (which is still state-sponsored in the end.)

 State-sponsoring and subdisizing are not the same as government buying, leasing, or renting technology from private companies.   

> What does that have to do with technology? Do you think that making 100 replicas of one satellite is a technological wonder?

 I didn't mention this because of the technological aspect, just merely pointing out that a more open market can maintain so much more.   

> We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so.

 Sure.   

> The information on the actual resolution of KH-11 and KH-12 is classified. The 4 inch resolution is derived from "back of envelope" calculations. But even if it is true, it is hardly a tribute to engineering. These sats are huge, the size of a four-storey building orbiting the Earth. You can put your Hubble telescope into that kind of sat, big deal. The usefulness of that kind of resolution is close to zero.

 So the first computers that took up entire rooms were not "tributes to engineering"? Riiight. 
They regularly declassify information. If it's not a threat to national security, or the security of some bureaucrats job, it'll be declassified. That's pretty much a law - something akin to the 'Sunshine Law'.   

> It is only useful for the types in CIA and their subcontractors, who were given a nice stack of money to spend.

 I never made the claim that it was useful for anyone else?   

> Classified just the same. I do not know, you do not know (or if you did, you would not say it here). That is comparable to the mainstream US sats anyway.

 Comparable to mainstream commercial US satellites.   

> Simply because they would all be sent to Siberia for doing any better.

 Sadly, that sort of thing happens everywhere.   

> This statement is not based on anything but rumours.

 Much of the information I present to you was declassified from government agencies, 
including NASA and the U.S.A.F.   

> I do not care. So far you have failed to mention anything that would be a lot "more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia".

 Like I've said, I have no doubt that Russians could produce just as highly advanced technology as Americans -- if not even more advanced (all things being equal). Unfortunately, all things are not equal as Russia lacks the economy to keep up. This is why they fell behind late in the Cold War. So when I say we're technologically more advanced, I'm talking about state-of-the-art technology being operational because of the United States being able to afford to put billions of dollars more into 'staying ahead' in the game.

----------


## bad manners

> Some of the engineers worked for the US Government, yes. They might have even worked for organizations sponsored or subsidized by the government (which is pretty much never a good thing for business).

 Is that you way of admitting that without having the US govt spending billions on dollars on space these private companies would be nowhere? I am glad that you agree.   

> Now I think I see what's wrong. You think that if a privately owned company sells to government, it's being subsidized by that government. I see the government as a consumer.

 Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.   

> [quote:1f4lzz4n]
> Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.

 How is SpaceShipOne idiotic?[/quote:1f4lzz4n]
I have explained. Its capabilities are nowhere near close the real number one space ship.   

> If Scaled Composites, and all the other competitors were borrowing the technology, then the race would have been over for decades, would it not?

 Which decades? Two decades ago all these guys were occupied full time in Cold War's activities. Now that Cold War is over many find themselves with too much free time on their hands and too little money to spend. And free time alone will not get you a spacecraft.   

> How about you and a few of your friends get together and try to accomplish the same feat.

 What for?   

> State-sponsoring and subdisizing are not the same as government buying, leasing, or renting technology from private companies.

 Refer to the above. If the only means for a company to sustain itself is through sales to the government, then each sale to the government is a form of state-sponsoring or subdisizing.   

> So the first computers that took up entire rooms were not "tributes to engineering"? Riiight.

 That sat was definitely not the first. If it is a tribute to something, then it is a tribute to the appetites of the military-industrial complex.   

> They regularly declassify information. If it's not a threat to national security, or the security of some bureaucrats job, it'll be declassified. That's pretty much a law - something akin to the 'Sunshine Law'.

 So would you quote a document that declassifies KH-11's 4-inch resolution?   

> I never made the claim that it was useful for anyone else?

 Would not that explain why the Russians never had anything like that? Or perhaps they did, the appetites of their military-industrial complex were hardly smaller.   

> Comparable to mainstream commercial US satellites.

 False and you know it. How many 4-inch resolution US sats are in orbit today? Out of "over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit"? 
Besides, some sources say that the fifth generation of the Soviet reconsats (ca 1982) had 20-centimeter resolution, which is the same as that of KH-11/12. Except that the sats are almost two times smaller and lighter.   

> So when I say we're technologically more advanced, I'm talking about state-of-the-art technology being operational because of the United States being able to afford to put billions of dollars more into 'staying ahead' in the game.

 Precisely. And that is the US govt money. Which proves my point yet again.

----------


## the_intrepid

> Is that you way of admitting that without having the US govt spending billions on dollars on space these private companies would be nowhere? I am glad that you agree.

 Last year I worked as an intern at a local Emergency Management Agency (Owned and Operated by the County Government). We bought office supplies from a local dollar store. Do you also consider this government subsidizing?   

> Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.

 The United States government buys alot of vehicles from various automobile manufacturers and dealers. (Have you ever heard the cliche about all Federal Employs getting 40,000 dollars a year and a 'Buick'?) Why do you consider this a normal producer-consumer relationship and not private space flight?   

> I have explained. Its capabilities are nowhere near close the real number one space ship.

 I never said the capabilities were as close. I'm saying that privatized space flight is a good thing.   

> Which decades? Two decades ago all these guys were occupied full time in Cold War's activities. Now that Cold War is over many find themselves with too much free time on their hands and too little money to spend. And free time alone will not get you a spacecraft.

 If NASA is doing so good of a job, and their so much more useful than these 'garage hobbyists', why would the government (the same government that funds NASA) also fund (subsidize) these hobbyists? The answer? They don't. They have no reason to.
It's not government subsidizing whenever the government is a consumer.   

> Refer to the above. If the only means for a company to sustain itself is through sales to the government, then each sale to the government is a form of state-sponsoring or subdisizing.

 See, the winner of the Ansari X-Prize gets several millions of dollars, so they're not sustain themselves "only through sales to the government". They're using their own capital to win a prize in a competition.   

> So would you quote a document that declassifies KH-11's 4-inch resolution?

 Old articles from Aviation Week and Space Technology (from early last year, if I remember correctlly). If you would prefer not believing me, then fine. It really matters little.
I'm just not going to spend hours looking through old magazines or browsing archives on the web in order to find an old article. 
You could check out NASA's website, or perhaps the U.S.A.F. website (though at the latter of the two, there is probably more concentration on recruiting at the moment. You still might find some good information).   

> Would not that explain why the Russians never had anything like that? Or perhaps they did, the appetites of their military-industrial complex were hardly smaller.

 I have no doubt that the appetites of the Russian (and former Soviet) military-industrial complex were quite large. They just couldn't afford to feed it.   

> False and you know it. How many 4-inch resolution US sats are in orbit today? Out of "over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit"?

 Maybe by the time SpaceShipTwentyFour Comes around, I'll be able to go up and count them myself.    

> Besides, some sources say that the fifth generation of the Soviet reconsats (ca 1982) had 20-centimeter resolution, which is the same as that of KH-11/12. Except that the sats are almost two times smaller and lighter.

 ... and the KeyHole satellites had greater mobility, and nifty little features like able to clearly peer through clouds. 
Also interesting to note that American satellites did not need to return to Earth to drop off film canisters starting as early as 1976, where as it took the Soviets well into the 1980s in order to achieve the same feat.   

> Precisely. And that is the US govt money. Which proves my point yet again.

 It's not just 'US Government' money ). You seem to think that any success of a country's economy is only because of government interest in whatever becomes a successful venture. I suppose WalMart only succeeded because the U.S. Government subsidizes them, which is undoubtedly true because one time, while at work (working for local government) I had to drive over to WalMart in order to buy printer cartridges?

----------


## bad manners

> Last year I worked as an intern at a local Emergency Management Agency (Owned and Operated by the County Government). We bought office supplies from a local dollar store. Do you also consider this government subsidizing?

 See below.   

> [quote:3swn4pry]
> Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.

 The United States government buys alot of vehicles from various automobile manufacturers and dealers. (Have you ever heard the cliche about all Federal Employs getting 40,000 dollars a year and a 'Buick'?) Why do you consider this a normal producer-consumer relationship and not private space flight?[/quote:3swn4pry]
Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again here: "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?   

> I never said the capabilities were as close. I'm saying that privatized space flight is a good thing.

 It's good for your ego, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of technology.   

> If NASA is doing so good of a job, and their so much more useful than these 'garage hobbyists', why would the government (the same government that funds NASA) also fund (subsidize) these hobbyists? The answer? They don't. They have no reason to.
> It's not government subsidizing whenever the government is a consumer.

 How can you be so dense? I have said many times that the govt is not subsidizing the hobbyists. However, the companies which are getting somewhere are the companies that depend on the US govt in a significant way. For the simple reason that the govt gives them so much that they can have a little fun on the side. It is equally important that these companies have been doing this stuff on the US taxpayers’ money for decades. Look at the top guys at these competitions. They are not newcomers. They have been in aerospace for decades.   

> See, the winner of the Ansari X-Prize gets several millions of dollars, so they're not sustain themselves "only through sales to the government". They're using their own capital to win a prize in a competition.

 They spent more than they win.   

> Old articles from Aviation Week and Space Technology (from early last year, if I remember correctlly). If you would prefer not believing me, then fine. It really matters little.
> I'm just not going to spend hours looking through old magazines or browsing archives on the web in order to find an old article.

 Thought so. Nothing but rumours.   

> Maybe by the time SpaceShipTwentyFour Comes around, I'll be able to go up and count them myself.

 Translation: "yes, only a few US reconsats have 4-inch resolution. The bulk has 12-inch or something."   

> ... and the KeyHole satellites had greater mobility, and nifty little features like able to clearly peer through clouds.

 Did the Russians tell you "sh*t, it's too bad our babies cannot see through clouds"? Did they?   

> Also interesting to note that American satellites did not need to return to Earth to drop off film canisters starting as early as 1976, where as it took the Soviets well into the 1980s in order to achieve the same feat.

 The fifth generation (ca 1982) does not depend on that. They still might, though, because it makes a lot of sense security-wise. Radiolinks can be jammed, while it is very difficult to intercept a film canister dropped over the Russian territory.   

> It's not just 'US Government' money ). You seem to think that any success of a country's economy is only because of government interest in whatever becomes a successful venture. I suppose WalMart only succeeded because the U.S. Government subsidizes them, which is undoubtedly true because one time, while at work (working for local government) I had to drive over to WalMart in order to buy printer cartridges?

 "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." See for yourself if that applies to WalMart.

----------


## the_intrepid

> Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again here: "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago."

 Saying that they would go out of business without the US Government is something that cannot really be said for certainty unless you maintain the fact that the US government makes selling /alot of things/ illegal to anyone who isn't the US Government (or Intelligence, or Military, etc). If even selling alot of technology to private companies was easier to do (by law), the company might be able to do just fine without the US Government as a consumer.   

> Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?

 Would like to name one that would? Do you think the US government buys more cars, per year, than the rest of the population of the United States?   

> It's good for your ego, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of technology.

 I think it's good for more than 'my ego', but whatever.   

> How can you be so dense? I have said many times that the govt is not subsidizing the hobbyists. However, the companies which are getting somewhere are the companies that depend on the US govt in a significant way. For the simple reason that the govt gives them so much that they can have a little fun on the side. It is equally important that these companies have been doing this stuff on the US taxpayers’ money for decades. Look at the top guys at these competitions. They are not newcomers. They have been in aerospace for decades.

 I thought you were trying to say that the US Government was subsidizing the hobbyists. My apologies for the mix up.   

> They spent more than they win.

 I was actually shocked to learn that fact as well. 
To be completely honest, I don't believe space flight has really been all that useful to us.
For instance, I formerly knew a gentleman who used to work at NASA, and he stated that alot of the information about near Earth asteroids that could collide with the Earth, as well as information about weather phenomena like El Nino, has been fabricated in order to keep receiving more and more money from the US Government. 
Alot of the things that NASA does are counter-productive -- or at least a waiste of money.
(Not that this was relevant to the current conversation...)   

> Thought so. Nothing but rumours.

 A tiny bit of information for you to start with if you'd like to dig up the articles yourself.   

> Translation: "yes, only a few US reconsats have 4-inch resolution. The bulk has 12-inch or something."

 I don't believe I ever made the claim that most of them were 4inch resolution or better?
I'd be willing to be tthat most of the satellites are no better than 10-12inches in resolution.
It wouldn't be worth it.   

> Did the Russians tell you "sh*t, it's too bad our babies cannot see through clouds"? Did they?

 Would it be useful for Russian to have that capability? Probably.   

> The fifth generation (ca 1982) does not depend on that. They still might, though, because it makes a lot of sense security-wise. Radiolinks can be jammed, while it is very difficult to intercept a film canister dropped over the Russian territory.

 Actually that's a very good point. I didn't think of the radiolink jamming.   

> "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." See for yourself if that applies to WalMart.

 I think WalMart could have survived and done quite well without the US Government as a customer, however, the simple fact that WalMart is a modern corporation, and the modern corporation is a purposeful government construct, means that WalMart could not have existed in its current form. :-p

----------


## bad manners

> Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?
> 			
> 		  Would like to name one that would? Do you think the US government buys more cars, per year, than the rest of the population of the United States?

 That is my point exactly. The US govt does not buy more cars than the rest of the US population. It does buy infinitely more military aircraft and spacecraft (military and civil) than the rest of the US population.   

> Alot of the things that NASA does are counter-productive -- or at least a waiste of money.

 Correct. That is how it happens in state-sponsored business. In the US, in Russia and everywhere. This is why it is always desirable to replace that with "private" business. Unfortunately, you cannot do it in the case of space.   

> A tiny bit of information for you to start with if you'd like to dig up the articles yourself.

 I've read the articles. They are "expert opinions". KH-11/12 have never been declassified, even though the full set of KH-11 specs was leaked to the Soviets a few years after its launch. For as little as USD 3000. Good deal, eh?   

> I don't believe I ever made the claim that most of them were 4inch resolution or better?

 When I said that the mainstream Russian reconsat were comparable to the mainstream US reconsats, you disagreed. That would imply that the mainstream US reconsats had resolutions better than 10-12 inch.   

> Would it be useful for Russian to have that capability? Probably.

 Probably. Do you know for sure they don't have it? Do you know for sure they do have it? I don't think so. All you know is that KH-12 is said to have that cool thing, that is all the information that we have.   

> I think WalMart could have survived and done quite well without the US Government as a customer, however, the simple fact that WalMart is a modern corporation, and the modern corporation is a purposeful government construct, means that WalMart could not have existed in its current form. :-p

 That point of view is new to me. I am not even sure I agree or disagree. The US govt has made a lot to regulate business in the last century, so there may be a measure of truth to that statement.

----------


## the_intrepid

> Unfortunately, you cannot do it in the case of space.

 It has yet to be decided, though I certainly would admit that government has been better at it so far.   

> Probably. Do you know for sure they don't have it? Do you know for sure they do have it? I don't think so. All you know is that KH-12 is said to have that cool thing, that is all the information that we have.

 I see what you're saying. I'll admit it was perhaps too ambitious of a claim to make, without having any actual physical sources available to back me up.   

> That point of view is new to me. I am not even sure I agree or disagree. The US govt has made a lot to regulate business in the last century, so there may be a measure of truth to that statement.

 "Market Socialism". Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were major players in creating the modern corporation. They saw it as a way to nationalize industry.

----------


## Aristodorus

If Russia enter the EU, the USA will have have not many hopes  :P  :P .  
As for imports and exports you say I know that my country (Greece) exports many goods in Russia (mainly fabricated food).

----------


## the_intrepid

> If Russia enter the EU, the USA will have have not many hopes  :P  :P .  
> As for imports and exports you say I know that my country (Greece) exports many goods in Russia (mainly fabricated food).

 An issue of high importance to the United States, is that Russia's economy becomes stronger and stronger, and the country become more and more stable. There seems to be alot of distrust between the two countries still, but with free trade and no conflict of interests with European and Eurasian countries, this could be reduced to bare minimum. 
As I was saying...
If Russia becomes weak, then the growing European Union and China will look upon Russia's land with hungry eyes. In fact, it seems China looks upon Eastern Russia now with hungry eyes. Of course, there are a few European countries that still would like to see Russia fall. So it is both fortunate and unfortunate, that U.S. maintain friendship and trade with Russia and help Russia get sturdy legs back. 
If Russia does not completely stablize... Russia will be in trouble and America will find little friendship in Europe/Eurasia. (Since the European Union is basically a union to counter American political, economic, and military power.)

----------


## Mordan

> I was using the oil reference towards Hitler
> more than Napoleon, however the gold standard
> was brought around the time of the napoleonic wars
> and with Russias vast amount of gold deposits, France
> would have been the richest nation in the world so
> therefore it was in Frances best intrests to get hold
> of all that Russian gold. 
> The EEC originally was used as a club for France and Germany
> to trade against Britian and the Commonwealth, when 
> ...

 I tend to agree with you.
Furthermore, I want to reply to people who question the Europeanish nature of Turkey and Russia. 
Yea sure Both countries have much land outside geographic Europe. Yet do not forget The Oural is one of the geographical boundaries and therefore Moscow is inside Europe geographically. 
Also historically, Russia and Turkey has been linked to Europe. Look no further than Istanbul (former  Eastern Roman Empire capital city) and St Petersburg, often called the Northern Venisia. These two cities underlines the profound european nature of these two countries, both culturally and politically.  
I'm also fond of the board games like "Grand Siecle", an historic simulation of Europe in the 18 century. Guess what? Turkey and Russia played a major role, influencing the politics of other European countries. 
Also I'm training my Russian with a former USSR citizen living in Belgium. She is clearly culturally similar to me. From a cultural point of View I would say the biggest cultural gap to ever exist in EU would be with he South East Kurds from Turkey. 
Anyway I think Russia will not join the EU anytime soon. Belarus and Ukraine have to join first. Turkey, I hope, will join the EU around 2015. At best Russia might join the EU around 2030. And it might not be relevant anymore in those times.  
Based on the comments I have read here, I would say the barrier for Russia to enter the EU would be the nationalist pride of some Russians, thinking that entering the EU would be some kind of destruction/ submission of motherland Russia. I hope to be wrong.  
Cheers 
Mordan

----------

