Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Professor Gerdes Explains 🇺🇦 " channel.

  1. @genconsensus4205 I don't share your speculation: Musk appears to be doing what businessmen do: sourcing raw materials; building things and establishing trading links. Both China and Russia are technologically driven (not money or "debt obligation" driven); both have space programs (bigger than his Space X); the Chinese view robots as workers (and like Musk they are good at manufacturing), they have advanced computer and A.I. technology; not sure where they are with electric cars, but if battery technology improves Tesla is well positioned. There are Western businesses still operating in Russia and China, some say that's a bad thing; but then they are usually the ones trying to find enemies or blame others (largely to divert attention). Both Russia and China have no need for: hedge-funds; Western social media or companies that give money to government (unless they are state controlled). Russia ejected all them and casinos, but you'll find any number of Western hotel chains operating. Not sure if Radisson know their hotel used to be the HQ for the Ukrainian mafia, but it is a stunning building. I don't see any evidence that Musk received Russian funding or that Twitter is suppressing Ukrainian content providers, so like your conclusion that Musk is compromised it seems to lack evidence. He got drunk in Russia (during the World Cup) well that's not a crime (lol) it happens a lot there and if you are trying to tell me that Musk doesn't have people that look out for him that's very hard to believe. The Steel dossier turned out to be a fake; part of the Clinton Russia gate hoax; I'm not saying the Russian KGB didn't have two way mirrors in Hotel Intourist; but Musk would most likely be viewed as a foreign dignitary and therefore could come to no harm. Who knows what happened, you don't! Again you level unfounded accusations this time that Musk is in the pay of authoritarians and fascists; it sounds like drivel and besides neither the Chinese or Russians are fascists; that's more the far right in America who seem to fund both main American political parties. The Chinese are communists and the Russians are socialists as far as government goes; you must be an American. They generally aren't that good at geography or political ideology and currently with two right wing parties, the next vote will be war or war and they've let their oligarchs asset strip most of the Western economy. $33 Trillion in debt?! Meantime the owners of the Western media seem to be in the business of setting people at each others throats, fostering hatred between supporters of the two main parties; Russia; China; Africa... cheerleaders for war (after lying us into two already); one of their fav strategies the smear campaign (just like what you're trying to do). As for Ukraine; they don't care about the people of Ukraine or the homeless that litter the streets of America, they are interested in money (they talk about it all the time); nobody uses the $/Rouble, but they talk about it all the time and they are (imo) running "cover" as billions gets exported as they try to "play" Europe. So I don't believe Musk is the problem here; it's just another attempt to divert attention and I do believe the far-right are going to need some diversion as their charitable contributions to Ukraine appear lost. Choosing Russia AND China as enemies (at the one time); we must admire their ambition and dull stupidity.
    4
  2. 124 vehicles and fuel tanks; 51 armored fighting vehicles; 19 Tanks; 64 artillery systems... and 1,690 (could be Russian, could be Koreans)... whadaday! (for a day dream). The Times (News Corp): Ukraine May Develop Home Grown Nukes. Yes, plant a few seeds; grow your own; reap what you sow. Best to wait 'till May.
    4
  3. Certainly not over Ukraine; Russia has said as much; while firing missiles at mainland Russia will engender a response. You can talk amongst yourselves.
    3
  4. The Anglo/French "Stormshadow" requires satellite data for guidance (provided by America); those launching these kind of sophisticated long-range missile systems would be NATO personnel; firing them at mainland Russia equates to a "first strike" (which is more than likely going to expand the Ukrainian conflict into a world war). Since America basically runs NATO; it's largely their decision, whether to fire long-range missiles at a nuclear superpower (who have vowed to retaliate). It should be mentioned that there is no known defense to the Russian (Mach 27) Avangard and possibly even their (Mach 10) Kinzhal. Careful what you wish for...
    3
  5. I can.
    3
  6. Yes, just don't let him near the piano...
    3
  7. No; it was always clear the Russia would go to war before NATO ever recruited Ukraine. While the Senator seems to have missed the eight year civil war (peaceful Ukraine??)
    3
  8. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make: Elon Musk is a businessman; profit/loss determines if he's a successful businessman, or not and if people are not going to pay for his companies goods, or services, then they won't receive them. If I remember correctly: America has it's own satellites (but giving them to Ukraine might be viewed as America v Russia); Ukraine put Musk on a "kill list" (enemy of the state) and while Starlink has many uses, if it's weaponized then it is a legitimate target. The bottom line is there's nothing in it for Musk, except trouble. He certainly has upset the warmongers, who incidentally won't be going, they are busy diverting billions (in public money) a lot of it to themselves and I would agree with you that people, even countries, are becoming less charitable towards Ukraine, likely because there's absolutely nothing in it for them, except trouble. I therefore agree with Elon Musk when he advocates negotiations between Ukraine and Russia; but it has become increasingly clear that various Western interests do not want peace and the reason is, there's something in it for them and/or they stand to lose the billions in "investment" used in trying to coax Ukraine to join them (in spite of Russia's repeated warnings). A reasonable summation is that Elon Musk is not against, or with, the warmongers; that's his call and it's been made. He doesn't make weapons; war is bad for business, NOT HIS PROBLEM!
    3
  9. Russia and America collaborated in decommissioning Soviet stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons, in Ukraine, which was agreeable to all at the time. Some of these weapons were poorly maintained and becoming a liability, so America provided $6 Billion and Russia provided facilities and they were removed. The UK and USA (as cosignatories) gave certain assurances (not guarantees) and Soviet assets were divided and Ukraine got a port leasing fee and could levy gas tariffs (this was all Soviet stuff). Ukraine never had nuclear weapons, they were Russian and behind encryption; the assurances were more to do with there being no political, or economic, interference in Ukraine and borders to be respected. Unfortunately foreign companies moved in to take control of Ukrainian agriculture and a gas pipeline; both the USA and EU provided money and advisors (this was economic interference) and after repeated warnings from Russia were ignored; Russia went to war and have, by now, largely destroyed the corporate assets. Now there's just the rebuilding contract and loans (plus interest) to fight over; the gas pipeline closed; the USA and UK have no obligation to protect Ukraine (it's optional).
    2
  10. The conflict in Ukraine isn't going to be settled at sea; it might be time for this commentator to learn how to pronounce simple place names, because Sevastopol may be an odd place to have a key port, but that's the main reason Russia annexed Crimea (by referendum) as the leasing arrangement was put in doubt when (allegedly) America toppled the Ukrainian government in 2014. It should also be mentioned that it was Ukrainian missiles that killed two in Poland and hit a market; these things seem to happen when there is talk of Western funding drying up. America is $33 Trillion in debt; around 35 days to raise the debt ceiling; inner city decay and homeless on the streets, if that's what we are supposed to be fighting for, no thanks! As for running a long distance proxy war on Russia's doorstep; you've no chance; it seems more and more likely Ukraine will cease to exist, unless they negotiate with Russia. Turkey controls the Black Sea (entry and exit); Russia has air control and superior missile technology; the American far-right is profiting while Europe is being damaged; their plan all along, I'd say. If it's true Mrs Z bought a million in jewelry the other day; there's somebody planning an exit strategy and we are going to get a big bill. Ukraine should have stayed neutral.
    2
  11. I'm a fan of Prof Joseph Bell; a Scot who emphasized the importance of close observation in making a diagnosis. If I remember correctly Russia has it's own social media; Russian has a different alphabet (32 characters... where Zee looks like 3 and one letter sounds like the "ch" in Loch Ness); my conclusion is this is not Russian social media (because I couldn't read it), so who is trolling who? Is it the commie sympathizers; AI or paid propagandists; who cares? Actually I thought with all the farmland Western companies bought and the revelations (by the Pentagon, 46 "bio-labs") that it was to do with GM crops (which is speculation on my part), it might just be idle speculations since after Western advisors left Ukraine (in 2022); the labs are not operating. I just doubt the credibility of the source material or the worth of trolls in war and from what I recall you saying, even commentators on the English language site call this guy a fake Russian. I do remember CNN giving the location of the mercenary training camp, in Ukraine; two days later a Russian missile attack, 150+ dead. Americans do like to talk. By mercenaries, it could mean some private military army; even organised crime; are we still going to pretend we know how Russians think? It was neutrality or war. Looks like war.
    2
  12.  @haraldthi  It is their satellites required for long-range missile guidance and who knows what Russia and China have up there? The arms industry don't seem to care what is done with their weapons... time they did!
    2
  13. The Budapest Memorandum still allows foreign companies to do business in Ukraine; but after they took control of all aspects of Ukrainian agriculture and (it seems) the gas pipeline from Russia to EU; the argument is this breaches section 3 (territorial integrity). This agreement was between Ukraine and Russia, cosigned by USA and UK who gave assurances. However from 2014 foreign companies amassed over two million hectares of prime farmland (from farmers allocated 3 hectares each); they bought industrial land to install farms and production facilities and the 40+ laboratories (Pentagon figures) were likely research into GM crops and pesticides. With America sanctioning companies; applying political pressure and threatening those proposing alternative gas routes, all that interest suggests they had control of the EU gas supply (now cut). Section 3 forbids political and economic interference; while land ownership is viewed differently in the East; taking control of all aspects of Ukrainian agriculture and the EU gas supply is reason for war (the Western interests knew this). All these gifts of money from America and the EU were not for charitable reasons (they aren't charitable organisations) and if Ukraine took their "incentives" and moved to join, Ukraine would no longer be a neutral buffer state and (as we can see) the only alternative was war. Some of the foreign companies have quite close associations with America's military/ industrial complex. Like the one that secured the rebuilding contract (that like the land now covered in mines and cluster munitions, the labs (now destroyed) is probably worthless). So the main reason for American "investment" drying up is there's no investment left to protect and for the EU (Hungary and Poland, in particular); the move from collective farming to intensive farming would result in their farmers going out of business (so why would they give money to a non-EU country to assist in that? (No reason). So while the mainly American media drones on; their NATO killed tens of thousands of kids (Iraq/Afghanistan); American troops still occupy the oil fields in Syria (around 20% of the country) and it's not just Russia that knows how America operates. While in the Slavic nations; it is well understood that if Russia offers neutrality or war the choice is non-negotiable. The rhetoric from the West that they care about people, that's easily disproved; they care about money (usually our money in their pockets) and that is where Russia is hitting them. The Western investment is in Rubble; while the Rouble/$ is now irrelevant and so are their words (actions speak louder than words). Now I believe the American neocons need to be held accountable. As writ; if Ukraine is not neutral, it's war 9and everybody who was anybody, but not us) knew that. Shame about Ukraine.
    2
  14.  @jefferyshute6641  In my view, the guest speaker is either military, or ex-military, and works in PsyOps. I base that assessment on his channel content; the "human interest" angle and because it sounds like he never left America. He claims to have worked 26 years in Ukraine and 4 years in Russia, they have similar languages that are quite unlike English, apart from a 32 letter alphabet they even pronounce vowels and some English letters differently and he doesn't have any of that. So i assume he was working with Americans doing who knows what...? Another one claiming America and it's allies stand for all that is good and true; signed up to the cause; here to explain it (While I don't believe in American "charity"). Also I tend to think drones (which are rather noisy) dropping a single bomb are a lot easier to avoid than the American Reaper drones that have killed tens of thousands. All I'm saying is there's something about him and his stories that don't ring true. Same with the reasons so far given for the West to send 10's of billions to Ukraine. That's my takeaway; two ideological zealots backing each other up and trying to claim America cares about people (now).
    2
  15.  @robertstanley3799  The first time (occupation of Chernobyl and week long siege of Kyiv) that was a deceleration of intent (a warning shot); however the peace negotiations (in Turkey) were blocked by America, so Russia gave a months notice then "intervened" in the eight year Ukrainian civil war. NATO and EU expansion had to stop some time. Now perhaps tell me why America is fueling a war in Eastern Europe? (It's not for humanitarian reasons that's for sure)
    2
  16. The amount currently saved? Billions have already been spent getting these multinationals into Ukraine, to corner the agricultural sector and get control of the gas-pipeline. Most of them the ones with a close working relationship with government; that register elsewhere for tax purposes and keep their profits offshore. Then these's the billions to the arms industry (over and above the military budget) and that other one that was awarded the rebuilding contract. Europe already has additional costs, having lost relatively cheap Russia: oil; gas; fertilizer and grain; they've another refugee crisis like after Libya was turned into an Islamic state; plus civil unrest brewing (as prices outdistance wages). It's a bit late now to think of saving money; the costs so far have been enormous; countries moving off the petrodollar a financial disaster and since the oil pipeline was turned off and the bio-tech companies labs and grain loading facilities destroyed, really there isn't much of an investment to protect. As matters stand the globalists (in both parties; NATO and the EU) are investing in WW3. It's not their money, it's public money and it's Ukrainian lives being lost; they aren't going and do have nuclear bunkers, so I don't think they need care that much at all. It's clear the globalists don't care about us; fight for them and one day you can live on the streets; the arms lobby and NATO need war; well this time they've come a country that knows a lot about America and land war in Europe; a country that warned them to keep out and arguably have the best missile technology on the planet. The American foreign policy makers must have know nuclear superpowers don't get defeated, so it seems the plan all along was to separate the EU from Russia and see what they could get. What they've got is a multi-polar world; huge national debt and many (here) in despair. Clearly globalism has failed (except for the select few). While if you think war with Russia is still a good idea; maybe ask Germany... they know the answer.
    2
  17. I've spent time in Russia too; during the breakup of USSR (92'); one of two casino troubleshooters, working out of the House of Unions; I've more experience of the Chechen "independence campaign" (Russia shelling it's own White-House). I would hope things have changed since then, with casinos now banned; "The bad tooth of Moscow" (Hotel Intourist) demolished; everyone officially heterosexual; while the HQ of the Ukrainian mafia (then) now appears to be one of the Radisson collection. I'm sure lots of people lie to themselves; some seem to believe things they heard somewhere, but arriving in Russia was like landing on another planet (got lost in the Metro, couldn't read the writing); but one thing I learned was not to break promises to Russians (easier not to make any). Other things like declaring all currency before 92' as no longer legal tender; switching the hot water off for a month a year (to clean the pipes); while the oddity of only getting a state apartment when married; with everything paid, a wage of less than $200/month (but months travel pass... 50 cents!). I like the Russians; if you want USSR propaganda look at VDNK, that is the utopian vision; while I find Adam Curtis "Pandora's Box: The Engineers Plot" to be a better description of the "craziness" of a purely technologically driven society (not fiscally driven), than most of the recent commentators on Russia and Russians (who come up with some tripe). I have no problem with national pride, in fact I insist; a different language and alphabet, a different way of thinking well I don't make the rules (in my profession you need to know them) So if a heavily armed bunch of people; offer you a choice between neutrality or war, what say you? Talk amongst yourselves, but unless there's something in it for you (your choice). I didn't find the Russians particularly religious; some wished the communists were back (streets were safer); while there was a "turf war" going on between mafia groups, things could get violent. It's important to know the rules, what's negotiable and what is not; also that if things turn violent (somewhat ironically for a troubleshooter) I don't carry a gun. I liked the Russian humour; the underground scene(s); it took me 10 moves to become a member of the central chess club of the Soviet Socialists Republics (with Bobby Fischer in the main display: Reykjavik 72'); the Russians have a lot to be proud about (first space station in orbit); they really "dig" technology. While Western commentators try to think up the next thing to throw (that was a bad one, calling Xi a dictator; I know a lot about the Chinese, although turned the Triads down in Hong Kong); a lot of these so called experts do seem rather clumsy (imo); I think the Russians hate their government as much as we hate ours. Best avoided (and they do). Still with state funded education; an NHS and a good transport system, my guess is most people Moscow don't notice the war; they're just getting through life. Same with London; NYC or other places, perhaps because there's nothing in it for them (put bluntly). I though Ukraine got a good deal (on breakup of USSR); while Russia raised Grozny to the ground. I don't know what the American far right think they are "investing" in; but me, I would back away from this; it's up to Ukraine, neutrality or war? (As I see it).
    2
  18. NATO didn't give assurances, while those from UK and USA (in diplomatic terms) mean "might" act not "will" act (and neither kept to the neutrality agreement, they cosigned). As you say; "you reap what you sow", so this years crop (for the foreign corporations that moved in) isn't wheat, it's land-mines.
    2
  19. GL did call the Ukrainian President "the coke-head of Kyiv" (so no love lost between them); probably a misogynist, "How to Prepare for Divorce" with 27K views might be a clue; definitely a controversial figure in Western Ukraine (because he did not support the current administrations position and was also accusative); while (I'm told) that taking photographs could get you arrested as a "Russian spotter", so better not. I did watch the Jake Broe piece and I thought it was disgusting: he claimed GL left Ukraine because prostitution was no longer a viable business, while GL claims he believed Ukraine wanted him out anyway; Broe claimed GL was not a journalist (many others disagree) and since Broe just repeats what the Ukrainian ministry says; he isn't himself a journalist while his patriotism for Ukraine always stuck me as rather suspicious (since he's never been there). GL lived in Ukraine; spoke the language; would know the culture... while Jake Broe doesn't (he just deals in hate). I hope you realize that it would have been straightforward for the American President to have the man, an American citizen freed (with one phone call); but according to Broe what happened is a good thing. There are plenty of cases where pneumonia is fatal; even antibiotics won't cure it; but Broe's smear tactics on the dead, I don't think there's a cure for that either (he's a real piece of work). Now he smears the Republican Party; seems to think they're "commie sympathizers"; what's wrong with him is no little thing (or he is paid as some government spokesperson). One of the two. The only reason I watch Jake Broe (occasionally) is for the next "howler"; him trying to find the next thing to throw, while since he doesn't know the difference between soft and hard currencies I see why he moved out of finance. So my condolences to GL's: friends colleagues and family and if you've nothing positive to say about your own countrymen, you should shut up!
    2
  20. Yes, does America really expect India to turn down cheap oil to please them? India has it's own interests and that doesn't include a proxy war in Ukraine (nothing in it for them).
    2
  21. Is there anything the two parties actually agree on? (besides: backing sponsors; hikes to military budged and talk of millions and billions, they don't have).
    2
  22. ...While I thought Jake Broe was a bigger jerk than GL ever could be. This American journalist could have been freed with one phone-call; but here's Jake to smear and tell us it's a good thing. I don't buy what he sells; he's so passionate about a place he's never been to; I think he's in business simply to sell hate (seems to work a treat). Since Trump is 7/5 fav and Putin 4/11 (alive of dead) I expect that upsets him greatly (whereas I couldn't care less). Funny thing; in Eastern Europe they tattoo the prison record on the back of the hands. There's a lot Jake and the Prof don't know y'know. While speaking ill of the dead, in my culture, is considered crass. We even free the terminally ill... Jake's a wrong'un.
    2
  23.  @juhajuntunen7866  America over $33 Trillion national debt; people living on the streets; still allowing the oligarchs to export money... what could go wrong?
    2
  24. Why? What's in it for them? I don't know about France, but the UK military has been cut back a lot. The assets of the corporations that moved into Ukraine have largely been destroyed; it's only the arms manufacturers profit margin that remains and they've other wars (with better returns); there's no profit to be made in Ukraine. Or did you actually think these countries care(d) about people? (with so many of theirs living on the streets).
    2
  25. It didn't say "their" at 6:26; it said "eliminate all nuclear weapons" (which does not imply ownership). Had it (just) said "all their nuclear weapons" that would still permit others to station their nuclear weapons in Ukraine and if Russia: designed; built; maintained and locked these nuclear weapons (also took them back, to decommission them) these are clearly Russian weapons. After H Clinton, in the UN security council, "reinterpreted" the wording of an agreement with Russia and China (who abstained) over Libya; America got its regime change; but the UN security council no longer had any credibility. The words would have been chosen carefully, what a diplomatic blunder it would be to put "their" (NATO could put their nuclear weapons there instead). So back when everyone was on the "same page"; using Russian facilities and American money, a lot of weapons were decommissioned (some of which, due to age, were frankly a liability). While UN document No 52241 (featuring the date 2nd Oct 2014) is a slightly different page, the original agreement was signed on 3rd Dec 1994. By 1995, Ukraine was considered: independent; sovereign; neutral and a non-nuclear-weapon state (by all) it's territorial integrity and political independence respected... or maybe not? In December 2013, V Nuland said in a speech to the US–Ukraine Foundation that the US had spent about $5 billion on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since 1991. Since Ukraine was already a democracy, it seems odd (to me) for the US to spend $5.1 billion promoting democracy there; some might even consider that a breach of agreement section 3. The 2014 armed overthrow of the elected government is another point of note; the pro-EU side claim election tampering; the pro-Russian side that it was American inspired (CIA); whatever it was, this sparked an eight year civil war. I don't know who the CSCE are, or the specific principles referred to, or if simply giving $5,100,000,000 can be considered economic coercion. If this was an attempt to secure some kind of advantage (economic or otherwise) it would be in breach of section 3. Or put another way, if I offered V Nuland $5.1 billion to sleep with her (I heard she likes to blow pipe (sorry)), would that be considered: economic coercion; charity; maybe an incentive, what? In 2014 the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, had a Queen and was in the European Union (EU), by 2023 it left the EU (by referendum) and now has a King. Not sure who was representing EU interests, but after the Maidan revolution, there was a flood of Western corporate investment (they found a way around the "farmland moratorium") In the report from "The Oakland Institute" (another "think tank"), titled "Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict; from July 2014, it described how to walk around the wording of the moratorium on buying Ukrainian farmland (buy industrial land, build processing facilities on that and pay to lease the farmland); or buy shares in UkrLandFarming. The report details how all aspects of the Ukrainian food system and supply chain were being acquired by transnational corporations. It was in their interest to "buy in" to Ukraine's agriculture, which some might not describe as economic coercion (but unfortunately that is how some of these transnationals have behaved before); also the IMF and World Bank tend to lend money in exchange for access to state sector industry (their model is for private sector companies to own things like: gas; electricity and water distribution; they are NOT charities). So however the Western interests wish to interpret the Budapest Memorandum: the armed overthrow of a democratically elected government (although quite corrupt); the "gifts" of money by the American government (still giving) and private companies acquiring land (around 2.3 million ha) and moving to control Ukrainian agriculture did not go down well with Russia. That's not my opinion, the Russia government: complained; then warned; then acted. Even a show of force (laying siege to Kyiv for a week and occupying Chernobyl, although out of commission for around 10,000 years) was ignored. So I would discount the "flowery" American version of events where they were only there to help; they just can't understand why Russia would take issue with what they were doing and when it comes to what Russia is targeting in Ukraine, it's not people (fellow Slavs) it's all that Western investment (be it: weapons; land; GM labs; agricultural plants, even that rebuilding contract, already awarded). So while the Western media does what it usually does before war or elections; if the grand Western "cause" is to protect their "investment" (a term the Senate uses), I don't think they can; I doubt America will be required to offer further assurances; the EU having lost relatively cheap Russian energy and grain; with other economic issues and another refugee crisis (they've got their own problems). While the West trying to force matters militarily, may run into full Russian deployment and a nuclear ultimatum (if the Russian nationalists get their way). What one perhaps needs to know is: that there is the word of the law and the spirit of the law; the concept was a neutral buffer state; the other "interpretation" is war with Russia (that's all).
    2
  26. America did... and with the EU too... it's been highly profitable.
    2
  27.  @alexandermonro6768  That's no problem Alex... it's rather like shouting down a well at the best of times (which this is not). The S-300 system was purchased by a lot of countries; it's an anti-aircraft weapon; but there are some types of missiles that move so fast there is no defense. Advances in weapons technology is making some 20th century weapons (eg tanks and aircraft carriers) almost obsolete; arming robots seems a very bad idea; but these hypersonic missiles, like the Mach 27 Avangard should give America (and UK) policy makers pause for thought. (but I think they believe their own publicity) If you disagree with what I've said; or have better things to do with you time that's A-okay with me. I could be wrong. Really my main objection is to the amount of misinformation that we receive about: Russia; China and the competence of whoever runs the country. While i doubt many of these media influencers (like this chap) have ever been to Ukraine or could find it on a map. If they want war between superpowers, I certainly don't. So thanks for replying; have a nice day; I just don't think war is the solution here.
    2
  28.  @milantrcka121  Well he did write a parody against "authoritarianism" with "Animal Farm"; but I increasingly get the feeling some in the West are using "1984" as a "blueprint" for a dystopian present with them playing "Big Brother"... the claim "war is peace" doesn't really work for me. He might have been both, but it's clearly dangerous to give some people "ideas".
    2
  29. It does make sense; Trump can trade for other political nominees if she doesn't get in and if she does, since Trump and her were under surveillance, she has an ax to grind. That's politics... and since this clearly irritates the establishment, who tried (and still try) to smear a decorated military officer; Trump wins either way.
    2
  30. Giving robots guns is a bad idea anyway; there was an American autonomous drone hunting people in Libya already; it's a misuse of a useful technology and those doing it need to be brought to heel, before we all feature in a video game with a points total above our heads. Might be too late already...
    2
  31. "Trump likely approved the Ukrainian long-range strikes into Ukraine" Where is your evidence for this claim? "Trump allies attack Biden for allowing Ukraine to use US missiles inside Russia" (The Guardian) ... President-elect’s surrogates accuse president of seeking to spark ‘world war three’ over decision to allow limited strikes. "Joe Biden has just set the stage for World War III. Let’s all pray that it doesn’t come to this.” (Mike Lee)
    2
  32.  @grahamstevenson1740  The "Black Soil" of Ukraine is world famous; there was a "land moratorium" (you can't buy it); so two corporations (one beginning with Mons; the other with beginning with Carg) leased millions of hectares of it. They bought industrial land; set up 43 labs (according to the Pentagon), probably researching: seeds; GM food and improved crop yields. This was upsetting EU farmers, amongst others, this move from collective farming to modern industrial farming methods as cheap grain would likely put many out of business. Then there's the question of why America strongly objected to alternative gas supply routes to the one though Ukraine? The gas tariffs were so high Russia/Germany built alternatives (and look what happened to them); there's two examples of economic interference and there are more... According to a pal in the RAF; those labs were amongst the first things Russia targeted (so maybe they weren't all about crop research; but I don't know).
    1
  33. NATO operators firing American missiles at mainland Russia (while claiming it's Ukraine) what could possibly go wrong? Russia doesn't accept this excuse (that much is clear); it does look like an open deceleration of war by the American led coalition and Russia has vowed to retaliate. So it looks like those that run America want to throw the UK "under the bus" and have brought their sacrificial "Lammy" to Kyiv, the UK is to take the lead here (Blinken). Typical. Russia is unlikely to accept that excuse; because it's an open secret that the Ukrainian conflict is a "proxy war". Russia launching missiles at mainland America, what could possibly go wrong?
    1
  34. "No evidence of North Korea sending its soldiers to Russia's war" (NATO Secretary General)
    1
  35. I doubt the Ukraine economy is doing particularly well; with so many loans (plus interest) now, the Western interests are still trying to claim ownership.
    1
  36.  @rogerwilco5918  Who do you think is operating the American missile systems? Russia doesn't seem to believe it's Ukrainians firing American made missiles at mainland Russia (nor do I); while attacks on Russia's long-range nuclear early-warning RADAR (that doesn't cover Ukraine); why would Ukraine do that? There's a lot we are not being told.
    1
  37. @garyddlewis3067 Russia is a major exporter of: oil; gas and grain, with a national debt of around $300 Billion (compared to America $36,000 Billion) and a centrally planned economy (with its own rules). Along with China and India they've been buying large quantities of physical Gold (for the last decade); some suggest that's to back a new currency and trading mechanism (although there's no sign of that yet), but it's still a solid investment in something real. Many countries in the Western economy: have large national debts; no sovereign wealth fund and are not even meeting monthly deficit payments; while food and energy prices are rising far faster than the official inflation rate and there is growing opposition to further foreign "charity" (as it would require further borrowing and ignore rising poverty here). All this wishful thinking, while ignoring problems here; that can't continue for much longer. Russia hasn't even fully deployed yet. Are you ready to go to fight for Ukraine? I do believe some in the West are starting to realize that nobody wins in Ukraine; Russia is playing the game of everybody loses and the corporations that moved into Ukraine lost the lot; so just the bank loans and rebuilding contract left to fight for (using public money, that may be ending soon). I wouldn't worry about Russia, they'll be fine. The poor quality; self-serving Western leadership; that should worry us a lot more.
    1
  38. Since Russia had just under 3000 tanks (in 2022; according to American ministry of defense) and (according to the Ukrainian ministry of defense) they've destroyed over 8,000 of them, the answer is never and Ukraine doesn't need our help. The war ends when Ukraine runs out of troops, as matters stand; talk of Russian defeat can wait until after the nuclear war.
    1
  39. I think we can all agree it's not a good idea to sit behind politicians during political rallies (there's a better view from the front).
    1
  40. Oh! So it's actually a war between NATO and Russia, over Ukraine? Well if that's official, it makes European and American cities legitimate targets; which sounds extremely foolish to me. As for Kasparov: he was a formidable World Chess Champion; got into Russian politics (unsuccessfully); but if he's trying to claim Ukraine isn't corrupt, he's wrong. NATO v Russia, is that not WW3?
    1
  41. Ukraine did not have the launch codes for the Soviet nuclear weapons, which means they never had a nuclear deterrent against Russia and that you (professor) are presenting an invalid argument. The Soviet-era stockpile of nuclear weapons was actually viewed as something of a liability; largely due to maintenance issues, so Russia and America collaborated in decommissioning them. What happens if Ukraine wins? It's simpler to discuss that after the nuclear war between Russia and the Western powers; but roughly speaking everybody loses then. What happens if Russia wins? Then Russia would set the terms and conditions... I would expect Russia to absorb the occupied Oblasts (who already voted to rejoin Russia); plus Odessa Oblast (of cultural significance to Russia) and the remainder of Ukraine be declared neutral. What are the implications for the World? It would mean both NATO and the EU don't get to expand towards Russia; the foreign corporations that bought into Ukraine would lose most of their assets and America would have to find another war in which to "invest". Relations between East and West will likely take decades to repair; the EU will need to find a new energy and grain provider; while Russia informs the World Bank and other lenders, that the value of investments can go up or down (and they lost theirs). So it was not nuclear weapons that was deterring Russia; it was an agreement that Western interests breached; the alternative to neutrality was very likely war (and the major powers all knew this). It's a familiar concept in Eastern Europe, a scenario where everyone loses, but those with more lose more; so how much have you got? Hmm? As for stories that America is involved in other countries for reasons of: freedom; democracy or a humanitarian cause, that just doesn't mesh with reality; but there no money for them in Ukraine. As for "a NATO intervention to save civilian life"; they don't and while it is not legal to use nuclear weapons on countries with no nuclear weapons, it's perfectly legal to use them on ones that do. So you might decide if America was bluffing regarding the Cuban missile crisis; because it's the same scenario and this is what America is currently investing in (that prospect). The conflict in Ukraine ends when Ukraine runs out of troops, or there's a global war... that much is plain to see. Your choice...
    1
  42. ​ @patrickdolinski7105  I'm not claiming to be an authority on nuclear weapons, Comrade Dolinski: however there is a lot of information freely available in the public domain and that includes the quantity (and quality) of Soviet-era weapons of which Ukraine had custody; a concept called a "Permissive Action Link" (PAL) in case nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands which originated in America (in the 1960's); it has various forms, Russia employed this technology too; there was also a civil war in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022 "By early 1994 the only barrier to Ukraine's ability to exercise full operational control over the nuclear weapons on missiles and bombers deployed on its soil was its inability to circumvent Russian permissive action links (PALs)" ("Pulling Back from the Nuclear Brink" by Barry R. Schneider, William L. Dowdy). "Ukraine did not possess nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were not the third largest nuclear power. They did not give up those weapons because they did not possess them". (Deterrence in Ukraine, by Jeffrey Lewis; Aaron Stein) There are other sources, but these two indicate that the Prof is quite wrong in his claim that Ukraine ever had a nuclear deterrent against Russia using the Soviet weapons. After the armed overthrow of government in 2014: Russia annexed Crimea and three Oblasts voted for independence (no country "recognised, until Russia did in 2022); the same regions then voted to (re)join Russia. (The Western media claimed these results were fixed, not that regions haven't the power to vote for independence; so they looked like fools) The annexation of Crimea was conducted by Russia, two options on the ballot; Ukraine or Russia (no independence option). It was an easy choice Ukraine was bankrupt... The three regions most likely conducted their own independence referendums (or Russia would have recognised them immediately); they mainly speak Russian there. Rejoining Russia I don't know about; but it seems they prefer the Eastern European model to the Western one; that seems to be going bankrupt. I lived in USSR as it was breaking up; 1992-3 I worked out of the House of Unions, employed to break up trouble in the Moscow casinos, thankfully now banned. So I knew most of the leaders of various armed groups... and they knew me and my partner (I found that out when I walked into the Hotel Ukraine). Ukraine got a pretty good deal: independence; division of assets military and commercial; gas tariffs and port leasing fees... that held until 2014, after which foreign corporations took control of Ukrainian agriculture; likely the gas-pipeline too... all very provocative. The bottom line however is, Ukraine was given a choice, neutrality or war; they made the wrong choice and so Russia holds them entirely responsible (as is their way) and Western commentators (like the Prof) don't seem to have a clue what they are dealing with; currently they are sleepwalking us into a global conflict.
    1
  43. ​ @patrickdolinski7105  It certainly is a problem if opposing sides cannot agree on a few facts; it's another, slightly different problem, when both sides can arrange mutually agreed facts to make valid opposing arguments and it's a very serious problem when the talking stops and violence starts. I'm not clear on what your perspective is based (or your prior profession); but I don't regard the Western media (in general) as particularly reliable and they also seem to (mistakenly) assume that other countries: should share their interests, or fears, or operate by the same rules (as their country); or even listen to them. It might simplify discussing matters, regarding this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, if you can tell me, what's in this for you? (or even which country you call "home"). I call Scotland home; back in 1992-3 (as USSR was breaking up) I was a "Mayfair top dealer"; I wanted to leave London (she broke my heart) and the recruitment agency, said Don't go! (to Russia) and they work on commission?! When I got there I discovered: I had not been given a particularly accurate description of Russia and it was fortunate a monthly Moscow travel pass, unlike London, was 450 Roubles (approximately £0.30) as I kept getting lost in Metro because I couldn't even read the writing, or speak Russian. While it might be a reasonable description of Russia then as a kleptocracy; it was my choice to live and work there; I take full responsibility for the decisions I make (not other people's); I would describe Moscow then as similar to Chicago 1930's (as seen in the movies); the people with money (our customers) were usually members of heavily armed groups, some vying for their country's independence, or disputing territory; while my objective was to entertain them and the "house" (casino) has rules (they are our rules). Things have no doubt moved on since then, casinos are banned (considered immoral); but is it not a fact that Moscow is the second largest city in Europe? I mean given the choice, over twelve million people live there; Russia has an NHS; state funded education; low cost energy; food and transport; free internet; but quite low wages. That's not to say things are perfect; "ownership" is a key feature of capitalism; there the state owns the land; they turn the hot water off a month a year; it's different from here. As far as I'm aware: Ukraine held it's own independence referendum in 1991; Russia "recognised" Ukraine as a country in 1991; terms and conditions mutually agreed by 1994. Those terms and conditions included military and commercial assets; gas tariffs and a port leasing fee. If that's factual then Ukraine was an independent country, from 1994. Neither questioned the 92% vote in favour of independence, on an 84% turnout; or it's validity. From that date Ukraine was totally responsible for the decisions it made. Putin became leader of Russia last day of 1999; some here claim that his objective is to re-establish USSR, but it took him 22 years to decide to do that; which doesn't seem at all likely to me, instead I suggest we (both) look at the map of USSR 1938; in my opinion (just an opinion) that's what Russia (not Putin) wants; if Ukraine isn't neutral. I do agree with you that the nuclear weapons issue is a bit of a "red herring"; both the weapons in Ukraine and those in West Germany had PAL encryption security, to prevent misuse; while it was in the interest of both Russia and America that Soviet era weapons in Ukraine were decommissioned. Also the rotting stockpiles of chemical weapons. I consider it a fact that Russia insisted: Ukraine was an independent neutral country, without external political or economic interference and that it's borders be respected. This seemed to have been agreed in 2014; between Russia and Ukraine, with cosignatories the UK and America (offering assurances). This agreement was signed after the armed overthrow of the Ukrainian government, after they refused to agree to closer ties to the EU. The claims were the government was corrupt and had rigged the elections; since Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe (against some stiff competition); I could believe the government was corrupt; not sure about the elections, but the rebellion started an eight year civil war; Russia moved on Crimea; three regions voted for independence (nobody recognised). Since 2014 there have been seven regional referendums; that much is a fact; are we supposed to believe all of them were rigged? These regions are predominantly Russian speaking people; the referendum results (if legit) are heavily not in favour of remaining with Ukraine. I doubt I could get odds on the Crimean one; I might question the legitimacy, but not that result.
    1
  44.  @patrickdolinski7105  You asked me a question, "does Ukraine deserve to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with borders most recently established at the collapse of the former USSR". In my view the USSR; allowed the former Soviet states, in the West, to hold independence referendums and return to being independent countries; while it denied independence to others. In 1991 Ukraine did exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with established borders; it was a fairly amicable split; that was the way things were for a good 20 years; while Russia leased a key port; paid increasingly high tariffs on gas to the EU. Former Soviet states, now countries joined NATO and the EU; but Russia was quite insistent the Yugoslavia and Ukraine didn't. When the EU and NATO both held summits in 2008, they indicated to Ukraine that they would like to offer membership; that did not go down well with Russia. I won't discuss what happened to Yugoslavia, except to say my partner lost family and friends when violence erupted there; NATO intervened and that country broke up. Maybe you would care to check this out for yourself, but according to "Oakland Institute" from 2014 foreign companies moved into Ukraine and took over agriculture; it looks likely they also had a controlling interest in that gas pipeline (America was so interested in' protesting alternative pipeline). It may not seem fair to you, but Russia would hold Ukraine totally responsible for allowing that to happen; I would consider all this "corporate interest" as economic interference; in which case the neutrality agreement has failed and so Russia is compelled to react with violence. So no; I don't believe Ukraine deserves to exist as an independent and sovereign nation state with 1991 borders; because they gave up that agreement. I also don't believe the Western narrative that this conflict was unprovoked or unexpected. I consider Prof Mearsheimer "Why is Ukraine the West's fault" as an accurate appraisal. Nor do I believe America is here to help; I believe the plan was to dent the EU economically; if that wasn't the plan that's how things have gone. I would advise the UK to mind it's own business (it's not good at that); if America wants direct conflict with Russia better to just let them get on with it. Otherwise, only Russia and Ukraine can resolve this conflict. I don't know what America thinks it's playing at; perhaps it believes it's own publicity, but I don't. In my view Ukrainian is the architect of it's own destruction, because it broke the rules.
    1
  45.  @patrickdolinski7105  What a cop-out... a rather mealy mouthed response...really. Prof J Mearsheimer already clarified what was going to happen, years before it happened and our leaders don't listen (even to us). At least we agree on one thing: Russia and America both had PAL (Permissive Action Link) security on their nuclear weapons; so this Professors argument that Ukraine gave up a nuclear deterrent against Russian invasion is invalid; I don't think he is being intentionally misleading (but some others certainly are), he's just wrong. Me, I'm just popping bubbles; our leaders seem to believe their own publicity (Libya was the final straw for me). If Ukraine capitulates; they won't have to pay back any of those loans; there's always that.
    1
  46. ​ @patrickdolinski7105  ​ I'm just popping bubbles: USSR (and America) had PAL security systems built into their nuclear weapons, as a precautionary measure; that's not just "common sense" it also appears to be common knowledge (this Professor seems to lack both). Ukraine gained ownership of Soviet era nuclear power, but not the nuclear weapons; so they had no nuclear deterrent against Russia; that fact destroys the professors argument (and any built on this faulty premise) Pop! "Russia running over it's neighbor because it can", is another fallacious argument. If Ukraine wasn't neutral, it was war (Russia made that plain again and again). The Western powers and their "New World Order" (NWO) "allowing Russia"... Well the West isn't "The World"; the NWO only benefits a select few and short of nuclear war, I don't see a thing they can do. While the claim that America is involved for reasons of: freedom; democracy or even people, is not supported by their history; it's invariably their economic interests. Pop!I If Ukraine capitulates: the "investments" (made with public money); the corporate assets; the rebuilding contract; the loans (plus interest), they will all be worth nothing. Pop! So there are a few profound lessons here: The Western powers need to mind their own business (they aren't much good at that, take a look around); stick your nose into Russia/Ukrainian business, it's likely to get broken and call it sophistry, if you like, but based on simple arithmetic; sooner, or later, Ukraine runs out of troops. Anyway, if you enjoy people talking about things they don't really know about; there are plenty of them. The Western powers provoked this disaster in Ukraine; they did this!
    1
  47.  @Comm.DavidPorter  America did seem awfully interested in the pipeline between Russia and the EU, running through Ukraine; hostile to proposed alternatives (later destroyed) then Russia turned of the EU gas supply (non-payment), so no gas tariffs for Ukraine. The millions of hectares of Ukrainian farmland that foreign corporations leased are in a war-zone; their labs and grain loading facilities closed down, or destroyed; the rebuilding contract also likely worthless. It looks like somebody had their foot on the EU gas pipe... There was a lot of interest in Ukrainian assets; billions "invested"; the value of investments can go up or down, but the plan to separate the EU from Russia seems to have worked.
    1
  48. Are you talking about D Cheney?
    1
  49. Russia wants the Western interests out; they never deployed enough troops to take Ukraine, while Poland would likely be happy if Ukraine broke up. That prime farmland is one of the main reasons America is so heavily invested; that and control of the EU gas supply (now cut off) and I doubt that rebuilding contract, it awarded to itself, is worth much now. Plenty of "cool-aid" around; but the Western interests haven't been sending billions because they are charitable (they don't care about people). I doubt the American election result will matter much; or that Ukraine could ever pay off the loans; if Ukraine capitulates that's a lot of money up in smoke (our money!). Russia and China both know how the "golbalists" operate; no more benefits of the doubt, now; while these personal interest pieces are insulting after what NATO has done.
    1
  50. So a delay in aid to Ukraine is a gift to Russia and aid is a gift to Ukraine, is that the story? Well 'tis the season... but I thought money to Ukraine was being called an investment (the EU call it aid). While we wait to see what is decided; while it is useful to get different perspectives on the same thing and keeping in mind that it is not acceptable to diagnose people's psychological well being through television (even if you are a qualified professional; I'm not), in my considered opinion Jake B, is a "fruit loop"; full of hate and that's what he is trying to sell (just that). I believe he now considers the Republican party to be communist sympathizers; in league with Putin and much more public money should be invested in military hardware and exported. Political horsetrading; hysteria and who becomes President (any) aside; it seems correct to look after the pennies (then the dollars look after themselves); plenty of deserving causes no doubt; but I question the motivation behind: America's interest(s) in Ukraine; Jake B's fervor and even trying to describe weapons as "lethal aid". Just looks like an investment in WW3 to me... For Russia I believe the motivation is more easily understood; if Ukraine isn't neutral it's war, as previously agreed between them. America should stop pretending it's here to help, maybe Americans believe that, but the track record suggest invariably only to aid themselves. So if you like war, tune in to Jake and watch him froth (but he knows nothing about Eastern Europe).
    1