Comments by "Marvin Westmaas" (@MarvinWestmaas) on "Artur Rehi"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@CMY187 I find it sad, as you point out there is a lot of heritage coming from Russia, and there is beauty in how the people carry the weight of existence in a realm they don't necessarily want to be in.
The history, and specifically the methodology endured has made for a people uncanning in their ability to 'believe in the system, or else'. If the chances of you as individual actually being able to change something for the better in your own surrounding has been essential in the creation of a self image, an national identity, in most developed countries yet Russia has never left the autocratic era and thus it's citizens life under the rule that their will, their wishes, their worth as human being is at most a third rate consideration.
Which also, equally sad, is the answer to your question. Russia can do what it does, because it has never been anything else then what it is. The Gorbachev's of the world, those in power who see that power as being corrupt and needing change, have tried to change it and failed.
While I would like for Putin to be 'replaced' yesterday instead of today, real change can't come from changing the figure at the top. Real change comes when the people of Russia reach not only the ability for self control but also the self awareness it needs to want to use it. In a way, the war might end up a good thing for the Russian people, in historic perspective, because it might spark that awareness.
And again, that's a sad realization because why does there needs to be so much suffering before the people really realize it's them who bleed and suffer already. And if they suffer and bleed now, what is the reason to not revolt, what else can they be given to endure?
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BTinSF ,, you change 132 million to 26 million 'fit for service' but you can't do that for the 31m Ukrainians in total, and you base that on 'the US was not in an existential war for survival' which is pretty ludicrous since 18 would eventually look to the US if he had been able to subdue the British.
WW2 for the US was very much an existential war.
Btw, if from 132m the only 'able bodied' were 26 million ( ~19% )... so let's use that same number for Ukraine.. 5.9 'million potential.
Since from the 26 'potential' you mention, only 16 actually served in any capacity ~ 61%
2.7 million from 5.9 million ~ 46%.
The ~20% difference, while sounding large, is most likely caused by Ukraine having a less industrial base ( main export is agriculture ), which is much more labor intensive thus not allowing equal participation in the war effort if Ukraine also needs to keep it's economy running.
Ukraine would need much more economical aid if they were to mobilize more able bodied people. Aid they are not even getting enough now, so it's ludicrous to claim they should lower their economic output to bolster the number of bodies in their military. They wouldn't be able to equip and train them, and also keep the country running.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Kurds are a drama, they should have had a country a century ago and still don't have one. In the mean time, every ally they had has stabbed them in the back at some point.
Turkey is important due to it's location. It also has quite a large and modern army.
Not every Islamic country is warring, or even close to being aggressive towards other religions. But as with all religions, there are issues when you make them a foundation for law and order, and it's especially a problem since religion is mostly abused by those in power. It's the perfect control mechanism for people who often have no real education.
Btw, Turkey should not be able to officially flip from being secular, it's in their constitution afaik. Something to do with Ataturk..
The problem starts when democratic values are no longer being adhered to. Turkey controls to much press, their elections are not on a fair level and thus they are not representing the actual will of the people. The same goes for Hungary, to a much bigger extent even.
Being secular by law doesn't mean much if no one actually follows the ( rule of the ) law.
Ow and not sure but I hope you didn't call Hungary a Muslim country? Roman Catholic, almost 40% of the population. Problem here is that they somehow think that THEIR religious believes should be basis of all laws. A non secular Roman Catholic country is just as much a problem as a non secular Muslim country, that's the main issue there.
@AdrianSams
2
-
2
-
2