Russia suspends arms treaty -- The World War III Wheels are in Motion.

Originally posted by StellarX
Others, including myself, disagree.

en.wikipedia.org...

By the year 2050, Russias population is expected to be 50% smaller than it is today.

The below is from your own sight, which goes to strengthen my original argument even more so, that, russia will never be on top.

The BRIC term is also used by companies who refer to the four named countries as key to their emerging markets strategies. In reality, the use of this acronym often obscures a lesser role given to Brazil, and sometimes to Russia too. In reality Russia and Brazil are dwarfed by both China and India in 2050, and the rest of Asia combined are also much larger in terms of GDP than either Russia or Brazil.

Also I find it a bit odd at how close in relations the US and India have grown over the past few years. India is the most pro US nation on the face of the earth. Even brazil and the US have started strengthening ties.

GDP is NOT the ultimate measure of wealth or future economic prowess.

It is a very good financial indicator Mr.X. I assume your talking about the Natural resources that will not last forever, as another form of financial prowess.. But what about the nations leading in alternative fuel cell technology that later on down the road, will eventually replace the fossil fuels Russia depends on so vehemently to sustain economic growth? I understand that the higher the price gasoline goes, the more profit russia gets, however, another thing to be taken into account, the higher the price of gasoline, the closer we are to an alternative, thus further crippling russia, or at the very least putting them in their place.

But there are also few factors that stands in the way of a very resource wealthy and educated nation of 150 odd million becoming very wealthy indeed.

What does russia have to offer the world outside of natural resources?
We've already established russias looming demographic crisis. We could argue whether or not russias 150 odd million population is really that educated (let alone, on par with the west in those regards).

If someone wishes to argue against what is most obvious lets hear it but until then i will have to go with the fundamentals that indicates a fast expanding Russian economy for decades to come.

And I can go with the fundamentals that say we will have an alternative fuel source by 2020, and if the price of petroleum continues its skyward climb, I think an alternative fuel will be out by 2015 at the earliest!

So stop being held up by the past?

One only needs to read the post of the one, and only, StellarX, to see that the past is the furthest thing from being behind him.

Admitted Russian strategic weaponry is still superior to admitted American strategic weaponry and i would like you to tell me why you do not accept that as fact.

Because its just not true.

And yet you can't mention a single area. America is indisputably ahead military, technology, films, per capita GDP, universities, sending a man to the Moon, etc.

The fact that Russia cannot handle little ol' Chechnya, even with their blitzkrieg tactics, should speak volumes as to just how 'inefficient' the russian armed forces truly are.

Meanwhile, The US is the only country with the means to invade multiple medium-size countries in other continents and still sustain very few casualties.

China was Russia's main concern in the 60's and 70's but then they showed the Chinese the error of their ways and brought them into the fold. If you wish you can today consider China a close , if unequal ally, to the rulers in the Kremlin. To consider China to be either a military or economic threat to Russia is to admit that you will not address what is currently happening to the US economy while both the Russian and Chinese economies are fast expanding.

Stellar

China is a nation that currently is growing faster than russia, China has a larger GDP than russia (both in nominal,and in PPP). China also has a larger military expenditure (that is only expected to continue to grow at an alarming rate) than russia. I think russia has much to fear from communist china.

As for the US economic woes, The US stock market has been near all-time highs, and Q2 GDP growth was 3.5%. Their is a housing bubble, their are things that are very much so alarming. However, the one thing no one can deny is the amazing resiliency of the US economy.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by West Coast]

It's about damn time Putin did this!

USA has been literally surrounding Russia with anti-ballistic missile sites everywhere for the last decade. USA needs to be taught that it can't just do whatever the hell they want, and Europe needs to be taught that they shouldn't be USA's little b**** puppet.

This move is expected/10, and welcomed by me. If anyone doesn't like it, there is one and only one country they have to blame....USA. The extremely aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration in the past 7 years has led to this development, and it alone should be blamed for this.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by Manincloak]

Originally posted by Manincloak
This move is expected/10, and welcomed by me. If anyone doesn't like it, there is one and only one country they have to blame....USA.

Or we can blame russias bullying of former satellite states, thus causing them to seek protection from the United States.

Originally posted by Manincloak
USA has been literally surrounding Russia with anti-ballistic missile sites everywhere for the last decade.

Lets see if I have this straight. Putin is upset because the U.S. is installing a defensive system and NOT an offensive system like actually building ballistic missile sites. Well, tough cookies!! He needs to get over it. Who is Putin to tell other countries what they can or cannot install on their land.
Get a grip.

Originally posted by Manincloak
It's about damn time Putin did this!

USA has been literally surrounding Russia with anti-ballistic missile sites everywhere for the last decade. USA needs to be taught that it can't just do whatever the hell they want, and Europe needs to be taught that they shouldn't be USA's little b**** puppet.

This move is expected/10, and welcomed by me. If anyone doesn't like it, there is one and only one country they have to blame....USA. The extremely aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration in the past 7 years has led to this development, and it alone should be blamed for this.

The Russians are as dirty as they come. They committed an act of war on the Ukraine by trying to assassinate their president using poison. Russia is nothing, they are trying to act tough but can't really back it up. If it wasn't for a nuclear arsenal they would be seen as more of a joke.

Originally posted by West Coast
The below is from your own sight, which goes to strengthen my original argument even more so, that, russia will never be on top.

It's not 'my site' and please do not attribute to me claims that you KNOW i do not support. There is no reason why Russia's population should decline so steeply and i have in the past supplied you with numerous sources exposing such thinking as fantasy.

Also I find it a bit odd at how close in relations the US and India have grown over the past few years. India is the most pro US nation on the face of the earth.

India is the most pro US nation on the face of the Earth? I do believe some poll numbers but i would REALLY like to see the questions that yielded these results! It is interesting that Indians would support the leader of the country who arms Pakistan and is responsible for so much of their hardship. At least their current leadership seems to understand the global situation a bit better and wont be acting on the poll data!

Even brazil and the US have started strengthening ties.

As if most countries can get away with making the US a open enemy! What do you expect 'Lula' to do given how he is increasingly socialist policies in Brazil? Do you think the US WANTS to have better relations with him or do you think they are forced to to prevent him from moving even closer to Cuba and Venezuela? To argue that the ties are strengthening because the leaders of these two countries supports each others policies is just plain uninformed.

It is a very good financial indicator Mr.X. I assume your talking about the Natural resources that will not last forever, as another form of financial prowess..

GDP is a meaningless number that does not indicate how well people in a particular country lives. I can show you examples but i suppose i will let you start!

But what about the nations leading in alternative fuel cell technology that later on down the road, will eventually replace the fossil fuels Russia depends on so vehemently to sustain economic growth?

We had alternative energy technologies, and electric cars, more than a hundred years ago so while your argument is entirely self serving some of us look to world events and don't just make whatever arguments suits us. I am all for fuel cell and alternative energy ( check my posts on vacuum energy extraction and the like) but at least i know why non of these technologies will easily reach the market place! You may or may not understand that oil is used for very many more things than just power generation and if you are not sure look at the numbers to see what comes out a barrel of oil.

I understand that the higher the price gasoline goes, the more profit russia gets, however, another thing to be taken into account, the higher the price of gasoline, the closer we are to an alternative, thus further crippling russia, or at the very least putting them in their place.

Any leap of logic is fine as long as Russia is made to seem weak and exposed to every turn of events. Sure this might happen but oil is not the only natural resource Russia is extremely wealthy in. The prices of gasoline is still very low ( adjusted for inflation) and i can see it doubling without the market allowing serious alternatives a step in.

What does russia have to offer the world outside of natural resources?

During PUTIN's first administration, a number of important reforms were implemented in the areas of tax, banking, labor, and land codes. These achievements have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects, with foreign direct investment rising from $14.6 billion in 2005 to an estimated $30 billion in 2006. In 2006, Russia's GDP grew 6.6%, while inflation was below 10% for the first time in the past 10 years. Growth was driven by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports.

www.cia.gov...

Why do you refuse to read and why will you do almost anything to undermine what even the CIA can admit? Why do you feel so compelled to look for whatever makes Russia seem weaker than their nuclear and conventional forces seems to indicate?

We've already established russias looming demographic crisis. We could argue whether or not russias 150 odd million population is really that educated (let alone, on par with the west in those regards).

You tried to make a mountain out of a molehill but failed to clarify why you think Russia would fail to reverse a trend that has happened and reversed in many Western European countries. For some reason you wish to argue that Russia will be unable ro rectify this 'problem' or that their economy would be 'devastated' by a slow decline in population. I do not see any logic in those arguments but i suppose your that desperate.


www.guardian.co.uk...

english.peopledaily.com.cn...

article.wn.com...

www.economist.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

moneynews.com...

Those links should show that others countries have had similar problems and addressed them without being able to fund such from high oil prices or natural wealth.

As to their education system i think i remember reading that 40% of all people aged 35 to fifty have four of five year degrees. Maybe you want to look that up? As i understand their education system have for a long time been considered world class and given their technological prowess in the cold war i have little reason to doubt that their higher education is at least as good as anything in the west.

And I can go with the fundamentals that say we will have an alternative fuel source by 2020, and if the price of petroleum continues its skyward climb, I think an alternative fuel will be out by 2015 at the earliest!

We know what you want to argue but since it's entirely based on your desperate need to diss and dismiss Russia a threat ( despite the nukes) i am not much bothered by your opinion.

One only needs to read the post of the one, and only, StellarX, to see that the past is the furthest thing from being behind him.

All i really claim is that Russia has a larger and more effective strategic arsenal and if you wish to disagree with that just get right to it and post the sources from FAS and others that shows this? Do you really think that questioning the birth rate or education levels ( they need 150 million highly educated people to operate a few hundred nuclear missiles?) is going to change that fact?

Because its just not true.

Things might change in the future but for right now i want something more than just conjecture on your part.

And yet you can't mention a single area. America is indisputably ahead military,

Where and how? What does all the conventional firepower even matter in the age of direct energy weapons and ICBMs? If you wish to resume our discussion on Russian strategic strength lets do so where we started!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

technology, films,

How is the US technologically superior and who cares about films?

per capita GDP, universities, sending a man to the Moon, etc.

Per capita GDP is rather meaningless, the US as plenty of absolutely mediocre or terrible universities and last i checked the Russians did almost everything, but land a man on the moon, first.

The fact that Russia cannot handle little ol' Chechnya, even with their blitzkrieg tactics, should speak volumes as to just how 'inefficient' the russian armed forces truly are.

Afghanistan is still a chaotic war lord ridden hell hole with US forces concentrating their forces in a few strongholds and in Iraq US soldiers are still dying daily. The Chechnya debacle is certainly interesting and one really needs to go back to the US in Korea to see similarly sized tactical defeats. My reading seems to indicate that the Russian armed forces just did not want to fight that war and that morale was by far the most significant factor in the defeats and serious mismanagement. It did not help that they were fighting people who indulged in cutting of captured Russian soldiers heads but that alone can not explain their blunders and high death rate.

Meanwhile, The US is the only country with the means to invade multiple medium-size countries in other continents and still sustain very few casualties.

You seem to like that blog. The US is certainly the country that has involved itself in the most wars perpetually keeping it's officers relatively experience in actual combat operations. The Russians can not boast anything similar and that showed in Afghanistan and Chechnya. I could argue that the US lost in Vietnam, lost in Korea, is losing in Afghanistan and Iraq but i am not spiteful or childish and believe that i understand why the US armed forces were not allowed the means to successfully conduct those wars.

Continued

China is a nation that currently is growing faster than russia, China has a larger GDP than russia (both in nominal,and in PPP).

I don't think any developed economy ( of that scale) is growing faster and i don't really understand how this negates Russian strategic strength through high tech weaponry?

China also has a larger military expenditure (that is only expected to continue to grow at an alarming rate) than russia. I think russia has much to fear from communist china.

No one knows how much either the US or Russian armed forces truly spends. It's conjecture and we can but look at the results for a true inkling.

As for the US economic woes, The US stock market has been near all-time highs,

So what does the stock market have to do with real economic growth for the people of a given country?

and Q2 GDP growth was 3.5%.

www.cia.gov... A growth that is entirely funded from lending money and labour from elsewhere. How can we argue that the US has growth potential when it can't even balance it's books?

The current fiscal crisis is not due to irresponsible spending. Despite Federal spending cuts shifting the burden of social problems onto the states, most states spent prudently in the 1990s, restricting spending increases to education, health, and corrections. A growing school-age population and attempts to improve public schools led to increases in school spending. Health care expenditures rose sharply because the Federal government failed to provide for long-term care or prescription drug coverage for a growing elderly population. Finally, states built more prisons for more prisoners. Despite these increases, state spending rose less in the 1990s than in any other decade since World War II. Rather than spending recklessly, states anticipated future trouble by accumulating nearly $50 billion in reserve funds. After cushioning spending cuts over the last two years, these reserves are now almost exhausted.

Unfortunately, the same governors and legislators that kept a tight rein on spending used temporary revenue growth to finance permanent tax cuts. Tax cuts enacted in the 1990s have lowered current revenue by nearly 10%, equal to the coming fiscal year's anticipated deficit. In addition to their own tax cuts, states have lost revenue when federal cuts reduced revenue from state income, corporate and estate taxes linked to the federal tax code. The largest deficits are found in the states with the biggest tax cuts. By contrast, the few who avoided tax cuts have almost no deficit.

Required to balance their annual budgets, states have responded to declining revenues with spending cuts that have dramatically reduced services to their citizens. Medicaid cuts in 22 states will eliminate coverage for 1.7 million people, especially children and the working poor. Nearly 18 states have cut school spending leading to increased class size, teacher layoffs, and even a shortened school year in some states. Reductions in childcare allowances in 33 states put children at risk and force their parents to quit jobs to return to public assistance. Neglecting the growing terrorist threat, states have cut back on police and other first-responders. Nineteen states have reduced corrections spending, leading Kentucky and others to release some non-violent offenders early.

www.fguide.org...

With the 1989 end of the Cold War, many proclaimed the "triumph of global capitalism," and by the late-1990s, the American people were enjoying what The Economist of London called the "longest-ever . . . economic expansion." Unemployment (about 4 percent) was the lowest in almost thirty years, wages were up for most American workers, and inflation was low; this was indeed an economic achievement. The performance of the stock market was extraordinary as the Dow Jones index broke through the 10,000 mark in the spring of 1999; the "wealth effect" of the high stock market, which encouraged Americans to spend freely, draw down their personal savings, and go deeply into debt, fueled rapid economic growth. With the rest of the world in recession or other dire economic straits, many Americans believed that the United States in the 1990s had fashioned a new type of capitalist economy and had escaped forever from ills historically associated with the capitalist system.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, America's trade/payments deficits reached record highs. Since the early 1980s, in fact, Americans have borrowed approximately $5 trillion from the savers of the world, especially the Japanese, to finance their consumption and investment. In the mid-1980s, the United States went from its post-World War I position as the world's largest creditor nation to become its largest debtor. If one discounts American investment overseas, the net American international debt in the late 1990s stood at approximately $1 trillion; as a consequence, a sizable portion of the federal budget must be devoted to interest payments on this huge and increasing debt. Furthermore, throughout the 1990s, Americans had emptied their personal savings accounts to fuel "seven years of good times," leaving too little for the "seven years of bad times" that many and perhaps most economists believe loom ahead; the spending spree left 20 percent of American households net debtors. And the "good times" of the 1990s left many behind as the income of the least skilled lagged.1 Americans appeared to be unaware that one day the nation's huge accumulated debt will have to be repaid and serious adjustments in the American standard of living will be necessary.

press.princeton.edu...

In six years, the boomer vanguard
will start collecting Medicare. Our nation
has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of
obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on
a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the”
federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored
long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically
coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit
levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to
the baby boomers.
Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United
States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems
clearly headed down that path. The country needs
to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt
generational accounting as its standard method
of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to
adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and
healthcare reforms that will redeem our children’s
future.

research.stlouisfed.org...

Interest payments on the debt amounted $352 Billion last year or nearly 12% of the entire budget. That’s more than the cost of the war in Iraq and roughly as much as the government will spend on Medicare in 2006. Eliminating the interest payment would go a long way to stabilizing the nations finances.

The growth of the 90s should not be considered a statistical aberration. Until the mid-1970s the United States posted productivity growth rates as high as in the 1990s. From the mid-1970s onwards a combination of oil shocks, inflation, and increasing debt slowed productivity growth. The 1990s were merely a recovery from that slow down. If we eliminate the debt burden we can expect those growth rates to return.

www.ncsu.edu...

Like many families who caught the housing boom, the Wilmores now have more debt than before they bought their home, but they also are wealthier. "I'm thankful for the low interest rate," said Wilmore, 42, a special-education teacher.

Greenspan and his Fed colleagues agree that part of the growth in household debt and the trade gap is the side effect of policies that helped steady the U.S. economy after the stock bubble burst in 2000. The Fed's low interest rates encouraged consumers to borrow and spend on houses, autos and other goods, spurring economic growth for several years when businesses were cutting jobs and reluctant to invest. And it was no surprise that consumers spent much of their borrowed money on imports, causing the trade deficit to swell. But in the view of central bank policymakers, the alternative would have been worse -- a longer and more painful downturn.

The result is a prosperity built on borrowing, say many economists, pointing to a string of recent records and firsts:

· U.S. household debt hit a record $11.4 trillion in last year's third quarter, which ended Sept. 30, after shooting up at the fastest rate since 1985, according to Fed data.

But household debt rose faster in recent years than wealth or disposable income, reaching an unprecedented 126.1 percent of after-tax income in the third quarter, double its 1980 level.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Some call that 'growth' but since i am no economist i am not indoctrinated enough to believe such nonsense.

Their is a housing bubble, their are things that are very much so alarming. However, the one thing no one can deny is the amazing resiliency of the US economy.

Amazing resiliency? I know why economist and others must continue the call the illusion of wealth 'resiliency' but why do objective people call the massive speculative bubble that is the US economy 'resilient'? I don't try to find Russians behind every Bush ( and this the bush and the shrubs case it's Saudi's) but how much more effectively could anyone destroy the economy and base fundamentals of a rival economy? Can you think of anything short of nuclear or biological warfare that can result in so much devastation?

Stellar

Originally posted by mad scientist
China is a future giant,

Economically it certainly is and will continue to be but it's a open question if it could ever rival Russia in the high tech military sphere given the lead that has been established by Russia and the strength the US armed forces still retain.

Rusia will never even come close.
Russia's economy is tiny, without her natural resources she is irrelevent.

Russia's continued economic growth is already largely fueled by services and the like and in PPP terms it's only about four times smaller than the Chinese economy. That is no great margin for victory or superiority in the age of nuclear weaponry so China will have to do more than simply have a large economy and plenty of people when those factors did not prevent the US from losing the race against the former USSR.

In fact her enomy is only being driven by natural resources, wihtout that Russia would be dead in the water.

Not true as CIA admits in their 'factbook'( Check my response to westcoast) It's not that i trust the CIA but i am not sure what reason they would have to lie in this case.

It may be intersting to know that China has twice as many honors students than Russia has students.

They also happen to have about 10 times more people in China.

The annual statistics gathered by the Institute for International Education show that during the 2003-2004 academic year, there were 61,765 Chinese students at institutions of higher education in the United States. They are nearly 11 percent of all the foreign students in our country. Only one country, India, sends more students to American campuses.

Most Chinese students in the United States – 82 percent – are graduate students. This is partly true because Chinese students in mathematics, sciences, and engineering are often able to qualify to be Teaching Assistants and Research Assistants, thus qualifying for free or lower tuition. These opportunities are not generally available to undergraduates.

www.iienetwork.org...

From 2002 to 2003 the Chinese mainland has seen slower growth in the number of students going to the United States for studies, according to the latest annual report of the US Institute of International Education (IIE) released on November 3. During the year the mainland has a total of 64,757 students studying in the United States, a rise of only 2 percent over the previous year, ranking second among all other countries and regions.

China began to send students to the United States in 1979, and saw the fastest growth and biggest number of students from 1989 to 1994. From 1995 its first place was taken over byJapan.Indiarose suddenly as a new force in the past two years, and stayed for the second year at the top of the list. In 2003 it sent a total of 74,603 students to the United States, up 12 percent year on year.

www.chinaconsulatechicago.org...

China will increase the number of university students to 16 million in the next five years, compared with an enrollment of over 11 million in 2000.

According to an special plan of educational development that the State Development Planning Commission (SDPC) drafted recently, enrollment of university students will account for 15 percent of school students in the country in 2005. By that time, the number of postgraduates will soar to 600,000.

www.edu.cn...

Given the fact that i am not going to spend the time to look for the number of Chinese currently in higher learning facilities i will go with what they wished to achieve arriving at the conclusion that China will have to expand it's high learning facilities to accomodate about 60 million to have the same percentage of their population in high education as Russia. That is expansion by a factor of four times the number they wished to have achieved by 2005 and a factor of about five compared to the year 2000.

So the Chinese have at least a hundred thousands students attending universities/colleges in the US and Europe alone while Russia has :

The literacy rate in Russia is currently 99.4%.[1] About three million students attend Russia's 519 institutions of higher education and 48 universities. As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is generally of a high order.

Nowadays, the country has 685 governmental higher education institutions, all of these having state accreditation. Besides, 619 non-governmental higher education institutions have been licensed for educational activities, 367 of these having been given accreditation in the past decade. Thus, the number of higher education institutions is 1,304 (1,162 of which are accredited). In 2003–2004, the total number of students of higher education institutions was 5,947,500, including 5,228,700 and 718,800 in governmental and non-governmental education institutions respectively

en.wikipedia.org...

more students attending higher learning facilities than the rest of western Europe combined. When one includes all those facilities that were erected in the Ukraine, Poland and Romania in Soviet times it's no surprise that Russians are on the whole , in my opinion, probably better educated than Western Europeans. As may by this time be readily apparent the Russian strategic superiority were in part derived from simply having a very educated population base that could engage in the technological race that the US had every reason to win but managed to lose trough political trickery and economic mismanagement.

The logical conclusion is that of course CHina will lay one giant turd on Russia.

Your banality sums up why your views should be dismissed with contempt.

Russia has nothing to offer China exceot natural resources and some military trinkets here and there, nothing else. BTW,

China has plenty of natural resources but enjoys the help Russia can provide in properly exploiting them or aiding in supplies that can not yet be met for lack of development. Russia has EVERYTHING to offer China and China has absolutely no reason to mess with it's arrangements with Russia.

the Russian population isn't that educated.

I suppose it all depends on who you believe. Since i have never been to Russia i am dependent on international agencies and sources for my numbers. If you wish to dispute that with your own experiences and or sources that's will be appreciated and given consideration.

Stellar

Stellar, is it really necessary to respond to every single character someone writes in the breaking-up manner that you do? It makes them hard to read and Im currently just scrolling past them because of it.



[edit on 10-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
Stellar, is it really necessary to respond to every single character someone writes in the breaking-up manner that you do? It makes them hard to read and Im currently just scrolling past them because of it.

No it's not necessary for me to address blatant lies and misrepresentations but i have chosen to and if you do not like to see the information i am presenting i suggest you use the 'ignore' button and get back to reading the stuff you like hearing.

EDIT: OR ,alternatively, you could tell me what i couled do to entice you to read these longer posts

Sorry for ruining your ATS 'experience'.

Stellar

[edit on 10-11-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Economically it certainly is and will continue to be but it's a open question if it could ever rival Russia in the high tech military sphere given the lead that has been established by Russia and the strength the US armed forces still retain.

There is no doubt, they will suprass Russia.

Russia's continued economic growth is already largely fueled by services and the like and in PPP terms it's only about four times smaller than the Chinese economy. That is no great margin for victory or superiority in the age of nuclear weaponry so China will have to do more than simply have a large economy and plenty of people when those factors did not prevent the US from losing the race against the former USSR.

Incorret Russia's growth is largely due to a resources boom. Also Russia's PPP is $1.7 trillion whilst China's PPP is over $11 trillion and griwing much faster than Russia. So as you can see China's PPP is far ore than Russia's and China's growth dwarves Russia's.

It may be intersting to know that China has twice as many honors students than Russia has students.

They also happen to have about 10 times more people in China.

And.....they still have more honors students than Russia has students. Size does matter. It can only lead to Chinse technical superiority over Russia in the future.

Given the fact that i am not going to spend the time to look for the number of Chinese currently in higher learning facilities i will go with what they wished to achieve arriving at the conclusion that China will have to expand it's high learning facilities to accomodate about 60 million to have the same percentage of their population in high education as Russia. That is expansion by a factor of four times the number they wished to have achieved by 2005 and a factor of about five compared to the year 2000.

Yes and your point is what ? Are you just backing up my point that CHina has far more univeristy students than Russia ?

So the Chinese have at least a hundred thousands students attending universities/colleges in the US and Europe alone while Russia has :

The literacy rate in Russia is currently 99.4%.[1] About three million students attend Russia's 519 institutions of higher education and 48 universities. As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is generally of a high order.

Nowadays, the country has 685 governmental higher education institutions, all of these having state accreditation. Besides, 619 non-governmental higher education institutions have been licensed for educational activities, 367 of these having been given accreditation in the past decade. Thus, the number of higher education institutions is 1,304 (1,162 of which are accredited). In 2003–2004, the total number of students of higher education institutions was 5,947,500, including 5,228,700 and 718,800 in governmental and non-governmental education institutions respectively

en.wikipedia.org...

And what, You said that CHina has 16 million students at university and 100 000 in western countries, hat still dwarves Russia. Let face it Russia is hardly known for its higher education. Fact still remaons that CHina has far more people in univeristy and far far far more people in the top universities around the world. You have just proven my points.

more students attending higher learning facilities than the rest of western Europe combined. When one includes all those facilities that were erected in the Ukraine, Poland and Romania in Soviet times it's no surprise that Russians are on the whole , in my opinion, probably better educated than Western Europeans.

Of course, beause those Russian institutions have such a reputation for eduaction, LOL.

The logical conclusion is that of course CHina will lay one giant turd on Russia.

Truth hurt ? The facts are there, China will dominate Russia, there is no doubt the rest of the educated world knows it and I'm sure you do too. Especially as you have not been able to google anything to refute it.

China has plenty of natural resources but enjoys the help Russia can provide in properly exploiting them or aiding in supplies that can not yet be met for lack of development. Russia has EVERYTHING to offer China and China has absolutely no reason to mess with it's arrangements with Russia.

Yes, Russia's most important contribution to China is Natural Gas and other natural resources. Russia really has nothin else to offer China. China seeks out Western tehnology adn education not Russian.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by Manincloak
USA has been literally surrounding Russia with anti-ballistic missile sites everywhere for the last decade.

Lets see if I have this straight. Putin is upset because the U.S. is installing a defensive system and NOT an offensive system like actually building ballistic missile sites. Well, tough cookies!! He needs to get over it. Who is Putin to tell other countries what they can or cannot install on their land.

Get a grip.

ABM sites and technology detract from the concept of Nuclear Deterrance and makes the other leader very nervous. What would probably end up happening in the event of of such sites going up is an escalation in nuclear arms build-up, with a puch for more advanced dilevery systems, in order to pass the ABMs. There was a reason the two cold warrior nations signed an ABM agreement.

Originally posted by mad scientist
There is no doubt, they will suprass Russia.

Thanks for sharing your unsupported opinion.

Incorret Russia's growth is largely due to a resources boom.

I asked you to look at the earlier cited source but i suppose that was too much trouble for you.

During PUTIN's first administration, a number of important reforms were implemented in the areas of tax, banking, labor, and land codes. These achievements have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects, with foreign direct investment rising from $14.6 billion in 2005 to an estimated $30 billion in 2006. In 2006, Russia's GDP grew 6.6%, while inflation was below 10% for the first time in the past 10 years. Growth was driven by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports.

www.cia.gov...

Why are you disagreeing with the CIA?

Also Russia's PPP is $1.7 trillion whilst China's PPP is over $11 trillion and griwing much faster than Russia.

China has ten times more people than Russia and in PPP measurements basic trade plays a far more significant role.

The GDP dollar estimates given on this page are derived from Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) calculations. Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. However, economies do self-adjust to currency changes over time, and technology intensive and luxury goods, raw materials and energy prices are mostly unaffected by difference in currency (the latter more by subsidies), despite being critical to national development, therefore, the sales of foreign apparel or gasoline per liter in China is more accurately measured by the nominal figure, but everyday food and haircuts by PPP. Pirated goods and subsidies also heavily affect PPP

en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)

China's PPP is normally given as around 10 trillion USD and given their far larger size one can see what population size does for PPP

en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)

Germany is better compared with countries as as Germany and the UK/France and against them it's clear that Russia has a long way to go with China far behind it.

So as you can see China's PPP is far ore than Russia's and China's growth dwarves Russia's.

China's growth should dwarf that of Russia given it's massive population base and it's relatively , per Capita, smaller economy.

And.....they still have more honors students than Russia has students.

Sure they have more but as i said they have ten times more people! Are they supposed to have less and how do you decide what constitutes a honors student?

Size does matter. It can only lead to Chinse technical superiority over Russia in the future.

Size matters only when you like it to ( when Russia has bigger missiles or warheads it's because they 'suck' or aren't accurate) and if you cared to be consistent the size of the US economy did not lead them to them having a stronger strategic arm than Russia has today.

Yes and your point is what ? Are you just backing up my point that CHina has far more univeristy students than Russia ?

I am saying that China can't have less given it's far larger size and that comparatively Russians are far better educated than the Chinese!

And what, You said that CHina has 16 million students at university and 100 000 in western countries, hat still dwarves Russia.

I said they projected to have 16 million students in universities by 2005 but according to the following i do not know if that was in fact achieved or not

Since the implementation of reform and opening up, the reform and development of higher education have made significant achievements. A higher education system with various forms, which encompasses basically all branches of learning, combines both degree-education and non-degree education and integrates college education, undergraduate education and graduate education, has taken shape. Higher education in China has played an important role in the economic construction, science progress and social development by bringing up large scale of advanced talents and experts for the construction of socialist modernization.

　　In 2002, there were all together 2003 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), among which 1396 were Regular HEIs and the other 607 were higher education institutions for adults. In 2002, the total number of new entrant admitted by and the total enrollment of the regular HEIs were respectively 3,205,000 and 9,033,600. The total number of new entrant admitted by and the total enrollment of new recruitment and total enrollment of adult higher education institutions were 1,175,000 and 2,223,200. The total number of graduate students newly admitted by HEIs and research institutions was 202,600 among which 38,400 were for PH.D and 164,200 for master's degree. The total enrollment for graduate students was 501,000 in 2002.

www.moe.edu.cn...

Why should we expect China to have caught up to Russia so quickly? How can you compare the Chinese education system to that of Russia? Do you really think there is a comparison to be made?

Let face it Russia is hardly known for its higher education.

But it IS widely known for it's higher education!

Fact still remaons that CHina has far more people in univeristy and far far far more people in the top universities around the world. You have just proven my points.

China does have more people in university but i am pretty sure the US have more and it's economy is trillions or dollars in debt! Numbers matters but few things fixed bad economic policies! Why do you think i have proved you to be correct when i have serious doubts about American higher education?

en.wikipedia.org...:Graduates_in_tertiary_education-thousands.jpg

That chart indicates that China has more graduate students in training but also that with respective to population size ( to say nothing of how far behind they are in total population numbers) Russia has eight to nine times more graduate students than China and about 20% more than the United States. Sorry but that's just the 'way' it is'.

Of course, beause those Russian institutions have such a reputation for eduaction, LOL.

Yes,as far as i know they do .... What have you heard and can you give us links to such claims?

Truth hurt ? The facts are there, China will dominate Russia,

How will they when the US did not?

there is no doubt the rest of the educated world knows it and I'm sure you do too.

If they are educated in the same way you were there is a real possibility that they may believe as you do!

Especially as you have not been able to google anything to refute it.

If you just ignore all the data i use in support it really does not matter how much of it i give!

Yes, Russia's most important contribution to China is Natural Gas and other natural resources Russia really has nothin else to offer China.

And you just keep endlessly repeating yourself never bothering to cite the sources you claim to be in support of your position. How does that help anyone but you?

China seeks out Western tehnology adn education not Russian

And that must be why the Chinese armed forces are STILL buying Russian equipment instead of American? Right... How you insist that the world be stood on it's head so you can make sense of it is funny and tragic in equal parts.

Stellar

[edit on 10-11-2007 by StellarX]

There is some little country Serbia in Europe, where Russia will probable put some missiles on standby for NATO and US forces in EU and Asia.

Thanks GOD Russia will wake up

Originally posted by Copernicus
Stellar, is it really necessary to respond to every single character someone writes in the breaking-up manner that you do? It makes them hard to read and Im currently just scrolling past them because of it.

I probably disagree with you on just about everything but I do agree with you that 'Stellar's' posts are most unreadable. I do the same as you and just scroll past them.

I'm pretty sure another thread already covered this quite a while ago...

anyhow, Russia has every right to be concerned with what is being amassed along their border.

The US practically sh*t themselves when Cuba started amassing missiles. And Cuba isn't exactly on the US border.


A strategic antimissile system mounted along the border of a country means only one thing : "We can nuke you, but you can't nuke us."

Thats the message Russia is hearing, and I'm inclined to think they're right.

This places them in a defenseless state. I'd cheer them on if they wiped those defensive platforms away just for fun.


Regarding the CFE, Europe, UK, and pretty much everyone else stopped obeying that treaty A LONG time ago... the last remaining country actually obeying the CFE was Russia.

Why should they follow rules that everyone else has chosen to ignore.

Screw them, good job Russia!

You don't have to obey anything the rest of the world isn't willing to!

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by Copernicus
Stellar, is it really necessary to respond to every single character someone writes in the breaking-up manner that you do? It makes them hard to read and Im currently just scrolling past them because of it.

I probably disagree with you on just about everything but I do agree with you that 'Stellar's' posts are most unreadable. I do the same as you and just scroll past them.

I completely agree. He loves t misinterpret things post irrelevent information,just to bore people into submission. He spends hours going through google to find articles to try and prove himself right, even if they are completely out of context. Just reading his last post shoes this pattern. Absolutely no understanding of economics. Also it is interesting that he has never travelled outside of South Africa and his only eperience of the world is through the internet.

There is no reason why Russia's population should decline so steeply and i have in the past supplied you with numerous sources exposing such thinking as fantasy.

According to Putin (who said the most urgent problem facing Russia is its demographic crisis.) as well as one of russias leading demographists, Viktor Perevedentsev, you're wrong!

Why you continuously choose to ignore the obvious, is beyond me.

India is the most pro US nation on the face of the Earth? I do believe some poll numbers but i would REALLY like to see the questions that yielded these results!

You mean these results? Though I am positive, based on your past antics, you will try and find some way to discredit the poll to the best of your abilities.

It is interesting that Indians would support the leader of the country who arms Pakistan and is responsible for so much of their hardship. At least their current leadership seems to understand the global situation a bit better and wont be acting on the poll data!

There is as symbiotic bond shared between india and the US through democracy. The US is also helping India to construct Nuclear power plants all over the nation. The relations of these two nations is only strengthening. India is surely bound for greatness, and could potentially act as a counter weight to china in the region. The US views india as a future super power, and because of this, much of india view the US in favorable terms.

As far as India-US-Pakistani relations go...I would say Pakistan is getting the short end of the stick.

Do you think the US WANTS to have better relations with him or do you think they are forced to to prevent him from moving even closer to Cuba and Venezuela?

A strong Brasilia and a strong US can only benefit both country's, as well as this side of the hemisphere...

GDP is a meaningless number that does not indicate how well people in a particular country lives.

How about GDP per capita?

We had alternative energy technologies, and electric cars, more than a hundred years ago so while your argument is entirely self serving some of us look to world events and don't just make whatever arguments suits us. I am all for fuel cell and alternative energy ( check my posts on vacuum energy extraction and the like) but at least i know why non of these technologies will easily reach the market place! You may or may not understand that oil is used for very many more things than just power generation

You sir, are a pro at taking attention off of the actual subject, by turning it around into a question. I ask that we stick to the actual bases of the argument.
I do not think you quite understand how economics works in the real world.
The world economy is a market driven economy...There is a huge market in alt fuels.

Any leap of logic is fine as long as Russia is made to seem weak and exposed to every turn of events.

As opposed to the views of yourself, which makes 3rd world russia out to be a nation who holds strategic arms advantage over the worlds only empire. You continuously choose to underestimate the US...

Sure this might happen but oil is not the only natural resource Russia is extremely wealthy in. The prices of gasoline is still very low ( adjusted for inflation) and i can see it doubling without the market allowing serious alternatives a step in.

$5/gasoline would be all it would take to get this thing kicked off in hyper drive. That is very much so within arms length of reach. Alternatives are already being taking into consideration, and with a growing market in hybrid cars, can no longer be ignored. The day of the petrotyrants is coming to an abrupt end!

Why do you refuse to read and why will you do almost anything to undermine what even the CIA can admit? Why do you feel so compelled to look for whatever makes Russia seem weaker than their nuclear and conventional forces seems to indicate?

That doesnt answer my question. What does russia have to offer the world, outside of natural resources. Without Russias natural resources, russia isnt growing at 6% / year, now is it.

You tried to make a mountain out of a molehill but failed to clarify why you think Russia would fail to reverse a trend that has happened and reversed in many Western European countries. For some reason you wish to argue that Russia will be unable ro rectify this 'problem' or that their economy would be 'devastated' by a slow decline in population. I do not see any logic in those arguments but i suppose your that desperate.

European countrys are STILL facing a demographic crisis! Russias demographic crisis is much worse! And perhaps you would like to explain why one of russias top demographists, Viktor Perevedentsev, is so wrong then? I can see logic has failed with you.

As to their education system i think i remember reading that 40% of all people aged 35 to fifty have four of five year degrees. Maybe you want to look that up?

I just thought I would point out how earlier stellarX accused me of using "self serving" statements. The above is a classic example of a self serving statement. Making you sir, a hypocrite.

No, I will not do your homework. I do not have the desire to waste my time disproving something that you so conveniently did not take the time to back up with a source.

As i understand their education system have for a long time been considered world class and given their technological prowess in the cold war i have little reason to doubt that their higher education is at least as good as anything in the west.

Talking out of the other side of our mouths again, are we stellar? The cold war ended 18 years ago. With that, the centralized educational system the soviets employed. (which ironically was one of the many 'de factos' which played a great deal in bankrupting the CCCP)

Im done with your for the night. Maybe I will choose finishing my response some other time, on my own terms.


[edit on 11-11-2007 by West Coast]

[edit on 11-11-2007 by West Coast]

And that must be why the Chinese armed forces are STILL buying Russian equipment instead of American? Right... How you insist that the world be stood on it's head so you can make sense of it is funny and tragic in equal parts.

Another stellarX, self serving blunder! I could not let this one go!

First and foremost, the US does not sell weapons to china.

Do you find the irony in why many nations of the west prefer US made weaponry? Does Israel prefer Russian made equipment? Tiawan? South Korea? Japan? It doesn't stop quite there, but that should give you the point. Why is russian made equipment so popular among third world nations? Maybe there is somthing more behind that question? Its cheap, reliable. But that does not necessarily equate to better quality. Afterall, its track record against the US made equipment speaks for itself.

.Double Post (accident).

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Manincloak]