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

@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