Comments by "harmless" (@harmless6813) on "Why is the West not reacting to Russian attacks?" video.

  1.  @seancidy6008  This is still nonsense. It's not like Russia losing in Ukraine would destroy Russia. Nobody even thinks about attacking Russia proper. That's why using nuclear weapons would be completely bonkers, because then the brakes would come off and Russia would really lose.
    12
  2.  @seancidy6008  I disagree with the idea that Russia would be mad enough to risk a war with NATO for Ukraine. Russia has threatened a nuclear response multiple times. Just repeating the same threat again and again will not change my opinion. I think we can end this discussion here.
    9
  3. We should compare him to a Mafia boss. Not only is that accurate, it's also a character type the public is familiar with.
    5
  4.  @seancidy6008  I have no idea what you are trying to say.
    5
  5.  @seancidy6008  You assume too much, that's why. Be clear in what you are trying to say. I don't care about any parallels you want me to see. Just say it.
    5
  6. As was the missile that landed in Poland. Vanished from the news pretty quickly.
    5
  7. "What I find interesting is that the US is pretty much in full control over the information space globally," Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? The hordes of Russian trolls in the various comment sections seems to disprove that claim quite handily.
    4
  8. What are you referring to? Can't find anything.
    4
  9. So why don't you? You know, instead of just insinuating that Anders is not credible.
    3
  10. If Russia is responsible for the Kerch bridge attack, that one went terribly wrong. But then, Russia ...
    3
  11. Whereas Russians get their 'expert' commentary from the Kremlin itself. 🤷‍♂
    3
  12. Well ... there have been several ... incidents inside Russia during this war. 🤷‍♂
    3
  13. Well, not in any direct and obvious way.
    3
  14.  @anderspuck  Hardly anybody will first watch another video. A few sentences would have been good. Even when you know what it is, it is valuable to hear what the person talking thinks it is. But great video anyway. Thanks so much!
    3
  15. It depends on what kind of attack it was. If they targeted it with easy to track missiles it would probably elicit some kind of counterattack. Might be a nice excuse to e.g. sink another Russian ship in the Black Sea. Shouldn't be particularly hard for the US. If it was more of a clandestine attack, like a planted explosive device with no clear evidence to who was responsible, it would probably get swept under the rug. There are more weapons that can be sent; losing (part of) a single shipment wouldn't be much of a loss.
    3
  16. We will keep supporting Ukraine. If there is any beef with the US, we can take that up after Ukraine has won.
    3
  17. It's hard to find the right path. But while the destruction and sacrifice by the Ukrainians is hard to watch, a significant escalation might lead to even more lives being lost and more cities destroyed. No easy answers. Let's try to do our best. Slava Ukraini!
    3
  18.  @highdefinist9697  It's all about division, diversion and money. It doesn't matter to the Kremlin what Russia's enemies do - as long as it means they are not helping Ukraine.
    2
  19. Gazprom would have been liable for contract violations if the situation had continued (aka Russia not delivering gas as contractually obliged). But then the pipeline was conveniently blown up. 🤷‍♂
    2
  20. Gazprom would have been liable for contract violations if the situation had continued (aka Russia not delivering gas as contractually obliged). But then the pipeline was conveniently blown up. 🤷‍♂
    2
  21.  @wendten2  Well, the contract not meaning anything now is the point. I think you try quite hard to not understand that.
    2
  22. Gazprom would have been liable for contract violations if the situation had continued (aka Russia not delivering gas as contractually obliged). But then the pipeline was conveniently blown up. 🤷‍♂
    2
  23. Nah. As long as people keep calm about it, all is well. And those people who would panic over it are not going to watch these kinds of videos. Major news media will not pick up on it either because it's not flashy enough and doesn't make for good headlines.
    2
  24. Gazprom would have been liable for contract violations if the situation had continued (aka Russia not delivering gas as contractually obliged). But then the pipeline was conveniently blown up. 🤷‍♂
    2
  25.  @CNCTEMATIC  "No insurance policy will ever compensate Russia for the true cost of revenue that the sale of gas through the pipe could bring." Europe had already decided to cut off Russian gas and had demonstrated that it was serious. The pipeline was useless for Russia in the medium to long term. And in the short term it was more useful to Europe than it was to Russia.
    2
  26. It's not connected. Russia has lots of gas and oil already and use of fossil fuels are on the decline anyway. This war has hurt Russia a lot more than they can gain from any additional oil or gas fields. This is an imperialistic war to extend the Russian territory; they are already printing new maps that add Ukrainian territory to Russia that Russian soldiers haven't even stepped a foot on.
    2
  27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVj-AbXIUZc
    2
  28. Of course; we are all part of the hybrid warfare even when we just comment here. Slava Ukraini!
    2
  29. I have come to the conclusion that lying about almost anything and everything is a way of life in Russia. So much so that many Russians don't understand that it is not the same elsewhere.
    2
  30.  @anderspuck  Whenever you think there's enough to talk about, feel free to make another one! I like listening to intelligent people discussing the war. There's lots of soundbites and knee jerk reactions everywhere and not enough smart analysis.
    2
  31.  @wamingo  Sounds plausible.
    2
  32. Well, just because there is no direct retaliation doesn't mean nothing gets done to counter such attacks.
    1
  33.  @martinandreasvik6505  I was actually just thinking of additional defensive measures. But then, there have been quite a few 'incidents' inside Russia during the war ...
    1
  34.  @martinandreasvik6505  That's just, like, your opinion man. I'm not going to argue about that.
    1
  35. There was absolutely no reason for the US to blow up NS. Russia had halted gas delivery anyway. But Gazprom was liable for contract violations for not delivering gas as agreed - until NS was blow up. How convenient.
    1
  36.  @claudemaggard7162  Europe had already decided to cut themselves free from Russian gas (and oil) and had made clear that they meant it. Russia didn't have much to lose.
    1
  37. Makes no sense, since Russia had already cut the gas flow through NS anyway.
    1
  38. Also, people laughed at Prigozhin's claim about 10 million potential volunteers from the US. I didn't. I think it's totally possible that there are enough derailed individuals in a population of over 330 million. Just watch some videos about Trump rallies. Now, do I think there will really be an influx of US citizens on the Russian side? Nope. But many claiming support? I can see that.
    1
  39. Creating any division in the western bloc is a win for Russia. So they will throw everything at the wall that could make some difference.
    1
  40. That too. But anything that impedes help to Ukraine is a win from Russia's perspective.
    1
  41. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVj-AbXIUZc
    1
  42. Are you ok?
    1
  43. Personally, I think this constant "Germany may falter" is itself Russian hybrid warfare. The German chancellor said right at the beginning of this war that Germany will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes. There has been not change. Greetings from Germany.
    1
  44.  @Viggo_Frb  Yup, that one was pretty obvious. Also how Ukraine was brought in line. First they insisted very much that it wasn't them and then they apparently got convinced that it wasn't in their/our interest to play it up as a Russian attack on NATO. I agree with Anders: if Russia wants NATO to respond, they will have to get much more direct. But of course Russia doesn't want to really start a war with NATO; they just want something they can point at and claim as NATO aggression.
    1
  45. Provocative?
    1
  46.  @bruh5361  Ah. In that case I agree.
    1
  47.  @panosbozopoulos5212  You are wrong, And posting a wall of text doesn't change that.
    1
  48.  @panosbozopoulos5212  How good is your German? I can recommend the video on this topic from "Militär & Geschichte mit Torsten Heinrich" on this topic. I'll try to post a link in the next comment, but YouTube usually deletes those.
    1
  49.  @panosbozopoulos5212  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jnlknGxyQs
    1
  50. They are afraid of a hot war with NATO. Because they would lose that one real fast.
    1