General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

LancesArmorStriking
CaspianReport
comments

Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "How Russia could collapse (again)" video.

@gari1633 Given that most of Russia's regions (besides Chechnya and Tuva) are majority ethnically Russian, there wouldn't be the manpower to completely revolt against Moscow. If Moscow ever wanted to re--assert control, these regions would most likely acquiesce (since building an economy takes a long time and genuine nurture, which no other party is likely to give-- the regions only stand to benefit by re-unifying).
6
@gari1633 Speak better english. Lustration? time to stop using google translate)) I will point fingers at harvard, they told yeltsin how to handle the economy. Who let the oligarchs keep their money in london, new york? Tell me why they didnt send the stolen money back to russia?? "Imperial ambitions" yes, wanting to be safe from american coups like in brazil and libya is "imperial"
5
@lhassir1005 Lol dude, Russia proper is almost entirely drawn along ethnic lines; even if it does collapse, there are no divisions for the West to exploit. Not to mention 25% of Kazakhstan is Russian, and Uzbekistan's economy still relies heavily on remittances from immigrants in Russia. Russia also controls a huge chunk of Armenia's industry, and ultimately only Azerbaijan (thanks to Turkey) could become totally independent--- up until Europe phases out natural gas, at which point it has nothing of value to sell, while Russia can continue exporting food and lumber. The situation is not as dire as you think, and the assumption that it all happened "on accident" is ignoring the permanent geographic and demographic realities that made the Empire possible to begin with.
4
@gari1633 "had its chance" is a strange term to use, since Chubais and the other economists were directed by Harvard economists. Not like Russia had the political strength to take agency at that time, it was more or less under American economic guidance.
4
@gari1633 "some" you mean poland and the baltics? Poland was given almost as much money in loans and development as russia, with 10x less population, same with baltics. Its easy to develop a small country. And tell me, how is it our own fault? You cant answer because you know I am right. Please, tell me why western countries took and kept stolen russian peoples' money. I need an answer...
4
@gari1633 Sorry, but it's not. "But that's Ad Hominem argument" is likely translated, though: you didn't use a definite article, and you capitalized the letters, which leads me to think you copy+pasted from Wikipedia or something. You aren't obligated to do anything. But you chose to keep telling me that "it's Russia's fault", without providing any evidence for it. I gave you examples of why it isn't, and you seem to be unable to prove me wrong, so I can only assume that you don't want to admit it, either to me or to yourself.
4
@gari1633 Wtf are you talking about? The 90s was the only time in Russian history when private property law was respected. Or did you already forget about the massive privatization? How do you think that was possible? If property law was not respected, all of the businesses created would have been quickly seized by the state. Instead, under Yeltsin, the state assets were given to private owners. In fact, this is why there was so much enthusiasm in the West and companies willing to come in (like first McDonald's in Moscow). The companies felt safe that their investments would not be lost. "except they managed to purge organised crime" Bruh. Skinheads are still around in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. This is not the big factor for economic development. Poland's institutions (civil society, courts, state run companies) were allowed to transition a little bit more slowly than Russia, giving them more stability to plan. That's the main reason. Russia was pressured to privatize everything right away, which meant the government needed to get its money only from taxes.... taxes on what businesses? The Western ones could not fill the entire budget. And the Russian ones did not exist yet. There was suddenly no money for police, social services, etc. Then everything fell into chaos. Do you understand now?
4
whch country if i can ask? You look european, so maybe argentina or chile?
4
@lhassir1005 And stats needed for the "large bulk", that data is simply never gathered and the Chechens largely serve separately. If we assume that the armed forces roughly match the population as a whole (even if we are being generous and assume that Buryatians and Ingushetans are somehow favored for conscription), it would still be majority Russian. But either way, this doesn't matter. Westerners are obsessed with ethnic divisions, especially in Russia and China's case-- no prizes for guessing why they try to emphasize that. Largely, ethnic minorities see themselves as both different from Russians, and Russians themselves. Rossiyanie =/= Russkie, and trying to appeal to them by saying "you're not Russian!" would just betray a misunderstanding of their culture, and reveal the true intentions of trying to convince them to split Russia up for you.
3
@gari1633 no, it's not a "proper" term, no english speaker uses it. Reminds me of chinese using "auspicious" when speaking english, it just tells me you haven't really learned the language thoroughly. And its funny, you cant actually respond to what I said. You know that the us does coup other countries, but all you say is "i hope you get surrounded". You want us to be unstable?? You gave away your intentions... and if they try to join, they will face problems. after all, nato wont accept a country with a territorial dispute... what do you think russia will do to stop them?
3
@righthandstep5 lots of italian and spanish immigrants in those countries
3
@gari1633 The comment I replied to, and more specifically the phrase, was "Country had its chance". This is what the topic of discussion has been. I explained that your framing of it was pinning the blame on a country whose domestic affairs were heavily influenced by the US, which relates directly back to why "had its chance" is a poor choice of words. Need any other refreshers?
3
@gari1633 "You on the other hand instead of addressing my initial argument decided to find few words" Wtf? I'm not obligated to answer every single comment and point. There was no "off-topic"--- I started the conversation between us, so whatever I chose is the topic. And I didn't choose it, because they are completely unrelated. You started by talking about Russia's future, then went back to the 90s for a second. Those are 40 years apart. I can't give many detailed comments about the future because 1) it is unknown no matter what you believe and 2) it is not the part that I had an issue with. I only commented on "Russia had its chance" because that was the part I disagreed with. I cannot give any facts about how likely a future collapse is because... it is the future, no one knows. You're begging me to read from a crystal ball lol
3
@gari1633 Ironically, he would have been a better chance than Yeltsin. Countries succeed in reforming their economic system only when the leadership is strong-- doesn't matter if democratic or not. Poland was eager to become democratic, so their political reforms were more successful than the USSR's. China, on the other hand, is a strong authoritarian, Communist government-- and they succeeded too. But it was because of their iron grip over the country guiding the reforms slowly. So ironically, if Zyuganov had taken power, he might have allowed Russia to develop more like China. Or Gorbachev, if he didn't try so hard to reform everything, could have done better in reforming the USSR economy.
2
@gari1633 My family preferred the Soviet system- it, unlike the US, guaranteed your coverage and outside of some rural villages (I assume your family is from there), quality was good. If Khabarovsk can offer basic necessities, then your family must have just gotten very unlucky)) And there are multiple instances of new mothers in the US getting billed for 'skin to skin contact', despite it costing the hospital nothing.
2
@gari1633 'And I don't care about US internal problems" Then why should I care about Russia's internal problems? If you're just ignoring things you don't agree with, why discuss at all? My point by doing that was to show you that Russia is not a special case, every country has atrocities. And pointing them out to me doesn't tell me anything about Russia's governance style, since its polar opposite (US) has issues of a similar nature.
2
@Greg-yu4ij It seems your compatriots in the comments are hungrier for meddling than you, though
1
@RichardTaylor1630 lol dude, no. Maduro hasn't managed the country well, but the US would be no better. How is Guatemala doing after its 2nd coup? Or Honduras? Or even Mexico, after the US compelled its government to ban drugs? You think they are loving the cartels' new power? Face it, the US is better at destroying countries than helping them. The only one where they succeeded (Germany, Japan, South Korea) already had good economies
1
@blakebrown534 "You tossed out communism's economic failures but kept the same authoritarian structures in place" Didn't have to be that way. If the US had chosen not to send advocates of "shock therapy" (look how well it worked in Latin America), Russia's economic transition into capitalism would have been much gentler, and wouldn't have completely confirmed and re-inforced the fears that Russia had of the US' idea of "governance". Clinton didn't have to help Yeltsin rig the 1996 elections, but he did. The US administrations (Clinton and Bush) didn't have to support Yeltsin's "super-presidential" structure, eliminating the democracy in its infancy--- but they did. Basically, if you don't want an aggressive, unstable country, then treat it nicely and don't try to destabilize it. Got it?
1
@ctcole77 No you won't lol. Your housing market is on the verge of collapse and with grain and gas prices rising, it is likely you will be taken into a recession along with us. Also... Adolf? Rich coming from the country that supports Saudi Arabia
1
@gari1633 Dude, you need to edit your text. Split it up into pieces, you can't be that lazy. "Lustration" was not the difference. The other countries (Poland, Baltics) receieved more money per person/per country's economy, and their institutions were allowed to transition more slowly. What is so hard to understand here? Also, the US didn't rug Poland or Estonia's election to keep a drunkard President in power. How is that our fault, and how would "Lustration" solve that?! I cannot speak to the efficiency of the Soviet system, since it worked fine for my family, and I don't see why everyone should be forced to compete. Why? So maybe one day you will get great healthcare, once the market becomes advanced enough... or, you could just give everybody coverage now. The rails is a stupid argument, since Russia's rail gauge is from Tsarist times. It has nothing to do with communist ideology-- in fact, it is a little more efficient, since freight is able to carry more per railcar. "Going both ways was unacceptable, because it would reveal advantages of a later" Then what is ukraine afraid of? If one system is obviously better, then why not do both? According to you, the first one will naturally fail. By the way, when it comes to public services, European countries run things like Soviets. Healthcare is not for-profit, neither is transport or most education. So I am not sure what specific things you're talking about. _"it’s not true that your former government haven’t enjoyed enormous subsidies from germans for agreeing to allow Germany’s unification or from Clinton to liberalise the economy," This is hilarious. You think East Germany (the only one required to pay reparations for WWII, West Germany was never told to...) could finance the rebuilding of the entire USSR?? There were no "subsidies" in exchange for unification, in fact the only promise made was that NATO infrastructure would not move past Germany, and that promise was quickly broken. "we both know were these money went " Then why did you just say that we "benefitted from subsidies"?!? In one breath yo say the West helped us, in another breath you say no help arrived. I wasn't commenting about rule of law generally, but property law, which is what your original point was talking about. Privatization ensured that property laws were respected, at least for oligarchs and Western companies. This is precisely the problem- the West shouldn't have taken oligarchs' money. It was stolen from ordinary Russian citizens and they knew it. "You know perfectly well that initial economical shock came from the spenditure of soviet-afgan war, chernobyl and low oil prices and inefficiency of the system" Now you're just pulling things out of your ass. All of those factors were present prior to the collapse, and were the baseline-- things only got worse as other things added on. Could you explain how Chernobyl affected the economy, too?
1
@gari1633 "Your mistake is to thinking that somehow russia is an unique case in all of this it’s not and made it’s choices." Again with this. I will ask you again: How was it Russia's fault that the West convinced it to use the worst possible economic reform (shock therapy)?? How is it ordinary Russian's fault that the US rigged Russia's 1996 elections?! Please, tell me. I'd love to hear it.
1
@gari1633 What?? I think you're just trying to get out of the discussion, because you have no points left to say
1
@gari1633 I brought the oligarchs up because- again -the initial argument was that Russia didn't "have its chance" and "make its choices". It was imposed upon, and you can't seem to admit that, because even you understand that having your money stolen isn't your fault, but the thieves' fault. You simply refuse to admit it.
1
@gari1633 I said that it wasn't proper English, not that it is an improper term for the topic of discussion. Lustration may describe the thing you are presenting, but it is not a common English word, and ffs you're clearly not a native English speaker! Why is it so hard to admit that I was right when I pointed that out?! God you people are ridiculous
1
@gari1633 de-communization, political liberalization, institutional reform... how many more do you want?? Lustration sounds like a poor translation from French or Spanish
1
@gari1633 Gennady Zyuganov. Before the Presidential campaign, Yeltsin had 6% approval rating, lower than Stalin. But, because of the massive American help ("loan" from the IMF, Clinton sending political advisors every week to Moscow, voter fraud in Chechnya), he brought it up to 35% in the first election round. Despite all of that, Zyuganov had 32% of the vote, and he didn't have all this Western money, or media coverage. The fact that you are asking me tells me that you simply don't know much about the topic here. This is basic knowledge in russia's politics
1
@gari1633 you're the one who said "they had their chance", I am saying they didn't. Like it or not, America meddled in Russia's elections, and it needs to be spoken about. No matter how much you don't want to hear it
1
@gari1633 Oh my god- it is not a scapegoat. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ELECTION FRAUD IS RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S FAULT. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Answer the question, please, since I'm sure you have the right opinion.
1
@gari1633 Wtf?? "Dude, you need to stay on topic" And then: "How did Medvedev named gas line in Nigeria?" You're so, so dumb. So little self-awareness. You just don't want to admit it; Russia didn't "have its chance", its chance was stolen by President Clinton and the US administration.
1
@gari1633 The amount of privatization. Ukraine, for example, only recently started to privatize its agriculture industry. Poland's court systems were allowed to transition slowly, and the Baltics weren't sent US advisors to tell them that selling everything was a great idea.
1
@gari1633 red))
1
@gari1633 Lol, "stay on topic" Right. It skyrocketed industry while leaving other areas unaddressed; the USSR multiplied Tsarist Russia's machinery output by several times, but did not focus on consumer goods. I presume it has nothing to do with the 90s because Latin America-- many countries starting with capitalism, not communism-- suffered the same effects, though even their treatment was not as extreme as Russia's. In Bolivia, where shock therapy was first implemented, hyper-inflation was stopped, but unemployment rose to 21%. Not great results. In Chile, it created huge wealth inequality (similar to Russia). By the way, the architect of shock therapy in Russia, Jeffrey Sachs, later said that even his plan was not followed, and everything was sold off without considering stability or the Russian people. It was just the US kicking an enemy in the stomach. Sorry
1
@gari1633 Your initial point is wrong. And I'm glad you FINALLY conceded. My point was simply that you are a poor articulator.
1
@gari1633 Saudi Arabia, whom the US supports and funds, does it regularly according to Sharia law. ISIS did it against Russian soldiers in Syria while fighting for the Syrian government. They spread the videos online. You might still be able to see one.
1
@gari1633 No, you need to if you're going to be logically consistent. If you want tot stick your fingers in your ears, that's fine, but then you're just wasting your time on here.
1
@gari1633 It is not the poor translation, it is your use of an obscure word and lack of awareness of that fact
1
@gari1633 Have you ever run away from an ambulance because your insurance wouldn't cover the astronomical price of every single procedure? Have you ever had to ration your diabetes medication because your country only has 3 major manufacturers who happen to raise prices at the same time? Has your wife eve been charged at a hospital to hold her own child? We can play this "implying" game, if you want, but you won't win it. US is far, far worse here
1
@gari1633 See the other comment
1
@gari1633 Then you've misunderstood again. It is easier to reply with a single comment, and split each point into a paragraph. Keep doing this though, I'm sure you enjoy clicking through each reply, not wasting your time at all))
1
@gari1633 "Not sure I agree with that" Lol, well then what else is there to say? If you simply don't believe it, why engage in the conversation? Maybe you'll believe Michael Meadowcroft, who led the OSCE observation of Russia's elections. “The West let Russia down, and it’s a shame,” said Meadowcroft, a former British MP and veteran of 48 election-monitoring missions to 35 countries. “Up to the last minute I was being pressured by [the OSCE higher-ups in] Warsaw to change what I wanted to say,” said Meadowcroft. “In terms of what the OSCE was prepared to say publicly about the election, they were very opposed to any suggestion that the election had been manipulated.” In fact, he says, the OSCE and the West had made its mind up about how wonderfully free and fair Boris Yeltsin’s election was before voting even started. Clinton "helped" the IMF to give Yeltsin a $10B loan, which are not supposed to be used for political purposes, only economic policy. Yet that money never got used in any public works projects... though Yeltsin did suddenly have a lot more resources to run his campaign. There were only about 500,000 voting age people in Chechnya, this was still during the war too--- yet 1M pro-Yeltsin votes? Don't be delusional. All evidence points to it being election fraud, and American interference with Russia's democratic process.
1
@blakebrown534 if you needed to google it, I'm still right. It is not a common word, and the man is not a native english speaker.
1
@gari1633 I answered pretty much all of them, this is why I said that a single comment, with multiple paragraphs, would be easier
1
@Arperture It just might. The options here are: wait for NATO ascension, and guarantee being surrounded forever, or risk the invasion and potentially stop the encirclement. It may surprise you, but the usa is not the only country with the "rather die standing than live kneeling" approach. In Russia's mind, what is there to life if not security and sovereignty? Why should russia even exist if its fate is to be entrapped for the rest of its existence? If the world ends, so be it, still better than giving the us the satisfaction of subduing a rival
1
@ctcole77 Lol, bad attempt at mocking. The reason is simple: because they can. Same as China and the US (Lance Armstrong, Serena Williams freaking out and hiding in a bunker when she found out an Olympic drug tester was doing a random check-up, Barry Bonds, etc. The US is simply more advanced with hiding its doping... and it has a lot of political sway with the Olympics.
1
@gari1633 Which source? The quotes from Michael Meadowcroft? They don't prove your point-- he literally said "the West let Russia down." So, it's not Russia's fault, it's the West's for rigging Russia's elections and stealing its money. You're still wrong, and you still haven't answered the question I started this entire conversation with. I thought it was because you were avoiding it, but now I'm re-considering if it's just because you're too dumb to comprehend it.
1
@gari1633 Pee comes out yellow due to urea, now explain what this has to do with Russia "having its chance" to reform economically.
1
@gari1633 I'm repeating this for the millionth time--- the topic of conversation is whether Russia failed to transition into capitalism due to its own faults. I have given you countless examples of the fact that it wasn't their fault. Getting your election rigged by Clinton (which actually happened- the leader of the European OSCE confirmed this)--- is not Russia's fault, but Clinton's.
1
@gari1633 Your point has never stood. Russia's elections in 1996 were rigged with Clinton's help. Tell me how that is Russia's fault. Tell me how London taking oligarchs' money is Russians' fault.
1
@gari1633 Yes. It is. Also, you aren't explaining why you don't believe that it happened, the director of the OSCE admitted it happened. Sounds like someone is in denial... It did manifest coercion, that's the problem. Selling off state assets left no money to fund police, letting mafias roam free Government employees regularly extorted people for even basic services, asking for bribes at every step. Yeltsin never addressed this. The ruble default in 1998 wiped out most people's savings, what little they had after the USSR collapse. And even if it didn't coerce- why did America intervene then?? I thought the point was to help Russia become democratic?! Or maybe (and this is the point I am getting at) it wasn't. They wanted to keep Russia down. There wouldn't be any issues with Zyuganov winning, because the Americans (prior to the collapse) actually helped Gorbachev stop Yeltsin. They preferred to work with the Leninist if it kept the USSR together, they feared the nuclear consequences of it collapsing. Basically they could have easily worked with the Communist (as they had done for decades) instead of meddling in Russia's election.
1
@gari1633 Because we are speaking within a certain context, with basic assumptions. Unless you don't care about democracy or human well-being (if you don't, then why complain about Russia at all?), I can safely assume that you would want Russia to develop its own democratic process. The US intervening in that process is objectively bad, if you care about democracy. We cannot say how exactly a Zyuganov win would have looked like, but even if he successfully re-created the USSR in just a few years, it would have been better for most people. Price controls would have stopped the hyper-inflation, re-establishment of the social services would have saved millions of sick and old people (who, in 1990s post-Soviet countries, had no help). It is likely that the USSR would simply have reformed more slowly and under stron control- like China did in the 1970s.
1
@orionide4032 Baby bom doesn't guarantee a future, and Russia's not exclusive in aging-- if it's done, so are Germany, Japan, and Italy. Russia at least takes Central Asian migrants
1
@gari1633 LMAO, so you think the reason Russia is 100% responsible for its problems (ignoring the Western privatization, the Harvard economists who told Yeltsin team *what policies to do*, the 1996 elections that were rigged by Clinton and killed democracy in Russia) --- is because of what you saw in a movie clip?? Let me ask you this, how do you think the mafias came to power in Russia? Right around the time the oligarchs did, because there was no government money to catch all of them and restore stability. So now we are stuck asking again- why didn't the government have any revenue? Because of the new economic policies- and who convinced them to do that? ...I think you know the answer already.
1
@gari1633 you also forget, the us helped to rig russian elections in 1996. They paid billions to yeltsin, and falsified voting records in chechnya. 1M votes for him, but only 500,000 total voters) How is that our fault, hm??
1
@blakebrown534 If you're going to write a book, at least use pages. Get rid of the disgusting text block. 1. Stop with the paternalistic bullshit, and don't lecture us on what to do. We did that already, and it failed twice. We killed our own Tsar. The issue is, "standing up to power" never happens in a vacuum, and the West is always sticking its finger into our affairs. Ironically, they were the ones supporting the Whites, the very same side we stood up to. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your 'rousing' speech. 2. Source needed What is this meant to communicate to me? Are you trying to make an emotional appeal, or a logical one? The image is graphic, but ultimately it is just government dissent being silenced, and in that sense it is commonplace. I could just as easily demand the US stop supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel. Compared to being stoned to death or beheaded, a shot in the arm is merciful. But I don't see you focusing on that first, because you are selective with your interventionist stance. 3. We "allow" it because, believe it or not, it is still better than the West's treatment of Russia. That is scarier to us than the current situation. In the 1990s, there was a slim window of opportunity to bring Russia into the Western fold-- help it develop an economy, good trade relations, stable democratic processes. What did we get? Mass privatization, complete collapse of social services, plundering of the country (the money from which the West was all too happy to take), mafia rule in every region of Russia, destruction of industrial capacity and brain drain. 2-3M extra people died in that decade due to lack of healthcare and deaths of despair (mostly alcoholism). Think of the millions of mothers greying prematurely, finding out their husband drank himself to death after losing his Soviet pension. Or that their son died of a drug overdose (the West brought plenty of that, too). Now tell me which is worse. Or better yet, ask someone in Iraq if they appreciate a civil war over Saddam. Now there are 1000 Saddams.
1
@damian4926 Could you explain how it's artificial? All but 2 regions are majority ethnic Russian, all connected by culture and language.
1