Comments by "Eigelstein" (@Eigelstein) on "Cyrus Janssen" channel.

@MsDarylM Because he told us his demands. Those base demands are completely unreasonable, and thus, conversation cannot be productive.
3
@Whinny40SW Sorry, who canceled the talks after throwing a fit? Zelensky simply wants security guarantees, as any good leader should. Trump seems unwilling to provide them because he loves RuZZia.
1
@Whinny40SW Sorry, who canceled the talks after starting an argument? Zelensky simply wants security guarantees, as any good leader should. Trump seems unwilling to provide them because he loves RuZZia.
1
@Whinny40SW Sorry, who canceled the talks after starting an argument? Zelensky simply wants security guarantees, as any good leader should. Trump seems unwilling to provide them because he loves RuZZia.
1
@Whinny40SW Sorry, who canceled the talks after starting an argument? Zelensky simply wants security guarantees, as any good leader should. Trump seems unwilling to provide.
1
@Whinny40SW I am pretty sure that you responded, but it seems that the response disappeared.
1
@ Some advise on that. Try to replace politically charged terms with abbreviations and split up larger responses into multiple comments.
1
@Whinny40SW If that is the case, then why has the US not already interfered with boots on the ground? Or do you think that the US had not invested in Ukraine before this conflict? And where is the precedent that a close trade relation (without any further defence guarantees) is enough of a guarantee in itself? Can you give a single example? And what if Trump decides that selling out Ukraine is more profitable, and he makes a secret deal with RuZZia in return for even more resources? You are assuming that the word of the US means something here. This is why Zelensky wants more than just words, he wants guarantees. P.s. Sorry for the late response btw.
1
@ If that is the case, then why has the US not already interfered with boots on the ground? Or do you think that the US had not invested in Ukraine before this conflict? And where is the precedent that a close trade relation (without any further defence guarantees) is enough of a guarantee in itself? Can you give a single example? And what if Trump decides that selling out Ukraine is more profitable, and he makes a secret deal with RuZZia in return for even more resources? You are assuming that the word of the US means something here. This is why Zelensky wants more than just words, he wants guarantees. P.s. Sorry for that late response.
1
@Whinny40SW If that is the case, then why has the US not already interfered with boots on the ground? Or do you think that the US had not invested in Ukraine before this conflict? And where is the precedent that a close trade relation (without any further defence guarantees) is enough of a guarantee in itself? Can you give a single example? And what if Trump decides that selling out Ukraine is more profitable, and he makes a secret deal with RuZZia in return for even more resources? You are assuming that the word of the US means something here. This is why Zelensky wants more than just words, he wants guarantees.
1
@Whinny40SW If that is the case, then why has the US not already interfered with boots on the ground? Or do you think that the US had not invested in Ukraine before this conflict? And where is the precedent that a close trade relation (without any further defence guarantees) is enough of a guarantee in itself? Can you give a single example?
1
@Whinny40SW And what if Trump decides that selling out Ukraine is more profitable, and he makes a secret deal with RuZZia in return for even more resources? You are assuming that the word of the US means something here. This is why Zelensky wants more than just words, he wants guarantees. P.s. Sorry for that late response.
1
@ Okay, so you are going to be arguing in bad faith then? Because you did not answer any of my questions. If this idea is so ""genius"" then why has it never been done before? Why would Japan even need US military bases? Economic investment is all it would need, right? "The new proposal stipulates that the U.S. is given first rights to purchase resources extracted under the agreement and that it recoup all the money it has given Ukraine since 2022, in addition to a 4% annual interest rate, before Ukraine begins to gain access to the fund's profits, according to the summary. The updated proposal was first reported by the Financial Times. If agreed, the joint investment fund would have a board of five people, three appointed by the U.S. and two by Ukraine, and the funds generated would be converted into foreign currency and transferred abroad, according to the summary. The fund would be managed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)." This new deal would cripple Ukraine with an enormous debt that would take years, if not a decade to repay before it could even reap the benefits of the investments. All the while it would have to rebuild, and RuZZia would be investing more in its military. All of this without being given any proven security guarantees. Man, get the F out of H.
1
@Whinny40SW Okay, so you are going to be arguing in bad faith then? Because you did not answer any of my questions. If this idea is so ""genius"" then why has it never been done before? Why would Japan even need US military bases? Economic investment is all it would need, right?
1
@Whinny40SW "The new proposal stipulates that the U.S. is given first rights to purchase resources extracted under the agreement and that it recoup all the money it has given Ukraine since 2022, in addition to a 4% annual interest rate, before Ukraine begins to gain access to the fund's profits, according to the summary. The updated proposal was first reported by the Financial Times. If agreed, the joint investment fund would have a board of five people, three appointed by the U.S. and two by Ukraine, and the funds generated would be converted into foreign currency and transferred abroad, according to the summary. The fund would be managed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)."
1
@Whinny40SW This new deal would cripple Ukraine with an enormous debt that would take years, if not a decade to repay before it could even reap the benefits of the investments. All the while it would have to rebuild, and RuZZia would be investing more in its military. All of this without being given any proven security guarantees.
1
@ Okay, so you are indeed bad faith because of three reasons. 1: You did not read the entirety of my response. "you failed to understand profits split 50%, with no upfront costs to Ukraine." That info is now outdated. Trump is talking about altering the deal again. My second response was a direct quote from a Reuters article. 2: I just mentioned Japan as a random example. Pick any of the other 54 countries with a US military base. Like South Korea or West Germany back in the day. 3: You still have not engaged with any of my concerns. So I am just going to repeat them. - Where is the precedent that a close trade relation (without any further defence guarantees) is enough of a guarantee in itself? Can you give a single example? - Do you think that the US had not invested in Ukraine before this conflict? - And what if Trump decides that selling out Ukraine is more profitable, and he makes a secret deal with RuZZia in return for even more resources? - If this idea is so ""genius"" then why has it never been done before? - Would this new deal not put Ukraine in massive debt for years to come? All the while RuZZia would be rearming? " I wouldn't use the adjectives 'novel' and 'genius' if this deal was a repeat." Occam's razor leads me to believe that you are just not very educated on the subject.
1
@Whinny40SW "you wouldn't be repeating the questions I already answered." You didn't answer a single question. "spent years of my life in the Balkans." Irrelevant. "studying economics and European warfare." Oh, so you should be able to give a single example of deep economic intertwinement solely being enough to guarantee security? I have a bachelor's in international history and a master's in political history, but I can't think of a single example that would give precedent to such an arrangement working. Please do enlighten me. "Since you don't understand my previous answers." When challenged on your previous statements, you just reiterated them. That is not a response, that is dogging. May I remind you that you are the one who originally started this conversation, not me. And now you are refusing to engage. "find a few POSITIVE articles." Example? Btw why would I look up positive articles instead of looking up neutral articles? Are you self-reporting your biased information collection methods? "I don't have the patience to start from scratch on this." Once again, I will be referring to Occam's razor. It's not that you don't have the patience to "start from scratch" (I am not asking you to do that btw). It's that you are incapable of doing it.
1
@msms3260 "There was no such thing as a “super power”, country, that divided humanity into “either with us or against us”, thankfully." So, Maoist China, Soviet Union, or literally Russia today? Don't ring any bells?
1
@sjent "And how many people has US freed? Where and when?" Literally, the entirety of Western Europe after WW2. It was either that or be puppets to the Soviets, which means no democracy. Also, West Berlin after Stalin tried to starve them. I'm from the Netherlands. I am under no delusion, the US is pretty bad. But there is so much worse.
1