Ten Ways the Ukraine-Russia War Could End
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- Check out my books on Amazon (paid link): amzn.to/2SiQjlp
With the Ukraine-Russia War now going on for months, it is time to think about how it might end. This video covers ten of the most important possibilities, ranging from a complete Russian victory, to a Ukrainian upset, to World War III.
0:00 Introduction
0:18 Afghanistan Syndrome
1:41 Putin Removed from Office
2:42 Victory Day "Victory"
4:20 Putin Gambles for Resurrection
6:08 Negotiated Settlement
7:13 Zelensky Eliminated
8:13 Complete Military Defeat of Ukraine
9:27 Ukraine Destroyed
10:35 It Doesn't
12:10 World War III
Images licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By President.gov.ua:
www.president.gov.ua/photos/p...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.president.gov.ua/photos/u...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.president.gov.ua/en/presi...
By Kmu.gov.ua:
www.president.gov.ua/en/news/...
By mvs.gov.ua:
photo/?fbid=...
photo/?fbid=...
By dsns.gov.ua:
photo/?fbid=...
By Kremlin.ru:
www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden...
en.putin.kremlin.ru/2010-08
By mil.ru:
z.mil.ru/spec_mil_oper/media/...
Images licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By A.Savin:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
By Bundesarchiv:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bu...
By RIA Novosti archive:
visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/...
By Kremlin.ru:
state.kremlin.ru/president/allbio
Images licensed under CC BY 2.0:
By OSCE:
www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
Correction: at 9:44 it should be *eastward* (as the map illustrates), not westward.
⁰
Your whole video is baseless incoherent conjecture filled with half thruths and uneducated ill-informed opinions.
Chaundria ??
ruclips.net/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/видео.html
current ukraine gov not so innocent since they bomb 7 years donbass
they came in to power by cia shoot at protestors and guards to hide behind protestors shoot at guards plus obama did red line, all so hunter biden get even cheaper oil invest by deplete some of overall population
ruclips.net/video/V9rnoe18q3s/видео.html
wesley clark reveal 2000 to 2012 all rig for kill iraq to syria
ruclips.net/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/видео.html
dnc kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip
ruclips.net/video/UxoL8tHSa7g/видео.html
everyone remember nbc threaten follow jury with later to use thought police thugs? they gave protest t- shirts to san quan mayor puerto rico to lie about never receive hurricane maria aid
ruclips.net/video/qYmCtYLE9k0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/q566pifdnU4/видео.html
Ty so much for your input sir 🙏 but all else fails any American im in Ohio and my friends and family are 900k 5.56 deep
11. Alien invasion
12. Asteroid
13. Rapture
14. Supervolcano
15. Simian Flu
16. Supernova
17. Black hole gamma ray burst
18. Donald Trump
19. Canadian Truckers
20. Skynet
Now this is the content I was hoping to read.
@@Gametheory101 Possibly add: Putin does not long survive surgery to remove cancer and his successor has no stomach for inheriting Putin's war. Russians retreat and Putin is blamed.
Asteroid on Putin’s bunker?
21: Aquaman
Trump 2024
"NATO has drifted westward over time"
I think you either mean Ukraine has drifted westward or NATO has drifted eastward
haha, I caught that as well :)
L
?
@@romualdop.regondola6697 + ratio
NATO drifted westward, just very very far westward.
@@buddy1155 Except that is is the nations in the East that ASKED to become part of NATO, not NATO asking them to - in fact much of NATO was reluctant - I wonder why they asked - could it be they were next to RUSSIA?
What you haven't covered are economic scenarios.They may lead to one of the other endings , but can be of importance of their own. A fullscale economic war between Europe and Russia has many consequences. Europe depends much on the Russian ressources.
I think a better way of saying it is that a US led economic war on Russia will have massive consequences for Europe
Once the sanctions really kick in (which might take some time, though) Russia will be done.
Europe is already trying to find strategies to get independent from Russian oil and gas. Once that is solved, it's game over for Putin.
@@ratatatuff Europe was on its way to not need fossile fuels after 2050. But that is not in a few month that are many years. To get gas from other sources is really tough. It is so much easier to transport it in pipes than with ships.
@@uweengelmann3 But they are making more of an effort now. It will still take years but not three decades.
When the bulls fight, the grass will suffer. If USA and Russia went on an economic war, it would like to draw many Russian-resource-dependence countries' economy to collapse with barely any effect on USA and Russia themselves. Ukraine already cut 1/3 Russian oil route to Europe, meaning that they're shooting themselves and are shooting Europe, too. Many countries, NATO or EU or not, relies on Russian oil in Europe, now the trade has been cut down to 2/3, a lot of nations will suffer. Yet this is not even considering the hard response of countries such as Bulgaria and Poland who are very anti Russian, it will cause their economy and oil reserve going downhill because they did not accept to pay Russian oil with Gruppe so Putin will certainly cut all trade to the actively hostile countries.
The invasion started in 2014, it just kicked off into a higher tempo in 2022. This is going to end up as a multi year attritional war much like WWI. Russia has well dug in and fortified positions from their initial invasion in 2014, so while Ukraine will likely be able to push back most Russian gains since February, they will have a very difficult time dislodging them from Crimea, and the parts of Donbass they already occupied.
Ukraine can just keep shelling donbass and crimea till there's nothing left but dust.
Yeah they aren't getting Crimea back, although they may manage to sink most of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. They've been nice enough not to destroy the Kerch Strait Bridge
Civil war started in 2014.Maudsn revolution ! Orchestrated by Western agencies.Subversion of ukraine to proxy of western powers.You think Russia must watch ethnic cleansing by nazi Battalions in east ukraine which is Russian ethnic region.Looks like Russians don't have any rights at all in your world.
NATO's support will probably hold the Russians at a stand still, and if UK and/or U.S. get involved, I don't think Russia is going to have a very good time. However, I wouldn't be Surprised if putin attempts to take as much of the world with him as possible, using nucl*ar power, as a last ditch effort, once his joke of an army is getting f*cked too hard.
In the 40's they were about to be Germany's b*tch if the winter and Hitler's dumb commands didn't save their a**es
If Zelensky is eliminated nothing changes. Ukraine doesn't fight for him.
I dont think so. Zelensky says that Ukraine should fight till Russia give up. ( I think)
@@a_doma so? We are not fighting for Zelensky, and our government does not rely only on him. Even if he is eliminated, our govt will keep fighting till victory
@@a_doma it is likely that he says that to comply with nation, not other way around. After all that happened in these months, nothing less than victory AND full compensation from russian side can be accepted by people, and them there in high chairs understand this.
Imagine if the British had captured or killed George Washington. Would American forces collapse? No, but it would have had a massive effect on the morale of both the British and the American combatants. The British would have been energized and the Americans would have -- at least briefly -- been in disarray.
There are big differences, of course: Washington was a direct, hands-on military leader. Zelensky is not. Zelensky is extremely effective at rallying his people and the world on a daily basis. That simply wasn't possible in the 18th century.
Still, I think we should not underestimate the importance of key individuals like Washington, Napoleon, Castro, and Zelensky.
@@kennethsizer6217 We fight for country, not some "strong leaders"
The major problem with these ways is that it's completely gives Ukraine no action or motivation. Putin might have started the war, but he's not the one that ends the war. The war only ends when both sides agrees on it. As we seen so far the Ukrainian side, strengthen by it's ability to throw the Russian from northern Ukraine, has made it abundantly clear that they see no other possibility(as for now) that the war only ends when the pre-2014 borders are restored. Far from agreeing on any concessions of giving up any Ukrainian territory. The terror that Russians has unleashed on the civilian populace and with the bombing of civilian infrastructure only strengthen their resolve. If you follow the information and discussions on the Ukraine side they have shifted their mindset from fighting to survive, to fighting to win.
P.S. Ukraine has never been in a civil war. They have had parts of their country annexed or infiltrated by Russian forces. If those forces would leave the Donbass regions those will fall like a house of cards. The only reason that they are still fighting is that Russia is pumping in massive amount of money into the hands of people, best described as mafia.
Ukraine is being manipulated as a kind of proxy war for the US. Noticeable by the raising of the USA rhetoric, why isn't the USA interested in peace?
@@davidpocock2205 what are you saying? they're motivated because their country is being invaded and their fellow citizens are being slaughtered
@@davidpocock2205 I'd say its because russia invaded them. Destruction of your home and death of friends and loved ones is a pretty good motivator to fight.
And USA is not interested in peace because this can fuel the MIC while brutally weakening russia at the same time. And they get to be good guys again.
Win Win Win.
@@davidpocock2205 Yet again giving Ukraine no own motivation to throw out the invader. Having your loved ones raped and pillaged usually is a good motivator to throw out those perpetrating in such actions. The US AND the EU helps Ukraine at their best ability to be able to withstand the onslaught of those who attacked them. Or do you feel that Ukraine has no right of existence and deserves whats been done to them?
Thank you for your view.
It is very logical.
The analysis is good, thank you. However, remember, you just **cannot** call the annexation of Crimea and dropping russian military forces onto eastern parts of Ukraine 'a civil war'! It is not a civil war, it is a hybrid war between russia and Ukraine, taking place since 2014
I was just about to say that. After hearing that, this channel lost all credibility to me. That's what happens when westerners analyse Ukraine without knowing anything about the country.
A long history exists that should be better understood. Thanks Viktor
@@user-py7hh5vo3l No, it doesn't; and it's Kyiv by the way.
Moscow was first mentioned 6 centuries after Kyiv was founded.
@@yakubiv yes thanks for both corrections
Well the donbas was always a pretty problematic area considering the fact that they wannted to join russia and all.
I believe Putin made his descision to go through with the invasion after seeing Afghanistan. The Kiev attack in the north was Putin seeing how Afghanistan let the Taliban walk right into Kabul and he expected the same for Ukraine.
And now he have Russian Afghanistan 2.0.
Yep, Russia understimated 2 times a country who acted weak and was more powerful than a Powerful Military Country
@@alejandrolizarraga3924 Ukraine is being heavily supplied with weapons from abroad and for Russia being the invader it has less troops here, because some military force must stay in the country. Also ukrainians fight on their land, therefore have a strategic advantage (for example, they blew up some of their reservoirs to slow down russian army). Even with all these factors summarized Ukraine still manages to slowly succumb to the russian forces on the battlefield. So I wouldn't call Ukraine "more powerful", but it's not weak, nonetheless.
@@drunkisaac5152 Ukraine fights on their land? Russia fight on land that was Russia for more than 1000 years.. not 100.. 1000 years..
@@ludimilojko546 by calling it "their land" I meant to say that current generation of ukrainian government and military is more accustomed to this territory than russian one. Believe me, as russian myself I know about Kiyevskaya Rus, Zaporozhskaya Sech, Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth, etc. But through the flow of history this land was reshaped by infrastructure, wich makes an advantage for ukrainian army and disadvantage for russian army.
what disgusts me the most about a WW3 situation is it's always a case of "you hit me, so now i *have* to hit you back *even harder* "
in other words, destruction of everything on this planet as we know it would be done through *voluntary actions* of just a small handful of people.
i agree
If more of you people would have just rolled over and died of Covid like Oligarchs had planned then it would not have come down to WW3. The only people who will die in war are the poor.
ruclips.net/video/L7uXAHES-Ng/видео.html
yeah. i wish usa had some sort of interception thingie to take a ru nuke and turn it around, sending it right back where it came from, like a ball in a game of tennis.
or, perhaps, have ru nu-clear weap0ns facilities under some space laser all the time, and if a nuke is launched - strike it right at the site before it has even left the hatch. i mean, they must have some opening with some sort of door which will start opening if it's being launched, so then a laser takes a standby position, and as soon as missile shows up - immediate strike. best way to avoid casualties on the defending side - expl0de it in where it came from.
I don't believe WWIII is synonymous with a nuclear exchange. It CAN be, but not necessarily.
Ukraine has apparently stated that the only peace treaty they will accept is complete return of all illegally taken territory. This is now a total victory or nothing situation for both.
Wouldn't they have to say that. You don't start negotiations under what you want. You don't negotiate to sell a $100 dollar watch and start at $20 dollars. You ask for $150 and go from there?
Nobody in a negotiation shows their hand do they. Ukraine has no capacity to take back the territory and if it became even slightly likely, Putin would act.
A brokered ceasefire whilst both sides (Russia and NATO) rearm is far more likely
Not quite. From last time I heard the unaccettabile territory Is the per 2022 borders whic are not so far from what the front line look today. Total victory would mean go into Crimea or the pre 2022 occupied dombass.
😂
@@Spearca They were not! Don’t disinform audience! There had been intensely getting prepared for exactly this for near 10 years!
"A history of near misses does not guarantee future success."
Yup. Also worth mentioning there is a good amount of survivorship bias that could be going on. If worldlines where nuclear conflicts happen stifle population growth in favor of dispersed populations and bunkerized construction, and kill off a few billion people in the initial exchange plus any fallout or nuclear winter effects, we're significantly less likely to look back and see that history because there would be fewer people in those worldlines actually doing so. By default, history their has a bias in favor of unreasonable, statistically unsound optimistic population growth. The future need not have such a bias.
In fucking un confusing English ffs
"statistically unsound population growth" umm yeah that's bullcrap. The Earth is NO WHERE NEAR capacity. Overpopulation is a myth, easily disproved by physics. The real cap on the planets capacity is heat, not food production or space or anything like that. Population growth has always meant increased standards of living as more bodies are available to preform more jobs and we get more and more hyper specialized tasks done. More people means more scientists solving problems, more Einstein's born every year. As long as productive outlets can be found for expanding populations, they are nothing but a boon. At no point in human history has a country or region going thro a population collapse ever been better off than a country going thro a population boom. There is not a single example of this. The myth of overpopulation is perpetuated by eugenicists and alarmist activists infecting academia, it's simply untrue by historical patterns and just basic physics.
Even when growing populations engage in wars the net benefits to the human condition are obvious. The Italian wars raged while the Renaissance and early modern era population boom swept out from northern Italy. The Industrial Revolution saw the most evil wars in human history but ushered in Pax Americana, a bizarre period of world history with very few wars of low intensity by every metric. Rather than dozens of wars occurring globally, only a handful have been ongoing at any time, this is a stark decrease to normal patterns in world history. Meanwhile the global standards of living have increased. And population doubled twice.
While survivorship bias is real, what you're proposing there relies heavily on an unfounded assumption: that if you have an equal likelihood of being born as any sentient individual in any universe.
For example, imagine that the "equal likelihood" applies not to sentient individuals, but any individual lifeform. The microbial sterilization that has occurred as a result of human civilization means there are far less bacteria than on a planet lacking a civilization. And whether it does or doesn't is moot, since the odds of being a human out of all the lifeforms on the planet is astronomically small.
I don't really see how population growth comes into it. We might have a systematic bias is favour of 'events not wiping out humanity', but proportion of people killed doesn't tend to impact whether an event is remembered in history (might be complicated historically by whether there was anyone to write stuff down, but regardless, we still tend to know the thing happened, even if we have to rely on secondary sources).
Afterall, the Black Death killed up to 50% of the European population in less than a year, and we definitely know it happened.
6/18/22..much enjoy yur videos; no fluff, just right to main points with numerical priorities. Great research, maps, animated graphics..just a 1st rate presentation! Thx & carry on Sir!👍👍👍😊
2021 levels of intensity: not intense at all. In 2019-2021, the Donbass saw only 25-27 civilian fatalities per year, with over half due to landmines, according to the UN.
ruclips.net/video/L7uXAHES-Ng/видео.html
"Only 25-27" Like that's not high at all.. Jesus, this is humans.
@@AwesomeRepix 100 people die every second on avarage
@@AwesomeRepix For a war zone? I hope you live in the real world, bud.
@@aapomaatta9211 And? This is civilians getting killed for no reason, just because 100 die every second doesn't mean it needs to be 125
You missing one big detail about WWIII, if there is a Nuclear exchange between US and Russia, Its not just the targeted cities that will be destroyed, the resulting nuclear winter will mean the whole word will suffer severe famine. Billions would die.
he just said that, were you even listening?
not necessarly. modern studies shows that nuclear winter can be an overestimation
That’s just 1980s era fear-mongering of all things nuclear. There is capability to not only survive a nuclear war, but win a nuclear war. The nukes of today are too few in number, and even today it’s not going to be as destructive as say; a supervolcano in southeast asia changing the seasons themselves. You have to know where to hit however and it would still admittedly be very destructive.
@@vadimromansky8235 ah yes a nuclear winter from 5-10 gigatons of tnt is totally overestimated
Nuclear winter is overhyped fear mongering from the 1980s based on limited data of the time and bad analysis.
A full out nuclear exchange would still destroy a lot of modern civilization and would cause untold death in the millions, but it wouldn’t cause a world ending post apocalypse situation
Hello William,
I truly enjoyed your detailed analysis of 10 ways to end the war between Russia and Ukraine! Good job! 🥳
The 'Civil War starting in 2014' was just the first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Though there were was some local support for independence/unification with Russia in Donbass and Crimea, the strength of the separatists came entirely from unmarked Russian Soldiers. The political and military leadership of the breakaway puppet states remains dominated by Russian officials that weren't born in Luhansk/Donetsk and never lived there prior to the war. I think calling it a Civil War de-emphasises the fact that the Russo-Ukrainian War started with the 'little green men' entering Crimea on 23/2/14, and the Donbass front began on 12/4/14 with the 'little green men' attacking Donetsk.
Leonid Pasechnik - Leader of the Luhansk People's Republic, nationality, Ukrainian, education, Donetsk High Military Political school.
Alexander Zakcharenko was also a Ukrainian seperatist, leader of Donetsk, up untill his assasination in 2018, after which Denis Pushilin, also a Ukrainian, was appointed leader, graduated from Donbas National academy of civil engineering of architecture
The irony of people such as you speaking about Russian trolls and propoganda, yet here you are speaking with little research
Both Luhansk and Donetsk leaders are educated men, with Ukraine as their birthplace, resisting against a regime that decided to choose being a western puppet instead of a Russian ally back in 2013, they accepted a government that was put in power through a coup waving flags with SS symbols.
Crimea is a large minority Ukrainian, but majority Russian, and the region was ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev, who was a Ukrainian Soviet dictator, who never even graduated from 4th grade, his little proud spirit gave his home country a land dominated by Russians, and Russia took it back.
NO ONE HAS DECLARED THIS A WAR. this is not war
@@cinnamonstar808 Don't have to "declare" a war to have one - just have to invade another country. Only a Spy would call it a "special Military Operation" - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is still a duck, no matter what you call it.
There are russians living in ukraine 10milions of them and they not like curent ukrainian government
@@cinnamonstar808 no murder trial is officially happening, therefore the dead guy with a dagger in their chest has not been murdered.
During the Vietnam war, there were many Anti Vietnam war groups in US; Therefore, US had to withdraw the military. Russia and Ukraine war is totally different, there are more than 40 countries supported Ukraine to fight off invaders, Russian military.
I don't understand the difference.
The only difference I see is that Ukraine is way more important for Russia than Vietnam for the US, also symbolically. This is also why you don't see much opposition against war in Russia.
The Soviet government, at least in part, funded the antiwar movement to weaken the USA.
@@giuseppecappelluti3626 From listening to Russians my view of why you don't see opposition from the public is that there is a belief opposition is pointless. I will qualify this by adding that there is in fact opposition, and opposition has been met with arrests. Displaying even a blank sheet of paper can lead to arrest. Keep in mind these are not all 15 years in Siberia offenses, but enough of a disruption to ones life to make many think hard about the risk.
USSR supported Vietnam so they can kill US dogs. (and the killed a lot of them)
@@DAndyLord I don’t know how relevant it is. The war was unpopular among Americans themselves. America - and the West as a whole - was undergoing epochal social changes: after the primary needs of the population were fulfilled, the secondary ones gained prominence (“vogliamo anche le rose”). It was the time of the Beat Generation, the hippies, the flower power and so on.
On the other hand, many people were sent to war against their will, the war was not going well for the US at all, and this further bolstered the popularity of the anti-war movement.
The "overwhelm" security and brute forces in Russia won't happen, as it has a lot of police, a national guard - rosgvardia, OMON, SOBR, FSB and many more layers of security that are still under direct control of the government. Potentially it isn't possible for other reasons too, as such rather big support of this regime, or at least some kind of defense to it, it always goes like "Better this, that US" or it comes down to whataboutism with "US attacked Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and got away with it, no one sanctioned them", or something else, then there's just not enough of potential revolt, those who are against this regime are already left the country or thinking about doing so in the future, rather than fighting for a dead cause. It'll likely be a palace coup, than revolt around the whole country
You downplay the importance of Serbia, for many of us it is not another country torn apart by NATO, but our own tragedy
Классно ты конечно пишешь про Ливию Ирак Сербию как будто тебе насрать на сотни тысяч погибших МИРНЫХ жителей 🤡🤡🤡
@@UtDanik пожалуйста, научитесь читать, прежде чем писать ваши гневные ответы
@@deblxdee ты же не кремлебот с промытими мозгами чтобы использовать войны гнилого изначально запада из-за денег как отмазку или причину поддержки спецоперации и Путинского режима в таком ключе??? Спецоперация хотя бы более благородные цели имеет - спасение русских на донбассе от укрофашистов готовых бомбить свой же народ лишь бы русских в чем-то обвинить. Никто из руководства да и из просто населения россии не мог предположить что в украине есть нелюди похуже нациков во 2 мировой войне там они хотя бы свой же народ не ранили и не убивали лишь бы русским их оставить на совесть советских медиков чтобы те помогли и потратили свои лекарства и продовольствие на раненых мирных. Даже сравнивать войну за деньги со спецоперацией противно.
@@deblxdee сравнивать спецоперацию и эти войны которые являются трагедиями для многих людей надо например рассуждая про последствия (санкции) говоря тот факт что Америку никто даже и не пытался остановить или осудить зато как Россия пальцем пошевельнет так надо сразу всем "цивилизованным" миром накинуться (так называемый цивилизованный мир которым правят деньги и США). Всем насрать что на русских что на каких-нибудь арабов.
Thank you. Also, almost no adds on your vids. This is amazing
If you are playing Chess you need to kill the king not the soldiers to make the game over.
Well said.
Well said, but completly wrong for Ukraine.
Maybe if Putin died, stuff would tone down.
Kill Zelensky?
Ukranians will just fight harder.
True, but this is life/ politics not chess. While in chess the game is over, in life another person becomes the king, with a totally different game and strategy.
Sometimes in politics it is better to have the devil you know ( and have all that intelligence on him) then the devil you don’t!
Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
This doesn’t work in real world , in reality you need to get rid of the soldiers first. Whether you agreed or not, This is reality
Not gonna work.. if the king dies, he just gets replaced by a possibly worse king.
Most if not all seem to suggest that Russia dictates when the war ends. I would suggest that as the defender the only side that gets to say how the war ends is the Ukraine. For example a May 9th declaration of mission accomplished has no sway over the Ukrainians who I would expect to continue until at s minimum a restoration of the pre-February borders if not a total restoration of its borders pre-2014 has been achieved unless they suffer major military reverses
Better end now before helping putin back
On May 9th Putin WILL NOT declare an all out war on Ukraine but he WILL announce that use of tactical nuclear weapons a.k.a. as "mini nukes" (payload less than 100 kilo tons) will shortly commence in the military operations areas.
Zelensky has been clear. Mariupol falls they won't surrender. They also, because they are winning, and the mass graves, would be very unpopular to end while they are squarely winning.
seems like it
Exactly
Gorbachev's "raise to power" has remote relation to Afghanistan. He was elected as Communist Party General Secretary in 1985 and USSR withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Certainly his attempts of political and economical reforms has something to do with Afghanistan, but not his election as a leader.
Gorbachev has the triple six mark of the beast!
@@Perririri based
I agree, although I would also say that the economic collapse that prevented the USSR from making a transition similar to China's under 邓小平 probably had everything to do with the economic cost of Afghanistan. The USSR actually was trying to do what Beijing did successfully from 1979 onwards, and Afghanistan + the Reagan-era arms race was most of what prevented a free market Soviet Union.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 No. There are several layers of the issue, hard to list it all in the short comment. The primary reason Gorbachev started reforms is the fact that he realized that soviet style centrally planned economy is ineffective, not flexible and does not allow to keep up with growing consumer and military technology in the West. The primary concern was that industry as the whole is reluctant to pick up and implement innovations. He did not have intention to go to reforms Chinese style and he did not have support among his highest soviet officials. That is why he decided to start from political reforms because democracy did not contradict with Marxist theory. Market economy did contradict with it, he could not declare publicly that market is better than centralized planning until he would have new elected officials and kick out the "oldies". This is the primary reason for collapse because elections brought lots of people with lots of different views including separatists, nationalists, liberals, etc. When Gorbachev and his partners realized they would be probably better off if they would start reforms Chinese style from the beginning it was too late (I am not sure it was possible at all but it is another story). Afghanistan contributed to political failure showing that poor people abroad are not just do not want to implement soviet style socialism but also willing to fiercely fight against it. Internally it was embarrassment too. USSR lost about 13,000 people in Afghanistan (during 10 years of war), for 250 million population it was nothing. But the fact that government brought a war home while declaring to be peaceful, treating war veterans as annoying beggars, bringing home drug dealing, etc. - that was the blow in their face which they did not survive.
@@gregdvorkin The decision to reform had already been made in 1979 before Gorbachev came to power.
YOU ALWAYS GIVE US THRILLING EXPLANATION. KEEP UP AND BE BLESSED. THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE INSIGHT YOU HAVE MAKE IT EASY FOR MANY TO HAVE A CLOSER GLIMPSE INTO THE CONFLICT PUTIN HAS INITIATED.
I hope things get better, feel so sad for the lives of the civilians out there 🥺 🥺 🥺
Bro they left ukraine
@@wehrmacht6294 No? People are still living in Ukraine
@@vortzplays some of them left some of them still living
My favorite ending is the one where “Right Back Where We Started From” by Maxine Nightingale kicks on and everyone starts dancing, hugging, and rebuilding.
We do know that the attack on Kiev was an enormus failure. Leaving close to 60 working tanks and close to 100 working combat vehicles behind you thus giving the enemy more than they have lost throwing you out is a total faliur.
Very informative
You didn't mention Ukraine totally defeating Russia on the battlefield.
because that's not a real scenario that can happen
Have you included US inginuity , in this assesment.
@@sinoroman I mean ukraine is kinda winning rn
@@littlebig3720 no ukraine is not winning
@@raptorsprod6957 they kinda are. I wouldn't say either side is winning though.
The analysis is very much flawed:
1) Ukraine has officially stated that the war goal is to drive Russia out of Ukraine, including crimea, and the US and the UK have committed themselves to help Ukraine achieve exactly that. Russia can´t ced that, as little as it can allow Ukraine to join NATO. So there can´t be any frozen conflict, settlement or Russia calling it quits.
2) World War III doesn´t necessarily involve strategic nukes. NATO intervening in Ukraine already constitutes WW III without the need for the use of strategic nuclear weapons, though it might involve tactical nukes or chemical agents. The fear of MAD might even let this war get stuck at a conventional level. This combined with two big powers committed to opposite goals without an option to back away, makes WW III sadly the most likely option - not to say inevitable.
More like your analysis is very flawed, the chronological order you put the events in are significantly circumstantial and the most pessimistic alternative. Based on how little the US intends to assist Ukraine, the likeliness we go to world war is minimal
Officially stated war goals don't matter all that much in the end. Just because Ukraine says it intends to restore pre-2013 borders doesn't rule out a negotiated settlement. Of course it's going to strive for total victory, but that doesn't mean it won't eventually settle for less.
Don't forget that Biden is in charge of USA's "red button" right now, and unlike Putin, this old man has some real problems with his mental health...
Iam sure this RUclips has no idea about Ukraine post 24th February 2022
the goals of both countries may change, and Russia, like Ukraine, may be satisfied with the existing option, where the borders were before the war
Amazing video
Excellent analysis
Here's a total longshot 11th option, but miracles occasionally happen: Putin has a St. Galgano moment. Galgano was a brutal soldier who had a vision of St. Michael telling him to turn his life around, whereupon he drove his sword into the ground and gave up war, becoming instead a monk doing penance for his sins in the military. Curiously, St. Michael is also the patron of Kiev.
Excellent analysis, Dolores.
Id love that.
That is actually very interesting thank you for the hystory lesson.
I’ve had conversations about this happening to Hitler before he shot himself in the bunker. If an angel were to show up in the final moments of someone’s life, of all people it’d probably be Hitler. I think he realized he made a terrible mistake and then took his life.
Possible but highly unlikely!!!
I think my crazy what if idea of Putin becoming the Green Goblin sounds more realistic
You had mentioned a coux. However you missed, what would happen if Putiin died from health reasons. Or logistically if Russia depletes it's military equipment, and has no helicopters or aircraft, or tanks. And what will the surrounding countries do, with there sanctions against Russia. There are more scenarios.
And if Russia runs out of soldiers... which I think it sounds like Russia is close to this depletion of equipment and manpower. And generals...
Russia is losing what allies it thought it had. Ukraine is getting more military supplies from many countries. This is unsustainable for Russia.
Coup de tat
Oh yes that's what the US had intended. They will fly in all their oil companies and start pumping out the oil and gas like no body business. From Russia, they hope to encircle China from the north. After conquering China, they will move westward and try to conquer India.
There us no end to US hegemony. They don't know how to live in peace. All they care is their own interests and their Anglo Saxon Supremacy.
@@nanhinting7447 the US doesn't need or want Russian oil, and we aren't randomly attacking the rest of the world.
this is not "Putin's war", the war will still go on after Putin. Russia has too many military hardware assets, they'll be fine
Loved the video
may 16, NOTHING ENDED
The dictator's dilemma, or why dictators fear democracy?
To explain what's going on in the Ukraine, there are proximate causes and there are ultimate causes and most of the news today is only covering proximate causes, hopefully the should elucidate what the underlying ultimate causes which are driving this conflict.
The dictator's dilemma describes a conundrum for dictators. They they usually have to do unconscionable and illegal things to get into power, and once they're in power they must escalate the level of repression, jailing and outright murder or genocide to retain their power and wealth.
If they ever lose power they will face trial resulting in jail or even execution.
They even have to worry about neighboring countries becoming democratic, because if this occurs their own people will start desiring democracy, which presents a threat to the dictator, like for some served after the Arab spring and the uprising of the people's desires was met with a brutal response.p
So the decision of a dictator can be viewed in the actions of a sociopath/psychopath, which often is "I will obfuscate, attempt, lie and attemt everything to delay, however once this fails it's 'if I'm going down I'm taking everybody with me".
I believe the above dictator's dilemma describes what's going on with Putin in Russia and in other dictatorial and authoritarian ruled countries and represents a great danger peace in our world.
Scientia Non Domus,
(Knowledge has No Home)
antiguajohn
antiguajohn@gmail.com
ruclips.net/video/L7uXAHES-Ng/видео.html
Good explanation, thank you
The dictator's dilemma, or why do dictators fear democracy and inject the masses with poison, gene therapy?
And in that way Ukraine fights for the future of the world, however childishly it sounds. Plus there is a side that even if dictator is exceptionally competent at governing(which Putin is clearly not) finding a successor is no easy task,and if propaganda wasnt preparing citizens for it we can assume there is none for Putin.
On May 9th Putin WILL NOT declare an all out war on Ukraine but he WILL announce that use of tactical nuclear weapons a.k.a. as "mini nukes" (payload less than 100 kilo tons) will shortly commence in the military operations areas.
I was a teenager during the Cuban crisis in 1962 and there was a threat of world war 3 at the time. It seems as if we are at that same level again
I really do not see it, NATO is not the equal of Russia, America alone is more than Russia's Equal, and NATO without the US is more than the equal of Russia.
The difference is, both the Soviets and the US were willing to make compromise to establish a deal to de-escelate back them, the Soviets pulled out of Cuba and US out of Turkey.
Today, the US makes no such compromise, and as you can see in their NATO summits, military intervention globally & lack of diplomatic attempts with Russia, have set on a very different path. Russia, as of 2008, also doing so.
No it's worse because no side is ready to make compromises this time. From russias point of view they are not fighting Ukraine. They are fighting the US and NATO.
@TAWOG The Cold War technically never ended, the US still views Russia as the enemy, when the USSR collapsed in 1991, it was rather obvious the US still viewed and clearly treated Russia as a political opponent, so, COld War maybe ended, but the geopolitical war not, the game changed, no more conventional A vs B with tanks & aircraft. Now, you see proxy wars, like in Ukraine.
WW3 started the moment WW2 ended, the only fools, are people who do not udnerstand all WWII ended, was conventional warfare as we approached a new era.
@TAWOG Please explain then. What is illogical about history?
I make those claims based on historical facts.
It is a fact the USSR is no longer since 1991.
It is a fact the US dropped the deals made aimed at global peace and instead increased nuclear amrs,expanded NATO & to Russias border at that.
It is a fact that Russia has been attempting to find diplomatic solutions to this military alliance expandign since 1990's as seen almost every year at UN council, famously in Munich 2008when Putin even attended a NATO summit. It is a fact that the US and Russia view each other as political enemies looking at the blatant economical war they're engaged in. It is a fact the US has acted provocatively towards Russia such as their assistance in the coup in Ukraine in 2014. And it is a fact that Russia see's NATO on their border as a national security threat, as they invaded Georgia to prevent such and now Ukraine.
you just jinxed the world in ten different ways. good going, champ.
Good work and God bless you we have to pray more than this amen 🙏 🙌 ❤️ 😊 ✨️ ☺️
"celebration were muted under yeltsin administration" - it's wrong. It's yeltsin who started parades every year, not every 5 years like in soviet era. The more far from war - the more tremendous celebration is
I think they meant to say that Putin is the one who started those tremendous celebrations, with all the military bragging and flexing, who ultimately changed the narrative from condemnation of the concept of war to its glorification
Honestly the most likely way it ends is simply economically, putting many if not all major countries into a depression. I mean honestly when was the last time a war was been ended via fighting then compare that to how many wars have ended via one side or the other ending the war due to it being no longer profitable to continue.
EU and USA have effectively infinite money...in a sense that they cannot run out not in a sense here have infinity of money ofc.
@@MasterBot98 Just because you can print "infinite" money doesn't mean anything, doing so just helps inflation raise at a quicker rate putting said locations into a depression, same reason why simply raising minimum wage doesn't help as much as people like to think because the money's numerical value doesn't mean all that much. Now what do I mean by that? Lets give two hypothetical situations where the average family income is let's just say double or triple that of minimum wage, doesn't really mater, heck we can say the average income is exactly minimum wage it makes zero difference and you will see why in a second. Lets now give two situations..
A) minimum/average income per hour is $10/hour and the cost of milk is $2.50 OR 15 minutes worth of average income work.
B) minimum/average income per hour gets changed to $10,000,000,000,000/hour what does that do to the cost of milk, well the milk's value has not changed at all milk is still worth 15 minutes worth of average income work and as such said milk now costs $2,5000,000,000,000 for that same milk.
In both A and B the milk costs exactly the same amount 15 minutes of average income work. The main issue with inflation is not the cost of the items themselves that for the most part except in very rare occasions tends to stay pretty neutral, the issue with inflation like that is how much it effects your savings if said savings isn't saved in a non monetary asset such as owning a home because those will increase in value roughly equal to the inflation even if a little bit behind, but your money savings losses value thus costing you money without you spending a dime.
As such, while printing money can be part of a solution to getting the economy rebooted there are a LOT of other things that also have to happen to get properly rebooted because people who saved enough money the first 60 years of their life to be able to afford a comfortable retirement, all that money saved up now buys a lot less no longer allowing them to live a comfortable retirement because their money has been devalued.
merely
@@hockeyhacker97 what I meant that it's not like they will hit a ceiling in a budget sooner then ceiling a production capacity or a political will or anything else
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it themselves."George Santayana
It may be educative at cool times but in the present scenario with hot headed mind set and tensed situation feeling safe and soothing is only possible is by ending war
Say, come Victory Day, Russia were to claim victory over Eastern and South Eastern Ukraine and start pulling their troops back… I‘m sure Ukraine won‘t stop fighting, and continue to do so to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Either way, Russia will continue to suffer, and hopefully Ukraine can successfully shut off and trap the tens of thousands of Russian troops in and around Izyum.
I don't think if Russia can pull back his soldiers instated Russia will add more military to support those break away from Ukraine
In reality, It's Ukraine's troops that are getting encircled right now in Donbass.
At the start of this conflict, Ukraine had ~110 000 soldiers in Donbass and now, from estimates of USA's intelligence service, they have only ~50 000 there.
It means that ~60 000 ukrainian soldiers were either killed, became POW's, deserted or retreated (unlikely).
@@lovepeace9727 cope warriors I see.
You see Vladimir, I really love BMP BBQ videos recorded from Bayraktars.
Keep them orcs coming
@@lovepeace9727 lol. 110 000 soldiers estimated by who? By Russia?
Just shows that you have no clue about how military works, if you believe this bullshit.
110k people is more than 150 Batallion Tactical groups. It's more than double(almost triple) of what's necessary to start an offensive on a whole Donbass line of contact. Gathering so much troops becomes counterproductive.
Not to mention that Ukraine surely did not focus 2/3s of their pre-mobilization army on one direction in the light of Russia gathering almost 300k troops around Ukrainian borders.🤦🏻
The war would be over in a few days if this 110k bullshit was true.
I guess Russia could've claimed that Ukraine gathered 100 million troops on Donbass and some dumbasses would still believe.
1. Блокада портов.
2. Голодомор 2.0.
Вот и все. Зачем танки, когда можно перекрыть порты и уничтожить голодом ?
It's interesting to see how this one has aged. So far it seems we went option four, the "Gamble for resurrection", and it's leading to an option 11 which really should have been here: A complete military defeat for Russia. Last time an expansionist tyrant wanted to conquer territory in Europe it took 6 years to bring him down, I don't think this one will last nearly as long.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to ww3 I mean you would think world leaders don’t want to lose their country
Are you prepeared to catch nuclear missle with your mouth?
It would take forever for any of this to lead anywhere, so long that the results are completely unpredictable. The manpower required to push the russian army out of crimea, donetsk and lugansk would be gargantuan, just like the manpower required to take on the entire country for russians. Putin says that the goal is "complete denationalization" of ukraine, ukraine says that it will not accept any peace treaty until russians fully withdraw from the entire ukraine. This is a war of attrition
Everything you have said I've been thinking the same. Well some of it. I learned a lot as well. There one thing people don't talk about much is nuclear safety equpment failure. Especially with nuclear alert gong on. That's not the fault of a human. But by technology. Interesting show. Keep it up. 👍😊
Well opinion ! Very accurate and only Power of the nature decides the end point to the war. An accurate philosophy of the war game.
Most important and the most possible scenario which have not been present here:
Ukrainian complete victory and restoration. Its borders from 2014 ( Crimea Penisula included) .
Russia is finished by Chineese/Japaneese actions (Japan is still at war with Russia at the present day) and will dissapear from the map in 10 years. You forgot about most important issue:that
Since 24th of February Russia is no longer a chess player on the. chessboard but merely a chessman. So any possible outcome of this war won"t be preffered one by russian federation
ruclips.net/video/L7uXAHES-Ng/видео.html
Вы для начала Крым спросите ,хотят ли они в состав Украины.Крымчане больше всего боятся вернуться в украину.Донбас кстати тоже.
@@user-cn8od3gn3v west plays chess, Russia plays checkers
I agree with you 🙏🤞
Is this on what Ukranians spend those 33 billion $ Biden gave them? On third rate shitty bots?
I think that since the scary Slavic bear has now proven to be a koala bear, some 10 year old girl will take it as a pet.
12:10
"Tanc a Lelek" starts softly playing in the background
1983 was one frightening high tensioned year. You didn’t mention Able Archer in your 83 segment which really surprised me. But otherwise your video was excellent.
Victory day was not a major holiday until Pucin took power. In the USSR it was just a regular holiday not the flamboyant celebration it is now.
Also it was not celebrated with parades and stuff for 20 years after the war
@@eduardpoliakov3738 Jap.
There's also the very cursed ending where Ukraine annexes all of Russia
You mean very best ending
@@Djm95454 yeah but it's also pretty cursed tbh
11. Chuck Norris simply says STOP!!
All it takes is one person with the patience and skill, and “a convertible ride in Dallas” type situation.
The way things are, with russkies reliance on contract soldiers from central Asia, a slow bleed out seems likely. It will be painful for all concerned.
Worth noting that a Ukrainian military defeat is followed by an occupation. That Russia can expect a steady drip of dead soldiers every day that they maintain occupation, and the number they lose will depend on the population of the occupied area.
Judging by losses in Kherson and Mariupol they should expect 1 dead Russian soldier per day per 100,000 population in occupied areas (current population, those who fled Russia won't be killing occupation troops).
So if they occupied all of Ukraine and 38 million Ukrainians stayed, they would lose 380 Russian soldiers per day, or 138 thousand a year, until they gave up and left.
As aid from the US and other Western nations increase, the odds of a Ukrainian defeat decrease substantially. Russia's atrocities have made aiding Ukraine popular with both political parties, and, it seems, the population in general. V for Victory.
Thats why they will on annex the pro-russian donbass
@@starmnsixty1209 Actually Russia's anti-civilian atrocities and genocide seem to be designed to kill or force into exile ALL Ukrainians in whatever territory they think they can occupy, thus eliminating any p0ossibility of a restive population that would support guerrilla forces in those areas. Actually I believe one Russian officer admitted as much.
Of course, as with Russia's penchant for faulty strategy, it would be just as likely to presume that embittered Ukrainian survivors might take their revenge within Russia itself, since they tend to speak Russian and are generally ethnically indistinguishable from the Russian population. That could make virtually any potential target within Russia itself vulnerable to terrorist acts, with the likely outcome unending instability within an already weakened and declining Russia.
Russia's best option is to draw this fighting to a close--but of course nobody's asking for my opinion.
@@salahabdalla368 pro-Russian or formerly pro-Russian?
I have heard that between the criminals Russia has put in charge, the economic effects of the revolt, and the drafting of almost all fighting age men that the population of the Donbus generally don't like Russia any more.
Oh, and the artillery shelling of the population, I suspect that has made folks who lost homes unhappy. Oh and all the thefts, especially stealing the food which will likely create a famine just like earlier famines Russia has caused in Ukraine by taking all the food.
True, but the Russians may use the soviet tactic of deportation. I am pretty sure they are already doing that in eastern ukraine
This feels like if Nile Red did videos about war
There is a factor regarding Russia alot of people forget I think. When the USSR collapsed Russia's economy collapsed as well. Russia was forced to sell off a huge percentage of Thier arms stockpile to basically keep the lights on. The liquidation included Thier nuclear weapons as well, it was so well known it became something of a trope. The idea they have somehow managed to rebuild Thier stock of nukes to pre collapse levels would be nearly impossible. If you factor in the performance of Thier military and the abysmal upkeep of equipment the possibility that Russia no longer has a functional nuclear weapon at it's disposal is atleast a possibility.
It only takes one to kill a hundred thousand though.Could there really be zero nukes operational? Probably not. Some of their cruise missiles work, so it's not a stretch to say the weapons in Kaliningrad still work
@@estiar1956 Yes, they had a test month before last. It was more a question of warheads. That being said it's nothing that could be gambled on of course. It has to be assumed they have all the weapons they claimed to the IAEA.
Russia ranks 5th in terms of spending on armaments, and do you believe that we have missiles that were lying somewhere 40-50 years ago, and that's all there is?
@@user-yj5jg8xs2p Russia did rank 5th on spending that is true. The only problem is that's outdated information. That's information based on a study compiled by the UN and the IAEA between 90 and 95. Beyond that study countries basically have to take each other's word for it.
We also know that when the Soviet Union collapsed, they liquidated over 95% of Thier military stockpile. This was the most heavily scrutinized sale in history due to a concern some terrorist group could end up with a high yield nuke. Nobody, including Russia wanted to see some doomsday cult or hyper extremest terrorist end up with a weapon of mass destruction.
So, if you want to trust that Russia was 5th in military spending, than you have to trust the rest of the information as it all came from the same source.
@@thegreatestdane8978 Even half of nuclear is more than the whole world in total, if you exclude the USA, so relax, there's enough for you
I find it kinda funny that he's calling the 2014 invasion a "civil war"
this war started since 2014. Ukraine has murdered over 14,000+ babies, children, women, elderly, and civilians. THEIR OWN civilians. ukrainian civilians.
.
40+ children, women, civilians, were BURNED ALIVE in odessa, Ukraine repeatedly defies the Minsk Peace Agreements which they coauthored, agreed to, and signed.
.
Amerikkkan and Britshit Special Forces Command(s) had sent thousands of their military trainers (majors, colonels, brigadier generals) to train Nazi Azov (A3OB) Battalion (part of Ukr official army) since 2013, and have sent them funds upwards of $5 Billion, excluding masses of weapons and ammunition since 2013. Victoria Nuland, US under-secretary of state, headed these operations, rigged the elections, and orchestrated and financed the 2014 EuroMaidan coup to install corrupt US-financed puppets and overthrow Pres. Yanukovych, whom (although was also corrupt) was at least somewhat level-headed and kept playing both sides (tried to gain favours from both West and Russia).
.
the literal Nazis (Azov, tornado, c14, Svoboda, AIDAR, right sector, all part of the Ukraine army) literally bombs and shoots rockets, grenades, missiles, cluster bombs (war crime), artillery shelled, RANDOM HOUSES day and night. on the warheads they write "BEST WISHES TO THE KIDS".
.
they RAPE AND TORTURE CHILDREN, and nail dead and alive children to random house doors.
.
they are Nazis. they wear purely Nazi tattoos, patches, logos, sigils, flags, slogans,and regular held Nazi Marches and torchlight ceremonies throughout the cities, and recruit children into Nazi training camps.
.
Pres. Poroshenko and Zeclownsky gloated in televized speeches "those cockroaches can't even go to school because they're hiding in basements (due to our bombs)!".
.
all these facts are VERY WIDELY DOCUMENTED, even by western mainstream media such as CNN, CNBC, Fox, AFP, Reuters, etc.
google "tornado Ukraine court case".
.
where was your outrage then?
.
I REPEAT: all these facts are VERY WIDELY DOCUMENTED, even by western mainstream media such as CNN, CNBC, Fox, AFP, Reuters, etc.
google "tornado Ukraine court case".
.
where was your outrage then?
What wrong? Yeah, Russia take Criema. But then was hybrid civil war
@@freemindrebel-zj6jc6qy9f Not really - the number of people in the Dombass that wanted separation was minuscule - but with lots of russian support and "little green men" they were able to get enough of a start that Putin could use the russian army to keep the Ukrainians from taking it all back - artillery used from Russia, russian army troops with geotags on their phone deep in Ukraine proved it. It wasn't a real civil war, just a camouflaged russian take over.
funny that ppl call the 2014 coup in ukraine a "protest"
Covering for foreign policy failures Biden and Obama.
i think there will be a ceasefire agreement just like what happened in 2014 but Russia will be able to keep the lands they took on the south not recognized by most nations
and russia will keep violating ceasefire like they always did after Minsk.
Ukraine won't step on the same rake again
At this point, making a deal with Russia, is like making a deal with the devil. The only deal they should make is for Russia to return all territories of Ukraine and the removal of Putin.
I think Zelensky is too smart for that.
I may not know any more ways than you stated, but I know there are a lot of them!
now that were over a year into the war i think we need an updated video
I don't know why I thought this video would be any good. Listing 10 possibilities without giving any weight to favor one or the other is just vapid.
“The system had mistaken a high altitude cloud for a nuclear weapon.”
You think maybe we should abolish all nukes so we don’t annihilate our species for some unbelivably stupid reason?
Agree 👍 I think it's in everyone's best interest to abolish nuclear weapons. If not it's inevitable that many lives will be lost if not humanity entirely. We should focus on saving earth and not destroying it.
Sounds nice, but can you tell me how you get Russia to abolish nukes? Or do you think the US abolished nukes first and Russia, China and North Korea suddenly go "Gosh, the US is so nice, let's do the same"?
Well sadly humans are destructive and petty
Nukes - the only thing that is REALLY forcing peace in this world.
We'd be in WW3 already if there were no nuclear missiles.
@@ericfleet9602 well, if our species can't solve this problem in one way or another, then something cataclysmic will always be in the "when, not if" column
Nice
“Gambling for resurrection” sounds a lot like the sunk cost fallacy
WWIII has at least two (if not more) scenarios: one which involves nukes and one which does not. Also there's a Hot and Cold version as well.
I like the fact that you recognized that the U.S. negotiating a peace, is not an option.
Now that it’s May 20, the Victory Day “Victory” is out of the question. It would be a miracle if Putin was removed from power.
I know how it “could” end. I’m more interested in how likely any of these events would happen.
Points of correction US did not withdraw the run away like they normally do Living behind a lot of the weapons and military tools
What happens to all the tens of millions of people who loose their lives in war. Is there a special place in heaven . This seems more like a bad dream.
I always find political science analysts' take on events so fascinating. The actual people, events, and realities disappear into a fog of categories and theories. My Top Ten: 1) Another Afghanistan, 2) Negotiated settlement - status quo ante bellum Minsk Protocols, 3) Ukraine survives as a client state, 4) Ukraine is incorporated into Russia, 5) Ukraine is partitioned into its pre-World War II boundaries, 6) Russia obliterates Ukraine as an entity, 7) Russian Civil War (with nukes), 8) WWIII, 9) Ukraine is neutral and intact, 10) Putin dies of thyroid/blood cancer and Medvedev negotiates.
0) russia is disassbled to independent countries
Interesting to see this 1 month on : numerous versions gone by the board as of 6/15.
This is one of the few drama shows I hope doesn’t end ‘with a bang’
Nepal's rebels laid down their arms after there was a democratic revolution, in exchange for extensive concessions, and ended up with almost the entire government communist parties or left nationalist parties. Arguably the rebels won. And managed to create a multiparty communist-dominated government through a completely unique process (though one still involving revolution).
I think it will end up like this:
1. Russia makes a general mobilization on 9 May
2. many Russians refuse and there are more and more protests in Russia
3. training of reservists will take years
4. nato sends more weapons and breaks all trade relations with Russia as a reaction to the general mobilization
5. Russia continues to advance. Shortly to the front of Kiev.
6. Russia's economy collapses in the fall of 2022 and more and more Russians die.
7. Ukraine and Russia end up agreeing on the independence of the Donbass and Crimea.
8. Russia collapses after a few years and splits up
I think the russia collapse scenario can be a realistic scenerio due to it being a federation of multiple republics and maybe an increase in separatism in Russia due to lack of faith.
Change point 8:
Russia is greatly changing its political structure after putin is removed to avoid similar case from happening again.
I doubt this... Strongly.
As Ukrainian I can say that agreeing on Donbass independency is almost impossible to happen
@@mihailos8701 slava Ukraini
13:40 was not a navigational error the pilots simply forgot to put the plane in "ins" mode from "hdg" mode
As the war goes on I see either Ukraine using the aid from NATO to stalemate or possibly even push Russian forces back or Russian forces developing the military strategy, overcoming economic downturn and using their superior well basically everything to destroy Ukraine's military. Russia is learning to fight as a regional power and not a superpower. If it's army gets seasoned enough it will be nearly for any opposing nation to fight Russia on Russia's home turf.
You left out "utter annihilation of Russian miltary capability". This happens if Russia keeps losing but keeps fighting anyway.
^ this. Russia will bleed itself dry if the West can keep feeding Ukraine an increasingly sophisticated stream of weapon systems. Russia must withdraw and make concessions, or it will collapse within a year or two.
Which would then be followed, inevitably, by a Ukrainian invasion of Russia, including taking from Russia all their Black Sea coast and the strategic Don-Volga ship canal.
"The system had mistaken a high altitude cloud for a nuclear weapon??" Wow, what an incredible level of sophistication!! What's next? Maybe some poor high-flying duck or goose gets toasted by one of these sophisticated warheads? Seems Russian clumsiness is scarier than it's actual intentions.
as in that old anecdote, russian nanotechnology is the largest nanotechnology in the world!
@@BuranStrannik "Ah. Humor based on my pain."
6:44 how close this is to the actual front line
The war can end only with a victory or surrender. No alternative!
Two things: 1) What makes you think the Russian military won't just collapse? They are only a month or two away from that possibility now. It isn't at all clear that Russia can continue this level of intensity for longer than a couple of months. The question is can the Ukrainians.
And 2) If Russia has any benefit from this invasion, they will do it again in the near future. This is the flaw in most political scientists thinking on this war. Unless Russia loses, there will be a repeat in 5 years in a different eastern European country. Any political settlement that gives Russia anything positive will lead to this result. It is a great mistake by politicians and diplomats to think otherwise. You aren't dealing with the USSR; you are dealing with a quasi-criminal regime that will lie to your face in ways that make even politicians blush. To act like Russia will honor their agreement is the kind of naivete usually reserved for small children. If you want to know why military folks don't respect diplomats, this is why. Some wars can't end with agreements, this is one of them. PS This isn't a civil war and any attempt to model it as such will fail to yield useful results.
I think Afghanization is the collapse of the Russian military.
Simply stated Ukraine claimed Russian military dosent have ammo nor MRE for 3 days more of the war
One month ago..
I think it's best to judge the war after its over because looking at one side is never gonna result in correct assumptions
Russia haven't mobilized its industry or population behind the war effort.
USSR does not equate to Russia. Russia's military won't collapse, they still have the quantity in all aspects
@@sinoroman That military is going to be needed elsewhere, such as the border of Finland when it joins NATO. Not to mention all over the country as internal saboteurs are already at work. They have quantity to be sure, but they have vast lands to protect. So it balances out in some ways.
Was there an option in the video where Russia falls apart in the same way as the USSR collapsed? There is no chance of a civil war in Ukraine, in 2014 Russia created an artificial "civil" war, and when Ukraine almost liberated its territory from Russian separatists, Russia sent reinforcements and stopped Ukrainian troops. After that, Ukraine agreed to a conditional truce, thinking what to do with the Russian army, which stands behind the artificially created separatists.
Artificial civil war really? Before war there is 8 millions ethnic Russians citizen of Ukraine, parts of the Ukrainian army have quit to form the separatist. Is that imaginary world to you? you still have some videos of this just here on youtube or the violent fights between pro Russian and Ultra nationalist Ukrainian in Odessa in 2014 (some pro Russian ended burned alive in a building...) just prove even in Odessa there was pro Russian Ukrainians, same thing: video of this just here on youtube.
I saw another video about China not helping Russia currently and the possibility that China may take advantage of this time to try and annex part of eastern Russia. Then Putin has 2 wars on 2 fronts. When he's already running out of equipment and soldiers in the war he started.
@@feliciagaffney1998 Putin would nuke china before that takes place
Мне лень писать по-английски , переведешь
Я с украины и "русская армия" на Донбассе появилась после того как по городам начали вестись украинские обыстрелы. Но кого ебет, вам ж про это не рассказывают
@@user-eh4pf6qi3w explain more please
The holiday wasn't muted under Yeltsin.
A good move in the right direction
The "Victory Day" one assumes that Russia can stop fighting and that Ukraine will simply for...reasons.
I'm surprised there was no flat out Ukrainian victory. You discussed a Ukrainian civil war, but its also possible Russia falls into a civil war as they have in their history in the midst of this war. The last time something like that happened, Russia ended up surrendering territory to Germany. I'm not saying Ukraine invades Russia an takes Moscow or anything, but there is a non-zero chance that Ukraine manages to achieve a military victory which may or may not include the re-conquest of Crimea.
not happening, ukraine is fkd. multi million loans(aids), they werent free.
I think 💭 that with the new more accurate artillery and Ukrainian artillery already doing so well I could see the front collapsing and Ukraine 🇺🇦 capturing supplies airfields and Russia unable to counter it.
@@BeforeTheDarkAge That is my hope as well. Assuming the anti aircraft weapons keep the Russian planes at bay sp they can't destroy the artillery then Ukraine might at least make some gains back that will be painful for the Russians to accepr
0
@@BeforeTheDarkAge 😂😂😂😂😂
11: Puppy diplomacy
I send each Putin and Zelenskyy a puppy with the other's return address on it. So heartened by receiving a puppy from their enemy, the two agree to call the whole thing off.
Now, does anyone have their addresses?
I think this video is fascinating. I saved this video to my RUclips channel playlists for others to watch.
If you only rely on the accepted narrative and analytics, that's a pretty normal ten ways ect. The unknown, unaccounted for and unthinkable factors, could result in ten very different outcomes.
Kinda funny to say, but dude, do you even understand what a civil war is? I have watched this video only to hear that a Russian-backed proxy war is in your opinion "civil", but let me explain, it is not. Fun fact, there would be nothing bigger than public protest ( yes, possible brutal as Maidan was) if there were no Russian insurgency, weapons, money in 2014 Donbas not to mention whole Russian army units "being lost during exercises". So my advice to all who haven't watched this video yet, don't, go read an article from a respected newspaper rather than this surficial video. The statement about the civil war is only one, but very important example of why you should listen to author of this video at least on this particular topic
У меня друг брал отпуск от армии в 2014 ездил на донбасс дикарем, так вот, единственное что он встретил это еще кучу таких же дикарей которые поехали в отпуск срубить бабла, официальной армии там не было, а друг себе за пару месяцев заработал на 911 порш и хату, и нарезал шоколадных ушей пару десятков
Your scenario where you said "russia expects this" and "ukraine expects this".... The Ukraine has said over and over it will not even consider a settlement if Russia holds onto the Donbas AND the Crimea. Ukraine wants the Crimea back - and although it might take a long time, I think they can achieve it.
Yes although it will be long difficult and cost them so many more lives this is their chance to finish it now or be doomed to have a war every couple of years...
Not Ukraine want Crimea back but USA want Crimea back. Ukraine is US puppet state.
Crimea will never ever go back to Ukraine. First, majority of Crimeans are Russian speakers with fierce loyalty to Russia. Second, after Crimea was annexed, Ukraine cut off the canal supplies which caused severe water shortage until Russia invested millions to solve the problem by setting desalination plants at Crimean region of Black Sea, surely Moscow is not fool to let Crimea go. The moment Ukraine attacks Crimea, Russia will consider it as the invasion of its territory and I am surely telling that will definitely lead to WWIII with Putin dropping nukes over Kiev. Even Zelensky knows this, so he might push to capture Donbass but definitely will not set foot in Crimea.
@@subhankarbaral9236 America has begun to very recently supplying Ukraine with ADVANCED weaponry (not the usual Javelins and such) - high tech stuff. Russia is about to suffer huge set backs. And no, the demographics actually say Crimea is about 50-50 Russian supporters and Ukrainians. Zelensky has been on the record as saying that he will not stop until the entire Crimea AND Donbas are cleansed of Russian invaders. He also said that they will remove (think he meant deport) any Russian supporters that refuse to accept Ukrainian rule. And he is well within his rights to do so.
@@steverennie5787 Well, that just will bring destruction to Kiev. That I can assure.
has gambles for resurrection ever worked? to me it sounds like a very high risk option
i like 6 7 and 8. they are 3 of the most fair things which can happen
Guys we will only truly know about the success or loss of Russian war after the war.
Same way Iraq war was a success in the beginning but after the war turned out to be a disaster.
it was not a disaster.. lol
also it was not a "real- Clear" war like this one.
It was guerila fighting between terrosists hidding under the sand lol.
The americans were completly superior in battle.
The troops were simply removed from iraq after like what? 20 years?
They shouldn't stay there for 20 years anyway.
Also, iraq saw the biggest growth under americas occupation.. school was working, women were a thing...
As soon as america goes home, iraq returned to the middle ages.
So if they want to stay like that.. just let them.. lol
If Russia withdrew the rebels would be done for, imo they'd leave for Russia with the Russian army, they have neither the arms nor the men to survive an attack by Ukraines new army.
They've been fighting the Ukrainian Army for the past 8 years, held their ground against Azov and other hardline batallions, i thinks its fair to say they'd continue the fight, specially with how much ammo/weapons they've captured in their latest offensives, that includes a lot of NLAWS/Panzerfaust-3/Javelins
@@zurdochileno3230 the advance in donbas has been the slowest of all russian fronts and all the equipment from the west hasnt even reached the donbas front yet + apart from mariupol there havent been any major surrenders by the ukrainians yet meaning they have not captured any significant amounts of equipment, what's more they've suffered catastrophic losses due to being used as meatshields by the russians as well as having shit training. One of the separatist leaders even admitted THEY WOULDVE LOST IN 2014 without the russian help, they werent defeated because ukraine was afraid of attack by russia and after that there was a hope of a negotiated settlement, zelensky even ran on a neutral stance towards russia. Learn more before you post comments like this.
The mushroom cloud in the thumbnail is very comforting
14:18 Thank you, Stan Petrov