Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WillieTee who wrote (14803)	9/21/2009 10:33:26 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 24758

Money is an abstraction to Putin. He wants to transcend ownership of things. He wants to control everything.

To: WillieTee who wrote (14803)	9/21/2009 11:31:28 AM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

Putin is already a billionaire All $billionaires put much greater effort into getting more $billions than they did in getting the first $billion. My guess is that he would like to reassemble a portion of the USSR, Launch war on the Ukraine with its 1000 nukes? or at least the areas that the Czars ruled, as well as possible indirect control of the oil producing regions in Central Asia. Not possible. all the 'stans have nukes not under Russian control. One of the reasons for the Bush proposed ABM in Eastern Europe was to show US support for the newly free governments in that region. Who will be fooled? The purpose of the missile system was purportedly to shield much of Europe from radical Islamic states missile launching, but is that realistic, or is it merely psychological? One must recall what US did in compensation to appease USSR when US demanded USSR take missiles out of Cuba. Similarly, Russia has announced they won't install a counter missile missile system. By cancelling the system confrontation has been reduced. Seems of more psychological value than building weapons that could be aimed in the other direction. Poland and the Czechs saw that intention and strongly welcomed it. The idea of NATO expansion was to directly counter Russian attempts at future control of that region. We also maintain(ed) bases in the oilandgas-istans with the intention of hoping that a US presence would allow them to maintain their independence. This sounds like McNamarism or strategic containment. Who wants to invade those countries and why? Those two look for pork barrel projects. Maybe the two should request the funds slated for missiles to convert swords to plowshares. Everyone benfits then and materially. Besides, they're both covered by NATO unavoidably. The US used to have hundreds of B52s in air space above the northern hemisphere at all times in order to thwart the (inevitable) nuclear attack from USSR. It made no sense. A waste of fuel. Threatened to provoke the very thing it was intended to prevent. Marginal neutralization to defuse marginal expansionism? It was MAD. O&G isn't that valuable. Taking giant strategic risks to create the impression that one can impose one's will on oil field regions, has no force since it's only a bluff. That's the wrong war to fight. It's a psychological war of the past that just squanders resources based on silly and unfounded fear or unrealistic possibilities. I keep telling people that Saudi Arabia, alone, can flood the world with oil, basically indefinitely. CIA knows this. KGB knows this. It would be like going to war over the imagined threat that some country can cut off your air supply.