Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "What Are British Troops Doing In Ukraine? • 3 RIFLES | Forces TV" video.

  1. Soviet weapons, of which the Ukraine was part. Where do you think Russia's large ships were built.
    54
  2. I can't see how they would join NATO when already at war.
    17
  3. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania all border the Ukraine. It is NATOs backyard as much as Russia's. It is the Russian belief it should dominate it's neighbours that is the problem.
    8
  4. The Russian ruling elites like the benefits there wealth brings, NATO doesn't want a war on that scale. It works for neither side.
    7
  5. You can't annex something that's already yours.
    7
  6. NATO has now long bordered Russia. Russia is acting in the Ukraine nether mind watching.
    4
  7.  @charlieharper2529  Russia didn't stand alone against Napoleon or Hitler. It stood with Britain.
    4
  8. Denmark has one of the best Democracies in the world, why do you think it's corrupt?
    4
  9. The British did win the Crimean war, and in that ill fated order the British made the Russian guns. What lesson were you thinking about?
    3
  10.  @stephencockett9959  why? There's so much risk. New York would go straight up if anything went wrong. Somewhere like Iran would be a much nicer target even accepting your banking control premise (which of course I don't).
    3
  11. How did they start this war? By getting Crimea annexed and and having Russian troops in the east of there country?
    2
  12. Those Ukrainians wanting their ports to have access to the sea, they are so unreasonable.
    2
  13.  @derealovesurvival7549  what would be the point of making war illegal when no one can enforce it? Many wars are already illegal under the UN, but that doesn't stop them. I also think there is such a thing as a just war, for example, to stop genocide.
    2
  14.  @derealovesurvival7549  how would it stop them? They still make money of currently illegal wars.
    2
  15. Stopping a failed state on the borders if NATO, making a friend.
    2
  16.  @chriswilde7246  it's training, we train in an insane amount of countries, googling got me 80 in 2015.
    2
  17.  @charlieharper2529  what's that got to do with the Falklands.
    1
  18.  @charlieharper2529  yes, Russia Annexed Crimea because it was Ukrainian, as you say because Khrushchev gave it to them, they recognised it as Ukrainian before 2014. The UK didn't annex the Falklands, they repelled an invader.
    1
  19.  @myopicthunder  it's the use of force to achieve that change that's the problem. Breaking the norms that had lasted basically since WW2. And although that is an issue. The issue of relevance now isn't Crimea, it's Eastern Ukraine and Russia trying to undermine the Ukraine working as a viable state.
    1
  20.  @myopicthunder  because I dont recognise your descriprion of it being with US and EU support, rather than just a pro EU part of the population.
    1
  21.  @caldooo  What's incorrect, I said it was British the Argentinians invaded?
    1
  22.  @amoslukyaa5792  some unnamed time, an unnamed person said something. Convincing.
    1
  23.  @amoslukyaa5792  I wasn't judging your statement, I was judging how badly you supported it. But even European NATO out numbers and and out spends Russia so I'm pretty sceptical about your statement too.
    1
  24.  @charlieharper2529  at least get your percentages right it about 60% Russian
    1
  25.  @charlieharper2529  what are you on a about?
    1
  26. Why do you separate the Baltics and Poland? Both are NATO members.
    1
  27.  @leary4  I think you've got it wrong. With the Baltics in NATO and the EU it would be a completely different prospect to Georgia and the Ukraine. These were nations making there first moves towards the west (Georgia to NATO and Ukraine the EU) so Russia could act before a close relationship was formed. Adding in the perminantly stationed NATO troops in tgge Baltic it wou mean NATO is automatically involved and so Putin has no prospect success. Finland's relationship is a cold war legacy when the Warsaw pact was on a par with NATO. Realistically any offensive action by Russia against Norway would likely bring in Sweden and then Finland.
    1
  28.  @leary4  you think some vague sense of debt from a coalition that also involved Mongolia and Kazakhstan compares to a concrete treaty and troops on the ground deployed for defence and rather than training? The Baltics are safe because they are guaranteed by NATO. Otherwise they would be subject to the whims of Russia as much as Belarus is. The largest exercise by NATO was just held in Norway. Clearly with a Russian invasion in mind, and it involved Sweden and Finland. I'm not sure what you mean by Sweden not being a country?
    1
  29.  @leary4  How are the Baltics unaffiliated when they are in NATO and the EU and have NATO troops perminantly stationed there?
    1
  30.  @leary4  The permanent presence isn't to win the fight, it's to ensure countries are automatically involved in the fight. I know Article 5 will be upheld by the UK. The US fought the gulf war without a treaty, they fought the Iraq war without an invasion, I find the idea you think the US will be so unwilling to fight unlikely. What do you have against Macedonia now?
    1
  31.  @realistic658  Aye, the Jocks are some of our best, Coldstream guards and the like.
    1
  32.  @charlieharper2529  Western Democracy is representative Democracy, you don't have referendums on everything you elect politicians to make decisions.
    1
  33.  @derealovesurvival7549  the quote your paraphrasing is exactly the arguement for a just war. Should we not defend ourselves against people ignoring the ban because there is never a reason for war? Should we try stop genocide by speaking loudly?
    1
  34.  @derealovesurvival7549  what is unreasonable about my argument? Your lurch to Satanism suggests you might not be very reasonable.
    1
  35. WW2 wasn't Russia it was the USSR, plenty of Ukrainians died fighting for the USSR.
    1
  36.  @charlieharper2529  pick your side. The psychopath that's already killed millions if you or the one that is about to. Stalin or Hitler.
    1
  37. It pretty much a soldiers job to mind other people's business.
    1
  38. Direct conflict is very unlikely as the risks are too high. An open proxy war is more possible. You can argue the merits of annexing Crimea, it is more Russian, historically and demographically and was on its own done effectively. Eastern Ukraine doesn't have those counter points and is just causing death and misery. The latest move of closing off the Sea of Azov is clear Russian bullying even if you take the view that the Ukraine is trying to exploit it.
    1
  39. Israel has good relations with Russia, they sell them weapons.
    1
  40. Cuba? Are you still living in the cold war era?
    1
  41. It's well known that soldiers need training to be able to kill civilians?!
    1
  42.  @charlieharper2529  an oddly large number of Ukrainian military have died only bombarding civilians.
    1