lol, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. merkel's assessment was very accurate that was proven later as any agreement with kremlin has less value as a used piece of toilet paper.
Despite the Minsk agreement and despite the presence of the OECD Observer Mission. Ukraine lost between the Russian insurgent to the Donbas and the full scale unprovoked Russian invasion in Feb. 22 over 14 000 civil and military person in this war. Russia lost from their invasion army in the Donbas at the same time somewhat over 2 000 soldiers which have been transported back to Russia as Cargo 200 in high secret. Lev Schlossberg, Member of the Duma documented in his riding bordering Estonia the funeral ov several fallen soldiers and was from thugs nearly beaten to dead. So much to the commitment or violation of Russia to the MINSK agreement
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans: You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment Without Americans and Britons losing their lives Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians. "This is a big investment" You have to notice what this foreign policy entails in many wars around the world.
The only problem with that statement is that 10% of US defense budget is around $90 billion (but they spent $200 billion actually) and 50% of Russian equipment lost is estimated to be $150 billion. I think if we take out the 10% for the big guy, we could say both Russia and US spend about the same amount for this war.
I would love to know how you calculated $s of Russian equipment losses. This sort of stuff just isn't traded on the open market like soya beans. I don't think I'm exaggerating too much if I guess that the resources Russia expends on getting another Iskander ballistic missile wouldn't even cover a lunch for McDonald Douglas' legal team. @@LNGD_46
Well then the Ukrainians should all thank David Cameron for guiding them in investing for the future, only there is not going to be any ukranians remaining to see their ROI. So sad for all the lives lost, the country was duped, big time, how is that they didn't see it coming.?.
People who've been stating this geopolitical position have all been smugly written off as conspiracy theorists. Congratulations to John Anderson for giving this accurate world view a platform.
You can only maintain a falsehood for so long. Eventually the truth emerges, by leaks, events or public scrutiny. That's where we are now, the truth is becoming clear.
NATO is not a threat to Russian Sovereignty, only Russian Imperialism. How much do you know about realism? Don’t let the name fool you. But I guess Eastern Europe has no agency. Russia should be allowed to have a sphere of influence regardless of their actions because it’s “realistic”.
not just americans, my friend, europeans believe everything the west tells them, they do not have the capability of doing their own unbiased research... the future is grim for all of us
It is unprovoked, the people of Ukraine have the right to choose where they want to belong, they are not destined to have their future dictated from the Kremlin.
As a Ukrainian whose family was severely messed up (to not say f word) by this war (by our government to be precise) I thank you for spreading the truth.
I'm from Belarus. And want to say, that Mr. Mearsheimer is absolutely right. Nobody needs this war in our region: nor russians, nor ukranians, nor us. Greetings! ❤❤❤
@@Tyler-xf6fdWhat's the problem about being proud of your mother land? Belarus is a great country, no matter what you can read in the Western media about it. Do you know that Belarus lost 1 in 3 citizen in WW2 and survived? An if the Western attempt of coup in Belarus failed, it doesn't mean that you may say everything you want about the country you know nothing except for the name of their president, who just goes with the prefix - dictator in all western channels. So, what do you know about Belarus?
USA did not invade Cuba, had no will to annex it and did not claim that Cuba is "not a real country". Putin wants Ukraine. And he uses every excuse to justify his greed.
Благодаря тому что США заставили Украину сдать свой ядерный щит взамен на пустую бумажку. Если бы Украина не сдала свой ядерный щит то не было бы никакой войны. И никто не подумал о том что будет если Россия нападет на Украину. И как они опозорятся в результате на весь мир. Им было наплевать на репутацию США и Запада. Они хотели решить сиюминутную проблему.
Consider that in 1962 there were American ballistic missiles in Turkey. And the Soviets paraded their rockets aboard ships across the entire ocean in public. Then comes the hero Kennedy. Khrushchev agreed with him on the subsequent withdrawal of the Turkish missiles. Those missiles went to Romania after the coup against Erdogan. Where after that, who knows?
@@РуссофобзатевающийрусофобиюЕсли бы Украина не решила похоронить свой нейтральный статус; если бы украинцы не стали убивать своих соотечественников, которым на фиг не сдался европейский рай; если бы были чуть терпеливее и не свергли законное правительство, а подождали всего несколько месяцев и провели нормальные выборы; если бы начали выполнять Минские договоренности… ничего бы этого сейчас не было! Но история не знает сослагательного наклонения
@@NataliaYasnaya Если бы это было то Украины бы не было. Был бы гулаг. Украина была бы и дальше нейтральной если бы Россия не проводила антиукраинскую политику. Если бы не унижала украинцев. Если бы не использовала газ как орудие шантажа. Если бы не вмешивалась во внутренние дела Украины. Если бы не напала на Грузию пользуясь ЧФ подставляя Украину! Убивать своих соотечественников начал режим Януковича. Если бы Януковичь сразу же наказал ментов побивших студентов то ничего бы не произошло. Он бы досидел до конца своего срока. Но он был путинской марионеткой. И делал то что ему командовали из кремля. Если вы верите что Януковичь с руками в крови мог провести честные выборы то у вас не в порядке с головой. Мы помним как Рашка выступала посредником в Белорашке. Когда Лукашенко решил узурпировать власть. А потом вдруг забыли о том что обещали! Кинув белорусский народ! Правительство никто не свергал. Верховная Рада и дальше работала. Регионалы посыпались и перестали поддерживать преступный режим. Минские договоренности нарушила сама Рашка. Так само как и будапешский меморандум и договор о дружбе с Украиной. При чем эти договоренности ничтожные. Ибо были подписаны под после военного вторжения российской армии. И все об этом знают. С таким же успехом я могу подписать с вами любую договоренность под дулом пистолета. Но самая главная причина всех бед-это народ рабов. Который позволил превратить РФию в гулаг. Если тогда защити НТВ и дали отпор надвигающейся диктатуре то вообще никаких бы воин не было. И Россия стала бы нормальной европейской страной. Но холопы сдали свою свободу без боя.
Ive listened to prof merschheimer many times and he never approved or disapproved anything that Russia or Ukraine did. Neither did he ever say one is right and the other is wrong. He's simply saying that actions have consequences and whether the reaction by a country like Russia to Ukraine wanting to join NATO was right or wrong, he simply was saying that Russia saw them as a threat to their homeland and responded to that perceived threat. The professor is spot on and his knowledge of geopolitics is excellent. The bottom line is that wars are waged by politicians and their corporate sponsors who benefit from it and not ordinary people of Russia or Ukraine or of any other country. This world would be better off without politicians but the reality is that we all have to live under their tyranny
Yes, but conclusion (and the title of this video) are misleading and wrong. If you are ok with his theory, where - for sake of imperialist regime's comfort some nations have to be occupied and suffer from corruption and deterioration - like Ukraine - that's not a great theory. And that's basically his thinking - that history is for the big empires to decide, and Ukrainians or Polish people have no right in this game, no agency. They should quietly align with their neighboring power, no matter how horrible it is
But the problem is everybody is acting as if NATO is some kind of aggressive imperialist alliance, and completely ignoring that it is a defensive pact. It absolutely negates almost every single point I ever see made about this issue. The constantly repeated term "NATO expansion" makes it sound like countries are joining NATO in preparation to invade Russia which is just absurd. Russia is a country that has invaded its neighbours SEVENTEEN TIMES since the beginning of the 20th century. It's neighbours want to join precisely because of Russia's history of threats and invasions. Some people are so adamant that everything has to be the USA's fault they just through reason out the window
Need to go back to the 1950s when Krushchev put Crimea into Ukraine and Russia lost its main Black Sea port. It didn't matter so much then because it was the USSR but it did when Gorbachev got rolled and the USSR broke up.
@@scoldedcat The Russians won it off their deadly enemy the Ottoman Turks. And the Brits and Frogs invaded Crimea because of some tussle about Jerusalem and religion. Its a weird world. Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR).
" Gorbachev got rolled". This is why countries do not want a leader who is "too" nice. The leader gets rolled and country with him. And that is the reason why Putin did not go to Gorbachev's funeral. Putin knows that Gorbachev basically sold out Russia because he trusted the West.
Does the entire world have to agree with US and UK standard of democracy? No. Why the need to export their values to the rest of the world given they have their own domestic challenges of inequality and racism and they are not addressing them?
Why don't you care what Russia's neighbours want in all of this? They are not Russia's slaves and they live in independent states. They joined Nato to be secured because Russia has always been a terrible neighbour. They were right. Russisa needs excuses to annex somebody else's land. Putin wants Ukraine and blames his victims for calling the police.
If most of tour democracies are bent on destroying our society and culture that made them great by being overrun with immigrants from third world countries I think we would do better to import some of Eastern Europe values that say let's keep our own culture, we aren't letting the savages in.
That's because Russian state media has been pushing this narrative for a long time under putins direction. This guy is simply parroting russian propoganda. It's not the whole truth and it's miopic in perspective, but like all good propaganda, it works on the uninformed masses that don't know who to trust
And Putin's media have been making his message plain which obviouslyMearsheimer ignores. What's the matter with Mearsheimer? He still thinks Putin is a rational player.
Nothing makes Anderson look hood. He struggles enunciating motherhood statements. Does anyone know the background to this channel? This is no hobby production. This is costing him.
If Ukraine were added to NATO,American soldiers and weaponry would not only be ever closer at the Russian borders but at the very threshold of Moscow city itself! Imagine Russian troops "collecting" one by one countries close to Washington? No nuclear world power would allow such indispensable and dangerous scenarios!
If Ukraine were added to NATO,American soldiers and weaponry would not only be ever closer at the Russian borders but at the very threshold of Moscow city itself! Imagine Russian troops "collecting" one by one countries close to Washington? No nuclear world power would allow such indispensable and dangerous scenarios!
No it is not. Putin referred to his LIE that the 2014 Ukrainian Maidan revolution was a CIA backed coup. It was a Ukrainian revolution to oust their President Yanukoyvich who BROKE his pledge to sign the Euro trade agreement and instead signed the Russion Union trade agreement. I do agree that the eastward expansion of Nato should have been accompanied by the withdrawal of the US from Nato. This would have left Russia with having to face the rest of Europe without being able to claim the threat from USA. The USA would have then been freed up to concentrate on their biggest rival and threat, China.
Russia is not a bear. It is cheap gas station which can not stand its time of glory is over and Ukraine is not soviet backyard anymore. @@gwyndavies212
I respect this man for telling the truth. How I wish the West could understand that Russia don't want a threat next to their borders, just as much as the US and their Allies do. What has happened to Peaceful Coexistence?
Maybe time to ask Polish and Estonian people why they joined NATO! Ukraine has always been dominated by Russia, of course they want independence. But it would be nice to hear the real reason from mr Putin to invade. Was it just to dominate? Something went wrong in the process to incorporate Russia as full member into Europe.
@@dinkeydink9376 and the reason for 800,000 refugees from Donbass, whom Russia accepted from February 22 to 24, 2022, is not enough for you - when, having violated the truce, Zelensky threw troops into Donetsk, and his artillery wiped out all the suburban villages from the face of the earth? If this reason - the total genocide of the population of Donbass, is not enough for you - then you are a Nazi, the same as the Ukrainian butchers with swastikas on their chests.
The other side of the coin here, is that the Eastern-European nations that joined NATO did so by choice; they actively petitioned to do so. And I have to wonder what would have happened to the Baltic nations, Poland, etc. if they hadn't. Look at what Putin did to Georgia.
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0No all these countries were goaded by the US to apply. Whereas Russia also applied, twice, but was refused. The decision to maintain Nato after the fall of the Soviet Union in the nineties was made by the Us, as Mearsheimer points out. There was no practical reason for that after the fall of the Soviet Union other than expanding the influence of the US. That’s how most European countries came to be just American barking dogs.
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 And what would US response to New Mexico be if all of a sudden an army of Mexicans revolted and went to war for independence (financed by RU)?
They asked the Russians to pull their forces away from Kiev, as otherwise it would look like they are signing an agreement at gunpoint. And so they did, and then Kiev rejected the treaty all together. Nothing new given the Minsk 1 and 2 precedents. Btw one of the negotiating team members was assassinated in broad daylight in Kiev. Ukranians do not have the final say though as you mention. Ukranian lives are cheap, so escalating further was a good deal - for the GB-US, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia at any cost.
It is clear that U.S. policy with respect to NATO expansion was never about preventing conflict or defending strategic security. The purpose has been to foment conflict and raise public sentiment for stratospheric military budgets. Follow the money. This is why the last 30 years of policy-making appears to make no sense to so many intelligent people.
With generational fatigue the patina of a true and just US has eroded and left us with a rotting corpse. $34 trillion of debt and spending 3.5% of GDP on defense.is not sustainable. Zombie Empire.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The crucial issue here, one that might well come to a dramatic head in the course of 1994, is the future stability and independence of Ukraine. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire. American policymakers must face the fact that Ukraine is on the brink of disaster: the economy is in a free-fall, while Crimea is on the verge of a Russia-abetted ethnic explosion. Either crisis might be exploited to promote the breakup or the reintegration of Ukraine in a larger Moscow-dominated framework. It is urgent and essential that the United States convince the Ukrainian government-through the promise of substantial economic assistance-to adopt long-delayed and badly needed economic reforms. At the same time, American political assurances for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity should be forthcoming. “The Premature Partnership,” Foreign Affairs, v 73, n 2 (March/April 1994), p 76."
FOR NOW there is ONLY ONE empire on the planet Earth - the United States of America. It has 1000 military bases all over the globe, and it has a carrier group in almost every important sea in the world. Russia physically cannot afford smth like this in economic and military sence. China? They actually can. But don't want to. Did you see any chinese or russian military base near american border? Did you chinese or russian nuclear weapon in western hemishpere? Did you see anyone's (with the exception of the US') nuclear weapon in western hemishpere? But the US itself has NATO in Europe to restrain Russia, AUKUS in Southeast Asia and almost 500 military bases near China's border to restrain it. And of course: the key characteristic of an empire is that not a single military conflict in the world is complete without its participation. This is what we are seeing now in Israel and Ukraine and around the world. This is how empire works.
@@kadovax6567 well no. Why would Russia reject an agreement that stops Ukraine killing ethnic Russian civilians? Have you read any part of the Minsk accords?
When Hollyweird put Zelensky on a pedestal, it was clear that something was wrong: whatever direction they're heading, we should resist the urge to follow.
I would be willing to bet you money that there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian (and Russian) parents who wish their kids weren't dead. If the average Ivan in Ukraine knew that all of these "reforms" and pushes towards the West would have provoked Russia into invading them, would they have rather have left well enough alone? I'm not saying Ukrainians shouldn't or don't aspire to freedom and prosperity, the problem is that strategically associating with the United States comes with a lot of fine print, and these people obviously weren't told about it.
As someone born and raised in Ukraine, I don't think anybody cares about our opinion. Last president I voted into the government was violently replaced with a radical nobody without my consent.
Very interesting and backs up what I have already learned over the last couple of years and is in line with the Tucker/ Putin interview, thanks for sharing. from NZ
Baloney. His penchant for regime change in Cuba led to the disaster in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis. And lets not forget about assassination of the South Vietnamese president.
unfortunately not enough and not sitting in the right offices to keep stupidity from breaking out, like 99% of people say russia started the war,. russia is took active action to defend itself, usa does it all over the world every year, i say this is russias cuban missile crisis
Everybody should watch a documentary on Ukraine called winter of fire. It’s not really about NATO.it’s about a country wanting to live in a free independent democracy.
Right after The War, American generals had respect for their Soviet counterparts (so it has been reported), likely in consideration of the fact that upwards of 80% of German Wehrmacht losses occurred in contact with the Soviet forces. NATO was founded in 1949, a year after Stalin's blockade of Berlin prompted the Allied 'Berlin Airlift', and months before the Soviets ended the American monopoly on deployed atomic bombs. After the Korean War, Khrushchev formed the Warsaw Pact (mirroring NATO) immediately after West Germany joined NATO. Since Putin became 'nationalist' (ca 2006-ish) American military and CIA have developed hostile disrespect toward their Russian counterparts, reflecting the resentment the latter hold for what they see as intentional degradation of the Russian state. NATO's initial mission was precluding Soviet incursions into West Germany and Italy, not least because no one had any appetite for contact with the Soviet military, and as a fail safe means to avoid a nuclear exchange.
I've watched this develop since James Baker first promised NATO would not expand East in 1989, through the progressive expansions. Any realist could see this coming. In 2008, when Putin warned NATO, in no uncertain terms, that expansion into Ukraine and Georgia would lead to war, our leaders should have believed him. Unlike them, he says what he means and means what he says.
John as a University of Chicago alum, I encourage you to read Anne Applebaum's book Autocracy Inc. to better understand the global threat to democracy from corrupt dictators including Putin and Maduro.
I would encourage you ( and everyone) to read “ Washington Rules” by Andrew Bacevich and discover for yourself how the military industrial complex has influenced this whole affair.
NATO expands says Mearsheimer - as I understand it sovereign states may apply for membership and will be admitted if they live up to the requirement. But apparently Mearsheimer is of the opinion that NATO forces states into membership? I don't think so - the main reason for those former Warsaw Pacht states desire to join NATO lies in their long time experience being under russian oppression - never again they said
But in the case of Ukraine the West has deliberately exploited ethnic and historic tensions to destabilise the country and move it towards NATO. This was done in the knowledge that it would likely result in military confrontation on a major scale, yet the West was prepared to bring war for their own goals/greed. The long term goal being to make both Ukraine and Russia there's. The callous calculation reveals the West to be warmongering. Lives mean nothing to them.
I have agreed with the Professor from before the beginning. Having said that owners of the military industrial complex and fossil fuel companies have made more money than ever. This is a plan that has been on the table for over 20 years.
This is all B.S. The majority of people in most of Ukraine want to be part of Europe and part of the EU so they can travel and work freely in the rest of Europe - I am British and wish I could (I didn’t vote for Brexit). It is not up to Russia to dictate whether Ukraine can join the EU, NATO or any other supra-national organisation! Regarding “feeling threatened”, Russia has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD and can threaten nuclear retaliation if any other country (or NATO) attacked or invaded Russia - which nobody has EVER even threatened to do! The “defence” trope is pure Kremlin propaganda to justify their aggressive foreign policies.
The baltics joined nato in 2004, and russia was fine with it. Now, Sweden and Finland also joined NATO and putin said he does not care. But Ukraine joining NATO is somehow an existential threat? I don't get it, it's some kind of cognitive dissonance.
Russia didn't mention NATO when they decided to invade Ukraine . Instead Putin spoke of de -militarising and de-Nazification of their neighbour . He understood NATO was no threat to Russia , in fact he asked President Obama whether Russia could join the NATO alliance ; to which Obama said , No . NATO has prevented Russian advances into eastern Europe , but could not stop its advance into Ukraine . The west is not at fault as imperialist minded Russia simply wanted to reclaim old Soviet territory to challenge the U.S led world order . For dictator Putin this war is a game he thinks is winnable as the reward for him is a weakened NATO , without U.S support and a big chunk of Ukraine - if not all of Ukraine in coming years . Ukraine certainly was not ready to join NATO in 2008 . War is there now , it's a reality , what is the point of laying blame on the west when Russia had other intentions all along - don't be fooled by voices out there too willing to point the finger of blame at the west , it just encourages the Russians to push harder .
Mearsheimer is so wrong. This war is not about NATO, because if it were then it really backfired with Sweden and Finland joining, now strangling the Baltic, not to mention NATO arms production accelerating massively. The war is about regime preservation and dislodging Western hegemony, which is has been proving quite effective at.
Ukraine could be compared to the United States in the respect that half the Ukrainians support Russia and that it was torn within. That type of conflict is on our doorstep. Which side are you on ¿`_
I mean in all of this if you don't understand who is rally profiting from this war it's the American Military complex, these American weapons are not going to sell themselves. If you think Ukraine war is being funded to liberate what was a functioning society before to what it is now you're sleeping. America is the aggressor in all of this, and this war could have been so easily avoided.
BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM ON SECURITY ASSURANCES - DEC.5, 1994 The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, “except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
@@kadovax6567 The point is that Russia laid down their opposition to Ukraine ever joining Nato and what the consequences would be in 2008. Nato and ukraine decided to ignore that warning but both Nato and ukraine knew that would force Russia to invade. Russia was saying to Ukraine that if you want to join our enemies, we will invade you before you formally join Nato which is exactly what they warned again before the invasion when they tried to get nato to agree that ukraine should be a neutral country and nato refused to negotiate.
Our thinking had been that we kept the question of an application open, and then we knew that NATO's door was open. But now Russia wanted to close it. At least then I thought: "OK, the situation has changed, we can't continue as before." Now it was time to apply for membership. Niinistö chose to kick off the debate in the New Year's speech he gave on 1 January 2022. "Spheres of interest do not belong in the 2020s," he said. "Finland's room for action and freedom of choice also includes the possibility of allying ourselves militarily and applying for membership in NATO, should we decide to do so."
change all the terms from diplomatic niceties to carpet bagging graft procurement and general corruption as motivators and you are much closer to the truth. none of these people have ever had e decent thought or taken a noble action in their lives.
Nat0 expansion is same like the concept: the Russia build a military base close to the US border, set all the missiles towards the US and the Russians told the US they should not feel like being threaten. Will US accept this concept? What will the US act? A really thinkable question!
While this may be true, I doubt Putin would have been satisfied with a strong, independent Russia regardless of Western intervention. He would have sought more, as he has always done, with or without our nudging.
@@irenakrylova2506 clearly you forget Chechnya, Georgia, Chechnya (again), Syria, and Crimea/Ukraine all within the last 30 years since the fall of the Soviet regime, and prior to the invasion of Ukraine (again). Nearly all led by one man in power. Your deflection of the issue does not nullify my point at all.
The dilemma on the other hand is, NATO wasn't expanded by recruitment but by application. We in the West believe in freedom, human rights and international law and part of that is the right of self-determination. The eastern european countries, especially those that were part of the USSR, suffered greatly under Russian oppresion. It's very understandable that they'd not only orient themselves towards the West, but also want military security against possible Russian aggression. How could we have turned down their applications if we call us selves a free society?
You missed the part of the interview where they laid out the fact that the west installed a new Ukrainian government to favour the expansion. Russia is exercising its right to feel safe. Your freedom and democracy only serve your domestic market and have no relevance in resolving complex geopolitical issues.
I swear this to be the truth. I was at an Atoka Oklahoma Town Hall Meeting where The Senator who was hosting a seminar and he didn’t even know what The Warsaw Pact was.
However, the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO as a result,combined with a reengaging across the coalition to military preparedness, may have proved the conflict worthwhile. Also, their is another perspective that suggests the Russia would have done this any way as their ability to expand through military means is coming to an end due to population and other negative factors in the Russian state. All roads short of Ukrainian membership in NATO led to bad outcomes.
Как просто? А давай посмотрим что будет? А если другая сторона, в этом случае Россия, что бы остановить это применит ядерное оружие? Как сделали в Японии американцы? Приходит время когда болтовня просто не поможет. Мы сейчас в гораздо более опасной ситуации чем с Кубой. Намного ближе к концу. С Кубой СССР не был загнан в угол, поэтому разумно сделал маленький шаг назад, и США тоже сделали это. Сейчас сумасшедшие либералы Америки и Европы ведут нас прямиком в Ад. Они в открытую призывают к войне. У России не будет выбора и она применит весь арсенал вооружений. И все. Никого из на не будем. Не демократов, не коммунистов, не социалистов. Я удивляюсь неужели люди этого не понимают? От нас даже пепла не останется.
oh and Grandpa, Why did Finland Join Nato recently? for fun? they were bored from Neutrality? Or were they afraid of Russian aggression, same as every other country's reason of joining!
why should they be afraid of anything. Putin is 23 years He i🎉s president of the Russian Federation. If He wanted to do something like agression...do yoù not think He would have done it years ago. Wake up please...you are shameful thinking this absurdity!
Oh and grand crumb crasher, why do you think that joining implies a guilt of intention? If a person joins you saying because afraid of somebody, you are going to believe without a reserve or could be, worse, you go with a nice preventive punch against the presumed aggressor? To whom the merit of so high syllogistic ability?
@@Orray Or you understood, or pretending to have understood, nothing. It all depends on your cognitive capacity. Parrots, for example, do not understand when one answers them. How that? - Simply because parroting has nothing to do with cognitive ability.
It is not only Ukraine that is paying the price for NATO's reckless expansion to the East. The economies of Europe and the United States are suffering. And more severe shocks are yet to come.
Nonsense. NATO is not a threat, except to Russian expansionism. There is no threat to Russia. Are you ignoring our obligation to secure Ukraine as part of the Trilateral agreement in 1994?
@@scotto703 Nonsense. NATO is not a threat, except to Russian expansionism. There is no threat to Russia. - Throughout its history, Russia has fought a lot with various invaders on its territory - with the Swedes, the French, the Turks under the leadership of England and France, the fascists from Germany and more. But on its own territory. What kind of Russian expansionism are we talking about? Or is it time to place Russian nuclear warheads in Mexico, on the border with the United States, as America intended to do in Ukraine, on the border with Russia? Are you ignoring our obligation to secure Ukraine as part of the Trilateral agreement in 1994? - It was not an Agreement, but a Memorandum. Which, by the way, was not ratified by the Governments of the heads of states participating in the signing. And which, by the way, was the first to be violated by the United States, imposing sanctions on Belarus in 2013. But that's not what this conversation is about. Western countries made a big mistake by getting involved with Russia. You will pay for this. You have already started paying. For now, you are paying with the welfare of your citizens. Further more.
Nato is bs excuse. Putin wants to annex Ukraine and he could invade non Nato Ukraine only. Nato never invaded Russia. Russia did invade non Nato neighbours just because it could.
The problem is Russia and Putin. NATO being defensive only poses no threat to Russia, unless Russia intends to invade and conquer Ukraine, which as we have seen it's done.
Ask Serbia, Iraq and Libya about NATO being defensive only. What NATO country did they attack? What country at all was they attacking? Zero is the answer to both. NATO attacking three different countries that were not attacking any country is proof it is not only defensive.
Да, именно так. Это сарказм, если ты не понял. А так, тебе понравятся русские ракеты на твоей границе? Нет? Вот и нам не нравится. Я вообще не понимаю, что США или Великобритания забыли на нашем континенте? Дайте жить нам спокойно!!!! Мы готовы торговать, стоить и так далее. Но без принуждения.
Here’s what John Mearsheimer gets wrong in my opinion. Firstly, a few facts. John turns 77 this December. He has lived most of his life alongside the Soviet Union. He’s used to it and regards it, and the more recent situation, where Russia controlled Ukraine throughout the nineteen nineties via puppet presidents and corrupted Ukrainian law-makers as the “natural state of things”. In reality times change and geopolitics evolves. Russia is not the USSR. It has a population of less than 150 million people and a tiny GDP equal to Spain. It is not a global superpower by any standard other by way of its large nuclear arsenal. Russia manufactures little but sells oil and gas in huge quantities. John overrates Russia’s strength, conflating it with the USSR which is long dead. As the past two years of full scale war have shown, Russia’s military has struggled and is losing huge amounts of men and materiel. Secondly, John sees the situation as USA and NATO versus Russia. Actually, its Ukraine which is fighting (and whose men are dying) and, as a proportion of GDP, it is European countries, starting with those closer to Russia, who are most vigorously supporting Ukraine’s defence. Thirdly, the evidence of two years of fighting shows that, with Western military support (weapons and intelligence but no boots on the ground) Ukraine can defend itself effectively. Indeed, with more wholehearted military support Ukraine could likely take back territories annexed by Russia. There is nothing inevitable in geopolitics and great empires crumble, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Austro-Hungarian and the British empire, white rule in South Africa etc. Russia’s dominance over Ukraine is not a right nor an inevitability. The Ukrainians clearly have had it with Russia (as have Russia’s former east European colonies)and is resisting control. Lets consider the British empire. No one in India or Sri Lanka today would call for British rule to be reinstated. Ukrainians do not want Russian dominance any more than the Indians, Sri Lankans, black South Africans want to go back to old times. Ukrainians want to join EU and develop like Poland, the Baltics etc have done, both politically and economically. Russian dominance has passed. Attempts to prolong the Soviet and now Russian empire are delusional. History cannot be re-established. If the West stops being excessively comfortable and cautious and supports Ukraine seriously, that will be it. Russia will need to recognise inevitabilities: (a) Ukraine does not want or accept Russian colonialism (b) Russia is not a superpower that it can impose its will by force, (c) globalisation, Western democracies, eastern democracies (japan, Korea etc) do offer a model which Russia is not able to compete with. This is the arch of history unfolding.
Right on! I think Tim Snyder calls it the politics of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. If Russia is a great power, why have Ukraine kept them at bay for 2 years? Who the he'll would want to live next to a Petro Mafia Empire that invades Countries like it's the 1700s and not join NATO. Not me. Hense Sweden and Finland joining NATO quick smart. Timothy Snyder is much more contemporary, knowledgeable on East European History, politics and fights for Democracy. This guy is a fatalist.
If one “tough guy” walks up to another and enters his “personal space”, the latter may, as a consequence, strike the former. But the act of violence can, by no stretch of the imagination, be casually attributed to the individual who merely approaches too close for comfort. Moreover, while such an approach may be imprudent, it is not morally wrong. John thinks that because states stand under no collective form of government (no state of states) moral considerations are irrelevant. He thinks that all rationality is instrumental. He is wrong. The principle which would permit one state to usurp parts of another cannot, without contradiction, be universalized. It would, in other words, render all states insecure.
This guy is saying basically the same as Putin, and if tomorrow RuSSia hypothetically attacked the Baltic states he would be blaming NATO. The Chamberlains of our times...disgusting.
Yeah, it's like, "no Ukraine you get to live next to the Empire that has been raping and pillaging for 500 years and not have support of NATO. We don't want to upset The Russian Mafia State. Finland and Sweden... "yeah, right, NATO, where in!" Timothy Snyder is a much smarter and positive when in it comes to East European history, politics, and leadership.
Not expanding NATO is foolish, it is a defensive alliance. If Russia didn’t want NATO to expand, it shouldn’t have invaded Chechnya multiple times and interfered with other countries, this is Russia’s fault and now they are paying for it.
Mearsheimer's argument goes both ways. Russia isn't giving her neighboring countries any choice but to join NATO. NATO is not, and can not be, a threat to Russia thanks to M.A.D. NATO is a threat however, to Russian (specifically Putin's) imperialist ambitions. So called NATO expansion is a result of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine feeling safer and more prosperous with the west than with Russia. If Russia didn't seek to dominate and control these countries, either directly or indirectly, then there would be no NATO expansion in the first place. NATO expansion to the east is a direct consequence of Russia's treatment of her neighbors. Mearsheimer doesn't mention this at all. Putin is a KGB agent in his heart and soul. He was raised in conflict. He is stuck in the past. Russia needs to move on away from him, and towards trade and cooperation. For the good of Russians and everyone else.
It was all lies and propaganda against Russia. The objective of NATO expansion is in the interest of America hegemony and monopolar ambition in perpetuality.
Conflict between nations is inevitable (armed or not) when opposing points of view are present. Russia is imperialist in its actions, and so is the USA, as both have their interests in shaping their spheres of influence. Arguing that Russia would have probably invaded Ukraine even without NATO expansion to the east makes no sense, as events didn't happen that way.
You are absolutely correct, sir, at least somebody in this echo chamber of russian apologists. There were serious debates in the 90s whether NATO is even needed anymore with the end of the cold war, and in the central/eastern European region serious debates whether it's even worth for us to join when Russia looks to be on the path to become a normal trustworthy country. Now we thank to all the gods those voices didn't prevail.
@@FedericoMartens USA haven't invaded any country to annex parts or all their territory for 125 years now. Russia has done so multiple times in 20th and 21st century alone, invaded every single one of their neighbors multiple times, started WW2 together with Germany. Arguing they most likely would've invaded Ukraine anyway is just learning from history, something we still generally fail at in the West for some reason.
@@Jefffrrry I didn't say USA annexed territories of another country, I said it is an imperialist country. Armed invasion is not the only form of imperialism. Imposing your will and worldview around the globe by economic and political means. Besides, the USA shows no doubt to intervene a country with a government not alligned with their politics if they consider it necessary, and we have plenty of examples in the last century. How is all that imposing of will to others not imperialistic?
Nope ! The west could not control Putin's ambitions of challenging the US led world order . NATO is a hindrance to Russian ambitions of regional dominance - it certainly did not cause the war - that assertion is utterly false as Putin the dictator wants a return of former Russian - Soviet territories to make his challenge viable .
I disagree with this viewpoint mainly because its overly simplistic. Certainly western influence in Ukraine helped usher in this conflict but blaming it entirely on NATO expansion eastward just doesn't make sense. It's like saying we should of never invented the car because now there are a lot of car accidents. Likewise there are many reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO expansionism is a single line item in a list that is at least 20 lines long. For example, there's the energy disputes going back to the early 2000s, the pipelines to Europe traversing Ukrainian territory that were not maintained, there's the question of corrupted or corruptible officials on both sides, there's Ukrainian elected political leaders that did not align with Moscow's interests, there's the Euromaidan movements, there's European and Russian economic deals and the question of prosperity especially among young adults, there's issues with Sevastopol naval base being used by the Russian Black Sea fleet, there's the issue of ethnic Russians in Crimea, there's the problem of Russian mainland demographics and Putin's populism and then there's also the issue of border protection in the a face of simple geography.
In March 2022 Ukraine and Russia were conducted peace negotiations. It was not finalised but was near finalised. The top item in that agreement was that Ukraine does NOT join NATO or any other military alliance. Russia would have stopped had it been signed. In 2008 Merkel and Sarkozy knew that inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was very dangerous but the USA forced it through anyway. The USA, through its then ambassador Bill Burns, knew it was dangerous to invite Ukraine into NATO. Russia has been warning about Ukraine joining NATO ever since, repeatedly and loudly. Earlier this year Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Gen. Sec., let slip at an EU press meeting that Russia went to war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. - What we think of NATO does not matter. What Russia thinks of NATO matters.
The Russians invaded because they could. As Professor Mearsheimer says himself, states that see an opportunity and expect that they a payoff will be small will jump the risk. Russia did exactly that when it attempted to occupy Ukraine in 3 days in Feb 2022. From Russia's perspective there ware so many spoils, so poorly guarded. The bottom line Russia invaded because Ukraine was NOT part of NATO, not the other way around. Saying otherwise is contradictory to Professor Mearsheimer's own theory of offensive realism.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Add Merkel statement that they had no intent to honour the Minsk 2 accords.
lol, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. merkel's assessment was very accurate that was proven later as any agreement with kremlin has less value as a used piece of toilet paper.
Despite the Minsk agreement and despite the presence of the OECD Observer Mission. Ukraine lost between the Russian insurgent to the Donbas and the full scale unprovoked Russian invasion in Feb. 22 over 14 000 civil and military person in this war. Russia lost from their invasion army in the Donbas at the same time somewhat over 2 000 soldiers which have been transported back to Russia as Cargo 200 in high secret. Lev Schlossberg, Member of the Duma documented in his riding bordering Estonia the funeral ov several fallen soldiers and was from thugs nearly beaten to dead. So much to the commitment or violation of Russia to the MINSK agreement
Exactement 👍👍
And neither did Russia. And Russia was lying through its teeth when it said it was not militarily involved in Eastern Ukraine.
@@drmodestoesq, you need to educate yourself on the subject - Russia wasn't a side of Minsk accords, it was between Ukraine and the rebel republics.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans:
You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment Without Americans and Britons losing their lives Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians.
"This is a big investment"
You have to notice what this foreign policy entails in many wars around the world.
Without Unkrainian life and territory in the equation. It's done and dusted.
The only problem with that statement is that 10% of US defense budget is around $90 billion (but they spent $200 billion actually) and 50% of Russian equipment lost is estimated to be $150 billion.
I think if we take out the 10% for the big guy, we could say both Russia and US spend about the same amount for this war.
I would love to know how you calculated $s of Russian equipment losses. This sort of stuff just isn't traded on the open market like soya beans. I don't think I'm exaggerating too much if I guess that the resources Russia expends on getting another Iskander ballistic missile wouldn't even cover a lunch for McDonald Douglas' legal team. @@LNGD_46
Cameron has not improved since he was PM.
Well then the Ukrainians should all thank David Cameron for guiding them in investing for the future, only there is not going to be any ukranians remaining to see their ROI.
So sad for all the lives lost, the country was duped, big time, how is that they didn't see it coming.?.
People who've been stating this geopolitical position have all been smugly written off as conspiracy theorists. Congratulations to John Anderson for giving this accurate world view a platform.
Me included.
You can only maintain a falsehood for so long. Eventually the truth emerges, by leaks, events or public scrutiny. That's where we are now, the truth is becoming clear.
NATO is not a threat to Russian Sovereignty, only Russian Imperialism. How much do you know about realism? Don’t let the name fool you. But I guess Eastern Europe has no agency. Russia should be allowed to have a sphere of influence regardless of their actions because it’s “realistic”.
which game is your pfp from?
Mearsheimer is a bootlicking toady.
The U.S. keeps saying the Ukraine war is "unprovoked." Unfortunately, most Americans are still in the dark,
not just americans, my friend, europeans believe everything the west tells them, they do not have the capability of doing their own unbiased research... the future is grim for all of us
And they will stay there for a long, long time to come.
It is unprovoked, the people of Ukraine have the right to choose where they want to belong, they are not destined to have their future dictated from the Kremlin.
How would you know most so do a little division 350 million, so that would be 250 million people.
@@Jefffrrryyou know ukraine was murdering ethnic Russian Ukrainians right?
As a Ukrainian whose family was severely messed up (to not say f word) by this war (by our government to be precise) I thank you for spreading the truth.
Stay strong and safe!:) ❤
Thank you for telling the truth. I believe you.
What is that truth?
@@rodolphegilles ah so maybe you can tell me. What is the truth?
I believe Russia is correct in this war. However, I do not like seeing civilians get killed. I blame NATO and the US government for this war.
I'm from Belarus. And want to say, that Mr. Mearsheimer is absolutely right. Nobody needs this war in our region: nor russians, nor ukranians, nor us. Greetings! ❤❤❤
question are you proud to be from Belarus currently and do you live there right now?
@@Tyler-xf6fd Either way makes no more or less valid statement.
So, what's the problem? Russians just need to return to their borders and that's all, end of the war.
right about what? NATO expansion? You think Baltic countries would still be sovereign today if they hadn't joined NATO?
@@Tyler-xf6fdWhat's the problem about being proud of your mother land? Belarus is a great country, no matter what you can read in the Western media about it. Do you know that Belarus lost 1 in 3 citizen in WW2 and survived? An if the Western attempt of coup in Belarus failed, it doesn't mean that you may say everything you want about the country you know nothing except for the name of their president, who just goes with the prefix - dictator in all western channels. So, what do you know about Belarus?
I remember as a young man the tensions over Cuba and I believe this is just as bad now
USA did not invade Cuba, had no will to annex it and did not claim that Cuba is "not a real country". Putin wants Ukraine. And he uses every excuse to justify his greed.
Благодаря тому что США заставили Украину сдать свой ядерный щит взамен на пустую бумажку.
Если бы Украина не сдала свой ядерный щит то не было бы никакой войны.
И никто не подумал о том что будет если Россия нападет на Украину. И как они опозорятся в результате на весь мир. Им было наплевать на репутацию США и Запада. Они хотели решить сиюминутную проблему.
Consider that in 1962 there were American ballistic missiles in Turkey. And the Soviets paraded their rockets aboard ships across the entire ocean in public. Then comes the hero Kennedy.
Khrushchev agreed with him on the subsequent withdrawal of the Turkish missiles. Those missiles went to Romania after the coup against Erdogan. Where after that, who knows?
@@РуссофобзатевающийрусофобиюЕсли бы Украина не решила похоронить свой нейтральный статус; если бы украинцы не стали убивать своих соотечественников, которым на фиг не сдался европейский рай; если бы были чуть терпеливее и не свергли законное правительство, а подождали всего несколько месяцев и провели нормальные выборы; если бы начали выполнять Минские договоренности… ничего бы этого сейчас не было! Но история не знает сослагательного наклонения
@@NataliaYasnaya
Если бы это было то Украины бы не было. Был бы гулаг.
Украина была бы и дальше нейтральной если бы Россия не проводила антиукраинскую политику. Если бы не унижала украинцев. Если бы не использовала газ как орудие шантажа. Если бы не вмешивалась во внутренние дела Украины. Если бы не напала на Грузию пользуясь ЧФ подставляя Украину!
Убивать своих соотечественников начал режим Януковича.
Если бы Януковичь сразу же наказал ментов побивших студентов то ничего бы не произошло. Он бы досидел до конца своего срока. Но он был путинской марионеткой. И делал то что ему командовали из кремля.
Если вы верите что Януковичь с руками в крови мог провести честные выборы то у вас не в порядке с головой.
Мы помним как Рашка выступала посредником в Белорашке. Когда Лукашенко решил узурпировать власть.
А потом вдруг забыли о том что обещали! Кинув белорусский народ!
Правительство никто не свергал. Верховная Рада и дальше работала. Регионалы посыпались и перестали поддерживать преступный режим.
Минские договоренности нарушила сама Рашка. Так само как и будапешский меморандум и договор о дружбе с Украиной. При чем эти договоренности ничтожные. Ибо были подписаны под после военного вторжения российской армии. И все об этом знают. С таким же успехом я могу подписать с вами любую договоренность под дулом пистолета.
Но самая главная причина всех бед-это народ рабов. Который позволил превратить РФию в гулаг. Если тогда защити НТВ и дали отпор надвигающейся диктатуре то вообще никаких бы воин не было. И Россия стала бы нормальной европейской страной. Но холопы сдали свою свободу без боя.
Ive listened to prof merschheimer many times and he never approved or disapproved anything that Russia or Ukraine did. Neither did he ever say one is right and the other is wrong. He's simply saying that actions have consequences and whether the reaction by a country like Russia to Ukraine wanting to join NATO was right or wrong, he simply was saying that Russia saw them as a threat to their homeland and responded to that perceived threat. The professor is spot on and his knowledge of geopolitics is excellent. The bottom line is that wars are waged by politicians and their corporate sponsors who benefit from it and not ordinary people of Russia or Ukraine or of any other country. This world would be better off without politicians but the reality is that we all have to live under their tyranny
He is a crackpot. Read real experts like Timothy Snyder on Ukraine-Russian affairs
This war can be firmly placed in Putin s bloody hands. He is an ideologue whose beliefs have been the driving force.
Yes, but conclusion (and the title of this video) are misleading and wrong.
If you are ok with his theory, where - for sake of imperialist regime's comfort some nations have to be occupied and suffer from corruption and deterioration - like Ukraine - that's not a great theory.
And that's basically his thinking - that history is for the big empires to decide, and Ukrainians or Polish people have no right in this game, no agency. They should quietly align with their neighboring power, no matter how horrible it is
Ukraine and Ukrainians got actively manipulated into war by the USA, to benefit the USA agenda. That's the price you pay for trusting USA/EU/NATO.
But the problem is everybody is acting as if NATO is some kind of aggressive imperialist alliance, and completely ignoring that it is a defensive pact. It absolutely negates almost every single point I ever see made about this issue. The constantly repeated term "NATO expansion" makes it sound like countries are joining NATO in preparation to invade Russia which is just absurd. Russia is a country that has invaded its neighbours SEVENTEEN TIMES since the beginning of the 20th century. It's neighbours want to join precisely because of Russia's history of threats and invasions. Some people are so adamant that everything has to be the USA's fault they just through reason out the window
Need to go back to the 1950s when Krushchev put Crimea into Ukraine and Russia lost its main Black Sea port. It didn't matter so much then because it was the USSR but it did when Gorbachev got rolled and the USSR broke up.
Yes. It was the Russians who fought the Crimean war, not Ukrainians. Historically, up until the 1950's the Crimean Peninsula was part of Russia.
@@scoldedcat The Russians won it off their deadly enemy the Ottoman Turks. And the Brits and Frogs invaded Crimea because of some tussle about Jerusalem and religion. Its a weird world.
Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR).
@@scoldedcat You mean RSFSR.
" Gorbachev got rolled". This is why countries do not want a leader who is "too" nice. The leader gets rolled and country with him. And that is the reason why Putin did not go to Gorbachev's funeral. Putin knows that Gorbachev basically sold out Russia because he trusted the West.
@@scoldedcat what about Alaska? It belongs to Russia too
The usual suspects of who profits from endless wars.
Putin can stop the war tomorrow and the world will be a better place
MIC
Jaws😂
You know Russia invaded Ukraine? Not NATO.
If you care about politics and war I recommend broadening variety of sources.
Does the entire world have to agree with US and UK standard of democracy? No. Why the need to export their values to the rest of the world given they have their own domestic challenges of inequality and racism and they are not addressing them?
The American propagandists would accuse you in exercising ‘whataboutism’.
Fair
Why don't you care what Russia's neighbours want in all of this? They are not Russia's slaves and they live in independent states. They joined Nato to be secured because Russia has always been a terrible neighbour. They were right. Russisa needs excuses to annex somebody else's land. Putin wants Ukraine and blames his victims for calling the police.
Racism and inequality are not the problems in US/UK 🙄
If most of tour democracies are bent on destroying our society and culture that made them great by being overrun with immigrants from third world countries I think we would do better to import some of Eastern Europe values that say let's keep our own culture, we aren't letting the savages in.
Thank you Mr Anderson for having Prof Mearsheimer on your program and letting him speak.
For what? Mearsheimer is an idiot who said the exact opposite of what's happening now.
Making money for some powerful people has to be also considered . Not always a logic decision for the masses , but for them only .
Same tired old lefty wrongthink. Try growing up.
@@Maelli535 😅😅😅 Good one !
Exactly. Putin and his cronies have profited greatly by their exploitation of ethno-nationalist paranoia and victimhood.
Hey if you were one of the few one for centers you wouldn’t say a word.
@@Cue_D_ball Living up to your name (Silly etc.), I see - your post is not even understandable.
In Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin, Putin said almost the same thing as Professor Mearsheimer as the reason for starting the war with Ukraine.
Normal. That's Putin lies in both cases.
@@kadovax6567 you couldn't tell the difference between a lie and a facts if your life depended on it.
Professor said the same thing some two years ago too, because it is absolutely true
That's because Russian state media has been pushing this narrative for a long time under putins direction. This guy is simply parroting russian propoganda. It's not the whole truth and it's miopic in perspective, but like all good propaganda, it works on the uninformed masses that don't know who to trust
@@NataliaYasnayasaid the same thing 15 years ago as well.
Putin has been saying this for years.
And Putin's media have been making his message plain which obviouslyMearsheimer ignores.
What's the matter with Mearsheimer?
He still thinks Putin is a rational player.
Exactly. Doesn't make John look good.
Nothing makes Anderson look hood.
He struggles enunciating motherhood statements.
Does anyone know the background to this channel?
This is no hobby production.
This is costing him.
And nobody seems wants to listen. War brings lots of money, and capitalism in the end will destroy the world in order to grab all the money.
So has Mearsheimer.
I never understood NATO's eastward expansion if Russia was long regarded as a "gas station masquerading as a country." Doesn't sound threatening.
yeah, they wanted to get everything for free.
If Ukraine were added to NATO,American soldiers and weaponry would not only be ever closer at the Russian borders but at the very threshold of Moscow city itself! Imagine Russian troops "collecting" one by one countries close to Washington?
No nuclear world power would allow such indispensable and dangerous scenarios!
If Ukraine were added to NATO,American soldiers and weaponry would not only be ever closer at the Russian borders but at the very threshold of Moscow city itself! Imagine Russian troops "collecting" one by one countries close to Washington?
No nuclear world power would allow such indispensable and dangerous scenarios!
well now Sweden and Finland are in Nato, and Ukraine won't be far behind. So a bit of an own goal don't you think?@@sasicmirko
Orders from Tel Aviv.
Exactly what Putin said to Carlson. Word for word.
Normal. He's spreading Putin propaganda
No it is not. Putin referred to his LIE that the 2014 Ukrainian Maidan revolution was a CIA backed coup. It was a Ukrainian revolution to oust their President Yanukoyvich who BROKE his pledge to sign the Euro trade agreement and instead signed the Russion Union trade agreement. I do agree that the eastward expansion of Nato should have been accompanied by the withdrawal of the US from Nato. This would have left Russia with having to face the rest of Europe without being able to claim the threat from USA. The USA would have then been freed up to concentrate on their biggest rival and threat, China.
You mean a lie become truth when you repeat it? Sheep
@@martint7936 truth
You can't be serious to believe a murderous tyrant.
I highly recommend 2007 Munich speech of Vladimir Putin ☮️
THEY WILL INSSIST ON POKING THE BEAR .
@@gwyndavies212 poking the bully.
Russia is not a bear. It is cheap gas station which can not stand its time of glory is over and Ukraine is not soviet backyard anymore. @@gwyndavies212
Cheap gas station, not a bear. @@gwyndavies212
Keep loving your USA.? , one day you'll wake up
Good Man.Thanks for your open the Brain thinking for EU resident.👍👍👍❤️
I respect this man for telling the truth. How I wish the West could understand that Russia don't want a threat next to their borders, just as much as the US and their Allies do. What has happened to Peaceful Coexistence?
Maybe time to ask Polish and Estonian people why they joined NATO! Ukraine has always been dominated by Russia, of course they want independence. But it would be nice to hear the real reason from mr Putin to invade. Was it just to dominate? Something went wrong in the process to incorporate Russia as full member into Europe.
@@dinkeydink9376 and the reason for 800,000 refugees from Donbass, whom Russia accepted from February 22 to 24, 2022, is not enough for you - when, having violated the truce, Zelensky threw troops into Donetsk, and his artillery wiped out all the suburban villages from the face of the earth?
If this reason - the total genocide of the population of Donbass, is not enough for you - then you are a Nazi, the same as the Ukrainian butchers with swastikas on their chests.
@@dinkeydink9376 please don't talk about things you know nothing about
@@Akatosh-r4c Why do you think so many former warsaw pact states joined NATO?
@@jb76489 because our countries(I'm from Bulgaria) were enslaved by the Americans. It was not the will of the people at all!
The other side of the coin here, is that the Eastern-European nations that joined NATO did so by choice; they actively petitioned to do so. And I have to wonder what would have happened to the Baltic nations, Poland, etc. if they hadn't. Look at what Putin did to Georgia.
And Chechnya
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0No all these countries were goaded by the US to apply. Whereas Russia also applied, twice, but was refused. The decision to maintain Nato after the fall of the Soviet Union in the nineties was made by the Us, as Mearsheimer points out. There was no practical reason for that after the fall of the Soviet Union other than expanding the influence of the US. That’s how most European countries came to be just American barking dogs.
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 And what would US response to New Mexico be if all of a sudden an army of Mexicans revolted and went to war for independence (financed by RU)?
@@vanjamenadzer they'd try to reconquer it to satisfy their imperialist ambitious, just like russia
What happened with the Istanbul Talks end of march 2022? The war would be Finished if US and GB agreed!
What happened is the Ukrainians said no. The GB Johnson arrived in Kiyv one full week later
They asked the Russians to pull their forces away from Kiev, as otherwise it would look like they are signing an agreement at gunpoint. And so they did, and then Kiev rejected the treaty all together. Nothing new given the Minsk 1 and 2 precedents. Btw one of the negotiating team members was assassinated in broad daylight in Kiev. Ukranians do not have the final say though as you mention. Ukranian lives are cheap, so escalating further was a good deal - for the GB-US, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia at any cost.
@@kadovax6567that's a lie! Couldn't they hear each other in telephone or Zeli couldn't go toGB?
The war machine cannot be sat idle for too long
Bordayr*
Maersheimer is great ❤
From Denmark 🇩🇰🇩🇰
Spongebob is great either
It is clear that U.S. policy with respect to NATO expansion was never about preventing conflict or defending strategic security. The purpose has been to foment conflict and raise public sentiment for stratospheric military budgets. Follow the money. This is why the last 30 years of policy-making appears to make no sense to so many intelligent people.
How many wars did you start - US - Hello ???
Far less than the 35+ wars Russia started since 1945
Mr. Mearsheimer,
Your mind honor and conscience, and people like you, can save America from corrupt Government
What a pity John Anderson didn't become PM of Australia. Such an incredibly intelligent man
Very informative. Thanks for letting us know the details.
Just on details, can folk please Google Baltics vs Balkans? See 2:21 - that list is not of Baltic countries.
With generational fatigue the patina of a true and just US has eroded and left us with a rotting corpse. $34 trillion of debt and spending 3.5% of GDP on defense.is not sustainable. Zombie Empire.
Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The crucial issue here, one that might well come to a dramatic head in the course of 1994, is the future stability and independence of Ukraine. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire. American policymakers must face the fact that Ukraine is on the brink of disaster: the economy is in a free-fall, while Crimea is on the verge of a Russia-abetted ethnic explosion. Either crisis might be exploited to promote the breakup or the reintegration of Ukraine in a larger Moscow-dominated framework. It is urgent and essential that the United States convince the Ukrainian government-through the promise of substantial economic assistance-to adopt long-delayed and badly needed economic reforms. At the same time, American political assurances for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity should be forthcoming.
“The Premature Partnership,” Foreign Affairs, v 73, n 2 (March/April 1994), p 76."
@@hughbarr8408
Greetings from France, to those who still reserve the right and the duty to think for themselves.
This is said by a person who really didn’t understand the situation- probably just said it for the sake of getting published
@@MsLS8 Zbigniew Brzezinski didn’t understand the situation? LOL
@@qwert671he was recruited purposely to bring down USSR/Russia
FOR NOW there is ONLY ONE empire on the planet Earth - the United States of America. It has 1000 military bases all over the globe, and it has a carrier group in almost every important sea in the world. Russia physically cannot afford smth like this in economic and military sence. China? They actually can. But don't want to. Did you see any chinese or russian military base near american border? Did you chinese or russian nuclear weapon in western hemishpere? Did you see anyone's (with the exception of the US') nuclear weapon in western hemishpere? But the US itself has NATO in Europe to restrain Russia, AUKUS in Southeast Asia and almost 500 military bases near China's border to restrain it. And of course: the key characteristic of an empire is that not a single military conflict in the world is complete without its participation. This is what we are seeing now in Israel and Ukraine and around the world.
This is how empire works.
When Angela Merkel can see it was a bad idea, what does that say about those in favour…😵💫
@@svend.3448she’s a certain type of East German so...
It’s a great idea?!
So true
Angela Merkel was East German. She had the political reflexes of an East German.
👍Common sense prevails👏
He didn't bring up the Minsk accords. Much to be said there.
He did not because Russia did not respect these.
@@kadovax6567 well no. Why would Russia reject an agreement that stops Ukraine killing ethnic Russian civilians? Have you read any part of the Minsk accords?
When Hollyweird put Zelensky on a pedestal, it was clear that something was wrong: whatever direction they're heading, we should resist the urge to follow.
I don't think he mentions even once what the Ukrainians themselves want.
что бы их все кормили😂😂😂
I would be willing to bet you money that there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian (and Russian) parents who wish their kids weren't dead. If the average Ivan in Ukraine knew that all of these "reforms" and pushes towards the West would have provoked Russia into invading them, would they have rather have left well enough alone?
I'm not saying Ukrainians shouldn't or don't aspire to freedom and prosperity, the problem is that strategically associating with the United States comes with a lot of fine print, and these people obviously weren't told about it.
As someone born and raised in Ukraine, I don't think anybody cares about our opinion. Last president I voted into the government was violently replaced with a radical nobody without my consent.
Mearsheimer doesn't care what Ukraine wants. It is all about what Russia wants.
Now John start watching 'The Duran' or 'Redacted'. Independent media way ahead of Mainstream corporates.
I also recommend Syriana Analysis
Thank you for telling the truth.
Very interesting and backs up what I have already learned over the last couple of years and is in line with the Tucker/ Putin interview, thanks for sharing. from NZ
The world needs more sane and grounded people like him.
Thank you for telling the truth ❣
What about Victoria Nuland and 2014 coup
A Great man who speaks the truth,
Mearsheimer keeps being right, and policymakers keep ignoring him at their and our peril.
Sometimes you have to learn to get along with your neighbors.
Thanks
Jack Kennedy would have totally understood the dangers of bringing Ukraine into NATO and would have never have proceeded with it.
Baloney. His penchant for regime change in Cuba led to the disaster in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis. And lets not forget about assassination of the South Vietnamese president.
Luckily there are people of a common sense thinking out there
unfortunately not enough and not sitting in the right offices to keep stupidity from breaking out, like 99% of people say russia started the war,. russia is took active action to defend itself, usa does it all over the world every year, i say this is russias cuban missile crisis
Thank you, professor.
Thank you for what?
Everybody should watch a documentary on Ukraine called winter of fire. It’s not really about NATO.it’s about a country wanting to live in a free independent democracy.
Right after The War, American generals had respect for their Soviet counterparts (so it has been reported), likely in
consideration of the fact that upwards of 80% of German Wehrmacht losses occurred in contact with the Soviet forces.
NATO was founded in 1949, a year after Stalin's blockade of Berlin prompted the Allied 'Berlin Airlift', and months before the Soviets ended the American monopoly on deployed atomic bombs. After the Korean War, Khrushchev formed the Warsaw
Pact (mirroring NATO) immediately after West Germany joined NATO.
Since Putin became 'nationalist' (ca 2006-ish) American military and CIA have developed hostile disrespect toward their
Russian counterparts, reflecting the resentment the latter hold for what they see as intentional degradation of the Russian state.
NATO's initial mission was precluding Soviet incursions into West Germany and Italy, not least because no one had any appetite
for contact with the Soviet military, and as a fail safe means to avoid a nuclear exchange.
Politics - the art of not telling the truth.
Psssssssssssst. How would USA feel about Russian troops in, say, Cuba? Hmmmmmmmmmmm
You don't think America is surrounded by hostile States? You don't have to be in Cuba.
You are missing the point my friend@@tommaples9174
I've watched this develop since James Baker first promised NATO would not expand East in 1989, through the progressive expansions. Any realist could see this coming. In 2008, when Putin warned NATO, in no uncertain terms, that expansion into Ukraine and Georgia would lead to war, our leaders should have believed him. Unlike them, he says what he means and means what he says.
John as a University of Chicago alum, I encourage you to read Anne Applebaum's book
Autocracy Inc. to better understand the global threat to democracy from corrupt dictators including Putin and Maduro.
I would encourage you ( and everyone) to read “ Washington Rules” by Andrew Bacevich and discover for yourself how the military industrial complex has influenced this whole affair.
NATO expands says Mearsheimer - as I understand it sovereign states may apply for membership and will be admitted if they live up to the requirement. But apparently Mearsheimer is of the opinion that NATO forces states into membership? I don't think so - the main reason for those former Warsaw Pacht states desire to join NATO lies in their long time experience being under russian oppression - never again they said
Nato did force Bulgaria and Montenegro to join it was a will of leaders and Montenegro dictator not the people
@@jackhardy3905 - Thank you for that well documented piece of information
But in the case of Ukraine the West has deliberately exploited ethnic and historic tensions to destabilise the country and move it towards NATO. This was done in the knowledge that it would likely result in military confrontation on a major scale, yet the West was prepared to bring war for their own goals/greed. The long term goal being to make both Ukraine and Russia there's. The callous calculation reveals the West to be warmongering. Lives mean nothing to them.
America lures closer to the Imperial Centre he should have said
Excellent report
I have agreed with the Professor from before the beginning. Having said that owners of the military industrial complex and fossil fuel companies have made more money than ever. This is a plan that has been on the table for over 20 years.
This is all B.S. The majority of people in most of Ukraine want to be part of Europe and part of the EU so they can travel and work freely in the rest of Europe - I am British and wish I could (I didn’t vote for Brexit). It is not up to Russia to dictate whether Ukraine can join the EU, NATO or any other supra-national organisation! Regarding “feeling threatened”, Russia has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD and can threaten nuclear retaliation if any other country (or NATO) attacked or invaded Russia - which nobody has EVER even threatened to do! The “defence” trope is pure Kremlin propaganda to justify their aggressive foreign policies.
The baltics joined nato in 2004, and russia was fine with it. Now, Sweden and Finland also joined NATO and putin said he does not care. But Ukraine joining NATO is somehow an existential threat? I don't get it, it's some kind of cognitive dissonance.
Very clear information how the war begin. Thanks
Russia didn't mention NATO when they decided to invade Ukraine . Instead Putin spoke of de -militarising and de-Nazification of their neighbour . He understood NATO was no threat to Russia , in fact he asked President Obama whether Russia could join the NATO alliance ; to which Obama said , No . NATO has prevented Russian advances into eastern Europe , but could not stop its advance into Ukraine . The west is not at fault as imperialist minded Russia simply wanted to reclaim old Soviet territory to challenge the U.S led world order . For dictator Putin this war is a game he thinks is winnable as the reward for him is a weakened NATO , without U.S support and a big chunk of Ukraine - if not all of Ukraine in coming years . Ukraine certainly was not ready to join NATO in 2008 . War is there now , it's a reality , what is the point of laying blame on the west when Russia had other intentions all along - don't be fooled by voices out there too willing to point the finger of blame at the west , it just encourages the Russians to push harder .
Mearsheimer is so wrong. This war is not about NATO, because if it were then it really backfired with Sweden and Finland joining, now strangling the Baltic, not to mention NATO arms production accelerating massively. The war is about regime preservation and dislodging Western hegemony, which is has been proving quite effective at.
Ukraine could be compared to the United States in the respect that half the Ukrainians support Russia and that it was torn within. That type of conflict is on our doorstep. Which side are you on ¿`_
Russia!
This guy is right and said it all. Greetings from France
I mean in all of this if you don't understand who is rally profiting from this war it's the American Military complex, these American weapons are not going to sell themselves. If you think Ukraine war is being funded to liberate what was a functioning society before to what it is now you're sleeping. America is the aggressor in all of this, and this war could have been so easily avoided.
BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM ON SECURITY ASSURANCES - DEC.5, 1994
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, “except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Why can't you see that Nato saying Ukraine could join Nato broke that memorandum?
@@dacorum8053 Ukraine did not want to join NATO at that time.
@@kadovax6567 The point is that Russia laid down their opposition to Ukraine ever joining Nato and what the consequences would be in 2008. Nato and ukraine decided to ignore that warning but both Nato and ukraine knew that would force Russia to invade. Russia was saying to Ukraine that if you want to join our enemies, we will invade you before you formally join Nato which is exactly what they warned again before the invasion when they tried to get nato to agree that ukraine should be a neutral country and nato refused to negotiate.
In the 1940s there was no WEF.
Wrong. The families who constitute we'd are far older than the US itself
...destroying civilization so they can rebuild it to their "plan".
Spot on
Excuse me, the Budapest not Brandenburg Memorandum.
non binding
SHAME ON ALL WHO LIVE FREE BUT WOULD ALLOW OTHERS TO BE INSLAVED!!!
Our thinking had been that we kept the question of an application open, and then we knew that NATO's door was open. But now Russia wanted to close it. At least then I thought: "OK, the situation has changed, we can't continue as before." Now it was time to apply for membership.
Niinistö chose to kick off the debate in the New Year's speech he gave on 1 January 2022.
"Spheres of interest do not belong in the 2020s," he said.
"Finland's room for action and freedom of choice also includes the possibility of allying ourselves militarily and applying for membership in NATO, should we decide to do so."
Well. We’re aware and that changes things.♥🍀
change all the terms from diplomatic niceties to carpet bagging graft procurement and general corruption as motivators and you are much closer to the truth. none of these people have ever had e decent thought or taken a noble action in their lives.
Nat0 expansion is same like the concept: the Russia build a military base close to the US border, set all the missiles towards the US and the Russians told the US they should not feel like being threaten. Will US accept this concept? What will the US act? A really thinkable question!
While this may be true, I doubt Putin would have been satisfied with a strong, independent Russia regardless of Western intervention. He would have sought more, as he has always done, with or without our nudging.
What he has done..? Attack Iraq, Siri’a, Afghanistan? Bomb Ugoslavia? Or maybe you don’t have history in school?
@@irenakrylova2506Russia invaded Afghanistan and shelled Alep to complete destruction
@@kadovax6567The USSR was invited by the Left Wing Afghan government to help them against the Mujahedeen, get your facts right.
@@irenakrylova2506 clearly you forget Chechnya, Georgia, Chechnya (again), Syria, and Crimea/Ukraine all within the last 30 years since the fall of the Soviet regime, and prior to the invasion of Ukraine (again). Nearly all led by one man in power.
Your deflection of the issue does not nullify my point at all.
The dilemma on the other hand is, NATO wasn't expanded by recruitment but by application. We in the West believe in freedom, human rights and international law and part of that is the right of self-determination. The eastern european countries, especially those that were part of the USSR, suffered greatly under Russian oppresion. It's very understandable that they'd not only orient themselves towards the West, but also want military security against possible Russian aggression. How could we have turned down their applications if we call us selves a free society?
"We in the West believe in freedom, human rights and international law" - explain Julian Assange then.
That's a good point!
Although I still believe that the provocative and aggressive Western foreign policy is responsible for the current war.
You missed the part of the interview where they laid out the fact that the west installed a new Ukrainian government to favour the expansion.
Russia is exercising its right to feel safe.
Your freedom and democracy only serve your domestic market and have no relevance in resolving complex geopolitical issues.
Exactly. On the other hand warsaw pact was created by conquest. Not a single warsaw pact country eas ASKED if they want to join or not
I swear this to be the truth. I was at an Atoka Oklahoma Town Hall Meeting where The Senator who was hosting a seminar and he didn’t even know what The Warsaw Pact was.
Respect to this wise man🎉
However, the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO as a result,combined with a reengaging across the coalition to military preparedness, may have proved the conflict worthwhile. Also, their is another perspective that suggests the Russia would have done this any way as their ability to expand through military means is coming to an end due to population and other negative factors in the Russian state. All roads short of Ukrainian membership in NATO led to bad outcomes.
Как просто? А давай посмотрим что будет? А если другая сторона, в этом случае Россия, что бы остановить это применит ядерное оружие? Как сделали в Японии американцы? Приходит время когда болтовня просто не поможет. Мы сейчас в гораздо более опасной ситуации чем с Кубой. Намного ближе к концу. С Кубой СССР не был загнан в угол, поэтому разумно сделал маленький шаг назад, и США тоже сделали это. Сейчас сумасшедшие либералы Америки и Европы ведут нас прямиком в Ад. Они в открытую призывают к войне. У России не будет выбора и она применит весь арсенал вооружений. И все. Никого из на не будем. Не демократов, не коммунистов, не социалистов. Я удивляюсь неужели люди этого не понимают? От нас даже пепла не останется.
worthwhile to whom?
oh and Grandpa, Why did Finland Join Nato recently? for fun? they were bored from Neutrality? Or were they afraid of Russian aggression, same as every other country's reason of joining!
why should they be afraid of anything. Putin is 23 years He i🎉s president of the Russian Federation. If He wanted to do something like agression...do yoù not think He would have done it years ago. Wake up please...you are shameful thinking this absurdity!
Oh and grand crumb crasher, why do you think that joining implies a guilt of intention? If a person joins you saying because afraid of somebody, you are going to believe without a reserve or could be, worse, you go with a nice preventive punch against the presumed aggressor?
To whom the merit of so high syllogistic ability?
@@voltydequa845you wrote so much but said nothing
@@Orray Or you understood, or pretending to have understood, nothing. It all depends on your cognitive capacity. Parrots, for example, do not understand when one answers them. How that? - Simply because parroting has nothing to do with cognitive ability.
Can't you see that Europe is not independent. It was not Finland who wanted to, it was she who was offered an offer that could not be refused.
This is The Historical Facts and The Truth .. Why the Russia Ukraine war started ... Period !
President Theodore Roosevelt said "don't wake the Russian bear"!
It is not only Ukraine that is paying the price for NATO's reckless expansion to the East. The economies of Europe and the United States are suffering. And more severe shocks are yet to come.
Nonsense. NATO is not a threat, except to Russian expansionism. There is no threat to Russia. Are you ignoring our obligation to secure Ukraine as part of the Trilateral agreement in 1994?
@@scotto703 Nonsense.
NATO is not a threat, except to Russian expansionism. There is no threat to Russia.
- Throughout its history, Russia has fought a lot with various invaders on its territory - with the Swedes, the French, the Turks under the leadership of England and France, the fascists from Germany and more. But on its own territory. What kind of Russian expansionism are we talking about? Or is it time to place Russian nuclear warheads in Mexico, on the border with the United States, as America intended to do in Ukraine, on the border with Russia?
Are you ignoring our obligation to secure Ukraine as part of the Trilateral agreement in 1994?
- It was not an Agreement, but a Memorandum. Which, by the way, was not ratified by the Governments of the heads of states participating in the signing. And which, by the way, was the first to be violated by the United States, imposing sanctions on Belarus in 2013.
But that's not what this conversation is about. Western countries made a big mistake by getting involved with Russia. You will pay for this. You have already started paying. For now, you are paying with the welfare of your citizens. Further more.
@@scotto703🤡 what Russian expansionism?
Nato is bs excuse. Putin wants to annex Ukraine and he could invade non Nato Ukraine only. Nato never invaded Russia. Russia did invade non Nato neighbours just because it could.
The problem is Russia and Putin. NATO being defensive only poses no threat to Russia, unless Russia intends to invade and conquer Ukraine, which as we have seen it's done.
Ask Serbia, Iraq and Libya about NATO being defensive only.
What NATO country did they attack? What country at all was they attacking?
Zero is the answer to both. NATO attacking three different countries that were not attacking any country is proof it is not only defensive.
Excellent. Thank You
Well, it’s unequivocally clear now…
Yet, so many people are oblivious to the situation and calling Russian attack is unprovoked.
Yeah, we are saying that Russia's attack was unprovoked, BECAUSE IT WAS!!!
"Putin would see this as a declaration of war". So the whole world has to dance to the tune of Russia's non-elected President for life?
Да, именно так. Это сарказм, если ты не понял. А так, тебе понравятся русские ракеты на твоей границе? Нет? Вот и нам не нравится. Я вообще не понимаю, что США или Великобритания забыли на нашем континенте? Дайте жить нам спокойно!!!! Мы готовы торговать, стоить и так далее. Но без принуждения.
@user-yh6oq5tr7z Sadly, Putin only wants to invade.
Here’s what John Mearsheimer gets wrong in my opinion. Firstly, a few facts. John turns 77 this December. He has lived most of his life alongside the Soviet Union. He’s used to it and regards it, and the more recent situation, where Russia controlled Ukraine throughout the nineteen nineties via puppet presidents and corrupted Ukrainian law-makers as the “natural state of things”. In reality times change and geopolitics evolves. Russia is not the USSR. It has a population of less than 150 million people and a tiny GDP equal to Spain. It is not a global superpower by any standard other by way of its large nuclear arsenal. Russia manufactures little but sells oil and gas in huge quantities. John overrates Russia’s strength, conflating it with the USSR which is long dead. As the past two years of full scale war have shown, Russia’s military has struggled and is losing huge amounts of men and materiel. Secondly, John sees the situation as USA and NATO versus Russia. Actually, its Ukraine which is fighting (and whose men are dying) and, as a proportion of GDP, it is European countries, starting with those closer to Russia, who are most vigorously supporting Ukraine’s defence. Thirdly, the evidence of two years of fighting shows that, with Western military support (weapons and intelligence but no boots on the ground) Ukraine can defend itself effectively. Indeed, with more wholehearted military support Ukraine could likely take back territories annexed by Russia. There is nothing inevitable in geopolitics and great empires crumble, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Austro-Hungarian and the British empire, white rule in South Africa etc. Russia’s dominance over Ukraine is not a right nor an inevitability. The Ukrainians clearly have had it with Russia (as have Russia’s former east European colonies)and is resisting control. Lets consider the British empire. No one in India or Sri Lanka today would call for British rule to be reinstated. Ukrainians do not want Russian dominance any more than the Indians, Sri Lankans, black South Africans want to go back to old times. Ukrainians want to join EU and develop like Poland, the Baltics etc have done, both politically and economically. Russian dominance has passed. Attempts to prolong the Soviet and now Russian empire are delusional. History cannot be re-established. If the West stops being excessively comfortable and cautious and supports Ukraine seriously, that will be it. Russia will need to recognise inevitabilities: (a) Ukraine does not want or accept Russian colonialism (b) Russia is not a superpower that it can impose its will by force, (c) globalisation, Western democracies, eastern democracies (japan, Korea etc) do offer a model which Russia is not able to compete with. This is the arch of history unfolding.
Right on! I think Tim Snyder calls it the politics of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. If Russia is a great power, why have Ukraine kept them at bay for 2 years?
Who the he'll would want to live next to a Petro Mafia Empire that invades Countries like it's the 1700s and not join NATO. Not me.
Hense Sweden and Finland joining NATO quick smart.
Timothy Snyder is much more contemporary, knowledgeable on East European History, politics and fights for Democracy. This guy is a fatalist.
Fanatism at its best. See you!!!
I've heard Prof s lectures from the time war started.Just the stark truth
You missed the part where he said Putin would not invade in 2022. He was wrong.
If one “tough guy” walks up to another and enters his “personal space”, the latter may, as a consequence, strike the former. But the act of violence can, by no stretch of the imagination, be casually attributed to the individual who merely approaches too close for comfort. Moreover, while such an approach may be imprudent, it is not morally wrong. John thinks that because states stand under no collective form of government (no state of states) moral considerations are irrelevant. He thinks that all rationality is instrumental. He is wrong. The principle which would permit one state to usurp parts of another cannot, without contradiction, be universalized. It would, in other words, render all states insecure.
Personal space means that Russians think they have the right to put other countries under their jackboot.
This guy is saying basically the same as Putin, and if tomorrow RuSSia hypothetically attacked the Baltic states he would be blaming NATO. The Chamberlains of our times...disgusting.
Yeah, it's like, "no Ukraine you get to live next to the Empire that has been raping and pillaging for 500 years and not have support of NATO. We don't want to upset The Russian Mafia State. Finland and Sweden... "yeah, right, NATO, where in!"
Timothy Snyder is a much smarter and positive when in it comes to East European history, politics, and leadership.
Not expanding NATO is foolish, it is a defensive alliance. If Russia didn’t want NATO to expand, it shouldn’t have invaded Chechnya multiple times and interfered with other countries, this is Russia’s fault and now they are paying for it.
Mearsheimer's argument goes both ways. Russia isn't giving her neighboring countries any choice but to join NATO.
NATO is not, and can not be, a threat to Russia thanks to M.A.D.
NATO is a threat however, to Russian (specifically Putin's) imperialist ambitions.
So called NATO expansion is a result of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine feeling safer and more prosperous with the west than with Russia. If Russia didn't seek to dominate and control these countries, either directly or indirectly, then there would be no NATO expansion in the first place. NATO expansion to the east is a direct consequence of Russia's treatment of her neighbors. Mearsheimer doesn't mention this at all.
Putin is a KGB agent in his heart and soul. He was raised in conflict. He is stuck in the past. Russia needs to move on away from him, and towards trade and cooperation. For the good of Russians and everyone else.
It was all lies and propaganda against Russia. The objective of NATO expansion is in the interest of America hegemony and monopolar ambition in perpetuality.
Conflict between nations is inevitable (armed or not) when opposing points of view are present. Russia is imperialist in its actions, and so is the USA, as both have their interests in shaping their spheres of influence. Arguing that Russia would have probably invaded Ukraine even without NATO expansion to the east makes no sense, as events didn't happen that way.
You are absolutely correct, sir, at least somebody in this echo chamber of russian apologists. There were serious debates in the 90s whether NATO is even needed anymore with the end of the cold war, and in the central/eastern European region serious debates whether it's even worth for us to join when Russia looks to be on the path to become a normal trustworthy country. Now we thank to all the gods those voices didn't prevail.
@@FedericoMartens USA haven't invaded any country to annex parts or all their territory for 125 years now. Russia has done so multiple times in 20th and 21st century alone, invaded every single one of their neighbors multiple times, started WW2 together with Germany. Arguing they most likely would've invaded Ukraine anyway is just learning from history, something we still generally fail at in the West for some reason.
@@Jefffrrry I didn't say USA annexed territories of another country, I said it is an imperialist country. Armed invasion is not the only form of imperialism. Imposing your will and worldview around the globe by economic and political means. Besides, the USA shows no doubt to intervene a country with a government not alligned with their politics if they consider it necessary, and we have plenty of examples in the last century. How is all that imposing of will to others not imperialistic?
A decent person is very rare among the Anglo-Saxons...
Such a clear explanation of the geopolitics of NATO eastward expansion.
I'd love to see John Mearsheimer participate in arguments with people on reddit, just to see how it goes😂
Very good synopsis of the conflict!
Nope ! The west could not control Putin's ambitions of challenging the US led world order . NATO is a hindrance to Russian ambitions of regional dominance - it certainly did not cause the war - that assertion is utterly false as Putin the dictator wants a return of former Russian - Soviet territories to make his challenge viable .
💯 procent RIGHT Mr !
I disagree with this viewpoint mainly because its overly simplistic. Certainly western influence in Ukraine helped usher in this conflict but blaming it entirely on NATO expansion eastward just doesn't make sense. It's like saying we should of never invented the car because now there are a lot of car accidents. Likewise there are many reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO expansionism is a single line item in a list that is at least 20 lines long.
For example, there's the energy disputes going back to the early 2000s, the pipelines to Europe traversing Ukrainian territory that were not maintained, there's the question of corrupted or corruptible officials on both sides, there's Ukrainian elected political leaders that did not align with Moscow's interests, there's the Euromaidan movements, there's European and Russian economic deals and the question of prosperity especially among young adults, there's issues with Sevastopol naval base being used by the Russian Black Sea fleet, there's the issue of ethnic Russians in Crimea, there's the problem of Russian mainland demographics and Putin's populism and then there's also the issue of border protection in the a face of simple geography.
In March 2022 Ukraine and Russia were conducted peace negotiations. It was not finalised but was near finalised.
The top item in that agreement was that Ukraine does NOT join NATO or any other military alliance. Russia would have stopped had it been signed.
In 2008 Merkel and Sarkozy knew that inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was very dangerous but the USA forced it through anyway.
The USA, through its then ambassador Bill Burns, knew it was dangerous to invite Ukraine into NATO.
Russia has been warning about Ukraine joining NATO ever since, repeatedly and loudly.
Earlier this year Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Gen. Sec., let slip at an EU press meeting that Russia went to war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
- What we think of NATO does not matter. What Russia thinks of NATO matters.
The Russians invaded because they could. As Professor Mearsheimer says himself, states that see an opportunity and expect that they a payoff will be small will jump the risk. Russia did exactly that when it attempted to occupy Ukraine in 3 days in Feb 2022. From Russia's perspective there ware so many spoils, so poorly guarded. The bottom line Russia invaded because Ukraine was NOT part of NATO, not the other way around. Saying otherwise is contradictory to Professor Mearsheimer's own theory of offensive realism.