Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Preston Stewart " channel.

@It1nt The Soviet and Imperialist symbols - like the oft-quoted "Kiev in three days" were designed to encourage the troops into believing they were taking part in a national crusade.
1
@It1nt Although there are some cultural elements in this war it is -like most wars - mainly concerned with control of resources. And the resources in this instance are huge with Donbass sitting on several trillions of dollars in coal, gas, oil, iron and rare earth minerals. The discovery of half a million tonnes of lithium ore around Mariupol may well have brought matters to a head.
1
@It1nt The mineral extraction industry in Eastern Ukraine is and always has been primarily a Russian concern. The threat of it being nationalised and its profits taken over by foreign interests was more than Russia could reasonably have been expected to accept.
1
@It1nt The family quarrel could, I think, have been settled without bloodshed if the terms of the Minsk treaties had been adhered to. Regional autonomy for the two Donbass republics, allowing them to continue to trade with Russia, would have prevented the grim necessity of war.
1
@It1nt The Minsk compromise would have been a viable solution, but it clearly did not fit in with Western ambitions. Tragically, there is every chance that Russia will gain by force more than it asked for peacefully and hundreds of thousands of people will have died to no purpose. There is a very real sense in which we are the bad guys here.
1
@It1nt The point is that Russia does not agree that Donbass and its mineral wealth actually belongs to Ukraine. They say that giving the new country of Ukraine the same boundaries as the former SSR was a huge mistake. As long as the Kiev government allowed Russia to continue to exploit the resources there was an uneasy peace. Ukraine joining the EU and allowing foreign companies to take over was more than Russia was prepared to put up with. It's not that Russia wants more minerals. It wants to keep hold of those it already has - and which generations of Russians have laboured to extract from the earth.
1
@It1nt No treaty last forever and the Russia of today is not the Russia of 1993. The Budapest accords were signed by a drunkard in the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet empire in circumstances which have radically altered since then. There is nothing about the 21st century which makes it any different to any other century in this regard. Putin has attempted for more than 20 years to peacefully redress the inbalances created by Budapest. The Minsk Accords were designed to do so and would have provided a viable and workable solution to the problem. Sadly though the notion of removing billions of dollars a year from the Russian economy has provided too great a temptation for Western agencies who have shamefully staged a proxy war costing thousands of lives in a vain attempt to realise their ambitions.
1
@It1nt The Treaty of Windsor is an exception to the general rule though! Just think how many thousands of treaties have failed or been abandoned since then. Thirty years is a pretty good run, in fact. As far as your second point is concerned yes, there is a bit more to this than money I suppose - although I think that the final balance sheet, assuming Russia wins, will put them in a greater profit than if they had meekly agreed to give up their mining interests. There is the matter of national pride to consider. Ever since the collapse of the SU the West has put continual pressure on the Russian Federation to accept a subsidiary role in world affairs - to accept US dominance in fact. This Putin has refused to do. The notion of giving up Donbass to largely American interests and allowing Ukraine to becoming yet another NATO outpost was a red line he would not allow to be crossed. And I think the US and the West were very wrong and really very immoral to attempt to do so.
1
@It1nt Attempt number 2! Damn YouTube. The Treaty of Windsor is an obvious exception. Think how many thousands of treaties have been broken or abandoned since then. Thirty years is a pretty good run. It's more than just money, I think - although if Russia wins it will almost certainly recover its investment in the war. There is the question of national pride. Ever since the collapse of the SU the Russian Federation has been under pressure to bow the knee to America. Moving in on Donbass and attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO was just a step too far. A line was crossed which should not have been crossed. This dreadful war is the result.
1
@It1nt Attempt No 3. What happened to free speech, YouTube? The Treaty of Windsor is an exception. Think how many thousands of treaties have been broken or fallen by the wayside since then. I don't know, but I think Russia will come out on top financially if it wins. That aside, there is the question of national pride to consider. Ever since the collapse of the SU the Russian Federation has been put under pressure to bow to US hegemony. It has refused to do so. Losing Donbass to foreign interests and having Ukraine join NATO would have been an unbearable humiliation for Russia. more.....
1
@It1nt Forcing Russia and Ukraine into conflict is the truly immoral act in this whole shameful business. Setting one tribe against another and writing treaties which cannot help but be broken is a technique developed by America when they were used to commit genocide against the original inhabitants of their land. These techniques have been employed in the present situation, I'm sad to say. As ever the motive is the acquisition of wealth and resources belonging to others.
1
@It1nt Does America have the right to tell other countries what they can and can't do? They seem to have considerably more experience of it that the Russian Federation. In fact, setting one tribe against the other and writing treaties which are doomed to fail have been part of the armoury of that great nation ever since they were used to help exterminate the original population of the land. Russia does not want all of Ukraine. As you rightly say, that would mean a permanent state of civil war. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are being rebuilt with an investment that far exceeds anything they ever got under Kiev. It will now take a great deal and a great deal more bloodshed to prevent them returning to permanent Russian rule. As to the economic and demographic consequences - they remain very much to be seen. We are at a watershed in human affairs. American hegemony is under threat and new alliances are being created. Who knows what the world will look like in twenty years time?
1
@It1nt YouTube continues to block my replies to such an extent that I cannot reply meaningfully to your points. Bit like being in Soviet Russia, really.
1
@It1nt America seems to spend far more time telling other countries what to do than the Russian Federation does.
1
@It1nt Russia does not want Ukraine. It just wants its borders to be realistically set, and not in accord with the borders of the former SSU which was, of course, a Russian construct anyway.
1
@It1nt I think $10+trillion under the ground in Donbass will soften any financial blows. In any case, Russia is a criminal enterprise and nobody not in the know has any idea how its economy actually works.
1
@It1nt Pride may be an immoral reason to hurt people, but then so is greed to possess what others have worked for over the centuries.
1
@It1nt Setting one tribe against another and writing treaties designed to fail have been techniques employed by America ever since they were used to help commit genocide in the Indian Wars.
1