Moscow slams Burns statement

Again, Russian diplomacy outshines cowboy George and his group of clowns on the world stage. Everything Russia says is true, accurate, legal, and to the point. Everything that comes out of the mouths of Condi, Burns, and Georgie is simply laughable. They should think or renaming themselves 'The Three Stooges' and doing a comedy tour.

@(EA, 24 February 2008 15:10)

trying to 'remove' russia from the security council is notonly impossible due to the VETO right, it's even very dangerous, Russia is one of the biggest nuclair superpowers of this world and you want to shut them out???

Youre obviously not living in Kosovo but on an entirly different planet.

Not only russia is opposed, sois China and India, you suppose to kick them out also???

those 3 country's comprise almost 2.500.000.000 people and half the globe.

" Russia must be removed from the Security Council as it is a country which countributes less and exploiting its position for its expansionistic and hegemonistic views ..."

=======================

In Russia we have other points of view.

First of all it is thanks to Russia that the existence of the UN became possible.

Second thing that may disappoint the commentator is that Russia have no problems with SIMULTANEOUS elimination of all the 4 other Permanent Members of the Security Council. So there may be problems with excluding.

Russia... instead of arguing with rogue states, send volunteers and modern equipment!

just in order to make sure that those criminals don´t decide to even touch the Serbs in the still not occupied enclaves...

EA, I bbeleive the U.S. resembles your comment more than Russia. Who has done more expanding in the last 10 years? Be honest, who?

All I can say to the U.S. Dept. is, don't give other sovereign nations opinions on what they should do, unless you follow your suggestions too. If Sec. Rice believes that Serbs should move past the their history, then I think she should make a suggestion to American
blacks, to move past slavery - and tell moslems to get past Mecca - and tell the Jews to get past Jeruselum. Would that not be fair, Sec. Rice. As far as Burns is concerned, I have never heard him say one concrete thing. He is typical of "old school" State Dept.", that thinks it can do whatever it wants in the world. That Dept. needs total restructuring to be in touch with the 21st century. This is not your dad's world anymore.

ToniUK wrote:

Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh.
--

I think you are still living in the 90s Toni. Since then has come globalisation or is that something you happened to miss?

By checking the CIA website with 2007 GDP figures, the current list is

US, China, Japan, India, Germany, UK, RUSSIA, France.

Like I have been saying all along, world power is moving East so the Serbs just need to stand firm and be patient. Our friends are getting stronger and stronger!

EA says..."Russia must be removed from the Security Council"

With what facts do you base your opinion?

Please educate yourself regarding the voting history of the US in the UNSC.

The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.

The US, on April 30, 1980, killed a draft Resolution in the UNSC that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.

Recent Veto History in the UNSC from 1966-2002
1966-75 US 12 Russia 7
1976-85 US 34 Russia 6
1986-95 US 24 Russia 2
1996-02 US 5 Russia 0

While the Veto process needs to be reviewed in the UNSC, it is the US, in recent years, who overides the majority.

EA

You are only saying that because Russia is against Kosovo recognition, but the fact is Russia is one of the world's most powerful military nations (second largest nuclear arsenal, largest tank army and air force, one of the largest armies numerically and potentially etc.) as well as an economic power (Group of 8, top 10 in terms of GDP etc.).

The current UNSC can perhaps be expanded to include India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and another state (either Italy, Spain or Canada) to perhaps make it a majority vote thing instead of all of them being veto holders, but kicking Russia out of the UNSC because they don't want to recognize Kosovo is just being silly.

RE: US Trillion Dollar Debt

The United States economy is ready to collapse with a Trillion dollar debt and is living on borrowed time.

American taxpayers should know that US has promised to provide 3 Billion dollars to the KLA terrorist leader Hacim Thaci in the illegal EU protectorate of Kosovo while not spending a dime the sub-prime fiasco and health care crisis for the looming health care crisis for an aging population.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Jovan!
Cossacks are ready to help You

I think a deep reform must start within the UN where Russia must be removed from the Security Council as it is a country which countributes less and exploiting its position for its expansionistic and hegemonistic views.

as long as balkans is getting more stable by the minute, i don't mind.

TO : Jovan, 24 February

Please don't worry about Russia this time. There's a technical pause when Russia strives hard to have a new President. Next week after the congratulations you will see new Russian activities in the Serbian crysis.

Serbia is interested to use the situation in it's own favour by attracting Russian money and armaments andRussian influence around the world .

Serbia is not restricted by any sanctions to receive S-300 and other modern arms. Russia has got free money more than the EU and the US put together. So the situation is in your favour. And the sooner you realize that your chances for EU membership is just a mirage the better. It's not Solana or Merkel who will take the final solution but the peoples of 27 states so your chances are just an illusion.

The Russian proverb says : ЛУЧШЕ СИНИЦА В РУКАХ , ЧЕМ ЖУРАВЛЬ НА НЕБЕСАХ. I hope you can guess the meaning.

Best wishes!

I personally think that fighting over kosovo is not worth it. Since Kosovo became an independent country i have yet to see a Kosovo Flag anywhere. All you see is Albanian flags. Is kosovo independent or is it just a part of Albania.

If you were born in kosovo, or have lived there all your life, be proud and stand up for yourselves. There are ways that kosovo could actually stand on its own feet, but until it figures out a way to earn some money legally and not illegally, drugs and prostitution are not legal, there is no chance. Kosovo is supposed to be a mineral rich land, start mining, and producing something from it.

this is just a simple persons opinion.

Peter,

Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh.

And for your info it is G7 plus Russia (taking part as an observ).ng military strong is no qualification to be in SC, one country need to be constructive as well (something hardly can be said about Russia).

Treating well minorities and respect different thinking something ellse one would expect from a permanent member (again, not something Russia is known for).
I guess you as polish russian should know.

TonyUK

Go and do some research before you post nonsense like that. You obviously are basing your arguments on speculation and not facts.

EA, pro west, ToniUK:

Seems you need a little history lesson.

UN was formed in 1948 principally to avert another World War. UN's predessor, the League of Nations, formed after WWI, failed.

So this time around, changes were made. UN Security Council with veto rights to most powerful victorious nations was established.

Though lots of conflicts/wars have happened in the intervening 60 years, guess what.. No World War.

In this, the UN has succeeded.

In the light of the above, your idea of removing Russia from the Security is absurd, regardless of the ideology & actions of Russia.


pro west:

It'd be nice if the US did indeed pay 60% of UN expenses. But it doesn't & almost never has.

All the US does is complain about how much the UN costs to run, & then refuse to pay it's apportioned amount.

And when it does make a payment, the US usually extracts some sort of concession in return.

This is remarkably similiar to the way it generously 'donates' aid money. Lot's of grand speeches, & then afterwards, all the caveats that must be met to get the aid are revealed. And even then, half of that goes to US 'contractors' - Haliburton et al.

Yes, the US is certainly a generous benefactor, isn't it?


ToniUK:

"Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh. "

Well they do say ignorance is bliss.. Here's some more humorous material for you:

In terms of GDP, Russia IS in top-10 & moving up, wheras the UK is 6th & stagnant, and the ratio of (Russia's GDP) / (UK's GDP) expressed as a percentage over the last 3 years is: 81%, 84%, & 88 %.

At this rate, in terms of GDP, Russia will overtake the UK in 4 years.

Still laughing? :)


Ptoleme X:

Adding more members to the Security Council - fine.

Diluting the power of the veto - not a good idea. Allowing a powerful member an exclusive veto acts as a safety valve in world affairs - remember, main aim of UN is to prevent World Wars. Anything else is a bonus.

I thought Mr. Burns had already left his post and gone into private business. Mr. Burns, it is very "irresponsible" to slice up Serbia by attempting to steal 15% percent of its sovereign territory.
The Russians know it won't work, Mr. Burns, and the rest of the World is understanding the consequences of this destabilizing illegal action.

Szemi,

“…Cossacks are ready to help You…”

Really nice to hear that! I would like to expres my deepest gratitude to all Russian (and other nations) volunteers who helped us in the most difficult times.

Our biggest weakness during war against NATO in 1999 was out-dated anti-aircraft defence system of limited range. So, NATO pilots just flew high and we couldn’t touch them. If Russia could send us plenty of S-300 and Some S-400 systems, it would make a huge difference!

EA,

Kicking out Russia? Who is breaking its own promises and a UNSC resolution: the USA is.

Let's stop this nonsense. Kosovo is Serbian. If both sides agree independence can happen of course. But not one-sided.

And again: get a life! Get over this nation state idea!

I believe that the expansion of the UNSC to comprise more non-permanent members and a few more permanent members (Germany, India, African country, Latin American country) would increase its efficiency and legality (more countries might just respect it).

Furthermore, although I am not a big proponent of the veto, I believe it is necessary but that must also be reformed.
It is illogical that only one permanent member country can veto an entire resolution that may be favored virtually by all nations.
It would be better, in my opinion, that veto power be reformed so if at least 3 or 4 permanent members (given that more permanent members would be added) vote against a resolution, it would be effectively vetoed.

Regards,

this whole idea of letin so many countries run the politics of un when the u.s has and is payin 60%of un expenses. it was a mistake from the west since ww2 and since then it has,nt done nothing good to any conflict. yet the us taxpayers are still suportin un with the most many from any other power veto in return the have to deal with this i think that un never worked before and it,s not going to work in the future.in the end i think it,s common law for those who pay thay have to make more decisions in return

ZK_UK,
Peter,

I'm still laughing,

Russiian GDP is about 7% of the USA, and less than 6% of the EU.

Russians GDP is about 25% of UK, or Germany or Italy.

Russia has gott a loooooong way to go to compare with the big induastrial countries.

No need to be cynical.
Check this link.
I understand, your wishthinking, but be realistic. For a country to catch up with economies 10-15 times grater....it's just not realistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

"ZK_UK,
Peter,

I'm still laughing,

Russiian GDP is about 7% of the USA, and less than 6% of the EU.

Russians GDP is about 25% of UK, or Germany or Italy.

Russia has gott a loooooong way to go to compare with the big induastrial countries.

No need to be cynical.
Check this link.
I understand, your wishthinking, but be realistic. For a country to catch up with economies 10-15 times grater....it's just not realistic.

[link](nominal)
(ToniUK, 25 February 2008 21:09) "



ToniUK:

As one get's older, one also tends to get more cynical I'm afraid :)

So I went ahead & looked into that link you provided with a view to seeing where the discrepency between your figures & my figures lay. And found said difference.

Rather than bore everyone with the detail (which is appended below in an appendix for your reference), will just present findings.



I've used GDP (PPP - 'purchasing power parity') data for 2006, 2007 & 2008 (projected) sourced from the IMF.

You seem to have used GDP (nominal) data for 2006, again sourced from the IMF.

Difference between GDP (PPP) & GDP (nominal) is just what it seems.

GDP (nominal) solely uses exchange rates as a measure of comparison. Is why it's called nominal.

GDP (PPP), also uses 'purchasing power parity' as a measure of comparison, which is more accurate as it takes into account other things like inflation & relative cost-of-living expenses. For instance, all other things being equal, meat is cheaper in Australia than in Serbia.

My figures are accurate. Your's aren't.

My figures cover 2006 to 2008 - & are up-to-date. Your's only cover 2006 & are out-of-date.

Data sourced from IMF shows Russia in worst light. Other data sources such as World Bank & CIA world Factbook paint 'rosier' picture for Russia. I used the IMF data (first data I found), so did you (worst data you found).

So will just repeat my 'factual' post.



"In terms of GDP, Russia IS in top-10 & moving up, wheras the UK is 6th & stagnant, and the ratio of (Russia's GDP) / (UK's GDP) expressed as a percentage over the last 3 years is: 81%, 84%, & 88 %.

At this rate, in terms of GDP, Russia will overtake the UK in 4 years.

Still laughing? :)



Methinks that laughter in the background is getting more hysterical :)



Appendix:

One can talk about GDP (nominal) which solely uses exchange rates as a measure of comparison.

And one can also talk about GDP (PPP), which uses 'purchasing power parity' as a measure of comparison.

And then one can use the GDP data from a particular year.


The link you've attached to your post is to a wikipedia article with which I don't really have any problems with. Wikipedia can be an excellent way of learning about a subject quickly & easily - so long as one bears in mind that the material is neither rigorous nor comprehensive, & subject to alteration - is good idea to check sources.

Anyway, since you've included this link, I assume that this is where you derived your data for your post. And being a 'died-in-the-wool' cynic, I further assume that you picked the worst set of figures for your comparisons above - ie: GDP (nominal) for 2006.

Using GDP (nominal) figures for 2006 (sourced from IMF) from wikipedia, one gets:

Russia/ US = 7.46% - you said about 7% - correct
Russia/ EU = 6.74% - you said

Oops. appears to be a limit on the size of a post :)

continuing last post (#24):


Using GDP (nominal) figures for 2006 (sourced from IMF) from wikipedia, one gets:

Russia/ US = 7.46% - you said about 7% - correct
Russia/ EU = 6.74% - you said

I think a deep reform must start within the UN where Russia must be removed from the Security Council as it is a country which countributes less and exploiting its position for its expansionistic and hegemonistic views.

Peter,

Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh.

And for your info it is G7 plus Russia (taking part as an observ).ng military strong is no qualification to be in SC, one country need to be constructive as well (something hardly can be said about Russia).

Treating well minorities and respect different thinking something ellse one would expect from a permanent member (again, not something Russia is known for).
I guess you as polish russian should know.

this whole idea of letin so many countries run the politics of un when the u.s has and is payin 60%of un expenses. it was a mistake from the west since ww2 and since then it has,nt done nothing good to any conflict. yet the us taxpayers are still suportin un with the most many from any other power veto in return the have to deal with this i think that un never worked before and it,s not going to work in the future.in the end i think it,s common law for those who pay thay have to make more decisions in return

Again, Russian diplomacy outshines cowboy George and his group of clowns on the world stage. Everything Russia says is true, accurate, legal, and to the point. Everything that comes out of the mouths of Condi, Burns, and Georgie is simply laughable. They should think or renaming themselves 'The Three Stooges' and doing a comedy tour.

@(EA, 24 February 2008 15:10)

trying to 'remove' russia from the security council is notonly impossible due to the VETO right, it's even very dangerous, Russia is one of the biggest nuclair superpowers of this world and you want to shut them out???

Youre obviously not living in Kosovo but on an entirly different planet.

Not only russia is opposed, sois China and India, you suppose to kick them out also???

those 3 country's comprise almost 2.500.000.000 people and half the globe.

EA, I bbeleive the U.S. resembles your comment more than Russia. Who has done more expanding in the last 10 years? Be honest, who?

All I can say to the U.S. Dept. is, don't give other sovereign nations opinions on what they should do, unless you follow your suggestions too. If Sec. Rice believes that Serbs should move past the their history, then I think she should make a suggestion to American
blacks, to move past slavery - and tell moslems to get past Mecca - and tell the Jews to get past Jeruselum. Would that not be fair, Sec. Rice. As far as Burns is concerned, I have never heard him say one concrete thing. He is typical of "old school" State Dept.", that thinks it can do whatever it wants in the world. That Dept. needs total restructuring to be in touch with the 21st century. This is not your dad's world anymore.

EA

You are only saying that because Russia is against Kosovo recognition, but the fact is Russia is one of the world's most powerful military nations (second largest nuclear arsenal, largest tank army and air force, one of the largest armies numerically and potentially etc.) as well as an economic power (Group of 8, top 10 in terms of GDP etc.).

The current UNSC can perhaps be expanded to include India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and another state (either Italy, Spain or Canada) to perhaps make it a majority vote thing instead of all of them being veto holders, but kicking Russia out of the UNSC because they don't want to recognize Kosovo is just being silly.

I personally think that fighting over kosovo is not worth it. Since Kosovo became an independent country i have yet to see a Kosovo Flag anywhere. All you see is Albanian flags. Is kosovo independent or is it just a part of Albania.

If you were born in kosovo, or have lived there all your life, be proud and stand up for yourselves. There are ways that kosovo could actually stand on its own feet, but until it figures out a way to earn some money legally and not illegally, drugs and prostitution are not legal, there is no chance. Kosovo is supposed to be a mineral rich land, start mining, and producing something from it.

this is just a simple persons opinion.

I believe that the expansion of the UNSC to comprise more non-permanent members and a few more permanent members (Germany, India, African country, Latin American country) would increase its efficiency and legality (more countries might just respect it).

Furthermore, although I am not a big proponent of the veto, I believe it is necessary but that must also be reformed.
It is illogical that only one permanent member country can veto an entire resolution that may be favored virtually by all nations.
It would be better, in my opinion, that veto power be reformed so if at least 3 or 4 permanent members (given that more permanent members would be added) vote against a resolution, it would be effectively vetoed.

Regards,

as long as balkans is getting more stable by the minute, i don't mind.

" Russia must be removed from the Security Council as it is a country which countributes less and exploiting its position for its expansionistic and hegemonistic views ..."

=======================

In Russia we have other points of view.

First of all it is thanks to Russia that the existence of the UN became possible.

Second thing that may disappoint the commentator is that Russia have no problems with SIMULTANEOUS elimination of all the 4 other Permanent Members of the Security Council. So there may be problems with excluding.

Russia... instead of arguing with rogue states, send volunteers and modern equipment!

just in order to make sure that those criminals don´t decide to even touch the Serbs in the still not occupied enclaves...

Jovan!
Cossacks are ready to help You

ToniUK wrote:

Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh.
--

I think you are still living in the 90s Toni. Since then has come globalisation or is that something you happened to miss?

By checking the CIA website with 2007 GDP figures, the current list is

US, China, Japan, India, Germany, UK, RUSSIA, France.

Like I have been saying all along, world power is moving East so the Serbs just need to stand firm and be patient. Our friends are getting stronger and stronger!

EA says..."Russia must be removed from the Security Council"

With what facts do you base your opinion?

Please educate yourself regarding the voting history of the US in the UNSC.

The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.

The US, on April 30, 1980, killed a draft Resolution in the UNSC that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.

Recent Veto History in the UNSC from 1966-2002
1966-75 US 12 Russia 7
1976-85 US 34 Russia 6
1986-95 US 24 Russia 2
1996-02 US 5 Russia 0

While the Veto process needs to be reviewed in the UNSC, it is the US, in recent years, who overides the majority.

RE: US Trillion Dollar Debt

The United States economy is ready to collapse with a Trillion dollar debt and is living on borrowed time.

American taxpayers should know that US has promised to provide 3 Billion dollars to the KLA terrorist leader Hacim Thaci in the illegal EU protectorate of Kosovo while not spending a dime the sub-prime fiasco and health care crisis for the looming health care crisis for an aging population.

Welcome to the 21st century.

I thought Mr. Burns had already left his post and gone into private business. Mr. Burns, it is very "irresponsible" to slice up Serbia by attempting to steal 15% percent of its sovereign territory.
The Russians know it won't work, Mr. Burns, and the rest of the World is understanding the consequences of this destabilizing illegal action.

Szemi,

“…Cossacks are ready to help You…”

Really nice to hear that! I would like to expres my deepest gratitude to all Russian (and other nations) volunteers who helped us in the most difficult times.

Our biggest weakness during war against NATO in 1999 was out-dated anti-aircraft defence system of limited range. So, NATO pilots just flew high and we couldn’t touch them. If Russia could send us plenty of S-300 and Some S-400 systems, it would make a huge difference!

EA,

Kicking out Russia? Who is breaking its own promises and a UNSC resolution: the USA is.

Let's stop this nonsense. Kosovo is Serbian. If both sides agree independence can happen of course. But not one-sided.

And again: get a life! Get over this nation state idea!

TonyUK

Go and do some research before you post nonsense like that. You obviously are basing your arguments on speculation and not facts.

TO : Jovan, 24 February

Please don't worry about Russia this time. There's a technical pause when Russia strives hard to have a new President. Next week after the congratulations you will see new Russian activities in the Serbian crysis.

Serbia is interested to use the situation in it's own favour by attracting Russian money and armaments andRussian influence around the world .

Serbia is not restricted by any sanctions to receive S-300 and other modern arms. Russia has got free money more than the EU and the US put together. So the situation is in your favour. And the sooner you realize that your chances for EU membership is just a mirage the better. It's not Solana or Merkel who will take the final solution but the peoples of 27 states so your chances are just an illusion.

The Russian proverb says : ЛУЧШЕ СИНИЦА В РУКАХ , ЧЕМ ЖУРАВЛЬ НА НЕБЕСАХ. I hope you can guess the meaning.

Best wishes!

EA, pro west, ToniUK:

Seems you need a little history lesson.

UN was formed in 1948 principally to avert another World War. UN's predessor, the League of Nations, formed after WWI, failed.

So this time around, changes were made. UN Security Council with veto rights to most powerful victorious nations was established.

Though lots of conflicts/wars have happened in the intervening 60 years, guess what.. No World War.

In this, the UN has succeeded.

In the light of the above, your idea of removing Russia from the Security is absurd, regardless of the ideology & actions of Russia.


pro west:

It'd be nice if the US did indeed pay 60% of UN expenses. But it doesn't & almost never has.

All the US does is complain about how much the UN costs to run, & then refuse to pay it's apportioned amount.

And when it does make a payment, the US usually extracts some sort of concession in return.

This is remarkably similiar to the way it generously 'donates' aid money. Lot's of grand speeches, & then afterwards, all the caveats that must be met to get the aid are revealed. And even then, half of that goes to US 'contractors' - Haliburton et al.

Yes, the US is certainly a generous benefactor, isn't it?


ToniUK:

"Russia in top 10 when in terms of GDP?!!!....hahaha, you made me laugh. "

Well they do say ignorance is bliss.. Here's some more humorous material for you:

In terms of GDP, Russia IS in top-10 & moving up, wheras the UK is 6th & stagnant, and the ratio of (Russia's GDP) / (UK's GDP) expressed as a percentage over the last 3 years is: 81%, 84%, & 88 %.

At this rate, in terms of GDP, Russia will overtake the UK in 4 years.

Still laughing? :)


Ptoleme X:

Adding more members to the Security Council - fine.

Diluting the power of the veto - not a good idea. Allowing a powerful member an exclusive veto acts as a safety valve in world affairs - remember, main aim of UN is to prevent World Wars. Anything else is a bonus.

ZK_UK,
Peter,

I'm still laughing,

Russiian GDP is about 7% of the USA, and less than 6% of the EU.

Russians GDP is about 25% of UK, or Germany or Italy.

Russia has gott a loooooong way to go to compare with the big induastrial countries.

No need to be cynical.
Check this link.
I understand, your wishthinking, but be realistic. For a country to catch up with economies 10-15 times grater....it's just not realistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

"ZK_UK,
Peter,

I'm still laughing,

Russiian GDP is about 7% of the USA, and less than 6% of the EU.

Russians GDP is about 25% of UK, or Germany or Italy.

Russia has gott a loooooong way to go to compare with the big induastrial countries.

No need to be cynical.
Check this link.
I understand, your wishthinking, but be realistic. For a country to catch up with economies 10-15 times grater....it's just not realistic.

[link](nominal)
(ToniUK, 25 February 2008 21:09) "



ToniUK:

As one get's older, one also tends to get more cynical I'm afraid :)

So I went ahead & looked into that link you provided with a view to seeing where the discrepency between your figures & my figures lay. And found said difference.

Rather than bore everyone with the detail (which is appended below in an appendix for your reference), will just present findings.



I've used GDP (PPP - 'purchasing power parity') data for 2006, 2007 & 2008 (projected) sourced from the IMF.

You seem to have used GDP (nominal) data for 2006, again sourced from the IMF.

Difference between GDP (PPP) & GDP (nominal) is just what it seems.

GDP (nominal) solely uses exchange rates as a measure of comparison. Is why it's called nominal.

GDP (PPP), also uses 'purchasing power parity' as a measure of comparison, which is more accurate as it takes into account other things like inflation & relative cost-of-living expenses. For instance, all other things being equal, meat is cheaper in Australia than in Serbia.

My figures are accurate. Your's aren't.

My figures cover 2006 to 2008 - & are up-to-date. Your's only cover 2006 & are out-of-date.

Data sourced from IMF shows Russia in worst light. Other data sources such as World Bank & CIA world Factbook paint 'rosier' picture for Russia. I used the IMF data (first data I found), so did you (worst data you found).

So will just repeat my 'factual' post.



"In terms of GDP, Russia IS in top-10 & moving up, wheras the UK is 6th & stagnant, and the ratio of (Russia's GDP) / (UK's GDP) expressed as a percentage over the last 3 years is: 81%, 84%, & 88 %.

At this rate, in terms of GDP, Russia will overtake the UK in 4 years.

Still laughing? :)



Methinks that laughter in the background is getting more hysterical :)



Appendix:

One can talk about GDP (nominal) which solely uses exchange rates as a measure of comparison.

And one can also talk about GDP (PPP), which uses 'purchasing power parity' as a measure of comparison.

And then one can use the GDP data from a particular year.


The link you've attached to your post is to a wikipedia article with which I don't really have any problems with. Wikipedia can be an excellent way of learning about a subject quickly & easily - so long as one bears in mind that the material is neither rigorous nor comprehensive, & subject to alteration - is good idea to check sources.

Anyway, since you've included this link, I assume that this is where you derived your data for your post. And being a 'died-in-the-wool' cynic, I further assume that you picked the worst set of figures for your comparisons above - ie: GDP (nominal) for 2006.

Using GDP (nominal) figures for 2006 (sourced from IMF) from wikipedia, one gets:

Russia/ US = 7.46% - you said about 7% - correct
Russia/ EU = 6.74% - you said

Oops. appears to be a limit on the size of a post :)

continuing last post (#24):


Using GDP (nominal) figures for 2006 (sourced from IMF) from wikipedia, one gets:

Russia/ US = 7.46% - you said about 7% - correct
Russia/ EU = 6.74% - you said