Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "What Russia Doesn’t Want You to Know About Your History" video.

  1.  @dboyzer1  Crimea was most certainly not "always" part of Russia. Crimea was first conquered by Russia in 1783. Meaning that Crimea was part of Russia for 171 years. Given that Russia has existed for 477 years (or 761 years if you count the Principality of Moscow that preceded it), it's downright absurd to claim that Crimea was always part of Russia. And Ukraine was never going to "give" Crimea to anyone.
    62
  2.  @dboyzer1  Completely wrong, Dmitri. It's Russia and only Russia that violated the Budapest Memorandum. Minsk 1&2 were illegitimate "agreements" that Russia imposed at gunpoint on Ukraine. And there never was an "Istanbul Agreement".
    61
  3.  @dboyzer1  And by "do the right thing" you mean "submit to domination by Russia". It's Russia that refused to abide by any of the agreements they've signed.
    60
  4. Russia has always felt like it's entitled to dominate all their neighbors. It's what their culture is all about.
    60
  5.  @dboyzer1  Which was a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine and annexing 10% of their territory. You're (deliberately) reversing the cause and effect here.
    56
  6.  @dboyzer1  Ukraine was neutral in 2014. How did that work out for them? Neutrality can't work when you're bordered by an expansionist empire, and your border consists of wide open plains that said empire can easily storm across at any time. In that case, "neutrality" simply means that nobody will come to your aid when the empire invades you.
    49
  7.  @AnatolyBerezkin  Try 1,142 years.
    34
  8.  @arseniy_viktorovich  So Finland should be thanking Russia for a century of brutalization and forced Russification? It was Russia that tried to wipe out the Finnish language and culture. Sweden never did that. And would Finland still be part of Sweden if not for the Russian conquest? Given that Norway also used to be part of Sweden and was allowed to peacefully become independent in 1905, almost certainly yet.
    33
  9.  @TheMasterPlumber  "Russian interests" meaning Russia's desire to dominate Eastern Europe. Russia feels like they're entitled to have a "sphere of interest" in Eastern Europe, and that the nations of Eastern Europe shouldn't get any say in the matter. Russia needs to be taught that it's none of their business what alliances other nations join.
    24
  10.  @haroldhausman1672  My statement is completely true. Russia has always been aggressively expansionist. How do you think they got to be so big?
    20
  11.  @haroldhausman1672  Russia was aggressively expansionist before communism, and it's still aggressively expansionist now after communism. It wasn't the economic system that made the USSR expansionist, it was the long-standing Russian affinity for autocracy.
    19
  12.  @haroldhausman1672  Russia's history includes 761 years of expansion via military conquest. Surely you don't think Russia always stretched from the Baltic Sea to the Bering Strait, do you? You can disagree with me all you like, but I'm still right. Russia has a very long history of doing the same thing it's doing right now in Ukraine.
    16
  13.  @haroldhausman1672  You're simply denying well-documented history. Russia's expansion was not peaceful.
    16
  14. @imjoeim Yes, the Estonian government that had to flee to avoid being executed by the Soviets when Estonia was conquered.
    15
  15.  @TheMasterPlumber  And I'm saying that it's actually Russia that chose not to develop positive relations with the West. The West actually bent over backwards to be conciliatory toward Russia, and it was very difficult for the Eastern European nations to convince the West (and particularly the United States) to let them join NATO. As this video pointed out, Poland literally threatened to acquire nuclear weapons unless they were allowed to join NATO. That's how desperate they were to get into NATO. It wasn't until 1999 that anyone (specifically, Poland, Czechia, and Hungary) were able to convince the US to let them join. Prior to that, the US attitude was almost to treat Russia as if it was the only nation in Eastern Europe.
    12
  16.  @RogueSecret  There was no "state coup" in Ukraine, nor was the Russian language ever banned. The fact that you have to lie your ass off like that shows that you know there's no valid justification for Russia's invasion.
    11
  17.  @dboyzer1  Being "neutral" is what made it possible for Russia to invade Ukraine. You're willfully ignoring the fact that Ukraine was neutral in 2014 when Russia invaded them. For a nation that borders Russia to be "neutral" actually means they're dominated by Russia.
    9
  18.  @pmack217  No, Russia did not ever apply of NATO membership. Nor was there ever any agreement to end NATO or to "not expand East". And Russia uses depleted uranium as their standard tank ammunition.
    7
  19.  @pmack217  No, your claims are most certainly not facts. Countries like Georgia and Ukraine were conquered by Russia. And there was never any "ethnic Russian genocide".
    6
  20.  @Flavas  Modern-day independent Moldova is approximately half of the historical Moldovia. The other half (Western Moldavia, or in your language Moldova Occidentală) is still part of Romania. That half of Moldavians seem to be quite happy as part of Romania. Moldavia didn't get erased when it unified with Wallachia and Transylvania the first time, it simply became one of the three constituent regions of a larger country. (I'm aware that "Moldavia" called itself Moldova. I'm using that name because it's easier to differentiate because the historic principality and the modern republic that way.) And from a purely pragmatic view, it seems like reunifying with Romania would be the best way for Moldova to be protected against future Russian aggression. Your country is almost certainly Russia's next target if they achieve victory over Ukraine.
    6
  21.  @NamemaNSl  NATO nations are almost never attacked because the existence of NATO makes it suicidal to attack them. That's the entire reason that nations join NATO.
    6
  22.  @nikitashulmin1883  Should I remind you that the Soviet Union invaded Finland without provocation on November 30, 1939? (No, the shelling of the border village of Mainila was not provocation. Because that was carried out by the NKVD as a false flag operation. The Soviets shelled their own village in order to blame Finland and have a flimsy pretext for invading.) And no, NATO did not start wars against Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq. NATO had no involvement whatsoever in either of the wars in Iraq. Yugoslavia ceased to exist as of April 27, 1992, and NATO's war against Serbia was to defend Croatia and Bosnia from genocidal Serbian aggression. And NATO (along with the Arab League) participated in the no-fly zone over Libya to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
    6
  23.  @maxim7781  What Finland did during WW2 was get invaded without provocation by the Soviet Union.
    5
  24.  @oskarkarlsson4142  Russia was not "rejected", they were told that they'd have to apply for membership like everyone else. Putin found that deeply offensive. He said that Russia shouldn't have to wait in line behind "countries that don't matter", that NATO should just automatically give Russia membership because Russia is just so important.
    4
  25.  @jujirer  No, the USSR condemned all of Poland's Jews, by making it impossible for Poland to defeat the German invaders. Without the USSR invading as well, the German invasion of Poland might well have failed. Germany and the USSR had agreed in advance to invade Poland together and split its territory down the middle. Which is thoroughly unsurprising, since Prussia and Russia had a long history of imposing "partitions of Poland".
    4
  26.  @mr.gamewatch6165  Romania is already an EU and NATO member, so if Moldova were to reunify with Romania, they'd automatically become part of the EU and NATO. Just as what happened when Germany was reunified.
    4
  27. Want to make a Russian mad? Ask them why nations want to join NATO.
    4
  28.  @lordhighexecutioner  Finland's "neutrality" was imposed at gunpoint by the Soviet Union.
    3
  29.  @causemean  Finland was forced to be a puppet and victim of Russia. That's where the term "Finlandization" came from.
    3
  30.  @causemean  NATO never "attacked Yugoslavia". Yugoslavia had already ceased to exist in 1991.
    3
  31.  @twokool4skool129  The Rus' originated in what's now Ukraine.
    3
  32. It was a huge mistaken on Ukraine's part to give up their nukes in exchange for completely empty "security assurances" under the Budapest Memorandum. They should've demanded NATO membership, or at least a separate treaty obligation for military intervention, in exchange for giving up the nukes.
    3
  33.  @nashbridges-cu6dy  Serbia is hardly neutral. They're clearly allied with Russia.
    2
  34.  @causemean  Because that never happened. Russia never applied for NATO membership. That said, NATO membership does require the unanimous agreement of all current NATO members. As such, if Russia had applied for membership, many current NATO members certainly would have vetoed the application, and for good reason. And claiming that NATO doesn't "respect the security of Russia" is complete BS. The "security of Russia" is entirely within Russia's own borders. Nobody wants to invade Russia.
    2
  35.  @virariueb7182  Having most global trade paid in US dollars is beneficial, but you're vastly overestimating how important it is. The more important factors are that the US has the largest economy in the world (yes, still larger than China) and a military that's quite literally more powerful than the entire rest of the world combined.
    2
  36.  @stivvits1067  That's the literal opposite of what happened. Nobody gets "invited" to join NATO. Nations have to apply to join NATO, and convince all of the current members to allow them in. And contrary to Russia's "NATO expansion" narrative, it was actually quite difficult for the former Warsaw Pact members to convince the US to allow them into NATO. The US in the 1990s should've done more to "contain Russia". Instead, the main focus of the US was a naive attempt to coax Russia into becoming a Western-style liberal democracy, and paying no attention at all to preventing Russia from reconquering the other former Soviet republics. The US attitude in the 90s was that Russia was the only ex-Soviet republic that mattered.
    2
  37.  @stivvits1067  Russia's pretense that NATO is an "existential threat" to them is complete and utter nonsense. The only thing NATO "threatens" is Russia's ability to invade its neighbors. If Russia was willing to peacefully coexist, NATO wouldn't be a problem to them at all. (Hell, at the beginning of Putin's presidency, he didn't consider NATO a problem. It was only when he decided to engage in expansionist wars that it became a problem to him.) Also, the Warsaw Pact was very obviously not a voluntary alliance of equals. The Soviet Union imposed puppet governments on the nations it was militarily occupying, and forced them to join the Warsaw Pact.
    2
  38.  @nashbridges-cu6dy  NATO did not "invade them".
    1
  39.  @kryz8847  You're a buffoon. All of the nations in Eastern Europe had to beg the United States to let them join NATO. Calling it "hegemonic aggression" is Russian propaganda. Russia thinks it's entitled to have Eastern Europe as its "sphere of influence", and that the nations of Eastern Europe shouldn't get any choice in the matter.
    1
  40. That's exactly how Russia sees the nations of Europe. They think that Russia is entitled dominate all smaller countries.
    1
  41. That's how Russia actually sees things. They think smaller nations like Poland don't actually matter and shouldn't get to make their own decisions. They think that smaller nations' only reason for existence is to be dominated by Russia.
    1
  42.  @timthetiny7538  How many American cities have a GDP of $2 trillion?
    1
  43.  @twokool4skool129  How exactly do you think Russians came to "already live" in Crimea? That happened via Russia conquering Crimea, and killing or deporting most of the indigenous population in order to replace them with Russian colonists.
    1
  44.  @twokool4skool129  The Rus' came about from a Swedish ruling class intermixing with an East Slavic population in Ukraine.
    1
  45.  @samuelpenalosa3034  Those are all some of the biggest liars on the planet. They very much have an agenda, and that agenda is supporting Russia. Some of them are quite literally on the Kremlin payroll.
    1
  46.  @RogueSecret  Contrary to what Russia shills keep trying to claim, the United States would not in fact invade Mexico if they joined the CSTO.
    1
  47.  @samuelpenalosa3034  None of those people you listed tell the truth, and they very much do have an agenda. That agenda being to support the Russian war effort. Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter are quite literally Russian spies.
    1
  48.  @virariueb7182  Why wouldn't we? Hell, China deliberately devalues their own currency. It's not inherently a bad thing for a currency to have a lower value in international exchange.
    1
  49.  @NamemaNSl  It's Russia that's hostile and aggressive, not NATO. Russia is the threat to every nation that borders them.
    1
  50.  @yellowtunes2756  No, Russia and Rus' are not the same thing.
    1
  51.  @stivvits1067  You continue to push the false narrative of NATO being "hostile". It's Russia that's hostile. Russia chose to return to imperialist expansionism. The nations of Eastern Europe begged to be allowed into NATO because they all knew it was inevitable that Russia would do this. Because that's simply in Russia's nature.
    1
  52.  @gehdochnicht  No, Russia is not a superpower. They just think they are. The only superpowers are the United States and arguably China.
    1
  53. The Russia shills completely ignore how difficult it actually was for the nations of Eastern Europe to convince NATO to let them join.
    1
  54. Utter nonsense. Had those countries in Eastern Europe not joined NATO, most of them would've already been either invaded by Russia, or forced to become "allies" of Russia under the threat of invasion.
    1
  55.  @ivancertic5197  Because Russia was never going to remain weak forever.
    1