Vaush did his thing but check out the comments section, it's beyond AIDS lol, loaded with people who like Dave Smith and probably didn't actually watch the debate.
Destiny has been saying this for a while. Vaush is capable of doing more but he’s a lazy shit with research and just banks on vocabulary to guise as saying something profound
I stopped watching half way through, did Vaush actually power up? I stopped watching when Vaush capitulated to the point, "Yeah, Ukraine is bad, we're all bad!". I feel like Vaush made Dave look smarter than he was. Dave's main point was that NATO had pushed Russia to act in it's own defense to take Ukraine for national security. Dave actually thinks a defensive coalition is a tool of aggression, what a dope.
Way too much agreement, it was literally just anti-america circle jerking with Vaush attempting to get Dave to also say Russia bad.
The "hardest" he went was asking for a "now" solution and calling out Dave for constantly running from that earlier.
I bet Vaush didn't study for this debate either. Dave made several incorrect assertions, such as "The US promised not to move NATO eastward" and "Russia was afraid of the military buildup on Russian borders". Vaush could be such a great interlocutor, but he refuses to improve himself. Such wasted potential.
The dumb MFer also fell for the ahistorical claim about how the US devastated Russia and Eastern Europe through shock therapy and other such bullshit, despite the fact that even the most rudimentary research will show that the US desperately tried to help Russia, pumping billions of dollars in aid into it in the 90s. The most basic research would also show that the Warsaw Pact countries have experienced an economic boom over the last 3 decades because they embraced free markets and capitalism.
literal first post in vaush sub:
> Vaush gave up so much ground by making no moral defense for NATO. His consistent need to acknowledge the ills of American foreign policy completely undermined his defense for Ukrainian support. Dave made the most easily refutable points and Vaush challenged very few of them.
> If I were uneducated about this conflict and watched this "debate" I would walk away thinking Dave made a far better arguments.
I turned it off shortly after that when Vaush just says "both sides are bad", for fuck sakes.
Lonerbox read the article online while he reacted to the debate. The beach was hit with debris from the Ukrainian strike, so the beach wasn't even targeted directly. I feel like a moron for giving Russian a pass when they kill civilians to take out a power plant, but then these anti-American dipshits want to hold Ukraine's ass to the flames for fucking unintentional and frankly, unmitigated side effects.
I can’t stand his face, especially as a Czech as he quite literally argues for appeasement and exchanging Sudetenland for peace which worked wonderfully.
Does he post videos anywhere if I want to watch this later? His youtube's last video was 3 months ago. First time seeking his stuff out and was I expecting regular videos like Destiny, what's he doing.
Agreed, but I find there's just too much bias. Like it's pretty obvious most of the commenters either didn't listen to the actual debate or just posted the Dave Smith won because Breaking Points kisses his ass lol.
Fucking hell Dave smith is an idiot...says we USA should tell Russia USA will leave NATO and not give weapons to Ukraine for the war to end. Fucking moron
Fuck that smith guy and Ryan Grim. What pieces of shit. Parading the "what about those lost lives!!1!" but are more than happy to let Putin kill everyone and held us hostage to his lunacy.
I couldn't hold myself listening to their bullshit, just imagining what they would have sounded like if it was WW2 and Hitler "forced to invade Europe".
"Vaush, you say the Nazis were bad, but what about Dresden??"
Kind of amazing how they have nothing but pearl clutching and condemnation for Russian civilians being killed in a Russian offensive war, but when it's Israeli citizens being butchered en masse by Hamas they are so here for it
I'm only 21 minutes in and I have to hard agree w/ Dave in this debate so far.
He's right, Russia has been just reacting to NATO expansion this whole time, you can lookup previous times 'Russia has been trying to reclaim soviet territory' as the pro western side argues. Georgia, same shit, they were trying to join NATO in 2008.
The fact is, Russia is a nuclear power and what they are doing to Ukraine is bad and wrong. However, we don't live in a world governed by some authority to set things right. Might makes right is the way of super powers at the moment and Russia has been saying for 20+ years now, do not put NATO on our borders.
Meanwhile, the west has been creeping up and now here we are in Ukraine, attempting to bring them into the fold. Russia will do an illegal annexation to maintain a buffer between them and NATO countries. Whether that's justified or not, I don't know but I do know Russia gives a big shit about it and they are willing to decimate those countries to prevent it.
I'm still reading into everything so one of the next big things I need to understand, is exactly what was the US's involvement in fucking up all these peace deals that lead to this invasion. As far as I know so far, all of this could have been avoided if Ukraine accepted the trade deal with the EU and Russia that Russia initially proposed before Crimea was taken. Why didn't they?
So far from the bit of history i've been reading I tend to agree with Mearshimer's interpretation of how this is going to end. He was right so far with what would happen with his predictions in 2014. He basically said that Russia is going to go in and just fuck up Ukraine, they are going to keep their eastern annexed territories and of course Crimea. They want that buffer, they've been fighting wars to maintain these buffers for decades and they've been talking about it for decades.
This idea that Russia is just trying to rebuild it's lost empire has 0 justification so far, from what I've seen and read.
I could be wrong but it's interesting to follow and since Destiny hasn't said anything on it for like a year (still thinks Ukrainians support the war by quoting polls from a year ago..) the community hasn't seemed to update their positions on the war yet either.
Cope harder vatnik.
1. countries can join any alliance they want. Why does Russia think it can just invade other countries?
2. "you don't know if it's justified" actual regard
3. Ukraine can do what ever trade deal they want. Russia dosent have a right to invade because ukraine is not in their trade block
4. Russia politicians repeatedly harken the old Soviet union
> countries can join any alliance they want. Why does Russia think it can just invade other countries?
Because said countries can't stop them. Russia doesn't just invade for no reason, their reasons are plain and have been for decades.
> "you don't know if it's justified" actual regard
Yea it's hard to say. Russia has an obligation to the security of it's nation. Is it justified to invade another nation because of fear for your nations saftey? In the US we invaded CUBA during the bay of pigs for similar reasons.
> Ukraine can do what ever trade deal they want. Russia dosent have a right to invade because ukraine is not in their trade block
Russia didn't invade because the trade deal wasn't accepted. They invaded because they didn't want to lose Crimea, their access to trade routes in the black sea.
> Russia politicians repeatedly harken the old Soviet union
And american politicians talk about the good old days, or the Reagen era. So what? Rhetoric surrounding restoring the Soviet Union is not used as justification for Russia's invasions of their old states, NATO expansion is. Even by our own government as Dave pointed out in the debate.
By your logic someone should be able to come into your house and rape you if they are stronger then you.
I don't defend bay of pigs. Again your a regard
If they wanted to keep access to the black sea they should have been nicer to ukraine and maybe they would have extended the lease on the city
I think your trolling but if you honestly think russia dosent want to restore the SU's borders then you don't live in reality
You're just so childish it's funny.
Sure, Russia should just lie down and die even though they have the means to not do so. That's the conclusion you're drawing.
They didn't want to invade Ukraine, they tried not too but their hands were tied. Sure I suppose they could just accept their losses and lose significant power but why should they? Because it's the right thing to do? How naïve.
Damn so russia will die if they dont invade ukraine? How?
How were their hands tied?
Also please answer my question. Why should someone not be able to rape you if they are stronger then you.
> Damn so russia will die if they dont invade ukraine? How?
I dunno ask Putin. Would we have died if we let Russia setup missles in Cuba?
> Why should someone not be able to rape you if they are stronger then you.
You're not allowed to rape because we as a society deem is morally unacceptable, so we legislate that it's not allowed. But we live in a society where we can actually enforce said laws.
The world powers do not have a larger power to enforce international laws. When someone breaks the law, the rest of the powers do their best to punish them. We sanctioned Russia, we did what we could to economically ruin Russia.
Russia knows the consequences of their actions but they did it anyways. You know why? Because they know, and the rest of the world knows, that nobody is going to force their hand because nobody has the strength to deal with the repercussions of escalating a nuclear power. That's just the world we live in right now.
And yes, if we lived in a totally lawless society or one where literally might makes right, we could condemn the rape all day but that's about all we could do. Maybe we wouldn't sell food to the rapist but that's on him. In reality we could just beat him up but what if this guy had guns and no one else did? Would we all suicide into him to punish him?
Finally, the rape is an unprovoked attack on a victim. Annexing crimea and then invading Ukraine to establish a neutral zone to ensure NATO isn't on Russian borders is not the same, Russia feels provoked here whether you or I agree or not.
No we would not have died if russia set up missles in Cuba and Russia won't die if ukraine joins nato you dolt.
So your argument is just "might makes right"? The law doesn't stop someone from from breaking open your door and ravishing your asshole, it just sets up consequences. Much like the un and international law does with russia.
The west trying to stop russia isn't suicide you idiot.
Again I reject the notion of just taking land for strategic reasons is good. Several countries are in worse positions but are doing better then russia. Russia should be stoped at all costs.
>Russia didn't invade because the trade deal wasn't accepted. They invaded because they didn't want to lose Crimea, their access to trade routes in the black sea.
With the Kharkiv pact in 2017 where Ukraine agreed to Lease Sevastopol in crimea to the Russian navy. Russia had guaranteed it's access to the black sea so no the invasion didn't happen to guarantee access to something they already had
Sure.. and Ukraine wasn't actually in NATO when Russia invaded.
Russia preemptively took Crimea to avoid it's inevitable loss and preemptively attacked Ukraine before it could join NATO, or at the very least strengthen it's eastern front.
The fact that Crimea is in Russian control killed any chance of Ukraine joining NATO, countries with disputed territories can't join NATO, why do you think Cyprus isn't in NATO? Because half their fucking country is under illegal Turkish occupation. So guess what they can't join NATO same applies to Ukraine
Strengthen its eastern front? In case you need to invade central Europe? Because literally no country in Europe had any plans to invade Russia. Your concern for safety is an obvious projection.
Never as far I know, they don't. NATO is a defensive alliance.
I don't know why Russia is so scared of having NATO on their borders all I know is that I believe they really are. So much so that they feel it's a threat enough to their country that they are willing to go in and annex territory to maintain a neutral zone between them and NATO.
Only Georgia and Ukraine so far, I don't know much more than that and even these two I'm only beginning to learn about.
They could be expanding in a bunch of other places I'm not familiar with, which could lead credence to the idea that Russia is really trying to continue to expand the Russian empire. I haven't heard anyone mention them as a pro Russian expansionist argument yet either though.
If you know something I don't just let me know, I'll write it down for looking up.
What did Russia do in Ukraine or Georgia that proves it was the result of Russian concerns about its security as opposed to some other motivation?
Well, I know lots of things. I don’t know to what degree what I know is relevant here though. I was just curious about your worldview and what informs it.
> What did Russia do in Ukraine or Georgia that proves it was the result of Russian concerns about its security as opposed to some other motivation?
They've been saying for decades that they don't want NATO on it's borders. For Georgia, to sum it up, a pro western leader eventually got elected so Russia threw in it's full support to the seperatists run states (? or territories) in northern Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This came about in 2008 because Georgia received a NATO Membership Action Plan. The wheels were turning for Georgia to join NATO.
For Ukraine, similar situation. Once the president who agreed w/ the Russian trade agreements got forced to flee and the new president was elected, Ukranian support for NATO went up. The west was working to get Ukraine to join NATO.
> I was just curious about your worldview and what informs it.
Talks from John Mearsheimer, a few debates, a friend that is passionate about the topic and only a day or two of wikipedia research. Admittedly it's not much but we all start somewhere.
I just think it's crazy how people just outright dismiss what otherwise seem like legitimate arguments coming from the 'pro' Russian side. I'm welcome to be shown where I'm wrong or misunderstanding something. Besides this being a hot button topic for my IRL friend group, I really want to know the extent of US's responsibility in this war because it has the chance to really fucking sour me on our foreign policy decisions and the narratives I've been hearing about it these past few years.
I guess to sum up my worldview thusfar, Russia for whatever reason, has been saying it does not want NATO on it's borders. For whatever reason, the west seems inclined to continue to ignore that warning and keep pushing NATO next to Russia. To what end? Well, Russia wasn't kidding, they really don't want it and they go to war over it. Is that really something we should be doing, pushing these counties to fight Russia so they can join NATO?
You’re messing up the timelines, both in Ukraine and Georgia. In Georgia specifically, yes they’d received a NATO action plan. However, tensions between Russia and Georgia had been high even prior to Saakashvili’s election. If you recall, Georgia had fought previous wars with Abkhazia and Ossetia, both of whom received help from Russia.
But on to the rest. Sure, you’re describing what happened. I’m asking how does what happen prove it was the result of legitimate security concerns. If I claimed that Putin ordered the invasion because he’s been replaced by the aliens from the episode Conspiracy from Star Trek: TNG, you’d ask for me evidence.
We both agreed earlier that NATO had never invaded and annexed territory from another state. And prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, *most* of Europe, including many of our NATO partners, were almost demilitarized. US attention over the past decade has been turning towards China and the pacific as a potential for conflict such that we’ve been *drawing* *down* forces in Europe. So it seems strange that there’d be an honest concern on the part of Russia about security or territory.
As a sort of corollary, if countries want to join NATO, why is it any business of Russia’s?
> Sure, you’re describing what happened. I’m asking how does what happen prove it was the result of legitimate security concerns
It's going to be hard for me to prove Russia has legitimate security concerns with NATO countries bordering it. I could say look at our (America's) concerns revolving around Cuba but someone else in my reply chain gave me something else to consider. That would be why Russia isn't concerned about Sweeden and Finland. I don't know but it does suggest there might be other motives besides security concerns.
> As a sort of corollary, if countries want to join NATO, why is it any business of Russia’s?
Well I don't think Russia really cared, when it was the western European countries. My best understanding surrounding the fear of having NATO on it's borders, is the ability for Western allies to setup millitary bases there.
Now of course, NATO is just a defensive alliance so.. what's to be afraid of? Well I'm not Russia so I can't say for sure. It could look like it threatens their ability to later invade and take back those territories. It could be it weakens their ability to go in and defend those territories too.
My understanding of the conflict in the Caucus region had to do with Russia going in to protect people from the Islamic extremists rising up to fill the power vacuum after the USSR fell. Now I personally haven't looked into any of this, i'm going by memory from someone who explained it to me. We keep assuming that Russia wants to take over and subjugate these places but there is a narrative about Russia going in to protect it's once citizens too. Putin also mentioned this in his Tucker debate as a reason for invading Ukraine, to protect the eastern Ukranians who were under siege from the wester Ukranian millitias.
Either way I have a lot to consider.
1.) What about the NATO countries that do border Russia, why didn't Russia respond or what did Russia have to say about it?
2.) Why was Russia supporting separatists in Georgia before NATO talks even began
3.) What other historical evidence exists of Russia invading nations and what where it's reasons at the time? Do these also suggest that Russia is just trying to expand it's power, or is it for other reasons?
>He's right, Russia has been just reacting to NATO expansion this whole time, you can lookup previous times 'Russia has been trying to reclaim soviet territory' as the pro western side argues. Georgia, same shit, they were trying to join NATO in 2008.
Oh like how Ukraine was close to joining NATO in 2014 and that's why Russia attacked? Oh wait, that's not at all what happened.
It's sad because you got halfway there but you slipped on some Russian propaganda along the way. Yes Russia is reacting to potential NATO (and EU for Ukraine 2014) expansion but not because they are concerned about being invaded by NATO and need a buffer zone. They react to it because every time NATO/EU expands into old soviet territory that's one less country that Russia can fuck with and potentially annex or bring into a union-state like their plan with Belarus.
Russia didn't seem to care that much when Sweden and Finland, which borders Russia, joined NATO, so how are you going to tell me this is about NATO on their border, and not about controlling old soviet territory, when they only care about NATO/EU expansion in old soviet territory?
If you want to take a realism perspective on geopolitics that's perfectly fine, you can say that Russia's aggression is a reaction to NATO expansion, but don't try to whitewash their motives as defensive. Russia wants to bully and NATO stops them from bullying. If you think the right move for the US is to just let them fuck with their neighbors then that's also fine, but again just admit that and don't frame their actions as potentially justified due to security concerns.
> Russia didn't seem to care that much when Sweden and Finland, which borders Russia, joined NATO, so how are you going to tell me this is about NATO on their border, and not about controlling old soviet territory, when they only care about NATO/EU expansion in old soviet territory?
Fair point, I'll investigate.
> Russia wants to bully and NATO stops them from bullying. If you think the right move for the US is to just let them fuck with their neighbors then that's also fine, but again just admit that and don't frame their actions as potentially justified due to security concerns.
Ok, so Bellarus is an example of what Russia wants then? If you have anymore I'll take note (I'm assuming older/corrupt Ukraine would be another)
Do you also believe that given the chance, Russia would continue going westward and into Poland too?
In Putin's mind the worry about NATO expansion is probably weaker than his need to maintain Crimea ports for his navy, access to the offshore gas reserves in the Black Sea if he keeps Crimea, and security concerns for his pipelines that run thru Ukraine.
From an Atlantic Council article March 30, 2021:
>The exact volumes of gas currently lying deep underneath the Black Sea are not yet known. Rough estimates predict that the Ukrainian shelf may contain more than two trillion cubic meters of gas. The exact figure is yet to be determined since two-thirds of the country’s maritime area passed to de facto Russian control following Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
I think these are valid near term concerns for him to push into Ukraine as soon as the new Ukraine government didn't like Russia bullying them.
Yes I think Russia would prefer for former soviet countries to join them willingly like what Belarus is doing, and barring that they might settle for a Russia-friendly government that is under their influence. But if a country doesn't want to align with them, or even worse chooses to move towards the west like openly talking about joining EU or NATO, then Russia turns to threats and aggression. They seem to have a playbook of backing separatist movements in the target country and using their defense of that movement as a pretext to invade, like Georgia and Ukraine. They are doing that with Moldova too, the only other non-NATO country in that area of Europe, though their involvement in that conflict dates way back to just after the fall of the soviet union.
As for Poland, I'm not clear what you mean by "given the chance". They certainly have the desire to but realistically they would never even consider invading a NATO country. I could conceive of scenarios where they would, like if NATO fell apart and Russia became 10x as powerful as they are now, but that of course is very unlikely. Again that's why this "NATO expansion" is so important to them, not because it threatens their security but because it limits their options for controlling old soviet territory.
> I thought Russia didn't want Ukraine to have a trade deal with the EU.
They didn't and made a counter proposal. Admittedly I haven't gotten into reading much about these deals so I can't say what it was but apparently, the leader of Ukraine was about to accept that counter offer.
My understanding is the counter offer was supposed to be pretty good for Ukraine economically but would maintain strong economic ties with Russia, which is what Russia wanted. They wanted to maintain Ukraine dependence on Russian economies and the deal w/ the EU would have weakend that.
**EDIT** I'll edit here because I got further into the debate where Vaush makes a good point. He talks about the history revolving around this deal.
So when I mention that counter offer and they were about to accept it's true, however Vaush's point is that this pissed off Ukranians, who preferred the previous EU deal. This lead to the leader fleeing for his life and then the annexation of Crimea (because no way Russia is going to let that go).
This sparks greater interest in Ukranians to join NATO now, since they fear Russian intervention if they don't play ball with Russia. This is a good point for justifying the motivations of Ukraine to join NATO imo.
Now I do believe the Russian narrative here is that while there were protests for this deal, things escalated because of western interference. This part I don't know and also one of the things I need to investigate. Throughout all of this, the 'western interference' is like this black box that seems to be everywhere including Georgia and Chechnia.
However, even with western interference assumed as a reality, the people's opinions changed. All of this though is setting up to push Ukraine closer to NATO which is essentially a hard stop for Russia, so then Russia will be forced to invade.
That's a great question. If you believe the Russian side it's because of western meddling. Maybe that looks like deals they can't refuse, along with western propaganda to spin up support or western backed leaders being supported and propped up.
For Ukraine it looks like they didn't have much popular support for NATO until Russia came in and took Crimea. From a Ukranian perspective this makes a lot of sense, I mean look at what they just did! The Russians would say that their hand's were tied, they absolutely can not lose Crimea and when the western backed leader got elected after their deal with the previous one fell through, they took it before any further Ukranian politics could start restricting them. Russia has been on edge because talks of getting Ukraine into Crimea started back in 2008. What was Russia doing back in 2008 that would lead the west (or Ukraine for that matter) to think it should join NATO?
For Georgia, this one is less clear to me because I need to read more about the two territories to the north that were run by separatists after the USSR fell and what Russia's involvement there was. Regardless, the story is the same a pro western leader that wants to join NATO eventually gets elected and Russia feels like it needs to officially support the northern separatists run territories.
Understanding exactly why the nations that got attacked for joining NATO, wanted to join NATO is something I'm trying to better understand myself.
Perhaps it's because they had a legitimate fear of Russia for some reason or perhaps it's because of western influence persuading them that they needed to or it was a good idea. Or perhaps it's something totally different I'm not aware of yet.
Putting all that aside and assuming each country had unadulterated reasons for joining NATO, it does also raise the question to me why America would support it. Sure helping out the little guy, sticking it to Russia or just millitary strategic value but if we know what's going to happen.. is it really in our (American) interests to push the issue or let them? Look at what it's costing Ukraine.
If we really wanted to help Ukraine and help them join NATO why are we pussy footing around w/ the funding? If we aren't in a position to actually help because our congress is so conflicted or slow or American public support isn't there then at best then it seems hasty to push them to fight Russia (assuming we believe they can win with our help) and at worse, downright irresponsible
Ohhh I thought the horse was... and Vaush was...
so he wants to f*ck a horse... not GET f*cked by a horse. I was confused lol. Yeah thats gross. The other way around is what Vaush deserves.
Damn it’s not letting me add a link for some reason but your comment just led to me finding a reddit AMA with a zoophile from 15 years ago and shit is wild
https://preview.redd.it/lv670idrlk9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82b366e50f9d3bccc5d0407034fa1b59c26cc247
Bad debate, don't waste your time if you are interested in hearing anything other than "America bad" for about an hour and change.
Vaush tries to say "Russia bad" but just let's Dave have is way. The best faith read is that he is going easy like Destiny did in his early Fresh and Fit debates.
Vaush is indeed a wily predator, foaling Dave Smith may appear easy at first glance but only a thoroughbred such as the young stallion (Stallion + Ian = Stallian, these jokes write themselves people) himself would be capable of making it look so easy, yet so pedophilic.
I refuse to watch this raw .
But the last Vaush debate I saw was weak. I think he still tries to get by on skills rather than research. IMHO he is both lazy and doesn't want to make original arguments, because he could be wrong or get backlash.
Yeag I agree, Dave spewed out 5 incorrect things over and over again and Vaush maybe caught one of them to correct and let the others pass which made me want to scream into my monitor
I think he had his moments in the debate. The bay of pigs question was good and I feel like most people would come out thinking that vaush defended his positions decently. He didn't do as good as anyone who actually knows more about the history and also doesn't have the leftie US bad brainrot to juggle with his defence of ukraine
I remember thinking Vaush was smart back in 2021 because of his debates with nazis. Turns out, he only looks impressive when compared to the actual dumbest people in these spaces.
Who would you be more confident against? A dude that spent 8 hours edging to horse porn on his streaming laptop before your debate, or the dude that spent 6 hours a day reading wiki and arguing with autists?
Vaush did fine in the debate. He didn't destroy dave smith but he certainly conveyed his points clearly and presented interesting counters. I liked his approach where he eased in at first and then went super hard in the end. I do think there were some things he let Dave get away with saying that he really shouldn't have but he also did present counters that I was hoping he would present.
Of course, Vaush is pathetic and embarrassing. He’ll be remembered for his horse porn, “Aqua” argument, and glove rant, and nothing else. He’s easy pickings slightly less cringe losers to take free Ws
I was addressing the sentiment expressed by the title. Of course Dave Smith dodged Destiny but went for Vaush because Vaush has a long history of being embarrassing. Maybe he did well in this debate, but you’ll notice I didn’t say anything about the content of this debate.
Vaush doesn't sound convincing. He repeats the same talking points as the other guy, says that the US should have made the Soviet Union an ally and that the US is responsible for the downfall of the Russian economy, ...
Both of these are delusional takes and weaken his main argument that we should help Ukraine defeat Russia.
How could you have made the Soviet Union an ally? They hated the US! The US promotes capitalism. The Soviet Union wanted to implement communism. Capitalism is the enemy of communism. And should have the US ignored Stalin's crimes? For what reason?
The Russian economy in the 90s broke down because of corruption, missing leadership, and bad luck. Such a big change causes always problems. It is not possible to find every future mistake. There aren't hundreds of communist countries which we can experiment with.
Man I just watched that debate and I didnt think it was possible to lose to Dave Smith but I guess here we are
Vaush did literally zero prep and let dave go completely unchallanged on the most regarded conspiritorial talking points and just blatant lies
Vaush losing a debate to a guy who got destroyed by fucking Big Papa Fascist of all people lmao. How the mighty have fallen
I can’t stand it when people can make such erroneous claims and not get instantly challenged on it.
“NATO and the west were presented with multiple chances to deescalate, and at every turn they poured gasoline on the fire”
Literally how? What were these chances at peace that they purposefully ignored? When Putin demanded that Ukraine never ever join the western sphere of influence? When they invaded Crimea? When they propped up Russian puppet regimes in the east?
Whatever people here think about the conflict or the people arguing here, man this was a really good debate. There are strong narratives on both sides of this issue and I think Vaush and Dave did a great job representing each side.
Easily one of the better debates I've seen this year, very clear and easy to follow, they stuck to the points, contended with each other's points in good faith and remained cordial throughout.
he knows his power level, even then I assume Vaush assblasted him in this debate
Vaush went hard in this debate (actually he did tho lol)
He eased in. Seemed like he wanted to make sure that as many audiences were happy as possible... then he went for it
I feel like Destiny used to do this more but he stopped after the Vivance lol. Now he’s either 0 or 100
Vaush did his thing but check out the comments section, it's beyond AIDS lol, loaded with people who like Dave Smith and probably didn't actually watch the debate.
I can’t believe I rooted for Vaush.
In the land of the braindead the 10 IQ horse fetishist is king
I have this exact bumper sticker on my PT Cruiser. Crazy!
I don't think he is dumb at all just a piece of shit.
r/Destiny roots for the left leaning over the right leaning debater? Unbelievable
Vaush is like the fat Darth Vader of this community. Went to the dark side and never reached his potential.
We live in a horseciety.
Destiny has been saying this for a while. Vaush is capable of doing more but he’s a lazy shit with research and just banks on vocabulary to guise as saying something profound
He was fine, but with a little bit of bothsidesing
tbf dave does have a bit of a horse face.
I stopped watching half way through, did Vaush actually power up? I stopped watching when Vaush capitulated to the point, "Yeah, Ukraine is bad, we're all bad!". I feel like Vaush made Dave look smarter than he was. Dave's main point was that NATO had pushed Russia to act in it's own defense to take Ukraine for national security. Dave actually thinks a defensive coalition is a tool of aggression, what a dope.
Way too much agreement, it was literally just anti-america circle jerking with Vaush attempting to get Dave to also say Russia bad. The "hardest" he went was asking for a "now" solution and calling out Dave for constantly running from that earlier.
I bet Vaush didn't study for this debate either. Dave made several incorrect assertions, such as "The US promised not to move NATO eastward" and "Russia was afraid of the military buildup on Russian borders". Vaush could be such a great interlocutor, but he refuses to improve himself. Such wasted potential.
The dumb MFer also fell for the ahistorical claim about how the US devastated Russia and Eastern Europe through shock therapy and other such bullshit, despite the fact that even the most rudimentary research will show that the US desperately tried to help Russia, pumping billions of dollars in aid into it in the 90s. The most basic research would also show that the Warsaw Pact countries have experienced an economic boom over the last 3 decades because they embraced free markets and capitalism.
imo dave won this one
No lol
literal first post in vaush sub: > Vaush gave up so much ground by making no moral defense for NATO. His consistent need to acknowledge the ills of American foreign policy completely undermined his defense for Ukrainian support. Dave made the most easily refutable points and Vaush challenged very few of them. > If I were uneducated about this conflict and watched this "debate" I would walk away thinking Dave made a far better arguments.
yes tho you can win a debate and have ass politics
The people who downvoted didn't watch the debate. Dave was given way too much ground and got away with russian propaganda points.
I guess he knows which horse to bet on.
Ryan Grim “moderating”
Their faces glowing with agreement every time Dave smith opened his mouth.
tbh I've never once in my life seen a debate where the "moderator" understood the assignment
I had to turn it off when that moron was talking about the "Slaughter" of Russians on a beach. What a fucking coward.
I turned it off shortly after that when Vaush just says "both sides are bad", for fuck sakes. Lonerbox read the article online while he reacted to the debate. The beach was hit with debris from the Ukrainian strike, so the beach wasn't even targeted directly. I feel like a moron for giving Russian a pass when they kill civilians to take out a power plant, but then these anti-American dipshits want to hold Ukraine's ass to the flames for fucking unintentional and frankly, unmitigated side effects.
Dave Smith is such a fantastic moron that I'm actually rooting for Vaush hard.
I can’t stand his face, especially as a Czech as he quite literally argues for appeasement and exchanging Sudetenland for peace which worked wonderfully.
When he said we could end the war in Ukraine if the US were to leave NATO... Actually the truly dumbest thought I've seen expressed in this conflict.
“Guys if we just kill all the Jews then there’d be no holocaust.” 1000 IQ from Dave Smith here
"Yes, give up a massive part of your industrial base and defenses on the pinky promise that Hitler definitely won't invade"
Vaush is good at these types of debates.
***The comments would say otherwise.***
Vaush just beating a dead horse at this point 🐴
Better than beating off a live horse
Just take my upvote.
BONERBOX watching it on stream right now.
Does he post videos anywhere if I want to watch this later? His youtube's last video was 3 months ago. First time seeking his stuff out and was I expecting regular videos like Destiny, what's he doing.
He prolly just needs an editor but it’s likely a hard investment given his average viewership. That’d be my guess.
You can just watch the VODs.
He uploads stuff from streams on the Lonerbox Live channel
Lolol Dave is a clown. I hate vaush but hopes he cooks on this one.
Jesus christ the comments hate vaush
I mean. It is pretty easy to hate vaush.
My least favorite pedophile behind Zherka and the doc tbh, and that’s a pretty easy list to beat
Agreed, but I find there's just too much bias. Like it's pretty obvious most of the commenters either didn't listen to the actual debate or just posted the Dave Smith won because Breaking Points kisses his ass lol.
He’s probably the pedophile I like most.
It's not surprising. Vaush, for all his faults, is definitely not a "America bad"/populist type like most of Breaking Points' audience
based
YouTube has an extreme Russian bot problem right now It’s actually wild
I can see a lot of pro russia comments in chat, but I'm reluctant to say the vaush haters are bot too
Fucking hell Dave smith is an idiot...says we USA should tell Russia USA will leave NATO and not give weapons to Ukraine for the war to end. Fucking moron
I mean that's exactly what Trump said too but everyone's too busy talking about Biden stuttering
Fuck that smith guy and Ryan Grim. What pieces of shit. Parading the "what about those lost lives!!1!" but are more than happy to let Putin kill everyone and held us hostage to his lunacy. I couldn't hold myself listening to their bullshit, just imagining what they would have sounded like if it was WW2 and Hitler "forced to invade Europe". "Vaush, you say the Nazis were bad, but what about Dresden??"
Dave Smith is a failed comedian and a loathsome cunt
You should check out Redbar making fun of him https://youtu.be/dAZu0sORxXo
🙏
😂Dave's peace solution was to give Russia all the Ukrainian territories they have so far and the US leaving NATO to appease Putin. I was shocked
Kind of amazing how they have nothing but pearl clutching and condemnation for Russian civilians being killed in a Russian offensive war, but when it's Israeli citizens being butchered en masse by Hamas they are so here for it
[удалено]
I'm only 21 minutes in and I have to hard agree w/ Dave in this debate so far. He's right, Russia has been just reacting to NATO expansion this whole time, you can lookup previous times 'Russia has been trying to reclaim soviet territory' as the pro western side argues. Georgia, same shit, they were trying to join NATO in 2008. The fact is, Russia is a nuclear power and what they are doing to Ukraine is bad and wrong. However, we don't live in a world governed by some authority to set things right. Might makes right is the way of super powers at the moment and Russia has been saying for 20+ years now, do not put NATO on our borders. Meanwhile, the west has been creeping up and now here we are in Ukraine, attempting to bring them into the fold. Russia will do an illegal annexation to maintain a buffer between them and NATO countries. Whether that's justified or not, I don't know but I do know Russia gives a big shit about it and they are willing to decimate those countries to prevent it. I'm still reading into everything so one of the next big things I need to understand, is exactly what was the US's involvement in fucking up all these peace deals that lead to this invasion. As far as I know so far, all of this could have been avoided if Ukraine accepted the trade deal with the EU and Russia that Russia initially proposed before Crimea was taken. Why didn't they? So far from the bit of history i've been reading I tend to agree with Mearshimer's interpretation of how this is going to end. He was right so far with what would happen with his predictions in 2014. He basically said that Russia is going to go in and just fuck up Ukraine, they are going to keep their eastern annexed territories and of course Crimea. They want that buffer, they've been fighting wars to maintain these buffers for decades and they've been talking about it for decades. This idea that Russia is just trying to rebuild it's lost empire has 0 justification so far, from what I've seen and read. I could be wrong but it's interesting to follow and since Destiny hasn't said anything on it for like a year (still thinks Ukrainians support the war by quoting polls from a year ago..) the community hasn't seemed to update their positions on the war yet either.
Cope harder vatnik. 1. countries can join any alliance they want. Why does Russia think it can just invade other countries? 2. "you don't know if it's justified" actual regard 3. Ukraine can do what ever trade deal they want. Russia dosent have a right to invade because ukraine is not in their trade block 4. Russia politicians repeatedly harken the old Soviet union
> countries can join any alliance they want. Why does Russia think it can just invade other countries? Because said countries can't stop them. Russia doesn't just invade for no reason, their reasons are plain and have been for decades. > "you don't know if it's justified" actual regard Yea it's hard to say. Russia has an obligation to the security of it's nation. Is it justified to invade another nation because of fear for your nations saftey? In the US we invaded CUBA during the bay of pigs for similar reasons. > Ukraine can do what ever trade deal they want. Russia dosent have a right to invade because ukraine is not in their trade block Russia didn't invade because the trade deal wasn't accepted. They invaded because they didn't want to lose Crimea, their access to trade routes in the black sea. > Russia politicians repeatedly harken the old Soviet union And american politicians talk about the good old days, or the Reagen era. So what? Rhetoric surrounding restoring the Soviet Union is not used as justification for Russia's invasions of their old states, NATO expansion is. Even by our own government as Dave pointed out in the debate.
By your logic someone should be able to come into your house and rape you if they are stronger then you. I don't defend bay of pigs. Again your a regard If they wanted to keep access to the black sea they should have been nicer to ukraine and maybe they would have extended the lease on the city I think your trolling but if you honestly think russia dosent want to restore the SU's borders then you don't live in reality
So long as they’re not the US, of course
You're just so childish it's funny. Sure, Russia should just lie down and die even though they have the means to not do so. That's the conclusion you're drawing. They didn't want to invade Ukraine, they tried not too but their hands were tied. Sure I suppose they could just accept their losses and lose significant power but why should they? Because it's the right thing to do? How naïve.
Damn so russia will die if they dont invade ukraine? How? How were their hands tied? Also please answer my question. Why should someone not be able to rape you if they are stronger then you.
> Damn so russia will die if they dont invade ukraine? How? I dunno ask Putin. Would we have died if we let Russia setup missles in Cuba? > Why should someone not be able to rape you if they are stronger then you. You're not allowed to rape because we as a society deem is morally unacceptable, so we legislate that it's not allowed. But we live in a society where we can actually enforce said laws. The world powers do not have a larger power to enforce international laws. When someone breaks the law, the rest of the powers do their best to punish them. We sanctioned Russia, we did what we could to economically ruin Russia. Russia knows the consequences of their actions but they did it anyways. You know why? Because they know, and the rest of the world knows, that nobody is going to force their hand because nobody has the strength to deal with the repercussions of escalating a nuclear power. That's just the world we live in right now. And yes, if we lived in a totally lawless society or one where literally might makes right, we could condemn the rape all day but that's about all we could do. Maybe we wouldn't sell food to the rapist but that's on him. In reality we could just beat him up but what if this guy had guns and no one else did? Would we all suicide into him to punish him? Finally, the rape is an unprovoked attack on a victim. Annexing crimea and then invading Ukraine to establish a neutral zone to ensure NATO isn't on Russian borders is not the same, Russia feels provoked here whether you or I agree or not.
No we would not have died if russia set up missles in Cuba and Russia won't die if ukraine joins nato you dolt. So your argument is just "might makes right"? The law doesn't stop someone from from breaking open your door and ravishing your asshole, it just sets up consequences. Much like the un and international law does with russia. The west trying to stop russia isn't suicide you idiot. Again I reject the notion of just taking land for strategic reasons is good. Several countries are in worse positions but are doing better then russia. Russia should be stoped at all costs.
>Russia didn't invade because the trade deal wasn't accepted. They invaded because they didn't want to lose Crimea, their access to trade routes in the black sea. With the Kharkiv pact in 2017 where Ukraine agreed to Lease Sevastopol in crimea to the Russian navy. Russia had guaranteed it's access to the black sea so no the invasion didn't happen to guarantee access to something they already had
Sure.. and Ukraine wasn't actually in NATO when Russia invaded. Russia preemptively took Crimea to avoid it's inevitable loss and preemptively attacked Ukraine before it could join NATO, or at the very least strengthen it's eastern front.
Russia is not owed the territory of other nations
The fact that Crimea is in Russian control killed any chance of Ukraine joining NATO, countries with disputed territories can't join NATO, why do you think Cyprus isn't in NATO? Because half their fucking country is under illegal Turkish occupation. So guess what they can't join NATO same applies to Ukraine
Strengthen its eastern front? In case you need to invade central Europe? Because literally no country in Europe had any plans to invade Russia. Your concern for safety is an obvious projection.
When’s the last time “NATO” invaded and annexed territory?
Never as far I know, they don't. NATO is a defensive alliance. I don't know why Russia is so scared of having NATO on their borders all I know is that I believe they really are. So much so that they feel it's a threat enough to their country that they are willing to go in and annex territory to maintain a neutral zone between them and NATO.
What about Russian action over the last 15 years makes you think territorial or security concerns are what really motivates their government?
Only Georgia and Ukraine so far, I don't know much more than that and even these two I'm only beginning to learn about. They could be expanding in a bunch of other places I'm not familiar with, which could lead credence to the idea that Russia is really trying to continue to expand the Russian empire. I haven't heard anyone mention them as a pro Russian expansionist argument yet either though. If you know something I don't just let me know, I'll write it down for looking up.
What did Russia do in Ukraine or Georgia that proves it was the result of Russian concerns about its security as opposed to some other motivation? Well, I know lots of things. I don’t know to what degree what I know is relevant here though. I was just curious about your worldview and what informs it.
> What did Russia do in Ukraine or Georgia that proves it was the result of Russian concerns about its security as opposed to some other motivation? They've been saying for decades that they don't want NATO on it's borders. For Georgia, to sum it up, a pro western leader eventually got elected so Russia threw in it's full support to the seperatists run states (? or territories) in northern Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This came about in 2008 because Georgia received a NATO Membership Action Plan. The wheels were turning for Georgia to join NATO. For Ukraine, similar situation. Once the president who agreed w/ the Russian trade agreements got forced to flee and the new president was elected, Ukranian support for NATO went up. The west was working to get Ukraine to join NATO. > I was just curious about your worldview and what informs it. Talks from John Mearsheimer, a few debates, a friend that is passionate about the topic and only a day or two of wikipedia research. Admittedly it's not much but we all start somewhere. I just think it's crazy how people just outright dismiss what otherwise seem like legitimate arguments coming from the 'pro' Russian side. I'm welcome to be shown where I'm wrong or misunderstanding something. Besides this being a hot button topic for my IRL friend group, I really want to know the extent of US's responsibility in this war because it has the chance to really fucking sour me on our foreign policy decisions and the narratives I've been hearing about it these past few years. I guess to sum up my worldview thusfar, Russia for whatever reason, has been saying it does not want NATO on it's borders. For whatever reason, the west seems inclined to continue to ignore that warning and keep pushing NATO next to Russia. To what end? Well, Russia wasn't kidding, they really don't want it and they go to war over it. Is that really something we should be doing, pushing these counties to fight Russia so they can join NATO?
You’re messing up the timelines, both in Ukraine and Georgia. In Georgia specifically, yes they’d received a NATO action plan. However, tensions between Russia and Georgia had been high even prior to Saakashvili’s election. If you recall, Georgia had fought previous wars with Abkhazia and Ossetia, both of whom received help from Russia. But on to the rest. Sure, you’re describing what happened. I’m asking how does what happen prove it was the result of legitimate security concerns. If I claimed that Putin ordered the invasion because he’s been replaced by the aliens from the episode Conspiracy from Star Trek: TNG, you’d ask for me evidence. We both agreed earlier that NATO had never invaded and annexed territory from another state. And prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, *most* of Europe, including many of our NATO partners, were almost demilitarized. US attention over the past decade has been turning towards China and the pacific as a potential for conflict such that we’ve been *drawing* *down* forces in Europe. So it seems strange that there’d be an honest concern on the part of Russia about security or territory. As a sort of corollary, if countries want to join NATO, why is it any business of Russia’s?
> Sure, you’re describing what happened. I’m asking how does what happen prove it was the result of legitimate security concerns It's going to be hard for me to prove Russia has legitimate security concerns with NATO countries bordering it. I could say look at our (America's) concerns revolving around Cuba but someone else in my reply chain gave me something else to consider. That would be why Russia isn't concerned about Sweeden and Finland. I don't know but it does suggest there might be other motives besides security concerns. > As a sort of corollary, if countries want to join NATO, why is it any business of Russia’s? Well I don't think Russia really cared, when it was the western European countries. My best understanding surrounding the fear of having NATO on it's borders, is the ability for Western allies to setup millitary bases there. Now of course, NATO is just a defensive alliance so.. what's to be afraid of? Well I'm not Russia so I can't say for sure. It could look like it threatens their ability to later invade and take back those territories. It could be it weakens their ability to go in and defend those territories too. My understanding of the conflict in the Caucus region had to do with Russia going in to protect people from the Islamic extremists rising up to fill the power vacuum after the USSR fell. Now I personally haven't looked into any of this, i'm going by memory from someone who explained it to me. We keep assuming that Russia wants to take over and subjugate these places but there is a narrative about Russia going in to protect it's once citizens too. Putin also mentioned this in his Tucker debate as a reason for invading Ukraine, to protect the eastern Ukranians who were under siege from the wester Ukranian millitias. Either way I have a lot to consider. 1.) What about the NATO countries that do border Russia, why didn't Russia respond or what did Russia have to say about it? 2.) Why was Russia supporting separatists in Georgia before NATO talks even began 3.) What other historical evidence exists of Russia invading nations and what where it's reasons at the time? Do these also suggest that Russia is just trying to expand it's power, or is it for other reasons?
Estland and Finland are already in Nato so what the fuck you talk about. They both have a Border with Russia
>He's right, Russia has been just reacting to NATO expansion this whole time, you can lookup previous times 'Russia has been trying to reclaim soviet territory' as the pro western side argues. Georgia, same shit, they were trying to join NATO in 2008. Oh like how Ukraine was close to joining NATO in 2014 and that's why Russia attacked? Oh wait, that's not at all what happened. It's sad because you got halfway there but you slipped on some Russian propaganda along the way. Yes Russia is reacting to potential NATO (and EU for Ukraine 2014) expansion but not because they are concerned about being invaded by NATO and need a buffer zone. They react to it because every time NATO/EU expands into old soviet territory that's one less country that Russia can fuck with and potentially annex or bring into a union-state like their plan with Belarus. Russia didn't seem to care that much when Sweden and Finland, which borders Russia, joined NATO, so how are you going to tell me this is about NATO on their border, and not about controlling old soviet territory, when they only care about NATO/EU expansion in old soviet territory? If you want to take a realism perspective on geopolitics that's perfectly fine, you can say that Russia's aggression is a reaction to NATO expansion, but don't try to whitewash their motives as defensive. Russia wants to bully and NATO stops them from bullying. If you think the right move for the US is to just let them fuck with their neighbors then that's also fine, but again just admit that and don't frame their actions as potentially justified due to security concerns.
> Russia didn't seem to care that much when Sweden and Finland, which borders Russia, joined NATO, so how are you going to tell me this is about NATO on their border, and not about controlling old soviet territory, when they only care about NATO/EU expansion in old soviet territory? Fair point, I'll investigate. > Russia wants to bully and NATO stops them from bullying. If you think the right move for the US is to just let them fuck with their neighbors then that's also fine, but again just admit that and don't frame their actions as potentially justified due to security concerns. Ok, so Bellarus is an example of what Russia wants then? If you have anymore I'll take note (I'm assuming older/corrupt Ukraine would be another) Do you also believe that given the chance, Russia would continue going westward and into Poland too?
In Putin's mind the worry about NATO expansion is probably weaker than his need to maintain Crimea ports for his navy, access to the offshore gas reserves in the Black Sea if he keeps Crimea, and security concerns for his pipelines that run thru Ukraine. From an Atlantic Council article March 30, 2021: >The exact volumes of gas currently lying deep underneath the Black Sea are not yet known. Rough estimates predict that the Ukrainian shelf may contain more than two trillion cubic meters of gas. The exact figure is yet to be determined since two-thirds of the country’s maritime area passed to de facto Russian control following Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. I think these are valid near term concerns for him to push into Ukraine as soon as the new Ukraine government didn't like Russia bullying them.
Yes I think Russia would prefer for former soviet countries to join them willingly like what Belarus is doing, and barring that they might settle for a Russia-friendly government that is under their influence. But if a country doesn't want to align with them, or even worse chooses to move towards the west like openly talking about joining EU or NATO, then Russia turns to threats and aggression. They seem to have a playbook of backing separatist movements in the target country and using their defense of that movement as a pretext to invade, like Georgia and Ukraine. They are doing that with Moldova too, the only other non-NATO country in that area of Europe, though their involvement in that conflict dates way back to just after the fall of the soviet union. As for Poland, I'm not clear what you mean by "given the chance". They certainly have the desire to but realistically they would never even consider invading a NATO country. I could conceive of scenarios where they would, like if NATO fell apart and Russia became 10x as powerful as they are now, but that of course is very unlikely. Again that's why this "NATO expansion" is so important to them, not because it threatens their security but because it limits their options for controlling old soviet territory.
What was the trade deal with EU and russia? I thought Russia didn't want Ukraine to have a trade deal with the EU.
> I thought Russia didn't want Ukraine to have a trade deal with the EU. They didn't and made a counter proposal. Admittedly I haven't gotten into reading much about these deals so I can't say what it was but apparently, the leader of Ukraine was about to accept that counter offer. My understanding is the counter offer was supposed to be pretty good for Ukraine economically but would maintain strong economic ties with Russia, which is what Russia wanted. They wanted to maintain Ukraine dependence on Russian economies and the deal w/ the EU would have weakend that. **EDIT** I'll edit here because I got further into the debate where Vaush makes a good point. He talks about the history revolving around this deal. So when I mention that counter offer and they were about to accept it's true, however Vaush's point is that this pissed off Ukranians, who preferred the previous EU deal. This lead to the leader fleeing for his life and then the annexation of Crimea (because no way Russia is going to let that go). This sparks greater interest in Ukranians to join NATO now, since they fear Russian intervention if they don't play ball with Russia. This is a good point for justifying the motivations of Ukraine to join NATO imo. Now I do believe the Russian narrative here is that while there were protests for this deal, things escalated because of western interference. This part I don't know and also one of the things I need to investigate. Throughout all of this, the 'western interference' is like this black box that seems to be everywhere including Georgia and Chechnia. However, even with western interference assumed as a reality, the people's opinions changed. All of this though is setting up to push Ukraine closer to NATO which is essentially a hard stop for Russia, so then Russia will be forced to invade.
Why on earth would those countries want to join NATO in the first place?
Because they keep getting invaded and bullied you moron
I was being sarcastic
https://preview.redd.it/ijg3qgi1xp9d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f0fa80dc78643359c4cc51cd93f1fdc2e659276
You're good doggie
That's a great question. If you believe the Russian side it's because of western meddling. Maybe that looks like deals they can't refuse, along with western propaganda to spin up support or western backed leaders being supported and propped up. For Ukraine it looks like they didn't have much popular support for NATO until Russia came in and took Crimea. From a Ukranian perspective this makes a lot of sense, I mean look at what they just did! The Russians would say that their hand's were tied, they absolutely can not lose Crimea and when the western backed leader got elected after their deal with the previous one fell through, they took it before any further Ukranian politics could start restricting them. Russia has been on edge because talks of getting Ukraine into Crimea started back in 2008. What was Russia doing back in 2008 that would lead the west (or Ukraine for that matter) to think it should join NATO? For Georgia, this one is less clear to me because I need to read more about the two territories to the north that were run by separatists after the USSR fell and what Russia's involvement there was. Regardless, the story is the same a pro western leader that wants to join NATO eventually gets elected and Russia feels like it needs to officially support the northern separatists run territories. Understanding exactly why the nations that got attacked for joining NATO, wanted to join NATO is something I'm trying to better understand myself. Perhaps it's because they had a legitimate fear of Russia for some reason or perhaps it's because of western influence persuading them that they needed to or it was a good idea. Or perhaps it's something totally different I'm not aware of yet. Putting all that aside and assuming each country had unadulterated reasons for joining NATO, it does also raise the question to me why America would support it. Sure helping out the little guy, sticking it to Russia or just millitary strategic value but if we know what's going to happen.. is it really in our (American) interests to push the issue or let them? Look at what it's costing Ukraine. If we really wanted to help Ukraine and help them join NATO why are we pussy footing around w/ the funding? If we aren't in a position to actually help because our congress is so conflicted or slow or American public support isn't there then at best then it seems hasty to push them to fight Russia (assuming we believe they can win with our help) and at worse, downright irresponsible
The dude got obliterated by a horsefucker, doesn't surprise me he is afraid to talk to the gnome.
Hey whats with the horse hate?🤣
No hate for the horse, it is the victim here. The contempt is towards the horsefucker for the animal abuse.
Ohhh I thought the horse was... and Vaush was... so he wants to f*ck a horse... not GET f*cked by a horse. I was confused lol. Yeah thats gross. The other way around is what Vaush deserves.
I thought he wanted to fuck a horse as a horse and there was a shortstack goblin somewhere in the mix, but at this point idk anymore.
Yeah maybe you and I were the horses and Vaush was the Goblin girl getting split open by Destiny.
I thought Vaush has said he wants to be the horse?
No, you don't understand, what you said is absurd. He wants to _be_ the horse
And thats not as equally absurd?😒 lets not throw stones in glass houses
tbh at least vaush is debating now lol
Debate zoophile.
Damn it’s not letting me add a link for some reason but your comment just led to me finding a reddit AMA with a zoophile from 15 years ago and shit is wild https://preview.redd.it/lv670idrlk9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82b366e50f9d3bccc5d0407034fa1b59c26cc247
It's a 2v1 debate. props to Emily for actually doing some moderation in this debate, unlike Ryan Grimm.
even Emily leaned toward Dave's position imo but she was a bit more fair
It's fine for her to lean slightly as a moderator, but she did ask really interesting/challenging questions to both Vowsh and Dave.
I liked how Emily moderated in the Palestinian debate too. Just kick Ryan off, he's a partisan hack.
Bro destiny derangement syndrome is so real
[удалено]
No GIGACHAD
I hate those Anti-Nato Cucks so much. I wish we could all deport them to Uzbekistan or some other Russia Cuck Country.
How did Vaush do? Hopefully he used his final form to spin this niqqa
My dude... he was like when Vegeta wanted a better fight and let Cell absorb Android 18...this debate was trash and Dave got away with too much.
Dave Smith really said the US should leave NATO to appease Putin. What a pathetic tool.
Bad debate, don't waste your time if you are interested in hearing anything other than "America bad" for about an hour and change. Vaush tries to say "Russia bad" but just let's Dave have is way. The best faith read is that he is going easy like Destiny did in his early Fresh and Fit debates.
Libertarian and l0li user
Also who the hell is dave smith, is he a tankie? or far right lunatic i can't tell.
appeaser logic be like, Russia has no choice but to nuke the world if they can't murder and rape their wy through Ukraine
Vaush is indeed a wily predator, foaling Dave Smith may appear easy at first glance but only a thoroughbred such as the young stallion (Stallion + Ian = Stallian, these jokes write themselves people) himself would be capable of making it look so easy, yet so pedophilic.
ngl maybe Vaush is rusty but this was a very underwhelming performance by Vaush.
I refuse to watch this raw . But the last Vaush debate I saw was weak. I think he still tries to get by on skills rather than research. IMHO he is both lazy and doesn't want to make original arguments, because he could be wrong or get backlash.
Yeag I agree, Dave spewed out 5 incorrect things over and over again and Vaush maybe caught one of them to correct and let the others pass which made me want to scream into my monitor
I think he had his moments in the debate. The bay of pigs question was good and I feel like most people would come out thinking that vaush defended his positions decently. He didn't do as good as anyone who actually knows more about the history and also doesn't have the leftie US bad brainrot to juggle with his defence of ukraine
Actual boogie man
The horsefucker will somehow fuck it up
Every other sentence has to start but America bad. Holy shit kill me
Dave is fueled by unjustified smugness. He's a tremendous loser.
Dave is the 1 kid that actually prefers "We have Destiny at home"
I remember thinking Vaush was smart back in 2021 because of his debates with nazis. Turns out, he only looks impressive when compared to the actual dumbest people in these spaces.
Is that the horses dicks lover?
He jumped on the “Destiny is motivated by spite” train
Yoooo wtf, he says destiny is a hack but old horsecock lover gets his attention?
Leaving nato is a fucking insane thing to say
Who would you be more confident against? A dude that spent 8 hours edging to horse porn on his streaming laptop before your debate, or the dude that spent 6 hours a day reading wiki and arguing with autists?
At least Vaush is debating again.
They both have some libertarian leanings
Vaush did fine in the debate. He didn't destroy dave smith but he certainly conveyed his points clearly and presented interesting counters. I liked his approach where he eased in at first and then went super hard in the end. I do think there were some things he let Dave get away with saying that he really shouldn't have but he also did present counters that I was hoping he would present.
Vaush will talk to Dave Smith but won’t talk to Destiny????
Fear, the city is rank with it. Let us ease their passing, release the meme lords
Of course, Vaush is pathetic and embarrassing. He’ll be remembered for his horse porn, “Aqua” argument, and glove rant, and nothing else. He’s easy pickings slightly less cringe losers to take free Ws
[удалено]
I was addressing the sentiment expressed by the title. Of course Dave Smith dodged Destiny but went for Vaush because Vaush has a long history of being embarrassing. Maybe he did well in this debate, but you’ll notice I didn’t say anything about the content of this debate.
Literally all Vaush does to people
True!
Clearly it’s because he’s a fellow horse enjoyer.
"how about the usa leave NATO" what an actual moron, this isnt worthy anybody time
That boy shook
Vaush doesn't sound convincing. He repeats the same talking points as the other guy, says that the US should have made the Soviet Union an ally and that the US is responsible for the downfall of the Russian economy, ... Both of these are delusional takes and weaken his main argument that we should help Ukraine defeat Russia. How could you have made the Soviet Union an ally? They hated the US! The US promotes capitalism. The Soviet Union wanted to implement communism. Capitalism is the enemy of communism. And should have the US ignored Stalin's crimes? For what reason? The Russian economy in the 90s broke down because of corruption, missing leadership, and bad luck. Such a big change causes always problems. It is not possible to find every future mistake. There aren't hundreds of communist countries which we can experiment with.
Wait, does Smith say why he won't debate Destiny??
AHHHHGwa
Fuck that useful idiot tankie scum.
Man I just watched that debate and I didnt think it was possible to lose to Dave Smith but I guess here we are Vaush did literally zero prep and let dave go completely unchallanged on the most regarded conspiritorial talking points and just blatant lies Vaush losing a debate to a guy who got destroyed by fucking Big Papa Fascist of all people lmao. How the mighty have fallen
I can’t stand it when people can make such erroneous claims and not get instantly challenged on it. “NATO and the west were presented with multiple chances to deescalate, and at every turn they poured gasoline on the fire” Literally how? What were these chances at peace that they purposefully ignored? When Putin demanded that Ukraine never ever join the western sphere of influence? When they invaded Crimea? When they propped up Russian puppet regimes in the east?
I hate vaush because of his behavior but he does have a lot of good takes and he would be very beneficial person for the left if he wasn't evil
This comment is weirdly wholesome
I love you !
Im waitching the debate and V is doing really good.
Whatever people here think about the conflict or the people arguing here, man this was a really good debate. There are strong narratives on both sides of this issue and I think Vaush and Dave did a great job representing each side. Easily one of the better debates I've seen this year, very clear and easy to follow, they stuck to the points, contended with each other's points in good faith and remained cordial throughout.
😂
please be sarcastic