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

 @ZachAttack2U and you sir are suffering for TDSS; where every critism of anything associated with Trump is automatically called out as them having TDS 😂😂😂
24
 @JAMs6504 why should we love it? Current event prove it was a failure. Facts don't lie. Feelings do...
15
 @AuraysTimelessChannel then it's ironic that he's calling out other "experts" in Washington. He's never looked in the mirror 😂😂
13
 @Yuh_mama then that means he ultimately failed? No?
10
 @RaNc0R UT very interesting that the west needs to consider Russian interests when they show very little if any regard for our own
8
 @vulgarisopinio except not only was the fence not moving towards Russia, there were very few hyenas behind it
8
 @flynnoflenniken7402 the same goes for Russia. They can view NATO however they want, but there has to be some merit to it if they want to make that case to the international community
8
@memeticist you're again not making sense. Why make territorial demands if Russias main problem was Ukraine supposedly not implementing Minsk? What would that achieve? Please explain further And you and other Russian apologists have fallen into the trap of buying into Putins rhetoric. If Putin himself was serious about Minsk and was this benevolent leader acting in good faith, then why continue to arm the separatists on the donbas? This Minsk agreement talking point is so old it's stale af 🙄
8
@dannyarcher6370 weak comeback 😂
7
 @michaelleffler5219 based on the results given current events.. And you have the nerve to call out some else's bias
6
 @ping7979 what results?😂
6
 @dannyarcher6370 make sure to take your medication for your TDSS 😂😂
6
@TheOne-bs9sn no one is surprised people like you think the accords were an "achievement" 😂
6
 @markarmage3776 the US declared an area its safe zone? When?
6
@ping7979 why am I not surprised you just said that 😂😂
5
@torpedospurs so then why are the statements made by some in favor of NATO membership for these two countries taken into consideration whilst ignoring statements made not in favor of such a move? You don't see the contradiction here? And if there was disagreement in the alliance in this issue, why would that necessitate an invasion to stop it? Mearshimer doesn't make sense. His logic is flawed even within the realm of realism because of his obvious bias
5
@carlalakins did Jared have any experience in middle eastern geopolitics before he was given the responsibility?
4
@michellesalazar6448 the so called "progress" failed to account with the glaring elephant in the room. Normalizing relations with the Arab countries was the easy part. So why do they deserve credit for that. I wonder why you give them credit 😂😂
3
 @lucianboar3489 get over your TDSS 😂😂
3
@MrT24-c4e at the end of the day, Trump is still responsible for that. It's so crazy how you ppl will make excuses for the guy just because he SAID he would do sth. And he didn't even do that 😂 Yet still, no accountability. How can you be for holding our officials in Washington accountable when you're never gonna hold the main guy in charge accountable? You fell for a charlatan
3
@SilentTraveller21 are you really trying to say Russia cant/ hasn't backed political opponents in another country for its own national interests? Also note, the US used THE THREAT of military force along with a blockade which proved enough. Not an invasion. Again, this has been used as a diplomatic measure to get what they want. So why can't Russia do the same in either case? Why resort to a heavy investment in a war you dont know you'll win? The geopolitical calculation even in the realm of realism doesnt make sense Unless you define "security" as more direct control over other states in your sphere of influence. You can't do the same as the US if your aspirations go beyond the security excuse mearshimer is using
3
@akeniry ?? I should give him credit because he and the Israelis share the same ideology? Or because the united states and the Middle Eastern countries share similar interests? I'm just not sure what barrier you're referring to. The institutional barrier this fool actually has the audacity to mock as "so called experts"?
2
@akeniry no else did for ideological reasons
1
@akeniry OK, so he was able to get some common ground with those players while excluding the Palestinians. As opposed to the experts he mocks whose only crime was to include them. As I said, that's he easy part. He did that while avoiding the hard part So you know what, he can come and get his cookie from me for doing such an amazing job OK? 😂😂
1
 @frankrodman6133 😂😂😂😂
1
@ping7979 not true. It was the easiest thing to do. All anyone had to do was offer the Saudi's and all the other countries what they wanted so the Trump administration could take a PR victory. It lacked substance
1
@martylucas8557 and I'm sure there's no bias in your perception of him 😂😂
1
@control-space just stfu and stop acting like you've ever been objective towards Trump 😂😂
1
Bcus ppl like you who don't have the courage to stand up to him, we now have to deal with this terrible war. Kick rocks
1
@memeticist except mearshimer himself doesn't apply the same standard to Russia that he uses to debunk the "Putin wants to conquer Ukraine" narrative. The NATO argument is a lazy analysis that lacks alot of nuance and important historical context. There's alot he's missing here just for the purpose of sticking to this same narrative he has without providing something of merit as evidence to support it. He should do better if this is what he really believes History doesn't lie. You can't use the excuse of NATO intervations in Serbia to discount NATO as a defensive alliance. Many of its members are allies out side of NATO. They alone don't represent it, so your narrative is dead in the water And its's not about Putin. It's about the Russian elite AROUND Putin who are bitter about the fall of the Soviet union and Russian influence in Eastern Europe. There's strong evidence for this. So while putin if functionally irrelevant to how Russian elites perceive ls their security, a liberal democracy in Ukraine is not irrelevant to a security threat not to Russia itself, but to Russia's elites themselves who have had waves of pro democracy protests in the past. Russia doesn't need invest in an invasion to secure its security. It does if it doesn't want a pro western Ukraine
1
 @bandolin1216 he does make some valid points where you can find evidence for. But he lacks the evidence to make the case that NATO is the main issue and thus the west is at fault
1
@vulgarisopinio what exactly you referring to?
1
@SilentTraveller21 gain a foothold by what means? Cus if it's military alliance, the US would not resort to an invasion to stop it
1
@torpedospurs you didn't answer any of my questions...
1
@RaNc0R the US doesn't only define its security interests buy virtue of if they can control said country directly or indirectly. Russia does. That's the crux of the main issue regarding Russia. No, the US does not opreate like Russia in real power politics. And maybe thats because theUS has more options. But that still doesn't explain the unwillingness of Russia to use its options it does have without resorting to force. It is the reason why the west has a problem with the means Russia will go to enforcing its so called security interests when there are other options. War is ALWAYS a last resort. Even in realism. A state will go to any lengths to more power, but the road to power using war is incredibly risky and thus will still always be the last resort. The cost of failure will always factor into a cost benifit analysis of whether its worth waging war for more power and/or security intrests That's unless you have other objectives, which realism can't explain. It's the reason realism isn't sufficient, because when you peal back the layers of mearshimer's reasoning, there are massive holes in his logic, even in realism
1
@torpedospurs because the US owns NATO right? No wonder ppl like you love the brain dead analysis of mearshimer...
1
@pozhiloy_bivis write in English
1
@pozhiloy_bivis don't have that option on YouTube for me
1
@pozhiloy_bivis OK. So first, which NATO bases are you referring to? And which nationalist groups do they train? Second, your second comment is completely false. There has been strong intelligence of Russian Armed forces firing on Ukrainian forces from their side of the border during operations to defeat the separatists in 2014. So the involvement of the Armed Forces directly refutes your claim. Also, it's not as innocent as you're trying to pretend it to be as Russian citizens buying their own weapons and ammunition. The majority of those in the donbass do not have dual citizenship. You're confusing Russian speakers with Russian citizens of which only 35% make-up ethnic Russians so you are assertion is completely false. There is also strong evidence of not only small arms but large amounts of anti tank and RPG weapons flowing into the donbas you. Can explain how ordinary citizens are able to buy anti-tank heavier anti-tank and anti personal equipment? Yet their manufacturing numbers clearly show that they come from Russian stocks? how do you explain that?
1
@pozhiloy_bivis well it's kinda hard not to be willing to train those groups considering Russia's aggression no?
1