Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Is Russia Becoming Irrelevant?" video.

@shoutphire5548 This isn't happening as long as Putin (or whoever else) is in power, catering to the oligarchs and skimming some off the top for themselves. In fact, this has happened in reverse- Yukos was a valuable investment and profitable venture in Russia, but Mikhail Khordokovsky was charged with fraud, then while imprisoned charged with embezzlement. There is some doubt as to whether any of that was true, but most of his wealth was liquidated... guess where it all went. Same with the former Minister of Finance in Russia, advocated for privatization of a state-owned gas company to increase efficiency production... a few mot has later, is arrested for corruption, the charges were led by the man director of the state-run company. The oligarchs are draining Russia so they can live their final 20 years in extreme wealth, at the cost of literally everything else. It's such a primitive, short sighted and pitiful way to act.
2
@loke6664 Just a note, the US' situation is much different from Greece's because most of that US government debt is owed to Americans and American firms. So, they can (technically) work it out among themselves and understand that, for the debtholders to continue their livelihoods, refinance the debt in favor of the government. In Greece's case, most of this debt was loans taken from the EU (particularly Germany), and there was a deadline to pay it all back. This is, among many other things, what caused the crisis. I think the bigger threat to America is failing governance, infrastructure, and poor social cohesion.
1
@trevorwoodley3897 No, that is wrong. Western investment was very heavy in the 90s and came at the expense of the environmental program that the Soviets had- actually, rather well- implemented. A scandal followed in the 2000s about Harvard and a few NY institutions laundering money from Russia, and another in the 2010s of massive amounts of illegally felled lumber being sold to Americans for premium hardwood products and flooring. And China trying to pump water out of Lake Baikal to supply Beijing and its increasing lack of water security. I know Americans like to project a narrative of other countries really, really caring about the US. You seemed to enjoy playing 'armchair psychologist' to try and impose a matter-of-fact narrative onto other countries--- but you are simply wrong here. The US has proven in the past that it isn't beneath taking other countries' natural and financial resources. Russia included.
1
@craigkdillon Um, there are plenty. Russia's economy just never got past the initial stages. But Russia sells enormous amounts of food to the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Military tech, as you mentioned, is all around the world. Even its car industry is locally robust. Just because it's not selling tertiary products (tech goods, perfume, fashion, etc) doesn't mean its economy isn't diverse. It is, however, being hampered by paranoid Putin leadership. We have enough natural resources to make anything in the world, maybe minus tropical spices. Once that leader takes over Russia, then we will see.
1
@craigkdillon While I agree that Russia could have used American hegemony as a once-in-history opportunity to spur its manufacturing and bring its momentum up to speed with the rest of the West, you're forgetting one thing: Free trade doesn't trump geography. Russia's ports, and cargo transit to other countries, might be guaranteed by the US. But that doesn't stop those same ports from bring frozen 9 months out of the year. Congress recently passed a budget resolution on icebreakers, costing $1B each. Imagine Russia trying to build a fleet to trade year-round, it would make their goods uncompetitive. When Russia was first independent, it was dealing with enormous capital flight and money laundering, due in part to the Americans whom they wrre apparently meant to trust. Add to that an invasion into Dagestan in 1999 (this is why Russia invaded Chechnya, btw) and collapsing oil prices, left Russia with little opportunity to take advantage of this economic situation. It was only after Putin came to power and used rising oil prices to his advantage that Russia became a 'threat' again. So you portray it as just Russia not doing the right thing, when there was no one single moment where they could do that. ..Maybe 2012? Even then, Russia's ability to project power in the Black Sea- and defend against Turkey, who was more than willing to bend NATO rules- was threatened by the expiry of the Crimea naval base. So, in a sense, Russia just needs better circumstances. Atm, all of its trade routes are implicitly threatened.
1
@craigkdillon I agree with lots of what you said, but you have several oversights in your analysis. Firstly, while nations are what threaten other nations, you seem to separate them from geography like the two are in different bubbles. There is significant overlap between geography and how likely a nation is to be threatening to another. Egypt could be more diplomatic and trade with Ethiopia... but that will not change the fact that Ethiopia contains the source of the Blue Nile, and is a threat to Egypitan interests because it wants to dam the river. In terms of eastern Europe, yes of course their living standards have skyrocketed. But this all relies on a trade bloc. Central and eastern European goods are now competitive because there are no tariffs in the EU, and because they can make use of Spanish, French, Dutch etc. ports, since they're landlocked without them. And if the EU is torn apart by competing interests, between the Western countries and Poland's Międzymorze idea? Then we are back to the default: geography. In fact, the current system doesn't transcend the boundaries placed by geography, it heavily relies on them. Why is the US able to maintain a global order to 'free' other nations from their poor geography? Precisely because theirs happens to be perfect. It all comes back to that. The choice between "empire vs. free trade" wasn't created in a vacuum. To that point, your analysis also seems to rely on the Bretton-Woods (free trade) system... existing forever? To suggest that international agreements don't last forever isn't exactly crazy, especially when this one relies on America maintaining its economy and military for the next several thousand years. I can't say exactly what will change, but this system will not last. Maybe it is a climate crisis that makes most of the US unlivable, maybe it is an isolationist political movement, maybe it is social upheaval, maybe it is overcrowding of world powers and shrinking of the need, or even desire, for the US to guarantee everyone's security, but this cannot last. The way I see it is this: through a metaphor- governments can certainly work out all the little details, but the larger brushstrokes are determined by geography. The Pentagon doesn't need to spend enormous amounts on a land led army, like Russia or India, or navy, like China. Their budget was historically put to domestic policies because they were afforded that opportunity... being surrounded by oceans. Government is the spark, but geography is the gunpowder.
1
@craigkdillon Wow. Willfully ignorant. Wheat, has been in the top 2 in the world since 2016. Raspberries, buckwheat, sunflower, currant, oats, fish, pork, poultry, the list goes on. Since 2014, Russia's agricultural output has risen substantially.
1