General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Terje Oseberg
Pyotr Kurzin | Geopolitics
comments

Comments by "Terje Oseberg" (@terjeoseberg990) on "Pyotr Kurzin | Geopolitics" channel.

The United States has stockpiles of old weapons that were manufactured during the Cold War. These stockpiles were paid for 20, 30, and 40 years ago. The money is already spent, we’re not getting a refund, and the weapons are already old and need to be replaced. It will cost us to replace those weapons, but we already have to replace those weapons. Replacing those weapons will become even more important and necessary if Putin is allowed to rebuild the Soviet Union. Basically, we need to spend the money on our military regardless of whether we help Ukraine or not, if we don’t help Ukraine we’ll have to spend even more, and helping Ukraine doesn’t cost anything.
238
“There’s absolutely no way Putin will allow NATO troops in Ukraine.” Do you really believe that it’s up to Putin?
24
@annengelbos5316 , What does his comment have to do with Ukraine? Why are you bringing up Ukraine? Are you confused or something? This is about California, Texas, Fort Knox and Alaska.
17
@AllanMogensen , Well, were made to fight the Soviet Union, and Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s stockpiles. So you’re basically right.
16
@weerolein , I believe you’re confused. Ukraine gave most of what they inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia. That was obviously a huge mistake, but in exchange they received “security guarantees” from Russia, the UK, and the United States.
16
The ONLY reason why Russia would want to join NATO is for the veto. If Russia were to ever be accepted into NATO they should be a special member with no voting rights and no veto rights.
16
@hamzamahmood9565 , The United States has not given Ukraine a single brand new Patriot missile battery, or a single F-16, new, old, or whatever.
13
@AkenValle , You don’t know? There are only 7 Ukrainian soldiers left, but they’re superhuman. That’s why Russia still can’t advance.
10
@naas699 , Why do you love Putin so much?
7
Actually, the United States is sending old equipment that was paid for 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Then the United States is manufacturing new update equipment to replace that old equipment, which is something that the United States already needs to do anyway.
7
@philip5940 , Yes. That’s true. Unfortunately.
7
@TrevorCrook-c1s , Are sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea ineffective?
7
Lifting oil sanctions would cause oil prices to plummet which would bankrupt US oil companies. Trump wants the US to increase oil and gas exports. Increasing sanctions and providing Ukraine with the capacity to shut down Russia’s oil production would accomplish what Trump wants.
6
@dphillips4351 , Denmark is better. I’m a Californian and would rather be part of Denmark. Trump can have Greenland in exchange for California.
6
@joemann2178 , Do you love Putin too?
5
@AstroGremlinAmerican , Right. It’s actually cheaper to sent it to Ukraine so they can use it rather than pay to have it decommissioned.
5
@MrEmpireBuilder0000 , Well, how many military weapons do we have that were designed since 1990? How many of them have we given to Ukraine? How big is the difference between a 1990s cellphone vs. a modern one from our current decade?
5
Lifting oil sanctions would cause oil prices to plummet which would bankrupt US oil companies. Trump wants the US to increase oil and gas exports. Increasing sanctions and providing Ukraine with the capacity to shut down Russia’s oil production would accomplish what Trump wants.
5
How is what they say relevant? We know they lie.
5
@joemann2178 , It’s not propaganda. It’s true. Ukraine only has 7 soldiers left, but they’re superhuman. That’s why Russia can’t advance.
4
@AkenValle , I’ve been watching the front lines for 2 years. It hasn’t moved more than a few inches, and Russia is experiencing unsustainable losses taking those inches. Those 7 superhuman soldiers have to let the Russians advance a little so they think they’re winning. Nobody wants them to give up and start defending, because then they won’t experience so many losses. It’s so much easier to convert them to fertilizer when they’re trying to advance.
4
@theglobalgambit , How’s that? You don’t believe that Europe is capable of maintaining a military capable of defeating a Russian invasion?
4
What does that mean? Abandon Ukraine? If that’s the case, he’s wrong and you’re confused.
3
Russia is losing.
3
Regardless of why the US is there, do the Kurds want them there? And are the Kurds better off because they’re there?
3
@johnfranklin6394 , “but it will be diminished as a world power” This is what MAGA doesn’t understand.
3
Doesn’t Erdogan want Syria to be part of Turkey? Or am I mistaken?
2
@murphy7801 , The ATACMS were placed in service in 1991. Do you believe that they were developed in 1 year and paid for after they were delivered? When do you believe they started developing the ATACMS, and when did the government paid for them? The money is gone, and the technology is over 30 years old. Imagine what we could do today. That’s what we’re paying for with those $billions that Congress is approving.
2
@murphy7801 , The ATACMS were placed in service in 1991. Do you believe that they were developed in 1 year and paid for after they were delivered? When do you believe they started developing the ATACMS, and when did the government pay for them? The money is gone, and the technology is over 30 years old. Imagine what we could do today. That’s what we’re paying for with those $billions that Congress is approving. We’re paying to develop and manufacture new modern weapons to replace the old obsolete weapons that we’re sending to Ukraine.
2
@zeljkoplavsic784 , Hahahahahahaha!!! Are you a comedian? You’re funnier than Zelensky.
2
Is Putin really that delusional?
2
“What the Taliban did to us.” “Our appetite to invade Afghanistan again…” In 20 years the United States lost 2,400 soldiers. That’s 200/year. What the eff is this guy talking about?
2
The reliance on the dollar for pricing commodities has to do with nothing more than the stability of the dollar. If the dollar remains stable, nothing will change. People will want dollars because it’s stable. If the dollar becomes unstable, people will change what they want and how they measure value.
2
Is it Russia and China? Or Russia and Chinese companies?
2
People want dollars because dollars are stable. If this changes, people will stop wanting dollars.
1
@dillonhillier , Russia uses to launch missiles into Ukraine from their Black Sea Fleet. Because Ukraine started sinking Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is now hiding like cowards inside of launching missiles into Ukraine. You’re obviously confused and have no clue what you’re talking about.
1
@max2008abhi , Ukraine has already landed soldiers on Crimea, they eliminated some air defense systems, then ran away. I guess you haven’t been following this war, so you have no clue what’s happened.
1
@dillonhillier , Russia used to launch missiles into Ukraine from their Black Sea Fleet. Because Ukraine started sinking Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is now hiding like cowards instead of launching missiles into Ukraine. You’re obviously confused and have no clue what you’re talking about.
1
@dillonhillier , Your statement implied that Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is irrelevant because this is a ground war. This statement and it’s implications show your ignorance as my response explains. Eliminating Russia’s Black Sea Fleet benefits Ukraine in this “ground war”. Sinking the fleet, or making Russia hide its fleet like cowards makes no difference, as long as Russia is no longer able to use its ships as launch platforms for their terrorist attacks against civilians in Ukraine.
1
@max2008abhi , Ukraine has already landed soldiers on Crimea, they eliminated some air defense systems, then ran away. I guess you haven’t been following this war, so you have no clue what’s happened.
1
@dillonhillier , You believe that removing Russia’s ability to launch missiles into Ukraine from its Black Sea Fleet will have no impact on the outcome of the war? Then why was Russia launching missiles from its Black Sea Fleet? For chits and grins?
1
@dillonhillier , So your claim is that Russia has alternative methods of accomplishing the same goals that were previously accomplished by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet? Russia inherited an awful lot of missiles from the Soviet Union, but Russia’s launch platforms are limited. They can therefore launch a limited number of missiles at once. That limit has been reduced by rendering Russia’s Black Sea Fleet impotent. This number is important because Ukraine has a limited number of air defense systems. If Russia launches an insufficient number I’d missiles the chances that all the missiles will be shot down is increased. They way to combat Ukraine’s air defenses is to overwhelm them. It seems like you have no understanding of how these things work. You claim to have friends in the military. Are you telling the truth about that? Or are you lying?
1
@dillonhillier , You obviously don’t understand why Ukraine has been losing territory. It’s because Russia’s meat wave strategy, despite the extreme cost, is effective. The problem for Russia is that it’s not sustainable. It’s a strategy that results in an extremely bad loss ratio for Russia. If you understand how a war of attrition works, you’ll realize that Russia is not using a winning strategy. This strategy will result in Russia running out of resources before Ukraine.
1
@dillonhillier , When Russia had a 10x artillery advantage considering only the number of rounds fired, they were barely advancing. What this tells me is that one round of Russian artillery does not equal one round of Ukrainian artillery. So when you claim that Russia has an artillery advantage, your obviously referring to the number, not the quality of their artillery. It’s the same thing with the number of soldiers. Russia has significantly more soldiers than Ukraine. For example, Ukraine has around 20,000 soldiers in Kursk, and Russia has over 50,000. Despite the advantage in numbers of both artillery and personnel, Russia is struggling to take back territory. It’s quite obvious that Russia doesn’t not have a quality advantage. So Russia might be advancing, but it’s slow, Russia is struggling, and Russia will be taking significantly more losses than Ukraine since advancing is significantly more difficult than defending. You might not want to believe the numbers, but the numbers make perfect sense considering the evidence that’s visible to everyone.
1
@americasfavoritebrazilian2399 , Exactly. Why stick around for 20 years when the job was finished in 6 weeks? Get in, get the job done, then get out.
1
@americasfavoritebrazilian2399 , The problem is that the Afghani people aren’t willing to fight the Taliban. Maybe they support the Taliban? Who knows and who cares? Ukraine is not Afghanistan. The United States isn’t in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are not only willing to fight, but they are fighting and they are winning. Why not provide them with aid so they can win unless Trump wants Russia to win? Comparing Ukraine with Afghanistan is ignore ant nonsense.
1
@naas699 , Why do you love Putin so much? Are you gay or something?
1
@AkenValle , Do you believe that your fantasies will help Putin win?
1
@JohnCSmith-lp1qr , Yeah. The Russians love the guy who’s been stealing the wealth of their country for over 20 years, and who’s now squandering all of it on a pointless losing war. Russians must be really smart, eh?
1
@joemann2178 , Of course bro!!
1
@joemann2178 , Of course bro. Who do you think took out that Russian AWACS a few months ago?
1
@GolemRising , It’s “dick tater” bro. Putin is a dick tater. That’s why he pays his trolls in bags of taters.
1
@AkenValle , Why are you celebrating a pile of rubble that cost Putin around 80,000 Russians?
1
@joemann2178 , Nah man. It was the ghost of Kiev bro.
1
@joemann2178 , You’re obviously a bit slow.
1
Ukraine is winning. What will change is Russia will run out of equipment and volunteers.
1
@lawrenceksyahoocom , If you’re watching this video and reading the comments, then you’ve been following his war closely, so the fact that Ukraine is winning should be obvious to you. That means that you’re obviously a liar. You don’t support Ukraine and you’re here to spread Russian lies and misinformation.
1
@elisabethnygaard8525 , I don’t believe Trump understands this issue. He’s obviously not very bright.
1
BRICS is a joke.
1
Aren’t the Ukrainian casualties low because they’re giving up land to conserve the lives of their soldiers?
1
@GeistInTheMachine , Getting what?
1
@BalthasarGelt-x2d , And you’re gay. So what? Nobody cares but you.
1
The United States spending 70 years and trillions of dollars researching, designed, and manufacturing weapons to fight the Soviet Union. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union so we can do the same thing the next 70 years. How is it in the United States’ best interest to let him? How can Trump and his supporters believe it’s in the United States’ best interest to let him?
1
Our parents and grandparents paid for that equipment, not us. We don’t have to pay for it. We only have to pay to replace all that old equipment with new modern equipment. We have to do that regardless of what we do with the old stuff. We can toss it all in the ocean, or give it to Ukraine, and that doesn’t change. What changes is if Putin is allowed to rebuild the Soviet Union, we’ll have to spend more than if he isn’t.
1
Why is Israel a challenge for Syria? Does Israel want to occupy or annex Syria or something? If Syria was to attempt to be peaceful towards Israel would Israel attack or invade Syria the way Russia invaded Ukraine?
1
@WichtrudK , You don’t believe that Denmark would trade Greenland for California?
1
Exactly!
1
@martimasters7704 , LOL
1
@AllanMogensen , Well, they were made to fight the Soviet Union, and Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s stockpiles. So you’re basically right.
1
@AllanMogensen , Well, they were made to fight the Soviet Union, and although the Soviet Union is gone, Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s stockpiles. So you’re basically right.
1
@aredditor4272 , Has the United States invaded Canada?
1
@zeljkoplavsic784 <—— Delusional.
1
Nobody is going to want Chinese currency while China’s economy is in the chitter.
1
@budgiefriend , Last time Trump was president he raised the US national debt more than any president in history, including Biden.
1
You actually believe that Putin believe all that crap?
1
@TrevorCrook-c1s , You’re right. Countries don’t have to listen. Due to the consequences of not listening, though, countries do listen. That’s why sanctions are effective. That’s why sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea have been effective and why the sanctions against Russia are effective. You obviously don’t understand the sanctions against Russia. You probably don’t understand very much of anything. You don’t seem to be very bright.
1
@TrevorCrook-c1s , Sure, countries don’t “have to” listen, but they do believe there are consequences for not listening. Most countries are not interested in experiencing those consequences.
1
@michaelradigan4051 , Who’s losing 500 men every day? Russia is losing over 1000 every day and Ukraine is losing about 1/7th of that because defense is way easier than offense and Ukraine is willing to give up territory to save the lives of their soldiers.
1
@65MrBubba , You’re wrong. Now is the time for Russia to start talking of surrender.
1
Lifting oil sanctions would cause oil prices to plummet which would bankrupt US oil companies. Trump wants the US to increase oil and gas exports. Increasing sanctions and providing Ukraine with the capacity to shut down Russia’s oil production would accomplish what Trump wants.
1
@theglobalgambit , Of course, but he might withhold Ukraine aid because his supporters don’t understand that the weapons we’re sending to Ukraine already need to be replaced anyway. We can either throw them away, or give them to Ukraine. We’re not giving Ukraine our new stuff. All the money discussed in Congress is the cost to update and manufacture new equipment.
1
@dillonhillier , No. They are not. Even though we are manufacturing new munitions, we’re sending the old ones. They have an expiration date, and we have massive stockpiles. When you go shopping and buy more eggs before you’ve run out of old eggs, do you eat the new ones before you eat the old ones? Or do you eat the old ones first, then the new ones. Please use your brain when answering. We do use our oldest munitions for training our soldiers, but we don’t have enough soldiers to train to use them all before they expire.
1
@kirikoo9981 , You are correct. Our entire military is obsolete. Everything we have is old and outdated. Think about computers and cellphones from the 90s compared to today. Imagine if we designed and built new modern weapons today to replace the 20, 30, and 40 year old stuff? We haven’t done it yet because most of our adversaries are way behind. Look at how Russia is doing in Ukraine against our old obsolete equipment. We’re currently learning a lot about modern war, and we will be making a lot of changes.
1
@dillonhillier , So you believe that the United States has completely depleted their entire stockpiles of munitions and are now sending everything they manufacture as fast as they can manufacture it to Ukraine? Are you delusional?
1
@dillonhillier , So you believe that the United States has completely depleted their entire stockpiles of munitions and are now sending everything they manufacture as fast as they can manufacture it to Ukraine? Are you delusional? Are the friends you served with delusional? Or are you a liar?
1
@issadraco532 , You’re wrong. Stockpiles are not empty anywhere. The issue is that most of the European countries and the United States need to maintain their stockpiles at a certain level. They won’t allow their stockpiles to go below that level because they want to be prepared in the event something were to happen. For well over 50 years the manufacturing capacity of the west has been sufficient for replacing the munitions that are being used for training purposes. They operate as a FIFO (first in, first out), meaning that they’re using the oldest expiring munitions for training while adding new munitions into the FIFO. So yes. We’re giving Ukraine the old outdated stuff at the older end of the FIFO while filling in the newer end without allowing out stockpiles to go below the threshold that we’ve determined is necessary in case something happens. The issue here is that you’re confused. The fact is, nobody in the west us running out of munitions. The west is simply running out of munitions to spare. The west has had to increase production while decreasing training. Also, there have been huge advances in technology during the past 30 years. Compare a 1990 cellphone to a cellphone today. Or a computer graphics card. The equipment the west is providing to Ukraine was cutting edge in the 1990s. Today the cheapest cellphones are more advanced than the 1990s cutting edge. An average cellphone today can outperform a $20 million supercomputer from 2000, and it can fit in your pocket and run for over 24 hours. Because of this war, United States military industrial complex will be updating everything, and we can’t even imagine what technologies we’ll see 10 years from now.
1
@issadraco532 , Just because something is still being used in active service doesn’t mean it’s not old and obsolete. It only means that it’s still effective against our adversaries who are using even older and more obsolete equipment. Look at what just happened in Iran. The word is Israel eliminated all of Iran’s old outdated Soviet S-300s and Russia’s S-400s in only two sorties. Apparently Iran is now defenseless and they’re not going to be getting any replacements from Russia, and if they’re able to get anything from China it’ll probably be as useless as the Russian crap. The fact is, our old outdated obsolete crap is the best equipment available today. The new updated stuff we’re going to develop using the hundreds of billions that have been allocated will be absolutely amazing in comparison.
1
@issadraco532 , The Patriot systems were first deployed in 1984. We have been updating them, but most of them are old. Do you believe we’re going to manufacture a brand new one and give it to Ukraine? Or do you believe we’ll keep the new one, and give Ukraine one of our old ones? What do you think? What would you do if it was your decision? I know what I would do. Try using some common sense. What this means is that our oldest Patriot Systems have been shooting down Russia’s most advanced hypersonic Kinzhal missiles. It’s pretty obvious now that advanced Russian technology was a myth. It was nothing more than Russian propaganda. It fooled Putin just as much as it fooled the west. Had Putin been aware of this, he never would have invaded. He’s already squandered more failing to take Ukraine than Ukraine is worth, and yet he continues, because it’s already too late. The money and resources are already gone and he still believes he has a chance.
1
@issadraco532 , NATO had only 5% of the air defenses needed to defend the airspace over Eastern Europe before this war started. They were slacking off because they thought they Russia wasn’t a threat. It turns out they were wrong. Ukraine alone says they need 7 Patriot Systems. How many countries in Eastern Europe have 7 Patriot Systems? How many had 7 before February 2022? They’ve never had enough, which is exactly why they are so reluctant to give any to Ukraine. Had they all had enough before February 2022, Ukraine would already have 7 systems. How many countries that have only one would be willing to give that one to Ukraine?
1
@issadraco532 , If something “pops off”, the west, Including the United States has sufficient supplies of munitions and everything else that they need to deal with it. They haven’t and won’t leave themselves vulnerable. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe that they’ve done that. This claim of yours shows how little you know. And this idea that Ukraine has been wasting what we’ve provided them is equally ridiculous. Russia has had about a 10x artillery advantage since the beginning of Putin’s invasion up until a few months ago, and yet Ukraine has been slowing Russia’s advances to a crawl while inflicting unsustainable losses upon Russia in both personal and equipment. And now Russia has only a 3x to 4x artillery advantage. This will only get worse for Russia as time progresses. Putin’s last hope is a Trump victory, as that will eliminate US military aid. But Europe won’t stop, and if they’re able to get their act together, then a Trump victory won’t stop Ukraine.
1
@issadraco532 , If something “pops off”, the west, Including the United States has sufficient supplies of munitions and everything else that they need to deal with it. They haven’t and won’t leave themselves vulnerable. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe that they’ve done that. This claim of yours shows how little you know.
1
“As long as math is real.” You obviously haven’t heard of imaginary numbers.
1
Those are the numbers that Russia uses.
1
@LLachs283 , That’s nonsense.
1
After Ukraine defeats Russia, we can take what natural resources we want from Russia. We can own Russia.
1
Just so you know, $3.5 million is more than a million dollars.
1
I thought that maybe you didn’t know that.
1
@elmercy4968 , NATO doesn’t have to agree to anything. NATO doesn’t control Europe or European countries. The individual countries can do whatever they want. NATO is a defense alliance. You’re obviously extremely confused. I shouldn’t have to explain this, but you’re obviously ignore ant, so I have to. You should go educate yourself.
1
@davidpritchard604 , Your comment is irrelevant nonsense that makes no difference. NATO is a defense alliance and has nothing to do with this.
1
@davidpritchard604 , Your comment is irrelevant nonsense that makes no difference. NATO is a defense alliance and has nothing to do with this. “NATO troops” simply means soldiers from countries that are NATO members. They do not need NATO approval or approval from any other NATO members. These are free independent countries that can do as they please.
1
@davidpritchard604 , There is no near peer adversary. You’re obviously confused.
1
@davidpritchard604 , There is no near peer adversary. You’re obviously confused. And the EU is subservient to no one.
1
@davidpritchard604 , “if engaged by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation…” Hahahahahaha!!!! You’re obviously joking. The Russian military is pathetic.
1
@davidpritchard604 , The EU is subservient to no one.
1
@dillonhillier , The only reason why Russia is advancing is because their meat wave strategy, despite the cost, is effective. Ukraine is unwilling to use the same strategy. What you don’t seem to understand is that Russia’s meat wave strategy is unsustainable. They can’t keep using that strategy forever.
1
The United States defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 6 weeks.
1
The United States spending 70 years and trillions of dollars researching, designed, and manufacturing weapons to fight the Soviet Union. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union so we can do the same thing the next 70 years. How is it in the United States’ best interest to let him? How can Trump and his supporters believe it’s in the United States’ best interest to let him? Our parents and grandparents paid for that equipment, not us. We don’t have to pay for it. We only have to pay to replace all that old equipment with new modern equipment. We have to do that regardless of what we do with the old stuff. We can toss it all in the ocean, or give it to Ukraine, and that doesn’t change. What changes is if Putin is allowed to rebuild the Soviet Union, we’ll have to spend more than if he isn’t.
1
@hmmm2564 , Exactly. This could be over in weeks if Europe gave Ukraine what they need. After Ukraine wins, Russia will no longer be a threat to anyone.
1
Let Russia recruit 2,000 per day. Heck, make them recruit 10,000 per day to keep up with their losses.
1