The Mueller investigation.

[iceaura]

But there are such factions among the Reps too, say, anti-Trumpers vs. Trump supporters, but you like to present them as some single entity.

They are a single entity in their behavior.
There is no anti-Trump faction in the Republican Congress - not even a faction that will support a basic investigation into Trump's behavior, or the release of his tax forms, or the cancellation of his Wall plans and budgets.
There are no Republican factions that frequently vote with the Democrats, or cooperate with them in legislation.

There are no factions in the Republican Party like those in the Democratic Party. There haven't been any since Gingrich purged the Party.

Where did you get the idea that there were?

This is, given the leaks from deep staters (who are now no longer an unconstitutional hidden power structure, but the heroes defending democracy if one follows NYT)

You still can't decide who's in that Deep State of yours, and who isn't. You have no idea how the US government works, is your basic problem - you're ignorant.

LOL. I couldn't care less if Trump betrays you, violates oaths or US laws or whatever. These are your internal problems

Then you are not going to post about such things any more? My money says you will.
Meanwhile: How would you know these are internal problems only? The President of the US has far more influence on foreign policy than domestic governance, and he's commander in chief of the military.
He is wrecking the diplomatic and economic power of the US government - that increases the corporate and military role in foreign relations. That makes you feel safer?
Like the other parrots of Republican propaganda, you don't care about the consequences of Trump's behavior for other countries. Unlike the US ones, you have no real idea of what they could be. You think if the US government is diplomatically and economically weaker, you are safer.

Living and learning about fascism.

 

[Schmelzer]

Then you are not going to post about such things any more? My money says you will.

I have never posted something about Trump betraying you or violating oaths or so. Given the importance of impeachment, I have made some side remarks about collusion and so on, which would be about his violating some law or so. But that was in no way about some particular law, it was simply about the question if the report has found such collusion or not, in no way considering the details.

But, ok, "your money" seem to tell you that you have to blame me for such things, so you will certainly blame me for doing such things, as usual without any base. Thanks for openly acknowledging that you do this following what "your money" tells you.

Meanwhile: How would you know these are internal problems only? Ti he President of the US has far more influence on foreign policy than domestic governance, and he's commander in chief of the military.

That's why I (have to) care about those impeachment games.

He is wrecking the diplomatic and economic power of the US government - that increases the corporate and military role in foreign relations. That makes you feel safer?

Yes. But these are the key powers of the US globalists, without them, the US world rule project will be doomed.

The corporate power has now corrupted the government completely, so all those money for the military-industrial complex is more relevant as money stolen from the taxpayer (which is your internal problem, irrelevant for me) than money creating dangerous weapons.

Like the other parrots of Republican propaganda, you don't care about the consequences of Trump's behavior for other countries.

I care, and I like them up to now. They force other countries into an anti-American direction, even those who would be happy to be allies. So, Germany has to fight hard (and fights hard) to get North Stream 2 realized against US pressure. Europe has to fight hard to buy Iranian oil. It forces them to create financial structures not under US control. All this quite stupid pressure forces the other countries into developing US-independent structures that can survive US sanctions power. And aggressive behavior against Russia as well as against China - Obama's error Trump is forced by the deep state to continue - forces them to cooperate against the US.

The overuse of sanctions now is a sort of vaccination of the world against US sanctions in the future. Yes, it creates harm today too. But it creates even more antibodies, in form of politicians ready to fight the US openly, even if initially only in the weak form of anti-Trumpers, in form of financial structures not under US control, in form of special firms for trade with states under US sanctions which do not have to care about their presence on the US market because they are not there, and so on. All such structures have been developed and strengthened a lot during the last years, and they will not go away if the globalists take power in the US again.

For example, the use of software attacks against the electricity network in Venezuela. Of course, this has harmed the population (but even weakened the US support because those with the greatest problems if there is no electricity have been the rich, which traditionally support the US). But this demonstration of US power has not remained unnoticed. So, many states will now start to care more about the possibility of such attacks against their own infrastructure. How to do this? Start with consulting those who have been attacked (Venezuela) and who have helped to handle the situation (Russia, China?). Now compare this situation with what would have been the result of the use of such possibilities during, say, a terrorist war similar to that against Syria.

 

[sculptor]

882 3 wow

 

[iceaura]

I have never posted something about Trump betraying you or violating oaths or so.

How would you know? You don't know what you are posting about, in US politics, and you can't remember it anyway.
The victims of the Republican propaganda feed are amnesiac - famous for it.
Look at this:

That's why I (have to) care about those impeachment games.

You just said you didn't. Internal matters, you called it.

But, ok, "your money" seem to tell you that you have to blame me for such things, so you will certainly blame me for doing such things, as usual without any base.

I will quote you doing it, as always before.
And you will do it, because you can't stop yourself from what you don't know you are doing - in this case, parroting the Republican propaganda feeds.

Yes. But these are the key powers of the US globalists, without them, the US world rule project will be doomed.

Exxon's world projects are not doomed. Neither are Halliburton's, Cargill's, Amazon's, or those of the other global corporations based in the US. They have the US military on their side, and the corruption of foreign governments ready to hand - they don't need diplomacy, and they don't want US government interference.

Living and learning about fascism.

The corporate power has now corrupted the government completely, so all those money for the military-industrial complex is more relevant as money stolen from the taxpayer (which is your internal problem, irrelevant for me) than money creating dangerous weapons.

Living and learning about fascism - in this case, the uses global corporations have for dangerous weapons and corrupt militaries.

I care, and I like them up to now.

You said you didn't care, and explained that that's why you didn't know anything about them.

So, Germany has to fight hard (and fights hard) to get North Stream 2 realized against US pressure. Europe has to fight hard to buy Iranian oil. It forces them to create financial structures not under US control. All this quite stupid pressure forces the other countries into developing US-independent structures that can survive US sanctions power

With the key help and involvement of US corporations and capitalist interests - the main drivers of US governmental "stupidity", the major supporters of the Republican Party that is doing all these things you think are "stupid" and has been for decades now, the main enemies of US sanctions and trade restrictions, the main profiteers from US war.

These US corporations are global, and they are the major supporters of the US Republican Party currently in its fourth decade of increasing power and control over US foreign policy.

Do you really think these global corporations, based in the US and all but controlling US Federal and State governmental policy both foreign and domestic, are "stupid"?

All such structures have been developed and strengthened a lot during the last years, and they will not go away if the globalists take power in the US again.

Those are corporate globalist structures, consequences of the corporate globalists taking power in the US.
Living and learning about fascism.
- - -

882 3 wow

Repetition of debunked crap will not make it come true; and hiding behind the one line innuendo that has become the parrot's standard here no longer works for you - not about the Mueller report, not about AGW, not about any of these matters in which you guys have abandoned even the pretense of discussion or argument.

The people who have read the available Mueller report - with the redactions marked, notice - have a much better idea of what's in it than you have. They will tell you about what they have found in it, if they feel like it - you will not tell them, or anyone else, anything about it, because you have no idea.

 

[Schmelzer]

You just said you didn't. Internal matters, you called it.

Even if I don't care about cricket, I can nonetheless comment on some results of cricket games. Say, if for whatever reasons, the results matter.

Exxon's world projects are not doomed. Neither are Halliburton's, Cargill's, Amazon's, or those of the other global corporations based in the US. They have the US military on their side, and the corruption of foreign governments ready to hand - they don't need diplomacy, and they don't want US government interference.

Nonsense. If they don't want US government interference. they cannot use the US military. (They often want it and get it, all those regime change operations have some corporate interests behind it, as well as the actions against Iran and Venezuela as well as against North Stream 2. But these actions are not pure military actions, they need a lot of diplomatic power too.)

You said you didn't care, and explained that that's why you didn't know anything about them.

No. As described above: You only quote some text from the post you answer and add unproven (and wrong) fantasies about something else. I do not care about internal US policy. But about the foreign policy I care.

These US corporations are global, and they are the major supporters of the US Republican Party currently in its fourth decade of increasing power and control over US foreign policy.

Do you really think these global corporations, based in the US and all but controlling US Federal and State governmental policy both foreign and domestic, are "stupid"?

No. They have simply different interests. US world rule would be fine for them, but they don't want to pay for this. If they can make money, but as a side effect US power is damaged, so be it. US world power is, even for the big US corporations, a common good problem - if they can make extra profits harming it, they will do it.

So, it is really a good idea for you to fight corporate power. They do what they can to steal taxpayer's money for nothing, in particular for super-expensive weapons of questionable value. They do what they can to blackmail foreign countries with the help of the US government, even if it means to use US sanctions power to gain minor profits but destroying in this way the US sanctions power. They gain profits, so this is not stupid at all, for them. But the resulting loss of US power for essentially nothing is stupid, even from the point of view of the corporations as a class. But also for the US citizens, they will also lose some of their income without, say, the US dollar being the world reserve currency.

On the other hand, understanding that the US power is a common good for US corporations, I can predict that corporate power will diminish and destroy this US power. It is the same what happened in Yeltsin time, only with reversed direction: The US was happy with Russia being ruled by the oligarchs because this was a sure bet that Russia will be destroyed, and they are very unhappy now given that the oligarchs no longer rule, but that Russia is now ruled by the state. I'm similarly happy with the US ruled by the oligarchs because this will destroy the US power, and hope they succeed destroying the US power before some US Putin stops them.

Moreover, the corporations are not interested in a real war. All they are interested in are regime change operations if some local government hinders them by protecting own firms (so "free trade" is harmed) and sanction wars to harm their competitors.

 

[iceaura]

Even if I don't care about cricket, I can nonetheless comment on some results of cricket games. Say, if for whatever reasons, the results matter

Only if you know something about cricket.
You don't know anything about US "internal" politics.

If they don't want US government interference. they cannot use the US military

You poor innocent.
Living and learning about fascism.

I do not care about internal US policy. But about the foreign policy I care.

The foreign policy derives from the internal policy, in the US. You won't know anything about US foreign policy until you have learned where it comes from and what shapes it, which is US domestic politics and economics.

Moreover, the corporations are not interested in a real war. All they are interested in are regime change operations

As in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
So you no longer think these regime change operations are real wars?

I'm similarly happy with the US ruled by the oligarchs because this will destroy the US power, and hope they succeed destroying the US power before some US Putin stops them.

It will not destroy the US military power, or the corporations's economic power.

So, it is really a good idea for you to fight corporate power.

And for you. If they get their hands on the US military with a crippled US government at their command, their targets will be foreign.

But the resulting loss of US power for essentially nothing is stupid, even from the point of view of the corporations as a class.

The US will not lose military power, and the US corporations will not lose global economic power.
And yet you feel safer.

Living and learning about fascism.

 

[Schmelzer]

Only if you know something about cricket. You don't know anything about US "internal" politics.

Also if I simply accept what is claimed about the result of the game.

The result of the game was the Mueller report, and I have not made any claims in contradiction with it. I have quoted one person, with reference, who has read it (I would guess) about its content. Once the reputation of this person as well as the content of the claim has been questioned, I have not made further comments about this leaving this field to those who care. Finally, it looks like there was not enough evidence for that collusion, given that the Dems have chosen something else to start impeachment, but if they had made this choice for some other reasons, as you seem to think, this is not a problem for me too.

You won't know anything about US foreign policy until you have learned where it comes from and what shapes it, which is US domestic politics and economics.

Of course, such background knowledge could be sometimes helpful, but "you won't know anything" is a completely nonsensical exaggeration.

As in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
So you no longer think these regime change operations are real wars?

Four quite different cases. In Iran, there is no real war, there have been failed regime change operations. In Iraq, there was full scale war from the start. In Libya, there was a terrorist war from the start. In Syria, there was an initial failed attempt of a regime change operation, followed by a terrorist war.

Oil firms are, of course, interested in successful regime change operations. After this, they get all the permissions and contracts they like from the new government and can make profits in a peaceful environment. But they would be stupid if they would like terrorist wars. To make profits with oil, you need at least some security on the ground, which you don't have if there is an ongoing civil war as in Iraq, Syria or Libya. You can, say, steal some oil, as the US is doing now in Syria. It gives 30 Mio per month. This is extremely valuable for the CIA given that it is completely hidden from any control, thus, it can be used for extremely dirty operations without leaving dangerous paper traces. But in itself, it is not that much.

Those who can gain profits in states in a civil war are those who sell weapons. But the weapons sold there are not those giving US firms big profits, but good old cheap Soviet time weapons.

The clear interest behind all these wars is Israel. They like to see all the surrounding Arab states either controlled or destroyed.

It will not destroy the US military power, or the corporations's economic power.

It will destroy the part of the economic power based on blackmail from US diplomacy. Which does not make it into the media, like the wars, but is extremely important. Then, the profit from the dollar being the world reserve currency goes also to the corporations - as cheap credits, as well as the implicit "too big to fail" insurance behind them. If this is destroyed, the companies will lose the related economic power too. If the firms can get cheap credits only in Zimbabwe dollar and remain too big to fail only for a Zimbabwe economy, their power will be quite different, even with everything else remaining unchanged.

If they get their hands on the US military with a crippled US government at their command, their targets will be foreign.

Explain to me what corporations could gain from starting real wars. Instead of regime change operations and economic as well as sanction wars.

 

[Tiassa]

Also if I simply accept what is claimed about the result of the game.

I think you just need to stop making excuses.

Why not try getting a clue before you post?

 

[CptBork]

I think you just need to stop making excuses.

Why not try getting a clue before you post?

You need to translate that into Russian and clarify it for him, he thinks you're just telling him to double check his RT crystal ball first before barfing up more chunks of truth.

 

[CptBork]

The clear interest behind all these wars is Israel. They like to see all the surrounding Arab states either controlled or destroyed.

So did Israel tell Russia to bomb all the schools and hospitals and wreck Syria for the next half millenium, or was that just you guys doing what you've always done?

 

[Schmelzer]

The discussion degenerates completely. Tiassa mingles explanations with excuses (there is no reason for me to make excuses), and then the local Nazi did not even check that the discussion was about US foreign policy (which follows Israel tells) and not Russian foreign policy, and uses this to repeat once again primitive anti-Russian lies.

 

[CptBork]

The discussion degenerates completely. Tiassa mingles explanations with excuses (there is no reason for me to make excuses), and then the local Nazi did not even check that the discussion was about US foreign policy (which follows Israel tells) and not Russian foreign policy, and uses this to repeat once again primitive anti-Russian lies.

Oh so when I see photos and videos and read reports about how Russia now rules over a wasteland of rubble and debris in Syria, my eyes and ears are deceiving me? Who blew all that stuff up, was it ISIS with all the B-52's America loaned to them? But then you go and blame it all on tiny little Israel as well as attributing everything in American foreign policy to Israeli manipulation, yeah that's such an original non-Russian viewpoint there Siegfried.

Only an insecure ultranationalist Kremlin troll would be dumb enough to call someone a Nazi and then blame Israel for all of Russia's shortcomings in the same breath.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh so when I see photos and videos and read reports about how Russia now rules over a wasteland of rubble and debris in Syria, my eyes and ears are deceiving me?

If you read reports, these are the usual Western propaganda reports (at least you have never shown any evidence that you read something different), and their authors deceive you. (Maybe they are propaganda victims themselves, this does not change the fact that you are deceived.) Syrian looks in some parts indeed like a wasteland, but what do you expect after many years of war of the government against terrorists supported by the US?

Who blew all that stuff up, was it ISIS with all the B-52's America loaned to them?

Standard civil war, with the terrorists supported with money, weapons and ammunition from the US and its many allies. These terrorists have tanks, mortars, rocket launchers, artillery, drones, and a lot of ammunition for this. With this, all you need to create locally a wasteland is time. And there was enough time.

But then you go and blame it all on tiny little Israel as well as attributing everything in American foreign policy to Israeli manipulation, yeah that's such an original non-Russian viewpoint there Siegfried.

The terrorists located near the Israel border had full material support from Israel, inclusive weapons and ammunition, together with everything else that would be useful (food, medicine and so on). This support has been well documented after the Syrian army has taken these regions under control and found a lot of things in the camps and storehouses of these terrorists. So, here the interest is as well-defined as supported by evidence.
This makes a difference to the corporations blamed by iceaura for starting such things.

You are called Nazi for your primitive propaganda against Russian people (not simply the Russian government). I'm not a defender of Israel and I don't think it makes any sense to name those who criticize Israel antisemites or Nazis. This would be justified only if their attacks are directed against Jewish people, similar to your attacks against Russian people.

 

[iceaura]

Explain to me what corporations could gain from starting real wars

Money and power - that is mysterious to you?

Of course, such background knowledge could be sometimes helpful, but "you won't know anything" is a completely nonsensical exaggeration.

It's an observation.
US foreign policy derives from US domestic political circumstances, largely. You don't know anything about US domestic politics. So - - - - - -

It will destroy the part of the economic power based on blackmail from US diplomacy.

Peanuts, compared with what's possible via blackmail from US military force - or so think fascists. They'll certainly try.
And yet you feel safer.

Also if I simply accept what is claimed about the result of the game.

Claimed by who? You don't know whose claims to believe.

The result of the game was the Mueller report, and I have not made any claims in contradiction with it.

Sure you have. You just don't know what they are.
Starting with your claim that the Mueller report was "the result" - the Mueller report itself says different. And of course there's a long way to go yet - Mueller never deposed Trump or his progeny, for starters.

Oil firms are, of course, interested in successful regime change operations. After this, they get all the permissions and contracts they like from the new government and can make profits in a peaceful environment. But they would be stupid if they would like terrorist wars.

I don't know what they "like", and I don't know how important it is to them to avoid looking stupid to Schmelzer. I do know what they do, which so far involves fomenting armed conflict of all kinds involving Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, and anywhere else pipelines and gas and oil are prominent issues. They are major employers of mercenaries, bankrollers of paramilitaries, and starters of war in general. Plus they sell to the armies, on all sides if possible. They are all around beneficiaries of armed force, especially the ones on their side.

And I do know that many larger wars start more or less by accident from smaller conflicts not settled diplomatically - certainly the Iran/Iraq war was not intended to go as it did by the US backed Iraqi government that started it over oil, gas, and pipelines; the First Gulf War started over oil while being backed by US oil interests, before leading to the Iraq War in which the library in Baghdad was allowed to burn while the oil fields were zealously protected; and in general most wars start with a belief on at least one side that they will be low in casualties and over in short time.

Thing is: diplomacy is cheap - that means the poor have the resources to engage, to resist. War is expensive - which means it grants advantage to the rich. Big oil is rich. The US is rich. And now the Republicans are making progress on the destruction of diplomacy's restrictions - the US is becoming a one trick pony. Trump is threatening to send soldiers into Mexico, Venezuela, and half a dozen other countries.

 

[Schmelzer]

Money and power - that is mysterious to you?

This is what they would like to gain. The question is how a real war would help them to reach this.
War improves the power of the state. If corporations will gain some of this or will lose some of their power, is unclear, plausibly the rule that it is the state which gains power applies to the relations between the state and the corporations too. They gain money only if they produce what the state needs during a war. As explained, if the war is a cheap terror war, even the military-industrial complex will not gain much. Foreign trade tends to decline during big wars. This may be sometimes useful if the competitors are harmed more but this is not that probable - those who gain are usually those from third countries.

It's an observation.
US foreign policy derives from US domestic political circumstances, largely. You don't know anything about US domestic politics. So - - -

It's a claim made by iceaura, which is something completely different. Whatever, in the worst case I don't know some explanations why the US foreign policy is as insane as it is. This is far from being the most important thing. In fact, there are a lot of other things influencing US foreign policy. Starting from education (in a country with education in decline the quality of foreign policy will probably in decline too) corruption (with increasing corruption, a high military budget does not mean that much),

Peanuts, compared with what's possible via blackmail from US military force - or so think fascists. They'll certainly try.
And yet you feel safer.

Up to now, Trump has tried military blackmail three times - against NK, Iran, and Venezuela. All three times it has given nothing. Moreover. even for the US blackmail with military force is not that easy, it needs some propaganda preparation for some time, and usually, this propaganda is accompanied with sanctions. So the US firms have no direct actual economic interest in these states - if they want to sanction out competitors from this state, this is already done, if they want to gain access to that market, they would not be interested in those sanctions to start with. So it remain that they would really like to grab.

Claimed by who? You don't know whose claims to believe.

By different sources, if there is no disagreement between them. One starts with one, and those who know about their unreliability will tell this if necessary. In a civilized discussion, you would have mentioned that Barr is unreliable, and after this, this would have been forgotten.

Sure you have. You just don't know what they are.
Starting with your claim that the Mueller report was "the result" - the Mueller report itself says different.

If you want to play such word games, this is not worth to look at.

I don't know what they "like", and I don't know how important it is to them to avoid looking stupid to Schmelzer. I do know what they do, which so far involves fomenting armed conflict of all kinds involving Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, and anywhere else pipelines and gas and oil are prominent issues. They are major employers of mercenaries, bankrollers of paramilitaries, and starters of war in general. Plus they sell to the armies, on all sides if possible. They are all around beneficiaries of armed force, especially the ones on their side.

Pipelines may be prominent issues, but where are the results? There are the pipelines built by victorious US oil firms after the great victories of the US army?

The mercenaries are a different issue, as well as the bankrolling for terrorists. Both get paid for what they do mainly by the government. Beyond the transfer of money to family members of corrupt politicians, such firms are comfortable for the government too. These corporations are by necessity very close to the government but not really big power themselves, except if the chiefs are powerful as politicians too.

And I do know that many larger wars start more or less by accident from smaller conflicts not settled diplomatically -

Of course, good diplomacy is a very useful thing and can reach a lot for quite low costs. But good diplomacy is already non-existent in the US for quite a long time now. US diplomacy today is nothing but a tool for blackmail and organizing color revolutions. So, further weakening this "diplomacy" is not a loss for peace.

 

[Seattle]

Schmeizer, all of your comments aren't inaccurate but some are. I think the biggest misconception on your part is the way that corporations work in the U.S. vs Russia.

Putin effectively controls most corporations in Russia or a least no successful corporation is going to be going against any of his policies.

In the U.S., the corporations have more power in many ways than the President and Congress. It takes a lot of money to run for office and politicians are always running for office. The corporations "donate" to their campaigns and this gives them access to the politicians who end up writing the laws/regulations favorable to those corporations.

We don't really go to war because that's what the corporations want. That's just Iceaura nonsense. We go to war because "we" think it's in our best interest (and it never is). It's our role as the "world's policeman". I'm not implying that this is the way it should be but it is the logic behind the way things currently work.

There used to be more diplomacy as well but now politicians just go for the easy and quick solution which is to threaten military intervention, maybe use some economic sanctions and if that doesn't work...armed conflict. We do it because we can, in effect.

There is some logic to it. We keep the shipping lanes open and we keep other countries from disrupting business. We also keep conflicts in other countries rather than on our soil. We just over do it. Once there is a war, of course some defense companies do well but even without war the defense companies do well. As long as we maintain a large military spread out all over the world the defense companies will do well, even without actual armed conflicts.

They just lobby politicians to not reduce the size of our military. Reducing the size of our military is the only thing that would really hurt them.

It's easy to get into a war and hard to get out. That's really the explanation.

It's not as simple as saying that whatever the U.S. does is for the benefit of the corporations but it's also not as simple as saying that the corporations just follow the government around waiting for handouts.

Much U.S. business is outside of government contracts whereas most of Russia's income is from oil and gas. The President also can't directly tell the corporations what to do in the way that Putin can.

Yes, Iceaura gets bogged down picking apart words. That's just his OCD kicking in. I think you've got a lot right in your views of the U.S. but your mistakes tend to come from assuming that the U.S. works just like Russia. It doesn't.

 

[Schmelzer]

Putin effectively controls most corporations in Russia or a least no successful corporation is going to be going against any of his policies.

In an ideal state, corporations have nothing to do in politics. They have to accept the laws as they are and to follow them.

Putin's aim is to create a rule of law in Russia. This is a long process, given the completely failed, essentially lawless state after the Yeltsin rule, but there was a lot of anarchy/lawlessness even in the communist time, simply traditional. But a key point was to get rid of the oligarch's power in politics. Putin strongly opposed any political influence of the oligarchs - that was the deal, you stay completely out of politics, follow the laws and pay taxes, and we will not persecute what has been done during the lawless Yeltsin time.

On the other hand, if the oligarchs follow the laws and stay out of politics, they are quite free to do what they like. Where more control is necessary, say in the military industry or key industries like oil, the way to control this is via the state ownership of shares of key companies.
There was even some sort of renationalization of some key industries, by buying back some shares/stocks. So, the state sector is quite large in Russia.

We keep the shipping lanes open and we keep other countries from disrupting business.

Except that other countries interpret this differently, namely that the US keeps shipping lanes under control to be able to close them and disrupt business themselves whenever they like. This is the whole point for China fighting for at least some islands in the critical areas so that the US cannot prevent Chinese access to the ocean completely. The same problem forces Russia not to return four islands of Southern Kuriles to Japan. They would not care about the islands themselves, but having US bases there would allow the US to close the Russian access from Vladivostok to the ocean.

whereas most of Russia's income is from oil and gas.

In fact, this part is overestimated. The basic error is that the income from export is mingled with the whole production of the country. In particular, the reason is that Russia is (in comparison with other states) extremely independent of foreign trade. Most of the things used by the population are produced in Russia. Especially for weapons, Russia cares a lot about producing everything they need themselves. And they also care a lot about strategic dependencies. So, in particular, about food security, about energy security, so even the worst case of a sanction war against Russia would fail.
So, of course, Russia has a nice income from oil and gas, but even if this income would disappear completely Russia would not go bankrupt.

 

[Seattle]

In an ideal state, corporations have nothing to do in politics. They have to accept the laws as they are and to follow them.

Putin's aim is to create a rule of law in Russia. This is a long process, given the completely failed, essentially lawless state after the Yeltsin rule, but there was a lot of anarchy/lawlessness even in the communist time, simply traditional. But a key point was to get rid of the oligarch's power in politics. Putin strongly opposed any political influence of the oligarchs - that was the deal, you stay completely out of politics, follow the laws and pay taxes, and we will not persecute what has been done during the lawless Yeltsin time.

On the other hand, if the oligarchs follow the laws and stay out of politics, they are quite free to do what they like. Where more control is necessary, say in the military industry or key industries like oil, the way to control this is via the state ownership of shares of key companies.
There was even some sort of renationalization of some key industries, by buying back some shares/stocks. So, the state sector is quite large in Russia.

Except that other countries interpret this differently, namely that the US keeps shipping lanes under control to be able to close them and disrupt business themselves whenever they like. This is the whole point for China fighting for at least some islands in the critical areas so that the US cannot prevent Chinese access to the ocean completely. The same problem forces Russia not to return four islands of Southern Kuriles to Japan. They would not care about the islands themselves, but having US bases there would allow the US to close the Russian access from Vladivostok to the ocean.

In fact, this part is overestimated. The basic error is that the income from export is mingled with the whole production of the country. In particular, the reason is that Russia is (in comparison with other states) extremely independent of foreign trade. Most of the things used by the population are produced in Russia. Especially for weapons, Russia cares a lot about producing everything they need themselves. And they also care a lot about strategic dependencies. So, in particular, about food security, about energy security, so even the worst case of a sanction war against Russia would fail.
So, of course, Russia has a nice income from oil and gas, but even if this income would disappear completely Russia would not go bankrupt.

You make some good points. However the downside of corporations not having undue influence as they have in the U.S., is that no one other than Putin has any influence. It's a little too authoritarian for my tastes. That's one of the problems of having Trump as President.

Russian is the biggest country on Earth by size although much of it is sparsely populated yet its economy is only about the size of the economy of Texas. As a country it is a relatively poor country.

It doesn't export a lot because (other than oil, gas and military equipment) it doesn't make a lot that would be marketable elsewhere. An inordinate amount of its economy goes to the military rather than to the people.

There is no history of the U.S. closing shipping lanes. China and Russia would be far more likely to do something like that if they could. Putin is far more interested in "making Russia great again" for his own ego/power than in improving the economy for the average Russian citizen.

 

[Schmelzer]

However the downside of corporations not having undue influence as they have in the U.S., is that no one other than Putin has any influence.

The picture of Putin as a dictator is essentially Western propaganda. Putin's aim is that those instances of the state which, according to the constitution, should have a particular power, really take this power, essentially transforming the deep state into a state of law.

Russian is the biggest country on Earth by size although much of it is sparsely populated yet its economy is only about the size of the economy of Texas. As a country it is a relatively poor country.

Poor is already an exaggeration. This was justified during the Yeltsin time when Russia was full of street kids. Today it is not yet rich, there is yet some difference to Europe, but they are no longer poor. They look much poorer than they are if compared in dollar instead of PPP because the ruble is made weak for political reasons.

It doesn't export a lot because (other than oil, gas and military equipment) it doesn't make a lot that would be marketable elsewhere. An inordinate amount of its economy goes to the military rather than to the people.

Russia has a long territorial border, bordering with many different countries. So it needs a good military to defend it. The US would not need that much, bordering only with two countries, one of which with a quite close culture, thus, hardly an enemy, and the other one too poor to be dangerous from a military point of view. To spend a lot for the military but to control, in exchange, a quite large territory with a lot of natural resources is a quite natural strategy.

There is no history of the U.S. closing shipping lanes. China and Russia would be far more likely to do something like that if they could.

The US oil embargo against Japan which essentially motivated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor is sufficiently close to this. Actually, the US occupies the Al Tanf border crossing between Iraq and Syria, with the aim to prevent trade between Iran and Syria. And the various US sanction wars start going insane.

Russia and China do not even build a navy that would be able to do such things, they simply have no such interest.

 

[Seattle]

The picture of Putin as a dictator is essentially Western propaganda. Putin's aim is that those instances of the state which, according to the constitution, should have a particular power, really take this power, essentially transforming the deep state into a state of law.

How long is Putin permitted to serve and who can run against him (and live)?