@@mattbrown3549 Genuinely curious. I am not a Brit but where do think folks in these agencies retire to? Is a council home a more socially acceptable option for folks who work in the upper echelons of the society?
@@sukritmishra6676 - Their salaries are that good that any normal person would spend their lives living a great life and never again even think about politics. I'd be on the first plane out to Spain looking for a new home and lifestyle.
He says something he doesn't mean to at 30:31 , which he tries to walk back, then does the classic liars stutter, as his brain has lost its train of thought due to his accidental admission. He's as dirty as the rest of them.
Iraq *did* have WMDs, and used them. It also tried to build a nuclear reactor, in order to produce material for nuclear weapons. Israel -- to the condemnation of most of the world -- destroyed the reactor before it could be used for weapons.
yeah, you got it. He is the first English collaborator to the American Neocon new foreign policy. America , the new Century AKA the Bush policy perfected by Hillary Clinton. Iraq, Syria are his magnum opus. And now he is sitting there expecting us to believe another load of piffle. He left in 2014 so was there pre Maidan time.
@@Inkblot21 Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about mate. You don't know me so don't make ignorant assumptions. All I said was that I'm unfamiliar with this gentleman and I was asking if he was part of MI6 when Blair assured the world that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of WMDs. You instruct me to quit blaming everyone and to change myself. For my benefit, could you point out the section of my question where I assign blame? While you're at it, what do you think I need to change? Would you rather I not ask questions about who people are? Would that brighten your rather dim view of me? Cheers friend. Edit: I would also add that I find your conflation of chemical weapons designed to be used on humans with bug spray to be troubling. There's at least one historical figure I can think of that used chemicals designed to kill insects to rather horrific effect.
@@G3FORC3 :As an American listening to the drivel being foisted on us and just my gut feeling about all of this is the the so-called American "intelligence agencies are up to their necks in trouble making. Russia wants a secure border w/no nato nukes in eastern Europe including the Ukraine. KEEP THINGS COOL.
Clueless. Another goofy liberal fool that have utterly failed in foreign policy. Disgrace to Britain. But he does talk nicely and confidently which is all that the munters in Britain care about.
I'm five minutes in and was getting the same impression. Why act like you know what putin is thinking instead of giving a critical assessment from a former mi6 agent perspective. This is just another attempt at propaganda
@@fullrouge1198 Correct. Sadly, these pathetic bureaucrats think we're stupid. They don't realize that many people are waking up and we're not afraid to speak the truth.
So you can Just make it up from there, What source do you find prime resources when finding your information. You said nothing other then you distrust his narrative, so where do you source yours from?
@@jeremywilliams3465 It's getting more difficult by the day to know who to Trust. I try to watch the news from as many countries as I can, I currently have found some of the Indian reporting and RUclipsrs appear to be less biased on the current issues in Russia.
Fascinating interview. But the career path going from working with the 'militant arm' of the UK's foreign policy (aka MI6), to working for one of the world's largest oil companies is probably of even greater public interest.
MI6 isn’t militant or military. I’d think that the Ukraine war and Putin’s evident paranoia are of utmost, repeat utmost public interest. I’m surprised you need to be told this.
@@paulhollis8879 yes of course MI6 is not formally militant or military. That’s why I put it into inverted comas. But they certainly use force and they certainly meddle in foreign affairs - hopefully for the common good but the latter would be debatable.
@@paulhollis8879 You sound like the kind of person who when they autopsy a body run over by a bus but found out they had Covid you wrote on the death certificate Covid death...
The fact that the MI6 Chief goes on to sit on the board of BP tells you everything you need to know about the British state (or the capitalist state in general).
i thought the best part was how he admits working with russia and giving them tech and helping them develop their energy sector is now shown to be the wrong move, but he then says doing the same with iran is a-OK.......stupid
@@peetky8645 he actually said working in Russia was good for the company. When Russia invaded Ukraine it made sense for them to sell their Rosneft shares and exit the JV. I must have missed the part where he said it's a good idea to invest in Iran... I thought western sanctions on Iran forbid that at the moment?
I loved the closing statement" Britain security should not be at the cliffs of Dover but 1000 miles away" This is exactly what Putin is saying. He wants Russian security 1000 miles away. Why on earth did you promise Ucrane to enter NATO knowing that Russia would feel threatened.?
"Why on earth did you promise Ucrane to enter NATO knowing that Russia would feel threatened." -- Because they asked. We didn't invade them, or threaten them. Every nation that joined Nato since 1990 did so by their own request because they feel threatened by Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine proves they were right to do so.
@@gudgeonsales2000 That's a very simplistic view of events. NATO was set up specifically to defend Europe against the Soviet Union attempting to expand. Once the USSR broke up, that threat no longer existed and yet NATO not only didn't disband, it continued a policy of relentless and (in Russia's eyes) aggression expansion. Why? Because NATO expansion is a massive cash cow for the military industrial complex worth billions in armaments sales. Truth is, large arms manufacturing corporations have vigorously lobbied western governments to extend NATO and our incompetent/short sighted/corrupt leaders have far too often given in to those pressure groups. It's easy to dismiss Russia's defensive concerns but let's face it, there is no way we would be happy if at some point in the future an independent Scotland or say Mexico, wanted to join a China lead military coalition with the intention of setting up military bases on the UK's or US's borders. So stop the double standards and put yourself in the other guys shoes.
@@gudgeonsales2000 Yes, by all accounts it cant even beat a poor backwards country like Ukraine. So why are we wasting trillions of tax payers money propping up NATO?
And please Sir now that you are on the board of BP could you please initiate a clean-up of oil spills in the Niger delta where BP was involved. And also compensation for polluted land, crops and eco-systems destroyed, animals killed and peoples' lives wrecked. This will go along way in creating a more harmonious and just society.
Sadly there are laws in place that mean if any board member that suggests, or tries to do it, will have to be removed for legal reasons. They will be acting against the interests of the company and therefore the shareholders, and that is not allowed. It's why we are fucked.
I've seen a few people repeat that analysis - that Putin underestimated the Western and Ukrainian response, and has essentially rushed into this war under-prepared. I'm skeptical of that claim. That doesn't seem like the calculating and cautious Putin we've seen over the last few decades. Unless there has been a personnel shake-up around him and some of his more cautious advisers have gone, I assume Russian leadership would have planned for worst-case scenarios, and would have fairly accurate intelligence concerning Ukrainian resolve. I don't think we're yet in a position to know what Moscow's expectations and plans are.
One thing I'm sure, is that there probably was a degree of miscalculation purely from corruption. Whether it was actually meaningful or not, who knows. It's difficult to believe anything from the media that wants everyone locked up and doped up in seasonal drugs.
I think they miscalculate the local currency cost to Russia. Russians are quite tolerant of hardship. The economy may import today but it can switch to domestic and Chinese suppliers. A "collapse" in the rouble is also impossible not to have been anticipated. As such I'd expect all the oligarchs are in the process of redenominating assets from dollar and gold into rouble and picking up an opportunity to acquire domestic assets that will be required to supply a sanctions restricted market. Putin's thesis will be he can weather this longer than the efette west can and the oligarch wealth will be protected by operating in domestic resource markets.
"I sit on the board of BP......the decision we took to exit Russia. Now, some might say 'why were you there in the first place?' Well, we were there in the first place because it was a very good investment to make and it produced excellent returns for shareholders over 25 years." In other words, we're happy to get into bed with Russia as long as it's profitable for us. Let's not look at the bigger picture - the bigger risks - let's just fill our pockets while we can.
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” ― General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket
I think this is a little unfair. The hope and expectation across the west regarding post-soviet Russia was that it would continue to develop towards western democratic norms. It's easy to look back now and see the mistakes.
Excellent point and Im glad you took the time to copy his statement verbatim. In another era he would have been a British enabler to Hitler “because it was good for business”. In the one before that he was financing the ships used for the slave trade or an opium investor. Face it, not only did the EU love the cheap energy but they washed boatloads of Russian money in their countries whether they bought real estate, yachts or luxury brands.
@@JamyOats mistakes? Russians in general do not really care for our Democracy [nor do the Chinese] and how we deliver it to others. It is not like what CNN, SKY and BBC portray. The West lost it's chance with Russia , to treat it well and place it on our side, a long long time ago, at the time of G.Bush jr. to be precise . That was indeed the mistake ! We expect countries with different systems to ours to fall into our lap excited they are finally entering into the 'right fold' . It is not like that at all . I'm surprised at this MI6 gentleman who seems to understand very little about Russia and about the Russians.
Neo-nazis only existed in Ukraine during WW2? In 2014 they were instrumental in effecting the Maidan coup and overthrowing Yanukovych. The Azov Battalion were recently integrated into the Ukrainian military.
Thanks for reminding us all of the real history of Ukraine. There is of course far more than that to discredit this interviewee's self interested opinions.
@@olenazemba6977 Indeed... There's a lot of these rats running around in... Even in places like America! Like a spreading cancer against Humanity Itself...
They did and do things for their own interests not for people in this country…… nor for humanity, freedom, justice in this world, all these are for their disguise……period!
He will only do this again somewhere else. What you need to do is convince the armed forces and internal security that he is not the man to be at the top let them do the rest.
There are three ways out. Putin gets room temperature one way or another. Total defeat for Russia. The West rolls over and Putin sees if he can put the USSR back together before he dies. There is no face saving way out for Putin. The Brits and MI6 sound as feckless as the Biden circus.
He won't live forever. We need to be careful. Deescalate this and break him down with soft power and even cooperation and shared interests. One miscalculation and we're all dead if this carries on. It's not like appeasing Hitler. This is russian roulette, quite literally
@@69birdboy You guys aren't getting it. There is no de-escalating. Sort of. Kind of. Either Putin crushes the Ukraine, or they kick Russia out. Which can only be done with Western help. Hopefully no boots or direct fighting with Russia. But there is no "let's all get along." If Putin decides to nuclear, you better hope for Russians all through the command structure to know better, and take him out. a little sabotage wouldn't hurt.
As a German born in 1946 serving in the 1960/1970th at the demarcation line as we called it, I am convinced, that after the Berlin Wall fell because Moskau decided that, the key was there since WW2 endet, we or at least I was surprised, that the reunification was not in the interest of some of "our allies", "we beat them twice, now they are back", "we like Germany so much that we are glad there are 2" etc. The mistakes that led to what we face today lies in the fact, that mainly the American policy staedily pushed Nato eastwards and in the end right to the door of the Russian Federation! James Baker promised in Febr.1990 talking with Schewatnaze, Gorbatschov that he favors WestGermany stays in Nato and if the GDR joins in unification no Nato Troups must be stationed there, except German soldiers, and not one inch further East of Nato! London even insisted shortly before the 2+4 talks in 1990 in Moskau to be allowed carrying out manouevers in the eastern part of Germany, which was turned down by J.Baker after the German Foreign Minister Genscher drove that night to the Hotel to speak with the US Foreign Minister. It is clear, historically, that the British policy has been anti-German for more than a century, only the French attitude match that. Today, better since decades, politicians and the media don't inform the public about the events which led to the war in Ukraine.Why they don't mention that on the Conference in Bukarest 2008 Merkel and Sarkozy vetoed that Ukraine and Georgia become member of Nato? 2014 the coup d'etat with the help of CIA and MI6, remember the phone talk between Victoria Newland and the US Ambassador in Kiew about who should be the new Praesident in Ukraine ( f.... the EU). The US and I guess the Brits started to undermine the Veto and in training and arming the Ukrainian Army, sent " Councellors" etc. In 2007, but already before, Russian Praesident Putin during the Conference of Security in Munich found fully right harsh words against Nato expansion, which is an existencial threat to Russia.After the coup d'etat in Febr.2014 the Ukrainian Army attacked and bombed the Donbass where most of the Russian speaking people live, which cost about 10-14000 lives. The red line for Russia was the continuing pumping of weapons into Ukraine and they acted in Febr.2022. It was clear to me after Febr.2014 that Moskau will take the Krim with Sevastopol not only to prevent Nato Navy there but the historical fact that it belonged to Russia since Katharina the Great, like Odessa, the foundation goes back to her, and more important the fight against the German Army twice in 1941 and 1944 where both sides had heavy losses and the Krim laid in ruins like most of the part of Russia westward and south of Moskau down to Stalingrad and Kaukasus. My conclusion considering the old aim of the British Empire and after the US took over after 1945 is to destroy Russia, get the ressources etc. Remember Berezinsky: Russia without Ukraine is no longer an Eurasien power. So, this is no war between Russia and Ukrain, it is a war of US led Nato and EU on the back of the Ukrainians and the people of the EU! I guess US-Senator Richard Black from Virginia is right in saying: the war was planned by the US, executed bby Russia. That German politicians participate in this "Great Game" is more than shameful, not in my name! They all underestimate what's gonna happen if "Mother Russia" is in danger! This is not Irak, Syria or Libya! Russia survived several attacks by Poland, Sweden, France and Germany from the West and Japan from the East. It backfires already to Europe and will bind China and Russia together, most probably India, the BRICS. I don't expect that someone from MI6 tells the truth, even if he was in charge before.Britain belongs to the 5 eyes. The Angloamericans like to play with fire, seems to me, Nato States have the status of Vasalls, nothing else, all this is not in their interest! Hans-Juergen Golieberzuch
NATO from very beginning in 1948 was a remake of Third Reich. Today’s EU is a Reich 3.1488. The World must put it in a graves of History. And Russia is doing just that
If it were not for Zelensky's EU and NATO ambitions, fed by Brussels based autocrats, led by the German, von der Leyen, this war would never have started.
So basicly, Uk wants to make of Western Europe its security zone but refuses Moscow to have its own security zone. Wouldnt this be the famous british "double standards" that the world is now challenging?
@@beakay.1834 I'd say this is a bit out of date. I watched it back in the day (2015) But, this opinion and that of commentators such as Peter Hitchings should not be ignored.
I'm not trying to draw a comparison between the two states, but you have to admit "former senior foreign intelligence boss, now board member on leading oil company" is the exact CV of an awful lot of dodgy Russians.
His experience is exactly why his analysis on Putin is so invaluable and insightful. It takes like to understand like. Especially him noting that Putin is no longer the man he once was.
@@VVayVVard the old Putin was a bad actor - he is long gone. The “new” Putin is the very opposite - he is working to tear down the old (corrupt) world. eg the bioweapon labs in Ukraine, hidden within a children’s hospital … 🤔 Start using your discernment peeps. Brave man. He has my vote.
@@snowyowl6892 What evidence is there indicating that Ukraine has bioweapons labs? As a biochemist myself, I'd note that bioweapons are very cheap to research (compared to nuclear weapons) and can be created in a garage using relatively cheap equipment, so even if Ukraine had them, eliminating a couple of labs wouldn't do Putin any good. It's far more effective, as a long term solution, to design and implement basic countermeasures, such as filtration (e.g. HEPA + directed air flows) and decontamination (e.g. 222 nm far-UVC) systems. In fact, stationing troops in a country known to conduct bioweapons research is generally a bad move, since that would give the enemy an opportunity to infect those soldiers with said bioweapons, which could then spread to the rest of the country as those soldiers returned home after the mission. So, if such hypothetical bioweapon labs did in fact exist in Ukraine, very soon, we will likely hear news of dangerous diseases spreading among Russian soldiers and citizens. On the other hand, if nothing of the sort happens, we can conclude with high certainty that Ukraine never had any functional bioweapon programs in the first place.
He seriously had the audacity to deny the Nazism of the Azov Battalion and their reign of terror!? Numerous Ukrainians have spoken out against them. Very charming chap, but I don't believe one word out of his mouth after that!!
the reason people are compelled to war, is because they believe it will bring about a new order, once dust has settled, they can rebuild world in their image. Never allow anybody to use you as a pawn in their conflict. edit: in other words, they use war, they justify war, to bring about peace. Peace is not what we want if it has a cost of more war, we want freedom from mimetic desire and conflict. edit: all this rhetoric of "peace" is used prior to war. We just want "peace" we will do anything for peace, including going to war, to bring about peace.
@@hazelwray4184 yes, but make no mistake the rus and chi have a rhetoric of world order, and peace too. Just do as they say, and there will be peace, that is always the issue. Hand over your stuff to us, and nobody gets hurt.
Was his Lorrdship part of the high nobility which got to see the irrefutable proof of Saddams nukes? The people who were convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do to keep humanity safe. As a commoner i am always in awe of these people, for all that they knew and we didn't at that time.
The cited WMDs were not [just] about "nukes." There was a suspected-though-unconfirmed Uranium Enrichment Program layered beneath a confirmed Chemical Weapons Program [of unconfirmed breadth].
Iraq had biological weapons of mass destruction, those they had were quickly buried and the manufacturer in Cuba still has stock. Wake up intelligence services. A certain Dr. David Kelly was remarkably found dead over the latter. RIP. Never quite trust your "own side" either, or the BBC.
How can a man once(maybe still is) employed by mI6 and now an oil company give a balanced fair perpespective of the situation without it being biased towards the west.
“I used to know every damn village in Syria” why do I find that statement so very offensive. It must be because of this country’s shameful destruction of Syria. How flippant a comment given what’s happened and still happening
I did not find it offensive because it seemed to be only about the detail level of the information he had available. Like "I know every damn screw in my car" Exactly like that, not only similar.
Yeah the West is just as much to blame for the destruction of Syria as Assad is - because they did nothing! Is the same going to happen with Assad's ally Putin as he invades & brutalisses the Ukraine & then Eastern Europe & then Central Europe and then Western Europe and then the UK? What about Putin's political & religious advancement in the US or Brazil? What about his advancement in Oceania? WHEN are people going to stand up & say enough is enough, instead of repeating the same mistakes the World made with Syria, debating themselves into a World War one day at a time? Look, I recieve warnings from God - I'm not overly religious but I have Faith. In 2012 God said very clearly: "The Syrian War is going to come to the Western Nations" Assad can't do that by himself, but Putin can... And then God only knows what kind of combatants he would release upon the Peaceful, Democratic Populations... Most likely Nazis & Terrorists, just like his Russian Mafioso are already working with among Organised Crime Networks all over the world... They're laying out the Stakes in the Ground using such Networks to later thread the Fencing & then "Ta Da" just like Magic, you've been invaded!
So this guy is learned enough to assess the character of Putin, but failed to assess Blair with the same level of learnedness. No bias.....none at all. 🤦
The answer is that they are not 'smarter', they just think they are and their interests align with pursuing a war with Russia - something that is clearly not in the interests of ordinary Britons, Americans, or even Ukrainians for that matter.
Yeah, I think Sean C. McNally should be sent in to negotiate as he's an "outsider." Do you seriously think that he wants the destruction of Ukraine or Russia?
He deliberately leaves out the points about 2008 when Georgia and Ukraine application to join NATO were welcomed at a NATO conference. That's was the beginning of the trouble, as such was a direct threat to the security of Russia.
It’s the other way around. It’s no threat if Russia never invades. NATO is a defensive pact. Putin hardly should have reacted by doing exactly what caused Georgia and Ukraine to apply in the first place.
@@CJBroonie How ignorant. NATO means that they can put up their military bases and infrastructure as they like. Remember how the US reacted to the Cuba crisis? This is somewhat comparable, Putin had no choice they have baited him enough!
@@helenafromla well, it certainly looks like they needed to be members of NATO now doesn't it? I'm staggered at the number of people all over the Internet, acting as apologists for Putin, who seem to think that Ukrainians have no right to determine the direction of their own country. Like joining NATO for example.
Oxford and no one is smart enough to ask him how he feels about colluding with, and benefitting from the oil oligarchy. oil/gas is the sole reason that EU is dependent of Russia, and probably the only reason for the ukranian war
The parallel drawn between sanctions against South Africa and present sanctions of Russia is that the substantial trade between the UK and SA never diminished because Thatcher’s Gvt UK refused to sanction SA.
British Prime Minister Johnson chooses protecting the Loot of his Oligarch buddies over Ukrainian Refugees. BORIS JOHNSON ( Putin's enabler ) IS IN "TOTAL PANIC" BECAUSE THE WORLD CAN SEE HE IS THE CARETAKER FOR PUTIN'S ASSETS,AS OPPOSED TO TURNING THESE ASSETS INTO EUROS AND GETTING THESE EUROS INTO POSSESSION OF REFUGEES,ONLY ONE REASON WHY UK PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON HOLDS THIS POSITION." IS HIS DEBT TO THE OLIGARCHS" While UK .Prime Minister Boris Johnson acts as caretaker for the loot of Putin's Oligarch lackeys. Predators and human traffickers prey on vulnerable Refugee families. Ukrainian Refugees must not be marginalised or forgotten ,these families are in a desperate situation and need our help urgently. Time wasting stalling tactics from "Boris the Liar" can not be afforded, if we allow this, the vulnerable victims of Putin will pay the price. Prime Minister Johnson is complicit in the plight of Ukrainian Refugees, Everyone must take a closer look at what's going on. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the UK must be seized and made available to Refugees in Euros to rebuild their lives, Then a fund to rebuild infrastructure in Ukraine destroyed by Putin. British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent investigation. We must take a closer look at this present British Government, 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 TAKE ACTION ON 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 in London, plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for. 1
@Darren Clapson “Cubans, East Germans, and Russians”. ???? In South Africa? I grew up with the apartheid regime and like most people around the world followed it closely and called for it to end. Never once was it reported that foreign fighters were on the ground in South Africa. Provide your sources or be known as a liar! I challenge you!
@Darren Clapson “enemy pilots” you say? What on earth were they flying?! The fight against Apartheid in SA didn’t happen in the skies. Maybe your SA friends were fighting in Namibia or Angola, where Cuban forces were indeed present. Apartheid SA fought a lot of wars in neighbouring countries under Vorster and Botha (none of which they won) !
I have no opinion about the man, but he hasn’t said anything that is not already in the world (not western) press. It’s hardly revelatory information, and I am unsure what people need to wake up to.
@@wubbalubbadubdub7597 OK, I'll say it again, he worked in a high level position for MI6 and now suddenly is a fanboy for BP. What could go wrong? Any conflicts of interest you could imagine? Wake up!
Just because you’re at Oxford doesn’t mean that what is said is correct. This guy just jumped on the Putin is crazy bandwagon. He’s just piling on top of the thoughtless madness.
Exactly right , everyone jumps on board . Oligarchs money is only now seen to be wrong. Man they must have done the funny handshake wrong. I'm guessing they got it 33% wrong. And if you like numbers or are paying attention 2 days after 22 .02. 22 this kicked off. Now that should tell you something .
So he's on the board of BP. The whole US goal was to stop Nordstream 2 or at least minimize its production and flow. The US calculated that Putin would take Donbass regions and eastern Ukraine and that would provide enough finger wagging ammunition to close down the pipeline. Then it all blew up.
@@gc2696 I totally agree. The Minsk agreements were undermined by the US and Ukraine government who were making cash out of the Donbass conflict. Russia is not innocent but this could have been handled diplomatically.
Sawers' wry smile when he mentioned Macron thinking himself saviour of Europe is exactly how I felt when he was jetting back and forth to Russia and got totally embarrassed when Putin attacked.
Interesting that he would mention that the UK don't want the security to be at the white cliffs of Dover but a thousand miles away. My question then is why would anyone think that Russia would see things differently regarding their security?
Then the same question applies to Finland and Sweden why should they have an aggressive neighbouron their doorstep. Chechnya didn't want to join NATO Neither did Georgia or South Ossetia but they were still attacked by Russia this was never about NATO Ukraine wanted to join the EU thats why Putin had Viktor Yushenko poisoned back in 2004
@@affectionatepunch In 2008 NATO decided that Georgia and Ukraine should become part of NATO. So you mean that Russia had someone poisoned in 2004 for something that happened in 2013? John Mearsheimer talked about the reasons behind the current situation already in 2015. It's quite educational. ruclips.net/video/JrMiSQAGOS4/видео.html
As board member of BP, his public analysis is colored by this fact. SO, he does not really reveal the background strategy of Western govt (influenced by the oil/gas sector)...to them Ukraine is only a pawn
THIS. Both the US and the UK, basking in smug triumphalism after the fall of the Soviet Union, turn down every request by a then weak and broken Russia to become part of the West. Later in that decade a newly formed government of a certain leader named Vladimir asked if Russia can join the west in a military alliance, perhaps even NATO in an attempt to counter global terrorism and perhaps a rising China. The west told this newbie named Vlad to go eff himself. The rest is history.
I feel sorry for everyone in that room who believed this guy wants to save any human life whatsoever, over his economics and financial interests. A Room full of next generation corporate journalists, Smiling agreeing and believing for the paycheck
Well this guy did the unpleasant work so you can indulge your unsullied concience as you live your secure existence free of moral dilemmas of any sort..
@@tolrem my moral dilemmas are with those complicit in war for profit and who justify their actions with thought of their own self-interest. He told countless lies in this piece. whats worse is you turning a blind eye to being remotely informed of the true narrative. instead, taking aim at those who choose to question falsehoods.
"How pathetic the jester is, on the king's throne, How stupid the people who allowed it." This all you need to know about the Ukrainian government and current state of the people who live in this country.
If it's OK for the UK to not want its security threats at Dover, then why should Russia accept having NATO and the EU on its own borders ? The Ukraine should be a neutral buffer state. Non-alignment is the key here.
Which is the same as saying 'why should NATO and the EU accept having Russia on their borders' ... Russia is constantly saying 'we are surrounded by enemies', why don't we hear Switzerland (for example) complaining that they are surrounded by enemies? It's YOUR behaviour that determines your neighbour's attitude, not theirs
@@TAttiusMaximvs But NATO is entirely redundant; you can be an independent country and have NO NATO at all; any military club that you aren't a member of is a threat to you, there is ZERO reason to have NATO especially as the pretext was to be against the USSR which has long since been sadly defeated.
Oh, sweet summer child. You'll be working with tons of incompetent people in the future, as we all are. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are incompetent, though. Or it wouldn't, though your comment here serves as a better hint regarding that. And I hope you do realize that anyone who was in the MI6 between 1997 - 2007 was working under Tony Blair, regardless of how competent or credible they were.
@@cliveramsbotty6077 Anyone who has ever worked under an incompetent boss would be offended by the insinuation that they lack credibility simply as a result of them having done so.
Classy guy who knows 100 * more than he'll admit. First Q to validate his ethics & committment to the UK Nation (& not to a few Aerospace Defence execs) : did he know about the lack of WMD in Irak? I doubt it. He is, like Kroes & Macron to Uber, a sell out, > 50% chances.
Notice the last remarks: GB doesn't want security on the cliffs of Dover. Same thing for Russia - it doesn't want security in Donetsk, right at its border. Russia wants it just like any other country. You would do the same, I reckon.
No, Putin wants to invade the former Soviet satellite countries, to restore his vision of a great Soviet superpower that controls and represses the countries it has invaded.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master." - Commisioner Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri (game from Firaxis)
Yes. So what makes USA, UK and Canada better than Putin. UK parliament just passed laws to make protesting illegal. Canada called protesters terrorists. USA kept American citizens in prison for "insurrection" yet not a single charge of "insurrection" and not a single weapon found.. I can't think of a single thing that makes Putin any worse than every other "leader" on the planet at this moment.
Same in Slovakia ... Sponsorship from west really manifest it self ... attacking emotions of people in here and also the law now says that information will be "filttered" ... so either you are going to have "right" opinion or shut up ....
We have not seen "shock and awe" as many predicted might happen. Figure out why. Something else is up, Russian tanks surrounded by citizens who later go home for dinner, hardly what one would expect. Get him to talks, that is the end game.
Correct and he's slow walking this invasion by design for a reason. Full scale invasion is a lot of death & destruction but he doesn't want that. He wants Ukraine to come back to Russia with love. That's Plan A and he wants them to come home without being forced. He also thinks it would nice if they apologized for leaving mother but Plan A will bring on the wrath of the world and he might do it but I don't think so. I think he'll do the slow burn with Plan B and he'll slowly destabilize Europe with millions of Ukrainian refugees until NATO comes to its senses with the sensible thing cause Putin wants security and that's all he ever wanted but NATO wouldn't give him that. Instead they turned the old Warsaw Pact into NATO and it took 20 years but NATO was stupid So Putin will do the slow burn and he doesn't care how long it takes. Ukraine ain't joining NATO and that is EXACTLY what NATO should've given Putin with a back channel gaurantee cause that would've allowed him to save face and it would've prevented an invasion. In fact, it would've been the smart play but NATO was stupid So now Putin's chillin by the pool with the Pina Coladas and he's kicking back with those Cohibas from Cuba so good you want to eat the ash. He's been saving them for a special occasion and he doesn't care how long it takes. He'll let those refugees wander around forever until NATO & Ukraine & the refugees all agree to do the right thing which is really all he ever wanted (g)
It will be interesting, as time goes on and more verified information becomes available, to return to this plainly slanted assessment and identify its propaganda components and subconscious biases more accurately.
He concludes by saying that the essence of our security is not having threats on the cliffs of dover but keeping them a thousand miles away...why does that have a familiar ring?
It's appalling to hear him talk of sanctions while common folk in Afghanistan are resorting to selling their organs for food because of the US sanctions on the country. Sanctions always affect the common people the worst, never the leadership to the same extent.
San Jose I would like to politely disagree with you. Whatever sanctions that you have saw us on Afghanistan yes all these sanctions trickle down to the population and the same is going to go in Russia it will affect all of us it's already affecting us in the states and it will of course probably more so in the NATO countries. But if you're going to put blame on Afghanistan he's having to sell their organs and sell their parts of their body to make ends meet you got to look at the real culprit behind all this and that's the taliban. If they didn't invade this would have never happened if they didn't have aspirations to subdue every single person that doesn't agree with them this wouldn't be happening and people will not be selling their organs. Also what you saw with the afghanist when the US pulled out in such an embarrassing disgusting way I was for bringing our troops back but I wasn't for bringing the troops back before we got our own citizens and Friends but yeah it's the yes it was the Taliban that is responsible for anything that's happening adversely in Afghanistan and nobody else. Unlike the ukrainians when they were met on the battlefield while they were invading their country going into Kabul what what did the military for Afghanistan do? They literally ran they ran in them went into the Taliban they were never really well they call Afghanistan the graveyard of all empire's country. And there's a reason for that that's because nobody is ever been able to subdue them fully going back you know way way back in history. But they ran they joined the Taliban that's that was their choice they would rather be ruled by an entity like the Taliban into fight for their country. Fighting alongside the US and their partners but as soon as we pulled out they just gave up you know pretty sad but that's true well you'll see the ukrainians in your city Ukrainian fighting tooth and nail against the Giant and they're not going to give in even if the whole country is rubble there will be an insurgency that'll be biting the ass of the Russians for many years to come. So I'm sorry I made this comment so long and went off topic but yeah the blame for what's going on in Afghanistan is on the afghanis and the Taliban and America still has we don't need we've never been given the number of American citizens there that can't get out and are also subject to bottling home of death of court yeah the president of my country and is administration is a leftist socialist government that cares more about its power than it does about a citizens and it does about their allies I don't know where you are Jose but I hope you're safe and keep safe sincerely Bob the blind bedroom guitars
Listening to an ex head of MI6 and a current board member of BP is akin to listening to someone from the Council for Foreign Relations warn us about man made global warning. His perspective should be part of a suite of perspectives listened to and perhaps not entirely believed to be without bias.
@@RockstahRolln indeed. this is the very devil himself, charming voice tone, polished language, handsome and well dressed, but clearly a massive liar and war criminal.
@@DavidSawe very true, although most interviews on bbc/itv etc don't have a 30 minute time slot which is probably a good reason why their interviews are so shit
@Jack Archer The BBC were the first to break the fake Iraq dossier story. I mean it depends on who you're comparing them to. Who would you point to that you like?
British Prime Minister Johnson chooses protecting the Loot of his Oligarch buddies over Ukrainian Refugees. BORIS JOHNSON ( Putin's enabler ) IS IN "TOTAL PANIC" BECAUSE THE WORLD CAN SEE HE IS THE CARETAKER FOR PUTIN'S ASSETS,AS OPPOSED TO TURNING THESE ASSETS INTO EUROS AND GETTING THESE EUROS INTO POSSESSION OF REFUGEES,ONLY ONE REASON WHY UK PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON HOLDS THIS POSITION." IS HIS DEBT TO THE OLIGARCHS" While UK .Prime Minister Boris Johnson acts as caretaker for the loot of Putin's Oligarch lackeys. Predators and human traffickers prey on vulnerable Refugee families. Ukrainian Refugees must not be marginalised or forgotten ,these families are in a desperate situation and need our help urgently. Time wasting stalling tactics from "Boris the Liar" can not be afforded, if we allow this, the vulnerable victims of Putin will pay the price. Prime Minister Johnson is complicit in the plight of Ukrainian Refugees, Everyone must take a closer look at what's going on. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the UK must be seized and made available to Refugees in Euros to rebuild their lives, Then a fund to rebuild infrastructure in Ukraine destroyed by Putin. British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent investigation. We must take a closer look at this present British Government, 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 TAKE ACTION ON 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 in London, plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for. 1
Oxford Union you need to get Prof John Mearscheimer for an intelligent and balanced counterview. For those interested watch his RUclips talks, very educational.
Why it is not mentioned the declination of NATO to allow Rusia to be part of? and the fact that NATO broke the promise of NOT to expand close to the borders of Rusia if they allow Germany to Unite, which they did, but NATO did not keep it’s word. Honesty and clarity is never used in politics when the bad ones always get away with murder. The hash reality is that we the people in Europe and in America who have not voted for a conflict are the ones that will end up paying the price, as prices and devaluation will get worst. The poor people in Ukraine are suffering and The Russian people are getting a bad press. All we want you the leaders of the world stop playing wars, do their jobs properly and give us peace and freedom, in exchange for paying your lavished lives.
@@CzesiaPL There's no such thing as a strictly defensive alliance in power politics. NATO has been used offensively in Libya, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. Countries never take on faith that what one might consider defensive will always remain so.
@@A____G That future endangers Russia's security, same way russian missiles in cuba was a security threat to the US, or iraq owning (lies of course) WMDs not USING, just owning was deemed a threat to US allies in the region tens of thousands of kilometres from US and that was used as a reason for war that killed millions of iraqs, destroyed their country, livelihood for decades to come. This done by countries who they themselves have WMDs and have used them already (Hiroshima). If all countries have the right to decide their future and security, why are others destroyed for doing the same, just contrary to the wishes of the United States? Then there's Monroe doctrine, read what happens to any arm shipments heading to Venezuela...
@@nicohendriks3278 could, in theory, China and Russia make a deal with Mexico and install nuclear weapons on the border with Texas? What would happen then? Oh, hold on...Cuban missile crisis...remembers me something...
The focus of many people in the unlikely event of a nuclear war is the initial blast, which could cause mass casualties and unimaginable devastation. When the U.S. detonated nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 77 years ago, it leveled the cities and killed more than 100,000 to 200,000 people from the blasts or radiation sickness. But according to scientists, the horrors of a nuclear war could affect the whole planet. Clearly, one or two nuclear impacts would not have global effects but the impact of 100 weapons the size of the one that fell on Hiroshima would lower temperatures around the world to below those of the little ice age that occurred from roughly 1,300 to 1,850. That would result in crop failures and famine on a large scale. Here are the large scale impacts 1. Five megatons of soot and ash would fill the sky, bringing about a nuclear winter. 2. After one year, the average temperature of Earth would fall by about 2 degrees. After five years, the earth would be three degrees cooler than before. Twenty years down the road, it would warm up to one degree below where it was before the nuclear event. 3. That might sound beneficial, given all the talk about global warming today, but lower temperatures means less rain. Five years after the detonation, rainfall would be at 91% of current levels. After 26 years, we would still see 4.5% less rain than we did before the war. And the reduced rainfall would bring about global drought conditions. 4. Depending on the region, growing seasons for crops would be 10 to 40 days shorter, resulting in widespread famine. 5. The ozone layer would diminish due to the radiation, ultimately becoming as much as 25% thinner for the first five years after the event. After 10 years, there would be some recovery, but it would still be 8% thinner. This would result in a rise in skin cancer and sunburns. And the increased ultraviolet rays would put plant and animal life that survived the initial blast at risk. It wouldn't necessarily take 100 missiles for those theories to be tested, either. The United States' modern B83 bombs are 80 times more powerful than the weapon it hit Hiroshima. Russia has tested weapons that are even more powerful. Scientists warn that ripple effects of a nuclear war could be devastating for everyone on Earth. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine.
"One of the things I do in my afterlife from public service is I sit on the board of BP" - says it all really. Spoken like a true Blairite. He goes on to talk about BP's lucrative business investments, so much so that when he talks about what "we" have to do, one must legitimately wonder who exacly he is refererring to as "we", which seems to me the essential problem in the ongoing conflict between the West/US and Russia. In whose interests were the sustained provocations that led to this military crisis actually made?
@@hikelfin Self righteous opinions are what brought us to the brink of WWIII. You are an enemy to World Peace. Here get informed unless you are a supremacist with or without jacket. ruclips.net/video/8X7Ng75e5gQ/видео.html
He is totally correct don't force the "Tiger to Jump Over the wall" or in this case "The Bear to crash through the wall"...like he says it best interest for the West to leave a route for Russia to dial down the tone.
I am afraid, the Russians themselves will not find a way out. The others, as always, have to think for them, show & tell a solution and leave them, at the end, with the illusion, that they have invented it. - These people are my favourite european neighbours - what a pleasure to have them around.
In terms of a way out...a bullet to the mellon by few conspirators in his inner circle would prob be the least costly and best for humanity overall would it not?
Putin, in his 2008 Munich Security Conference speech, warned of the destabilising effect of Western regime change operations, occupations and unilateral sanctions.
@@kayem3824 except that child was always bullying others and are friends with one of the biggest bullies in the world namely China.. the ukrainians didn't just rise up to overthrow the Russian Puppet government because they were influenced by American Leaders like Hillary. they did it because they had very unequal business relationships with the Russians for 100's of years beforehand and the EU and by extension the US had been much better partners in everything not by coercion but by the fact that Russia simply took more and more and exploited the Ukranians like they have always done and well there is almost a thousand years of history there that they didn't want repeated. this narrative of EU and US forcing Russia's hand is not taking any action of Russia into account when they had an even bigger role to play.. you can pretty much blame the west for Libya, Iraq and the rise of ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeeda. but not Ukraine wanting to move away from Russia, as Russia has always undermined Ukraine which has been a bigger factor and pushed them further and further towards Europe, hell even a huge amount of those ukrainians that speak Russian as their first language or only language have supported this move because they themselves have been subject to those unequal treaties and business relationships and on the other hand seen the difference with the non exploitative counterparts of those relationships with western nations and even China. we can blame the US and the big powers of Europe (France and Britain) for a lot of instability in the world and they should be criticized for that. but Ukraine is just a lot more complicated then that and is for once not their fault.
@@NiklasMJ they did force Ukraine to sign non-binding Budapest Memorandum in 1994 to give up their nukes. I think, this was a sucker punch. In 1990 Bush Sr. came to Kyiv and gave a speech in which he warned Ukrainians not to leave the USSR, because he was worried precisely of that, of nukes spreading over the former USSR country. What happened is a history. But what a chance now that no matter what the West STILL don't want Russia to break apart again for the same reason. Sadly, many Western politicians have a poor understanding of Ukrainian-Russian history and trying to appease putin.
@@olenazemba6977 You're right. Those weren't Ukrainian nukes, because the command center wasn't in Ukraine, nor was the technology native, but Soviet wide, same as the Antonov monster cargo aircraft. Similarly, the space launching site was and is still in Kazakhstan, which doesn't mean that it's local technology.
I don’t think the west can afford to corner Putin. He is not irrational. He will succeed in Ukrainian at a very high cost. The result is a much closer Russia China relationship.
as a Russian, I can say we are ready and willing to bear all the cost of being independent from the west and nato. We don't want nato missiles on our doorsteps and they will never get any closer to us. Period.
@@Svetlana_Zakirova Ukraine is not your 'doorstep'. It is an independent country. We will all bear the cost. You think the current budget for the military is high in the West? Come back next year.
We should remember the west has flattened countries in recent times, the body count of this vs what we have done is simply not comparable, and the double standards are of course blatant, take a look in the mirror if you want to know who to compare to monsters of history.
@@thesorrow88 I'm sure the entire global south agrees with his take tho. If you are from North America or Europe, let the victims decide the weight of your crimes.
@@kashu7691 Its accurate but irrelevant. my bad behavior does not excuse your bad behavior. It doesn't even contextualize it unless it's against me. "Your father spanked you so I smacked your mom."??!?? - that's not an argument, it's word salad indicating a stroke.
This really shows how the west value themselves again the African, Asia and middle East origin,why did UN not stood up for Libya,Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria again US? Biased world I guess.
The UN has not stood up for the Ukraine either? If they did there would be UN troops in Ukraine right now. The UN is not even referring to it as a war or invasion. The US is bypassing the UN with its Nato partners to provide help, but thats a totally different thing. Nato only really act against Russia or China, its what is called the "2nd world". You might hear a lot of africa called "3rd world", but all that means is that they are not "NATO aligned" or not "Russia/China" aligned. First world Nato, Second Russia/china, 3rd everyone else. 3rd world does not mean "poor". Ireland is a 3rd world country. Basically the UN only really acts when 1st world and 2nd world countries agree. If youre a 3rd world country like syria, but you are trying to become a second world, china/russia aligned. then you might struggle to get UN help. If the trouble is internal, for example ISIS then you stand a much greater chance of UN help, as no one can really object to your request for peace keepers. Basically UN/Nato have only given the help that Syria got. USA dropped weapons on Syria, they dropped some on Ukraine. Thats about it.
A freaking has been trying to grab a last gasp of glory by pushing the USA terrorist alliance propaganda . The most important video to watch ever ruclips.net/video/aqKfSbhm6yo/видео.html
Silly question. Of course it's a biased world. Why don't you have your own defense alliance? That's a far better question to pose. And I'm quite sure, deep down, you know the answer.
Look from Russia's perspective, if NATO puts military bases, and missiles in Ukraine, would it feel threatened? How would US feel if Russia does training around US border? I am surprised people not being able to think different perspectives.
The problem with such people is that although they have gathered wealth of knowledge and experience over the long years of their service in such important positions, they are unable to deliver that knowledge to their audiences because of the necessity with which they have to follow and propagate their respective governments’ official narratives. Skipping of necessary perspective and important detail from his talk is glaring.
Remember how the US squealedl like a stuck pig when missiles arrived on Cuba? Russia not bowing to the great hegemon is a gross impertinence! When Sanctions work in the reverse, it will be time to think again. The idea that Russia is just a 'Gas Station' is way out of date. Putin has tried so hard to get along with the West but the US just wont play: Now he has had it and it is just too late.
If you listen to the way this man speaks, and the way he presumes to meddle in other countries affairs via sanctions as a tool to influence behaviour, casting moral judgements, etc, you will hear a representative of the thought process which got us in to this mess. Even down to the way he sits on the board of BP, showing the corruption and vested interests which exist between Western governments and big business. He is completely Machiavellian (which I'm sure he would take as a complement), and there is a critical lack of moral reflection on whether the Western structure should be seeking to influence and steer other civilisations at all. This man, and people like him, are the cause of most wars in the world, and the little people will always pay the price. He even takes glee in the fact that sanctions deprived the 'male South Africans' of their favourite sport. And people wonder why Putin doesn't want people like this to have control over Russia?
Example of my critique illustrated by his statement at the end: "You don't want our (British) security to be at the cliffs of dover, you want it 1000 miles away"... Yes, in places like Ukraine. His self centered ideology and view of the world shows why Russia feel threatened. As long as people like him want to keep their security 1000 miles away, then there will always be a rat who is cornered in the world and ready to strike.
Moral high horse: why the heck shouldn't one allow him a bit of schadenfreude about S. African sanctions? Especially when one looks at the murders committed by the authorities there.
@@pedrofragoso3298 It does matter to Ukraine, USA and NATO fight Russia on ukranian soil and by ukranian army. They started it in 2013 by supporting the ``Maidan`` in Kiev. Did you hear about the military operetion in Donetsk and Lugansk that started in 2014? My aunt ( she is 85) lost her house in Donetsk in 2015 due to this ukrainian military operetion against its own citizens.
“We don’t want our line of security on the white cliffs of Dover, we want our security 1000 miles away”. How can one square that with the 2014 putsch in Kiev, and subsequent CIA training of Ukrainian special armed units from 2015-2022, and Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Amy Klobouchar in Ukraine in 2016 telling Ukrainian troops that 2017 would be “a year of offence against Russia”? All this on Russias border, equivalent to our white cliffs of Dover.
His final thought: "keeping dangers at a distance from us, the essence, really, of our security, you don't want your security to be on the white cliffs of Dover. You want your security to be a thousand miles away so that you can operate freely and our people can go about their lives in freedom and one hopes with growing prosperity and that's what public service is about" (32:55). This to me is the tragic reason why we face conflicts like this - if you think that 'public service' amounts to holding influence thousands of miles from your own borders (i.e. all over the territory of other nations) how is this going to lead to peace? You can't have every nation of the world expanding their tentacles of power thousands of miles in every direction and also avoid antagonism with countries who don't want you doing this. This interpretation of 'public service' would (and does) lead to wars all over the place.
What would UK feel for their own safety, if Russia were to duplicate the military measures of NATO's security outposts to be set up right at UK borders?
Another interpretation: help free nations thousands of miles away defend themselves from their bullying neighbours so that threats are defeated there, not on your land.
@@algung2522 The UK and Russia are not morally equivalent. The UK has liberty defended by a free-speech embracing democracy. Russia has no free speech and thus no meaningful democracy - and certainly no liberty. The Russian dictatorship has no legitimacy. NATO countries uphold individual rights, however imperfectly, and thus have legitimacy.
Agreed. His tedious preoccupation with sanctions felt disingenuous, as though he was avoiding the difficult questions in favour of letting the wealthy corporate elite decide the matter, as market forces would inevitably dictate.
@@georgebenson6330 Who owns them and most politicians ? Those who can print all needed to corrupt/buy the system since 1913. Their centrally controlled economic system is imploding so they need an other war. We really think people like Biden or Johnson have any power ?
@Ululu Kululu there’s a flaw in your Afghanistan example where your conflating Afghanistan and Taliban. One is a political entity (as you pointed out) the other is a country. The comment you were responding to is talking about countries not political entities.
The Presenter really said little that makes sense here. To claim Ukraine is fully united ignores the fact that Ukraine has been at war with itself since 2014! Nonsense!!
Horrific situation in Ukraine but surely the solution lies in making Ukraine a prosperous neutral country that can work with both the west and Russia. NATO itself doesn't need Ukraine, it needs a buffer and Ukraine provides that. As much as I hate to say this we need to work with Russia not against it. Working against Russia will only make things worse in far more places than Ukraine.
Nobody is trying to make an enemy of Russia, NATO wants to work with Russia but the disagreement between NATO and Putin makes it difficult. NATO won’t allow Ukraine’s sovereignty to be undermined, Putin won’t allow Ukraine to join NATO without a buffer zone. So they’re actually both wanting similar things but it’s not possible to do so with the current state of affairs
@@ConsultancymarketingCoUk you know Putin feigns innocence a lot when he’s the prime instigator, that’s how he has Ukraine’s Crimea and how he’s able to exploit a weakened Europe after covid to invade Ukraine.
@@jakkuwolfinsomnia8058 If NATO was serious about not being a threat to Putin it shouldn't be encouraging Ukraine to join (see NATO Bucharest summit, 2008). NATO should've disbanded when the Cold War ended in the 1990s and new alliances formed based on the new threats at the time (ie Islamic fundamentalism). The US's position as a self-proclaimed benign hegemony and solid presence in NATO is what Putin sees as a threat, particularly when Ukraine is of no strategic value to the US. If the former Soviet states in Eastern Europe were worried about Putin they should form their own alliance with other Eastern and Central European countries, not one that involves the US and counter that threat appropriately.
Strange that for the ex head of MI6 recent events started in 2014... he missed to explain how those events in 2014 precipitated, and he is avoiding 2008, Nato declaration regarding Ukraine and Georgia becoming nato members
Exactly, + very interesting view: Robert C. Castel on the current Ukraine / Russia affairs - will there be a WW3? ruclips.net/video/ajF91RG-8Tk/видео.html
Well, he is quite good. He also does not mention the mutual security concessions and how that negotiations went end of last year. So, one cannot easily confront him for misinterpreting, only for leaving important aspects out. If one does not know much about it however, this will not be recognized at all.
Interesting of course, but I'm bound to say he didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know or could surmise from reading numerous open sources and having some knowledge of region.
Exactly. Way too much braking, barely any acceleration at all. It's the case in all such interviews: their main worry is to avoid slipping into confidential info or for his words to be taken out of context.
If (as he says) that Russia will win the war - then what is the point in "supporting the Ukrainian government" with sanctions, but not with military action? The West should either get involved or not at all
The objective from the very start was to provoke Russia into entering Ukraine, regardless of the cost to the Ukranians in terms of property and human life destroyed, with the objective of inflicting as much damage as possible on Russia. And also to provide an excuse for sanctions which have the same objective. There are no other objectives than those. The vain hope is that they will inflict enough damage to precipitate regime change in Russia. This is intended to mainly neutralise Russia's nukes in preparation for the next step, an attempt at sanctioning and blockading China to destroy their economy. The excuse for that one will likely be provoking China to attack Taiwan by allowing China to think Taiwan will place US nuclear missiles there.
A word on the West's own culpability in the background to all this would have been appropriate. Its absence speaks volumes on the hubris of M16 and Western governments in the expansion of NATO. Too much mis-assessment, too many mistakes.
@@A____G You don't think poking the bear sufficient explanation? Let alone the numerous disastrous interventions the West has been indulging in these last 30 years? Delusional.
Am bitterly shocked to find out that my remark begging you OU to rectify the misspelling on your title is now missing. In its place only my two addenda are now appearing as my contributions to the debate. Back then, I praise the guest speaker for his briefing and said that it was up to each viewer to draw their own conclusion after listening to both sides of the same coin. Indeed, what I objected to was that your full title should have read: Former M16 Chief on the Ukraine & Russia Conflict, not Former M16 Chief On the Ukraine & Russia Conflict. Patiently awaiting to be proven wrong, for Oxford is rightfully renowned for being.the centre of academic excellence. @ngand'osambalundula
I am shocked that I am capable of correcting a former MI-6 chief on anything, but his comment on Sanctions on South Africa is not entirely correct. At 12:03: "As we saw in South Africa the ... sanctions against South Africa started in 1977; wasn't actually until 12 years later that the process of change began in South Africa." implying that the sanctions had that effect. I am South African, and pretty much 100% of the people who lived in those years will tell you the sanctions didn't do shit. We had an incredibly self sufficient country, the sanctions only really work if you've got a major reliance on external countries which we didn't really have all that much. For everything we couldn't actually produce ourselves, "under the table" deals sufficed. If you look at the date he mentions, 1989, it coincides precisely with the end of the Cold War (and the subsequent fall of the USSR) - the NP (National Party, the Apartheid Regime) always said to the West: "If we allow suffrage in South Africa (for black South Africans to vote), the ANC (African National Congress, Mandela's Party (who has since been in power in South Africa)) will come to Power." - the ANC, being trained by Russians and having strong communist roots, was a threat, strategically, in the cold war. Once the cold war ends however, there is no more "defense" to not allowing black South Africans to vote. The communist threat was, at that time, mostly eliminated- the excuses were up. So that, in combination with the fact that the late 80s and 90s were a time of significant globalization, perhaps even more than today (think internet), left FW De Klerk (then state president of South Africa) with one choice: Become North Korea in the subsequent decades without the new technologies of the rapidly globalizing world, or become just another shitty African country. He chose the latter, understandably. Suffrage was allowed with a referendum, black South Africans could vote for the first time, and of course the rest is history. We've had an ANC owned country ever since, but the sanctions never really played that great of a role in the years the gentleman mentioned here. Edit: He also goes on to say how Sports was a big motivator against the Sanctions in South Africa, but Google the "New Zealand Cavaliers" - we still played the All Blacks, it just wasn't "official"
Yes sanctions never work. Anyone that thinks they do is very mistaken... Outside forces that have nothing to do with sanctions are what usually make any change...
Dont be surprised that many of those so called high ranking officials are indeed out of touch with reality. Imagine when he talked about Britain keeping any perceived threat at bay ... but forgot to justify the same thing with Russian who frankly was against nato camps in direct proximity. So what are these guys talking about ? Do they even compare british clandestine ops with KGB chief ? British mi6 and mi5 was overrated yet again ...
Haha, I only watched about 5 min of the video and then browsed the comments. As often is the case, I pick up more gems of information in the comments section from real life people who have the actual experience and not just the political, or 'textbook ' version of the experience in the video! Have you heard of Canadian "online Philosopher" (self styled name) Stefan Molyneux? Now banned from You tube, probably for speaking too close to the truth. He had a very good video/chat about SA and the ANC and it's leader. Taught me, and horrified me, greatly.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. promised them that the NATO won't expand toward the east at all. But the NATO has over the years annexed 14 countries from the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. Why no one asked the speaker about this great betrayal by the West ? The speaker didn't talk about it either.
So Russia has right to protest itself but post- soviet countries do not? Putin has just prooven how needed aliences are and that NATO is best insutance policy. Also, NATO was and still is a defensive pact.
@@CzesiaPL There is no real distinction between defensive and offensive in international relations. This is known as the Security Dilemma. What one side considers defensive can be seen as offensive to another side, because powers don't trust one another. NATO forces have been engaged offensively in Libya, Afghanistan, and the Balkans.
@@hlw1306 Because in international relations might makes right, unfortunately. Smaller countries don't have the luxury of ignoring the will of larger, more powerful neighbors. It was always dangerously irresponsible to dangle the NATO carrot in front of Ukraine. The West knew full-well it wouldn't (/couldn't) protect them from Russia if it really came down to it.
Of course u know how the situation in Kashmir began and have a 40 year of experience in this... Last time I checked the partition between India and Pakistan was done by one of u folks... Great job bringing Kashmir up as a British...
The problem is he is already the rat in the corner in terms of international political cooperation and climate. I am very concerned that all parties are escalating and do not seek excessive negotiation and discussions with an open mind to understand all parties and end suffering of the people who has nothing to do with this and want to live in peace..
He is used to it . I don’t go to your house and tell you how to live your life ! I wish everyone minded their own businesses and we could of avoided so many wars …
america, the UK and i'm sure the rest of the world are staying out of it. i'm sure they're very aware that the russian president is a madman armed with nukes...
By brutal and inhumane force, mind you. No one has this information here. They don't know or want to know. Lets make the whole world a hollywood movie with US as batman. that's their level of thinking.
not a word about some powers in the west wanting to weaken the Russians by "fighting them on their own turf with their own people" while producing and selling weapons as much as they can. Not a word about the consequences of pushing Russia to ally with China in the long term, nothing on the part that more weapons for Ukraine means more deaths among its population and that what they need the most is peace, but every other side and political government (including the Ukranian one) is drooling to get this conflict ramped up as long as it doesn't go nuclear. And for anyone with a brain its obvious that the sanction's main goal is to topple Putin's regime and while it has some real effect on the oligarchs it will piss off a vast number of ordinary Russians who will rally behind "their strong man". This time the bets are much bigger and all sides are playing "all in".
![[EXCLUSIVE] MI6 Chief Richard Moore Speaks to Tom Newton Dunn | Times Radio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pKpA7YyBf10/mqdefault.jpg)
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
The former chief of MI6 is now on the board of BP. The revolving door is as well oiled in the UK as it is the US.
You think he should be a manager at Aldi, or what?
@@michaelqdlap - You seem very upset!
@@mattbrown3549 Genuinely curious. I am not a Brit but where do think folks in these agencies retire to? Is a council home a more socially acceptable option for folks who work in the upper echelons of the society?
@@sukritmishra6676 - Their salaries are that good that any normal person would spend their lives living a great life and never again even think about politics. I'd be on the first plane out to Spain looking for a new home and lifestyle.
@@jezzyby47 Fair enough. Or Greece for that matter!
Wasn't this guy deeply implicated in the 2003 Iraq war? He seems to excuse the establishment and the status quo at every turn.
Yeah he's a war criminal together with Putin,Bush and Blair
The deep state is motivated to endlessly interfere to justify their own existence, this was long in the making by the very same set.
Yet he has no problem throwing an off hand dig at Trump for scrapping the shitty Iran deal.
A creature whose extraordinary duplicity is only exceeded by its mendacity. Loathsome.
He says something he doesn't mean to at 30:31 , which he tries to walk back, then does the classic liars stutter, as his brain has lost its train of thought due to his accidental admission. He's as dirty as the rest of them.
I'm unfamiliar with this gentleman but was he part of MI6 when Blair assured the world that Iraq had WMDs?
Iraq *did* have WMDs, and used them.
It also tried to build a nuclear reactor, in order to produce material for nuclear weapons. Israel -- to the condemnation of most of the world -- destroyed the reactor before it could be used for weapons.
yeah, you got it. He is the first English collaborator to the American Neocon new foreign policy. America , the new Century AKA the Bush policy perfected by Hillary Clinton. Iraq, Syria are his magnum opus. And now he is sitting there expecting us to believe another load of piffle. He left in 2014 so was there pre Maidan time.
@@Inkblot21 Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about mate. You don't know me so don't make ignorant assumptions. All I said was that I'm unfamiliar with this gentleman and I was asking if he was part of MI6 when Blair assured the world that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of WMDs. You instruct me to quit blaming everyone and to change myself. For my benefit, could you point out the section of my question where I assign blame? While you're at it, what do you think I need to change? Would you rather I not ask questions about who people are? Would that brighten your rather dim view of me? Cheers friend. Edit: I would also add that I find your conflation of chemical weapons designed to be used on humans with bug spray to be troubling. There's at least one historical figure I can think of that used chemicals designed to kill insects to rather horrific effect.
@@G3FORC3 :As an American listening to the drivel being foisted on us and just my gut feeling about all of this is the the so-called American "intelligence agencies are up to their necks in trouble making.
Russia wants a secure border w/no nato nukes in eastern Europe including the Ukraine.
KEEP THINGS COOL.
That's right...
Starting to smell a bag of rat shit??
I listen to this gentleman and understand that he doesn't understand a damn thing about the domestic political situation in Russia
Clueless. Another goofy liberal fool that have utterly failed in foreign policy. Disgrace to Britain. But he does talk nicely and confidently which is all that the munters in Britain care about.
I'm five minutes in and was getting the same impression. Why act like you know what putin is thinking instead of giving a critical assessment from a former mi6 agent perspective. This is just another attempt at propaganda
@@fullrouge1198 Correct. Sadly, these pathetic bureaucrats think we're stupid. They don't realize that many people are waking up and we're not afraid to speak the truth.
@@ColonelMuppet
U.S.'s Bloody Fingerprints Are All Over Ukraine [YT.]
Indeed , just a spy using propaganda to twist reality.
When a former MI6 chief speaks, listen carefully to what he says, and even more carefully to what he doesn't say.
if you listen to CNN you'll get the same garbage.
So you can Just make it up from there, What source do you find prime resources when finding your information. You said nothing other then you distrust his narrative, so where do you source yours from?
Wisdom. The Truth; but far from the whole Truth. The BBC are not the only ones that operate like this.
Where are you finding your truths?
@@jeremywilliams3465 It's getting more difficult by the day to know who to Trust. I try to watch the news from as many countries as I can, I currently have found some of the Indian reporting and RUclipsrs appear to be less biased on the current issues in Russia.
Fascinating interview. But the career path going from working with the 'militant arm' of the UK's foreign policy (aka MI6), to working for one of the world's largest oil companies is probably of even greater public interest.
MI6 isn’t militant or military. I’d think that the Ukraine war and Putin’s evident paranoia are of utmost, repeat utmost public interest. I’m surprised you need to be told this.
@@paulhollis8879 really? With power to kill? They can kill more than you could imagine……
Very well said!
@@paulhollis8879 yes of course MI6 is not formally militant or military. That’s why I put it into inverted comas. But they certainly use force and they certainly meddle in foreign affairs - hopefully for the common good but the latter would be debatable.
@@paulhollis8879 You sound like the kind of person who when they autopsy a body run over by a bus but found out they had Covid you wrote on the death certificate Covid death...
The fact that the MI6 Chief goes on to sit on the board of BP tells you everything you need to know about the British state (or the capitalist state in general).
100 %
It tells you a lot about the strategic value of oil.
What's the issue?
i thought the best part was how he admits working with russia and giving them tech and helping them develop their energy sector is now shown to be the wrong move, but he then says doing the same with iran is a-OK.......stupid
@@peetky8645 he actually said working in Russia was good for the company. When Russia invaded Ukraine it made sense for them to sell their Rosneft shares and exit the JV. I must have missed the part where he said it's a good idea to invest in Iran... I thought western sanctions on Iran forbid that at the moment?
I loved the closing statement" Britain security should not be at the cliffs of Dover but 1000 miles away" This is exactly what Putin is saying. He wants Russian security 1000 miles away. Why on earth did you promise Ucrane to enter NATO knowing that Russia would feel threatened.?
Precisely
"Why on earth did you promise Ucrane to enter NATO knowing that Russia would feel threatened." -- Because they asked. We didn't invade them, or threaten them. Every nation that joined Nato since 1990 did so by their own request because they feel threatened by Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine proves they were right to do so.
@@gudgeonsales2000 That's a very simplistic view of events. NATO was set up specifically to defend Europe against the Soviet Union attempting to expand. Once the USSR broke up, that threat no longer existed and yet NATO not only didn't disband, it continued a policy of relentless and (in Russia's eyes) aggression expansion.
Why?
Because NATO expansion is a massive cash cow for the military industrial complex worth billions in armaments sales.
Truth is, large arms manufacturing corporations have vigorously lobbied western governments to extend NATO and our incompetent/short sighted/corrupt leaders have far too often given in to those pressure groups.
It's easy to dismiss Russia's defensive concerns but let's face it, there is no way we would be happy if at some point in the future an independent Scotland or say Mexico, wanted to join a China lead military coalition with the intention of setting up military bases on the UK's or US's borders.
So stop the double standards and put yourself in the other guys shoes.
@@albertross18 "Once the USSR broke up, that threat no longer existed" -- Oh boy!
@@gudgeonsales2000 Yes, by all accounts it cant even beat a poor backwards country like Ukraine. So why are we wasting trillions of tax payers money propping up NATO?
And please Sir now that you are on the board of BP could you please initiate a clean-up of oil spills in the Niger delta where BP was involved. And also compensation for polluted land, crops and eco-systems destroyed, animals killed and peoples' lives wrecked. This will go along way in creating a more harmonious and just society.
Sadly there are laws in place that mean if any board member that suggests, or tries to do it, will have to be removed for legal reasons. They will be acting against the interests of the company and therefore the shareholders, and that is not allowed.
It's why we are fucked.
Tut tut now, cuppa tea, two crumpets, stiff upper lip and all that, ducky…
This guy is part of the world leadership that created all of the current problems.
You are spot on!
Correct.
Exactly :- Chinese invasion of Tibet in the 50s totally overlooked 🤷🏽♂️
I've seen a few people repeat that analysis - that Putin underestimated the Western and Ukrainian response, and has essentially rushed into this war under-prepared. I'm skeptical of that claim. That doesn't seem like the calculating and cautious Putin we've seen over the last few decades. Unless there has been a personnel shake-up around him and some of his more cautious advisers have gone, I assume Russian leadership would have planned for worst-case scenarios, and would have fairly accurate intelligence concerning Ukrainian resolve. I don't think we're yet in a position to know what Moscow's expectations and plans are.
You are right
Correct mate,if covid has taught us anything it's this 'Whatever government and their minions say ? Flip it and you won't be far from the truth '
If you are right there would be a nuke in next coming days....
One thing I'm sure, is that there probably was a degree of miscalculation purely from corruption. Whether it was actually meaningful or not, who knows. It's difficult to believe anything from the media that wants everyone locked up and doped up in seasonal drugs.
I think they miscalculate the local currency cost to Russia. Russians are quite tolerant of hardship. The economy may import today but it can switch to domestic and Chinese suppliers. A "collapse" in the rouble is also impossible not to have been anticipated. As such I'd expect all the oligarchs are in the process of redenominating assets from dollar and gold into rouble and picking up an opportunity to acquire domestic assets that will be required to supply a sanctions restricted market. Putin's thesis will be he can weather this longer than the efette west can and the oligarch wealth will be protected by operating in domestic resource markets.
"I sit on the board of BP......the decision we took to exit Russia. Now, some might say 'why were you there in the first place?' Well, we were there in the first place because it was a very good investment to make and it produced excellent returns for shareholders over 25 years." In other words, we're happy to get into bed with Russia as long as it's profitable for us. Let's not look at the bigger picture - the bigger risks - let's just fill our pockets while we can.
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
― General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket
6hj
I think this is a little unfair. The hope and expectation across the west regarding post-soviet Russia was that it would continue to develop towards western democratic norms. It's easy to look back now and see the mistakes.
Excellent point and Im glad you took the time to copy his statement verbatim. In another era he would have been a British enabler to Hitler “because it was good for business”. In the one before that he was financing the ships used for the slave trade or an opium investor. Face it, not only did the EU love the cheap energy but they washed boatloads of Russian money in their countries whether they bought real estate, yachts or luxury brands.
@@JamyOats mistakes? Russians in general do not really care for our Democracy [nor do the Chinese] and how we deliver it to others. It is not like what CNN, SKY and BBC portray. The West lost it's chance with Russia , to treat it well and place it on our side, a long long time ago, at the time of G.Bush jr. to be precise . That was indeed the mistake ! We expect countries with different systems to ours to fall into our lap excited they are finally entering into the 'right fold' . It is not like that at all . I'm surprised at this MI6 gentleman who seems to understand very little about Russia and about the Russians.
Neo-nazis only existed in Ukraine during WW2?
In 2014 they were instrumental in effecting the Maidan coup and overthrowing Yanukovych.
The Azov Battalion were recently integrated into the Ukrainian military.
Thanks for reminding us all of the real history of Ukraine. There is of course far more than that to discredit this interviewee's self interested opinions.
Neo-nazis exist in every country. Don't fool yourself. And in Russia they do too, many of them. Especially, among Wagner mercenaries.
@@olenazemba6977 Indeed... There's a lot of these rats running around in... Even in places like America! Like a spreading cancer against Humanity Itself...
He sounds very much like Blair or Blair sounds very much like him. The problem is that Blair lost all credibility in the Iraq War.
He & Blair were part of the global agenda to corner Putin in the first place....now he's giving us the back story as if it were an analysis ?
@@gc2696 The gall, I tell you.
yip. Two very confused people, supporting the empire of lies.
@@jono2233 When a regime that can't even admit to its' own people that they are at war calls you an "empire of lies", does that count as a compliment?
They did and do things for their own interests not for people in this country…… nor for humanity, freedom, justice in this world, all these are for their disguise……period!
I agree with this guy, we need to leave Putin a way out or it gets catastrophic.
He will only do this again somewhere else. What you need to do is convince the armed forces and internal security that he is not the man to be at the top let them do the rest.
There are three ways out.
Putin gets room temperature one way or another.
Total defeat for Russia.
The West rolls over and Putin sees if he can put the USSR back together before he dies.
There is no face saving way out for Putin.
The Brits and MI6 sound as feckless as the Biden circus.
He won't live forever. We need to be careful. Deescalate this and break him down with soft power and even cooperation and shared interests. One miscalculation and we're all dead if this carries on. It's not like appeasing Hitler. This is russian roulette, quite literally
@@69birdboy Yeah but he's still got 10+ years in power, plenty of time to drop nuclear bombs where he needs to.
@@69birdboy You guys aren't getting it. There is no de-escalating. Sort of. Kind of.
Either Putin crushes the Ukraine, or they kick Russia out. Which can only be done with Western help. Hopefully no boots or direct fighting with Russia. But there is no "let's all get along."
If Putin decides to nuclear, you better hope for Russians all through the command structure to know better, and take him out. a little sabotage wouldn't hurt.
As a German born in 1946 serving in the 1960/1970th at the demarcation line as we called it, I am convinced, that after the Berlin Wall fell because Moskau decided that,
the key was there since WW2 endet, we or at least I was surprised, that the reunification was not in the interest of some of "our allies", "we beat them twice, now they are back", "we like Germany so much that we are glad there are 2" etc. The mistakes that led to what we face today lies in the fact, that mainly the American policy staedily pushed Nato eastwards
and in the end right to the door of the Russian Federation! James Baker promised in Febr.1990 talking with Schewatnaze, Gorbatschov that he favors WestGermany stays in
Nato and if the GDR joins in unification no Nato Troups must be stationed there, except German soldiers, and not one inch further East of Nato!
London even insisted shortly before the 2+4 talks in 1990 in Moskau to be allowed carrying out manouevers in the eastern part of Germany, which was turned down by
J.Baker after the German Foreign Minister Genscher drove that night to the Hotel to speak with the US Foreign Minister.
It is clear, historically, that the British policy has been anti-German for more than a century, only the French attitude match that.
Today, better since decades, politicians and the media don't inform the public about the events which led to the war in Ukraine.Why they don't mention that on the
Conference in Bukarest 2008 Merkel and Sarkozy vetoed that Ukraine and Georgia become member of Nato? 2014 the coup d'etat with the help of CIA and MI6,
remember the phone talk between Victoria Newland and the US Ambassador in Kiew about who should be the new Praesident in Ukraine ( f.... the EU).
The US and I guess the Brits started to undermine the Veto and in training and arming the Ukrainian Army, sent " Councellors" etc.
In 2007, but already before, Russian Praesident Putin during the Conference of Security in Munich found fully right harsh words against Nato expansion,
which is an existencial threat to Russia.After the coup d'etat in Febr.2014 the Ukrainian Army attacked and bombed the Donbass where most of the Russian speaking
people live, which cost about 10-14000 lives. The red line for Russia was the continuing pumping of weapons into Ukraine and they acted in Febr.2022.
It was clear to me after Febr.2014 that Moskau will take the Krim with Sevastopol not only to prevent Nato Navy there but the historical fact that it belonged to
Russia since Katharina the Great, like Odessa, the foundation goes back to her, and more important the fight against the German Army twice in 1941 and 1944
where both sides had heavy losses and the Krim laid in ruins like most of the part of Russia westward and south of Moskau down to Stalingrad and Kaukasus.
My conclusion considering the old aim of the British Empire and after the US took over after 1945 is to destroy Russia, get the ressources etc.
Remember Berezinsky: Russia without Ukraine is no longer an Eurasien power.
So, this is no war between Russia and Ukrain, it is a war of US led Nato and EU on the back of the Ukrainians and the people of the EU!
I guess US-Senator Richard Black from Virginia is right in saying: the war was planned by the US, executed bby Russia. That German politicians participate in this "Great Game" is more than shameful, not in my name!
They all underestimate what's gonna happen if "Mother Russia" is in danger! This is not Irak, Syria or Libya!
Russia survived several attacks by Poland, Sweden, France and Germany from the West and Japan from the East.
It backfires already to Europe and will bind China and Russia together, most probably India, the BRICS.
I don't expect that someone from MI6 tells the truth, even if he was in charge before.Britain belongs to the 5 eyes.
The Angloamericans like to play with fire, seems to me, Nato States have the status of Vasalls, nothing else, all this is not in their interest!
Hans-Juergen Golieberzuch
absolut richtig👍
Totaler Quatsch.
NATO from very beginning in 1948 was a remake of Third Reich. Today’s EU is a Reich 3.1488. The World must put it in a graves of History. And Russia is doing just that
If it were not for Zelensky's EU and NATO ambitions, fed by Brussels based autocrats, led by the German, von der Leyen, this war would never have started.
Soon you will be back to cabbage and herrings.
Perhaps you would like to share some of your evidence for your hypothesis?
What’s your point?
So basicly, Uk wants to make of Western Europe its security zone but refuses Moscow to have its own security zone. Wouldnt this be the famous british "double standards" that the world is now challenging?
m.ruclips.net/video/JrMiSQAGOS4/видео.html
@@beakay.1834 I'd say this is a bit out of date.
I watched it back in the day (2015)
But, this opinion and that of commentators such as Peter Hitchings should not be ignored.
I'm not trying to draw a comparison between the two states, but you have to admit "former senior foreign intelligence boss, now board member on leading oil company" is the exact CV of an awful lot of dodgy Russians.
His experience is exactly why his analysis on Putin is so invaluable and insightful. It takes like to understand like. Especially him noting that Putin is no longer the man he once was.
No great surprise there. Oil is nearly the most important thing in the world.
@@VVayVVard the old Putin was a bad actor - he is long gone. The “new” Putin is the very opposite - he is working to tear down the old (corrupt) world. eg the bioweapon labs in Ukraine, hidden within a children’s hospital … 🤔
Start using your discernment peeps.
Brave man. He has my vote.
@@snowyowl6892 Stop spreading lies!
@@snowyowl6892 What evidence is there indicating that Ukraine has bioweapons labs?
As a biochemist myself, I'd note that bioweapons are very cheap to research (compared to nuclear weapons) and can be created in a garage using relatively cheap equipment, so even if Ukraine had them, eliminating a couple of labs wouldn't do Putin any good. It's far more effective, as a long term solution, to design and implement basic countermeasures, such as filtration (e.g. HEPA + directed air flows) and decontamination (e.g. 222 nm far-UVC) systems.
In fact, stationing troops in a country known to conduct bioweapons research is generally a bad move, since that would give the enemy an opportunity to infect those soldiers with said bioweapons, which could then spread to the rest of the country as those soldiers returned home after the mission. So, if such hypothetical bioweapon labs did in fact exist in Ukraine, very soon, we will likely hear news of dangerous diseases spreading among Russian soldiers and citizens. On the other hand, if nothing of the sort happens, we can conclude with high certainty that Ukraine never had any functional bioweapon programs in the first place.
He seriously had the audacity to deny the Nazism of the Azov Battalion and their reign of terror!? Numerous Ukrainians have spoken out against them. Very charming chap, but I don't believe one word out of his mouth after that!!
"Wars are not fought to defeat enemies. Wars are fought to bring about conditions" - Lincoln's Secretary of War.
Hi, I can't find this on the Internet, who and when said? thanks
My friend Igor said it's called "Lincoln's Secretary of special military operation"
the reason people are compelled to war, is because they believe it will bring about a new order, once dust has settled, they can rebuild world in their image.
Never allow anybody to use you as a pawn in their conflict.
edit: in other words, they use war, they justify war, to bring about peace. Peace is not what we want if it has a cost of more war, we want freedom from mimetic desire and conflict.
edit: all this rhetoric of "peace" is used prior to war. We just want "peace" we will do anything for peace, including going to war, to bring about peace.
@@tensevo 'Project for the new American Century' - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Yemen. Who's waging war?
@@hazelwray4184 yes, but make no mistake the rus and chi have a rhetoric of world order, and peace too. Just do as they say, and there will be peace, that is always the issue. Hand over your stuff to us, and nobody gets hurt.
Was his Lorrdship part of the high nobility which got to see the irrefutable proof of Saddams nukes? The people who were convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do to keep humanity safe. As a commoner i am always in awe of these people, for all that they knew and we didn't at that time.
The cited WMDs were not [just] about "nukes." There was a suspected-though-unconfirmed Uranium Enrichment Program layered beneath a confirmed Chemical Weapons Program [of unconfirmed breadth].
@@Ryan_Christopher it was called bullshit. ask dr kelly, oh..... perhaps not.
Iraq had biological weapons of mass destruction, those they had were quickly buried and the manufacturer in Cuba still has stock. Wake up intelligence services.
A certain Dr. David Kelly was remarkably found dead over the latter. RIP.
Never quite trust your "own side" either, or the BBC.
They do what they want, then make up a story to fool us……
i was going to comment on that as well..
How can a man once(maybe still is) employed by mI6 and now an oil company give a balanced fair perpespective of the situation without it being biased towards the west.
So as a neutralist, you have no values? Youre not "biased" toward rational individualism? Nihilists have no bias.
Why should he be balanced? He is asked for his view. There are no rules of reply. Intelligent viewers can make up their own minds about his views.
@@jamesarc8192 > make up their own minds
Radical, dude!
“I used to know every damn village in Syria” why do I find that statement so very offensive. It must be because of this country’s shameful destruction of Syria. How flippant a comment given what’s happened and still happening
I did not find it offensive because it seemed to be only about the detail level of the information he had available. Like "I know every damn screw in my car" Exactly like that, not only similar.
I found him a pompous git.
Yeah the West is just as much to blame for the destruction of Syria as Assad is - because they did nothing!
Is the same going to happen with Assad's ally Putin as he invades & brutalisses the Ukraine & then Eastern Europe & then Central Europe and then Western Europe and then the UK?
What about Putin's political & religious advancement in the US or Brazil? What about his advancement in Oceania?
WHEN are people going to stand up & say enough is enough, instead of repeating the same mistakes the World made with Syria, debating themselves into a World War one day at a time?
Look, I recieve warnings from God - I'm not overly religious but I have Faith. In 2012 God said very clearly: "The Syrian War is going to come to the Western Nations"
Assad can't do that by himself, but Putin can...
And then God only knows what kind of combatants he would release upon the Peaceful, Democratic Populations...
Most likely Nazis & Terrorists, just like his Russian Mafioso are already working with among Organised Crime Networks all over the world...
They're laying out the Stakes in the Ground using such Networks to later thread the Fencing & then "Ta Da" just like Magic, you've been invaded!
@@martinsolomon2299he's one of the war criminals who facilitated the Iraq War based on false evidence! Reliable sources! 🤣
"We have now reached a point in human history where United Kingdom is condemning invasion and Taliban is talking about peace mediation"
We have now reached a point where the UK is a complete joke FTFY
lol
So this guy is learned enough to assess the character of Putin, but failed to assess Blair with the same level of learnedness.
No bias.....none at all. 🤦
It's his job to lie
Finally, a good comment on here......Perhaps this guy still needs his Blair connections to work for him.......
From MI6, to Blair, to BP.
Better take wide circle around this guy
Without a free and unbiased press ( which doesn't exist anymore ) it is impossible to know what the truth is about anything.
Reading through the comments section here was considerably more informative than listening to this slick propagandist's spiel.
True.
100 % Agree
You nailed it. Brought in to Propagandise. FT, Washington Post....... says it all!
Robert said .We don't want our security, just at the cliffs of Dover but a thousand miles away ..... Maybe Russia is thinking the same thing.
Thankfully he let us know that he knows nothing about financial systems and how actually this is going to play out against central banks
Can see why BP hired the man.
Natural Gas Reserve all by himself.
Ha-ha.👍
lol
The BP job was why he did what he did while serving in MI6. The smugness is typical of a Blairite War Criminal.
@@gc2696 yes, also -burp- true.
How could so many people smarter than me get this whole situation wrong?
The answer is that they are not 'smarter', they just think they are and their interests align with pursuing a war with Russia - something that is clearly not in the interests of ordinary Britons, Americans, or even Ukrainians for that matter.
Take what this guy says with many grains of salt. He's an insider. MI6 and now BP
What's BP?
@@UFCSTARS the oil company
@@njmccormackgmail Oh yes, of course...British Petroleum, silly me. :/
@@UFCSTARS British Petroleum
Yeah, I think Sean C. McNally should be sent in to negotiate as he's an "outsider." Do you seriously think that he wants the destruction of Ukraine or Russia?
He deliberately leaves out the points about 2008 when Georgia and Ukraine application to join NATO were welcomed at a NATO conference. That's was the beginning of the trouble, as such was a direct threat to the security of Russia.
It’s the other way around. It’s no threat if Russia never invades. NATO is a defensive pact. Putin hardly should have reacted by doing exactly what caused Georgia and Ukraine to apply in the first place.
Victim blaming at its finest form, hope you’re going to say the same when it’s you who’s the victim
@@CJBroonie How ignorant. NATO means that they can put up their military bases and infrastructure as they like. Remember how the US reacted to the Cuba crisis? This is somewhat comparable, Putin had no choice they have baited him enough!
Not true, NATO refused
@@helenafromla well, it certainly looks like they needed to be members of NATO now doesn't it? I'm staggered at the number of people all over the Internet, acting as apologists for Putin, who seem to think that Ukrainians have no right to determine the direction of their own country. Like joining NATO for example.
Oxford and no one is smart enough to ask him how he feels about colluding with, and benefitting from the oil oligarchy. oil/gas is the sole reason that EU is dependent of Russia, and probably the only reason for the ukranian war
You talk as if a vital resource everyone uses every single day is somehow a sin committed by those who provide it.
The parallel drawn between sanctions against South Africa and present sanctions of Russia is that the substantial trade between the UK and SA never diminished because Thatcher’s Gvt UK refused to sanction SA.
Considering the amount of red herrings you are throwing here I guess you are a Russian Putinist.
British Prime Minister Johnson chooses protecting the Loot of his Oligarch buddies over Ukrainian Refugees. BORIS JOHNSON ( Putin's enabler ) IS IN "TOTAL PANIC" BECAUSE THE WORLD CAN SEE HE IS THE CARETAKER FOR PUTIN'S ASSETS,AS OPPOSED TO TURNING THESE ASSETS INTO EUROS AND GETTING THESE EUROS INTO POSSESSION OF REFUGEES,ONLY ONE REASON WHY UK PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON HOLDS THIS POSITION." IS HIS DEBT TO THE OLIGARCHS" While UK .Prime Minister Boris Johnson acts as caretaker for the loot of Putin's Oligarch lackeys. Predators and human traffickers prey on vulnerable Refugee families.
Ukrainian Refugees must not be marginalised or forgotten ,these families are in a desperate situation and need our help urgently. Time wasting stalling tactics from "Boris the Liar" can not be afforded, if we allow this, the vulnerable victims of Putin will pay the price. Prime Minister Johnson is complicit in the plight of Ukrainian Refugees, Everyone must take a closer look at what's going on. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door
Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the UK must be seized and made available to Refugees in Euros to rebuild their lives, Then a fund to rebuild infrastructure in Ukraine destroyed by Putin.
British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent investigation.
We must take a closer look at this present British Government,
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 TAKE ACTION ON 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 in London, plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for.
1
@Darren Clapson “Cubans, East Germans, and Russians”. ???? In South Africa? I grew up with the apartheid regime and like most people around the world followed it closely and called for it to end. Never once was it reported that foreign fighters were on the ground in South Africa. Provide your sources or be known as a liar! I challenge you!
@Darren Clapson you don’t know what you’re talking about
@Darren Clapson “enemy pilots” you say? What on earth were they flying?! The fight against Apartheid in SA didn’t happen in the skies. Maybe your SA friends were fighting in Namibia or Angola, where Cuban forces were indeed present. Apartheid SA fought a lot of wars in neighbouring countries under Vorster and Botha (none of which they won) !
He's former MI6 and now works for BP. Who can believe a word that comes out of his mouth? Seriously, wake up people.
I have no opinion about the man, but he hasn’t said anything that is not already in the world (not western) press. It’s hardly revelatory information, and I am unsure what people need to wake up to.
@@wubbalubbadubdub7597 OK, I'll say it again, he worked in a high level position for MI6 and now suddenly is a fanboy for BP. What could go wrong? Any conflicts of interest you could imagine? Wake up!
Just his skills in the petroleum industry I suppose? LOL
This guy comes across as a Bliar clone, a WEF not so young global leader material, beware ...
Just because you’re at Oxford doesn’t mean that what is said is correct. This guy just jumped on the Putin is crazy bandwagon. He’s just piling on top of the thoughtless madness.
Exactly right , everyone jumps on board . Oligarchs money is only now seen to be wrong. Man they must have done the funny handshake wrong. I'm guessing they got it 33% wrong. And if you like numbers or are paying attention 2 days after 22 .02. 22 this kicked off. Now that should tell you something .
My uncle was in MI6 and yes he was a prat too.
He's learned from Tony Blair about how to frame your enemies to the chattering classes.
His lie about the Nutsees in Ukraine is so blatant. No one baked him out on it either.
So he's on the board of BP. The whole US goal was to stop Nordstream 2 or at least minimize its production and flow. The US calculated that Putin would take Donbass regions and eastern Ukraine and that would provide enough finger wagging ammunition to close down the pipeline. Then it all blew up.
Globalist goal was to bait that maniac Putin into starting the war.
They have succeeded frightfully well.
@@gc2696 I totally agree. The Minsk agreements were undermined by the US and Ukraine government who were making cash out of the Donbass conflict. Russia is not innocent but this could have been handled diplomatically.
@@gc2696 0
Ever notice how all US/UK conflicts are with "maniacs" or "madmen"?
Ukraine cuts off Crimea source of fresh drinking water
ruclips.net/video/yNyQQDNfkk0/видео.html
@@63Hash Putin says that he is fighting the Nazis...
Here we are almost 90 days after this post and Kyiv, kharkiv are still in Ukrainian hands, hope it stays that way.
Yes, he got that part wrong, saying Kiev will fall. Russia failed at Kiev.
Anyone who worked for Tony Blair and doesn't apologize is NOT to be trusted.
and he is why (Blair) Putin will be prosecuted..or Bush , Rice, Killery etc
Sawers' wry smile when he mentioned Macron thinking himself saviour of Europe is exactly how I felt when he was jetting back and forth to Russia and got totally embarrassed when Putin attacked.
At least Putin spoke with macron. Didn't give bobo a second!!
And I imagine he has even less love for that liar Putin.
childish nonsense
He actually said it was a good thing
it was ridiculous nobody else joined macron
Professor Chomsky said the best path to peace is for Ukraine to declare neutrality towards NATO.
Correct. Agree with your sentiment and comment
I don't need Chomsky to tell me the obvious.
Profesor Chomsky is 100% correct.
@@Kitiwake A broken clock is 100% right once a day.
Yes that would be a great solution!!
Interesting that he would mention that the UK don't want the security to be at the white cliffs of Dover but a thousand miles away. My question then is why would anyone think that Russia would see things differently regarding their security?
Then the same question applies to Finland and Sweden why should they have an aggressive neighbouron their doorstep. Chechnya didn't want to join NATO Neither did Georgia or South Ossetia but they were still attacked by Russia this was never about NATO Ukraine wanted to join the EU thats why Putin had Viktor Yushenko poisoned back in 2004
@@affectionatepunch In 2008 NATO decided that Georgia and Ukraine should become part of NATO. So you mean that Russia had someone poisoned in 2004 for something that happened in 2013?
John Mearsheimer talked about the reasons behind the current situation already in 2015. It's quite educational.
ruclips.net/video/JrMiSQAGOS4/видео.html
As board member of BP, his public analysis is colored by this fact. SO, he does not really reveal the background strategy of Western govt (influenced by the oil/gas sector)...to them Ukraine is only a pawn
Exactly. Look up Project Aerodynamic 'CIA: Undermining and Nazifying Ukraine Since 1953'.
Totally agree
To both sides but it is still Ukraines choice.
Putin initially reached out to the West, but the West slapped his hand away.
THIS.
Both the US and the UK, basking in smug triumphalism after the fall of the Soviet Union, turn down every request by a then weak and broken Russia to become part of the West. Later in that decade a newly formed government of a certain leader named Vladimir asked if Russia can join the west in a military alliance, perhaps even NATO in an attempt to counter global terrorism and perhaps a rising China. The west told this newbie named Vlad to go eff himself.
The rest is history.
I feel sorry for everyone in that room who believed this guy wants to save any human life whatsoever, over his economics and financial interests.
A Room full of next generation corporate journalists, Smiling agreeing and believing for the paycheck
Hallelujah ,!
*What a sad and cynical attitude you have ...*
Well this guy did the unpleasant work so you can indulge your unsullied concience as you live your secure existence free of moral dilemmas of any sort..
@@wahyuindrasto8307 oh, get on your bike and go pound sand.
@@tolrem my moral dilemmas are with those complicit in war for profit and who justify their actions with thought of their own self-interest. He told countless lies in this piece. whats worse is you turning a blind eye to being remotely informed of the true narrative. instead, taking aim at those who choose to question falsehoods.
"How pathetic the jester is, on the king's throne, How stupid the people who allowed it." This all you need to know about the Ukrainian government and current state of the people who live in this country.
If it's OK for the UK to not want its security threats at Dover, then why should Russia accept having NATO and the EU on its own borders ? The Ukraine should be a neutral buffer state. Non-alignment is the key here.
Which is the same as saying 'why should NATO and the EU accept having Russia on their borders' ... Russia is constantly saying 'we are surrounded by enemies', why don't we hear Switzerland (for example) complaining that they are surrounded by enemies? It's YOUR behaviour that determines your neighbour's attitude, not theirs
@@TAttiusMaximvs But NATO is entirely redundant; you can be an independent country and have NO NATO at all; any military club that you aren't a member of is a threat to you, there is ZERO reason to have NATO especially as the pretext was to be against the USSR which has long since been sadly defeated.
@@jocosson8892 That is such a ridiculous comment, it's is not even worth a reply
You compare border policy with invasion by thousands of tanks, and the Russian army? 😵💫
@@TAttiusMaximvs
You mean you have no answer; don't pretend otherwise.
"When I was working for Tony Blair" not even 2 minutes in and he's already lost all credibility
🤣👍👏
Well said.
Oh, sweet summer child. You'll be working with tons of incompetent people in the future, as we all are. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are incompetent, though. Or it wouldn't, though your comment here serves as a better hint regarding that.
And I hope you do realize that anyone who was in the MI6 between 1997 - 2007 was working under Tony Blair, regardless of how competent or credible they were.
@@VVayVVard that is slightly patronising
@@cliveramsbotty6077 Anyone who has ever worked under an incompetent boss would be offended by the insinuation that they lack credibility simply as a result of them having done so.
@@VVayVVard Anyone who has ever worked under an incompetent boss would not proudly announce it.
Imho as a person coming from a former soviet union country this analysis was the most interesting and precise I have heard regarding current events
Classy guy who knows 100 * more than he'll admit. First Q to validate his ethics & committment to the UK Nation (& not to a few Aerospace Defence execs) : did he know about the lack of WMD in Irak? I doubt it. He is, like Kroes & Macron to Uber, a sell out, > 50% chances.
Notice the last remarks: GB doesn't want security on the cliffs of Dover. Same thing for Russia - it doesn't want security in Donetsk, right at its border. Russia wants it just like any other country. You would do the same, I reckon.
No, Putin wants to invade the former Soviet satellite countries, to restore his vision of a great Soviet superpower that controls and represses the countries it has invaded.
Astonishingly, He knows lesser than the public!
Typically, much of what is in the public realm is at best only partially true.
Astonishingly, you have an English sounding name but can't put a simple sentence together...
@@WesternAustraliaNowAndThen astonishingly you don’t have a name and you only seek to pick a fight
@@WesternAustraliaNowAndThen did they call you 'westy'or 'westie' as a kid?
@@brothercaleb strangely I do have a name and the comment makes no sense.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master." - Commisioner Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri (game from Firaxis)
Yes. So what makes USA, UK and Canada better than Putin.
UK parliament just passed laws to make protesting illegal.
Canada called protesters terrorists.
USA kept American citizens in prison for "insurrection" yet not a single charge of "insurrection" and not a single weapon found..
I can't think of a single thing that makes Putin any worse than every other "leader" on the planet at this moment.
Same in Slovakia ... Sponsorship from west really manifest it self ... attacking emotions of people in here and also the law now says that information will be "filttered" ... so either you are going to have "right" opinion or shut up ....
Ffin great quote dude!
Doesn't everyone though?
He's talking rubbish about sanctions. The only country to face full global sanctions was Rhodesia and that didn't work.
Rhodesian sanction busters did sterling work, breaking the rules.
We have not seen "shock and awe" as many predicted might happen. Figure out why. Something else is up, Russian tanks surrounded by citizens who later go home for dinner, hardly what one would expect. Get him to talks, that is the end game.
Correct and he's slow walking this invasion by design for a reason. Full scale invasion is a lot of death & destruction but he doesn't want that. He wants Ukraine to come back to Russia with love. That's Plan A and he wants them to come home without being forced. He also thinks it would nice if they apologized for leaving mother but Plan A will bring on the wrath of the world and he might do it but I don't think so.
I think he'll do the slow burn with Plan B and he'll slowly destabilize Europe with millions of Ukrainian refugees until NATO comes to its senses with the sensible thing cause Putin wants security and that's all he ever wanted but NATO wouldn't give him that. Instead they turned the old Warsaw Pact into NATO and it took 20 years but NATO was stupid
So Putin will do the slow burn and he doesn't care how long it takes. Ukraine ain't joining NATO and that is EXACTLY what NATO should've given Putin with a back channel gaurantee cause that would've allowed him to save face and it would've prevented an invasion. In fact, it would've been the smart play but NATO was stupid
So now Putin's chillin by the pool with the Pina Coladas and he's kicking back with those Cohibas from Cuba so good you want to eat the ash. He's been saving them for a special occasion and he doesn't care how long it takes. He'll let those refugees wander around forever until NATO & Ukraine & the refugees all agree to do the right thing which is really all he ever wanted (g)
I assume you are perhaps as old as 12 years
@@rosemarylusty8045 who are you assuming is 12?
It will be interesting, as time goes on and more verified information becomes available, to return to this plainly slanted assessment and identify its propaganda components and subconscious biases more accurately.
Imagine what this guy could really share if we were able.
He concludes by saying that the essence of our security is not having threats on the cliffs of dover but keeping them a thousand miles away...why does that have a familiar ring?
It's appalling to hear him talk of sanctions while common folk in Afghanistan are resorting to selling their organs for food because of the US sanctions on the country. Sanctions always affect the common people the worst, never the leadership to the same extent.
San Jose I would like to politely disagree with you. Whatever sanctions that you have saw us on Afghanistan yes all these sanctions trickle down to the population and the same is going to go in Russia it will affect all of us it's already affecting us in the states and it will of course probably more so in the NATO countries. But if you're going to put blame on Afghanistan he's having to sell their organs and sell their parts of their body to make ends meet you got to look at the real culprit behind all this and that's the taliban. If they didn't invade this would have never happened if they didn't have aspirations to subdue every single person that doesn't agree with them this wouldn't be happening and people will not be selling their organs. Also what you saw with the afghanist when the US pulled out in such an embarrassing disgusting way I was for bringing our troops back but I wasn't for bringing the troops back before we got our own citizens and Friends but yeah it's the yes it was the Taliban that is responsible for anything that's happening adversely in Afghanistan and nobody else. Unlike the ukrainians when they were met on the battlefield while they were invading their country going into Kabul what what did the military for Afghanistan do? They literally ran they ran in them went into the Taliban they were never really well they call Afghanistan the graveyard of all empire's country. And there's a reason for that that's because nobody is ever been able to subdue them fully going back you know way way back in history. But they ran they joined the Taliban that's that was their choice they would rather be ruled by an entity like the Taliban into fight for their country. Fighting alongside the US and their partners but as soon as we pulled out they just gave up you know pretty sad but that's true well you'll see the ukrainians in your city Ukrainian fighting tooth and nail against the Giant and they're not going to give in even if the whole country is rubble there will be an insurgency that'll be biting the ass of the Russians for many years to come. So I'm sorry I made this comment so long and went off topic but yeah the blame for what's going on in Afghanistan is on the afghanis and the Taliban and America still has we don't need we've never been given the number of American citizens there that can't get out and are also subject to bottling home of death of court yeah the president of my country and is administration is a leftist socialist government that cares more about its power than it does about a citizens and it does about their allies I don't know where you are Jose but I hope you're safe and keep safe sincerely Bob the blind bedroom guitars
@@bobtheblindbedroomguitaris8742 is it the Afghani or their government ? This is a long and torturous conflict going back decades.
Listening to an ex head of MI6 and a current board member of BP is akin to listening to someone from the Council for Foreign Relations warn us about man made global warning. His perspective should be part of a suite of perspectives listened to and perhaps not entirely believed to be without bias.
Isn't that how you should approach any speaker?
If he was Tony Blairs right hand man at MI6, then he was the man that convinced Blair that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
@@ismeltitdeltit9354 Precisely!!
W0rd, this man is the roots that the problems persist from.
@@RockstahRolln indeed. this is the very devil himself, charming voice tone, polished language, handsome and well dressed, but clearly a massive liar and war criminal.
At last a competent interviewer (unlike BBC) who doesn't think it's all about her!
Full marks girl! You let the 'guest' be the focus of attention.
BBC bashing is so lame
when was this guy interviewed on bbc?
Glad to see that I was not alone in noticing how unobtrusive and unbiased she was in moderating this session. Full marks to her, indeed!
@@DavidSawe very true, although most interviews on bbc/itv etc don't have a 30 minute time slot which is probably a good reason why their interviews are so shit
@Jack Archer The BBC were the first to break the fake Iraq dossier story. I mean it depends on who you're comparing them to. Who would you point to that you like?
He is smart but also seems forget sometimes that times change. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it will work now.
British Prime Minister Johnson chooses protecting the Loot of his Oligarch buddies over Ukrainian Refugees. BORIS JOHNSON ( Putin's enabler ) IS IN "TOTAL PANIC" BECAUSE THE WORLD CAN SEE HE IS THE CARETAKER FOR PUTIN'S ASSETS,AS OPPOSED TO TURNING THESE ASSETS INTO EUROS AND GETTING THESE EUROS INTO POSSESSION OF REFUGEES,ONLY ONE REASON WHY UK PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON HOLDS THIS POSITION." IS HIS DEBT TO THE OLIGARCHS" While UK .Prime Minister Boris Johnson acts as caretaker for the loot of Putin's Oligarch lackeys. Predators and human traffickers prey on vulnerable Refugee families.
Ukrainian Refugees must not be marginalised or forgotten ,these families are in a desperate situation and need our help urgently. Time wasting stalling tactics from "Boris the Liar" can not be afforded, if we allow this, the vulnerable victims of Putin will pay the price. Prime Minister Johnson is complicit in the plight of Ukrainian Refugees, Everyone must take a closer look at what's going on. Boris Johnson must be monitored in order to ensure Putin does not get seized assets returned by the back door
Putin's assets that are held by front men / Oligarchs in different parts of the UK must be seized and made available to Refugees in Euros to rebuild their lives, Then a fund to rebuild infrastructure in Ukraine destroyed by Putin.
British Conservative establishment connections to Putin's money and assets in LONDONGRAD requires urgent transparent investigation.
We must take a closer look at this present British Government,
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 TAKE ACTION ON 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 in London, plus a clear statement of intent what these funds will be used for.
1
Oxford Union you need to get Prof John Mearscheimer for an intelligent and balanced counterview.
For those interested watch his RUclips talks, very educational.
Why it is not mentioned the declination of NATO to allow Rusia to be part of? and the fact that NATO broke the promise of NOT to expand close to the borders of Rusia if they allow Germany to Unite, which they did, but NATO did not keep it’s word. Honesty and clarity is never used in politics when the bad ones always get away with murder. The hash reality is that we the people in Europe and in America who have not voted for a conflict are the ones that will end up paying the price, as prices and devaluation will get worst. The poor people in Ukraine are suffering and The Russian people are getting a bad press. All we want you the leaders of the world stop playing wars, do their jobs properly and give us peace and freedom, in exchange for paying your lavished lives.
This professor is one sided
Nato was defensive allience and still is. Russia attack on Ukraine clearly shiwed who is an agressive part here.
Simple. Because: NATO didn't invade Ukraine. PUTIN invaded Ukraine.
@@RapperBC what led to this?
@@CzesiaPL There's no such thing as a strictly defensive alliance in power politics. NATO has been used offensively in Libya, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. Countries never take on faith that what one might consider defensive will always remain so.
He’s not even going to mention Russia’s repeated calls for the West to fulfil its contract not to move east?
Yup thats how you know this session was about misinforming ppl.
There is no such contract.
And so Ukraine should not have the agency to decide its own future?
@@A____G That future endangers Russia's security, same way russian missiles in cuba was a security threat to the US, or iraq owning (lies of course) WMDs not USING, just owning was deemed a threat to US allies in the region tens of thousands of kilometres from US and that was used as a reason for war that killed millions of iraqs, destroyed their country, livelihood for decades to come. This done by countries who they themselves have WMDs and have used them already (Hiroshima). If all countries have the right to decide their future and security, why are others destroyed for doing the same, just contrary to the wishes of the United States? Then there's Monroe doctrine, read what happens to any arm shipments heading to Venezuela...
@@nicohendriks3278 could, in theory, China and Russia make a deal with Mexico and install nuclear weapons on the border with Texas? What would happen then? Oh, hold on...Cuban missile crisis...remembers me something...
The focus of many people in the unlikely event of a nuclear war is the initial blast, which could cause mass casualties and unimaginable devastation. When the U.S. detonated nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 77 years ago, it leveled the cities and killed more than 100,000 to 200,000 people from the blasts or radiation sickness.
But according to scientists, the horrors of a nuclear war could affect the whole planet.
Clearly, one or two nuclear impacts would not have global effects but the impact of 100 weapons the size of the one that fell on Hiroshima would lower temperatures around the world to below those of the little ice age that occurred from roughly 1,300 to 1,850. That would result in crop failures and famine on a large scale. Here are the large scale impacts
1. Five megatons of soot and ash would fill the sky, bringing about a nuclear winter.
2. After one year, the average temperature of Earth would fall by about 2 degrees. After five years, the earth would be three degrees cooler than before. Twenty years down the road, it would warm up to one degree below where it was before the nuclear event.
3. That might sound beneficial, given all the talk about global warming today, but lower temperatures means less rain. Five years after the detonation, rainfall would be at 91% of current levels. After 26 years, we would still see 4.5% less rain than we did before the war. And the reduced rainfall would bring about global drought conditions.
4. Depending on the region, growing seasons for crops would be 10 to 40 days shorter, resulting in widespread famine.
5. The ozone layer would diminish due to the radiation, ultimately becoming as much as 25% thinner for the first five years after the event. After 10 years, there would be some recovery, but it would still be 8% thinner. This would result in a rise in skin cancer and sunburns. And the increased ultraviolet rays would put plant and animal life that survived the initial blast at risk.
It wouldn't necessarily take 100 missiles for those theories to be tested, either. The United States' modern B83 bombs are 80 times more powerful than the weapon it hit Hiroshima. Russia has tested weapons that are even more powerful.
Scientists warn that ripple effects of a nuclear war could be devastating for everyone on Earth. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine.
"One of the things I do in my afterlife from public service is I sit on the board of BP" - says it all really. Spoken like a true Blairite. He goes on to talk about BP's lucrative business investments, so much so that when he talks about what "we" have to do, one must legitimately wonder who exacly he is refererring to as "we", which seems to me the essential problem in the ongoing conflict between the West/US and Russia. In whose interests were the sustained provocations that led to this military crisis actually made?
CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
He is absolutely drooling at the rising oil process for the Consumer, the little guy. Anything out of his mouth is crap.
@@hikelfin End of analysis? What analysis? :-)
@twangbarfly Indeed. I gave up after about 10 minutes of nothing I didn't already know or figured out on my own.
@@hikelfin Self righteous opinions are what brought us to the brink of WWIII. You are an enemy to World Peace. Here get informed unless you are a supremacist with or without jacket.
ruclips.net/video/8X7Ng75e5gQ/видео.html
He is totally correct don't force the "Tiger to Jump Over the wall" or in this case "The Bear to crash through the wall"...like he says it best interest for the West to leave a route for Russia to dial down the tone.
I am afraid, the Russians themselves will not find a way out. The others, as always, have to think for them, show & tell a solution and leave them, at the end, with the illusion, that they have invented it. - These people are my favourite european neighbours - what a pleasure to have them around.
How do you catch a rat?
Bring a feral cat. The question is
Who will be the feral cat.
This guy is part of the problem. Best Advice to Solve the Russia-Ukraine Crisis by John J. Mearsheimer
ruclips.net/video/lfk-qaqP2Ws/видео.html
In terms of a way out...a bullet to the mellon by few conspirators in his inner circle would prob be the least costly and best for humanity overall would it not?
@@viccolombia sylvester stallone, jason statham, etc.....
Putin, in his 2008 Munich Security Conference speech, warned of the destabilising effect of Western regime change operations, occupations and unilateral sanctions.
It's like when a child is subjected to bullying for a long time, and decides to put the bully in his place.
@@kayem3824 except that child was always bullying others and are friends with one of the biggest bullies in the world namely China.. the ukrainians didn't just rise up to overthrow the Russian Puppet government because they were influenced by American Leaders like Hillary. they did it because they had very unequal business relationships with the Russians for 100's of years beforehand and the EU and by extension the US had been much better partners in everything not by coercion but by the fact that Russia simply took more and more and exploited the Ukranians like they have always done and well there is almost a thousand years of history there that they didn't want repeated. this narrative of EU and US forcing Russia's hand is not taking any action of Russia into account when they had an even bigger role to play..
you can pretty much blame the west for Libya, Iraq and the rise of ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeeda. but not Ukraine wanting to move away from Russia, as Russia has always undermined Ukraine which has been a bigger factor and pushed them further and further towards Europe, hell even a huge amount of those ukrainians that speak Russian as their first language or only language have supported this move because they themselves have been subject to those unequal treaties and business relationships and on the other hand seen the difference with the non exploitative counterparts of those relationships with western nations and even China.
we can blame the US and the big powers of Europe (France and Britain) for a lot of instability in the world and they should be criticized for that. but Ukraine is just a lot more complicated then that and is for once not their fault.
@@NiklasMJ they did force Ukraine to sign non-binding Budapest Memorandum in 1994 to give up their nukes. I think, this was a sucker punch. In 1990 Bush Sr. came to Kyiv and gave a speech in which he warned Ukrainians not to leave the USSR, because he was worried precisely of that, of nukes spreading over the former USSR country. What happened is a history. But what a chance now that no matter what the West STILL don't want Russia to break apart again for the same reason. Sadly, many Western politicians have a poor understanding of Ukrainian-Russian history and trying to appease putin.
And of course the Soviets knew ,they used those tactics themselves repeatedly.
@@olenazemba6977 You're right. Those weren't Ukrainian nukes, because the command center wasn't in Ukraine, nor was the technology native, but Soviet wide, same as the Antonov monster cargo aircraft. Similarly, the space launching site was and is still in Kazakhstan, which doesn't mean that it's local technology.
English MI6 knew this was coming with large anticipation
I don’t think the west can afford to corner Putin. He is not irrational. He will succeed in Ukrainian at a very high cost. The result is a much closer Russia China relationship.
as a Russian, I can say we are ready and willing to bear all the cost of being independent from the west and nato. We don't want nato missiles on our doorsteps and they will never get any closer to us. Period.
@@Svetlana_Zakirova Ukraine is not your 'doorstep'. It is an independent country.
We will all bear the cost. You think the current budget for the military is high in the West? Come back next year.
Who wins? The arms dealers & the military apparatus. Who loses? All of humanity.
@@4ntoondev534 you know full well what I meant by doorsteps, so get lost.
@@Svetlana_Zakirova I 'm already there :)
We should remember that Stalin was absolutely committed to the modernization of the state, and was quite unconcerned by the cost in lives...
We should remember the west has flattened countries in recent times, the body count of this vs what we have done is simply not comparable, and the double standards are of course blatant, take a look in the mirror if you want to know who to compare to monsters of history.
@@churblesfurbles I do not for one minute excuse the west, the 'war on terror'.
@@thesorrow88 I'm sure the entire global south agrees with his take tho. If you are from North America or Europe, let the victims decide the weight of your crimes.
@@thesorrow88 not delusional. the point he made cannot be countered
@@kashu7691 Its accurate but irrelevant. my bad behavior does not excuse your bad behavior. It doesn't even contextualize it unless it's against me. "Your father spanked you so I smacked your mom."??!?? - that's not an argument, it's word salad indicating a stroke.
This really shows how the west value themselves again the African, Asia and middle East origin,why did UN not stood up for Libya,Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria again US? Biased world I guess.
The UN has not stood up for the Ukraine either? If they did there would be UN troops in Ukraine right now. The UN is not even referring to it as a war or invasion. The US is bypassing the UN with its Nato partners to provide help, but thats a totally different thing. Nato only really act against Russia or China, its what is called the "2nd world". You might hear a lot of africa called "3rd world", but all that means is that they are not "NATO aligned" or not "Russia/China" aligned. First world Nato, Second Russia/china, 3rd everyone else. 3rd world does not mean "poor". Ireland is a 3rd world country. Basically the UN only really acts when 1st world and 2nd world countries agree. If youre a 3rd world country like syria, but you are trying to become a second world, china/russia aligned. then you might struggle to get UN help. If the trouble is internal, for example ISIS then you stand a much greater chance of UN help, as no one can really object to your request for peace keepers. Basically UN/Nato have only given the help that Syria got. USA dropped weapons on Syria, they dropped some on Ukraine. Thats about it.
A freaking has been trying to grab a last gasp of glory by pushing the USA terrorist alliance propaganda . The most important video to watch ever
ruclips.net/video/aqKfSbhm6yo/видео.html
Silly question. Of course it's a biased world. Why don't you have your own defense alliance? That's a far better question to pose. And I'm quite sure, deep down, you know the answer.
Look from Russia's perspective, if NATO puts military bases, and missiles in Ukraine, would it feel threatened? How would US feel if Russia does training around US border? I am surprised people not being able to think different perspectives.
The problem with such people is that although they have gathered wealth of knowledge and experience over the long years of their service in such important positions, they are unable to deliver that knowledge to their audiences because of the necessity with which they have to follow and propagate their respective governments’ official narratives.
Skipping of necessary perspective and important detail from his talk is glaring.
Remember how the US squealedl like a stuck pig when missiles arrived on Cuba?
Russia not bowing to the great hegemon is a gross impertinence!
When Sanctions work in the reverse, it will be time to think again.
The idea that Russia is just a 'Gas Station' is way out of date.
Putin has tried so hard to get along with the West but the US just wont play: Now he has had it and it is just too late.
If you listen to the way this man speaks, and the way he presumes to meddle in other countries affairs via sanctions as a tool to influence behaviour, casting moral judgements, etc, you will hear a representative of the thought process which got us in to this mess. Even down to the way he sits on the board of BP, showing the corruption and vested interests which exist between Western governments and big business. He is completely Machiavellian (which I'm sure he would take as a complement), and there is a critical lack of moral reflection on whether the Western structure should be seeking to influence and steer other civilisations at all.
This man, and people like him, are the cause of most wars in the world, and the little people will always pay the price. He even takes glee in the fact that sanctions deprived the 'male South Africans' of their favourite sport. And people wonder why Putin doesn't want people like this to have control over Russia?
Example of my critique illustrated by his statement at the end: "You don't want our (British) security to be at the cliffs of dover, you want it 1000 miles away"... Yes, in places like Ukraine. His self centered ideology and view of the world shows why Russia feel threatened. As long as people like him want to keep their security 1000 miles away, then there will always be a rat who is cornered in the world and ready to strike.
> the corruption and vested interests which exist between Western governments and big business.
Caused by Leftist economic controls.
am surprised most commentary here missed all this and instead eagerly praise his misplaced views
Moral high horse: why the heck shouldn't one allow him a bit of schadenfreude about S. African sanctions? Especially when one looks at the murders committed by the authorities there.
True...he seems to represent the evil
Dear Sir John, I can't remember hearing your voice in opposition to the US Iraq invasion.
...and Afghanistan, Libya, sustainment of the IS in Syria etc.
And what does that matter to Ukraine? You are playing the aggressor's game.
@@pedrofragoso3298 It does matter to Ukraine, USA and NATO fight Russia on ukranian soil and by ukranian army. They started it in 2013 by supporting the ``Maidan`` in Kiev. Did you hear about the military operetion in Donetsk and Lugansk that started in 2014? My aunt ( she is 85) lost her house in Donetsk in 2015 due to this ukrainian military operetion against its own citizens.
“We don’t want our line of security on the white cliffs of Dover, we want our security 1000 miles away”. How can one square that with the 2014 putsch in Kiev, and subsequent CIA training of Ukrainian special armed units from 2015-2022, and Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Amy Klobouchar in Ukraine in 2016 telling Ukrainian troops that 2017 would be “a year of offence against Russia”? All this on Russias border, equivalent to our white cliffs of Dover.
Very good. Double standards abound
His final thought: "keeping dangers at a distance from us, the essence, really, of our security, you don't want your security to be on the white cliffs of Dover. You want your security to be a thousand miles away so that you can operate freely and our people can go about their lives in freedom and one hopes with growing prosperity and that's what public service is about" (32:55).
This to me is the tragic reason why we face conflicts like this - if you think that 'public service' amounts to holding influence thousands of miles from your own borders (i.e. all over the territory of other nations) how is this going to lead to peace? You can't have every nation of the world expanding their tentacles of power thousands of miles in every direction and also avoid antagonism with countries who don't want you doing this. This interpretation of 'public service' would (and does) lead to wars all over the place.
What would UK feel for their own safety, if Russia were to duplicate the military measures of NATO's security outposts to be set up right at UK borders?
Another interpretation: help free nations thousands of miles away defend themselves from their bullying neighbours so that threats are defeated there, not on your land.
Watch the danger come closer to you and do nothing, apart from embrace it when it finally calls your name and knocks on your door !
@@algung2522 The UK and Russia are not morally equivalent. The UK has liberty defended by a free-speech embracing democracy. Russia has no free speech and thus no meaningful democracy - and certainly no liberty. The Russian dictatorship has no legitimacy. NATO countries uphold individual rights, however imperfectly, and thus have legitimacy.
@@algung2522 Russia has been for many years constantly flying bombers towards the UK, then turning around right on the edge of our airspace.
Except weapons of mass destruction didn't exist while as Blairs... #1.
Still informative but still some skepticism on his trust in sanctions.
Everything he said can be read in big newspapers. I was hoping he could give additional insights.
Agreed. His tedious preoccupation with sanctions felt disingenuous, as though he was avoiding the difficult questions in favour of letting the wealthy corporate elite decide the matter, as market forces would inevitably dictate.
He struck me as a professional propagandist also
Its the same kind of FAKE NEWS and propaganda to cover up for fomenting a coup of an elected government.
Who is Victoria Nuland?
Maybe that's where He gets his information from, we know who owns them
@@georgebenson6330
Who owns them and most politicians ? Those who can print all needed to corrupt/buy the system since 1913. Their centrally controlled economic system is imploding so they need an other war. We really think people like Biden or Johnson have any power ?
It seems so much like Libya, Iraq, Afganistan.... why are we the only justified aggressor..?
@Ululu Kululu Just because some country is anti-"whatever you believe" does not justify bombing its people.
@Ululu Kululu there’s a flaw in your Afghanistan example where your conflating Afghanistan and Taliban. One is a political entity (as you pointed out) the other is a country. The comment you were responding to is talking about countries not political entities.
The Presenter really said little that makes sense here. To claim Ukraine is fully united ignores the fact that Ukraine has been at war with itself since 2014! Nonsense!!
Horrific situation in Ukraine but surely the solution lies in making Ukraine a prosperous neutral country that can work with both the west and Russia. NATO itself doesn't need Ukraine, it needs a buffer and Ukraine provides that. As much as I hate to say this we need to work with Russia not against it. Working against Russia will only make things worse in far more places than Ukraine.
Nobody is trying to make an enemy of Russia, NATO wants to work with Russia but the disagreement between NATO and Putin makes it difficult. NATO won’t allow Ukraine’s sovereignty to be undermined, Putin won’t allow Ukraine to join NATO without a buffer zone. So they’re actually both wanting similar things but it’s not possible to do so with the current state of affairs
NATO and EU have had zero interest in working with Russia. They funded the coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014.
@@ConsultancymarketingCoUk you know Putin feigns innocence a lot when he’s the prime instigator, that’s how he has Ukraine’s Crimea and how he’s able to exploit a weakened Europe after covid to invade Ukraine.
@@jakkuwolfinsomnia8058 If NATO was serious about not being a threat to Putin it shouldn't be encouraging Ukraine to join (see NATO Bucharest summit, 2008). NATO should've disbanded when the Cold War ended in the 1990s and new alliances formed based on the new threats at the time (ie Islamic fundamentalism). The US's position as a self-proclaimed benign hegemony and solid presence in NATO is what Putin sees as a threat, particularly when Ukraine is of no strategic value to the US. If the former Soviet states in Eastern Europe were worried about Putin they should form their own alliance with other Eastern and Central European countries, not one that involves the US and counter that threat appropriately.
@@ConsultancymarketingCoUk exactly, a dangerous move which has contributed in part to where we are today.
Strange that for the ex head of MI6 recent events started in 2014... he missed to explain how those events in 2014 precipitated, and he is avoiding 2008, Nato declaration regarding Ukraine and Georgia becoming nato members
Exactly , part of the problem ..,?
@@jolantagruszka7428 so it was understood as NATO encircling Russia.
strange that joining NATO became a goal AFTER Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and Crimea.
Exactly,
+ very interesting view:
Robert C. Castel on the current Ukraine / Russia affairs - will there be a WW3?
ruclips.net/video/ajF91RG-8Tk/видео.html
Well, he is quite good. He also does not mention the mutual security concessions and how that negotiations went end of last year. So, one cannot easily confront him for misinterpreting, only for leaving important aspects out. If one does not know much about it however, this will not be recognized at all.
Interesting of course, but I'm bound to say he didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know or could surmise from reading numerous open sources and having some knowledge of region.
Exactly. Way too much braking, barely any acceleration at all.
It's the case in all such interviews: their main worry is to avoid slipping into confidential info or for his words to be taken out of context.
I agree. But he earned a nice fee for repeating what many already know.
Agreed. This was a disappointing interview.
If (as he says) that Russia will win the war - then what is the point in "supporting the Ukrainian government" with sanctions, but not with military action? The West should either get involved or not at all
The objective from the very start was to provoke Russia into entering Ukraine, regardless of the cost to the Ukranians in terms of property and human life destroyed, with the objective of inflicting as much damage as possible on Russia. And also to provide an excuse for sanctions which have the same objective.
There are no other objectives than those. The vain hope is that they will inflict enough damage to precipitate regime change in Russia. This is intended to mainly neutralise Russia's nukes in preparation for the next step, an attempt at sanctioning and blockading China to destroy their economy.
The excuse for that one will likely be provoking China to attack Taiwan by allowing China to think Taiwan will place US nuclear missiles there.
Yes, we will definitely receive a fair and unbiased perspective on the situation from the head of the MI6. Maybe interview the CIA chief next? 😂
yeah, especially the guy who went into Iraq with Blair... and now sits on the board of BP... amazing coincidence i guess.
A word on the West's own culpability in the background to all this would have been appropriate.
Its absence speaks volumes on the hubris of M16 and Western governments in the expansion of NATO. Too much mis-assessment, too many mistakes.
I totally agree. Do you put any credence to the claim that Putin has taken out 15 US biolabs in the Ukraine?
I keep seeing people purporting this point of view, but I have yet to see a single account of evidence or explanation.
@@A____G You don't think poking the bear sufficient explanation? Let alone the numerous disastrous interventions the West has been indulging in these last 30 years?
Delusional.
Hear hear.
I wonder how many deaths and hidden calamities this man was responsible for.
My wondering says none apart from any who were threats to the UK. Just my opinion.
@@robcfc400 Well, I think you should go back and educate yourself with a little something called history.
One too few.
You will never know...
@@robcfc400 - It is ok to believe that even if it may not be true.
Am bitterly shocked to find out that my remark begging you OU to rectify the misspelling on your title is now missing. In its place only my two addenda are now appearing as my contributions to the debate. Back then, I praise the guest speaker for his briefing and said that it was up to each viewer to draw their own conclusion after listening to both sides of the same coin.
Indeed, what I objected to was that your full title should have read: Former M16 Chief on the Ukraine & Russia Conflict, not Former M16 Chief On the Ukraine & Russia Conflict.
Patiently awaiting to be proven wrong, for Oxford is rightfully renowned for being.the centre of academic excellence. @ngand'osambalundula
"South African males who were otherwise quite resistant to process of change." Oh, the verbal hieroglyphics of political speak.
I am shocked that I am capable of correcting a former MI-6 chief on anything, but his comment on Sanctions on South Africa is not entirely correct.
At 12:03:
"As we saw in South Africa the ... sanctions against South Africa started in 1977; wasn't actually until 12 years later that the process of change began in South Africa." implying that the sanctions had that effect.
I am South African, and pretty much 100% of the people who lived in those years will tell you the sanctions didn't do shit. We had an incredibly self sufficient country, the sanctions only really work if you've got a major reliance on external countries which we didn't really have all that much. For everything we couldn't actually produce ourselves, "under the table" deals sufficed.
If you look at the date he mentions, 1989, it coincides precisely with the end of the Cold War (and the subsequent fall of the USSR) - the NP (National Party, the Apartheid Regime) always said to the West: "If we allow suffrage in South Africa (for black South Africans to vote), the ANC (African National Congress, Mandela's Party (who has since been in power in South Africa)) will come to Power." - the ANC, being trained by Russians and having strong communist roots, was a threat, strategically, in the cold war.
Once the cold war ends however, there is no more "defense" to not allowing black South Africans to vote. The communist threat was, at that time, mostly eliminated- the excuses were up. So that, in combination with the fact that the late 80s and 90s were a time of significant globalization, perhaps even more than today (think internet), left FW De Klerk (then state president of South Africa) with one choice: Become North Korea in the subsequent decades without the new technologies of the rapidly globalizing world, or become just another shitty African country.
He chose the latter, understandably. Suffrage was allowed with a referendum, black South Africans could vote for the first time, and of course the rest is history. We've had an ANC owned country ever since, but the sanctions never really played that great of a role in the years the gentleman mentioned here.
Edit: He also goes on to say how Sports was a big motivator against the Sanctions in South Africa, but Google the "New Zealand Cavaliers" - we still played the All Blacks, it just wasn't "official"
He is a blairite and he is tooting his own horn about when he was in charge. It was very dumb.
Yes sanctions never work. Anyone that thinks they do is very mistaken... Outside forces that have nothing to do with sanctions are what usually make any change...
If I remember correctly it was in 88-89 sanctions for oil finally took effect? I know Shell did a lot of dirty business with South Africa.
Dont be surprised that many of those so called high ranking officials are indeed out of touch with reality. Imagine when he talked about Britain keeping any perceived threat at bay ... but forgot to justify the same thing with Russian who frankly was against nato camps in direct proximity. So what are these guys talking about ? Do they even compare british clandestine ops with KGB chief ? British mi6 and mi5 was overrated yet again ...
Haha, I only watched about 5 min of the video and then browsed the comments. As often is the case, I pick up more gems of information in the comments section from real life people who have the actual experience and not just the political, or 'textbook ' version of the experience in the video! Have you heard of Canadian "online Philosopher" (self styled name) Stefan Molyneux? Now banned from You tube, probably for speaking too close to the truth. He had a very good video/chat about SA and the ANC and it's leader. Taught me, and horrified me, greatly.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. promised them that the NATO won't expand toward the east at all. But the NATO has over the years annexed 14 countries from the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.
Why no one asked the speaker about this great betrayal by the West ? The speaker didn't talk about it either.
So Russia has right to protest itself but post- soviet countries do not? Putin has just prooven how needed aliences are and that NATO is best insutance policy. Also, NATO was and still is a defensive pact.
@@CzesiaPL There is no real distinction between defensive and offensive in international relations. This is known as the Security Dilemma. What one side considers defensive can be seen as offensive to another side, because powers don't trust one another. NATO forces have been engaged offensively in Libya, Afghanistan, and the Balkans.
@@hlw1306 Because in international relations might makes right, unfortunately. Smaller countries don't have the luxury of ignoring the will of larger, more powerful neighbors. It was always dangerously irresponsible to dangle the NATO carrot in front of Ukraine. The West knew full-well it wouldn't (/couldn't) protect them from Russia if it really came down to it.
@@jenniferlawrence2701I wonder which country you're from. If I may guess, not from a smaller one. Otherwise you wouldn't be so stoic about it
I would not trust this man one iota but it does give an insight to one perspective, so thanks.
Of course u know how the situation in Kashmir began and have a 40 year of experience in this... Last time I checked the partition between India and Pakistan was done by one of u folks... Great job bringing Kashmir up as a British...
The problem is he is already the rat in the corner in terms of international political cooperation and climate. I am very concerned that all parties are escalating and do not seek excessive negotiation and discussions with an open mind to understand all parties and end suffering of the people who has nothing to do with this and want to live in peace..
He is used to it . I don’t go to your house and tell you how to live your life ! I wish everyone minded their own businesses and we could of avoided so many wars …
america, the UK and i'm sure the rest of the world are staying out of it. i'm sure they're very aware that the russian president is a madman armed with nukes...
Negotiations are the LEAST likely behaviors to become excessive!
@@jmckeev765 don't poke Russian bear if you don't want to see the reaction
@@marv6013 exactly, same applies to alot of other countries. stay out of our face and we'll stay out of yours
In Yemen, Syria, Venezuela and other countries its ok to change the regimes by force.
Not Russia, because they have real deterrent power.
By brutal and inhumane force, mind you. No one has this information here. They don't know or want to know. Lets make the whole world a hollywood movie with US as batman. that's their level of thinking.
Goodness me! Areal, live prat.
not a word about some powers in the west wanting to weaken the Russians by "fighting them on their own turf with their own people" while producing and selling weapons as much as they can. Not a word about the consequences of pushing Russia to ally with China in the long term, nothing on the part that more weapons for Ukraine means more deaths among its population and that what they need the most is peace, but every other side and political government (including the Ukranian one) is drooling to get this conflict ramped up as long as it doesn't go nuclear. And for anyone with a brain its obvious that the sanction's main goal is to topple Putin's regime and while it has some real effect on the oligarchs it will piss off a vast number of ordinary Russians who will rally behind "their strong man". This time the bets are much bigger and all sides are playing "all in".
Very smart approach for thinking about things from all possible aspects. Thanks. When you may see a thinking man with conscience it gives you hope.