Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Ukraine and Russia preparing for a new war" video.

@mikhailzavarov4958 NATO disappears the second Eastern Europe doesn't feel like Russia would steamroll them out of paranoia. NATO was seriously considering what it was even existing for until 2014.
30
@Atilla_the_Fun Agreements aren't agreements unless they've been ratified by the government. So name one actual agreement that has been ratified which has been broken which caused Russia's antagonism that led up to 2014. Name ONE. You can't. Because there are none, and you know it. Russia didn't make a peace overture, it tried to neutralize NATO by joining it so that it can easily bully its Eastern European neighbors. Even after being rejected, NATO made no move to antagonize Russia; there was never a serious threat to its sovereignty or security. Unless you believe 3k men can overthrow Russia? I have countered your points and you keep repeating them still. This is why the term "Russian bots" exist; because you just keep repeating points that make no sense to justify Russia's actions. You keep saying "The West antagonized Russia" but alll the things you point out never threatened Russia in ANY capacity. You are speaking propaganda because your points make no sense. And yet you act like you're being logical.
27
@patricksweeney5308 And all of Russian Siberia, the Caucuses, and Kaliningrad are not historically Russian at all. You don't see people claiming that Russia should return it. So cut the crap about "historical lands". That's an excuse Pro-Russian stooges use and ignore how Russia itself ignores that very logic.
21
@towaritch NATO did not even have any military presence in Eastern Europe until after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 -so you can't claim in any capacity that NATO was aggressive against Russia.
17
@Atilla_the_Fun How is it a "Putin bad" meme when he literally invaded the only Eastern European country not in NATO but has not bothered the others that ARE in NATO? It's called deductive reasoning.
3
@Atilla_the_Fun You just keep repeating yourself without answering hard questions. When did Russia try to make peace outside of joining NATO, which itself would have allowed Russia to bully Eastern European countries? When did the West break a treaty to antagonize Russia pre-2014? You keep acting like Russia tried to work for peace, but it already had its peace. Russia broke the peace in 2014. Russia was never a Western puppet, but Putin tells you otherwise, despite all evidence to the contrary.
2
@Atilla_the_Fun A talk at Yale means jack since they can be about anything; Yale has an open door policy in talks and opinions even if incorrect. I need an actual citation. But I will look it up. What other point did you make? I looked this guy up, and he has interesting opinions, but he just asserts a lot of things without evidence. For example, he acts like the Wolfowitz Doctrine led the US to antagonize Russia; but there, let me repeat, NO EVIDENCE OF THE US ANTAGONIZING RUSSIA. He mentions James Baker promising that NATO would not expand eastward, but James Baker had no authority to make such a promise and West Germany never ratified such an agreement. He acts like these are critical moments that gave Russia no choice, except that's based on a lie of propaganda more than truth. He also mentions George F. Kennan who he credits as the man who created the US' containment policy which was so successful in the latter half of the 20th century and used his claim that expanding NATO would lead to a new Cold War...without mentioning that George F. Kennan began to become a vehement critic of Washington's policy against the USSR after 1948. In short, George F. Kennan was against any movement against the USSR whatsoever and was for maintaining the status quo -so of course he'd disagree with anything with NATO. In fact, he vehemently opposed the creation of NATO in the first place "These ideas were particularly applicable to U.S. relations with China and Russia. Kennan opposed the Clinton administration's war in Kosovo and its expansion of NATO (the establishment of which he had also opposed half a century earlier), expressing fears that both policies would worsen relations with Russia.[131] He described NATO enlargement as a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions" " See? I just watched like 30 minutes and I found serious holes in this guy's argument. Seriously man, did you even look at the things this man was saying?
2
@Chester_Oliver You're actually a traitor if you believe Russia, the country that invades and takes territories of other democratic countries is in any shape or form better than any political party in the US. Like, that's actually a disgusting opinion.
2
@leonardwei3914 Yeah? And does that translate to forming public policy as a President of the US? You're hamfisting your politics into this -Biden was never President until now and no one could say for certain how he would respond to aggressive action. He responded moderately well imho, like Trump before him. But you just focus on the memes of him being stupid while ignoring that.
2
@jacobkobald1753 Mexico doesn't let it mess in its affairs, wdym?
2
@Schnitz13 Name one treaty they have made with Russia stating that. An official treaty ratified by NATO governments, because I can guarantee you that you can't find one. And pledges? Pledges have no actual binding to them; every government makes "pledges" that mean nothing. There were never thousands of troops in Eastern Europe until 2014, smart one. And defense systems as well as naval and air bases are standard for defense treaties. What, do you expect someone to join a defense treaty and just have people keep troops in their countries without helping one another? You are a pro-Kremlin simp, you just refuse to admit it. You act like NATO broke a treaty, are ignoring how defense treaties are expected to work, and are acting like Russia at any point was threatened by NATO when the maximum amount of NATO soldiers ever near Russia's borders was I think 3k men. How the hell are 3k men ever a threat for a state like Russia, huh? Answer: They aren't. But that's what the Kremlin says, so you just nod and act like you're wise for taking the word of lying dictators as fact.
2
@nickbrashov2146 "It was the second declaration of independence by Kosovo's Albanian-majority political institutions; the first was proclaimed on 7 September 1990." The one in 2008 was no doubt the official declaration, but for all intents and purposes Kosovo was already independent by 1991. The referendum happened. Get over it. https://balkaninsight.com/2021/04/06/two-kosovo-albanians-identified-from-wartime-mass-grave-in-serbia/#:~:text=The%20mass%20grave%20found%20in,52%20people%2C%20all%20Kosovo%20Albanians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batajnica_mass_graves https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-warcrimes-serbia-kosovo-idUKKBN28E20E The comparison is pretty much non-existent. There very simply is almost no mass graves of Serbs. There are mass graves of Serb enemies though. Funny that.
2
@towaritch Psht, not at all. I very much disagreed with helping in Libya, believe that the US was better of not invading Iraq if it wasn't going to commit to it. And I believe the embargo on Cuba should've ended after Fidel Castro died. Russia's US is hated because its the superpower. No helping that. I don't mind even that. That's a natural human reaction, to hate something that can so easily change things for better or worse without your input. Yugoslavia was not an "internal affair" though, it was an invasion against sovereign states led by a Serb leader that was bent on genocide. Stopping him was the moral thing to do. I have no sympathy for anyone attempting genocide. But you know what is an evil that needs to be fought? Literal land grabs brought by a foreign army. That encourages future wars of imperialism across the planet AND steals away the futures of other countries while bringing back the concept of historical land grabs. It's a threat to world peace and stability; something all of Russia's neighbors have learned these past 3 decades since Russia has pretty much fucked them all. Russia cannot be allowed to succeed in its endeavors and must be brought low until the regime changes to stop Russian aggression to Eastern Europe. Make no mistake; this is a matter of "when" -and we won't stop either. We can never stop insofar that our allies are threatened. Also make no mistakes. The matter of a "Deep State" is little more than bureaucracy; it's an American mindset that the majority of Americans are agreement with -protecting our allies across the planet against aggressive states like Russia. Whether it be Republican or Democrat; Russia WILL be contained until it learns to play nice. Russian expansion via imperialism will NOT be tolerated. So yeah. The second Russia gives Crimea back, and chills out, we'll all be cool again. :D
2
@alexxx4434 More like the war between Ukraine and Russia was sponsored by Russia for the sake of keeping Ukraine out of NATO. But Kremlin propagandist somehow point to the US starting shit anyway, because their shills just eat it up.
2
@gbird3295 Got it, so basically, if Putin says so and it vaguely looks like it happens somewhere else, then they did it. I suppose Russia also rigged the 2014 election since there were also rioters and police in the streets. Also, FYI, Ukrainian police killed 100's of protestors while almost no Ukrainian law enforcement were killed. So calling them "rioters" and calling the people doing the killings under a Russian stooge "police" is really funny. What's also funny is that Biden never actually said that he or Obama had experience in election fraud seriously -but you want to believe that because Daddy Putin said so. Just admit that you're a shill for the Kremlin and move on. At least that'd leave you as honest. Mind you, I don't automatically trust the US government, but you seem ready willing and able to just eat whatever the Kremlin says. That makes you the biggest unironic sheep on this thread.
2
@UpNorth It took the a week of mobilization to do so. And nobody is gonna "stop them" just as Russia can't do shit if NATO mobilizes 100k men at their border. It's just a tense situation that worsens relations.
1
@John Doe "Force them" Russia was the instigator of this situation with its invasion. Russia can easily solve it by doing another referendum, this time with international observers to solve the issue of whom Crimea belongs to. They won't do so though, because then they may have to concede it.
1
@aramhalamech4204 Ignoring the moral implications of that, it would also lose Ukraine immense face in the international community. Russian propaganda would play that up to space and back. Also, there's the issue of the Ukraine getting back Crimea and then contending with their own poison.
1
@aussieboy4090 US is still in Iraq and Biden isn't violating Indian waters -its not Indian waters. It's international waters, and India doesn't care.
1
@aelux4179 Protests in UK are roughly equivalent to Western Europe and the US, but unlike both there is no threat to their territorial sovereignty in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland. So no, the UK is facing some shit that neither groups are dealing with.
1
@codybrox4693 You realize that after every new President is in office, countries contained by the US usually causes trouble to test the new President, right? This isn't about weakness, this is about testing the mettle of the new guy. North Korea, Iran, and Russia tested Trump too.
1
@leonardovallejo5711 US prolly does more diplomacy than any other country on Earth, actually. That's why it has so many allies across the planet.
1
@leonardovallejo5711 You realize that both co-exist, right? Having multiple diplomatic relations, perhaps more than anyone, doesn't mean you can't engage in underhanded tactics. The difference being that those the US manages to ally stay as allies; and those that the US decides to fuck either stay out of its way or become future allies. For the most part. Also, a lot of the countries you named occurred within 300 years. How dishonest is that? Most big countries fucked with most of the world in 300 years, bruh. 😂
1
@leonardovallejo5711 All nations fucked with other nations for almost all of their histories. The US fighting Native American tribes was a thing, the US fighting in the Caribbean and Central America was a thing prior to the 1900's. Etc, etc. Your claim is literally what changes nothing here. The US engaging in its coups was only achieved through diplomacy. The US achieving peace in all of Europe was only achieved with diplomacy. The US creating multiple ceasefires in hotspots was only achieved with diplomacy. The US' massive alliance and intelligence network was only achieved with diplomacy. I know more history than you do, tbh. Your ignorance on this topic kinda proves it. You just see a powerful giant doing what it wants, when in reality its power is quite limited and have been used in multiple facets. For example, you use the word "terrorist" when "terrorist" means "using violence to achieve a political end". The US helped terrorist groups to be clear, but it never created them. The Muslim World created the largest amount of terrorist groups in the world, so the entire Middle East fits the label of "terrorist" than the US. Though I don't think that's fair, I'm just using your logic. And the US has saved billions of lives in its actions abroad too. So maybe "generous" fits the US better than "violent". https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/people-helped-by-us-foreign-aid/ It must burn you that your logic is so skewed that you don't even know that the US saved far more lives than it took, huh?
1
@kormannn1 What, in that he intentionally distorted a speech from Manfred Wörner? Where he claims that the US made a binding promise not to expand NATO when it made no such binding agreement? Hell, in 2007 Russia was vehemently opposing the building of the NATO missile defense system. As if Russia had the right to cry about NATO defending itself. No doubt Russian politicians used NATO as their cudgel to hit their constituents with as the constant "danger" as to why the Russian President has the right to suspend more and more liberties for their "protection". Democracies do such populist plays as well, as we saw with Trump or Duterte. Hell, even Macron or Merkel. But let's not act like NATO was "causing Russia problems" as if they had a legitimate right to bitch about it.
1
@nickbrashov2146 1) No self-determination can be determined if a military creates the referendum without international watchers to determine if it was a fair election 2) Putin planned to take Crimea regardless of any referendum in the first place 3) The change in government in 2014 was entirely legal in the Ukrainian Constitution and made no move that could or would endanger Russian minorities 4) Russia itself has crushed independence movements in and has far more issues with its minority relations than Ukraine does Your propaganda doesn't work here.
1
@towaritch Crimea was Russia's latest holder, other countries held it long before Russia, so claiming Russia should have it on historical terms is NOT in Russia's favor. IF anything, it should go to Greece or Turkey before it should go to Russia. But even using historical claims is a stupid concept. War would literally never end with this logic, as many MANY countries would LOVE to tear into Russia for stealing their lands once upon a time. Hell, Kaliningrad was NEVER a part of Russia until 1945 -does this mean Germany should have it back? What about the lands stolen from Finland? What about China? Seriously, Russia using the "historical claim" are absolutely hypocritical.
1
@towaritch No, Konigsberg should not be given back to Germany. Russians have been living there for generations, and giving it back to Germany would be a violation of their self-determination. Just as Russia taking Crimea was a violation against Ukraine. Just because lands were different 50 years ago doesn't mean that justifies land grabs. Especially if the people there have been living there for generations and would not approve of it.
1
@nickbrashov2146 1) Kosovo declared independence in 1991 via a referendum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Kosovan_independence_referendum And NATO forces only started showing up in Kosovo in 1998 and more importantly; did not contribute at all in any referendum or control it, let alone stop international observers from watching it like what occurred in Crimea. Your comparison is flawed beyond belief. 2) Crimea was lawfully passed on to Ukraine. The Soviet Premier has virtually absolute power and no one could stop him. A referendum Post-USSR was the only way to fairly get Crimea, but Russia decided to do the imperialist thing instead. Also, Russians living in Crimea was only a thing because Russia ethnically cleansed it of Tatars, so let's not act like "legality" is an issue here. 3) There was no serious attempt to kill Yankovic, but there were claims during the violence that Russian snipers may have been deployed to justify a Russian invasion. "On 31 March 2014, the Daily Beast published photos and videos which appear to show that the snipers were members of the Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) "anti-terrorist" Alfa Team unit, who had been trained in Russia.[316] On 2 April, law enforcement authorities announced in a press conference they had detained nine suspects in the 18–20 February shootings of Euromaidan activists, acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine Oleh Makhnytsky reported. Among the detainees was the leader of the sniper squad. All of the detained are officers of the Kyiv City Berkut unit, and verified the involvement of the SBU's Alfa Group in the shootings. Officials also reported that they plan to detain additional suspects in the Maidan shootings in the near future, and stressed that the investigation is ongoing, but hindered by the outgoing regime's destruction of all documents and evidence. Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed that Viktor Yanukovych gave the order to fire on protesters on 20 February.[317][318] During the press conference, Ukraine's interior minister, chief prosecutor and top security chief implicated more than 30 Russian FSB agents in the crackdown on protesters, who in addition to taking part in the planning, flew large quantities of explosives into an airport near Kyiv. Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the interim head of Ukraine's SBU state security agency, said the agents were stationed in Kyiv during the entire Euromaidan protests, were provided with "state telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and in regular contact with Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities of this so-called antiterrorist operation," said Nalyvaichenko. Investigators, he said, had established that Yanukovych's SBU chief Oleksandr Yakymenko, who had fled the country, had received reports from FSB agents while they were stationed in Ukraine, and that Yakymenko held several briefings with the agents. Russia's Federal Security Bureau rejected the comments as "groundless accusations" and otherwise refused to comment.[319]" Oh, and speaking of "nazi violence", the Euromaiden protestors killed almost nobody, while the totally not-nazi-like Berkut killed 100's of protestors. So yeah, you're full of shit. 4) Russia claims to be a multinational Federation where every nation has its own rules and rights, true. That's obviously full of shit since anything the Kremlin doesn't like gets crushed or jailed. No Human Rights organization sees Russia's current political system as anything more than a oligarchy with near-absolute power in the Kremlin. Any Constitutional change can occur without issue for the President's benefit, and frankly any law can be ignored. There is a literal list of this stuff in sites like HRW.org if you bother to learn. And really, for a country that claims to respect its minorities, it seems to do a LOT for Russification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Modern_Russia As for Ukraine, it has done no more than Russians have done to their own minorities; making Russian language optional. But unlike Ukraine, it never promised to be a multinational Federation, so even in this Russia is just an abysmal hypocrite.
1
@nickbrashov2146 It doesn't matter what the UN thought of it, it's what Kosovars thought of it. Just like how in reality the US was created in 1783 when the Independence War was finished and not 1776. Kosovo declared independence via referendum already, but the UN recognized it in 2008. So your original point, in that NATO somehow created Kosovo and that there was no referendum; is false. Crimea tried to organize a referendum, but never had one. Unless it had one and independence wins, there is no legal basis for Crimea breaking off of Ukraine unless literally given to another government entity by Ukraine's will. You're trying desperately to fit these two events together, but there is literally no comparison. One had a referendum and declared independence on its own. The other never did. Period.
1
@nickbrashov2146 First of all, none of the referendums against Yugoslavia had many international observers. But none of them outright prevented them like Russia did. Also, the turnout for the referendum was above 80%, so the Serb minority was of little concern in the first place. I refuse the illegal referendum since it was done on extremely dubious terms. If the Crimeans themselves enacted the referendum, then I'd have far less reserves; but it was started by Russian soldiers taking over a foreign country's territory and done while preventing international observers. By every metric possible it was dubious, thus illegitimate. If Ukrainian minorities were being genocided like the Serbs were enacting on Bosnians, then I'd 100% accept a referendum. Nothing in Crimea points to a major willingness to split from Ukraine barring that one attempt to have a referendum which never popped up again...until Russian troops showed up. Russia committed an imperialist act and must be contained for the good for world stability, obviously, with people like you believing what you believe.
1
@nickbrashov2146 Kosovo declared independence in 1991, but was recognized in 2008. A referendum occurred, and every country that left Yugoslavia by your own logic had an "illegal" referendum -are you gonna deny Croatia, Bosnia, and Slovenia too? FYI, I don't care if the referendum was illegal if it was done against a government that was committing genocide.
1
@towaritch That SHOULD be how the world works, barring agreements or referendums. Your idea of how the "world works" is just constant war forever! How many countries want their borders to be larger? How many others would defend theirs to the death and work with other countries so that they can get THEIR preferred borders? Jesus Christ, you're just an imperialist through and through. A relic of the 20th century.
1
@towaritch A warmonger, is what you are. American Neo-Cons would balk at your concept; the idea of nation building itself is infinitely more progressive than your beliefs since taking territory with only concerns of past glories literally equates to far more instability issues than any of the US' wars in the past century, let alone anything recently. It's literally the worst idea for world stability and peace. At least nation building is an idea that keeps an eye on future stability. This does nothing but crap on that.
1
@towaritch Yugoslavia was bombed to stop a genocide. One of the proudest moments of NATO's history by my estimation. The UK-French bombing of Libya was for their own interests, and the US was called in later in the campaign. Though it should be noted that Gaddafi started that civil war, not outside actors. Iraq was invaded and made better after the US left by every metric like economic, human rights, socially, etc, but was not ready for self-determination as ISIS proved. The US was in Syria mostly to fuck ISIS and support the SDF. Assad released ISIS members specifically to make his people suffer and turn to him over the SDF. Assad started the civil war in the first place and made things worse. Yemen has little to do with the US. 700+ of those military bases are either military depots, supply camps, or just the military bases of the native government which it allows US soldiers to live or pass through. The US has not bothered to try and overthrow Castro since the Cold War. I can and will ride my moral high horse. And Snowden is a Russian agent that specifically aimed at US interests while ignoring the sins and interests of other countries and even lives in Russia which has an infinitely worse effect on world stability. At least the US protects all of the world's democracies these days, while Russia works to undermine them and protects dictators. No wonder you're such a boot licker, when you're listening to the likes of Snowden.
1
@towaritch Uh, at no point did the US fund Al Qaeda. It funded the mujahedeen which broke apart, and some of that remnant turned into the Taliban...which the US also didn't fund. Like, if you're gonna bitch about US policy, at least know what you're talking about. The US never had any "Cold War mentality" against Russia in the first place until 2014. In fact, the US used to love Russia and consider it its biggest ally in Europe next to France pre-Soviet Revolution. After the USSR fell, even after Russia complained about NATO growth, the US still had a high opinion of Russia and never had any large troop numbers near Russia's borders at any point. Russia fucked that, now the US is wary of a possible Russian incursion into allied countries. No, no, no, no, no. The US can't invade Venezuela, it will ruin any future stability, giving the taint of any future government as a "Pro-Gringo government", especially from the lunatic Chavezistas. Things have stabilized, and the US does not have the will to stay behind and build Venezuela back up either. And come off it. You want the US to just...abandon Europe? Russia has not proven trustworthy with Ukraine, why should we take it for granted that they won't fuck with the Baltics or Poland? Again, the US was content to just let Russia do shit in the Caucuses and do nothing but complain about it, but the 2014 invasion made it impossible to ignore. And if the US does nothing, then that shatters US trust in the region. So again; why would the US stab itself in the foot like that, likely permanently?
1
@kormannn1 Are you seriously complaining about upgrading defensive capabilities? What, do you expect that as technology grows that NATO just won't upgrade them just to not offend Russia? Because this isn't about trust; it's about always being prepared for the future -in case Russia turns into an enemy in the future. No one complained about Russia's upgrading of their military, they only complained when they deployed them near the border. That's such a ludicrous standard to hold over NATO. No one in any position to stop or tell NATO what to do promised such a thing. More importantly, no, informal agreement mean jack. They're broken literally all the time, and frankly, the US did not even move to push countries to join NATO anyway; the countries ran to NATO and pushed to join it. It's unreasonable to not let them in based on Russian fears since there was no major troop movement to Eastern Europe anyway. If anything, Post-Cold War, there was a major withdrawing of US military forces and downsizing of Western European militaries too. I mean, I read the wiki page, but again this discussion seems meaningless to me. Informal agreements mean jack, no one had the position to make such a promise since NATO is not owned by the US or West Germany, and those countries came to NATO anyway, not the other way around. What, did Russia expect the US to just prevent them from joining? I can understand Russian anger if the US was immediately pushing for these countries to join NATO, but it took years for most of these countries to join. The history lesson is interesting, in that I knew most of what you mentioned but also heard some new things. Appreciate it, but it really doesn't change my opinion. Letting Russia into NATO meetings I recalled, but letting it into NATO was also something I'd be wary of until Russia was consistently seen as to not threaten the US' eastern European allies. Indeed, the missile defense system is what Russia saw as an aggressive move when it's about standard for NATO to upgrade and no one complained about Russia's modernization -but the break for NATO came in the form of 2014.
1
@Jolifo1978 NATO troops are there because they have a responsibility to protect member states, and Russia has been super aggressive since 2014. Almost no troops near Russia n4 then. And like Russia, NATO troops are in NATO lands. The difference being that there were never more than 100k men showing up to intimidate Russia. Also, Russia destroyed Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria, and Georgia. So you shouldn't be so arrogant. NATO has every right to br there, and to be wary of Russian imperialism for its easternmost member states. Until NATO has 100k troops at Russia's borders, Russian oligarchs are just distracting their people with a non-existent Western invasion...which is funny because Eastern Europe has far more to fear than Russia in terms of who invades who.
1
@gbird3295 Are you seriously taking Putin at his word when there is jack all to prove it? If Putin told you the US shit in your lawn, would you believe that too?
1
@alexxx4434 Yes, I'm sure the US has an interest in it. But having an "interest" is not the same as "doing something". Especially if it's bound to blow up in the US' face. By this logic, we can really act like every unstable thing in the US is done by Russia since "it's in their interests" and can really start considering fucking Russia in every way possible in retaliation. In short, that's a logical fallacy. You need some way to prove that someone did something before you make the accusation. Also, money and military help from the US came AFTER Ukraine was invaded, and that's far more clear-cut than the US simply instigating a revolution -of which there is ZERO PROOF.
1
Nah, there's quite a few countries that don't have nukes. Rather; "don't give up your nukes unless you have a defensive pact with a powerful country".
1