Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "ZELENSKY COMES TO AMERICA" video.

He doesnt seem to realize that, in some areas, it is a zero-sum game. You can have the "correct positions" and hate both, but in the real world, if Ukraine is not turned into (let's be honest) a military outpost of the US, it will be one for Russia. If you reject hegemonic expansion, you must accept the only alternative, Russian expansion. Without the consent of both Russia and the US, Ukraine could never become neutral. People on some level recognize this, and their views follow accordingly.
12
@IAMHALFLIGHT Essentially, yes. A MAD-protected Concert of Powers, if you will. Not a great solution, but compared to what we had in the 1990s (with the US at its peak, facing a post-USSR existential crisis and destroying the Middle East) it is at least providing smaller states with the chance that their larger neighbor will not manipulate or occupy them (Haiti, Mexico; Azerbaijan, Finland) because there is an alternative to turn to. That is actually what has kept Russia on relatively equal terms with Azerbaijan; Turkey as an alternative economic option. The greater the imbalance of power, the greater potential for abuse. Of course, this does not account for perceived imbalance of power, as in Ukraine right now (2014 may have given Russia the wrong impression, that the rest would be just as easy), but generally if the state perceives correctly, and there are too many large states that can be called upon, large states will stop exerting their force so much.
9
@cameronpatterson130 Of course-- but if the US was honest about its reasons, nobody would support it.
4
@Scottoest I mean... yeah?? Nice try though lmao Only sea access is through the Baltic (NATO) or Turkish Straits (NATO). There's also Murmansk, but NATO has been trying to encourage Scotland to join to close the gap and basically control Russia's access to the sea altogether. There is also the Sea of Okhotsk in the Pacific-- but efforts to make peace with Japan over the Kuril Islands have been hampered by the fact that the US has repeatedly encouraged them not to take the deal (control of the bottom 2 Kuril Islands.... in exchange for a guarantee of no US military infrastructure there). It's never been about respecting other countries' sovereignty-- since when does the US care about that? It really is about stopping Russia from getting what the US basks in--- unblocked access to the world's oceans. In other words, equal footing. Sorry lol
4
@TheSubso ...You must be kidding. Russia didn't have the string of luck associated with free capital and knowledge transfer from the British Empire, isolationism for 200 years, access to 2 oceans with no foreign powers etc... But I would say, even if you consider the russification and suppression of political dissent (is that any different to the US? South Korea was a dictatorship for decades), the average Ukrainian's life is- materially- vastly better now than it was 200 years ago. The USSR, like it or not, industrialized Russia and its former subjects at breakneck speed, and much of the infrastructure they are defending right now wouldn't have even existed if not for Lenin. You take for granted that the US started from a high level of development to start with. Even immigration: hundreds of thousands of Germans were simply... allowed to leave for the US, but when they were invited to settle in Russia, Prussia quickly disallowed their movement. Europe went out of its way to hamper Russia at every turn, and continues to. It will of course take time, and genuine investment and nurture (instead of neoliberal policy, allowing Russian oligarchs to launder money into Western banks) to develop Russia. But I think that the stability that Ukraine would provide (namely the Carpathian mountains, shorter land border = lessened military expenditure) will free up some of Russia's budget to actually develop itself, and by extension Ukraine.
2
@TheSubso Also.. the 'better life' argument only works while Ukraine is politically expedient. Bear in mind that all of the US support are loans, not gift aid. Ukraine's farmland was only recently allowed to be privately owned in 2001, and the oil and gas fields were discovered a decade later... doesn't take a genius to see which companies, and which countries, will profit the most from Ukraine's resources. If their highest aspiration is to be handed whatever Exxon doesn't take as the lion's share, I simply don't know what to say. I would simply ask them to look to Greece and consider whether being in the 'Western fold' is the guarantee of wealth that they think it is. Especially since, like Greece, Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and struggles to collect taxes.
2
Not a great point. Why are you so obsessed with staying on the very top at all costs? Russia does it because it's paranoid. And traumatized (I mean, NATO's mission was, and is, to encircle it). But the US? Surrounded by 2 oceans, virtually unreachable. So what reason do you have to try and destroy another country across the world? To stay in power? You understand, as a viewer here, that American power just creates suffering, on the largest possible scale beyond what Russia or China could do. So why do you insist that you be the global hegemon? If you have any moral compass, you would give that position up. Stop trying to encircle Russia and China, let them have sea access like you've always had.
2
@Sugarman96 Political attention has a narrow range. Either attention is focused on domestic issues, or foreign ones. If the war is the priority in the media, then the homeless must wait.
1
@TheSubso 'Couch warrior' lmao, which battalion are you fighting in then? I at least check in on my ukrainian friends to make sure they're alive and well. All but 2 are in poland now Don't act like you do anything more than I do-- paying a Western business that promises to 'donate to ukraine' doesn't count; we've seen that trick pulled countless times before. Haiti comes to mind.. "impractical"- can't win, can we? Communism = bad, capitalism = bad (only when we do it ofc), war crimes in Iraq get a finger-wagging but Putin must be jailed! I'm starting to get the sense that it's not about our actions, but our relation to the world's media producer...
1
@TheSubso " but you sure love advocating for it." How about, instead of trying to force Russia to spend even more on military and border security, you leave us, and ukraine, the fuck alone? Ideally, like you said. For someone who likes to accuse me of 'sucking a country in', you seem all to eager to do the same. You literally said they'd be better off in your bubble, yet complain when we want to do the exact same thing. Again-- the action doesn't matter. Russia could do literally anything (short of selling itself like in the 1990s) and the West would find a way to bitch and moan. " wont lead to a worse outcome :)" ..How? You never really addressed what I said-- the US is likely to buy out most of Ukraine's resources and companies- their "aid" is a giant loan. Once again, I offer you Greece and most of the Balkans. Being in the US' sphere =/= prosperity. The US cares about Ukrainians as much as it cares for Greeks, which is to say not at all. Only if they're convenient. Frankly I could also present Ukraine from the 1990s as well. Seems like it's due for a repeat! Clinton will be proud All you did was repeat your original belief, but you didn't square it with any of what I said
1
@TheSubso "Absolute braindead take off "If the west dissolves russia can relax and start building up itself and the occupied lands it has" I-- ...yeah. Russia got giga fucked by capitalism, as you said, yet it's also BS that if the US loses its influence on Russia its condition will get better? Who do you think brought Russia to this state of being to begin with?! Who pressured half of NATO members to stay silent when Georgia and Ukraine's membership were announced in 2008? Who sent in advisors to moscow to hollow out russia's industrial capacity? Who advocated for the loans for shares program? Who helped Yeltsin to funnel $10B in US-withdrawn IMF loans to rig his re-elect? Bro... please just leave us alone. You're trying to sell me the solution to a problem you created. Stop trying to station troops on our southwestern border, and host wargames in finland, and russia will stop being so aggressive. Even at its weakest in the 1990s, russia was still being undermined by the US. It has nothing to do with how threatening we are, the us just hates the idea of a rival, sovereign state.
1
You're stawmanning-- NATO expanding just means that NATO us expanding-- it is an organization, not a nation-state, so there isn't a forceful expansion. This doesn't change the fact that it's an extension of US military power, and that it represents a fundamental threat to the other, few, sovereign states around the world.
1
@keiolge Bro... Chechnya attacked first. August 1999. Fucking Yanks. Also, unlike Western countries, Russia has largely respected the native cultures which it encountered. Europe has none left to speak of (Langue d'Oil, Manx, Pictish, Prussia, all extinct, Irish language almost extinct, Basque and Welsh barely recovering). And the US is even worse-- a few Native reservations on garbage land, no opportunities, pretending like they're nations and refusing to find them properly... Russia has native Republics, and came to genuine compromises regarding autonomy in the 1990s. Entire regions have mandatory schooling in the native languages. I'd say Russia, relatively speaking, was the most benevolent in terms of encountering natives. No encomienda system, no Manifest Destiny, just align with Moscow and be left alone.
1
@NukesBeGood Never gonna happen. Anyone who tries that will be turned into nuclear ash. Cope and seethe. Also... will you say the same for the US? Even if Russia is a "prison of nations", at least it's not the executioner, like the US is. Russia have native Republics, with actual autonomy, meanwhile the best the US has done is reservations on the worst land, and the Natives are dirt poor. A Chechen would be appalled at the way a Navajo is forced to live. Transcaucasia lives comfortably compared to any tribe. So tell me, should we also destroy the US and the white colonial government, to free the Natives and black Americans? Should all US military bases be emptied and burned, the US Balkanized, for the betterment of humanity?? Or is it "different" somehow??
1