"If you're enjoying our coverage of these on going tensions..." I can't say that I'm enjoying the coverage. It's quite depressing actually. But the work is quality and worth a subscription.
Here's a little insight, into why Putin has such a large base of anti-western supporters among the 35+ population. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the USA was not ready for it. It was not expected. So when Yeltsin became the leader of the newly formed Russian Federation and invited western advisors to help boost his own position, they didn't have a real plan. They had no teams prepared, plans worked out, so they swarmed the Russian government with anyone they can get their hands on. My aunt who worked in the government at the time says that sometimes English would drone out Russian in the office. Problems were, that: 1) Without a plan, all western advisors had was basic advice, not grounded in the reality of post-collapse Russia. 2 (and much much bigger) Yeltsin was power-hungry, corrupt, and incompetent. They told him to privatize the economy. He set up a system that allowed his allies to rob the nation blind. They told him to decentralize the state. He turned regions into private fiefdoms for his friends can rule like little tyrants, dismantling whatever structures USSR had to reign in such people. And so on, and so forth. The Dashing 90s. People were starving, living in complete poverty, and in a state of constant terror. Police and government worked for hand in hand with organized crime. All while that drunk idiot and his oligarch friends were selling anything of worth for scrap metal. And the American shadow was one step behind them. And so many countries were "assisted" by the West after USSR's collapse. Why did so many easily transition, while Russians had to fear for the lives of their children? In the Soviet Union, you can keep doors unlocked! Now you have to barricade it at night. The West chained itself to Yeltsin and his actions. West=Yeltsin=90s. What's more believable? That Western powers fucked up and failed to see who they were jumping into the bed with? Or that they used that drunken fool in an attempt to permanently nail the Soviet coffin shut? I'll hint - people don't think the American government was stupid. This post-90s generation will always support anyone who antagonizes against the West because they had a taste of "western values", and they did not like it. Nostalgic on everything good that the USSR had and seeping the misery of the 90s, they will burn Putin at the stake if he so much as hint at western cooperation. Until they become a complete minority, I don't think we can get over with this 20th-century shadow.
Oh I believe that the US government is stupid. I also believe that it's malicious. USA has a long and clear history of destroying countries for fun and profit, particularly those that challenge capitalism's hegemony. It's on the goddamn wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if you want me to believe that everything that happened to Russians after the collapse was just a bunch of unhappy coincidences, maybe you shouldn't have done everything in your power to cause that collapse.
@@Scriptorification How about instead of just shutting off when such people from east Germany speak we listen to them. They are the ones who still know in what ways life was better in the DDR than now, they are the ones who had to live through the robbery by the Treuhand. We should not antagonize them but listen and undo some of the harm that has been done to the east by the BRD.
America will soon be communist also after the upcoming revolution disenfranchises it's greedy capitalist pigs. It will then be called the USSA (UnitedSocialistStates of America) ✌😎
Thank you so much for this video, it's great to be able to understand their point of view, specially when I feel like the argument of "Russia is the bad guy just because" has been the only thing I've heard since forever, I don't think there's objectivity in media. Of course I don't agree with everything Russia has done, but it's nice to have perspective.
Great video, and like you said in the last point, Russia fears a repeat of all of the western invasions. However the West has also always feared Russian domination, which is why the UK and France both intervined in the Crimean war in the 1800s, as it was to prevent Russia from growing too powerful and dominating all of mainland Europe. It's been a mutual cycle of fear, as Winston Churchill said "in politics no enemies nor allies are permanent, only interests are" or something along those lines, Russian interests have always been to protect the russian heartland by pushing the frontier further west, while European powers always wanted to contain Russia before it swallowed all of Europe
True, but the Ukraine only became a problem when it or rather certain groups tried to make it non neutral. It was meant to be a buffer, it would be fine if it joined the European economic union, but not the military. There is also a question of what do the people in some areas want, like spain with Catalonia there are parts of the Ukraine that dont want to be part of it(often for similar reasons, different culture and feeling underrepresented).
@@Nik-tm6vq I mean, yeah, Russia is also apart of Europe, they had their own colonizing share as well, the US also did colonization directly and indirectly. So whether they colonize or not is irrelevant to Russian and Ukrainian conflict, although Ukraine themselves hasn't colonized anyone yet
@@Nik-tm6vq I mean, yeah, Russia is also apart of Europe, they had their own colonizing share as well, the US also did colonization directly and indirectly. So whether they colonize or not is irrelevant to Russian and Ukrainian conflict, although Ukraine themselves hasn't colonized anyone yet
@@Stevie-J it really isnt. america is the political succesor to france and britain both of which worked for centuries to contain russian interests away from europe. also as soon as berlin fell the west was very quick to work together with "ex"-nazis against the soviet union.
@@Stevie-J America is now the belligerent power in the world, a power that says one thing and does another. And even as a Briton I now see the USA as the greatest threat to world peace. The way the USA is behaving now reminds me of the lynch mobs of America's past: choose a convenient scapegoat, and spread fear and hate through false accusations, and go on repeating those same accusations until people start believing the lies... Today the USA is trying to demonise both Russia and China and many of us in Europe have no wish to be a part of this modern day US lynch mob mentality.
@@gracchus7782 I think the reason had one name: _Açores_ (Azores). Portugal was a neutral country, and as such we maintained commercial relations with both sides during the war, namely selling wolfram to Germany (used in cannons and other weapons). The bargaining chip with the Allies was ceding a military base in Terceira island, Azores - thus having a strategic point in the middle of the Atlantic, half way between America and Europe. Under threat of invasion, of course... Salazar's regime was only to get worse with time, and pressure over the colonial question only increased with time. But the strategic importance of Portugal allowed this early membership to go on.
I'm unfamiliar with the legal contents of the UN Libya inquiry but would like to to add that Russia was hardly alone in its criticism. While there was some initial support for a no-fly-zone, both the Arab League and the African Union, as well as the BRICS countries, soon condemned NATO's subsequent broader bombing campaign.
The point missing in the vidoe is that while NATO action might or might not have violated any UN resolution it was not a defensive action by NATO. And please notice that the problem would not have arriesed if the NATO members as individual countries has done the same. But going via NATO was needed to use the italoan airbases. This sparked a controversy in Italy since NATO action where outside the alliance agreement and in the italian constitution illigal. But the last problem was avoided by invoking NATO alliance which removed any risk of judiciary intervention. In italian eyes it was a dumb political action because it reduced italian energy companies access to the lybian resources in favour of France and UK (20/20 hindsight).
I guess another way of looking at all this is, is that Europe might have bit of a trauma over genocide since the last time, so they get a bit touchy over it, especially if it seems like it might happen nearby. Of course one can wonder about what followed, but it does explain at least some of the support it could get from various parts.
@@FableBlaze They removed a mad dictator from power who responded to protests with military force. I have no problem with the Libyan intervention, only with how little was done to help the country return to a peaceful state.
Also, in hindsight, the action against Gaddafi has resulted in an even bigger humanitarian catastrophe in a failed state. They should not have deposed him the way they did.
I can't argue much with your reasoning here, other than to point out that often economics is important, not just pride and military conquest. I doubt that it's a coincidence that this push by Russia is happening during the peak period for natural gas use by Western Europe, as well as negotiations to start building Nord Stream 2. Also, Germany is entering its next phase of shutting down its nuclear power plants, thus at least temporarily increasing its dependency on natural gas.
it would appear that Turkey was accepted into NATO because it was the best way to launch nukes at Moscow back in those days. it was also a vital location of choking any maritime access for the USSR.
@@wli2718 Also because it was, overall, a stable democratic state that had deliberately and fully, under Ataturk, embraced Western civic culture and values, leaving the old Ottoman ways behind, and wanted to align itself more fully with the Western, European sphere.
Turkey is European in many ways, including Diversity and LGBTQ community allowed exisence, the elections are very democratic from the 2000s, the only different is lifestyle and education system
Just a little fact: one of the first things that Putin did when he became a president of Russia was asking NATO to let Russia be a part of it. NATO denied his request. If you want to know more, consider watching this "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin". FIY: I'm not pro-Putin, I just want peace in the world.
Everyone is a puppet to the western world, if you step up, you're an enemy. Like what Putin said, USA have military base in almost every country, Russia doesn't.
Neutral?? If this is neutral you've clearly been watching too much western propaganda, this very clearly has a bias towards the west. For example Nato's actions in Libya are mentioned but they fail to mention how they turned the richest and most stable country in Africa into a complete piece of shit that to this day has 3 different governments, terrorism, poverty, slave trafficking, etc.
@@Ahmed-Muflahi though I agree with you this that the video clearly isn't taking a neutral stance. It wasn't also particularly going into the details for the invasion. It mostly covered UN support (the UN made up of many non Western Nations including the majority of the continent of Africa) and also had the support of the Arab League (an organisation of 21 Arab states).
Yes but Greece and Portugal where members while they were ruled by military juntas at some point. So, I’m not sure democracy is such a strong criterion for NATO!
Ambiguous term that can mean whatever you want it to mean. I am sure Russia considers itself a democratic state. Most countries do, yet you can use the definition of democracy to your liking and label almost any country as non-democratic. For example, the demos can never rule when you are not considering women as people and not giving them voting rights. With only this, almost none of the present democracies have been anything close to a democracy until the 20th century, since all of them decided to treat half of their population at least as not really a human being when it comes to making decisions. Slavery can never exist in a democracy either, nor can any country that considers itself a democracy step on human rights, especially in terms of denying people their rights for ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, self-determination etc. I think we can agree, if we are being honest, that human rights violations happen in almost every country, often on a very large scale. All of this has made democracy a simple buzzword in political arguments and has made it more and more devoid of meaning.
Libya and Kosovo indeed represent questionable examples of Nato interventions. Still these countries were not subject to any expansion plan; the worst part is that they are left to themselves, so mistakes were certainly made. But Syria is not in better shape despite the non-intervention. In the meanwhile, Ukraine's territory has already been invaded and we are now talking about a large scale occupation from Russia. Belarus is practically already under Russia's rule. I see the expansion theory being applied only by one side in recent history and it's not Europe.
In Kosovo* massive US/NATO Military base called "Bondstill" was build after NATO forces came (and are still there). So what Russia did in Crimea, NATO did in Kosovo 1999. "Bondstill" is biggest US Military base build after Vietnam war.
@@jaye20 and that’s why my friend USA hates us . In all honesty I have a strong theory . And that’s just a theory that the USA and Russia are plotting strongly against the eu . Both countries have proved they hate it (have no idea why maybe jealousy ?) and ever since the war started it seems both countries are starting to take over the eus economy . Russia forcing countries to buy gas with rubles while also raising the price and the U.S. also rising its gas price . Both countries also have common enemies like the terrorist organisations and interestingly enough if you dig deeper they have fought battles together . Or as they like to call it a special millitary operation . Just find it dodgy tbh
Unlike some of your recent videos, I enjoyed this one - it seemed balanced in perspective and informative in multiple regards, bringing together strands of information from multiple sources. Nicely done.
Indeed. Although the implicit bias still shines through here and there. eg 2:30 "self advertises" would have been a much more neutral way of phrasing that. "Self perceives" implicitly suggests that the Russian perspective is wrong. Still, an improvement on previous videos.
Not very balanced from my point of view, as it says that democratic country is a threat to Russia. In fact, Russia not cares, as it did not intervene in revolutions in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia perceives only modern european culture as a threat -diversity, LGBTQ etc., not traditional european culture.
@@Admin-gm3lc You say "in fact" and "Russia perceives" as if you have some authority on the subject that, unless you work inside the Kremlin, you probably don't. Like all most voices on this it sounds like you're just projecting your own biases without any real research.
For all that Putin's fears of The West might be based on the points illustrated in the video, I actually believe his animus comes from a much more personal place. He came up as a KGB agent in the crumbling last days of the Soviet System. He saw The West as an implacable enemy that was bent on Russian destruction, and he worked in a system that served as a bulwark against that destruction. Then, in the late 80s and early '90s, he saw that system humbled and brought low, all without a shot being fired. He hates that, and wants to reverse that humiliation.
@@FULANODETAL Yeah I don't think communism mattered to him all he saw is mighty empire collapse and carved up and he probably still hates people who let it happen. He didn't see USSR as a communist thing but more of as an empire I assume, or rather saw it primarily as an empire rather than some ideological project.
You mean fielding Russian gear into Donbass, which would make it bordering several NATO members like Cuba is near the US? You’re right, Russia is doing it again, being the aggressor.
@@mormacil NATO arming terrorists around the globe. NATO is expanding and expecting Russia to sit back. That's delusional. US is currently occupying 1/3 of Syria. Do you, or anyone in the west, call that being the aggressor? Israel is occupation of parts of Syria and their illegal settlements? the days of exceptionalism are over. Also, claiming Donbass as an argument for 'bordering several NATO members' ? seriously?
@@zendanceprojectarchanharmo579 The US isn’t occupying Syria, please name a single internationally recognised terrorist group armed by NATO. You’re sprouting propaganda devoid of facts. But I see a lot of whataboutism, the hallmark of a losing argument on your side. NATO has every right to expand and Russia has 0 rights to desire no NATO on its borders. If Ukrainian wants to join NATO then that is their right.
@@mormacil Al Nuzra, for one. NATO is supposed to be a security alliance. So, a simple question, how is it creating security to its own members by meddling in Ukraine, which is not a member?
You seem to have a problem conflating personal liberties with economic liberalization. At several points you mention that promoting individual liberty is a goal of NATO, and imply that Putin sees this as a threat, while only mentioning in passing that NATO makes economic liberalization a condition of membership for some countries. Without wanting to get into an argument about its relative merits of economic liberalism, I hope it shouldn't be controversial to say that it's an economic philosophy that can benefit certain parties more than others, and therefore pressuring other countries to adopt it can hardly be seen as benign interest in human rights devoid of cultural and political implications.
@@franknwogu4911 You should probably learn what economic liberalism means before you embarrass yourself further. Hint: Trump's "America First" policy was extremely antithetical to economic liberalism, because outsourcing jobs to locales with lower labour costs is a very economically liberal thing to do.
I don't care about Putin's perspective, because what he has said about his perspective is not just wrong, but fractally stupid. That is, stupid on all levels,, no matter how far you break it down.
As a US citizen, I come out of this video somewhat surprised to see that the Russian perspective isn't entirely without merit. I think it is unreasonable for Russia to hold three centuries' worth of history against the modern political climate, however. I mean, counting back to Napoleon's invasion as a demonstration of the modern world? Madness.
For russians, history for them is their life line. Thats why they have to defend several invasions just to retain their identity. Whats your identity? Lol
While Putin is clearly in the wrong, it feels odd when AN AMERICAN talks against clinging to one's view of history.... All due respect, but Boston Tea Party, etc....
@@henriklarsen8193 I don't take your point. Independence from British control was, again, centuries ago. Several major reshuffling of international politics has happened. Britain is now one of the US' most important allies. Relationships between nations change, especially over such long periods of time. It is one thing to remember history for what it is, it is another to base current foreign policy on distant history where circumstances were very different.
@@daniell1483 Sorry, it was the other way around. Outside the US, American culture is often seen as clinging very much to their own history as justification for a lot of things. We see Americans use constitutional interpretations to justify rampant gun culture, Pax Americana foreign policy, abuse or neglect of US citizens themselves, and more. Fair or not, it leaves a weird taste in many non-Americans' mouths when Americans argue that one should not justify the present with deeds in the past. Nothing personal, you do not seem to think that way, but it still feels a bit weird.
@@daniell1483 China sees things in very much the same way. And they can also very eloquently quote historical examples of western nations imposing their ideology on other nations through violent means or simply through greed or fear. The sentiment on the current situation in China is that while Russia is the ‘wrong’ for invading another sovereign country, they ‘understand’ Putin’s move because Putin cannot have NATO on his doorstep. Russia and China simply cannot understand why Western nations insist on imposing ‘democracy’ on other countries. Just because something worked for you guys, doesn’t mean that it will work for them. Similarly, just because the evil dictatorships of western countries pillaged, robbed , colonized and enslaved entire nations out of pure greed, doesn’t mean that dictatorships in their countries will take the same path. In China’s eyes, they have NEVER invaded or conquered or colonized other countries despite having been a dictatorship for almost all of its history, while the western countries who now fill their mouths with “humanitarian rhetoric” were the very ones who invaded and pillaged their country in the past, and never bothered with reparations. The West fears a non-democratic China and Russia because they were themselves evil before they became democratic, so they assume the same of others and fear those who walk a different path. As long as the West continues to fear them, China and Russia will forever resent the Western countries for what they did to them in the past.
you are forgetting that NATO was formed to counter the Solviet Union but that entity is gone but NATO remains . putin wanted Russia to join NATO in 1999 but NATO refused.
Russia is officially the heir to the USSR, this of course does not say anything, because Germany is also the heir to the Third Reich, it seems to me that Russia was not accepted into NATO because they were afraid that Russia would restrain the expansion of the NATO alliance to the borders of the Russian Federation, in principle, most likely it would have been but imagine if Russia were given power in Europe where it really deserves, which is exactly Belarus and Ukraine, then now Russia would be an ally of the West and would be against China and not vice versa, Russia is a key player in the matter of confronting the West against China, Russia has power over India and also over European countries, and thanks to this it can help China and China helps Russia in the economy, if it were the other way around ...
Poland in real life: Relatively small country with history of more than 150 years under Russian direct/indirect occupation Poland in Russian propaganda: destroyer of worlds, biggest existential threat
Tenet of fascism, your enemy is both incredibly strong and incredibly weak. Russias portrayal of Poland is fascistic. Playing the victim of aggression by a weaker party is a key component of fascism. Nazis loved blaming the Jews e.g.
On another historical note, during the Great Northern War (the 1700 Russian Swedish War here), the Swedes did actually help the Ukrainians of that time (the Cossacks) for their independence against Russia. But Sweden would likely not have invaded there if it would not have been the coldest winter in 500 years, which pushed them more south to warmer climate
Well calling zaporozian cossaks Ukrainians is a bit of a stretch. They were definitely one of the ancestors like kievan rus is to russia but not the same thing. Ukrainian as an identity really begins in the 19th century with poets such as Taras Shevchenko who in manyways is responsible for the Ukrainian language. Then Ukrainian gained a national identity as a consequence of ww1. Very brief overview overview .
first of all if you state something then state Ukraine means border..and cossacks were 70 percent russian vagabonds so basicly if if Sweden helped then helped cossacks pillaging poland litvania which sededen wanted .. on other hand did vikings or swedes helped cause cossack is term for vagabond same as it is for viking one who go to steal pillage ect.
@@ivanvoronov3871Schevtchenko and others are responsible for literature and romantic national ideas - the language "ukrainian" (basically slavic) itself was predominant in a bigger area than modern Ukraine. It's just zaristic russo-imperialistic repressions of ethnic minorities started way earlier than the 19th century - thus no ukrainian schools were allowed to exist, literature was censored and so on. Russian nobility and russian military apparatus were quite sophisticated in their job, especially in killing off all the cyclic rebellions against the russian zaristic presence in Ukraine. Russian empire was genociding around the 19th century against everyone anyway, including the caucasus. Cities like Kiyv were more like power projection centers with extensive Garissons, so no wonder they were predominantly "russian-speaking" during the century long occupation. So no, we're not brothers, we're not same and we definetly do not want to be part of the muscovites empire ever again.
@@ivanvoronov3871 calling russians and kiyvan rus one clear ancestrial line is a bit of a stretch. Modern russians genes and their language are somehow a finno-ugro-turco-slavic mixture - it's perfectly fine, no offense - it's just Ukraine and it's language have more in common with Poland and Polish than Russia and do not let me start talking about values and culture. In Russia it was always bullying and violence - and unless it ceases to exists as an empire - it will always be.
i like how this describes how russia feels so invaded by Europe historically but fails to mention russias CONSTANT invasions of poland going back a thousand years.
the funny thing is, USA doesnt give a damn and people dont understand. USA is always in the wrong, just like what they did to Afghanistan... The Taliban isnt a terriost group, its trying to protect their country, because USA invaded it! Not because they are terriosts.
I’d argue the anti-western sentiments go all the way back to when the Rus’s under Alexander Nevsky (13th century) were fighting the germans (teutonic knights). He was later canonized as a saint in the Russian church and Stalin used his memory to rally Russia against the Nazis.
Excellent point about the historical tradition of anti-Western sympathies going back to the 13th century; quite true. Whilst Nevsky fought to save northern Russia from the Teutonic Order, the rest of the Rus principalities (including Kiev) were overrun by the rapacious Mongol invasions, whilst the Western realms stood by blithely oblivious to it all.
Kosovo is an interesting example of a province wanting to breakaway because the people were being treated badly and wanted to secede the nation - NATO helped that area have it's democratic will - Which unfortunately is much the same argument Russia can make for Crimea's population - and indeed probably could argue for the eastern provinces - From a Russian viewpoint (not mine personally) it's just respecting the democratic will of the local people to secede - If they organised a referendum in those regions with international observers to verity it - and it appeared a majority there wanted to secede Ukraine - it would be hard to argue against, given NATO's involvement in Kosovo - and the principle that the democratic will of the people is supported - Now instinctively, I'm not convinced that comparison is valid - but it's hard not to see the point being made, ^oo^
Russia wants to annex ALL of Ukraine. Not just the east. Plus, can you really let people decide to join a regime? Would you let the Sudetenland vote to join Nazi Germany?
Well, maybe Russia should ask themselves why all those slavic countries that have culturally much more in common with Russia than the EU are begging to join NATO and not Russia… Nobody likes a bully.
*nods* While Ukrainians (and Russians) as people might have more reason to see each other as brothers and sisters, I can definitely say it's a common sentiment in Europe (and Germany especially) to consider Ukrainians as Europeans. It's one of the reason they're receiving so much help. We consider them part of us (not talking EU or NATO, just "us Europeans").
Well maybe other should wonder why NATO stayed after the collapse of the Soviet union It's not a defensive alliance anymore its away for America to control Europe, look at all the wars NATO got themselves into the Russian invasion started after NATO existed for 30+ years more than needed for a defensive alliance
@@salahabdalla368 Maybe because people aren't gullable enough to think that a country and its people change overnight? Maybe you should read up on history and look into cultural aspects. Frankly if a NATO style organisation had being and remained in place after WW1, then maybe the Germans would not have been able to give it another go in WW2. Since the collapse of the USSR Russia has constantly showed aggressive behavior to neighbouring States such as Georgia and chechnia. The question is why would NATO disband?
@@fordprefect4843 sorry but Chechnya not a state, it's part of Russia. Learn geography. And Russia put Georgia in its place, when Georgia attacked and bombed South Ossetia
It is beyond asinine to say that we bombed Libya for humanitarian reasons. They weren't from one of the richest countries in Africa to the poorest with no humanitarian aid since. What a joke.
On a historical note, it is not that all invasions towards Russia have been through Ukraine. During the 1600 the Swedish invasion was from the north capturing Novogord and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth went through what is now Belarus (Smolensk was even in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) towards Moscow (were both sides fought about Moscow). But it is half true in other examples
@@kamilszadkowski8864 hahaha, liberation, yeaaah. Western Ukraine was annexed and during the time that it was controlled by Poland it tried to assimilate Ukrainians and closed Ukrainians schools and tried to make them use Polish. This spilled into ethnic conflits and was one of the reasons of the apparition of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and the beginning of OUN-UPA.
Cause WW1, cause WW2, cause Napoleonic wars, cause Crimea war... And cause in the end we were all betrayed. And we won’t be able to just forget everything and live in peace
Someone must’ve said this too, but I think Russia is also concerned with western cultural ideas too (gay rights, feminism and other liberal ideas coming to a culturally conservative state) I think Putin sees NATO as a project to spread those ideas into other parts of the world.
@Furiosa Haha really? You fckn people are amazing. Get schooled in history first before you make such dumb statements. So you're saying it's ok for NATO to impose "democracy" by force? You obviously think that Slavs are some savages just because they don't align with your Western values. Such hypocrisy.
@Furiosa Would you say the same thing in the early 20th century when teliophilic homosexuality was both criminalised and perceived as a mental illness and where people of colour were openly discriminated against as mandated by law? Or the 18th and 19th centuries where human beings were property (chattel and indentured labour slavery)? Or the late 20th century where raping your wife (in Britain) was entirely legal? Are what about your much praised democracy - before female suffrage in the 20th century and universal male suffrage in the 19th? Were these human rights then or did they only become human rights when the West said so? Could the Muslim world have argued that because polygyny wasn't allowed in the USA that therefore it was oppressive and should be sanctioned?
America and other NATO countries might be DEMOCRATIC in.their own country, but in international affairs they are dictators! In the UN there are 193 countries and very often they vote against American proposals, yet America never listen! America is a super power, so it feels like it can dictate other countries while saying it's a democracy!😅😅😅
While it's true that European countries has attacked Russia quite some time over the years, it's not too dissimilar from how much any European country is attacked by the surrounding European countries... It's not specifically towards Russia; Europe was simply a warfilled region.
I wish I knew what it was like living in a country with a history of being invaded... unfortunately I am french and everyone knows France has never been invaded before.
@@antoinedemm7533 Yeah, right, that's why we all speak the Gaulish language of our ancestors, right ? Since then France was only invaded by the Romans, the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths, the Ummeyad Muslims, the Vikings, the English, the Prussians (twice) and the Germans (twice); and that's not counting armies only going through (Hannibal), or peaceful population moves...
Just to put things into context, those humanitarian missions were truely humanitarian. In both mentioned examples NATO countries (not NATO itself, mind you) decided to fight against tyrants to prevent them from killing others just so they can impose their own short-sighted philosophical view. You know, the thing thats happening in Ukraine right now, by a tyrant, who wishes to impose his own short-sighted philosophical worldview..
Spain not joining until 1982 for democratic reasons is a bit of a stretch. Portugal was a founding member and had a fascist government at the time, and was as democratic as Spain was.
Keep doing these kinds of video's, it helps everyone get different perspective views in before making conclusions. It helps people open up discussions in places that are not echo chambers.
NATO blew the opportunity to call ourselves strictly defensive. Plus defensive doesn’t mean it can’t make the first move. If it’s deemed the best defense is to strike first. Ukraine should have remained neutral. Our western leaders played the poor people of Ukraine
Bad comparison since Russia has multiple times invaded neighboring nations while the West/NATO has not, and in fact is getting requested for support by Ukraine. So let's fix that. Russian press in 2014: "Why Ukrainians hate Russians so much?"
@@stephenjenkins7971 Of course, you are completely wrong. In recent history Russia intervened in Georgia, which was copmletely justified by murderous attack of neo-nazi Sakaswili on Southern Ossetia. Crimea was peacefully joined Russia after nazi coup in Kiev, so this doesn't count. West, on other hand at least annually attacks some poor nation: Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iran (terrorist attack on General Souleymani), Syria, Libya, Somalia.. Plus constant economic and informational war on Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine.. Of course you are not that ininformed, but you support it, because West is fucking exceptional in your head, and has some privileges that others doesn't have..
@@laznoime1621 Everyone Russia wars with someone becomes Neo-Nazi. At some point, people are gonna begin wondering if the real Neo-Nazi are the ones finding excuses to always be "defensive" and take new regions from their neighbors. Which nation in the past 30 years has suddenly gained new territory "defensively"? Didn't the original N@zis use the same logic in Austria, the Sudetenland, and later Poland that its either "defensive" or a "fair referendum"? Ah yes, poor Iraq that was constantly invading neighbors. Poor Serbia that was genociding Bosnians. Poor Iranian General that was organizing terrorist attacks against US troops. Poor Syria which was gassing civilians and freeing terrorists from prisons to scare the populace and which Russia bombed towns and cities with schools. Poor Somalia, which was an international humanitarian intervention to stem genocide as well. Libya is probably the only fair point you've made; though there was a UN-sanctioned no fly zone. Haven't mentioned how Russians created the referendum after occupying Crimea and shot at international observers from investigating. Also haven't mentioned how Putin lied that there were Russian troops involved and saying it was homegrown. I am literally only bitching about Russian invasion in Ukraine, smartass. The West essentially just complained about Russia stepping into Syria, Libya, Mali, Georgia, Chechnya, Kazakhstan, etc. It was the invasion of Ukraine that pissed the West off enough to start actively preparing defenses and prepare sanctions to hurt Russia. As it turns out, the West is more than capable of ignoring Russian atrocities far from NATO jurisdiction, and NATO countries knew that placing new weapons of war near Russia was justifiably seen as instigation. But then Russia went ahead and instigated new conflict by starting a war near NATO countries and now has placed 100,000 troops near them too. No, I understand that Russia has interests and geopolitical ambitions, but and so has the West, which is why they bitched but never did anything. But Ukraine, who are democratic and right next to NATO and wanted to join the EU? Russia which stole new territory? No, sorry, but this is something the West can't ignore at all.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Look, man. you said that West/NATO has not attacked enyone, and proved you are wrong. Idiotic attempts to justify these aggressions don't interest me.. Neonazis are people that are trying to destroy some ethnic communities.. Which Sakasvili tried with Ossetians and Kiev junta with people from Donbass.. And they got what they deserved. And they will get it again if they try another aggression against Donbass. Simple as that. Your fairytales about democracy in neo-nazi Ukraine is just a bad joke.. Before nazi putch in 2014. about half of Ukrainians voted for so called pro-Russian political options, and after putch they were banned.. Banning political options that half of people are voting for cannot be democracy.. And let's clear something up.. When we say West we think of American political class and their colorless vasals from Europe. And colorless vassals don't decide anything, just following masters orders. Economic sanctions against Russia will not hurt USA, but will hurt Europe.. And this is exactly the goal of Yankee empire: to secure complete control over their vassals economy.
@@laznoime1621 Hmm, fine. Somewhat fair point. Let me rephrase; the West/NATO has not invaded neighboring countries in acts of aggression in the past few decades while Russia has multiple times. I mean, if you consider stopping genocide to be aggression, then that just kinda proves what kind of people that supports Russia are, huh?
It is an utter lie; because no such promise was ever given by the West. A single US diplomat did, but he was reprimanded for it and it was retracted on the spot.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Actually, there is a memorandum document in which it quotes German representative Jürgen Chrobog at a meeting of "political directors of the foreign ministries of USA, Great Britain, France and Germany in Bonn, 6 march, 1991". Chrobog said "we made it clear in the two plus four negotiations that we are not expanding NATO beyond the Elbe. We can therefore not offer Poland and the others NATO membership".
@@tehdreamer Except those memorandum documents were from representatives that were quickly called to scale back their promises since they were BS. The US National Security Council especially called on James Baker, who made those "iron clad guarantees" to never expand NATO to retract it, and he did. So Russia is using words that were retracted as proof that the West broke a verbal promise, not even a treaty.
@@tehdreamer If those diplomats overstep their boundaries and rectify their precious statements to the point the Gorbachev publicly claimed that no agreement was made to prevent other nations from joining NATO? No shit. It's called human error, and it was rectified. Now if Putin can stop perpetuating this stupid lie to justify Russian imperialism, we could all be better for it.
NATO didn't attack Iraq, U.S. and Britain attacked. I have to mention this because we tried to get NATO on our side and they disapproved. But at the time U.S. and Britain were both victims of terrorist attacks.
Hastings Ismay the first Secretary General of NATO described the alliance as *''to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.''* So Russia is quite right in their perception of NATO. And I believe this is a somewhat of a good thing because I'm from a European NATO country as well and I wouldn't want the Russia to attack my country or other European countries.
The more this unfolds, the more I appreciate Attack on Titan more. Both sides in a war are just afraid of war and death. Both are interested in self preservation. I could see why Russia detests NATO and the west, but that does not excuse war. I really hope this all gets resolved without the wall titans (also known as nukes) wiping out 80% of the population
As all this unfolds, I can't help but think about the countless works of fiction that reflect our real world. So many of them seem to agree that pointless wars will be death of humanity. If only we could learn to take these lessons to heart, before they become reality.
It probably also hates them because when it proposed at the UN that the glorification of Natzism should be outlawed the U.S. and Ukraine were the only two nations to vote against the proposal.
@@davidalmeida2991 Google the following UN resolution: A_RES_75_169-EN The title is: Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance Ukraine and the United States were the only two countries voting against. These countries are Nazi apologists.
I don't think for the us that was about not being against naziism, but because to do that would violate america's second law of freedom of speach as the at is valuable.
@@666Tomato666 I didn't say the Russians were ever in the right but we should stop pretending like we're so perfect and like we didn't make any mistakes
@@pinkdiamond1847 oh, the west is quite hypocritical, sure, but there is a degree to everything and what Russia is doing is few orders of magnitude worse
I am late to the party, but its a solid video. Russia and the west also have a very different view of what humanitarian crisis means. Does Russia's recent anti gay legislation give NATO the right to intervene as they did in Kosovo? Is separation of church and state a fundamental right and a reason NATO could intervene? "Belief in God" is enshrined in Russia's constitution. That obviously doesnt give russia license to invade a sovereign country. But its interesting to see this from a russian perspective. Great Job!
What the USA continually forgets is 1/2 the world is not democratic and has not been for thousands of years and does NOT want Corporate America under the guise of Democracy
Libya is today a failed state, thanks to NATO. As for Kosovo, today it is democratic on paper, yet led by ultranationalists. Being a non-albanian in Kosovo is not healthy. Make no mistake, if dictator of Belarus was pro-NATO. He and Belarus would we celebrated in Westen states. It's not about being right, it's about who's side you're on.
Yap NATO always loved dictators and even nazis as long as they were anti Soviet, also the west failed to realize that Libya was held together by the iron fist of a dictator and only by that.The minute they got rid of that it became a mess.
What, like Erdogan somehow is? Nobody in the West is 'celebrating' Erdogan or Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. If Lukashenko were pro-Nato, he and Belarus would be, at most, one of those leaders the west has an awkward relationship with. Foreign Policy isn't black or white - it's not a stark choice between caring about democracy and human rights and those things being completely irrelevant. In practice, there are degrees of closeness in international relationships, and fundamental systemic differences usually create friction, even between countries that are erstwhile allies. Just because a country is allied to the West, doesn't mean Western diplomats and politicians are 110% on board with whatever their regime does, it's just there are practical limits to the amount that can be achieved and completely boycotting any country which isn't a liberal democracy would be wildly impractical.
@@havocgr1976 We loved Soviets when they were anti Nazi as well, sending billions to the USSR for support. I'd rather every dictator die than tolerate them, to be honest.
Putin does have a point.... if NATO is "purely defensive", then why does NATO need to expand into Ukraine? Ukraine is not necessary to the defensive priorities of NATO. but it is much more useful for starting a conflict with Russia. it does seem reasonable that the best way to preserve peace is keep Ukraine as a buffer zone so NATO and Russia does not share border.
NATO DOESN'T need Ukraine. Ukraine needs NATO. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from NATO unless Russia attacks a NATO nation. If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would have already been done. The prime time would have been right at the collapse of the Soviet Union when Russia was in disarray and at it's weakest. Putin is former KGB and his paranoia is the REAL threat to Russia.
When Reagan and Michael Gorbachev I am not sure they told them that we are not going to expand east of here and that what they did Romani Bulgaria Poland and other countries joined NATO and now Ukraine isn't not going to happen ww3 is coming
@@jamesstreet228 NATO doesnt need Ukraine, which is why they are not committed to defending Ukraine. but NATO certainly likes to expand, especially if that means undermining Russia's security situation.
@@jamesstreet228 lol you really think NATO can take out Russia 🤦🏻♂️😂. You would be starting a nuclear war if NATO even thinks about it. All of Europe will be in ashes if Russia is provoked into a nuclear war.
I was disappointed to see how shallow and non-nuanced the part about culture was. I don't doubt Putin is an authoritarian figure that indeed fears liberal/democratic tendencies arround his sphere of influence. But simply painting the picture as "democracy, liberty and rule of law are things that Putin sees as a threat" seemed like a malplaced argument in a supposedly serious, neutral video like this. The reality is that how people from different cultures perceive everything from personal things like sexuality and morality, to more grand things like liberty, rule of law, etc, will always be different, and when western implementation of e.g. democracy may live up to the ideals of the ideology more, it is easy to be blind to aspects that doesn't live up to these ideals because of things like culture. What I am trying to say is - while there may be a point in the argument, the argument itself is childish - culture does matter, and just because you talk about "non controversial things" as liberty, it doesn't mean the perceived threat is liberty itself, but rather the pretexts one can make out of the differences in the approach and views on e.g. liberty.
that may be true but through a democratic lens Putin would not be as popular as he seems. A fair election Putin probably even be voted out. There is a reason why many anti gov protests were shut down with leaders imprisoned or exiled.Tensions with neighbors can steer attention from the problems at home to the problems of enemies. If you asked the majority of russian population they would support democracy as that is what Russia is suppose to have. Unlike somewhere like China where they outright denounce democracy so the people are more inclined to not care as much and to follow the party.
I am a long-time fan and viewer of TLDR as you promote information in a digestible, professional manner. I noticed a small editing issue at 4:07 which I have never seen before. Even the best are continuously learning. Hats off for another wonderful video!
"Political and cultural project": You could have mentioned the fact that the U.S. has about 80000 troops in Europe and those people bring American food and values with them. That's of course an influence, going far back. For example, Elvis Presley was stationed in West Germany for 17 months, back in 1958.
Yeah... Elvis' hips were an existential threat to Russian maidens! Of course when the U.S. refused to become involved in Europe in the 20th Century, that "refusal" was twice forced down our throats in little dust-ups called World War I and World War II. Better to have some troops in the game rather than turn away and await World War III. The Beatles were British, but we didn't feel "threatened" by their music or there touring American (along with other British talent). And we've always welcomed and lauded Russian artists in the U.S. Finally, we love all sorts of food from Europe -- including Russia -- and Asia. And look how the USA has been enriched by other cultures over decades and decades. It's a two-way street: influences travel in many directions.
Putin reaching back into centuries old history to justify Russian dominance of that area is farcical. By that measure you could justify all sorts of aggressive actions around the world as nations make claims based on ancient history. Regardless of how much emphasis Russians do or don’t place on their history this is a real reach for justifications on Putin’s part.
Putin's next long story: "The Western threat started 20,000 years ago when a west European decadent capitalist caveman whacked a patriotic russian caveman with a club". 😂
That's the thing that people in the west don't realize. Almost everyone on the planet thinks like Putin. While the west was expanding it's reach, and totally dominating the world, everyone else was weeping for their crumbling empires of old. The whole end of history stuff was nothing more than west being drunk on success, and totally forgetting that for the rest of the world, the history is just getting started. Fasten your seatbelts, as historical claims are going to become trendy again. Hope I'm wrong though.
@@annewalden3795 I think it is more about oil and gas discovered around Crimea, Luhansk and western Ukraine in 2012. Developed Ukraine that is exploiting those resources could have potentially replaced Russia as the main supplier of gas to Europe, and I imagine that for Russia there is no greater threat than that. That's like someone threatening to replace you at your job, and steal your main source of income. The way I see it, Russian calculation was simple, they were destined to lose Europe either way, so they decided to at least take the Ukrainian gas reserves with them and sell it elsewhere.
Putin is a scoundrel and will dredge up anything to justify his conduct .He does not appear to understand that times change and the population of the satellite countries in East Europe do not have fond memories of the USSR and indeed hate Russia .
You forgot the "attack" word. "A military alliance that was founded to oppose your former country ATTACK". If there was no NATO Russia had already taken most of Europe. If NATO would want to take Russia they would had done it when the URSS went down and would not help them to strengthen there economy. NATO is just a excuse.
You know its really ironic, that he complains about united Europe/west AND western aggressors at the same time, when literally everytime some nationed invaded Russia, rest of Europe united against that aggressor WITH Russia. (Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France, Swedish empire and polish lithuanian commonwealth)
@@dlugi4198 Don't underestimate Putin. His excuses are just a facade for what he really wants: a Russian superpower that can compete with the likes of the US, with its sphere of influence restored, like it was in the Cold War.
Don't you guys have history classes in the West? Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Croatia, etc. all waged war on the Russian army and Russian civilians on Russian territory during the last world war.
I think the cultural issue is deeper than that. The values you associated with the west are “the good side” and not very controversial. The problem is that in Russia there is the idea that in general social liberalism, pacifism and the decline of religiosity has put the West in a weak, even decadent position as a society. And it fears that those values it consideres foreign to Russia are adopted by it’s own society and corrupt it.
Speaking as an American, I wish it was just as simple as balance of power. I can agree that social liberalism has made the West weak. While I love my country, I'm also not going to deny it's obvious faults that it's still wrestling with internally. So if Russia is worried about Western social influence for the worst, their concerns are certainly not unfounded.
@@vanbaguette7368 He does not, he understands potential coming from the West regardless of which country and ideology are dominant at any given time in history.
@@nikk2472 Yeah but who controls all the Oil in Libya now? Nato and the U.S have never cared about humanitarnism. the Libyan invasion was more about economic moves Gadaffi was making with Russia and other African countries.
Cadaffi was killed because he wanted to united the whole Africa, and America never want other big strong country to exist, the Soviet Union was too big, so needed to be splitted , China is now getting too strong and it's big! That's why there are these problems of Tibetan separatists, Xinjiang separatists, Hongkong separatists, and Taiwan! All supported by the US! Using the power of the western media, smearing the opponent country and people as EVIL and create Asian hate. For the Americans, China better break into a few small pieces, and fight each other, so that they can never become a big power, and America can always stay No. 1 to dictate the world.
The cultural argument has more meat than it looks. Culture and traditional customs matter a lot because it's a guarantee that you can more efficiently trade with another similar country. Through a common cultural ground and common interests, it becomes easier to develop certain industries (leisure, oil & food exportations for instance) which foster the growth of the energetic sector. Through a militaristic protection of your cultural influence, you also ensure massive economic growth. That's how the USA and their soft power - through Hollywood and fast-food restaurants - won over the entire World. They not only used the power of the world wide web with the emergence of internet, but also their tight relationships with NATO members to promote their own lifestyle to a vast portion of the World.
Very well said 👍, people don't realise how significant the soft power is. Here we are talking on on American platform using American operating system, showing Western ads.
Maybe? But how can you prove cultural motives for a whole country. especially one as culturally divided as the USA is today. This also applies to a lesser degree with the UK.
Politics aside for me it dont matter what politics Russia or NATO has. There was a scene in the movie 1917 with a quote from Mark Strong that eventually played out in the final parts "Some men just want the fight." Meaning People in command don't always care about their peoples lives. That said both should be ashamed of themselves.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've seen there's nothing that can justify the current Ukraine situation - but I can't act like NATO is a collection of saints either, despite how most of the news is brought here. Then again, the fact that I can find official reports on the doubtful-to-bad decisions NATO has made in the past without any issues is something I can appreciate. My news might be colored in favor of NATO, but at least we don't seem to suffer from full on propaganda-only news items.
If PL Commonwealth had the chance to smash the Russian Empire back then Russian Federation wouldn’t exist as of today but sad Instead they Fuck your nation that you couldn’t even have a power to stand. 💀
While there are Foreign Secretaries like Liz Truss in charge of UKs foregn policy, i have no faith in any kind of peace. Her demenaour is so aggressive, provocative and bossy - i cant imagine anyone wanting to deal with a person like that. Much like Priti Patel, and BoJo
1) There will be no attack on Ukraine. 2) You guys are certainly making a lot of apologies (at the start of the video) about representing a pro-Russian point of view. Is your target audience so far gone that you have to remind them that they can, in fact, entertain an idea without accepting it? This has unfortunately been a token representation, at best. Every time you explained a Russian point of view, you immediately contradicted it by claiming that Russia thrives on lawlessness and fears law and order, while NATO is the brave knight that carries forth these fine values. 3) NATO has been on the attacking side multiple times in the past, and therefore should be viewed as a military alliance, not a defensive one. All large military alliances ought to create buffer zones between each other in order to prevent conflicts. NATO is clearly doing the opposite. Thoughts?
I don’t think they failed to recognize ;) this is soooo wide and you really do it. This is important for someone like me to listen to in a fair and open view
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
'NATO requires the members to uphold the rule of law, civil rights, and democracy.'
Are we pretending to ignore that Turkey is NONE of that? lol
According to the NATO spokesman "Turkey is a special case", he just repeats that again and again if they pressure him for an answer.
And Israel, a _de facto_ member of NATO (or is it _de jure;_ hasn't Israel recently been admitted as an honorary member? Couldn't be sure).
Before Erdogan, turkey was like this
And also that Portugal entered nato in the 50s while it was a dictatorship.
@@havocgr1976 ofcs is "special" because the military power it have
"If you're enjoying our coverage of these on going tensions..." I can't say that I'm enjoying the coverage. It's quite depressing actually. But the work is quality and worth a subscription.
"For more existential dread, try out these other TLDR channels." 😆
Im not enjoying the tensions but I’m enjoying the coverage
@@realtimestatic Im not enjoying the coverages but I’m enjoying the tension
@@MiouMisaki I'm not tension the coverages but I'm enjoying the enjoying
@@teabee5168 I’m convering the enjoyment of the people enjoying covering enjoyment of tensions
Here's a little insight, into why Putin has such a large base of anti-western supporters among the 35+ population.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the USA was not ready for it. It was not expected. So when Yeltsin became the leader of the newly formed Russian Federation and invited western advisors to help boost his own position, they didn't have a real plan. They had no teams prepared, plans worked out, so they swarmed the Russian government with anyone they can get their hands on. My aunt who worked in the government at the time says that sometimes English would drone out Russian in the office.
Problems were, that:
1) Without a plan, all western advisors had was basic advice, not grounded in the reality of post-collapse Russia.
2 (and much much bigger) Yeltsin was power-hungry, corrupt, and incompetent.
They told him to privatize the economy. He set up a system that allowed his allies to rob the nation blind.
They told him to decentralize the state. He turned regions into private fiefdoms for his friends can rule like little tyrants, dismantling whatever structures USSR had to reign in such people.
And so on, and so forth.
The Dashing 90s. People were starving, living in complete poverty, and in a state of constant terror. Police and government worked for hand in hand with organized crime. All while that drunk idiot and his oligarch friends were selling anything of worth for scrap metal. And the American shadow was one step behind them.
And so many countries were "assisted" by the West after USSR's collapse. Why did so many easily transition, while Russians had to fear for the lives of their children? In the Soviet Union, you can keep doors unlocked! Now you have to barricade it at night.
The West chained itself to Yeltsin and his actions.
West=Yeltsin=90s.
What's more believable? That Western powers fucked up and failed to see who they were jumping into the bed with? Or that they used that drunken fool in an attempt to permanently nail the Soviet coffin shut?
I'll hint - people don't think the American government was stupid.
This post-90s generation will always support anyone who antagonizes against the West because they had a taste of "western values", and they did not like it. Nostalgic on everything good that the USSR had and seeping the misery of the 90s, they will burn Putin at the stake if he so much as hint at western cooperation. Until they become a complete minority, I don't think we can get over with this 20th-century shadow.
wow, very good comment with low like count.
@@choibtc6121 well the video was out for a long time. So it's a little late to the party
Oh I believe that the US government is stupid. I also believe that it's malicious. USA has a long and clear history of destroying countries for fun and profit, particularly those that challenge capitalism's hegemony. It's on the goddamn wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but if you want me to believe that everything that happened to Russians after the collapse was just a bunch of unhappy coincidences, maybe you shouldn't have done everything in your power to cause that collapse.
@@Scriptorification How about instead of just shutting off when such people from east Germany speak we listen to them. They are the ones who still know in what ways life was better in the DDR than now, they are the ones who had to live through the robbery by the Treuhand. We should not antagonize them but listen and undo some of the harm that has been done to the east by the BRD.
America will soon be communist also after the upcoming revolution disenfranchises it's greedy capitalist pigs. It will then be called the USSA (UnitedSocialistStates of America) ✌😎
Thank you so much for this video, it's great to be able to understand their point of view, specially when I feel like the argument of "Russia is the bad guy just because" has been the only thing I've heard since forever, I don't think there's objectivity in media. Of course I don't agree with everything Russia has done, but it's nice to have perspective.
Please go speak to the persons who lived since 1945 under Soviet rule. That is a good perspective.
Great video, and like you said in the last point, Russia fears a repeat of all of the western invasions. However the West has also always feared Russian domination, which is why the UK and France both intervined in the Crimean war in the 1800s, as it was to prevent Russia from growing too powerful and dominating all of mainland Europe. It's been a mutual cycle of fear, as Winston Churchill said "in politics no enemies nor allies are permanent, only interests are" or something along those lines, Russian interests have always been to protect the russian heartland by pushing the frontier further west, while European powers always wanted to contain Russia before it swallowed all of Europe
True, but the Ukraine only became a problem when it or rather certain groups tried to make it non neutral. It was meant to be a buffer, it would be fine if it joined the European economic union, but not the military.
There is also a question of what do the people in some areas want, like spain with Catalonia there are parts of the Ukraine that dont want to be part of it(often for similar reasons, different culture and feeling underrepresented).
Yes But Europe colonised third world countries nobody cares about that
@@Nik-tm6vq I mean, yeah, Russia is also apart of Europe, they had their own colonizing share as well, the US also did colonization directly and indirectly. So whether they colonize or not is irrelevant to Russian and Ukrainian conflict, although Ukraine themselves hasn't colonized anyone yet
@@Nik-tm6vq I mean, yeah, Russia is also apart of Europe, they had their own colonizing share as well, the US also did colonization directly and indirectly. So whether they colonize or not is irrelevant to Russian and Ukrainian conflict, although Ukraine themselves hasn't colonized anyone yet
The European powers have absorbed half of the world.
Russia only being invaded 5 times in the past 500 years is kinda impressive given it’s Europe and everyone was invading everyone.
Didn’t counted Mongols and Japan
Sweden counted as one, but there was 12 wars
@@Stevie-J it really isnt. america is the political succesor to france and britain both of which worked for centuries to contain russian interests away from europe. also as soon as berlin fell the west was very quick to work together with "ex"-nazis against the soviet union.
@@Stevie-J America is now the belligerent power in the world, a power that says one thing and does another. And even as a Briton I now see the USA as the greatest threat to world peace. The way the USA is behaving now reminds me of the lynch mobs of America's past: choose a convenient scapegoat, and spread fear and hate through false accusations, and go on repeating those same accusations until people start believing the lies... Today the USA is trying to demonise both Russia and China and many of us in Europe have no wish to be a part of this modern day US lynch mob mentality.
It's also wrong
Honestly 5 invasions in over 400 years is not that much for an European country. France got invaded more in less time.
Conveniently fails to mention Russian invasions in Europe.
@@ararune3734 Russia caused the only European invasions of the 21st century- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.
Weirdly, the Crimean War was omitted. Britain, France and Sardinia invade the Crimean Peninsula to support the Turks.
True, but even one is enough to make you not want to suffer subsequent ones.
@@michaelmanning5379 British Empire is long dead while Russian Federation still has most of the Russian Empire's land territories.
NATO said that they weren't attack Iraq but they did.
No that was only the US and UK the rest didn't join
In your map of NATO countries, you include the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is not a NATO member.
exactly as we’ve always been a neutral country
@@darnellbiggumsthe9th658 because you are so far that in case of war in Europe you would be the last territory to be involved
Not yet... But will be, Ireland politics want that, and people of Ireland nobody asks.
But for NATO Ireland are part of the british Isles 😑😆
@@redsovietcccp3228 aye but we’re not apart of britain, we’ve fought enough civil wars for that and we have another one looming in the north
Well, when Portugal entered NATO in 1949 we weren't exactly a Democracy delight... not until 1974.
And Turkey isn't one today 🙃
Democracy is a political weapon
@@teliver1 - nah, it’s a higher political form.
@@gracchus7782 I think the reason had one name: _Açores_ (Azores). Portugal was a neutral country, and as such we maintained commercial relations with both sides during the war, namely selling wolfram to Germany (used in cannons and other weapons).
The bargaining chip with the Allies was ceding a military base in Terceira island, Azores - thus having a strategic point in the middle of the Atlantic, half way between America and Europe. Under threat of invasion, of course...
Salazar's regime was only to get worse with time, and pressure over the colonial question only increased with time. But the strategic importance of Portugal allowed this early membership to go on.
@@Fuhrerjehova yeah but it used to be in the past, and you can't really kick them out because they stopped being democratic
I'm unfamiliar with the legal contents of the UN Libya inquiry but would like to to add that Russia was hardly alone in its criticism. While there was some initial support for a no-fly-zone, both the Arab League and the African Union, as well as the BRICS countries, soon condemned NATO's subsequent broader bombing campaign.
less goo Putin confirmed sacred of strong Sweden 9:10
The point missing in the vidoe is that while NATO action might or might not have violated any UN resolution it was not a defensive action by NATO.
And please notice that the problem would not have arriesed if the NATO members as individual countries has done the same. But going via NATO was needed to use the italoan airbases. This sparked a controversy in Italy since NATO action where outside the alliance agreement and in the italian constitution illigal. But the last problem was avoided by invoking NATO alliance which removed any risk of judiciary intervention.
In italian eyes it was a dumb political action because it reduced italian energy companies access to the lybian resources in favour of France and UK (20/20 hindsight).
I guess another way of looking at all this is, is that Europe might have bit of a trauma over genocide since the last time, so they get a bit touchy over it, especially if it seems like it might happen nearby.
Of course one can wonder about what followed, but it does explain at least some of the support it could get from various parts.
@@FableBlaze They removed a mad dictator from power who responded to protests with military force. I have no problem with the Libyan intervention, only with how little was done to help the country return to a peaceful state.
Also, in hindsight, the action against Gaddafi has resulted in an even bigger humanitarian catastrophe in a failed state. They should not have deposed him the way they did.
Experts or not, your channel seems genuinely concerned with providing acurate and unbiased information. I'm subscribing!
I can't argue much with your reasoning here, other than to point out that often economics is important, not just pride and military conquest. I doubt that it's a coincidence that this push by Russia is happening during the peak period for natural gas use by Western Europe, as well as negotiations to start building Nord Stream 2. Also, Germany is entering its next phase of shutting down its nuclear power plants, thus at least temporarily increasing its dependency on natural gas.
Nord Stream 2 is already fully built and should’ve started it’s work like 6 months ago, the only problem here is german politics.
@@schwarzer0se463 , thanks for the clarification.
@@schwarzer0se463 , not just politics, there's also regulatory issues.
real dumb and destructive move on Germanys part
Germans and destructive moves go hand in hand for centuries.
Russia: NATO is a political and cultural project.
Turkey: I'll pretend I didn't hear that.
it would appear that Turkey was accepted into NATO because it was the best way to launch nukes at Moscow back in those days. it was also a vital location of choking any maritime access for the USSR.
@@wli2718 Also because it was, overall, a stable democratic state that had deliberately and fully, under Ataturk, embraced Western civic culture and values, leaving the old Ottoman ways behind, and wanted to align itself more fully with the Western, European sphere.
@@thealmightyaku-4153 convenient how people tend to forget that part. Unfortunate for Turks though.
Turkey is European in many ways, including Diversity and LGBTQ community allowed exisence, the elections are very democratic from the 2000s, the only different is lifestyle and education system
if Turkey was not in NATO whole idea of european securşty would be gone imagine Russians are in İstanbul ffs. Europe from the south is undefendable.
What NATO says, in its self description, and what NATO does, and it's members try to do, are not the same.
Just a little fact: one of the first things that Putin did when he became a president of Russia was asking NATO to let Russia be a part of it. NATO denied his request. If you want to know more, consider watching this "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin".
FIY: I'm not pro-Putin, I just want peace in the world.
We can't have world peace until their agenda is exposed and recognized. Iraq and Libya both did not have central banks. I'm with you, friend.
Sometimes justice is more important than peace
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden based
@@conservativedemocracyenjoyer My first based, thanks
Everyone is a puppet to the western world, if you step up, you're an enemy. Like what Putin said, USA have military base in almost every country, Russia doesn't.
I really love this channel and the content because of multiple perspectives and neutral sides. Plus historical context which I enjoy thank you!
Neutral? Seriously?
Neutral?? If this is neutral you've clearly been watching too much western propaganda, this very clearly has a bias towards the west.
For example Nato's actions in Libya are mentioned but they fail to mention how they turned the richest and most stable country in Africa into a complete piece of shit that to this day has 3 different governments, terrorism, poverty, slave trafficking, etc.
@@Ahmed-Muflahi though I agree with you this that the video clearly isn't taking a neutral stance. It wasn't also particularly going into the details for the invasion. It mostly covered UN support (the UN made up of many non Western Nations including the majority of the continent of Africa) and also had the support of the Arab League (an organisation of 21 Arab states).
Yes but Greece and Portugal where members while they were ruled by military juntas at some point. So, I’m not sure democracy is such a strong criterion for NATO!
Yap hilarious bs, I mean Turkey is a member ffs ;p
Only oligarchy is necessary for NATO membership
@@havocgr1976 fVck the Türkiye Republic!
@@Perririri Then Russia should be the undisputed leader alongside China.
Ambiguous term that can mean whatever you want it to mean. I am sure Russia considers itself a democratic state. Most countries do, yet you can use the definition of democracy to your liking and label almost any country as non-democratic. For example, the demos can never rule when you are not considering women as people and not giving them voting rights. With only this, almost none of the present democracies have been anything close to a democracy until the 20th century, since all of them decided to treat half of their population at least as not really a human being when it comes to making decisions. Slavery can never exist in a democracy either, nor can any country that considers itself a democracy step on human rights, especially in terms of denying people their rights for ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, self-determination etc. I think we can agree, if we are being honest, that human rights violations happen in almost every country, often on a very large scale. All of this has made democracy a simple buzzword in political arguments and has made it more and more devoid of meaning.
*"Invasion looks likelier than ever."*
Well, that aged pretty good.
Libya and Kosovo indeed represent questionable examples of Nato interventions. Still these countries were not subject to any expansion plan; the worst part is that they are left to themselves, so mistakes were certainly made. But Syria is not in better shape despite the non-intervention.
In the meanwhile, Ukraine's territory has already been invaded and we are now talking about a large scale occupation from Russia. Belarus is practically already under Russia's rule.
I see the expansion theory being applied only by one side in recent history and it's not Europe.
In Kosovo* massive US/NATO Military base called "Bondstill" was build after NATO forces came (and are still there). So what Russia did in Crimea, NATO did in Kosovo 1999. "Bondstill" is biggest US Military base build after Vietnam war.
@@petars.6210 Bondsteel camp is fundamentally American and has been heavily criticised by the Council of Europe over the years
@@jaye20 and that’s why my friend USA hates us . In all honesty I have a strong theory . And that’s just a theory that the USA and Russia are plotting strongly against the eu . Both countries have proved they hate it (have no idea why maybe jealousy ?) and ever since the war started it seems both countries are starting to take over the eus economy . Russia forcing countries to buy gas with rubles while also raising the price and the U.S. also rising its gas price . Both countries also have common enemies like the terrorist organisations and interestingly enough if you dig deeper they have fought battles together . Or as they like to call it a special millitary operation . Just find it dodgy tbh
Unlike some of your recent videos, I enjoyed this one - it seemed balanced in perspective and informative in multiple regards, bringing together strands of information from multiple sources. Nicely done.
Indeed. Although the implicit bias still shines through here and there. eg 2:30 "self advertises" would have been a much more neutral way of phrasing that. "Self perceives" implicitly suggests that the Russian perspective is wrong. Still, an improvement on previous videos.
Not very balanced from my point of view, as it says that democratic country is a threat to Russia. In fact, Russia not cares, as it did not intervene in revolutions in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia perceives only modern european culture as a threat -diversity, LGBTQ etc., not traditional european culture.
@@Admin-gm3lc You say "in fact" and "Russia perceives" as if you have some authority on the subject that, unless you work inside the Kremlin, you probably don't. Like all most voices on this it sounds like you're just projecting your own biases without any real research.
For all that Putin's fears of The West might be based on the points illustrated in the video, I actually believe his animus comes from a much more personal place. He came up as a KGB agent in the crumbling last days of the Soviet System. He saw The West as an implacable enemy that was bent on Russian destruction, and he worked in a system that served as a bulwark against that destruction. Then, in the late 80s and early '90s, he saw that system humbled and brought low, all without a shot being fired. He hates that, and wants to reverse that humiliation.
and puttin never realize what shitty was the comunist thing??
Honestly it sounds awfully similar to what Hitler felt and needed to do when Germany was brought low.
@@FULANODETAL
It wasn't about communism, that ideology had died long before the USSR did.
@@FULANODETAL Yeah I don't think communism mattered to him all he saw is mighty empire collapse and carved up and he probably still hates people who let it happen. He didn't see USSR as a communist thing but more of as an empire I assume, or rather saw it primarily as an empire rather than some ideological project.
@@JimSendre Also he must Saw how germans totaly hated It..and poles too..
Soviet Russia bringing military equip to Cuba. US: That's illegal.
Same game.
You mean fielding Russian gear into Donbass, which would make it bordering several NATO members like Cuba is near the US? You’re right, Russia is doing it again, being the aggressor.
@@mormacil NATO arming terrorists around the globe. NATO is expanding and expecting Russia to sit back. That's delusional. US is currently occupying 1/3 of Syria. Do you, or anyone in the west, call that being the aggressor? Israel is occupation of parts of Syria and their illegal settlements? the days of exceptionalism are over.
Also, claiming Donbass as an argument for 'bordering several NATO members' ? seriously?
@@zendanceprojectarchanharmo579 The US isn’t occupying Syria, please name a single internationally recognised terrorist group armed by NATO. You’re sprouting propaganda devoid of facts. But I see a lot of whataboutism, the hallmark of a losing argument on your side. NATO has every right to expand and Russia has 0 rights to desire no NATO on its borders. If Ukrainian wants to join NATO then that is their right.
@@mormacil Al Nuzra, for one.
NATO is supposed to be a security alliance. So, a simple question, how is it creating security to its own members by meddling in Ukraine, which is not a member?
@@mormacil they are also arming literal Nazis in Ukraine.
Bravo, this is one of the few times I heard both sides of a story. I'm officially subscribed
You seem to have a problem conflating personal liberties with economic liberalization. At several points you mention that promoting individual liberty is a goal of NATO, and imply that Putin sees this as a threat, while only mentioning in passing that NATO makes economic liberalization a condition of membership for some countries. Without wanting to get into an argument about its relative merits of economic liberalism, I hope it shouldn't be controversial to say that it's an economic philosophy that can benefit certain parties more than others, and therefore pressuring other countries to adopt it can hardly be seen as benign interest in human rights devoid of cultural and political implications.
As NATO relies heavily on the USA, its obvious the whole idea of NATO is VERY beneficial to Corporate America. The rest is just window dressing.
@@johnchristmas7522 dont speak on what u dont understand
Deny right to property and right to economic freedoms is a threat to human rights.
@@franknwogu4911 You should probably learn what economic liberalism means before you embarrass yourself further.
Hint: Trump's "America First" policy was extremely antithetical to economic liberalism, because outsourcing jobs to locales with lower labour costs is a very economically liberal thing to do.
@@eemsg "Trump's "America First" policy was extremely antithetical to economic liberalism" and apples are a fruit
No war please.
I agree
I concur.
I second that
It’s good to look at other view points and to consider different perspectives. Nice video!
I don't care about Putin's perspective, because what he has said about his perspective is not just wrong, but fractally stupid. That is, stupid on all levels,, no matter how far you break it down.
As a US citizen, I come out of this video somewhat surprised to see that the Russian perspective isn't entirely without merit. I think it is unreasonable for Russia to hold three centuries' worth of history against the modern political climate, however. I mean, counting back to Napoleon's invasion as a demonstration of the modern world? Madness.
For russians, history for them is their life line. Thats why they have to defend several invasions just to retain their identity. Whats your identity? Lol
While Putin is clearly in the wrong, it feels odd when AN AMERICAN talks against clinging to one's view of history.... All due respect, but Boston Tea Party, etc....
@@henriklarsen8193 I don't take your point. Independence from British control was, again, centuries ago. Several major reshuffling of international politics has happened. Britain is now one of the US' most important allies. Relationships between nations change, especially over such long periods of time. It is one thing to remember history for what it is, it is another to base current foreign policy on distant history where circumstances were very different.
@@daniell1483 Sorry, it was the other way around. Outside the US, American culture is often seen as clinging very much to their own history as justification for a lot of things. We see Americans use constitutional interpretations to justify rampant gun culture, Pax Americana foreign policy, abuse or neglect of US citizens themselves, and more. Fair or not, it leaves a weird taste in many non-Americans' mouths when Americans argue that one should not justify the present with deeds in the past. Nothing personal, you do not seem to think that way, but it still feels a bit weird.
@@daniell1483 China sees things in very much the same way. And they can also very eloquently quote historical examples of western nations imposing their ideology on other nations through violent means or simply through greed or fear. The sentiment on the current situation in China is that while Russia is the ‘wrong’ for invading another sovereign country, they ‘understand’ Putin’s move because Putin cannot have NATO on his doorstep.
Russia and China simply cannot understand why Western nations insist on imposing ‘democracy’ on other countries. Just because something worked for you guys, doesn’t mean that it will work for them. Similarly, just because the evil dictatorships of western countries pillaged, robbed , colonized and enslaved entire nations out of pure greed, doesn’t mean that dictatorships in their countries will take the same path. In China’s eyes, they have NEVER invaded or conquered or colonized other countries despite having been a dictatorship for almost all of its history, while the western countries who now fill their mouths with “humanitarian rhetoric” were the very ones who invaded and pillaged their country in the past, and never bothered with reparations. The West fears a non-democratic China and Russia because they were themselves evil before they became democratic, so they assume the same of others and fear those who walk a different path. As long as the West continues to fear them, China and Russia will forever resent the Western countries for what they did to them in the past.
you are forgetting that NATO was formed to counter the Solviet Union but that entity is gone but NATO remains . putin wanted Russia to join NATO in 1999 but NATO refused.
Russia is officially the heir to the USSR, this of course does not say anything, because Germany is also the heir to the Third Reich, it seems to me that Russia was not accepted into NATO because they were afraid that Russia would restrain the expansion of the NATO alliance to the borders of the Russian Federation, in principle, most likely it would have been but imagine if Russia were given power in Europe where it really deserves, which is exactly Belarus and Ukraine, then now Russia would be an ally of the West and would be against China and not vice versa, Russia is a key player in the matter of confronting the West against China, Russia has power over India and also over European countries, and thanks to this it can help China and China helps Russia in the economy, if it were the other way around ...
to be fair, Russia knew that they would never be accepted as a NATO member - they did it to make a political point.
That's another story and needs some serious investigation.
@@casualobserver2000 no they didn't
@@Darian___ Search it on google, Russia has never made an atempt to join Nato in 1999, this is fake news.
Poland in real life: Relatively small country with history of more than 150 years under Russian direct/indirect occupation
Poland in Russian propaganda: destroyer of worlds, biggest existential threat
Tenet of fascism, your enemy is both incredibly strong and incredibly weak. Russias portrayal of Poland is fascistic. Playing the victim of aggression by a weaker party is a key component of fascism. Nazis loved blaming the Jews e.g.
Poland hating Russia is fairly modern (you get what I mean)
Poland occupied Russia during the time of troubles and also exploited the Russian civil war to gain land in the east so its really not unheard of.
@@mormacil well yes. The russians blamed Poland for starting ww2
@@om391 there is really no symmetry here
On another historical note, during the Great Northern War (the 1700 Russian Swedish War here), the Swedes did actually help the Ukrainians of that time (the Cossacks) for their independence against Russia. But Sweden would likely not have invaded there if it would not have been the coldest winter in 500 years, which pushed them more south to warmer climate
No Russia and other countries declared war on Sweden, It has nothing to do with weather.
Well calling zaporozian cossaks Ukrainians is a bit of a stretch. They were definitely one of the ancestors like kievan rus is to russia but not the same thing. Ukrainian as an identity really begins in the 19th century with poets such as Taras Shevchenko who in manyways is responsible for the Ukrainian language.
Then Ukrainian gained a national identity as a consequence of ww1. Very brief overview overview .
first of all if you state something then state Ukraine means border..and cossacks were 70 percent russian vagabonds so basicly if if Sweden helped then helped cossacks pillaging poland litvania which sededen wanted .. on other hand did vikings or swedes helped cause cossack is term for vagabond same as it is for viking one who go to steal pillage ect.
@@ivanvoronov3871Schevtchenko and others are responsible for literature and romantic national ideas - the language "ukrainian" (basically slavic) itself was predominant in a bigger area than modern Ukraine. It's just zaristic russo-imperialistic repressions of ethnic minorities started way earlier than the 19th century - thus no ukrainian schools were allowed to exist, literature was censored and so on. Russian nobility and russian military apparatus were quite sophisticated in their job, especially in killing off all the cyclic rebellions against the russian zaristic presence in Ukraine.
Russian empire was genociding around the 19th century against everyone anyway, including the caucasus.
Cities like Kiyv were more like power projection centers with extensive Garissons, so no wonder they were predominantly "russian-speaking" during the century long occupation. So no, we're not brothers, we're not same and we definetly do not want to be part of the muscovites empire ever again.
@@ivanvoronov3871 calling russians and kiyvan rus one clear ancestrial line is a bit of a stretch. Modern russians genes and their language are somehow a finno-ugro-turco-slavic mixture - it's perfectly fine, no offense - it's just Ukraine and it's language have more in common with Poland and Polish than Russia and do not let me start talking about values and culture. In Russia it was always bullying and violence - and unless it ceases to exists as an empire - it will always be.
i like how this describes how russia feels so invaded by Europe historically but fails to mention russias CONSTANT invasions of poland going back a thousand years.
And Finland, Japan, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ukraine, the Ottoman empire...
the funny thing is, USA doesnt give a damn and people dont understand. USA is always in the wrong, just like what they did to Afghanistan... The Taliban isnt a terriost group, its trying to protect their country, because USA invaded it! Not because they are terriosts.
@@jackroutledge352 and China
@@jackroutledge352 russia never touched albania
@@jackroutledge352 so in ww2 it was against all of those?
I’d argue the anti-western sentiments go all the way back to when the Rus’s under Alexander Nevsky (13th century) were fighting the germans (teutonic knights). He was later canonized as a saint in the Russian church and Stalin used his memory to rally Russia against the Nazis.
How about the banks?
Excellent point about the historical tradition of anti-Western sympathies going back to the 13th century; quite true. Whilst Nevsky fought to save northern Russia from the Teutonic Order, the rest of the Rus principalities (including Kiev) were overrun by the rapacious Mongol invasions, whilst the Western realms stood by blithely oblivious to it all.
@@gazlator The Russian also spin the Mongol Occupation as an Alliance made between the Mongols and Nevsky to fight the Germans.
@@drlcartman we don't spin it. De facto Rus in that time was vassal state of Horde
@@drlcartman the hell r you talking about? How being under occupation is an alliance?
HOW CAN RUSSIA NOT HATE NATO / USA / EU / UK / ???
Kosovo is an interesting example of a province wanting to breakaway because the people were being treated badly and wanted to secede the nation - NATO helped that area have it's democratic will -
Which unfortunately is much the same argument Russia can make for Crimea's population - and indeed probably could argue for the eastern provinces -
From a Russian viewpoint (not mine personally) it's just respecting the democratic will of the local people to secede - If they organised a referendum in those regions with international observers to verity it - and it appeared a majority there wanted to secede Ukraine - it would be hard to argue against, given NATO's involvement in Kosovo - and the principle that the democratic will of the people is supported - Now instinctively, I'm not convinced that comparison is valid - but it's hard not to see the point being made, ^oo^
You can't just go around annexing regions though.
@@canismajoris6733 if it's the will of the local people of course you can, there's the Kosovo juridiction
Definitely ig Russians do have a point after NATOs Kosovo intervention
Before you comment about Kosovo you need knowledge about extensive history in that region.
Russia wants to annex ALL of Ukraine. Not just the east. Plus, can you really let people decide to join a regime? Would you let the Sudetenland vote to join Nazi Germany?
Well, maybe Russia should ask themselves why all those slavic countries that have culturally much more in common with Russia than the EU are begging to join NATO and not Russia… Nobody likes a bully.
👏Well said!
*nods*
While Ukrainians (and Russians) as people might have more reason to see each other as brothers and sisters, I can definitely say it's a common sentiment in Europe (and Germany especially) to consider Ukrainians as Europeans.
It's one of the reason they're receiving so much help. We consider them part of us (not talking EU or NATO, just "us Europeans").
Well maybe other should wonder why NATO stayed after the collapse of the Soviet union
It's not a defensive alliance anymore its away for America to control Europe, look at all the wars NATO got themselves into the Russian invasion started after NATO existed for 30+ years more than needed for a defensive alliance
@@salahabdalla368 Maybe because people aren't gullable enough to think that a country and its people change overnight? Maybe you should read up on history and look into cultural aspects. Frankly if a NATO style organisation had being and remained in place after WW1, then maybe the Germans would not have been able to give it another go in WW2.
Since the collapse of the USSR Russia has constantly showed aggressive behavior to neighbouring States such as Georgia and chechnia. The question is why would NATO disband?
@@fordprefect4843 sorry but Chechnya not a state, it's part of Russia. Learn geography. And Russia put Georgia in its place, when Georgia attacked and bombed South Ossetia
It is beyond asinine to say that we bombed Libya for humanitarian reasons. They weren't from one of the richest countries in Africa to the poorest with no humanitarian aid since. What a joke.
Exactly! Smh
"wer more than happy to be corrected"
dont hear those words much anymore, especially form a news outlet
ikr
Foxy 🦊
On a historical note, it is not that all invasions towards Russia have been through Ukraine. During the 1600 the Swedish invasion was from the north capturing Novogord and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth went through what is now Belarus (Smolensk was even in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) towards Moscow (were both sides fought about Moscow). But it is half true in other examples
Also most ‘Russian’ casualties in WW2 fell in Ukraine.
Yeah, the better example would be the Polish-Bolshevic war which indeed started with the liberation of Ukraine by Polish Legions.
Fan du vet mycket, Har du en tre krona tatooering?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 liberation or rather ocupation?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 hahaha, liberation, yeaaah. Western Ukraine was annexed and during the time that it was controlled by Poland it tried to assimilate Ukrainians and closed Ukrainians schools and tried to make them use Polish. This spilled into ethnic conflits and was one of the reasons of the apparition of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and the beginning of OUN-UPA.
Cause WW1, cause WW2, cause Napoleonic wars, cause Crimea war...
And cause in the end we were all betrayed. And we won’t be able to just forget everything and live in peace
Wow that was surprisingly neutral and informative, great work.
Thank you very much for the explaination! I would like to add Russian subtitles to this video because I think many Russians need to see this!
Someone must’ve said this too, but I think Russia is also concerned with western cultural ideas too (gay rights, feminism and other liberal ideas coming to a culturally conservative state) I think Putin sees NATO as a project to spread those ideas into other parts of the world.
Isn't it so? Why USA/UK must impose that Western mentality to Slavic countries?
@Furiosa Haha really? You fckn people are amazing. Get schooled in history first before you make such dumb statements.
So you're saying it's ok for NATO to impose "democracy" by force? You obviously think that Slavs are some savages just because they don't align with your Western values. Such hypocrisy.
BASED!
@Furiosa shut up us Brits should join Russia
@Furiosa
Would you say the same thing in the early 20th century when teliophilic homosexuality was both criminalised and perceived as a mental illness and where people of colour were openly discriminated against as mandated by law? Or the 18th and 19th centuries where human beings were property (chattel and indentured labour slavery)? Or the late 20th century where raping your wife (in Britain) was entirely legal? Are what about your much praised democracy - before female suffrage in the 20th century and universal male suffrage in the 19th? Were these human rights then or did they only become human rights when the West said so? Could the Muslim world have argued that because polygyny wasn't allowed in the USA that therefore it was oppressive and should be sanctioned?
Gadaffi's brutal regime against rebels? WELL WHAT WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO GIVE EM FLOWERS OR SUM???
The problem with democracy liberty and rule of law is that those terms are defined by those in power often hypocritically and excessively
Still better than the alternative.
Whereas autocracy, repression and tyrannical rule are entirely free of hypocrisy. “Might makes right” after all, no?
This is why I hate self-righteous people who thought they knew what is right and wrong.
"The US loves a rules-based international order, because it's the one who gets to write the rules"
America and other NATO countries might be DEMOCRATIC in.their own country, but in international affairs they are dictators! In the UN there are 193 countries and very often they vote against American proposals, yet America never listen! America is a super power, so it feels like it can dictate other countries while saying it's a democracy!😅😅😅
While it's true that European countries has attacked Russia quite some time over the years, it's not too dissimilar from how much any European country is attacked by the surrounding European countries... It's not specifically towards Russia; Europe was simply a warfilled region.
I wish I knew what it was like living in a country with a history of being invaded... unfortunately I am french and everyone knows France has never been invaded before.
@@antoinedemm7533 WW II and the end of the napoleonic wars
@@antoinedemm7533 . Hope that your nation won’t be fuck up by another Winter.
@@antoinedemm7533 Yeah, right, that's why we all speak the Gaulish language of our ancestors, right ? Since then France was only invaded by the Romans, the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths, the Ummeyad Muslims, the Vikings, the English, the Prussians (twice) and the Germans (twice); and that's not counting armies only going through (Hannibal), or peaceful population moves...
@@_asphobelle6887 pretty sure he was being sarcastic
4:08 key word: at least, according to NATO estimates, all other estimates put the casualties at 4000-9000 serbian civilians
Thank goodness for your channel where a person can get education and not just propaganda from the news channels.
Just to put things into context, those humanitarian missions were truely humanitarian. In both mentioned examples NATO countries (not NATO itself, mind you) decided to fight against tyrants to prevent them from killing others just so they can impose their own short-sighted philosophical view. You know, the thing thats happening in Ukraine right now, by a tyrant, who wishes to impose his own short-sighted philosophical worldview..
Spain not joining until 1982 for democratic reasons is a bit of a stretch. Portugal was a founding member and had a fascist government at the time, and was as democratic as Spain was.
Dont forget Turkey. NATO doesnt have anything to do with democracy.
@@PaulV. . Really? West doesn’t give a shit if your nation is a Authoritarian either Democracy as long you accept west and hate Russia Simple as that.
Keep doing these kinds of video's, it helps everyone get different perspective views in before making conclusions.
It helps people open up discussions in places that are not echo chambers.
so are you just admitting you just found out another area of your ignorance?
NATO invaded Serbia lybia Iraq Afghanistan illegally soon Russia is next
@@terrorgaming459 purleassss. you have no idea. Back to school for you.
@@BenState Uhh.. yeah it sounds like he did. But why are you making it sound like that is a bad thing?
@@oskardahle2478 Its not, just lacking self-awareness
Why shouldnt they. They are surrounded by enemies and are conspired against by a US colonial force.
Russia made them enemies
NATO blew the opportunity to call ourselves strictly defensive. Plus defensive doesn’t mean it can’t make the first move. If it’s deemed the best defense is to strike first. Ukraine should have remained neutral. Our western leaders played the poor people of Ukraine
German press in 1941: "Why Soviets hates Germans so much?"
Bad comparison since Russia has multiple times invaded neighboring nations while the West/NATO has not, and in fact is getting requested for support by Ukraine.
So let's fix that.
Russian press in 2014: "Why Ukrainians hate Russians so much?"
@@stephenjenkins7971 Of course, you are completely wrong. In recent history Russia intervened in Georgia, which was copmletely justified by murderous attack of neo-nazi Sakaswili on Southern Ossetia. Crimea was peacefully joined Russia after nazi coup in Kiev, so this doesn't count. West, on other hand at least annually attacks some poor nation: Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iran (terrorist attack on General Souleymani), Syria, Libya, Somalia.. Plus constant economic and informational war on Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine.. Of course you are not that ininformed, but you support it, because West is fucking exceptional in your head, and has some privileges that others doesn't have..
@@laznoime1621 Everyone Russia wars with someone becomes Neo-Nazi. At some point, people are gonna begin wondering if the real Neo-Nazi are the ones finding excuses to always be "defensive" and take new regions from their neighbors. Which nation in the past 30 years has suddenly gained new territory "defensively"? Didn't the original N@zis use the same logic in Austria, the Sudetenland, and later Poland that its either "defensive" or a "fair referendum"?
Ah yes, poor Iraq that was constantly invading neighbors. Poor Serbia that was genociding Bosnians. Poor Iranian General that was organizing terrorist attacks against US troops. Poor Syria which was gassing civilians and freeing terrorists from prisons to scare the populace and which Russia bombed towns and cities with schools. Poor Somalia, which was an international humanitarian intervention to stem genocide as well.
Libya is probably the only fair point you've made; though there was a UN-sanctioned no fly zone.
Haven't mentioned how Russians created the referendum after occupying Crimea and shot at international observers from investigating. Also haven't mentioned how Putin lied that there were Russian troops involved and saying it was homegrown.
I am literally only bitching about Russian invasion in Ukraine, smartass. The West essentially just complained about Russia stepping into Syria, Libya, Mali, Georgia, Chechnya, Kazakhstan, etc. It was the invasion of Ukraine that pissed the West off enough to start actively preparing defenses and prepare sanctions to hurt Russia. As it turns out, the West is more than capable of ignoring Russian atrocities far from NATO jurisdiction, and NATO countries knew that placing new weapons of war near Russia was justifiably seen as instigation. But then Russia went ahead and instigated new conflict by starting a war near NATO countries and now has placed 100,000 troops near them too. No, I understand that Russia has interests and geopolitical ambitions, but and so has the West, which is why they bitched but never did anything. But Ukraine, who are democratic and right next to NATO and wanted to join the EU? Russia which stole new territory?
No, sorry, but this is something the West can't ignore at all.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Look, man. you said that West/NATO has not attacked enyone, and proved you are wrong. Idiotic attempts to justify these aggressions don't interest me..
Neonazis are people that are trying to destroy some ethnic communities.. Which Sakasvili tried with Ossetians and Kiev junta with people from Donbass.. And they got what they deserved.
And they will get it again if they try another aggression against Donbass. Simple as that.
Your fairytales about democracy in neo-nazi Ukraine is just a bad joke.. Before nazi putch in 2014. about half of Ukrainians voted for so called pro-Russian political options, and after putch they were banned.. Banning political options that half of people are voting for cannot be democracy..
And let's clear something up.. When we say West we think of American political class and their colorless vasals from Europe. And colorless vassals don't decide anything, just following masters orders. Economic sanctions against Russia will not hurt USA, but will hurt Europe.. And this is exactly the goal of Yankee empire: to secure complete control over their vassals economy.
@@laznoime1621 Hmm, fine. Somewhat fair point. Let me rephrase; the West/NATO has not invaded neighboring countries in acts of aggression in the past few decades while Russia has multiple times. I mean, if you consider stopping genocide to be aggression, then that just kinda proves what kind of people that supports Russia are, huh?
Was the weird clickbait title really necessary?
Literally missed the most important point- utter lie that West told to Russia not to expand NATO after collapse of USSR.
It is an utter lie; because no such promise was ever given by the West. A single US diplomat did, but he was reprimanded for it and it was retracted on the spot.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Actually, there is a memorandum document in which it quotes German representative Jürgen Chrobog at a meeting of "political directors of the foreign ministries of USA, Great Britain, France and Germany in Bonn, 6 march, 1991". Chrobog said "we made it clear in the two plus four negotiations that we are not expanding NATO beyond the Elbe. We can therefore not offer Poland and the others NATO membership".
@@tehdreamer Except those memorandum documents were from representatives that were quickly called to scale back their promises since they were BS. The US National Security Council especially called on James Baker, who made those "iron clad guarantees" to never expand NATO to retract it, and he did.
So Russia is using words that were retracted as proof that the West broke a verbal promise, not even a treaty.
@@stephenjenkins7971 "They were BS"? So western diplomats should not be trusted, they just lie?
@@tehdreamer If those diplomats overstep their boundaries and rectify their precious statements to the point the Gorbachev publicly claimed that no agreement was made to prevent other nations from joining NATO? No shit.
It's called human error, and it was rectified. Now if Putin can stop perpetuating this stupid lie to justify Russian imperialism, we could all be better for it.
NATO didn't attack Iraq, U.S. and Britain attacked. I have to mention this because we tried to get NATO on our side and they disapproved. But at the time U.S. and Britain were both victims of terrorist attacks.
Hastings Ismay the first Secretary General of NATO described the alliance as *''to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.''* So Russia is quite right in their perception of NATO. And I believe this is a somewhat of a good thing because I'm from a European NATO country as well and I wouldn't want the Russia to attack my country or other European countries.
The more this unfolds, the more I appreciate Attack on Titan more. Both sides in a war are just afraid of war and death. Both are interested in self preservation. I could see why Russia detests NATO and the west, but that does not excuse war. I really hope this all gets resolved without the wall titans (also known as nukes) wiping out 80% of the population
As all this unfolds, I can't help but think about the countless works of fiction that reflect our real world. So many of them seem to agree that pointless wars will be death of humanity. If only we could learn to take these lessons to heart, before they become reality.
It probably also hates them because when it proposed at the UN that the glorification of Natzism should be outlawed the U.S. and Ukraine were the only two nations to vote against the proposal.
Never heard about that… care to elaborate? Thank you!
@@davidalmeida2991 Google the following UN resolution: A_RES_75_169-EN
The title is: Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
Ukraine and the United States were the only two countries voting against. These countries are Nazi apologists.
I don't think for the us that was about not being against naziism, but because to do that would violate america's second law of freedom of speach as the at is valuable.
This aged like the Volkswagen Beetle. Rapidly.
I think you do a very good job of briefly explaining the Russian stance, and it’s context.
I mean we did spend years ducking them.
This is kind of like the British asking why former colonies hate us.
former colonies hating GB are stupid. most nations are better of because of it.
Except it was the Russian that "ducked" themselves, first with the whole cold war, and then by electing Putin, "President" for life
@@666Tomato666 I didn't say the Russians were ever in the right but we should stop pretending like we're so perfect and like we didn't make any mistakes
@@pinkdiamond1847 oh, the west is quite hypocritical, sure, but there is a degree to everything
and what Russia is doing is few orders of magnitude worse
@@666Tomato666 War on Terror says hello
I am late to the party, but its a solid video. Russia and the west also have a very different view of what humanitarian crisis means. Does Russia's recent anti gay legislation give NATO the right to intervene as they did in Kosovo? Is separation of church and state a fundamental right and a reason NATO could intervene? "Belief in God" is enshrined in Russia's constitution.
That obviously doesnt give russia license to invade a sovereign country. But its interesting to see this from a russian perspective. Great Job!
What the USA continually forgets is 1/2 the world is not democratic and has not been for thousands of years and does NOT want Corporate America under the guise of Democracy
The video shows the truth most people lie to avoid getting harrased
Libya is today a failed state, thanks to NATO. As for Kosovo, today it is democratic on paper, yet led by ultranationalists. Being a non-albanian in Kosovo is not healthy.
Make no mistake, if dictator of Belarus was pro-NATO. He and Belarus would we celebrated in Westen states. It's not about being right, it's about who's side you're on.
Yap NATO always loved dictators and even nazis as long as they were anti Soviet, also the west failed to realize that Libya was held together by the iron fist of a dictator and only by that.The minute they got rid of that it became a mess.
What, like Erdogan somehow is? Nobody in the West is 'celebrating' Erdogan or Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. If Lukashenko were pro-Nato, he and Belarus would be, at most, one of those leaders the west has an awkward relationship with.
Foreign Policy isn't black or white - it's not a stark choice between caring about democracy and human rights and those things being completely irrelevant. In practice, there are degrees of closeness in international relationships, and fundamental systemic differences usually create friction, even between countries that are erstwhile allies. Just because a country is allied to the West, doesn't mean Western diplomats and politicians are 110% on board with whatever their regime does, it's just there are practical limits to the amount that can be achieved and completely boycotting any country which isn't a liberal democracy would be wildly impractical.
Yeah whatever, just keep the psycho away from our borders
@@havocgr1976 We loved Soviets when they were anti Nazi as well, sending billions to the USSR for support.
I'd rather every dictator die than tolerate them, to be honest.
"He may be a son of a b*tch, but he is our son of a b*tch" is sadly the motto of politics....
Putin does have a point.... if NATO is "purely defensive", then why does NATO need to expand into Ukraine? Ukraine is not necessary to the defensive priorities of NATO. but it is much more useful for starting a conflict with Russia. it does seem reasonable that the best way to preserve peace is keep Ukraine as a buffer zone so NATO and Russia does not share border.
NATO DOESN'T need Ukraine. Ukraine needs NATO. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from NATO unless Russia attacks a NATO nation. If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would have already been done. The prime time would have been right at the collapse of the Soviet Union when Russia was in disarray and at it's weakest. Putin is former KGB and his paranoia is the REAL threat to Russia.
When Reagan and Michael Gorbachev I am not sure they told them that we are not going to expand east of here and that what they did Romani Bulgaria Poland and other countries joined NATO and now Ukraine isn't not going to happen ww3 is coming
@@jamesstreet228 NATO doesnt need Ukraine, which is why they are not committed to defending Ukraine. but NATO certainly likes to expand, especially if that means undermining Russia's security situation.
@@jamesstreet228 lol you really think NATO can take out Russia 🤦🏻♂️😂. You would be starting a nuclear war if NATO even thinks about it. All of Europe will be in ashes if Russia is provoked into a nuclear war.
@@sridharprasanth8833 Russia will fall without a war, there is already an inside state taking over the Kremlin
I was disappointed to see how shallow and non-nuanced the part about culture was. I don't doubt Putin is an authoritarian figure that indeed fears liberal/democratic tendencies arround his sphere of influence. But simply painting the picture as "democracy, liberty and rule of law are things that Putin sees as a threat" seemed like a malplaced argument in a supposedly serious, neutral video like this.
The reality is that how people from different cultures perceive everything from personal things like sexuality and morality, to more grand things like liberty, rule of law, etc, will always be different, and when western implementation of e.g. democracy may live up to the ideals of the ideology more, it is easy to be blind to aspects that doesn't live up to these ideals because of things like culture.
What I am trying to say is - while there may be a point in the argument, the argument itself is childish - culture does matter, and just because you talk about "non controversial things" as liberty, it doesn't mean the perceived threat is liberty itself, but rather the pretexts one can make out of the differences in the approach and views on e.g. liberty.
that may be true but through a democratic lens Putin would not be as popular as he seems. A fair election Putin probably even be voted out. There is a reason why many anti gov protests were shut down with leaders imprisoned or exiled.Tensions with neighbors can steer attention from the problems at home to the problems of enemies. If you asked the majority of russian population they would support democracy as that is what Russia is suppose to have. Unlike somewhere like China where they outright denounce democracy so the people are more inclined to not care as much and to follow the party.
I think Russia is right about Nato's involvement in Kosovo and Libya. It clearly wasn't because one of the NATO countries was attacked.
I am a long-time fan and viewer of TLDR as you promote information in a digestible, professional manner. I noticed a small editing issue at 4:07 which I have never seen before. Even the best are continuously learning. Hats off for another wonderful video!
NATO: Created to destroy Soviet Union
TLDR: WHY DOES RUSSIA HATE NATO
More like to contain, but point still remains. Russia has every right to view NATO as an anti-russian project.
@@redkraken6516 well no shit. That's just Common sense
"Political and cultural project": You could have mentioned the fact that the U.S. has about 80000 troops in Europe and those people bring American food and values with them. That's of course an influence, going far back. For example, Elvis Presley was stationed in West Germany for 17 months, back in 1958.
A number of European bands have toured in the US as it's customary
We share culture
Yeah... Elvis' hips were an existential threat to Russian maidens! Of course when the U.S. refused to become involved in Europe in the 20th Century, that "refusal" was twice forced down our throats in little dust-ups called World War I and World War II. Better to have some troops in the game rather than turn away and await World War III. The Beatles were British, but we didn't feel "threatened" by their music or there touring American (along with other British talent). And we've always welcomed and lauded Russian artists in the U.S. Finally, we love all sorts of food from Europe -- including Russia -- and Asia. And look how the USA has been enriched by other cultures over decades and decades. It's a two-way street: influences travel in many directions.
Hi, Americans stationed in Germany hardly mingle.
Putin reaching back into centuries old history to justify Russian dominance of that area is farcical. By that measure you could justify all sorts of aggressive actions around the world as nations make claims based on ancient history. Regardless of how much emphasis Russians do or don’t place on their history this is a real reach for justifications on Putin’s part.
Putin's next long story: "The Western threat started 20,000 years ago when a west European decadent capitalist caveman whacked a patriotic russian caveman with a club". 😂
blackeyedlily the truth is that Putin wants the agricultural lands of Ukraine and the historical justification for his aggression is just a fig leaf.
That's the thing that people in the west don't realize. Almost everyone on the planet thinks like Putin. While the west was expanding it's reach, and totally dominating the world, everyone else was weeping for their crumbling empires of old. The whole end of history stuff was nothing more than west being drunk on success, and totally forgetting that for the rest of the world, the history is just getting started. Fasten your seatbelts, as historical claims are going to become trendy again. Hope I'm wrong though.
@@annewalden3795 I think it is more about oil and gas discovered around Crimea, Luhansk and western Ukraine in 2012. Developed Ukraine that is exploiting those resources could have potentially replaced Russia as the main supplier of gas to Europe, and I imagine that for Russia there is no greater threat than that. That's like someone threatening to replace you at your job, and steal your main source of income. The way I see it, Russian calculation was simple, they were destined to lose Europe either way, so they decided to at least take the Ukrainian gas reserves with them and sell it elsewhere.
Putin is a scoundrel and will dredge up anything to justify his conduct .He does not appear to understand that times change and the population of the satellite countries in East Europe do not have fond memories of the USSR and indeed hate Russia .
Alternative title: why does russia hate the anti-russia alliance?
That title... A military alliance that was founded to oppose your former country? Hm no idea why he could dislike that...
You forgot the "attack" word. "A military alliance that was founded to oppose your former country ATTACK".
If there was no NATO Russia had already taken most of Europe.
If NATO would want to take Russia they would had done it when the URSS went down and would not help them to strengthen there economy.
NATO is just a excuse.
Because when countries can stand up for themselves it means Putin can't threaten them into getting what he wants.
maybe because Russia doesn't want the west threatening them
1 Man brings 2 continents to the brink of War. Sound like a familiar story?
Wel...Portugal wasn't exactly the beacon of democracy before the 70s
Shhhhhh🤫
grece and portugal where dictatorships turkey and itali where semi dictatorships like rusia and turkey today
You know its really ironic, that he complains about united Europe/west AND western aggressors at the same time, when literally everytime some nationed invaded Russia, rest of Europe united against that aggressor WITH Russia. (Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France, Swedish empire and polish lithuanian commonwealth)
The reason Russians are soo butthurt is probably, cuz this time Europe united preemptively and only possibly aggressor is currently Russia.
@@dlugi4198 Don't underestimate Putin. His excuses are just a facade for what he really wants: a Russian superpower that can compete with the likes of the US, with its sphere of influence restored, like it was in the Cold War.
@@ryanjonathanmartin3933 It came of wrong. I don't actually claim that he thinks that, I know that he is not that stupid.
Don't you guys have history classes in the West? Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Croatia, etc. all waged war on the Russian army and Russian civilians on Russian territory during the last world war.
Great russian famine, Holodomor, Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda, Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel.
Well I'll give credit where credit is due. Well done on making a non-biased video. It was quite informative. 💯
Republic of Ireland in not a NATO member, the map showing NATO is incorrect.
I think the cultural issue is deeper than that. The values you associated with the west are “the good side” and not very controversial. The problem is that in Russia there is the idea that in general social liberalism, pacifism and the decline of religiosity has put the West in a weak, even decadent position as a society. And it fears that those values it consideres foreign to Russia are adopted by it’s own society and corrupt it.
Yeah, he's got some good points.
Speaking as an American, I wish it was just as simple as balance of power. I can agree that social liberalism has made the West weak. While I love my country, I'm also not going to deny it's obvious faults that it's still wrestling with internally. So if Russia is worried about Western social influence for the worst, their concerns are certainly not unfounded.
Never in my life thought that I will see:
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
Austro-Hungarian Empire,
Nazi Germany,
seen as equals in any sense XD
As an Austrian, I'd never have expected that Putin fears our evil Austrian ideals so much.
@@vanbaguette7368 He does not, he understands potential coming from the West regardless of which country and ideology are dominant at any given time in history.
It is nice to have media that cover both sides.
>invaded 5 time
>invades back a hundred times
a real russian classic
I didn't expect you voice Russia's perspective on the escalation, ever...
So it's cool for you to do it. you have my sub
How was the Libya invasion "humanitarian"? That country just became a clusterfuck after the death of gadaffi. In some cases, better the despot...
Better poor than dead. See Rwandan Genocide.
Correct- thats the whole point. Libya had been that way for thousands of years. One despot after another
@@nikk2472 Yeah but who controls all the Oil in Libya now? Nato and the U.S have never cared about humanitarnism. the Libyan invasion was more about economic moves Gadaffi was making with Russia and other African countries.
Cadaffi was killed because he wanted to united the whole Africa, and America never want other big strong country to exist, the Soviet Union was too big, so needed to be splitted , China is now getting too strong and it's big! That's why there are these problems of Tibetan separatists, Xinjiang separatists, Hongkong separatists, and Taiwan! All supported by the US! Using the power of the western media, smearing the opponent country and people as EVIL and create Asian hate. For the Americans, China better break into a few small pieces, and fight each other, so that they can never become a big power, and America can always stay No. 1 to dictate the world.
1:20 Republic of Ireland isn't in NATO
Excellent video. This is some crucial perspective that anyone should acquire before taking a position on the morality of any international actions!
The cultural argument has more meat than it looks. Culture and traditional customs matter a lot because it's a guarantee that you can more efficiently trade with another similar country. Through a common cultural ground and common interests, it becomes easier to develop certain industries (leisure, oil & food exportations for instance) which foster the growth of the energetic sector. Through a militaristic protection of your cultural influence, you also ensure massive economic growth. That's how the USA and their soft power - through Hollywood and fast-food restaurants - won over the entire World. They not only used the power of the world wide web with the emergence of internet, but also their tight relationships with NATO members to promote their own lifestyle to a vast portion of the World.
The American "culture" and propaganda are disgusting and degenerate.
Very well said 👍, people don't realise how significant the soft power is. Here we are talking on on American platform using American operating system, showing Western ads.
@@farterboy You think Russian culture and propaganda is not degenerate and disgusting?
Maybe? But how can you prove cultural motives for a whole country. especially one as culturally divided as the USA is today. This also applies to a lesser degree with the UK.
Talk about Saudi Arabia, the ally to all NATO countries and compare their culture to the west, and see if the cultural argument stands.
Great video. I would just like to point out that Ireland is not part of NATO. No hate, I found this video very informative
Politics aside for me it dont matter what politics Russia or NATO has.
There was a scene in the movie 1917 with a quote from Mark Strong that eventually played out in the final
parts "Some men just want the fight." Meaning People in command don't always care about their peoples lives. That said both should be ashamed of themselves.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've seen there's nothing that can justify the current Ukraine situation - but I can't act like NATO is a collection of saints either, despite how most of the news is brought here. Then again, the fact that I can find official reports on the doubtful-to-bad decisions NATO has made in the past without any issues is something I can appreciate. My news might be colored in favor of NATO, but at least we don't seem to suffer from full on propaganda-only news items.
You really need to fact check your maps. Ireland is not in NATO.
freudian slip
I wish Poland was half as competent, powerful and dangerous as Russian propaganda portrays us :'(
You kicked Stalin's ass so hard once, that Putin still feels the pain.
If PL Commonwealth had the chance to smash the Russian Empire back then Russian Federation wouldn’t exist as of today but sad Instead they Fuck your nation that you couldn’t even have a power to stand. 💀
Your map is INCORRECT - Ireland 🇮🇪 is NOT part of NATO!
While there are Foreign Secretaries like Liz Truss in charge of UKs foregn policy, i have no faith in any kind of peace. Her demenaour is so aggressive, provocative and bossy - i cant imagine anyone wanting to deal with a person like that. Much like Priti Patel, and BoJo
She's not in charge of Britain's foreign policy, the USA is. And Israel. Britain hasn't had a truly independent foreign policy since 1945.
@@view1st facts
Knew most of this but thanks for producing a video that I can share to educate others of the reality and truth regarding this topic.
1) There will be no attack on Ukraine.
2) You guys are certainly making a lot of apologies (at the start of the video) about representing a pro-Russian point of view. Is your target audience so far gone that you have to remind them that they can, in fact, entertain an idea without accepting it? This has unfortunately been a token representation, at best. Every time you explained a Russian point of view, you immediately contradicted it by claiming that Russia thrives on lawlessness and fears law and order, while NATO is the brave knight that carries forth these fine values.
3) NATO has been on the attacking side multiple times in the past, and therefore should be viewed as a military alliance, not a defensive one. All large military alliances ought to create buffer zones between each other in order to prevent conflicts. NATO is clearly doing the opposite. Thoughts?
As long as there is no attack on Ukraine or any other countrys, I am fine with it.
This comment didn't age well, now did it :) Turns out Putin is indeed insane enough to invade a whole country :D
I don’t think they failed to recognize ;) this is soooo wide and you really do it. This is important for someone like me to listen to in a fair and open view
0:54 - Ireland isn't a part of NATO.