PDA

View Full Version : Russia's Gazprom Says Ukraine Will Pay Gas Debt



Fantastika
04-10-2007, 00:52
It is reported by Voice of America, Reuters, and (at least) 211 other news organizations (according to Google)...

Russia's Gazprom Says Ukraine Will Pay Gas Debt

Today, I was in the store, and I bought beer and chocolate.

I paid my bill (debt) at the kasse...

However, when I stepped outside, there was no crowd of TV cameras, no international news reporters thrusting their microphones into my face....

:confused:

Guest
04-10-2007, 01:28
Yes, no camera for you :( Just because you are not fighting against Russia! Today it is "fashion" to criticize Russia for anything. Ukraine has already a special price for gas, lower than the market price. This should be corrected quickly. After all, does Ukraine makes any gift to Russia? Why should Russia grant payment facilities and discounts?

It is today politically correct to shout and cry because "Russia uses energy as a weapon". YES, and what? What is better: To use a jet to bomb Serbia, or to say "pay the market price if you want gas and oil"?

fenrir
05-10-2007, 17:07
Today it is "fashion" to criticize Russia for anything.

Join the club. That is what has been happening to the US for years.

Guest
05-10-2007, 21:31
Join the club. That is what has been happening to the US for years.


Oh it continues against the US, we cannot open ONE information website without finding critics against the US. Seem that a lot of people are jealous of their good economy, it is 40 years they predict the collapse of the USA...

Sinestro
05-10-2007, 22:08
it is 40 years they predict the collapse of the USA...

yeah, keep hoping and wishing for the economic meltdown that will never happen. it's too bad the Germans allowed Lenin back into Russia. You have him and the rest of the Bolsheviks to blame for your country wide poverty. he alone set you back 100 years....

Economic Collapse of Soviet Union (http://www.culture-of-peace.info/soviet-collapse/introduction.html)

Economy of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_outdated_serious.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox outdated serious.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Ambox_outdated_serious.svg/40px-Ambox_outdated_serious.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8f/Ambox_outdated_serious.svg/40px-Ambox_outdated_serious.svg.png

Korotky Gennady
05-10-2007, 23:18
it's too bad the Germans allowed Lenin back into Russia. You have him and the rest of the Bolsheviks to blame for your country wide poverty. he alone set you back 100 years....

Economic Collapse of Soviet Union (http://www.culture-of-peace.info/soviet-collapse/introduction.html)

Economy of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia)

:bash:

I'm sorry but it's very false statement. Economy of old zharist russia was much worse than the economy of Soviet Union. Soviet economy and soviet science developed very fast up to the middle of the 70s... only after that the depression of soviet economy started.

Zharist russia lost WW1 to kaizerist Germany and russian-japanese war to Japan in 1905 but Soviet Union just opposite to it... won the Great WW2 and defeated the most strong army of the world... the nazists army.

Sinestro
05-10-2007, 23:19
Yes, no camera for you :( Just because you are not fighting against Russia! Today it is "fashion" to criticize Russia for anything. Ukraine has already a special price for gas, lower than the market price. This should be corrected quickly. After all, does Ukraine makes any gift to Russia? Why should Russia grant payment facilities and discounts?

It is today politically correct to shout and cry because "Russia uses energy as a weapon". YES, and what? What is better: To use a jet to bomb Serbia, or to say "pay the market price if you want gas and oil"?

All Russia is doing is f*cking over their old Warsaw Pact allies before they collapsed.

Sinestro
05-10-2007, 23:36
:bash:

I'm sorry but it's very false statement. Economy of old zharist russia was much worse than the economy of Soviet Union. Soviet economy and soviet science developed very fast up to the middle of the 70s... only after that the depression of soviet economy started.

Zharist russia lost WW1 to kaizerist Germany and russian-japanese war to Japan in 1905 but Soviet Union just opposite to it... won the Great WW2 and defeated the most strong army of the world... the nazists army.

:rant:

I still don't think that the Bolshiveks did anything to help your cause. Yes, by having a central planned economy you were able to make fast decisions regarding large scale operations in order to repel the Nazi Germany invasion. But in all likelyhood the czarist regime would have transfromed itself into an economy more capable than one based off of Karl Marx...

Sinestro
05-10-2007, 23:45
Oh it continues against the US, we cannot open ONE information website without finding critics against the US. Seem that a lot of people are jealous of their good economy, it is 40 years they predict the collapse of the USA...

Dow Jones Passes 14,000 for Record High: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/wall_street.html?.v=36)

There seems to be no signs of slowing down. As the Dow pushes to new levels on a wide range of diversified stocks, unlike the RTS heavy energy sector. Do you have any more arbitrary, asinine statements that you would like to share?

Guest
05-10-2007, 23:59
Dow Jones Passes 14,000 for Record High: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/wall_street.html?.v=36)

There seems to be no signs of slowing down. As the Dow pushes to new levels on a wide range of diversified stocks, unlike the RTS heavy energy sector. Do you have any more arbitrary, asinine statements that you would like to share?


You probably didn't understand what I said: That we read worldwide statements written by "experts" predicting the collapse of the USA since 40 years. I do not share this of course, rather totally the opposite.

Korotky Gennady
06-10-2007, 00:24
:rant:

I still don't think that the Bolshiveks did anything to help your cause. Yes, by having a central planned economy you were able to make fast decisions regarding large scale operations in order to repel the Nazi Germany invasion. But in all likelyhood the czarist regime would have transfromed itself into an economy more capable than one based off of Karl Marx...

I'm sorry again. You have your right to think anything you want but I tell what I was tought in the school and in the university... The economy of old Russia was extremly weak... extremly... There is a lot of statistic data... man... It's a kind of science... Statistics.

Stalin was bloody dictator but he managed to drive the Soviet Economy up to the world level during very short historical period... 1928 - 1941 years.

Fantastika
07-10-2007, 16:18
Dow Jones Passes 14,000 for Record High: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/wall_street.html?.v=36)

There seems to be no signs of slowing down. As the Dow pushes to new levels on a wide range of diversified stocks, unlike the RTS heavy energy sector.

What is RTS? Is it Russian stock market? It has increased the last 3 years. My bank invests in a spectrum of Russian stocks (Volgatelekom, Yukos, mining stocks, etc.) it is up 17%, 37% and 26% the last three years....

The Dow passed 14,000 last week, because of Bernanke's decision to lower interest rates...money decided to flee their real-estate investments because of lower interest rates and come back into the stock market. Right now, with many more buyers than sellers, of course the market is going up...

Too bad for me, with my put options...oh well, maybe there will be an October surprise...

Fantastika
07-10-2007, 16:58
yeah, keep hoping and wishing for the economic meltdown that will never happen. it's too bad the Germans allowed Lenin back into Russia. You have him and the rest of the Bolsheviks to blame for your country wide poverty. he alone set you back 100 years....



I think Lenin actually did a lot for the economy of Russia. Before Lenin, it was very backward economy. He was able to make it into an industrial power, and his successors, relatively properous. Then by the 70's, like you said, it was failing. It was a bad model in the modern world.

The rest of the world was getting rich through trading, while the USSR tried to do everything on its own, create an alternate society, within its borders.

Also, the communist model rewarded laziness. You were guaranteed a job, so why strive for something better? I can remember pictures from Communist China, before they decided to dump their model and embrace capitalism. The communist Chinese were lazy and their country was joke. No one worked, why should they? what was their reward? They were becoming the world's worst economy, average income was $300/year...

That changed. China encouraged entrepreneurship. And so is Russia, now, taking steps to encourage creative hard-working individuals.

Only now, that Russia is finally trading with everyone, importing cars, tv's, computers, by the millions, in fair exchange for its oil and raw materials, and the rest of the world is jealous? It prefers that Russia become backward country again? Media hates that Russians are becoming prosperous? Western media brainwashes readers, to demand that Russia sell its oil (but no one else, not Saudi Arabia, of course, which breeds terrorists) at below-market prices, and accuses them of "political maneuvering" when they ask for the fair market value.

What a joke!

Where is the criticism of China, Korea and Japan?

Did you know that the two-cycle gas engine was invented in communist East Germany? This idea was stolen by Japan, and they made it into a bounty for themselves, first with the two cycle motorcycles -they flooded the world with Kawasaki, Honda, etc. motorcycles, making billions, while the East Germans made not a kopek.

The Japanese made everything from this two-cycle idea - lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, chain saws, etc. Billions and billions, from a stolen idea.

Since the rest of the world ignored patents and copyrights as far as Russia was concerned, anyone could steal any ideas from here.

When I worked for US Government, we sent representative to japan to look at their computer industry. he reported their entire microchip industry was simply a copy of everything the US had previously developed. The Japanese produced identical copies of all the chips and sold them for below-market prices, driving US companies out of business, so they could gain market share.

Now it is the Chinese who steal, openly and blatantly. They procure the plans for a factory, for example, to manufacture sweaters, or microchips, the engineering process itself, and manufacture finished products, totally ignoring patents, copyrights, etc. putting the original US company from whom they stole the ideas, who spent millions and years developing a unique new process, into bankruptcy.

So what does the world do? It allows China into the World Trade Organization, and even allows the Chinese to float their yuan, daily, to the Chinese advantage, again against international business law (no one else is allowed to do this), giving the world's biggest business bully special "affirmative action" privileges. As if they need it.

And the world allows Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and Iran into the WTO, who operate an oligarchical cartel, which sets monopolistic oil prices, free reign in the WTO.

But the West uses a proxy like Georgia or Poland to veto Russian entry into the WTO. They do not have any valid argument now for keeping Russia out, so the media claims that a Polish complaint about Russia not importing their somewhat suspect meat is grounds for keeping them out of WTO.

What a joke :eh:

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 20:21
The Dow passed 14,000 last week, because of Bernanke's decision to lower interest rates...money decided to flee their real-estate investments because of lower interest rates and come back into the stock market. Right now, with many more buyers than sellers, of course the market is going up...



That's part of it, tamming inflation is another, along with strong corporate profits and a weak $....

Dow Pushes Past 14,000 Twice Before Retreating - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700290.html?nav=rss_email/components)

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 20:27
Only now, that Russia is finally trading with everyone, importing cars, tv's, computers, by the millions, in fair exchange for its oil and raw materials.

A problem is that Russia is becoming a Petro-State with weak governmental checks and balances and a heavy reliance on exporting oil, gas and raw materials.

When will Russia start exporting their new nano-technology??

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 21:23
Russia's future will be defined as much by the geology of its subsoil as by the ideology of its leaders. Unfortunately, whereas policymakers can choose their ideology, they don't have much leeway when it comes to geology. Russia has a lot of oil, and this inescapable geological fact will determine many of the policy choices available to its leaders. Oil and gas now account for roughly 20 percent of Russia's economy, 55 percent of its export earnings, and 40 percent of its total tax revenues. Russia is the world's second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and its subsoil contains 33 percent of the world's gas reserves. It already supplies 30 percent of Europe's gas needs. In the future, Russia's oil and gas industry will become even more important, as no other sector can be as internationally competitive, grow as rapidly, or be as profitable. Thus, Russia risks becoming, and in many respects may already be, a “petro-state.” The arrest of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky sparked a debate over what kind of country Russia will be. In this discussion, Russia's characteristics as a petro-state deserve as much attention as its factional struggles.

Petro-states are oil-rich countries plagued by weak institutions, a poorly functioning public sector, and a high concentration of power and wealth. Their population is chronically frustrated by the lack of proportion between their nation's oil wealth and their widespread poverty. Nigeria and Venezuela are good examples.

That Russia has lots of oil is old news. What's new is the dramatically enhanced role that changes in Russian politics, oil technology, and energy markets have given to its petroleum sector. Throughout the 1990s, privatization in Russia and innovations in exploration and drilling technologies brought into production oil fields that had hitherto been underperforming or completely off-limits. To energy companies worried about growing domestic instability among the major oil exporters of the Middle East, Russia became an even more attractive hedge. Regardless of its political turmoil, Russia will continue to appeal to oil companies, which know how to operate profitably in countries with weak property rights and unstable politics. Thus, while the Khodorkovsky affair may temporarily scare away some investors, Russia's beguiling geology will eventually attract energy companies that cannot afford to be left out of some of the world's richest oil reservoirs.

But when oil revenues flood a nation with a fragile system of democratic checks and balances, dysfunctional politics and economics ensue, and a petro-state emerges. A strong democracy and an effective public sector explain why oil has not distorted the United States or Norway as it has Nigeria and Venezuela. A lot of oil combined with weak public institutions produces poverty, inequality, and corruption. It also undermines democracy. No petro-state has succeeded in converting oil into prosperity for the majority of the population.

An economy that relies mostly on oil exports inevitably ends up with an exchange rate that makes imported goods less expensive and exports more costly. This overvalued exchange rate makes other sectors—agriculture, manufacturing, tourism—less internationally competitive and hinders their growth. Petro-states also have jobless, volatile economic growth. Oil generates export revenues and taxes for the state, but it creates few jobs. Despite its economic heft, Russia's oil and gas industry employs only around 2 million workers out of a total workforce of 67 million. Also, because the international price of oil is volatile, petro-states suffer constant and debilitating economic boom-bust cycles. The busts lead to banking crises and public budget cuts that hurt the poor who critically depend on government programs. Russia already experienced this effect in 1998 when the drop in oil prices sparked a financial crash. If oil prices fall below $20 a barrel, Russia will surely face another bout of painful economic instability.

Petro-states also suffer from a narrow tax base, with the bulk of government revenues coming from just a few large taxpayers. In Russia, the 10 largest companies account for more than half of total tax revenues. Weak governmental accountability is a typical side effect of this dependency, as the link between the electorate and government spending is indirect and tenuous.

The political consequences are also corrosive. Thanks to the inevitable concentration of the oil industry into a few large firms, owners and managers acquire enormous political clout. In turn, corruption often thrives, as a handful of politicians and government regulators make decisions that are worth millions to these companies. Nationalizing the oil industry fails to solve these problems: State-owned oil companies quickly become relatively independent political actors that are rife with corruption, inefficiency, and politicization, and can dominate other weak public institutions. Privatizing the industry without strong and independent regulatory and tax agencies is also not a solution, as unbridled private monopolists can be as predatory as public ones.

In petro-states, bitter fights over the control and distribution of the nation's oil rents become the gravitational center of political life. It is no accident that the current crisis in Russia hinges on control of the country's largest oil company and the political uses of its profits.

But Russia is not Nigeria and has yet to become a full-fledged petro-state. It is a large, complex country with a highly educated population, a relatively strong technological base, and a still somewhat diversified economy. A strong democracy could help Russia compensate for the economic and political weaknesses that plague all countries dominated by oil. Russia is still struggling to overcome the crippling effects of its ideological past. Let's hope it will also be able to avoid the crippling effects of its geological present.

Fantastika
08-10-2007, 21:31
That's part of it, tamming inflation is another, along with strong corporate profits and a weak $....

Dow Pushes Past 14,000 Twice Before Retreating - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700290.html?nav=rss_email/components)

How is less inflation lead to higher stock prices? Please explain, if you are business savvy. I don't understand the mechanism...

Higher corporate profits - more confidence in the company - more investment in that stock, etc. that makes sense. The weak dollar, does it mean overseas dollars come to US stock market? I would think the opposite, overseas buyers would be worried their investment would shrink, since it is measured in dollars...

Also, remember the Washington Post usually paints a grim picture of the US economy, especially during Republican administrations...They are gearing up for 2008, so the economy is going to be described as "the worst economy since the Great Depression" by this time next year...

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 21:39
When he first arrived in Paris in 2000 as Russia’s newly elected President, Vladimir Putin had a simple and reassuring message. “I am bringing you what you need most: a stable and guaranteed source of energy. My oil and my gas will not be cheaper than supplies coming from the Middle East, but they will be much more secure.”

His implicit point was that ‘Christian energy’, even if ‘Orthodox’, would be more reassuringly certain than ‘Muslim energy’ for a western world jittery about stability in the Middle East.

The Middle East was supposed to be messy and unpredictable, unlike the new and modern Russia of Putin. The problem today is that for the Ukrainians, Georg-ians, not to mention Italians, ‘Christian’ oil and gas from Russia does not seem as secure and fail-proof as Putin promised.

The key criterion by which its allies and partners should judge Russia is predictability, and in this respect, Russia is increasingly falling short. When Putin welcomes Hamas’s leaders without consulting the other members of the ‘Quartet’—the UN, the EU, and the US—charged with shepherding peace talks between Israel and Palestine, is Russia testing its ‘nuisance value’, or simply performing an avant-garde role for the other Quartet members?

The formula defining western policy towards Russia since communism’s collapse—“Let’s engage Russia if we can, let’s contain Russia if we must”—must be completely re-thought. The West has largely failed to engage Russia either as a European or western ally. Was this due to a lack of openness or imagination on our part, or a lack of interest or goodwill on Russia’s part?

The inheritors of the Soviet empire never anticipated that their future was to become the West’s ‘junior’, poorer, repentant, and admiring partner. Today’s Russians have no nostalgia for the Yeltsin years, which they associate with humiliation and weakness. For most Russians, the emergence of an independent civil society and the first fluttering of an inconstant democratic wind could not balance the deep national frustration over the loss of empire and shattered status.

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 21:46
The stock market is being stalked by the “I” word and investors are showing their nerves. Inflation has The Federal Reserve Board running scared and we will all pay the price for it.
High energy prices, rising unit labor costs and pressure on supplies of key resources such as steel and cement (thanks to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) are lining up like some ill-fated stars to guarantee the Fed will continue raising short-term interest rates.

High interest rates and companies raising prices don’t add up to an investment profile most investors enjoy. However, stocks are still a good hedge against inflation because, in theory, a company’s revenue and earnings should grow at the same rate as inflation over the time.

Global Market
While some companies can react to inflation by raising their prices, others who compete in a global market may find it difficult to stay competitive with foreign producers who don’t have to raise prices due to inflation.
More importantly, inflation robs investors (and everyone else) by raising prices with no corresponding increase in value. You pay more for less.

This means company’s financials are over-stated by inflation because the numbers (revenue and earnings) rise with the rate of inflation in addition to any added value generated by the company.

Earnings
When inflation declines, so do the inflated earnings and revenues. It is a tide that raises and lowers all the boats, but it still makes getting a clear picture of the true value difficult.
The Fed’s chief inflation-fighting tool is short-term interest rates. By making money more expensive to borrow, the Fed effectively removes some of the excess capital from the market.

Too much money chasing too few goods is one classic definition of inflation. Taking money out of the market slows the cycle of price increases.

There are two more meetings of the Open Market Committee (the body that sets rates) in 2005: Nov. 1 and Dec. 13.

Given the pressures mentioned earlier, you can take it to the bank that the Fed will keep raising rates at least through the end of the year.

Investments
Should you be concerned about inflation and your investments? If you have a substantial portion of your portfolio in fixed income securities, the answer is a definite yes.
Inflation erodes your purchasing power and retirees on fixed incomes suffer when their nest egg buys less each passing year. This is why financial advisers caution even retirees to keep some percentage of their assets in the stock market as a hedge against inflation.

The more cash or cash equivalents you hold, the worse inflation will punish you. A $100 under the mattress will only buy $96 worth of goods after a year of 4 percent inflation. Look for inflation-indexed products like the Treasury I Bonds and other products that offer a hedge against rising rates.

Conclusion
Investors should keep an eye on interest-rate sensitive stocks, since continued pressure by the Fed will keep rates moving up through the end of the year and probably into 2006.

The weak US $ helps US exports which in turn help corporate profits of the DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL 30.

Bels
08-10-2007, 22:08
:bash:

I'm sorry but it's very false statement. Economy of old zharist russia was much worse than the economy of Soviet Union. Soviet economy and soviet science developed very fast up to the middle of the 70s... only after that the depression of soviet economy started.

Zharist russia lost WW1 to kaizerist Germany and russian-japanese war to Japan in 1905 but Soviet Union just opposite to it... won the Great WW2 and defeated the most strong army of the world... the nazists army.

Surely you don't believe Russia was alone in defeating the Germans? Without the weakening of germany at sea surrounding Russia preventing supplies. And the invasion on Germany starting from France. Don't you think that that had a lot to do with it? Yes. Germanies biggest mistake was giving up with Britain, and attacking Russia. Giving Britain the chance to rebuild its resources.

Fantastika
08-10-2007, 22:56
If you're going to quote someone, be gracious enough to attribute it...

It's gotta be the Washington comPost, I remember their style.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel...



Oil and gas now account for roughly 20 percent of Russia's economy
Russia is the world's second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and its subsoil contains 33 percent of the world's gas reserves.

And there is probably a lot more in Siberia. Now with warmer weather, it is easier to unearth...



Thus, Russia risks becoming, and in many respects may already be, a “petro-state.”

First, they label "Russia is a 'petro state.'" Then they say other countries, like Nigeria are also "Petro states," then they imply they are the same type of country.


The arrest of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky sparked a debate over what kind of country Russia will be. In this discussion, Russia's characteristics as a petro-state deserve as much attention as its factional struggles.

"Oil magnate??" I like how the US media mischaracterizes this guy. He was, originally, sort of a super big-time thief, who helped himself to billions of dollars when the country was struggling to emerge from the communist era. He was able to do big-time multinational money-laundering and now he is in prison. If the Russians let him out, there are other countries that want to put him on trial.

"Oil magnate?" How about "money-launderer," or "robber baron" or "industrial plunderer?"

Why does this story try to link Russia's "factional struggles" with convicted racketeer Khodorkovsky? What's the connection?

Are the Chechans angry about comrade Khodorkovsky? Is Georgia worried about the poor oil Magnate?

I think the author of this story is so politically activist, he thinks A=B or 1=2. He can "see" a connection between his political "reality" and Khordokovsky.

True the US is concerned about "factional" struggles all over the former Soviet Union. The US firmly supports the rights of any political entity which wants to establish an independent state, away from Russia - Moldava, Georgia, Ukraine, Baltic countries.

But US is firmly opposed to the rights of ethnic Russians in any independent state - Ukraine, Moldava, Baltic countries, even when ethnic Russians are a majority, as in wannabe breakaway provinces of Georgia. In Ukraine, the major party in Crimea supports "soyuz" (union with Russia). Of course this is ignored by CNN, BBC, Euronews, etc.

This racial pandering and encouragement of ethnic strife by the US is despicable, for an otherwise great country...

BTW, when Russia tried to sell Yukos Oil company in the international auction, no US or British companies bid. It is not because they didn't want to, it was because the big international banks, which are necessary to do this sort of multi-billion-dollar deal, were scared away by the threats of their own government disapproval if they participated and arranged such a deal. Putin had no choice but to sell it at a fire-sale price to another Russian oil company. Too bad, the media ignored that part of the story, crying that the deal was "manipulated"...

Why is it that Russian oil companies don't want to divest and let in foreign ownership? First, it would be an incredibly stupid business decision, second, any time a Russian company tries to buy a European company, the Europeans are shocked, outraged and try to pass legislation prohibiting it.

Fair is fair.

Anyway, these companies are listed on the stock market, and anyone, even the editor of the Washington comPost newspaper, can buy a piece of them...(unlike Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, especially unlike Venezuela)...


Petro-states are oil-rich countries plagued by weak institutions, a poorly functioning public sector, and a high concentration of power and wealth. Their population is chronically frustrated by the lack of proportion between their nation's oil wealth and their widespread poverty. Nigeria and Venezuela are good examples.

Poverty? I guess the drivers of the gazillion SUV's, Audi's and Mercedes clogging the streets of Samara every morning during rush hour didn't know they were in the midst of "widespread poverty"...Another "poverty-stricken" place is Moscow, the world's most expensive city...


Throughout the 1990s, privatization in Russia and innovations in exploration and drilling technologies brought into production oil fields that had hitherto been underperforming or completely off-limits.

More "bad news," it means there will be more oil. And thanks to global warming, a warm Siberia probably has untold fortunes in undiscovered minerals , gas and oil...


Regardless of its political turmoil, Russia will continue to appeal to oil companies, which know how to operate profitably in countries with weak property rights and unstable politics.

"Political turmoil"? "Unstable politics?" What fairy tale is this? Now the media is complaining about "instability?" Before they were saying there was too much control, now they are complaining there is too little?

"Weak property rights?" Tell that to me again, didn't the US Supreme Court recently decide the government can seize your property for just about any excuse under "eminent domain" rationale?


But when oil revenues flood a nation with a fragile system of democratic checks and balances, dysfunctional politics and economics ensue, and a petro-state emerges.

This is unlike the US, where the media is 99% left-wing, the FEC makes it a crime to campaign, for certain individuals and groups, and access to justice is limited to rich people. Lawyers are impossible to hire and they are 90% of the legislature, so much for "checks and balances."

There we go with the "dysfunctional politics" again. Is Putin a heavy-handed ruler, or is everything out of control? Which one is it?


A strong democracy and an effective public sector explain why oil has not distorted the United States or Norway as it has Nigeria and Venezuela.

The media has been continually whining about Bush and Cheney and how their election was a victory for "Big Oil" and how Bush and Cheney were enriching themselves with Oil money from the war in Iraq. But now, the media say "Oil has not distorted" the United States. So, which one it is?


A lot of oil combined with weak public institutions produces poverty, inequality, and corruption. It also undermines democracy. No petro-state has succeeded in converting oil into prosperity for the majority of the population.

Well, since the words "Petro-State," have been re-defined, then it is true. Unless you ignore Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Iran, Kuwait, UAR, Mexico, Norway, Libya, etc. I don't see these countries as mired in poverty.

If I redefine the word "iced tea" to mean a drink made from coffee beans, then don't be surprised if you get funny-tasting "iced tea" at my house...


If oil prices fall below $20 a barrel, Russia will surely face another bout of painful economic instability.

Oil prices at $20/barrel? I remember those days. It was about the time Soyuz lifted off, carrying into orbit, Sputnik.


Petro-states also suffer from a narrow tax base, with the bulk of government revenues coming from just a few large taxpayers. In Russia, the 10 largest companies account for more than half of total tax revenues.


This is a problem? The Democrats in the US always want to "tax the rich," so others (their voting base) don't have to contribute. In Russia, if only a few wealthy companies pay taxes, and no one else has to, this is great! Again, which one is it? It's a good thing to have a narrow tax base, or a bad thing????


In turn, corruption often thrives, as a handful of politicians and government regulators make decisions that are worth millions to these companies.

Corruption is much less than it was in 1990. The mayor of my city was recently arrested for bribery. In Samara, they threw the old corrupt mayor by a decisive vote. Putin fired a lot of corrupt governors, but instead of applauding, the US media charged him with interference in the democratic process.


Nationalizing the oil industry fails to solve these problems: State-owned oil companies quickly become relatively independent political actors that are rife with corruption, inefficiency, and politicization, and can dominate other weak public institutions.

But we already know what happens when Russia tries to intermingle with Western Oil companies. They don't like it if Russia wants a fair share.


It is no accident that the current crisis in Russia hinges on control of the country's largest oil company and the political uses of its profits.

What "current crisis" are you talking about?

Why does everything have to be a crisis? I'm sure you can find 1 or 2% of the Russian population (or US population) that think the jailing of an Enron-size fraudmeister is a "crisis."

Fantastika
08-10-2007, 23:01
When he first arrived in Paris in 2000 as Russia’s newly elected President, Vladimir Putin had a simple and reassuring message. “I am bringing you what you need most: a stable and guaranteed source of energy. My oil and my gas will not be cheaper than supplies coming from the Middle East, but they will be much more secure.”


I saw this quoted in the Islamic Republic of Iran's "Iran Daily"

If you are going to quote someone else, you should be honest enough to attribute it.

Fantastika
08-10-2007, 23:05
The stock market is being stalked by the “I” word and investors are showing their nerves....

It's morally dishonest, it's called PLAGIARISM, when you quote someone without acknowledging you are doing it (when you copy it, publish it and don't thank the real author).

I don't think the purpose of this board is for broad political spamming, especially when the words, if not necessarily the opinions, you are posting are not yours...

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 23:25
If you're going to quote someone, be gracious enough to attribute it...

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/)

It's gotta be the Washington comPost, I remember their style.

Not everything outside of Russia is from the Washington Post concerning foreign policy.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel...



And there is probably a lot more in Siberia. Now with warmer weather, it is easier to unearth...

Warmer weather is NOT going to produce more oil in the soil.



First, they label "Russia is a 'petro state.'" Then they say other countries, like Nigeria are also "Petro states," then they imply they are the same type of country.

They never labeled Russia as a Petro State. They said that Russia has similiar characterists as Nigeria and Venezuala in the early stages of development of a Petro State.



"Oil magnate??" I like how the US media mischaracterizes this guy. He was, originally, sort of a super big-time thief, who helped himself to billions of dollars when the country was struggling to emerge from the communist era. He was able to do big-time multinational money-laundering and now he is in prison. If the Russians let him out, there are other countries that want to put him on trial.

"Oil magnate?" How about "money-launderer," or "robber baron" or "industrial plunderer?"

Why does this story try to link Russia's "factional struggles" with convicted racketeer Khodorkovsky? What's the connection?

Buying political factions in Russia's government.

Are the Chechans angry about comrade Khodorkovsky? Is Georgia worried about the poor oil Magnate?

BTW, when Russia tried to sell Yukos Oil company in the international auction, no US or British companies bid. It is not because they didn't want to, it was because the big international banks, which are necessary to do this sort of multi-billion-dollar deal, were scared away by the threats of their own government disapproval if they participated and arranged such a deal. Putin had no choice but to sell it at a fire-sale price to another Russian oil company. Too bad, the media ignored that part of the story, crying that the deal was "manipulated"...

Truth be told was that Khodorkovsky was buying poitical corner in the Kremlin. Which Putin would not stand for as this would threaten his presence, so off he went to the Gulag.

Yeah, right he had no choice. Please, losing Yukos to BP or Shell, yeah I see that happening. NOT!!! Just nationalize it, so Putin would have more control.

Why is it that Russian oil companies don't want to divest and let in foreign ownership? First, it would be an incredibly stupid business decision, second, any time a Russian company tries to buy a European company, the Europeans are shocked, outraged and try to pass legislation prohibiting it. Fair is fair.
Anyway, these companies are listed on the stock market, and anyone, even the editor of this newspaper, can buy a piece of them...

They would lose control.



Poverty? I guess the drivers of the gazillion SUV's, Audi's and Mercedes clogging the streets of Samara every morning during rush hour didn't know they were in the midst of "widespread poverty"...Another "poverty-stricken" place is Moscow, the world's most expensive city...

Russia has the world's worst wealth inequality.



More "bad news," it means there will be more oil. And thanks to global warming, a warm Siberia probably has untold fortunes in undiscovered minerals , gas and oil...

It sounds like you want Global Warming?? I hope not.
Global warming is bad.

Sinestro
08-10-2007, 23:27
It's morally dishonest, it's called PLAGIARISM, when you quote someone without acknowledging you are doing it (when you copy it, publish it and don't thank the real author).

I don't think the purpose of this board is for broad political spamming, especially when the words, if not necessarily the opinions, you are posting are not yours...

What? Are we back in college or something?? Give me an "F" then.

Fantastika
09-10-2007, 00:02
That's part of it, tamming inflation is another, along with strong corporate profits and a weak $....

Dow Pushes Past 14,000 Twice Before Retreating - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700290.html?nav=rss_email/components)

You should read your own material. "Your" posting implies that *higher* inflation leads to higher stock prices, not lower inflation...

Fantastika
09-10-2007, 00:13
What? Are we back in college or something?? Give me an "F" then.

F

or in Russian (since you know nothing about Russia, or anything you're writing about, you're just copying other people,

2

Or you can also receive forum red point

Why don't you use your brain, instead of just copying the Washington Post/Carnegie Institute? (Same entity, except one is supported by my tax dollars.)

As a writer, I would dislike it if someone copies my book on a Xerox machine. I have lost enough money from software pirates copying my software and selling it for their own profit.

Just be honest...

Fantastika
09-10-2007, 01:00
Surely you don't believe Russia was alone in defeating the Germans? Without the weakening of germany at sea surrounding Russia preventing supplies. And the invasion on Germany starting from France. Don't you think that that had a lot to do with it? Yes. Germanies biggest mistake was giving up with Britain, and attacking Russia. Giving Britain the chance to rebuild its resources.

Yes it was a joint effort. But I think if the Allies did not invade France, Russia would have triumphed, but maybe in 1946-7.

The Allied bombing of the Reich did little to effect their weapons production. German weapons production was at an all-time high in 1945, despite day and night bombing of their cities.

In 1942, German's tried to take Stalingrad. The German generals were opposed to the idea, but Hitler ordered them to take it at "all costs." And it was very costly. It was the turning point of the war. From then on it was all downhill for the Germans. After that it was a war of attrition, and the Russians had more manpower, and weapons (less effective weapons, but lots more of them).

Stalin wasn't a complete idiot, he knew enough to let the generals run the war, but Hitler was a complete (military) idiot. Instead of freeing the Ukrainians (they would have been happy to help him against Stalinist Russia) and the Baltic countries, Poland, to assist, he persecuted them.

When the Allies invaded Normandy, Der Fuehrer did not send reinforcements. It was a close thing, it could easily have been a disaster. If not for the Russian front, it would have been a disaster...

Ghostly Presence
09-10-2007, 10:01
:bash:

I'm sorry but it's very false statement. Economy of old zharist russia was much worse than the economy of Soviet Union. Soviet economy and soviet science developed very fast up to the middle of the 70s... only after that the depression of soviet economy started.

Zharist russia lost WW1 to kaizerist Germany and russian-japanese war to Japan in 1905 but Soviet Union just opposite to it... won the Great WW2 and defeated the most strong army of the world... the nazists army.


Soviet economy was built by slave laborers. Millions of people went through Stalin's concentration camps. All major "grand projects" of socialism were to a great extent built by prisoners. If you live in Moscow, go and check out the GULAG museum. It is small by enlightening from the educational point of view.

Ghostly Presence
09-10-2007, 10:08
I'm sorry again. You have your right to think anything you want but I tell what I was tought in the school and in the university... The economy of old Russia was extremly weak... extremly... There is a lot of statistic data... man... It's a kind of science... Statistics.

Stalin was bloody dictator but he managed to drive the Soviet Economy up to the world level during very short historical period... 1928 - 1941 years.

If Russia had normal economy, its economic progress wouldn't have to be achieved by slaughtering millions of people.

Only someone very young and, pardon me, very stupid can speak so lightly about the loss of so many lives.

Death and suffering is always statistics until it becomes your own. When you grow older and hopefully smarter, you will understand that.

Ghostly Presence
09-10-2007, 10:17
A problem is that Russia is becoming a Petro-State with weak governmental checks and balances and a heavy reliance on exporting oil, gas and raw materials.

When will Russia start exporting their new nano-technology??

It's already working! During the past few days they've been showing a commercial on TV of a shoe-polish, supposedly developed with nano-technologies, as that commercial claims!

So, that is what our officials have been talking about every time they referred to nano-technologies! Extra rain-resistant shoe-polish! )))))))

Clean32
09-10-2007, 14:53
Mate you realy need to bone up on your history


Yes it was a joint effort. But I think if the Allies did not invade France, Russia would have triumphed, but maybe in 1946-7....

Nope the maths have been done on this time and time again, The soviet forces would have had to stop about where it all started in about 1049-50


The Allied bombing of the Reich did little to effect their weapons production. German weapons production was at an all-time high in 1945, despite day and night bombing of their cities. ...

as germany didnt go into war economy untill 1942? after then the bombing started to have an efect


In 1942, German's tried to take Stalingrad. The German generals were opposed to the idea, but Hitler ordered them to take it at "all costs." And it was very costly. It was the turning point of the war. From then on it was all downhill for the Germans. After that it was a war of attrition, and the Russians had more manpower, and weapons (less effective weapons, but lots more of them)....

wepons no on the contary sovet weapons ( new) were much better than the 193os german weapons, with the exception of attliry, witch the soviets replaced with aircraft and rockets.


Stalin wasn't a complete idiot, he knew enough to let the generals run the war, but Hitler was a complete (military) idiot. Instead of freeing the Ukrainians (they would have been happy to help him against Stalinist Russia) and the Baltic countries, Poland, to assist, he persecuted them....

Trotskiy Vers Starlin, no starlin was for the patriotic red armys. but it was trotskiys plan of bring back the generals, giving the troups there insigina rank badges and doing away with voting for your offices etc


When the Allies invaded Normandy, Der Fuehrer did not send reinforcements. It was a close thing, it could easily have been a disaster. If not for the Russian front, it would have been a disaster...

true but the allied invastion did draw german forces from the soviet frount and in large numbers, vertaly all fighter aircraft were moved top the western frount, the navy became an army in the eastern fround the exsperianced german army moved to the west, and we are forgeting the Italian frount. On D day infrance the germans had 40 divisions italy 22 divisions russia 60 divisions, so you can see that england and the comonwealth faced close to equal numbers of germans as the soviets did ( at that time)
Things are always not as easy as thay apear to be!!

Guest
09-10-2007, 18:41
It is always very easy to rewrite History after... Without the Allies, Hitler would have had too many ressources and could fight with success CCCP for years.

Clean32
09-10-2007, 19:29
It is always very easy to rewrite History after... Without the Allies, Hitler would have had too many ressources and could fight with success CCCP for years.

Agree 100%

Sinestro
09-10-2007, 20:12
You should read your own material. "Your" posting implies that *higher* inflation leads to higher stock prices, not lower inflation...

Higher inflation bites into consumer's pockets and cuts into business's profits; subsequently, less money to invest.

By the FED Reserve taming inflation, it helps monies find there way into the stock market, more money to invest. But on the flip side, by taming inflation, the FED uses interest rates as a weapon to fight inflation. These same interest rates increase the cost of borrowing, which in turn stagnates cash flows...

Sinestro
09-10-2007, 20:16
You should read your own material. "Your" posting implies that *higher* inflation leads to higher stock prices, not lower inflation...

NO IT DOESN'T.

Show me where it says that.

You should comprehend the reading.

Sinestro
09-10-2007, 22:15
Dow Jones Passes 14,000 for Record High
Monday October 1, 11:01 pm ET
By Joe Bel Bruno, AP Business Writer
Dow Jones Surges Past 14,000 to Close at Record High As Credit Worries Begin to Subside


NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street began the fourth quarter with a huge rally Monday, sending the Dow Jones industrial average to a record close. Stocks were buoyed by a growing belief that the worst of the credit crisis has passed.
ADVERTISEMENT


The Dow rose 191.92, or 1.38 percent, to 14,087.55, surpassing its closing record of 14,000.41 set in mid-July. The blue chip index rose as high as 14,115.51 to eclipse its previous intraday high of 14,021.95 set July 17.

While the beginning of the new quarter was an incentive for institutional investors to buy, they also seemed to be motivated by a sense that banks and other financial companies generally weathered the recent credit market upheaval. Both Citigroup and Switzerland's UBS AG issued third-quarter profit warnings, but indicated the current period might see a return to normal earnings levels.

Meanwhile, the market was optimistic that new economic data might nudge the Federal Reserve toward another interest rate cut at its Oct. 30-31 meeting. The Institute for Supply Management said the manufacturing sector grew in September at the slowest pace in six months; the trade group said its index of manufacturing activity registered at 52.0 in September, below forecasts for a reading of at least 52.5.

"People are getting more confident there is going to be an October rate cut," said John C. Forelli, portfolio manager for Independence Investment. "To some degree, it looks like Citi kitchen-sinked the quarter, and that from here going forward will be calmer. That's underpinning the financials."

Enthusiasm about acquisition activity picked up after Nokia unveiled an $8.1 billion offer to buy navigation-software maker Navteq Corp. The deal was seen as a signal that corporations are feeling comfortable in making big moves despite recent market turbulence.

Broader market indexes also rose sharply. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 20.29, or 1.33 percent, to 1,547.04, nearing its all-time trading high of 1,555.90, also reached in mid-July. The Nasdaq composite index rose 39.49, or 1.46 percent, to 2,740.99; the tech-laden index remains well below its high of 5,048.62, reached in 2000 when it was bloated by the dot-com boom.

The Dow finished a turbulent third quarter with a 3.6 percent gain, after the Fed eased investor concerns over the credit and housing markets by lowering key interest rates half a percentage point.

Bonds moved higher Monday, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note falling to 4.55 percent from 4.59 percent late Friday. Fixed-income investors, currently concerned about the dollar's recent weakness, interpreted the ISM report as not necessarily portending an interest rate cut, which would further erode the U.S. currency.

The dollar was mixed Monday against other major currencies, while gold prices rose.

A barrel of light, sweet crude fell $1.42 to $80.24 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. This extended last week's decline amid concerns that oil market fundamentals do not support recent high prices.

Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co., said the biggest tipping point of the day was financial stocks. For the first time, Citi -- considered a barometer for the banking industry -- is giving some real numbers about the extent of its damage, he said.

"If they are giving us worst-case scenario, then market participants are feeling that most of the stuff we've worried about since July will remain contained," he said. "That's the celebration the market is putting on right now, and the take away is that the black hole of not knowing finally has some numbers around it."

Financial stocks -- from brokerages to retail banks -- slumped during the third quarter as uncertainty grew about the extent of losses from the credit and subprime mortgage turmoil. Comments from Citi Chief Executive Charles Prince that he expects to "return to a more normal earnings environment" during the fourth quarter put investors more at ease.

And, since analysts believe financials must lead a broader Wall Street advance, a rally in bank and brokerage stocks was greeted with enthusiasm. Citigroup shares rose $1.05, or 2.3 percent, to $47.72. Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation's largest home loan provider, rose 95 cents, or 5 percent, to $19.96 on the potential of an easing in subprime loan jitters.

UBS, the largest Swiss bank, rose $1.69, or 3.2 percent, to $54.94 after warning it would take a pretax loss of up to $690 million in the quarter and cut 1,500 jobs. Rival Credit Suisse Group rose $1.66, or 2.5 percent, to $67.99 after it said third-quarter profit will remain healthy despite stormy conditions.

Homebuilding stocks -- another group that has been hard hit in recent weeks -- spiked after several big players in the sector were upgraded by Citigroup. The report said large-cap builders with stronger balance sheets should benefit in the coming quarters.

Lennar Corp. rose 62 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $23.27; D.R. Horton Inc. added 65 cents, or 5.1 percent, to $13.46; and Pulte Homes Inc. was up $1.18, or 8.7 percent, at $14.79.

Hope that acquisition activity would rebound from a sluggish third quarter got a boost when Nokia said it would buy Navteq. The deal is the first announced during the fourth quarter. During the third quarter, there was $992.1 billion worth of deals during the third quarter -- down 43 percent from the second quarter, according to data tracker Dealogic.

Nokia rose 8 cents to $37.96, while Navteq fell $1.52, or 2 percent, to $76.45. The stocks of acquiring companies tend to fall after takeover announcements amid concerns that a deal might burden the purchaser with debt.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies was up 19.31, or 2.39 percent, at 824.76.

Advancing issues led decliners by a 3 to 1 basis on the New York Stock Exchange, where consolidated volume rose to 3.26 billion shares from 2.92 billion shares on Friday.

Overseas, Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.61 percent, Germany's DAX index rose 0.77 percent, and France's CAC-40 added 1.01 percent. In Asia, Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.36 percent, while the market was closed in Hong Kong for a holiday.

Clean32
09-10-2007, 22:24
Overseas, Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.61 percent, Germany's DAX index rose 0.77 percent, and France's CAC-40 added 1.01 percent. In Asia, Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.36 percent, while the market was closed in Hong Kong for a holiday.

GOD doint you hate bloody HKrs for that. what was it Thai chie's birthday or some thing like that ??

fenrir
10-10-2007, 23:03
true but the allied invastion did draw german forces from the soviet frount and in large numbers, vertaly all fighter aircraft were moved top the western frount, the navy became an army in the eastern fround the exsperianced german army moved to the west, and we are forgeting the Italian frount. On D day infrance the germans had 40 divisions italy 22 divisions russia 60 divisions, so you can see that england and the comonwealth faced close to equal numbers of germans as the soviets did ( at that time)
Things are always not as easy as thay apear to be!!

It is nice to see someone who actually knows how the situation really was.

Clean32
10-10-2007, 23:15
It is nice to see someone who actually knows how the situation really was.

Thanks, but keep it quiet, i meen you are from the USA, so you are realy the last one to toss mud at the soviets.

Sinestro
10-10-2007, 23:31
Thanks, but keep it quiet, i meen you are from the USA, so you are realy the last one to toss mud at the soviets.

And you are illiterate. Did you ever hear of a thing called ‘spell check?’

Sinestro
15-10-2007, 19:07
If you're going to quote someone, be gracious enough to attribute it...

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

It's gotta be the Washington comPost, I remember their style.

Not everything outside of Russia is from the Washington Post concerning foreign policy. Just because you want it to be from the Post doesn’t necessarily mean that’s from the Post. There are other publications in D.C. besides the Post.

And there is probably a lot more in Siberia. Now with warmer weather, it is easier to unearth...

Warmer weather is NOT going to produce more oil in the soil. Theoretically, yes, but I seriously doubt the Russian capital mobilization into the region. But remember, the process isn’t like turning over topsoil.

First, they label "Russia is a 'petro state.'" Then they say other countries, like Nigeria are also "Petro states," then they imply they are the same type of country.

They never labeled Russia as a Petro State. They said that Russia has similar characteristics as Nigeria and Venezuela in the early stages of development of a Petro State.

"Oil magnate??" I like how the US media mischaracterizes this guy. He was, originally, sort of a super big-time thief, who helped himself to billions of dollars when the country was struggling to emerge from the communist era. He was able to do big-time multinational money-laundering and now he is in prison. If the Russians let him out, there are other countries that want to put him on trial.

"Oil magnate?" How about "money-launderer," or "robber baron" or "industrial plunderer?"

Why does this story try to link Russia's "factional struggles" with convicted racketeer Khodorkovsky? What's the connection?

Buying political factions in Russia's government.

Are the Chechens angry about comrade Khodorkovsky? Is Georgia worried about the poor oil Magnate?

BTW, when Russia tried to sell Yukos Oil company in the international auction, no US or British companies bid. It is not because they didn't want to, it was because the big international banks, which are necessary to do this sort of multi-billion-dollar deal, were scared away by the threats of their own government disapproval if they participated and arranged such a deal. Putin had no choice but to sell it at a fire-sale price to another Russian oil company. Too bad, the media ignored that part of the story, crying that the deal was "manipulated"...

Truth is that Khodorkovsky was buying political corner in the Kremlin. Which Putin would not stand for this as it would threaten his power presence, so off he went to the Gulag.

Yeah, right, he had no choice. Please, losing Yukos to BP or Shell, yeah I see that happening. NOT!!! Just nationalize it, so Putin would have more control.

Why is it that Russian oil companies don't want to divest and let in foreign ownership? First, it would be an incredibly stupid business decision, second, any time a Russian company tries to buy a European company, the Europeans are shocked, outraged and try to pass legislation prohibiting it. Fair is fair.
Anyway, these companies are listed on the stock market, and anyone, even the editor of this newspaper, can buy a piece of them...

They would lose control.

Poverty? I guess the drivers of the gazillion SUV's, Audi's and Mercedes clogging the streets of Samara every morning during rush hour didn't know they were in the midst of "widespread poverty"...Another "poverty-stricken" place is Moscow, the world's most expensive city...

Russia has the world's worst wealth inequality.

More "bad news," it means there will be more oil. And thanks to global warming, a warm Siberia probably has untold fortunes in undiscovered minerals, gas and oil...

It sounds like you want Global Warming?? I hope not.
Global warming is bad.

Clean32
15-10-2007, 21:55
And you are illiterate. Did you ever hear of a thing called ‘spell check?’

Yes

and have you ever thought of not being a wanker ???

Sinestro
15-10-2007, 22:48
Yes

and have you ever thought of not being a wanker ???

Just trying to help...

Have you ever thought to stop spanking it?

Clean32
15-10-2007, 23:04
Just trying to help...

Have you ever thought to stop spanking it?

Unlike you i have never had the misfortune of haveing to resort to such self inflicted humiliation

Fantastika
15-10-2007, 23:28
It sounds like you want Global Warming?? I hope not.
Global warming is bad.

No, global warming is good. 68 degrees here in Samara today. What great weather, everyone is wearing a smile...

Fantastika
15-10-2007, 23:30
It's already working! During the past few days they've been showing a commercial on TV of a shoe-polish, supposedly developed with nano-technologies, as that commercial claims!

So, that is what our officials have been talking about every time they referred to nano-technologies! Extra rain-resistant shoe-polish! )))))))

Why don't they use their new nano-technology expertise to grow onions that won't bring tears to my eyes...

Clean32
15-10-2007, 23:32
Why don't they use their new nano-technology expertise to grow onions that won't bring tears to my eyes...

LOL you just doint know how to cut an onion correctly LOL

Sinestro
15-10-2007, 23:32
Unlike you i have never had the misfortune of haveing to resort to such self inflicted humiliation

Have you been wanking it all of your life?

Fantastika
16-10-2007, 01:05
It is always very easy to rewrite History after... Without the Allies, Hitler would have had too many ressources and could fight with success CCCP for years.

The tide turned in 1942, at Stalingrad, two years before the allies invaded Normandy...

After Volgograd, it was a war of attrition. Month by month, the Russians pushed back the Germans. They had inferior weapons, but they were producing them by the trainloads, and they could call up "reserves" of Tartar horsemen, etc.

By June, 1944, at the time of the Allied invasion of Normandy, the Russians had already pushed the Germans back to the gates of Warsaw...

And, really, the Allied carpet bombing of German cities mostly killed civilians, it had little effect on their military or their weapons-producing industry. German industrial production really did peak in 1945.

Fantastika
16-10-2007, 01:14
It's already working! During the past few days they've been showing a commercial on TV of a shoe-polish, supposedly developed with nano-technologies, as that commercial claims!

So, that is what our officials have been talking about every time they referred to nano-technologies! Extra rain-resistant shoe-polish! )))))))

Nano-technology is incredible thing...just imagine, millions of programmed micro-micro-computers in your blood system, each one is attacking a virus or bacteria...no more sickness, no more common colds...you could program them to repair tissues, fix broken bones...

You can read Michael Crichton or F. Paul Wilson books about nano-technology. Unbelievable stuff...

Sinestro
16-10-2007, 01:23
The tide turned in 1942, at Stalingrad, two years before the allies invaded Normandy...

After Volgograd, it was a war of attrition. Month by month, the Russians pushed back the Germans. They had inferior weapons, but they were producing them by the trainloads, and they could call up "reserves" of Tartar horsemen, etc.

By June, 1944, at the time of the Allied invasion of Normandy, the Russians had already pushed back the Germans to the gates of Warsaw...

And, really, the Allied carpet bombing of German cities mostly killed civilians, it had little effect on their military or their weapons-producing industry. German industrial production really did peak in 1945.

And what? So you’re implying that the Soviet counter-offensive didn't cause any civilian casualties? The ones that weren't killed were just sent off to the Gulag anyhow.

I agree with peak production in '45. Just imagine if the Nazis got the jet of the ground: ME 262A.
And some might argue that the TRUE turning point in the invasion was a wintery element that aided the Russians in repelling the Germans off their home soil, just as Napoleon’s army was stopped some 130 years before…

During WWII the only cold winter was in 1941-1942, and the Wehrmacht had no supplies, such as winter uniforms due to the many delays in the German army's movements. Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

Fantastika
16-10-2007, 01:28
And what? So you’re implying that the Soviet counter-offensive didn't cause any civilian casualties?

I was for the Germans...

Fantastika
16-10-2007, 01:38
And what? So you’re implying that the Soviet counter-offensive didn't cause any civilian casualties? The ones that weren't killed were just sent off to the Gulag anyhow.

I agree with peak production in '45. Just imagine if the Nazis got the jet of the ground: ME 262A.
And some might argue that the TRUE turning point in the invasion was a wintery element that aided the Russians in repelling the Germans off their home soil, just as Napoleon’s army was stopped some 130 years before…

During WWII the only cold winter was in 1941-1942, and the Wehrmacht had no supplies, such as winter uniforms due to the many delays in the German army's movements. Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."

The second paragraph is a quote...why don't you just write as yourself? It sounds artificial and isn't life a lot more interesting when you say what you want to say, not when you say what you think someone else would say?

Fantastika
16-10-2007, 01:39
And what? So you’re implying that the Soviet counter-offensive didn't cause any civilian casualties? The ones that weren't killed were just sent off to the Gulag anyhow.

No, you're implying that...

Ghostly Presence
16-10-2007, 11:41
Why don't they use their new nano-technology expertise to grow onions that won't bring tears to my eyes...

That's the next step in line. They will get down to that as soon as they are done putting finishing touches on that show-polish product. )))

Sinestro
16-10-2007, 22:05
No, you're implying that...

The Soviets unleashed fury on whatever stood in their way on their march to Berlin.

Fury = death and destruction to anything and anyone; no holds barred.

Clean32
16-10-2007, 22:36
It constantly amazes me. When I comes to the topic of WWII the ½ stories the oh buts, the misquoted movie and novel history being regurgitated over and over again. Many Russians with a good knowledge of what there forces did, Both Soviet and the reconstructed regular forces ( yes Russia had 2 military structures) yet are wholly ignorant of what the rest of the world did or the existent of other non soviet campaigns ( that is not intended as putting down Russians) as opposed to the common Hollywood / john Wayne American view, witch not just omits many non Russian campaigns and battles and events but they also rewrite history, claming success for Americans and American forces that either did not exist, were actually done by non American forces or more commonly were not even active in the war at that time.

And before any one starts jumping up and down, read about the Kokoda trail, or the New England landings.

Or just pause a second and consider what would have happened if Germany had taken north Africa and successfully invaded England. If that was the case would Russia have been attacked at all??

Fantastika
17-10-2007, 22:22
The Soviets unleashed fury on whatever stood in their way on their march to Berlin.

Fury = death and destruction to anything and anyone; no holds barred.


Actually, "fury" (from Merriam Webster) means:

1: intense, disordered, and often destructive rage (but this doesn't apply, it was "ordered")
...
3: extreme fierceness or violence

But, this was a war, wasn't it? The purpose of war is to kill people and break things...otherwise the other guy will unleash "fury" on you...

Дойти до Берлина!

Fantastika
17-10-2007, 22:28
And before any one starts jumping up and down, read about the Kokoda trail, or the New England landings.

New England landings?

Clean32
17-10-2007, 22:39
New England landings?

Yes its just to the left of new Ireland, north of hew Holland and north west of new Zealand.

The biggest defeat or the most conclusive and devastating defeat of arms in WW2 a defeat of an invading force with numbers like ( from memory so don’t quote me) 15 000 dead for the loss of 12.

I would be surprised if more than 2 people know about it.

Fantastika
18-10-2007, 00:08
Yes its just to the left of new Ireland, north of hew Holland and north west of new Zealand.

The biggest defeat or the most conclusive and devastating defeat of arms in WW2 a defeat of an invading force with numbers like ( from memory so don’t quote me) 15 000 dead for the loss of 12.

I would be surprised if more than 2 people know about it.

Strange planet that has all this "new" geography...

There was a landing in New York, (close to New England) by 6-7 bumbling German agents. They walked around Long Island speaking funny English, nervous, and were all picked up in a couple of days...

Oh, you must be talking about the place where the new Sarah Brightman is singing her new songs...

Sinestro
18-10-2007, 00:11
1: intense, disordered, and often destructive rage (but this doesn't apply, it was "ordered")


There's nothing "ordered" about the Russians!! :evilgrin:

Clean32
18-10-2007, 00:53
Strange planet that has all this "new" geography...

There was a landing in New York, (close to New England) by 6-7 bumbling German agents. They walked around Long Island speaking funny English, nervous, and were all picked up in a couple of days...

Oh, you must be talking about the place where the new Sarah Brightman is singing her new songs...

ops i made a mistake its new britan not new engalnd LOL

Fantastika
20-10-2007, 20:03
There's nothing "ordered" about the Russians!! :evilgrin:

Stereotype

Sinestro
23-10-2007, 21:41
Stereotype

That's a fact, Jack !!

Fantastika
25-10-2007, 03:11
That's a fact, Jack !!

Now I know why I never had children...

Sinestro
25-10-2007, 19:42
because you biologically can't? You know, there are ways to increase your fertility these days....

How to Increase Your Fertility for Conception | Improve Fertility (http://www.beginnerbaby.com/improve-fertility.php)

Clean32
26-10-2007, 01:25
Strange planet that has all this "new" geography...

There was a landing in New York, (close to New England) by 6-7 bumbling German agents. They walked around Long Island speaking funny English, nervous, and were all picked up in a couple of days...

...

every thing has to be about AMERIKA, any way that landing was from a sub and involved 4 american citz returning from germany, it took 3 months to colect them all, and that only becouse one gave him self in and than gave up the otheres, all of whom were hung.

i was how ever refuring to an atempet japaness landing, but just to prove my point you know nothing about it. the greatist one sided battle in eather ww1 or ww2

Fantastika
26-10-2007, 20:14
because you biologically can't? You know, there are ways to increase your fertility these days....

How to Increase Your Fertility for Conception | Improve Fertility (http://www.beginnerbaby.com/improve-fertility.php)

But, unlike you, I was conceived by human beings...