Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "The Ukraine War From Russia's Perspective" video.

@Octoberfurst Well, duh. "NATO expansion" in reality is just countries approaching NATO to join. While Russian enlargement is from a hostile annexation
31
@raycodv267 So powerhungry that thr last US President was seriously arguing it? US is hardly powerhungry, it's naïve if anything. Many Americans were arguing for am end to any dealings overseas just a few years ago and got such a President in the last election. They have been silenced for now but can easily reappear in the next election cycle. Its hardly as you say.
7
@reinereine1896 Russia invaded countless countries too, actually. Moldova, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Russian support of Chinese genocide in Xinjiang, most ISIS weapons come from Russia and ally China, Russia helped Assad kill many people in Syria and destroyed cities like Aleppo, etc, etc. US actions can be wrong, just like Russia's. Which has nothing to do with NATO and countries hiding inside of it due to Russian imperialism. Russia and China can do whatever they want as long as they avoid the imperialism. Nobody did anything but complain in Russian actions elsewhere, but Ukraine was a red line. The reason Russia and China have NOT made an alliance with these nations is because they can't. Venezuela allowed Russian mercenaries to enter their country, but it disallows any Russian base.
7
@news_internationale2035 Being dependent on another entity doesn't mean you are no longer politically independent. That's like saying being dependent on another nation economically excludes independence. There are few nations on Earth that are "independent" at that point.
6
@jcd776 Jedi Master Biden says that "Anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering" as Russia is proving now.
6
Okay but he kinda is. In logic at least.
5
@JohnWick-qr4yc If they genocide tomorrow, they will just bring up the Native Americans. It's disengenious as hell
4
@nunyabysnss9755 Iraq and Libya doesn't have nukes and they aren't economically connected
2
@kalasmournrex1470 He put the idea of leaving NATO out there regardless, giving voice to a dangerous belief that would aid Russia and China to the detriment of democracy worldwide. The fact he brought it up at ALL is a red flag.
2
@zgramadan Well, no, it doesn't. There was a concerted effort for throwing away internationalism for isolationism just a few years ago in the US. Thay pretty much slaps your theory out the window.
2
@Rishi123456789 India enabling Russian atrocities. Name a more iconic duo.
2
@shubhamsarkar9680 NATO wasn't in Syria and Iraq, genius. It was in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11.
2
@taumctauface1886 People keep spreading this lie. No, Russia never attempted to join NATO. Ever.
2
@heavenbright2342 Russia never asked to join. Putin asked a NATO rep when they would invite Russia but the process is clear; Russia must apply. Putin was offended and thought Russia should be invited; he never once applied to join.
2
@AB-nm7vy The Cold War disproves your theory. There was peace between the Superpowers but there was a lot of wars as proxies. Wars lessened when the USSR fell.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn When talking about invasion we are typically talking about conventional arms. Russia's conventional army is a joke, and the armoes that invaded Russia are effectively only strong when properly supplied which scorched earth tactics heavily destroy. No question the US would be kicked out in an invasion, but it would devastate Russian cities with relatively few casualties while doing so, if we remove nukes from the equation. Mongols invaded Russia too without issue, after all.
1
@akon360 Europe are regretting listening to Russia at all and are very much done with listening to their security concerns. Turns out the Americans and Russian neighbors were right about Russia.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn Not really? I'm just using them as an example to illustrate what the issue was. Mongol and their Steppe tactics and lack of logistic trains allowed their conquest. German, Swedish, and French invasions failed mostly because the latter 2 relied on feeding themselves from the land and the former had their supply lines stretched beyond the breaking point. I mean, whether you accept it or not, Russia's conventional army is a joke. It can't even occupy Ukraine, which by many leagues is poorer and weaker than Iraq was in 1991 and 2003. "That's likely what they want" LOL okay. Considering how hard they've been spreading the "Russia is stronk!" memes across the internet for years now, that is pure copism on your part. You wanna talk about pride? You should prolly tell the Russians that since they have been kicked out of the north. Oh, I'm sorry, they "completed Stage 1" or something, right?
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn My argument is that the Russian conventional army would be devastated and likely destroyed along with the ruination of Russia in the event of an invasion; but the US would not stomach being able to occupy Russia for long. Why would the US try it? Russia has nukes, plus there is no point devastating Russia for no reason. Everybody with a brain knows where Russia is in relation to the likes of the US now, no need to prove anything.
1
@akon360 Why? Russia is no threat; only to its weaker neighbors. As long as those neighbors are in NATO, they will be secure.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn No such thing as a neutral nation that reaps benefits; the few nations that benefitted from the prior World Wars essentially chose a side without sending in troops. The US aligned with the Entente and Allied powers and became even more powerful by sending in supplies. Brazil and Mexico were effectively neutral in reality. Brazil and Mexico got nothing, the US did. But keep dreaming your strange dreams; all you care about is power in the end, and thus are willing to overlook Russian atrocities. If war comes to you via China, you're likely to cry if the West doesn't come to your aid afterwards; so spare us your spiel.
1
@somechuvak2174 Murica is more like a mafia boss that everyone lets occasionally do bad crap since he keeps the community afloat. Russia is just the drunkard causing trouble with few redeeming qualities atm. Hopefully Mother Russia can get some therapy.
1
@reinereine1896 If Russia doesn't want to be encircled, maybe it shouldn't be attacking everyone to the point that they feel the need to join NATO, huh? Same with China; you don't see nations lining up to join Russia or China in a military alliance near the US, do you?
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn Russian terma have been ignored because they effectively demand a Western betrayal of allied nations. Russia literally demanded that NATO withdraw from all former Warsaw Pact countries as if they were chess pieces to trade off. That's not "negotiation" anymore than the US demanding that Russia unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons. US nukes have not moved closer to Russia since the Soviet days for a reason; no nukes in Eastern Europe. Russia has yet to place any in Latin America precisely because the US has yet to place any in places like Latvia or Estonia.
1
@meilinchan7314 China is mad that white men cracked whips in China. They felt only they has the right to crack whips on the planet; as we see in their recent actions in East Asia. China hae always had an imperialist mindset, they only mad they weren't on top for a time, thus their "Century of Humiliation" after thousands of years of humiliating their neighbors.
1
@싸넬동지-7성담배 South Americans generally are bitter about US interventions but don't see the US as a threat in the 21st century anymore.
1
@solgato5186 Seeing as Germany has more homeless per capita than the US does, then "housing the homeless" is seen rightfully as a crap excuse to allow dictators to run roughshod over other democracies. It's an attempt to deflect as a way to defend imperialism of othet countries. So yes, Russian or no, you are effectively a Kremlinbot in that you seem unable to be anti-imperialist in the case of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likely a Leftist whose policy ends up as a form of American Exceptionalism.
1
@solgato5186 US is pretty amiable to the global south these days, actually. I'm from there. But I'm sure that's what certain dictators want you to spread in order to justify the murdering of protestors worldwide, amirite?
1
@solgato5186 USA didn't overthrow Zelaya, you propagandist. USA had no role to play, as we know through WikiLeaks, at maximum they ignored the crimes of the coup and tried to focus on maintaining ties with Honduras no matter who was in charge. If the US tried to maintain Zelaya, you'd be screeching about US interference in Latin American affairs to begin with. "USA overthrew Morales and installed a fascist" LOL, as I said, you're just throwing random accusations out there, no matter what. This is your brain on anti-US bigotry. Did the CIA make you stub your toe yesterday as well? The US denounced the coup against Morales as well as his dictatorship, genius.
1
@Daurentius322 You are the hypocrite here. This was hardly the first time Russia bullied someone else, this is just the first time they had consequences because of it. You cry tgat the US can do whatever it wants; but it can't, because it can never get away with invading a peaceful democracy by claiming it as artificial and that it doesn't have a right to exist. In pure geopolitical terms, Russia was brain-dead in being obvious about it's actions instead of painting it as just like its intervention in Syria or war in Georgia or Chechnya. It went too far is the issue, not that the US has a right to invade.
1
@napoleonbonaparte937 Meanwhile everyone: "Pls be my friend Murica" People quote Kissenger without giving context to that quote. He meant the exact opposite of what you said lol
1
@Rishi123456789 If the US tries to argue that another group of people need to be destroyed and starts massacres left and right without punishment then we'd all be for sanctions on the US. Too bad for you that never happened.
1
@sinoroman This is a lie. Entente allies went into Russia to support the Tsar whom was a war-time ally, there was no plans to conquer. Just to re-open the Eastern Front.
1
@bobpoop6025 Russia has unironically invaded far more countries than the US.
1
@pokuni7319 And those lands were Native American before Spain/Mexico stole it from them. It's a reductionist point. We have what we have now; no point starting wars over what people used to have. Lest Spain argue Mexico should be under its heel again.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn There are few enemies that the US is making that doesn't have enemies themselves. China is making enemies everywhere including their own neighbors. Ditto with Russia and Iran. If a world war breaks out, US will be in a good position geopolitically speaking.
1
@pokuni7319 Don't be obtuse. I'm talking about local population generally being accepting of being a part of that nation-state. We know for a fact that Russian invaded and set up a referendum which was VERY questionable. If Russia can do that, then everyone can start wars by invading and setting a fake referendum after the fact. How wouls you feel if the US invaded Siberia and annexed it following a fake referendum?
1
@pokuni7319 Sounds like you're projecting, as US CIA-styled regime changes only really occurred in the Cold War. Not the 21st century. But its convenient for you to label anything you don't like as a CIA op, that way you won't feel bad butchering protestors. It's disgusting. It's why liberals and progressives should no longer tolerate tankies while conservatives and libertarians should no longer tolerate fascists.
1
@pokuni7319 Ah yes, because random marxists and fascists claim that every single coup post-Cold War was done because the US did it is a valid claim. I've heard it all before; and each and every single one of them are as flimsy as the next. The Kremlin's "US coup in Ukraine" theory is no different than the N@zi "Poland is planning to dismember Germany" theory. Literally nobody believes the theory, btw. Only boot lickers do.
1