Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "Mark Felton Productions"
channel.
-
15
-
9
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, and at now they are reinforcing and forming the frontline, they made a pause.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
I think that casualities ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~2 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
The popular comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
8
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
@herrrotkappchen7816 Russian millitary operation in Georgia had no differences with NATO operation in Serbia. That was a peacekeeping operation. In 1999 there was a Yougoslavian war, where the genocides and kills were commited. The Albanians from Kosovo were fighting for their independence against Serbs. The Western World recognized Kosovo as an independent state, and NATO forces bombed Serbia, resulting the end of bloody war.
The same thing happened in Georgia - Abkhazia and Osetia were fighting against the Georgia for their independence, people were dying. In 2008 Russia recognized Abkhazia and Osetia as an independent nations, and Russian peacekeepers entered parts of Georgia. After 5 days of fighting Georgia surrendered, and at now this countries are living in peace. Russia in 2008 made a good thing and ended a bloody war, in which Georgians were shelling civillians in Osetia by heavy artillery. The real bad guys in Russo-Georgian conflict were Georgians, while Russians in 2008 had ended the bloody war, and Abkhazia and Osetia became independent, as they wanted to be.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nominal GDP doesn't show the standard of living because prices in different countries are different, but nominal GDP is set at the exchange rate, despite the fact that the price of a dollar is set the same as the price of any other commodity - depending on the magnitude of demand and its supply. Russian economy, roughly speaking, may be all right, but if the demand for the dollar in Russia increases, the price of the dollar will also increase, and as a result, statistics will show a decline in the Russian economy, which doesn't exist. This is exactly what happened in 2014 in Russia - there was almost no drop in production volumes and the production level in Russia, but GDP statistics fell by almost 2 times due to an increase in demand for the dollar among the population. Even if the economic decline was small, the population still wants to protect money from inflation, and wants to buy dollars, and N. GDP statistics are starting to lie.
The sanctions that are being imposed against Russia will not lead to a serious collapse of production, and even in case of isolation Russia is capable of producing everything itself, as in Soviet times, when Russians were able to produce televisions and vacuum cleaners. And of course Russia is able to produce her own nukes. Even USA are dependent on Russian nuclear fuel in their nuclear plants industry. Russia is a World leader in production of wheat. Russia is a World leader in production of huge lasers. Russia have production of presses for Toyota and Renault. Russia controls 20% of World oil market and Russia have production of gaz for Europe. Also Russia have a lot of resources. With such resources Russia would be able to live for the next few years, untill America would replace Russia from European market of oil and gaz. When Russia would lose a European oil and gaz market, that would be a collapse of Russian economy. Probably 2-5 years. Russia is dependent on Wetsern oil-production tech, and Russia at now are going out of oil fields, that Russia is capable to use. But in going 4 years Russia is still capable to do something.
Russia started to trade gaz for roubles, and at now dollar price in Russia stands on pre-war level, and it is still falling.
Russia at now have a Nominal GDP, that shows the ability of bying imports - 1.5 triillion $ (10th place in the World list) and GDP PPP, that shows the scales of production - 3.6 triillion dollars, 5th place in the World list. In terms of the scales of production Russian economy is 5th largest in the World, in terms of ability of bying imports Russian economy in 10th position. Life standarts are in 60th position in the World list from ~180.
Also, Russia have the Chinese big brother that would trade with Russia, and Russia would have a Chinese tech and computers, but this would be worser than competition of all producers. China would probably make Russia its colony.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russian forces were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The Russians made the progress in the first 3 weeks of war, but they exhauted their unprepared force, and at now Russians had stopped the invasion to reinforce the frontline, at least build a frontline, to prepare for the continulation.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emilywatt5126 those republics, who voted for independence in 1990-1991, became independent states. Siberian and Caucasian peoples voted in majority to enter Russia. Only Tatarstan became independent in 1992. The voting for independence of nations was organized by Boris Yeltsin, he once said "You can have such automony as you can eat" (c). Tatarstan was an independent in period of 1992-94, but after the coup in Moscow in 1993 Russian government became more monolithic and straight, commies were shot down by tanks, and Tatarstan, that was feeling economically bad without Russian oil, made the agreement with Russia, according to which Tatarstan became the autonomic region inside Russia. They have rights for their religion and language, there is no enmity between the Russians and Tatars.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The same could be said about the Russian army and any other army of Europe and West after 1991. After the Cold War ended all countries across the World shrinked their military size, and Russia also did this. Russian army in january 2022 had less than 500 thousand soldiers serving in infantry, and half of this army was a 18-27 years old conscripts, completely incompetent and useless in battlefield, in invasion to Ukraine Russia used only volunteers among contractors, less than a half of this 500 thousand army - Russia started a war with having only 150 thousand soldiers, even lesser than Ukrainian army - Ukraine had nearly 200 thousand infantry servicemen already in the first day of war. Combined strength of NATO is much bigeer than Russian army, simply because NATO have few times more population than Russia, not considering quality difference, so Britain as an island state don't need the army. Britain is protected by seas, like in WW2, when Britain had relatively small land army, priority was in navy and avation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boerekable Russia don't have 19th century villages - people have televisions and cheap cars, like in Ukraine. Ukrainian province isn't better. Life standarts in Russia before the war were higher than in Ukraine. I could believe to your worlds, that Ukrainian villages are a little reacher, than Russian, but this is not due to the governmental management, but due to the Ukraine have better and more fertile soils, than Russia have. The Ukrainian villages are a little bit reacher than Russian only because they have better climate and soils for agriculture. But de facto life standarts in the middle and provincial cities in Russia and Ukraine are same, while huge Russian cities are much better places to live than huge Ukrainian cities, including even Kyiv.
Ukraine have better potential of growth, than Russia, because the population density in Ukraine is higher, than in Russia. Population density is a main resource that you need for economic growth, because the economic growth is dependent on demand. You can produce some product, but you need to sell it, and you need a demand from a consumer. And the density of population is playing high role in the economic growth, because you need profitability of your production. And this is why you can't open your enterprise in small village with low population. Because these low population wouldn't be able to pay for your goods. And this is why Asian countries at now are showing such economic growth. They have huge population density. Do you know about McKinder Rimland and Heartland theory? Ukraine have better soils for agriculture and more population density, that Russia. This is why the social separation in Ukraine is lower, than in Russia. And Russia have resources, such as oil and gaz, and this is why Russia have much better life standarts in huge cities, than Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The same could be said about the Russian army and any other army of Europe and West after 1991. After the Cold War ended all countries across the World shrinked their military size, and Russia also did this. Russian army in january 2022 had less than 500 thousand soldiers serving in infantry, and half of this army was a 18-27 years old conscripts, completely incompetent and useless in battlefield, in invasion to Ukraine Russia used only volunteers among contractors, less than a half of this 500 thousand army - Russia started a war with having only 150 thousand soldiers, even lesser than Ukrainian army - Ukraine had nearly 200 thousand infantry servicemen already in the first day of war. Combined strength of NATO is much bigeer than Russian army, simply because NATO have few times more population than Russia, not considering quality difference, so Britain as an island state don't need the army. Britain is protected by seas, like in WW2, when Britain had relatively small land army, priority was in navy and avation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vesakaitera2831 I think Putin is liar, and "NATO expansion threat" is also lie. I think that Putin invaded Ukraine to not allow Ukraine to enter European Union and Wetsern sphere of influence, because Russian oligarchs would lose Ukraine as their cake, and also Ukraine by enetering the European Union, from one of the poorest countries of Europe, even more poor than Russia, would become the good place to live, probably better than Russia, and Putin's dictatorship don't need the rich country of European Union near the Russian borders. Finland already a part of European Union, also Finland have good economic relations with Russia, and Finland stays neutral in question between NATO and Russia, so, there is zero possibility that Russia would attack Finland, there is no rivalry in media between Russia and Finland.
Also, Putin need war for popularity. Putin always was providing his rating by war - for example in 1999, during the Chechen war, Putin was Russian prime minister. in Russia power is arranged so that president is transfering power to prime minister, something like the monarchy, and when sick Yeltsin resigned, Putin temporarily became the president of Russia. This is symbolically happened on New Year, 31 december 1999. Russian population didn't had any trust to him, people were thinking, that coup against Yeltsin had happened.
Putin became the ruler during the terrorist attacks - Chechen Islamic terrorists, known for their cruelty since 1991, attacked the Dagestan region of Russia. Also, dozens of blasts in the residental buildings had happened all across Russia, and Putin blamed the Chechens in organizing this blasts, from which hundreeds of people died. Russian army provided the operation in Dagestan and Chechnya, defeating the Islamists and occupying the region. This is exactly what Russian army didn't achieved in thr first Chechen war of 1994-96, when Chechen terrorists and killers had won the war. Putin gained rating from millitary victory over the terrorism, and he won the presidential elections of 2000. But Chechens continued rebel fighting, and terracts were happening in Russia up to ~2008. Some people are also believing, that some terracts and blasts of 1999 were organized by Putin himself. Also, there was a massive blast in Moscow metro in 2010, when the entire station with train was destroyed, this station was closed for repair for few years. Probably this blast was organized by Putin to keep the picture of foreign threat. In 2008, when Russia defended Abkhazians and Osetians from Georgian agression, Putin also gained rating, and in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, his popularity grew from 40% to 80%. Crimea was a Ukrainian-controlled territory, that is populated by Russians. Nikita Hrushew, the ruler of USSR (1954-1964) was Ukrainian by nationality, and he transferred Crimea from Russian SFSR to Ukrainian SR in 1956. And people in Russia always wanted Crimea back, Russians really cared by this question for 70 years. And Putin, that wanted the growth of his popularity, annexed Crimea.
If we are talking about this war - Putin's rating is also growing. Ukraine isn't saint country in Russo-Ukrainian conflict. in 2014 the Donbass region, Eastern Ukraine, had rebelled against the Kyiv rule. Donbass region is highly populated by Russians, and these Russians standed against the nationalistic-democratic revolution in Ukraine, and they wanted to enter Russia. Putin isn't lying, when he is saying, thet Ukraine have naz%s in the government. This is true. Ukraine is a nationalistic government, and Ukrainian forces were fighting against Russians is the Donbass region since 2014. 14 thousand people had died as a result of Donbass war (2014-2022). Little ammount of people in Russia at now are standing against this war, and even I am neutral to the war, because Ukrainian side isn't saint, as Western propaganda is saying. Ukrainian forces for 8 years were killing the Russians in the Donbass, and this is true that Ukrainian government and media even before the war of 2022 were rusophobic naz%s, so these people deserved the war, their current fate. Let's hope Zelensky would stop useless resistance and would surrender, because Russian army had retreated from Kyiv region, so this means that Russian command rejected its first plan, and occupying all Ukraine isn't the target of war anymore. So, there is no reasons of Ukrainian resistance at now, because Russia isn't targeting the occupation of all Ukraine, but only Donbass region, highly populated by Russians, that were fighting against Ukrainians for their independence for 8 years since 2014. And the fact, that war still going since the 5th of April is completely Ukrainian fault, because there is no reasons for Ukraine to continue to fight.
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russian forces were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The Russians made the progress in the first 3 weeks of war, but they exhauted their unprepared force, and at now Russians had stopped the invasion to reinforce the frontline, at least build a frontline, to prepare for the continulation.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emilywatt5126 Dagestan, Ingushetia and Tatarstan weren't fighting for their independence. I agree with you about the Chechnya - it would be economically and culturally better for Russia, if Caucasus would have be independent. But other peoples, except Chechens, weren't rebelling.
Tatarstan is Russian for so long time, that it couldn't be independent. Genetically Tatars and Russians simply mixed and we are living in good relations together. My grandpa is Tatar. The Tatars have no demand for independence. Bashkirya and other Siberian peoples aren't wanting the independence - they see Russians as a "white civilizators". I was in the lake Baikal and Buryatia, and I never saw such friendly people. We existing together with Siberian peoples in harmony. Many peoples in the Russian Federation have autonomic budget, leaders of their nationality, rights to learn their language.
And opposite situation in the nationalistic Ukraine - Ukrainian government for example made a language reform in 2018, when Russian language was banned in TV, media, shcools, supermarkets and governmental buildings. That law was a madness, because the Russian is a second language in Ukraine, and there are many Russians in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government simply banned the Russian language. The workers in supermarkets of Ukraine had problems with Ukrainian police, because they spoke Russian. Putin wasn't lying, when he was talking about the nationalism in Ukraine. For example in the Western part of Ukraine there is a city of Lviv. And these city have a monument of division SS Galizia - Ukrainian nazis, that served to Hitler's Nazi Germany in WW2. Ukrainians have a monuments of Nazi WW2 criminals in their cities. There are also many of monuments to Stephan Bandera - Ukrainian WW2 era nationalist, that provided the genocide of Russians during the WW2. Ukrainians have monuments of him in many cities. This is not wonderful, that Russia had invaded. If your historical "heroes" are nazis, that were providing genocide of Russians, if you have nazi monuments in cities, if you have nationalist laws against Russian language, there is no wonderful, that Russians would came to you.
Russia had invaded Ukraine, because UKR was trying to join NATO, and RUS considers NATO as a military threat. Good parallel - Cuban missile crisis. When USSR provided Cuba by nukes, America was concerned, and Cuba at now is still isolated. And no one in UN had said that "Cuba is an independent nation, that have rights to provide its defense by any means", like they are talking at now about the Ukraine, that "Ukraine had rights to join NATO". Or Iraq. America was concerned about (non-existed) Iraqish nuclear programm. And America had invaded Iraq because America was afraid about the Iraqish nukes. And no one in the UN said bad about America, no one sanctioned America, like they at now sanctioning Russia. The Western media wasn't showing how civillians were suffering in the Iraq, like they are showing at now the civillian suffering in Ukraine. Double standarts and hypocrisity. America have rights to invade other countries, because they "are threating America by nukes", and no one would sanction or say anything bad, but when evil Russia would do the same thing, everyone would blow up with emotions. If America was concerned about the Iraqish and Cuban rockets, so, why Russia don't have rights to be concerned about the NATO and the American nukes in Ukraine? Double standarts.
1
-
1
-
@emilywatt5126 Russia wouldn't collapse, there are no reasons to such process. Economically Russia answered to sanctions by starting to trade gaz for roubles. In 2021 we have a dollar for 75 roubles, after the war, in late february - 130, and in march we started to trade gaz for roubles, and and at now (31st of march, 2022) we have dollar for 83.41 and euro for 93.49 roubles, and its price still falling by 1-3 roubles per day. Investements in the Russian economy are growing for the last two weeks, while in the late february there was a collapse. And Russia is trading only gaz for roubles. What would happen, if Russia would start to trade oil and coal for roubles? China would provide Russia by technological products. Also, Russia isn't North Korea, that was uncapable to do anything. Russia is able to produce something by itself in case of full isolation - good example is USSR, that was producing vaccum cleaners and elevisions by itself. The our own production would open to us a way for development. We would have a chance to produce something by our hands while there would be a low competition only with Chinese, but not bying imports.
1
-
1
-
@emilywatt5126 if you want the justical borders - so, all white people from USA must evacuate from USA, because before 16th century there were no white people in the America. Also, all Latinos nations must must be evacuated from their countries - let's the red-skinned people live in their countries. Also, Jewish must evacuate from Arabic lands. Poles must return their territories to Germany, Ukraine and Belarus must return western parts to Poland, Ukraine must return eastern parts to Russia and Belarus would become a part of Russia. You want the historical borders? Don't you worried, that in these territories, that were Finnish someday, Finns at now aren't living? And these borders, that existed before the 1939, were changing in the past. You talking the complete nonsence
1
-
1
-
1