According to a current news report, the US and Russia have concluded an agreement whereby the US will provide an estimated $500 million US to help in closing three run down Russian nuclear reactors and build fossil-fuel power plants as replacements.
The once secret nuclear plants were originally built to provide weapons grade matericals but are currently only used to supply heat and light in Siberian cities.
Read what you will into it.
Regards
Sauron
By: Arthur - 18th March 2003 at 15:26
It still proves that buying friends isn’t nearly as effective as making friends.
Though i’m going to put my friendship and political opinion on ebay though. Anybody interested?
By: Sauron - 18th March 2003 at 15:23
Garry
In this case negative is a better word. Realistic would involve accepting the fact that the aid is being used to clean up a mess that is beneficial to both Russia and the US.
Cuba has nothing to do with this issue.
Regards
Sauron
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th March 2003 at 06:29
“We can always count on you for a negative interpretation of events. “
Not negative… realistic (and a little cynical… but the US has certainly earned cynical).
The downside for Russia is more strings the US has to use to try to blackmail Russia into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise consider doing.
There is also pride. Look at what the US has done to Cuba… all for pride.
By: Sauron - 16th March 2003 at 02:41
Garry
We can always count on you for a negative interpretation of events.
Frankly I can’t see a downside for Russia.
😀 :p 😎 🙂 :rolleyes: 😮 😡 🙁 :confused:
Regards
Sauron
By: Arabella-Cox - 16th March 2003 at 01:43
“I know this dosn’t sit well with some here, but the funds the US is providing to assist in cleaning up the nuclear mess in Russia (and else where in the former USSR) is aid. These are not loans. “
This aid was not to help Russia grow and recover, merely to make sure the US knew where all the nuclear materials went. It was about piece of mind in the US no safety or happiness in Russia.
Even then this aid was based on political reforms that lead to changes that were beneficial to the US, not to Russia. Russia certainly got something, but the US already got what it wanted out of the deals.
“The only ‘catch’ seems to be that the US requires a certain amount of proof that the funds are used for the purpose intended which involves some auditing processes which the Russians are somewhat touchy about apparently. “
Hahahaha… I think recent history has shown US accountancy practices are far from reproach either… they take debt hiding to a whole new level.
“I suppose the only selfish interest from a US point of view is that helping Russia with tha clean up, reduces the posibility of some nasty ‘accident’ involving nuclear material.”
If it was all done out of the goodness of the US’s heart why are you trying to call it in as a favour now?
By: Sauron - 14th March 2003 at 23:24
AID is not a loan
Ink
I know this dosn’t sit well with some here, but the funds the US is providing to assist in cleaning up the nuclear mess in Russia (and else where in the former USSR) is aid. These are not loans.
The only ‘catch’ seems to be that the US requires a certain amount of proof that the funds are used for the purpose intended which involves some auditing processes which the Russians are somewhat touchy about apparently. I guess it’s the ‘trust but verify’ rule referred to by US President Reagan back in the late 1980’s.
I suppose the only selfish interest from a US point of view is that helping Russia with tha clean up, reduces the posibility of some nasty ‘accident’ involving nuclear material.
I am sure there are some ‘loans’ taking place as well.
Regards
Sauron
By: mixtec - 14th March 2003 at 17:17
I recall russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with iraq a while back to rebuild and modernize that country. Now the US is taking bids to rebuild iraq after they destroy that country in war. So whos really paying off who here?
By: ink - 14th March 2003 at 16:46
Sauron,
“I am sure that by this point, US charity to Russia has exceeded what Iraq owes.”
Not likely as most US “charity” has to be repaid, with interest.
By: KabirT - 14th March 2003 at 15:46
haha Bush actualy tried to buy off Russian support??
By: Rabie - 14th March 2003 at 11:43
if the USA paid off all the moey russia ($7bn +), china (?) and france ($30bn+) are write them into the reconstruction then they might get their votes /abstentions
rabie 😉
By: Sauron - 14th March 2003 at 05:34
Garry
I am sure that by this point, US charity to Russia has exceeded what Iraq owes.
Given the amount of aid that the NATO countries have had to pony up to help the nations within the former USSR and WARPACT nations, speaks volumns about the failure of communism.
Don’t worry Garry, once Saddam is gone, Russia will start getting repaid. It is ironic that Russia continues to back Saddam Insane yet this actually delays the date that repayment begins.
Regards
Sauron
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th March 2003 at 03:07
“Wonder if they use that veto now…”
I’m surprised the US hasn’t just bought the Russians out by giving them 10 billion to cover what the Iraqis owe. They seem happy enough to use cash to buy Turkeys soil for bases.
Of course that would help Russia get out of debt and we don’t want a healthy Russia… no matter how much we want to kill Saddam. Besides they might expect money everytime the US goes into another country to change the regime… that could get very expensive considering how often they might have to do it.
By: Domin - 13th March 2003 at 21:09
Originally posted by mixtec
“Sticking my Green hat on surely the money would be better spent providing Russia with sustainable energy sources like wind??”Domin-Speak for yourself. Can you tell me why so many european countrys like France and Sweden use so much nuclear energy when a clean fuel like natural gas is simply burnt off at oil dereks. Or why you in Europe cause so much acid rain from dirty fuels like coal or fossil fuel when natural gas is available yet thrown away?
Wind power is not an alternative, it should be taken advantage of in places with enough wind to make it cost effective, but its not going to eliviate any countrys energy problems.
If you read my post you would see i said sustainable, not clean. Last time I heard natural gas is going to run out just like fossil fuels and then where will the world be? Surely now is the time to be investing in renewable energy sources or maybe cutting down on power consumption… I am guessing your computer isn’t solar powered? 😉
As for wind I was using it as an illustration there are other possiblities for renewable energy (as well as cleaner non-renewable energy). The reason I chose wind was because we have a new off shore wind farm near Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) in the North sea and we also have a massive turbine in the local town, reputed to be the largest in Europe.
To agree with you natural gas is far better than fossil fuels and we run on gas for our heating much like a great number of people in this area, so maybe Europe isn’t as bad as you think it is.
Maybe they should build gas plants instead. I just found it a little short sighted that they would choose to build fossil fuel plants of all things.
Regards
Domin
By: SOC - 13th March 2003 at 17:01
Wonder if they use that veto now…
By: mixtec - 13th March 2003 at 17:00
“Sticking my Green hat on surely the money would be better spent providing Russia with sustainable energy sources like wind??”
Domin-Speak for yourself. Can you tell me why so many european countrys like France and Sweden use so much nuclear energy when a clean fuel like natural gas is simply burnt off at oil dereks. Or why you in Europe cause so much acid rain from dirty fuels like coal or fossil fuel when natural gas is available yet thrown away?
Wind power is not an alternative, it should be taken advantage of in places with enough wind to make it cost effective, but its not going to eliviate any countrys energy problems.
By: Domin - 13th March 2003 at 16:05
Sticking my Green hat on surely the money would be better spent providing Russia with sustainable energy sources like wind??
Sign In
March 13, 2003 at 3:28 pm