Comments by "Robert Atkins" (@robertatkins9419) on "Putin is 'running out of road' as his army lies in ruins | Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon" video.

Can I get some clarification from someone? If Hamish is correct to say that the Russian army 'lies in ruins', then surely the claim made by Rutte yesterday, and Schapps last week - that 'if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine it won't stop there' - can't possibly be right, can it?
74
@Norbert2470 Well, I still say that both these things cannot be true. Either Russia's army is 'in ruins' - in which case it cannot possible pose a threat to the rest of Europe, whatever happens in Ukraine - or it poses an 'existential threat' to Europe if it prevails in Ukraine. Both of those cannot be true, so which one is it?
14
@jameswood3689 Okay, so now we've gone from 'a decade or more' to '3-5 years'. Either way. that is not an 'existential threat' - such a threat is, by definition, imminent.
5
@smithcoleman-w3e Okay, but that has to mean that the phrase 'existential threat' must be wrong. Something which is possible 'a decade out, or more', is something which can be prepared for, and is therefore NOT an 'existential threat'.
4
@dirkhouben9960 Can't argue with that - a man after my own heart.
4
@stream2watch Why the perverse need to scatter your comments with arrogant insults? Was that your experience growing up? If so, you have my sympathy.
3
@AuralioCabal Your error is to be found in the phrase 'the Ukrainians have claimed'. And another error is in your clam that Russia is 'fielding tanks from WW2 and the 1950s. Only if you can start to conceive of the possibility that the western main media has been lying to you will you have a more accurate picture. Are you able to do that?
3
@egertonmark But it wasn't self-destructive. as you'd know if you'd been getting accurate information during this conflict rather than the propaganda spewed out on this disgusting channel
3
@stream2watch As I said, you are incapable of conversing in a civilized way. But hey, if you really need to tell yourself that I've made a 'concession' then you go ahead. I hope that you realize, though, that what you're communicating in all your comments is a condition of profound stress, if not outright panic. And then the question is - what's that about?
3
@pouncet1683 But '5-10 years' is not 'imminent', is it. And we are all constantly told that the threat from Russia is 'imminent', particularly, or essentially, if they are 'allowed to win in Ukraine'. So my first question still hasn't been answered, and there is a palpable contradiction going on here.
2
@stream2watch No, what's 'ludicrous' is your cheating pretentious way of answering without answering.
2
@stream2watch I have thought about it, and I can't resolve the apparent contradiction. But if it's so straightforward to you then you should have no difficulty explaining it - so please go ahead.
2
@t7s-b6x So if, as it seems, you are affirming that for Russia to expand beyond Ukraine would pose 'a substantial problem' for them, why would Russia engage in something that was so obviously self-destructive?
2
@stream2watch No, you explain it
2
@pouncet1683 I'm afraid that your bigotry leads you to have a hopelessly distorted view of Russia.
2
@egertonmark Of course what was?
2
@robwalker4548 Why do you simply assume that China is going to 'take Taiwan'? Think before you post.
2
@stream2watch And you are incapable of conversing in a civilized manner, which must mean that you are incapable of sustaining any meaningful human relationship - how terribly tragic for you.
1
@stream2watch As a matter of fact - pretentious creep - what counts in this rhetoric is not whether the concept 'existential threat' does or does not involve the notion of 'imminence', but that when the term is and has been used over the last year or so, by politicians and other pundits, it is intended to mean exactly that.
1
@stream2watch That's not an answer, it's a deliberate, wilful, arrogant, condescending, diversion.
1
@t7s-b6x So is your argument that, once a large army has been formed, and is therefore difficult to disassemble, that means that the army has no other real option but to continue and expand its military adventures?
1
@johnhess5104 But what has that got to do with my question? Or are you deliberately obfuscating?
1
@matsgustafsson46 Thanks for replying. Not sure what your point is though.
1
@ebiekem Good question. They never have any proof.
1
@tomfu9909 Why? Why are you incapable of writing without cheating? I asked a straightforward question, and all you can do is divert and CHEAT.
1
@wsattler Yet again, another cheat. I'm not talking about what someone else - some 'RT commentator' - may have said. I'm asking for an attempt at resolving what is an apparent contradiction. Your blatantly evasive answer just proves all the more that it is indeed a contradiction, and no one round here, including you, has the guts to admit it.
1
@notdesmonondo Thank you for saying what you have said here.
1
@yorkshirekoi2246 Agreed, and thanks
1
@theincrediblefishsandwich2162 Fair enough, but the word 'imminent' is also freely tossed around, isn't it? And not only that, but would you not agree that the implication, when talking of an 'existential threat', is intended to mean something that's topical, rather than something that's years down the line?
1
@theincrediblefishsandwich2162 Your error starts in your first sentence 'Russia is currently demonstrating excessive aggression directed towards Europe, and the west'. If you have once in your life tried to 'put yourself in someone else's shoes' - to see things from their point of view - then you would see and understand how Russia would say exactly what you have said, but the other way round, including the nuclear rhetoric. And I'm not missing any important information, your argument over the meaning of 'existential threat' has already been made by others. My point is that if a threat is years down the line - as you admit yourself - then why do we all not have time to prepare for it?
1
Not any time soon, is the answer to your question.
1