Comments by "TotalRookie_LV" (@TotalRookie_LV) on "CaspianReport" channel.

I've heard opinions, that trying to make an inland sea in desert in attempt to to turn it into fertile soil might actually be bad, can't remember the reasoning tho, sorry, but it was about Sahara, not Australian Outback. IIRC the examples of deserts directly bordering coastline (Sahara, Atacama and several others) were given as an counterargument, showing that proximity of water alone is not enough for sand to became soil. Could you make a report on possible issues of such projects other than costs?
76
@hanooi7450 "Fun" fact - the demographic structure of Russia still bears scars from WWII - around every 25 years (one generation) there is a drop in number of people - fewer people were born during the war and many died, not leaving any descendants. Currently this dent in demographics among younger people is in ages 22-24 - pretty much in the middle of the conscription age (18-27 in Russia), so if Putin wanted to deal maximum damage to Russian population, now was the time to do that, and he did. Actually he did that for the second time - before that there was Second Chechen war approximately one generation ago.
20
Kremlin wanted to be the #1 at least at something, unfortunately (for them, not us) they are only good at failing.
17
I'm no expert, but what scares me is salt - if saltwater is evaporating, where does salt go? It stays there and gets replenished by inflow of more salt water, isn't it? If that can be solved, I'd be all for such project.
15
@giantsashavor7809 LoL, to "stop decline" all Putin had to do was to do nothing - same as with economics, since due to oil and gas prices skyrocketing after 2003 invasion in Iraq, the influx of money was insane. Oil cost ~13$ in late 1990s and over 100$ in 2000s. The one programme that actually worked in Russia in improving demographics was so called "maternal capital" (материнский капитал) for 2nd child (and consequent kids too), due to which it made sense not to stop after the first child, BUT since then the programme has been fucked up and is no longer effective - they changed the rules. Besides Rusian economics started to stagnate in 2012 (after Putin got "eleccted" for the 3rd term and investment started to leave Russia) and in decline since 2013, so it's harder and harder to sustain family. Besides Russian authorities try to bend rules and avoided supporting kids in any way possible; like why are big centralised exams just slightly under 4h long? Because if kids spent in school 4 hours, the should be served a free meal.
4
@giantsashavor7809 He didn't. Putin has worsened situation with accessibility of medicine, caused largest emigration in recent decades and started wars, which made liss of life among young Russian men so noticeable, one could even see it on graphs back in 2014, and now it's much worse.
3
@tuams Vai ne? Viņi pat varētu pavilkt arī lielas izmaksas, ja: 1) nesalektos ar visiem iespējamajiem sadarbības partneriem; 2) nešķērdētu naudu uz visādu nevajadzīgu huiņu, kas vajadzīga tikai lai nodemonstrētu savu "lielvalsts" statusu (stratēģiskā aviācija, flote, tik milzīgs kodolarsenāls), un nezagtu tik baisos apmēros.
2
Here in some parts of Europe we also confiscated land from landlords after centuries of rule by foreign invaders (Northern crusades, Islamic conquest on South etc) and various empires, we also had "semi-slavery" - serfdom, up until mid XIX century in some places, yet those land reforms (often not very fair from the perspective of former owners) did not lead to collapse, on contrary - economies grew. So, it obviously isn't about race, but lack of competence and corruption in Zimbabwe.
2
It's a mistake to perceive as someone irreplaceable. Putin can be replaced by pretty much anyone, besides hardly anyone can be worse than him or even more stupid than him for that matter.
1
Still it's not just geography. In the case of Russia the geography works both ways - Europe through Belarus, Ukraine, Baltic, Poland, Germany and Benelux countries is open all the way to France, yet we didn't felt threatened by Russia until Putin decided to "strengthen" his positions. Before armed forces of each Baltic country were smaller than a single Russian paratrooper division (and by a funny "coincidence" the largest such division has it's HQ near the border with Baltic countries, now the region has NATO forces placed here (they are still very small, but before there were none), so Putin's positions are actually weaker than before 2014. Doesn't this show, that the internal insecurities and paranoia of Russia's leadership is no less important than geography?
1
One "little" problem with geopolitics is - that's complete bullshit, it's not a "theory", it hardly qualifies as a hypothesis. Sure, it might very well be the basis of Russian politics, but that's just another reason, why they keep failing time and time again. Just look at those plains - "the highway for invading armies", which proved to be a trap for Russian armour. Plains are not exactly easy to cross, when those are plains made of mud fields, swamps and rivers. And NATO does not push to the East, it's just that countries are joining NATO, they are running for safety from unstable and unreliable Russia.
1
This is widely complete bullshit. If the geography determined political system, then the solution is simple - make Russia smaller, divide yourselves into multitude of smaller countries! That way those numerous "smaller Russias" will become democratic, prosperous countries. Oh, that wouldn't work? Because it's bullshit! And if "Russia is easy to invade" because of planes on the West, the opposite is also true - all neighboring countries are easy to invade by Russia over those planes, yet these countries are not oppressive dictatorships, unlike Russia.
1
I'd say favorable views on China among Russian population are largely caused by Russia's own failings, people go like "We had free education, medicine, we were the first in space, now prices are steeply rising and infrastructure is falling apart, meanwhile China built new cities from scratch, high speed railways and roads! Our government is corrupt and don't care about people; while in China corruptioners are shot, we want that too!"
1
Poland is not being vilified, it's criticised for the same reasons as some idiots in the Old West - for pushing religious BS (abortions, gay rights etc), trying to usurp too much power for one branch of government (usually executive one, particularly a president).
1
 @chippysteve4524 (yawning) Very "helpful". As you might have noticed, English isn't even my second language, yet all those terms are familiar already or at least recognisable.
1