Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Military Summary"
channel.
-
223
-
160
-
147
-
108
-
91
-
85
-
74
-
62
-
59
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
48
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
@hansb7020 This is beyond ridiculous, where are you getting such rubbish information. The IMF has even said Russia will have growth this year, China has increased its oil intake from russia, same as India and Africa, these three countries are going to be the highest percentage of the worlds population by 2100, USA will be around 3.5%, they aren't going to be important as a trading partner. USA has debt of around 86 thousand per person, russia around 12 thousand, what are you talking about huge deficit...? "Quite easy" hahahaha, this is the language that fools yourself, not others.
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
Half their force, what a jokestar, every male by law, has had military training of either two years or one year, 75 millionish men that have had training and the production system to maintain this, that has been in place since world war 2 is not the same as USA.
Next, all money entering the economy is only through debt, expenditure of debt within the country raises inflation, between washington and reagan the debt amounted to one trillion, now it's 34 trillion, if the military spending wasn't needed US citizens could lower their income tax by a third. The debt isn't going to be paid back in multiple lifetimes and the debt is being valued on things that might get devalued over the next hundred years.
Russians don't care about money but very soon USA could default, USA has the potential to fall into a hole right now, Americans should realise debt is money, yet they are still broken and they should wonder why.
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@anglet64 No I did not forget but that goal is on track.
I don't know why people mention trade as anything to do with this. Russia has by law a year of military service for men so let's say 20-30 million men that will be of fighting age, with a year's military service already do you think USA will mobilise their males, or NATO theirs, this is not NATO's armies against Russia, this is the people of Russia, who haven't gone to a war footing yet, Russia thinks this is their existence at stake and all Ukraine had to do was not enter NATO, a US funded organisation.
What you should ask yourself is why is China supporting Ru, same as India, Africa, 130+ countries haven't recognised sanctions and only increased trade, you should look at BRICS and how many countries wanting to join, already they are are around 45% of the worlds population, if they move away from the petrodollar which looks likely USA will suffer more.
China doesn't need to help militarily as Ru have as I say achieved all their goals but they are certainly on Ru's side because they know they will be next if Russia loses and that looking at it at the moment is a very big IF, an imaginary IF, that only exists in western media's news.
Russia economy has only improved since this started and trade they didn't have before with oil has increased, India for example while Europe is getting demolished with higher energy prices along with food prices and refugees.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
If I may, we have believed we were the good guys because of the last world war and its propaganda propagated in different ways since. The reality is wars for resources have happened for tens of thousands of years and instead of changing for the better, profit took over instead of raising general wellbeing. All based off oil that any other country in the same position would have used, we now know this amount of energy that we base our lives around is coming to an end and instead of transitioning when the UK and US could they went around and tried to keep everybody else broken so they could control all the toys.. This was after the second world war and then production increased and with USA being relatively unscathed, and had all the resources it meant fridges and cars for everyone.
The system of war for USA which is 4% of the world has meant our lives in the west uses many multiples of those we take the resources from and you are the customer of that. When the amount of gold in the world couldn't really be increased anymore, the US went off the gold standard and now money is debt based, creating a situation where there is 3 times more debt in the world than all the money, all based on oil, that we currently and for the last 80 years have been trying to control and promote, a system that environmentally has to fail and fail soon.
We are born into a debt monetary system that private organisations benefit from, that controls the schooling and media system, running on fossil fuels that shouldn't be allowed to continue but because it's what we have done for the last 5 or 6 generations, we think it' is normal and don't know how to change and we have a military machine that is equal to the next 12 countries put together thinking it must be fed instead of disbanded.
For the system to continue as is, then control of resources must happen and the only real different thing that could be happening is you might be realising, are we the baddies? @CaffeineKing
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shadidnewshistory9207 I disagree, that would be land in front that doesn't need to be damaged, every kilometre away from repair yards, munitions production etc for Ru including then troop turnover it becomes harder for Ru and easier for Ukr. The closer they get to the border of Poland the shorter the distance is to supply the front line for Ukr. Ru has how many people now in training or waiting in the wings, 300k? Imagine if they really ramped up and I'm not saying they couldn't do it but that would be multiples of this now and as long as ru is winning I don't see a problem. It was supposed to be just these four area's, I've always disagreed with people saying Putin should go faster, we have all seen the msm and the one sided view they follow, I think if Putin had gone faster it would have been easier to pull the wool over peoples eyes and get the populations agreeing with war. This war is don't move faster than your artillery can, fast is slow and slow is fast sort of thing, I don't think they need or should do anything more than what is working, they have just resisted an attack that killed 68,000 men in total after all.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The problem I see is people have a grasp on history and seem to conflate all of a country's actions, over generations, as individual ones, and it then should be individuals who should be to blame.
There would have been somebody in the Colosseum saying the exact same things about war and peace and who is to blame and the same person who would not have been able to change anything then either but how can we blame him for not succeeding or the ordinary peasant for not knowing more? We can't.
Force is violence, depending on what side you are on, if ordinary people are ignorant of the force then why are they blamed for the violence?
Another way to look at it is Iraqi. Afghan, Syrian, Yemeni families have been ........"displaced" .. over oil that get's refined and we use these products daily, all over the world, no matter where you are or how edgy you think you are being on your oil derived product, are you going to stop today and if not then do you have any less culpability and more importantly are you even able.
To say all the world woes should fall onto the people that stopped slavery through the enlightenment period, and then blame them for being alive that coal become available, then diesel and petrol, while every nation has benefitted overall from them, a huge jump in populations, you are probably alive because of the UK and USA, to then complain because the result is soooo many people, over something people, ordinary people had no control over is like people in 10-20 years saying "but you knew what these fuels are doing, why didn't you change everything?"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It takes time to create these videos, why isn't information that comes out at one time, not allowed to be the truth when he made the video?
It'd quite sad to see attacks both ways regarding bias in one way or another, that has nothing to do with hundreds of thousands of people dying.
The bias you assume has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, and I get more reality from this channel than I do the others, and I use this channel as part of a suite to gain what information I can, like anybody should, expecting one source to give you all the truth means you are a proponent of main stream media, if you are then I feel you should adjust that view, but you, unfortunately, have set up a strawman conversation here, your opinion means nothing.
Strength in Joy
Maybe appreciate what you get before you cast stones
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Do you ever find it interesting that you know this story, as USA occupies that same part of Syria, for oil? Like do you believe that everything you've heard about an ally to USA, is all true, or do you think maybe there was reasons behind the formation other than basing things purely off fighting ability.?
I'm not saying women can't be warriors, but Russian women are also defending their homes too, the difference is all men in Russia have had to do military service, it used to be two years, then down to one, not sure now but all men having to do a year of the army, have some basic carrying fitness, to be used to other men in the army and fighting. This is different for somebody who is trying to look feminine, have their nails done, wear fashionable clothes. Whatever you think of the sexes and the difference between them, there is a far bigger learning curve for these females, it would be like putting them in to the ring with a professional boxer, but much more deadly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@halinatrolle9775 If we look back the last 80 years since the end of the second world war we know USA has been involved or caused the majority of the killings from people fighting one another and if we look back the last two decades USA has been responsible for 4-5 million deaths, nevertheless, we also know USA is 4% of the world, we know Africa will be almost 50% of the world be 2100 and 23 countries are going to lose 50% of their population due to old age by then. The past is not a good indicator of the future and for all we know the need to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, the attempted takeover of Syria and of course Ukraine could have reached its peak as far as customers are concerned. We could be reaching the pinnacle of warfare, the end of a system and everything declines from here on in and war within a hundred years could be finished. 25% of the first world are going to be over 65, more people dying than being born, who is going to be fighting, and for what. a reducing customer base?
It's very possible USA would have been able to achieve what they wanted, to supply Europe gas and it wasn't worth the cheese.
3
-
@yuriylevchenko6667 It won't or at least might not, that is the issue people seem to ignore but a reason US is continuing in this losing war, lose the Petro dollar and the US dollar could halve in value, BRICS, the SCO, Russia taking payments in other forms than US dollars, along with 80% of the worlds population possibly ignoring it. They are 4.2% of the worlds population but use 25% of the worlds energy, no one needs USA as a trading partner in the future though. Africa will be almost half the worlds population by 2100, India and China next, huge populations of poor people that are seeing an increase in spending power, one that China will provide the goods for and Russia providing the energy. USA could become a failed state if it doesn't stop its warmongering that most of the world see's.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the problem, competing interests directly help the US.
Every single dollar is based on debt, it's all meaningless if our time debt is not put towards things that make it better for the next generation in my opinion but there are problems with trying to achieve something somebody already has instead of actually going a new way.
"WE" have all agreed money entering the world can be based on the amount of energy this debt represents. "WE" cannot afford this energy to be spent environmentally, we are all the customers of this energy that is based on debt. As long as the dollar can still buy energy, and it doesn't matter which central banks that create it or whose dollar it is, as long as it can buy energy then you do need some controls. Competing interests when the US has an army that is supposed to be equal to the next nine countries put together and USA puts debt ( money) into the economy through war which would give the normal world thoughts of "Oh the stock market is up, they are doing ok". The average person in the west lives in a media bubble so they wouldn't know what " competing interests" mean except what they are told.
There should only be one army and that's the UN, or let me put it another way, if 1% of the world disagree, you do need a way to stop 80 million people being how they are sometimes, or in this case 320 million. @fred4687
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yuriylevchenko6667 They have a country of 150 million, roughly half these are male, that have all had a years military service, fighting age is between 18 and 55 but if you think men above 55 aren't going to get involved then you are mistaken, again, nevertheless, does it matter if it's 40 million, 30 million, 20 million, as far as the army of Nato, even if they include USA, is concerned. Next if Nato and all its constituents are treated like the males are in Ukraine are, India, Africa, China is on Russia's side in this, do you really think they will stand by when they know that what's happening in Ukraine will happen to them, if they do nothing? I mean your logic is illogical if you think otherwise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Shadowless Kick Naive? You mean they believed the words that were told to them at the time.
In 1994, Russia officially signed up to the NATO Partnership for Peace, a program aimed at building trust between NATO and other European and former Soviet countries. President Bill Clinton described it in January 1994 as a “track that will lead to NATO membership.” “Bill-Boris” letters in the summer and fall of 1994, and the previously secret memcon of the presidents’ one-on-one at the Washington summit in September 1994. Clinton kept assuring Yeltsin any NATO enlargement would be slow, with no surprises, building a Europe that was inclusive not exclusive, and in “partnership” with Russia. In a phone call on July 5, 1994, Clinton told Yeltsin “I would like us to focus on the Partnership for Peace program” not NATO. Clinton wrote in his memoir, “Budapest was embarrassing, a rare moment when people on both sides dropped the ball….”[3] Actually, the drops were almost all in Washington.
When the U.S., Canada and 10 western European nations came together in 1949 to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, they had a clear goal. “Keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,”
SO I ask you has this changed at all in this current situation and if some people are telling lies, is it naivety to be fooled by them and if so who should be blamed more the liar or the believer?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It depends on what you call a fair fight.
I still think Russia has the upper hand because of who they are.
We are all products of our environment, USA's environment of homeless on the streets, of the corruption of all that was good about USA being put a cost on, for profit, not general wellbeing.. I realise USA has a military equal to the next 9 countries put together machinery wise but you still need the people to fight, last time it was in the millions, something USA has never gone through before. It is ignorant of reality, this is not something that can be based army against army.
Compulsory military service, almost all males have done and all families are touched by the military as something normal, not like in USA where it's pride because they went and shot some people who live in mud huts, but pride in defence of their country. USA has never been attacked and if they do, the whole of the west could combine and it's only 25% of the world, problem is the 75%.
I think trying to judge this army against army is where most westerners fail at grasping what could happen.
@nikoskn1252
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh my goodness that was such a waste of time. "remember that" oh the angst to write this much... No-one doubts what you are saying but let's imagine China who had their last Famine between 1959 and 61, tens of millions of people died, if China was the victors of WW2 and as much unscathed do you think any of those people would have died and possibly those tens of millions would have died of starvation in other country's? I do?
Imagine Russia was in the same place after ww2 and USA was demolished, it's quite possible system change wouldn't have gone smoothly and again tens of millions dead.
USA is supposed to have been responsible for 4-5 million people killed since ww2, I'm not saying this is good but you can't say American bad, because you aren't comparing it to any other country that survived a world war with its industry intact before.
The point is from Ghenhis Khan to now it always seems as though war happens, maybe the myth of USA being the good guys is falling from people eyes, but as far as USA's moment to be the baddies, are you really saying as a world super power they have been responsible for the most deaths? Every single, what's the word, empire, has done this, and whenever it was your country's time at the top, they wouldn't have been any better, but I would definitely say worse. @Thomas-bw1bz
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you don't understand it then no need to be so reactive, if another person called Sam did what Genghis Khan did the damage would have been the same right? There's be a statue in Mongolia with SAM written at the bottom, point that I'm making is if Japan won, would they have been more merciful, if China, Russia, any of them been in the same position would it have been worse, I believe so.
This is not geographical changes about land but questions about should we blame people more or less. And as far as all empires going back, England, Spain, China, Russia, Roman and let's say USA has been responsible for 30 million people killed in the last 80 years, I thought it was 4-5, but 30 million people over 80 years when compared to other empires, this is the most peaceful one. Doesn't take away from atrocities or that the next one should be better, but at this stage, how do you know it will be and USA's age doesn't end up as staying the least amount of people killed in all time of empires on a per capita basis? @rilmehakonen9688
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me explain as I'm getting called names now.
We are all products of our environment, to say anybody would have been better in the same place is incorrect as no other people in the same place has been better.
Of all the people that think the west is against them, this is also incorrect, the people of the west don't want this, the people of the west want to maintain their freedom from religious nut jobs, in USA and the rest of the world, a lot of people want freedom FROM religion.
So in as far as they must not rule alone, what does it mean? It means you have a better alternative and I would agree the American idea of profit over value is atrocious but again, what new rules of how parts get to you etc, like an iphone has parts from 43 countries, the world order means these parts get around the world, will a multi polar world still allow trade, should a multi polar world stop trade so we all become humble?
I do not know and I agree with "must" but tell me what we are going towards 1st, because we are never closer to ww3 than now, does anybody want to go to war because americans might have meant the most peaceful time after ww2 comparatively?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Multi means multiple.
I'm not here to defend USA, I'm asking which nation in it's place would have been better.
Western people live in a media bubble but they have also had peace for 80 years.
You have a lot of different points that USA is "bad" but I'm asking who do you think would have been good in the same position of having a war machine that must be fed?
I've followed Ukraine for the 8 years before it started, but you are talking about one political system of neo liberalism, which a lot of Americans disagree with, and then say all USA bad. Now that it's getting to the pointy end of the oil supply and 49 years is not a long time, would you with the worlds largest military be sitting back and say " sorry america, no more petrol, no more diesel, propane?"
I doubt it, which makes me believe they are products of their environment. something because it's been so much of the west's lives, that they beat evil so that must make them the good guys, it's a huge learning experience for americans to know their govt isn't what the propaganda is. But again, if they are products of their environment then why do you think anybody else in the same position would be different?
When you give your opinion about what is
best insofar no system of somebody dictating rules, it's just that, if you have ever been in any group there is a disagreement, if it depends on who uses oil and who doesn't, it will always be the one with the biggest stick, no matter which race and when Africa is almost half the world by 2100 I don't know if they will be any better unless we can change the oil based debt system we all believe in. @SarielSol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blitz The US does have unlimited money though, they have been printing more than enough and people still believe in it as a reserve currency, the GFC and current examples of how much money they print mean to me that they can most definitely afford to feed 1.67% of USA's population.
USA has been arming Ukraine for 8 years before this started and USA has only now got rid of all their excess, same as other countries, which USA will get a return on when they supply those countries new arms. War is a business for USA, it contributes directly to the GDP, take war out of USA's activities and the dollar would collapse so while you say USA can't afford to arm Ukraine I'm saying to you USA can't afford to not arm Ukraine. It has a military machine, that must be fed and this is no different to any of the other wars/mass killings that USA has been involved in.
Yes these new weapons might arrive slowly, because they are after all private businesses that are making these new weapons but like shells from France and the gunpowder from Australia, they are providing enough bullets etc in enough numbers to hold Russia to a slow march and Ukranian men are dying and getting injured in the hundreds of thousands and the MIC does not care. USA cares for its hegemony to be continued and don't think USA isn't making money from this in other ways like gas supplies to Europe after they blew up nord 2, this war directly helps USA's economy, sanctions are designed so that USA profits.
Taking this information in, that the larger the war the more it helps the MIC and the people in govt that support them who get paid in the millions so that billions are put on the books, after the govt just prints the money, wouldn't a larger Ukraine force be in the best interests for the MIC to profit? I would say yes, especially since USA isn't being weakened militarily through this, as I say, 5 million foreigners fighting would be a wet dream and a training exercise for some in the US military and it would be no different to what USA has done since Vietnam, arm some people, let them fight and then take the profits, same as they tried when arming Hussein and Bin Laden, same as the lie abouts wmd's. USA isn't fighting Russia right now for anything other than financial gain, those gains are going to be more than what arming Ukraine is going to cost imo. IF USA won in Ukraine, they would get the benefits from Iraq and Afghanistan and the reason they still occupy a third of Syria, for fossil fuels, that they would love to pass through Ukraine to supply Europe.
The probelm is this is going to be existential for both countries, if USA doesn't change they will end up like Israel but war directly helps USA, millions of people have died so that Americans can have cheap petrol and this current example of how USA operates to maintain world power is no different, so the question you have to ask is can USA afford to not arm Ukraine?
1
-
Well I'd say that's the stupidest opinion that you should share, I can't work out if you are being sarcastic or if you are being real. The Afghan and Iraq wars are around 10% of the current debt in total cost, at 6300 per US citizen, if the interest didn't need to be paid income taxes could drop by a third. The issue with QE is somebody has to buy the debt, USA is breaking before our eyes, the people who would buy this debt aren't, BRICS could mean 10% drop in value, just on oil trade, the worst thing because it would affect so many others and something I think they might like to see is a debt default, something that would resolve some problems for USA but at 4% of the world and using 25% of the worlds energy, that might not continue. @abdelilahberkouki
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under the article of law that they changed last year they can keep him in jail for up to six months and the charges hold 5-8 years. It changed laws that nobody, I thought it was just for Ukrainians, could dispute the current narrative, so nothing towards free speech and all about keeping only one side's story visible.
These are the laws that changed, so nobody could say anything opposite to the propaganda of Ukraine.
justication of the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine, denial of the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine, recognition of the legitimate armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine, glorication of the participants in the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine
Considering this is the 1st line of the Ukranian criminal code, so they definitely aren't sticking to it.
. The objective of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is to provide legal protection of the rights and liberties of the human being and
citizen, property, public order and public safety, the environment, and the constitutional order of Ukraine against criminal
encroachments, to secure peace and safety of mankind, and also to prevent crime.
Hopefully he makes it out and this won't happen but if Ukraine wins, nobody should forget what they have done to support criminals and how they have made laws where people can't even speak out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daffyduck780 I could claim russians have men on Mars, what you have to work out is if those "some" have a narrative or not and why they might also claim these things, but logically, do you really believe that Russians who have had a year of military service against people that don't, are going to be equal in numbers pf deaths, ordinary civilians who have had no military training until they got forced to fight at gunpoint or die, or even going against people who might have had the last 9 years experience this has been going on, do you really believe there isn't a mismatch or do you believe the fairy story that Ukrainians are super soldiers? I don't speak Russian so I wouldn't know of what their media says, it's the general who comes on who gives the read outs of what is happening, it is the telegram channels of Ukrainians that show how they are losing, remember Ru has gone over the defences that USA has put in over the previous 8 years. Beside all that, moving forward, the narrative of Ukraine not losing these numbers does suit a narrative, can you see that?
1
-
@daffyduck780 PS: You can't lie to your public in this, not with the media we have these days, not anymore. Russians wouldn't take it and it would be very soon found out and they would want a faster destruction of Ukraine, this attrition war saves men on the Russian side, there is still a lot of weaponry ready in Russia that is being held back because there is probably a fear NATO/USA will put official boots on the ground. In Ukraine no man is allowed to leave the country, 16 year olds are being registered, all of Ukraine knows this truth of what is happening, we just don't report any of the truth, the both of us are as good as the information we have been given, I, in a western country don't believe our own media because none of the last 9 years has been reported honestly, so I am very doubtful of what some say in the west.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonathontyynismaa5310 Any action will always get a reaction, force is another name for violence, it just depends on which side you are, a civil war doesn't help anybody because most would be fighting against something and not for something. If for something is correctly identified, then what would it be? Peace and non-violence? How would you get that if you had to kill people to get it? USA as a system does need to change, doing everything for money and making money the ultimate goal of everything has its drawbacks, for example there are huge amounts of good land that is in what are now called slums, huge area's are devastated by poverty and the houses are gone, what would be better, giving these area's more money or planting apple tree's? I would go with tree's, put fruit tree's into these area's and teach them that they can work the land again, people have lost the ability/desire to grow their own food when the land is sitting there empty, let that land be bought by the govt and if not used for housing let vege's get grown. I get that has issues for farmers and profit down the line but that is the issue, how much money is needed to maintain the system and how much money govt receives all up and down this line. Councils/governments should only do the jobs we tell them too, not them trying to squeeze every cent they can out of us and them telling us what to do. I agree a revolution does need to happen but the longer we have corrupted, self-interested councils/govts that don't really care about the people at heart but maintaining the system as is then either the harder or easier to change it will be I am not sure... One thing I know we could possibly be seeing the end of US hegemony in our lifetimes, in the next few years even and for people within USA it would be far better to spread vegetables gardens far and wide than rifles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MaximusCommodus Considering a Billion is 0.1% of the military spending and USA gains so much from Mexican etc workers, there isn't going to much sympathy for not having a decent health care system for all involved. Call them illegal intruders if you want but the American system would cost so much more if they didn't do the work they do.
All empires enslave people, my point is, in this modern time USA could have done much better than it has, although I also believe that they realise making things better, would in fact make them worse. Imagine if we gave food out for free, housing for free, that would make things better for millions of people, those at the top realise making things better would actually make things worse. Those in power don't want things "better", as long as they have enough money, they are fine in this lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patwilson2546 The point is they were Russian, then one person changed the terms and a lot of people disagreed then and still do. I also live in a country that I was not born in but it doesn't mean I am now something else, some people are always of the country they were born and these people were born in Russia if they are more than 30 years old, not everybody change's their loyalty just because of where they lay their hat. These people were Russian, still think they are Russian and Russia is protecting its own people. To be fair none of this would have happened if it were not for USA's interference all these years, even if Ukraine had agreed to what the Russians thought was a real agreement, the Minsk agreement of 2014, Ukraine would have lost less land. You realise people were being shot for speaking Russian, how would you feel if you spoke the language of where you were born, if it is not english, and were persecuted and possible shot, in USA? Would you want to be able to still be allowed to live because you didn't leave or would you expect others to understand why you were persecuted just because of your beliefs? Because that's what happened and has been happening the last 9 years of this conflict, all caused by the country of your choice, USA.
1
-
@patwilson2546 Or imagine that USA like it is doing in Ukraine, invaded your birth country and had a hand in killing thousands of civilians, would you still feel American? If you are in USA, you have to realise you are in a propaganda bubble, same as all western countries, if you are outside of these and we take that percentage as a part of the world, the majority of the world is on Russia's side. India, China, Africa, plus The Middle East who really have suffered at the hands of USA, so if we really believed in the myth of democracy that USA perpetuates then USA would not be doing what it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1