I love the grounded reality of this channel!!! *Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $15,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD* ❤️.
Did someone just mention Mr Wayne!? Damn! You just made my day; what a coincidence.. I've worked with him for over 2years and I can tell how good he is
Good analysis, but you are leaving one thing out. The wars we lost were on the other side of the planet, Russia deems this one existential since it is on its doorstep, or in their opinion historically Russian land and people.
In their opinion? Kiev is the one of ancient Russia capitals.. Ukraine it's just a region of Russia with own dialect... Most of ukrainians speak russian because it is their native language..
I wouldn’t count Afghanistan or Iraq as a loss. What did we lose, a pile of rock and dirt populated by irrational people bent on constant conflict? The defense industry has squeezed these conflicts till they are no longer profitable and then we left.
Losing war in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq is not an existential threat to the US since its thousands of miles from US. But losing a war in Ukraine which is just next door to Russia is an existential threat to Russia which would justify the use of nuke.
Bro forgot a dude in a cave, told other dudes to fly planes into a building and the Pentagon. Anyone is a threat, especially with gullible idiots like the Palestinians protestors, you can be a threat without even risking your own. As Pat said not everyone in Putin circle isn't willing to go nuclear. NATO stepped back when he threatened to nuke us, which works in his favor. I'm not dying for a country that I care less about and ruined my economy because they believe the US and NATO are helping them when in reality Ukraine is a proxy force like the Mujahedeen to push back Russian influence.
and Ukraine does not have nukes. there is no real nuclear deterrence. US and NATO are not going to use its nukes as retaliation. if they do, thats the end of world. are we , the West that stupid? i am not sure.
If Putin really was super keen to use nuclear weapons he would have done so already. In December 2021 he laid out his 'red lines' which if crossed would result in him authorising the use of nuclear weapons. Those 'red lines' have now been crossed yet no nukes were launched. There was a moment in June 2023 when Putin could legitimately have used tactical nuclear weapons but that moment has passed. Prigozhin's forces had captured Rostov-on-Don and an army was marching on Moscow which at the time was mostly undefended. If Putin had chosen to use tactical nuclear weapons on Russian territory to defend the capital city against such an existential threat he would have been entirely within his rights to do so. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if negotiations failed and the PMC Wagner forces did not turn around half-way to Moscow...
Your argument is wrong, Russia can never use nuclear in Ukraine, for they consider them as close brothers and sisters. Instead with USA will be the first country that Russia will start nuclear. Because many of you in USA think that USA is superior than Russia. That’s why you minimize Russia . They can knock anywhere in USA if it comes to serious war 😊😂😂😂
Russian defeat? That is what we are speculating on right now with severe ammo, infantry, and AA shortages for the Ukrainian army? I can understand if you have been working on this video for a good while now, just feels like strange timing with what is currently happening.
Given the fact US aid just passed, the Russians aren't going to win. They might not LOSE, but it's just not realistic for them to reach Kyiv or any other major city one Adiivka at a time - 9 Billion of the 60 billion US aid was ALREADY sitting in Europe, waiting to be shipped immediately. It's also worth mentioning that it passed in both chambers of congress with about 70% - Trump couldn't veto the current congress. Are the Russians winning RIGHT NOW? Yeah, slowly. But that's not going to last.
Unless something radical happens, like the total collapse of ruzzia or EU getting into war economy, I don't see Ukraine winning. At the same time I don't see ruzzia winning aswell - their main objectives were to sieze Ukraine and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Russia will lose this war. Their recent gains are marginal and Ukraine has enough support coming through in the mid term. The ma8n reason Russia will lose is because they will eventually be out produced by the West. Their soviet stockpiles are dwindling and rusting. Russia came into the war with huge stockpiles but weak new production capacity. The West came in with small stockpiles, except USA, and enormous capacity. Time is not on russian side. Sorry to tell you this but economics wins over ideology.
I appreciate your videos and your point of view on such topics. You are one of my main go to people for daily updates and the hard work you and the team do is very appreciated. Keep up the great work! Thanks
Must be hard for you Russ agents to accept reality. Per capita income? One fifth of the US. Your average Russian would be eligible for food stamps as an impoverished person. Law? Your dictator has changed your Cnostitution 3 times and violated it many times; he is now in his fifth "term". You could have invested in Ukraine, once your greatest trading partner. Instead, you decided to kill hundreds of thousands of people. You decided to steal land. A tragedy for the Ukrainians -- and for you. You gave up being a great civilization, and becam mass murderers.
Its unlikely that russia will lose militarily, however its very likely that russia will lose it war of aggression against Ukraine inside Russia due to high casualties, high inflation, a collapsing economy, infrastructure failure and political unrest.
Its very likely that russia will lose its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian federation doesn't have the economic depth to maintain its invasion of Ukraine at its current level. The Russian invasion force is losing equipment at a high rate, it is currently replacing those losses with stockpiled soviet era equipment (80%) and newly built equipment (20%). The soviet era stockpiles are being depleted at a rapid rate and will be exhausted by 2026. Russia is suffering very high casualties, there is a limit to the number of casualties that the russian people will accept.
Yes, I cannot see Ukraine taking the territory Russia has seized, eg Crimea, so how can Russia lose? If it stopped now, it would have a sizable chunk of Ukraine.
I think there is two big differences. If you are of the opinion that Russia is fighting on the war on what they think is their own territory than your calculus doesn't hold.
Even if it did, history has proven that a losing RU is a RU that comes back at least 10 times stronger and smarter: Crimean War loss -> Emancipation of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia plus Faster collapse of Ottomans Japanese Defeat - Faster industrialisation WW1 defeat -> WW2 victory, becoming Leader of the Second World as the USSR Collapse of USSR - Reemergence of Christian-National RU, currently a big leader of the coming multipolar world order and potentially reunification of the RU (RU federation, UA and BY) lands under a single national identity.
I am not really sure the points of the Russo-Japanese war or the Soviet-Afghan war are good examples of wars that "Those states continue to survive" Both are examples of when a loss of a war directly led or significantly contributed to the collapse of the country.
@@thinkerly1the ckaij is true in terms of never losing a war on their own soil since the early 17th century and the Time of Troubles. Otherwise, Russia's track record in imperial european wars is about average, slightly elevated from all the drubbings they kept giving the Ottomans.
@@WagesOfDestruction to an extent. Although despite the mismanagement and losses, in later years of the war it was having an advantage against the Austro-Hungarian forces and would have stabilized the front against the Germans if not for the collapse of the whole state - twice in a row.
Russia would do the same thing the US would do if we were about to lose a war in Mexico - we'd use nuclear weapons. Medvedev has said they would use them. Take him at his word.
While I do agree with your points, the argument becomes very tricky when you start talking about formally annexed territories. On paper, if Russia considers these territories their own, they should defend them in any way possible. In particular, the biggest issue is Crimea. This isn't an area they occupied 2 days ago, this has been Russian territory (at least according to their own laws) for 10 years now. But either way, you could say that they would probably give it up if it comes to that (which it probably won't, given how the war is going) rather than start a nuclear exchange. But then you come to one part of the argument you missed - who says Russia would start a nuclear exchange? If Russia were to start using nukes in this hypothetical situation, they certainly wouldn't just immediately nuke the whole world. They would most likely use one (or several) tactical nuclear weapons to target larger formations of the Ukrainian army and then counterattack or whatever. They wouldn't be nuking the US or NATO. In this instance, it would be extremely hard for the US (or other NATO nuclear countries) to justify a retaliatory strike on Russia, when they weren't targeted themselves, nor are they even formally at war with Russia. With this in mind, Russia certainly may be more willing to use a couple tactical nukes if it came to that. And again, while I agree with your points that Russia probably wouldn't be willing to end the world (including themselves) with a full nuclear strike on the west, that isn't really what would happen anyways, or at least not initially. Technically speaking, it would have to be the west/NATO starting that full on nuclear exchange, and again this would be hard to justify since it wouldn't directly concern them. But in the end, this is a completely different story than the one we're witnessing in reality, so I don't think it's necessary to worry about that scenario.
I don't see the world including China taking the use of tactical nukes lightly. While the west would not make a nuclear strike back they may arm Ukraine with nukes as a deterrent. Also Russian generals have the final say in launching nukes. Would they actually do it and perhaps jeopardize their own people?
@@Kevin-x4p4y you cant be serious. You do realise that in that particular scenario you are suggesting, by invading Russian mainland you would then actually put them in a situation where they would launch nukes on the US? You can't be that stupid to actually believe what you just said?
@@WagesOfDestruction good point, even though most of the world doesnt consider these territories actually Russian, but still. It is all in the grey area, it is not as clear as the video makes it out to be IMO.
Thank you very much for your service and interesting information! This channel is about "new" for me and I'm sorry for myself that I didn't meet you before.. Slava Ukraine and best wishes from Bjørn, Norway :)
Сравнивать Украину для России, которая находится в самом ее подбрюшье, с Вьетнамом и Афганистаном для США, которые находятся от США в другом полушарии - это очень корректное сравнение, скажу я вам.
It’s not as much difference as you might think. The fact of the matter is that the people there don’t want you and your system. And that was the same in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It’s not so much the case where the invaded country is located, but the fact that it was invaded. And history tells that it doesn’t go too well for the invader (unless the population is replaced as it was with the US and Texas and California, or with Russia in Siberia. And by the way, Cuba is very much at America’s underbelly and Venezuela just on the other side of the Caribbean Sea and the US has not dared to invade them.
@@ollifrank6255 Yeah, the US was busy invading other places, and Cuba and Venezuela had to struggle with all the CIA assassins you sent there, no biggie. Btw Russia never commited a genocide of any comparable scale in Siberia against the natives, they're alive and well to this day, unlike the natives of the US.
You got some solid points. I am so sick of our naive fellows who really believe our propaganda machines, that everybody is wanting democracy when the majority on earth doesn't even know what that is. In Germany we say "Was man nicht weißt, macht auch keinen heiß".
I just don't see a response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon within Ukraine that is existential to Russia or Putin. What would NATO's response really be? Boots on the ground in Ukraine? Attacks into Russia territory? Certainly not a nuclear response of our own. More sanctions are the most likely response but we've seen how much of a deterrent that has been.
It would result in Russia losing everything they owned out side of its sovereign borders at the very least. I'm not sure if NATO would outright invade but it would be open season on everything else.
US officials have said that they have outlined to Russia what their actions would if they used nuclear weapons in Ukraine and that it would be a conventional response. What exactly they told Russia they would actually do was never stated but I would guess it would involve at minimum destroying the rest of the Black Sea Fleet, what is left after what Ukraine has sunk of course. They might also supply Ukraine with a lot more long range weaponry and the permission to use it against targets just over the border within Russia to cripple their ability to supply the Russian army in Ukraine. The most extreme US response I could imagine would be a massive air campaign to gain aerial superiority over Ukraine by destroying Russian air defense sites which would enable American aircraft to hit any target in Ukraine at will which would lead to a Russian loss in a few months at most I'd think. Whatever the actual threat was it would have to be something that had a big enough impact to really make the Russians aware that they would suffer serious consequences or they wouldn't have bothered to make any threats at all.
@@alitariq3442 Although it's important to not assume your enemy will always make logical choices at the same time I would echo the same argument Preston does in this video in response, is it likely that Russia, and more specifically Putin, will want to turn a war in Ukraine that does not threaten the existence of the Russian state into one that does? Because using nuclear weapons most definitely ups the stakes immensely and no one in Russian power circles would be blind to that. In that context the US telling Russia that there would be consequences to using nuclear weapons and that they would be quite severe might very well have an affect on Russian decision making.
They'll never use a nuke - because then every other country wouldn't be deterred by Russia having nukes and there'd be no reason other countries with nukes to be using them on Russia - and they realize that fact.
0:30 I'd say around half of countries in wars lose wars, Preston, lol. Excluding conflicts where there are more countries on one side than the other, or one side isn't a state.
Not true For one many times its a lot of countries against few(like the wars with iraq) second, in many cases two sides can be relatively satisfied with the result(korean war for example)
If Russia loses, they'll do like they did after the first Chechen war. They'll adapt and come back strong after a year of "modernization" and Russia will NOT fall it's not the Soviet Union, Russia economy has somewhat grown. Either or Russia is gonna have a problem. Win or lose.
Grown let me hear you analysis of their growth and the medium to long term outlook for their economy. The growth of the russian economy is due to military spending.
Problem is, Russia's neighbors know it too and Ukraine's not Chechnya. Russia's western frontier will be heavily militarised and united. And Russia, win or lose, has already lost. It failed it's strategic goals. It wanted Ukraine as a buffer state and NATO discredited. Instead it will have an extremely hostile Ukraine as a neighbor and NATO nations along it's entire western border.
@@nkosipwl While you are probably 100% correct in why their economy has grown, I wouldn't be so sure about certain predictions that Russian economy will collapse or whatever. You have to remember a lot of "experts" predicted it would collapse within just a few months due to sanctions, yet we've seen the Russians adapt and cleverly avoid those sanctions. Of course a long war will have negative consequences for the economy, but there are certain positive things as well. Mainly, a lot of companies which had to leave Russia had their assets in Russia taken over by Russian entrepreneurs (some companies signed agreements with Russia, in some cases even having a buyback policy in the contracts, while others gave up their assets less willingly) and I think that the Russian economy could benefit from this in the long run. There are lots of specifics which have to be taken into account. I'm not an economist or an expert on this subject in any way whatsoever, however I also am a lot more reserved towards predictions from our "experts", since they have been completely wrong in several instances.
@@TheStephaneAdam Russia was always hostile against Ukraine and NATO, and I think we forgot about the leaks from Germany proving Putin's point. Russia winning or losing is gonna be a problem for them, but nothing is gonna happen. Like Chechnya with experience and now much stronger fighting force (NATO themselves confirmed). Down the line, either with or without Putin (The next is gonna be worse) they will invade and will win.
No matter how this war ends, US should really worry if Russia as revenge on the Western aid to Ukraine decide to start arming different factions in areas where [US] is militarily involved. Facing rebels with AK-47 is one thing, them having access to advanced surface-to-air weapon systems is a very different thing.
This line of thinking that " this war isen,t existential for russia " is kinda stupid in my opinion. I base that because of the following reasons, 1. The ones who argue like this are not russian. 2. They do not live in russia and therefore do not know what is at stake should ukraine regain their 1991 borders which would mean a total defeat of russia as stated by their stated victory goals of their special military operation ( which is primarly to demilitarize ukraine ). What Preston think is not existential for russia, just might be existential for the millions of ethnic russian and ukrainians living in the donbass. A large group of people which the military junta in Kiev has been agressively trying to cleanse from " their " land despite the fact that these people voted in a democratic vote ( observered by UN-sanctioned observers ) to break away from ukraine. This is not hard to understand why the people of donbass took this approach considering ukraine has been bombing civilians in donbass ever since 2014 and killed more than 30000 civilians from that time until now. Not to mention all the new laws that are actual racist in nature against ethnic russians living in the donbass ( example making use of russian language to be illegal in education, jailing all opposition political parties to the government and supressing almost all independent TV and newsletter publications in the country ( exept ukrainan state-owned TV or foreign pro-US, pro-government publications. ) I dare not think what Kiev would do to the people of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea should ukraine actually reclaim these territories. And no, the people of these territories do not want to go back to ukraine, plenty of open proof of this in countless open street interviews from people in these areas, even here on RUclips ( albeit less then before because of censorship algorithms ).
Shh, you can't tell people the truth, their feelings will be hurt because they will realize they have been lied to and their lack of doing research for themselves proves this.
The puppet vote re independence in occupied Ukraine was not free and fair, and the UN Neave claimed it was. The entire world rejected that vote as rigged by the Russian occupiers.
These claims are lies. For example, most of the supposed victims of Ukrainian attacks in Donbass were hired actors: Как работали СМИ «фабрики троллей» и что там происходило во время мятежа? Читайте рассказы сотрудников, освободившихся от подписки о неразглашении, 5 July 2023, Бумага [my point is mentioned about 2/3 of the way in] The International Court of Justice has rejected Russia's claim of genocide in Donbass.
Yeah if Russia lost I hardly think it will impact much. The United States could easily replace their energy production. Some raw materials and grain would be the biggest impacts.
@droppedpin7536 well, certainly part of that fear is where Russia may target next. There has been rhetoric coming from RU state media suggesting continuing in to Moldova, Poland, etc. There is not this fear if Ukraine wins, as they aren't trying to annex sovereign countries.
@@droppedpin7536 Those who "play up the fear" are mainly those who supports or sympathizes with russia, it's just a pathetic attempt to make everyone who supports Ukraine to lose hope and be afraid of supporting Ukraine.
Bigger question is why are people literally dying to get in the US and people are literally dying to get out of Russia? Where have I seen this before and how did it end?
can you stfu. Propaganda, my little freak. Pure and simple. I left thattoilet nation 11 years ago, drugs,crime, no healthcare, mass illegals, skyrocketing rent prices, the entire nation is collapsing, lgbt,trans, wtf....Russians are not immune to yankee propaganda, manyfriends believe in murka being better,...tell them about trans,crime, villennce they just smile....out of twelve, who emigrated, four returned to russia,one to belarus, two want to return and the restare mum.
Dude Russia arguably has an immigrant INFLUX crisis, they really have to crack down on that btw. No one's climbing barbed wire with boolets swishing above their heads to leave lol, the borders are open (unlike in Ukraine where they actually swim under fire to escape)
There's going to be a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps some Ukrainian lands, but both sides will claim victory. Ukraine can say they exist at all thus thwarting Russia. Russia will say it only wanted to weaken the 'nazi' state and successfully did so by taking 1/5 of its land. Life (for those of us not dead lmao) will go on
Myth: Nothing much would change. Reality: The very high purity neon that Ukraine has about half the world's supply of would fall into Russian hands, enabling them to be a major source of cutting edge microchips for the foreseeable future.
@@flagmichaelwould you be so kind to explain to me how russia would become a leader producer of something they have neither the technology nor the knowhow to produce? I am a bit at a loss here...
Belgian here. 62 years old. Grew up near NATO headquarters with a Pershing parked on the front yard, and an SS-20 trained on the backyard. When the Wall came down in late 1989, there was this fear of "The Red Star Going Supernova". It was about the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons (not the big intercontinental ones) falling in the hands of Russian 'Warlord Generals'. They would use some on each other, in coup attempts, and sell off the rest on the black market, thus triggering worldwide runaway nuclear proliferation. It didn't happen. Mainly because of Gorbachew, Yeltsin, and the peaceful transfer of power between the two, in 1991. If it weren't for them, 1991 would have become 1919 again: Russian civil war, this time with nukes. My argument being: Putin is no Gorbachew or Yeltsin.
Biden is right on, great call. Putin has lost more than the war, he's lost his Army, 15,000 tanks and IFV's, nearly 1/2 million dead Russians, his sanity, his overseas wealth fund, ability to get help from the West, as well as most of his economy. Lots of loss for Putin...
@@BigTimeRushFan2112 He doesn't even know who Putin is. If Russia already lost, then what's the point of continuing to ruin our economy for Ukraine? Biden saying someone already lost is the most hilarious thing to say and the fact you and this dude took him seriously is even more funny. Even Putin a clown for saying he wants Biden to win, although it's a lie.
12:40 In the last 15 years, NATO has bombed two countries, making it geopolitically naive to dismiss the possibility of NATO being a future threat. A government thinks in decades, not in years... Do not forget that. The presence of NATO along the 1,900 km border between Russia and Ukraine, without natural barriers and with the loss of Crimea’s crucial ports, is undeniably a massive problem for Russia. Consider why JFK directly threatened nuclear war when Russia positioned military equipment in Cuba, just 180 miles from Miami.🤔 Whenever NATO has extended invitations for talks, Russia has promptly responded. This pattern was evident in 2008, when Ukraine and Georgia were invited to NATO summit talks for potential membership, leading Russia to attack Georgia as a warning to the West. Similarly, in 2014, after Yanukovych was "removed" in Kyiv, Russia swiftly annexed Crimea. Then again, in 2021-2022, as calls in the West to admit Ukraine into NATO grew louder, Russia quickly launched an SMO. Welcome to 2024.
The chances of Ukraine joining NATO in the leadup to the invasion were almost nil. You can't join NATO without unanimous consent among its members and you can't have any territorial disputes. I can't imagine any scenario where Hungary would agree to allow Ukraine to join NATO, and pre-invasion many other NATO members would have also been hesitant. Ukraine developed closer ties to NATO as a result of Russia instigating conflict in their country. Now thanks to Putin's "SMO", NATO has expanded closer to Russia.
I’m sure Russia bombing the shit out of Georgia really made Ukraine not want to join NATO. Putin remains an absolute master strategist. By the way has Russia fulfilled their agreement to withdraw their military from Moldovan territory yet?
it's only a problem if you attack a nato state. and no country is entitled to natural or political boundries. no country is entitled to ports, or any land but what they are internationally recognized to have. Yanukovych was removed with a popular movement. 'an SMO' was an invasion. what are you talking about?
During this very war, Russia has withdrawn troops from its borders with NATO countries, instead sending them to fight in Ukraine: “Russian forces near Norway at '20% or less' than before Ukraine war, Norway's armed-forces chief says”, 17 Sep 2023, Reuters “Finnish border ‘pretty empty’ of Russian troops”, says Helsinki, 14 Aug 2023, Financial Times Apparently, it doesn't actually have that much of a problem with NATO.
@@flipierfatalbina4757 NATO was not attacked by Serbia, nor by Libya." Yet, they attacked those countries. Popular movement? Have you ever read the Ukrainian constitution, on what grounds a president can be removed from office? Stop spreading half-truths.😂
Having a negotiated end with a neutral Ukraine would be the best scenario. At this point its quite clear that except nuclear weapons, Russia will use all its might to flatten Ukraine and grind down the Ukrainian army. The fundamentals aren't simply in Ukraine's favor in a war of Attrition whether that's demographics, or industrial capacity. Fighting the war to the last Ukrainian essentially means the end of Ukraine. Even nuclear weapons aren't completely out of the question as Ukraine's attacks into Russia proper such as Belgorod and Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. If Russia looses significant industrial output due to these attacks, Russia may even consider nuclear weapons since this is not like Iraq or Afghanistan for them but more like Texas/California as I've mentioned below. Since Putin controls Russia more or less with an Iron grip, we must try to view the outcome of losing the war from his point of view, and why he will do almost anything to avoid the same. Before him, pretty much any leader of the Russian Empire, the USSR, and even the Russian Federation that lost a war lost political power or their life within a couple of years after: •Peter III overthrown and executed by his own wife Catherine II after losing the Seven Years War. •Tsar Nicholas II lost the Russo Japanese War and was losing WW1 during which he was deposed by the Bolsheviks and eventually executed. •Nikita Khrushchev lost political power within 2 years of the end of the Cuban missile crisis, where publicly perceived that the Soviets backed down. •Mikhail Gorbachev lost political power within 2 years of pulling out of Afghanistan, and ultimately even the Soviet Union collapsed. •Boris Yeltsin resigned within 3 years of losing the First Chechen War. A leader like Putin seems to be a far better to negotiate with than a leader like Prigozhin. I think most people would agree that had he won the coup, he would have taken an even more brutal approach to the war. Throughout Russia's history, tyrants were tolerated, losers were replaced with more brutal but more effective leaders that would win wars. Defeating Russia may mean that Putin is overthrown but it is highly likely that whoever replaces him will be far more brutal and make Ukraine pay a heavier than it is already paying.
"Fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, But..."| Why Putin's War Has Jolted Ukraine's "Foreign Fighters" ruclips.net/video/TVHOX3NyTSM/видео.htmlsi=3LCqZJ296Byl-9Y3
@@hydrohasspoken6227The better question is why would Ukraine believe Russia will honor its agreement. When Ukraine broke from the USSR, it transferred its nuclear weapons to Russia with the agreement that they would be allowed to exist in peace and would not be attacked by Russia in the future. So that didn’t really work out well for Ukraine. The whole reason they haven’t yet negotiated is because most Ukrainians officials believe Putin would use the chance to regroup and attack in 5 or 10 years.
The major issue here is that most people in the West considers Russia and Ukraine as two sides of some peace agreement, fire stop etc. Russia considers Ukraine as it's province lost by bad politics of USSR and that is it. It is, not near, but somehow like Ukraine wants Donbass back after war. Russia won't stop until it is fully exhaused or politically unstable. In another case they will exhaust Ukraine, then defeat, and then perform genocide as already did in 1933-1934.
@@attilamarics3374 I live in Ukraine, I know people whose grandparents starved to death, my uncle's father was exiled to Siberia. Maybe you don't know that russians are already doing on occupied territories ?
Sorry but the examples about Russia losing wars at 6:00 are a little odd...Losing the 1905 war triggered a revolt in Russia and eventually lead to the collapse of the Russian Empire a decade later. The loss in Afghanistan (in 1989, not 79 btw) was a major factor in the Soviet Union's disintegration...We're not all worried about these now because they happened decades ago; (and incidentally, the current Ukraine war is a direct result of the soviet collapse, so it's not like we're not living the consequences of Russian military defeats even decades later)
However a defeat in Ukraine will greatly weaken the regime in Moscow and Russia itself is made up of different nationalities that if they sense weakness could make a attempt at independence. Afterall it did happen after the Russian Empire collapsed following their surrender in the first world war.
@@planderlinde1969 Most of Russia's ethnic republics are majority ethnic Russian, or heavily eavily Russified (Yakutia), the only exception is smth like Chechnya and it is tiny
@@planderlinde1969 IMO nothing gonna happen. President may come out and say: "Special millitary operetion completed successfully. Ukraine is demilitarized, denazified and de-whatever else". People gonna prase him more than ever. And those minor nations are too oppressed to do anything because noone wants another Chechen war. Seems like they exploit western's fear of collapse. In 2022, when Ukraine has liberated large chunk of accupied territory Medvedev litterally screamed: "Dont push us, or we gonna collapse!"
@@AngelSonevski You have a bad idea of the reality in Russia. Russia can only exist with a strong centralized leadership. That's why Putin is so annoying to the West. In addition, the West will most likely never give up trying to destroy the largest country.
Preston, you talked about Russia annexing parts of Ukraine which are now legally Russia. Is it legal to annex territories of other countries? On what terms? I was told in an online discussion about Israel that annexing new territory is illegal under some law of war/ convention
It is neither legal nor illegal. These are usually ratified through treaties, which are basically countries accepting de jure the changes that happened de facto. Aka it's everyone else saying "Fine this land is now yours, okay, we accept this because otherwise things will be too complicated and tiresome for us".
Great video. The issue is that you've done it on the least probable outcome at the moment. Russia is winning and none of the fundamental metrics favor Ukraine. The front hasn't stabilized since the loss of Avdivka. Next video... Myths about a Ukraine loss. What does that mean for Europe, Nato and the US?
The top secret KGB agent Boris Johnson managed to save the day for the Motherland in the last second. Even if it cost him the position of Prime Minister of UK. As a true Russian patriot.
(1) Russia totally withdraws troops from Ukraine, except only (!) Crimea. It means Russia agrees to withdraw recognition of the LPR and DPR independence. (2) Russia preserves the current political system in Ukraine. By law it is neutral, but in fact it is strongly anti-Russian, so Ukraine could continue building its anti-Russian nation. (3) Russia supports economy of Ukraine by lowering custom barriers and providing its gas and oil with huge discount. Sounds like reparations to me.
Thanks solely to Boris Johnson, this very much shameful scenario did not come true. He will get his recognition, I suppose he is a secret agent in service to president Putin.
@@Kilo500you don't understand how strong the connection is between Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians. This is a connection of one ancestral blood, one story, one faith, no one can break it. If the Istanbul Agreements had been allowed to be signed by Ukraine, Ukrainians would have rejoiced, because they would not have had to die for the interests of NATO. Russia would not have lost anything, because the heart of most Ukrainians is always on Russia's side. Zelinsky was chosen for peace with Russia, so that he could come to an agreement, but he betrayed the Ukrainian people by dipping them in blood. Most Ukrainians are still on the side of Russia, which is why there is a huge partisan movement in the Zelensky concentration camp itself, which helps Russia in liberating the Ukrainian people from the NATO occupation, because most Ukrainians fled Ukraine and do not want to fight, therefore the remaining part of Ukrainians hides from Zelinsky's Gestapo, which catches people like cattle and sends them to the slaughter is at the front, so the Ukrainians surrender in brigades to the Russians, because they know that their brothers will help them and will not kill. You didn't realize that when Russia's special military operation ends, the result will be that the Eastern Slavs will unite into a single force, and residents of the EU and the United States will look around the world for a place where they can eat a crust and drink a glass of water. But will they find a country in a multipolar world, who will feel sorry for them?
Man, u the best. I just love ur logic. Please never change this way of saying things the way they are. And one curiosity I really have and I would love to hear your opinion is about why and how is it possible that world condamns Israel while all the guilt of the war is of the same Palestinians that today they cry and before the war they celebrate the attack on Israel. Keep it this way, man. Every time I go on RUclips, I'm looking to see if you posted something new, and you do it often, which is awesome. I can tell u really love what you do. Please don't change this way of saying the things. Thank you for all your effort and good content you have done until now. It is just the best and most enjoyable to listen.
One point I raise in counter-argument to Preston/Chatham House etc is: Did anybody think a full-scale conventional invasion by Russia was the option they would take back in 2022? My point is the perspective, emotional level, and available information may cause decisions that are not logical or reasonable at all.
That's the US as a whole, which is why we police the globe. After 9/11 and Pearl harbor, that fear really piked which is why so many people are diluted when it comes to Russia and China even.
This is how it is different: through political manipulation of domestic differences, the biggest military alliance that the planet ever seen has effectively turned a part of Russia in to an Unti-russia. This is not akin to united states losing some obscure expedition Afghanistan, the place where most can't point the right continent where its located. It's akin to the conquest of India. Where England played off the domestic politics to exploit the population. It's akin to the conquest of America, where the same tactics were implemented. Now why it's done, when Russia was willing to play the game fair for 30 years is a different question.
You ar emissing one point, for Russia Ukraine is seen as their land. This has been the case for centuries, also there's the idea that Russia has a natural right to contorol territories which once were part of the USSR and it's spehere of interest. This is embedded in their culture, as it has been a part for centuries,the people are brought up that way. A goos source to understandf this thiniking is reading Dugin's works.
the difference is that russia says that this war is existential to them. not just some spat with japan over one city region or some ideological wrestling in asia that the US could do without.
So what. I don't care what the Russians think will happen if they lose. The rest of us know they're being ridiculous. A democratic Russia would be welcomed on the world stage, and their citizens as free as Americans or Europeans to travel anywhere, and as prosperous, too.
@@phillipdavidhaskett7513 Of course it matters because the opinions of Russians dictates how much they are willing to fight in this war. If Russia feels like a loss will cause some terrible times then they are more likely to fight harder in order to win. If they feel nothing bad will happen then they are more likely to want an end to the war. This is why I feel like many people who support Ukraine, calling for the end of Russia really doesnt help their cause
From their perspective, it IS an existential fight to them. If you look at it from their POV, NATO is steadily encroaching upon "their sphere" and is now on their doorstep. Try to imagine how we would react if Russia or China brokered an alliance with Canada or Mexico and wanted to station troops there. Our respoinse would be a solid "Oh, HELL NO!" and we wouldn't stop fighting until every Russian/Chinese troop was gone. This is ultimately a contest not of Russia/Ukraine, but between Russia/NATO in terms of dedication to the fight. Russia will throw everything that they have into this war. They will spend millions of troops to "win" it and every ruble they can muster for it. It's their backyard - they aren't leaving. How long until the West gets tired of it? We will get tired of it before th Russians will.
@@festivus7065 But they (Russian leadership at least) aren't actually worried about NATO attack. Otherwise, it's hard to see why Russian troops have been withdrawn from borders with NATO countries to instead fight in Ukraine: “Russian forces near Norway at '20% or less' than before Ukraine war, Norway's armed-forces chief says”, 17 Sep 2023, Reuters “Finnish border ‘pretty empty’ of Russian troops”, says Helsinki, 14 Aug 2023, Financial Times
Very sober understanding of the situation. Most objective english speaking channel on the Russian-Ukrainian war, respect. I'm monitoring russian and ukranian speaking telegram channels, but coming here for a reset after a brainwash :)
people have long said that the Soviet-Afghan war was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians themselves have been trumpeting how important this war is and if they are going to go from life and death rhetoric to "it's ok" after tens of thousands of deaths then Russia as we know it could collapse
If ukraine moving towards west is not a threat to Russian existence then why, was the presence of Soviet missiles in cuba considered an existential threat to the USA. Ukraine moving toward bato started this war and a confirmation that it won't do so will end this. The Western support is not enough for Ukraine to win but it is enough so that they can fight. Why not go all in and ensure a Ukrainian victory? Give f-35 , f-18 etc. Russia will not collapse but ukraine already has.
Fear of political instability: We need to learn the lessons of the collapse of the USSR. I remember when we weren't that far sighted and were more enamoured with congratulating outselves over the collapse of the USSR and didn't think much about how it would play out long term. And the west very much has in the past tried to influence Russia internally, from propping/supporting up Boris Yeltsin to indirect methods like introducing Shock Therapy. As well as the coups, epidemics and crime rates that Russia had in the 90's. Which all factored into the Russia we all "know and love" today. So there is this. Fearling collapse: I like how this Synder guy mentions Crimea, Russo-Japanese War (Which totally didn't have a destabilizing effect in 1905... Ha!), Afghanistan (which totally didn't influence the USSR's collapse at alllll lol.)... but also completely skips WWI? That blew Russia apart into a decade long civil war with 10+million deaths, where the Bolsheviks had to fight tooth and nail to bring so many countries back into the fold. Russian balkanization is a possibililty given how ethnically diverse Russia is (190+ ethnic groups), and how badly it is treating it's ethnic minorities. Also regarding that quote from Politico talking about "centrepetal forces" and "powerful security services"... Pretty sure the USSR had those aspects far more down pat in 1989 (centrally planned everything and its KGB) than Russia does today in many aspects. So I remain skeptical of that attempt at downplay. Nuclear question: I'm less concerned about "Russia" going nuclear, but again, learning from history. When the USSR collapsed there was a real fear of illegal nuclear proliferation of Soviet weapons and there 100% was a massive market in conventional ones. Even to the point Ukraine had to sign a treaty with Russia to hand over it's Soviet stokpile of nuclear weapons (woops). If we take instability/collapse/balkanization into the equations, we're not gauteneed a "Clean"(ish) breakup like the USSR's and it would be a first if Russia broke up this time round more like Yugoslavia, and less like the USSR, especially given Russia's oligarchic/Mafioso leaning way of doing things. So while I agree Russia going nuclear isn't the threat, Russian instability, corruption, balkanization could lead to a clandestine black market arms trade in nuclear weapons. (glances nervously at Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/IS) Now I agree that Russia could very well not collapse, but this whole "Nahhhh Russia won't" also smells a bit irresponsible and too relaxed on par with the cavalier attitude we had in the 1990's towards post-Soviet instability. In fact it almost (almost, not going to commit to a full accusation) smells of propaganda to "not worry about the peace, just focus on the war." type of mentality. And that, has its own set of problems. Now, I hope Ukraine wins, and I think sending everything we got to them is the right thing, but we shouldn't let our guard down to long term possible problems post-war, however that may look.
I feel like one aspect that you overlooked in your analysis is the role that nukes play in preserving Putins regime. He is the ultimate say in whether nukes get used and from a perspective of his personal incentives, If he feels like he’s gonna end up like Mussolini or Gaddafi… he’s more incentivized to use them. I do agree with all the points you made as they pertain to Russias interests and a Russian loss in the war, but I don’t think “Russia” has any say in the matter.
This conflict is existential to the Russian regional geopolitical hegemony and connected in many ways to the status of Russia as a great power, not the Russian state. To expediently visualize the concept, imagine that the old USSR funded the majority of European rebuilding instead of the US and incorporated most of that in its alliance. The US falters economically and its hold in South America weakens, so the USSR, in contradiction of unwritten but definitive promises made to keep out, goes ahead and incorporates a further number of states to its alliance. In the decades to come, the US regains it's power slowly but is mostly gatekept from entering the alliance as their demand of Russia stepping down from a permanent leadership position is not acceptable in the current, USSR based world order. Then the US starts making energy deals and building permanent infrastructure with Japan, which the USSR consider a core ally in the region, in their own version of the Monroe doctrine. In the meantime, there is a populist uprising in Mexico, which was formally invited but remains non-eligible for entry in the USSR alliance. The US did of course try to intervene covertly to prop up their allied government, but failed. Finally, in a bid to retain it's regional supremacy and with no realistic diplomatic weaponry available, the US invades Mexico, while the USSR sabotages the energy infrastructure between the US and Japan. This example timeline is obviously generic and no ideological or other considerations were taken, but it should make clear how the situation looks from the other side. Honestly though, in the current timeline, US actions indicate they are disengaging from the Ukrainian affair, with the majority of the aid money being used as stimulus for their own military-industrial complex for new weapons that will not be available for several years, at which point the US seems to hope the affair will have been concluded and they could say "Well, we supported them till the bitter end".
When US threatened war and considered all options, when USSR tried to position nuclear weapons in Cuba, where they bluffing ? I don't think so. Similarly I don't think Russia will sit and wait for US/NATO to positions their troops and weapons including missiles in Ukraine without escalating, including using nuclear weapons. I think it will all depend on what exactly a defeat scenario might be.
We moved closer to Moscow with Finland's accession to NATO than any territory Ukraine possesses. We're on the doorstep of St. Petersburg & Muscovite clowns can't do shit about it. Wtf are they gonna do if all their military power is utterly spent in Ukraine, and they still end up losing? Nothin.
I think the Russians may give up on the Donbas if it turned against them but only if some sort of security treaty were signed preventing Ukraine from getting any nukes or having nukes stationed on that territory. But Crimea? They will use nukes before giving that up
Exactly. Everyone grew up for reasons ok...it was kissinger, just f*cking Kissinger really that it was thought Russia had to be around for whatever reason.
The whole premise of his argument is Russia is rational and NATO is no threat to Russia existence. But the whole reason for this war is the expansion of NATO to Russia border and the threat to Russians in Ukraine. In addition, Russia has a policy for tactical use of nukes. It will hit any advancing NATO army to bring an end to the advance. Whether this progress into a strategy use of nukes now becomes a US decision. And Ukraine stands no chance of defeating Russia, only a NATO involvement can turn the tide.
“This is a war to preserve all democracy and freedom of speech!!” … “if you have an opinion counter to ours, you are a Putin shill bot and should be censored!”
Hans is so excited he's going to get another swastika tattoo and make a quick run to Walmart to buy another tiki torch before he nuts in his mom's basement.
I have to say the quality of the material you produce is consistently so high that I have to conclude that you have an excellent team helping you with the research and supporting you. Well done for the excellent work, it is impressive!
the taliban didn't emerge until several years after the soviet withdrawal. they lost to a coalition of Afghan militias and islamist groups funded and armed by the US, out of which emerged al Qaeda. another result of this proxy war was when the soviets withdrew, thousands of mujahadeen fighters returned to their countries and began islamist insurgencies, including in egypt and algeria. in fact the biggest factor in creating jihadist groups has been US intervention and invasion in the middle east, including ISIS
@@jackblack7827from your description of events it sounds like all of the unrest in the middle east is the fault of the Soviets. You said something along the lines of a coalition of militias that came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and then went home to start their own terrorist groups. Thanks that helps clear some things up.
They came back weaker? If they are weak, what do you say about NATO. It’s pumping resources into Ukraine and billions of dollars in weaponry and Russia has gained 17 towns and villages and 2 cities in 2024. That’s a cope message if ever I saw one.
The fact the war has managed to last as long as it has, not to mention the manpower and resource loss, one could argue they've already categorized this as a major defeat for Russia.
The Russian population is still many millions more than two years ago if counting those in the occupied areas. And lives lost have been primarily those with low monetary value while they have been replaced with those with higher monetary value.
I don’t think Putin can afford a defeat because it would be very humiliating for his army and country, I understand that Russia might be also trying to get out of this war but they don’t want to be the first to give in.
Western sources are claiming between 50-60k Russian fatalities so far that’s not enough to make a population turn on their government and be against this war Russians are obviously not happy with the performance but they are not a liberal population they are fiercely loyal nationalists anybody who thinks Russians will rise up and force the Russian government to stop this war is delusional and views Russians like their Americans they are not. They won’t give in nor support a withdrawal
Russia is trying to conquer the largest country entirely in Europe, if they want out of this war they want it with their military goals accomplished, so they can rest and move on to invading the next country. Putin , a grandson of Stalin's chef, has set out to delete countries from the map and anything short of that is certainly something very humiliating for him.
I don't anticipate Russia winning, but their current position will not be a loss either. Russia will probably not conquer all of Ukraine but they will most likely keep the territory they have gained.
Yeah, the American general of the theatre wanted to nuke the Chinese-Korean border to halt the incoming reinforcements. Only the American president stopped him by telling him no repeatedly.
How, at this point, can Russia "lose" this war? How are we still having this discussion in 2024? Only if NATO puts boots on the ground could Russia lose, but that _could_ cause a much wider war.
They are losing the war every day. If they had won to date, Russia would already be using Ukraine's high purity neon (they are about half the world's supply) to make the lasers that can make the smallest microchip features that in turn produce leading edge technologies - military and otherwise.
@@spacegarage6826 There is a fundamental difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan compared to Ukraine. In Vietnam the United States was fighting a forever war because it didn't have the political will to invade the North, which allowed their enemy to be continuously reinforced and resupplied. In Afghanistan, the US sent over a mere token force that could only ever hold a few geographical areas and relied on a weak, central civilian government that didn't have the moral or political will to fight for its own future. Ukraine will be more like 1945 Germany than these other two. Unless the AFU disband and become roaming bands of guerilla fighters en masse, or if Russia decides to be brutal oppressors like Nazi Germany, then I think most Ukrainians are going to opt for a less-than-ideal peace under a non-hostile government than a continuous resistance that will destroy their standard of living just because NAFO trolls want them to. And that's the big difference between these examples. In Vietnam, a subsistence rice farmer is much more indifferent to pursuing guerilla warfare than someone whose standard of living relies on electricity running. Given a choice, you want the electricity running, and you'll choose the route that keeps it so.
I'm curious as to how you square that with Russia getting men from third-party countries as meatshields for its troops: While the recruits were promised an intensive, three-month training programme, they say they received less than a month of combat drills in the Rostov region in southwestern Russia bordering Ukraine. “I think they have been trained for very few days, in some cases not even a week,” said Poudel. “And then they are sent to the front lines, basically as expendables.” Owing to their lack of training, Nepali men who spoke to Al Jazeera thought they would be used as backup. However, they were pushed to front lines. “The Russians just commanded us from behind. We were like their shield,” 34-year-old recruit, Ratna Karki* told Al Jazeera.
Well, those arguments counts for EU & US tenfold. After all, it is not Russia brewing troubles at their borders with inclination to proceed brewing troubles inside of them.
Sorry @Preston Stewart, BUT to put it mildly, you are wrong in saying that this war is not critical for Russia, and comparing this war to wars “lost” by the US, or are deliberately misleading, because: 1) The US has never fought a war even on the outskirts of its borders. Russia is fighting the enemy army on its critical border, where the distance to major cities is no more than a few hundred kilometers. Mexico's army has never posed a threat to the existence of the US, and has never laid claim to US territory, never discriminated against Anglos on its territory. Ukraine has done so since 2004. 2) When the US was fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other hot spots, Russia did not supply the US adversaries with modern weapons and intelligence. The US and all of NATO does this all the time against Russia. Therefore, Russia is at war not with Ukraine (which would not really pose a threat to Russia), but with the united West, which is already a threat to Russia's existence. 3) To a large extent, the war in Ukraine is a civil war, where the victory of one side unambiguously means the defeat of the other. The U.S. is familiar with this from its own civil war. One part of a nation cannot lose and be left alone by another part of that nation. This is possible only as a temporary measure, and ONLY with the support of the losing side from outside. But since Russia can only count on itself if it loses, this is an existential war for it.
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the situation. If they have already lost Russia is installed in Kiev. Get a grip, kid... this is going to go on for a while yet and your wishes will not change reality.
@@joeenergy973 That is what you fascist sympathizers keep saying, but do you honestly think that those pathetic attempts to twist the reality works? We all know who has the meat wave tactics...
В мае 2022 было намерение у России остановить боевые действия в обмен на гарантии безопасности и Крым, но кому-то очень хотелось почистить склады от старого оружия и провести практическую отработку методик ведения войны на полигоне с живыми людьми.
Russia will not leave Ukraine. Pyotr Tolstoy said that they have "eternity ahead of them". Alain Bauer said that the USA does not want Russia to collapse or for Putin to be killed because that would be worse chaos than Ukraine.
Comparing Russia's war in Ukraine to America's war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't very accurate in terms of the reasons for the war. America wasn't looking to annex Iraq and Afghanistan but was looking to expand its influence and empire through pro American regimes in these places. A better comparison would the Texas Revolution, Americans settled in Texas (a part of Mexico then), eventually when the colonists didn't like the rules being imposed on them by Mexico, they asked the United States to annex them. After the Mexican-American war even New Mexico and California were also annexed. This is much more similar to the Russia Ukraine war where the Donbas has a lot of ethnic Russians, and we know from election data that Eastern Ukraine has always been more pro Russia, some of these Russians wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, and Russia wanted the same, as Ukraine was drifting more towards the West.
"The only thing we learn from history is, that people don't learn from history"".
Thank you for the content as always.
He is an a hole this would be the death nail for Russia that is what America wants and that is what he wants.
Yeah so many example, Hitler tried, Napoleon tried, Sweden tried.
@@sleepyjoe7843
Poland too before all of them. None succeeded.
I love the grounded reality of this channel!!!
*Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $15,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD* ❤️.
I'm in a similar situation where should I look to increase income? Do you have any advice? What did you do ? Thank you
Well I engage in nice side hustles like inves'ting, and the good thing is I do it with one one of the best(Michael Wayne), he's really good!
Did someone just mention Mr Wayne!? Damn! You just made my day; what a coincidence.. I've worked with him for over 2years and I can tell how good he is
It's great to see you guys talking about
Michael Wayne, This man changed the game for me. Good Man ❤️
No doubts, this Michael Wayne must be an icon; how good is he and how safe is "profit making" with him.?
Good analysis, but you are leaving one thing out. The wars we lost were on the other side of the planet, Russia deems this one existential since it is on its doorstep, or in their opinion historically Russian land and people.
In their opinion? Kiev is the one of ancient Russia capitals.. Ukraine it's just a region of Russia with own dialect... Most of ukrainians speak russian because it is their native language..
I wouldn’t count Afghanistan or Iraq as a loss. What did we lose, a pile of rock and dirt populated by irrational people bent on constant conflict? The defense industry has squeezed these conflicts till they are no longer profitable and then we left.
Yes and there being hit also
Yeah. Its ifferent losing a war to the country on your border..
@@187Rajahukraine are civilized. Russia is just a fascist hellhole. Huge difference
Next: What if earth stops spinning?
Well, obviously it'd be the Martian's fault, so we better invade Mars now!
Losing war in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq is not an existential threat to the US since its thousands of miles from US. But losing a war in Ukraine which is just next door to Russia is an existential threat to Russia which would justify the use of nuke.
Bro forgot a dude in a cave, told other dudes to fly planes into a building and the Pentagon. Anyone is a threat, especially with gullible idiots like the Palestinians protestors, you can be a threat without even risking your own. As Pat said not everyone in Putin circle isn't willing to go nuclear. NATO stepped back when he threatened to nuke us, which works in his favor.
I'm not dying for a country that I care less about and ruined my economy because they believe the US and NATO are helping them when in reality Ukraine is a proxy force like the Mujahedeen to push back Russian influence.
How is it an existential threat to Russia?
and Ukraine does not have nukes. there is no real nuclear deterrence.
US and NATO are not going to use its nukes as retaliation.
if they do, thats the end of world. are we , the West that stupid?
i am not sure.
If Putin really was super keen to use nuclear weapons he would have done so already. In December 2021 he laid out his 'red lines' which if crossed would result in him authorising the use of nuclear weapons. Those 'red lines' have now been crossed yet no nukes were launched.
There was a moment in June 2023 when Putin could legitimately have used tactical nuclear weapons but that moment has passed.
Prigozhin's forces had captured Rostov-on-Don and an army was marching on Moscow which at the time was mostly undefended.
If Putin had chosen to use tactical nuclear weapons on Russian territory to defend the capital city against such an existential threat he would have been entirely within his rights to do so. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if negotiations failed and the PMC Wagner forces did not turn around half-way to Moscow...
Your argument is wrong, Russia can never use nuclear in Ukraine, for they consider them as close brothers and sisters. Instead with USA will be the first country that Russia will start nuclear. Because many of you in USA think that USA is superior than Russia. That’s why you minimize Russia . They can knock anywhere in USA if it comes to serious war 😊😂😂😂
Putin didn't use nukes on Wagner forces inside Russia so he won't use what an idiotic take. Are you actually serious? LMAO 🤣
Thanks for the update
Russian defeat? That is what we are speculating on right now with severe ammo, infantry, and AA shortages for the Ukrainian army? I can understand if you have been working on this video for a good while now, just feels like strange timing with what is currently happening.
Given the fact US aid just passed, the Russians aren't going to win.
They might not LOSE, but it's just not realistic for them to reach Kyiv or any other major city one Adiivka at a time - 9 Billion of the 60 billion US aid was ALREADY sitting in Europe, waiting to be shipped immediately. It's also worth mentioning that it passed in both chambers of congress with about 70% - Trump couldn't veto the current congress.
Are the Russians winning RIGHT NOW? Yeah, slowly. But that's not going to last.
Unless something radical happens, like the total collapse of ruzzia or EU getting into war economy, I don't see Ukraine winning. At the same time I don't see ruzzia winning aswell - their main objectives were to sieze Ukraine and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
You haven't watched the video at all or you don't understand english.
Obviously you don't know that Ukraine has already conquered Moscow ?
Russia will lose this war. Their recent gains are marginal and Ukraine has enough support coming through in the mid term. The ma8n reason Russia will lose is because they will eventually be out produced by the West. Their soviet stockpiles are dwindling and rusting. Russia came into the war with huge stockpiles but weak new production capacity. The West came in with small stockpiles, except USA, and enormous capacity. Time is not on russian side. Sorry to tell you this but economics wins over ideology.
Good job brother. We look forward to your videos.
Keep them coming and God bless.
I appreciate your videos and your point of view on such topics. You are one of my main go to people for daily updates and the hard work you and the team do is very appreciated.
Keep up the great work! Thanks
Daily updates???
This is like a therapy session for all the ukraine fans who dont realize what happens.
Must be hard for you Russ agents to accept reality. Per capita income? One fifth of the US. Your average Russian would be eligible for food stamps as an impoverished person. Law? Your dictator has changed your Cnostitution 3 times and violated it many times; he is now in his fifth "term". You could have invested in Ukraine, once your greatest trading partner. Instead, you decided to kill hundreds of thousands of people. You decided to steal land. A tragedy for the Ukrainians -- and for you. You gave up being a great civilization, and becam mass murderers.
😂😂😂
Bandera fans anonymous
Exactly 🥴😂😂
Russian fans have been in a mental asylum for 2 years
Russia is not going to lose
Its unlikely that russia will lose militarily, however its very likely that russia will lose it war of aggression against Ukraine inside Russia due to high casualties, high inflation, a collapsing economy, infrastructure failure and political unrest.
Its very likely that russia will lose its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian federation doesn't have the economic depth to maintain its invasion of Ukraine at its current level.
The Russian invasion force is losing equipment at a high rate, it is currently replacing those losses with stockpiled soviet era equipment (80%) and newly built equipment (20%). The soviet era stockpiles are being depleted at a rapid rate and will be exhausted by 2026.
Russia is suffering very high casualties, there is a limit to the number of casualties that the russian people will accept.
Russia is probably going to lose. Just like in 1917.
Russia is going to fail.
Yes, I cannot see Ukraine taking the territory Russia has seized, eg Crimea, so how can Russia lose? If it stopped now, it would have a sizable chunk of Ukraine.
I think there is two big differences. If you are of the opinion that Russia is fighting on the war on what they think is their own territory than your calculus doesn't hold.
He explained that pretty convincingly.
In REALITY, right now, Ukraine is losing big time, I do not see Russia losing.
Even if it did, history has proven that a losing RU is a RU that comes back at least 10 times stronger and smarter:
Crimean War loss -> Emancipation of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia plus Faster collapse of Ottomans
Japanese Defeat - Faster industrialisation
WW1 defeat -> WW2 victory, becoming Leader of the Second World as the USSR
Collapse of USSR - Reemergence of Christian-National RU, currently a big leader of the coming multipolar world order and potentially reunification of the RU (RU federation, UA and BY) lands under a single national identity.
I am not really sure the points of the Russo-Japanese war or the Soviet-Afghan war are good examples of wars that "Those states continue to survive" Both are examples of when a loss of a war directly led or significantly contributed to the collapse of the country.
True
Good examples, as those are wars that Russia lost. The Russ agents often get over-excited and make claims about never having been defeated.
@@thinkerly1the ckaij is true in terms of never losing a war on their own soil since the early 17th century and the Time of Troubles.
Otherwise, Russia's track record in imperial european wars is about average, slightly elevated from all the drubbings they kept giving the Ottomans.
@@fillosof66689 ww1 Russia lost on its own territory.
@@WagesOfDestruction to an extent. Although despite the mismanagement and losses, in later years of the war it was having an advantage against the Austro-Hungarian forces and would have stabilized the front against the Germans if not for the collapse of the whole state - twice in a row.
Russia would do the same thing the US would do if we were about to lose a war in Mexico - we'd use nuclear weapons. Medvedev has said they would use them. Take him at his word.
While I do agree with your points, the argument becomes very tricky when you start talking about formally annexed territories. On paper, if Russia considers these territories their own, they should defend them in any way possible. In particular, the biggest issue is Crimea. This isn't an area they occupied 2 days ago, this has been Russian territory (at least according to their own laws) for 10 years now. But either way, you could say that they would probably give it up if it comes to that (which it probably won't, given how the war is going) rather than start a nuclear exchange.
But then you come to one part of the argument you missed - who says Russia would start a nuclear exchange? If Russia were to start using nukes in this hypothetical situation, they certainly wouldn't just immediately nuke the whole world. They would most likely use one (or several) tactical nuclear weapons to target larger formations of the Ukrainian army and then counterattack or whatever. They wouldn't be nuking the US or NATO. In this instance, it would be extremely hard for the US (or other NATO nuclear countries) to justify a retaliatory strike on Russia, when they weren't targeted themselves, nor are they even formally at war with Russia. With this in mind, Russia certainly may be more willing to use a couple tactical nukes if it came to that. And again, while I agree with your points that Russia probably wouldn't be willing to end the world (including themselves) with a full nuclear strike on the west, that isn't really what would happen anyways, or at least not initially. Technically speaking, it would have to be the west/NATO starting that full on nuclear exchange, and again this would be hard to justify since it wouldn't directly concern them.
But in the end, this is a completely different story than the one we're witnessing in reality, so I don't think it's necessary to worry about that scenario.
I don't see the world including China taking the use of tactical nukes lightly. While the west would not make a nuclear strike back they may arm Ukraine with nukes as a deterrent.
Also Russian generals have the final say in launching nukes. Would they actually do it and perhaps jeopardize their own people?
No just no...If Russia used tactical nukes the US would not use nukes but would definitely be in Moscow within a week or two to make a point.
If Russia used nukes, they could pick a spot on land that they claimed and say it was used on their territory.
@@Kevin-x4p4y you cant be serious. You do realise that in that particular scenario you are suggesting, by invading Russian mainland you would then actually put them in a situation where they would launch nukes on the US? You can't be that stupid to actually believe what you just said?
@@WagesOfDestruction good point, even though most of the world doesnt consider these territories actually Russian, but still. It is all in the grey area, it is not as clear as the video makes it out to be IMO.
Thank you very much for your service and interesting information!
This channel is about "new" for me and I'm sorry for myself that I didn't meet you before.. Slava Ukraine and best wishes from Bjørn, Norway :)
Сравнивать Украину для России, которая находится в самом ее подбрюшье, с Вьетнамом и Афганистаном для США, которые находятся от США в другом полушарии - это очень корректное сравнение, скажу я вам.
It’s not as much difference as you might think. The fact of the matter is that the people there don’t want you and your system. And that was the same in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It’s not so much the case where the invaded country is located, but the fact that it was invaded. And history tells that it doesn’t go too well for the invader (unless the population is replaced as it was with the US and Texas and California, or with Russia in Siberia.
And by the way, Cuba is very much at America’s underbelly and Venezuela just on the other side of the Caribbean Sea and the US has not dared to invade them.
@@ollifrank6255 Yeah, the US was busy invading other places, and Cuba and Venezuela had to struggle with all the CIA assassins you sent there, no biggie. Btw Russia never commited a genocide of any comparable scale in Siberia against the natives, they're alive and well to this day, unlike the natives of the US.
You got some solid points.
I am so sick of our naive fellows who really believe our propaganda machines, that everybody is wanting democracy when the majority on earth doesn't even know what that is.
In Germany we say "Was man nicht weißt, macht auch keinen heiß".
I just don't see a response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon within Ukraine that is existential to Russia or Putin. What would NATO's response really be? Boots on the ground in Ukraine? Attacks into Russia territory? Certainly not a nuclear response of our own. More sanctions are the most likely response but we've seen how much of a deterrent that has been.
It would result in Russia losing everything they owned out side of its sovereign borders at the very least. I'm not sure if NATO would outright invade but it would be open season on everything else.
US officials have said that they have outlined to Russia what their actions would if they used nuclear weapons in Ukraine and that it would be a conventional response. What exactly they told Russia they would actually do was never stated but I would guess it would involve at minimum destroying the rest of the Black Sea Fleet, what is left after what Ukraine has sunk of course. They might also supply Ukraine with a lot more long range weaponry and the permission to use it against targets just over the border within Russia to cripple their ability to supply the Russian army in Ukraine. The most extreme US response I could imagine would be a massive air campaign to gain aerial superiority over Ukraine by destroying Russian air defense sites which would enable American aircraft to hit any target in Ukraine at will which would lead to a Russian loss in a few months at most I'd think.
Whatever the actual threat was it would have to be something that had a big enough impact to really make the Russians aware that they would suffer serious consequences or they wouldn't have bothered to make any threats at all.
@@oryxland3994 Russian mentality is very hard to read or predict. if they decide to do it, no threat from anybody would stop them.
@@alitariq3442 Although it's important to not assume your enemy will always make logical choices at the same time I would echo the same argument Preston does in this video in response, is it likely that Russia, and more specifically Putin, will want to turn a war in Ukraine that does not threaten the existence of the Russian state into one that does? Because using nuclear weapons most definitely ups the stakes immensely and no one in Russian power circles would be blind to that. In that context the US telling Russia that there would be consequences to using nuclear weapons and that they would be quite severe might very well have an affect on Russian decision making.
They'll never use a nuke - because then every other country wouldn't be deterred by Russia having nukes and there'd be no reason other countries with nukes to be using them on Russia - and they realize that fact.
0:30 I'd say around half of countries in wars lose wars, Preston, lol. Excluding conflicts where there are more countries on one side than the other, or one side isn't a state.
Alliances tend to win wars, if only because nations like to hitch onto the winning train.
Virtually ALL countries in war LOSE, some lose much more than others.
@@shadowdragonsdentrue, but that’s the big big picture, but there’s winning and losing in terms of achieving military objectives.
Not true
For one many times its a lot of countries against few(like the wars with iraq) second, in many cases two sides can be relatively satisfied with the result(korean war for example)
Wars are just rackets those who profit gonna win.
If Russia loses, they'll do like they did after the first Chechen war. They'll adapt and come back strong after a year of "modernization" and Russia will NOT fall it's not the Soviet Union, Russia economy has somewhat grown. Either or Russia is gonna have a problem. Win or lose.
Grown let me hear you analysis of their growth and the medium to long term outlook for their economy.
The growth of the russian economy is due to military spending.
No
No chance
Problem is, Russia's neighbors know it too and Ukraine's not Chechnya. Russia's western frontier will be heavily militarised and united.
And Russia, win or lose, has already lost. It failed it's strategic goals. It wanted Ukraine as a buffer state and NATO discredited. Instead it will have an extremely hostile Ukraine as a neighbor and NATO nations along it's entire western border.
@@nkosipwl While you are probably 100% correct in why their economy has grown, I wouldn't be so sure about certain predictions that Russian economy will collapse or whatever. You have to remember a lot of "experts" predicted it would collapse within just a few months due to sanctions, yet we've seen the Russians adapt and cleverly avoid those sanctions. Of course a long war will have negative consequences for the economy, but there are certain positive things as well. Mainly, a lot of companies which had to leave Russia had their assets in Russia taken over by Russian entrepreneurs (some companies signed agreements with Russia, in some cases even having a buyback policy in the contracts, while others gave up their assets less willingly) and I think that the Russian economy could benefit from this in the long run. There are lots of specifics which have to be taken into account. I'm not an economist or an expert on this subject in any way whatsoever, however I also am a lot more reserved towards predictions from our "experts", since they have been completely wrong in several instances.
@@TheStephaneAdam Russia was always hostile against Ukraine and NATO, and I think we forgot about the leaks from Germany proving Putin's point. Russia winning or losing is gonna be a problem for them, but nothing is gonna happen. Like Chechnya with experience and now much stronger fighting force (NATO themselves confirmed). Down the line, either with or without Putin (The next is gonna be worse) they will invade and will win.
No matter how this war ends, US should really worry if Russia as revenge on the Western aid to Ukraine decide to start arming different factions in areas where [US] is militarily involved. Facing rebels with AK-47 is one thing, them having access to advanced surface-to-air weapon systems is a very different thing.
This line of thinking that " this war isen,t existential for russia " is kinda stupid in my opinion. I base that because of the following reasons,
1. The ones who argue like this are not russian.
2. They do not live in russia and therefore do not know what is at stake should ukraine regain their 1991 borders which would mean a total defeat of russia as stated by their stated victory goals of their special military operation ( which is primarly to demilitarize ukraine ).
What Preston think is not existential for russia, just might be existential for the millions of ethnic russian and ukrainians living in the donbass. A large group of people which the military junta in Kiev has been agressively trying to cleanse from " their " land despite the fact that these people voted in a democratic vote ( observered by UN-sanctioned observers ) to break away from ukraine. This is not hard to understand why the people of donbass took this approach considering ukraine has been bombing civilians in donbass ever since 2014 and killed more than 30000 civilians from that time until now. Not to mention all the new laws that are actual racist in nature against ethnic russians living in the donbass ( example making use of russian language to be illegal in education, jailing all opposition political parties to the government and supressing almost all independent TV and newsletter publications in the country ( exept ukrainan state-owned TV or foreign pro-US, pro-government publications. ) I dare not think what Kiev would do to the people of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea should ukraine actually reclaim these territories. And no, the people of these territories do not want to go back to ukraine, plenty of open proof of this in countless open street interviews from people in these areas, even here on RUclips ( albeit less then before because of censorship algorithms ).
Shh, you can't tell people the truth, their feelings will be hurt because they will realize they have been lied to and their lack of doing research for themselves proves this.
@@Ozark-nq9uu Iam well aware of that, it is a unfortunate reality we live in. sad times.
The puppet vote re independence in occupied Ukraine was not free and fair, and the UN Neave claimed it was. The entire world rejected that vote as rigged by the Russian occupiers.
These claims are lies. For example, most of the supposed victims of Ukrainian attacks in Donbass were hired actors:
Как работали СМИ «фабрики троллей» и что там происходило во время мятежа? Читайте рассказы сотрудников, освободившихся от подписки о неразглашении, 5 July 2023, Бумага [my point is mentioned about 2/3 of the way in]
The International Court of Justice has rejected Russia's claim of genocide in Donbass.
Yeah if Russia lost I hardly think it will impact much. The United States could easily replace their energy production. Some raw materials and grain would be the biggest impacts.
are you on drugs?
If there would be little impact if Russia loses why do people play up the fear if Russia wins? It's to sides of the same coin.
@droppedpin7536 well, certainly part of that fear is where Russia may target next. There has been rhetoric coming from RU state media suggesting continuing in to Moldova, Poland, etc.
There is not this fear if Ukraine wins, as they aren't trying to annex sovereign countries.
@@droppedpin7536 Those who "play up the fear" are mainly those who supports or sympathizes with russia, it's just a pathetic attempt to make everyone who supports Ukraine to lose hope and be afraid of supporting Ukraine.
The thing is that Russia is not loosing at all...
Bigger question is why are people literally dying to get in the US and people are literally dying to get out of Russia? Where have I seen this before and how did it end?
People aren’t during to get out of Russia. They also have an issue with illegal immigration.
can you stfu. Propaganda, my little freak. Pure and simple. I left thattoilet nation 11 years ago, drugs,crime, no healthcare, mass illegals, skyrocketing rent prices, the entire nation is collapsing, lgbt,trans, wtf....Russians are not immune to yankee propaganda, manyfriends believe in murka being better,...tell them about trans,crime, villennce they just smile....out of twelve, who emigrated, four returned to russia,one to belarus, two want to return and the restare mum.
Dude Russia arguably has an immigrant INFLUX crisis, they really have to crack down on that btw. No one's climbing barbed wire with boolets swishing above their heads to leave lol, the borders are open (unlike in Ukraine where they actually swim under fire to escape)
Do you know the numbers of illegal immigrants in Russia? I do, let me know about you.
Bot attack
Americans would be wiser to think about what if Russia wins the war.?😅
Both are important questions. This is just one of them.
@@michaelharris8111 well said
There's going to be a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps some Ukrainian lands, but both sides will claim victory. Ukraine can say they exist at all thus thwarting Russia. Russia will say it only wanted to weaken the 'nazi' state and successfully did so by taking 1/5 of its land. Life (for those of us not dead lmao) will go on
Sooooo let me get this right. It's no big deal to the Russians if they lose but if they win it's a huge deal to the Americans?
The establishment of US nuclear bases in all the NATO countries bordering russia would be so quick the installations would look blurred 😅
Because the U.S lost wars 8000 miles away from its borders not 300 miles away from Washington D.C
I really enjoy your mostly objective updates on foreign conflict. Thank you.🇺🇲
Your arguments are what would Russia do if they lost the war. In my mind the big question is "What will Rusdia do to avoid losing the war."
Now do myths about an Ukrainian defeat
Myth: Nothing much would change.
Reality: The very high purity neon that Ukraine has about half the world's supply of would fall into Russian hands, enabling them to be a major source of cutting edge microchips for the foreseeable future.
@@flagmichael you are kinda too late. Neon was a byproduct of steel production in Mariupol
Myth 1) ukraine will be saved by based russia lmao
@@flagmichaelwould you be so kind to explain to me how russia would become a leader producer of something they have neither the technology nor the knowhow to produce? I am a bit at a loss here...
@@enricogattone432 Is there a need to explain the joke?
Belgian here. 62 years old. Grew up near NATO headquarters with a Pershing parked on the front yard, and an SS-20 trained on the backyard. When the Wall came down in late 1989, there was this fear of "The Red Star Going Supernova". It was about the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons (not the big intercontinental ones) falling in the hands of Russian 'Warlord Generals'. They would use some on each other, in coup attempts, and sell off the rest on the black market, thus triggering worldwide runaway nuclear proliferation. It didn't happen. Mainly because of Gorbachew, Yeltsin, and the peaceful transfer of power between the two, in 1991. If it weren't for them, 1991 would have become 1919 again: Russian civil war, this time with nukes.
My argument being: Putin is no Gorbachew or Yeltsin.
Gorbachew and Yeltsin are the one to blame for poverty in Russia in 90s and infrastructural negligence, they were worst leaders of all.
Great insights in what could be an or is possible Preston, thanks for the air craft carrier vid that was awesome as well as this channel
"Putin's already lost the war. "
-Biden, July 14, 2023
lol Biden as a source ? He probably don’t even remember saying that
Biden is right on, great call. Putin has lost more than the war, he's lost his Army, 15,000 tanks and IFV's, nearly 1/2 million dead Russians, his sanity, his overseas wealth fund, ability to get help from the West, as well as most of his economy. Lots of loss for Putin...
"Hepda dipa huma huma, Children rub my legs wi-wi-wi lotion"
-Biden
@@Chiraqboy-Theplugshit Right. 😂
@@BigTimeRushFan2112 He doesn't even know who Putin is. If Russia already lost, then what's the point of continuing to ruin our economy for Ukraine? Biden saying someone already lost is the most hilarious thing to say and the fact you and this dude took him seriously is even more funny. Even Putin a clown for saying he wants Biden to win, although it's a lie.
12:40 In the last 15 years, NATO has bombed two countries, making it geopolitically naive to dismiss the possibility of NATO being a future threat. A government thinks in decades, not in years... Do not forget that.
The presence of NATO along the 1,900 km border between Russia and Ukraine, without natural barriers and with the loss of Crimea’s crucial ports, is undeniably a massive problem for Russia.
Consider why JFK directly threatened nuclear war when Russia positioned military equipment in Cuba, just 180 miles from Miami.🤔
Whenever NATO has extended invitations for talks, Russia has promptly responded. This pattern was evident
in 2008, when Ukraine and Georgia were invited to NATO summit talks for potential membership, leading Russia to attack Georgia as a warning to the West.
Similarly, in 2014, after Yanukovych was "removed" in Kyiv, Russia swiftly annexed Crimea.
Then again, in 2021-2022, as calls in the West to admit Ukraine into NATO grew louder, Russia quickly launched an SMO.
Welcome to 2024.
The chances of Ukraine joining NATO in the leadup to the invasion were almost nil. You can't join NATO without unanimous consent among its members and you can't have any territorial disputes. I can't imagine any scenario where Hungary would agree to allow Ukraine to join NATO, and pre-invasion many other NATO members would have also been hesitant. Ukraine developed closer ties to NATO as a result of Russia instigating conflict in their country. Now thanks to Putin's "SMO", NATO has expanded closer to Russia.
I’m sure Russia bombing the shit out of Georgia really made Ukraine not want to join NATO. Putin remains an absolute master strategist. By the way has Russia fulfilled their agreement to withdraw their military from Moldovan territory yet?
it's only a problem if you attack a nato state. and no country is entitled to natural or political boundries. no country is entitled to ports, or any land but what they are internationally recognized to have. Yanukovych was removed with a popular movement. 'an SMO' was an invasion. what are you talking about?
During this very war, Russia has withdrawn troops from its borders with NATO countries, instead sending them to fight in Ukraine:
“Russian forces near Norway at '20% or less' than before Ukraine war, Norway's armed-forces chief says”, 17 Sep 2023, Reuters
“Finnish border ‘pretty empty’ of Russian troops”, says Helsinki, 14 Aug 2023, Financial Times
Apparently, it doesn't actually have that much of a problem with NATO.
@@flipierfatalbina4757 NATO was not attacked by Serbia, nor by Libya." Yet, they attacked those countries.
Popular movement? Have you ever read the Ukrainian constitution, on what grounds a president can be removed from office? Stop spreading half-truths.😂
Having a negotiated end with a neutral Ukraine would be the best scenario. At this point its quite clear that except nuclear weapons, Russia will use all its might to flatten Ukraine and grind down the Ukrainian army. The fundamentals aren't simply in Ukraine's favor in a war of Attrition whether that's demographics, or industrial capacity. Fighting the war to the last Ukrainian essentially means the end of Ukraine.
Even nuclear weapons aren't completely out of the question as Ukraine's attacks into Russia proper such as Belgorod and Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. If Russia looses significant industrial output due to these attacks, Russia may even consider nuclear weapons since this is not like Iraq or Afghanistan for them but more like Texas/California as I've mentioned below.
Since Putin controls Russia more or less with an Iron grip, we must try to view the outcome of losing the war from his point of view, and why he will do almost anything to avoid the same. Before him, pretty much any leader of the Russian Empire, the USSR, and even the Russian Federation that lost a war lost political power or their life within a couple of years after:
•Peter III overthrown and executed by his own wife Catherine II after losing the Seven Years War.
•Tsar Nicholas II lost the Russo Japanese War and was losing WW1 during which he was deposed by the Bolsheviks and eventually executed.
•Nikita Khrushchev lost political power within 2 years of the end of the Cuban missile crisis, where publicly perceived that the Soviets backed down.
•Mikhail Gorbachev lost political power within 2 years of pulling out of Afghanistan, and ultimately even the Soviet Union collapsed.
•Boris Yeltsin resigned within 3 years of losing the First Chechen War.
A leader like Putin seems to be a far better to negotiate with than a leader like Prigozhin. I think most people would agree that had he won the coup, he would have taken an even more brutal approach to the war. Throughout Russia's history, tyrants were tolerated, losers were replaced with more brutal but more effective leaders that would win wars. Defeating Russia may mean that Putin is overthrown but it is highly likely that whoever replaces him will be far more brutal and make Ukraine pay a heavier than it is already paying.
"Fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, But..."| Why Putin's War Has Jolted Ukraine's "Foreign Fighters"
ruclips.net/video/TVHOX3NyTSM/видео.htmlsi=3LCqZJ296Byl-9Y3
Why would Russia trust Ukraine will honor it's agreement?
@@hydrohasspoken6227The better question is why would Ukraine believe Russia will honor its agreement. When Ukraine broke from the USSR, it transferred its nuclear weapons to Russia with the agreement that they would be allowed to exist in peace and would not be attacked by Russia in the future. So that didn’t really work out well for Ukraine. The whole reason they haven’t yet negotiated is because most Ukrainians officials believe Putin would use the chance to regroup and attack in 5 or 10 years.
@@drinkc0ke16 I can answer that question, but please answer me this one first: what triggered the current war?
Great arguments. Ty,
Great video and insight. Thanks for this
Thank you!
The major issue here is that most people in the West considers Russia and Ukraine as two sides of some peace agreement, fire stop etc. Russia considers Ukraine as it's province lost by bad politics of USSR and that is it. It is, not near, but somehow like Ukraine wants Donbass back after war. Russia won't stop until it is fully exhaused or politically unstable. In another case they will exhaust Ukraine, then defeat, and then perform genocide as already did in 1933-1934.
Сложно истощить энергетическую державу.
you made mos tof that up.
Ahhh, no.
@@cerberdog6667 РФ многонациональное государство с кучей внутренних проблем и индиферентным к политике населением, тем более к войне.
@@attilamarics3374 I live in Ukraine, I know people whose grandparents starved to death, my uncle's father was exiled to Siberia. Maybe you don't know that russians are already doing on occupied territories ?
Great video dude
Thank you
Well said!
Sorry but the examples about Russia losing wars at 6:00 are a little odd...Losing the 1905 war triggered a revolt in Russia and eventually lead to the collapse of the Russian Empire a decade later. The loss in Afghanistan (in 1989, not 79 btw) was a major factor in the Soviet Union's disintegration...We're not all worried about these now because they happened decades ago; (and incidentally, the current Ukraine war is a direct result of the soviet collapse, so it's not like we're not living the consequences of Russian military defeats even decades later)
Even in the chaotic 90s, Yeltsin's Russia acted independently, for the country to collapse, it would take a lot more than a defeat in Ukraine
However a defeat in Ukraine will greatly weaken the regime in Moscow and Russia itself is made up of different nationalities that if they sense weakness could make a attempt at independence. Afterall it did happen after the Russian Empire collapsed following their surrender in the first world war.
@@planderlinde1969 Most of Russia's ethnic republics are majority ethnic Russian, or heavily eavily Russified (Yakutia), the only exception is smth like Chechnya and it is tiny
@@planderlinde1969 IMO nothing gonna happen. President may come out and say: "Special millitary operetion completed successfully. Ukraine is demilitarized, denazified and de-whatever else". People gonna prase him more than ever. And those minor nations are too oppressed to do anything because noone wants another Chechen war.
Seems like they exploit western's fear of collapse. In 2022, when Ukraine has liberated large chunk of accupied territory Medvedev litterally screamed: "Dont push us, or we gonna collapse!"
@@planderlinde1969 an every time something else has raised no matter how many times you try westernize Russia u will fail in the end
@@AngelSonevski You have a bad idea of the reality in Russia. Russia can only exist with a strong centralized leadership. That's why Putin is so annoying to the West. In addition, the West will most likely never give up trying to destroy the largest country.
Preston, you talked about Russia annexing parts of Ukraine which are now legally Russia. Is it legal to annex territories of other countries? On what terms?
I was told in an online discussion about Israel that annexing new territory is illegal under some law of war/ convention
It is neither legal nor illegal. These are usually ratified through treaties, which are basically countries accepting de jure the changes that happened de facto.
Aka it's everyone else saying "Fine this land is now yours, okay, we accept this because otherwise things will be too complicated and tiresome for us".
Great video. The issue is that you've done it on the least probable outcome at the moment. Russia is winning and none of the fundamental metrics favor Ukraine. The front hasn't stabilized since the loss of Avdivka. Next video... Myths about a Ukraine loss. What does that mean for Europe, Nato and the US?
Probability that Ukraine will win is 0%
Great stuff! Makes sense.
For those who are interested how true defeat of Russia could look like, it is the so-called "Istanbul agreement of 2022". But this chance is now gone.
The top secret KGB agent Boris Johnson managed to save the day for the Motherland in the last second. Even if it cost him the position of Prime Minister of UK. As a true Russian patriot.
What did this defeat look like?
(1) Russia totally withdraws troops from Ukraine, except only (!) Crimea. It means Russia agrees to withdraw recognition of the LPR and DPR independence.
(2) Russia preserves the current political system in Ukraine. By law it is neutral, but in fact it is strongly anti-Russian, so Ukraine could continue building its anti-Russian nation.
(3) Russia supports economy of Ukraine by lowering custom barriers and providing its gas and oil with huge discount. Sounds like reparations to me.
Thanks solely to Boris Johnson, this very much shameful scenario did not come true. He will get his recognition, I suppose he is a secret agent in service to president Putin.
@@Kilo500you don't understand how strong the connection is between Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians. This is a connection of one ancestral blood, one story, one faith, no one can break it. If the Istanbul Agreements had been allowed to be signed by Ukraine, Ukrainians would have rejoiced, because they would not have had to die for the interests of NATO. Russia would not have lost anything, because the heart of most Ukrainians is always on Russia's side. Zelinsky was chosen for peace with Russia, so that he could come to an agreement, but he betrayed the Ukrainian people by dipping them in blood. Most Ukrainians are still on the side of Russia, which is why there is a huge partisan movement in the Zelensky concentration camp itself, which helps Russia in liberating the Ukrainian people from the NATO occupation, because most Ukrainians fled Ukraine and do not want to fight, therefore the remaining part of Ukrainians hides from Zelinsky's Gestapo, which catches people like cattle and sends them to the slaughter is at the front, so the Ukrainians surrender in brigades to the Russians, because they know that their brothers will help them and will not kill. You didn't realize that when Russia's special military operation ends, the result will be that the Eastern Slavs will unite into a single force, and residents of the EU and the United States will look around the world for a place where they can eat a crust and drink a glass of water. But will they find a country in a multipolar world, who will feel sorry for them?
Man, u the best. I just love ur logic. Please never change this way of saying things the way they are. And one curiosity I really have and I would love to hear your opinion is about why and how is it possible that world condamns Israel while all the guilt of the war is of the same Palestinians that today they cry and before the war they celebrate the attack on Israel. Keep it this way, man. Every time I go on RUclips, I'm looking to see if you posted something new, and you do it often, which is awesome. I can tell u really love what you do. Please don't change this way of saying the things. Thank you for all your effort and good content you have done until now. It is just the best and most enjoyable to listen.
There is no way Russia is loosing a war in its own territory.
Your English is terrible Ivan 😂
This is NOT russian territory orc
@@tracboy80 correct, this is youtube 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@joeenergy973 😁
One point I raise in counter-argument to Preston/Chatham House etc is: Did anybody think a full-scale conventional invasion by Russia was the option they would take back in 2022?
My point is the perspective, emotional level, and available information may cause decisions that are not logical or reasonable at all.
This whole video feels like Americans projecting their insecurities about their own nation’s future onto Russia.
That's the US as a whole, which is why we police the globe. After 9/11 and Pearl harbor, that fear really piked which is why so many people are diluted when it comes to Russia and China even.
This is how it is different: through political manipulation of domestic differences, the biggest military alliance that the planet ever seen has effectively turned a part of Russia in to an Unti-russia. This is not akin to united states losing some obscure expedition Afghanistan, the place where most can't point the right continent where its located. It's akin to the conquest of India. Where England played off the domestic politics to exploit the population. It's akin to the conquest of America, where the same tactics were implemented.
Now why it's done, when Russia was willing to play the game fair for 30 years is a different question.
You ar emissing one point, for Russia Ukraine is seen as their land. This has been the case for centuries, also there's the idea that Russia has a natural right to contorol territories which once were part of the USSR and it's spehere of interest. This is embedded in their culture, as it has been a part for centuries,the people are brought up that way. A goos source to understandf this thiniking is reading Dugin's works.
Be that as it may, it appears that the Ukrainians are not buying what Russia is selling!
Russia is not only a country. Is a civilization. Like China, or India.
the difference is that russia says that this war is existential to them. not just some spat with japan over one city region or some ideological wrestling in asia that the US could do without.
So what. I don't care what the Russians think will happen if they lose. The rest of us know they're being ridiculous. A democratic Russia would be welcomed on the world stage, and their citizens as free as Americans or Europeans to travel anywhere, and as prosperous, too.
@@phillipdavidhaskett7513 Of course it matters because the opinions of Russians dictates how much they are willing to fight in this war. If Russia feels like a loss will cause some terrible times then they are more likely to fight harder in order to win.
If they feel nothing bad will happen then they are more likely to want an end to the war.
This is why I feel like many people who support Ukraine, calling for the end of Russia really doesnt help their cause
From their perspective, it IS an existential fight to them. If you look at it from their POV, NATO is steadily encroaching upon "their sphere" and is now on their doorstep.
Try to imagine how we would react if Russia or China brokered an alliance with Canada or Mexico and wanted to station troops there. Our respoinse would be a solid "Oh, HELL NO!" and we wouldn't stop fighting until every Russian/Chinese troop was gone.
This is ultimately a contest not of Russia/Ukraine, but between Russia/NATO in terms of dedication to the fight. Russia will throw everything that they have into this war. They will spend millions of troops to "win" it and every ruble they can muster for it. It's their backyard - they aren't leaving.
How long until the West gets tired of it? We will get tired of it before th Russians will.
orcland aka russia will also say this about their invasions of Moldova, Georgia, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, etc... if they should succeed in Ukraine.
@@festivus7065 But they (Russian leadership at least) aren't actually worried about NATO attack. Otherwise, it's hard to see why Russian troops have been withdrawn from borders with NATO countries to instead fight in Ukraine:
“Russian forces near Norway at '20% or less' than before Ukraine war, Norway's armed-forces chief says”, 17 Sep 2023, Reuters
“Finnish border ‘pretty empty’ of Russian troops”, says Helsinki, 14 Aug 2023, Financial Times
Very sober understanding of the situation. Most objective english speaking channel on the Russian-Ukrainian war, respect. I'm monitoring russian and ukranian speaking telegram channels, but coming here for a reset after a brainwash :)
Let's save everybody time, Russia will not lose.
people have long said that the Soviet-Afghan war was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians themselves have been trumpeting how important this war is and if they are going to go from life and death rhetoric to "it's ok" after tens of thousands of deaths then Russia as we know it could collapse
If ukraine moving towards west is not a threat to Russian existence then why, was the presence of Soviet missiles in cuba considered an existential threat to the USA.
Ukraine moving toward bato started this war and a confirmation that it won't do so will end this.
The Western support is not enough for Ukraine to win but it is enough so that they can fight.
Why not go all in and ensure a Ukrainian victory?
Give f-35 , f-18 etc.
Russia will not collapse but ukraine already has.
Thank you
Would love to see a similar analysis about “what if Israel loses”
Good stuff. Thanks
Good content. Robust! Always very much liked your channel. Few compare to it or come close.
Thanks a lot, really appreciate that!
Fear of political instability: We need to learn the lessons of the collapse of the USSR. I remember when we weren't that far sighted and were more enamoured with congratulating outselves over the collapse of the USSR and didn't think much about how it would play out long term. And the west very much has in the past tried to influence Russia internally, from propping/supporting up Boris Yeltsin to indirect methods like introducing Shock Therapy. As well as the coups, epidemics and crime rates that Russia had in the 90's. Which all factored into the Russia we all "know and love" today. So there is this.
Fearling collapse: I like how this Synder guy mentions Crimea, Russo-Japanese War (Which totally didn't have a destabilizing effect in 1905... Ha!), Afghanistan (which totally didn't influence the USSR's collapse at alllll lol.)... but also completely skips WWI? That blew Russia apart into a decade long civil war with 10+million deaths, where the Bolsheviks had to fight tooth and nail to bring so many countries back into the fold. Russian balkanization is a possibililty given how ethnically diverse Russia is (190+ ethnic groups), and how badly it is treating it's ethnic minorities. Also regarding that quote from Politico talking about "centrepetal forces" and "powerful security services"... Pretty sure the USSR had those aspects far more down pat in 1989 (centrally planned everything and its KGB) than Russia does today in many aspects. So I remain skeptical of that attempt at downplay.
Nuclear question: I'm less concerned about "Russia" going nuclear, but again, learning from history. When the USSR collapsed there was a real fear of illegal nuclear proliferation of Soviet weapons and there 100% was a massive market in conventional ones. Even to the point Ukraine had to sign a treaty with Russia to hand over it's Soviet stokpile of nuclear weapons (woops). If we take instability/collapse/balkanization into the equations, we're not gauteneed a "Clean"(ish) breakup like the USSR's and it would be a first if Russia broke up this time round more like Yugoslavia, and less like the USSR, especially given Russia's oligarchic/Mafioso leaning way of doing things. So while I agree Russia going nuclear isn't the threat, Russian instability, corruption, balkanization could lead to a clandestine black market arms trade in nuclear weapons. (glances nervously at Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/IS)
Now I agree that Russia could very well not collapse, but this whole "Nahhhh Russia won't" also smells a bit irresponsible and too relaxed on par with the cavalier attitude we had in the 1990's towards post-Soviet instability. In fact it almost (almost, not going to commit to a full accusation) smells of propaganda to "not worry about the peace, just focus on the war." type of mentality. And that, has its own set of problems. Now, I hope Ukraine wins, and I think sending everything we got to them is the right thing, but we shouldn't let our guard down to long term possible problems post-war, however that may look.
Thanks for the update. Keep safe.
Don't worry he is not fighting in Ukraine 😅
Their loss in Afghanistan is quite pertinent. The US supplied aid to the Afghan defence effort. The US is still around. No nukes went off.
Great analysis, thank you !
So them "winning" or "loosing" makes no difference on grand scheme of things...
Ukraine never had a chance. Wasted hundreds of billions on a futile effort, but at least the military industrial complex is richer than ever
Is that why after 2 years ruzzia hasn’t move forward? ? ? Oh and lost 2/3 of black sea fleet, 1/3 of jet fighters and helicopters too ? ?
Great analysis and summary. Well done.
I feel like one aspect that you overlooked in your analysis is the role that nukes play in preserving Putins regime. He is the ultimate say in whether nukes get used and from a perspective of his personal incentives, If he feels like he’s gonna end up like Mussolini or Gaddafi… he’s more incentivized to use them. I do agree with all the points you made as they pertain to Russias interests and a Russian loss in the war, but I don’t think “Russia” has any say in the matter.
This conflict is existential to the Russian regional geopolitical hegemony and connected in many ways to the status of Russia as a great power, not the Russian state.
To expediently visualize the concept, imagine that the old USSR funded the majority of European rebuilding instead of the US and incorporated most of that in its alliance. The US falters economically and its hold in South America weakens, so the USSR, in contradiction of unwritten but definitive promises made to keep out, goes ahead and incorporates a further number of states to its alliance.
In the decades to come, the US regains it's power slowly but is mostly gatekept from entering the alliance as their demand of Russia stepping down from a permanent leadership position is not acceptable in the current, USSR based world order.
Then the US starts making energy deals and building permanent infrastructure with Japan, which the USSR consider a core ally in the region, in their own version of the Monroe doctrine.
In the meantime, there is a populist uprising in Mexico, which was formally invited but remains non-eligible for entry in the USSR alliance. The US did of course try to intervene covertly to prop up their allied government, but failed.
Finally, in a bid to retain it's regional supremacy and with no realistic diplomatic weaponry available, the US invades Mexico, while the USSR sabotages the energy infrastructure between the US and Japan.
This example timeline is obviously generic and no ideological or other considerations were taken, but it should make clear how the situation looks from the other side.
Honestly though, in the current timeline, US actions indicate they are disengaging from the Ukrainian affair, with the majority of the aid money being used as stimulus for their own military-industrial complex for new weapons that will not be available for several years, at which point the US seems to hope the affair will have been concluded and they could say "Well, we supported them till the bitter end".
When US threatened war and considered all options, when USSR tried to position nuclear weapons in Cuba, where they bluffing ? I don't think so. Similarly I don't think Russia will sit and wait for US/NATO to positions their troops and weapons including missiles in Ukraine without escalating, including using nuclear weapons. I think it will all depend on what exactly a defeat scenario might be.
You understand the cuban crisis was a response to missiles being placed in turkey, and the bay of pigs invasion, right?
We moved closer to Moscow with Finland's accession to NATO than any territory Ukraine possesses. We're on the doorstep of St. Petersburg & Muscovite clowns can't do shit about it. Wtf are they gonna do if all their military power is utterly spent in Ukraine, and they still end up losing? Nothin.
I think the Russians may give up on the Donbas if it turned against them but only if some sort of security treaty were signed preventing Ukraine from getting any nukes or having nukes stationed on that territory.
But Crimea? They will use nukes before giving that up
Russia is a fat, feeble old lady.
I think it's because of fiction writers that we think this way about Russia
Exactly. Everyone grew up for reasons ok...it was kissinger, just f*cking Kissinger really that it was thought Russia had to be around for whatever reason.
Now you can wake up from that dream.
The whole premise of his argument is Russia is rational and NATO is no threat to Russia existence. But the whole reason for this war is the expansion of NATO to Russia border and the threat to Russians in Ukraine.
In addition, Russia has a policy for tactical use of nukes. It will hit any advancing NATO army to bring an end to the advance. Whether this progress into a strategy use of nukes now becomes a US decision.
And Ukraine stands no chance of defeating Russia, only a NATO involvement can turn the tide.
Thanks for the video. Can you also make a video "Myths about a Russian victory in Ukraine" ???
Bots and tankies in the comment section are not happy about this one, Preston.
“This is a war to preserve all democracy and freedom of speech!!” … “if you have an opinion counter to ours, you are a Putin shill bot and should be censored!”
Hans is so excited he's going to get another swastika tattoo and make a quick run to Walmart to buy another tiki torch before he nuts in his mom's basement.
I have to say the quality of the material you produce is consistently so high that I have to conclude that you have an excellent team helping you with the research and supporting you. Well done for the excellent work, it is impressive!
Well Soviet Union did collapse when it lost to taliban but it come back just weaker
the taliban didn't emerge until several years after the soviet withdrawal. they lost to a coalition of Afghan militias and islamist groups funded and armed by the US, out of which emerged al Qaeda. another result of this proxy war was when the soviets withdrew, thousands of mujahadeen fighters returned to their countries and began islamist insurgencies, including in egypt and algeria. in fact the biggest factor in creating jihadist groups has been US intervention and invasion in the middle east, including ISIS
@@jackblack7827from your description of events it sounds like all of the unrest in the middle east is the fault of the Soviets. You said something along the lines of a coalition of militias that came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and then went home to start their own terrorist groups. Thanks that helps clear some things up.
@@toddlawrence6872 нет, всех этих ребят спонсировала США. Потом США кинула их и они обиделись. А 11 сентября 2001 года случилось то что случилось...
@@JekaZMD Russian federation?😅😅 what do u think putin doing Ukraine and Georgia and if ukriane falls then he go for Moldavia
They came back weaker? If they are weak, what do you say about NATO. It’s pumping resources into Ukraine and billions of dollars in weaponry and Russia has gained 17 towns and villages and 2 cities in 2024. That’s a cope message if ever I saw one.
The fact the war has managed to last as long as it has, not to mention the manpower and resource loss, one could argue they've already categorized this as a major defeat for Russia.
The Russian population is still many millions more than two years ago if counting those in the occupied areas. And lives lost have been primarily those with low monetary value while they have been replaced with those with higher monetary value.
I don’t think Putin can afford a defeat because it would be very humiliating for his army and country, I understand that Russia might be also trying to get out of this war but they don’t want to be the first to give in.
Western sources are claiming between 50-60k Russian fatalities so far that’s not enough to make a population turn on their government and be against this war Russians are obviously not happy with the performance but they are not a liberal population they are fiercely loyal nationalists anybody who thinks Russians will rise up and force the Russian government to stop this war is delusional and views Russians like their Americans they are not.
They won’t give in nor support a withdrawal
Of course Putin doesn't want to give in. Nobody wants to. Did AH want to give in? No, we forced him to.
Russia is trying to conquer the largest country entirely in Europe, if they want out of this war they want it with their military goals accomplished, so they can rest and move on to invading the next country. Putin , a grandson of Stalin's chef, has set out to delete countries from the map and anything short of that is certainly something very humiliating for him.
I don't anticipate Russia winning, but their current position will not be a loss either. Russia will probably not conquer all of Ukraine but they will most likely keep the territory they have gained.
A Russian loss might not be existential for Russia, but perhaps it would be for Putin. So how would he react to a possible loss?
They are a nuclear power, just remember.
U.S. once consider using nukes when chinese enter the korean war.
Yeah, the American general of the theatre wanted to nuke the Chinese-Korean border to halt the incoming reinforcements. Only the American president stopped him by telling him no repeatedly.
Thank you, Preston.
Yeah Ukraine is on meth rn.
Plus, Russias benefactor has told Putin-No Nukes!! When the USSR collapsed the world didn’t crumble!
How, at this point, can Russia "lose" this war? How are we still having this discussion in 2024?
Only if NATO puts boots on the ground could Russia lose, but that _could_ cause a much wider war.
Russians will withdraw. They cant fight this useless war forever, they dont need this war. If defender wont stop fighting, attacker always withdraws.
They are losing the war every day. If they had won to date, Russia would already be using Ukraine's high purity neon (they are about half the world's supply) to make the lasers that can make the smallest microchip features that in turn produce leading edge technologies - military and otherwise.
Same how USA lost vietnam and Afghanistan and ukraine is actually holding a Frontline Unlike the former 2
@@spacegarage6826 There is a fundamental difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan compared to Ukraine. In Vietnam the United States was fighting a forever war because it didn't have the political will to invade the North, which allowed their enemy to be continuously reinforced and resupplied.
In Afghanistan, the US sent over a mere token force that could only ever hold a few geographical areas and relied on a weak, central civilian government that didn't have the moral or political will to fight for its own future.
Ukraine will be more like 1945 Germany than these other two. Unless the AFU disband and become roaming bands of guerilla fighters en masse, or if Russia decides to be brutal oppressors like Nazi Germany, then I think most Ukrainians are going to opt for a less-than-ideal peace under a non-hostile government than a continuous resistance that will destroy their standard of living just because NAFO trolls want them to. And that's the big difference between these examples. In Vietnam, a subsistence rice farmer is much more indifferent to pursuing guerilla warfare than someone whose standard of living relies on electricity running. Given a choice, you want the electricity running, and you'll choose the route that keeps it so.
@@EngineeringWizard11 gaza
Thanks, what I could see as an example of the topic is the Falkland war. If I understood what you said pointing at.
Russia has practically won a this war already.
Ok Mario
@@whatevername8551 yeah, scared conscripts with no armor no air defense vs trained well armed soldiers. Sounds promising.
I'm curious as to how you square that with Russia getting men from third-party countries as meatshields for its troops:
While the recruits were promised an intensive, three-month training programme, they say they received less than a month of combat drills in the Rostov region in southwestern Russia bordering Ukraine.
“I think they have been trained for very few days, in some cases not even a week,” said Poudel. “And then they are sent to the front lines, basically as expendables.”
Owing to their lack of training, Nepali men who spoke to Al Jazeera thought they would be used as backup. However, they were pushed to front lines. “The Russians just commanded us from behind. We were like their shield,” 34-year-old recruit, Ratna Karki* told Al Jazeera.
@@johnoneone2455 how much do you get paid by your Russian botmaster? Hope it's not in worthless rubles.
@@whatevername8551 this war has accomplished the destruction of Ukraine and shown Russia how to bypass sanctions and build up their military.
This is not a foreign soil this is our land.
Well, those arguments counts for EU & US tenfold. After all, it is not Russia brewing troubles at their borders with inclination to proceed brewing troubles inside of them.
Brewing touble at their borders ? You guys are laughable
@@3cosmoyeah, it's ruzspeak, "trouble at the borders" is the translation of "defending against genocidal invaders" in Common Speech 😅
Sorry @Preston Stewart, BUT to put it mildly, you are wrong in saying that this war is not critical for Russia, and comparing this war to wars “lost” by the US, or are deliberately misleading, because:
1) The US has never fought a war even on the outskirts of its borders. Russia is fighting the enemy army on its critical border, where the distance to major cities is no more than a few hundred kilometers.
Mexico's army has never posed a threat to the existence of the US, and has never laid claim to US territory, never discriminated against Anglos on its territory. Ukraine has done so since 2004.
2) When the US was fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other hot spots, Russia did not supply the US adversaries with modern weapons and intelligence. The US and all of NATO does this all the time against Russia. Therefore, Russia is at war not with Ukraine (which would not really pose a threat to Russia), but with the united West, which is already a threat to Russia's existence.
3) To a large extent, the war in Ukraine is a civil war, where the victory of one side unambiguously means the defeat of the other. The U.S. is familiar with this from its own civil war. One part of a nation cannot lose and be left alone by another part of that nation. This is possible only as a temporary measure, and ONLY with the support of the losing side from outside. But since Russia can only count on itself if it loses, this is an existential war for it.
Bro Ukraine has lost already
Have you told Russia, you should let more folks know, it seems they haven't gotten the memo & are all still fighting.
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the situation. If they have already lost Russia is installed in Kiev. Get a grip, kid... this is going to go on for a while yet and your wishes will not change reality.
So why is there still fighting going on? Kinda pathetic to just repeat the same thing you have been saying for 2 years now...
@@thomaslunde5014 Ask your western friends, it's called 'to the last Ukrainian'
@@joeenergy973 That is what you fascist sympathizers keep saying, but do you honestly think that those pathetic attempts to twist the reality works? We all know who has the meat wave tactics...
В мае 2022 было намерение у России остановить боевые действия в обмен на гарантии безопасности и Крым, но кому-то очень хотелось почистить склады от старого оружия и провести практическую отработку методик ведения войны на полигоне с живыми людьми.
Sorry their is no coming back from that...Russia will not go back to the status quo.
Will and they'll say it was meant that way. Don't worry, russian propagandist know how to shape any public opinion
@@dokukinTell that to Nicholas II or Gorbachev
they will
they can put a new puppet in charge of Russia
@@foodistzen So you think Putin will remain in charge, and its business as usual after losing in Ukraine? I admire your optimism.
Russia will not leave Ukraine. Pyotr Tolstoy said that they have "eternity ahead of them". Alain Bauer said that the USA does not want Russia to collapse or for Putin to be killed because that would be worse chaos than Ukraine.
America wants the status quo
Comparing Russia's war in Ukraine to America's war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't very accurate in terms of the reasons for the war. America wasn't looking to annex Iraq and Afghanistan but was looking to expand its influence and empire through pro American regimes in these places. A better comparison would the Texas Revolution, Americans settled in Texas (a part of Mexico then), eventually when the colonists didn't like the rules being imposed on them by Mexico, they asked the United States to annex them. After the Mexican-American war even New Mexico and California were also annexed. This is much more similar to the Russia Ukraine war where the Donbas has a lot of ethnic Russians, and we know from election data that Eastern Ukraine has always been more pro Russia, some of these Russians wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, and Russia wanted the same, as Ukraine was drifting more towards the West.
Hmm I wonder why there are more russians there? Look up what the Russian empire did.