Ukraine - The frontier for Russian and American

[ChaharMahal]

IMF is demanding the Gas Price increase in May. but this will probably ensure that There will be unrest in Ukraine by November.

KIEV: Ukraine agreed on Wednesday to drastically hike domestic gas prices by up to 50 percent in order to meet a key loan condition from the International Monetary Fund for the crisis-hit ex-Soviet state.

The new Western-backed government in Kiev that came to power in the wake of last month's fall of a pro-Kremlin regime is seeking $15-20 billion (10.9-14.5 billion euros) in IMF assistance in order to balance its books and make maturing foreign loan payments.

An IMF team was meeting with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Kiev on Wednesday for what Ukrainian officials hope will be a final round of talks before the package is approved in Washington next month.

The Fund has made an immediate end to Ukraine's costly gas subsidies one of its prime conditions for the programme's approval.

It also wants the central bank to stop propping up the Ukrainian currency and for the government to cut down on corruption and red tape.

A top official at Ukraine's Naftogaz state energy company said Kiev was willing to raise the price households pay for natural gas by 50 percent as of May 1.

Naftogaz budget and planning director Yury Kolbushkin added that rates for district heating companies would go up by 40 percent on July 1.

Kolbushkin said these prices would likely increase further in the coming years.

"We will publish a document that sets a schedule for rate increases through 2018," Ukrainian media quoted Kolbushkin as saying.

"There may be final adjustments and certain things may change."

Ukraine's central bank has already limited its currency interventions -- a decision that has seen the hryvnia lose 26.4 percent of its value against the dollar since the start of the year.

The IMF programme's approval would set in motion the release of further assistance from both Washington and the European Union.

Yatsenyuk said he expected EU officials to send 1.6 billion euros to Kiev within two months of the IMF programme's approval.

The United States has also pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees while Japan has promised up to $1.5 billio

 

[shahinc]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/25/putin-trapped-by-history/?hpt=hp_bn2

08:37 AM ET
Putin trapped by history
By Fareed Zakaria
Whatever happens in Ukraine over the next few months and years, the crisis has reminded me that there are really two kinds of rulers around the world: those who think about the past and those who think about the future. And if it weren’t abundantly clear already, it is now – Vladimir Putin is in the first group. And his country will be the poorer for it...
...Think of Pakistan's generals, still trying to establish "strategic depth" in their backyard while their country collapses. Or think of Vladimir Putin, who is, as Secretary of State John Kerry said, playing a 19th century game in the 21st century. What has he achieved? Ukraine has slipped out of his grasp, its people deeply suspicious of Moscow. Even in Crimea, the 40 percent who are non-Russian are probably restive and resentful. Moscow's neighbors are alarmed, and once-warming relations with Poland will be set back. Trade and investment with Europe and the United States will surely suffer, whether there are sanctions or not.
Meanwhile, Russia continues along its path as an oil-dependent state with an increasingly authoritarian regime that has failed to develop its economy or civil society or foster political pluralism. But no matter – Moscow controls Crimea. In today's world, is that really a victory?

 

[Bi-honar]

There is no such evidence in the sense of a document. because intelligence agency certainly are not going to reveal what they are doing untill 30-50 years after the fact.

Sure. In that case anyone can make any type of non-factual, speculative and far-fetched statement and then say its factual but intelligence agencies are making it hard to prove!

You may find it ridiculous. but I find your analysis stuck in 1949 when Iran and Soviet Union actually shared a border.

1949? Last time I checked, we still shared a border with the Russians in 1991, they were still flexing their military muscles to "steal" and divide our mineral rights in 2002 and we still have an unresolved territorial dispute in 2014! All that aside, if the level of threat is a function of whether you share a border with another country, then your argument that the Americans are the biggest threat to Iran holds even less water - pardon the pun - than my argument.

As far mistreatment of Border States in Iran there is no question about it. External powers are never going to go some place where a fertile ground because of other factors (stupid government policies do not exist.

Glad we at least agree on that.

Western powers do not care about territorial integrity of Iran. this is in reference to your assertion that western powers would love to see a free Iran. That assertion implicitly says they are concerned about Iran thus they will not do anything that does hurts the Interest of Iranians as whole.
The Fact of the matter is documentary evidence suggests anything but.

In the matter of Three Islands western powers have given rhetorical support to Sheikh of UAE.

In the matter of Caspian Dispute the Americans have come on the side of Azarbayejan and Turkamenistan which Iran has the largest dispute with.

None of these are surprising. It was all a response to your claim that Russia is the biggest threat to Iran.

I would counter that since Hezb Tudeh for all intensive purposes does not exist any more.
Since Iran no longer shares a border with Moscow.

Moscow is no longer a strategic threat to Iran. the Relationship between Iran and Russia will be similar to that of relationship between Turkey and russia if Iran were to have a more competent government.

Not sure where you're going with the rest of this. I did not say that Western powers care about the territorial integrity of Iran, nor that they would love to see a free Iran. That's a long way from claiming that they're actively involved in the disintegration of Iran. Frankly, with IR in power, we don't really need much help from anyone. So, as far as I'm concerned, everything else aside, whoever supports the IR the most is the biggest threat to Iran.

 

[ChaharMahal]

fine let's assume I am completely wrong.

please go ahead and explain how today Russia can threaten Iran. Since you Said they are the most serious threat to Iran.

 

[Bi-honar]

fine let's assume I am completely wrong.

please go ahead and explain how today Russia can threaten Iran. Since you Said they are the most serious threat to Iran.

You're not completely wrong bro, it's just that we have a different definition of a "threat" and how to deal with it. I didn't say Russia is a big threat to Iran "today" as in March 27th, 2014 - just that they're the biggest threat to Iran. If you need a recap of why:

1 - The Russians were the 2nd last occupying force to leave Iran in recent times.
2 - They heavily supplied and full heartedly supported the last occupying force in Iran even more recently.
3 - They arbitrarily took away and reassigned our seabed and mineral rights in the Caspian Sea, followed by flexing their military muscles in the 21st century.
4 - We're still locked into a territorial dispute with them in 2014.
5 - They just annexed part of another country.
6 - They fully support the IR which in itself is the biggest threat to Iran and Iranians.

I think that makes a pretty solid case to be weary of the Russians, even if you don't believe that they're the "biggest" threat to Iran. Having said that and as you suggested, that does not mean that we should not have friendly relations with them under a proper government - only that we should be weary of them.

 

[General Parsaian]

امریکا و غرب هیچ عکس العمل جدی نمی توانند در مقابل روسیه و ضمیمه کردن کریمه داشته باشند
حتی اگر فردا روسیه شرق اوکراین را که اکثرا روس تبار هستند را ضمیمه کند
غرب فعلا بجز داد و بیداد کار دیگری نمی تواند بکند
پوتین هم این را خوب می داند که غربی ها می دانند بازی کردن در زمین روسیه خیلی فرق دارد تا اینکه در جاهای دیگری غرب بخواهد جلوی روسها را بگیرد
به همین خاطر ناتو اعلام کرد که انضمام اوکراین در ناتو را نخواهند پذیرفت
روسها در چند هفته گذشته دها ناو اوکراین را گرفتند از غرب بجز داد و قال چیز دیگری ندیدیم
امریکا و غرب همانطور که بارها گفتم تنها در جایی دخالت می کنند که ضعیف باشد
سوریه برای پوتین درس خوبی بود
وقتی دید که تهدید باعث شد امریکا به سوریه حمله نکند
الان دولتمردان جدید کییف انگشت ندامت بر دندان دارد
چون می بیند غرب که باعث شد انها برعلیه حکومت قبلی قیام کنند نه تنها نتوانسته انها را یاری کند
بلکه قسمتی از خاک اوکراین را هم از انها جدا کرده اندو گاز روسیه به قیمت قبلی به انها داده نخواهد شد
به قول گفتنی امدند عروس را سرمه بکشند چشمش را کور کردند
به نظر من تنها کاری که غرب می تواند انجام دهد این است که قبول کند که کریمه برای همیشه جزو خاک روسیه شده و در قبال ان روسیه از پیشروی سیاسی و بکار بردن عواملش در اوکراین جلوگیری کند
زیرا روسیه می تواند با نفوذی که در بسیاری از مناطق اوکراین دارد مشکلات زیادی برای رژیم جدید و حامیان ان ببار اورد

 

[Fatso]

Will this have any effect on Iran? Realistically!

 

[ChaharMahal]

You're not completely wrong bro, it's just that we have a different definition of a "threat" and how to deal with it. I didn't say Russia is a big threat to Iran "today" as in March 27th, 2014 - just that they're the biggest threat to Iran.

I think you were trying to reduce the weight of your argument. but you just made it more universal.
the biggest threat to Iran from a waning power.
If you need a recap of why:

1 - The Russians were the 2nd last occupying force to leave Iran in recent times.

Good thing you said that. It was back in 1949 under Stalin which ruled Eastern Europe with an Iron hand.
moreover, when the revolution occurred they chose to Invade Afghanistan and there was never any incursions into Iranian border.
That is while Iran was busy fighting another war and would have had a hard time responding.

But by the same Token the British and Americans were and have done more covert operations in Iran.
and Certainly around Nationalization of Oil for Twenty-Thirty years The Western powers Treated Iran as one of their colonies.

2 - They heavily supplied and full heartedly supported the last occupying force in Iran even more recently.

Not sure what we are talking about? the Pishevari reign?

3 - They arbitrarily took away and reassigned our seabed and mineral rights in the Caspian Sea, followed by flexing their military muscles in the 21st century.

4 - We're still locked into a territorial dispute with them in 2014.

I assume Number 4 and Number 3 are referring to the same Caspian issue.
It is a good point. yet not completely correct. The Biggest Winners under the Russian regime are Kasgistan and Azerbayejan.
Under no particular regime would Iran be actually sharing maritime borders with Russia.
Iran's ultimate dispute in the Caspian are actually Turkamnistan and Azabayejan whose positions are being backed and financed by western countries.
the Russians

5 - They just annexed part of another country.

So Many more extensive Military actions have been taking place around the world since 1990.
What would make this more relevant to Iran

6 - They fully support the IR which in itself is the biggest threat to Iran and Iranians.

Hmm guess Number 3 and Number 6 are kind of contradictory.
They screwed the regime in Tehran over Caspian Sea Regime but they fully support it.
I certainly would say there is much more evidence for Number 3 than Number 6.

I can't remember of one international dispute where Russia has actually backed Iran.
I can't remember of one important weapon system they have sold to Iran.
I can't remember of one resolution they have vetoed that was targeted toward Iran.

but Assuming they were supporting IRI, we should be considering countries like Oman a threat to Iran which exposes how flawed the logic is.

I think that makes a pretty solid case to be weary of the Russians, even if you don't believe that they're the "biggest" threat to Iran. Having said that and as you suggested, that does not mean that we should not have friendly relations with them under a proper government - only that we should be weary of them.

If a country was the biggest threat to my country. I would not just weary of them. I would be thinking about what they are about to do day in and Day out.

I am still waiting for you to enumerate how this biggest threat to Iran wants to make its threats operational.

Do they have sizable force Naval Force in the Caspian which can deploy force in Iran?
Do they have Naval Fleet that can extend itself to Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf?

Can they paratroop major troop deployments into Iran? if so what would their troop supply chain look like?

Do they have any energey leverage over Iran?

Is there any rare earth mineral that Iran depends on that Russia can use as a leverage.

Does Russia have troop deployment in countries that surround Iran?

I would consider Iran's long Term Challenges be the Relations with Pakistan, Azarbayejan and Saudi Arabia.
Which are incidentally under Western sphere of influence.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Very interesting interview with Robert Kaplan.

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60365873

 

[ChaharMahal]

A Full Speech About importance of Geography by Robert Kaplan

[video=youtube_share;9mm4Q5il9DU]http://youtu.be/9mm4Q5il9DU?t=3m26s[/video]

 

[Flint]

I am still waiting for you to enumerate how this biggest threat to Iran wants to make its threats operational.

For now Russians are content to use Iran as a pawn when they need it. They stop votes at the UN and then get something for free. Use Iran IN Syria to bolster what is their client state and on and on. Don't be surprised to see both of them in South America.

 

[Bi-honar]

I think you were trying to reduce the weight of your argument. but you just made it more universal.
the biggest threat to Iran from a waning power.

I'm not. You're just struggling with the word "threat" and I'm trying to be nice about it. This goes back to the discussion we were having the other day about the use of words and how they can not and should not perceived to be anything other than what they specifically convey. Your definition of threat seems to be limited to a ground invasion which you are using to conclude is unlikely or impossible because we no longer share a border with Russia (which in itself is a fallacy as many invasions in the past 100 years have shown). If what I was trying to convey was limited to such a thing, I would have just used words like military threat or threat of invasion.

Similarly, you're interpreting threat to mean "imminent" threat. Again, I would have used the word imminent if that's what I was trying to convey. Threat means intention to cause injury or damage - that's it. That injury or damage can be material - such as I threaten to break your window, unilaterally cancel a contract between us, etc. More specifically and as related to international relations and discussion of politics, threat means intention to cause injury or damage to national interests. If we're clear on these definitions, please go back and read what I said and why I said it and we can discuss further. I would also like you to consider the following:

Right now, is it not in Iran's national interest to continue the nuclear negotiations and strike a deal? "The West" is on board and even the more moderate (read half intelligent) elements within the IR on board. Right? And who's THREATENING to derail those talks?

[h=1]Russia Threatens To Derail Iran Talks Over Ukraine[/h]

 

[ChaharMahal]

I'm not. You're just struggling with the word "threat" and I'm trying to be nice about it. This goes back to the discussion we were having the other day about the use of words and how they can not and should not perceived to be anything other than what they specifically convey. Your definition of threat seems to be limited to a ground invasion which you are using to conclude is unlikely or impossible because we no longer share a border with Russia (which in itself is a fallacy as many invasions in the past 100 years have shown). If what I was trying to convey was limited to such a thing, I would have just used words like military threat or threat of invasion.

Similarly, you're interpreting threat to mean "imminent" threat. Again, I would have used the word imminent if that's what I was trying to convey. Threat means intention to cause injury or damage - that's it. That injury or damage can be material - such as I threaten to break your window, unilaterally cancel a contract between us, etc. More specifically and as related to international relations and discussion of politics, threat means intention to cause injury or damage to national interests. If we're clear on these definitions, please go back and read what I said and why I said it and we can discuss further. I would also like you to consider the following:

Right now, is it not in Iran's national interest to continue the nuclear negotiations and strike a deal? "The West" is on board and even the more moderate (read half intelligent) elements within the IR on board. Right? And who's THREATENING to derail those talks?

Russia Threatens To Derail Iran Talks Over Ukraine

I think you are mixing things up again.
First of all Russia will and has always sold out any kind of relation with Iran over to relations with Europe and west which is more lucrative.

but in this particular case they are actually taking position against (just rhetoric if you asked me) the Americans not Iran.
Russia is not major Trade Partner of Iran and thus has no way actually to derail the process.

the only thing they can do is temporarily take Iran's side on some minor technical details to send a message to Americans.

but this whole thing is rather tactical and does not really pertain to our discussion which is focused on long term.
-----
Now back to the original issue.
I hope we can agree on some basic established facts.

Russia is a power that its relative power in the world is decreasing not increasing.
Russia does not share borders with Iran.
Russia does not have strong Navy that can be deployed in Persian Gulf.
Russia has no cultural influence in Iran.

This all leads me to believe that the only threat Russia can carry out against Iran
is Tactical bombing of certain Iranian sites via Air Power.

Moreover I think you have a one dimensional view of Russian policy.
You must realize that Iran is hardly the number one of concern of Russians.

That's because for the foreseeable future Iran will not be Military important enough to pose any direct threat to Russia.

Secondly as I stated previouly Russia two major strategic issues that has preoccupied and will likely continue to preoccupy it.

Russia has major border disputes with China.
Russia is very worried about the security threat posed by Nato to It's Major population Centers (Moscow, St Petersburg).

Russian policy with relation to Iran is very similar to the policy that Americans played in the 80s toward Iran.

Russia will try to Contain Iran and they will try their best to make sure Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia Balance each other out such that none can dominate the region.

As Far as Russia is concerned Iran and Russia have one strategic point that they will compete in and that is influence in Central Asia.

But Even in Central Asia Russia is far more concerned about growing Chinese ties with those states than Iran's ties with those states.

as I said in light of major threats posed to Iran by Petro Financed Azabayejan Republic which ejoys support of the U.S and Israel.

and In light of major threats posted to Iran by Terrorism Financed by Saudis I hardly think Russia can be classified in the same category.

I have very established three things.

• Russia has no operation capability to pose strategic threat to Iran.

One Aircraft Career that is hardly ever operational and virtually always in the Baltic or Meditrnian
No Borders with Iran to allow it to deploy forces in Iran.
Azarbayejan is not friendly with Russia (so no way to create a supply chain via Azabayejan)
No RailRoad or Roads in Turkamenstan Kazygstan to create a supply chain for a troop invasion form that side of iran.

• There is no culture affinity for Russia in Iran and this not possible for Russia stir up trouble in Iran.

Azbayejan and Suadis both have some advantage in playing on cultural or religious affinities in IRan. but no such affinity exists in any part
of Iranian Population for Russia.

• Russia has no interest for Iran to be overtly weak or overtly strong.

Russia is not interested for Nato Backed Turkey to dominate Iran.
Russia is also not interested for heavily U.S aligned Persian Gulf States to have a major upper hand over Iran.
But Simultaneously Russia is not interested for Iran rate of Growth to be so great such that Uzbakistan, Kazkstan, Armenia, Tajikestand and Turkmanistan be looking
to replace Russia roles in their countries.

• Russia has major international disputes with world powers in ways that it makes sense for it maintain normalized relationships with other parts of the world.

I think it would be fair to Say when Russia has major stratigic long term border disputes with China, EU and the U.S, It will not be looking to add that long list.


One must realize that Every one country has balancing Act.

for instance Iran would not want unstable Iraq. but Iran is also not interested for the economy of Iraq to improve faster than that of Iran.


My personal opinion is that Iran has a natural ally in a resource hungry of India that can only realistically depend on Iranian energy.

Iran also has major interest for Pakistan to become more stable country (which means somehow curbing Saudi influence in that country).

Because if Pakistan does not become stable Iran essentially has no chance of exporting its energy to the countries in Indian Sub Continent.

Iran's future essentially lies in looking to the east for major trade.

That's because looking westward Iran has major challenges to overcome Russian, Azarbayejani, Iraqi and Saudi competitive advantage.

-------------
summary:
All of that said I want to reiterate major challnges of Iran are as follows.

• Stability in Pakistan (which Russia historically has no influence in )
• Containing Persian Gulf States Which are completely under U.S influence
• Containing Threats from Petro Backed Azabayejan Republic. (which again is mostly under U.S sphere influence because Armenia relies on Russia)

I see no basis what so ever for the assertions you have raised. that Russia is the Number one Threat to Iran.

 

[Bi-honar]

Russia is a power that its relative power in the world is decreasing not increasing > No, I don't agree with that at all.

Russia does not share borders with Iran > Fine, I think we established that, although it has zero relevance to the discussion.

Russia does not have strong Navy that can be deployed in Persian Gulf > First of all, Russia has the 2nd largest/strongest navy in the world. Secondly, I don't see the relevance of the Persian Gulf to the discussion when Russia has a strong presence in the Caspian Sea.

Russia has no cultural influence in Iran > Not sure what your definition of cultural influence is. There's certainly no shortage of sympathizers with all things Russian if this thread is any indication.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Russia is a power that its relative power in the world is decreasing not increasing > No, I don't agree with that at all.

Russia has negative population growth.
Terrible Labor Productivity Numbers.
Terrible Governance.
Their Relative importance with relation to Korea,Turkey,Brazil,China, Mexico is very quickly eroding.
Again they are power that with the current outlook in the next ten years would be less powerful. look at any IMB, WorldBank Report on Russia.
Hell just take a look Cia factbook summary on the country.

Russia does not share borders with Iran > Fine, I think we established that, although it has zero relevance to the discussion.

It is most relevant factor. a country that shares border with you can pose much larger threat to you.
Just ask Pakistan and India how much a of a threat they are to each other.
Then take a look at China and Australia and if their threat matrix toward each other is as great.

When you share a border with a country it is rather easy to create supply chain to logistically support your troops.
Create troop rotations......

Russia does not have strong Navy that can be deployed in Persian Gulf > First of all, Russia has the 2nd largest/strongest navy in the world. Secondly, I don't see the relevance of the Persian Gulf to the discussion when Russia has a strong presence in the Caspian Sea.

Behrouz jan again. you conveniently ignored my relative basis on Russian Navy strength.

The Caspian is land locked Sea which mean Russia is never going to deploy its advance ships in the Caspian
The Russian Caspian Fleet is simply designed to overwhelm the Navy presence of Countries such as Georgia, Iran, Azerbaijan.
It is not Navy that would be capable of projecting power into land from Sea (as the American marines do)
Take a look at a bunch frigates they have in Caspian and then compare it to their destroyers and cruisers in the north sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Flotilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarstan/Gepard_class_frigate

All of this means the only Practical way Russia can project real power from Sea toward Iran is By the way of Persian Gulf.
But the Russian Navy is designed to be a counter balance toward the Americans, French,Japan and British Navies. and pretty soon the Chinese.
That is why you would be hard pressed to even spot Russian vessels in the Indian ocean deployments let alone deployments in the Persian Gulf.
The Russian Navy has one Aircraft Career which has spent half of its lifetime in shipyard performing maintenance.
It has a black sea fleet that needs to be constantly in Mediterranean and Black sea to Thwart threats posed
From Italians, Turkey,Georgia, French toward Russian interest.

But the overwhelming majority of Russian deployment occur in the sea of Japan and North Sea.
They simply do not have the resources to perform Persian Gulf Deployments.

Russia has no cultural influence in Iran > Not sure what your definition of cultural influence is. There's certainly no shortage of sympathizers with all things Russian if this thread is any indication.

You are being rather disagreeable.
There are so many private academies in Iran that teach foreign languages.
what percentage of Iranians try to learn Russian? Compare that to Korean,English,Chinese,Spanish,French,Italian language academies in Iran.

What Percentage of Iranians listen to Russian Music?
What Percentage of Iranians watch Russian Sport Leagues?
What percentage of Iranian are native Russian speakers.
What Movies, TV Series do Iranian Translate into Farsi?

if you look across all metrics possible you come to the conclusion that there is virtually no soft power that Russia Posses.

 

[Bi-honar]

Russia has negative population growth. First of all, Russia does NOT have negative population growth, they haven't been negative since 2012 and because of annexing Crimea their population growth in 2014 will be higher than most Western countries. Secondly, if they treated their citizens better, they wouldn't have such mass migration and their population growth would be even higher! Thirdly, what does population growth have to do with relative power in the world?!

Terrible Labor Productivity Numbers. Terrible Governance. Not more terrible than during the soviet era and they certainly weren't waning in terms of relative power in the world back then. So, these metrics have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion or anything really.

Their Relative importance with relation to Korea,Turkey,Brazil,China, Mexico is very quickly eroding. Based on what, your personal perception or some real tangible facts? When was the last time Korea, Turkey, Brazil, China or Mexico annexed territory belonging to another country? When was the last time they invaded another country? When was the last time they heavily supplied military equipment to one side of a major conflict? When was the last time they vetoed UN resolutions? You want me to go on?

Again they are power that with the current outlook in the next ten years would be less powerful. look at any IMB, WorldBank Report on Russia.
Hell just take a look Cia factbook summary on the country.
What does the IMF or World Bank have to do with relative power in the world? First you were talking about military power, ground invasions and sharing borders, now you are talking about economic power. If you are talking about economic power - which has zero relevance to our discussion so far - Russia has been 6th in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) since the mid 90's according to the CIA, World Bank and IMF. They haven't even dropped one place.

It is most relevant factor. a country that shares border with you can pose much larger threat to you.
Just ask Pakistan and India how much a of a threat they are to each other.
Then take a look at China and Australia and if their threat matrix toward each other is as great.
I'm so confused by the argument you're putting forward, I'm going to skip responding to the rest of your post until I figure out exactly what you're talking about
So, you are talking about ground invasion and military power afterall?!

I'm so confused, I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post until I at least have some rough idea of what you're trying to say... For now, you may want to mull the fact that only 4-5 months ago, the Russians were itching to find an excuse to get their troops on the Iranian border in Nakhchivan and they're still ready to go at any time. They're the last country to unilaterally cancel a major security contract with Iran. And they will have the highest increase in military spending in the world in the next 4 years - over 40% to be exact, while most western countries are reducing their spending!!! Now, you're suggesting all of this is irrelevant and they're losing their relative power/position in the world because they have negative population growth or terrible productivity?!

 

[ChaharMahal]

You claimed Russia is the biggest threat to Iran.
The biggest Threat to Iran must be able to strategically pose a threat to Iran such that that it would completely
undermine Iran's sovereignty over a significant of part of territories we call Iran.

I have in full detail provided to you the following.

It does not have the economic resources to sustain a major land based conflict with Iran.
They are not capable of land invasion of Iran.
They are not able to project power from the sea similar how Americans can do.
They have no soft power in Iran What So Ever.
It has no economic leverage over Iran. (no energy Exports, Food, Water, Advanced Technology)

The only threat that Russians can pose to Iran is precision Air-Based bombing campaigns.

I think it is time for you to retract that emotionally put together statement.

It is time to acknowledge that the challenges posed to Iran by the way of
It's Relations to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan are far greater
than that of Russia.

 

[Bi-honar]

You claimed Russia is the biggest threat to Iran.
The biggest Threat to Iran must be able to strategically pose a threat to Iran such that that it would completely
undermine Iran's sovereignty over a significant of part of territories we call Iran.

I have in full detail provided to you the following.

It does not have the economic resources to sustain a major land based conflict with Iran.
They are not capable of land invasion of Iran.
They are not able to project power from the sea similar how Americans can do.
They have no soft power in Iran What So Ever.
It has no economic leverage over Iran. (no energy Exports, Food, Water, Advanced Technology)

The only threat that Russians can pose to Iran is precision Air-Based bombing campaigns.

I think it is time for you to retract that emotionally put together statement.

It is time to acknowledge that the challenges posed to Iran by the way of
It's Relations to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan are far greater
than that of Russia.

You haven't done any of those things my friend. All you've done is throw some darts in the dark with completely unsubstantiated and/or erroneous statements as usual, trying to create a fictional scenario under which Russia is not a threat to Iran and even to do that, you have used a very narrow definition of threat which is the imminent ground invasion of Iran, as I mentioned earlier.

I'm sorry to say, but you do a lot of kilooyi posts with little substance or factual statements and the reason for that is that you're so hell bent in making a point that does not exist, rather than wanting to learn something, that even when you're corrected you just skip over it and keep repeating the same erroneous statement over and over again - and even worse, you think that you made that non-existent point at the end!

I think if you focus a little more on reading what I write and a little less time typing the same pre-formulated responses, these discussions would go a lot better for both of us.

 

[ChaharMahal]

بابا از خر شیطان بیا پایین رفیق
:12:

 

[Chinaski]

The Clinton Foundation played not the second fiddle in the February coup in Ukraine, having longstanding ties to Ukrainian oligarchs who pushed the country to European integration.

Former U.S. Republican Congressman Ron Paul
© AP PHOTO/ STEVE HELBER
Ron Paul: US, EU Behind Ukraine Coup
A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February 2014, experts point out.
It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was a US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments, while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian.

Remarkably, among individual donors, contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between 1999 and 2014 Ukrainian sponsors took the first place in the list, providing the charity with almost $10 million and beating England and Saudi Arabia into second and third places respectively.

It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who gained its fortune from pipe-making business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.

Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return. In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative in order to fund a program aimed at training of future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably, several alumni of these courses are current members of the Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.


US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland offers food to pro-European Union activists as she and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, right, walk through Independence Square in Kiev
© AP PHOTO/ ANDREW KRAVCHENKO, POOL
US Intelligence Services Behind 2014 Ukraine Coup – EU Parliament Member
Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as the Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends" to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail term.
Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the web-site of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.

No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.

Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government.

It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, has previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.

So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil. In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts noted, warning against its devastating consequences.