Destiny joins the Hippy Dippy round-table hosted by Dylan Burns to debate the Ukraine vs Russia situation ft. Taftja, Adam Something, Pixelsmixel, Parker Sedgwick, Conspiracy Castle, Kevin Castley and Christian Watson...
My father is Georgian and my mother is Ukrainian and I live in Russia, listening 9 Americans talk about shit that’s going on here is just hilarious 😂 . At least destiny is somewhat correct
@@Gogofam123 my father is Russian but he is serving in a Ukrainian military. My mother Ukrainian, and I live in Ukraine. They are all wrong. The only one who is right is Dutch court on MH-17 case.
Bold move for the conspiracy guy to start his presentation with such a bold, non compromise attack on Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, both TV stars turned politicians just like "the Ukrainian guy".
I mean... that was obviously the joke, right? You can tell he's insincere about a lot of his positions. Certain points, you can see when he actually is sincere and it just makes the joke parts more obvious.
@@FaceJP24 There is no such thing as insincere meming. Everything he says he's fully advocating for, he's just extremely willing to "it's a joke breh! Don't actually hold me responsible for what i said!" as an excuse to drop it without getting dunked on after.
@@subnetplayer490 do you consider them separate and distinct entities even though their membership overlaps? Not sure why the need for that much distinction here.
@@pierredelecto7069 yes. Overlap doesn't mean they're the same. The Mujahideen was fighting in a totally different context and had different motivations than the taliban. Same situation with baathists who joined ISIS.
@@pierredelecto7069 after the fall of the mujahideen the leaders were pretty split with a majority supporting the northern alliance and some supporting the Taliban. You can't really consider the Taliban the successor of the mujahideen when half or more of it's leaders apposing them in a civil war no?
I love it when people have a cool answer like "we should use our diplomatic authority" but with 0 ideas what to do. Especially when someone adds that sanctions are allegedly immoral.
i know... he shifts the qualifiers for imperialism, brandished america following through on its promises as imperialistic and then used that labelling to suggest it's immoral and therefore should not be done. I was hoping to god someone would just bite the bullet and answer 'if this is how you want to define imperialism then i'm okay with america being imperialistic in this fashion'. God i wanted that to happen so badly
The conversation went from "what is the morally right thing to do" to "what would happen if we did x" except none of these people know enough history or general foreign negotiation strategy to be able to guess what would happen if we did x
Nah man, that chick bottom right? She's reincarnation of Sun Tzu. And the guy on middle top? This great mind holds the knowledge of 6 thousand years of philosophy, Kant and Nietzsche can't even hold a candle.
@@wiczus6102 Even Gaius Julius Ceasar, and Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest and most successfull generals of all times could debate with these genius and experts of warfare that is twitch debate streamers. We are truly fortunate to witness these genius explain this dire situation of imminent warfare to us
You really only need to listen to Adam Something. (Top left) It's so obvious that he's the most educated on the topic. That being conflicts in Europe. It does of course help, that he not only is European, he's *Eastern* European. Top Right is literally just trolling, not sure why he was brought on. Pixel had nothing to add either.
he's not though, he support Zelenskiy as a better president rather than Poroshenko, in spite of the fact that even before the Russian troop build up there has been more corruption that ever before in Ukraine, zero reforms and actual more Russian funded politicians, media and governance. It really personally reminds me of Yanukovich times. So, at least Poroshenko was pro-Ukrainian and moved the country forward in time of war and stood against negotiating with terrorists, as opposed to the clown that Adam Something supports. Bearded guy seemed more well-informed on the subject matter (Ukraine).
@@YouYubeEnjoyerNum1 you're trolling right? I voted for Poroshenko myself, but i can't deny the facts. He let Medvedchuk rise, he negotiated with terrorists through him for personal purposes. He still was pro-Ukrainian, that's good, but not a saint. Zelensky turned out to be not that bad as i thought. He fucked up more, than the previous one, but still not enough to label him as a russian puppet. We suffer from immense corruption, and both presidents participated in it, so i guess if we pretend that this is not an issue, and judge by everything else - they did somewhat the same, okayish job. No red lines crossed so far. For me it's a win.
@@gamerfront6090 I was talking about the fact that Poroshenko was the lesser of two evils, and that was evident even back in 2019. Poroshenko committed to reforms, anti-corruption structures (efficacy of which is can be debated) and overall integrity of Ukraine, whilst Zelensky downplays it and tries to negotiate with terrorist. There have been zero positive changes since he was elected. the freedom has only been suppressed more and political opponents have been silenced (the politically motivated criminal cases against Poroshenko, for example, which he has spoken PUBLICLY ABOUT, AS A PRESIDENT), and when Poroshenko was in power all Ukrainians saw positive changes at least in some areas (no visa requirements for EU travel, for instance). Zelensky still hasn't introduced Russian collaborators law ffs. Zelensky is undoubtedly worse and defo not pro-Ukrainian.
Okay so to sum up: Top left is actually informed Top middle is a Dunning-Kruger example Top right is an epic troll Destiny is generally fine but its clearly not his topic Middle right probably lacks the knowledge but is trying to tackle the topic so props Bottom left is definition of 'I didn't study but I'm going to wing my presentation anyway' Bottom middle actually knows what he's talking about and has a plan Bottom right no idea what her stance even is beyond 'do stuff to avoid war'
Probably half of these people couldn't point to Ukraine on a map just a few weeks ago, and take their knowledge purely from Wikipedia summaries and op-eds that they skimmed over in one afternoon.
You'd have a very high opinion of them of you think they actually read 1 Wikipedia article. All of their opinion are just half-baked regurgitated points from reddit...
A somebody who has followed the Ukrainian crisis since the Maidan on 2014, taftja's takes on this situation are truly infuriating and dangerously misinformed. Unfortunately Dylan's armchair debate disclaimer at the beginning was not sufficient to prepare me for her takes.
Yeah, I don't get the appeal. She's way to unimpressive to be that full of herself. Her takes range from garbage to nothing added but I see a bunch of people stanning her like she's dropping gems. Meh, to each there own I guess
That Conspiracy Castle bot has some really convincing Markov chains... I almost thought it was a real person there for a little bit. Technology is amazing these days.
@@MildChunkySalsa i think he's referring to the fact that the last 3 or 4 vids have been uploaded in the last 2 or 3 days compared to usual daily schedule
Gotta love shit shows like this, got a guy who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, someone who debates morals while being inconsistent, a literal 19 year old who thinks Crimea is a country and that there are no occupied areas of Ukraine. What a show.
Taftaj making the assumption that the war in the east would have resulted in a Soviet victory without western interference essentially would require the Soviets actually would have won that conflict without western military involvement and aid. It seems unlikely to be true given the massive amounts of manpower resources spent in North Africa that otherwise would have been able to be used against the Soviets. Another massive drain of resources was the Italian campaign which drained around 1.5 million axis soldiers that otherwise could have been used against the Soviet Union. There’s also the fact that the Soviet war industry could not have existed as it did in our timeline without lend-lease leading to less Soviet industry being capable of producing the weapons needed for Soviet military operations. Allied bombing of German industry and blockade of resources was also another critical factor that strangled German industry and resource production to ensure that they could not replace the materials they lost on the eastern front. The victory against the Nazis cannot be attributed to “the soviets,” or “the Americans,” or any one party. It was a multifaceted conflict where the contributions of the different nations are so interconnected in the final victory that to give anyone party even majority credit is at best a stretch.
Actually it appears she has done her research, i can tell she wanted to get into it but its kind of hard to on this "debate" panel format. So it appears she "lost" when in fact, she is the most correct one there. 1. Soviet victory in the east was greatly aided by the Allied powers having other fronts, and lend lease, but there is no hard evidence saying it won the war. There are well stated documents showing how much supplies (food/war material etc) was being used by the USSR that was foreign and it is miniscule, helpfull but not as important as you stated. 2. The Italian campaign only diverted about 200,000 men that were going to be used on the Eastern Front. The rest would have been as reserve and not have gone. They in truth could not send more to the Eastern front, the German logistics were so terrible they could not have even used them effectively. This is also well documented and this is before heavy allied bombing campaigns. They just did not possess the ability to arm and maintain more Axis soilders. (They had virtually nothing to even arm the Romanian and Italian allies to German standards that were already there) 3. The Germans were able to produce and replace a massive amount of material that was lost so much so they were producing MORE at the end of the war then they ever had actually with Allied bombing campaigns, sounds crazy i know but very true. It came down to what they lost, they lost there best soilders, most experienced veterans the best of the best were destroyed between 42-mid44, before we even landed in France. (Moscow, Stalingrad, Operation Saturn, Kurks, Bagration) All took place before we really made our contribution. Those were the defining years, the War was absolutely won by then. So the fact that the Germans were not able to defeat Russia in 41-42 actually was the reason why they lost, and those reasons as virtually all data can back up was that the USSR, virtually alone outright stopped the Germans and the push to Berlin ensued. It's hard to argue against our narrative here in the USA because its so ingrained in our minds, but in truth not only did the USSR contribute the VAST majority of the effort to defeat Germany, it appears they really did do it on there own. (Although our contribution absolutely saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives) that part is really the only part we can debate
@@UnclePhilly225 If she did her research she'd know that saying "what if the US didn't join the war" is about as insightful a question as "what if Hitler didn't invade Russia" given that a) Axis alliance existed b) FDR was already desperate to join the war c) Hitler was insane and likely would've declared war on the US on a whim eventually anyway.* Even if you grant the idea that things would go swell and the Soviets push back to Berlin no worries without any support and don't just sue for peace at some point, at that point you've granted all of Western Europe to the Soviets. Now it's incredibly hard for the US to justify involvement in Europe, since they didn't bother at all during occupation. So this idea that now you're fighting against a weaker USSR. Right, so 40M casualties rather than 25M is going to be all the difference? Are the additional casualties justifiable for some hypothetical geopolitical advantage? These WW2 counterfactuals are inane at the best of times, but to use one in the context of a contemporary discussion is just embarrassing. *in fact Hitler did declare war on the US for no reason!
The WW2 history knowledge here is incredibly weak. I'd avoid using that as an example when no one knows anything other than a Wikipedia page gloss over.
45:00 Destiny has very weak foreign policy takes. The consensus among historians in the field is that Germany lost WWII by the winter of 1941. Blitzkrieg does not work with long supply-lines. Pop history claims that the USSR only won because of human wave tactics and America, but you can't rely on what you learned 20 years ago in school or on the History Channel. The Soviet Union would have won no matter what by the time Hitler declared war on the US. I appreciate that Destiny admits he isn't good at history, but maybe he shouldn't have such opinionated foreign policy takes.
General George Marshall calculated that, without the Eastern Front, the U.S. would have had to double the soldiers it sent to the Western Front. Big, to be sure, but doable. We provided 1/3, the Soviets provided 2/3. That's not unreasonable.
@@chickenfeed6272 it completely was, because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming. Blitzkrieg worked incredibly well, but it wasn't designed for city siege, and they ran into serious issues when the major Russian cities didn't capitulate. I would disagree the Soviet Union would have won "no matter what" but given the hindsight we have, agree they would have won eventually with the tactics used. They simply out produced Germany, had more total resources, and did all their fighting on home soil. As long as their main cities held (and they did) they were going to win.
@@hemmydall "because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming." Okay? This happened in our timeline. Do you think the millions of young soldiers that were flung into Eastern Front would just disappear into thin air if Barbarossa never happened? No, obviously Hitler would have more troops, tanks, and aircraft in France to counter a potential invasion. Even if Hitler moved the bulk of his troops to the wrong beach in this counterfactual there would still be a significantly larger force of troops at every possible invasion point. Likely, the Allies wouldn't even bother trying.
This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They can only make sense of ideas out of context, cuz they know when you bring in context, their conspiracies suddenly fall apart.
Anyone else find it odd that everyone talked about obligations in their intro but noone brought up the Budapest Memoriam? Where the US France and UK garuteed ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile.
they forgot about it in 2014, why would they bring it up now. this one point actually replies what moral obligation US have to intervene. these panels are painful to watch from Ukraine.
@Wasserman That was a terrible move on the west at that time as well. I honestly think we wouldn't be talking much about Russian troops on the border now if either Obama then or Biden now would have said they would enforce them and sent a few divisions to Poland and Romaina to show it was a serious thing. The US has been very bad at deference in the last 20 years or so.
Read the Budapest Memorandum and understand what it is, and you will understand why no one talks about it (hint: it's a worthless piece of paper acknowledging Soviet nukes controlled from Moscow being moved over to Russian Federation from Ukraine Republic and Kazakhstan Republic in order to prevent any nuclear disasters).
Whatever the relationship between western countries and Russia is now and has ever been, it is absolutely imperative to understand and remember that the WW2 was won by alliance. Not just one country.
@@cameronpatterson130 The USSR faces only one front and struggled to defend its territory. The USSR would have never reached Berlin without the Allies.
It´s a shame that the situation in the Baltic has not been brought up by anyone on the panel as I think it´s one more argument in favour of the idea that Russia might not "stop" at taking just parts of Ukraine.
people are delusional if they think that Russia would simply hand over Sevastopol when it's their main naval base giving them access to the seas south of the country instead of going north only. Personally I'd be in favour of handing over Sevastopol to Russia including a border re-evaluation to secure peace as I doubt they want the country, just the military base to ensure they have the same theatre access long term.
i understand why destiny lost interest in these kind of panels. he seems to be more energetic and snappy, when theirs less people. people take forever to respond to one point, then ramble on about other stuff when theyre making that point lol.
These shows aren’t conducive to productive, serious discussion with meaningful engagement. Everyone is eager beaver to get in their points when talking at the others, and people stop listening soon as they find a word used in a disagreeable way, latching on, and launching into the next vacuous attempt at superficially engaging. They do, however provide great entertainment potential when you’ve got one or more wildcards in the mix
The conspiracy guys argument in the beginning that Ukraine doesn’t take politics serious because their official was an actor and all that. When we had Ronald Reagan And Donald Trump as our president makes his argument so invalid
suggestion to the editor: either get rid of the weird zoom in on the left side, making the gameplay unwatchable, or get rid of gameplay altogether, just using the video of the debaters.
I think Taftaj's "wait and see"-argument and comparison to WWII is really weird. Letting Russia & Germany fight for longer so that that Soviet Union would have been weaker during the Cold War? Yeah, letting the Holocaust continue until complete, leaving Europe even more of a bombed out wasteland than it already was post-war, leaving the few un-invaded countries to be invaded, giving Germany enough time to devlope nukes before soing anything? How is this likely alternate history a ponit for her argument?
Destiny's knowledge about WW2 was really disappointing. I had to question everything he said because of his flawed understanding of geopolitical history of (Eastern-)European region.
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't NATO (Mainly US and UK) and the Russian Federation in the 1994 nuclear proliferation treaty agree to a promise to maintain Ukrainian security and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal? If we close our eyes and turn away from Ukraine after making these promises, then it's going to be a rush for different countries to build and maintain nuclear arsenals since this sets precedent for the US not backing their promises.
It's cringe listening to Americans overstate their involvement in WWII. Germany was heavily over extended and on the verge of losing the war well before the US invaded.
@@aidan883 Canada was an ocean away and gave plenty of support and troops, during the entire war. I'm not saying the US didn't have an impact but when they act like they're the sole reason Japan conceded or that Germany fell because of them, it's incredibly grating.
Germany was absolutely not going to fall before the U.S invaded. There’s a big difference between a slow death and immediate conquering, neither the Soviets nor the U.S could’ve gotten the end date that they did for WW2 without one another. If we went with Taftaj’s absolutely immoral solution, the war would have lasted much longer, because although lend-lease was good, Germany’s projected end only came with Allied involvement+Soviet involvement. And guess what a longer WW2 means?
@@yorhahoudini4531 Death is death. Just because it might have taken longer doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying the US had no impact, it's just not the huge impact Americans seem to think it was.
Also, Russia had already pressed out of Russia and into German-controlled territories long before America landed troops on D-day. America did not save Europe, Russia did.
@@evaahh9584 It doesnt really matter how much of europe it had when there is a sea in the way filled with the strongest navy in the world with little to no air cover.
@@jimmyd1337 yes, but land = resources and resources (with enough time) = more ships. They could maybe get Spain and Italy on side and now it’s Europe vs Britain. Britain would lose.
@@evaahh9584 No, because they also failed in Russia. They could not fight a war without the resources holding russia would of brought. Did you not know Italy was one of the Axis powers? Italy was onside at he beginning of the war already and was a dismall failure. They surrended and Germany took there ships anyway. Only the right land actually means resources. Which is one of the reasons why the Germans main ambitions was East
Just discovered this channel and this discussion is super interesting for someone learning more about politics, history and current political ongoings.
"The most important things in this war are the machines...The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war" - Stalin "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war...One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war" - Nikita Khrushchev
@@aidan883 i understand, however, there is a general consensus in the academic and military academic field that, while Americas military involvement did help shorten the war, they were not key in winning it. Ofcourse, there is no way to know for sure.
What Taftaj said about allowing the Nazis and Soviets to tire themselves out in protracted fighting is chilling for me, as the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. Had that happened, I think Germany would have pretty much completed their final solution. I know for a fact my grandparents' community, the Jews of Hungary, would have been completely wiped out.
Didn't taftaj describe what happened in real world, Germany broke in Russia, lost the war over oil in Africa. Their complete defeat was inevitable and Russia was growing stronger and stronger to the point that allies were afraid to pick a fight with them after the Berlin fell. If USA didn't intervene as soon as they did Europe would swap their German overlords for Russian overlords
As an European, i agree. They are so confident (and wrong) when talking about the rest of the world, especially on distant cultures. It's just too funny
[extremely God voice] 🗿ctv out. Once again Chat’s True Victor snatches all shine at the end of a panel show where he wasn’t even featured, leaving the other participants in an existential crisis 🏆
To say any one nation defeated Germany is just stupid. The based take is that the Soviets were the most vital and sacrificed the most in defeating Germany. Russia already turned around the Eastern Front before any lend lease. All the Allies were important in the war effort and played their own roles in the effort. Russia was simply the biggest player. However this panel saying USA was vital to defeating Germany is pretty extreme.
Why are people so uninformed yet want to chat about it? There isn't a bunch of Irish fishing boats out protesting the wargames. It's actually much more significant than that. Irish fishermen advised they would peacefully protest the wargames by fishing in the area, they then secured a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and secured agreement from him (pending Moscow approval) that they would enforce a 70-80km exclusion zone around Ireland's fishing waters. Edit: And they just secured approval from Moscow. That is huge!
The guy with the beard and the Hungarian dude were the only ones who were worth listening to even though no one really was tbh and I quit 40mins in. To be fair they did have a disclaimer but still ouch lol
@@cameronpatterson130 "Sanctions are an act of war " Objectively false. "cause regular working people to suffer" Good thing we can have an actual war as an alternative, nobody suffers with that. Oh wait a number of ukrainians has already died because of russian support of separatist groups, with others suffering due to the economic consequences. Oops!
This guy saved this from being a snoozer. The Hungarian guy was pretty fucking smart and brought things close to home, but everyone else agreed but squabbled over "war is bad"
Um, hello, I’m a liberal warhawk. I make fun of people for the “war bad” meme. Just cuz I don’t want to invade Russia doesn’t mean I’m not a hawk. Watch my debates on Iran and North Korea
48:39 "My point is" why not let people kill each other, let our allies be killed ... (and then we can rule over them... smile) I hope you never get to wield any sort of power, make decisions that effect other people, because this sounds like what a horrible person would suggest. Hopefully she does't apply this kind of thinking in her personal life, because who needs enemies when you have friends like this?
So, about why the US joined the war in Europe. It was mostly at the behest of the UK which had been brutally struggling for years at this point. Stalin said he needed help mostly because he wanted the US and UK to weaken themselves while diverting Germans from the east so the USSR could keep more resources for after the war. This was because Stalin was an absolutely paranoid psycho and was convinced the UK and US would try to destroy him after the war. When the Normandy landings happened, the USSR was already pushing the Germans back and had a lot of momentum with an industry that began to truly dwarf the Germans. At this point the UK and US were more concerned with stopping Russia from pushing too far. It was a race to Berlin. This kind of geopolitical doctrine also influenced the use of nuclear bombs against Japan. It demonstrated their power and the potential of the US to produce multiple such bombs. It also was supposed to help end the war faster to avoid Russia engulfing the CCP and becoming such a behemoth of manpower and industry that even with nukes it would be doubtful they could be resisted. The current situation is really very different from when the US joined ww2. It's more similar to when Germany invaded Poland.
Russians get buzzed by the RAF when they operate in British naval space, so they go to the Irish naval space and show off their amazing tech from 1985. Habitual line steppers... If you play with feathers, you get your arse tickled. Cut up their swift card. Duels overrrrrrrr O-O.
As a german the whole point from taftaj let germany and russia fight it out and just came in the end is literally what happened we all know whos flag was on top of the reichstag at the end wtf is she smoking . Such a disturbing view of history and fantasy versions of it .
i like when they state an opinion as a fact then get the slightest pushback and totally retract it immediately. none of these sketches have done any legitimate analysis on anything they spoke about.
Adam had the best understanding of the topic which is no surprise. The American conspiracy guy was pure comedy and no substance and the libertarian 'no intervention' guy sounded so America-centric it was hard to listen. Destiny isn't well read on this topic but at least he stayed a bit humble and Kevin was coincidentally correct.
How does no one in this conversation know the difference between Russia invading NATO countries and non-NATO countries? Or places like Crimea where it was not an invasion but a referendum to join Russia? literally no one knows anything about the situation. what a stupid conversation
Because these are the same people who wanted to invaded Iraq for 9/11 (???) and Weapons of Mass Destruction which were proven to be a lie and now post rationalize it as proactive foreign policy while even that doesn't make sense as it didn't achieve any of their fictional foreign policy goals (where is USA now in ME? Worse off than it was with Saddam under their paycheck), and then wanted to invade Syria for Assad Gassing his people which was proven a lie too. It's superficial moral grandstanding used on the public as casus belli for the public while the actual geopoltiical reasons are strategic security and economic motivations that are boring, intricate, and at times seem callous/insidious/counter productive due to the complexity of it all - your country planning all this crap while taking into account all the other countries planning their own crap, it's not something that can be condensed to a few moral feel good talking points.
Destiny joins the Hippy Dippy round-table hosted by Dylan Burns to debate the Ukraine vs Russia situation ft. Taftja, Adam Something, Pixelsmixel, Parker Sedgwick, Conspiracy Castle, Kevin Castley and Christian Watson...
What’s the song in the intro?
My father is Georgian and my mother is Ukrainian and I live in Russia, listening 9 Americans talk about shit that’s going on here is just hilarious 😂 . At least destiny is somewhat correct
@@Gogofam123 my father is Russian but he is serving in a Ukrainian military. My mother Ukrainian, and I live in Ukraine. They are all wrong. The only one who is right is Dutch court on MH-17 case.
i want to be able to see the fucking rust gameplay august REE
@@Baltasarmk howar e they wrong?
The libertarian guy is the embodiment of "Im writing a 2,000 word essay but only have 120 words of content"
there are far better libertarians they could have gotten on
"Russia would steamroll Ukraine in a matter of days" that one didn't age quite so well
Nope
@@kais.1684 yes
Bold move for the conspiracy guy to start his presentation with such a bold, non compromise attack on Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, both TV stars turned politicians just like "the Ukrainian guy".
I was thinking the exact same shit.
Exactly
At least Vladomir Zelensky played the role of a president in his TV show. More experience than Trump.
I mean... that was obviously the joke, right? You can tell he's insincere about a lot of his positions. Certain points, you can see when he actually is sincere and it just makes the joke parts more obvious.
@@FaceJP24 There is no such thing as insincere meming. Everything he says he's fully advocating for, he's just extremely willing to "it's a joke breh! Don't actually hold me responsible for what i said!" as an excuse to drop it without getting dunked on after.
"russia is in nato"
"the taliban are the mujahideen"
"im based in reality!"
i love this guy
Mohammed Omar, founders of the Taliban, was in fact in the mujahideen, as was most of the early members.
Russia in NATO? That's silly.
@@subnetplayer490 do you consider them separate and distinct entities even though their membership overlaps? Not sure why the need for that much distinction here.
@@pierredelecto7069 yes. Overlap doesn't mean they're the same. The Mujahideen was fighting in a totally different context and had different motivations than the taliban. Same situation with baathists who joined ISIS.
@@pierredelecto7069 after the fall of the mujahideen the leaders were pretty split with a majority supporting the northern alliance and some supporting the Taliban. You can't really consider the Taliban the successor of the mujahideen when half or more of it's leaders apposing them in a civil war no?
@@pierredelecto7069 Person was part of group X and group Y, therefore group X and group Y are the same thing? That's not a good argument.
I'm learning so much from these Oxford debaters!
Hunter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
stay awesome brodi.
Lol thats hilarious coming from you. The biggest online grifter speaking with such conviction and ego on topics .
@@AspiringSpaceWizard Lmao, relax dude.
@@AspiringSpaceWizard ye stop speaking with conviction, unconfidence is hip
@@AspiringSpaceWizard can you provide any example of him grifting?
This is the first Dylan panel that rivals a Prime panel in it's absolute lunacy.
The first?
u missed the huke debate?
If you're ever worried about not making it as a streamer or debater, remember Conspiracy Castle exists
His name is Alex Stein
I love it when people have a cool answer like "we should use our diplomatic authority" but with 0 ideas what to do. Especially when someone adds that sanctions are allegedly immoral.
Diplomatic authority AKA "X is deeply concerned"
Ironically enough, sanctions are a textbook example of a diplomatic solution. I have no idea what that guy imagines under 'using diplomacy'.
What you described is Kevin Castley 101 😂
i know... he shifts the qualifiers for imperialism, brandished america following through on its promises as imperialistic and then used that labelling to suggest it's immoral and therefore should not be done. I was hoping to god someone would just bite the bullet and answer 'if this is how you want to define imperialism then i'm okay with america being imperialistic in this fashion'. God i wanted that to happen so badly
Adam Something basically nailed it straight away. The debate could have ended there
Truly..
With others I felt dumb about myself, that I even listen to it and I'm excluding the conspiracy troll, who was kind of funny.
Top left guy BASED
Based Hungarian
I'm not sure I've ever heard a bad or uninformed take come out of Adam Something's mouth.
@@ANunes06 he says a lof of internet left things, I like most of his stuff, but he is often far too left in my opinion
The conversation went from "what is the morally right thing to do" to "what would happen if we did x" except none of these people know enough history or general foreign negotiation strategy to be able to guess what would happen if we did x
Adam Something knew his shit.
Nah man, that chick bottom right? She's reincarnation of Sun Tzu. And the guy on middle top? This great mind holds the knowledge of 6 thousand years of philosophy, Kant and Nietzsche can't even hold a candle.
@@wiczus6102 Even Gaius Julius Ceasar, and Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest and most successfull generals of all times could debate with these genius and experts of warfare that is twitch debate streamers. We are truly fortunate to witness these genius explain this dire situation of imminent warfare to us
Whoever invited Alex Stein knew he was a troll and wanted to troll the whole panel lol I think it was Dylan, he was laughing
Pure comedy.
Dudes a meme in a suit
👀
The dude was a full motion filibuster
I like Dylan but sometimes he takes way too much liberties with the people he invites to his panels for the sake of entertainment.
"Eastern Europe is a joke , they elected a COMIDIAN" Says the guy from TrumpLand.
Ahahah for real
Don't forget grandpa dementia da walking sexual harassment....
Fr tho people praise democracy but when a comedian makes it in to power, they're ridiculed
And who considers Eastern Europe as a country XD
At least Zelensky actually tries...
You really only need to listen to Adam Something. (Top left)
It's so obvious that he's the most educated on the topic.
That being conflicts in Europe.
It does of course help, that he not only is European, he's *Eastern* European.
Top Right is literally just trolling, not sure why he was brought on. Pixel had nothing to add either.
He's still a post-Kadarist leftover piece of shit though, so it's better to be careful with accepting his views on EE matters.
@@charleynewman5057 a commie. Google Janos Kadar.
he's not though, he support Zelenskiy as a better president rather than Poroshenko, in spite of the fact that even before the Russian troop build up there has been more corruption that ever before in Ukraine, zero reforms and actual more Russian funded politicians, media and governance. It really personally reminds me of Yanukovich times. So, at least Poroshenko was pro-Ukrainian and moved the country forward in time of war and stood against negotiating with terrorists, as opposed to the clown that Adam Something supports. Bearded guy seemed more well-informed on the subject matter (Ukraine).
@@YouYubeEnjoyerNum1 you're trolling right? I voted for Poroshenko myself, but i can't deny the facts. He let Medvedchuk rise, he negotiated with terrorists through him for personal purposes. He still was pro-Ukrainian, that's good, but not a saint.
Zelensky turned out to be not that bad as i thought. He fucked up more, than the previous one, but still not enough to label him as a russian puppet.
We suffer from immense corruption, and both presidents participated in it, so i guess if we pretend that this is not an issue, and judge by everything else - they did somewhat the same, okayish job. No red lines crossed so far. For me it's a win.
@@gamerfront6090 I was talking about the fact that Poroshenko was the lesser of two evils, and that was evident even back in 2019. Poroshenko committed to reforms, anti-corruption structures (efficacy of which is can be debated) and overall integrity of Ukraine, whilst Zelensky downplays it and tries to negotiate with terrorist. There have been zero positive changes since he was elected. the freedom has only been suppressed more and political opponents have been silenced (the politically motivated criminal cases against Poroshenko, for example, which he has spoken PUBLICLY ABOUT, AS A PRESIDENT), and when Poroshenko was in power all Ukrainians saw positive changes at least in some areas (no visa requirements for EU travel, for instance). Zelensky still hasn't introduced Russian collaborators law ffs. Zelensky is undoubtedly worse and defo not pro-Ukrainian.
Lol this entire debate was comedy gold. I swear that Conspiracy Castle guy had to be trolling. He stole the show.
Actual schizoposting
th-cam.com/video/3g8YXWFJjoU/w-d-xo.html the guy is amazing
@@thekycklingwizard78 yea and no. operation northwoods isn't some made up thing.
If we don't have hake here to say stupid insane shit we need a backup
Hes a great troll. He's friends w Cassady cambell
Okay so to sum up:
Top left is actually informed
Top middle is a Dunning-Kruger example
Top right is an epic troll
Destiny is generally fine but its clearly not his topic
Middle right probably lacks the knowledge but is trying to tackle the topic so props
Bottom left is definition of 'I didn't study but I'm going to wing my presentation anyway'
Bottom middle actually knows what he's talking about and has a plan
Bottom right no idea what her stance even is beyond 'do stuff to avoid war'
Bottom right = fanatic pacifist meme insert
That Adam guy seemed to be the only one who had a strong informed view
Probably half of these people couldn't point to Ukraine on a map just a few weeks ago, and take their knowledge purely from Wikipedia summaries and op-eds that they skimmed over in one afternoon.
Exactly no one has cared for the last 7 years of Russian proxy war but now because it’s in the news everyone thinks their an expert.
@@deltazy7738 just like everything else that pops up
I doubt they even did that lmao seems like too much work
You'd have a very high opinion of them of you think they actually read 1 Wikipedia article. All of their opinion are just half-baked regurgitated points from reddit...
Hey don't diss Wikipedia, it's a great website for research actually.
A somebody who has followed the Ukrainian crisis since the Maidan on 2014, taftja's takes on this situation are truly infuriating and dangerously misinformed. Unfortunately Dylan's armchair debate disclaimer at the beginning was not sufficient to prepare me for her takes.
Yes, very disappointed she didn't get more pushback. Absolutely inane
Long live the Euro Maidan! Glory to Ukraine!
The worst thing about the Iraq war was isolationism
Yeah, I don't get the appeal. She's way to unimpressive to be that full of herself. Her takes range from garbage to nothing added but I see a bunch of people stanning her like she's dropping gems. Meh, to each there own I guess
@@williamthebonquerer9181 Isolationists opposed the Iraq War though
That Conspiracy Castle bot has some really convincing Markov chains... I almost thought it was a real person there for a little bit. Technology is amazing these days.
He's actually a deepfake trained on a mix of Ethan Ralph and Nick Fuentes footage.
@@SlurMaster9000 don’t forget alex Jones screeds
When the dude tried saying Russia was in NATO I bursted laughing
The conspiracy guy has to be an AI created to regurgitate political youtube buzzwords.
WTF!? Go to bed August. Seriously man, you do an amazing job with the channel, get some rest my dude, you deserve it.
august doesn't have a bed inside destiny's walls. thats impossible.
he’s Australian dude, different time zones
wtf is this comment
@@MildChunkySalsa i think he's referring to the fact that the last 3 or 4 vids have been uploaded in the last 2 or 3 days compared to usual daily schedule
@@eben7248 probably scheduled uploads coupled with editing being more straightforward maybe. Idk maybe I could ask August in d.gg
It's hilarious hearing "the Russian army would steamroll Ukraine, right?" with June 2023 hindsight lulw
Even funnier now, as Ukraine controls Kursk.
Gotta love shit shows like this, got a guy who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, someone who debates morals while being inconsistent, a literal 19 year old who thinks Crimea is a country and that there are no occupied areas of Ukraine.
What a show.
This was my first exposure to Destiny. Been down the rabbit hole ever since
Alex Stein unironically thought Russia was a member of NATO! Lmao.
I often disagree with you, but I completely agree that we need to be 100% behind Ukraine to prevent Russian encroachment. Big ups!
@@johnfarley7074 Thanks, Joe! You’re welcome to debate me on anything you disagree with me on
Taftaj making the assumption that the war in the east would have resulted in a Soviet victory without western interference essentially would require the Soviets actually would have won that conflict without western military involvement and aid. It seems unlikely to be true given the massive amounts of manpower resources spent in North Africa that otherwise would have been able to be used against the Soviets. Another massive drain of resources was the Italian campaign which drained around 1.5 million axis soldiers that otherwise could have been used against the Soviet Union.
There’s also the fact that the Soviet war industry could not have existed as it did in our timeline without lend-lease leading to less Soviet industry being capable of producing the weapons needed for Soviet military operations. Allied bombing of German industry and blockade of resources was also another critical factor that strangled German industry and resource production to ensure that they could not replace the materials they lost on the eastern front.
The victory against the Nazis cannot be attributed to “the soviets,” or “the Americans,” or any one party. It was a multifaceted conflict where the contributions of the different nations are so interconnected in the final victory that to give anyone party even majority credit is at best a stretch.
Actually it appears she has done her research, i can tell she wanted to get into it but its kind of hard to on this "debate" panel format. So it appears she "lost" when in fact, she is the most correct one there.
1. Soviet victory in the east was greatly aided by the Allied powers having other fronts, and lend lease, but there is no hard evidence saying it won the war. There are well stated documents showing how much supplies (food/war material etc) was being used by the USSR that was foreign and it is miniscule, helpfull but not as important as you stated.
2. The Italian campaign only diverted about 200,000 men that were going to be used on the Eastern Front. The rest would have been as reserve and not have gone. They in truth could not send more to the Eastern front, the German logistics were so terrible they could not have even used them effectively. This is also well documented and this is before heavy allied bombing campaigns. They just did not possess the ability to arm and maintain more Axis soilders. (They had virtually nothing to even arm the Romanian and Italian allies to German standards that were already there)
3. The Germans were able to produce and replace a massive amount of material that was lost so much so they were producing MORE at the end of the war then they ever had actually with Allied bombing campaigns, sounds crazy i know but very true. It came down to what they lost, they lost there best soilders, most experienced veterans the best of the best were destroyed between 42-mid44, before we even landed in France. (Moscow, Stalingrad, Operation Saturn, Kurks, Bagration) All took place before we really made our contribution. Those were the defining years, the War was absolutely won by then.
So the fact that the Germans were not able to defeat Russia in 41-42 actually was the reason why they lost, and those reasons as virtually all data can back up was that the USSR, virtually alone outright stopped the Germans and the push to Berlin ensued.
It's hard to argue against our narrative here in the USA because its so ingrained in our minds, but in truth not only did the USSR contribute the VAST majority of the effort to defeat Germany, it appears they really did do it on there own. (Although our contribution absolutely saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives) that part is really the only part we can debate
@@MichealWalls geh
@@UnclePhilly225 If she did her research she'd know that saying "what if the US didn't join the war" is about as insightful a question as "what if Hitler didn't invade Russia" given that a) Axis alliance existed b) FDR was already desperate to join the war c) Hitler was insane and likely would've declared war on the US on a whim eventually anyway.*
Even if you grant the idea that things would go swell and the Soviets push back to Berlin no worries without any support and don't just sue for peace at some point, at that point you've granted all of Western Europe to the Soviets. Now it's incredibly hard for the US to justify involvement in Europe, since they didn't bother at all during occupation. So this idea that now you're fighting against a weaker USSR. Right, so 40M casualties rather than 25M is going to be all the difference? Are the additional casualties justifiable for some hypothetical geopolitical advantage?
These WW2 counterfactuals are inane at the best of times, but to use one in the context of a contemporary discussion is just embarrassing.
*in fact Hitler did declare war on the US for no reason!
The WW2 history knowledge here is incredibly weak. I'd avoid using that as an example when no one knows anything other than a Wikipedia page gloss over.
welcome to the weird and wonderful world of twitch debate panels
Destiny DREAMS of the day he can put a LIVE panel on 4x Speed LOL
38:22 dude literally starts bouncing while yelling and no one can hear him. Amazing meme potential 10/10
Boomer energy
It was fake and cringe as fuck.
45:00 Destiny has very weak foreign policy takes. The consensus among historians in the field is that Germany lost WWII by the winter of 1941. Blitzkrieg does not work with long supply-lines. Pop history claims that the USSR only won because of human wave tactics and America, but you can't rely on what you learned 20 years ago in school or on the History Channel. The Soviet Union would have won no matter what by the time Hitler declared war on the US. I appreciate that Destiny admits he isn't good at history, but maybe he shouldn't have such opinionated foreign policy takes.
General George Marshall calculated that, without the Eastern Front, the U.S. would have had to double the soldiers it sent to the Western Front. Big, to be sure, but doable. We provided 1/3, the Soviets provided 2/3. That's not unreasonable.
(I'm leaving out Britain. Sorry.)
@@Nikifuj908 Sure, although I don't think D-Day was ever possible without the Eastern Front.
@@chickenfeed6272 it completely was, because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming.
Blitzkrieg worked incredibly well, but it wasn't designed for city siege, and they ran into serious issues when the major Russian cities didn't capitulate. I would disagree the Soviet Union would have won "no matter what" but given the hindsight we have, agree they would have won eventually with the tactics used. They simply out produced Germany, had more total resources, and did all their fighting on home soil. As long as their main cities held (and they did) they were going to win.
@@hemmydall "because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming."
Okay? This happened in our timeline. Do you think the millions of young soldiers that were flung into Eastern Front would just disappear into thin air if Barbarossa never happened? No, obviously Hitler would have more troops, tanks, and aircraft in France to counter a potential invasion. Even if Hitler moved the bulk of his troops to the wrong beach in this counterfactual there would still be a significantly larger force of troops at every possible invasion point. Likely, the Allies wouldn't even bother trying.
This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They can only make sense of ideas out of context, cuz they know when you bring in context, their conspiracies suddenly fall apart.
Sheltered overpaid streamers who leave their house once a week are the exact people we need discussing geopolitical issues.
Discussion should always happen regardless of who's doing it.
It's always fun when Kevin actually talks.
Yeah his voice, the way he talks, He's always composed and well educated on the subjects he discusses. I like him.
He's super pro american interventionism tho.
@@Kittylover074 American interventionism is based.
Smooth destiny. Egging the crazy guy on by saying the smart guy said something he didn’t. Someone sure loves the chaos.
Anyone else find it odd that everyone talked about obligations in their intro but noone brought up the Budapest Memoriam? Where the US France and UK garuteed ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile.
they forgot about it in 2014, why would they bring it up now. this one point actually replies what moral obligation US have to intervene. these panels are painful to watch from Ukraine.
@Wasserman That was a terrible move on the west at that time as well. I honestly think we wouldn't be talking much about Russian troops on the border now if either Obama then or Biden now would have said they would enforce them and sent a few divisions to Poland and Romaina to show it was a serious thing. The US has been very bad at deference in the last 20 years or so.
Budapest Memorandum, but yes.
Read the Budapest Memorandum and understand what it is, and you will understand why no one talks about it (hint: it's a worthless piece of paper acknowledging Soviet nukes controlled from Moscow being moved over to Russian Federation from Ukraine Republic and Kazakhstan Republic in order to prevent any nuclear disasters).
Whatever the relationship between western countries and Russia is now and has ever been, it is absolutely imperative to understand and remember that the WW2 was won by alliance. Not just one country.
Pixel actually has some very based takes when it comes to geopolitics.
@@MaryGraceRu wasn't pixel the one who said an nft joke and then "gave context" and then nothing else? I don't think she even gave an opinion
It was won by the USSR
@@saulmendez2276 big if true
@@cameronpatterson130 The USSR faces only one front and struggled to defend its territory. The USSR would have never reached Berlin without the Allies.
it’s amazing how quickly i knew to disregard everything the guy in the suit said once he started talking
It´s a shame that the situation in the Baltic has not been brought up by anyone on the panel as I think it´s one more argument in favour of the idea that Russia might not "stop" at taking just parts of Ukraine.
people are delusional if they think that Russia would simply hand over Sevastopol when it's their main naval base giving them access to the seas south of the country instead of going north only. Personally I'd be in favour of handing over Sevastopol to Russia including a border re-evaluation to secure peace as I doubt they want the country, just the military base to ensure they have the same theatre access long term.
What situation in Baltics? Baltics are part of NATO and EU, the fuck do you want from Russia other than bitching at it constantly?
i understand why destiny lost interest in these kind of panels.
he seems to be more energetic and snappy, when theirs less people.
people take forever to respond to one point, then ramble on about other stuff when theyre making that point lol.
These shows aren’t conducive to productive, serious discussion with meaningful engagement. Everyone is eager beaver to get in their points when talking at the others, and people stop listening soon as they find a word used in a disagreeable way, latching on, and launching into the next vacuous attempt at superficially engaging.
They do, however provide great entertainment potential when you’ve got one or more wildcards in the mix
I’ve never been so early to a video. I’m glad my sleep schedule is fucked
Smaller panel would be better.
I do like the multinational povs. EU, US, Aussie is very interesting.
Why no Russians and Ukrainians on the panel? They could have found somebody on Reddit with a webcam and an opinion...
46:30 Now imagine a woke military, with mandatory DEI promotions, putting people like THIS in positions of power, making decisions.
"Let's make Ukraine an NFT" omg that was gold.
The only logical solution made in this whole debate
Who tought bringing tinfoil hat Saul Goodman on was a good idea
Operation northwoods isn't a conspiracy theory
What a turnaround on the content. Man's working overtime on his overtime
Panel: So... should we help Ukraine?
Destiny: Hitting rock on a rusted washing machine.
The guy in the pink tie is fkn hilarious 😂
Is the middle right guy the dude from the jubille teen liberals vs conservative parents video?
The conspiracy guys argument in the beginning that Ukraine doesn’t take politics serious because their official was an actor and all that. When we had Ronald Reagan And Donald Trump as our president makes his argument so invalid
Dude was talking out both side of his mouth the whole time, that and misunderstanding others statements to strawman them.
suggestion to the editor: either get rid of the weird zoom in on the left side, making the gameplay unwatchable, or get rid of gameplay altogether, just using the video of the debaters.
I think Taftaj's "wait and see"-argument and comparison to WWII is really weird. Letting Russia & Germany fight for longer so that that Soviet Union would have been weaker during the Cold War? Yeah, letting the Holocaust continue until complete, leaving Europe even more of a bombed out wasteland than it already was post-war, leaving the few un-invaded countries to be invaded, giving Germany enough time to devlope nukes before soing anything? How is this likely alternate history a ponit for her argument?
She's either delusional and narcissistic or was put on the spot and told to talk against Ukraine. Her arguments are absolute dogshit.
Destiny's knowledge about WW2 was really disappointing. I had to question everything he said because of his flawed understanding of geopolitical history of (Eastern-)European region.
I saw this live, but I want to watch the video at 2X speed.
17:22 this statement did not age well at ALL.
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't NATO (Mainly US and UK) and the Russian Federation in the 1994 nuclear proliferation treaty agree to a promise to maintain Ukrainian security and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal? If we close our eyes and turn away from Ukraine after making these promises, then it's going to be a rush for different countries to build and maintain nuclear arsenals since this sets precedent for the US not backing their promises.
war started in 2014. US, UK and France ALREADY turned away back then and didn't do anything.
This dude sounds like GTA radio debate show host.
It's cringe listening to Americans overstate their involvement in WWII. Germany was heavily over extended and on the verge of losing the war well before the US invaded.
The Americans funded the USSR and the uk before they even joined
@@aidan883 Canada was an ocean away and gave plenty of support and troops, during the entire war. I'm not saying the US didn't have an impact but when they act like they're the sole reason Japan conceded or that Germany fell because of them, it's incredibly grating.
Germany was absolutely not going to fall before the U.S invaded. There’s a big difference between a slow death and immediate conquering, neither the Soviets nor the U.S could’ve gotten the end date that they did for WW2 without one another.
If we went with Taftaj’s absolutely immoral solution, the war would have lasted much longer, because although lend-lease was good, Germany’s projected end only came with Allied involvement+Soviet involvement.
And guess what a longer WW2 means?
@@yorhahoudini4531 Death is death. Just because it might have taken longer doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying the US had no impact, it's just not the huge impact Americans seem to think it was.
@@yorhahoudini4531 the US wasn't that big of a player UK and ussr were the main players in defeating Germany
Also, Russia had already pressed out of Russia and into German-controlled territories long before America landed troops on D-day. America did not save Europe, Russia did.
This guy is actually delusional.
I'm not sure which panelist your comment is towards, but I completely agree.
True
I recommend y’all play Dylan’s TH-cam video in another tab, cause he appreciates the views for putting up with this shit 🦀🦀🦀
"You cant wait while enemies are nearby" -Nato's signup policy
Does top left (Adam Something) have a twitch account?
Germany could not of invaded the British mainland. One, because they lost the Battle of Britain. Two, because of the Royal Navy.
If nazi Germany had had time to stabilise itself they probably could’ve. They had such a huge portion of Europe by that point
@@evaahh9584 It doesnt really matter how much of europe it had when there is a sea in the way filled with the strongest navy in the world with little to no air cover.
@@jimmyd1337 yes, but land = resources and resources (with enough time) = more ships. They could maybe get Spain and Italy on side and now it’s Europe vs Britain. Britain would lose.
@@evaahh9584 No, because they also failed in Russia. They could not fight a war without the resources holding russia would of brought. Did you not know Italy was one of the Axis powers? Italy was onside at he beginning of the war already and was a dismall failure. They surrended and Germany took there ships anyway. Only the right land actually means resources. Which is one of the reasons why the Germans main ambitions was East
Just discovered this channel and this discussion is super interesting for someone learning more about politics, history and current political ongoings.
Just wait until you delve into the methstiny or vaushtiny lore
Same but ended up staying for blood sports
Imagine being Ukrainian coming here to listen, yea it’s me,imagine being me:)
Ukraine is based
51:30 and "they are in the UN to be fair"
I almost died of laughter
Everyone else: We should obviously help our ally’s, it just depends on what capacity
Conspiracy guy: SLEEPY JOE! MEXICO BORDER! *T E L E V I S I O N*
Help with what lol? Envading Russia?
I thought a Conservatarian was someone who lives solely on a diet on Conservatives. Feel free to groan and roll your eyes.
Nice disclaimer by dylan at the start. People are quick to forget that fact.
The chad conspiracy theorist versus virgin debaters
In general, Germany was already on it's way to losing the war when USA entered, but USA helped in shortening the duration.
"The most important things in this war are the machines...The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war" - Stalin
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war...One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war" - Nikita Khrushchev
@@masonrussell579 im talking specificlly about the USA entering the war with their military, not lend lease och there manufacturing.
@@aidan883 i understand, however, there is a general consensus in the academic and military academic field that, while Americas military involvement did help shorten the war, they were not key in winning it. Ofcourse, there is no way to know for sure.
What Taftaj said about allowing the Nazis and Soviets to tire themselves out in protracted fighting is chilling for me, as the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. Had that happened, I think Germany would have pretty much completed their final solution. I know for a fact my grandparents' community, the Jews of Hungary, would have been completely wiped out.
@@bigzclipz5104 Zelensky's Jewish
"We're not based in reality" - Alex Stein
Wowowo you putting out of context so hard
@@zeanith5313 ok
Didn't taftaj describe what happened in real world, Germany broke in Russia, lost the war over oil in Africa. Their complete defeat was inevitable and Russia was growing stronger and stronger to the point that allies were afraid to pick a fight with them after the Berlin fell. If USA didn't intervene as soon as they did Europe would swap their German overlords for Russian overlords
Always funny to see Americans debating international topics. They really live in their own bubble, generally.
As an European, i agree. They are so confident (and wrong) when talking about the rest of the world, especially on distant cultures. It's just too funny
@@elios2296 its why debate panels are a thing to share info you guys really be bad at Americans talking lmaoooo cope more bruhh
@@char1363 Americans shouldn't talk at all
@@elios2296Europeans are much more educated (cope)
''perhaps if ukraine was in nato, that would be a different story'' - actually killed me :D
[extremely God voice]
🗿ctv out.
Once again Chat’s True Victor snatches all shine at the end of a panel show where he wasn’t even featured, leaving the other participants in an existential crisis 🏆
To say any one nation defeated Germany is just stupid. The based take is that the Soviets were the most vital and sacrificed the most in defeating Germany. Russia already turned around the Eastern Front before any lend lease. All the Allies were important in the war effort and played their own roles in the effort. Russia was simply the biggest player. However this panel saying USA was vital to defeating Germany is pretty extreme.
*USSR, not Russia.
Ussr and UK were big players to beat Germany
Why are people so uninformed yet want to chat about it?
There isn't a bunch of Irish fishing boats out protesting the wargames.
It's actually much more significant than that.
Irish fishermen advised they would peacefully protest the wargames by fishing in the area, they then secured a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and secured agreement from him (pending Moscow approval) that they would enforce a 70-80km exclusion zone around Ireland's fishing waters.
Edit: And they just secured approval from Moscow. That is huge!
When Taft started talking about WWII... oh dear...
I love it when westeners talk about politics they know nothing about
33:27 Well that was off by a little
I feel like I’m getting dumber every minute that passes…
The guy with the beard and the Hungarian dude were the only ones who were worth listening to even though no one really was tbh and I quit 40mins in. To be fair they did have a disclaimer but still ouch lol
Thanks!
Whys his screen always split like that? Is it cropping an ultra-wide monitor?
sanctions are moral. If a nation-state is acting poorly, then they should face some kind of penalty. Isn't it moral to stop those who are aggressors?
Sanctions are an act of war and rather than de-escalate things, typically escalate them and cause regular working people to suffer.
@@cameronpatterson130 "Sanctions are an act of war " Objectively false.
"cause regular working people to suffer" Good thing we can have an actual war as an alternative, nobody suffers with that. Oh wait a number of ukrainians has already died because of russian support of separatist groups, with others suffering due to the economic consequences. Oops!
@@cameronpatterson130 So then I suppose we should just sit on our hands as Russia has murders it’s way through Eastern Europe
This guy saved this from being a snoozer. The Hungarian guy was pretty fucking smart and brought things close to home, but everyone else agreed but squabbled over "war is bad"
Um, hello, I’m a liberal warhawk. I make fun of people for the “war bad” meme. Just cuz I don’t want to invade Russia doesn’t mean I’m not a hawk. Watch my debates on Iran and North Korea
48:39 "My point is" why not let people kill each other, let our allies be killed ... (and then we can rule over them... smile)
I hope you never get to wield any sort of power, make decisions that effect other people, because this sounds like what a horrible person would suggest.
Hopefully she does't apply this kind of thinking in her personal life, because who needs enemies when you have friends like this?
So, about why the US joined the war in Europe.
It was mostly at the behest of the UK which had been brutally struggling for years at this point. Stalin said he needed help mostly because he wanted the US and UK to weaken themselves while diverting Germans from the east so the USSR could keep more resources for after the war. This was because Stalin was an absolutely paranoid psycho and was convinced the UK and US would try to destroy him after the war.
When the Normandy landings happened, the USSR was already pushing the Germans back and had a lot of momentum with an industry that began to truly dwarf the Germans. At this point the UK and US were more concerned with stopping Russia from pushing too far. It was a race to Berlin.
This kind of geopolitical doctrine also influenced the use of nuclear bombs against Japan. It demonstrated their power and the potential of the US to produce multiple such bombs. It also was supposed to help end the war faster to avoid Russia engulfing the CCP and becoming such a behemoth of manpower and industry that even with nukes it would be doubtful they could be resisted.
The current situation is really very different from when the US joined ww2. It's more similar to when Germany invaded Poland.
Russians get buzzed by the RAF when they operate in British naval space, so they go to the Irish naval space and show off their amazing tech from 1985.
Habitual line steppers... If you play with feathers, you get your arse tickled. Cut up their swift card. Duels overrrrrrrr O-O.
The hyper guy in the top right sounds more like a Bob's Burgers character than Sam Seder.
19:00:00 I wonder if guy knows what irony means. Talking about Ukraine voting in a celebrity. Wow The gymnastics lol
As a german the whole point from taftaj let germany and russia fight it out and just came in the end is literally what happened we all know whos flag was on top of the reichstag at the end wtf is she smoking . Such a disturbing view of history and fantasy versions of it .
i like when they state an opinion as a fact then get the slightest pushback and totally retract it immediately. none of these sketches have done any legitimate analysis on anything they spoke about.
Adam had the best understanding of the topic which is no surprise. The American conspiracy guy was pure comedy and no substance and the libertarian 'no intervention' guy sounded so America-centric it was hard to listen. Destiny isn't well read on this topic but at least he stayed a bit humble and Kevin was coincidentally correct.
Dude came roarrrrrring in to make this worth watching. Love it.
This based schizo had me laughing too hard. He shouldn’t of been wrangled in so many times it was pure gold
"Spoiled, clueless anglo-nerds with close to zero external politics knowledge try to talk what would they do" - the debate.
How does no one in this conversation know the difference between Russia invading NATO countries and non-NATO countries? Or places like Crimea where it was not an invasion but a referendum to join Russia? literally no one knows anything about the situation. what a stupid conversation
Yep buddy, the americans xd
Because these are the same people who wanted to invaded Iraq for 9/11 (???) and Weapons of Mass Destruction which were proven to be a lie and now post rationalize it as proactive foreign policy while even that doesn't make sense as it didn't achieve any of their fictional foreign policy goals (where is USA now in ME? Worse off than it was with Saddam under their paycheck), and then wanted to invade Syria for Assad Gassing his people which was proven a lie too. It's superficial moral grandstanding used on the public as casus belli for the public while the actual geopoltiical reasons are strategic security and economic motivations that are boring, intricate, and at times seem callous/insidious/counter productive due to the complexity of it all - your country planning all this crap while taking into account all the other countries planning their own crap, it's not something that can be condensed to a few moral feel good talking points.
username checks out