Comments by "Dylan Vogler" (@dylanvogler2165) on "UATV English" channel.

  1. 42
  2. 37
  3. 24
  4. 22
  5. 20
  6. 16
  7. 11
  8. 10
  9. 7
  10. 7
  11. 6
  12. 6
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26.  @DezorianGuy  I didn't call you a Putin puppet m8. That was about the OP. Not you. The difference between the two situations is that in one situation the native population (ethnic Albanians) tries to gain independence due to the actions of the central government. As Serbia was abolishing the Kosovarian autonomy and the way the Serb army reacted was disgusting. NATO intervened in this, illegally as Russia vetoed the resolution that would have legitimized interference. NATO made mistakes there, broke international law by not respecting Serbia's sovereignty as well as it's territorial integrity by detaching Kosovo from it. In the case of Ukraine, it is not the original natives of the region, the Crimean tatars in Crimea or the ethnic Ukrainians in Donbass, but the descendants of those that were settled there by the Russian Empire and USSR. Essentially colonialism. Doesn't mean that these people shouldn't have a voice? No. These people have rights too, but it is wrong that a population descendant form colonists decides the future of a region against the will of the natives. It would be like Australia joining the UK against the will of the aboriginals (whom also have to small a voice in Australian matters). Not to mention that there is reason to believe that Russia instigated the revolts in the East, as there have been reports of people showing up in Kharkiv demonstrating whom didn't even live there, nobody in the city knew the people. Not to mention that Russia directly annexing Crimea and turning the Donbass republics into puppets and using their people as canon fodder. Which is not the case with Kosovo. But situations are wrong and violations of international law and has to do with separatism, but that is about were the similarities end.
    4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50.  @bonsummers2657  the Russian story is a lie. Their imperialist all Russian nation, which states that Ukrainians and Belarusians are part of the Russian nation, is an outdated relic. Whilst Ukraine isn't Kyivan Rus' (neither is Russia btw) the origins of its statehood lie not in the Ukrainian People's Republic or the West Ukrainian People's Republic but in the Cossack Hetmenate of the 17th and 18th century. During these times there was already a clear distinction between those living in what is now Ukraine, called Ruthenians and later "little Russians" ,which is derogatory in modern use, by the Moscovites, and the Moscovites, later called "Greater Russians" by the Moscovites themselves. I think it is funny how most people, who say they know Ukrainian and Russian history, gloss over the Cossack Hetmenate so easily. Whilst many Ukrainian traditions and identity stems from this time. Even their predisposition towards democracy in contrast to Moscow's predisposition towards autocracy. As the leader of the Cossack Hetmenate, the Hetman, was voted into this position and not born into it. The fact that Ukraine or Russia are the continuation of the Kyivan Rus' is obviously bs. From both of them. They are both descended from it. Just like how France, the Netherlands and Germany all claim to be descended from the Frankish Empire. However it is also false to state that Ukraine as a state emerged only in the 20th century. It emerged as a seperate state identity, under a different name but with the same people, in the 17th. From the Russian, and Polish-Lithuanian perspective these lands were the borderlands. Which has given rise to the modern name instead of Ruthenia/Rus'. But we shouldn't forget that these lands were not always just borderlands and from a Rus' perspective they were their heartlands.
    2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115.  @margaret9314  we don't blame Russia for anything because we don't care about Russia at all. If you wouldn't bring war back to our continent we would not even think about you. It is not whataboutism as I don't try to use the situation in Chechnya to accuse Russia of having done something. I am using it in the context of the right of self determination also applying to Russia. Aka it works both ways. Also the right of self determination is not the same as a right of independence. They don't have a right of independence, and let's be honest they won't ever be independent as Russia will annex them. They're no different than Manchuria under the Japanese or Slovakia under the Germans. They have a right to have their opinions heard within Ukraine. In which any potential independence should then be gained to referendums gained via political, not military means. Again a point I try to make is that you are pointing to a right of self determination whilst at the same time your country has threatend to retake Alaska (with a population that doesn't want that), end it's recognition of Lithuanian independence (again violation of the right you point too) and to nuke/bomb London as well as Rotterdam. Not to mention threatend with retaliation on Sweden and Finland on exercising their sovereignty as independent states by choosing their own future. The point I am trying to make is I support the right of self determination and the west should not ignore said right. But I think Russia is the last place on earth to advocate for this right as it seems to cherry pick when and when it doesn't want this right to exist.
    1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118.  @margaret9314  first off I never said they didn't. I pointed you to the fact that self determination is not just the right of independence (which doesn't exist). Which is what seems to be what Russians think it is. Secondly the separatists are not recognized by the international community. What they do is not the proper way to exercise the right of self determination. A proper example of this, is Scotland. Any referendum held during military occupation, and yes that is the case with Crimea, DNR and LNR, are invalid, because of obvious reasons. Especially considering the fact that international observers were not allowed. Imagine if you lived in Kaliningrad and Germany decides that it wants it back. It invades, then holds his troops on the streets and calls for a referendum about joining Germany. While you want to vote there are soldiers outside and you know your vote won't be anonymous. What would you do mate? Exactly the reason why a referendum in occupied territories is not worth nothing. Then there is the ally part... well if they were proper countries, they could do so. They're not, they're an rebellion. It would be like if we caused trouble in Russia and then use it as an excuse to invade. Because let's call it what it is, just a fabricated casus belli. About the US/UK part no you can write about them, but use the dumbest possible example. Especially since there are good examples of the right of self determination in regards to Scotland, Northern Ireland as well as the Spanish region of Catalonia. But then again I shouldn't expect you to know about these things.
    1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142.  @DezorianGuy  either way sorry if I called you a Putin fanboy, you clearly aren't. And saying this what you just said seems to me that you're reasonable too. People saying it was a good move by NATO aren't correct either btw. It was done for the right intentions as there was a genuine risk of genocide by Serbian troops on the Albanian population in an attempt to either kill or force them to leave. So ethnically cleansing the area essentially. However the way it was done was crude, even hitting the Chinese embassy. It was illegal by international law, that is a fact. And it set a precedent that it is okay to intervene and violate a country's sovereignty and territorial integrity for humanitarian reasons, which is exactly why Russia is using bs claims about genocide being committed in Donbass for a casus belli. But what we need to becareful is not to equate situations with each other. There are similarities but there are differences too. It is the same as people calling Putin , Hitler. Whilst there are similarities in their conduct, there are just as many differences. So they are similar to the point of both being facist, but that's about it. People say that history repeats itself, and on the artificial level if you only look at similarities, then yes it does. But when you actually analysis situations you will find just as many differences as every situation is in the end it's own with it's own nuances. I would therefore say that history doesn't repeat it self but that history is more like "dejavu".
    1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149.  @albo8404  your reaction says all. Difference between you and I is that I do my own research and not just believe anything either Russian or Ukrainian and Western media tells me. Lavrov is a liar and I don't trust anything he says as he has on multiple occasions blatantly lied or contradicted reality with his statements. Blindly following a leader and just believing all he said is the path the Germans followed in the 30's and 40's. See what that brought them and the world. The fact you immediately defend with the "Ukraine is winning" stuff says more about you than me. As no Ukraine isn't winning right now, the war is tactically currently a statement as both sides win and lose ground, but with a slight advantage to the Russians. Strategically the war is a loss for the Russians, which doesn't necessarily mean a victory for Ukraine. Russia is in a strategically in a much worse position than it was in before the war, even if it would take all of Ukraine. Its international reputation has been damaged and will take a long time recovering. Economically it has become much more reliant of China (which in the long run might be a bad thing for Russia in the might makes right world it has ushered in again) and military its shown to be extremely incompetent and the myth of Russian power is broken. We see this in the EU (even small Lithuania) and US taking much more hostile actions towards Russia than they would have a few months ago. Not to mention Finland and Sweden that will join NATO, which means actually extending the NATO-Russian border and threatening Murmansk and Saint Petersburg and effectively cutting of Kaliningrad in case of hostilities. The war was a strategic blunder, just like how Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were for the US.
    1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159.  ♠️ Манька Облигация  lol you are clearly Russian and not Ukrainian. It surrounds you like a stench. The bs about Ukrainian neo nazis using Swastikas is funny when you consider the fact that Russians use the "Z" in a way similar to how the Germans uses the "hakenkreuz". Not to mention that the extreme right has no presence to speak of in Ukrainian politics. Which despite being corrupt, is a democracy that even since 2014 has had successive democratically elected governments. This in contrast to Russia which is an autocracy which is turning more and more totalitarian with a leader that can considered extreme right, I'd even say facist considering his latest actions in regards to human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is without mentioning that is rethoric, including in speeches, resembles of A. Hitler and his "mein kampf" which is what makes the irony complete. And about the image of christ, I am a Christian too and if you were a proper Christian you also know that there is no justification for invading your neighbours. Once more people like you, use our faith for Ill purpose. You disgrace christianity by bring banners with his face to the battlefield and bring death and pain in the name of our lord, especially since besides these banners, you have flags of the atheist and evil (not because they were atheist) USSR. About the tattoos... I think God takes more offense at you killing fellow Christians as well as innocent people including children, than he has about some people having certain tattoos on their body. You claim to be a Christen but seem to lack any Christian morals. The Germans also believed they were the good guys fighting evil, only finding out that indeed it was good vs evil, but that in fact they were the evil. This is exactly the same now. If you are truly Ukrainian, which I doubt, you have been brainwashed by Russian bs to the point that you've become a Judas. It is clear to me that, if you are truly Ukrainian, you are sadly stuck with the little Russian attitude, in which case I feel sorry for you.
    1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1