Thanks for watching. Give the video a LIKE and remember to Subscribe for PART 3, which we managed to salvage and be out soon! See PART 1 here ruclips.net/video/FRJmE1ROqkM/видео.html
Putin never loved NATO. After fall of USSR and US not retaliating against them. Many people in Russia, who refused to accept that they lost Cold War. Come to conclusion that US agree to split world together. Putin was one of those. It was not what US ever claimed and Americans make quite fast, clear that they do not treat Russia above anyone else. Because they DID win and everyone is equal anyway. Putin who was delusional about all this, was offended and to be clear. There never were serious propositions of entering NATO. Only few loose discussions, overblown for propaganda reasons. Unfortunately West refused to accept that Russia backslide to imperial delusions, as they were blind by greed and misunderstand Fukuyama (who to be clear predict Russia loosing war, just no one actually read his arguments). And so we are here now...
What betrayal? How can you possibly come to that awful click-baiting title from the contents of your own video? I actually liked this series with Mark Galeotti, and then you go an pull a cheap trick like that. Putting Marks face to that title. Shameful. Hope he doesnt spend more time on you. Russia is so typical of the worst bullies around. They really cant see the problem with killing 100.000s of innocent Ukrainians, but their own feelings are hurt so deeply every time anyone voices the smallest hint of disagreeing with them.
I don't believe Putler was ever interested in serious and mutually beneficial cooperation with NATO countries, but he was probably very keen to investigate the extent to which he could expand his own power by obtaining some outsized controlling stake. His delusions of grandeur were probably manifesting since he initially came to power.
Putin is a criminal through and through. They would have had to convince him it was in his own personal interest to remain an ally to the west. They do this with Saudi Arabia or Turkey so it probably is possible but treating Putin like a normal responsible leader was their biggest mistake.
Your delusion is very apparent. His entire career up until 2014 was nonstop begging for NATO expansion, extremist coups and wars of aggression to stop. By then they were in his doorstep.. and he shifted appropriately.
I think he had very wrong understanding of NATO and especially US role in it. He was and still is very much in spheres of influence, he assumed he will retain control over former USSR and to lesser extent over former Warsaw pact countries. They would do their democracy etc but Putin would decide who is actually elected. To me it seemed that Baltic states acceptance into NATO felt complete betrayal to him and he started taking progressively more violent approach to enforce his understanding of world order. Starting from Georgia and Moldova. He took visible insult when western powers publicly shunned in front of cameras, after 2014 annexation of Crimea. I think even at this point he still believed belonging to a special club, one of the big boys who decides over lesser nations
Watch Nixon's 1994 interview about Russia. Say what you want about him being a power hungry politician, he was a master at geopolitics. It's a tragedy we didn't listen to him.
On the NATO issue at the end of the show that you put to Mark, I have to beg to differ. It's so important I put it in a new comment. "Not one inch to the East" referred to the then East Germany, The USSR had not yet collapsed to the Warsaw pact still existed. This is a HUGE point the vatniks never get right Pyotr. From the Brookings article - Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No" - We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]-particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East-be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
According to J Matlock junior who was an ambassador to Russia and helped negotiate the end of the Cold War. Gorby met Bush senior on a boat in Malta, and promised if Russia did not interfere with the Warsaw Pact countries becoming independent, he would not expand NATO eastward. Bush even addressed the Ukrainian parliament and told them they don’t need to join NATO. Bush kept his word. Matlock recalled he was at a dinner with Kissinger and Matlock said you know if Obama had gone to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi and had a little chat about NATO and had invited Putin to the d day anniversary event, Putin would even have not invaded Crimea. Kissinger replied I agree with you. But what would Matlock and Kissinger know.
@@martinoneill5804 The plans to take back Crimea have been around since Yetlsin's time. Yeltsin prevented the nationalists in Russia to do so because, If Crimea can leave Ukraine then it would have set a precedent to allow Chechniya to leave Russia. I saw an interview almost ten years ago, where a bunch of journalists kept asking Putin, was it the American meddling in Syria that made him decide to take Crimea. and he got angry with them all and told them, to shut up and he said (paraphrasing) - "don't you all know anything ? I wasn't Syria, it was Yugoslavia, that's when I made the decision to take back Crimea", that means he made the decision in 1999 and waited for the right time. That was well before Sochi, so the joining NATO issue had nothing whatsoever to do with Crimea in 2014. That's just BS. I have heard Matlock in interviews and he says a lot of things that are really problematic. Like most people who only spent time in Moscow, he has a pro-Russian bias. Kissinger was wrong about Ukraine and changed his mind, he was wrong about the idiotic notion of a "chat". Chatting to Putin does not achieve anything. ok ? DI all the endless chatting by Merkel or Macron have with Putin achieve anything ? No. Matlock and Kissinger obviously never saw that interview in 2015 that I saw or they wouldn't have been talking such nonsense about a chat. Putin was never serious about the NATO thing, he wanted to jump the queue and be admitted ahead of what he thought was insignificant countries, without due process as was mentioned in the interview. I have lived in Ukraine for a decade, how many years did Matlock and Kissinger spend here ? Zero.
@@irongron In Putins very first speech, when he came to power , he said “NATO was formed as a bulkward against the old Soviet Union, but the old Soviet Union no longer exists. The Warsaw Pact is no more , but NATO continues to develop, is it not time now to creat a new security pact for Europe one in which includes Russia or if not then let Russia join NATO. We don’t fear NATO but we don’t see the need for it.” But it fell on deaf NATO ears. Was that an unreasonable request ? There was nothing problematic about what Jack Matlock said, He understood that moving NATO up to Russias front garden was a recipe for trouble and his prediction was right a dim wit with half a brain could see that. Jack Matlock, Henry Kissinger, Bill burns, the present head of the CIA, and 40 important people wrote a letter to bush in the White House, saying do not expand NATO eastward. This war was predictable and avoidable.
@@martinoneill5804 The Soviet Union was the Russian Empire by another name, Russia is no different, it's an empire too. The kremlin in Moscow is the same seat of government of the USSR. The same Soviet KGB d-bags are still in power there. Putin proved exactly why NATO has to exist, because of RuZZian aggression. Have the Baltics been re-invaded ? NO.... Why ? NATO protection. NATO isn't a threat to RuZZia, it's just an impediment to its imperial ambitions. I'd like you to go to the wikipedia page "List of wars involving Russia" and tell me which of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of wars listed pre-1947 was "provoked" by "NATO expansion" ? Keeping in mind that Moscow started World War II as an Axis Allie by invading Poland in 1939 2 weeks after Germany did.
Similar communications mistakes are now made with Ukraine. Politicians promising "as long as it takes" when in a democracy they can't fulfill a promise like that because they don't know how long they will be in power and they don't make decisions alone. They didnt communicate honestly and weren't realistic as to the extent their country is willing to help (e.g. not being ready to be drawn into the war and going "all in"). Now Ukrainians feel very bitter and betrayed. It feels like both Russia and Ukraine hate us equally now.
What on earth are you talking about? Democracies make binding commitments all the time. Countries can choose to welch on their commitments, but most serious ones won’t do so lightly. There is a lot of posturing around national politics in European countries that can’t be taken entirely at face value. And in no way does it ‘feel like’ Ukraine and Russia have similar feelings towards any particular country in the West….
@@rjScubaSki For example: Our former prime minister said in a speech in Kyiv that we should have a conversation about giving our fighterjets to Ukraine. She didn't mention that she hadn't even started that conversation in her home country yet, nor that a prime minister in our country doesn't have the right to decide such things nor that the time frame was 5-8 years in the future, not now. Ukainian media as a result were full of news and celebration that they will get those fighter jets. When it became clear that they wouldn't, there were some accusations of betrayal. Vague language will give false hope and a lot of disappointment to people fighting an existential war. A similar thing happened with another weapons system when an opposition politician from a small party suggested we should give xyz to Ukraine. Again it was immediately all over the news as already decided facts. Sure, democracies can make binding and long lasting commitments but one has to understand what type/level of commitment is being made, what exactly is being promised and and by whom (e.g. one politician vs ratification by parliament). Also in Ukraine the president has huge amount of power, in another countries the president might have more of a formal role with very little power. When I hear suggestions from Ukrainians out of frustration over western aid that they should bring Russia to attack a Nato country to force Nato into joining the war/divert Russian resources on a second front, I do feel that there is some resentment against the West. The Eastern European countries with a direct border with Russia and a small population will be hit hardest by such a plan, especially since they have disproportionally emptied their weapons storages to give to Ukraine and wishing bombs on our cities because (in their mind) it would help Ukraine and to them it seems fair to that they are not the only target, doesn't feel like a true friendship relationship to me (obviousy not all Ukrainians think that way but I have come across statements like that several times). Ukraine isn't a Nato country, yet our speech has given the impression to some people that it is Nato's job to do whatever it takes (including joining the war). There have never been such promises made, but communication has been so vague that people have understood things in many different ways and that exactly is my point. I do get that Ukrainians are in a difficult situation and I support Ukraine regardless.
@@sointu123 You are exaggerating things wildly. There are idiots in all countries, including Ukraine, Russia, yours and mine. ‘Getting Russia to attack Nato’ is a fringe concept even in Ukraine, and it might surprise you to know that Russia has agency and makes its own decisions - if Ukraine can puppet it around, its doing a very strange job of it. If Russia chooses to attack a Nato country, it will be Russias choice.
@@sointu123the diplomatic jargon is quite vague. So if you are not familiar with it and take it at face value, you misunderstand. Especially as in Western Europe they never tell it to you straight, but dress everything up in nice words, while Eastern Europe is more used to straightforward language.
@@mimisor66 One reason for this is probably also not to give Russia too much information when he is making his cost and risk calculations or the future. That was what Macron was after when saying we should not exclude anything. We can't tell Putin what we are not willing to do (like sending troops) so he won't able to plan. It is a double edged sword. I feel about the winter war in Finland that they got the best outcome by fighting fiercely and negotiating peace before a total breakdown, making hard decisions that did not ignore reality. This doesn't mean that it is the exact same for Ukraine today and I hate the school of thought of realism that would like Ukraine just accept being a country under Russian sphere of influence, a buffer state. On the other hand ignoring all reality completely, not making any cost-benefit analysis might also lead to a bad situation for the country. We also don't know what is talked about behind closed doors.
Was never going to happen. It couldn't have happened unless Europe was prepared to let Putin rule over the smaller Eastern NATO members. Putin's values are fundamentally different from anything NATO or Europe could have lived with. This was made clear when Putin asked about membership, was told how to apply, then he threw the rattle out the pram and essentially said "we are the mighty Russians, why do we need to go through qualification?
This part 2 of the interview was worth waiting for. Interesting and informative. Especially it gave more insight into what poo-tin and rusha misunderstood about the West and NATO. But we can't let Ukraine be sacrificed on rusha's altar because rusha misunderstood something two decades ago. And we can't let rusha decide what we can or can't do in helping Ukraine when they themselves are doing exactly what they don't want us to do. We must make sure that Ukraine defeats rusha.
@@TheRezro Yes. And in the history books that perspective is well-known from 1800s and earlier. It seems the russian world view hasn't changed for the last 200 years.
Biden putting Missiles in Eastern Ukraine within range of Moscow gave Putin a right, Minsk accords broken, Obama 2014 led coup(Victoria Nuland/state dept) in Kiev, NATO moving East after promising not to in 1991 Ussr fall.......You are right, why would Putin defend his country's sovereignty..... America would be fine with Russia/China putting missiles in Cuba/Mexico right?
Once the Siloviki took charge, there was zero chance of long term cooperation. Their expertise was in cold war ops, not diplomacy or economics. So the oligarchs had to be managed like a spy ring, and an enemy had to exist to justify the existence of the Siloviki. They never wanted a world class economy. They wanted revenge...
No it’s not like that. Russia was always treated like any other 3rd world country. Go extract resources, get rich and move money to London City. Silviki were always there, they just found alternative unfortunately non European.
@@martstam2016 Nonsense, Russian olygarchs were taking the wealth of their country for themselves and living the life in Europe. Only the last 2 years are they fleeing to Dubai. The Kremlin clique is run like a criminal enterprise. And as we all know, kartels are not stable in the long run, they'll always run into turf wars. Doesn't matter they put some ethnic sauce over the conflict, it's pure imperialism.
@@martstam2016 Russia needed to do what Japan did a century earlier and rapidly modernize. I'm sure the west has some blame for making their economy worse than it could have been in 1990s but ultimately a country earns international respect for its power it is not given on a legacy basis.
Catch is that not West's fault. They do what you allow them to do, quite natural for capitalism or any other system. Russia and Ukraine were always raw material bases but it changed a bit with USSR. It's Ok to exploit them but it's Ok for them to react, especially now when there are other players like China. If Russia goes 100% China we in EU are completely screwed. Russia will never be Japan, too rich in resources too small population.
There was no "impression" given by Baker. Gorbachev stated that in his 2014 interview titled "I am against all Walls". It was made up by Yeltsin in 1993, then dropped. Putin resurrected it in 2014.
You really want talk about that,let me explain you Russia psychopath,what happened,Russia invasion Crimea part of Ukraine 2014,the reason Ukraine must join NATO,Ukraine people don’t trust Russia,NATO don’t trust Russia,it is true,let war,Russia psychopath,
NATO is useless. Eastern Europe, without USA, France, Germany, Hungary, Turkey, etc. are much better off together, especially as Russia has been shown to be weak.
Ukraine are the only country in Europe to have real experience fighting a modern high tech/high intensity warfare. If NATO want's to have an edge on the modern battlefield, Ukraine will have a lot to offer. Slava Ukraini.
@@JohnDunne001 If you ignore that West was doing military operations in last decade and large scale war more then decade ago. War in Ukraine nowhere near stand to confrontation with actual NATO.
Thank God for NATO. Seems like the only level headed organization that the West has to offer of what otherwise would be considered completely barbarian Russian dominance based on gangster rules.
Your discussion misses Yeltsin's statement to Clinton "Just give Europe to Russia" on 19 November 1999. And the Charter for European Security Russia signed the same day which acknowledged Ukraine's (and every other country's) right to join NATO and that there was no right to sphere of influence.
GREAT ANALYSIS BUT... leaves out two important things VP Dick cheney in germany basicaly saying he looks forward to regime change in Russia... and the US in Iraq ignoring human rights and the UN... so that Putin does not feel those norms should bind him either... As demonstrated by them both pulling out of International justice court system. ( Except when they want to complain about others!)
Putins poke face is great but his chess game is . Quote of the century. Holy Mother of God, you are not wrong about the Victoria Nuland thing vatniks bring up Pyyotr. Great conversation as usual, been waiting for this part 2! Mark is a heavyweight in Ruzzian affairs who got the invasion wrong, just saying. I beg to differ on Mark's take on Donbas, slightly, I was there in 2014, but that's neither here nor there. Lost a home in Makiivka. But I still find him very interesting. Look, on Ruzzia joining NATO, would that not have been akin to letting the Fox into the metaphorical Henhouse ? Knowing Ruzzia's imperial mindset and historical modus operandi. Was this not a worry ? Mark even mentioned the degeneration to Stalinism with the large families and fecundity of women etc. On the "Ruzzian" multi-ethnic state that Pyotr, identified as bogus, (and racist re: the airport) - It is no co-incidence that the largest article on neo-fascism in Encyclopaedia Britannica is the Russia article.
@@thesilkpainter I heard it in an interview made by an English RUclipsr, Piotr and a Polish aftername. He said: “ My Finnish friends will kill me to have said it, but it´s logical than Russia would like to annex Finland and Baltic countries, has the country hasn t natural borders and it has been invaded in several occasions, thus Russia needs a buffer zone”. Peter Zeihan says the same, maybe Galeotti has been inspired by him. Mersheimer says exactly the same as well.
There is a very clever meme used on Facebook and twitter that shows you two photographs side by side, the left one a close up of Putin's face, with boot pressing it down into the mud with the letters N.A.T.O written on it. The caption tells you how bad and threatening NATO is to Russia! The right hand photograph gives you an expanded view of the left side picture. However, this time you can see that Putin has his hand in the boot and is pressing it against his own face just for the effect wanted for the left side close-up! Think about that for a minute! Putin needs an external enemy to keep control of the narrative and power and he will lie, manipulate, and do a lot of other nasty stuff to keep it.
@@theglobalgambit you make the crucial mistake of thinking someone disagreeing does not understand and is stupid. Which says more about you than the person disagreeing.
@@theglobalgambit and I am saying that is an absurd statement, no matter what he felt. People feel lots of things that are not real. In short, as this is a RUclips comment; Putolini no more love or loved NATO than Stalin loved the W.Allies or NATO. To despots anything is a tool to be used in any way you can.
Given the demographic challenges in the US how many years will it take given current birth rates before the US becomes a Latin American country?By the way so many white US citizens with large families are now moving from the US to Russia,talk about irony.
The 2014 Obama state department Ukraine coup via Viyctira Nuland probably put a strain on Russia/Us relations. Us allowing Kiev to murder civilians in Donbas didnt help, lying and betraying Minsk accord(s) didnt help, Nato moving East after promising Ussr not to do so didnt help. Yea its all Purins fault for sure dude.
Galeotti is misleading, Russia is multicultural with problems like Roman Empire was. I did business there in 97-98 and 2012-2013. In 90s there was clear antagonism between Slavs and Caucasians and yes you could see note in ads krome LKV (without Caucasian people) but that was in 90s. In 2012-2013 I saw nothing like that, on contrary Caucasians were literally everywhere from simple jobs to top management. If you want to put the same text like in 90s you go to prison to share space with Caucasians so good luck with it. Truth is that Muslim population in Russia steadily rises and might go over 50% in next 50 years. Don’t forget that both Finance minister and Mayor of Moscow are coming from Muslim background, Prime Minister is Jewish so it is multicultural even on the top level. We in Europe didn’t managed to bring Russia close enough, Europe is until Urals not Krakow. Everyone doing business there including me just wanted to make money, avoid tax, send money to the base country, have fun especially with women. We treated them as it was 3rd world country or colony, backfired. If Russia had 10% of treatment like for example Poland got, Ukraine disaster wouldn’t happened. Even Putin wouldn’t manage to have power for 25 years. Putins frustration and Peter the Great complex lead to it.
This is absurd, ...we are on the verge of a nuclear war that may kill millions and these two are discussing population growth rates in Russia etc., as if it were 1914, WW1 etc. and as if these were to matter because there will be hand to hand combat. One good nuke and all this becomes utterly irrelevant. Btw. Ukraine population mostly fled abroad, there's few Ukrainians left in Ukraine. There will be fewer this winter as people have no heat and are fleeing!
@@toby9999 Experts were predicting Putin to be dead a long time ago, sick with deadly cancer, ready to be assasinated or commit suicide. None of this materialized and old nonsense morphed now into new nonsense. I myself believed he'll be gone by now.
@@toby9999"Nuanced discussion", with clear anti-Russia bias. "Some indications were given to Gorbachev and Yeltsin". What makes them mere "indications" rather than, for example, a verbal promise to not expand NATO? Unless you give exact information about the negotiations back then, that is a VERY suspicious statement. "Russia fell out with us because of our opposition to the "barbarism" in second Chechen war". Geez, wonder why Russia would be annoyed with that. Especially considering what US was perfectly happy to do with drone strikes under Obama. "Construction boom in Dagestan because tons of people are dying there and getting death bonuses." I expect him to explain how he came to that assertion. Was there a survey? Did they ATLEAST look at the joining/death bonuses, look at cost of materials etc. while coming to the conclusion that joining bonuses are not enough to do those constructions, and BOTH bonuses are required for that? Sorry, this is not "nuanced discussion". This is the kind of vague bullshit that diplomats of a country will tell when they have to defend against some embarrassing revelation.
You are wrong - Putin was offended and felt humiliated that Russia should go through a several-year admission process before joining NATO, he thought that Russia would be immediately accepted with glory. This was the real reason for not asking Russia to join NATO.
The US killed the idea before any process was initiated. Rightly so. Russia inside NATO or EU would have displaced the US from the seat of power in Europe.
Russia would have manufactured a "Ukrainian invasion" casus belli, invoked article 5 while marching on Kyiv and exploited even more western indecisiveness.
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching. Give the video a LIKE and remember to Subscribe for PART 3, which we managed to salvage and be out soon! See PART 1 here ruclips.net/video/FRJmE1ROqkM/видео.html
Putin never loved NATO. After fall of USSR and US not retaliating against them. Many people in Russia, who refused to accept that they lost Cold War. Come to conclusion that US agree to split world together. Putin was one of those. It was not what US ever claimed and Americans make quite fast, clear that they do not treat Russia above anyone else. Because they DID win and everyone is equal anyway.
Putin who was delusional about all this, was offended and to be clear. There never were serious propositions of entering NATO. Only few loose discussions, overblown for propaganda reasons. Unfortunately West refused to accept that Russia backslide to imperial delusions, as they were blind by greed and misunderstand Fukuyama (who to be clear predict Russia loosing war, just no one actually read his arguments).
And so we are here now...
What betrayal? How can you possibly come to that awful click-baiting title from the contents of your own video? I actually liked this series with Mark Galeotti, and then you go an pull a cheap trick like that. Putting Marks face to that title. Shameful. Hope he doesnt spend more time on you.
Russia is so typical of the worst bullies around. They really cant see the problem with killing 100.000s of innocent Ukrainians, but their own feelings are hurt so deeply every time anyone voices the smallest hint of disagreeing with them.
I don't believe Putler was ever interested in serious and mutually beneficial cooperation with NATO countries, but he was probably very keen to investigate the extent to which he could expand his own power by obtaining some outsized controlling stake. His delusions of grandeur were probably manifesting since he initially came to power.
Putin is a criminal through and through. They would have had to convince him it was in his own personal interest to remain an ally to the west. They do this with Saudi Arabia or Turkey so it probably is possible but treating Putin like a normal responsible leader was their biggest mistake.
Your delusion is very apparent. His entire career up until 2014 was nonstop begging for NATO expansion, extremist coups and wars of aggression to stop. By then they were in his doorstep.. and he shifted appropriately.
And he make that clear in speech from 2006. Just no one listen.
We definitely dodged a bullet there.
I think he had very wrong understanding of NATO and especially US role in it. He was and still is very much in spheres of influence, he assumed he will retain control over former USSR and to lesser extent over former Warsaw pact countries. They would do their democracy etc but Putin would decide who is actually elected. To me it seemed that Baltic states acceptance into NATO felt complete betrayal to him and he started taking progressively more violent approach to enforce his understanding of world order. Starting from Georgia and Moldova.
He took visible insult when western powers publicly shunned in front of cameras, after 2014 annexation of Crimea. I think even at this point he still believed belonging to a special club, one of the big boys who decides over lesser nations
Watch Nixon's 1994 interview about Russia. Say what you want about him being a power hungry politician, he was a master at geopolitics. It's a tragedy we didn't listen to him.
On the NATO issue at the end of the show that you put to Mark, I have to beg to differ. It's so important I put it in a new comment. "Not one inch to the East" referred to the then East Germany, The USSR had not yet collapsed to the Warsaw pact still existed. This is a HUGE point the vatniks never get right Pyotr. From the Brookings article - Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No" - We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]-particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East-be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
According to J Matlock junior who was an ambassador to Russia and helped negotiate the end of the Cold War. Gorby met Bush senior on a boat in Malta, and promised if Russia did not interfere with the Warsaw Pact countries becoming independent, he would not expand NATO eastward. Bush even addressed the Ukrainian parliament and told them they don’t need to join NATO. Bush kept his word. Matlock recalled he was at a dinner with Kissinger and Matlock said you know if Obama had gone to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi and had a little chat about NATO and had invited Putin to the d day anniversary event, Putin would even have not invaded Crimea. Kissinger replied I agree with you. But what would Matlock and Kissinger know.
@@martinoneill5804 The plans to take back Crimea have been around since Yetlsin's time. Yeltsin prevented the nationalists in Russia to do so because, If Crimea can leave Ukraine then it would have set a precedent to allow Chechniya to leave Russia. I saw an interview almost ten years ago, where a bunch of journalists kept asking Putin, was it the American meddling in Syria that made him decide to take Crimea. and he got angry with them all and told them, to shut up and he said (paraphrasing) - "don't you all know anything ? I wasn't Syria, it was Yugoslavia, that's when I made the decision to take back Crimea", that means he made the decision in 1999 and waited for the right time. That was well before Sochi, so the joining NATO issue had nothing whatsoever to do with Crimea in 2014. That's just BS. I have heard Matlock in interviews and he says a lot of things that are really problematic. Like most people who only spent time in Moscow, he has a pro-Russian bias. Kissinger was wrong about Ukraine and changed his mind, he was wrong about the idiotic notion of a "chat". Chatting to Putin does not achieve anything. ok ? DI all the endless chatting by Merkel or Macron have with Putin achieve anything ? No. Matlock and Kissinger obviously never saw that interview in 2015 that I saw or they wouldn't have been talking such nonsense about a chat. Putin was never serious about the NATO thing, he wanted to jump the queue and be admitted ahead of what he thought was insignificant countries, without due process as was mentioned in the interview. I have lived in Ukraine for a decade, how many years did Matlock and Kissinger spend here ? Zero.
@@irongron In Putins very first speech, when he came to power , he said “NATO was formed as a bulkward against the old Soviet Union, but the old Soviet Union no longer exists. The Warsaw Pact is no more , but NATO continues to develop, is it not time now to creat a new security pact for Europe one in which includes Russia or if not then let Russia join NATO. We don’t fear NATO but we don’t see the need for it.” But it fell on deaf NATO ears. Was that an unreasonable request ? There was nothing problematic about what Jack Matlock said, He understood that moving NATO up to Russias front garden was a recipe for trouble and his prediction was right a dim wit with half a brain could see that. Jack Matlock, Henry Kissinger, Bill burns, the present head of the CIA, and 40 important people wrote a letter to bush in the White House, saying do not expand NATO eastward. This war was predictable and avoidable.
@@martinoneill5804 The Soviet Union was the Russian Empire by another name, Russia is no different, it's an empire too. The kremlin in Moscow is the same seat of government of the USSR. The same Soviet KGB d-bags are still in power there. Putin proved exactly why NATO has to exist, because of RuZZian aggression. Have the Baltics been re-invaded ? NO.... Why ? NATO protection. NATO isn't a threat to RuZZia, it's just an impediment to its imperial ambitions. I'd like you to go to the wikipedia page "List of wars involving Russia" and tell me which of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of wars listed pre-1947 was "provoked" by "NATO expansion" ? Keeping in mind that Moscow started World War II as an Axis Allie by invading Poland in 1939 2 weeks after Germany did.
@@martinoneill5804
Yes it was unreasonable and history proved the decision to keep NATO to be a correct one.
Similar communications mistakes are now made with Ukraine. Politicians promising "as long as it takes" when in a democracy they can't fulfill a promise like that because they don't know how long they will be in power and they don't make decisions alone. They didnt communicate honestly and weren't realistic as to the extent their country is willing to help (e.g. not being ready to be drawn into the war and going "all in"). Now Ukrainians feel very bitter and betrayed. It feels like both Russia and Ukraine hate us equally now.
What on earth are you talking about? Democracies make binding commitments all the time. Countries can choose to welch on their commitments, but most serious ones won’t do so lightly. There is a lot of posturing around national politics in European countries that can’t be taken entirely at face value. And in no way does it ‘feel like’ Ukraine and Russia have similar feelings towards any particular country in the West….
@@rjScubaSki For example: Our former prime minister said in a speech in Kyiv that we should have a conversation about giving our fighterjets to Ukraine. She didn't mention that she hadn't even started that conversation in her home country yet, nor that a prime minister in our country doesn't have the right to decide such things nor that the time frame was 5-8 years in the future, not now. Ukainian media as a result were full of news and celebration that they will get those fighter jets. When it became clear that they wouldn't, there were some accusations of betrayal. Vague language will give false hope and a lot of disappointment to people fighting an existential war. A similar thing happened with another weapons system when an opposition politician from a small party suggested we should give xyz to Ukraine. Again it was immediately all over the news as already decided facts.
Sure, democracies can make binding and long lasting commitments but one has to understand what type/level of commitment is being made, what exactly is being promised and and by whom (e.g. one politician vs ratification by parliament). Also in Ukraine the president has huge amount of power, in another countries the president might have more of a formal role with very little power.
When I hear suggestions from Ukrainians out of frustration over western aid that they should bring Russia to attack a Nato country to force Nato into joining the war/divert Russian resources on a second front, I do feel that there is some resentment against the West. The Eastern European countries with a direct border with Russia and a small population will be hit hardest by such a plan, especially since they have disproportionally emptied their weapons storages to give to Ukraine and wishing bombs on our cities because (in their mind) it would help Ukraine and to them it seems fair to that they are not the only target, doesn't feel like a true friendship relationship to me (obviousy not all Ukrainians think that way but I have come across statements like that several times). Ukraine isn't a Nato country, yet our speech has given the impression to some people that it is Nato's job to do whatever it takes (including joining the war). There have never been such promises made, but communication has been so vague that people have understood things in many different ways and that exactly is my point. I do get that Ukrainians are in a difficult situation and I support Ukraine regardless.
@@sointu123 You are exaggerating things wildly. There are idiots in all countries, including Ukraine, Russia, yours and mine. ‘Getting Russia to attack Nato’ is a fringe concept even in Ukraine, and it might surprise you to know that Russia has agency and makes its own decisions - if Ukraine can puppet it around, its doing a very strange job of it. If Russia chooses to attack a Nato country, it will be Russias choice.
@@sointu123the diplomatic jargon is quite vague. So if you are not familiar with it and take it at face value, you misunderstand. Especially as in Western Europe they never tell it to you straight, but dress everything up in nice words, while Eastern Europe is more used to straightforward language.
@@mimisor66 One reason for this is probably also not to give Russia too much information when he is making his cost and risk calculations or the future. That was what Macron was after when saying we should not exclude anything. We can't tell Putin what we are not willing to do (like sending troops) so he won't able to plan. It is a double edged sword. I feel about the winter war in Finland that they got the best outcome by fighting fiercely and negotiating peace before a total breakdown, making hard decisions that did not ignore reality. This doesn't mean that it is the exact same for Ukraine today and I hate the school of thought of realism that would like Ukraine just accept being a country under Russian sphere of influence, a buffer state. On the other hand ignoring all reality completely, not making any cost-benefit analysis might also lead to a bad situation for the country. We also don't know what is talked about behind closed doors.
Such a great discussion, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it! Drop it a share if you like
Was never going to happen. It couldn't have happened unless Europe was prepared to let Putin rule over the smaller Eastern NATO members. Putin's values are fundamentally different from anything NATO or Europe could have lived with. This was made clear when Putin asked about membership, was told how to apply, then he threw the rattle out the pram and essentially said "we are the mighty Russians, why do we need to go through qualification?
This part 2 of the interview was worth waiting for. Interesting and informative. Especially it gave more insight into what poo-tin and rusha misunderstood about the West and NATO. But we can't let Ukraine be sacrificed on rusha's altar because rusha misunderstood something two decades ago. And we can't let rusha decide what we can or can't do in helping Ukraine when they themselves are doing exactly what they don't want us to do. We must make sure that Ukraine defeats rusha.
Russia can be easily understand if we look from perspective of imperial colonialists with delusion of grandeur.
@@TheRezro Yes. And in the history books that perspective is well-known from 1800s and earlier. It seems the russian world view hasn't changed for the last 200 years.
@@larsrons7937 Russia, Russia never changes.
@@TheRezro You're so right. russia is going nowhere, fast.
Putin's butthurt over NATO doesn't justify what he did in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Moldova, etc.
Biden putting Missiles in Eastern Ukraine within range of Moscow gave Putin a right, Minsk accords broken, Obama 2014 led coup(Victoria Nuland/state dept) in Kiev, NATO moving East after promising not to in 1991 Ussr fall.......You are right, why would Putin defend his country's sovereignty..... America would be fine with Russia/China putting missiles in Cuba/Mexico right?
I always enjoy hearing Mark Galeotti's thoughts on Putin. Great interview, Pyotr
Once the Siloviki took charge, there was zero chance of long term cooperation. Their expertise was in cold war ops, not diplomacy or economics. So the oligarchs had to be managed like a spy ring, and an enemy had to exist to justify the existence of the Siloviki.
They never wanted a world class economy.
They wanted revenge...
So true! Wish more people in Western Europe understand it. We in the East certainly do.
No it’s not like that. Russia was always treated like any other 3rd world country. Go extract resources, get rich and move money to London City. Silviki were always there, they just found alternative unfortunately non European.
@@martstam2016 Nonsense, Russian olygarchs were taking the wealth of their country for themselves and living the life in Europe. Only the last 2 years are they fleeing to Dubai.
The Kremlin clique is run like a criminal enterprise. And as we all know, kartels are not stable in the long run, they'll always run into turf wars. Doesn't matter they put some ethnic sauce over the conflict, it's pure imperialism.
@@martstam2016 Russia needed to do what Japan did a century earlier and rapidly modernize. I'm sure the west has some blame for making their economy worse than it could have been in 1990s but ultimately a country earns international respect for its power it is not given on a legacy basis.
Catch is that not West's fault. They do what you allow them to do, quite natural for capitalism or any other system. Russia and Ukraine were always raw material bases but it changed a bit with USSR. It's Ok to exploit them but it's Ok for them to react, especially now when there are other players like China. If Russia goes 100% China we in EU are completely screwed. Russia will never be Japan, too rich in resources too small population.
There was no "impression" given by Baker. Gorbachev stated that in his 2014 interview titled "I am against all Walls". It was made up by Yeltsin in 1993, then dropped. Putin resurrected it in 2014.
The British talking about their last imperial stand in the south Atlantic.
Really I didn't know Putin s love for NATO
Ukraine must join NATO,and NATO must protect Ukraine,
Have you already joined?
You really want talk about that,let me explain you Russia psychopath,what happened,Russia invasion Crimea part of Ukraine 2014,the reason Ukraine must join NATO,Ukraine people don’t trust Russia,NATO don’t trust Russia,it is true,let war,Russia psychopath,
NATO is useless. Eastern Europe, without USA, France, Germany, Hungary, Turkey, etc. are much better off together, especially as Russia has been shown to be weak.
Ukraine are the only country in Europe to have real experience fighting a modern high tech/high intensity warfare. If NATO want's to have an edge on the modern battlefield, Ukraine will have a lot to offer. Slava Ukraini.
@@JohnDunne001 If you ignore that West was doing military operations in last decade and large scale war more then decade ago. War in Ukraine nowhere near stand to confrontation with actual NATO.
How close were Russia and NATO to genuine cooperation? Drop a comment.
Thank God for NATO. Seems like the only level headed organization that the West has to offer of what otherwise would be considered completely barbarian Russian dominance based on gangster rules.
How close is the American deep state to ditching its priority of perpetual war?
Miles away.
The Baker statement was not an agreement. Did you miss the word "if"? Read what he said. And Article 5(3) of the Reunification treaty.
He has my fathers eyes. Don't hurt him deeply.
Your discussion misses Yeltsin's statement to Clinton "Just give Europe to Russia" on 19 November 1999. And the Charter for European Security Russia signed the same day which acknowledged Ukraine's (and every other country's) right to join NATO and that there was no right to sphere of influence.
GREAT ANALYSIS BUT...
leaves out two important things
VP Dick cheney in germany basicaly saying he looks forward to regime change in Russia...
and the US in Iraq ignoring human rights and the UN... so that Putin does not feel those norms should bind him either... As demonstrated by them both pulling out of International justice court system. ( Except when they want to complain about others!)
Putins poke face is great but his chess game is . Quote of the century. Holy Mother of God, you are not wrong about the Victoria Nuland thing vatniks bring up Pyyotr. Great conversation as usual, been waiting for this part 2! Mark is a heavyweight in Ruzzian affairs who got the invasion wrong, just saying. I beg to differ on Mark's take on Donbas, slightly, I was there in 2014, but that's neither here nor there. Lost a home in Makiivka. But I still find him very interesting. Look, on Ruzzia joining NATO, would that not have been akin to letting the Fox into the metaphorical Henhouse ? Knowing Ruzzia's imperial mindset and historical modus operandi. Was this not a worry ? Mark even mentioned the degeneration to Stalinism with the large families and fecundity of women etc. On the "Ruzzian" multi-ethnic state that Pyotr, identified as bogus, (and racist re: the airport) - It is no co-incidence that the largest article on neo-fascism in Encyclopaedia Britannica is the Russia article.
Galeotti has justified Russian imperialism, I don’t think he is the best person to talk about Russian invasion on Ukraine.
He has justified Russian imperialism? Really? I must have missed that. Guide me to those statements, if you would.
@@thesilkpainter I heard it in an interview made by an English RUclipsr, Piotr and a Polish aftername. He said: “ My Finnish friends will kill me to have said it, but it´s logical than Russia would like to annex Finland and Baltic countries, has the country hasn t natural borders and it has been invaded in several occasions, thus Russia needs a buffer zone”. Peter Zeihan says the same, maybe Galeotti has been inspired by him. Mersheimer says exactly the same as well.
@@thesilkpainter In Piotr Kurzin podcast, some months ago.
There is a very clever meme used on Facebook and twitter that shows you two photographs side by side, the left one a close up of Putin's face, with boot pressing it down into the mud with the letters N.A.T.O written on it.
The caption tells you how bad and threatening NATO is to Russia!
The right hand photograph gives you an expanded view of the left side picture. However, this time you can see that Putin has his hand in the boot and is pressing it against his own face just for the effect wanted for the left side close-up!
Think about that for a minute!
Putin needs an external enemy to keep control of the narrative and power and he will lie, manipulate, and do a lot of other nasty stuff to keep it.
Not a chance….
thanks for your loyalty to the narrative
Does Mark know how to correct the pronounciation of his Surname in Italian, the origin of his Last Name? Pyotr clearly mispronounced it.
ruclips.net/video/5xSCI0c7VXw/видео.htmlsi=GHrRtEZ3LNL9nnwQ
Putin should have been humble and accepted his place in the world. Everyone else has.
Greetings to putlers trollbotboys
Always interesting to check in every few months and see how the NAFO lads are coping.
He never loved NATO. That is a silly claim. What he and other Muscowytes want is a world of great powers, like the 19th century.
Someone didn’t watch the video. Yes he was a big advocate for nato. Please don’t comment on matters you don’t understand
@@theglobalgambit you make the crucial mistake of thinking someone disagreeing does not understand and is stupid. Which says more about you than the person disagreeing.
@@PalleRasmussen George Robertson himself was quoted as saying he felt Putin loved nato. It’s a fact not opinion.
@@theglobalgambit and I am saying that is an absurd statement, no matter what he felt. People feel lots of things that are not real. In short, as this is a RUclips comment; Putolini no more love or loved NATO than Stalin loved the W.Allies or NATO. To despots anything is a tool to be used in any way you can.
Given the demographic challenges in the US how many years will it take given current birth rates before the US becomes a Latin American country?By the way so many white US citizens with large families are now moving from the US to Russia,talk about irony.
I wonder how long they will last there...
The 2014 Obama state department Ukraine coup via Viyctira Nuland probably put a strain on Russia/Us relations. Us allowing Kiev to murder civilians in Donbas didnt help, lying and betraying Minsk accord(s) didnt help, Nato moving East after promising Ussr not to do so didnt help. Yea its all Purins fault for sure dude.
@@widerje conspiracy theorist
All sovjetstyle speak. Turn the facts up side down. Total lies. Disgusting.
"They're not conscripts" - 300k+ mobiks all kaputted.
This chanel is the short Bus of geopolitics chanels
Galeotti is misleading, Russia is multicultural with problems like Roman Empire was. I did business there in 97-98 and 2012-2013. In 90s there was clear antagonism between Slavs and Caucasians and yes you could see note in ads krome LKV (without Caucasian people) but that was in 90s. In 2012-2013 I saw nothing like that, on contrary Caucasians were literally everywhere from simple jobs to top management. If you want to put the same text like in 90s you go to prison to share space with Caucasians so good luck with it. Truth is that Muslim population in Russia steadily rises and might go over 50% in next 50 years. Don’t forget that both Finance minister and Mayor of Moscow are coming from Muslim background, Prime Minister is Jewish so it is multicultural even on the top level. We in Europe didn’t managed to bring Russia close enough, Europe is until Urals not Krakow. Everyone doing business there including me just wanted to make money, avoid tax, send money to the base country, have fun especially with women. We treated them as it was 3rd world country or colony, backfired. If Russia had 10% of treatment like for example Poland got, Ukraine disaster wouldn’t happened. Even Putin wouldn’t manage to have power for 25 years. Putins frustration and Peter the Great complex lead to it.
bullcrap
This is absurd, ...we are on the verge of a nuclear war that may kill millions and these two are discussing population growth rates in Russia etc., as if it were 1914, WW1 etc. and as if these were to matter because there will be hand to hand combat. One good nuke and all this becomes utterly irrelevant. Btw. Ukraine population mostly fled abroad, there's few Ukrainians left in Ukraine. There will be fewer this winter as people have no heat and are fleeing!
Then go somewhere else if you don't enjoy nuanced discussions.
@@toby9999 Experts were predicting Putin to be dead a long time ago, sick with deadly cancer, ready to be assasinated or commit suicide. None of this materialized and old nonsense morphed now into new nonsense. I myself believed he'll be gone by now.
@@toby9999 Sorry I am unable to reply due to censorship.
@@toby9999"Nuanced discussion", with clear anti-Russia bias.
"Some indications were given to Gorbachev and Yeltsin". What makes them mere "indications" rather than, for example, a verbal promise to not expand NATO? Unless you give exact information about the negotiations back then, that is a VERY suspicious statement.
"Russia fell out with us because of our opposition to the "barbarism" in second Chechen war". Geez, wonder why Russia would be annoyed with that. Especially considering what US was perfectly happy to do with drone strikes under Obama.
"Construction boom in Dagestan because tons of people are dying there and getting death bonuses." I expect him to explain how he came to that assertion. Was there a survey? Did they ATLEAST look at the joining/death bonuses, look at cost of materials etc. while coming to the conclusion that joining bonuses are not enough to do those constructions, and BOTH bonuses are required for that?
Sorry, this is not "nuanced discussion". This is the kind of vague bullshit that diplomats of a country will tell when they have to defend against some embarrassing revelation.
What's crazy is Russia wanted to be in NATO but was turned down imagine what could have been
They wanted to be in it to wreck it. Be serious
Putin asked, NATO said "here's how to apply", to which Putin responded "Russia, have to apply? We're above that!".
NO NON-SENSE! Against Trump?
НАТО не имеет гиперзвука и отстаёт в вооружениях
We do have toilets and indoor plumbing 🪠 tho
It all happens for a good reason. Now the global balance of power is much more even with China+Russia on one side amd US+EU on the other side.
What's crazy is Russia wanted to be in NATO but was turned down imagine what could have been
You are wrong - Putin was offended and felt humiliated that Russia should go through a several-year admission process before joining NATO, he thought that Russia would be immediately accepted with glory. This was the real reason for not asking Russia to join NATO.
@marekeiderna718 ok I didn't know that thanks for letting me know but it would have been OK if Russia could have been
@@jessebailey6290Your not even gonna verify that are you...
The US killed the idea before any process was initiated. Rightly so. Russia inside NATO or EU would have displaced the US from the seat of power in Europe.
Russia would have manufactured a "Ukrainian invasion" casus belli, invoked article 5 while marching on Kyiv and exploited even more western indecisiveness.