Comments by "dark room ambience" (@DarkRoomAmbience) on "" video.

Firstly, lets clarify that NATO and the EU, while they share some member states, are distinct entities with different purposes and policies. NATO is a defensive military alliance, while the EU is primarily an economic and political union. The argument that NATO generals are being forced into a position of conflict due to EU aid to Ukraine conflates the roles and responsibilities of these two organizations. Regarding the obligation to support Ukraine, it is not just a matter of formal alliances. The international community, including EU countries, has a broader commitment to uphold international law and support sovereign nations' territorial integrity. The aggression against Ukraine is a violation of these principles. Therefore, support for Ukraine transcends NATO obligations and aligns with a broader commitment to international norms and the defense of democratic sovereignty. The depiction of Ukraine's military efforts and strategy is also overly simplistic and pessimistic. While it's true that there have been challenges and setbacks, Ukraine has demonstrated significant resilience and tactical adaptability. The characterisation of Ukraine's actions as "terrorism" is a misrepresentation that ignores the context of a nation defending its sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion. Your characterization of "civilian targets" in Ukraine, specifically referring to oil refineries, strikes me as a deliberate and consequential distortion. This narrative unfairly casts Ukraine's actions in a negative light, portraying Russia as a victim. It's disconcerting to see such a portrayal, knowing the strategic significance of oil refineries in military contexts. By using the term "civilian targets," there's an implicit appeal to emotion, potentially leading readers to misconstrue Ukraine's actions as attacks on non-combatants. The discussion about Hungary and the EU's relationship with its member states overlooks the foundational principles of the EU. The EU operates on a consensus basis and its actions, especially in foreign policy, are the result of agreements among member states. It's not a question of tyranny or unelected bureaucrats imposing decisions; rather, it's a collective stance taken by member states through a democratic process. Lastly, the idea that the EU and NATO are "pouring gasoline on a fire" by supporting Ukraine ignores the broader implications of not supporting Ukraine. If international norms and the sovereignty of nations can be so easily violated without a significant response, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further instability and conflict in the future. The support for Ukraine is not just about this specific conflict but about upholding a world order based on rules and mutual respect among nations.
5
The assertion that Russia and the EU would harmoniously coexist if not for the involvement of the US is a simplistic view that overlooks the complex history and geopolitical dynamics in the region. Historically, the relationship between Russia and various European states has been fraught with tension, conflict and mutual suspicion, a reality that predates significant US involvement in European affairs. The roots of Russia / EU tensions can be traced back centuries and are not primarily the result of US actions. For instance, the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century, the Crimean War in the 1850s and the First World War are all examples of direct conflicts between Russia and European powers. These conflicts were driven by territorial ambitions, political ideologies and strategic interests. In more recent history, the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a new era of relations. Eastern European countries wanting to join the EU and NATO was driven in part by the desire of those countries, previously under Soviet influence, to integrate with Western institutions - a choice influenced by their own historical oppression from Russia, rather than US coercion.
4
@PavolFilek The US is the world's largest producer of oil and gas, surpassing Russia. The mention of "15x more" probably refers to Russia's untapped oil reserves, which are located in remote areas. These reserves remain largely unexploited due to Russias lack of advanced Western technology and expertise required for extraction. These unextracted reserves do not contribute to actual production. The production of minerals such as gold, uranium, plutonium, nickel, magnesium, lithium, cobalt and manganese is not exclusive to Russia, nor is Russia the largest producer of these materials. Nations like Canada and Australia also produce these minerals, with Australia notably producing more than Russia despite having a population that is only 1/6th the size.
3
Firstly, the assertion that Europe is equipped with 20th-century warfare infrastructure is incorrect. European nations, many of which are NATO members, have been continuously updating and modernizing their military capabilities. This includes investments in advanced technology such as cyber warfare capabilities, satellite communications, and 5th gen fighter jets. More advanced than anything Russia has built. Regarding Russia's military capabilities and industrial capacity, youre overestimating Russia's advancements in 21st-century warfare. While Russia has indeed invested in modernizing its military with western components, it faces significant challenges now. Western sanctions, imposed in response to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensified after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, have severely impacted Russia's economy and its military-industrial complex. Sanctions have restricted access to crucial Western components necessary for advanced military manufacturing, leading Russia to seek alternatives from nations like Iran and North Korea. This does not indicate an expansion of Russia's industrial capacity; rather, it shows a forced adaptation to a shrinking pool of resources and technology. Russia's economic situation contradicts the notion of a burgeoning industrial capability. The economy is struggling with high inflation, failing demography, diminishing foreign investment and a shrinking GDP. The war in Ukraine has exacerbated these issues, leading to further isolation from global financial systems and markets. The claim of Russia developing a large veteran force is also ridiculous. Yes, the Russian military has indeed seen extensive combat experience in recent years. However, the conflict in Ukraine has resulted in significant Russian casualties, with estimates suggesting over 300,000 troops lost. This extraordinarily high casualty rate, combined with morale issues and logistical challenges, undermines the idea of a robust and experienced military force.
3
While you position yourself as a neutral observer, your analysis often appears to lean significantly towards a pro-Russian perspective, while casting Western actions in a less favorable light. For a more efficient and transparent discourse, it might be more straightforward to explicitly state your general stance as 'West = bad, Russia = good,' rather than extending this underlying sentiment over several paragraphs. Maintaining intellectual honesty and clarity in your position would be beneficial for all readers and contribute to a more forthright discussion.
3
@A.Hunter279 Blackmail Regarding the claim that the EU bullies or blackmails member states into agreement, the EU, like any political entity, has mechanisms to ensure compliance with its rules and agreements. Actions perceived as 'threats' or 'sanctions' are often part of a legal and regulatory framework agreed upon by all member states, including Hungary. These measures are not necessarily undemocratic; rather, they reflect a commitment to uphold commonly agreed principles and rules. When looking at the EU's dealings with Hungary, it's clear that Hungary often stands alone in vetoing actions against Russia. Notably, Hungary hosts a significant number of Russian "diplomats", more than any other European nation. This correlation raises questions about Hungary's consistent alignment with Russian interests during EU (and NATO) deliberations. Historically, the EU has employed carrots to engage Hungary, but recent strategies appear to have shifted towards more sticks. Hungary seems to use its veto power as a bargaining chip, demanding money and threatening to block decisions, that's the blackmail. Democratic EU The position that the EU is led by unelected bureaucrats overlooks the complex and multi-layered nature of EU governance. The European Commission, while not directly elected by the populace, is accountable to the European Parliament, which is elected by EU citizens. The Commission's composition, with one member per country, aims to ensure equal representation rather than to reflect population size. This approach is common in federal systems, where the representation of member states in some institutions is not always proportional to their population. I agree that Germany and Hungary having an equal vote in EU decisions seems imbalanced, considering Germany's status as the EU's largest economy and its substantial population. It often feels like Germany's influence is equated to that of Hungary, which is a net-negative to the EU's economy. While this might not seem fair, it's also a safeguard against any single country dominating the EU. Doesn't this approach represent a more democratic way to maintain balance and equality among member states, something you appear to be vigorously advocating for? Lest we forget that the EU is a union of sovereign states that have chosen to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty for mutual benefit. This pooling of sovereignty is based on treaties and agreements freely entered into by its member states. Globalist EU The claim that the EU predominantly supports a 'globalist ideology' and opposes conservative or nationalist viewpoints is a matter of perspective. The EU's policies often reflect a balance between different political ideologies and interests. It's a union of diverse countries, each with its own political spectrum. The EU's stance on issues like sovereignty and national decision-making is more nuanced than a simple opposition to these principles. Leftist EU The core EU principles like human rights, equality and the rule of law are not inherently aligned with any specific political ideology, whether leftist or otherwise. These principles have been central to the United Nations and NATO countries for over 80 years, transcending political boundaries and ideologies. They have historically been embraced by a broad spectrum of political groups, including both traditional conservatives and liberals. The recent portrayal of these principles as being in opposition to a "conservative" ideology represents a shift in political narratives rather than a fundamental change in the nature of these values. Traditionally, conservative philosophies have often upheld the rule of law, individual rights and a balanced approach to equality as cornerstones of a stable and prosperous society. The current perception that these principles are solely 'leftist' is a relatively new development and does not reflect the long-standing consensus that these values are universal and foundational to democratic governance.
3
@warzy01 Someones jelly
1
Jee wizz, not another anti-western, pro-Russian analysis that places all the blame on the west and absolves Russia of any wrongdoing. Why am I not surprised? Firstly, let's clarify that NATO and the EU, while they share some member states, are distinct entities with different purposes and policies. NATO is a defensive military alliance, while the EU is primarily an economic and political union. The argument that NATO generals are being forced into a position of conflict due to EU aid to Ukraine conflates the roles and responsibilities of these two organizations. Regarding the obligation to support Ukraine, it is not just a matter of formal alliances. The international community, including EU countries, has a broader commitment to uphold international law and support sovereign nations' territorial integrity. The aggression against Ukraine is a violation of these principles. Therefore, support for Ukraine transcends NATO obligations and aligns with a broader commitment to international norms and the defense of democratic sovereignty. The depiction of Ukraine's military efforts and strategy is also overly simplistic and pessimistic. While it's true that there have been challenges and setbacks, Ukraine has demonstrated significant resilience and tactical adaptability. The characterisation of Ukraine's actions as "terrorism" is a misrepresentation that ignores the context of a nation defending its sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion. The discussion about Hungary and the EU's relationship with its member states overlooks the foundational principles of the EU. The EU operates on a consensus basis, and its actions, especially in foreign policy, are the result of agreements among member states. It's not a question of tyranny or unelected bureaucrats imposing decisions; rather, it's a collective stance taken by member states through a democratic process. Lastly, the idea that the EU and NATO are "pouring gasoline on a fire" by supporting Ukraine ignores the broader implications of not supporting Ukraine. If international norms and the sovereignty of nations can be so easily violated without a significant response, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further instability and conflict in the future. The support for Ukraine is not just about this specific conflict but about upholding a world order based on rules and mutual respect among nations.
1
@A.Hunter279 I agree with the perspective that the EUs immigration policies have had adverse impacts on societal and criminal stability. The open-door policies adopted by countries such as Sweden, Germany and France have introduced significant challenges in integrating individuals who may not fully align with liberal-democratic values, leading to heightened tensions within these societies.They will have those problems for generations. EUs immigration policies can be seen as precarious, underscoring a broader critique of its naivety in geopolitical matters. For instance, the EU's response to the Russian threat, especially after the illegal annexation of Crimea, highlighted a lack of strategic foresight. Despite the evident aggression, Germany notably increased its trade relations with Russia, reflecting a broader European difficulty in recognizing and addressing long-term threats effectively. The EU are like children, if the US turns its back on them for 5 minutes, they end up wandering off into traffic and we have to chase after them before its too late. It is conceivable to ponder the extent to which, without US leadership, their integration with Russia might have deepened over time. Such a trajectory could have seen them approaching a level of union where the distinction between the two entities blurred, virtually rendering them indistinguishable from one another.
1
@A.Hunter279 Lets acknowledge the strategic misstep Germany made by becoming overly reliant on Russian energy. This dependency not only exposed Germany to geopolitical risks but also compromised its sovereignty in energy matters. No country should place itself in such a vulnerable position; history is replete with examples where over-dependency on a single foreign energy source leads to significant geopolitical and economic consequences. Germany's situation serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of entangling critical national infrastructure and manufacturing with geopolitical adversaries. The repercussions of this dependency were starkly revealed when Russia used energy supplies as a geopolitical lever (multiple times), especially during times of tension. Over a period of 15 years, Germany not only neglected to address its excessive dependence on Russian energy but, in a display of naivety, further intensified this reliance by significantly expanding its energy imports from Russia Your point about the economic model of Germany being based on the availability of cheap energy is well taken. The reliance on cheap Russian gas did indeed make German industries more competitive globally. However, the transition away from Russian energy, while challenging, is not insurmountable for Germany. The country's prowess in high tech manufacturing, education and medicine positions it well to adapt to these new circumstances. German ingenuity and resilience should not be underestimated in finding sustainable and diversified energy solutions that can support its economic model without compromising national security or sovereignty. The disruption faced by grain farmers in Poland and France can be directly attributed to Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain shipments. This action by Russia has significantly impacted the agricultural sectors of these countries by flooding their markets with cheap Ukrainian grain, unable to reach its traditional global markets due to the blockade. This situation arises not from any legitimate grievances Russia may claim against Ukraine or the West, including issues related to "NATO expansion" or other purported concerns. Instead, the blockade and its consequences are an unnecessary, but strategic move by Russia. I agree the ideal solution involving a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine and the establishment of a democratic government in Russia is undoubtedly desirable.
1