Comments by "Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar" (@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

@gamingforever9121 In the area which Russia currently holds, there will be very few pro-Ukraine people left. They either long since left or they became resigned to being part of Russia. As for separatist movements - no. Donetsk and Luhansk always wanted to be part of Russia, back in 2014, they rebelled against Ukraine because they thought the Russian army would move in to help them, they were angry at Putin when this didn't happen. As part of Russia they're far richer than being independent. The only people who benefited from independence were the local warlords most of whom are now dead. Only if Russia moves much further west will there be a serious partisan problem.
23
@gamingforever9121 What you have to understand, these borders are pretty arbitrary to start with. These people have been there for hundreds of years. Crimea was only given to Ukraine in the 50s to solve a temporary political problem for Khrushchev even though Ukrainians were a small minority of the population. When NATO seized Kosovo from Serbia, Yeltsin warned this created the precedent that European borders can be changed by force of arms. At the time Russia was weak so NATO ignored him but given this precedent, it's a bit late to complain about what Russia should be allowed to do now. Russia is doing what NATO did first in Kosovo.
12
@gamingforever9121 Anyone can claim there are humanitarian reasons or atrocities as a reason to follow one's own geopolitical interest. The Serb government atrocities against Kosovo were mainly invented, not entirely but mainly. Western populations fell for this easily because the Bosnian Serbs (different political entity) had committed large massacres in Bosnia. Other much greater atrocities were ignored where there was no geopolitical interest e.g. in Rwanda. Likewise, Ukrainian atrocities against ethnic Russians in the Donbas were ignored by the West but used by the Russians. If you really believe NATO's involvement in Kosovo was for genuine humanitarian reasons, you haven't looked at it closely enough.
12
@gamingforever9121 Yes the problem is, firstly these wars are very profitable for certain people, secondly the US domestic consequences for all these wars stirred up by the US State Dept are pretty minor. Usually they just fund it through proxies. Even when US forces go in like in Iraq the casualties are very one sided for the US but these wars have killed millions in places like Iraq, Afghan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. The even bigger worry is the risks of escalation to nuclear war once you start picking fights with Russia and China. In earlier times there were competent people running the US who successfully navigated those risks (they were very lucky too, there were some close calls) whereas the clown show now are taking huge risks for trivial pay offs. Nordstream for example - what kind of precedent does that set?
7
@gamingforever9121 Yes a consideration but generally a minor consideration. NATO countries have no problem managing their media to make whatever case they want to make for war. Even when it's extremely clumsy as in 9/11 Al Qaeda attacked us so let's attack Al Qaeda's other enemy Iraq, the end result is Western governments drag their populations behind them just as easily as countries like Russia. If you ever do get a chance to look into the media manipulation to make the case for the Kosovo war, it's fascinating but things have moved on so much since then, government control over media narratives is much tighter, true for USA, Britain, France and Germany.
2
@gamingforever9121 Overall Russia is weaker than NATO in some respects but two points, a hot war between Russia and NATO would probably become nuclear resulting in the destruction of Europe and huge damage to both USA and Russia both. Secondly, NATO is not united. For example Hungary and Turkey have no interest in fighting Russia because they're led by people who are sane. Western populations have no interest in fighting Russia. Whether in Germany, France or the USA, there are huge domestic problems. How would the USA ship hundreds of thousands of men and tens of millions of tons of stores across to Ukraine to fight Russia? Across an Atlantic where Russian submarines can attack troop ships? The first thing the Russians would do is cut the Atlantic and North Sea internet cables that alone would result in economic collapse in Europe without firing a shot. Anyone who things it would be easy for NATO to fight Russia hasn;t thought it through. NATO's main strenght is airpower but the Ukraine war proves firstly Russian air defences are excellent, secondly, using aircraft near the front line of a peer to peer conflict results in expensive aircraft being shot down by cheap SAMs. If the war didn't go nuclear then yes NATO could win eventually - the end result would leave NATO so weak China and India would dominate the post war world order.
1
@gamingforever9121 Complete capitulation would see Russian soldiers on the Polish border, that's not necessary, Russia doesn't want to risk a world war either and the Russians seem to have taken the land they really care about already. Yeah it should never have been allowed to deteriorate to this point. The anti-democratic Maidan coup should never have been staged and after it had been. Western countries (USA, France and Germany were the guarantors) should have upheld the Minsk II accords. Even then it wasn't too late, Russia could have been guaranteed that Ukraine would never join NATO. Zelensky could have tried to uphold his election manifesto of de-escalating the conflict before it blew up into a full scale invasion. But none of this happened. The best possible outcome for Ukraine now would be to negotiate before its position weakens further. If that means acknowledging it has lost Crimea and the Donbas forever, better to do that now than to keep fighting and loose more territory, ultimately Odessa and Kharkov. Even now Russia says it's open to negotiations.
1