Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Alexander Mercouris" channel.

@evolvedape3341 You don't have to support or even like Russia to recognize that Ukraine is becoming more dictatorial. Think of it like this, if you must inject hatred of Russia into every thought: Ukraine is becoming more like Russia with every passing day!
8
@Jamicaman516 Trading like shit, in terms of value against the dollar? The capital controls aren't just to raise the value of currency. In the case of Japan, China, and (because of the war) now Russia, central banks can also use controls to keep the value of a currency low, making it more competitive for export. Something Russia has a very good reason to do right now, given how sanctioned it is.
6
 @kartikeyatiwari2502 So do you want to delete your other comment? Since you admit that they are advancing
5
 @hj925 Also the Russians left North Korea while the US refused to leave the South.
3
@hj925 Yes. Are you blind to events at the time? The Daegu Uprising in 1946 was a direct response to the USAMGIK (US military government directly ruling South Korea) and the US' presence more generally. Nice try, but yes in fact the US can be in the wrong. And not as a "mistake" like people trying to run defense for ruining Afghanistan love to say. Actual, willful wrongdoing. The US does not have good intentions.
3
@SergeyMilitaryRankings No, I think you're the one who's coping. I'm saying that the Russians left before they were physically forced out— hence, they retreated. You didn't even dispute the facts of what I said, you just went with " nuh uh youre wrong". And I'M the one coping?? If they had been bombed or shot out of a significant number of towns in Kharkhiv, I would say that it WAS a loss. They would have lost battles. But you can't really "lose" a battle if you don't even participate. They lost territory, sure. But to say they "lost IN Kharkhiv" or "PUSHED back by Ukraine" implies that they fought, met resistance, and then lost WITHIN Kharkhiv... which they didn't. Do you get it now? Or do I need to draw you a picture next time?
2
I don't think he's unqualified, but he isn't level-headed enough for the job. If a roofer gets angry every time he makes a mistake and starts smashing shingles, he's technically qualified but incapable of doing the job properly.
2
 @danielbwest Found one! How many hrvynia are they paying you, Hero?
2
@hj925 You need to be more specific. You never once named what 'Eastern' project you're taking about. If you're referring to North Korea, then you just spewed out a lot more words than necessary to avoid saying, "you're right, I was wrong. The Americans aren't liable to public pressure any more than the Russians are. And my attempt to distinguish the two was biased by my own beliefs." The US currently has 800+ officially confirmed bases around the world, and in numerous instances they aren't wanted there but bribe or threaten the government so they can stay (Guantanamo Bay, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan— Chiang Kai Shek also faced student uprisings against the US' presence in their country, northeastern Syria). Your waxing poetic about how special of a case North Korea was doesn't change the fact that the US is as persistent, if not more, than Russian is, once it gets its hands on a country's territory. That's an obviously bad, insidious thing when a rival country does it, but something tells me you'll find a way to spin continued unwanted US presence as a good thing.
2
Probably Poles and Balts, or recruiting Ukrainian expats, or if that fails volunteer forces from Western countries.
1
 @aitorhernandez7806 "51th" FIFTHY FIRTH
1
I would be careful of saying even that, the idea that 'the West in finished! ' is itself a narrative. Not to say that there won't be changes in the near future, but I wouldn't say its 'time is up' yet. The truth is often boring and nuanced, and only those with patience will understand the fickle details.
1
@JosephBisio Azerbaijan and Turkey are looking at Armenia like it's 1912 again...careful what you wish for. Russia leaving could mean the end of an independent Armenian state.
1
@Vladput The export market isn't gone. Do you really think Germany won't find a way to start buying Russian has after this is over? They're in a recession. It would be in their best interest. Your definition of paper tiger us interesting, given that Ukraine has been trained up by the US for the last 8 years and received $150B in military aid to date. When 45+ countries are arming Ukraine, not steamrolling it in 3 days isn't really a failure; it's expected. The last part is what has convinced me you're a paid troll, or stupid. Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. If you think it's Armenian because there are lots of Armenians there, then Crimea really does belong to Russia. Lol
1
@@blackjock953 Invisible, not invincible.
1
@SergiuCosminViorel It would have been easier to go through Turkey. Geopolitics sadly always affects people on the ground. If you do try again and make it friend, Moscow and St. Petersburg are your best bet. The most familiar cities to a Westerner.
1
@SergeyMilitaryRankings I mean, the order of things matters. The Ukrainians didn't literally chase the Russians out— after a few initial harsh losses, the Russians did actually retreat from the rest of Kharkiv, leaving it mostly abandoned when the Ukrainians came back in. Now if they had stayed, fought, and lost due to high numbers KIA or left unable to continue fighting, and that were consistent across the region, then I would say they definitively lost.
1
@SergeyMilitaryRankings Lmao "this is copium to the highest degree" Even needing to speak in absolutes like that tells me you have no legs to stand on. Putting all your cards in with a bad hand. Truth is never that simple, and you spoke like a child who doesn't understand nuance or the actual, real details of a situation. Which is fitting for you. Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia will tell you I'm right. The Ukrainian strategy was to divert focus to Kherson, make the Russians thin out their northern forces, and then catch them by surprise in the south. In other words, get the Russians out before even attacking. From Taras Berezovets: "[they] thought [the counteroffensive] would be in the south… then, instead of the south, the offensive happened where they least expected, and this caused them to panic and flee." This is a Ukrainian military spokesman speaking. You want to tell me that Ukraine deliberately fought their way through dense fortifications? They themselves say the genius of their plan was making Russians leave before the attack, then forcing the rest to RETREAT INSTEAD OF FIGHTING. Literally like I said: a few initial big losses Verbivka, Volokhiv Yar, and by the time they reached Iziyum, the Russians decided to cut their losses. Or take a quote from none other than Zelenskiy: "The Russian army in these days is demonstrating the best that it can do — showing its back. And, of course, it's a good decision for them to run." Get the idea yet?? They didn't fight and lose every inch of the region. They left early on. How many more ways do I need to put this? You said that "they were pushed back" and then told me about Kupiansk. Dude... they got to Kupiansk 3 days after starting the offensive. Does that remind you of anything I may have said, about early victories BEFORE the decision to retreat?? "so if a country goes into battle and the other side just leaves" I don't know, that's what the US did in Vietnam, and to this day people are calling it a "tactical retreat". 1. Like I said before, Kupiansk and Iziyum were reached mere days after the start, after that point the Russians left Kozacha, Lopan, and Vovchansk, among others. Even local residents attest to the fact that they left so fast they left weapons behind. 2. "a tactical retreat is leaving an area to regroup and resupply and counter attack" ...Man. What is happening LITERALLY RIGHT NOW? What are the Russians doing in Kupiansk? You already told me. By your own definition, the Russians tactically retreated. They're back instead of leaving forever, so they, according to you, retreated. But it seems you weren't smart enough to notice your inconsistent line of reasoning. 3. A defeat in terms of what? I just said it's not strictly a defeat in Kharkhiv because they were never overpowered and forced to sign a treaty or something like that. If you wanna make sweeping claims like that you need to back it up. Explain why they were defeated in your eyes. What criteria are you basing that on?
1
Source needed
1
That's a bit much. I think there have been better leaders. Alexander the Great, Ataturk, Peter I, Qin Shihuang, to name a few. But taking Russia from the brink of collapse to economically and militarily holding it's own against the entire West, in the span of 20 years, is definitely impressive.
1
Lesser of two evils. Either low economic investment (sanctions) by doing business with Russia. Or complete erasure by Turkic countries.
1
@evolvedape3341 How does me having a flag pfp make saying that you DON'T have to support or like Russia less believable? Wouldn't that make me more impartial? I'm doing the opposite of what the flag suggests I would be doing. No, it's not evil, certainly not by colonial standards. Russia doesn't have Native reservations like the US, it hasn't wiped out entire civilizations like the Spanish, it didn't cut off Siberians' hands like the Belgians. Does Ukraine being invaded excuse then of their wrongdoings? If you're a leftist, let me put it in a way that you might see differently: does Jews' experiencing the Holocaust excuse what they're doing to Palestine right now? A victimized state can still be bad. I don't see why you think you need to give empathy to either, or why it's a zero-sum game ("one over the other"? Why not just empathize with both, but to varying degrees?)
1
@evolvedape3341 Oh and that last part is especially funny: sorry, Russia will now start doing NEW, innovative forms of empire! Presumably you're sympathetic to the US, then, since that's what they do. France comes in second with Francafrique, though that's about to end soon.
1
@andreirublev8118 Probably, in the long run. Ukrainian businesses will be able to ship things to China directly, or to Latin America, through the Pacific Ocean. Being part of a larger whole means more efficiency, but I suppose many Ukrainians would rather die poor and separate from Russia then be prosperous as a member of the Federation.
1
@evolvedape3341 I did argue the allegations. You called the actions in question evil, I disputed that. You noted sympathy of one country, mutually exclusive of another. I questioned that. If you want me to address the final part of your allegation, that Russia's actions are colonial, then sure. I don't believe they are colonial. The amount of manpower the Kremlin has dispatched isn't enough to permanently occupy all of, or even the currently occupied part of, Ukraine. If it were colonial, it would have taken steps specifically to consolidate control of the land permanently. Another piece of evidence: the March 2022 negotiations. They were about finished, with Ukraine having agreed to close its doors to NATO, before Boris Johnson flew in and convinced Zelenskiy to throw out the negotiations. Russia was perfectly willing to rescind all (save for Crimea— that might have benefited the national unity of Ukraine anyway) of the territory it had gained in exchange for keeping US influence out of the region. This clearly suggests their ultimate goal, and intention, with invading wasn't to conquer. Hence, not colonial. Any other silly questions?
1
I feel like Poland doesn't need to be convinced of that. They're itching for some historical revenge
1
@nadinelockhart6569 We are in an information warfare. The only information that can be verified is things that the side for whom it is inconvenient to admit it, admits it. This story seems very cheritable to Russia and so it could be propaganda. Same with Ghost of Kiev. Keep your eyes open and your mind weary
1
My question is, will they ever leave? Will Denmark ever get a de Gaulle figure who demands the US troops leave?
1
@Jamicaman516 All those measures taken are true, but you act like it's some callous and authoritarian move when it's just practical. If your country was the most sanctioned on Earth in a matter of days, you'd probably use capital controls, too. It's just a practical approach to saving an economy from failing, and not indicative of the character of the Russian government (even if it happens to line up with your opinion in this case). As for inflation and falling value— it's still not fallen the amount that Western analysts were hoping it would, in fact it rose for quite some time (again, capital controls), and inflation isn't terrible. It's ~20% for high value items like Western mobile tech but otherwise basics are covered and they're about the same as before February. Sorry to dampen your vision
1
@hj925 Why do liberals always make this argument? Sure US is imperialist but ours is GOOD DEMOCRATIC imperialism! Lol You're the type of person to say that it's good that Hawai'i was annexed because otherwise it would be Japanese or Chinese. If you're truly against imperialism, you'd advocate for the US to be knocked down a peg. No more IMF loans requiring countries to destroy their own industries (by letting Western capital in), no more military bases used to threaten smaller countries. Go back to your shores and work on your own supposed democracy.
1
@hj925 Oh and the US supported Synghman Rhee's dictatorship for 30 years. They helped him fire upon crowds of protestors and suppress opinions that disfavored US power in the region. You overestimate the resolve of a people when the US gets a military base nearby. South Koreans could only fight back so much, and they resigned to having the US lord over them as long as they could nominally pick who runs their country (as long as it doesn't oppose US economic or political interests, of course!)
1