Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Finland and Sweden consider NATO membership" video.

@alfatejpblind6498 Terrible comparison since Calis consider themselves Americans and would sooner butcher every Russian in sight than ever work with them. Calis hate Russia with leftist passions.
30
@alfatejpblind6498 Ukrainians don't consider themselves Soviet, what are you talking about? They haven't since the USSR collapsed. Yes, if Ukrainians hated the Americans and an American occupation occurred, they'd have tried to kill every American they found. Except they want the Americans there now, due to Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, today, Californians would sooner bomb their state to oblivion than ever accept Russian help. Why are you acting like you live in an alternate universe where Ukraine is still under the USSR? Dude, I'm latino; and American Hispanics are just as patriotic about their country as the white people. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Having cultural connections elsewhere doesn't equate to having no national loyalty; its why the US didn't tear apart when Irish and German immigrants became supreme. We're American, and we won't be splitting up anytime soon. Meanwhile, Ukraine WAS Soviet, and used to love Russia, but now hates them because of their actions; making fake scenarios make zero sense here. You're just grasping at straws for a strawman.
20
@dinarichyperborean1455 And what about the nations destroyed by Russia? By your logic Russia should be destroyed too, right?
16
@ahellooo I love how its NATO causing the issues when they are only responding to Russia invading a neighboring European democracy. How very dare NATO ensure the sovereignty of nations Russians have subjugated and occupied in the past? Russia today only proves how wise they were to join early.
14
Tyler Hopkins So you're saying we can consider sending in 50k US troops at the very edge of the Polish-Russian border and that wouldn't be "aggressive"? Bcz right now there are pretty much zero NATO troop mobilized near Russia's borders. They're well inside their host nations. We can change that though.
6
Tyler Hopkins "even after the EU/NATO coup in 2014" Which only ever happened in the Kremlin's imagination. Literally no international organization or reliable democratic rights group accepts Russia's version of events as anything but propaganda nonsense. And neither do you, but I guess if Papa Putler says so then it must be true to you? "even after shutting down opposition newspapers" What Ukraine did was terrible for democratic liberties, but lets be clear here; we still know for a fact with studies on the population that Ukraine vastly supports NEVER aligning with Russia since 2014. Also, Russia by every metric is infinitely worse in this regard; opposition parties and media have been shut down or "mysteriously died" by being thrown out a window or poisoned. You're arguing in bad faith here. The very "opposition newspaper" in the Kyiv Post you talked about did a poll on how many Ukrainians wanted to join NATO; with it being at a whopping 59% hope to do so. So you're just lying here too. Convenient how Marxists don't give a shit about the democratic freedoms that are being trampled insofar that the evil capitalists that control everything and thus "are the REAL dicatorships1!!1!". The N@zi's did the same thing, except claimed it was "da Joos". Yugoslavia died because fascist Serbs tried to install a Greater Serbia. Cry me a river. We have definitive proof that Ukrainians want to join NATO since 2019 the latest, and the corporate fascist Russian oligarchs are attempting to distract their poor peasants by starting crap. And you are their apparent useful idiot of sorts. Sorry, but your lying doesn't work when we have literal statistics pointing elsewhere...
6
@ArawnOfAnnwn US didn't care about the Soviet presence in Cuba until nukes were involved. And there haven't been any new nuclear systems placed east of Germany, while Russia has kept and updated the far more numerous ones in Kaliningrad.
6
@simocvijic2588 NATO never bombed Morroco or Iran. In fact Morocco is a very close US ally for like 200 years. What are you talking about?
5
@andreyg.2388 NATO never invaded any of these nations barring Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. US used NATO command structure in Yugoslavia after Serbs started to genocide people, so it was quite justified. Or are you pro-genocide? As for Afghanistan; Taliban supported Al Qaeda thus Article 5 was initiated. Legal. That's it.
4
@andreyg.2388 "members of NATO were taking part in those aggressions maybe not as NATO officially but as seperate countries under USA" ^This is literally the point. Russia claims to fear NATO because it can force everyone to attack Russia, except that's bogus. At worst nations within NATO can organize and its structure for their interests, but it has to be willingly and for something they want. NATO can't force them, and neither can the US, despite your claim otherwise. European nations won't attack Russia with the US if the US wants it, because NATO can't force them and neither can the US. So Russia's entire point is based on a lie, thus making their imperialism not only completely insane, but also illogical. That's it.
3
@LollipopUnicorny Yeltsin, Putin; that doesn't matter -the ludicrous wishes of Pro-Russian imperialism remained the same. The context of that quote was a question of "what does Russia want?" and there is no mistaking that quote's meaning. If Yeltsin, apparently the "guy that sold Russia to the West" literally wanted the US to throw all of Europe under the bus for "peace" and under Russian influence. Literally the West can never trust Russia if Yeltsin represents the leadership that Russians consider to be "selling out" to the West. Impossible demands that pretty much cede all authority and power to Russia on the vague hope that Russia will play nice is blatant appeasement bootlicking. People like you may as well demand Western nations just throw away our nukes for peace; its literally that insane a concept.
3
Is NATO placing nukes next to Russia? No, Russia has a LOT of nukes in Kaliningrad tho, and troops in Vzla. So I call BS.
2
@ArawnOfAnnwn Bruh, no nation under NATO has ever been invaded by Russia. Plus it would be far more likely to face an invasion withour NATO considering Ukraine's fate.
2
@hughdanaher2758 The other guy was talking about an occupation of California; there would be no avoiding a fight by that point already.
2
@XR0075 US almost started a nuclear war because the USSR places nuclear weapons on Cuba. Soviet military and equipment were in Cuba without US complaints for most of the Cold War. US doesn't understand Russia's concerns because the USSR routinely placed troops near the US' borders all the time with little complaint. And now Russia is changing the rules; acting like ANY troops near their borders after a war THEY started at the request of the nearby nations of NATO...equates to them feeling threatened to invade innocent democracies nearby? That's an absurd metric and no American barring the most pro-Kremlin shills will ever accept it. If Russia threatens nukes, then the US will indeed start placing nukes nearby. That's Russia's decision to escalate, not the US'. And for the record, the US literally tried to integrate Russia into NATO; it refused at every turn. Russia wants to continue this BS Cold War crap, while the West bent itself into pretzels for Russia's "cOnCeRnS'. Screw that now. We've learned our lesson. No breaks for Russia.
2
@LollipopUnicorny Except you lied and then tried to draw an equivalency. Tell me; when did the US claim that Iraq or Libya was threatening the US? When did they claim that these nations were gonna get invaded because they felt threatened? So either you're lying, or you don't have a brain. Choose.
2
@LollipopUnicorny Btw, Yeltsin literally went to Bill Clinton and offered to help him subvert European nations and split the continent between them; so Russia's intentions were never Pro-Europe -they were always based on dominance in some way or form on the continent. Which makes any European defending them the ultimate in sad and desperate.
2
@LollipopUnicorny "“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." This was what Yeltsin had to say to Bill Clinton in 1999. If you wanna be a slave so bad, then just go to Russia, don't drag the rest of Europe with this madness of imperialism. Edit: My point is that Russia has never considered "Europe" to be independent and sovereign nations; it was always just a chess board to be used at will. The only "players" Russia acknowledges in the West is the US, and thus sees NATO as just a US plot to expand its empire. Ignoring the reality of European sovereignty while people like bootlicker for them because "Murica bad".
2
@andreyg.2388 Yugoslavia was bombed by NATO, yes. For good reason, but yes.
2
@andreyg.2388 US and UK also bombed civilians when crushing Nazi Germany. As it turns out, when civilians don't stop a genocide from the inside, they get in the crossfire of attempts to stop it from outside that are less pleasant. I hold little sympathy in this, and I fully expect the US to get bombed into the dirt if it also tried to genocide anyone within the country too. Genocide is NOT tolerable under any circumstance, and it disgusts me that force isn't used to stop it more often. That being said, what weapons were prohibited by the Nuremberg Charter and Hague? And why do you specifically only care that NATO follows these rules when Yugoslavia followed exactly none of those rules and broke far more international laws as a consequence? Yes, if the US starts to genocide peoples, bomb it to the ground.
2
@RiwenX NATO never attacked Libya, genius. Nations within NATO did, but NATO itself had nothing to do with it. That being said; Libya was in civil war at the time and was already turned into a shithole. France and the UK got a UN resolution to stop Libyan bombing of civilians
1
@RiwenX What do they have to say? NATO didn't invade any of them.
1
@mr.n0ne Europe doesn't want violence, but Russia can't just push and push without expecting resistance. And "respecting security concerns" cannot be achieved by throwing multiple nations under the bus. Especially when those nations have every reason to believe that Russia will just attempt to swallow them whole without NATO assistance. This is literal appeasement theory, dude; "hey man, just give them what they want, maybe they won't want war after that?"
1
@LollipopUnicorny I don't think the US ever threatened that, or claimed that these nations threatened the US. But you'd know that if you actually had two braincells to ponder it. :P
1
@LollipopUnicorny "Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner. "Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner." "Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."" At no point did Putin claim he wanted to join NATO, he said that he would consider it if "Russia was treated as an equal partner". So not only did you lie before and then try to dodge it when you were called out on it... you tried to lie AGAIN. Why do Kremlin propagandists never tell the truth?
1
@LollipopUnicorny Bruh, you've been called out on 2 lies in a row. You're obviously not arguing in good faith. xD
1
@LollipopUnicorny He was "willing" to join under stupid conditions; he never applied to it because he wanted carte blanche to go ahead and act like an imperialist jerk without Western protests. Did you know that Hitler asked for peace with the UK after it invaded and conquered France? Just because someone "offers" you something, that doesn't make it a good deal when you look at the wider picture. NATO didn't have an answer anyway, Putin never actually applied; he claimed that on an interview and never did anything with it. Never petitioned for changes in NATO or anything. So he was full of it anyway. At no point did NATO reject Putin or Russia. So yet again; you are literally lying.
1
@mr.n0ne Nowhere near the same amount and nowhere near Russia; they're in old West Germany, not in Latvia. Meanwhile in Kaliningrad the nukes are literally neighboring their victims. Can't get much closer than that. And now you're really being dishonest. "no collective defense"? When there are literal Russian troops there, then the collective defense is already in effect; it means that any attack against the nation forces the occupying force to get involved and thus starts war between the invader and the occupier. It's de-facto and well understood by all parties, even Russians. And yet you try to make a distinction? Give me a break. And why does their need to be a buffer? Who says so? Why do nations need to eb sacrificed so big ones can feel secure? Sorry, but screw that; you have no right to dictate whether a nation becomes a buffer, if they don't want to join NATO then fine; but if they do? Who are you to demand that they respect Russian paranoia? And I ain't saying the West is perfect, but they ain't forcing nations to join NATO while Russia is invading nations to PREVENT them from joining NATO. In this instance, Russia can cry all it wants, it's int he wrong and the West will not sit idly by this time. And pro-imperialists like you can cry all you want about the fact that small nations don't have to be sacrificed for your precious "buffer".
1
@LollipopUnicorny Here's the bit I posted expanded: As if a student of Stalin, Yeltsin tried to reach a secret oral agreement on the new division of Europe. He proposed a “gentlemen’s agreement” to Clinton that no former Soviet countries would join NATO. Clinton responded that he believed in the new Russia, which was not interested in annexing other countries. He recalled that he had been working towards a NATO that would not be a threat to Russia but that would permit the US and Canada to stay in Europe and work with Russia to build an undivided Europe. Clinton said that [i]f we were to agree that no members of the former Soviet Union could enter NATO, it would be a bad thing for our attempt to build a new NATO, but it would also be a bad thing for your attempt to build a new Russia. I am not naive. I understand you have an interest in who gets into NATO and when. However, he stressed firmly that “there are no secrets in this world. … [This secret agreement would mean] Russia would be saying, ‘we still have an empire’.” Yeltsin persisted and asked again. He wanted Clinton to confirm that the former Soviet republics would not become NATO members, at least in the following decade. Clinton didn’t crack and said that he couldn’t make promises on behalf of NATO or veto any country’s wish to join NATO, and least of all allow someone else, Russia included, to do so. “I’m prepared to work with you … to make sure that we take account of Russia’s concerns … . I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO,” said Clinton. Yeltsin accepted this but proposed to agree that no former Soviet republics would be in the first wave of enlargement. Clinton did not agree to this either, because he felt that it would make it seem they were the old Russia and old NATO. This concluded the NATO expansion saga. Clinton successfully defended the common interests of the West and Yeltsin did not miss out on an opportunity to express Russia’s discontent with it all. Add Yeltsin’s previously repeated assurances to Clinton that the reintegration taking place in the CIS space was the free will of the countries and their firm wish to increase well-being by restoring former economic relations, and it becomes clear that Russia wanted to steer the US away from preventing the rebirth of the empire. This topic and this entire article are best concluded with a recollection from the last official face-to-face meeting, which took place on 19 November 1999 in Istanbul. Yeltsin started off the meeting, which lasted just under an hour, by throwing harsh criticism at the US—it was supporting Turkey in the training, on Turkish territory, of guerrillas who were fighting in Chechnya. Clinton did not respond to this, and a slightly calmer Yeltsin revealed a request that summarised the answer to the question: what did Russia want? “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. It is not known how Yeltsin felt during this conversation, but it can be concluded from the verbatim report that his state of mind was confused. He ended the meeting abruptly by standing up while Clinton was talking about Europe’s attitude towards the new war in Chechnya. Clinton asked Yeltsin, who was leaving, who would win the elections. Yeltsin answered: “Putin, of course. … He’s a democrat and he knows the West. … He’s tough.” ^What Russia wants here is for the US to just give Russia an empire again. That's literally it. No other explanation, and even Clinton specifies it and Yeltsin doesn't even deny it. Stop acting like Russia is the innocent party; it's literally the one pressing the US to "give peace a chance" by giving Russia promises to recognize the lack of sovereignty of multiple nations. It's asking for a Munich Conference 2.0.
1
@LollipopUnicorny These are recorded conversations from the Clinton Archives; public in accordance to the US' Freedom of Information Act where secret government documents are released to the public. These are the same kinds of releases that admit when the US instigated a coup in a democracy during the Cold War. Unless you wanna argue that those were possibly fake too, you're not making a great case. C'mon now.
1
@mr.n0ne Russia literally has influence in the Americas. Soviet Union stayed in Cuba after the Cuban Missile Crisis, while Russians are now in Venezuela as we speak without an attempt to blockade or destroy them all. The nukes are the key factor here, but you're ignoring everything else to make your disingenuous point. "there was no special reason for NATO's eastward expansion" Except for the wishes of the nations there that were terrified that Russia would "protect itself by expanding westward by force". Who are you to force small nations to NOT join a defensive alliance? Every small nation near Russia that was not a part of NATO were screwed by Russia, so they turned out to be exactly right. If anything, NATO now has every reason to put nukes on these countries as a warning to not invade. But then, despite Russia starting the aggressive invasions, you'd unironically act like Russia would have the right to put nukes near the US...despite neither Cubans or Venezuelans wanting anything to do with Russia.
1
@mr.n0ne Unless nukes are involved they're not. You are intentionally ignoring key parts of the Cuban Missile Crisis to justify Russian imperialism here
1
@andreyg.2388 1) Yugoslavia did not attack a NATO member prior to the bombing 2) Yugoslavia did not invite NATO 3) People were being genocided and I literally don't care at that point. Anyone trying to stop a genocide is morally correct by default. If Yugoslavs intervened in Greece to stop a genocide, then they'd be right too in that case. Idk why you're calling me naive when Yugoslavia was hardly obeying international law at all in its conduct but then expect everyone else to just sit around and do nothing.
1