I did not mean that Russia should get more territory but that I it has too much of it, which is a drain on its economy.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM, JOANNA A. <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I didn't mean that Russia could get more territory. I meant that oil would
> get more expensive, which helps Russia.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Joanna: " But I do chuckle at the fact that every U.S. mistake makes Russia
> stronger."
>
> [WS:] Not really. Russia is struggling under its own weight and what the
> US does has very little to do with it. It is Reaganite propaganda that
> falsely takes credit for "defeating the evil empire". In reality, Russia
> swallowed more territory than it could effectively control, and that was
> its main problem. Randall Collins (_Weberian Sociological Theory_ chapter
> 8) convincingly argued that in 1986 - when most pundits were clueless about
> upcoming changes. His argument is that territorial control offers an
> advantage that countervailed by the cost of military control of that
> territory, which in turn depends on geopolitics. Russian territorial grab
> was an advantage in the 18th and 19th centuries, but ceased to be so in the
> 20th century. It therefore made sense for them to dump not only their
> third world satellites, but also internally colonized territories, the
> "stans", the Baltics, Mongolia, and Eastern Europe. It cost them more to
> control these lands than any benefits they could derive from them.
>
> In the 21 century, the first world countries do not need to militarily
> control third world countries to get what they want. They can buy what
> they want with their pocket change, and third world leaders are lining up
> hats in hand to offer their good to the first world markets. It is the
> economic Minotaur, if you will. The Russians finally caught up with it and
> gave up their 19th century geopolitics. The problem is that they still
> have a lot of baggage which they cannot easily dump.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:33 PM, JOANNA A. <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > . It's a Reagan thing. Obama has no big picture but he has a
> > committee of big picture types and he is trying to sort out a `consensus'
> > big picture. Unfortunately, there is no big picture collage that seems to
> > make sense, hence the foot dragging on every important issue. So whatever
> > the decision, it won't make sense, because there is no sense to be made.
> >
> > CG
> > ___________________________________
> >
> > There's no big picture except war profiteering. But I do chuckle at the
> > fact that every U.S. mistake makes Russia stronger.
> >
> > Joanna
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."