I'm not an expert on Military affairs, but one thing I know that the talking heads - see above - have a tendency to start with the conclusion, and then justify it with any numbers of opinions which gives them the 'result' that they want. This is always the tendency of hidebound establishments who abjure anyone with a counter-narrative, political, economic, and military.
Francis @ I've observed quite a bit. They set off with their own premise and find arguments to justify their point of view. Just because Russia didn't obliterate anything standing in their way and walking into Kiev within a week doesn't make their army inferior. It just means their objective wasn't the shock and awe invasion NATO is accustomed to.These columnists sitting comfortably in London justifying their own superiority complex.
Where do these people get their military expertise from and why are they asked their opinion. It is like asking a swimmer his take on mountain climbing.
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war. Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir? Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan. George: What was that, sir? Edmund: It was bollocks.
Very correct. It's obvious: to have as less casualties as possible among civilians, the battalions and the army are using them as shields in and out of the cities. Whoever has read, I'm not saying 'study', even one book on military strategy and battles can see that this war will be taught in all War Academies, sooner than later. That is if we still have people capable of thinking.
That was very evident in the first week or so. Although still true for the most part there has been targeting of residential areas to cause fear amongst civilians and apply pressure on the Ukrainian government. While still restrained, at its worst it's a form of hostage taking (Mariupol) and at best it wobbles on the wrong side of the line of "war crime". Whether this holds true going forward is the question. The Russians have done both light touch (Crimea/Donbas - 2014 onwards) and heavy handed (Aleppo) with this currently somewhere in between.
@@petercolledge2236 Well Zelensky is still breathing. There are also videos of Russian soldiers telling people to go home and firing up in the air rather than shooting them.
@@arthurfonzarelli9331 You certainly are correct about Zelenskiy. And there have been videos of Russian soldiers behaving with absolute propriety towards unarmed civilians, it's true. But looking at the war in its totality, do you think restraint is the key component?
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” - John Lennon.
God, how I miss him... Thanks for the reminder. Still, we've got the Great Nero-Liberal "Revolution" for our comfort. (That last word still had some dignity and meaning when I was young. "Consume or die" ? Consume AND die! And leave the problem of decency, law and order to f-cking psychopaths...) (🏴☠)
It never ceases to amaze when 'experts' consider facts and rhetoric interchangeable. Putin's calculation may only be deemed miscalculation if we know what they were in the first place. Also, we continue applying western standards of what is acceptable in terms of losses. Let us not forget Russia undertook 100,000 casualties, massacred 250,000 in Chechnya over 15 years AND re-absorbed the region. Americans took 6000 casualties in Afghanistan over 20 years and lost that war. The Soviets took 30 million casualties in WW2 and were the ones who planted that flag on Reichstag. 20 days to conquer a country the size of Ukraine is nonsense. Any ebb or flow in fighting cannot be used as a basis for declaring our fond hopes as reality. It is certain however, that China, Russia's raison d'etre these days, will use this as an opportunity for a global reset, while our politically correct leadership cheerleads us into a bloody muddle.
we have to remember that the Americans were very careful to rescue any injured soldier in Afghanistan and also to take away the corpses. A soldier who receives early medical treatment in the field will likely recover. The Russians less likely to do this.
The history point regarding Russia is very important. The entire west is attacking the motherland as we speak by economic warfare which has much worse effects over the long term compared to kinetic conventional war. We attack their culture and citizens abroad and If I were Russian there would be no doubt in my mind who the enemy is. Their leader has 20 years of political good will behind him taking them from the horrorshow of the late 1990 to something better. From our POV he might seem despotic, evil and bad while they seem him as Strong, protective and corrupt (like everyone else in Russia) Stalin killed and purged the army, starved people, executed people via quota and had extensive gulag-camps and this was before the German army attacked.... Russians are famous for their tactics of burning down their own peoples land for gods sake. This is the logic of boomers with too much money and power who think life is different now. For them perhaps it is... for the rest of us life is still cheap and the reality of this fact will come down on US as sledgehammer soon.
Starts of "as far as we understand" then shows that "we" don't understand. It took the US 3 weeks to reach Baghdad having spent the previous 12 years sanctioning,bombing and degrading the Iraqi military and deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. In that same period Russia has reduced the Ukrainian military to isolated- or as in the Donbass completely encircled- formations,destroyed the airforce and Navy and besieged the major cities apart from Lvov(which the missile destruction of the base West of there shows they could attack at will). More importantly "we" don't know WHAT the plan is and the Russian command seems comfortable with results.
Yep, turns out that Russia is not interested in destroying a bordering state, whilst the US had no qualms with glassing a handful of rebels living in the sand dunes.
It just shows that we have no real clue what is going on there. Although the huge number of antitank devices drones etc is going to make Russian army bleed.
hahahaha! Actually it's the the Russians command which doesn't know what they're doing, plan or no plan. Ukraine on the other hand, are giving a harsh lesson in Western-style modern warfare on Russia's bloodthirsty and moronic leaders.
@@stevebbuk 1940???!!! Seriously?? People like you are the biggest part of the problem we have in not creating a safer, more equitable world. Check your ignorance and hatred.
@@paulw242 how is what Steve said out of line? Those smaller, vulnerable countries are always the first to be affected by war and are always the first to be attacked. That's not breaking news is it. So I'm not sure why you're so offended.
I know, Napoleon said it. What I don’t get is why Western analysts are telling them what they are doing wrong and journalists pin pointing Ukrainian defences for the Russians.
@@custossecretus5737 I find it ironic that this phrase, attributed to "The Great Thief of Europe" should be given to Ukraine about Russia; in 1812 Napoleon made a HUGE mistake and the Russians let him make it, they gave ground (uniquely they had plenty to give) but harassed elements of his Grand Armee using a War of manoeuvre that the Russian were then and still are, famous (or infamous) for..... Both these so-called experts have it spectacularly wrong here....the Russian operational plan has gone pretty much as expected, and they KNOW the ground they're fighting on intimately, largely because of historical knowledge but it the case of Donbas because of the separatist forces there who have been feeding information on the ground to Russia since 2014; they've had accurate information on Ukrainian dispositions way before and minute by minute right now; the reason they've not made the progress those in the west, with the western military mindset, is believe it or not because they've wanted to AVOID civilian casualties at all costs, for fairly OBVIOUS reasons, not least of all the politics post-conflict, but also because they're after Elensky (no Z allowed lol) and the Azov Brigade, NOT the Ukrainian population; it's the text book way of carrying out a war when you want to minimise civilian casualties, but the western mindset has forgotten this....
Finally, Spectator gets some balls, and Freddie asks the obvious question that has evaded most Western media. "As the sources of our information is always Ukranian, are we getting an honest, balanced view on the issue?" I suggest not.
@@petercollingwood522 I would say your comment aged like milk, but you made it just an hour ago... A day after Ukraine banned all their Independent television media.
@@KingEurope1 They've had "independent" television media far longer than Russia. But if you think drinking at the fount of Putin gets you the real scoop, you go on believing that.
@@petercollingwood522 Propaganda on either side is propaganda. Whichever propaganda you prefer (and especially in wartime) it is unlikely to have much of a relationship with truth.
We must take a sober clear and honest look at Boris Johnsons actions, as opposed to what he speaks, The world owes this to the displaced Ukrainian Families. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door PHILBY BURGESS AND MCLEAN. NOW THIS LOT. ITS TIME MI5 STARTED EARNING THEIR PAY Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the World must be seized and made available for reparations of Ukraine plus assisting Refugees to rebuild their lives. British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent international investigation. The World must take a closer look at this present British Government, it is now clear Putin engineered Brexit. Nigel Farage ( FARAGE FINANCED THROUGH LONDONGRAD OLIGACHS) has all but admitted as much, in his unreserved backing of Putin's front men. In a recent you tube video Farage bemoaned the freezing of Putin's massive London real estate holdings held for him by his Oligarchs" in the UK. Boris Johnson delays and vacillates when the action needed is clear and obvious TURN OLIGARCHS ASSETS INTO EUROS, AND THEN INTO THE POSSESION OF UKRAINIAN REFUGEES. This action of course creates a monumental Dilemma for Boris Johnson due to the massive amount of Largesse the Conservatives are beholden to the Oligarchs for. The reality is "Putin is still pulling this present British gvmnt strings." UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE WORLD TO SEE THIS. We need to stop pretending that we do not know Putin's footmen the 'OLIGARCHS" and UK Tories led by Johnson are knee deep in kickbacks sleaze and corruption together. Putin's "Laundered Londongrad Loot" will never be put in the hands of Ukrainian displaced Mothers as Euros. Oligarchs and Refugees are connected the solution to one is the other. The problem is Boris will stop this solution at all costs. What a nice bunch of Boys run the UK "Pass the Caviar Jacob". BORIS JOHNSON CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE CRITICAL ACTION NEEDED FOR THE REFUGEES" The Ukrainian refugees need help NOW In view of Boris Johnson track record in relation to the truth or following through on a statement or promise its my view he has no intention whatsoever of seriously stripping the Oligarchs of their Criminal wealth. Hypocrisy of words and no action is of no value Mister Johnson. What is needed is a declaration and action to grab the Oligarchs / Putin's assets plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for.
@@itseamuscallan7004 or because Putin wants the sanctions on Russian Oligarchs because he wants their wealth to be kept in Russia? Honestly, the hoops you'll jump through to score political points is so deranged its almost impressive.
Mike Martin is gratuitously disenginious by providing a military assessment of Russia's performance in the Ukraine campaign when he has no data whatsoever. And this program is nothing more than mere pro-Western propaganda. Utterly pathetic, gents.
Everyone underestimated the Russian military by such a ludicrous degree, which is being shown by the collapse of Ukrainian resistance in the East, that it is really unbelievable. Has no one looked into the sheer size of the Russian military and their potential combat power? They are winning in Ukraine with one hand tied behind their back.
The dude at the bottom of the screen looks exactly the way I expect someone with his take to look, probably has a blue check on twitter and only goes with establishment news sources. However, I'm very disappointed with Peter and with reality setting in over in Ukraine, this makes him look like an absolute idiot.
Peter's naive, he doesn't even believe in the real influence of conspiracy in the world and or treat it as a serious factor driving events, he thinks the extent of it is politicians meeting over lunch and that's about it, it's just hilarious that someone who use to be a trostkyist and knows how left wing revolutionaries operate doesn't think the element of conspiracy is present in the world, it's moronic.
@@gerhard7323 thats like saying looking at someone is an aggresive act that deserves a violent response, does russia have zero missiles aimed at any other country?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas When Communism collapsed the continued reason for NATO's existence became questionable. Gorbachev was assured by the West that NATO would not expand any further East. This was why the Soviets agreed to German reunification. What we have seen is a continual push East and the EU having a hand in toppling the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. This war has been brewing for years and many have repeatedly warned against the US, NATO's and the EU's actions. Look back at some recent history.
@@gerhard7323 if Ukraine wants to be in nato as a defense against the russian bully, they should join. Russia is yet to invade a nato ally so it clearly works. If ukraine wants to be in the EU to develop and make €€€ they should be It is none of russiaa business. You dont check with your ex wife begore proposing to someone new. And the not moving east was only in reference to east germany.
Quite. While Mike may be slightly closer to the notion of an expert, PH, alas, is just posturing as an erudite in the topic, pompously and arrogantly exhibiting his empty edicts to the few that might get impressed.
NATO’s eastward expansion is huge disadvantage not just for Russia. Countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which joined NATO have all been denied the benefits of having their towns and cities pulverized and their populations massively reduced.
Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway. Let's expand and antagonize a country for 30 years because they're gonna do it anyway. Just because they invaded doesn't mean they would have if the west was even a little bit decent in it's diplomacy
This is actually from the famous 19th cenury Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz who said "no plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy." Who would have thought that Iron Mike was a student of von Clausewitz ?
@@H-Zazoo Mike spent a lot of time studying about history's greatest conqueror's while living at Cus D'Amatos house in Catskill, NY. The old man taught him much more than just boxing in those early years. He made Mike very knowleadgeable on many topics.
Dr. Mike says Russians have suffered between 2-3 thousands causalities which is more than what America suffered in 20 years in Afghanistan. Fair enough. Can he bring up the comparative numbers of civilian casualties and damage to critical infrastructure from Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps there's a correlation between high number of Russian casualties and relatively low number of Ukrainian loss of life and damage to critical civilian infrastructure?
.....and yet America (and most Western countries) is still the preferred destination for 99% of refugees from those bastions of democracy Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed any Islamic country since 9/11
There's a strange fabianism going on in our press, inny minny miny mo and take your pick there's little difference between them. There's one side they take and that's it. Better looking to non-European sources these day's to get a fuller picture.
@@oldkingcole7443 Freddy Gray: 'To what extent do you think our perspective might be warped, somewhat, by the fact that most of our information that we're getting is coming from Ukrainian sources, which are not always altogether reliable?' Such rich understatement, love it! 😀
@@Thisisahandle701 Yes, murdering civilians and bombing easy targets such as large cities don't improve your reputation for military prowess. Even worse - Putin sent in tanks during the Spring Thaw where most of Ukraine becomes mud. Not the brightest move.
Can these so called experts explain how the military superpower USA had wasted over 1 trillion dollars of their taxpayers money in 20 years in Afganistan. What they had achieved there??
Catastrophic as that was how relevant is that now? What the US might have done is actually learned something. Removing the Taliban made sense after 9/11 but the long term occupation did not. In the end the US, having removed the Taliban, was able to find Osama bin Laden. That would have been the best time to withdraw from Afghanistan in a planned way as it was inevitable the Taliban would return. But had it not been for 9/11 we would not have been talking about it at all. Will someone actually come out and ask the Taliban what they were thinking when they gave so much support and shelter to Osama bin Laden? No, it is question that is never asked but they should tell us sometime how that worked out. The Taliban lost a vital two decades of oppressing the population and robbing them of their human rights and saw two decades of their people being slaughtered. Now all they have is starvation and isolation.
Hmmm, to me Martin sounded like a troll when he seriously tried to attach some meaning to comparing the heavier losses of Russia in Ukraine to the 20 year losses of the US in Afghanistan. There is really no comparison, and no use in making the comparison other than to try to frame Russia as losing, which they clearly are not.
Peter's conclusions that we should stand back and watch Russia weaken itself against Ukraine, that the countries currently protected by NATO would be better off if we'd removed NATO in 1991 .. these aren't problematic?
Blimey.....Peter Hitchens comes across as pretty clueless in this interview too ........both these comedians are missing what is actually going on by a country mile
No, Peter know more about Russia/Ukraine than the both of them put together. He is honest enough not to pretend to the certainty that the media in general do about what's going on in that country nor in Putin's head. The first casualty in war is truth.
Once again we have the comment 'Russia have suffered more casualties than the US did in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan'. There is no comparison to the forces faced by the US and those faced by Russia today in Ukraine. If the Taliban had been armed with the anti-armour and anti-aircraft weapons, as the Afghan warlords were against the Russians, ISAF/Western force casualties would have been much higher. With the use of ieds that caused mayhem amongst those on footpatrol, in armoured vehicles and tanks (and yes the Germans and Danish forces used them) indicates the potential of the Taliban a hugely under armed enemy.
I literally made the same point. These so called experts...quoting twitter and trying to draw parallels between conflicts between a force fielding 60 year old tech in afganistan with modern cutting edge tech in Ukraine immediately invalidates every thing he says imo.
The comparison is not the point, but can Russia sustain such rate of losses, especially in a war that is unpopular from the start, where Russians have already gone to prison for demonstrating against it?
81 people were just beheaded in Riyadh's public square a few weeks ago... the Saudi monarch sits on the Human Rights Council. Lofty (purported) principles mean nothing when they are selectively applied in service of empire and financial domination.
@@jtcruz125 Correct. The struggle that lies ahead of us is monumental, but is just as inevitable. The free world will shrug the silliness we chafe under and readopt our trademark strength. The autocrats will quiver in their boots.
@@bobshenix Executing terrorists is a good thing. The Saudi monarchy sucks but they’re low on our list. Don’t get me wrong though: there is a list and it will be followed to the letter.
Interested to know what your explanation is for why Russia didn't invade the Baltic states pre 2004? Also, I'm a little too young to have been politically engaged at the time but my understanding is that even in 04 their main reason for joining was wanting to be integrated into the West rather than because of a threat from Russia Personally I don't subscribe to the idea that it was inevitable that Russia was going to start invading its neighbours but I could be wrong
@@1beady1 from Baltics here. During 90ties they had other focus: sticking together Caucasus side of country + recreation of centralized power. Rhetoric about many topics was very agressive all the time. I very well understand buffer state concept + geography of Eastern Europe. Even I dont like it, but from sinister Russian perspective that makes sense Will NATO trade Baltics for assurances? Most likely
Fact of the matter is if Russia wasn’t such an awful neighbour and the countries of the former Soviet Union didn’t view that time as a dark period in their history, they probably wouldn’t be scrambling to join NATO.
they're scrambling to join due to economic coercion and diplomatic pressure from the US. They're "memory" is contrived since communism ended in 1989. Russia has been a perfect neighbours for 20 years+, it's NATO that encroached.
@@als5482 As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t NATO who sent “little green men” to annex parts of countries, nor does it go around poisoning former officials and political dissidents. Even Kazakhstan refuses to endorse Russia’s war, and it’s a part of Russia’s own collective security bloc! So to say Russia’s been a perfect neighbour is pure waffle. As for economic coercion, I suppose free market capitalism would look that way from the perspective of the vanquished in the Cold War.
@@jtothecc2421 Ukraine barely has an air force, but they seem to have denied the airspace to Russians with MANPADs and possibly static systems. Or do you think Russians are just incredibly incompetent?
He basically might as well have said "my sources are the BBC news". Generals dying, who knows how many general Russia has and how many ranks in an army of 200,000. A few news reports that russian troops desserted their vehicle (based on what evidence; basically the ukranian army narrative, the same narrative that said it had killed 10,000 russian troops while only 100 odd ukranian troops died early on in the war), therefore the whole army has super low morale. All you have to do is simply look at the map; russia keeps expanding, whether it's slow or fast, doesn't matter. They. Keep. Expanding. controlled territory.
@@bob40179 but to recap.... YOU are talking crap and we are now up to 7 generals and 40,000 dead, injured and captive. Resignations and firings in the Kremlin, losing territory again and again. Do take care not to be a 'useful idiot' (so many right wingers are though!!) Russia down 530 tanks v Ukraine got a net gain of 43 at the last count. Half the soldiers have frostbite and no desire to be there - OR DO YOU STILL KNOW BETTER!! LOL
No contradiction whatsoever, if I see someone running down the street, I can say I don't know where they're going, but because they're still running, I can confidently say they have not yet reached their goal.
Very convenient really that the jerks that initiate conflict at any level and whatever purpose don't need to deal with the emotional impact of the piles of the once living and their grieving families.
The amazing thing is that, if after a month or so all their analysis and predictions turn out to be a fantasy and BS, they will go on making analysis and predictions...
@@tictoc5443 "It was agreed in the 90s that NATO would not militarise east of the Rhine" ??? The bulk of the former West Germany is east of the Rhine. The Rhine is in the far west of Germany. NATO was militarised East of the Rhine since it's conception. Perhaps you meant a different river. Maybe the Oder ?
"It is very tempting to take side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and seak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering." Judith Herman (1992): Trauma and Recovery
Sounds good; let's push some patsies into becoming sympathetic victims. It's a winning strategy. About the winningest strategy there could be. But you've got to be prepared to sacrifice untold human people, including the innocent, including helpless children, to do it. Who could be so cold-blooded, to do something like that? Something so inhuman, so monstrous. What could ever justify such a thing?
@@upnorth2421 No genocide is happening. Your government is placing nuclear tipped missiles 4 minutes flight from Moscow. Nuclear bombs will cause a genocide, not a military operation to de-militarise a fascist state.
@@als5482 Ukraine gave up it's Nukes and has asked to join NATO, but has not been accepted. There are no nukes being placed in Ukraine, and Putin fears NATO not one jot. Everything you say is incorrect
@@als5482 Nothing to do with NATO or fecking missiles. Putin's just massively pissed off that Ukraine and a few other Slavic countries (including Russia one could argue), don't want to be ruled by him but want what the west has and he's sending the message, 'don't get any ideas'. He's already lost the insane, cowardly, murderous, big baby that he is.
18:13 - Peter Hitchens on a quick history of NATO expansion - remarks on how odd that George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky agree on something! Brilliant!
@@justgivemethetruth Have you read any of his books? Any of his copious articles in the Mail etc? Do you read, or do you only get your information from youtube? Can you use da Google?
Because the German, French and British militaries have been degraded for years. The Eastern European armies aren't up to much either. Big daddy America is different of course, but if you look at Europe alone, as underwhelming as the Russian army is, the same applies to Western European armies.
@@theirishneilers The army that got driven out of Afghanistan by force and blown up by ISIS-K as they were evacuating. When has the US army faced a modern military that fights conventionally since World War 2?? How do we know they're up to par when they even get beaten by guerilla insurgents? The outcome of Ukraine is expected given Ukraine's relatively modern defenses.
@@maaz322 They withdrew from Afghanistan, come on. Look at both the amount and sophistication of any military metric (war planes, tanks, battleships, missiles, overall spending, etc.) - and the US are vastly superior to any other army.
He's wrong about the MiG's, they are important in preventing Russian offensives on the battlefield. Hitchens also is wrong about NATO. This is a result of Russian revanchism, not NATO.
@sooje nite His story is fascinating, it is exactly what is needed to get views. It was a simple economic derision of the channels to get him on. It is just like Peter Hitchens. Hitchens is taken on, not because he is knowledgeable but because he is controversial.
It must be noted that all invasions are fought by invaders who, well, are not familiar with the terrain. It should also be noted that this was said about the Vietnamese--most of whom, it turned out, had not spent a terrible amount of time before the war walking around in the jungles a hundred miles away from their homes.
It's a completely different world back then. Vietnam is about as relevant to 2022 as what the Napoleonic wars are. Now, we'd be able to see where they are in the jungle using thermal imaging from the satellites/recon planes and then just bomb the crap out of them after supressing their air defence
@@StevenSmith-mk5fg Good luck using thermal imaging through three levels of canopy. In fact they did bomb the crap out of them, and it didn't work. So you're suggesting thermal scopes for all the infantry. Of course those won't help much when your average engagement is within 30 meters of dense underbrush. Specifically, the many rebel forces in Myanmar would argue that the lessons of the Vietnam war are still applicable--that civil war has been ongoing in similar terrain since 1948. Besides, Nagorno-Karabakh showed that armoured assaults with infantry are still required in the age of drone strikes. I'm sure most soldiers already understand this, but the general public's perception of the impact of technology is warped.
@@StevenSmith-mk5fg yeah like Russian is doing now. If anything napoleon and hitlers invasions are extremely relevant and history is just repeating itself.
@@laserprawn Just look at what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan . They feel within weeks. What would be an issue would be trying to subdue the population against it's will. This is what fucks you as you cannot win against the entire population unless your goal is to simply wipe it out
What does it mean to "have a say in the matter"? The Baltic countries don't want to be dominated by Russia: who do they say this to? Presumably, NATO. Which means that what sounds like an ethical question is really an appeal to the EU and the US and their economic and military bloc for aid. Which means, of course, that Russia cedes its regional hegemony to foreign powers. Which means that it's willing to lash out unreasonably to try, and possibly fail, to secure it. Which means that NATO needs to go to war to uphold those ethical claims for sovereignty. One doesn't simply wave a wand around and tell anther state that it would be wrong to attack them because they don't desire to be attacked. War is the only way to uphold these security guarantees. Well, that sounds just great.
@Neil Rusling surely it's upto the already existing countries of NATO and their citizens if a new country is admitted, not who want's to join. NATO is a commitment that those NATO countries have to face, so it's doesn't matter if all these countries want to join , they don't get a say, they can ask and NATO countries can decide either way. So you say it's ok for Peter to be safe on his island, but membership of NATO means now British , US, French , German troops are obliged to protect that country. So what that vote is , is we vote to be in a club where that club will fight my fights.
@@laserprawn more like a 'buffet state' - I find it sickening how people bandy around the idea that any country should not dream to be more than a door stop to Putin.
Hitchens is right about 2014. The Ukraine's neutrality was doing fine until those western politicians turned up in Kiev to encourage the crowd to depose a government they had democratically elected because it had signed a finance package with Russia. The Ukraine should remain a neutral buffer state after this invasion is finished.
Ukraine should be able to join anything they want, that's what being free is. Why should any free state take directions that only please Russia ? The actions of Russia the last few weeks shows you why someone would want to join NATO
@@randomcomputer7248 No. The Ukraine's young population are too young and idealistic. That's when mistakes are made. The Ukraine should remain a neutral buffer state, and trade on its own terms with its own trade policy, not bound by EU rules, and make its own foreign policy, not be bound by EU commission rules.
armchair experts with their laser vision, you do forget that during WWII when Stalin was asked about horrendous loses of soldiers, his answer was "we have plenty of people". This could be so.
@@jonathanbowen3640 what a poor comment to make, and his "far smarter" brother wasn't so great either, supporting that oh so benevolent and righteous western "special military operation"
@@dewiwilliams4821 Nothing poor about a comment stating the obvious. Hitch (the proper one) was not perfect that that doesn't mean that he isn't smarter than Peter... Plus I'm proud of the Wests role in Afganistan removing the terrorist training camps and removing Saddam and his evil sons. Those who believe the west is at fault such as yourself lack the imagination to understand what would have happened if the west didn't intervene You would have had decades of Iran fighting Iraq with even more losses and even more chemical weapon attacks and probably a Nuclear powered Iran... Hitch was brilliant in his dismantling of Islam. That was enough for him to be considered far superior and influential than Peter despite his early demise.
I find the remark comparing dead/casualties between Russia in Ukraine and the US in Afghanistan rather glib and a bit offensive as well as a bit silly from an intellectual standpoint. As far as I am aware, it was not only the US fighting and dieing in Afghanistan. The UK (where the Spectator is based) lost over 450 dead. The Afghan army apparently lost 70,000+ dead. Then there were thousands more who suffered horrific, life-changing injuries as well as those with PTSD. So I find comparing the number of dead like comparing football scores leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I think it's unfair to compare military performance against lightly armed, poorly trained and outnumbered Taliban fighters on one hand and against highly trained, well armed (by NATO) and comparable force size on the other.
@@FiveLiver It's a bad one. Why not at least compare with Iraq 2003 where the forces were more comparable than an opposed to Afghanistan? And use the total killed rather than just the US killed?
NATOs Article 5 contradicts you. The war in Afghanistan was conceived to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 bombing of the Towers. They were Saudis who were led by Usama Bin Laden who's main gripe was that the US had placed its soldiers in Saudi Arabia, of whom many were of the Jewish faith. It was seen as a travesty by Bin Laden and many influential Saudis who bankrolled the attack. Bin Laden hid in a villa within shouting distance from a Pakistani military compound. Upon a Pakistani doctor visiting the compound to treat one of Bin Laden's children, he contacted the US and the CIA was called in. Upon killing Bin Laden in that Seal Team raid, the US should have called it quits and left. But George Bush, the 'W' one decided to attack Iraq on the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He didn't. Tony Blair cavorted with Bush. That war in Iraq cist a million lives because Iran decided to support their Sh'ia brothers. NATO has been used to spread Democracy, America says!! It does that to enrich its weapons manufacturers and impose its presence where its not required. What makes Hawaii, the Martial islands, Western Samoa America? The world would be a much safer place if America solved IRS own domestic problems and leave the world to manage itself.
Those poorly trained and out numbered Taliban fighters saw NATO and, by extension, the US off. Remember Vietnam? Remember Napalm, Cluster bombs, Agent Orange? How about those Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what real time damage they could do. The Japanese had already surrendered to the Brits in South East Asia. The war to all purposes was over but Harry Truman thought "What the heck". The pilot of that B52 is reported to have said " My God what have iI just done as he saw the bombs explode and that Mushroom cloud blaknket the skies. Hundreds of thousands died and continue to die from cancers. Yup, its just America spreading Democracy!. Pull the other leg, its got bells on.
Was he ever anything more than a hack? I realise it must have been hard to live in the shadow of a deeply intellectual brother, but he could at least have tried
The Pottery Barn rule is - you break it, you own it -. Russia wants to break Ukraine but not to own it. Therefore, I find erroneous the assumption that Russia needs 1,000,000 men in order to dominate Ukraine and effectuate a regime change. The main reason is that such a contrived regime will be illegitimate and unrecognized, therefore, the financial burden of supporting the created mess will fall on Russia alone. Hence, we have to conclude that Russia is interested in only cherry-picking parts of Ukraine for itself and leaving the rest of the mess for the West to finance and support( a role, which btw, the West has already gladly accepted to undertake.
The NATO backed "insurgency" is the problem. Russia hit the main intake and training base near Lviv at Yavoriv with 30 cruise missiles. But presumably NATO will now move that into Poland or elsewhere? Putin mentioned western Ukraine before the invasion. What would the Ukraine mood be if Russia had taken the whole country, the AZOZ destroyed and NATO had not been able to defend them? The country was miserably poor under Zelenskyy (star of the Pandora papers). To the extent that surrogacy has been an income supplement reached for by quite a few Ukrainian women. We wont know either way till the dust settles.
Western Ukraine's illegal government, which followed USA funded coup in 2014, started a war on the South-Eastern Ukrainian territories, who asked to become independent from Ukraine after the illegal coup. Guess what? South-Eastern territories could support themselves as independent countries, but the Western Ukraine couldn't, hence they started the war and genocide on their own citizens, to try to shut them up. USA spent $5 Billions to install the government which would do their bidding, which was illegal. 2.6 millions of Ukrainian citizens fled To Russia during those 8 years of war and life loss is estimated to about 54,000, why does USA scream now and not then? Because that didn't support "Russia is evil" agenda, which USA paid for.
They all start with this projection-assumption: Putin wants to take all of Ukraine and then he will move to the other countries. And a big part of this hysteria is cultivated by the 3 baltic countries who exist in complete dependence on the US & EU.
Those prescient western intelligence analysts cited by Hitchens, from Kennan onwards, would have differed with him in attributing these events to Putin's personal peculiarities. They were at pains to say that any western moves into Ukraine would be of great concern to Russian leadership generally -- which could only be more so when they result in attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Four months into the war, Mike Martin's analysis makes him look like a total ignoramus 🤣🤣🤣 And to think these people get paid handsomely to teach this kind of BS 🙄🙄🙄
Why does the Ukraine need to be in the EU to build its own democracy ? This view that the EU is the only way to succeed is very arrogant. The Ukraine should maintain control over its own trade policy and foreign policy by keeping out of the EU.
and the view that the EU will let them join is just utter crap - Putin's Brexit has meant the UK are going to find out how shit it actually is outside the EU. I am now stateless..... and hoping Ireland might give me a passport
@@jameslawrence3666 Calm down. The EU is run on an old german foreign policy model called Limited Sovereignty. It's not about independent nations. Ireland is run from Brussels, its new colonial master.
@@jameslawrence3666 You don't need to be in the EU to trade with the EU. China trades with the EU every day, so do Africa, Japan, and others. Don't listen to the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.
Afghanistan and Libya weren't NATO. They were both UN mandated with ISAF going into Afghanistan and the UN Resolution in Libya not even being vetoed by Russia or China.
@@evolassunglasses4673 so not NATO and LOL at the rest of the comment. American Empire. 😂 Rather that than the jack boot of Russian or Chinese aggression.
@@operator6471. You are probably right, if you largely agree with him. As I mostly don’t, I go with portentous! Maybe too rude, perhaps long-winded would be better from me.
Quite a few "West-haters' here that wholly gloss over Russia's nasty actions in wars in, say, Afghanistan.. I'd say, move to Russia if you're so in awe of Russia's humanitarian inclinations.
80% of americans live in poverty ... at least they have universal healthcare in Russia it might be average at best but at least they have it ... USA have the best healthcare, but none can afford it anyways...... USAs campaign in Afghanistan have left millions of people now starving and suffering, parents selling their children for food and millions dead or sick ... 20 fucking years for a failure.... War is not funny no matter who is at war
@@DannyKa-x8z It's the Healthcare in Europe (or even Cuba) that puts the US to shame, not Russia. Under the Soviet Union their was a decent social safty net but that's been gone for decades.
The more this is dragged out, the less I think this is about capturing any more parts of Ukraine. We call Putin "mad," and his effort "failed," but I'm not sure that's true if his overall objective is really different from his original statement, or plan.
I think he probably just wants to destroy Ukraine. More economic stagnation and deterioration for the West to deal with while China, Russia etc keep making progress.
@@AtlasofInfo I don't think he intends that at all, if he did he could have flattened it. The Russians are actively avoiding wrecking the place like NATO does. He's looking for a surrender with the two breakaways in the Russian sphere and Western Ukraine guaranteed neutral.
@@ian_b I don't think anyone knows what is truly going on, apart from the obvious sides of this argument. I'm just making an educated guess and putting forward an opinion. It seems to me that even the dullest, lowest person thinks that this should have been an easily foreseeable mistake for Putin and yet we think he's capable of making such a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think most politicians are incompetent and ideologically retarded but this makes no sense. War never ends up being a positive thing for anyone that is involved. Unless of course, the result isn't to supposedly have sway over people who will possibly resent you after you bombed their families and friends out of existence. Look at the infrastructure projects that Russia and China and other countries are bringing about and how dependent we are on their progress. We're engaged in disgusting levels of altruism and always have been. It's one of only a few things which holds back progress. Our politicians are extremely corrupt, as much as Russian politicians. I personally don't see this being a good thing if we win or lose, unless we remove ourselves from these divisive political unions. Better to stay neutral and defend our own. If they come knocking, nuke everyone out of existence. You see, we can all make these threats. These politicians, our own and others prey on our weakness.
He literally spelled out both military and political objectives of this operation, and I am yet to see any change of those objectives. Also, the strategic choices they have made fit pretty well if we keep those objectives in mind. On the other hand, if we ignore everything that is being said and suppose fantastic ideas like "Putin is mad", "Putin wants to completely occupy the whole Ukraine", "People wants to kill all Ukrainians", then we get the chance to laugh like maniacs when after 3 weeks he didn't achieve those goals (that WE invented!) and how now he has to change the tactics yadda yadda. The public space in the West has become a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Event13 - I saw an interview where Hitchens admitted - in a boastful way? - to being a moral and physical coward, - had the interview been longer he could, have added a hypocrite as well . . . and well, put crudely, a bit of a prick.
I'm not an expert on Military affairs, but one thing I know that the talking heads - see above - have a tendency to start with the conclusion, and then justify it with any numbers of opinions which gives them the 'result' that they want. This is always the tendency of hidebound establishments who abjure anyone with a counter-narrative, political, economic, and military.
They are talking heads with soft hum./soc science degrees, logic is not their best attribute.
Especially Hitchens.
Yeah. This armchair wannabes. Spinning a story
Thank you for your saner view.
Francis @ I've observed quite a bit. They set off with their own premise and find arguments to justify their point of view. Just because Russia didn't obliterate anything standing in their way and walking into Kiev within a week doesn't make their army inferior. It just means their objective wasn't the shock and awe invasion NATO is accustomed to.These columnists sitting comfortably in London justifying their own superiority complex.
Where do these people get their military expertise from and why are they asked their opinion. It is like asking a swimmer his take on mountain climbing.
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
"It's worked so far Corporal."
Ben Elton knows how to wright 👍
Victory was achieved in The Cold War. This is different.
As a casual observer, I have the unpopular take that the Russians are acting with restraint.
Interesting Jonathan. Do you have an evidence for this slightly quaint notion?
Very correct. It's obvious: to have as less casualties as possible among civilians, the battalions and the army are using them as shields in and out of the cities. Whoever has read, I'm not saying 'study', even one book on military strategy and battles can see that this war will be taught in all War Academies, sooner than later. That is if we still have people capable of thinking.
That was very evident in the first week or so. Although still true for the most part there has been targeting of residential areas to cause fear amongst civilians and apply pressure on the Ukrainian government. While still restrained, at its worst it's a form of hostage taking (Mariupol) and at best it wobbles on the wrong side of the line of "war crime".
Whether this holds true going forward is the question. The Russians have done both light touch (Crimea/Donbas - 2014 onwards) and heavy handed (Aleppo) with this currently somewhere in between.
@@petercolledge2236 Well Zelensky is still breathing. There are also videos of Russian soldiers telling people to go home and firing up in the air rather than shooting them.
@@arthurfonzarelli9331 You certainly are correct about Zelenskiy. And there have been videos of Russian soldiers behaving with absolute propriety towards unarmed civilians, it's true. But looking at the war in its totality, do you think restraint is the key component?
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.”
- John Lennon.
well he nailed Brexit ;)
God, how I miss him... Thanks for the reminder.
Still, we've got the Great Nero-Liberal "Revolution" for our comfort. (That last word still had some dignity and meaning when I was young. "Consume or die" ? Consume AND die! And leave the problem of decency, law and order to f-cking psychopaths...) (🏴☠)
And John Lennon was the poster boy for insane, abusive, selfish behaviour. An utter hypocrite!
No, David, just keep tapping away, like me. You aren't insane.
And that was when Harold Wilson was in charge.
It never ceases to amaze when 'experts' consider facts and rhetoric interchangeable. Putin's calculation may only be deemed miscalculation if we know what they were in the first place. Also, we continue applying western standards of what is acceptable in terms of losses. Let us not forget Russia undertook 100,000 casualties, massacred 250,000 in Chechnya over 15 years AND re-absorbed the region. Americans took 6000 casualties in Afghanistan over 20 years and lost that war. The Soviets took 30 million casualties in WW2 and were the ones who planted that flag on Reichstag. 20 days to conquer a country the size of Ukraine is nonsense. Any ebb or flow in fighting cannot be used as a basis for declaring our fond hopes as reality. It is certain however, that China, Russia's raison d'etre these days, will use this as an opportunity for a global reset, while our politically correct leadership cheerleads us into a bloody muddle.
we have to remember that the Americans were very careful to rescue any injured soldier in Afghanistan and also to take away the corpses. A soldier who receives early medical treatment in the field will likely recover. The Russians less likely to do this.
@@corallynnewman3536 Russians employed suicide squads as well for important objectives in WW II.
The history point regarding Russia is very important. The entire west is attacking the motherland as we speak by economic warfare which has much worse effects over the long term compared to kinetic conventional war. We attack their culture and citizens abroad and If I were Russian there would be no doubt in my mind who the enemy is. Their leader has 20 years of political good will behind him taking them from the horrorshow of the late 1990 to something better. From our POV he might seem despotic, evil and bad while they seem him as Strong, protective and corrupt (like everyone else in Russia) Stalin killed and purged the army, starved people, executed people via quota and had extensive gulag-camps and this was before the German army attacked.... Russians are famous for their tactics of burning down their own peoples land for gods sake. This is the logic of boomers with too much money and power who think life is different now. For them perhaps it is... for the rest of us life is still cheap and the reality of this fact will come down on US as sledgehammer soon.
This is what happens when the 'Stupid' are allowed to decide who Runs their Country.The USA is imploding.
@@lightdampsweetenough2065 If you aren’t a Russian, why do you refer to Russia as ‘the Motherland’? Are you just grovelling to fascism?
Starts of "as far as we understand" then shows that "we" don't understand. It took the US 3 weeks to reach Baghdad having spent the previous 12 years sanctioning,bombing and degrading the Iraqi military and deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. In that same period Russia has reduced the Ukrainian military to isolated- or as in the Donbass completely encircled- formations,destroyed the airforce and Navy and besieged the major cities apart from Lvov(which the missile destruction of the base West of there shows they could attack at will). More importantly "we" don't know WHAT the plan is and the Russian command seems comfortable with results.
Beep bip bot.
Yep, turns out that Russia is not interested in destroying a bordering state, whilst the US had no qualms with glassing a handful of rebels living in the sand dunes.
It just shows that we have no real clue what is going on there. Although the huge number of antitank devices drones etc is going to make Russian army bleed.
hahahaha! Actually it's the the Russians command which doesn't know what they're doing, plan or no plan. Ukraine on the other hand, are giving a harsh lesson in Western-style modern warfare on Russia's bloodthirsty and moronic leaders.
Boy, that didn't age well.
Not sure how Mikey Boy knows what morale is like among Russian troops... has he spoken to any?
Have you not seen the videos?
Mikey Boy speaks far more sense than his opposite number, who seems to have forgotten the fate the Baltic States, Poland and Finland suffered in 1940.
@@stevebbuk 1940???!!! Seriously?? People like you are the biggest part of the problem we have in not creating a safer, more equitable world. Check your ignorance and hatred.
There are plenty of intercepts.
@@paulw242 how is what Steve said out of line? Those smaller, vulnerable countries are always the first to be affected by war and are always the first to be attacked. That's not breaking news is it. So I'm not sure why you're so offended.
Peter thinks that the Baltics didn't really want to join NATO... he knows better than them...
How wrong was this guy.
I love that "don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake!"
I know, Napoleon said it.
What I don’t get is why Western analysts are telling them what they are doing wrong and journalists pin pointing Ukrainian defences for the Russians.
@@custossecretus5737 Western medias are well known for being busy body.
proceeds to interrupt , only kidding
@@custossecretus5737 I find it ironic that this phrase, attributed to "The Great Thief of Europe" should be given to Ukraine about Russia; in 1812 Napoleon made a HUGE mistake and the Russians let him make it, they gave ground (uniquely they had plenty to give) but harassed elements of his Grand Armee using a War of manoeuvre that the Russian were then and still are, famous (or infamous) for.....
Both these so-called experts have it spectacularly wrong here....the Russian operational plan has gone pretty much as expected, and they KNOW the ground they're fighting on intimately, largely because of historical knowledge but it the case of Donbas because of the separatist forces there who have been feeding information on the ground to Russia since 2014; they've had accurate information on Ukrainian dispositions way before and minute by minute right now; the reason they've not made the progress those in the west, with the western military mindset, is believe it or not because they've wanted to AVOID civilian casualties at all costs, for fairly OBVIOUS reasons, not least of all the politics post-conflict, but also because they're after Elensky (no Z allowed lol) and the Azov Brigade, NOT the Ukrainian population; it's the text book way of carrying out a war when you want to minimise civilian casualties, but the western mindset has forgotten this....
24. War is a mere continuation of POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
Finally, Spectator gets some balls, and Freddie asks the obvious question that has evaded most Western media. "As the sources of our information is always Ukranian, are we getting an honest, balanced view on the issue?" I suggest not.
Catastrophic failure of journalism is occurring before our eyes.
Right. You'll get a far more ballanced view from Russian media. Always were the bastion of a free press and journalistic integrity. Idiot.
@@petercollingwood522 I would say your comment aged like milk, but you made it just an hour ago... A day after Ukraine banned all their Independent television media.
@@KingEurope1 They've had "independent" television media far longer than Russia. But if you think drinking at the fount of Putin gets you the real scoop, you go on believing that.
@@petercollingwood522 Propaganda on either side is propaganda. Whichever propaganda you prefer (and especially in wartime) it is unlikely to have much of a relationship with truth.
This is like calling the result of a football game half-way through the first quarter. It ain't over till it's over.
Is that your real name ?
Yes - but: 4th March 1995 Manchester United vs Ipswich occurs to mind!
We must take a sober clear and honest look at Boris Johnsons actions, as opposed to what he speaks, The world owes this to the displaced Ukrainian Families. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door
PHILBY BURGESS AND MCLEAN. NOW THIS LOT. ITS TIME MI5 STARTED EARNING THEIR PAY
Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the World must be seized and made available for reparations of Ukraine plus assisting Refugees to rebuild their lives.
British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent international investigation.
The World must take a closer look at this present British Government, it is now clear Putin engineered Brexit. Nigel Farage ( FARAGE FINANCED THROUGH LONDONGRAD OLIGACHS) has all but admitted as much, in his unreserved backing of Putin's front men. In a recent you tube video Farage bemoaned the freezing of Putin's massive London real estate holdings held for him by his Oligarchs" in the UK.
Boris Johnson delays and vacillates when the action needed is clear and obvious TURN OLIGARCHS ASSETS INTO EUROS, AND THEN INTO THE POSSESION OF UKRAINIAN REFUGEES. This action of course creates a monumental Dilemma for Boris Johnson due to the massive amount of Largesse the Conservatives are beholden to the Oligarchs for. The reality is "Putin is still pulling this present British gvmnt strings." UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE WORLD TO SEE THIS.
We need to stop pretending that we do not know Putin's footmen the 'OLIGARCHS" and UK Tories led by Johnson are knee deep in kickbacks sleaze and corruption together. Putin's "Laundered Londongrad Loot" will never be put in the hands of Ukrainian displaced Mothers as Euros. Oligarchs and Refugees are connected the solution to one is the other. The problem is Boris will stop this solution at all costs.
What a nice bunch of Boys run the UK "Pass the Caviar Jacob".
BORIS JOHNSON CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE CRITICAL ACTION NEEDED FOR THE REFUGEES" The Ukrainian refugees need help NOW In view of Boris Johnson track record in relation to the truth or following through on a statement or promise its my view he has no intention whatsoever of seriously stripping the Oligarchs of their Criminal wealth. Hypocrisy of words and no action is of no value Mister Johnson. What is needed is a declaration and action to grab the Oligarchs / Putin's assets plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for.
@@itseamuscallan7004 You are a typical example of blind belief of all propaganda from leftwing sources.
@@itseamuscallan7004 or because Putin wants the sanctions on Russian Oligarchs because he wants their wealth to be kept in Russia?
Honestly, the hoops you'll jump through to score political points is so deranged its almost impressive.
Mike Martin is gratuitously disenginious by providing a military assessment of Russia's performance in the Ukraine campaign when he has no data whatsoever. And this program is nothing more than mere pro-Western propaganda. Utterly pathetic, gents.
Everyone underestimated the Russian military by such a ludicrous degree, which is being shown by the collapse of Ukrainian resistance in the East, that it is really unbelievable. Has no one looked into the sheer size of the Russian military and their potential combat power? They are winning in Ukraine with one hand tied behind their back.
The dude at the bottom of the screen looks exactly the way I expect someone with his take to look, probably has a blue check on twitter and only goes with establishment news sources. However, I'm very disappointed with Peter and with reality setting in over in Ukraine, this makes him look like an absolute idiot.
@@SdotThompson agreed. Very disappointed with Hitchens.
Peter's naive, he doesn't even believe in the real influence of conspiracy in the world and or treat it as a serious factor driving events, he thinks the extent of it is politicians meeting over lunch and that's about it, it's just hilarious that someone who use to be a trostkyist and knows how left wing revolutionaries operate doesn't think the element of conspiracy is present in the world, it's moronic.
Johnson can´t organise the decorating his flat by himself so how can he be expected to cope with something like world affairs?
What a stupid comment.
Where are NATO's missiles placed, where are they pointing and how long have they been pointing there?
How many have they fired?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas Struggling with the relevance of that I'm afraid.
Locating and pointing missiles is in itself an aggressive act.
@@gerhard7323 thats like saying looking at someone is an aggresive act that deserves a violent response, does russia have zero missiles aimed at any other country?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas When Communism collapsed the continued reason for NATO's existence became questionable.
Gorbachev was assured by the West that NATO would not expand any further East. This was why the Soviets agreed to German reunification.
What we have seen is a continual push East and the EU having a hand in toppling the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.
This war has been brewing for years and many have repeatedly warned against the US, NATO's and the EU's actions.
Look back at some recent history.
@@gerhard7323 if Ukraine wants to be in nato as a defense against the russian bully, they should join. Russia is yet to invade a nato ally so it clearly works.
If ukraine wants to be in the EU to develop and make €€€ they should be
It is none of russiaa business. You dont check with your ex wife begore proposing to someone new.
And the not moving east was only in reference to east germany.
The Salisbury poisonings taught us that the Russians are ruthless but inefficient.
I love Peter Hitchens! ‘Don’t interrupt me’ then interrupts the shit out of the other guest! 🤣🤣🤣
Lol
I, too, love Peter Hitchens, but he could piss off Mother Teresa and the Dali Lama without any effort whatsoever.
But he _didn’t_ interrupt anyone here, and rarely ever does, let alone ‘interrupt the sh*t’ out of anyone . . .
Tbf he never said he's against interrupting people in general lol
I didn't hear him talk over anyone.
There is always a doubt in my mind that 'experts' don't always get things right.
Same 'experts' as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Yugoslavia, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, .... OK I stop.
Quite. While Mike may be slightly closer to the notion of an expert, PH, alas, is just posturing as an erudite in the topic, pompously and arrogantly exhibiting his empty edicts to the few that might get impressed.
Real experts know where their expertise is lacking and don't go there.
There is always doubt in my mind as to whether many experts really exist... (I could probably count the number I've met on one hand)
Because they spend their lives at a desk. I'm not so sure I'd trust the war professor to hang a picture.
NATO’s eastward expansion is huge disadvantage not just for Russia.
Countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which joined NATO
have all been denied the benefits of having their towns and cities
pulverized and their populations massively reduced.
Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway. Let's expand and antagonize a country for 30 years because they're gonna do it anyway.
Just because they invaded doesn't mean they would have if the west was even a little bit decent in it's diplomacy
This has aged poorly.
Where did Zelinsky get 1Billion dollars from??🤔
What 1 bilion dollars? Even if he did he is not spending any of it.
Mike Tyson famously said, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." War
This is actually from the famous 19th cenury Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz who said "no plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy."
Who would have thought that Iron Mike was a student of von Clausewitz ?
@@H-Zazoo Mike spent a lot of time studying about history's greatest conqueror's while living at Cus D'Amatos house in Catskill, NY. The old man taught him much more than just boxing in those early years. He made Mike very knowleadgeable on many topics.
I never have thought that Mike would come up with what ( is now )
an absolute classic well used quote.
Mike Martin lives in a fantasy world.
Maybe Spectator TV can do a follow-up on these prognostications in 30 days to see who was close to the mark.
Dr. Mike says Russians have suffered between 2-3 thousands causalities which is more than what America suffered in 20 years in Afghanistan. Fair enough. Can he bring up the comparative numbers of civilian casualties and damage to critical infrastructure from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Perhaps there's a correlation between high number of Russian casualties and relatively low number of Ukrainian loss of life and damage to critical civilian infrastructure?
.....and yet America (and most Western countries) is still the preferred destination for 99% of refugees from those bastions of democracy Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed any Islamic country since 9/11
@@tugmckiltoff1564
You break it, you own it.
- Collin Powel
This was hilarious, thanks for sharing! I think it shows, perfectly, how wishful thinking and social media propaganda are now pervasive.
There's a strange fabianism going on in our press, inny minny miny mo and take your pick there's little difference between them. There's one side they take and that's it. Better looking to non-European sources these day's to get a fuller picture.
@@oldkingcole7443 It used to be called "Gleichschaltung"
@@oldkingcole7443 Freddy Gray: 'To what extent do you think our perspective might be warped, somewhat, by the fact that most of our information that we're getting is coming from Ukrainian sources, which are not always altogether reliable?' Such rich understatement, love it! 😀
@@ronmackinnon9374 Freddy's latest Americano podcast is much better.
Are you saying you were laughing to yourself while watching this video? I can imagine what it looked like.
This didnt age so well
The irony is that Putin just made NATO relevant again.
Really?.. Looks to me like NATO is a limp dick in this case, Putin exposed what a joke it is.
"Don't interrupt your enemy whilst he is making a mistake."
But only if you KNOW it's a mistake
Unless that mistake is murdering a bunch of civilians and bombing cities*
@@Thisisahandle701 Yes, murdering civilians and bombing easy targets such as large cities don't improve your reputation for military prowess. Even worse - Putin sent in tanks during the Spring Thaw where most of Ukraine becomes mud. Not the brightest move.
Did Wellington say that ?, the iron Duke at Waterloo
@@johnwilliams2479 I believe it was Sun Tzu in The Art of War. 5th Century BC.
Can these so called experts explain how the military superpower USA had wasted over 1 trillion dollars of their taxpayers money in 20 years in Afganistan. What they had achieved there??
Catastrophic as that was how relevant is that now? What the US might have done is actually learned something. Removing the Taliban made sense after 9/11 but the long term occupation did not. In the end the US, having removed the Taliban, was able to find Osama bin Laden. That would have been the best time to withdraw from Afghanistan in a planned way as it was inevitable the Taliban would return. But had it not been for 9/11 we would not have been talking about it at all. Will someone actually come out and ask the Taliban what they were thinking when they gave so much support and shelter to Osama bin Laden? No, it is question that is never asked but they should tell us sometime how that worked out. The Taliban lost a vital two decades of oppressing the population and robbing them of their human rights and saw two decades of their people being slaughtered. Now all they have is starvation and isolation.
Superb discussion. Very impressed by Dr Martin (always impressed by Peter). Would love this to have been much longer than 22 minutes!
Hmmm, to me Martin sounded like a troll when he seriously tried to attach some meaning to comparing the heavier losses of Russia in Ukraine to the 20 year losses of the US in Afghanistan. There is really no comparison, and no use in making the comparison other than to try to frame Russia as losing, which they clearly are not.
Are you serious?
Peter's conclusions that we should stand back and watch Russia weaken itself against Ukraine, that the countries currently protected by NATO would be better off if we'd removed NATO in 1991 .. these aren't problematic?
Martin is full of s.h.i.t and birds of a feather flock together.
@@johnmc3862 The uneducated are easy prey to UK and US propaganda.
Blimey.....Peter Hitchens comes across as pretty clueless in this interview too ........both these comedians are missing what is actually going on by a country mile
Whereas you come across as a highly intelligent individual who we should all be listening to.
@@michaelmurray7220 RIght on.
CHeck this:
ruclips.net/video/NFngc_8RiVc/видео.html
No, Peter know more about Russia/Ukraine than the both of them put together. He is honest enough not to pretend to the certainty that the media in general do about what's going on in that country nor in Putin's head. The first casualty in war is truth.
So do tell.
Once again we have the comment 'Russia have suffered more casualties than the US did in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan'.
There is no comparison to the forces faced by the US and those faced by Russia today in Ukraine.
If the Taliban had been armed with the anti-armour and anti-aircraft weapons, as the Afghan warlords were against the Russians, ISAF/Western force casualties would have been much higher.
With the use of ieds that caused mayhem amongst those on footpatrol, in armoured vehicles and tanks (and yes the Germans and Danish forces used them) indicates the potential of the Taliban a hugely under armed enemy.
I literally made the same point. These so called experts...quoting twitter and trying to draw parallels between conflicts between a force fielding 60 year old tech in afganistan with modern cutting edge tech in Ukraine immediately invalidates every thing he says imo.
The comparison is not the point, but can Russia sustain such rate of losses, especially in a war that is unpopular from the start, where Russians have already gone to prison for demonstrating against it?
@@FiveLiver the comparison is the point that we are discussing so please don't tell us what the point is thank you
@@bluecheese20401 You can miss the point as much as you like, but I will correct you.
Facts and facts
This aged well, got to love the "experts".
I mean it did, Dr. Mike Martin was spot on.
There has to a great deal of speculation about the military situation where the developments are very unclear.
We know where the Russian army isn't, that's not speculation.
Or is it?
The term *Fog of War* is thus for a reason.
"Coexistence with psychopathic dictatorships is, in fact, not possible. And that is a good thing." - Christopher Hitchens
But that’s a lot of countries that we then supposedly cant coexist with
81 people were just beheaded in Riyadh's public square a few weeks ago... the Saudi monarch sits on the Human Rights Council. Lofty (purported) principles mean nothing when they are selectively applied in service of empire and financial domination.
@@jtcruz125 Correct. The struggle that lies ahead of us is monumental, but is just as inevitable. The free world will shrug the silliness we chafe under and readopt our trademark strength.
The autocrats will quiver in their boots.
@@bobshenix Executing terrorists is a good thing. The Saudi monarchy sucks but they’re low on our list.
Don’t get me wrong though: there is a list and it will be followed to the letter.
@@douglasmacarthur702 what list?
This video is going to age worse than Brendan Fraser
19:19 - Uniting Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger
Hitchens really nails it with style and intelligence ... and humor!
a useful idiot for sure - and totally wrong in his take on the Russian death toll etc etc
I don't think that the Baltic nations would be thinking this just at the moment!
Peter Hitchens doesn't have to live there.
Interested to know what your explanation is for why Russia didn't invade the Baltic states pre 2004?
Also, I'm a little too young to have been politically engaged at the time but my understanding is that even in 04 their main reason for joining was wanting to be integrated into the West rather than because of a threat from Russia
Personally I don't subscribe to the idea that it was inevitable that Russia was going to start invading its neighbours but I could be wrong
@@1beady1 from Baltics here. During 90ties they had other focus: sticking together Caucasus side of country + recreation of centralized power.
Rhetoric about many topics was very agressive all the time.
I very well understand buffer state concept + geography of Eastern Europe. Even I dont like it, but from sinister Russian perspective that makes sense
Will NATO trade Baltics for assurances? Most likely
@@FiveLiver you really need to calm down on your daily diet of propaganda mate.
@@slesers well, they can't invade the Baltic states, for the same reason we can't put troops in Ukraine.
Just stop being silly.
Fact of the matter is if Russia wasn’t such an awful neighbour and the countries of the former Soviet Union didn’t view that time as a dark period in their history, they probably wouldn’t be scrambling to join NATO.
they're scrambling to join due to economic coercion and diplomatic pressure from the US. They're "memory" is contrived since communism ended in 1989. Russia has been a perfect neighbours for 20 years+, it's NATO that encroached.
@@als5482 Very funny!
The things you do to put food on your table!
@@als5482 As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t NATO who sent “little green men” to annex parts of countries, nor does it go around poisoning former officials and political dissidents.
Even Kazakhstan refuses to endorse Russia’s war, and it’s a part of Russia’s own collective security bloc! So to say Russia’s been a perfect neighbour is pure waffle.
As for economic coercion, I suppose free market capitalism would look that way from the perspective of the vanquished in the Cold War.
@Neil Rusling Firstly, is there any evidence for this claim? Secondly, is England a neighbour of Russia :P
So Russia has surrounded Ukrainian cities, has air superiority, has bombed NATO sites near Poland, but is loosing?
Why do you believe they have air superiority? They can’t even maintain CAPs over their armoured columns.
@@davethebrahman9870 Well , I don't see Ukrainian planes bobbing Russian cities, or Russian columns. Is that happening?
@@jtothecc2421 Ukraine barely has an air force, but they seem to have denied the airspace to Russians with MANPADs and possibly static systems. Or do you think Russians are just incredibly incompetent?
@@davethebrahman9870 I think and hope the Russians are at this point unwilling to bomb the shit out of Ukraine. If they need to they can and will.
they dont have air superiority, they arent taking many cities, and dont have control of their supply routes
Peter Hitchens thumbnail, but have to listern to this other chap who has no Idea what the Russian plans are. He's an expert apparently.
He basically might as well have said "my sources are the BBC news". Generals dying, who knows how many general Russia has and how many ranks in an army of 200,000. A few news reports that russian troops desserted their vehicle (based on what evidence; basically the ukranian army narrative, the same narrative that said it had killed 10,000 russian troops while only 100 odd ukranian troops died early on in the war), therefore the whole army has super low morale.
All you have to do is simply look at the map; russia keeps expanding, whether it's slow or fast, doesn't matter. They. Keep. Expanding. controlled territory.
@@bob40179 but to recap.... YOU are talking crap and we are now up to 7 generals and 40,000 dead, injured and captive. Resignations and firings in the Kremlin, losing territory again and again. Do take care not to be a 'useful idiot' (so many right wingers are though!!) Russia down 530 tanks v Ukraine got a net gain of 43 at the last count. Half the soldiers have frostbite and no desire to be there - OR DO YOU STILL KNOW BETTER!! LOL
Peter Hitchens starts by saying he doesn't know Putin's objective and then later goes on to say he has not met his objective 🤔
YES exactly!!
self reflection not his strong point
No contradiction whatsoever, if I see someone running down the street, I can say I don't know where they're going, but because they're still running, I can confidently say they have not yet reached their goal.
@@Homunculas
Maybe their goal is just running... like Forrest Gump.
Putin hasn’t stopped. So, logically either he has not achieved his objective or decided to reach for more after getting whatever he wanted.
This young chap is that, too young, and has clearly not read enough history, particularly military history it would seem.
But he has a "PhD" and is "fellow at King's College London" 😂 The decadence of our Universities, our Institutions.
Ageist. Bore off.
What's the minimum age requirement?
@@alfredttarski4521 50, at least.
@@jamesjarrett52 Every minute, even you get older too.
Interesting comment by Martin: what WE want. What the fuck is this to do with what you want???????
Very convenient really that the jerks that initiate conflict at any level and whatever purpose don't need to deal with the emotional impact of the piles of the once living and their grieving families.
Peter is right on.
They see what they want to see, but not what's going on.
'Russia is never as strong as it looks, and never as weak as it seems'. Talleyrand.
The amazing thing is that, if after a month or so all their analysis and predictions turn out to be a fantasy and BS, they will go on making analysis and predictions...
This comment aged well indeed.
It was agreed in the 90s that nato would not militarise east of the rhine
Now theyre in romania and poland🙄
Ukraine handed back their nukes to Russia in the guarantee of security. Things change, agreements get broken.
@@kh2716 that is true nevertheless agreements are agreements and in the context of world peace worthy of consideration imo
East of the Rhine? Time for you to break out a map.
@@H-Zazoo your point?
If my geography is on point both romania and poland are east of the river
@@tictoc5443 "It was agreed in the 90s that NATO would not militarise east of the Rhine" ???
The bulk of the former West Germany is east of the Rhine. The Rhine is in the far west of Germany. NATO was militarised East of the Rhine since it's conception. Perhaps you meant a different river. Maybe the Oder ?
Mike Martin reading directly from the read outs of Ukraine's MOD!! What a joke hahaha.
This was two months ago. Guess what's happening now.🤣
"It is very tempting to take side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and seak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering." Judith Herman (1992): Trauma and Recovery
Sounds good; let's push some patsies into becoming sympathetic victims. It's a winning strategy. About the winningest strategy there could be. But you've got to be prepared to sacrifice untold human people, including the innocent, including helpless children, to do it. Who could be so cold-blooded, to do something like that? Something so inhuman, so monstrous. What could ever justify such a thing?
@@numbersix8919 so just letting yourself be enslaved and letting a genocide happen is a worthy of your children? No.
@@upnorth2421 No genocide is happening. Your government is placing nuclear tipped missiles 4 minutes flight from Moscow. Nuclear bombs will cause a genocide, not a military operation to de-militarise a fascist state.
@@als5482 Ukraine gave up it's Nukes and has asked to join NATO, but has not been accepted. There are no nukes being placed in Ukraine, and Putin fears NATO not one jot. Everything you say is incorrect
@@als5482 Nothing to do with NATO or fecking missiles. Putin's just massively pissed off that Ukraine and a few other Slavic countries (including Russia one could argue), don't want to be ruled by him but want what the west has and he's sending the message, 'don't get any ideas'. He's already lost the insane, cowardly, murderous, big baby that he is.
18:13 - Peter Hitchens on a quick history of NATO expansion - remarks on how odd that George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky agree on something! Brilliant!
And yet he demands we expand our military.
@@ardakolimsky7107
I didn't hear that. Was it hear that he said that? What was his reasoning?
@@justgivemethetruth Have you read any of his books?
Any of his copious articles in the Mail etc?
Do you read, or do you only get your information from youtube?
Can you use da Google?
@@ardakolimsky7107
If you're just going to be a ass, forget it.
@@justgivemethetruth That's right.
Snowflake gets his feelings hurt.
Buries head in sand.
On one hand we’re told they’re a shit military yet on the other hand we are told that we need NATO because Russia is a huge threat.
Because the German, French and British militaries have been degraded for years. The Eastern European armies aren't up to much either. Big daddy America is different of course, but if you look at Europe alone, as underwhelming as the Russian army is, the same applies to Western European armies.
Without NATO the US and the EU this war would be over and Putin would be invading the next country. Whilst China would be his Allie.
Without NATO the US and the EU this war would be over and Putin would be invading the next country. Whilst China would be his Allie.
@@theirishneilers The army that got driven out of Afghanistan by force and blown up by ISIS-K as they were evacuating. When has the US army faced a modern military that fights conventionally since World War 2?? How do we know they're up to par when they even get beaten by guerilla insurgents? The outcome of Ukraine is expected given Ukraine's relatively modern defenses.
@@maaz322 They withdrew from Afghanistan, come on. Look at both the amount and sophistication of any military metric (war planes, tanks, battleships, missiles, overall spending, etc.) - and the US are vastly superior to any other army.
He's wrong about the MiG's, they are important in preventing Russian offensives on the battlefield. Hitchens also is wrong about NATO. This is a result of Russian revanchism, not NATO.
More BS from a political amateur .
Which political amateur?
@@Land-of-reason I'm guessing he doesn't mean Hitchens
@@curiositycloset2359 let's hope so.
Peter appears to be out of touch with todays geopolitically global and technologically integrated world. 150 years too late perhaps.
Presumably we can expect to see you on there next week putting in your learned two penneth Jonah?
Zelensky was put into power by the Americans with no American soldiers on the ground.
Zelensky was put into power by the population of Ukraine. I am sure the USA at that time preferred Juschtschenko.
@sooje nite His story is fascinating, it is exactly what is needed to get views. It was a simple economic derision of the channels to get him on.
It is just like Peter Hitchens. Hitchens is taken on, not because he is knowledgeable but because he is controversial.
Mike Martin probably is getting all his information from twitter.
Or the Cia wishful thinkers.
Every time I listen to Peter Hitchens I’m reminded how much I miss his brother...
You don’t listen to well then , his brother was a great mind. Peter however a mediocre mind with a large ego.
@@youngsalmon5188 Eh... yeah, I did, and I wasn't impressed. Didn't you get my point?
@@youngsalmon5188 they're both morons, just with completely different ideologies. You happen to support one side of the same coin.
Every time I listen to Peter I'm reminded of how much I don't miss his brother.
@@Lytton333 Triggered
So Peter Hitchens thinks we should dump NATO. Does that mean we need an EU army to take up that role?
why do we need either?
@@Cottam89 because Britain is a minnow
Happy birthday, Christopher
Peter Hitchens' continued existence has been an irrelevance.
Alfred - when was his existence ever relevant?
As opposed to his brother Christopher existence?
Why isn't Peter out here with me helping with supplying the Ukrainians with food and medical supplies instead of sitting on his couch.
Because he’s not obliged to.
You have enough time to watch a video and comment though?
@@tonyjones9442 another keyboard warrior 🇺🇦😂😂😂
@@heycidskyja4668 that's just another excuse for doing nothing 🤔😂
Why are you not helping the starving people in Yemen .?
It must be noted that all invasions are fought by invaders who, well, are not familiar with the terrain. It should also be noted that this was said about the Vietnamese--most of whom, it turned out, had not spent a terrible amount of time before the war walking around in the jungles a hundred miles away from their homes.
It's a completely different world back then. Vietnam is about as relevant to 2022 as what the Napoleonic wars are. Now, we'd be able to see where they are in the jungle using thermal imaging from the satellites/recon planes and then just bomb the crap out of them after supressing their air defence
@@StevenSmith-mk5fg Good luck using thermal imaging through three levels of canopy. In fact they did bomb the crap out of them, and it didn't work. So you're suggesting thermal scopes for all the infantry. Of course those won't help much when your average engagement is within 30 meters of dense underbrush. Specifically, the many rebel forces in Myanmar would argue that the lessons of the Vietnam war are still applicable--that civil war has been ongoing in similar terrain since 1948. Besides, Nagorno-Karabakh showed that armoured assaults with infantry are still required in the age of drone strikes. I'm sure most soldiers already understand this, but the general public's perception of the impact of technology is warped.
@@StevenSmith-mk5fg yeah like Russian is doing now. If anything napoleon and hitlers invasions are extremely relevant and history is just repeating itself.
@@laserprawn Just look at what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan . They feel within weeks. What would be an issue would be trying to subdue the population against it's will. This is what fucks you as you cannot win against the entire population unless your goal is to simply wipe it out
@@russelledwards001 Russia is just poor bro. Her reputation as a top military power is over. This has completely changed the world order
What does it mean to "have a say in the matter"? The Baltic countries don't want to be dominated by Russia: who do they say this to? Presumably, NATO. Which means that what sounds like an ethical question is really an appeal to the EU and the US and their economic and military bloc for aid. Which means, of course, that Russia cedes its regional hegemony to foreign powers. Which means that it's willing to lash out unreasonably to try, and possibly fail, to secure it. Which means that NATO needs to go to war to uphold those ethical claims for sovereignty. One doesn't simply wave a wand around and tell anther state that it would be wrong to attack them because they don't desire to be attacked. War is the only way to uphold these security guarantees. Well, that sounds just great.
@Neil Rusling Thank god Hungary is no longer a buffer state, then.
@Neil Rusling surely it's upto the already existing countries of NATO and their citizens if a new country is admitted, not who want's to join.
NATO is a commitment that those NATO countries have to face, so it's doesn't matter if all these countries want to join , they don't get a say, they can ask and NATO countries can decide either way. So you say it's ok for Peter to be safe on his island, but membership of NATO means now British , US, French , German troops are obliged to protect that country.
So what that vote is , is we vote to be in a club where that club will fight my fights.
@@laserprawn more like a 'buffet state' - I find it sickening how people bandy around the idea that any country should not dream to be more than a door stop to Putin.
Gosh that aged well. Collapse is looking like a massive victory
Beware of experts
Three days later this talk feels very old. The balance of power in Ukraine has clearly shifted.
In which direction?
@@Ballardian Putin's has lost 4 generals. His invasion has been plagued by re*arded tactics decision making; poor training, unmotivated troops.
@@Ballardian I miss Ballard too mate.
You guys delusional :)
Hitchens is right about 2014. The Ukraine's neutrality was doing fine until those western politicians turned up in Kiev to encourage the crowd to depose a government they had democratically elected because it had signed a finance package with Russia. The Ukraine should remain a neutral buffer state after this invasion is finished.
Ukraine should be able to join anything they want, that's what being free is. Why should any free state take directions that only please Russia ? The actions of Russia the last few weeks shows you why someone would want to join NATO
@@randomcomputer7248 No. The Ukraine's young population are too young and idealistic. That's when mistakes are made. The Ukraine should remain a neutral buffer state, and trade on its own terms with its own trade policy, not bound by EU rules, and make its own foreign policy, not be bound by EU commission rules.
@@susannamarker2582 Nope, they should be able to do what they want, that is freedom. USSR failed and Russia and Putin need to accept it.
@@randomcomputer7248 Nope. The Ukraine is not Russia. It's geopolitical position dictates its status, and that is neutrality.
@@susannamarker2582 No it doesn't, exactly, its not part of Russia. Thanks for proving my point.
armchair experts with their laser vision, you do forget that during WWII when Stalin was asked about horrendous loses of soldiers, his answer was "we have plenty of people". This could be so.
True, but Stalin also said that if we get low on manpower then we can sacrifice our woman since we have womanpower.
Russian loses are way greater than your average Spectator fan would ever believe.... had their heads buried for Brexit you see!!
thank-you for putting forth directions to consider and analogous background.
Is the lesser Hitchens still publicizing how wrong a person can be?
the title of this kinda does him dirty here, his points were pretty reasonable
Hitchens proving once again that he'll come out with whatever rubbish will get him the reaction he wants.
He gets paid well for it 👏
He's absolutely horrible isn't he. It's bizarre that anyone takes him seriously. Shame it was his (far smarter) brother that died not him.
@@jonathanbowen3640 what a poor comment to make, and his "far smarter" brother wasn't so great either, supporting that oh so benevolent and righteous western "special military operation"
@@dewiwilliams4821
At least he was bright
@@dewiwilliams4821 Nothing poor about a comment stating the obvious. Hitch (the proper one) was not perfect that that doesn't mean that he isn't smarter than Peter...
Plus I'm proud of the Wests role in Afganistan removing the terrorist training camps and removing Saddam and his evil sons. Those who believe the west is at fault such as yourself lack the imagination to understand what would have happened if the west didn't intervene You would have had decades of Iran fighting Iraq with even more losses and even more chemical weapon attacks and probably a Nuclear powered Iran...
Hitch was brilliant in his dismantling of Islam. That was enough for him to be considered far superior and influential than Peter despite his early demise.
I find the remark comparing dead/casualties between Russia in Ukraine and the US in Afghanistan rather glib and a bit offensive as well as a bit silly from an intellectual standpoint.
As far as I am aware, it was not only the US fighting and dieing in Afghanistan. The UK (where the Spectator is based) lost over 450 dead. The Afghan army apparently lost 70,000+ dead. Then there were thousands more who suffered horrific, life-changing injuries as well as those with PTSD.
So I find comparing the number of dead like comparing football scores leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I think it's unfair to compare military performance against lightly armed, poorly trained and outnumbered Taliban fighters on one hand and against highly trained, well armed (by NATO) and comparable force size on the other.
It's an illustration to show the cost to Russia over a relatively short period of time and how much greater it is likely to get.
@@FiveLiver
It's a bad one.
Why not at least compare with Iraq 2003 where the forces were more comparable than an opposed to Afghanistan?
And use the total killed rather than just the US killed?
NATOs Article 5 contradicts you.
The war in Afghanistan was conceived to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 bombing of the Towers.
They were Saudis who were led by Usama Bin Laden who's main gripe was that the US had placed its soldiers in Saudi Arabia, of whom many were of the Jewish faith. It was seen as a travesty by Bin Laden and many influential Saudis who bankrolled the attack.
Bin Laden hid in a villa within shouting distance from a Pakistani military compound. Upon a Pakistani doctor visiting the compound to treat one of Bin Laden's children, he contacted the US and the CIA was called in.
Upon killing Bin Laden in that Seal Team raid, the US should have called it quits and left.
But George Bush, the 'W' one decided to attack Iraq on the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He didn't.
Tony Blair cavorted with Bush. That war in Iraq cist a million lives because Iran decided to support their Sh'ia brothers.
NATO has been used to spread Democracy, America says!!
It does that to enrich its weapons manufacturers and impose its presence where its not required.
What makes Hawaii, the Martial islands, Western Samoa America?
The world would be a much safer place if America solved IRS own domestic problems and leave the world to manage itself.
Those poorly trained and out numbered Taliban fighters saw NATO and, by extension, the US off.
Remember Vietnam? Remember Napalm, Cluster bombs, Agent Orange?
How about those Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what real time damage they could do.
The Japanese had already surrendered to the Brits in South East Asia. The war to all purposes was over but Harry Truman thought "What the heck". The pilot of that B52 is reported to have said " My God what have iI just done as he saw the bombs explode and that Mushroom cloud blaknket the skies.
Hundreds of thousands died and continue to die from cancers.
Yup, its just America spreading Democracy!.
Pull the other leg, its got bells on.
@@johndavies8956 absolute drivel on just about every front
Sad what's happened to Hitchen as a journalist, rarely makes any legitimate comment, mostly just trolls.
Was he ever anything more than a hack? I realise it must have been hard to live in the shadow of a deeply intellectual brother, but he could at least have tried
Dear Peter! The “Fredo” of the Hitchens brothers!
Any organization with an abbreviation is spurious.
Mike Martin comes across as a MI6 shill 😂
The Pottery Barn rule is - you break it, you own it -. Russia wants to break Ukraine but not to own it. Therefore, I find erroneous the assumption that Russia needs 1,000,000 men in order to dominate Ukraine and effectuate a regime change. The main reason is that such a contrived regime will be illegitimate and unrecognized, therefore, the financial burden of supporting the created mess will fall on Russia alone. Hence, we have to conclude that Russia is interested in only cherry-picking parts of Ukraine for itself and leaving the rest of the mess for the West to finance and support( a role, which btw, the West has already gladly accepted to undertake.
The NATO backed "insurgency" is the problem. Russia hit the main intake and training base near Lviv at Yavoriv with 30 cruise missiles. But presumably NATO will now move that into Poland or elsewhere? Putin mentioned western Ukraine before the invasion. What would the Ukraine mood be if Russia had taken the whole country, the AZOZ destroyed and NATO had not been able to defend them? The country was miserably poor under Zelenskyy (star of the Pandora papers). To the extent that surrogacy has been an income supplement reached for by quite a few Ukrainian women.
We wont know either way till the dust settles.
Western Ukraine's illegal government, which followed USA funded coup in 2014, started a war on the South-Eastern Ukrainian territories, who asked to become independent from Ukraine after the illegal coup. Guess what? South-Eastern territories could support themselves as independent countries, but the Western Ukraine couldn't, hence they started the war and genocide on their own citizens, to try to shut them up. USA spent $5 Billions to install the government which would do their bidding, which was illegal. 2.6 millions of Ukrainian citizens fled To Russia during those 8 years of war and life loss is estimated to about 54,000, why does USA scream now and not then? Because that didn't support "Russia is evil" agenda, which USA paid for.
They all start with this projection-assumption: Putin wants to take all of Ukraine and then he will move to the other countries. And a big part of this hysteria is cultivated by the 3 baltic countries who exist in complete dependence on the US & EU.
@@numbersix8919 In general yes.
You are assuming that Putin can take Ukraine. Right now it is far from certain.
Those prescient western intelligence analysts cited by Hitchens, from Kennan onwards, would have differed with him in attributing these events to Putin's personal peculiarities. They were at pains to say that any western moves into Ukraine would be of great concern to Russian leadership generally -- which could only be more so when they result in attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
peace in our time says Peter...
Four months into the war, Mike Martin's analysis makes him look like a total ignoramus 🤣🤣🤣
And to think these people get paid handsomely to teach this kind of BS 🙄🙄🙄
“Ukraine sources aren’t always absolutely reliable”
Polite understatement
Why does the Ukraine need to be in the EU to build its own democracy ? This view that the EU is the only way to succeed is very arrogant. The Ukraine should maintain control over its own trade policy and foreign policy by keeping out of the EU.
and the view that the EU will let them join is just utter crap - Putin's Brexit has meant the UK are going to find out how shit it actually is outside the EU. I am now stateless..... and hoping Ireland might give me a passport
@@jameslawrence3666 Putin's Brexit?! LOL. Good riddance, mate. Enjoy Ireland. We don't need you here.
Unfortunately I has destroyed democracy
@@jameslawrence3666 Calm down. The EU is run on an old german foreign policy model called Limited Sovereignty. It's not about independent nations. Ireland is run from Brussels, its new colonial master.
@@jameslawrence3666 You don't need to be in the EU to trade with the EU. China trades with the EU every day, so do Africa, Japan, and others. Don't listen to the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.
As a resident of a buffer state I would rather have nato than Russia as my protection
I thought as much, thanks for saying (and my best wishes!)
reality is a peculiar thing indeed!
There is no European Organization and has a long way to go. Just look at Afghanistan Debacle, or have these two both Forgotten already.?
Afghanistan and Libya weren't NATO. They were both UN mandated with ISAF going into Afghanistan and the UN Resolution in Libya not even being vetoed by Russia or China.
Still US UK ect. All part of the Global American Empire and its open borders Globalisation project.
@@evolassunglasses4673 so not NATO and LOL at the rest of the comment. American Empire. 😂 Rather that than the jack boot of Russian or Chinese aggression.
'Obvious on Ukraine's side' ... exactly
Christopher would slap the bejesus out of Peter for this
I always thought Peter the lightweight in comparison to his brother. It is the potentous delivery perhaps.
@@richardpentelow655 I think he thinks it gives him gravitas.
@@operator6471. You are probably right, if you largely agree with him. As I mostly don’t, I go with portentous! Maybe too rude, perhaps long-winded would be better from me.
@@richardpentelow655 i don't really take anything he says seriously but listen when nothing better to do.
He would have hitch slapped him.
NATO is fine. It's Putin's irrational behaviour towards NATO is the problem.
The Pentagon's Colonel Doug MacGregor sees it somewhat differently. See The Grayzone interview.
Quite a few "West-haters' here that wholly gloss over Russia's nasty actions in wars in, say, Afghanistan.. I'd say, move to Russia if you're so in awe of Russia's humanitarian inclinations.
I'd say stop commenting in public spheres if you don't know what you are talking about and don't have anything intelligent to share!
@@rosiethebear300 Historians of Facebook academy...
So America is allowed to bomb a dozen nations, get glory for doing so, and nobody else gets that Privilege?
80% of americans live in poverty ... at least they have universal healthcare in Russia it might be average at best but at least they have it ... USA have the best healthcare, but none can afford it anyways...... USAs campaign in Afghanistan have left millions of people now starving and suffering, parents selling their children for food and millions dead or sick ... 20 fucking years for a failure.... War is not funny no matter who is at war
@@DannyKa-x8z It's the Healthcare in Europe (or even Cuba) that puts the US to shame, not Russia. Under the Soviet Union their was a decent social safty net but that's been gone for decades.
The more this is dragged out, the less I think this is about capturing any more parts of Ukraine. We call Putin "mad," and his effort "failed," but I'm not sure that's true if his overall objective is really different from his original statement, or plan.
I think he probably just wants to destroy Ukraine. More economic stagnation and deterioration for the West to deal with while China, Russia etc keep making progress.
@@AtlasofInfo I don't think he intends that at all, if he did he could have flattened it. The Russians are actively avoiding wrecking the place like NATO does. He's looking for a surrender with the two breakaways in the Russian sphere and Western Ukraine guaranteed neutral.
@@ian_b I don't think anyone knows what is truly going on, apart from the obvious sides of this argument. I'm just making an educated guess and putting forward an opinion.
It seems to me that even the dullest, lowest person thinks that this should have been an easily foreseeable mistake for Putin and yet we think he's capable of making such a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think most politicians are incompetent and ideologically retarded but this makes no sense. War never ends up being a positive thing for anyone that is involved. Unless of course, the result isn't to supposedly have sway over people who will possibly resent you after you bombed their families and friends out of existence. Look at the infrastructure projects that Russia and China and other countries are bringing about and how dependent we are on their progress. We're engaged in disgusting levels of altruism and always have been. It's one of only a few things which holds back progress. Our politicians are extremely corrupt, as much as Russian politicians. I personally don't see this being a good thing if we win or lose, unless we remove ourselves from these divisive political unions. Better to stay neutral and defend our own. If they come knocking, nuke everyone out of existence. You see, we can all make these threats. These politicians, our own and others prey on our weakness.
@@AtlasofInfo check out the mother of all talk shows to find the whole real truth of the matter...
He literally spelled out both military and political objectives of this operation, and I am yet to see any change of those objectives. Also, the strategic choices they have made fit pretty well if we keep those objectives in mind.
On the other hand, if we ignore everything that is being said and suppose fantastic ideas like "Putin is mad", "Putin wants to completely occupy the whole Ukraine", "People wants to kill all Ukrainians", then we get the chance to laugh like maniacs when after 3 weeks he didn't achieve those goals (that WE invented!) and how now he has to change the tactics yadda yadda.
The public space in the West has become a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Peter Hitchens the man who got jabbed because he wanted to travel. I'll get my analysis from someone who isn't a proven hypocrite thanks.
Event13 - I saw an interview where Hitchens admitted - in a boastful way? - to being a moral and physical coward, - had the interview been longer he could, have added a hypocrite as well . . . and well, put crudely, a bit of a prick.
It must be hard being the brother of Chris Hitchins. No matter what you do, you come a distant second.
I agree with Peter!