Youtube comments of Daniel B West (@danielbwest).
-
158
-
152
-
120
-
113
-
107
-
96
-
91
-
68
-
66
-
50
-
45
-
42
-
39
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
31
-
31
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Tonik-13 the idea that Ukraine is a superior military to Iraq is a massive cope from pro Russian shills. At least nominally, Iraq had 650,000 troops opposing the coalition, 850,000 reservists, 5,500 tanks, 3,000 artillery pieces, 700 combat aircraft and helicopters; it held 53 divisions, 20 special-forces brigades, and a large very capable air defense. Motivation, discipline and training were poor, but at least nominally, they had alot more to work with than Ukraine does even with all the international support
I'm not trying to prove anything. But its laughable that these clowns are trying to make the case that Russa is a model example of how modern warfare should be fought when they can't even coordinate combined arms and the strategic level. How are they a model for anybody? Because now they have "experience"? 🤣🤣. Experience of what? Exactly? Dying in frontal assaults? Without air, reconnaissance or artillery support?
Please... It's all a massive cope. A cope to cover up the reality of Russia as a weak second rate military power. If it wasn't for their nuclear arsenal, they would be nothing
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ekeneosuagwu6919 The point is not that all Igbo's carried out the coup. The point is that majority Igbo's played a part INDIRECTLY in the events that led up to the coup. Lemme break it down for you.
The cultural organisations in each region used tribal/regional nationalism to gain political power. NCNC in the 1950s in its political activism ended up intensifying ethnic identities by the time independence came around. They heavily influenced the Igbos in thier ideas of how the future Nigerian state should be run. Politicians of course would take advantage of this influence on the Igbo psyche and more of them would get seats in the Federal Assembly and in turn political power. Media outlets in the East would follow the same pattern either as a mouthpiece for the party, or just to make more sales or gain popularity. In modern times, their ideas would be considered radical ethnic partisanship. By being tribalistic and giving these politicians and journalists a platform, they in turn sowed the seeds of Igbo nationalism in the East.
This undoubtedly influenced the majority of the coup plotters because when they were trying to recruit officers to their plan, it ended up being mostly Igbos and Igbo speaking officers who joined. ONE OF (not the main) the factors which influenced this had to have been the partisan messaging they were constantly being exposed to by newspapers, radio personalities and polititians. Messaging such as that the root of the country's problems were rooted in the ruling NNA Party stealing the elections in 1964, and the desire of Northerners to control the country'sGoverment, and natural resources for the benefit of the North, as well as a perception that Igbo's were being disregarded in many other important positions despite being more qualified than Northerners. There have to be numerous examples of this inflammatory language available. Now imagine you are an Igbo officer in the army with some tribalistic tendencies. It's not a huge leap from there to a scheming coup plotter if you genuinely think the country's problems are the fault of one group or the other. Thus some officers may have perceived it as anti-igbo driven which what I meant before by perception.
So are you really saying the Igbo's in general don't share ANY blame at all for what ended up happening? Yes, it may have been unintended, but it still happened and it hurt them the most. That's what I mean by they played a part in (indirectly).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rokimarchano5657 I'm not an expert. But I analyze this type of information from the past to understand the future. What I said is, without the capability using air, space and ground assets, the NATO strategy doesn't work. So the question you're asking about Ukraine has been answered. The West couldn't do much without those assets and would probably fare worse than the Russians given that their militaries aren't designed to compensate for a lack of airpower given the lack of artillery in the west
Also, I was referring to the Gulf War in 1990. And it was far from flawless. To claim the Iraqi are defense was non existent is extremely false. Look it up. The Iraqis possessed integrated air defence systems comprised a mix of Soviet and Western air defence systems, as well as -12 and P-18 radars low frequency radars of various types; still capable radar coverage. The western equipment was from a french contractor and seen as very capable on paper. It could engage only limited targets though
I will concede that even with 58 SAM batteries, the Iraqis had no strategic air defence systems given no missiles they possessed had a greater range than 40 km
Still, that the Iraqis in addition had the sixth largest air force globally at the time, with about 915 aircraft, so I can't tell you for a fact that their air defense was far from "non existent considering the coalition lost dozens of airframes
What is shocking for the Russians however is this even given their force design, I.e the military is designed to do what it's supposed to do based on the nation's needs and capabilities, the Russians proved totally incompetent implementing their own strategy effectively. Theirs relies heavily on artillery supporting heavy armour formations. They attempted to use ther air assets, but failed to secure the airspace leading to high losses of airwing. Then, they prepared poorly at the logistical level to move their ground assets in order to overwhelm the Ukrainian resistance, instead trying to rely on old school blitz tactics without effective infantry support. The results were predictable. But it also proves that in the modern age with other new assets such as drones, any strategy without air, and technological dominance is futile. The Russian art of war has been proven badly outdated and it shows
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@heofonfyr6000 😳
OK sooo.... i know even where to start 😂😂
You did bring me up without having the decency to address me so I'll just respond to try and put a bow on this this topic btw you and I once and for all. You can continue to avoid me if you wish
Let's start here. First, you've confirmed that given what you wrote it wasn't unreasonable to assume that you were bitter. And this super long rant you gave is yet another indication of bitterness, but then you go on to claim that "you're not that type of guy". Well, from here it kinda seems like you really are "that type of guy". I mean for you to type this long ass thing, it suggests that it's still bothers you no?
So how am I clown again?
Now, I don't know how true your first story is, but it's pretty obvious to me that it wasn't just that issue that made you leave. There were whole lot of other things that were going on that you didn't agree with and upset you, and those things seem to be of a social political nature. To be totally honest with you, some of those things I agree with and sympathize with you on, and on the other hand some of those other things you mentioned are pretty dumb to be upset about. That's just my opinion
The army was 16 years of your life. That's a long time you dedicated to the service, and if I was British I would still thank you for your service regardless of you obvious political leanings. To me as a person, that's not relevant. However, I also feel like you should be able to show some grace regardless of how you feel and the supposed bad experience you had. If what you said was true as it relate to the comment you made about the knife-wielding individual slitting throats, then in some ways it was wrong what happened to you you should never have been demoted for that or threatened with the demotion. But that's life. It can be pretty sh*tty sometimes and here in the States I know and have many family members in the Armed Forces. If you hear some of the stories from the men and women who served in this country you'll even wanna cry given how they were treated during or after their service. I can tell you that they had it much worse than you. They actually have a real reason to be bitter
What I'll say is if you really are okay with it, if you say that you really are fulfilled, then you got to let it go and put it behind you instead of coming onto a YouTube comment section and using this as opportunity to bash organization that dedicated a lot of time and resources to teach you the skills and knowledge base to do what you needed to do. It s bad look. At the end of the day they may have taken over wrong turn, but you're still a patriot right? You still love your country right? well the people you feel wronged you also love their country, otherwise they wouldn't serve. Call them anti English or anti British all you like. I guarantee they dont feel that way
Remember that your country comes first, not your politics
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GlasPthalocyanine great response. There are so many areas that you've mentioned that I wish to touch on. I'm actually struggling to figure out which one to touch on first 😅
I guess the first thing to mention is that I'm an American and so I don't have a lot of exposure to the British education system so I'll try and limit my response to what I know from an American standpoint
I think the most poignant point you've made is in regard to Critical race Theory and how it emerged in the states. Believe it or not CRT actually has a much longer history that spans well beyond the past two decades. It's important to note that academia has always been associated with and promoted critical and reformist movements. That is, critical towards existing institutions, and a greater proclivity for agitation and or anxiety. In the context of the counterculture , it became extremely prevalent in the 1960s onwards. Graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences were more ideological shied away more from conservative candidates. In addition, Hiring and tenure committees would also discourage conservative candidates and encourage more left-wing candidates, and programs like affirmative action, also influenced this as with a greater proportion of minorities and women entering the research space, their 'marginalized identities' were more likely to be a central issue of their research. Of course in this context, you started seeing figures like Derrick bell and kimberle Crenshaw emerge in academia in the mid to late 70s in the post civil rights era.
Now I don't know much about the level of academic criticism needed to be introduced to a high school curriculum. But these types of topics have been taught for a long time even when I was in high school and growing up. I'm not sure what type of criticism you're looking for but considering these topics have been taught to me in high school and University in the 90s and 2000s I personally haven't had an issue with it. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be continually criticised because there are certainly elements of it that are objectively false and make assumptions from does prepositions
And I think we also can deny the role the increase in diversity among racial groups that are non-white has also contributed to this Desire amongst the election to explore some of these social and political questions. Especially as these groups have moved into the more bourgeois upper middle class and middle class strata of society.
Ask for the attachment to a specific place I agree there's nothing wrong with learning that but it has to be done in the right way with the right context. Sometimes I hear white British people refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxon as if to separate themselves from the rest of the British population who "aren't really British". There are a lot of narratives about the Anglo-Saxon identity and whether that constitutes or the same thing as British or English identity. And and these narratives form the basis of understanding for most people who are more socially conservative are much more motivated to cling onto these narratives even if they are not historically accurate. England isn't just "Anglo-Saxon," and the norms and traditions that modern Englishman derived from them don't purely come from this subgroup. Historical context is desperately needed here for a better understanding. England doesn't just belong to the Anglo-Saxons it also belongs to the Normans, the Nordic groups, the huguenots, ducth, germans and all the other groups who moved there. This is what history is for
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Crusthide Bro you don't know what you're talking about. So the civilians want peace, but the politicians don't want peace. So what do the politicians have to gain from continuing a war where the outcome is uncertain? That really makes sense to you?
And your not getting it at all. This goes beyond territory. There are national security concerns Ukraine has to consider since its neighbour has no qualms about invading and destroying thier country. The government have made it clear they will negotiate, but not on Putins terms. Russia attacked their country FROM CRIMEA. You expect them to accept Russia keeping Crimea after that? Think bro.
Ukraine also made it clear they wouldn't negotiate with Russia as long as they occupied Crimea. Is that Ukraines fault?
As for the geopolitical issue, that comes secondary. NATO isn't competing with Russia over Ukraine. NATO exists to check Russia's power. Obviously, when Russia invades another country in Europe so close to NATO members, they are going to intervene. Other issues such as US influence, EU inaction are much smaller parts of this whole thing. They can't dictate the solution to this crisis anymore than Russia can
If you refuse to believe the support for the war is high in Ukraine, then so be it. Believe what you want to. But whatever level of propaganda there is in Ukraine, there is NO evidence, NONE, not even casual evidence that Ukrainians are intimidated against speaking out against the war. UNLIKE RUSSIA. So don't project that environment onto Ukraine. They are completely different countries.
Also Elon Musk is a public figure. And he provides a key piece to Ukraines war effort. So when he starts talking about negotiations in such a manner, it has a negative perception and people aren't sure if his support will continue. So don't play dumb
No one in waving a flag for war. I'll say it again: Ukraine CANNOT accept peace on Russia's terms!! So of the Ukrainians want to fight and think it's worth their lives, then who the f*ck are you of all people to tell them otherwise? What have you sacrificed? And if you haven't been hearing the news, there is no 'lull' in the death and destruction they are suffering duringthe holiday season. Hardly sth the Ukrainians are 'appreciating'
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AniMageNeBy As I pointed out above, for the countries in the West, there is accountability there domestically and Internationally. Something that doesn't exist for Russia. The West always deliberately tries to make its case for military intervention using the same international rules and the recognize world based order. Most of the time, it will in fact often use them to justify the use of force, even if the UN doesn't recognize it as "legal" buy its own definition.That's why the type military intervention the West does is very rare. When it's valid it's there for the whole world to see. When it's not, as was the case in ONE case in 2003, there is at least some accountability. I myself am not trying to make the case or to justify anything. I am pointing out the case that these Western countries made and we're having a discussion about the validity That's what's great about living in a democracy where we have freedom of speech. Again, something Russia doesn't have.
And because the bar is so low for Russia, Putin doesn't even bother properly making its case. It made no case for Crimea, and your assertion that it has a strong legal claim to Crimea is extremely false. Crimea was given to the Ukrainian SSR and to its successful state Russia has no legal claim to Crimea. On top of that, it was easy to see through the lies of the case it was making in the Donbas. Especially since Russia had been infiltrating the region and using propaganda in the region for years even before 2014.
So this is a complex discussion. It's not as simple as "I think the West does it so Russia can do it too". Context and nuance matter. And because there's no accountability for Russia internationally or internally Russia's justifications for doing it will almost always be weaker than Western democracies
Therefore, the West doesn't selectively apply the rules of sovereignty and international law on a consistent basis. In my previous post I said what is legal is obscured by the internal politics within the UN itself, on the one hand, but also by the inherent contradictions and weaknesses within the UN itself. If a country is murdering its own people in a genocide, or is a narcos state that has an indirect effect on another state, what recourse is there?
These are hard questions that you're not even trying to address in good faith because you're too busy trying to make an argument for Russia. You're deliberately trying to misconstrue what the West was doing just to make an argument that Russia can do the same thing you claimed the West is doing. Your stance is entirely self-serving. So yes, you are pro Russian
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sometimeswitty6849 OK so firstly to answer your question; ABSOLUTELY. A western coalition against Ukraine would have defeated the UA completely in 6 months MAX. There's a great youtube channel called Operations Room. Review how well planned and executed Desert Storm was. It's not a joke. Russia isn't even close to that level of capability. And to claim that the Iraqis had less capability then the Ukrainians even at their height before the war is a massive cope job. I listed the nominal numbers the Iraqis invaded Kuwait with. Not to mention the total numbers of their entire military. It far outstripped Ukraine nominally by a HUGE margin. And numbers don't lie my friend. And you forget, the Iraqis entire air defense system came from the soviets and was extremely highly advanced for the time. That explains the high losses coalition forces took in the air campaign as you said. It wasn't some weak thing. It was very highly capable. And I would rgue more capable than Ukraine in 2022. The reason the Ukrainian air defense held out for months against the Russians for such a long time is that the Russians didn't coordinate their air offensive effectively at all. It was poor planning and execution. Put simply, they are incompetent and don't poses the capability to coordinate thier air offensive in an effective way against a modern 21 century army
I will admit however the Ukrainians had more advanced radar assets though, so that played into Russia's defeat. However, it's not something a western coalition cannot overcome
Now, will this strategy work against Russia? Well that's a different ballgame altogether. I think it could, but would take years. And I'm probably giving the Russians alot more credit than they deserve
You may think that it's a dumb comparison in order to cope for Russia but without taking the deficiencies of the enemy into account, we are talking about capability here, and Russia showed they're lack of capability in how they planned and approached their offensive as a whole. It was a disaster. A well planned strategy with the right capability could defeat Ukraine in months even with all the challenges you mentioned. Yet some clowns here are trying to make the case that the trench and attritional warfare that the Russians use is the most effective. Like gtfoh bro 🤣🤣. It's not any nation's in the west's fault the Russians are incompetent and lack the capability. And sorry to say, there are levels to this sh*t, and Russia just ain't there yet. I'll say it again, if it wasn't for their nuclear arsenal, Russia would be nothing
1
-
1
-
@sometimeswitty6849 you really think Russia's industrial capacity outstrips the west? 😂. It can't even outstrip western Europe let alone the US. Don't make me laugh 😂 😂
You think it will take DECADES for the west to replace what they gave to Ukraine? They've literally only given a fraction of their equipment, so where is this coming from?
Military lessons from the past are excellent indicators of ppyential modern capability. You say they HAD the capability as if they no longer poses it. You can't be serious here. The militaries of US, France and the UK are literally designed for expeditionary capability. That in turn fosters the need for advanced capability materially, technically, organizationally and logistically. Russia may have the first, but clearly lacks the last three
Ukraine doesn't use NATO tactics. It doesn't have the capability, so your point is mute.
And you can't make the excuse Russia is fighting with one arm behind its back. Remember Russia has mobilized troops and has dedicated more material to the war so that excuse doesn't fly anymore. Not to mention, all of the "objectives" Russia achieved came from a surprise attack it launched on Ukraine. If Russia was so capable, why would they need to do this? Cmon man...😂
Finally, Russia's lack of intelligence of how the Ukrainians would react to an invasion cannot be used as an excuse. That's part of preparation, and Russia's was poor
I seriously doubt Russia's ability to compete with the west economically if it comes down to a war economy. But only time will tell. I am genuinely surprised by your confidence though
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasongreen7860 I believe I did answer his question but I'll reiterate just for the sake of discussion
Anyways, first NATO would first launch ballistic and cruise missiles to take out UkrAF radars and crater their runways. Russia to their credit did this. At the start of the invasion, the Russians actually started off as predicted. That's because these initial stand-off strikes did in fact model their approach LITERALLY after Desert Storm. That should tell you that even in Russian military circles, they had alot of respect for what the coalition did. ( so I'm confused why you're trying to downplay it like it doesn't matter).
Then, NATO would use their air assets to take out UkrAF with its early warning radar assets, air defence, and crater runaways. Subsequent attacks with massive numbers of air assets with guided munitions and multirole fighters would then be used to overwhelm the UkrAF and then degrade telecommunications infertructure. All this requires close inter-service cooperation, good communication and regular training to maximize it effect. Russia failed to do this beacuse over the years we have seen serious deficiencies all of these sectors. Again, we saw Russia's limited capability on display in Syria
Now, only after all this was done would a ground invasion begin. Large armourd formations supported by helicopters would begin a process to search and destroy the main Ukrainian force. Even with modern drones with artillery support, resistance by the UkrA would have been futile with their air defence and telecommunications degraded
As I said before, without air superiority, non of this is possible againstan enemy with drines and satellite assets. So I have answered your question
Also, elaborate on specialized infantry tactics. What do you mean here?
And I'm not sure why you bring up the taliban, as it is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about conventional warfare here, not guerilla warfare
My main issue is that the Russian force design isn't tailored to match the capability of Desert Storm, so attempting to mimick it would prove a disaster. They lack the airframes, training , coordination and communication to carry this out. And this was evident in their inability to destroy the Ukrainian airwing after they had taken out their radars, as well as support their ground operations
Continued in part II
1
-
@jasongreen7860 PART II
Now your comment on the AWACS doesn't make sense here. Cus regardless of if andbwhen they turned off their radars, my understanding is that the A-50 has a 4000 mi range so the plane doesn't have to get get that close to the border. SEAD of the UkrAF is still very much possible. MANPADS are also not a factor for them so i dont know what your talking about
Are you also trying to dispute that the Russians did in fact have sufficient infantry support? Cus that doesn't explain their failures the hit and run tactics with nlaws and jawline would have been moot with adequate number of IFVs with infantry support tactics. You also can't use fortresses and Drones as excuse. Again, before the Ukrainians started using Drones to coordinate artillery and drop bomblets, there was an opportunity to degrade their telecommunications infertructure. Fortresses, minefields and trenches are also not an excuse as the coalition also successfully tackled all in Desert Storm
You also can't keep using the excuse of western intervention. Of course it was a factor in styming the Russian offensive, but is was far from the game changers you are attempting to make it out to be. At the top of the list is a lack of and a lack in confidence in thier capability form the Russian perspective
Saying Russia is fighting NATO is a massive cope job. At most you are fighting SOME of their equipment, but you are not fighting their excpectional inter service coordination, tactics, logistics, communications and high level of training. They are not fighting the sum of NATO capability. That's the hard truth friend
Now here's where I'll give you some credit. The comparison of Desert Storm maybe doesn't work in the context of a lack of international support for the Iraqi war effort. Perhaps if they did have that support, things would have been different. But it wouldn't change the outcome. Iraqi resistance would have crumbled before most of the aid got to them. Russia has a allowed Ukraine to hang around, increasing the effect of the aid. You complaining about western intervention is pointless because even in the first few days of the invasion, the Russians showed a serious lack of capability and total incompetence at the command level. Without any support, Ukraine would have held out for ALOT longer then Iraq did, not because of anything special they possessed, but because the Russians let them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Richard.HistoryLit to be honest there seems to be a real reluctance to "reckon" with these false narritives as we see with these reactionary anti woke talking points as we saw in this video
But I'll try
The first issue characterization of the western concepts of individuality and egalitarianism being present after the fall of the roman empire, as sth intrinsically innate within the cultures of these cultures. This is a classic Western construction of these cultures to try and infer the reason the West made more progress than others did was mostly or at its core because of intrinsic factors that didn't exist in other culture. That's not true. If they actually had knowledge of these cultures they would know that the characterizations that are ascribed to Europeans aren't accurate at ll and two, aren't unique to Europeans
This also relates to the insinuations on the moral superiority of the West because Britain ended slavery. How about continental Europe? I guess they conveniently forgot about that part. If moralitywas such a big part of ending it in the west, then why did Britain have to enforce its abolitionon other major European powers? The assertion Kisin Makes is even completely untrue. Europe wasn't a monolith and this abstraction of "Western civilization" didn't exist until the 19th century
This directly relates to why slavery was ended. Yes there was a moral aspect to it that had alot to do with the changing times. And we should give the west credit for that. However as with most things in the real world, slavery wasn't just ended for moral reasons, but for practical reasons that made the practice harder to justify, that being the crash in sugar prices. The two always go hand in hand
This is the problem when you want to tell history with an objective of presenting the West with all these postitve attributes of being progressive and tolerant societies that aren't necessarily accurate, and and ironically lack the nuance these people pretend to care about when it suits them. Alot of the narritives on this channel seem to focus on some of these false narritives as a response to the woke, but in fact become a mirror image of each other. Either you tell the historical truth as it is without comparison, or if you do the comparison, tell an accurate comparison, not one that fits your objective such as trans saharan slavery was worse than the trans Atlantic. You can have it both ways. But this is mainly directed at Kisin I guess
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lucia-sy7le Lucia, I assume you're not a fascist. Am I mistaken? You love liberty right? Well liberty means we all as Americans can say and belive what we want. He has every right to say and believe what he wants to. And I have every right to criticize him and call his "patriotism" into question. After all, as I hinted above, many have served their country, become disillusioned and turned traitor for one reason or another. Yet your telling me that because this man allegedly served 30 yrs, I cant call him out? Even if at worst I never served a day in my life, and I spend my days eating cheetos on the couch, I certainly will not keep anything to myself, cus its my country too. If anything, I as a citizen am more in a position to cast doubt on his patriotism, considering he has another country's interests at heart. A country hostile to our own. I also have no idea what you belive he has bothered to find out and I haven't. Do you know what I do for a living? Cus I guarantee your metric for giving him credit is the idea of the so called "argument" he makes is in line with your own, rather than the merit of it as a whole
So spare me the moral self-righteous outrage will ya? It really gets old
Having said that, I will always appreciate good vibes sent my way if they are genuine. Given your snarky tone they may not, but in case they are much thanks 🙌. And know that as we speak, I actively support our troops from our office with the work I do to stand up to our enemies foreign and abroad, especially Russia and China. We thank God.
Stay blessed, and God bless America 🙏 🇺🇸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ddz1375 Oh, I totally understand and sympathise with the right on this point. Assimilation is a key component of cultural and societal cohesion, and there are many historical examples where this has gone wrong because of too much mass immigration of people who can't assimilate fast enough. So don't take it that I don't understand how right wingers feel on this issue. I do
My contention here is that Europeans and North Americans, particularly those on the right, don't have a good understanding of other cultures around the world and what they're consist of. They are completely ignorant about the type of people from those cultures who emigrate to the West and therefore don't have a good understanding of their ability to assimilate or not. They therefore make themselves very vulnerable to narratives that they hear from the media about these types of people. And this is a new even in the age of the internet. Back in the 90s it was the exact same thing and to some extent it was even worse. Most people in the west don't travel, and especially back then you learned about other cultures through real life experience. There weren't videos on youTube that you go to or books online you could fine to read about those cultures
Look, conservatives and conservatism desires to conserve certain values and traditional norms in the west they hold dear and are important to them. What I'm trying to illustrate to you is that this same conservativesm also locks people into narratives about other people who are not in cultural group.Think of Muslims for example. Everything I said above perfectly relates to the negative perceptions the right has about not only Islam but inability of muslims to assimulate into the West, all whilst having a poor understanding of islam itself and the different types from different regions, as well as the cultural influences from those regions that influence how well a person may be able to assimilate. It's not a simple thing to understand or grasp. It's very complex and complicated because human beings are complicated right wingers don't like complicated. they don't like nuance as we have all seen to the reaction to this video
I think it's very sad that your father cut all his ties to his country of birth. Maybe there were other personal reasons for it, I don't know so it's not for me to judge. But typically people need to be able to hold on to connection to their culture origin. If you move to India, it would be irrational for one to expect you to cut all ties to your culture of origin and all the cultural norms you've grown up knowing. People need to feel that sense of connection because we are human beings with emotions, and the desire of conservatives to conserve their traditional values is just as strongly emotionally tied to those who want to hold on to their cultural values from their country of origin. Language is a big part of that I can tell you. I don't know where you're from, but I'm an American And family is from West Africa. I can tell you How close I feel to my country of origin and my culture when I'm able to speak my language with my relatives even in public. It's a good feeling. You shouldn't have to demand that people cut all ties to their country just to show loyalty. I'm proud to be American. But I'm also proud of my culture
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dr.embersfield1551 yes they did. If you read the accounts of soldiers at the time, you see that they talk amongst themselves on how many weeks they'll reach Paris, sth they would have heard down the grapevine of the chain of command. This is very common. It may not be accurate information, but at the very least they have a rough idea
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Like I said, whether you believe me or not doesn't really concern me. The commentaries above asked for one example as proof that the three-day operation was in fact a real idea even if it's not 3 days to exactly. And I said that the soldier in question retold his story to a war correspondent a year ago, not that that's the origin of the narrative
what I'm telling you is, at the very least, the rank and file of the soldiers who took part in the operations around Kiev thought that it would take 3 days. That's just the hard truth weather in you want to accept it and continue coping is up to you
BTW, you keep mentioning that he wasn't Russian and that he is, in fact, a Ukrainian soldier. May I ask how you know this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evgeniya7853 I don't understand the first part of your response. But what you presented is inaccurate
There won't be a response before the rockets land. Its not automatic in that way. They usually involve certain mechanisms that have a threshold that need to be breached. One, the system has to be active, and to be active it has to be switched on by a high official, which would only happen in a crisis. We dont know if the system is active right now, and two, there has to be a determination that nuclear attack had been launched. The automation you are referring to would ground-based sensors detecting thet attack HAD happened, so that means monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions. Then, the system will check to see if any communication links to the war room of the General Staff remaine. If they do, then they it wilk shut down. If not, then command missiles will be launched to give the order to all silos and nuclear assets to strike back.
So your concept of "automation" isnt actually automatic in the way you presented. This fairytale idea of Russia you have doesn't exist. No nation operates like that cus if they did, it would be very reckless
Also the US and UK use different fail deadly methods of deterrence in case their own command structure is taken out. So it's not the same for everyone
Hope you learned sth today
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Warren_Peace I am well aware that desertion has been a problem for the ukrainians and that it is likely to get worse in the near term until they find a solution to it. however to pretend as if because of this it makes their chances non-existence is actual delusion. I keep saying it and I'll say it again, war is not a strategy game anything can happen and things can change on a dime you thinking that the war is over is extremely premature and it shows your lack of understanding about how Wars actually progress.
war exhaustion, moral, weapons Logistics and Manpower are all crucial elements in any war but what you haven't considered is the political Fallout, and capital both countries have invested into this war. Ukraine still has a lot more political capital they can use to mobilise the population to continue fighting on Walsh Russia has to essentially bribe its poor citizens to fight if you are old enough and recall the wars in Chechnya in the 90s and early 2000s the perception of the war in Russia was extremely negative and that contributed to low morale and war exhaustion in the populis. how long is Russia going to be able to continue to bribe its citizens to fight? how long will the Russian economy be able to manage with the shortage of Manpower and consumer goods? how long will the population be alright sending it's Sons to die in Ukraine? given the fact that Russia is not fighting a total war and doesn't even recognise that it is fighting a war in the first place is the Patience of the Russian population Infinite
These are important questions to think about and have realistic expectations of. Ukraine also have the same concerns, but because their country is being attacked constantly they're willingness to fight is still very strong.
Also the historical examples you gave are not a good representation of the point I was trying to make. yes Napoleon surrendered in 1814 despite the fact that France was capable of fighting back but this was due to the political pressure put on him to resign, the political factors that I was talking about above. the fact is he came back the next year and showed the allies why they needed to remove France's ability to fight back by actually defeating them in Battle and occupying France. so the point you made was not a good one. same with Alexander the Great. the successers to Darius did not give up the fight and fled into central Persia and then bactria continue the fight and Alexander himself had to take his army there and destroy their military potential. again, a bad example
At the end of the day you're free to believe whatever you want I'm telling you that there is precedence for the west not recognising territories it feels where unjustly taken away from its rightful owners and that precedence in some cases has lasted decades. the war is being fought on Ukrainian territory, so, like I said at the beginning of this thread, you and other pro Russian commenters need to be realistic. you're not going to be able to enforce a piece on Ukraine without military defeating them, and since Russia can't, military defeat them in your words without going all out in a total war. it means Russia will have to make some concessions as well. It's not going to be one-sided because Ukraine is not a defeated nation. That's the reality
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thepoweroftheriffcompelsme Well, no problem. To be honest I wasn't sure you would respond
All the the symptoms you mentioned aren't just symptoms of myocarditis. They can also be a symptom of having covid 19 itself. It may be the case that you have been healthy all your life. I don't know you so I can't say or not. But one of the main misconceptions is that being healthy means covid won't affect you or you may not have severe symptoms
What to take into consideration is that the range someone can start having symptoms after being infected, which can be up to 14 days. It's very possible you were infected BEFORE you got the vaccine. And as I said, you could suffer the same symptoms. Obviously, it's also possible the vaccine made it worse, because the vaccine can also cause myocarditis
I don't know who lied to you. And I don't know what you mean by "lie". My issue is ppl jumping onto a bandwagon and blaming the vaccine because they are angry at this sentiment of being lied to that you mentioned. Maybe you were gaslit, I dunno. But that negative experience obviously drew you into these types of crowds on this channel. Most people here ARE antivaxxers. Others were were against the vaccine because they were politically motivated. Let's just keep it real here. That in turn generated alot of hostility towards people who were against vaccine mandates, didn't want to take the vaccine, or may well have had honest good faith questions about it. Take into consideration the mental health aspect of it as well. Alot of people just wanted this pandemic to end and got mad at people thay perceived as getting in the way of that
All I'm saying is be careful of what messaging your putting out. We want to have good fair discussions here on YT that we don't necessarily have one other mediums. Some of us want to hear about experiences like yours so that we become more aware. But many others aren't here for the same thing. Recognise that. I'm sorry that you've had health problems after this episode. The scientific reality however is we just don't know right now. We may never know. So what's the point in coming onto these spaces and declaring it's FOR SURE the vaccine caused this? For a sense of community? Remember, most people here just want to confirm their own bias about sth they've already made their mind about
I'm not trying to talk down to you. But be mindful where you are and what you say. I apologise if I offended you in my response and also in advance if anything I said here came off the wrong way. I'm just a bit annoyed at this reactionary messaging from this channel at times. As if millions of people didn't die from this thing and it was all a big hoax. Anyway, sorry in advance
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ngandosambalundula8183 😂😂😂😂 the audacity
Maybe you should listen to Nickayz2 and actually debate him on the points instead of cheap insults. You've got some nerve calling out someone and trying to use big words to make yourself sound smart 😂
If you really were an "independent thinker", were really interested in seeking "histoical truths", and had done your own research, you would know Ben intentionally misrepresented the truth. There is a full transcript of the minutes of the meeting he used as an excuse. Look it up online. Read it. Fully. Also read a memo of a conversation btw Gorbacheov and Baker February 9 1990. Read it. Fully.
They were in negotiation. Negotiations as ti whether Germany in the post cold war era would be fully sovereign, or under American nuclear umbrella. As part of that negotiation proposals were made within a context about German unification. The fact that James Baker said there would be no NATO expansion east doesn't mean it was a PROMISE or an AGREEMENT set in stone outside of that context. No agreement, no declaration, no diplomatic note. Nothing
Many Soviet leaders weren't afraid of NATO, because they already had several borders with NATO. The final treaty was about the GDR, not NATO expansion into the East. Gorbachov said in an interview many years later that the reason they didn't include it in writing was there was already NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There was nowhere to expand. That's why there is no written assurance of non-western expansion. If the Russians felt it was really important, they would have put it in. Gorbachov himself said talks of NATO non-western expansion WAS A MYTH. HE SAID IT. OUT OF TH HORSES OWN MOUTH. Get it?
The truth is the geopolitical landscape changed. The interests of the Baltic and Balkan countries as well as Poland changed. They wanted to be part of NATO. And they made their intentions clear to both the US AND Russia. The Russian government did not oppose their entry into NATO. You know who did? The Russian elites and oligarchs who didn't recognise the rights of these countries to forge their own path away from the Russian sphere of influence. Wouldn't Ben call that imperialism? So he's good at calling out American imperialism, but not Russian?
Did Ben mention any of this? Did Ben tell you that? Nope. And why not? Yet you take his word without doing your own research. Actually think for yourself
If you need some guy on YouTube to stroke your ego to make yourself feel smart, then you're FAR away from an independent thinker. If I had to do all this to explain to some random guy on you tube why your not as smart as OR well informed as you think you are, then you're not a serious person at all
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AniMageNeBy You really are a strange fellow you know that?
Here you are arguing vociferously for the sovereignty of a country that that is aligned with Russia. In other posts you are also arguing with other people about on the one-hand, that territorial sovereignty doesn't matter and that the people of the donbas should should decide, which is very convenient for your pro-Russian stance, and on the other hand that the United States should respect Syria and Iraq's sovereignty. You even have the gall to argue for the legitimate claims Russia has on another country's territory, yet here you are crying about what you claim the US doing, the very thing that Russia is doing in Ukraine. You seem to love Russia so much yet you live in the West. Isn't that interesting? you value the very thing that the West gives you that you would never have in Russia, yet here you are speaking on Russia's behalf with a passion
I guess considering that you are pro Russian none of this contradictory language is strange at all on second thought 😂😂
Let me just address your extremely unnecessarily long post with an even longer post of my own
To your first point, what is an "official demand" as you are characterizing it? I explained in the previous post that it was not a demand. Re read it again. You say you understand that there is politics involved yet you don't seem to grasp the context of what I said. An official demand is not a statement made by an elected official to to the media. When it's official there is a specific way that is it is communicated and will often be repeated by several others in the administration or government as official policy and have a plan for that. That's not what's happening in Iraq
You then go on to say the US has no right to bomb target in another country's territory. Which territory specifically are you talking about? Cuz if you're you are referring to Syria, again they did not even have control over their territory and Isis is an existential threat to the United States and it's allies both the domestically and their interests abroad. So what are you arguing here? That the United States has to stop bombing targets in Syria because the Syrian government says so? As it's stands, Syria is still unstable. They clearly cannot deal with it alone and Russia is just as inept in dealing with the problem. As far as I can see, Turkey has the same assessment, although for a different concern. So this isn't just an American thing as you're trying to pass it off as call it and invasion all you went to fit your narrative but you can't change history
The reason why I brought up the reason for the Russians being there in the first place was to highlight the hypocrisy of the Syrian government and you're hypocritical claims of legality. They didn't even invite Russia in to help them deal with threat of Isis caused by the chaos of the Syrian Revolution. Instead they brought them to help prop up the Assad regime. Furthermore yes, the US did bomb the Syrian government forces after they used chemical weapons on their own people. You convently forgot to mention that didn't you? No matter. Anyways, as I'll explain further below, what is considered "legal" can be very fluid. Context is needed to understand what legality means in each case is it legal. For an oppressive dictatorship, is it legal to ask another dictator of another country to intervene to save itself? sure. Considering that that dictator controls the sovereignty of the nation and question, which is in this case Syria. But by the Western perspective, the government dictatorship is not a legitimate one after the actions it took the United States can argue that the Assad regime has no legal right to tell the United States can't be on a territory it doesn't control has no capability of controlling
Again your characterization of it as a coup is also pure propaganda just to support a brain dead narrative that doesn't exist. If the US wanted to continue air strikes in order to force regime change, they would have by now. They used the air strikes to force the Syrians to stop using their own Air Force to to drop chemical weapons, which succeeded. Again, you can't rewrite history for your own benefit
And all this talk of UN international laws and rules is very interesting to me considering you bend over backwards to make all sorts of excusees for what Russia is doing in Ukraine. So what even is the point of complaining about double standards from the US when you yourself are a talking double standard?
Regardless, let me finally address the central point being made here. You now conveniently want to use legality and international law as a crutch to make an argument. Fine. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that the dynamics of the UN are an extension of real-life geopolitics. I'm sure if you're here writing all this you really should know this by now. The fact that Russia and china are permanent members in the Security Council have veto power is a significant obstacle to getting any kind of resolution or mandate even if it has majority support. The internal dynamics in politics in the UN itself bleed out into the real world. Any resolution from the west for an international security or humanitarian reason that is it in the interests of Russia and China will never pass realistically in the first place. And when action is taken without it, it is used by people like you to point fingers at the US and its allies and claim they are doing something illegal, as was in the case of in 1999 in Kosovo. I believe the same was true in Bosnia (don't quote me on that if it's not accurate). The United States and its allies in NATO didn't need a UN mandate to again intervene has there was an active operation of ethnic cleansing ongoing in the territory by the Serbs themselves. You can't possibly argue that NATO needed permission from the Serbs to intervene against their interests. That makes no sense. That is the exact same situation we have in Syria, and getting a UN mandate would have been impossible anyway if China and Russia would vetoed it on the spot. Does that mean the UN and international law doesn't matter? Of course not. What it does mean is Russia and china don't act in the interest of international law and humanitarian principles when it doesn't suit them on a consistent basis. Far more consistent than the United States. You want to know why? cuz as dictatorships they can get away with it with no accountability. In western democracies like the United States, the criticism you would get means there is at least some level of accountability as given by the recriminations of the anti war movement in 2003 for iraq and scandal that followed. Such a thing doesn't exist in the country you so passionately come on here to make excuses for at all costs
How's that for substantiation?
Next time, keep it shorter
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AniMageNeBy Now to address your points, what you need to take into consideration if you want to continue this pretense of objectivity in such a conflict, then you have to acknowledge that it is impossible to say what would likely happen because in order to measure the probabilities of such a thing, an accurate record of what constitutes those probabilities is needed. Whether you want to admit it or not, neither you nor I know or the ppl you listent to know the facts around who is capable of waging war for the longest period of time and to what extent. Not even the people you listen to on the Duran, no matter how often they pretend to to know what the heck they're even talking about.
If you're actually doing a serious cost benefit of analysis, the assertion that Ukraine should start negotiations now makes no sense from a realistic point of view as they are neither exhausted and still have the manpower and resources to fight. Why are you desperately advocating for Ukraine to negotiate? Because you haven't done a serious analysis of what Ukraine's capability is beyond your own biased perceptions of what Ukraine is capable of
The truth is there is a range of what may happen given these unknowns in the fog of war. What I have said is definitely firmly in that range of possibility. There is also the range of possibility where the population of Ukraine may also get tired of the war and want to sue for peace. Everything I have said however is based on historical precedent. When a country is invaded and its territory taken away from it, the point it will take to get to where there willing to give up that territory is very very far if that country still has the ability to fight back. Saying that it's irrelevant because Russia has three times the resources is ignorant. There are so many historical precedents where a country with more resources dedicating only a fraction of its resources is defeated it by a country it is in invading that has dedicated all of its resources to fighting. That's the hard truth for Russia. It's fighting a country that can still fight back and still has hundreds of thousands in manpower to pull from. Countries like those are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their citizens because for them it's not about territory, it's about security, and those two things are interestingly linked. Ukraine doesn't have to beat Russia in production. They only have to beat Russia in their will to fight
Giving this historical precedent, your fooling yourself if you think the same applies to Russia. Approval ratings you site as your reasoning are not reliable cuz if you listen to interviews with people on the street in Moscow and other major cities you will notice something. The people who are most in favor of the war are those who aren't going to be called up. And if you've seen Russia's demographic chart you would know that those people are larger portion of the population than age fighting men. On top of that, if Russia wants the increase military production it needs a number of those men to work in those factories to produce munitions. So having numbers is mute if you're wasting those numbers in pointless attacks and the Russian public isnt seeing a prospect for for victory in the near future
As I said before as well, you're also starting to see resistance to the war in Ukraine that was even there in 2022, but now it's becoming more prominent with more wives of soldiers hearing the reality of what's going on in Ukraine. That's the reality that you and Putin try so hard to hide from. I've heard these people on the street myself. I've heard the intercepted phone calls myself. This is real. This isn't some Western propaganda. You want to continue to fool yourself and believe that optimism for the war in Russia is the same as in Ukraine, then go ahead. You're free to live in your delusion
1
-
@AniMageNeBy There is there is a difference between being critical of your own government and what they're doing, and legitimizing an argument Russia has made which has no basis the precedent or in law. The only one Russia can remotely use is 2003, and I acknowledged that (and even in that case, the Western powers didn't ANNEX parts of yhose countries). What I also said was here in the US there was accountability for that and an acknowledgment that it was wrong, even in the political class. I also tried explaining to you the influence of real world politics in the UN and the inherent contradictions in deciding what is legal and what isn't. So again you can't use hypocrisy of the West as an excuse to give legitimacy to a position Russia is taking under this pretense of being vigilant and critical
Also, the extent of your nuance is "Russia has more resources and manpower, therefore, therefore they're likely to win". That's it. How's that nuance? I've outlined social, political, and practical considerations when it comes to Russia you aren't even interested in paying attention to
Please 😂😂😂...
I've also never made any hopeful assertions about Putin getting toppled or Ukraine needing a miracle. I think you're projecting here brother 😂
So what claims about Ukraine should I address with nuance? I've gone after the claims you've made about Russia because those are the most commonplace claims I've seen over the past two years. It's the same talking points over and over. So you tell me what about Ukraine's ability to fight am I not seeing?
Please, what factual indications do you have that are reasonably accurate, and from what source? Where are you getting information that Russia has increased its military production by three times in all areas? And where are you getting in your information from that ukraine's own production has plummeted? again give me a reasonablly reliable source
1
-
@AniMageNeBy First, I've gone to the site you claimed was proof for the claims you made about Russian industry. I think you already know I didn't find what you claimed existed, unsurprisingly
Secondly, the West has internal accountability for actions it has taken that didn't have ANY grounds in international law. Your pretense of vigilance and criticism of the West as a Westerner yourself is proof of that. Russia does not. If you don't believe me, move to Russia and say this same thing about Russia in public. I dare you 😂
Third, we're going around in circles because you refuse to actually read what I wrote. I have addressed every single point that you've brought up including This supposed precedent is a flimsy excuse for Russia. You just don't want to hear it.
No matter how often you try to twist the facts, you're narrative will never be the truth. And the facts are no country in the west created a precedent of intervening militarily for the purpose of annexing another country's territory. That's the crux of the issue that you are intentionally avoiding. Not to mention in addressing this so called precedent, I presented the dichotomy of the incoherent stances of the UN when it comes to the legality of what a country does to its own citizens, when intervention is necessary regardless of that country's sovereignty, and the internal dynamics of the UN make interpreting when intervention is legal or necessary pointless because of certain countries like Russia and China. All these factors I've mentioned here and in my previous posts are all feedback loops that feed into each other and make all that you're saying about international law and rules completely pointless in the context that you are presenting in terms of precedent, not to mention a clear false equivalency. Saying that there was no basis in international law for any of the interventions the the West undertook is factually false because of all these factors
The explanation I've given is a lot more nuanced than what you are clearly capable of. I've said this over and over, yet you just choose to ignore it just so repeat the same thing argue. You're so focused on arguing and being right it's hilarious that you actually believe that what you're saying is even remotely nuanced. Do you even realize how often I've heard the same argument over the past two years? Not just from others like you, but from the very channels you watch? I know this line of argumentation isn't even your own. Just something you heard somewhere else and you're trying to apply it here. It's a clear sign of someone who doesn't know how to think for himself, let alone break down the very concept she's trying to argue for.
This the veneer of pseudo intellectualism that you're trying to display here doesn't work if you don't actually know how to provide depth to what you're saying.
And now you're going on this unhinged crazy rant repeating the same thing over and over as if doing so will make it sound anymore sensible
I now understand why you're so desperate to accuse me of lacking any arguments. Its a very reflection of who you are. A sad attempt at projecting
Good luck to ya. You're gonna need alot of it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1