General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

LancesArmorStriking
DW News
comments

Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "DW News" channel.

But they economically control you
16
he should have fled to our country instead, or china..
15
Siberia is also burning right now. Australia lost 1B animals last year. I wonder how bad it will need to get for politicians to change? Or will they be so stubborn and refuse to admit fault that we'll go extinct by the end of the century?
12
Those who didn't take their clothes, and those who burned their houses, are different people. The people who burned the houses also had time to move their things out.
12
Well.. 'Russia' (USSR) lost 40% of its territory just 30 years ago, after a decades-long economic and military warfare with the US. You tell me, who do you think is interested?
10
This is part of a pattern. 1) Go in, 2) destabilize country, 3) people want to leave, 4) they come to you as cheap labor 5) Profit!
10
@chrislambaa7586 Romania, doing well?😂 I guess it's easy to be the fastest growing when you're starting from nothing. Romania is definitely not doing well, its best and brightest are still leaving for Western Europe or the US. Poland is a special case because the US pumped it full of money as a post-Communist showpiece, but even then, things are getting tougher there. I know several Poles personally, so don't try and accuse me of lying. Anyways, Salome can't be trusted not to hold a soft spot for France, and by extension the EU. If someone was born abroad AND has spent most of their life abroad, they shouldn't be able to run for office. She's a French woman, not a Georgian. Would you accept a President who spent 30 years in Russia first to run in Georgia's next election? Or would it only become a problem when it creates a political outcome you don't agree with?
10
Be careful. My fear with both Thailand and Russia is that foreign powers will economically swoop in like vultures and take what little you have from you. It happened to Russia in the 1990's, this is why many people still tolerate Putin even now— he protects the country's sovereignty and resources. We need a smooth transition of power from one government to the other to ensure that nothing chaotic happens and creates long-term losses.
9
Lol, the plan right now is keep importing from Morocco, Algeria, and Cyprus. You aren't changing anything, and once those countries join OPEC for higher profits, you're back to the same problem))
9
@monhern2 It doesn't concern you at all that a foreign citizen was running for the highest office in Georgia? And where do you think that support came from? Looking at success stories (Poland) and ignoring failures (Greece) and being naive enough to believe that Georgia, a mostly agriculture-based economy, would fare well in the EU.
9
@hamidhamidi3134 Creating your own foreign policy is great if you still need to develop. But Germany is already wealthy, so joining a bloc in exchange for losing its own foreign policy makes sense for them.
7
@viktoly2499 More like half of Europe. And frankly, I don't see the situation changing anytime soon. American LNG will never outcompete Russian gas, subsidizing LNG will still pass the financial burden onto citizens. Too many European countries are unprepared to transition-- only France, with its nuclear power, is in a good spot. The rest will come to rely on Russia, as the climate floods and heatwaves get worse and EU citizens riot to stop coal and oil burning
7
Its south africa... dont hold your breath
6
@covertpuppytwo3857 It would create distance between Moscow and Western troops. They will likely end up on Russia's border eventually anyway, might as well make that border farther west
6
@ChrisVillagomez No, it's not the opposite. I didnt even mention who's moral, I think you're projecting your unconscious thoughts)) The West has done far more damage than Russia. How many coups has the US done since 1950? The list is over 100 instances, not even getting into the bombing of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghansiagn (you lost! lol)--- while refusing to do the same to Saudi Arabia or Qatar. You are all hypocrites, you dont actually care about values or human rights, you just use those words as a political weapon whenever it is convenient to "challenge" Russia or China
6
@MadnessMotorcycle No, it shouldn't. America did not have to join WWI or WWII, they chose to. Even Pearl Harbor could have been shaken off or a simple retaliation. But they instead went to war— to boost their economy, not to save Europe. And the frequency of war has nothing to do with America. The trend was going down for hundreds of years, and it only stopped after the war because of nuclear bombs— you can't fight a typical war anymore because it would destroy the entire planet. Not to mention America has been waging the largest number of conflicts since WWII ended. To call it a peace is laughable.
5
@covertpuppytwo3857 Importance is relative. Moscow is the second larges city in all of Europe. Kiev is a far cry from that
5
@Azmodan3000 International observers (primarily from the EU) refused to even verify the authenticity of the election as it was happening, making the premise of "fraud of an election" unknowable to begin with. Besides, Crimea has shown interest in secession in the past, in 1992 they held a referendum but the Ukrainian Parliament rejected the results, and (despite their status as an Autonomous Republic) the possibility of secession. So what other option do they have? If England actively tried to block Scotland from holding referendums, do you think the rest of Europe would let that slide? Or are we adhering to different standards because 'russia bad'?
5
@mattslowikowski3530 As of 2011, the ethnic Russian makeup of Crimea according to ukrainian polls was still around 60%. Russian speakers made up 99% of the populace. I think we know, if the peninsula were to vote on it, what they would have chosen (operating under the assumption that 2014 was fraudulent).
5
@AlexAlex-vf9km they are trying to reform but it is not working, many were hopeful about zelenski but he has not stopped oligarchs
4
@khainguyen3056 Guess what happened at the end of Reagan's era? 1987 crash. What about Bush? 2008 crash. Notice a pattern here?
4
@wom_Bat As compared to the $600B in assets frozen? Not even close to compensation
4
@bilbaoronda5517 Of course, it is horrible. But war determines geopolitics, and geopoltiics determines quality of life for ordinary people.
3
@SkullKing11841 Well, someone finally admits that. In that case, I'd like US officials and poltiicians to stop referring to the country in terms of upholding democracy. They don't deserve to say that. The world needs to know that it's not special, nor is it committed to the values it claims to be.
3
@yingfengxuan So, they have stopped pretending to be impartial? The goal is now stated out loud: keep the countries that threaten our power weak, keep us rich. Blatant economic warfare (same with sanctions) but America gets furious when russias uses its gas exports to its advantage? What a bunch of hypocrites! Do not do ANY business with Iran, but "gas cannot be used as a weapon" because "we care about free trade" lol
3
@Luke_Go If I had to guess, he is referring to KAMAZ, which supplies much of Russia's domestic non-car (bus, tram, trolley, etc) needs. Russia has (I believe) ~570 electric lines across the country, with a fleet of 800 in Moscow alone. Just because it is not well-known, does not mean it is unimportant or not successful. But I would not expect anything less from westerners, who only deem a country prosperous when it has a large, consumer-focused company ("rUsSiA dOeSn'T mAkE sMarTphOnEs hEhE"). Neither does most of the world. Only 4 countries do, so why is this a benchmark?
3
@Luke_Go So, what was that you were saying about facts? It seems like you were just lying to me to try and convince me that... Europe good, Russia bad? What was your goal here? Lol
3
@youtubename7819 they surely also understand that the country they would be attacking has even more nuclear missiles than even they do. There is no point in getting revenge if the whole world gets destroyed also us =/= ukraine
3
Yes, I find the language strange. The US obviously supports Ukraine, but to say that it is being 'robbed' of 'the right' to transport gas... That's just delusional. The US wants it both ways: for Ukraine to be economically independent from Russia, but at the same time have leverage over it by forcing Russia to keep pumping gas through its territory.
3
@Stefan The US invaded and annexed territory in Cuba in 1903, and refuses to leave despite the requests of the Cuban government. I can, too. But again, having the moral high ground to score imaginary debate points mean nothing. Either all sides are punished, or russia will see no legitimate reason to stop. After all, it seems to be fine when western countries do it
3
@goransnow2180 No amount of carbon capture or burning techniques makes coal clean. Sorry
3
 @genabrianna7267 Because Russia was too weak. It had just collapsed, and Yeltsin (Clinton's poodle) was still in power.
3
@DSan-kl2yc Not the only time. In Afghanistan (despite the fact that Osama fled to Pakistan and was trained in Saudi Arabia), and in Libya, which had NO connection to NATO whatsoever. Article 5 wasn't reverb triggered, yet they bombed Libya and killed several hundred civilians. NATO is an offensive alliance. Full stop.
3
@DSan-kl2yc "Only once has that not been the case" So, it's not a defensive organization. You can make it sound as dry and official as you want, but that is evidence for the rest of the world that NATO does not abide by any standards. It is willing, and able, to attack those who have NOT attacked it. All of the stated values that supposedly prevents it from randomly attacking a country, it had back then just as it does now. And yet, it acted illegally (TWICE— bombing Kosovo was literally described as "illegal but necessary". It did not receive a UN vote to do this). So tell me, what is stopping it from doing that again to another country its members deem unworthy of existence?
3
@pindot787 They aren;t in NATO. Google is a click away. Fun fact: Finland took the neutral route (refused to be in NATO) and Russia has had 0 problems with them for decades. Russia's request is simple: don't point rockets at my capital, and I won't do it back to you.
2
@pindot787 The difference between Ukraine and Finland is that one is actively seeking American troops on their border with Russia. Being in NATO would necessitate wargames, likely also on the border. Ukraine and the west do not seem to understand, Russia cannot be forced into submission. It will gladly make compromises, but trying to justify an arms race with Russia's buildup (itself a reaction to the arms race) will lead to nothing.
2
@Sertel-Siggi-Jackson That isn't a good sign. Sounds like used car salesman to me
2
@madarauchiha_6262 It could be simultaneous, catch the West completely off guard. After all, China doesn't need to "increase its presence" to quickly reach Taiwan, it's right there.
2
@cuc6410 Bruh what Many people want to start a family, they're just born into a market that prices them out of stability. Short of a miracle, most people won't be rich. Plus someone has to be on the bottom, saying "just work harder" means you dont want any retail workers or fast food employees? What are they supposed to do? We need some people to work those jobs, you depend on them for service so why are you telling them that none of them deserve to raise a family?
2
Okay, that's fine. But as a matter of principle, you gotta sanction Saudi Arabia and Israel, too. Deal?
2
@vulgarisopinio When exactly has Russia 'attacked' this alliance? none of the countries within nato have been attacked. Or I am missing the massive war in Poland from 2005??
2
@Stefan I'll only do that when the punishments applied to russia are also done to the us- my support matters less than international adherence to the law. Either we all follow it or no one does
2
@pawegraczyk6050 That's a poor standard to use— Russian timber is used all around the world, in the U.S. especially. If "supporting Putin's government" is helping their economy, then nothing short of a full embargo would be opposing it. That's simply not possible, unless Europe wants an oil crash, and then even higher prices (American oil is costlier).
2
@goransnow2180 Ah my bad, I didn't detect the sarcasm lol
2
 @datboib3432 50 years of doing coups and you think another one is a conspiracy, only because it would tarnish NATO's image, as opposed to just the US'.
2
@_Aemse As opposed to the 2.2 million prisoners in the US? How many were just smoking weed? Don't throw stones from a glass house, as you say
2
@mattslowikowski3530 At this point, neither side would agree. Russia (for obvious reasons) wouldn't want to risk having to cede Crimea back, even temporarily, and doesn't trust the honesty of the U.S. as a mediator (see: Libya, Iraq). And Ukraine likely wouldn't accept a result that didn't suit them--- it already has shown a willingness to reject such results in 1991. This was even before Russia had re-emerged, so they are even less likely to agree to one now. Also, this negotiation would fail instantly- America and Ukraine will insist on nothing less than giving it back with no conditions.
2
Not sure I trust the judgement of someone who thought neoliberalism was the End of History. If he got that completely wrong, what else is he wrong about?
2
Well its logic is, if NATO moves to include Ukraine, then that situation will be true anyways. Might as well create a larger buffer between the inevitable border between Russia and NATO. And since NATO has rejected the idea of not including anyone who asks, what exactly is its negotiating power here? Besides military counter-attack, that is. You said "given that Russia does not want such a situation", but from what Stoltenberg is saying, Russia has noting to gain by not being aggressive. If Ukraine will become a part of NATO anyway, and U.S is already putting more sanctions on Russia, what's the point?
2
@leonchervez5969 The "Treaty" is a Memorandum, the two hold different statuses and the second is not legally binding. Crimea's Parliament had tried, months before the Memorandum was signed, to declare independence, but Ukraine's Parliament declared it illegal. Here, I cannot say that Russia acted well. It should have brought up the issue then, and it did violate the 1st point of the Memorandum, But, as it was not a treaty, it did not become a signatory to any such treaty or law.
2
@CedarHunt Occupying? I have already met 3 crmiean ukrainians (2 in europe, 1 in usa) all of whom support the 'occupation'. Like it or not, that land has been under russian cultural and economic control for 230+ years. An undemocratic transfer of land as a 'gift' to soviet ukraine in 1954 means nothing. Even in ukraine polls, 60% of crimeans in 2013 were ethnic russians, 99% speak russian. In every election, they voted pro-russian party. They tried to secede in 1994, but ukraine parliament declared it illegal. SO we are supposed to accept this? Scotland can hold referendums, but it's okay to disregard democracy when it hurts an American adversary, ok I understand!
2
@Dash101 There is such a thing as punching above your weight. Russia is engagaed on every continent, militarily and economically. It's not the 1990s anymore. Only the US, China, the UK and France are currently doing the same. It's a superpower. It may not be the biggest of the 3, but it is one.
2
@coraltown1 The things they pay Russia for (energy, raw materials) are not frivolous or replaceable. They could certainly stop 'bankrolling putin', but the loss it would incur may force the Europeans into energy dependence on the us, which is exactly what a more unified europe is meant to avoid.
2
@faultier1158 Fine, but don't cry when somethi9ng bad happens to ukraine. Pick one
2
Location matters. 60% of russian land is economically difficult, frozen. Ukraine land is a buffer state, and arable.
2
@QWERTY-gp8fd not even 80 years ago, there are Chinese living today who remember it
1
 @boctunes1853 Their troops occupy Kosovo. And (in an indirect way, since they led the bombing campaigns in 2011) northeastern Syria.
1
@Wanderer628 Well, because many of them are landlocked, they will have no choice to. Creating a bloc (like Visegrad or a Medditeranean alliance) won't allow them to project power. It's either Germany+France, or UK+US. They must make a choice.
1
@juansantana8448 Honestly? If Russia were given free access to the ocean to trade and project power in America's direction, as part of the alliance deal, it might work. A united Europe would be a force to be reckoned with. With Russian resources and European tech, it could become a self-sufficient powerhouse
1
@piotrtrebisz6602 This sounds familiar to me :)
1
Yes, but the benefit will not be long term. It will create construction and tourism jobs, but no ship will pass through because it is not profitable to pay anything just to pass. Cheaper to just wait for the Bosphorus to let them through. Turkey will spend much more money than it earns from this canal. So long term economic benefit is negative. Only thing it will do is allow US ships to sail to Russia, but that will be bad for Turkey too since tourists don't want to vacation near a warzone.
1
@shamimfoysal4641 Turkey is not legally not allowed to block traffic through Bosphorus. All they can do is conduct "inspections". And Russian cargo ships won't pay Turkey to pass, so it will always be clogged. So many will be waiting in line that it might be impossible for ships to even pass through the canal!
1
@account-369 Are you forgetting the 1994 independence declaration?
1
@account-369 then you understand there was a genuine desire, and referendum held, for crimea to return to the russian federation.
1
@majorrgeek Actually, it is, and it does. Ukraine's stated reason for joining NATO is Russia. So "it has nothing to do with Russia" is a full lie. You do not understand- Ukraine says it wants to join NATO because of Russia aggression, but Russia is being aggressive because Ukraine wants to join NATO. Chicken and egg.
1
@pindot787 As I've mentioned before, Crimea has already (even if we humor your assumption that the referendum was 100% rigged and no one wanted to rejoin a Russian state) independently vying for autonomy from Ukraine and a dual citizenship program with Russia, in 1994. The Ukrainian Parliament declared this illegal. If the West was unwilling to hold referendums from then until 2013, only offering to send observers after the 2nd referendum started, why should its impartiality be trusted? And, unlike Ukraine, there aren't millions of Russians in Finland living in what had been Russian land for hundreds of years.
1
@pindot787 "lets say NATO create their own little blue man" ...They did. The US and NATO sent countless spies into the country, and did their damndest to encircle the USSR, and Balkanize it. It succeeded. Imagine the Norteños and Mexicans of California and New Mexico were given their own separate country after the collapse of the US, following a failed Cold War with China. Would Americans take that lying down? You tried to pose the question like it is "gotchya" moment, when it already happened to Russia. So my answer is no, of course not. Never again.
1
@pindot787 "Russia need to get over it" You would love that, wouldnt you? Americas actions led to enormous suffering, not just for russians but for Soviet republics (because they convinced the leaders, 1 by 1, to go quickly into capitalism with no deep knowledge. Destroyed them). Russia will not forget that, and as you can see, it is taking steps to prevent anything like that from happening again. You can comment all you want, but I think you need to get over it. It's happening.
1
@pindot787 The US interfered in Russian election in 1994. Yet you now say what no country should never be allowed to make a decision on other countries referendum. Where was this sentiment when Yeltsin was elected with fraud in southern Russia? What about Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Bolivia?? and they tried in Veenzuela but failed (lol) If America can do it, you cannot tell me that other countries cant do it too. America cant even follow it's own rules, so nobody else will. We got you back for meddling in our elections in 2017, the fun will continue)))
1
@BrokenBackMountains Your need to patronize reveals how little confidence you have in your ideas. I find it humorous that you think this is 'suffering'. For the collapse of what many people see as a lengthening of the rus empire, a few dozen people killed, following the official dissolution (no bloody riots), is very peaceful. Compare to France, USA, even previous russian civil wars. And I have. Baltics are nice, Poland social services has been declining since 2010s, ukraine is about same as it was. I cannot believe you think you could get away with an obvious bluffing. You go there, tell me why EU is about to cut off poland and hungary! There are many things to admire, but I am not jealous)
1
Mike Johnson Lol, nope. 'TDS' hasn't killed 130K in a few months. You Trump supporters are really reaching, since the reality that 'yOuR pReSiDeNt' failed so hard is becoming so obvious to even average people that you're scrambling to distract them. Eventually it'll get so bad that you'll be forced to admit that it's a shitshow that he could've easily prevented in January.
1
@leslierhs It's an obsession, because the punishment isn't equal. Until the US is punished, Russia shouldn't be. Otherwise, the US' entire claim to "being a world leader" (valuing human rights) is a farce.
1
 @dotexe4981 How? Explain.
1
@SkullKing11841 So if a rival and ally are both doing the same things that the US supposedly calls undemocratic, why is Russia a rival and Saudi an ally?
1
@federicopinto9353 Well, the last election was technically in March. But if you mean "what's the last election that was truly free", it was Yeltsin's first one. I just want to point out that the reason it was Yeltsin's second election that marked the end of democracy in Russia (and not Putin's inauguration) is because the US rigged the 1996 elections. You might care about dmeocracy, but the US doesn't. You're not supporting democracy by supporting the US and its allies.
1
Why won't Western media ever detail the flubbed transition to capitalism in 1990's Russia? They hate Putin, but are also the reason that he came to power. Honestly I think they just want to politically control Russia, simple as that. They want to keep it in line so they can extract money from it, like they managed to do back then.
1
@AlexV6 While I agree that Russiaa economy and government is getting worse, Eastern Ukraine actually is very pro-Russian. It's been settled by Russians for 100s of years
1
...Really. Sure. Official laws mean nothing to the US. They got Turkey accepted into NATO, for god's sake. They will do anything that is geopolitically convenient to them. An opportunity to further encircle Russia, they would have happily taken. The scheme you have laid out is false: Europe always saw reason to give NATO membership (to spite Russia), they just couldn't legally do it yet.
1
@Luke_Go And I am rather disappointed that my first comment keeps getting deleted, even as I re-type it. I will try again.
1
@virtuosa69 gdp =/= human development also he is talking about the strength of the ruble, not the economy The most sanctioned country on earth and the currency has stabilized anyway
1
A valuable lesson: getting away from Russia doesn't mean becoming like America is a good alternative
1
@r2hildur Same goes for every other country. But if we're both being honest, it would only take a few dozen strategically dropped nuclear weapons to irradiate most of the earth. Which is my point- using the us reaction to 9/11 to threaten retaliation for a nuclear strike is ignoring the entire principle of MAD
1
@mrplease66 Ironically, Germany could have gotten away with Austria. It was when it invaded Poland that it crossed the red line, So far, Russia has not doe this- Crimea is ethnically Russian, as are Donbas and Luhansk. But time well tell.
1
@mrplease66 Well, so far, as I said, even by your standards, Russia has only taken in areas which had already been happy to be a part of Russia (as evidenced by Crimea's independence declaration of 1994, along with a 80%+ vote for dual citizenship with Russia). And you lack a depth of understanding of Belarus and Russia. The protests are not anti-Russia, they are anti-Lukashenko. If your first reaction is "well they're allied, so a protest against one means they also dislike the other", then you are not as smart as you assume yourself. The 'straw that broke the camel's back' was not the rigging of elections (those happened many times before) but the poor approach to coronavirus- which not even Russia treated so badly. Under a more Putin-eque leader, the protests likely would not have started.
1
@mrplease66 That is fine. I think most Russians also gripe with the vast corruption present in their own country. The reason we oppose the 'majority' opinion, though, is because it comes attached with the influence of a foreign power right on our door. Belarus wants better governance, fine. But there is no world in which that is done without putting American power projection kilometres away from Russian heartland. Joining NATO or even the EU does not happen in a political vacuum: both are funded/dominated by, and trade policy heavily informed by, US. Their intentions simply cannot be trusted. Russia tried that once under Yeltsin, and he paid dearly for it, with average people's lives. Research the QoL indicators during his tenure. Clinton personally helped him commit election fraud to win re-election, and extended my family suffering. If it were not for that, I do not feel Russians would have any issues.
1
 @larryenobakhare9040 Seriously. Germanyvs economy came out of its slump in 2000, the exact year Putin came to power and negotiated cheap gas deliveries to Germany.
1
@thomasbaader6629 ...What? Yes, it does. Duress is a factor for throwing out contracts, are you dumb? Besides, Kaliningrad, much like Crimea, are ethnically Russian. If you think that's a "mistake" that should be "fixed" then I expect you to consistently apply that principle to every country, which requires you to endorse the US being shrunk back to the Louisiana Purchase. The people of Crimea voted in a referendum against Ukraine in 1994, and countless polls from both before and after the referendum in 2014 show the same results: the people wanted to re-unite with the Russian federation. If you support Kosovo's right to split without consent from the country they're leaving from, then you should also support Crimea. You can't have it both ways.
1
 @talkinghand122 Dictator in South Korea, Taiwan... who installed those dictators?
1
@talkinghand122 Are you telling me that violently putting down student protests and sending the secret police to silence or assassinate leftists, and holding no elections for decades, isn't the definition of a dictator? Synghman Rhee and Chiang Kai Shek were dictators. Both propped up by the US and Europe. Sorry that it hurts to acknowledge that the West never had any values.
1
@Stefan well, if it is ok when the usa does it then nobody can complain about russia, right? that's what your're saying?
1
@dayegilharno4988 You're assuming those wide spectrum of measures will be employed. At least in the U.S. and Latin America (where most countries seem to be ignoring the incoming virus altogether), we will likely need to make that choice.
1
Enjoy Island Istanbul :))
1
Janardhan Parweshwar I suppose that is true. But I would at least hope for some honesty from the U.S. side, then. Their geopolitical actions' motivations should be explicitly stated: we're doing this to make ourselves more powerful. Of course, that would ruin their image. But that's true of any country- if Russia, China, India, anyone was honest about their motivation, everyone would hate them. So at the very least, why continue to give the U.S. trading and military benefits if it doesn't actually agree to the terms it signed on to? (The dollar being the default currency, on the promise that the U.S. would not restrict the flow of trade outside of its jurisdiction).
1
Looks like a second coup is coming, maybe this one will overthrow Erdogan but Covid could make the Turks so impoverished that not even that is possible :(
1
@DSan-kl2yc LMAO. Sure buddy. Our values are worse. WE'RE the ones with the history of slavery and couping foreign nations to steal their resources. WE'RE the ones who use democracy as a cloak to commit crimes, instead of just being honest about what we're doing.
1
@dylanvogler2165 Sure. Keep talking yourself that. Let me know when the US finally creates public healthcare despite most of the country wanting it. Or anything else that lobbyists have blocked.
1
@markuss4133 The funny thing is that you think that's a guarantee that things will change, or that somehow indicates that the people have control. The illusion of democracy is something Westerners like to level against their geopolitical challengers, but never seem to realize happens even more in their own countries. Bread and circus. Pick between the neoliberal coalition, and the other neoliberal coalition:)
1
 @dylanvogler2165 Using ))? I'm sure your name is actually "Dylan", Oleg...
1
Not sure, Europe still needs protection from Russia and China, and EU's political structure means it can't respond to economic or military threats very quickly.
1
@item6931 Why is that relevant? 1) Russia already offered it to Germany, they rejected the offer. Same with the Lithianian SSR. 2) it is not connected by land to Russia proper, so it poses no geopolitical threat. Not the same as NATO coming up to Russia's border and conducting wargames 3) Why should I care about your opinion? You are literally no one, you have no effect on what happens in reality
1
@item6931 1. Gerhard Schroeder already denied any future integration of Kaliningrad, and Germany signing the Two-Plus-Four waived any legal claim to Kaliningrad (or any land east of the Oder-Neisse). 2. Militarized or not, it is an enclave far away from Russian supply lines. Could easily be bombed. 3. That's not what I asked- why should i care about your opinion?
1
@josfur1977 'put a nuke' There aren't any such weapons in crimea. Power plants, yes, but not weapons. Not to mention, Russia already has nukes within its own borders... it borders NATO countries (because NATO expanded east, contrary to its promise), so no matter where they are put, they will always technically be "right on the doorsteps of nato countries".
1
@danylokosmyna7115 Feel richer, or are richer? Didn't Erik Prince try to conscript ukrainians into a privatye army? This does not sound like a wealthy, stable state./
1
@oldsenpai4337 ...No. That's now what free speech means. The solution to bad speech is more speech. Otherwise, you're communicating that you don't trust the people to think for themselves. At that point, what's the purpose of democracy?
1
"Long live the Mujahadeen freedom righters!" -2003
1
D-Day 2: Electric Booglaoo
1
I agree with Mr. Kirschbaum that ignoring the wishes and complaints of other members of your own trading bloc is ill-advised... but what does the U.S. have to do with any of this? They've been committed to the free flow of goods and services by forcing boundaries open (forcing Japan to open to trade in 19th c., forcing Iran to keep Hormuz Strait free, etc.)- but it suddenly forgets that when it benefits a rival geopolitical power exclusively (China is acceptable because Americans are used to cheap goods, an embargo would lead to revolts). Why is it interfering with 2 other countries' affairs if its relationship with Europe is military, not economic? The contention that every action, even economic, is political- is true. But I would expect the U.S. to embargo China and Saudi Arabia then, if it actually cared about political rights of other countries' citizens. They're simply being selective against a foreign power that is a relatively easy target to hate. Opportunistic, but not principled in their actions.
1
@account-369 "aRe You ForgeTTiNg tHe BudApEsT MemORaNdUm??" You claim that Russia has to keep its promises, but say that America is free to play tricks (breaking its promises)?? If you support America lying to Russia about NATO, then you have no reason to complain about Russia breaking its promises to Ukraine. You're a hypocrite. But what could I expect from an usa supporter
1
@leonchervez5969 If established agreements (security guarantees, non-aggression pacts, etc) legally mean nothing, then how is "aggressor" is meaningful term? Might makes right, fine. But if that is true, then fighting wars is not an outstanding occurence or something to be viewed with surprise. Aggressor is a word created during a time of peace, but if no legal bindings matter, then why emphasize it? War is always happening. Digital, economic, psychological.
1
@chillijoe8264 Enjoy brown water ig
1
@michaelkrzak5414 polan stronk lmao They are not empty-- or do you think that everything has a "Made in Europe" label on it hahah
1
@michaelkrzak5414 why is your last name bush that's ridiculous, were your ancestors escaped from katyn byy blending in
1
If I'm not mistaken, Norway is richer in oil than natural gas. Plus, this solution goes both ways. If Russia's gas is cut off, prices throughout Germany immediately rise. I don't think diversifying is a bad thing, but I fear that such tactics could drive an even deeper wedge between Russia and Europe .
1
@andraskleistenes8586 No, there are many foreign fighters in ukraine's military. Both private citizens, mercenaries, and members of the foreign legion. Plenty of videos on tiktok showing americans fighting in izyum, russia is fighting the west
1
@ricardoxavier827 Lol, not cheap at all. Smaller reactor actually means more concrete and construction cost per unit of energy generated. But good luck )
1
@wom_Bat it is still an enormous amount. And no, they are doing it because the richest members (EU, US) pressured the council to. Nobody sanctioned the US when they did the same types of things in iraq, why? Because nobody really cares about human rights, they only enforce when it is convenient or beneficial to them. 'Colonial expansion' lol, then tell france to stop exploiting Francafrique, or for Britain to let go of all its colonies. Russia is doing nothing out of the ordinary, but it is being singled out because it threatens Western dominance
1
@Suksass You keep moving the goalposts, so I have little reason to believe you-- not only the sums you yourself refuted, but your newer ones. And I doubt it-- we will not negotiate with them on the terms set out by the West. Their idea of negotiation is kowtowing.
1
@Spaceballz123 "Thriving" "successful" You are not familiar with polish politics, I see! It is neither of those things, it is threatening the stability of the eu))
1
@viktoly2499 Lol, but you didnt refute what I said. LNG will never outcompete natural gas through pipes. That stands. And, at the moment: since thorium plants are in their infancy, nuclear is feared, and renewables are inconsistent--- natural gas is the eco-friendliest option that Europe has to wean themselves off of coal and oil. Hungary has already taken the first step. You may be right about what you said, but my point was that, from an environmental and cost perspective, the United States will never beat Russia in Europe. France is the only nation even close to energy independent from Russia. Germany may be, too, but it's coming at an enormous cost to consumers. Saudi Arabia sees the writing on the wall, and is starting to diversify its economy. So, short of the entire EU relying on Norway, there is neither the money nor the time for Europe or the world to transition away from fossil fuels while also excluding Russia. Sorry.
1