Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Russia-Ukraine conflict: What’s behind the rising tensions?" video.

It's literally Russia that is starting the war, smart one. The US doesn't have 150k men at the Russian border.
2
@BathtubBass Name one treaty the US dishonored. An actual treaty, not just claims that it would help in some way. I'll wait. And? If Russia had 700 bases (which the US doesn't btw, it has more like 50+ bases since almost all of those "700 bases" are just local bases or depots from where to give or take equipment) with the permission of local countries, I wouldn't care. That's not literally invading and taking territories. THIS is. Wrong. The US was considered the greatest threat to world peace...like a decade ago. It was an opinion survey. And it also has nothing to do with this situation, where Russia is 100% in the wrong. >Russia invades a country, strips it of territory, supports secessionists within it, and then amasses 150k men at its border. >US to blame. Yeah, you're not a complete Russian bot at this point.
2
Considering Russia is attacking a democracy and is itself a dictatorship, this seems a poor choice of words.
2
Wanna look up what happened after the Germans amassed troops at their border in 1941? I'll give you a hint; it's called Operation Barbarossa.
2
@AllRequired Then tell Putler to stop literally initiating war by having so many troops amassed on Ukraine's border. Old Joe isn't even starting this.
2
@extraclip Not as spoonfed propaganda as the guy that blames the victim of Russian aggression rathe than...the Russian aggressor.
1
@itosart They have to be. Alliances have to be honored. How dare the US honor their alliances, amirite?
1
@BathtubBass First, an alliance needs a treaty. A defensive pact at the very least to ever be considered an allied nation. Working together against a common foe is NOT an allied nation. At least not officially. Second, depots are not necessarily military installations. Nor is that an extreme number if the vast majority are depots; it sounds MUCH better than just "military installations" and much less aggressive. It's like calling migrations "invasions" which is technically true, but disingenuous. An opinion piece is not a vote, nor is it factual anyway. And it's old, so you bringing that up is like mentioning that the Russia has committed genocide multiple times. It's inflammatory and has no bearings on the conversation. Eh, to be blunt, your rhetoric gives you away even if you deny it. You're the one blaming the US despite Russia literally putting an invasion-sized force at another country's border after all.
1
@itosart I want the US to honor its alliances. Eastern Europe depends on the US as a deterrence to Russia, and allowing Ukraine to be taken without a peep would destroy the US' credibility to do so and possibly give Russia confidence in invading other EE countries for their geopolitical goals. I don't want to invade, attack, or war with Russia; I want to deter Russia. Idk why protecting Ukraine = WW3 to some people barring Russian propagandists that want to act like doing anything against Russia's interests is the same as nuclear war. Not that I think you're necessarily like that, but it is the common thread.
1
@itosart Dude. What? The US did not move troops and canceled the ship deployment that was scheduled for weeks prior to this event. Why are you so fixated specifically on the US when it was Russia that moved 150k troops at another country's border? The US has literally done little more than give out verbal warnings; it couldn't be more passive than if it said nothing to Russia's aggression here.
1
@Popeslash HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Uh, no. The New Deals mitigated the Great Depression, but it most assuredly didn't lead to the greatest period of US history. That would be after WW2 restarted the US industries and left everyone else's as rubble. The US has no socialist roots. It has government interventionist roots, sure, but never socialist. And the New Deal didn't even levy a heavy tax burden on the rich, that was levied years later when the entire planet was rubble and the rich had nowhere to take their money in capital flight like they do today. Such a tax scheme would be disastrous today because the rich would just relocate. The labor movement can end conflict, but it can't do so internationally. Plenty of wars were started with aid from labor movements and for "socialist" ideals. So let's not kid ourselves here. Socialists can be as warmongering as any liberal or conservative. In fact, they have a tendency of mass murder and dictatorship unlike liberals or conservatives. xD
1
NATO had 28k men in that exercise, smart one. No one was questioning Russia's already large amount of troops at their border, but now we're talking about 150k Russian troops. You want 200k+ US troops to join the NATO forces without any Kremlin crying about it? Fat chance, hypocrite.
1
Russia has lower health standards, lower living standards, lower liberty standards, no democracy, more racism, more bigotry, more sexism, and more corruption. And you'd prefer to live there? Go ahead then. Russians move to the US, not vice-versa lol
1
@sisyphusvasilias3943 It was Russian officials that pushed the US into the role of an enemy. The US actively tried to restart relations but Putler has spit in the US' face at every opportunity until it invaded Ukraine and forced the US into actively oppose Russia's geopolitical actions. Russia has no one to blame but themselves for US hostility.
1
@TheToledoTrumpton If NATO troops made up over 100k+ men and are even a remote threat to Russia's military forces as a result; then yes. But that's not the case since NATO forces had about a few thousand men typically at the border and a maximum of 28k men with the joint recent military exercises that was scheduled to come and go. Nowhere near enough to ever threaten Russia. But 150k men? Oh, that's more than enough to threaten every country at Russia's border much as Nazi Germany did. Isn't that crazy?
1
No, the US is very much supportive of protecting its allies in general. As is the US military for that matter.
1
How can you amplify something that Russia started?
1
@Ainsaba2867 Yeah, and Russian Siberia barely has any Russians at all -I guess Russia should give up Siberia if we're making that argument, huh?
1
@Ainsaba2867 *Russians didn't want to settle there; it's majority non-Russian which means by your own logic, Russia should surrender it to independence or to another East Asian state that more closely resembles it. I know all about the Russian minority there which, btw, Russia encouraged to go there via Russification. How about you look up the concept of ethnic cleansing and Russification before you defend Russia in this, huh? The USSR specifically wanted to erase these groups from history so that in the future they'd never be anything but Russian. How would Russia feel if the US invaded Moscow, settled it with Americans, and called it official US territory then, huh? We both know how they're respond.
1