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