Ukraine & Crimea

RobertDyck · 2014-03-06 09:15:35

Today Russia has announced a referendum to separate Crimea from Ukraine, it will join Russia. International observers will not be allowed.

One concern is Ukraine's aerospace industry. The Zenit rocket and strap-on boosters for Energia are manufactured in Dnipropetrovsk.

Antonov aircraft, including An-225, are manufactured in facilities in and around Kiev. Design bureau in the city, manufacturing in the outskirts.

Election results for the last Ukrainian president. The guy that Ukraine just kicked out. One concern is Russia won't just anex Crimea, but all areas that supported the Russian-sympathetic candidate.

Note this does include Yuzhmash (A.M. Makarov Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant) in Dnipropetrovsk, but doesn't include Antonov in Kiev.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-06 09:29:03

Anyone who believes Putin will stop at annexing Crimea is living in a dream world. We've seen this before with Czechoslovakia in the 1930's. And many other smaller examples since.

Hillary Clinton was right to draw the comparison between Hitler and Putin, wrong to back down and "clarify" it. Damned politicians, that weasely behavior is why Hitler got away with what he did as long as he did, and why Putin is a problem today. Lots of people will die before this ends. The longer it goes on, the more will die.

I'm not sure that Energia is still a viable launcher. Haven't heard of any being launched in several years now. But, unopposed, Russia will annex the Ukrainian aerospace industry, and that includes Antonov in Kiev. Pretty much the entire Ukraine. And most of the rest of the breakaway ex-Soviet "republics", too.

Cassandra has spoken.

GW

RobertDyck · 2014-03-06 10:24:15

Energia launched the Polyus satellite in 1987. It was 88 metric tonnes, and was delivered into space perfectly. The satellite was supposed to use onboard thrusters to circularize orbit, but fired it's thrusters in the "wrong" direction causing controlled atmospheric entry and crashed into an ocean. Mikhail Gorbachev was present, and forbade construction of that satellite. If you believe that was an accident then I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

Buran space shuttle orbiter launched unmanned in 1988. It launched perfectly. Orbited Earth once, then landed on the runway at Baikonur in Kazakhstan. Everything was perfect. Then the head of the Buran program was part of the attempted coup against Boris Yeltsin, the last anyone heard of him was in a gulag in Siberia. Buran was mothballed.

Buran was maintained flight ready, able to launch on 3 days notice. On January 1, 2000, ownership of Buran and all Energia facilities was handed over to Kazakhstan as part of the break-up of the Soviet Union. On April 25, 2002, Kazakh workmen screwed up maintenance of the vehicle assembly building. The roof collapsed. The Buran space shuttle and all Energia stages were destroyed. Russia sent commandos to secure the site; they feared terrorism. It was an accident, not terrorism. Bodies of the workmen were "discovered" in the rubble several days after the accident. Not immediately, but several days after the commandos showed up. Again, I'm implying they weren't in the building when it collapsed; their bodies were placed there.

Baikonur had a problem with theft. So they stored 10 metric tonnes of roofing material on the flat roof. There was a major rain storm while it was up there. This was stupidity, not terrorism or sabotage. But obviously Russia did not tolerate it.

Remember I'm the one who contacted Russia. When Boris Yeltsin was president, many Mars Society members suggested using Energia. I first read about Energia in Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars". But I asked if anyone had actually talked to Russia. I didn't get an answer, so I did. In December year 2000, I phoned the US subsidiary of the company RSC Energia. The person gave me the fax number of their corporate head office in Korolev, a suburb of Moscow. I sent a request, and got an answer a couple months later. Yes, Energia was available for anyone willing to pay for certain elements of infrastructure, as well as per-launch cost. I discovered NASA had contacted them in 1994, they did a study to determine how much it would cost. In 1994 it would have required between $60 million and $100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure, plus $120 million per launch including the Energia upper stage.

In February 2002, I contacted the manufacturer of the RD-0120 engine. The response was they still had several engines with various specific impulse and various hot fire life remaining. That tells me these were test articles, not intended for launch. But they also have the plans, jigs, and tools. They would require a new CNC milling machine, but they were willing to swallow cost of retooling on condition they got a solid order for new engines. That's reasonable.

So as of the accident on April 25, 2002, the Energia could still be revived. But the roof for high bays of building #112 hasn't been repaired, the vehicle assembly building. That means over a decade without a roof, and more importantly several springs with melting snow pressed against the inside of a steel building. It may be possible now; I just don't know.

They still have space shuttle orbiter Ptichka. All others are gone. The last picture of Ptichka I found on the internet is from 2005; it shows the heat shield tiles are really badly pitted and chipped. The entire heat shield would have to be replaced. Possible?

But GW Johnson did get my point. Russia will not stop with Crimea. The Yuzhmash plant in Dnipropetrovsk can build missiles was well as Zenit rockets used by Boeing for Sea Launch, and strap-on boosters for Energia. Antonov in Kiev built various aircraft for the Soviet and now Russian air force, as well as the An-225. Putin wants them back.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-07 10:41:30

RobertDyck and I seem to argue a lot, but actually we think very much alike about a lot of things.

My opinion: what we are seeing with the Ukraine thing is the start of Cold War 2. I don't know how long this will last, but it won't be over quickly. Putin will last quite a while, and there are clones ready to step in when he is gone. Don't look for a fast resolution to any of this. The missile arms race could re-start, too.

One upside (small as it may be) to this trouble is that (once the politics-of-money gets ditched) manned Dragon could be greatly accelerated. Of the 3 contenders, I think it could fly first: 6 months to a year. Boeing's CST could follow shortly after, if both outfits get money thrown at them. Spaceplanes are a tougher proposition, still. I'd hazard the guess that Dreamchaser is still 1 to 2 years away, even accelerated.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-08 09:29:20

RobertDyck wrote:

Today Russia has announced a referendum to separate Crimea from Ukraine, it will join Russia. International observers will not be allowed.
One concern is Ukraine's aerospace industry. The Zenit rocket and strap-on boosters for Energia are manufactured in Dnipropetrovsk.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ne_map.png
Antonov aircraft, including An-225, are manufactured in facilities in and around Kiev. Design bureau in the city, manufacturing in the outskirts.
http://www.kiev-ukraine-information.com … up-map.gif
Election results for the last Ukrainian president. The guy that Ukraine just kicked out. One concern is Russia won't just anex Crimea, but all areas that supported the Russian-sympathetic candidate.
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/files/500p … ov2004.png
Note this does include Yuzhmash (A.M. Makarov Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant) in Dnipropetrovsk, but doesn't include Antonov in Kiev.

To be sure, the South and the East are full of Russians, the question is, are they full of Russians that want to live under Putin? I noticed that the Crimean Parliament building was surrounded by Russian troops to get them to vote for secession and to join the "Russian Empire". The thing about joining the "Russian Empire" is once they do that, it will be the last meaningful vote they have. Moscow is more distant than Kiev, what are the chances of it listening to their concerns, especially since Putin has established himself as dictator, a lot of Russians are happy about that. Imagine if you were a Russian citizen and you voted to join the Russian Empire, only to hear about Ukraine becoming a successful and prosperous democracy while you still have to live under a Putin dictator, I can imagine one regretting their vote to join Russia if that happens. There are more profits and opportunities in the West than in the Russian sphere anyway, especially if the Ukraine gets EU membership, which may be fast tracked along with NATO membership if Russia keeps Crimea. I think if Russia gets Crimea, the West will get the rest of Ukraine, and that is not a bad deal!

Terraformer · 2014-03-08 10:48:37

I thought it was a vote to change the status of Crimea, possibly becoming part of Russia? When I heard about it, it was an independence referendum...

This reminds me a lot of Texas, except with Ukraine being Mexico, Russia being the USA, and Crimea in place of Texas.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-08 12:51:16

The United States didn't invade first and then force Texas to become a part of the United States. I'd say the best bet from a legalistic point of view is to say that Kruschev's act of transferring the Crimea to Ukraine wasn't valid, because he wasn't the leader of Russia at the time, but rather a fictional entity called the Soviet Union. So why didn't Putin do that? He could have argued that Kruschev had no legal right in the first place to transfer that territory to the Ukraine, but he did not take that approach. I think that's because he didn't want to delegitimize the Soviet Union, because he thought it was a great thing. Boris Yeltsin originally said he wanted Russia to be independent of the Soviet Union, but I guess Putin does not agree. So I guess Putin thinks the Ukraine does not have the right to join the EU, he thinks the EU should be subordinate to Russia, and if you believe the Russian Propaganda, then the Crimeans want to be subordinate to Russia as well, they desire nothing so much as to serve Moscow, they want their capital to be further away that Kiev and less accountable to their vote. You know as well as I do that as part of a smaller country Crimea will have more influence over who is President of Ukraine than they would, it part of a larger country, over who is President of Russia, thus if their vote is legitimate and they vote for Union with Russia, they are also voting to have less influence in their country's affairs. How likely is that to happen? Also as part of Russia, something nasty is more likely to happen to them, such as being sent to Siberia, Russia as a long nasty history of things like that. If I was a Crimean of Russian origin, I wouldn't vote for a reunion with my mother country, ask any Russian Immigrant in America if they would like to go back to Russia and live under Putin, I'll bet most would say no!

Ah Terraformer, your British aren't you? I believe there is a Russian Immigrant Community living in your country, how many of them do you suppose want a reunion with Russia? Don't the Tsar's relatives live in the UK? I believe there is someone there who has claim to the Russian Imperial throne, that is what I heard, I suppose one of the reasons they lived in the UK was because for the longest time, the Bolshevik government in Russia wanted them dead. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-03-08 12:56:12)

GW Johnson · 2014-03-08 13:28:08

Depending upon where folks came from, there is, or is not, a cultural history of political and personal liberties. Folks from the US and Canada, western Europe, Scandinavia, and to a lesser extent Mexico, have long cultural histories with these liberties at one level or another. Folks from places like Russia and China, very little history of any liberties.

To one extent or another, it is this history plus a desire to be part of something powerful rather than weak, that induces folks like the ethnic Russians in Crimea to want to be part of Putin's empire. Folks in Russia today, and even under the Soviets, had some personal liberties, just no political liberty. But they know nothing better, so for those in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, being part of something strong takes over the choice.

As for Texas, well, the original revolution was conducted by a mixed society of Anglos and Mexicans back about 1835-1836. These people got on very well with each other. There are as many Hispanic surnames as Anglo among the original list of revolutionary heroes.

There was a huge wave of Anglo immigration between 1836 and the US-Mexican War ending 1848. Those newcomers thought of Mexicans as second-class citizens at best, and we have been dealing with the political, social, and cultural fallout from this ever since, sad to say.

But, Texas joined the Union in 1845 primarily to get out of debt, and to be part of something stronger. That's why Texas maps from about 1836 or 1837 look so different from post-1845. We paid off the US with about 1/3 of our territory.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2014-03-08 13:29:50)

RobertDyck · 2014-03-08 14:13:25

Today the CBC is reporting that Ukrainian officials are being turned back at the Crimea border. The border guards are armed, and not wearing a uniform they recognise. And the CBC reports they have a report from a Canadian who immigrated from Crimea and still has friends and family there. He reports: "says some homes in the region have been marked with an "X" to indicate the people living there are Tatars or from other groups."

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-03-08 14:57:55)

Terraformer · 2014-03-08 16:57:46

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The question then becomes, how much can Russia take before Europe imposes sanctions? If it can forcibly take Ukraine and no sanctions are imposed, what if it invades Poland? If it can take Poland with no sanctions from Europe, what if it invades Germany. How far is Europe willing to let Russia go before it imposes sanctions? This is very much a test for Europe, does Europe want to fail? Your part of Europe, Terraformer, what do you think?

I am not part of Europe, at least from a political standpoint. I recognise no man, woman, or other hnau as sovereign above me. Physically, yes, but there's a channel between me and the mainland.

But, with the Crimea it's not a clear cut case - they have a Russian majority and they're having a referendum (a rigged one probably, but Ukraine is no better). Poland would not be like that. As far as sanctions go, however, Europe is reliant upon Russian gas... coming through Ukraine. Sanctions would hurt Europeans more than it would Russians, especially given Russia's low debt, and the possibility that China will be interested in buying. So European countries have to tread very carefully with both the regime in Ukraine and Putin, since they... how should I put it... have ready access to Europes metaphorical male gonads? If Russia shuts off the gas supply, come winter things are going too get very troublesome for the regime here...

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-09 13:18:42

Would you want the English Channel to be all that separates your country from Russia, or would you prefer to have a bunch of countries between you and Russia so they perhaps get invaded first before Russian Troops start landing on your shores. Remember the last time the UK had a foreign enemy just across the English Channel, that was during the Battle of Britain, wasn't it and all the way until June 6, 1944 during the D-Day landings in Normandy. Now the question remains, would you rather have France, Germany, Poland, and the Ukraine between the UK and Russia, or would you rather your country just stands by and does nothing as Russia invades and swallows Ukraine, and then Poland, and then Germany, and France, so that Great Britain will once again be in the same position that it was in from 1940 to 1944?

Terraformer · 2014-03-09 15:47:19

What brings that question on? I'd actually prefer to have many thousand polities separating me from any states (such as Russia), if that's what you're asking. The more the better.

Would you prefer to eat dog food, or birdseed?

Could you please reply to what I said, which is about the difficulties that would accrue from imposing sanctions on Russia that would hurt Europe far more than Russia, if you're going to reply at all?

GW Johnson · 2014-03-10 16:49:33

Putin's Russia has pulled a fait accompli, occupying the Crimea. They may or may not do the same in eastern Ukraine, that remains to be seen. I doubt very seriously whether Europe will do anything about any of it. That being the case, very little (if anything) the US attempts, will have any effect, either.

The real question is "what's next?" Not being stymied by the west, Putin will likely pull more such stunts, trying to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Now that he has embarked on this path, you can forget Russian help solving world violence almost anywhere. It's more important to Putin to stymie the US (and the entire west), than to actually do anything to improve the lot of Russians, or anybody else.

We've seen this before, many times. The most notorious example is Nazi Germany. But there are many others.

He does have Europe "by the balls" with that natural gas. No surprises there.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2014-03-10 16:50:38)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-11 14:06:01

Terraformer wrote:

What brings that question on? I'd actually prefer to have many thousand polities separating me from any states (such as Russia), if that's what you're asking. The more the better.
Would you prefer to eat dog food, or birdseed?
Could you please reply to what I said, which is about the difficulties that would accrue from imposing sanctions on Russia that would hurt Europe far more than Russia, if you're going to reply at all?

Sorry, I have no internet account at this time, I reply from the library computer.
I'm actually not in favor of sanctions. I'm just saying that Russia's violation of Ukraine's territory also frees us from our obligations toward Russia, not to include the rest of Ukraine in NATO, originally Ukraine was supposed to be a neutral country like Austria or Finland, not a member of either block, but since Russia invaded Ukraine, I would now consider the rest of Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU as perfectly valid, and to punish Russia, I'd say we should fast track Ukraine's membership and include it within these organizations as soon as possible. Russia and Putin won't like that, but by invading Ukraine they "asked for it", the price they will pay is seeing the rest of Ukraine they don't occupy become a member of NATO rather quickly, and also in seeing the NATO members increase their defense budgets because Putin has given NATO a new reason to exist and recruit more members.

As a side issue, perhaps we ought to ask Russia if they would want to join in a Federation with the US and Canada, such a union would have a population of 490 million people and a GDP of $19.5 trillion, with the potential fo go as high as $25 trillion in a couple of decates. If Russia wants to be part of something greater than itself, perhaps it ought to consider that, just as the Crimeans are considering becoming a part of Russia. the Greater Federation would have the political stability and the democracy that Russia does not now have by itself, and with that comes opportunity for greater economic growth and to explore and colonize space as the United Federation, instead as separate countries. As for Siberia depopulating itself and Russians moving west, perhaps then American and Canadian colonists and settlers might take their place and claim their own stakes in this new land.

Seems like a great idea to me, what do you think?

Terraformer · 2014-03-11 15:24:10

What do I think? I think states are inherently a bad idea, and the bigger the badder.

As far as NATO membership goes, NATO already released Russia from their obligations by expanding eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union...

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-11 22:57:36

And speaking as an American, I would say that I don't want Russia to be part of our nation. Disregarding the fact that they never would choose to do so (Canada wouldn't either, for that matter...), Russia's culture is too different from America's to make any kind of meaningful overarching democracy. Russians social conservatism is such that it makes Santorum and Huckabee look like hippies (Regardless on what your feelings about same-sex marriage are, surely you agree that it is important to talk about homosexuality sometimes, including to or around children?). Their people are not big fans of the free market and capitalism (Who can blame them? On a PPP basis the GDP of Russia didn't reach its 1987 values until 2007), and neither does democracy have the kind of overwhelming support there that it does here.

The culture of corruption in Russia makes closing a bridge for political retribution seem like child's play. The Sochi Olympics cost $55 billion, as compared to $7 billion for the Vancouver Olympics four years earlier. Most of that went to corruption and graft. And Vancouver is in Canada, where labor is much more expensive than Russia. Meanwhile we don't speak the same language as they do.

If you want to talk about supra-national unions, the US, Canada, and Mexico is a good place to start. From there it could expand down into Latin America and the Carribbean states, perhaps eventually expanding to include Australia and New Zealand (Should they want to be a part of it), or the UK. A lesson learned from the Euro is that such a union should have at least two or three currencies, to allow similar currencies to be shared by countries of similar economies.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-12 11:03:24

I second the motion, Josh! Well said.

GW

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-12 12:48:58

Now we just need to get 35 million Canadians who define their national image as being a more refined version of America, 121 million Mexicans who have every right to be suspicious that a union with the US and Canada will simply result in their people being exploited for our gain, and 315 million Americans suspicious of any infringement on our sovereignty and deeply attached to our institutions and customs to agree to such a thing.

It's always been my opinion that illegal immigration is not the problem it's made out to be. Rather than trying to keep Mexican people out with walls and guards, we should be pouring American money and investment into Mexico while breaking down the economic barriers between the two nations.

The following table shows the median and minimum wages for a worker in each of the three countries:

Country_____Minimum Wage ($/hr)_____Median Income per Household ($/yr)

USA_____________$7.25__________________$29,056

Canada__________$8.98__________________$27,721

Mexico___________$0.63__________________$4,456

Obviously Mexican workers have the most to gain by such a union, but Americans and Canadians have a lot to gain too: Like the other two nations on the continent, Mexico is rich in natural resources (Oil and various metals!); But also a supply of cheap labor creates demand for skilled labor, which would be a major boon to especially the US economy but also to the Canadian economy insofar as the two are closely interrelated. Further, this merger would save significant border security expenses by turning 25,000 km of border (Each km of internal border actually counts twice, since it needs to be secured from both sides) with 1,100 km of border. This would improve internal security in all three countries. Furthermore, Mexico would be a great place to site solar power facilities if these turn out to be practical because of the high solar insolation to be found farther south.

I could continue to list economic and political benefits of union, of course, but these being workable is strongly dependent on the population of all three countries being interested in forming such a union. Too bad it will never happen.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-13 08:09:03

Myself, I think it'll be centuries yet before the major nations might begin to unify this world. Culturally, even the most advanced of us are still quite primitive. We all still have the same stone age brains we had 2 M years ago, with all the distorted-perceptions-and-emotional baggage that entails.

That being said, alliances are a thing we can do. Some of us have done it fairly well for a few centuries now. There is something to be said for a North American alliance, and certainly some sort of European alliance formed out of EU and NATO. It would help if we did this without driving Russia and China together. I have no clue what to do with the Third World belt. Most of those nations, if you want to call them nations, are really just warring tribal factions. They're about 3 to 6 centuries behind us.

Inspiration might offer an alternative to naked force at inducing the cultural change in the backward places (where the wars are mostly coming from recently). I saw hints of that with the Apollo landings on the moon. But those advantages were quickly frittered away, gaining humanity nothing at the time. There is an opportunity to try that again with Mars and some other places out there, not so much the moon (false "we've been there" attitude), and maybe the asteroid defense thing.

It's just my opinion, but if we don't start to unify, we will eventually destroy ourselves in one of these idiotic wars. That's the trouble with modern weapons in hands controlled by stone age brains. Fundamentally, that's really why you want a manned space program.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-13 14:59:43

JoshNH4H wrote:

And speaking as an American, I would say that I don't want Russia to be part of our nation.

Would you want Russia as your enemy pointing missiles at you? You see if we had a merger of the USA, Canada, and Russia, we would also be greatly reducing our chances of having a nuclear war. I don't think this Federation would nuke itself, so I think the only chance of a nuclear war would be with some outside power like China. Russians, Canadians, and Americans do have something in common however, they are largely European cultures. A typical Russian, like an American or Canadian values his own life, which is more than can be said for some people who live in the Middle East. The typical thing that unifies Russians, Canadians, and Americans are their sense of individuality, and their unwillingness to sacrifice themselves for the group.

Disregarding the fact that they never would choose to do so (Canada wouldn't either, for that matter...), Russia's culture is too different from America's to make any kind of meaningful overarching democracy.

Well lets see, Russia got its culture from the Byzantine Empire, otherwise known as the Eastern Roman Empire, and how did the Roman Civilization get its start? By overthrowing its King and establishing a Republic. I'd say the main difference between Russia and America is that America takes after Republican Rome, while Russia takes after Imperial Rome. Republican virtue is what made Rome a Great Civilization in the first place, it is what distinguished it from the Egyptians, and the Babylonians. The Romans in their later years forgot their Republican roots, but still they are there.

Russians social conservatism is such that it makes Santorum and Huckabee look like hippies (Regardless on what your feelings about same-sex marriage are, surely you agree that it is important to talk about homosexuality sometimes, including to or around children?).

In that respect I view the Russians as a Social anchor, that is to hold us in our place and prevent the more radical ones among us from inventing totally new family structures and forms of marriage. The Russians did their own social experimentation, in the form of Bolshevism, and it has left them a much poorer country than the United States. I wouldn't blame them for being social conservatives since Communism has proven to be such a disaster for them. We have a $15 trillion dollar economy compared to Russia's $3 trillion one, all because the Russians tried to reinvent economics! The best way towards progress is in small conservative steps not in broad sweeps and wild ideas, like those of Lenin and Marx. George Washington stuck with severing ties to the mother country and following the model of Republican Rome; the French tried to reinvent every thing, they tried to rearrange their social class structure and the Russian Revolution was very much modeled after the French and not America's Revolution. So I would suggest the best thing for the Russians to do is to adopt our off the shelf form of Democracy and checks and balances than in going for a unique Russian model, the last attempt of which led to Putin's dictatorship. If I was the Russian people, I'd translate the US Constitution into Russian and macro replace the words "United States of America" with "United Russia" and not try to go with unique forms of "Russian Democracy" like Bolshevism and Putin's Russia which don't work.

Their people are not big fans of the free market and capitalism (Who can blame them? On a PPP basis the GDP of Russia didn't reach its 1987 values until 2007), and neither does democracy have the kind of overwhelming support there that it does here.

I'd say that's because they didn't really give democracy and capitalism a try, they tried to go their own third way, and like anything that is new and untried, it encounters many failures and set backs. You know the Russians are great at copying things, they copied our B29 bomber after World War II, they copied our atomic bomb, and they copied our computer systems, they Russians aren't great innovators, that is why their technology has lagged behind ours, and what they had was stolen or copied from us. I am only asking that they copy one more thing, the US Constitution, and implement it for their own country, that is their best chance for success in my opinion.

The culture of corruption in Russia makes closing a bridge for political retribution seem like child's play. The Sochi Olympics cost $55 billion, as compared to $7 billion for the Vancouver Olympics four years earlier. Most of that went to corruption and graft. And Vancouver is in Canada, where labor is much more expensive than Russia. Meanwhile we don't speak the same language as they do.

We'll have good translators between English and Russian very soon. The language barrier, after all, hasn't prevented the Russians from spying on us and copying and stealing our technology.

If you want to talk about supra-national unions, the US, Canada, and Mexico is a good place to start. From there it could expand down into Latin America and the Caribbean states, perhaps eventually expanding to include Australia and New Zealand (Should they want to be a part of it), or the UK. A lesson learned from the Euro is that such a union should have at least two or three currencies, to allow similar currencies to be shared by countries of similar economies.

I guess my point is the Mexicans don't have nukes, and so long as Russia is a separate country with nuclear weapons, we'll have to worry about them nuking our cities and ending our civilization. I'd say, why not go for a less adversarial relationship? Why do the Russians have to be our enemies, why do their gains necessarily have to be our loss, and why are our gains viewed by them as a loss to them. If the Russians want to live in a larger country, and judging by their actions with Georgia and Ukraine, apparently they do, then why wouldn't a merger between the US, Canada, and Russia satisfy those desires?

GW Johnson · 2014-03-13 15:45:21

Why not start with something do-able, that doesn't depend upon already-solid relations between Russia and the US/Canada. There was a proposal a few years ago to bridge the Bering Straits with a combined rail and pipeline link. So, do it. Include a highway link as well. Bridge, tunnel, makes no difference. Pick one.

Working together on real commerce between them and us is how things might actually get better on the geopolitical front. Already seen it happen with the EU. Consider where Germany, France, Britain and the rest were, between 1900 and 1945. Look at them now. Different!

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-13 15:59:03

GW Johnson wrote:

Why not start with something do-able, that doesn't depend upon already-solid relations between Russia and the US/Canada. There was a proposal a few years ago to bridge the Bering Straits with a combined rail and pipeline link. So, do it. Include a highway link as well. Bridge, tunnel, makes no difference. Pick one.
Working together on real commerce between them and us is how things might actually get better on the geopolitical front. Already seen it happen with the EU. Consider where Germany, France, Britain and the rest were, between 1900 and 1945. Look at them now. Different!
GW

Actually my wife was the one who suggested this idea. I was talking about admitting both Ukraine and Russia into the EU at the same time, and she said, why not add Russia to the United States instead? Russia has 140 million people, not including those Russians living in the Ex-Soviet Republics. Russia as a country is about the size of the United States in scale, it has more land and fewer people. But Russia would not be overwhelmed by the United States or the United States by Russia. Having Russia in the EU, might be problematic, as most EU states are much smaller than Russia, Ukraine itself has more territory that the largest European State that is not Russia. A bridge across the Bering straight is certainly a start, and the United States is essentially a European culture, in spite of all the immigrants we've taken in. We are more like Russia than we are like China, despite all the Chinese immigrants we have. Also Russia and the United States have similar problems in dealing with Islamic terrorism and competing with China. I think merging the three countries to make a new society would make us more competitive with China's one billion plus people. I think we either get together or we all end up bowing to China, which would you prefer? European civilizations should stick together.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-13 16:07:46

GW Johnson wrote:

Myself, I think it'll be centuries yet before the major nations might begin to unify this world. Culturally, even the most advanced of us are still quite primitive. We all still have the same stone age brains we had 2 M years ago, with all the distorted-perceptions-and-emotional baggage that entails.
That being said, alliances are a thing we can do. Some of us have done it fairly well for a few centuries now. There is something to be said for a North American alliance, and certainly some sort of European alliance formed out of EU and NATO. It would help if we did this without driving Russia and China together. I have no clue what to do with the Third World belt. Most of those nations, if you want to call them nations, are really just warring tribal factions. They're about 3 to 6 centuries behind us.

What do Russia and China have in common? Not a whole lot. If Russia forms an alliance with China, it would be a very junior partner. I think the United States would not overwhelm Russia so much with its numbers, and Russia has the potential to be another "United States" if it followed the right policies. A union between Russia and the USA would be a partnership among equals, rather than one country with ten time the population of the other absorbing it. I've seen a book about the upcoming decline of Russia, how Russia is going to lose Siberia to China and so forth, I think a union between Russia and the USA could prevent that. Russia is after all a more closely related civilization to our own, than China is.

Inspiration might offer an alternative to naked force at inducing the cultural change in the backward places (where the wars are mostly coming from recently). I saw hints of that with the Apollo landings on the moon. But those advantages were quickly frittered away, gaining humanity nothing at the time. There is an opportunity to try that again with Mars and some other places out there, not so much the moon (false "we've been there" attitude), and maybe the asteroid defense thing.
It's just my opinion, but if we don't start to unify, we will eventually destroy ourselves in one of these idiotic wars. That's the trouble with modern weapons in hands controlled by stone age brains. Fundamentally, that's really why you want a manned space program.
GW

Also another point, the US and Russia have never directly been at war with each other. Why they should view us as enemies has no historic justification, all we did was get in their way when they attempted to conquer the World with their communist ideology, which itself was borrowed.

RobertDyck · 2014-03-13 18:11:23

The Russian minister of transportation visitted Winnipeg some years ago. Wanted to use their big ice breakers to establish a trade route between Murmansk and Churchill. There was such a route during World War 2. That sea port is only used to export grain to Europe, no imports at all, so no customs station. Receiving goods from Russia there requires placing a seal then transporting via rail to Winnipeg for customs inspection. There isn't even a road up to Churchill, just airport and one rail line. The Russian minister also wanted to establish regular air cargo flights. He suggested Winnipeg as Russia's access to the North American market. After that visit, Russia did send one ship load of fertilizer. But Saskatchewan is the next province beside Manitoba, and Saskatchewan is a major exporter of potash fertilizer. Why would we need Russian fertilizer? My point is access now exists. The quesiton is what goods do they have to trade?

Winnipeg has built CentrePort, an inland port. It also has land for industry. Emphasis right now is trade with China, but can accept trade with Russia.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-03-13 18:13:03)

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-14 22:57:21

GW Johnson wrote:

Why not start with something do-able, that doesn't depend upon already-solid relations between Russia and the US/Canada. There was a proposal a few years ago to bridge the Bering Straits with a combined rail and pipeline link. So, do it. Include a highway link as well. Bridge, tunnel, makes no difference. Pick one.
Working together on real commerce between them and us is how things might actually get better on the geopolitical front. Already seen it happen with the EU. Consider where Germany, France, Britain and the rest were, between 1900 and 1945. Look at them now. Different!
GW

I concur with everything in this post. A more ambitious project that would also have more potential would be a bridge/tunnel project to connect the Eastern US with Western Europe. The span of the ocean itself is about 4000 km but the bridge would not have to be that long. By building a road that goes north from New York City through Quebec, with a bridge across the Hudson Strait between Quebec and Nunavunt in Canada (65 km). From Nunavunt, across the Davis Strait to Greenland (350 km). From there, the road could cross Greenland in whichever way is practical. From Greenland to Iceland is 300 km. From Iceland to the Faroe Islands is 450 km. From the Faroe Islands to the Shetland Islands is 300 km, and from there to Scotland can be done in two jumps, each about 50 km.

The longest jump is from Iceland to the Faroe Islands, at 450 km. For comparison, the longest extant suspension bridge is about 2 km long. We would need 225 times longer than this, but I do believe that it is possible. A bridge from the US to Russia across the Bering Strait would be a great intermediate, technology-wise. Meanwhile, bridges of intermediate length, for example one linking Scotland to Norway (longest span is 320 km, which would link the Shetland Islands to Bergen, Norway) would be a good way to build up. A bridge linking Ireland to the UK or Spain to Africa would be about 25 km long.

All in all, the journey from New York to London would be about 11,000 km. But according to this website rail costs about 30% as much per ton-mile as does sea transport, so there is definitely some room for cost reductions here.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2014-03-06 09:15:35

Ukraine & Crimea

#2 2014-03-06 09:29:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#3 2014-03-06 10:24:15

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#4 2014-03-07 10:41:30

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#5 2014-03-08 09:29:20

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#6 2014-03-08 10:48:37

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#7 2014-03-08 12:51:16

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#8 2014-03-08 13:28:08

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#9 2014-03-08 14:13:25

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#10 2014-03-08 16:57:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#11 2014-03-09 13:18:42

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#12 2014-03-09 15:47:19

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#13 2014-03-10 16:49:33

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#14 2014-03-11 14:06:01

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#15 2014-03-11 15:24:10

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#16 2014-03-11 22:57:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#17 2014-03-12 11:03:24

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#18 2014-03-12 12:48:58

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#19 2014-03-13 08:09:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#20 2014-03-13 14:59:43

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#21 2014-03-13 15:45:21

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#22 2014-03-13 15:59:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#23 2014-03-13 16:07:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#24 2014-03-13 18:11:23

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#25 2014-03-14 22:57:21

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer