Putin’s Gambit: Why He Chose War and How it Will End
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2022
- Thomas Graham ─ Putin’s Gambit: Why He Chose War and How it Will End
Thomas Graham is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a cofounder of the Russian, East European, and Eurasian studies program at Yale University and sits on its faculty steering committee. He is also a research fellow at the MacMillan Center at Yale. He has been a lecturer in global affairs and political science since 2011, teaching courses on U.S.-Russian relations and Russian foreign policy, as well as cybersecurity and counterterrorism. Graham was special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, during which he managed a White House-Kremlin strategic dialogue. He was director for Russian affairs on the staff from 2002 to 2004.
Why was the Minsk agreement not addressed in this presentation?
Exactly 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Ukraine was NOT to be enrolled into NATO. Germany and France strongly objected to this plan. It was off the table long time ago.
Great Britain, USA and Russia had signed agreement to keep Ukraine border intact for giving up nuclear weapon. These are very important points that were not mentioned in this speech.
The NATO expansion was just a propaganda lie to justify the invasion. Even the Russians know that NATO was not going to accept Ukraine in the near future. The same for EU membership. The country was in a to early economic and political development stage to back such decisions.
The speech looks bizarre to me, because it basically states: "OK, the war is the NATO and Ukraine fault! Lets give Russia what Putin wants!". That is against the political logic of the East Europe and international rules.
Russia wanted this to be in written form but the west declined
The USA wanted that war to sanction Russian gas supply to EU.
@Ukraine is Russia russia stoked up the fire in donbas getting its people to rebel and then adding its own troops to fight off ukraine who wanted to keep its country in tact....lets face facts russia is geographically weak and should go with the flow of the majority....look at yourselves your not a great people.... and where would you be without oil and gass sales .....shame you forced someone to show you how nuclear worked....your not a creator you scheme your way though life.
A contract with the U.S.A. is not worth the paper its written on. They broke so many contracts over the last decade that they have lost all trust. Only power holds them in position. If this power got to be broken publicly so that all can see the Table will turn against the U.S. many many nations are waiting for that. The U.S. is not to be trusted. Russia hold all theyre contracts. They are trustworthy. Thats what media dont want us to see. Cause it would be over with the U.S.A and theyre impact. Countrys would say why listen to you? You lied and betrayed us many times and now there is a other power no.1 we dont have too any more. 🤷♂️
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' mission is to promote a just and peaceful world through research, teaching, and public engagement. Remember?
The Tale of Jack Kiev.
Once upon a time, there was a small boy, called Jack Kiev. He was 12 years old and was an orphan. When his mother died recently, he inherited her cottage, with a little bit of land.
He worked hard all day every day, cultivating his plot and producing a good yield. He had some extra vegetables and chickens, so he took them to the market for sale.
At the market, the elder sons and daughters, of the Otan Family, came and bought his produce. They asked the boy, “Who is in charge of the business, as we need a regular supply? We would like to discuss business and come to some arrangement.”
Jack said, “I’m in charge of the business! For I am an orphan and I will supply your needs.”
So they signed a contract and Jack’s spirits were lifted, for he was quite sad and lonely.
Once a week he went to the Otan household and delivered the wares that they needed and they paid him kindly.
Sometime soon after, the Otan Family asked Jack to help with some chores, cutting grass and painting the shed. The Otan house, was very large with many rooms, for they had 16 sons and 17 daughters, who were always kind to Jack, so they became good friends. Jack was overjoyed with finding friendship with the Otan Family.
Jack was always hardworking and never failed to be productive. As his own homestead and finance grew, he bought some sheep and reared lambs.
Old Father Sam Otan was pleased with Jack. So when Jack turned 14, he made a promise to him. “When you turn 16, you can marry, whichever of my daughters that you find to be most beautiful and you will be my Son!”
Jack nearly fainted and cried aloud, “Thank you Father Sam! God has truly blessed me! May Heaven and Earth hold dear to your promise.”
One month later, an angry bear from the forest, came upon Jack’s cottage and ravaged his flock and stole some sheep. Jack was mortified and ran to the Otan house. “Help help! There’s a bear at my home, who’s killed my sheep!”
The Otan Family were shocked and said, “Don’t worry we will stand by you and help to fight the bear.” So they sent two of the younger sons, who brought their slings and spears and went with Jack to fight the bear. But the bear was too big and strong for them to kill it. But they managed to scare the bear enough, so that it went away. “Thank you for your help!” said Jack and the two sons went back to their home.
A couple of weeks passed by and the angry bear came back to Jack’s cottage, killing and eating some lambs. Jack ran to the Otans, “Help help! The bear has come back!” So three of the sons, went with Jack and they all fought against the bear. This time the bear hurt Jack and killed one of the sons and then went back to his lair. The sons went back to their home and reported the news.
Two more weeks passed by and the bear came back to Jack’s cottage. It caused great damage to the chicken shed, broke some fences and killed all the chickens.
Jack ran back to the Otans and this time, four of the sons, all armed with new swords and shields, went with Jack to fight the bear. They fought for many hours but the bear was too big and strong, even for all of the sons. The bear was enraged, bc it’s foot was hurt by them. It killed two of the sons and wounded the others and then went back to its lair.
Two weeks later, the bear and its mate, came upon Jack’s cottage. They killed all the remaining lambs and knocked over a burning lantern, the lantern caught fire to the barn and store houses, destroying all the produce, This time the bears quickly left, before they could be attacked.
Jack ran to the Otans, “Help the bears have attacked my home and the place is on fire!” So the Otan Family all quickly went and helped to extinguish the blaze. Five of the sons all stayed with Jack, “We’ll help to rebuild the farm and this time we’ll stay with you, to guard against the bears.
They all worked hard to rebuild the farm and the Otans pitched their tent next to Jack’s cottage. But the bears came in the night and killed three of the sons as they slept. Jack and the other two sons ran back to Old Sam Otan and reported the news.
Old Sam Otan wept bitterly in his grief and the shock nearly killed him. “Right this time, take some horses and wear armour and buy some new lances and we’ll finish the bears off for good. So six of the sons saddled their horses and went to find the bears. They rode to the forest and crossed the stream that runs from the mountains. They rode for four days and eventually found the bears trail. The eldest son said, “Right we’ll camp here for the night and at dawn we’ll attack the bears. What could possibly go wrong?”
The bears caught the scent of the Otan party and came upon them in the darkness. The great bear with his mate and all their cubs with them. They killed all the horses and all of the sons as well, except one who barely managed to escape. He ran all the way home and reported the news.
Old Father Otan, his wife and remaining children were stricken with grief. They held council and after many days, they came up with a plan. “Right!” said Old Sam Otan, “I’ve had enough of this great bear! I’ve lost 11 of my sons and we only have 5 left. 7 of my daughters are strong and old enough to fight, as well as any man. We’ll all go to Jack’s cottage together that makes 12 and myself 13. We’ll make traps and build strong fences and walls around the farm.”
So they all went to Jack’s farm and did as they had planned and two weeks later the great bear, came to Jack’s farm with his family. The bear saw how strong the defences were, he hesitated and looked across the valley. He saw the Otan house with no walls and no one there, except some young girls and old mother Otan. He had grown tired of the taste of lambs, chickens and horses and now he wanted something else. So the great bear and his family went back to the forest and waited for night to come.
He took his family to the Otan house and then charged in with speed and fury. All the bears smashed the doors and windows open and ran through the house, but there was no one there, the house was empty.
All of a sudden there was a blast of hunting horns and a great cacophony of noise. The house was surrounded by Jack and all the Otans. Old mother Otan had been warned, by her pet falcon, of an approaching danger and had left with her daughters and gone to her sister’s house. She had sent a carrier pigeon to Old Sam Otan at Jack’s cottage, who ambushed the bears.
“Fire!” Screamed Old Sam Otan at the top of his voice and they all hurled their burning torches at the house. Some of the bears ran out and were cut down as they ran and the house burned to the ground.
Old Sam Otan and his company went through the ashes and counted all the dead bears. “They’re all here!” said the eldest son, after laying the bears bodies out. “No wait a minute, there’s one missing!” They all scouted around the area, but the mate of the late great bear, was nowhere to be found.....
The end?
I fear they have been misnamed or lost their way
This certainly hasn't aged well. The "distinguished" scholar apparently gets his facts from the mainstream media and like a crow too clever by half, falls into an intellectual trap!
Yes, the US acted as if it can change regimes at the cost of thousands of lives worldwide.
But it gets more following/funding/support than a more rigorous approach. After all, most people just want support for a certain narrative rather than truth.
@@MichaelKoksharov and what's the truth? What you want to believe? And this guy who has studied this stuff for decades...his views just don't matter if they don't match up with what you want to believe. And that's how it is with almost everyone. It is hard, maybe impossible, to find someone who really wants to know "the truth".
@@mattcrosby2310 no...you're right because you've almost certainly got it all figured out a priori without doing any study at all.
It's actually insanely cool that we can watch stuff like this for free today. What a world we live in
Watch and exchange our impressions and thoughts, being in - perhaps - very remote parts of the Globe :)
And let's not forget that we can have perfect music - for free. And your inner spring mattress, that nylon toothbrush, vaccines, the whole world on your color screen, the world's library in your pocket, instant communications, overweight people, long lives, airconditioning, motor cars and planes, space travel, liberal education, universal franchise and a gazillion other things shows how blessed we are in our science fiction world.
Not completely free. I pay$50/mo. for Internet
This guy is just parotinjkikk
From the Far Side I reply - which is why we should be grateful for global warming. Where do expressions like 'insanely cool' come from to replace the thousands of adjectives that could be used in meaningful speech and writing?
Mr Graham seems to be inconsistent in his views presented here. On one hand he admits this war has been proving that Russia is weak, but on the other his whole rhetoric is built on the assumption that Russia isn’t weak.
Some mind maps need to be rewritten perhaps
sounds like they a plagiarising their opinions from the toilet paper times.
I guess he chooses to express himself carefully in order not to hurt any russian feelings, while at the same time trying to present the facts. Some people might also call it diplomacy or emotional intelligence
@@clover6480 No, the ambiguity is better explained if it is seen as propaganda intended to brainwash the gullible. Whereas, the truth is always paradoxical, there's no reason that Russian can't be both less dangerous than is feared yet still dangerous enough to be treated with respect.
@@jamesedwards.1069 What is so complicated ? Russia is very weak against NATO in conventional war but extremely lethal in nuclear war . Western warheads simply lack targets while russian ones would have a disproportionate effect . So there is incentive from that side to do a kamikaze move when prezented with overwhelming odds - like a NATO offensive .
@@jamesedwards.1069 A country that started an illegal war of aggression and invaded a neighboring countries twice violating treaties they signed and violating the UN Charta does deserve nothing.
I disagree with one of the last possible outcomes the lecturer about is when he says one of the negotiated settlements might include a 'security guarantee'. That is why the US and UK are so ahead in providing heavy weapons so quickly. When Ukraine was persuaded to give up the nuclear weapons (although Russia had the codes) the UK, US and ironically Russia, all agreed to guarantee immediate security in case of an incursion by another country which is exactly what we have now so I don't think Ukraine is going to fall for that 'guarantee' again anytime soon!
On the other side of the coin, the Minsk agreement was about guaranteeing the security of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. Ukraine took now notice, killing 14K people between 2014 and 2022 and continuing arbitrary, random shelling of the areas killing innocent civilians (including children) even days before the Special Military Operation was launched. There are always two sides to each coin.
@@ashecbtb9509 Its a good thing that there were no Ukrainian casualties and there was no invasion of Ukraine in 2014. You are a bot or a sheep!
Immediate security? - The US interfered in the Ukraine and Russia Response..
and Russia responded
yeah giving a military Guarantee in our modern age is a god damn huge nono
NATO has changed from Defence Into Offence.
NATO attacked itself when two NATO members (USA and Norway) attacked another NATO member. What does this mean for the future of NATO and how history will remember it?
That is quite an audacious claim by the Professor that only the US is in a position to negotiate European security with Russia.
I agree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the substance. As it stands, the United States is the best arbiter for anyone's security based off of the unparalleled force projection capabilities it has. The US can afford to guarantee and assist nations far afueld because logistically there is no where that is out of reach for the US. Russia cant guarantee nations in say, Iberia or North West Africa for example. This was seen when Russian guarantees fell short in Vietnam when China invaded them. They just can't offer any sort of tangible support beyond a few hundred kilometers of their border.
Should the US be meddling? I think there is a better way personally. But be that as it may, the US is the only country in the world that can affect any measure of security to any nation anywhere in the world.
He is simply restating US arrogance and desire for a unipolar world. That is what this is all about.
@@docprune9922 Putin likes to negotiate with America as he wants to be seen as a leader of a power equal to the US. Not to mention that Putin does not accept sovereignty of anything he can attack and wants to attack.
@@TorianTammas That is why Austin asked Shoigu for a ceasefire, because Ukraine is 'winning' .. get a grip, you muppet.
@@docprune9922 I concur. 120 billion dollars of aid and they still can't recapture lost territory. They're just prolonging the war to make Russia suffer, they know they'll win eventually but the longer the better for them.
"Putin attacked because he was sure he could win within days" and "the US should have negotiated first". Sorry, but the two views are contradictory. If Putin was convinced he would win within days, why on earth would he want to negotiate?
Makes sense!
No contradiction here. If you think you will win a war, you might nevertheless be interested in negotiations. Maybe you win even more.
Putin would sure negotiate, the thing is Russia would comply with the agreement no more than it respects agreed upon humanitarian corridors for evacuation of civilians. That is, it shells the corridors and would attack Ukraine again at first occasion.
Why would you take territory without spilling blood if you THINK you COULD take it by spilling blood?
Come on man. You're better than that.
War is risky and dangerous in every way...... if you can get anywhere near what you want without it the better......
I've come to this discussion a little late but would like to add the suggestion that there might be another element that could be Dr Graham's assessment of Putin's "basket of opportunities" in February 2022, namely the Covid pandemic.
Might he have thought that in the early post-Covid recovery period the focus of the governments of the NATO member nation's might be turned inwards towards getting their societies and their economies back on track and less outward on overseas commitments.
He Saw a chance the world being weakened by the epidemic and all the problems following i Think you are right this was a huge part of it
The Tale of Jack Kiev.
Once upon a time, there was a small boy, called Jack Kiev. He was 12 years old and was an orphan. When his mother died recently, he inherited her cottage, with a little bit of land.
He worked hard all day every day, cultivating his plot and producing a good yield. He had some extra vegetables and chickens, so he took them to the market for sale.
At the market, the elder sons and daughters, of the Otan Family, came and bought his produce. They asked the boy, “Who is in charge of the business, as we need a regular supply? We would like to discuss business and come to some arrangement.”
Jack said, “I’m in charge of the business! For I am an orphan and I will supply your needs.”
So they signed a contract and Jack’s spirits were lifted, for he was quite sad and lonely.
Once a week he went to the Otan household and delivered the wares that they needed and they paid him kindly.
Sometime soon after, the Otan Family asked Jack to help with some chores, cutting grass and painting the shed. The Otan house, was very large with many rooms, for they had 16 sons and 17 daughters, who were always kind to Jack, so they became good friends. Jack was overjoyed with finding friendship with the Otan Family.
Jack was always hardworking and never failed to be productive. As his own homestead and finance grew, he bought some sheep and reared lambs.
Old Father Sam Otan was pleased with Jack. So when Jack turned 14, he made a promise to him. “When you turn 16, you can marry, whichever of my daughters that you find to be most beautiful and you will be my Son!”
Jack nearly fainted and cried aloud, “Thank you Father Sam! God has truly blessed me! May Heaven and Earth hold dear to your promise.”
One month later, an angry bear from the forest, came upon Jack’s cottage and ravaged his flock and stole some sheep. Jack was mortified and ran to the Otan house. “Help help! There’s a bear at my home, who’s killed my sheep!”
The Otan Family were shocked and said, “Don’t worry we will stand by you and help to fight the bear.” So they sent two of the younger sons, who brought their slings and spears and went with Jack to fight the bear. But the bear was too big and strong for them to kill it. But they managed to scare the bear enough, so that it went away. “Thank you for your help!” said Jack and the two sons went back to their home.
A couple of weeks passed by and the angry bear came back to Jack’s cottage, killing and eating some lambs. Jack ran to the Otans, “Help help! The bear has come back!” So three of the sons, went with Jack and they all fought against the bear. This time the bear hurt Jack and killed one of the sons and then went back to his lair. The sons went back to their home and reported the news.
Two more weeks passed by and the bear came back to Jack’s cottage. It caused great damage to the chicken shed, broke some fences and killed all the chickens.
Jack ran back to the Otans and this time, four of the sons, all armed with new swords and shields, went with Jack to fight the bear. They fought for many hours but the bear was too big and strong, even for all of the sons. The bear was enraged, bc it’s foot was hurt by them. It killed two of the sons and wounded the others and then went back to its lair.
Two weeks later, the bear and its mate, came upon Jack’s cottage. They killed all the remaining lambs and knocked over a burning lantern, the lantern caught fire to the barn and store houses, destroying all the produce, This time the bears quickly left, before they could be attacked.
Jack ran to the Otans, “Help the bears have attacked my home and the place is on fire!” So the Otan Family all quickly went and helped to extinguish the blaze. Five of the sons all stayed with Jack, “We’ll help to rebuild the farm and this time we’ll stay with you, to guard against the bears.
They all worked hard to rebuild the farm and the Otans pitched their tent next to Jack’s cottage. But the bears came in the night and killed three of the sons as they slept. Jack and the other two sons ran back to Old Sam Otan and reported the news.
Old Sam Otan wept bitterly in his grief and the shock nearly killed him. “Right this time, take some horses and wear armour and buy some new lances and we’ll finish the bears off for good. So six of the sons saddled their horses and went to find the bears. They rode to the forest and crossed the stream that runs from the mountains. They rode for four days and eventually found the bears trail. The eldest son said, “Right we’ll camp here for the night and at dawn we’ll attack the bears. What could possibly go wrong?”
The bears caught the scent of the Otan party and came upon them in the darkness. The great bear with his mate and all their cubs with them. They killed all the horses and all of the sons as well, except one who barely managed to escape. He ran all the way home and reported the news.
Old Father Otan, his wife and remaining children were stricken with grief. They held council and after many days, they came up with a plan. “Right!” said Old Sam Otan, “I’ve had enough of this great bear! I’ve lost 11 of my sons and we only have 5 left. 7 of my daughters are strong and old enough to fight, as well as any man. We’ll all go to Jack’s cottage together that makes 12 and myself 13. We’ll make traps and build strong fences and walls around the farm.”
So they all went to Jack’s farm and did as they had planned and two weeks later the great bear, came to Jack’s farm with his family. The bear saw how strong the defences were, he hesitated and looked across the valley. He saw the Otan house with no walls and no one there, except some young girls and old mother Otan. He had grown tired of the taste of lambs, chickens and horses and now he wanted something else. So the great bear and his family went back to the forest and waited for night to come.
He took his family to the Otan house and then charged in with speed and fury. All the bears smashed the doors and windows open and ran through the house, but there was no one there, the house was empty.
All of a sudden there was a blast of hunting horns and a great cacophony of noise. The house was surrounded by Jack and all the Otans. Old mother Otan had been warned, by her pet falcon, of an approaching danger and had left with her daughters and gone to her sister’s house. She had sent a carrier pigeon to Old Sam Otan at Jack’s cottage, who ambushed the bears.
“Fire!” Screamed Old Sam Otan at the top of his voice and they all hurled their burning torches at the house. Some of the bears ran out and were cut down as they ran and the house burned to the ground.
Old Sam Otan and his company went through the ashes and counted all the dead bears. “They’re all here!” said the eldest son, after laying the bears bodies out. “No wait a minute, there’s one missing!”
They all scouted around the area, but the mate of the late great bear, was nowhere to be found....
The end?
„It’s not an existential question for russia“ That totally disqualifies the speaker in geopolitics
Status of Ukraine = an existential question for the fantasy world that Putin has created and sold everywhere to his high Power-Distance Index population. It's the Disneyland of FSB.
He says he takes with a grain of salt any military expert’s view of what is going on. Presumably, an academic’s view of the war doesn’t have to be taken with a grain of salt?
We have General's that have Pledged Allegiance to Qanon. Military "experts" should be taken with a grain a salt unless they have a track record of making accurate predictions in the past.
Certainly "Western" military experts should get a big dose of scepticism when discussing combined arms modern war and especially as it applies to Russia,although not all Western military have been lulled into an undeserved sense of might by beating up Iraq. As Andrei Martyanov says,and repeats,no Western military(he particularly means the US) has fought a powerful enemy in combined arms war since Korea. This means they are clueless essentially,whereas Russia has 7 years in Syria to refer to.
He strikes me as having an agenda beyond that of an acedemic.
A lot of intellectual tourism goes unchecked and is inevitably used to discredit analysts and academics for things they never said. If anything, they're too nice about it.
@@antipropo461 Russia had a 2 hour battle with American's in a SNAFU in Syria. Russia lost 200 Men and the US didn't sustain a single casualty. Russian military has proven beyond doubt they are a second rate military power with Nukes. Basically, a giant North Korea.
Agreening thath It's amazing how many US specialists in regional affairs understand so little of the affairs of the region, they claim to know. No wonder US foreign policy has so many blunders, despite of possible best intentions. Ukraine was NOT to be enrolled into NATO. Germany and France strongly objected to this plan. It was off the table long time ago.
Great Britain, USA and Russia had signed agreement to keep Ukraine border intact for giving up nuclear weapon. These are very important points that were not mentioned in this speech. So, Russia objective is differnt what it claims to be and It's shamefull that speaker fails undestand this.
Consider- how many of these experts speak ujranian fluently?
?
My guess is a lot of American experts neither speak fluently Ukrainian nor Russian. If they would gave lived for a few years in both countries they would have a clearer view.
@@johnwhite2576 60% of ukrainian speak only Russian 😁, (zelensky didn't now "ukrainian" before) becose they are Russian, efforts to be ukrainian is austrohungarian goal, then communist goal then nato usa goal . Ukrain on slavic language means military BORDER 😉. And for sentries people who settle there have obligations to go to war against invaders of Russian impery.
For that role they have be given land and to be free people 😉.
On west Ukraine live peaple who speak somthing between Polish and Russian , they are indoctrinated before 150-200y when they live in austrohungarian impery, they abandoned ortodox church, on pressure of Catholic austrohungarian impery and rome papa is head of that church, but they are not Catholic they are uniat, approximately 10milions . They have political power in ukrain pass 20y with suport of west and they destroyed russian soeaking people, language, culture and political parties. That is how it is now.
Ukrain is what was always, battle ground between Russia and enemy's of Russia. Military BORDER
But he has a vest, part of a three-piece suit.
remember McCain singing "bomb iran" to the tune of "barbara ann"; remember victoria nuland foolishness saying "F the EU". Muricans only go in guns blazing. and getting paid lobby money.
This talk starts well and then devolves into the usual 'us or them' projection we always hear from the US.
That is because there is us and there is them. We are antithetical. Why would you expect us to be sympathetic to Putin's twisted point of view. If Putin drops a book on his toe, he thinks that it is the result of a western plot. The Putin regime is just a criminal organization, how could we agreed to its continued existence?
always been
Are these "experts" going to give us regular updates? Now THAT would be interesting.
How's your boss since the aeroplane crash, Ivan?
Interesting that he didn't even mention why and how this conflict started.
Yeah pretty funny
he actually said it, you have to rewatch. at the beginning of the lecture
@@andreasfromsanandreas1268 he said that Ukraine has been bombarding the Donbass for 7 years and were ammasing a lot of troops for some reason?
it started because russia hasn't got many warm water ports... and wants to protect what it had....and push hostile countries away from its ships and to control the food supplies of a large part of the world....to become a major player and respect in the world....as nuclear weapons are a dead end and become irrelevent.
@@jpgpearson nukes are definitely not a dead end
Lets trust the Council on Foreign Relations shall we, and let our brains fall out!!!
And The Trilateral Comission and The Bilderberg Conference. They will make the world a better place! /sarcasm
Don't forget the WEF!!!
Assassins accusing the Assassin
@@pcuimac and mickey-mouse schwab-klaus, and great daddy soros, and bill gates,...!
Bunch of scared babies in this chat. Invisible boogie-men who fulfil every scapegoat for you.
What happened to the questions that were in the “speed round”? The video jumps over all of these and goes to the end where Graham is responding to a question not in the video.
Probably saying something not good about Ukraine, so it got edited out
interesting and I agree that we didnt reach out a hand to Russia when we could have .. we were triumphalist BUT the idea that we just had over millions of humans to this heinous capitalist yet autocratic regime just because they might kill us all is utter nonsense... we have chosen a reasonable if cowardly strategy to support a nation which has proven its determination and now alas pushing Russia beyond what they may consider acceptable is inevitable. if irrationality kills us all ..it wont be our irrationality, the reality is, as with all human resistance is that its better to be dead than a Russian citizen under this regime I regret to say .
It's never been about Russia being concerned about NATO. It's always been about Russia wanting Ukrainian oil, gas, coal, and manufacturing. Russia didn't invade Georgia because they were worried about Georgia joining NATO. This is just the current excuse. Russia wants two things: Russia wants money and Russia wants all the old Soviet satellites back. Russia wants her empire back along with the prestige and power that goes along with it. Everything else is just Russia denying, deflecting and misleading. I believe it's referred to as the Russian firehose of falsehoods. We couldn't have reached out to Russia to placate them. The Russians ignored the diplomatic agreements they already had in place. The sooner the world figures out that the Russians are lying, murdering, thieves and that any and all diplomatic agreements are absolutely pointless, the better for all. Except for the Russians failing militarily this all went exactly according to plan. And that's where Putin really failed. It will be decades before corporations and countries trust the Russians and invest there again. The money is gone and it's not coming back.
I disagree. Europe more than any other has bent over backwards to appease Russia for decades, the USA in the 90s did many things to try to make Russia's transition easier. I'm not saying they were well thought out or that there weren't things the US to to also make it worse, but to act as if it never happened is to misrepresent what was done.
See link for a timeline
2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85962.htm
Um, this is pretty strange point of view, it's the view of a war as seen from Mars.
The man said it was hard to figure out what the US strategy is. I mean, really?
share us your great philosophy ?
@@coshyno Buy my book.
@@widescreennavel
The last line of your book ends:
The complete destruction of Russia .
@@joni8090 Putin's book read better in the original German. I think you are thinking of a different book by a disgraced leader who started a little thing we like to call the 2nd World War Two...Putin's strategy to keep NATO from expanding is working like a charm! Russia will be safely surrounded by friends who are concerned about their neighbor. They will work to see that Russia stays within its own established borders.
@@widescreennavel
Nothing has changed then !! But , I do think honesty in Negotiations is important don't you !
So far US and cohorts have been building castles on sand and that Never makes for Stability .
Yes, Merkel and Hollande kept Ukraine from joining in 2008, but there has been close cooperation between NATO members and the Ukraine after 2014 in the form of military maneuvers, training and equipping forces etc. This can not be disregarded.
USA and communist Russia - both must fall to free Europe!
Hmmm... And what happened in 2014?
@@Figlosof coup in ukraine.
@@thepcfd Yanukovych run away after his men kill more than a hundred people in a broad day light. His own party disown him ffs. But even if that was a real "coup" is still doesn't give a right for another nation to annex territories.
Sarkozy was the President of France in 2008, not Hollande.
Agree with most of your points. The Perun RUclips channel has published a series of videos on the Russian- Ukrainian conflict that goes in-depth on numerous related topics.
Even if Putin was to succeed in regime change, at this point Russia has lost on the strategic front by unifying Ukraine as a nation state, unifying the EU, EU NATO membership military expenditure increases, Finland and Sweden applying to join NATO, long term infrastructure builds will change EU usage of Russian energy forever, western corporations leaving Russia for years to come, Russian educated population leaving Ukraine, etc.
PS - Russia did sign on to respecting Ukrainian borders which Russia, USA, UK and France acted as guarantors
PS2 - Trump administration spent 4 years interfering with Ukraine and undermining things in general. It is a miracle that Russia didn’t win outright.
PS3 - will any European country / politician ever trust Russia?
Your delusional.
The agreement also included that foreign governments wouldn't interfere in their politics and military which US violated from 2013 to now. So the agreement was voided due to the actions of corrupt politicians in Ukraine and the US violating the agreement.
@@ExCommie Completely forgetting what the Russians did and are doing.
If Russia wins the eastern side Dinieper river of Ukraine the Russian speaking people will support Russia overwhelmingly therefore Russia will have full control there.
That in 2014, Russia did not help the aspirations of Russian speaking people of Ukraine less Donbas n Crimea, this time when special operations was launched by Russia they didn’t show outwardly support as they were not sure if Russia real wanted real estate in Ukraine.
Whatever other might propagate on all people of Ukraine uniting is not true.
@@ExCommie yes US violated moment Victoria Nuland declared on her alleged speech tape given out by Russia that they have spent more than five billion dollars for installing their choice of regime in Kyiv.
Saying that a Russian strike into Poland as a possibility at this time is an really odd thing to say...
You are 💯 right
can't rule it out considering the increasingly deranged ways Putin is showing
the man is a lunatic
It makes no sense...unless he is setting a false flag. America has done that before.
Not filled gas storage was no coincidence, it _only_ happened in those cases, where Russian / Kremlin's companies directly or through subsidiaries owned those gas facilities. This energy crisis was intentionally designed.
Check into the Russian-Opec oil war
@@James-bs8bd Oh, that one was relatively recent and quite hilarious - Russian dummies believed themselves to be able to push around world's largest oil producers.
How are those sanctions working? We are led by children in the west.
@@mikemorehead5794 They are working by depriving Russian usurper an dhis gan gof money , in oreder to drender Russia much less dangerous, as it will not be able to either produce or buy modern weapons (they are already lagging behind anyway).
- sicerelly yours Captain Obvious
@Gregory Jones They did. Russians used an excuse, that that they are supplying according to contract, well, yes - the _minimum_ amount according to contract, but that was less than was supplied before and much less than customers were demanding at that time. Russia simply is not a reliable partner, it will screw you over at any moment whenever possible.
If you can state the pretext for Russias invasion without spending significant time covering the Minsk agreements then I can come to only two conclusions: you don't really understand or you don't want others to understand.
This talk was superficial garbage. Mearsheimer is the gold standard if you wanna understand this war.
@@daysjours absolutely agree.
Totally agree with you Minsk is the key and the West committed at Minsk to support Ukraine.
Maybe it’s because of my service in US forces during the Cold War, but I’m having trouble caring much about the Kremlin’s security concerns.
putins russia has no valid claims or points. They are the true enemy of humanity because of their non stop threats to nuke the world if they cannot attack their neighbors at will.
And this is why all this situation can end up by nukes
@@user-li6bw3ti1p probably not. I don’t think anyone is that desperate.
@@michaeleastes1705 i thought the same way. But lately i had to change my mind.
@@user-li6bw3ti1p I hope not. Both of our countries deserve better.
If the US was fully aware of the scope and power of Russia's military capabilities and had the accurate intelligence data on Russia's imminent attack on Ukraine, why weren't they more resolute in trying to initiate diplomatic resolution of the problem? It seems that both USA and Russia were engaged in a waiting game of sorts, trying to assess and test each other's plans and ambitions. Did Washington probably think that Putin's invasion was just an effort to try to strengthen political pressure via military posturing, and that open war would probably be something that both sides would try to avoid? This would makes sense if we take seriously prof. Graham's assumption that Putin would be happy with NATO's retreat from Ukraine's territory, along with the incorporation of smaller parts od eastern Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence. It seems to me that there's a lot of speculation on what would be the optimal scenario for everyone, but I suspect that's in part because we don't really know the crucial details of Russia's true agenda.
The Tale of Jack Kiev.
Once upon a time, there was a small boy, called Jack Kiev. He was 12 years old and was an orphan. When his mother died recently, he inherited her cottage, with a little bit of land.
He worked hard all day every day, cultivating his plot and producing a good yield. He had some extra vegetables and chickens, so he took them to the market for sale.
At the market, the elder sons and daughters, of the Otan Family, came and bought his produce. They asked the boy, “Who is in charge of the business, as we need a regular supply? We would like to discuss business and come to some arrangement.”
Jack said, “I’m in charge of the business! For I am an orphan and I will supply your needs.”
So they signed a contract and Jack’s spirits were lifted, for he was quite sad and lonely.
Once a week he went to the Otan household and delivered the wares that they needed and they paid him kindly.
Sometime soon after, the Otan Family asked Jack to help with some chores, cutting grass and painting the shed. The Otan house, was very large with many rooms, for they had 16 sons and 17 daughters, who were always kind to Jack, so they became good friends. Jack was overjoyed with finding friendship with the Otan Family.
Jack was always hardworking and never failed to be productive. As his own homestead and finance grew, he bought some sheep and reared lambs.
Old Father Sam Otan was pleased with Jack. So when Jack turned 14, he made a promise to him. “When you turn 16, you can marry, whichever of my daughters that you find to be most beautiful and you will be my Son!”
Jack nearly fainted and cried aloud, “Thank you Father Sam! God has truly blessed me! May Heaven and Earth hold dear to your promise.”
One month later, an angry bear from the forest, came upon Jack’s cottage and ravaged his flock and stole some sheep. Jack was mortified and ran to the Otan house. “Help help! There’s a bear at my home, who’s killed my sheep!”
The Otan Family were shocked and said, “Don’t worry we will stand by you and help to fight the bear.” So they sent two of the younger sons, who brought their slings and spears and went with Jack to fight the bear. But the bear was too big and strong for them to kill it. But they managed to scare the bear enough, so that it went away. “Thank you for your help!” said Jack and the two sons went back to their home.
A couple of weeks passed by and the angry bear came back to Jack’s cottage, killing and eating some lambs. Jack ran to the Otans, “Help help! The bear has come back!” So three of the sons, went with Jack and they all fought against the bear. This time the bear hurt Jack and killed one of the sons and then went back to his lair. The sons went back to their home and reported the news.
Two more weeks passed by and the bear came back to Jack’s cottage. It caused great damage to the chicken shed, broke some fences and killed all the chickens.
Jack ran back to the Otans and this time, four of the sons, all armed with new swords and shields, went with Jack to fight the bear. They fought for many hours but the bear was too big and strong, even for all of the sons. The bear was enraged, bc it’s foot was hurt by them. It killed two of the sons and wounded the others and then went back to its lair.
Two weeks later, the bear and its mate, came upon Jack’s cottage. They killed all the remaining lambs and knocked over a burning lantern, the lantern caught fire to the barn and store houses, destroying all the produce, This time the bears quickly left, before they could be attacked.
Jack ran to the Otans, “Help the bears have attacked my home and the place is on fire!” So the Otan Family all quickly went and helped to extinguish the blaze. Five of the sons all stayed with Jack, “We’ll help to rebuild the farm and this time we’ll stay with you, to guard against the bears.
They all worked hard to rebuild the farm and the Otans pitched their tent next to Jack’s cottage. But the bears came in the night and killed three of the sons as they slept. Jack and the other two sons ran back to Old Sam Otan and reported the news.
Old Sam Otan wept bitterly in his grief and the shock nearly killed him. “Right this time, take some horses and wear armour and buy some new lances and we’ll finish the bears off for good. So six of the sons saddled their horses and went to find the bears. They rode to the forest and crossed the stream that runs from the mountains. They rode for four days and eventually found the bears trail. The eldest son said, “Right we’ll camp here for the night and at dawn we’ll attack the bears. What could possibly go wrong?”
The bears caught the scent of the Otan party and came upon them in the darkness. The great bear with his mate and all their cubs with them. They killed all the horses and all of the sons as well, except one who barely managed to escape. He ran all the way home and reported the news.
Old Father Otan, his wife and remaining children were stricken with grief. They held council and after many days, they came up with a plan. “Right!” said Old Sam Otan, “I’ve had enough of this great bear! I’ve lost 11 of my sons and we only have 5 left. 7 of my daughters are strong and old enough to fight, as well as any man. We’ll all go to Jack’s cottage together that makes 12 and myself 13. We’ll make traps and build strong fences and walls around the farm.”
So they all went to Jack’s farm and did as they had planned and two weeks later the great bear, came to Jack’s farm with his family. The bear saw how strong the defences were, he hesitated and looked across the valley. He saw the Otan house with no walls and no one there, except some young girls and old mother Otan. He had grown tired of the taste of lambs, chickens and horses and now he wanted something else. So the great bear and his family went back to the forest and waited for night to come.
He took his family to the Otan house and then charged in with speed and fury. All the bears smashed the doors and windows open and ran through the house, but there was no one there, the house was empty.
All of a sudden there was a blast of hunting horns and a great cacophony of noise. The house was surrounded by Jack and all the Otans. Old mother Otan had been warned, by her pet falcon, of an approaching danger and had left with her daughters and gone to her sister’s house. She had sent a carrier pigeon to Old Sam Otan at Jack’s cottage, who ambushed the bears.
“Fire!” Screamed Old Sam Otan at the top of his voice and they all hurled their burning torches at the house. Some of the bears ran out and were cut down as they ran and the house burned to the ground.
Old Sam Otan and his company went through the ashes and counted all the dead bears. “They’re all here!” said the eldest son, after laying the bears bodies out. “No wait a minute, there’s one missing!”
They all scouted around the area, but the mate of the late great bear, was nowhere to be found....
The end?
"we were supplying them weapons for an insurgency not the heavy weapons to support them militarily" two points here one we did not know the Ukrainians would fight and two we were trying not to give Putin an excuse for attacking at that time. This is your typical hindsight thinking. I would not place much creedence on anything this guy says based on this one view of his work.
Yes ...this guy is nothing ...1 h of nothing, and complains about USA with no good resons.
it was a good over view some things i disagreed with but interesting to hear
how many time have the usa given a country all the arms it need and they fell the second they usa leave (afgan ,the nam ) may be they they where just learning from the past and got it wrong the ukraines have some fight in them
Dude it's been obvious for a long time ukrainians were willing to fight that was never the problem anyone who even suspected they would not was deluded kind of like Putin
BS. He wasn't criticising, he was simply stating a fact that was relevant in that context.
The second - maybe, but I think you knew very well how this will play out, what will be Ukrainian stance etc.
Ukrainian army has been being trained by NATO experts for years. You can judge the level of cooperation by the quality of the intelligence feed. It cannot be developed in days or weeks. The masterminds who did strategic planning they knew perfectly what number of tanks, howitzers, cannons does Ukraine have. They did not deliver more (then needed) prematurely in order:
a) not to scare Russia and thus prevent the war
b) not to end the war prematurely, with little loses to Russia
In order to diminish military potential of Putin's army it had to be dragged into an ambush, then methodically destroyed.
Thus the whole Ukraine is a one big ambush, which goal is to - ironically - to demilitarize, neutralize and denazify Russia.
That plan is ambitious but risky and it's hard to tell who is winning. Russia has a great losses, but if they stop in the right moment, they can turn the situation into their advantage: they will slowly cut pieces of Ukraine, like Israel is doing with Palestine.
In a way both sides can be victorious: NATO's gain will be in reducing Russia's military power and binding their forces in the region of conflict. Russia will increase it's gains in Donbass, it will get Mariupol, Melitopol and Kherson with prospects for future gains. It will also consolidate own society, as they are now defending themselves against the whole World. These are substantial gains, though for a very high cost.
My favorite line is how you say the US should have sat down with Russia in secret bilateral communications. How could we know that hasn't occurred?
Please watch Andrei Illarionov. He not only talks about these communications, but discloses what was in them. It isn't pretty.
How do you negotiate with someone who is being disingenuous and has an agenda they intend to pursue regardless of how much you compromise. Some people are just aggressive…
The mistake some people make about the kinds of people described as ‘liberals’ is that they avoid conflict at all costs. This really isn’t true. A more accurate assessment is they tend to want to avoid conflict unless it’s required to stand up to bullies. Big difference.
Which video is that?
It might have but I would bet it didn't because the American foreign policy top of the Agenda is to destroy Russia and undermine Putins power. It's sad but our politicians have a way of not realising we are interconnected and we all need eachother. It doesn't matter what colour our skin is or what part of the world we come from, as humans we need eachother and the day we and our politicians realise that, the better our experience on this earth will be.
@@eekiane1921 , oh no. Another "blame it on America" guy.
I suppose Putin is innocent in all that's happened. Maybe he is the one that needs to realize the interconnectedness of everything.
1. he's right about the failure of the US in the earlier negotiations with Russia well before the war began, all the way back to the early 2000's: we did not take Russian Russia seriously, the imbalance of power was too great in our favor.
2.He never refers to Professor Mearsheimer, who is the outspoken and serious defender of balance of power and spheres of influence and other nation's claims to "Monroe Doctrine's" of their own...if he doesn't take Mearsheimer seriously there is no hope for a citizen like me.
3. And there is no sense of historical movement - that Putin's internal conduct towards critics, or towards Syrians or Chechnya is a factor in how the former satellites look at this dynamic since 1989-1991...this pushes them towards NATO obviously...at what point NATO says no we have to live with Russia...
4. there has been a Civil War between the US and Russian inside Ukraine since...at least 2004, in many ways resembling the Spanish Civil War between 1936-1938 just as brutal on a smaller scale but which escalates in 2014...
5. He doesn't seem to evaluate the military aid given to Ukraine accurately: always too little too late and done with the primary eye not to escalate or anger Putin...
6. I've framed this as a war between the US and Russia by Ukrainian surrogate: very much like the losing of the Spanish Civil war to Franco and the Fascists when the Republican government was overthrown...
7. A smug indifference to the nature of the Russian conduct inside Ukraine since feb 24th and the scope of Ukrainian losses...kind of like upper middle class Americans and the top10% to the impacts on working people under Globalization, lack of medical care and dental care...tough luck, life is cruel...
8. No mention of the Food Crisis nor how Ukraine could survive a settlement which gives Russia Crimea, the coastal corridor and the Donbas - survive economically except as a Ukrainian Appalachia.
9. And of course, given the actual date of the speech, no sense of where the war is on June 9 with the Russian's winning the war of attrition.
I will express my opinion. Russia has been warning Ukraine and the EU about its Red Borders for quite a long time, if my memory serves me right, it started with Putin's Munich speech. Now the USA and its vassal Europe have crossed these lines, so let's get ready for World War III, gentlemen, dig bunkers and buy oatmeal!
Absolutely, and like you say about the indifference to loss of life to Ukrainians..mind blowing..
- Agree current events and history has shown Meirsheimer's theories to be foolish and lacking many considerations.
- Disagree its US v Russia because a) if this were so then US would not have hesitated to give heavy weapons earlier in the war b) even Meirsheimer says that US doesnt want to be bogged down in Europe in order to focus on Asia / China and c) russia is not a peer power to the US. So this arguement has no basis in reality
- As an extension, the Ukrainians have been fending off russian aggression and insidious cultural subversion for 300 years, this is just an extension of that
- agree with your point (5) appeasement never works and it angers me to no end
- Ukraine wont give up even Crimea, this is still their territory under internationally recognised borders. Maaaaybe they will if there is full russian withdrawal and reparations but UA will ask for a high price for Crimea
- now its 15 July and its not apparent than russia is winning anything. Likely losing in Izium region, parity in east, and gaining territory in Donbas at a slowing rate in Donbas. This is with the 60k of ammunition being thrown at UA daily!
@@dro355 "Ukrainians for 300 years repelled Russian aggression and insidious cultural sabotage" - you live in a parallel world, however, like most Ukrainians. It is foolish to pretend to be a person from the West, you are a person from the western part of Ukraine, or a Banderite from the eastern part. You've been so brainwashed that it's hard to sort out the varieties of your shit. They interfere with you with mud, they burn you in the trenches, you have almost 70,000 soldiers killed and captured, and you write like that here?
agree 100%. # 1 is the biggest problem, but the reason for it -- well, you added insights about Establishment attitudes -- the attitude of ivy league faux tough guys could be summed up simply as 'life is cruel', etc. Its driving alot of US hegemonic policy. its very scary that the US is forcing not merely inviting conflict right on the Russian border.
My interpretation of what Thomas Graham is arguing is that Putin is just one of many leaders striving for the future and prosperity of his country. And that the concern about NATO expansion and willingness to threaten Russia was honestly meant and the reason for the attack on Ukraine. Does Graham entirely exclude the alternative explanation that Putin rather, like many authoritarian leaders, is deeply troubled by extensive expressions of democracy at close range (Ukraine and Belorussia) that could easily spread to Russia's own population and thus threaten his mafia clan's unlimited wealth and power?
Um...yes! Do some research. Look into the last 30 pieces of legislation that Russia has enacted. You will see thinks like 1M Roubles for couples who have 3 or more children. Free housing for low income families. Free cars for people that need it. Russia is fast becoming the land that many people wish they could live in. It is just at the moment there is a lot of ignorance around Russia. Did you know that Putin is a lawyer? Did you know that he hates, I mean HATES communism? He has written a number of essays on the subject. An open mind is a highly intelligent mind. Is you mind open? Are you willing to do research and be open to the possibility that your entire perception my be blue pilled right now?
Also the recent discovery of Gas reserves in Ukraine & off Ukraine's coast line, which would have threatened Russia's dominance of natural gas supply to Europe, a weapon it is currently using very effectively. NATO expansion was just the excuse. This analysis has many gaps in it, don't think much of this Watson Institute whoever they are
Quite right, it is a one-sided view of the war in Ukraine and its origin, in line with John Mearsheimer's argument.
Well for him the alternative explanation doesn't make sense (for me also). So I guess you can make your point, but others make their own point.
The falicy in your argument is the fact that theleader of the free world fought number of wars for oil, energy, etc, over the last 2 decades.
Graham would have been in complete agreement with Chamberlain in 1938 in giving the Sudetenland to Germany.
Yes. Dr Graham is clearly out of touch with reality in his ivory tower.
It was their territory to begin with
@@SupaHoon Bro Texas was Mexican...your point being?
@@SupaHoon Who is "they"? The association of Austrian house painters?
The point is they gave something to Adolf Hitler that
a. didn't prevent the Nazis from invading Poland, and
b. gave the Nazis well-equipped tank (and other armaments) factories that made the German army far, far stronger than it would have been without it.
Hitler didn't have nukes. Think this through, all the way. This is very grim.
Nothing involving the Council for Foreign Relations can EVER EVER be ethical!!!
From what this guy says,it was Ukraine's fault for wanting to be independent,and taking steps against Russians supplanted upon them, . When did NATO or the EU ever stack k any ountry . And how many countries have joined NATO.
Germany has done nothing to assist Ukraine,and has shirked it's commitment to NATO ,only to selfishly control the EU .France fares no better.
Why?
@Charles Yuditsky By homework do you mean a conspiracy theory blog or…?
I do appreciate these discussions, as it shows what the line of thought is from a western perspective regarding the lead-up to the war and where we are now. However, their proposed solution of an eventual partition of Ukraine, as well as its rejection to NATO as a compromise for ending the war is a fatal mistake. In the annals of Russian power, displays of strength and brutality are what make and break empires. Concession would only reinforce Putin's (and the Russian elite) conviction that now is the time to push hard at dismantling the liberal international order. Appeasement, just as in WWII, would bring Russia closer to direct confrontation with NATO.
"Liberal international order"? The west continues to pretend. No such thing outside of their imagination
thanks John, I think you are right, much as Biden and NATO don't want to hear that. Eventually to save Ukraine from a rout, it will mean boots on the ground, planes in the air, and A-10 Warthogs going after all that Russian artillery and rocketry. From wherever it is firing. Had the US, Briton, France and Poland even sent a regiment each before the invasion - since their intelligence proved so accurate - sent them to the vicinity of the major cities but not right to the Russian border, Putin might not have done it. Putin has read us and especially Biden and Germans the way the Nazi leadership read the West, 1935-1939, especially the failure to intervene in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1938. Now it's hell to pay, with the bill mainly due in Ukrainian blood and structures, all of civil society in ruin in many parts of their country. I'm on the left, but I break with them on this issue.
(Disclaimer: I’m not the lady in the helmet, but she hangs w/ me a lot.) The complaint about “institutes” being off-base is utterly clueless, and typical of ignorant Yanks who demand definitive facts about deeply nuanced situations, and recklessly disclaim responsibility for contributing to sort out the fog of (not so much war as typical INTERnational) affairs.
…One is tempted to invoke the model of “praying in one’s own closet.”
Actually, the situation is quite opposite. Russia has done a lot to reset relations with the collective West after the Cold War: they dismantled the Warsaw Pact, abandoned communism, dismantled USSR, allowing former Soviet Republics to become independent, stopped flying strategic bombers next to NATO borders, allowed western experts to inspect nuclear installations, signed a treaty to decrease the number of nuclear weapons, opened up its market to western capital and goods. etc. The West, on the other side, continued flying strategic bombers next to Russian borders, thus showing they still considered Russia an enemy, published online the locations all ex-Soviet nuclear facilities, financed anti-Russian propaganda in ex-Soviet republics, trying to lush them away from Russia, armed and financed radical muslim terrorists from Caucasus, organised a coup in Ukraine, and installed a puppet anti-Russian government in Kiev, encouraged them to start and continue an 8-year-long war in Donbas against their own Russian speaking citizens, and armed and trained their army. The West also broke the agreement not to expand NATO over ex Warsaw Pact countries several times, installed launchers that can fire nuclear missiles in Poland and Romania, and talked about accepting Ukraine in NATO, too, which would allow NATO to put launchers that could reach Russian nuclear missiles in just 5 to 20 minutes.
So, it was not concession and appeasement that brought West and Russia to the brink of WW3, but continuous hard line policy of hostility and ignoring any Russian interests or security concerns. That showed Russia that concessions to the collective West were mistake, and that they need to start talking the language of the West - the language of force.
Hardly anybody takes the Kremlin propaganda seriously anymore so spare yourself the trouble. Russia is a mafia state run by a brutal dictator who poisons his political opponents. He is trying to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire. Fortunately, it looks like his kleptocratic regime (corrupt to the core, based on lies and oppression) will not be able to achieve this.
Second question about when it will be done : DEPENDS of many factors . Issues comes out off military, economic and ppolitical questions.
I totally disagree. Putin is not nearly so amenable to "serious discussion" as this speaker suggests with his 20/20 hindsight. Speaking to Russia/Putin privately without our allies is a great way to erode trust in the USA.
Sounds like what Trump did with the Taliban. Didn't go over well, even if the goal was to evacuate since Biden went with the Trump agreement with the Taliban.
It is simple you have to tell Putin that any aggression to another country will be his very last and then fullfill your promise.
@Tom: yes, it's little like having some other country fight our wars for us?.
@@TorianTammas You need a history lesson. America has had a difficult time winning.
@lesia gutierrez Budapest Memorandum was a weak fudge - just a bunch of reassuring *sounding* crap, *containing no firm commitment from anyone other than Ukraine* , which gave up it's nuclear deterrent without demanding a sufficient quid quo pro. There was no promise or assurance that Russia, or any of the signatory nations _guaranteed_ Ukraine's territorial integrity or would ever act in support of it's defence. I wish people would actually read key background texts like that worthless document and understand it properly... And perhaps reflect on inadequate agreement statements and the weasel-word difference between such as "affirm" and "guarantee" and so on. Ukraine at the time was just excessively eager to finally free themselves from the USSR... and too trusting.
12:30 "You add to that the Europeans failure to fill the gas storage facilities adequately" is just wrong. Gasprom Germania - which runs the storage facilities - belongs to Russia and they let the storage empty out in a strategic move to use gas supply as a weapon.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Would not you do the same?
@@stevenlight5006 Not if I was trying to win a long term peace, no. All this has done is ensure that the entire continent of Europe will wean itself off Russian energy as fast as it can, so that it can never again be held hostage. It is the biggest own goal, possibly ever. The Russian economy may never recover.
Would I have done the same if I were Putin? The same being: Attacking a neighbour to restore some 19th century imperialistic dream of a Russian empire? Preparing the war by betraying the trust of the Germans who put their strategic gas reserves in the hand of a foreign nation? Lying in the face of Western diplomats who sat at that ridiculously long table for a year although I had already decided to invade? Indiscriminately shelling civilians, hospitals and schools? No, I wouldn't have.
Not true, the delivery of gas through NS2 was ready except for the valves to be opened. When you go to the shop to buy something you only get the item after paying. The same is true in the case of gasdelivery. The problems arose when European countries refused to pay. You're totally overlooking the power of the us and their crimnal behaivour re Europe and the EU.
Part of the problem is that state department people play games
What is the guests name and his title or little bio?
What makes the wheat grow and ripen makes the tanks get stuck in the mud. So, we have both a wheat and tank shortage. I'm for the wheat, and forget about replacing the tanks.
The biggest problem in all discussions like this one is that American “gurus” like this one judge historic events a without knowing the history. Relations between countries in Europe have hundreds and even more than a thousand years of history. And almost all have roots and live in the past. Trying to analyze today’s situation between Ukraine and Russia without knowing that past is pointless. And this “guru” does not even mentioned that history from X to XXI century.
The same was true during the war Balkans in 1990s. Nobody payed any attention to the fact that for Serbians that war was a payback for losing important battle 600 years ago. American analytics may laugh at that, but ask Serbians, and they will tell you.
History is not something Americans care about, because we are afraid of looking at our own history: slavery, racism, genocide, wars, assassinations, regime changes... The more you look at America's past actions, the more convinced you would be that the US is the real aggressor and villain.
@@dznuts123 I completely disagree with you. First, hating your own country became fashionable over the last 50 years in the US, and it is completely irrelevant in this case. Second, countries of the Old World have so much blood and mistreatment of each other in their history that Americans cannot even imagine. And third, American historians do not understand the relevance and importance of the history for Europeans. For the most part, Americans look forward in their lives trying to improve it. Europeans mostly look back in attempt to find who is responsible for their problems. And this is why America is spearheading all technology advancements, and the rest of the world only follows.
My point about this lecturer is very simple. He is looking at the problem between Russia and Ukraine seeing only the last 100 years or so. And the problem goes more than a millennium back to the X century, to the time of Vladimir the Great ruling that land from his capital Kiev, and bringing Orthodox Christianity into this land from Byzantine Empire in 988.
Moscow did not exist at that time at all. First time it was mentioned 200 years later. And now, when Moscow want to rule this land they are trying to make historical claims, etc., but they have no foundation to claim their rights! And that is the problem for them. This is why they are trying to destroy Ukraine!!! For most of the people in the West that may sound laughable, but that points only to how much misunderstanding of Russia and what drives it there is in the US and the rest of the Western World.
@@zeigezunt6223 The problem is the US hasn’t learned from its mistakes or tried to be a better player on the international stage. This is actually the same case that you describe, albeit for different countries. History still very much influences the US’s actions.
If you are worrying about trying to "pay back" something which happened 500 years before you were born (ie didn't happen to you, wasn't perpetrated by the people you're fighting, and has no *real* effect on your life) then you are pathetic, and deserve whatever terrible result befalls you.
Appealing to ancient history is even worse than just saying "because I feel like it," because at least pure selfishness as a motive is *honest*, whereas ancient history is no better than superstition. None of us were there 500 or 1000 years ago and we have no idea what really happened, only what we were told.
History is an important lens to understand how things became as they are, but it is no justification to do evil.
@@thevoxdeus You are confirming exactly what I said about Americans trying to analyze European events without any understanding what is behind them, what drives people to behave the way they do. You can call people "pathetic" as much as you want, you can judge them, tell them that they are horrible and wrong, but doing so you do not gain any understanding of why people behave that way, and thus your conclusion are of no use.
BEFORE YOU ASK THAT QUESTION , why was the usa and nato son intent on Ukraine becoming a member of military alliance that justify the huge expenses on weapons thus antagonising Russia ,
3:08 "to contain USSR that is Russia" - this distinguished gentlemen doesn't understand that it is not even close to same. An expert for western Europe wouldn't say "United Kingdom that is England" or "US that is Texas" or "EU that is Germany". Can not even listen that simple man hegemonic thoughts further.
it only proves that this so called gentleman knows very little. Waste of time.
NATO propagandists are intellectual pygmies with historical amnesia.
I agree. USSR is NOT Russia today ! Russia a free and sovereign state that returned the priesthood of the church that the USSR killed entirely in its time.
Great response, Guzjebesku. The Ukrainian ambassador to Norway pointed this out clearly. He said that the Red Army that liberated northern Norway in 1945, was something completely different from the Russian aggressors that are invading Ukraine now.
Painful to watch how superficial is "knowledge" of those "experts". If people like this shape our reality no wonder we are in serious trouble.
Their job is to hide the truth and confuse the public.
@@sonjak8265 - Very much so...:(
what were u expecting?
Exactly ...
Yep we are damed
Moderator: please repeat the question for the online audience. thx
Peace Love and Freedom 💜☮️💜
Thomas Graham has been working for the Kremlin for at least 20-23 years, now. Recently he was cought in Moscow [read the Moscow Times] doing the Second Track foreign policy. He himself told Andrey Piontkovsky in Moscow that he gets paid 7-8 times more working for the Russians than when he worked for the USA.
Good analysis, but during Q and A they should be repeating the question into the mic so viewers can hear it, or subtitle the question while its being asked.
Our speaker should have had a better mike, or else two of those lousy ones (one slightly to his left, one slightly to his right).
The sound was a failure worthy of the Russian army.
agreed. they could have had somebody passing a mic between the people asking question, ive seen that done in other Q&A sessions and it works well. it was also a little bit annoying how he kept turning his head to address the room as he spoke, getting louder and quieter as he moved past the mic.
what analysis?
There was no analysis, imo he was only giving his thoughts leaving our or rewriting facts, history and international law. IOW the american version of the truth.
They keep repeating the nuclear threat as if it is real.
Oh yeah, bio and nukes, keeps getting repeated.
Putin has no need to use WMDs. Putin wants to take Ukraine intact, not destroyed.
Do you think Putin could level Ukraine with conventional arms if it wanted to?
Hum what do you think?
Could the USA level other nations with bombs? Hum, like endless bombs in WW2. Oh wait, that happened already!
The problem with such theories is that they start from abstract, logical principles, in this particular case some sort of game played by rational actors that can always be negotiated with to get the best deal under the circumstances, maximizing their "utility" (to use economic jargon).
This, of course, doesn't model real, breathing people accurately. In such a world the Romanovs would not have made simply delusional mistakes in governing and would not have used utterly silly rationalizations to conclude that things were going splendid for them. Neither such a rational actor model fits Putin, who sees conquering Ukraine as his "historical mission". A man who says "what good is the world without Russia for us" is of apocalyptic mentality and that does not yield to what is fundamentally economic thinking.
I think it's unfair to say that, because of his irrationality and romanticism towards Russia, Putin's incapable of rational thinking. This is how most people are, there are topics which they can view in the abstract without emotions and topics which they attach lots of emotional weight to.
You also have to consider he might be making entirely rational decisions, but with genuine beliefs which are at odds with reality. It would make sense to invade Ukraine, if you believe Ukraine was oppressing ethnic russians, if you believed the conflict would be over in a matter of days, if you believed that your military was second to none...
Putin, of course, is responsible for developing the culture around him which feeds in the information he gets, so he is at fault. Yet based on what he thinks he knows, his behaviour might be quite rational. Personally, I think it's a mix of both.
Putin is rational but Western leaders aren't.
Ask yourself what's more rational, carving off another part of Ukraine to add to Russia, or trying to make Afghanistan feminist.
@@bingxilao9086 Yeah why would you want to have a strategically important country align to your values... I couldn't imagine why...
The miscalculation from the West was based on a misunderstanding of the facts. They thought the Afghan National Army was so large, with certain capabilities... When actually due to corruption it wasn't anywhere near the size they thought it was. Not too dissimilar to what happened with Russia in Ukraine.
@@bingxilao9086 Neither goal is rational, both are at sever odds with reality on the ground. Anyway, Putin isn't a rational politician, he tries to attain some muddled historical vision of himself as a great leader that history will remember: ruclips.net/video/ZwU13-4SakE/видео.html
@@guntguardian3771 Actually, the true reason Afghan army dropped their weapons is that they have no nation to fight for. Why fight if you do not value an abstract thing that you do not bind to the people? People over there have so called pre-modern mentality, watch some anthropologists on that.
Thank you Dr Graham, a rather scolarly presentation of the Russian arguments for this conflict. However, as an observer of this affair I feel that Putin's mindset, Russia's massive investment in millitary hardware over the past ten years and the economics of Russia facing a reducing dependence on fossil fuels as Europe transitions to renewables were the governing factors in his decision to go to war at this time. No doubt, the target was influenced by recent history as you describe. But IMHO the NATO/European expansion and regime change (a calculated replaying of US arguments) were just the pretext, very much as the bombing of Moscow apartments was a pretext for the second Chechen war.
As you rightly observe, there was little chance of Putin not millitating to recreate the Soviet era spheres of influence, even had NATO limited it's expansion as he wanted.
your view is not that of John Mearsheimer, but the field is packed with career tough guys
You just saved me one hour of my life; I've leas than zero tolerance for consuming fearful propaganda under the guise of academia and/or journalism. NATO is not without flaws but the preponderance of evidence going back DECADES indicate very clearly that this has always been a part of the Russian long-game
Even Thomas Graham is falling for the russian NATO Propaganda BS. Putin said cleary at the beginning of the war: Ukraine is not a nation. Ukraine is part of Russia, Ukrainan Culture does not exist. All the NATO BS was for us to believe. Ridiculous that those propaganda BS is part of this Analysis without CALLING IT OUT
This is about oil and gas earnings, and Russia infiltrating itself, as always, into the fabric of European society to influence strategic dependencies on the few things it sells - oil and gas. Ironically, Russia has now shown its hostility to European peace and democracy, its willingness to de-stabilise world food and energy markets, and as a result, accelerated that very transition of Europe to renewables by decades, reducing it to mere years.
Putin has shown himself to be a total loser, not as clever as he would like his own propaganda to portray himself as.
@@rd264 John Mearsheimer, is a russian hack!
Please do yourself and everyone else a favor and invest in a headset microphone !!! It's very annoying when the volume varies drastically up and down every time you turn your head or lean forward / backward ect.ect. !!! People might be less inclined to tune out and move on and listen to what your subject matter is about !!!
When you are running a "Q & A" session it always pays to pass a microphone around the audience.
(Assuming, of course, that you're even interested in hearing the question in the first place.)
they want to repeat the lies.
lies that they know what Putin is thinking. they do not.
Its simple really: diplomacy only works when it is backed by military (and economic) power. Russia has to feel considerable pain before they will enter into negotiations.
And then they'll go nuclear
I think it is high time West feels a little pain for Livia, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq
@@tommyodonovan3883
Most of the country will be vapourized within half a day if they do and they know it. Their boomers under the ice are probably already being tracked. The planet community could survive it. Russia could not.
If China is smart they'll stay the hell out of it.
@@juuscafret9733
No.
Ukrainian's pains are still not enough at this point?
Please have sound for the questions.
I think if you combine Mr. Graham's perspective with that of Stephen Kotkin we have a very intelligent, balanced, insightful take on this conflict...and everything that comes with it geopolitically...and indeed on Russia and the Former soviet Union in general. I find most of what Mearsheimer has to say as reductionist at best.
Ditto for your own remark here.
The Tale of Jack Kiev.
Once upon a time, there was a small boy, called Jack Kiev. He was 12 years old and was an orphan. When his mother died recently, he inherited her cottage, with a little bit of land.
He worked hard all day every day, cultivating his plot and producing a good yield. He had some extra vegetables and chickens, so he took them to the market for sale.
At the market, the elder sons and daughters, of the Otan Family, came and bought his produce. They asked the boy, “Who is in charge of the business, as we need a regular supply? We would like to discuss business and come to some arrangement.”
Jack said, “I’m in charge of the business! For I am an orphan and I will supply your needs.”
So they signed a contract and Jack’s spirits were lifted, for he was quite sad and lonely.
Once a week he went to the Otan household and delivered the wares that they needed and they paid him kindly.
Sometime soon after, the Otan Family asked Jack to help with some chores, cutting grass and painting the shed. The Otan house, was very large with many rooms, for they had 16 sons and 17 daughters, who were always kind to Jack, so they became good friends. Jack was overjoyed with finding friendship with the Otan Family.
Jack was always hardworking and never failed to be productive. As his own homestead and finance grew, he bought some sheep and reared lambs.
Old Father Sam Otan was pleased with Jack. So when Jack turned 14, he made a promise to him. “When you turn 16, you can marry, whichever of my daughters that you find to be most beautiful and you will be my Son!”
Jack nearly fainted and cried aloud, “Thank you Father Sam! God has truly blessed me! May Heaven and Earth hold dear to your promise.”
One month later, an angry bear from the forest, came upon Jack’s cottage and ravaged his flock and stole some sheep. Jack was mortified and ran to the Otan house. “Help help! There’s a bear at my home, who’s killed my sheep!”
The Otan Family were shocked and said, “Don’t worry we will stand by you and help to fight the bear.” So they sent two of the younger sons, who brought their slings and spears and went with Jack to fight the bear. But the bear was too big and strong for them to kill it. But they managed to scare the bear enough, so that it went away. “Thank you for your help!” said Jack and the two sons went back to their home.
A couple of weeks passed by and the angry bear came back to Jack’s cottage, killing and eating some lambs. Jack ran to the Otans, “Help help! The bear has come back!” So three of the sons, went with Jack and they all fought against the bear. This time the bear hurt Jack and killed one of the sons and then went back to his lair. The sons went back to their home and reported the news.
Two more weeks passed by and the bear came back to Jack’s cottage. It caused great damage to the chicken shed, broke some fences and killed all the chickens.
Jack ran back to the Otans and this time, four of the sons, all armed with new swords and shields, went with Jack to fight the bear. They fought for many hours but the bear was too big and strong, even for all of the sons. The bear was enraged, bc it’s foot was hurt by them. It killed two of the sons and wounded the others and then went back to its lair.
Two weeks later, the bear and its mate, came upon Jack’s cottage. They killed all the remaining lambs and knocked over a burning lantern, the lantern caught fire to the barn and store houses, destroying all the produce, This time the bears quickly left, before they could be attacked.
Jack ran to the Otans, “Help the bears have attacked my home and the place is on fire!” So the Otan Family all quickly went and helped to extinguish the blaze. Five of the sons all stayed with Jack, “We’ll help to rebuild the farm and this time we’ll stay with you, to guard against the bears.
They all worked hard to rebuild the farm and the Otans pitched their tent next to Jack’s cottage. But the bears came in the night and killed three of the sons as they slept. Jack and the other two sons ran back to Old Sam Otan and reported the news.
Old Sam Otan wept bitterly in his grief and the shock nearly killed him. “Right this time, take some horses and wear armour and buy some new lances and we’ll finish the bears off for good. So six of the sons saddled their horses and went to find the bears. They rode to the forest and crossed the stream that runs from the mountains. They rode for four days and eventually found the bears trail. The eldest son said, “Right we’ll camp here for the night and at dawn we’ll attack the bears. What could possibly go wrong?”
The bears caught the scent of the Otan party and came upon them in the darkness. The great bear with his mate and all their cubs with them. They killed all the horses and all of the sons as well, except one who barely managed to escape. He ran all the way home and reported the news.
Old Father Otan, his wife and remaining children were stricken with grief. They held council and after many days, they came up with a plan. “Right!” said Old Sam Otan, “I’ve had enough of this great bear! I’ve lost 11 of my sons and we only have 5 left. 7 of my daughters are strong and old enough to fight, as well as any man. We’ll all go to Jack’s cottage together that makes 12 and myself 13. We’ll make traps and build strong fences and walls around the farm.”
So they all went to Jack’s farm and did as they had planned and two weeks later the great bear, came to Jack’s farm with his family. The bear saw how strong the defences were, he hesitated and looked across the valley. He saw the Otan house with no walls and no one there, except some young girls and old mother Otan. He had grown tired of the taste of lambs, chickens and horses and now he wanted something else. So the great bear and his family went back to the forest and waited for night to come.
He took his family to the Otan house and then charged in with speed and fury. All the bears smashed the doors and windows open and ran through the house, but there was no one there, the house was empty.
All of a sudden there was a blast of hunting horns and a great cacophony of noise. The house was surrounded by Jack and all the Otans. Old mother Otan had been warned, by her pet falcon, of an approaching danger and had left with her daughters and gone to her sister’s house. She had sent a carrier pigeon to Old Sam Otan at Jack’s cottage, who ambushed the bears.
“Fire!” Screamed Old Sam Otan at the top of his voice and they all hurled their burning torches at the house. Some of the bears ran out and were cut down as they ran and the house burned to the ground.
Old Sam Otan and his company went through the ashes and counted all the dead bears. “They’re all here!” said the eldest son, after laying the bears bodies out. “No wait a minute, there’s one missing!” They all scouted around the area, but the mate of the late great bear, was nowhere to be found.....
The end?
In my opinion the Russians should have been aware of the fact that Ukraine at lest in the near future would't become a member of NATO. And I believe they certainly knew about this fact. Yet they used this question as an pretext for their agression. The truth is that Russia clearly thinks that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independant state and that eastern Europe or even western Europe have to submit to russian dominance. None of these requests are in compliance with international law and the international treaties Russia or the Soviet Union signed since 1975.
Nailed it. I also want to add that Russia’s government is pathetic. They can’t attract anybody, economically, politically, or technologically, so they have to resort to hard imperialism. The GDP is less than Texas or California. And Putin is an evil asshole. Instead of using Russia’s very vast resources to lift up the people and improve the Russian government and economy, he’s stuck in the 1900s wanting to build this delusional Russian empire. Russia in the next few decades is so fucked. Love the people there and wish nothing but the best for them.
Then why would Putin have agreed to the Donbas remaining under Ukraine's sovereignty under Minsk?
So NATO expansion caused the war.
I am afraid documents, proclamations, agreements, borders are useless when we talk big power politics. Yes they are nice when they fit into their plans, but they can be completely avoided when necessary to their strategic objectives.
Yes. Definitely two wrongs at work here.
We need to stop to figuring out what our interests are and start looking at what is right vs wrong
Try telling a global arms dealer that selling weapons is Wrong 🤣
@@joni8090 It is actually very simple. Mind your own business.
Please go tell United States of Arsenal (aka USA), every foreign policy of USA is basing on its SELFISH interest at all cost of OTHERS.
"Our interests" and "right vs wrong" coincide exactly at the 1991 borders, because any other settlement sends a dangerous signal to both Russia others with imperial ambitions that borders can be moved by force.
@@russellwilliams3209
Oh I'm so Sorry I didn't know I had to ask for your Permission to respond to RUclips !! Did I touch one of your Nerves ! 🤣
Strange that Graham would not mention that Russia was interesting to controlling Ukraine because of the Russian pipelines running through it which supply oil and gas to Europe.
Not with Nordstream 2 which had by-passed Eastern Europe with a direct supply to Germany...
And btw.
Despite the on-going war:
German gas storage level in February: around 24%
German gas storage level in late June: around 55%
If this is a shortage...and the largest one wasn't even put to use because it was still controlled until recently by a Russian company.
After this strategic infrastructure was sold to Gazprom.
"Germany will temporarily take control of a unit of Gazprom PJSC in the country as it seeks to safeguard security of gas supply.
Gazprom Germania GmbH -- owner of energy supplier Wingas GmbH and a gas storage firm -- will come under the trusteeship of the German energy regulator until Sept. 30, Economy Minister Robert Habeck told reporters in Berlin."
Just cut the pipe and remove it from Ukraine Europe are being told by USA to refuse Russia's energy so slash it.
One observation: Wendover Productions or Real Engineering did a video about the Russian Armed Forces Logistics. In short: it's based on Rail and dictates strategy. A point to keep in mind, though, is they have people specialized in creating those supply lines and they do it well - the will face problems and it will take time to solve them.
One question: the US military equipment aid to Ukraine will be paid by Ukraine on a later date or is it a donation. Thanks!
Usually turns into a grant ..
Take a look a lend - lease
I just looked it up and
Russia and Great Britain repaid in full !
Money from US to Ukraine is laundered back to politicians accounts.
Do you think that what will remain in the end from Ukraine will be able to pay off lend-lease?
Ukraine will need to pay it back... So Ukraine signed up for decades of control by US due to their debt for fighting their war for them...
Russia doesn't need a "buffer zone" if it does not have aggressive neighbors!! While I have a huge respect for Thomas Graham's analysis, I think he frequently bends over backwards to accommodate the Putin Regime Mentality. Are we really to take so much to heart the 19th century expansionist ambitions of what amount to a Mafia gang of profiteers? Can we not be a little more optimistic and hope for regime change after this war that is going so disastrously for the Russian side at the moment? If we can exercise a little patience while maintaining steady pressure with armaments and sanctions there is every reason to believe Putin will not survive long to remain in charge.
Indeed, Russia is not surrounded by aggressors. Its aggressor sits a few thousand miles away dictating to Russia's neighbors.
Was Cuba an aggressive neighbour to the USA in 1962? Your theory is compromised before you even finish writing. You need to listen to more of these shows my friend and less CNN and other MSM. .... "going so disastrously for the Russian side"..... as a sea of red slowly creeps down the Eastern side of Ukraine ....? ... sanctions that are now being wound back because they are hurting the Europeans more than Russia.... Forrest? Trees??
It’s so cool to hear that it’s illegal to invade another country without retribution or recrimination.
Good fire side chat with the Iraqis and Libyans I would imagine
intervening in lybia was a humanitarian operation....in irak it was all the deceit from bushe's part
@@rocambole93 By that argument (Libya), Russia's war goal is humanitarian.
@@BusinessAnalyzer ukraine did not threaten to kill half of the russians population like khadafi did
It is only valid if you are unsuccessful. I the other case there is simply no one who could claim such retribution. Your own examples - Iraq and Libya - are perfect.
@@rocambole93 in Libya they announced they were going to sell oil for Gold backed currency. The USA removed Gaddafi from power.
In Iraq, Saddam announced he was going to sell oil for Euro's. Within 3 months the "weapons of mass destruction" narrative was created and Bush invaded Iraq.
Both of these countries now continue to sell oil for USD.
Putin wants to be able to sell his commodities for Rubles. China wants to buy oil for Yuan..... the USA will start WW3 to keep them using $USD.
This war in Ukraine is all able who controls the financial system, although 99.9% of people don't understand that, and they will never tell you.
Ukraine deserves better, from both the USA and Russia.
Min 38-40: It is a nice theory that "each party has to make a compromise". I am wondering, if the professor would make a compromise and what compromise he would be happy with, if he had to negotiate with a party demanding that his country must cease to exist, because it is artificial anyway. What position would he retreat to?
Scott Ritter said the preliminary "attack" of Kiev was a feint to keep the bulk of the Ukrainian troops away from the Donbass which has always been the main objective of Russia!
jeez how stupid is this guy? Sending 5k troops to death and losing all the equipment doesnt look like a good feint
Now I understand why the U.S.is so powerless, because we are never lacking such "expert" like him to advise the policy makers.
In his introduction they said that he was an advisor to the US government.
The guy is full of shit. "Putin was planning to have a speech in Kiev within 4 days of the invasion." LMAO! I mean, I get the propaganda but be a bit more subtle and artful about it. He's outright lying about the Europeans being more eager in regards to sanctions than US was. Unless he means UK and Poland, the rest were not. Go and check the first statements coming from Italy and Germany (not sure about France) when banning Russia from the swift system was proposed. They were against it, until the US just grabbed them by their ears. lol Not to mention that US have been pressuring and pushing Germany to shut down the NS2 for years.
@@Juggler4071 Don't argue with Russian simps...
This expert is Putin's wet dream.
@@saelind73 You are absolutely right! He IS full of shit! I am so glad that there are still a lot of people can see things through.
If the "distinguished expert" doesn't mention Donetsk and Luhask republics in his "analysis" but seriously talking about Crimea Platform - such an expert is not worth and hour listening to. All Thomas did - he repeated all major cliches.
And that's very sad situation indeed when so called "Russian experts" don't understand the reasons and logic of the events. Or doesn't want to understand?
OSCE, reports from feb.15 to feb.17 (as a comparison), and from feb.18 to feb.23. Add a nomber of citizens of LDPR who had to flee since feb.18 to feb.23. No, distinguished expert will never talk about it, because a distinguished expert's job is to provide a convenient excuse for goverments to keep going with their destructive policies. In simple words, expert has to explain populus, why Ukraine is good and Russia is bad.
A very interesting talk. Spoiled by the fact that, when opened up to the floor, the questions were virtually inaudible!
Why, oh why, can't a microphone be passed around so that we can actually HEAR the question being asked?
(It's hardly rocket science!)
What exactly was pleasant about the closing remark?
Is Watson Institute an Israeli based NGO Think tank or a US based one? Either way this guy's assessment seems to be a resume for a job at the Used State Dept .. Would love to read their assessment of Afghanistan a year before it fell to the Taliban.. Or how Assad would be taken out within weeks of US involvement in Syria..
How the hell did you menage to throw Israel into this?
@@michalperach984 What? "Blame Canada" passe. Now it's blame Israel. ruclips.net/video/ip5OWcoE6GE/видео.html
@@michalperach984 Israel controls much of US foreign policy.
@@ot23234 You should have a special military operation to de-nazify yourself
He works for the CFR. Go figure.
Imagine this guy in 1941 talking about Hitler.
German would be the lingua franca and maybe "official" language of the world, most Jews would have been exterminated, there wouldn't even be a "Ukraine" or a "Russia" because of lebensraum...well you get the gist...
I'd love to start squatting on his land with guns and see if he negotiates or calls the cops to forcibly remove me. Then would he say the resulting shootout was could've been negotiated? Negotiation only works when both sides have a respected baseline. Academics...smh.
This guy would be in Berlin, talking about Hitler and how it was unfair what is being done to Germany both now and during the aftermath of WW1.
In 1941 this guy would be on Hitlers side.
This isn't 1941, and Putin isn't Hitler.
While it sounds like a dumb ad hitlerum, there is actually a plausible scenario that's fairly similar.
Except it would involve the Allies not protecting Poland, so there's no war in the west. Germany and its fascist allies form a de facto EU (without France or the Low Countries). They hate "Russia" with a passion, which in turn is already a sworn enemy of the Allies. So the Allies had good reason to join the "EU" in an effort to take down the USSR.
There's even some similarities in timeline: Russia had collapsed ~25 years before, was partially restored in a brutal civil war. Its current leader, Stalin, was a beast who had massacred millions, plotted to restore all of Russia, and ultimately (openly) wanted to take the world, and the USSR had done a lot more to try that, than Russia has. So there's a higher justification then than there is now.
Ukraine's situation is slightly different: it was under Stalin's tyranny. Other than that, there was major Ukrainian nationalism, and a significant group that did join the nazis more fully, which is analogous.
Finally, the situation has some comparison in the Winter War (likewise a Russian disaster, where the "EU" helped out Finland), so it's a thinkable scenario.
For better analogy, we'll assume Hitler agreed to deport the Jews to Palestine (solves that morality) and is willing to let the Slavs die to natural population decline instead of a policy of sterilization. His ambitions were to incorporate a regime-changed European Russia into the Reich, which is a thinkable objective for our EU.
Finally to launch the scenario, we assume Ukraine revolts while Russia is weakened by the Winter War, and grabs its current territory. Come 1941, Stalin attacks. The Reich ships arms, and is considering to intervene militarily.
To what extent should the Allies, in this scenario, join Hitler in his efforts to at least help Ukraine, and probably take down Stalin's tyranny, and collapse the USSR?
it would be useful if the viewing audience could hear the questions on a microphone, or at least have the speakers repeat the question into the microphone for the You Tube audience.
they also left out the conversation about the Russian Navy and access to the Black Sea and that whole conversation boiling down to motivation along with every other reason that Putin has in his mind
No assessment, unless I missed it, of the effect of sanctions and gass/petrol politics on the outcome of this war and Ru's future.
Well, sanctions against the Russian Federation have caused the Russian GDP to drop by an estimated 10%. If the Russians lose in Ukraine, their GDP will drop by approximately 50%. This being the case, it's safe to say that sanctions are small potatoes.
By the same token, western investment in Ukraine is a major factor in the run- up to this conflict- primarily because of the large reserves of natural gas discovered there in 2012. This is one of the two major reasons for the conflict.
This fellow seems to be living in an alternate universe. One where Putan was sane. One where we had an idea of what we were going to do. Also, he is NOT willing to admit: his bias for the Russians.
Painting an opponent as insane is a convenient excuse to avoid negotiations. Putin, while ruthless, has never presented himself as insane, and if anything it looks like he believes his own propaganda. Analyzing the situation from Russian perspective as well, is critical to finding a path to peace.
He is an American Putin versteher.
RUSSIA HAS MANY MANY PROBLEMS
Right from the beginning when he was saying "Russia sees it ..." or something similar when what was happening was that Putin, not Russia, was seeing it that way, it was clear his mind was twisted.
Exactly. Thank you.
Best part certainly the questions of professor Bartow (min 39)
Thank you for this deep analysis. However, the speakers seem to underestimate the deep divisions within Ukraine and their possible influence upon the final outcome. Ukraine is divided into three very distinct parts, not two. The western one-third of the country used to be a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for hundreds of years, and thus belonged to an entirely different cultural and religious environment than the other two-thirds of present Ukraine. That is where Ukrainian nationalism was born, and - one must not forget about this fact - a large part of Ukrainian population sided with the nazis during the second world war, even forming a Ukrainian SS Division "Galizien", and that's where genocide was committed against the Polish, Russian and Jewish populations. The central part of Ukraine is inhabited by people many of whom call themselves "real Ukrainians", who are not friendly towards the "zapadniks" ("westerners", inhabitants of the formerly Polish part of present Ukraine), and the language they speak sounds more like Russian. This is the part of Ukraine that suffered from the famine under Stalin's rule, then suffered under German occupation during the second world war, and fought against the nazis in the Red Army. The easternmost part of present Ukraine consists mainly of lands conquered by Catherine the Great from Mongols, including Crimea and is inhabited by considerable, indigenous Russian population. After 1945 Poland lost the present western third of Ukraine to the Soviet Union, and after the fall of the latter, the Ukrainian SSR was transformed into the independent state of Ukraine within artificial borders, consisting of very different three parts which could hardly be expected to ever form a uniform, stable country.
They were very stable and prosperous prior to the Russian invasion.
glad everyone know about a million years ago but have no clue what happened 5 minutes ago
@@MrJamespeyton No, the country was thoroughly corrupt, the level of living was dropping, people were earning meagre salaries, and several million had to leave seeking jobs abroad. Check your facts.
@@ShawnJonesHellion Historia magistra vitae. Or rather "Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future" (George Orwell, 1984). If you conceal the past, you can manipulate the future. It doesn't work long-term, though.
So prosperous that they are the poorest country in Europe with only 1/3 of GDP per capita of Russia. Ukraine is also Europe's most corrupted country. They were so stable to have a color revolution.
Hats off to the professor who spoke at 39:22. Excellent points and perspectives.
I don't really like the "if things had been different in the past, would they be different now?" question, because that's just impossible to know and will probably be answered with "obviously yes" and "obviously no" depending on what position you want to argue for. (Personally I would just say that I don't have a reason to believe that things being different in the past would make it different now.)
If Ukraine had been left to its own devices it would remain in Russia's sphere of influence, trade etc. It's was the NATO empire's attempt at pulling it into theirs which split it in Two. The coup of 2004 was reversed because the majority are pro russian. In the 2014 madian coup the west and their ultra nationalist fractions/militias made sure that would not happen. Remember Zelensky elected on a strong peace platform and mandate to implement the Minsk accords but of course our empire couldn't let democracy run it's course. They WANTED this confrontation by proxy and they want to bleed Russia down to the last Ukrainian. Putin took the bait
so, what do you think of all the wars started by the USA since the fall of soviet union? if we want to get to the root of the matter, all the wars since the end of ww2?
Yes, he kinda carefully pointed out that what the first speaker brought up is nonsense to put it politely. Tbh I watched only the first 5 minutes of that and skipped to 39:22 in the hope of finding something more encouraging, I did.
Other scholars, particularly those familiar with the inner workings of Russian during the last 20 years, have pointed out in multiple ways that the reason and trigger for Russia‘s Ukraine-war is solely found in the 21st century. That whole Nato-extension variant has been debunked extensively - in particular there were never treaties or promises forbidding independent countries to join Nato. The idea that bigger countries get a say about who their neighbor’s friends may or may not be is history. Also Putin himself is on the record stating that Ukraine in its borders is untouchable - that however must have been before 2006.
At some point he found out that to western leaders he is a goon and Putin just didn’t deal well with it. What are a couple of ten-thousand dead compared to an imperator‘s hurt ego after all?
@@michaela.178 you are why there is war in ukraine right now.
Up until February, Russia had successfully outplayed the Western alliance. Georgia, Crimea, Dombas, murder of opponents, interference in Western elections, and even the troop build up on the Ukrainian border, were met with very tepid responses. On top of which, hardly anyone expected Ukraine to survive the invasion. The initial failure of the invasion surprised everyone. The rapid response from, up till then a supine West, surprised everyone. We effectively entered territory that almost no one could have predicted prior to March of this year.
Whether a more constructive dialogue would have averted Putin from his current course is very speculative at best. His behavior would suggest otherwise. The other issue, briefly touched on, is the US is far more concerned with China.
One other issue not thoroughly addressed is how long can Putin and Russia maintain a war that shows limited gains. Wars are expensive and can be economically and socially crippling.
What amazes me, from all these supposed military experts, has been how little focus has been put on the weather. Had the invasion taken place in June/July, there might easily have been a more predictable outcome.
What the weather has to do with all this mess? We are not in 18th century.
@@robrob9050 weather has everything to do with military conflict. its quite clear you have never been in the armed forces or studied history..... 19th century Germany under their syphilus ridden ruler invades Russia.... find out what happens on the next episode of "History".
Every Western news source says initial Russia invasion in Ukraine was a failure. How do you expect 40,000 troops to take Kiev a metorpolis of 3M. Russia is assigned taking Kiev as their goal when it was never their initial goal.
And the successes in the south are total discounted - Russia's taking of Kherson, Mariupol counted for nothing ? Why ?
@@joem0088 Probably because their army is hostage to Putin's politics. I guess he directs partially operations by himself, which is repeating failure of different warlords and presidents (Hitler messing up with German generals and American presidents picking targets in Vietnam)
@@redleader-qm2od Weather is included into planning just as food, clean clothing, fuel, ammo. And you have been in armed forces and studied history?
PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE
SO VOLUME REMAINS CONSTANT
If there were any consistency in to the NATO policy platform or its declaration of intention from the time it was first drafted implemented, and then revisited in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, when it considered Russia unable to ever join the EU, then it would have surely considered all of the former Soviet block countries in the same light as it does Russia even today. Instead NATO and the EU have collected more and more countries into its fold, without re-evaluating what Russia actually stands for as an economic power house. This makes the EU seem irrational and its actions implausible given it trades with that country it wishes to keep perpetually in the economic cold. This really means the NATO pact (and unrealized Warsaw pact), and its motivations and intentions with respect to Russia are not worth the paper it is written on, so contrary is it, in actual effect. Every half intelligent observer of NATO and the EU over the past 35 years, and their silly infirm puppet master, American has seen this hypocrisy for what it is....a long term strategy to shaft a rising super power whether it be Soviet or not. America will always do the same to any nation with the population or ambition to raise itself out of pre-first world developed status. It is deeply chauvinistic in nature and in some cases with respect to Asia and Africa racist. It cannot persist.
It has kept the Neutered EU poodle where it wants it for the past 70 years, in its box. What could it achieve with out so much US oppression. Just imagine how free we might all be if Russia was able to Join the EU and push back against the puppet master? So what does the EU need to do? Grow a pair.
Doesn’t look like it ever will.
Great monologue. Shame that the simplicity of getting a microphone to peoples asking questions wasn’t mastered!!!!
They just want to lecture us.
They are scared. Really scared of Putin.
If Putin was not winning, why be scared?
Perhaps a response wasn't prioritized.
Technology will come if needed
I bet they did not realize they were speaking to half a million viewers within 7 days...
@@AndreasDelleske Yep, people are really searching for real info. Not some fake party line!
The credibility of these institutes is totally out the window for me. They are so consistently wrong is not even funny anymore.
Agreed. The only person worth listening to from Brown is Blyth and even he gets foreign diplomacy wrong by believing the US state media geopolitical narratives.
Ukraine is trying to raise a million man army. Yet this guy is talking about U.S. boots on the ground.
@@dmiller9786 Ukraine recaptured most of the territory lost, Ru units are tired and depleted... yet this guys still thinks the Ru are gonna win soon..
@@freedomordeath89 not soon but eventually
@@ChicanoBarbarian13 Eventually HOW? based on what actual DATA? The actual DATA shows that Ukraine has more manpower, more money and weapons from NATO, while Russia is alone, without manpower since they cant call ofr mobilization and they are going bankrupt. There's NO LEND LEASE for russia like in 1942. They are done in the long run. Anyone who doesnt see it, its in DENIAL like nazis in 1943 still hoping for a victory "in the long run"
Я много улыбался, смотря это видео. Всегда интересно смотреть как умный человек умалчивает о сути конфликта и много говорит о частностях. Я вообще разочарован в западном аналитическом сообществе, такое впечатление что им просто не хочется говорить правду о многих мировых событиях.
? Could you please elaborate? I am actually interested in this.
@@turbochad69I have midnight, tomorrow, ok?
@@user-xz4all np
American "intellectuals", at least those sponsored by the military industrial complex, are the usual ill-educated, unilingual, provincial mediocrities spouting tiresome clichés and NATO talking points.
The standard or msm western view is very very limited, kind of: I look out one of my windows, and what I see in this moment is all of the truth that I ever need to know.
Jerzy, I would like you to explain on what basis you deem this fellow’s knowledge to be superficial. Specifically, what details we should know about are lacking in his presentation?
What about Putin’s grandiose dreams of “Russki Mir”? What about his desire to re-establish the Soviet empire as part of his legacy? What about his church’s beliefs that the Russian empire should ultimately extend to the Atlantic? I think you blame the West too much. Putin wanted a pretext for recovering all of the former Soviet states. If NATO hadn’t extended westward, Putin would’ve simply found another pretext for his desire to recover Russia’s past glory.
You are 100% correct and a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle are being completely naive and playing into Putin's rhetoric.
If only there was any actual verifiable evidence of *Russia's* NOT "Putin's" geopolitical hegemonic lusts. You'd think Syria would have been a perfect victim, no nothing there, Georgia attacks a pro Russian breakaway region and they went in there and pasted that tie eating whack job and didn't even interfere with the oil pipeline transiting through Georgia when they could have done so justifiably, but no they got out of Georgia proper fast having dealt a brutal lesson, so there you go, you're turn, where has Russia expanded into, even in Chechnya they're all buddies again now that the Saudi/US astro turfed whack jobs are all nicely dead thanks to fine work by Spetnaz.
Russia will only perk up if the Russian minorities begin to be persecuted. Like in East Ukraine, soon to be Novorossyia.
Not for nothing, but the idea of incorporating Ukraine in the West as been a goal of the West quite literally for centuries. This is because of the grain more than anything else as Western Europe can't produce enough food to feed it's own population. Ukraine is the great prize of the region, and it's much better for the West to have it than for the Russians to have it, not only for the West but also for Ukraine.
Not only that, this has a lot more to do with Ukraine as an economic danger to Russia rather than military one. Russia considered their circumstances at a point of no return where they need to cause damage for trillions to make sure Ukraine would not compete with them as resources and goods exporter for at least a decade. I think they were fully aware that the West would move away from their dependence either way just a bit slower. But this way the dictatorship stays for longer due to fear of larger conflict and a Ukraine that cannot thrive economically for another decades means no Russians getting any ideas about regime change. They also expect the world to go to sh*t where dictatorships will have an easier time not letting people in and controlling people during hard times whereas democratic countries will have to deal with migrants, unenmployment, mass protests etc. Whatever happens though, Russia is doomed by their chauvinism and will never recover.
@@connorkenway09 Much is valid in your comment, but I think it's mostly a personal thing for Putin and the Oligarchs. A Democratic Ukraine seriously threatens their existence as a criminal class. Too many Russians are related to too many Ukrainians. What I find most intriguing is the long term effect most of the Ukrainian population of military age taking Western military training where they are being taught the principles of distributed authority and individual initiative in dealing with immediate problems arrived at through group consultations and democratic debate. The related problem along those lines in the US is the vast majority of the population does not receive that kind of an education to problem solving, voluntary cooperation and democratic discussion. Pity.
Wow sounds just like the same conversation the US had about Europe at the start of ww2 .
Please read history, it would be helpful for a responsive and responsible guy like you. After all , it is guys like you and me who fix a policy. No offense, bro but a suggestion. Thanks and Peace.
Peter - EXACTLY!!! And the same old rhetoric that preceded Iraq/ Afghanistan/Libya and Syria. Not to mention Lebanon/Egypt/Etitrea/Somalia/Ethoipia/Yemen. The Vampire Parasites and their attack dogs NATO and the MAFIA will never be content until they own ALL the world's resources and are left with only a few slaves to work their precious metal/diamond/opal mines and oil drilling rigs.
What is so special about Ukraine all of a sudden? Open Wiki and see what they are sitting on. Billions in untapped resources that the investors have already paid a deposit on. That's why they won't negotiate with Russia. For after Ukraine it will be on to Russia that has more minerals and precious resources than ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER.
Never forget the role of Rothschild and Rockefellers who actually control the whole shebang.....
The Minsk accord of 2015 and signed in the UN, should have been implemented. That’s it. Any arguments regarding the conflict outside that is just bull.
Thank you.
Europe and Ukraine have admitted that never had any intention of honoring the men’s agreements. They immediately begin shoving Northeast Russian speaking areas. Which they are still doing this brought on the war. The “sanctions“ that we have put on Russia nothing more than a self destroying embargo on ourselves worse than the era Boylan pargo of the 70s so stupid that it must be on purpose.
Russia didn’t illegally annexed Crimea Crimea voted 95% to annex themselves to Russia. The Russian Navy has already been in Crimea since the 1700s it was still at their deep port in Sevastopol. Enter tally Asian the lovely Ukrainians cut off the water supply to the peninsula. One of the first things the Russians did when they invaded this time of blow up the damn
Ukrainians are a bunch of Nazis and we financing train them
Ukraine signed and did not adhere to it as the Nazi's and far right were in charge, not the presidents. Russia had all the right to do what they did after the LPR & DPR requested Tussian assistance to stop Ukraines planned invasion. The only way Tusdia could legally do it was recognise the two regions as independent republics.
RT repeatedly cites OSCE reports as evidence that Ukraine violated Minsk. However, the OSCE reports clearly indicate that Russian forces repeatedly violated Minsk, not Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia vetoed Ukraine's attempts to pass UN resolutions to send blue hat peacekeepers to enforce Minsk. If Putin was interested in adhering to Minks, he would have supported a mission to implement the accords instead of vetoing the proposal.
Западное общество деградирует, это видно по решениям,которые принимаются сейчас, аналитика так же не глубокая, видимо проблемы вопросов местоимений и гендерной принадлежности для них важнее... дефицит кадров приводит к изменениям ,которые мы сейчас наблюдаем... Что ж.... История нас рассудит...
Misreading or not or open door for negotiations or not is totally irrelevant,Miniput have had these plans for making Russ.great again ( havent I heard these words before from another presi?) since he started out as a kgb agent in Germ.,he has never been interested in negos!!
You can't learn history reading biased history disseminating the propaganda of western terrorists!
Yet his last two offers werent even responded to
If the USA should have used negotiation as a tactic to delay Russia's deployment of a military option, then surely that's an admission that there was little expectation of good faith negotiation and therefore why imagine Russia was negotiating in anything like good faith to begin with?
In the Balkans 30 years ago, the Vance-Owens negotiations achieved nothing but delay to the international response to the escalating ethnic-cleansing that was taking place - those negotiations were being held with bad faith actors and were used as cover by the Serbian forces to continue its depopulation strategies.
Russia's intentions are clear: Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine. Their methods are deadly and their stock of good faith is nil.
An early defeat is a less costly defeat - allowing Adolf Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia without opposition created a much more powerful opponent that inevitably had to be faced later on. Europe has learned that lesson and that's why they are acting on the Ukraine invasion.
What happened to Minsk ?
Take it from their viewpoint. NATO is pushing towards their borders (What for?) If they do not fight them in Ukraine, they will fight them at the gates of Moscow, just as they did couple of times before. This is about power projection, and nothing else.
@@robrob9050 NATO's been on their border since 1947, in Turkey.
NATO only exists because of regimes in Russia that want to impose tyrannical regimes over other countries.
NATO does not exist to invade other countries,l and never has done so.
Russia has invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Their intention is clear and it has nothing to do with NATO.
@@xcrockery8080 So it's okay with US if the regime is in own country, without invading anybody?
@@robrob9050 Correct! You have the right to ruin your own country, until your regime becomes a problem for other countries.
He said there are no boots on the ground, who do you think are using these new weapons being sent, the remnants of the ukraine military, french ,germans , americans are there and are getting thrashed
Washington was the only ones who said Russia would invade.
What was striking about this lecture was a marked absence of anything new or insightful for even an average newscycle consumer. I suppose most foreign relations experts are busy figuring out how they possibly misread Putin so badly over the past decade and how to now avoid putting their foot in it again. While Graham's article from January is better than most in this respect both perilously ignore the economic angle altogether and that's why they were so shocked - Putin cannot let a major post-soviet country economically succeed on its own (or helped by the West - hence NATO as a strawman scare) as it would be the automatic undoing of his inward cleptocracy. And Ukraine under Zelenskyi was clearly headed away from him in that regard. So it is a survival fight even for Russia - for Putin's version of it, that is.
Putin was expecting that Ukraine would fall in 3 days and that russians would praise him as a great leader. Oh boy, did he EFF up.
Great analysis. Also, for all the bluster and vocal spark, Putin was pretty clear in June/July when he wrote his casius beli essay against Ukraine. Sometimes when people tell you who they are... we should believe them!!!
What even more remarkable is the total silence about reasons for this war that's internal to Russia - the issue of the transit of power, and so on. honestly, he sounds just like another Putin's mouthpiece - Russia had a legitimate concern, it's the West's fault for not making a compromise, USA and Russia should sit down and "negociate" the fate of Ukrain Yalta-style.
Excellent comment👍 Thanks
@@Fallen420chan
We know what Putin is : a thug...
And he proves it again and again.
Victim blaming, it's like Nelson (Putin) to Martin (Zelensky) from the Simpsons ... stop hitting yourself (Nelson uses Martin hand to punch himself in the face) . . . the reason that Warsaw pact countries despise and fear Russian aggression is because they lived under the Soviet jackboot after the Ribbentrop - Molotov pact and end of WWII . . . nations and their people want to live free from tyranny and this means the western model though not without flaws is infinitely preferred over the authoritarian central planning model with Moscow and it's commissars at the centre
west and new world order are dying. after they done, we'll SINGLE PICK any individual about "opinions" and "thoughts" and will be proccessed in public trials (5 mins each criminal at best) before they are hung
The USSR is gone.
Hmm, like the US geriatric presidents, you seem have not noticed recent developments... the Soviet Union disappeared in the previous century... and the leadership of Ukraine has had its independence wrested from it by a bunch of thugs who cover their bodies in swastika tatoos.... clearly not the types who really object to jackboots... so long as they are the ones using them.
NOT WITHOUT FLAWS' HAHAHA THE US A CORRUPT AND DECADENT MODEL OF GOVERNANCE, DESTROYING COUNTRIES AS THEY PLEASE TO STEAL AND IMPOSE THEIR RULES. US IS A ROGUE STATE, NOT WITHOUT FLAWS.
@@docprune9922 It is alive in Putins heart, as well as in hearts of his supporters. Everyone of them believes that there is a war between Russia and USA.
What has been cut out at 52:00? The question is addressed at 56:16.
All you out there pray to G-D to resolve this war with mercy and gentleness.
He hasnt really said anything i havent heard or thought before
You are expecting too much. This is a mediocre college and mediocre professors. We already hear the best experts of our world in media. Humans aren't that smart. Temper your expectations
Why do I never come across the assertion, or assessment that Putin could simply not stand the fear that Ukraine would do better then Russia on all fronts, under democracy, and that this would contaminate Russia to also want democracy. (and to some extend that Putin also wanted to punish Ukrain for wanting to abolish autocracy.) Sure, Ukraine is also tremendous food supplier and geographicly important, but if Russia had decided to compete with usa on grounds of less hypocrisy in matters of humanitarian and democratic goals - it would have won all the sympathy of the world it feels humiliating and is furious about not to have.
I did. I think it was an analysis by some Polish expert. He said almost exactly what you are saying: that it is insult for the Russian leaders, that people who are mentally so close to Russians can chose western values and political system, and do much better thanks to that. Perhaps we, Poles know Russians better. We fought with them, we were occupied by them, but also loved them. For instance my grandfather was Polish and grandmother was Russian :-)
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 why you are saying that Ukrainians are close mentally to Russians? That what Russian propaganda would say. And how recent events are backing your point?
@@vanone8454 Firstly: I was quoting somenone which was clearly indicated. Secondly: For the matter discussed it's more important how Russian powers are seeing this topic, then what is the real picture. And lastly: I knew closely people of many origins. From my experience Russians are very similar to us - Poles, while I can tell the same about Ukrainians. If you take an average German, Englishman, Aussie - there will be a noticeable difference in behavior. I am talking about averages, because there are for instance extreme Russian nationalists with whom I can't find a way to communicate. If we take two persons of a totally different social background - this can play a more significant role then ethnic origins. This is the war of the systems, not mentalities. Civil wars tend to be the bloodiest ones.
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 Ukraine today is doing to Russia what your grandfather patriotically did to Russia too.
Nothing to do with that.
NATO, Nazis, Donbas.
Not a word about the Maidan coup, the behaviour of the Zelenski regime and the violation of the Minsk agreement. Instead they stick to Western propaganda, leaving out context.
Where on Earth people assume Russia´s plan was to take Kiev in a few days? When a single Russian official even suggested taking Kiev was in their plans? I have not heard or read a single source citing a Russian authority admitted that was their original plan. Hours before the invasion, Putin in its speech set up four goals, and they have been working in them. And none of them was taking territory in central or western Ukraine.
I made it only to the 24th minutes. That was plenty enough. There is no proof whatsoever Russia used chemical weapons in Syria. Actually, the Syrian forces were accused, but it was quickly disproof as a propaganda maneuvering by the revels. The first speaker repeated too many Western points lacking any substance.