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

@JLSMaytham Eh.. Rome lasted as an Empire for another 1.500 years. Meanwhile the US doesn't seem to mirror its path of trajectory— it enjoyed a Rome status during the 1990s and 2000s, but the rest of the world is too developed to allow complete dominance ever again. Rome had a massive technological and civilizational advantage. The US for the most part does not.
16
@ThePtoleme ?? When the Soviet archives were declassified in 1991, it was shown that Soviet officials sent separate 6 aid packages to Ukraine during the famine. They didn't want the word to spread about the failure of the 5 Year Plan, and tried to fix it. Holodomor was not targeted genocide, but incompetence. Of course it feels better to think they thought of Ukraine as important enough to target, rather than having accidentally stepped on it. Even knowing that the enemy thinks about you hatefully feels more dignified than making no impression on him at all.
10
@ClownCarCoup That's an unreasonable standard to hold any country to, though. At the time of the American Revolution, only about 30% of people wanted independence. The other 30% wanted to remain British subjects, and the last 40% were undecided, neutral, or ambivalent. That a country isn't completely, 100% unanimous in its desire to remain united isn't reason to break it up. Or, if you do believe that, then Scotland shouldn't have to get England's permission to secede, even if not all Scots want to leave; Hawai'i's independence should be accelerated even if most (non-Native) Hawai'ians want to stay a part of the US; and Crimea would be completely within its right to secede from Ukraine even it is was "illegal" and even if not everyone on the peninsula wanted to secede. Saying that self-determination should trump national sovereignty is a slippery slope, and is only pushed by those who think they'd be immune its weakening effects. If the US is willing to actually give away its Pacific territories in the spirit of honoring the will of a secessionist minority within the country, then I'll also advocate for Crimea to return to Ukraine. Puerto Rico can't even vote for its own leaders, Guamanians have 10% of their whole island turned into a military base, and Marshalese still have radiation from the Bikini Atoll tests. If the Balts and Poles can secede for more abstract political reasons, than the others have an even better case to leave, too.
9
@ClownCarCoup How is what I said a non sequitir? My conclusion (from the examples I gave) is simple: you need to chose between national sovereignty, and self-determination. If you think any minority group can secede if they all agree that they want to, then you must hold Crimea to the same standard as Kosovo. If you think the sovereignty of the country comes first above all, then you must advocate for Kosovo to be returned to Serbian rule. Or for the SNP to stop trying to leave the UK. Etc. Basically stay consistent if you're claiming that you hold values. Instead of just supporting "your team" and using any values as an excuse.
7
@bazstraight8797 Something "coming across as" a talking point doesn't address whether or not it's actually true. Same idea applies to the question of who blew up the Nordsteam pipeline, the presence of neo-Nazi battallions in Ukraine's armed forces, the sacking of several Ukrainian officials over corruption, etc. Even if something "looks bad" for one side, if the media is committed to the principle of truth no matter what, they have an obligation to do good journalism and post the information in an impartial way. If you cannot do that, then you're no longer a journalist, but an activist. This puts into question the truthfulness of any future work you put out, too.
7
@BaiMihal032 True, but Russia for all its brutality, in insular and not universalist in its political goals. It never had a history of using ideology as a justification to expand. It didn't go across Siberia on a civilizing mission, it didn't romanticize the idea of Age of Discovery. It was just a practical goal, to prevent another Mongol invasion. The West's societies and political culture are fundamentally shaped by that expansionary period and came to define itself based on those experiences. If the West wins out here (against Russia and China), it will erase any opposition to its way of seeing the world, and will likely bring Africa and Latin America back under its control. One only need to look at the 1990s to see how that will look for the Third World.
4
Would it? The US would have a very plausible reason to reinforce NATO members' commitment to the organization, backed by massive public support garnered through the PR campaign in the start of the conflict. It would also frame this as another reason to even more deeply integrate into the US led political order in general (exclusive trade deals, not trading with Russia or Iran, reducing trade with China etc). I think contrary to what you are saying, especially since most of the US' "reindustrialization" program is coming from European firms and is effectively accelerating de-industrialization in Europe, Russia has driven Europe into the arms of the US and made it even more of a vassal than it already was.
1
@bazstraight8797 I never said you were a journalist. I used "you" in the rhetorical sense. And just like you, I'm not in a position to determine the whole truth. I'm just annoyed that one side— the Western one, more than the other side, is claiming that its information is completely correct, while also dismissing any inconvenient information as 'pro Russian propaganda'. It's never actually addressed whether that piece of information is true. Until the conflict is over, we won't be able to know the full truth of what's going on in Ukraine. And maybe not even then will we get the full picture. Both sides have something to gain by lying.
1