Comments by "Heads Full Of Eyeballs" (@HeadsFullOfEyeballs) on "Peace is not an option for Ukraine" video.

  1. Dictators are much worse than hungry crocodiles, if anything. If you keep feeding a crocodile, it will in fact leave you alone. Well-fed crocodiles are pretty chill. But dictators tend to have have infinite appetites -- if you give them what they demand, they just take it as a sign that they can grab even more.
    11
  2. That doesn't make sense to me. The conditions you describe are exactly what Russia had before they started the war. There were no NATO missile in Ukraine and NATO had repeatedly made it clear to Ukraine that they wouldn't be accepted as a member because it wasn't worth a confrontation with Russia. Russia's objective in starting the war wasn't to achieve what they already had. So why would they accept that offer?
    3
  3. Only if you mistake "quiet" for "peaceful". Occupation and subjugation aren't peace for the victims.
    2
  4. Because they win either way: If Russia wins it weakens their NATO rivals, and if Russia loses they can turn it into a client state. So they don't need to pick a side.
    2
  5. There have been loads of decisive major wars where the victor did not conquer the loser's territory and capture their leadership. It's actually very rare for wars to result in the complete collapse of one party like that. Even WWI didn't end with a big invasion and the capture of the Central Power leaders, they came to the negotiating table.
    1
  6. I wish YouTube had some sort of "reminder" feature. Then I could reply to this dumbshit comment two years from now and rub in your face that Ukraine does, in fact, still exist.
    1
  7. I mean, even if Russia somehow manages to conquer all of Ukraine, it'll just turn into another Afghanistan for them. Ukraine is too big and the population is too large, Russia can't permanently spare enough troops to keep them pacified. And after all that has happened, Ukrainians will never accept the occupation. Russia lost this war on a strategic level when their initial invasion plan failed. They can do a lot of damage to Ukraine, but it'll never be "theirs" in a meaningful way now.
    1
  8. Loads. If we're talking a total war with full mobilization of the entire population, they have millions of soldiers in reserve. The bottleneck isn't manpower as such (a country the size of Ukraine can potentially absorb millions of casualties and keep fighting), it's training up replacements quickly enough.
    1
  9. So you're a mind reader, then? Since you know what he thinks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    1
  10. Russia does not have an especially advanced army. It's unable to produce its most advanced equipment in sufficient numbers to make a difference in the war. They've been fielding old materiel because that's what they actually have on hand. I believe the saying goes "Russia has a large and modern military, but the large part isn't modern and the modern part isn't large".
    1
  11.  @JanDahl  Yes, it is also bad that the US don't recognize The Hague. So, since you agree that it is very bad for a country not to recognize The Hague, you also agree that Russia should recognize The Hague and its war criminals should be prosecuted there, correct?
    1
  12. Fortunately(?) the opinion of the Russian public doesn't particularly matter when it comes to Russian policy, since Russia is a dictatorship. And it's not like current public opinion is some sort of organic outgrowth of Russian civil society, it's been carefully shaped by constant state propaganda on all channels. Putin isn't obeying the will of the Russian people, he does what he wants and then his propaganda convinces the public that they want it too.
    1
  13. Don't instrumentalize this war for your religious propaganda. The "Immaculate Heart of Mary" isn't going to do shit. If we want peace and justice, we have to create them ourselves.
    1
  14. What "security concerns", though? NATO has never shown any interest whatsoever in a war with Russia. In fact both NATO and the EU bent over backwards in recent decades to avoid a confrontation with Russia, because they were much more interested in continuing to do business. No, Russia's "security concern" is simply that if its neighbours join NATO, it can no longer get away with invading and occupying their territory, like it's done in Georgia and Ukraine. And since Russia keeps doing this, naturally its neighbours want to join NATO for protection. NATO is the reason reason little Latvia with its huge Russian minority is still intact, unlike Georgia and Ukraine.
    1
  15. If Mexico was a neighbour of both the US and China, would Mexico not be entitled to join a miltiary alliance with China? And would the US be entitled to invade Mexico just on the hypothetical future possibility that Mexico might join a military alliance with China in the future?
    1
  16. NATO and the EU bent over backwards for decades to avoid a confrontation with Russia. They repeatedly told Ukraine that they wouldn't be accepted as a NATO member for precisely that reason. They had zero interest in it, they were happy to be doing business with Russia. And they assumed that Putin understood he had a good thing going and wouldn't want to spoil it. But Putin is by nature a paranoid imperialist, so he never believed them and always saw NATO as a territorial empire.
    1
  17. Russia's demands are so outrageous, and so destructive to the future of Ukraine, that Ukraine would only accept them at gunpoint, after a comprehensive defeat. As long as they can hold Russia at bay, they're better off fighting than conceding. And Russia seems unable to comprehensively defeat Ukraine, so that isn't about to happen.
    1
  18. That's about the quality of political analysis I would expect from a vaccination conspiracy guy, yeah.
    1
  19. To be fair, those Russian numbers are worthless. People in a dictatorship aren't going to give honest answers to politically dangerous survey questions like "do you support the Great Leader?". I know if I lived in Russia and some guy on the phone asked me what I think about Putin, I'd say "I love him".
    1
  20. ​ @89RASMUS  "Well, I just go by the logic 'if they want us to use their numbers when it makes them look good, we should use their numbers when it makes them look bad as well'." But this isn't about getting a "gotcha" by turning Russian propaganda numbers back on them. That can be amusing, but right now we're trying to determine the truth. And the surveys are worthless in that regard.
    1
  21.  @andrzejbarcelonafrlk6416  Pretty sure that's Filipino with English phrases sprinkled in.
    1
  22. Realistically, if there isn't some dramatic development inside Russia? The fighting will decrease in intensity as both sides run low on manpower and resources, turn into a frozen conflict, and the war officially ends many years from now when some new Russian leader decides to cut his losses and blame the mess on his predecessor Putin.
    1
  23. Eh, from a strategic perspective it would be advantageous to support Ukraine over Russia in this war even if Ukraine was just as bad as Russia.
    1
  24. Got a timeline on that? Russian victory has been juuuust around the corner ever since they started this dumbass war.
    1
  25. Neither of those analogies really does it for me. Russia sued for peace in WWI not because their economy failed, but because the Bolsheviks wanted to be left alone while they implemented their revolution. And in 1990 Russia wasn't fighting a war. Russia has the ability to go full North Korea and keep weapons pointed at Ukraine pretty much indefinitely. The question is just if the Ukrainians can push them back behind their own borders before we reach that state.
    1
  26. It was, but what does that have to do with anything?
    1