The conditions of an economy (i.e. "in tumult") and the structure of an economy (i.e. "state owned") are two different things. By nearly all indicators of a healthy economy (e.g. GDP), the Russian economy has significantly improved since 1994, your bias notwithstanding.Originally Posted by Outlaw
I've already answered this question.Originally Posted by outlaw
It sounds like bureaucracy.Originally Posted by outlaw
So a country needs to offer something to the "global market" for you to consider it a rational actor with clearly defined interests that should be considered when making policy towards said country?Originally Posted by outlaw
I've already answered that question.Originally Posted by outlaw
Are you going to accuse me of being a Russian plant next? Anyway - you're confusing arguments here. Understanding Russia's arguments is not the same as accepting them. And if "simply [giving] the entire Ukraine to [Putin]" advanced U.S. security, it's not something I would dismiss from consideration (and to be clear in case you misinterpret my comments again, I don't think that 'solution' would advance U.S. or even Russian security).Originally Posted by outlaw
I agree - my comments were directed at Outlaw, who seems fixated on destroying Russia.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Bookmarks