Why Iran's war with Azerbaijan and Turkey is beneficial for Russia

October 4 2021 188

Another war is outlined in Transcaucasia. This time, Iran will oppose the alliance between Azerbaijan and Turkey. Why did Tehran suddenly fall out with its closest neighbors, and how could this conflict be beneficial to Moscow?

As we have told Previously, the Islamic Republic has conducted the largest military exercises in the north of the country in the past few decades. Tanks, other armored vehicles, MLRS, aviation are pulled up to the border of Azerbaijan. Iranian propagandists are threatening Baku with thousands of rockets. What is it all about? Because of the "road tax" in the amount of several hundred dollars for a truck imposed by Azerbaijani border guards on a highway seized during the last Nagorno-Karabakh war? Of course not. The reasons for a new armed conflict are much more serious.

"Nuclear Deal"?

This reason lies on the surface. After the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the international agreement with Iran on limiting the military component of its nuclear program, Tehran has consistently begun to increase the volume of uranium enrichment. According to experts, Iranian nuclear scientists are literally one step away from obtaining weapons-grade uranium. This means that the Islamic Republic is likely to acquire its first atomic bomb in the foreseeable future. What will this mean for the region, and how should Russia treat this turn of events?

On the one hand, how are we told Earlier, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran is in a sense even beneficial to us. The United States will receive another image "slap in the face", and its ally Israel will have to restrain the aggressive policies in relation to their neighbors. The Americans and Israelis will have to invest heavily in building a layered missile defense system in the region. It is good to indirectly force potential opponents to spend capital and constantly be on their toes. Iran's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal will protect it from the constant threat of attacks from the United States and Israel and allow it to pursue an independent policy. This means the emergence of another large truly sovereign state and the final collapse of the unipolar world.

On the other hand, if Tehran gets nuclear weapons, Ankara will immediately try to acquire them. President Erdogan has already spoken out on this topic, however, regarding the Israeli nuclear arsenal hypocritically hidden by Tel Aviv. Turkey's partner in the nuclear weapons project can be a friendly Pakistan. (Note that such a scenario is highly undesirable for the national interests of the Russian Federation).

Why are we talking about the Iranian nuclear deal in relation to the situation on the border of the Islamic Republic? Because there is a non-zero probability that the territory of Azerbaijan can be used by Israel or even the United States to carry out air terrorist attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Here it would be appropriate to quote the pro-government Azerbaijani edition Azeri Times:

Those who are worried about a possible Iranian attack on Azerbaijan should know that any attack on Azerbaijan has a real potential to involve regional and global superpowers ... Such a scenario would be the only opportunity in life for global superpowers to attack.

Here's how. Has Baku already undertaken to frighten Tehran with some "global superpower"? And the regional one, therefore, is Turkey, the US ally in the NATO bloc? It turns out that Azerbaijan has finally made its choice in favor of the North Atlantic Alliance and can no longer be considered a neutral state. Let's remember this.

"Turkic NATO"?

We have repeatedly told about the threats posed to Russia by the pan-Turkist integration project that Ankara is actively promoting in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. The last unpleasant and extremely disturbing news there was information that Turkmenistan suddenly decided to abandon its policy of neutrality and join the Turkic Council under the auspices of Turkey. It is very sad that Ashgabat also made a choice not in favor of the CSTO, but turned to the West. Both coasts of the Caspian Sea will soon be at hand of "Sultan" Erdogan.

However, an important nuance lies in the fact that the "Central Asian NATO" equally poses a threat not only to northern Russia, but also to Iran located to the south of it. Almost a third of the population of the Islamic Republic is ethnic Azerbaijanis. If "Great Turan" takes place, then separatism in the northern regions of Iran will be a matter of time. It so happened that Moscow and Tehran were in the same boat, and the latter began to act proactively. By concentrating its troops on the border with Azerbaijan, Iran can bring them into the territory of the Syunik corridor of Armenia, again cutting off Nakhichevan and Turkey from the main territory of Azerbaijan. Thus, Tehran can nullify the results of the successes of the alliance between Baku and Ankara in the recent Nagorno-Karabakh war. Since there is no land corridor between the two strategic allies, then there will be no access for the Turks to the Caspian Sea, there will be no naval base there, etc.

Strictly speaking, in this context, the Islamic Republic, defending its national interests, objectively turns out to be an ally of Russia. Both Moscow and Tehran are equally interested in laying siege to Ankara. Let us recall our assumptions that the construction and launch of a railway from Iran through Iraq to Syria will be beneficial for Russia as well, since we will be able to get an alternative supply channel for our military group in the SAR bypassing the Turkish straits. The bottom line is that the maximum Russian interests in the region coincide precisely with those of Iran. Anyway, at this stage.

188 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

-9

4 October 2021 12: 19

Yes, because there is a non-zero probability that the territory of Azerbaijan can be used by Israel or even the United States to carry out air terrorist attacks to Iran's nuclear facilities.

Why is the term "terrorist attack" used? Terrorism is violent action against civilians in order to intimidate the population and use this fear to solve political problems. For example, the hostage-taking in Beslan is, yes, an act of terrorism.

An air raid on a military nuclear facility is not an act of intimidation, it is simply the destruction of a military facility. The term "terrorism" cannot be applied here.

Iran's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal will secure its constant threat of attacks from the United States and Israel

Iran could protect itself from the threat of attacks from at least Israel much easier - by stopping yelling about "wiping out Israel from the face of the Earth" and stopping supporting anti-Israeli groups. But Iranian "wise leaders" have chosen the path of waving a nuclear baton in all directions.

and their ally Israel will have to restrain aggressive policies towards their neighbors.

In relation to to neighbors Israel has no aggressive policy - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia will confirm.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +9
  
  4 October 2021 12: 24
  
  Why is the term "terrorist attack" used? Terrorism is violent action against civilians in order to intimidate the population and use this fear to solve political problems. For example, the hostage-taking in Beslan is, yes, an act of terrorism.
  
  An air raid on a military nuclear facility is not an act of intimidation, it is simply the destruction of a military facility. The term "terrorism" cannot be applied here.
  
  Without a declaration of war, this is terrorism.
  
  laughing Israel has no aggressive policy towards its neighbors - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia will confirm.
  
  Neighbors are not only through the wall
  1. Cyril
    
    -11
    
    4 October 2021 12: 28
    
    Without a declaration of war, this is terrorism
    
    There is no such clause in the definition of terrorism. Once again - terrorism (from terror - fear) is an act intimidation of the population with the aim of exerting pressure on the country's leadership or destabilizing the situation in the country. An air strike on a military target is not an act of terrorism.
    
    Neighbors are not only through the wall
    
    Likewise, Israel does not show aggression towards those neighbors who are "across the street". Qatar, UAE, India and others, others, others will confirm :)
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +8
      
      4 October 2021 12: 35
      
      There is no such clause in the definition of terrorism. Once again - terrorism (from terror - fear) is an act of intimidation of the population in order to put pressure on the country's leadership or destabilize the situation in the country. An air strike on a military target is not an act of terrorism.
      
      I open Wikipedia. I am looking for a definition of terrorism. Where is the word "population"?
      
      Terrorism is a policy based on the systematic use of terror. Despite the legal force of the term "terrorism", its definition up to the present time remains ambiguous. But experts agree that the best definition of terrorism is the achievement of political, ideological, economic and religious goals by violent means. Synonyms of the word "terror" (Latin terror - fear, horror) are the words "violence", "intimidation", "intimidation". This term became widespread in various countries after the "Age of Terror" during the Great French Revolution.
      
      Or do you suggest qualifying Israel's actions under Russian law, under American law?
      Terrorism in the broadest sense of the word is Intimidation POLICY... Which is what Israel is doing.
      
      Go ahead
      
      Iran could protect itself from the threat of attacks from at least Israel much easier - by stopping yelling about "wiping out Israel from the face of the Earth" and stopping supporting anti-Israeli groups. But Iranian "wise leaders" have chosen the path of waving a nuclear baton in all directions.
      
      Likewise, Israel does not show aggression towards those neighbors who are "across the street". Qatar, UAE, India and others, others, others will confirm :)
      
      Counter questions: 1) can you show the military doctrine of Iran, where it is written that its goal is to destroy Israel as a state?
      2) if in the US military doctrine Russia is designated as a threat to national security, and American nuclear missiles are aimed at our country, does this give us the right to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States?
      1. Cyril
        
        -10
        
        4 October 2021 12: 52
        
        I open Wikipedia. I am looking for a definition of terrorism. Where is the word "population" here?
        
        So you read the primary sources. For example, the Federal Law on Countering Terrorism:
        
        terrorism - ideology of violence and the practice of influencing decision-making by public authorities, local authorities or international organizations, intimidating and (or) other forms of unlawful violent actions;
        
        Terrorist act - commission of an explosion, arson or other actions, frightening population and creating a danger of death of a person, causing significant property damage or the onset of other grave consequences, in order to destabilize the activities of authorities or international organizations or influence their decision-making, as well as the threat of committing these actions for the same purposes;
        
        The purpose of the alleged airstrike is to damage the infrastructure aimed at creating nuclear weapons, and not to intimidate the population or destabilize the situation in the country (Iran).
        
        Counter questions: 1) can you show the military doctrine of Iran, where it is written that its goal is to destroy Israel as a state?
        
        I can lead official statements senior officials of Iran containing such words.
        
        2) if in the US military doctrine Russia is designated as a threat to national security, and American nuclear missiles are aimed at our country, does this give us the right to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States?
        
        Assessing the country as a potential threat to national security and calling for its total destruction are two different things. Do American doctrine declare the goal of wiping out Russia from the face of the Earth?
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        5 October 2021 08: 29
        
        So you read the primary sources. For example, the Federal Law on Countering Terrorism:
        
        terrorism - the ideology of violence and the practice of influencing decision-making by state authorities, local authorities or international organizations associated with intimidation of the population and (or) other forms of unlawful violent actions;
        
        What are the primary sources? Once again, why are you applying Russian law to Israel's actions?
        
        The purpose of the alleged airstrike is to damage the infrastructure aimed at creating nuclear weapons, and not to intimidate the population or destabilize the situation in the country (Iran).
        
        Really?
        And who gave them the right to do this? Who gave Israel the right to secretly create its own nuclear arsenal and strike at Iran in violation of international law?
        And what about the extrajudicial killings of Iranian citizens involved in the nuclear program?
        
        I can cite the official statements of the highest officials of Iran, containing such words.
        
        Bring. Zhirinovsky is also an official official, by the way, and he makes a lot of statements. So what?
        
        Assessing the country as a potential threat to national security and calling for its total destruction are two different things. Do American doctrine declare the goal of wiping out Russia from the face of the Earth?
        
        Is there any need to prove that American nuclear missiles are aimed at Russia and the military exercises of the United States and NATO are directed against Russia? Why is this done, explain? For friendship with Russia or for the preparation of a conventional or nuclear war against Russia? Does a nuclear war between the United States and Russia imply the erasure of our country to the face of the Earth as a possible result?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        5 October 2021 14: 26
        
        What are the primary sources? Once again, why are you applying Russian law to Israel's actions?
        
        Why don't you like the definition of terrorism in Russian legislation?
        
        Really?
        And who gave them the right to do this?
        
        And who gave Iran the right to develop its nuclear weapons, sponsor and organize terrorist attacks against the Israeli population?
        
        Who gave Israel the right to secretly create its own nuclear arsenal in violation of international law
        
        And Israel did not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty to violate it. But Iran - yes, it signed.
        
        And what about the extrajudicial killings of Iranian citizens involved in the nuclear program?
        
        Once again, military sabotage is not a terrorist act. Was the assassination of the Afghan President by the Alpha Special Forces a terrorist act?
        
        Bring. Zhirinovsky is also an official official, by the way, and he makes a lot of statements. So what?
        
        With the fact that Zhirinovsky is not the leading person of the country. Its maximum ceiling is the deputy chairman of the State Duma and a member of the Russian delegation to the Council of Europe. But the Prime Minister of Iran, the supreme leader and the President of Iran - yes, the positions are leading.
        
        Is there any need to prove that American nuclear missiles are aimed at Russia and the military exercises of the United States and NATO are directed against Russia?
        
        Sergei, can I explain to you the difference between maintaining the readiness of weapons in order to contain a potential enemy and statements about the need (the wording "must be") the total destruction of another state?
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 14: 28
        
        Why don't you like the definition of terrorism in Russian legislation?
        
        What does Russian legislation have to do with Israel's actions against Iran on Iranian territory?
        
        And who gave Iran the right to develop its nuclear weapons, sponsor and organize terrorist attacks against the Israeli population?
        
        And who gave Israel the right to create nuclear weapons and kill Iranian citizens?
        
        Once again, military sabotage is not a terrorist act.
        
        Once again: military sabotage is not a terrorist act in the course of a war. Israel has not declared war on Iran, so its actions are terrorism.
        
        Sergei, can I explain to you the difference between maintaining the readiness of weapons in order to contain a potential enemy and statements about the need (the wording "must be") the total destruction of another state?
        
        Explain
        And at the same time comment on the Dropshot plan.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        8 October 2021 16: 48
        
        What does Russian legislation have to do with Israel's actions against Iran on Iranian territory?
        
        I am not applying the legislation itself, but the definition that it uses. This definition is precise and universal, and it is suitable for any country. Okay, let's go from the other side - on the basis of what international or, if you like so, Iranian laws did you classify Israel's actions as terrorist?
        
        Sergey, once again - I need an exact definition of the term and the source of this definition. I'll make a reservation right away - your personal interpretation is not this source.
        
        And who gave the right to Israel to create nuclear weapons
        
        Israel has the right to create its own nuclear weapons by default, if it has not entered into any agreements that deprive it of this right - for example, an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Name what laws, treaties and agreements Israel has adopted prohibiting it from doing this?
        
        kill Iranian citizens?
        
        And who gave Iran the right to kill (or organize and finance such killings) of Israeli citizens?
        
        Once again: military sabotage is not a terrorist act in the course of a war. Israel has not declared war on Iran, so its actions are terrorism.
        
        No, his actions are not aimed at intimidation, therefore they cannot be classified as terrorism.
        Let's go again from the other side - the assault on Amin's palace by Soviet special forces, which ended with the assassination of the Afghan president, was carried out BEFORE the official start of the USSR's participation in the Afghan war. Was it an act of terrorism or just murder (sabotage, special operation) for political purposes? Please answer this question.
        
        Explain
        
        Seriously? YOU need to be explained how deterrence differs from calls for the total destruction of another state? Are you definitely Sergei Marzhetsky, not Volkonsky or Kharaluzhny?
        
        And at the same time comment on the Dropshot plan.
        
        Easily. The "Dropshot" plan did not consist in the destruction of the USSR as a state, in the erasure "from the face of the Earth" and the map of the world, complete (political, social, demographic, cultural, etc.) destruction of a political entity called "USSR". It consisted in nuclear strikes against strategic objects of the USSR in order to neutralize the threat emanating from it (from the point of view of the developers of this plan).
        
        In addition, the Dropshot plan was not a publicly declared document; it is, in general, a completely standard military plan. The same plans were developed in the USSR during the Cold War.
      2. Cyril
        
        -10
        
        4 October 2021 13: 21
        
        Or do you suggest qualifying Israel's actions under Russian law, under American law?
        
        Yes, at least in some.
        
        Terrorism in the broadest sense of the word is a POLICY of intimidation. Which is what Israel is doing.
        
        Israel does not intimidate, but warns that it will use military force if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. These are two different concepts. Analogy. Your neighbor is demonstratively preparing to buy a pistol and at the same time in official statements says that he wants to "wipe you off the face of the Earth." Are you saying that if he acquires a pistol, use force to deprive him of that weapon — an act of intimidation?
        
        Fourth
        
        +4
        
        4 October 2021 18: 17
        
        You are mistaken, Israel just does not warn you, read the testimonies of Mr. Bindyuzhnik on this topic.
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        Accidents and explosions occurring in Iran at enterprises of the corresponding profile, the elimination of key specialists, computer viruses are just flowers, the Persians understand that the Israelis can destroy all key infrastructure and industrial facilities in Iran, return Iran to the Stone Age.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        5 October 2021 03: 22
        
        So, read the "testimony of Mr. Bindyuzhnik" more attentively:
        
        Accidents and explosions in Iran enterprises of the corresponding profile, elimination of key specialists, computer viruses - these are only flowers, the Persians understand that the Israelis can destroy all key infrastructure and industrial facilities on the territory of Iran, return Iran to the Stone Age.
        
        These are acts of sabotage directed against "enterprises and specialists of the corresponding profile," but not at intimidating the population. This is precisely military sabotage, not terrorism.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        5 October 2021 08: 30
        
        These are acts of sabotage directed against "enterprises and specialists of the corresponding profile," but not at intimidating the population. This is precisely military sabotage, not terrorism.
        
        Once again: you are substituting concepts by applying the norms of the Russian Criminal Code in Israel's actions. I qualify them as terror on the basis of the generally accepted term as a policy of intimidation.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        5 October 2021 14: 31
        
        Once again: you are substituting concepts by applying the norms of the Russian Criminal Code in Israel's actions.
        
        I qualify them as terror on the basis of the generally accepted term as a policy of intimidation.
        
        On the basis of what generally accepted document, where the generally accepted definition is given, did you do this?
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 14: 31
        
        I qualify them as terror on the basis of the generally accepted term as a policy of intimidation.
        
        On the basis of what generally accepted document, where the generally accepted definition is given, did you do this?
        
        And on the basis of what should I do this, explain?
        
        A counter question: on what basis do you apply Russian legislation to Israel's actions on the territory of Iran?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        8 October 2021 15: 44
        
        And on the basis of what should I do this, explain?
        
        This is my question for you. You use a term without giving a link to its definition.
        
        A counter question: on what basis do you apply Russian legislation to Israel's actions on the territory of Iran?
        
        I am applying the definition of terrorism used in this law. This definition is suitable not only for Russia.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 14: 37
        
        These are acts of sabotage directed against "enterprises and specialists of the corresponding profile," but not at intimidating the population. This is precisely military sabotage, not terrorism.
        
        For sabotage to be military, there must be a war status.
        And enough of this hurdy-gurdy about intimidating the population. There is no need to drag Russian legislation here, This is not our jurisdiction.
        Your position is based on a misunderstanding and therefore wrong.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        8 October 2021 16: 19
        
        For sabotage to be military, there must be a war status. wassat
        
        Where is it said? A sabotage can be committed without the official status of the war.
        
        And enough of this hurdy-gurdy about intimidating the population.
        
        This is not a hurdy-gurdy, this is a definition. Provide otherwise and the document where it is fixed. You can from international law, Iranian law, etc.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 14: 29
        
        Israel does not intimidate, but warns that it will use military force if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. These are two different concepts. Analogy. Your neighbor is demonstratively preparing to buy a pistol and at the same time in official statements says that he wants to "wipe you off the face of the Earth." Are you saying that if he acquires a pistol, use force to deprive him of that weapon — an act of intimidation?
        
        Israel, without declaring war, is killing Iranian citizens and committing acts of sabotage on the territory of another sovereign state.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 16: 22
        
        Israel kills Iranian citizens without declaring war
        
        Not any citizens, but scientists or functionaries directly involved in the development of nuclear weapons.
        
        commits sabotage on the territory of another sovereign state.
        
        Right. Aiming exclusively against facilities involved in the creation of nuclear weapons.
        
        Both cannot be regarded as terrorist even by your vague definition of "terrorism as a policy of intimidation." Intimidation is not the goal of these actions, the goal of these actions is to slow down or completely end Iran's nuclear program.
gorenina91

-9

4 October 2021 12: 45

On the one hand, as we said earlier, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran is in a certain sense even beneficial to us. The United States will receive another image "slap in the face", and its ally Israel will have to restrain its aggressive policy towards its neighbors.

- What ???

It so happened that Moscow and Tehran were in the same boat, and the latter began to act proactively. Concentrating troops on the border with Azerbaijan,

- In what "boat" is it ??? ... - Russia and Iran ???????? -Today, only Armenia and Iran from the same trough .....................- their ... "hopes" ...

The latest unpleasant and extremely disturbing news was the information that Turkmenistan suddenly decided to abandon its policy of neutrality and join the Turkic Council under the auspices of Turkey. It is very sad that Ashgabat also made a choice not in favor of the CSTO, but turned to the West.

Let us recall our assumptions that the construction and launch of a railway from Iran through Iraq to Syria will be beneficial for Russia as well, since we will be able to get an alternative supply channel for our military group in the SAR bypassing the Turkish straits.

- What's that ... - Turkmenistan can decide something for itself on its own ??? - "Chinese Turkmenistan" can decide something on its own ??? - As China says, this is how Turkmenistan will act ... - As for the Caspian ... - Russia itself voluntarily gave it up ... - And China may come there from time to time and settle well there ... - In addition to Turkmenistan, China has one more "vassal state" in the Caspian Sea ... - this is "Caspian Kazakhstan" ... - Yes, and "Caspian Iran" now too ... - in very great dependence on China ...
- So it is China that has very great chances to "get the Caspian" ... - And it is China that will be able ... - to "launch a railway through Iran"; go to the Indian Ocean ... - and from the "other side" ... - get close to "enemy India" ... and go through Iran to Iraq and so on ... - So ... - for China - "such the game is worth the candle "...

if Tehran gets nuclear weapons, Ankara will immediately try to acquire them.

Turkey's partner in the nuclear weapons project can be a friendly Pakistan.

- Of course ... - Therefore, it is impossible under any pretext to allow to have nuclear weapons ... - neither one nor the other ... - Eh, and as it was in due time - Pakistan was not suppressed in "this direction" ...
- The United States and Israel (and the whole world) will very soon bitterly regret that ... that ... that they did not bomb the entire technical and industrial potential of Iran ...
- Very soon - we will all regret it !!!
Bakht

-1

4 October 2021 13: 06

The article is crazy from start to finish. But this passage amused me greatly

Let us recall our assumptions that the construction and launch of a railway from Iran through Iraq to Syria will be beneficial for Russia as well, since we will be able to get an alternative supply channel for our military group in the SAR bypassing the Turkish straits.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  8 October 2021 14: 24
  
  Laughing for no reason is a sign of foolishness. No?
Bakht

-1

4 October 2021 13: 22

By concentrating its troops on the border with Azerbaijan, Iran can bring them into the territory of the Syunik corridor of Armenia, again cutting off Nakhichevan and Turkey from the main territory of Azerbaijan.

I was laughing so hard ... Are you serious? For information. There are Russian troops and the Russian border service.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  5 October 2021 08: 35
  
  What am I? Will our motorized riflemen fight Iran or will they take a position of neutrality? So their task is to separate Azerbaijanis and Armenians, and not a war with an external aggressor.
  1. Bakht
    
    +2
    
    5 October 2021 09: 17
    
    The task of the Russian border service in the Syunik (Zangezur) corridor is not to disengage the troops, but to control the transport corridor. Are you proposing to replace Russian troops with Iranian ones?
    The fact that you do not like Azerbaijan, I understood that long ago. I can handle it. But why you do not like Russia, I cannot understand. All your articles on the South Caucasus run counter to the Kremlin's efforts.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +1
      
      8 October 2021 14: 22
      
      But why you do not like Russia, I cannot understand. All your articles on the South Caucasus run counter to the Kremlin's efforts.
      
      For me Russia and Kremlin efforts not identical
      
      The task of the Russian border service in the Syunik (Zangezur) corridor is not to disengage the troops, but to control the transport corridor.
      
      Control over the corridor and guarding the border of Azerbaijan are two different things.
      
      Are you proposing to replace Russian troops with Iranian ones?
      
      Where did I write this? You like to attribute to me what I did not write. Ugly
      1. Bakht
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 14: 31
        
        The entry of Iranian troops into Syunik means the interception of the Zangezur corridor. Control over which is carried out by the Russian border service. I am not attributing anything to you. Just clarifying your thoughts.
        Anyone who shares the efforts of the Kremlin and the interests of the Russian state opposes Russia.
        This is an old lie song of the liberals. "I love Russia, but I don't like the government." Without a government, this is just a territory temporarily inhabited by Russians.
        By the way, this is exactly what Western liberals say. We are imposing sanctions against Russia to help the Russian people. The Vlasovites said the same thing.
        Think about it.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 14: 39
        
        The stream of delusional consciousness. Here's what I think about it.
        By the way, did the Bolshevik Party also oppose Russia? IN AND. Lenin - the first Vlasovite, judging by your logic?
        
        Bakht
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 15: 37
        
        Of course. Lenin was a Marxist internationalist. Like Trotsky. Stalin played for Russia.
Bulanov

+3

4 October 2021 13: 50

It turns out that Azerbaijan has finally made its choice in favor of the North Atlantic Alliance and can no longer be considered a neutral state.

Does this mean that in the case of a big kipish, the Russian Federation will intern Azerbaijanis from Moscow to Siberia, as the United States did with the Japanese during WW2?
1. Bakht
  
  -3
  
  4 October 2021 14: 03
  
  The author simply does not consider Russia a "global superpower". Well, what can you do, this is his opinion ... You just have to "remember this."
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +2
    
    5 October 2021 08: 34
    
    I really don't think that Russia is a global superpower today. We lost this status in 1991 and have not yet returned. How does this affect you, a citizen of Azerbaijan?
    1. Bakht
      
      +3
      
      5 October 2021 09: 19
      
      In the same way, the question of Azerbaijan touches upon you. Weird. You are writing an article about Azerbaijan and forbids me, a citizen of Azerbaijan, to discuss it.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 14: 20
        
        Give a quote where I forbade a citizen of Azerbaijan to discuss this article.
        Waiting for
        And there is no need to substitute concepts.
        
        I really don't think that Russia is a global superpower today. We lost this status in 1991 and have not yet returned. How does this affect you, a citizen of Azerbaijan?
        
        What does your Azerbaijan have to do with it?
        
        Bakht
        
        +3
        
        8 October 2021 14: 24
        
        You asked the question "how does this affect me as a citizen of Azerbaijan." I perceive this as a rejection of my judgments specifically on Azerbaijan.
        In my understanding, as a citizen of Azerbaijan, Russia is a global superpower.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 14: 31
        
        Quote
        
        I really don't think that Russia is a global superpower today. We lost this status in 1991 and have not yet returned. How does this affect you, a citizen of Azerbaijan?
        
        This is about Russia. What does Azerbaijan have to do with your grievances in general?
        
        Bakht
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 15: 39
        
        It is about the war against Azerbaijan. So temper your ardor. Are there still calls for war in Russia ?. Your article completely falls under it. Benefit from war ...
  2. Bakht
    
    +2
    
    5 October 2021 10: 07
    
    Note minus. I have said many times that the rating does not interest me. It's just an indicator of user adequacy. Unfortunately, I must say that the majority (7 versus 3) do not understand what is written.
    The author does not really consider Russia a "global superpower". He confirmed this with the following post. I disagree with him. We'll have to admit that in the ratio (7 versus 3), site users agree with the author.
    With which I congratulate you. It seems that the authority of Russia at the international level has to be supported by an Azerbaijani.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +2
      
      8 October 2021 14: 20
      
      Russia today is not a global superpower
      What you disagree with is your difficulty.
      
      With which I congratulate you. It seems that the authority of Russia at the international level has to be supported by an Azerbaijani recourse
      
      Don't overestimate your efforts and their value.
Jacques sekavar

+1

4 October 2021 15: 19

The war of Iran with Azerbaijan and Turkey is not profitable from any side, because the Russian Federation is in good relations with them and an air corridor passes through them to Syria, and the war will aggravate the situation in the entire region, which the Sshasovites cannot but take advantage of.
Siegfried

+1

4 October 2021 16: 44

not the fact that it is beneficial to Russia. Such a conflict cannot begin without an agreement between Turkey and the United States (Israel). If the US decides to steal Iran in this way, then Turkey will receive all the support it needs. As a result, Turkey will become even stronger, bolder and more dangerous. Iran, which is helping Russia in Syria, is reformatting into something else, perhaps through a revolution amid defeat. For Russia, a weak Iran and a strong Turkey are not a very scenario. Is victory possible? Iran may be able to resist Azerbajan, but in the conflict with the Turkish Air Force, everything is not clear. Although there may be behind the new Iranian air defense systems, which he himself praises as "better than the S-400", there is tacit help from Russia and perhaps Iran will still surprise everyone.
1. Vermont
  
  0
  
  9 October 2021 05: 22
  
  Quote: Siegfried
  not the fact that it is beneficial to Russia. Such a conflict cannot begin without an agreement between Turkey and the United States (Israel). If the US decides to steal Iran in this way, then Turkey will receive all the support it needs. As a result, Turkey will become even stronger, bolder and more dangerous.
  
  You, comrade, hate Turkey very much. For what? For the fact that she "wants something there"? Well, everyone "wants" now. Iran also wants to remove Saudi Arabia and become the "leader of the Muslim world." This is what Pakistan wants. And why should he not want, he (the only one among the Muslim world) has nuclear weapons .. He has the right to "want". In short, everyone "wants" something ... Does it scare you? Don't be so afraid. Erdogan wants, but not Turkey. Erdogash will leave, all these "Wishlist" will end. In the same way, all Putin's policies will disappear "without a trace" as soon as he leaves. You won't even recognize Russia ...
Binder

-7

4 October 2021 17: 03

Once again, Mr. Marzhetsky posted a completely inadequate text. Well, how can you not understand that the United States and Israel will not allow the Persians to acquire their own nuclear weapons? Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons are much more dangerous than the notorious monkey with a grenade, not only Americans and Israelis understand this, but absolutely everyone - Turks, Arabs, Azerbaijanis, Russians. All except the town of Marzhetskiy. The author, contrary to the obvious facts, stubbornly proves that the Persians are about to enter the club of nuclear powers. Accidents and explosions occurring in Iran at enterprises of the corresponding profile, the elimination of key specialists, computer viruses are just flowers, the Persians understand that the Israelis can destroy all key infrastructure and industrial facilities in Iran, return Iran to the Stone Age.
1. Fourth
  
  +5
  
  4 October 2021 18: 20
  
  There is a dispute on the site who is a terrorist by definition. You, as always, are on time. This is me about your country of residence.
  1. Binder
    
    -5
    
    4 October 2021 21: 24
    
    The dispute in this case is meaningless. For several decades, the top state leaders of Iran have openly declared their intention to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the face of the earth, so the question of who the terrorist is is clear.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +5
      
      5 October 2021 08: 33
      
      To whom is it clear? It's funny when the main terrorists call others terrorists
      1. Cyril
        
        -3
        
        5 October 2021 15: 23
        
        Israel did not organize, sponsor or conduct terrorist acts against the Iranian population. The murder of an atomic scientist, especially an officer of the IRGC (serviceman) is a sabotage, but not a terrorist act.
        
        Iran, on the other hand, organized and financed acts of intimidation against Israeli citizens.
        
        So Mr. Miron-Bindyuzhnik is absolutely right.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +3
        
        8 October 2021 14: 18
        
        Once again: you are substituting concepts by slipping the definition of terrorism from Russian legislation. It is not applicable to Israel's activities. The IDF and MOSSAD do not operate under Russian jurisdiction. Then you don’t have to slip about "terrorist attacks against the population".
        You are 100% wrong. Israel's activities against Iran are a policy of terrorism.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        8 October 2021 16: 55
        
        It is not applicable to Israel's activities. The IDF and MOSSAD do not operate under Russian jurisdiction.
        
        Then give me proof of a document that would have a suitable jurisdiction and that would provide a definition that would allow Israel's actions to be classified as terrorist.
        
        You are 100% wrong.
        
        No, my opinion does not correspond to your opinion, and not to the objective truth. Moreover, my opinion is justified in the form of an official definition (albeit adopted within the framework of Russian legislation), you have only your speculations.
        
        Israel's activities against Iran are a policy of terrorism.
        
        no, since his actions are not aimed at intimidation, but at the suspension or termination of the technical implementation of the Iranian nuclear program.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        9 October 2021 22: 48
        
        Israel did not organize, sponsor or conduct terrorist acts against the Iranian population. The murder of an atomic scientist, especially an officer of the IRGC (serviceman) is a sabotage, but not a terrorist act ...
        
        I dare to object.) Everything is not as straightforward as you are trying to portray here.
        
        "Sabotage" is a purely military term, and terrorism, in turn, is never anonymous.
        For the sabotage carried out, no one ever takes responsibility for themselves. On the contrary, an indispensable condition for sabotage is secrecy - to carry out an operation and leave no traces or send the enemy on a false trail.
        
        What facts do we have?
        
        Israel -
        
        a) Not at war with Iran.
        
        b) Does not hide participation in his acts.
        
        According to these obvious signs, it still attracts more terrorism.)
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2021 03: 41
        
        and terrorism, in turn, is never anonymous.
        
        Moreover, terrorism is not just not anonymous - terrorists take responsibility for terrorist operations without fail. Because the goal of terrorists is not the murder / explosion / arson itself, but intimidation and pressure exerted on the population and / or authorities of the enemy. Terrorism is always demonstrative.
        
        For the sabotage carried out, no one ever takes responsibility for themselves.
        
        Lie. The partisans during the Great Patriotic War did not hide their sabotage against the Nazi troops. Moreover, after the successful implementation of the sabotage action, they tried to advertise them in order to strain the enemy.
        
        What facts do we have?
        Israel -
        
        a) Not at war with Iran.
        
        b) Does not hide participation in his acts.
        
        a) Sabotage does not have to be carried out only in the framework of "official" hostilities.
        
        b) Israel does not confirm its participation in the alleged acts of sabotage.
        
        In 2010-2012, four Iranian nuclear experts were killed. Tehran blamed Israel for their death, but there is no evidence of this. Fakhrizadeh also survived an unsuccessful assassination attempt several years ago. Iranian intelligence services believed that the assassination of nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was possible, but they did not take it seriously.
        
        If the actions were terrorist, Israel would defiantly take responsibility for these killings.
        
        Once again, the purpose of these killings, as well as other acts of sabotage against Iran, is not to intimidate or put pressure on the Iranian authorities, but to suspend or completely terminate the Iranian nuclear program by eliminating key specialists or destroying / disrupting the operation of the relevant technical infrastructure.
        
        So no, according to the second criterion you have outlined, Israel does not fit a "terrorist".
        
        But Iran-supplied and financed Hezbollah - yes, it fits. Because:
        
        a) Performs actions against the civilian population, thereby putting pressure on the Israeli authorities (trying to exert)
        
        b) Openly and demonstratively takes responsibility for the actions performed.
      2. Vermont
        
        -2
        
        9 October 2021 05: 27
        
        Quote: Marzhetsky
        To whom is it clear? It's funny when the main terrorists call others terrorists
        
        Iranian leaders repeat every day that they "want to demolish Israel from the face of the Earth." Israeli leaders never say that. And after that you call Israel - "the main terrorists".
2. bobba94
  
  -3
  
  4 October 2021 22: 47
  
  This is not just an inadequate text, it is just some kind of draft of consciousness. Nuclear weapons will appear in Iran, hurray, hurray, this is good, it is in spite of the States and Israel .... Edren-Baton, where are they, these States and Israel, and Iran is right there. I talked with 2 young guys, students from Iran, they rented an apartment of a neighbor who had gone on a business trip for 2 years. There is a great Satan, the so-called British and there is a small Satan, the so-called Soviet ... They remember perfectly 5 years of the Soviet-British occupation of Iran, everyone remembers ...
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +3
    
    5 October 2021 08: 32
    
    There is a great Satan, the so-called British and there is a small Satan, the so-called Soviet ..... They remember perfectly 5 years of the Soviet-British occupation of Iran, everyone remembers ...
    
    The USSR has not been for 30 years. And you are here talking about the inadequacy of judgments?
    
    P.S. Iran will have nuclear weapons anyway, despite the efforts of the United States and Israel, it’s just a matter of time.
    1. Cyril
      
      -4
      
      5 October 2021 15: 25
      
      The USSR has not been for 30 years.
      
      Lol, and Germany has not been the Third Reich for more than half a century, but we still "can repeat". Why on earth should the Iranians make a difference between the USSR and modern Russia?
      1. Marzhecki
        
        +3
        
        8 October 2021 14: 16
        
        We can repeat - who says that? Is this chatter in the kitchen or part of the Russian military doctrine?
        You are substituting concepts and distorting. What are ordinary Iranians talking like that in kitchens is not interesting to me.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        8 October 2021 16: 56
        
        What are ordinary Iranians talking like that in kitchens is not interesting to me.
        
        So you were told about ordinary Iranians :)) Read carefully the comments of your opponents.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 18: 38
        
        Cyril, not only Iran does not recognize Israel, other neighboring countries for the most part too.
        
        The fact is that the lands called by the Zionists their historical homeland are the homeland of many people. A real homeland, not a historical one.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 19: 11
        
        not only Iran does not recognize Israel, other neighboring countries for the most part too.
        
        Please list this "most neighboring countries"?
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 19: 23
        
        This is clear, you can do the detail yourself.
        Can you find Israel?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        8 October 2021 21: 00
        
        Great, I'm doing the detailing myself. Of the direct neighbors of Israel, which have a common border with it, the country is recognized - Egypt, Jordan. Not recognized - Lebanon and Syria (50/50)
        
        Let's detail further. Of the indirect neighbors (that is, countries that have a common border with countries that directly border with Israel), Israel is recognized by Turkey, the Republic of Cyprus (there is no direct border, but it is close to its borders), Sudan (from 2020). They do not recognize - Saudi Arabia (they recognize de facto, they have established military, trade, and partly political interaction), Iraq, Libya. 50/50 again
        
        Let's detail further. Of the neighbors of the "3rd order" Israel is recognized - Azerbaijan, Armenia, UAE (from 2021), Bahrain (from 2020), Eritrea, Greece, Georgia, Ethiopia, Chad, CAR, South Sudan. Not recognized - Iran, Somalia, Kuwait, Djibouti, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Algeria. Total - 11 against 8 in favor of Israel.
        
        As you can see, there is no "majority of neighbors that do not recognize Israel".
        
        And it was I who "detailed" the official diplomatic relations and official recognition. If we are talking about recognition "de facto", that is, without diplomatic relations, but with cooperation in various fields of activity, then Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Djibouti can also be considered to have recognized Israel.
        
        When you next talk about something in politics, pay attention not only to the filled-in pictures, but also look at the list of countries at least.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 21: 39
        
        Which countries will not be allowed after Israel:
        
        Stamp on crossing the border with Israel - automatic ban on entry into Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.
        
        PS Unlike you, I don’t have to write a lot of words.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 23: 35
        
        Which countries will not be allowed after Israel:
        
        You have listed only 8 (in words - eight) countries. Moreover, they listed outdated data - since 2020, Sudan (or rather, 2 independent states on the territory of the former united Sudan) have official diplomatic relations with Israel. In total, only 7 of your eight are left.
        
        Moreover, Saudi Arabia and Israel have obvious progress in relations, which with a very high degree of probability will develop in the near future into full-fledged recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia. Moreover, they have a common enemy - Iran.
        
        Unlike you, I don’t have to write a lot of words.
        
        Because you, in view of your incompetence in this topic, simply have nothing to say, everything is correct.
        
        bobba94
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 12: 26
        
        ".... A real homeland, not a historical one" is a masterpiece!
3. Marzhecki
  
  +4
  
  5 October 2021 08: 36
  
  Thanks for this comment. Another confirmation of the terrorist essence of Israel's foreign policy, and from an Israeli-American
  1. Binder
    
    -1
    
    5 October 2021 17: 06
    
    You have a strange understanding of the term terrorism- the leaders of Iran openly proclaim the destruction of the Jewish state as their goal, Israel is defending itself, and at the same time you consider the Israelis to be terrorists. Complete lack of logic.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +3
      
      8 October 2021 14: 14
      
      Some faces they say... So what? Zhirinovsky also speaks.
      Show me Iranian military doctrine where writtenthat Israel must be destroyed. I'm waiting
      Israel, unlike Iran. conducts terrorist activities against Iran, and people like you only confirm this.
      Everything is fine with my logic.
      1. Cyril
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 16: 59
        
        Some people say. So what? Zhirinovsky also speaks.
        
        Zhirinovsky does not hold a leading position in the Country. The Supreme Ayatollah, Prime Minister and President of Iran occupy.
        
        Show me the Iranian military doctrine, where it is written that Israel must be destroyed.
        
        Military doctrine is not the only source of the state's military-political strategy. Statements of the top leadership of the state are also such.
        
        Israel ... is conducting terrorist activities against Iran,
        
        No, it doesn't.
        
        unlike Iran.
        
        But Iran is just against Israel - yes, it does.
        
        Everything is fine with my logic.
        
        In other topics, yes. But for some reason, as soon as it comes to Israel, you do not have it at all.
      2. Binder
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 17: 49
        
        You, Marzhetsky, are lying, as always - the Israelis are fighting Islamic terrorists, who, led by the Iranian Ayatollahs, are trying in vain to destroy Israel. And the fact that in this long-term struggle the Israelis win over and over again causes you powerless anger and gnashing of teeth. Do you still have teeth, do you have something to grind?
    2. isofat
      
      +1
      
      8 October 2021 18: 11
      
      Quote: Bindyuzhnik
      You have a strange understanding of the term terrorism - the leaders of Iran openly proclaim the destruction of the Jewish state as their goal ...
      
      Why did you invade someone else's territory? Why do you continue to "wring out" the lands that do not belong to you? Where are the boundaries of "your" historical homeland?
      (Questions: three pieces)
      1. Binder
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 19: 05
        
        Quote: isofaяt
        Why did you invade someone else's territory?
        
        You are mistaken - the Russian Federation has invaded foreign territories. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass, Syria, Libya, CAR, what's next? I will forward the second and third questions to you.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 19: 12
        
        Myron, well, why are you establishing your own Jewish way of life in Ukraine?
        
        Binder
        
        -1
        
        8 October 2021 19: 54
        
        What kind of Jewish way of life, established in Ukraine, are we talking about? Are the inhabitants of Ukraine forcibly forced to convert to Judaism, stop eating pork and be circumcised without exception?
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 20: 15
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        What kind of Jewish way of life, established in Ukraine, are we talking about?
        
        Well, of course, the Jewish way of life has been established in Ukraine for a long time! This is what the Jews of Ukraine are doing in an organized way. They don't hide it.
        
        United Jewish Community of Ukraine - https://jew.org.ua
        Community Leader - https://jew.org.ua/leaders
        The community is a little over a million people.
        
        And this is their Purpose and Mission:
        
        PS The indigenous peoples in Ukraine have already been sorted out. Land can be bought ...
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 20: 53
        
        I have a deep suspicion that the revival of the Jewish way of life began with the cultivation of hatred between our peoples, Ukraine and Russia.
        
        Binder
        
        -1
        
        9 October 2021 01: 16
        
        You have some kind of distorted understanding of the text. It is about the preservation of traditions by Jewish citizens of Ukraine, so that the young generation of Jews knows their roots, culture and the language of their ancestors. And hatred of Russia and Russians is fostered by the aggressive policy of the Russian leadership towards neighboring states.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        9 October 2021 12: 41
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        It is about the preservation of traditions by Jewish citizens of Ukraine
        
        Do not lie! It says in black and white not about preserving traditions, but about revival Jewish way of life!
        
        And it was written by people from planet Earth. To clarify, this was written by the Jews of Ukraine, whose organization today contains more than a million members.
        
        The leader of this organization, Kolomoisky, helped President Zelenskiy take office.
        
        Now Ukrainian land can be traded and we know how to define the "indigenous" peoples of Ukraine.
        
        PS
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        ... that the younger generation of Jews knows their roots, culture and the language of their ancestors.
        
        Have the young Jews of Ukraine forgotten where their historical homeland is?
        
        Binder
        
        -4
        
        9 October 2021 15: 02
        
        After many years when the Soviet government crushed, destroyed, eradicated the traditions, culture and spiritual values of the Jewish people, a lot is really needed revive, so everything is correct.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 15: 21
        
        Miron, I answer you and at the same time appeal to Bakht (Bakhtiyar).
        
        - the Zionists created an extensive international organization and called it the "Jewish people". This organization is not a people.
        
        Mr. Bakhtiyar, I really hope that your country will figure out who muddied the events that we are now witnessing are at your borders.
        
        Miron, your lie is monstrous.
        
        Binder
        
        -3
        
        9 October 2021 16: 23
        
        Quote: isofat
        - the Zionists created an extensive international organization and called it the "Jewish people". This organization is not a people.
        
        For this statement, Comrade Hitler would be happy to present you with an award named after himself.
        
        Quote: isofat
        Myron, your lie is monstrous.
        
        Truth and nothing else.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        9 October 2021 16: 53
        
        "Who and How Invented the Jewish People" Professor Sand personally represented in Moscow. Andrei Leonov met with him. Air from 04.04.2010/XNUMX/XNUMX
        
        Binder
        
        -4
        
        9 October 2021 17: 55
        
        Although Shlomo Sand is listed as a professor of history, he understands Jewish history like a pig in oranges, his specialization is the history of French cinema. The book of this would-be professor has no scientific value and has long been forgotten, and he himself can rejoice only at the decent amount of dough that he managed to cut down on his primitive invention.
        
        isofat
        
        +3
        
        9 October 2021 18: 14
        
        You too can leave your "Jewish people". Air from 20 Dec. 2014
        
        Let's get back to Ukraine, you don't need to revive your Jewish way of life there. The historical homeland of the Jews is not Ukraine.
        
        Binder
        
        -5
        
        9 October 2021 18: 45
        
        Quote: isofat
        You too can leave your "Jewish people".
        
        You are not going to leave your "Russian people", why would I suddenly take such a step?
        
        Quote: isofat
        Let's get back to Ukraine, you don't need to revive your Jewish way of life there. The historical homeland of the Jews is not Ukraine.
        
        To revive or not to revive the Jewish way of life in Ukraine is the business of the Jews there, I do not belong to them, having lived for a long time in Israel and the United States, I do not have Ukrainian citizenship and am not going to receive it, so this is not for me ...
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 19: 48
        
        Miron, you did not want to understand me, I suggested that you leave the organization created by the Zionists.
        
        I used to draw an analogy between the Nazis and the Zionists. The German people suffered greatly from the Nazis. Stronger than yours. Stop.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        9 October 2021 20: 51
        
        Myron, you didn't want to understand me, I suggested that you leave the organization created by the Zionists.
        
        Why would he do this?
        
        I used to draw an analogy between Nazis and Zionists.
        
        Analogies are not yours :) Throw it.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 21: 22
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Analogies are not yours :) Throw it.
        
        Cyril, I have not forgotten your shame.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        9 October 2021 21: 23
        
        And what was "my shame" that I didn't even notice?)
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 21: 35
        
        You once stated:
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Is an analogy a basis for verifying the truth? Is an. Therefore, it is a proof.
        
        So I will remind you that the analogy is not evidence.
        
        PS I can make a screen and publish, it's easy!
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        9 October 2021 22: 29
        
        the analogy is not evidence.
        
        Ah, so it was yours, not my shame :) Read the logic books, and you will be happy :)
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 22: 47
        
        Myron did not understand what I was explaining to him. Well, it is not necessary. And all the best to you!
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        10 October 2021 04: 18
        
        Ah, Isophat, we have already gone through this with you. Again you missed your homework:
        
        As for your screenshot, Chelpanov wrote his textbook already at the beginning of the 20th century. So you are stuck at the level of the beginning of the 20th century in this matter.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 11: 10
        
        Cyril... Let's start with the fact that your screen only tells about some kind of strict analogy. Please do not narrow the concepts down!
        
        Quote: Cyril
        A strong analogy can act as evidence or as an argument that approaches a proof.
        
        Can't you comprehend the meaning of what is written?
        
        PS I can give you some paid logic lessons. Modern technologies make it possible to quickly organize the educational process. We will agree on the price.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 11: 18
        
        Let's start with the fact that your screen only tells about some kind of strict analogy. Please do not narrow the concepts down!
        
        And your screen says that Any analogy (strict or lax) cannot be evidence :) Please do not generalize :)
        
        By the way, even a loose analogy can serve as a proof. The only thing is that the proof of such an analogy (not strict) is not absolute and requires additional argumentation.
        
        Can't you comprehend the meaning of what is written?
        
        I just can - you are not able, although it is written there in Russian, I quote again:
        
        A strong analogy can serve as evidence
        
        I can give you some paid logic lessons.
        
        God forbid :) It's like asking a shepherd to teach me neurosurgery.
        
        Modern technologies make it possible to quickly organize the educational process.
        
        Obviously they didn't help in your case :)
        
        We will agree on the price.
        
        If only as about your absurdly humorous performance.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 11: 32
        
        You don’t want to pay until we meet again. Leave your verbiage to yourself, it does not convince.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 11: 35
        
        Don't want to pay
        
        For your quackery and / or ignorance - yes, I don’t want to pay :)
        
        does not convince.
        
        Naturally, it does not convince - for this you need to understand the topic at least a little. But you don't understand :)
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        10 October 2021 04: 21
        
        Myron did not understand what I was explaining to him.
        
        Naturally, how can you understand erroneous judgments? What is the analogy between Nazis and Zionists? What are their common features (the basis of the analogy)? List :)
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 11: 15
        
        Cyril... So prove this fallacy. Which statement of mine will you refute?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 11: 22
        
        So prove this fallacy.
        
        Why should I prove the fallacy of your statement, if it is you who must prove its truth?)
        
        If you really taught logic, you would know about the "burden of the approver" :) Well, I'm giving you an educational program:
        
        Until you prove the truth of your statement, it is either false or unsubstantiated.
        
        So it goes :)
        
        isofat
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 11: 35
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Until you prove the truth of your statement, it is either false or unsubstantiated.
        
        We are waiting, sir, prove it!
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 11: 37
        
        So I prove the truth of my judgments :) And you are not yours. You are very bad with this.
        
        Binder
        
        -4
        
        9 October 2021 21: 58
        
        There can be no analogy between Nazis and Zionists, these are diametrically opposed concepts. I am the son of my ancient people and am proud of this, in the achievements and victories of the state of Israel there is also a small part of my work and no one intends to stop here.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 22: 11
        
        Miron... I don’t know whose son you are, sorry. The policy of Nazism is harmful. That's all I wanted to tell you. Leave Ukraine alone.
        About diametrically opposite concepts, an analogy later. You are not ready.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        9 October 2021 22: 30
        
        The world is not ready for your analogies - that's for sure :) we still want to live, not die with laughter :)
        
        Binder
        
        -2
        
        10 October 2021 04: 38
        
        Here the person has already answered you in an exhaustive way.
        
        Quote: Cyril
        we still want to live, not die of laughter :)
        
        I totally agree with him.
        
        bobba94
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 13: 12
        
        I read your correspondence with Miron and remembered how on TV they showed muzzy lads with shaved heads, calling themselves Orthodox, but not Moscow, but Kiev Patriarchate ... how these muffled lads, without getting involved in ideological disputes, simply beat the priests of the Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, expelled believers from the Orthodox churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, burned Orthodox churches of the Moscow Patriarchate ... I believe that they are your ideological brothers, only more frank and not disfigured by education ...
        
        isofat
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 13: 36
        
        Vladimir, I give you a plus for reading our comments and not staying indifferent!
      2. Cyril
        
        -2
        
        8 October 2021 21: 22
        
        Why did you invade someone else's territory?
        
        Israel did not invade foreign territory. He defended and defends his own, defined by the Plan for the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states of the UN.
        
        Why do you continue to "wring out" the lands that do not belong to you?
        
        What?
        
        Where are the boundaries of "your" historical homeland?
        
        They were defined by the UN Plan.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        8 October 2021 21: 52
        
        Cyril... I read carefully what you wrote. Now your position on this issue is known to me. Thank you for responding to my comments.
Mantrid Machine

+5

4 October 2021 20: 03

And only thanks to IW Stalin there is a Jewish state of Israel and not for his will ...
PS: I am not an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist!
1. Binder
  
  -11
  
  4 October 2021 21: 27
  
  The Jewish state of Israel does not exist thanks to Stalin, but as a result of the many years of struggle of the Jewish people for independence. And one more thing - anti-Semite = anti-Zionist.
  1. Volga073
    
    +5
    
    4 October 2021 22: 08
    
    Zionist terrorist
  2. Fourth
    
    +2
    
    4 October 2021 23: 15
    
    Quote: Bindyuzhnik
    And one more thing - anti-Semite = anti-Zionist.
    
    Is it today in Israel opposition to Zionism - anti-Zionism prosecuted?
    1. Binder
      
      -2
      
      5 October 2021 16: 54
      
      Israel is a democratic state governed by the rule of law, whose laws do not imply persecution of citizens for their political views.
      1. Fourth
        
        +1
        
        5 October 2021 18: 54
        
        This does not mean that one should deceive people by establishing an equal sign between different concepts.
        
        Binder
        
        -2
        
        5 October 2021 19: 05
        
        Where did you see the deception here? Today, most anti-Semites hide behind the guise of anti-Zionism, so it looks more decent. But the essence is the same ...
        
        Fourth
        
        0
        
        5 October 2021 20: 08
        
        Anti-Semitism is punishable by law. You must understand that the opponents of Zionism, anti-Zionists, for the most part are not criminals at all. And you brought them under the article, declaring them anti-Semites (anti-Semite = anti-Zionist). Criminals hide under different guises.
        
        Your technique is not new, as the Zionists are trying to destroy their opposition.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        6 October 2021 11: 35
        
        Nobody destroys anti-Zionists in Israel. Moreover, the Israeli government even exempts them from military service (for example, radical religious anti-Zionists from some Jewish sects).
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        6 October 2021 12: 00
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Nobody destroys anti-Zionists in Israel.
        
        Kirill, right! An anti-Semite and an anti-Zionist are not the same thing.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        7 October 2021 12: 53
        
        The concepts themselves - yes, not the same thing. But in terms of combining these concepts in one person, it is common. Including among the commentators of the Reporter.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        7 October 2021 15: 52
        
        Cyril, not only among those who disagree with Zionism are anti-Semites. There are anti-Semites, for example, among the philatelists. So what? Are you ready to equate Jewish haters with stamp collectors?
  3. Dear sofa expert.
    
    +3
    
    9 October 2021 23: 09
    
    And one more thing - anti-Semite = anti-Zionist.
    
    Oh no no no.)
    
    Beat yourself loudly and constantly with a heel on the chest, claiming that you are a "purebred Jew" (your words)), and at the same time you do not feel a "subtle" difference in the concepts: "Semitic" and "Zionist"?)
    
    Semite is a Jew.
    to be anti-Semite means to be against Jews, simply because they are Jews. This is a racist position. And this is undeniable!
    
    But Zionism is a purely political ideology that promotes the belief that Jews have the right to their original homeland in what the Bible calls Zion, and today Israel. Although initially it was a protest movement that fights anti-Semitism, but here it is quite possible to disagree on the part of others, so to speak, "pretenders".
    1. Binder
      
      -3
      
      10 October 2021 04: 33
      
      Quote: Dear sofa expert.
      Oh no no no.)
      
      For those who are especially outstanding in their minds: I have already noted above that today many anti-Semites hide behind anti-Israeli rhetoric, call themselves fighters for the rights of "Palestinians" and opponents of Zionism, but this does not change their essence.
2. bobba94
  
  0
  
  4 October 2021 22: 51
  
  What is will and how did it help create the State of Israel?
Volga073

+1

4 October 2021 22: 07

Ishak-Perdogan
Sergey Latyshev

0

5 October 2021 09: 46

Everything is logical.
The media needs blood. Small - closer. And the big one is farther away.

And do not care that now Russia is trading and investing in all 3 countries. And when they start beating Iran, problems with projects in these countries will immediately begin, the losses will have to be reimbursed, prices will creep up even faster ...

And then you will have to invest even more in the confrontation with Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey and NATO. and in the tranquility of the Arab South ...
Bakht

+2

5 October 2021 09: 57

I decided not to change my principles and not write an article. Although my hands itch. But it's still better to answer here.

So, the article says that "Iran's war with Turkey and Azerbaijan may be beneficial to Russia." Complete nonsense of the pro-Armenian lobby. At first, the Armenians wanted to involve Russia in the war. Now they are betting on Iran.

Briefly, in large strokes. The author himself assumes that there will be no one-on-one war. There will be Iran against the Turkey-Azerbaijan coalition. This means the automatic closure of all transport corridors (for which Russia has been fighting for ten years already) and the appearance of Turkish regular formations on the territory of Azerbaijan (which is ABSOLUTELY unprofitable for Russia). NATO bases on the southern borders of the Russian Federation.
The entry of Iranian troops into the Syunik corridor makes it impossible for Russian border guards to be there. That is, the expulsion of Russian troops from Armenia will take place. I do not know to what extent this corresponds to the plans of the Kremlin. I think it doesn't correspond in any way.
Iran's war in favor of Armenia makes it impossible for a Russian brigade to be in Karabakh. All the November agreements between Moscow, Baku and Yerevan (note that Ankara is not there) are nullified and Stepanakert (Khankendi) comes under the full control of Azerbaijan.
If Armenia is involved in the war, it will be a complete disaster for Russia. Iran will not be able to defeat Azerbaijan in a couple of days or a couple of weeks. Iran will have to deal with the Turkish army. The result is predictable. Russia will have to intervene in the conflict in order to extinguish it (this is the best option for Russia) or to take one of the sides (this is a disaster for Russia).
The catastrophe is not a military one. I am sure that the Russian Armed Forces can capture all of Azerbaijan (as well as Ukraine). But what are the consequences and costs? Turkey takes Nakhichevan and raises Yerevan to the ground. The entire South Caucasus is turning into a confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation. All transport corridors are closed, the Bosphorus is closed. The entire Syrian grouping of Russian troops remains without supplies. That is, all Russia's efforts in the Middle East and South Caucasus can be discounted. Iran will be destroyed (at least militarily), Hezbollah will lose support, Assad will lose support (Israel will be very grateful to you).
The whole article is crazy from start to finish. I only see the dreams of Yerevan in this article. And the complete ousting of Russia from this region.
By the way, in this case, the Shiite neutral Azerbaijan will become the Sunni Turkish Azerbaijan.

PS
You gave a quote from Azeri Times. I have rummaged through the entire archive over the last week but did not find this quote. If it's not difficult, I will ask the author to give a link. And I want to note that Azeri Times is not a "pro-government newspaper". This is a small edition in English for foreigners who work in Azerbaijan. Focused on English-speaking readers. None of the Azerbaijanis read it. If there is such a quote, then the author should have thought about who benefits from the war between Iran and the Turkey-Azerbaijan link.

PPS
Whatever the author writes and thinks, in my understanding, Russia temporarily lost its status as a global superpower. But she returned it in recent years. You can ask about this in Washington, Brussels or Beijing. But for some reason the author does not think so and decided that Russia is just a regional power. At the level of Turkey or Tehran.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +2
  
  8 October 2021 14: 11
  
  If Armenia is involved in the war, it will be a complete disaster for Russia. Iran will not be able to defeat Azerbaijan in a couple of days or a couple of weeks. Iran will have to deal with the Turkish army. The result is predictable.
  
  Are you already hiding behind Turkey?
  
  Russia has temporarily lost its status as a global superpower. But she returned it in recent years. You can ask about this in Washington, Brussels or Beijing. But for some reason the author does not think so and decided that Russia is just a regional power.
  
  And I didn’t say that the Russian Federation had lost this status forever. She objectively lost it and still has not returned it. Superpower does not match 2% of world GDP.
  1. Bakht
    
    +1
    
    8 October 2021 14: 15
    
    We are not hiding behind Turkey. We have allied relations with Turkey. As with Pakistan, by the way.
    But Armenia decided to hide behind Iran, if it didn’t work with Russia.
    Do you still think that the war in the South Caucasus can be beneficial for Russia?
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +2
      
      8 October 2021 14: 35
      
      We are not hiding behind Turkey. We have allied relations with Turkey.
      
      и
      
      Iran will have to deal with the Turkish army. The result is predictable.
      
      Aren't you from Odessa?
      
      But Armenia decided to hide behind Iran, if it didn’t work with Russia.
      
      Who cares about Armenia in general?
      1. Bakht
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 15: 38
        
        This is precisely a pro-Armenian article. You haven't found a link to AZERI TIMES?
  2. Bakht
    
    +1
    
    8 October 2021 14: 16
    
    Superpower has nothing to do with GDP.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +2
      
      8 October 2021 14: 33
      
      Hmm. I wonder what is it connected with then?
      1. Bakht
        
        +1
        
        8 October 2021 15: 36
        
        Mr. Marzhetsky. There are too many posts and there is no way to answer for each one.
        1. The statehood is connected only with the role of the state in the world order. Russia has a veto in the UN; without Russia, no global problem can be resolved. If the future of the EU economy depends on the words of the President of Russia, then the statehood is not in the EU, but in Russia. And the GDP was invented 40-50 years ago by the "Chicago boys". And it has nothing to do with the statehood of the state. If legal and consulting services are included in the GDP, then you can slide into insanity. The power of the state has always been determined by the generation of electricity, the smelting of steel, and the extraction of minerals. And by the strength of the state apparatus. Hitler won't let you lie.
        2. You claim that the war between Iran and Turkey-Azerbaijan can be beneficial to Russia. You are in a completely lost position. Such a war can only be beneficial to Armenia. And then, provided that Iran wins it. Which is not obvious. But is Yerevan interested in Tehran's problems?
        I explained. In case of war, Iran will face the Azerbaijan-Turkey-Pakistan coalition. Russia will not fit in for Iran. As a result of such a war, Russia loses its base in Azerbaijan, loses the North-South transport corridor (by the way, it has already been frozen because of the position of Iran). That is, Russia is losing access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the Bosphorus. Russia is losing supplies to the Syrian group. And this is not only the Aerospace Forces, but the entire naval group in the Eastern Mediterranean. Azerbaijan completely goes under Turkish influence, and bases of Turkish troops appear in the South Caucasus. That is NATO. Therefore, unlike you, Lavrov has clearly stated that the war in the South Caucasus is NOT in Russia's interests.
        3. Iran can send troops to Syunik. That is, Armenia completely loses its subjectivity and troops of two states are deployed on its territory: Russia and Iran. Russia provides a transport corridor in Zangezur, while Iran is blocking it. To your regret, Pashinyan and the Armenian parliament are considering the creation of a second Russian base in Armenia. It is in Syunik.
        4. Russia can supply its grouping in Syria through Iran-Iraq. I still treat you better than others. And therefore I do NOT advise you to buy a globe. Such supply is possible only on condition of complete destruction of the state of Azerbaijan. I don't think Iran will succeed.
        
        To summarize. Your articles are completely pro-Armenian and completely contradict the interests of Russia as a state. Not to the government of Russia, but specifically to the state of Russia.
        
        I have already asked to consider the question of why this tension. Iran has lost drug traffic through Karabakh to Europe. Azerbaijan blocks this flow up to the fighting on the border. If Iran needs a transport route to Europe, then Azerbaijan fully provides it. $ 500 million invested in the Astara-Rasht railway network. But Iran wants to carry it by road on mountain roads precisely through Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh is not part of Armenia. This is the territory of Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijan has every right to inspect Iranian trucks. There are no Israeli bases in Azerbaijan. It is already necessary to decide - either we have Israeli military or Islamic militants who are at war with Israel.
        
        I think the discussion has just turned into a verbal dive without much sense. Point by point, tell me how such a war can be beneficial to Russia.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        9 October 2021 21: 52
        
        If the future of the EU economy depends on the words of the President of Russia, then the statehood is not in the EU, but in Russia.
        
        But in the same way, the future of the Russian economy depends on the decision of the EU :)
        
        And the GDP was invented 40-50 years ago by the "Chicago boys". And it has nothing to do with the statehood of the state. If legal and consulting services are included in the GDP, then you can slide into insanity. The power of the state has always been determined by the generation of electricity, the smelting of steel, and the extraction of minerals.
        
        Ok, let's look at electricity generation in 2018:
        
        China - 7166 TW * h, USA - 4461 TW * h, India - 1579 TW * h, Russia - 1109 TWh, Japan - 1109 TWh.
        
        Steel smelting (2016, in million tons). China - 808, EU - 152, Japan - 104, India - 95, USA - 78, Russia - 70.
        
        Mining - which ones? They are different. Generally speaking, according to the results of the World Mining Data 2020 study, there are 4 leaders in the world - China (23%), the USA (12%), Russia (9%) and, suddenly, Australia with 7%.
        
        According to the three criteria you proposed, it turns out that India, Japan, the European Union, Australia have great power at the level of Russia :)
        
        And what do you dislike about the service industry? A service is exactly the same product as a car or a tank. The production of a service takes time, human and material resources, which is what its cost consists of.
        
        And by the strength of the state apparatus.
        
        Well, in the DPRK, this power is generally absolute. Is the DPRK a superpower?)
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        10 October 2021 08: 12
        
        I argued that GDP is not a criterion for a superpower. I can agree that one of the factors. But not more. Russia produces less in absolute terms. But this is not a hideout for building a superpower.
        I said that super-javism is determined by the role of the state in the world order, the veto in the Security Council. The ability to solve world problems. Or influence their decisions.
        Our discussion boiled down to the role of one parameter - GDP. That is, money. I disagree with this postulate.
        
        What do I dislike about the service industry? The fact that their prices depend on the level of the economy. Taxi drivers in Baku and New York earn completely different numbers. And this is included in the GDP. But the speed of movement in cities is limited. And the taxi driver cannot physically serve more clients. Why do they have different salaries? Please note that in a crisis, it is the service sector that falls in the first place. And in the States, it accounts for 80% of GDP. Unfortunately, in Russia, too, it is 60-65%. Of course, you can't live without it. But by overestimating the cost of the services of a tour operator or a restaurant, we will get a high GDP. Which has little to do with the real economy. E. Reinert gave an example of the difference within one country. He compared agricultural incomes in the South and North of Italy. There is only one country, but in the industrial North the profitability is higher than in the agricultural South. Strange within the framework of monetarists ....
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 09: 09
        
        I said that super-javism is determined by the role of the state in the world order, the veto in the Security Council. The ability to solve world problems. Or influence their decisions.
        
        The United Kingdom and France also have veto powers at the UN. And both of these countries are quite influential in solving world problems. But not a single country, not even a real superpower, is able to solve them (world problems).
        
        Our discussion boiled down to the role of one parameter - GDP. That is, money. I disagree with this postulate.
        
        No, this is how you understood her. I argue somewhat differently - that GDP, although not the only, but an important criterion for assessing the country's economy. And, therefore, an important, though not the only, criterion for assessing "superpower".
        
        What do I dislike about the service industry? The fact that their prices depend on the level of the economy.
        
        So the cost of one and the same product depends on the level of the economy. For example, a car made in Uzbekistan will cost less than a car made in Germany. Even if it is a German car assembled in Uzbekistan at a branch of a German enterprise. If only because wages in Uzbekistan are lower than wages in Germany.
        
        Taxi drivers in Baku and New York earn completely different numbers. And this is included in the GDP. But the speed of movement in cities is limited. And the taxi driver cannot physically serve more clients.
        
        But their work is also somewhat different. Baku is a city with a population of 2,8 million (more precisely, this is the Baku agglomeration), and New York is a city with a population of 8 million. Moreover, the area of Baku is larger, that is, the building density is much less than in New York.
        
        And you can increase the number of customers served not only by increasing the speed of the car, but also by using the best routes, for which you need to know the city perfectly. I can’t say about New York, but in the same London, local taxi drivers pass an exam on the knowledge of the city without using a navigator and maps.
        
        In other words, you first need to study well the specifics of the work of the American and Baku taxi drivers in order to talk about whether they receive different salaries for the same job or for different ones.
        
        But by overestimating the cost of the services of a tour operator or a restaurant, we will get a high GDP.
        
        But in the same way, you can overestimate the cost of goods. Apple products, for example, cost much more than comparable products from other manufacturers. Although here it is also possible to argue whether these characteristics are similar or not.
        
        E. Reinert gave an example of the difference within one country. He compared agricultural incomes in the South and North of Italy. There is only one country, but in the industrial North the profitability is higher than in the agricultural South. Strange within the framework of monetarists ....
        
        Depends on what type of agricultural production was used there. For example (I'm just guessing now), an outdated land use system could be used in the South, chemical fertilizers or pesticides could not be used (since the chemical industry is less developed, and it also costs money to bring them from the North). More educated breeders and agronomists could concentrate in the North, increasing production efficiency and hence profitability. Etc.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        10 October 2021 10: 04
        
        In our country, discussions always move to the level of "who is right". This is unproductive.
        Start over. GDP cannot be a criterion for superpower. This is one of their criteria and not the most important one.
        Superpower is determined by other factors. Including the right of veto and influence on interstate relations.
        The size of the economy and the production of goods, in my opinion, is more important than GDP. But you are misinterpreting my words. Despite the size of the economy, neither Japan, India, nor Germany are superpowers. Just as France is not a superpower, despite its nuclear weapons.
        A complex of many parameters is more important.
        I consider the most important influence on political and economic processes in the world. And without the participation of Russia, this cannot be achieved. As well as without the participation of China.
        Therefore, in my understanding, the superpowers are the United States, Russia and China. Moreover, the United States is losing its status (but this is not a momentary action). It will take years. Like the superpower of Ancient Rome, it stretched for a century (but now at a different pace). China will get ahead (but this is also a program for decades (in any case, China sets such a task for the middle of the 21st century). Russia has officially announced its refusal to follow the course of a superpower. I have already said. This is either hypocrisy or a mistake. the role of a strong state.But neither the United States nor China is the optimal way of development for Russia. Therefore, Russia will have to regain this status. China is preferable. Because the American superpower is aggressive and follows the path of expansionism. China (at least at this stage) does not pursue an aggressive foreign policy and is interested in economic parameters without changing the political structure of states.
        But in any case, Russia needs its own special path. Or become a satellite of stronger states.
        Therefore, I regard the rejection of superpower as a rejection of Russia's identity.
        Hopefully, I explained everything clearly. You cannot change my opinion. I change my beliefs only with a competent and well-grounded presentation of the opposing side. And such arguments can be provided to me not on forums, but in serious analytical articles. Not from Wikipedia.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 10: 48
        
        In our country, discussions always move to the level of "who is right". This is unproductive.
        
        So the discussion is the process of proving one's point of view and refuting the point of view of the opponent. And the one who brought more arguments, whose arguments are more logical, is right.
        
        Start over. GDP cannot be a criterion for superpower. This is one of their criteria and not the most important one.
        
        Maybe because this is one of the main criteria for assessing the economy.
        
        Superpower is determined by other factors. Including the right of veto and influence on interstate relations.
        
        It is determined, among other things, by the power of the economy, which is one of the main criteria. The veto right is just a consequence, so to speak, an external expression of this power.
        
        The size of the economy and the production of goods, in my opinion, is more important than GDP.
        
        So GDP just characterizes the size of the economy and the production of goods. The higher the GDP, the more goods, or the more high-quality or complex goods (because quality and complexity determine the cost) the country produces.
        
        But you are misinterpreting my words. Despite the size of the economy, neither Japan, India, nor Germany are superpowers. Just as France is not a superpower, despite its nuclear weapons.
        A complex of many parameters is more important.
        
        So I did not say otherwise. I am only refuting your thesis that superpower does not depend on the economy.
        
        I consider the most important influence on political and economic processes in the world.
        
        So without a strong economy, you will not be able to achieve this. Need to promote your interests in some right country? Pay money (or with other products that cost money). It is necessary to shift the balance in some country in favor of its manufacturers / suppliers - first, fork out for gifts to local kings or arms for them, so that they can impose their will on local or foreign manufacturers / suppliers. Need to sponsor a "national liberation" or "democratic movement" in a country? Spend money on weapons and food for them.
        
        Therefore, in my understanding, the superpowers are the United States, Russia and China.
        
        At least Russia - definitely not. If only because its political influence does not advance further than the countries closest to its borders (and even Syria). And among the neighbors there is a pro-Russian minority. The rest are either pro-Western or "neutral". Compare with the United States, which has Europe, Southeast Asia (except Vietnam and North Korea), Australia, and most Latin American countries in its sphere of influence.
        
        Yes, we are reckoned with for the same climate. But the same applies to Japan, India, Germany, and France. Because if you do not reckon with these largest producers and consumers of energy, then all your own efforts to normalize the climate will go to waste. You see, the climate recognizes only its own boundaries, not state ones.
        
        Moreover, the United States is losing its status
        
        It's too early to tell. Even during the Cold War, when it was an unquestionably superpower, the United States did not always win military or political operations. Let us recall Korea (although there was a partial victory there - South Korea was not given back), Vietnam (complete political defeat), the same Tehran in 1979. However, none of these events deprived them of their superpower status.
        
        And the "escape of the Americans from Afghanistan" is an interesting thing. On the one hand, there are undoubted reputational losses, even among loyal allies like Britain (more precisely, its individual representatives). On the other hand, the Americans have stopped spending money on Afghanistan (economy), but China, Iran and Russia have left a powder keg at their side, on which (or to protect against which) they will have to spend their money. A kind of "Turkish gambit" - to sacrifice part of your reputation, but to put a much bigger pig on your geopolitical opponents.
        
        (but this is not a momentary action).
        
        But a few comments ago you said that the USSR ceased to be a superpower almost instantly.
        
        Because the American superpower is aggressive and follows the path of expansionism. Whoever is not with her, she will bomb them into the Stone Age.
        
        It is not at all necessary - the United States is completely for itself and bought the loyalty of countries or got along with the support of "democratic movements" that seized power and changed the course of the country to the one needed by the United States. Remember the same countries of Eastern Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states. And they made Japan and Western Europe their own not only by deploying troops, but also by financial assistance, providing technology, training their specialists at home, etc., etc.
        
        China (at least at this stage) does not pursue an aggressive foreign policy.
        
        Oh, so this is for the time being :) China does not yet have sufficient military power to drum someone into the Stone Age. As soon as he builds up this power, then everything will be. The first attempts at writing were already in Vietnam (First Socialist War), but it was rather a bad experience. But much time has passed since then, China has become much stronger.
        
        You cannot change my opinion.
        
        Actually, I have already changed something :) For example, you have already admitted that the loss of superpower is a gradual and relatively slow process. True, they did not take the second logical step, recognizing that the USSR's loss of superpower began BEFORE its collapse. But this is a matter of your pride.
        
        I change my beliefs only with a competent and well-grounded presentation of the opposing side. And such arguments can be provided to me not on forums, but in serious analytical articles.
        
        But you have not refuted any of my arguments.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 12: 16
        
        So GDP just characterizes the size of the economy and the production of goods. The higher the GDP, the more goods, or the more high-quality or complex goods (because quality and complexity determine the cost) the country produces.
        
        It is this thesis that I refute. Including many economists. Including the creator of the GDPR tool.
        In order not to go into special literature, you will have to use Wikipedia
        
        Since the introduction of GDP, many respected economists have warned that GDP is a "specialized instrument"and that its use as an indicator of general welfare can lead to dangerous misconceptions. Simon Kuznets, one of the architects of the US national accounting system, warned against equating GDP growth with an increase in economic or social welfare (Kuznets, 1934; Kuznets et al., 1941).
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 12: 29
        
        Since the introduction of GDP, many respected economists have warned that GDP is a “specialized instrument,” and that its use as an indicator of general welfare can lead to dangerous misconceptions.
        
        And other quite authoritative economists argue that GDP is quite good in numerical terms characterizes the level of development of the country's economy. And this indicator is used in the world economy. The opinion of your economists versus mine :)
        
        Once again, I do not call GDP the only and comprehensive criterion for economic development. Nevertheless, it allows to estimate this level as a whole numerically. Nobody completely equates it with economic well-being.
        
        It is possible and necessary, of course, to evaluate according to other criteria, but within the framework of the "Reporter" and this dispute, it is quite possible to use only the GDP.
    2. Cyril
      
      0
      
      8 October 2021 23: 20
      
      It is connected in the most direct way. You cannot extend your influence (economic, military, political, cultural) to the entire planet or most of it without a strong economy. The Russian ruble is not the world's reserve currency, Russian culture is not global, and the Russian armed forces cannot operate confidently in all regions of the planet.
      1. Bakht
        
        +2
        
        9 October 2021 00: 10
        
        And how does the above correlate with GDP?
        Is China a superpower? Its GDP is larger than that of the States. Or India and Japan? Their GDP is greater than that of Russia. GDP is not a criterion for a superpower.
        Can the States act confidently around the world? For example, in Afghanistan or Syria? Is American culture predominant for the majority?
        Can the United States, as a superpower, solve global problems?
        
        In the modern world, a superpower is a country whose actions must be taken into account by all players. These countries are the USA, Russia and China. All the rest are regional or simply objects of international relations.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        9 October 2021 13: 18
        
        And how does the above correlate with GDP?
        Is China a superpower? Its GDP is larger than that of the States. Or India and Japan? Their GDP is greater than that of Russia. GDP is not a criterion for a superpower.
        
        And I did not say that a strong economy is the only criterion for "superpower". But she is her prerequisite.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 13: 41
        
        Is not.
        In the modern sense, the USSR was a superpower. What was its GDP?
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 14: 06
        
        So who is in power? The one who convinced others that this is so ... Maybe the media? Or established stereotypes?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        9 October 2021 15: 25
        
        I also love this series, but let's not use the lengthy reasoning of the venerable Varis as an argument. The world is somewhat more complex than even the highest quality series.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 15: 08
        
        The economy of the Soviet Union was second in the world by the volume of GDP (at purchasing power parity), the system of social relations in the sphere of production, exchange and distribution of products of various sectors of the national economy. The USSR economy accounted for about 20% of world industrial production.
        
        Such cases
        
        Bakht
        
        +2
        
        9 October 2021 16: 17
        
        A bit different. According to other data, the GDP of the late Union (late 80s) was 9% of the world. In foreign trade, 1-1,5%.
        Statistics are unpredictable things.
        
        For example, in 1950 the USSR was ahead of Greece and Spain in per capita GDP by 35-50%. But already in 1970 the indicators of these countries caught up with the Soviet ones, and in 1990 they were already ahead of the USSR by a third (!). Unlike European countries, which narrowed the gap with the United States, the USSR failed to do this: both in 1950 and in 1990, the Soviet per capita GDP was only 30% of the American one.
        
        So it goes....
        And further. I have always been against the GDP comparison. This indicator does nothing. If a doctor in Russia receives $ 1000, then a doctor in the States receives $ 10 for the same job (conditional prices). These are all services. But if you add them to the GDP (which is done according to the current manuals), then the GDP of the States is 000 times higher than the Russian one. This indicator does not show anything and does not solve anything.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 16: 25
        
        A bit different. According to other data, the GDP of the late Union (late 80s) was 9% of the world. In foreign trade, 1-1,5%.
        Statistics are unpredictable things.
        
        So in the late 80s, the USSR began to lose its superpower status. Thank you for just confirming my thesis.
        
        And further. I have always been against the GDP comparison. This indicator does nothing. If a doctor in Russia receives $ 1000, then a doctor in the States receives $ 10 for the same job (conditional prices). These are all services. But if you add them to the GDP (which is done according to the current manuals), then the GDP of the States is 000 times higher than the Russian one. This indicator does not show anything and does not solve anything.
        
        First, how do you know that a doctor in the United States receives his notional $ 10 for the same work? Labor productivity in the United States (and other capitalist countries) was higher.
        
        The GDP indicator for comparison of economies is used, in fact, in science called "economics". Nobody argues that this is the only indicator, but it is one of the main ones. And something tells me that economists understand this matter more and better than you and I put together. In other words, I have no reason not to trust them, but trust you in this matter.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 16: 36
        
        I have not confirmed. The end of the 80s is not the end of a superpower. I deliberately took the Soviet period. Still Soviet.
        The productivity of a doctor and a hairdresser cannot be higher in the States. If a doctor can conditionally perform 1 operation per day, then this is the norm for any country.
        If a lawyer conducts 3 cases, then he cannot handle 30 cases. And all this is included in the GDP.
        
        We leave again to the side. Superpower is a subjective and fickle concept. According to some political analysts, these are countries that are permanent members of the Security Council and have the right to veto. That is, those that can influence decisions of global importance. But other political scientists dispute this definition. There is an opinion - to determine by military power. A country that can turn the whole world into dust in half an hour is also a superpower. Again, some dispute this. But money has never defined superpower. This is just nonsense. Have you watched Bodrov's "Brother-2"? "Well, American? You've got money. So, are you right?"
        The USSR was a superpower. Lost it for political reasons, not for economic reasons. Now Russia has regained its statehood. Name one problem that the West can solve without Russia's participation.
        What I've always suggested happened this year. For only half a year Europe has little gas (by the way, Russia is not to blame for this), so what? The second or third economy in the world (in terms of GDP) is blown away before our eyes.
        
        Again. I never consider GDP as an indicator. It doesn't show anything.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 17: 46
        
        I have not confirmed. The end of the 80s is not the end of a superpower. I deliberately took the Soviet period. Still Soviet.
        
        The end of the 80s is the beginning of the end of the USSR as a superpower (and as a country, too). You don't think that power and influence is lost at the snap of your fingers, in 1 day or week? No, this is a rather lengthy process. The British Empire (the superpower of its time), too, did not lose its power and influence immediately. The Roman Empire (the superpower of its time) - too, etc.
        
        The productivity of a doctor and a hairdresser cannot be higher in the States. If a doctor can conditionally perform 1 operation per day, then this is the norm for any country.
        
        And who told you that in the USA a doctor conditionally performs 1 operation per day? Who told you that in the USA a hairdresser serves conditionally 1 client per day?
        
        If a lawyer conducts 3 cases, then he cannot handle 30 cases. And all this is included in the GDP.
        
        Do you read what you write?) It's funny.
        
        Again. Most officially employed citizens receive a salary (fixed salary) plus allowances (bonuses, bonuses, etc.) either for overtime (extra hours) or for the number of customers served (manufactured units of products, if we are talking about production). From this, the amount of full wages is determined.
        
        In the United States and Western capital countries, labor efficiency (that is, the amount of products produced or services provided), on average, was significantly higher than in the USSR. Several factors contributed to this:
        - greater material motivation, which in the USSR was restrained by the policy of equalization;
        - fear of losing a job, forcing them to work more efficiently so as not to lose in a competitive labor market. In the USSR, because of the official policy of combating unemployment, it was quite difficult to lose a job even with systematic absenteeism, drunkenness at the workplace, etc.
        
        We leave again to the side. Superpower is a subjective and fickle concept. According to some political analysts, these are countries that are permanent members of the Security Council and have the right to veto. That is, those that can influence decisions of global importance. But other political scientists dispute this definition. There is an opinion - to determine by military power. A country that can turn the whole world into dust in half an hour is also a superpower. Again, some dispute this. But money has never defined superpower. This is just nonsense.
        
        Superpower has specific criteria. One of which is a strong economy. Not the only one, but one of the main ones. In other words, a country with a strong economy (e.g. Japan, Canada, Germany) may not be a superpower, but a country with a weak economy (the same Ukraine or, say, Iran) can't become her.
        
        In order to create and maintain a strong army (military influence), money is needed.
        
        In order to buy allies and bribe opponents (to spread your political influence), you need money.
        
        In order to develop science and technology (to ensure technological dominance), money is needed.
        
        In order to spread your culture to the whole world or most of it, you need money.
        
        Have you watched Bodrov's "Brother-2"? "Well, American? You've got money. So, are you right?"
        
        Damn, are you seriously going to throw quotes from movies as an argumentation?
        
        The USSR was a superpower. Lost it for political reasons, not for economic reasons.
        
        He lost it for economic reasons. The late USSR could not afford huge cash infusions into its allies or "people's liberation movements" that undermined the authority of the United States. And the United States had money to outbid Soviet allies, to buy "neutrals", and to support "democratic movements" in the countries of the former socialist bloc - which it did.
        
        Now Russia has regained its statehood.
        
        It never lost the regional one. Superpower - not yet.
        
        Name one problem that the West can solve without Russia's participation.
        
        You have a simplified view again. Once again, superpower does not mean the ability to completely spit on the interests and capabilities of other countries. Likewise, participation in world political processes does not guarantee the country a "superpower" status. Naturally, Russia will have an important weight in the world arena, if only because of its vast territories, the presence of a huge number of minerals, and the army inherited from the USSR, including nuclear forces, also adds weight. Without Russia and in the 90s, which are considered the period of the maximum decline of our influence, not a single world problem was solved. But you yourself say that in the 90s Russia was not a superpower, right?
        
        What I've always suggested happened this year. For only half a year Europe has little gas (by the way, Russia is not to blame for this), so what? The second or third economy in the world (in terms of GDP) is blown away before our eyes.
        
        Thus, a united Europe was not a superpower.
        
        Again. I never consider GDP as an indicator. It doesn't show anything.
        
        Yes, personally, you can consider anything or not. The main thing is that professional economists regard it as such.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 19: 08
        
        Too much has been written and not all is correct. I said that I am not going to argue with you. Your reasons are not always accurate. And sometimes they are simply wrong.
        One factor can be, but is not required. By the way, I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia's share in world GDP is not 0,2%, but more than 3%.
        Examples about doctors and hairdressers were not given by me, but by E. Reinert. And I agree with him. And this is quite a serious economist. At one time, according to the GDP criterion, "economists" considered Japan or Germany to be a superpower. This is not the criterion. Russia has all the hallmarks of a superpower. In any case, her position is taken into account. The position of Europe is also considered. With the position of China or the States. But let's say the position of France is not being considered. Despite having nuclear weapons. 3,4 and 5th places are shared by India, Japan and Germany. Who is interested in their opinion on global issues? In any case, Biden discusses the problems of ecology and terrorism with them insofar as.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 20: 48
        
        One factor can be, but is not required. By the way, I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia's share in world GDP is not 0,2%, but more than 3%.
        
        I did not give figures on the current share of Russia in world GDP. But if you touched on this topic, then in the United States it is, for comparison, more than 15 percent, and in China - 17%. China still lacks only two things to become a superpower - a sufficient opportunity to project military power and a reliable military-political allied bloc with its dominant influence.
        
        Examples about doctors and hairdressers were not given by me, but by E. Reinert. And I agree with him. And this is quite a serious economist.
        
        This means that you misunderstood his example. Yes, there is a criticism of GDP among economists, only they criticize not this indicator itself, but the assessment of the economies of countries exclusively on it... Nobody argues with this - the GDP must be analyzed in combination with other economic factors (for example, as I already wrote, with labor efficiency). But he himself is also an important indicator by which one can judge the degree of economic development of the country. Otherwise, it would simply not be used in world economic science.
        
        At one time, according to the GDP criterion, "economists" considered Japan or Germany to be a superpower.
        
        Not true. Germany and Japan were considered "economic superpowers." This is a completely different concept., Which is purely related to the economy. But, nevertheless, already political scientists really considered Japan and Germany as potential superpowers in the political sense of this term - including because of the powerful economies of these two countries.
        
        Russia has all the hallmarks of a superpower.
        
        No, it does not. The simplest example is that the United States was able to "create" hotbeds of tension at our borders in the form of the now unfriendly Ukraine or Georgia. Russia at the US borders cannot do this yet. Even Venezuela, being an "anti-American" country, is not yet a "pro-Russian" country.
        
        But let's say the position of France is not being considered. Despite having nuclear weapons.
        
        It is being considered. Do not confuse the "undercutting" of the Australo-French submarine contract with the act of completely disregarding the interests of the French. Yes, the contract was cut, but the Americans now have to sweeten the pill for France and look for ways to reduce the tension that has arisen.
        
        India, Japan and Germany. Who is interested in their opinion on global issues? Anyway problems ecology, Biden discusses terrorism with them insofar as.
        
        In 2019, Osaka hosted a G20 conference (this list of countries includes Japan) on ecology. So it quite takes into account. If you are talking about the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, then it was rather Trump's action - as soon as he left office, the United States returned to this agreement.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        10 October 2021 07: 58
        
        Read the criticism of GDP from economists. Even the creator of this system himself warned that it is impossible to calculate the economic power of the state by GDP. This indicator has become a convenient tool for monetarists. No more.
        
        I didn't even think about the contract between France and Australia. I'm just looking at France's position in world politics. It was suggested that Japan and Germany be regarded as superpowers precisely according to the principle that we are now discussing.
        
        Good example with Georgia and Ukraine. I just wanted to cite them as an example. States can destroy states. They cannot create. The near future will show what their superpower is worth in Ukraine. They lost in Georgia, as well as in Afghanistan. That is, today I see that they cannot project power around the world. This is exactly what the British Secretary of Defense had in mind. The next step is the withdrawal from Iraq and Syria.
        
        Economics matters, but it all depends on how you count. There was no market economy in the USSR, so the calculation of GDP in the Union was a sheer profanation.
        
        If, as you say, the Union's GDP was the second in the world and reached 20% (I disagree with this, but let's assume), then how did the USSR lose its superpower status? After all, the country produced everything from galoshes to Buran. The fall in the economy was a consequence of the collapse, but not vice versa. China, for example, began its upswing at the same time.
        
        Unfortunately, the current leadership of Russia proclaimed a rejection of the course of superpower. This has been repeatedly stated by Putin. He is either mistaken or disingenuous. Another thing is that superpower can be different. Much has been written on this topic.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 09: 52
        
        I didn't even think about the contract between France and Australia. I'm just looking at France's position in world politics. It was suggested that Japan and Germany be regarded as superpowers precisely according to the principle that we are now discussing.
        
        What is wrong with France's position in world politics? The influence is quite significant, although it is undoubtedly a regional power. Nevertheless, its influence extends to some countries in Africa, Latin America, Oceania. And not abstract, but quite real - there are either French troops, or some countries are under the political protectorate of France.
        
        I didn't even think about the contract between France and Australia. I'm just looking at France's position in world politics. Japan and Germany were proposed to be considered as super powers exactly according to the principle that we are now discussing.
        
        Attention, no. They were offered to be considered as potential superpowers, not accomplished ones. Because, having a strong economy (one of the pillars of superpower), politically they are moving in the wake of the United States, which cannot make them full-fledged superpowers. There is an economic component, but there is no political or military one.
        
        Good example with Georgia and Ukraine. I just wanted to cite them as an example. States can destroy states. They cannot create.
        
        Is it? And South Korea, and Japan, and Germany? And what countries has modern Russia "created"?
        
        They lost in Georgia, as well as in Afghanistan.
        
        Have you lost? Georgia has become a pro-Russian country? In my opinion, it still aspires to NATO and conducts joint exercises with the United States and NATO, not Russia.
        
        That is, today I see that they cannot project power around the world.
        
        They can project power over most of the world. In particular, it is thanks to this that China has not yet captured Taiwan or the islands disputed with Japan. That is why the DPRK has not yet seized the Republic of Korea.
        
        Of course, they cannot win always and everywhere - this is beyond the control of any country in the world. But in most of the world - quite.
        
        Economics matters, but it all depends on how you count. There was no market economy in the USSR, so the calculation of GDP in the Union was a sheer profanation.
        
        Why? GDP is the aggregate value of all goods and services produced. It doesn't matter what the economy is. Did the USSR produce goods and services? Produced. Did goods and services have a value in the USSR? Have had.
        
        If, as you say, the Union's GDP was the second in the world and reached 20% (I disagree with this, but let's assume), then how did the USSR lose its superpower status?
        
        First, you quoted inaccurately. 20% is the share of the USSR in world industrial production. And industry is only one of the branches of the economy. In particular, the same service sector in the Soviet Socialist Republic was much less developed, and it brings in a huge amount of income.
        
        Secondly, the second economy of the world of the USSR was not at the very end of its existence, but in the 2s and early 70s. Since the mid-80s, its economy began to decline. Already in 80, she lost 88nd place to Japan, and then fell even lower. Which led (including) to political disintegration and the loss of superpower. As I said, this is a rather long process that develops gradually and does not happen immediately.
        
        After all, the country produced everything from galoshes to Buran
        
        The bias was towards military products and heavy engineering to the detriment of the production of consumer goods. Civilian goods were produced, but the assortment was rather scarce, and in terms of quality, many types of products were inferior to Western ones. The thesis "sold for chewing gum and jeans" for all its ... mmmm ... ambiguous wording, had a rational grain in it. Produce less goods - people buy less and pay less to the treasury in the form of direct payments or taxes. And they buy more competing Western products, more varied and of better quality.
        
        And, forgive me, when there is no toilet paper in stores (yes, this is not a myth), somehow this does not contribute to social stability. As powerful as indoctrination is.
        
        The fall in the economy was a consequence of the collapse, but not vice versa
        
        No, the economic decline began long before the collapse. Remember the shortage of consumer goods, the queues for buying cars, which could last for years, which first appeared sharply back in the 70s. But in the 70s, the USSR still had an economic reserve from the 50s and 60s, so it continued to exist by inertia. But this backlog was not endless. The collapse of the Union was the result of the economic decline (including).
        
        Unfortunately, the current leadership of Russia proclaimed a rejection of the course of superpower. This has been repeatedly stated by Putin. He is either mistaken or disingenuous.
        
        Superpower is simply expensive. In the literal sense, it is expensive, you need a lot of money. Russia cannot afford it yet. Therefore, here I agree with Putin
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 10: 11
        
        I've already said everything.
        I can refute everything you said in one phrase.
        The abandonment of superpower was far more expensive for Russia (and for all of us). In the 90s, shops were full of toilet paper. We died with clean asses.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 11: 01
        
        I can refute everything you said in one phrase.
        The abandonment of superpower was far more expensive for Russia (and for all of us). In the 90s, shops were full of toilet paper. We died with clean asses.
        
        You have not refuted anything with this phrase. Because it was simplified again to the point of impossibility.
        
        Yes, in the 90s, toilet paper, and clothes of various styles, and cars, and other consumer goods appeared in stores.
        
        But these were goods produced in other countries. Not Russian. And, consequently, they did not show the level of development of the Russian economy.
        
        And the economy of Russia itself was in deep decline. Not only did we not have our own production of the same clothes, cars and toilet paper (more precisely, it was, but very small), but also the heavy industry, the military industry fell into decay.
        
        And precisely because the Soviet / Russian economy fell into decay, we ceased to be a superpower.
        
        By the way, even now the bulk of the same toilet paper, clothes, cars in Russia is the products of foreign companies. Accordingly, this does not count towards our economy. And that is why we have not yet regained superpower status.
        
        So you have not refuted any of my arguments. On the contrary, only confirmed, thank you.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 12: 12
        
        Give thanks in vain. I confirmed you only in your imagination.
        You still do not understand the main thing. But this is not news to me. Too often I have argued with the toilet paper and 100 sausage apologists.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 12: 34
        
        I confirmed you only in your imagination.
        
        From what? You gave an excellent example of the correlation between a stagnant economy and the loss of superpower.
        
        You still do not understand the main thing.
        
        I understood everything perfectly. And most importantly, and your position.
        
        Too often I have argued with the toilet paper and 100 sausage apologists.
        
        It's too much. Their correctness was proved by the USSR itself, which ordered to live a long time, despite the huge influence, nor on nuclear missiles, nor on the money invested in other countries, nor on massive propaganda, nor on repressive governance, nor on the veto in the UN.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        10 October 2021 14: 07
        
        Incorrect explanation
        I gave an excellent example of the correlation between the loss of statehood and the fall of the economy.
        Currently, there is a revival of the statehood and, as a result (!), An economic recovery.
        In the 90s, due to the vassalage of Russia, hundreds of billions (talk about trillions) of raw materials and resources were exported from the country. You don't see the connection. I see.
        
        isofat
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 14: 28
        
        Quote: Bakht
        I gave an excellent example of the correlation between the loss of statehood and the fall of the economy.
        
        Bakhtiyar, I agree with you, a good example. But your opponent has a distorting mirror.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        10 October 2021 14: 32
        
        My opponent is not looking out the window.
        Factories in Europe are now closing. Cause? Gas price. Why did the gas price become this way? Because the European Union has lost its subjectivity. That is, the political arctic fox came before the economic one. Those countries that retain their subjectivity have a chance to get out of this crisis with minimal losses. Here A. Merkel is already erecting equestrian statues in Germany.
        
        Biden's new move: the US decided to sacrifice a heavy figure - the economy of the entire EU
        
        https://cont.ws/@ishchenko/2105324
        You can argue with the author. But I have always said that the States will grab Europe. This is too fat and defenseless goose.
        
        isofat
        
        -1
        
        10 October 2021 15: 40
        
        Thank you, interesting author.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 07: 25
        
        I gave an excellent example of the correlation between the loss of statehood and the fall of the economy.
        
        But you only get that the cause (loss of statehood) follows the effect (the fall of the economy).
        
        Currently, there is a revival of the statehood and, as a result (!), An economic recovery.
        
        Vice versa. The rise of the Russian economy began in the late 90s, and the "revival of statehood" - only after about 10 years.
        
        In the 90s, due to the vassalage of Russia, hundreds of billions (talk about trillions) of raw materials and resources were exported from the country. You don't see the connection. I see.
        
        You see, but you confuse the cause with the effect :)
        
        Bakht
        
        +2
        
        11 October 2021 07: 39
        
        You can argue endlessly who confuses cause and effect. Examples from history and the present in favor of my version.
        The economic recovery did not begin in the late 90s, but much later.
        You think that the collapse of the USSR was caused by economic reasons. I believe that first there were political decisions.
        The economy is important, but it rarely leads to the collapse of the state. For example, the economic situation in the USSR during the war years was much worse. But the country did not fall apart. Conversely, it has become a superpower. At first, Stalin made the decision to abandon Lenin's policy, then the economic recovery began in the 30s.
        
        And how ridiculous. Is this indicator really so important?
        Britain faces a threat of a toilet paper shortage.
        https://regnum.ru/news/3393367.html
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 08: 36
        
        The economic recovery did not begin in the late 90s, but much later.
        
        It began almost immediately after the default in 1998. The peak of Russia's economic development is in the middle and second half of the 2000s. The "statehood" "returned" after 2008. Indicator - Putin's Munich speech and the war in North Ossetia.
        
        The economy is important, but it rarely leads to the collapse of the state. For example, the economic situation in the USSR during the war years was much worse.
        
        During the Second World War, almost all participants in the war, except the United States, had a "much worse" economic situation. Germany, France and Britain, for example. Moreover, unlike the USSR, they did not have such a territory and such resources - neither natural nor human. After the war, all 4 countries came out weakened, but Germany, Britain and France were weakened more than the USSR.
        
        First, Stalin made the decision to abandon Lenin's policy, then the economic recovery began in the 30s.
        
        Stalin's decision to abandon NEP has not yet made the country a superpower. It became a superpower just after the industrialization of the 30s and the Second World War. So again, first the economy - then superpower. You cannot develop nuclear weapons and build a strong army (and this is a prerequisite for a superpower) without having the money for it. Because R&D, the introduction of production - all this requires money.
        
        And how ridiculous. Is this indicator really so important?
        Britain is threatened with a shortage of toilet paper.
        https://regnum.ru/news/3393367.html
        
        First, the article says that this deficit in Britain "could happen", not "did".
        
        Second, short-term shortages of goods due to economic shocks are not the same as systematic shortages over decades.
        
        And thirdly, yes, the high dependence of European countries on energy supplies from Russia automatically means that Europe (both the United and individual countries) is not a superpower. So no one calls it a superpower.
        
        By the way, you said in one commentary there that the current drop in production in Europe against the background of the energy crisis is a consequence of the loss of "Europe's subjectivity."
        
        Quite the opposite - the partial absence of this very "subjectivity" ("sovereignty") of Europe is a consequence of Europe's too strong dependence on Russian (and earlier - Soviet and Arab) energy resources.
        
        By the way, this is not the present problem of Europe - in view of its geographic location, it has always depended on energy supplies from other countries. Let's remember the Oil Crisis of the 70s due to the boycott of the West by the Arab countries supplying oil. Same. And if in the USA the shortage of gasoline could be compensated, albeit with some costs, at the expense of its own reserves and the creation of the Strategic Oil Reserve, then in Europe - no, Europe had to turn to the USSR for help.
        
        And just this economic fact of strong dependence on external energy resources (Arab, Russian, American) does not automatically allow Europe to be considered a superpower.
        
        And just the desire to regain energy independence (and, accordingly, political independence too) is one of the reasons for the planned transition of Europe to renewable energy sources. If Europe succeeds, then only then will it be able to claim the status of a superpower. So again, the economy is ahead - and only then politics.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        11 October 2021 08: 42
        
        Aren't you tired of this topic yet?
        Google Wikipedia. The crisis came because of a faulty economic policy. That is, the country's leadership made a wrong decision. Primakov led the country out of the crisis.
        Industrialization, like collectivization, is a decision of the country's political leadership. If the NEP had remained, the country would have remained destitute.
        The USSR has been developing for decades. Again, Khrushchev's wrong decision led to stagnation.
        What Europe is doing is the loss of sovereignty. You can talk about "RES" for a long time. Today it is this path that leads to the enslavement of Europe and the destruction of its industry.
        Back again to the cause-effect sequence.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 09: 05
        
        The crisis came because of a faulty economic policy. That is, the country's leadership made a wrong decision. Primakov led the country out of the crisis.
        
        The crisis came much earlier, even during the existence of the USSR. The crisis became one of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR and the "waste of superpower". The crisis of the 90s is just its continuation. The 1998 default restarted the Russian economy, starting its slow, but development after the decline of the early and mid-90s .. The default sharply reduced the volume of foreign investment in the Russian economy, forcing already domestic enterprises to work more or less tolerably and increase the competitiveness of their products domestically. and then the foreign market. Plus, this period (from 1999 to 2008) accounts for high energy prices.
        
        In the Russian economy, GDP growth was noted (in 2000 - 10%, in 2001 - 5,1%, in 2002 - 4,7%, in 2003 - 7,3%, in 2004 - 7,2%, in 2005 - 6,4, 2006%, in 8,2 - 2007%, in 8,5 - 2008%, in 5,2 - 29%), industrial and agricultural production, construction, real incomes of the population. The share of the population living below the poverty level has declined (from 2000% in 13 to 2007% in 1999). From 2007 to 77, the index of production of manufacturing industries increased by 91%, including the production of machinery and equipment - by 46%, textile and clothing production - by 64%, food production - by XNUMX%.
        
        Industrialization, like collectivization, is a decision of the country's political leadership.
        
        Any (even political, even economic) decision in the country is made by the "political leadership".
        
        The transition from NEP to collectivization and industrialization is an economic decision, not a political one. And when this decision was made (late 20s), there could be no talk of any "superpower" of the USSR.
        
        First, there was a decision to start a forced industrialization. Then there was a sharp economic growth (we are not talking about the price of this growth now). And only after this growth, the USSR first became a great regional power, and then, with the end of the war and the weakening of the leading European countries, it became the second superpower of the world.
        
        But not the other way around.
        
        "Remain NEP and the country would remain poor"
        
        No. economic growth also took place during the NEP period. It was just slower, and the country needed to quickly close the gap with the leading countries. Under the NEP, this would have taken more time. On the other hand, it would help to do without a heap of costs of "forced industrialization". But, again, it would take more time.
        
        What Europe is doing is the loss of sovereignty.
        
        Once again - after the Second World War Europe never had full sovereignty (neither economic nor political). It either depended on financial assistance from the United States (Marshall Plan), or on oil supplies from Arab countries, or on energy supplies from the USSR / Russia. It was precisely the lack of energy self-sufficiency (and, as a consequence, the dependence of the European economy on the energy carriers of other countries) that did not and does not allow it to become a superpower. Despite the great political influence.
        
        You can talk about "RES" for a long time. Today it is this path that leads to the enslavement of Europe and the destruction of its industry.
        
        No. RES is a risky but promising way to gain energy independence. By the way, not only Europe adheres to it - China, which you rank as a superpower, also has a corresponding "road map".
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        11 October 2021 09: 09
        
        These figures do not in any way confirm your point of view.
        You cannot convince me. I love you too. We have a diametrically opposite view of things. It makes no sense to disassemble everything point by point. You have expressed your point of view. I am mine. They don't match. Further pouring from empty to empty does not make sense.
        This is not a departure from the discussion, as you sometimes interpret. It's just really a waste of time.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 09: 16
        
        These figures do not in any way confirm your point of view.
        
        Just confirm. It's just that I will correlate the numbers with the chronology of events, you will not. In the first years after the default in Russia, economic growth (in terms of GDP) was 10% (catching up with the lag), then dropped to 5% in the early 2000s, then there was a period of smooth, but rather rapid growth until 2008, when the World Financial a crisis.
        
        It was only after 2008 that the country began to regain its political influence on the world stage. Only after 2008 did Russia begin re-equipping its army. Only after 2008 did she begin to intervene more actively in world political events, not only under her very nose, but also in more remote regions.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        11 October 2021 09: 20
        
        God, at least read Vicki. In 1998, Primakov was appointed and began to change the policy of the state. And only after that the rise began. And the country began to return its influence precisely after the appointment of Primakov. Not Putin .... The result was the removal of Yeltsin from power. Did some colonel do it?
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 09: 50
        
        In 1998, Primakov was appointed and began to change the policy of the state.
        
        Primakov began only isolated, sporadic attempts to do this. Yes, there was a U-turn of the plane with Primakov and a raid on Pristina. But these were separate actions that Russia at that time could afford.
        
        As if with all the economic collapse and "loss of statehood" in the 90s, the Russian army remained the strongest in Europe, we had nuclear weapons, we had huge resources on which many influential countries depended. Russia, even in its most difficult years, did not completely lose its influence on the world arena. And such separate, sporadic "anti-Western" measures were in place before, before Primakov's appointment.
        
        Russia was able to afford a truly tough "anti-Western" policy only in the late 2000s, after economic growth and the strengthening of the early to mid-2000s.
        
        Before that, even the color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, Cheney's speech in Vilnius in 2006, Russia took rather passively. Only in 2007, our country gave an official answer in the form of Putin's Munich speech, when the country was more or less firmly economically on its feet.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        11 October 2021 10: 53
        
        What does the U-turn over the Atlantic and the raid on Pristina have to do with it?
        We're talking about a change of political course. I have never considered individual moments as an indicator. There are no immediate consequences. This is not a computer game. The course for a change in policy was taken in the late 90s. The results began to appear after a few years.
        In the 90s, Russia no longer had a strong army, there were no resources. There was a semi-colony of the West. The Western Constitution was adopted. The consequences have not yet gone away. But the course change was laid precisely in the late 90s. And only then did the economic growth begin.
        
        I told you - we will not agree. Money is more important to you than politics. For me, politics is more important than money. Having both components would be great. But political decisions and the will of the leadership come first.
        
        The States now have a very strong economy. Either the first or the second in the world. Biden asks for a meeting with Putin. We could not agree on anything. Biden asks for a meeting with Xi. China refused to meet. Could this have happened 10 years ago?
        The states are being defeated in Syria, Ukraine, and Georgia. If Georgia and Ukraine are heading for the West, then the debris of these states will leave, which the West will have to feed. This is the failure of American strategy.
        The United States has the strongest economy, the strongest military ... and everything else you need to be considered a superpower. They have lost their authority and influence on international processes. The process will take years. And if force majeure (nuclear war) does not happen, then the States will lose this status. Despite any indicators of GDP. What is more important: GDP or the trust of allies? Reputation is very difficult to restore. Even if all the media are on your side.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        11 October 2021 11: 07
        
        The course for a change in policy was taken in the late 90s. The results began to appear after a few years.
        In the 90s, Russia no longer had a strong army, there were no resources. There was a semi-colony of the West. The Western Constitution was adopted. The consequences have not yet gone away. But the course was laid down in the late 90s. And only then did the economic growth begin.
        
        So at first the Primakov government took the necessary economic measures - and only then, after the strengthening of the economy, did "statehood" begin to return.
        
        Do not confuse the intention to return to the statehood with the actual beginning of this return.
        
        The states are being defeated in Syria, Ukraine, and Georgia.
        
        Oh really?)
        
        If Georgia and Ukraine are heading for the West, then the debris of these states will leave, which the West will have to feed. This is the failure of American strategy.
        
        What "fragments" did Georgia break up into?
        
        What fragments did Ukraine fall into? Unless Russia grabbed Crimea in time. Donbass? well, while it is even formally part of Ukraine. Even Russia officially recognizes it as part of Ukraine. Even if it falls off, it will be a loss, of course, but not a cardinal one.
        
        This is the failure of American strategy.
        
        Really? Under the belly of our country, 2 states have formed with sharply anti-Russian sentiments, on whose territory the Americans can place their military bases, etc.
        
        The United States has the strongest economy, the strongest military ... and everything else you need to be considered a superpower. They have lost their authority and influence on international processes.
        
        O_o where have you lost something? Because of the Americans, China still cannot be subdued by petty Taiwan. Assad, even together with Russia and Iran, still cannot establish "order" because of the Americans, and there is no end in sight.
        
        President of the People's Republic of China refused to meet with Biden? What a miracle, as if this had never happened before. Chairman Xi has never left China since the beginning of the corona epidemic.
        
        You are running ahead of the locomotive again.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        9 October 2021 13: 20
        
        In the modern world, a superpower is a country whose actions must be taken into account by all players.
        
        In the modern global world, all players must take into account the opinions of very many players - for example, the same Britain, Germany or Japan. But that doesn't make them superpowers. "Superpower" is the degree to which influence is spread over the whole world or almost over the whole world.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        9 October 2021 13: 45
        
        Should not. They only reckon with other superpowers.
        
        UK defense secretary suggests US is no longer superpower
        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/02/uk-defence-secretary-suggests-us-is-no-longer-superpower
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        9 October 2021 15: 17
        
        Should not. They only reckon with other superpowers.
        
        Really? The United States has to reckon with the opinion of Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia, Russia, which you refer to as superpowers - with the opinion of some European countries, and China - with the opinion of the same Australia or Japan.
        
        The countries of the world are now economically closely interconnected, therefore no country, even a real superpower, can completely neglect the positions of other countries.
        
        As for the statements of the British military official about the United States, this is his personal opinion. The emergency withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan does not mean that the United States has lost its superpower status - in the same way they did not succeed in the war in Vietnam, but we are not saying that America ceased to be a superpower already in the 70s, right?
Vissarion Golubov

-2

5 October 2021 10: 00

If Iran is tossed with hypersound technologies and MIRVs with BB, the trajectories of which are not correlated, whether Arrow will cope, the big question is ...
1. Vissarion Golubov
  
  -1
  
  5 October 2021 10: 37
  
  In general, Israel has strengths. For a downed helicopter, the territory of the nearest air defense unit would resemble a lunar landscape and no talk ...
2. Binder
  
  -1
  
  5 October 2021 16: 51
  
  Quote: Vissarion Golubov
  If Iran is tossed with hypersound technology and MIRV with BB
  
  In the sense of translating the text of advertising cartoons into Farsi?
  1. Vissarion Golubov
    
    0
    
    13 November 2021 11: 16
    
    I mean what is against what arrow is a dummy
Vlad Nemtsev

0

5 October 2021 12: 11

In fact, Russia is gradually losing levers of control over geopolitical processes in the Eastern and Central Asian directions, due to the fact that a barrier has been created on the way of its policy of new nationalist traps set by the authorities in the newly formed post-Soviet pseudo-states, with unformed state borders and tense conflict situations between yourself. Turkey can and wants to take advantage of this provision, which is no coincidence that causes concern in Iran and Russia. Any military conflict on the southern borders of Russia will be beneficial not only to Turkey, but also to larger political players who will certainly take advantage of the difficult situation in this region. In fact, the same interests of Russia and Iran are separated by a conflict barrier on their borders, which does not allow an adequate response to the current situation, leading to economic and political problems for them.
Bakht

+2

6 October 2021 19: 39

S. Marzhetsky asked Voros

Why Iran's war with Azerbaijan and Turkey is beneficial for Russia

S. Lavrov replied

Question: The latest changes in the Caucasus just indicate that some regimes in the region are trying to strengthen relations, create a split and strike a blow at the vital interests of Iran. On the other hand, Azerbaijan, conducting trilateral exercises with the participation of Turkey and Pakistan, prepares the ground for the presence of foreign states in the Caspian. This contradicts the obligations that these countries have on the Caspian Sea. Russia's position on this issue is not very clear. How does Russia see the way of resolving this issue and what is its position?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We have repeatedly stated our position. It was Russia that played a decisive role in stopping the war a year ago and signing a trilateral Statement at the level of the Presidents of Azerbaijan, Russia and the Prime Minister of Armenia, according to which in the conflict zone in Nagorno-Karabakh, a Russian peacekeeping contingent has been deployed to ensure calm and create conditions for a return to peaceful life. In addition, the same joint statement contained the principles defining further steps to advance the settlement, including work to unblock all transport communications and economic links in this region... This will benefit not only Armenia, Azerbaijan, but also Georgia as another Transcaucasian country, as well as Iran, Russia and Turkey as the closest neighbors of the three republics of the South Caucasus.

In this context, we discussed today the initiative creation of the “three plus three” format: three Transcaucasian countries and three “big” neighbors: Russia, Iran and Turkey. Iranian friends have a positive attitude towards this initiative. The same is observed in Azerbaijan and Turkey. We work with our Armenian colleagues. We hope that Georgia, despite all the problems it is experiencing, will be able to see a fundamental interest in creating such a mechanism for consultations and agreeing decisions on the accelerated development of this region, which has been holding back its development for a long time due to ongoing conflicts. We are opposed to building up military activity here and to any exercises being provocative. Azerbaijan expresses concern over the recent exercises of our Iranian friends, which were held near the borders.

As for the Caspian and preparing the ground for interference in the affairs of the Caspian region by foreign states, today we have repeatedly emphasized to our interlocutors and friends the need to ensure the entry into force of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea as soon as possible, which directly prohibits the presence of military forces and any non-Caspian states in the Caspian Sea. The convention will enter into force as soon as the last instrument of ratification is received. Now the issue is being considered in the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I hope that the decision on ratification will be quickly taken, and the Convention will fully become an international legal document that ensures the appropriate regime in the Caspian.

https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4881252
Vermont

-1

9 October 2021 05: 04

The author writes strange things. A possible Iranian attack on Azerbaijan, it turns out - "upholding the national interests of Iran" .... Here's how .... I did not know about such "keeping interests". Right now, everyone in the world will begin to "defend their interests", it will not seem a little.
Ulysses

0

9 October 2021 22: 38

If the "Great Turan" takes place,

Will not take place..

The article is woven from conjectures, assumptions and assumptions.
Especially delivered ....

Turkey's partner in the nuclear weapons project can be a friendly Pakistan.

Why not North Korea?
Write, write like that.
Men in Black

0

21 January 2022 15: 24

I heard that a significant part of the population of Iran are ethnic Azerbaijanis, almost 40 percent, how to deal with this? Will Iran face mass discontent within the country?