Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Preston Stewart " channel.

  1. ​ @kruger7796  Well, not from the point of view of the members. But even if new countries want to join, that doesn't make it not threatening. It's an extension of American military power, how is it not threatening? They don't exactly have a good track record with respecting other countries' sovereignty. Russia is staring at itself in the mirror, US does the same when seeing Russia.
    1
  2.  @kruger7796  All you said in that entire paragraph, multiple times and with varying levels of exasperation, was "You're wrong!" Next time, please explain WHY you think that. NATO in of itself isn't necessarily threatening (Russia isn't concerned about a direct attack, nuclear arms on both sides make that impossible). What Russia is worried about is indirect means of destabilization. For example, Chechnya in 1999. Whatever you think of the first invasion by Russia, surely you understand that the second was not justified. In August 1999, several thousand Chechens, funded by Saudi and Western backers (Shamil Basaev among others), invaded Dagestan and declared a jihad on Moscow, with the intent to break Caucasia away from Russia, effectively Balkanizing it. So, NATO-member funded insurgencies, as we've seen before. Or we could look at how NATO treats countries it deems weak enough to directly engage. Libya, 2011. Gaddafi agrees to suspend his nuclear program in exchange for Libya's sovereignty being respected (not officially of course, his son who was in the room makes that claim— and I, given similar events occurring with Gorbachev in 1991, am inclined to believe him). Not a decade later, the US reneges on this agreement— even if you don't agree, Libya made public calls for the US to pressure Israel to do the same— and NATO directly leads airstrikes against Libya via the ISAF. Not NATO member countries, NATO itself, in an official capacity. Which NATO member did Libya attack to trigger Article 5 and prompt this attack? I think you know that the answer is none. NATO is a threat. It has attacked a country outside the terms of its defensive pact before. And there is nothing to suggest it won't do so again unless dissuaded by a nuclear strike. But again, Russia's concern in indirect: NATO gives the US access to Ukrainian territory, and allows them political and social power projection on Russia's southern border. We've seen how Ukraine on its own has cooked up the 'Bilhorod Liberation Force', imagine what bullsh** the US will attempt. NATO can still conduct invasions through proxies because doing it that way gives them plausible deniability— even though both parties know who is behind them.
    1
  3. ​ @NotAProducer888  You made a small concession, and the immediately fell back into the "look at how primitive and incapable the Russians are" line. Like someone else in the comments said, do it at your own peril.
    1
  4. ​ @arik2216  To be fair, it isn't some inherent Russian quality (mostly) but rather a lot of time to plan. The Russian Central Bank spent most of its time since 2014 insulating the Russian economy from sanctions.
    1
  5. ​ @adamhall5298  Actually, they have fought many. Plenty of soldiers who would have been part of a NATO contingency— should they choose to fight Russia directly— came to Ukraine on their own. Either through the Ukrainian foreign legion or as PMCs. We have interviews with them online lol
    1
  6. ​ @Thanksforaskingme  Germany
    1
  7. ​ @Kevineitor199  Are you saying that's what he is implying, or do you actually believe that yourself? The Russians invented the butterfly mine, that's an extremely innovative biomimicry design. And (as stupid as it looks) the cope cage works great at defending against drone attacks. Learning through trial and error is the best way to do it. Do you think militaries can become capable just through wargames and high tech?
    1
  8.  @mfallen2023  Cope if you want, but the US' actions in the 1990s seemed to indicate it was jealous of its resources
    1