Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Military Summary" channel.

That the border of a country they're at war with was so poorly defended speaks volumes. Remember how this whole war was to stop a NATO invasion? Why hasn't that happened? If it's so bad here, imagine what it must be like next to Finland. And no. Nukes aren't the answer. They didn't need to invade Ukraine to get them. They already existed.
1
Yawn. No. This is what happens when your bluff is called.
1
@hughmungus8080 a day that will never come. Which is what you call the day on which starting a nuclear war is better than not starting a nuclear war.
1
If they have so many available, why was this part of the border so badly defended?
1
@fred4687 the evidence here shows otherwise. If the border defences are this bad on the Ukrainian border, how bad must they be on the Finnish border? Remember how this was all about stopping a NATO invasion?
1
@fred4687 which is a good argument for NATO never wanted to invade in the first place. Which then leads to.... Why invade Ukraine to stop them from joining NATO if NATO didn't want to invade.
1
@fred4687 so... You think Ukraine wouldn't give NATO every assistance if they decided to take St. Petersburg? You think long range missiles need to be close up to work? (yet I guess further than Helsinki) you think there wouldn't be CIA bases in Finland?
1
@fred4687 want to answer my questions instead of doing the standard vague threats of nuclear war (something that was possible BEFORE the invasion) Your previous answers need to be no to all of them to support what you said. But your evasion shows even you know just how laughable that would be.
1
@fred4687 so we agree that Putin was being crazy when he said Ukraine joining NATO was the reason for invading Ukraine. Cool. It's good to be on the same page 😊
1
@fred4687 yes. And I refer you back to my unanswered questions that showed why those reasons are bollocks. As Sweden and Finland demonstrated.
1
@fred4687 that excuse ignores NATO as a whole as an irrelevance. Which makes the desire to stop Ukraine joining NATO strange. Why worry about NATO membership if you're not going to worry about the NATO military? Also, Finland has a quarter of a million, plus another million in reserve. We're seeing that Russia can't even stop a few thousand against a country it's at war with. So not next. Circling back 😊 It's fun to watch the evasion.
1
@fred4687 Why do I have to keep reminding you that they're now NATO members, which means that they're a part of a far greater military than their own? A military that the dwarf in charge said was wanting to invade Russia. So he had to invade Ukraine to stop that.
1
@fred4687 and again, ignoring what NATO is. If each member of NATO could only rely on its own military.... What would be the point of it?
1
@fred4687 keeping in mind that you know this as well as I do. Why do you insist on ignoring it?
1
@fred4687 if there's no threat from them, there's no threat from NATO. This shouldn't have needed to be explained. If there's no threat from NATO, then Ukraine being a member is irrelevant.
1
@fred4687 the black Sea is already controlled by a NATO member. And you don't think that Moscow and St. Petersburg have any value? You might like to look at a map when you're thinking about this.
1
@fred4687 the excuse given was that NATO is. Turkey is a member of NATO.
1
@fred4687 so tell me. If the issue is only with individual countries, without regard to the rest of NATO. And keeping in mind that NATO's purely defensive. (which your arguments are accepting) Why care if Ukraine joins? It changes nothing if they decided to attack Russia. Either NATO as a whole is a threat or it isn't. Putin was arguing it was. You're arguing it isn't.
1
@fred4687 if NATO membership doesn't make anyone else support them in an attack, what does it change?
1
@fred4687 oh, so it is an offensive alliance? So Sweden and Finland DO matter. They're part of the whole thing that wants to invade (according to Putin) They only don't matter if it's a defensive alliance only. You really need to choose one. Either it's a purely defensive alliance, in which case Sweden, Finland and Ukraine joining is irrelevant, because they'd need to act alone, or it's an offensive alliance in which case Sweden and Finland very much matter.
1
@fred4687 if you're just worried about the US and Ukraine wanting to attack, or setup CIA bases or whatever, NATO membership isn't required. NATO isn't the only alliance going.
1
@fred4687 we're back to Sweden and Finland being a problem. Everything you said there says that they're a problem. You've gone from saying Ukraine is a threat because of their military to saying they're just a convenient host location. Finland is also very convenient. It's fun watching you twist around.
1
@fred4687 you can try to stay with that. But you've completely failed to say what makes them special. Especially after you said they're a convenient host location. The only reason I can think of for this inconsistency from you is you're trying to justify a lie that was shown to be a lie.
1
@fred4687 ah. So you're trying to use whataboutism to divert attention away from you repeatedly saying that Finland (which is on the Russian border. Right next to its second largest city) is no problem. You can drop that excuse. We've already established that NATO on the border isn't a problem. You were very clear about that when it came to Finland and Sweden.
1
@fred4687 this isn't about the US. Whataboutism is just what you retreat to when your argument is failing. The Finnish geographical situation wasn't so different when Stalin decided to invade. What's changed since then? As for the political situation. Here's your words. "Ukraine is just the convenient host location"
1
@fred4687 has there been continental drift that's separated Finland in that time? Has global warming turned the border into an impenetrable swamp? You said location. What's changed about the location? This is a geographical question after you made it very clear that "Ukraine is just the convenient host location"
1
@fred4687 you said "Ukraine is just the convenient host location" Why aren't you standing by your words? (except that your words are intended to do nothing more than justify a blatant lie. It's difficult to be consistent when defending a lie) And if it's not a NATO invasion that's the problem (when you brought up Serbia, you made it very clear that it was, because you made it very clear that NATO wasn't a defensive alliance) but, for example, the US using Ukraine to attack Russia, then why is NATO membership necessary? Hint: it's not. I like how you try to have it both ways, and have been put into a position where you need to forget or ignore your own words. No matter how many times they're quoted back at you. You CAN'T say that NATO membership is a problem while accepting Swedish and especially Finnish membership as not a problem. If they're ok, then there is NOTHING that you can claim about NATO membership for Ukraine that's required for it to be a threat. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.
1
@fred4687 your evasion made it clear that nothing had changed that was relevant to "Ukraine is just the convenient host location". So is Finland. Geographically, nothing has changed since the winter war. Also, you think Finland and Sweden joined NATO because of reasons other than viewing Russia as an enemy state and a threat? Russia is literally the only reason to join NATO.
1
@fred4687 that's three posts in which you've evaded the question. But thank you for highlighting that you've been evading it. Want to actually answer them? Again, remember that your words were: "Ukraine is just the convenient host location" And you should be asking them that. However at a guess, it might have something to do with what Russia was doing to its non NATO neighbours. Just a wild guess. Do you have a better reason for them to join than viewing Russia as a threat?
1
@fred4687 this is where we ignore that Russia had recently launched a major invasion of a non NATO neighbour? How much more justification is needed? Are you really that bad at pattern recognition? If you don't think it's that, why do you think they joined? And are you going to tell me what's changed geographically. Remember you made it geographic when you said this. "Ukraine is just the convenient host location".
1
@fred4687 so what was their reason for joining an alliance that has no real purpose except being against Russia?
1
@fred4687 also, do I really need to highlight the timeline you gave? Russia did a small effort thing plus a proxy. No joining. Russia launched a full scale invasion. Joining. Can you join the dots?
1
@fred4687 I've already told you. The threat posed by Russia. If there's another reason, you've had many opportunities to tell me. Just like you've had many opportunities to tell me about the geographic changes to Finland (not geopolitical. You chose to make this about location) since Stalin decided they were too close to St. Petersburg. And a referendum isn't required. All that's needed is ratification on the applying country's side after being accepted by the current members. It had that.
1
@fred4687 the threat of being the next unallied country it invaded. Russia saying it won't invade a place hasn't exactly been trustworthy. As we saw in February 2022. You've even made the threat clear when you say "unknown future risks". It's not nearly as subtle as you seem to think. As far as referenda go for alliances. No, it's not the standard. For example, there was no referendum on AUKUS. There were plenty of threats similar to the one implied in your statement that have shown why it's needed. and I'm asking about changes to Finnish geography because I'm mocking your belief that something has changed since Stalin thought it was worth invading. "Ukraine is just the convenient host location" That's a geographic statement. Why do you no longer stand by your words?
1
@fred4687 so to be clear: If they don't think there's a threat, they won't join. But then if they do....? Hmm.... What might they do if they change their minds? What might they do indeed? Hmm.... Can you think of anything they might do if they change their minds? and the reference to Stalin was that he thought that Finland was close enough to a major city to make it a threat. My mockery of you with geography was to highlight that the reasons haven't changed. It's still very close. You could even call it a more "convenient host location" than Ukraine is.
1
@fred4687 considering there was an election while the Finnish application was going through, it does look like it was supported. and Finland and Russia might have been on good terms. But then something changed that made them realise this was a bad idea. That made them realise Russia was a threat to them.
1
@fred4687 and did you notice the incoming didn't cancel the plan?
1
@fred4687 which in turn brings us to you flailing around on irrelevancies trying to avoid discussing why Finland was ok, but Ukraine wasn't. So here's the real reason. His bluff was called in Finland. It wasn't on Ukraine. And the man is just bluff.
1
@fred4687 except obviously the lie that NATO was getting ready to invade Russia, which was used to justify the Ukraine invasion.
1
@fred4687 remember you yourself said that Ukraine was just a convenient host location. And you've completely and utterly failed, despite so many opportunities to even attempt to say why Ukraine was a convenient host location, but Finland wasn't. Our that Lithuania or Latvia wasn't. Or any of the Baltic states, really. Either NATO is a threat that wants to invade Russia, or it isn't. Which is it?
1
@fred4687 you don't send stuff through the Baltic? And the black Sea is an issue BECAUSE Russia invaded. You're mixing cause and effect. As for why Finland, etc is a concern. As has been said before. It's right next to St. Petersburg. Which, going on the fiction that NATO wants to invade Russia (not Finland. Not Sweden. NATO) is a prime target. Look at a map. None of this should have needed to be pointed out.
1
@fred4687 despite it being a NATO lake. It's weird how being in NATO is only a problem when it's a convenient excuse for attacking Ukraine. Everywhere else, it's meh. And you've been unable to say what difference NATO membership actually makes to Ukraine messing with Russia. If it is an offensive alliance, then there would absolutely be attacks from Finland. If it's only a defensive alliance, it merely means that Putin loses the power to invade a sovereign country. Again.
1
You should have worn a helmet in those wars.
1