Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Is the US Trying to Start a War in Ukraine?" video.

And they are right to be authoritarian. All it takes is one quick glance at the ideological hellhole that the "freedom loving" west has turned into, with children being indoctrinated into transgenderism or to be future sextoys for homosexuals to realize why Russians don't want that shit inside of Russia.
16
To all the people here whining about the Russian annexation of Crimea. Let me ask you the following: If Japan one day decided to vote in a pro-Chinese government, and Japan moves in a direction where they're going to break their ties with the U.S and instead form a military alliance with China... Then all those american owned navy and army bases inside of Japan... Would they just be "left" to the Japanese government and indirectly to China by the U.S? No? Yeah, didn't think so...
7
Crimea was and is populated mainly by Russians who had been mistreated and discriminated against by the bigoted Ukranian government for decades and decided to finally secede from Ukraine. It wasn't "Taken by Russia". Might wanna consult the facts sometime instead of CIA peddled conspiracy theories.
5
Ukraine? Reasonable? Lol! Ukranians have hated russians ever since the fall of the USSR. They basically treated the russian minority living in Ukraine like the U.S treated black people under Jim Crow laws. And this was many years before any of the russian minority seceded from Ukraine and declared independence.
4
@greyvoice7949 Proving that Nato is the aggressor. They hide their violations behind weak "legalese" to justify the breaking of a promise. Making Nato the aggressor.
3
@strategicviewpoint6672 Says who? "Western Intelligence"? The Ukranian government? Totally trustworthy and unbiased sources there 🤣
3
Nato being needlessly and dangerously provocative, driven by evil goals of supremacy as usual. Why care about other places national sovreignty and security, when you can sabotage other countries for the purpose of making a buck by exploiting their natural resources or cheap labour under your control? All by the Nato playbook.
2
@saferabies meaning?
2
@ZontarDow Russia hasn't invaded Crimea.
2
@gabrielsenator6347 Shows what you know about Russia (which is not much). You see, Russia has the good foresight to not skimp on arms development and the military. They skimp on a lot of other things, but not military matters. Clearly you haven't been paying attention to Russian arms company adverts and the new products they show off every year.
2
Indeed, why is the west driving Russia to form an alliance with China? China and Russia as close allies mean some serious hard times for the west and most likely for Russia as well, looking at how China deals with it's other "allies". The Russian people in general definitely prefer to be friends with Westerners over Chinese too, and being friends with Russia would mean a greater position of strength against the nefarious ambitions of the Chinese. So why the hell are western people trying to vilify Russia? It makes zero sense.
2
@Manannan_mac_Lir Far less than the amount of japanese women and children that would've had to die if the U.S was forced to only use conventional warfare. Japan at the time was actively training both women and children to use guns and die in service to their Emperor. Luckily, most of them never had to actually fight because Japan surrendered after the atomic bombings who claimed far less casualties than Japan would've taken otherwise.
2
Yeah, Ukranians really like to use buildings like hospitals and schools built by socialists with money from Russia. 🤣
1
@robbradshaw1415 If you follow the papertrail you'd know how much money and resources that the USSR pumped into it's satellite states. States that were mostly primitive, agrarian societies populated by farmers with low literacy rates. Ukraine included. So it's kinda funny seeing the soviet bloc states moaning about the evils of socialism and russia, when these countries not only got vastly improved in terms if infrastructure, education and medicine all paid for by Moscow basically, but even TO THIS VERY FUCKING DAY still use large parts of buildings and infrastructure that was raised by the USSR, again, mostly with money from Moscow. So yeah, it's hilarious. Kind of like watching that scene from Life of Brian where "The Peoples Front of Judea" sit around and scoff "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
1
@robbradshaw1415 No, but I still find it funny that they were happy to take the money and the socialist infrastructure projects and use them to this day, while simultaneously bitching about "the horrors of socialism" and blaming everything on Russia.
1
@robbradshaw1415 Nope. I'm not a socialist apologetic. Socialism is dysfunctional and fiscally unviable in the long term. But the facts are the facts, Ukraine benefitted from the USSR's investments into it. And they still reap rewards from those investments to this day. As did Estonia, Poland and a lot of other former soviet countries. Without the influence of the USSR, many of these countries would be poor, agrarian countries with low literacy rates to this day. The USSR was authoritarian and didn't have much respect for national sovreignty, but it damn sure drove those countries into the industrialized age and didn't shirk from using funds gathered from the Russian treasury to see it done. So my advice to you is: give shit where shit is due, but also credit where credit is due. The reality is always more nuanced than ideological dogma.
1
@ZontarDow Georgia was also flirting with Nato, just like Ukraine is. If Nato could keep it's slimy claws and puppets away from the Russian border, this wouldn't need it. Maybe it's time NATO should respect other people's borders for once?
1
@Mobius1105 It's amazing watching Nato apologists act as if american invasions and aggression is totally normal and not something to be criticized or seen as a threat...
1
@ZontarDow Nato did start it, by constantly pushing eastward even though it promised not to do so.
1
@ZontarDow Russia went into Georgia BECAUSE of it's Nato flirting you muppet. Russias goals are very clear: they don't want Nato countries right next to their border. A perfectly reasonable position to have considering that Nato is an empire of evil that seeks to subjugate the entire world to it's masters in America. So all Georgia had to do was say that they're gonna remain neutral and not seek to join Nato and they would've been left alone. Crimea was never invaded though. Ukraine lost Crimea due to civil war and voluntary secession by the majority ethnic russian population living there.
1
@greyvoice7949 Every country that joins Nato become a nuclear missile platform for the U.S to use, as we have seen time and time again.
1
@signe_stilett If NATO wills it, all three will become nuclear missile platforms against Russia. That's the way NATO have always worked: smaller, far flung memberstates serve as de facto beach heads and invasion insertion points for the U.S military. And as you may have noticed, Kreml does not want Nato in these countries either, according to Russias letter of demands. So if you're trying to argue that Russia is "Fine" with them as Nato members, think again. Ukraine flirting with Nato is the straw that broke the camels back because the aggressive and hostile NATO alliance has continually pushed further and further into the east since the dissolution of the USSR, so Russians are right to treat it as a threat to their sovreignty. America never settlew for peaceful co-existence with any country that can serve as their rival after all. They only seek to dominate and control everything, hence the Nato push eastward.
1
@christinerussell113 Well as Biden himself have said: He's Irish. So naturally he hates most of the U.K except Ireland.
1
@viysnjor4811 Ukraine is not seeking sovreignty. It's seeking to turn itself into a non-sovreign puppet of Nato to destabilize security with it's neighbour out of sheer spite. Because Ukranians have done a long running anti-russian propaganda campaign, so Ukrainians view ethnic russians about as favorable as China views India.
1
@mrlegkick91 Ask yourself, what's really in Ukraine that Putin supposedly wants that he can't get cheaper and easier at home? Russia is by area the biggest country in the world, covering a wide variety of topographical features and natural resorces. Everything is there for the taking already. So what could be the reason that Russia threatens Ukraine if we can dismiss any sort of need of natural resources or territory? More territory would also be more of a burden for Russia. Annex all of Ukraine and you've suddebly expanded Russias borders by several hundreds of miles. More border = more need for border patrol = more money needs to be diverted to the military. And military spending is always a net cost for any country and not something it can count on reaping profits from. Considering that Russias economy is not very great at all due to still recovering from communist fiscal policies AND they're slapped with all manner of spiteful trade sanctions. So why would Putin or Kreml desire to ADD to their yearly state costs even further? With all this in mind (and you can go check the facts of what I say for yourself, don't take my word for everything), you've got to ask yourself, what would be a rational or logical reason for Russia to be so concerned with Ukraines desire to join NATO?
1
@viysnjor4811 Irrelevant since countries change ambitions and goals depending on which regime is running them. You should try and answer my question too: what exactly is in Ukraine that Putin can't get cheaper and more easily at home?
1
@viysnjor4811 he already has them. Crimea is Russian whether Ukraine likes it or not. There's nothing Ukraine can do about it. Doesn't mean that Russians want to take over all of Ukraine since there is no need to. Unless Nato and Ukraine are being idiotic and starts to make it an issue. The separatist regions are gone and that's just a pill that Ukraine has to swallow.
1
@viysnjor4811 The confederate states didn't have the support of a superpower. The separatists in Ukraine have the support of Russia. Ukraine also has a very weak military to begin with, so even without Russian support, the separatists on their own are enough problems for Ukraine to deal with. And yeah, Putin want a buffer zone around Russias borders, and who can blame him? Considering Nato's steady march towards the east and their general hostility towarda Russia that has been going on ever since the Cold war.
1
@viysnjor4811 Ah so you admit it then that NATO has exhibited previous hostility towards Russia? What do you expect Russia to do? Just take more and more aggression from NATO without any response in turn? I guess your idea of "ethics" is for Russia to just sit idle and watch as NATO ships over nukes to Ukraine and start pointing them straight at Moscow and S:t Petersburg. God forbid that Russia were to "intervene", because that wouldn't be "respectful of Ukraines sovreignty, ehrmagerd!"
1
@KT-pv3kl Maybe but the point remains, does anyone seriously believe that America would just say: "Oh we're sad to see you go, but we respect your national sovreignty and will just have to find another airbase or naval base in some other willing country who will have us"? Nah, I don't think so. The Bald Eagles would go into annexation mode faster than you can spit, and they'd justify it by saying that it's "a matter of national security for the U.S to retain these geopolitical strategic assets"
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir But carpet bombing cities with conventional bombs for weeks at a time is just fine and dandy? 🤔
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir But the thing is, the decision to use those nukes in the first place was deliberated for quite some time on beforehand. So no, it was not a matter of "hindsight" but FORESIGHT. The pacific war had gone on for a very long time before the nukes were deployed. American forces hardly captured ANY prisoners from the enemy, nor from Japanese civilians during that time. The amount of captured prisoners was so staggeringly low to be unprecedented. Do you know why? Because even Japanese civilians had the mindset that they would fight to the bitter end. Japanese soldiers were even worse. So the Pentagon crunched the numbers of Japanese troops killed in action versus Japanese troops caught as prisoners of war or who surrendered and applied those statistics to a scenario of a mainland invasion of Japan and realized that they would've ended up having to fight and kill more than ten times as many Japanese citizens (soldiers and civilians alike) through conventional warfare. So tell me, how is a deathtoll tenfold larger than the deathtoll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki getting nuked a "better" result? War is war at the end of the day. There are no "good" outcomes, only more or less deadly outcomes. Wishing that nukes shouldn't exist is about as naive as to wish that war shouldn't exist, but it does. And the fact remains that countries with nuclear weapons are safer than countries without them, since even superpowers are scared of provoking a possible nuclear conflict with smaller nuclear countries.
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir Uh, it was naval blockades that cause the Empire of Japan to launch on attack on Pearl Harbour in the first place. Also what "freedom of choice" do you think the average citizen in Japan enjoyed? Have you even looked at their culture today? Even today the Japanese are extremely conformist and will do as they are told by the authorities. During the Covid pandemic their government didn't even need to issue any mandates, because the Japanese just obeyed the instructions anyway. This is what Japan is like TODAY. Imperial Japan was like that but cranked up to eleven. Every single Japanese citizen was taught from birth that the Emperor was their living god, and that every japanese person owed their life and honour to him and the fatherland. Their entire military was basically like ISIS in terms of fanaticism and devotion. And remember ISIS are so fanatical that they have no problem finding suicide bombers for any attack they want to stage. Imperial Japan was exactly like that, but had many millions of people with the ISIS mindset. So what basis do you have to even suggest that they would've just "chosen" on their own individual accord to surrender after a naval blockade? I want to hear you justify why tenfold the number of dead Japanese people is better than the lower number of dead Japanese caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Do you have any RATIONAL reason whatsoever to prefer a higher killcount as opposed to the lower one? Because to me you sound kind of monstrous prefering to see that many more civilians dead.
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir There would've been survivors after a mainland invasion. Only far less of them. Those were the options that the Allies were faced with at the time. And they picked the lesser evil option. And you're here complaining because you naively assume that some mystical "third option" would've been available with no evidence to back up such a claim.
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir Your example is ridiculous because the contexts are entirely different. Russia using nukes today would only open up for other countries using nukes against Russia. Neither the Russians nor anyone else wants that. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nuked however, no other country in the world had nuclear arms except the U.S. So there was no chance of any nuclear retaliation at the time.
1
@Manannan_mac_Lir "Murder" is a legal term. Killing people in war is not murder. It's just war. I question leaders all the time. But in this instance the decision to use nukes spared more lives than refusing to use nukes. The equation is very simple and there are no if's or but's about it.
1