Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Hill" channel.

Not quite. There's still tens of thousands of men who've been discharged missing a limb. So unless they all lost their third legs, Ukraine will live on, albeit in a very poor demographic situation.
10
@careyfreeman5056 I don't know why everyone parrots this talking point. It's gaslighting to say that "NATO never wouldve expanded if Russia wasn't so aggressive!" BS, there was never a moment where they weren't trying to expand to new members. Pressure was put on Finalnd for decades to join, the former PM admitted this in a CNN interview a fee months ago. Even when Russia was at its weakest and barely able to take on Chechnya, NATO expanded to include Poland. What threat was Poland facing exactly??? This isn't just voluntary ascension, it is a concerted effort by the US to gain military access as close to Russia's borders as possible. So given that, we have 2 scenarios: Ukraine is 'joined at the hip' as you say, but without official membership, and occupied land, giving Russia the ability to attack and NATO without a cassus belli. And preventing Ukraine membership indefinitely. Or, Russia could have waited for them to officially join, and then they would be truly surrounded by US forces. Don't try to pretend there is some magical 3rd option where the US disbands NATO. That has been requested for decades and the US has refused. So which of the only 2 realistic options do you think is better?
6
@andreasstampf6690 What do either of those have anything to do with NATO's expansion? The Helsinki Accords (nonbinding, by the way— so it shouldn't take precedence over the earlier agreement, both were informal) was a set of 10 equally vague ideals that were to be followed by all signatories. But nobody followed them so it doesn't matter. The NATO Founding Act was just a commitment to cooperate with Russia in eventual hopes of it joining the organization. It makes no guarantees about Russia respecting the organization accepting new members. Also, the argument that it was informal, to me, sounds like "you were naive enough to think we weren't just lying to your face?" Says a lot more about the US than it does Russia, and clearly they learned their lesson, since they did the exact same thing with the Bucharest Summit. Don't set an example you don't want your enemies to repeat.
5
@jimper15 Are you against school lunches? The beneficiaries of those are mostly poor children. Not the same as in this case (and not even this case is true-- your average student is not a doctor, and plumbers actually make great money.) It's also not how the economy works, there isn't a set pool of money in the bank. A country is not a household and doesn't need to be run like one.
5
@Scobert I wouldn't consider LNG ports to be renewable. Unless you mean to tell me that 25% of Germany's energy consumption has rapidly been replaced with wind solar and geothermal, in the span of 1 year?
5
@Scobert Even by your own sources then, a majority of their energy isn't green. And, because Russia has the leading edge in nuclear tech, they certainly haven't replaced it with new power plants. So where is that 50+% gap being filled? Like I said, LNG ports are not sustainable. So "Germany gets its power from renewable sources" is a lie. You lied.
3
They're tiny and can be seiged through the Suwalki gap. Russians southern regions are much more important and vulnerable.
3
 @michaelkatz275 Doesn't mean he shares Solovyov's views. Jesus are you incapable of thinking without emotion? Stop making connections where none exist.
2
@michaelkatz275 Okay, but how does this "raise questions" about HIS OWN viewpoints? Does being associated with someone change the nature of the facts upon which your opinion is based? Frankly, does it even change the correctness of their interpretation of the facts, or the conclusion they draw? You're making a lot of assumptions about Jeffrey's viewpoints based on a few interviews conducted with a man who doesn't even speak English.
2
all my friends are dead
2
Lol @ censoring the adjective "Russian" like it's Voldemort or something
2
 @jamescann8636 The black sun patch isn't a rune. Nor are the double S patches worn on some battlions' armbands. Nor is the phrase, Glory to the Heroes.
1
@michaelkatz275 Okay, you've asserted that they do (call into question the validity of his viewpoints), but you still haven't answered my question of HOW. Where do you make the connection that merely "associating" with Solovyov (if you consider appearing for an interview to be associating with him, personally or professionally) ddnigrates the correctness of his viewpoints? As an example: Sachs asserts that, during his time as economic advisor to Boris Yeltsin, the "shock therapy" doctrine that was advocated for Poland was simply not allowed to be carried out in Russia. Every single request he put in to DC for funding Poland's government, he received. When he did the same thing in Moscow, he almost always got rejected. From this, he concluded that there was an inconsistent approach to the funding aspect of shock therapy, and that the US fumbled its opportunity to transition Russia to a capitalist economy, ruining it for a decade. Solovyov would agree with this sentiment, based around the same facts: the amount of funding Russia received was indeed less than Poland— with a population 4x as large. The amount given to the respective economies was clearly unequal, when the advice given by the shock therapists was to give Russia at least as much aid as Poland, proportional to its economy and population. The US government did not even heed the advice of its own economists working with the Russians. Sachs and Solovyov are drawing similar conclusions based on the same set of facts. So I'm struggling to understand how the conclusion is somehow less true just because Solovyov believes it? How is it less true because he believes it? I'd like to know.
1
@michaelkatz275 Still waiting on that reply buddy. How does believing the same thing as someone bad make that belief incorrect?
1
@michaelkatz275 That isn't answering my question. I think you just don't want to admit that your original comment was wrong. That Sachs happens to share an opinion with Solovyov doesn't make that opinion (or the facts it is based upon) incorrect.
1
"To defeat China, we must become like China!"
1
@theredscourge Why? What authority do you or any person in any country have to even entertain making that happen? Also I don't think that'll work. All Russian leaders work for its security (the rare exception being Yeltsin). You "wipe the government off the earth", a new one will arise and it will remember how poorly you treated the last one. Being surrounded by a foreign power (NATO) with a habit of overthrowing governments for its economic benefit is unacceptable to even Navalny.
1
 @niarlatotepbasset ?? Ashkenazi Jews are about 30% Russian. Many have family there
1
Hungry lol
1
Principatus To be fair, Obama genuinely expressed confusion at the time. He understands that his role as President happened to include mass killings, for what that's worth. Apparently the Prize Committee wanted to "stand behind him and show their support" lol
1
Where do I apply for my polio vaccine? I paid out of pocket for my iron lung and my medicine! This is wrong and nothing more than buying votes.
1
Most were taken into the US and USSR, the rest were either tried and sentenced at Nuremburg, or stayed in West Germany.
1
@careyfreeman5056 "Ukraine was never going to join NATO" Again with the gaslighting, RIGHT after I pointed it out. Stop lying. Yes, they were going to join. Do you want me to pull up the 2008 Summit announcement where the statement was made? This is what I'm taking about. Your side is trying to frame this is "such an embarrassing mistake for Putler" or something. But this only works if you assume that he triggered the desire to begin with, which he didn't. At the time of the 2008 announcement, only 17% of the Ukrainian population wanted to join. But the will of the people didn't matter, because the government wanted to be in. And the process is never reversible. Ukraine could have one pro-West government start the process, then 5 pro-Russian presidents, and then 30 years later another pro-West president, and then they get in. Doesnt matter what the people think or what it will do for regional instability. See the problem this poses? The only way for Russia to keep the US away is to completely incapacitate Ukraine or take it over.
1
@careyfreeman5056 Maybe in this isolated incident he did, but you cannot blame Russia for wanting to avoid Libya or Vietnam's fate. Or frankly, Russia's. We were already under US economic influence during the 1990s, they tool the opportunity to ruin Russia and (contrary to even the US apologists) destroy any hope for democracy. The moment Yeltsin bombed the Parliament building was the moment the US should have stopped supporting him. But they didn't. In fact they helped him rig the 1996 election. Former head of OSCE Michael Meadowcroft has confirmed that he was pressured by the US to lie about the results of that election. Why? Because the goal was never democracy or freedom. It was not even about promoting free markets. It was about exploring Russian natural resources and labor. We're a big piece of land and the US is really mad that they can't have free reign over it. That's it. NATO expanding (and more generally the US expanding its economic influence) means that Russia can no longer trade without considering US interests. Implicit threats of sanctions or covert military action that is deniable (like sending agents into Chechnya) will give the US more sway over Russian policy. For the wellbeing of our citizens we must avoid this at any cost. Russia can be rebuilt, but uprooting the US from Europe will be much, much harder.
1
@Lasse65 Bro I never once mentioned Sweden... did you really just confuse Sweden and Finland? XD That's all I need to know about NATO supporters lol, you can't even tell which countries are joining, only thing that matters is the US has new bases! Yes, NATO officials have put pressure on Finland to join. Finland's former PM has said this in an interview from a few months into the Ukraine conflict, just after the bid to join was announced. And frankly even if it was Sweden, it makes no difference. You can yap all you want about how it's your right, Russia bad, etc. But you cannot tell me or any Russian with a straight face that what you are doing poses no threat to us and that we should not oppose your accession into NATO. Since you know so much, you should know all about the US foreign policy over the last few decades, all over the world. Surely you know what they did to Iraq and Afghanistan. And Libya. And tried to do with Syria. None of those countries are better now than before the US got influence on them. This is what Russia wants to avoid. Letting the US closer to Russian borders will make ordinary people's lives worse. And if you understand that and you have any sympathy at all, you should oppose Sweden or Finland or anyone else being a part of the US military vassals.
1
@Lasse65 "I can very well tell the difference" Then why did you talk about Sweden, and imply that I was too? Why didn't you just point out the fact that they were similar from the start and go from there? You're not making a good case here, I still have reason to believe that you have the comprehension skills of a goldfish. Just admit you made a mistake lol, swallow your enormous pride. "Regardless of whether NATO pressured Finland or not, it is Finland's business... not NATO or Russia". Apparently you have the attention span of a goldfish, too. Are you hearing yourself? If it's only Finland's business, then the first part of your sentence is wrong! You're saying that its somehow only Finland's business even if NATO also pressured them? Well then it's not. It's either Finland's business, and neither can influence Finland's choice, or it isn't just Finland's business, and both NATO and Russia have free reign to influence all they want! The issue is you seem to be excusing NATO's behavior. So which is it? "I couldn't care less if Russia feels threatened" Ah, the selfish approach. Then why are you opposed to what Russia is doing right now? They're acting in their own interests, just like Sweden is. "Wants the protection of NATO IF we get involved in a war" You don't seem to understand the dynamic here. Russia is only expanding because the US is doing so, too. You might not care whether Russia feels threatened, but not even you can be so delusional and try to say that it doesn't actually feel that way. It does, and that is the reason for its aggressiveness. Disband NATO, and this will all be over in an instant. The presence of the US is inherently threatening (again, they are an imperialist countty with a long track record of destroying other countries) and Russia is rightfully weary of them getting closer to Russian borders. As someone who lives near a formerly imperial country, and Sweden itself being a former Empire, I would think you'd understand Russia's concerns. Same with China. Why control the Malacca Straits? Why invade Taiwan? Because of fear of the US trying to blockade them or invade them (something which, again, they have done many times before in nearby countries). You have the problem backwards. If Russia and China feel secure that the US will not attack them, they will feel no desire to expand. They do it to pre-emptively starve off a US attack. I did write "Letting the US closer to Russian borders"— NATO expanded first, not Russia. After the USSR collapsed, there was no reason to keep NATO around. Yet they stayed, and Russia felt threatened, so it decided to fortify against it. Also, land is zero-sum. Even if Russia goers closer to NATO, NATO now has a longer distance to travel to Moscow. The two parties don't exist in a vacuum. The reason I brought up those crimes by the US wasn't to discuss their legality. Are you slow? I was giving examples of past crimes that motivated Russia to prevent itself from becoming like them. My point was that all of those examples, legal or illegal, were what convinced Russia that the US could not be trusted even in a world without the USSR. All of those places (minus Syria, in the west) are shitholes, courtesy of the US and its NATO allies. This is why your organization must be disbanded. It has so far brought nothing but misery onto innocent nations.
1
@acbower4468 I mean, would he? The one from Berlin was killing off (in this analogy) your fellow Ukrainians, while the one from Moscow was just occupying your land. One is clearly better than the other.
1