Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

Britain is not at war with Russia. America and Russia are well on their way to forming a peacemaking alliance which Britain would be well-advised to join.
3
@ I cannot take seriously anyone who cannot review the situation in Ukraine without constantly harking back to the events leading up to World War II.
2
@ But the UN is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as is NATO. Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Placing the new country of Ukraine on the same geographical footprint as the former SSR of Ukraine was a huge mistake. The SSR was NOT a country, as such. It was an administrative unit of the Soviet Union.. Historically , ethnically and economically Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are parts of Russia.
2
@TheSquidUK That's a very kind offer, but unfortunately I don't use other platforms, being somewhat behind the times with technology. I do, however, actually have an X account and a Facebook account which I don't use. It would be a test of my ingenuity if you were to fire a first salvo on either of these and I will try to pick it up and respond.
2
@ We are not. A neutral nation supplying arms to one side in a war does NOT mean that the nation supplying the arms is at war with the nation which the arms are being used against. In any case any doubts on this issue would be immediately overcome if we stopped supplying arms to Ukraine. Which we should. Resolving the anomalies over borders between Ukraine and Russia by negotiation, rather than conflict is the exact opposite of "forming an invasion alliance."
1
@ Before that can be done where and what Ukraine actually is has to be more clearly defined than it is at present.
1
@ Because it is. It faces the truth instead of denying it.
1
@ricado372 Are you paranoid? I am British born and bred and I don't even KNOW how to "run multiple accounts."
1
@ftumschk I don't get you. Ukraine (or parts of the present country) were called Little Russia because they were added on to Russia by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Before that the territory was occupied by various princedoms and chunks of the Ottoman and Polish/Lithuanian empires. This was the time of the industrial and agricultural revolutions and the steppeland to the east of the Dnieper, which until then had been sparsely occupied by various tribes of wandering herdsmen, was transformed as Russians moved in to develop mining and ironmaking industries, and to fertilise the land. Their descendants live there to this day.
1
@TheSquidUK Russia is actually taking everything it desires - and to which it is entitled. All we a have to do is acknowledge these facts
1
@iandennis7836 I'm willing to bet I know a great deal more history than you do.
1
@pandorapiam3374 Of course not. In this case Russia simply wants to retain what it - or at least some of its people - already possess.
1
@pandorapiam3374 The point is that Ukraine was not a country. It was an administrative unit of the Soviet Union which contained large tracts of Russian land. Making the whole thing a proper "sovereign" country was a mistake which has led to numerous difficulties. Attempts to sort this out by peaceful means have failed and rather than see very valuable Russian resources being handed over to Western interests Russia has been forced to keep hold of them by force.
1
@pandorapiam3374 Hardly. There were a whole bunch of governments claiming a whole bunch of different territories after the Russian revolution. I expect you are referring the Peoples Republic of Ukraine which claimed great chunks of Russia but gave great chunks of present-day Ukraine to Poland. It never really existed as anything you could properly call a country for the brief period of its existence though. Its boundaries altered as quickly as the various groups which claimed to run it.
1
@pandorapiam3374 They did in the East, where there is a large Russian population.
1