4 ms·

I concur. What he stood for was a more free, open, and democratic Russia. In reality, if Russia was more friendly with the west, it would be 100x more prosperou

by SEJeff 3y ago

I concur. What he stood for was a more free, open, and democratic Russia. In reality, if Russia was more friendly with the west, it would be 100x more prosperous. It is really a shame the old Chekists are still in charge. As large as the Russian Federation is in people and land mass, their economy would be an order of magnitude larger if it was ran better. Such a shame.

riehwvfbk 3y ago
Most Russians would disagree with you. The worst time (economically) for the vast majority of people was peak friendliness with the West under Yeltsin. Economically Russia was actually doing very well just before 2022.
- Rapzid 3y ago
  Sure but that was right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Takes some time and Putin himself was outwardly more cooperative with the West back in the day. Also in the USA congress makes the budget but the president always gets blame or credit for the economy(it's more complicated sure, but it all falls on the POTUS).
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Economically significant part of Russian population is doing quite well right now, thanks to generous military spending. Inequality dropped, working class is earning the money they have never seen before. Nevertheless I do not think this would in any way imply that they want to be in a state of war forever.
- SEJeff 3y ago
  My point was that Russia is a large extremely natural resource rich country. It has a lot of culture and a lot of people. It would be much better off exporting goods to the west instead of continuing the Cold War. It should in theory be able to export much more than just energy products to the west. America has a virtually infinite appetite for consumption and labor costs in Russia are quite low due to different standards of living. The problem of course is infrastructure rot and corruption have gutted much of the non Muskovy areas of the Russian federation. It’s a pipe dream that will never happen, but it would be a wonderful world where Russia is actually friendly with the west and loses their imperial ambitions.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    >The problem of course is infrastructure rot and corruption have gutted much of the non Muskovy areas of the Russian federation. Export infrastructure is in a very good shape (e.g. railroads, which are used for export of coal, grain etc, pipelines and container terminals) and there’s plenty of new manufacturing capacity there across the country. Russia does have industrial policy for import substitution since 2000s and managed to localize some production, so this is not really a problem. The real problem is the shortage of labor, the unemployment is already very low there. Just like in USA and Europe it is partially solved by the immigration from Global South, in this case from Central Asia. But this also means that skilled labor is not super-cheap. Russia can be a strong partner on some markets (energy, aerospace, IT) and can bring a lot of value in entrepreneurial culture and customer service (unknown to the West, but superior to anywhere else in Europe).
purecoolnesss 3y ago
Yeah I wouldn't say it would be 100x more prosperous. Look at the 90s under US puppet Yeltsin. That was the time to show how good cooperation with the west will be but didn't happen. Russia was treated as any South American or African country was treated. I'm not from Russia but heaps of westerners (not only US) came to buy up businesses and spread Christianity. They literally did nothing in terms of investments and creating institutions except for capturing mining rights. Although I would add that I personally think Russia has not really developed much in the last 10 years under him. He really needs to invest into changes.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  This is a very inaccurate picture of that period. Yeltsin wasn’t anyone’s puppet for sure and Russia was not treated as a colony. All economic struggles of that period happened for several purely internal reasons: transition from planning to market economy cannot happen instantly - a lot of processes had to adapt and recalibrate; rule of law was not established, because the legal system and law enforcement had to be reformed and a lot of new laws had to be written (e.g. modern law on bankruptcy was enacted only in 2000s IIRC); dissolution of USSR broke a lot of economic ties. The West actually helped a lot in that period of time, offering credits, even sending humanitarian aid. Western investment from major consumer brands like Unilever, Coca-Cola or P&G brought management skills and standards of work, entrepreneurial culture was heavily influenced by America etc.

by SEJeff 3y ago

riehwvfbk 3y ago

Most Russians would disagree with you. The worst time (economically) for the vast majority of people was peak friendliness with the West under Yeltsin. Economically Russia was actually doing very well just before 2022.

Rapzid 3y ago
Sure but that was right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Takes some time and Putin himself was outwardly more cooperative with the West back in the day. Also in the USA congress makes the budget but the president always gets blame or credit for the economy(it's more complicated sure, but it all falls on the POTUS).
ivan_gammel 3y ago
Economically significant part of Russian population is doing quite well right now, thanks to generous military spending. Inequality dropped, working class is earning the money they have never seen before. Nevertheless I do not think this would in any way imply that they want to be in a state of war forever.
SEJeff 3y ago
My point was that Russia is a large extremely natural resource rich country. It has a lot of culture and a lot of people. It would be much better off exporting goods to the west instead of continuing the Cold War. It should in theory be able to export much more than just energy products to the west. America has a virtually infinite appetite for consumption and labor costs in Russia are quite low due to different standards of living. The problem of course is infrastructure rot and corruption have gutted much of the non Muskovy areas of the Russian federation. It’s a pipe dream that will never happen, but it would be a wonderful world where Russia is actually friendly with the west and loses their imperial ambitions.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  >The problem of course is infrastructure rot and corruption have gutted much of the non Muskovy areas of the Russian federation. Export infrastructure is in a very good shape (e.g. railroads, which are used for export of coal, grain etc, pipelines and container terminals) and there’s plenty of new manufacturing capacity there across the country. Russia does have industrial policy for import substitution since 2000s and managed to localize some production, so this is not really a problem. The real problem is the shortage of labor, the unemployment is already very low there. Just like in USA and Europe it is partially solved by the immigration from Global South, in this case from Central Asia. But this also means that skilled labor is not super-cheap. Russia can be a strong partner on some markets (energy, aerospace, IT) and can bring a lot of value in entrepreneurial culture and customer service (unknown to the West, but superior to anywhere else in Europe).

purecoolnesss 3y ago

Yeah I wouldn't say it would be 100x more prosperous. Look at the 90s under US puppet Yeltsin. That was the time to show how good cooperation with the west will be but didn't happen. Russia was treated as any South American or African country was treated. I'm not from Russia but heaps of westerners (not only US) came to buy up businesses and spread Christianity. They literally did nothing in terms of investments and creating institutions except for capturing mining rights. Although I would add that I personally think Russia has not really developed much in the last 10 years under him. He really needs to invest into changes.

ivan_gammel 3y ago
This is a very inaccurate picture of that period. Yeltsin wasn’t anyone’s puppet for sure and Russia was not treated as a colony. All economic struggles of that period happened for several purely internal reasons: transition from planning to market economy cannot happen instantly - a lot of processes had to adapt and recalibrate; rule of law was not established, because the legal system and law enforcement had to be reformed and a lot of new laws had to be written (e.g. modern law on bankruptcy was enacted only in 2000s IIRC); dissolution of USSR broke a lot of economic ties. The West actually helped a lot in that period of time, offering credits, even sending humanitarian aid. Western investment from major consumer brands like Unilever, Coca-Cola or P&G brought management skills and standards of work, entrepreneurial culture was heavily influenced by America etc.