Source

So this thread is mainly to discuss the waning strength of the Russian power. Although they are engaged in a conflict and are close to annexing parts of Ukraine, they still seem to be losing at the end of the day. The article that i copy pasted below may help in outlining these points.

When a group of weary diplomats announced a framework for an Iranian nuclear accord last week in Lausanne, there was one diplomat in the mix whose feigned enthusiasm was hard to miss. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov left the talks at their most critical point March 30, much to the annoyance of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who apparently had to call him personally to persuade him to return. Even as Lavrov spoke positively to journalists about the negotiations throughout the week, he still seemed to have better things to do than pull all-nighters for a deal that effectively gives the United States one less problem to worry about in the Middle East and a greater capacity to focus on the Russian periphery.

Russia has no interest in seeing a nuclear-armed Iran in the neighborhood, but the mere threat of an unshackled Iranian nuclear program and a hostile relationship between Washington and Tehran provided just the level of distraction Moscow needed to keep the United States from committing serious attention to Russia's former Soviet sphere.

Russia tried its best to keep the Americans and Iranians apart. Offers to sell Iran advanced air defense systems were designed to poke holes in U.S. threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Teams of Russian nuclear experts whetted Iran's appetite for civilian nuclear power with offers to build additional power reactors. Russian banks did their part to help Iran circumvent financial sanctions. The Russian plan all along was not to help Iran get the bomb, but to use its leverage with a thorny player in the Middle East to get the United States into a negotiation on issues vital to Russia's national security interests. So, if Washington wanted to resolve its Iran problem, it would have to pull back on issues like ballistic missile defense in Central Europe, which Moscow saw early on as the first of several U.S. steps to encircle Russia.

Things obviously did not work according to the Russian plan. As we anticipated, the United States and Iran ultimately came together in a bilateral negotiation to resolve their main differences. Now the United States and Iran are on a path toward normalization at a time when Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying simultaneously to defend against a U.S.-led military alliance building along Russia's European frontier and to manage an economic crisis and power struggle at home. And the situation does not look any better for Russia on the energy front.

Russia Stands to Lose Energy Revenue

The likelihood of the United States and Iran reaching a deal this summer means that additional barrels of Iranian oil eventually will make their way to the market, further depressing the price of oil, as well as the Russian ruble. To be clear, Iranian oil is not going to flood the market instantaneously with the signing of a deal. Iran is believed to have as much as 35 million barrels of crude in storage that it could offload quickly once export sanctions are terminated by the Europeans and eased by the United States via presidential waiver. But Iran will face complications in trying to bring its mature fields back online. Enhanced recovery techniques to revive mothballed fields take money and infrastructure, which is difficult to apply when oil prices are hovering around $50 per barrel. Under current conditions, Iran can bring some 400,000-500,000 barrels per day back online over the course of a year, but this will be a gradual process as Iran vies for foreign investment in its dilapidated energy sector.

U.S. investors will likely remain shackled by the core Iran Sanctions Act until at least the end of 2016, when the legislation is set to expire. However, European and Asian investors will be among the first to begin repairing Iran's oil fields, as long as Iran does its part in improving contractual terms and the economics make sense for firms already cutting back their capital expenditures.

Europe's New Options

The rehabilitation of Iran's energy sector, however gradual a process that may be, will complicate Russia's uphill battle in trying to maintain its energy leverage over Europe. Russia is a critical supplier of energy to Europe, currently providing about 29 percent and 37 percent of Europe's natural gas and oil needs, respectively. An additional 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas available for export from the United States within the next five years will not be able to compete with Russia on price due to the low operational and transport costs of Russian natural gas. Even so, the United States will still be creating more supply in the natural gas market overall to give Europe the option of paying more for its energy security should the political considerations outweigh the economic cost. The Baltic states are already working toward this option, with Lithuania taking the lead in creating a mini-liquefied natural gas hub for the region to try to reduce, if not eliminate, Baltic dependence on Russia. This year, Poland is debuting its own LNG facility, and the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana is scheduled to bring the first LNG exports from the Lower 48 to market, with shipments already contracted for Asia.

In Southern Europe, the picture for Russia is more complicated but still distressing. Aside from the significant issue of cost for energy companies already cutting their capital expenditures, Turkey's veto on the transit of LNG tankers through the Bosporus effectively neutralizes any LNG import facility project on the Black Sea. But Europe is proceeding apace with the much more economically palatable option of building pipeline interconnectors across southeastern Europe. This does little to dilute Russia's control over energy supply, but it does strip Moscow of its ability to politicize pricing in Europe. Pipeline politics in Europe have allowed Russia to reward — and punish — its Eastern European neighbors through pricing contracts. However, Brussels is more thoroughly examining contracts signed by EU member states for this very reason and in line with one of the main tenets of the EU's Third Energy Package, which seeks to break monopolies by splitting energy production and transmission and to implement fair pricing. Meanwhile, the construction of interconnectors allows member states to influence pricing downstream from Russia.

This gambit has been on display over the past year in Ukraine. Kiev depended heavily on its neighbors in Slovakia, Poland and Hungary for reverse flows of Russian natural gas at discounted rates to stand up to Russia's energy swaggering. Though Russian natural gas will still be flowing primarily through these pipelines, the expansion of interconnectors will open up options for non-Russian natural gas from the North Sea and from LNG terminals in Northern Europe to make their way southward to embattled frontline states such as Ukraine.

Russia thought it would be able to keep a hook in Southern Europe through the construction of South Stream, a mammoth pipeline project with a $30 billion price tag and 63-bcm capacity that sought to cut Ukraine out of the equation by moving natural gas across the Black Sea and through the Balkans and Central Europe. The combination of plunging energy prices and growing EU resistance to another pipeline that would allow Russia to draw political favors sent this project to the graveyard, but Russia had a backup plan. The Turkish Stream pipeline would make landfall in Turkey after crossing the Black Sea, before using the Trans Adriatic Pipeline and the Trans Anatolian Pipeline to feed Southern Europe through the web of interconnectors and pipelines already in development. On the surface, Moscow's plan appears quite brilliant: Use the very infrastructure that Europe was already counting on to diversify away from Russia and then, when the political skirmishing over Ukraine eventually settles down, reinsert itself into Europe's energy mix via a willing partner like Turkey.

Post-South Stream Options
Click to Enlarge
But the plan remains full of holes. Someone needs to pay for the main pipeline expansion between Russia and Turkey, and both countries will struggle to find private investors in this geopolitical and pricing climate. Moreover, there is no indication that the Europeans will be willing to take additional Russian natural gas from a yet-to-be-built Turkish Stream when a perfectly good pipeline running from Russia to Eastern Europe already exists. Russia does not have the option of refusing natural gas shipments when it is already desperate for those energy revenues. In the end, this is a Russian bluff that the Europeans will not be afraid to call. When Putin agreed to a three-month natural gas deal with Ukraine last week (with a huge discount to boot, at $247.20 per thousand cubic meters), he likely did so realizing that Russia playing hardball with Ukraine on energy would only spur further investment and construction into pipelines and connectors in southeastern Europe that would accelerate the decline of Russia's energy influence in Europe. The best he can hope for is to slow that timeline down.

Not only will Russia's pricing leverage wane in Europe over the long term, but its influence on Europe's energy supply also will decrease over the longer run. Azerbaijan was the first southern corridor supplier to Europe circumventing Russia and is now expanding that role by bringing natural gas from its Shah Deniz II offshore fields online for export. Turkmenistan is still vulnerable to Russian meddling but has been increasingly willing to host Turkish and European investors looking to build a pipeline across the Caspian to feed Europe. Whether these talks translate into action will depend on the Turkmen government's political will to stand up to Moscow, not to mention legal battles over the Caspian Sea. But while the lengthy courting of Ashgabat by the West continues, a rehabilitated Iran is now the latest addition to the list to join the southern corridor.

Russia's Influence Wanes in the Middle East

Just a day after the Iranian nuclear framework deal was announced, Russia's state-owned RIA Novosti published a story quoting Igor Korotchenko, the head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade, as saying it would be a "perfectly logical development" for Russia to follow through on a sale of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran if the embargo is lifted. Korotchenko noted that specifications to the deal would have to be made as "the United States is watching very closely" to whom Russia sells these weapons. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov also made a point to say the U.N. arms embargo against Iran should be lifted as part of the nuclear deal. These well-timed statements likely caught Washington's eye but probably did little to impress. The S-300 threat mattered a lot more when the United States needed to maintain a credible military deterrent against Iran. If the United States and Iran reach an understanding that neutralizes that threat through political means, Russian talk of S-300s is mostly hot air.

This was a small, yet revealing illustration of Russia's declining position in the Middle East. For many years, the Middle East was a rose garden for the Russians, filled with both sweet-smelling opportunities to lure Washington into negotiations and ample thorns to prick their American adversary when the need arose. Russia's support for the Syrian government is still relevant, and Moscow will continue to court countries in the region with arms deals out of both political and economic necessity. Even so, bringing down the Syrian government is not on Washington's to-do list, and countries like Egypt will still end up prioritizing their relationship with the United States in the end.

Russia's influence in the Middle East is fading rapidly at the same time Europe is starting to wriggle out of Russia's energy grip. And as Russia's options are narrowing, U.S. options are multiplying in both the Middle East and Europe. This is an uncomfortable situation for Putin, to be sure. But a narrow set of options for Russia in its near abroad does not make those options any less concerning for the United States as the standoff between Washington and Moscow continues.

TLDR:
The main point of concern in this article is that with the rise of deals with Iran and America the actions by the Baltic nations away from dependency of Russian resources, one comes down to the conclusion that Russia although looking the strongest it has ever been since the fall of the Soviet Union is just an injured beast lashing out and trying its best to remain relevant in the modern political and economic world. Relying on a number of contingency plans just to stay on top.

So anyway what do you guys think about the Russian might and where it may go from here?

So as most of you know the plague of ISIS has existed on this earth for some time and has been the focus of alot of hate. This hate has led to a number of news reports that personally i feel have now become propaganda pieces based on word from mouth rumors or something that is insanely common in war. Nothing to substantiate it but hate. The most recent example is the ISIS fighters being hit by flesh eating disease.

The report itself says that the disease was common before ISIS rise to infamy and among the populace. So the concept that ISIS fighters have become the focus of this disease and have been infect  in huge numbers by this disease or parasite is anything but a play on words on something based on some truth yet overblown to mean something else.

If anything this could actually be an example of the state of modern journalism where a simple concept or news story is being overblown to represent something that it is not. Mainly an exaggeration and a hype train. The deterioration of modern journalism in mainstream media and the rise of underground news site like VICE with their dispatches.

Still is ISIS a useful way for sites to get viewership?

And what is your view of modern journalism?

Finally what are your go to news sources?

Have any of you ever watched  video essay whether long or short and which one stuck out to you. Include Documentaries if you want.

The most recent and most striking one for me is the series by Tony Zhou, a youtuber who has created a great series called Everyframapainting. Each video takes one small concept about movies and deconstructs it one by one to explain it to the viewer.

Here is his latest video:

So i might as well ask what is your favorite video essay or documentary that you have seen?

What is TPP?
So most of you if have been keeping eyes on the world trade would notice the creation and negotiation of a trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership, composing of 12 countries.

1.Australia
2.Brunei
3.Canada
4.Chile
5.Japan
6.Malaysia
7.Mexico
8.New Zealand
9.Peru
10.Singapore
11.United States
12.Vietnam


The agreement although composing of small number of countries does include some major economic powers, with the first being United State, and the Asian Tiger Singapore. The secrecy of the negotiations has drawn many critics mainly due to unknown nature of the talks. With two more Asian Tigers showing interest one being South Korea and the second being Taiwan. The main talking points are as below:

Main Goals

Comprehensive market access by eliminating tariffs and other barriers to goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities for our workers and businesses and immediate benefits for our consumers.
A fully regional agreement by facilitating the development of production and supply chains among TPP members, which will support the goals of job creation, improving living standards and welfare, and promoting sustainable growth among member countries.
Cross-cutting trade issues by building on work being done in APEC and other fora by incorporating four new cross-cutting issues in the TPP. These issues are:
Regulatory coherence: Commitments will promote trade between the countries by making trade among them more seamless and efficient.
Competitiveness and business facilitation: Commitments will enhance the domestic and regional competitiveness of each member country's economy and promote economic integration and jobs in the region, including through the development of regional production and supply chains.
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Commitments will address concerns small- and medium-sized businesses have raised about the difficulty in understanding and using trade agreements, encouraging these sized enterprises to trade internationally.
Development: Comprehensive and robust market liberalisation, improvements in trade and investment enhancing disciplines, and other commitments will serve to strengthen institutions important for economic development and governance and thereby contribute significantly to advancing TPP countries' respective economic development priorities.
New trade challenges by promoting trade and investment in innovative products and services, including the digital economy and green technologies, and to ensure a competitive business environment across the TPP region.
Living agreement by enabling the updating of the agreement when needed to address trade issues that materialise in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.

[3]

Criticism and Opposition
A number of issues though have been brought up mainly as below and many disagreements exist the most notable:

Intellectual Property Rights:

There has been many issues with this section of the TPP, especially with America's push on placing it's intellectual property laws onto other countries most notably Korea that go far beyond the Korean-US Trade Agreement. With another fear being how the laws could effect the availability of medication in the lower and less prosperous countries and their citizens.

Though much information is not available other than the leaked documents the section covers an array of topics that include

agreement's discussions thus far have included trademark, geographical indication, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge.

[1]

Investor State Arbitration

According to some interpretation some of the laws could force signatories to adapt their domestic laws to conform with the TPP, thus decreasing their control over law making and how they spend their taxes. The biggest concern was that the US were pushing for a Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism mainly a Corporate Tribunal[2], where a nations domestic laws can be challenged by corporations. Although this mechanism is common in many trade agreements.

The biggest critics though say that the system would affect a number of laws including environmental, human rights and public welfare regulations. With fears that the laws can force states to lower their standards from what they originally were set at. The biggest fear is that the provision would give corporations the ability to sue countries for lost revenue at the taxpayers expense.

Other than the above stated concerns some of the still existing concerns were that the Japanese Auto Tariff would remain in place although the trade agreement was supposed to remove all tariffs and the fear of currency manipulation.

On the other hand there is another FTA that is right now growing called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP) composing of a number of nations most notably China, and India also including some of the states that are also involved in the TPP talks.

Why did i make a thread about this
Cause i was wondering how you guys feel with this new partnership and is it a good idea and should be focused in this trade agreement and what should be removed.

Also if you want to here is the Trade Minister's report to their Leaders a 4 page document for your own reading.
Link

Also posted in the sources.

Sources:
[1]
[2][url=http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_intellectual_property_provisions#cite_note-6[/ur]
[2][url]http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#]http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_intellectual_property_provisions#cite_note-6[/ur]
[2][url]http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#
[3]https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/tpp%20trade%20ministers%20report%20to%20leaders%2010082013.pdf

Hi,

So have not been posting on here much but decided to make a post about how important is Space to the Military?

Recently a Chinese experiment on "anti-missile" technology ended up with them destroying a satellite [1]. So from this you already know where i am going. The US and the world keeps talking about how the future wars will be fought online, but what about the domain of Space. The US and the Russians have for the most part dominated this sector by placing up their satellites up for both reconnaissance and operation control. Some of us even take for granted in the public the role they play both in mobile and entertainments side.

But what could the implications of a future where satellites start to become targets in the larger scheme of things. After all one of the ways to defeat an enemy is to render it unable to effectively communicate with each other and leave it in chaotic disarray with no direction. How important then is the satellite network to a modern information based military and could the loss of them cause major impact to the systems that these armed forces rely on?

[1]http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/us-admiral-china-counter-space-threat-is-real/

Decided to discuss about a man who was responsible of ushering an unknown country from a third world status to one of the leading economic powers in the world. As i was raised in Singapore for the first decade of my life i was raised knowing the name Lee Kuan Yew, the prime minister of the nation of Singapore.

His rule was one of great change where he led a nation that had been kicked out of the Malaysian group and out into the open. Lee, was responsible for taking control of the nation setting up a system and leading a nation as it's benevolent dictator. Most people may not know but Singapore although has election, like the Chinese system those you vote for is based on the government. Lee won many times in a row as Prime Minister and led an authoritarian government.

The government has also place stringent laws and usually runs itself like a business. Where the Prime Minister and President are paid nearly the same as a CEO of the same position. The system is total opposite of the Western Democratic system and has been responsible for the nations progress. Especially as the leader whose hand it was in was someone everyone could trust.

Anyway right now i am just going on a rant, but i wanted to ask, has anyone ever considered checking up the Singaporean story and governing system?

And honestly this is mainly a thread to Lee Kuan Yew who died yesterday.

Singapore
Lee Kuan Yew

So you know how there are many popular myths that people believe in. Things like the left brain is analytical and the right is creative. Or how you use 10% of your brain.

So a good question for self reflection is what myth did you believe for the longest and did it have any impact on how you viewed yourself or others? Even if negligible at best.

So trying to find a download for Photoshop CS6 and been coming across a lot of malware ridden files. Any way to find out if there is any clean versions lying around?

Just made a show out of one of his skits.
How successful do you think it will be and do you think it is a bunch of hogwash?



If you are unaware this began on his show in a skit.

What is the most mindfucking thing you have seen so far?

Link

Want are some Vine's you guys like?

So here is a question what makes a Forum a good forum and what makes a forum a shit forum?

So i was wondering on the linguistic ability of our members and though i might as well make a survey.
We can do it both on Reading, Writing and Speaking

So like this.

English - Reading, Writing, Speaking
Urdu - Reading Writing Speaking
Hindi - Speaking
Arabic - Reading

Link

So i thought maybe some of you may be interested in this blog not because it is a bio of a group but because of lower down some of the weapons that have been created by this group in this war.

Just wondering what you think of them?

Also will try to find more specs for the new arsenal for you guys to pour through.

Here is a stupid thought and it is something i have played with quite a bit.

What if we gave the UN Body stronger powers and more independence from the countries. Allow it to hold it's own army. And make countries into territories like provinces or states of a country. Basically, the same scenario the US has with it's states now occurs between UN and the countries.

Now it is something i kind of disagree but see as a necessary evil if we want to stop majority of the conflicts and stop majority of the extremist and civil wars raging around the world. Also get our worlds shit together for once.