Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Russia and Iran join forces with India" video.

It'll shorten the route between northern Europe and India. If relations normalize between Russia and Europe this route could make a profit on trade between the regions. Northern Europe has wealthy enough markets to fund this route. The capacity issue you mentioned means that this is no threat to the sea route, but that doesn't mean that it's not viable long term.
101
Well in Europe there's trains that change gauge on the fly with passengers on board in just minutes, they could do that. Of course that technology might be easier said then done while both countries are under sanctions...
80
 @syed1431 Given that the country is currently ruled by its enemies that's a big ask from Allah...
59
@yam2050 St. Petersburg isn't exactly on the Arctic circle... If that's what you have in mind. But sure, if you combine this route with others you could get there. For instance if you take the train on to Finland then through through them to northern Norway as a example. Or other parts of Finland or Russia (although there would be less to see in northern Russia then northern Norway in terms of landscapes. Culturally... I don't have a overview of what minorities you can visit by train in Russia...
14
@playea123 You'll need a lot fewer ships to make approaching that area dangerous then you'd need to reach anywhere along a long route by sea from India to Europe...
5
@Sparticulous That's just not true... The thing is, US railway lines are a economic black hole because they're private. If the government owned the actual lines and controlled who ran on them and when it would easily be profitable even if the actual railways where private. In part because the government can increase their profit through increased tax base caused by the infrastructure they make while a company only cares about what they can actually earn directly. So if transporting a container by train is more expensive then a truck people won't use it, but making it cheaper will increase trade, increasing the tax base, not just from the companies benefiting, but also from their employees etc. So in the end a government simply has a better monetization model for infrastructure then private companies do.æ for all but the most profitable routes.
4
@Mr_MikeB Exactly... Likewise Iran has plenty of missiles that can make getting close with naval assets dicey... The US could probably force the issue if needed, but at much higher risk then if they have more strike location available to them. Resources they wouldn't be using elsewhere. In case of a war between Russia and China and their allies on one side and NATO and other US allies on the other the US would probably be pretty busy elsewhere and disrupting trade between India and Iran would presumably not be a priority when supporting Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Europe, Vietnam etc all would require a majority of US naval assets...
4
@TheRezro No, northern Europe wouldn't be paying to build it. But we would pay for transportation of goods through this railway if it ends up being cheaper than shipping it the long way from India and/or China. And that price difference can be used to make a profit that could quite possibly make this profitable for Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran, even if they end up spending more money on it then they get in revenues from it directly. Because its capabilities will increase their tax revenues from other industries utilizing it. And revenues from services provided to foreign companies like ours here in northern Europe could help pay down the costs as well leading to the combined revenue for the state from sale of transportation services + increased tax base in total being higher then the cost of building it.
3
@jesseshadrack9326 Roads often does that true, but they still end up costing more then you earn in tax revenues because of them in many cases. Railway lines are often more likely to make a profit in terms of tax revenues, if not in sale of services.
2
@pathat8869 Air Transportation is way, way, way too expensive to ever be competitive with transportation by sea. Railways can be competitive with shipping but only if it shaves of a significant amount of distance and therefore costs. A direct route from the coast of Iran to St Petersburg would be a shortcut that could potentially be profitable by land for transport between India and Scandinavia. Some trade with China through there is also conceivable too I guess, but honestly at that point it might be cheaper to just transport goods to all of Europe and ship from one European port to another to us... And just do a single ship that way. Between India and Iran you could have many small ships doing this route and just pay for the transportation to Iran instead of the whole way to Europe of smaller quantities of goods and send that by train and potentially save money compared to shipping if you're a small Indian company with small quantities of goods...
1
@scrumpydrinker If the war ends the US might not normalize relations, but Europe is likely to improve relations at least. We tend to prefer using the carrots more and the stick less. Doesn't mean that we're afraid of using the stick. But I don't see Europe continuing the sanctions forever. After all, we don't want Russia to collapse either. Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction on the black market and a failed state on our borders? No. We'll seek some kind of balance. We're unlikely to sell high tech stuff that may be used for weapons anytime soon, but trade through Russia? I can definitely see that happening.
1
@nurainiarsad7395 Or you could argue that it is profit, but with states that profit is realized through an increased tax base instead of directly through sale of transportation services.
1