The Future of Russia and China?

Beer w/Straw said:
Lie.
Click to expand...
the ruble has gained most of its value back but its still weaker than it was back in January. its mostly rebounded due to extreme capital restrictions. there is a limit to how long they can hold the ruble up. shelves are empty and people are being laid off.
 
sculptor said:
Why do you think that?
The ruble today is about where it was in January.
Click to expand...

Russia is living off the income(and funding the attack on Ukraine) from gas, oil & coal exports to UK & Europe
300 million dollars per day
when that tap of money is turned off they will lose their primary income and the ruble will collapse
 
Quantum Quack said:
It could be argued that one of the most important protocol difference between the USA, Russian and Chinese governmental systems is the duration of which a President can lead for.

In the USA, I believe it is for two terms, thus limiting the amount of time the government conforms to a presidential influence. In Russia and China there appears no limit other than the presidents mortality and will as to how long the relevant governments conform to his/her influence.

As witnessed over history when a dictator falls, dies or is other wise disposed of, the country he had been in control of tends to disintegrate. A good example would be the consequences of the death of the President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia as President between 1953 until his death in 1980 (88).

The break up of the Yugoslavia was devastating yet entirely necessary as like most dictators Tito failed to allow for appropriate succession.

Given the situation in Ukraine currently it is easy to forget that the Russian president is indeed mortal and appears to have no specific nor published plan for succession however Russia today is much of Putin's (69) making and I wonder what will happen when he is no longer in control.

The same could be said for the leadership of Xi Jinping (68) whom exerts a tremendous influence on the Chinese systems of Government and people.

Perhaps we all can do with a reminder that Putin And Xi are both mortal and do have a limited life span and that the issue is about ongoing local and global stability when allowing one person to be so influential over such extended time and that person is no longer able to perform their duties.

Erdagon (67) of Turkey and a few others come to mind as well.

The USA on the other hand sacrifices a degree of political stability for fixed terms and thus is able to avoid being considered as a dictatorship. Perhaps a small degree of instability is better for stable continuation of a constitution devoted government over the longer term?

Ukraine:
I wonder if Putin has seriously considered what happens to Ukraine after he has destroyed most of it's infrastructure and housing. Has he considered the legacy he will leave for the Russian people after he leaves the leadership when the inevitable demand for reparations are made in the next 10-20 years or so or sooner and thus demonstrating the true cost of this futile Ukraine war to the Russian people he is supposedly serving.


Car to discuss?
Click to expand...

It's always interesting when a dictator dies but China has been full of dictators and it hasn't disintegrated yet.

Russia has always been ruled by an authoritarian hand as well.

Iraq and Libya fell apart but that's hardly a good example of what would occur in Russia or China.

I do think that whoever comes after Putin is likely to be better than Putin. China is going to be China regardless of who the leader is.

Compared to the West, China has never been particularly expansionist. The current leadership is more outwardly aggressive due to their growing economic might but it's still a regional thing. Their continued economic might isn't a given either.

Putin is only relying on Russia's potential threat as a nuclear power. They don't really have anything else going for them and they are dangerous for that reason. China isn't going to launch nukes on the U.S. I'm sure they have too many internal controls for that.

With Putin, who knows? Putin and Kim of North Korea have more in common.
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
Putin is only relying on Russia's potential threat as a nuclear power. They don't really have anything else going for them and they are dangerous for that reason. China isn't going to launch nukes on the U.S. I'm sure they have too many internal controls for that.

With Putin, who knows? Putin and Kim of North Korea have more in common.
Click to expand...
I agree, as it stands the nuclear deployment threat is minimal. However in the future given the power of these dictators and those that follow, that potential is unknown and essentially unknowable. The checks and balances that are in place can be eroded over time and deployment of nuclear arsenals can become entirely at the whim (sanity) of the dictator of the time.
Part of the problem I guess with having WMD's is that while the present time may be relatively stable things can change very quickly.
By ensuring the leadership must change every 8 years (at the least) prevents the leader in power from entrenching his influence in the rank and file, (party, military) thus minimizing the corruption he may inspire. It also means that he would be less likely to commit crimes, crimes ( human rights, war crimes etc) that he could be judged (ICC?) on because he would loose his presidential immunity upon leaving office. Knowing that he can not be removed from office, constitutionally would tend to increase his disposition towards committing crimes he feel she will never bear the consequences of, and force him to fight to maintain his power base to avoid such. ?
Putin has secured the capacity to stay in leadership for virtually as long as he wishes to and the more he is accused of high crimes the more likely he will fight to stay in power one would think.
Xi is a slightly different case but only because he is a very different personality to that of Putin's. Otherwise the potential is very similar. IMO

I believe Putin and Xi have both managed to change their respective constitutions and even though they may be relatively benign the leaders that follow will already have the extended terms of office in mind before they take the helm and may tend to make full use of their indefinite tenure..
 
Quantum Quack said:
I agree, as it stands the nuclear deployment threat is minimal. However in the future given the power of these dictators and those that follow, that potential is unknown and essentially unknowable. The checks and balances that are in place can be eroded over time and deployment of nuclear arsenals can become entirely at the whim (sanity) of the dictator of the time.
Part of the problem I guess with having WMD's is that while the present time may be relatively stable things can change very quickly.
By ensuring the leadership must change every 8 years (at the least) prevents the leader in power from entrenching his influence in the rank and file, (party, military) thus minimizing the corruption he may inspire. It also means that he would be less likely to commit crimes, crimes ( human rights, war crimes etc) that he could be judged (ICC?) on because he would loose his presidential immunity upon leaving office. Knowing that he can not be removed from office, constitutionally would tend to increase his disposition towards committing crimes he feel she will never bear the consequences of, and force him to fight to maintain his power base to avoid such. ?
Putin has secured the capacity to stay in leadership for virtually as long as he wishes to and the more he is accused of high crimes the more likely he will fight to stay in power one would think.
Xi is a slightly different case but only because he is a very different personality to that of Putin's. Otherwise the potential is very similar. IMO

I believe Putin and Xi have both managed to change their respective constitutions and even though they may be relatively benign the leaders that follow will already have the extended terms of office in mind before they take the helm and may tend to make full use of their indefinite tenure..
Click to expand...

I agree that shorter terms would be best but that's not how dictators operator so what you are really saying it's that it would be best if there were no dictators and of course no one disagrees with that.
 
Seattle said:
I agree that shorter terms would be best but that's not how dictators operator so what you are really saying it's that it would be best if there were no dictators and of course no one disagrees with that.
Click to expand...
Not quite. What I am saying is that tolerating a dictatorship such as Putin's may lead to huge problems with his successor, who ever that may be. Same with any incumbent dictator.
The cost of "making a pact with the devil" could be considerably higher than anticipated.

Making a pact with the devil:
It's a bit like doing business with a nation that has no regard or value for international law and thinking the credit you extend is somehow secure. or
Deluded capitalistic prostitution, in the name of greed leading to getting bit on the bum.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Not quite. What I am saying is that tolerating a dictatorship such as Putin's may lead to huge problems with his successor, who ever that may be. Same with any incumbent dictator.
The cost of "making a pact with the devil" could be considerably higher than anticipated.

Making a pact with the devil:
It's a bit like doing business with a nation that has no regard or value for international law and thinking the credit you extend is somehow secure. or
Deluded capitalistic prostitution, in the name of greed leading to getting bit on the bum.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, IMO, you have to deal with the world as it is. Also there is no point to making the lives of the people who live under a dictatorship even worse. The ban on Cuba didn't really change anything and only made the lives of the people worse.

I do think that Europe (Germany in particular) made the mistake of relying too heavily on Russian gas.

I don't see where "capitalism" is the problem here. Arguing against dictatorships and capitalism in the same sentence doesn't make much sense, to me. Capitalism and dictatorships generally don't go together all that well although China is trying to make that work I guess.

I also don't get the arguments when people argue against capitalism when they live under a capitalist system and capitalism is really all that exists anywhere outside of a few authoritarian regimes.

Without nuclear weapons though, Russia would be inconsequential.
 
Seattle said:
I don't see where "capitalism" is the problem here. Arguing against dictatorships and capitalism in the same sentence doesn't make much sense, to me. Capitalism and dictatorships generally don't go together all that well although China is trying to make that work I guess.
Click to expand...
I was referring to how in the name of capitalism (greed) serious compromising of principles occurs. Like major USA, European companies investing in Russia when it is known that the Russian Government has dubious integrity and values. I guess these companies/Nations will suffer their enormous losses as a result of doing so... hence "Making a pact with the devil"...is indeed relevant.
Perhaps the world has a lesson to be learned about such compromises?

Example:
Over 200 political prisoners, fully censored media, rigged elections with out any opposition, human rights abuses etc and still decide to become dependent on Russian Gas and oil.
Obviously any arrangement made would be tenuous and high risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top