Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Good Times Bad Times"
channel.
-
Ukraine: "In public schools, you will speak ONLY UKRAINIAN!"
vAtNiKs: "In Russian regions you will learn BOTH languages. In Sakha, ethnic Russian children have mandatory schooling in Sakha".
See the difference? Russia actually respects regional cultural identity.
If you wanna call me a propagandist, then maybe you'll listen to the Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian governments, who've all voiced similar complaints about THEIR ethnic minorities' language rights in Ukraine, following the 2019 language law which bans its use in public schooling as a primary subject, and which demotes official status in any area where less than 10% of the population uses it.
That's an ethno-nationalist approach to unity, artificially imposing that which you could not do diplomatically and democratically.
Doing it forcefully is "fine", but I expect all countries claiming their support is based on "fighting authoritarianism" to stop sending a single cent to Ukraine.
Poland was a good start.
15
-
@TheTokkin
Wow, that was insane. Easily the dumbest, most wishful thinking I've seen all week.
You're unironically an idiot.
"A chance to build something better"
You think that a Libyan state will just magically spring from nowhere once a Parliamentary vote is established? What exactly do you think people vote on? Infrastructure, food security, unemployment, education- domestic issues. Can you guess what Gaddafi was working to improve during his rule?
"Just because the people of Libya failed"
You mean, the loud minority of rebel fighters that received training and backing from the US? Yeah, they failed.
"doesn't mean that the policy was a failure: it's perfectly possible that they might be do so in the future"
This is what boils my blood the most. You are comically naïve- ideological, childish in your approach to nationbuilding. You think the principles come before the material gains, and are willing to sacrifice people's lives just to satisfy your own finnicky little needs.
Do you think that before democracy, all countries were unstable messes just waiting to emulate the Constitution so that they could start 'being good'? What a load of shit.
"I agree its risky, but the risk is partly why I love it"
You're sitting comfortable in your developed nation, of course you "love" it. You seem to treat politics like it's sports. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a Westerner. Especially an American.
The people of Libya don't need stability 'in the future', they need help NOW. The Tripoli government is a radical Islamist faction, I find it laughable that you think women or minorities would have a better life there.
Slaughter the Tripoli government, if you really stick ot your values.
But I'm sure you'd survive just fine down there, since you're so committed to putting those values before everything else. Spend a few months there and tell me how great the American plan is.
Let's see how much you love "risky" when your next meal depends on it.
I fucking hate people like you-
you're no better than a Maoist or a Jacobin; you refuse to base, or at least temper, your principles based on what's actually going on in the world, and stubbornly stick to your values for your personal emotional reasons, no matter how detrimental they are to real, living people.
And I hope you're willing to extend those same sentiments to your allies in Saudi Arabia. The entire family would need to be murdered. Same goes with Naftali Bennet, and Bibi in Israel. And the UAE, and Brazil, and Hungary and Poland. Be my guest, please.
11
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@richhagenchicago
No, you shouldn't have, and I am very glad you didn't, and never will.
"No country, not us"
Well there is the problem. You are more than happy to protest the US destabilizing and messing up the world... but action is never truly taken. However, when a rival to the US is doing the same, they need to be stopped!
So you fail to realize that, in the current system, your "upholding of values" just leads to a one-sided outcome: the US gets a scolding, and China/Russia/Iran get military action. This is unacceptable.
I do, but I do not believe it. NATO is an extension of American military power. Show me the instance where a coalition of European NATO members called the shots-- they are equal members of an alliance, no?
Europe has no political or military autonomy, it is all directed by the US. They can formally protest, but no country will ever act against their master.
I referred to Israel and Tibet because NATO's justification for bombing Libya and Afghanistan were human rights abuses.
I see a selective application of force-- only bomb if they are rival nations or connected to rival nations. Saudi Arabia beheads people for adultery, yet I see no NATO warplanes flying over Medina.
And your last statement is exactly why Russians hate the US- it pompously sees itself as a "father figure", despite being the youngest nation in the world.
It thinks that its way is best, and that other nations need to be treated like children- hence the language of "we need to put [head of state] in his place!"
"Putin needs to be punished for its aggression"
Then so to, do you.
Americans need to suffer for supporting presidents that have wreaked havoc on the developing world.
Let's see if you survive a period like we had to, in the 1990s. Imagine, gangs on every street. Social services, gone. Bribery everywhere.
This is what you get when you trust the US to intervene in your affairs.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@spencerkitchin2985
Rules for thee, not for me?
the problem is that you're more than willing to say "that's bad!" but you are unwilling to suggest anything that could change the US' behaviors.
Frankly, I see no world where the US is actually humanitarian and peaceful. So, by saying "what the US did was bad, but WE HAVE TO STOP THIS OTHER COUNTRY", you are creating a scenario where the US gets a finger wag, but other places like Russia, China, Iran, etc. get real action taken against them.
You expect the US to magically change its way, but it has shown that with or without a rival power, it will abuse its own, and wreak havoc on smaller nations if they don't open up to trade and Americanization.
Absent any evidence that other countries being peaceful would motivate the US to do the same, you are basically one-sidedly condemning any country that threatens America's power, while tacitly allowing America to continue.
If America gets to abuse its power, what exactly is the moral problem with allowing others to do the same?
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leme5639
France's oppression of Brittany, Catalonia and especially Basque's close call to independence, Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, (technically not in Europe but still) Kurdistan's independence movement
In North America, Hawaii's suppressed independence movement, California's flirtation with independence, Texas' brief calls to secede, and some minor rumblings about Yucatan.
The channel's selective nature when discussing which countries to support splitting up should really give some insight into what their bias is.
The channel creator is Polish, so it makes sense that he'd want to politically hurt Russia.
Most Poles I've spoken to are personally very bitter over having lost their empire to the larger Russian one. Some even talk about retaking Lwów, as it was Polish right up until WWII.
They're a nefarious force that, through their diaapora, have an outsize influence on US policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kasugaryuichi9767
By that logic, Albania's hopes for joining with Kosovo should be crushed, permanently.
Same with Tibet and Xinjiang, Northern Ireland, Catalonia... is this really a status quo the US is ready to uphold?
To the same extent, Chechnya will never be allowed to leave, either.
You ask "so what"? What else is a nation based on? Governments do not form in a vacuum, the only reason the US deluded itself into thinking this could happen is because the English colonists, ironically, formed a different nation.
But in every other case, it's built on the basis of language and culture, with few exceptions. Sorry bud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@KronStaro
I think that neighboring countries are actually the worst for objective analysis.
I mean, Poland (Franciszek Duchiński specifically) is responsible for the idea, supported by Ukrainian nationalists, that Russians are Asian, Ukraine + Poland + Belarus are the "true" Slavs, Moskals, etc.
This was made to counter the (ironically) correct idea promoted by St. Petersburg that all Slavs are related, and the pan-Slavic idea under a Russian Empire.
So, while they may have intimate knowledge of their neighbors, I have little faith in Ukraine or Poland to bo objective. I would expect those areas to reliably produce narratives that suit their own interests. Not the interests of objectivity.
And yes, quality of life in Russia is worse than in Poland. Don't forget that Poland received enormous amounts of Western capital and technological information to quickly move it away from Russia, while Russia had most of its money laundered out by oligarchs, whom the U.S., England, France and others were more than happy to service.
Russia is still poor partially because of the same country you seem to defend.
1
-
1
-
My larger question is, why does the US think it should involve itself in another country's affairs to begin with? Isn't this violating the "sovereignty" argument? Also, I don't think this fanciful idea would ever work to begin with.
The mere fact that you're voicing this perspective is a symptom of seeing the world in an Anglocentric way, i.e. incorrectly.
You cannot just plaster a democracy onto any country you choose and expect them to do what you've told them to. Cultures need time and unifying events to embrace the idea of democracy.
And, also counter to the Western idea of linear progress, it is neither inevitable nor a sign of higher development to have a democracy. Some cultures got it, some cultures will eventually have it, and some never will.
For instance, Japan. Even though they are a democracy in name, they have been a one-party state for decades and discourage any opposition... not unlike the Chinese. Same with Singapore. The ruling party runs everything, has for 50+ years, and the whole country is a manicured city-park.
I would also ask why the US doesn't intervene in either of these countries' affairs, despite them having more in common with their political enemies than, say, Germany- but I think we know the answer to that already.
1
-
@futuregenerationz
Lol, "the bully". Very neoliberal view of things.
Reduce a country's complexity down to a simple "good guy/bad guy" dynamic.
Also, wouldn't that also make the US liable to be intervened?
It conducts mass murder as we speak- cutting off Afghanistan's Central Bank from recognition by the IMF, and withdrawing all of its aid (which, since it was propping up the last government, is most of the aid) is causing a starvation crisis among its civilian population.
If you want to be more literal, it funds the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen.
If you want to be even more iteral, it is still in Iraq, and killing civilians. Most recent drone strike was Jan 19.
So, should China and Russia launch operations on United States soil until its military is dissolved? occupy the country until it learns to act more responsibly?
If your answer is "no", I want you to explain to me why not. And why the answer is different from when another country does the same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@asscheeks3212
Lol, "smoke and mirrors", that's why Japan has Honda and Toyota dominating in their biggest competitor (USA)'s own home market?
And Sony, Canon, Nikon, Nissan, Sharp, Epson, Kawasaki, Toshiba, Panasonic, not to mention Nintendo, Suzuki, Sega
What a joke
Also stop repeating the same points, you said that in the other comment. Are you out of arguments this quickly??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@agentorange6085
Some points:
I don't think it's lost on Russia the relationship between India and China, and if anything, it will likely seek to be the prime mediator in any disputes they have (if they flare up to the point of instability). As an ally to both countries, it could likely make a better case for itself than the US, who is blatantly to one side.
My guess is that, unless Russia (finally, one can dream) diversify its economy, it will try to maintain economic partnerships and influence in both countries, and do to China and India, what India does to Russia and the West.
Regarding Japan and Europe: it's worth mentioning, to start, that while Japan as a whole likely values American presence as a counter to China, the Okinawans (where the actual base is located) aren't so happy. Beyond attracting China's military attention, they're generally an annoyance, being a near opposite to Japanese cultural ideals. In 2019, a majority of residents opposed the construction of a new base. Their continued presence is Tokyo's doing, not theirs.
As for removing bases, could you give examples? I feel that the US only does that when there is no rival superpower in the region. I mean, after multiple rape cases in the Okinawan bases, they still insisted they stay and negotiated with Tokyo as such. They withdrew from the Gulf only after Hussein was taken care of. So could you provide examples?
Now, the larger point you made:
The Bretton Woods system isn't technically forced, but... with the US dominating so much of the world's financial systems and trade routes, does anyone really have a choice? You're implying that continued cooperation = willful cooperation. And the US has abused its hegemonic status numerous times in the past, and continues to do so (though under the new pretext of countering China).
The economic development of Europe only happened because of the Marshall Plan, and the Allied victors were allowed to keep vestiges of their empires. Of course Europe would be more than happy to oblige. By the way, the prosperity you mentioned far predates democracy, and the US. Are you forgetting how wealthy Europe was before WWII, too? You act like the US' system is what singlehandedly gave them that power. When it was, in short, colonies and naval power that did.
So no, it's not a Russian mindset. In fact, where they can blatantly get away with it, they do it. The US has leveraged its senior position at the WTO to force tiny nations like Palau (and large ones like Mexico and Canada- i.e. Trump) to accept bad trade terms. They've navally blocked trade between China and Iran.
And counters to this system (Chinese digital yuan, Gaddafi's Afro currency, Russian alternative to SWIFT, etc) are vehemently opposed by US financial and political figures.
About Russian prosperity, you are somewhat correct. Putin is a brilliant statesman, but a terrible economist. Russian industry and consumer goods are faltering, and the business environment is suffering as a result of his drive to funnel Russia's energy into being a geopolitical counterweight.
Europe and Japan have had centuries of time to develop. Western Europe in particular shares geographical security in common with Japan. Their answer is not "kowtowing to the US".
Japan's situation is entirely unique, never have birthrates been so low. Stop trying to do damage control and comfort yourself. The situation is unprecedented and will put a huge strain on Japan's remaining workers, just accept that. Either immigrants, which Japan refuses, or robots, which require healthy workers. The resentments faded from their minds because they won out. Rather, they did until the 80s, we will see how opinion changes.
Same goes for Europe. The lack of bitterness comes from having been on the side of the victor. Russia took the brunt of the bloodshed and received little back. It paid back the Lend Lease in 2007. And its elections, and economy, were meddled in the 1990s by the US.
So please, stop trying to sound profound about how Russia just needs to accept your personal values when you've no idea why it is the way that it is today.
1
-
1
-
@obligatoryusername7239
That's simply untrue. You have a surface-level understanding of Russia colored by whichever cases Western media chooses to show you. Most investment projects aren't politically exciting, so they aren't mentioned.
If it doesn't involve the potential breakup of Russia (wishful thinking by the West), it doesn't get reported on.
Putin, for one, pulled Russia from the brink of collapse in the 1990s, when there were actual calls for independence across the RF. He invested massively in pretty much every region to bring it to some semblance of normalcy after a decade of Yeltsin's incompetence.
In more recent times, he invested tens of billions of dollars (I forget the ruble conversion) into the Krasnodar region, turning it into an agricultural hub. Tatarstan has also received huge amounts of investment throughout the 2010s.
Finally, more recently (and I think out of necessity, I do not think he would have done this otherwise) he has earmarked a lot of money in the 2024 budget for development of the Far East, specifically in reindustrialization and microchip tech.
It remains to be seen whether this will actually happen, it has been promised before and failed multiple times. Of course Russia is still corrupt.
But you take it for granted that Russia is a functioning state, and immediately look for problems within it.
You never appreciate any achievements done by Russian statesmen, unless it's absolutely unavoidable (like launching Sputnik, or winning WWII, even then you try to diminish the scope of our contribution to those things).
1
-
1
-
@ArtisZ
No, it isn't. When comparing us to any alternative European or North American power, there is no question at all.
During colonial expansion, Yermak (the Cossack who led the expansion) was more honest to the Natives about the terms of Russian expansion, than the Americans were.
When he approached a new region, the deal was. "Ally with us or we'll fight and destroy your Khanate", versus "We'll both sign this treaty and we definitely won't violate it or have different terms in the English-language copy".
That's even assuming the Natives the US settlers encountered could even speak English.
I suppose that's not the fault of the settlers, as they were expanding into areas so quickly that no one had time to learn both language and serve as interpreter. Still, in the cases where they could translate, the Americans were famous for simply lying.
We didn't have a Manifest Destiny, so no "spare the Indian to save the man" ideology. Of course Russification did occur, but it wasn't as intense (I'll get to that) and it was for more practical, "we need to secure this land against a future Mongol attack" reasons.
We didn't cut off people's hands for rebelling like the Belgians. We didn't put the Natives through boarding schools, or prevent them (if deported— which both the Americans and Russians did do) from returning.
We didn't put them in auctions, or whip them, or sell their children off like cattle, like the Americans did.
We didn't mass rape them and erase their former culture entirely, like the Spanish did.
The fact that you're still around and identifying as Baltic is evidence of that.
We don't force our former colonies to use a version of the ruble, and threaten to coup their governments if they don't, like France still currently does.
We didn't forcibly sterilize Native women well into the 1970s in an attempt to genocide them, like Canada did.
We took over their land, forced them to pay yasik, or fur tax, and put them into indentured servitude if they couldn't. Not by any means good treatment, but CERTAINLY nothing compared to European colonialism. Not even close.
Currently, our Native people have mandatory schooling for everyone in the Native language, and while it isn't up to par with Russian language education, it's— my whole point— better than anything the West has done. Their cultures are largely intact, they have living cultures with internet memes and tv shows and normal things that aren't propped up as show pieces. Just a regular part of everyday life.
How bad was Russification if the West is currently able to exploit Native feelings in Russia to try and fracture it? Want to know why that's not possible in the US?
Because they're all dead.
Don't delude yourself just because your emotions run high. I'm sure your childhood was filled with stories from your grandpa about how bad we are, about how we're barbarians who aren't capable of being a European civilized country. I've heard it all from Polish friends' relatives. From Lithuanians who drank their parents' koolaid.
You're all stuck in the past, and it's not even a correct account of events.
1
-
@ggoddkkiller1342
Religion isn't the only issue that divides cultures— their similarity has nothing to do with it. It's always about power and resources. Case in point: Fergana Valley. All 3 Central Asian nations which border it (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) have fought over rights to the land and water in that area.
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, two TURKIC countries, clashed over treatment of Kyrgyz in Uzbekistan in 2010, fighting in the southern region Osh. 400+ people were killed.
"Pathetic claim" huh??
You can look it up yourself, Pan-Turkism won't work just like Pan-Slavism won't work. There are too many differences between you now to unite as one people. It has been 1,000+ years since the Gokturks, too late now. You all live different lives.
Imagine a single country, but 80M are Turkish and you are the small minority. Would you be okay with your culture being assimilated into Turkish culture?
Your traditions won't be respected and will instead he swallowed by Turkey, because they have more people, they create more media (Turkish soap operas, dramas, music). You will just become an extension of Turkey, there will be no more Kyrgyz or Uzbek. You will speak Turkish only. Maybe Kazakh will survive, but very little.
Be careful what you wish for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1