|
Obama’s Russia Policies Are Based On Ignorance, Illusions
Obama's Russia policies are based on ignorance and driven by illusions:
President Barack Obama dismissed Russia as a nation that "doesn't make anything" and said in an interview with the Economist magazine that the West needs to be "pretty firm" with China as Beijing pushes to expand its role in the world economy.
…
"Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking," he said.
Fact: Russia is making and exporting not only raw materials but also lots of industrial goods, machinery (65% increase over 5 years) and weapons:
Russia has cemented its place as the world's second largest suppliers of arms. In 2012, the country shipped $15.13 billion worth of weapons, up $2 billion from the year before.
…
Although Russian arms manufacturers still sell only a third of what their American counterparts achieve, the yearly rate of growth in exports and the over-fulfillment of annual plans cannot fail to please the authorities and defense industry chiefs.
Fact: Russia has strong, net positive migration:
Russia experiences a constant flow of immigration. On average, close to 300,000 legal immigrants enter the country every year; about half are ethnic Russians from the other republics of the former Soviet Union. There is a significant inflow of ethnic Armenians, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Tajiks into big Russian cities, something that is viewed unfavorably by some citizens. In addition, there are an estimated 4 million illegal immigrants from the ex-Soviet states in Russia.
Fact: Over the last decade life expectancy in Russia has significantly increased:
Russia – Life expectancy at birth
| Date |
Life expectancy |
Life expectancy – Men |
Life expectancy – Women |
| 2012 |
70.46 |
64.90 |
76.30 |
| 2011 |
69.66 |
64.00 |
75.60 |
| 2010 |
68.86 |
63.10 |
74.90 |
| 2009 |
68.70 |
62.80 |
74.70 |
| 2008 |
67.90 |
61.80 |
74.20 |
| 2007 |
67.50 |
61.40 |
73.90 |
| 2006 |
66.60 |
60.40 |
73.20 |
| 2005 |
65.47 |
58.87 |
72.40 |
| 2004 |
65.42 |
58.87 |
72.30 |
| 2003 |
65.01 |
58.51 |
71.83 |
| 2002 |
65.09 |
58.50 |
72.00 |
| 2001 |
65.49 |
59.00 |
72.30 |
| 2000 |
65.34 |
59.00 |
72.00 |
Fact: Russia has genuine population growth:
[L]last year [..] Russia recorded its first year of natural population growth since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, with the number of births exceeding the number of deaths by 24,013. The trend continued through the beginning of this year, according to data released by the State Statistics Service at the end of May.
All four claims Obama made in the Economist interview quoted above are demonstrably false. They are mere illusions. How qualified then is he to decide on policy issues with regard to Russia?
Considering motive is hazardous, better to go from the bottom up with the facts, imho.
But the MH17 shoot down is really quite mysterious viewed from that angle.
First, one can exclude Russia as a perpetrator (collaborator, etc.), if one party had a lot to lose, it was Putin.
As for the separatists, they are in a Putinesque position. How does shooting down an airliner filled with civilians further their cause in any way? Presumably they themselves would view it as a despicable, horrific act, not in their ‘military’ code, and even if uncaring, it is clearly contrary to their interests. In fact blaming them from the outside seems a huge stretch and a hard sell. (As it has proved to be.)
The Ukr. Govmt / main actors. They are about to sign agreements with the EU, the IMF etc. and they shoot down a plane filled with European / Western tourists (as most of the planes would have been, and a 10-15 grieving families vs. 300 has the same effect) to… blame the separatists? I don’t think so.
I wrote before that this kind of action didn’t seem to me to be “Ukrainian,” just an impression.
A major problem with a separatist plot is that the distance, conceptual and material, between presumed separatist actions and what happened (motive, means e.g. BUK missiles) is too great. Far better something on the ground, burning babies is good to go, better in fact, much more flashy for presenting separatists as barbarians with blood lust and encompassing hate for all things not ‘on their side.’
Looking at the statements and some vid. of the Ukr. official reaction I felt they were puzzled, and were blaming the only possible (in their eyes) culprits. Out of the loop!
Imho the Ukr. authorities at the front of the scene are not competent, experienced, hardened politicians, strategists, military, they are, for some, close to nuts, for others, gangsters who have been given a free hand, all used to their own little mafia microcosm and support systems. Nobody experienced would trust them even with plans for a secret birthday party. The counter argument is plain: some key figures are under US (or US-EU) control and they manage that position in public.
We can’t know what the intended effects were. (Accepting that the plane was shot down, cause was not an internal electric failure, etc.) What were the real effects? On the ground, in the Donbass? None or nothing new. In the Ukr. parliament or the like? Nothing important happened.
World-wide, though, hate of Russia and the separatists was notched up, under false or flimsy pretexts, trumpeted by media. It is likely that the new round of sanctions against Russia were spurred by this disaster, even though all SS services in the EU know with certainty or suspect that the separatists (or Russians) were not responsible. The EU bows down to a fake script that is forcibly imposed.
The culprits were some flavor of ‘rogues.’
The US has even gone so far as to say that separatists were to blame, but it was a ‘mistake’ in an attempt to downscale.
for ex, al jazz. http://tinyurl.com/p5eyba8
ha, nothing to see here, a dumb mistake!
Posted by: Noirette | Aug 6 2014 14:36 utc | 103
|
