Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Ukraine Takes Matters into its Own Hands" video.
-
Ukraine was independent from the USSR, by about 1994, with: a democracy; port leasing fees; gas tariffs and a division of assets (military and commercial); their 1991 independence referendum was "recognised" by Russia, along with other Western Soviet states that used to be countries and Europe largely returned to borders before the last great war. Many of these countries went on to join NATO and the EU with little, or no, opposition; but Yugoslavia and Ukraine were supposed to be neutral and at one time the major powers seemed to agree.
After a NATO intervention Yugoslavia disappeared; after an armed overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government (in 2014) civil war broke out; Russia moved to secure a key port (compelling a referendum in Crimea: Russia or Ukraine, but no independence option); the other Oblasts (currently mainly occupied by Russian forces) all held independence referendums (that nobody "recognised"; including Russia). In 2022 Russia recognised their referendums; in 2023 they voted to (re) join Russia. (media here claims they were all rigged)
After 2014 foreign companies moved in and took control of agriculture and a stretch of gas pipe-line, to the EU. Billions of "investment" from America and "aid" from the EU...
So much for non-interference in the economy and politics of Ukraine; the Black Earth of Ukraine; gas tariffs and recruiting Ukraine, profit (again) seems to have trumped common sense.
It's not about land, or commodities for Russia (they've plenty); it's not about democracy, Russia is a social democracy; Ukraine is no longer one and it's heavily in debt to Western interests (who are not known to be charitable (even to their own people). I agree with China's description, involvement in Ukraine is an American "power game" (best avoided) using public money and Ukrainian lives, while nuclear superpowers don't lose in the traditional sense and if Putin stepped down Russia isn't going to stop and the Russia nationalists are not happy with a war of attrition; their alternative is a large escalation that may include sacking Kyiv or giving America a nuclear ultimatum, if America wants war it will be a very big war.
Russia had an agreement with Ukraine, neutrality or what we see before us; it's not about money; they backed down over Yugoslavia and Libya and look what happened to them.
If the American neo-Con plan was to separate the EU from relatively cheap Russian: oil; gas and grain; that has worked; clearing out old weapons and more money turned into weapons keeps the arms lobby happy; but Blackrock and their rebuilding contract; the status of the petrodollar and international relations have all been lost. We are supposed to believe Russia and China are the enemy (of all they hold dear), but the people advocating this I do not trust. So now the East is moving away from the Western economy; it's in a terrible state having been asset stripped by the oligarchs and offshore tax havens are brimming; that doesn't help "Joe Public" it's a rich persons club and we aren't in it.
Ukraine had it all: independent; sovereign; democracy, but highly corrupt; now I have grave doubts it will continue to exist. America shouldn't try to play the innocent party in this and NATO/ EU expansion had to stop at some point; now they are starting to understand further escalation leads to a nuclear, or global war.
Sending money to corrupt countries never worked before; ever wonder why that keeps happening? There must be better investments... follow the money.
1
-
 @robertmueller6979 Independent thought? An American professor (of leadership) that's never been to Ukraine, or Russia (by his own admission); can't even pronounce local place, or surnames, properly, claims Ukraine has destroyed 8,547 Russian tanks (Pentagon estimates Russia had less than 3,000, in 2022); gloats over the deaths of others and does not seem aware that we are on the verge of a world war (between nuclear superpowers).
So nice of America to send 31 tanks and no F-16's; while NATO operators firing American missiles at mainland Russia, claiming it's Ukraine, is clearly not believed by Russia, If they did deploy their Avangard (Mach 27) system near Cuba, realize it can carry a nuclear warhead and there is no known defense... while America trying to teach Russia, or Germany about land war in Europe (or economics) provokes laughter (and not in a nice way).
What amazes me is that people believe the Ukrainian prop-a-gan-da; while with over a million troops in reserve; in conventional war this "American inspired" war only goes one way.
Yes, there does seem to be a shortage of independent thought... but don't let me ruin the show; being a PR man for the Ukrainian ministry must pay well. He's here every day.
1
-
 @robertmueller6979 Geographically speaking, it would be very difficult for America to even get to Kursk (or Iran); not just the long supply chains, a lot of countries will not have foreign warplanes in their airspace; also if NATO gets involved in a non-NATO country, it needs some excuse (and I doubt many believe a NATO "intervention to save civilian life" is true, now... not after the amount of kids killed in Iraq/Afghanistan; 50,000 "The price we have to pay" (M Allbright). Only it's civilians that pay for all of this (one way or another).
There seem to be a few popular misconceptions: America is not heavily invested in Ukraine for humanitarian reasons; sending billions to corrupt countries doesn't work; if NATO officially "intervenes" in Ukraine, that makes all member states legitimate targets and Professor Mearsheimer was correct: see "Why is Ukraine the West's fault?" (lecture)
I might ask you why billions of public money is being diverted to yet another notoriously corrupt country, while American (and UK) people live on the streets? (It's not a good look).
If you want to talk about reality...
From my experience of Russia (during the breakup of USSR); much of the media (here) are seriously mistaken on some key issues, one is their concept of winning and losing.
Russia cannot adopt NATO tactics of targeting civilians (fellow Slavs); they had an agreement with Ukraine, neutrality, or war... in their culture this is non-negotiable.
While I am not with or against Russia, or Ukraine; I know to keep out of other people's business; the assets of the foreign corporations that moved into Ukraine have largely been destroyed; lobbying for more is unlikely to get people elected; it appears Russia knows what motivates the American "elite" (profit) and have turned Ukraine into a "money-pit".
In short: no and only at the expense of nuclear war. while the OP doesn't seem to realize Russia is a social democracy, while Ukraine sold theirs at very great cost.
Currently you and I are funding an escalation toward nuclear war, not with Ukraine; between nuclear powers. I can assure you Russia will not back down, not this time.
1
-
1