Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Should The US Get Involved In Ukraine?" video.

"Interfered"? Russia lobbied the President with a counter-offer, and he deemed it more economically beneficial. What is wrong with you people? An immediate transition to EU markets ('preferential access', along with an elimination of customs duties of EU goods coming into Ukraine) would have decimated domestic Ukrainian production. A BBC report on the expected changes (well-documented when a larger market's good enter a smaller one's): "But in the short term, this will cause a great deal of pain and disruption, as local businesspeople struggle to make the change" "Sergiy Klymenko - who owns a local lingerie producer, Yanser - accepts Ukrainian businesses will initially suffer, and European businesses will enter the market and create stiff competition. But he believes "there's no alternative" to the path to Europe." Then we look at places like Greece, who have had trouble adapting to the Euro after their accession into the Union. They are still struggling to this day. Instead of economically nurturing their own businesses, they are forcing their own market to marge with and accept competition from much more advanced and well-established firms. I hope the Ukrainian businesses are indeed willing to 'drown' for the betterment of their country. They will be part of a union, and have no domestic production to show for it.
3
@ThePFD518 Are you really suggesting (barring all of the other horrible things Hitler did- look at my flag, I know) that the "international community" should artificially impose a division between two countries, whose people want to be united? What happened to democracy and will of the people? Why are you advocating to keep groups of people who want to be part of a single state, apart? I just find it bizarre that you, in this hypothetical, are willing to tell both the people of Austria and Germany (or eastern Ukraine and Russia), "no, you don't know what's best for you, we do. You'll stay in the countries that we say you do".
3
@wellhello1603 I've met a few people from Crimea. One ethnic Russian and 2 ethnic Ukrainians. All 3 were for the 'annexation'. What the actual fuck are you trying to convince Americans of, that Crimea is full of Ukrainians? It was part of the Russian state for 190+ years, even more if you count Soviet. 2 generations of being in Ukraine has not changed anything.
2
@orangepants5749 That's also true, but that wouldn't be an argument for annexation- if that were so, any British colony would have voted to stay. Or, if the US took Mexico, the wages would be higher. But it is about a feeling of connection to the country and whether or not your interests are being represented by the government. Crimea had wanted autonomy from Ukraine even during USSR times, and it has continued until 2014.
2
Well, one and the othe contradict each other. If you are against American imperialism, then you cannot support Ukraine's integration into a US-led military group. the explicit goal of NATO was not a military defense pact, but an encirclement of the USSR- part of George F. Kennan's strategy of containment. The wording only changed after the collapse of the USSR. I mean, you will necessarily have Ukraine hosting US troops, right next to Russia's most vulnerable area (southern Russia)... but you are against expanding American influence? I do not see how you can hold both opinions.
1
@Cattus_Maximus Well.. Cuba never received those missiles, the Anglo piece of shit got their way. Why should it be any different now?
1
@malum9478 Except they do. America cared, and continues to care, a whole lot. Progressives are willing to scream over what happened in Bolivia but somehow turn into nationalists and war hawks when it comes to the same situation, just to the benefit of a rival power? I fear manufacturing consent has worked on all of you- no matter how progressive, you are all very nationalistic at heart. Also, the CIA has been funding extremist elements, so no, it wasn't Russia (America, in your strange analogy) who funded 'insurrectionist groups'--- it was the actual US. Vice has reported on the Azov battalion, and the American neo-Nazis that are slowly streaming into its ranks. Also, your analogy was a false equivalency, too. It would be more like if North America was, for centuries, under a single state, with Americans making ground in what is now Canada. The state collapses, but the boundaries aren't drawn along ethnic lines, and millions of Americans are now in Canada--- (for the sake of analogy here) Canada has recently forced the Americans to stop learning English in schools, and learn French instead. Americans are regularly beat up in the streets for using English. All the while, Canada is inching closer to China's military alliance. And then China is angry when the Americans living in Canada ask Washington to become a 51st state.
1
@zdenekpazourek1086 If you are okay with using 'no promise was ever given' as a talking point, then you cannot complain about Crimea, or anything else: Russia's "promise" guaranteeing Ukraine's 'sovereignty' was a legally non-binding Memorandum of Understanding. If you don't like when others play the game, don't play it yourself.
1
@NomadHomad Dude just let them use their language. There are Spanish-language schools in the US, why can't there be Russian language schools in eastern Ukraine? Why ban Russian-language learning in Ukraine? Why ban Russian-language book imports? Why penalize businesses that interact with customers in Russian? Why stoop to the level of the nation you claim to be so unlike?
1
ruhrpottkanake "To keep Germany down, to keep the US in, and Russia out" is the phrase
1
@HunterTracks That's the excuse of someone who's already done their dirty work, and doesn't want anyone else to benefit
1
Well... clearly it was, because the US 'liberated' it a few months following. Doesn't that validate Russian action, then? I mean, the Maidan revolution overthrew Yanukovich after an economic deal was rejected in favor of closer ties to Russia.
1
@markfelt5650 ...What? No, that's simply wrong. In fact, it's because the Soviets didn't have long-range missiles that they chose to station their short-range missiles in Cuba. Otherwise, they would have no leverage against the US, while the missiles in Turkey could easily strike Moscow. Where tf are you getting your facts from? Not only were you wrong, you were the complete opposite of right.
1