Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Artur Rehi" channel.

  1.  @svennielsen633 There’s nothing in the PfP agreement that requires NATO members to come to the defense of a non-NATO member. Its purpose is to have a program aimed at creating trust and cooperation between the member states of NATO and it *aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government.*. It says nothing about defending, protecting or even providing aid to a member if one is attacked.
    1
  2.  @TankandDimples  There is nothing to disagree about the Budapest Memorandum. Read the document. It says nothing about the US defending, protecting or even providing military aid. If you don’t agree, then cite the clause from the memorandum that says otherwise.
    1
  3.  @Anonymous__519  How did the US make Germany weaker? The Germans pay a very small of their GNP on defense. Trump warned them years ago that they needed to spend more. How is this the US’s fault?
    1
  4.  @Anonymous__519  How did the US cause Germany to pay less when it was the US telling Germany that it needed to spend more? This is from 2018: *U.S. President Donald Trump accused Germany on Wednesday of being a "captive" of Russia due to its energy reliance, before a NATO summit.*. Google Trump Calls Germany Captive of Russia, Demands Higher Defense Spending.
    1
  5.  @FoldedCloak  Read the Budapest Memorandum. It says nothing about the US or UK protecting, defending or providing arms to Ukraine. In fact, it wouldn’t make sense. The memorandum was signed right after the collapse of the USSR. The US and UK weren’t friends with Ukraine, and in fact Ukraine was still closely aligned with Russia at that time.
    1
  6.  @deanfirnatine7814  Have you even read the Budapest Memorandum? It doesn’t appear so by your comment.
    1
  7.  @kumunoynimanoy5400  Clearly you haven’t read the memorandum. Before making baseless accusations next time do your homework at least so that you know wtf you’re talking about.
    1
  8.  @kumunoynimanoy5400  BS! Cite the exact clause number and words then. There’s no requirement anywhere in the memorandum that requires the US or UK to defend, protect or even provide arms to Ukraine. Quit lying.
    1
  9.  @kumunoynimanoy5400  I’m waiting! Clearly you don’t understand how contract law works. Something of that importance would be explicitly stated in the memorandum, but it’s not. You also fail to understand that a memorandum is technically a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, which is a very weak instrument when it comes to binding obligations under contract law. It’s not as legally enforceable as a contract or agreement. I used to work in this field so stop the lying BS. You obviously haven’t read the memorandum, otherwise you could have quickly cited the clause. I support Ukraine, but I don’t like people who lie saying it’s a contractual obligation when it’s not. I feel the US being the world’s strongest democracy has a moral obligation to help.
    1
  10. The Russians can come out on the streets. Look at how the Iranians are risking it all. The Russians aren’t the strong people that they want everyone to believe.
    1
  11. Your jokes get through perfectly fine. I’m not so sure about the brainwashed Russians though.
    1
  12.  @Molt.-ep7cu1  Read the Budapest Memorandum. The security guarantee is that the parties will respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial borders. There is nothing written about the U.S. having to provide any kind of aid. And Ukraine didn’t have control of the nuclear weapons. Russia did. Ukraine didn’t even want them because it didn’t have the funds or resources to properly maintain them.
    1
  13.  @Molt.-ep7cu1  Please just read the Budapest Memorandum. It’s very short. You can see for yourself. Just curious, what country are you from and why are you spreading lies? Just because European countries reduced their budgets that doesn’t mean the US is required to help. The US warned its allies for over a decade that they needed to increase their military spending, and they ignored the advice.
    1
  14. You seem a lot more informed than all the woke people.
    1
  15. Not going to happen. Trump likes $, but he’s not going to sell an advanced weapons system to a country that has a long history of stealing technology.
    1
  16. According to Russian trolls Russia is winning, and yet there’s projection that additional men will be mobilized. Maybe you’ll be lucky and be one of them.
    1
  17. Please do read the subtitles. I watch/listen to your videos when I’m driving to and from work. Thanks!
    1
  18. I have read that the F-35 is much easier and safer to fly though.
    1
  19.  @okok-gg5fl  What does that have to do with helping Ukraine? And the US didn’t start the Gulf War alone. The first war was approved by the UN. Yes, the US took lead, and it absorbed most of the costs and did the majority of the fighting. The second war in Iraq not all countries participated, it was mainly the US and UK. The war in Afghanistan was to fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda. They’re a global threat, not just a threat to the US. The US hasn’t left Ukraine behind. What country are they still using weapons from? What country is providing the intel from? What country is paying for their first responders? The US has done far more than any other country, and all Europe keeps doing is begging for more. Look at the numbers! If Trump gets elected you’re not going to see another penny go towards helping Ukraine. Instead of always blaming the US do something.
    1
  20.  @okok-gg5fl  WTF does that have to do with helping Ukraine? The UN approved the first war in Iraq, and ISIS and Al Qaeda are a global problem, not just an American one.
    1
  21.  @okok-gg5fl  GET AN EDUCATION. THE UN APPROVED THE WAR IN IRAQ, AND ISIS/AL QAEDA IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM!
    1
  22.  @okok-gg5fl  You do realize that the war in Iraq was approved by the UN, and most likely by your country? You do realize that Al Qaeda and ISIS are worldwide problems, and not just a U.S. one?
    1
  23.  @okok-gg5fl  I should have mentioned above that it’s the US that has provided the majority of the weapons. It’s far from cowardice. Instead of relying on the US all the time pressure your own government to help Ukraine. This isn’t just a US problem. The US has global obligations. It can’t pay for everyone’s security. What country do you think will come to Israel or Taiwan’s aid if they are attacked? My gawd, it unbelievable how entitled you think you are for America’s help. Take some responsibility and stop expecting others to pay for your security.
    1
  24.  @totodutchie  I can’t stand Trump. My concern is what if Trump is elected. What is Europe going to do? Is it going to sit back and continue expecting the US to help or is it going to open its eyes and finally give Ukraine the help it needs? Did you know that pre-WWII that the US wasn’t a world power? It wasn’t even ranked in the top ten. The US was very much isolationist at that time. It thought the war was Europe’s war. The US is leaning that way again under Trump. What’s funny is that not long ago Europeans griped that the US interfered too much in world affairs. Now that the war directly threatens Europe you all have seemed to change your attitude.
    1
  25.  @SindariGreymoon  Don’t lie! The current polls have Trump ahead of Biden 44 to 41 percent, with Kennedy at 15%.
    1
  26.  @totodutchie  I don’t like Trump. My concern is what is Europe going to do if he’s elected? And learn more about history before bashing the US about WWII.
    1
  27.  @totodutchie  The US has given far more than Europe. Much of Europe’s aid is in loans, not grants like what the US has given. It’s Europe that hasn’t done 💩 in comparison to the US. And the US wasn’t a world power in WWII. It wasn’t even ranked in the top ten, and it was very isolationist at that time. The US has been there for its allies for decades, and Europe has taken advantage of it. Trump warned European countries years ago, but he was ignored. That’s probably why he’s acting like a baby now not willing to provide any more help. With your attitude it’s beyond me why the US helps people like you. You take, take, take, and then cry when someone asks for you to your fair share for once. Grow up. Ukraine needs Europe’s help. Quit relying solely on the US and help them!
    1
  28.  @fredbass9330  It has helped Ukraine. Europe needs to stop expecting the US to protect it. If Trump is elected then that means European nations are going to need to step up and help Ukraine defeat Russia. Trump has already said he’s not giving Ukraine any more help, and sadly he’s leading in the polls over Biden. That means in around nine months Trump could be President. I don’t want Trump to win, but if it happens I hope European countries have what it takes to help Ukraine defeat Russia.
    1
  29.  @TheGuru895  Dummy, if you read the rest of my comments you’d see that I don’t support Trump. My worry is if he is elected Europe is going to need to help a lot more if that happens. Educate yourself.
    1
  30. Russia 👿
    1
  31. Not coming to the defense of Russia, but it sometimes advantageous to retreat to a more favorable position. It’s one of the reasons why Germany’s Desert Fox Rommel was so effective in Africa.
    1
  32.  @norwegiangadgetman  Excellent comment! Thanks.
    1
  33.  @franceyneireland1633  GNP doesn’t matter. Stop expecting the US to pay for your security. If Trump is elected you’re screwed. I am not voting for Trump, but he is leading in the polls. And you can’t wait until next November to see what happens. Europe needs to step up and help Ukraine now before it’s too late.
    1
  34.  @diegoflores9237  We don’t owe them anything, but we should help, just like the French who helped us become independent from England.
    1
  35.  @franceyneireland1633  That doesn’t matter. What is Europe going to do if Trump is elected?
    1
  36.  @scottlanghorst1483  Read the Budapest Memorandum. It says nothing about the US protecting Ukraine. Think about it logically. The memorandum was signed right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neither the U.S. or UK were allies with Ukraine at that time. There’s no way that either country would agree to protect Ukraine.
    1
  37.  @karilang9377  Who cares? Does the U.S. have any obligation to help? No, and yet it’s still provided far more military aid than any other country. Europe needs to get its ass in gear because Trump is leading in the polls, and if he’s elected he won’t help Ukraine anymore.
    1
  38.  @MrKakibuy  Wrong. You won’t find a single expert who agrees with you. Something like taking action as a result of another party’s noncompliance would be explicitly written in the memorandum. I am familiar with contracts, and that would be a remedy clause, but there are no such terms. Do you really think that the American public would have supported such stipulations when Ukraine wasn’t even an ally? Be sensible.
    1
  39. Thank you Artur for reading the captions! It was perfect for my ride to work.
    1
  40. @ Why are you spreading misinformation? It’s the same nonsense over and over.
    1
  41.  @LibertyPrimeOnline  No you didn’t. I just read the thread and you haven’t cited 💩. Try being honest for once. Keep running!
    1
  42.  @TheFFOz  I voted for Kamala solely because she supports Ukraine, but I can understand why people voted for Trump. Kamala supported transgenders playing in female sports. She supported taxpayers paying for prisoner sex change operations. She supported the defund police movement. She did a horrible job as the border czar protecting our borders. She didn’t think that Biden did anything wrong, yet inflation went sky high and groceries were no longer affordable for many people. Under Biden the homeless situation has exponentially increased, which has only gotten worse because of the millions of illegal immigrants who flooded into the country. The US has many problems of its own, and he is the president of the United States, not the world.
    1
  43. @ What are you talking about? The attack on 9-11 was an attack on all western civilization. Western nations are still fighting against terrorists. What do you mean the US surrendered? The US made it clear long in advance that it was leaving Afghanistan. Twenty years was already too long, and the primary goal was already achieved. The US already spent two trillion dollars in Afghanistan, and it was still nowhere near being the independent democracy that we hoped it would be. And you don’t think that the U.S. has helped Europe in time of need? The European countries were warned for over a decade from the U.S. to spend more on defense. They did the exact opposite and told the U.S. to mind its own business. European countries don’t have any deal with the US like you’re insinuating. Don’t be ridiculous. The US gets lots of sales because its equipment works. That’s why European countries have tenders where the companies complain against each other. The US has an advantage because of its economy and that it’s very good at making high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently.
    1
  44.  @marktrotter8971  The US didn’t surrender. It was well known in advance that the US was going to leave. Twenty years and two trillion dollars later was already too much. And the attack on 9-11 was an attack on all western civilization. It’s why ISIS and Al Qaeda are threats to all democracies, not just the United States. The US achieved its main goal in Afghanistan ten years earlier anyway, and trying to help the Afghan people become a free independent and democratic nation was going nowhere. Unlike in Ukraine, they were not willing to fight for it. Don’t give me that nonsense that there’s some sort of understanding that the U.S. will protect Europe. While the US spends over 3% of its GNP on defense, most European countries have been lucky to spend at most two percent. Only recently did they increase spending. Why should my taxpayer monies protect you? The US warned European countries to spend more on defense for over ten years. They did the exact opposite and told the U.S. to mind its own business. The US makes large sales because its weapons work really well. We’re seeing it in Ukraine. European countries don’t just give the weapons contracts to the U.S. There are tenders where companies compete against each other. Europe takes the US for granted. The US has provided just as much military aid as all the other countries combined, and on top of that the US is helping Israel defend itself as well as Taiwan. Imagine how high domestic good prices would go up if the US did keep the waterways open in the Red Sea, Strait of Hormuz, South China Sea, etc. European countries need to do a lot more and to stop expecting the US to protect them.
    1
  45.  @marktrotter8971  I tried responding twice, but YouTube removed the comments. You’re wrong on both points. The US planned to pull out of Afghanistan long in advance. Twenty years and $2 trillion dollars later it was time to leave. And 9-11 wasn’t an attack on just the US, but against all western civilization. There’s no arrangement for the US to protect Europe. The US warned its allies for over a decade to increase military spending, and they ignored the advice. The US gets sales because its equipment works, as you’ve seen in Ukraine.
    1
  46. @ I’ve already read it very thoroughly. The US’s only obligation is to notify the UN Security Council. It says nothing about the U.S. defending or providing aid to Ukraine.
    1
  47.  @DraconimLt  Exactly! It says for the US to notify the Security Council so that it can take action to help Ukraine. It doesn’t say that the US must provide direct help, but that the Security Council will seek to find help for Ukraine.
    1
  48. @ The Washington Post wrote an article about the Budapest Memorandum that explains its implications. It states, But unlike Article 5 of NATO charter, it does not require a specific response from the United States or others. So it’s worth a little history lesson. The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism. And while it provides security assurances, they do not include specific promises with regard to a potential invasion.
    1
  49. @ The exact wording is what matters. The US and UK have already taken the issue to the UN Security Council. They’ve already got international support for Ukraine. The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but its role there isn’t as a direct participant to help Ukraine directly. It’s got a vote as part of the Council. It doesn’t mean that it must directly participate. You won’t find any legal opinion that supports that argument. If that was the case, go ask China why they aren’t helping more. France is also a member, and they haven’t helped much in comparison to other countries. Think about it logically. The U.S. wasn’t even an ally of Ukraine when the memorandum was signed. There’s no way we’d agree to help a country thirty years in the future that wasn’t even a friend. That would be like the U.S. agreeing to help Syria thirty years from now. It would not happen. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that Russia is going to give back the territory that cost it so much to take. Who’s going to force it?
    1
  50. @ What a load of nonsense. You won’t find anywhere in the UN Charter that says a UN Security Council member must provide direct assistance. You won’t find one credible source that supports your opinion that being a member of the Security Council automatically makes them directly involved. Go cry to China if you believe that. They’re also a Security Council member. Prove me wrong! You know you can’t. There’s nothing in the memorandum about protecting Ukraine. The security assurances are that each country would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial borders, which the U.S. has. The memorandum says nothing about helping Ukraine if another country invades it. The US wasn’t even an ally of Ukraine, and you expect the USA to agree to provide protection for it! Be sensible. You even said earlier that regardless of what the memorandum says, which tells me you know you’re wrong. What the memorandum says has everything to do with US obligations. Furthermore, you repeatedly fail to use common sense. A president doesn’t have the authority to require the U.S. to provide protection or even aid to another country 30 years into the future. That would require an act of Congress, and would be done with a treaty. Just look at the other arrangements that the U.S. has to protect other countries. None of them are by a memorandum. Think for once. Imagine if Trump entered into a memorandum promising to provide aid to Russia if it’s involved in a war. Do you really expect future presidents to follow his own dealings? Of course not. Be sensible.
    1