|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
Skepticism > Political Skeptic > Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization > Color revolutions
The U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions on people and companies close to President Vladimir Putin after Russia annexed the Black Sea Crimea peninsula in March. Ukraine has accused Russia of supplying weapons, military vehicles and mercenaries to separatists, which Russia denies. The two nations are also in conflict over gas, with Russia cutting off supplies this week because of unpaid bills.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Putin's government faces the threat of further economic sanctions if it doesn’t do more “to exercise its influence among the separatists to lay down their weapons and renounce violence, both of which Russia has thus far failed to do,” according to a statement released by the White House yesterday.
MOSCOW, March 26 (RIA Novosti) - The World Bank has designed two scenarios for the growth of the Russian economy in 2014 taking into account increased risks over the Crimean crisis.
The first variant is based on short-term influences of the events in Ukraine on Russia's economy, and the second, threats of a serious shock and downturn of the gross domestic product (GDP).
"The scenario with a low level of risk presupposes that actions over the Crimean crisis will be limited and short-term and with a prognosis of a slowing economic growth to 1.1 percent in 2014 and a slight increase to 1.3 percent in 2015," according to a World Bank report on the Russian economy published on Wednesday.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
ThatJ says: , July 19, 2014 at 10:11 pmThe British Defence Secretary has some strong words for Putin. From Daily Mail:marknesop, July 19, 2014 at 10:27 pm* Michael Fallon accuses Vladimir Putin of ‘sponsoring terrorism’
* Warned there is a danger of Russian president ‘egging on’ separatists
* ‘There will be repercussions’ if it emerges Putin was behind jet hit, he saysHe ruled out sending British soldiers to Ukraine to defend it against Russian backed attacks. But, significantly, he did not rule out other military assistance from Britain and its NATO allies.
The RAF could provide fighter jets, as it already does to protect another part of the former Soviet Union, the Baltic state of Estonia, targeted by Putin, he suggested. And the British Government could punish Russian billionaires with money held in London.
I hope word of that last threat gets around, because it had a most beneficial effect last time of making Russian oligarchs pull their money out of foreign banks and move it back to Russia, out of reach.The western democracies are gnashing their teeth with fury, because nothing they do seems to work and the sanctions are not having anything like the desired effect while Russia’s economy has not been seriously damaged and Putin’s domestic popularity keeps going up and up. western satellites are watching the Russian-Ukrainian border like hawks and you couldn’t get a pistol in a lunchbox across without them seeing it, never mind a group of tanks or vehicle-mounted SAM systems. Yet the best photographic evidence they can come up with is a picture the Ukrainians gave them of a Buk vehicle they say is being driven back across the Russian border, while the signs in the clip suggest it was taken somewhere else and the Buk is a system in the Ukrainians’ own inventory.
Yet they still keep hammering on the narrative that Putin is aiding the resistance to the degree that if he withdrew his support, it would collapse in days. No proof, just talk. But lots of that.
Spin up those nukes, Russia. And let them see you doing it.
[Jul 09, 2014] Spying Case Left Obama in Dark, U.S. Officials Say
NYTimes.com
Over the past year, the German government has tried to use the Snowden revelations — chiefly the embarrassing disclosure about Ms. Merkel’s cellphone — as leverage to negotiate a non-spying pact between the United States and Germany. The United States has such arrangements with Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.
But the White House has resisted, in part because officials worry that it would prompt other countries to request similar deals. In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, explored a nonspying pact with French intelligence officials, partly because Mr. Blair believed such a deal would ease the burden on the F.B.I., which has the task of hunting French spies in the United States.
The French are reputed to be particularly aggressive in pursuing American industrial secrets. In contrast, current and former American officials said that German operatives are far less active in the United States, making the benefits of a nonspying deal with Berlin less obvious.
Likewise, some question the value of spying on Germany. Such operations threaten the close intelligence-sharing relationship that American and German spies have developed in recent years. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the BND has aggressively pursued terror suspects in Germany and played a role in the crippling Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear program.
“There’s only so much that spying on the Germans is going to get you,” said a former C.I.A. official once posted in Europe. “It’s not like the Germans are planning to establish relations with Iran.”
Last week’s disclosure came at a delicate moment: Mr. Obama needs Ms. Merkel’s support to impose additional sanctions against Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis. Germany, with extensive energy ties to Russia, has many reasons to resist, though Ms. Merkel has signaled she is running out of patience with President Vladimir V. Putin.
The American authorities are also pursuing heavy financial penalties from German banks, including Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, for dealing with Iran and other countries that are blacklisted by the United States. The German government owns 17 percent of Commerzbank, raising the prospect of further tensions.
The prospect of new strains between the United States and Germany drew an expression of concern from the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who met with Mr. Obama at the White House on Tuesday.
“I encourage them to sort this out as quickly as possible,” Mr. Rasmussen said in an interview after his meeting, adding, “All NATO allies profit from an intensive exchange of information and intelligence, so that’s also part of the whole equation.”
For Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel, the N.S.A. disclosures poisoned what had been one of the president’s closest relationships with a foreign leader. At a Group of 8 meeting in Camp David in 2012, Mr. Obama invited Ms. Merkel to linger after the other leaders left. At a state dinner a year earlier, she was serenaded by James Taylor singing, “You’ve Got a Friend.”
[Jul 05, 2014] US sanctions are new type of offensive weapon – Russia’s Deputy FM — RT Russian politics
Russia's leading diplomat in charge of relations with the US has called Washington’s policy of sanctions “a new offensive strategic weapon”, and warned that Russia was preparing a response, albeit not a mirror one.
“Sanctions, both declared and undeclared, are being used against a wider circle of countries and on a wider scale. I have an impression that the Washington power circles had come to the conclusion that it is sometimes simpler and cheaper to impose sanctions on some nation than use a conventional military force against it,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in an interview with the influential business daily Kommersant.
“We are sticking to the decision not to let ourselves get dragged into a new arms race, and we are not going to make any mirror replies to such steps. Still, we have to look for an antidote. There must be a defensive weapon for every offensive weapon. We are working on it now,” the Russian diplomat added.
Ryabkov told the newspaper that presently the United States had wrapped up all tried and effective formats of cooperation and dialogue with Russia – like the bilateral presidential commission or the dialogue on economic issues. He said that such steps were quite unexpected because they came from a country that had once declared the priority of a free market and only allows light touch regulation.
Now, the United States is turning the market into a tool of its foreign policy and using banned schemes that have nothing in common with economic effectiveness. All of this is driven by the geopolitical task of containment or even a throwback for the nations the United States is not happy with, the deputy minister stated. “These are methods of the past, the very old past. If they are using these methods their foreign policy arsenal must be not very rich,” he added.
Speaking of the possible reasons of such a situation, the Russian diplomat said that it was mainly Washington’s inability to accept the reality. “The USA holds that they won the Cold War and Russia – as a successor of the Soviet Union – had lost. Then they make a conclusion that Moscow must succumb and behave like a junior partner in international relations and in common projects with the USA,” Ryabkov said.
“In essence, they reject the very possibility of us having any national interests. They reject the possibility of a model of values that is different from the one used by the USA and other Western countries,” the Russian official said.
The new sanction-related row between Russia and the United States lingers from mid-March this year. The US (and later the EU and some US allies, like Canada or Australia have imposed sanctions against about 40 Russian citizens and several companies they allege are responsible for the current crisis in Ukraine.
The Russian parliament discussed the possibility of counter sanctions but has not yet taken any steps in this direction. On the other hand, when international card operators Visa and MasterCard refused to process the operations of some Russian banks under the pretense of sanctions, Russia changed its laws and demanded all major credit and debit card operators make a deposit with the Central Bank allowing uninterrupted operations in case of emergencies.
Visa and MasterCard threatened to quit the Russian market over the cost but eventually chose to stay and observe the new rules.
Экономист Санкции ЕС против России - маскировка нечестной экономической конкуренции - Политика, выборы, власть - Новости - ИА
28.06.2014 01:22Подписание экономической части соглашения об ассоциации с Европейским союзом - это ошибка со стороны Украины, заявил 27 июля в беседе с корреспондентом ИА REGNUM заместитель директора Института мировой экономики и международных отношений (ИМЭМО) РАН Алексей Кузнецов. "С другой стороны, мы понимаем, что для того и затевался государственный переворот в феврале, чтобы Украина подписала это соглашение", - добавил эксперт.
Евросоюз "может радоваться", ведь он пришел к тому, чего добивался, в том числе, поддерживая боевиков, считает Кузнецов. А вот экономические выгоды Украины от ассоциации с ЕС эксперт ставит под сомнение и говорит о том, что их трудно сейчас оценивать.
"К сожалению, мы имеем гражданскую войну в нескольких регионах Украины, и поэтому непредсказуемо дальнейшее развитие ситуации внутри самой страны, неизвестно, какой урон будет нанесен боевыми действиями", - отметил эксперт.
Он также заявил, что в сложившейся ситуации Россия должна защищать свои национальные экономические интересы, в том числе и на Украине. "Связь России с Украиной полностью не прекратится, так как мы все-таки соседи, и это неизбежность навек, - утверждает эксперт. - Но совершенно очевидно, что Россия будет вводить какие-либо ограничительные меры".
Однако, речь идет не о санкциях, уверяет эксперт: "санкции вводятся против какой-то страны, желательно по решению Совбеза ООН, в случае нарушения ею каких-то международных прав". В данном же случае, по мнению эксперта, как уже было сказано, будут иметь место некоторые ограничительные меры. Произойдет это, считает Алексей Кузнецов, хотя бы потому, что опыт таможенного администрирования на постсоветском пространстве показывает, что отследить происхождение товаров очень сложно. Украина может, по словам эксперта, "переклеивать банально ярлыки", то есть проводить некоторые формальные минимальные доработки товаров и выдавать их за украинскую продукцию.
"У нас торговли с ЕС нет, - добавляет Алексей Кузнецов, - более того, ЕС оказался не готов пока вести с Таможенным союзом переговоры о создании зоны свободной торговли". Помимо этого, отмечает эксперт, терминология ЕС по поводу санкций в отношении России - это не более чем "маскировка нечестной экономической конкуренции", когда Евросоюз пытается через так называемые санкции нанести урон экономическим интересам России.
Как сообщало ИА REGNUM ранее, в Брюсселе 27 июня, были подписаны договоры об ассоциации ЕС с Грузией и Молдавией и договор о свободной торговле с Украиной, который является частью договора об ассоциации.
Одна из основных частей договора об ассоциации - всеобъемлющее и глубокое соглашение о свободной торговле, которое поощрит торговлю ЕС с государствами-участницами "Восточного партнерства", двусторонние экономические связи, снизит таможенные пошлины и укрепит защиту инвестиций.
Russia brings WTO complaint over ‘illegal’ US sanctions - Medvedev — RT Business
June 20, 2014 | rt.com
Moscow intends to present a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming ‘politically motivated’ US sanctions that target local companies are hurting Russian external trade and violate WTO rules, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday.
"Unilateral politically motivated sanctions are illegal from the point of view of classic international legislation, they do not meet public order requirements as they ignore WTO's statute mechanism of constraint," the Prime Minister told an audience at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum.
In their latest round of sanctions, the US has tried to target Russia’s economy by forbidding business with certain organisations, as well as asset freezes on individuals believed to be close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Such sanctions violate WTO rules, including the most favored nation status, as they show discrimination to service providers and suppliers from another country and violate restrictions of the second article of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services,” Medvedev said.
Europe, though hesitantly, has followed the US sanction march and produced its own Russian business blacklist.
Bilateral net trade between the two former Cold War enemies is relatively small - at $38 billion in 2013, but Russia is more worried about continuing good trade relations with Europe, which amounted to $330 billion last year.
Medvedev said the US sanctions will affect Russia’s external trade, adding he understood that challenging the sanctions at the WTO “will be difficult because the US has both doctrinal and practical authority in the organization.”
Russia, the world’s sixth largest economy, became the 156th member of the WTO in August 2012, the last of the G20 nations to join.
The 159 member WTO group account for 97 percent of global trade.
Russia’s $20 Billion Bond Void Filled by China to Mexico - Bloomberg
Borrowers from China to Mexico and Kenya are selling bonds abroad at an unprecedented pace, filling a $20 billion void left by issuers in Russia shut out of international capital markets since the beginning of March.Mexican corporate and sovereign issuance has more than doubled to $24 billion and sales out of China jumped 42 percent to $43 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Kenya entered the market this week with the largest-ever debut transaction from a speculative-grade government, raising $2 billion. While Russians were among the biggest borrowers in emerging markets last year, offerings in dollars and European currencies have tumbled 74 percent to $7 billion in 2014.
With investors abandoning Russia after its incursion into Ukraine prompted sanctions from the U.S. and its allies, demand for assets elsewhere in emerging markets soared as European Central Bank stimulus and plunging global bond yields drove fund managers further afield to boost returns. Bond sales from developing-nation governments and companies have risen to $262 billion so far this year, topping the record $236 billion in the first six months of 2013, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“If there’s not as much supply from one region, that increases the capacity of the buy side to absorb more issuance elsewhere,” Peter Lannigan, managing director at broker-dealer CRT Capital Group LLC, said in a telephone interview from Stamford, Connecticut.
Russia Is Taking the Sanctions Threat Seriously—With Good Reason - Businessweek
CalamityHowler • 25 days agoPredominantly, this article is wishful thinking on the part of the West. So-called "analysts" love to cite capital flight figures - but those figures largely represent rich Russian businessmen (oligarchs) stashing cash overseas - something Putin is aware of, has spoken against in the recent past and likely has the means to limit and reverse, going forward. To read articles such as this one, a person would conclude that there is no such thing as repatriation of funds - as if the capital flight is permanent. But it is not - repatriation of capital occurs under many circumstances, including those governed by politics and policies.
It is important here to remember - Putin and his inner circle are predominently ex-KGB, while those outside (but operating near) the circle of governance are wealthy businessmen - oligarchs. Mr. Putin has shown before that he can bring the oligarchs to heel - especially when it is in the interests of the Russian State. He has made them rich since he took office in late 1999, as he promised, by revitalizing the Russian resources-based economy and affording them the opportunity to cash in. They are beholden to him and his inner circle. Mikhail Khodorkovsky (prominent oligarch) made the mistake, early on, of crossing swords with Mr. Putin. Putin made an example of him, and thus brought all the other oligarchs to heel. He can do the same again, if need be. Their bargain with Putin revolves around the aim of restoring the power and influence of the Russian State. Their personal fortunes and interests must come second - they look as though they need a reminder of this, and Putin is fully able to deliver it.
So, the biggest risk to Putin is not this nature of capital flight - he can manage and control that. The biggest risk is alluded to in the article - global investors souring on Russia. But here too, Putin holds the key cards, because of the attractiveness of resources-based (hard asset-based) investment opportunities like those found in Russia, relative to the opportunities found in the over-developed economies of the West, where profits are inordinately paper-based, and where financial, economic and currency stability are deeply in question. Those economies, while providing big profit opportunities, also carry their own very serious risks, and global investors know they must be prepared to sell out as fast as they bought in. The financial and economics systems in the West are fundamentally shaky - they require constant artificial dollapr-pumping stimulus to keep them from stalling, or much worse. So investors aren't going to easily take Russia off the table - as long as Putin can demonstrate internal political control and stability, and an awareness of the interests of investors - so far he is managing this risk.
Investors are largely ideological and political atheists - they only care about such matters insofar as they contribute to, or detract from, an atmosphere of investment
certainty. Mr. Putin holds the cards here - he controls that atmosphere within Russia, and if he acts accordingly, global investors will not shun Russia. Also - the emergence of another 'earthquake' in the West, like the one in the fall of 2008, will even make Russia look more attractive. Sanctions on Russia, and their unforseen repercussions upon the West, could even trigger such an event.
This subject needs to be approached without passion, emotion, ideology and wishful thinking. Otherwise, one simply comes away with a shallow analysis of the matter and a false idea of the likely outcome. This article is yet another failure in that regard.
see more
16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarmjw149 > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
I'm pretty sure capital flight means that our investors are not investing in your nation, but I could be wrong.
The oligarchs are going to get hurt badly here, as will common citizens, when the economy crashes. Only Putin and some military types can benefit from this clumsiness.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
atimoshenko > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
1. Power is fungible. Control of the economically powerful by the politically powerful requires both a sufficient threat of violence and a sufficient opportunity for enrichment - it needs to be more profitable to support than to oppose, in other words. Putin's control over the oligarchs, thus, rests not only on his ability to expropriate their wealth, but also on their ability to grow - and enjoy - their wealth, provided they ally themselves to his cause (which, mind you, is one of growing personal prestige, wealth, and power, with any growth of the Russian state only ever a means to this end). If sanctions dampen the latter, the former will no longer be sufficient.
2. "An atmosphere of investment certainty" is very well put. Putin's Russia has never offered much of it. Time and time again Putin has demonstrated that he takes things very personally, rather than through any predictable calculus, so investment success in Russia remains a lottery tied to avoiding hurting his feelings (and also hoping that you do not enter any business partnership with someone who later becomes unfortunate enough to do the same).
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarPerry Stearns > atimoshenko • 24 days ago
Advice to ex-KGB dictators such as Putin: beware the ides of March. Face it, the game is up with the West cooperating with the Gangster-democracy still called Russia. I seriously doubt I would vote for any candidate in US for Federal office if they tolerate accepting Putin, or his next hand-picked successor for Russia, in any future G-8+whatever meetings, etc. Some estimate Putin has squirreled away 70 billion. 70 billion or 1 billion, the difference would hardly matter as either would serve as ample proof the elected leadership in Russia today is just as corrupt as it has ever been in the past. Big surprise one-time Communists, ruthless people that thought nothing of enslaving everyone else to protect their own 'lifestyle' and gain advantage for their children and close relatives, should behave any different in a new form of government. Only a simpleton would expect the kleptocratic Communists in China to behave any differently than the Communists in Russia. We should continue to call the leadership in Russia communist as long as their pillaging and empire-building continues unchanged from their predecessors. When Putin stops acting like a KGB agent then let's call him something new. But as long as journalists that question Putin keep winding up with bullets in their skulls, then Putin is still KGB, still a Communist.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
CalamityHowler > atimoshenko • 25 days ago
Well, on the surface it may well appear to be a case of 'Russia isn't a good place for profits, especially now', but you have to look deeper, and you have to look beyond the heated puffing from the West that's still going on at present. That puffing, and the Western media's 'jollies' at hyping it up, is going to die down once Russia finishes its Ukraine project. We're probably talking about several weeks' time from now. But in essence, what we're seeing here is Russia kicking at the 'box' it's been confined in by the West for the last 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one has taken Russia seriously, and they still don't want to or think Russia deserves to be taken seriously - they're fundamentally wrong about that, however. In our narrow-minded arrogance in the West, we love to severely discount Russia (and others) while massively over-playing our own importance and stability and power. We actually believe we're justified in that. The new message from Putin's Russia is this - you're all going to have to adjust to a resurgent, significantly more independent Russia, and you're going to have to modify your behavior by taking Russian interests into account from now on. If you do so, we can get along fine, and investors can share the wealth - but if you cross Russia, you're going to lose. Now, this may appear as a personal thing with Putin - it's only that in the sense that Putin takes Mother Russia's welfare and world status and influence on the global stage personally. Russians are proud, they are fervently nationalistic, and they feel deeply wounded (this is a historical theme with Russians) and yearn for greater Russian power, influence and glory. Investors will adjust to this new reality and will be rewarded. The reaction of the West's leaders is more about their own discomfort at having to accomodate Russia than it is about any lofty principles. They love to have their own way and get rich in the process, all at Russia's expense. The West loves a weakened, compliant Russia. So Putin doesn't want to destructively blow the sides out of the world order. He wants to kick it, hard enough to make the present order (willingly or not) accomodate Russia and what Putin sees as its rightful place on the world stage. This is going to become more understood going forward - so the "calamity howlers" predicting Russia's demise over this are going to be proved just that - calamity howlers.
see more
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
Your whole argument ignores that without hydrocarbon exports, Tsar Putin is doomed. Russia's economy is almost entirely a petrostate. When oil was $20 a barrel, Russia was a weakling. Basically putting an embargo on Russia hydrocarbons will do the same thing.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCalamityHowler > CPA01 • 25 days ago
Yeah, this is the kind of arrogant nonsense that keeps people entertained, but has no substance in the real world. The West isn't going to embargo Russia's energy exports. They're too dependent. And the 'fracking craze' isn't the answer either - the infrastructure needed to export oil and gas from the U.S. will take a few years, at least, and many billions of dollars to implement. And all that assumes the environmentalists don't curb the fracking craze, and that oil will stay above $85 a barrel for those same years. Not safe assumptions at all. Besides, fracked wells deplete very fast. Drillers have to drill 6,000 new wells every year just to keep output the same. The 'miracle' of fracking is going to bust by 2017 or 2018. And remember in the period of 2008-2010 after the financial collapse when oil took a huge crash and everybody was so confidently predicting the demise of the Russian economy? Well, Russia survived just fine, albeit with some belt-tightening. And now that Russia's military buildup has progressed, and also its confidence, it could easily engineer oil price hikes if oil should drop below what it wants to see. For all the hype about getting out from under Russia's energy monopoly, it's all hot air. Europe can't accomplish it anytime soon. The U.S. isn't going to replace Russia for Europe's energy needs. Maybe in a video game - not not in the real world.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
Who said the US alone needs to? US imports are dropping at the same time more and more oil and gas exports are picking up from the Middle East. The EU only counts on Russia for about 30% of its energy needs. With ME oil and gas originally destined for the US now finding little demand there for imports, they're going to head to the EU. With fast tracking LNG terminals, the EU could be weened off Russian hydrocarbons in a few years. Between declining US imports, expanding US exports and ME gas and oil now needing a new buyer, there's easily a chance within 5 years the rest of the world can crush Russia's Petrostate exports. Bringing Iran back into the fold would reduce prices as well making Russia weaker.
And you'd be pretty stupid to think the EU isn't reconsidering hydraulic fracturing after seeing Tsar Putin's actions. I also never said this will happen overnight. No one implied that but you as a fallacious argument of your own design.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCalamityHowler > CPA01 • 25 days ago
CPA01 - you said "Basically putting an embargo on Russia hydrocarbons...." Well, if that's not a short-term measure than what is? You framed the argument in the short term - I merely responded to show how foolish the idea really is. Your statement unmistakably indicates you think Russia can be punished quickly by 'putting an embargo' on its exports. You should think things thru more carefully before you make such statements.
For your information, the U.S. has been receiving only a very small percentage of M.E. oil. It gets most of its imported oil from Africa and Central America - mostly Venezuela. The M.E. producers have longterm contracts with their consumers, and shaking up exports to new consumers is nowhere as easy as you suggest.
Additionally, Asia's thirst for oil is rising rapidly - so the idea of all that 'extra' oil floating around that Europe could get hold of is a very minor factor.
In the short term Russia has most of the cards in its favor - in that period it can easily thwart any moves Europe tries to make away from its exports. Russia has played this game for a long time, and is very strategic in its planning - Europe, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. Give Russia 3-5 years counting from now, and it can sufficiently change the geopolitical landscape to such an extent that the entire plan you posit will be thwarted or otherwise invalidated. As for fracking in Europe - rots of ruck with that one! Europe is ADDICTED to Russian oil and gas and its peoples and industries are absolutely NOT prepared to endure the sacrifices and privation needed to bring about your 'plan'. Especially is that true of Germany - Europe's powerhouse economy that relies on Russian oil and gas in order to be that powerhouse.
see more
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarChange Agent > CalamityHowler • 21 days ago
2012: Top sources of imported petroleum to the United States million barrels per day and percent share of gross and net imports1Import sourcesGross importsExports to import sourceNet importsTotal, all countries10.5963.1847.412OPEC countries4.256 (40%)1774.078 (55%)Persian Gulf countries2.151 (20%)0.0882.144 (29%)Top five countries2Canada2.955 (28%)0.4032.551 (34%)Saudi Arabia1.359 (13%)0.0011.358 (18%)Mexico1.031 (10%)0.5260.469 (6%)Venezuela0.952 (9%)0.0850.867 (12%)Russia0.477 (5%)00.477 (10%)
Learn more:△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
CPA01 > CalamityHowler • 23 days ago
Reading is not a strong skill of yours is it?
You made up the short term argument, I did not. If you want do discuss the maker of that argument, take it up with yourself. Many people can detect a fallacy.
And the US has seen a decreasing portion of ME oil over the past years. It used to be substantially higher. You seem to have missed this when I originally stated it. Hence your reading problem. Second, you don't seem to know where most of the US oil comes from: right under its feet. The majority of hydrocarbons the US consumes are home drilled. Then Canada is the second largest source with South America and African sources following. The ME is quite small these days. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. And you seem to forget how Iraqi oil as making a comeback where there was no contracts. Second, it's not hard for companies like Aramaco to use their reserve capacity to sell to new clients. Not hard at all.
Sure Asia's market is increasing, but the EU demand for LNG is higher than Asia's. LNG that was suppose to go to the US now has to find new buyers...which are increasingly finding clients in the EU.
Russia doesn't think in 3-5 years infrastructurally. Their Siberian wells are declining, as are most of their other sources. And their pipelines need upgrade and replacement.
Europe relies on Russia for 30% of its needs. Not exactly addicted eh? That can be replaced with Iraqi, US, increased Norwegian, British North Sea and Libyan oil sources. And let's not forget bringing Iran into the fold. That alone will have a big impact. A sanction free Iran. Game changer overnight.
see more
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarChange Agent > CPA01 • 21 days ago
America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > Change Agent • 20 days ago
It's more like 50% given fracturing boom.
Saudi oil is down considerably. Most of our imports are primarily Canada, then Venezuela and Mexico and Africa. Given it a decade and we can entirely be out of the ME from a hydrocarbon standpoint. Let China deal with that.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
staytuned44 > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
"The U.S. isn't going to replace Russia for Europe's energy needs."
I'd say you are partly right. That's because some US imports will be displaced by rising Canadian oil production. Displaced US imports could go to Europe or elsewhere. All that is needed is high world oil prices.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > staytuned44 • 25 days ago
Let's not forget the huge amount of oil and gas that are now no longer needed by the US coming out of the ME. That's heading to Europe and Turkey. Bringing Iran back into the fold would increase supply even more.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarBender the Merciful > CPA01 • 24 days ago
US just needs to start tapping its Reserves which they have build up. That should keep the West going while Russians queue for $300 bread. Pretty much whoever votes for Crimea to leave the Ukraine will experience a famine while moscovites queue up.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarjabusse > CPA01 • 14 days ago
The question is if Russia can exist without credit cards and cell phones for a few months or a year or two. The answer is clearly yes. They have the natural resources, the manufacturing ability and the educational base to do pretty much anything they want to. Russia is not Cuba. They really don't need to export anything.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > jabusse • 14 days ago
O'rly? Want to tell me how Tsar Putin is going to balance the budget when he sees 30% of hydrocarbon exports evaporate?
Please obvious Russian Media troll, tell me how Russia is going to do well without a sizable chunk of hydrocarbon exports.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarjabusse > CPA01 • 13 days ago
Do you really think Europe will stop buying?
China?
Do they really need to sell the oil?
Not really. The net effect will be to increase the cost of ours.Russia is a country not K-Mart. They have enough natural resources so as to not need to buy anything. Their problem from 1918 has been production and turning those natural resources into goods and food for their own people. Now that they are more capitalist, they can do that. and as I recall Russia recorded a trade surplus of 18855 USD Million in January of 2014. They are net sellers not net buyers and really that amount is not much compared to their GDP.
So even though I doubt proven inept administrations like ours is not capable of managing such a rich country, I think the Russians are quite capable.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > jabusse • 13 days ago
Immediately? No. But the EU will diversify its sources. Right now the EU accounts for about 50% of your Petrostate's income. Losing that over 3 to 5 years will crush Tsar Putin's Dictatorship.
China will pick some up, but it's working on its own sources.
Russia isn't a K-Mart, it's a gas station. And that surplus only measures value in vs value out. Remove hydrocarbons and Russia is at a MASSIVE trade deficit. Heck, even during the Soviet's heyday, they were running major trade deficits. Part of the reason they collapsed. And unlike the West's trade deficits, yours are entirely one sided. Unlike how the EU and US make stuff that gets shipped out, put into products and then imported into the back. You're straight up buying wholly made German goods.
Tell me, how did Russia do when oil was $20 a barrel?
Your country is a gas station. Nothing more
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarjabusse > CPA01 • 13 days ago
They get our astronauts to and from space. We can't and will not be able to until the 2020's at the earliest without an Apollo like program we can't afford. They got the gas too. You are dreaming They have capitalized most of their economy now and going back to the days of Obama-like thinking will not happen. You are arguing the past not the present. We'll see what happens but my guess it that they will do just fine and anything Obama and the EU does will work to our disadvantage. Here is the dope on Russia's trade from Trading Economics, a validated source. They do get drugs from India, cars from China and Korea, and food from South America and other lesser sources. They can survive quite well on their own and with the dollar problems freezing them out just puts more pressure to go to a yuan standard. Think about it Obama is really throwing boomerangs.
RUSSIA BALANCE OF TRADE
Russia recorded a trade surplus of 18855 USD Million in January of 2014. Balance of Trade in Russia is reported by the Central Bank of Russia. Balance of Trade in Russia averaged 8666.77 USD Million from 1997 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 20391 USD Million in January of 2012 and a record low of -185 USD Million in February of 1998. Russia runs regular trade surpluses primarily due to exports of commodities. Russia main exports are oil and natural gas (58 percent of total exports), nickel, palladium, iron and chemical products. Others include: cars, military equipment and timber. Russia imports food, ground transports, pharmaceuticals and textile and footwear. Main trading partners are: China (7 percent of total exports and 10 percent of imports), Germany (7 percent of exports and 8 percent of imports) and Italy
see more
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > jabusse • 12 days ago
You do realize nothing you posted addresses my point eh? You actually just supported my point. Without hydrocarbon exports, Russia cannot balance its budget.
Furthermore, Elon Musk is about to solve the needing Russian Soyuz.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
John Mandziuk > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
You again are dreaming. Parts of the world might just forget Ukraine but other Eastern countries have too much to loose. Putin is opening a can of worms that he will regret. Not only will the west view Russia as too unstable and corrupt but so will all of the eastern block countries surrounding Russia. Do you think a group you impose your will on will quietly accept it. Particularly the Tartars that have had generations of mistreatment by Russian Governments. Remember all the Ukrainians Stalin also sent to Siberia. The children and Grand children may not be so cooperative either. Ukrainians may see the average Russian as friendly neighbors and friends but they have learned to not trust the government. So you have not surprised them completely. How do you create a stable economy from that.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCalamityHowler > John Mandziuk • 25 days ago
No - the smaller countries in Russia's "near abroad" will see that they must be much more sensitive to Russia's interests - the Ukraine lesson will not be lost on them. Sure, extremists exist there, as they do everywhere. But Russia knows how to "handle" them. Nearly all these countries have significant Russian-speaking populations - so Russia has an inside track there, much as it did in Georiga's breakaway regions and in Ukraine's east and south. And will these countries trust NATO to protect them, and will they cozy up more to Europe and NATO? Very unlikely - NATO can't take care of the newer members it already has. NATO has massively over-reached in its expansion in the post-Soviet era. Financially unstable Europe has not the money, financial stability, the military nor the will to confont Russia militarily in any meaningful way. And they won't like the U.S. to throw them under the bus, either. And the U.S. isn't going to confront Russia militarily until the game is just about over - the U.S. is "strong" against an Iraq, or Libya, or Afghanistan (but it lost all those wars), but not against Russia. Whatever illusions these countries in Russia's "near abroad" still have about how NATO and the U.S. would be a bulwark for them against a resurgent Russia, those illusions are now being shattered - and will be shattered more.
If I were any of the over-developed economies of the West, I would worry more about my own economy than about Russia's - these economies have been on constant life-support since the collapse of 2008. They are still filled with wreckage from serial asset bubble bursts. They can't even function without real interest rates below zero. They are profoundly vulnerable to shock. A significant economic war with Russia could easily provide the spark for another collapse. Wisdom would dictate they be very careful about engaging Russia in such a war - but they haven't the wisdom or the modesty to realize the foolish mistake they are about to make.
see more
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarurownexperience > CalamityHowler • 18 days ago
Well, lets just see what happens when America goes to war with Russia.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCalamityHowler > John Mandziuk • 25 days ago
Read this if you dare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarJohn Mandziuk > CalamityHowler • 24 days ago
Funny you choice to only read that article. I agree Nato has some blame for pushing too hard and making Putin so scared. But read this article and you will understand why people will stand up. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...®ion=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article
Putin was not doing this for a strong democratic mother Russia. He did it out of fear. As you pointed out so clearly. You just under estimate how the rest of your sphere will take this, most will see this as evidence they need to end Russia empire aspirations once and for all our suffer the consequences. This is not good for anyone in the region if Putan did not like what was happening he should have used diplomatic ways.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
atimoshenko > CalamityHowler • 25 days ago
There has been no discomfort among Western investors with, say, still-communist China, which was doing far worse than even the collapsing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and is doing significantly better today. The difference - the very stability that you mention. Chinese leadership simply chooses to run the country less as a private fief than the Russian leadership does.
Investors are a very pragmatic lot - they do not care whether something is resurgent, weakened, or whatever else - they just want transparency and predictability for their investors. Russia has never offered much of this and is on a trajectory to offer even less - this is why it continues to be the least attractive (to investors) of the BRIC countries.
On a side note, national pride is a juvenile thing. Only losers are proud of things to which they did not personally and directly contribute.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarSmallBizAdvisor • 25 days ago
Without a strong response Putin would be embolden to invade the Baltic states, Georgia and the former USSR states in central Asia. He violated an agreement to respect the Ukraine's borders and lied boldly that the troops were not Russian, he forgot everyone has satellites and can see them unloading from airplanes. He's acting like a KGB agent, not a national leader of a world class country. If all he's got is oil, gas and guns he's doomed to failure in the new world economy.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarRenat Perl > SmallBizAdvisor • 24 days ago
Absolutely true. Russia never thinks in terms of investment. Russia thinks in terms of Power and Territory. Just like Nazi germans.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
testcfg > SmallBizAdvisor • 25 days ago
I don't think so. Putin's military response is basically "do not stick your nose" to the US, that is we don't need your NGOs. If Putin ventures on any further "invasion", he'll get public unrest at home - millions will go out on streets protesting against it.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarMary Waterton • 25 days ago
The US & EU are going to risk damaging their own frail economies with sanctions? I doubt it.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarUnionLeague > Mary Waterton • 25 days ago
New export markets for US hydrocarbons would actually help the American economy and balance of payments. Russian trade is only one percent of US trade so the Russians are just a rounding error for the US. The bigger problem is with Europe and that's why they are looking for a peaceful solution. The sanctions thing is probably a lose-lose for everybody. On the other hand nobody wants to be a Russian serf, least of all the Germans.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
Renat Perl > Mary Waterton • 24 days ago
Yes, you know, frail economy is a great instrument for Russia to take anything she wants. Next might be the Baltic states- who likes to take great inconveniences and fight against Russia for a small peace of Baltic ground.
And Poland once apon a time was a part of Russia...Frail economy, you know, might prevent us to protect Poles, because if Russia begins to answer who wins?
Some time ago Chamberlain Sent Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia to settle some troubles in Sudetenland, just after the annexation of Austria...
If Russia takes what she wants she will not stop until someone will stop her.1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
testcfg > Mary Waterton • 25 days ago
Well, they can.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarlighthouse333 • 25 days ago
I told you, seize all their assets, properties and resources wherever they are and cut off all exports, imports, exchange, transactions, relationships, all shapes all forms at all level. They will collapse in 5 minutes. Clean out all accounts belong to Putin and all oligarchs, all whoever behind all of the Russian's muscles. Chop off their wings and their claws, then, they will be quite... the world may have peace by then.
Do the same thing with the big fat boy bully China and North Korea. Just at that simple, don't need to shot one bullet, don't need to shred one blood drop.7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarEmil Shamailov > lighthouse333 • 25 days ago
Easy to say, you think Russia is the only one that got things on the line? you have any idea what they can do United States to us, to citizens .... Obama is simply messing with a fire..they calculated every single inch before they started something.. Don't forget whose side China will take and half of the Europe, they already got involved with Russians once in World War 2 , I just don't see the reason why put our citizens on the line over Ukraine that Russia will win anyways...Let sit and watch the show , we watching American TV and what ever comes with defending our political moves. Alcoholic Yeltsin was the chance for us to support Ukraine and we missed, it was way too pro Russian..Now deal with Putin which I would only support just not to put our citizens at risk....I wouldn't be surprised if he has plenty former Soviet Union countries will be begging to join back.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > Emil Shamailov • 25 days ago
You realize that Russia broke China's cardinal foreign policy rule right?
China HATES what Russia is doing, it's just a question of whether they hate it more than siding with the West. What Russia is doing gives support for a Tibetan, Xinjian, or Taiwanese independence/leave China vote. This scares China badly.
And why would a FSU state want to side with Russia now that Russia has made it clear that it will invade to defend "ethnic Russians" on any pretense under claims of protecting them? Every single one of Russia's neighbors with any amount of ethnic Russian population should be *****ing bricks over Ukraine as the Bear could invade them any day. There is no security with the Russians anymore. Only fear.
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarEmil Shamailov > CPA01 • 25 days ago
That is exactly the point, and not all scared , half want to be back with Russia, besides the fact that even if joins back together in can really be a different Russian than Soviet Union where it was different. We all know what J.Stalin would do to Ukraine , they used to sign permissions to kill thousands per hour. People were in fear back then ,today is what Putin doing is simply caring of what benefits him and not others. I just don't see us putting him in a corner and that's why I wouldn't want our country to be a joke in the eyes of others..Which we already are....we are in a way messing with a nuclear power military.. and i just don't think putting us at risk here is worth it,specially a leader like Putin had this story written before it began.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarjarenolds > Emil Shamailov • 25 days ago
Name these countries that want to rejoin the Soviet Union, especially half of them. Maybe you could find one or two. Kazakhstan I think has shifted a bit pro-Russian but far from wanting to rejoin the SU. Belarus is pro-Russian but why would their leader want to share any of his power, that wouldn't make any sense. The only states that ally themselves with Russia at this point are those with dictators. Although they like to do business with Russia they would have no interest in joining any type of union as that would require them to give up some of their power.
I would challenge you to name a single state that has show interest in reforming that Soviet Union at this time.4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarEmil Shamailov > jarenolds • 25 days ago
If Kazahstan goes then Uzbekistan Kergystan Uzbekistan etc.,On the other side you ll have Armenia it will be easy for him and Azerbaijan will be in trouble as Ukraine is right now, Belarus and Half of Ukraine would be enough... lol and you can imagine what will Putin do to Half of other Ukraine and Half of Azerbaijan...If you look who is in charge in Azerbaijan is Aliyev who is dictating in a way already as well and his father was ex KGB..... That's why i think if things are planned already we will only hurt our selves but our government should know things way better than me and you and we don't have much to do but just watch and time to time express our opinions on here !
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarjarenolds > Emil Shamailov • 25 days ago
That doesn't make any sense. Why would former Soviet states ask to rejoin the Soviet Union because the US and Europe impose sanctions on them. Many former Soviet states are incredibly pro west and this incident has moved them farther into that camp. The leaders of the Baltic States are incredibly thankful that they are NATO members and have said so themselves. The former satellite states have also all voices similar opinions and China has seemed pretty weary of what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarporky63 > lighthouse333 • 25 days ago
You want Switzerland to go belly up? Sooooo much hidden, UNtaxed money in Switzerland .... it's THE reason Switzerland exists.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarJohn Mandziuk > porky63 • 24 days ago
That is like saying freezing Nazi assets in Switzerland hurt them. You miss the point of banking. Banks take our money and reinvest it to make themselves more money and pay us a smaller return. There are many ways of freezing assets that do not stop the banks from investing it.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarRenat Perl > lighthouse333 • 24 days ago
Thet is what the West must do immidiately, before it's too late.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
jarenolds > lighthouse333 • 25 days ago
It will definitely have impacts on Russia but I doubt that they will be all over in five minutes. Like the article points out, Europeans have to be pretty careful as their economies also depends very much on Russia. In no way can the same be said about North Korea, they already suffer from significant sanctions and are very isolated from world economies. That is a very different situation. As for China, they haven't really done anything lately that deserves these types of sanctions so that one doesn't really make any sense. Our economies are also even more interdependent on that of Chinese so it could be a very bad idea. It will probably have some positive effects in Russia though.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatarmjw149 • 25 days ago
It will be like communism again. Prepare for bread lines, Russia! Putin is such a bungler, he makes Bush look smooth.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatardoomedby2020 > mjw149 • 25 days ago
He came out looking good after the Georgia and Syria incidents. His methods are brash, but oftentimes handling things democratically is pointless and wasteful. He is not to be underestimated.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
S.A > mjw149 • 25 days ago
No, stupid, you should prepare for breadlines. Any of your sanctions will benefit us, if only you understood mathematics and economics.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
AvatarCPA01 > S.A • 25 days ago
Really? US trade with Tsar Putin's Petrostate is a mere $40 billion. US economy is $17 trillion. US exports of LNG are picking up and are going to skyrocket. We'll be powering Europeans soon, not to mention the huge amounts of LNG coming out of the Gulf that were SUPPOSE to go to America and are now instead going to Turkey and Europe. In a few years, EU won't need Russia's hydrocarbons. Poland will be free from Tsar Putin. Even Germany won't need the new pipeline.
And how well do you think the FSU states want to partner with Tsar Putin now that he's explicitly made it clear he'll invade anyone on any pretext to "defend" ethnic Russians? Russia is not their friend. It's their enemy now.
And you think China likes Tsar Putin breaking its cardinal rule?
Recommended Links
Google matched content
Softpanorama Recommended
http://izvestia.ru/news/572695
Etc
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: July, 28, 2014
