Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "How License Plates led to a Border Conflict: Serbia u0026 Kosovo Explained - TLDR News" video.

@tisho91 What a load of shit. If you can accept Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and even France (with its military bases on tribal land) into the EU, you can accept Serbia. Just admit to playing power games. You don't like a close powerful neighbor, unless of course there on your side!
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
"International Community" = US, UK, Aus, NZ, Japan, Western Europe Lol
2
@tisho91 1. Sorry, mistake, I meant NATO- and the requirements for membership are quite similar (democratic governance, market economy, respect of others' sovereignty). "Misinformed"? You're grasping at straws here. 2. What does that have to do with the motivation for turning down membership? Poland and the rest of the Warsaw Pact were snuck into the EU despite governance issues, and they're now bearing the consequences. The vast majority of history has seen development without democracy. That's your subjective view, and taken through almost any lens, it's simply incorrect.
1
@illwill1991 Well... they did, for centuries. That they only stopped very recently doesn't diminish the impacts of the Crown's policies. In fact, England really gets the best of both worlds here- they get to keep EU membership, say that they follow the rule of law, and they got away with quelling minority and separatist movements, subdue their closest neighbor. They reap the benefits of both, because they did their dirty work earlier. And now, nobody else is allowed to do that. They truly got away with it. Also, the question was about EU membership, and it was NATO (led by the US) that bombed Bosnia and Serbia. What does either have to do with the UN?
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