Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "EU takes on Russia: Europe's Eastern Partnership Explained - TLDR News" video.

@houssedecouette4056 1) US troops and missiles were nowhere near Russia's borders prior to 2014, at least not in any mentionable numbers. 9,000 troops in Poland only became a thing AFTER Russia took Crimea. All while Russia kept missiles aimed at Europe's heart in Kaliningrad for generations. Russian geopolitics isn't about securing Russian interests, its about creating a boogeyman for Russian people to ignore domestic issues. 2) US has never stolen any oil in the 21st century, so your ignorance makes your argument less compelling.
8
@houssedecouette4056 Being popular after preventing any real opposition parties and making reporters/other politicians "disappear" or "throw themselves out of buildings" makes it de-facto a dictatorship. Literally every study on Russian "democracy" notes the many layers that has been placed to make actual democratic decisions impossible. It's like making rules upon rules on abortions to the point its impossible to have one and then still acting like abortion wasn't made illegal.
4
@anastasiagileva8711 That wouldn't work because Putin disallows international human rights observers to enter Russia or Crimea to begin with. OSCE observers were literally shot at for trying to enter Crimea during the "referendum". And those speaking out against it are either being jailed or disappeared within Crimea. It has literally been called by Human Rights Watch to be a "black hole of human rights". So sure, Putin can just allow an actual internationally observed referendum take place; but it's AFTER having crippling the opposition. If the US ever invaded Russia and took over Kaliningrad and drastically improved living standards and silenced anyone that was against it and THEN allowed a referendum; that'd be as egregious as this. We're supposed to be beyond these imperialist shenanigans by default due to their destabilizing nature. It also has terrible optics.
3
@houssedecouette4056 No, international organizations of human rights and democracy. Whether it be Democracy Index, Freedom House, or Human Rights Watch. Similar organizations that shit on the West for not taking in refugees, so don't cry that they're biased. You want proof? Check literally any of the above organizations and their studies on Russia. But lets be real here; you can't be convinced because you'll dismiss it all as Western propaganda no matter what. Any real opposition to Putin just "disappear", die randomly, or are disallowed from running at all -and you think Russia has democracy??? Hah.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 Yeltsin literally won the Russian election in the USSR in 1991, genius. The US didn't interfere at all, fearing that any US intervention could complicate the entire process. Don't ask someone else to research the subject when you have literally don't know about Yeltsin beating Rezkhov with 58% of the vote. You literally have no idea wtf you're talking about.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 1) It isn't the US' job to "mention" anything about this, it ain't their country. You're not special. 2) By every metric he won, and your claims that the numbers are fake come right from your ass because nothing in existence points to the election being fake. If that was the case, then you could cite proof, but you can't. 3) It was a coup attempt by Communist hardliners to stop the election, it was from the top-bottom, not the bottom-up; the only riot from the people came in SUPPORT of Yeltsin against the Communist hardliners. "The GKChP relied on regional and local soviets, which were still mostly dominated by the Communist Party, to support the coup by forming emergency committees to repress dissidence." "The Soviet public was divided on the coup. A poll in the RSFSR by Mnenie on the morning of 19 April showed that 23.6 percent of Russians believed the GKChP could improve living standards, while 41.9 percent had no opinion. However separate polls by Interfax showed that many Russians, including 71 percent of residents of Leningrad, feared the return of mass repressions. The GKChP also enjoyed strong support in the Russian-majority regions of Estonia and Transnistria, while Yeltsin enjoyed strong support in Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Novgorod." The GKChP either got abysmally low support and/or Yeltsin got all of the support. Your propaganda lies may work in Russia without the ability to check them, but they don't work on anyone else with a functioning brain.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 You cry about Western sources, but have provided none of your own. You know you're full of it, what, you just expect me to just automatically believe you? Jesus Christ, you're thoroughly brainwashed. I don't automatically believe journalists, but this is INTERNATIONAL SOURCES, as in; its been verified by multiple journalists specifically to prevent propaganda. In short; it's literally the most trustworthy sources on the planet currently. But tell me more how you feel that you're right. It doesn't change the reality. Literally believing believing things that didn't happen is no longer a "different opinion". I am under no obligation to regard your fake worldview as anything but propaganda. Russia is doomed with people like you, always believing what your dictator wants you to believe.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 Hell, you didn't even cite the bit about there being a big riot against Yeltsin. Where's your proof that happened? What about proof that barely anybody voted for him? Not even Putin is that demented to make that claim.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 Oh great. A hyper-nationalist.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 America has limitations, and it's actually a globe-spanning Superpower. It cannot do things by itself, it needs and maintains alliance systems globally of other powerful nations. Putin has already overstretched Russia massively to the point that its a pariah in the world stage, and you think he should've gone further??? The only way Russia could "stand tall" like the US is to have its alliance systems and general world apathy of its position as a superpower. Geopolitically speaking, Russia isn't even ready to do a fraction of a fraction of what the US can get away with. Ditto went with the USSR btw, who substituted actual economic and cultural influence with ideology as a method of soft power extension.
2
@anastasiagileva8711 If Russia wasn't playing the nationalist game of "stand tall no matter what" then it might have managed to coerce Eastern/Central European states to turn their way willingly. But instead Russia, through Putin, chose the stupid way and got short-term gains for longstanding enmity and loss of influence. Prior to 2014, Pro-Kremlin could have ACTUALLY argued that the US was purposefully isolating them for no reason. Now any who say that are regarded as bots or tools for the Kremlin. Geopolitically speaking, the actions you support would only deepen Russia's isolation in the world stage; weakening it further.
2
@dszxnavtiisx6384 The US through NATO brought peace to Europe. Without US influence the EU would never have been formed to begin with, and the countries there would squabble with each other as rivals rather than as allies under the US umbrella. Also, the threat of Soviet invasion also brought a sense of unity. The EU, as an entity, only exists due to external support and pressure, not because Europeans suddenly became more peaceful. It was imposed.
2
@houssedecouette4056 Yes, these organizations have ludicrously high standards, but my point is that there are no lies. Them claiming that Russian freedom of speech is in the dirt isn't a lie. Them claiming that Russian democracy is a joke isn't a lie. Them claiming that freedom of speech doesn't exist in Russia isn't a lie. None of these are lies, they're just taken from a very critical point of view of how democracy and human liberty SHOULD work. And you're wrong, they are VERY consistent with everyone. Mikhail Lesin, Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Boris Nemtsov, Boris Berezovsky, Paul Klebnikov, and more. All of these people died either via literal contract killings or by eating/drinking poison. The link between them all? They were almost all critical of Putin, with Mikhail I think more Litvinenko just a former KGB agent that was seeking asylum. Innocent proven guilty is a thing in Western courts, not in literal international news and/or politics. There can never be any proof unless Putin himself admits it, and you know damn well. So all we have are investigations that point to contracted killings with several individuals that were critical of Putin. But tell me more how Russia is a democracy. If you still claim Russia is a democracy after this, then you prove that you're just a Kremlin stooge. There is too much coincidence with too much death by literal contracted killers against individuals too anti-Putin for this to be coincidence anymore. Too many international organizations have noted Russia's dogshit standards of liberty, and too many Western sources collaborate with this. And yet here you are, unironically claiming Russia is a democracy based on...what, exactly? Random Russian nationalists? Russian news? How comes the rest of the world is wrong and Russia is right? There can never be any proof unless Putin opens the country to international observers like every actual democracy on the planet. Yet "Putin isn't a dictator". Give me a break.
1
@ram-lj9kz Only like 2 countries in the EU would be "happy" to add Russia even if it met the criteria. The rest of the EU would rightfully be wary. The US was among the few countries open to Russian membership in NATO, but please continue lol
1
@anastasiagileva8711 "Another subject in Clinton and Yeltsin’s communication that directly concerned the Baltics was, of course, the enlargement of NATO. Russia never concealed its dislike of the continuation of the Alliance following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The US was well aware of this and tried to include Russia in the new European security environment. For example, on 27 April 1995, Clinton said in a phone conversation with Yeltsin that, for the future stability of Europe, it was important that Russia be a vital part of the emerging new security structures. Nothing could develop normally unless Russia was involved in the process, believed Clinton, who emphasised three directions with respect to NATO—expansion, but without acceleration, the Partnership for Peace and preparations for the base treaty between Russia and NATO." The US under Bill Clinton actually bent itself into pretzels for Russia, but that's inconvenient to mention, I guess?
1
@arbendit4348 This is not false. Russia never invited any internationally-accepted NGOs to Crimea and shot at any decent ones that tried. It only accepted Kremlin-backed ones which have zero public trust. "Crimea is a Black Hole for Human Rights" - HRW. They criticize the West for not adhering to human rights strictly, especially with refugees; but police attacking protestors when they get violent is hardly anti-democratic. No matter how many times you lie, we already know that Yanukovich was ousted after he agreed to step down along Ukrainian Constitutional lines. He fled after that to his masters in Russia, because an ICC case was set up for him for his crimes against the Ukrainian people which the Ukrainians themselves asked for. But as always, "Merica bad" says Russia who doesn't like it when their puppets break free.
1
@NLTops You're ignoring the fact that NATO effectively only functions via US influence to begin with; it was US pressure that forced European states to work together in the name of the greater threat in the USSR. Indeed, a military alliance can't bring peace; but an external enemy and backing from an external power can 100% do just that. Economic growth and interdependence helps, but that is NOT the main thing that brings peace; as we have seen in WW1 and WW2 where Europeans tore themselves to shreds despite being VERY interdependent on each other.
1
@NLTops Okay, so it seems I need to be a little specific. I didn't mean "forced" as in; "the US put a gun to their head" otherwise France would not have been able to leave NATO. I meant "forced" as in "that was the only real option" in the circumstances provided. The US offered backing, and the European nations needed it. More than that, what I meant by "external enemy and external support" more means that long stretches of such external-forced unity warmed the populations to each other to think positively to the point that conflict and rivalry from older generations fell away. So as to your point of why Europeans didn't fight after USSR fell apart? Well, it's because they were taught to think of each other as allies from the experience of the Cold War. Again; external pressure and external support led them to such an experience. That had far more to do with European alliances and good feelings than anything else. And even then, that only stretched so far; when East Germany being reunited with West Germany became an option, pretty much none of the big European states were accepting of the idea barring France who demanded Germany join the EU and adopt the Euro for its support. Btw, your examples of the Greeks are flawed. The Greeks didn't have the Romans backing them into closer unity and the Greeks weren't under threat for half a century to get closer together, nor were they rebuilt with foreign support after a terrible inter-Greek war. Suffice it to say, the devil is in the details. Temporary Coalitions is NOT the same as being in the trenches for generations and rebuilding together, otherwise the myriad Coalitions in European history would also be long-standing unions. It was the US that gave unequivocal support to German unification and pushed other European powers to do the same. So inter-European rivalry, even with the integrated trade and alliances of the 90's, still existed and perhaps even grew after the USSR fell. Even now, inter-European squabbles grow more; but what holds it together is fear of external rivals, real or imagined. EU Federalists often cite China, Russia, or even the US as a reason for unity; and is that not using the fear of an external enemy to bring closer unity? The same strategy that helped bring the EU into fruition in the first place? While it's true that European interdependence is stronger today, it really doesn't change my point. Economic interdependence means jack shit in the face of a feeling of rivalry, nationalism, and/or fear. If the French continued to regard Germany as a possible threat, even if it managed to be like 80% of their trade, they'd still prepare for possible conflict with them, leading to rising tensions. Just look at East Asia today; many of their economies are tightly woven to China's, yet conflict is emerging due to fears and military buildups. If anything, I'd say the free movement of peoples and the visible political structures have done more to ensure there are less ability for Europeans to quarrel between themselves. But even that pales to the "external enemy" thing. Bold of you to assume that people give a shit about GDP when they feel their country is under threat. Real or imagined. Just look at Turkey today, stabbing itself in the foot economically because its populace feel under threat by everyone around them. You overestimate the long-range that people can think when under pressure. People have ruined "good things" all the damn time because of fears of what they represent, or more accurately; holding something else in value over mere economic growth. The UK being a perfect example in Europe. Plenty more examples, such as Serbia that rejects EU growth in exchange for a worthless piece of land because of its cultural significance in Kosovo.
1
@houssedecouette4056 You're literally crying about Western aggression on Russia while Russia has kept nuclear missiles aimed at the center of Europe makes your point moot. And furthermore, your point about "possibilities" is stupid; it takes a lot of mobilization to even begin an invasion of Russia. But you wanna know the best way to start something like that? By Russia attacking neighboring democracies and proving that NATO is necessary. Every nation's goal is to secure their interests, but no one in the West was aggressively against Russia UNTIL 2014. All ill will starts almost all from there. All Russian screeching about US troops at their borders? Missile systems? Air power? Almost all of it came after 2014. And you prove how ignorant you are btw. The US didn't take any oil in Iraq, Syria, or Libya; hell the US wasn't even IN Libya to take oil to begin with. The Iraqis sold oil to the Russians and Chinese since they were the highest bidder, and the US helped secure Syria's oil fields for the Kurds; but hasn't taken any for itself. Hell, it's literally the most braindead thing to do; stealing oil. The US would need to marshal its entire navy to take a decent amount of oil halfway across the planet. Funny how you neglect how the US never targeted Russia, Libya, or Venezuela. The US engaged against Russia and Venezuela due to them causing mayhem in their regions with Colombia and Brazil calling for aid in the latter. And Libya was a Franco-British action and later called for US support in line with a UN directive. But by your own metric, the US also "targeted": Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Turkey, Ukraine, etc. Mind you, that's by your own braindead metric of "targeting", but I find it funny how you talk about outside of the 21st century but ignore how very few of the US' actions abroad had anything to do with oil-rich nations. For reference, using your own metric, you can just as easily claim that Russia targets oil-rich countries. That would be a stupid claim, but by your metric it makes sense. Either way, this is all super dumbed down in order for you to say; "Murica as bad as Russia" or some shit. Sorry, but no, Russia is much worse and deserves all of the sanctions for their actions in 2014 and the suspicion of Europe.
1