Comments by "zeffy ._" (@zeffy._440) on "How China DECEIVED the U.S. Navy During Taiwan War Exercise" video.

  1.  @christopherchartier3017  Ukraine since 2014 had military involved aspirations against Russia. NATO wanted their nukes and army on the Russian border with the Russian speaking population purged in Eastern Ukraine through repression of identity and destruction. Russia acted pre emptively to defend itself and it's sovereingty as well as the people of Donbass and Crimea. Do you really think that Victoria Nuland was just handing out cookies in Ukraine back in 2014 during the coup? Genuine question. Since Ukraine according to your side is "independent and sovereign" why are they asking NATO for permission to strike deep in to Russia with any and every weapon available. I though NATO wasn't a party in the conflict according to their own words so why does a "sovereign nation" that is under attack need any permission of any type from other nations who are not a party to the conflict to use weapons how they see fit? That is't something that a "free sovereign nation" would have to do now is it?
    40
  2.  @christopherchartier3017  They made a deal with the legitimate government regarding the nukes and not with the coup de tat goverment that was put in by the west. The west and Ukraine also admitted that they never intended to uphold the Minsk agreements from the get go. Makes sense why Ukraine broke it now
    31
  3.  @juliankraus1011  Except that's not quite the case. One outlasted the country backing them while the other collapsed almost immediately. The Mujahedeen unlike the Taliban were entirely defeated. The Soviet backed government functioned from the 70's to 1992 with the Soviets leaving in 1989. The Soviet backed government literally had entire control of the country after the Soviets left with the collapse occuring due to a lack of economic aid. If the Soviets were defeated then their government would have immediately collapsed when they withdrew just like the US the fact that it didn't and outlasted the USSR itself speaks for itself the US could only dream of that in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. The Soviets arrived in 1978 and left in 1989 and achieved a victory in half the time of NATO. NATO meanwhile fled leaving all their equipment, collaborators who worked alongside them in destroying Afghanistan and fled with their tails between their legs with the Taliban taking control of the entire country within days despite constant economic support by the US and it's vassals.
    2
  4.  @juliankraus1011  if only. I'm sure they would love it if that was the case though it isn't.
    2
  5.  @juliankraus1011  I'm talking about Afghanistan which collapsed immediately. If you want to go with the Vietnamese argument then you might want to include how they did not collapse economically like the USSR backed government in Afghanistan but rather militarily at the hands of the North
    2
  6.  @juliankraus1011  The Soviets won in Afghanistan. The USSR backed government outlasted even the USSR itself having only collapsed in 1992 due to no more economic support being given by the USSR it also formed in the early 1970's meanwhile the western imposed governments collapsed the second the west was forced to retreat as we saw in 2021
    1
  7.  @juliankraus1011  He was forced to step down only after the economic collapse and the dissolvement of the Government. The Taliban/Mujahedeen capture of Kabul took place between 1992 and 1996 AFTER the collapse of the USSR installed Government. Najibullah's government was around since 1978 and only collapsed in 1992 after the USSR fell and after the country's economic collapse. The Taliban only took Kabul fully in 1996 years after the Soviet backed government ceased to exist. The timeline literally disproves your claims. The Taliban/Mujahedeen was unable to capture and control the country while the Soviets were there and were unable to control the country while the Soviet backed government was in control. They only took over 4 years after the Soviet backed government ceased to exist. Let's compare that with the NATO backed government who continued to exist economically and politically yet almost immediately collapsed the second NATO fled with their tail between their legs while leaving Billions in equipment behind and spending a trillion dollars. The Soviets literally took control of the country quickly, held it for about 10 years, withdrew in order and with all of their military equipment and lastly their government outlasted the Soviet Union itself AND prevented the Taliban/Mujahedeen from gaining power on their watch until 1992 with the Taliban only winning 4 years after the soviet backed government dissolved. Again how is that a loss for the Soviets? Their imposed government outlasted them and the Taliban never took power while said imposed government was in power with the Taliban only gaining power 4 years after the economic collapse of the soviet backed government. The Soviet backed government literally was not defeated militarily it ceased to exist economically long before the Taliban took Kabul The US backed government was defeated militarily meanwhile with Kabul being stormed the same year the west retreated after their defeat with said US backed government still being in power.
    1
  8.  @juliankraus1011  1. I am referring to the Soviet imposed government which took power in 1978 which Najibullah was a part of until it's collapse in 1992 after the collapse of the USSR. That party Najibullah was a part of operated under the 1 party system within the country. 2. Don't be shifting the goal posts. Originally you said the USSR imposed government which was a 1 party government were militarily defeated now you are saying there were additional factors at play that went hand it hand that being economical factors. The Soviet imposed government was around since 1978 and only collapsed in 1992. The Mujahadeen encircled and entered Kabul in 1996 again 4 years after Najibullah's government ceased to exist and economic collapse had taken place. How exactly was the soviet imposed government militarily defeated when that government ceased to exist in 1992 and Kabul (The capital of Afghanistan and seat of power) was taken in 1996 by the Mujahedeen/Taliban? Did the Taliban have a time machine where they went back in time to 1992, took the USSR imposed government to 1996 where they then defeated them? How can a government that ceased to exist nearly 5 years ago be defeated 5 years in to the future? Are you gonna say the USSR was beaten in the first chechen war next? because that is the equivalent argument you are making. 3: The Soviets goal was to elect a pro USSR government and prevent the US from getting any foothold in the region. The US began funding the Mujahedeen/Taliban to prevent that from happening after the fact to prevent the Soviets from installing and solidifying a pro USSR government in the country. The US completely failed as did the Mujahedeen in that objective. The Soviets imposed a pro USSR government which stayed in power from 1978 until 1992. They succeeded entirely in preventing the US from gaining a foothold AND imposing a pro USSR government so much so that their own government they put in to power outlasted them.
    1
  9.  @christopherchartier3017  Ukraine initiated the war in 2014 against Russian speaking regions and therefore Russia. The war did not begin in 2022 it began in 2014 Ukraine was building up it's military to attack Donbass which Russia was supporting to protect them from ethnic cleansing. Given it's happening right on Russia's border it's something that concerns Russia. NATO nukes and it's army will not be tolerated on Russia's doorstep which is exactly what the goal was in 2022 with the destruction of the eastern milita/resistance The agreement was made with the legitimate government. After Maiden there was no legitimate government making that contract void and null. Ukraine had security guarantees and chose to throw them away after the maidan coup Russia is under no obligation to maintain any agreements with an illegitimate western backed government. It's one of the reasons as to why they have no interest in negotiations with Ukraine. The puppet master is the US negotiations with Ukraine is pointless since they lost their sovereignty in 2014 after Maidan. You still didn't answer my earlier questions one of which being: If Ukraine is "sovereign and free" like you claim then why is it asking for permission from NATO to strike deep in to Russian territory with whatever weapons it has available when NATO in its own words is "not a party to the conflict"? Ukraine is independent and sovereign right? So why does it need to ask permission from countries that "aren't involved or parties to the conflict"? Sovereign and free countries don't need to ask permission from others that's what "sovereign and free" literally entails.
    1
  10. No global south country should enter in a treaty with the west
    1