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