Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Why Russia wants to restore the Soviet borders" video.

@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
@obligatoryusername7239 Again-- in this scenario, Russia has already invaded. Do you think America is truly willing to destroy Russia, itself, and the entire world? MAD is meant to be a deterrent, so its effectiveness (and, I assume, what you are trying to tell me) is that Russia would never consider invading in the first place. But I am asking- if it is done in a moment of weakness, where immediate threat is gone and immediate nuclear response is impossible, do you think the US will resort to MAD after the fact? You are asserting that any nation would resort to nuclear war on principle of sovereignty. I simply am posing a question-- if it really does come to that, would the prospect of a nuclear winter, hundreds of millions of dead Americans, and irradiation of most of the US outweigh the right to retaliate on principle? I am saying that I think it would.
2
@dulat Right... let's ignore the fact that the Americans (and half the Europeans) are the ones who forced Russia into capitalism in just a few years, and encouraged the oligarchs to sell Western countries resources for cheap. 2-3M Russians died prematurely due to lack of medical care, or alcohol poisoning, during this time. It's like saying "It's because they paid for your hospital bill... after they ran over you with a truck. How nice of them!"
1
@errormatrix4159 You cannot seem to stomach the idea that Russia is actually competent. I think Westerners want nothing more than to see Russia kowtow or disintegrate. Why? Because it is the only threat, beside China, to their power? Napoleon and Hitler invaded to give themselves the longest amount of time before winter. Each war lasted multiple years (multiple winters and summers). Whether you like it or not, Russia is a competent nation which can fight.
1
@obligatoryusername7239 Russia will likely do what ussr did (successfully)- childlessness tax. It raised birthrate massively. And Russia takes MANY immigrants, one of the largest refugee destinations on earth. Mostly from Central Asia and Arab states. This is less danger to them than Germany, or Japan.
1
@obligatoryusername7239 Within a few generations, rather well. The older ones already know Russian from soviet era, but the younger ones learn it very quickly
1
@starestairs5090 There are Russians alive today who remember when "their" country (depending on who you ask) was invaded, precisely through the areas Russia is going after today. It was told by England that Hitler would never invade... but he did anyway. It had nuclear rockets pointed at it and troops stationed on its border for decades. You can criticize its actions, but I think Russia had good reason to be paranoid. It's not like the Europeans are known for treating subjugated countries well... just ask China. Even Russia participated in that, so it knows what happens when it is surrounded by English, French, Americans, etc
1
@votecthulhu9378 Actually, it just might be able to. But it would need to create a "southern Great Wall of China". Afghanistan is composed of Pashtuns, but it also has Uzbeks, Taijik, and Turkmen populations. Those are people whom it has experience integrating into a larger Russian apparatus. It would be able to hold ~40% of Afghanistan this way. It would simply need to guard the border between it and the Pashtuns long enough to invest in and develop the northern half. But for that it would need a strong economy...
1
@obligatoryusername7239 You seem to forget, that America would become an equally bright glowstick if any nuclear missiles were fired. And I don't think even American politicians are petty enough to kill themselves, their families, and the entire human race just to get back at somebody who slighted them. If such an action were taken, America would likely cut off Russia completely from trade with it, and kick it out of the global financial system. It would likely launch many, many cyber attacks and bomb remote areas in a show of force... but I doubt that it would resort to using ICBM. Even if Russia is destroyed, it is likely that its nuclear weapons would activate (the Soviets are rumored to have developed a system so-called Black Hand) and wipe America from existence along with it. MAD is real.
1
@JoseRodriguez-ut4nn I think it is more interested in Southern tip of Alaska and Aleutian islands than Alaska itself. It still lacks a seaport in the ocean that doesn't freeze or doesn't pass through a NATO member territory
1
@starestairs5090 Albania wants to absorb Kosovo, no? And Ireland wants to re-unite with Northern Ireland? UK has proposed CANZUK Union, France wants to keep influence over Françafrique, Bosnia wants a longer coastline, Serbia wants Republika Srpska, Turkey took Syrian territory... Fake reason? We don't want a repeat of 1990s. Stay powerful or be eaten
1
@starestairs5090 "Turkey is not interested in Syrian territory" You can not be serious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_occupation_of_northern_Syria So, when you are proven wrong, just lie about it. Great strategy. Turkey ALREADY HAS Syrian territory, what do you mean "not interested"? They hold 8,000+km2 of Syrian territory since 2016. And America does the same with northeast Syria. I know that Serbia has a better military. But because of NATO, I think Albania would just try to force Kosovo to vote. No tanks or missiles needed. Same with Bosnia. Serbia wants Republika Srpska back, and is starting a presidential crisis to justify a referendum. "Stop comparing" Why? You are the one who told me that no European country wanted to expand its borders. I simply showed you that you were wrong. And you ignored Northern Ireland.
1
@obligatoryusername7239 Yes, I am aware. My point is that in a MAD scenario, first movers have advantage. Do you really think that the US would risk destroying the entire planet if Russia pre emptively occupied one of its states? It is a matter of calling bluff. Also It already has a much larger Navy, Air Force, Army, etc. And a land connection through Canada. It is much more likely that they would use traditional actions to counter.
1
@opinion4755 This is true, but the real- unspoken- threat, is a feasible one. Wars are costly, but economic influence? Literally pays for itself. Get Russia's government to change (by sanctioning it), and if a pro-Western leader gets installed, you're set! Invest, invest, invest. Russia has lots of natural resources and lots of intellectual capital ripe for the taking. In fact, this already happens (although at a lesser scale than when Yeltsin was president.) The ultimate goal is to return Russia to its 1990s state- weakened, and eager to trade.
1