Daca cineva o sa atace, aia o sa fie ei. Nu Rusia, nu Iran-ul, nu nimeni.
La 2008-02-28 21:26:56, gold a scris:
> In caz ca Iranul sau Rusia vor incepe un razboi cum sustin
> americani,ca de aceea construiesc radarul din Cehia si baza de rachete
> din Polonia . Ma intreb ?Oare unde vor lovi prima data nu in Cehia si
> celelalte tari Europene iar americani se vor uita la televizor cum
> murim noi ca niste prosti.
>
|
La 2008-02-28 21:26:56, gold a scris:
> In caz ca Iranul sau Rusia vor incepe un razboi cum sustin
> americani,ca de aceea construiesc radarul din Cehia si baza de rachete
> din Polonia . Ma intreb ?Oare unde vor lovi prima data nu in Cehia si
> celelalte tari Europene iar americani se vor uita la televizor cum
> murim noi ca niste prosti.
Dormi linistit,Rusia nu are resurse sa inceapa un razboi!
Failures:
1. Inability to become the top partner of close neighbors such as China and India. Russia's economy was not strong enough to become the leading influence even in countries that would have welcomed this. The era of unions formed for political reasons is over, and the ability of business to become a competitive leader in foreign markets is now crucial.
Russian business has neither the experience nor the resources for attaining this goal. Russia is not the top partner for any of its main economic partners (such as Germany and China, as well as the CIS, notably Kazakhstan). At best, it is one of their 10 largest partners. This has weakened Russia's ties, including political ones, with these states.
2. Inability to become a global leader in lifestyle, culture and arts. This is not only a failure of Russian foreign policy. We must admit that Russia today cannot do what the Soviet Union did in the sphere of winning hearts and minds abroad. The territory in which the Russian-language is spoken is shrinking, and the prestige of Russian culture and arts abroad is declining.
In this sphere Russia's foreign policy (or rather, related sectors) is lagging far behind many other countries, which have a multitude of technologies to promote their cultures beyond their national borders.
3. Inability to elaborate an effective policy of relations with the Russian diaspora abroad. New ideas appeared in that sphere in the early 1980s, but to this day the millions of Russians living abroad have not become drivers of Russia's development in economic and other spheres, unlike the Chinese and Indian diasporas.
4. Loss of influence in Georgia and Ukraine. Moscow proved unable to mobilize the seemingly huge resources of goodwill in neighboring states, including those with a large ethnic Russian population. Moreover, it has taken actions that worsened the position of its supporters in those countries, and the situation was further complicated by the successful actions of its opponents. It apparently caught the "American disease" - an over zealous feeling of righteousness and renewed strength. A stark example is sanctions against Georgia, which infuriated Georgians, even those who were dissatisfied with their government's policies.
5. Defeat on the market for military-technical cooperation (Algeria, India). During the 1990s, this sphere of international cooperation kept afloat nearly half of Russia's foreign policy, notably its relations with countries with which trade was lagging, such as China. It was seen as the core of a new model for foreign trade based on the export of technologies rather than raw materials.
The volume of military exports increased in the early 2000s, but other arms suppliers also stepped up competition. However, this cannot be said to be the only reason that buyers of Russian-made weapons and equipment often refuse to take delivery of them and complain of unjustified delays.
The never-ending reforms in the sector have not brought the desired goal of improving the prestige of Russian-made weapons any closer. |
Nr. 4170 de joi, 28 februarie 2008
STS intra la apa (2586 afisari) 
