Comments by "Anders Juel Jensen" (@andersjjensen) on "Putin's "landslide" is a new totalitarian milestone" video.

It's hard NOT to like Vexler. He's just the kind of guy you want to give a big hug. Every vibe he gives off is non-violent.
4
Except Anders is Danish and Denmark ranks significantly higher on the Functional Democracy score than the US. Currently a bill, that passed the Senate with 60% in favor, is being held up by a single man in the House. A single dude, that nobody knew a year ago, can block any bill by not scheduling a vote.... That is not possible in Denmark.
3
The people is singular. So the phrase "the people is with Putin" is correct. Milk and sand are always singular, but people can be plural or singular depending on context.
2
War is here with all it's horrors. If we play it smart, and give the Ukrainians what they need, it will end in Ukraine.
1
@The_ZeroLine I did. And it's correct according to the Oxford dictionary. Hence why peoples (plural, not possessive) exist. "The people" can refer a group of individuals or a unity depending on context. And in my language gramar would make the distinction obvious. "The French revolution happened because the people was fed up with the situation" and "There was confusion because the people outside were unusually loud" are examples of the distinction. It may sound old fashioned/stiff to you, but it is correct British English, and hence that's what's taught in Danish higher learning institutions.
1
@anderspuck Question for the defence analytic (anyone feel free to upvote if you want this answered): Ukraine has recently started playing "Petro Bingo" with the Russia's oil refinery distillation/fractionation towers, which are what turns crude oil into more valuable product. The quote "Armies run on food and fuel" is an adaptation of "Armies run on food and feed" from the horse-back days, so it makes sense Ukraine would do this, since it hurts both the Russian armed forces AND hurts the Russian economy. So my question is: In defence planning and analysis, how much consideration, planning and maybe even procurement are we actually doing in the west when it comes to an adversary's military supporting infrastructure? Are we always planning to just fight their army? Or is it an active element of war to disrupt as many inputs to the enemy's army as possible, as quickly as possible? I ask because there are "voices" "suggesting" that this is somehow a dick move, but during WWII an enormous effort was made, by all sides, to disrupt everything that the enemy's army could benefit from, in any way, what so ever. Not just weapons factories, but raw steel plants, dockyards, refineries, chemical plants, uniform factories, canned food factories, etc, etc.
1