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

  1. ​ @XenosImplyer  South Korea is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Until Samsung (among others) is forced to pay higher wages, nothing will change.
    181
  2. Why do people always post this vague bs, just call it out. Lebanon needs to be left by its southern neighbor, and that same neighbor needs to stop occupying foreign land.
    72
  3.  @drunkensailor3736  They will try and do this with Vietnam, just watch
    64
  4. We learned from the best
    50
  5.  @jasonpyre8572  Not really. Postponing the visit was a petty thing to do, especially if he wanted to give the impression that the rejection didn't affect him personally or politically. Refusing to cooperate with a country because of an "inappropriate statement" belies that he did not, in fact, take it in stride. Moreover, the mere idea is, in fact, absurd. Just because Americans have a "can-do" attitude, doesn't mean their diplomats can forget that other countries don't. The amount of paperwork and money needed to do that (his suggestion being undemocratic to boot) would extend far beyond even a second Trump term. And just offering a one-time sum of money in exchange for a continuously profitable island is a horrible deal.
    50
  6. "I'm Shirvan, this is CaspianReport, and tonight we're ambushing the rebels— but first let's talk about China"
    38
  7.  @Daniel-rh7kh  Same issue as with the Soviets, any military operation in Afghanistan is a money pit. No centralized force or concrete endpoint for the war to rest on, harsh geography, constant guerilla warfare. One would think the Soviets would have learned the Russian Empire's lesson- and the Americans learn from the Soviets. But neither learned, and I think we've lived through the fall of the third casualty of Afghanistan: Britain, Russia, United States. Maybe China will finally pull it off? I think they'll settle the region rather than conquer it.
    37
  8.  @EpochUnlocked  Exact same can be said of a nation that's 100% capitalist. Never worked
    30
  9. ​ @interrobangings  Nah it's not really that likely. Only 1/300 able bodied men were drafted, Western media blew its signifance way up to encourage people to leave
    20
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12. ​ @bm6110  If the government says so, then yes you are. What are you gonna do, raise an army and tell them to stop? Lol
    18
  13. Sorry for replying so late, but what would you consider to be a more accurate observation (based on more correct information)? I think Russia's political history is almost always guided by seeking security and access to trade, and these priorities have shaped the mindset of inidividuals.
    18
  14. ​ @Thewhiskeyalphazulu  Jews bombed British embassies to get "permission" to settle there. And Hamas arose only after the Palestinians were forced into these tiny areas.
    18
  15.  Dex4Sure  In Russia, no statues of Genghis Khan exist, but Lenin's mausoleum is on display. Each country has its own heroes, but Leopold simply didn't do much besides enslave other people. He didn't save Belgium, he didn't open trade, he just colonized. At least Genghis Khan re-opened the Silk Road. Leopold did nothing, and deserves nothing.
    17
  16.  @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
  17.  @morefiction3264  Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. Free enterprise is a form of capitalism- so is slavery. Capitalism is about capital, not freedom.
    14
  18.  @dimadamag  💰 Here is your daily hrvynia, Мазепа!
    14
  19. Did you not watch the video? They're virtually identical in quality at this point, and China has more of them.
    14
  20. "Ukraine, which meant, "borderland."" Grabs popcorn and scrolls through comments
    14
  21.  @ogc9649  Israel is hardly a stable nation. It resembles America— militaristic, violates international law, and causes instability in its own region. Netanyahu is refusing to step down on corruption charges and there is currently a constitutional crisis going on there. Stable indeed.
    13
  22.  @_bob9740  "Brought civilization?" You must have been raised in Russia! Yes, the Cossacks cleared the way and together with the Russians, settled the Siberian taiga. Many cities were established. But this came at the cost of the culture and language of many of those tribes. They didn't need civilization, they were doing fine on their own. Most of them live similar lives as before, what has changed for them, besides losing part of their identity? Also, what opportunity? Russia is hostile to foreign investment, so their best job is working at an oil field, Sverbank, or OKEI. California alone has a larger GDP than all of Russia. It's pathetic. How prosperous!
    13
  23. ​ @mindsauce3  It does. The Nordic countries have housing stock set aside for the homeless, so anyone who loses their house is immediately housed (with address, you can apply for a job). The USSR also had very little if any homeless. Housing was a right written into their Constitution. Controlling (or outright disallowing, for free housing) rent increases is a drop in the bucket for a country's budget. The only reason they don't want to is because landlords rightly fear the effect it would have on market rates
    13
  24. ​ @Dli230  There was a brief period where 'Kingdom of Israel' existed but it didn't even include Jerusalem. For most of history it was called 'Palastin' by Greeks, Romans, Europeans, Muslims, etc. Only in the 19th and 20th centuries did people start calling it by an old obscure name again. It existed only in Scripture but not in reality.
    12
  25. I hope you remain independent and strong, but be careful. America only treats your country nicely because you're geopolitical convenient. The second you try to take some of their economic power away (ex: nationalize a domestic company that they owned) they'll destroy you. Look at Libya, Mexico, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Iran, etc. Russia would, too, but they simply have fewer means and are looking for warm water ports.
    12
  26.  @_bob9740  In America maybe... in places where they were actually involved, it's glossed over. Russia doesn't talk about the cruelty to the Siberian tribes, Spain still mourned the loss of its colonies and their inhumane slavery. Maybe in America, you're free to talk about these things, but in other countries speech is restricted. You've been given this gift of historical detachment (mostly), and you squander it and want to be like us? You Americans are very troubling.
    12
  27. @J K That's the problem; you can't "get your crap together" under current conditions. Without 70% of your foreign currency reserves (just money on general), development is extremely slow, if not impossible.
    12
  28. To an extent, yes. Turkey controls Russia's only route to European markets that isn't frozen half of the year (St. Petersburg is also easily blockable, and freezes). Without Crimea, Russia has no easy way of establishing enough of a presence to dissuade Turkey from blocking the Bosporus Strait entirely. It's all a big game of chess. I don't think Russia cares all that much about Crimea as a landmass, but its location does make it very important.
    12
  29.  @user-up1ny  Wow the bots are getting advanced
    12
  30. Well, the cycle started when, contrary to American promises, NATO expanded twice during Yeltsin/Putin years. This was during a time when Russia was friendly to the West (remember how close Yeltsin and Clinton were?) So the question is, why expand? Why push American power closer to Russia? The argument that "if Russia would just leave its neighbors alone, countries wouldn't ask to join NATO" is a complete lie. Russia did leave them alone, tried its best to integrate into the Western system, and NATO expanded anyway. And then Western countries act angry when Russia gets aggressive. If NATO expands either way, what benefit does Russia get from being friendly with Europe??
    12
  31.  @larrywave  It's pretty homogenous. ~80% of the country is ethnically Russian. Yes there are many minority groups but they're all small in population size.
    11
  32.  @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
  33.  @adamradziwill  I'm going to gues that you're either Ukrainian or Polish- they're the most bitter and angry about their history with Russia.
    10
  34.  @miltonmiles6324  "Fake autonomy" I think the true intention shines through here. Identity the enemy, reduce their land, exploit their resources. Rinse, repeat I wouldn't even mind it if claims to the contrary weren't so loud and indignant
    10
  35.  @kimlitelnoni4079  I didn't know trading with a country counted as creating it lmao, you're reaching so hard to make the U.S. look good.
    10
  36.  @EpochUnlocked  Quality of life? Compared to what, Tsarist Russia? In both countries (since I am using USSR as example), people were forced to work in factories, but at least Lenin put through an electrification plan and liberalized the social order. Before, it just went into the Tsar's treasury. Markets are the best way to manage resources when demand is elastic (as opposed to goods that people will pay any price for, like insulin), but socialism is needed to manage public services. Quality of life improved, but only after a period of chaos. Life expectancy and economic output plummeted shortly after the collapse. Or did you forget what happened in the '90s?
    10
  37. @PanQuakes His time wasted here is better than spewing crap somewhere else, as far as I'm concerned. The seeds of doubt need to be planted. Thanks for the advice, though.
    10
  38.  @marcospc93  Everything changed when the Fire Nation Sea People attacked!
    10
  39.  Stephen Jenkins  That's not quite true. The U.S. is stable, but that does not make it entirely Democratic. Even represetatively. Bear in mind that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, but because Donald Trump curried favor with the Electors (also bearing in mind that only half of them are Constitutionally bound to vote for whomever the people do, and that more populous states tend to be more liberal), he won instead.
    9
  40. 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
  41.  @ravener96  I don't think he's Syrian, just look at his name
    9
  42.  I'm not flat, stop asking  Japan already had an imperial government— the Japan only surrendered to the Americans and not the Soviets specifically because they wanted to keep Hirohito alive. And South Korea was a dictatorship under Syngman Rhee. It took decades to get out of that cycle and the high-tech South Korea you know today only happened because the Koreans rose up against the American backed leader.
    9
  43.  @jadenoliveras717  Нет
    9
  44. @Malcolm M Thank you! People seem to forget how different the world was just 50 years ago (though I admit I wasn't there for it :P). Iran in particular was doing quite well and on its way to becoming a Middle Eastern power until the US and England dismantled their democracy. Not to mention Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala, Colombia, the CIA backed contras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran AGAIN... The list goes on. No country is perfect, but few have destroyed as many nations' development as the United States, maybe England in second.
    9
  45. YouTube knows something we don't...
    8
  46. Yes, but it is likely that the US will still fight to keep Bosnia together. If they can weaken a Russian ally, they will
    8
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @freddy4603  Why aren't they stealing it? I sincerely hope you don't mean to tell me that executives are somehow working 200x harder than they were in the 1950's, as their pay reflects. No. At the very top, the CEO has a board— of people he's chosen— to help decide whether or not he gets a pay raise this year. Who in their right mind is going to say no, at the threat of being demoted? And where do you think that extra money comes from? Layoffs and cutbacks. Same labor for less pay— or, to be less obvious, fewer benefits and overtime. It is theft, outright.
    8
  50.  @FRIPPE_THE_GREAT  ...Are you daft? Russia was already open to Western economic influence and investment during that period- not sure how joining a military alliance would affect economic structure (just look at Turkey). We tried to open up to the West for capital investment, what we got instead was the back of its hand. Russia was ransacked in the 90s. Capital flight was enormous, the social safety net fell apart, and mafia gangs controlled every region. People like to say that more Russian wealth is now stored outside Russia than inside it, but conveniently forget to explain how that came to be. The "shock therapy" system proposed by the American government was what allowed the oligarchs to rise to power to begin with... and of course, free foreign investment back then also meant the oligarchs were more than free to stow their billions in London and New York accounts. Putin may not be doing well economically, but he is certainly better than Yeltsin was. The West had one chance to prove its trustworthiness, to show to Russia that geography was no longer a vulnerability of concern. They wasted that chance.
    8