Belarus pays 4 $ for stolen from Siberians oil, "We will figure out it!" said USSR in 1986

[Litwin]

BREAKING: Belarus pays 4 Dollars for Muscovite (stolen from Siberians) oil , "We will figure out it!" said Sovok (USSR ) in 1986 . Good price)) so new final Finish of juchi project is just matter of time



" Belarus to buy Russian oil from four dollars a barrel. Prime Minister Sergei Rumas told reporters today.

“We expect to receive two million tonnes of oil. As for the premiums, I can reiterate, as I said two weeks ago, that the supply of this Russian oil will be carried out without premiums, it is a tough setting for the President to buy oil. And the government is sticking to that. The result of this position is the price at which we will buy oil in April from Russian partners.

The price is four dollars a barrel, ”said Sergei Rumas.
Google Translate "

 

[Litwin]

LOL
The price of "Russian" oil is lower than the cost of transporting it
Google Translate

 

[Litwin]

Oil prices have fallen to the lowest since 1991 level . With cost of “black gold” at 15-23 dollars per barrel, the USSR economy collapsed, and the sovok itself collapsed, and the horde budget can only be fulfilled only with oil price at $ 42.4 and higher

 

[Litwin]

Chief researcher, Institute of philosophy RAS V. Shevchenko when evaluating review articles O. Yu. Maslova "the Collapse of Russia in the early XXI century in the statements of contemporaries," notes that it contains a large collection of articles of authors on the theme of disintegration of Russia — from the diehard supporters of the idea that the collapse of Russia is almost inevitable and has already begun to supporters of the idea of artificial and deliberate attempts of the collapse of the country[1].

The main reason for the disintegration processes and the possible collapse of Russia according To V. Shevchenko's review work "the Future of Russia: Strategies for philosophical understanding" is the lack of a national idea or project (such as communism in the USSR) that would unite all the people of Russia. Russian statehood is in a transitional state, in which all processes have become more active: both integration and disintegration[1].

Accompanying reasons for the possible collapse of Russia in the work of V. Shevchenko are listed: xenophobic sentiments ("Russia for Russians"), the desire of the ethnic groups in Russia to separatism, the transformation of national republics into full-fledged States[1].

In a report to the Izborsky club, a group of analysts led by A. Kobyakov named the lines of division in modern Russian society that could potentially lead to the collapse of the state: socio-economic inequality, interethnic relations, alienation of elites from the people, and opposition of the "creative class" to the rest of society[1].

Culturologist I. Yakovenko believes that the main reason for the disintegration processes is the uneven process of market modernization in different regions of Russia, which increases the economic isolation of these regions from each other. Yakovenko identifies the following regions into which, in his opinion, the Russian Federation may break up: North and South of Russia, Siberia, the North Caucasus and the intercontinental border[1].

In V. Shevchenko's article, the opinion is given that the disintegration has actually already begun, and its signs are: legal extraterritoriality, displacement of persons of a non-titular nation in national republics from the state apparatus, and radicalization of Islam[1].

According to Georgiy Malinetsky,[3] there are some possible reasons for the collapse of Russia:

the big difference between the income levels of different social strata;
strong economic gap between different regions of Russia;
the complexity of communications between different regions of the country, which are the result of infrastructure underdevelopment;
breakdown of generations;
strengthening of existing schisms in a religious, cultural and national context;
strengthening of the power of local regional leaders;

 

[Litwin]

"Russia’s ongoing attacks on Ukraine and its persistent subversion of Western states demonstrates that Washington and Brussels have failed to restrain Moscow’s imperial ambitions.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Russia is more fragile than it appears, and the West is stronger than it is portrayed. Under the regime of Vladimir Putin, which will soon enter its third decade, the country has transitioned from an emerging democracy to an unstable authoritarianism.

Although Moscow has failed to modernize its economy to be globally competitive, the Kremlin excels in one domain — disinformation — through which it portrays the country as a rising power on a level with the U.S.

In reality, Russia is a declining state that disguises its internal infirmities with external offensives. Russia’s economy is stagnating. According to World Bank statistics for 2017, Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita ranks 62nd in the world.

Even the defense budget is shrinking and barely reaches a tenth of the U.S. Through a combination of low fossil fuel prices, infrastructural decay, pervasive corruption and Western financial sanctions, state revenues are declining, living standards are falling, social conflicts are intensifying and regional disquiet is mounting.

Although economic performance alone is insufficient to measure susceptibility to collapse, rising social, ethnic and regional pressures indicate that Russia is heading toward fragmentation.

Russia has failed to develop into a nation state with a strong ethnic or civic identity. It remains an imperial construct due to its Tsarist and Soviet heritage.

The unwieldy Russian Federation consists of 85 “federal subjects,” of which 22 are republics representing non-Russian ethnicities, including the North Caucasus and Middle Volga, and numerous regions with distinct identities that feel increasingly estranged from Moscow.

Instead of pursuing decentralization to accommodate regional aspirations, the Kremlin is downgrading their autonomy. This is evident in the new language law designed to promote "Russification" and plans to merge and eliminate several regions.

Pressure is mounting across the country, with growing anger at local governors appointed by the Kremlin and resentment that Moscow appropriates their resources. Indeed, regions such as Sakha and Magadan in the far east, with their substantial mineral wealth, could be successful states without Moscow’s exploitation. "
Managing Russia's dissolution | TheHill