Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Inside the Trenches of the War in Eastern Ukraine" video.

@Founderschannel123 The issue for Russia is access. Let me pose a question: would you rather have land in Mongolia, or Hawaii? Most people say 'Hawaii' for the weather, but it's also because of location. Hawaii has free access to the ocean, while Mongolia has none. This creates an economic problem. Russia has an enormous amount of land, yes, but most of it is frozen and its coastline in frozen 90% of the year. In reality, only about 36% of Russia is habitable. That's about the size of Kazakhstan. So what good is land if you can't trade with other places? You're isolated. Russia is in that situation. Why does it expand? It wants to freely trade. The West doesn't seem to understand, because all of the countries (US, Britain, Australia, Japan, European bloc) have access to the ocean 100% of the year. No advanced ice-breaking ships. They just have it all the time, for free, and expect it as granted. They don't seem to understand that if Russia 'just follow the rules', they become placed in a permanent disadvantage, and have to make concessions to other countries just so they can do what other countries are guaranteed by sheer luck. Geography makes things unequal, and Russia will not accept a fate as a landlocked resource mine. Its people would forever be exploited by Western corporations taking its resources, and selling finished products back to Russians at a high price. This already happened in the 90s once. It will not happen again.
26
@crodude9847 If you're taking about the Donbass region, you'll find many more people happy with Russian support than unhappy. Even moreso in Crimea— where 60% (according to Ukrainian pollsters) of the country was ethnically Russian, and Crimea had already tried to become independent (w/o Russian influence, it was too weak back then) in 1994. So yes, it is stupid, and it's very sad to see this old man cry for his home, there are plenty more relieved that they can continue to legally use Russian-language media, unlike so many in Ukraine at the moment. For every crying old man, there is a rejoicing one, too. Not to mention— this could have been avoided if Ukraine had agreed to renew the ports on Crimea. Russia would have had no need to invade and forestall NATO membership if they had allowed Russia a warm-water port to get to the Medditerranean market.
1
John Baptist I frankly am very sad about what is happening, and it wish it didn't have to, but it is necessary. Russia has no buffer, like India (mountains), China (deserts), or US (oceans) do against foreign armies. I think it's efforts would better be spent negotiating for Hokkaido after Japan's population falls, or buying back the Aleutian islands (or Alaksa). It needs warm water sea access, first and foremost.
1
Windy Calyx 7 You're looking at this through a modern, rules-based lens. There is no "right" to do something, there is no ultimate arbiter of permission. It is simply necessary for national survival, and it is done. And, "yes", to all of your questions. The world, unfortunately, has given us limited resources, and geography is a zero-sum game. If (in your hypothetical) China did not have the ports, India would prosper, and leave China poorer. Would that be fair to China, to stay impoverished for something completely out of their control? In fact, the example with the US and Mexico is exactly what happened. Manifest Destiny sought to control both oceans, and the Mexican Empire was dangerously close to New Orleans (which controls all traffic of the Mississippi River Basin) and so the US looked for reasons to go to war and take their land. Not to mention, the West Coast is chock-full of natural ports for trading with Asia. Russia simply hasn't had that luxury yet. We came very close— had we not sold Alaska, its southern tip has several warm water sea ports. And in WWI, France secretly agreed to give Russia control of Constantinople to alleviate it's centuries-long search for a seaport (still not perfect, since it's only the Medditerranean, but still). Had Russia taken Hokkaido from the Japanese in the 1900s, we'd be in a much better position right now.
1
Windy Calyx 7 "Becoming rich at the expense of others" is very telling. That is, in the situations you gave, what happens either way. If India has the ports, it gets rich at China's expense. If China has them, vice versa. If you are objecting to the 2nd scenario, why not object to the 1st one, before invasion happens, too? Or do you not care that one nation gets rich at the expense of another, as long as they all follow international rules?
1
Windy Calyx 7 Because the USSR was the country who signed it, not Russia. It had much, much more land and better control of the Baltic— not to mention a blue-water navy and a real shot (war in Afghanistan) at reaching the Indian Ocean. And Russia only agreed to sign it because its country had literally just collapsed, you dimwit. Its economy and power were reduced to nothing, it was in no position to negotiate for ports. Bear in mind, this happened under Yeltsin, whom the US financially (and politically) supported. Again— are you okay with some countries permanently suffering and staying poor, because you don't want any borders to change, just because it would be against 'the rules'?
1
Windy Calyx 7 Yes, it had and yes, it was. Though I think you're taking "nothing" very literally. Of course Russia had something, it just had very, very little compared to what it was capable of as the USSR. When I say "nothing", I'm talking about standing up to the American military, not some backwater little regions on Russia's borders. You're acting like there's no difference. You were the one who asked me why Russia agreed to the Security Council (which the US hasn't followed either, why don't you take your complaints to them?) because it had no means of negotiating with the still-standing US. Again, are you okay with some countries staying poorer forever because of their geography? It's completely out of their control, yet you seem to endorse the status quo, which would keep them poor.
1
Windy Calyx 7 Obviously, every country has. But I'm not 'pro', or in service of, the Russian government— in fact, I despise that they refuse to allow business to prosper domestically— I am in service of a goal. Until Russia obtains a defensible warm-water port to the ocean, I will support any means necessary to achieve that. It isn't for the sake of the government, but the material prosperity of the people. Life is a zero-sum game when it comes to land. Either we win, or someone else does.
1
@TM-bn8pv "It's your bed" You act like Russia chose to be there. Russia just happened to emerge from that flat region of Europe— it had no choice to live by a coast. Did Mongolia, or Kazakhstan, or Bolivia, or Nepal, choose to be there? That's like asking someone to be born to different parents. You're posing a fucking delusional demand. And you'll be delighted to know that that's not happening. You basically saying, "just accept your fate and stay poor forever", is exactly why we continue to advance. It's not stopping until the goal is achieved. Sorry man
1
@raducarpinisianu2483 You're right, Soviet consumer goods were lacking in quality-- though they have improved drastically since, and I think your judgement is based more in emotion than analysis. Russia produces a huge variety of back-end goods, the fact that you measure a country's manufacturing capability based on whether it has its own version of an iPhone is very telling. You simply don't understand supply chains. As for your main point, you're wrong. Russia never had an unblocked port. All of the Black Sea ports are subject to pass through Turkey's Bosporus. The St. Petersburg ports need to pass through Denmark, and the Pacific ports pass through Japan's EEZ. On the other hand, whenever Japan wants to trade, it doesn't need to worry about a foreign power having the potential to block its routes if the politics aren't good. Same with the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia.... are you noticing a pattern? The privileged stick together and keep other out.
1