Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "DW News" channel.

@CountScarlioni Sure. Even fiction needs to be described precisely.
1
@avl5214 Ukrainian bot.
1
@bunnyrabbit778 For what exactly ?
1
@PacificWestwest NATO countries recently ran from the Taliban. Scale down your rhetoric.
1
@Endorfinjunkie If you refer to "running from the Taliban", then you are wrong. Soviets retreated orderly, there were parades and speeches and the regime they have installed lasted for another 3 years. What a sharp contract to the chaotic flight of US/Western forces we have recently seen, with those Afghans loyal to the US falling off the departing planes... See, I was not addressing that the US lost in Afghanistan, as the mighty British Empire and the Soviet Union did the same. But that the US did not retreat orderly like the other two, but ran, was a dramatic illustration of US weakness. In line with the feebleness of its CiC.
1
@jerrymcgeorge4117 Just as the US is made up of lands stolen form natives. And Australia and New Zealand and Canada and Brazil etc. etc. etc.
1
@krystofk.2279 No, Russia is not the successor state of the USSR. There are 15 such states. Re the "split" which according to your imagination came into being between Novogrod and Moscow (as if they had been together): You refer to times before the period I was referring to. Your argument, that luck was a consistent factor during centuries is not worthy to be considered. And why do you cite examples which support my statement, that Russia did lose some military engagements and that even Moscow was occupied as if that was a rebuttal of what I wrote ? Re the Crimean theory: Russia kept its great power position even after losing the Crimean war. Just as the British Empire kept its after losing in Afghanistan in 1842 and after losing the Sudan to the Mahdi decades later. And as France has kept its position after Paris had been occupied by Russian troops in 1814. And as the Austrian Empire, later Austro-Hungarian Empire, after having lost most of Northern Italy in the decades after 1850. In order to make dramatic pronouncements about the effect of one war, as you did, one has to have a better knowledge of general history. Russia as the saying goes, is not as invincible as many think. Yet not as weak as many imagine it to be. The West is still quite confused about Russia: It is deemed to be powerful enough to have kept and expanded NATO even though its official adversary, communism has collapsed. Yet Russia was not deemed to be powerful enough to be treated seriously. The Ukrainians pay the price for this inconsistent miscalculation in blood. And the West covers its truly strategic blunder by setting up a picture of an all-bad Russia and by childishly rejoicing how primitive Russia allegedly is. Thanks for the hint about Zubov. However as anyone seriously interested in history soon discovers, one author is no author. Maybe I will add his books to the many I have read already, by authors of different nationalities and from different times. Come back here once you have learned to master the basic information from one source.
1
@tianlezheng6829 Re "some people say etc." All the factors you mention however have to be organized in a political structure: Politicians have to be appointed in a certain way, money for this or another science allocated, entrepreneurs must have substantial freedom to act. And here the West has (or has had until recently) the relatively best answers.
1
100 k dead is about 500 every other day -and not 2,500. Russia is extremely resilient. That is why they play for a long war of attrition. And that is why the Ukrainians are placing their hope on a massive spring offensive in the next weeks. They are also loosing people, which due to self-imposed censorship the Western public is not so much aware of. And the West is loosing money and weapons. Its taxpayers will not be ready to support a war of attrition indefinitely. See Afghanistan and the Iraq again. We will see how these equations work out. Imagining that Russia is invincible is silly. Imagining that it is weak is even sillier. And China will do everything that Russia will not implode, as it probably would after a decisive defeat. As that would enable ISIS like organizations to get hold of Russian plutonium and nuclear weapons. Not a scenario anyone, especially the USA, could wish for.
1
@nicksilvestroff4984 Everything is possible. It is also possible that some lower Ukrainian command has launched this to draw NATO into war (don't tell me that this would be a naive idea, I know). Especially as the pressure to negotiations on the Ukraine is mounting. Also possible that it was launched in Belarus on behalf of Russia to make NATO nervous/to test their reaction. The rationale being that admitting a Belarussian "error" is not as tricky as a Russian one.
1
@kkaania :)
1
The UN wants to sound relevant. In reality its significance boiled down to zero.
1
@mutkaluikkunen3926 Re-shore to where ? And where will we get car batteries from ? Hint: they need lithium. Which is to be found in China and some very few other countries. So ?
1
@Xarifa Zee Nonsense. BRICS depend on the West and vice versa. The idea of decoupling from each other is utterly unrealistic.
1
@Xarifa Zee It is the purchasing power which counts, not the number of consumers. BRICS cannot absorb what they produce and neither can the West absorb what it produces. Just as trade is mutually beneficial between countries trade between groups of countries is beneficial too. Nothing is gained by division into secluded blocks. Besides, we cannot afford thinking "us versus them", as the price of war between countries with nuclear arm is just too high. Finally it is only a matter of time until there will be natural frictions within BRICS. So I am in favor of multilateralism.
1
@Xarifa Zee Get you basic facts right first.
1
@Xarifa Zee So what ? That one group of countries buys more than another is no reason to ignore either group. Besides never extrapolate trends. Every trend eventually changes. The growth of China has slowed down already.
1
@Xarifa Zee You are off facts again. The EU has nothing near 880 million inhabitants as you have previously asserted. "Asian countries" is a generalization which does not make sense, as say the dynamics of Japan is around zero in the last two decades or so. Then: China's growth is slowing down. Slowing down is related to previous growth, not other countries. And when we talk about shifts of global structures. i.e. processes referring to quarterly figures is irrelevant. What is relevant is a) the ageing of China's population, aggravated by the results of the one child policy, b) the monopolization of power by Xi to a level unseen since Mao and c) the impact of the irrational and failed zero COVID policy and d) Europe and the US, very important customers of China, growing at a low rate. Come to Europe to learn how to handle statistical data and how to discern long term thinking from quarterly trends.
1
@Xarifa Zee I do not have to google basic facts. You should however. You made general statements about Asia. Not me. You referred to BRICS and specifically China. China had a silly COVID policy. Whatever happened in Brunei. Generally speaking you seem to be a person who gets lost very easily. Come to Europe to learn how to organize and conceptualize data and information into knowledge.
1
@mutkaluikkunen3926 Do yours. Lithium and cobalt is much more concentrated than oil. Besides who exactly is going to operate these European factories ?
1
And your point is that wars are meant to show off one's shiny, newest, sexiest weapons and equipment ? Like these Hummers in Afghanistan ? Driven by soldiers clothed like in Star Wars ? Who nevertheless ran from sandal clad guys on motorcycles ?
1
@to_loww No. Basic conditions do change within 1,000 years. The last 1,000 years have seen crops being cultivated in Greenland.
1
Nonsense. De-Escalation begins with de-escalating language.
1