What’s the song in the intro?

My father is Georgian and my mother is Ukrainian and I live in Russia, listening 9 Americans talk about shit that’s going on here is just hilarious 😂 . At least destiny is somewhat correct

@@Gogofam123 my father is Russian but he is serving in a Ukrainian military. My mother Ukrainian, and I live in Ukraine. They are all wrong. The only one who is right is Dutch court on MH-17 case.

i want to be able to see the fucking rust gameplay august REE

@@Baltasarmk howar e they wrong?

Nope

there are far better libertarians they could have gotten on

I was thinking the exact same shit.

Exactly

At least Vladomir Zelensky played the role of a president in his TV show. More experience than Trump.

I mean... that was obviously the joke, right? You can tell he's insincere about a lot of his positions. Certain points, you can see when he actually is sincere and it just makes the joke parts more obvious.

@@FaceJP24 There is no such thing as insincere meming. Everything he says he's fully advocating for, he's just extremely willing to "it's a joke breh! Don't actually hold me responsible for what i said!" as an excuse to drop it without getting dunked on after.

Mohammed Omar, founders of the Taliban, was in fact in the mujahideen, as was most of the early members. Russia in NATO? That's silly.

@@subnetplayer490 do you consider them separate and distinct entities even though their membership overlaps? Not sure why the need for that much distinction here.

@@pierredelecto7069 yes. Overlap doesn't mean they're the same. The Mujahideen was fighting in a totally different context and had different motivations than the taliban. Same situation with baathists who joined ISIS.

@@pierredelecto7069 after the fall of the mujahideen the leaders were pretty split with a majority supporting the northern alliance and some supporting the Taliban. You can't really consider the Taliban the successor of the mujahideen when half or more of it's leaders apposing them in a civil war no?

@@pierredelecto7069 Person was part of group X and group Y, therefore group X and group Y are the same thing? That's not a good argument.

Hunter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stay awesome brodi.

Lol thats hilarious coming from you. The biggest online grifter speaking with such conviction and ego on topics .

@@AspiringSpaceWizard Lmao, relax dude.

@@AspiringSpaceWizard ye stop speaking with conviction, unconfidence is hip

@@AspiringSpaceWizard can you provide any example of him grifting?

The first?

u missed the huke debate?

Diplomatic authority AKA "X is deeply concerned"

Ironically enough, sanctions are a textbook example of a diplomatic solution. I have no idea what that guy imagines under 'using diplomacy'.

What you described is Kevin Castley 101 😂

i know... he shifts the qualifiers for imperialism, brandished america following through on its promises as imperialistic and then used that labelling to suggest it's immoral and therefore should not be done. I was hoping to god someone would just bite the bullet and answer 'if this is how you want to define imperialism then i'm okay with america being imperialistic in this fashion'. God i wanted that to happen so badly

His name is Alex Stein

Adam Something knew his shit.

Nah man, that chick bottom right? She's reincarnation of Sun Tzu. And the guy on middle top? This great mind holds the knowledge of 6 thousand years of philosophy, Kant and Nietzsche can't even hold a candle.

@@wiczus6102 Even Gaius Julius Ceasar, and Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest and most successfull generals of all times could debate with these genius and experts of warfare that is twitch debate streamers. We are truly fortunate to witness these genius explain this dire situation of imminent warfare to us

These shows aren’t conducive to productive, serious discussion with meaningful engagement. Everyone is eager beaver to get in their points when talking at the others, and people stop listening soon as they find a word used in a disagreeable way, latching on, and launching into the next vacuous attempt at superficially engaging. They do, however provide great entertainment potential when you’ve got one or more wildcards in the mix

Truly.. With others I felt dumb about myself, that I even listen to it and I'm excluding the conspiracy troll, who was kind of funny.

Top left guy BASED

Based Hungarian

I'm not sure I've ever heard a bad or uninformed take come out of Adam Something's mouth.

@@ANunes06 he says a lof of internet left things, I like most of his stuff, but he is often far too left in my opinion

Pure comedy.

Dudes a meme in a suit

👀

The dude was a full motion filibuster

I like Dylan but sometimes he takes way too much liberties with the people he invites to his panels for the sake of entertainment.

He's still a post-Kadarist leftover piece of shit though, so it's better to be careful with accepting his views on EE matters.

@@charleynewman5057 a commie. Google Janos Kadar.

he's not though, he support Zelenskiy as a better president rather than Poroshenko, in spite of the fact that even before the Russian troop build up there has been more corruption that ever before in Ukraine, zero reforms and actual more Russian funded politicians, media and governance. It really personally reminds me of Yanukovich times. So, at least Poroshenko was pro-Ukrainian and moved the country forward in time of war and stood against negotiating with terrorists, as opposed to the clown that Adam Something supports. Bearded guy seemed more well-informed on the subject matter (Ukraine).

@@YouYubeEnjoyerNum1 you're trolling right? I voted for Poroshenko myself, but i can't deny the facts. He let Medvedchuk rise, he negotiated with terrorists through him for personal purposes. He still was pro-Ukrainian, that's good, but not a saint. Zelensky turned out to be not that bad as i thought. He fucked up more, than the previous one, but still not enough to label him as a russian puppet. We suffer from immense corruption, and both presidents participated in it, so i guess if we pretend that this is not an issue, and judge by everything else - they did somewhat the same, okayish job. No red lines crossed so far. For me it's a win.

@@gamerfront6090 I was talking about the fact that Poroshenko was the lesser of two evils, and that was evident even back in 2019. Poroshenko committed to reforms, anti-corruption structures (efficacy of which is can be debated) and overall integrity of Ukraine, whilst Zelensky downplays it and tries to negotiate with terrorist. There have been zero positive changes since he was elected. the freedom has only been suppressed more and political opponents have been silenced (the politically motivated criminal cases against Poroshenko, for example, which he has spoken PUBLICLY ABOUT, AS A PRESIDENT), and when Poroshenko was in power all Ukrainians saw positive changes at least in some areas (no visa requirements for EU travel, for instance). Zelensky still hasn't introduced Russian collaborators law ffs. Zelensky is undoubtedly worse and defo not pro-Ukrainian.

Ahahah for real

Don't forget grandpa dementia da walking sexual harassment....

Fr tho people praise democracy but when a comedian makes it in to power, they're ridiculed

And who considers Eastern Europe as a country XD

At least Zelensky actually tries...

Yes, very disappointed she didn't get more pushback. Absolutely inane

Long live the Euro Maidan! Glory to Ukraine!

The worst thing about the Iraq war was isolationism

Yeah, I don't get the appeal. She's way to unimpressive to be that full of herself. Her takes range from garbage to nothing added but I see a bunch of people stanning her like she's dropping gems. Meh, to each there own I guess

@@williamthebonquerer9181 Isolationists opposed the Iraq War though

Bottom right = fanatic pacifist meme insert

Actual schizoposting

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ac1ojLuIq7DOn4k.html the guy is amazing

@@thekycklingwizard78 yea and no. operation northwoods isn't some made up thing.

If we don't have hake here to say stupid insane shit we need a backup

Hes a great troll. He's friends w Cassady cambell

Exactly no one has cared for the last 7 years of Russian proxy war but now because it’s in the news everyone thinks their an expert.

@@deltazy7738 just like everything else that pops up

I doubt they even did that lmao seems like too much work

You'd have a very high opinion of them of you think they actually read 1 Wikipedia article. All of their opinion are just half-baked regurgitated points from reddit...

Hey don't diss Wikipedia, it's a great website for research actually.

He's actually a deepfake trained on a mix of Ethan Ralph and Nick Fuentes footage.

@@SlurMaster9000 don’t forget alex Jones screeds

Even funnier now, as Ukraine controls Kursk.

I often disagree with you, but I completely agree that we need to be 100% behind Ukraine to prevent Russian encroachment. Big ups!

@@johnfarley7074 Thanks, Joe! You’re welcome to debate me on anything you disagree with me on

welcome to the weird and wonderful world of twitch debate panels

august doesn't have a bed inside destiny's walls. thats impossible.

he’s Australian dude, different time zones

wtf is this comment

@@MildChunkySalsa i think he's referring to the fact that the last 3 or 4 vids have been uploaded in the last 2 or 3 days compared to usual daily schedule

@@eben7248 probably scheduled uploads coupled with editing being more straightforward maybe. Idk maybe I could ask August in d.gg

General George Marshall calculated that, without the Eastern Front, the U.S. would have had to double the soldiers it sent to the Western Front. Big, to be sure, but doable. We provided 1/3, the Soviets provided 2/3. That's not unreasonable.

(I'm leaving out Britain. Sorry.)

@@Nikifuj908 Sure, although I don't think D-Day was ever possible without the Eastern Front.

@@chickenfeed6272 it completely was, because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming. Blitzkrieg worked incredibly well, but it wasn't designed for city siege, and they ran into serious issues when the major Russian cities didn't capitulate. I would disagree the Soviet Union would have won "no matter what" but given the hindsight we have, agree they would have won eventually with the tactics used. They simply out produced Germany, had more total resources, and did all their fighting on home soil. As long as their main cities held (and they did) they were going to win.

@@hemmydall "because Hitler didn't place the bulk of his defense there believing the attack to happen against a different nearby beach head. Even after the landings started, he waited an entire day before moving the defense, believing the "real" attack was still incoming." Okay? This happened in our timeline. Do you think the millions of young soldiers that were flung into Eastern Front would just disappear into thin air if Barbarossa never happened? No, obviously Hitler would have more troops, tanks, and aircraft in France to counter a potential invasion. Even if Hitler moved the bulk of his troops to the wrong beach in this counterfactual there would still be a significantly larger force of troops at every possible invasion point. Likely, the Allies wouldn't even bother trying.

they forgot about it in 2014, why would they bring it up now. this one point actually replies what moral obligation US have to intervene. these panels are painful to watch from Ukraine.

@Wasserman That was a terrible move on the west at that time as well. I honestly think we wouldn't be talking much about Russian troops on the border now if either Obama then or Biden now would have said they would enforce them and sent a few divisions to Poland and Romaina to show it was a serious thing. The US has been very bad at deference in the last 20 years or so.

Budapest Memorandum, but yes.

Read the Budapest Memorandum and understand what it is, and you will understand why no one talks about it (hint: it's a worthless piece of paper acknowledging Soviet nukes controlled from Moscow being moved over to Russian Federation from Ukraine Republic and Kazakhstan Republic in order to prevent any nuclear disasters).

Boomer energy

It was fake and cringe as fuck.

Actually it appears she has done her research, i can tell she wanted to get into it but its kind of hard to on this "debate" panel format. So it appears she "lost" when in fact, she is the most correct one there. 1. Soviet victory in the east was greatly aided by the Allied powers having other fronts, and lend lease, but there is no hard evidence saying it won the war. There are well stated documents showing how much supplies (food/war material etc) was being used by the USSR that was foreign and it is miniscule, helpfull but not as important as you stated. 2. The Italian campaign only diverted about 200,000 men that were going to be used on the Eastern Front. The rest would have been as reserve and not have gone. They in truth could not send more to the Eastern front, the German logistics were so terrible they could not have even used them effectively. This is also well documented and this is before heavy allied bombing campaigns. They just did not possess the ability to arm and maintain more Axis soilders. (They had virtually nothing to even arm the Romanian and Italian allies to German standards that were already there) 3. The Germans were able to produce and replace a massive amount of material that was lost so much so they were producing MORE at the end of the war then they ever had actually with Allied bombing campaigns, sounds crazy i know but very true. It came down to what they lost, they lost there best soilders, most experienced veterans the best of the best were destroyed between 42-mid44, before we even landed in France. (Moscow, Stalingrad, Operation Saturn, Kurks, Bagration) All took place before we really made our contribution. Those were the defining years, the War was absolutely won by then. So the fact that the Germans were not able to defeat Russia in 41-42 actually was the reason why they lost, and those reasons as virtually all data can back up was that the USSR, virtually alone outright stopped the Germans and the push to Berlin ensued. It's hard to argue against our narrative here in the USA because its so ingrained in our minds, but in truth not only did the USSR contribute the VAST majority of the effort to defeat Germany, it appears they really did do it on there own. (Although our contribution absolutely saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives) that part is really the only part we can debate

@@MichealWalls geh

@@UnclePhilly225 If she did her research she'd know that saying "what if the US didn't join the war" is about as insightful a question as "what if Hitler didn't invade Russia" given that a) Axis alliance existed b) FDR was already desperate to join the war c) Hitler was insane and likely would've declared war on the US on a whim eventually anyway.* Even if you grant the idea that things would go swell and the Soviets push back to Berlin no worries without any support and don't just sue for peace at some point, at that point you've granted all of Western Europe to the Soviets. Now it's incredibly hard for the US to justify involvement in Europe, since they didn't bother at all during occupation. So this idea that now you're fighting against a weaker USSR. Right, so 40M casualties rather than 25M is going to be all the difference? Are the additional casualties justifiable for some hypothetical geopolitical advantage? These WW2 counterfactuals are inane at the best of times, but to use one in the context of a contemporary discussion is just embarrassing. *in fact Hitler did declare war on the US for no reason!

Discussion should always happen regardless of who's doing it.

Yeah his voice, the way he talks, He's always composed and well educated on the subjects he discusses. I like him.

He's super pro american interventionism tho.

@@LewdConnoisseur American interventionism is based.

Dude was talking out both side of his mouth the whole time, that and misunderstanding others statements to strawman them.

Pixel actually has some very based takes when it comes to geopolitics.

@@MaryGraceRu wasn't pixel the one who said an nft joke and then "gave context" and then nothing else? I don't think she even gave an opinion

It was won by the USSR

@@saulmendez2276 big if true

@@cameronpatterson130 The USSR faces only one front and struggled to defend its territory. The USSR would have never reached Berlin without the Allies.

people are delusional if they think that Russia would simply hand over Sevastopol when it's their main naval base giving them access to the seas south of the country instead of going north only. Personally I'd be in favour of handing over Sevastopol to Russia including a border re-evaluation to secure peace as I doubt they want the country, just the military base to ensure they have the same theatre access long term.

What situation in Baltics? Baltics are part of NATO and EU, the fuck do you want from Russia other than bitching at it constantly?

Why no Russians and Ukrainians on the panel? They could have found somebody on Reddit with a webcam and an opinion...

She's either delusional and narcissistic or was put on the spot and told to talk against Ukraine. Her arguments are absolute dogshit.

war started in 2014. US, UK and France ALREADY turned away back then and didn't do anything.

The only logical solution made in this whole debate

*USSR, not Russia.

Ussr and UK were big players to beat Germany

Ukraine is based

I'm not sure which panelist your comment is towards, but I completely agree.

True

Sanctions are an act of war and rather than de-escalate things, typically escalate them and cause regular working people to suffer.

@@cameronpatterson130 "Sanctions are an act of war " Objectively false. "cause regular working people to suffer" Good thing we can have an actual war as an alternative, nobody suffers with that. Oh wait a number of ukrainians has already died because of russian support of separatist groups, with others suffering due to the economic consequences. Oops!

@@cameronpatterson130 So then I suppose we should just sit on our hands as Russia has murders it’s way through Eastern Europe

"The most important things in this war are the machines...The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war" - Stalin "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war...One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war" - Nikita Khrushchev

@@masonrussell579 im talking specificlly about the USA entering the war with their military, not lend lease och there manufacturing.

@@aidan883 i understand, however, there is a general consensus in the academic and military academic field that, while Americas military involvement did help shorten the war, they were not key in winning it. Ofcourse, there is no way to know for sure.

I almost died of laughter

Help with what lol? Envading Russia?

The Americans funded the USSR and the uk before they even joined

@@aidan883 Canada was an ocean away and gave plenty of support and troops, during the entire war. I'm not saying the US didn't have an impact but when they act like they're the sole reason Japan conceded or that Germany fell because of them, it's incredibly grating.

Germany was absolutely not going to fall before the U.S invaded. There’s a big difference between a slow death and immediate conquering, neither the Soviets nor the U.S could’ve gotten the end date that they did for WW2 without one another. If we went with Taftaj’s absolutely immoral solution, the war would have lasted much longer, because although lend-lease was good, Germany’s projected end only came with Allied involvement+Soviet involvement. And guess what a longer WW2 means?

@@yorhahoudini4531 Death is death. Just because it might have taken longer doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying the US had no impact, it's just not the huge impact Americans seem to think it was.

@@yorhahoudini4531 the US wasn't that big of a player UK and ussr were the main players in defeating Germany

Operation northwoods isn't a conspiracy theory

Thanks!

If nazi Germany had had time to stabilise itself they probably could’ve. They had such a huge portion of Europe by that point

@@evaahh9584 It doesnt really matter how much of europe it had when there is a sea in the way filled with the strongest navy in the world with little to no air cover.

@@jimmyd1337 yes, but land = resources and resources (with enough time) = more ships. They could maybe get Spain and Italy on side and now it’s Europe vs Britain. Britain would lose.

@@evaahh9584 No, because they also failed in Russia. They could not fight a war without the resources holding russia would of brought. Did you not know Italy was one of the Axis powers? Italy was onside at he beginning of the war already and was a dismall failure. They surrended and Germany took there ships anyway. Only the right land actually means resources. Which is one of the reasons why the Germans main ambitions was East

@@bigzclipz5104 Zelensky's Jewish

Wowowo you putting out of context so hard

@@zeanith5313 ok

I just realized that there are people watching this for reasons other then entertainment lol. It’s honestly shocking to me that anyone was under the impression that this is meant to be productive? It’s hosted by a man who has literally framed debates like this like WWE matches.

They rationalize support child porn like every other month, how did it take you this long to figure that out?

Just wait until you delve into the methstiny or vaushtiny lore

Same but ended up staying for blood sports

Yep buddy, the americans xd

Because these are the same people who wanted to invaded Iraq for 9/11 (???) and Weapons of Mass Destruction which were proven to be a lie and now post rationalize it as proactive foreign policy while even that doesn't make sense as it didn't achieve any of their fictional foreign policy goals (where is USA now in ME? Worse off than it was with Saddam under their paycheck), and then wanted to invade Syria for Assad Gassing his people which was proven a lie too. It's superficial moral grandstanding used on the public as casus belli for the public while the actual geopoltiical reasons are strategic security and economic motivations that are boring, intricate, and at times seem callous/insidious/counter productive due to the complexity of it all - your country planning all this crap while taking into account all the other countries planning their own crap, it's not something that can be condensed to a few moral feel good talking points.

username checks out

As an European, i agree. They are so confident (and wrong) when talking about the rest of the world, especially on distant cultures. It's just too funny

@@elios2296 its why debate panels are a thing to share info you guys really be bad at Americans talking lmaoooo cope more bruhh

@@char1363 Americans shouldn't talk at all

​@@elios2296Europeans are much more educated (cope)

which one ?

You kind of forgot the whole strategic bombing campaign and vital intelligence that the British gave to the Soviets. Also Lendlease, which gave the Soviets high quality logistics so they could focus entirely on arms production. Also preparing an amphibious assault is very time consuming and full of risk. Everyone at D-day expected a far worse outcome. You also glossed over the North Africa campaign and the attempted invasion of Italy. ''The turning point of the European war was the battle of Stalingrad. In that singular battle the Soviet Union defeated about as many German and Axis soldiers as the western forces did on the entirety of continental Europe.'' My take on that is Kursk was the turning point because that was the last time the Whermacht was capable of a large offensive. Although Stalingrad really has an argument. ''This is what I was taught at Austrian schools and what I have learned from Wikipedia and military history channels like Military History Visualized, Drachinifel, Lindybeige etc.'' you got some good taste I give you that

@@dinoperative3468 I didn't forget shit. Both of those brought the end of the war closer. They didn't make it possible though. Buddy, unless you've got a degree on it I will take what my teachers and the experts say as the actual answer to this question.

@@TheStargatefan1000 Why so hostile? Either way strategic bombing definetly did it's part. There is a huge wall of text to discuss the effects but I'll keep it short. 1. It completely axed Speers ''miracle program''. 2. It pretty much tied the entire Luftwaffe up. 3. Germany had to divert tons of resources and men to keep their airspace not filled with bombers. For example we both know that the German 88 was a really good anti tank weapon. They had to use 20.000 of them instead of using them on the Eastern Front. The invasion of Italy basically got Italy out of the war. Which was pretty much Germany's only ally who was kind of helpful. You don't need to be a historian or depressed history teacher to have a valid statement, especially in the most black and white war in human history. On the other side all my claims are backed up by historians. I don't get my info from the ''history'' channel.

@@dinoperative3468 Buddy, unless you've got a degree on it I will take what my teachers and the experts say as the actual answer to this question.

@@TheStargatefan1000 You don't need to be a historian or depressed history teacher to have a valid statement, especially in the most black and white war in human history. On the other side all my claims are backed up by historians. I don't get my info from the ''history'' channel.

Adam had the best understanding of the topic which is no surprise. The American conspiracy guy was pure comedy and no substance and the libertarian 'no intervention' guy sounded so America-centric it was hard to listen. Destiny isn't well read on this topic but at least he stayed a bit humble and Kevin was coincidentally correct.