Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Why Is No One Asking What Ukrainians Really Want?" video.

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
@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
@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
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
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
@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
Looking through the comments is good evidence that the USAID money is flowing again...
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
@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
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