Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "Towards negotiations between Russia u0026 Ukraine/NATO? Nicolai Petro, Alexander Mercouris, Glenn Diesen" video.

  1. 33:40 I don't understand how anyone could trust any US signature to anything. They have such a dismal record of reneging o almost every treaty they have ever signed.
    66
  2. 6:16 I should think that the US presidential candidates refer to Russia as "The SovietUnion", not so much in error, as knowing that this is a "Button" which when pressed produces a reaction in an American audience which, for some tactical reason, they want at that time.
    13
  3. 19:15 That is exactly the point! It never was about Communism, that was always an excuse for Russophobia! No, thinking about it more, I think it was always fear of any country that might displace the USA as Hegemon or even compete with it to more than a very small extent.
    10
  4.  @bengale9977  Too right!
    2
  5. 1:26:08 That is THE problem, isn't it? The US says: "We are the source, the only source of stability!" And at the same time sets about creating instability, to keep the MIC funded.
    2
  6.  @kathylarson8876  That would not surprise me.
    2
  7.  @kunik61  Is this supposed to be some sort of argument? Or is it just name-calling?
    1
  8. 18:55 I wonder: this "Ethnically-driven Russophobia" ; what was the ethnicity of the russophobes in question?
    1
  9. 1:06:14 The internet is a powerful force for Democracy, for how can you have a "Democracy" where the Demos has only one source of information? And the same source controlls the publishing industry, & the educational system ?
    1
  10. !:34:38 When one learms about "science" and the "Scientific Method"; one learns that, in scientific work, one first observes and tries to draw conclusions to explain the thing observed. The explanation is called a hypothesis. One then devises experiments to test the conclusions, to test the hypothesis. One then observes the results of the experiments and either they confirm the hypothesis or they don't. If they do, one devises other experiments to test the hypothesis further. If they don't, one make a new hypothese to explain all the results and then test the new hypothesis and so on until you feel satisfied that you understand whatever it is you are studying. At that point your hypothesis, is dignified with the appelation of a theory. All the time, you have to keep in mind that you may be overlooking something important and that all conclusions are subject to revision, when newly discovered facts do not fit the theory. (I.e. "It ain't neccessarily so!") Now, in the West, most politicians are not scientists nor are they scientifically trained. This is shown up, by such episodes as the recent spate of sanctions on Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and many others.
    1
  11.  @lowersaxon  Thanks.
    1