Understanding the War in Ukraine (8) - NATO (Russia/Finland/Sweden)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- STG Director Prof Alexander Stubb sheds light on the war in Ukraine in a series of video lectures. Each lecture focuses on a different angle regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This eighth episode zooms in on NATO, as Finland and Sweden to apply for membership.
After a first round of six lectures covering the general situation, Finland, Europe, "the world", Russia and China, the seventh lecture looked at the United States of America.
This episode was recorded on 2 May 2022.
More on eui.eu/stg
#Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #NATO #Finland #Sweden #Russia #AlexanderStubb 
Развлечения
The timing of this content is spot on. The world is in flames and a sound of reason is needed. Never stop making these videos. Brilliant content.
I was once in sweden and later in finland. Sweds are kinde nice but chill mode and clean cities and attitude in general is so amazing in Finland. This country is just amazing.
Excuse me Sir/Madam
Are you saved?
If you died tonight are you going to heaven?
Jesus Jesus loves you
What the hell does this have to do with NATO?
@@gagsdoublej4254 What about Raptor Jesus, does he love me too?
...because they are inbred - and therefore outdated. It's like you saying Germans would have been chill if there wouldn't have been any Jewish Germans. A fascist always shows his real colors when people appear that are different in some way.
@@gagsdoublej4254 God bless you and everyone
Love the new Stubbalicious analysis. Clear and concise as always, thanks Alex.
transnational all small countries when to be non France we are national as in Sweden my second country
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
Obviously you watch too much TV and get your brain washed for your trouble.
You are awesome Sir!!!Thank you for your insight! Slava Ukraine!!
So glad to see your listenership growing. Alex you provide a much needed voice.
Thank you. Prof. Snubb. For this great series on Russia, NATO , Ukraine & others involved. It’s an excellent cometary.
Cindy Bogart, or maybe I just call you "Irina Ivanova". (How in the hell you Russian trolls you make those names so clear to see through like "John Doe") I must ask you how is the weather in Ulitsa Optikov in St. Petersburg???? LMAO!
@@user-tv4th7eo2x the weather is fine... everything's fine...
Dr Snubb yes haha and "comedy" you mean?
It's a great series of lectures. Alexander Stubb is a fantastic communicator!
The Finnish army is huge in proportion to the population.
I would say that Finland and Sweden are more than welcome at NATO.
Plus, both countries have amazing Heavy Metal bands, which should be mandatory condition to join anything, really! 🤜🤛
I think They Joined Pop-Punk
Gracias señor🙂👍
Yeaa Finland are wellarmed against russians supersonic missile 5 times faster then sound.
@@69VAJRA ok, they shoot the 12 uber missiles they have. Now what. Russia can’t even deploy a new tank to Ukraine.
@@Grak70 Yeaaa and the next media lie going to tell you that its best we attack Moscow to disable and stop war in Ukraine.....
Just remember Russia are number one or at least number 2 having nuclearweapon, provoke the bear and we all will be blown to scrambles either direct or by after effect regardless were you live on the planet.
War talks like you all have tells about your cognitive dissonans, your under masspsycosis
Were are the diplomacy and peace talks in media or among people?
Alex, I have just found your series and tonight have begun to 'catch up' by watching past dispatches. Thank you for a very intelligent and enlightening series! I am glad that in this video (#9), you FINALLY alluded to the cause and the purpose of NATO's formation (4:10): To provide a secure military deterrent to a beligerent (Soviet) Russia. It is for this that I find it difficult to understand Putin's stated annoyance with NATO's growing presence at Russia's border. Putin and Russia have always been the justification for the existence and the persistence of NATO! Putin has stated that NATO represents an 'existential' threat to Russia. Rather, NATO represents an existential threat to: Putin and his kleptocratic dictatorship which is sustained by the following institutions: a. Oligarchs placed at the head of all major industries; b. a propaganda machine; c. a subservient judicial/police system with the Law of Rule; d. Undivided governance providing zero checks and balances. It would indeed be intolerable for Putin to have a free Democratic/capitalistic European state at his border, demonstrating the strength of the West to Russia's populace.
As a swede i can clearly say we would not join nato if it weren't for the 24th of februari. Also we would not join nato if Finland would stay out of it as it would put Finland in a bad spot between nato and russia and the political pressure on Finland from russia would escalate. And we stick togeather.
The attack to prod and prol since 2014 didnt Matter?
Just 24th feb did?
@@nicolasgarcia248 The opinion on nato did change some in 2014 and we got more people who wanted to join nato but it was still around 30% or so. But we and finland have been way more involved with nato since 2014 but the public opinion did take a drastic turn now in feb
@Meme Memeson yep you are saying what we already know. Our "neutrality" is long gone and we know that but it still hangs around outside of Sweden for some reason.
But the public opinion wether we should actually join nato has been quite low until now. So im not trying anything, i know what is going on. And i know our cooparation with nato. Its no secret. But i can say that we would not join nato if Finland didn't it is kinda one big reason we never did back in the day.
But im glad you have read something and somehow think its hidden away from everyone in Sweden and want to share it. So thanks
The Finns are our sisters and brothers from ages ago!
I need only say "Sven Duva!" and you will all know what I mean.
Any enemy of Finland is an enemy of Sweden!
@Meme Memeson not to mention that every Saab aircraft was desing to perform against russia (in their mind, only russia was enemy)
Very well explained & presented. I have learned a lot
in just a few minutes of your lecture !
Pragmatic vs ideological, indeed! In both countries i have seen the rapid and immediate change of opinion after Feb24 although it seemed more decisive early on in Finland while there were more discussions whether or not in Sweden. Nato is for added security, not to show aggression toward Russia. I hope indeed that we can continue coexisting peacefully, as independent countries. It will be a win-win situation also for Russia and Russians.
The stronger NATO becomes, the more influence to help Ukraine and Russia recover from this tragedy. Never again!
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
Enlightening insight. I am enjoying this series! Thank you Prof Stubb. One thing I disagree with, or I would expand on, is the statement that NATO has returned to its founding purpose. To defend against Russian (Soviet) aggression. This is not broad enough a definition. The purpose of NATO remains as the defender of Western values, and that threat has shown itself to come from Russia again. What are Western values? In short (but by no means a concise list): Democracy, accountability, freedom of speech, respect of human rights, respect for the individual, respect for sovereignty.
Those are important ideals but do they correspond with US and Ukraine actions?
The Iraq war was started with a lie about WMD in Iraq. The result 1 million dead. Was that a crime against humanity? If not, why not?
See 'Roses Have Thorns (Part 6) The Odessa Massacre' on RUclips. No one ever convicted. The far right group responsible 'Right Sector' were formed into a Ukraine National Guard battalion. How does that equate to accountability?
Ukraine has banned opposition political parties and media. The list of journalists killed in Ukraine is very long. we know free speech doesn't exist in Russia. Can free speech exist in a country at war?
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
It would also be true to say NATO is aggressive at least that is what most of us non Europeans/Westerners etc
Point 1: good job
Point 2: thank you
Point 3: Greetings :)
Well this week will be interesting here in Sweden and in Finland .
history in the making .
Finland signed their application today, yes?
Sweden will sign on sunday. It is pretty much done.
@@Bathtubcrocodile Read in the newspaper that Sweden and Finland will send its application on monday .
@@mrbrand4720 Correct.
@@Bathtubcrocodile du måste klara av Erdogan om du gör det är du bakar om kurderna men du har redan sålde ditt själ åt jänkarna
Always very clearly explained...hard to get for the Italian Left and Right
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
Very well done; he has obviously thought a lot about the topics surrounding the Ukrainian War. His political/diplomatic experience gives a lot of insight!
Cheers to that! 🍺🍺🍺
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
Let me ask a thing I never understood since I moved to Sweden in 2009. Russia kept (and keeps) harassing Sweden with air-space or marine-space violation of all kinds: with submarines, jet fighters, ships, etc. Swedes are russiaphobic for this reason, but I never understood why Russia is so fixated with harassing Sweden. Why is that?
The 16th to 18th centuries mainly. Sweden consistently smacked the crap out of Russia for a couple of hundred years.
Turkey stopped the problem of Russia violating their airspace with one swift move by shooting one their helicopters down. They haven't done it since. Try that approach.
Russia has been doin that to everyone for the past 40 years. They like to push it. Until you do like Turkey and shoot one down.
@@byteresistor Its a bit easier to do when you are part of NATO and being mountainous country that is absolute horror to invade.
I'm somewhat sure Russia keeps annoying and prodding its neighbors so that they remain "russophobic" and Russia has a reason to keep being aggressive.
Finland does indeed make Nato stronger. Sweden does not have a large standing army at the moment but on the other hand it has kept it's massive cold war weapons industry going which is already developing Nato-compatible weapons like the now famous NLAW all the way up to gen 4.5 fighter jets. It's a big win-win for everyone but Russia.
It's a win for the Russian people. Their leadership will be less likely to start new invasions that send Russian citizens to die while trying to murder their neighbors. And if Russia isn't invading anybody, the sanctions will lift and its economy will improve.
It's also a win for Russia: It reduces the attraction of attacking Finland and Sweden, thus possibly saving tens of thousands of Russian soldiers' lives.
Anyone that does not meet their 2% defense spending commitments need to be kicked out of NATO!
NATO is not an alliance for freeloaders.
Finland has the largest artillery capability in Europe
@Pennan We Finns used to have couple but those are museums now.
Hoping still possible to stop war, rebuild damaged, pay compensation of victims of war, displaced persons return to their homeland, become friendly. As our Greatest Leader said :" Love your enemies." and be "forgive one another. " Let peace and security will prevail over the wicked war.
“It is not a zero sum game”. That is unfortunately the thing Putin is not capable of understanding.
You must know well what he wants.
the number of views have grown quickly for this series
not surprising
Well done Finland and Sweden great decision right time
Simple answer for Vladimir putin is that security concerns for Russia stops at Russians borders not beyond.
Thefore Putin as no jurisdiction over Finland or Sweden or any other country outside Russia is authoritarian ambition must be stopped right now
you're all sweet and brave at 9!
I guess Putin wasn't expecting this ??
Well done!
Exceptional lecture!
Nato an alliance of "democratic states" values like... Turkey and Erdogan who has the second army in the Alliance you just say counter truth
Nato is a new win-win ? alliance for the new members Finland an Sweden who joins with out referendums.
In 2003your brothers Danes participated to the illegal war invading Irak lead by the most unpeacfull country USA over armed to make the gendarme in the world Usa rallied mostly of European Nato countries except France and Germany Nato is a win win alliance for US military complex stealing from its allies military contracts as for example they made made an outrageous stealing of a French 50 bilions contract with Australia nato is a tool also to sell F54 fighter to Poland a forced sell when Rafale or Jas Gripen is better. Germany who has announced it want to have a real army and announced they were going to equip their fo ces with F35 win win for whom ?
like Carl bill you are a salesman for nato it is win win for you and him
The polls just hit 76% for nato
Make this as a podcast version as well
I am really enjoying you series. Very enlightening. I have a question, though. Has NATO ever tried to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia?
I can answer Poutin asked to Clinton if Russia could be member of nato the uS president nearly fell out in laugh
I am really enjoying your series. I would like to hear you weigh in on the future relationship of Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Do you think that Canada and the United States will be close partners with the Nordic countries?
like carl Bildt a good sales man for Nato
Great respect from Denmark. Very wised ...
dane mac helped US agent to bug Macron and Merkel celphonesthank you Danemark puddle of USA Danes were also more present than any country in the US illegal invasion under false evidences ( with Ukraine) it made 1/2 million deaths Putin is an amateur
How big of a role the natural resources found in Eastern Ukraine play in this conflict?
Good question. Maybe bit smaller that we think in the west. Russians seems really believe that "Nazism" and "Facism" existence in Ukraine...
Out of curiosity - Does anyone know what happens if they get attacked between the time their application has been lodged and when it is approved? EG do they become a protectorate of NATO during this period or would the attacker have a small window to attack them and take control of their government to withdraw the application before it ratifies? Or if they are 'at war' does this then make them an illegible candidate (because they have an 'ongoing conflict').
From what I understand when they apply a special temporary guarantee, the functional equivalent of article 5 will be granted.
The 'ongoing conflict' exclusion isn't a hard and fast rule but more of a guideline so that there's a measure of stability to those countries joining NATO. And it's in reference to when they apply, so doesn't count if they apply and someone attacks them after that point.
But it probably would if they applied then went and invaded/attacked someone else.
Sort of like a 'we don't want crazy fuckheads in our club' clause.
@@FelixMeister there’s no such thing as automatic temporary guarantee but in case of Sweden and Finland it would apply if key members of NATO decide they are obligated to protect the candidate states who were long-standing partners of NATO.
Some members might refuse to act but it would likely backfire quite spectacularly because key members entering into conflict would elicit retaliation on Russia’s part and thus trigger article 5. Forsaking a call of article 5 would mean their eventual ousting from NATO and even entail sanctions or other negative consequences for breach of trust and commitment. And there’s a huge damage to its reputation as such a country would be considered an unreliable partner, making it much harder to enter in other long-term agreements, be they security or economy related.
@@watershed8685 sorry. I didn't mean to imply that this is a normal thing.
Discussion has been had between Finland and NATO about security guarantees in the case of potential Russian belligerence.
This is being handled, from what I'm aware, as a special case.
Separately from NATO, Sweden and Finland enjoy also mutual defense clause of EU treaties. Article 42 point 7 of the Treaty on European Union: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Boris Johnson is in Sweden today actually to sign security assurance while the progress happens. US also said they would help and I believe macron said similar. The latter two isnt in writing though, UK assurance supposedly will be later today.
Ratification by end 2022 sounds slow considering that this is a dangerous phase. Why is a "fast track" of two "up to NATO compatible and level equipped" candidates so slow? I am ignorant of the process.
if Finland and sweden do no fear russianhypersonic missiles it is not dangerous; your brothers, Danes and Norwegian will protect you
use the screen to put up illustrative stats. e.g. you mentioned 12 founding NATO member states, but dont list them. put it up beside you on the screen maybe
I think, sir, that there is an another factor rarely spoken of.
Namely: the war in former Yugoslavia. That was a shock for the Europe - the fact that the fall of Soviet Union and similar states just unfreezed a lot of old grievances and local competitions (the elephant in the room was e.g. Hungary which had territorial grievances towards almost all of its neighbors and was speaking about it pretty openly) and also consequences of this like the genocide during this (Balkan) war. Which on the other hand hastened reactions later in the case of Kosovo. For some extend the NATO serves (or served) as a container putting all these, often growling on each other, countries in one basket of an alliance: "you cannot kill each other while being in the same happy family with Uncle Sam. Behave kids". ANd there was this Central-European+Baltics factor which today, after the invasion on Ukraine might be called "I told'ya so!" moment.
Your account is is 4 days old.
@@Redfizh so? (You do realize taht ist a date of activation the account on YT - which force you to create the channel just to comment - not the actual account creation date).
Swedish neutrality during the cold was was more or less non-existent. The level of cooperation between NATO (especially the US) and Sweden surpassed that of many NATO members. For example, Sweden got the newly developed Sidewinder air-to-air missile before the UK did. Of course this was done so that the Soviet long range naval strike aircraft could not reach the north Atlantic and sever the supply lines to Europe.
I don’t agree. 1945-1990 Sweden tried really hard to appear neutral.
Sweden had a strong military and it’s own industry of munitions, cannons, fighter jets etc.
After the Cold War, Sweden has joined EU and initiated a very close collaboration with NATO.
it was neutral until Stalingrad after fiercely pro anglo-saxon des är bra ni ka hopak dåliga F34 dura I stylet for utmârkta jas Gripen jenkarna comme utrota sveriges militâra industrin som de gör i Frankrike det ¨r ju syftert av NATO
and Sweden has sur strömming but it is very cruel to use in a war
@@louisecorchevolle9241 Ah, yes. That's why we try to confine it's use to the Northern most parts of Sweden.
I still wonder why they called it "North Atlantic treaty organization" with Italy as a founding member. Last time I checked Italy was in the very center of the Mediterranean sea 🤷♂️
Thanks for this insight I think it is important to join Nato if it is only for security reasons.
Why just security reasons?
I'd be interested in some mention why those former Soviet Block states chose to join NATO, instead of continuing historical ties with Soviet Union before its break-up. . I would also be interested in a comment or mention on what I read in a Wikipedia summary of "Foundations of Geopolitics..." 1997, by Aleksandr Dugin, which I believe stated Finland should be absorbed into Russia-did this text have influence in Russian geopolitical thinking and Finland's thinking about Russia? I would be interested in Alexander Stubb having a public discussion with John Mearsheimer about NATO and the causes of the war in Ukraine. His lectures on the Ukraine war or Russian relations with the west are at variance with others.
I understood that Sweden is looking for Nato membership when the Swedish government announced that they will increase the defense budget too 2% and that is what Nato want the Nato members to spend on their own defense 🤔
now the of Sweden budget is 1.2 % contrary was conférencier says You will buy F35 bad and expensive, instead off Jas Gripen cheap and excellent then US military industrial complex will train swedes lmilitary industry as they do for France
Putin made the desicion for us in one day.
realizing that we have 1 300 km border with Mordor.
I am in sweden and i have bombs exploding please pray for us🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
@@cutev1nce128 No worryings! Finlandball will of halpings.
u expect our woman leader not to join😭
@@survived4679 how does gender matter in this discussion in any way lmao
Will there be a national vote on this matter or will the governments decide on their own?
You clearly do not understand the democratic parliamentary system. The parliament is made up of community representatives that are voted into the parliament by the voting citizens. The parliamentary representatives then have a set period where they make decisions on the citizens behalf. If the community does not like the parliamentarian, they vote in a new representative at the next election. This is unlike Russian federation, which is led by a dictator and squashes any form of community involvement. Your welcome
@@rikukoskela2791
I'd rather have it as national vote. Don't think NATO was even mentioned in the representatives bios for whom I voted for.
But thanks for the answer Riku
Are you trying to understand through this series of videos or are you trying to make all others understand what you think?
Thank you
I would have liked to know more about Nato’s situation in the Kosovo war. This gets brought up a lot nowadays as an example why Russia sees Nato as a potential agressor. Would have loved to hear your view on this.
serbia was accused, charged,proven and sentenced before an international court of genocide massmurder and other warcrimes.
That serbia required the intervention of nato armies. (naturally, since countries that live next door represent the bulk of nato - forget the yankees for a minute.
Not all is about americans all the time.
On the 10th June - an UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL issued resolution 1244 - which settled the NATO security contingency Kosovo Force (KFOR)
Since most nato countries lived in europe, and right next to the warzone it made sense that not some japanese or new-zealanders come to do the job.
- europe/nato stepped in under codename "KFOR" and started to protect civillians.
Wherever you get the story from, if the serbian war crimes are not mentioned - then it is russian/serbia-fed lies.
I remember we had shitloads of refugees from bosniaherzegovina - because of seribians targetting civillians in good old ussr fashion.
ruclips.net/video/I4PIlf8qrm8/видео.html
He seems to keep avoiding this topic a lot. Maybe because it's uncomfortable to talk about in depth for an avid NATO supporter like him.
NATO was stopping genocide essentially.
Maybe he'll do a talk on it later.
NATO intervened to uphold UN Security Council Resolution 1199 which passed with 14 votes in favour and 1 abstention.
The single abstention was by China in other words Russia voted in favour together with permanent members France, UK and USA plus the non-permanent members at the time which were Bahrain, Brazil, Costa Rica,Gabon, Gambia, Japan, Kenya, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden.
The resolution called for cessation of hostilities and a lasting ceasefire. Also included was a clause saying that 'further measures would be taken to restore peace and security' if hostilities continued.
Bottom line: Russia voted for the resolution and any further consequences.
George Washington University has a 35 year old freedom of request information archive called National Security Archive. There is very likely to be something there. I've only just found it. First page I read shows that Yeltsin was mislead over the Partnership for Peace (or he was too drunk to understand) that is was a prelude to gradual Nato expansion. Yeltsin quote 'That's genius'.
Hei Stubb, ootko käyny Dialogia Lavrovin kanssa? ;)
Would Finland still have conscription even if they join NATO?
In this situation for many years to come. But unfortunately when things cool down in the future its not guaranteed. There was a strong lobby to put it down in early 2000's when nobody tought that major war in Europe would happen again.
as long as there is any threat to finlands sovereignty by neighboring powers, i do believe conscription will continue to be the best available solution for defense.
Sir could you make a video possibly looking at the cartel issue? I'm just curious on your analysis on the cartel and corruption with 🇲🇽 Government and possibly corruption with U.S. Department of defense via border control? I'm not sure if your any interested in it but I see your outside perspective of subjects is brilliant. I think of myself as a open minded individual but you can elaborate better than me I believe. I'm no professional in anything but I'm Interested in the whole process of breakdowns and analyzing issues.
And this was the lecture which John Mearsheimer missed out on.
So I reckon that in the end the 1000+km of new Nato border with Russia comes out as even or winning situation due to compability rather than plain strenght
I've already posted this comment elsewhere, but it fits well under this title too:
It's sad to say I really don't feel the security in Finland has increased since we joined NATO. Quite on the contrary. The reason is simple: NATO is the arch enemy of Russia, and thus Finland has now after a long period of friendly relations officially declared that Russia is our enemy. As Russia needs to protect itself from NATO, this eventually will bring Russian military hardware along the whole Finnish 1300 km long border.
If Finland stupidly wants an U.S. military base and American troops on the ground, it will be considered as a rude move by Russia and will probably have serious implications in turn. The biggest insanity would be to allow nuclear weapons to be installed on Finnish territory, since this would be a direct threat against Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Russians would hardly allow this to happen.
Canada is a founding member of NATO. Not sure why everyone seems to forget that.
It's because everybody tends to forget Canada.
@@talideon Second largest country in the world - Kind of hard to forget. The country that really gets forgotten is New Zealand.
@@daniellarson3068 They both get forgotten, I think because they are not loud and brash and not trying to dominate and compete for world supremacy.
@@daniellarson3068 Second largest country in the world... that also happens to have most of its population in a thin strip along its southern border, and that sits right next the the one remaining superpower.
I like Canada, but Canada gets forgotten for the very same reasons as NZ does: its neighbour.
@@talideon True - Australia is always in the news. NZ is only in the news when they have an earthquake or similar issue.
I think that the speaker committed an important oversight when he did not mention the bombings carried out by Nato on Serbia without ONU support in 1999.
Regardless of the bombing justification (I think it was right) that event would have serious repercussions.
Putin would justify 22 years later the Invasion of Ukraine with that NATO action intervention. A "peace intervention" to protect a minority from genocide.
oh stubb.. that himboy... greetings from helsinki
I woud like to hear a talk on Turkey, at the southern flank of NATO. Turkey is in an interesting situation because of the Bosporus, a maritime chokepoint at the entrance to the Black Sea. Russia, I think, has been striving militarily to ensure its commercial access to the Black Sea, but Turkey is in a position to make this a moot question. Right now Turkey is behaving like a neutral state with regards to Russian activities, but will that change?
That is not true. If you start to count how many drones they have provided to ukraine. I really dont get it either because turkey have good relationship with russia so why russia haven't start to scream at erdogan?🤔 That's really confusing
@@fiddede5229 remember that the drones are made by a private company, the Turkish government is merely approving their sale. politically, Erdogan has attempted to take a "neutral"-ish stance due to his good relations with Russia. he has had Turkish diplomats moderating the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, which is actually an excellent use of Turkey's position as both a Russia-friendly state and also a NATO member
@@disregardthat Ahaa i didn´t know that. So thank you for clarifying that for me :) So now i know ;) Have a great weekend :)
@@fiddede5229 no problem, it is an interesting situation with Turkey, I only learned it because I went digging in the news from other languages with google translate lol. you enjoy your weekend too!
what!? cant be! a civil discussion in youtube comment section on a video about russo-ukrainian war? unbelievable.
I think you forget about Spain, if I remember well we entered in 1986. Y, po cierto, es posible que su país, Finlandia, y Suecia, ingresen en la Alianza, es decir, que se apruebe su ingreso, en la cumbre de la OTAN en Madrid el próximo mes de junio. Saludos desde España 🇪🇸 y bienvenidos al Club OTAN.
I think the least Spain could do is ask for all its national territory to be covered by NATO, a glaring anomaly in face of a southern neighbour who is not precisely friendly to it.
Turkey is surely going to end approving the membership of Sweden and Finland, but it has put its concerns on the table and surely shall get some guarantee either from NATO or of the candidates regarding its concern.
Seeing some foreign policians compared to our domestic, it sparks envy at the intellectual and patriotism of these statesmen versus the short term vision and wasteland policy carried out by a chaste only worried about their personal interests. But politician don't come from another planet, they are a reflection of its society that votes for them. No wonder the country suffers "brain drain".
Welcome to buy us weapons
Club complex militaro industrial US
Lets see those 3 points.
I’m really curious on if this could happen. It seems to me that both Finland and Japan (maybe others) could apply extra pressure on Russia by demanding their annexed territory to be returned under threat of military action. It seems that if Russia thinks it’s okay to annex what they think is theirs then why couldn’t other countries annex back territory that Russia stole?
Thoughts?
yeah... weed is the answer...
Just a thought, Enjoy all your videos’ The failure of the Soviet union may be echoed By the failure of the Russian federation
It's kind of like the last gasp of the Soviet Union. Have you noticed that all the guys in charge of Russia are old Soviet KGB people? After they die out, Russia may make real progress for it's people.
the rouble not yet has fall it is boosted by sanctions and has more value than before the war
12:01 - 12:12 👏🏾🙏🏾
I live in Russia and watch your channel trying to understand this war. But I still don't ((
Do you think Nato is good organisation for Europa or you are calling the war to comme to Europe ?
KFOR is still active in Kosovo. And is still needed as a peacekeeping force.
a maffia state liked to Albanias maffias drugs killings and prostitution
Can you make a video about 🇹🇷 and nato? You’re talking about values and everything members have in common, but 🇹🇷 doesn’t seem to fit in. 🇹🇷 today is clearly a dictatorship quite similar to Russia. Moreover, no one in nato seems to care about Turkish incursions in Syria and Iraq. Maybe it’s a hot topic for a former Finish prime minister given Erdogan’s recent attempt at blocking Finland’s application for nato membership. Nevertheless, I would love to hear your thoughts on Turkey’s role in the alliance and the current situation.
turkey it is not important it is only the second army of Nato ( when you are a salesman for Nato)
@@louisecorchevolle9241 thx, maybe I don't need any further explanation after all, this makes sense
"In response to NATO considering Russia a threat merely by it's existence, Russia began to perceive NATO as an existential threat." Well said Prof Stubb
contrary of what James Baker and Bush senior promisses nato advanced to russian border
NATO, an alliance or a dependency? Collective or reliance on USA? Please discuss the extent to which the USA has really carried the burden of blood and treasure for NATO and whether this is sustainable. I.E: Why is the USA the primary guarantor of the borders of Lithuania? Should not the Europeans carry more of the load of a European collective defense?
Thank you again for the clarity. Am I wrong in thinking that all? Most? members of NATO are not actively against anyone, Russia included. We just pray that demonstrating we are united to protect all members from attack by others , will give potentially aggressive entities pause for thought? Though I understand why Finland and Sweden have to emphasize this point just now. Is it true that Russia with the kind of government it endures, needs something like NATO, to scare their own people into accepting the governance they have. The existence of NATO is used as a tool, a threat to keep their people afraid of what is outside their borders , rather than fear of what is within their own borders?
Yes, but switch things around. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Boris Yeltsin stated he wanted Russia to join Nato. It was proposed that Nato would be replaced with the Partnership for Peace. Why didn't US want Russia in the Partnership for Peace/Nato? Two likely reasons:
Justification of astronomical US military budget requires constant wars/potential enemies.
Russia refused US companies to develop Russian resources.
@@goldreserve I take your point and it is a good one, I am afraid greedy self interest is universal. I also have great sympathy for the ordinary Russian person, after the collapse of the Soviet era, there was all this hope that democracy would sweep in and be wonderful. It took centuries for democracies to develop in the West…….was it ever going to happen over night in Russia? So they experienced chaos. From what I have read as an ordinary citizen, the country became a kleptocracy with the opportunistic stealing vast wealth from the Russian people. We too were giddy with optimism, thinking all our worries were over. Was it possible we could have helped more, trusted more? I don’t know, we do know that Democratic government is very far from perfect but so far it is the best option.
@@rockflowerful well said
Wouldn’t you think that when the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991, that if NATO had designs of conquering Russia as its reason for existence, that it would have done so then?
Turkey and Hungary will see about that timeframe.
Well, Nato was formed as a response to the soviet threat. It's natural for them to call Nato a threat considering they are the actual threat to others. It's almost like bullies never factor themselves into their own logic. Must be lonely.
It is called projection.
but Ukraine is never be in Nato the only who has been invaded Georgia was a response to georgian russophones
There are people all over the world that are blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. I would be interested in your opinion
And NATO will remember that when they get into a jam and start crying for help.
Er, applictions are open to all European states (REAL definition of "European" btw, NOT just states that are EU members) who are willing to take on the conditions of membrship. That does NOT mean membership follows automatically. The existing NATO members must still agree to accept the candidate.
26 European countries are in the EU so not much left as they form 14 trillion GDP.
@@TorianTammas So what? It seems completely unrelated and indeed irrelevant to the point I made.
Alas, it's also inccurate as you're clearly including Finland and Sweden too, although neither have as yet even formally submitted applications to join NATO.
Though as I did already state, in their cases I hope both WILL join the alliance soon. Purely because they are entirely compatible with NATO ON THEIR OWN MERITS and irrespective of their current status as EU member states.
Why NATO enlarged
Brilliant explanation.
I believe abstain is correct. ( UN vote)
Many countries has no clue about Ukraine war including myself. Ukraine’s historian gave me an explanation
Who created Ukraine war & why ?
What was a problem in Donbas & Crimea ?
Konigsberg became Kaliningrad because Germany attacked the USSR in 1941 killing more than 20 million civilians. There figures hide a variety of types of violence nowadays.
This has been repeated since 2014 in Ukraine.
Where on may 2014 nationalists from western Ukraine came to Odessa & buried 48 local residents alive.for expressing their own opinion in the city square.( with the help of UK & USA)
After the 2014 coup in Ukraine the influence of nationalists ( Nazis hooligans) the name has no matter.but only their crime has intensified among these nazis hooligans & There descendants of those who served Hitler
This for an example This Galitchina detachment with their crime Volyn massacres against civilians.
After 2014 Ukraine began to distort its view of the history of the Second World War. This expressed in the fact that in the best case an equal sign is drawn.
Between the attacking Germans and the liberated soldiers of the USSR
Such a sign of equality is a betrayal of those who thanks to whom we are alive.
This was a reason that Donbas & Crimea do not want to be with Ukrainian. In response for 8years Ukrainian mines and shells have been falling on the heads of Donbas residents.
So many adults and children were killed & torn apart.
MSM will not show this to west world & 3rd world audience. Therefore Putin hesitated for a long time whether to take a active action. Because it already happened in 2008 when Georgia attacked Ossetia & Russian soldiers stood up for Ossetia.-squeezing Georgian soldiers back into Georgia. but the MSM did not show part of the conflict. When Georgia attacked Ossetia MSM began to show the conflict. Only after Russia joined.at the same time they showed the Ossetian city of Tskhenvali destroyed by the Georgians during the offensive & at the same time they said that it was the Georgians city of Gori. Russia is most maligned country and the most conscientious country in foreign policy through the prayers of despair of people from God gave Russia a good president.
I asked my final question to Ukrainian historian
Who do you support? Ukrainian or Russian
He mentioned to me that our generation escaped from Hitler & settled down in Canada.
Therefore I support Denazification.
NATO were collapsing and failing to elicit support without a war so a war with Russia will help to save NATO from collapse and finally be seen to be needed.
If my country of Sweden joined nato we have protection of Nato and Nato's Article 5 is like this "Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies"
Sweden is an EU member at the moment at least we have eu's article 42.7 which is a mutal defence clause.
From Eu's article 42.7 is like this "This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations"
so why you join Nato without referendum 5 months of general election because Carl Bild, an American agent you have even nuclear protection of France but you need Mac Donald an they will loot your military complex
OK ------ 4:! The M-777 155mm Gun could be Ukraine's SUPER WEAPON to WIN this WAR!!! But the current American M-777, 155mm gun only has a short 39cal. Steel barrel that is even inferior to the 42cal Steel barrels in most of Nato's inventories... Giving the Short barrel M-777 a projectile range of only 23 miles with the standard M-795 round. But the M-777 gun America is giving Ukraine could have a range of over 43 miles (instead of just 23miles) with the same M-795 round using a new High Tech long 58cal Barrel (replacing the M-777 old tech steel short 39cal barrel) that is now being field-tested by a Battalion of M-109 Self Propelled Superguns (that truly look beautiful with their long barrels). The new high-tech none steel barrel is a Composite Carbon case, Titanium sleeved long 58cal Ultra High-pressure Marvel of American Engineering... The high-pressure 58cal (30 feet long) barrel using supercharged propellant (that would blow up the average steel barrel) gives the M-777 155mm Super Gun a range of 60 miles firing the new XM1113 projectile... and over 150+ miles with the new subcaliber Hypervelocity GPS guided projectile. Making the M-777 a terror for all Russians in Ukraine... Allowing Ukraine to finally take back (freeing) the Crimea and the Donbas without suffering massive Ukrainian casualties...
K ------- America needs to send the Battalion of new M-109 Super Gun, long-barreled 58cal guns to Ukraine for testing in real combat (instead of blowing craters in the Texas desert), which would be followed by the new high tech SUPER BARREL Kits for Ukraine's M-777 guns (the new lightweight composite 58cal 30-foot long barrels {same weight and balance as the 39cal steel barrels in both the M777 and M109} simply slide into the gun carriages of both weapons, replacing the original 39 cal barrels without any major modifications). That could number 1,000 M-777 Superguns deployed to Ukraine in a short time if they are pulled from American storage Depots that are waiting to be scrapped... (in addition to the measly 90 the US is sending now...) Giving Ukraine the Numbers to finally have a chance against a Russia that has thousands of big guns more than Ukrain but lack the range of the M-777 SUPER GUN that would be able to sit back and safely SNIPE the Russian big guns and their ammunition depots into oblivion no matter how many Putin sends...!!! Finally giving Ukraine an advantage they Desperately need...!!! As the Russians both outnumber Ukrain in weapons and manpower...!!! Ukraine has been refused modern fighters but with enough M-777 and M-109 guns, Ukraine can make up for what they cannot do without new fighters they can not get!!! Win this WAR!!!
K1 ----!!! Please call and write President Biden and your Congressmen in the House and Senate to demand that Ukraine get the thousand M-777 and hundreds M-109 guns from our storage depots NOW, with the SUPER GUN 58cal upgrade kits following as soon as they are produced on the production line now making the test barrels for the M-109 Supergun...!!! That will stop the Russians in their tracks from taking any more Ukraine cities to torcher innocent local civilian men, Rape women and children then murder and bury them in mass Graves...Thank You...!!!!
??? XD
In this Nr 8 there's nothing new compared to ur past lectures.
Pls add concrete fact or delay the lectures until there's something note worthy.
I'm a big fan of yours - very well spoken
Just don't watch. There are a lot of information you just have no use for them.
Sweden became neutral in the 1800 after a census revealed its population was only 1 million and the King at the time thought its was 5 million. he realised they couldn't win another war and became neutral after centuries of being a waring state
it was also a consequence of Poltava battle a day Sweden never more in history became a super power It was Ukrainian cossak leader Mazzepa who promised a lot of cossaks to the Swedish king But Peter the Great bribed a large parted them to his side so Carl XII lost
The Swedes don’t bring much - the Finns yes but not the Swedes. They have gone from an 800,000 man army organized in 21 brigades [a flexible and powerful combined arms combat organization] to an army of 6,000; they call it a "professional defense force" . They spend a meager 0.93% of their GDP on defense and have divested most of their military assets on the world arms market much of it to the UK. Sweden would be a drag on NATO, not an asset.
Where are you getting your numbers from. Sweden has about 50.000 soldiers and is increasing defense spending. Sweden also has an incredibly well established and efficient arms industry with some of the most advanced equipment available.
The Finns brings a big asset but you may not be aware that the we (the Swedes) have 100 top modern JAS39 FIGHTER jets ready to respond day or night all year round. We also patrol the sea with top modern sub marines and an outstanding navy (check out the Visby Corvette). On top of that we have one of the world's most advanced anti-missile system Patriot. We also know how to use them. Our government are making historic findings to increase all of this and more. So if you count power in numbers, yes we're small, but I think the war in Ukraine has proven that shear number doesn't do it all the way in modern warfare.
read the thumbnail title and was "why would the world health organization be joining NATO?" :)))) rofl
Russia for the time being is trapped by the "Russian Soul" but even more so by a fascist religious right. The younger generation was very much exposed to western culture and adopted many mind frames, so should Russia collapse and a new government emerge that is actually willing to find its own way somewhere between communism and capitalism, Russia may find that the generation taking over in 10+ years may very well seek to be part of Europe and work towards this goal in a time frame of 25 to 30 years from then on. Provided Europe can hold on to the ideas and doesn't destroy itself.
for the moment there are more fascist in Ukraine Azov bataillon and the national hero is Stepan bandera a nazi collaborator. If you say that to a russia he vill not accept russia estimates that they made a large part of the job agains Hitle ; 20 million deaths
@@louisecorchevolle9241 Russia is a disinformation spit fire. You can't any source. And currently there isn't a country in the world where there isn't an active fascist group, some more some less. Russia is full blown fascist. Not because all the people are, but because the regime is with Putin at the helm. And this will be my last comment on the subject in this thread.
if Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine and battles for all the destruction they have inflicted on the country. And starting to behave like a civilized country, then Russia has nothing to fear
I am 99.9% sure that NATO members do not have to respond if a NATO member initiates the attack. Is that right? A good example, IMO, would be the Iraq war where countries like Canada did not take part.
Correct. NATO wasn’t involved in Vietnam or Iraq or any other unnecessary war.
Article 5 can only be invoked upon unprovoked attacked on own territory. It has happened only once, September 11, 2001 where NATO took actions against the Taliban regime.
The Taliban didn’t attack the US, they just housed al-Qaida. Which was reason enough for the US to attack them with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Many countries including muslim countries voluntarily participated in this US-led war, which was part defensive part offensive. Separately from that NATO organized an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan based on a UN mandate. This was basically a peace-keeping mission without blue helmets and white tanks.
@Márcio Oliveira And it cost them $ 2 trillion and 4,500 death soldiers.
Around point 2….Actually Russian December 2021 request to NATO was to get back at 1999 extension … thanks Mr. Stubb for your views
This point of view on NATO can hardly be supported by all the actions it took in Serbia and Iraq. That was not legal in the language of international law. Surprised to see such week arguments by such high government official
Was founded because of Josef Vissarionivich Dgushvilli. Ask his ghost.
by Leon Bronstein in my opinion
+@@louisecorchevolle9241 Lev Trotsky founded NATO Haaaaaaa!
Good. Keep the proxy wars in Europe. I hate the words "pivot to Asia". It's definitely not for peace and prosperity.
Professionalism of Putin’s army is questionable
so is your syntax
Well presented video! I wish NATO'S primary goal wasn't defense against Russia but simply the defense of Europe and member nations. People seem to think that NATO just kept us safe from the USSR when really it stopped European nations from attacking each other as well.
Well if you look at the last 70 years its not been Europe who has started all the wars. Yes Europe has helped in some wars / sent troops or supplies to some wars, but its not been Europe starting them. In fact since NATO Europe has stopped fighting itself and stopped starting wars, so part of NATO is stopping Europe from eating itself and going to war again.
Like anyone who knows the history of Europe knows that Europe has had thousands of years worth of warfare, until the point that virtually every nation in Europe has fought each other, more than once. My guess is without NATO we would have seen more wars in Europe by now as some idiot leader would have got in power and tried to delete their neighbors.
Defending against Russia is a possibility but should not be the focus or prime mission. I also think NATO should give Russia some guarantees not to attack / not to launch nukes unless fired upon first ect. I'm not sure if they have already but NATO could even promise to come and help Russia in case of major natural disaster, things such as massive earthquakes, asteroids and so on.
The prime mission of NATO shouldn't really be defending against Russia, in fact maybe the prime goal should be to befriend Russia / heal wounds with Russia / work with Russia. NATO has made some mistakes, NATO has expanding further than promised, Russia does have concerns so they should be addressed by NATO and not ignored.
I like NATO, I see the point of NATO, but honestly NATO is a bit crap if its only real mission is just to protect against Russia. I would be looking at a total rethink / reorganization of NATO and its polices, along with addressing Russia's security concerns properly. I do welcome Finland and Sweden to NATO however if Russia doesn't want large NATO forces or missile sites in Finland then maybe NATO need to look at honoring that and telling Russia.
NATO was suppose to be about Europe where at the moment it just feels we are fighting a proxy war because the USA doesn't like Russia. That should not be the aim of NATO.
not even at level of gymnasium
What is it that I like this guy I think what it is I just like Finland so I guess anybody from Finland I like unless they’re from Russia that emigrated to Finland I don’t like them I don’t like rush at all I mean at all I just I think there are bastards
If NATO is 'open to any European country who wants to join and follow the rules', then WHY was Ukraine not admitted when it has wanted to be? Even now with Ukraine's recent application for expedited membership, I've heard retired Generals and different people say it was doubtful Ukraine could join. NATO has never said that before about a country and it is upsetting to me. Yes, they border Russia but so does Finland and Estonia. I think it is because NATO is afraid still that it would be a provocation to Russia. I say Hogwash! By virtue of Russia breaking the unspoken Gentleman's Agreement of the UN that border disputes are only to be settled by dialog and then to threaten that they were very willing to use Nukes, Russia has lost any hope for a seat at the table. IN fact, the countries that NEED to join NATO the most are those that DO border Russia because Putin has shown that Russia can NOT be trusted to keep its word or adhere to treaties. Had Ukraine been a member, Putin would never have invaded or if he had and article 5 had been invoked, this war would have already been over and done!
Why do you not address Russia's legitimate concerns about Nato expansion eastward? Why was there a necessity to keep expanding Nato eastward when the better option was to keep a better power balance between NATO and Russia?
There are no "legitimate concerns". NATO is a defensive alliance. Russia's "concerns" about NATO are only substantial in the case of Russia attacking or using other kinds of force on _other_ countries - like Ukraine, or the Baltics, or Finland, etc. Russia _chose_ to see NATO as their primary enemy, it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
The main effect of NATO enlargement is preventing Russia from exerting dominance over countries on their periphery. Being able to bully others around you is not a "legitimate concern", though.
@@varana NATO is not a pure defensive alliance. That's insane. Do you know how many operations it has carried out offensively in the last 20+ years? Do you know how many interventions to non NATO countries it has carried out? Sorry but NATO is definitely not a pure defensive alliance.
@@mixxeerr Two and two halves. One in Kosovo, one in Libya. Operations in Bosnia and Afghanistan were UN operations carried out (in the case of Afghanistan: together with many others) by NATO.
The US and NATO are different entities. Not every war that the US is involved in, is automatically a NATO operation. (The same goes for Turkey in Syria, for instance.) In wars like Iraq 2003 all major NATO countries except the UK told the US to eff off, basically.
@bruce parka If NATO steps outside its borders in order to do “peacekeeping missions” or to enforce no fly zones that becomes offensive. You’re stepping outside of your jurisdiction, which should always have been within your own borders and not within the internal affairs of other nations. NATO has become a clique.
Smart dude, Alex please consider Finnish presidency when Sale retires, thank you.
No, he might be a smart guy but his political views are fcked up.
@@amadeuz8161 you make the finish election here
Stubb should appear holding NATO coloured pom-poms.
He's such a shameless cheerleader for the west.
He is not an independent Profesor. He is a member of the finish pro-EU party Kansallinen Kokoomus and former ministerpresident of finland.
Yes, he mentioned this many times
@@trulydeadly So he should shut up! He wanted to end Nordstream long before the war in 2009! He is just led by anti russian and anti german policy!
Like literally starts the series of with an extensive description of his history, views, and biases.....
The so-called enlargement of NATO is directly proportional to the growing (not dissipating) threat the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation pose to the security of western democracies and the principal of state sovereignty.
This could have turned out differently had the Russia Federation accepted that the failures under the Soviet era Russia were based on faulty ideology of Communism which brought economic failure and social ineptitude. After the implosion of the Soviet regime in 1991, Russia rapidly reach outwards towards the west not so much politically but in terms of trade. It was in this regard that the west failed to set ground rules with Russia - which should have been: yes we keen to integrate Russia into western trade and we keen to assist rebuilding Russia, BUT we need Russia to stand down its nuclear arsenal (as Ukraine had willing done) and we need Russia to agree to a non-aggression pact with existing NATO members, as well as provide guarantees that ex-Soviet incorporated states, now sovereign, would have the support of Russia regarding their sovereignty; i.e. their sovereign right to join NATO. This was not achieved, however what was achieved was Russia's unhindered entry into the WTO and EU trade. Russia was rapidly enriched by trading westwards and it soon became clear that Russia had zero interest in incorporating open western style democracy. It simple used its rich resources to gain great wealth which it then went on to strengthen its military capability against the west. Russia has developed a unsettling relationship in which it demands recognition as a equal trade parter amongst western powers but at the same time states that NATO (the west) is its arch enemy. The solution to Russia's aggression is to completely cut it out of monetary markets and global trade. Ukraine is already wear the Russia military down (it conventional military capability), by the end of 2022 Russia will no longer be a conventional military threat to NATO, however, Russia is a significant nuclear threat; which is really a non-threat, as the use thereof guarantees a very high degree of mutual destruction in which there are no winners. Nuclear arms are a deterant not a first-line defence. Russia will eventually back away as; 1) it does not have the financial or technical means to support a multi-year offensive; 2) it does not have sufficient skilled military personal to support a lengthy offensive; 3) with western support Ukraine will as it has shown, put Russia on the back foot and possibly drive Russia
back across its borders; 4) the economic impact of the multi-level sanctions have not yet made full impact - when it does (barring the EU gives full effect to its oil, gas and coal embargo), the overall impact will be devastating; 5) the unnecessary hardships this will bring upon the Russian people will eventually unseat Putin and see his demise; 6) alternatively, Putin's health fails and this is used as a pretext to neutralise him (place him into retirement).
Once this scenario plays out the relationship between Russia and the west would be full reset as it was in 1991. Depending on the outcome of that transition, the west would be wise avoid repeating the errors made post 1991. We should start sowing the seeds (opening the back doors) now, so that whatever regime taking over from Putin fully understands that the west does not regard the ordinary Russian people as enemy but wishes to support the full recovery of a New Russia, a Russia without the 'prickles'. Ukraine must regain ALL its sovereign territory (including Crimea). Russia must remove its hold on Georgian and Moldovan territory. Russia must in concert with the west stand down a great portion of nuclear arsenal and agree to demilitarisation of all borders. A strict time frame must be set, with checks and balances in place. A suitable neutral state should oversee this de-escalation. In turn Russia will systematically 'win' back controlled entry back into global trade and banking. Free, fair and transparent elections must be absolutely guaranteed - including the freeing of imprisoned political opposition. A marshel plan must be envisioned and set into motion to restucture the Russian economy and the rewards that flow from its natural resources so that ALL of the Russian population benefit. The confiscated wealth of present oligarchs close to Putin must be used to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. If Putin survives, he must never again, have any influence of government or the military or Russian Intelligence Services. Russia has everything to gain form such a plan and Russia's neighbours can continue demonstrating the benefits of western integration with Ukraine being included into the EU (as it certainly richly deserves such a reward for fighting so valiantly for it sovereign right to chose its destiny).
It's a win for Russia and a win for Russian neighbours - which should have been achieved in 1991 - sadly a missed opportunity - we do have a second chance at getting things right.
You mean Putin was friendly with NATo at the time😂I doubt it was whole of Russia
Slava Rossiya! Sori siitä!
I'd say prospect Russia joining NATO is a bit of a fantasy. NATO was founded as an anti-Russia bloc meant to contain the USSR/Russia (if you read US documents during the Cold War the use the terms Soviet Union & Russia interchangeably which is really revealing about US Foreign Policy). NATO members such as Poland & Lithuania would always veto a hypothetical Russian NATO application. It was in the 2008 NATO-Russia in Bucharest, which things really went downhill. This is because George Bush kept pushing for Ukraine & Georgia to join NATO overriding Russia's concerns, and by doing so the US essentially put targets on their backs instead. I don't support Russia's actions in Ukraine, but it is time to question the wisdom of the US & NATOs foreign policy that is pulling Russia's neighbors away from itself and erecting new geopolitical borders which puts Russia on the other side.
I don't think NATO is pulling Russia's neighbors away from them. Russia is doing a very fine job of that by itself. The great tragedy of Russia is that whenever it looks around all it can see is an enemy or a vassal! Russia has been attacking it's neighbors and trying to destabilize them from it's inception. Every sovereign nation has the right to determine it's own destiny. Russia's behavior is the reason its neighbors want to join NATO. It seems to me if you want your neighbors to be neighborly you shouldn't threaten them with destruction.
@@caseroj6020 I must disagree. The notion that Russia are "just a blood thirsty people that naturally want to invade and destroy their neighbors" plays into that Russophobia. Nations such as Austria & Finland had good relations with Russia for many years. Before the Ukraine war, Estonia was developing good relations with Russia since Russia was building ports in St Petersburg to avoid paying imports via the Baltic states, which Estonia saw their government budget revenues shrink by over half. Estonia started to realize that they cannot survive on a policy of Russophobia alone. Relations between Russia and the west began to sour at during the NATO intervention in Kosovo - which wasn't sanctioned by the UN unlike the intervention in Bosnia, but the US & NATO pushed for it overriding the concerns of both Russia and China, resulting in Kosovo standoff. Then later we all know how the US Invasion of Iraq was received by the international community. Like I said I'm not supporting Russia in this war, but it's ignorant of the fact that over the past 30 years the West (mostly the US) didn't consider Russia as a strategic partner, but rather a rival meant to be contained. There have been several missed diplomatic opportunities in the past 30 years, which lead up to this point. Russia isn't a "naturally blood thirsty" people who just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine 🤷🏻♂️