Comments by "Heads Full Of Eyeballs" (@HeadsFullOfEyeballs) on "" video.

  1. At the current intensity it can go on pretty much indefinitely, it's just a matter of mobilising the political will. If that happens -- if both sides keep investing resources into the war -- then it'll end for social reasons, not material ones. Because one side loses political control, or because too many soldiers mutiny/desert, not because they've run out of weapons or bodies.
    2
  2. But how does a psychopath decide what "suits" them? They decide based on their beliefs.
    1
  3. No he didn't.
    1
  4. Nah, there's no equivalence here. Russia chose this war, "the West" is just reacting to it. "The West", as far as the war in Ukraine is concerned, just wants to restore peace and stability to Europe. Russia meanwhile wants to grab more power for itself at everybody else's expense. Personal sympathy for Ukrainians has nothing to do with it, but "the West"'s preferred outcome is still obviously better for them.
    1
  5. The Danish military pays him, he's an officer and professional military analyst.
    1
  6.  @evgeniya7853  Russia has never in its history been a great power. The Soviet Union, consisting of Russia and a bunch of other countries, was a great power for a couple decades. That's it.
    1
  7. I'm sorry, how does some beardy dead man's opinion affect Russia's great power status? If the Pope declared Luxembourg "the 4th Rome", would that make it a great power?
    1
  8. Except if Russia gains influence over Ukraine, that brings its influence right up to "the West"'s borders, doesn't it? Would this justify "the West" in turn invading and annexing the country?
    1
  9. This is disingenous. You'll never accept that somebody who disagrees with you on this has done enough research, no matter how much they've done. You'll either say it isn't enough, or that they've done it wrong. The only way to prove that they've done enough research is to agree with you.
    1
  10. ...that's exactly what he's talking about in this video.
    1
  11. I understand the Russian perspective in this regard. What I don't understand is why some in the West uncritically adopt Russian terminology about, for example, its "security interests" (i.e. its ability to coerce its neighbours), when those terms mean totally different things in our context. Saying, "well, former Eastern Bloc/Soviet states joining NATO does threaten Russia's security interests, you know, so NATO isn't innocent here" as if those "security interests" are in any way reasonable or legitimate.
    1