General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

LancesArmorStriking
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
comments

Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

 @anthonydelfino6171 "Keep your Obamacare off of my ACA!" —That one old lady
39
Beta-Israelites (from Ethiopia) are discriminated against, like the caller said, but beyond that they aren't even widely recognized within Israel as Jews, period.
36
Would not be a surprise to see Netanyahu "honor" the demand one day before Ramadan ends, as a salty middle finger to the UN
25
Yes. Ask Libya
23
Her expression and general 'look' screams Ben Shapiro Jr., is that just me or...?
20
New Gender Unlocked: ADRAB
19
 @hwirtwirt4500 Comparing that to a product coming from the largest manufacturer on Earth is just willful ignorance.
18
Not so much religious fundamentalism (because Israel was specifically envisioned as an Enlightenment-style colonial nation-state) as it is nationalism. Though even nationalism doesn't take it this far, I think it's just fascism.
18
That somehow makes it worse. They had the empathy to know how horrible it feels, and then choose to do it anyway. What a bunch of monsters.
11
 @suomalainenvoima Lol
11
Realistically it's possible now. They don't control the supply of microchips (they have parents, but the Netherlands and Taiwan produce and design them), manufactured goods (China), or energy (Russia). The world could move on without them and lose nothing in terms of quality of life— of course, they have a HUGE amount of capital to invest in others. And a big military, but if most of the world avoids trading with them, it won't matter much.
10
"how high?"
9
 @SpaceVVitch I know right!! I love my Pakistan sweatshop iPhone
9
A bit late.... Syria lost. Turkey and the US won
9
@brandonellis8111 Sure Arabs as a whole have way more land but ultimately each country has its own population spread and you can't easily move millions of Palestinians to another place. That's related to my second point— Jews certainly deserve a land to call home, why did it have to be in Canaan, where millions of Arabs were already living for 1,000+ years? There were plenty of other places that could have been arranged with less chaos than this. Look at how chaotic Israel is by choosing this little strip of land. Was it really the best choice?
8
 @amorizz5579 Refine messaging? No, they need a complete overhaul. Their actions are what needs to change, not messaging
8
It's like talking to a brick wall. He literally repeated the same phrases over and over when questioned about those phrases. Insane. It's like they can't see past the local level of anything, and everything beyond one-on-one disputes magically solves itself or doesn't happen.
7
You literally can't. Russia has more people and now more weapons. You practically, logistically cannot do it without depending on the goodwill (or being politically convenient for) larger, more capable countries. You don't have a right to anything when you're not the one who guarantees your own security. Either be grateful and play by the guarantor's rules, or go off on your own. Pick one.
6
 @patchwurk6652 Don't feed the trolls. An old Internet rule that has not failed yet. He wants the attention, so deny him it
6
@user-de2eq2rz4n You want my personal opinion? Nasal voice. In Nomiki's case, vocal fry. They just grate my ears. And it seems to be a very American-exclusive way of speaking (though women throughout the Anglosphere sometimes do it, too). It's just annoying, period.
5
@saadhasan2300 Their strong tradition is also what keeps their tribal mentality alive. They can't seem to move past their bronze-age beliefs in superiority (despite not having created a civilization like the Persians, Greeks, or Romans) even into the 21st century.
4
@davidbaker9479 I suppose so... but the US REALLY shouldn't set that precedent. Once China starts putting out more tech products regularly, other countries might not want to do business with the US if they're going to be that protectionist. Google could easily lose 70% of its revenue and only be left with the US, UK, Canada, and Aus. Not a great pool of data to sell.
4
@FuddlyDud The houses in question were still under tithe jurisdiction of the West Bank, by virtue of being located in East, not West, Jerusalem. This means that the landlord would have to go through the West Bank's legal processes to have him evicted, and no Israeli government forces should have ever been involved. The fact that they did is a flagrant violation of international law.
4
@Agnezz11 1) Finland's border is mostly taiga, less likely for the US to send covert operations through there 2) They didn't because Finland and Russia had the exact type of agreement that could have worked with Ukraine. They didn't join NATO for decades and there were no issues between them. As long as the US military stays out of their country, Russia felt secure. It's not about resources, Russia has more than enough of those.
4
Because we aren't. The US has scarcely ever been a true democracy. Senators are directly elected, but they're still chosen from a small pool of people wealthy enough to attend law school and fundraise for their campaigns. It's a parallel society, they don't live like we do. The UK is a more honest look at this, pretty much everyone in the House of Lords has gone to Oxford.
4
@Fuctmentality Your arguments in this thread were very poor. Your need to rely on attacks on character with condescending things like "sweetie" makes it look like you're overcompensating for a lack of good substance in your argument. Which, frankly, there was a lack of. I'll say what I told the other guy: you're part of the reason men are driven away from the left. You're so toxic that you've managed to radicalize people... in the other direction
4
Tay! A pillar of what YouTube used to be, a manifestation of the utopian optimism that was felt throughout the early Internet!
3
@robfl100 Russia is preventing the US from re-establishing its hegemony. They've assisted several Sahel countries in expelling literal French colonial outposts. Come now. Don't be dense
3
@glumreaper8885 In many instances developers help set the rents of the prospective tenants. They are incentivized to push them as high as possible because they usually get a percentage of the rent (as compensation for building). New housing en masse might have a net effect on prices, but at the moment we basically have rent control in reverse.
3
@TheHuxleyAgnostic I don't understand this line of thinking. "Russia's so backwards and non-diverse! Russia's bad for not having diversity" "Actually it's got lots of Muslims and Turkic people" "That's because they invaded! Russia's bad for having diversity" It's almost like it doesn't matter what attributes Russia has, Westerners will still find ways to hate it. Communist? Bad. Capitalist? Bad. The only period in which Americans genuinely liked Russia was when it was poor and destitute, immediately after the USSR collapsed. I wonder what that says about what Americans want for the average Russian.
3
@jacktingey7886 Why do you people keep asking how I feel, or what SHOULD be the case? I'm describing what IS. No, I'm not okay with it, but yes, Israel can do whatever it wants as long as it has the US' support. It's stronger and no one's gonna stop them. Which, by the way, makes the entire Ukraine rhetoric ring pretty hollow.
3
@MrPhotodoc It has its issues still. But as with anything in China, once they advance it's pretty much going to stay that way. And their sheer scale will make it a contender globally. Like a wall of iron shifting forward.
3
I don't recall anyone ever assuming that about the Russians. American pundits have actually made a habit of denigrating their capabilities as compared to the USSR.
3
That's not exclusive to liberals. What about the 'war on Christmas', despite the fact that over 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and most Democratic Congress(wo)men are practicing Christians? No evidence, yet it repeats itself every year on Fox and every other conservative outlet.
3
Can't save what's already dead. Trump taking over and stopping elections would only make the system more honest about what it's really doing
2
This lady is now on a poster somewhere at the IDF headquarters
2
@PuffDaMunkey This is the best the pro-Ukraine people can do? If it's so obvious that I'm wrong, why don't you just say it, so everyone else can see??
2
@redrick8900 You're right It doesn't need to be, but the US is trying to. And I'd argue Russia is rather capable of fighting it, considering the entire idea of sanctions is failing thanks to the failure of the US to affect Russia in a meaningful way. Oh and depleting NATO's artillery reserves:)
2
Not really easy right now and no easy way to solve it besides massive government subsidies. Labor is too expensive (by the standards of developers) to make a hefty profit. The only way they can stay in the black is if they commit to luxury high-rises or opt to repair existing homes (which has zero overhead and is much more profitable). So unless we start subsidizing new construction, housing will always be scarce and expensive.
2
Answer— because they have no practical control over any aspect of the conflict they're fighting in. Like it or not, Ukraine doesn't produce enough of anything for its own defense. It relies on the US and Europe for logistics, arms, and even federal and civilian salaries. Them being included at the table simply isn't a necessity; it's a courtesy. What Ukrainians want doesn't matter, in practical terms.
2
@s7robin105 What does that have to do with what I said? History shows that removing a leader creates lawless chaos, which is far worse than the country just being anti-US.
2
@s7robin105 You're assuming it's a nationalist icon. I've had this pfp since 2012 before this conflict began. You're also avoiding the original point, overthrowing Chavez will just make the people's lives worse. Which is supposedly what the US wants to avoid
2
You're acting like Jens Stoltenberg didn't also say this "talking point" a few years ago. Everyone on the US side understands what caused Russia's reaction. If Yeltsin, Gorbachev and Putin can all agree on something, it's not the whims of a madman; it's policy.
2
@johnassal5838 Sure, but they weren't, as the commenter tried to outright say, "invincible". Or anything remotely implied by that.
2
Even the video player looks like Limewire
2
@c.a.t.732 We can narrow it down to the territory of the Palestinian Mandate in the year 1947. Or if you think Israel should continue existing right where it is, Palestine's borders as Israel's government at the time agreed to in 1967.
2
@donovan4222 But it takes two to tango— Zelensky didn't HAVE to take BoJo's advice. Had he signed the agreement, everything besides Crimea would have been kept, and hundred of thousands more Ukrainians would still be alive.
2
@alextorres8635 Except that no territory would have changed. I think you're the delusional one here, despite the other person's comments. The deal in March 2022 was, we keep Crimea (which was already gone) you keep everything else but give greater autonomy to Donbas WITHIN Ukraine. Ukraine would have lost nothing on that deal. Hardly a surrender
2
@kajetan_teararoa Do you think only the military was stationed there? Ukraine knowingly starved people who were, only a few years prior, its own citizens. Even if we humor the idea that every single Crimean left for mainland Ukraine and only Russian transplants moved there, they're still civilians! International law doesn't make exceptions for a victimized party— Ukraine shouldn't have done that no matter what you think of the larger dynamic. This is why no one believes Western leaders when they harp on about human rights. Even its citizens, like you, are hypocritical. Jesus.
2
@jlighter1 The answer there is simple. It pledged, in 2008, to make both Ukraine and Georgia full NATO members. You might not agree that Russia was forced to do anything, but from its own perspective, that potential state of affairs was unacceptable. If you want a counter-example, the US was "forced" to threaten nuclear war over nuclear missiles in Cuba. Cuba is also a sovereign nation, and the US had no issues stationing Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but freaked out when the shoe was on the other foot. In that moment, from the US point of view, Cuba had to be forced against its will. It's a simple reality— alliances don't exist in a vacuum; there isn't a reality where "every state has the right to join any alliance it wants!". That's not how any state has ever acted in history, and you're ridiculous for thinking Russia or any other country should act that way. Especially after what NATO did in Libya (no Article 5 trigger), it's not a defensive alliance. It's a de facto arm of the US military, and it's extremely dangerous.
2
@AIPTutorials Tell that to Johnny Depp. It's people like you, and the other commenter, who drive men away from the left. Screw off
2
They never advanced past the mentality of Iron Age brutes. Unlike China, India, Greece... they've always been a primitive tribe. With made up stories instead of real achievements. Ironic that they outlasted all the civilizations that outdid them. Egypt, Persia, Rome.. yet somehow Israel was the one that clawed its way into the present.
1
@SeanCrosser I think a key difference in those arguments is the dynamic between either side in each analogy. The USSR collapsed on 1991, and NATO had no functional reason to continue existing. Russians are (at least in European Russia) truly native to the area, so the argument can't be made they're occupiers who need to be expelled. Russia wanted to be integrated into the West, but instead of mass capital investment (akin to West Germany postwar) it was robbed— US Treasury employees served as advisors to Moscow under Yeltsin's new government, and through their policies the entire post-Soviet region fell into comical levels of poverty. Russians (and many other post-Soviet countries) have genuine reason to be wary of US influence. NATO, in their analogy, predates Russia and its member states genuinely harmed Russia's civilian population. Russia was reacting to an already existent force at play. It, in Russia's view, is an aggrieved party. Israel, on the other hand, created its own strife. Yes, it's surrounded by neighbors who hate its very existence— but they want to because Israel commited atrocities to even begin existing in the region, and has territorial claims against most of its neighbors. You could say the same is true of Russia— but Russia's impetus for expansion is to achieve political stability. Israel, meanwhile, could achieve political stability by adhering to its 1967 borders— but refuses to, because that's not its actual primary goal. It wants to create a Greater Israel, as Smotrich has recently confirmed. Israel started its own problems, and refuses to compromise. Russia made genuine efforts to become part of the Western system, and lashed out when it was rejected for seemingly no stated reason.
1
@scotteous If by our you mean Western civilization, then yes. The rest of the world wasn't doing too great. In fact the entire "collapse" is just the shift to a multipolar world order, instead of a US-dominated one. The US isn't competent enough of even willing to accept this reality, so it's getting defensive and hoarding wealth for its "most important" even more than before
1
Fighting against modern day colonialism doesn't mean it was never colonial itself...
1
@profipfuscher3229 Yeah, it's not like the US has a history of using neighboring countries to train and arm agents to send into adversary counties! Oh, wait...
1
@berjanbeen7188 Chechnya invaded Russia in August 1999, you dolt. Not the other way around. And Amnesty International (among others) recognizes that Georgia started the Russo-Georgian war. They shouldn't have bombed the South Ossetians.
1
@redrick8900 Yes, they are. China is the sole manufacturing superpower, the US no longer is. The trade war and Biden's IRA make that very clear. And thanks to the war, countries are using the dollar to trade in oil less and less. It's ironic that you're calling my argument propaganda when all you've done is accuse without evidence. You can't even address the contents of my argument without implicitly admitting you're wrong. I'll try this one last time: how is the US' own admission that its sanctions regime didn't affect Russia how it had hoped, "Russian propaganda"?? Countless Western outlets have talked about this. "Fortress Russia" "Shadow fleet" "Smuggled microchips" are among the terms used to explain how the sanction failed. But the admission is undeniable. The US can't wield sanctions as a weapon anymore. I'm giving concrete evidence, and you're giving nothing. That alone should tell you who's correct here.
1
@redrick8900 China is the sole manufacturing superpower, so yes, the US is trying to reestablish that. The trade war and IRA make that abundantly clear. And Ru is fighting it, rather well. Sanctions don't work anymore, and the whole world knows it.
1
@robfl100 Yes, that's part of the deal— Wagner gets rid of ISIS militants, they get to access the goldmines in exchange. It's really no different than France's arrangement with all of Central Africa, except Russia doesn't require anything to be traded in rubles, or that the countries NEED to have 50% of their budget physically held in Moscow, or that they get first access to their markets. You might cope and seethe, but Russia is objectively better to have as a partner than France. In Central and West Africa, at least. There's a reason they all hate the explotation of Francafrique— it's textbook neocolonial policy. The same economic relations were kept in spite of nominal independence. So no, what you described is not "about it". The terms that the countries were made to contractually agree to when joining the CFA (under threat of coup— which France has made good on, many times) were economically draining. I'm not painting Wagner as angels either, just pointing out that Russia is better than France here and that Russia is, in fact, anti-colonial in its approach here.
1
@TheMasterMind144 Yes, I'm aware of 1994. Chechnya WON that war, and they could have kept their independence and left things alone. What did they do instead? Gather 4,000 soldiers, invade Dagestan, and declare a jihad on Moscow. Brilliant. Even better is that this operation was organized and funded by Saudi Arabia and the US (via Shamil Basayev). Doesn't matter that Putin (allegedly) faked apartment bombings, they ACTUALLY invaded Russia. Yet everyone thinks the Chechen War (the big one, where Russia re-occupied Chechnya) was started by Russia— when it wasn't. Same with Georgia— you literally ignored the point. So I'll try again, do you think Georgia had a right to oppress its Abkhazian minority group?? Doesn't really matter that Russia meddled; every country does that and you're being selective in your accusation. Georgia (again, according to Western sources) bombed Sukhumi University and threatened to genocide the Abkhazians. If anything they deserved to be invaded, they might have made good on their promise. No one blames the US for invading Germany in 1943, after all.
1
@TheMasterMind144 Yes, I'm aware of 1994. Chechnya WON that war, and they could have kept their independence and left things alone. What did they do instead? Gather 4,000 soldiers, invade Dagestan, and declare a jihad on Moscow. Brilliant. Even better is that this operation was organized and funded by Saudi Arabia and the US (via Shamil Basayev). Doesn't matter that Putin (allegedly) faked apartment bombings, they ACTUALLY invaded Russia. Yet everyone thinks the Chechen War (the big one, where Russia re-occupied Chechnya) was started by Russia— when it wasn't. Same with Georgia— you literally ignored the point. So I'll try again, do you think Georgia had a right to oppress its Abkhazian minority group?? Doesn't really matter that Russia meddled; every country does that and you're being selective in your accusation. Georgia (again, according to Western sources) bombed Sukhumi University and threatened to genocide the Abkhazians. If anything they deserved to be invaded, they might have made good on their promise. No one blames the US for invading Germany in 1943, after all.
1
@roaldruss4211 Can you explain which specific part of what I said is factually incorrect, and correct it? :)
1
@PuffDaMunkey Ukraine's strongest keyboard warrior
1
@lovinsubs Yes, helping the Vietnamese gain independence from France's literally colonial rule is colonial... somehow.
1
Wow. The entire nation is made up of scumbags. Maybe choosing Israel to be in South America instead wasn't such a bad idea
1
 @Trust_The_Plan They learned by example. They saw the solution to their treatment by becoming the oppressor.
1
I guess the AshkeNazi Jews are living up to their name..
1
Because Israel is basically a half Arab half European US colony. The Jews haven't been a distinct ethnic group for a long time, each diaspora has assimilated into its host country.
1
@davidbaker9479 I would need examples of those prior bans, because I'm strictly talking about social media companies here. TikTok and Telegram have weight in a way that hasn't been present before. I'm well aware that China is hypocritical with its ban on foreign apps— my point is that setting that precedent (with something massive like TikTok) could prompt other countries to ban US products (Brazil and X just recently, or maybe someday Russia and Google, India and Instagram, etc). The US would seal its own companies' fate if it won't refuse to let this one instance go (where China has control over an app that most Americans use).
1
Good Ending Vaush
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic Violently interfering? Chechnya invaded Russia, you dolt. August 1999, the Republic of Ichkeria sends a few thousand troops into Dagestan, hoping to split them away from the Russian Federation. They declare a jihad on Moscow. If that's what Russia can expect in its future, why should they be allowed an independent foreign policy? This is ironic when Bush did the exact same thing in 2003, but continued to criticize Russia for having done it themselves. Also, I said "Westerners", not "you". No matter what period in history, Westerners will find a reason to dislike Russia. And they don't seem to hold other countries to the same standard. Oh, and you're even dumber for your last comment. Capitalism is an economic system, fascism is a political one. And Russia isn't fascist. It isn't ultranationalist— Putin is an authoritarian, but he doesn't believe in the superiority of Slavs or something. Russian society is actually very separate from the military, unlike Italy or Germany.
1
No, there is no guarantee of that. Did all the Natives survive? You're letting yourself into a false sense of security. Geno can absolutely happen and it is US citizens' jobs (living in the country that enables Israel to do it) to prevent it from happening again
1
@manderly33 Are you being contrarian just for the sake of it? This entire segment felt like it, too. RFK might be insane but these used to be liberal and left-leaning concerns. Republicans were the ones obsessed with burgers and guns. God you people are so annoying. Europe's standards are higher for a reason. EU crops, for instance, generally aren't allowed to be sprayed with inorganic pesticides, while they are in the US. rBGH use is still widespread in the US cattle industry. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is also a concern, which is why US beef can't be exported to many places. Chickens in the EU are vaccinated and so don't carry a risk of salmonella, unlike in the US, where the resulting eggs are washed and sterilized, needing to be fridged. EU eggs can be kept out because the shell keeps them from spoiling. Add to that the risk of salmonella from the chicken meat. Food colorings (known to be carcinogenic, such as Red 40 or Yellow 5) are still allowed in the US. Just look at the German version of Froot Loops to see a great example. In general, the FDA takes a more hands-off approach to regulating, they wait until after an ingredient has harmed or killed Americans to ban it. The EU requires a company to first prove that the ingredient is safe. They don't have a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) designation. There's a whole lot more, but the crops and meat that Americans grow are full of crap. Sorry. Anything they export would need to follow EU protocols, so they're saving their healthiest foods to export. While leaving the Americans to gobble up the irridated scraps. Same goes for whatever prepared foods they're selling. Oh, and whiskey is alcohol, so no real need to poison it any more than alcohol already is one.
1
EVs haven't been subsidized by the Chinese government for some time now. The CCP actually deliberately stopped them to whittle down the oversaturated market in ~2017. Also Tesla got hundreds of millions in subsidies for decades, so not really a "China's cheating, no fair!" situation.
1
@michaelthelen4750 What you eat matters a LOT. Fiber and protein versus sugars and carbs. Calories in, calories out simply isn't true. Food isn't just made of calories lol, fiber slows absorbtion of calories and protein and fat are more satitating than sugar, which reduces the urge to overeat. There's a series conducted by a British doctor changing his diet by eating the same number of calories for a month as before, but switching only to processed foods. He maintained his exercise and lifestyle, allowing only the calories to change. He gained weight as a result.
1
 @raymonds.9021 NATO is just an extension of the US. It produces all the weapons and runs all the logistics. If they want to invade Canada, they really can't do much to stop them.
1
@samdaniels2 After you're done sniffing your own farts, can you explain exactly how I'm wrong? The practical realities of force projection haven't changed. International law and diplomacy works when rivals come TOGETHER— like what you're opposing right now?
1
@samdaniels2 Let's try commenting again: after you get off your high horse, can you explain to me exactly what I said is factually incorrect? What you think should be and how the world really works are very different things.
1
@marugmad I'll try commenting a second time: 800K is a figure pulled from thin air, Mediazona can only verify ~90K. And despite the slow progress, it's still being made. Which is more than I can say for the other side.
1
@TheMasterMind144 That's why the line will be drawn at the Dnipro. West of that, the RUAF would face significant guerrilla activity. East of it, is very unlikely. The demographics are too muddled to form a cohesive resistance. Not to mention... this is a piece of land that the Tsardom successfully held for 300+ years, and which its successor state willingly signed away in 1991. It's not like they fought and won for their freedom, it was given to them. Their sense of nationalism was never really battle-tested, as it were.
1
@Vulcano7965 Sounds like someone doesn't understand the idea of reaching a compromise. Finland literally did it for decades with zero issues. Barely 5 million people, and no run-ins with the Bear.
1
@TheMasterMind144 The Zaporizhia Sich was fierce because of Cossacks— those don't exist anymore outside of ceremonies. And the Tsardom didn't "grab them up", they formally asked the Tsar for help against Poland. International law is great— but the Budapest Memorandum of Understanding isn't a legally binding document. And, since the US can lie about NATO expansion to Gorbachev using informal agreements to fool him, why can't Russia do the same? You reap what you sow. If you act with no principles, don't expend your enemies to do so.
1
@LovelyIslandVacation-ch6wo How is it not? NATO (after taking control of the ISAF in 2011) led airstrikes against Libya, despite it not having triggered Article 5. The bombing of Serbia was literally described as "Illegal but necessary". NATO is NOT a defensive alliance.
1
@markvalery8632 Are you asking for a source to confirm that Stoltenberg DIDN'T say something?... How would that even be manifested? "Show me that this thing didn't happen" lol Anyways, I assumed that you were replying to his comment which wasn't banned, so I'll just drop this here anyway: 07 September 2023— Opening remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) followed by an exchange of views with Members of the European Parliament: “The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.” Stoltenberg, in a friendly forum where he could have ascribed to Putin whatever he wants, madness, greed, pettiness— chose to pin his motivations on NATO expansion. Almost gave the game away...
1
@Bobogdan258 Preventing another Western power from threatening Russia's territorial integrity, actually. Russia was happy to remain at its 1991 borders as long as the West actually did business with Russia. Instead what it got was shock therapy, the OSCE lying about Yeltsin's re-eelction not being rigged by Clinton, and extreme poverty and privatization. Reducing US influence near Russia's border is the primary goal. They tried to do it diplomatically (Budapest, Minsk). They tried to do it economically (giving Yanukovich a better trade deal than the EU— apparently that's "blackmail") after which NGOs started the Maidan. The only option left was militarily. If reducing US influence near their border region requires that, so be it.
1
The Pistachio
1
 @SpaceVVitch Not much better than the Bringer of Democracy, 100 years running. I'd prefer a hegemon that trades before it uses its military
1
Looking through the comments is good evidence that the USAID money is flowing again...
1
@社会主義惑星人民連邦 Good historical view. Actually, Putin's story is different. He wasn't "pretending" to be pro-Western. He genuinely wanted to be a part of the system. Listen to his speech at the Bundestag, he was a different person then. After Yeltsin's failure, he probably adopted the idea of "the West will only respect and eventually include countries that are successful in their own right". He gets to work installing technocrats in the Kremlin and rebuilding the Russian economy, and yet Russia is treated like a third-world country. NATO continues to expand as if the USSR still exists. The tipping point for him was Libya, according to former aides. Seeing a person much like himself— unifying and rapidly developing a backwater country, if ruthlessly— be overthrown in a US-backed coup, changed him. If the US promised to normalize relations with Libya after he agreed to halt its nuclear program, and ended up throwing the country into a civil war— what moral boundary prevented them from doing that to Russia? Add to that the fact that Russia's woes in the 1990s were largely the US' fault to begin with, and you get a man bent on eliminating US influence in the world. He tried for over a decade to play nice, and was repeatedly snubbed in both the geopolitical and economic sphere (for example the Pentagon blocking the sale of Opel to Russia in 2008, or opposing the opening of Nordstream I). Trusting the West was the biggest mistake Russia ever made. Putin's personal evolution is an embodiment of that fact.
1
Benjamin or his grandfather? His father Bezion hebraized his last name when he moved to Palestine
1
Right? Rights are privileges granted by larger powers. If the US violates Ukraine's "rights", what recourse is there? There is no higher monopoly on force in the international system. If a country is strong enough to do something and get away with it, it will. You might not like that, but your indignant protests dong actually change anything. See the world for what it really is, not what you'd like it to be.
1
@johnassal5838 Well, yes, but I'm surprised those estimates were made at all. Russia's own military doctrine dictates that they'd need many times more men to successfully occupy and pacify a country as large as Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia's contingent force to Kiev and the surrounding regions was only a few hundred thousand. I don't know what led Western analysts to believe that Russia wanted to occupy. If they wanted that, they'd have deployed many more troops. I concede that they failed in toppling the government, which I believe was their actual goal. But to think that they'd steamroll Ukraine, who had 8 years of CIA-backed training and billions in funding? I think people are retroactively exaggerating perceptions of Russia's military strength as a propaganda piece in the information war.
1
Why is it so hard for Dems? Because neoliberal ideology takes for granted American hegemony, and focuses instead on optics and virtue signaling. They want the prestige associated with great presidencies, without changing the dynamic of the system they live in (which was true of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK)
1
The Japanese were not. At all. The government was kept in place, the war criminals weren't prosecuted— (they also weren't in Germany but the USSR was involved so they had to or risk a global uproar) —all to gain control over their country.
1
@Agnezz11 You asked "why didn't Russia invade Finland PREEMPTIVELY?", my reply was answering that. Why they didn't join BEFORE Finland joined. Why are you pointing out they did eventually join, when your question was about BEFORE that happened? Did you forget your own timeline of events? Russia didn't invade Finland to prevent NATO expansion because Finland was committed to neutrality and effectively refused to apply to join NATO. Do I need to word it any differently? No NATO, no US military influence = no reason for Russia to care. It's really that simple.
1
Zhukov quote?
1
Except for Zuck, he's just mega autistic
1
I hate the word abundance. It feels so childish and openly greedy. At least when spoken in this context.
1
As a genuine question... why do people come to the US? Like, the chances of striking it rich are very low, and in Haiti's case, you'd be going to the very country that destabilized yours for decades, and by living and working there, contributing to the economy, you'd be making it even stronger. Why aid your greatest enemy?
1
@robertredmon5409 Surprise medical bills or expenses happen, 2001 and 2008 were both a thing. Even those who saved every penny lost it all thanks to poor macro economic conditions (and bad lending policy).
1
@jlighter1 ...But Russia did exercise trade leverage. The whole reason that Maidan happened was that Russia offered Ukraine a better deal than Europe did. That's why Yanukovich chose the oil and gas (among other things) trade deal over the European Association Agreement— the amount that Ukraine received in USD was larger. That's when people in Kyiv and Western Ukraine freaked out and protested. Then, a series of snipers shot into the crowds, conveniently becoming a unifying enemy and expanding the scope of the protests to Russia in general, despite there being no evidence that they were involved. Why did I specify regions? Because the entire east and south of the country held counter-protests a few days later, especially after Yanukovich was ousted (in violation of Ukraine's own Constitution). Really, the fact that you think Russia bad, so US can't also be bad, is truly baffling. Who's the one with a rap sheet of overthrowing foreign governments by funding NGOs and paying protesters??
1
@willgary8792 Wow, I've never seen someone have wishful thinking this openly before. You just really have an image of Russia in your head that you desperately want to be reality, huh? No. Russia offered to invest $15B into Ukraine's federal debt, and would shave expanded agricultural trade more generally. This was simply WAY more than what EU representatives said they would commit to Ukraine. Barely even a million immediately with another in loans (unlike with Russia, they need to be paid back) from the EU over the next 7 years. The IMF was not offering any better loan deals, either. Sorry, but ultimately, Yanukovich had genuine motivations besides "ahh big bad Russia scary and will invade!!!" to side with Russia on trade. The EU didn't try hard enough.
1
@willgary8792 Right, my question is why the "and now Russia" part. After the USSR collapsed, there should have been no reason for NATO to exist, since it was founded to counter communist expansion in Europe. Russia under Yeltsin wanted to be Western. So why did NATO not disband itself? And what you described aren't "flaws", they're crimes under international law. Bombing Serbia was literally called "illegal but necessary". Libya and Iraq even more obvious, since no European or American member states were involved. Once an alliance attacks someone unprovoked, it's no longer defensive. You can repeat it as much as you like, but that doesn't change what NATO did.
1
@outoftheforest7652 We can show compassion for his difficulties in life... that doesn't mean we have to agree with all his opinions. Especially because he seems to have swung way too far the other way— ever notice how drug addicts or ex-cons get fixated on clean living? Overcompensating for what's already been done. I wouldn't trust them to speak for the millions of Americans who just want more healthy food options. Even if that's what he speaks to, he's going about it the wrong way. While I agree with his assessments in general, doing away with seed oils and replacing them with tallow, or doing away with GMOs, is just plain stupid. Health nuts called nuts for a reason.
1
@dr.zoidberg8666 This is what I was going to comment. This is not the end, but the beginning. The unraveling of Western institutions and power, naturally will be a painful and bloody transition. But if Russia wins in Ukraine and Palestine successfully beats away Israel (or the rest of the world forces it to retreat to 1967 borders), the West will lose a lot of power. Francafrique (as seen in Niger and Mali) is falling apart, Germany is in recession, the UK is in recession and looking to its former colonial subjects for strength. The traditional power structure upheld for hundreds of years and cemented after WWII is coming undone, and Russia and China are chiefly behind it. Of course it seems climate issues are forgotten now so we may in fact all perish before we are able to reverse the effects, but in the final moments the rest of the world will have broken free from the West.
1
 @josephsimmons9241 And they speak perfect English too, much harder to spot
1
@coryneff7048 The original agreements from April 2022 were actually more generous. Crimea would have to be Russian (I mean, would any country willingly give up a massive naval base to a foreign military alliance? Especially when 90% of the population politically aligns with your country?) And Donbass would be tabled for later— though the indication was that they'd stay part of Ukraine in exchange for Russian co-official language status, and greater autonomy in general. The annexations happened way after that. So the situation ultimately has gotten worse for Ukraine, but their own maximalist pre-negotiation conditions are just as delusional as Russia's.
1
@Neon_Plasma Not to be pedantic, but a Memorandum of Understanding isn't binding under international law. Same argument used as "No, NATO did not agree to stop moving eastwards. It wasn't technically signed, only verbally assured". When you set the precedent of being a nitpicky weasel, don't be surprised when others leverage that, too.
1
 @manderly33 Some hicks are gonna genuinely think that's a better solution. "Your package is more secure at our facilities" will be the grand pitch.
1
People are willing to ignore all of that because of one simple reason: they're promised something if he wins. As long as Trump improves the country, their thought process goes, it's worth overlooking all of the other stuff. Kamala barely campaigned on the abortion issue and talked incessantly about why Trump was bad— but she didn't outline any policies of her own. Kamala didn't have her own version of Medicare for All, or (even from a Trump point of view) Tariffs, or Build a Wall. She was a vibes-based candidate who checked off all the boxes a well to-do liberal might want in a candidate, but with no substance. To this day I have no idea what her economic policy is. What's her position on student loans? Taxes? Inflation? And so on. She didn't message it, at all
1
I think the fundamental issue here is, you see Russia as a bad actor with ill intentions. You simply cannot fathom that they are an aggrieved party with genuine concerns and vulnerabilities. It isn't appeasement to come to a deal with Russia. They didn't even care about Western companies developing Ukraine's economy. Their sole concern was military. Had they gotten some kind of assurance that Ukraine wouldn't be in NATO (for instance, not announcing that they WOULD join in 2008 despite only 11% of Ukrainians wanting to then) then Russia would not have any reason to react. You cannot separate NATO from the US' foreign policy. All the bad stuff that the US does, NATO just helps them do it better. The "defensive alliance" means the US military gets access to new lands farther east, making it easier to conduct surveillance, sabotage, covert operations... This is the main crux of the Russian argument. With the US having such a long history of overthrowing leaders and destroying foreign countries for profit, is it really a stretch to think Russia has good reason to want to keep the US military as physically far away as possible? ESPECIALLY after what had just happened in the 1990s?? Russia's goal is to keep the US at arm's length. That's it.
1
@RedXlV Source? They were far-right and there's more evidence to suggest that they were ultra-nationalists funded by Western NGOs Just by heuristics alone— why would Russia fund something that stoked hatred against the pro-Russian government, and how wouldn't hey convince ultra-nationalists who hate them to do that?
1
Folks, this is what Israelis sound like when they're talking in Hebrew. When they think no one can hear. This was just a lucky occurrence to hear from someone who has foreign sympathies and adopted the ideology that most of Israeli society holds. Thank him for the translation!
1