Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
34
-
21
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bakiozturk2112 Bruh, since when are people so gullible as to take leaders, let alone proto-dictators at their word? Look at the dang treaty, and I'm pretty sure nothing there indicates that Sweden HAS to give Turkey anyone or anything.
You didn't actually answer me last time, so that indicates a lie. I will fully admit if I'm wrong, but I have seen nothing of the sort to prove me wrong.
Tell me, if Erdogan says that all who support the Kurds are against Turkish security, does that mean that we have to start silencing them for your security too? Simply saying; "it's for national security" isn't enough. Sweden is facing the possibility of an INVASION, while Turkey's national security is...what? Facing a far-away anti-Turkish propagandist at best?
If the US demanded that Turkey surrender its claims in the Cyprus lest Turkey get kicked out of NATO in the event of a possible Russian invasion, would you also call that a "win-win"? This is some common sense, bruh. It'd be one thing if Turkey tried this 2 years ago when things were relatively quiet, but now? That's just blackmail, and proves a lot of Turkey's detractors correct. France must be celebrating this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wraith8323 On paper you'd be correct. In reality, we see today that Russia's military is nowhere near what it has advertised. How many of those fixed-winged aircrafts are actually operable? How many are of the same quality as F-16's let alone more advanced aircraft? How much of Russia's capability are crippled by corruption within Russia's military? Obviously far more than anyone could have possibly imagined. And nuclear capability doesn't matter in terms of regional hegemony; North Korea is hardly a regional hegemon despite having it. It has far more to do with influencing the region they are in. Russia effectively doesn't influence anything outside of the Caucuses and Central Asia. Eastern European influence is a joke at this point.
No, even when looking at this geopolitically, its pure insanity. It's like Poland demanding that Russia surrender Kaliningrad; just because it's within your "interest" to do so, doesn't mean that the cost of simply trying is beyond anything that should be attempted.
Russia does not have the capability to wage total war on Ukraine to begin with. It's economic standing is crumbling and its means to send munitions to the frontlines are shoddy at best. There is a reason they are using civilian trucks to move troops and equipment now. Ultimately though, it's true that Ukraine is outmatched, at least conventionally. Russia will suffer distinctly the more land they take and the insurgency begins. Military superiority on paper, even a MASSIVE superiority still gets hampered by guerilla warfare. Russia is hardly in a comparable state to the US, so it all depends on the Ukrainians. Even if they "lose", they can make sure that Russia suffers far more in victory than it ever could have suffered in a defeat.
Again. Putin specifically denied Ukraine's right to exist as an independent entity. There is no arguing this; he spelled it out for you. This alone makes Russia impossible to deal with geopolitically. All that can be done is punishment; no nation-state can ever give Russia an inch after such a speech. Only the most braindead Kremlinbots can unironically act like Russia is being anywhere close to reasonable here, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't watch the speech.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@XMysticHerox Being a banana republic is a bad thing for the general citizenry, but for military bosses its quite ideal. The troops can be treated like crap and still be influenced to attack and make war with a strong state apparatus backing them and downplaying inter-country faults. European states on the other hand can't avoid such questions, and thus the little funds that do exist for military are expended on soldier care and the like. This is made even worse when when put into PPP; Russia isn't even THAT far behind the US in terms of money put into military. Indeed, Russia is by no means a superpower, but even when combined, in the EU's present state, I don't see it as strong enough to completely resist Russia. Not because Russia is a superpower, but because Russia is an organized state with a sizable military while the EU is at most a collection of states that have neither the will or the might to fully beat back such an assault.
Not that it matters; this conversation is moot with France and Germany unwilling to stand up to Russia to begin with. And I mentioned Germany because while having outdated planes is indeed a massive issue in Russia, we know for a fact that Russia can project power decently far from their borders. Germany and France don't really have that capacity, with France requiring US aid to properly engage in war in West Africa and Libya.
Russia is a threat because there is little actual proof that Europe will band together to stop such an invasion, especially if there its asymmetrical. The USSR is gone, and there is no actual threat to say, France or Germany. But to Poland or Lithuania? While France and Germany flirt for the sake of closer economic ties out of some weird balance of power crap with the US? Yeah, there's much more to be wary of.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anastasiagileva8711 1) It isn't the US' job to "mention" anything about this, it ain't their country. You're not special.
2) By every metric he won, and your claims that the numbers are fake come right from your ass because nothing in existence points to the election being fake. If that was the case, then you could cite proof, but you can't.
3) It was a coup attempt by Communist hardliners to stop the election, it was from the top-bottom, not the bottom-up; the only riot from the people came in SUPPORT of Yeltsin against the Communist hardliners.
"The GKChP relied on regional and local soviets, which were still mostly dominated by the Communist Party, to support the coup by forming emergency committees to repress dissidence."
"The Soviet public was divided on the coup. A poll in the RSFSR by Mnenie on the morning of 19 April showed that 23.6 percent of Russians believed the GKChP could improve living standards, while 41.9 percent had no opinion. However separate polls by Interfax showed that many Russians, including 71 percent of residents of Leningrad, feared the return of mass repressions. The GKChP also enjoyed strong support in the Russian-majority regions of Estonia and Transnistria, while Yeltsin enjoyed strong support in Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Novgorod."
The GKChP either got abysmally low support and/or Yeltsin got all of the support. Your propaganda lies may work in Russia without the ability to check them, but they don't work on anyone else with a functioning brain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlindManInsane Nazi's aren't Russians, but this specific instance of aggressive territorial expansion is like that Nazi strategy of exploiting Western weakness for power, yes.
Western powers didn't come close, it's Russian neighbors that wanted to join NATO, and only because they were terrified, rightly so, of Russia fucking them again. In 2014 when this whole crisis began there were barely any NATO forces in Eastern Europe at all, you propagandist. NATO had made ZERO moves to harm Russia until AFTER Russia attacked Ukraine.
"Europe needs to improve relations with russia and strive for cease fire in Ukraine" AFTER Russia took over Ukrainian territory??? It's like asking a battered wife to return to their abusive husband, Jesus Christ. Why the hell should Ukraine trust a single word from Russia after their "brothers" attacked them and supported separatists in their lands, huh? It was Russia that destroyed Ukraine's positive image of them, not the West. And everything you suggested involves bending over for Russia with zero consequences for their actions.
Imagine my shock.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paulatreides7532 If NATO said both Ukraine and Georgia would be NATO members, why aren't they? You unintentionally proved that you're full of it. NATO saying they believe that x nations will be a part of it doesn't mean it will be. In fact, looking it up, they said that "one day" they can apply and gain entry, meaning the offer is open. That should be obvious, but apparently you need things spelled out for you.
It's funny how anything Putinbots don't like suddenly become CIA ops. Did the CIA cause you to stub your toe too? Maybe the CIA is the one bombing Kharkiv as we speak and they're just blaming Russia for it? It's pathetic dude; you can't just blame the CIA for everything. Fact is that protests happened, Yanukovych was kicked out by his own Parliament for new elections in response, then Russia invaded and destroyed any trust between Ukraine and Russia. Now Russia denies Ukraine's right to exist; which is literal Nazi Germany all over again.
LOL. Imagine taking Imperial Japan's logic as fact when we know for a fact that they just wanted their own imperialist power base in East Asia. I can see now that you're just a fascist masquerading as an anti-imperialist. You're A-OK with mass murder and conquest as long as its "anti-Western". Pathetic.
Psht, I know all about US actions across the century. Really doesn't change the fact that everyone engages in it and you are using the US as a convenient scapegoat to delegitimize anything your favorite dictator of the week has done. If people are upset because they're starving, they're suddenly a "CIA inspired OP" and now the dictator has the right to murder them all. We all know what you truly are, fascist bootlickers are all the same.
2
-
@lazyupload "Toyed" with Ukraine in reality just being regular interaction with another nation-state, I presume? I don't subscribe to the idea of power politics, and believe even great powers, including the US, must not play such games of spheres of influence.
Fact is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO after 2014's invasion. Not before. Betraying the Ukrainians to Russia by vowing that they'd never join NATO is as reprehensible as the Munich Conference, though I understand why a geopolitical "realist" would suggest that. I'm a liberal, and I would never agree to such a thing. But I also wouldn't place more troops in Poland either, unless Russia keeps antagonizing the region, which is has recently.
The "US empire" was just minding its own business before this crisis blew up. Putin has been planning this for a while, obviously trying to get concessions; you're acting like the US instigated this crisis to force Putin into unfavorable geopolitics. I think that's way too clever for the US, personally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@madselmvig1457 NATO wasn't involved in any war in the ME barring Afghanistan, no. This is a common and frankly ignorant opinion because people on the internet are stupid.
Individual countries in NATO got involved, 100%, but NATO itself had nothing to do with anything barring countries within NATO using it to organize. If NATO got involved, then France would literally have no choice but to join in, and the ones France did join were either in French interests (Syria) or was genuinely NATO (Afghanistan).
Haiti was a UN mission that only had the US, Poland, and Lebanon involved. Lebanon had the US, UK, France, and Italy I think; but no, that was not NATO either. NATO command had no say in any of these conflicts.
Again, Trump never refused Article 5, and if you begin taking him at his word with everything, then you'll believe a lot of stupid stuff. And unlike you, every opinion based on US willingness to protect an ally was extremely high. Both in the US, and in US allies, so idk why you're acting like this is a common opinion. Especially with US troops literally there acting like a human shield.
Hey man, "doing business" is perfectly fine, but when that business starts to look a lot like helping them at the expense of an ally; then yeah your allies are gonna start abandoning you.
But yeah, you seriously need to learn the difference between NATO itself getting involved (Afghanistan) and countries in NATO getting involved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dahlbelzalan5892 1) Again, you do the same exact thing; nobody complains but Russia. And only Russia sends armed jets with weapons into Western borders, not vice-versa. So if anything, your people are the most hypocritical, not the most kind.
2) You screech about propaganda, but Ukraine never once banned the Russian language. They stopped teaching it, yes; but that's not literal BANNING people from using the language, genius. And the Azov Battalion is definitely a bad thing the Ukrainians had, but using a military unit composed of bad people does not equate to being fascist lol. Again, Russia was financially supported multiple neo-nazi groups across the West, so Russia really is worse in this regard. The Ukrainian government itself was never Neo-Nazi.
3) Crimea was Greek for over 1,000 years, you hypocrite. Why does Russia get to steal it back with an illegal referendum to steal Crimea, WHICH PUTIN PLANNED by the way. He verbally already admitted to wanting to take back Crimea, referendum or not. Putin can literally admit it and you still bootlick for him.
4) Kosovo had a referendum which was observed legally and fairly and wasn't pre-meditated by an outside force, genius. There were no US troops that invaded Serbia and disallowed UN observers from counting the referendum. That's the difference between a LEGAL and an ILLEGAL referendum.
5) And the majority of Americans in the East Coast are English, that doesn't mean the UK has the right to invade US territory to join the UK, nimrod. What, if the US gets mostly Russian too then Russia has a right to invade??? Are you for real??? Being a part of the same ethnic group doesn't matter; what matters is that rules be followed so that we can accept it and no issues occurs -but Russia literally went against EVERY rule of legal referendums.
6) "Prove it" Oh yes, let's just deny everyone including the UN and OSCE from observing it and have armed troops start the referendum while only having Pro-Kremlin stooges watch it. The proof is that Russia DIDN'T LET INTERNATIONAL GROUPS OBSERVE THE REFERENDUM. By default, it's ILLEGAL.
7) Donbass was Ukrainian, propagandist; the fact any conflict occurred was because RUSSIA INVADED. If the US invades Siberia, is it Russia's fault if violence occurs? No, right? But your Kremlin-filled brain doesn't care. Crimea is more Greek and Turkish than Russian, but you don't give a shit because you're a hypocrite.
8) God loves all of His children. You, who started war in a peaceful region, would shame him. Shame on you. Russia obviously needs more sanctions and more US troops to stem their aggression. maybe a permanent deployment of US Carrier fleets in the Black Sea. Russia is already a broken country running on gas and nationalism; it's Western countries which are still rising in economic development, not Russia. But stay that way, if you want; but don't be surprised when US troops really do start deploying near Russia's borders to stop possible invasions.
2
-
2
-
@laznoime1621 Everyone Russia wars with someone becomes Neo-Nazi. At some point, people are gonna begin wondering if the real Neo-Nazi are the ones finding excuses to always be "defensive" and take new regions from their neighbors. Which nation in the past 30 years has suddenly gained new territory "defensively"? Didn't the original N@zis use the same logic in Austria, the Sudetenland, and later Poland that its either "defensive" or a "fair referendum"?
Ah yes, poor Iraq that was constantly invading neighbors. Poor Serbia that was genociding Bosnians. Poor Iranian General that was organizing terrorist attacks against US troops. Poor Syria which was gassing civilians and freeing terrorists from prisons to scare the populace and which Russia bombed towns and cities with schools. Poor Somalia, which was an international humanitarian intervention to stem genocide as well.
Libya is probably the only fair point you've made; though there was a UN-sanctioned no fly zone.
Haven't mentioned how Russians created the referendum after occupying Crimea and shot at international observers from investigating. Also haven't mentioned how Putin lied that there were Russian troops involved and saying it was homegrown.
I am literally only bitching about Russian invasion in Ukraine, smartass. The West essentially just complained about Russia stepping into Syria, Libya, Mali, Georgia, Chechnya, Kazakhstan, etc. It was the invasion of Ukraine that pissed the West off enough to start actively preparing defenses and prepare sanctions to hurt Russia. As it turns out, the West is more than capable of ignoring Russian atrocities far from NATO jurisdiction, and NATO countries knew that placing new weapons of war near Russia was justifiably seen as instigation. But then Russia went ahead and instigated new conflict by starting a war near NATO countries and now has placed 100,000 troops near them too. No, I understand that Russia has interests and geopolitical ambitions, but and so has the West, which is why they bitched but never did anything. But Ukraine, who are democratic and right next to NATO and wanted to join the EU? Russia which stole new territory?
No, sorry, but this is something the West can't ignore at all.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@houssedecouette4056 Yes, these organizations have ludicrously high standards, but my point is that there are no lies. Them claiming that Russian freedom of speech is in the dirt isn't a lie. Them claiming that Russian democracy is a joke isn't a lie. Them claiming that freedom of speech doesn't exist in Russia isn't a lie. None of these are lies, they're just taken from a very critical point of view of how democracy and human liberty SHOULD work. And you're wrong, they are VERY consistent with everyone.
Mikhail Lesin, Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Boris Nemtsov, Boris Berezovsky, Paul Klebnikov, and more. All of these people died either via literal contract killings or by eating/drinking poison. The link between them all? They were almost all critical of Putin, with Mikhail I think more Litvinenko just a former KGB agent that was seeking asylum.
Innocent proven guilty is a thing in Western courts, not in literal international news and/or politics. There can never be any proof unless Putin himself admits it, and you know damn well. So all we have are investigations that point to contracted killings with several individuals that were critical of Putin. But tell me more how Russia is a democracy.
If you still claim Russia is a democracy after this, then you prove that you're just a Kremlin stooge. There is too much coincidence with too much death by literal contracted killers against individuals too anti-Putin for this to be coincidence anymore. Too many international organizations have noted Russia's dogshit standards of liberty, and too many Western sources collaborate with this. And yet here you are, unironically claiming Russia is a democracy based on...what, exactly? Random Russian nationalists? Russian news? How comes the rest of the world is wrong and Russia is right?
There can never be any proof unless Putin opens the country to international observers like every actual democracy on the planet. Yet "Putin isn't a dictator". Give me a break.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlexSmith-ln1tv Most of the US involvements you speak of were either morally justified or flat-out asked for by the local governments themselves, bruh. Fact is thus; US has far more to its credit than Russia does even if you account all of the lives Russia has saved. US security ensures peace for some of the most peaceful and prosperous regions of the planet; though that can change, of course, and it wasn't done out of kindness.
For someone crying about hypocrisy, you are a far bigger hypocrite. Talking only about the bad of the US and ignoring the good. Like how it keeps nations like Russia from attacking innocent democracies without a fight, for example.
The rest of the world generally agrees with the US, as we saw in the UN. Russia is the one getting nailed here, and people tolerate the US because generally they see that the US is a credit for them, not a threat. Zelensky recognizes that too, which is why he, and so many before him, have sought US help. Cope harder. This is hardly hypocrisy lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlexSmith-ln1tv By "everyone" I meant global leaders. Nobody actually condemned the invasion, though some were more wary of just joining in. The protests were far more based on rigid pacifism than anything else; and more specifically due to the public nature of it. Nobody cared for France's wars in Libya or West Africa, in contrast. And Americans would be screeching about fascism when Italians voted in that PM that openly advocated sinking refugee ships. So cry me a river about propaganda.
Might wanna look up "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441". I am not saying that the US invasion followed UN guidelines; but it gave enough of a casus belli that at maximum people only complained about it but did nothing to stop it. Which is the point. If Russia actually managed to convince people that Ukraine did SOME things wrong, then there would be far less people trying to stop it ala Georgia, Syria, and Chechnya.
I said initially that MOST were morally justified, I believe. I don't believe the Iraq War was entirely justified, but I also don't believe dictatorships have a right to exist and thus overthrowing them for democracy is hardly a bad thing. The mistake the US made was in leaving Iraq too early in 2011, leaving the door open to ISIS; Iraq wasn't ready to go at it by itself.
Iraqi oil and the US Dollar has nothing to do with it, but you're a nutcase and brainwashed so I don't really care what you think.
See? You're brainwashed. There was no ratcheting up of propaganda against Iran in 2012; Obama specifically pushed for multilateral actions in his terms. When Libya opted to create the gold standard many years prior, it was France that wanted to jump in while the US specifically refused to do so. You're intentionally mixing up the timeline. US fucks with country, and they try to fuck with the US right back; usually moving away from using the US $ is a meaningless action to get back at the US, it isn't an action that pushes US action to start with. Prior to 2012, the US had plenty of beef with Iran, and vice-versa.
The petrodollar theory is a joke, and anyone that follows it are braindead lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AliothAncalagon Oh that? Well geez, you realize that "democratic" takes many different forms, right? It isn't just "majority chooses" and that's it? You can just as easily argue that there being a Constitution which disallows a clear majority from making a law that re-makes segregation is "anti-democratic" too. The "majority wins" in democracy has many hiccups, and isn't the bell end all of democratic forms of government.
If this is what it means to "not be a democracy", there are also a bunch of anti-democratic measures in European states. No Parliamentary system gets to choose their executive when a Coalition is formed, for example; despite being their "face" of government. What the country wants can very much be against what majority in smaller constituencies want. There being rules that that said majority can't violate also has anti-democratic overtones.
We've accepted it because we've accepted that pure democracy is a bad idea, and instead have Constitutional democracies.
In all studies, the US has a democracy rating near on-par to the likes of France, Spain, and Italy. So yeah, this comes off as more a European arrogance thing than actual decent criticism.
"US is non-democratic" US literally ranked near other "top democracies"
1
-
@biocapsule7311 Uh, what? You realize that Latin Americans aren't indigenous, right? They're descendants from the European conquests. Also, this is in regards to ALL migration, not just Latin American migration. But yes, the US is in contrast a "migrant country", though that really doesn't change anything. The whys and hows doesn't matter; as the whys and hows is what led many Western and Northern European states to get ahead in social reforms.
Well, no, I easily stand by my own comment because ultimately you just resorted to; "different origins/culture" bit, which is how national policies form to begin with. That's a given.
I can also do the same for Europe as a whole, but this isn't a competition; I was just correcting something you said specifically. Idk why people like you are so damn obsessed with the US to always need to flaunt some weird sense of superiority. It's weird. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages.
1
-
@AliothAncalagon You're right, I didn't point out how "anti-democratic" the US is; because by your metric all countries are "anti-democratic". In short I'm calling out your metric of what makes a democracy, not that its anti-democratic in purity, so to speak. Every democracy is like that; barring the likes of Switzerland.
If Constitutional Democracy is "anti-democratic", then fine, I guess. Just ignore all studies on democracy by actual professionals for your own ignorance.
You're missing the point of US Federalism. The issue isn't that the minority chooses things, it's that the minority actually gets a say at all. From my view; the systems currently in place in all governments already by default take into account the majority since government is mostly made up of mainstream opinions. Thus the most important thing is that the minority also have a say; so balancing that by letting them have a larger say is important. It's "minority rule" kinda in practice, but more realistically its "proportional rule" compared to your "majority rule". When you have very disparate populations, you'll understand; seeing as EU federalization might be a thing one day. You either have it, or you have large independence movements.
There is neither a tyranny of the majority or minority as long as there are Constitutional limitations. That part is done, unlike in many European Parliaments which don't have stringent Constitutional limitations. It only takes a screwed majority to literally vote away rights if you want it. Fine when your population is relatively sane, but people change; generations and circumstances change. The US existed as a democracy much longer than almost all of Western Europe for a reason.
I don't care about your opinion, since actual professionals are making the judgement of democracies, not you. And those "lenient" professionals rate France, Spain, and Italy as near par with US democracy, so its not so much lenient as it is that you don't want to accept that US democracy is its own flavor.
Mind you, that doesn't dismiss the fact that US democracy rating fell. Mind you, it fell to similar standards as some of your Western European democracies, but it DID fall. And that is something we have to work on, but unless you're from Switzerland and speaking strictly from that experience, you really have zero room to claim the US as non-democracy. A Western European with that claim is just laughably European bigotry talking.
1
-
@biocapsule7311 I'm not just talking ethnically, I'm talking culturally as well. While many have heritage from indigenous tribes, they are NOT indigenous. I know; I'm Latin American myself.
No duh being a migrant country changes everything. Just like being a Western European country with its traditions, history, culture, and being protected by multiple free nations to the east and the US in the west changes everything.
I meant in the context of the conversation it doesn't matter. No duh; different culture, history, etc leads to different outcomes. That has nothing to do with the conversation of right/left leanings; by European metric, the US Left is far-left in terms of immigration/migration and race issues. That's it. Explaining further of culture might explain the "why and how", but it doesn't change that that is the case.
Some Americans do, and de-facto the US President claims it and no one disputes him. I'd prefer if that wasn't the case since it has led to a lot of issues at home. And what are you even talking about with "good guys" and stuff? First of all, that's just a label; it shifts and changes depending on the person or group. The US was a saint for Western Europeans...until it didn't serve their interests. There is never a "good guy" in international politics. Just a "not as bad" guy. Because countries aren't people. What standard should the US be holding anyway?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к I love this Russian sentiment.
>Russia expands conquering everything and sometimes works with Western imperialists to push further west
>West fights back or it blows up in Russia's face
>"wESTeRn ImPeRiALiSm! Have to protect ourselves!"
Grow up. Russia has far more often pushed aggressively westward for their own imperialist interests than western powers have pushed east. There is nothing east for many Western powers to ever want, barring maybe the most easternmost European powers like the Lithuanians, Swedes, and Poles. The Germans of the N@zi Party were uniquely evil, and the Russians back then eagerly aligned with them to, you guessed it, push further west by swallowing Poland which was hardly a threat to Russia at that point.
The difference between Russia and the West is that Russia needs to trick itself into being on the defensive, when it has almost ALWAYS been an aggressor in Europe. Very few times it has eve truly been under threat from western powers. It was threatened by the Poles once, Sweden another, Napoleon another, and finally the Germans in WW2. That's it. Russia in contrast has invaded westward and expanded consistently since the Romanov Dynasty at the latest, even taking many minorities and trying to ethnically cleanse them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Darian___ It's propaganda lies, actually. You need to seriously ignore all context to make this up or believe it too. You need to ignore that NATO is just as much an organization needed to protect Eastern European sovereignty from Russian imperialism, as we've seen in Georgia and Ukraine. For the record; Ukraine never even wanted to join NATO, it wanted to join the EU, and Russia still saw fit to invade their "brother" nation, and now people like you unironically think that the Baltics have nothing to fear?
As for NATO; you're conflating NATO nations getting involved with NATO doing something. NATO only ever invaded Afghanistan, as indicated by the activation of Article 5 following 9/11, of whom the Taliban supported and aided. NATO didn't invade or bomb anyone else, just NATO nations which people just dumb down to "NATO". In reality, the US bombed Yugoslavia, justifiably to stop a genocide. France and the UK bombed Libya, etc, etc.
Again; if you ignore literally all context, then Russia may have a point. So only the ignorant can follow this logic, really.
1
-
@Darian___ Yes. Today. AFTER Russia invaded them in 2014. Check opinion polls on joining NATO prior to 2014, and it's usually abysmally low. Ukraine just wanted to join the EU.
They're wrong because they're using the NATO strategic command to more easily coordinate the strategic bombings; but NATO wasn't involved. Or rather, NATO wasn't activated. NATO is only a threat when all nations within it are forced to join something. US used NATO and any allies within it that wished to join it to bomb Yugoslavia. It isn't "NATO" if countries in NATO can pick and choose and not be forced into the war. Canada, Denmark, Turkey, the US, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. And I don't even think Norway is in NATO, or beholden to it. Poland, Hungary, Greece, and the Czech Republic didn't join in. These nations willingly joined in the bombing campaign, again, because genocide.
Why are you talking about international law all of a sudden? I never once brought up international law. Besides, it's the duty of all nation-states to intervene to stop genocide; it's literally in international law to begin with. I forget the clause, but it's there. Though killing any civilians is against international law. Which proves that international law in general is a joke; it's against it to just sit around and let genocide occur, but its also against international law to accidentally kill a civilian trying to stop it. I won't apologize for it; just like I won't apologize for Allied bombings of Germany in WW2, which is also against international law. At times, you, what is right and moral personally takes precedence. Or are you gonna argue that it was against international law to stop a genocide now?
Geez, do I need to mention every single nation involved? France and the UK are the main instigators of the conflict; they initiated the no fly zone bombing campaign, and the US joined in later at French insistence since they ran out of bombs and required refueling. I won't defend Libya, mostly because everyone involved committed crimes against international law. Engaging in international politics at all effectively makes you against international law to some extent, like Germany selling weapons to Saudi Arabia who is using them to kill Yemenis, for example while denying the same to Ukraine.
Fair. You never did say that Baltics had nothing to fear from Russia; that's just the logic most people that argue like you have used, but that doesn't mean you believe that. My apologies, I can take that L.
No, the Russians do not have a point. People complained about Russia's interventions elsewhere, whether it be Georgia, Chechnya, or Syria -Russia has broken a lot of international laws, but the West did not lash out much against Russia for these. Call it Western hypocrisy where they bomb Serbs but tolerate Russians for crimes against humanity. Fact is; the West tolerated a lot of Russian BS. But Ukraine was a step too far, and the logic they use to justify it is literally the logic Westerners have been using to justify past Russian actions elsewhere. But now? Ukraine is an actual democracy, and next to countries that have faced such imperialism and feel VERY threatened. Even then, at worst Russia just got more sanctions.
Amplify all of this with 100,000 troops at the border, and there is ample reason for the West to be furious, and Russia has zero reason to justify why exactly they are instigating conflict. None. Zilch. Nada.
This is especially poignant when, again, you just inhaled Kremlin propaganda hook line and sinker. There are ZERO US missiles near Russia's borders. None. There are only anti-missile defense systems, specifically in response to the literal crap load of missiles and nukes in Kaliningrad. And those sCaRy US bases? The troops they hold reached at maximum 9,000 across all of Eastern Europe. This in contrast to 100,000, and Russia's claims are COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Understanding their POV is fine, but trying to act like they're reasonable at all is fucked up. There is nothing reasonable about the Russian position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anastasiagileva8711 "Another subject in Clinton and Yeltsin’s communication that directly concerned the Baltics was, of course, the enlargement of NATO. Russia never concealed its dislike of the continuation of the Alliance following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The US was well aware of this and tried to include Russia in the new European security environment. For example, on 27 April 1995, Clinton said in a phone conversation with Yeltsin that, for the future stability of Europe, it was important that Russia be a vital part of the emerging new security structures. Nothing could develop normally unless Russia was involved in the process, believed Clinton, who emphasised three directions with respect to NATO—expansion, but without acceleration, the Partnership for Peace and preparations for the base treaty between Russia and NATO."
The US under Bill Clinton actually bent itself into pretzels for Russia, but that's inconvenient to mention, I guess?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NLTops Okay, so it seems I need to be a little specific. I didn't mean "forced" as in; "the US put a gun to their head" otherwise France would not have been able to leave NATO. I meant "forced" as in "that was the only real option" in the circumstances provided. The US offered backing, and the European nations needed it. More than that, what I meant by "external enemy and external support" more means that long stretches of such external-forced unity warmed the populations to each other to think positively to the point that conflict and rivalry from older generations fell away. So as to your point of why Europeans didn't fight after USSR fell apart? Well, it's because they were taught to think of each other as allies from the experience of the Cold War. Again; external pressure and external support led them to such an experience. That had far more to do with European alliances and good feelings than anything else. And even then, that only stretched so far; when East Germany being reunited with West Germany became an option, pretty much none of the big European states were accepting of the idea barring France who demanded Germany join the EU and adopt the Euro for its support.
Btw, your examples of the Greeks are flawed. The Greeks didn't have the Romans backing them into closer unity and the Greeks weren't under threat for half a century to get closer together, nor were they rebuilt with foreign support after a terrible inter-Greek war. Suffice it to say, the devil is in the details. Temporary Coalitions is NOT the same as being in the trenches for generations and rebuilding together, otherwise the myriad Coalitions in European history would also be long-standing unions.
It was the US that gave unequivocal support to German unification and pushed other European powers to do the same. So inter-European rivalry, even with the integrated trade and alliances of the 90's, still existed and perhaps even grew after the USSR fell. Even now, inter-European squabbles grow more; but what holds it together is fear of external rivals, real or imagined. EU Federalists often cite China, Russia, or even the US as a reason for unity; and is that not using the fear of an external enemy to bring closer unity? The same strategy that helped bring the EU into fruition in the first place?
While it's true that European interdependence is stronger today, it really doesn't change my point. Economic interdependence means jack shit in the face of a feeling of rivalry, nationalism, and/or fear. If the French continued to regard Germany as a possible threat, even if it managed to be like 80% of their trade, they'd still prepare for possible conflict with them, leading to rising tensions. Just look at East Asia today; many of their economies are tightly woven to China's, yet conflict is emerging due to fears and military buildups. If anything, I'd say the free movement of peoples and the visible political structures have done more to ensure there are less ability for Europeans to quarrel between themselves. But even that pales to the "external enemy" thing.
Bold of you to assume that people give a shit about GDP when they feel their country is under threat. Real or imagined. Just look at Turkey today, stabbing itself in the foot economically because its populace feel under threat by everyone around them. You overestimate the long-range that people can think when under pressure. People have ruined "good things" all the damn time because of fears of what they represent, or more accurately; holding something else in value over mere economic growth. The UK being a perfect example in Europe. Plenty more examples, such as Serbia that rejects EU growth in exchange for a worthless piece of land because of its cultural significance in Kosovo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Juju-id6dw It's possible, but you can't just wish it, you need to actually form a security apparatus while conceding to the security concerns of members in the EU. It can't just be "France + Germany rules Europe" thing...which people already consider the EU to be.
I understand your point, and it would be a good thing, I think; but my point prior was that you need to actually get there by fixing the mentality first. Get trust, and all that. Because this recent crisis kinda points out the issue; both France and Germany were seen as splitting from the US when it was warning about the Russian invasion with Macron publicly declaring that Putin personally guaranteed that there was not going to be a Russian invasion. Downplaying the issue, until it literally happened. From an American POV, pro-EU federalists need to actually be seen fiercely acknowledging the concerns of EU member states from external forces. I understand that Macron was essentially trying to play the moderate, maybe even trying to use Russia to balance out US influence, but it backfired horribly and now Eastern Europe looks to Washington even more than before in contrast to Paris or Berlin.
Play smarter, not harder, basically. Even if it isn't easy, since naturally the French will want to bat for their interests first and foremost. That's just my POV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petarzlatic8586 I don't really consider anyone culturally defective, but I do consider peoples to be so high up their nationalism that they'd justify literal imperialism, sure. You can use the argument that prior horrors inflicted on Serbs in WW2 justifies stepping in later; but does that justify the actions made by the Serb-dominated government to seize power by effectively taking control of multiple republics in Yugoslavia? You realize that's what precipitated the actual collapse of the country, right? You can point to the past all you like; but actions at the time is what ultimately triggered the horrors of war and independence movements.
And it's this attitude that I'm ultimately complaining about. Serbs, from my experience, use the past as a crutch to justify current actions.
As for foundation myths? Nah, they shift around. German, French, British, American, Turk, Greek myths have all massively shifted over time. Turks shifted from being the new Romans to being a part of the West and now changed to being some Turkic peoples -the origin remained the same, but the nationalist foundation myth surrounding it changed. Jews are unique in that their lack of a specific society of their own and persecution forced them to clutch onto their religion and culture and resist change.
1
-
1
-
@caymanhunter2612 I mean, you say all this, but Yeltsin literally asked Bill Clinton in their correspondence to split Europe between the US and Russia which Clinton wryly retorts that the Europeans wouldn't appreciate their sovereignty being stomped on like that. Here ya go:
"“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton suggested that the Europeans would not like this very much. Yeltsin, on the other hand, said:
I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. … Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe."
Russia is not a Superpower. In what world of existence is Russia a Superpower? It's nowhere near the equal of the US, in any shape or form outside of nukes. Russia is not a threat to the US, its a threat to its neighbors. And despite everything you said, this correspondence proves that Russia has not changed; Russia wants control for power, not security. And the idea that the West should give concessions to a nation that has NEVER done the same and is extremely UNTRUSTWORTHY is laughable. Just another Munich Conference. I may have believed you pre-2014, but after that? Fuck no.
1
-
@caymanhunter2612 Ah yes, an anti-Russia alliance that never prepared the capabilities to attack Russia at any point in its history, never placed new missile systems near Russia's borders, never placed new nukes near Russia's borders, and never placed significant American presence near Russia's borders until 2014.
Your entire logic is fucked. Russia turned into an adversary because Eastern Europe needed guarantees and to prevent that, Russia needed to once again dominate a region that loathed Russia already against their will??? Do you understand how disgusting that logic is? To use an entire region of people as trading cards? This is pure imperialist style of thinking, and the main issue the US had with it is exactly that. The US bears no responsibility if Russia can't move on from the 19th century.
And NATO is not an anti-Russia alliance. NATO gave permission for Russia to join when Putin asked, but he demanded that unlike everyone else, NATO approached Russia rather than Russia do what everyone else does and apply for it like all the other "insignificant nations", as he put it. NATO is just a defensive alliance for everyone to hide under, not specifically against Russia. Evidence by the pure lack of defenses near Russia to begin with. It was insurance, no different from house security, and who would have an issue with that outside of a potential house thief?
Again, Russia was more than welcome to apply; it never bothered because Russia needs boogeyman that never once attempted to threaten Russia at any point or instigate anything. So Russia needed to instigate and cause conflict for the boogeyman trick to work.
Russia fearing an Operation Barbarossa when Russia fed the N@zi war machine with oil to begin with and attacked Poland with them instead of helping Poland beat them back is hilarious. Including all of the context, Russia destroyed potential allies for the sake of "more land", leaving themselves wide open to actual aggression, which is pretty much the case now. Besides, Russia has nukes, it fearing another Operation Barbarossa, self inflicted or otherwise, is absurd when it has nukes. Especially in Kaliningrad.
Acting like the West should have trusted Russia is the real fool's idea here. The West just blindly trusting Russia again to do what's right is beyond braindead. Another Munich waiting to happen. Playing with people's lives. What the Eastern Europe wanted was security with NATO. That's THEIR right, not YOURS.
It's a separate argument about US supplementing European defense. But the fact of the matter is, the US will supplement it for as long it perceives the need to do so. More troops are in Europe now because of 2014. US was already preparing for a shift to the Pacific, but leaving Europe at this stage is stupid. And Americans will not take the fall for Russian chauvinism and imperialism; all fault lays in Russia and Russia alone. No one forced them to be an adversary, they chose this path.
As for China, it is an issue, but we can handle both; and the US will NOT abandon allies for some fucked alliance that involves giving up our allies. Nobody would trust us if we did so anyway, and rightfully so.
Bruh. Your idea is based purely on the idea that Russia can be trusted at all to meet these concessions, that Europe will just tacitly accept these concessions and not just lead to a massive wave of justifiable anti-Americanism and possibly push Europe and Russia together against the treacherous US. All just to face China, which the US already has many allies in the region for. These are all massive concessions for Russia which has never earned the trust for, and which massively boosts Russian influence in exchange for US influence across an entire continent based on...blind trust. The US politician that actively pursues such a policy is more liable to be hanged than listened to.
NATO doesn't set any rules, dude. Turkey sometimes acts as an adversary to Western nations these days, and its in NATO. People seriously overestimate the power of NATO in forcing anyone to do anything; nations get involved in other NATO national wars because they're already allies, not because NATO forces it. Barring Article 5, NATO can't force anything.
Pride is fine, but Russian chauvinism is the issue. Russian leadership consider the countries in Eastern Europe to be objects and toys, or "insignificant nations" as Putin put it. Peace is not possible until such leadership disappears.
Again, NATO can't force anything, nor can the US really without applying economic pressure, as it has already been doing. Your ideas are just blind concessions for nothing in return, dude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vedun9439 Bosnian Genocide.
As for Kosovo specifically: "Numerous war crimes were committed by all sides during the Kosovo War, which lasted from early 1998 until 11 June 1999. According to Human Rights Watch, the vast majority of abuses were attributable to the government of Slobodan Milošević, mainly perpetrated by the Serbian police, the Yugoslav army, and Serb paramilitary units. During the war, regime forces killed between 7,000–9,000 Kosovar Albanians,[1] engaged in countless acts of rape,[2] destroyed entire villages, and displaced nearly one million people.[1] The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA or the UÇK) has also been implicated in atrocities, such as kidnappings and summary executions of civilians.[3] Moreover, the NATO bombing campaign has been harshly criticized by human rights organizations and the Serbian government for causing numerous civilian casualties, with estimates ranging from roughly 500[4] to over 2,500.[5]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zeissiez In what way is the entire West exploiting Africa for decades that other countries, including African ones, aren't? Usually it boils down to "Western countries support X leader" or "Western companies get cheap resources from X country" but then dismisses how such leaders have international support, not just Western, and that any attempt to remove said leader would get cries of "Western imperialism".
In short; there is literally 0 way to NOT "exploit" Africa to people like you. Also, you dismiss any Western help no matter what. It's a literal default. Also, US "oligarchy" is a helluva lot less oligarchic than like 99% of the planet. You're not waking anyone up, you're putting people to sleep with lies.
Edit: Misread your last comment, so ignore my last statement. But still man, everything rises and falls, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing for the best outcome.
1
-
@zeissiez America prints not much more than other big nations, including Russia. It prints to its means; which is to say that it prints money because everyone values it as a method of exchange. That inflation doesn't literally go anywhere, and the petrodollar theory is as braindead as it has been for many decades now. Seriously, why do people like you need a reason as to why the US prints so much money when EVERYONE prints a fuckton of money too? Does Japan have a petroyen? The EU a petroeuro? Maybe China has a petroyuan?
Iran never ever threatened to stop using dollars until relatively recently; long long after the US had sanctioned them. Ditto with Iraq and Russia. Hell, Libya never even threatened such a thing, it's just you making that up to sound smart.
You do realize that Venezuela economically collapsed because it literally depended entirely on oil, right? And then that price of oil fell, thus the entire economy's basis fell? US sanctions on Venezuela's economy didn't occur until LONG after the economy fell; all sanctions prior were against specific members of Vzla's government. I should know, I'm Latin American and have buddies there. But Russia is there stealing oil unironically though, in support of Maduro. But that doesn't really fit your narrative, does it?
Grayzone is literal extreme far-left propaganda, wut? May as well ask me to use Breitbart or RT for how utterly insane the reporting is. Seriously, it does nothing but bash the US and back every insane conspiracy theory in existence as long as its anti-US.
Seriously, just a quick Google search on MediaBias and here we have:
"Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting.
"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madselmvig1457 It really doesn't matter what Bush said, what matters is if NATO was organizing it; which they were not. That's why France and Germany were not in Iraq, smart one. I'm not explaining this to you again.
I don't even think I've met a European who doesn't think that the US won't come running if they were attacked; and the reason most US troops are in Germany is because it acts as a base of quick deployment. Also, adding more troops in Eastern Europe will draw criticism of "raising tension", which btw would cause certain Europeans such as yourself to complain that the US was intentionally stoking tensions for our own benefit. Basically, we can't win with you people, so why do we even bother?
Psht, even with Trump, nobody actually believed the US was not gonna honor NATO. For God's sakes, he expanded the US presence in Poland, and tried ot move US troops from Germany to there...and German politicians bitched and moaned about it! Likely because they knew damn well that US troops was a big economic boon. So yeah, again, we can't win.
US didn't expect Afghanistan to fall, and certain US allies wanted the US to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. "Asking US allies" was bound to just kill the effort to leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barseraydn4300 There are no documents about the US supporting a coup in Bolivia, though. The OAS called the election illegal, which it was, and also said that the couped government was illegal.
"Businessman joked about it" Oh, and these businessmen are representatives of the US Government now?
"OAS is a puppet" Jesus Christ, wtf dude.
US nor OAS can force anything, genius. They can pressure, but that's about it. And pressuring a country to actually pay back their IMF debts so they don't default and crash their country into the dirt is very much decent policy. Do you have any idea the cost of default? It BREAKS nations entirely.
US supported every right-wing group in Latin America...in the Cold War, yes. US hardly cares these days. Thus far you've only asserted propaganda, not any proof behind it; nor have I seen any from people asserting it elsewhere. It's always just "he said so, thus its true" or "US did it before several decades ago, thus its true".
Most human beings really don't really agree with you. They see a world power, sure, not really an imperialist one though. Otherwise they wouldn't be allied to the US.
1
-
@barseraydn4300 It's influencing, not forcing. World powers are not all the same; if the US was as you say, it would have used tanks to kill anti-US protestors in Europe throughout this past near-century when they disagreed on US policies. The US and USSR has similarities, sure, but the government systems and culture leads to different methods of influence and power. Proven when the Cold War ended, the first thing the US did was weaken its military spending and support the collapse of every right-wing dictator across Latin America.
US is a country and government, dude. It's policies shift. NSA doesn't actually spy on people either, it creates loopholes in programs of which it has the ability to study what people have been doing, but it requires a warrant in order to actively use any information it gathers from such processes. It can be considered spying if you stretch the meaning, if you want; but it's more complicated than implied.
Geez man, do you want me to go through everything wrong with the Bolivian election for Evo Morales? I can, but it's quite the process. Plus, to be frank, I don't remember it from memory; I just recall that he packed the courts somehow and may have used the government to restrict who ran against him, something like that. Polling irregularities and fraud too. Also something about a court appeal to run again beyond his term. Usual dictator stuff. Is Putin not a dictator in your eyes as well? Because that's pretty much the same stuff he does.
"Entire Washington is looking their mouth" Everything after this is just your own propaganda, my guy. Having money is the same as having power in society, but there are still severe restrictions on how money can influence politics not just in the US, but across most major democracies. You seem to be referring to lobbying, but you should know that the US actually has more lobbying restrictions than even some Nordic countries. Definitely more than Germany. People just see "lobbying" and just assume its rich dudes making politicians do things for money. Read up on it, start with lobbying laws across the world, I ain't gonna go through the gambit for ya.
1
-
@barseraydn4300 This is the only time I'm going to be doing homework for you, since you seem incapable of using a simple Google search.
In 1967 the US' spending on military was about 9.4% of its GDP. Massive. After that it steadily dropped to as log as 4.95% of its GDP in 1979, likely due to the ongoing detente treaties. It started to rise again as high as 6.9% in 1982 for a short but, but slowly started to fall again to 5.6% in 1990. Now it should be noted that the time I had been talking about has been ups and downs, but the TYPICAL US spending on military has almost always been quite high. Outside of 1978 and 1979, the US has maintained at least above 5% of its GDP on military. However, Post-1990, the US has consistently maintained it lower than that, falling as low as 3.11% in 2000. After that was the War on Terror, and the conflicts in the Middle East, etc, etc. But even then, the highest it came again was at 2010 at 4.92%, before falling again to 3.4%~ in 2019. Heard it may rise again.
My point with these numbers? The US most assuredly allowed its military to have far less money post-Cold War when talking about purchasing power. That isn't to say the US was perfectly peaceful, but US interventions dropped markedly; likely as an aftereffect of the US' "End of History" beliefs pre 9/11.
I can talk about the other stuff you talked about and find sources to dissuade you, but Jesus Christ, you're already far gone as it is. I ain't even saying that "all leftists are evil and wrong" or some crap that rightoids like to believe. But for leftists like you, who seem to have a penchant for believing every conspiracy against the US because you WANT to, you're kinda ridiculous. It'd be one thing if you had actual proof behind it, but because a leftist dictator says "US did this", you automatically believe it.
It's good to not take the US at its word at everything, but how about you spare even a fraction of that doubt on other parties that maybe, JUST MAYBE, have as much reason to lie to your face, hm?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к 1) Except NATO forces are not at Russia's borders; they're within member states borders and nowhere at the edge of Russia's borders and has been the case since 2016. So this logic makes no damn sense.
2) To this day there is zero actual proof of any "invasion" from any Western power to Ukraine; and all of the Euromaiden is legal by every metric you can use. The Russian-backed President literally shot at protestors and the Ukrainian Parliament had the legal right to dismiss him if they had enough votes. It literally, by definition, can't be a coup.
3) Russian troops have already been noted to literally be in Ukrainian soil in the midst of the "civil war", instigating conflict and literally invaded Crimea and started an illegal referendum while denying any international observers entry. It's by every metric ILLEGAL. You don't have a damned election with armed soldiers everywhere.
4) LOL. Your "70 observers" are jokes. They're all from Russian-backed propaganda groups and ZERO of them are from actual states or from internationally-trusted groups like the UN, or the OSCE, or other human rights groups. Kremlin propaganda screeches about "70 observers" but this is what they're made of; "Russian-controlled media and referendum organizers said that from nearly 70[citation needed] to 135[citation needed] international observers monitored the referendum without reporting any violations,[citation needed] but the objectivity of these has been questioned, because many of them had ties to far-right extremist groups.[112][113][114] According to reports by the state media, observers to the 2014 Crimean referendum included members of the European Union's parliament, as well as MPs from various European nations, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland,[citation needed] and that observers quoted regarding the conditions of the referendum corroborated claims of the referendum having adhered to international standards, with no irregularities or breaches of democracy.[citation needed]
According to Yale historian Timothy Snyder, the Russian government invited individuals belonging to European far-right, anti-semitic and neo-Nazi parties to serve as observers.[115] At least some of the international observers were managed and financed by the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE),[116][117] a far-right, NGO international election-monitoring organization.[118]
Shaun Walker from The Guardian reported that during a press conference on the eve of the referendum, some of the aforementioned observers "went on political rants against U.S. hegemony in the world", describing the press conference as "rather bizarre".[e]"
5) Mateusz Piskorski is not from a trusted international group and is a "Eurasianist" that has been arrested for taking money from Russia and for being essentially an acting Russian agent. It's like asking a Russian Pro-British dude to lead referendums after the US steals away Siberia after denying the UN entry to watch. It's ILLEGAL.
6) Name one time a mainstream US or EU news group has "planned" nuclear strikes on Russia. I can easily do that for Russia; I just type it and I can find several links. Can you?
7) "Russophobia" For Russian is in reality just "they won't let us re-conquer our old territories back". Meanwhile, propaganda against countries like the US has them screeching about fantasizing nuking them to "free the world of the Pindos". I've literally watched your fucked media, so don't deny it. Cry me a river about Russophobia when Russian permits WAY MORE fantasies of genocide and destruction of the West.
8) I've literally crapped on all your points since they're so easy to counter since they're not based on reality, but are based on Kremlin propaganda. Actually look up trusted sources instead of GOVERNMENT-BACKED MEDIA, genius. Imagine if Americans only just got information from VOA, that's you right now, that's how brainwashed you are.
1
-
@dahlbelzalan5892 What exactly are Intel planes compared to jets armed with missiles and weaponry constantly invading Sweden, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine? The US barely complains when Russia sends Intel planes to its borders, but yet here you are, crying about it?
There are few warships in the Black Sea, and those warships are in support of NATO allies. They're nowhere large enough to threaten Russia, only beat back any attempt of Russian aggression. Russia has sent warships near US waters too, and the US makes note of it but doesn't care. So what's the issue here? Both sides do it, but only Russia proclaims that it's threatened.
Ukrainian government has never been neo-nazi or fascist. In fact, by human rights standards, it's a better state than Russia is. By your logic, Russia is "more neo-nazi" than Ukraine is.
I don't give a shit about Crimea's history. I know it, but it literally doesn't matter; because SEVERAL countries owned Crimea at several points in history. The GREEKS had it longer than Russia ever has had it, but you're not arguing for THEM are you????
Yes, it's literally illegal because ARMED TROOPS FORCED a referendum and FORCED the population to vote their way. Which is why Russian disallowed the UN or any other international-rights group to inspect the referendum in the first place Only Kremlin-backed sources were allowed to come, including Neo-Nazis and Fascists btw.
So yes, the Crimean Referendum was illegal by EVERY metric of democracy, and Russia is now a pariah to the Free World. And will stay that way as it acts out. Obviously the region needs MORE US troops if Russia doesn't shape up soon.
1
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к You do realize that when I say "troops at the border", I mean literally AT the border, right? No, sorry, but there aren't troops literally AT Russia's borders. All NATO troops are rather deep inland of their host countries. The only one even marginally close is the one in Orzysz; and that's a fraction of the total force and a fraction of a fraction of Russia's forces always at Poland's border.
There is literally zero proof that anyone "organized" Euromaiden. You just say so because the Kremlin says so, with zero backing from any trusted international source. You are literally trusting GOVERNMENT-BACKED PROPAGANDA over the international community at large. Don't claim someone else is filled with propaganda when you do this.
Ah lookie here, you showed your fascist colors by advocating for shooting protestors. How nice.
The US never spent $5 Billion on Euromaiden, you propagandist. It spent $5 Billion on supporting democratic openness in Ukraine as well as democratic institutions. It's literally just US Aid. Nuland said as such in 2013; "Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations," she said. "We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."
Dude, there have been literally a boatload of evidence that there were literal Russian troops in Ukraine here on YouTube. Vice News covered it extensively, and while they're biased; their information in this case is very solid.
And dude, Putin already ADMITTED that there were Russian troops in Ukraine. Specifically in Crimea; the unmarked troops were literal Russian forces. Who do you think you're fooling? xD
The people sent were not representatives of the countries, genius. They were paid Kremlin Neo-Nazis. It's like inviting Noam Chomsky from the US to watch the proceedings and saying "71 observers from 24 countries".
I literally just looked it up; both the UN and OSCE noted that there were SEVERE human rights violations in Crimea. "ODIHR and HCNM report identifies widespread human rights violations, discrimination and legal irregularities in Crimea"
"UN report details grave human rights violations in Russian-occupied Crimea"
Yeah, I'm done. You live in an alternate reality where the US instigated war and the UN and OSCE claim that there were no human rights violations in Crimea. Newsflash; almost nobody in the international community recognizes Crimea as Russia's. You're ALONE because of your fucked actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@houssedecouette4056 You're literally crying about Western aggression on Russia while Russia has kept nuclear missiles aimed at the center of Europe makes your point moot. And furthermore, your point about "possibilities" is stupid; it takes a lot of mobilization to even begin an invasion of Russia. But you wanna know the best way to start something like that? By Russia attacking neighboring democracies and proving that NATO is necessary.
Every nation's goal is to secure their interests, but no one in the West was aggressively against Russia UNTIL 2014. All ill will starts almost all from there. All Russian screeching about US troops at their borders? Missile systems? Air power? Almost all of it came after 2014.
And you prove how ignorant you are btw. The US didn't take any oil in Iraq, Syria, or Libya; hell the US wasn't even IN Libya to take oil to begin with. The Iraqis sold oil to the Russians and Chinese since they were the highest bidder, and the US helped secure Syria's oil fields for the Kurds; but hasn't taken any for itself. Hell, it's literally the most braindead thing to do; stealing oil. The US would need to marshal its entire navy to take a decent amount of oil halfway across the planet.
Funny how you neglect how the US never targeted Russia, Libya, or Venezuela. The US engaged against Russia and Venezuela due to them causing mayhem in their regions with Colombia and Brazil calling for aid in the latter. And Libya was a Franco-British action and later called for US support in line with a UN directive. But by your own metric, the US also "targeted": Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Turkey, Ukraine, etc. Mind you, that's by your own braindead metric of "targeting", but I find it funny how you talk about outside of the 21st century but ignore how very few of the US' actions abroad had anything to do with oil-rich nations.
For reference, using your own metric, you can just as easily claim that Russia targets oil-rich countries. That would be a stupid claim, but by your metric it makes sense.
Either way, this is all super dumbed down in order for you to say; "Murica as bad as Russia" or some shit. Sorry, but no, Russia is much worse and deserves all of the sanctions for their actions in 2014 and the suspicion of Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1