Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Business Basics" channel.

  1.  @lombardo141  When they spout about colonialism. Then just point out hong kong and singapore. Both were flourishing countries almost right after white man left. There is good reason for it. These colonies did embrace the western ideals and adopt their system. While in Africa they spit on it and tries to reverse back to what it was before west came. Asian's saw that western system meant flourishment and better lives, for some reason African thought that embracing socialism/communism would make their lives better.
    22
  2.  @Destroyer_V0  None of this make any sense if you think of it logically. "Preventing NATO expansion". NATO doesn't expand it just accepts new members that are asking to join. It's not a threat for Ruzzia, it's only deterrent for ruzzia to invade any country part of NATO.
    15
  3.  @Urgelt  This is just pure non-sense. Explain singapore and hong kong if you blame colonialism of this. Also South-Africa was modernized and wealthy country under white's rule. People in general did well. This argument that 80% wealth is just excuse and also explains that you don't even understand what wealth is.
    13
  4. There were those gas fields that Russia wanted. Russia would've used to blackmail entire Europe to submit to them by ensuring that there are no other alternatives to buy gas than Russia. However entire invasion backfired since it wasn't over in couple weeks like Putin had claimed (the official claim made by him years ago). By now Russia has lost more than it could ever gain even if it fully annexed everything.
    12
  5.  @Josh_wenig_Licht  This... South Africa was flourishing colony while it was still under British rule. IT was modernized country
    11
  6.  @giovannibarbagallo7723  Actually the opposite. I was always fan of reading history. The thing is... You're a ruzkie so all the "history" you know is nothing but state propaganda by your authoritarian governemnt. "what about the contras and what they did in colombia " What about it?
    8
  7.  @jacobhoffman2553  nukes are outdated idea for warfare. Modern warfare is not fought with concentrated forces and nuking within or close to your own borders is just stupid.
    8
  8.  @princeishere1693  I did some fact checking and you're wrong. What you did here is gish gallop and in order to counter it I can address the first country you refered here. Ghana, was not stable country they had civil wars and coups with lot of economic issues. Even now it's still considered as developing country. Now explain singapore.
    8
  9.  @jessec4677  Russian spotted. It's objective fact that entire conflict started when they tried to join EU. This was issue to Russia because Russia didn't want EU to have access to those gaslines and sites. Mentioning norway is pointless since Norway can't cover entire Europe and it's more costly. Mines, not talking about "landmines". You know the places where you dig minerals and metal ores? Seems like you're not familiar with concept of mining. Too easy. Always easy to destroy Russian bots online.
    7
  10.  @dekyne3227  Because that worked so well with Zimbabwe?
    6
  11.  @Propagandamouth  This is not true. It's objective fact that ruzzia took all the grain and food from Okraine even though harvest was good. Then sold it off to foreign countries. It was famine done on purpose. Other famines weren't related to this.
    6
  12.  @jessec4677  You're not the type who cares for sources. If you had you would've googled on your own. It was well established and mentioned in media several times. I actually live in Europe so were far more informed than you are.
    5
  13.  @jessec4677  Lol literally found wikipedia article proving you wrong in less than second. You didn't even try.
    5
  14.  @secondarytrollaccount  Thousands of years constant warfare among themselves did taught a good lesson to Europeans.
    4
  15. it look good at start and made propagandists spread claims that sanctions had no effect.
    4
  16. Meanwhile kids are shooting each others in metro with uzi's. While explosives fly daily in malmo.
    4
  17.  @Degarth  NATO can't be hostile. It's rules only demands member states to participate in defensive war, not on offensive. NATO countries themselves are free to declare their own wars, but no other country is required to join.
    4
  18.  @giovannibarbagallo7723  Note.... Interventionism. Aka they simply saw side and joined to help them. They never did annex any country or region within 50-years. Also This is not even comparable to inhumane acts that ruzzia has done. Repeatedly committed genocides for past 30-years in every conflict they took part.
    4
  19.  @PrimericanIdol  no one appeased them. They were totally destroyed and they had to rebuilt from 0
    4
  20.  @Bosscheesemo  Ruzzia has been in constant wars for about 30-years already. For USA's case of afghanistan it was never about annexation of the region but fighting against terrorists in the region that had declared war on them. In case of Afghanistan USA was totally justified, and the moment they left the attrocities that happened after it to normal citizen in afghanistan proves that USA was actually the force of good in there.
    4
  21.  @Bosscheesemo  the frick you're spouting? Ruzzia has been backwater nation for past over 100-years.
    4
  22.  @PaulaBean  Thanks for proving my point. Isn't it funny how out of all colonial countries only the ones in Africa are poor and suffer from high corruption? xD
    4
  23. Turkey has been playing for both sides. However they still align greatly to the European side.
    4
  24.  @PervertHeart  and funnily enough the leader of wagner group has started to heavily criticize Putler in unbelievable manner. There is a reason why Putler is hiding even from his own government. He is now forced to hide until he "wins" the war. Which probably never happens.
    3
  25.  @dandun30  debt doesn't really tell how well country does. In case of Ruzzkiez for example their GDP is lower than Italy that is suffering from poor economy at the moment. Ruzkie economy literally rides on gas sales and they can no longer sell that to the europe who was their biggest client and only client they have many pipes into. Simply put... ruzzkiez no longer have anyone to sell their only resource that people would buy from them.
    3
  26.  @LuisPerez-ws6db  0 USA having personal wars are not NATO wars.
    3
  27.  @qhayiya252  Yep... funny thing is... Ruzzian counter to this is "But what about USA?".... Well USA has never threatened to invade Finland or Sweden unlike ruzzia.
    3
  28.  @gplastic  Singapore was also colony at start. It became highly successful after adopting western economics instead of spitting on them. I already refuted whole ghana. They are still poor and had loads of civil strives before current moment.
    3
  29.  @daveanderson8927  It was never about communism and always about ruzzia. Soviet union was just another name for ruzzian empire.
    3
  30.  @jessec4677  they literally were exporting gas. Not just that but there were valuable mines there as well
    3
  31.  @jessec4677  You totally left out the gas dispute article. Which states clearly that Russia annexed Crimea for the gaslines there. There are also rare minerals in the region that Russia is trying to annex. Ryz harder.
    3
  32.  @Urgelt  It's pretty obvious since you still haven't given defination. Let me guess... you think wealth as money in bank?
    2
  33.  @Urgelt  "yes, yes, capital engaged in economic activity is not money in a bank somewhere." Wealth is not "Activity" as I already explained. Seems like the idea was way too complex for you. "But ownership of capital is power" Not true, if this was the case then elon musk would be most powerful man on the planet. Also capital is not same as wealth. Thus proving once again that you have IQ too low to ever be allowed to vote. " it can be converted to liquid wealth" It can't, in lots of those circumstances if you try to liquid it, it's value has plummeted in drastic manner. " Working capital also generates more wealth," Only if invested in correct places. "me of advocating the seizing of capita" That's literally what it means when you throw claims about difference in wealth. Only way to decrease it is by destroying economy totally or turn into full blown communism by abolishing private sector.
    2
  34.  @germanjohn5626  I fail to see that. Right now were just living like before. This war basically had almost 0 effect on us.
    2
  35.  @geektechpow4537  actually they had chemical weapons which qualifies of being weapon of mass destruction. They never invaded libya, they just secured the airspace to avoid civilian damage. But funny how you keep defending two countries known from absolutely brutal dictatorships. " And not start negotiation?" Simple, you can't word the word of a ruzzkie. They have long history of breaking any agreements as long as it fits them. Second, having negotiation right now would buy ruzzkiez time to fortify their defenses for Crimea. Ruzzkiez aren't serious for peace, they would once again make unreasonable demands and use it to buy time to reinforce and supply their troops. Every country next to ruzzkiez knows that ruzkiez can't be trusted. You can't trust a country that has several different words for lies and truths.
    2
  36.  @paulmichaelfreedman8334  "more meat to the grinder"
    2
  37. @MSD Group USA never tried to annex either of those states. In afghanistan the terrorist government had declared war on them. Thus justified to attack there. For Vietnam, they never invaded it, they simply supported southern vietnman from norther ones who tried to mass murder everyone in south. It was basically like Korean war. In both wars USA never lost, but peace treaty was written which both hostile factions broke after USA had withdrawed their troops.
    2
  38. @MSD Group well usa has good justifications and rule better than ruzzia so between these two forces usa is obviously better option
    2
  39.  @PrimericanIdol  Greece had joined to NATO before it was economically unstable and so did Turkey before it the claims of "dictatorship". Also we can't call them as dictatorship until the next election cycle.
    2
  40.  @jbbloodclot  who doesn't exists?
    2
  41.  @MegaBanne  appeasing a dictatorial and totalitarian countries is like trying to appease a psychopath who is about to kill you by giving him a gun to do so.
    2
  42.  @Thenewworldmaga  It's not the size of border. Finland can actually showdown ruzzia's nuclear weapons before they can even fire them. Finland's locations is far more vital than Okraine.
    2
  43.  @cebariuss8707  This was not the case at beginning of the war and ruzzia still has more tanks and other warmachines, including naval superiority which helps them in mass murdering civilians with their missiles.
    2
  44.  @AYTM1200  never talked with you?
    2
  45.  @chetpomeroy1399  nah millions and millions of unarmed civilians died in europe under soviet occupation
    2
  46.  @johng6637  less than ruzzian foreign policy for past 500-years
    2
  47.  @jessec4677  I already named the article name and it was already proven that you never searched this. Intellectual dishonesty seems to be very common among ryz
    2
  48.  @FoldedCloak  They can't since the country is trying to kill them and actively harms investment.
    1
  49.  @Urgelt  most people including you don't know what wealth is. You still haven't given the definition and don't use any search engine to give it.
    1
  50.  @Urgelt  do put blunt. Wealth inequality isn't issue unless you think that it's about how much money you have in bank account. Since your IQ is too low to comprehend, I'll explain what wealth means. Wealth means anything that you own that poses theoretical value for exchange. This means if you hold painting which sale worth would be 1 million dollars. Then your wealth would be one million dollar, even though you don't have that money as disposable. Thus entire conversation of wealth inequality is low IQ. Since most property that has highest value is companies and business. This wealth isn't something that can be distributed or shared, nor does it have any effect on will you personally be rich or poor. IT simply means that person who either invested in company or made it, has theoretical value of X determined if HE SELLS THE COMPANY TO SOMEONE ELSE.
    1