Comments by "Daniel B West" (@danielbwest) on "Lex Clips" channel.

He literally answered the question...
6
 @turquoiseowl AFTER Russia took Crimea you mean?
5
@coreyscolaro288 if you are genuine I'll help you out here. One example is that ppl like Ben who don't understand geo politics think that Putin is in a position to negotiate after all of the political capital he has spent annexing territories he didn't control. He's already taking a hit by withdrawing from Kherson. He cannot give away territory for peace cus he's was dumb enough to commit himself politically to a project he couldn't achieve
1
@jimmyolsenschannel6263 I think your suggestion of a referendum clearly exposes your lack of knowledge of history in the region and current realities
1
@jimmyolsenschannel6263 well in case you are unaware, the use of referendums was still a contentious issue in the example you gave. Germany was far from willing to conduct it and if it wasn't for the fact that they were essentially forced to by being at the mercy of the Allies, they wouldn't have agreed to it. What leverge does the West have over Ukraine to force them to accept a referendum in the Donbass? That's why it's a dumb idea and not politicaly realistic at all. It's just a pipe dream Russia has cus that's their best hope of salvaging the ridiculous political commitment they made by annexing territory they did not control. DURING a war at that
1
@jimmyolsenschannel6263 regardless the point still stands. We can't keep going around consigning referendums just bcus the ppl in those regions want their way. They don't have that right cus it's not just abt them. There needs to be a political assent from the host country that this process can occur and what the parameters are. If not then you either need some political leverage over the host country (externally or internaly), or you fight for it
1
At least you're one of the few honest abt it..
1
@tonyp2650 if Nations with nukes can invade another nation without nukes and threaten the world if they don't have their way, then why shouldn't every nation have nukes then to secure their own safety? Why not Iran? Does that make our world safer or not? Just think for a sec instead of listening to conservative narratives...
1
It's losers like you who are desperately trying to rewrite history just to absolve Russia of any responsibility
1
@marvinwilliams7938 your being insulted bcus your here posing your lies as truth. In case your d*mbass is unaware, there is VIDEO EVIDENCE of Russian troops shooting civilians point blank on at least three occasions. There is also audio from phone calls from Russians from the front line admitting they carried out these atrocities
1
@turquoiseowl more excuses for Russia...
1
@l30URN3 its really a waste of time to give a counter argument though. He's not talking sense and the way he talks shows his poor knowledge of geopolitics. Thats what happens when you let your personal politics get in the way knowledge subject matter. What 'counter arguments' do you want to hear exactly?
1
@l30URN3 Sound like a whiney fool huh? Is this Ben's burner account? Is that you Ben 😂? You want a counter argument ? Ait check this out: He correctly points out the role of the US is to preserve the world order, especially in the post WWII order in European security. But then he undermines himself by suggesting the 'offramp' is a political settlement with Russia where Russia 'keeps' the donbass and crimea. First of all, this idea clearly goes against the European security arrangement. You don't get to take someone's sh*t and then say "I get to keep it cus I have nuclear weapons". So if the US's role is to preserve the European security order then why undermine that by negotiating with Russia on those terms? That's stupid Secondly Putin has already committed itself politically to annexing Kherson and Zaporizhia regions as well. How exactly does he go back to the Russian ppl and tell them they lost those two regions but "hey we still have the donbass"?. It won't work. Too many lives have been expended to make that acceptable. Third, such a settlement won't bring peace, only the illusion of peace. The conflict will flair up again in a few years There are many more examples of him making dumb points. The point is reading books can only get you so far in understanding geopolitics. Cus in the real world, there are practical considerations you need to take into consideration. But is that sufficient enough to convince you that you dont know what you are talking about Ben?? 😂 😂
1
@4biddenflow that doesn't make any sense. Every war is fought with the aim to end it. You're trying to excuse a b*llshit cowardly conservative stance that we shud 'negotiate' with Russia
1
@thomascarmona The thing is 1. This idea that the Democrats are pro-war is a cheap political strategy by conservitive politicians and SM commentators like Ben Shapiro. I wud think you are smart enough to realize that. And 2. Republicans can't do anything with the anti-war sentiment bcus thier proposals aren't genuine or rooted in reality, and won't bring peace, and yet like to give th illusion that it will. Ppl like Ben come on you tube and talk abt geopolitics and foreign policy as if they know what they are talking abt
1
@thomascarmona But the thing is, what consensus can be come to when political interests supercede national interests? I always hear conservatives use they excuse 'what do we gain from engaging in this conflict?' They see our domestic interests as superseding foreign policy interests bcus they want their own way domestically first. They care abt themselves and what THEY think America shud look like. But in their ignorance they don't realize there won't be an America to impose their values on if we turn our backs or 'compel' Ukraine to negotiate. So it's not even that their criticism doesn't come from a good place. Apart from that, it's nonsensical bcus its divorced from reality Secondly, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role the industrial military complex (IMC) plays in relation to this pro-war anti war narritive within the political class. There really is no such thing as you pointed out. What you fail to address is the fact that conducting war usually has the ultimate aim of peace. You cant have peace without security. The foreign policy establishment will always have an interest in securing our national interests abroad if its linked to our own security. And I don't see how a major power threatening the use nuclear weapons is NOT in our interests. That doesn't mean the establishment leans towards war. Especially major one's. Thats a common misconception. This isn't the 19th century. Now, military equipment is so sophisticated and expensive that its not profitable for the IMC to produce weapons without long term political commitments from the political class. It also takes time to build the infrastructure to build these weapons. Since the end of our commitments in the middle east, this commitment has been lacking. So there is a misconception that wanting to invest in and grow the IMC in the political class means you are pro-war As with the case in Ukraine, ppl intentionally play stupid forget the US DID in fact encourage negotiation. But we can't negotiate on Russia's terms just bcus we're scared. Thats what Russia wants and they will use thet to the detriment of our security and global securityas a whole. It sets a dangerous precedent that won't bring long term peace. Only the illusion of peace in the short term. If our role as a major power is not to stand up to a major power threatening the world with nuclear destruction if it doesn't have its way, then what IS our role? Why don't we give up our own nuclear weapons and arms and IMC in the interest of promoting peace forever? I'm not against negotiating with Russia. I want us to negotiate from a place of strength, not from a place of fear of what might happen
1