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