Comments by "John Adam" (@johnadam2885) on "Into Europe" channel.

  1. 68
  2. 29
  3. 15
  4. 5
  5.  @hellboystein2926  You are right, there is not the infrastructure in place yet to reorient the gas supply from Russia to China. But that will be built in due course, that is the direction. Meanwhile the infrastructure exists for gas from Russia to Europe. Europe chose not to use it. So Europe needs to find an alternative and build the infrastructure for it. The biggest loser is not Russia or China, it is Europe. It does not have the resources. In Europe's new chosen position, it is still going to be dependent on someone - America, Gulf - and it needs to build infra structure. LNG is never going to be as cost competitive as piped gas from Russia. On the equivalence of Japan, Korea's situation with respect to Europe, they have lower wages than Europe. And the other competitor for manufactured goods is China, and Europe will become even more uncompetitive. Whichever way you look at it, Europe has shot itself in the foot by allying itself with America. It is going for industrial decline; it has to feed and house 7 million refugees; it has to spend more on defence. So it means a cut in standard of living. That could lead to the growth of Nazi groups in Europe destabilising democracy. Democracy in the US itself is in danger with Trump threatening to undermine it. And yet the western leaders and the media say the west is winning against Russia. It is just false pride because it is difficult to admit defeat. Was NATO expansion worth it ? Is it not time for Europe to decouple from the US ?
    4
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23.  @sababugs1125  'Not an inch forward was promised to Gorbachev during the ussr . After it collapsed west had every right to accept anyone it liked. ' You are a typical duplicitous westerner who wants his cake and eat it. So you think that what was promised to Gorbachov as Soviet Union does not apply to Russia. Even if legally correct, it was against the spirit of detente. Gorbachov has shown goodwill, but you stabbed Russia in the back. That is your culture and breeding. Yeltsin had been furious when he observed the first NATO expansion and saw it as a betrayal. He had said 'the Soviet Union is gone, but Russia will be back, you just wait'. Russia is back. It had protested all NATO actions and seeing the west was ignoring it, Russia decided to take action against the remaining ex Soviet countries to stem NATO advance. Now you find Russia can take on 30 countries both militarily and economically. 'Ukraine being nato would mean it would be protected by article 5 meaning Putin couldn't take Crimea and donbass to boost popularity back home '. First of all, Ukraine is not in NATO, so there is no Article 5. Secondly, you have not read Article 5. Article 5 offers no guarantee of armed counter. All it says is if one member is attacked, other members may/will take measures to defend that member, in various ways each one sees fit, including and up to armed attack. There is no compulsion nor guarantee that anyone will take armed measures. Thus, Lithuania blocked Kaliningrad claiming it was following the EU. That is a direct attack on Russia's internal business, then Russia could have pounced swiftly at some stage. If that happened, what would Lithuania do ? To invoke Article 5, NATO would have to call a meeting of 30 and get parliamentary approvals. It all depends on the US being prepared to fight. The US may decide it does not want a nuclear war, it will support Lithuania from the outside. So don't fool yourself. Don't mess with Russia and don't over estimate about NATO's strength. When was the last time NATO won a war ? Afghanistan exit was a debacle.
    1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1