Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Infographics Show" channel.

exactly, you can't invade a country that doesn't exist (yet).
20
"european history has shown for centuries that the only deterent to war on the continent has always been strong political and military alliances" I am sorry but what history did you learn? Strong political and military alliances almost always ended in a bigger war, the most recent example being WW1. What stops wars is strong economical entanglement, literally making a war impossible because it would be too expensive and would destroy your economy completely.
14
@itr8247 Russia is using around 30-50% of their combat land forces in the Ukrainian conflict. Don't make the mistake of thinking Russia has a massive army like the USSR did. Even their amount of tanks is overrated, they have around 3000 active tanks and maybe another 3000 than be brought back into function from storage, but that will take time. Russia is just much weaker than was thought previously, it has banked too much for too long on what they inherited from the USSR.
7
I always got the impression that Gengis khan/the mongols were ruthless rather than just evil. If you don't resist, you seem to end up just fine. But if you kill their envoys or others, they will be ruthless and make an example.
7
Billions?
6
how would it be a better place?
6
I don't understand why people keep blaming the eu for the migration problems. Migration is something from all time and has happened often when there are hardships somewhere. The current/previous crisis was not caused by the EU, but by the location of europe to the middle east. Most muslims in the UK didn't came because of the EU, but because of the UK's old colonial empire. The EU has barely any power concerning migration from the outside. Only internal migration (east to west) is caused by the EU.
4
how is the eu like the soviet union but worse? If this is the case, then why don't the eastern countries leave. They have been under the soviet union, I would think if this is worse and they have an option to leave (which they have seeing the uk can leave), why don't they?
4
@sadak163 200-300k troops aren't just mobilised and prepared for an invasion easily. It takes days in the most optimistic scenario's, in reality more like weeks. More than enough time for NATO intelligence to pick up on it and increase the baltics and Eastern European defences, while also placing all NATO armies on high alert, ready to quickly mobilise and be sent to the front.
3
+Kat KaleChips Yeah, because it wasn't like the US only had 2 direct neigbours and was further surrounded by oceans, oh wait it was. Nearly all world powers where in europe pre-ww1 on a continent smaller in scale then the entire US and a history of conflict between those nations. The US couldn't possibly have started a ww at that stage, how? Attacking mexico? British Canada? ha, it would have remained a local conflict almost definitely. But since we have the means of fast and far travel (post ww2), which nation has been at war several times in the past few decades, which country nearly caused ww3 with nuclear annihilation? Oh yeah. Which country has been at war for most of it's existence?
3
patriotism is loving and protecting your country, while nationalism is seeing your country/people as better than other countries/people. (definition of nationalism: an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.)
3
no it's not the same shit, patriotism is something good and can be on large and small scale and you can be patriotic to several things. Like I am patriotic to my direct surrounding area (flanders), but I am also patriotic towards the EU and after that to my country Belgium. If I was a nationalist towards any of these tmhere is no real way I can be also patriotic to the others. Eg. if I a nationalistic about my region flanders, I think of it as better than any other region, including these in the EU or Belgium, but I know this is not the case, so it's not nationalism. Nationalism is a very extreme form of patriotism. Most people in history would have had some feelings of patriotism, but nationalism is more of a dangerous niche. You could see nationalism as more aggressive, while patriotism is more defensive.
3
+Sveer Ler Not the EU's fault, but swedish immigration laws though.
2
"90% of the rapes on Sweden are made by Islamic persons" Could you give a source for this numbers? (Genuinly interested) "There were 32,000 stabbing crimes in the UK" So? What do you mean with that? There are already 35k shooting incidents in the US. See this doesn't say shit without you saying why you put that number there.
2
exactly, I am pro eu and don't underestimate the importance of nato in its initial phases, but now nato isn't really a necessity. Hell nato dissapearing might even be a good weak up call to the eu states to more actively work on a common defence force. I always am surprised that people these days are so fearfull of nato falling apart (which is expected to happen if the US wishes it), the last years it has been less of a defence force and almost like an expansion of the UN, but controlled (mostly) by the US, it has more or less lost it's purpose. As long as the eu survives we will probably be fine, and without nato the eu might even slowly move to be a "mediator" between Russia and the US. (and in all honesty whether NATO exists or not, the US would not just standby if Russia would take military action against europe and vice versa (if nothing drastically changes, like the US becoming full isolationist again). Europe now provides a kind of balance in favour of the US, were europe to fall under Russian influence, Russia might once again become a viable adversary to the US.)
2
speaking about about the eu being similar to the US is stupid. The US has been together for several centuries and at least strongly as one for more than a century, while the eu has around 200 million more people, has larger differences in languages, cultures, social status, ... and has a history of warring eachother for millenia. So logically the US should be better than a combined EU. Also they always tried to take either the average of the EU, the worst country or talked about both the worst and best countries.
1
I didn't make any claim on who is better, just that if we are comparing a relatively young and still developing union (politically speaking) with a country that has been one country for a much longer time, the US should need to be able to have made progress earlier (on some topics) and be better than the eu. When I was talking about war, I was talking about internal wars, eg between the EU members (last major one in 1940-1945 ) vs internal wars in the US (which the last one was the civil war in 1885 (or somewhere around that time). The eu still needs to overcome the differences in language, social differences, economic differences, ... Not to mention the fact that al EU members are politically independent compared to the US ps. I am european (from belgium, the land of the high taxes)
1
op zich zijn de culturele verschillen geen probleem, voornamelijk de sociale verschillen tussen west en oost op dit moment en het feit dat op politiek er nog teveel problemen zijn door voornamelijk geen echte europese regering, afbakening van bevoegdheden, ... Uiteindelijk verwacht ik wel dat we uiteindelijk naar een gemeenschappelijk taal zullen gaan naast de regionale talen. Dit gebeurt nu al langzaam op natuurlijke wijze met het engels. Dus ja ik denk net als jou dat dat uiteindelijk wel zal gebeuren. Het grootste verschil tussen europa en de vs is de onafhankelijkheid van de europese lidstaten t.o.v. de staten in de VS en dus vindt ik dat de EU vergelijken met de VS op institutioneel niveau gewoon stom is, zoals sommigen hier doen.
1
well, Russia is basically the only real possible NATO adversary at the moment and you need to hold war games/exercises if working and coordinating with so many countries. Also Russia hasn't been the nicest kid on the block either.
1
It basically would be in terms of structure be something like the UK (the same goes for a united EU), with an overarching federal government (westminster), regional/national governments (scotland, etc), provincial governments (north-east, london, east midlands, ...) and local government (mayor, etc). This is already how many nations actually function in one way or another, you only add an extra level and decide which governments has which powers. (if the UK had stayed in the EU, eventually westminster might (a big maybe) have dissapeared and just been incorporated in the EU level government. After all, what would be the difference between a westminster and eu government, nothing, only more nations under it.)
1
The USA spends like 3-4% of their GDP. The best thing in the EU is to at least cooperate on spending (for new equipment) and on dividing up the necessary things, for example why should "smaller" countries like Belgium and the Netherlands focus on all three branches and not just two, or something.
1
In this entire comment section most I read is about immigration and islam, something the EU has barely any cause in. Many muslims in the past came to europe due to the old colonial empires, especially france and the uk. The EU also holds no power over outside migration, only internal migration (east to west eu for example). The immigration outside the EU to the EU is very much in the hands of the national states. In fact responses during the refugee crisis took so long because the heads of the memberstates had to conviene and agree on what should be done. The greatest cause for the lastest refugee crisis is the situation in the middle east and its proximity to the EU. Whether the EU existed or not, it would still have happened. Migration problems have been things from practically all times. There now is just more mobility and better knowledge of a the better world/countries.
1
World conquest, wahahaha.
1