Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
43
-
19
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
@daxasd3270
You'll have to show me which studies you are referencing for your claims, because the Russian heartland's genetic pool is full of the (mostly east slavic) haplogroup R1a. In fact the only place that has a higher percentage is Poland, but Ukraine has less than both of them.
Also, how can you talk about Russians being a mix of anything when, as you said, modern Ukrainian is very influenced by polish? (40% of spoken vocabulary is taken from it!)
Ukrainians (Ruthenians, or Rusians) could make that claim before the Commonwealth occupation and heavy Polonization, but the language now is almost 1/2 West Slavic.
Also I hate to bring this up, but the reason for the repression of the language was precisely because it was polonized. Russia wanted to re-unite the former territory of the Kievan Rus under a single language, as it has been.
Ukrainian and Belarusian were both influenced by another language, so they were seen as having deviated from the unbroken line of East Slavic language tradition.
7
-
7
-
I don't deny that this would put a dent in Russia's goals for European geopolitics, but the idea that "Russia hates the West because they're scared of a free, strong, prosperous country right next to them, then their people will get mad at Pootin and revolt!"
--Is such a naïve, childish view. About the same as "they hate us for our freedoms".
Straight from Bush's mouth, and even Americans agree he wasn't very bright. So why do they enthusiastically parrot this talking point?
Do Westerners see Russians as children, with no object permanence beyond their neighboring countries? Even if we assume that view, the Baltics already exist. Nothing has changed-- and enormous Western investment, access to technology and prosperity built on hundreds of years of slavery and colonialism will do that for a country.
Also, if we are using 'miracle' in the typical sense, such as Japan, Germany, or China, Poland's case is not miraculous. Its growth does not approach those examples, and still loses a lot of intellectual capital to England in particular, but also Germany.
7
-
As a genuine question: what is Europe's "goal" with Russia?
It seems simply to react to its actions, condemning them, and trying to stop them, but never saying what it ultimately wants.
Unless Europeans have forgotten, if Russia's economic influence (in oil and gas) is contained, Russia will cut off from Europe completely. If it were to economically collapse, tens of millions of people would suffer, and Europe would likely face another migrant crisis. It would be like another 1990s period again.
Do they want regime change? Last time Russia had a Western (business) friendly leader, Russia's quality of life suffered greatly. Russian companies were outmatched by older, established European companies, causing decline in domestic production and capital flight.
I genuinely do not understand what Europe is aiming to do. If they want a "Western-friendly" government to come to power, Russians (and the Russian economy) will almost certainly suffer, at least in the short-term.
But Russia was also rejected from NATO, so they are clearly not allowed into the club, since without Russia, it would not have a reason to exist.
So if Russia cannot be integrated into the West, but they need to be made friendly to the West... how is this intended to work?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@badluck5647
NATO intervened in non-NATO affairs numerous times, specifically in Bosnia.
Also, just because they're all apart of NATO doesn't mean it's the only military doctrine they follow.
Libya has nothing to do with NATO, yet most NATO countries joined in bombing it, led of course by the US.
The US bombing didn't even have congressional approval, so what exactly are your assurances of "we'll only attack if" even worth??
We all know the real game. US goal is to stop any Eurasian power from rising. It will do anything, legal or not, to do so.
It has already done so with USSR, manufacturing coups all over the world and funding corrupt campaigns in Europe (Italy + Greece). But I'm sure it's real this time, dont worry))
So excuse Russia if it's just a little paranoid about the expansion of a military alliance that has shown willingness to break it's own rules, or operate through roles as members outside of that alliance.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TruenoBestWaifu
...Really? The country that bombed civilian hospitals, tortured people (blacksites) on its own territory, illegally supported rebel factions in Syria and invaded Afghanistan, composed a coup d'etat in Libya and Iraq, has a piece of Cuba's sovereign territory, whose CIA tried to assassinate Julian Assange, sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (another dictatorship, totally ok though, NOTHING like Russia) to commit war crimes in Yemen, that overthrew countless democratic governments?
If anything, the US is even better than Russia in that regard. Who's really special here? You can list what Russia has done, but bear in mind the list above.
Everything Russia has been accused of, America has also done, in recent memory too. But only one of them gets punished for it. Ask yourself why.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephenjenkins7971
Well, why would they? Mexico is a dysfunctional rump state of its former self.
It cannot (due to geography) project military power, and whatever soft power it manages to project are due to the large Mexican population in the US.
Mexico has been neutralized as a threat since the 1800s. So of course the US has no reason to be aggressive.
But looking back, when Mexico had much more territory, and was within striking distance of New Orleans, the US had no qualms about being aggressive, eventually taking 50% of Mexico's land.
In short, You seem to be looking at events backwards- "Mexico has good relations with the US because it doesn't present a threat."
The reality is, Mexico no longer presents a threat to the US, therefore, the US has good relations with it.
And that's fine, you might argue even logical.
But the US cannot simultaneously operate under that framework and pretend that its values are freedom and democracy (overthrowing elected socialist governments, even non-aligned ones, as recently as 2019, removes any deniability).
I just wish the US was honest about its imperial position.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheHamsta101
Or maybe, they don't like their country being split apart along arbitrary lines?
Or, if along ethnic lines, then inconsistently applied across Europe?
No one at the UN or in washingston dc is calling for England to give back Northern Ireland or Scotland, or for Spain to give independence to Basque or Catalonia, or Brittany from France.
Hell, if we're going by ethnic lines, why is Republika Srpska a part of Bosnia?
Yet they froth at the mouth talking about Chechnya, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Uighurstan, and Crimea.
Can you spot a pattern?
Your real reasoning for wanting these changes isn't altruistic or good. It's playing into the plans of the Anglosphere to keep any potential competitors small and weak.
As it has been for centuries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is an oligarchy, not a dictatorship. Putin does not control the oligarchs, merely manages their interests.
Same problem with Stalin- the West deliberately misinformed its citizens about the nature of USSR political structure to keep them motivated to contribute destroying it.
(I am not saying that Stalin was good, simple that he was not a total dictator, more like the captain of a team).
And I do not think anyone actually cares about international law- if violating these laws confers a benefit to the country in question, and the violations are being enforced unequally, then it makes no sense for Russia to stop.
The US government was summoned before the ICC for war crimes and allegations of torture in Afganistan and Palestine. In response, the US denied the charges and sanctioned the ICC.
Europe has not sanctioned the US over its human rights violations, has not made the lives of American citizens worse... so why is Russia treated differently?
If the "international community" truly cared about the principles, it would apply the same measures against the same crimes (human rights violations) committed by both countries. Yet, America gets to keep trading with the EU, because they and Europe are on the same team.
It was never about human rights. It is about limiting the influence of competing powers.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hunterkage2842
Doesn't really matter, the larger point you are making about the state of Russia's military is the same. And it's untrue either way.
I would need a source for that claim, since
1) Ukraine's gains were tiny, and Russia has already leapfrogged past Avdeevka, and
2) Russia hasn't launched an actual offensive yet. They are retaking towns but it's not an all-out assault like Ukraine did.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "cannibalize their own military". Russia does frequent rotations, and has 400,000 in reserve. Ukraine's President, by contrast, just signed a bill lowering the conscription age to 25.
Why would they need to do that if they weren't... say, cannibalizing their own military? They are running out of willing fighters, while Russia is just ramping up.
Same point with the economy— it is suffering not from contraction, but from overheating.
There is a labor shortage and unemployment is basically zero, so real wages are rising fast. The central bank needed to raise interest rates to cool the economy down or risk a meltdown.
Your next point is probably the funniest. I will grant that Ukraine does have Western weaponry, but most of it is older. And as German Leopards and Patriot missile systems smoldering in Ukraine right now show us, the supposed "advanced" nature of these weapons systems doesn't really matter in an actual wartime scenario.
They can all be taken down with a cheap drone costing maybe a few thousand dollars.
You can call it a sign of primitive development, I call it intelligent use of resources.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "demilitarizing his own military", can you give an example of a specific action that indicates that? Like a policy change or something. Smells like vague, wishful bs to me.
The gas export ban, so far as I can tell, is due to the increased consumer demand that I mentioned earlier (economy getting too hot and growing too quickly). It's also becoming spring, so people become more active, drive more, and drive up demand.
I am not sure what delusions you are harboring in your mind, but it is likely Putin planned this out in advance. The US would have turned Ukraine into a NATO member had they not intervened.
In case you forgot, the US has something of a track record with getting physically close to a country and then sending "freedom fighters" or "moderate rebels" in there to destabilize the country.
Not because the government is incompetent or bad (if that were the case, you would not be allied with Saudi Arabia) but because they don't like threats to their global power. Russia, apparently, is that threat. It's almost flattering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHamsta101
Yes, in fact, every country has a place in the grand chessboard. Every country has political connections. Shocking, I know.
"Oppressive bullies"
"play the victim later when they end up without any friends"
Why do neoliberals tend to characterise entire countries as one would individual people- "(Insert country)" is the bad guy, and we've gotta stand up to them!"
It's honestly such a childish, simplistic, and naïve view of geopolitics that I can hardly believe you're being serious.
The 'Serbian sphere of influence' that was Yugoslavia, much like the USSR, was not completely unitary or centralized, as Westerners all too often believe.
In fact, it's precisely because of the mutually exclusive political aims of the Serbs and Croats that led to fissures.
I'm glad you're at least ideologically consistent, and I agree that all of those listed are viable as independent states, ot at least provinces.
My gripe is that the world doesn't work that way, and that the EU will never come to a vote on Spain or France (and would not have for Britain).
They would themselves, however, adamantly urge regions in anti-Western countries to seek independence, a la Kosovo, Chechnya, Tibet, etc.
Not because they (the countries) actually care about those people, but because it would suit their political and economic goals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xway2
No, you're not understanding the point here.
The presumed terms of the agreement- the Budapest Memorandum- were that
1) Russia and Ukraine are separate countries that respect not only territorial sovereignty, but democracy in general.
2) That all issues arising from their common, un-democratic past have been resolved and both, diplomatically, are operating on blank slates.
Neither was true.
Crimea was un-democratically transferred to Ukraine by Soviet decree, it was never democratically rectified. Nor were they given a chance to self-determine under the new system.
So, when the right of Crimea to self-determine is denied (2014- no int'l recognition), on the grounds that they had already self-determined beforehand (1994), we have an issue.
Unless, the argument is "it belongs to Ukraine now, get over it", in which we would, as you mentioned, throw all precepts of democracy out the window.
I think 230+ years of political and cultural connection to a place, in spite of its undemocratic origin, is enough to warrant allowing the people to return to the country in question, if they wish.
1
-
1
-
@michaeldunham3385
"They couldn't force Ukraine to relinquish Crimea"
No, that's not what I said. Negotiate.
Both parties, did, in fact, do that, but Russia's terms were certainly tempered given their recent economics and political collapse. That was also true of Ukraine, but one had simply lost more than the other.
I suppose that's true, but I don't do it to distract.
I bring up other examples because I want to judge acceptable precedence-- are we really willing to stick by principles which, if actually enforced, would bring enormous shifts to the global political order? Disadvantage some parties and enrich others?
In most cases I think not, because almost everyone has vested interests.
And working on a case-by-case basis generally brings better results.
If you were talking about other threads, you need to specify. I can't read your mind and can't address things unless you express them.
To the Basque and N. Ireland point, I have the same (above) reasoning.
As for Yeltsin, I wasn't lying, but I did miscommunicate. And that's my mistake, I'm sorry.
When I say "he wasn't elected", I'm referring to the fact that he had all the hard work (of name recognition, policy) done for him, as a former leader of the RSFSR.
I didn't mention that it was Yeltsin who advocated for the creation of the office of the Presidency, and the 1st election happened within the USSR. His candidacy was built on the fact that he was appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation.
So, while he legitimately campaigned, it's a lot like saying JFK got elected because of his hard work from the bottom-up.
And I made the distinction-- the Russian (but not Soviet) media certainly helped him along in the 1st election, though I wouldn't consider it rigged.
Clinton did, however, interfere in Yeltsin's 2nd election. He said, "I want this guy to win so bad."
He sent in political staffers from DC every week to boost his then-abysmal approval numbers. ~$16M in total spent on his campaign-- advisors, marketers, ads, posters, groundwork, etc.
So, in sum: 1st election, technically legitimate; 2nd, not. Got it?
1
-
1
-
@pedrorequio5515
Russia's dominating concern is security, not hate. None of this is done irrationally.
It is all done in anticipation of eventual US surrounding and choking out Russia. They have continued to do this even when Russia posed no threat to Europe, in the early 1990s, even as it was open to democracy and Westernization, the US still pushed for NATO expansion.
They could have easily closed the door, and calmed Russia's fears of being surrounded, and eliminated their need to expand and control, once and for all. But they decided to keep playing the geopolitical game.
As for Iran, I don't think any deal will go through, given their existing alliance with Russia and China. And since Europe is tied to US foreign policy, there is little hope they would ever make an exception, unless they cut ties with the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1