
Russia kicked out of G8 - dutchbrit
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/politics/obama-europe-trip/index.html
======
TrainedMonkey
This is really nice, but Russia is pretty important to Europe, thus any
response is limited to token actions only. Russia supplied 32.6% of oil and
38.7% of gas used by EU in 2007. I would love to see some of more recent data.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector)

~~~
sasvari

      Russia supplied 32.6% of oil and 38.7% of gas used by EU in 2007.
    

Seeing that the Russian state is nearly exclusively financed by selling
Russian natural ressources, this also poses a big risk to Russia: they can't
just switch to sell their oil and gas to someone else (i.e. China, as the
infrastructure to just shift the flow of oil and gas to the East is not
present). Both the EU and Russia are tied together.

~~~
Shivetya
However the EU can gain independence from Russia fuels easier than Russia can
generate a new means to replace those funds.

If they really want to put Putin in a bind they can simply revoke all travel
Visas for Russians by means testing it. Bottle the rich oligarchs up in Russia
and they won't tolerate it long.

------
hkphooey
Yawn. This is not a big deal.

There's no China, India or Brazil in the G8 (now G7) so it doesn't exactly
represent the biggest economies in the world.

What the G7 does represent however are some of the most debt ridden countries
in the world!

~~~
adventured
China is drowning in debt and is one of the most debt ridden nations. In the
last five years since the global recession, their economy has acquired more
debt than any other country in world history in such a short span of time. At
the rate they're accumulating debt, they're likely to become the most indebted
nation, as their fake growth requires ever more credit per dollar of growth
they're able to generate. They can either keep faking growth with debt, or
they can crash.

Both their muni debt and their corporate debt are the highest in the world on
a GDP basis. The two of those together are at least $15 trillion right now
(and that's if you believe their numbers, it could be far worse).

Adding China would just drastically increase the amount of debt in the GX
group.

~~~
hkphooey
China is a creditor nation. It's not drowning in external foreign debt.

Fake growth? Sure, I get it, China should behave more like responsible Western
countries who report real figures all the time!

Maybe you've been reading too much Gordon Chang - he's been predicting the
collapse of China every year for 15 years now, and he's been wrong every time.

I guess Forbes publishes his garbage because they know their audience, and
some of that audience just can't bear to see China or Russia or India or
Brazil or South Africa succeed.

------
MatthiasP
The title is somewhat misleading, Russia's membership was suspended and
considering Russia never was a full member this is hardly more than symbolic.
The G7 were always a club of US friendly 'capitalist' states and are in no way
comparable to the UN.

------
tete
As much as I dislike what Russia is doing removing the pretty much last
serious chance for diplomacy looks like an extremely dumb move.

~~~
sasvari

      removing the pretty much last serious chance for diplomacy
    

I don't think that the G8 framework is/was the _last serious chance for
diplomacy_. There are still multiple channels open for diplomatic
negotiations, be it bilateral or within EU/Russia negotiations i.e.

IMO it all comes down to domestic pressure: how much is the Russian economy
going to suffer, and how are the major economic figures within Russia are
going to act? Are they going to put pressure on the Putin administration not
to further pursue the path of direct conflict?

Putin essentially missed to advance the Russian economy aside the natural
ressources sector during his long reign. And the loss of foreign investment
and efflux of domestic money is already posing a big risk to the Russian
economy.

------
mildtrepidation
What I'd like to know is whether there's the potential to have their UN
security council seat revoked. I don't know if there's even a contingency in
place for that (if not, that was a foolish omission), but if there is, Russia
is certainly moving in the right direction to hit it based on their current
popularity deficit.

~~~
azernik
Absolutely not, and it's by design, not foolish omission. The point of the
permanent Security Council seats isn't to reward states for good behavior, but
rather to recognize the reality that when a great power like Russia or the US
or China feels that UN institutions are acting against its core interests, it
can tear the whole structure down. So yeah, the veto-wielding members can veto
any attempt to take that power away.

The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the
major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.

~~~
mildtrepidation
_The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it 's basically
the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still
useful._

I'd call that a contradiction. The principle can't possibly be that useful if,
a few decades later, the result of its application is deadlock.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting they should. It just crossed my mind as something
they might look at after this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The principle can't possibly be that useful if, a few decades later, the
> result of its application is deadlock.

It deadlocked less than a decade in, which is a big part of how we ended up
with the current operation where the things in the UN Charter that plainly
_say_ they require the approval of all the permanent members of the Security
Council are treated as if the permanent members have a veto which they must be
present and affirmatively choose to use. (It's also how we ended up with the
"Uniting for Peace" [1] framework for an end-run around deadlocked veto powers
even if they are present and actively voting.)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377)

------
Fizzadar
What the countries allied against Russia's moves into crimea don't seem to
realise is that Russia literally doesn't give a shit:

 _Lavrov added that Russia was "not attached to this format and we don't see a
great misfortune if it will not gather. Maybe, for a year or two, it will be
an experiment for us to see how we live without it."_

~~~
dragonwriter
Or, at least, Russia says they don't. But, of course they are going to say
that.

------
venomsnake
Okay - Putin plays the long game. Russia is the last standing of the Great
Powers of pre WWI and it shows in their thinking.

The noise will be temporary, diamonds and crimea are forever. Putin's bet is
that the US-centric world is coming to an end and that the powers that rise
are much more like the powers of times past.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Russia is the last standing of the Great Powers of pre WWI and it shows in
> their thinking.

Russia now isn't the same except in approximate geography to any pre-WWI great
power, whereas both the United Kingdom and the United States (generally
regarded as a great power since at least the Spanish-American War) have
continuity of regime (though the former has shed much of its pre-WWI empire.)

~~~
venomsnake
US was not considered a great power before WWI and UK declined a lot after
WWII.

And while Russia may have had changes of regime it have had very consistent
pursuing of its interests. After all the Ribbentrop Molotov pack would have
been signed no matter if the tzars were in power or Stalin.

------
ArtDev
It may be primarily symbolic but its message is clear to Russian officials and
foreign investors alike. The Russia brand has been stained (they did it to
themselves).

