![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Because Vladimir Putin has less money to play with now than the Soviet Union did 25 years ago, and that's *before* you take inflation into account.
Because Vladimir Putin has less money to play with now than the Soviet Union did 25 years ago, and that's *before* you take inflation into account.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-03 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-03 06:21 pm (UTC)By comparison Russia now has a GDP of c$2.2trn, and spends 4.4%.They're no threat. Really.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 10:30 pm (UTC)They also seem to have lost their Bond villain privileges.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-03 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 09:32 am (UTC)It's not like it is with their home banks.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 04:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 03:09 pm (UTC)Their bases already cost enough.
And if the American people are willing in their economical crisis to support another war while the state cuts anything else of public life down...
no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-04 10:22 pm (UTC)The recent banking crisis in Cyprus is instructive: the Russian government intervened to protect participants in large-scale money-laundering and tax evasion. It was never about 'deposits' and certainly not about 'foreign investment': the money churning through those banks was (and still is) somewhere between a quarter and a half of Russia's non-mineral GDP.
You might want to think about that: a government colluding in economic warfare against their own country's economy.
The really big stuff goes through London's banking institutions by way of Britain's overseas dependencies. Big enough amounts to distort an entire country's currency and the economy (and almost incidentally, the capital's property market); large enough that the cash flow is both known to and condoned by the governments of both countries, down to the last signature, certificate, and football club. It can safely be assumed that all concerned are known and trusted as supporters of their respective regimes.
Supporters, financial contributors, and members.
Who would make 'war' by economic means on whom?
no subject
Date: 2014-03-05 09:08 am (UTC)