Ammo and rifles aren't that big deal. 50 % of Russian arms exports are fighters, 25 % missiles etc. These are all products with high added value.
But not that big a market, they are probably already selling the S-400s to all the countries that can afford them.... with Saudi leader in the dog box there is no way he is buying S-400s now, so that leaves perhaps UAE maybe and that is probably it.
They have lost their eastern european market and most of their other allies either can't afford them, don't really need them, or have already signed contracts...
They need to expand their range of export products... and western sanctions means western consumer products will be difficult to get in Russia, but asian brands or consumer electronics are better anyway. The question for Russia is what don't the asians do well that they normally buy from europe that they could make themselves and hopefully get it to a standard where it is comparable in performance and quality to the european stuff but just cheaper to make in volume... and then compete with the europeans on the international market with those better cheaper products... that means the rest of the world and also the rather rich asian market too...
It takes 5 years to negotiate an agreement to sell S-400 and they are not going to come up with a replacement system every 5 years... and even if they did only China and India could afford to keep buying the new model.... whether they would or not is another question.
But if you have politicians who think that leaning towards west will be the best balance against increasing Chinese investment, than it doesn't matter how cheap and good Russian arms are. Going for a NPP could be a start though.
As mentioned above Russia is going to be part of the trade route between europe and asia, so it would make sense for them to try to replace some of that traffic with their own products in both directions and take advantage of their geographic location in the middle.
It's important to diversify and trade with different countries. But also develop other sectors for the case 20-year peace period comes and all your S-400 producers go bankrupt. That's why Putin told shipyards to start making civilian yachts and fishing boats.
Diversification makes sense because sales are never consistent in any one area over time.
If you are a sheep farmer and the price of meat and wool goes down you struggle, but if you have dairy as well and a contract to sell milk then you have a constant income from the milk to keep things ticking over in the difficult times... the meat and wool prices might go back up but then you lose the milk contract... which is ok... you can sell fresh milk at the local markets, and you could get into other areas like making your own cheese or other products... if you have a few steep and rocky paddocks on hillsides, plant it out in pine trees and in 25 years you get a few million dollars in wood/timber... (New Zealand has a mild climate so pine trees mature in about 25 years... which makes it a good retirement option... most young farmers could get two crops of trees over 50 years...)
For Russian companies it is important to diversify in areas that make sense... because you have to be competitive in the areas you go into, but it means in difficult times one side of the business can carry other less successful parts until they get going.
If one part of the org never seems to get going... change it to something that will.
Specialization is basic idea behind the trade. If you're good at something, focus on this and sell it to the others. If you're not, why waste time and sources developing such industry?
But you don't have to be the best in a market to succeed... look at ball point pens... not every one of them has to be a work of art that will last 200 years. Most will be lost within a few weeks anyway, so low cost and reasonable performance can actually sell you more pens that being the best.
The best might be $30 and given to a worker for dedicated service or some other encouragement or thankyou, but most of the pens you will buy will be $2 a box of 5 plain blue pens and you will buy a carton of the damn things at a time.
In Germany, they might want very high spec quality pens just for the general public and they might not even give a plastic pen a second look. Professionals might want even more specialised and expensive pens... but they might also want German pens.
In a market in Indonesia they might want a cheap pen that will work for as long as they own it... maybe 3-4 months.
Anyone can make an expensive pen, or more accurately anyone can charge too much for a pen, but getting the quality and cost to a level where you can sell the pen for a good/fair price and still make money on the sale is the key... it does not need to be the best quality, but it does need to do the job... which is pretty much a general description for most Soviet and Russian weapons isn't it?
Does the job, but not over engineered and not too expensive or too complicated.
Russians are so good at NPPs and S-400 that they're selling it even to US allies. It's all about expensive items today. If you can't make expensive TV, make expensive air defense system. Something were you have know how and high tech that will allow you to survive on the market in the long run. Russian workers can always buy Chinese TVs, but they need to have high salaries, be employed in perspective profitable industries.
Yeah, you don't get it.
Walk in to a big shop and go into the rug section and look at the rugs... different materials are different costs... polypropolene will be about $120, wool might be $3-400. Animal hide can be $5-700 depending on the shop (some shops you could double those numbers).
The point is that if you look at what that shop is paying for those rugs the polyprop might have cost them $30, the wool might have been $50, and the animal hide might have been $80-100.
Most people wont buy things at full price and when they see the half price special on all rugs so the polyprop is $65, the wool is $150, and the animal hide is $275 they think they are getting an amazing bargain...
The makers of expensive items don't make what you see in the shops, and it is all about margins... the polyprop might cost $15 to make so the company that makes them sells them for $30 to the western shop retail group... that retail group might have to buy a range of patterns and after the first batch goes on sale they might find two sell out straight away and there might be slow sales on the rest except for one design they might not sell at all. The design that doesn't sell will get 40% off and if it still doesn't sell it will go to clearance and might not even sell for $30 each, so they wont buy any more of those. For the maker, they might find some designs don't sell in some markets but does sell in others so they will find other markets to sell the ones that are not popular. There are also companies that buy stuff that does not sell... they normally have the name warehouse in their brand name and they buy up the unpopular stuff and sell it off relatively cheap... the maker might sell them for $20 to such places, and those places will hock them off initially for $50 and then reduce until they sell... they deal in volumes so they don't need to make a big profit on each sale... people go in to the rug area after seeing retail prices above and the highest price being $50 and they just spend on something they would not have looked twice at in the other store.
What I am getting at is that the S-400 is an expensive system, but it is expensive to make so when they sell it for billions of dollars, that is not all profit... they have to make them and supply them and if they lose some in a storm well that adds to their costs and takes away some of their profit... unless it is covered by insurance... which would cut in to profit too.
But this is life and forgiving and not having too big Iskander in your pants is the point of any social relationship, politics included. They turned Moldova from pro-EU to pro-Russia by working out the differences between themselves. No politics and only military thinking brings you to isolation like N. Korea.
I would think the actions of the EU helped. EU at the moment is a sanction imposing, inflexible mess that wont negotiate and wont bend... no wonder the UK wants to leave... of course the EU wants it to be painful and drawn out to deter other members from thinking of leaving, but it shows their bad faith...
Anyway, the point is Trump knows there's no way he'll have word about future of Syria, so instead of staying there till the end and appearing loser, he wants to quietly let Erdogan represent him.
First he was leaving and now they are staying... trump doesn't know what trump wants...
I'm trying to say if Russians brought to Syria just bombs they'd finish up like the US in Afghanistan. Rather than dividing the nation and neighbourhood they've employed their peace process and bilateral diplomacy and not only won the war, but are on the verge of assuring a long-rerm stability in the single most volatile region in the world.
Well, yes, instead of picking the good side and the bad side and then supporting the good side no matter what crimes they commit and bombing the bad side no matter what the situation, the Russians have gone in and talked to pretty much everyone, and those that refused to talk they used force to corner them in to realising talking is better than fighting sometimes... and countries in the area notice how it acts. It tries to cooperate with everyone including Israel and Turkey and the US.
Even factions in Libya want the Russians to go there and sort things out... I suspect the Kurds would want the Russians on their side too, but I doubt that given the history with the US and kurds in the past.
Still, even in afghanistan, Russian negotiations seem the most effective and practical in finding a solution there.... no thanks to the Americans.
It doesn't decrease geopolitic meaning of Russians presence in the Middle East. After endless US failures to stabilize the region, the Russians actually did it. It improved their relations with all the countries in the region economically - they can trade more, diplomatically - count on more votes at the UN, militarilly - Tartus and Latakia etc. One of the best articles on this hybrid mix of Russian policies is:
Sorry... Jamestown.org? wouldn't pass water over that shit. It might as well be a CIA assessment... and probably is... which I am not interested in.
Regardless, the idea is that we need more Russian global influence to fix Middle East, Korea, Yemen and other conflicts. They have large army, large economy, that can support interventions, strong bilateral ties with all the countries in the world and experience from Syria.
Russia is not the world policeman. Who would fund such escapades and adventures? Improved international relations might be a benefit, but how do you sell that to the mothers of dead Russian soldiers... they don't serve to fix the world... they serve to keep Russia safe.
Neutral Ukraine is what want both Donetsk and Moscow.
I suspect what Donetsk wants is an elected Kiev that does not shell them, rather than a coup led by nazis financed and supported by the US and EU...
Super powers were needed to calm down the situation. To talk without intermediaries would be a big step forward.
It was the US that created the situation in the first place...
Black sea shipyard continues to make big ships and engineering department is still intact, so I'm not afraid for the future. However it needs right orders to keep it alive and make it again a strategic asset. If military junta privatizes it, they could start making passenger ships and than Russia would really have to invest a lot in a new shipyard.
Not really Russias problem, Russia spent decades investing in the Ukraine, from Antonov transports to engines from Motor Sich that powered their ships and helos and aircraft and what was the result?
Russia has plenty of shipyards that could do with projects to make ships, in fact there are countries within the EU that have been rather more supportive of Russia than the others and passenger ships could be ordered from those countries before orders for the Ukraine I would think...
That is if they want to risk any purchases there... much better and much quicker to get boats made in South Korea and China to be honest.
So what's wrong with joining Eurasian economic community?
You don't get it... the US and the EU wont let the Ukraine be friends with Russia or Asia or anyone else... you can't have both... they are either friends with the US and EU or they are friends with Russia and China... Not both.
I think the MIC CEOs are more happy now with US withdrawing for world conflicts. The US will spend less on fuel and salaries, but the investment in new arms, that keeps MIC alive, is even bigger under Trump.
What are you talking about?
Trump said they were pulling out of Syria... now they are not... they are likely to attack Venezuela any day now... what is this bullshit about withdrawing from world conflicts... they created most of them and are not withdrawing from any.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
.
and back off... except that has not worked for the last 30 years, why would it start working now?
Just as well this is the talking bollocks thread because it is the only place US foreign policy doesn't stand out as being a little strange...
