Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Monsieur Z" channel.

@gladys2563 The more radical nationalists in Ukraine and Poland never stop to consider that people's lives would get worse if Russia was to be broken up. And this is why they would try to prevent it. Now Sakha has no access to Murmansk or Vladivostok, and must use diplomacy to export finished goods. Why would anyone want that?
20
@matijas7994 Karelia has been de-populated of Finns, and Dagestanis have bad memories of Western-backed terrorism (the Chechen war was started when Chechnya invaded Dagestan in August 1999, led by Saudi-backed Islamists declaring jihad). Both are unlikely, Chechnya is all the West can hope for
13
@stariyczedun Nope, not gonna happen. Chechnya would be vulnerable from all 3 sides and well within Russia's territory, it would be a war of attrition that they could not win. Also, as you've seen from Kharkov, ethnicity =/= loyalty. Many Russians in the eastern parts considered themselves Ukrainians, the opposite case is true in the far east. Also, China isn't likely to do that as it's pre-occupied with its economy and covid. Not to mention an unstable Russia makes extracting Siberian resources harder, not easier. But I find it interesting how eager you seem to see this result. A child's Christmas wish.
9
@decade0240 Polish language is more like if your head got stuck in a wasp nest, Russian is like speaking backwards 😂
8
@realmart3451 Ethnic Russian minority is 30%, they have tried and failed to assimilate- ironically the only one that has worked is Latvia, because they treated their Russian minority population with a level of respect
7
@gladys2563 I wouldn't just see it as 'they gave us this and we are so grateful', because Yakutians worked with Moscow. They were not helpless toys, but an equal partner. Of course the colonization period was horrible, but the population has recovered in terms of number of people. And at the moment, it is better for both Russians, Yakuts, Chukchi, Chechens, etc, if we all work together.
7
@ninja-gaming8988 No, they haven't. They still have lower incomes despite 30 years of supposed government support. The Estonian government complained a while back about Ukrainian emigres 'Russifying' some Estonians.... by speaking their native Russian to them. Insane. And I don't deny that Estonia is more prosperous (per capita) than Russia, but they had the full genuine support of Europe and the US, while the US took the opportunity during the 90s to completely wreck Russia's transition into capitalism. If they didn't want such an aggressive state, they shouldn't have destabilized it. Same rule as with Middle East.
4
@jdg9999 This will be seen if he steps down after losing an election. If he doesn't, then your statement will be true.
3
A little too far there- the primary Poland,Lithuania,Ukraine partnership could be created but I think you would run into problems beyond that. Aside from shared value of fearing Russia, what would unite their interests? Economics? Israel has a large Russian-speaking minority (in fact a large chunk of Ashkenazi Jews are from RSFSR) and usually maintains good relations with Russia, most of Armenian industry is owned by Russian interests and it already serves its purpose of interrupting the Turkic arc stretching across the Caspian sea. Greece would also be a hard sell since it gets lots of its navy and air force money to enforce its borders from the EU and US
3
US? Buffer states? The US' permanent advantage is that Nature gives it enormous buffer 'states': the Atlantic and Pacific. Mexico's center of power is too far south (no settling in the Sonora desert), and Canada is America's hat. The Canadian shield limits human settlement to areas right next to the U.S. The United States is essentially a big island.
3
I suppose it is one, but it isn't the last. France still has French Guyana despite it having no French Europeans. And Francafrique, which it is very keen to hide from Western media. They still economically control much of West Africa, which is why the West freaked out at Russia's Wagner deal with Mali and CAR. Also the US and UK have literal territories.. and Denmark just owns Greenland.
3
@nicho9879 But 40% do see Bandera as a 'hero' in Ukrainian history... that is an actual problem. Whitewashing Nazi collaborators
2
@zionmolina3039 All of the cases you mentioned are bolstered by geography. Afghanistan is harsh and barren, keeping its population hardy out of necessity. China is less a country and more a civilization, and is well defended from all sides. It seems they long ago understood the need for a balance between prosperity and defense (Century of Humiliation). Japan is extremely insular and didn't collapse because of its hyper-conservative social structure and island status. It had no need to defend because it's borders were well defined and no outside power had any reason to target them.
2
@shannonmikko9865 Try again. Lots and lots of resources, which the West was all too happy to help Yeltsin privatize in the 90s. They have already made their motives clear. A destabilized country is one that's easier to get a cheap deal from.
2
@shannonmikko9865 Russia was weakened in the 90s and was open to Western ideas and systems. Russia was at its most cooperative, yet you kept expanding esst. You chose to keep being aggressive, not us. You started it, sorry.
2
@shannonmikko9865 What do you mean? The relationship was stable for decades, it was Finland who decided to join NATO. Ironically (again), the idea of joining NATO is what will probably make Russia attack them-- not the other way around. And this time there is proof-- Russia did nothing to Finland, as promised, in exchange for staying neutral! And now they've broken that pact.
2
@арефнар But it is an oligarchy- who do you think selected Putin? Who keeps him in power?
2
@ethanwmonster9075 ...you mean the Rust Belt? Sure lol
2
@AmericanRepublic1783 Because neither trusts the other. Russia wants more land, America wants more influence. If America agreed to leave Eastern Europe and the Baltics alone, I think most of Russia's ambitions could be satisfied. The only thing left is open access to the ocean.
2
Ship of Theseus
2
@jgw9990 Not everything follows a pattern. Geopolitics has been crystallizing like honey— massive (permanent) changes are harder and harder to enforce the later in history you go. Poland didn't gain access to the vast steppe lands or have the history of German disunity (which actually strengthened German identity— unity was no longer enforced by a centralized state like in France but on shared culture). The reason China and India are behemoths on the world stage is because they've had thousands of years to slowly expand their population. You can't really copy that. The lifespan of civilizations is affected by geography, economy, culture, and just circumstance. There isn't a single unifying reason, as nice as it would be. Advantages in all these areas just accumulate and make dislodging a country (collapsing an empire) harder to do.
2
@somehowstillhere8766 Is this a surprise? Trump is notorious for underpaying or just shafting his (illegal) contractors who worked on the various Trump towers. He benefits hugely from them being here, as does every other rich person in the US Vision =/= integrity, sadly
1
@byngfreundlich4519 China is capitalist, too. What's your point?
1
@dontcomply3976 Stalin at least had some redeeming qualities- saving the Slavs from Hitler... pretty important for us no? Bandera was a fool, how naive do you have to be to think that Hitler would have tolerated the existence of Eastern Slavs in his Lebensraum? Not to mention he initiated pogroms against Ukrainian Jews. He didn't even have the excuse of paranoia. He just did it. The Declaration of Sovereignty's 3rd point is about working with Hitler. Despicable. Even Stalin did not approach the horrors of Reichskommisariat Ukraine. If Bandera won, there would be no Ukrainians. End of story.
1
@dontcomply3976 But I'm not talking about ordinary Ukrainians (who I understand supporting anyone who would oppose the Soviets), but Bandera specifically. He worked extensively in western Ukraine as a collaborator and would have been familiar with Hitler's ideology and stated goals (extermination) for the Slavs. That's precisely why he wanted to carve out a space for a Greater Ukraine, after the genocide of Russians (And Ukrainians- but he was an idiot who thought his people would have been magically spared).
1
@dontcomply3976 It doesn't, and I don't support the war. What does that have to do with what I said? My only point was that we should not caricaturize Ukraine or its view of history- you can oppose Putin's aggression and oppose attempted rehabilitation of Bandera's image. This extends to the now-common phrase Героям слава. While it precedes Bandera, his status as a "hero" attaches him to this phrase every time it is said. Glorifying him and anyone who worked with Hitler (Stalin included- but again, redeeming qualities) is unacceptable.
1
VPJD
1
@realmart3451 Because that's how you reduce crime. You don't get a people to change their behavior by fencing them off in ghettos- that's actually how they become more determined to never be a part of your society. Also... you were the ones who wanted the USSR to collapse, crime rates are higher now. You wanted this! You caused the problem, your responsibility to fix it. If you cant, then deal with higher crime lol
1
@dominicperez3777 How exactly? Go to Libya or Syria and ask them how much better their life has gotten since their civil wars started Or better yet, go live there, live by the values you're saying here
1
@shannonmikko9865 This will be possible when they stop expanding an organization explicitly created to surround and contain our former state (ussr). No more wargames, no more American troops. You can somehow acknowledge that the US is a bad political actor in the world (Iraq, Afghan, Syria, Somalia, etc) but then balk at the idea that Russia has a good reason to be paranoid about its presence right near its border? The US has overthrown most of the world's governments at least once, in South America and Middle East many, many times. Is it ridiculous to think that they are working in secret to do the same to Russia?
1
@shannonmikko9865 Maybe if the Imperial European powers didnt spend the last 3 centuries trying to break Russia up, it wouldn't feel the need for satellite states? Why do you think Russia even started doing that, for fun? It was for protection, from Europe. Fundamentally, we have land and they lack it. Even now, European companies have been caught using illegally felled lumber and minerals in their finished products. They crave resources. This is why we need a buffer. Europe has proven herself untrustworthy and greedy. She won't bomb you, but she will rob you blind.
1
@shannonmikko9865 If America bad, then why let it near Russia? Why escalate the tensions? You can't seriously be prepared to die from nuclear war just because "we have the right to do whatever we want, Russia's opinion here doesn't matter!" You can't be free when you're dead. Either make nice with the country concerned that you're trying to surround and pillage them, or face the consequences
1
@shannonmikko9865 Yes... do I need to tell you who runs NATO? The same country that's already caused Russia to collapse once. The one that's destabilized South America from the start of its existence. And the Middle East, and soon Africa. The one that's funded and caused 100s of coups and revolutions, which all end the same way: a Western-friendly government allowing the country's resources to be taken, and Western companies come in and squash any chance of domestic companies from competing. Do I need to repeat it to you again? Europe and the West will not bomb you, they will rob you. That is what Russia is afraid of. Stop using a strawman, reply to the actual point next time. The US has done this hundreds of times before, to Russia in the 90s, and will try again unless their influence is stopped. NATO included.
1
@shannonmikko9865 Stop ignoring the point, please. Can you answer what I said? Russia isn't paranoid about a straightforward invasion, but about getting surrounded by American-allied countries, losing talent and budget revenue, and weakening politically- possibly to the point that the CIA feel comfortable enough to try and start a pro-Western revolution in Russia. Then, sells all its natural resources for cheap No nukes needed :)
1
@shannonmikko9865 How do you think our oligarchs came to power? After Yeltsin took over in the 90s, the US sent a team of economists and advisors to Moscow, hoping to convince Russia to work with them. Several teams from Europe and Japan came, too. The team that ended up convincing Yeltsin were the US Harvard economists, working closely with the US Treasury. They wanted to do "shock therapy"-- basically throw Russia into capitalism so quickly and brutally that everything would magically "fall into place." As you may imagine, it did not work. The state enterprises were privatized and each citizen was given a share of the new companies- but, because everything had been done so quickly, no one bothered to tell the Russians what they had even received (no one knew how markets or stocks worked since they were born into Communism). They sold their shares quickly for food and water (because the country and currency had collapsed), and so the oligarchs (former Party members or black market dealers) were formed. If the US had sent economists not devoted to neoliberalism, there probably wouldn't be any, or as many, oligarchs today. Or not sent anyone at all, that would've been nice. "so instead of continuing to peacefully supply gas to Europe (who really want it and don’t want conflict" You say that, but Western companies were looking to drill into Ukrainian gas fields and reduce their purchase of Russian gas- they wanted to reduce the amount of gas money they were giving to Moscow. The governments weren't trusting of Russia so they tried to rope Ukraine into the EU, to have their own little Russia. Ironically, this is what caused Russia's aggression. "If Russia joined the EU they could negotiate fair trade deals" This is not enough. Look at Greece- pre-existing problems unsolved, made worse once in the EU. If this were to happen to Russia, the brain drain (remember, EU passport allows visa-free travel) would get even worse. It's already happened to Ukraine- the migrants coming to Poland increased even more, after their visa-free deal. "the idea of the US/EU being hell bent on wanting to turn Russia into an exploitation colony instead of a productive alliance member is simply unfounded." No, it's not. Finnish lumber may be fine, but it has legal protections. Whereas IKEA (for example) was more than happy to use illegal Russian lumber in its products. Russia's lumber is 12% of global total market. They would not give that opportunity up. They protect Finland's forests because it doesn't inconvenience them. Also, again- look at what they did in the 90s. Complete looting. Western companies were "officially" banned from participating in early auctions for Russian (former Soviet) firms... yet they came in anyway.
1
@shannonmikko9865 I'm aware, but what annoys me is that they never do anything about it. They never actually sanction the US (their crimes are just as bad-- bombing Iraqi civilians vs Ukrainian women and children). So why doesn't the EU sanction the US? Oh, it's because they're too large and the EU is economically dependent on the US? Well, if that's the case, I wish they would just admit that instead of pretending they believe in "universal" values. I guess the US gets an exception))
1
@shannonmikko9865 On the contrary, Russia hasn't changed. Its position is clear: keep American military infrastructure out of our backyard--- (if you're offended by that term, go talk to the US about the Monroe Doctrine) ---and we won't have any issues. It "owes" Russia neutrality because it benefits both parties. Peace and stability aren't achieved by knowingly inviting a country that has a history of coups and CIA funding rebel groups. "What have the Russians ever done for Finland besides trying to conquer it twice?" Are you mad that history happened? Why doesn't Finland get angry with Sweden, then? Because Russia was just the most recent one? Once again--- if Europe agreed to stop surrounding Russia militarily (since NATO is a military organization), it wouldn't feel a need to respond. There were many opportunities to do this, but they kept pressing on. Russia has a lot of land, the only reason it expands is for strategic defense. If it were shown that defense is no longer necessary, it would stop. Simple.
1
@shannonmikko9865 -Finland wasn't neutral, President Ryti met with Mannerheim (Hitler official) -"Annexed"? The Soviets found out in May through Rudolf von Scheliha (double agent spy) that Germany planned on invading Poland in September. What would you have done? Left those countries alone "for democracy" only to let them be overrun by the Nazis? At least under Soviet control the offensive could he slowed. During the Molotov-Ribbentrop talks, the Germans proposed 'spheres of influence'. Knowing that Germany was going to invade either way, what would you have done? Given them all of it? -Bessarabia was exchanged hundreds of years before for Dobruja, Moldavia was under Russian rule for centuries and that was agreed upon by Romania (Wallachia) at the time. They don't just get to change their minds. It was "neutral" for a few months in between Tsarist Russia and USSR, bad example. Also 'forced to cede'-- yeah, because Romania joined the Axis and took it briefly in the 1940s. -Same with Ukraine and Free Territory (which was administered by a soviet council anyway). Their 'neutrality' lasted a few months, and the other European powers weren't exactly interested in peace and democracy at that time either. The British Empire was still at its height ffs.
1
@shannonmikko9865 Also Finland was the ONLY ONE to declare neutrality, and for decades, even after the USSR's collapse (which could give a new leader excuse to re-invade) they have never violated its sovereignty. Russia upheld the deal. Only now has Finland changed its mind. But they don't get it: they only become a threat if they want to join NATO. If they don't, there's no problem- so Ukraine could have just done what Finland did and this whole problem would be avoided.
1
*were cheap. The Zoom boom inflated prices everywhere, even dachas are not saafe
1
@agsalesalex just 45 mins away lol, well there you go I guess I was wrong, there might be some undervalued places left. But no place that's actually worth being in, if your job is specialized (try and find a high-paying job not involving oil in the interior).
1
@agsalesalex lol, good troll attempt
1
@stariyczedun If you do that, China will swallow you
1
@avantelvsitania3359 Why are you so eager to see it happen? You understand that, to achieve your Western political goals, hundreds of millions of people will suffer? Is the end goal to subjugate and steal their natural resources? And why are you pushing for something so clearly against Western values? (in Ukraine, Western companies are looking to extract from the newly discovered oil fields... I wonder how much the Ukrainian government thinks it will receive as a part of that).
1
@yanissamer1542 Russia probably won't collapse. Not even the Western powers would allow a nuclear state to collapse, it is too dangerous. Now that we have nuclear weapons, our territory is secured forever. Also, Russians are the majority in every region except for Chechnya and Yakutia. I'm sorry, but your fantasies simply won't happen.
1
cringe
1