Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "Poland to double the size of its military" video.
-
28
-
11
-
9
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@iamaloafofbread8926 uhhh huh... so the internal issues, the lack of proper law enforcement, the corrupt judges, the political infighting, the incompetent and ideologically corrupt generals who openly give information about nukes to your enemies, the media, the woke ''entertainment'' industry, the online censorship, the progressive military ad, the dimentia ridden president, the election manipulation by big tech and the media, the overal trust in the government being at an all time low, the lack of action against Turkey, Russia or China.
yeah it's just ''shifting'' it's focus, focusing towards a downward spiral, allright.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TorianTammas speaking the language is just a small part of representing the governed, the USA went in thinking they could turn it into a nation state with western values and what not, which was just stupid and some people at the start pointed it out, much more reasonable would have been to make a constitutional monarchy or just a monarchy to begin with and have them rule as your puppet, even then it does not always work out but that would have lasted much longer than the weak government the USA set up.
im not too sure how the British and Russians did or their mistakes but in the case of the russians it had a lot to do with the USA backing the rebels and the russians having poor tactics but before Afganistan has been taken over before so it's not impossible just very hard.
the USA has a habit of going to war with nations which it knows it can stomp with ease and also has pretty strong allies that it can help to share the burden but the USA has not been engaged in any war with equal forces, the closest is probably the korean war with China or ww2 and even then it was more so the russians doing the fighting than the americans. Today the USA would have a hard time dealing with a war with Russia and/or China and many of the top generals openly say now they can't beat them at the same time alone and would need to arm and prepare their allies for such a conflict which lucky for the USA many alies would probably do but as we see China become stronger economically and Russian being so vital for EU energy sources the US-EU alliance as well as US-Japan-Korean alliance becomes more difficult, remember the USA was able to get and maintain it's current army due to being the world's biggest economy, the USA might lose that to China as well as lose the scientific race if it lags behind.
The USA is by no means doomed but me a European citizen looking towards the USA can see the cracks and the disfunctional behaviour in US leadership and ability to project force, if I can see it then so can the US enemies, hell the USA lost a war game with a Swedish sub and had one of it's aircraft carriers hit and a few weeks ago they lost another war game to the British, there is still room for improvement and China does already have some advantages in terms of cybersecurity and hypersonic missles, it's very concerning.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordbuckethead9768 I know a lot about US history more than most Europeans or most americans, the USA has not been isolationist for a very long time and has both engaged and funded both sides in many a conflict or rise of new conflicts, the USA was already strongly involved in ww1 selling arms to the UK with civilian ship, got involved directly due to a telegram from a German diplomat which basicaly was wondering if Mexico could help out if USA got directly involved in ww1 (it was already selling arms and food to the UK long before this)
The USA was also strongly involved in ww2 and set itself up to be attacked by Japan with it's oil embargo, the USA is not an isolationist nation it was even involved in aggresive foreign policy and expansion both in north america, asia and Europe almost from it's creation.
The current world order is the US order, Globalization has been it's creed for a very long time, from an american citizen perspective it looks bad but from the perspective of the rich and corporate class as well as political elites things have never been better which also explains the wealth gap in the USA between rich and poor and the need for the USA to be involved with wars even if they don't pose any threat to the USA, the irony is the USA has wasted a huge amount of time, trust and resources in the middle-east while China grew rich in the background.
The EU does not really need the USA, the European nations are more than able to fund and keep their own militaries for defence, we done so for centuries, the current weakening is due to the USA world system and denial of European involvement in wars or military spending, if the USA wants to leave the rest of the world it could do so and all it's allies would need is a few years to make up the difference but it be a huge shock for the rest of the world "why would the USA give up it's super power status and major economic reach in the rest of the world to return to the illusion of isolationism?" Russia and China would be overjoyed as well as many European elites, in public they be disapointed but behind closed doors they cheer for the oppertunity to gain more power, though they might worry about other European powers causing conflicts it's not something that's really new.
Let the old world burn? More like the new world order burn the old world will be doing just fine.
1
-
1
-
@Qrt45 I don't expect the middle east to be a bastion of love and freedom without the USA but without a doubt the actions of the USA made things much, much worse, if the USA just went in like it did in Iraq and overthrew the regime there and replaced it with a monarchy, a new dictatorships or even a silly democracy (silly as in silly trying to make a western style democracy in that region) then that would have been better than what they actually did do, which was put sanctions on the regime in charge of syria and fund terrorists groups in the region, all of them, they called them ''moderate rebels'' as well as the whole ''assad attacked his own people'' trope that was going around, this became the basis and breeding ground for ISIS which was basically the islamic version of the nazi's in our era, this would not have spiraled out of controle had the USA not given arms and funding to these groups, if the USA had left the situation alone Assad would probably have crushed the rebels or been defeated by one side or the other, by funding the terrorists it made the assad regime look like a force of stability and sanity in the region (he's still a cruel and ruthless dictator but one that has some respect for the rule of law and is a sane actor)
israel does complicate things and has acted very poorly as well in the region, though with the USA has also allowed Iran to get more influence in the region, again the USA has been funding terrorists and helping their enemies like Iran gain ground, that's not just bad that's the exact opposite of what the US had to do.
Saudi arabia and Israel aren't exactly enemies, Turkey is a relatively new player in the region and that's mostly due to the fallout from Syria with presure from the EU.
but how to move forward now? well for starters the USA has finally stopped (at least as far as I know) with funding terrorists groups in the region, it could also help with rebuilding the damage it helped cause with supporting the assad regime or not openly support the regime but give funds to help stabalize the region, the USA could also take some refugees from Turkey and house them somewhere (something Europe had to deal with since 2015 but the USA has done little to nothing to help, Trump at least stopped the funding of terrorists and attacked ISIS for the most part)
the middle east is a mess but it's made worse by the USA and it's agenda does not work to counter China, in fact China has grown powerfull while the USA was dicking around here, overal it's been a disaster for everyone, the USA, Europe and the middle-east.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971 the USA funded multiple groups, pretty much everyone, not sure why you think they only funded the SDF, most of the early weapons of ISIS were given to them by the USA or taken from other "moderate rebels" there were multiple scandals of warcrimes being commited by some of groups supported by the USA.
Assad did not start the syrian civil war, you can actually watch the timeline of multiple places during the arab spring and how they devolved.
The arab spring happened in multiple nations and some groups in Syria started protesting, those protests started turning violent and there were a number of terrorist attacks, at that point the assad regime started cracking down on the protests and terrorists, at this point most of the civilians had no major weapons or much organisation, then the USA started arming many of the rebels in the hope they would overthrow the assad regime, Obama even threatened to invade Syria, meanwhile groups from Iran as well as Iraq started pouring in to add fuel to the fire.
The reality is today (which is why the media does not report on it anymore) is that Assad is the only form of stability in the region, everyone else are either foreign fighters, proxy groups or islamic rebels, the civil war became a proxy war for Israeli, US, Turkish, Kurdish, islamic radical and Iranian interest, the only ally left of Assad is Russia and it started due to the USA's actions, it's funding of rebels and sanctions on Syria, sanctions are a tool of war which in this region can kill thousands, when the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq after the first golf war 500.000+ children starved to death, likewise it turned a minor rebellion into a civil war within a proxy war but somehow Assad is the one to blame? Not the super power, proxy groups or foreign governments getting involved? The dude ran Syria for decades without much opposition, with economic growth and some form of rule of law but suddenly he's the cause of everything going to shit? Not the rebels or USA? Im not buying it, the media Lies all the time as does the USA why should I trust their words over what I can see for myself to be the case?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crescent4996 I don't understand why you think the USA is footing the bill for it's military, it's by US design that it is the case, we aren't talking about third world nations here, the European nations are more than able to pay for their own militaries and would have some of the strongest in the world, matched only by the USA, Russia or China.
China is gonna China for sure but in a world where the USA is not the global hegemon does not mean China is going to dominate everyone, it would just be a multipolar world like it's been for centuries, the US hegomony is the rare case and the exception in history, most of history has been a multipolar world.
Soft power is very usefull but indeed hard power is more important in the long run, which is why many European nations and the EU are attempting to gain more of it.
Imagine if the USA left Europe, that would force the EU to become a federation much more quickly or be torn apart, if done so it would have the second biggest reserve currency (which it already is today) it would probably be richer than China and only slightly behind the USA, if it's military spending was close to 3-5% it would have the world's second biggest military budget in the world, the idea that Europe is somehow super weak and unable to influence or defend itself is a fantasy with no basis what so ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971 the USA does secret opperations, uses sanctions and picks which ever side to support long before any civil war starts and the USA has been giving weapons and arms to terrorist groups in the region as well as outside of it for years, the USA does this all the time, pick a nation, start looking for radicals there, send them arms and money to start causing chaos, government reacts to shut it down, use the media as propaganda to demonize the regime, put sanctions in place, economy collapses, causes more chaos, say that regime X has got to go and threaten to use troops or fund more rebel groups to do your fighting for you, in the case of Syria last minute the Obama regime backed down but kept funding the terrorists, only till Trump came along did things start to cool down and the media stopped reporting on it, there are still people who report on it but nothing like before, even though the situation has only improved slightly but no mention of Assad's regime, the people or the situation, you have to look for it to find any info and what you find is barely any real information.
There is a huge information gap between the media around the 1990s and early 2000s and today, even though technology and the internet should have made more information easier to find, the reality is the opposite, less information, more secrets, censorship and open propaganda networks both the west, China and Russia engage in.
Idk what sources you have, all my sources from the past few years have been censored and kicked off most platforms, I think only Caspian Report still does some reporting though little with Syria, Google is perhaps the most censored and all you get is reporting from CNN or other three letter networks not worth a damn and are deeply untrustworthy.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971 I really don´t understand how you think the world or NATO works, NATO is the USA and if a nation acts or has a government the USA does not like be it democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian it could just kick that country out of NATO and make justifications to justify attack it if it wanted to.
but on the issue of EU federalization, help me to understand why the USA would be in favor of it? if doing so makes the US alliance weaker and the presence of US bases uncertain? NATO command itself has always been picked by the USA and does not want EU to become more federal since that would mean a federal army which would mean less reason for NATO alliance existing but you say ''NATO is not part of the USA'' except the fact that NATO is leaders are picked by the USA, is mostly funded by the USA and opposes other nations from forming blocks to replace NATO so in what universe would the USA be in favor doing something that would limit it's ability to project power and maintain it's global alliance!?
btw just because the USA does not want further independence and federalization of the EU does not mean it can do anything against it, if one nation goes against US interest that nation would be isolated and crushed if all of the EU suddenly say ''yes lets make a proper federation'' the USA can't wage war or subvert the whole of Europe, while also being in conflict with Russia and China that would be really stupid.
this is the issue with NATO, NATO is from the cold war era and worked really well back then, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO has just kept expanding yet has not updated it's mission statement, after 2001 the alliance has mostly been about engaging in foreign wars in the middle east which has been a disaster for US credibility, that on top of the fallout of said wars and covert activity is what helps drive the push for further EU federalization, geopolitics are in action here with multiple conflicts of interests, the USA has not had a leader that is able or willing to change it's mission objective and structure or expand further to solidify it's legitimacy, instead the USA has actually gone behind the backs of many of it's core NATO members without discussing how that conflicts with member states national interest, case and point Australia and France submarine deal as an example.
for most members of NATO, NATO has ceased to be an alliance to protect against communism and the USSR and is now mostly a tool for US power projection and influence which is now waning due to the rise of China, energy conflicts with Russia and new economic interests in africa and the middle east mostly about oil, untill the USA resolves these issues and conflicts and makes a new concensus on it's mission goal which could easily replace the USSR with China (communist still in name) with economic support for nations hurt by China's policies, the Alliance could get a new fresh start and help come to a mutual understanding of long term EU goals and NATO, right now that does not exist and thus the cracks in the alliance are forming and conflicts within NATO are no longer out of the question.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971 again I don't understand how your worldview works, France after ww2 was not exactly the world power and even when France left NATO it was still open and talking with the USA that in case of a war with the USSR they would side with the USA, there was no reason for the USA to become engaged with France because France was not much of a threat, now if France became an ally of the USSR or started doing stuff in Africa or it's colonies that would most certainly get into indirect or direct conflict with the USA.
I don't see any difference between the concert of Europe before ww1 and the current era we live in, the only difference being that instead of one European power becoming dominant enough to dictate peace on their terms (currently done by the USA) we had the failed attempted peace by the league of nations which the USA did not back and thus it fell apart, the USA got involved in ww1, made sure nobody actually came to dominate it, then left and did a pikachu face when Germany and the USSR wanted to become the hegemon which again is now filled by the USA.
I don't really bother with make believe or childish illusions of propaganda or fake morality, nations act in their own self interest, just as the USA, China, Russia and EU are doing today and as they did in the past, same with the roman empire or the mongol empire, it's more about the nature of war and the nature of civilization that turn the wheel of history, the current moralistic idiots can very quickly become the nazi's of the future, it's all just pretend, same with the USA, the USA is powerfull because it expanded, commited what we would call warcrimes and the current world order is as fragile as it was before, no morality is going to punish nations that win the wars and write the history books .
the irony is that many of the founding members and people who made up the EU were actually former fascists and member of the national socialist party of germany and many of it's policies were actually on the agenda of Germany in ww1 and well as ww2 just less voluntary and more directly organised.
the USA could very easily become an enemy of Europe if say the EU federalizes, it would start small with minor conflicting issues, Russia could collapse and make the Chinese and EU willing to engage to ''bring peace and stabilty'' back which at that point would anger the USA or imagine of Russia became a democracies and wanted to join the EU? what if conflicts in the middle east and africa made the Europeans act more directly which to the USA could be seen as ''problematic'' the current era exists because the USA forces it to exist do to it's economy, it's industry and esspecially it's military, once one or more of these variables changes so does the behavour and national interest of the USA.
''the USA does not have friends, it has alliances that serve it's national interest'' same with China, same with Russia, same with the EU, thinking it's going to last forever or won't at some point lead to conflict is a great error of reading of history.
1
-
1
-
@crescent4996 wars today are realy weird, there have been multiple proxy wars with semi legit democracies and the USA as well as others the funny thing is most often they don't declare war on other nations, instead they use sanctions and use allies to also put up sanctions while/or at the same time actually engaging in acts of war, coups, vote rigging, hacking, air raids, covert opperations and assasinations to get the desired outcome, most of Europe just follows the same line as the USA so there is little need to use such forces but without a doubt the USA would engage with such behavour if it's national interest is being threatened, many elites in Europe (not me) do want China to be the world power or at least the main power in Asia because they believe an alliance with them with or against the Russians is in their interest and in a way they are kinda right.
Imagine your some wackey EU politician who just wants power, that wants Europe to be one of the main dominant forces in the world, an Alliance with China makes perfect sense, the Chinese need markets, Russia has resources and you have modern weapons and technical know how, the Chinese aren't going to care about human rights violations, the Chinese system would give that type of Eurocrate immense power over society, the Chinese would not care about imperialism in Africa or the middle-east, the EU + Russia + China would have more than enough power and resources to take over all of the old world and change the status quo, of course some EU politicians imagine these things, some care about the people for sure but others just want the power same with the USA elites.
1
-
@crescent4996 I've read a few articles that many leaders within Germany and France want to try and move towards an EU federalization by 2025, though it would probably take much longer, it's not impossible to happen since a great deal of Europeans want it for security reasons.
I've often compared the current EU to the USA under the articles of confederation (the laws within the EU are also called articles btw) back then the USA had the same issues the EU does today, lack of a unified voice, unrepresented populations, lack of proper tax and spend controles, more of a state by state identity than a real american identity, it took great leadership, vision and also a desire to expand that secured and created a true american identity that many americans still have to this day.
Europe is much the same, though much older, much more divided and with a lot more bloodshed in between but what makes it work is external forces that threaten them as a whole, that almost forces them to work together and understand that it's either eachother or the Russians/Chinese the USA does not really have sure presures, it could indeed become very isolationist and many of it's people would probably benefit from it, for a while... However history shows that isolationism tends to lead to decline, lucky for the USA they had already expanded so much so it's not really isolationism as much as claiming a mountain of gold as your own but with time isolationism would probably cause stagnation, Europe can't be isolationist it does not have that luxury thus it is much more focused on playing both sides, getting rich while waiting for a chance to justify a full EU Federation.
And about the wellfare state, the EU has many different types of wellfare, most of southern and eastern Europe don't have a large wellfare system, sweden has one but is also hyper capitalistic on top, Germany and France have large wellfare states but the people don't have giant big macs or are as unhealthy as many americans are and that has more to do with their culture and their governments, taken all together the collective wellfare systems probably look slightly better than the USA as a whole.
The USA also gets major power in trade due to it's military, it's the main reason the USA is the main reserve currency in the world.
The EU has to do more for sure but that has to go with a decline in the USA, one gives rise to the other, it's not that it's good or bad but it is what it is so we better make the best of it.
1
-
@crescent4996 the birthrates are an issue but at the same time they also aren't, the economic models of just consumption = economic growth no longer seems to be work as it used to in the 19th and 20th century, much more is economic growth determined by having the right skills, property rights, technology and trade with other nations for vital resources.
Automation and AI is going to be the real drivers of economic growth, drones and AI could replace major parts of the military, the only thing really stopping these developments is lack of vision, political capital to promote such things, technical know how and moralistic arguments, in many ways the drive for more and more people regardless of skills is going to become a major drain and issue within politics, while quality and skills will be much more important.
I really hate China, it's government is a damn nightmare state but it pains me to say, the Chinese have a better long term goal and agenda compared to the west in general, the USA included.
That's why I kinda fear the EU is going to try and become more like China, it will kinda depend if the USA or EU at some point change to lead the way into this future, otherwise it will most likely be the Chinese that do it, China and South korea have invested more into these types of things than the USA or Europe have.
China is hated which will be their major issue but if they make themselves powerfull then others will just come to them.
1
-
@crescent4996 I think Russia will at some point attack Ukraine and Europe, the Chinese-Russian alliance is not as strong as it seems, while I don't think it's likely it's still possible that European politicans might side with China against Russia, it sounds crazy but hear me out, Russia is kinda weak in terms of economy and political stability, China might backstab Russia and take it's eastern lands while EU tries to make a russian democracy or just get it into their sphere of influence, if relations with the USA then break down China becomes the only alliance possible, sorta like how Germany and USSR divided Poland and Baltics for mutual agreement pact and non aggresion, China would then be free to focus on the USA and Asia while the EU would be focused on Russia, Turkey and north africa.
It might sound insane and unlikely but stranger things have happened and regardless of right or wrong many Europeans and elites dislike the USA, it's unlikely but I still think the idea must be floating in the minds of some.
1
-
1
-
1