Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Poland to double the size of its military" video.

@Memovox Yeah, kicked our ass so bad that tens of thousands were butchered with barely any US deaths. Being blunt here; dying and hiding doesn't mean kicking ass. As it turns out though; it's hard to occupy a country that doesn't believe in what you fight for.
33
ciybersal It is a US defeat, sure; though calling it a global humiliation is kinda funny lol. Only the ignorant can really call it that
24
@Memovox I'm aware. And like Vietnam, there wasn't really a military defeat, but a political defeat in not achieving the goal.
19
@Laotzu.Goldbug I wouldn't say that; I would say its a mix of both. What regular people don't understand is that war games go through a LOT of scenarios that are both useful for military planners, but also used to scare people. An example being the story of how a Swedish sub sunk an entire US Aircraft Carrier without getting caught leading to people get scared that the US was not strong enough to handle itself in conflict. What people neglected to mention was how the US specifically not allowed itself or use active scanners or other measures to detect the sub and how diesel subs, while quiet, also had extremely short range and had no business intercepting a Carrier group out in open sea. There is a LOT of misinformation that gets spread around, sometimes for clicks, other times for political gain. But war games are necessary and useful, don't get it twisted.
11
@Septic Neuron ...Huh? I didn't move the goal post at all; I said that by no metric could the defeat in Afghanistan be called an ass kicking, and I still stand by that. It was a defeat still, but militarily it really wasn't; though ultimately the political victory is what matters in the end, not the k/d ratio lol Very few US soldiers died, the money spent on Afghanistan did hurt, but the US spends money like that quite often; it wasn't exactly financially crippling. More like a bad investment. I'm sure some people regard it as this great humiliation, but I didn't really see any possible way to complete the Afghanistan mission barring a full-on occupation with large US troop numbers and billions more $. No amount of military power can fix the issues of Afghanistan, only its own people can. So it was a lost cause, and should've been left earlier. How that is a humiliation is beyond me, frankly. I literally never denied it was a defeat, but I'm sure your manlet ego noticed that already. It must burn you that the US is still undisputable #1 if you're so obsessed with convincing yourself that this is a humiliation, huh? The only reason I can fathom why you're harping about this. Ah well, cry all you want, I already made my point.
9
@ArawnOfAnnwn The US being regarded as the greatest threat to world peace is obvious; it is the most powerful state on the planet by far still, so it has the greatest potential to throw the world into chaos. Duh. That being said, if you're using Gallup surveys, then you must be aware that the US is by far the most likeliest country to go to war for its ally, regardless of the cost while most EU big states have absolutely NO will to fight even for an allied nation. So basically, you kinda proved the other guy's point. The US is literally the only dependable big state to ally with as of right now, according to Gallup.
7
@arthurskok5899 Not a nationalist or a patriot; just a realist of geopolitics. But you are filled to the brim with propaganda if you think you can somehow have a geopolitical order function without the superpower. The European world order of the 1700's-mid 1900's was very much born of British hegemony. This is currently American hegemony. If you can't grasp these basic ideas, then you choose to remain ignorant. I'm glad that America is bad to you, it'd be a bad sign if you saw it in a positive light considering your prior responses. It's like a Russian boot licker hating the US; it's a stellar recommendation.
6
@arthurskok5899 Such an embarrassment that it retains the worlds greatest economy, military, cultural spread, influence, and alliance structure in defiance of other large countries against it. How pathetic must your country be to be below the world's embarrassment? Mind you; this is using your logic. I happen to think the US is doing alright and has its foibles, with other countries also doing pretty alright, at least the wealthier ones. But I ain't a bigot, unlike some people.
4
@Laotzu.Goldbug It's hypothetical, ultimately. And the truth usually lies in the middle; so I wouldn't really assume that, no. I would assume that some politicians are taking advantage of the unfortunate truth, though.
4
@arthurskok5899 Look up; "Why The World Is Getting Better And Why Hardly Anyone Knows It". Statistical proof of my claim, if you want it. People don't want you to think like that though because it breeds a sense of complacency instead of the "we need to change things" attitude fermented by being in an ever-crisis mode. Though, understandable, it has led to a massive disconnect between trust in media/politics and the common man.
3
@legioonalainen I am a mutt. And superior to you. Cry harder.
3
@1112viggo "American diplomats allowed it" Jesus Christ, what alternate history do you believe in??? You realize that there is literally ZERO proof behind this belief, right? Like, it's literally what someone said out of their ass, and why exactly would the US just let Hussein attack Kuwait??? You realize that would massively disrupt the oil trade and thus HURT the US, right? And to this day, there is also jack all for proof that the US even stole any oil in Iraq. If anything, we have absolute proof that the US pushed for Iraq to sell oil to the highest bidders...which was NOT the US.
3
@yarpenzirgin1826 Considering the amount of support the Slavic Russia has for fascist movements across the West and how it backs the fascist Serbs in their genocide in Bosnia; I'll roll my eyes with the idea that Slavs can't be fascist. Anyone can be fascist, and Russia is far more fascist than anyone in the West in their worst days atm.
3
@golagiswatchingyou2966 Yep, and you'd be 100% correct to say that US occupation in the early years outright forces both Japan and Germany to be de-militarized. But you're almost a half-century out of date. The US made the Constitution, but it's now completely under German and Japanese control and can be revoked at any point. Japanese lawmakers have been trying to but the Japanese people are too wary of revoking it...in spite of the US pushing them to militarize some more. Dude. Where are you getting this info from? The US has been ASKING ALL European countries to pitch into military defenses more for DECADES now. Why in the world would the US condemn German re-armament? The US would commit a coup??? What???? Invade other European nations???? Jesus Christ, what world do you live in?
3
@golagiswatchingyou2966 US doing coups doesn't equate to it doing it in allied nations, genius. US did coups in non-allied smaller nations in a war against Communism, which has ended long ago. US doesn't do those kinds of coups anymore though some people insist on blaming the US for every random coup in every random country no matter what. It attacks dictatorships, no doubt; but that's a MASSIVE step up from committing a coup in an ALLIED NATO STATE. Seriously, think about it for a sec; do you realize how utterly stupid it would be for the US to do that? It maintains its alliance base by being a dependable ally to NATO states, fermenting trust. The US would destroy that INSTANTLY the second it attacked a NATO member. It would literally destroy all US credibility and its alliance structure. Even if the US was really that fucking evil (which, it isn't) it is NOT that completely braindead. There is literally zero taboo on Germany rearming itself. The US has been asking Germany to rearm for years now. Trump wanted European countries to buy more US weapons, the US outside of his time period just wanted more spending; period. There is literally nothing that points to the US wanting European powers to specifically spend on US equipment. Just as there's nothing to the US NOT wanting European federalization. Again; what world do you live in? "US President Barack Obama has said Britain would go to the "back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it votes to leave the European Union. He said Britain was at its best when "helping to lead" a strong EU and membership made it a "bigger player" on the world stage. He was speaking at the start of a three day visit to the UK." "Joe Biden supports EU position on Northern Ireland, says Von der Leyen Brussels chief says US president agrees Britain should not ditch post-Brexit protocol" That's really not the point. Also, it would activate NATO against the US. Seriously, this is some real coocoo crap.
3
@golagiswatchingyou2966 Warsaw Pact = USSR because the USSR had direct control over it. NATO was far more egalitarian, though is still heavily influenced by the US, sure. NATO has never been able to force countries within it to do things they don't want to do; and the US has never sent tanks into NATO allies to crush a revolt against the government. Idk why you're acting like the US is just the USSR; they're quite different in style, politics, and world view. The US had a penchant for backing coups in countries outside of NATO, sure, but it never actually went that far against other fellow first-world democracies. To the contrary, with ideas like the Marshall Plan, backing of the European Coal Community, and the US financial support of Japan and South Korea; the US isn't as directly authoritarian as the USSR is to its direct allies. No wonder you believe this weird stuff if you just think US = USSR. Like 99% of people would disagree with you, for good reason. Idk what to tell you, dude. You believe the US would want to coup European countries if it went against them, yet you also believe the EU was formed IN SPITE of US wishes? All while France kicked the US out of its country under De Gaulle and many European states joined protests against Vietnam and then Iraq? How does make sense to you? Uh, yes if the USSR and US were not involved, it's unlikely anything would change in Europe. France was spoiling for another punishment of Germany, and much of the continent would not stand in their way. Enmities were massive and the USSR took advantage of that by ethnically cleansing much of Germany's eastern territory for Poland so the USSR can take Polish land in turn. It was the US' Berlin Airlift and subsequent Marshall Plan that won US influence in the continent and then its pushing for the European Coal and Steel community that slowly wound these countries together. The threat of a Soviet invasion and the falling apart of European empires furthered this rising unity under the US umbrella. The best way to form unity is an external threat, as they say. The period prior to WW1 was a period known as the Concert of Europe where European powers balanced each other out carefully to avoid war. This was a "peace" in the same way as the USSR and the US has a "peace"; they fought against each other outside of their main territories and instead took the battles elsewhere. This was the oppressors of the day working together to maintain the status quo, NOT unity working together for a common goal. One is far more hostile to the other, and I find it absurd that you can even compare the two. First of all, Germany under Hitler didn't want a united Europe; that was just propaganda. It wanted "living space" for the perfect Aryans. It planned to ethnically cleanse/genocide anything "impure". The Americans were considered a "mongrel race" that were decadent because they dared to intermix with Blacks. This is not a "European" unity thing anymore than a hypothetical US invasion to conquer all of Europe is a "European" unity thing. Secondly, the times change, and morals shift. No one blinked an eye in regards to US expansion of its time period, and no one blinked an eye in European expansion and conquests into Africa or other non-Western locations. To many, only really the civilized corners of the Northern Hemisphere had the humanity to care about such subjects like "conquest". Even then, genocide was often dismissed for most of human history until relatively recently. In reality there was nothing truly special about the German conquest of Europe in WW2 outside of the propaganda that came out of it from the victims of it, meanwhile they don't care about their own conquests of foreign peoples. To our modern eyes, its all wrong; that includes the US conquests of the Native American tribes. But apparently to you its all permissible? You have a seriously skewed moral compass. You seem to only care about "European unity" regardless of how it happens. Well I say "screw that". No European would regard the German conquests of WW2 as anything resembling the EU, and if anything only anti-EU peoples try to make that argument. Nor does any European unironically believe that the US would ever invade their territory because they did something the US didn't like. Again, France kicked out US troops half a century ago in the midst of the Cold War, and you don't see the US plotting to conquer France in return. Have some perspective, dude.
3
@paulh3917 You do realize European powers also warmongered in the Middle East, right? And that the refugee movements only occurred massively AFTER Merkel invited them? Europe has no right to bitch if this is your logic for it.
3
@arthurskok5899 Even worse that such a pathetic country be so dominant, eh?
2
@arthurskok5899 Actually, the world has improved dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Absolute poverty has fallen massively, much less violence, far more prosperity in general. Well, at least prior to 2020, but that's obvious. Seriously, there have been studies on it, and by every metric the human race is living in a golden age. So I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the depressing bandwagon. Instead of getting better, the world can get much worse.
2
@BasedEngineer Assuming that's the truth. There is a lot of propaganda around that number since much of that number comes from the unaccounted for Americans that may have left years ago but didn't register their departure. Put frankly, it's very unlikely that 14k Americans are still in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have hunted them down by now and it would be quite public.
2
@yarpenzirgin1826 Crimea "elected" to join Russia after Russia literally invaded. And Putin literally planned to take Crimea long before any referendum, fascist. And I love the logic of "it used to be Russian and thus should remain Russian"...ignoring how the Greeks and the Turks had it LONG before Russia ever did. Gotta love the steaming pile of hypocrisy that is Putin boot lickers.
2
@saadamiens Actually, the US military bases in Poland are specifically there to ensure that the US gets involved; it can't afford to look unreliable by abandoning allies with defense contracts and it can't afford to let its mega alliance structure falter because of said appearance of unreliability. The US would likely focus its army in Europe while focus its navy in East Asia if war does come.
2
@MrCr00wn What lie have I spread, exactly?
2
@golagiswatchingyou2966 "Not allowed" In what world is Germany not allowed to have a strong army???
2
@golagiswatchingyou2966 The US for almost its entire history has supported deeper European integration, what are you talking about??? Literally the European project would have NEVER began if it wasn't for US support.
2
@golagiswatchingyou2966 US has literally never funded terrorist groups in the region barring the mujahideen; it funded the SDF which was 100% a moderate democrat group. The issue being it got muddled in alliances with jihadists once Assad specifically broke open his prisons so that they'd join in the war and he'd have a propaganda coup with the rising bloodshed by portraying himself as the secular stabilizing force. Which you fell for, btw. Assad is literally the entire reason Syria burned, but somehow it's the US' fault that years AFTER the civil war started by Assad's stupidity that the chaos occurred? How does that work? Can the US go back in time now too?
2
@golagiswatchingyou2966 Most of ISIS' weapons were from Russia and China, actually; there are studies on it. ISIS had very little US weaponry and it was never given to them; it was given to the SDF and the Iraqis and some elements in the SDF passed it along until some reached ISIS and most of the weapons ISIS got were stolen from the Iraqis. Assad literally did start the civil war; he was the authority in power and it was under his watch that the civil war started against him by his attempt to crush protests that called for his removal. How isn't that his fault? No duh Assad is the only form of stability in the country now; because he either specifically ruined other groups (SDF) to make sure that they became radicalized after opening up the prisons of jihadists to stoke more chaos. The media does continue to report on the Syrian civil war actually, it's just stalemated some with Turkey and Syria so there's not much to report unlike the massive free-for-all there used to be. US joined into the conflict in 2014, genius; the civil war started in 2011. How does that mesh in your eyes? Literally nobody, not even the UN believes in the 500,000 children deaths anymore; all evidence points to Saddam Hussein deliberately withholding support for his people in order to garner sympathy abroad and end the sanctions while he personally benefitted from them. Come on man, you can't possibly be this ignorant. Yes, the guy that fired on protestors in 2011 and started the whole war is to blame. Not the power that joined in 3 YEARS LATER in the midst of the war. Newsflash; just because no one opposed you before doesn't mean you were a great ruler nor does it mean you suddenly had external forces seeking your deposition. Civil wars can take many forms, in the case of Syria it took the form of pro-democratic unrest in the form of the Arab Springs which were then brutally shut down by killing protestors leading to thousands of dead. This is the man you're proclaiming needed foreign interference to depose? You don't need to trust anything but the literal timeline of events that point that Assad is literally the issue. Unless you believe in some magical world where the US managed to go back in time to start the protests themselves, and then force Assad to shoot at said protestors, there is literally ZERO reason to believe the things you do.
2
@golagiswatchingyou2966 That's...not the how the EU works. Hitler attempting to conquer Europe is not the EU anymore than the Romans conquering Europe was. That is just hegemony, pure and simple; and was going to be met with vicious rebellions just like the USSR's control over Eastern/Central Europe. Literally the US' calling card in the ECSC was "Unite and federalize", so you couldn't be more wrong. During Brexit, it was President Obama that was pressuring the UK to NOT leave the country, and President Biden these days has expressed support for the EU. Literally only Trump has ever opposed federalization, and suddenly everyone acts like the US has always been that way. Newsflash; NATO is NOT the US, it's its own organization that while depends on the US very much isn't a part of the US Government. NATO wants to stay relevant otherwise they'd be out of a job, and an EU federalization can make their existence moot -so no duh they would oppose it. The US has ALWAYS supported the EU barring under Trump. It's literally only under US influence that the EU was every able to form at all. And "Europe uniting" isn't a good thing if it comes from the auspices of imperialism, so the UK stopping that is hardly a bad thing. It's only due to US influence that it could generally unite peacefully and democratically.
2
@ArawnOfAnnwn Again. Duh. The US is the sole superpower, so is involved in everything; from peace process, to conflict. History doesn't make a difference in that. The Afghan govt wasn't an ally; it was a country it worked with under the new government but it never had a defensive alliance or treaty that guaranteed US protection. This is a strange trend among online commentators that specifically pigeon-hole the US into an alliance with any group/country it worked with. As if the US working with anything entitles that entity to US blood and treasury indefinitely. Sorry, but no; the US is entitled to help as long as its obligations are; and it had literally no obligations to the Afghan government. The fact it stayed as long as it did is a testament to the US' stubbornness, if nothing else. Ditto with the Kurds. Now, if the US attacked Turkey in the name of its "alliance" with the Kurds, then THAT would be going against an alliance. Since when is the US supposed to launch wars in the name of its allies? It's supposed to fight wars in defense of its allies as stated in the NATO contract; outside of that has nothing to do with NATO specifically. Afghanistan War was actually the only complete NATO mission in history since the US was attacked in 9/11 and activated NATO in response. Nope, the only times NATO allies were forced to enter into a war was the Afghanistan War. NATO allies did not have to help the US in Iraq, and some chose to while others chose not to; which was their right. These countries have their own interests, it'd behoove you not to dismiss them in your quest to paint the US as the ultimate bad guy. Literally nothing you said actually paints the US as an unreliable ally. Like, nothing. It never went against its obligations, other allied nations met their own obligations when the time came for it (Afghanistan), and the US didn't allow groups it helped get in the way of an ACTUAL alliance (Kurds and Turkey). Ironically, by your logic, being "reliable" means literally fucking over an ally. But I don't think you see the irony in that. Please name one alliance treaty the US terminated "whenever it was convenient" that actually occurred int he 21st century. Inb4 you name the Ukraine nuclear memorandum or something xD
2
@Sinvx "Defensive" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Are there Western troops in sovereign Russian or allied Russian lands? Or are there Russian troops in sovereign Western or allied Western lands? The only "aggression" the West ever could have arguably given to Russia was supporting the SDF in Syria.
1
@arthurskok5899 Literally because of pathetic America, joker lol
1
And it turns out that NATO was right to expand since Russia has attacked non-NATO countries. It was countries like Poland that immediately ran to NATO the second it broke free, not NATO that approached these countries.
1
@1112viggo You're gonna have to cite a time when the US actually stole resources, because every time someone says that it turns out they're just unironically taking online memes as facts and haven't done any research.
1
@solinvictus39 1) That sounds pretty racist 2) I don't know who any of that is 3) This addresses nothing I have said
1
@solinvictus39 Yeah, you are a neo-fascist, nvm. Russia had ZERO RIGHT to take Crimea, and even your logic for it is stupid; Greeks and Turks had Crimea FAR LONGER than Russia ever did, so the "Russia had it longer" logic makes no damn sense. Russian fascism and imperialism with Putin LITERALLY ADMITTING he planned to take Crimea long before any fucking referendum shits all over your boot licking for Russia. The entire international community doesn't acknowledge Russia's imperialism here, and the sanctions against it are only gonna get worse until it backs off. If it takes Russia's collapse to secure the democracies in Eastern Europe from Russian imperialism? Then so be it. Imagine taking the side of the giant empire bullying tiny democracies lol
1
@yarpenzirgin1826 Also, finally saw your reply to me; I would actually like to apologize on the comment you responded to. I didn't mean to imply that Russia is literally worse than Nazi Germany. I meant more "Russia is more fascist than any current Western nation by far", not that its more fascist than any Western nation ever used to be. First of all, Putin is by FAR more nationalist than Navalny is; he stokes anti-Western propaganda with government-backed news networks that gleefully talks about nuking the "disgusting Pindos", framing every event in existence as an attack on Russia, starting wars of conquest instead of improving the people's even worsening situation. Literally the entire support group of Putin is far-right compared to any Western nation on the planet, genius. Putin crushed LGBT, suppresses democratic opposition groups, promotes religious dogma, and supports oligarchs for his power while his people have very few social democratic means to support themselves. Far less than the US. And support of him is somehow NOT far-right??? It's NOT right-wing idiocy??? Russia initially didn't support the Serbs, but even under Yeltsin (the uS pUpPeT) literally supported Yugoslavia(Serbs) and warned NATO not to send ground troops lest a world war start. Yeltsin just literally didn't have the option to stop them because Russia doesn't then or now have the means to stop such an invasion. This in the MIDST of claims and current PROOF of the Bosnian genocide. So what exactly are you talking about? Russia has ALWAYS supported the Serbs. Considering the only thing you were right was out of thin air was the first claim, no, there isn't a pattern. But you do have a pattern of excusing Russian imperialism and fascism, though. All of the West is more left-wing by far than Russia, but tell me more about how Navalny is this "right-wing" threat as he condemns the oligarchs bleeding Russia dry while Putin works with them and enriches them lol
1
@yarpenzirgin1826 Your post is full of lies, unfortunately. I'll break it down for you. 1) Chechnya had a right to self-determination, period, end of story; and you can't cry that Chechnya was "rebuilt" and then unironically consider Crimea to be a case of self-determination. Especially when, like Kosovo and Bosnia, the locals fought against their oppressors while in Crimea the RUSSIANS came in in the first place and THEN started a referendum...with armed guards...and not allowing international observers to watch the proceedings. This is pure hypocrisy on your part to excuse one that is so obviously self-determination, and then claim the other is self-determination when it was engineered by Putin to begin with. "Putin says plan to take Crimea hatched before referendum " by Reuters 2) Russia investing in Chechnya is obvious, it's within Russian territory well within its supply lines and no external country was funding terrorist groups; plus there was no exit vector for rebels/terrorists to escape to like the Taliban had with Pakistan. In Afghanistan it was far away from US territory and the likes of China and Pakistan were backing the Taliban while Russia was secretly offering bounties on US dead. Though to be entirely fair, that last one is more an assertion still; but hell, you seem to be doing nothing but asserting Kremlin propaganda so we can both play that game. There are lots of conspiracies which could justify US literally wanting to tear Russia to shreds as Russian TV boasts about nuking New York. But unlike you, what I believe are actually backed up by international organizations while yours are...backed by tyrants and government-sponsored propaganda. 3) To this day, Georgia has been trying to join NATO since the past decade of conflict with Russia. It also has nothing to do with excusing Russian imperialism. It happened, Russia caused it. THAT is the issue. 4) As I stated in 1, Crimea joined under INCREDIBLY suspicious circumstances to the point that acting like it was legitimate is a sick joke. There is no international organization that considers Russia's land grab to be legitimate. And while you are correct in that Crimea reportedly wanted to join Russia years prior, that is VERY different to legally voting in a referendum without Russian troops breathing down their neck. Russian action could have easily turned that poll on its head. We don't know; because Russia did the stupid thing and forced the issue and caused trouble when there was none before right at the borders of democratic Europe. The size of the ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea doesn't matter, just as the size of ethnic Germans in the US doesn't matter; what matters is how THEY voted, and Russia effectively stole that right from them with armed guards when they could have done the sensible thing and called for international backing for a referendum on the subject. It might have still ruffled a lot of feathers and be highly hypocritical due to their actions in Chechnya, but it'd be far more accepted and Kremlin shills would look far more reasonable than what you're showing. As I've said before; Putin planned to take Crimea, referendum or not - "Putin says plan to take Crimea hatched before referendum" by Reuters. Look it up. 5) Your list of "US conquests" is so insane, that I can't even take it seriously. Iraq and Afghanistan at least make SOME sense, but Libya where no US troops even set foot? Syria where they were far more concerned with fighting ISIS and far more effective than the Syrian-Russian alliance with far less civilian casualties? Hell, your info on Yemen shows your propaganda; there was o genocide, only a possible risk of one as brought forth by Human Rights Watch. And the US is "involved" in pretty much every event and country on Earth -that's not the same as supporting or endorsing it. Somalia? Uganda? Imagine thinking working in support with the governments there is "conquest", Jesus. 6) 90% of those "800 bases" are just supply depots or bases which are owned by the native government which the US can use from time to time. In reality, there are less than 30 bases with more than 100 US troops at any one time across the planet. None in Africa, South America, or North America. Almost all in East Asia (5-8, I think), the Middle East (1 in Saudi Arabia, 1 in UAE, 1 in Kuwait, 1 in Iraq, and some tiny ones peppered in places like Jordan I believe), and finally in Europe with most of them being Germany, Italy, and recently in the countries threatened by Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe. But that goes against your narrative, huh??
1
@yarpenzirgin1826 1) For your second reply, I'll first address your ridiculous source about the West ever promising to NOT expand. First of all, Gorbachev himself denied that the West/NATO ever promised such a thing. Secondly, the source you provided was bunk; look through their citations and their first link they provided did NOT provide any proof that any Western leader provided any promises to not expand NATO beyond no military infrastructure being placed in East Germany. What Gorbachev criticized later was that the "spirit of the agreement" was violated, but he himself states; "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” Hell, when Putin quoted NATO General Secretary Manfred Worner, he specifically left out the latter part of his words; "The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees." But the very next sentence is "Moreover we could conceive of a transitional period during which a reduced number of Soviet forces could remain stationed in the present-day GDR." In short, Putin SPECIFICALLY left out the part where this was specifying EAST GERMANY, NOT the rest of Eastern Europe. And to this day, despite any attempts by Putin and his stooges, you CANNOT find any claim or promise in writing via treaty that NATO would NOT expand eastward. And Gorbachev himself has specified that that no violation was made. 2) No duh there is the largest concentration of troops in Russia's borders since Operation Barbarossa; there has been no concentration of troops since Operation Barbarossa to begin with. And again, those troop numbers are DWARFED by Russia by at LEAST a factor of 5-1. 100,000 Russian troops against a measly 9,300 NATO in the Baltics and 5,000 in Poland. So yes, you're sick for trying to act like Russia is under threat. And the Americans have every right to criticize since they are a higher echelon of human rights and freedom in terms of taking care of human rights in their home than Russia is in theirs; as shown by every study of human rights indexes across the planet. Russia is never quite high in those lists. With your logic, NOBODY can talk about human rights since everyone has done bad things, which is a braindead argument. For reference, CATO places the US as an 8.4 on its scale of human rights, while Russia is 6.31. That is among the most GENEROUS for Russia I could find. 3) Well, duh; the US uses human rights as a bludgeon. It's smart, it makes sense, and its logically consistent. It forces other countries to raise the bar or get harassed, and I fully support the US in doing that. All countries with higher human rights should be doing it until they can't since everyone's human rights is elevated. Including yours. 4) I never claimed that Russians didn't have social safety nets at all; just that they were dogcrap compared to a country like the US. Which, yeah, they are. And to put it bluntly; Russian immigration to the US has been a constant thing prior to 2017's sanctions. That's hardly an excuse. Russia's GDP was rising, but it was all concentrated on the oligarchs, never to the people. It's household income peaked in 2013 actually, and then fall drastically from 2014-2016. It has never recovered from that drop, and remains low and stagnant. US' has risen over time, with a slight dip here and there, but it is generally rising. And much higher than Russia's. 5) I mean, you are kinda a Nazi apologist in that you're excusing an imperialist power's attacks on innocent democracies and then gaslighting by framing it as it they are the victims when they have been the aggressors. Much like Nazi Germany had with Poland, the USSR, and the West. The poor Nazis were the victims to their apologists, and now here you are; doing the same exact thing. I've already torn to shred your claims, so acting as if I only follow what "MSM" says is humorous since none of the information I provided is from the "Western MSM". Not CNN, not BBC, nor NYT, not MSNBC. Mostly international sources, of which to you seem to be Western propaganda. How convenient that only Russian-backed propaganda is the "truth" to you. You'll get your apology when you stop shilling for Russian imperialism.
1
@ouicertes9764 That's...not a cost for Europe. There was no major wild liberalization of European economies that was not supported by the Europeans themselves for their own greed and ends. This is just a justification by a European to somehow twist this as an equal give-and-take when it was nothing of the sort. If the US wanted something, it could have just as easily economically exploited Europe for cheap labor much like the European powers did across the planet for the US' economy and enforced anti-Communist doctrine via propaganda.
1
@tedcrilly46 Yeah, and many economies were dependent on each other during WW1. As it turns out; dictators focused on maintaining power by stoking external fears tend to not give a shit about economics like democracies do.
1
@tedcrilly46 People back int eh day survived on much much less than Russians do now. You'd be surprised how much shitty things people can stand with a good ideology for it. Stalin didn't fall after a giant famine, nor Mao with his massive famine. Many dictators had famines and civil wars recently and still didn't fall. You underestimated the cult of personality behind dictators and how they maintain power. Putin will only lose power by losing face of his nationalism; not just starting a war, but either losing it or getting into a stalemate without economic reprieve.
1
@solinvictus39 International organizations and studies on Russia says otherswise, and sorry, but I don't need to visit North Korea to determine it is a dictatorship by simply looking up its style of government/policy on its people/and lack of actual rights to change the legislative and executive of the country. Russia is much the same with the penchant for serious opposition leaders "disappearing" or being banned from ever running against Putin. Seriously, any study done on Russia's freedom ranking or democracy ranking notes that they're pretty abysmally low. You don't need to watch MSNBC or CNN to come to this basic bitch conclusion. You just need a brain.
1
@solinvictus39 LOL. The golden standard of the world are corrupt now? And let me guess; Russia is the sole not-corrupt source of news then? How convenient that the rest of the world is wrong while Russia is right. Pathetic. Oh really? Would you like to see the myriad of "disappearances" in Russia? There are quite a few. Here, this is just 2006 alone: 8 January – Vagif Kochetkov, newly appointed Trud correspondent in the region, killed and robbed in Tula. Acquittal [nJ]. 26 February – Ilya Zimin, worked for NTV Russia television channel, killed in Moscow flat. Suspect in Moldova trial. Acquittal [nJ]. 4 May – Oksana Teslo, media worker, Moscow Region. Arson attack on dacha. Homicide [nJ]. 14 May – Oleg Barabyshkin, director of radio station, Chelyabinsk. Homicide. Conviction [nJ]. 23 May – Vyacheslav Akatov, special reporter, Business Moscow TV show, murdered in Mytyshchi Moscow Region. Killer caught and convicted. Homicide. Conviction [nJ]. 25 June – Anton Kretenchuk, cameraman, local Channel 38 TV, killed in Rostov-on-Don. Homicide. Conviction [nJ]. 25 July – Yevgeny Gerasimenko, journalist with Saratovsky Rasklad newspaper. Murdered in Saratov. Conviction [nJ]. 31 July – Anatoly Kozulin, retired freelance journalist. Ukhta, Komi. Homicide [nJ]. 8 August – Alexander Petrov, editor-in-chief, Right to Choose magazine Omsk, murdered with family while on holiday in Altai Republic. Under-age murderer charged and prosecuted. Homicide. Conviction [nJ]. 17 August – Elina Ersenoyeva, reporter for Chechenskoye obshchestvo newspaper. Abducted in Grozny, Chechnya. Missing [?J]. 13 September – Vyacheslav Plotnikov, reporter, local "Channel 41" TV, Voronezh. Incident not Confirmed [nJ]. 7 October – Anna Politkovskaya, commentator with Novaya Gazeta, Moscow, shot in her apartment building's elevator;.[97][98][99][100] Four accused in contract killing, acquitted in February 2009 [J]. 16 October – Anatoly Voronin, Itar-TASS news agency, Moscow. Homicide [nJ]. 28 December – Vadim Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of World & Home. Saint Petersburg magazine, killed in Saint Petersburg. Homicide [nJ]. Please tell me what journalists died in the US, UK, or the rest of NATO in such numbers? I'd love to know.
1
@FuelAirSparkTime Anyone telling you the US, or any nation does anything out of benevolence are being obtuse. At maximum, nations sometimes act for moral reasons; but that's in conjunction with practical reasons too.
1