Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Европейский Альянс против России: Европа Разделена!" video.

I disagree with how you selected which countries would participate in the coalition. Firstly, the EU has the exact same legal obligations when one of its member states is attacked as NATO does (an attack on one is an attack on all). Russian activity in the Baltic states would immediately pull every single EU member state into the war. Secondly, what the population of those countries think of a single EU army has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to aid the EU in a war against Russia. Most countries are against a unified EU army, even some that you've included in the coalition. Realistically, in case of a war of such importance, all member states would want to be certain of victory. If the war takes a bad turn for the EU coalition, this would mean even those that weren't directly involved would economically be hit hard, because an attack on any member (especially more prominent members like Germany and France) is an attack on the single market they are also part of and will directly affect their economy. This war should be supported by (almost) every member state, plus probably the UK (in or out, the UK has already stated it will continue the defence and intelligence cooperation with other EU member states). Only members with exceptional reasons to not participate (for example, Finland to prevent a war on their soil and keep a buffer zone between Russia and Sweden) should be left out of the coalition.
42
+Jim Troy I'm sorry but the EU is economically more healthy than even the US right now. Less debt and growing faster, not to mention bigger. And Russia's economy is barely worth mentioning in comparison to the US or EU economy.
11
+Steven Strain The EU and Russia both make up for about 25% of the global arms trade. In terms of funding the military the EU's budget is 226 billion USD, Russia's is 69 billion USD. The EU's budget is second in the world behind the US, with China only a few billion behind it on third place. Yes, Russia's economy is centered around war more than the EU's is, but in the end both economies have about the same share in the arms trade. Russia just relies on it more than the EU. For the EU it's just a small part of its huge economy, for Russia the arms trade is very important. That doesn't mean they can "place rich Europe under its thumb". You're acting as if the EU barely has a war industry...
6
+Shny Fan Poland, the Netherlands or Luxembourg is not even remotely comparable to knocking out France with 104 divisions committed to defending it. Of course blitzkrieg wasn't anything new in the Battle of France, but before that it was only practiced on relatively "weak" enemies. Saying that the UK/France should've seen the blitzkrieg coming is like saying Russia should expect the US to waltz right over them with ease because they could do that in the Iraq war against a vastly inferior enemy. If I'd tell you today that the US could defeat Russia as easily as it did Iraq in the 2000's, you'd laugh at me and with good reason. Now apply that to the 1940's and tell France that Germany will defeat them as easily as it did the Netherlands before and they will laugh at you even harder. It's very easy to say things like this after it happened. As for saying that a 2018 war would be exactly like WW2... of course not. Again, what happened in the 1940's was very special. The Germans defeated 3.3 million men (keep in mind that German tanks in 1940 were mostly inferior to their French and British counterparts. There are some amazing stories of some French and British tanks surviving literally dozens of shots from German anti-tank guns) in a matter of weeks, ONLY because the Allies were counting on another trench war. I don;t know about you, but I don't think the EU is expecting a trench war anytime soon... The disparity between strategic vision that there was in 1940 is simply not there today. It cannot be compared. In fact, what you're doing here is exactly what France and the UK did in 1940, but worse: you're expecting the war to go just like the last one, while it evidently won't be. You'd fit right in the French military command in 1940. At least they expected it to go like it did 20 years ago and not 70 years...
5
The British had about 13 divisions to help defend France/Belgium (the British Expeditionary Force). France had over 100 divisions (by comparison, at that time the entire American army was 400k men, the total allied force involved in the battle of France was 3.3 million men). France failed but was supposed to hold out, it was expected to be like WW1. Britain relied on France in the early days and didn't go all out in a continental war yet by 1940. When the Germans attacked, they only had a pretty small force there to help France keep back the main attack. France had 104 divisions defending her, the British sent 13 divisions (the BEF), the Dutch had 10 divisions, the Belgians 22 divisions, the Polish 2 divisions. 1940 was France's war, NOT a British war. When France fell, you couldn't realistically expect the countries that were only there to support them to take their place. Besides, we're living in 2017/18, not the 1940's. What the Germans did in the early 1940's is exceptional. They revolutionised warfare back then when the other countries were still thinking about trench warfare. What they did was miraculous. They ran rings around the allies because they were strategically completely out of their league. Do you really think Russia is just as strategically superior to the EU as Nazi Germany was against the Allies? No. Not by far.
4
+Badger0fDeath Everyone with a brain should support the EU. Together we are the richest economy in the world and the second strongest military in the world, able to be a superpower. Separated we are a collection of semi-rich countries that run behind the US (and the US has a track record of bad decisions and lack of respect for their allies). In terms of global politics, the EU is the only way forwards. The future is not necessarily good for Europe, with Africa's population booming and new future superpowers that will oppose our views, coupled with the decline of the superpower that has had the same interests as we did the last decades (more or less the same...). Only together can we ourselves become a superpower and defend our interests worldwide. In the form of the EU, we can affirm a strong position in the future. If you're sceptic of the EU, that's fine. But instead of trying to destroy the EU try to FIX it and turn it into something we can rely on. We should work together if we want to be strong, but this cooperation can have many forms. Let's find the form that's best for us. The EU can change into anything we need, even if the current EU has faults
3
+Steve Parks The scenario may be realistic but the countries that are participating is by far not. The coalition is based on very strange assumptions that make little to no sense. A full EU, minus maybe one or two member states that would realistically not participate, has a lot more chance against Russia. The full combined EU military and the Russian military are about the same, with the EU having an edge. What Binkov did here is put Russia in a strategically superior position (which is fine) AND strip the EU of enough member states to have the remaining military be inferior to Russia's (this is an unrealistic coalition; Russia invades the Baltic states and a member state like Spain wouldn't respond? Sure. Even the UK is in the Baltic states as we speak to help protect them).
3
Uninformed. We're not weak at all. Just look at the kind of shit our football hooligans do, for example. Look at the anti-Muslim things that have been going on. Won't see stuff like that in America, but nobody calls them weak. At worst you'll see some antifa pussies on the streets there. It's not something to be proud of, but that's definitely not something you can call weak. We have the bloodiest history of any region and spent most of our history either killing eachother or pillaging other countries. Do you really think that those soldiers the Germans sent to war in WW2 weren't just 17 year old farm boys who would otherwise have been exactly like we are today? Do you think those soldiers the British got in their trenches in WW1 were somehow "tougher" than we are today? No, before they were sent over they were no different from most of us today. Just normal kids. You send today's 17 year old to war and train them the same way you get the same results
3
+Badger0fDeath The EU combined economy is stronger than ever and outgrowing the US at the moment. The EU is the one that stopped the middle eastern migrant crisis by using its leverage as an economic and political power to strike a deal with Turkey that immediately dried out the migrant stream. The EU is the one that is currently using this same power to diminish the migrant flow from Africa and prevent any future crises. And the EU is richer than the US, but when the UK leaves it will be second. The combined EU military is almost the size of the freaking US military so I wouldn't call it pathetic. Truth is: if we are divided we can't arm ourselves against the future population growth in Africa and the migrants that might come. We don't have enough leverage over African countries on our own to make them fight population growth and migration. Together we do. If we are divided we are economically no more than semi-important and have no leverage in trade deals. Together, we can tell big companies like Apple or Google what to do. And also remember that when we're divided, war between European states is possible again. I know that nothing will happen, but I think it's funny that a few weeks after Brexit the UK defence minister already spoke of war with Spain if they continued their pursuit of Gibraltar. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/britain-and-eu-worse-off-without-brexit-deal-says-michael-fallon And again: if you don't like the current EU, change it into something you DO like. All we have to do is work together and how we do it doesn't really matter that much
2
+Lynx That's where you're wrong. If you knew anything about the EU, you'd know that the "EU bureaucrats" have nothing to say about what happens with the EU. The EU lives and dies by its member states . What OUR governments say, happens. What OUR governments say, the EU bureaucrats do. The European Council dictates the political coarse of the EU. The European Council of Ministers votes on whether to pass a law or not (as well as the Parliament, which is directly elected but less important than the Council). And as the name suggests, the European Council of Ministers is literally the ministers of all our governments sittings together. And the amount of times countries lose a vote is also limited. Generally, countries try to come to a joint decision and will try to prevent doing things not everyone likes. For example, this is one of the fact-checking statements from brexit (as usual, both sides lied....): https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ The UK agreed with 95% of the EU laws that passed and only voted against 2% . Countries generally all agree with a law, except for a few controversial ones. And the voting system is set up in such a way that you need the majority of the total EU population to vote for it AND the majority of member states. I would personally prefer to live in a superpower region that is also free and democratic. And again, if the EU isn't democratic for you, change it. The power lies with the member states (European Council) to decide the political coarse of the EU. Hell, the member states can dissolve the current treaty and make a completely new one! That's what we did when we changed the European Economic Community into the European Union! We can make the EU more loose, we can make it go further, we can change it into something else entirely even. We can work together in a myriad of ways and all I want is that we work together to defend our interests. If you are against the current EU, please advocate to change it and not to destroy it all
2
+Lynx Schulz is a buffoon for calling for a "united states of europe". Nobody wants that and everyone has made that clear to him, including Merkel. And I've said and proven before, EU laws are almost never pushed through and all countries are respected. Even the UK, known for its opposition against almost every Franco-German plan for the EU, has had its way in 98% of the cases, only being opposed to 2% of all laws that were passed. How do you vote against Merkel? You do what you've done for the past few years... You HAVE voted against Merkel, multiple times. ' I don't know where you get the idea that criticising the EU gets you a racist label, but you're wrong. Everybody criticises the EU. The EU needs criticism, since it is not yet mature. What it doesn't need is people who don't want an EU in any form. People with legitimate criticism on the EU and pleas for change aren't branded anything. People who want to destroy the EU usually are branded as morons, though, I agree with you on that. But constructive criticism is mostly received respectfully. You're delusional if you compare the EU to the Soviet union...
2
+Lynx Yes you did. It's good that you mention the EU army, because countries have voted on that on the 15th of november. 5 countries voted against, 23 countries voted for and guess what? Those 5 countries simply won't be part of the EU army and their vote will be respected. Yes you can vote against the big countries whenever you don't agree with them. Same with the Euro, those who didn't want it, don't have it. Big things like this are never pushed down anyone's throats. As for your vote being drowned by people with other cultures, it isn't. The entire point of the EU is that wherever we are different, our own governments remain sovereign. On whichever subjects we have common goals, we work together. The EU doesn't have any say over small issues that only exist in one country. The EU works on a bigger scale than that. What you said can be applied to just about any international treaty out there. Should we stop having contact with other countries at all? Before the EU, countries in Europe would do very similar things through treaties. However, it is true that with the EU we of course see much more cooperation. As for the Soviet Union, it was a union of de facto equal states but Russia of course had a lot more influence and power than the rest. The EU is different: in terms of voting, the majority of the EU population needs to be represented, in other procedures even 2/3. Even if France and Germany want something, they can't get it done without building support with the grand majority of other countries. Another clear and very important difference is that the Soviet Union had a one-party system. One Communist party ruled every country in it and who controlled the Communist party? In the EU, everyone's national politics is left alone. Everyone has their own interests and can defend their own interests without ending up in a gulag for opposing the Communist party. On the surface (equal countries in a union) it may seem the same, but when you look further it's entirely different. The reality in the EU is governments sitting together and working out an agreement (and other countries' opinions are always respected, nothing is pushed through without support). The reality in the USSR was one Communist party controlling everything and everyone, and guess who was the leader of that party? Stalin, Krushchev, etc. The Russian leaders... Very, very, very different.
2
Aart Bruneel Switzerland would also be out. They're part of the EU single market, which means they have to adhere to EU economic rules. I don't think they can continue to trade with Russia if the EU cuts the single market off from trading with them.
2
Not even NATO, because of the EU alone. The EU has the same "attack on one is an attack on all" articles, so the baltic war would immediately draw everyone into war. Besides that... the EU literally has practiced working together if exactly that would happen. There is a standard procedure in place on what to do in case of a Russian invasion and it of course involves almost every member state. Hell, many EU countries are already present in the Baltic states, including the UK, which for some strange reason is not involved at all in this scenario. I don't think Binkov has a full understanding of how the EU works. It's not as divided as it sometimes seems. That some countries don't want to take in refugees doesn't mean that in case of a huge war with Russian they won't help either. If push comes to shove, all member states would obviously help. Even when the UK is out, they've already made clear they're still part of the common defence policy so even the UK would still help
2
Wonder why... :) With the UK Russia would have little chance. And there's also very little reason not to include countries like Spain. I hope he makes the full EU video soon because here it's almost like he cherry picked EU countries that would together barely match the Russian military
1
Still waiting for those billions to be put into the NHS, are we?
1
The UK is literally in the Baltic states right now, so it's quite ridiculous to say they wouldn't be involved when Russia would invade the Baltic states
1
He didn't include important EU member states for no apparent reason. The exact countries he included amount to a slightly inferior force to Russia. And Russia has the strategic advantage here so will of course win. Hmm.
1
+Tom Wessel If all you have to say about the difference between young men in the world wars and those today is that families used to have 3 children, you've proven me right. Those same young men can be conscripted (the family's thoughts about losing their only child is irrelevant) and produce the same results as in the world wars. And about the refugee crisis, the EU stopped the entire middle eastern migrant flow within months by making a political deal with Turkey. Meanwhile, the migrant flow in the US has been going on for literally decades and the best they've come up with is "hurr durr build a wall". The estimated amount of illegal migrants in the US is in the double digits, in terms of millions, and that on a 300 mil population. Yet everyone is talking about how 2 million Muslims that came to a region with 500million people are going to "take it over". Meanwhile Spanish is already the de facto second language in the US Anyway, I wonder what our ancestors would think of that. People being scared of a few immigrants, so pathetic. I wonder how you'd respond if you were alive during WW1 if you're already scared of 2 million Muslims that are fleeing from war. We've survived countless destructive wars, plagues and whatnot and now we're reduced to some pussies whining about 2mil immigrants "taking us over"? Please don't embarrass us like that...
1
Nobody wants a United States of Europe, except a very small amount of morons. A US of EU would be unsustainable. None of the population wants it, none of the member state leaders want it (and they control the EU so it will never happen). It's unrealistic and stupid to think a US of EU would be a good thing or even a possible thing. Besides, when the six first members were talking about a United States of Europe, they weren't referring to something like the USA, they were referring to something like what we have today. Technically, we already are the United States of EU, but instead of a federal government it's the member states themselves that dictate what happens. The EU that we have today is what the original six wanted, not an all out federal government with provinces. The idea of the EU is cooperation between sovereign countries, not the destruction of sovereignty
1
+luq man Russia is not attacking Europe and won't be, but we DO have to stay together to make sure nobody would think of attacking. We have to have our defence in order, just as simple as that. So IF something ever goes wrong (it won't) we must be prepared to act together.
1
+vigenlona Think long and hard about the state of the German army before they started WW2. They weren't even allowed to have tanks by the versailles treaty... A few years later they butcher France in a few weeks. You underestimate what building up a war economy can do. Both the US and EU have the industry to massively blow up their military if needed. In their current states, both the EU and US are about a match for Russia, with the US having a bit better chances. If they use their industry, Russia has little chance against either the EU or the US alone, let alone them together. But that's in the long run of course
1
H B We'll tear you a new one.... literally
1