Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
181
-
72
-
64
-
50
-
50
-
38
-
37
-
30
-
20
-
@frankySR21
I fail to see where I am wrong; all of your examples confirmed my point:
African nations can, and are, leading themselves.
I'm glad you acknowledged each country's strengths, and that's my point. Given political autonomy, they will raise their own standards of living. And they have been.
Rwanda, by the way, has a murder rate less than half of the U.S., and has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. You clearly didn't do what I said, because you think they're still reeling from the Rwandan Genocide. That was 30 years ago, keep up. Things are changing for the better.
Egypt is an African country. Did you say, "sub-Saharan African?" No? Then stop moving the goalposts so you don't have to admit when you're wrong. Grow some balls and recognize when you've made an error in judgement.
The rest of my comment was meant to illustrate why African countries aren't going to "just be better" overnight. Their boundaries rope in multiple ethnic groups in conflict with each other for hundreds if not thousands of years. That leads to instability, and moving borders now would be too complex.
And really? If you're severely flawed, you're unable to self-govern? So the fact that Norway relies on oil exports is fine, but Nigeria is 'behind' for exploiting its own natural resources?
Turkey has its Kurds, Russia its Chechens, and China its Tibetans and Uighurs. Ethnic conflict is somehow the fault of an African nation whose boundaries were drawn without any African input, but another nation with the same problem is 'just securing its territory,' right?
Why won't you address the rest of my comment? If it were actually moronic, you'd tear it to pieces. But you didn't because you know I'm right.
African nations have been sabotaged again and again by the United States and France. Trying to establish a national currency is sooo corrupt, stupid monkeys! /s
Africa was doomed from the start by Europe, that was the point of my analogy. Rwanda is the African version of Poland and Russia. Enemies for centuries, forced into the same country. And then people like you have the gall to say "they
re just backwards, they just need to get over their differences and advance!"
When European conflicts are treated seriously. It's a double standard and you know it.
20
-
@shadowbanned636
All those words, and you still couldn't address my point.
Crimeans overwhelmingly (look to any poll, before or after 2014) want to be a part of Russia.
Ukrainian, US, Canadian, German, and Russian polls all reflect this consistently.
Making the argument of international law is ridiculous because
1) it's violated all the time and Americans dont seem to care unless it's done by a geopolitical rival, leading me to think they don't care at all except to use 'international law' as a political cudgel
2) After the violation of Minsk II and especially damming the Crimean canal there is good legal precedent for the Crimeans to officially declare independence from Ukraine.
Frankly, how can you make an argument like that while also supporting any Western Revolution?
French Revolutionary activity was 100% illegal under French law.
"We support it when it's moral"
Okay so should the majority of Crimeans not have had the results of their own referendum (1994, not 2014) respected and be allowed to return to Russia?
"Doesn't matter if it's moral, international law goes above all else. Slava ukraini!!!"
You can see the type of intellectual heavyweights I'm dealing with here. They should have gone into gymnastics instead...
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
@EUenjoyer
"EU" has no shell, it is not a civilization, but an organization. By this logic, once the EU/NATO expands to Finland, it still needs a shell for Finland so it needs to expand into Russia! Where does your "shell" stop? What exactly defines a buffer zone?
Unlike a nation, the Western alliance is just borders and agreements. And I think Finland, being non-aligned and having no issues with Russia due to that commitment, is a perfect "shell".
And by your logic, NATO has no rights upon the Russian population. Do you think the U.S would be okay if Chinese warships set up a naval base in Cuba? Of course not! National security affects everything, including quality of life of the country.
An agreement needs to be reached where all parties are satisfied, not just one (ukraine).
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
@Aymg
I need a map for you to prove that, and the previous names of those cities.
Are you joking? Donbas is one of the largest Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, and almost 1/2 people there are Russian.
"Why don't we leave Chechnya?" They invaded Dagestan, August 1999. Saudi Arabia was giving Chechens money to start a khalifate in Dagestan (which was part of Russia). They wanted to bring jihad to Moscow.
We could not allow this, and they invaded Russia, so we fought them.
And if you say that the cities in RS were built by Bosniaks, and that is the reason they should be in Bosnia, then why doesn't Ukraine give back Odessa?
It was founded by Tsarina Elizabeth, nothing before it. Russians built that city.
Do you think we should have that, too?? It is your logical thinking, no?
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
I feel that Bulgaria and to a smaller extent Slovakia will have a more difficult time taking this plan to its conclusion due to cultural ties.
They are still Orthodox, Cyrillic-script countries with intertwined histories, and there may be a reluctance among the public to support such measures in a democracy.
Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania, on the other hand, will probably push for the program the hardest; Poland in particular has been pushing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation for decades.
I am unsure of what America's specific goal is, but I can almost guarantee that they will agree to and continue to find the program itself.
I think that Russia can counter the strategy if it utilizes its resources more efficiently and develops it's economy. Soft power matters.
As for the countries, I don't know whether this is good for them. Trading one superpower for another is still risky— Eastern Europe is politically useful to the U.S. as a buffer region against Russia, but I don't think American policymakers actually care about its well-being. The countries could end up like so many Latin American states if they're not careful.
In the end, while they should strive for economic and political independence, geopolitical realities cannot be ignored and these countries need to find a strategy that balances freedom with security.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
@luisromanlegionaire
..One that can't be blocked.
England, Portugal, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, US, Canada, all have this.
They have hundreds of miles of coastline, meanwhile all of Europe gangs up on Russia if they feel like it will gain access to the ocean.
Can't have a prospering Russian naval economy, now can we? That would be dangerous!
8
-
@maquacr7014
...Are you kidding?
Dagestanis aren't ethnic Russians, but it is still a part of Russia.
This is especially funny since you were defending Bosnia's right to have all of its land, when half of it is erhnically Serb and another chunk is Croatian.
You either support Russia's right to Dagestan, or you support Serb nationalists who want the Serbian areas to be a separate country
(like you wanted for Dagestan, too-- so don't be hypocritical).
You can't have both.
Back to the point-- the KSA invaded Russian territory. They bombed metros, and killed ethnic Russians. What other reasons do you want?
You're also forgetting that
A) jihads in the past always spread, we avoided an ISIS situation (which proves me right-- the jihad was not just going to stay in Dagestan).
B) There are millions of ethnic Russians living in southern Russia. When Shariah is implemented, what do you think they will do?
Be nice to the infidels?
We could not allow this to happen.
If you like jihad so much, please move from Bosnia to Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'll love it.
And you didnt answer my question. Since RS cities were built by Bosniaks, so they belong to Bosnia... do Russian cities in Ukraine (Odessa, Mikolaev) belong to Russia then?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@razvananghel7492
Yes, it does. Relative to Ukraine, it has had a much longer presence in the region.
Bear in mind that it was first annexed in 1783, which is only 7 years after the United States was founded. Should the U.S. give up its entire territory, since if Russia doesn't have a claim after ~250 years, then surely the U.S. doesn't either?
If you're going by that logic, then give back western Ukraine to Poland- the historical inhabitants of "Lviv" (Lwów) are not Ukrainians!
If you want the borders to be reset to when the Tatars were still the majority, you should be prepared to do the same for people who feel that their land was taken and is unfairly being ruled by your country, too.
How far back do you want to stretch this? Should France, Spain, England, Portugal, etc, all submit themselves to Italy because Romans were the historical inhabitants of these countries?
6
-
6
-
6
-
Your view of Russia is honestly delusional. On all counts.
For one, its vulnerability is also an asset— nobody thus far (besides the Mongols) successfully occupied all of Russia with brute force. Any invading army would get stretched to breaking, whether by land or air.
Secondly— Russia TRIED to become a second power, a large force within the sphere of Europe.
Right after the USSR, Yeltsin showed almost comical eagerness to play along with the US geopolitically.
How was this kindness repaid? By sending US Treasury employees to Moscow to liberalize its economy and completely destroy any quality of life from the USSR. That meant hyperinflation, collapse of institutions, and a complete selloff of state assets.
Before you say that it was inevitable, Poland was put under the same 'transition' program, but was given different parameters which conspicuously led to stabilization and enrichment. Why did they insist that Russia privatize EVERYTHING, when Poland had been allowed to keep its courts and state-run companies intact just a few years earlier?
It was malice. Kicking the enemy while he was down.
Russia learned a difficult but valuable lesson: America is an ill-intentioned country.
Acting "normally" by abiding by the rules doesn't work when they're actively trying to make your standing in the world worse— that means domestically, too.
Had the USSR not spread communism, the US would still have tried to sabotage it, because it simply doesn't like peer competitors in any area.
Lastly— Putin inherited a shithole from Yeltsin. Go watch old videos of the breadlines and empty grocery stores that resulted from capitalism entering Russia.
Or just ask any Russian over 40. They'll gladly tell you what life was like under "Gorby" and his drunken successor.
You might not like his authoritarianism, but he inarguably improved the quality of life within Russia. If that makes you mad, ask yourself why.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@MrAlexkyra
Well, like it or not, Russia does not appreciate American troops inches from St Petersburg, so it will likely have a seat at the table.
This is what is known as a conflict of interests.
If you think so, then why are no Ukrainians understanding of the actions taken?
They say
"well it's such a shame that Russia was rejected from the Western system... oh well too bad, now let us surround you"
Also, it is absolutely possible. The U.S is allies with Israel and Saudi Arabia, which is even more of a dictatorship (ruled by 1 family) than Russia.
So why the double standard?
You seem to forget, Europe and Asia have invaded and burned Russia many times before.
The fact that only 80 years have passed since the last invasion attempt should give you a clue of why Russia is not ready to listen when Europeans say,
"you know about NATO, that organization created by the Americans to contain the USSR? Well we are going to keep expanding it, don't worry though!!"
What naivete is expected of Russia? The closer NATO gets, the fewer political (and economic) options Russia has.
Ironically, doing this is bringing it closer to China, giving the Americans reason to keep expanding it. Closed circle.
You also seem to forget, that this isn't just countries asking to join. NATO has to accept all of them, and did, despite the U.S assuring Russia it wouldn't:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Born2BWild
I personally think that Crimea should belong to Russia, but not like this.
It's been ethnically Russian for almost the length of the existence of the U.S., so it has a claim to the area (unless the U.S. is willing to give back the land it took following 1783 as well).
Problem is, Premier Krushchev just went and gave Crimea to Soviet Ukraine in 1954, no say from the residents.
In 1991, I think Russia should have negotiated for Crimea (although I find it strange that all pre-Soviet borders were restored, except for that one).
In any case, they had an opportunity in Yalta and they missed it. This was under Putin as well, so deflection isn't an option.
They should have either done it then, or paid/negotiated for it in 2014, legally.
4
-
4
-
@zero signal
Russia did not destroy Kievan Rus' heritage, it is its heritage.
The line of succession goes seamlessly from Novgorod (Rurik) to Kiev, to Sudzal, to Kiev, to Moscow, to St. Petersburg, to Moscow (present day).
Yuri Dolgoruki was part of the Rurikid Dynasty and, since he took the throne and moved the capital of the Kievan Rus' to Moscow, Russia is the political successor to the Kievan Rus'.
There was never a "break" (раскол) between Kievan Rus and Russia. One turned into the other.
The Rurikid (Kievan Rus') Dynasty started in Novgorod and continued in Moscow!
Then, the Romanov Dynasty was taken from the same bloodline.
Meanwhile, Ukraine was ruled by Cossacks in the Hetmanate. It was not a dynasty at all. It cannot claim political succession. No Rurikids took power there.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EpochUnlocked
No, you're confusing capitalism with markets. Markets have existed for thousands of years, whereas the concept of capital
(I'm referring to assets which not only hold value, but can be used as investment to accrue more value- namely stocks, since the idea of capital first came in the form of corporate stock, pioneered by the Dutch in the 19th century)
-- is relatively new.
Capital can be gained involuntarily.
Again, value accrued from, say, slave or child labor, is still value.
A rigid political system also doesn't mean economic control-- China is a great example. Markets, but authoritarian rule.
The system can reach the point you're talking about, but the areas where centralization works best is with essential parts of a society-- public services.
We obviously can't have an all-private toll highway system, because rural areas- being unprofitable- would just get neglected until they completely get cut off.
Same goes for healthcare and especially public transport- British Rail tried to privatize under Thatcher in the '80s, and it failed miserably.
You are right about the wastefulness of the U.S. gov't, but that's not exclusive to them. Companies are notoriously wasteful, too. Poor management of assets almost killed HP, and Amazon's piss-poor conditions starkly contrast to Bezos' wealth. Not to mention every boss who's ever spent a payraise on fancy things for himself.
Without the taxes you're "burdened" with, the quality of the road you use to drive to work, the air you breathe, the quality of the water that comes out of your tap, your mail, the rights guaranteed to you by your company (no more than 16 hours a day work), would all slowly go to shit.
3
-
@EpochUnlocked
If you don't mind me asking, then, which state are you currently in? Barring geographical advantages (Southern states don't have ice form in their asphalt every year), high-tax states have generally higher quality roads than low-tax ones.
Same with public schools-- my friends from Indiana knew significantly less about history, geography, math, science, etc, than I did. But I only went to a public school, albeit in a more liberal state.
Private school sounds great, until you realize that there is, statistically, going to be somebody who can't afford to go.
And, because somebody needs to do rote labor jobs, telling them to get a better job just passes along the problem to someone else. It's not a real solution.
And as for your crappy employment-- doesn't that sound like the state's job to fix? The company certainly won't-- they still haven't, or you wouldn't have told me that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hernando Malinche
"Russia was absolutely screwed over by the Mongols in 1200 to 1400s"
Yeah, so was everyone. Fucking China, with 2000 years of civilization and technology, fell to them, and were then ruled by the Yuan. Same with Persia. The only reason Japan survived is because of typhoons, and Poland was too far away.
"Constant struggle with Poland and Sweden"
Yeah.. that's how borders work. Was France weak because it was constantly fighting Britain? Or the other way around? Your threshold for 'not strong' is extremely low and not very logical to begin with. Also, ultimately beating Sweden, absorbing Finland for centuries, and denying Poland statehood for a large chunk of its own history doesn't seem too bad from the Russian perspective.
"Russia was weak in 1830's not being able to get Constantinople"
No, Russia was in an optimal position to take it from the dying Ottoman Empire. Seeing this, France, Britain, Austria, and Sardinia, all ganged up to prevent this from happening.
I don't know what you expected, but any country facing that kind of alliance- especially one just starting to modernize its military- would lose. If the Ottomans didn't have that support, we'd have Constantinople instead of Istanbul right now.
"Even now Russia is weak"
Yes, its influence is lessened considerably. That being said, the West gives it no credit at all for bouncing back so quickly following the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. Meanwhile, China never competed in the Cold War and so didn't spend all of its money spreading its ideology or restructuring its entire government and economy. Given its performance geopolitically today, after having lost over 1/5 of its land and 40% of its industrial capacity, Russia punches well above its weight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"the idea that we were "bullied" into entering NATO is absolutely false"
I didn't say that. I was responding to your point, "Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence...The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
I said that most of America's allies are allied because America at one point or another rigged their elections or installed a dictator, and their government worked with Washington.
I am surprised that, as an Italian, you do not know your own history. Do you know why the Fronte Democratico Popolare lost in 1948? The CIA forged letters, gave $100M's to right-wing parties, used money from the Marshall Plan -- meant to help rebuild Italy-- to rig your elections instead. And you wonder why it is so hard to find a job in Italy now...
"Those "overthrown leaders" were not actually elected leaders"
In most cases, they were. Sometimes, the US did not even give the country a chance to elect a democratic leader before installing their chosen dictator.
-Salvador Allende in Guatemala: democratically elected, overthrown 1954
-Shukri al-Quwatli in Syria: democratically elected, overthrown 1949
-Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran: democratically elected, overthrown 1953
-Sukarno in indonesia: democratically elected, overthrown 1959
-Patrice Lumumba in Congo: democratically elected, overthrown 1965
This is not even a fraction of the list. South Korea did not even elect a leader before the US installed Syngman Rhee, the CIA used Imperial Japanese troops to fight the Chinese Communists, they militarily occupied Haiti for decades, overthrew Mexico's government twice, and on and on.
The only reason you like the US is because your country is rich now, and your government will forget the crimes they committed if you can be pampered like mammoni
"it's a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected president who was not in bad relations with Russia until Russia itself decided they wanted Crimea back"
You are getting the events in the wrong order. The Maidan protests happened first, then Crimea.
It is strange to me that many American Senators were present during the revolution, and there is some question about who orchestrated the rooftop shooting in Maidan that made the regional protests turn into a Ukrainian revolution against Russia...
Look at the list I showed you again. Is it so strange to add just one more?
"You are putting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same plain as Zelensky"
Ironically, I think Hussein should have been kept in power. How is Iraq doing after America's brilliant operation there?
I think Zelensky should be kept, too: it is the glorification of WWII Nazi collaborators (Ukrainian version of Mussolini) and downgrading Russian to a regional language that I have issue with. Despite the fact that most Ukrainians speak it, and 30% of the country speak natively. Banning Russian books, teaching in schools, etc
"then they made riddicolous demands to be basically in command, then they constantly tried to re-define what NATO was supposed to be"
Mostly because they were a power much larger than Europe. If they joined, how will Soviet equipment be used? Different military philosophy? Does the US get to station wargames in Russia? Do Russian troops get to do the same in US? The 2 sides had fundamental differences, and needed to be resolved.
Making Russia replace its entire military still causes a problem, what happens when they have a disagreement with US and Russia happens to produce most of the NATO artillery/tanks? What then? How are disputes between such large powers, on the same side, resolved?
"The inequalities between U.S.A and mexico are as you say, but again, America is not constantly flying it's jets over the border and menacing military action every 2 weeks"
Do you have amnesia? I will repeat again: it is because the US doesn't need to.
Mexico has no strategic land, it can do nothing to the US.
You are praising US for allowing Mexico to keep the crumbs, after it has already stolen the whole loaf of bread
"Let's take Canada...an indipendent entity from the United States"
Lol, no. US is largest trading partner, 75% of ALL trade is with them.
90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of US border, Canadian Shield (mountain region) covers most of Canada so most of their land is useless to live on. Canada's only connection between east (Toronto) and west (Vancouver) is a single highway. It is extremely vulnerable.
It is independent in theory, but if it ever opposed the US in a way they could not resolve,
Canada would not last 1 day on its own
"Yes it might do some sanctions here and tear some deal apart, but it will not attack unless a country become a legitimate threat to itelf"
So you admit that it is not just defense? It can attack a country by destroying their economy?
Also, NATO did attack.
Afghanistan and Libya. NATO took control of the no-fly zone in Libya, and had direct control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, bombing and killing 10,000s of women and children.
"we have NO INTENTION of conquering Russia!"
You seemed to have no issues stealing our money away.
Yes, the oligarchs were Russia's creation, but why did the West take their money even knowing it was stolen from Russian people? Italy is directly responsible for this, many oligarchs bought homes in Italy and luxury Italian goods and cars.
You were getting rich off of Russian workers' stolen money
"Putin could have removed them"
Yes, I agree.
I never said I liked Putin or that he was perfect, but he was better than Yeltsin and was at least trying to give Russia geographical security against NATO. If they were going to expand anyway---
(since you are unable to tell me how Russia could 100% guarantee that American military would not keep expanding to its border),
---I say again: what did they have to lose??
"They rebelled againist the Zar but couldn't take on Putin?"
The Tsar did not have machine guns and riot gear. The secret police is much more advanced now, harder to change.
Like Roman concrete, the more time passes the more rigid everything becomes
"we put our shit toghether and kicked most of Mafia out of power in the '70s"
Part of the reason you had to deal with the Mafia after WW2 (even after Mussolini arrested pretty much all of them, he doesn't like competition) is because the US pardoned so many of them, which allowed Cosa Nostra to re-establish themselves.
"Russia on the other hand, instead of growing or showing some maturity and become a liberal democracy after decades of oppression"
How many times do I need to repeat?
After the fall of USSR, no one in Russia knew how to run a capitalist economy.
So Clinton and later Bush sent their economists to "help" Russia... by throwing it violently into capitalism ('shock therapy').
It failed horribly, the government had no control and (ironically) Bratva (Russian mafia) ran everything.. until Putin came to power, and arrested or killed them, like Mussolini did. Not perfect, but better than being a part of the West. We tried that, and all it got us was pain and suffering.
You never wanted to help us, only hurt.
2
-
2
-
@happyelephant5384
"Mostly for good purpose"
You're willing to believe and support anything as long as it benefits you personally, I see.
The US continues to commit atrocities around the world, the only difference is Europe is their colony, so nobody can complain.
Germany can't do anything even after it found out that Denmark was helping it spy, Ukraine won't do anything even though the US keeps supporting its corruption (just like Russia did, just a different country doing it to you now).
No one cares about Palestine, or Yemen, or Afghanistan. Or Palau, or Bolivia, or Mexico.
When Russia does something bad, "we have to do something about this and stop them!!"
When America does something bad? "Oh my goodness, what a horrible mistake! It won't happen again, we promise! All is forgiven"
It's a horrible double standard, and this is what Russians mean when they say the West is Russophobic.
They are more than happy to have military power themselves, and sphere of influence, but don't let anyone else do the same.
Hypocrites.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@morefiction3264
So, the Austrian School and 20th-century liberalism?
The former is anthropologically unsound, as the theory rests upon the assumption that macroeconomic activity is composed exclusively of individual, rational choices.
Humans, meanwhile, are self-interested animals— literally. Hominids.
Group dynamics and thinking vastly differ from individual choices, and even then those choices are rarely ever rational.
In fact, one of the biggest issues with the Austrian School of thought (though it has contributed foundational features to economics, such as the ideas of marginal subjective value)
— is its outright rejection of macroeconomics as being distinct from microeconomics— is why I don't wholly believe in it.
Much like Darwin's work on evolution, it is indeed a good start.
But, also like Darwin, several of its core tenets are simply wrong, and mainstream economics is well past the point of venerating outdated information.
I certainly hope you've read past the 20th century section in the library.
As for liberalism, it worked, until it didn't.
The sciences ate away at philosophy, and the idea that humans are Enlightened, rationally-thinking beings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a better world, but the liberalist principles used to justify the pursuit of that better world are simply flawed. The fundamental goal of becoming rational masters of our own destiny shuns the collective side of our existence.
Ironically, Christianity was always contradictory with liberalism. Individual rights? No, they were priveleges given by God. The tribe is most important, etc. Very collectivist.
I suppose with it fading, the counter-balance to liberalism faded too, and we got neoliberalism in its place.
—Precisely the thing that's making younger people reject capitalism.
2
-
lkfvhg
???
Islam itself isn't detrimental to a society, as much as you would like to think that. I don't see Qatar, the UAE, or Oman doing poorly (in terms of actual living standards). Granted, their economy is based on oil, but the rise in prosperity was all done relatively recently, under a fundamentalist Islamic rule.
'Civilization' is not dependent on religion at all- it simply molds to it. Most of the Middle East's problems today stem from Soviet-American involvement in the region, as well as being colonies. That will tend to cripple a nation's ability to govern itself, not having done so for hundreds of years.
The coup d'etats in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly helping stability either. The U.S.-supported groups that killed Qaddafi and tried to kill Assad is also ruining any prospect of stability.
Ironically, these regions had virtually nothing but small tribes and sand before Islam politically united them into larger regions. Just stop intervening in their elections and questionable practices (because that is what every country does to industrialize, sorry, fact of life) and they'll develop normally.
2
-
2
-
@ViriatoII
Costa Rica is an exception the the rule— and it happens to be a center for cooperatives and social enterprises, something very opposed by American policy.
They succeeded in spite of it, not because of it.
Panama is one of 2 (possibly 3) countries with access to a key global trade chokepoint, and is able to profit off it of (not just through enormous transit fees, but because their status also makes for good tourism).
I'm referring more to Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and El Salvador, all of whom the US exploited for cheap labor and natural resources for decades, and are still recovering.
Hell, Mexico's cartel problem wouldn't exist if the Mexican government didn't agree to outlaw weed just because the US did it first.
2
-
@ViriatoII
"Being exploited for cheap labor is not necessarily super bad"
You've clearly never been forced to work in a factory, or worked a hard manual labor job, then.
It's no fun. The hardest I've worked was as a contractor, 9-10 hr days, with 15 minute lunch period. Constant physical activity, no breaks. That was only for a few months. It was wrenching.
And that's a luxury to someone in a sweatshop, or even working a field in the US.
While it's great for the country (and certainly it's leaders), this doesn't always translate to transitioning into middle-income economies.
India and Africa have been working those types of jobs for decades of not centuries, where's their reward? It only works if the government is willing to leverage its resources and work for its own people— something not likely if you're kowtowing to a Western corporation.
And you'll have to explain what you mean by 'society and culture'. The Guatemalans are descendants of the Maya (who are also still around today), you've seen the ancient pyramids, no?
As for the marijuana point, I was talking about the cartels. And how America specifically caused Mexico's problem. Which it did, in the 1920's.
If you haven't thought about it before, now you know. What is your response to that?
I don't care what other countries do (in all cases, gangs use drug trade as a way to make money and continue existing), I'm talking about Mexico right now.
So I'm hoping you're either able to justify what America did, or acknowledge that it was wrong.
2
-
@obligatoryusername7239
Again-- in this scenario, Russia has already invaded. Do you think America is truly willing to destroy Russia, itself, and the entire world?
MAD is meant to be a deterrent, so its effectiveness (and, I assume, what you are trying to tell me) is that Russia would never consider invading in the first place.
But I am asking- if it is done in a moment of weakness, where immediate threat is gone and immediate nuclear response is impossible, do you think the US will resort to MAD after the fact?
You are asserting that any nation would resort to nuclear war on principle of sovereignty.
I simply am posing a question-- if it really does come to that, would the prospect of a nuclear winter, hundreds of millions of dead Americans, and irradiation of most of the US outweigh the right to retaliate on principle?
I am saying that I think it would.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BusterPlanet
1) Sounds like someone's never been fat before! It makes your life much, much worse.
2) You ignored every other point that I made. Stop cherrypicking.
"This is not a commie country"
Bismarck's Germany was the first to invent public healthcare, the USSR was just the first to make it nationwide.
Also, most capitalist European countries pride themselves in how much better their system is than US.
So I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove.
"And again, dude, dont come at me with "whataboutism"
Also you: "the US did some shady sh*t, but.."
You're ridiculous. Accusing me of doing something which you clearly have no problem doing, when it suits you.
You started off with a comparison. I simply replied to your comparison by going deeper.
I have lived in both countries, and in many ways, life in US is better.
But it comes at the heavy cost of your sanity.
Pace of life is much faster, there are almost no vacations even for high earners, poor infrastructure (yes, Russia's is better- 60% of Russia is like Alaska. Alaska's infrastructure is poor, and is mostly comprised of roads. Russia's is mostly rail.)
You have money, but no time to spend it. Your life becomes a cycle of work. You are not living anymore.
This is the trap. It looks like paradise to an immigrant, but by the time they have realize the negatives, it is too late.
Europe is much better than both.
Also, "extremely shady history"? Again, if you are comparing the two countries, which you just did, this is no standard to judge America as any better than Russia. At least Russia's Native tribes still exist.
"Oh, and in WWII the Nazis bassicly reached Moskau which is pretty emberessing."
Considering that they occupied most of Europe, it's not embarrassing. The only reason Britain (and US) escaped Nazi fighting was because of water.
80% of Nazi deaths were in the USSR, America just cleaned up the crumbs.
"And did you forget that you also had the Japanese to worry about?"
Did you forget that the reason the US dropped the bomb was to stop the Soviets from invading (they already killed 700.000 Japanese in Manchuria), and taking the northern half of Japan?
They also refused to attack the Soviets even when Hitler asked, I wonder why...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Well, as a person who has traveled and lived in both Russia and the U.S., I can say that yes, the economy is worse off since the sanctions, but I've also noticed something strange. Russia appears to be broadening its domestic manufacturing industries, because Russian-made products are popping up all over the country's aisles. Call it austerity measures, but Russia is hunkering down for the long term, unlike Caspian's assertion, and if it can diversify quickly enough, its economy should be safe.
Regarding the political process, I am also worried about Putin's successor (or lack thereof). Even my friends and family don't know who can replace him, though I imagine it will be another oligarch, who will gain the experience to "become" Putin again. Overall, I think the reports are over-exaggerated, as with all press, and though Russia will definitely see harder times, it will not ever die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yarpen26
I don't think the argument from Putinists is that those were good examples of democracy, and that they failed in Russia. What they say is that a good example of democracy cannot be developed in Russia.
We are too late in history- too many foreign actors, for an uninhibited nurturing of democracy to happen, especially in an flat area so interconnected to Eurasia.
If we try (as in the '90s), a Western power will naturally swoop in to 'help', and derail the whole thing, using the political vulnerability to exploit natural resources and amass wealth.
The US and Europe were able to develop because they were either isolated and protected by geography, and had the luxury of experimenting, or were so powerful that nobody could interfere in their process, no matter how battered a country became (think France, or England).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
The problem is, there was no guarantee that NATO would ever go away.
The US still dictates Europe's military policy, and the EU has been roping in former Soviet states one by one.
What exactly did Russia have to lose here?
If they had done nothing, they might still have trade relations with Europe.. but they would still be surrounded by American military infrastructure, and trapped by a dominant hegemon for the rest of its history.
(Imagine how the US would feel if Mexico had a longstanding alliance with China, and there was another Cuba on its Pacific border. That inherent geographic/political instability trickles down to the economy, quality of life, business likelihood etc)
If they make gains here, they can at least force a halt of NATO and replication-in-all-but-name (individual alliances with all NATO members, "technically" not joining).
Not perfect, but being located on Eurasia --- (unlike North America, which is an island and has that permanent advantage thanks not to the governments' effectiveness, but to circumstance)---- you need to navigate the chaos and be ruthless to survive.
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"Russia keeps acting in a ridiculously aggressive way"
A single, current, incident does not explain Europe's past behavior. If you want to retort with "Georgia Crimea" etc, let's take a look.
Crimea voted in 1994, when Russia was politically collapsed, to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Ukraine's Parliament struck the results down and got their secret service involved.
Georgian forces shelled Sukhumi, overreacting to a hostage crisis, and denied the wishes of independence of the Ossetians. Amnesty International recognizes as such. The concerns of Georgia's minorities were present even during the USSR, but Stalin dissolved the Abkhazian SSR.
Oh, and Chechnya (Ichkerian Republic) invaded Dagestan (Russia) in August 1999, declaring jihad. But we're the bad guys somehow, for pacifying a Wahhabi movement funded by Saudi Arabia.
"The point is being surrounded by American military infrastructure is not a problem if you have literally the biggest stack of nuclear weapons ever."
Bullshit. You think of security as a binary, which it isn't. "If you can use the threat of nuclear annihilation then everything's fine!" is such a pea-brained argument I don't even know where to begin. To start, economic flexibility depends on access to the ocean. Russia has none, and needs to go through Turkey or Denmark to trade. This makes a huge chunk of its economy dependent on the political decisions of a foreign country.
We aren't even getting into power projection, protection of trading routes, regional stability for economic investment, etc.
Let's put the shoes on someone else's foot. If, hypothetically, a Caribbean country were to host nuclear weapons, or even just a naval base, off the coast of the US, shouldn't the US not care at all even if it is the military infrastructure of a superpower being hosted??
After all, they have nukes too, it should be fine, right?? In this hypothetical situation, do you think the US would abide by your worldview? If not, why? Is there perhaps something you're missing?
"Russia had all the options to become a credible democratic nation, hell even PART of NATO"
Russia applied, and told they had to wait. In the meantime, however, the West managed to bomb and overthrow leaders of foreign countries under false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan) and (Libya) after lying about security guarantees...
The US demonstrated that its only real rule was "you're either in my club, or you're not. International law be damned."
Is this what countries should aspire to? Kissing the ass of the pack leader? Freedom and democracy indeed.
"the United States, instead of constantly menacing to attack them, helps them economically"
...Are you kidding? First off, no, Mexico's agricultural exports are fresh fruits and vegetables, the US meanwhile has managed to create an obesity epidemic in their country. US auto makers still dominate their market, in spite of the large volume of machinery imports.
Second, yes it's very easy to help a country which can never pose a threat to you. The US took all of Mexico's most valuable land and neutralized it permanently. They came very close to annexing Yucatan. There's no pressure of a challenger, so of course they'll "help" (benefit from outsourcing) now. They won.
Imagine a world in which the USSR survived, and became economically strong and politically unified. It starts trading with Western Europe. That is what actually happened in North America. The U.S. completely dominates everything.
"Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence. Don't you see?
The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
Again, you must be kidding. Virtually all of the places that the US is allied with, short of Europe, are places that it has bullied (coup'ed) into allying with Washington. South Korea, Indonesia, most of South America, Vietnam, hell, even Italy and Greece.
The singular difference between it and Russia is that the US had time (and the goodwill of the British) to develop its industry and economy undisturbed for 150 years. So even if the US has been a brutal oppressor in the past, it can just smother the citizens of allied countries in material wealth to make them forget about its past crimes.
I acknowledge that corruption and pride are a big issue, but- do I really need to repeat it?- the US caused this. Directly.
After the collapse of the USSR, Harvard economists were flown out to Moscow to convince Yeltsin to conduct "shock therapy" in Russia, swinging it as violently into a market system as possible.
It did not go well. This would be forgivable, if the US did not rig the 1996 elections to prolong the Russian people's suffering.
In 2000, Putin succeeded Yeltsin... and here we are. You reap what you sow.
Shouldn't have ruined Russia intentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EpochUnlocked
"The private sector is more efficient"
"most often, the lowest bidder are the companies that use the cheapest, shortest lasting material and the perform the poorest work"
See any problems here?
Sometimes, the most efficient (in the company's case, gross profit minus gross expenses) isn't always what a society needs to operate a key service well. Not everything needs to be profitable.
Though, by some metrics, a better-serviced public transport system generates more economic activity in the long run than a cheaply-made one that the private sector magically creates. But that doesn't matter to the private sector, which (unless privately owned) is legally bound to its shareholders' wishes, which are invariably short-term financial gains.
Efficiency, even if that were totally inherent to the private sector
(it isn't; the businesses that survive are the ones that just so happened not to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean companies are immune from being wasteful and inefficient-- the ones that waste cease to exist, so our perception of the private sector's overall performance is skewed)
isn't always the primary aim when providing a service.
Also, "you don't have an argument there"?
We'll let your side of the argument when the state stops taxing hardworking people like you to build roads you'll never use. Axe the Federal Highway System and dole it out to private companies- since they're clearly so efficient. I'm sure zero roads will be left to crumble.
In case I didn't lay it on thick enough, that was about as sarcastic as I could get.
You simply don't know just how poorly roads could get under a private system because companies currently only shoulder the burden of maintaining profitable ones.
If the whole system was left up to them, we'd see thousands of miles left completely unmaintained, to cut costs. I sincerely hope, for your own sake, that the private companies don't get to test that theory out.
Or maybe they should. I just hope your vehicle is offroad-certified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would recommend (if you are talking about partnering) India. China, Russia, Turkey, all have long history of military involvement in their partner countries.
I think India can be just as corrupt, but they don't have a culture of invading others, because they have been blocked by the Himalayas. That could change, but if you want political freedom, go with India.
If you want good military, Russia or America. If you want lots of money, China. If you want good trading deals, Turkey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaspianReport
In Germany, maybe. America, India, China, Russia, even Australia could do it- if, for a fleeting moment, they each acquired a populist, authoritarian leader, a la Theodore Roosevelt.
Economies can be swayed rather quickly when the political will allows for it, I think it will happen a little bit too late, but humans will survive.
1
-
1
-
@everhall306
Then through Russia, as the conflict was entirely within Serbia at the time. And you're right, my mistake.
They could have done lighter on the raid itself, as many of the affected areas were civilian- hospitals (which is illegal, btw), cultural monuments, businesses, etc, were caught in the NATO bombing campaign. Definitely didn't seem like a purely humanitarian operation.
And that fundamentally contradicts America's own Constitutional law regarding it's own states.
If, for instance, Texas or Hawai'i (most likely cases) wanted to secede, the US wouldn't let them. But it supports splintering outside of it's own borders? I just don't think it's very fair, hence the objections and "whataboutism" of other ambitious countries.
Plus, that assessment would place both Abkhazia and especially (ethnically and linguistically) Crimea under Russian control. There were attempts by separatists to do the same in Mikolaev and Odessa, too.
Not an easy sell for the US.
1
-
1
-
Nevermind the fact that St. Petersburg will definitely flood, this is great!
But really, I don't understand why Russia didn't just diversify its economy following 2008, Putin (contrary to Western thought) did, in fact, massively improve the lives of Russians while early in office. He could have done more, but instead weakened Russia by deepening its dependence on oil and natural gas.
He could have invested enormous R&D into advanced ice-breaker technology, or undersea transport. Anything, besides warming the Earth.
He's not stupid, he knows climate change is real, so why would he jeopardize the whole world for an unguaranteed boost to Russian prosperity in the short-term, when the damage
(swathes of India dying from heat, Sahara uninhabitable, coastal cities flooding, water wars, melting Russian permafrost and eventual destruction of Siberia)
will do far worse than the capability to trade could ever make up for? I just don't understand the man fully. Perhaps he's just here to make a point to the U.S., and then leave the rest up to us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hernando Malinche
I don't think you understand what 'strong' is. Mike Tyson had difficult fights, but that didn't make him weak.
Adversity will occur no matter how 'strong' a country is, so experiencing it isn't evidence in favor of or against it.
The fact that the two powers which had been fighting one another for centuries, along with Austria's support, all felt the need to set aside their differences and back the Ottomans against Russia shows how much of a threat they were. If Russia was so weak, why'd they do that?
As for Poland.. again, 'strength' doesn't mean undefeated or unchallenged, I fail to find any example of a string nation, then, by your definition. Literally every nation is 'weak' if your evidence for 'weakness' is fighting wars against other countries.
I agree, soft power is very much where Russia falls short, and China has massively succeeded there. But that isn't the only definition of power, nor strength. Russia managed to turn Western sanctions into a benefit to their domestic economy, and post-USSR has won virtually every border dispute it has brought up. It doesn't have economic sway (yet), but it does have tact and strategy.
Russia is behind China, but ahead of everyone besides them in that regard. It is also investing in Africa, SE Asia, and the Arctic. If it ever fosters a business environment, it will be a force to be reckoned with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stephen Jenkins
Necessitating?
The U.S. had its own interests prior to intervention in most of the countries, and many (Vietnam comes to mind) were simply fighting for their independence (in this case, from the French, supported by the U.S.). They just happened to choose somebody whose political ideology was distinct enough to rally behind against their colonial overlords.
Do you think Ho Chi Minh would have had the same sway if he had advocated for slow reform and negotiation with the French and Americans?
Same with Mexico, Guatemala, Iran (the worst of the U.S.'s failures of the bunch), the Congo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, to an extent Syria; there's a whole laundry list. The motivation was almost economic; or political, but irrespective of the U.S.S.R.. (because it had already fallen).
And again, prosperity is a relative term. The U.S., as far as I can tell, has a nation "success/failure" ratio of about 1:5. Japan, Germany, and South Korea all ended up becoming prosperous. The rest are underdeveloped, or still steeped in sectarian violence or civil war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sababugs1125
Ah, you're right about that second part, but I'd like to see (if you can find it) the Georgian law recognizing Abkhazian as a co-official language in Abkhazia, because I understood it was for language reasons.
I also thought that they didn't want to be part of USSR, but independent country?
Not to mention the war of 1991, similar reason to Crimea (declared independence from Ukraine in 1994, Ukrainian Parliament declared it illegal and increased control over it).
In both cases, the territories want to "return" to Russia, to re-unite with a larger ehtnic group (for Crimeans, Russians; and for South Ossetians, North Ossetians). Same with Kosovars, Northern Ireland, and Catalonia).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LiterallyWho1917
Agreed. Russia's working with borrowed time, especially in regards to its economy. When oil prices inevitably drop due to Arctic oil drilling, the entire economy will tank. Russia had 20 years to diversify and expand into other industries, but it chose to pick the lowest hanging fruit and stay there- its massive resources.
Essentially, it's the only example of a European cash-crop nation, except instead of tea and tobacco, it exports oil and minerals. It's sad, really, to see a nation with such enormous human capital and potential for creativity (especially in science and engineering) inch closer and closer to destabilizing and starting over, for a third time. This time, with other nations making exponential, instead of linear, gains of their own. I fear for its future.
1
-
1