Comments by "Stephen Hill" (@stephenhill545) on "Jeffrey Sachs: A Negotiated End to Fighting in Ukraine Is the Only Real Way to End the Bloodshed" video.

  1.  @FizzVizard  he is lying. He negates to tell us that Russia conquered Crimea in a war with the Ottoman Empire, of which Crimea had been part since 1240. Russia did not respect that fact, which Russia now presents as a principle. This occurred in 1793. In 1795 Russia partitioned the country of Poland with Austria and Prussia. In 1945 it (ussr) forced a communist puppet government on Poland and forced it to join the Warsaw pact. He does not tell us this because he does not want us to know the true nature of the Russian state, and he does not want us to know the true reason why Russia's neighbours joined NATO. He presents this enlargement as neocon American exceptionalism in action, when in fact it was fear of Russian aggression expansion, as also seen in Swedish and Finnish applications to join NATO. The wilful ignorance he displays of the forces shaping Europe today, can only be lies, as it does not require a great knowledge of European history to understand why Estonia was desperate to join NATO, for example, and why annexing the sovereign territory of another state is wrong and wicked. His nonsense about Crimea being Rusdisn because it once belonged to the Russian empire is stupid. Ireland belonged to the English/British state from 1170 to 1922. It is not British territory, even though 99% of the people there speak English. It is their sovereign right to have their own state, as it is the Ukranian people's right to have theirs, and to live in peace, choose their friends, and their destiny.
    7
  2.  @NeverlandSystemPunkGirlChloe  NATO's prime purpose is to prevent war in Europe repeating. Russia was a NATO partner. It could have joined, but putin refused to go through the application process because he is a Russian exceptionalist.
    6
  3. Do you know the history of eastern Europe? I'll tell you the truth. Poland was destroyed four times, the last time by Stalin and Hitler. Poland applied to join NATO not because of American neo-cons or American exceptionalism, but because it understands the threat Russia poses to its existence as a state. This also applies to the baltic states, Moldova and Finland, who were all attacked and annexed in all or part by the soviet armies in 1939-40. They only got their independence in 1991. NATO is going to get even bigger soon for exactly the same reason. Russia does not care about the security of its neighbours. It seeks to either turn them into puppet states (belorus) or conquer them (ukraine).
    6
  4. It is. As a British citizen, I now realise that a special military operation should be organised by the British army to conquer Ireland because: Ireland speaks English way more than Ukraine speaks Russian (99% to 29%). Ireland was conquered in 1174, and remained part of the British empire until the twentieth century. It is, therefore, historical British territory. Ireland is very important to Brutish security because it has been used as a base of invasion several times in our history by hostile powers. I hope you will support us in our just war against the citizens of Ireland. We will, of course, do our best to deny them water and heat.
    5
  5.  @texajp1946  Finland has a better military than ukraine, a much stronger economy and is a stones throw from St petersburg and the Baltic fleet. Putin is interested in ukraine not Finland because he thinks he can win there. Finland is an EU member, remember.
    3
  6. After listening to the interview I now realise that Britain should invade Ireland, and Ireland actually belongs to Britain. 1. Ireland belonged to us from 1174 right up to the twentieth century, way longer than Russia controlled Crimea. 1793. Are you kidding me. Only 200 years. We had Ireland for just under 800 years. 2. Ireland can be, and has really been, used as a way to invade England by hostile powers, and is therefore vital for our national security, as Crimea is for Russia. 3. 99% of Irish people are first language English speakers, so it must be ours really. Compare that with only 67% of Crimea residents. What the heck are we waiting for. In expectation of the world's full understanding for our invasion. Love from Britain.p.s. We intend to deny the population of Ireland water and heat to make them understand they are actually British, and that Ireland isn't a real country.
    3
  7. They don't. They often end in total defeat, especially when the weaker side refuses to stop.
    3
  8.  @ianmorrisblueqa2d259  lots of trolls.
    3
  9.  @ccdogpark  Versailles was neither strong enough to stop German Revanchism, which France wanted, nor generous enough to make germany not want Revanchism, which Britain and the USA wanted. It was the compromise which was fatal.
    3
  10. The reasoning is thus. As I understand it: Russia's claim to Crimea is valid because a) it once belonged to russia, for a period of 198 years. b) its population is ethno-linguistically majority russian. My research says 67% russian speaking. c) it enhances russian security. Ireland once belonged to Britain, for 875 years. Its population is genetically very similar, and speaks English (99%). It covers the west coast of Britain from invasion, and has been a base for numerous attempted invasions by France, Spain etc. It is, therefore, a security concern. Britain does not plan to wage war on Ireland in the near future, because it recognises Ireland's borders, and its right to exist as an independent sovereign state. I am not sure that ultra-English nationalists agree with me though.
    3
  11.  @mattias5157  it's cool to be anti American, because they are powerful. It's probably a psychological need.
    3
  12. Dear India, I know you are not a fan of British imperialism, but you will agree that Britain has the right to reconquer Ireland because Mr Sachs told us that 1. Crimea belonged to Russia for 200 years, well, Ireland belonged to Britain for 800 years. 2. 67% of Crimea citizens speak Russian, well, 99% of Irish citizens speak English. 3. Crimea is a matter of national security for Russia. Well, Ireland is for Britain, as it has been used as a base to attack Britain from for hundreds of years, most famously in 1690, when a combined French-Irish force landed in the south of Ireland intending to invade Britain proper from there. As a reasonable person, do you agree with me that Britain should immediately begin organising for a military conquest of the Island of Ireland, using attacks on civilians and threats of nuclear war for anyone thinking of helping Ireland defend itself by sending their armies there?
    3
  13. It is a fact that the USSR and Germany partitioned Poland. It is a fact that the USSR imposed a one party state on Poland and made it a satellite state of the USSR. It is a fact that Poland fears Russian imperialism, and it is a fact that Poland joined NATO to protect itself from this threat, as Finland and Sweden are doing this now. Mr Sachs presents NATO expansion as aggressive. Having studied European history, I would regard it as a defensive measure, based upon real and deep-seated concerns about the nature of the Russian state.
    2
  14.  @paavobergmann4920  correct. By defending the, Russian claim to ukraine, he is defending the right of old empires to reclaim former imperial territories. By his reasoning it is perfectly reasonable for the UK to launch a special military operation to conquer Ireland, whose people are ethnically, culturally and linguistically close, and whose territory historically belonged to Britain from the twelfth to the twentieth century.
    2
  15. It really helped me. Until I listened to Geoffrey I believed Ireland has the right to exist, be in the EU, be left in peace etc. Now I realise we have the right to conquer and annex ireland by military force. Crimea conquered 1793)) Ireland conquered 1147 67% russian speakers)) Crimea: nice naval base)) Ireland: base for invasion. 95% English speakers
    2
  16.  @sidoliveira3246  in 1793 The russian empire conquered crimea, it 1795 it conquered Poland, in 1919 this conquest was reversed and the Poles were a nation, in 2022 the Ukranians are fighting for their nationhood. I prefer self determination of nations over right of conquest as a guiding principle. Evidently you and Geoffrey don't. You can keep your "truth".
    2
  17.  @Lasse65  if I may add to your excellent analysis. I believe that Mr macron is advocating land for peace because of France's historical trauma, that it traded land for peace in 1940, rather than fighting on with whatever means it had at its disposal, its remaining units, the French fleet, and colonial forces for example. Making Ukraine trade land for peace would normalise France's historical sense of collective shame, no doubt suppressed but nevertheless present.
    2
  18. Nazi Germany didn't negotiate. The peace was dictated by the victors, as in the other world war as well.
    2
  19.  @goodtoGoNow1956  an influencer, non native English speakers won't notice the mistakes so much.
    2
  20.  @kaizenspirit1003  all wars are fought over resources. The info you called BS is factual information. The shell shale gas field is located in the area around and to the north of Bakhmut, land held by ukraine at present. .
    2
  21. @@memememeson3994 the great in Britain derives from brittania maximus, the roman name. Britannia minimus is today called Britanny in English.
    2
  22. It will. I was very impressed. I now realise that Ireland belongs to Britain. They all speak English, they belonged to us for nearly a thousand years, they are a backdoor for invaders. We have every right to conduct a special military operation there to reclaim our historical lands, recreate Angliski Mia, and address our security concerns. Thanks to Mr Sachs. And our army is much better than theirs, so they should give up immediately to save time, and if they are too stubborn to recognise our superiority we will destroy their electricity grid, and if anyone thinks of helping them, we will change our nuclear weapon use policy to first strike.
    2
  23. Appeasement of an aggressive, expansionist, revanchist state didn't stop world war two. Why should it stop wirkd war three? Now; if Britain and France had responded decisively to German remilitarisation of the Rhineland, that might have helped, or not forced czechoslovakia to cede territories to Germany, thst might have helped too. Understanding the nature of the regime you are dealing with also helps.
    2
  24.  @mattias5157  absolutely. Sax treats nations and peoples as pawns. Ukraine has its own will, its own needs, and its own hopes, as NATO expansion is a product of fear of Russian imperialism amongst its neighbours, not of American exceptionalism. The Polish government has a view.
    2
  25.  @mattias5157  I doubt they were given skis.
    2
  26. I'm not troubled by his facts. Yes, Russia did conquer crimea in 1793. Yes, it is majority russian speaking, yes, it does enhance russian security, but if you accept this as being primary to selfdetermination, then by the very same arguments, Britain has the "right" to reconquer Ireland. To explain: Ireland was conquered in 1174 99% of Irish people speak English and the gene pool is very similar. Ireland has been historically used as a base/launchpad for invasions of the British mainland.
    1
  27.  @texajp1946  I'm leftwing. Why woukd I support putins imperialist, far-right government, which funds far-right parties in the west in the hope of these parties gaining traction there, and destabilising our democratic institutions.
    1
  28. Clearly not a professor of European history though. Catherine didn't just invade crimea, she invaded and annexed Poland. Saying you invaded somewhere and colonised it so it's yours now is a bit iffy, to put it mildly. Unless you think Britain has a claim to Ireland, and Germany to kaliningrad.
    1
  29. He doesn't understand ukranian civic identity. He thinks in ethno-linguistic terms. He doesn't understand the attitude of eastern Europe an peoples to Russia. He doesn't understand that NATO enlargement is a consequence not of neo-con American politicians, but of the fear of Russian aggression in Europe itself for very good historical reasons, like annexation by military force. He doesn't understand the meaning of annexing other country's territories. He says Crimea belonged to Russia from 1783. Ireland belonged to the English then British Crown from 1170. We do not claim it. We respect national borders. He fails to grasp the power of Russian nationalism. Has he ever worked for RT. As for Macron; France was Russia's main arms supplier. Are Sweden and Finland joining NATO because of American exceptionalism?
    1
  30.  @davd1986  we do. I disagree with his defeatist attitude and failure to acknowledge the nature of the Russian state, but I've seen these arguments on British media.
    1
  31. Now I know Ireland is ours. It was ours from 1147. They all speak English (Angliski Mia) It presents a security threat, having been used many times in our history as a launchpad for foreign invasions and rebellions). Crimea is rightfully Russia's, and Ireland is rightfully ours. Who gives a s*** about sovereign borders 😂😂
    1
  32. The definition of war is organised state violence. It is the failure or avoidance of political processes. In the case if Ukraine it is pure violence, with the single goal of destroying a state.
    1
  33. Is it logical to tell us that Crimea is rightly Russia because Russia conquered it in 1793. According to this logic, Poland should be divided up between Germany, White Russia and Ukraine. However; in 1919 the Polish partition of 1795 was reversed and Poland regained its statehood, based on the principle of self determination, not of right of conquest. Which option do you prefer?
    1
  34. You could call yourself "з". I believe that is Z in Russian. Are you ashamed of your own alphabet or something weird?
    1
  35.  @sigmasix3719 watching the decline of the Russian empire. Once russia could fight great powers, now it can't beat Ukraine. Its almost sad to watch.
    1
  36.  @radar69able  not true. Chamberlain tripled defense budget in 1939. Where chamberlain was wrong was that, like merkel, he believed he could manage the crisis. Unfortunately, France hasn't learnt this lesson yet.
    1
  37.  @pindapoy1596  no, the, wagner fascists, or was it the russian imperial legion, can't remember which.
    1
  38.  @pindapoy1596  I think we realise that. It's the realisation of how much the ukranians are suffering that makes our support for them strong here in the UK. We call it sympathy.
    1
  39.  @marekkolenda5413  the former FSB director, in the security Council, paschilev or something like that, not good at russian names. Very hard-line.
    1
  40.  @alimamulma3sum14  not at the battle of narva it wasn't. The swedes destroyed them in a snow storm
    1
  41.  @greenrosenz  true. I am astonished at how macron is behaving like those failed British and French leaders of the 1930s in the hope that Russia will get bored and stop
    1
  42.  @yanadei1720  fun fact: Putin was in 2008.
    1
  43.  @falconeaterf15  the one which restored Polish statehood after Catherine the great partioned it in 1795,shortly after annexing Crimea.
    1
  44.  @ildarShafigullin66  a russia told me to separate the people and the leaders. The leaders don't want to be friends. They present the west as the eternal enemy.
    1
  45.  @michaelrego7433  this is a European trauma, and we are grateful for US aid, as we were in 1940.
    1
  46.  @mattias5157  gogol was a ukranian. Love from Britain.
    1
  47.  @ivan7453  he trebled defense spending after Munich.
    1
  48. Then eventually NATO will enter the war, and then Putin will have to choose between defeat on the battlefield and destroying the planet. Since he is obviously consumed with hatred and resentment towards the democracies, he will probably try to kill everyone.
    1
  49. You believe in right of conquest over self determination of nations. Fine! Tell the Poles they should have stayed partitioned.
    1
  50. You think Mr putin is committed to peace?
    1
  51. I hope we've moved beyond claustewitz. He was an eighteenth century prussian officer, at the height of the imperial age.
    1
  52. There is nothing to negotiate about. Russia isn't offering anything. It just wants to steal land. Why should ukraine accept that? Everybody knows the russian army is a paper tiger, its economy is too small to sustain a long war, and it is politically unstable. Ukraine can wait for another 1917. Russia is overreaching, and the world knows it.
    1
  53. I'm sure the Eastern European states, after their experience of having been conquered and having totalitarian soviet satellite states forced upon them were really unhappy that they could join NATO to protect them from Russian invasion, occupation and annexation in future. They must have been really p**ed.
    1
  54. Let plans for the reconquest of Ireland begin It was ours for 800 years (1793 scoffs) 99% speak English (67% of Crimea s scoffs) It is a matter of national security, Ireland having been used three times as a base for (unsuccessful) invasions of Britain. (has a nice naval base - scoffs) And please don't think of helping the Irish. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all your main cities and towns.
    1