Comments by "foil hat" (@foilhat1138) on "Lex Fridman" channel.

  1.  @disturbedmoo  Putin said WW2 was Poland's fault in his Tucker interview.
    267
  2.  @TSEliot1978  2014 is when Russia began its invasion, prior to that there were no issues in the Donbas. Strelkov confirms this, he said. "I'm the one who pulled the trigger of war. If our unit hadn't crossed the border, everything would have fizzled out, like in Kharkiv, like in Odessa"
    124
  3.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  The peace deal that included strict limits on Ukraine's military, neutrality and acceptance of annexed territories. The deal made sure Ukraine would never be able to defend itself again, no country on earth would accept that deal.
    78
  4.  @disturbedmoo  Putin said. "The Poles didn't give the Danzig corridor to Germany, went too far pushing Hitler to starting WW2 by attacking them. Why did Germany attack Poland? Poland was uncompromising and Hitler had nothing to do but implement its plans for Poland."
    69
  5.  @TRD-JDM  Ukraine had zero chance of joining NATO for a variety of reasons. Russia and NATO also signed the NATO-Russia founding act, which unambiguously stated both alliances could expand as they wished. He has also had a constantly shifting position on NATO, he once said of Ukraine joining. "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision on Ukraine joining NATO is to be made by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.”
    34
  6.  @FOWST  Do they not have google where you are at? Type in "Putin says ww2 was Poland's fault." Let me know what you find out.
    29
  7.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Oh the Johnson myth. Ukraine's head negotiator Arakhamia said there was no meeting with Johnson until after the deal had fell through. The Turkish president confirms this, stating Ukraine agreed to most terms aside from disarmament and recognition of occupied territories.
    20
  8.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  "Russia wanted one thing that is Ukraine's neutrality." Wrong again, there was also Ukrainian disarmament, denazification (whatever that means) recognition of the annexed territories. Among other things. You realize the list of all Russia's demands were published right? Erdogan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands. He claimed Ukraine was prepared to renounce NATO membership and to make Russian Ukraine's second official language. It was the other items, mostly disarmament and recognition of annexed territories that were the sticking points.
    13
  9.  @StariiSeid  The only reason Yanukovich backed out was Russia embargoed Ukraine, a violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
    11
  10.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Russia called for the Ukrainian army to be drastically reduced to a skeleton force of just fifty thousand personnel. This was approximately one-fifth of the prewar total and a tiny fraction of Ukraine’s current military. Also tight restrictions were to be imposed on the quantity of armor Ukraine could possess, the types of missiles the country could develop, and the size of the Ukrainian Air Force. This is called disarmarment little buddy.
    11
  11.  @rustyshackelford17  Zelensky was elected in 2019 brain wave.
    11
  12.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Wrong, there was no actual deal to block, and Bennett himself wasn't sure that one would have been desirable, anyway. Here is Bennett's own words "It's unsure there was any deal to be made." Your ramblings also omit Bennett's explanation for the ultimate failure to strike a peace agreement, which is what was discovered at Bucha.
    10
  13.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  That was after the deal had already fallen through little buddy, Arakhamia himself said as much. I'm not sure what part of this you are having trouble understanding. One of the main reasons was Russia wanted a veto on Ukrainian security guarantees. "Earlier drafts of the agreement had said that each guarantor would decide by itself whether to take military action to defend Ukraine. In the last draft that was circulated between the two sides, the word ‘all’ was inserted by Russia (and resisted by Ukraine), meaning that all the guarantor states had to agree – by consensus – to taking military action in support of Ukraine. The NYT sums up: ‘In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a deal breaker.’"
    10
  14.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  You really have no clue. According to Minsk Russia was supposed to withdraw from Ukraine and return control of all occupied territories to Ukraine. Remind me did that happen or not?
    10
  15.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  So to review, Russia wanted extreme limits on Ukraine's military, wanted Ukraine to never join an alliance and wanted a veto on any security guarantee. Which would make Ukraine completely unable to defend itself Gee I wonder why Ukraine refused that deal
    10
  16.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Yes Johnson spoke to Arakhamia after the peace deal had already fell though, I already said that. "Let just fight" was said after the deal had fallen though. Bennett saying there was no deal was him clarifying his earlier statements. This is the problem with taking Russian talking points at face value. Do better.
    9
  17.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Ukraine had implemented as much of Minsk as could reasonably be done while Russia still occupied its territory. The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, an amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. Ukraine has already passed legislation addressing every point. It has passed, and extended with renewals, legislation on special status and amnesty, and already has legislation on the books governing local elections. It has passed constitutional amendments. What was supposed to happen next was Russia leave Ukraine I can't remember if that happened please tell me.
    9
  18.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  I know what Minsk said, apparently you dont. According to Minsk after Ukraine passed the required legislation and constitutional amendments, which it did. After that Russia was supposed to withdraw its support for and disband the rebel groups, withdraw from Ukraine and return control of occupied territories to Ukraine. All under the supervision of the OSCE. Did Russia leave Ukraine or not? I can't remember.
    9
  19.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  In early 2014, Ukraine's armed forces had 130,000 personnel, but could increase that to about one million with reservists. The number of tanks and aircraft Russia demanded were also a fraction of the 2014 number. What Russia wanted was disarmament, even in their own words. This isn't even controversial the only person I've seen argue otherwise is you.
    9
  20.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a belligerent in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator, and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the LPR and DPR, but are in fact Russian supplied and directed. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the LPR and DPR were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
    9
  21.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Here i what Arakhamia actually said. “First of all, in order to agree to this point, you have to change the constitution. Our aspiration towards NATO is written in the constitution. Also, there is no trust in the Russians that they will do this. This would only be possible if there were security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, go away, everybody there would breathe a sigh of relief, and then they would come more prepared, because in fact, when they invaded, they were unprepared for such resistance. We could only work on this when we were 100% sure that this [intrusion] would never happen again. However, there is no such belief." It was after this that they spoke to Johnson after the deal had already been refused. Do you understand?
    8
  22.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can. What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation, but implementation which Russia itself prevented by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquished control. Moreover, the elections would not be for positions in the illegitimate LPR and DPR “governments” established under Russian occupation, but for the legitimate city councils, mayors, and oblast administrations that exist under Ukrainian law. Who would vote in such elections? Ukrainian law says all displaced citizens should vote. But would Russian occupation authorities allow this? These are matters for resolution under international supervision, not for Russia to dictate terms.
    8
  23.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  You can play semantic games all you want but forcing Ukraine to disband most of its military and leave them with a token force unable to defend against any sort of aggression is disarmament by any reasonable definition.
    8
  24.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  The constitutional reform was passed which granted a form of autonomy to the Donbas. Nobody recognized the LPR and DPR until Russia did in 2022, which was a violation of international law.
    8
  25.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Some form of neutral peacekeeping or policing force could help bridge between Russian control and Ukrainian control of the occupied territory, but Russia rejected such proposals. Because of the impossibility of Ukraine implementing political measures while Russia still occupies its territory, the United States as well as Ukraine, with support from others proposed deployment of an UN mandated peacekeeping force to Donbas, so that Russian forces could withdraw, and an UN backed force could deploy, without an immediate hand-over to Ukrainian control. This could allow time and space for local elections to occur, and for the implementation of special status and amnesty legislation. Russia, however, has consistently rejected such proposals, even labeling an UN supported peacekeeping force a “military takeover” of the region, when of course it is Russia that has actually taken over the region militarily and unilaterally.
    7
  26.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  "Ukraine accepted the deal and even signed the draft peace deal." No, there is zero credible evidence for this. Ukraine's lead negotiator and the president of Turkey both say you are wrong. Even Russia didn't use this rhetoric at first, it wasn't until over a year after the fact when Putin brought it up in a press conference as a way to explain their retreat from Kyiv, which for the year prior had been called a feint to deal with the Donbas.
    7
  27.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Good job refuting nothing I said. According to Minsk the LPR and DPR were to be disbanded. The first to ign the agreement were Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini. Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma. Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov.
    7
  28.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  The three original signers were Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE (as witnesses by France and Germany). The self-proclaimed republics were added later and did not use the self-proclaimed names—Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.
    7
  29.  @Tsknv  Are you talking about the missile that Russia itself said it shot down? Also maybe a beach party right next to a military target in an active war zone isn't the best idea.
    7
  30.  @Tchernoziuum  What was on the Minsk agreements are public record, feel free to read them for yourself before making silly comments. The LPR and DPR aren't even mentioned in the document.
    5
  31.  @Tchernoziuum  Yeah they did. This is uncontroversial, it was signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Specifically it was signed by Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov. Please do some basic research first. And maybe learn how to spell genius before using it as an insult.
    4
  32.  @Tchernoziuum  The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. There is nothing about full autonomy in Minsk. It was Moscow that had been pushing for autonomy for the territories in the Donbas. Kyiv agreed to a form of autonomy (the terms listed above) It was Russia's own unique interpretation that wanted full autonomy. In 2019, Zelensky agreed to sign the Steinmeier Formula, a peace plan named after the former German foreign minister who first proposed it as a path towards the implementation of the Minsk agreements. This was never signed. The plan envisions granting a self-governing status to the territory Ukraine considers occupied by Russia after local elections are held and their results are recognized by the OSCE. The stumbling block is the disagreement between Ukraine and Russia on what should come first: local elections or border control. Ukraine insists that local elections could take place only after a complete ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops and weapons. It demands to regain full control over its eastern border before the elections are held under Ukrainian law, with participation of Ukrainian political parties and in the presence of OSCE observers and Ukrainian media. Russia says elections and autonomy first, then everything else. Ukraine proposed using UN peace keepers along with the OSCE for monitoring, Russia refuse. Do you understand?
    3
  33.  @valentinshy8444  It is specifically at just after the fourteen minute mark of the Tucker interview.
    1
  34.  @dashaelovskaya7996  It starts just after the fourteen minute mark.
    1
  35.  @valentinshy8444  Yeah I already posted that in this thread, but thanks.
    1
  36.  @toxa35  I provide the quote in this thread, it happens around the 14 minute mark in the Tucker interview. You can believe whatever makes you feel fuzziest inside though.
    1
  37.  @ГалинаОрлова-з6е  That's not what Putin said, he said Poland should have been more compromising with Germany and they could have avoided invasion. Also you seem to forget that Russia was allied with Germany until they were also invaded.
    1
  38.  @toxa35  "As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, they pushed Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on September 1, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing else to do but start implementing his plans with Poland." So all Poland had to do was give their land to Germany and WW2 could have been avoided. Just like how Ukraine just needed to give it's land to Russia to avoid this war. Autocrats think alike.
    1
  39.  @toxa35  "As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, they pushed Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on September 1, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing else to do but start implementing his plans with Poland."
    1
  40.  @ГалинаОрлова-з6е  The Red Army was allied with Germany too before they were invaded, remember? That isn't what Putin said though, he said Poland was being uncompromising and because they didn't hand over Danzig Germany had to invade.
    1
  41.  @ГалинаОрлова-з6е  That's not what Putin said though. Also you realize that was the exact same thing the SSR did when they were allied with Germany and partitioned Poland and the Baltics with them right?
    1
  42.  @soulxtr  What's your point?
    1
  43.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Oh the Johnson fantasy. According to Ukraines lead negotiator Arakhamia the meeting with Johnson didn't take place until after the peace deal had failed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed this, He said Ukraine was willing to give up NATO membership and make Russian an official language, the sticking points were disarmament and recognition of the occupied territories.
    1
  44.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  There is zero evidence for your conspiracy theory. missing context: that there was no actual deal to block, and Bennett himself wasn't sure that one would have been desirable, anyway. Here is Bennett's own words "It's unsure there was any deal to be made." Your ramblings also omit Bennett's explanation for the ultimate failure to strike a peace agreement: the massacre of civilians in Bucha, Ukraine, which is being investigated as an apparent war crime that led Kyiv to break off talks.
    1
  45.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Oh and Russia wanted a veto on Ukrainian security guarantees. "On Ukraine’s side, they were willing to give up on NATO membership and become a permanently neutral state. They were going to trade the defence guarantee contained in the NATO charter with a stand-alone treaty guaranteeing that signatories would defend Ukraine militarily if it was ever attacked in the future. The suggested guarantors included France, the UK and the US – and Russia. While there were minor issues to be ironed out, it seemed that a peace deal had been agreed in principle. Both the New York Times and Foreign Affairs focus on the moment that Russia put forward an amendment which would have made the guarantees Ukraine was seeking meaningless. Earlier drafts of the agreement had said that each guarantor would decide by itself whether to take military action to defend Ukraine. In the last draft that was circulated between the two sides, the word ‘all’ was inserted by Russia (and resisted by Ukraine), meaning that all the guarantor states had to agree – by consensus – to taking military action in support of Ukraine. The New York Times sums up: ‘In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.’"
    1
  46.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  You really have no clue. According to Minsk Russia was supposed to withdraw from Ukraine and return control of all occupied territories to Ukraine. Remind me did that happen or not? Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as could reasonably be done while Russia still occupied its territory. The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, an amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. Ukraine has already passed legislation addressing every point. It has passed, and extended with renewals, legislation on special status and amnesty, and already has legislation on the books governing local elections. It has passed constitutional amendments. What was supposed to happen next was Russia leave Ukraine I can't remember if that happend please tell me.
    1
  47.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Ukraine Constitutional changes are passed in Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements on decentralization were passed. I'm not sure why you would post a lie that is so easy to google. "the laws passed were temporal not permanent" That is the same for every legislation in every country ever. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked “little green men” woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition “illegal armed groups,” that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.
    1
  48.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  Any deal that leaves Ukraine with a military that is not even close to being able to effectively resist invasion is disarmament. You can play semantic games all you want it won't change reality.
    1
  49.  @Truffle_Young_Jr  In your delusional fantasy world this might be true. Not in the real world though.
    1
  50. The only thing that is clear is that you are a person who uses 'there' 'their' and 'they're' interchangeably. Thanks for the Russian rhetoric though, let me know when they manage to take the Donbas, I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.
    1