the Warsaw pact group was in many ways forced to be part of that agreement and as soon as they got out of it they formed the alliance that is most in their interest, one that is anti-Russian imperialism so draw your own conclusions about who is the problem actor. at least in the near term imperial expansionist mode that it is in
But “NATO is at war with Russia”, a spokesperson in Kremlin has been claiming for... some decades already now. 😂 The escalation is this aggressive invasion per se.
If that's your take, you obviously didn't listen to the talk, or know that the person being interviewed is the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, or know that the first question pertain's to NATO's expansion via. Finland, or that the last two and a half minutes discus what prompted NATO's origin.
Dr. Bremmer, please. India vis a vis Russia is not the same as China v. Russia. Not only has Russia given India no cause for territorial insecurity, they have actually defended and stood by India through invasions, sanctions, and HUNDREDS of USA sponsored resolutions in the UN. The USA, for the loooongest time, supported the breakup of India in Kashmir. The USA helped Pakistan, India’s neighboring enemy get nuclear weapons. (Remember the conniption the US had when USSR tried to station nuclear missiles in Cuba? Times 100). CIA “lost” billions in weapons in the north west frontier provinces, that showed up in the hands of Islamic terrorists killing Indians and attacking their soldiers. These guns were given to Sikh militants during the Khalistan militancy in the ‘80’s. And in case you want to pretend the CIA had no hand in it… just don’t. In 1971 the USA dispatched the seventh fleet to support a Muslim dictatorship, Pakistan against a secular democratic India. So, for your words to be worth more, kindly underline the strategic reality. China sees Russia as a bulwark against the West. China is using Russia(Crimea) just like the US used Pakistan against India- pinning down an adversary on one front to force strategic detente on another front. I FULLY support the USA in any global conflict, without exception. And without exception want the US to win and lead the world. HOWEVER, lies and blinders are asinine. Let’s be honest. Ok?
Hi from Russia. Thx, bro. India face an easy choice between adding a maritime dimension to Big Euurasia and become a valuable asset for lesser players seeking to balance China - or become an Western bulwark against China, cut itself from the rest of the continent and badly depending on US, who will undoubtedly push for more and more agressive stance of India vs China.
Guys, one of the best sports car comparisons in a very, very long time. It for me ticked all the boxes and I still want to buy the GT3. Amazing effort, bravo!! 👏👏👏
Don't we have ourselves to blame for this? I mean we have let it come to this, we totally see what is going on but I guess we figure, eh it might not be so bad...and here we are. I'm not shocked anymore, but I still find it strange that a few people get the ability to ruin so much for so many. If you have a president in a country murdering opposition then maybe that will eventually lead to problems. If a country doesn't have a properly implemented rule of law, then maybe that will eventually lead to a highly criminal society. Taking preventive steps and being a little more pro active is maybe not a bad idea.
The guest just admitted that NATO is a threat to Russia’s security when he talked about Finland joining the alliance.. that alone justifies the Russian special military operation in Ukraine (which publicly asked for NATO membership)!
Well the US should have made nuclear adversaries for Russia around the world, they're gonna do the war, not the US .. Like Poland is ready to become a nuclear power, Washington can make it happen within 2 years, couldn't it ?
There's plenty of good reason to limit proliferation.When the Soviet Union disbanded, Ukraine had so many ex-Soviet nukes that Ukraine became the world's 3rd largest nuclear power. BOTH SIDES saw this as destabilizing Ukraine planned to keep them, but via. the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to return them to Russia in exchange for Russia guaranteeing they wouldn't invade Ukraine and that the U.S. and the UK would see that the agreement was upheld. Several decades and two invasions later, you can see how well that worked out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
16:06 - Nah, clearly that will never happen with Russia. NATO needs an enemy to justify its existence and that is why when Russia came knocking as many times as it did it got turned away. "They were never really interested in joining, it was just to show everyone else that NATO exists to target Russia" I think was the counter argument. I mean if you're handing out weapons saying it is for defense but singling out a certain individual (actually having all these weapons you're handing out trained towards that individual) then no wonder they're hostile. Sure, there are many things about Russia you can argue for pointing your weapons towards it. I mean ever heard the phrase "the Russian bear"? A bear is dangerous, especially if you don't understand it and that bear doesn't need to justify to itself all too much to become aggressive, but remember it is a bear. By its very nature it is different to you (very apt to even say territorial, ie walking into other people's homes like it is their home), but is that a justification to try get rid of it or not get along with it? Maybe the answer is to stay away from it, but that seems narrow minded and Russophobic.
This is the first release of this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. We released a small portion of the interview previously. These clips are for the audience that prefers to watch shorter videos on targeted topics. Feel free to look out for the episodes, released on Monday mornings in ET and part of the playlist for our weekly show, GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.
Rose Blue their was communication with Russia, back door communications. That’s what solved the Crisis, Castro wanted Russia to nuke USA, General la may wanted USA to nuke Russia If it had not been for a soviet sailor on a submarine none of us would be here. Google Vasily Arkhipov it will broaden your horizons on what can happen when two adversaries are at each other’s throats. Be careful what your wish for.
Maybe the Designer is looking to wipe the place clean and start all over again if anything is left! Nuclear armed hypersonic weapons will certainly clean house!
It is interesting how "the GSouth" scream for help from the West when the sh&t happens. I have noticed that the West is beginning to not care. Think Tigrey, pakistan, yeman, haiti,
I don’t think that Haiti is part of the Global South. As for the other three, I think that you are conveniently forgetting that US doesn’t fund or give aid to these countries. Pakistan isn’t happy with the US after NATO conveniently left warehouses of weapons and vehicles to ISIS-K and TTP. I guess that leaving Ford trucks is revenge enough against the Taliban 😂 but sniper rifles, grenade launchers, bullet proof vests, night vision equipment is light years ahead of the police at par with what some militaries use in the region.
1. Russia has money and resources, people will always listen to it. 2. Adding Finland to NATO is a mistake for all. They were a smart transparent balanced non-aligned border buffer state. Now they are merely another weak NATO state on the Russian border. One that needs US help to protect itself. 3. Russia is fundamentally much weaker than the West, much weaker than the Warsaw Block was. Putin uses outrage to posture to shore up his weakness. 4. This will end in armistice when one or both parties are exhausted. After a few years, a new border will be selected. Ukraine's job is to make the incursion so painful, it won't happen again. Russia's to make the gains worth it. The US doesn't care as long as it's over. Europe states just think about themselves. Time is on our side. The real threat is not even the Battle of Taiwan, but rather the economic interests of most nations are better of within a bipolar competitive world order than in our current democracy dominated unipolar world. Rebels need allies and folks will always rebel against the dominant orthodoxy.
To some extent, I agree with your views. But I see stronger opposing aspects as well. 2) Finland's neutrality was the right position. But I emphasize "WAS". Putin destroyed the status quo. The times have changed. Joining NATO became an appropriate response. Finland, Sweden and all but two NATO nations, along with the bulk of their population see it that way. 3) Yes, we've recently discovered that except for nukes (and clandestine work on chemical and bio weapons) Russia's military is much weaker than the west. Economically, it has long shown itself to be much weaker. But other than a larger 'labor pool', I see little difference in strength between Russia and the Warsaw pact. All were poor and except for East Germany and to a lesser extent, Poland, they were technologically backwards. In addition, much of their populations were imposed upon to join. They had to build a wall across Germany to stop people from leaving yet people still risked their lives to cross over.. 4) Yes, it may well end (or pause) with an armistice. However, several intellectuals and historians suggest that Russia's government may collapse. The driving factors for this rationale are too much corruption, sustained lack of domestic investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., a demographic that is both rapidly aging and shrinking, war's accelerated aging and population decline (disproportionately more young have either fled Russia, have been killed, or maimed), the long term effects of ongoing sanctions and exodus of foreign companies, etc. I disagree with your sense of indifference that either European or American governments have about the outcome. The authoritarian, dictatorial threat is real. A lot of those living in Europe have been around long enough to know first hand how bad things were under Soviet rule and are dead set on not going back. I find it telling to look at the 30 (now 31) NATO members and see that (now) over half were once part of the Soviet Union or under its sphere of influence. One has to ask what Russia did wrong such that they not only abandoned Russia when the chance arrived, but also joined a military alliance formed as a defense against it. If that wasn't bad enough, still more have expressed interest - Ukraine (of course), Georgia, Moldova, and even hints from Kazakhstan. Gorbachev was smart enough to see that Russia's way of subjugating other nations had backfired. Yet Putin wants to return to the past.
Even after this there will still be a unipolar world. Prof Steven Kotkin explains it well; China's entire economy depends on maintaining good relations with the EU & US; without this, they have no need to build global reach, nor could they maintain it. Russia has managed to hasten their demise to a backwater, peddling cheap resources and a haven for criminals. The U.S. had been stepping back from its role as world policeman; all this war has done is thrust the US right back into the drivers seat again. 88% of world trade is done in dollars. Who is going to challenge that now? Nations see how powerful the west is with its economic muscle flexing via sanctions; like it or lump it, the dollar is still rock solid. One day the US will drop from the titular position- as did the UK, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland who all ruled the world at some point; but final fall will probably not occur in our lifetimes.
the Warsaw pact group was in many ways forced to be part of that agreement and as soon as they got out of it they formed the alliance that is most in their interest, one that is anti-Russian imperialism so draw your own conclusions about who is the problem actor. at least in the near term imperial expansionist mode that it is in
More like that pact had to many traitors like urself that turned to the dirty west for help 🤔
But “NATO is at war with Russia”, a spokesperson in Kremlin has been claiming for... some decades already now. 😂
The escalation is this aggressive invasion per se.
Great talk, thank's for keeping me up to date on the matter, excelent source when you don't have much time to check the news. Love it!
These two guys probably have never heard nato expansion.
中国人都听说过北约扩大，因为中国的官方媒体很喜欢这这种''解释''。它好''方便''
If that's your take, you obviously didn't listen to the talk, or know that the person being interviewed is the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, or know that the first question pertain's to NATO's expansion via. Finland, or that the last two and a half minutes discus what prompted NATO's origin.
For a visual representation of NATO expansion, click here: www.gzeromedia.com/graphic-truth-how-nato-absorbed-its-old-foes
@@GZEROMedia Good response. Thanks!
Russia has its hands full with Ukraine and its Special Military option would be over within days if NATO air power got involved.
I guess now serious geopolitical issues have become content for comedy
Ian -- interesting discussion but PLEASE, cut the drama! You really need to dial back your exaggeration.
Dr. Bremmer, please.
India vis a vis Russia is not the same as China v. Russia. Not only has Russia given India no cause for territorial insecurity, they have actually defended and stood by India through invasions, sanctions, and HUNDREDS of USA sponsored resolutions in the UN. The USA, for the loooongest time, supported the breakup of India in Kashmir. The USA helped Pakistan, India’s neighboring enemy get nuclear weapons. (Remember the conniption the US had when USSR tried to station nuclear missiles in Cuba? Times 100). CIA “lost” billions in weapons in the north west frontier provinces, that showed up in the hands of Islamic terrorists killing Indians and attacking their soldiers. These guns were given to Sikh militants during the Khalistan militancy in the ‘80’s. And in case you want to pretend the CIA had no hand in it… just don’t. In 1971 the USA dispatched the seventh fleet to support a Muslim dictatorship, Pakistan against a secular democratic India.
So, for your words to be worth more, kindly underline the strategic reality.
China sees Russia as a bulwark against the West. China is using Russia(Crimea) just like the US used Pakistan against India- pinning down an adversary on one front to force strategic detente on another front.
I FULLY support the USA in any global conflict, without exception. And without exception want the US to win and lead the world. HOWEVER, lies and blinders are asinine. Let’s be honest. Ok?
This channel is nothing but western propaganda with its lies by omission
Indeed, India has a loooooooong history of supporting Russian imperialism and colonization
Hi from Russia. Thx, bro. India face an easy choice between adding a maritime dimension to Big Euurasia and become a valuable asset for lesser players seeking to balance China - or become an Western bulwark against China, cut itself from the rest of the continent and badly depending on US, who will undoubtedly push for more and more agressive stance of India vs China.
Great presentation, but Stalin died in 1953 so I don't think he had a hand in the creation of the Warsaw Pact.
Warmongers 🇺🇸
GZero Media ,good stuff ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️RUclips
Guys, one of the best sports car comparisons in a very, very long time. It for me ticked all the boxes and I still want to buy the GT3. Amazing effort, bravo!! 👏👏👏
Maybe it is time for the US to mind its own business?
I can not think of a war in the last 100 years we have not been involved in?
Some wars yes. This war is happening in Europe. Seems to that most Europeans (I am one) warmly welcomes US.influence here.
The problem is Nato's expansion eastward. Without that expansion, no war would have happened.
How ignorant to discuss "risk" of something already happening.
Don't we have ourselves to blame for this? I mean we have let it come to this, we totally see what is going on but I guess we figure, eh it might not be so bad...and here we are. I'm not shocked anymore, but I still find it strange that a few people get the ability to ruin so much for so many.
If you have a president in a country murdering opposition then maybe that will eventually lead to problems. If a country doesn't have a properly implemented rule of law, then maybe that will eventually lead to a highly criminal society. Taking preventive steps and being a little more pro active is maybe not a bad idea.
Imperialism and Aggression?
Who are the aggressors?
The guest just admitted that NATO is a threat to Russia’s security when he talked about Finland joining the alliance.. that alone justifies the Russian special military operation in Ukraine (which publicly asked for NATO membership)!
Maybe he meant deterrence...just maybe.
Well the US should have made nuclear adversaries for Russia around the world, they're gonna do the war, not the US .. Like Poland is ready to become a nuclear power, Washington can make it happen within 2 years, couldn't it ?
There's plenty of good reason to limit proliferation.When the Soviet Union disbanded, Ukraine had so many ex-Soviet nukes that Ukraine became the world's 3rd largest nuclear power. BOTH SIDES saw this as destabilizing Ukraine planned to keep them, but via. the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to return them to Russia in exchange for Russia guaranteeing they wouldn't invade Ukraine and that the U.S. and the UK would see that the agreement was upheld. Several decades and two invasions later, you can see how well that worked out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
As soon as his head pops off we'll surrender control of the bridge and continue on our way
Ok, so what are our leaders doing about this serious situation? Seems we are also pushing for war. Why aren't we pushing for peace?
In the US we're doing what is needed: promoting trans access to bathrooms and arguing about reparations for people who were never slaves.
You are just the kind of coward that Putin is looking for. Cowardice and fear is exactly what actors like Putin thrives on.
@@ak203 😁
Louis, give me your property and stfu. If you resist, you're pro-war...
That's how you sound
This provocation will blows up in future
Since NATO exist, Russia as rights to use nuclear weapons, because is 40 countries military alliances against only one country.
the western bloc take the largest land and largest population countries as their adversary at the same time. Cool! good luck, guys!
great stuff!
But why did nato expand. And why did the west go into the heartland. We were fine without that part of the world
16:06 - Nah, clearly that will never happen with Russia.
NATO needs an enemy to justify its existence and that is why when Russia came knocking as many times as it did it got turned away. "They were never really interested in joining, it was just to show everyone else that NATO exists to target Russia" I think was the counter argument.
I mean if you're handing out weapons saying it is for defense but singling out a certain individual (actually having all these weapons you're handing out trained towards that individual) then no wonder they're hostile.
Sure, there are many things about Russia you can argue for pointing your weapons towards it.
I mean ever heard the phrase "the Russian bear"? A bear is dangerous, especially if you don't understand it and that bear doesn't need to justify to itself all too much to become aggressive, but remember it is a bear. By its very nature it is different to you (very apt to even say territorial, ie walking into other people's homes like it is their home), but is that a justification to try get rid of it or not get along with it?
Maybe the answer is to stay away from it, but that seems narrow minded and Russophobic.
YUGOSLAVIA wasn't in Warsaw Pakt, the way it was showed. YUGOSLAVIA was always Independent and Sovereign Country. Thanks to Marshall Broz TITO..
repeat from a few days ago. Channel seems to do that alot.
This is the first release of this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. We released a small portion of the interview previously. These clips are for the audience that prefers to watch shorter videos on targeted topics. Feel free to look out for the episodes, released on Monday mornings in ET and part of the playlist for our weekly show, GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.
In 1962 there was no comunication now there is no getting russia has the same mentality as in 1962
Rose Blue their was communication with Russia, back door communications. That’s what solved the Crisis, Castro wanted Russia to nuke USA, General la may wanted USA to nuke Russia If it had not been for a soviet sailor on a submarine none of us would be here. Google Vasily Arkhipov it will broaden your horizons on what can happen when two adversaries are at each other’s throats. Be careful what your wish for.
Two bureaucrats, talking shop
Maybe the Designer is looking to wipe the place clean and start all over again if anything is left! Nuclear armed hypersonic weapons will certainly clean house!
ye there's a war.
It is interesting how "the GSouth" scream for help from the West when the sh&t happens. I have noticed that the West is beginning to not care. Think Tigrey, pakistan, yeman, haiti,
I don’t think that Haiti is part of the Global South.
As for the other three, I think that you are conveniently forgetting that US doesn’t fund or give aid to these countries. Pakistan isn’t happy with the US after NATO conveniently left warehouses of weapons and vehicles to ISIS-K and TTP. I guess that leaving Ford trucks is revenge enough against the Taliban 😂 but sniper rifles, grenade launchers, bullet proof vests, night vision equipment is light years ahead of the police at par with what some militaries use in the region.
he Ukraianians are the best army in the world right now. Victory to Ukraine ❤💙💛☮
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Gangue é a Otan , imperialista , lembre-se da yuguslavia , Líbia ,Iraque ,Granada , Afeganistão etc
1. Russia has money and resources, people will always listen to it.
2. Adding Finland to NATO is a mistake for all. They were a smart transparent balanced non-aligned border buffer state. Now they are merely another weak NATO state on the Russian border. One that needs US help to protect itself.
3. Russia is fundamentally much weaker than the West, much weaker than the Warsaw Block was. Putin uses outrage to posture to shore up his weakness.
4. This will end in armistice when one or both parties are exhausted. After a few years, a new border will be selected. Ukraine's job is to make the incursion so painful, it won't happen again. Russia's to make the gains worth it. The US doesn't care as long as it's over. Europe states just think about themselves.
Time is on our side. The real threat is not even the Battle of Taiwan, but rather the economic interests of most nations are better of within a bipolar competitive world order than in our current democracy dominated unipolar world. Rebels need allies and folks will always rebel against the dominant orthodoxy.
To some extent, I agree with your views. But I see stronger opposing aspects as well.
2) Finland's neutrality was the right position. But I emphasize "WAS". Putin destroyed the status quo. The times have changed. Joining NATO became an appropriate response. Finland, Sweden and all but two NATO nations, along with the bulk of their population see it that way.
3) Yes, we've recently discovered that except for nukes (and clandestine work on chemical and bio weapons) Russia's military is much weaker than the west. Economically, it has long shown itself to be much weaker. But other than a larger 'labor pool', I see little difference in strength between Russia and the Warsaw pact. All were poor and except for East Germany and to a lesser extent, Poland, they were technologically backwards. In addition, much of their populations were imposed upon to join. They had to build a wall across Germany to stop people from leaving yet people still risked their lives to cross over..
4) Yes, it may well end (or pause) with an armistice. However, several intellectuals and historians suggest that Russia's government may collapse. The driving factors for this rationale are too much corruption, sustained lack of domestic investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., a demographic that is both rapidly aging and shrinking, war's accelerated aging and population decline (disproportionately more young have either fled Russia, have been killed, or maimed), the long term effects of ongoing sanctions and exodus of foreign companies, etc.
I disagree with your sense of indifference that either European or American governments have about the outcome. The authoritarian, dictatorial threat is real. A lot of those living in Europe have been around long enough to know first hand how bad things were under Soviet rule and are dead set on not going back. I find it telling to look at the 30 (now 31) NATO members and see that (now) over half were once part of the Soviet Union or under its sphere of influence. One has to ask what Russia did wrong such that they not only abandoned Russia when the chance arrived, but also joined a military alliance formed as a defense against it. If that wasn't bad enough, still more have expressed interest - Ukraine (of course), Georgia, Moldova, and even hints from Kazakhstan.
Gorbachev was smart enough to see that Russia's way of subjugating other nations had backfired. Yet Putin wants to return to the past.
Even after this there will still be a unipolar world.
Prof Steven Kotkin explains it well; China's entire economy depends on maintaining good relations with the EU & US; without this, they have no need to build global reach, nor could they maintain it.
Russia has managed to hasten their demise to a backwater, peddling cheap resources and a haven for criminals.
The U.S. had been stepping back from its role as world policeman; all this war has done is thrust the US right back into the drivers seat again.
88% of world trade is done in dollars. Who is going to challenge that now? Nations see how powerful the west is with its economic muscle flexing via sanctions; like it or lump it, the dollar is still rock solid.
One day the US will drop from the titular position- as did the UK, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland who all ruled the world at some point; but final fall will probably not occur in our lifetimes.
One sided and a very biased talk
You call this beautiful table rediclouse how dare you, mind your manners
cue russian dead hand
Too much propaganda!