Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Zelensky to Washington: DELAY IN AID IS GIFT TO PUTIN (ONE STORY)" video.

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
@lordXAVIJAANBJERGNOG No; I just read the agreement(s) between Ukraine and Russia; some of the terminology means more to diplomats (like the difference between an assurance and a guarantee) but the rest is fairly straightforward. It's not so much about what Russia wanted in Ukraine (a key port, they agreed to lease; a gas pipeline, they agree to pay tariffs on... which kept getting higher); they don't want NATO or the EU in Ukraine and that is why they are at war (breach of contract). It's a demand. Otherwise (for over 20 years) Ukraine was: independent; sovereign; had all the freedoms it wished (but it was also: corrupt; going bankrupt and had it's own mafia issues) I don't know much about Belarus and Kazakhstan, but they seem to maintain trading relationships with the West (and China) without joining up; while in Ukraine: with Western companies buying large quantities of Ukrainian farmland; America and the EU (not known to be charitable) sending millions; providing advisors and (curiously) America with lots to say about alternative gas pipelines (avoiding Ukraine and the tariffs), it seems clear enough that this was (as China describes it) an American "power game"; while for the E.U. more of a recruitment drive. While I am convinced this globalist "economic model" does not work (rich just exploit the poor) and suspect some of the main advocates know it. So with America, in effect, standing on the EU gas pipe; economic sanctions (on a major exporter) never going to work; dollar and exchange system prohibitions largely affecting EU companies, plus another refugee crisis (after Libya) it rather looks like (to me) this "power game" is more about Europe (and the game of "let's you and him fight") and while the "globalists" in the EU are no doubt keen for countries to join; they don't aid their own members (prefer to own the infrastructure), their "aid" to Ukraine was not charitable; so I don't regard the West's intentions as honorable. Russia have convinced me that when it comes to former Soviet States and the powerful armed (mafia) groups inherent in "the system", that their word is law; it's fine for some former states to: become independent countries; (some not); them join the EU, NATO or both, even redefine borders in skirmishes. However If you cross them (or the mafia) it carries potentially fatal consequences; this is no secret; nor was Russia wanting the Western interests out. So I read a former agreement as intending to keep a neutral country between West and East, essentially between two Slavic countries; the cosignatories put their signature(s) on it. What do you think they were signing? (Neutrality, or else). Whatever it was, it fell apart; total diplomatic failure; there was already an eight year civil war; I don't know who makes the rules, but I don't think it's the American far-right.
1