Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Why Does Russia Hate the West (and NATO) - TLDR News" video.
-
11
-
9
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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