Biden will choose three ways to put pressure on Russia
As soon as he took office, President Biden made it clear that there would be no "reset" of relations with Russia. Janet Yellen, the candidate for the post of the head of the US Treasury, who previously headed the Federal Reserve, has promised that anti-Russian sanctions will now become "more strategic" and begin to be used "appropriately". Let's try to imagine what all this can result in in practice.
Any sanctions are introduced for a reason, but for the sake of achieving a certain goal. Former Democratic President Barack Obama, through restrictive measures, tried to punish the Kremlin for its actions in Crimea and Donbass, "tearing up the Russian the economy apart". It didn't quite work out to shreds, but Washington really gave us problems. "Imperial" Donald Trump did not pay special attention to Russia with its 3% of world GDP, "spiritual bonds", palaces, lackeys and beauties, focusing mainly on China. The Republican sanctions were preemptively aimed at making the revival of the domestic industry as difficult as possible: civil aircraft construction, import substitution in the military-industrial complex, astronautics, and also to exclude the deepening of economic cooperation between the Russian Federation and the European Union in the field of energy. What can we expect from the US Democratic Party, which has returned to power?
There is no particular sense in continuing to "tear to shreds" our economy, for the "globalists" it is more interesting to return Russia to full controllability within the framework of the international system they have built. To do this, it is necessary "just" to change the government in the Kremlin to a more loyal one. In accordance with this logic, it is obvious that new sanctions will be adopted.
At first, Democrats must finally undermine the "economic ties" of the ruling regime, which are based on the export abroad of hydrocarbons and other raw materials. It should be borne in mind that both the European Union and the United States themselves are taking the "green path" of rejecting the use of fossil fuels by 2050. Germany and other developed European countries need gas, no matter whether it is Russian, American or whatever, for this transitional period. Fuel from Gazprom is more preferable in terms of price, but Berlin is objectively interested in diversifying supplies so as not to depend on one or the other, that's why it is holding on to Nord Stream 2.
Further, two options are possible. The United States may be tough on the issue, forcing the Germans to choose between Russian gas or their companies' access to the American market. The choice is quite obvious, and, alas, it will not be in favor of Gazprom. However, such drastic methods are unlikely to be applied by the "globalists" to their allies from the FRG. A compromise is more likely, in which Russia will be allowed to maintain a certain amount of presence in the European energy market, and in return the EU will have to increase consumption of American LNG. You can also expect deepening cooperation between the United States and the European Union in the field of implementation of technologies "Green energy".
SecondlyWashington will continue to turn Russian business elites against the Kremlin by imposing sanctions on our large companies. Under Donald Trump, the near-Kremlin oligarch Oleg Deripaska suffered the most, and now this circle can expand significantly. The message of the West is simple: remove Putin yourself, and then we will become friends again.
Thirdlyobviously activates political pressure on the Kremlin through public support from the West for opposition leader Alexei Navalny. The main "exposer" of the ruling regime constantly pulls out "dirty linen" for public viewing, films professionally shot by his team have a great emotional impact on an audience that is not too capable of adequate critical thinking. Children and young people, in other words.
And children are our future. These are not Russian pensioners, who have seen enough of everything in their difficult life and therefore cling to stability and the penny pension they are entitled to, rightly fearing radical changes that Alexei Navalny brings. President Putin and his entourage are still losing the battle for the minds of young people, so the future may not be in his hands or his successors.
Author: Sergey Marzhetsky
Offline Cyril
Cyril (Kirill) 24 January 2021 11: 53
The main "exposer" of the ruling regime constantly pulls out "dirty linen" for everyone to see, films professionally shot by his team have a great emotional impact on the audience. not too capable of adequate critical thinking. Children and young people, in other words.
Mostly middle-aged people took part in the protests.
Offline Marzhecki
Marzhecki (Sergei) 25 January 2021 06: 50
People of different ages go to the action, which means that the country has accumulated big problems. There are more youth among his supporters. I suppose many of them had been at home the day before because of the cold.
In my opinion, it is necessary to separate the attitude to the figure of Alexei himself and to the information that he publishes. These are two different questions. Personally, I would welcome that EVERY of the facts he cited was impartially verified with the appropriate organizational conclusions, and they were not dismissed with the wording that he was an "Inoagent" and therefore nothing of his words could be trusted.
With all this, in the figure of Mr. Navalny, I personally do not see the "savior of Russia", this is to put it mildly. Rather, his arrival will mark the beginning of a new Troubles.
There are more youth among his supporters.
You know, the concept of "youth" is quite extensible. The upper limit of this concept is 30 years. At this time, people are already getting married, have children, open their own business, even become well-known scientists, public or political figures, experienced military personnel.
Therefore, to say that young people are not very capable of critical thinking - well, such a statement. Especially against the background of how, in the early 90s, people over the age of 40 en masse charged water at Chumak's performances and carried the day to the MMM. Well, or they believed in the delusional ideas of the same Hitler.
Critical thinking depends on age very, very indirectly.
In my opinion, it is necessary to separate the attitude to the figure of Alexei himself and to the information that he publishes.
This is unconditional.
Personally, I would welcome that EVERY of the facts he cited was impartially verified with the appropriate organizational conclusions, and they were not dismissed with the wording that he was an "Inoagent" and therefore nothing of his words could be trusted.
Certainly. That's the problem. And I think that the majority go to protests not so much for him as such, as against what his FBK is fighting against.
With all this, in the figure of Mr. Navalny, I personally do not see the "savior of Russia", this is to put it mildly.
I personally, too. As a politician, I don't like him either. However, this does not mean that the investigations of his FBK should be treated as the current Russian political establishment does.
Rather, his arrival will mark the beginning of a new Troubles.
You understand that "turmoil" does not depend on the person. The same False Dmitry was not the cause of the Troubles of the 17th century in Russia. Its reasons were different.
Quote: Cyril
I understand perfectly. All the prerequisites have been there for a long time, and Navalny can become a trigger. At the same time, I personally do not see "such a party" capable of leading the country out of the Troubles without collapse.
I mean the following youth:
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/video/album/2348/?mode=view&id=16400
They want something good, but they don't know exactly how it should look. And adult cynical guys use them.
The most interesting thing is that both these guys and this girl do not mind just swapping places with Putin and his friends, such a "castling" will quite suit them. At that, the changes and the movement forward will end.
As for me, the problem is not so much in Putin's personality as in the system itself, where changing the frontman will not change ANYTHING. But neither Navalny nor this girl is talking about changing the system to some other, fairer one.
But after all, not only "such youth" were there, right? And not the fact that there was a lot of it.
Everyone was. And this is a bad sign for Putin. Protest sentiments are expanding across the country and across their audience.
Well, it is not his fault that these prerequisites have appeared.
He is not, he is simply chosen by the Western elites as a battering ram in order to push the Putin regime out of its place. The key question is what will he do if he gets his way?
Will build a big "Sun City"? Or will he eventually turn into Yeltsin-2 and Putin-2, who mentally speaks beautiful correct words, but in reality it turns out a little differently?
This is not the question. The question is how to make the "construction of the Sun City" happen independently or to a small extent depending on who is in the presidency. Our political system is strongly tied to a person's personality. This is bad.
I agree, it's bad.
As for me, the problem is not so much in Putin's personality as in the system itself, where changing the frontman will not change ANYTHING. But neither Navalny speaks about changing the system to some other, fairer one.
Why doesn't he speak? In his political program, the changes that (in his opinion) will make the state system more open and accountable to society are described quite well.
Namely, the lack of this openness and accountability is one of Russia's main problems. And in this moment I agree with him.
You can write anything in the program. The question is, will this be enforced?
If he were an old Bolshevik convict, maybe I would have believed. But Alexey is 100% a protege of the West, and he will not do anything pro-Russian, not for that he was chosen and promoted. His mission is to become the new head of our common barracks, and his entire policy will be pro-Western.
If he were an old Bolshevik convict, maybe I would have believed
Well, in fact, he is already a "convict". But "Bolshevism", as history has shown, does not necessarily mean that a person will work for the good of the country.
But "Bolshevism", as history has shown, does not necessarily mean that a person will work for the good of the country.
Here I disagree with you. I will definitely not have a consensus on this issue with the liberals. I adhere to a diametrically opposite view, but I see no point in developing the topic. A whole treatise will work out here, but I still can't convince you. Yes, and we have to work.
A whole treatise will work out here, but I still can't convince you. Yes, and we have to work.
Likewise :) Good work.
Offline Shadow041
Shadow041 24 January 2021 12: 02
Sitiating is simple to nausea. In the end, no one needs Putin with his policy, `` Both ours and yours, '' except, of course, who are not needed at the trough and young people in the first place. Nobody else believes in fairy tales in Russia. If you're lucky, you can earn money for an apartment only by the age of 40, but until you earn money there is no one to live in it, because there is no health anymore and the young do not need such `` prospects '', since this is a dead end. And the United States and its six, such as Novalny, are trying to competently lead the overdue discontent in the Russian Federation. The sad thing is that Putin does not itch in order to change the life of the people for the better and restore order in the Russian Federation, which the population yearns for, tired of untimely payments of tiny salaries and an outright scammer.
Offline Vladest
Vladest (Vladimir) 24 January 2021 12: 25
In the Russian Federation, it is very fashionable to nag the West because in the 30s he raised Hitler and his Nazism. Allowed Hitler to seize foreign lands and even countries with impunity with impunity. This famous "Munich Conspiracy".
And after that, to argue that the aggressor in the person of the Russian Federation is someone and what will forgive? You have to be stupid enough to believe that History does not teach anything. Teaches, and how. We count sanctions and losses.
There is no need to analyze anything. As the US pressed the Russian Federation and will press. There is a reason.
Offline Division
Division (Division) 24 January 2021 14: 48
Like to put pressure on the United States will not find a reason. They and China are pressing. They even started their allies. This is the world. Nobody likes competitors. They need controlled territories. An example of this is Ukraine. No matter how they are not "friends" with the West, the West does not value them anymore.
Offline Uneven
Uneven (X) 24 January 2021 13: 37
it is necessary "just" to change the power in the Kremlin for a more loyal one.
Putin asked to join NATO three times. How much more "loyal"?
Russia with its 3% of world GDP
The share of the Russian Federation in world GDP in 2020 is 1.75% and by 2025 will be reduced to 1.67%.
Offline Bakht
Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 24 January 2021 18: 35
When exactly did "Putin ask to join NATO"?
Putin applied for Russia's membership in NATO three times - in 2001, 2004 and 2008.
Can you document this?
According to my information, Putin has NOT applied to join NATO even once. There was a non-binding conversation with Clinton in 2001. All.
You were also wrong about the GDP. We have discussed many times. There are different counting techniques. Net GDP means nothing. And even according to it, Russia is in 11th place in the world. In terms of GDP / PPP in 7th place.
I know this topic very well. I am not interested in information from the press.
The history of the issue is as follows
The first time the USSR offered to join NATO back in 1954. The West refused.
The second time Andropov in 1981 raised this issue. It was discussed at the Politburo and probed in Western countries. But then the South Korean Boeing fell, Reagan announced the "Evil Empire" and launched SDI. The question is dead.
For the third time, Gorbachev raised the issue. In the West he was laughed at, but the topic migrated by inertia to Yeltsin, then the Chechen war began and NATO adopted the Partnership for Peace program and began expanding to the East. The question died again.
For the fourth time in 2001, after September 11, Putin embarked on some kind of cooperation program with NATO and probed the ground in the West. The answer was negative.
There have been no changes since then. There are only negative ones.
So if you have links to decisions of the State Duma and the Federation Council, you can cite them. Otherwise, it's all verbal nonsense.
Your position is not a revelation for me. It's called Ostrich Pose.
The late A. I. Raikin expressed himself more gracefully with regard to such an outlooker: "What is there is not known. What is here is not interesting ..."
My position is quite reasonable. There is not a single document confirming your words. And what kind of links do you give that they are banned? For some reason, my links go through normally.
I personally doubt your competence. however, I already wrote it.
Before writing something, you need to check the sources. I have looked at the NATO website too. Moreover, that it is in my bookmarks. Nothing of the kind is indicated in the section on Russia-NATO relations.
If you find it, I will read it with pleasure.
So. Russia has NOT applied to join NATO. For information. The NATO membership application is a foreign and domestic political document. The President of Russia simply does not have the right to resolve such issues. It must be discussed in the State Duma and the Federation Council. This has never happened.
Putin several times (most recently in April 2008) at the SNR (NATO-Russia Council) summit stated that Russia can participate in NATO's work UNDER the CONDITION of fulfilling certain issues on the part of NATO. If you consider this as an application for joining the Alliance, then you are greatly mistaken.
Check the information before writing. your competence is already in serious doubt.
However, most of the Russian politicians and experts were skeptical about the possible membership of Russia in the Alliance, drawing attention to NATO's inability to reliably ensure Russian security in the context of the growing importance of Asian states in international affairs. They also sounded assertions that Russia's hypothetical membership in NATO could lead to increased tensions in Russian-Chinese relations.
"If Russia became a NATO member, it would completely emasculate the very essence of the organization. One might expect that Russia would obstruct, wherever possible, the interests of the United States, as is now happening at the United Nations and in other international organizations. The main interest for Russia in NATO would be the establishment of control over the bloc, its collapse and the ousting of the United States of America from it. Eastern European NATO member states would view the inclusion of Moscow in the bloc as a betrayal. And since cooperation with Russia is possible outside of NATO, for example, in providing supply lines for troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, the benefits of introducing Moscow under the roof of NATO are reduced to zero. "
http://forsecurity.org/otnosheniya-rossiya-nato-v-1991-2012-gg
Both sides see no sense at all in Russia's joining NATO. This is the reality. And this is objective.
Links sent in a personal.
I have already looked through and answered. Links (especially on the economic topic) confirm that you are mistaken. These are your links. So i'm not to blame
1) In order for you not to strain too much with the translation, I sent you a link to specific numbers (the same ones that I gave above).
2) From your "faith" or "unbelief" facts will not go anywhere. Your lack of desire to familiarize yourself with the proposed materials is quite enough for me to put an end to our dialogue.
I read and wrote to you in a personal. You are mistaken.
I still do not understand - do you want to familiarize yourself with the sources of information or do you prefer to limit yourself to empty indulgence?
Do you have "sources of information"? Discussion in the State Duma or the Federation Council? As I said, this document (application for membership) is also an internal political document.
And then, what does "not understand" mean? Am I writing incomprehensibly? There is a personal, you can send a link. But if this is the media (I saw this with links to Chinese), then of course you can not bother.
"Discussion in the State Duma or the Federation Council" are you a "source of information"? (!)
Is the rubber seal a source of power?
Sarcasm is good. But this did not add facts.
I think we can close the discussion. If sarcasm went, then I went to bed. More productive
The position "sources will expand" with facts cannot be broken. So you will have to trust me in the future. Goodnight!
You have not understood the main thing. Last time
1. Russia has not applied for NATO membership.
2. According to the link you gave (International Monetary Fund), the size of the Russian economy is 2,8% of the world economy. It's closer to 3%
Conclusion: There is no point in believing you.
PS Not the sources lie "VYVYOVRETE"
Our share in global GDP will be 1.75% this year and will decline to 2025% by 1.67.
2) I sent one more direct quote regarding more than one-time attempts to join NATO in a personal note.
I told you not to send fiction.
And the opinion of the broker from the stock exchange, published in the telegram, should not be given.
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/
[email protected]/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
Is this your link? Share of Russia 2,8%
To summarize: The information that I mentioned was not disputed by any of the defendants in the prescribed manner. There was neither a refutation nor a court decision obliging the author to apologize and admit his mistake. You have not presented anything of the kind to me. And your PERSONAL attitude to the facts published by me does not interest me at all.
Can't you see the difference between the share in world GDP and the growth rate of the economy?
Regrettably.
That is, you admit that the share of Russia in the world GDP is not 1.97%, but 3%.
Your personal statement is incorrect on your own link.
the size of the Russian economy 2,8% of the world economy
Compare with mine:
The share of the Russian Federation in world GDP in 2020 is 1.75% and by 2025 will be reduced to 1.67%
Can't you see the difference?
I see. I see that you are inattentively looking at your own links. The size of the Russian economy in 2021 is 3,02% of world GDP.
The IMF forecast for 2021 is Russia's GDP growth by 2,8%. Growth is projected for 2025 compared to 2020. This is all from your own link.
Did you study arithmetic at school?
There was a little confusion yesterday at night. Now we are considering your link in detail. The growth of the US economy is 3,1%, Russia is 2,8%, and China is more than 6%. Worldwide growth 5,2%. This is all forecast for 2021.
According to these figures, Russia's share in world GDP will indeed decline. But this is a forecast. The IMF changes its forecasts once a quarter and they almost never come true. But God is with them.
According to the same link, the share of Russia's GDP in 2021 will be 3,02%. Not 1,75%. Read your own link carefully
But the most interesting thing is the comparison. Who is the leader in this GDP race? Libya's GDP growth for 2021 is projected at 76%. According to your logic, it is better to live in Libya than even in the States with some sniffed 3%.
So, let's summarize. According to the IMF, the share of the Russian economy in the world is 3%. Growth of 2021% is projected for 2,8. But, given the growth of the world (ahead of Libya), of course, Russia's share will fall. But the figures you quoted are not even close.
The final conclusion - there is absolutely no faith in your words.
These requests look especially piquant against the background of THIS:
Also, the head of state (Putin) called NATO a US foreign policy instrument, in which there are no allies, but only their vassals. "Today it is a foreign policy instrument of the United States, there are no allies, there are only vassals. When a country becomes a NATO member, it is already very difficult for it to resist pressure from such a large country, NATO leader as the United States. And anything can easily appear there - and an anti-missile defense system, and new bases, and, if required, new strike complexes, "Putin said.
In principle, he is right. And given that there was no request for membership, there is nothing to talk about.
When you ask the hamsters for whom they want to change Putin, they fall into a stupor or mumble, at least for someone, like "it won't get any worse." And they don't care about the people who chose Putin. They want a coup without waiting for an election. The minority wants to rule over the majority. This is what the Western false "democracy" is trying to achieve. They need to remove Putin, and then the Arab spring, which has been rolled out like in all Maidan revolutions. Remove economic competitors and make territory under your control.
Offline Petr Vladimirovich
Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 24 January 2021 15: 16
So after all, they have one goal, it's time to blame ... And then sit on our forums and bark at Russia ...
Quote: Division
When you ask hamsters who they want to trade Putin for
Even in the Middle Ages there were no problems with who to put on the throne. Looks like Russia has become depleted of talents.
Assad in Syria is also not how not to change or Modura in Venezuela. Already people are fleeing from them in the millions and no matter how ...
Offline lieutenant
lieutenant (Vladimir) 24 January 2021 16: 22
with Germany is not unambiguous. they can reorient east
Offline boriz
boriz (boriz) 24 January 2021 16: 35
But Biden does better to put pressure on the United States than to put pressure on Russia. The Americans have already understood this. And those who voted for Biden are tearing their hair in various places.
As a result, by the end of the year there will be no one to put pressure on Russia.
Offline Marciz
Marciz (Stas) 26 January 2021 05: 34
In the Kremlin, cowards are just sitting, gorging themselves, basking in wealth, they are not sanctioned for what they have created a unique (according to them) weapon at the expense of the people, but they are afraid to use it to protect their people (ours is not necessary, it's too late) and they only betray and betray !!!