Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "Hindustan Times" channel.

  1.  @plekkchand  It actually isn't.
    43
  2. Relax. The Polish President has publicly stated that this was NOT an attack on Poland.
    16
  3. Germany in its recent history oscillates between militarism and pacifism. Both positions are dangerous to peace. And that Germany did not stop NATO from encroaching Russia turned out to be fatal. Now one might have dismissed Russian fears of NATO as exaggerated. However that is beside the point. What counts is, that these fears were clearly and repeatedly communicated and that Russia is a nuclear superpower. Any reasonable statesmen would have taken all this into account. The Ukraine could have assumed military neutrality and concentrated on its economic and social development, taking advantage of both its traditional ties with Russia and new ties with the EU. Instead now we have a brutal war, wide devastation of the Ukraine, grave harm for Russia, inflation and increasing unrest in Western Europe.
    12
  4.  @monumentaltravel3745  No more animal than those who were risking a nuclear war in order to prevent missiles being stationed in Cuba. And less animal than those who have destroyed the Iraq for no good reason.
    8
  5.  @kaspertube512  The US recently fled from lightly armored guys on motorcycles. The Taliban. Leaving loyal Afghans behind with some of them falling off the departing US planes. Mockery of Russian weakness is therefore misplaced.
    8
  6.  @beaur252  Except the Taliban.
    7
  7. Austria is not anti-Ukrainian. After all ethnic Ukraine belonged to Austria for some 90 years and the feeling of national identity of the Ukrainians came into being and could flourish under liberal Austrian rule. But the actual sentiment is, that the main legislative chamber of a militarily neutral country is not a place for representatives of war parties to make their case. On top the speaker of that chamber arrogantly ignored the sentiments of many representatives on this issue. That is a no-go in mature democracies.
    7
  8. A peaceful transition of power.
    7
  9.  @thanmawiachhangte1544  100% wrong. Germany started WW 2 .
    7
  10. "Russia has made their stance clear. It has no intentions of attacking Poland or any other Nato nation." Not entirely true. In December 2022 Russia has officially demanded that Poland's and other countries' NATO membership status shall be downgraded. While not a physical attack, that demand was an aggressive act. Poland is not eager to go to war against Russia. However it has the tendency to try to open the eyes of Western Europe about dangers, which Western Europe is prone to ignore. Beginning in 1934 the danger Poland has warned about was Hitler. In the last 20 years it was and is Russian ambitions to reestablish its former sphere of control and influence. No overinterpretation here: Putin very clearly and repeatedly referred to Russia at the times of Peter the Great. The Russian empire at the end of that tsar's rule included i.a. what now are the Baltic states. So Poland was basically right with their warnings. And the West was mostly naive. The silliness of that particular ambassador nowithstanding.
    6
  11. Russia mostly gained strength during wars.
    5
  12.  @thanmawiachhangte1544  You are fully ignorant. Germany wanted to reconquer what it has occupied before WWI. It is as if the UK today demanded to take India back as "their territory". And there was no offer of territory exchange whatsoever. Poland heroically stood up to Nazi Germany which before has annexed Austria and Czechia despite all concession they have made to Germany.
    5
  13.  @MrLeadb1  In the past? As far as I am informed Russian troops today are deep in the Ukraine today. Did you miss that ?
    5
  14. Actually the Korean "temporary" ceasefire proved to be more stable than many "final" agreements. See, there is no such thing as permanent treaties. You know why ? Because there is no World Police who could ensure that treaties are kept. The League of Nations after WW I was an attempt at that, the UNO an analogous one after WW II. Both failed. So: A deal which might last is one which addresses both side's long term needs. THAT is what counts. Not adjectives as "permanent" nor "temporary" nor any other.
    4
  15. Soon India will ask the West to protect her.
    4
  16. The riots are NOT a response to one tragic occurrence which is taken care of properly by relevant authorities. They are some chaotic militant uprising against France as such. Let's hope it will be quelled without too much bloodshed.
    4
  17. ​ @markobucevic8991  If you want to understand why Putin repeatedly refers to Russia of Peter the Great, just ask him. I am not his spokesman, you know. Although I see that throughout history Russia as a mostly landlocked empire was eager to gain access to the seas. Hint: The Baltic countries are placed at the Baltic Sea. Another hint: The Crimean is at the Black Sea. Now I did not imply that Russia has no right to pursue its interests. And yes, pushing NATO so far east plus promising the Ukraine NATO access was irresponsible. But Russia shows imperialistic tendencies. And it is a most unattractive empire for nearly everyone, save some Balkan nations to whom historically it was a distant protector. Yet even Yugoslavia steered clear from Soviet Russia.
    4
  18.  @jallopenoman1126  Look, the US even lost against the Taliban. And did not win the Korean War btw. More generally the issue of treaties is not a question of adjectives NOR of the assessment if some conflict was fair or not.
    3
  19. President elect Trump has a realistic chance to sort it out. While the DNC policy of just keep doing the same had ZERO chance of success.
    3
  20. That must be sarcasm.
    3
  21.  @gilbertknight6617  LOL That is 100% nonsense. While many Europeans do not vilify Putin and understand that also Russia has a right to its security, virtually no one "loves" Putin nor thinks of him as "a kind- hearted gentleman". Putin is a tough Russia ruler, so much is clear for everyone.
    3
  22.  @teebrain8977  If Russia is so weak, why is the West so afraid of it ? Why was NATO upheld after the USSR collapsed ? Why was NATO pushed to the East so far ? Because of dwarfs ? Please do explain !
    3
  23. Poland tried to open the eyes of the pacifist West to the danger Nazi Germany posed as early as 1934. In the last 20 years Poland repeatedly warned about Russian ambitions to reestablish its former imperial sphere of control and influence. Poland was right. The West was wrong. That an ambassador overshot the message is regrettable, yet to be seen in that basic context.
    3
  24. That arrest warrant is both useless and inflammatory.
    3
  25.  @DennisPlagge  Quite the opposite. Putin is very credible. He said in 2007 that he will not accept NATO expansion into the Ukraine and he has acted accordingly ever since. Putin said he will not forgive treason and apparently he did not.
    3
  26.  @beaur252  You are an ignoramus. The Mujahideen were not the forerunners of the Taliban. The Taliban held Southern Afghanistan for 20 years. Then nearly no one opposed them when they closed into Kabul. From which US military had to flee. With those foolish Afghans who believed in the might of the US falling off the fleeing planes. That was the most shameful retreat in US history. That you try to make light of it, is disgusting.
    2
  27. Poland is to be praised for its calm reaction. Which is all the more praiseworthy as they have a troubled history with Russia.
    2
  28. Crimea to Russia, the Ukraine neutral (no NATO entry), referendum in Luhansk, Donetsk. Russia sells gas and oil to everyone, 10% of revenue go to Ukraine reconstruction fund. DEAL !
    2
  29.  @richditlevsen4225  No glory to an aggressor. At the same time no glory to those who have ignored Russia's legitimate interests. This war is a collective failure. For no good reason we are back to a Cold War with its nuclear risks.
    2
  30.  @fransvangoolen2972  Russia is not on the right side, as there are no two sides in history. The world is not bipolar but multipolar now, no matter what naive people of the West imagine it to be. And the West has lost its moral higher ground. Remember the destruction of the Iraq ? No amount of silly leftist self-bashing for Western colonialism will compensate for such recent acts.
    2
  31.  @oconnem1  Russia started their invasion with just a tiny fraction of its forces. The Ukraine was massively supported by NATO since 2014 and is even more supported now. So that is not a Russia vs Ukraine war. Talk about humiliation, childish in itself, lacks any basis. The main fool is NATO, which massively miscalculated that its ongoing encirclement of Russia will be accepted forever. Now it turns out that having a promise to join NATO at an unspecified point of time (as the Ukraine has since 2007) can be a dangerous thing. However this war turns out, the Ukraine is already massively damaged and its dead will not resurrect. Russians and Ukrainians, living together or close to each other in relative peace for many centuries, now hate each other. All this is a spectacular failure of NATO which defines themselves as a security and peace provider.
    2
  32.  @491n4he5  Not only Russia has been invading other countries. So did England, France, Spain, the Mongols, the Arabs, the Romans and so on and so forth. In the last years it was the USA which invaded the largest number of countries.
    2
  33.  @kbaburao3608  Why ? It has happened in history. The British have liberated parts of India from Moghul oppression.
    2
  34.  @mandarinandthetenrings2201  And so are Ukrainian soldiers. I hope that you are aware how unreliable propaganda of BOTH sides is.
    2
  35. Everybody knows. But everybody knows someone else.
    2
  36. Milley did NOT say that one side will WIN.
    2
  37.  @teresaolszanka112  Those rumors were spread by Russian agencies to divide Poland and the Ukraine. What really happened is that Putin offered Poland a partition of the Ukraine. Poland did not even consider that absurd proposal.
    2
  38.  @jr9721  Look for alien intervention.
    2
  39.  @MrLeadb1  How do you know what my eyelids did ? I suggest that you a) refer to arguments made and not arguments or eyelid reactions imagined and b) break away from that binary mindset which apparently makes you believe that someone who sees that Russian troops are in the Ukraine today must be blind to all kind of errors the West did. After having completed a) and b) we might have a fruitful debate.
    2
  40. ​@Cycling God I am aware that there is a substantial Russian minority in the Ukraine, concentrated in the Eastern Ukraine. Not only this - I am aware that it was Soviet policy to ensure that in each Soviet Republic as many ethnic Russians live as possible. I am aware that consequently the boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was not following ethnic lines. Actually I think that establishing independent countries based on internal Soviet boundaries was a major mistake. And I am very well aware of the ugly side of Ukrainian nationalism. But I am not sure why you apparently think, that these facts weaken or contradict what I have stated before.
    2
  41. ​ @Elena-j1y  Inaccurate. Poland-Lithuania was the dominating regional force in the XVI century, reaching to Smolensk and invading Moscow. In the 1620s it was fashionable to speak Polish at the tsar's court. And Poland-Lithuania did stay strong till the end of the XVII century. On top it ruled for centuries over what today is Eastern Ukraine. I agree though that this ambassador was very silly. What he stated is not Polish policy.
    2
  42.  @markod7662  Your knowlegde is severely wanting. Poland took back a tiny strip of land which was annexed by Czecho-Slovakia after WW I. And the UK and France, which both have done nothing when Hitler took apart Czechia and Moravia, did finally declare war on Nazi Germany after Poland was invaded.
    2
  43.  @hg6996  If it were miserably failing, it would have withdrawn. You are a victim of Ukrainian propaganda.
    2
  44. So His Majesty the Prime Minister is dissatisfied with the people ? Hear, hear ! Maybe he should elect himself another people.
    2
  45. The USA rules the world. It is the good superpower.
    2
  46. So you are with the legal Niger government ?
    2
  47.  @Komeshokakunanwene  Leave Africa alone ? Not buy what it has to export ? Are you sure ? And it is rather up to Africa to leave Europe alone and not try to get to Europe at any costs.
    2
  48. Oh really ? So there were no schools in the colonies, no Africans studied in Europe ?
    2
  49.  @anonanon7235  LOL So whatever happens in Africa is decided in Europe ? What a low opinion of Africans you must have. And the slave business would be impossible if not some African tribes hunted people from other tribes.
    2
  50. The West is not ideal. China is much worse though.
    2
  51. So property of countries with which the EU is not at war can be taken away just like that ? Is THAT the "rule-based world order" ?
    2
  52. Long Live Hungarian Salami !
    2
  53. There is nothing bestial about Western policy. The USA and the Ukraine think that the time for negotiations has not yet come, as Russia will loose some ground over the next weeks. That might be a realistic or unrealistic hope. Bestial it is not. And Russia is not in the moral position to moan about people getting killed, as THEY invaded the Ukraine.
    2
  54.  @DennisPlagge  You still simply cannot do without ad hominems and without switching to some meta-level of debating the way of debating, plus some preaching, as if you were both participant and referee of the debate. So you must be American. However I appreciate that these superfluous and inflammatory excursions now constitute only 30% or so of what you write. Clearly you make progress towards escaping the sorry condition of the contemporary American mind. Now ad rem: Your problem, how one can want to join NATO and oppose it, can be easily answered when you consider a phenomenon called time. To elaborate: Going back in time, first of all there is the question, why NATO was kept alive after its opponent, the USSR, imploded. Clearly a military alliance is meant to protect against someone. NATO was intransparent about who that foe was. The best way for Russia to find out was to make overtures if they could also join. Given they could not (or not on terms they deemed to be fair), given the constant eastward expansion of NATO, their deduction, that NATO deemed Russia to be its opponent was quite reasonable. This insight was gained/solidified in the early 2000s. From then on stopping NATO expansion was imperative from a Russian point of view. Putin's warnings in 2007, his actions towards Georgia and the Ukraine are fully compatible with that previous insight. And what happened before 2007 actually enhances my argument that Putin is quite transparent. If one likes these actions or not is a totally different issue. On a general level I hope that I could motivate you to put things you heard about into a timeline as that quite often explains imagined inconsistencies.
    2
  55.  @pfree373  Even two red exclamation mark are not a substitute for delivering arguments. Feel free to deliver yours.
    2
  56.  @Jackb0203  They came in in December 1941. How is that one year before summer 1945 ? And they have supported the UK in those 12 month when it was facing the Third Reich all alone. And they did reconquer the Pacific against the formidable Japs. Your view, while having a grain of truth in it, is heavily skewed.
    1
  57. Biden saw a White Man in Uniform. Not knowing where he was and why he was at this unknown place Biden instinctively saluted that White Man in a Uniform. And cordially chatted with that Splendid Old Chap about the glorious times they both fought at the foothills of the Himalaya. Together with native troops, whose representative for some reason kept interfering into their tête-à-tête.
    1
  58. Distance: True yet incomplete information. Southern parts of Belarus are close enough. Belarus is a staunch ally of Russia and Russia has pondered about using them as a proxy in this war. Nevertheless I hold that possibility to be unlikely. Russia has a decades long training not to attack NATO, going back into Soviet times. And vice versa.
    1
  59.  @abhimanyunath2001  It was NATO who expanded 1,000 miles towards Russia. Accepting everyone but Russia. That by any standards is an offensive move.
    1
  60.  @neilba1  Sure, when making mistakes like provoking Russia by NATO encroachment just add more mistakes. After all we all crave for an nuclear exchange, don't we ?
    1
  61. ​ @neilba1  Because everyone is afraid of Russia. And joining/wanting to join a military alliance hostile to Russia they actually provoke Russia. A self-fulfilling prophecy, see. NATO membership/quasi membership, instead of protecting from war, is the cause of war. We had a better solution than that in the Cold War. Namely militarily neutral countries. Which at the same time were free to pursue their economic and political model.
    1
  62. Indeed. That is why this junta which has disrespected the government chosen by the people of Niger has to step down !
    1
  63.  @jallopenoman1126  How has that anything to do with the topic of how treaties have to be ?
    1
  64.  @jallopenoman1126  I very well can. You cannot stick to your own topic. As you added totally irrelevant issues to your thread of "permanent vs temporary treatises". Like fair or unfair struggles or that Russia is stronger than Afghanistan.
    1
  65.  @jallopenoman1126  I have very well understood that you think that "temporary vs permanent" is a question of intention or labeling. Now if you want to impress yourself that there is a concept behind it, then let me state that your underlying concept is naive idealism. But you even do not stick to your own naive idealism, as you then proceed to introduce arguments of the realistic school. It seems that you are neither able to stick to a topic of your choice NOR to a concept of your choice.
    1
  66.  @jallopenoman1126  I can understand that you are angry as I have masterfully exposed your inability to stick to a topic of your own choice employing a concept of your own choice. Yet that is no reason to get offensive. I suggest you better invest your mental capacities to organized thinking and cohesive argumentation. Good luck !
    1
  67. So a junta displaces the lawful Niger government chosen by the Niger people. And then the same junta claims that Niger people have the right to self-determination ? What kind of absurd comedy is that ??
    1
  68.  @markharcourt2214  You have no clue whatsoever. Shut up.
    1
  69. Did you forget Austria and Czechoslovakia before WW II ?
    1
  70. No glory to killing brothers and sisters. No glory to Russia. No glory to the Ukraine.
    1
  71. So a junta displaces the lawful Niger government chosen by the Niger people. And then the same junta claims that Niger people have the right to self-determination ? What kind of absurd comedy is that ??
    1
  72. So a junta displaces the lawful Niger government chosen by the Niger people. And then the same junta claims that Niger people have the right to self-determination ? What kind of absurd comedy is that ??
    1
  73.  @Sweet_J1007  Evidently you do not know what the phrase "to be on the right side of history" means.
    1
  74. You mean the cooperation of the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany between 1935-1941 was being on the right side of history ?
    1
  75. LOL That is a farce. All too transparent that these are few protests financed by Russia.
    1
  76.  @htatesil4192 
    1
  77.  @jr9721  I do, when dealing with mature people.
    1
  78.  @teresaolszanka112  I missed nothing. Russian troops are deep in the Ukraine. The fact, that what IS Eastern Ukraine today WAS part of the Kievan Rus' and later of the Mongol empire and later of Russia does not change the fact of Russian troop being there. There is a medieval differentiation between Great Russia and Little Russia and later between Great Russians and Ruthenians, starting from the 1870s Ukrainians. So the history is much more complex than you are suggesting. Ukrainian nationalism is very nasty, yes.
    1
  79.  @msimon6808  They are fashioned after Russian historians like Karamzin and Danilewski. Plus the Soviet version of newer history. In which the German-Soviet cooperation, which started after Rapallo (1922) and continued long after the Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland in 1939 does not exist. As far as I know Putin refers to Russia of Peter the Great. Baltic republics beware.
    1
  80. ​ @danutahanyga4834  Your somehow selectively picked details are not new to me, and neither do they weaken my concise and correct posting before. Unfortunately you have omitted important facts which at this level of detail you should have not. Like that the special status of Moscow was bestowed upon it by Mongol overlords. Who btw ruled for some 150-200 years directly over what we are debating here - namely what today is Eastern Ukraine. Fast forwarding you also have omitted the popularization of the concept of a Ukrainian nation started by prof. M. Hruszewski, acting under the semi-autonomous rule of the "Regnum of Galiciae et Lodomeriae" in the last two decades of the XIX century. Likewise you have omitted the development of a written Ukrainian language, executed by O. Barwinski under the auspices of M. Bobrzyński, head of the education commission of that Austrian province, but being ruled by Poles of Austrian citizenship. In these decades a Ukrainian national identity was born. That some Ukrainians today claim things of little credibility, like the Cossack connection is true. But so what ? That is no different than claiming that Russia has a direct lineage of over 1,000 years. Or that Charlemagne's empire was an early form of France/Germany. More importantly - what is the relevance of all this to the fact, that Russia invaded the Ukraine ?
    1
  81.  @TheJollycoppers  Nonsense. No one will start an all-out nuclear war because of 1 nuke between two other countries. No nuclear doctrine envisions that. You are ignorant.
    1
  82. Putin'a army ? Hear, hear. I thought that they are fighting for Russia.
    1
  83.  @johnjacq7911  And how does that change the fact that the US was not even able to conduct an orderly withdrawal ? Was that a political decision too ? And why did you leave behind those Afghans who cooperated with you ? No wonder people around the globe do not trust the USA anymore. If you doubt that, ask the Kurds.
    1
  84. Poland was NOT attacked by anyone. This is their President's public statement.
    1
  85. Lazy French.
    1
  86.  @ernestoglesby5342  LOL The Ukraine are the official good guys, you know.
    1
  87.  @DennisPlagge  Why should I engage in a debate with someone who even cannot relate to my first statement ? If it was too complicated for you let me dumb it down: Putin is quite credible. Now try to deliver counterarguments. Without speculating about the provenience of the argument and the nature of my thinking, lol. As that makes you look like the typical, constantly foaming American, you know.
    1