Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Why Russia wants to restore the Soviet borders" video.

@briansimmons8643 Sanctions were kinda deserved when Russia invaded a neutral democracy for shits and giggles.
9
I think the bigger point is that geography informs the Russian mindset to begin with; creating a paranoia that prevents this more profitable way of interacting with their neighbors.
6
US is seeking to defend its allies, Russia is the aggressor in this case. It's paranoia that Russians use to justify this; not actual threats from the US. It wasn't until 2014 that the US even had a sizable military deployment in Eastern Europe; and it was in response to Russian aggression when everyone at the time was complaining that "Russia would never invade another European country, NATO is just paranoia!11!!" Well, turns out NATO was necessary, since Russians justify conquest under the guise of paranoia. There can be no amount of shilling for Russia that will stop this aggression.
5
@katrinachernykh9011 Well, yes. Russia has not, but that's because of NATO. Wanna know what happened to the first country that decided to try to turn to the West from Russia and wasn't protected by NATO? Ukraine happened. So you're gonna have an impossible time trying to justify WHY Poland or Latvia shouldn't be arming themselves in case Russia tricks itself into attacking them to "protect themselves". If it happened to Ukraine, why not to Poland the second it leaves NATO? Just say something about "Russian minorities" and voila! An easy way to invade Poland and justify it to the Russian people. Poland is independent and can do what it wants. Russia can't do crap about it, and Russia has very much stuck its nose into Polish affairs over literally anything; crying when the Poles tore down that Soviet statue commemorating WW2 for example. Crying about Poland's distrust, history textbooks, economy, etc, etc. All before 2014. "they will have to pay for that intrigues-making if their people will not bring their selfish governments to common sense" See this? This is why NATO is necessary. You will justify anything even if it's shit-talking to invade another democracy. This is why Russia has to be sanctioned and has to have US troops at the border; to remind you that you can't invade US allies and WILL face war with the US if you try.
4
@ДобрыйРептилоид-р7д To this day, there is very little evidence of much discrimination of a Russian minority in these countries. It's little more than a smokescreen for Russia to interfere with democracies; so there is no reason for either the US or EU to allow Russia to have any say in the matter. You have a seriously skewed worldview. Russia did nothing for the West that was not in its own interest; and the concept of a "West" is fluid to begin with -many of those "Western" nations had their own interests and goals throughout the centuries which hardly aligned with each other. The Napoleonic Wars was a war against a Western country with other Western countries in opposition -yet Russians commonly cite that war as proof of Western aggression as if Austria, Prussia, the UK, and many other countries were not involved in the fighting. So cut the BS. Russians always have had this weird "woe is me" attitude when in reality it's just used to justify modern aggression. Russia can stop whenever it wants, and the modern Western forces that set up bases right at Russia's borders were an immediate RESPONSE to Russian aggression in 2014. At no point were there even 1,000 US troops at Russia's borders until then. In a hypothetical scenario where NATO did not expand, it's even more likely that Russia would have used this same "woe is me" attitude to justify "saving Russian minorities" and occupying multiple Eastern/Central European states. No matter the West could have done, this was going to come either way with this persecution complex despite having the literal largest amount of territory on the planet. France was invaded by the UK thousands of times and vice-versa, France was invaded and devastated by Germany twice while vice-versa the Germans were devastated by European wars that criss-crossed the HRE. Yet they are able to live in general harmony. Russia, apparently, can't; in fear of some vague "Western" threat when the West had far more to fear of each other than of Russia until relatively recently. Get over yourself. Russia's issues are born from Russian aggression. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
3
@ntf5211 Mexico joining CSTO would be stupid since Mexico has not felt under threat by the US in almost a century; but if it did that would be their choice. That being said, that's a bad comparison; Ukraine was never gonna join NATO until AFTER Russia's invasion. The entire Euromaiden thing was about joining the EU. So yes, I can blame them, and advocate for more economic squeezing.
3
@saviobiogen9914 Only someone ignoring how US allies function can call them vassal or puppet states. There are no US tanks crushing anti-US protests, and these allied nations have their own policies that run contrary to the US as well. You'd have to try REALLY hard to find USSR puppet states anywhere near comparable to US allies.
2
@Remembrance1776 Well, duh. That was the age; that being said, the Mexican-American War was complicated and was NOT just a "major land grab". In fact, many States at the time were wary of the conflict but chose to engage in defense of the newly formed Texas.
1
@scudb5509 Literally none of these barring Afghanistan was a NATO operation; and the Afghanistan was because the US triggered its defensive pact since it was attacked in 9/11. In every single other operation was individual countries within NATO acting; not NATO itself. People like you can't seem to differentiate between NATO and the US, so you just say NATO = the US by default. That's your ignorance talking.
1
@tonymontana7263 No international group worth their salt has ever painted Syria as anything but a military dictatorship. And military dictatorships by default are not legitimate governments; so whatever Assad said to Russia -it had no actual legitimacy in international law. So yes, Russia technically is invading Syria and has contributed to the most civilian deaths in the conflict...next to Syrian forces themselves. Funny that. Syrians have far more to fear from their "allies" and government than other groups.
1
@tonymontana7263 NATO can't fund outside sources, you liar. Individual countries within NATO can, but NATO is just an overall command structure; it isn't a government in of itself. The US funded groups which were ALREADY rebelling against Assad; the SDF approached the US years after the fighting started to help establish a democratic government and the US did so after much cajoling -but ultimately focused on helping the Kurds to kill ISIS. Assad literally helped ISIS to ruin the SDF's reputation by freeing all Islamists to war against his people; Assad literally helped his enemies kill more of his people to maintain power. At no point did the US or any NATO country actually fund ISIS itself. So no, NATO nor even the US was much involved until after the Syrian Civil War started.
1
@righthandstep5 Canada is just as patriotic as the US is, so idk what world you live in. And Canada has its own myriad issues which can make it fall apart.
1
@Ls151000 Canada and Italy have sovereignty by every metric of the word. They also live infinitely better lives than Russians do. Which is why Russians escape to these countries and not vice-versa.
1
@scudb5509 US is the strongest power, not "in charge". Just because you're the strongest state actor doesn't mean the US gets to do whatever it wants; it's blinded by its electorate, it's moral expectations, and its quasi-isolationist voter base. At most, the US could maintain the status quo and very slowly expand influence without sending in US troops; barring a blunt invasion of a US ally. So calling the US "Boss" is pretty reductive of how it handles international affairs. The US "COULD" just remove anyone in its way regarding its weaker allies; but doing so would be borderline impossible at this point due to cultural and moral reasons. Not to mention it would throw away US soft power.
1
@scudb5509 "Bombing of Afghanistan" Which occurred in a defensive war. Afghanistan facilitated the 9/11 bombing, so by every metric it was legal. "Iraq" far less legal, but it occurred in a dictatorship so the morality of it is skewed in favor of the US. Ditto for all of the other nations. According to the UN, all peoples deserve and are entitled to liberty; so overthrowing dictatorships for democracies is hardly seen as negative. The issue is in the lives taken in that self-proclaimed goal; was it worth it or no? The US faced heavy criticism for the perception that even if the US kept the civilian casualties IT committed at a minimum; it still should've done better. As for Yugoslavia, well that was ostensibly to stop a genocide, so no one is gonna question that. Idk where you've been, but there have been quite a few scathing reports of the US killing civilians and/or making things worse. If anything, people never stop talking about it because as the superpower; anything the US does gets plastered all over world news. If you don't look it up, you won't find much on Russia's actions in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, or Libya; because Russia is comparatively not important. The US is what gets attention, not Russia. That works against the US, for every action is hyper-scrutinized. Iraq told the US to leave once back in 2010 or so, and the US did leave. But immediately after that; ISIS came in and wrecked everything. So nobody wants a repeat, thus the US gets away with that particular issue. If Russia left somewhere via an order from a democratic assembly and refused to leave, then it would deserve the hate; but if it left and things got a LOT worse then you can bet people will look the other way. Colombia is a flawed democracy; but still a democracy. Riots in a democracy aren't necessary since there is a way to vote out the leadership. What Colombian cops did was terrible, but unlike Venezuela (which hides their police brutality, so it's unlikely Colombia was "worse"), Colombia is an actual democracy. Venezuelans have no choice but to rebel, since there is no way to change the leadership. That's the difference. Ditto with Syria, which is also a dictatorship. FYI: Dictatorships invading Democracies = Bad. Democracies invading Dictatorships = Nowhere near as bad. Ultimately what got the US such a bad reputation in the Cold War was its overthrowing of other democracies, not the other bad stuff.
1
@scudb5509 You realize that "beduin" was actually the wealthy son of a fabulously wealthy oil magnate with a 5 star education, right? And that his compatriots were also extremely intelligent individuals. They were not stupid, they were religious extremists; and they had little choice but to hide in caves much like Saddam Hussein did when the Americans were near.
1
@scudb5509 Julian Assange is wanted for coordinated a breach into top-secret US files in top-secret government computers. It's called espionage; and it's a charge that 99% of countries take very seriously.
1
@scudb5509 No it wouldn't. No country gets sanctions for accidentally killing journalists; they get sanctions for attacking an innocent democratic country, or for being a dictatorship that oppresses its people.
1
@scudb5509 Nobody cares what happened after the Cold War. The US and USSR were locked in a struggle for influence, and for the record; we have literally no idea how many elections the USSR interfered with because...get this...it was a dictatorship which hid all of the bad stuff it did. Meanwhile the US is a democracy that has little choice but to be more honest. For all we know, the USSR did it 300 times over. An independent country fucking with other independent countries is not dictatorship. Dictatorship is only possible within a nation-state, it's not possible outside of one. The US can't go and arrest you for talking crap, which a dictator could, even with all of its power. As for your question, I hate all dictators, including the ones that were placed there by the US. I can acknowledge however that they can't be removed atm; as we saw in Iraq, sometimes a dictator is the only thing holding a country together. Idealism doesn't always work in the world; and the US fighting and protecting only democracies would have been an abysmal strategy against the USSR. So basically, while I hate it, I'm not in favor of forcefully removing each and every dictatorship on the planet, but a few at a time sounds good. Though even then, pragmatism should be a thing; helping France in Libya, even if the US ultimately felt obligated, was not a good idea and I very much dislike that that happened and will bring it up as something to be ashamed of. Really, these days all I expect of the US is "don't hurt other democracies when there isn't a massive war for influence". China is many things, but there is zero need for the US to exhibit old Cold War-era CIA coups; and I would be ashamed of it if it did.
1
@scudb5509 You're comparing hiding accidentally killing a journalist to overthrowing a country. Talk about being reductionist. No, sorry, but the US by every metric of morality is MUCH better than the USSR. And Russia for that matter.
1
@scudb5509 "Show more than just 1 journalist" Idk what you mean by that.
1
@scudb5509 Why would you need to get started on Saudi Arabia? I don't like it either.
1
@SangiinKherem In what world do you live in is the US collapsing? Having riots, protests, or leaving countries is not indicative of a collapse. Nor is having a high debt. Japan's debt-to-GDP is higher than the US', and the US' debt after WW2 was MUCH higher in terms of debt-to-GDP; and that was considered the US' golden age. The US' economy is still rising, it's political system is still functioning, it's military still across the planet. By your logic, the US was "collapsing" during Vietnam, Yugoslavia, or Iraq. Sorry, but that is just your propaganda network telling you obvious untruths. Like seriously, by every metric the US is still doing well; democracies have points where internal affairs take precedence.
1
@SangiinKherem Housing prices rising is in of itself not inherently negative; the issue is if they skyrocket in the midst of much speculation. There is no Housing Bubble, or at least not a major one. A recession could occur, but not from that. You do realize that it's not the Western democracies that will hit rock bottom if the world economy gets knocked down a peg, right? If anything, they will weather it much better than most.
1
@SangiinKherem Comparatively speaking, they haven't. It was a more natural uptick rather than the runaway jump that was caused by predatory loans, which have been tamped down on since. You might wanna check up what caused the 2008 Housing Crisis, it wasn't just from rising Housing prices. The Great Depression was miles upon miles worse than the Recession; literally at one point there were like a quarter of populations left without work. The Recession was minor in comparison, and no, Western democracy was never under threat during the Recession. Under the Great Depression it was only under threat in seriously unstable democracies in the first place such as France and Germany, not the US or UK of the time. You subscribe to really old economic theory, geez. Go take an economics course on Supply Side economics before you keep going. The West are living well within their means, and all of the Western nations have the full capability of cutting back if necessary even if you do believe that. I like how you use "we" when you seemed so gleeful of Western democracy falling. What, are you some kind of fascist or Marxist? Because neither of those tend to win against Democratic Capitalists.
1
@SangiinKherem Oh boy. Okay, look, let's just agree to disagree on this.
1
@saviobiogen9914 US did not permanently move military infrastructure on Russia's borders until 2014. This is a reaction against Russian aggression, asked for and flat-out demanded by those "little countries" in honor of the defensive alliance. And to be frank; their fate as "pions" against Russia is still a far preferable fate than being subjugated by it.
1
@igory3789 So because it went wrong before, it will always go wrong again? That's a rather messy mindset. That being said, no one wants to invade Russia. At most, people just wanna kick them back to their borders.
1
@igory3789 The Mongols conquered Russia, so that's not really true. The issue is that the Russian elites have zero sense of care for their people, and the people have zero sense of self-preservation skills. They'd rather let themselves starve by the hands of their elites than let a foreigner win, while the French elites care enough to surrender and fight another day, that never reflected Russia's elites. Which is indicative of its state then and now. But yes, nukes are a thing. I was speaking in hypothetical, without nukes. No country can go it alone, it's that poisonous mindset that weakens Russia. Russia will never be permanently stable, it will face issues, rebellions, unrest, etc; all countries do. Without allies, during these weaker times, you're vulnerable. It's unlikely any Western power would invade Russia, but it's perfectly feasible that they will cut off Russian influence during such an interim. Nobody has ever contested Russia's influence in Central Asia. Really, only recently has the US ever bothered to do so, and the second they did quite a few stirrings occurred such as switching from a Cyrillic to a Latin alphabet. Whether that means anything is anyone's guess, but obviously Western influence is growing there too even if nobody really cares to push much in it. As for Afghanistan; it's a joke if Russia thinks it can control the region. Unless Russian troops stay there indefinitely to maintain a regime, the Taliban will do what it wants by doing the same thing Russian elites have done. Appealing to nationalism, and damn everyone else.
1
@igory3789 I mean, by this logic, many peoples weren't conquered either. But hey, if you wanna use this logic, go ahead. The US' withdrawal from Afghanistan is so that they don't have to deal with the aftermath. The fact it didn't consult with anyone isn't indicative of anything but the US being unilateral -independent nations can make their own decisions. The US didn't order anyone, so your attempt at de-legitimizing other sovereign states is gross. Russia is more interested in slaves than actual allies. Any "ally" of Russia that goes against it tends to get invaded, ala Ukraine which used to love Russia. Meanwhile, US allies have consistently done things the US hated without consequence even during the Cold War. Also, don't fool yourself here; Russia and China hate each other -China was far more responsible for mucking Russian influence in Asia than the US ever was; and would not want to cede influence to it now. US alliances doesn't end in Europe. It has expanded across the globe; so you're kinda ignoring the many US allies that it has not just in Europe, but East Asia in particular. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. By every metric, the US' alliance system far outstrips Russia and China's impromptu "partnership" even in conjunction with states like Iran. Nobody expected the Stans to be anywhere but in Russia's sphere of influence. The problem here is that you're attributing what Russia already had to gains, which is faulty as hell. "Expanding" anywhere where other big powers are is near-impossible since Russia's influence is comparatively minor. West and South of Russia are not just US allies, but smaller states that have no reason to let Russia do anything. Russia will only have the Stans, and that's about it. It will be stuck in its little corner of the world, while the real wealth is concentrated far from Russia's borders which Russia can never reach, not without a MASSIVE shift in power.
1
@igory3789 Putin neglected to mention that unlike the US, Russia does have imperialist ambitions in expanding its borders. It literally did so in 2014 in a sham referendum done without any international observers and done AFTER stealing the territory from another country in the first place. I remember also thinking that Russia not having imperialist ambitions...until then. Turns out I was a naïve fool. What Russia wants in "multilateralism" is a world where it can bully small states whenever it wants within its "sphere of influence". Sorry, but those days should stay dead. It's bad enough the US can essentially do it, no one wants either Russia or China joining in; most of the countries most vicious in fighting such influence are those that would be forced to join such a sphere in the first place. And that's the issue; force. For all of the sins of the US, it hasn't been ruthless to fellow democracies since the Cold War -it's a comforting fact. Russia and China have zero compunctions. What Putin wants is a WORSE world than we live in now. No thank you. I'd rather keep Russia and China stuck in their regions.
1
@pissyourselfandshitncoom2172 "Russia has a right to exist and not be conquered" Acting like Russia is on the defensive when there is only one country in that region that has expanded its territory multiple times in the past few decades is hilarious. You're also acting like there's this massive US invasion force ready to attack...when the forces there are not even 30,000 strong. They are nowhere near enough to ever face Russia's military in open conflict. They're a defensive force to hold the line if an invasion occurs, but Russian paranoia, amirite?
1
@JcDizon Most people don't know what Belgium is, including Europeans. If you ever bothered to ask around, you'd figure out that most people are quite ignorant outside of their immediate needs lol
1
@trippybruh1592 Russia isn't a concern to the US, it's a concern to US allies; which is a concern to the US. :D
1
@charles8769 Soviets literally stole all of Eastern/Central Europe after saying they wouldn't, built a giant wall to keep them from leaving, and crushed their protests with tanks and bullets. And you claim that the US which REACTED to this are the bad guys? Wow. Bootlicker much?
1
@Freak-px9uk Bruh, you live in a hyper-Russophilic fantasy land if you think the US is anywhere close to dividing itself. The US is far more united than most of the other big states; internal issues taking center stage is standard in democratic countries. The US wasn't even close to ripping itself apart during the Vietnam War-era; and that was MUCH worse than this lol
1
@EF01 Maybe the Khmer Rouge? Idk any other. China has not really had much influence outside of East Asia.
1
@katrinachernykh9011 How can we leave Russia alone if they don't leave us alone? How can we stop coming closer to their borders if they try to expand their borders? Why should we stop restricting its interests if they're in direct opposition and threatening us? A lot of these are Russophilic points, but ignores literally everyone else for the sake of Russia, I think.
1
@katrinachernykh9011 Russia's neighbors wants us to be there. Who is Russia to demand us to leave when it's their neighbors' territory? Russia doesn't control Poland or Latvia; that's their choice. We won't be leaving until Russia is either beaten down enough or changed enough that their security isn't a constant concern.
1
@katrinachernykh9011 That's insanity. Ukraine is not Russia, you do not get to decide what or is not "sticking your nose" into something. And even if it was; that's nowhere near good enough to justify war. No one cares that Ukraine has a lot of ethnic Russians or it was once a part of Russia; it's NOT Russian territory anymore. Period. End of story. You keep acting like this wariness of Russian aggression is fake when you're literally proving it. Your exact mentality is the issue; you feel as if you have a RIGHT to interfere in other countries because they have ethnic Russians and used to be a part of a dead empire. The UK doesn't have the right to interfere in former lands held by its empire. Neither does Russia to Ukraine. Until Russia gets that through its skull, US forces will be on standby in case it gets any imperialist ideas. American soldiers will die to contain Russia. But in every single war they fought in, they extracted around 10-to-1 cost for every US death. So don't be stupid; the US has issues with occupying hostile lands while forcing government changes. It has absolutely NO issue with killing the enemy; in fact it's far better than Russia in that department. No one but Russia's neighbors fear Russia, but that's why the US is there. There is nothing to fear as long as the Americans are around.
1
@katrinachernykh9011 Ukraine isn't Russian. It hasn't been Russian since the days of the USSR, that isn't "rude", it's a literal fact. Ukraine has its own government, economy, society, and culture. Much like the US and Canada is not the UK; prior ownership does not entail constant ownership. Get over yourself.
1
@katrinachernykh9011 There is no such thing as a "self-sufficient country" barring North Korea; and it's considered a crap country. Every single country on Earth has important trade networks that it needs to maintain their lifestyles, and which would be devastating if cut. Even the US. So your metric is absurd. "Destroyed its own economy". Russia literally started a war with Ukraine and stole pieces of its territory; in what world was its economy NOT gonna take a hit? Regardless of whether you feel what Russia did was justified; there is no question that it was Russia's actions which cut down Ukraine's GDP in 2014. Free market logic works if both sides are going at this as honest brokers. Russia has shown that its willing to try and abuse its trade networks to hurt what it considers its rivals; going past Ukraine isn't merely because Ukraine isn't trustworthy -it's to form dependencies with Central/Western European countries to glean them off of supporting Ukraine against Russian bullying. That's beyond concerns of free trade. Ukrainian government is far more democratic than Russia is; and Neo-Nazis are dictatorial by nature. By no measure is Ukraine Neo-Nazi, let alone more so than Russia. Ukrainians want the West to help them against Russia, you have ZERO say in whether Western nations decide to or not. Cultural links or no, that is not an excuse to interfere in a sovereign democratic country's affairs. YOU get out of Ukraine's business and leave their territories; it was once Russia's, but it's not anymore. Those days are gone and done with, and the quicker you recognize that, the easier Russia can be accepted as a civilized nation.
1
@ntf5211 Can you cite that?
1