Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "DW News" channel.

  1. I think he was a little wrong footed by how intelligently articulate Colonel Zhou Bo was. I have never heard a Chinese official who was that good at putting his country's case.
    5
  2.  @dancerinmaya6813  He turned the questions around.
    4
  3. General Hodges would not openly say what he really thinks the Ukrainian army is going to do. This is a ploy to keep Russia from striking while the iron is hot. Ukraine heeds time to regroup.
    3
  4. Not loss of faith in politics, but loss of faith in technocracy, whereby certain issues are removed from discussion, case closed, and people have to like it or lump it. So the things they are most concerned about are supposedly no longer up for political discussion according to the mainstream parties, but we still have to listen to what business (ie specialists in making maximum profits for their shareholders) say is necessary. Is it any wonder that those parties are fading among the masses who are not shareholders? Valerie Höhne almost seems to be saying that white countries are racist until whites are a minority, presumably because white people are fundamentally racist so only a country which accepts they are or soon to be an immigration nation with a nonwhite majority is not racist.
    3
  5. Has Petraeus a track record of being correct about what Putin's future moves will be?
    3
  6. Precisely correct.
    2
  7. He said peace was in China's interests
    2
  8. Other counties would doubtless love Russia to renounce force in all circumstances. But it never did; although it is true that previous Russian leaders had warned that force would be used yet they did nothing. Putin turned out to not be Gandhi, but there was no reason to think he was. Ukraine and the US ignored warning after warning since 2008.
    2
  9. What is the price of success ought to be the question when talking about conventionally defeating a thermonuclear power. One thing is for sure, America will not pay that price
    2
  10. Well who did ruzzia guarantee Ukrainians' security against. Itself? That would be a promise it would be unreasonable for Russia to make of anyone to believe because no country can go beyond its own interests. You know who told Ukraine to keep its nuclear weapons don't you: Mearsheimer.
    1
  11. 8:30 There is a reluctance to say Ukraine is winning. But we ought to be aware of how close to desperation Putin is.
    1
  12. Matt's book says we fight for belonging and status. Failing against Ukraine would make Russia not longer a major league country. And the deaths of Russians in Ukraine are a 'sunk cost' So how are the Russians going to be made to quit?
    1
  13. Very impressive modern Mandarin.
    1
  14. Boots on the ground in non NATO country Ukraine even if an NATO country is not attacked? World war three ought to be on the table unless Ukraine wins according to this superannuated commander. A Western army would trounce the Russians , so they are going to accept that . Maybe. Maybe not, and we could not control their reaction or predict it; its an untruth to imply otherwise.. Such an an uncertain outcome for Hodges's suggested course of action is worth it in order to avoid a genera; war, but clobbering the Russians with the most advanced long range strike conventional missiles would make them desperate. This either/ or extreme solution thinking of Hodges is way off kilter and is a direct path to Russia deciding to use tactical nuclear weapons. We can ll too easily guess what Hodges's solution would then be! I am not sure it anyone in power still was, but one is ever going to take Hodges's geopolitical prognostications seriously again.
    1
  15. If the West really wanted to defeat Russia in Ukraine then they could (it'd take 10X more arms than the West is giving though). But removing Putin from power is not a realistic objective.
    1
  16. So Russia is behind Iran who is behind Hamas. But who is behind Russia? China obviously.
    1
  17. Not every World War started like WW2, WW1 didn't. The mindset that stopping Russia gainin anything at all in Ukraine is necessary to prevent it keep from going West and invading into actual Nato members countries even though it would be fighting an actual Nato army whereby Russia would be outclassed technologically and outnumbered 4:1 in forces on the ground even in Poland is far fetched. They would not do it because they could not possibly hope to win. Good grie,f they can barely get even a draw in this war against puny Ukraine. That through defeat by Ukraine Russia ought to be schooled in liberalism, whereupon its civilisation an societal organisation must become different to what it has been for half a millennia is no less unfeasible than any Russian idea of Nato being undermined and divided. Attrition strategies depend on what the opponent is willing to accept, and it is now apparent that whatever its deficiencies in military science, Russia has been widely underestimated in regards to its reserve of stubborn persistence. If battered to its knees (this is an extreme hypothetical) Russia,will issue a very unvague and unmistakably specific threat, and that is why the Ukrainian caprice that they can get back Crimea by using the unlimited arms and money from the West is being backpedaled in the West. So don't be too sure what the quickest path to WW3 is.
    1
  18. Only by stopping Russia being conventionally defeated can China stop Russia using theatre thermonuclear weapons. Only not aiding Ukraine to defeat Russia can America prevent Russia using theatre thermonuclear weapons. What everyone except Kiev needs is a limited Russian victory. So of course the Ukrainians are trying to tell us that it is impossiblel Russia cannot have any kind of victory except a total one.
    1
  19. Ukraine has roads so it can get its grain out if countries send trucks. There is $40 billion for arms but not trucks? 'Matching them' suggests a stalemate but that would be unlikely. One side or another is going to push the other back, and the longer this goes on the more likely Russia gets clobbered.
    1
  20. So they are mass murdering evil paranoiacs ... but will not use a nuclear weapon?
    1
  21. People once felt that way about their religion being special and a higher value and many thinkers suggested religion was the cause of wars. The average man in every country is much more individualistic in every way and considers having the opportunity to develop his personal potentialities to be the meaning of life. A man who goes off to war and leaves his wife and children might not do it reluctantly but because he is bored with family life, and that is a betrayal.
    1
  22. Up until this point Russia has been very vague and not really gone beyond obscure menaces by saying it can retaliate in kind, and then some.. But Putin could make an explicit threat of starting to use small theatre thermonuclear weapons on the battlefield against the Ukrainian army it stops advancing with its comparatively unlimited supply of Western equipment. That is a threat everyone would have to take seriously.
    1
  23. They cut off Crimea and that is it the Russians will have to pull out and the Putin regime will fall? But will they accept that> (Nato in the Cold War would not have they would have used theatre thermonuclear weapons), why would the Russians in the final extremity not use their non conventional arms on Ukraine? It is very irresponsible to imply that Putin and his generals will capitulate, withdraw, and stand for what they will see as being begining of a process for disarming and then dismantling their country. Kremlin and the Russian armed forces' decisions in the case of Crimea being made untenable would be something that these superannuated pundits in the West have zero insight into, and Western governments would have no control over at all.
    1