I think there will be some poetic justice in this, that due to the lack of condemnation of the UPA genociders and that bastard Bandera, Ukraine will lose its independence. But it will also be poetic justice if, after rejecting UPA and Bandera, it joins NATO or the EU. Ukraine must choose - live in harmony with Poland, furfilling its dreams to became a part of the West (NATO, UE), rejecting the UPA and Bandera, or still keeping monuments of those nazis and perish. I wonder what will they choose. What do you think?
Most statements in this video would need "if Russia didn't have nukes" added to the end to be factually correct. At least I don't see any scenario where NATO randomly goes to war against Russia, seizes Rostov, Volgograd, Krasnodar, Stavropol... and the Kremlin response to that is to only use conventional military means and then just give up if that doesn't work. Also I don't know how many radical geopolitical changes we need for Armenia and Azerbaijan to both join NATO.
I don’t think Armenia and Azerbaijan can really join NATO realistically even if they got on the same page and joined at the same time a la Greece and Turkey. Neither one can really “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” seeing as neither have coasts on any body of water connected to the Atlantic. Georgia is kind of a stretch but would be 100% a prerequisite for Armenia and Azerbaijan joining as well. And totally agree with you - Russian nuclear weapons totally invalidate most of this video. In the same way, Russia is not totally crumbling just because Finland joined NATO.
That's not true. Nukes are great deterrents but they are useless if used. China would turn on Russia if Russia uses a nuke. So thinking nukes do anything beyond ensuring NATO doesn't step into Russia's internationally agreed borders is foolish. Nukes don't help in a negotiation over Ukraine because if Russia agree to the deal then the nukes are not part of the equation. Either this war will bleed Ukraine and Russia dry (and their demographics are both terminal) or Ukraine will force Russia out or they will find a deal which will include international guarantees to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine won't fall for the same deal they signed with the US and Russia in the 90s when they had the 3rd largest nuke arsenal in the world. This time the deal will include NATO signatories even if that doesn't make Ukraine officially part of NATO but merely protected by NATO
Those that read this should not look at this as what NATO would want to do but what Russians tell themselves what NATO wants to do. Even then, it’s not reallly the Russians saying that to themselves, it’s those Russians who truly believe that the Soviet Union was undermined from the inside and that the greatest loss in history was it’s destruction. It’s those who believe it can be revived, there are multiple problems for them in regard to what it would cost in blood and treasure, who’s blood and what treasure, and if you were to actually accomplish the goal the inability to control the vast streams of corruption that have been built into the making of such an entity and the system was always a house of cards waiting to collapse. This whole thing seems to be something that came out of a drinking session between a very persuasive academic and a leader who thought he was going to Staples, “That was easy.”
Exactly this. Why the paranoia? The word "vulnerability" was used numerous times, yet what nation is the mysterious force that seems destined to invade Russian lands??
At least three problems with this: 1. It asserts that an independent Ukraine would aggressively seek to control the Volgograd Gap. But in its 30 years of independence Ukraine had shown no inclination to seek territory within Russia or influence over territory within Russia. In addition, Ukraine seeks to be in the EU and NATO. Whether this will come to pass is moot, but either would be moderating influences; as the current conflict has shown, both EU and NATO states have been very wary about provoking a nuclear armed Russia. Nobody really covets Russian territory - except in the east where China has a huge grievance and Japan a rather smaller one. 2. It neglects the effects of climate change. Russia's northern coast will soon become ice-free. This will open far greater possibilities than are presented by the Black Sea, which is in any case bordered by NATO states with a long and tortuous path through these states to reach the open ocean. Even if Russia owned Ukraine, Sevastopol, and its ocean access, is actually rather vulnerable and it is destined to become more of a tourist resort than a military base. 3. Lots of countries have large land borders. They manage their security by getting along with their neighbours, something Russia seems to struggle with.
Once the northwest passage opens up long term, Russia's other strategic problem will rear its ugly head - it has basically no population in the east and it borders a country with 1.4 billion people who desperately wants to shake off the US naval encirclement of, who will, at the same time, also desperately desire large bodies of freshwater. Russia's east is definitely under threat as the Chinese eye the decrepit state for its access to the Northwest passage and Lake Baikal
The only reason they struggle with that is because they all want to join NATO.Like Georgia bragged in 2008 that they would have NATO bases and then Russia went in. The problem has been NATO expansion, some in the Clinton admin pointed this out and how it would lead to a conflict like this. Well they lost in the 90s and well here we are.
Hey bud ever thought about the maidan revolution and how this radically altered russo ukrainian relations? A years long war between ethnic russians in eastern ukraine and western ukrainian nationalists.
@@pietero.o6792 That came rather late in the day. You might like to think how Ukrainians were affected by events from the poisoning of Yushchenko in 2004 to the trade war launched by Putin on Ukraine in 2013 and his subsequent personal pressure on Yanukovych. These events led to Maidan. Maidan did not trigger a war between Western Ukrainians and Eastern ethnic Russian separatists. Western and Eastern Ukrainians would have taken it in their stride, and separatists were very much a minority in the East. It took a good deal of malevolent interference by the Kremlin to foment this violence. Igor Girkin has been quite open about the pivotal role of Kremlin-backed mercenaries, and the MH17 enquiry was pretty clear that the Kremlin was pulling the strings.
I’ve heard this before, “russias long border makes it vulnerable “. That was true like 80 years ago but now Russia has 6000 nukes, no one is that stupid to invade Russia anymore. It’s nukes neutralized that threat permanently.
Not true. Only thing nukes managed to neutralise is any future total war like conflict (for example WW2). Limited conflicts on other hand, like for Taiwan, Volgograd gap or Baltics are realistically possible and could be done without escalasion into total nuclear war.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato declared a "special military operation" and was heading into russia nukes would fly. Putin would see that "special military operation" as a existential war and retaliate with non tactical nukes within its own territory & escalate from there. They wont do that in ukraine at present since nato would treat that as triggering article 4. so my point stands, no one will invade a country that has nukes, if ukraine kept its nukes russia wouldn't have invaded it.
@@Azz156 They would not, because of nature of limited conflict and simple fact that you do not want get nuked. As such limited conflict would stay and be counter by conventional force. Nukes would realistically fly only if limited conflict transformed itself into total conflict, aimed at removal of current government and occupation of every part of country.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato tried to invade the 800k gap between Ukraine and Volgograd with the intent of cutting the caucuses off from Moscow that would be a scenario for non tactical nukes. It’s literally in russias military doctrine.
Look at the situation from the other side: 1. NATO was created in response to the USSR, but for some reason, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO only began to develop, allegedly from the "aggression" of Russia 2. The USA and Canada are like Russia and Ukraine, and now imagine that Russia has an alliance to deter US aggression and Canada joins this alliance and what will the USA do????
1. After the fall of the Soviet Union, several neighbouring countries did indeed move quickly to join NATO. They suspected that the hold of liberal democracy might be tenuous and that a Recovered Russia would return to its imperial ways. They were right. But NATO took the peace dividend in other ways, by closing military bases, reducing military expenditure (witness Trump's exasperation with his NATO partners on this score) and improving communication and openness with Russia via the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997. 2. False analogy. Canada does not need to deter US aggression. The last time the US invaded was in 1812. Russia/USSR has invaded most of its European neighbours in the last 80 years, with varying degrees of brutality, and has always maintained a sense of entitlement towards them.
The ‘flat terrain’ argument really does not hold up anymore in the age of nukes. Moreover, Russia has showed the world how an attack on flat terrain will fail big time. In addition, NATO is a defensive organization so any country attacking Russia would stand alone. Switzerland and Austria are surrounded by NATO and they have no complains as far as my knowledge goes. It’s the countries bordering Russia that are afraid of an invasion, NATO-members and non-NATO members all together.
А́ что такого есть у Швейцарии или Австрии ради чего хотелось бы вторгнуться? Население, которое кормить надо будет? Ни ресурсов, ни земель свободных, ни ископаемых. Россия - это богатство, вот и лезут сюда Европа и США, которые по ввели грабить и убивать ради своих интересов. Европа и США должны быть изолированы, пока прилично вести себя не научатся.
@@ЕленаБем-ц1й Если Россия так богата, почему довоенный ВВП на душу населения составлял всего лишь 15 392 доллара? Для сравнения, для Швейцарии это 92 371 доллар.
Those i know wich are from those countrys don't fear russian invasion. They have some probleme with russian influence in national affair but that's it. It's the exact same thing for Canada and mexico with the U.S or vietnam, thailand, philipine with china.
@@evilleader1991 yes their is no mecanism to compell other nato members to join in an ovensive war. That is the reason germany and france could tell George W. Bush to fuck as he wanted to invate Iraq.
I like Caspian report but in this video, and similar ones that he made before, his thesis is flawed in regards to the weeknes of open terrain. Yes Russia has long border with NATO and Ukraine that is mainly flat but it also has HUGE territory behind it. Closing the Volgograd gap would require shit ton of manpower and equipment and even more if you mean to control the territory. Remember that USA with all its allies never occupied whole of the Afganistan and current NATO army in Europe couldn't occupy Russian core if they wanted to. Long and flat border is weaknes for the defender but Russian huge territory is weaknes for the attacker as was proved in the history so far. All this is without taking nukes in the consideration.
Yes tell that to mongols 😂. Flat terrain is terrible. Your thesis is flawed afghanistan = mountains. Check what NATO did to Iraq (twice) and then you will understand russians fear
Nuclear escalation doesn't happen instantly. Look at India and China, they have skirmishes along their border all the time. Those smaller, non state threatening conflicts don't necessitate a nuclear response. Border lands must have some sort of military presence, or you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of issues. Nukes prevent total war, historically anyway, but conflict will continue to happen.
The Caspian Report also failed to take Russia's current stronghold within Ukraine. Without starting a new World War, I don't think Ukraine will ever regain areas lost in the Donbas or Crimea.
Volgograd gap is historically a Kuban region where Ukrainian language was dominating, people are mostly of Ukrainian ancestry. Muscovites are still mocking Kuban people claiming they are dumb like Ukrainians. After Ukraine wins there will be a turmoil within Russia, it will be very tempting for regions to keep resources and transit checks incentivizing Siberian and Kuban regions to leave empire. NATO won't need to do anything just fuel Russian civil war a little bit and that will be the end of Russia.
Well, both Turkey and Greece are in NATO, so go figure. Strange things happen sometimes. The situation is very similar - and maybe NATO membership is the only thing preventing conflict in Cyprus.
Those countries have already been subject to Russian invasion, and/or, Russian support of separatist movements. So, if in the politicians minds, NATO can guarantee protection (depending on how things turn out to be with Ukraine), then "imaginative" is not the word you would want to use, but may something closer to "possible". The word does not submit to your liking bro, but to geopolitics
@@АлексейЛ-д6х thanks for bringing that up, as a greek, I also believe that NATO is THE major reason that we haven't and we won't fight a conventional war with Turkey and I actually hope that we fid a way to cooperate more on a regional level. Same could work for Armenia and Azerbaijan too
Personally I would disagree. Your analysis rests on the main point that Russia is invading because of this geographic vulnerability and to prevent Ukrainian accession into NATO. However if that were the case it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years. Every time Ukraine tried the reaction was always "ehhhhh maybe next time". But the war has basically guaranteed a closer relationship between the West and Ukraine. And even if Russia had succeeded in the complete takeover of Ukraine it would have always resulted in Finland, Sweden joining NATO as well as pushing Moldova firmly towards the west. That would have shortened the "frontline" on the mainland but as you already put in another video, created a NATO lake in the Baltic. Personally I think the only valid explanation to the war is imperialism. The thought that Russia has been wronged and had its lands unfairly taken away from them. You could hear it in Putins speech where he mentions the loss of Finland and the Baltic states being a great Russian tragedy.
"it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years." A very valid point.
@@leGUIGUI Nonsense dude. People were dying left and right. Zelensky said he wanted to join nato, and nato supported that. This war was 100% going to happen the moment Joe Biden became president. One way or another, it was pre-destined. Something big was going to happen, Putin went in before it could happen.
Honestly the defence of those various geographical weaknesses is what the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is for. The whole “we need a strategic position” argument is just an excuse. They lost the cold war from much more favorable ground, it’s not like setting their flag as far as Moldova will fix things this time. It’s also I think kindof presumptive to assume that the country just deserves easily defencible borders. I think if anyone has poor borders it isn’t Russia, it’s Poland, or maybe Ukraine itself, facing Russia. Even if we removed nukes from the equation, the size of Russia’s conventional military, and the depth of its equipment is more than vast enough to defend the Volgograd gap. The Soviets were in a much worse spot in 1942 than they would be even now after all the losses in Ukraine. It would be a fool’s errand for NATO to invade even without factoring in Nukes. The very first thing Russia would do is try to steamroll the baltics, which given their tactics would mean their destruction, and push into Poland, and there is no strategic justification for such an invasion, I don’t even think most NATO members even want Russia to collapse, that would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen basically since World War II, and just imagine trying to account for all those nukes.
Regardless, we shouldn't so flippantly disregard this excuse. See what John Mearsheimer says on this topic. He's been prophetic over the years, so it'd be prudent to at least give it some thought.
This exclusively militaristic analysis reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. Never mind that most European NATO members gave up on defence spending after 1990, that the US couldn’t beat the Taliban after trying for 20 years, that the biggest threat to Russia is probably China, we’ve got to control that Volgograd gap!
Yeh - Maybe it was more important when people fought with horses and spears. Maybe even when tanks didn't have the issue of a cheap drone sending its turret flying. The nature of wars change with the advent of new technologies. Maybe the military ideas written in the books in 1900 don't apply so much today.
The thing is that nations of the West were not willing to commit enough resources to war in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq and there was no plan what to do after those regimes are overthrown. There was no equivalent to Marshall plan or any plan to win hearts of locals and to establish working governments.
@@robert48044 One little difference, when USSR was fighting them, they were funded and armted by US, and USSR was actively destroyed from within, by elites to start privatizaion. But, when US was fighting them, Russia not anly was not funding them, but was helping US.
Russia will be divided after oil and gas revenues completely evoporates this is the only thing that holds them together. So we can expect to see it happen anywhere between 50-200 years
@@Rikimkigsckgood point. Any time you’ll want to persuade say an American to uphold Paris agreements and decarbonization, remember to add that failing to move on makes Russia stronger and it’s in their best interests to keep climate change going.
@@maciek_k.cichonAs many times as it takes until the economy of the rest of the world collapses along with it, so spoiled children cannot be raised to think "we should just all have it good and nobody deserves more than the other as that's unfair".
@@NikojNisto-gw8rc except there are. That’s how Eastern Europe joined nato. Hell Finland which is right on the border with Russia was overwhelming in its public support for joining anti.
how is this not all just paranoia? how is this a justification to invade Ukraine? who in their right mind would have attacked the russian mainland when they have THE BIGGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN THE WORLD???
Ukrainian regime has been killing Russians in Donbas for 8 years. And for 8 years Putin tried to avoid military resolve. USA didn't want any of it, they wanted this conflict to escalate.
@@haroonsuresh2326 congrats on your regurgitated russian propaganda. truly an enlightened critical thinking individual. it amazes me that people who have no relation to EU or even live in a post-soviet state think they get to tell us that we're supposed to lay down and let the russian state force their politics on ourselves when it already happeend once and the entire eastern bloc decided they had enough. barely 70 years later, we're supposed to be okay with it now, because some indian diaspora says so? laughable.
NATO is a gang. They cooperate together in expence of others. Germany and France (and other NATO's members) don't have to spend money to guard themselves from each other but everyone else in the world have to spend ton of money to guard themselves from NATO.
@@mrj4616 It "miraculously disppeared" way after Russian became hostile by invading Ukraine. The pipeline was already down when it was destroyed. If it was their try to cooperate, they're really bad at it. Don't try to place Russia as a victim. "Wow I can't even invade my neighbour in peace"
@@mrj4616 You mean the pipelines through which Russia was no longer delivering any gas, in order to punish Germany for supporting the neighbour Russia had just invaded? Yeah, I think they'd kind of given up on co-operation by that point.
@@mrj4616 russia reneged on contractual obligations to deliver gas to germany, this was a violation of the signed agreement they had, just as Germany was getting ready to launch legal action miraculously the pipeline blew up making it impossible for russia to follow through with their contractual obligations and funnily enough it was just before winter and the perfect time for russia to deprive europe of gas, do you think that is a happy coincidence?
I have zero interest in invading Russia. My problem is their inability to respect borders. Keep your nukes in check, stop invading neighbors. But Russia doesn't seem to be able to do that.
Their history is based on the never ending invasions of neighbouring countries. Guess why they are the largest country in the world..... They cannot live without it.
The wise option for ukraine was to remain neutral. Ukraine could've become the prime example of being peace keeper. This is the result of paid comedian ruling the country.
@@atharvaswami5726 "Clever" advice. Living next to a big neanderthal who already attacked you like 100x in the past and you had to be his slave for a long time you can be a slave forever or try to find a help.
Lviv is a Polish city, hence why it resembles a "slice of Europe." The Ukraine, as it was primarily called right up until this recent reignition in conflict between it and Russia, was historically always a "borderland" or arguably a "province" of Polish/Lithuanian powers as well as Russian. Far longer than its very short "independence" since the breakup of the Soviet Union. People need to realize this in order to understand the conflict, otherwise it's just blindly believing the current propaganda, regardless which side you align with. That does not mean it should allow Russia to invade but it also means its not a random act of aggression by Putin. Historically and recently it was Russian territory. It's like trying to claim the War of 1812 was a random invasion against the US by the Brits. There's much much more to this conflict than people realize but please atleast don't pretend this is an "unjustified" war. There is no such thing, wars are either all unjust or all fair game.
War is the continuation of politics by other means. ~Carl von Clausewitz Politics is the continuation of war by other means. ~Just me In other words, as long as we create rulers, we cannot create society. As long peace, freedom and solidarity are just written on papers, but not lived. 🗽🤷😉
The assumption that Ukraine wishes to attack Russia and take territory from it is... pretty flawed. The assumption that Nato necessarily would also wish to attack Russia after helping free Ukraine is also... well, where is the evidence for that?
now would be a great time to invade russia. when wagner thunder runned to moscow, i think it was only old wheeled apc's that appeared in moscow.... the vast bulk of russias land and air military is tied up in ukraine.
@@specialingu that's true, but their nuclear deterrence is still massive, and it just isn't in NATO's interest to start a nuclear war, or in it's modus operandi. It needs the russian people to realise that the life they could have under democracy would be so much better than the life they currently have under the depot that is Putin. Russia could be fabulously rich, but unfortunately they are ruled by gangsters who have stolen the money for themselves.
NATO is seen as desiring to attack Russia is in part on Russian paranoia (thank Napoleon and Hitler) and NATO eastward expansion since 1991. The reasoning might be flawed, but it’s real.
How about Finland joining NATO and Baltic Sea becoming NATO lake. There was NO threat to Russia, zero, none. Not in 2022, not in 2014. Ukraine had non-block status, no army, bad economy, corruption and political landscape infested with Russian agents. Poor and divided. Russia did it, because it could. Well, we are approaching 600th day of 3 day military operation.
Exactly, this channel is not about political science and real sophisticated explanations, it's about geopolitical crap that is just tarot cards for teenaged boys.
You couldn't be more wrong. Nato funded, trained and built up a MASSIVE Ukrainian army beginning after the coup in 2014. They were trained to nato standards and had hundreds of thousands of men. Don't u remember when Trump was impeached for not giving them *even* more weapons! Pay attention And certain formations of the Ukrainian armed forces Carried out a campaign of violence against the ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east. 13,000 people were killed per the UN
Still the Caucasus or ‘Volgograd gap’ is size of France.. It is only ‘narrow’ in comparison to the rest of the country.. but objectively it’s massive. and who in the modern world would be (even potentially) interested in invading there..
Exactly. This is like an argument that Ukraine is important for Russia because from Moscow to the Ukrainian border there are 600 kilometers... Several European countries or half of Ukraine itself can fit into this distance. How much land exactly does the largest country in the world need to feel secure?
@@БогданБеркутThe problem with Russia is a lot of undeveloped land. The areas around the capital are developed but almost all are rural and underfunded.
Could you do a video about why Russia wasn’t integrated to western institutions like the EU or NATO after the USSR fell? It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. Feels like such a missed opportunity, even if Russia would have demanded special independence and privileges (like when UK was in the EU). Even today countries in the EU like Poland or Hungary follow their own more independent foreign policy, why couldn’t Russia have been integrated in a similar way? Feels like the biggest mistake after the end of the cold war, alienating Russia for them to then inevitably turn to China. This is perhaps the most consequential legacy of foreign relations in the 90s early 2000s, the people who were involved in it will be judged for this in the future.
You are thinking, maybe it's cause the west has wanted the spoils of Russia since forever. Can't get the gems for cheap if the sovereignty is still stable.
There were attempts but it all stopped when Russia brutally attacked Chechnya. The brutality shown there made it obvious Russia didn’t change and would likely destroy nato or EU from within
Sounds like the 100th video titled "impact of Ukraine joining NATO on russia*. It's not even milking content dry, it's squeezing the content for the last drops.
Many of the photos used in this segment were cities far away from Ukraine. For example we saw war time photos of 1945 Königsberg. We also saw modern aerials of Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan.
These supposedly Russian boarder vulnerabilities are way over-blown! Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. Totally under estimating Russia's ability to protect itself.
It’s not the world’s largest nuclear power. Its nukes probably work as well as their 1940s tanks. You must still think Russia is the 2nd most powerful military in the world 😕
This video does highlight Russia’s security concerns, some of them based on history. It doesn’t make me sympathise with them, however. If they wanted to keep countries like Ukraine in their sphere of influence, then it would help to treat them well and get on with them, not drive them away to the Europeans. Russia is like a desperate guy chasing women who’ve repeatedly rejected him - the harder they try to get people to stay with them by force, the more they achieve the opposite effect and drive everyone away.
you do know that they TRIED THAT ALREADY. Before this war started there was a point where ukraines economy was crumbling, the west offered some help but then russia countered by offering SIGNIFCANTLY MORE the result was a western staged coup, and the rest as they say is history.
framing neighbors as a 'spheres of influence' is some 18th century imperialist nonsense. allies, partners.. even friends - that's different. someone you lord it over and who's kids you bully vs someone you have over for a bbq and let swim in your pool. big, big difference, and the choice (when people have a choice) is more than obvious.
@@karlcxThe USA literally has a doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine which is totally based upon American Imperialism. What’s your thoughts on America committing over 80 regime changes since WW2? What’s your thoughts on America’s 850 military bases around the world?
NATO is a defence treaty. NATO doesn't "want" to invade Russia. It's countries threatened by Russia, which want to join NATO instead. The natural border between Eastern and Central Europe seems to be the Dnyepr/Dnipro. It might boil down to that with Kiev being a gateway
What’s the difference between attack and defense when defense in this case means surrounding you with troops and installing anti missile equipment to such an extent as to castrate your opponent?
@@fredrikengstrom5771It's defence. Russia has been invading Eastern Europe non stop since like 1700,so if Russia doesnt make changes than Eastern Europe will build strong defences. And that doesnt mean castrating Russia,it means castrating Russia's ability to destroy Eastern Europe. NATO has prevented a Ukraine from occurring in Poland,for example. Finland and Sweden saw what Russian diplomacy looked like and scrambled to join NATO. Putler fanboys like you will not be looked kindly upon NATO.
Word “Ukraine” does not come from “borderlands”. Exactly opposite, it means “inner land”, or simply home. Later, when Russians occupied our lands, they created a myth about “Ukraine comes from Borderlands” 4:41
It's possible that the "borderlands" origin of the name is wrong, but given that one definition of "край" is "border", calling it a "created myth" is questionable since such an error could also be the result of an honest mistake over time, a misinterpretation of the origin of the name.
@@harbingerdawnsure but in this case “країна” means country in modern Ukrainian and can be literally interpreted as “haver of edges” or “within the borders”. In modern Ukrainian “край” means not only “edge” but also “piece” and even “land” (as a geographical not a physical entity).
Yeah but why doesn't Europe deserve Ukraine? Those same plains that made Russia vulnerable make Europe equally so, with Russia able to funnel troops into Poland and Germany. I'd say they deserve more protection than Russia
Europe is not Europe, there is a parasite within. We can have normal relations or at the very least worry about Russia AFTER we deal with the far more destructive force that is inside our governments
NATO is a defensive alliance, if Poland or Finland decided to invade Belarus or Russia they would do so...alone and with heavy criticism from NATO and the EU.
@@joshbell5387 First of all Libya was neither rich nor prosperous, at least no under Gadhafi. Second of all that just proves the point. Not all NATO members participated ans supported the bombing of Libya. Russia however did support it btw.
A widely known characteristic of defensive rockets and defensive artillery on one's border is that, when used in offensive, they condemn the aggression and disappear into thin air
War is the main crime against men No matter what politicians say about the horrors of war for women, men have always been and remain the main victims of wars. The essence of any war can be described in one phrase: men of one country are sent to kill men of another country. War is the peak, the culmination of all anti-masculine phenomena. War is a gross violation of men's rights. This is especially true of conscript soldiers who are forced to fight on pain of imprisonment in case of refusal to serve. But even if a man goes to the front as a volunteer, he is not such a volunteer as it may seem at first glance. A man unwittingly becomes a victim of patriotic propaganda, because society will shame him with all its might and means if he refuses the "honorable" duty of all men to defend the Motherland. The clearest example of such a shaming of men was the campaign of the so-called Order of the White Feather, which took place during the First World War in Great Britain. The campaign was attended by women who handed men who did not go to the front a white feather as a symbol of cowardice. The desire of men to "voluntarily" get involved in the war does not appear from scratch. This desire is nurtured in men, is embedded in their consciousness and is constantly fueled by patriotic slogans and propaganda in the media. The idea that men are obliged to sacrifice themselves for the good of the state and the nation, to protect women and children, to defend freedom and democracy is deeply rooted in the culture of many countries. War is the culmination of men's servitude, it is the strongest confirmation that men are at the full disposal of the state. They can be used as disposable batteries, their lives are not valued and mean nothing to the government. As soon as a man passes into the category of "soldier", he is removed from the category of "man". In the understanding of generals, soldiers are resources with which you can achieve strategic goals, but not people who have their own dreams, hopes and desires. They are valuable as long as they can serve the state interests. This "dehumanization" of soldiers is very well traced when it comes to civilian and military casualties. While the death of civilians is regarded as a tragedy, the death of soldiers is perceived as the norm. The soldier's goal is to kill or be killed. Despite the fact that the victorious soldiers are praised and extolled, their servitude in the hands of the state is no less than that of the deceased military of the losing side. The death of the victorious soldiers is recognized as heroic, but does this make it less tragic? This is just a propaganda tool that encourages other men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country in the same way. For the sake of male solidarity and ending violence against men, we should reject war and all its manifestations. It is necessary to promote peace and try to stay away from all militaristic institutions, which are essentially anti-male. In peacetime, it is difficult to attract public attention to the problems of men. It is impossible to do this in wartime. Men who are shamed in peacetime for their unwillingness to sacrifice their health and well-being for the sake of the interests of women and children will be branded traitors and cowards in wartime. In difficult times, it is men who are expected to take the brunt of fate, so that women and children suffer less. In order to reduce and eliminate the servitude of men in the hands of the state, so that the world begins to show compassion for men and boys, we need to start with the idea of abandoning wars. Support associations, associations, unions, single activists who fight for the rights of men in all spheres of life. Actively use all legal means for your struggle. Remember that the life, health, safety, comfort of men are priceless, it should not be sacrificed to other social groups. We deserve to live in a world where there is no oppression, sexism (misandry and misogyny), gendercide (androcide and femicide), discrimination. Only such a world has the right to be called civilized.
Even better, do a video where you discuss the American vulnerability to Canadian invasion. Wait that would be ridiculous because, outside of Russia, geography isn't destiny.
In the words of Sarcasmitron in his excellent "Shut Up About NATO Expansion" video: "... and also, and I cannot believe this needs to be explained to f***ing geopolitics experts, Russia has a nuclear deterrent! They do not need land buffers! At all! What, is it the 19th century? Are they worried about General Mannheim's zombie army? Do they also need more crossbowmen for their star forts?"
@@ElysianFrostYou are right. The whole war is just Putin's pride. He doesn't like the fact the Soviet Union fell. Calling it the biggest catastrophe of the previous century. And WWI and WWI happened in that same century. It shows what's important to him.
Trade is the main factor, if they are contested more in the black sea and the caspian sea they're shipment costs would be crippling. Having nuclear bombs gives them protections but geography is still vital. Russia still has to protect their vital points to avoid immediate toppling and that is a shitton more spending. It's better to launch nukes with protected boarders and not have to debate if hitting the enemy capital is better than destroying the steppes to stop the charge. I think this war has placed Russia in a precarious position, if they fail the economic disaster will be immense. I can also see a rapid destabilization of the current regime as Putin's "oopsie we invaded" was a political disaster.
@@HistoryNerd8765 I mean, for all that Russia blusters about NATO and pretends it needs strategic depth, they actually seem well aware of this. They are very clearly not worried about NATO making a grab for Kaliningrad while Russian forces are tied up in Ukraine. Finland's about 90 miles from St. Petersburg and Russia pretty calmly accepted Finland joining NATO because they knew they had little ability to stop it *and because they knew that NATO forces taking St. Petersburg from Finland was not actually a serious threat*.
"Russia has a large flat border that threatens its security" So does Poland, the baltics and Ukraine but for some weird reason they dont pretend they need lebensraum for security. Volga gab is literally longer than most european countries yet it is a security threat. The video just assumes a militaristic war striven countries and just plays to russian mindset that they are threatened and need more defense land, while being the largest country on earth. Why doesnt Turkey need Bulgaria and Greece to protect Instanbul? Isnt Instanbul in a flat land very close to Bulgaria, but for some reason Turks dont see it as a threat. Russian mindset is its own biggest threat.
@@KelemKelemno, terrorism was killed in Afghanistan, the terrorist invaders ran out of the country with their tails between their legs like the hyenas they are.
What's the need of a NATO expansion if Russia can have peace of mind? To have no worry about security in its region would have resulted in a different scenario right now in Ukraine. The reason why NATO was a paper tiger these last 25 years was because of a docile eastern Europe. The region of the Baltic nations with Poland have a different motif for self-preservation compared to the rest of Western Europe, while under the umbrella of the United States.
4:40 Ukraine is not "borderland" it's ruissian myth. In Ukrainian language we can replace У and В at the beginning of word "Україна/Вкраїна" basically it means country
Cause all countries seek to benefit themselves Western countries included... West did invasions and destabilisation efforts of the middle east. China is seeking to get ex colonial countries into debt traps. Russia does it via proxy wars (2014 Ukraine) It's fucked up but all countries try to push their agendas... We had 25 years of the USA being a unchallenged super power. gradually over time that has changed. I'm British so USA being a super power is beneficial to my country. But not towards the CCP, Russia, Iran, South America and North Korea... I've tried to keep this brief so please keep that in mind. people make a living out of geo politics...
for all those who talk about nuclear weapons. First. The easiest way to detect and destroy a ballistic missile is at the start, look at the maps of the placement of known Russian nuclear launchers. The closer you are to them, the easier it is for you to deliver a preemptive strike or shoot down on takeoff. Second. The war began 3 months after Zelensky's statement about the possibility of deploying American anti-missiles in Ukraine.
Lol @ all these NAFO shills in the comments reeeeeeeing that caspian report is actually being objective and analytical instead of just cheerleading the ukraine war
Боже , а ещё говорят , что на западе нет пропаганды и все эти западные комментаторы, которые считают себя в этом конфликте настоящими экспертами будучи живущих в так называемых демократических странах , просто запомните вы сами взращиваете ненависть в русских и данное видео подтверждает , что запад нам точно не друг и Россию не постигнет участь нацистской Германии, как вам хотелось бы , скорее у вас наяву будет мир fallout 76
CaspianReport is so tone deaf. He talks about a "new reality" when Ukraine is by all accounts losing this war. He portrays a map of 1991 Ukraine in his Analysis when Russia occupies almost all of it's coastline. Rather than talking about whatever "new reality" you are living in, how about you talk about the current one.
Everything you said about Russia's geographic position is true. However, all of their goals are grimy little selfish ones that hurt many people just to assuage Russian paranoia. Look at Germany and France, in the past surrounded by potential enemies. Their wars of past centuries did not benefit them. Then in the 2nd half the 20th century they formed alliances with other neighbors based on shared values and economics. Do France and Germany still seem vulnerable today? No, and yet the geography hasn't changed. The geopolitics has because all of Europe benefits from peace and economic trade. Even ten years ago Russia was in a position to ensure its own security by continuing to quietly be the supplier of natural gas to the European economy. It is only by seizing neighbor's territory in 2014 and then full-on invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that Russia has actually put itself into a much more vulnerable position. Russia's behavior has been very short-sighted and stupid. Russia should have allowed Ukraine to align with the West and used them as a means to improve their own trade and economic ties with the West. The two nations were once brothers. Just because your little brother marries a beautiful woman, he is still your brother. It is only by betraying Ukraine that Russia lost Ukraine as a long time ally. So damn stupid and costing so many lives for nothing! The same thing is true for China and their fears over isolation behind the first island chain. China keeps pushing back at the United States, because China views its own position as vulnerable. They can't seem to see that the USA's protection of freedom of navigation for everyone is the very reason China was able to grow its own economy despite needing to import resources to build almost everything. Japan and South Korea are in the same damn position as China, highly dependent on imported raw materials to fuel their economies, yet they remain friends with the USA to continue to ensure freedom of navigation and thus ensure the continued flow of raw materials. The biggest threat from the first island chain that China faces is caused by China's own aggression!Literally nobody wanted to block China's trade access until China proved again and again that they can't be trusted as trade partners and won't stop being aggressive militarily.
So in other words we are in a vicious cycle were Russia and China's paranoia makes them more aggressive which leads to a western response that western response further increases the paranoia of Russia and China and on and on it goes, hopefully the threat of nuclear war is enough to deter major aggression but who knows this time period feels very much like 1910-1914 before the war started but hopefully reason prevails
Similarly I wonder if Russia's attempt to cause a famine in the Middle East with a Black Sea grain blockade (no doubt to try to flood Europe with starving Muslim refugees) will convince some that Russia ought to be shut out of the Black Sea altogether, to the point that Ukraine should be encouraged to claim the Kuban region and extend (in the words of the March of Ukrainian Nationalists) "from the San to the Caucasus"?
@@g60B2NHwf Even though Taiwan is not under the control of the PRC, the first island chain today is not being used to restrict Chinese trade. It would only be used that way in the event of war. War will only occur if China starts such a war. Perhaps China should refrain from starting a war.
@@therealuncleowen2588The U.S. has split up other people's countries based on its own interests and now it's telling China not to try any means to solve the unification issue, and if this ends up in a war that's what the U.S. deserves.
Canada has an even more vulnerable border to its south than Russia. Maybe getting along well with your neighbours is a much cheaper and more secure alternative.
Canada borders the United States, a country with which it shares much (including most strategic interests). Russia borders 3 civilisations and a number of historical rivals such as Poland.
@@chrisvickers7928 or it was also the other great powers who supported anti-Russian elements? This is not to deny that the Russian leadership made many mistakes, especially with Ukraine (luckily it’s not repeating them with Georgia, for instance), but that third powers also played a role. Anyway, the comparison with Canada is inappropriate. Canada is a regional power with no particular ambition, like Switzerland; Russia is a great power. And anyone powerful is surrounded by resentful neighbours. Many South Americans don’t like the USA, while some of Germany’s neighbours used to literally hate it. Moreover, most of Russia’s problems are on the Western flank
@giuseppecappelluti3626 And Lithuania once combined with Polish forces to occupy part of Russia. And Mongolia once occupied not only current Russian territory but also China. But if Russian leaders were in touch with reality they would understand that neither Lithuania nor Poland nor Mongolia pose the slightest threat to Russia today and that China is the only country that has the slightest interest in invading Russia and that China is the only country that poses any threat to Russia, especially given that China still wants back a huge chunk of territory that it says Russia stole in the 1800s and given that China has a huge military and given that China is led by dictators who may not care much about how many Chinese soldiers are killed in a war and given that China has been acting more and more in Imperialist ways against their neighbours. If the Russian government is stupid enough to keep fighting in Ukraine another 18 months it won't have much of an army left. I don't know what it would do then if China took advantage of that situation to invade Eastern Russia and take back all the territory it says it deserves back. European countries would be happy to have good relations with Russia if Russia was willing to have good relations with other European countries. Notice that all the European countries that fought each other for centuries basically stopped doing that after WW2. In being hostile and belligerent against other European countries Russia is an outlier in Europe by its own choice.
they would need to negotiate a freeze to the conflict first, Russians are not that stupid and know they are too deep already not to carry the war to the end, a freeze would imply Ukranian entry to NATO.
First time I am disappointed with a video of this channel. Interesting to see all my thoughts in the comment section. So what is the real purpose of this video? No one is buying the narrative of this video.
They never even said that, the conditions on which a country can join are clearly set. Putin was fine with them joining and even considered joining himself with Russia.
It's pretty logical though. They saw an all-out war as the only way to end the indefinite expansion of American influence and military presence on their borders. If they had not acted in Ukraine, they would've acted in Belarus. If they didn't act in Belarus, they would've acted in Kazakhstan. If they hadn't acted at all, they would be subordinated by the Western consensus and would be forced to submit. That would then mean turning against China, against the Russian interests, because USA is afraid of Chinese competition.
@@goldbullet50 Compare Germany with American influence and Germany with Russian influence. Russians invaded Ukraine to preserve the poverty for Russians in the countryside and mafia style of the government. With all the raw materials they have they could be the richest country in the world but no they still prefer to keep their post khengis khan system with all consequences.
@goldbullet50 The US is afraid of absolutely nothing! US=3d Chess, Russia & Chinese=amateurs. Keep it up though, but the rest of the world knows the truth, and Russian/Chinese lies will not help you. Putin's days are numbered, due to his incompetence, ignorance, god complex, paper tiger military, extreme corruption, war crimes, and the world's most historical blunder. Nobody believes your shite, not even you, the Russian people, or Putin, no one.
Russia is here presented as a victim to feel sorry for. I totally agree with the geopolitical point: should Ukraine join NATO, Russia could not exist much longer in its current state. But the moral message is perverted. Nobody, not least Russians themselves, need Russia in its current state. Whatever future state or states are to replace it could well address their security concerns by eventually joining NATO rather than confronting it.
@@fls6767 It would depend on my circumstances. Most likely not. But my descendants would be grateful for the outcome regardless, just like modern Germans are regardless of what their grandfathers thought.
Joining Nato means being an American subservient, When America is a direct competitor on all of your energy exports you dont want to be under them. This is coming from an American btw
@@TheBlogofDimi Joining NATO means accepting US supremacy in military/geopolitical and (as time passes) economically and ideologically, as well. That would get the US easy access (via soft or hard power) to Russia's vast natural resources which is imo their ultimate goal in this. "Moral messages" and other such lines of thinkings are naive, imo. NATO countries citizenry unconditionally accept to be led under a US hegemony in exchange for a full belly and neverending entertainment (panem et circenses). Russia is of a different mindset courtesy to its own historical experiences. Ask yourself a simple question: Why do we actually need Ukraine in NATO? NATO is a military alliance, not a feel-good resort! We're bringging you in if we need you for our security! How exactly would we feel more secure in NATO, with Ukraine in? Against whom?
Narator forgets one type of weapon--Nuclear Bomb. The narator also makes it look like the people of Crimea do not see themselves as Russian, that is a lie. In fact, most Crimeans speak Russian and approved of Russian anexation.
@@gabber_ Japan. I know you’re smart enough. So I’ll just say this: USA dropped atomic bombs 💣 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2 when Japan did not present a military threat anymore. In fact they were preparing to surrender since Germany had surrendered. Those two cities were not military targets or had any military targets. They were full of civilians who posed no military threats to American army. I’m sure I didn’t need to say that. I really am.
@@KelemKelem Japan wanted to continue the war. It was over for everyone but them. They continued their incursion into China. They were WARNED once before the bombs were dropped. Those 2 cities were selected, because they were full of factories fueling the japanese war machine. Just like it is justifiable in war to bomb the german cities who did the exact same! Interesting how the japanese today understand and are not infact enemies of the west, no? Interesting how those "nuked" cities are still habitable today, no? you can't compare those bombs to the nukes that can be deployed today. This was also 80 FUCKING YEARS AGO. Not today. History shows your dishonesty. You should consider looking at actual history and not the fake russian one being spread by the FSB.
I feel the need to observe that all of the strategic vulnerabilities described in this video hinge on two assumptions: 1). Russia retains a fundamentally hostile relationship with European nation-states. This is by no means guaranteed. German Ostpolitik specifically sought detente with Russia via political and economic connections. Just before February 2022, both Scholtz and Macron made massive diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation. European states don’t want a war on the European continent, and haven’t since 1945. 2). Russia has no means to defend her heartland. This is simply not the case. As long as Russia has nuclear weapons, no one is going to shoot the bear. They might poke it, but not shoot it. Putin still seems to be playing by the rules of 19th-century imperialism, by which every state seeks to expand its borders as far as possible. That’s not Europe’s political reality any longer. European states have their disagreements, but they’ve all fundamentally agreed that they’re better off maintaining peaceful relationships than hostile ones. Germany, France, and Poland have no interest in annexing each other’s territory or shooting at each other. Had Putin tried, he could have brought Russia closer to that reality. By annexing parts of Georgia and invading Ukraine, he made Russia a pariah instead. European hostility to Russia-and thus Europe’s threat to her-is almost entirely a response to hostile words and actions from the Kremlin. TL;DR Putin has created the very situation he claims to have feared. His prophecy turned out to be self-fulfilling.
The funniest part is Ukraine wanted to be part of the EU not NATO as they were given territorial guarantees by Russia, now NATO membership will be Ukraine's end game.
Russia creates its own vulnerabilities across its own vast borders by relentless illegal aggressions toward its neighbors. Canada’s border is lengthy and is just a line on a map. Yet Canada is very secure. Russia appears to believe that it is entitled by innate cultural and military superiority to behave aggressively. That’s simply not acceptable.
As a Canadian I know we are America's lap dog. We jump when told to. Also we have no military to pose a threat. We do not have centuries of war like Europe has in out history.
@@PrimericanIdol And what was Russia doing in Hungary, while the United States and Mexico fought? We are talking about modern norms and not wars of distant history, but sure, let me do that right now. First, the United States invaded Canada twice. Second, the Mexican population of the Mexican Cession was minimal, a few people in Alta California and Nuevo Mexico. Mexico did not meaningfully act to exert sovereignty over this vast area; its people by law were not allowed to homestead land or own guns. If Mexico had liberated its people to settle the land, it might not have been lost. By much the same process, Russia acquired Siberia, a sparsely inhabited land under nominal authority of Siberian khans such as the Khanate of Kazan, and native peoples. The only country possibly interested in taking Siberia from Russia is Russia's "ally" China, not the United States. If you go back enough centuries, Moscow was a village of wooden huts near some river sources. What right did Moscow have to fight or oppose the authority of Vladimir, Tver, or the Mongol Khans? Please be serious.
Pretty sad, all the Ukraine had to do was to declare itself neutral and stay out of nato. Instead every eu member has suffered with hyper inflation and we can barely feed and heat our homes. Somehow this is a win?
I'd like to see something on the taxation and economics of why it is so important to Russia to hold these lands. And why Russia isn't able to have the kind of growth of Soviet or a mutually beneficial relationship with this long flat border, or the EU
russia do it not because of economic, but because of russian suprematism and fascism ideas. They just have fake myth that Kyiv Rus' was their gold age state, and Kyiv was capital. That why they are so obsessed with Ukraine. Because they build moscovian history on Ukrainian. Because Ukraine territory always been more developed and cultured.
@@Dustov-Video Lol, no. Your lands is Moscow, which litteraly translates from Finish language as shit river. Ukraine never been lands of modern russian. Ukraine used to be land of ruthenians (old name of Ukrainians), but in those years modern russians called themselves as muscovites. Russia had name Muscovy up to 1721. And even when russia stole Ukrainian name, there were never majority of russians in any region which is now Ukraine.
Also “Ukraine” can sound similar to “borderland” (окраина) in Russian, but in Ukrainian it sounds similar to “country” (країна), to be more precise “in the country” (у країні). Not very original name for a country but as it is. Btw, the word “borderlands” sounds totally different in Ukrainian (околиці).
the name of Ukraine comes not from the "borderlands" it comes just from the word "land" - kraj it literally means "my land" or "our land", krajina - country, Ukraine - our country even Slovakia some time in the history had the same name, but very shortly
That is accurate - the "borderlands" explanation is actually a part of ruzzie propaganda. Use of that explanation, combined with overall "ruzzie" view makes me wonder if this is a piece paid by ruzzies, or it's just yet another case of "useful foolishness" by CaspianReport.
There are several possibilities when it comes to the etymology of the name of Ukraine. Most polish historians and linguists agree that most probable explanations is that it refers to "borderlands". And this notion is spread thougout most other countries' academia. Before XVI century the name had no official character and refered just to borderlands: "kraj" - "something cut"/"strip out", later - "piece of land"/"end" and "u" - "along"/"at", resembling phrases "u kraja", "na skraju" - "on the edge/fringe". From what I know most modern ukrainian linguists indeed argue that it means "my land", "our land", but outside of Ukraine, the most accepted theory is that it comes in fact from the word "borderlands".
Russia had the opportunity to solidify its Western boarders and turn Europe into the financier of adventures in Central Asia and East Asia. Instead they decided to attack their biggest trade partners, go to war with the greatest military alliance on the planet, and isolate themselves. Russia is now paying the price and should not be allowed to escape this quagmire unmolested.
Seeing what aggressive intentions NATO is undertaking against Russia, I realized that in this conflict being on the side of Russia is the best option. And in the end, Ukraine has always been part of the Russian state, and it seems to me that Russia has every right to claim the territories that it has been collecting for centuries for its security.
@@pappafritto Mark Twain said, "Never swear with stupid people. They will lower you to their level, and then they will finish you off with their experience." Perhaps I won't stoop to your level.
Before the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine had no plans to join NATO. Moreover, in exchange for nuclear weapons, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, which enshrined Ukraine's neutral status in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. The Russians themselves initiated this process. kid
Hopeium runs high. US Army war college just came How did their most Recent publication and said in direct conflict with Russia would leave 50,000 US KIA in TWO WEEKS. Unsustainable for the US Army and US population will not put up with that number of body bags.
The common theme in this analysis, that Russia is in some sort of military campaign against "the west" is misguided. NATO has never shown any indication of wanting to militarily "invade" Russia. Countries exist alongside other countries regardless of their military strength. The aggression over the last 100 years has always been Russia's ambitions through dictators to "conquer" smaller countries through invasion and occupation. If Russia simply wanted to join other rich, democratic and prosperous nations, all it would need would be a change in leadership. Could happen tomorrow but they CHOOSE to be ruled by a dictator.
@@wilnur4846 Norway. It has only and has always had a Germanic population. Sweden: it has only a Germanic population. Austria. It has only a Germanic population. Finland has only a Ugro-Finnic population. Italy. It has only Italic population. Germany. It has only a Germanic population. RUSSIA has Slavic, Tatars (The entire Volga-Ural region, former Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, and CRIMEA), 300,000 native Siberians (physically eliminated), Circassians (Sochi region, North Caucasus: 1,5 million people, ALL physically eliminated), Karelians (Ugro-Finnic population North, East and North-East of Saint. Petersburg, and Saint-Petersburg too, built on Ugro-Finnic territory starting from 1706), Turkic (Chuvash, the Karachay, the Altais, Balkars, Tatars, Bashkirs, Nogais, Tuvans, in Belgorod Oblast, Kabardino-Balkaria, Krasnodar Krai. North Ossetia-Alania, Rostov Oblast, Stavropol Krai, Tuva etc...), Mongol people (Buryats and Yacuts), Japanese, Koreans, Ainu, Nivkh, Uilta, Evenki, Nanai (Sakhalin island and Kurill islands), Chinese people (Outer Manchuria, current Vladivostok). Have fan, 1. Di. 0T. _“Russia can only be remembered as the owner of territories taken from other nations, from other peoples and which they will have to give back on the day of reckoning.”_ Friedrich Engels, 1820-1895. German philosopher
@@paolopetrozzi2213 every of the mentioned countries tried to expand at the cost of its neighbors. forgot sweden colonizing northern europe and owning finnland? baltics was never "indepemdend", it was either german, swedish, russian or sowjet. forgot polish-lithuanian expansion and conquest of moskwa? thank god russia conquered its neighbors and expanded so much. if you want you can take all these non-white ethnicities in your neighborhood and give them a place to live in your closet.
Ukraine is already a NATO defacto member and it shows in it's ability to fight the Russian but with all 32 countries supporting it and the outcome is still a dismal failure. 😂😂😂
@@baneofbanes It was sovereign, collected from half of the South Russian regions. Russia even came to terms with this given sovereignty, it happened, including due to the fact that the UN at the time of its creation was a purely Western Club (Africa and other regions of the world joined much later), and the USSR did not want to join the UN as one separate Unit and have one vote. For this purpose, the status of a separate recognized country as the Ukrainian SSR was pushed through. The borders are not demarcated, there are no agreements between Ukrainian institutions after the collapse of the USSR, the obligations to leave the USSR (the return of administrative units back to Russia) have not been fulfilled, and so on. And again, this was not the final justification for the decision on the Special Military Operation, but the fact that on our lands, entrusted to Ukraine, they began to pursue an anti-Russian, pro-Western ethnic-religious policy (which you always didn’t care about how many of our brothers and sisters would die from your hands), which led to the de facto emergence of the NATO structure (an attacking bloc, since NATO waged many wars, but no one ever attacked NATO countries). We also know that all of Russia’s peace initiatives were destroyed, even those that passed through the UN Security Council. We know from the words of Holland, Stoltenberg, Merkel, Petro Poroshenko that no one wants peace for the Russians living on Russian lands; in their words, the Minsk agreements were needed only to prepare for war. All agreements were also thwarted in the first Month of the conflict in Turkey... No more cheap energy, labor (pay at least more than 100 dollars a month to seamstresses in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Myanmar and so on)... You cannot carry out policies on Russian lands, in cities built by Russians, against Russians. You wanted this conflict, so don't be surprised that the World started a rebellion that will be successful. Live like everyone else, without preferences...
@@baneofbanes By the way, tell me the rulers, the dynasty, or at least someone who represented Ukraine... Find me Ukraine on Western maps until the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Find me Ukrainian deasporas before this period. Explain to me why the Ukrainian historical epic (South Russian, that is, Rus' itself) was preserved on the territory of Russia, in chronicles and collections, but not in Ukraine itself? Is it because the Rurik Dynasty (whose capital remained in Novgorod, the Rurik Settlement is still under the great Novgorod), which organized Rus' as the territory of the Great and ordinary Principalities? And after the Invasion of the Golden Horde, Rus'/Russia lost half of its territories, including Kiev (which was originally a Khazar Fortress, where the local population were slaves, and in the 9th century was conquered and united to Rus'). It does not look like Ukrainian Sovereignty, despite the fact that the sovereignty was exclusively Russian, and Russia lost this Sovereignty, falling under the Yoke for 300 years. What happened to the population in Southern Russia at that moment, they were driven into slavery by the invaders, first the Horde, then the Poles and Lithuanians, who occupied these lands after the Horde. And thus, from 1240 to 1660+, the Russian lands were occupied, and were returned only in the 17th century, after several wars, with the same Poland (which for us was the same Horde, only from the West, for centuries they organized devastating raids, and tried to seize power). All this does not look like Ukrainian sovereignty. And so the Russian Kingdom restores Sovereignty, and even as a result of a victorious war, pays a lot of gold to the Poles in order to redeem Kiev (papers and contracts for property are still in Russia, and no one has canceled this property). Then there was the Russian Empire, which finally began to rebuild the devastated Russian lands, after centuries of violence and occupation by all sorts of foreigners, and so it was until the Revolution... All this also does not look like some kind of sovereignty. So where is that sovereignty? Where is the history of the management of these lands by non-Russians? Only the Russians developed these lands and treated them as their own, as their history and heritage! Maybe then these are Polish lands, which, at every disobedience, carried out massacres, and also fought against Orthodoxy... Maybe then that the Horde cared about these people and lands? No? Who are you anyway to meddle in our thousand-year history???
you can make the same argument about german borders: sitting in the middle of the north european plain, no natural borders. Two world wars after, we just learned that the better strategy is to collaborate with your neighbors (and tolerate their nazi jokes). Every single German is much better off thanks to this policy, and we can focus 'national pride' on soccer, cars, bier, whatever, just not on the French and the Poles. Why can't Russians do the same? Collaborate with you neighbors instead of seeing them as an enemy and a thread. It actually makes your live better
The „threat“ to Russia (I.e. current Russias political elite) is not military in nature, but political…when the Russian living close to the borders can witness how their former Soviet Communist sisters and brothers can prosper in a „European“ style governmental system they will question the government system they are living in. There may be difference between west, south, northern and Eastern Europeans but (at their core) Russians are Europeans too. And that is what may make powers to East also nervous in the long run…
'Dragon's can be beaten.' Well this didn't age well seeing as Ukraine has run out of men according to now, well, everyone and it is question of week when will they sit down with russians to settle new borders if they are lucky. If Russians decide to press on, which they might, they wil most likelyl reach Danube and Ukraine will be reduced to Galicia.
The american ambassador to Mexico telling mexican congress "russia and mexico being close will never happen". Kids, Putin is doing the same that NATO would've done, like it or not
Why all the comments basically saying “terrain and long borders don’t matter because Russia has lots of nukes”? Would YOU want your only feasible defensive option to be nuclear weapons? Are you all forgetting NATO has nukes too, and that Russia using nukes would most likely elicit a nuclear response from NATO? And to everyone saying “oh it’s fine, NATO/ USA would never invade Russia”, have you forgotten Yugoslavia, Iraq (the second time we thought they did have WMDs and invaded anyway), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria?
I say this once and Ill say it again, is russia were to join nato, nato wouldn't have a reason to exist, which is why the west keeps russia alienated and forced out while also encroaching near the countries borders with its anti RUSSIA sentiment, in my honest opinion others will say well nato only defensive but look through history were nato has gone on the offensive with the usa more times than it was ever "defensive" to me nato is just another tool for the u.s. to use to project power, and anything that undermines that such as hmm I don't know say "russia joining nato."
Let me tell you guys , the Geopolitical debates are gone with the WWII, here the fight is for Human rights. Ru and UA populations is the most mixed population in whole Russia , and if UA citizens enter EU and become NATO member their quality of life will become better, and then it will be difficult for Ru to hold them under their unhuman canditions with no human rights. This is the main reason why Russia is so desparate , and offcourse all other joining nationalities will try the same too.
For a Caspian Report video I must say I’m disappointed. For some reason people tend to forget Russia has the biggest nuke arsenal in the world. Also, the many controversial countries mentioned that will definitely won’t join NATO. Beginning with Ukraine but Ukraine is the topic of the video.
Я из Украины и нам видно что нато против нас. Просто хочет ослабить Россию ценой жизней украинцев. При этом они сами и создали Россию. Поссич была нищий страной, но запад решил в неё инвестировать и не помогать странам по типу Украина, ичкерия, Грузия и т д
@@ARES-zf5fz Anyone that works in tech is well aware of them and has been for a while. They are the biggest source of contractors for software roles in the world.
If you would translate words "in" and "Country" => "У" "Країна" to Ukrainian lang you get the name of country itself "Україна". That's because it derives not from "border" but rather from "region".
UKRAJINA is derived from kraina/kraj, which means land/country. Same as FinLAND, UzebiSTAN etc. No man ever would call it's own country a borderland :)
The ones who write about nukes: using nuclear weapons in response to an invasion means the end to Russia as well as the end to NATO, which isn't a good solution. If NATO would launch an invasion, Russia will try to reject it without using nukes
That makes no sense. Russia could nuke NATO forces in Russia, but spare NATO cities. Doing so would not lead NATO to nuke Moscow (because NATO would lose everything to the Russian retaliatory strike). Deterrence still holds.
@@-northrussian7071 It actually is... As long as you do it before the invading force reaches your cities. Russia clearly has land to spare and doesn't care about some farmers on the fringes... Oh, and also, if you detonate a nuke a bit off the ground, you have no fallout. And as Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved, it's quite possible to repopulate nuked areas that did see fall out - you'll have increased cancer rates sure, but life will continue (and if you nuke fields instead of cities, those cancer cases will be wayyy cheaper than beating back a military invasion conventionally).
@@MrNicoJac You can't guarantee the nuclear radiation doesn't blow over to surrounding areas both within your country and within your opponent's country. That might be a problem domestically
Go to ground.news/Caspian to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access before October 15.
No
Consider covering Europe-Middle East - India Economic corridor or (IMEC).
I think there will be some poetic justice in this, that due to the lack of condemnation of the UPA genociders and that bastard Bandera, Ukraine will lose its independence.
But it will also be poetic justice if, after rejecting UPA and Bandera, it joins NATO or the EU.
Ukraine must choose - live in harmony with Poland, furfilling its dreams to became a part of the West (NATO, UE), rejecting the UPA and Bandera, or still keeping monuments of those nazis and perish.
I wonder what will they choose. What do you think?
Waiting for video on Canada vs India recent development
Glad to see a more reputable sponsor. Please, just stop promoting Masterworks!
Most statements in this video would need "if Russia didn't have nukes" added to the end to be factually correct. At least I don't see any scenario where NATO randomly goes to war against Russia, seizes Rostov, Volgograd, Krasnodar, Stavropol... and the Kremlin response to that is to only use conventional military means and then just give up if that doesn't work.
Also I don't know how many radical geopolitical changes we need for Armenia and Azerbaijan to both join NATO.
I don’t think Armenia and Azerbaijan can really join NATO realistically even if they got on the same page and joined at the same time a la Greece and Turkey. Neither one can really “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” seeing as neither have coasts on any body of water connected to the Atlantic. Georgia is kind of a stretch but would be 100% a prerequisite for Armenia and Azerbaijan joining as well.
And totally agree with you - Russian nuclear weapons totally invalidate most of this video. In the same way, Russia is not totally crumbling just because Finland joined NATO.
That's not true. Nukes are great deterrents but they are useless if used. China would turn on Russia if Russia uses a nuke. So thinking nukes do anything beyond ensuring NATO doesn't step into Russia's internationally agreed borders is foolish. Nukes don't help in a negotiation over Ukraine because if Russia agree to the deal then the nukes are not part of the equation. Either this war will bleed Ukraine and Russia dry (and their demographics are both terminal) or Ukraine will force Russia out or they will find a deal which will include international guarantees to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine won't fall for the same deal they signed with the US and Russia in the 90s when they had the 3rd largest nuke arsenal in the world. This time the deal will include NATO signatories even if that doesn't make Ukraine officially part of NATO but merely protected by NATO
Don't forget Georgia.
Those that read this should not look at this as what NATO would want to do but what Russians tell themselves what NATO wants to do. Even then, it’s not reallly the Russians saying that to themselves, it’s those Russians who truly believe that the Soviet Union was undermined from the inside and that the greatest loss in history was it’s destruction. It’s those who believe it can be revived, there are multiple problems for them in regard to what it would cost in blood and treasure, who’s blood and what treasure, and if you were to actually accomplish the goal the inability to control the vast streams of corruption that have been built into the making of such an entity and the system was always a house of cards waiting to collapse. This whole thing seems to be something that came out of a drinking session between a very persuasive academic and a leader who thought he was going to Staples, “That was easy.”
Exactly this. Why the paranoia? The word "vulnerability" was used numerous times, yet what nation is the mysterious force that seems destined to invade Russian lands??
At least three problems with this:
1. It asserts that an independent Ukraine would aggressively seek to control the Volgograd Gap. But in its 30 years of independence Ukraine had shown no inclination to seek territory within Russia or influence over territory within Russia. In addition, Ukraine seeks to be in the EU and NATO. Whether this will come to pass is moot, but either would be moderating influences; as the current conflict has shown, both EU and NATO states have been very wary about provoking a nuclear armed Russia. Nobody really covets Russian territory - except in the east where China has a huge grievance and Japan a rather smaller one.
2. It neglects the effects of climate change. Russia's northern coast will soon become ice-free. This will open far greater possibilities than are presented by the Black Sea, which is in any case bordered by NATO states with a long and tortuous path through these states to reach the open ocean. Even if Russia owned Ukraine, Sevastopol, and its ocean access, is actually rather vulnerable and it is destined to become more of a tourist resort than a military base.
3. Lots of countries have large land borders. They manage their security by getting along with their neighbours, something Russia seems to struggle with.
Once the northwest passage opens up long term, Russia's other strategic problem will rear its ugly head - it has basically no population in the east and it borders a country with 1.4 billion people who desperately wants to shake off the US naval encirclement of, who will, at the same time, also desperately desire large bodies of freshwater. Russia's east is definitely under threat as the Chinese eye the decrepit state for its access to the Northwest passage and Lake Baikal
The only reason they struggle with that is because they all want to join NATO.Like Georgia bragged in 2008 that they would have NATO bases and then Russia went in. The problem has been NATO expansion, some in the Clinton admin pointed this out and how it would lead to a conflict like this. Well they lost in the 90s and well here we are.
Hey bud ever thought about the maidan revolution and how this radically altered russo ukrainian relations? A years long war between ethnic russians in eastern ukraine and western ukrainian nationalists.
Expert take. You must have been studying geoplotics in havard. Is that true?
@@pietero.o6792 That came rather late in the day. You might like to think how Ukrainians were affected by events from the poisoning of Yushchenko in 2004 to the trade war launched by Putin on Ukraine in 2013 and his subsequent personal pressure on Yanukovych.
These events led to Maidan.
Maidan did not trigger a war between Western Ukrainians and Eastern ethnic Russian separatists. Western and Eastern Ukrainians would have taken it in their stride, and separatists were very much a minority in the East. It took a good deal of malevolent interference by the Kremlin to foment this violence. Igor Girkin has been quite open about the pivotal role of Kremlin-backed mercenaries, and the MH17 enquiry was pretty clear that the Kremlin was pulling the strings.
I’ve heard this before, “russias long border makes it vulnerable “. That was true like 80 years ago but now Russia has 6000 nukes, no one is that stupid to invade Russia anymore. It’s nukes neutralized that threat permanently.
Not true. Only thing nukes managed to neutralise is any future total war like conflict (for example WW2). Limited conflicts on other hand, like for Taiwan, Volgograd gap or Baltics are realistically possible and could be done without escalasion into total nuclear war.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato declared a "special military operation" and was heading into russia nukes would fly.
Putin would see that "special military operation" as a existential war and retaliate with non tactical nukes within its own territory & escalate from there.
They wont do that in ukraine at present since nato would treat that as triggering article 4.
so my point stands, no one will invade a country that has nukes, if ukraine kept its nukes russia wouldn't have invaded it.
@@Azz156 They would not, because of nature of limited conflict and simple fact that you do not want get nuked. As such limited conflict would stay and be counter by conventional force. Nukes would realistically fly only if limited conflict transformed itself into total conflict, aimed at removal of current government and occupation of every part of country.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato tried to invade the 800k gap between Ukraine and Volgograd with the intent of cutting the caucuses off from Moscow that would be a scenario for non tactical nukes. It’s literally in russias military doctrine.
@@aleksaradojicic8114it is true and you would have to be a complete dangerous moron not to realise it
Look at the situation from the other side:
1. NATO was created in response to the USSR, but for some reason, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO only began to develop, allegedly from the "aggression" of Russia
2. The USA and Canada are like Russia and Ukraine, and now imagine that Russia has an alliance to deter US aggression and Canada joins this alliance and what will the USA do????
1. After the fall of the Soviet Union, several neighbouring countries did indeed move quickly to join NATO. They suspected that the hold of liberal democracy might be tenuous and that a Recovered Russia would return to its imperial ways. They were right.
But NATO took the peace dividend in other ways, by closing military bases, reducing military expenditure (witness Trump's exasperation with his NATO partners on this score) and improving communication and openness with Russia via the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997.
2. False analogy. Canada does not need to deter US aggression. The last time the US invaded was in 1812. Russia/USSR has invaded most of its European neighbours in the last 80 years, with varying degrees of brutality, and has always maintained a sense of entitlement towards them.
Ur gay
The ‘flat terrain’ argument really does not hold up anymore in the age of nukes. Moreover, Russia has showed the world how an attack on flat terrain will fail big time. In addition, NATO is a defensive organization so any country attacking Russia would stand alone. Switzerland and Austria are surrounded by NATO and they have no complains as far as my knowledge goes. It’s the countries bordering Russia that are afraid of an invasion, NATO-members and non-NATO members all together.
А́ что такого есть у Швейцарии или Австрии ради чего хотелось бы вторгнуться? Население, которое кормить надо будет? Ни ресурсов, ни земель свободных, ни ископаемых. Россия - это богатство, вот и лезут сюда Европа и США, которые по ввели грабить и убивать ради своих интересов. Европа и США должны быть изолированы, пока прилично вести себя не научатся.
@@ЕленаБем-ц1й Если Россия так богата, почему довоенный ВВП на душу населения составлял всего лишь 15 392 доллара? Для сравнения, для Швейцарии это 92 371 доллар.
NATO is defensive 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Those i know wich are from those countrys don't fear russian invasion. They have some probleme with russian influence in national affair but that's it. It's the exact same thing for Canada and mexico with the U.S or vietnam, thailand, philipine with china.
@@evilleader1991 yes their is no mecanism to compell other nato members to join in an ovensive war. That is the reason germany and france could tell George W. Bush to fuck as he wanted to invate Iraq.
I like Caspian report but in this video, and similar ones that he made before, his thesis is flawed in regards to the weeknes of open terrain. Yes Russia has long border with NATO and Ukraine that is mainly flat but it also has HUGE territory behind it. Closing the Volgograd gap would require shit ton of manpower and equipment and even more if you mean to control the territory. Remember that USA with all its allies never occupied whole of the Afganistan and current NATO army in Europe couldn't occupy Russian core if they wanted to. Long and flat border is weaknes for the defender but Russian huge territory is weaknes for the attacker as was proved in the history so far. All this is without taking nukes in the consideration.
Yes tell that to mongols 😂. Flat terrain is terrible. Your thesis is flawed afghanistan = mountains. Check what NATO did to Iraq (twice) and then you will understand russians fear
Nuclear escalation doesn't happen instantly. Look at India and China, they have skirmishes along their border all the time. Those smaller, non state threatening conflicts don't necessitate a nuclear response. Border lands must have some sort of military presence, or you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of issues. Nukes prevent total war, historically anyway, but conflict will continue to happen.
The Caspian Report also failed to take Russia's current stronghold within Ukraine. Without starting a new World War, I don't think Ukraine will ever regain areas lost in the Donbas or Crimea.
@@AndyFromBeaverton they probably could who knows
Volgograd gap is historically a Kuban region where Ukrainian language was dominating, people are mostly of Ukrainian ancestry. Muscovites are still mocking Kuban people claiming they are dumb like Ukrainians. After Ukraine wins there will be a turmoil within Russia, it will be very tempting for regions to keep resources and transit checks incentivizing Siberian and Kuban regions to leave empire. NATO won't need to do anything just fuel Russian civil war a little bit and that will be the end of Russia.
The maps showing Armenia and Azerbaijan in the same alliance are... creative. They might as well have included the countries of Middle Earth.
Lol
You never know what fantasy is going on in the minds of russian leadership. They seem pretty detached from reality.
Well, both Turkey and Greece are in NATO, so go figure. Strange things happen sometimes. The situation is very similar - and maybe NATO membership is the only thing preventing conflict in Cyprus.
Those countries have already been subject to Russian invasion, and/or, Russian support of separatist movements. So, if in the politicians minds, NATO can guarantee protection (depending on how things turn out to be with Ukraine), then "imaginative" is not the word you would want to use, but may something closer to "possible".
The word does not submit to your liking bro, but to geopolitics
@@АлексейЛ-д6х thanks for bringing that up, as a greek, I also believe that NATO is THE major reason that we haven't and we won't fight a conventional war with Turkey and I actually hope that we fid a way to cooperate more on a regional level. Same could work for Armenia and Azerbaijan too
Excellent analysis, if this was the 19th century 😂
На этом канале каждой стране угрожает война с соседями) за территории. Походу автор очень старый.
Russia was invaded twice in the 20th century. Not the 19th. And US continues to invade countries on every continent of the planet in the 21st century
Personally I would disagree. Your analysis rests on the main point that Russia is invading because of this geographic vulnerability and to prevent Ukrainian accession into NATO. However if that were the case it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years. Every time Ukraine tried the reaction was always "ehhhhh maybe next time". But the war has basically guaranteed a closer relationship between the West and Ukraine. And even if Russia had succeeded in the complete takeover of Ukraine it would have always resulted in Finland, Sweden joining NATO as well as pushing Moldova firmly towards the west. That would have shortened the "frontline" on the mainland but as you already put in another video, created a NATO lake in the Baltic. Personally I think the only valid explanation to the war is imperialism. The thought that Russia has been wronged and had its lands unfairly taken away from them. You could hear it in Putins speech where he mentions the loss of Finland and the Baltic states being a great Russian tragedy.
You are wrong dude. Russia never planned to take over Ukraine. The goal was purely to make sure Kiev doesn't join. Nato made this a proxy war.
"it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years." A very valid point.
Why keeping minimum if you can go all in and take everything? Especially if you have a decade left to remain in history.
@@leGUIGUI Nonsense dude. People were dying left and right. Zelensky said he wanted to join nato, and nato supported that. This war was 100% going to happen the moment Joe Biden became president. One way or another, it was pre-destined. Something big was going to happen, Putin went in before it could happen.
Exactly!!!
Honestly the defence of those various geographical weaknesses is what the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is for. The whole “we need a strategic position” argument is just an excuse. They lost the cold war from much more favorable ground, it’s not like setting their flag as far as Moldova will fix things this time. It’s also I think kindof presumptive to assume that the country just deserves easily defencible borders. I think if anyone has poor borders it isn’t Russia, it’s Poland, or maybe Ukraine itself, facing Russia.
Even if we removed nukes from the equation, the size of Russia’s conventional military, and the depth of its equipment is more than vast enough to defend the Volgograd gap. The Soviets were in a much worse spot in 1942 than they would be even now after all the losses in Ukraine. It would be a fool’s errand for NATO to invade even without factoring in Nukes. The very first thing Russia would do is try to steamroll the baltics, which given their tactics would mean their destruction, and push into Poland, and there is no strategic justification for such an invasion, I don’t even think most NATO members even want Russia to collapse, that would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen basically since World War II, and just imagine trying to account for all those nukes.
If a country wanted easily defended borders they could always give land to their neighbours and move the border back to a natural barrier.
@peterroe2993 selling land off? Honestly that would be a valid strategy, if not for Russian pride.
Regardless, we shouldn't so flippantly disregard this excuse. See what John Mearsheimer says on this topic. He's been prophetic over the years, so it'd be prudent to at least give it some thought.
@@peterroe2993 Or the aggressors could not be so aggressive and not want to control everything up to the Russian border...?
@@andreymaslov9871And the late Stephen Cohen.
This exclusively militaristic analysis reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. Never mind that most European NATO members gave up on defence spending after 1990, that the US couldn’t beat the Taliban after trying for 20 years, that the biggest threat to Russia is probably China, we’ve got to control that Volgograd gap!
Yeh - Maybe it was more important when people fought with horses and spears. Maybe even when tanks didn't have the issue of a cheap drone sending its turret flying. The nature of wars change with the advent of new technologies. Maybe the military ideas written in the books in 1900 don't apply so much today.
The thing is that nations of the West were not willing to commit enough resources to war in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq and there was no plan what to do after those regimes are overthrown. There was no equivalent to Marshall plan or any plan to win hearts of locals and to establish working governments.
Russia couldn't beat the Taliban either, they spent time dying their also, just earlier. Enemy mightve had a different name but it was the same game
@@robert48044 One little difference, when USSR was fighting them, they were funded and armted by US, and USSR was actively destroyed from within, by elites to start privatizaion. But, when US was fighting them, Russia not anly was not funding them, but was helping US.
@@MrToradragonMeaning, you lost. Don't twist words!
At 14:16 you're talking about Black Sea Russian presence, but the photos shown are in fact from the opposite edge of Russia - the city of Vladivostok.
I don’t see any feasible time in the future where Ukraine would control the Volgograd gap. I think that is an unrealistic supposition.
Hard to imagine. Rostov on Don, not so much.
Russia will be divided after oil and gas revenues completely evoporates this is the only thing that holds them together. So we can expect to see it happen anywhere between 50-200 years
@@Rikimkigsckgood point. Any time you’ll want to persuade say an American to uphold Paris agreements and decarbonization, remember to add that failing to move on makes Russia stronger and it’s in their best interests to keep climate change going.
The point was NATO, not Ukraine
Because you ignored the history
If the Soviet Union comes backs, it would be called the Soviet Reunion
😅
Yes you can see yourself out.
The question I like to be answered is: how many times Soviet Union/Reunion and neoSoviets can trip over it's economy and collapse?
RSSR
@@maciek_k.cichonAs many times as it takes until the economy of the rest of the world collapses along with it, so spoiled children cannot be raised to think "we should just all have it good and nobody deserves more than the other as that's unfair".
How is Russia vulnerable even if your predictions come true? Any serious attempt on their national territory would result in ultimate retaliation…
Shervan sometimes appears to have Russian sympathies in his videos I've noticed.
Sometimes it seems people like to pretend that nuclear weapons don’t exists.
Same question about nukes in Cuba. Why america was so scared? They could nuke Cuba in any time but they don't want Cuba as a threat in a first place.
@@Max_Jacoby they were afraid cuba would get nukes which would then mean there would be a nuclear armed enemy right on their doorstep.
No one wants to be surrounded by enemies…we the west declare Russia as an enemy therefore I understand they wouldn’t want to be surrounded by us
It almost as if that’s the reason they fight….
It’s almost as if there’s a reason Eastern Europe wants to join NATO.
@@NikojNisto-gw8rc except there are. That’s how Eastern Europe joined nato. Hell Finland which is right on the border with Russia was overwhelming in its public support for joining anti.
how is this not all just paranoia?
how is this a justification to invade Ukraine?
who in their right mind would have attacked the russian mainland when they have THE BIGGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN THE WORLD???
Ask Yugoslavians/Iraqis/Syrians/Libyans......
Ukrainian regime has been killing Russians in Donbas for 8 years. And for 8 years Putin tried to avoid military resolve. USA didn't want any of it, they wanted this conflict to escalate.
@@haroonsuresh2326 the list is far far longer than that too.
congrats you figured out this entire narrative is realpolitik nonsense to justify their invasion
@@haroonsuresh2326 congrats on your regurgitated russian propaganda. truly an enlightened critical thinking individual. it amazes me that people who have no relation to EU or even live in a post-soviet state think they get to tell us that we're supposed to lay down and let the russian state force their politics on ourselves when it already happeend once and the entire eastern bloc decided they had enough. barely 70 years later, we're supposed to be okay with it now, because some indian diaspora says so? laughable.
Pro tip: cooperate like nowadays Germany with France and save money that does not have to be spend on building and guarding Maginot/Siegfried Line.
Well during the good old Soviet days there wasn't fortifications within the Soviet Union because they were all supposed to be friends
NATO is a gang. They cooperate together in expence of others. Germany and France (and other NATO's members) don't have to spend money to guard themselves from each other but everyone else in the world have to spend ton of money to guard themselves from NATO.
@@mrj4616 It "miraculously disppeared" way after Russian became hostile by invading Ukraine. The pipeline was already down when it was destroyed. If it was their try to cooperate, they're really bad at it.
Don't try to place Russia as a victim. "Wow I can't even invade my neighbour in peace"
@@mrj4616 You mean the pipelines through which Russia was no longer delivering any gas, in order to punish Germany for supporting the neighbour Russia had just invaded? Yeah, I think they'd kind of given up on co-operation by that point.
@@mrj4616 russia reneged on contractual obligations to deliver gas to germany, this was a violation of the signed agreement they had, just as Germany was getting ready to launch legal action miraculously the pipeline blew up making it impossible for russia to follow through with their contractual obligations and funnily enough it was just before winter and the perfect time for russia to deprive europe of gas, do you think that is a happy coincidence?
I have zero interest in invading Russia. My problem is their inability to respect borders. Keep your nukes in check, stop invading neighbors. But Russia doesn't seem to be able to do that.
Their history is based on the never ending invasions of neighbouring countries. Guess why they are the largest country in the world..... They cannot live without it.
The wise option for ukraine was to remain neutral. Ukraine could've become the prime example of being peace keeper. This is the result of paid comedian ruling the country.
@@atharvaswami5726 we were neutral until 2014 when russia invaded us at our lowest point. that was long before Zelenskyj was elected president
@@atharvaswami5726 "Clever" advice. Living next to a big neanderthal who already attacked you like 100x in the past and you had to be his slave for a long time you can be a slave forever or try to find a help.
How Many countries has Russia invaded in the past 80 years compared to the US??? The hypocrisy is unreal 🤡👌🤣🤣🤣
Lviv is a Polish city, hence why it resembles a "slice of Europe." The Ukraine, as it was primarily called right up until this recent reignition in conflict between it and Russia, was historically always a "borderland" or arguably a "province" of Polish/Lithuanian powers as well as Russian. Far longer than its very short "independence" since the breakup of the Soviet Union. People need to realize this in order to understand the conflict, otherwise it's just blindly believing the current propaganda, regardless which side you align with.
That does not mean it should allow Russia to invade but it also means its not a random act of aggression by Putin. Historically and recently it was Russian territory. It's like trying to claim the War of 1812 was a random invasion against the US by the Brits. There's much much more to this conflict than people realize but please atleast don't pretend this is an "unjustified" war. There is no such thing, wars are either all unjust or all fair game.
If Lviv is Polish city than Poland is nothing more that some german province
It's unfortunate that those in power analyze geopolitics in terms of Domination rather than Cooperation. 😢
geopolitics=sphers of influences
Cooperation is fleeting
It's just game theory - Nash equilibrium tends to value hard power solutions over soft power solutions.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.
~Carl von Clausewitz
Politics is the continuation of war by other means.
~Just me
In other words, as long as we create rulers, we cannot create society. As long peace, freedom and solidarity are just written on papers, but not lived.
🗽🤷😉
It's all a game of chess in the end
Nobody is threatening Russia at its Western border.
On the contrary I think Russia is doing a lot of harm to herself.
You need to read what NATO did in 2014
can you explain what nato did in 2014? if its that significant surely you can tell us, rather than post a cryptic message?!@@PAIP_Studio
@@PAIP_Studio Could you please enlightening us?
ruZZia's biggest enemy in the future resides in the far east
It's a fallacy that russia's geopolitical problems should be anybody else's concern. "Oh no, the Soviet Union collapsed". That was 30 years ago.
Do you apply the same standard to other countries?
Couped not collapsed.
@@user-op8fg3ny3jyes. Not like we care about indias border for example
I agree, NATO and Western Countries should stay completely out of this conflict.
I agree that a nations politics should be their own, until their politics affect another countries politics, then it becomes more peoples problem.
The assumption that Ukraine wishes to attack Russia and take territory from it is... pretty flawed. The assumption that Nato necessarily would also wish to attack Russia after helping free Ukraine is also... well, where is the evidence for that?
now would be a great time to invade russia. when wagner thunder runned to moscow, i think it was only old wheeled apc's that appeared in moscow.... the vast bulk of russias land and air military is tied up in ukraine.
@@specialingu that's true, but their nuclear deterrence is still massive, and it just isn't in NATO's interest to start a nuclear war, or in it's modus operandi. It needs the russian people to realise that the life they could have under democracy would be so much better than the life they currently have under the depot that is Putin. Russia could be fabulously rich, but unfortunately they are ruled by gangsters who have stolen the money for themselves.
NATO is seen as desiring to attack Russia is in part on Russian paranoia (thank Napoleon and Hitler) and NATO eastward expansion since 1991. The reasoning might be flawed, but it’s real.
Because you have no critical thinking skills and have not been following this conflict since it actually started in 2001...
Russian paranoia and propaganda.
How about Finland joining NATO and Baltic Sea becoming NATO lake.
There was NO threat to Russia, zero, none. Not in 2022, not in 2014. Ukraine had non-block status, no army, bad economy, corruption and political landscape infested with Russian agents. Poor and divided.
Russia did it, because it could. Well, we are approaching 600th day of 3 day military operation.
Exactly, this channel is not about political science and real sophisticated explanations, it's about geopolitical crap that is just tarot cards for teenaged boys.
You couldn't be more wrong. Nato funded, trained and built up a MASSIVE Ukrainian army beginning after the coup in 2014. They were trained to nato standards and had hundreds of thousands of men.
Don't u remember when Trump was impeached for not giving them *even* more weapons! Pay attention
And certain formations of the Ukrainian armed forces Carried out a campaign of violence against the ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east. 13,000 people were killed per the UN
@@stepankulikov5962geopolitics is reality, buddy. That's the way its been for thousands of years
@@stevencoardvenice shut up bot
Still the Caucasus or ‘Volgograd gap’ is size of France.. It is only ‘narrow’ in comparison to the rest of the country.. but objectively it’s massive. and who in the modern world would be (even potentially) interested in invading there..
Exactly. This is like an argument that Ukraine is important for Russia because from Moscow to the Ukrainian border there are 600 kilometers... Several European countries or half of Ukraine itself can fit into this distance. How much land exactly does the largest country in the world need to feel secure?
@@БогданБеркутThe problem with Russia is a lot of undeveloped land. The areas around the capital are developed but almost all are rural and underfunded.
Could you do a video about why Russia wasn’t integrated to western institutions like the EU or NATO after the USSR fell? It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. Feels like such a missed opportunity, even if Russia would have demanded special independence and privileges (like when UK was in the EU). Even today countries in the EU like Poland or Hungary follow their own more independent foreign policy, why couldn’t Russia have been integrated in a similar way? Feels like the biggest mistake after the end of the cold war, alienating Russia for them to then inevitably turn to China. This is perhaps the most consequential legacy of foreign relations in the 90s early 2000s, the people who were involved in it will be judged for this in the future.
Yea, we kinda just handed over Russia to China.
There are plenty of videos on the subject, although I'm not sure if Caspian Report has one
You are thinking, maybe it's cause the west has wanted the spoils of Russia since forever. Can't get the gems for cheap if the sovereignty is still stable.
There were attempts but it all stopped when Russia brutally attacked Chechnya. The brutality shown there made it obvious Russia didn’t change and would likely destroy nato or EU from within
But I assume you are a f8sc1st supporter of Ruzzia / Putin and don’t see the problem with such a government being part of EU/NATO
Sounds like the 100th video titled "impact of Ukraine joining NATO on russia*. It's not even milking content dry, it's squeezing the content for the last drops.
Many of the photos used in this segment were cities far away from Ukraine. For example we saw war time photos of 1945 Königsberg. We also saw modern aerials of Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan.
This channel is a fraud.Good you spotted it.
yes. Aftor mudak
These supposedly Russian boarder vulnerabilities are way over-blown! Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. Totally under estimating Russia's ability to protect itself.
So what? Didn't america claim the entire western hemisphere as its own and threatened war on whoever would disturb that?
It’s not the world’s largest nuclear power. Its nukes probably work as well as their 1940s tanks. You must still think Russia is the 2nd most powerful military in the world 😕
This video does highlight Russia’s security concerns, some of them based on history. It doesn’t make me sympathise with them, however. If they wanted to keep countries like Ukraine in their sphere of influence, then it would help to treat them well and get on with them, not drive them away to the Europeans. Russia is like a desperate guy chasing women who’ve repeatedly rejected him - the harder they try to get people to stay with them by force, the more they achieve the opposite effect and drive everyone away.
you do know that they TRIED THAT ALREADY. Before this war started there was a point where ukraines economy was crumbling, the west offered some help but then russia countered by offering SIGNIFCANTLY MORE the result was a western staged coup, and the rest as they say is history.
Russia wants it's warm water ports and land bridge to said ports, no matter the cost.
framing neighbors as a 'spheres of influence' is some 18th century imperialist nonsense. allies, partners.. even friends - that's different. someone you lord it over and who's kids you bully vs someone you have over for a bbq and let swim in your pool. big, big difference, and the choice (when people have a choice) is more than obvious.
@@karlcxThe USA literally has a doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine which is totally based upon American Imperialism. What’s your thoughts on America committing over 80 regime changes since WW2? What’s your thoughts on America’s 850 military bases around the world?
@@maxsportsman2416 america isn't NATO. let's keep it relevant.
NATO is a defence treaty. NATO doesn't "want" to invade Russia. It's countries threatened by Russia, which want to join NATO instead.
The natural border between Eastern and Central Europe seems to be the Dnyepr/Dnipro. It might boil down to that with Kiev being a gateway
What’s the difference between attack and defense when defense in this case means surrounding you with troops and installing anti missile equipment to such an extent as to castrate your opponent?
@@fredrikengstrom5771It's defence. Russia has been invading Eastern Europe non stop since like 1700,so if Russia doesnt make changes than Eastern Europe will build strong defences. And that doesnt mean castrating Russia,it means castrating Russia's ability to destroy Eastern Europe. NATO has prevented a Ukraine from occurring in Poland,for example. Finland and Sweden saw what Russian diplomacy looked like and scrambled to join NATO. Putler fanboys like you will not be looked kindly upon NATO.
@@xa-12musk8 Russia had no war ambition before the 2008 NATO summit in Budapest where NATO insisted on expanding into Ukraine and Georgia.
@@fredrikengstrom5771dont argue with paid nato commenters buddy its no use
@@pietero.o6792 Russia is the one that started the whole paying people and bots,lol.
Word “Ukraine” does not come from “borderlands”. Exactly opposite, it means “inner land”, or simply home. Later, when Russians occupied our lands, they created a myth about “Ukraine comes from Borderlands” 4:41
It's possible that the "borderlands" origin of the name is wrong, but given that one definition of "край" is "border", calling it a "created myth" is questionable since such an error could also be the result of an honest mistake over time, a misinterpretation of the origin of the name.
Окраина это как раз граница, это вы мифотворцы копатели черного моря
@@harbingerdawnsure but in this case “країна” means country in modern Ukrainian and can be literally interpreted as “haver of edges” or “within the borders”. In modern Ukrainian “край” means not only “edge” but also “piece” and even “land” (as a geographical not a physical entity).
А як же чёрное море
Yeah but why doesn't Europe deserve Ukraine? Those same plains that made Russia vulnerable make Europe equally so, with Russia able to funnel troops into Poland and Germany. I'd say they deserve more protection than Russia
Only Ukraine deserve Ukraine. But Europe and Ukraine share a common interest. In standing united against the empire.
I think Napoleon and Hitler have something to do with it...
Europe is not Europe, there is a parasite within. We can have normal relations or at the very least worry about Russia AFTER we deal with the far more destructive force that is inside our governments
words, nothing but words you have killer@@hkonhelgesen
"Reliance on Russian Oil and Gas" - you mean the very things that Ukraine bombed and therefore attacked Europe and Russia at the same time!
NATO is a defensive alliance, if Poland or Finland decided to invade Belarus or Russia they would do so...alone and with heavy criticism from NATO and the EU.
Tell that to Libya, lol. The most prosperous, richest country in Africa destoyed.
@@joshbell5387 First of all Libya was neither rich nor prosperous, at least no under Gadhafi. Second of all that just proves the point. Not all NATO members participated ans supported the bombing of Libya. Russia however did support it btw.
A widely known characteristic of defensive rockets and defensive artillery on one's border is that, when used in offensive, they condemn the aggression and disappear into thin air
War is the main crime against men
No matter what politicians say about the horrors of war for women, men have always been and remain the main victims of wars. The essence of any war can be described in one phrase: men of one country are sent to kill men of another country. War is the peak, the culmination of all anti-masculine phenomena.
War is a gross violation of men's rights. This is especially true of conscript soldiers who are forced to fight on pain of imprisonment in case of refusal to serve. But even if a man goes to the front as a volunteer, he is not such a volunteer as it may seem at first glance. A man unwittingly becomes a victim of patriotic propaganda, because society will shame him with all its might and means if he refuses the "honorable" duty of all men to defend the Motherland. The clearest example of such a shaming of men was the campaign of the so-called Order of the White Feather, which took place during the First World War in Great Britain. The campaign was attended by women who handed men who did not go to the front a white feather as a symbol of cowardice.
The desire of men to "voluntarily" get involved in the war does not appear from scratch. This desire is nurtured in men, is embedded in their consciousness and is constantly fueled by patriotic slogans and propaganda in the media.
The idea that men are obliged to sacrifice themselves for the good of the state and the nation, to protect women and children, to defend freedom and democracy is deeply rooted in the culture of many countries. War is the culmination of men's servitude, it is the strongest confirmation that men are at the full disposal of the state. They can be used as disposable batteries, their lives are not valued and mean nothing to the government.
As soon as a man passes into the category of "soldier", he is removed from the category of "man". In the understanding of generals, soldiers are resources with which you can achieve strategic goals, but not people who have their own dreams, hopes and desires. They are valuable as long as they can serve the state interests.
This "dehumanization" of soldiers is very well traced when it comes to civilian and military casualties. While the death of civilians is regarded as a tragedy, the death of soldiers is perceived as the norm. The soldier's goal is to kill or be killed. Despite the fact that the victorious soldiers are praised and extolled, their servitude in the hands of the state is no less than that of the deceased military of the losing side. The death of the victorious soldiers is recognized as heroic, but does this make it less tragic? This is just a propaganda tool that encourages other men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country in the same way.
For the sake of male solidarity and ending violence against men, we should reject war and all its manifestations. It is necessary to promote peace and try to stay away from all militaristic institutions, which are essentially anti-male.
In peacetime, it is difficult to attract public attention to the problems of men. It is impossible to do this in wartime. Men who are shamed in peacetime for their unwillingness to sacrifice their health and well-being for the sake of the interests of women and children will be branded traitors and cowards in wartime.
In difficult times, it is men who are expected to take the brunt of fate, so that women and children suffer less. In order to reduce and eliminate the servitude of men in the hands of the state, so that the world begins to show compassion for men and boys, we need to start with the idea of abandoning wars.
Support associations, associations, unions, single activists who fight for the rights of men in all spheres of life. Actively use all legal means for your struggle. Remember that the life, health, safety, comfort of men are priceless, it should not be sacrificed to other social groups. We deserve to live in a world where there is no oppression, sexism (misandry and misogyny), gendercide (androcide and femicide), discrimination. Only such a world has the right to be called civilized.
Even better, do a video where you discuss the American vulnerability to Canadian invasion. Wait that would be ridiculous because, outside of Russia, geography isn't destiny.
In the words of Sarcasmitron in his excellent "Shut Up About NATO Expansion" video: "... and also, and I cannot believe this needs to be explained to f***ing geopolitics experts, Russia has a nuclear deterrent! They do not need land buffers! At all! What, is it the 19th century? Are they worried about General Mannheim's zombie army? Do they also need more crossbowmen for their star forts?"
@@ElysianFrostTell them that, they're the ones that need to hear it.
@@ElysianFrostYou are right. The whole war is just Putin's pride. He doesn't like the fact the Soviet Union fell. Calling it the biggest catastrophe of the previous century. And WWI and WWI happened in that same century. It shows what's important to him.
Trade is the main factor, if they are contested more in the black sea and the caspian sea they're shipment costs would be crippling.
Having nuclear bombs gives them protections but geography is still vital. Russia still has to protect their vital points to avoid immediate toppling and that is a shitton more spending. It's better to launch nukes with protected boarders and not have to debate if hitting the enemy capital is better than destroying the steppes to stop the charge.
I think this war has placed Russia in a precarious position, if they fail the economic disaster will be immense. I can also see a rapid destabilization of the current regime as Putin's "oopsie we invaded" was a political disaster.
@@HistoryNerd8765 I mean, for all that Russia blusters about NATO and pretends it needs strategic depth, they actually seem well aware of this. They are very clearly not worried about NATO making a grab for Kaliningrad while Russian forces are tied up in Ukraine. Finland's about 90 miles from St. Petersburg and Russia pretty calmly accepted Finland joining NATO because they knew they had little ability to stop it *and because they knew that NATO forces taking St. Petersburg from Finland was not actually a serious threat*.
Who was your research assistant? Girkin?
"Russia has a large flat border that threatens its security"
So does Poland, the baltics and Ukraine but for some weird reason they dont pretend they need lebensraum for security.
Volga gab is literally longer than most european countries yet it is a security threat.
The video just assumes a militaristic war striven countries and just plays to russian mindset that they are threatened and need more defense land, while being the largest country on earth. Why doesnt Turkey need Bulgaria and Greece to protect Instanbul? Isnt Instanbul in a flat land very close to Bulgaria, but for some reason Turks dont see it as a threat. Russian mindset is its own biggest threat.
"Dragons can be beaten" is such a powerful line, very true
Dragons don't exist, but if they did, they would be unstoppable.
the thing you forget is... it toke a lot of sacrifice and strength to beat it
It’s a war of attrition, dragons like terrorism cannot be defeated. You’d waste away trying to fight them.
Ask USA in Afghanistan.
@@themaplebeefI am pretty sure a missle or a tank round can kill a dragon
@@KelemKelemno, terrorism was killed in Afghanistan, the terrorist invaders ran out of the country with their tails between their legs like the hyenas they are.
What's the need of a NATO expansion if Russia can have peace of mind? To have no worry about security in its region would have resulted in a different scenario right now in Ukraine. The reason why NATO was a paper tiger these last 25 years was because of a docile eastern Europe.
The region of the Baltic nations with Poland have a different motif for self-preservation compared to the rest of Western Europe, while under the umbrella of the United States.
4:40 Ukraine is not "borderland" it's ruissian myth. In Ukrainian language we can replace У and В at the beginning of word "Україна/Вкраїна" basically it means country
this video ignores one thing: no one is going to invade or threaten russia, because they have the nuclear deterrent now.
That doesn't mean you leave a choke point you don't know what can happen in the future
@@xr2kid yes it does, if the solution to that is invading other countries and shooting children.
It all makes sense if you think about fighting wars. Why can't Russians get over it and seek peace too?
They did seek peace and it was rejected, why would they seek peace with treaty breakers who intend to be as belligerent and hostile as possible?
Russia was the one attacked over and over and over again, and you are coping and projecting.
Cause all countries seek to benefit themselves Western countries included...
West did invasions and destabilisation efforts of the middle east.
China is seeking to get ex colonial countries into debt traps.
Russia does it via proxy wars (2014 Ukraine)
It's fucked up but all countries try to push their agendas... We had 25 years of the USA being a unchallenged super power. gradually over time that has changed.
I'm British so USA being a super power is beneficial to my country. But not towards the CCP, Russia, Iran, South America and North Korea...
I've tried to keep this brief so please keep that in mind.
people make a living out of geo politics...
@@Conserpov lmao okay Doc. You think like a comic book reader.
@@charleswalker2484
You don't think at all, CNN watcher
for all those who talk about nuclear weapons.
First. The easiest way to detect and destroy a ballistic missile is at the start, look at the maps of the placement of known Russian nuclear launchers. The closer you are to them, the easier it is for you to deliver a preemptive strike or shoot down on takeoff.
Second. The war began 3 months after Zelensky's statement about the possibility of deploying American anti-missiles in Ukraine.
they can be launched from submarines
Lol @ all these NAFO shills in the comments reeeeeeeing that caspian report is actually being objective and analytical instead of just cheerleading the ukraine war
Боже , а ещё говорят , что на западе нет пропаганды и все эти западные комментаторы, которые считают себя в этом конфликте настоящими экспертами будучи живущих в так называемых демократических странах , просто запомните вы сами взращиваете ненависть в русских и данное видео подтверждает , что запад нам точно не друг и Россию не постигнет участь нацистской Германии, как вам хотелось бы , скорее у вас наяву будет мир fallout 76
Russia then: I think I’ll f*ck around
Russia now: I’m finding out
Karma
@@NikojNisto-gw8rc Russian bot detected
CaspianReport is so tone deaf.
He talks about a "new reality" when Ukraine is by all accounts losing this war. He portrays a map of 1991 Ukraine in his Analysis when Russia occupies almost all of it's coastline.
Rather than talking about whatever "new reality" you are living in, how about you talk about the current one.
Based Ukraine
Everything you said about Russia's geographic position is true. However, all of their goals are grimy little selfish ones that hurt many people just to assuage Russian paranoia. Look at Germany and France, in the past surrounded by potential enemies. Their wars of past centuries did not benefit them. Then in the 2nd half the 20th century they formed alliances with other neighbors based on shared values and economics. Do France and Germany still seem vulnerable today? No, and yet the geography hasn't changed. The geopolitics has because all of Europe benefits from peace and economic trade.
Even ten years ago Russia was in a position to ensure its own security by continuing to quietly be the supplier of natural gas to the European economy. It is only by seizing neighbor's territory in 2014 and then full-on invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that Russia has actually put itself into a much more vulnerable position. Russia's behavior has been very short-sighted and stupid.
Russia should have allowed Ukraine to align with the West and used them as a means to improve their own trade and economic ties with the West. The two nations were once brothers. Just because your little brother marries a beautiful woman, he is still your brother. It is only by betraying Ukraine that Russia lost Ukraine as a long time ally. So damn stupid and costing so many lives for nothing!
The same thing is true for China and their fears over isolation behind the first island chain. China keeps pushing back at the United States, because China views its own position as vulnerable. They can't seem to see that the USA's protection of freedom of navigation for everyone is the very reason China was able to grow its own economy despite needing to import resources to build almost everything. Japan and South Korea are in the same damn position as China, highly dependent on imported raw materials to fuel their economies, yet they remain friends with the USA to continue to ensure freedom of navigation and thus ensure the continued flow of raw materials.
The biggest threat from the first island chain that China faces is caused by China's own aggression!Literally nobody wanted to block China's trade access until China proved again and again that they can't be trusted as trade partners and won't stop being aggressive militarily.
So in other words we are in a vicious cycle were Russia and China's paranoia makes them more aggressive which leads to a western response that western response further increases the paranoia of Russia and China and on and on it goes, hopefully the threat of nuclear war is enough to deter major aggression but who knows this time period feels very much like 1910-1914 before the war started but hopefully reason prevails
Similarly I wonder if Russia's attempt to cause a famine in the Middle East with a Black Sea grain blockade (no doubt to try to flood Europe with starving Muslim refugees) will convince some that Russia ought to be shut out of the Black Sea altogether, to the point that Ukraine should be encouraged to claim the Kuban region and extend (in the words of the March of Ukrainian Nationalists) "from the San to the Caucasus"?
Indeed the first island chain wouldn't have been a problem if the US hadn't supported the KMT government and allowed it to be liberated in 1950
@@g60B2NHwf Even though Taiwan is not under the control of the PRC, the first island chain today is not being used to restrict Chinese trade. It would only be used that way in the event of war. War will only occur if China starts such a war. Perhaps China should refrain from starting a war.
@@therealuncleowen2588The U.S. has split up other people's countries based on its own interests and now it's telling China not to try any means to solve the unification issue, and if this ends up in a war that's what the U.S. deserves.
Who gave them Donetsk and Lugansk? Who gave them Lviv? Who gave them Crimea?
The year 1939 called... and it wants its "importance of flat terrain theory" back.
Germany killed at least 5 million Russians. I'd say the flat terrain is a problem
Canada has an even more vulnerable border to its south than Russia. Maybe getting along well with your neighbours is a much cheaper and more secure alternative.
xD Canada has only one neighbour, but they can swim to the North Pole.
Canada borders the United States, a country with which it shares much (including most strategic interests).
Russia borders 3 civilisations and a number of historical rivals such as Poland.
@@giuseppecappelluti3626 They have chosen not to try to get along with them. It has hardly enhanced their security.
@@chrisvickers7928 or it was also the other great powers who supported anti-Russian elements? This is not to deny that the Russian leadership made many mistakes, especially with Ukraine (luckily it’s not repeating them with Georgia, for instance), but that third powers also played a role.
Anyway, the comparison with Canada is inappropriate. Canada is a regional power with no particular ambition, like Switzerland; Russia is a great power. And anyone powerful is surrounded by resentful neighbours. Many South Americans don’t like the USA, while some of Germany’s neighbours used to literally hate it. Moreover, most of Russia’s problems are on the Western flank
@giuseppecappelluti3626
And Lithuania once combined with Polish forces to occupy part of Russia.
And Mongolia once occupied not only current Russian territory but also China.
But if Russian leaders were in touch with reality they would understand
that neither Lithuania nor Poland nor Mongolia pose the slightest threat to Russia today
and that China is the only country that has the slightest interest in invading Russia
and that China is the only country that poses any threat to Russia,
especially given that China still wants back a huge chunk of territory that
it says Russia stole in the 1800s and given that China has a huge military
and given that China is led by dictators who may not care much
about how many Chinese soldiers are killed in a war
and given that China has been acting more and more in Imperialist ways
against their neighbours.
If the Russian government is stupid enough to keep fighting in Ukraine
another 18 months it won't have much of an army left.
I don't know what it would do then if China took advantage of that situation
to invade Eastern Russia and take back all the territory it says it deserves back.
European countries would be happy to have good relations with Russia
if Russia was willing to have good relations with other European countries.
Notice that all the European countries that fought each other for centuries
basically stopped doing that after WW2.
In being hostile and belligerent against other European countries
Russia is an outlier in Europe by its own choice.
they would need to negotiate a freeze to the conflict first, Russians are not that stupid and know they are too deep already not to carry the war to the end, a freeze would imply Ukranian entry to NATO.
First time I am disappointed with a video of this channel. Interesting to see all my thoughts in the comment section. So what is the real purpose of this video? No one is buying the narrative of this video.
Am I alone in starting to feel this channel is becoming another real life lore?
Is that a bad thing? At least its real politics and not just bashing random brands for being "woke" lol
Imagine the Russians had to be nice in order to protect themselves. That would be crazy.
Says the United States, 'NATO won't move one more inch eastward....scouts honor.'
They never even said that, the conditions on which a country can join are clearly set. Putin was fine with them joining and even considered joining himself with Russia.
Relying on Russia for what their motives or intentions are for invading Ukraine is onion like.
It's pretty logical though. They saw an all-out war as the only way to end the indefinite expansion of American influence and military presence on their borders. If they had not acted in Ukraine, they would've acted in Belarus. If they didn't act in Belarus, they would've acted in Kazakhstan. If they hadn't acted at all, they would be subordinated by the Western consensus and would be forced to submit. That would then mean turning against China, against the Russian interests, because USA is afraid of Chinese competition.
@@goldbullet50 Compare Germany with American influence and Germany with Russian influence. Russians invaded Ukraine to preserve the poverty for Russians in the countryside and mafia style of the government. With all the raw materials they have they could be the richest country in the world but no they still prefer to keep their post khengis khan system with all consequences.
@@goldbullet50 Kick rocks Russian bot! Pure ignorance and lies, excuses and propaganda from the Kremlin.
@goldbullet50 The US is afraid of absolutely nothing! US=3d Chess, Russia & Chinese=amateurs. Keep it up though, but the rest of the world knows the truth, and Russian/Chinese lies will not help you. Putin's days are numbered, due to his incompetence, ignorance, god complex, paper tiger military, extreme corruption, war crimes, and the world's most historical blunder. Nobody believes your shite, not even you, the Russian people, or Putin, no one.
@@goldbullet50 Слава Україні Героям Слава! Смерть Путіну і РФ! 💪🇺🇦
Russia is here presented as a victim to feel sorry for. I totally agree with the geopolitical point: should Ukraine join NATO, Russia could not exist much longer in its current state. But the moral message is perverted. Nobody, not least Russians themselves, need Russia in its current state. Whatever future state or states are to replace it could well address their security concerns by eventually joining NATO rather than confronting it.
Would you think the same if you were russian? Lol 😂
@@fls6767 It would depend on my circumstances. Most likely not. But my descendants would be grateful for the outcome regardless, just like modern Germans are regardless of what their grandfathers thought.
Россиян-то спрашивали, фантазер?)))
Joining Nato means being an American subservient, When America is a direct competitor on all of your energy exports you dont want to be under them. This is coming from an American btw
@@TheBlogofDimi Joining NATO means accepting US supremacy in military/geopolitical and (as time passes) economically and ideologically, as well. That would get the US easy access (via soft or hard power) to Russia's vast natural resources which is imo their ultimate goal in this.
"Moral messages" and other such lines of thinkings are naive, imo. NATO countries citizenry unconditionally accept to be led under a US hegemony in exchange for a full belly and neverending entertainment (panem et circenses). Russia is of a different mindset courtesy to its own historical experiences.
Ask yourself a simple question: Why do we actually need Ukraine in NATO? NATO is a military alliance, not a feel-good resort! We're bringging you in if we need you for our security! How exactly would we feel more secure in NATO, with Ukraine in? Against whom?
Narator forgets one type of weapon--Nuclear Bomb. The narator also makes it look like the people of Crimea do not see themselves as Russian, that is a lie. In fact, most Crimeans speak Russian and approved of Russian anexation.
Russia has nukes. Geographic vulnerabilities of this sort are a thing of the past.
Do you know who else has nukes and has used them on defenceless people before? USA 🇺🇸
Who would you trust to keep a cool head on the nukes button?
@@KelemKelem please tell us more about how the USA nuked defenceless people. we're waiting. This should be good.
@@gabber_How USA nuked defenceless people... Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... 2 cities with civilians...
@@gabber_ Japan. I know you’re smart enough. So I’ll just say this: USA dropped atomic bombs 💣 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2 when Japan did not present a military threat anymore. In fact they were preparing to surrender since Germany had surrendered.
Those two cities were not military targets or had any military targets. They were full of civilians who posed no military threats to American army.
I’m sure I didn’t need to say that. I really am.
@@KelemKelem Japan wanted to continue the war. It was over for everyone but them. They continued their incursion into China. They were WARNED once before the bombs were dropped. Those 2 cities were selected, because they were full of factories fueling the japanese war machine. Just like it is justifiable in war to bomb the german cities who did the exact same! Interesting how the japanese today understand and are not infact enemies of the west, no? Interesting how those "nuked" cities are still habitable today, no? you can't compare those bombs to the nukes that can be deployed today. This was also 80 FUCKING YEARS AGO. Not today. History shows your dishonesty. You should consider looking at actual history and not the fake russian one being spread by the FSB.
If the dragon didnt have nuclear weapons this war would have played out differently
Dragon? You mean bear right?
@@ChillingCrowley Noo, it's a fucking Big Rat
Desperation propaganda is an ugly thing
I feel the need to observe that all of the strategic vulnerabilities described in this video hinge on two assumptions:
1). Russia retains a fundamentally hostile relationship with European nation-states. This is by no means guaranteed. German Ostpolitik specifically sought detente with Russia via political and economic connections. Just before February 2022, both Scholtz and Macron made massive diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation. European states don’t want a war on the European continent, and haven’t since 1945.
2). Russia has no means to defend her heartland. This is simply not the case. As long as Russia has nuclear weapons, no one is going to shoot the bear. They might poke it, but not shoot it.
Putin still seems to be playing by the rules of 19th-century imperialism, by which every state seeks to expand its borders as far as possible. That’s not Europe’s political reality any longer. European states have their disagreements, but they’ve all fundamentally agreed that they’re better off maintaining peaceful relationships than hostile ones. Germany, France, and Poland have no interest in annexing each other’s territory or shooting at each other. Had Putin tried, he could have brought Russia closer to that reality. By annexing parts of Georgia and invading Ukraine, he made Russia a pariah instead. European hostility to Russia-and thus Europe’s threat to her-is almost entirely a response to hostile words and actions from the Kremlin.
TL;DR Putin has created the very situation he claims to have feared. His prophecy turned out to be self-fulfilling.
The funniest part is Ukraine wanted to be part of the EU not NATO as they were given territorial guarantees by Russia, now NATO membership will be Ukraine's end game.
...And people wonder why Russia invaded Ukraine... 'unprovoked'?
Russia creates its own vulnerabilities across its own vast borders by relentless illegal aggressions toward its neighbors. Canada’s border is lengthy and is just a line on a map. Yet Canada is very secure. Russia appears to believe that it is entitled by innate cultural and military superiority to behave aggressively. That’s simply not acceptable.
Don't you also apply the same standard to the US. How do you think the Mexican border ended up looking the way it looks today?
As a Canadian I know we are America's lap dog. We jump when told to. Also we have no military to pose a threat. We do not have centuries of war like Europe has in out history.
@@PrimericanIdol And what was Russia doing in Hungary, while the United States and Mexico fought? We are talking about modern norms and not wars of distant history, but sure, let me do that right now. First, the United States invaded Canada twice. Second, the Mexican population of the Mexican Cession was minimal, a few people in Alta California and Nuevo Mexico. Mexico did not meaningfully act to exert sovereignty over this vast area; its people by law were not allowed to homestead land or own guns. If Mexico had liberated its people to settle the land, it might not have been lost. By much the same process, Russia acquired Siberia, a sparsely inhabited land under nominal authority of Siberian khans such as the Khanate of Kazan, and native peoples. The only country possibly interested in taking Siberia from Russia is Russia's "ally" China, not the United States. If you go back enough centuries, Moscow was a village of wooden huts near some river sources. What right did Moscow have to fight or oppose the authority of Vladimir, Tver, or the Mongol Khans? Please be serious.
This video feels like a "What if" alternative history.
it's natotard fanfic
Is that a compliment?
Pretty sad, all the Ukraine had to do was to declare itself neutral and stay out of nato. Instead every eu member has suffered with hyper inflation and we can barely feed and heat our homes. Somehow this is a win?
I'd like to see something on the taxation and economics of why it is so important to Russia to hold these lands. And why Russia isn't able to have the kind of growth of Soviet or a mutually beneficial relationship with this long flat border, or the EU
"t is so important to Russia to hold these lands" Its our lands lol from 9 century. Lol
Literaly, not your land@@Dustov-Video
russia do it not because of economic, but because of russian suprematism and fascism ideas. They just have fake myth that Kyiv Rus' was their gold age state, and Kyiv was capital. That why they are so obsessed with Ukraine. Because they build moscovian history on Ukrainian. Because Ukraine territory always been more developed and cultured.
@@Dustov-Video Lol, no. Your lands is Moscow, which litteraly translates from Finish language as shit river.
Ukraine never been lands of modern russian. Ukraine used to be land of ruthenians (old name of Ukrainians), but in those years modern russians called themselves as muscovites. Russia had name Muscovy up to 1721.
And even when russia stole Ukrainian name, there were never majority of russians in any region which is now Ukraine.
@@bodia1406 You don't know history all to well. Try reading Western sources at least.
Also “Ukraine” can sound similar to “borderland” (окраина) in Russian, but in Ukrainian it sounds similar to “country” (країна), to be more precise “in the country” (у країні). Not very original name for a country but as it is. Btw, the word “borderlands” sounds totally different in Ukrainian (околиці).
Where does that theory of the origin of the word come from?
край (край чего-то) по украински будет край
@@rob6927this is not theory, this is linguistics of a native speaker 😅😂😊
@@scpmr а вертолёт и бумеранг как будет по украински? 😮
@@Wow4ik4ik без понятия. К чему этот странный вопрос?
the name of Ukraine comes not from the "borderlands"
it comes just from the word "land" - kraj
it literally means "my land" or "our land", krajina - country, Ukraine - our country
even Slovakia some time in the history had the same name, but very shortly
That is accurate - the "borderlands" explanation is actually a part of ruzzie propaganda. Use of that explanation, combined with overall "ruzzie" view makes me wonder if this is a piece paid by ruzzies, or it's just yet another case of "useful foolishness" by CaspianReport.
There are several possibilities when it comes to the etymology of the name of Ukraine.
Most polish historians and linguists agree that most probable explanations is that it refers to "borderlands". And this notion is spread thougout most other countries' academia.
Before XVI century the name had no official character and refered just to borderlands: "kraj" - "something cut"/"strip out", later - "piece of land"/"end" and "u" - "along"/"at", resembling phrases "u kraja", "na skraju" - "on the edge/fringe".
From what I know most modern ukrainian linguists indeed argue that it means "my land", "our land", but outside of Ukraine, the most accepted theory is that it comes in fact from the word "borderlands".
Russia had the opportunity to solidify its Western boarders and turn Europe into the financier of adventures in Central Asia and East Asia. Instead they decided to attack their biggest trade partners, go to war with the greatest military alliance on the planet, and isolate themselves. Russia is now paying the price and should not be allowed to escape this quagmire unmolested.
Seeing what aggressive intentions NATO is undertaking against Russia, I realized that in this conflict being on the side of Russia is the best option. And in the end, Ukraine has always been part of the Russian state, and it seems to me that Russia has every right to claim the territories that it has been collecting for centuries for its security.
Say oink oink, commie
@@pappafritto Mark Twain said, "Never swear with stupid people. They will lower you to their level, and then they will finish you off with their experience." Perhaps I won't stoop to your level.
@@evilcommunist2901хрюкни
Before the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine had no plans to join NATO. Moreover, in exchange for nuclear weapons, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, which enshrined Ukraine's neutral status in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom. The Russians themselves initiated this process. kid
Hopeium runs high. US Army war college just came How did their most Recent publication and said in direct conflict with Russia would leave 50,000 US KIA in TWO WEEKS. Unsustainable for the US Army and US population will not put up with that number of body bags.
I hope china launches a a n4ke against murica.
The common theme in this analysis, that Russia is in some sort of military campaign against "the west" is misguided. NATO has never shown any indication of wanting to militarily "invade" Russia. Countries exist alongside other countries regardless of their military strength. The aggression over the last 100 years has always been Russia's ambitions through dictators to "conquer" smaller countries through invasion and occupation. If Russia simply wanted to join other rich, democratic and prosperous nations, all it would need would be a change in leadership. Could happen tomorrow but they CHOOSE to be ruled by a dictator.
That aggresion is not 100 years old, but 800, 500 or 300, according to which part of the world has been the victim of the agrression of the Muscovites
what a dumb argument.
tell me one of the current major countieres, even western, who didnt got their territories through violent expansion.
@@wilnur4846
Norway. It has only and has always had a Germanic population.
Sweden: it has only a Germanic population.
Austria. It has only a Germanic population.
Finland has only a Ugro-Finnic population. Italy. It has only Italic population.
Germany. It has only a Germanic population.
RUSSIA has Slavic, Tatars (The entire Volga-Ural region, former Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, and CRIMEA), 300,000 native Siberians (physically eliminated), Circassians (Sochi region, North Caucasus: 1,5 million people, ALL physically eliminated), Karelians (Ugro-Finnic population North, East and North-East of Saint. Petersburg, and Saint-Petersburg too, built on Ugro-Finnic territory starting from 1706), Turkic (Chuvash, the Karachay, the Altais, Balkars, Tatars, Bashkirs, Nogais, Tuvans, in Belgorod Oblast, Kabardino-Balkaria, Krasnodar Krai.
North Ossetia-Alania, Rostov Oblast,
Stavropol Krai, Tuva etc...), Mongol people (Buryats and Yacuts), Japanese, Koreans, Ainu, Nivkh, Uilta, Evenki, Nanai (Sakhalin island and Kurill islands), Chinese people (Outer Manchuria, current Vladivostok).
Have fan, 1. Di. 0T.
_“Russia can only be remembered as the owner of territories taken from other nations, from other peoples and which they will have to give back on the day of reckoning.”_
Friedrich Engels, 1820-1895. German philosopher
@@paolopetrozzi2213
every of the mentioned countries tried to expand at the cost of its neighbors. forgot sweden colonizing northern europe and owning finnland? baltics was never "indepemdend", it was either german, swedish, russian or sowjet. forgot polish-lithuanian expansion and conquest of moskwa?
thank god russia conquered its neighbors and expanded so much. if you want you can take all these non-white ethnicities in your neighborhood and give them a place to live in your closet.
Ukraine is already a NATO defacto member and it shows in it's ability to fight the Russian but with all 32 countries supporting it and the outcome is still a dismal failure. 😂😂😂
It looks like a well-formulated justification for the need for the Russian Federation to conduct a Special Military Operation!
Not even close. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can choose to join any international organization or wishes.
@@baneofbanes It was sovereign, collected from half of the South Russian regions. Russia even came to terms with this given sovereignty, it happened, including due to the fact that the UN at the time of its creation was a purely Western Club (Africa and other regions of the world joined much later), and the USSR did not want to join the UN as one separate Unit and have one vote. For this purpose, the status of a separate recognized country as the Ukrainian SSR was pushed through. The borders are not demarcated, there are no agreements between Ukrainian institutions after the collapse of the USSR, the obligations to leave the USSR (the return of administrative units back to Russia) have not been fulfilled, and so on. And again, this was not the final justification for the decision on the Special Military Operation, but the fact that on our lands, entrusted to Ukraine, they began to pursue an anti-Russian, pro-Western ethnic-religious policy (which you always didn’t care about how many of our brothers and sisters would die from your hands), which led to the de facto emergence of the NATO structure (an attacking bloc, since NATO waged many wars, but no one ever attacked NATO countries). We also know that all of Russia’s peace initiatives were destroyed, even those that passed through the UN Security Council. We know from the words of Holland, Stoltenberg, Merkel, Petro Poroshenko that no one wants peace for the Russians living on Russian lands; in their words, the Minsk agreements were needed only to prepare for war. All agreements were also thwarted in the first Month of the conflict in Turkey... No more cheap energy, labor (pay at least more than 100 dollars a month to seamstresses in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Myanmar and so on)...
You cannot carry out policies on Russian lands, in cities built by Russians, against Russians. You wanted this conflict, so don't be surprised that the World started a rebellion that will be successful. Live like everyone else, without preferences...
@@baneofbanes By the way, tell me the rulers, the dynasty, or at least someone who represented Ukraine... Find me Ukraine on Western maps until the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Find me Ukrainian deasporas before this period. Explain to me why the Ukrainian historical epic (South Russian, that is, Rus' itself) was preserved on the territory of Russia, in chronicles and collections, but not in Ukraine itself? Is it because the Rurik Dynasty (whose capital remained in Novgorod, the Rurik Settlement is still under the great Novgorod), which organized Rus' as the territory of the Great and ordinary Principalities? And after the Invasion of the Golden Horde, Rus'/Russia lost half of its territories, including Kiev (which was originally a Khazar Fortress, where the local population were slaves, and in the 9th century was conquered and united to Rus'). It does not look like Ukrainian Sovereignty, despite the fact that the sovereignty was exclusively Russian, and Russia lost this Sovereignty, falling under the Yoke for 300 years. What happened to the population in Southern Russia at that moment, they were driven into slavery by the invaders, first the Horde, then the Poles and Lithuanians, who occupied these lands after the Horde. And thus, from 1240 to 1660+, the Russian lands were occupied, and were returned only in the 17th century, after several wars, with the same Poland (which for us was the same Horde, only from the West, for centuries they organized devastating raids, and tried to seize power). All this does not look like Ukrainian sovereignty. And so the Russian Kingdom restores Sovereignty, and even as a result of a victorious war, pays a lot of gold to the Poles in order to redeem Kiev (papers and contracts for property are still in Russia, and no one has canceled this property). Then there was the Russian Empire, which finally began to rebuild the devastated Russian lands, after centuries of violence and occupation by all sorts of foreigners, and so it was until the Revolution... All this also does not look like some kind of sovereignty. So where is that sovereignty? Where is the history of the management of these lands by non-Russians? Only the Russians developed these lands and treated them as their own, as their history and heritage! Maybe then these are Polish lands, which, at every disobedience, carried out massacres, and also fought against Orthodoxy... Maybe then that the Horde cared about these people and lands? No? Who are you anyway to meddle in our thousand-year history???
@@baneofbanes russia doesn't care. It only wants to spread death and misery.
you can make the same argument about german borders: sitting in the middle of the north european plain, no natural borders. Two world wars after, we just learned that the better strategy is to collaborate with your neighbors (and tolerate their nazi jokes). Every single German is much better off thanks to this policy, and we can focus 'national pride' on soccer, cars, bier, whatever, just not on the French and the Poles. Why can't Russians do the same? Collaborate with you neighbors instead of seeing them as an enemy and a thread. It actually makes your live better
because it is not a democratic state.
Ja wohl!
The „threat“ to Russia (I.e. current Russias political elite) is not military in nature, but political…when the Russian living close to the borders can witness how their former Soviet Communist sisters and brothers can prosper in a „European“ style governmental system they will question the government system they are living in. There may be difference between west, south, northern and Eastern Europeans but (at their core) Russians are Europeans too. And that is what may make powers to East also nervous in the long run…
Ukraine joining NATO will not help them much. Russia will not allow the installation of long range missile batteries near their border.
'Dragon's can be beaten.'
Well this didn't age well seeing as Ukraine has run out of men according to now, well, everyone and it is question of week when will they sit down with russians to settle new borders if they are lucky. If Russians decide to press on, which they might, they wil most likelyl reach Danube and Ukraine will be reduced to Galicia.
The american ambassador to Mexico telling mexican congress "russia and mexico being close will never happen".
Kids, Putin is doing the same that NATO would've done, like it or not
Mexico has no reason to seek an alliance with Russia because no one threatens Mexico. Think about this for at least a minute.
@@БогданБеркут think for a minute: an entire congress gets a warning for talks about diplomacy and econ. Sucks but we are the "bad" guys this time
Why all the comments basically saying “terrain and long borders don’t matter because Russia has lots of nukes”? Would YOU want your only feasible defensive option to be nuclear weapons? Are you all forgetting NATO has nukes too, and that Russia using nukes would most likely elicit a nuclear response from NATO? And to everyone saying “oh it’s fine, NATO/ USA would never invade Russia”, have you forgotten Yugoslavia, Iraq (the second time we thought they did have WMDs and invaded anyway), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria?
Moldova: (giggles) I'm in danger! :)
I say this once and Ill say it again, is russia were to join nato, nato wouldn't have a reason to exist, which is why the west keeps russia alienated and forced out while also encroaching near the countries borders with its anti RUSSIA sentiment, in my honest opinion others will say well nato only defensive but look through history were nato has gone on the offensive with the usa more times than it was ever "defensive" to me nato is just another tool for the u.s. to use to project power, and anything that undermines that such as hmm I don't know say "russia joining nato."
Let me tell you guys , the Geopolitical debates are gone with the WWII, here the fight is for Human rights. Ru and UA populations is the most mixed population in whole Russia , and if UA citizens enter EU and become NATO member their quality of life will become better, and then it will be difficult for Ru to hold them under their unhuman canditions with no human rights. This is the main reason why Russia is so desparate , and offcourse all other joining nationalities will try the same too.
Lol
Why is your video not coming on the recent developments in Middle east. We are eagerly waiting please dont be late
Because they are confused on which way to lean with respect to their donors, lol.
who are their donors?@@cb1004
For a Caspian Report video I must say I’m disappointed. For some reason people tend to forget Russia has the biggest nuke arsenal in the world.
Also, the many controversial countries mentioned that will definitely won’t join NATO. Beginning with Ukraine but Ukraine is the topic of the video.
Я из Украины и нам видно что нато против нас. Просто хочет ослабить Россию ценой жизней украинцев. При этом они сами и создали Россию. Поссич была нищий страной, но запад решил в неё инвестировать и не помогать странам по типу Украина, ичкерия, Грузия и т д
@@Dmytro-k4fExactly my thoughts. No offense but I am pretty sure 99% of Americans never knew about the existence of Ukraine until 2022.
@@ARES-zf5fz Anyone that works in tech is well aware of them and has been for a while. They are the biggest source of contractors for software roles in the world.
@@ddk9467 So basically a very insignificant percentage of
"Defensive" alliance moment:
Ukraine running out of money and troops. They lost the war.
This analyses is a complete fantasy
If you would translate words "in" and "Country" => "У" "Країна" to Ukrainian lang you get the name of country itself "Україна". That's because it derives not from "border" but rather from "region".
UKRAJINA is derived from kraina/kraj, which means land/country. Same as FinLAND, UzebiSTAN etc.
No man ever would call it's own country a borderland :)
The ones who write about nukes: using nuclear weapons in response to an invasion means the end to Russia as well as the end to NATO, which isn't a good solution. If NATO would launch an invasion, Russia will try to reject it without using nukes
That makes no sense.
Russia could nuke NATO forces in Russia, but spare NATO cities.
Doing so would not lead NATO to nuke Moscow (because NATO would lose everything to the Russian retaliatory strike).
Deterrence still holds.
@@MrNicoJac Nuke your own land, sounds like a great idea!
@@-northrussian7071
It actually is...
As long as you do it before the invading force reaches your cities.
Russia clearly has land to spare and doesn't care about some farmers on the fringes...
Oh, and also, if you detonate a nuke a bit off the ground, you have no fallout. And as Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved, it's quite possible to repopulate nuked areas that did see fall out - you'll have increased cancer rates sure, but life will continue (and if you nuke fields instead of cities, those cancer cases will be wayyy cheaper than beating back a military invasion conventionally).
@@MrNicoJac
You can't guarantee the nuclear radiation doesn't blow over to surrounding areas both within your country and within your opponent's country. That might be a problem domestically
@@-northrussian7071it would be called a defensive tactical nuclear strike and probably be less than 20kt in scale
Great news time to end Russian Federation threats and aggression against its Neighbours! Time for full Russian withdraw from all occupied territories!
Russia could also try to live in peace with its neighbors.