Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "Expert says Ukraine must cross Putin's 'red line' to win" video.
-
4
-
Let's talk about Crimea. My main argument is that Crimea is ethnically Russian territory. In 2013, Russians made up 60% of the population in Crimea. 60%. At the same time Ukrainians made up 16% of the population. This is essentially a Russian territory, where the absolute majority of the population is Russian. Well, Crimea itself was originally legally Russian, until 1954. Until 1954, Crimea, a territory with a 60% Russian population, legally belonged to the Russian Soviet Republic. But in 1954, Russian territory was transferred to Ukraine. In 1991, we all together destroyed the USSR. Russia and the Russian people played a major role in this process. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of Soviet Russia, who back in the 1980s actively advocated Russia's independence from the USSR. In 1989, Russia achieved autonomy from the USSR and the Soviet government. In 1991, Yeltsin defeated the Stalinists, who tried to stage a coup and arrested Gorbachev. After that, Yeltsin banned the Communist Party on the territory of the USSR, and then Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, according to which Russia, Ukraine and Belarus left the USSR. Ukraine was a very friendly country. In view of friendly relations, we were satisfied with the fact that Crimea was part of Ukraine. Because if we are friends, then we are satisfied with the fact that our territories are part of Ukraine. In 2014, everything changed. A coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, the pro-Russian elites were overthrown. Then our troops returned the Crimea to their native harbor. The Ukrainian army did not defend the Crimea. Because then they knew whose land it was. Ukrainian troops left the territory without a fight, shaking hands with our officers. The local population was also happy to be reunited with Russia. I myself communicated on social networks with many people from Crimea, and I can say that the local population was really happy about Crimea joining Russia. A small proportion of the Ukrainian population was not happy, but they are a minority there. And even Ukrainians who left Crimea admit that only residents of Crimea can decide in which country they will live.
4
-
Let's talk about Crimea. My main argument is that Crimea is ethnically Russian territory. In 2013, Russians made up 60% of the population in Crimea. 60%. At the same time Ukrainians made up 16% of the population. This is essentially a Russian territory, where the absolute majority of the population is Russian. Well, Crimea itself was originally legally Russian, until 1954. Until 1954, Crimea, a territory with a 60% Russian population, legally belonged to the Russian Soviet Republic. But in 1954, Russian territory was transferred to Ukraine. In 1991, we all together destroyed the USSR. Russia and the Russian people played a major role in this process. It was Boris Yeltsin, the head of Soviet Russia, who back in the 1980s actively advocated Russia's independence from the USSR. In 1989, Russia achieved autonomy from the USSR and the Soviet government. In 1991, Yeltsin defeated the Stalinists, who tried to stage a coup and arrested Gorbachev. After that, Yeltsin banned the Communist Party on the territory of the USSR, and then Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, according to which Russia, Ukraine and Belarus left the USSR. Ukraine was a very friendly country. In view of friendly relations, we were satisfied with the fact that Crimea was part of Ukraine. Because if we are friends, then we are satisfied with the fact that our territories are part of Ukraine. In 2014, everything changed. A coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, the pro-Russian elites were overthrown. Then our troops returned the Crimea to their native harbor. The Ukrainian army did not defend the Crimea. Because then they knew whose land it was. Ukrainian troops left the territory without a fight, shaking hands with our officers. The local population was also happy to be reunited with Russia. I myself communicated on social networks with many people from Crimea, and I can say that the local population was really happy about Crimea joining Russia. A small proportion of the Ukrainian population was not happy, but they are a minority there. And even Ukrainians who left Crimea admit that only residents of Crimea can decide in which country they will live.
4
-
@Spectre11B Germany didn't actually have such a strong army in the 1930s. Even by 1939, after several years of hard training, the German army was far behind the French or British army. I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about military equipment, I'm talking about the supply of troops and military production, I'm talking about logistics. The Germans had almost no oil, they were forced to process coal into fuel. In 1939, almost the entire German army traveled on horseback. In the British, French, Soviet and American armies, the mechanization of troops was much higher. Germany, due to lack of fuel, had ability to produce very few tanks per month. The Soviet Union in 1939 had about 20,000 tanks. France has about 3,000. Britain had about fifteen hundred. Germany had about 2,000 tanks. At the same time, German tanks were not better in terms of technical characteristics than French, Soviet or English. And the early German tanks were generally human-sized machine-gun tankettes. German aviation was inferior to the British, the British also had good self-propelled guns that hit any German tank. The German army in 1939 was inferior to the French in everything except education, training and command. With regards to the reasons for the construction of the army. First, any state has the right to protect its borders. Britain and France forbade Germany to have an army. But who are they? Germany revived its army.
Secondly, because of these unfriendly countries, because of the Soviet threat (the USSR sought to spread the World Revolution), Germany needed an army, at least somewhat comparable to the French one. In 1939, the German army was worse armed and manned than the French.
2
-
2
-
@Spectre11B History is written by the winners. Hitler really committed monstrous crimes, carried out genocides of peoples. However, for example, the Americans did the same. The Americans exterminated millions of Indians, reducing their numbers to almost zero. Europeans also carried out genocides in their colonies. In 1943, several million people died from artificial famine in Indochina, and Winston Churchill sneered at this, saying that Asians "breed like cockroaches." And why was Churchill better than Hitler? I generally keep quiet about Stalin. History is written by the winners. Hitler and the things he did were monstrous, but that was the norm at the time. With regards to Hitler's policy, I believe that he was right in many respects.
After the end of the First World War, German territories were taken away from Germany in which the German people lived for centuries, territories in which the Germans made up the vast majority of the population. And these lands, which are 80% populated by Germans, were given to Poland or Czechoslovakia. By the way, in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, the same nationalists were in power as in Germany. And the Czech nationalists oppressed the German population, violating even the basic human rights of the Germans in this region. Germany restored justice when she regained her ancestral lands. Imagine that a piece of your country will be torn off and given to another country. After Czechoslovakia, Germany decided to take a debt from Poland. But when the fighting began there, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Note - Germany did not declare war. It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany. Germany just wanted to return Memel. But the Allies intervened, hypocritically accused Hitler of imperialism, and the Allies declared war on Germany. Britain and France have half of the World as colonies, Churchill is starving people in Indochina, and they have enough hypocrisy and double standards to accuse Germany of aggression and imperialism...
1