Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "The Ukraine War From Russia's Perspective" video.

@someonespotatohmm9513 Bruh, Russia DID put forward terms for NATO. Years ago and also just before this war. They have consistently been dismissed. Also the relevant strike time difference isn't between Europe and Russia, it's between the US and Russia. And the US' missiles are way closer to Russia than their missiles are to the US. Precisely because of the Cuban crisis you mentioned, where the US got its way, and yet is closer than ever to Russia today, and creeping ever more. There was no 'reasonable' option - NATO hasn't been in any hurry to seriously negotiate with Russia for the last thirty years.
4
@codercrisYT Ah yes, everyone who agrees with me is a free thinker and everyone who disagrees is a sheep. What an independent mind!
3
@codercrisYT We are living in the information era. So suck it up and deal with competing perspectives. You don't get to gatekeep what is and isn't propaganda.
3
You're naïve if you think Russia could ever do that. They have decades of resentment built up. Look at China and Japan - they haven't been at war in generations, and still hate each other. And besides, friendly relations with its neighbors would do nothing about the 800-pound American gorilla in the neighborhood. You'd be delusional if you thought that would ever get them to expel the US. Friendly relations is simply not an option - there's no way it could ever get Russia what it wants i.e. to make the US leave.
2
The EU isn't the problem, the US is. Good luck arguing the most trigger-happy country on Earth is 'chill'. Russia may even be okay with a European army, if the US isn't part of it (nor tied to it).
2
@burningphoenix6679 If you think invading Russia would be easy, then you're more overconfident than they could've ever been. The greatest military powers in history have invaded Russia time and again, and been destroyed for it. Hell the US got kicked out by a bunch of guerillas who weren't even being supplied by the world powers - not once but twice! Anyway befriending Europe does nothing about the presence of the US. It's worth noting that the US is a common factor - you want to blame Russia here, so who're you going to blame in East Asia? The Chinese? What about the ME? Iran? And so on. You keep blaming everyone else, when there's one country whose influence unites them all - America. Funny how that commonality doesn't strike you. Also funny how the US engaging in the largest wars this century (with a bigger death toll even individually than all of Russia's wars in the same timeframe COMBINED) and suffering no sanctions for it doesn't bother you. And how the US literally sanctioning the bloody head of the ICC herself for daring to initiate an investigation into its own war crimes doesn't bother you. Or how it literally has a law authorizing an invasion of the Hague should an American be tried there doesn't bother you. Or another law mandating sanctions on independent nations simply based on who they choose to trade with doesn't bother you. And so on. Yeah, friendship sure is magic in your world. Cos apparently it makes hypocrisy and hegemony magically disappear. Russia, and for that matter China, has to be a superpower because they have a superpower as a rival. One who's shown aplenty that it will take action, military or otherwise, to keep them down. And bases all around them to ensure it can do so. But of course it is the nature of the status quo to be taken for granted, no matter how ridiculously lopsided it is.
2
@burningphoenix6679 Also it isn't your business what regime sovereign nations have. You've launched many a war using that paternalistic excuse. It harkens back to the old 'white man's burden', updated for the 21st century but still catering to western egos and justifying their aggression. But worse than that, you aren't even honest about it - the US has happily had many an autocratic ally, and has even supported some of their wars (Indonesia in East Timor, Saudi Arabia in Yemen now, etc.). Hell it's even installed autocrats of its own (Gautemala, Chile, etc.), and opposed popular forces if they were inimical to its interests (communists, islamists, etc.). You take the fact that you get away with all your shit entirely too much for granted, imagining that means said shit was somehow ethical. Just as Russia could have befriended Europe, the US could have stopped impinging itself all over the globe anytime. But it never did, and continues to not do so. Before this war, it was busily provoking China, and that's right after it finished trashing the ME (and has a storied history in Latin America). The US could also choose to be 'friendly', but it doesn't. It gets away with it cos its strong, and then we have hypocrites like you blaming other nations for caring about strength. If the US were as strong as Canada it'd never get away with even a tenth of the shit it does.
2
@joshuabenton3785 Ironically the Russian economy grew the most under Putin. There's a reason why he has high approval ratings even by foreign surveys. In contrast, the leader Russians hate most was feted by the west - Yeltsin. Anyway, China has made itself into a powerful economy just as you advise and guess what - the US is picking a fight with them too, and similarly has forces arrayed against them. And this for a nation that hasn't been to war in nearly half a century, versus a nation that exited its latest war just last year. Stop talking down to Russia or anyone else while the US gets a pass - a nation that upsets US hegemony will find some reason or the other put forth for why it needs to be curtailed. Now you have the nation who's long had good relations with autocrats all over the world even including supporting some of their wars (Indonesia in East Timor before, KSA in Yemen, etc.) and even installed some of its own (Gautemala, Chile, etc.) trying to sell this whole thing as a great battle between 'democracy versus dictatorships' lol. Even as the west forges deals with a bunch of dictators right as they say that in order to secure alternate oil supplies. There's always an excuse, and it usually caters to the western egos of seeing themselves as the heroes as well. You've been doing it ever since the days of the 'white man's burden', just changing the words every century to suit the times but always putting yourselves at the top. So no, Russia never had a chance to be a strong nation without force - if not in Ukraine, then elsewhere. The US would never let it. They would only be let be if they bowed down to US hegemony like Europe and Japan did. And neither Russia nor China is in any mind to do that. WW3 is more likely.
2
The Baltics only like NATO cos the US leads it, and Russia hates NATO cos the US leads it. Which means NATO relies on the US maintaining its hegemony. If that ever falters, NATO will fall with it. A new European Army may arise to replace it, but it'll be highly divided by infighting and mistrust. Btw, China's issues also center around US hegemony. The entire western house of cards revolves around and relies on US hegemony, and ever more non-western nations are increasingly against said hegemony.
2
You're naïve if you think Russia could ever do that. They have decades of resentment built up. Look at China and Japan - they haven't been at war in generations, and still hate each other. And besides, friendly relations with its neighbors would do nothing about the 800-pound American gorilla in the neighborhood. You'd be delusional if you thought that would ever get them to expel the US. Friendly relations is simply not an option - there's no way it could ever get Russia what it wants i.e. to make the US leave.
2
@Bitchslapper316 They are cracking whips on the non-western world though. The west has sanctioned plenty of nations, and even individuals - most of those targets were not over wars. Hell America sanctioned the previous head of the ICC - a black woman - for daring to launch a war crimes investigation into Afghanistan. You're naive if you think that ever went away.
2
@juch3 Except Russia didn't invade Finland, for generations, cos Finland kept itself neutral. When did Ukraine get invaded? When it stopped being neutral.
2
@juch3 I see someone doesn't know how long a generation is. That's okay, I can see English isn't your first language lmao
2
@juch3 12 year old huh? Is that your own age? Wouldn't surprise me, since you still seem confused how long a generation is.
2
@POCLEE Ever thought of America doing that? Russia might even do so itself if America did that too.
2
@elnur0047 No that's just what you lot try to get away with your shit with. Nothing happens when you do your shit, and then you complain when people remind you of it when you act all high and mighty when attacking them. You're conveniently mum when it's your turn to face justice, which never comes. The biggest wars this century weren't Russian, but American. And they were before this war, yet you still haven't been brought to book for it. And now you act like Russia has to face justice at once, when you haven't faced justice for decades. Whataboutism is just a convenient label for you people to dodge being called out as hypocrites. Even the Wikipedia page for it has a section pointing out that tactic, not that you'd know that since you seem only good for repeating standard buzzwords.
2
@AB-nm7vy There is no balance of powers atm. There hasn't been since 1990, and currently the reigning hegemon is doing all it can to ensure China can't change that fact either. Which means there's no peace to look forward to.
1
@stephenjenkins7971 Lol you had to go all the back to the Mongols to find success? Russia barely even existed at the time. If you want to believe Russia's conventional army is a joke, feel free. That's likely what they'd want. As the saying goes on pride...
1
@stephenjenkins7971 4 paragraphs all to repeat the same empty assertion. You acknowledged the prior defeats, and even earlier acknowledged that the US would be kicked out as well. So what're you even arguing for? Oh right, few casualties. Yeah right. Try it and find out. You'd be marching on the graves of millions who've failed before. Plus the US has shown that it can't stomach much casualties. So maybe you're right - they probably would have few casualties, cos they'd turn tail and pull out as soon as casualties start rising.
1
@crispybacon261 It's hard to successfully invade Russia, which is different from being able to invade it. And anyway it isn't so much that NATO will invade Russia as it is that America will strangle it, which they already did to the Soviet Union before and are trying to do to China now. From their perspective it's important that the west be told to back off as death by a thousand cuts i.e. a relentless encirclement, is still death. Ironically a full scale invasion would likely work out better for them, and terribly for Europe, although America as usual gets to sit pretty far away no matter how it goes.
1
@stephenjenkins7971 Oh they'll be secure until WW3 eventually breaks out, likely involving China as well. However that war goes, they'll all be targets. Meanwhile neutral nations will likely escape the devastation and reap the benefits after. You can keep playing with fire if you want. Don't complain when you end up burned for it.
1
@stephenjenkins7971 Lmao we've never relied on the west precisely because we know how capricious it is. That's why we have nukes (and ate western sanctions for it) and one of the strongest armies in the world. Meanwhile the supposed champion of democracy took our enemies' side whenever it suited them, including when it was massacring Bengalis (no strangers to western atrocities, given that 3 million of them were starved for your stupid war) who were fighting for their own freedom. So spare us your spiel. The US' wars in the 2000s even individually have death tolls higher than all of Russia's wars in the same time period combined. Power is all you care about, which is why you're antagonistic to a rising power in the east despite it not having gone to war for nearly half a century (while you just exited one of your wars last year) and why your military alliance persisted despite the ostensible reason for its existence collapsing 30 years ago. Power is why the US has over 800 foreign bases while raising alarms about other nations opening ONE. It's why they have not just the highest military spending in the world, but also the highest PER CAPITA (which adjusts for economy size). Power is why the US has happily allied itself with autocrats aplenty when convenient, including supporting their far worse wars (Indonesia in East Timor, KSA in Yemen today, etc.) and stood against democracy when inconvenient (communists, islamists, whatever other excuse) and even installed some of their own (Gautemala, Chile, etc.) who've gone on to commit atrocities as well. Power is why the US literally sanctioned the head of the goddamn ICC for daring to open an inquiry into their crimes in Afghanistan, and has a law to literally invade the Hague in case an American ever gets put on trial there. And another law to sanction countries for simply having the temerity of choosing who they want to trade with, if those nations happen to be US rivals. Power is why America has been at war for most of its history, and with millions of corpses as a testament to it. Spare me your spiel about atrocities. We don't have anything like your track record, which is why we see through all the bullshit rhetoric. We may be partnering with you on China, but that's simply due to mutual concerns. Don't mistake that for reliance, we'd never make the mistake of relying on a partner with so fickle a history. Even now, as it lets Ukraine burn while exploiting the situation without getting its hands dirty and engaging in moral grandstanding to boot.
1
@crispybacon261 That expands their economy, not their influence. Not much anyway. Would Nordstream 2 have enabled Russia to get the US out of Europe, or even Germany? No, then it's not much of a rise. Similarly has China's trade with the west enabled it to have its claims on Taiwan and the South China Sea recognized? Also no, and in fact the west is becoming ever more antagonistic on those despite the massive trade ties. Did the US manage to pull off regime change in Iraq? Yep, and they didn't do it through trade, or even sanctions. Soft power is just a feel-good phrase people keep tossing out as a magical 'solution' that does nothing. There's a reason geopolitics is still quite cutthroat, cos soft power has some pretty hard limits. Norway has all the soft power you could ever want, and yet there's little it can show for it apart from cute stories of supporting ethical business or some shit. Meanwhile the US has loads of hard power and literally shapes world politics, and it ain't through Hollywood. They invest more than the next ten nations combined into their hard power - there's good reason for that. Cos soft power is soft. I can guarantee you that had Russia's war machine proven more effective than it has, and the US not stepped up to challenge it as much as it has, they wouldn't be acting anywhere near as belligerent. Some would, but others would be seeking conciliation. Cos ultimately all that soft power they keep harping on about is underpinned by a big American stick. And now, in contrasting to your point, they're even looking to develop a big stick of their own as well. So much for soft power.
1
@crispybacon261 There's a difference between soft power and simply having a strong economy. Russia did invest in her economy - she was growing well right up until 2014, after which she switched to trying to make herself as sanction resistant as possible. Maybe the war was premature, maybe it wasn't. But the point is that war IS how you effect major change, not soft power. For what Russia wants, a war is necessary at some point. Ditto China. And don't kid yourself into thinking the world will side with China when the time comes - economics isn't everything and hasn't ever been. Countries not involved may still trade with it, but they aren't gonna fight with it. NATO doesn't exist just cos America is a major trading partner for Europe. But that's true of Russia too - these supposedly global sanctions are actually from just 45 nations, almost all of which are western. The only non-western nations participating are the wests' allies S. Korea and Japan, as well as Singapore. That leaves about 150 odd nations that're mostly keeping out of it, as they don't see this war as much different from the wests' own wars. The reason they're seemingly unprecedented is only cos of how lopsided the global economic structure is, with the dollar/euro having been placed at the center of international trade. The same will likely be true of China's war. All these same nations will be sanctioning China in case of war as well, and others will likely again not participate. China's largest trade partner is the US, and yet the US is also the most antagonistic to China. Anyway, I'm not arguing that an economy isn't needed for war, but that soft power doesn't enable you to make big change - you need hard power to do that. And Putin's approval ratings may have peaked a few years ago, but they were still higher than, say, Bidens' have ever been. That's a very unlikely reason for the war. There are far likelier candidates - a desire for regime change in Ukraine, Ukraine's oil and gas reserves, securing water supply for Crimea that Ukraine blocked, etc.
1
@crispybacon261 Not really. Those numbers hold even for international surveys of the population. Statista, which is German, put his approval at over 70% even before the war. Those aren't the sort of numbers to ever threaten any kind of popular rebuke. And even now it's holding up. And this is in an autocratic nation, where the leader is even less vulnerable to being unseated. For comparison Biden's approval rating sits at about 40% i.e. less than half the country likes him. Putin's position was very secure. I mean sure, it could be a reason for the war, but it just doesn't seem very likely compared to the myriad other possible reasons for them going to war.
1
Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukraine was poorer than Russia even before the war. Soft power won't get Russia what it wants. Friendly relations with its neighbors would do nothing about the 800-pound American gorilla in the neighborhood. You'd be delusional if you thought that would ever get them to expel the US. Friendly relations is simply not an option - there's no way it could ever allow Russia to convince them to push the US out, leaving them with only the hard option. Btw, the same is true for China, so be ready.
1
@TorianTammas Oh they'll be 'safe' until WW3 eventually breaks out, likely involving China as well. However that war goes, they'll all be targets. Meanwhile neutral nations will likely escape the devastation and reap the benefits after. You can keep playing with fire if you want. Don't complain when you end up burned for it.
1
@meilinchan7314 Peter the Great went to war aplenty. EU or no EU, even Peter the Great would've had misgivings about submitting to American hegemony.
1
@雷-t3j European peace is paid for by a dominant empire, the American one. And Russia's issues all center around said empire. As does China's btw. More war to look forward to, as that empire's dominance is attacked again and again and again.
1
You're naïve if you think Russia could ever do that. They have decades of resentment built up. Look at China and Japan - they haven't been at war in generations, and still hate each other. And besides, friendly relations with its neighbors would do nothing about the 800-pound American gorilla in the neighborhood. You'd be delusional if you thought that would ever get them to expel the US. Friendly relations is simply not an option - there's no way it could ever get Russia what it wants i.e. to make the US leave.
1
@barreloffun10 Russia likely has considered it, as has China. Both concluded it isn't an option as long as America reigns.
1
@POCLEE Ah yes, vanity. Now how does the rest of that saying go...? Britain was a "AAA-superpower" less than a century ago, and look at it now. All it took was a world war. And the way things are heading, a world war is looking increasingly more likely as the US accumulates ever more enemies.
1
@POCLEE Lol, they didn't 'give it up', they didn't have a choice. They were utterly exhausted by war, and now had two new superpowers to adjust to. They were even shown their diminished status during the Suez Crisis. Even so they have still held on to what power they could, especially France which continues to maintain informal control of west Africa (incidentally not too different from what Russia was content to do with eastern Europe). They simply don't get called out for their shit cos they're in America's boys club. You have a very romanticized view of modern history lol. You're watching a geopolitics channel and yet seriously believe in the idea of nations being ethical entities seeking to be nice? In that case I suggest you look into the history of decolonization for starters. It wasn't sunshine and rainbows. Just like the world wars that finally brought it to a head, it was an often brutal and bloody process, even well into the the 20th century. Change was forced upon Europe, it wasn't allowed.
1
@natopor No, but cos the US did bad things it ought to be under heavy sanctions too. So why isn't it? What's your clever justification for that gonna be? And mind that those things precede this war, so the US should've already been punished.
1
@elnur0047 It isn't whataboutism to point out that the US gets away with all its shit. Where are the sanctions on America? You don't get to let the US off and then pretend the moral high ground against Russia.
1
@natopor Bub you can go on about the US being infallible all you want, that's just sidestepping the issue. Plus you just made the case for might makes right, so don't even try criticizing Russia now. You're avoiding admitting to hypocrisy by pretending it's okay cos the US is strong. That's revealing. You can't bring yourself to say it - that the US deserves to be punished just as Russia is being. So you'll dance around the topic with every sidetrack you can think of to avoid admitting to any guilt. I suppose we'll have to wait for the next world war to see if that upturns the status quo and maybe then we'll see the US face justice (not that I'm hopeful of that - it's not like the Europeans ever faced justice for their myriad horrors, save Germany). At least America is making said world war ever more likely as it makes enemies all over the world (Russia, China, Iran,...).
1
@natopor Oh and btw that girl should've ratted you all out. And if you had any decency, which apparently you don't since you just admitted to cheating, you'd have stood and admitted to it before she even did so. But no, you enjoyed getting away with it, as does the US. For now...
1