comment: >
  
  So you don’t know how to prove me wrong, but you don’t like what I’ve said.
  Bold strategy.
context: HR department at German intelligence unit is very busy with all the new job applications >
  
  Welcome back to classic Russian encroachment Germany, Russia still hates you apparently for the time you tried to invade them 600 years ago, again in 1918 before Russia pulled out of WW1 and again in WW2 during Operation Barborossa >
  
  Germany was formed in the late 19th century. Russia as a country has existed since 1991. What 600 years ago, are we talking crusades again? The Teutonic Order against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was not Russian by the by. Trying to make it sound like "Germany invaded Russia 600 years ago" is some revisionist bullcrap. Perhaps Russians entertain ideas like that. >
  
  For the people who don't read the link: first recorded conflict dates back to the 13th century.  Teutonic Knights took land in the Baltics.  Prince Alexander Nevsky defeated them at the Battle of the Ice in 1242.
  More than 600 years ago. >
  
  Yes but not Germany and not Russia at all. >
  
  Not the modern states, but German and Russian identities are much older than the modern states >
  
  I think that's right. While I've never met Putin, I suspect he sees himself as heir to not just Stalin, but the czars going all the way back. >
  
  The opened their eyes.  They were always there. >
  
  I think it’s more that they’re actually starting to pay attention to it now, instead of outright ignoring it. >
  
  Isnt soviet infiltration been historically unparalleled? Might as well act like everyone is a russian mole >
  
  Yep, Mexico is probably the worst >
  
  explain please? >
  
  Mexico has long been a target of Soviet and Russian infiltration due to it being easier to spy on than Canada or the US but still close to the US border and closely tied to the US culturally, politically, and economically.  Last year US intel reported that Mexico has the highest concentration of Russian intel operatives of any nation outside Russia itself. >
  
  German intelligence has been a long time , being riddled with Russian agents . One of the former leaders of Germany worked for a Russian oil company . >
  
  Still works and you should call him out by name: former chancellor Gerhard Schröder >
  
  Also the guy who started the dismantling of the nuclear power planta (often erroneously blamed on Merkel) to make sure Germany would depend on Russia for energy >
  
  Same thing happened in Canada - the biggest opponents to the oil pipelines were Russian social media accounts. >
  
  Those pipelines prop up the oil business generally - more oil dependence is good for Russia. They dont want you building geo thermal, nuclear etc. >
  
  It’s makes the decision to moving to renewables easier in my view. Better for the environment AND less money to Russia. I see no downsides aside from the III (initial infrastructure investment). I just coined that term. It’s free for all to use. >
  
  Even if you ignore the environmental benefits, it makes sense economically too. The more distributed your energy generation is, the more robust your grid is and the less 'swingy' your costs are. 
  Also, encouraging solar panels on residential / commercial buildings takes strain off existing power plants, allowing an existing power plant to serve a growing market for longer. 
  It's a no brainer, really. >
  
  Growing activity like swarms of Russian propaganda accounts posting and brigading on reddit? Cringe NK style propaganda posts like this, with tonnes of white balding russian commenters and voters. >
  
  That’s hardly a propaganda piece when the top comment is 
  “Ivan and the boys on their way to the conscription office”   
  There’s not a single person in that country that is happy about being drafted into this mess.
  Trust me, I’m a better dead than red kinda guy and I know they have their trolls but this is a stretch. There’s no immediate narrative for the viewer and is mostly leaving the viewer confused. >
  
  Except in the replies there is a lot of anti usa/ukraine sentiment and russian propaganda points being made including, and i am slightly paraphrasing “if usa can do it (Iraq etc) then everyone can”, “putin never threatened using nukes, usa did” and my favourite “why werent usa punished/sanctioned for iraq”. 
  And those who disagree with those got downvoted. Not too strongly though, so i guess ratio wise its fine. I guess op’s main point would be that the video tries to “endear” russian to the western public. Like, you know, ohh those silly russians. Maybe a bit of a stretch too, idk. Makes sense to me. >
  
  Perhaps they are planning taking Putin window shopping. >
  
  Yup. We are going back to the good ole Cold War Days! >
  
  Russian military sucks without inside people to spy, after Ukraine booted all the infiltrators Russian military could only bomb civilians and civilian housing. >
  
  They're looking for somewhere to hide that doesn't have windows. >
  
  That joke has sprinted through and transitioned many opinions of the former Soviet Union and satellites and European s-it’s understandable not to have something that can cut or broken open quickly;  happens in other parts of the world, also >
  
  Is this like how ISIS supposedly popped up out of nowhere and caught everyone totally off guard? I never bought that. It has just become useful to mention this. As the Zerg would say, we require more minerals. >
  
  It was pretty well known from the beginning that ISIS was formed by hardline members of Saddam's intelligence services after his government collapsed and the rank and file were left with idle hands. >
  
  They’re winding up for 2024. It’s their last bet. >
  
  Calling Germany passive after their enormous aid to Ukraine, their incredibly fast cold turkey from Russian gas and oil as well as stark opposal to Russian disinformation is a certified /r/worldnews moment >
  
  Turkey is not an EU member... >
  
  I meant NATO but then I second guessed myself for some reason >
  
  You sure you should be holding opinions on this topic? >
  
  I’ve yet to see any comprehensive comment refuting what I’ve said, so yes. I’m not against being wrong but the standard for being wrong is higher than “ha ha you got a specific group wrong gotcha”
  Just because you don’t like what I’ve said means I’m wrong. Rather, someone else has already commented a fairly comprehensive point in agreement.
  Just being snarky isn’t really adding value to the conversation. >
  
  
  I’ve yet to see any comprehensive comment refuting what I’ve said, so yes.
  
  So you don't know what you're on about, but no one has proved you wrong (well they have, but evidently not enough to satisfy you), so you're just gonna keep on going?
  Bold strategy.