 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
It's obvious and known that Russian Central Bank is an appendage of FRS in certain respects. It could only be legally nationalized through parliament and when said law was after 2 years (maximum amount of delay for a totally sponsored law) finally brought to a vote - most of parliamentaries didn't go to work that day (including communist party iirc). They can't really do that without serious follow-up and the fact that they chose that day to do that en masse should show you how independent their voting really is. There is "no quorum" hole in legislative process and that basically lead to that law to get scrapped. Note that other controvesial laws are basically denied by vote, but not in this way.
That goes back to common concept of 2 major political forces in Russia - liberals and enforcers - as they may be called. Former are who created Russia out of USSR in its deranged shape. Their goal is to sell everything to the west and forget about it. Latter are those who were basically against dismantling of USSR yet don't try to restore it but rather tend to accumulate power in their own hands for their own benefit - as to oppose global elites.
So in a sense it is a choice between 2 evils. Only Enforcers we can deal with after waking up takes its turn, while liberal position presents us with no future whatsoever.
There maybe are other players here, but events suggest this concept to be more or less representative of political situation here. Now - Putin and his closest team, such as FA minister Lavrov and ES minister Shoigu and such - are enforcers while people like Finance minister or Economy minister - are all liberals. Naturally Putin would be against any global anti-sovereign initiative by any kind of shadow government cause that first and foremost - leaves him with much less power.
2. As for any beneficial global initiative - I don't know. I would bet on not joining anything strong beyond our control, whether gold is involved or not. That requires trusting the other party - something we simply can not afford, or at least I'd think we can not.
3. As for latest operations, if you mean military - I have a point to say about emerging topic of Kurdistan. I think it is a western trap. We can't back either pro or contra position actively. Supporting Kurdistan means alienating everyone in the region, especially cause everyone would think that if not for us - it wouldn't even happen. On the hand preventing Kurdistan will be obviously spun as suppression of freedom. In reality it a matter for local referendums.
Last edited on Fri Feb 12th, 2016 08:14 pm by