Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "NFKRZ" channel.

  1. 254
  2. 27
  3. 26
  4. 25
  5. 22
  6. 20
  7. 16
  8. 15
  9. 14
  10. 14
  11. 13
  12. 12
  13. 11
  14. 11
  15. 11
  16. 9
  17. 9
  18. 9
  19. 9
  20. 8
  21. 8
  22. 6
  23. 6
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 5
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32.  @MiStuSia16  Seems like nobody can answer my point. The person I originally commented on has fallen silent... Again: Was Stalin supposed to just let the Germans steamroll Poland and get right up to his border? Or was it smarter for him to give the USSR as big of an advantage as possible? Please answer my question. My point, by the way, wasn't about the brutality of Russian soldiers, but of the need to "ally" with the Germans, knowing they would destroy Poland either way. And it is rich that you're trying to make the Germans out to be better than the Soviets. They were nice to Russian civilians, too--- there is even a photo of a soldier sharing his last ration with a civilian woman. What you Poles consistently fail to comprehend that the Soviets were, in fact, better for the Poles than the Germans. Would you prefer an alternate history where they kept Poland? Sure, they would genocide the Poles out of existence forever.... but at least they had "class" and could run a country, unlike those Soviets! At least they kept their streets clean, all the easier to transport you to the chambers! Who cares if they turn Poland into Germany, at least they were polite! Your country's view of history is coloured so heavily by emotion that you honestly believe a regime set on wiping you from the face of the Earth for Lebensraum is somehow better than living under Russian rule. The only reason you're alive to bitch and moan about it too, is because the Russians weren't as brutal as the Germans.
    4
  33. 4
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37.  @DailyMusic  It being "madness" doesn't discredit the Crimean people's genuine wishes at the time. Independence from Ukraine being impractical doesn't therefore mean it's okay to send a post-Soviet branch of the KGB in to silence people. To that extent, though, remember that the "cutting off" (I assume you mean the Dnipro Canal) applies to Ukraine just as much as it does to Crimea. The Dnipro starts in Russia, passes through Belarus, then Ukraine, and flows into the Black Sea. Would you make the same argument for Ukraine being "mad" to oppose Russia because Russia could divert or dam the river and permanently ecologically destroy Ukraine? That's the language of appeasement and I'm frankly shocked that you're willing to use it after all that's happened since 2022. I guess it doesn't matter when it's your guys... Anyways, the autonomy thing was never considered by Ukraine to dispel Crimean fears of Ukrainianization. And frankly, the Ukrainian Parliament disregarding the 1991 election vote where most voted to leave Ukraine and sending soldiers in to take Crimea by force (never mind the later referendum in 1994) dampens the idea that they defended their borders for the sake of democracy. The Crimeans weren't allowed the right to self-determination. The Rada (a few days before the annexation, on the 23rd) repealed the 2012 law that gave Russian legal status as a regional language within Crimea. Were it not for Turchynov's veto, Crimeans would be forced to learn only Ukrainian in schools, and all legal documents and bureaucratic matters would have to handled in a lanuage they didn't even speak. And the law was repealed in October of that year anyway, but the Rada showed its intentions even without the annexation as a justification. I'm not saying that the annexation was correct, but surely Ukraine could have done anything to even pretend that they didn't want to turn Crimea into ethnically Ukrainian land, despite supposedly being a democracy that respects multiculturalism. About the UN— it isn't very good at its job. Somaliland should be separate, Basque shouldn't be part of Spain, yet the UN didn't do anything to endorse or propose a referendum. In either case, Somalia and Spain quickly shut it down. Leaving elections up to a legal body that isn't capable of organizing them isn't a good solution.
    3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44.  @cgt3704  You described Romania to me. I now have to ask: what has it achieved? It sounds like you have all the same issues, just with a different political alliance. You said it yourself- you have massive brain drain (especially to UK), corruption, bad infrastructure,, etc. So was aligning with the West, and opening up your market right away, even worth it? What do you have to show for it, Pizza Hut? I am not saying you should "give up", but I think your strategy is bad, Greece is still worse now than it was before joining the EU. Will you tell them to "never give up!"? You seem to put a lot of faith in this idea, that being with the West will eventually make things better, with basically no evidence to show for it. Poland and Baltics are really all that come to mind, but this comes from their smoother transition to capitalism and technology transfer. There was a political motivation to get them away from Russia, so the countries with money and colonial legacies made sure they succeeded. Not sure what to tell you about Putin, literally anyone was better than Yeltsin, you have no position to lecture others about ideals and values when we were starving to death. He is not perfect, but he is much better (even now) than the results we got under the Western-supported leader. And none of what happened in 2000s, stabilizing the country and economy, was "easy". We are sacrificing the political process, yes, but if we put all our efforts into one goal and fail, there will be nothing left. Better to stabilize the economy first, then transition to more democratic. We tried what you are suggesting (Glastnost first, than Perestroika). It failed
    3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 2
  50. 2