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