Russia question?

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia question?

Sorry $#*. I'm being unfairly flippant. You have evinced far greater knowledge of the markets and financial matters than I. My viewpoint that this is all one great big clusterf*ck brought about by the interaction of human nature with a structural bias for short term thinking -- as opposed to a carefully orchestrated plan -- is probably just evidence that I don't get it.

No problem ASH no need to feel sorry. Anybody (especially myself) can make mistakes and talk nonsense. I'll try tonight to gather various fragments of my opinions in one piece posted at ... Rant and Rave

All input would be more than welcomed.

[phirang]

Re: Russia question?

I agree with you ASH; Darwin wouldn't have it any other way!

Politics is a markov process: what have you done for me lately?

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Russia question?

1) Geopolitically, Russia's ability to fund international mischief is severely restricted.

2) An unintended consequence of Vlad (the Invader) Putin's little foray into Georgia and its' investigation of Mechtel has put a severe chill on investment in the country

3) The rebirth of Soviet style micromanagement has stifled scientific and business innovation in the country.

Long term, Russia is a dying country, demographically and economically. Any deflation in commodity prices or western energy independence will accelerate their decline.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia question?

1) Geopolitically, Russia's ability to fund international mischief is severely restricted.

2) An unintended consequence of Vlad (the Invader) Putin's little foray into Georgia and its' investigation of Mechtel has put a severe chill on investment in the country

3) The rebirth of Soviet style micromanagement has stifled scientific and business innovation in the country.

Long term, Russia is a dying country, demographically and economically. Any deflation in commodity prices or western energy independence will accelerate their decline.

Russia is much smaller than the US and also doesn't have a fiat currency, so its ability to fund international mischief has always been smaller.

But Russia doesn't need to spend a lot of money to do that - unless they have an overseas war like Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon Pakistan like the US.

From a mischief standpoint - Chavez is practically foaming at the mouth to incite mischief in Central/South America; not much encouragement needed there. Cuba is being coy/smart, likely won't matter much since Venezuela is more interested capable.

For that matter the situation in Mexico is getting interesting; with declining Pemex revenues, can the Mexican government keep holding off the cartels? It is unclear which one has more money these days - and unlike Colombia, Mexico is a very large population country.

But it is the ongoing commitments that matter: Iraq, Iran, Taiwan, S. Korea, Israel, Poland, Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan are more than enough to keep the US military hopping for years to come.

As for investment into Russia - sure, lots of Americans have picked up stakes and left. But portfolio investment is a shadow of its former self even before this year, and direct investments both are hard to move and are hard to justify avoiding since oil is still well over its price 1 year ago and much much more than its price 3 years ago.

I'm still waiting to see - while the stock market is down, I've noted previously that Russian stocks are a terrible investment and a sucker's play.

The real question is just how dependent Russian companies are on borrowed money. With interest rates having been historically very high and with my own personal experiences being that companies I've worked with did not borrow money at all, it is unclear how a credit crunch would affect businesses' ability to grow.

On the other hand, the large companies definitely did borrow a lot under the normal nouveau business mentality in rapidly growing economies.

Time will tell just how much of a pyramid scheme it all was.

As for Soviet style micromanagement - not sure where you're getting all of that from.

The work being done in the institutes is still very interesting - it is just that in the past decade, a lot of the top notch researchers moved to greener pastures in other nations. A search of papers and patents shows a LOT of russian names.

Recently this has been somewhat reversing.

I don't see any evidence of state meddling in the institutes - in fact funding levels have been going up on contrast to US national science research.

As for business innovation - I think Russia's failure to adopt the securitization model, the increase debt/buy back shares game, the off balance sheet vehicle, the $100M startup, and so forth has not exactly been a bad thing.

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia question?

Russia is much smaller than the US and also doesn't have a fiat currency, so its ability to fund international mischief has always been smaller.

Could someone explain the term fiat money? I thought every currency is fiat.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia question?

D,

In this context, the full technical term is a fiat reserve currency.

You are correct that all non explicitly commodity backed currencies are fiat, but only the dollar today is a reserve currency.

Having this fiat reserve status means that the US has been able to occupy Iraq with zero direct out of pocket payments from US citizens. All this cost has been borne by foreigners who buy US investment paper - which when sold, the proceeds are used to pay troops, Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia question?

D,

In this context, the full technical term is a fiat reserve currency.

You are correct that all non explicitly commodity backed currencies are fiat, but only the dollar today is a reserve currency.

Having this fiat reserve status means that the US has been able to occupy Iraq with zero direct out of pocket payments from US citizens. All this cost has been borne by foreigners who buy US investment paper - which when sold, the proceeds are used to pay troops, Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

I'm not sure, but I heard that Vietnam really drove the US into bankruptcy during Bretton Woods (gold convertibility)


Such a thing would have probably been unthinkable back then

'Iraq was awash in cash. We played football with bricks of $100 bills'

....

Because the Iraqi banking system was in tatters, the funds were placed in an account with the Federal Reserve in New York. From there, most of the money was flown in cash to Baghdad. Over the first 14 months of the occupation, 363 tonnes of new $100 bills were shipped in - $12bn, in cash. And that is where it all began to go wrong.

"Iraq was awash in cash - in dollar bills. Piles and piles of money," says Frank Willis, a former senior official with the governing Coalition Provisional Authority. "We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery. It was a wild-west crazy atmosphere, the likes of which none of us had ever experienced."

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/20/usa.iraq

[c1ue]

Re: Russia question?

I'm not sure, but I heard that Vietnam really drove the US into bankruptcy during Bretton Woods (gold convertibility)

D,

From Dr. Hudson's book: Super Imperialism, the Economic Strategy of American Empire

In 1964, foreign dollar holdings grew to exceed the U.S. gold stock, threatening an embargo on U.S. gold sales

Thus Vietnam was actually not the start - it was the Korean conflict.

But,

By 1968, however, the direct foreign-exchange cost of American military activity abroad was running at about $4.5 billion annually, of which about $2.5 billion was the specific result of the war in Vietnam.

To put this in perspective, GDP in 1968 started at a run rate of $879.9B, and ended at a rate of $936.3B.

Spending on Iraq today is much larger, but then again the dollars spent today are not redeemable at $35/oz for gold.

But the mechanism is the same: in the 50s and 60s, the dollars being spent were subsidized by the gold held in the rest of the Bretton Woods group, while today the dollars being spent are being subsidized by the Treasuries and agency debt held by China, India, etc.

[ASH]

Re: Russia question?

1) Geopolitically, Russia's ability to fund international mischief is severely restricted.

I gather that they can create plenty of mischief by selling their S300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

A lot of Russia's potential for international mischief is connected to what technology they are willing to share with whom.

[phirang]

Re: Russia question?

I gather that they can create plenty of mischief by selling their S300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

A lot of Russia's potential for international mischief is connected to what technology they are willing to share with whom.

Putin's colleagues died in afghanistan thanks to the stingers... just food for thought.

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia question?

I gather that they can create plenty of mischief by selling their S300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

A lot of Russia's potential for international mischief is connected to what technology they are willing to share with whom.

Does it work?

The stuff they sold to Iran/Syria seems to have made Iran nervous

Israel suspected of 'hacking' Syrian air defences

Did algorithms clear path for air raid?


Posted in Enterprise Security, 4th October 2007 15:17 GMT

Questions are mounting over how Israeli planes were able to sneak past Syria's defences and bomb a "strategic target" in the country last month.

Israeli F-15s and F-16s bombed a military construction site on 6 September. Earlier reports of the attack were confirmed this week when Israeli Army radio said Israeli planes had attacked a military target "deep inside Syria", quoting the military censor.

..


Instead of jamming radar signals, Suter uses a more sophisticated approach of "hacking" into enemy defences.

"The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see, and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can't be seen," Aviation Week explains. "The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading message algorithms."

Suter is said to have being "tested operationally" in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year, according to Aviation Week. Syria reportedly recently bought two state-of-the art radar systems from Russia, reckoned to be Tor-M1 launchers that carry a payload of eight missiles, as well as two Pachora-2A systems. Iran recently bought 29 of these Tor launchers from Russia for $750m in order to defend its nuclear sites.

The apparent failure of these systems in detecting and responding to the Israeli raid therefore poses questions for arms manufacturers and armies all the way from Damascus to Moscow and over to Tehran.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...dar_hack_raid/

Putin seems to bring back the memories of better relations, I don't know if he shares the views of Medvedev or if it's something else.

Russian president says US 'spoiled relations' so it's up to new US president to improve ties
By DAVID NOWAK | Associated Press Writer
10:32 AM CDT, September 13, 2008

MOSCOW (AP) _ Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said he expects the next U.S. administration to improve the two countries' strained relations and urged Washington to remember that "mutual interests outweigh some disagreements" during global crises.

"This was so in World War I and World War II. We in Russia have never forgotten this. We would like our American partners to remember this as well," Putin was quoted as saying in an interview published Saturday in the French daily Le Figaro.

A Russian transcript was posted on the government's Web site.

"During (Abraham) Lincoln's time, a U.S. statesman who was secretary of state at the time said that we (Americans) prefer relations with Russia to relations with all other European countries if only because Russia always wishes us well," Putin said.

He said although ages have passed since Lincoln's time, "when global crises have emerged in the world, Russia and the U.S. have always been together."

...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2625222.story

Medvedev mentioning it was dull behind the iron curtain

I don’t want to live behind an iron curtain’

“We discussed the rearmament of the Russian armed forces yesterday. We’ll have to change some priorities, but all the rest remains the same. We don’t need a closed, militarised country behind an iron curtain. I don’t want to live in a country like that. I used to. It was boring and dull.”

...

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/30353

[ASH]

Re: Russia question?

Does it work?

The stuff they sold to Iran/Syria seems to have made Iran nervous

That's a good question. I don't know. The S300 is supposed to be so good that its aquisition by Iran would be a "red line" for Israel, because the Israeli airforce lacks the ability to defeat it. The Tor M-1 systems mentioned by the article are short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) of approximately the same vintage as the S300, which is a long-range system. I believe that Soviet air defense systems are designed to be layered and networked, and if there were only two Tor M-1 systems in Syria, perhaps they were not being used in the ideal way. I read that Iran has 29 Tor M-1 launchers and is trying to buy the S300 from Russia to augment their system.

Interestingly, the S300 is the Soviet version of the Patriot missile. As anti-aircraft weapons, both of the should work very well; maybe not so great as anti-missile systems, if the Patriot's track record is any indication.

... Or perhaps both systems are more susceptible to electronic countermeasures (ECM) than was generally supposed.

[D-Mack]

Re: Russia question?

That's a good question. I don't know. The S300 is supposed to be so good that its aquisition by Iran would be a "red line" for Israel, because the Israeli airforce lacks the ability to defeat it. The Tor M-1 systems mentioned by the article are short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) of approximately the same vintage as the S300, which is a long-range system. I believe that Soviet air defense systems are designed to be layered and networked, and if there were only two Tor M-1 systems in Syria, perhaps they were not being used in the ideal way. I read that Iran has 29 Tor M-1 launchers and is trying to buy the S300 from Russia to augment their system.

Interestingly, the S300 is the Soviet version of the Patriot missile. As anti-aircraft weapons, both of the should work very well; maybe not so great as anti-missile systems, if the Patriot's track record is any indication.

... Or perhaps both systems are more susceptible to electronic countermeasures (ECM) than was generally supposed.

For Moscow only the S 400 was good enough last year

Russia to deploy S-400 air defense systems around Moscow Aug. 6
09:46 | 25/ 07/ 2007

MOSCOW, July 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will deploy the first air defense battalion equipped with new S-400 missile systems around Moscow on August 6, an Air Force spokesman said.

The S-400 Triumf (NATO codename SA-21 Growler) is a new air defense missile system developed by the Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family.

...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070725/69607443.html

They claim the Bulava was a success yesterday, if you believe it

Ballistic Missile Test a Success
A Russian missile-carrying submarine successfully launched Bulava RSM-56 intercontinental ballistic missiles at 6:45 p.m. Moscow time yesterday, reports Interfax, citing a representative of the Russian Defense Ministry. According to that source, the missiles hit their target in the Kura military range in Kamchatka. He also noted that telemetric data from the launch of the missile is still being analyzed, but it is already clear that the missiles performed up to expectations.

The Bulava missile was created at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology to equip nuclear submarines of the latest generation of Project 955 (Borei submarines). This was the eighth test of the missile and fourth successful test. The missile was first tested in September 2005. A full-scale mockup of the missile was launched in September 2004.
http://www.kommersant.com/p-13254/we...ulava_missile/

I was reading a Russian newspaper recently (with google translate, because I don't understand Russian) and it surprised me that their technology is so low tech. Although I shouldn't have been surprised after looking at pictures from the Georgia war.

- Russian-Georgian conflict has revealed weaknesses in the Armed Forces and their preparations that kopilis years, beginning in the 90's until today. In parts of which have participated in the operation, it has not been a single sample more or less sophisticated weaponry: all were Soviet-made, and the wear of up to 70%. As demonstrated the Georgian side? Take tanks - our T-72 and Georgian T-72. At the Georgian tanks were thermal imagers to ensure the conduct of hostilities during the night, standing GPS system and even the system of identification «a-stranger». Our tanks could not operate at night, because we have thermal imagers only those tanks that are abroad. The same can be said about aviation. Georgian aircraft could operate at night and we, unfortunately, no. We in the army there is not one helicopter capable of working at night. It is only in salons show «Black Shark», Mi-28 and so on, but their troops almost non-existent. Our system of technical intelligence far below Georgia. They are widely used Israeli, German and American equipment. We have not proved effective and high-precision weapons. With regard to small arms, they were excellent sniper rifles. It was their superiority and in the communication and management. Those pathetic remnants of Soviet capabilities, which we have linked only by fulfilling orders from foreign countries. Some military-technical areas, we have lost completely because there is no young design school. We Georgians were bespilotniki, they have intelligence, carried out aiming at the goal, controlled the outcome of the defeat, and so on, but we have to make strategic reconnaissance bomber. And one has already said that what the technical condition of our Armed Forces.

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=ru&tl=en

http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id...2D3B25D118E%7D

[VIT]

Re: Russia question?

To D-Mack,

Do not read "soviet" papers before breakfast - it is not healthy

Personally I feel some smell of nostalgia of USSR form the author who wrote this. Military always screaming that they need more finance and their forces are too weak For me this is a positive sign: old tanks and equipment means Russia does not spend money on this shit.

In fact most of the new military equipment produced in Russia is exported, not sent to army. Otherwise we would see more "fazendas" of Russian generals.

The real weak point is computer-networking chips/hardwares for military equipment. That is the area where USSR completely lost. So it might be hard to "hack" S-300 if there is nothing to "hack". (ECM is different)

[mobin]

Vikings and their descendants

The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs. The Slavs emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD. Founded and ruled by Vikings and their descendants, the first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', arose in the 9th century and adopted Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in 988, beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next millennium.

---------------

Mobin

unpaid