EDITORIAL
Russia in the WTO? Just say NO!
Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) was another of Yeltsin’s ideas – and with much the same purpose. If implemented, that idea would make Russia dependent on imports of foodstuffs and just about everything else the exporting countries would like to sell against their Russian rivals, after the latter were to give up their competitive price advantages, such as cheap energy, cheap land, cheap transportation, cheap fertilizer, etc. So, if Russia were a democracy, the WTO terms of accession for Russia – now 18 years in the negotiation – wouldn’t have a chance of acceptance.
We are not shy about saying that we want to see Vladimir Putin’s police state in Russia utterly destroyed. Nor do we disagree with the brilliant John Helmer’s analysis, quoted above, which concludes that admission to the WTO would be extremely harmful, if not a fatal toxin, to the Putin regime. But we still vehemently oppose Russian admission.
And our reason is simple: Russia doesn’t deserve to be a member. It’s simply not good enough.
Russia doesn’t have a market economy, it has a command economy, and it aggressively bans foreigners from participating it, and routinely steals their assets when it does allow rare participation.
It doesn’t have a diversified economy, it has a natural resources economy.
It doesn’t have a democracy, it has a dictatorship.
Russia aggressively attacks its neighbors, like Georgia, for reasons of imperialism, and it shows seething hatred for the nations of the West.
Having Russia in the WTO would be like having a fox in the hen house, and it would help the Putin dictatorship to pass itself off as a normal country. That would help it to continue murdering its own people and persecuting its neighbors.
The WTO must stand up for its core values, or it has nor reason to exist. Russia stands for the destruction of those values.
For all these reasons, Russia must not be admitted. It’s simply wrong, and should not happen.
La Russophobe 
Looks like really sick logic…”It doesn’t have a diversified economy, it has a natural resources economy”. WTO is not just a “brand”…it’s huge volume of complicated rules and limitations ))) Therefore, by entering WTO the Russia will never have even a chance to diversify her economy/ And even her “natural resources sector” will losse it’s ability to be used as a power tool. Imho, the russians simply play with the issue…and even present “problems” are sorted out, they will create other one, restricting her from enetering…
Great thanks for you position.
Indeed, WTO entry would harm Russian industry and should be avoided. Tandemocrats are doing good job in ‘postponing’ the entry.
No, we must say thanks to Mishiko. Mishiko has done a brilliant job since 2004, every freaking thing he did as the president of Georgia worked just right. Now he is our last line of defence from the WTO.
I eally believe Mishiko should receive a decoration from Russia when in 2019 his fourth term ends and he is a pensioneer (would Georgia still exist to pay pensions).
Jeez almighty, who in their right mind would want to buy Russia’s shoddy goods.
The best move definitely is to keep her out. Period!
Russia is one of the largest exporters of grain, aluminium exporter and top exporter of nuclear reactors. Boing buys shoddy russian titanium parts for its planes. Thats what came to my mind, of course it is not the full list, and I missed weapons exports of course.
You mean the weapons that keep getting returned due to quality issues?
Hell Morocco had to return the MiG-29’s they purchased due to the same design flaw that saw them grounded by the Russian air force (the tails kept coming off….)
Then there is the debacle with the carrier being refitted for India, the failure of the T-50 “stealth fighter” that is just a copy of the US design that LOST the ATF competition over 20 years ago…..
The list goes on….
Same sh*t happens to US weapons. Why all the F-22 are grounded (since may and for indefinite time). F-22 is complete, it is not tested prototype, how comes there is some bug they can nor fix, nor locate for two month?
And T 50 is merely a prototype, problems are expected.
Morocco Mig money back? Any details? There was a return of Algerian Migs, however. Probably due to real flaws, or just Algerian shortage of money. Though, I’ve read a story about major theft in one of Mig suppliers, CEO of AviaRemSnab Musail Ismailov has been convicted and is in jail now.
Hmm, as a preventative measure, the oxygen system is fairly important. Note that this was a preventative measure, not as a result of any crash.
As for the “quality” of Russian aircraft:
Su-27s Grounded
Russia has grounded all of its Su-27 fighters. At least until it can be determined what caused one to crash on January 14th, 30 kilometers from its airbase at Dzemga (in the Far East). The pilot died in the crash, but the flight recorder was recovered. Last year, two Su-27s crashed. The Su-27, which entered service 25 years ago, is showing its age. It’s still a first line fighter, but is fading fast. Last year, the U.S. bought two Su-27 fighters from Ukraine, to be used to help train American pilots to cope with the growing number of Su-27 and Su-30 fighters being sold to air forces the world over. The two Su-27s were also used to test the effectiveness of new U.S. radars and electronic warfare equipment. Currently, each of these aircraft are being sold to collectors, for $4.5 million each
Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft company has sold over a billion dollars worth of these aircraft (plus components and technical services for them) a year for the last few years. Sukhoi mainly supplies Su-27/30 jet fighters to India, China, Malaysia, Venezuela and Algeria. The 33 ton Su-27 is similar to the U.S. F-15, but costs over a third less.
Developed near the end of the Cold War, the aircraft is one of the best fighters Russia has ever produced. The government helped keep Sukhoi alive during the 1990s, and even supplied money for development of an improved version of the Su-27 (the Su-30). This proved to be an outstanding aircraft, and is the main one Sukhoi produces. There are now several Su-30 variants, and major upgrades. While only about 700 Su-27s were produced (mostly between 1984, when it entered service, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991), adding Su-30 production and you have over 1,000 aircraft (including license built ones in China and India).
The other modern Russian fighter, the MiG-29, is having similar reliability problems, but worse. Malaysia recently admitted that it is getting rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft are too expensive to maintain. It cost about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them in flying condition. Malaysia has ordered 18 Su-30 fighters, and will apparently order more to replace all of its retired MiG-29s. Russia has offered better prices on maintenance contracts for new Su-30s, in addition to bargain (compared to U.S. planes) prices.
The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with about 900 of them exported. The 22 ton aircraft is roughly comparable to the F-16, but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Russia is making a lot of money upgrading MiG-29s. Not just adding new electronics, but also making the airframe more robust. The MiG-29 was originally rated at 2,500 total flight hours. At that time (early 80s), Russia expected MiG-29s to fly about a hundred or so hours a year. India, for example, flew them at nearly twice that rate, as did Malaysia. So now Russia is offering to spiff up the airframe so that the aircraft can fly up to 4,000 hours, with more life extension upgrades promised. This won’t be easy, as the MiG-29 has a history of unreliability and premature breakdowns (both mechanical and electronic).
In the last year, Russia grounded has grounded its MiG-29s several times, in order to check for structural flaws. Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as much. While extending the life of the MiG-29 into the 2030s is theoretically possible, actually doing so will be real breakthrough in Russian aircraft capabilities. The Indians are going to take up the Russians on their upgrade offer. Algeria, and several other nations, have turned down the MiG-29, which has acquired the reputation of being second rate and a loser. Russia, however, wants to preserve MiG as a brand, so it is not solely dependent on Sukhoi for its jet fighters. At this point, it looks like an uphill fight. MiG and Sukhoi are now both divisions of a state owned military aircraft company (United Aircraft). Technically, the MiG division is bankrupt. Sukhoi is profitable.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2010/01/russias-su-27s-grounded.html
So, you see, everybody faces such problems. Thats normal.
Migs are really dead, thats true. Russia is not USSR it can not afford both Sukhoi and Mig. Nor even one solely dedicated to military aircrafts. So Mig is fading, while Sukhoi diversifies its activities with civilian aircrafts (Superject 100).
It is G7 not G8 dearie….
It is G4, dearie. Namely the US, Germany, Russia, and the UK. Other boys from this “G-group” have nothing “G” about them. Check economic data, silly.
Yes, the superjet that even Aeroflot does not want to buy……
Thats just plain wrong. Aeroflot was second to order SSJ in 2005. They ordered 40, and 2 are delivered already and already in the service.
They were forced by Putin to order the Sukhoi, the vast majority of their new purchases are the Boeing dreamliner and Airbus variants.
Putin had to force them to buy “Russian Made”
They did not actually want the Sukhoi, but political pressure counts for all in Russia
Well, how do you know that?
Anyway, SSJ has plenty of orders already. 212 + 90 option.
LOL, wow 212+90 option, to 17 airlines, half of them Russian
Lets compare with real aircraft, the nearest rivals being:
Airbus A320 series 4671 aircraft ordered or in service with 216 airlines.
Boeing 737-600 series 5682 aircraft ordered or in service.
Bombadier CRJ700 series 654 aircraft ordered or in service.
All 3 of the above received far more orders in the last year, especially from China, than the Sukhoi SSJ, which will remain simply a bit player in the market.
Auriga, you are pathetic.
Putin Tells Aeroflot to Buy Russian Planes
12 July 2010
By Olga Razumovskaya
Sergei Porter / Vedomosti
Aeroflot recently announced plans to purchase a combined 44 planes from Boeing and Airbus, compared with 30 of Sukhoi’s regional SuperJet, starting in 2016.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reprimanded Aeroflot on Saturday for not purchasing enough Russian-made planes, telling the state-run carrier’s CEO that growing profits and dividends were not its only concern.
The airline recently announced plans to purchase a combined 44 planes from Boeing and Airbus, compared with 30 of Sukhoi’s regional SuperJet, starting in 2016.
Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/putin-tells-aeroflot-to-buy-russian-planes/410154.html#ixzz1W1uYSJFc
The Moscow Times
The contract was signed in 2005, article is about 2010. Well, anyway, forcing Aeroflot to buy SSJ 100 is a good job. Perfectly fits the general strategy “build national economy instead of spending oil money on import of goods”
I just hope that Putin will lead by example, i.e. from now on he only fly in Russian built/made passenger airliners. Preferably the Tupolev makes.
In which case it will only be a matter of time before he joins the rest of his ‘idols’ in hell, where they will be used to shovel coal to keep the eternal fires burning.
Before quacking that, you could google a bit and find, that Russian Presidential Aircraft is Il-96.
Learn to read Auriga, though your illiteracy may be why you are such an idiot….
He was saying hopefully Putin will then have to travel in Tupelov deathtraps, not that the Presidential plane was a Tupelov.
PHOTOS: Armavia’s New SuperJet 100 is Falling Apart, Says Moscow Blogger
Moscow-based blogger, photographer Ilya Varlamov blogged about his three-day trip to Yerevan on board Armavia’s recently acquired Sukhoi SuperJet 100.
“The first day was, unfortunately, the most successful. Initially, Armavia with its crumbling SuperJet didn’t justify my hopes.
“I flew Armavia to Yerevan, and let me say right away that I didn’t like it. When ordering tickets, I was unable to select a flight that took off and arrived at the same airport. As a result, I was forced to catch a taxi twice, though I could’ve drove to the airport and left my car parked there for 2 days.
“I flew to Armenia on ‘the pride of the domestic aviation industry’ — a brand new Sukhoi SuperJet 100. When I saw the flight to Yerevan was being offered on this very aircraft, I was very glad; it was interesting what the Komsomolsk-on-Amur factory built.
“I hadn’t yet entered the plane when a flight attendant informed me that taking photographs on board is strictly prohibited. While I was preparing to sit down, two more flight attendants felt the need to approach me and say that TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED [caps in original], although I didn’t intend on taking any photographs.
“I soon realized why the crew was so concerned about taking photographs on board. The brand new airplane was falling apart. Despite the fact that it’s been less than a month that the airplane has been carrying out regular flights, the interior was in a deplorable state. The hatches either couldn’t fit or didn’t hold the oxygen masks [it was supposed to hold]. The doors to the overhead baggage compartments spontaneously opened. The protecting glass of the porthole [window] was made of cheap thin film through which it was impossible not only to film, but also to simply view. And through the cracks in the casing interior I was able to examine the wiring, insulation sheets and more of the pride of the domestic aviation industry. I’m sure that that it’s a great airplane and can compete with Boeing and Airbus, especially if Sukhoi stops saving [money] on building materials and assembly. In the meantime, it’s simply a flying Lada. Here are some interior shots filmed with my mobile phone,” writes Varlamov.
Armavia had announced earlier that it plans to purchase an additional Sukhoi SuperJet 100 to add to its fleet.
Photos by Ilya Varlamov.
http://www.epress.am/en/2011/06/03/photos-armavias-new-superjet-100-is-falling-apart-says-moscow-blogger.html
He said, russian built planes. IL is Russian plane. So only idiots here are you and Bohdan. You are literate of course, but can not use search engines yet.
Auriga,
Any intelligent reader would realize what my paragraph “I just hope that Putin will lead by example, i.e. from now on he only fly in Russian built/made passenger airliners. Preferably the Tupolev makes.” meant. But sadly not you.
You only proved how dense you really are and how badly you comprehend the English language. But I guess the two go hand in hand in your case.
I like the you two guys russophobes’ argument with Auriga:) I think I’ll just leave it like this, no comments needed:)
P.S. Auriga, stay calm, that’s the best way to talk to people like these. In ten posts they would be red with hate:)
It seems that news about grounding of planes is a kind of exstasy for you…There were 2 planes crushed in Poland, a plane crush in Canada last week. And what ? About russians, here is the fresh artilce: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9855/global-insights-russian-air-power-on-the-rebound
What is your point in such bed linen like flooding as above ? o_O
Actually the Moroccans are so unhappy with Russian made aircraft they are purchasing F-16’s from the US.
These will replace the MiG-29
http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/2011/08/07/moroccos-first-advanced-f-16s/
Russia is second (next to Germany) in G8 by industrial growth rates (in the first half of 2011).
Germany – 10.1%
Russia – 5.3%
US – 4.6%
5.3% is relatively low for Russia, but this time growth in mineral extraction is close to zero so it doesn’t skew the statistics, industry growth is propelled by construction and mechanical engineering.
LOL, are those figures from the same government department that used to produce the figures during the Soviet period? They were all lies too.
Russian figures cannot be trusted, just look at the claim by a senior Russian policeman that all crime statistics in Russia have been systematically and massively altered to make the government look better….
We don’t allow this. You can’t quote figures without posting the source material as link. Please stop now.
Your comment is very, very ignorant. The economy of the USA is TEN TIMES larger than Russia. That means each point of growth by the US economy produces TEN TIMES more value for each American’s pocket than the same point in Russia. Think about it before you spew more utterly meaningless propaganda. Russia does not rank in the top 130 nations of the world for life expectancy and Russians work for a TINY FRACTION of the wages Americans receive. The Russian stock market suffers FAR more than the USA’s during times of crisis because the Russian market is ENSLAVED by oil prices Russians do not control.
Your comments sound just like those that were made to defend the USSR. You know, the country that collapsed in failure and no longer exists.
My sources for first half of 2011 are in russian and you are likely to ignore them, would CIA world factbook data for 2010 go?
List of countries is available as wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_industrial_production_growth_rate
Russia industry growth in 2010 +8.3%
I’m not going to compare US and Russia. US well-being is inflated by massive deficits and spendings are main propeller of economy, thats different in Russia, so wealth of common people is obviously not that important for russian ruling elites. We’ll see weather pumping money into consumption is a good long-run strategy. As for now I’m not going to argue, that’s pointless.
My point was that Russia is developing quickly, and particularly due to staying away from WTO. No WTO means high tariffs against import automobiles, no limit subsidies for agrarian business et.c.
90% of automobiles sold in Russia are produced locally. Of course many are foreign brands and components are imported, though this policy works, encouraging moving of plants to Russia: first assembly, then production of components too.
Russia managed to replace import poultry. In 2010 approx 90% of market was taken by national poultry.
WTO ban is encouraging Russia to develop as autonomous economy. Of course corruption and higher (compared to Asia) price of workforce make most of russian production less competitive then potential import, but protectionism compensates this. So yes: Russians can afford less products then Europeans or Americans. but that is still better then moving all the industries abroad. This move gave short-term benefit for western economies but led to long-term disaster.
We are not in WTO and are going to survive the collapse of this system.
Great thanks to russophobes that never allowed our WTO entry.
Auriga, on afghan heroin and contaminated russian samogon AGAIN????
Read my lips; russia is a third world country that is going through a ‘slow motion civil war’ and it is a matter of time that the civil war becomes bloody… It is just simply desintegration of the russian ’empire’ – and poor russians can do NOTHING…I can see the so called ‘russian army’ which is already 50% muslim and central asian defending the imperial ambitions of russia; it will not work unless you russians reopen the only infrastructure in russia that works the gulags and send all population of russia there – it might work in the past russians marched to the gulags like pigs to the slaughter houses to defend the russian ’empire’ – it might not work this time…..To tell you the truth, you russians were so much better under the mongolian Golden Horde’s domination – no gulags, no starvation, no slavery inflicted upon russians by their own government……
It is merely you dreams.
auriga,
wishful thinking; that dream of russia desintegration is reality but russians are too drunk, too high on drugs and simply too stupid to realize it. But thank you very much for providing the rest of the world with cheap thrill to watch russia’s daily humiliation – whoops another rocked dropped off the russian skies – outch…
It is pointless and meaningless to compare the figures for growth because each country starts from a different base. But if you insist on using these figures, you can see that Russia is #122 on this list, way behind such economic powerhouses as Congo, Malawi, Laos and even Belarus.
As for the WTO, I agree, Russia cannot survive it, she just cannot compete fairly. For some reason, your Paramount Leader for Life refuses to realize that and keeps demanding that Russia should be admitted.
So, here is the choice: to be admitted for the sake of “national pride” but to risk the total ruin or not to be admitted which maybe good for some of the reasons you mentioned. I am afraid, Russia will get to have the third choice: to be admitted and to keep cheating as she has always done.
Yet again. I don’t compare countries. I just state that Russia grows, and pretty quickly for a major industrial country.
I think, keeping demanding entry is a part of game. He pretend he is real president, he pretend Russia needs WTO entry.
Well, Russia is in fact creating its own mini WTO on its terms: Customs Union. It started to work already. Ukrain is politely asked to join and get discount on gas (or else no discount and gas war 4. Yanukovich is no exception if he dare to go against Kremlin). Customs Union is not going to fit into WTO, so all the blah blah about entry doesn’t worth anything.
As to fair competition: there is no such word as fair in big business. To compete you either need cheapest labor and low taxes, or such a great technological advantage that allows reduction of costs, that competitors can not afford. Few can compete. Those countries that are in red in terms of trade balance – they obviously can not. Look, somehow majority of ‘Civilized world’ with notable exception of Germany and Austria (technology and skills), northern Europe (same + natural resources) and suddenly France – all are in red. They can not compete. And even competitive european powers like Germany have growing debts…
“Fair competition” is the US farmacologists bribing UNWHO officials, so that UN tender documents state that “pills for poor countries bought by the UN should yellow and of rectangular form”? Fair enough for RV, I think.
What do you mean you don’ compare countries? I believe it was you who put this in your message:
Germany – 10.1%
Russia – 5.3%
US – 4.6%
And what do you mean “Russia grows, and pretty quickly for a major industrial country.” When has Russia become a major industrial country? Nigeria, Venezuela and the Sudan are just as good at extracting oil.
And what do you mean there is no fair competition in big business? The factors you mentioned are all elements of fair competition, i.e., low taxes, cheap labor etc. Who told you that using those is unfair.
What I meant when I said Russia cannot compete fairly is that if she would get admitted to the WTO, it will take advantage of the rules that organization provides when it’s beneficial but will not comply when those rules are burdensome. So, we will see a lot of graft, and secret subsudies, and refusal to comply with courts’ decision and so on. No doubt in my mind. No rules for Russians if breaking the rules increases the glory of the Great Paramount Leader for Life.
As to extracting oil, russian rate of oil production per capita is tiny for petro state.
Data are according to CIA factbook (wiki that uses CIA data. 2010 year), The economist, wikipedia
Columns : Country name, oil production (daily) mln bbl, aluminium yearly production, Satellite launches 2010, population, Daily oil per capita , Yearly aluminium per capita
Russia 10.54 3.85 30 142 0.0742253521 0.0271126761
Saudi Arabia 8.8 0 0 27.136 0.3242924528 0
Norway 2.35 0.8 0 4.96 0.4737903226 0.1612903226
Venezuela 2.472 0 0 2.937 0.8416751788 0
United States 7.8 1.72 14 312 0.025 0.0055128205
UAE 2.798 0 0 8.264 0.3385769603 0
You see, while Russia produces three times more oil per capita then US, still 5 times less then Norway, and 12 times less then Venezuela.
Russia produces 5 times more aluminium per capita then US, and well anybody else. Why not call Russia aluminium state, not petro-state? That makes more sense.
And note little figure: satellite launches. Russia is launching twice as many as US.
So role of oil in Russian economy is minor compared to other oil states, while aluminium is sky high, and undisputed world lead in satellite launches. These three features don’t fit the picture of primitive petrostate.
I don’t know if it makes much sense to calculate oil production per capita; it is less the function of the size of the population and rather more a function of available deposits and technology allowing to extract. If you deny that Russia lives off oil and gas, have it your own way. Your pride prevents you from recognizing what is well known.
You know, I am sure, that whatever happens with the price of oil and gas, the same happens with the fortunes of Russia. If the former are up, so are the latter, and vice versa. There is a considered opinion that what actually destroyed the U.S.S.R, were not Mr. Reagan’s wonderful speeches or star wars programs nor Mr. Gorbachev’s progressive views, but low oil prices that had persisted through the late 1970’s and 1980’s.
A petrostate need not be primitive. Russia is one in my view, but neither Norway nor the U.K is. Both are highly civilized countries. So is Canada, a major oil producer.
Well. It makes sense to calculate it per capita. Because $35bln per one person is filthy rich oligarch and same money per 140 mln is hopeless poverty.
If Russia would live of oil and gas only, it would be dead already. Russian oil reserves are insufficient to feed such a country. They are dominant in exports, as one of the few areas where Russia can compete. But oil and gas are a small fraction in the whole economy. Russia is becoming autonomous economic entity reducing dependence on vital import, this requires investment into agriculture, machinery, buying advanced technologies abroad – oil funds this.
Auriga, it is fairly obvious you are completely retarded, but then again you are a Russian nationalist.
Oil and Gas make up 65% of Russian Russian exports, with other natural resources providing another 15% for a total of 80% of exports, furthermore, oil and gas revenues make up 50% of the federal budget.
When you look at the figures for, say satellite launches, the fact is that the vast majority are not Russian satellites, but those from countries without launch facilities. Russian satellites are notoriously unreliable, and like Russian military equipment, do not have a long service life, needing to be replaced fairly often, therefore most people prefer to use their own but take the cheap and nasty option of using Russian rockets to launch them.
Anyway, back to the economy….
Yes. Big part of exports and budget income. Isn’t it wise to tax oil and gas, instead of other industries?
Fits the scheme: sell oil and gas to fund rebuilding of real industries (which is not export oriented).
But Auriga, they are not “funding the rebuilding of real industries” at all, they are actually destroying the competitiveness of Russian industry through subsidizing poor products.
The reliance of the Russian state on oil and gas increases every year in relation to other industries.
Thats untrue. Can you supply any proof of increasing reliance on oil and gas in relation to other industries?
Oh, same old tune “don’t subsidise your industry, you’re destroying it”:)
It’ bloody funny to see this “rape of brain” in attempts to evaluate economy status of a state simply by comparing her export shares ))) A bit more clever is to compare the particular share of export with GDP and to look onto dinamics. More exacly – to apply PPP onto GDP prior to…and to see onto Export-Import figures in respect of capability of theis particular state to survive WITHOUT export & import. This will give a real picture about the “patient” )))
Particularly to the case with Russia, her “oil-gas” sector of export to be compared with her DGP in dinamic. I’m too lazy to seek for exact “gas+oil” figures, but total raw/minerals export figures are available in many places…
Given that oil & gas revenues make up 50% of government revenues, and that the Russian economy expands and contracts based on the price of said oil and gas, I think you are a retarded moron if you can’t understand that without said oil and gas revenues Russia would collapse
Of government revenue: You said it yourself. Government taxes oil extraction and export. Taxes in the other areas of economy are lower. Thats perfect, as oil and gas are working in favor of real economy.
Well Auriga, you claimed that oil and gas were only a minor part of the Russian economy, which was, is, and shall remain a lie.
Care to apologize?
Reiterate: Major in exports and taxes. Minor in economy as a whole.
So, wht do we have “Year- DGP(in billions rbls)- share of minerals in export fugures” :
2006 – 26,883 – 5,363 (20%);
2009 – 39,160 – 6,045 (15%)
Pardon, but 15% (and less, if to take “gas+oil”only) figure is very-very normal for the country which HAS said mineral resourses to export…And
dinamic looks very positive too – the “share” is going down…
Moreover, GDP to be adjusted by PPP, which means multiply by 1.7-1.72 in 2009. And this gives us “strange” figure on Russia – her export of minerals is just about 9% of her GDP by PPP ! Also…comparing “export-import” figures, we’ll see that even if Russia will stop “gas-oil” exporting completely, her export-import ballance will still POSITIVE…
Very sorry if real picture does not suit your “job objectives”, but allegations that Russia is collapsing / dying – is real bullshit… The only we can say (for sure) that the efficiency factor of the economy is very low. But native robustness of the country is so high….much much higher that 90% of other countries in the World.
So much for the wonders of Russian technology, how many is that they have lost in the last few weeks?
Russian space freighter lost
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News
An unmanned freighter launched to the International Space Station (ISS) has been lost.
The Russian space agency has confirmed the Progress M-12M cargo ship was not placed in the correct orbit by its rocket and fell back to Earth.
The vessel was carrying some three tonnes of supplies for the ISS crew.
With the retirement of the US space shuttle, there is now a critical reliance on the robotic freighters to keep the station supplied.
Progress is one of five current and future unmanned vessels tasked with the role.
This mission, the 44th such cargo delivery flight to the space station, lifted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 13:00 GMT (17:00 Moscow time).
It appears the Soyuz rocket’s third and final propulsion stage system shut down early. As a result, the Russian federal space agency (Roskosmos) said, the Progress vessel “was not placed in the correct orbit”.
The failure occurred some 320 seconds into the flight. Telemetry to both the rocket and the freighter were lost.
RIA Novosti quoted Alexander Borisov, head of a the Choisky region in Russia’s Altai province, as saying pieces of the craft fell in his area some 1,500km northeast of the launch site.
“The explosion was so strong that for 100km glass almost flew out of the windows,” he was quoted as saying. Borisov said there were no immediate reports of casualties.
The space station is currently manned by the Expedition 28 crew. This is commanded by Russian Andrey Borisenko. His flight engineers are Satoshi Furukawa (Japan), Mike Fossum (US), Ron Garan (US), Alexander Samokutyaev (Russia), and Sergei Volkov (Russia).
They were informed of the situation by mission control in Moscow shortly after the failure.
The astronauts have plenty of supplies onboard. Last month’s shuttle flight delivered sufficient food stores to maintain the ISS crew for a year.
“We’re in a good position logistically to withstand this loss,” said Mike Suffredini, the US space agency’s (Nasa) ISS manager.
“I can tell you we can go several months without resupply if that becomes necessary.”
This is the second Russian rocket failure in a week. On 18 August, a Proton vehicle put a telecommunications satellite in the wrong orbit.
In December, another Proton failure resulted in top Russian space agency officials losing their jobs.
Progress uses a Soyuz-U rocket to get into orbit. The capsule that takes people to the ISS rides on a Soyuz-FG rocket. The upper-stages on the two variants of rocket are very similar.
The ISS partners will therefore want to be sure there are no hardware or software issues in Wednesday’s failure that will compromise the next crew launch due on 22 September. If there are concerns, the crew mission will be put on hold.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14653371
This looks like typical Russian August Curse.
That year august was rather benign, as those two space launches were unmanned, no sub sank, no terrorist bombings, no epic fires strangling thousands and destroying villages.
Probable reason is bosses hurrying the preparation to launch in the schedule and so canceling testing procedures. Of course it has disastrous PR consequences.
Still, this is first accident with “Progress” rocket in the last 30 years. It has a very good record before.
@no terrorist bombings
Really? For example:
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/18122/
But of course, stuff like this is happening practically every week, every month.
Well, I decided to take a peek on statistics of space successes/failures in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_spaceflight
Very interesting reading.
Failures by country –
Peoples Republic of China 1.
Russia – 3.
USA – 4. Well, one of these is test flight of minuteman III, it is not that related to space and is tested anyway. So discard it. 3 Failures.
But USA does twice less launches then Russia, so ratio is worse.
Auriga, you are a liar.
Here are the actual statistics, from your source one might add
Orbital launch summary By Country
Country Launches Successes Failures Partial failures
Europe 4 4 0 0
India 2 2 0 0
Iran 1 1 0 0 0
Japan 1 1 0 0
PRC 9 8 1 0
Russia 17 14 3 0
USA 14 13 1 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launch_summary
Only failed launches are there. I added failed space crafts:
Example:
Minotaur IV – HTV-2b – ‘Spacecraft failure’. It is not listed in the failed launches, as it got to orbit safely and broke down there.
Well in that case we should add the failed Bulava tests from earlier this year?
Besides, that would only make 2, where do the other 2 come from?
Put your money where your mouth is Auriga.
Any info on failed ‘Bulava’ tests earlier this year? Or you are as always confusing your dreams with reality?
Last failure happened in 2009. Three tests were successful since then.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/08/21/54966727.html
;)
No fire – no failure. Launches of satellites are routinely postponed for different reasons including weather. This doesn’t count as failure.
How about this? Does THIS count, imbecile?
http://news.discovery.com/space/russian-progress-supply-spaceship-failure-110824.html
LR,
We are talking about Russia’s vaunted Bulava nuclear ballistic missile (7 failures out of 15 test launches so far – officially, and even its main designer has resigned in 2009).
“Imbecile”, Bobby just forgot to note this in his answer to you above, LR:)))
Yeah. Like the previous one, “routinely postponed for different reasons including weather” from December ’10 until July.
;)
Auriga, your compatriots, you know those russian apes, couldn’t even find the crashed satellite on russia’s territory [or is it russia???] – what a pleasure to see russia desintegrated – you russians are like a pitiful clowns performing in front of embarrased w0rld audience – priceless…By the way, if russia is such a great producer of grains why oh why so called ‘russian army’ eats DOG FOOD….
Toilets, Mccusa, never forget toilets. And go back to work already.