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

  1. But they economically control you
    16
  2. he should have fled to our country instead, or china..
    15
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7.  @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
  8. 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
  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
  10. ​ @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13. Its south africa... dont hold your breath
    6
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @covertpuppytwo3857  Importance is relative. Moscow is the second larges city in all of Europe. Kiev is a far cry from that
    5
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @AlexAlex-vf9km  they are trying to reform but it is not working, many were hopeful about zelenski but he has not stopped oligarchs
    4
  21.  @khainguyen3056  Guess what happened at the end of Reagan's era? 1987 crash. What about Bush? 2008 crash. Notice a pattern here?
    4
  22.  @wom_Bat  As compared to the $600B in assets frozen? Not even close to compensation
    4
  23.  @bilbaoronda5517  Of course, it is horrible. But war determines geopolitics, and geopoltiics determines quality of life for ordinary people.
    3
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @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
  29. 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
  30. @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
  31.  @goransnow2180  No amount of carbon capture or burning techniques makes coal clean. Sorry
    3
  32. ​ @genabrianna7267  Because Russia was too weak. It had just collapsed, and Yeltsin (Clinton's poodle) was still in power.
    3
  33. ​ @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @Levo_D_Angelo  That isn't a good sign. Sounds like used car salesman to me
    2
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40. Okay, that's fine. But as a matter of principle, you gotta sanction Saudi Arabia and Israel, too. Deal?
    2
  41.  @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
  42. @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @goransnow2180  Ah my bad, I didn't detect the sarcasm lol
    2
  45. ​ @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
  46.  @_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
  47.  @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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50.  @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