Comments by "foil hat" (@foilhat1138) on "Friedman on the “Two Chinas” and How Putin Saves Face" video.

@johnm7267 Russia invaded in 2014, there was no NATO presence or weapons in Ukraine prior to that.
10
@johnm7267 Russia HAS lost 50% of the territory they once occupied. This is an uncontroversial fact. You can pretend Russia didn't retreat form Kyiv, Sumy, Izium, Kharkiv and Kherson if you want, just don't expect anyone to take you serious. His numbers don't come from Ukraine they come from Russian propagandist Murz who said 16,000 personnel were kia and 300 pieces of armor were lost during its months-long capture of Avdiivka. He was murdered by the Russian state for telling the truth btw. And his figures were only from the past four months, total Russian casualties trying to take the town over the previous nine years are much higher.
9
@robertatkins9419 Russia sent so few troops to Kyiv because they thought the would be greeted with a parade. Why do you think there were mass firing at the fsb after the initial failure of the invasion? The idea that they withdrew as some sort of 'gesture of goodwill' is revisionist nonsense. The 1st Guards Tank Army was completely destroyed trying to take Kyiv, its time to rejoin reality.
7
@robertatkins9419 Nope, there wasn't really. Prior to 2014 only around 10% of Ukrainians wanted to join Nato, moreover there were multiple Nato countries opposed ot the idea. Ukraine's chances of joining Nato was effectively zero. want to know what other country thought about joining Nato? Russia, should they invade themselves to protect themselves from Nato?
6
@robertatkins9419 Arakhamia also said. "First of all, in order to agree to othis point, you have to change the constitution, Our aspiration towards nato is written in the constitution. Also there is no trust in Russia that they would do this. This would only be possible if there were security guarantees. Arakhamia also denied the fact that the Ukrainian delegation was ready to sign the document and Boris Johnson stopped them. According to his own words, the Western partners were informed about the negotiations and had seen the draft versions of the agreement, but they did not make decisions on behalf of Ukraine and could only give advice.
4
@robertatkins9419 You can believe whatever makes you feel fuzziest inside. but just saying 'there was an account' isn't evidence. Its a baseless assertion by definition. Try providing evidence instead of spamming the same comment over and over if you expect people to take you serious.
4
@robertatkins9419 Russia has taken two medium sized towns in the past year and a half in exchange for catastrophic losses. Not sure what you would consider a stalemate but they certainly aren't setting any speed records with this invasion.
4
@robertatkins9419 You say its not a stalemate because its a war of attrition. WW1 was a war of attrition and it was a stalemate. Are you being deliberately idiotic or is this actually how you are? Let me guess next you'll tell me that years of WW1 style trench warfare was the plan all along.
4
@atkins9419 Do you think peace talks and a peace agreement are the same thing? Here's what Arakhamia, who was in the room actually said. "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 sure that this intrusion would never happen again. However there is no such belief."
3
@robertatkins9419 At no point did he say there was a signed peace agreement with Russia. Which is what you are trying to imply. Even at the time when Russia retreated from Kyiv they never mentioned any peace agreement. It didn't come up until Putin mentioned almost a year later in a press conference. (must have lost the treaty in his sock drawer) At the time they tried to play it off as some sort of feint, which is equally idiotic. Quite the feint, resulting in half the vdv being lost and the almost complete destruction of the 1st tank guard army. And then shortly after Ukraine proceeded to fold Russia up like laundry at Kharkiv anyways.
3
@robertatkins9419 No you just made the baseless claim that "they withdrew from Kiev as a sign of goodwill, after they had been requested to do so by the Ukraine negotiators in Istanbul." there is no evidence for this, despite what you may claim. Maybe your are thinking about when Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion. This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory"
3
@robertatkins9419 The fantasy Istanbul account that exists only in your mind that's refuted by Arakhamia's claims, which I already quoted here but you refuse to accept because it doesn't fit your narrative.
3
@robertatkins9419 It wasn't me who said Ukraine agreed to neutrality it was Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak. Considering it came from Moscow I think chances are very high that it isn't true. Just like everything else that comes from there, including the Istanbul delusion that you continue to assert with no evidence.
3
@robertatkins9419 Here's what was actually said about the phantom peace agreement. By a person in the room. “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." There were peace talks but they were never close to a peace agreement . You can believe whatever makes you feel fuzziest inside though.
1
@atkins9419 Here's what was actually said by a person in the room. There were peace talks but never was there any peace agreement, its time to rejoin reality bud. “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."
1
@robertatkins9419 Here's what was actually said by a person in the room. There were peace talks but never was there any peace agreement. “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 invded, 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."
1
@atkins9419 No you just made the baseless claim that "they withdrew from Kiev as a sign of goodwill, after they had been requested to do so by the Ukraine negotiators in Istanbul." there is no evidence for this, despite what you may claim. Maybe your are thinking about when Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion. This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory" Defending themselves from Russian invasion has nothing to do with western ambitions. Satisfy western ambitions? What is that nonsense even supposed to mean? The west is losing a lot of money sanctioning Russia, missing out on cheap commodities. They are sanctioning them on principle not for whatever insane agenda you may be implying. Considering we are two years into the invasion (Ten if you count the first phase of the war) and Russia is celebrating the capture of a small town right on the border after taking more casualties than they did after ten years in Afghanistan, I'd say at the very least this war has been a disaster for everyone.
1
@robertatkins9419 Defending themselves from Russian invasion has nothing to do with western ambitions. Satisfy western ambitions? What is that nonsense even supposed to mean? Russia are the ones invading here, its Putin's delusions of empire that lead to this war. The west is losing a lot of money sanctioning Russia, missing out on cheap commodities. They are sanctioning them on principle not for whatever insane agenda you cooked up in your mind. Considering we are two years into the invasion (Ten if you count the first phase of it) and Russia is celebrating the capture of a small town right on the border after taking more losses than they did after ten years in Afghanistan (another conflict they should have won and lost btw) I'd say at the very least this invasion isn't going how Russia hoped it would.
1
@robertatkins9419 The fantasy Istanbul account that exists only in your mind that's refuted by Arakhamia's claims, which I already quoted here but you refuse to accept because it doesn't fit your narrative. It wasn't me who said Ukraine agreed to neutrality it was Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak. Considering it came from the Kremlin I think chances are very high that it is a lie, like everything else that comes from there, including the Istanbul delusion that you continue to assert with no evidence.
1
@robertatkins9419 It wasn't me who said Ukraine agreed to neutrality it was Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak. Considering it came from the Kremlin I think chances are very high that it is a lie. Like everything else that comes from there, including the Istanbul delusion that you continue to assert with no evidence. Just saying that 'there is an account' isn't evidence. Its just baseless assertions.
1