Worth watch@JBH22, It's a long video. Could you please give a summary?
Ok, I will watch later tonight. Thanks for the summary.Worth watch
Gives a fairly good account on how USA is trying to hold on to its hegemony which is now challenged by China & Russia
Emphasis laid on natural resources (OIL)
Russia has always been the underdog that trashes its opponents when the need arisesPutin is in denial if he thinks China will deal with Russia on an equal footing. Things have changed dramatically in their relations since the USSR days. China has the upward momentum while Russia has the opposite. So Russia will not submit to being secondary to the West but will submit to China?
No, Russia was willing to be secondary to the west in last 90s. What were they rewarded?So Russia will not submit to being secondary to the West but will submit to China?
Nice try. I am talking about Russia under Putin not under Yeltsin.No, Russia was willing to be secondary to the west in last 90s. What were they rewarded?
The economic aid promised wasn't come!
She was deliberately rejected from International security systems!
And worst of the worse, Nato forces are now pushing to her doorway, which is the similar situation in 1940.
So, the fantasy about being secondary to West (or US) is broken by the actions of the West.
Nice try.Nice try. I am talking about Russia under Putin not under Yeltsin.
But talking about the earlier post-USSR Russia, the West did help Russia in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Remember that Russia shouldered all foreign debts of the USSR in 1991. The West has given Russia all the breathing space in its foreign debt payment by offering several extensions of payments. The West likewise gave plenty of direct aid to Russia in those early post-USSR years.
Coming out from the Soviet economy and the collapse of the USSR, it was inevitable that Russia suffer economic hardships (it was already suffering economic hardships before the collapse of the USSR). The West can only do so much to help Russia, it was Russians themselves that should do the hard labor. But what did they do during those crucial years of transition? Russian corruption kicked in around Yeltsin and a lot of money that could have gone to the Russian government ended up enriching very few people, who brought out the money to Western countries.
On the issue of NATO membership, I think the West made the mistake of not letting Russia in formally (although it gave Russia an observer status in Brussels) in the early 1990s when Yeltsin asked for it. With Russia inside NATO then there's no reason for it to cry over NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. But NATO and Russia did enter into a sort of Council in the 1990s.
Don't stop. Keep entertaining us with your Midsummer Night's Dream.
The second time around, yes, they did.You should know that the West did not install Yeltsin.
Nope, not the second time. The elections were rigged, through and through. Keep peddling the State Department myth.The Russians chose him the first time and second time.
The west also could not control the Afghan Mujahideen, Al-Qaida, FSA, ISIS, that it created.The West just as now did not and cannot control Russia. Yeltsin being the Russian drunkard the he was absolutely was a disaster especially in his second term in office. Ultimately, Putin succeeded him after a bizarre sudden resignation of Yeltsin.
They did.BTW, the West did not sought the Eastward expansion of both EU and NATO.
Some did.It was Eastern European countries that courted these Western institutions to include them as members.
Not a fact, but another myth. Oh, those are neither independent nor sovereign, but vassal states.In fact, if only Putin do not point a Russian pistol into their heads, all of these remaining non-EU and non-NATO Eastern European "independent/sovereign countries" around Russia would have joined these Western institutions a long time ago.
Not all. They don't. Right now, I see eastern Ukraine trying to get together with Russia, after having rejected NATO in all polls since 1991.Now, with your vocal apologies for Putin's Russia, have you not asked why most if not all of Russia's neighbors want to get away from it and join the Western alliance?
Interesting video, the truth is that it takes 50 to 100 years for somebody ( china, india) to catch US militarily. Until then things will go on the way they have been for the last 70 years.
For India, I agree, but for PRC, I think they are much closer to catching up with the US. Their catching up is likely to accelerate now, given the current crisis.Interesting video, the truth is that it takes 50 to 100 years for somebody ( china, india) to catch US militarily. Until then things will go on the way they have been for the last 70 years.
If you call Finland and Sweden vassal states, you really know nothing about Europe. Yes, we have good relations with Russia. Why try to find difficulties when you dont have to. On the other hand our military is completely western (NATO) compatible. Russia knows where we stand.The second time around, yes, they did.
Nope, not the second time. The elections were rigged, through and through. Keep peddling the State Department myth.
The west also could not control the Afghan Mujahideen, Al-Qaida, FSA, ISIS, that it created.
They did.
Some did.
Not a fact, but another myth. Oh, those are neither independent nor sovereign, but vassal states.
Not all. They don't. Right now, I see eastern Ukraine trying to get together with Russia, after having rejected NATO in all polls since 1991.
I do not consider Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as vassals. I do consider some other non-EU and non-NATO countries, like Moldova, Ukraine (after the coup) and Georgia (under Saakashvili) as vassals. Georgia may be ignored, since the original comment was about Eastern Europe.If you call Finland and Sweden vassal states, you really know nothing about Europe. Yes, we have good relations with Russia. Why try to find difficulties when you dont have to. On the other hand our military is completely western (NATO) compatible. Russia knows where we stand.
No, we don't need to catch up with US militarily. The US military forces were designed for a worldwide dominance, which is obviously beyond American's economic capacity today. If US decides to keep its military advantage as today, the weight of its military cost will undermine its economic capacity as it did in last. However, the her economic system has been relying on the global dominance for last 40 years. So, any plan to downsize her military force will threat her dominance in every corner of this world, which will lead to the weakening of her economic basis. In return, this will undermine her military power further.Interesting video, the truth is that it takes 50 to 100 years for somebody ( china, india) to catch US militarily. Until then things will go on the way they have been for the last 70 years.
There is the magic formula KLPTD.Putin is in denial if he thinks China will deal with Russia on an equal footing. Things have changed dramatically in their relations since the USSR days. China has the upward momentum while Russia has the opposite. So Russia will not submit to being secondary to the West but will submit to China?