George Lewis9 As specified by George Lewis9:
You have strayed quite far from the mark; to even begin discussing the demand for high-end products like BMWs or Intel processors, one must first possess a stable, foundational population. To sustain such a population, you require a robust agricultural sector as your bedrock, and in this modern era, agriculture is simply impossible without advanced mechanization. Unlike North Korea, the Russian Federation possesses the capacity to manufacture its own machinery, leveraging its own vast natural resources, domestic expertise, and labor force. There is absolutely no need to rely on imports when it comes to that specific necessity.
I find myself unable to concur with the notion that Russia can maintain an independent agricultural sector, given that they remain fundamentally reliant on imports from NATO nations for the vast majority of their needs. How can one possibly claim self-sufficiency when the very foundation of their food supply depends so heavily on Western trade?
I have addressed this matter on numerous occasions within this specific PDF thread, so I am providing the link to that discussion once again.
Is there anything more transparently absurd than the current obsession with "import substitution"? We are told, with such practiced solemnity, that we can simply conjure entire industrial ecosystems out of thin air to replace foreign goods, yet any rational observer can see this for the elaborate fiction it truly is. How can a nation expect to achieve self-sufficiency when the very foundations of its supply chains remain tethered to global markets? We hear these grand proclamations from officials who seem to believe that decreeing a product "domestic" somehow magically imbues it with quality or independent origin. It is a delusion of the highest order. When you strip away the patriotic rhetoric, what are we actually left with? A collection of rebranded imports, perhaps? Or worse, a hollowed-out manufacturing sector struggling to mimic the sophisticated technology of Western giants like Intel or Lockheed Martin without the requisite intellectual property or specialized components? Can we honestly pretend that replacing a high-tech component from a major US corporation with a locally assembled imitation—which likely relies on the same sub-components sourced from overseas—constitutes true economic sovereignty? It is nothing more than a shell game designed to soothe the anxieties of policymakers while doing little to bolster actual domestic innovation. To suggest otherwise isn't just optimistic; it is an affront to anyone with a basic understanding of global economics. Are we meant to applaud this theater of substitution, or should we call it what it really is: a desperate attempt to mask systemic vulnerabilities under the guise of independence?Is this truly how we intend to begin? Does one simply present the introductory portion of an article without any sense of gravity or structural integrity? It seems we are expected to accept such a superficial opening as if it were a complete thought, yet where is the substance? Where is the intellectual rigor required to actually engage a reader? One cannot help but wonder if the entire endeavor is destined to be as hollow as this initial segment suggests.
Since 2014, officials have been peddling the narrative that by banning food imports from the EU, Russia has successfully managed to almost entirely replace foreign products with domestic production. They even went so far as to claim they had become a leading global exporter of agricultural goods. But wasn't this entire concept of import substitution merely a clever illusion? When one looks closer, does it not become obvious that the machinery, the spare parts, the advanced technologies, the pesticides, the seeds, the poultry stock, and even the bovine genetics are all still being imported from NATO nations? Is it truly self-sufficiency if you are still tethered to the West for the very tools required to produce your own food?
Is it truly feasible to discuss the concept of import substitution when that very strategy is built upon the foundation of continued imports? One must wonder if we are merely chasing our own tails in this economic cycle. How can an administration claim to be fostering domestic independence while simultaneously relying on foreign goods to fuel the very industries meant to replace them? It seems less like a strategic shift toward self-sufficiency and more like a circular, redundant exercise in fiscal futility.
Is it not a profound irony that our domestic agricultural products bear a striking resemblance to something like a Lada X-Ray—an assembly where forty percent of the components originate in Romania and the processing power relies on Elbrus chips manufactured in Taiwan? We find ourselves in a position where we must import hatching eggs and live chicks just to raise Russian broilers and layers; indeed, back in 2019, imports accounted for a staggering ninety-eight percent of all breeding material. These vital supplies are shipped to Russia by German firm Aviagen and the American giant Cobb-Vantress. And now, what do we see? Those very same nations have imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation which, while ostensibly exempting food supplies, effectively paralyze the industry by prohibiting both the transport of eggs and the financial transactions required to pay for them. Is this not a calculated strangulation of a vital sector?
It stands to reason that an automobile manufacturer possesses the inherent capacity to produce such components independently. Why should they rely on external suppliers when the infrastructure for self-sufficiency is already within their grasp?
Their entire automotive industry has completely collapsed. Now, they’ve resorted to churning out Moskvitch cars simply because they lack the capacity to produce anything better.
brightheron64 said:Really?
The United States imposed sanctions in the 1950s and ramped them up significantly following various international bombings targeting South Korea by North Korean agents throughout the 1980s,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancti...st_North_Korea
Where exactly did I claim that sanctions weren't imposed? My point was quite clear: the development of a nuclear arsenal was the sole guarantee of the regime's survival, not some direct byproduct of the sanctions themselves. Is that not an undeniable fact?
Your assertion that the nuclear program is merely a byproduct of sanctions is, to say the least, highly debatable and lacks any shred of empirical evidence. How can you possibly maintain the position that North Korea would not have pursued nuclear weaponry if it weren't for those specific sanctions—sanctions which, as you conveniently admitted earlier, were implemented for entirely different motivations altogether?