Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Could the Ukraine war turn into World War III ?" video.

@John Grigg Gotta love seeing jingoistic war hawks on the internet lol!
26
200k troops is not enough to control Ukraine, which suggests that they never intended to make it a part of Russia. They most likely had more limited goals, and will pull out (possibly to new borders) once those goals are achieved. In terms of annexation, the most likely areas are Donbass and the territory to the north of Crimea upto the river (so as to secure Crimean water supply which the Ukrainians were denying them uptil now) and maybe the southern coast of the Black Sea, NOT all of Ukraine. Maybe Ukraine will even be federalized, who knows?
20
@francisedward8713 Actually neither Ukraine nor Russia started this mess, America did. They just couldn't stay in their lane. And they're going to be involved again when it comes to the eastern Pacific soon. Funny how that doesn't involve Russia or Ukraine or even Europe, but America is still in the middle of it. Wherever the conflict, America is still at the heart of it.
16
@somethung8188 Whataboutism is just a label used to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. It doesn't even counter those claims, just sidesteps them. Hell even the Wikipedia page on it has an entire section dedicated to the criticisms of the term. "Russia deserves to have consequences for their actions" - how come the west NEVER faces consequences of its actions? Where's the sanctions on the US? What, it's okay as long as the victims are poor brown people not in Europe? The US gets away with all its shit, and you people have the gall to act all high and moral when punishing everyone else. That's not justice, just hegemony. Keep the sanctions on Russia, but put them on the US and UK as well. Or else stop pretending this has anything to do with morality. Even your refugee policy has been revealed as racist lol.
14
@Lord_Juvens "Last time that happened was 80 years ago" - lol, the only reason that's true is cos of the "EUROPEAN" part of your preceding sentence. We've seen even bigger wars, even just this century. But no, this one is special cos it hit holy Europa! Which is now taking in white European refugees so compassionately right after screaming to stop an influx of brown Arab refugees. Racism piled atop racism lmao. All the world is fair game, 'cept Europe and North America it seems.
9
@John Grigg And George Bush and Dick Cheney are liable for HUNDREDS of thousands of dead men, women and children.
9
@Bolga4K "why wait until after the Russians have killed millions of innocent Ukrainians?" - funnily enough, even just ONE of America's wars this century has killed many TIMES all of Russia's wars in the same timeframe COMBINED lol. But yeah, keep dreaming about millions of deaths. Even the Ukrainians don't claim that lmao.
6
@19trwind82 If you think American wars have anything to do with democracy, you're deluded. Not only has America happily allied with many a dictator, they've even helped install dictators multiple times (Chile, Gautemala, etc.). Democracy has nothing to do with it. Democracy and freedom are just the latest rhetoric used to provide moral justification for war, just as the "white man's burden" to "civilize" the world was the bullshit excuse for colonialism before it.
5
@John Grigg Gotta love seeing jingoistic war hawks on the internet lol!
4
Whatever else you may think of him, Lenin was no fool. Far from it.
3
@altrag Putin assuming that Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia makes little sense considering that he literally invaded Crimea after seeing them REJECT Russia. It doesn't fit as an explanation for Russia's actions at all.
3
@altrag I spoke of Ukraine as a whole, and you bring up the Crimean vote? I never denied the Crimean vote in the first place, but the 2014 revolution literally kicked out a pro-Russian govt. It was a rejection of Russia, except in certain breakaway parts. But Russia hasn't invaded only those parts of the country that called for it, it's invaded all of Ukraine, which had rejected them. It'd be silly to imagine they thought the rest of the country wanted it after the 2014 revolt.
3
@farzana6676 Thanks for admitting that NATO is basically just a front for the United States military.
3
@John Grigg Gotta love seeing jingoistic war hawks on the internet lol!
2
@19trwind82 And btw, Guantanamo Bay is far from the worst of America's crimes. That affected a few hundred people, but even just one of America's wars this century killed many TIMES all of Russia's wars in the same timeframe COMBINED. THAT'S the real blood they've got on their hands. For example, the Russian Donbass war in 2014 killed about 13000 people. The US war in Afghanistan killed about a quarter of a million. And the Iraq war was over double that...
2
@JIMMYUNKNOWN If you think American wars have anything to do with democracy, you're deluded. Not only has America happily allied with many a dictator, they've even helped install dictators multiple times (Chile, Gautemala, etc.). Democracy has nothing to do with it. Democracy and freedom are just the latest rhetoric used to provide moral justification for war, just as the "white man's burden" to "civilize" the world was the bullshit excuse for colonialism before it.
2
@JIMMYUNKNOWN As for "raising the living standards of folks", the biggest rise in living standards in the last half century has been in China lol, which raised basically three America's worth of people out poverty (and don't bother disputing that, you'd not just be denying the CCP but also every global institution including the bloody World Bank). I bet you bought into the whole 'women's rights' narrative that sprung up just as America was pushed out of Afghanistan, and never thought to look into the horrendous death toll from the war that your media kept pretty mum about. Stop buying the bullshit, nations don't risk their soldiers for silly ideals - those ideals are just convenient cover to fool people like you.
2
@altrag "Understanding your opponent is always key to victory" - and to defeat. Misread your opponent and you're likely to mess up worse than if you'd just followed them without wondering about their psyche. "I have no idea what "more limited options" you're talking about" - because you haven't been reading my comments. I put out two responses to you earlier, but you seem to have seen only the one on psychology. My original comment here mentioned them. Expecting to control a nation as large as Ukraine with just 200k troops seems silly. They attacked from the south where the river is a goal, the east where Donbass is a goal, and the north where Kyiv is a goal. "You're free to end your thought process at "bad man bad just for the sake of being bad" - that's a blatant mischaracterization and you know it. I've said nothing about Putin's character, in fact you're the one who's been talking about his psyche all this time. My analysis was entirely based on a strategic view of the war rather than some pop psychological reading of Putin. The river is important for water, the Black Sea for its oil and gas deposits and shipping and the capital in order to dethrone the current govt. (they don't have to stay on to defend a replacement - Ukraine serves as a weakened buffer state regardless, as long as it doesn't have a stable west-oriented govt.). None of that is based on believing Putin is 'bad just for the sake of being bad', it's simply what's most feasible and serves Russia's interests, morality notwithstanding.
2
@darksector1389 It hasn't done so yet, but there's still plenty of heightened emotions about it simply for Ukraine, not WW3. And basically what you're saying is that war is okay so long as it's weaker nations getting targeted. Good to know. In that case, leave Russia to do its war in Ukraine and there's no risk of escalation. Simple. After all, the US' wars could also have risked escalation if another superpower had decided to get involved. They didn't, so do the same here. Btw, your argument also says nothing wrt the blatantly racist refugee favoritism. We literally hear from journalists about how these refugees are different cos they are 'Christians and white' (NBC), 'civilised and European' (CBS) and you get zingers like “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed" (from Ukraine itself lol!).
1
@Lord_Juvens Yugoslavia wasn't invaded by 200k, but the Middle East sure was. Oh, but those were your wars, so I guess it's okay!
1
@darksector1389 "both super powers have been changing the regimes of Ukraine for their own good multiple times" - good to see this admitted from you. Doesn't change the fact that the screeching over this war has been far higher pitched cos it's struck holy Europa though, nor that the refugee policy has been highly skewed (which I notice you conveniently ignored).
1
@altrag "It is not a stretch to believe that he would have assumed the rest of Ukraine would have the same mindset" - it is a stretch, considering that these are literally known as separatist territories. Sure he could have assumed that the rest of the country was the same, but that is still more of a stretch than him simply having more limited goals than taking the whole country, as explained in my original comment here. Destroy the current govt., capture the strategic territories, and leave the rest of the country as an incapable (possibly federalized) wreck makes more sense given his invasion force than believing he ever thought to control it all.
1
@altrag "especially when that's what he wants to believe" - it's what you want to believe he wants to believe. I prefer not indulging in long-range psychoanalysis. It's wont to play into our own biases. There's a reason most psychologists insist on actually talking to their patients in order to diagnose them. Long range - and amateur i.e. pop - psychoanalysis is how we ended up with the media tossing out grossly misused terms like 'gaslighting' at the drop of a hat. I don't know what's on Putin's mind, and I don't pretend to. My case was simply based on what seemed most feasible given their invasion forces. Putin is human sure, but I don't know that human. And neither do you.
1