Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Good Times Bad Times"
channel.
-
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