• Russia sees union with Belarus and Kazakhstan by 2015
    17 replies, posted
[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.mattrhysdavies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lack-of-news-sites-bbc-logo.jpg[/IMG] Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have agreed to set up a Eurasian economic union, modelled on the EU, with a target date of 2015. The three countries already have a customs union but now aim to go further by removing trade barriers. Their respective presidents signed a deal to create an executive body similar to the European Commission. Earlier this year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin denied the bloc would re-create the Soviet Union. In a ceremony broadcast live on Russian television, President Dmitry Medvedev said that "without doubt this will be decisive in the future of our countries". He added that the prospect of a Eurasian union had also aroused interest from several other states. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in particular are said to be looking at the project. 'Soviet-style vocabulary' Mr Medvedev also did not rule out the possibility that the union would take shape even earlier than 2015: "If the prerequisites are there, we shall move faster, if we are able to." Although Russia is spear-heading the plan, Mr Medvedev praised the Kazakh leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, as its creator as far back as the 1990s "when the very word integration was regarded as a remnant of Soviet-style vocabulary". In a newspaper article last month, Vladimir Putin insisted that there was no talk of reforming the USSR, arguing that it would be naive to copy what had been abandoned in the past. Under the customs union that came into operation in July 2010, Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan agreed to remove tariffs and customs controls along their shared borders. They will then form a single economic space at the start of 2012. Mr Nazarbayev said they would also have to come to a deal on inflation and debt levels before economic union could begin. All three countries are still members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, along with eight other nations, including Ukraine. [/QUOTE] [B]SOURCE:[/B][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15790452[/url] I'm not quite sure what to think about this, really. I guess if it'll help get money flowing through some of the ex-bloc states, it's a positive thing.
I should be optimistic for this, but sadly I am not.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;33331917]I should be optimistic for this, but sadly I am not.[/QUOTE] Here's a quote that has me rather nervous "Mr Medvedev (centre) said any former Soviet state would be eligible to join the Eurasian Union"
Cannot wait to see how a bunch of American news outlets are going to respond.
I though for a second Russia was planning to annex them, an economic union is nothing to worry about.
An economic union is the first step towards the economic dependence and alliance of countries. It just seems fishy that only previous Soviet States are allowed to join. Feeling a strange "Let's try this being Red thing again, but this time, let's not fuck up" vibe.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;33332001]I though for a second Russia was planning to annex them, an economic union is nothing to worry about.[/QUOTE] I guess you're probably right, but at the same time, Russia could use this as leverage for policy-making in any country that joins this thing. It feels a tad bit too "godfather" for my tastes. Honestly, I'm just worried about this turning into some sort of a protection-money racket for the Russian government a-la "we'll ensure trade as long as you pay your dues". [editline]18th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;33332028]An economic union is the first step towards the economic dependence and alliance of countries. It just seems fishy that only previous Soviet States are allowed to join. Feeling a strange "Let's try this being Red thing again, but this time, let's not fuck up" vibe.[/QUOTE] As a side-note, if the Soviet Union had focused more on internal economic development and less on a "BUILD ALL THE TANKS" mentality triggered by the Reagan-era military spending of the United States, it might still be around.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33332034]As a side-note, if the Soviet Union had focused more on internal economic development and less on a "BUILD ALL THE TANKS" mentality triggered by the Reagan-era military spending of the United States, it might still be around.[/QUOTE] It was actually the WWII-induced mentality of "Nobody is forgotten, nothing is forgotten". To allow for a repeat of Operation Barbarossa would not only be a mistake, but a crime in the view of the Soviet people. After you lose 20 million people, you would want to make sure that you [i]really[/i] don't want it to happen again.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;33332273]It was actually the WWII-induced mentality of "Nobody is forgotten, nothing is forgotten". To allow for a repeat of Operation Barbarossa would not only be a mistake, but a crime in the view of the Soviet people. After you lose 20 million, you would want to make sure that you [i]really[/i] don't want it to happen again.[/QUOTE] I can agree to that, but at the same time, how can you pump out tanks, aircraft, and nuclear weapons while allowing your people to starve on boursche and black bread? It seems almost insane that they couldn't maintain a decent, defensive military whilst still developing the economy necessary to,well, last! Think about it: the military they were developing was not defensive in nature: in fact, it was quite the opposite. It was a military designed almost solely on the principal that it would some day be used to take on both NATO and the United States.
Well, it was actually an "offensive defense". WWII experiences and the human losses suffered gave them the lesson not to fight passively on your home soil. The "offensive" nature of the Soviet military was because of the accepted views of M. N. Tukhachevsky, V. K. Triandafillov, N. E. Varfolomeyev, G. S. Isserson and other prominent theoreticians of the mid-1920s. In their view, it was best to annihilate enemy forces on enemy territory and, consequently, when war broke out to launch immediately an offensive on enemy territory. In any case, the USSR was *not* planning malicious military aggression against the West. A man on the street was absolutely not interested in starting the war that might end the world just because a man from Washington wasn't interested in socialism. You have to take into account huge losses suffered in the Russian Civil War, years of repressions and WWII. To take a decision that might turn the Cold War into a hot one was too difficult to imagine. I think you would be best answered with a copy of Chris Donnelly's book [i]Red Banner[/i]. It'll give you a non-stereotyped view on why the Soviet military was as it was in the Cold War better than the next 5000+ posts on Facepunch. Anyways, that's me done with history for now. Have fun with the rest of the thread.
I think this is good for these countries. Kazakhstan has had significant amounts of growth of late. Everyone could prosper. [IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/4152415162_88b373d668_b.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;33332362]Well, it was actually an "offensive defense". WWII experiences and the human losses suffered gave them the lesson not to fight passively on your home soil. The "offensive" nature of the Soviet military was because of the accepted views of M. N. Tukhachevsky, V. K. Triandafillov, N. E. Varfolomeyev, G. S. Isserson and other prominent theoreticians of the mid-1920s. In their view, it was best to annihilate enemy forces on enemy territory and, consequently, when war broke out to launch immediately an offensive on enemy territory. In any case, the USSR was *not* planning malicious military aggression against the West. A man on the street was absolutely not interested in starting the war that might end the world just because a man from Washington wasn't interested in socialism. You have to take into account huge losses suffered in the Russian Civil War, years of repressions and WWII. To take a decision that might turn the Cold War into a hot one was too difficult to imagine. I think you would be best answered with a copy of Chris Donnelly's book [i]Red Banner[/i]. It'll give you a non-stereotyped view on why the Soviet military was as it was in the Cold War better than the next 5000+ posts on Facepunch. Anyways, that's me done with history for now. Have fun with the rest of the thread.[/QUOTE] As a history-enthusiest, that was very interesting. Thank you! [editline]18th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;33332522]I think this is good for these countries. Kazakhstan has had significant amounts of growth of late. Everyone could prosper. [IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/4152415162_88b373d668_b.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That's some sexy architecture to the far-right.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the newSSR!
[quote]In a newspaper article last month, Vladimir Putin insisted that there was no talk of reforming the USSR, arguing that it would be naive to copy what had been abandoned in the past.[/quote] Like he's saying now and like he said before on a now famous quote: [quote]Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.[/quote] So I don't think we have anything to worry about.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;33332522]I think this is good for these countries. Kazakhstan has had significant amounts of growth of late. Everyone could prosper. [IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/4152415162_88b373d668_b.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Looks nice, but doesn't change the fact that Kazakhstan is still a corrupt autocracy. And Belarus is even worse.
[QUOTE=Nikota;33331947]Cannot wait to see how a bunch of American news outlets are going to respond.[/QUOTE] THE NEW RISE OF COMMUNISM HERE?RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SOVIET UNION IS NEAR!REPUBLICANS CONSIDERING 2ND COLD WAR. More at 7 on Fox
[QUOTE=znk666;33334721]THE NEW RISE OF COMMUNISM HERE?RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SOVIET UNION IS NEAR!REPUBLICANS CONSIDERING 2ND COLD WAR. More at 7 on Fox[/QUOTE] Introducing the revolutionary USSR 2. Now with 100% less cold war.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;33335763]Introducing the revolutionary USSR 2. Now with 100% less cold war.[/QUOTE] As soon as those ruskies go back to communism it's on bitch :usa:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.