Was Russia Justified to Invade Ukraine?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- A critical look at Vladimir Putin's apparent justification for the war in Ukraine.
If you want to support the channel, here are the best ways to do it:
1) Watch the full video
2) Subscribe if you haven't
3) Share with a friend
4) Support me with a small donation on Patreon: / rchapman
0:00 Intro
1:01 History
4:13 Civil War
8:01 NATO
Sources:
Putin's 02/21 Speech - • Russian President Vlad...
blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...
www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-file...
'The Threat of Force as an Action in Self-Defense Under International Law' - uwe-repository.worktribe.com/...
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm not sure, but my read on Ukrainian discreteness is that Russia is referring to Kievan Rus as their shared heritage, but that, despite their name, Russia doesn't inherit the culture of all rus-ic peoples, but inherits the particular culture of the principality of Muscovy, which is different from western rus-ics
Great point! The Russia becomes "Russia" in the 18th century by renaming on the will of Emperor. Actually the thin ties from modern Russia to the medieval Kievan Rus' goes to... the northeast province feodal that in 13th century gathered an army to going with war to the southwest (main) part, destroyed the country, destroyed the capital city Kyiv, theft the goods and massacre a lot of population.
So the enemy destroying the Kyivan Rus' at first by himself, than fully canceled it as subordinate ally with Tataro-Mongolian khanate, claiming themselves as "proudly origin of Rus'".
Don't be misleading : Russia is not the same as Kievan Rus'. They pretending to be look like and you thought that, but in reality they country origins was a threat to the Rus' from the early beginning.
That is not the truth since through history, the sovereigns of Muscovy were the sovereigns of all Rus.
@@Nista357 British dynasty are German lmao
@@vladyslavkarpenko9372 Only problem is that it is a lie 😁
@@vladyslavkarpenko9372The name of the Kievan Rus at the time of its existence was literally "Rusia"
Only recently have I discovered your channel. Thank you for your videos. You focus on evaluating sound logical arguments. Your channel is definitely worthwhile subscribing to.
you had me at your disclaimer. It's just my 2nd video of your to watch. Direct and clear. lovin' it
"They are our brothers, same family." So lets make war on them!! Seems a strange reckoning.
Even if the third point holds some truth, Ukraine wasn't and still isn't a NATO member, nor were there NATO missile systems within Ukraine. Invading on a 'may happen' basis is hardly justifiable.
Ukraine has had NATO military training and exercises for years and Ukraine had just announced intent to join again. Obviously, Putin would invade before the alliance was official, because once it was he couldn't, and the point of the invasion would be to prevent it. No, I don't support thei nvasion. Yes, I'm sure there's a name for the logical fallacy in the point you raise.d but I don't know it offhand.
@@roushanam First, countries are free to have their troops trained in other countries as long as this is based on mutual agreement i.e. not coercion. Ukraine seeking NATO to train her troops isn't the same as being in or siding with NATO. Second, it takes two to tango i.e. Ukraine wanting to join NATO isn't the same as having joined or been approved to join NATO who in fact doesn't seem overly keen to accept Ukraine, or at least not imminently. Third, unless a crime has been commited, the police cannot arrest a suspect simply for his or her potential ability to commit the crime. Even if one accepts Putin's (are you sure he represents the Russian majority's opinion?) reason for war - which is nonsense - unless Ukraine attacks Russia's mainland first, there is no justification for the invasion. Fourth, it was Russia who invaded and moved against Ukraine's borders years ago, not justifiable even if those regions were pro-Russian or of Russian ethnicity. Fifth, Putin and his Russian supporters should look at themselves in a mirror and ask: why did / do practically all of your former Warsaw Pact partners e.g. Poland and former USSR (Soviet) regions e.g. Ukraine tend to lean toward West Europe (EU, NATO) rather than eastward to you? And despite having to risk pissing you off? Or is it because they really know you? Sixth, who in their sane mind would want to threaten, invade, occupy, and garrison Russia which has tons of nuclear arsenal, let alone NATO is a defensive pact and had been disarming until this war occurred? Putin is equating his own fear to Russia's fate and future, illogical yet tyrants always have their own form of logic i.e. nuts.
@@brndxtWell. let's start with sentence number one. 'Free to have their troops trained in other countries'. seriously? NATO exercises have been happening yearly in Ukraine. I edited out 'in Ukraine' because I assumed it would be redundant.You didn't make a typo?
@@roushanam I am referring to countries in general. Not just Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine can train with NATO or any one of the countries of NATO. Not a reason for Russian invasion. Likewise, if Ukraine decides to train with Russia, NATO or any of its member countries has no ground to invade either. And such training exercises can take place in either country's territory, or both's, or in open seas for that matter.
So you're not going to say whether you made a typo or were just ignorant. And if someone says 80 bajillion times the invasion wasn't justified, you''re still going to parrot "The invasion wasn't justified" because they questioned your 'logic'under a video trying to understand and evaluate Putin's motives objectively. Your 'logic being': PUTIN INVADED UKRAINE TO STOP IT FROM JOINING NATO AND IT HADN"T EVEN JOINED NATO YET! You just may be one of the people who are dangerous because so many whose education so surpasses their awareness.
My maternal grandparents were Ukrainians who immigrated to the United States some time prior to World War I. Prior to the War, Ukrainians living in Europe did not have a state of their own; rather, they resided mostly in Austria-Hungary or in Russia. In getting to know my grandparents from early childhood forward, I was acutely aware that they regarded themselves as ethnically Ukrainian, with a distinct language, culture and sense of national "self" that was distinct from, albeit related to, that of Russia. If from the standpoint of childhood ignorance you asked them if they were Russian they would rebuke you, emphasizing that they were Ukrainian. My experience with my grandparents and with the community of Ukrainian immigrants and second- and third-generation Americans of Ukrainian ancestry in my hometown, all sharing that sense of Ukrainian nationhood (not statehood, mind you, but of being a unique nation or people) leads me to reject Putin's first argument.
Could it be that your absence from life of Ukraine as a nation generates compensatory balancing which attempts to strengthen your ties to ti given that US encourages such hereditary consciousness in its citizenry?
Thank you for your explanation 👍
Glory to Ukraine 😍 💕
To a large degree, Putin is throwing things at the wall to see if anything sticks. It is the third argument, that Russia is threatened, that I agree with, but that I am surprised that Putin made. (I would expect him to perceive that as making him look weak.) All rhetoric aside, the primary purpose of NATO is to eliminate Russia as what is left of the Soviet Union. It is not my place here to say whether that is a good or a bad thing. But it is obvious that survival instinct would dictate that Putin oppose it. And NATO encroaching on Russia's doorstep is the Cuban missile crisis in reverse.
I would suggest that most people who say the invasion was unjustified simply believe Russia has no right to exist, but would shy away from saying it so bluntly.
The Ukraine literally means the Borderland. Whose borderland was it? Kiev was the Russian capital and moved to Moscow when the Ottomans threatened invasion. Other slavic and germanic people immigrated later. As Putin said - they are related by history and blood
Why do you have a Hungarian name then?
Putin seems to talk about Ukraine the same way Hitler spoke about Austria...
Exactly!
Just checked out your video titles and I’m blown away. You got me hooked upon your way of thinking!
I cannot thank you enough. When someone asked "Where can I get unbiased news on this?", I thought of you.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if people listened to this type of news instead of Fox and CNN?
@@ElectronFieldPulse yes, but no. Let those shitty channels remain shitty and get outcompeted.
@ElectronFieldPulse just watched it and it's no different to CNN's view.
This video is too heavy on intellectualism to appeal to most people. Being smart and observant is "woke" now.
It’s always such a treat watching your content Ryan. Thank you for having the courage to tackle this subject. We HAVE to do a Podcast together!!
Good on you Ryan, really finding these videos of yours to be very helpful, good on you mate, take it easy.
Good video, the only thing that really bothers me is what the conclusion is based on in the end: "It seems like the opportunity for diplomacy was there and it seems that Russia didn't take it". It is impossible to know if this was the case, because the public is simply not in the loop. We have no idea what negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, so there is no evidence for your assumption that Russia was not willing to solve the issue with diplomacy in the end.
I am sure Russia was willing to settle the 'issues' diplomatically, but only by the Ukraine and NATO diplomatically granting all of his demands. Further, it is well recognized in contract law that you cannot make a valid contract by holding your gun to somebodies head. Similarly, in international affairs, negotiating while holding the threat of immediate invasion if you do not get what you want from the negotiations is not a valid negotiation tactic. Ergo, regardless of whether or not their were diplomatic contacts between Russia and Ukraine in the weeks immediately prior to the invasion, Russia did not use diplomacy to accomplish its ends.
They met multiple times and pictures were publicized
I agree. There were alternatives to war other than diplomacy and war. For NATO concerns, Russia could have improved its defensive capabilities. For the residents of Eastern Ukraine, Russia could have offered Russian passports, etc.
@@AdrienLegendre Russia DID provide russian passports to the residents of Eastern Ukraine since 2014 (and that's a violation of ukrainian law, btw) as well as to other people around ex-USSR territories, just to have an excuse to invade Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014, 2022) or, possibly, Moldova. Russia isn't interested in those residents (in fact, they were the first and the only (almost) victims of the invasion). They sent eastern ukrainian men to involuntary fight against their ukrainians brothers (and almost all of those who had been sent died), they literally destroyed almost every city and town and village where the slightest resistance was found, etc,etc,etc
Yes, i do know what i'm talking about, because i'm a russian citizen myself. Even more, my granny and dad were ukrainians from the future "separatists" territories, so yes, i know what's happening.
The only motive Putin has wasn't mentioned in this video. His real motive is to stay as a president for the rest of his life and that's it. He doesn't care how many millions would die. NATO argument doesn't make sense (Putin even said that Finland joining NATO isn't a threat, wtf?), it's just an excuse.
Oh, come on. There is a lot i could write on the subject but the truth is that ALL Putin's arguments were fakes and couldn't be taken seriously, because his goals weren't told.
No bad guy in chief would say 'I'm a big bad guy and i want to keep being a big bad guy and you all must do whatever i say because i'm a bad guy'. They always hide behind false reasoning and propaganda.
Russia signed diplomatic peace agreements in both September of 2014 and March of 2022,. Each of these deals were honored by Russia until broken by American-backed western Ukrainian forces.
Very well articulated. Meantime, your logic of rebuttals against Putin's 3 claims can also be used to rebut most of justifications of wars launched by the States. After all, Putin's excuses are at least better than a tube of laundry powder to initiate the invasion on Iraq. So in the end, it doesn't really matter why a war starts, only the consequences matter.
WHAT? IRAQ INVADE QUWAIT FIRST! QADAFY & SADDAM SUPPORTING TRRORST GROUP WITH SUICDE BOMBERS EVERYWHERE TO MAKE SYARIAH WORLD! THEY ALREADY BOMBING NYC WTC KILL 3000++ PEOPLE! ARE YOU CRAZY? 😒
@@viaini748 USA lied about some of its' reasons to invade Iraq.
@@viaini748 Not sure if this is sarcasm...
@@viaini748 While Gulf I may be considered justifiable, Gulf II was demonstrably not. As to Afghanistan, the sitting Afghan govt did not launch, nor sponsor, 9/11. And, if your counter by saying they allowed there territory to be used to attack the US, then the US should've invaded Cambodia during the Vietnam War.
@@edthoreum7625 So, one big happy world, led by one big happy tyrant.
Once again, a cold blood but logical analysis. I can understand both Putin and Zelensky, although don't necessarily agree with what they did. In the end, it's ordinary people paying the price, who simply need peace.
You only see who pays the price, but did not realize who gets the benefit? All developed as the US had planned for the past 20 years, more weapons can be sold by the US Military Industry complex.
> it's ordinary people paying the price, who simply need peace.
No. Completely wrong. It's ordinary ukrainians who voted for and supported their leader, an extremely anti-russian, aggressive warmonger who has done and said everything he possibly could to provoke russia. Even now he is telling the incredible lies and dishonest provocation and doing his best to start WW3 by using emotional blackmail and lies to get other nations involved. This WAR is what the ukraine people WANT so badly that they can't contain their emotions. It's also exactly what the world wants as they also provoke russia and ignore their concerns. You claim that they want peace while they pick up guns and swear to kill and fight to the death for virtually no reason at all. Your claim could not be any more absurd. Sure, there are a few ukrainians who may want no part of it and have evacuated to other countries. But generally speaking, the ukraines have got exactly what they most desired and so has the rest of the world. War and human goes together apple and custard, the world has been putting off what we all want and need and is in the core of our nature - death, destruction and war. Don't act surprised, saddened, concerned and disapproving, you just look like a fool who doesn't even know what you are.
@@fredjimbob2962 oh, totally Russia didn't took Crimea and send agents to steal more after my people made Russian puppet get off my land. Russia is a parasite that stuck to my country and wants to return Empire at it's peak. Folks like you would allow Hitler take countries.
@@mikhaelgribkov4117
You know that East Ukranians call themselves Russians.
I know immigrants from Donetsk Harkiv & even some from Kiev who call themselves Russian & don't speak Ukranian at all (worse than me).
But as a child, I spent a few summers in Lviv.
They all speak Ukranian.
My relative was crying her eyes out telling me a story how Soviets took everything from them & left them for dead.
And then Nazis came, & the "sweet-sweet" German soldiers would come every day to share their daily rations with her & her little sister.
Btw, didn't Russia take East Ukraine from Turkey?
And West Ukraine was in Poland.
*
I am not pro or against anybody.
I am pointing out that everyone has a point even if the point is questionable.
@@hanfucolorful9656 China gets the benefit.
the bigest mistake is to apply individual morality to nation states.
Nations are made up of individuals. Those individuals make decisions. Nations are just responsible as individuals are.
Hey. Will you do a follow up video on this. Just wondering.
Ooh look. There's my comment from a year ago...
This video has tons of subtle biases that mostly make your analysis like all your videos a case of smug psudeo intellectualism with nothing but motivated reasoning, the most jarring example of this is 4:38. Simply put you lack the actual data to support your claim of the east supporting Russia and the west supporting Ukraine, no doubt you tried to find it but instead you need something that *SEEMS good like it supports your position* to the uncritical so you find a *LANGUAGE MAP FROM 20 YEARS AGO* rather than one that actually answers the question you asked. Logically just because you speak Russian doesn't mean you support Putin or wish to be annexed by Russia. Zelenksy is a native Russian speaker and obviously is very much against Russian integration.
Thank you for your overviews, which are always as logical, unbiased and simple as possible.
I follow you with interest from Italy. I hope your channel grows, it is a great format!
Accurate
Not too accurate fron 7min.
The channel by Patrick Lancaster proves that Ukraine is the aggressor
Also look up The Grayzone by Max Blumenthal
13 killed in trollybus attack
ruclips.net/video/8OYVmkvki7Y/видео.html
Elderly live underground in fear
ruclips.net/video/-brDwwkHUdw/видео.html
The analysis is right, the conclusion is a bit off. The fact that Russia had warned the west for years, the west are ignorant to take it seriously. You think a few days before the war could result anything? The west is lead by bunch of weak men. That's the natural result. As they say, strong men creating good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times ...
Great analysis. Your videos are educational & informative. Glad i subscribed.
Apart from my respect your integrity and really good digests and summations, that you give credence to what you actually observe as a paralel to Cicero writing, 'to be rather than to seem'.
Couldn’t have timed a video like this better from such a new and gripping channel. High quality production and content, it’s super impressive (not that that means anything coming from a random on the internet).
The third argument is self contradictory. If Ukraine can't enhance its security at Russia's expense, then Russia can't enhance its own security at Ukraine's expense. Invading Ukraine sure seems like it's at Ukraine's expense, even if it improves Russian security by stopping Ukraine from joining NATO.
Otherwise great video!
Ukraine joining NATO doesn’t even take anything away from Russia. Ukraine is not an asset owned by Russia, they are an independent nation that can choose what they want for themselves. If other countries can’t enhance their security in any way as long as it theoretically could impact the security of another, then nobody would be allowed to manufacture any kinds of weapons. In Putin’s sense, the very notion of improving one’s own security situation makes all others’ less secure in comparison. Russia is the one trying to do the taking, not Ukraine.
@@mrbeezkeez1599 "The way it ended was with The West agreeing to expand NATO further East" -- I believe that what you meant to say is that Raegan vows to not -- NOT! -- expand NATO farther eastwards of the territory of the former GDR.
"Invading Ukraine sure seems like it's at Ukraine's expense, even if it improves Russian security by stopping Ukraine from joining NATO." -- what kind of naïve and, frankly, artless argument is this? Might is right, what don't you understand?
@@mrbeezkeez1599 It wasn't actually an agreement though, there exists no treaty text anywhere saying that NATO promises not to expand further east if the USSR agrees to collapse under it's own weight. It was at best a backroom promise, which holds absolutely no water once the parties have exited the room.
There is however the Budapest Memorandum where both the US and Russia promises to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is non-binding ofcourse but at least it's something that exists on paper.
Let us be clear in regard to the Russian/Ukrainian war: The relationship between Russia and Ukraine became, in the time of the Soviet Union, a marriage of convenience not of love. When the USSR broke up, in a time of weakness the ruling elites of both nations put up with each other. But when Russia became stronger and a divorce became inevitable, Russia did not want to split the house and the kids so now to forcibly settle the issue its way, it terrorizes the wife and her kids and makes their lives unbearable and even desires to kill her and her kids. This is the mindset of the Russian elite and for this reason they are now treating Ukrainians like rats, taking away from them the necessities of life.
My strong wish is that the Russian population will not support their elite in these awful crimes and will find the courage to oppose those that have brought so much suffering to the Ukrainian population and to a lesser extent the Russian population as well. Russia could live very well without any of the acquired Ukrainian territories. The greater weapon needed right now is against a prideful and hateful Russian elite and the portion of the population that supports them. This weapon can only come from Russian people of common sense, Russian people of integrity, and Russian people who truly love God who with courage show their opposition to the Russian elite who has misled them. Many of the Russian media members should be ashamed of the statements they have allowed themselves to make and repeat. In their conversations they have put God aside and for this cause they have become foolish.
Ryan where were you reporting from during the standing Rock protests?
Nice way to treat “family”
Can you correct the part where you said negotiations failed? Because there have been multiple treaties that delayed this invasion from 2014 to 2022. Additionally, the U.S. refused to negotiate in good faith since December 2021. And basically responded by sending more troops and arming Ukraine.
The very notion that the biggest nuclear state in the world felt "threatened" by a defensive alliance is so laughable i'm not exactly sure why it was adressed. Pure boring propaganda
@@hellfire6714 Why does the U.S. feel threatened by middle eastern countries on the other side of the planet. Iraq's invasion was not justified at all. Same foes for Russia, except unlike Iraq, Ukraine borders it. Additionally, Ukraine has historical ties with Russia. The U.S. has no historical ties with Iraq. The U.S. also invaded many Mexican states. Now the Mexicans themselves are considered alien in those lands. People forget that most southern states belonged to Mexico.
@@F_imperialists The year is 2022. The conflict is Ukraine - Russia. You got the wrong video if your mind is on Iraq. Also the "my great great great grandpa set foot here once so it belongs to me forever" mindset is what is killing the Balkans and a lot of other areas - argument built for those of low iq and high agression.
@@hellfire6714 You have to see the big picture. This conflict started in 2014. Please read the treaties between Russia and the west since then. This was long overdue mainly because of negotiations. And no, 1 million Iraqi died because of the U.S. invasion. We will not forget. If the U.S. will never forget 3000 in 9/11, then you should understand how much more pain the death of 1 million causes. Recently, the U.S. sent troops to Somalia again. This is 2022, the U.S. is still doing what it does best.... Invade and murder.
@@F_imperialists This conflicted, much every other Russian imperialist conflicted, started the moment an ex soviet state tried to poke it's head out of the gutter. Your "bigger picture" is bigger than you think. Russians think they own everything in the general area of their country. And I do mean OWN. This is a mindset you can only really understand by seeing it first hand
Thanks for another information video!
re: 11:10 , Ryan
what leaders begged Putin to negotiate?
There were only two that mattered: Presidents
Zelensky and Biden
Please!! refer me to where either of them offered to institute the Minsk agreement as an alternative to war. or did Biden urge a backing off of Zelensky's Munich intimation that he needs nuclear weapons. I do remember Blinken referring to Russian proposals as " non-starters"
He's biased.
He didn't even talk about the coup lead by the US, the non respect of the NATO extension and the minks agreement.
Also the attacks on donesk are well documented but he didn't even take a glance at it.
It's not the only video where he is showing history on one side. It's the same for his video on China & Taïwan and even on the 2nd world war.
This is a representation of our western media nowadays. They are ready to rewrite history to follow their narratives.
@Ryan Chapman, You are awesome with your analysis. Literally all of the videos I have watched of yours are completely or as completely impartial as one can be. You objectively analyze to the best of your ability and I learn every time I watch your videos. Thank you. P.S. your channel deserves to be way bigger
3:42 A more appropriate analogy, in terms of geographical proximity and culture, would be England saying that independent Ireland or Scotland would be a mistake.
It would be an even better analogy to say that US wanted to capture Britain based on the fact that they share common blood and language and used to be in one country
If by Ireland you mean Southern Ireland, it is an independent state. Saying that an independent Scotland would be a mistake is hardly analogous to invading a peaceful country.
@@terryhand the key words are “geographical proximity” and “culture”. Please pay attention.
@@BuckeyeRutabaga
Your analogy stands.
Just add language to it. What's spoken in Scotland is a variation of Middle English, much closer to modern English than Ukrainian is to Russian.
Or US could argue the exact same thing about Canada.
Wait, if improving your security at the expense of another nation's security is bad, what is improving your security by invading another nation?
Exactly what I was thinking. Not sure how Ryan didn't see that and thought it was a good argument.
Both are bad. What should have been done was a balance maintained, but sadly.
@Com K well then don't bullshit me about it. I just think that ideally, two larger nations shouldn't use smaller nations sandwiched between them as chess pawns. Although that's not going to happen in my life.
@Com K Surprise: people who don't fight in a war, have this choice of remaining neutral. Also, when I talked about two large nations, I in no way included Ukraine.
@@landmerry_6742 Russia didn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Simple as that. Can I tell you what to do if I'm not harming you? You will get on your knees when they want you to.
I dont think nato exspansion would be the line he would take. Because in the tucker interview carson layed it out for him to take that path but putin went on a historical rant, meanwhile Putin knew an western adince was going to consume it.
Sorry for the bad english
I think that the third point of the threat level of Ukraine after joining NATO is greatly diminished by the mutually assured threat of Russia on Ukraine. Russia, currently possessing nuclear weapons, can be considered a substantial threat to Ukraine, thus in principle leading Ukraine to feel the same justifications about arming themselves. I think this kind of thinking is what kept us in the Cold War and is the reason most large players in the political landscape have access to nuclear weapons. It just creates a positive feedback loop of everyone trying to be the most dangerous for "their own safety" instead of working toward peace with each other.
Except the third point is not about Ukraine. It's about the balance of power between 2 giant nuclear powers: Nato (usa) and Russia. It's not about Ukrain arming themselves. Ukraine joining Nato and aiming nukes at Russia creates a situation in which russia doesn't have enough time to react if Nato launches their nukes. Just like the Cuban missle crisis wasn't about Cuba, it was about the soviet union placing nukes on the doorstep of the US.
@@d.d.o.5197 the Baltic states are already in NATO. That problem doesn’t begin with Ukraine it begins with them. Russia had no protests then. It also doesn’t mean much when you can also put missiles in Poland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and now Scandinavia. Singling out Ukraine here just seems like bullshit and you’re grasping at straws. The US could even have a nuke hit Moscow in minutes from the 48 states, and this is assuming we didn’t deploy a nuclear sub off their coastline, in which they get nukes from even closer than Ukraine. Find another reason for this war to exist because this one isn’t it.
you wouldn't nuclear bomb your neighbour, don't be stupid
@@d.d.o.5197 Russia has a long history of expansionism and using buffer states to keep threats (real or imagined) as far as possible from its heartlands where the power is concentrated. Outside of the nuclear proximity argument which doesn't hold value, by annexing Crimea Russia not only massively increased its influence in the Black Sea hence threatening the NATO members in the area, but also paved the way to invading Ukraine from every direction except the far Western borders.
Threat level of USA increases much more with Ukraine joining NATO which is just a pawn kept on European chessboard by USA. It is a facade behind which USA can go forward with its bullying off the countries in Africa and Asia.
I saw the Title, saw it was Ryan Chapman, and I busted out the tea 😌gonna be a good video
Yeah, but it was too short, Tohiko.
Rewarding program. Thank you.
A small observation regarding the NATO point: Russia has never been invaded since NATO was formed (but, as a side note, has happily invaded other countries). If you look back at the last 220 or so years, the time with NATO is actually the longest time period for Russia without getting invaded.
1812 Napoleon
1853 Turkey in the Crimea
1905 Japan in Manchuria
1914 Germany & Co in WW1
1941 Germany & Co in WW2
Now that's not an argument in and of itself, as there are many other factors than NATO playing I to that, but still important to note.
It just makes Putin's whole NATO-is-such-a-threat rhetoric a little less persuasive.
Now let’s take in the fact that nato was created to keep Russia from expanding. We can easily see how much nato has expanded, slowly inching closer to Russia.
There were past agreement made for nato to not keep expanding toward Russia borders. No country wants a threat at there border. The Cuban missile crisis didn’t go well.
There is a professor on RUclips who talks about the complicated problem but it is worth looking into to have a little background into this conflict.
@@danjacobs6219 you probably mean Dr. Mearsheimer. I've watched his stuff, it's good input. But his approach is very focused on purely strategic thinking and only on the great powers. Here's a few thoughts:
NATO expansion: a free and sovereign country joins a coalition based on its own free will. Handshakes and aperitifs follow.
Sovjet/Russian expansion: Russia threatens and then invades a nation that mostly doesn't want to join them. War, death, destruction and suppression follow.
In Mearsheimer's presentations, those things come across as equal. I beg to differ.
Talk to a Polish anti NATO citizen and then talk to a Tchetchen war orphan. See who suffered more under the respective faction's expansion. (the first Russian invasion into Chechnia happened before NATO expansion, by the way)
Let's not only think of the two big factions but also of the fate of the people living between them.
Again, I'm not endorsing all or even most of NATO's behaviour. They sure have their points to blame. It just seems to me that Russian / Sovjet behaviour is usually 10 times worse.
TBC
@@danjacobs6219you forget most of those countries wanted to join NATO because of Russia's aggression.
@@danjacobs6219It is very simple, Finland and Sweden joined NATO as Russia invaded Ukraine. The warsaw pact states and baltic states joined NATO to not be victim of Russian aggression. We see states who protect their interests against an aggressor.
Nice, concise analysis
Great video, as usual! Keep it up! This kind of thinking is so useful in our world!
Even a smart guy like him can get hoodwinked by fake news. He is wtong from 7min
For the real facts
The Grayzone with Aaron Mate
The New Atlas by Brian Berletic
John Mearsheimer (watch him first)
Patrick Lancaster war journo in Donbass utube(his vids are difficult to watch)
Graham Phillips in Donbadd
George Galloway
I wiill try to pist sone links in next comment but most if nit all will be deleted by waartube
Dozens killed by cluster bomb in Donbass
ruclips.net/video/ANNhDKGjNK8/видео.html
Scott Ritter
ruclips.net/video/OSkpIq3T-Zc/видео.html
1min civilians who tried to evacuate were shot
ruclips.net/video/F3dv8Xxo0-Q/видео.html
DW deutsch 2mar2017
Azov in ukraine
ruclips.net/video/aXm_DyZJKZ4/видео.html
So I painted a friends place just now and watched your whole channel up to this video. I found you by wanting to know more precisely what fascism was since people on the left and the right both like to throw that term around. Great work!
-one of your newest subs
Short Answer - NO! Long Answer - Hell NO! How is this even up for debate?
Lot of apologists to the Kremlin Gremlins. 🙄
And by that slur, I mean the GOVERNMENT of Russia, not its people.
Because Donbas in Russian. They speak Russian and are persecuted by the Ukrainian government.
@theryumancer9639most of it's people too actually
Well, for your is not up for debate, bacause a) you know nothing about the topic, your knowledge comes from Twitter and b) there is ALWAYS a side B to every story, every argument. You just choose to listening to one and hate the other, just like your media is telling you.
@@mauroger86 yeah and the other side is the most unbiased media in the world.... russian media. And you guys yap about the left wing media
I’ve just subscribed to your RUclips channel after watching your excellent presentations on fascism. Your work is a gold standard for that rare commodity of well thought out, nuanced analysis of complex issues that employs with deftness social media’s extraordinary power to present visually and convincingly supporting evidence.
Indeed, "Gold standard" and "Ryan Chapman" definitely go together.
Can you, or someone else, comment on what would justify an invasion? Is it too complex of a topic, or do you see a pattern or some kind of key points which when checked, would be a good start for a justification?
I come from a place where there's no "army" in its general sense, but a defence force. Thus both practically and ideologically, aggressively taking control of an area is only justified when it's a part of a defensive maneuver. That would, in itself, be comparable to the narrative that Putin is trying to paint, but to me it only works when you're already in a conflict, not as a reason to start one.
Another thing I fail to grasp is the "international law" about "ones defense cannot be heightened at the expense of others", or something along those lines. Where can I read more about that, as by the amount of information I got from this video, it hardly makes sense to me. While there are purely defensive weapon systems, a good defense cannot be obtained without the capability of strong offense. How can you strengthen your defense without heightening the risk towards your neighbors at the same time?
International law is very clear, Ukraine WOULD have the right to self defense as soon as Russian tanks and missiles crossed the border. As you will notice, virtually NO american invasion is justifiable along international law, thats why the US isn't a member of the International Criminal Court, which makes it pretty amusing to hear Biden talk about the ICC.
Its not complicated at all. If missiles are flying and borders are crossed, there is your justification. There is NO justification for Russia because even the cases they cited about missiles were in the east of ukraine, not russia. Where it gets complicated of course is when its NOT the national army setting off bombs. If the IRA set off bombs in London, as they did, that didn't mean you can condemn a whole nation, and thats the murky bit with ukraine.
@@mikearchibald744 You're right. It's pretty easy, actually. The aggresor is in the wrong, the defender is in the right.
@Josef K How do you starve a population without using violence?
@Josef K I don't think you can starve a population with those kind of measures, unless there is a country that is unable to provide food for itself. For example, Cuba has been isolated economically for many years and they are poor but they weren't starving. Also, not wanting to do commerce with somebody should be a free choice. I don't think you can starve a population without the use of violence.
@@mikearchibald744 There was an eminent threat cited by President Putin in that Ukrainian troops were gathering for an assault on the Donbas which was recognised as an independent region much as what happened in Yugoslavia and Russia sent the special operation to try to circumvent further attacks on the civilian population (since the US backed coup in 2014 NATO has sent weapons and trained troops including Na zis targeting Russian ethnic population). Russian troops entered the Ukraine under the article 51 UN Charter pertaining to preempting an eminent threat so it is a bit more complicated than your black and white view probably informed by extremely propagandised main stream media. Didn't you learn anything from the pandemic? And its not amusing that consecutive US governments have been guilty of egregious war crimes and are trying to extradite Julian Assange for no other reason but revealing their crimes while they continue to do more with impunity
Great clear, succinct analysis, although no mention of the Minsk agreement?
Now, are there similar videos in the US Iraq & Afghanistan invasions?
I believe the historical mistake Putin refers to is not the independence of Ukraine gained in 1991. But the “creation of Ukraine by Lenin”. It’s popular narative that neglects the existance of Ukrainians and claims that the language was artificially created. And so was the country that supposedly never existed was created by Lenin.
There are a few more reasons to flesh out the 3rd argument. Not saying it is still enough to justify the invasion though.
One is tied to the Crimea annexation in 2014. Crimea was transferred from the Russian socialist republic to the Ukrainian socialist republic in 1954, but this was mostly for administrative reasons since Ukraine has a land connection to Crimea. It didn't matter much anyway since everything was effectively controlled from Moscow by the USSR. Putin argues this was a historical mistake and in the break up of the USSR, it should have gone back to Russia. Crimea is mostly ethnically Russian, but the main reason for taking it by force was to guarantee access to the Black Sea and area denial capabilities against NATO. Caspian Report released a good video also explaining that Ukraine cut off freshwater from Crimea and that they've been having a shortage problem for a while now. Russia cannot fix that water problem so easily due to sanctions and a lack of expertise in desalination technologies. Therefore, invading southern Ukraine and re-establishing the water supply would be another reason.
Russia also relies on strategic depth for protection due to the geography of the area, and Ukraine is a big part of that depth. Moreover, the longer he waits (i.e. negotiations on non-NATO membership) the weaker the military option becomes. Overtime, Ukraine economic growth and military partnership with NATO and the EU would make it more expensive to invade, which would strengthen their negotiating leverage. Russia views this westernization of former Soviet countries as an evolution of the containment doctrine during the cold war. Therefore time was of the essence for Russia, they would rather negotiate after the military option strengthened their hand.
Yes, and despite the mixed bag of extremes, Russia has been burying its dead in Ukraine for 325 years, defendig its interetst from France, Britain, and ahost ofother countries - including four wars against the Ottomans. I think they have claim, but I am deeplydismayed at the invasion and the horrible cost upon the peope of Ukraine and all the troops involved in something thay have no say in. Putin counted on a deserted Ukrainian governemt and an easy roll into Kiev. Now, there is no way out but to escalate. He must take either ALL of Ukraine - or, at least everything east of the Dneipr.
That's a pretty good analysis of Kremlin's perspective, I really appreciate it
Good post, Victor. Although I of course condemn Putin's invasion, I wonder if this day could have been avoided if, upon the dissolution of the USSR, if the default borders of the 15 constituent Republics could have been revisited. I would on such an occasion suggest that, Ukraine consider ceding the Russian-majority regions of the Ukrainian Republic to Russia, and in return have had Russia recognize Ukraine's right to join NATO. Had Budapest had these provisions, the great political upheavals in Ukraine since 2010 (a point which Ryan did not touch upon) would never have happened, as the population would have been much more homogeneously Ukrainian. This might have included Crimea, though I know that would be far harder for Ukraine to let go of.
I see it (reason # 3) as a compelling reason. The U.S. was routinely holding military “exercises” in the Ukraine and what was left out of this video was we staged a coup d’etat in 2014-the so called Orange Revolution. The Russians cannot ignore the U.S.’s behavior. We kept troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, and then we decided to invade Iraq for…reasons. If there was really an opportunity for a “diplomatic solution” as the video claims, we could have immediately drafted a treaty, an actual treaty, that guaranteed NATO would not expand into the Ukraine. Something else the video left out is how the U.S. promised Gorbachev during the German reunification that NATO would not move Eastward. Obviously, that isn’t what happened, and more importantly we repeatedly told them that every time we allowed another country to join NATO. Just because we in the West aren’t aware how much our politicians have been lying to the Russians doesn’t mean that Russians aren’t aware.
@@jeremytarrant1493 Jeremy, I definitely am on board with your point about the 2014 coup. I frankly am impatient with people who argue that Yanukovych “deserved” to be overthrown because he went back on his promises made during the 2010 election. My god-if that’s the standard for staging a coup then it’s a wonder that any American president ever finishes his four-year term. I don’t think we know with certainty that the US was actually behind the coup, but it’s obviously something we might have done, and were stupid enough to have done. The 2010 coup made the Ukrainian government that followed look illegitimate and clearly set the stage for what happened in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This does not mean that I think what Putin did was right, I’m just saying that the coup made him feel like he would be confronting a government without legitimacy. And to the extent that the Obama Administration did very little to push back against Putin’s land grabs, it makes it look like the charges of US malfeasance in the coup are even more credible.
However, having said that, I still call bu!!$#!+ on the claim that Putin had genuine security concerns stemming from NATO expansion. The question about whether NATO violated its agreements with Gorbachev and the USSR regarding NATO expansion has been debated for years, with technical arguments and substantive arguments both being deployed. I for one not only thought it was a mistake for NATO to expand, *I actually called for the dismantling of NATO following the dissolution of the Soviet Union* , because it’s raison d'être no longer existed. Well, it did not get dismantled, and it did expand, but . . . so what? What credible threat did NATO pose to Russia? NATO has never initiated *any* war of aggression against any country in its 70+ years of existence, let alone one with nuclear weapons. And conducting joint exercises is something that the United States has done with vulnerable countries since the end of World War II, be they members of NATO or not, and yet these have not led to US invasions.
And this claim that we could have promised Russia that Ukraine would never be allowed to join NATO? Ukraine has sought NATO membership for decades, and we never let them in, *because* we feared Russian backlash. I now think it’s clear that the biggest mistake we made (other than a failure to push for revised borders in the early ‘90s) was in *not* admitting Ukraine to NATO. I suspect that the only reason Vilnius has not been occupied (to create a corridor to Kaliningrad) is because of its NATO membership.
No, Putin’s true reason was because he thinks he and Russia are *entitled* to own their historic territory of Ukraine. I don’t believe for one minute that Putin has ever worried for one second about a NATO incursion into Russia. It’s a con job.
Oh, and it’s a minor point-I had first mentioned it above but am placing it as a footnote because it interfered with the flow of my answer. The “Orange Revolution” was NOT the event that occurred in 2014. The 2014 coup (and *that* was a real coup compared to the Orange Revolution) is generally known as the *Euro-Maidan Revolution* (although there appears to have been a push recently to have branded it as the “Revolution of Dignity”). The Orange Revolution centered on the events starting in November of 2005. Yanukovych (the dude that would get tossed out in 2014) won the election, people asserted lots of fraud and Russian interference, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered a new election, and that second election was heavily covered by international observers to make sure it was free and fair. In that second election (which I think was just a couple of months later), Yanukovych lost and Yushchenko-the guy who got poisoned with dioxin-was declared the winner. *This* was the “Orange Revolution”. Yanukovych made a comeback and won the 2010 election , but then was tossed out in the 2014 Euro-Maidan Revolution. Anyway, don’t feel bad about getting them mixed up. There aren’t’ that many countries that have had two revolutions in less than a ten-year period (though, interestingly, Russia *is* another one that has).
"War doesn't decide who's right, but who's left" -- Bertrand Russel
It doesn't matter how plausible one's justifications for going to war are, it doesn't matter who's engaged in a "just" war and who - in an "aggressive" one. What matters is who has successfully achieved one's strategic objectives, i.e. WHO THE VICTOR IS, and that's it!
It doesn't matter who's on the "right side of things" and who isn't. When all is said and done and the dust had settled, the SOLE thing that matters is who's still standing. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHO'S LEFT.
It's not about what "matters" as you put it, but about what is *right*. Nobody in modern human history has unironically proclaimed that "might is right". Bertrand's quote is a derision of war, and the tragedy of its consequences.
@@ynthrepic Agreed
@@ynthrepic "it's not about what "matters" as you put it, but about what is *right*." -- oh, the age old "intent vs. result" argument. I gather that you're a "slave morality" adherer, as dubbed by Nietzsche. Which means that in a few days, when the war in Ukraine ends with a Russian army parade in Kiev, you -- or someone like you on CNN -- will try to convince us, and convince himself, that, you see, "some men change the world more in defeat than others -- in victory..." 🤣 Yeah, right...😑
Right and wrong matters. The politics of aggression always ends in war, and that is no politics at all.
Bertrand RUSSEL he was put aside in ww2 because of his sincerity
Also you should consider the fact that non of ex-KGB agent's spoken statements does not reflect his real intentions and underlying reasons. Statement of him is an instrument of achieving his real goals but not a mean of communication.
HR needs to send someone over to do ergonomics assessment on Putin's workstation @1:26 how can the man work like that?
Just to clarify, UA president voted against Minsk agreement just before war started, they said that those were stupid and they never go back from East, on top of that he agitates for more and more sanctions against Russia. So when you tight screws on a pipe too much - it breaks
@JustJoeJones Called coercion rather?
Russian soldiers evacuate children from dangerous parts of Mariupol
ruclips.net/video/jdfTEgC4kIw/видео.html
Euronews 23jan 2015
Captured Ukraine soldiers face angry crowd at scene of bus shelling
ruclips.net/video/85qAWk_PKv4/видео.html
Exhibition of crime against people of Donbass
ruclips.net/video/Cd1C1VWQU00/видео.html
I ask myself, why I turn to this channel after having listened to many government officials, military and political experts, authors and very intelligent commentators that I normally trust. The answers is simply that - time and time again - Ryan delivers a very levelheaded and fair - based-on-the-facts - analysis. Thank you
Even Ryan is not immune to the fake news.
I am usually in agreement with Ryan but he got the fa ts wrong from 7min onwards, as a result his conclusions are wrong.
For the real fa ts look up John Mearsheimer.
The grayzone -- Ben Norton
The New Atlas Brian Betletic(ex marine)
War journalist Pa trick Lancaster
Artillery strikes Donetsk
ruclips.net/video/8F6rjuSYtPk/видео.html
Why did russia attack
ruclips.net/video/HqlUns7KfwY/видео.html
George on fake news ukraine
ruclips.net/video/tCeI2jkSxos/видео.html
Nazis infliterate ukraine govt
ruclips.net/video/KfaAyiP8Wuc/видео.html
7:33 ''one country can't justify the invasion of another because they believe a government is being aggressive in a civil conflict''...
Really? What would be ''the proper'' justification then? Maybe claiming that a country has chemical weapons, which were never found? Or defending democracy? Or to free the people of another country from their government?
I might be mistaken, but there is also fourth argument. They also condemned NATO's (or EU's, I don't remember exactly) East expansion a lot, stating that it contradicted agreements made in 90ths.
and the eaatern expansion is now proven correct by this invasion and talks of attacking finland and estonia
@@PolishBehemoth that sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy. Nato keeps expanding, going against the promise that they wouldn't and reach a critical red line. This forces Russia's hand to invade Ukraine to make a point and somehow this proves that Nato expansion was necessary? The West (the US in particular) is just as guilty of this war as Russia is if not more in my opinion.
Welp but from Putin's point of view at a military level, the "call to negotiate" could just be seen as a stalling tactic, as on the ground this situation is at the zenith of favorable conditions for his invasion.
Any later and the conditions of war become less favorable. So I'm not very surprised with his current perception, that he decided to pursue this line of decisions.
I just watched one of your videos on China which I thought was very well argued. In it you talked very perceptively about the West's linear way of thinking and contrasted it with China's lateral way of thinking. I think you could have approached this topic a bit more laterally and definitely with a bit more in depth research.
Me was looking for this comment
Are you looking for an exploration of Putin's psychology, or Russia's history of imperialism and dictatorship?
He tends to do this.
Interesting that you should bring up the Chinese. From my experience on zhihu (Chinese Quora), most chinese recognize that an invasion of another country's sovereignty is wrong, but also that sometimes this doesn't matter realistically enough when faced with strong threat or interest.
By that logic also, Ukraine cares not for the ideal of upholding international law and condemning the "wrong", but more about its own interest as a nation--not that I'd criticize this mindset. Much like the matter with Taiwan and China (whether you read the former as a province or more or less independent) , and by extension every area planning to declare some form of independence; techinically, self determination would be "correct", in moral; practically, it would be ambiguous; in terms of many nations' interests, its "correctness" could be easily overwhelmed, and even overrode by another such "correctness", more explicitly, "a government's first consideration is to its people".
Speaking of connecting Russia's invasion with our situation in Taiwan, most people also recognize and converse about how this would make China lose more moral highground internationally as the ccp is likened to the invading side. A significant amount of people also note that this must be intentionally done by western media, and as such, very little people will actually care about nuanced differences between the two circumstances.
*Just on a side note to provide evidence for my second point, a lot of Chinese were pissed and even stopped supporting Ukraine (mostly verbal support, but still) completely, when the latter complied with Japan's demand to take their emperor out of a video of the three facism leaders who initiated wwII and therefore various inhumane war crimes. Seriously, when it comes to the beef with Japan, it's an untouchable death zone with the Chinese public. Sorry Ukraine, not sorry.
So all things considering, Chinese do seem much more ambiguous dissecting this invasion by Putin. People condemn it, yes, but I must say half-heartedly, before moving on to other things like motivations and predictions.
I see what you mean about lateral thinking.
@@landmerry_6742 Russia and Ukraine's history. China at large and Taiwan's history. Two very different things, completely unrelated. The comparison is forced and pointless, though some Chinese may make the comparison (though I've seen no data on that, other than your opinion).
Internationally, and under international law, Taiwan's status is ambiguous. Ukraine's status is not. There is no question that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, fully separate from Russia. For what it's worth, the Soviet Union is dead, and upon its dissolution, treaties were signed.
Putin has no leg to stand on, which is why he's throwing a variety of fantastical propaganda themes at his population, even as the world rolls its eyes at his shameless b**ls**t.
Regardless of what some Chinese nationals may think, and whether they love or hate Ukraine and Zelenskyy, there is no valid comparison. (Did I repeat that sufficiently?)
we need to revisit this
Great video 📸 Thanks
There is always justification for anything. If you are stronger, you make the rule. Just ask the US. Borders always move around throughout history. Just ask Israel.
I have decided to conduct Z Special Military Operation
Previous, illegal, action does not justify further action. "Well, xyz murdered someone so why can't I?"
Just because it happens does not mean it is right.
@@ThePereubu1710 If the most powerful and most respected nation does it but not only gets away with it but convinces every other nation on the planet to join I'd say that justifies it.
"Justified" is a troubled word when it comes to Realpolitik, I think the more helpful question would be "Would we do it?"
Would we finance, train and deploy contras to a country who slighted them? Yes. Would we be ready to start WW3 because our "enemy" pulled up into our Monroe doctrin-backyard? Yes. Would we coup a democratically elected government and replace it with a brutal dictatorship because the country insists that it's resources should belong to it? Yes. Would we invade sovereign countries under blatanly false justifications? Yes. Would we openly threaten invasion if the Solomon Islands allowed our current "enemy" to station troops in what we claim as our space? Yes.
As long as we don't judge our own actions with the same ruler as we judge the actions of others, this discussion is redundant.
Which means everybody should be harsher to others and themselves in this situation.
the difference here is that Ukraine was primarily backed up by countries who do not have americas history of violent and brutal foreign policy.
This isnt "US vs Russia", this is "russia vs Ukraine and by proxy the baltic states and eastern europe".
Finland didnt invade Libya, but Finland is supporting Ukraine.
Poland didnt overthrow the cuban goverment, but Poland is supporting Ukraine.
and there lies the crux.
Of course we would do it, we do it all the time, but to nations that are zero threat to us. We basically are doing it now through Ukraine. But what a terribly low bar to compare to the west, especially the US. I'm not in any way disagreeing with your point, I'm pointing out how generous you're being. I don't know what's going on in other countries, but the US is stacked with weak minded hypocrites, and I'm talking about the citizenry. Our leaders are full on psychopaths.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 i mean its mostly NATO vs Russia, Ukraine is a proxy here by all means, its a very simplistic look to think its just Ukraine on its own
This is a very good point. The US has done all of these things in the last several decades.
Should do an update about this. Lot has happened in 8 months.
I find the question bit weird since I think that it's impossible to objectively justify anything. It just comes down to values.
Ryan, that's where I disagree with you on the issue of genocide. The West has allowed the issue of genocide in Xinjiang get out of proportion both in the media and in the realm of flimsy evidence bordering on manufactured evidence that it seems like a no brainer for Russia to run with the same argument of genocide if the case of Xinjiang was so widely successful with little to show for it. Once the Pandora's box has been opened, it cannot be closed again. Just like once you invade other countries to replace their government with excessive force without a consensus and a UN mandate like in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, then you've opened the Pandora's box allowing others to follow in the same footsteps.
Well said
The West can do anything it wants because there is nobody to stop it. Thats why US didnt pay a significant price for invasions - who will apply sanctions on them?
@@Shlang90 China owns their debt
You assume these things actually matter at all. Putin could have said, "I invade Ukraine because my dick is a carrot" and it would still not matter. What matters is what the result of this will be.
Also, Russia just did worse things in Ukraine and Chechina than banning a language from school. Russia has no place to talk. Putin saying he invades because God told him to would make him more believable.
@@qjtvaddict
You need to add Patrick Lancaster, Graham Philiips, and The New Atlas with Brian Berletic to your subs
Great. The world needs unbiased clarifications such as the one being related to us in this platform. Both sides of the story.
When you see a person being mercilessly beaten or a woman raped, do you intervene or wait till you get both sides of the story?
For all the facts.
Look up utube The Grayzone with Max Blumenthal, The New Atlas with Brian Berletic, Patrick Lancaster, George Galloway, Graham Phillips.
I will post some of their links in the next comment in case utube deletes
Also Jimmy Dore
BBC Newsnight 1mar2014
Neo nazi threat in new ukraine
ruclips.net/video/5SBo0akeDMY/видео.html
@@romany8125 and what point do you wanna make here, mind i ask?
Comparing a war where you can't even intervene and only watch one or both sides with something you could and naturally would intervene doesn't sound fair or relatable at all
And either way, let's say we could stop the guy who was beating the guy or "doing" the women, we (or maybe just the police) could still interrogate him and see their perspective (not trying to say rape and beating someone to death is something justified tho, just like this war, everyone is technically in the wrong)
What about Minsk agreements. Could you please explain them
This seems to me an exemplary analysis, thank you.
Every high-school, college and university need instructors similar to Ryan. It's so refreshing to being taught 'how to think' not merely 'what to think'. I also believe that if the media spoke similar to Ryan, our society would be less polarized.
We need the Fairness Doctrine.
The argument against Putin's second point is, 1. Zelenskyy had said he would abandon any attempt to join NATO. 2. Olaf Scholz had already stated that "as long as he was Chancellor, he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.
The NATO charter does not allow countries which are engaged in civil conflict to become members. For as long as there was fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk, Ukraine was not going to join NATO.
And yet, Blinken & co. kept going on about an open doors policy. Zelensky later went on to admit in an interview to CNN, that he was explicitly told that Ukraine would never join NATO or the EU, but that they would publicly continue to claim they would. So it looks like the West was deliberately bluffing in order to appear strong and tough to Russia, and inadvertently made things worse in the process.
This whole situation reminds me of a situation we had on IRC back in 2014 where two of my staff members were acting all tough and uncompromising to a guy to the point that the guy got pissed off and began DDoS'ing us hard. Then, when I realized that literally the only way to resolve the situation was to negotiate with him, and actually resolved the situation, I was called weak. Then, it all repeated with another guy (those two clearly learned nothing), and once again, I was demanded to never negotiate, never surrender... well, all until we did the maths and realized we needed €5000/month tier anti-DDoS protection to block the guy's full capability, so we once again realized that negotiation was the only way to get out of it, which at that time, meant kicking the entire channel where it all started, ie. complete capitulation.
Sure, one could say that me negotiating with the first DDoS'er emboldened the second one, but one could easily claim that in fact, those two staff members of mine acting all tough and uncompromising until we got DDoS'ed, was what actually emboldened the second one as he had learned from the first one that the only way to get the staff to act reasonably was to DDoS.
And I think that could easily apply here - in all its acting tough and uncompromising (while behind the back, in fact doing exactly what Russia demanded them to do), they inadvertently angered Russia to the point of invading Ukraine. And I suspect that now, even if they finally make concessions to Russia to end this war, they have already ensured China invades Taiwan, as they have likely made China think that the only way to get concessions from the West is if you do something unspeakable that will shock them. Ie. just like in my IRC situation 2014, the Western leaders here have, with their tough and uncompromising stance, started a chain reaction that will only end well with the West's complete capitulation. Well, if China does decide to have its own go, the West *may* be able to deter them if they show they learned their lesson and this time, making concessions.
@@OBrasilo Taiwan and Ukraine are completely different situations. Taiwan (the Republic of China) has been a part of China since at least the 17th century, and as the last refuge of the Chinese nationalist government it sees itself as the legitimate government of all China. Any conflict between Taiwan and China would just be a resumption of the civil war that ended in 1949. Ukraine was granted its independence by the USSR, who were also a guarantor of its sovereign integrity. As a sovereign independent nation surely Ukraine has the right to determine its own destiny. Putin complains about NATO and the EU constantly encroaching on Russia, so Putin needs to ask himself why former Soviet republics don't want to join with Russia? Putin believes in a Russia as set by Aleksandr Dugin in his "Foundations of Geopolitics" and since he came to power has been working to bring it to fruition.
It's interesting watching this 4 months later!
Very helpful to my understanding and sure to start some genuine discussions. Many thanks.
So he has two independent arguments for ATTACKING Ukraine and then cries when Ukraine wants to join a defensive alliance. Hilarious.
Oh yeah, the defensive alliance that bombed Serbia and Libya.
@@whatslifespurpose so long as Angelic Putin isn’t planning an ethic cleansing or persisting with violence in contravention of UN authority, yep, defensive.
@@whatslifespurpose
Defending others from aggression is still defence.
@@jakel8627with that logic you can justify anything
Thank you. This channel gets right to the geopolitical meat. Nice and concise!
Truly outstanding. Thank you.
“ one country cannot enhance its own security at the expense of another” then proceeds to invade Ukraine to enhance Russian security
This is so appreciated. Keep doing them please!
None who claims eastern Ukraine had a russian identity and wanted to separate, can name a single separatist movement in Donbas before 2014, or give any numbers on the size or popularity of it. Because there was no such movement. Russian speaking ukrainians are russian as much as english speaking Irish people are british.
Have you heard of 2014 Maidan coup? That changed things forever. Ethnic Russian Ukrainians were burned alive in Odessa.
Absolutely. Ukraine was warned by Russia in 2013 - when they were about to sign a trade deal with the EU - that separatist movements could 'spring up'. Yes, I'm sure these separatist groups just spontaneously appeared and weren't sponsored by Russia. From a 2013 article in The Guardian:
« The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.
"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.
"Signing this treaty will lead to political and social unrest," said the Kremlin aide. "The living standard will decline dramatically … there will be chaos." »
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia
Can you make a content on the Ukrainian oil deal that failed the Russian in 2005?
It's great to hear a fresh and non emotionally charged take on this topic.
Pronounced reasons often are not the real reasons, at least not all.
Obviously there are many goals and reasons for the invasion, but I'd argue that the primary reason is that Ukrainian people successfully were able to protest their governments, the police and special forces and that is seen as a very dangerous precedent and example, when culturally close people to Russians can do that.
That argument is declared in a bit different wording, but not much, so it's not a secret reason, it's just not put as main to the western audience. Yet in Russia it's well known. For example with wording like "What, you want to have it like in Ukraine? With illegal protests overthrowing the government? That puts a wrong ideas, brought by alien values"
@@daddy_1453 Cuba allows this because it’s rightfully terrified of American imperialism, just as Ukraine is terrified of Russian imperialism. The solution isn’t to leave Ukraine out in the cold, it’s to protect Ukraine and make amends with our Cuban brothers and sisters. The Baltic states are also in NATO (which also border Russia), and Putin isn’t starting WW3 over that. It’s the very fact that Ukraine is in a security vacuum that this is happening to them. Fear of NATO belligerence toward Russia is complete BS.
The info from 7min onwards are essentially wrong.
Look up George Galloway, The Grayzone with Ben Norton, The New Atlas by Brian Berletic for the facts.
Also war journo Patrick Lancaster on utbe
Wiill post links in next comment but censoryube will most likely delete
West blame russia for missle that only ukraine has
ruclips.net/video/h_JVhaTxC00/видео.html
Graham Phillips
ruclips.net/video/UWSalCoWrwU/видео.html
You can only trust the provided reasons unless there is actually evidence for the contrary, otherwise it's just speculation.
Brilliant! There were times, especially at the beginning of the video, that I thought you were headed towards a wrong conclusion. I quickly realized, though, that you were simply stating positions and arguments in a neutral way, and since I'm not neural on this topic I had a gut level "you're wrong" reaction. Bravo! For at least one person your "fleshing out" was indeed useful. I can now separate my emotions from the rational arguments about the invasion.
Such nonsense.
Excellent analysis!!!
"joining a defensive alliance is an existential threat to us" ... only if you're attacking them...
Thank you for your objective assessment of the situation. Very helpful video.
I am a russian speaking ukraining all my life and I didn't feel any oppresion, trevelled around the country (also in ukranian speaking areas) and didn't encounter alienation or watever. And you can occasinally meet some degraded people under some substance in any country. I didn't see any 'torch marches' as in nazi germany in my entire life. Only on russian TV and I belive their frequency and extent was not more than in russia itself. Some minority extremist gatherings did happened in Ukraine but their activity is not more than in any other civilized country. Definitely not the goverment stance.
Regarding arson in Odesa the proper investigation and punishment of the guilty never happened and there has never been official findings announced. Some local officials in charge fled to other countries. As I understand the goverment decided to keep silence about the event. That's sad to say the least. At least they could punish for criminal negligence...
I do agree with the points stated in the video. Our country has a lot of problems and controversies but they only were used as excuse for casus beli.
And lastly you can see very clear picture of their intentions if you watch russian TV. After two years of war they are not shy to state their intentions anymore right on the state TV. You don't need a lot of political background for this. There are a lot videos with english subtitles from russian TV.
I'd like to have heard about the Minsk accord and the Ukrainian coup.
Is that because it distracts from Putin's own words and actions?
3:49 Canada would've been a better example as the US took independence whereas Canada was granted it
also the insinuation that russia didn't try diplomatic ways first is wrong.
Their diplomatic attempts were at best strong arm tactics. When that failed they went to their go to strategy of fomenting civil unrest to use as an excuse for intervention.
They tried to negotiate and brought up the human rights abuses by the Ukrainian government on the east of Ukraine for years. Still does not justify the war though.
@@XBoxwolf anything and everything is a justification for war, you don't need to be constrained by reason it just needs to be popular with your base.
But I see your point it didn't seem like a big deal when the Nazis started rounding up Jews before the war so why bother caring if Ukraine is targeting pro Russian separatists.
If Ukraine and Russia are the “same” (according to Putin), then why doesn’t Russia surrender its sovereignty to Ukraine?
Ukraine have been kidnapped by neonazi ideology, with support of USA.
Thats why there isnt a conversation, the talks are now in the field
Good presentation however, it would be more complete if you mentioned the 2014 overthrow of the government and the Minsk agreements.
"...No one has empty strollers....."
Question: Imagine in 50 years, Eastern ally were about to deploy strategic weaponry in Canada. How will the US justify its actions? (I'm assuming the US will take actions immediately considered what happened in Cuba between USSR and US)
If the answer is negative, the next question is -- are the justifications even necessary in international political situations that endanger great power's national security?
Russia already has 2 NATO countries on its border. If it takes control of Ukraine then it will border 6 NATO countries.
@@joedirt2862 It's a great point! I think that Estonia and Latvia are different from Ukraine in terms of geographical significance from military / security point of view. By pulling out the map, we can see that if Ukrain joins NATO, there's no geographical / natural barrier beyond Dnieper River which is the divider of west and east of Ukraine. Russia clearly cares east Ukraine much more.
@@NeMayful Ukraine isn't
Part of NATO though. So he is infact creating a situation that doesn't exist.
@@NeMayful I think the idea of mutually assured destruction has a serious flaw besides the mutual destruction. That is it's only a deterrent between two countries with nukes. However a country with nukes can invade a country without nukes and only face the retaliation of another country if that country is willing to sacrifice the human race for them. Putin's threat and lack of any country stepping in suggests this is true.
@@joedirt2862 True that Ukraine is not a formal member of NATO, and this is the whole point. From Russia's point of view, Ukraine is a de-facto NATO member - trained and armed by NATO. If Russia waited the moment that Ukraine to become a formal member of NATO, it is already too late -- that will mean to declare a war with all NATO members.
I am greatly enjoying your work to think, analyze and understand the situation critically. I would like to give my understanding of Russian thinking in this regard, this is not meant to justify the action, it is meant to achieve a thorough understand of their standpoint.
To correctly understand Russian thinking regarding this issue I would believe that the Alexander Dugin's concept of ethnos is of crucial importance. Russians do not understand countries the way you defined them. Dugin's philosophy is based on Martin Heidegger's notion of Dasein and connects it with his notion of Volk (the people). A country is a sacred soil of the Volk (the people). I am inferring by your speech and endeavor that you are American. Americans as a people and culture have no soil, not in the material sense, this of course they do, but in the sacred ethnical sense, they do not. The soil they live on belongs to the Native Americans in the sacred sense.
This notion of sacred soil is crucial in understanding the justification Russians have for themselves to purse these military goals. Sacred soil with the sacred religion (orthodox church) with sacred people and the sacred ruler (the Tsar), that is how they understand their identity. This sacredness should not be understood in the secular protestant way as is commonly understood in the Anglo-American cultural context. This sacredness should be understood in the sense of a belonging to a cultural-historical context, in the sense of Heidegger's Dasein. The eastern part of Ukraine is orthodox in the cultural-historical sense and therefore, from the Russian standpoint belongs under the sacred soil of Russia. I would recommend looking into the ideas of Dostoyevsky's character Shatov in his work the Demons to understand this better.
Finally, the basic geopolitical textbook was written by Alexander Dugin and is used in most Russian military circles for education. The Russian geopolitical philosophy is based on Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Their goal is to achieve a multipolar geopolitical world as opposed to a unipolar world of the West, they believe the correct poles are those that Huntington defined in his book.
Some might understand this as a form of Orthodox fundamentalism (similar to Islamic fundamentalism), which I will not judge on, but I think that if the Russian's secularized their worldview as the far West protestant worldview they would believe to not be Russians anymore, I think that the essence of what they believe to be an existential threat. Existential threat in the sense of Dostoyevsky's Orthodox existentialism.
Ah...thanks for explaining why it's okay for "Russians" to murder innocent men, women and children, I was wondering about that.
But that's the ideological view, there's the material view which is vastly different, what guides Russian interest is the Russian oligarchy, some points of the video weren't that accurate, indeed the first two justifications were just to gather favourable public opinion, but the third one... Well, lacks the knowledge of the Minsk accords, which Merkel herself acknowledge they weren't respected and the US used to gather time, also the cable leaks by the WikiLeaks showing Nuland raging against the EU, the stages Maidan protests, the IMF involvement, there are a lot of things that aren't said, but it could be research to understand what really went on, and the truth is the Russian oligarchs are trying to negate resources and trivial infrastructure to their western counterparts, which themselves are trying to earn a quick buck without losing man of their own to provoke another outcry of another lost war, they rather "fight to the last Ukrainian", since they won't fight anyway, in the end is like the mafia says: "just business"
@@Rrgr5 Both of you make great points to understand the Russian ideological explanation for the invasion, although a deeply flawed narrative.
My question is, do we ultimately need to understand Russia's aggression?
Does a person need to understand a robber that has broken into one's house? Did the Western allies need to understand Nazi Germany view of Liebestraum? Ukrainian sovereignty is the beginning and the end of the discussion. The rest is just mental gymnastics.
@@bernardzsikla5640 yes we need to prevent it, is that difficult to understand? Why you think we study history? Your abstractions don't really add up here, that kind of discourse looks more like a gaslight than anything.
@@Rrgr5 Interesting, you had such a thoughtful explanation and understanding of Russian ideology and your reply devolved into just a silly comment. Ultimately, we don't need to understand Authoritarianism. We need to defend against it.
And again you mentioning gaslighting, you might want to Google the term. Your original lengthy explanation of Russian ideology is more of a gaslighting apologist mentality than anything I had stated.
How do you see the Holodomor? Is this similar to the US invading Grenada on account of Cuban troops and the Munroe Doctrine? and the invasion of Panama?
Any other channel and i would have dismissed this as clickbait. but your other content have been very high content, so im clicking. Will write if it was interesting or good after watching this
03:50 Actually, this was basically the war of 1812
Glad someone pointed out.... The British would’ve certainly reclaimed Js had they hv the power to do so
War of 1812 was started by the USA, not the UK. Various hawks and expansionists thought it would be a good opportunity to take Canada while Britain was occupied with Napoleon, plus they were annoyed at the Royal Navy's impressment of American sailors captured at sea, which is reasonable. Britain responded but not with much force as it couldn't spare them from Europe; instead the conflict was the making of Canada as local militias in conjunction with Native groups responded more decisively to the threat.
Id like you to talk about the coup of 2014. A deeper dive into that seems to be the start of a lot of this civil war as of late. Some would argue that it was backed by U.S/EU and a "propped up" government suiting westerners goals. I mean it wouldnt have been the first time the west goes into a country to set up its own form of governance and get what it wants out of it. Some issues are not so much seen but it is interesting to think about. And about his 3rd argument it would be in a way like the cuban missle crisis. And why the U.S was not going to tolerate that. So much they were prepared to launch Operation Northwoods...
For your info, Russia put missiles in Cuba because the US had put missiles in Italy in the first place.
Master List of US Aggression
By William Blum
Instances of the United States overthrowing or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti *2004
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
😲😠😡
For the past 240 years, the US only had 16 years without a war. It was/is a powerful country but never a great country! MAGA is bullshit!
Geopolitics, baby. Hang around, China will have its day of such foreign policy adventures. Currently they're doing so by economic methods, but their military isn't built to protect them from invasion.
i love the complete ignorance of Ukrainian politics, history, agency and right to self determination of Ukrainians in these braindead takes. Viewing Ukraine as a soulless puppet of west, because that's how Putin sees any country that isn't post communist dictatorship hellhole, and God forbid, democracy. Keep parroting Russia Today, that's some deep insights.
@@ongogablogian2525 So, it's a magnificent democracy, you say?
@@ongogablogian2525 very well put
If this needs discussion, there is no justice.
Excellent summary
The only part I think sort of makes sense, as you put is the NATO issue... But it be framed as a Russia vs. Ukraine or Russia vs. the world isn't quite right. It was up to the US/UK/France/Germany (The big four in NATO) to take Russia seriously... They chose not to. That's a responsibility partially on them. I 100% understand Ukraine wanting to join NATO, as with the members that joined earlier in the late 90's and early 2000's (Poland, and the Baltics)... But it was also the responsibility of the Pentagon and its allies in London, Paris, Berlin to weigh the long term ramifications of NATO expansion... which at the time they were either to arrogant on Fukuyama fever or to too stupid to foresee this kind of outcome.
As a side note, from Russia's angle- people tend to throw the "but NATO is a defensive pact! Look, Article 5!" No. If that were the case, the Libyans and the Serbians wouldn't have had to deal with NATO in the past. NATO has been used in non-defensive roles in the past and Russia is very much well aware of this.
Correction: The East-West divide of Ukraine has largely been mitigated since 2014. Now, cities like Dnipro and Zaporizhe are clearly in the pro-Western camp, while pro-Russian sentiment only really remained in the Donbass and in the Kherson area near Crimea.
Yes, the map shows a pre-2014 situation and hasn't been updated. Also people opinions quickly change, when the target of your fanboyism actually does what he threatened to do and invades with force and destroys your beloved ones, your home, your job and future.
Yeah, easy for the map to be different when Ukraine has been steadily banning any opposition, any expression of pro-Russian views, etc. I'm sure maps of Austria in 1938 also showed most people supporting Germany, even though that was most likely not true.
@@OBrasilo Interesting. So you favor a pro-Russian view in your country, a view supporting an outsider, who wants to gain control of your sovereign nation? And let's not forget, that Russia is the country, that even imprisons similar views in their own country, any expression against their aggression, in addition to just banning it.
@@OBrasilo The pro-Russian opposition party was allowed all the way until the invasion and it has legally contested every elections since the Maidan revolution. I have a couple of friends in eastern oblasts of Ukraine, most of them Russian-speaking, and none of them has told me that the Ukrainian government was oppressive towards them due to their use of Russian language, so I choose to believe them. Most Ukrainians from the East consider the Kyiv government a flawed one, but still much better than the DNR and the LNR, which have since 2014 been run by a coalition of people from the Russian intel agencies and the local mob. Yeah, Ukraine ain't perfect, but it's still much better for its citizens than any alternative the Russians bring.
@@OBrasilo whenever the facts don't fit the narrative, actually use them in support of an additional narrative
Excellent analysis 👍
There was an agreement that NATO would not move towards Russia when the wall came down