Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

This could be true but since Russia already had something like this before they might not accept it, also the demands of Putin seem to be designed to be rejected so he can claim "the west is not willing to talk on our "security" issues so we are forced to act" it would also make sense that Putin wants to link up Russia with Cremea from the north to ensure it's water supply, a full invasion of the eastern parts of Ukraine (where Russian support is strongest) as well as having a lot of industry is usefull for Russia to have and to secure a buffer zone. Russia has already shown to be willing to use military force in other parts of the world and Putin knows it's now or never, people believe an invasion is likely due to these demands and the concentration of troop movements on the border which is often needed for any kind of invasion which is very hard to hide, esspecialy in todays world. I think Russia will invade because otherwise Ukraine will join NATO in the near future and that's something Russia fears most.
65
What's interesting is that so far there have been few instances of biological or chemical warfare (was used in ww1) used in modern wars because both sides agreed that using them would lead to more deaths and harm, even the nazi's did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield during ww2, so there is some hope that nuclear weapons won't be used in the case of a global/industrial conflict, however small countries that don't have the conventional weapons to defend themselves with might become desperate enough to use them on a much larger foe, then there is the subject of more advanced technology making nuclear weapons useless, thus making war more likely. There really is no getting around MAD, either it breaks down and you have war or it continues and you risk nuclear war by smaller states but at some point it will break down and you can't unopen pandora's box, the only possible solution I can think of is most of the world coming under one world government and just not allowing anyone else to ever develop nuclear weapons, though then you will get other problems and the potential of nukes being used on smaller states that want to rebel or try to develop/use them anyways, such a state ironically can only come about after something like ww3, defeating the goal in the first place. Very tricky... Perhaps we are all doomed?... Probably not.
43
@Brandon-sr2bl Russia is not really a threat to the USA, China is, regardless on if they have nukes or not, Russia can only really threaten Ukraine or eastern Europe China wants Taiwan and controle the part of the seas where most trade in the world flows, that's a big no no for the USA and the rest of Asia too btw.
19
@craigkdillon pretty over simplification but there is some truth in it, as Russia came from the former USSR they and their puppet states suffered greatly and lost a lot of capitalistic minded people, Putin sought to change that in his first few terms, creating a large growth in the economy and improving relationships with other countries, right now Russia exports a lot of gas, raw resources, oil, weapons, fighter aircrafts, food and lumber. Russia however suffers a lot still from corruption, is less free than western nations in terms of market and still has an authoritarian government, combine this with the USA being more hostile towards them, sanctions on their main markets, low oil prices and collapsing population growth and it's easy to see why Russia is not doing so good. Fact is there is very little they can do about it, USA and the west will remain worried about what they do, China keeps rising in economic power, their population will keep shrinking and few new business will grow in Russia. Best bet for them is to get closer to the European sphere and finding new ways to trade with nations like China.
14
@bololollek9245 Ukraine cut off Cremea of it's water reserves, perhaps they got some extra but it's not enough. The eastern parts of Ukraine are rather pro russia, about 50/50, the sanctions might hurt but Russia made sure those would not be as effective as in other nations. Now for sure sanctions will hurt but for Russia they want security thus they need a buffer state, if Ukraine won't fill that roll willingly they can force it upon them. Lets not pretend like Russia never does these things, they already waged a proxy war in eastern Ukraine, so clearly they want it badly as well as moving a lot of troops to the border, that costs lots of money which would be wasted for nothing unless they were planning on doing something. We shall see but from most sources it seems Russia intends to invade.
7
Not realy advanced more like froze, borders and nations have barely changed since the collapse of the USSR, this is not a system that can go on forever and it's very disfunctional long term.
6
Having the minimal amount of nuclear weapons still gives some deterence.
5
You have to respond in some way, you could use nukes or you could just invade and destroy the regime but if they can use nukes and you can't that's a big loss but you can't do nothing that's even worse.
5
@danielsteger8456 you assume human beings, societies and religions are way more rational than they tend to be and remember im saying this in the long term, long term as in between now 100 years + I never said that if it only destroys 85% then wars would suddenly happen, you are saying that, I'm saying bringing that number down to 0-1% would make that event far more likely and as technology keeps advancing the idea that nothing will ever stop an ICBM is the same logic people used in ww1 thinking nothing is ever going to outshine the horse or the rifle armed soldier, today we have things like advanced AI, robotics, next generation fighters, let alone in the near future, the USA alone and Israel have advanced missle defence systems and are trying to develop better ones, it's not hard to imagine at some point the defence and counter attack systems become better than the ICBM's used today, we are simply extending the usefullness of ICBM's by making them faster, what happens when someone goes into space and places weapons like it above the world's head? it just seems naive to think this can go on forever. as for child sitting in front of the tv, that sounds more like you, trying to make childish insults and comparing real rogue nuclear states (which already exist today) aren't going to become a more common thing, you might not know this but places in the middle east might consider getting nukes if Iran gets them, Japan could become a nuclear power because of the threat of China, India and Pakistan also have nukes and hate eachother the only thing that's preventing them from engaging in open warfare is the USA world system and the fact that they aren't sure if they would win such a conflict, now add in potential new players or terrorists gaining the ability to make nukes or weapons like it and you could see a world that spirals into desperation, fear and thus irrational behavior. everyone knew going into ww1 and ww2 would destroy most of their own and enemy nations and they had plenty of people saying the people on the top that would be the case and they went along with it anyways because that is the nature of human civilization and how wars happen, most of human history is waging wars or preparing for the next war, the only time this did not happen is when one side becomes so powerfull that forces others to not wage wars, as the USA becomes less powerfull, other nations catching up to them and more internal problems keep dividing people that will lead to more irrational governments and you only need a few of them to do something stupid to start a world war or just a large global conflict on a smaller scale. some religions have death cults in them or end of the world visions of the future, for them killing everything and everyone is the goal, most of the world is becoming more nihilistic and out competed or controled by technology, the idea that such cults and religions would not rise to some degree again is very naive. now look if you don't care about any of this and want to pretend like this little bubble is going to work forever then go ahead, I just think it's very naive and will probably not be very usefull to have when shit hits the fan.
5
@informationtechnology4562 the UN is a massive joke, can't do anything, remember Rowanda genocide? It's all show, will be gone before 2050
4
@til159 yeah the freedom from being alive, damn putin shills.
4
@MrPloopi Russia annexed Cremea because they could and it was important for their black sea fleet, as well as a few pipelines I believe that go through the region. Putin launched the war in eastern Ukraine and send soldiers and arms to the rebels, as a means to put pressure on the new Ukrainian government, he hoped they would change sides or at least not stay pro EU/NATO, since then Ukraine has put a lot of effort to build up it's military, getting closer ties to the west and becoming more hostile to Russian interest, Putin knows he lost the people of Ukraine, so now he wants to force his will upon them. War is simply another means of doing politics.
4
@bololollek9245 https://youtu.be/Aqq8clIceys here you go Russia wants to avoid war if possible, war is simply the continuation of politics by other means, Russia is applying a lot of pressure on Ukraine from multiple sources, as well as a proxy war that killed 14.000 people but Ukraine instead of collapsing or changing it's focus instead got stronger and focused on becoming closer to the west, now seeing that Ukraine might actually join NATO, getting more weapons from the west and the decline of the Russian military in terms of overal demografics in Russia, he is considering invading to secure his buffer state, just like he did jn Kazachstan just a few weeks ago. War is more than just massing troops, it's gathering intelligence, it's testing your cyber Warfare abilities (which Russia has done), it's justifying war goals at home through propaganda, it's making sure nobody stabs you in the back while doing so and securing economic means to prevent outside forces from getting involved directly, Russia has done all these things and more, so to think they aren't going to invade at this point would make them look stupid almost, that's why the region is on high alert because people know how this game is played.
4
@danielsteger8456 not sure what you mean, I´m saying borders aren´t changing much anymore due to the nature of mutually assured destruction, two things can happen long term with this system in place. 1. the deterrent breaks down due to new technology be it defence based or offensive, in the process making war seem more likely as result. 2. the threat of losing power and desperation or fanaticism of ideology or religion causes the rise of irrational governments to risk nuclear war despite the immense losses for everyone involved. there is no way to avoid one of these things from happening long term and people are not aware of them, governments too are becoming to used to the long peace and simply assume nuclear war is impossible when in reality more nations than ever have them and some have even gone missing, we should pray that option 1 happens and we just have a massive war instead of allowing option 2 to become a reality. thinking this current system can go on or will go on forever, is delusional and naive.
4
@thegreenbean5891 Chinese shill
3
@MrPloopi yeah he wants a buffer state, everything is a threat to Russia because Russia knows it's living on borrowed time and losing hard. Does not matter how he feels about it, Russia is not the USSR, this is how geopolitics works, rise and decline.
3
@ko-Daegu Russia invades other nation You : "US did something like this X years ago in another country" Everyone : "ohhhh of course, how silly of us, well in that case, invade away" Perfect logic
3
Sounds like something Christopher Hitchens would have said about Iran I believe, could be wrong though.
3
short answer, no. long answer, no.
2
I think it's shamefull how little the west and USA care about Ukraine, after years of starting wars and causing problems in the middle-east and africa, the moment an actual european nation needs help from a threatning foe that also wants to join NATO and the EU and has already killed 14.000 people with it's proxy war, we abandon them and sign trade deals with Russia for gas, it's a disgrace and shows weakness in the western world which other nations like China are going to abuse in the near future if we do nothing.
2
to understand how ww3 would be fought, it should be speculated on where and for what reasons it will be fought over? one of the resources that I think we will see more conflicts over, is water but also farmland and rare resources for high end technologies like rare earths, in the case of the USA they don't realy need the rest of the world in terms of resources or economic motivation, they would realy be dragged into a war between other powers like China, Russia or perhaps in the future India, African nations or Europe. I can see China starting a war for domination over asia and wanting to defeat the US navy around them to then expand around them, while securing their sphere of influence. perhaps India will follow the same way, perhaps Russia would want to expand for security related reasons and Europe against Russia or some african or middle eastern hostile force. the tools of war we use today aren't realy that great, they are complex and accurate but not realy effective in a new great power conflict, the nice toys will be used up rather quickly, except perhaps for fighter planes since they are just so agile, fast and effective for hit and run tactics. I think once the tanks and most of the planes are destroyed you will see things like drone swarms, robotic assassins, automatic defence systems, these are cheap to make, can be mass produced and only realy need energy to run if made properly, I expect China would deploy them first and others having to adapt to them. for sure though the idea that ww3 would be fought like ww1 or ww2 is just going to be wrong.
2
@danielsteger8456 btw you put a lot of faith in the military, when it's made up of emotional people and irrational actors. Also religions are only dying in the west, the rest of the world is not, nor does that not give rise to ideologies like I mentioned before, history proves this again and again.
2
Well it could have been worse like the Germans, the communists or god forbid the French!
2
@craigkdillon in the case of Russia they are hoping for climate change due to their northern shores being potentially open for new sea lanes, they also have the most ice breaker ships in the world, I don't think these things are absolite because many landlocked nations in Europe have special canals so they can have sea access, Russia does not have these, nor do most other landlock countries and those tend to be more poor than those with plenty of shore line and deep water ports. One of the reasons why africa is so poor is because most of the continent does not have access to the sea, Europe has rivers, so does the USA, the yellow river in China, in Africa it's mostly just the nille and these are the parts were most wealth flows. Have access to the sea is key for economic development but in the case of Russia they could get access to other nations ports if they were liked and trusted by those nations but due to the nature of Russia and history they don't want to take any chances.
2
@v.5442 cope
1
One day some nation will find a way to stop ICBM's from being used and then nukes will become useless and wars might become more common.
1
Ohhhh don't worry traitor Milley is going to get his due in time, there is just no way he can get away with doing something like that, soldiers have been given 15 years for less, however the Biden admin and people on the top don't seem very competent, at worst he might be forced to resign but I think he deserves to go to jail for a very long time, it's insane why he's not in jail already but that's the current world for yah and the USA.
1
Pretty much
1
@Vanyali not on the battlefield which was the topic at hand. im still right.
1
@daniellenz6347 not that im aware of, probably other forms of chemical agents used or reaction indirectly on battle, no one used chemical weapons on the same scale as in ww1 and quite limited in ww2, though I could be wrong.
1
@florinivan6907 yeah that´s true though I would argue because they were the first to be weaponzed made them dominate and better than the alternative, in the future that might change if someone finds a way to defeat ICBM´s for a cheap cost, then governments will try and experiment with new forms of warfare, I think automated warfare is going to be the next step, with those you could still conduct war even with nuclear attacks but for now nuclear weapons will dominate the war question.
1
@snipdeath that's an incendiary weapon, it uses a chemical reaction to produce fire, likewise guns use a chemical reaction to propel a bullet forward, both aren't chemical weapons. In order for a weapon to be classified as a chemical weapon the weapon has to use it's chemicals directly on the target, agent Orange used in the Vietnam war was a chemical weapon, so is Sarin Gas. You could argue white phosorus is a chemical weapon since it's reaction causes chemical burns instead of regular burns like an incendiary weapon would.
1
@castor3020 I don´t think that´s accurate, they aren´t meant specifically for civilians and doing so is a big no-no in internationa relations, more likely that rebel groups and terrorists groups would use them for maximum terror. Iraq under sadam did use chemical weapons on civilians though im not sure if that was always for terror reasons or if there was some rebel group nearby and them deciding to just gas the whole village instead of going home by home to get who might be a spy or terrorist cel. have to look into this but during the Iraq-Iran war were chemical weapons used? it was a very ww1 style series of battles and Sadam had a huge stockpille of chemical weapons so seems likely he used them.
1
@frankrenda2519 you mean destroy it´s major cities, the USA as a whole probably survive but the deathtoll would be insane, any nation with nukes is a huge threat to everyone, it´s strange that people don´t really understand that.
1
@N/A they want Taiwan and Taiwan is important for the USA, also Japan, south korea, vietnam, China is a threat in the region and is a totalitarian government, they are the biggest threat to the USA, no-one else comes close.
1
Nuclear winter is actually not very likely, it was a prediction made during the cold war to try and convince both sides not to use them, it worked to a degree and both sides agreed to reduce their stockpilles so that a nuclear war would result not in 2 billion deaths but "only" 800 million or less deaths. But yeah ironically a nuclear war would probably set humanity back a 100 years and be more of a blessing for nature than us continuing to expand as we do, it's not like we can stop, we are animals after all but it be great if we were more responsable.
1
Psychopaths are actually quite logical and rational, it's the religieus or ideologically minded people who think they can do no wrong that pose a real threat.
1
Chemical weapons and biological weapons seem to have been pretty well banned though that could also be because nukes are just better so why bother with the others?
1
@gustavocarmo2500 like the art of war? Or Clausowitz? Was there not that american general who started acting silly and wanted to learn and understand "white rage"? If that's my competition, then I'm pretty sure I know more than he does. I never even said I know more than all the generals or elitist people in the world, So far all you do is make childish insults and not provide any rational arguments, in fact you appear as a common troll, trying to get attention, if that was your goal, then good job but you aren't that impressive in an argument if that was your goal.
1
@gustavocarmo2500 you do realise im talking about the political and strategy parts of the military right? If you look at the US military command upper levels some of the things they do is clownish and stupid, they make constant mistakes or write mission strategies that fail and fail hard while costing the USA trillions of dollars, gains nothing and in fact allows their enemies to grow bigger and faster, while their allies question if they should rely on the USA at all. If you compare those people at the top and some of the clowns in the military industrial complex with say the marines, the navy or the army they are way more competent and focused on results, the US marines esspecialy are some of the most competent, drilled and amasing elite soldiers in the world but would they be able to make a global wide strategy that would secure the interests of politicians and their corporate buddies? Of course not, they are there for the nation, to serve, basically to obey orders, hopefully because they just love the country so much but sometimes, it's more so the lack of other options or skills to thrive elsewhere and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think you are much of an adult if you can't understand what I'm saying, feel free to disagree but I'm not the one throwing insults.
1
@angrydragon4574 don't think that's accurate, they only had some heavy water plants but weren't very close to getting a nuclear weapon.
1
@craigkdillon well yes and no, Putin is not an idiot from the perspective of someone who wants to stay in power, however he is a crook and an idiot in trying to create the best country Russia could be but seeing as Russia used to be the USSR that little progress he did do were leaps from what they used to be. as for Russia itself, it's a different type of country than say the netherlands or germany, where both have stable cultures, governments, low corruption and access to sea lanes and trade routes, Russia is huge, very difficult to move goods to or from, frozen ports for most of the year and has multiple ethnic groups and cultures who in a more democratic and western style situation would likely move towards independence and seperatist nationalism. Russia is a bit of a relic in a new age trying to find it's place while wanting to hold on to the old ideas of being a super power, Putin is keeping the country down but his replacement might do so as well, there realy is no easy solution for Russia, at some point they have to bite the bullet and accept the world has changed and get a public as well as elitist movement to change the country and make peace with the west but since that is also at the cost of military security is very hard to pull off.
1
@craigkdillon yeah I agree, though Stalin did suppressed and killed many more people than the tsar his rule were about the same, except perhaps replacing the orthodox church with himself. Yes Putin has recreated the orthodox church but even further he has been trying to embrace islam as well as they are a growing demografic which clashes with more nationalistic people like Nevalny (the western media likes to display him as some pro democratic, anti authoritarian politician but he is realy a ultra nationalist) Everyone can pass through the sea lanes but what can they sell? Cars? Microchips? Bikes? I have no idea and the USA can blockade any progress they make with sanctions, because resources are so nessisary for western nations these lines of flow are less likely to be targeted with sanctions and can be used as political bargaining chips for other issues, it's why Nord stream 2 with Germany is a big deal because it makes Germany less energy independent. Further Russia has so many problems all at once, demografics, corruption, military security, distrusted by other nations, seperatist movements, all at once and Putin as a authoritarian leader is more focused on staying in power, it's very delicate and balanced between reform and holding on to power, once Putin is gone you could see some major changes or a repeat of his policies, who knows for sure? As for Xi, im not sure actualy how he compares, he's an authoritarian leader for sure, basicaly a bit like Hitler in terms or totalitarian government but China's economy is still growing right? Also demografics problems but in terms of growth still very strong I believe.
1
@craigkdillon not sure if that's fully accurate since China has gotten sanctions and trade war with USA due to China's actions yet the same was applied to Europe to a lesser degree, Russia has no warm water ports except the one in Cremea which due to them annexing it in full caused the sanctions to begin with, you also have some trade in the far east but again the distance from western Russia to eastern Russia is huge. Russia does make things and exports them to European markets but those same markets are in competition with eachother, the US and China, not all countries can make micro chips or smart phones and even if they could they would get out competed with other companies, Russia can only stick with what they are good at which is basic things like food, oil, gas, weapons and so on, the only way for them to diversity their economy would be for their people, economy and government to be stable with stable property rights, the way Russia works just does not support this. Wealth creation is all about possibilities, capitalism, trade lanes, stable property rights and innovation and Russia has almost non of these things and simply changing the leader won't fix that overnight. I do wonder what you think would happen if say Russia became more of a legit democracy, had more western values, property rights and perhaps become part of the EU, I know the EU itself does not want Russia to join it but if it by some miracle did would that be possitive for Russia or would it harm both Russia and the EU? Love to hear your thoughts on this.
1
@craigkdillon but is China not the one who has representatives and people in every state owned and non state owned company in China? And their reach has moved so far beyond their own borders they influence and direct many multi-national corporations, how can that be if such a policy would turn them into Russia? I think it's not the case because China is an export market and has such a massive share in world exports that they can do whatever they want and pretty much get away with it unless governments make clear that's not how it works but many of them aren't as harsh on China than they are on Russia from my perspective. The internet has been sanitized for the most part, only a handfull of big tech companies rule most of global communications, their globalist multinational nature makes sure they have no loyalty to any nation and have more wealth, influence and power than most nations, rather than something of the future, it looks far more backwards and harmfull, while I don't enjoy anti trust policies with some of these giants it might be nessisary.
1
@craigkdillon I did not know about the Niger river or Congo river but you are misunderstanding what I mean, I mean water lanes, via rivers or shores gives access to greater trade routes from which civilizations can grow and can create multigenerational wealth, most of Africa is one giant land mass with only few large rivers and no interal shorelines, it's hard to explain but when you look at a map of Europe you see a relatively small land mass with many shorelines with interwoven river systems and canals to give greater access to the seas, the Netherlands is a good example, as is the UK both of which became sea focused trade empires, while countries like Germany and Russia are more land based, though Russia used to have access to the baltic countries and even learned boat building from the Dutch thanks to Peter the great. The west of Russia is where most of the people are because most early russian civilizations settled near the rivers, it's also where most of their trade takes place, however the north east of Russia is the Frozen Tundra of Siberia and the vast boreal forests beyond, compare that to the USA which habitat and sea access is far more easy to access and is located in a perfect location for trade with asia to the west and Europe and west Africa to the east, along with south america to the south, made even easier with the panama canal. What im trying to say is sea lanes are the lifeblood of trade which generates wealth, it's not only that of course but it's a measurement of potential of wealth, Kasakstan or western part of China are never going to be as wealthy as the eastern part which is closer to the sea. Likewise Russia has huge amount of land but very little shoreline which they can use, which limits their access to trade, they could solve this issue by investing in better trains and gaining better access to western markets which would then give oppertunity to invest in new Russian products produced in their countries, though not all western nations would like this as well, it's complicated but in most cases easier trade and free markets does produce more wealth.
1
@craigkdillon there is an interesting project the Dutch had come up with, that would attempt to block the northern sea and the english canal to prevent rising sea levels from destroying most of western Europe due to climate change, it's quite a bonkers project but long term it might be the best way to prevent destruction of many European shore based cities and whole countries, most likely including Russia's shore based cities.
1
This is true.
1