Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Russia and Iran join forces with India" video.

@Haxerous I wonder why I rarely see you people jump to these conclusions when it comes to the nationalities of western media reporters and commentators. There's plenty of channels run by Americans for instance, and yet there's far less cries of them being biased towards their nation. How come? Don't give me that 'land of the free' crap to explain why they aren't biased.
11
@roenin Turkey has its own internal problems fyi. Hell Swedens' NATO approval has been held up partly because of its support for those internal problems, and Turkey sends its forces frequently into Syria (with permission) to fight those issues.
7
@Janoip That's January, right after the cap was introduced. They still made more money after the war than the year before it. The Russian rouble also collapsed immediately following the imposition of the sanctions, before rebounding and ending up the best performing currency in the world. Stop judging sanctions based on Day 1 effects. There are countries that have been under sanctions for generations, and still haven't buckled. And they were all much smaller economies than Russia.
5
@TheRezro "US CVBG can park on Indian ocean making it pointless" - oh yeah sure, just casually start a war with both India and Iran right in the space between them lmao!
5
@playea123 "that last step from Iran to India by ship is easily blockaded" - a blockade is an act of war. And such a blockade would be against third party countries as well. Do you really want to just casually declare war on both India and Iran right in the space between them? And that too when you're trying to woo India to help counter China? Stop treating the US as infallible
5
@playea123 "India knows that quite well and won’t go through with such a thing without US approval." - Bub we've literally detonated nuclear weapons without US approval, and eaten US sanctions for it (but not Russian sanctions fyi). The US has literally tried to intimidate us with its navy during the Bangladesh Liberation War, and it didn't stop us continuing on achieving the largest surrender in post-WW2 history. And all of this when we were still much poorer and weaker too. Compared to that history, we hardly seek US approval for who we trade with. You think the US is happy we bought Russian oil? We did it anyway.
4
@dannyboy-vtc5741 It is still far fewer countries and all far less hostile (yes, even Azerbaijan) than the western sea route.
3
At the end of the game, both the king and pawn OF BOTH SIDES end up being in the same box. ;)
2
@Janoip Sanctions having a negative effect is different from the sanctions being crippling. None of those outlets claim Russia is going to fold. From their perspective it's worth it for achieving other aims. Your figure is still an early result of market adjustment immediately after the sanction on oil, just as people cheered on the collapse of the rouble last year. Like I said, countries have eaten sanctions for years. You want something to look up? Go look up the history of sanctions. They have almost no success stories. The only very contentious claim of success some bring up is that of South Africa, which is highly disputed cos it already had a major domestic movement for change already underway. Other than that, nothing. Hell the Iraq war was launched to finally do what supposedly crippling sanctions failed to.
1
@playea123 You're trotting out that tired old cliche excuse for hegemony that it keeps shipping lanes safe. Weak. Safe from what? Pirates? Lol. Even a minor nation state is easily able to contend with modern pirates. And have fun making the argument that the US, the nation that's been to war more than any other in the modern era, is keeping the seas safe from other nations. You claim China needs the US to keep its trade flowing - funny how they just want the US navy to get out then. Indeed the only one I ever hear claim the world wants the US to safeguard their trade is westerners i.e. the very people for whom this works as a convenient excuse to justify their position. Then there's your funny claims about the US being able to handle everything just fine on its own, which flies in the face of what the US govt. itself has been doing trying to court as many nations as it can in its endeavour. So that just makes you sound even more jingoistic than Washington itself. This trade corridor is safe simply because in order to shut it down the US would have to pick a fight with a whole bunch of states together, none of whom are even China. It'd do more harm to the US trying such a stunt. I do love how you people love acting like all the worlds' oceans are just a big American lake for it to "cause havoc via its super carriers" in tho. It's hilarious how you think the US can just do whatever it wants whereever it wants and everyone will just take it lying down. Every region you try 'causing havoc' with said 'super' carriers will end up riling a dozen nations up against it, and ruining the US' global image even if it can tackle the navies of those nations. Rather 'safeguarding' global trade as you claim, the US would be its main disruptor. This isn't your world to toy with as you wish.
1
@dannyboy-vtc5741 "they just bomb railroad bridges, sink some ships in ports and similar stuff" - bruh, you've already suggested they can just attack other nations ships passing through their waters, and now here you're suggesting they can literally bomb bridges and attack ports of other nations themselves. What fantasy land are you living in? These are literally acts of war. Western sea routes are hostile simply because they can impose restriction there via legal decree without even having to go to war. You can't do that on other nations territory - you have to force it. Have fun justifying going to war with half a dozen nations simply cos of who they trade with. You'll unite most of the world against you as at that point you're undermining the very concept of national sovereignty itself.
1
@sjl197 I make no comment on what the pieces get up to when they're all together in the same room. :)
1
@punkhyena875 That remains to be seen. Flipping the board always looks destructive.
1