Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Kwasi Kwarteng SLAMS 'CRANKY' Nigel Farage over 'VERY BAD' Russia-Ukraine remarks..." video.

@zoomeraygun1 These are victims of Western imperialism. And Putin IS good at what he does - which is leading one of the most volatile countries in the world. Being a good leader involves taking difficult decisions - such as going to war rather than allowing your country to be bullied into submission.
2
Putin has no plans to reclaim the Russian Empire. That is a myth designed to justify Western aggression. And you've fallen for it.
1
They had little choice.
1
@Kallyman421 If they hadn't invaded Ukraine would have invaded Donbass, thus depriving Russia of trillions of dollars of valuable minerals. You don't HAVE to strike first in order to prevent being attacked, but it is often a good idea.
1
@Kallyman421 You are as wrong about the mineral wealth of Donbass as you are about its ownership. While the coal and iron ore may have been depleted, the unique geology of the area makes it rich source of valuable rare earth minerals such as the half a million tonnes of lithium discovered near Mariupol only shortly before the invasion. The worked coal mines are also a source of potentially very large quantities of shale gas. Experts have estimated the value of the mineral wealth remaining in Donbass at at least $13trillion. First with salt, then with coal and iron ore, and now with gas and rare earth minerals, the area has been worked by Russians using Russian labour and with Russian investment. Like Crimea it was merely appended to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine by Moscow as a matter of administrative and logistical convenience. The fact that in the confusion following the collapse of the Soviet Union the area of the SSR became the new country of Ukraine was a huge mistake which Putin has sought to work around or rectify. Were it not for Western agencies having ambitions to syphon this wealth away from Russia and into their own coffers there is every chance Russia and Ukraine could have settled these difficulties between them without the need for war.
1
@Kallyman421 Donbass, like Crimea, was only appended to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine by Moscow as a matter of administrative and logistical convenience. Including these territories in the new country of Ukraine following the collapse of the USSR was a huge mistake which Putin has attempted to rectify, firstly through peaceful means and now through the grim necessity of war. While its coal and iron ore may have been depleted the area is rich in rare earth minerals, such as the half a million tonnes of lithium recently discovered near Mariupol, It is also extremely rich in shale gas. There have been several surveys in recent years undertaken by various countries. The value of these resources is estimated at around $13trillion.
1
@Kallyman421 Fair enough - but there is certainly enough down there for people to fight a war over. You don't really think this is about bringing democracy to a benighted nation, or a mad dictator trying to recreate a lost empire, do you?
1
@Kallyman421 No treaty lasts forever. As circumstances change, they become irrelevant, as with Budapest. We are now living in a world in which the Pax Americana is crumbling and things ain't as they are, just because America says so. The difference between what Russia is doing now and your examples citing European colonialism and American ambitions in the Middle East is that Russia is not seeking to colonise foreign territories, but is trying to take back something which was stolen from it by these failed and ill-considered treaties.
1
@Kallyman421 You make the common mistake of trying to impose a spurious morality on the dirty world of Realpolitik. Signatures on bits of paper do not outweigh decades of history. In addition, there is an ill-defined but nonetheless very real statute of limitations on regaining lost territories, I think, but even this ostensibly legal or moral imperative become irrelevant when faced with the practicalities involved. If Britain wanted to take back India and had the resources to do so, it would proceed along those lines. But it hasn't. The same applies to the other examples you mention. In the case of Russia and Donbass and Crimea, however, Russia has both the desire and the resources to return to a previous position. This is what is most important, but it also has an entirely reasonable moral case for doing so, even though such a luxury is unnecessary.
1
@Kallyman421 The Ukraine war is the fault of Western agencies who have sought to divert the economies of Donbass and Crimea away from Russia and into their own pockets. Russia cannot be expected to put up with this. Peaceful solutions, such as allowing autonomy to Donbass, thus allowing it to continue to trade with Russia while the rest of Ukraine joins the EU if it wishes, have been rejected. War is the only alternative to humiliation and considerable loss of income for Russia. Russia is almost certain to win this conflict. The amount the West has decided to allocate towards obtaining military victory for Ukraine is diminishing. The profit is no longer worth the investment and while the US arms industry has obtained substantial gains the ultimate objective, that is to say control of mineral resources, is becoming increasingly unlikely.
1
@Kallyman421 Russia has considerable justification for its actions. To allow Western agencies to take control of the economies of Donbass and Crimea would mean humiliation and substantial loss of income for Russia. Peaceful solutions, such as granting regional autonomy to Donbass, thus allowing it to continue to trade with Russia while the rest of Ukraine joins the EU if it wishes - have been rejected. War is the only real answer. Legality or illegality doesn't come into it. The laws were drawn up to benefit those agencies who are involved in attempting to gain control of the resources. Therefore those laws become irrelevant. A court cannot impose an objective judgement when the court is involved in making a profit from the case it is supposedly passing judgement upon. It is rather like the situation in America in the 19th century when tribe was set against tribe and treaties were signed by tribal chiefs who did not realise that instead of coming as peacemakers, the Americans were simply arranging things for their own eventual benefit. This time, it's not going to work.
1
@Kallyman421 Who are "they"? Why should Putin be constrained by agreements signed by his predecessors? Budapest failed and Minsk was designed to replace it. Minsk has failed too and the only real alternative for Russia is to maintain control of its interests through the grim necessity of war. Legality or legality scarcely enters into it. The laws were drawn up by those who are directly involved in the conflict, and can thus be ignored.
1
@wundurra24 Why do you think schoolchildren want to take drugs?
1
It actually IS the West's fault, but Farage was clever enough not to say so directly.
1
No he doesn't. All he has ever done in over 20years in power is to protect Russia's existing borders and economic and security interests.
1
@sensi6457 These countries were invaded not for reasons of conquest, but for security. Russia simply cannot allow them to fall into the US sphere of influence.
1
@zoomeraygun1 Entirely serious.
1
Putin is good at what he does. Which is being a strong and patriotic leader, unafraid to take difficult decisions.
1
You know nothing.
1