Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "China wants to form its own military alliance" video.
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"the idea that we were "bullied" into entering NATO is absolutely false"
I didn't say that. I was responding to your point, "Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence...The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
I said that most of America's allies are allied because America at one point or another rigged their elections or installed a dictator, and their government worked with Washington.
I am surprised that, as an Italian, you do not know your own history. Do you know why the Fronte Democratico Popolare lost in 1948? The CIA forged letters, gave $100M's to right-wing parties, used money from the Marshall Plan -- meant to help rebuild Italy-- to rig your elections instead. And you wonder why it is so hard to find a job in Italy now...
"Those "overthrown leaders" were not actually elected leaders"
In most cases, they were. Sometimes, the US did not even give the country a chance to elect a democratic leader before installing their chosen dictator.
-Salvador Allende in Guatemala: democratically elected, overthrown 1954
-Shukri al-Quwatli in Syria: democratically elected, overthrown 1949
-Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran: democratically elected, overthrown 1953
-Sukarno in indonesia: democratically elected, overthrown 1959
-Patrice Lumumba in Congo: democratically elected, overthrown 1965
This is not even a fraction of the list. South Korea did not even elect a leader before the US installed Syngman Rhee, the CIA used Imperial Japanese troops to fight the Chinese Communists, they militarily occupied Haiti for decades, overthrew Mexico's government twice, and on and on.
The only reason you like the US is because your country is rich now, and your government will forget the crimes they committed if you can be pampered like mammoni
"it's a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected president who was not in bad relations with Russia until Russia itself decided they wanted Crimea back"
You are getting the events in the wrong order. The Maidan protests happened first, then Crimea.
It is strange to me that many American Senators were present during the revolution, and there is some question about who orchestrated the rooftop shooting in Maidan that made the regional protests turn into a Ukrainian revolution against Russia...
Look at the list I showed you again. Is it so strange to add just one more?
"You are putting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same plain as Zelensky"
Ironically, I think Hussein should have been kept in power. How is Iraq doing after America's brilliant operation there?
I think Zelensky should be kept, too: it is the glorification of WWII Nazi collaborators (Ukrainian version of Mussolini) and downgrading Russian to a regional language that I have issue with. Despite the fact that most Ukrainians speak it, and 30% of the country speak natively. Banning Russian books, teaching in schools, etc
"then they made riddicolous demands to be basically in command, then they constantly tried to re-define what NATO was supposed to be"
Mostly because they were a power much larger than Europe. If they joined, how will Soviet equipment be used? Different military philosophy? Does the US get to station wargames in Russia? Do Russian troops get to do the same in US? The 2 sides had fundamental differences, and needed to be resolved.
Making Russia replace its entire military still causes a problem, what happens when they have a disagreement with US and Russia happens to produce most of the NATO artillery/tanks? What then? How are disputes between such large powers, on the same side, resolved?
"The inequalities between U.S.A and mexico are as you say, but again, America is not constantly flying it's jets over the border and menacing military action every 2 weeks"
Do you have amnesia? I will repeat again: it is because the US doesn't need to.
Mexico has no strategic land, it can do nothing to the US.
You are praising US for allowing Mexico to keep the crumbs, after it has already stolen the whole loaf of bread
"Let's take Canada...an indipendent entity from the United States"
Lol, no. US is largest trading partner, 75% of ALL trade is with them.
90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of US border, Canadian Shield (mountain region) covers most of Canada so most of their land is useless to live on. Canada's only connection between east (Toronto) and west (Vancouver) is a single highway. It is extremely vulnerable.
It is independent in theory, but if it ever opposed the US in a way they could not resolve,
Canada would not last 1 day on its own
"Yes it might do some sanctions here and tear some deal apart, but it will not attack unless a country become a legitimate threat to itelf"
So you admit that it is not just defense? It can attack a country by destroying their economy?
Also, NATO did attack.
Afghanistan and Libya. NATO took control of the no-fly zone in Libya, and had direct control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, bombing and killing 10,000s of women and children.
"we have NO INTENTION of conquering Russia!"
You seemed to have no issues stealing our money away.
Yes, the oligarchs were Russia's creation, but why did the West take their money even knowing it was stolen from Russian people? Italy is directly responsible for this, many oligarchs bought homes in Italy and luxury Italian goods and cars.
You were getting rich off of Russian workers' stolen money
"Putin could have removed them"
Yes, I agree.
I never said I liked Putin or that he was perfect, but he was better than Yeltsin and was at least trying to give Russia geographical security against NATO. If they were going to expand anyway---
(since you are unable to tell me how Russia could 100% guarantee that American military would not keep expanding to its border),
---I say again: what did they have to lose??
"They rebelled againist the Zar but couldn't take on Putin?"
The Tsar did not have machine guns and riot gear. The secret police is much more advanced now, harder to change.
Like Roman concrete, the more time passes the more rigid everything becomes
"we put our shit toghether and kicked most of Mafia out of power in the '70s"
Part of the reason you had to deal with the Mafia after WW2 (even after Mussolini arrested pretty much all of them, he doesn't like competition) is because the US pardoned so many of them, which allowed Cosa Nostra to re-establish themselves.
"Russia on the other hand, instead of growing or showing some maturity and become a liberal democracy after decades of oppression"
How many times do I need to repeat?
After the fall of USSR, no one in Russia knew how to run a capitalist economy.
So Clinton and later Bush sent their economists to "help" Russia... by throwing it violently into capitalism ('shock therapy').
It failed horribly, the government had no control and (ironically) Bratva (Russian mafia) ran everything.. until Putin came to power, and arrested or killed them, like Mussolini did. Not perfect, but better than being a part of the West. We tried that, and all it got us was pain and suffering.
You never wanted to help us, only hurt.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
The problem is, there was no guarantee that NATO would ever go away.
The US still dictates Europe's military policy, and the EU has been roping in former Soviet states one by one.
What exactly did Russia have to lose here?
If they had done nothing, they might still have trade relations with Europe.. but they would still be surrounded by American military infrastructure, and trapped by a dominant hegemon for the rest of its history.
(Imagine how the US would feel if Mexico had a longstanding alliance with China, and there was another Cuba on its Pacific border. That inherent geographic/political instability trickles down to the economy, quality of life, business likelihood etc)
If they make gains here, they can at least force a halt of NATO and replication-in-all-but-name (individual alliances with all NATO members, "technically" not joining).
Not perfect, but being located on Eurasia --- (unlike North America, which is an island and has that permanent advantage thanks not to the governments' effectiveness, but to circumstance)---- you need to navigate the chaos and be ruthless to survive.
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"Russia keeps acting in a ridiculously aggressive way"
A single, current, incident does not explain Europe's past behavior. If you want to retort with "Georgia Crimea" etc, let's take a look.
Crimea voted in 1994, when Russia was politically collapsed, to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Ukraine's Parliament struck the results down and got their secret service involved.
Georgian forces shelled Sukhumi, overreacting to a hostage crisis, and denied the wishes of independence of the Ossetians. Amnesty International recognizes as such. The concerns of Georgia's minorities were present even during the USSR, but Stalin dissolved the Abkhazian SSR.
Oh, and Chechnya (Ichkerian Republic) invaded Dagestan (Russia) in August 1999, declaring jihad. But we're the bad guys somehow, for pacifying a Wahhabi movement funded by Saudi Arabia.
"The point is being surrounded by American military infrastructure is not a problem if you have literally the biggest stack of nuclear weapons ever."
Bullshit. You think of security as a binary, which it isn't. "If you can use the threat of nuclear annihilation then everything's fine!" is such a pea-brained argument I don't even know where to begin. To start, economic flexibility depends on access to the ocean. Russia has none, and needs to go through Turkey or Denmark to trade. This makes a huge chunk of its economy dependent on the political decisions of a foreign country.
We aren't even getting into power projection, protection of trading routes, regional stability for economic investment, etc.
Let's put the shoes on someone else's foot. If, hypothetically, a Caribbean country were to host nuclear weapons, or even just a naval base, off the coast of the US, shouldn't the US not care at all even if it is the military infrastructure of a superpower being hosted??
After all, they have nukes too, it should be fine, right?? In this hypothetical situation, do you think the US would abide by your worldview? If not, why? Is there perhaps something you're missing?
"Russia had all the options to become a credible democratic nation, hell even PART of NATO"
Russia applied, and told they had to wait. In the meantime, however, the West managed to bomb and overthrow leaders of foreign countries under false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan) and (Libya) after lying about security guarantees...
The US demonstrated that its only real rule was "you're either in my club, or you're not. International law be damned."
Is this what countries should aspire to? Kissing the ass of the pack leader? Freedom and democracy indeed.
"the United States, instead of constantly menacing to attack them, helps them economically"
...Are you kidding? First off, no, Mexico's agricultural exports are fresh fruits and vegetables, the US meanwhile has managed to create an obesity epidemic in their country. US auto makers still dominate their market, in spite of the large volume of machinery imports.
Second, yes it's very easy to help a country which can never pose a threat to you. The US took all of Mexico's most valuable land and neutralized it permanently. They came very close to annexing Yucatan. There's no pressure of a challenger, so of course they'll "help" (benefit from outsourcing) now. They won.
Imagine a world in which the USSR survived, and became economically strong and politically unified. It starts trading with Western Europe. That is what actually happened in North America. The U.S. completely dominates everything.
"Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence. Don't you see?
The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
Again, you must be kidding. Virtually all of the places that the US is allied with, short of Europe, are places that it has bullied (coup'ed) into allying with Washington. South Korea, Indonesia, most of South America, Vietnam, hell, even Italy and Greece.
The singular difference between it and Russia is that the US had time (and the goodwill of the British) to develop its industry and economy undisturbed for 150 years. So even if the US has been a brutal oppressor in the past, it can just smother the citizens of allied countries in material wealth to make them forget about its past crimes.
I acknowledge that corruption and pride are a big issue, but- do I really need to repeat it?- the US caused this. Directly.
After the collapse of the USSR, Harvard economists were flown out to Moscow to convince Yeltsin to conduct "shock therapy" in Russia, swinging it as violently into a market system as possible.
It did not go well. This would be forgivable, if the US did not rig the 1996 elections to prolong the Russian people's suffering.
In 2000, Putin succeeded Yeltsin... and here we are. You reap what you sow.
Shouldn't have ruined Russia intentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1