What Humanitarian Efforts does Russia Support?

wandererz

I don't know if this has been asked before on boards, but what humanitarian efforts does Russia support?

Whenever there is a crisis of some sort: military, tsunami, cyclone, volcano, airplane disaster etc. there is an outpouring of support from certain nations for the well-being of the general population, but never from Russia it seems.

Perhaps i am mistaken.

What does Russia contribute to the well-being of people globally rather than simply make peoples lives more miserable?

Perhaps i am jaded myself, living my great life in the western world and (almost) not impeded or controlled by dictatorships and doing what i want to do?

At the same time, why do so many people wish to move to places like the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada etc.

But IS there an influx to places like Russia? ...I don't think there is.

Why do they seem to continue to make peoples lives worse rather than enhance it.

After having engineered his current term in office, and considering his previous terms, what has the current president done for the world and for humanity in general?
When exactly does Russia speak out about atrocities that are comitted and actually ACT on them, other than when suits them?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

They give the world women like Tanya Mityushina and Katsia Zingarevich though.

Fairs fair like.

wandererz

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

They give the world women like Tanya Mityushina and Katsia Zingarevich though.

Fairs fair like.

Yes, but they soon leave when they realise what is like on the other side right?

Manic Moran

They will often give physical aid in the case of natural disasters, such as the tsunamis or earthquakes which hit the Pacific Rim. Although a superpower, they have limited projection capability, so you won't see them in the news like you will US Navy helicopters flying around rescuing people, but they'll send the odd transport aircraft, a couple hundred tons of aid, and one or two hundred personnel to help behind the scenes.

Russian troops have also partaken in UN ops in places like Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Transnistria. They currently have a force in Sudan.

Iwasfrozen

Manic Moran wrote: »

They will often give physical aid in the case of natural disasters, such as the tsunamis or earthquakes which hit the Pacific Rim. Although a superpower, they have limited projection capability, so you won't see them in the news like you will US Navy helicopters flying around rescuing people, but they'll send the odd transport aircraft, a couple hundred tons of aid, and one or two hundred personnel to help behind the scenes.

Russian troops have also partaken in UN ops in places like Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Transnistria. They currently have a force in Sudan.

Russia isn't a superpower. No where close. Britain has a higher gdp and more power projection.

wandererz

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Russia isn't a superpower. No where close. Britain has a higher gdp and more power projection.

Yet Russia always has a veto at the UN?
...yes, i know the origins of the UN etc, but to me it does seem ridiculous.

Why the heck do they not help their own people and the rest of the world like others do?

Are they simply that bad at advertising their good strengths?

or do they have no good strengths at all??

Joe Doe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Russia isn't a superpower. No where close. Britain has a higher gdp and more power projection.

Stats would differ on that claim.

Of course they're a superpower. Large-ish population,(very) large country, large resources, (very) large amount of pointy projectiles. Not sure what they offer everyone else, guess it's the other side of the coin to enforced democracy, central banks and the like. No harm having a Ying along with the Yang to keep a balanced middle.

Retrovertigo

Tetris.

Bipolar Joe

Manic Moran wrote: »

They will often give physical aid in the case of natural disasters, such as the tsunamis or earthquakes which hit the Pacific Rim.

They were giant aliens, and Russia's giant robot was destroyed if I remember correctly, even though it was decidedly more bad ass than all the others.

Muahahaha

Manic Moran wrote: »

They will often give physical aid in the case of natural disasters, such as the tsunamis or earthquakes which hit the Pacific Rim. Although a superpower, they have limited projection capability, so you won't see them in the news like you will US Navy helicopters flying around rescuing people, but they'll send the odd transport aircraft, a couple hundred tons of aid, and one or two hundred personnel to help behind the scenes.

Russian troops have also partaken in UN ops in places like Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Transnistria. They currently have a force in Sudan.

Just wondering why they are seen as a superpower, I don't know much about their military capability. Is it because they have nuclear weapons or that aside do they still have serious capability? I kinda look at the Russian military and think of things like the Kursk submarine disaster and wonder what mistakes would happen when the pressure in on during a conflict. Also one of my main memories of a trip to Leningrad was the amount of uniformed navy officers staggering around on the streets locked drunk with bottles of vodka in hand, it didn't inspire confidence.

I wonder if you left the nuclear thing out of it and say Russia got into a ruck with China with both countries trying to take and hold Mongolia would Russian military be up to the task?

I'm not sure who'd come out top in that one but Russia Vs China would be fascinating battle. Sky could televise it pay per view and I'd still pony up.

Manach

Russia in terms of power might not be able to present the same global reach as the old USSR. But that bankrupted that entity. Now they have re-invented themselves as a regional power than is a credible power in the region of its borders. News reports from Crimeia early this year show a mostly professional army capable of carrying out missions at the directive of the Kremlin, so a return to Tsarist Empire standards.

pO1Neil

Oh they support all of them.

Privileged White Male

Yes Op, only Russia is evil and bad. The US and Israel are your friends and will protect you.

average hero

I don't know whether Russia contribute much to humanitarian efforts. I heard they send some aid and some troops but we here in the West aren't going to hear about positive Russian efforts too much really.

With that being said, they are more insular than some Western countries. Perhaps that's down to the recent fall of the former Soviet Union or it's them consolidating their regional power, one can only guess.

They have different value systems in Russia too. They have old-school visions of masculinity for example and have different perspectives on global issues than we would have.

With regards to people not emigrating to Russia, there are a number of reasons. Firstly, it isn't paraded as a place to go to prosper such as the US or Europe. Secondly, I hear it's not very welcoming, be it bureaucratically or socially. And finally, the US, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie make former colonies view these homelands as places to prosper - history etc.

Is Russia a superpower? I think so. They have many social problems but many positives too. Vast natural resources and establishing the World Bank 'counter-bank' with the BRICS has made them economically relevant again. They are flexing their muscles militarily in Ukraine and establishing agreements with China and in Africa.

Militarily they have a large amount of nukes and sufficient projection power. I would assess that their military assets lie in their 'dormant' power rather than their active military. They may not be currently the best of the best, but I reckon get into a scrap with them and they have the social and economic resources to raise huge armies and infrastructure.

So yeah...my rant on the Rooskies

Rhys Essien

wandererz wrote: »

But IS there an influx to places like Russia? ...I don't think there is.

Russia has a big problem with migration from Central Asia.It seems that a lot of these immigrants are treated like absolute $hite.There are 3 million Central Asians thought to be living in the Moscow area alone.

Good reports about the issue here.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0d1569a0-2607-11e1-856e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39EuD54gT

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68184

Iwasfrozen

Joe Doe wrote: »

Stats would differ on that claim.

Of course they're a superpower. Large-ish population,(very) large country, large resources, (very) large amount of pointy projectiles. Not sure what they offer everyone else, guess it's the other side of the coin to enforced democracy, central banks and the like. No harm having a Ying along with the Yang to keep a balanced middle.

There's more to being a superpower than simply being a powerful country. To be a superpower a country must be the ideological center of a large portion of the world. Russia since the end of the Soviet Union have succeeded in isolating themselves among all their old satellite states.

As for power projection do you realise Russia does not even have a blue water navy? They don't have the capacity to strike anywhere in the New World even if they wanted to. On the other hand America has Russia surrounded by military bases on all sides.

Economically Russia has vast resources but their main suppliers are in a market union against them. Russia's gdp is similar to Italy's despite the latter having half its population and a fraction of its resources.

Arthur Beesley

They sent plenty of soldiers and materials to free Georgia, and Chechnya. And they are doing their best in the Ukraine as we speak.

Hande hoche!

They shipped quite a bit of humanitarian aid to Syria.

wretcheddomain

wandererz wrote: »

At the same time, why do so many people wish to move to places like the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada etc.

Because they speak English.

Arthur Beesley

Surprised they haven't been racking up Nobel Peace prizes for all their recent good works.

Yop on yop oF

In communist Russia, humanitarian efforts support you

Jamiekelly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Russia isn't a superpower. No where close. Britain has a higher gdp and more power projection.

Superpowers are usually the ones with the most nukes and enemies...

And they usually have some space program

Overheal

based on thee standard definition the US is the only remaining Superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

India and China have the potential to become superpowers but it is not likely. For one, China historically has never been big on 'global reach.'

The US is currently according to this expected to lose 'superpower' stature around the 2030s after which there won't be any superpowers left that fit the term.

Iwasfrozen

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Superpowers are usually the ones with the most nukes and enemies...

And they usually have some space program

If that was the case North Korea would be a superpower...

Russia just isn't powerful enough to be a superpower.

KingOfFairview

wandererz wrote: »

But IS there an influx to places like Russia? ...I don't think there is.

You think wrong. Russia is the second-largest recipient of immigrants on Earth.

KingOfFairview

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's more to being a superpower than simply being a powerful country. To be a superpower a country must be the ideological center of a large portion of the world. Russia since the end of the Soviet Union have succeeded in isolating themselves among all their old satellite states.

As for power projection do you realise Russia does not even have a blue water navy? They don't have the capacity to strike anywhere in the New World even if they wanted to. On the other hand America has Russia surrounded by military bases on all sides.

Economically Russia has vast resources but their main suppliers are in a market union against them. Russia's gdp is similar to Italy's despite the latter having half its population and a fraction of its resources.


really useful when

On the other hand, Russia does have the biggest nuclear arsenal, one of only two strategic bomber forces, sole manned access to space, etc. Russia isn't a superpower, but it is definitely the third-most powerful country around.

DeadHand

Well, one good thing the Soviet Union did did was save Europe from a dark age of medival brutality by breaking the back of the Wehrmacht through bloody minded determination and a colossal level of sacrifice not seen in history before or since. Not that the Soviet goal was anything as nobel as European liberation, it was survival and, later, revenge/expansion.

Of course, they then replaced Nazi tyranny with a less malevolent Communist tyranny of their own in the areas they occupied.

But, yeah, there is an insular and xenophobic attitude in the Russian psyche so they tend to stay out of things outside their immediate sphere of influence and be less inclined to cultivate large immigrant communities. This innate xenophobia has it's roots in generations of suffering at the hands of foreign invaders be they Mongols, French, Germans, etc.

Iwasfrozen

KingOfFairview wrote: »

On the other hand, Russia does have the biggest nuclear arsenal, one of only two strategic bomber forces, sole manned access to space, etc. Russia isn't a superpower, but it is definitely the third-most powerful country around.

Oh yeah. No doubt Russia is a great regional power. It's just not a global superpower any more.

KingOfFairview

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh yeah. No doubt Russia is a great regional power. It's just not a global superpower any more.

No, and I doubt it will be again, nor does it seem to aspire to be now. It wants to dominate its own borders and immediate vicinity, and, China aside, I think that's a fairly realistic goal. It still has a very good diplomatic and intel legacy from the Soviet days and a truly independent foreign policy, something the UK and France don't really have.

Stovepipe

With regard to humanitarian assistance, Russia's biggest and most useful contribution is very large transport aircraft and aircrew willing to work anywhere, especially for dollars and any credible non-Rouble currency. Their country is essentially a kleptocracy, with a woeful standard of living for ordinary people in what is supposed to be a developed country, which long had a great reputation for the calibre of it's scientists,engineers,musicians, artists and so on yet is also renowned for it's racism against non-Slavs (the deeply ingrained terms in Russian society for ethnics/gypsies/Jews,etc,etc are things like rat, insect and so on), it's anti-Semitism, the corruption of all police, army and state agencies and the dominance of organised crime in all aspects of Russian life. It is not a superpower in the American sense as it's Military was a profoundly corrupt basketcase until recently, when it finally adopted a volunteer-entry system and dumped wholsesale quantities of ancient equipment. It's conditions for ordinary servicemen are still very basic, dangerous (the death rate in training and service in troubled republics is off the clock by Western standards), corrupt (young soldiers routinely do not get paid because the officers and NCOs siphon off their wages or delay them for months and theft is endemic) and the resupply of new tanks and aircraft is hindered by the fact that anyone skilled enough to service them will do his level best to get out of the Army as soon as possible. Despite the evident respect and honour for the sacrifice of the Red Army in WW2, service in the current Army or other armed services is generally regarded as a thuggish rite of passage to be endured. Russia is still not fit to be a world leader on a par with the USA.

Joe Doe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's more to being a superpower than simply being a powerful country.

powerful all the same, maybe 2/3rd or so...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As for power projection do you realise Russia does not even have a blue water navy? They don't have the capacity to strike anywhere in the New World even if they wanted to.

Plenty of subs, long range and big birds, the uk only got it's semi-working single carrier recently, France only has one carrier also. Wouldn't pick a fight with them or anything...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Economically Russia has vast resources but their main suppliers are in a market union against them. Russia's gdp is similar to Italy's despite the latter having half its population and a fraction of its resources.

Your obviously making up your own gdp data, again. These x3 sources say otherwise for 2013. In fact the UK could be on the way down beside Italy if/when Scotland goes independent.

Suppliers are one thing, customers are another, Russia and China have signed a 30-year, $400bn (£237bn) deal for Gazprom to deliver Russian gas to China. The had talks last month with BRIC's about a global reserve alternative to the usd and $100bn brics bank to start off with.

Their policies are often un-agreeable, but sovereign, independent and idealistic choices all the same, somewhat free from central bank or external influence. Again having alternative perspectives to consider (even if wrong), could be for the greater good in long term evolution.

They very recently talked about helping the Palestinians with oil discover off their coast, to help support that fledging economy, can't be a bad thing surely?

InTheTrees

Russia is a sad shadow of its former self.

Massive oil wealth being accumulated by putins oligarch friends and meanwhile the country has a life expectancy the same as egypts. They're hovering just about third world status.

Which would explain putins macho strutting.

Shakespeare's Sister

wandererz wrote: »

I don't know if this has been asked before on boards, but what humanitarian efforts does Russia support?

Whenever there is a crisis of some sort: military, tsunami, cyclone, volcano, airplane disaster etc. there is an outpouring of support from certain nations for the well-being of the general population, but never from Russia it seems.

Perhaps i am mistaken.

What does Russia contribute to the well-being of people globally rather than simply make peoples lives more miserable?

Perhaps i am jaded myself, living my great life in the western world and (almost) not impeded or controlled by dictatorships and doing what i want to do?

At the same time, why do so many people wish to move to places like the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada etc.

But IS there an influx to places like Russia? ...I don't think there is.

Why do they seem to continue to make peoples lives worse rather than enhance it.

After having engineered his current term in office, and considering his previous terms, what has the current president done for the world and for humanity in general?
When exactly does Russia speak out about atrocities that are comitted and actually ACT on them, other than when suits them?

I'm no fan of Putin, but why would they have to talk about giving aid to prove they're doing it? http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/russia

InTheTrees

Does russia even qualify as a "democracy" anymore?

When the same person keeps winning "elections" over and over. When there's no independent press or legal system. When the ruling elite can rewrite the constitution to creats posts for themselves for their own purposes, is it really "democracy"?

Iwasfrozen

Joe Doe wrote: »

powerful all the same, maybe 2/3rd or so...



Plenty of subs, long range and big birds, the uk only got it's semi-working single carrier recently, France only has one carrier also. Wouldn't pick a fight with them or anything...



Your obviously making up your own gdp data, again. These x3 sources say otherwise for 2013. In fact the UK could be on the way down beside Italy if/when Scotland goes independent.

Suppliers are one thing, customers are another, Russia and China have signed a 30-year, $400bn (£237bn) deal for Gazprom to deliver Russian gas to China. The had talks last month with BRIC's about a global reserve alternative to the usd and $100bn brics bank to start off with.

Their policies are often un-agreeable, but sovereign, independent and idealistic choices all the same, somewhat free from central bank or external influence. Again having alternative perspectives to consider (even if wrong), could be for the greater good in long term evolution.

They very recently talked about helping the Palestinians with oil discover off their coast, to help support that fledging economy, can't be a bad thing surely?

I think you're confusing great power with superpower. No doubt Russia is a great power but it's not a superpower.

InTheTrees

average hero wrote: »

With regards to people not emigrating to Russia, there are a number of reasons. Firstly, it isn't paraded as a place to go to prosper such as the US or Europe. Secondly, I hear it's not very welcoming, be it bureaucratically or socially. And finally, the US, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie make former colonies view these homelands as places to prosper - history etc.

Many of putin's political enemies ended up in prison. There is o free independant judicial system.

Multinational corporations at least require some political stability to invest and that isnt the climate in Russia.

God knows what part of the constitution putin will decide to re=write next.

Maybe he'd nationalise foreign holdings? Thats the threat that usually slows foreign investment. And there's no sign of that threat coming form China, india or brazil.

If you were going to invest your life saving in one of the bric countries which would you pick?

KingOfFairview

average hero wrote: »

With regards to people not emigrating to Russia, there are a number of reasons.

No, there aren't. Russia is the second-highest recipient of immigration on Earth.

InTheTrees

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No doubt Russia is a great power but it's not a superpower.

I dunno about a great power. Their troops are drunk, underpaid and under equipped.

KingOfFairview

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dunno about a great power. Their troops are drunk, underpaid and under equipped.

Any meaningful definition of Great Power would include Russia. If they don't make the cut, there's no such thing.

Manic Moran

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just wondering why they are seen as a superpower, I don't know much about their military capability. Is it because they have nuclear weapons or that aside do they still have serious capability? I kinda look at the Russian military and think of things like the Kursk submarine disaster and wonder what mistakes would happen when the pressure in on during a conflict. Also one of my main memories of a trip to Leningrad was the amount of uniformed navy officers staggering around on the streets locked drunk with bottles of vodka in hand, it didn't inspire confidence.

I defer to the words of Field Marshal Montgomery:

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.

Russian troops work hard (on-duty discipline is brutal) and play hard. They do not follow the same standards as we in the West do, but it would be a gross mistake to underestimate the bear's claws if they get riled up.

In contrast to Overheal's wiki definition, I've seen a definition I agree with in which the US is considered a hyperpower. World-wide economic and military capability beyond anyone else on the globe, even the superpowers such as the UK and Russia.

Then there are regional powers, such as China, Germany, Japan, Brazil.

And finally, there's everyone else.