Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "British army not equipped to stop Putin invading further | Lord Dannatt" video.

I don't understand what quarrel we have with Russia anyway. What's it all about?
4
@Zikar The Budapest Accords, which created the modern country of Ukraine, were a huge mistake. This treaty is largely responsible for the conditions leading to the present war. It was signed in the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet Union and fails to recognise a number of significant historical, economic and ethnic truths. Efforts have been made ever since to straighten out its anomalies peacefully - and they could easily have been successful were it not for the interference in Slavonic affairs by greedy Americans.
3
@E KL The UN is not a community though, is it?
3
@E KL The same one as you. The one where there is no such thing as "an international community" - only the pretence of one which uses "international law" to promote the interests of powerful states at the expense of less powerful ones.
3
@E KL Historically, Ukraine is little more than a Russian province. This has to be acknowledged of it is to attain true sovereign status.
2
@Zikar Ukraine is currently occupying territory belonging to Russia for centuries.
2
@gigmcsweeney8566 The Kievan Rus existed a thousand years ago. It was the name given to the Vikings who sailed up the Dnieper and created first Kiev, then Moscow. The Kievan arm of this aristocracy deteriorated, while the Muscovite one prospered. By the 18th century "Ukraine" (meaning the borderlands) had been occupied by a succession of invaders ranging from Poles and Lithuanians to Turks. The Eastern steppe was occupied by tribes of Tatars. The territory was brought under the control of the Russian Empire, firstly by Peter the Great, then by Catherine the Great. After the Russian Revolution it became a semi-autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, subservient to Moscow. Crimea, Donbass and other areas were added during this period for purely administrative reasons.
2
@E KL How do you make that connection? Laws, to have any meaning, must be the result of lengthy precedent in the interests of a discrete community. "International Law" does not fulfil these criteria. It is an exterior imposition and of ridiculously recent vintage. It is far from sacrosanct. Indeed, it very much requires constant amendment if it is to serve any purpose - that is, of course, assuming that it is needed at all.
2
@user-ei3dq2dw6i Like America?
2
@E KL I am from England, and "International Law" is an artificial and basically meaningless construct, created after the end of the Second World War to give a sheen of respectability to continuing American aggression. Even then they break it, as in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Syria, to name but three examples.
1
@gigmcsweeney8566 No it isn't. It is an anomalous and entirely artificial construct.
1
@Deadlus-p3m That relationship ended quite some time ago, I think you'll find!
1
@kopeducati And with reason.
1
@martiedoherty5765 If I had I'd be even more puzzled.
1
@emmaeltringham91 I live in the south of England, so I can't tell you.
1
@din6675 I doubt that "bot farms" even exist. I'm certainly not part of one.
1
@korayven9255 Russia would not have invaded if Ukraine had agreed to its very reasonable peace proposals. Sensible voices in Ukraine were ready to do so, but American and UK envoys were sent to persuade them not to. There are trillions upon trillions of dollarsworth of gas, oil, coal, iron and rare earth minerals beneath the soil of Donbass and Crimea. America wants them. That's all this war is really about.
1