Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

Seems like old habits die hard. Once again do a third of the population support a semi-facist morally conservative party that wants a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with russia. Also the Hungarians likes fascism, and have their imperialist dreams and do also like the idea of allying with russia so they could make a land grab. In Italy do a large part of the country still like Mussolini openly. And fascism was popular in France in the 1920s and 1930s.. and now it seems to have made a come back. And with VOX in Spain do the morally conservative extremists now got their own party.
3
Long live the peoples Republics of Kursk, Bilhorod, Narnia, Nangijala, and Borduria!
2
Unbelievable 😮I thought that Russia was surrounded by evil Nato countries that wanted to invade it at the first best oppurtunity. And here they just do not care to make any defensive fortifications and not leaving any strong units to defend the border. What happened? Isn't Russia supposed to be a Super power?
2
She thinks that wars of aggression and genocide are good things too. I think that makes it irrelevant what other stances she have on other political issues, even if a person would be right on 199 issues of 200. And she does not care about Germany, the people or about politics or ideology. She is just there to support Putin and nothing else. I see her as a German Tulsi Gabbard in that regard. Would I eat a bowl with the worlds best delicious salad, if I knew somone had added a small dog 💩 into the bowl? Of course not. And neither would I vote for anyone who supports Putin, war and genocide.
2
@cultural-and-historical Nope russian bot. Zelensky himself said that he could field another dozen brigades, but the problem is that he lacks weapons for them.
2
Russias dilemma is either stopping the incursion by moving troops used in their offensives in Ukraine, and thereby making those offensive plans take a halt for a few months and losing momentum and valuable time - and time is not on russias side, as the west will soon start to outproduce russia in military gear. The other alternative is to do nothing. And that will allow Ukraine to smash russian conscripts formations that lacks armor support. And more land could be grabbed in the region for very little cost for the Ukrainians. Russia will of course remain silent and pretend that nothing has happened, and that the Ukrainians just have taken control over a few kilometres of farmland or something. However being so deep inside russia is far from meaningless. Not least from a propaganda standpoint. Now can do all vatnik bots arguments fall flat to the ground and those cockroaches arguments gets seen for what they are - russian talking points and not sincere wishes for peace. All talk about trading land for peace can now be used by Ukraine as well. All talk about retaking historical lands can be used by Ukraine as well. All arguments of liberating land where the population speaks the same language as the invading country - can also be used by Ukraine. And all talk about a proxy was is as true for russia as for the other side, if not even more so. I think taking the russian provinces can be understood as simply taking a piece of land, because why not. If Ukraine wins it then it have a bargaining chip in peace negotiations. And if they lose it, then so what? nothing of value has been lost. Ukraine never sincerely hoped to keep any of those lands. Their interest is protecting their own country and restoring the 1991 borders by retaking land that was stolen from them.
2
well russia is a bit of both
1
Many decisions has been controversial. Was holding Bakhmut a wise decision, or was it just an unnecesary bloodbath? Was the landing at Krinky dumb or a smart move? Should the Ukrainians have stormed the russian beachhead near Khersun instead of allowing them an evacuation? Should the Ukrainian summer offensive been less hyped up and used small unit tactics instead of large troop formations? Both sides have made mistakes in this war. Perhaps should Ukraine have done less mistakes, or more mistakes if it listened more to western military advisors. However, the biggest and dumbest mistakes in this war has been done by the russian side. With russias superior resources should this war already have been won if they did have a competent leadership - but they don't. Surovikin made the wise decision to build the Surovikin line, but Putin did hate that strategists it seems. He even got replaced before Wagner made their attempted coup. So it seems like the boss (Putin) did not like a defensive strategy. The boss rather wants to waste all of russias resources in ineffective meat wave frontal attacks.
1
Had youtube existed back in the 1940s, it would have censored comments critical of Germany. Because it is a "neutral" platform. And therefore are you not allowed to call a spade a spade, and murderer a murderer.
1
@makavelithedon801 I rather believe him than russian propagandists that have been wrong a million times since the war started and does not have ny best interest at heart, and just wish to hurt the west and do not care about truth, rule of law or moral rules based world. Russia have told us they were going to win this war in 3 days. Now have this war been going on for 900 days. And russia has been retreating and retreating. They lost the battle of Hostomel, then the battle of Kyiv, they lost Chernigiv, lost Sumy, lost Charkiv, lost snake Island, lost Khersun, and now they have even lost control over the western black sea to a country with no navy. This must be the most incompetent military in history. And I cannot say russias performance has been any better elsewhere in history. Not at Tsushima or the winter war. This argument saying they have runned out of manpower is extremely ignorant. It was debunked many months ago by Anders Puck Nielsen, and yet do dumb people repeat this sh*t. Ukraine has 40 million people. France also had 40 million people and they keept on fighting world war 1 even after they lost 1.3 million men. Ukraine has lost say 100.000- 200.000 men. So they could easily keep on fighting this war.
1
Not really. Its more like finding a lottery ticket on the ground at the subway. You can scratch it and see if you win. And if you get no win then you have lost nothing and is no poorer than you were when you were walking into the subway. The russian lands taken are worthless and can be abandoned. The Ukraine never had any intent on keeping it.
1
Of course their losses are low. They are walking into a weakly defended part of the frontline. There are no bunkers there. And the russian army has proven itself to be very bad at fighting wars. And its conscript soldiers are of an even lower quality than the volunteer troops fighting in Ukraine. Ukraine has taken 1000 square kilometres of land that is mostly just open fields and is therefore easy to conquer and hard to defend. And its value is very small, so I doubt that Ukraine would just sacrifice men like crazy to take it when it is also fighting against a numerically larger enemy. So with all that vodka logic debunked. Can we say that Ukraine is digging in and try to hold the land taken. But they will not try to keep this land at all costs. Dislodging the large Ukrainian force from this area requires a lot of investments from russia. And that will only be possible by moving troops from other fronts to russia. And that means russia have to abandon its push into Ukraine. And after a year of heavy losses are russian numbers too low to both make costly meatwaves and to defend russia. Now it has to choose what it wants to do more. Putin wants more meat assaults, but he realize that he cannot afford to let Ukraine expand its bridgehead into russia even more. So he now make a strategic repositioning. Which means weeks lost for him. And that means that the west will get time to ramp out artillery production and out-produce russia. And russias last hope was to get saved by Trump and Vance. But now it seems most likely that they will lose the election.
1
Ok. East German pro-russian commie nostalgics
1
Sweden democrats are pro-ukraine anti-immigration and not particulary religious. That is the simple answer. However this party have had some putin friendly members and while its stance on abortion probably would be considered as moderate by most western countries standards, is it still odd that the party care about this issue as much as it do as normal swedes do not obsess about this issue and think women should do have the right over their own bodies
1
@liberalegypt Sounds like Folkpartiet liberalerna in Sweden. As they support every of those points you mentioned. Personally do I normally not label people because that just makes people angry and cause unnecessary conflict. I am a leftwing nationalist that wants a world without Putin and the EU. I leave it at that. Dwelling down into European politics do not interest me that much, as EU have already killed the importance of national democratic parliaments. And the EU parliament election is a pointless, as my own country got less than 2% of the votes in that parliament. And the real power in the EU is centered around the EU commission. And the 2nd most powerful institution is the council of ministers. The EU parliament cannot make any laws on its own like real democratic parliaments around the world. Its role is just advisory and saying "yes" or "no" to things that the EU commission has proposed. So for that reason have I never voted in an EU parliament election. And if I want to leave the EU then I do so by voting in the national parliament election and not in the EU election. So there is really no point in me for voting to the EU election.
1
@liberalegypt "There are 6 major blocs within the European Union. Do the 6 blocs, whether the far right, the far left, the center right, or the center left, all of them do not intersect with your electoral interests?" That is a question that I do not have to worry about since I don't vote. But you can of course question yourself that thing. The Socialdemocrats in Sweden are a bit different from the Socialdemocrats in Denmark that is more anti-immigration, and many of the Socialdemocrats in Germany are very friendly towards Russia, while here in Sweden are they very hostile towards Putin. And I bet the socialdemocrats in southern Europe have many different opinions than their Scandinavian counterparts, and they focus on completly other issues. And the same goes for most other parties I guess. Which makes the concept of party groups a complex web that most voters of Europe do not understand. Voting on your favorite party might not be your best choice, as it might sit in a political group that forces it to sacrifice all the important issues that you hold close to heart, while implementing all the dumb crap in the party program that you don't want instead. I think that power should be located close to the people that are impacted by it. Swedes know best how to take care about their own forests and not some foreign politician that lives many hundreds of kilometers away and knows nothing about this country. I also think that direct democracy is better than non-transparent indirect form of indirect democracy that the EU stands for. And when leftwing politics is basically forbidden by EU law - then I believe that nothing can get better until we leave the EU. Only then are we allowed to nationalize our railroads, run defecit spending to grow the economy, prioritize economic growth and low unemoployment over low inflation, subsidize poorer regions of our country, and let the government support infant industries so we can become a world leader in high tech industries again. The EU has literarly made all my political opinions illegal to implement. So no wonder why I am looking forward to leaving the EU.
1
@liberalegypt How would you feel if I wrote into the law that all of Johan Norbergs ideas was forbidden? You would not think that would be much democratic I guess. You would see the voting as pointless and the see the system as a fake democracy. Like I view the EU. The four freedoms, the convergence pact, the ban on nationalization of failed sectors of the economy, the excessive laws that regulate government purchases of weapons or locomotives from the private sector, the ban on capital controls, EU mandated minimum tax rates... all this have forced neoliberalism upon all of Europe regardless if we want it or not. Not even if 100% of the people in one country in the EU wanted to say nationalize the railroads or lower the corporate taxes down to 0% would they not be allowed to do so because of some stupid EU rule. To me that shows that the EU and democracy cannot coexist. I lived in Sweden before we joined the EU and that was not long ago. And everything was better then before the EU screwed things up. Our military was among the strongest in Europe, we had more multinational firms, lower crime, better controlled migration, lower unemployment, our railroads was not garbage, our schools was among the best in the world, we had more hospital beds per capita, we did not have the EU censorship or absurd copyright laws that says a dude owns a piece of music 80 years after his death. We did not have a chaotic energy market that the EU created that forced us to export away all our energy to Germany so our energy prices did go up so high that pensioners couldn't pay their bills and bakeries had to shut down. Instead was cheap hydro energy one of Sweden's competative advantages over other countries. And nor did we have the EU screwing up our housing market. So yes the Sweden 30 years ago was better than the Sweden we have today in many ways. And Sweden today would have been much better if we never had joined the EU. And it is infant industry protectionism that creates new high tech firms. And without it you cannot get new invent new technologies and build new industries. So there is no wonder why Europe has stagnated economically because of the EU. I think that is the main reason why USA have high tech firms like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook while we in Europe got absolutly nothing. And the only thing the worthless Euro currency gave us was the Euro crisis in 2008. Sweden and England tried the predecessor to the Euro currency which was called the ECU, and that resulted in gigantic painful economic crisis in both countries because of the EU. Contrast that to the period when countries were running their own buisness without EU interference. The years 1945-1975 was a time period with strong economic growth and no big economic crashes. And unemployment was just 1% and in some places even lower. So that time of strong state control, extremely high taxes, harsh capital controls, and heavy protectionism was quite a succesful period for Europe. It is also interesting that many times have the world record holder in highest tariff rates also been the country with the worlds fastest economic growth. Like England 1780-1820. Or USA 1860-1890. Or Sweden 1890-1914 which had the highest GDP growth per workhour in the world during that time period. And today are China doing pretty well despite harsh capital controls, much state owned firms, government directed investments, subsidized loans from state owned banks and such. USA handled their economic crisis much better than Europe did where Greece and Spain still not have not fully recovered. Which shows that austarity and balanced budget dogma is an inferior, stupid and counterproductive way of handling an economic crash. And that the neoliberal dogma governing Europe is dooming Europe to forever fall behind USA and China. We are unable to create any own high tech firms. Our population is ageing unlike USA. We do not have any oil, gas or phosphorus like USA. We have instead painted ourselves into a corner because of this stupid EU project.
1
LOOK AT THE MAP!! IF RUSSIA IS WINNING, THEN HOW COME THAT UKRAINE IS GAINING MORE GROUND EACH DAY?
1
She is pro-putin. Politics is just a phasade to gain votes and power for her goal of helping putin. She would happily throw leftwing politics under the bus if the choice stood between putin and leftism.
1
Perhaps, but her loyalty is not with you, with Germany, the working class, union leaders or leftwing ideolgy. She is loyal to Putin above anything else. And that is a reason why I would never would be foolish enough to vote for her and fool myself.
1
The name "Russia" comes from "Rus". Rus is the nickname given to vikings from Roslagen in Sweden. Kievan-Rus got its name because Swedish vikings travelled down to Ukraine and Russia to trade, and was asked by the locals if they could stay there and rule over them as Kings. They answered the request with a "yes", and the result became that proto-Ukraine and Proto-Russia was created, and this Kingdom was ruled by Swedish and Scandinavian rulers. Later on would the Swedish component get assimilated and dissapear and become pretty irrelevant for both countries history for many centuries to come... However with Putinist logic non of this matter. It was Sweden that created both Ukraine and Russia. So with that silly logic are both Russia and Ukraine made up fake countries, and historically have Sweden ruled over these countries so they are Swedish historical lands. So Putin should give all lands that he has stolen back to Sweden. Because all of Russia and Ukraine belongs to Sweden with Putinist logic. Well this is of course not my own opinion, but if this is the rules Putin wanna change the world into, then by all means...
1
@worldinsights930 Empire means just taking land by force. And that is a bad thing in itself. Of course can plots of land join an empire out of free will like small states in Germany joining Prussia in creating a new country called Germany. Or how small states joined Giuseppe Garibaldi to create Italy. However things do become problematic with empire when freedom and independence and democracy gets taken away without the consent of the people living in one area. So multi-ethnic empires are mostly just held togheter with the iron fist of a dictator. And if he no longer rules by fear and opression, then do the empire instantly falls apart. This is what happened to Yugoslavia, and to the Soviet union and its dominance over Eastern Europe, or with modern day Iraq when Saddam died which now sees fighting between Sunni and Shia, and between kurds and ISIS. It ends in a tragic bloodbath. To avoid opression, lack of freedom and fascism there must be consent by the people that are being ruled over. They must feel like they benefit from being a part of the empire. Having one country just dictating the rules to another country (like Nazi-Germany ruled over Norway) is not a nice way of ruling an empire. And that is not an empire I wanna be a part of regardless of how nice uniforms the soldiers have, or how amazing technologies that country invents or how nice military parades it makes or how popular the leader is in his home country. So for this reason am I pretty skeptical of the idea of empire. It usually requires someone holding the empire togheter with an iron fist. During medieval times was multi-ethic empires with strange borders often created, like Spain that included the Netherlands, Italy and Portugal, or Austria that included Hungary, Belgium, Italy, and the Balkans. But today we no longer sees that. Multi-ethnic states like Switzerland, Canada and Belgium exists, but nearly everyone from those places are not much in favor of those artifical states. I do not think that diversity is a strength but rather a weakness. If diversity was a strength, then I think that africans would rather thank us Europeans for creating such strange artifical borders for newly created African states that just lumped togheter large numbers of african tribes randomly togheter into one country and thereby creating diversity. It turns out that many instead accuse European colonial powers of having created unnecessary ethnic conflicts by doing so, and hampered Africas development instead of helping it.
1
Seems like the Soviets are imploding on themselves
1