well, when you see Indian, Russian and Chinese media it's hard for these people not to be arrogant. The Indian mass media is pretty much owned by Indian politicians, Russian State Media is calling for nuclear strikes against London and The Chinese and their "wolf warrior" nonsense aren't terribly interesting.
Spot on comments, Harry! Absolutely waste of time. Glad I only wasted 8 minutes of my time. The woman is so ridiculous and fake to call the war is between Russia and Ukraine. Is she blind? Hope her prayer will work.
I love what Peter said, "if you control of media, you can say anything is a victory". If I watch CNN/BBC/MSNBC, I will think now Moscow have been sieged.
@@clydewmorgan Or maybe just complementary sources to have a broader picture in English. As for me, I watch many different news in 5 different languages since I am a polyglot linguist... it is extremely useful to have different views and mindset. as wekk as to make more nuances. In French, my favourite reference is our Perpetual Secretary of the Académie française, Mrs Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, who never speaks with such certainty regarding Russia, even if it is her area of expertise and even if she met Putin personnally and spoke with him in Russian, one of her mothertongue. (She is from the Russian nobility whose family used to live in Georgia before the Revolution)
Yup. They ignore anything that does not support the U.S. and U.K. official government positions. I suppose, even amongst independent minded, tenured Academics, only superstars like Professor John Mearscheimer, or Professor Jeffrey Sachs, or Professor Noam Chomsky, are moral and courageous enough to speak independently, based on their years of scholarship, and/or political experience, or powerfful enough, like Henry Kissinger, who himself even broke ranks and spoke out against U.S. escalation of the conflict. (A good way to test the panelists' intellectual honesty would have been to ask all three, if they believe the U.S. and U.K. government proclamations that Russia blew up their own pipeline, or if it is more probable, that the U.S. blew it up. Most neutral experts will admit it is more likely that the U.S. did.)
@@stevelang6990 neutral experts say the U.S. did it, huh? Who are these "neutral" experts that you speak of? I'm sure they're anything but neutral but your bias won't let you believe otherwise...
@@tj2636 Are you sure? Why's that, because you have looked into it? What was Russia's motivation to blow up their own pipeline? The U.S. has claimed for years that Putin was using the pipeline as a weapon to extort Europe, why would he blow up his own weapon? He didn't have to blow it up, he could have just turned it off. Promising to turn it back on again if there was a Negotiated Peace, was his leverage. Why would he blow up his leverage. The U.S. has been against the pipeline for years and Biden warned back in February of this year: "WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday warned that if Russia invades Ukraine, there would be no Nord Stream 2, but did not specify how he would go about ensuring the controversial pipeline would not be used. Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it."------------------------------------------------------------- But to answer your question, the most prominent neutral expert is Jeffrey Sachs. He is an internationally respected former faculty of Harvard and Columbia University, Advisor to the UN, Public policy analyst, and senior advisor to governments, specifically: "In 1989, Sachs advised Poland's anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland's reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland's debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[25]" "Sachs's ideas and methods of transition from central planning were adopted throughout the transition economies. He advised Slovenia in 1991 and Estonia in 1992 on the introduction of new stable and convertible currencies. Based on Poland's success, he was invited first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then by Russian President Boris Yeltsin on the transition to a market economy." --------------Anti-globalist activists have called him a "cold hearted neo-liberal," which is why he was invited on corporate media news shows. "Professor Sachs told Bloomberg: "The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline which I would bet was a US action perhaps US and Poland. But host Tom Keene interrupted: "Jeff, Jeff you've got to stop there, that's quite a statement as well. "Why do you feel that that was a US action? What evidence do you have of that?" Professor Sachs continued: "Well, first of all, there's direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area." ""We also had the threats from the United States earlier in this year that one way or another, we are going to end Nord Stream. "We also have a remarkable statement by Secretary Blinken last Friday at a press conference, so he says this is also a tremendous opportunity. "It's a strange way to talk if you're worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance." "So I know this runs counter to our narrative and you're not allowed to say these things in the West but the fact of the matter is all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it." --------------------------------------------------------And the U.S. is now the country that Europe will be dependent on for gas. "Until Russia's invasion of Ukraine in late February, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline beneath the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany was one of western Europe's main sources of gas." (From website) "Business Insider": "Energy companies and traders are raking in huge profits selling US natural gas to Europe as prices on the continent skyrocket, with a single shipment netting around $200 million of profit, according to industry experts. Aug 13, 2022"
@@charlesfiddespayne7474 Not according to the public present. That was the point of the debate. You can pick a side in front of the computer, but that is not relevant, because you are just one person. Ofc, I'm not saying that one side is completely wrong and the other side is completely right. There are valid arguments, in my opinion, on both sides. Just that those present considered one side's arguments more compelling.
A balance perspective would show that their arguments amount to ad hominem attacks and pure Russophobia with no actual self reflection about how this war actually started
This would be a fascinating conversation if I was an anthropologist, from the perspective of watching a group of people, very impressed with themselves, giving the perspective from their hermetically sealed academic bubble. It is amazing how professional historians can pontificate so much on something while leaving out at least half the story.
I think you give them too much credit the you include the word 'academic' and 'historian' in any reference to these people. Even propagandists seem too generous a term.
@@stevel9200 I totally agree with you; I was just using the titles they give themselves so they'd know I was talking about them. These people are just oblivious, and they congratulate each other for it.
Perhaps you'd like to indicate the key elements they've missed? All three are quite well credentialed, yet you dismiss them as academic. The onus, therefore, is on you to show your credentials & argument. Will you please do so.
The lady in this debate is talking cadswallop. Putin is ranked as the most honest leader on the international stage according to the "Why Politicians Lie" by John Mearsheimer.
Maybe a Russian who is pro war like English were pro war with Nazis when they threatened invasion … Why is the only good Russian you can conceive of a push-over servile Western-stooge type of Russian? Are the Russians not allowed to have a stance, different from Western imperialist worldview, that is valid!?!? Bigotry in this discussion and commentaries is phenomenal here :)
BTW on their immediate reference to the Cuba crisis. We must not forget that Russia was going to put missiles in Cuba BECAUSE America had first put missiles in Russia's neighbourhood in Turkey. In fact Krutchev withdrew the missiles AND Kennedy (on the quiet) withdrew the american missiles from Turkey. Why did Russia agree to this agreement "on the quiet"? to preserve Kennedy's presidency. Sadly that did not last that long, did it?
No, because at that time the Soviet Union was a vastly, vastly inferior nuclear power to the United States. Krushchev knew it was a blunder and realized he had to get the problem resolved. He also had Castro being irrational, pushing for a nuclear launch from Cuba and pestering Kruschev for control if those missles and decision making on when to launch. Kruschev rightly refused to hand control over to Kennedy. Thus the deal on Turkey and keeping it quiet from Castro. It benefitted Kennedy and Catri both that the Turkey deal be kept quiet.
America deployed nuclear missiles into the Soviet Union’s region because NATO did not have an adequate defense against the massive Red Army deployed on its border in the Warsaw Pact. The Red Army deployed immediately when the Nazis surrendered to grab as much land as possible and only American nuclear airpower (B-29s) made them withdraw from, for example, Iran. So only the west’s nuclear forces could deter regional invasions and coercion via the Red Army. That is why missiles were emplaced in Turkey, because the Red Army directly threatened Turkey. Everyone who has lived with Russia knows their game. If they can, they invade. If they can’t, they engage in subversion. It’s just what they do and all their neighbors know it intimately.
The first response to the hosts question led me to believe that we are dealing with a square-root of intelligence... this seemed like a propaganda info war
@@kkpenney444 1/2 of it, unfortunately... the UK vision, obviously. I am French and I clearly do not share this point of view. I came because of Peter Frankopan, but I feel extremely disappointed... What was said about the French people clearly showed that they not only do not understand the Russians, but they don't even understand their neighbours! So... no need to go as far as Russia then! Understanding the European continent would be, in my view, a good start!
Imagine you are beaten by English nationalist in Scotland if you utter scottish/galeic words or put/pin/hold scottish flag. That is what happened with Hungarians living in west ukraine (who were cut from their mother country in 1920 by Treaty of Trianon). I live 50 miles form Ukraine border and we know. there is even a law, you can check, which forbids in school to use your own language in school. If you use/pin/waive Hungarian flag there you are beaten until you bleed. Same applies for Russians there. But you in the west media bubble do not hear these. The Minsk agreement was to assure these rights but Ukraine ignored it with the support of the west. Zelensky has a multi million euro palace in Tuscana, Italy, he has had it even before he became president. Where do you think that money came from? His wealth is estimated 1,5 billion USD. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and is far from being a democracy Russia cannot be beaten only talks give peace but USA does not want it. Even if Ukraine wins back all territories, what is guarantee Russia will not go back some months later? Nothing. Ukraine is in ruins, the economy is bankrupted, the people fled, those who stayed are in life lasting war shock. The war does not seem to end soon. There is no winner in this. The solution is to respect the concern of Russia and for Ukraine to respect minority rights. The beneficiaries of the war are USA and China. USA gas 4x more expensive than Russian, makes EU/Germany uncompetitive, end of EU economy. EU/UK will crush due to incompetent leaders who think a long term stable peace and prosperity in Europe is possible without or by "beating" Russia (whatever it means) and a strong European/German economy based on cheap Russian gas scares the hell out of the USA. Prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, NATO expansion and the oppression of minorities in ukraine led to this. This is the west paying the cost of freedom. the west decided to pay the »cost of freedom«, so pin the ukrainian flag onto your shirt and enjoy the western style of living while it lasts.
Kennedy displayed one thing in the Cuban Missile crisis - he pulled the US Nuclear Missiles out of Turkey that he’d previously deployed This panel was very disappointing.
This panel consists of three atlanticists propounding NATO orthodoxy. Would have appreciated greater diversity of thought represented on this panel, with opposing viewpoints actually challenging each other's narratives.
Why do people like you spam the comment section with complaints, such as these, rather than calling attention to something said in the video that is objectively incorrect. Instead you complain when anti-western voices aren’t included… why should they… they’re anti-western regardless of the topic.
@@nicholasjohnson778 it's not spam or a complaint, it's an objective observation that there is little to no disagreement expressed between the panelists. If that is not self-evident to you, then that is your own problem. I personally agree with the majority of the viewpoints expressed in this video. Unlike you perhaps, I prefer a little more intellectual stimulation via a conflict of ideas. The world is not geopolitically dichotomous as you imply, and there is certainly room for a greater variety of opinion on this subject than your "Western v. Antiwestern" trope of a worldview.
@@nicholasjohnson778 I happen to support Ukraine, but I do not consider it "anti-Western" to question Western involvement in the war. That is the way of censorship.
@@stephanoskaravas5405 This was a panel interview not a debate, objectively. There are plenty of debates most feature John Mearsheimer but there are others. I also find it strange, the Kremlin’s causus belli has shifted from one month to another, Russian soldiers are not at all enthusiastic fighting this war, and hundreds of thousands of military age males have fled Russia. But you would like to have more academics, that side with Putin’s perspective, explain why the situation is far more complex than it appears. I’ve listened to these arguments, they don’t link up well with the facts. But if you have an interesting point, I’m interested in studying it. What if this war is straight forward? What if Russians are generally politically apathetic? What if Putin gambled and has lost? And what if these historians summarized the situation accurately? The problem I have with these “oh it’s one-sided” spammed comments is that they bring nothing to the table… AT ALL.
@@afritimm Well it is anti-western to complain that a panel interview (which wasn’t a debate) should have included a contradictory perspective. I’m all for debates, but this was not a debate. Also, censorship is the blocking of ideas from being expressed. Intelligence squared has provided plenty of debate forums for an anti-western or realist viewpoint. You demanding that every discussion on the topic include a Kremlin friendly perspective is anti-western and is in fact illiberal. We are in an information war with Russia and Russia is trying to crush liberalism in Ukraine… maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and ACTUALLY combat censorship. Censorship in Russia, Iran, China, etc.
Before Gorbachev lefdt office, he signed an agreement with Hans-Dietrich Genscher of the OECD, that Warsaw Pact contries would not be taken into NATO. Within about 18 months they were all in, the US was planting missile-sites all over the place and accusing Russian of aggression. Two years ago UNHCR listed 1.5 million ethnically-Russian Ukrainians had fled from persecution to take refuge in Russia. For whatever reason, that figure has disappear from that website. At the same time, Russia`s lease on Sevatopol which still has 30years to run was torn up unilaterally. Ukraine was part of Russia even before Ivan IV drove the Mongolians out in the mis C16th and then Cathering the Great built all Ukraine`s main cities. Ukraine has been part of Russian for at least two centuries before Scotland before allied itself with England. A big part of the problem has been firstly the historians who have completely obfuscated the history of 1914-1917 and secondly , the West`s vigorous attempts to portray Putin as a Stalinist. In 2017 he went to the Gulag Memorial to denounce formally both the Gulag and the Revolution itself. That was courageous, given that many of the Oligarchs want a return to Stalinism. Other than them and CP members, no-one could take iny interest in national politics or economics, so the Oligarchs stepped in to fill that vacuum. He tried to reach some kind of rapprochement with NATO but was rudely shrugged off. Anti-Russian feeling in Warsaw Pact countries is understandable but not at all helpful. As far as Russia is concerned, East Ukraine, with its high proportion of ethnic Russians, is Stalingrad 2.
Why? The East wants all of our money and all of our property leaving us with absolutely NOTHING... Putin desires to destroy the European Union and NATO... Why should we let him do so?
In 2014 the USA and the UK organized a coup in Ukraine to Instal a Nazi government in Ukraine and the western media and these fat intellectuals are propagating for their governments which are just evil.
@@canadiangemstones7636 certainly none of these guys. When Russians commentators with good English were allowed to appear on UK debates and TV in 2014 they often gave highly nuanced points of view and insights which were largely hidden from Western audiences. They were more than able to handle themselves and often left neoliberals Western media anchors and commentators.
We can’t learn from history. We never have learned anything because we destroy commonsense the moment it appears. But people will always buy books and go to the movies in the hope of learning something to please their appetites for entertainment.. Seminars and scholars will also profit from their thesis that never disappoints illusion….!!
We can and we do learn from history. We learn that england was the violent country in the 19th century, and that the USA is the most violent country sinse 1950 TO THIS DAY.
We have learned so much from history, what are you talking about? Whether it be technology, tactics, logistics etc. In the moral aspect we now have Int. law, numerous pro-humanity laws to limit the destruction of war. It's a very nihilistic view you have, and also just a wrong one
Ukraine's neutrality was doing fine until in 2014, when western politicians turned up in Kiev to encourage the crowd to depose a government they had democratically elected because it had signed a finance package with Russia. The Ukraine should remain outside NATO and the EU, trade freely with the whole world - outside the EU - attract foreign investment and fight its own endemic corruption levels.
Greetings from Russia. Let me disagree with the theses of your speakers. 6:23 "In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia" Your historian voices this fact, combining it with the events in Ukraine, thereby, as it were, making a connection between them ("Russia invaded Georgia as well as Ukraine") In reality, this is absolutely not the case. In 2008, Russia really invaded Georgia, but Georgia started the war. It was Georgia, on the orders of Saakashvili, that attacked South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers who were there, which led to Russia's retaliatory actions. This is a fact that is confirmed by the conclusions of the EU Commission. She decided that Georgia started the war. By the way, the Georgian-Ossetian (Russian) war is a vivid example of the fact that Russia does not want to unleash wars, but always harshly responds to attempts to start a war with it. The principle of sambo is a martial art that Putin loves. The principle of attack from defense. If you forgot, after the start of the conflict, the Georgian army fled. However, the Russian army did not continue the war. Russia went to resolve the conflict and in the absence of Johnson, and his craving for bloodshed, Russia and Georgia came to a peace agreement. The Georgian-Russian war went on for 5 days. As for Russia's "invasions" into the sovereign territories of Georgia, Ukraine and other things...these incursions were made into the territory of the former autonomous republics of the USSR. This is the root of interethnic conflicts within the CIS. South Ossetia and Crimea, in the USSR, were autonomous republics within the Georgian and Ukrainian republics. According to the constitution of the USSR, any republic could withdraw from its composition by holding a referendum on independence. But there was an important caveat: autonomous republics must vote separately from the republics of which they are a part. Almost all the republics of the USSR violated this law and did not allow the autonomous republics to vote separately from the main republics. It was with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which Ukraine did not allow to vote separately) and it was with the Autonomous Republic of South Ossetia (which was also not allowed to vote separately, but already Georgia) In fact, Georgia and Ukraine have committed the annexation of the territories of the autonomous republics of Ossetia and Crimea. It is this moment that is one of the reasons for the conflicts between Georgia-Ossetia-Russia and Ukraine-Russia-Crimea. And there are many more such autonomous republics. 11:40 "Putin is very dangerous and we need to resist and fight him. The West must unite" This is what the westerners say... How about Iraq? Syria? Yugoslavia? Libya? Hmm .. imagine that they were not. Then all converge - Putin is the most dangerous of all. By the way: what to do with the fact that Russia was one of the guarantors (together with Germany and Farancia) of the Minsk agreements. The Minsk agreements are a document between Ukraine and the LNR/DNR (rebellious republics) to resolve the conflict. They provide for 14 points, and if Ukarina complied with them, the LPR and DPR should have remained part of Ukraine. The Minsk agreements were signed in 2014 and 2015. In fact, Ukraine had 8 years to solve the problem of the DPR and LPR peacefully. But who refused to fulfill them? Was it Putin? No. It was the President of Ukraine - Zelensky. And later, from the revelations of Merkel, Holland and Johnson, we learned that the Minsk agreements (which were supposed to bring peace to Ukraine) were a hoax. So who is the threat? 12:15 "Russia guaranteed Ukraine the integrity of its territory based on the results of the Budapest memorandum" Yes. Guaranteed. But in full, the second paragraph of the Budapest Memorandum reads as follows: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or in any other way in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." The events in Maidan (Ukraine, in 2014) were perceived by Russia as a coup d'état inspired by the United States. The open presence of Victoria Nuland on the Maidan served as proof of this. Support for the US anti-constitutional coup and subsequent dialogue between Nuland and Payet on who will lead the government of Ukraine. Subsequently, Putin spoke in an interview that the US asked him to put pressure on Yanukovych (President of Ukraine in 2014) to order the withdrawal of troops from the Maidan for the sake of a peace agreement with the protesters (which was concluded on February 21) However, as soon as Yanukovych withdrew the troops, the right-wing radical organization "Right Sector" immediately seized all the buildings of the administrative quarter of Kyiv. Including the presidential administration and the parliament building. On the same day - February 22, Yanukovych was overthrown and an anti-constitutional coup took place in Ukraine. This event can be qualified as a violation of the Budapest Memorandum of Commitment of the United States "to refrain from the threat of force against the territorial and POLITICAL independence of Ukraine" The political independence of Ukraine, spelled out in the Budapest Memorandum once after the words about its territorial integrity. But your speaker speaks only of the threat to territorial integrity. From the position of Russia, the United States violated the Budapest Memorandum, violating the political independence of Ukraine. This does not mean that Russia has not violated the Budapest Memorandum. She violated. But the US did it too. And they did it first, putting Russia before a choice: Pretend that nothing happened and the United States has nothing to do with it. Or respond by breaking agreements that no longer make any sense. Russia responded. 16:57 "we wouldn't have this war if it weren't for the role of individuals (roughly speaking - that's what happens when 1 person rules)" Yes ... there were no other wars in the 21st century. Brilliant logic, if we forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia and many other wars and conflicts unleashed by the "democratic" US and EU. Speaking in fact: There would be no war in Ukraine if Ukraine complied with the Minsk agreements. But we already know who refused to fulfill them. And we know that it was the West that violated them, thereby bringing the world to the threshold of nuclear armageddon.
18:00 There is a lot of propaganda straight from Ukraine (like "Russian officers have already chosen their apartments in Ukraine") However, in the main speech - yes, I agree - Russia largely underestimated Ukraine and the EU. There were mistakes, miscalculations, incorrect intelligence data and much more. In Russia, such crap all the time. Throughout its history. We are extremely undisciplined and weak... until one turning point... Europe regularly sees this Russian weakness. Seeing her, Europe decides that "Russia is collos on feet of clay" and starts a war against it. After all, "Russia is weak" ... Europe thinks. And after a while, Europe turns around and runs to his home, pursued by the Russian army. As it was with Napoleon. As it was in 1917-1920. As it was with Hitler. The turning point of Russia is that most Russians unite into a monolith as soon as an enemy appears on the horizon that threatens the existence of Russia. This is the strength of Russia - in its people and the love of this people for their country and its great history. That is why it is so difficult for the United States to demand military assistance from Europe for Ukraine. Because Europe has learned its lesson. And the US should learn this lesson too. 20:30 "Ukraine would have already been destroyed, but if it were not for our military assistance to it and the help of the United States" No. Ukraine is being destroyed right now. At this very moment. And this would not have happened if Johnson had not convinced Ukraine of the need for war. Contrary to the agreement that has almost been reached between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. It's not like it's a secret anymore, is it? 25:50 "Orlando's book says that the Russians invent their own history. They invent it over and over again. This has nothing to do with reality." Like Jews, huh? Or stop. With regard to the Jews, such judgments will probably be stigmatized by Nazism. After all, the statement that the entire nation is... hmm... zombified? This is ... a little bit of Nazism. Fortunately, you are talking about Russians. About the Russians, you can say that. Free Europe. Love her. 28:25 "There was no Russia when Kievan Rus was created" Dear, "Kievan Rus" is a historical term. He describes the period of the ancient Russian state, when Kyiv was the cost of Rus'. The term originated in 1837. It was used by M.A. Maksimovich in his work “Where does the Russian land come from”. Such a state as "Kievan Rus" never existed. Exactly as never existed states: "Ancient Rus'", "Ancient Rome" or "Stalin's USSR". There was a state - Rus'. Which is in Byzantine, broadcast as Russia. Rus comes from the name of the tribe of the Varangians (Vikings) - the Rus. Rusov, invited 4 Slavic tribes to reign. Rusov was led by Rurik. Rurik laid the foundation for the Rurik dynasty - the Russian dynasty. Rus' was transformed into the Russian kingdom, retaining the Rurik dynasty. The Russian kingdom was transformed into the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire was reborn in the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and BSSR, which formed the USSR. USSR, became the Russian Federation (which is the legal successor of the USSR) Rus' is directly related to both Russia and Ukraine. And the Russians are called as such, since such was the first ruler of Rus' - Prince Rurik from the Rus tribe. You should be ashamed to broadcast such a thing to such a huge audience. It's one thing when you use arguments devoid of logic (as was the case with dictators who cause wars). And it's a completely different matter when you're just lying. _________________________ Good. I'm tired of writing and I've run out of time. Sorry, but your speakers are amateurs. I do not argue that they are right in some ways. However, the main amount of information that they broadcast is illogical, not constructive, one-sided and superficial.
Margaret, this war is not just between Ukraine and Russia ! If it were , it would have ended a long time ago . This war is between Russia and the Western world supported by US military might ! And that expansion makes it nearly a World War or bordering it .
@@autemniaequinoctius2030 Care to back up your stance ? 2 words don't make a response ! The whole world has recognized this conflict as a ' Proxy war " between US ( Europe hardly counts ) and Russia .
@@narayanprasad4008 yes, the whole third world and even the fourth world, where people adore Putin as a "strong leader", like Stalin. Not a single normal civilized country in the world would agree to believe in such crap
Hello intelligence Squared...please don't throw propaganda like his. Atleast let it be a debate, but some of the stuff these guys are saying is just absolutely ridiculous, and to be even more low, to make fun of a leader that took a country from poverty to creating many billionaires and put his country back on the world map, a country that without it would not have won against the guy you are comparing the leader of to Hitler . Without Russia we would have lost WW2. Show some respect and if you truly need to make fun of a leader, just look at Biden, man gets sticky notes to take with him to dinner parties so he can remember what to say.
True. The cost of going war with Russia - unless absolutely necessary - would be far greater than anything 1939-1945 was. I don't see how there could be parallels between the stakes then, and the stakes now.
It was very nice to hear 3 knowledgeable panellists, however it felt a bit like an echo chamber. It would have helped to have one person with a different perspective to enhance and prove those 3 people right, instead of a group of people mirroring each other. I disagreed with Max that ideology is not a factor in this war. Maybe during the cold war the ideologies were defined with clear parameters but contemporary ideologies with their blurred lines are definitely playing their roles in this conflict as well. Again someone from a different perspective would have been able to point that out. Although i prefer a debate, i did enjoy this talk :)
I agree, Maester. This discussion was so one sided it was an echo. No one is charting a path to peace, just arrogant justification for their ridged view. I see a very biased view of history without nuance. What is left out is the promotion of NATO and support of the military-industrial's profits and its impact on Russia. MacMillan's comment on Germany in WW11, implying jealousy of England trade competition was a cause of the war - what a joke. Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States would be an excellent beginning for this group to learn some real history of the West.
Your comment resonates with me. Certainly none of the panelists have cognitive empathy taking Russia's perspective, not to mention saying that JFK withdrew putting a base in Turkey to show good faith leading to de-escalation of the Cuban crisis. Is there a parallel with this Ukraine war? America's military industrial complex is working, especially after Afghanistan withdrwal.
I just don't like intellectual dishonesty....I will always go for Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University....Let truth prevail....and stop seeing yourself as superious ...times have changed...
Historians usually have a poor understanding of the current political context. This panel is no exception. I'm going to say something which is not popular: Ukraine doesn't need Crimea and the occupied parts of the Donbas. This is where most of the Russians in Ukraine live, and Ukraine could live just fine without these. After retaking Kherson city today, not much left from the initial Russian occupation. The only major pro-Ukrainian city left under the Russian occupation is Melitopol. The biggest damage is done to the city of Mariupol, and Ukraine doesn't need to hurry in retaking this city. Even if Russia manages to freeze this conflict in the Donbas and Crimea, it can't freeze the Ukrainian path toward the West, which is already happening. Ukraine would be more stable without pro-Russian Crimea and Donbas. Ukraine has already become a candidate member of the EU, and it could live just like Cyprus which has an even bigger territorial dispute with Turkey. Or like South Korea and happily play a long-term game. Russia can't just unfreeze the conflict at will and start a new campaign, because the next time it will face a technologically superior enemy. The Russian army had been living on the old Soviet stock and the components coming from the West - both of which are gone by now.
@@katherinemunoz4138 I'm not trying to say what Ukraine should do; I'm just saying Ukraine is fine without Crimea (economically, politically, and militarily). Russia won't be in a position to restart the attack in the future. After all, it's easy to say Ukraine should "take the land back". That will come with a huge price. If the West stands behind Ukraine as long as it takes, the time is on the Ukrainian side. Russia can't play this game in isolation forever. But of course, it's on Ukraine to decide what to do, and my comment doesn't imply in any way what Ukraine should do.
The Rest of the world has changed its course of direction leaving the West behind. Continue Sitting and chatting all day or night with your lack lustre stuff, with none from the East lending their ears to you. The new formula for the East is: “The Grace of the East will rise and rule while the beasts of the West butchers the world.“
They’re not having one on Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment but I hear they’re organising one to discuss that brilliant NATO triumph in Libya. The West bludgeoned a country with the highest per capita income in Africa to one where there’s open slave markets. All because Gaddaffi wanted to accept currencies other than the petro-dollar. The arrogance of these three panelists beggars belief.
Did you expect an illegal occupation of a Sovereign Country to be considered as acceptable ?.Do you understand the gravity of human suffering Russia have caused ?. Have you thought about the millions of civilians who are now left without their homes/jobs/villages.? Do you have a job and home?.I'll bet you do.
I can't take him seriously as he is a historian with a fake name to claim Croatian nobility status. Although his family has nothing to with the Frankopan and they have changed their last name from a normal Croatian last name from Dujmić-Vukasinović to de Lupis, and then to Frankopan just to try and claim medival castles after the fall of communism. The last Frankopans were executed by the Austrians in 1617. Imagine now being a historian and carry a fake historic name. LOL
The non violent answer could lie in collectively raising awareness in regard to any illegal tactics commonly used, including by Chinese or Russians, in all other jurisdictions. Educate all leaders and populations on ethics in these countries. Welcome Ukraine war survivors and Russian refugees who declare to resist the war, as refugee migrants by giving them dual citizenship, provided they assist to end the war. These three strategies could help drive to peace.
Again, as a lot of the western part of Europe media and intellectuals discuss central and eastern European issues they do forget to takeoff their perspective and their hats the bean shaped by the Russian empire for about 2 1/2 centuries. The Muscovite and Russian issue is a much deeper problem to solve or completely isolate from the part of the euro Asia. More context would’ve been nice to see in the panel
Poles understand us perfectly. Moscovia must be defeated, demilitarised including nuclear weapons, divided into free national states. Westerners completely underestimate danger of mongolian Rus' which successor is Moscow. They'll don't stop, they must be stopped.
pro tip for IQ²...if you're going to feature your store offerings on the screen between the video info space and the comments space, include any books touted by one of your speakers (e.g. Orlando Figes' The Story of Russia)
You are so right elenaalgazina5213 .... the conflict is pretty unfathomable and even if it is sorted out one day ? You can't take individual thoughts and the very essence of what makes a person think or believe out of the equation. It's a sad time we are living in and will end in disappointment and ruin. I believe we should take responsibility for our own brains and decisions but how do you get the horse to drink after you've taken him to the water ?
That question about the humans element in major conflicts and having the right people in charge (e.g. JFK)and and not having the wrong people in charge (e.g. Max Taylor and Curtis Lemay too) and the responses was gold
So true. "First time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the (use of) a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going." Joe Biden "Above all, while defending our own vital interests, *nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.* To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world." John F Kennedy If not, history will simply repeat, and the entire Cold War "sh*tshow with death and destruction with return. "Sleepy Joe" is a bit late with his realisation.
US nukes in Turkey, unknown to Russia were to be pulled out of Turkey, the fact that nukes were within easy range of Russia is interesting. Mind you, one can hate a leader, but to hate the country,, is to hate it's people. Curious is the NATOs evolving and expanding, through out the world, a once defensive force that of recent as become offensive.
This discussion is like a drama. The fight in Ukraine is like a world war 3 already because of nations are involved on both sides. What they are talking about?
Regarding the "Putin's made up history" remark, this is exactly what the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American Empire also does as well. I am sure they are not taught how their forefathers "civilized" other cultures. If they are, there is always a larger noble perspective to that or it is not taught in details. I am sure the Chinese have their own version as well. It is the same for every culture. Nothing odd here.
Well in that you are most incorrect. Most of the most dissenting views on European colonialism are in fact written and communicated by British and European historians/ academics. The UK in particular has gone a long way to try and redress the issues of its past (Windrush, voting rights, restitution etc) but there is still work to be done. However, no one is shying away from the UK's imperial past in all its gory glory. Its taught in schools here and its taught in schools around the world (particularly in the commonwealth). But yknow, your idea of saying "well okay, everyone does it" is a nice bedside method of leveling the playing field. It is however entirely incorrect and preposterous.
@@dynamo1796 Pretty sure everything Putin says will be confirmed by Russian historians as well. Now, you might say that is because fear. My point is no government wants alternative viewpoints. Look at what they're doing to Julian Assange who provided evidence and explained an alternative view to the NATO wars. The West is a bubble. Russia is a bubble. China is a bubble. The viewpoints and narratives are different between each of them and the people mostly live in echo chambers. You're true and noble in your bubble. They're true & noble in theirs.
@@rpnrko3612 While its very hard to get a true and objective history of anything, there are sources and research that come a lot closer than others -this applies to both Russia and Europe. Alternative view points is an interesting remark. Commonly governments pick a popular and defensible narrative and stick to that. However in western cultures this has had to change on the grounds of new information, inquiries or otherwise. In Russia or China however no such thing happens. There are no inquiries, there are independent research bodies and there are no non-state affiliated media or historians. You cannot compare what happens in totalitarian places like Russia and China to what happens in the West - they are orders of magnitude further apart on the scale of democracy.
@@dynamo1796 not quite. UK and US are trying to "correct" the past with political correctness getting into idealism and not real politik many times, but in the anglosphere the spanish importance in civilization it still totally undermined or denied because Spain was the great power to defeat. Even after more than 150 years of the spanish empire collapse they continue to tell lies and diminish or exagerate things. This is only with one sphere: the hispanics. imagine ALL the rest. Now, I am married with an ucranian, so dont think i am pro-russian in any way. But yes, making up history is as old as the sun, and keeps repeating it self everywhere. (France and Italy for example denied the roman empire existed after the western part of it collapsed and they "invented" the bizantine empire. there was never a bizantine empire. It was Rome. until the end. Even the Turks called themselves "Rum" in the modern age. Everything is made up.
Yes, a comment has been made that Germany, France and Italy haven't given over much weaponry but this was put down to merely that they still want Russian gas-very simplistic . The fact therefore is proven that the US coerced them into the war for its own objectives. Of course, the US is never to blame it seems.
I predict the war in Ukraine will not turn into a frozen conflict just because Russia has frozen conflicts in other areas. Those other frozen conflict areas are small and sustainable. A frozen conflict which eats up manpower and is an ongoing wrecking ball to your economy is unsustainable.
I won't predict. But this could well turn into a frozen conflict. Agreed that the economic and manpower problems make it unsustainable for Russia. But I don't think Putin himself recognizes those facts. As far as frozen conflicts go, having one with Ukraine would by far be the most important to Russia.
@@michaelbee2165 I agree Putin is ignoring it, but most commentators in the West don't don't take it enough into account, that the war against Russia is being waged and will be won on the economic front and the actual fighting is supplementary to that rather than the other way round. World War 3 is being fought by financial legislation. The US as good as rules the world economy.
@DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Where is Uraine? I think you must be the idiot here, and illiterate as well! I suspect you are one of the few Russian trolls who has managed to evade conscription. Face it, you are a coward who is afraid to defend Mother Russia. You should face the same fate that awaits all Traitors to the Motherland!!
When Putin refers to the "Anglo-Saxons," I always laugh. But watching this total waste of time I see he has reason to sleep with one eye open. There is a deep hatred and fear of Russia in the Brits, and vice versa! Jeez, they weren't kidding when they made most Hollywood baddies Russian. These people's thinking has reigned supreme for 30 years and what did it bring us? War, utterly avoidable war. In the last 22 years, I have watched countless Putin speeches where he all but begs the West to consider Russia's security interests when making European security decisions. At the Munich Security Council of 2007, the man literally said, "We have a right to ask, against whom is this NATO expansion?" Instead of recognizing the danger of a total breakdown in trust between the West and Russia, Merkel and Sarkozy were bullied into silence as NATO opened the door to Georgia and Ukraine. That was the final straw, Russia has gone to war to thwart US/UK goals three times since: Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. If they foresaw the dishonest conduct of the UN sanctioned No Fly zone that instead resulted in bombing Gadaffi's ground troops and tanks by the US and France, I'd bet they'd have fought in Libya too. I saw those speeches, heard his arguments, and it will take a monumental effort to persuade me that Putin acted in bad faith. In fact, if I were Russian I would fault him for not going further in 2014 or launching the current effort in May 2021 as he originally planned. Instead, he looked on while the West armed Ukraine to the teeth and trained their troops across the border while promising to make Kyiv implement the Minsk agreements. Even now, he hesistates to devastate Ukraine and had to be humiliated (the attack on the Crimean bridge) into the recent air campaign on Ukraine's power and rail infrastructure. Only when the hardliners, news sites, and bloggers began openly criticizing his military did he jump into high gear.
I mostly agree, but would not whitewash and idealize Putin. It is quite possible that the attack on the Crimean bridge was initiated by him, in order to later justify the strikes on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. However, he acts quite logically according to the laws of war, although the war has not yet been announced. Just a special military operation for now, you know.
I'm sorry, I thought I was going to watch serious discussion. I guess the clue was in the video information, "bestselling historians". Name me one serious academic history text that is a bestseller. The fact that they start and can't decide when the seeds of this was occurred is baffling given the title of the video is "what can we learn from history?" We invited to consider 2014 "when Russia's invaded Ukraine, 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia or to the end of the Cold War"that's how the Russians want to frame this". Nonsense. If that's what this 'historian' understood on this last point, then no wonder he has no clue, or rather so easily cherry picks events, all of which, just co-incidentally, support his, and the others, anti-Russian narrative. Historians, surely are tasked with explaining events and how they are connected, not make political points and to apportion blame. We're then told we could go back to 1917 and the Cherry picking of events to fit a particular narrative. revolution and how Russia adopted a deep suspicion of its neighbour." How can we take these people seriously. Why stop at 1917? Let's go back to Vikings, or to the birth of Christ. The Big Bang, or the breath of God that gave life to mankind. How about 2008 when George Bush declared NATO would welcome Georgia and Ukraine. Or the civil war in Ukraine between Ukrainian forces (including Above Battalion) and Ukrainians who were ethnic Russians. The failure of Ukraine's government to uphold its commitments negotiated in Minsk to end that civil war, not once but twice, and ignoring a UN Security Resolution effectively a re-iteration of the Minsk agreements. There are lots of (conveniently) ignored historical events. What do they have in common? The do not fit into the narrative that simplistically points a wagging finger at Russia. The gathering of all the events and circumstances with 20/20 hindsight and weaving them into a narrative of a scheming Putin that is opportunistic and focused on evil intent. If Putin had seen all these things he's said to have seen and taken advantage of then he is a genius and fuurologist the like of which the world has never seen. For so-called historians to be engaged in this cherry picking of events to fit a narrative shames the discipline. "A lot of people don't want all out war." Nobody, who truly understands what all out war would mean wants war. The insanity of those who "want all out war" should be denounced, not accommodated. How dangerous is a situation where we excuse our aggression and warmongering by sophistic differentiation between "taking measures that are warlike and actual fighting." Add to that the fact that there are voices calling for all out war that are half-heartedly dismissed, not even criticised. A one liner of Taiwan. Anyone who voices an opinion on Taiwan and doesn't know the simple fact that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits agree that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of it needs to hold his counsel and understand the basics before (more) finger pointing political points making. Intelligence Squared? Definitely, if you mean intelligence boxed in.
"The terrible thing, that all dictators should be warned about this, the longer you stay there, the more isolated you get, and you only hear from people that are flattering you, telling them what they want to hear..." That is exactly what people in the Western world are telling each other about politicians personalities. People in the Western world do not vote for their leaders logically, rationally in the best interest of their country future. No, people vote mostly on the basis what their social and peer groups vote for. Most often it is based on personality biases. They wag their tongue all day and every day talking on the phone and talking at work and talking in the pub, about their pet pees. Karl Marx Socialism has also got a foot hold in the Western peoples minds.
The differance is that Western political systems allow for the replacement of leaders who may not be doing a satisfactory job. If Russians look at their leaders "special military operation" and realise the long term consequences of it ...what can Russians do about this dreadful leadership?...their political system does not allow for replacement of a bad leader.That is the moral of this entire debacle.
Boring is a good thing idealistically, like having stability, & sanity in life, a boring blessing to say the least. Peace could be a very boring proposition of the way to live for some, But a good peaceful life that's null & void of drama, conflict & confusion compounded & driven by endless emotional debates & arguments concerning personal, philosophical, social , religious & political differences, can be quite boring and a peacefully predictable way to live & think about the same things.without the drama..etc etc.
I'm American. I fully support DPR, and LPR separatists. It comes down to Self Determination vs Territorial Integrity. I side with Self Determination. Globally. When its not in American interest and when it is in American interest. It's a consistent stance that's not hypocritical. I want the same standard for Donbas and Crimea as Kashmir, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Chechnya, Catalonia, and many other disputed territories. If were picking and choosing based on what's in our countries interest. It's imperialism. If we the western world are going to promote the concept of Democracy we should probably support the practice of it by having UN and OSCE observers to oversee credible referendums in every disputed territory.
Such a bright minds, brave people. Having the same brilliant opinion. Fighting the evil. Protecting the good. This is so important to manage dialog only with people sharing the same opinion.
Sharing dialogue with people sharing the same opinion is the fastest way to learn nothing at all and to also ensure that your mistakes get bigger and more profound.
The Brits love to throw bull poop at the Russian spooks inside the Kremlin to make them think they are actually important. The same Churchill that said Germany wuld eventually rebuild burned Dresden to the ground. War is simple. Since WW2 the west wins all of them and freedom and democracy always advance. What we are not witnessing is what should have happened after the end of the cold war in 1991. We will now do what we did in Japan and Germany after WW2 in Russia. The emperor (or Tzar Putin Khuylo) is not only naked he also does not have viable nukes. The half life of tritium is 12.5 years and in nukes it has to be replaced every 5 years to tigger a chain reaction that goes boom. So there is poor little Pootie Putin in his bunker never bodering to learn a little chemistry and relying on billionaires mre interested in spending time partying like a Russian instead of replacing the key ingredients in their nuclear arsenal. Read and watch what happened to the Kursk or Chernobyl and also the giant explosion of their Siberian Pipe line in the 1980s. They evil and stupid and all these years since 9/11 NATO has made sur that Russia woud one day cease to be a threat to humanity. So enjoy the simplicity. WE WIN Putin dies and we all live happily ever after and we will be spare having to watch an ugly naked Putin getting skinned alive by his own security forces in Lenin's Tomb.
11:06 "The West was not ready to fight, prior to 1939 to fight the 3rd Reich" , was a pretty loaded statement, considering the massive support Hitler had among the western elites.
not to worry, there are few in the west who have any memory. All attention is on the latest fashionable cause of the moment. that western nations have almost continuously been invading other countries is known by few.
Yup, that is why they are suffering because of the same stupid mistakes that they had gone through in the past like WW1 & WW2. This is another propaganda talk. The west deserved to be screwed and the pain that they are experiencing now is not painful enough to wake up.
It’s incredible that so many informed people can be legitimately surprised and unable to comprehend anti-Americanism. In fact, that fallacy is not having a politics of grievance, but associating ones grievances with national identity, rather than the underlying structures and systems. Liberal democratic capitalism, while successful at some things, is blind to internal contradictions that plant the seeds of its own antagonism.
Balance is important and it's fair to say... Sachs is very smart and knows a lot about many things, but he knows next to nothing about international security, nuclear deterrence, or Russian and Ukrainian history. He is simply unqualified, and anyone with a little formal education in the area sees it immediately. Unfortunately, his pretentiousness is unwittingly supporting Russian propaganda by inaccurately attributing the war to Western provocation and badly misunderstanding escalation risk in a way that's favourable to the Kremlin. Mearsheimer is also very smart, but a bit different in that he does know a lot about IR, security, and nuclear deterrence. He still makes the very obvious error of attributing the causes of the war to Western provocation and NATO expansion, however. So what's going on here? It can only be three options (I think): 1) he's stupid and cannot weigh very simple evidence (unlikely since we know he's not stupid and he's produced good work in the past); 2) He's so egoistically invested in proving Structural Realism (his theoretical baby) paints an consistently accurate picture of IR that he simply blinds himself to the overwhelming amounts of evidence that contradicts his theory in the Russo-Ukraine context; 3) he is knowingly promoting Kremlin propaganda. I'd put my money on it being number 2. I cannot really comment on Ritter as I'm less familiar with him - I'd just caution against assuming every former serviceman remains loyal to his nation and isn't susceptible to bias, bad education, or bribery.
@@azhivago2296 Correct on Sachs. However, one can reject the Mearsheimer blame-NATO excuse but at the same time conclude it is not a war for the West to join. Consider Eisenhower in Budapest 1956 and LBJ in Prague 1968.
did everyone get together in the green room and pat each other on the back. boring discussion and praise of the US seems like the denial of history. such a smug discussion....no lessons here.
I love the way it works. The rest of the population perish in the wars while Anglophones do the talking, writing and making money over it. Good business indeed.
You can’t finish the job without having the tools needs to be taken seriously by leaders of the free world. We can’t leave Ukraine without the tools, being heroic is not enough
This is more like Ignorance2 or Obfuscation2. They cite the 2014 invasion but not the 2014 coup, and the 2008 invasion but not the 2008 Nato expansion.
Margaret MacMillan makes a very good point about 'realists' who sees states interests and they can be measures etc 16.30 > . People like Mearsheimer have a huge following for those who like a clear narrative and someone to blame. There has been tremendous social change in eastern Europe and in particular Ukraine. They can travel freely and they have the internet giving them a window on the world few had even 40 years ago. Ukraine is moving to a European future but Yanukovych tried to keep the country linked to Russia. The people of Belarus voted for pro Europe parties but Lukashenko crushed the result by force-with Putin's full approval.
Yeah, imagine if America relied on energy from Russia, do you think we would be so cavalier in our our support of Ukraine? Do you think we ever would have pushed for NATO expansion if it threatened our ability to have warm homes in the winter? Enjoy the cold Europeans, and thank Uncle Sam when you’re shivering.
Why do you think we're going to be shivering? Yes, energy prices have risen. But they've risen across the world. And here in Europe we can afford to pay the increased price and support the poorest amongst us who might struggle. Your energy costs more than it did before February 24th too. We can all join together and thank Putin for that. But it seems you're happpy to cut off your nose to spite your face because you'd like to see us suffer. We won't.
Not necessarily. You don't necessarily invite an obese person to talk about the health problems of overweight, you invite an expert in the field, who may be stick thin. Unless a personal perspective or insider perspective is relevant and/or desirable, there is no need to invite someone who has a personal connection to the subject discussed. In a free society, anyone can talk about anything.
@@wh5254 OK, so bring Poles or Lithuanians, they exactly know what monster russia was and is. It's a genocide and to stop genocide you can only by defeating agressor. Problem is that Germany was occupied and hadn't nuclear weapons. russia is hard to occupy and they have weapons. Society is fascist, some adequates are in brutal pressure of police. Only victory of Ukraine can save the world.
Is it a central strategic american intetest to keep Russia and the EU /Germany strictly apart? Could such a strategic interest be the motor on the road to war? Would a peaceful economic cooperation of EU and Russia be a threat to the USA? Would a EU - Russian partnership have been possible, imaginable given the politically different structures beetwen the 2 neighbours?
This panel lacked anybody to give us the Russian perspective and so grossly trivialised the causes of the conflict. Putin is twice smarter and more informed than this whole panel put together.
Ukraine has supended opposition parties and shut down all media bar 1 state controlled media. Ukraine has the highest oligarchial per capita contingency. Zelensky was named in the Pandora papers for his millions in off shore tax havens. Democracy is more than a word.
@@msbramble176 They're being invaded you damn fool, of course it's not democracy going on as usual, doesn't mean Ukrainians aren't fully commited to it in peacetime. They are fully aware of their corruption problem, but contrary to Russia actually try to get rid of it, hence why Zelensky for which it was a major electoral promise got elected with such a huge majority. He might not be 100% clean, but he did start implementing measures against corruption, some of which were blocked by other corrupt officials, and from the point they're starting from this issue obviously won't be magically solved in an instant by merely snapping their fingers. Meanwhile Russia didn't wait for a single boot on its soil to do the same with medias, and to even throw peace protestors into jail. Oh, and he didn't even need a war to assassinate its political opponents. Russians are so full of apathy toward politics it's as if they don't care about democracy. You cannot say the same about Ukraine.
@@msbramble176 Also you're really naive if you don't realize just how many of this corruption literally emanates from Russia. Not all of it but definitely a lot of it. It's one of the biggest reason they wanted to take distance from Russia prior to the Maidan revolution.
This Peter is not worth listening to, as he is not quite objective. Margret is a little bit less subjective, but I think all of them are against Russia and they won't see what NATO is doing. So I quit looking at this circus.
I used to think history repeats itself, now I don't. I think times change, situations change, people's perceptions change, circumstances change ...... I love history, it's a valuable tool for understanding the world and where you came from. I think all this posturing ( this is one of the better posturings by the way, in my opinion; I actually understand what is being talked about. ) is for academia and the history books of the future. . I have this very naive view point that countries should be each to his own in peace. Invasion ? Why would you want to be where you're not wanted ?
I think there is an implicit assumption in your line of reasoning, which is that every modern day country is made up of homogienous people (at least dominantly, mostly). But they are not. Take Ukraine, if 2/3 wants to live with EU, 1/3 wants to live Russia, should the 1/3 be IGNORED? (the debate about minority rights among academics), and what if the 2/3 tries to FORCE the 1/3? I think there is no black/white answer, its best for all sides to be considerate. The challenge is when one party acts belligerently, it causes a chain reaction and EVERYONE becomes belligerent.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
An extremely one-sided discussion by the panelists, reflecting the arrogance and "infallibility" of the Anglo-Saxons.
well, when you see Indian, Russian and Chinese media it's hard for these people not to be arrogant. The Indian mass media is pretty much owned by Indian politicians, Russian State Media is calling for nuclear strikes against London and The Chinese and their "wolf warrior" nonsense aren't terribly interesting.
This discussion should be called learning nothing from history.
You're too generous, there should be no reference to learning or history in the title. Truly an insult to historians.
name one non-factual comment that any of these Historians made! It goes against Putin's and the Kremlin's narrative but the truth often hurts.
😆
Unconstructive comment Harry
Spot on comments, Harry! Absolutely waste of time. Glad I only wasted 8 minutes of my time. The woman is so ridiculous and fake to call the war is between Russia and Ukraine. Is she blind? Hope her prayer will work.
I love what Peter said, "if you control of media, you can say anything is a victory". If I watch CNN/BBC/MSNBC, I will think now Moscow have been sieged.
Agree
oddly enough, mr putin is one of the few people who actually believes that moscow is under siege
@@hdevere8383 And Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, well... some people who like hearing different narratives, an not only the main stream ones.
No you merely search for the narratives you agree with
@@clydewmorgan Or maybe just complementary sources to have a broader picture in English. As for me, I watch many different news in 5 different languages since I am a polyglot linguist... it is extremely useful to have different views and mindset. as wekk as to make more nuances. In French, my favourite reference is our Perpetual Secretary of the Académie française, Mrs Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, who never speaks with such certainty regarding Russia, even if it is her area of expertise and even if she met Putin personnally and spoke with him in Russian, one of her mothertongue. (She is from the Russian nobility whose family used to live in Georgia before the Revolution)
3 panellist who all agree with one another. Would have been good to get some other points of view
Yup. They ignore anything that does not support the U.S. and U.K. official government positions. I suppose, even amongst independent minded, tenured Academics, only superstars like Professor John Mearscheimer, or Professor Jeffrey Sachs, or Professor Noam Chomsky, are moral and courageous enough to speak independently, based on their years of scholarship, and/or political experience, or powerfful enough, like Henry Kissinger, who himself even broke ranks and spoke out against U.S. escalation of the conflict. (A good way to test the panelists' intellectual honesty would have been to ask all three, if they believe the U.S. and U.K. government proclamations that Russia blew up their own pipeline, or if it is more probable, that the U.S. blew it up. Most neutral experts will admit it is more likely that the U.S. did.)
@@stevelang6990 neutral experts say the U.S. did it, huh? Who are these "neutral" experts that you speak of? I'm sure they're anything but neutral but your bias won't let you believe otherwise...
you must be joking
Kanye West is not welcome 😂🤣🤣
@@tj2636 Are you sure? Why's that, because you have looked into it? What was Russia's motivation to blow up their own pipeline? The U.S. has claimed for years that Putin was using the pipeline as a weapon to extort Europe, why would he blow up his own weapon? He didn't have to blow it up, he could have just turned it off. Promising to turn it back on again if there was a Negotiated Peace, was his leverage. Why would he blow up his leverage. The U.S. has been against the pipeline for years and Biden warned back in February of this year: "WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday warned that if Russia invades Ukraine, there would be no Nord Stream 2, but did not specify how he would go about ensuring the controversial pipeline would not be used.
Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it."------------------------------------------------------------- But to answer your question, the most prominent neutral expert is Jeffrey Sachs. He is an internationally respected former faculty of Harvard and Columbia University, Advisor to the UN, Public policy analyst, and senior advisor to governments, specifically: "In 1989, Sachs advised Poland's anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland's reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland's debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[25]" "Sachs's ideas and methods of transition from central planning were adopted throughout the transition economies. He advised Slovenia in 1991 and Estonia in 1992 on the introduction of new stable and convertible currencies. Based on Poland's success, he was invited first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then by Russian President Boris Yeltsin on the transition to a market economy." --------------Anti-globalist activists have called him a "cold hearted neo-liberal," which is why he was invited on corporate media news shows. "Professor Sachs told Bloomberg: "The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline which I would bet was a US action perhaps US and Poland. But host Tom Keene interrupted: "Jeff, Jeff you've got to stop there, that's quite a statement as well.
"Why do you feel that that was a US action? What evidence do you have of that?"
Professor Sachs continued: "Well, first of all, there's direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area." ""We also had the threats from the United States earlier in this year that one way or another, we are going to end Nord Stream. "We also have a remarkable statement by Secretary Blinken last Friday at a press conference, so he says this is also a tremendous opportunity.
"It's a strange way to talk if you're worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance." "So I know this runs counter to our narrative and you're not allowed to say these things in the West but the fact of the matter is all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it." --------------------------------------------------------And the U.S. is now the country that Europe will be dependent on for gas. "Until Russia's invasion of Ukraine in late February, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline beneath the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany was one of western Europe's main sources of gas." (From website) "Business Insider": "Energy companies and traders are raking in huge profits selling US natural gas to Europe as prices on the continent skyrocket, with a single shipment netting around $200 million of profit, according to industry experts. Aug 13, 2022"
Would love to see them debate John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs to get a balanced perspective.
There is such a debate. And Mearsheimer lost by a landslide.
@@charlesfiddespayne7474 Not according to the public present. That was the point of the debate. You can pick a side in front of the computer, but that is not relevant, because you are just one person. Ofc, I'm not saying that one side is completely wrong and the other side is completely right. There are valid arguments, in my opinion, on both sides. Just that those present considered one side's arguments more compelling.
Any one of them would have seen this troika of twits off.
This is so unbalanced, you would find more depth in a puddle, I’m so disappointed.
A balance perspective would show that their arguments amount to ad hominem attacks and pure Russophobia with no actual self reflection about how this war actually started
What’s the point of having a discussion with all panelists who are already on the same page? Waste of time…
Because it’s a marketing campaign, not a real discussion. This is for the pseudo intellectuals that are on the fence.
True
It's called brainwashing
Because they like to praise each other and reaffirm each other's idea and view.. it is a jokes
Maybe you do have an alternative point which I would hope would add another dimension ?
This would be a fascinating conversation if I was an anthropologist, from the perspective of watching a group of people, very impressed with themselves, giving the perspective from their hermetically sealed academic bubble. It is amazing how professional historians can pontificate so much on something while leaving out at least half the story.
I think you give them too much credit the you include the word 'academic' and 'historian' in any reference to these people. Even propagandists seem too generous a term.
@@stevel9200 I totally agree with you; I was just using the titles they give themselves so they'd know I was talking about them. These people are just oblivious, and they congratulate each other for it.
Perhaps you'd like to indicate the key elements they've missed? All three are quite well credentialed, yet you dismiss them as academic. The onus, therefore, is on you to show your credentials & argument. Will you please do so.
@@chrisfreebairn870 they will not because they cannot ;)
@@leenglishman1605 I suspected as much, just being polite .. see my comments beloe for a more assertive expression of my views ..
The lady in this debate is talking cadswallop. Putin is ranked as the most honest leader on the international stage according to the "Why Politicians Lie" by John Mearsheimer.
Maybe a Russian (not pro war, but balanced) and a Ukrainian perspective would have been good?
False equivalence
Maybe a Russian who is pro war like English were pro war with Nazis when they threatened invasion …
Why is the only good Russian you can conceive of a push-over servile Western-stooge type of Russian?
Are the Russians not allowed to have a stance, different from Western imperialist worldview, that is valid!?!?
Bigotry in this discussion and commentaries is phenomenal here :)
Three establishment clowns, repeating establishment talking points to secure their place in the establishment. Myopic.
"Interview With Three Western Historians"
"Why no Russians?!"
🙄
MEABY SERBIAN TELLING YOU DO TRUTH,....WHEN YOU NAZI NATO ISIS TALMUD THERORIST ALLIENCE TRASH ARE IN RUBLLES PEACE WILL COME,...NOT A SECOND BEFORE
BTW on their immediate reference to the Cuba crisis. We must not forget that Russia was going to put missiles in Cuba BECAUSE America had first put missiles in Russia's neighbourhood in Turkey. In fact Krutchev withdrew the missiles AND Kennedy (on the quiet) withdrew the american missiles from Turkey. Why did Russia agree to this agreement "on the quiet"? to preserve Kennedy's presidency. Sadly that did not last that long, did it?
Take your bs somewhere else.
No, because at that time the Soviet Union was a vastly, vastly inferior nuclear power to the United States. Krushchev knew it was a blunder and realized he had to get the problem resolved. He also had Castro being irrational, pushing for a nuclear launch from Cuba and pestering Kruschev for control if those missles and decision making on when to launch. Kruschev rightly refused to hand control over to Kennedy. Thus the deal on Turkey and keeping it quiet from Castro. It benefitted Kennedy and Catri both that the Turkey deal be kept quiet.
@@yam2050 "Take your bs somewhere else." He was right. Why do you angry?
America deployed nuclear missiles into the Soviet Union’s region because NATO did not have an adequate defense against the massive Red Army deployed on its border in the Warsaw Pact. The Red Army deployed immediately when the Nazis surrendered to grab as much land as possible and only American nuclear airpower (B-29s) made them withdraw from, for example, Iran. So only the west’s nuclear forces could deter regional invasions and coercion via the Red Army. That is why missiles were emplaced in Turkey, because the Red Army directly threatened Turkey. Everyone who has lived with Russia knows their game. If they can, they invade. If they can’t, they engage in subversion. It’s just what they do and all their neighbors know it intimately.
@@tommyrq180 Sounds like past UK and current US.
The first response to the hosts question led me to believe that we are dealing with a square-root of intelligence... this seemed like a propaganda info war
It's not propaganda if it's the truth.
@@kkpenney444 this wasn’t that
Agree
@@kkpenney444 1/2 of it, unfortunately... the UK vision, obviously. I am French and I clearly do not share this point of view. I came because of Peter Frankopan, but I feel extremely disappointed... What was said about the French people clearly showed that they not only do not understand the Russians, but they don't even understand their neighbours! So... no need to go as far as Russia then! Understanding the European continent would be, in my view, a good start!
@@plumitive4105 What point of view?
Imagine you are beaten by English nationalist in Scotland if you utter scottish/galeic words or put/pin/hold scottish flag. That is what happened with Hungarians living in west ukraine (who were cut from their mother country in 1920 by Treaty of Trianon). I live 50 miles form Ukraine border and we know. there is even a law, you can check, which forbids in school to use your own language in school. If you use/pin/waive Hungarian flag there you are beaten until you bleed. Same applies for Russians there. But you in the west media bubble do not hear these. The Minsk agreement was to assure these rights but Ukraine ignored it with the support of the west.
Zelensky has a multi million euro palace in Tuscana, Italy, he has had it even before he became president. Where do you think that money came from? His wealth is estimated 1,5 billion USD. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and is far from being a democracy
Russia cannot be beaten only talks give peace but USA does not want it. Even if Ukraine wins back all territories, what is guarantee Russia will not go back some months later? Nothing.
Ukraine is in ruins, the economy is bankrupted, the people fled, those who stayed are in life lasting war shock. The war does not seem to end soon. There is no winner in this.
The solution is to respect the concern of Russia and for Ukraine to respect minority rights.
The beneficiaries of the war are USA and China. USA gas 4x more expensive than Russian, makes EU/Germany uncompetitive, end of EU economy. EU/UK will crush due to incompetent leaders who think a long term stable peace and prosperity in Europe is possible without or by "beating" Russia (whatever it means) and a strong European/German economy based on cheap Russian gas scares the hell out of the USA. Prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, NATO expansion and the oppression of minorities in ukraine led to this. This is the west paying the cost of freedom. the west decided to pay the »cost of freedom«, so pin the ukrainian flag onto your shirt and enjoy the western style of living while it lasts.
Kennedy displayed one thing in the Cuban Missile crisis - he pulled the US Nuclear Missiles out of Turkey that he’d previously deployed
This panel was very disappointing.
This panel consists of three atlanticists propounding NATO orthodoxy. Would have appreciated greater diversity of thought represented on this panel, with opposing viewpoints actually challenging each other's narratives.
Why do people like you spam the comment section with complaints, such as these, rather than calling attention to something said in the video that is objectively incorrect. Instead you complain when anti-western voices aren’t included… why should they… they’re anti-western regardless of the topic.
@@nicholasjohnson778 it's not spam or a complaint, it's an objective observation that there is little to no disagreement expressed between the panelists. If that is not self-evident to you, then that is your own problem.
I personally agree with the majority of the viewpoints expressed in this video. Unlike you perhaps, I prefer a little more intellectual stimulation via a conflict of ideas. The world is not geopolitically dichotomous as you imply, and there is certainly room for a greater variety of opinion on this subject than your "Western v. Antiwestern" trope of a worldview.
@@nicholasjohnson778
I happen to support Ukraine, but I do not consider it "anti-Western" to question Western involvement in the war.
That is the way of censorship.
@@stephanoskaravas5405 This was a panel interview not a debate, objectively. There are plenty of debates most feature John Mearsheimer but there are others.
I also find it strange, the Kremlin’s causus belli has shifted from one month to another, Russian soldiers are not at all enthusiastic fighting this war, and hundreds of thousands of military age males have fled Russia.
But you would like to have more academics, that side with Putin’s perspective, explain why the situation is far more complex than it appears. I’ve listened to these arguments, they don’t link up well with the facts. But if you have an interesting point, I’m interested in studying it.
What if this war is straight forward? What if Russians are generally politically apathetic? What if Putin gambled and has lost? And what if these historians summarized the situation accurately?
The problem I have with these “oh it’s one-sided” spammed comments is that they bring nothing to the table… AT ALL.
@@afritimm Well it is anti-western to complain that a panel interview (which wasn’t a debate) should have included a contradictory perspective. I’m all for debates, but this was not a debate.
Also, censorship is the blocking of ideas from being expressed. Intelligence squared has provided plenty of debate forums for an anti-western or realist viewpoint. You demanding that every discussion on the topic include a Kremlin friendly perspective is anti-western and is in fact illiberal.
We are in an information war with Russia and Russia is trying to crush liberalism in Ukraine… maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and ACTUALLY combat censorship. Censorship in Russia, Iran, China, etc.
Before Gorbachev lefdt office, he signed an agreement with Hans-Dietrich Genscher of the OECD, that Warsaw Pact contries would not be taken into NATO. Within about 18 months they were all in, the US was planting missile-sites all over the place and accusing Russian of aggression. Two years ago UNHCR listed 1.5 million ethnically-Russian Ukrainians had fled from persecution to take refuge in Russia. For whatever reason, that figure has disappear from that website. At the same time, Russia`s lease on Sevatopol which still has 30years to run was torn up unilaterally. Ukraine was part of Russia even before Ivan IV drove the Mongolians out in the mis C16th and then Cathering the Great built all Ukraine`s main cities. Ukraine has been part of Russian for at least two centuries before Scotland before allied itself with England. A big part of the problem has been firstly the historians who have completely obfuscated the history of 1914-1917 and secondly , the West`s vigorous attempts to portray Putin as a Stalinist. In 2017 he went to the Gulag Memorial to denounce formally both the Gulag and the Revolution itself. That was courageous, given that many of the Oligarchs want a return to Stalinism. Other than them and CP members, no-one could take iny interest in national politics or economics, so the Oligarchs stepped in to fill that vacuum. He tried to reach some kind of rapprochement with NATO but was rudely shrugged off. Anti-Russian feeling in Warsaw Pact countries is understandable but not at all helpful. As far as Russia is concerned, East Ukraine, with its high proportion of ethnic Russians, is Stalingrad 2.
The title should be "Should the west really pipe down and listen to the east time to time, basically to stop pretending that they know it all?"
Exactly
Yes, a 100%!
Agree
Why? The East wants all of our money and all of our property leaving us with absolutely NOTHING... Putin desires to destroy the European Union and NATO... Why should we let him do so?
@@ronclark9724 the west has stolen our resources and enslaved our families and culture. Time for tables to turn.
An intelligent discussion of this war, this is not.
Not impressed with the alleged "intelligence", pretty much at CNN/BBC caliber. Wasted 6 min.
Why not get some Russian geopolitical experts on to give a Russian perspective. In 2014 UK news regularly had pro-Russian guests on. What’s happened.
In 2014 the USA and the UK organized a coup in Ukraine to Instal a Nazi government in Ukraine and the western media and these fat intellectuals are propagating for their governments which are just evil.
Trump/Brexit dérangement syndrome.
Who would want to share a stage with a ruzzian?
@@canadiangemstones7636 certainly none of these guys. When Russians commentators with good English were allowed to appear on UK debates and TV in 2014 they often gave highly nuanced points of view and insights which were largely hidden from Western audiences. They were more than able to handle themselves and often left neoliberals Western media anchors and commentators.
These are vetted British slaves to the official western narrative. Russia bad, West good.
We can’t learn from history. We never have learned anything because we destroy commonsense the moment it appears. But people will always buy books and go to the movies in the hope of learning something to please their appetites for entertainment.. Seminars and scholars will also profit from their thesis that never disappoints illusion….!!
We can and we do learn from history. We learn that england was the violent country in the 19th century, and that the USA is the most violent country sinse 1950 TO THIS DAY.
We have learned so much from history, what are you talking about? Whether it be technology, tactics, logistics etc. In the moral aspect we now have Int. law, numerous pro-humanity laws to limit the destruction of war. It's a very nihilistic view you have, and also just a wrong one
Ukraine's neutrality was doing fine until in 2014, when western politicians turned up in Kiev to encourage the crowd to depose a government they had democratically elected because it had signed a finance package with Russia. The Ukraine should remain outside NATO and the EU, trade freely with the whole world - outside the EU - attract foreign investment and fight its own endemic corruption levels.
Greetings from Russia.
Let me disagree with the theses of your speakers.
6:23
"In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia"
Your historian voices this fact, combining it with the events in Ukraine, thereby, as it were, making a connection between them ("Russia invaded Georgia as well as Ukraine")
In reality, this is absolutely not the case.
In 2008, Russia really invaded Georgia, but Georgia started the war.
It was Georgia, on the orders of Saakashvili, that attacked South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers who were there, which led to Russia's retaliatory actions.
This is a fact that is confirmed by the conclusions of the EU Commission.
She decided that Georgia started the war.
By the way, the Georgian-Ossetian (Russian) war is a vivid example of the fact that Russia does not want to unleash wars, but always harshly responds to attempts to start a war with it.
The principle of sambo is a martial art that Putin loves.
The principle of attack from defense.
If you forgot, after the start of the conflict, the Georgian army fled. However, the Russian army did not continue the war. Russia went to resolve the conflict and in the absence of Johnson, and his craving for bloodshed, Russia and Georgia came to a peace agreement.
The Georgian-Russian war went on for 5 days.
As for Russia's "invasions" into the sovereign territories of Georgia, Ukraine and other things...these incursions were made into the territory of the former autonomous republics of the USSR.
This is the root of interethnic conflicts within the CIS.
South Ossetia and Crimea, in the USSR, were autonomous republics within the Georgian and Ukrainian republics.
According to the constitution of the USSR, any republic could withdraw from its composition by holding a referendum on independence.
But there was an important caveat: autonomous republics must vote separately from the republics of which they are a part.
Almost all the republics of the USSR violated this law and did not allow the autonomous republics to vote separately from the main republics.
It was with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which Ukraine did not allow to vote separately) and it was with the Autonomous Republic of South Ossetia (which was also not allowed to vote separately, but already Georgia)
In fact, Georgia and Ukraine have committed the annexation of the territories of the autonomous republics of Ossetia and Crimea.
It is this moment that is one of the reasons for the conflicts between Georgia-Ossetia-Russia and Ukraine-Russia-Crimea.
And there are many more such autonomous republics.
11:40
"Putin is very dangerous and we need to resist and fight him. The West must unite"
This is what the westerners say...
How about Iraq? Syria? Yugoslavia? Libya?
Hmm .. imagine that they were not. Then all converge - Putin is the most dangerous of all.
By the way: what to do with the fact that Russia was one of the guarantors (together with Germany and Farancia) of the Minsk agreements.
The Minsk agreements are a document between Ukraine and the LNR/DNR (rebellious republics) to resolve the conflict.
They provide for 14 points, and if Ukarina complied with them, the LPR and DPR should have remained part of Ukraine.
The Minsk agreements were signed in 2014 and 2015. In fact, Ukraine had 8 years to solve the problem of the DPR and LPR peacefully.
But who refused to fulfill them?
Was it Putin?
No. It was the President of Ukraine - Zelensky.
And later, from the revelations of Merkel, Holland and Johnson, we learned that the Minsk agreements (which were supposed to bring peace to Ukraine) were a hoax.
So who is the threat?
12:15
"Russia guaranteed Ukraine the integrity of its territory based on the results of the Budapest memorandum"
Yes. Guaranteed.
But in full, the second paragraph of the Budapest Memorandum reads as follows:
"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or in any other way in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
The events in Maidan (Ukraine, in 2014) were perceived by Russia as a coup d'état inspired by the United States.
The open presence of Victoria Nuland on the Maidan served as proof of this. Support for the US anti-constitutional coup and subsequent dialogue between Nuland and Payet on who will lead the government of Ukraine.
Subsequently, Putin spoke in an interview that the US asked him to put pressure on Yanukovych (President of Ukraine in 2014) to order the withdrawal of troops from the Maidan for the sake of a peace agreement with the protesters (which was concluded on February 21)
However, as soon as Yanukovych withdrew the troops, the right-wing radical organization "Right Sector" immediately seized all the buildings of the administrative quarter of Kyiv. Including the presidential administration and the parliament building. On the same day - February 22, Yanukovych was overthrown and an anti-constitutional coup took place in Ukraine.
This event can be qualified as a violation of the Budapest Memorandum of Commitment of the United States "to refrain from the threat of force against the territorial and POLITICAL independence of Ukraine"
The political independence of Ukraine, spelled out in the Budapest Memorandum once after the words about its territorial integrity.
But your speaker speaks only of the threat to territorial integrity.
From the position of Russia, the United States violated the Budapest Memorandum, violating the political independence of Ukraine.
This does not mean that Russia has not violated the Budapest Memorandum. She violated.
But the US did it too. And they did it first, putting Russia before a choice:
Pretend that nothing happened and the United States has nothing to do with it.
Or respond by breaking agreements that no longer make any sense.
Russia responded.
16:57
"we wouldn't have this war if it weren't for the role of individuals (roughly speaking - that's what happens when 1 person rules)"
Yes ... there were no other wars in the 21st century.
Brilliant logic, if we forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia and many other wars and conflicts unleashed by the "democratic" US and EU.
Speaking in fact:
There would be no war in Ukraine if Ukraine complied with the Minsk agreements.
But we already know who refused to fulfill them. And we know that it was the West that violated them, thereby bringing the world to the threshold of nuclear armageddon.
18:00
There is a lot of propaganda straight from Ukraine (like "Russian officers have already chosen their apartments in Ukraine")
However, in the main speech - yes, I agree - Russia largely underestimated Ukraine and the EU. There were mistakes, miscalculations, incorrect intelligence data and much more.
In Russia, such crap all the time. Throughout its history. We are extremely undisciplined and weak... until one turning point...
Europe regularly sees this Russian weakness. Seeing her, Europe decides that "Russia is collos on feet of clay" and starts a war against it. After all, "Russia is weak" ... Europe thinks.
And after a while, Europe turns around and runs to his home, pursued by the Russian army.
As it was with Napoleon. As it was in 1917-1920. As it was with Hitler.
The turning point of Russia is that most Russians unite into a monolith as soon as an enemy appears on the horizon that threatens the existence of Russia.
This is the strength of Russia - in its people and the love of this people for their country and its great history.
That is why it is so difficult for the United States to demand military assistance from Europe for Ukraine.
Because Europe has learned its lesson.
And the US should learn this lesson too.
20:30
"Ukraine would have already been destroyed, but if it were not for our military assistance to it and the help of the United States"
No. Ukraine is being destroyed right now. At this very moment.
And this would not have happened if Johnson had not convinced Ukraine of the need for war. Contrary to the agreement that has almost been reached between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
It's not like it's a secret anymore, is it?
25:50
"Orlando's book says that the Russians invent their own history. They invent it over and over again. This has nothing to do with reality."
Like Jews, huh?
Or stop. With regard to the Jews, such judgments will probably be stigmatized by Nazism. After all, the statement that the entire nation is... hmm... zombified? This is ... a little bit of Nazism.
Fortunately, you are talking about Russians.
About the Russians, you can say that.
Free Europe. Love her.
28:25
"There was no Russia when Kievan Rus was created"
Dear, "Kievan Rus" is a historical term.
He describes the period of the ancient Russian state, when Kyiv was the cost of Rus'.
The term originated in 1837. It was used by M.A. Maksimovich in his work “Where does the Russian land come from”.
Such a state as "Kievan Rus" never existed. Exactly as never existed states: "Ancient Rus'", "Ancient Rome" or "Stalin's USSR".
There was a state - Rus'. Which is in Byzantine, broadcast as Russia.
Rus comes from the name of the tribe of the Varangians (Vikings) - the Rus. Rusov, invited 4 Slavic tribes to reign.
Rusov was led by Rurik. Rurik laid the foundation for the Rurik dynasty - the Russian dynasty.
Rus' was transformed into the Russian kingdom, retaining the Rurik dynasty. The Russian kingdom was transformed into the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire was reborn in the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and BSSR, which formed the USSR. USSR, became the Russian Federation (which is the legal successor of the USSR)
Rus' is directly related to both Russia and Ukraine.
And the Russians are called as such, since such was the first ruler of Rus' - Prince Rurik from the Rus tribe.
You should be ashamed to broadcast such a thing to such a huge audience.
It's one thing when you use arguments devoid of logic (as was the case with dictators who cause wars). And it's a completely different matter when you're just lying.
_________________________
Good. I'm tired of writing and I've run out of time.
Sorry, but your speakers are amateurs.
I do not argue that they are right in some ways. However, the main amount of information that they broadcast is illogical, not constructive, one-sided and superficial.
Margaret, this war is not just between Ukraine and Russia ! If it were , it would have ended a long time ago . This war is between Russia and the Western world supported by US military might ! And that expansion makes it nearly a World War or bordering it .
not really
@@autemniaequinoctius2030 Care to back up your stance ? 2 words don't make a response ! The whole world has recognized this conflict as a ' Proxy war " between US ( Europe hardly counts ) and Russia .
@@narayanprasad4008
yes, the whole third world and even the fourth world, where people adore Putin as a "strong leader", like Stalin. Not a single normal civilized country in the world would agree to believe in such crap
Hello intelligence Squared...please don't throw propaganda like his. Atleast let it be a debate, but some of the stuff these guys are saying is just absolutely ridiculous, and to be even more low, to make fun of a leader that took a country from poverty to creating many billionaires and put his country back on the world map, a country that without it would not have won against the guy you are comparing the leader of to Hitler . Without Russia we would have lost WW2. Show some respect and if you truly need to make fun of a leader, just look at Biden, man gets sticky notes to take with him to dinner parties so he can remember what to say.
The situation is never the same. A worthwhile analysis has to look at the current complexities.
True. The cost of going war with Russia - unless absolutely necessary - would be far greater than anything 1939-1945 was. I don't see how there could be parallels between the stakes then, and the stakes now.
@@irvinmcb The problem is that nowadays there is far more at stake for both parties as there was in the past ..... the list is endless.
The clowns don't see the obvious.
They are not "Intelligence square", they are Intelligence into -100 power.
It was very nice to hear 3 knowledgeable panellists, however it felt a bit like an echo chamber. It would have helped to have one person with a different perspective to enhance and prove those 3 people right, instead of a group of people mirroring each other. I disagreed with Max that ideology is not a factor in this war. Maybe during the cold war the ideologies were defined with clear parameters but contemporary ideologies with their blurred lines are definitely playing their roles in this conflict as well. Again someone from a different perspective would have been able to point that out. Although i prefer a debate, i did enjoy this talk :)
I agree, Maester. This discussion was so one sided it was an echo. No one is charting a path to peace, just arrogant justification for their ridged view. I see a very biased view of history without nuance. What is left out is the promotion of NATO and support of the military-industrial's profits and its impact on Russia. MacMillan's comment on Germany in WW11, implying jealousy of England trade competition was a cause of the war - what a joke. Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States would be an excellent beginning for this group to learn some real history of the West.
❤ to Russia from UK stay safe ✌ Hasta La Victoria Siempre
Your comment resonates with me. Certainly none of the panelists have cognitive empathy taking Russia's perspective, not to mention saying that JFK withdrew putting a base in Turkey to show good faith leading to de-escalation of the Cuban crisis. Is there a parallel with this Ukraine war? America's military industrial complex is working, especially after Afghanistan withdrwal.
@@ele81946 someone said a few weeks back everything happening is a war against the working class, I'd not heard it put that so distinctly before.
@@0150Tricia there is no peace with Russia as it’s a terrorist state
I just don't like intellectual dishonesty....I will always go for Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University....Let truth prevail....and stop seeing yourself as superious ...times have changed...
Historians usually have a poor understanding of the current political context. This panel is no exception. I'm going to say something which is not popular: Ukraine doesn't need Crimea and the occupied parts of the Donbas. This is where most of the Russians in Ukraine live, and Ukraine could live just fine without these. After retaking Kherson city today, not much left from the initial Russian occupation. The only major pro-Ukrainian city left under the Russian occupation is Melitopol. The biggest damage is done to the city of Mariupol, and Ukraine doesn't need to hurry in retaking this city. Even if Russia manages to freeze this conflict in the Donbas and Crimea, it can't freeze the Ukrainian path toward the West, which is already happening. Ukraine would be more stable without pro-Russian Crimea and Donbas. Ukraine has already become a candidate member of the EU, and it could live just like Cyprus which has an even bigger territorial dispute with Turkey. Or like South Korea and happily play a long-term game. Russia can't just unfreeze the conflict at will and start a new campaign, because the next time it will face a technologically superior enemy. The Russian army had been living on the old Soviet stock and the components coming from the West - both of which are gone by now.
Пішов за кораблем. Там наші люди і не тобі вирішувати що нам треба а що не треба. Ні сантиметру священної української землі рашисти не отримають.
Їх треба розгромити і не дати перегрупуватись. І ті регіони не повністю проросійські, є люди які нас чекають.
If your neighbor decides to take your back yard you’ll be ok? Let it take. It is easy to have an opinion that doesn’t touch you directly. Right?
@@katherinemunoz4138 I'm not trying to say what Ukraine should do; I'm just saying Ukraine is fine without Crimea (economically, politically, and militarily). Russia won't be in a position to restart the attack in the future. After all, it's easy to say Ukraine should "take the land back". That will come with a huge price. If the West stands behind Ukraine as long as it takes, the time is on the Ukrainian side. Russia can't play this game in isolation forever. But of course, it's on Ukraine to decide what to do, and my comment doesn't imply in any way what Ukraine should do.
Prof Macmillan' emotional and personal commentary devoid of the Russian context trivializes her intellect.
The cold war has poisoned her intellect
Did you have a similar session on Iraq 🇮🇶, Afghanistan 🇦🇫 and other countries where similar butchery that the west created?
The Rest of the world has changed its course of direction leaving the West behind.
Continue Sitting and chatting all day or night with your lack lustre stuff, with none from the East lending their ears to you.
The new formula for the East is:
“The Grace of the East will rise and rule while the beasts of the West butchers the world.“
They’re not having one on Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment but I hear they’re organising one to discuss that brilliant NATO triumph in Libya. The West bludgeoned a country with the highest per capita income in Africa to one where there’s open slave markets. All because Gaddaffi wanted to accept currencies other than the petro-dollar. The arrogance of these three panelists beggars belief.
These people are propagandists. They are “ Political Scientists”.
@@dipakbose2677 The befitting name for these kind of people is “Political Satans” not ‘Political Scientists’.
You do realize that these other conflicts have very different political backgrounds?
bad team to discuss the topic.
team should look into both side of story...
Only see "bad" Putin, but no one see "bad" NATO expansion & threaten Russia
This is not a debate as all are against Russia and Putin.
Did you expect an illegal occupation of a Sovereign Country to be considered as acceptable ?.Do you understand the gravity of human suffering Russia have caused ?. Have you thought about the millions of civilians who are now left without their homes/jobs/villages.? Do you have a job and home?.I'll bet you do.
Man, Peter can make his guitar talk and discuss geopolitics and war. Truly a renaissance man!
renaissance was afforded with gunpowder.
I can't take him seriously as he is a historian with a fake name to claim Croatian nobility status. Although his family has nothing to with the Frankopan and they have changed their last name from a normal Croatian last name from Dujmić-Vukasinović to de Lupis, and then to Frankopan just to try and claim medival castles after the fall of communism. The last Frankopans were executed by the Austrians in 1617. Imagine now being a historian and carry a fake historic name. LOL
@@gregoryjames4474 And born on the back of the Islamic Golden Age.
The non violent answer could lie in collectively raising awareness in regard to any illegal tactics commonly used, including by Chinese or Russians, in all other jurisdictions. Educate all leaders and populations on ethics in these countries. Welcome Ukraine war survivors and Russian refugees who declare to resist the war, as refugee migrants by giving them dual citizenship, provided they assist to end the war. These three strategies could help drive to peace.
Again, as a lot of the western part of Europe media and intellectuals discuss central and eastern European issues they do forget to takeoff their perspective and their hats the bean shaped by the Russian empire for about 2 1/2 centuries.
The Muscovite and Russian issue is a much deeper problem to solve or completely isolate from the part of the euro Asia. More context would’ve been nice to see in the panel
Poles understand us perfectly. Moscovia must be defeated, demilitarised including nuclear weapons, divided into free national states.
Westerners completely underestimate danger of mongolian Rus' which successor is Moscow.
They'll don't stop, they must be stopped.
Absolutely agree.
Exactly this
It would be good if someone here wasn't a biased believer in yet another crumbling western narrative.
I cannot agree more.
Where is the intelligent discussion?
pro tip for IQ²...if you're going to feature your store offerings on the screen between the video info space and the comments space, include any books touted by one of your speakers (e.g. Orlando Figes' The Story of Russia)
Thanks - good suggestion. We will be releasing a new video with Orlando Figes on the channel soon too.
this panel discussion is 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
My thought is this conflict is very more deeper that you are guys discussing on this platform.
You are so right elenaalgazina5213 .... the conflict is pretty unfathomable and even if it is sorted out one day ? You can't take individual thoughts and the very essence of what makes a person think or believe out of the equation. It's a sad time we are living in and will end in disappointment and ruin. I believe we should take responsibility for our own brains and decisions but how do you get the horse to drink after you've taken him to the water ?
@@maryearll3359 Thank you,Mary Early for the comment. The religious question was not touched yet. It will make the conflict deeper.All the best.
That question about the humans element in major conflicts and having the right people in charge (e.g. JFK)and and not having the wrong people in charge (e.g. Max Taylor and Curtis Lemay too) and the responses was gold
Gold . Exactly .
So true.
"First time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the (use of) a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going." Joe Biden
"Above all, while defending our own vital interests, *nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.* To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death-wish for the world." John F Kennedy
If not, history will simply repeat, and the entire Cold War "sh*tshow with death and destruction with return.
"Sleepy Joe" is a bit late with his realisation.
You can definitely put McArthur in the same bunch as Taylor and Lemay
US nukes in Turkey, unknown to Russia were to be pulled out of Turkey, the fact that nukes were within easy range of Russia is interesting.
Mind you, one can hate a leader, but to hate the country,, is to hate it's people.
Curious is the NATOs evolving and expanding, through out the world, a once defensive force that of recent as become offensive.
Totally Democrats speaking
This discussion is like a drama. The fight in Ukraine is like a world war 3 already because of nations are involved on both sides. What they are talking about?
Good point. America's using Ukraine like they use their grunts- let them put their body on the line while they sip 🍸
If NATO would be involved then it would have been long over.
Lesson number one, keep your nose out of other people's business!
Good advice for the meddling dictator Putler, but he doesn’t listen to advice.
@@canadiangemstones7636 Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine? Who?
Why don't you bring in someone with a different view of the conflict ?
Ironically the “comic” who leads Ukraine is an incredibly strong leader who is the right person for the times. Max Hastings please think about that.
Regarding the "Putin's made up history" remark, this is exactly what the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American Empire also does as well. I am sure they are not taught how their forefathers "civilized" other cultures. If they are, there is always a larger noble perspective to that or it is not taught in details. I am sure the Chinese have their own version as well. It is the same for every culture. Nothing odd here.
Well in that you are most incorrect. Most of the most dissenting views on European colonialism are in fact written and communicated by British and European historians/ academics. The UK in particular has gone a long way to try and redress the issues of its past (Windrush, voting rights, restitution etc) but there is still work to be done. However, no one is shying away from the UK's imperial past in all its gory glory. Its taught in schools here and its taught in schools around the world (particularly in the commonwealth).
But yknow, your idea of saying "well okay, everyone does it" is a nice bedside method of leveling the playing field. It is however entirely incorrect and preposterous.
@@dynamo1796 Pretty sure everything Putin says will be confirmed by Russian historians as well. Now, you might say that is because fear. My point is no government wants alternative viewpoints. Look at what they're doing to Julian Assange who provided evidence and explained an alternative view to the NATO wars. The West is a bubble. Russia is a bubble. China is a bubble. The viewpoints and narratives are different between each of them and the people mostly live in echo chambers. You're true and noble in your bubble. They're true & noble in theirs.
@@rpnrko3612 While its very hard to get a true and objective history of anything, there are sources and research that come a lot closer than others -this applies to both Russia and Europe. Alternative view points is an interesting remark. Commonly governments pick a popular and defensible narrative and stick to that. However in western cultures this has had to change on the grounds of new information, inquiries or otherwise.
In Russia or China however no such thing happens. There are no inquiries, there are independent research bodies and there are no non-state affiliated media or historians. You cannot compare what happens in totalitarian places like Russia and China to what happens in the West - they are orders of magnitude further apart on the scale of democracy.
@@dynamo1796 not quite. UK and US are trying to "correct" the past with political correctness getting into idealism and not real politik many times, but in the anglosphere the spanish importance in civilization it still totally undermined or denied because Spain was the great power to defeat. Even after more than 150 years of the spanish empire collapse they continue to tell lies and diminish or exagerate things. This is only with one sphere: the hispanics. imagine ALL the rest. Now, I am married with an ucranian, so dont think i am pro-russian in any way. But yes, making up history is as old as the sun, and keeps repeating it self everywhere. (France and Italy for example denied the roman empire existed after the western part of it collapsed and they "invented" the bizantine empire. there was never a bizantine empire. It was Rome. until the end. Even the Turks called themselves "Rum" in the modern age. Everything is made up.
@@dynamo1796 Well every British percent I met considers Churchill a hero. I will say no more.
Yes, a comment has been made that Germany, France and Italy haven't given over much weaponry but this was put down to merely that they still want Russian gas-very simplistic . The fact therefore is proven that the US coerced them into the war for its own objectives. Of course, the US is never to blame it seems.
Dushen, US didn't wage war . it's Russia
@@77kromah Spot on! This is Putin's War....
God Help The UKRAINIAN People With The Thinking Of These 3 Wally'z 🙊🙉🙈
British humor is great! ty
I predict the war in Ukraine will not turn into a frozen conflict just because Russia has frozen conflicts in other areas. Those other frozen conflict areas are small and sustainable. A frozen conflict which eats up manpower and is an ongoing wrecking ball to your economy is unsustainable.
Precisely. Why is everyone ignoring the economic abyss Russia is sliding into, an irreversible calamity?
@@richardcory5024 I don't see that anyone in the Western World is ignoring this abyss. The problem for Russia is that Putin appears to be ignoring it.
I won't predict. But this could well turn into a frozen conflict. Agreed that the economic and manpower problems make it unsustainable for Russia. But I don't think Putin himself recognizes those facts. As far as frozen conflicts go, having one with Ukraine would by far be the most important to Russia.
@@michaelbee2165 I agree Putin is ignoring it, but most commentators in the West don't don't take it enough into account, that the war against Russia is being waged and will be won on the economic front and the actual fighting is supplementary to that rather than the other way round. World War 3 is being fought by financial legislation. The US as good as rules the world economy.
@DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Where is Uraine? I think you must be the idiot here, and illiterate as well! I suspect you are one of the few Russian trolls who has managed to evade conscription. Face it, you are a coward who is afraid to defend Mother Russia. You should face the same fate that awaits all Traitors to the Motherland!!
When Putin refers to the "Anglo-Saxons," I always laugh. But watching this total waste of time I see he has reason to sleep with one eye open. There is a deep hatred and fear of Russia in the Brits, and vice versa! Jeez, they weren't kidding when they made most Hollywood baddies Russian. These people's thinking has reigned supreme for 30 years and what did it bring us? War, utterly avoidable war.
In the last 22 years, I have watched countless Putin speeches where he all but begs the West to consider Russia's security interests when making European security decisions. At the Munich Security Council of 2007, the man literally said, "We have a right to ask, against whom is this NATO expansion?" Instead of recognizing the danger of a total breakdown in trust between the West and Russia, Merkel and Sarkozy were bullied into silence as NATO opened the door to Georgia and Ukraine. That was the final straw, Russia has gone to war to thwart US/UK goals three times since: Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. If they foresaw the dishonest conduct of the UN sanctioned No Fly zone that instead resulted in bombing Gadaffi's ground troops and tanks by the US and France, I'd bet they'd have fought in Libya too.
I saw those speeches, heard his arguments, and it will take a monumental effort to persuade me that Putin acted in bad faith. In fact, if I were Russian I would fault him for not going further in 2014 or launching the current effort in May 2021 as he originally planned. Instead, he looked on while the West armed Ukraine to the teeth and trained their troops across the border while promising to make Kyiv implement the Minsk agreements. Even now, he hesistates to devastate Ukraine and had to be humiliated (the attack on the Crimean bridge) into the recent air campaign on Ukraine's power and rail infrastructure. Only when the hardliners, news sites, and bloggers began openly criticizing his military did he jump into high gear.
The only person with some brain cells.
I mostly agree, but would not whitewash and idealize Putin. It is quite possible that the attack on the Crimean bridge was initiated by him, in order to later justify the strikes on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. However, he acts quite logically according to the laws of war, although the war has not yet been announced. Just a special military operation for now, you know.
I think the bit about being led by comics ,is a perfect own goals.
I'm sorry, I thought I was going to watch serious discussion. I guess the clue was in the video information, "bestselling historians". Name me one serious academic history text that is a bestseller. The fact that they start and can't decide when the seeds of this was occurred is baffling given the title of the video is "what can we learn from history?" We invited to consider 2014 "when Russia's invaded Ukraine, 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia or to the end of the Cold War"that's how the Russians want to frame this". Nonsense. If that's what this 'historian' understood on this last point, then no wonder he has no clue, or rather so easily cherry picks events, all of which, just co-incidentally, support his, and the others, anti-Russian narrative. Historians, surely are tasked with explaining events and how they are connected, not make political points and to apportion blame. We're then told we could go back to 1917 and the Cherry picking of events to fit a particular narrative. revolution and how Russia adopted a deep suspicion of its neighbour." How can we take these people seriously. Why stop at 1917? Let's go back to Vikings, or to the birth of Christ. The Big Bang, or the breath of God that gave life to mankind.
How about 2008 when George Bush declared NATO would welcome Georgia and Ukraine. Or the civil war in Ukraine between Ukrainian forces (including Above Battalion) and Ukrainians who were ethnic Russians. The failure of Ukraine's government to uphold its commitments negotiated in Minsk to end that civil war, not once but twice, and ignoring a UN Security Resolution effectively a re-iteration of the Minsk agreements. There are lots of (conveniently) ignored historical events. What do they have in common? The do not fit into the narrative that simplistically points a wagging finger at Russia.
The gathering of all the events and circumstances with 20/20 hindsight and weaving them into a narrative of a scheming Putin that is opportunistic and focused on evil intent. If Putin had seen all these things he's said to have seen and taken advantage of then he is a genius and fuurologist the like of which the world has never seen. For so-called historians to be engaged in this cherry picking of events to fit a narrative shames the discipline.
"A lot of people don't want all out war." Nobody, who truly understands what all out war would mean wants war. The insanity of those who "want all out war" should be denounced, not accommodated. How dangerous is a situation where we excuse our aggression and warmongering by sophistic differentiation between "taking measures that are warlike and actual fighting." Add to that the fact that there are voices calling for all out war that are half-heartedly dismissed, not even criticised.
A one liner of Taiwan. Anyone who voices an opinion on Taiwan and doesn't know the simple fact that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits agree that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of it needs to hold his counsel and understand the basics before (more) finger pointing political points making.
Intelligence Squared? Definitely, if you mean intelligence boxed in.
That's right. It's incredible to see this put out in any spirit of objectivity.
"The terrible thing, that all dictators should be warned about this, the longer you stay there, the more isolated you get, and you only hear from people that are flattering you, telling them what they want to hear..."
That is exactly what people in the Western world are telling each other about politicians personalities. People in the Western world do not vote for their leaders logically, rationally in the best interest of their country future. No, people vote mostly on the basis what their social and peer groups vote for. Most often it is based on personality biases. They wag their tongue all day and every day talking on the phone and talking at work and talking in the pub, about their pet pees. Karl Marx Socialism has also got a foot hold in the Western peoples minds.
U government is evil group..they go to war almost a very year,,Libya war, Afganistan war,Irak war for the sake of humanity they say..
And when we tire of our leaders we change them. Quite frequently if necesary. Can you change yours?
The differance is that Western political systems allow for the replacement of leaders who may not be doing a satisfactory job. If Russians look at their leaders "special military operation" and realise the long term consequences of it ...what can Russians do about this dreadful leadership?...their political system does not allow for replacement of a bad leader.That is the moral of this entire debacle.
Can you change yours ?
CAN YOU CHANGE YOURS ???
Peter is the most nuanced and strategic from the panelists.
Bugger Ukraine none of our business Russia is the better one to know the reason for it keep our nose out
It gets boring when all the guests think the same thing.
Boring is a good thing idealistically, like having stability, & sanity in life, a boring blessing to say the least. Peace could be a very boring proposition of the way to live for some, But a good peaceful life that's null & void of drama, conflict & confusion compounded & driven by endless emotional debates & arguments concerning personal, philosophical, social , religious & political differences, can be quite boring and a peacefully predictable way to live & think about the same things.without the drama..etc etc.
Russia does not pay any attention to agreements, treaties, or negotiations.
"We have hopefully a wonderful audience" (??). Rule number one for a moderator, never insult your audience at the beginning of a talk.
Stop escalating this War. Shame to all of you.
Just one question regarding proxy war. If I metaphorically supplied a weapon to a friend to kill Max Hastings, am I guilty of a crime ?
Metaphorically? - ill-conceived analogy
Depends on what you knew at the time, but as it stands, of course.
These are ideologues not historians
They may as well call this unintelligence squared, 3 guests and the host on one side and Mr nobody on the other ?
I'm American. I fully support DPR, and LPR separatists. It comes down to Self Determination vs Territorial Integrity. I side with Self Determination. Globally. When its not in American interest and when it is in American interest. It's a consistent stance that's not hypocritical.
I want the same standard for Donbas and Crimea as Kashmir, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Chechnya, Catalonia, and many other disputed territories. If were picking and choosing based on what's in our countries interest. It's imperialism. If we the western world are going to promote the concept of Democracy we should probably support the practice of it by having UN and OSCE observers to oversee credible referendums in every disputed territory.
Such a bright minds, brave people. Having the same brilliant opinion.
Fighting the evil. Protecting the good.
This is so important to manage dialog only with people sharing the same opinion.
Sharing dialogue with people sharing the same opinion is the fastest way to learn nothing at all and to also ensure that your mistakes get bigger and more profound.
Ah freedom. Wonderful wonderful biased freedom.
They are corrupt fools.
'Same opinion ' dialogue is called ....a monologue.
@@Englishman999 Exactly. When only we talk and agree, we learn nothing
Discussion about to blame putin only...not a reality we are facing righ now...lot of crap
It's different times if one doesn't adapt to new situation we all will suffer miserably.
Please keep these 3 on your side of the pond.
I am not a fan of putin.. But this discussion seems too simplistic.. No counter argument.. Narrow.. Boaring
The Brits love to throw bull poop at the Russian spooks inside the Kremlin to make them think they are actually important. The same Churchill that said Germany wuld eventually rebuild burned Dresden to the ground. War is simple. Since WW2 the west wins all of them and freedom and democracy always advance. What we are not witnessing is what should have happened after the end of the cold war in 1991. We will now do what we did in Japan and Germany after WW2 in Russia. The emperor (or Tzar Putin Khuylo) is not only naked he also does not have viable nukes. The half life of tritium is 12.5 years and in nukes it has to be replaced every 5 years to tigger a chain reaction that goes boom. So there is poor little Pootie Putin in his bunker never bodering to learn a little chemistry and relying on billionaires mre interested in spending time partying like a Russian instead of replacing the key ingredients in their nuclear arsenal. Read and watch what happened to the Kursk or Chernobyl and also the giant explosion of their Siberian Pipe line in the 1980s. They evil and stupid and all these years since 9/11 NATO has made sur that Russia woud one day cease to be a threat to humanity. So enjoy the simplicity. WE WIN Putin dies and we all live happily ever after and we will be spare having to watch an ugly naked Putin getting skinned alive by his own security forces in Lenin's Tomb.
Totally agree! An echo chamber for the self proclaimed west intelligentsia
I agree with you. However, when you make a critical comment on RUclips, always check your spelling.
@@markbranch2447 Did I misspell Putin Khulyo? If so he still is one just the same.
you are either a fan or ignorant. Never bothered to listen to any speech of that thing in the Kremlin? Go back to your troll farm.
Four pro Westerners in an echo chamber,.
ok, it just went from vapid to downright stupid.
The title of this video shouod be: "How we hate Russia, but love the Ukrainian War."
With the multiplication of words comes the greater and dangerous folly, "One could argue."
The surest way to start wars is to have lots of meaningful discussions.
Self-righteous clowns call themselves civilized despite all the facts which prove otherwise.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah,
11:06 "The West was not ready to fight, prior to 1939 to fight the 3rd Reich" , was a pretty loaded statement, considering the massive support Hitler had among the western elites.
Anglo Saxons again tieing themselves with war horse. Have they found WMD in Iraq?
not to worry, there are few in the west who have any memory. All attention is on the latest fashionable cause of the moment.
that western nations have almost continuously been invading other countries is known by few.
Yup, that is why they are suffering because of the same stupid mistakes that they had gone through in the past like WW1 & WW2. This is another propaganda talk. The west deserved to be screwed and the pain that they are experiencing now is not painful enough to wake up.
Good job Russian comrade-bot! You ll have more vodka per post
It’s incredible that so many informed people can be legitimately surprised and unable to comprehend anti-Americanism. In fact, that fallacy is not having a politics of grievance, but associating ones grievances with national identity, rather than the underlying structures and systems. Liberal democratic capitalism, while successful at some things, is blind to internal contradictions that plant the seeds of its own antagonism.
Scott Ritter? Jefrey Sachs? John Mearsheimer?.......
Bunch of useful Putin idiots
Balance is important and it's fair to say...
Sachs is very smart and knows a lot about many things, but he knows next to nothing about international security, nuclear deterrence, or Russian and Ukrainian history. He is simply unqualified, and anyone with a little formal education in the area sees it immediately. Unfortunately, his pretentiousness is unwittingly supporting Russian propaganda by inaccurately attributing the war to Western provocation and badly misunderstanding escalation risk in a way that's favourable to the Kremlin.
Mearsheimer is also very smart, but a bit different in that he does know a lot about IR, security, and nuclear deterrence. He still makes the very obvious error of attributing the causes of the war to Western provocation and NATO expansion, however. So what's going on here? It can only be three options (I think): 1) he's stupid and cannot weigh very simple evidence (unlikely since we know he's not stupid and he's produced good work in the past); 2) He's so egoistically invested in proving Structural Realism (his theoretical baby) paints an consistently accurate picture of IR that he simply blinds himself to the overwhelming amounts of evidence that contradicts his theory in the Russo-Ukraine context; 3) he is knowingly promoting Kremlin propaganda. I'd put my money on it being number 2.
I cannot really comment on Ritter as I'm less familiar with him - I'd just caution against assuming every former serviceman remains loyal to his nation and isn't susceptible to bias, bad education, or bribery.
Scott Ritter is a convicted paedophile.
@@azhivago2296
Correct on Sachs. However, one can reject the Mearsheimer blame-NATO excuse but at the same time conclude it is not a war for the West to join. Consider Eisenhower in Budapest 1956 and LBJ in Prague 1968.
@@azhivago2296 total nonsense. sachs knows more than these three stooges together.
Should Russia lose its veto in united Nation,
Very one sided. Not a single member from the Russian side. This is known as a true well balanced debate in the West.
Very true
I always listen to the whole thing...why wouldn't I listen to the whole thing? 🙂 merry Christmas friend ❤️
did everyone get together in the green room and pat each other on the back. boring discussion and praise of the US seems like the denial of history. such a smug discussion....no lessons here.
Thank you audience for not disrupting the discussion with applause every 30 seconds
I love the way it works. The rest of the population perish in the wars while Anglophones do the talking, writing and making money over it. Good business indeed.
Where is the space for freedom and not being kill on the street, in Your mind?
Good business is to buy bloody oil from dictatorships like Russia but still call your country 'biggest democracy'
You can’t finish the job without having the tools needs to be taken seriously by leaders of the free world. We can’t leave Ukraine without the tools, being heroic is not enough
BS
This is more like Ignorance2 or Obfuscation2. They cite the 2014 invasion but not the 2014 coup, and the 2008 invasion but not the 2008 Nato expansion.
Absolutely correct. Agree.
I enjoy hearing Max Hastings as much as I enjoy reading him.
Dodgy History
It’s what he leaves out that’s important which is he’s bias
Margaret MacMillan makes a very good point about 'realists' who sees states interests and they can be measures etc 16.30 > . People like Mearsheimer have a huge following for those who like a clear narrative and someone to blame. There has been tremendous social change in eastern Europe and in particular Ukraine. They can travel freely and they have the internet giving them a window on the world few had even 40 years ago. Ukraine is moving to a European future but Yanukovych tried to keep the country linked to Russia. The people of Belarus voted for pro Europe parties but Lukashenko crushed the result by force-with Putin's full approval.
He refused to go along with brain dead austerity measures that would have disadvantaged the least well off and was overthrown in a fascist backed coup
Yeah, imagine if America relied on energy from Russia, do you think we would be so cavalier in our our support of Ukraine? Do you think we ever would have pushed for NATO expansion if it threatened our ability to have warm homes in the winter? Enjoy the cold Europeans, and thank Uncle Sam when you’re shivering.
Why do you think we're going to be shivering? Yes, energy prices have risen. But they've risen across the world. And here in Europe we can afford to pay the increased price and support the poorest amongst us who might struggle. Your energy costs more than it did before February 24th too. We can all join together and thank Putin for that. But it seems you're happpy to cut off your nose to spite your face because you'd like to see us suffer. We won't.
Imagine being so morally bankrupt that you sign off on tens of thousands of people dying just to be able to heat your home a couple euro less.
Sounds like Russian propaganda got to you, how many people froze to death in the EU this year? 5?
What this amounts to is no self reflection of how our own actions have fed this war, ad hominem attacks and pure Russophobia
Counter to intelligence.
This discussion reminds me of a movie made in 2016 "World War Three: Inside the War Room". And we are not at the end of it yet. Scary.
It's nearly at the end for Russia.
would be nice to have some Ukrainians on the panel to talk about … Ukraine, the subject of this talk. 🤷🏼♀️
And some Russians just to make it fair
Not necessarily. You don't necessarily invite an obese person to talk about the health problems of overweight, you invite an expert in the field, who may be stick thin. Unless a personal perspective or insider perspective is relevant and/or desirable, there is no need to invite someone who has a personal connection to the subject discussed. In a free society, anyone can talk about anything.
@@wh5254 OK, so bring Poles or Lithuanians, they exactly know what monster russia was and is.
It's a genocide and to stop genocide you can only by defeating agressor.
Problem is that Germany was occupied and hadn't nuclear weapons. russia is hard to occupy and they have weapons.
Society is fascist, some adequates are in brutal pressure of police.
Only victory of Ukraine can save the world.
Maybe it's better to hear from ethnic Russians who live in eastern Ukraine.
@@wh5254 Nothing about someone should be discussed without them
Totally nonsensical debate is no longer an intelligent discussion.
Would have been nice to include Stephen Kotkin in this panel.
Is it a central strategic american intetest to keep Russia and the EU /Germany strictly apart? Could such a strategic interest be the motor on the road to war? Would a peaceful economic cooperation of EU and Russia be a threat to the USA? Would a EU - Russian partnership have been possible, imaginable given the politically different structures beetwen the 2 neighbours?
Way you so stupid
This panel lacked anybody to give us the Russian perspective and so grossly trivialised the causes of the conflict. Putin is twice smarter and more informed than this whole panel put together.
1:15:45 There's no ideology at stake? That claim seems so extremely debatable to me... What about democracy?
According to Putin, Russia is democratic but not as decadent as the West. And decadence is not an ideology.
@@ehoworka According to Putin. Let's ask those 700k Russians that fled mobilization what they think about it.
Ukraine has supended opposition parties and shut down all media bar 1 state controlled media. Ukraine has the highest oligarchial per capita contingency. Zelensky was named in the Pandora papers for his millions in off shore tax havens. Democracy is more than a word.
@@msbramble176 They're being invaded you damn fool, of course it's not democracy going on as usual, doesn't mean Ukrainians aren't fully commited to it in peacetime. They are fully aware of their corruption problem, but contrary to Russia actually try to get rid of it, hence why Zelensky for which it was a major electoral promise got elected with such a huge majority. He might not be 100% clean, but he did start implementing measures against corruption, some of which were blocked by other corrupt officials, and from the point they're starting from this issue obviously won't be magically solved in an instant by merely snapping their fingers.
Meanwhile Russia didn't wait for a single boot on its soil to do the same with medias, and to even throw peace protestors into jail. Oh, and he didn't even need a war to assassinate its political opponents.
Russians are so full of apathy toward politics it's as if they don't care about democracy. You cannot say the same about Ukraine.
@@msbramble176 Also you're really naive if you don't realize just how many of this corruption literally emanates from Russia. Not all of it but definitely a lot of it. It's one of the biggest reason they wanted to take distance from Russia prior to the Maidan revolution.
This Peter is not worth listening to, as he is not quite objective. Margret is a little bit less subjective, but I think all of them are against Russia and they won't see what NATO is doing. So I quit looking at this circus.
I used to think history repeats itself, now I don't. I think times change, situations change, people's perceptions change, circumstances change ...... I love history, it's a valuable tool for understanding the world and where you came from. I think all this posturing ( this is one of the better posturings by the way, in my opinion; I actually understand what is being talked about. ) is for academia and the history books of the future. . I have this very naive view point that countries should be each to his own in peace. Invasion ? Why would you want to be where you're not wanted ?
History always repeats itself.
I think there is an implicit assumption in your line of reasoning, which is that every modern day country is made up of homogienous people (at least dominantly, mostly). But they are not. Take Ukraine, if 2/3 wants to live with EU, 1/3 wants to live Russia, should the 1/3 be IGNORED? (the debate about minority rights among academics), and what if the 2/3 tries to FORCE the 1/3? I think there is no black/white answer, its best for all sides to be considerate. The challenge is when one party acts belligerently, it causes a chain reaction and EVERYONE becomes belligerent.
@@Ajox191 not exactly but it often does rhyme.
You'd want to be where you're not wanted to gain money
History repeats itself yesterday, today and tomorrow. This’s the fact and that your opinion.