Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "THIS INTERVIEW WAS INSANE" video.

  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
  2. 1