To be sure, both the Soviets and West recruited German scientists after the war. There was nothing wrong with German technology, apart from some things being overengineered. They did create a lot of high quality weapons and other products, after all. I think the problem, however, comes from this idea that they were super advanced and ahead of all the other nations when that just wasn't the case. A really good example of this is the British Mosquito and the Germans comical attempt to copy it. Long story short- the Germans had to ditch their Mosquito equivalent because the plywood glue they used proved to be corrosive, leading to the thing just falling apart during test flights. Or take for instance the American Interstate TDR UCAV. Yes, the US had an actual weaponized drone during WW2, with a very short but real operational history. The US Navy's Torpedo Data Computer was also way ahead of its time and never surpassed by any power, Axis or Allied. This kind of stuff tends to get ignored in favor of nonsense about the Germans having stealth bombers and such.

America didn't "rebuild entire countries" after WW2. If you look at the size of the marshall plan, even adjusted for inflation it was not a massive amount money. It fact its said that the plan only contributed around 3% of the income of these combined western European nations it was sent to. Europe mostly looked after itself after the war. Besides Ukraine has had pledges to help it rebuild from multiple western countries like Japan and UK already. Its only a matter of time not if, that Ukraine will recover

I just found out that you're serving in Ukraine. How are you doing? It's been a while since you upload your last video

Doing alright. I've got a script recorded for a video and several other ideas, but I'm just too busy at the moment.

Moscow Marge

Well let's put it this way. He knowingly got involved in a relationship with a young girl (albeit 18 as far as we know) who even he believed to be a KGB informant. In fact, the USMC later declined to renew his clearance over it. And here's another funny thing- he likes to portray himself as this whistleblower against the WMD claims in 2003, but in 2002 he was essentially saying Saddam had chemical weapons he could use. The guy is a walking file of kompromat. Plus his first charge for trying to diddle an underage girl was in 2001, before 9/11, and his second was in 2009, after the Bush admin left and had already been disgraced by the failed WMD claims. So the idea that he was set up because of his truthtelling is laughable. Joe Wilson is an example of a guy who actually did face consequences for refuting the WMD claims. His wife worked for the CIA and her name was leaked, ruining her career. Nobody tried to catfish Joe with an underage girl. Ritter's just a pedo.

In the case of Ukraine this is not entirely true. Because so many of these rockets and their systems were designed in Ukraine (which continued providing parts for russia's newer systems up to 2014), it was the one former republic that had the knowhow and ability to gain control of the weapons. US intel surmised they could do this within a matter of months of making the decision, which is why they came up with the idea of the Memorandum in the first place. It's also why it wasn't just an offer, but a veiled threat of sanctions or witholding aid as well.

The problem is Putin has recently said he isn't interested in negotiation and every "deal" russia's alluded to before calls for a disarmed Ukraine not in NATO. This basically leaves them ripe for a new invasion when russia has rearmed and reorganized later down the road.

I'm not doubting that. I just do not see a collapse in the Putin regime whatsoever. Russia still has a backlog of equipment and plenty of manpower to hold a line. Wars that drag on tend to bring people to the negotiating table. Maybe political assassination would cause caos in Russian government, maybe it would lead to some official taking over and a further idolization of Putin. I just find it funny how this video from 9 months ago shows a front line identical to today.

Well it's funny how no change in the map somehow means Ukraine is losing, but the dramatic changes in 2022 when russia got humiliated three times apparently doesn't mean annything. Also, no, they are having serious trouble with equipment, especially vehicles, and that renders the manpower moot. Moreover, they've just announced even higher bonuses for enlistment (because they're not getting enough people) and they're resorting shanghaing guest workers and foreign students. This is not a sign of a winning military, sorry. Oh...and the GMLRS rockets, ATACMS, and DPICMs are on the way again.

@SpaghettiKozak I never said any of that either. Why do you keep imposing Russian talking points onto me? The front line hasn't moved in two years and while Ukraine is getting a trickle of western equipment many things can (and in some cases have) gone wrong. Washington isn't delivering much more aid without substantial haggling in the house of reps. France seems very happy to send supplies, I remember Macron floating the idea of on-the-ground training. Germany seems to be facing internal political issues with an unstable and somewhat unpopular coalition. It's clear Russia has systemic logistical incompetence makes any severe gains (even in worst-case scenarios) impossible. It takes more than drafting prisoners and raising bonuses to convince me a country with 140 million is facing a worse manpower situation than one with 40. It seems like drafting prisoners and marginalized groups is a common hallmark of war by tyrannical powers. As with equipment, this is an area I have less knowledge in. It's hard to tell how much of the soviet backlog exists or even existed in the first place. They may end up using older trucks, tanks, etc but when you're holding a line less of that matters.

The front line not moving doesn't really mean much right now. For russia to be successful they need to be able to hold and administer those territories. They want a ceasefire of some kind because it lets them consolidate their forces there. They're not getting said ceasefire, and with the provision of longer range weaponry already in country, they're going to take devastating losses once again, even in the rear. Let's not even speak of the ATACMS- have you ever seen the aftermath of a regular HIMARS strike on enemy barracks up close? You're talking about losses that could put up to an entire battalion out of action before they get anywhere near the actual front line. Once again you must look to the WWI analogy. The Germans actually managed to break the stalemate and were occupying foreign land, but their economy and logistics fell apart, hence they had to sue for peace. There's a reason why russia's had all its assets in the West begging for a ceasefire ever since September 2022, including that idiotic "Christmas truce." The war is ultimately unsustainable for russia. They bargained everything on the West cutting off supplies from 2023(backed up by statements from Putin himself), and now the opposite is happening while one of russia's main sources of financing is taking a hit. They can keep this up for maybe another year, year and a half at most.

So on the topic of Yeltsin, here are a collection of archival articles from the era. Interestingly, they display the same poor reporting that NYT is famous for(eg saying Eastern Ukraine is mostly ethnic russian). www.nytimes.com/1992/06/23/world/yeltsin-addresses-rift-with-ukraine.html www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/world/ukrainian-accuses-yeltsin-of-making-threats.html jamestown.org/program/yeltsin-aide-threatens-ukraine-with-retaliation/ www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/8/24/ukraines-reliving-a-promise-it-made-this-day-in-1991 www.chathamhouse.org/2022/08/russias-longstanding-problem-ukraines-borders In general, none of this amounted to much more than veiled threats about not recognizing their borders, intervention in Crimea, Donbas, etc. It was partially resolved by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, but more conclusively laid to rest by the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, which was supposed to end all territorial disputes between the two countries. Keep in mind the dispute was pretty much always one-sided. It wasn't like Ukraine was demanding Bihorod oblast or, even more ridiculous, Zeleny Klyn. Gorbachev was more subtle, being the driving force behind Bush Sr.'s infamous "Chicken Kyiv" speech. He clearly wanted to retain Ukraine in some kind of new union, but was simply unable to do so. He supported the Crimean annexation decades later and made a "both-sides" argument in response to it. www.newsweek.com/how-mikhail-gorbachev-resisted-before-accepting-ukraine-independence-1738320 There are a few books I wanted to cite on this but unfortunately at the moment they all run together so I can't remember which one treats this topic specifically. I want to say Lost Kingdom by Serhii Plokhy, and I'm fairly confident Brothers Armed by the russian military think tank CAST actually covers it rather candidly too. If I can sort out the specific references I'll add to this comment.

Remember when the Entente drove the Imperial German army back to Berlin? Of course that didn't happen. Quite the opposite- they were occupying foreign territory. Russia had also made gains and nearly knocked out Austria-Hungary in the Brusilov offensive of 1916. But look what happened the next year.

​@@SpaghettiKozak do you realy believe that some foreign country will fight side by side with ukrainians against the country with NUCLEAR weapons?

Russia might have had some gains during the start, but just a year later(in 1915), they were already losing a lot of territory to Germany, while occupying a much smaller area of the Austrian-Hungarian territory. This is just my layman perception, sorry if I'm not getting something that is very obvious to a more knowledgeable person, but it seems to me that while in WW1 Russia started with an upper-hand and got more and more weak over time, in the Ukraine War Russia appears to be recovering from the mediocre results from the start and is now getting more and more strong. That last idea was at least what I understood from Spaniel's video: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/smd0iKWcmZ13mHU.html

Because the reality is most far-left politics are about being anti-American than any kind of actual values. Communism was so discredited after 1991 they could no longer really get any attention without glomming onto bigger, more nebulous populist movements, and that inevitably leads them into alliances with the far-right, or the adoption of reactionary politics because it sells better than Marxist theory.

@@SpaghettiKozak So does that mean that the ideologies of Marx are now doomed, or can far-left politics get rid of the pro-rusisan and irrational anti-american politics? I mean if anything, Russia and China would harm these causes more than the US can, if the two are allowed to do what they want. But thanks for the answer, it kind of sheds a light to this. Many thanks.

@@basilofgoodwishes4138 Ever heard of the World-systems theory? It's like an international scale version of marxism where the Western world is the oppressive and the Eastern world is the oppressed.

​@@Republica_Socialista_do_Brasil ahahahah, yeah, Russia and China are soooooo oppressed by the west that they too oppress their neighbours and indigenous people within their Borders, whatever makes you sleep at night 😂🤭

Так, розмовляю. Дякую.