Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "RUSSIAN REACTS to Zelensky Lex Fridman Interview" video.

  1. ​ @katkapsa5761  Both sides of the conflict here (avoiding the w word because YouTube) are extreme in their views. Roman has cultivated this audience, they're no different to the comments under RT. Even if they're morally correct, they've also been coaxed into this one-sided media echo chamber and it shows. Them even trying to frame this as a fight, when it's a softball interview, is insane.
    12
  2. ​ @danielturczan2485  Petty and cringe. People saying stuff like this make Russian speakers believe what Putin says... because it turns out to be true, in cases like yours. You don't just hate the government, you apparently hate the language, which is a part of the culture. How sad.
    9
  3.  @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 The Rada (a few days before the annexation, on the 23rd) repealed the 2012 law that gave Russian legal status as a regional language within Crimea.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 And the law was repealed in October of that year anyway, but the Rada showed its intentions even without the annexation as a justification.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
  4. ​ @DailyMusic  I admire you dancing around the issue— saying that those who genuinely believe that Crimea should be under Russian administration must be fooled by surface-level improvements— but let's be honest here. Crimeans have been pushing for leaving Ukraine— not even being part of Russia, just depriving Ukraine of access to their land— since 1996. An election was held then and a majority (60%+) of people voted to restore the old Constitution which would have separated them from Ukraine. This election was quickly shut down by the SBU, and in case people think it was a Russian plot— Russia was occupied near Chechnya at the time, and was closely allied with Ukraine's government. They had no reason to antagonize the entire rest of the country for the sake of a naval base or some imperial ambitions when it could be argued that alluring with Ukraine did that much more effectively. All that is to say— the election was grassroots and Crimeans did actually vote to leave. That it wasn't done with the consent of Ukraine is a cheap cop-out; by that logic no independence movements should ever exist because they're "illegal". Anyways, that's something I wanted to add.
    2
  5. @AlexKall  I agree. But if you want to also agree, then you'll have to oppose the Ukrainian Parliament on several laws they've passed. When both the Polish and Romanians are pissed at Ukraine over this (even though I hate the idea that veracity is retroactively determined by who's saying the information, rather than whether the evidence holds up)— then you can be sure it isn't "propaganda". To sum: I'm glad we agree. But Ukraine is acting like a miniature Russia. Being a victim doesn't give you the right to pursue an ethnostate as "revenge" against the country who settled the minorities in your country.
    2
  6. Seems like that's the only war he can win these days...
    2
  7. ​ @islywynn7678  That's true, but the Tatars themselves (who arrived with the Golden Horde) cleansed the previous Genoese and Greek colonists. Such is history. The Turks aren't indigenous either.
    1
  8. ​ @arfaouibilel4855  If I can genuinely ask, how do you square your opinion with the last several Ukrainian election results in Crimea (before 2014)? Every time, they overwhelmingly voted for the pro-Russian candidate. I'm sure there was a solid minority of pro-EU or pro-Western Crimeans, but according to the election results available on the Ukrainian government website, the guy above is correct: Crimea is an exception. It was always very pro-Russian.
    1
  9.  @DailyMusic  "Ukraine has other sources of water, electricity" My point is that Ukraine could be affected by another country, I don't think the degree of risk is what matters here, it's the principle of self-determination. Something being "mad" shouldn't be an argument against leaving, for either Ukraine or Crimea. If we go by your logic, then what level of risk is acceptable for Crimea to permanently leave Ukraine? And why are you seeing this through the lens of force? Isn't that what Russia is doing, and Ukraine is supposed to be against? Was all the rhetoric about national sovereignty meaningless? Your framing of Ukraine being unable to guarantee safety is disingenuous when they didn't respect the wishes of the Crimeans on issues unrelated to independence. As I said, they repealed the status of Russian as a minority language. So they don't care about them at all, and pretending like keeping Crimea is for the well-being of the people living there is just plain lying. Ukraine might be a victim to Russia, but it never had good intentions for Crimea. When Ukraine becomes the "Russia" in a political relationship, they don't act any differently to Russia. Same goes for the Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, and Rusyns on their territory. Ukraine treats them like Russia treated Ukraine. And that's the most despicable part, knowing how it feels to be oppressed and choosing to oppress others anyway. It's sick.
    1
  10. Ironically, I think you're betraying your own opinions here, by agreeing with Vexler. He (and you, by extension) seem to think that Putin, under this framework, is acting from a knowingly evil perspective. That's fundamentally incorrect, and reductionist. Everyone is the good guy of his own story. And I find it funny to think that the same people calling Lex naive apparently genuinely believe that Putin thinks to himself, "I want to spread suffering in the world because I, Vladimir Vladimirovich, am a hateful person and therefore will express that through violence!" Rationalizing and sugar-coating your own decisions is human. Putin is no different, so he wouldn't have the motivations of a cartoon villain. I don't agree with Lex that Putin's motivation is a love of country, but his actions are too well thought-out, long-term (2014-2022, and counting) to be impulsive; and too reserved (why not use nukes? Prigozhin wanted to) to be purely fuelled by "want for destruction". Vexler also misunderstands Lex's worldview. Lex, being a compsci grad, and later alum to MIT, sees the world in a mechanical way. A series of stimuli and reactions. {If, then} lines of code. It's not correct to say that he sees only the emotionally good motivations in people, he has trouble seeing the emotional motivations, period. He's not a robot of course, but look back through his interviews and the way he frames questions about motivations. Vexler is simply wrong.
    1
  11. ​ @PewDiePie777  The collapse of Syria literally just happened, and you want another one to happen? Are you blind to what happens when states collapse?
    1