Yeah. It's a weird contradiction where people still see Israel as a key ally in a Cold War era Middle East, but their thoughts about Russia have shifted because it's anti-woke.
@@thepolarphantasm2319 There is almost nothing of actually merit to the Israel conflict. It's all religious dogma. The Ukraine conflict is about a bully trying to be the USSR again all started by a guy that was part of the USSR. The amount of children killed in the Israel conflict decimates the amount of abortions that happen in this country. Conservatives don't care about saving children in the slightest.
VP Harris said at the NATO Security Conference that the Ukraine would be admitted to NATO two months before the SMO. The Ukraine's previous attempts to navigate membership failed mainly because of the extreme corruption in the Ukrainian government.
They see Russia as a real country, and Ukraine as not, since James Bond and Call of Duty have only taught them about Russia; as if all eastern europe is different flavours of Russia.
@@Redsauce101 Horseshit. That's the myth that the tsars used to justify conquering and suppressing the culture of Ukraine. In reality, Ukraine is not Russia, no matter how much you love supporting Russian imperialism.
Ukraine is Americas plaything to use up in an attempt at weakening Russia and Putin. Putin shouldn't of invaded, but America is making the most of this mistake. The rich and ruling class in Ukraine would rather model themselves on America, to the detriment of the average Ukrainian. The Russian model is no better, but pretending that American neoliberalism is superior is just delusional. You only have to look at the state America is in to see that. America is the richest country on eath and yet its full of poor struggling people, whose lives can be ruined just for the cost of a hospital visit and treatment, and homelessness and drug addiction is rife. There's no democracy in either America or Russia, the lobby groups and donor money see to that in America, and Russia has a dictator. The US has surrounded Russia and filled the whole world with their military bases so that when they need to commit war crimes or help others countries commit them they're on hand for support.
Protecting Ukraine is essential to reducing nuclear proliferation. Their sovereignty was guaranteed in exchange for their giving up their nuclear weapons. If the West allows Ukraine to fall, then every country in the world will be justified in believing nuclear weapons are essential for securing their national sovereignty. Fear mongering over nuclear proliferation while being against Ukraine funding is extremely ignorant. Also, expansionist powers tend to continue expansion until they are stopped; there's a real possibility that sacrificing Ukraine would just move the war elsewhere, while giving Russia more resources to draw from.
heads up I figured out a few months ago "reducing nuclear proliferation" they don't understand the concept because they don't remember the 90s when warlords where selling everything not nailed down in the USSR collapse.
Why do you think America is letting Israel do this to its neighbors. Because you are right. The only thing keeping countries safe from nuclear power is having nuclear power. Ukraine took a big l believing America would protect it. And how would the US do that exactly, with NATO. They should have never given up what little stockpile they had. Worst mistake they made.
Their current conditions TO START negotiations is NATO off the table, Ukraine recognizes Russian ownership of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, including land that Russia doesn't currently control, and Ukraine dismantle it's tank fleet. Anyone who says "Ukraine should just negotiate" is criticizing the wrong party.
Russia has offered better conditions in the past, just get on the table before more people die. The war isn't going well, no war does, as so many people die, stopping that is more important than Crimea, or whatever other land.
@@odradekkI just looked it up and if you go to the Wikipedia page "Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" and scroll down to "Negotiating Positions". It talks about what Russia's starting conditions are and it sounds pretty similar to what cf3714 said. I'm going to check the sources that they cite
@@mx338 Do you remember Bucha? There's only so many times that you can say "It's just land" until you realize people live there. If there is a peace deal, it must allow Ukraine to remain strong, so Russia doesn't use that peace to recharge itself and start again. NATO and nuclear weapons are a pretty effective deterrent to future violence, something that Russia knows and very much doesn't want Ukraine to have. Stopping people dying now is wasteful if it just leads to even more deaths down the road. And I actually forgot that Russia included Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in it's demands.
@@IvanDaGrVIIIhe’s wrong and should I list the hundreds of academics, intelligent experts, and military experts that oppose Mershiemer’s nonsense or would you rather hold onto his inaccurate claims?
@@sonjakozman1699 The MIC is good in the context of an actual War of Defense. And BlackRock wouldn't be investing if Russia wasn't an imperialist country.
The Russian Navy also attacked shipping and the Ukrainian Coast Guard in 2013. They have embargoed the Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov. There were also provocations, attacks and even assassinations against the elected leaders in Odessa, Donetsk, and other Ukrainian cities by Russian nationalists. They asserted discrimination, but when the UN investigated they stated they found no evidence of unprovoked massacres or widespread discrimination against Russian speakers.
@@steven2183 The EUROmaidan was sparked because Yanukovych signed a deal with Russia that blocked Ukraine from entering the EU, despite running on a platform to join the EU. He was a corrupt Russian puppet who fled in the dead of night with a few paintings, leaving a lavish palace behind. That palace was turned into the Museum of Corruption. Do you think a deeply corrupt leader on the take from a foreign oppressive nation that’s the source of your corruption should continue undermining your young democracy that you have spilled a lot of blood to establish? At what point would you topple your democratically elected leader? Is there never a legitimate reason in your mind to do so? You’ve clearly only ever listened to the events in Ukraine, try reading some next time. Oh, and Russia funded a lot of the Nazis in Ukraine,but also the rest of Europe and the US.
@@hochmeisterrAnd who served as Yanukovichs American foreign policy propagandist and fixer with foreign media and politicians....Corey Lewandowsky. Lewandowsky worked closely with the KGB (FSB) Then he hid his own money in secret accounts set up in Cyprus and Azerbaijan.
This argument always amazes me. JUST ASK ONE UKRAINIAN PERSON!! They wanted to join. Putin's first speech didn't mention NATO once, but he referred to sovereign territory multiple times. It is easily available on the internet with full transcripts. The talking points are facts to these people who can't just ask a neighbor who happens to still have family there and it's ridiculous.
@@ObamaTheHedgehog these "pacifists" don´t give a .... about the people of Ukraine for years they called Ukrainians brainwashed by western propaganda, because you must be brainwashed to believe your country can do better than becoming a 2nd Belarus
@@ObamaTheHedgehog No one in America or Western Europe cares about Eastern Europeans' agency. Their concern for their own agency, even after hundreds of years of wars and invasions, is described as nationalism even by American press.
@jet-fury Same issue the caller had in the video, what specifically did the US/NATO do that _forced_ Russia to be the aggressor toward Ukraine? If the argument is “the possibility of NATO sharing a border with Russia,” a) they already did share a border, and b) what would give Russia a veto right over a sovereign nation’s political alliances? I’m not talking about exercising political and trade leverage, but the ability to say, “No, you’re not allowed to join that club.” Even if stopping such a thing was Russia’s intent, the invasion literally had the opposite effect and directly increased Russia’s land-border with NATO.
@@jet-fury 🥱 Anything to hide the fact this is nothing more than Russian imperialism. I guess we just ignore Russian hybrid warfare campaign on Ukraine all the way back before 2014. All in the attempt to install a puppet, and when that failed destabilize and invade the country to absorb it. Quit spewing Russian propaganda bs.
8:35 - Yeah, I think Emma pretty much sums it all up here. Is the Ukraine-Russia conflict a proxy war for the U.S. to a degree to weaken Russia? Yes. Is it a question of the Ukrainians not wanting to be conquered by their hostile, expansionist neighbour? Yes. Might the expansion of NATO have been somewhat provocative to Russia? Yes, although it's worth noting that this was not the main reason for the war. On the other hand, is it true that a lot of countries that joined NATO were doing it of their own volition and specifically because they feared Russian expansionism? Yes, that's also the case. I feel like so many people struggle with this, but two things can be true at the same time about something. The world is complicated. And you have to learn to navigate that.
These are really silly things to say. By definition the war in Ukraine is not a proxy war, its 2 forces directly fighting against each other. The "expansion" (read: growing) of NATO also isn't provocative to any sane and honest person. To say otherwise is to promote Russian lies justifying imperialism. The world might be complicated, but this war isn't whatsoever. Russia is 100% in the wrong, Ukraine did 0% wrong.
If anything, this war shows how necessary so-called "NATO expansion" was. If those nations hadn't been allowed to join NATO, Russia likely would've invaded several of them by now. After all, the Baltic states are a lot smaller than Ukraine and would've been quite easy for Russia to conquer without NATO protection. What this shows is that it was foolish of Ukraine to not join NATO back in 2008.
Emma is wrong to like Mearsheimer, though. Mearsheimer is the source for so much misinformation on Ukraine and is being used by Russia apologists to attack Ukraine and the US.
@@sonjakozman1699 No, it's very much "so-called". The rhetorical framing of "NATO expansion" makes it out as if NATO marched into countries and annexed them. (You know, like what Russia did against Ukraine.) When what actually happened is that nations had to convince NATO to *allow* them to join.
They act like helping protect a democratic and free people from neighboring totalitarianism isn't something that benefits us all... appeasing people like Putin never ends well.
You act like the MIC prolonging conflict and buying themselves all new weapons at the expense of the taxpayer is like, good for the country. Dick Cheney is onboard for a reason.
@@thepolarphantasm2319 exactly. And the valuation of that equipment is the number put on it by the overpaid defense contractors that ripped the government off because they could.
@@marti_abernathey"It's really very simple" "Okay tell us then" "Uh...uh...well some other person said it so it must be true" Everyone who supports Ukraine knows why Russia invaded. Putin is a dictator and wants more power. Why do Russia defenders waffle and back off every point of it's so straightforward?
@@gizmo5601 there’s plenty of evidence of CIA involvement in the 2014 coup. That’s the thing, Seder shows his skill as an entertainment debater, but not in arguing in good faith.
Ukraine: "We need help from being threatened." Russia: "Oh yeah, well we'll show you not to go seeking help from being threatened!" Russia: "See, now look what you made us do!"
😂 you do know ukraines last president was pro Russian before a violent mob killed him then a comedian/actor became president? Doesn’t something seem off to you or do you always believe cnn?
So Ukraine should have accepted 20% of their country being annexed by Russia? Okay, say we took that deal. What's to stop any other country from invading 20% of other countries because that is the new red line? You argue that because this was was "unwinnable" we should have allowed Russia to just do what it wanted and violate international law? Biden already allowed Russia to have the largest pipeline in Europe in an effort of goodwill that was not to the direct benefit of our country. So why was Russia justified to invade?
@@hexlemorte5201 What their leader said on television before invading. "Ukraine is a fake country that rightfully belongs to us". I think you leftists call that "imperialism". It's funny that you're defending it.
It depends. the Narative for usfull idots. Is that nato is dangerous. The internal narative is that ukraine must bean part of Russia for Russia to be an empier.
What’s the point of listening to George Galloway? He is literally paid by the Kremlin. Why not consume narratives straight from the horse’s mouth-Lavrov, Zakharova, Nebenzya, Polyanskiy, or Putin himself?
@@kushclarkkent6669 galloway is a reactionary and a xenophobe. He hasn't had any left wing appeal for decades at this point.
Месяц назад
@@kushclarkkent6669 Hes a tankie to start. An actual leftist condemns imperialism across the board, but folks like Galloway ignore the acts of imperialist agression done by Russia, China, and North Korea and blame their actions on America specifically, or the west more generally.
Was bombing Yugoslavia an act of defense by a "defensive alliance" whose original stated mission was to protect against the Soviet Union (which hasn't existed anymore for decades)? Was orchestrating a revolution in Libya "defensive"?
@@stanleyz6330 Just leave out the part where NATO was intervening to stop two groups from committing genocide against each other to boost your bs narrative. 😆
@@stanleyz6330 You're being disingenuous. Yugoslavia & Libya interventions were both sanctioned by the UN. They didn't come out of nowhere and began bombing things like you are trying to portray. If NATO didn't used their joint military structure to carry these interventions out, individual members would have done so seperately. Also mission statements can change over the span of half a century.
This was painful on so many levels. PS To make things 100% clear for those who could be confused, I dont know how after listing to the conversation but here we go: SLAVA UKRAINI!
But most painful was the level of ignorance about the most basic realities of how and why this war started . That, and the quizzical look on Sam's face when the caller calls NATO a "hostile military alliance." from the russian view.. Sam seems unable to see the world in any light other than the USA-stamped version.
If you had a lot of Trump acquaintances like I do, you wouldn't call this "a debate over Ukraine gone off the rails." You would call it, "a typical day of the week."
The problem with the Cuban crisis analogy is that they were putting Nuclear missiles into Cuba, and Ukraine had already given up their nukes for security guarantees.
Ya, the pathetic whining of bullies, "you're only not getting beat up today cus there's like a lot of you, and some of you are actually pretty strong 😰" - Russia when NATO thrives
😂so an enemy alliance that attacked other countries like Yemen, that moves nukes around led by usa that has a preemptive strike policy is not a threat to you?amazing logic
Galloway is a POS and should only be remembered as the cat in the big brother house. His anti Iraq stuff was mainly about self service and inflat8ng his own fragile ego, not middle east peace
@@samueldavid7811 You support Ukraine fighting a war of defense against an invader. Therefor you are by definition in favor of war (read: pro war). Is nuance really that difficult for you to grasp?
@@Khalkara Translation: you're full of shit. You're pretending that it's "anti-war" to respond to an invasion by letting the invader conquer and slaughter as they please. That actually means that *you* are the one who's pro-war, because you think launching a war is something that should get rewarded.
@@Khalkara The definition of being pro-war is "being in favor of a military solution to a political problem". He is not pro war, and not in favor of a military solution to a political problem. He is pro self-defense: He is in favor of supporting a military solution to the military problem of a sovereign nation being invaded by the military of its former colonial overlords, attempting to resubjugate it. I know this entire discussion is nitpicky, and yes, nuance matters, but I completely loathe the Magha we1rd0s that accuse people in favor of supporting a democratic nation's right to defend itself of being pro-war or warmongers.
literally so what. So what if the US was trying to get Ukraine into NATO. NATO is a defensive treaty. Does this guy think NATO was planning to invade Russia?
It’s been deployed in non-defensive operations/conflicts NATO broke the promise its leaders made after the dissolution of the USSR that it wouldn’t move any further East The USA did support a coup to overthrow a more pro-Russian regime in Ukraine. Ukraine did engage in shelling and violating agreements. While the provocations don’t justify Russia’s invasion, Russia *was* provoked, and they *do* have legitimate national security concerns about the expansion of NATO
@@dominoep Yeah it is really weird. One would imagine that he had been convinced by some of the arguments these "experts" (all of whom are cranks, btw, I have no idea why Emma would think anything positive about Mersheimer) had presented, so it should be fairly easy for him to repeat the arguments that convinced him.
A lot of the billions in equipment sent to Ukraine is old and outdated equipment. It costs less money to give it to Ukraine than it does to destroy it. It’s expensive to dismantle old weaponry. The US was not going to use 90s tech tanks.
Yep. And our old and outdated surplus is clearly supperior to Russias or North Koreas. Also, the red states are benefiting far more from this aid than blue
Tell that to Cuba, Mexico, or any South American state, it's called the Monroe doctrine, and prevents alliances with outside powers in the Americas, which is the USA enforces with violence.
@@mx338 Hmm.. so what about Cuba? Nicaragua and Venezuela? were they allowed to make alliances with Russia/China? Maybe get a reality check before posting nonsense.
10:08 Tankies always try this "What if Mexico" argument without realising Russia invaded Ukraine because of a free trade deal Ukraine wanted with EU. Not a NATO-military base. So the scenario should be "What if Mexico makes a trade deal with China? USA would invade Mexico!"
"what if mexico would feel so gravely threatened by the USA they join a military alliance.." Oh man, thats really making russia look like the good guys...
@@AdvocatusDiaboliFin not to mention that even if ukraine joined nato that doesn't necessarily mean nato bases. Especially since it is forbidden by the Ukrainian constitution
@@RazgrizWing Fun fact: Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO in 2014. There still is a constitutional amendment that specifically states Ukraine is a neutral country and requires a referendum to be overturned. Before the invasion of Crimea, support for NATO was around 20-25%. The majority supported neutrality.
@@RazgrizWing The Baltic states and Poland have been members of NATO for many years, and neither of them have any nuk3s stationed in their territory, that whole argument is a deliberate red herring. We all know why russia fears Ukrainian membership into the EU and NATO - such memberships prevents them from dominating and controlling Ukraine through threats of violence. Puck Futin.
There are way too many people that only care *who* is saying things, instead of the things they're saying. It feels like celebrity gossip to me. Very parasocial.
Ten days before russia's full invasion into Ukraine, Mearsheimer said they don't want to invade, except if the separatists (that Russia literally controls) ask them to. Does this sound like someone that knows what's going in in Russia and thinks about it critically? The man is a crank, and because Sam and Emma dealt with this call so well I would hope that more knowledge of Mearsheimer would lead them to discard him as a crank. Sacks as well.
@@jamesmcpherson8599 Why not both? They think any non-US imperialism is good and Russia is land of personal liberty. They should be encouraged to move to Russia and stay, that is a net gain, they get to suffer, and we don't have to suffer them.
Yep. Maga impulse is to be the strongman…tough on Palestine, tough on China, tough on Iran…but when it comes to Russia, nothing. So why this outlier, when being tough on Russia should be what we’d expect? Solely because Trump hopes to build hotels there. That’s the only reason why GOP is tying themselves into knots of Ukraine. Idiosyncratic whim of dear orange leader.
Thank you for broadcasting the much discussed Ukraine topic. Having grown up in a former Czechoslovakia, I can tell you for certain that Ukrainians fight to be a part of Europe and NATO because they know what kind of neighbour Russia is. They know well what they are dying for. They also know that without the West, they can't withstand Putin's expansionary demands. Even if one was to argue whether NATO is the "better of the two so-called evils", Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances. Has your caller considered why Sweden and Finland, two neutral and peaceful countries with strong economies, joined NATO so swiftly? As for the nuclear argument; Ukraine had to transfer 1300 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia. Since Ukraine never really had any operational control of the weapons, Kremlin did, the Russian Federation "inherited" the nuclear weapons when the USSR collapsed at the end of 1991. Later in 1993, the Ukrainian and Russian governments signed a series of bilateral agreements giving up Ukrainian claims to the nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet, in return for $2.5 billion of gas and oil debt cancellation and future supplies of fuel for its nuclear energy. The agreement (Budapest Memorandum) was signed in exchange for security assurances, which Russia violated in 2014 by annexation of Crimea, and then again in 2022 by invasion of Ukraine. ANY westerner who whole heartedly believes that Russia has been in some way "provoked" and that Putin's intentions are justifiable should wake up and ask why some 20 to 30 million ethnic Russians live outside the bounds of the Russian Federation even though they really love their motherland.
@goopydudest The ultimate outcome Mearsheimer wants out of Geopolitics is an alliance between the US and Russia to be aligned against China, every talking point he creates in furtherance of his goals. I don't know why this isn't talked about since for some reason he has considerable clout amongst certain kinds of "leftists".
@@jamesmcpherson8599 I’m not doubting you but I haven’t found that in anything I’ve read with Mearsheimer. That’s not much though which is why I don’t doubt you. Do you have a source for your claim?
@goopydudest RUclips likes to delete comments I make that contain links but Mearsheimer has said before "The U.S. has foolishly driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. I think Russia is the natural ally of the U.S. against China." Source is a Nikkie Asia article.
dude sounds like what would happen if Terrence Howard and Ben Carson had a baby, which in turn makes me wonder which one of them would be the pregnant one in that situation.
I honestly gained nothing from this conversation not even his perspective or even the argument he was trying to make. Dude literally called in and wasted time while listing names.
The war would have been prevented by incorpating Ukraine into NATO in 1994 (as a byproduct of the Budapest memorandum). Putin would have never dared to invade any piece of its sovereign land after that.
They had a chance in 2008 alongside Georgia, but world leaders like France and Germany said no since they wanted to keep dealing with Russia, and the USA didn't do anything about. This unfortunate emboldened Putin to invade both.
Mearsheimer is not a wacko, he's just wrong. NATO is not a hostile military alliance, it is a defensive alliance. Additionally, NATO does not want war with russia. russia has nuclear weapons. What NATO does, is not allow russia to dominate its neighbours who are a part of NATO. If NATO was such a threat to russia, then why did russia withdraw 80% of its soldiers stationed on its NATO borders. This was never about NATO. Ukraine has a right to defend itself. The US did not order russia to attack. russia does not consider Ukraine its own nation. The reason for this invasion is russia has imperial ambitions, and it cannot accomplish those without Ukraine. It considers Ukrainians to be russians. Their intent is genocide. The intent is to restore glory to russia by restoring it as a superpower. That's what this is, and has nothing to do with the threat from NATO to russian sovereignty, just russian ambitions.
NATO = Nazis If you disagree, well... This is not opinion Or guessing It's pure historical fact. And pure present fact. The "third reich" "lost" and then joined the fourth reich. Aka the US empire. NATO is just one of its many faces. If you don't understand this, it's ok, go read more. But absolutely stfu in the mean time. Because when you defend genocidal Nazis, like the USA, or Israel (I wonder your thoughts on that little Nazi Eastern Front style murder machine?), well, what does one call one who defends a pdf file? Ok. Now what about defending Nazis? Hmm. Think, before you vomit dogshit.
@@NoName-lq6vw "It's pure historical fact." No, it's your opinion. Which means it is the opposite of a fact. "Now what about defending Nazis?" Who is defending Russia? You? Hmm
you cant possibly say NATO is purely defensive alliance , Yugoslavia is an obvious example , another one would be Libya , you ether have UN approval or you dont , the joint attack on Yugoslavia happend even tho no other NATO country was part of Yugoslavian civil war , so , not a defensive alliance
@@bingbong3084 Oh yeah, preventing Serbs from committing a genocide really does have that "offensive alliance" ring to it. So yes, NATO is a defensive alliance. It defends its members' sovereign territory and the security of its people. A destabilized Balkan peninsula is not in the interest of its people's security, and was in defense of the Albanians who were being brutally persecuted and murdered. In Libya NATO as an organization had little to no involvement. At most it coordinated a no fly zone over Libya, a result of Europe's internal petty politics. This was not a function of NATO, even though the coalition involved were all NATO members, many NATO members did not participate. And again, all in support of the local population against a bloody dictator. Not instigated by NATO. There's that offensive ring again. Nothing screams bloody murder more than defending human rights.
@@bingbong3084 Yugoslavian bombings were 1) To stop an ongoing genocide, in other words: To *defend* the lives of people being genocided. 2) Sanctioned by the UN. Same for Libya.
Yep.. This conversations was like me talking to my maga friends (whom I'm sorry to say I'm not as close to anymore bc of these crazy stances). It's frustrating, and I don't need that in my life.
As a Ukrainian, it perplexes me how a certain set of the US public is so hateful towards a country they couldn't even find on the map four years ago, as if we are responsible for the fact that there are LGBT and immigrants in their country, and their ex-wife divorced them. They see Putin like a messiah. Not joking, I sometimes watch such podcasts to see how people think. I have seen them refer to Russia as "the Ark", a Biblical reference to Noah's Ark. Yes, very crazy.
Far too many Americans get themselves tied into knots trying to find a way to justifiably abandon the Ukrainians in their darkest hour. Sometimes the US does need to avoid intervening, but this isn’t one of those times. This is strikingly similar to the black and white issue of helping during both World Wars.
It’s crazy that non-MAGA people have this opinion, but I’ve heard from a lot of Swedes that spew this talking point…this being a USA proxy war should be put to rest
It pains me how bad Sam and Emma are on this topic. I would love to talk to them, there was no 2022 deal, and I wish you supported Ukraine more wholeheartedly, I think if you looked into the details, you would change your mind.
@@karsten11553 100% but people like them, Hasan, Kyle, etc seem to parrot this point without looking into it much. I get that we all want the war to end ASAP, but what's the point if it ends in a way that Russia can just start again.
@@chesswithivan8346 Very much this. Whatever the outcome of this mess, the most important thing is to make sure that the children of the Ukrainians fighting right now isn't going to have to fight a new invasion in ten years time.
That caller certainly wanted their assertion that this is purely a proxy war to be taken as a base fact of their argument. When it wasn't, it was definitely a "oh, I got this impression from vaguely listening to [list of names], but I've forgotten why and I don't want to admit that." I felt caught out like that in some school presentations and it's never fun, but that caller needs to learn to fold and come back later after doing the research. I don't expect that research to be compelling here, but now they know where they need to start their discussion if they want to call in about this again.
They were trying to have a conversation with him and he was reading off his watch history. If you think their arguments are so great then make them yourself instead of name dropping and then shopping around for analogies.
He was saying if Ukraine joined nato then those bases would exist in the future after they joined so putin invaded to primitively stop it not that i agree but thats what he was trying to say
He didn't say it, because he knew how stupid it would sound to say that the US should invade Mexico because it hypothetically might enter into an alliance with Russia or China, which, hypothetically, might possibly put nuclear weapons there. It's a stupid argument anyways, for multiple reasons, all relying on the audience's presumed lack of knowledge of eastern European history and geography (valid tactic if the audience is most MAGA folks, I guess): (1) There have been NATO countries on Russia's border for 20+ years. (2) The Baltic States are equidistant from Moscow as compared with Ukraine, and much closer to St. Petersburg...the argument that missiles in Ukraine would be dramatically closer and somehow create a fundamentally different security situation for Russia is thus clearly false. (3) Russia has invaded, occupied and attempted to commit physical and/or cultural genocide in Ukraine multiple times before; long before NATO existed, in fact, let alone the Biden administration. Nuclear missiles didn't exist in 1939, or 1914, or 1919-21 (Polish-Soviet War, where the USSR seized about 75% of briefly independent Ukraine). Russia still invaded. Ergo, the whole NATO nuclear missile bases thing is just a Red Herring.
He's talking about nukes and Ukraine got rid of the ones it had, plus NATO doesn't put nukes anywhere it doesn't have access to any. The few nuclear capable nations keep their nukes among themselves, that's why the US use UK as a base for them as the UK is already a nuclear power.
Ukraine first expressed interest in joining NATO in the early 1990s, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1994, Ukraine joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which was seen as a step toward closer cooperation with NATO, though not full membership. However, Ukraine’s official efforts to join NATO ramped up in 2002 when President Leonid Kuchma announced Ukraine’s intention to seek full NATO membership. In 2008, under President Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine formally requested a Membership Action Plan (MAP) during the NATO summit in Bucharest. Although Ukraine was not granted MAP status at that time, NATO stated that Ukraine (and Georgia) would eventually become members of the alliance, without specifying a timeline. Ukraine's NATO ambitions were later shelved by President Viktor Yanukovych, who took a more neutral stance after taking office in 2010. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Kyiv renewed its push for closer ties with NATO, culminating in the adoption of a new military doctrine in 2015 that declared NATO membership as a strategic goal. Since then, Ukraine has pursued various reforms to align with NATO standards, but full membership has not yet been achieved due to geopolitical concerns, particularly regarding Russia.
Don't forget when they made the rule that there should be no internal conflicts or active territorial disputes just to keep Ukraine out. People were terrified about hurting Russia's feel feels and yet they invaded anyway. The US and NATO have been putting up roadblocks to Ukraine since forever.
Yeah what isn’t mentioned here, is that is all in ukraines side. On the us side of things, nato has consistently held that Ukraines internal conflict precludes them from joining nato in the first place.
1:22 That so-called "deal on the table in 2022 that they didn't take" was basically just Russian annexation of Ukraine with extra steps. The "deal" would've required the disbanding of the Ukrainian military, and Ukraine having to cede control of all their foreign policy decisions to Russia. Thus, Ukraine would be a complete Russian vassal state. And when Russia at a later date decided that they wanted to go all the way with annexing Ukraine, the demilitarization required in that "deal" would've made Ukraine completely unable to fight back. That's why Ukraine *walked away from the table* and effectively told Russia to fuck off with that "deal". The narrative that this was some reasonable deal to end the war peacefully is pure Kremlin propaganda.
There is a big difference between making up your own mind based on facts and opinions you have heard, and just being a blind follower of people whose opinions you deem valid no matter what they say.
Sam is so good at quickly figuring out where people like this are heading and then just making them completely short circuit merely by asking questions.
Apparently Russia teaches in their schools that Poland invaded them and Russia just defended themselves (lol) so who knows what the propaganda sources this guy is listening to are saying.
Ukraine and Palestine aren't the same conflict, you can also support Ukraine's independence, but you should fiercely oppose US-American direction of a war that's only the business of Europe.
@@mx338 If the US funded and supported the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation would you say the US is wrong for provoking Israel and that the US should not meddle and leave the conflict up to the Middle East? Or would you say the US is right for supporting Palestinians because they're being invaded by Israel?
@@sonjakozman1699 And you would call for the US to cut off aid to the Palestinian resistance? Even while Israel would be busy b0mbing Palestinian children?
@@fullcirclehistory If the US didn't fund Israel we wouldn't have this conflict to begin with, the US is at the fault of the awful state of the world, so just fully withdraw and stop meddling.
So many holes in Sam's arguments here. 1. When did America indicate that they wanted Ukraine to be a part of Nato. Answer: 2008 Bucharest summit. Even Georgia was named as a future member of Nato. But Russia invaded Georgia and put that possibility to an end. 2. Ukraine wanted to be a part of Nato and EU. Answer: Ukraine was a divided country. Ukraianian speaking western Ukraine was pro-West but Russian speaking east was pro-Russia. The best thing for Ukraine would have been political neutrality. But the CIA funded coup toppled the pro-Russia president and installed an anti-Russia regime right at Russia's doorstep. Google Victoria Nuland's leaked "fuck the EU" comments. 3. We cannot stop the war when Ukrainians themselves want to fight Russia. Answer: If so then why did Boris Johnson of the UK rush to Ukraine to tell Zelensky that fighting Russia was what Zelensky actually wanted. 4. America didn't have nukes installed in Ukraine before Russia invaded. Answer: Why would Russia wait for Ukraine to join Nato and have America install its nukes there before their invasion. Any sane Russian leader would know it would be too late by that time. I would love to see how America would behave if China made clear statements indicating it wanted Mexico to be under its nuclear umbrella and funded a coup in Mexico to overthrow a democratically elected pro-US government. We don't even need to imagine what would happen. There's a thing called Monroe Doctrine. Even though Mexico is a sovereign nation and in theory has the right to choose its military alliances, the sensible thing for Mexico is to stay on good terms with the US. And if that means saying no to China's potential military approaches then by all means yes. But somehow for Russia and Ukraine this standard doesn't apply. Europe needs to stop being America's bitch. Get Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. Reject Ukraine's possible membership of Nato but offer both Ukraine and Russia memberships of the EU. Europe needs Russia for its vast natural resources and Russia needs Europe for its vast market. America is just playing divide-and-rule in Europe.
@@KaliahSheDevil Congratulations. You can stitch together two words at a time to form a short sentence. All is not lost. Afterall, you do seem to have some brain cells available for basic cognition.
People who can only have political conversations by recommending things for you to check out are infuriating. Put it in your own words or shut up about it. Also, it's funny how uncomfortable Sam gets when they start piling compliments on him. Always a sign of trouble.
Sam is disingenuous. Ukraine never had operational control of the weapons. They were not their weapons but were holding onto them. Why is he saying that. Is it because he doesn't know. Or wants to deflect.
Do you really think the Ukrainians couldn't have figured out how to arm the nukes or remanufacture new ones with the old material? They had the scientists, the nukes and the will had they not taken the deal. The majority of the Soviet arms industry is in Ukraine. Russia was buying helicopter engine from them until the invasion.
@@oohhboy-funhouse even funnier is that most soviet ships were produced in Ukraine including a large portion of Russian current navy. You have to wonder how much that has played a part in Ukraine victories against Russias navy
I've watched for a bit, but never subbed due to the Ukraine war, if you support them, I support and sub to you, republican or Democrat.. doesn't matter too me as long as you don't take money from Russia and don't support bullies, your my kinda peeps!!
The conservatives get so wound up about supporting Ukraine but there are absolute crickets when bringing up Israel.
Bibi & Vlad are the GQPs natural allies
Yeah. It's a weird contradiction where people still see Israel as a key ally in a Cold War era Middle East, but their thoughts about Russia have shifted because it's anti-woke.
They will absolutely call you antisemitic for bringing it up.
Btw they still don't know Palestinians are semites
@@thepolarphantasm2319 There is almost nothing of actually merit to the Israel conflict. It's all religious dogma. The Ukraine conflict is about a bully trying to be the USSR again all started by a guy that was part of the USSR.
The amount of children killed in the Israel conflict decimates the amount of abortions that happen in this country. Conservatives don't care about saving children in the slightest.
Also Ukraine is more in need of the money.
"Emma I consider you an extremely intelligent person..."
Oh god he's one of THOSE
For a lady.
Also pulled the: "What, Sam? Did you say something?"
Sometimes I think I should send Emma + Fran flowers once a year to thank them for persisting thru the Weird Dudes.
I love the little smile she flashed😂
Yeah, being that obsequious of the bat is a major red flag.
He's getting upset at scenarios that he made up in his head.
tankies bark at their own shadow, they're as stupid as humans get
VP Harris said at the NATO Security Conference that the Ukraine would be admitted to NATO two months before the SMO. The Ukraine's previous attempts to navigate membership failed mainly because of the extreme corruption in the Ukrainian government.
He is using all Russian talking points.. dishonest corrupted moron.
The scenarios were made up for him
As they do 😂
The infantilization of Ukraine is so frustrating.
They see Russia as a real country, and Ukraine as not, since James Bond and Call of Duty have only taught them about Russia; as if all eastern europe is different flavours of Russia.
@@WangMingGe red Russia, white Russia, black Russia, 😅
conservatives generally speaking have a blind spot to the liberties and rights to groups and people and institutions foreign to them.
@@Redsauce101 Horseshit. That's the myth that the tsars used to justify conquering and suppressing the culture of Ukraine. In reality, Ukraine is not Russia, no matter how much you love supporting Russian imperialism.
Ukraine is Americas plaything to use up in an attempt at weakening Russia and Putin.
Putin shouldn't of invaded, but America is making the most of this mistake.
The rich and ruling class in Ukraine would rather model themselves on America, to the detriment of the average Ukrainian.
The Russian model is no better, but pretending that American neoliberalism is superior is just delusional.
You only have to look at the state America is in to see that.
America is the richest country on eath and yet its full of poor struggling people, whose lives can be ruined just for the cost of a hospital visit and treatment, and homelessness and drug addiction is rife.
There's no democracy in either America or Russia, the lobby groups and donor money see to that in America, and Russia has a dictator.
The US has surrounded Russia and filled the whole world with their military bases so that when they need to commit war crimes or help others countries commit them they're on hand for support.
Protecting Ukraine is essential to reducing nuclear proliferation. Their sovereignty was guaranteed in exchange for their giving up their nuclear weapons. If the West allows Ukraine to fall, then every country in the world will be justified in believing nuclear weapons are essential for securing their national sovereignty. Fear mongering over nuclear proliferation while being against Ukraine funding is extremely ignorant. Also, expansionist powers tend to continue expansion until they are stopped; there's a real possibility that sacrificing Ukraine would just move the war elsewhere, while giving Russia more resources to draw from.
Very clear Iran wants to go in that direction because of Israel.
@@kingcyrusthegreat3887Israel is a terrorist state from its very inception. Their army is quite literally formed from terrorist militias.
heads up I figured out a few months ago "reducing nuclear proliferation" they don't understand the concept because they don't remember the 90s when warlords where selling everything not nailed down in the USSR collapse.
@@kingcyrusthegreat3887 Israel is the most terrorist state in the the entire Middle East. By far.
Why do you think America is letting Israel do this to its neighbors. Because you are right. The only thing keeping countries safe from nuclear power is having nuclear power. Ukraine took a big l believing America would protect it. And how would the US do that exactly, with NATO. They should have never given up what little stockpile they had. Worst mistake they made.
Their current conditions TO START negotiations is NATO off the table, Ukraine recognizes Russian ownership of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, including land that Russia doesn't currently control, and Ukraine dismantle it's tank fleet. Anyone who says "Ukraine should just negotiate" is criticizing the wrong party.
"Ukraine should just negotiate" = "shut up, stop resisiting & bend over"
Where the fuck did you see this ? I’m genuinely curious.
Russia has offered better conditions in the past, just get on the table before more people die. The war isn't going well, no war does, as so many people die, stopping that is more important than Crimea, or whatever other land.
@@odradekkI just looked it up and if you go to the Wikipedia page "Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" and scroll down to "Negotiating Positions". It talks about what Russia's starting conditions are and it sounds pretty similar to what cf3714 said. I'm going to check the sources that they cite
@@mx338 Do you remember Bucha? There's only so many times that you can say "It's just land" until you realize people live there.
If there is a peace deal, it must allow Ukraine to remain strong, so Russia doesn't use that peace to recharge itself and start again. NATO and nuclear weapons are a pretty effective deterrent to future violence, something that Russia knows and very much doesn't want Ukraine to have. Stopping people dying now is wasteful if it just leads to even more deaths down the road.
And I actually forgot that Russia included Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in it's demands.
I stand with the people of Ukraine
@@sonjakozman1699Ukraine is an ally and should be supported, even if Raytheon produced the weaponry to make it happen.
Lovely. What do you think about what John Mearsheimer has to say on the matter?
@@IvanDaGrVIIIhe’s wrong and should I list the hundreds of academics, intelligent experts, and military experts that oppose Mershiemer’s nonsense or would you rather hold onto his inaccurate claims?
@@sonjakozman1699 The MIC is good in the context of an actual War of Defense.
And BlackRock wouldn't be investing if Russia wasn't an imperialist country.
@sonjakozman1699 Why that's?? If it's unaliving the O8Cs, so be it...🥱🥱
There really was something so cloying and patronizing about that caller. Sam made the right call.
He jumped from talking point to talking point, all of which have been repeated to death
Russia invaded in 2014
They couped the elections in 2004 even.
@@steven2183 "uromadon" and "yacunovik" Yep, you are definitely a jimmy dore fan.
The Russian Navy also attacked shipping and the Ukrainian Coast Guard in 2013. They have embargoed the Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov. There were also provocations, attacks and even assassinations against the elected leaders in Odessa, Donetsk, and other Ukrainian cities by Russian nationalists. They asserted discrimination, but when the UN investigated they stated they found no evidence of unprovoked massacres or widespread discrimination against Russian speakers.
@@steven2183 The EUROmaidan was sparked because Yanukovych signed a deal with Russia that blocked Ukraine from entering the EU, despite running on a platform to join the EU.
He was a corrupt Russian puppet who fled in the dead of night with a few paintings, leaving a lavish palace behind. That palace was turned into the Museum of Corruption.
Do you think a deeply corrupt leader on the take from a foreign oppressive nation that’s the source of your corruption should continue undermining your young democracy that you have spilled a lot of blood to establish?
At what point would you topple your democratically elected leader? Is there never a legitimate reason in your mind to do so? You’ve clearly only ever listened to the events in Ukraine, try reading some next time.
Oh, and Russia funded a lot of the Nazis in Ukraine,but also the rest of Europe and the US.
@@hochmeisterrAnd who served as Yanukovichs American foreign policy propagandist and fixer with foreign media and politicians....Corey Lewandowsky. Lewandowsky worked closely with the KGB (FSB) Then he hid his own money in secret accounts set up in Cyprus and Azerbaijan.
This argument always amazes me. JUST ASK ONE UKRAINIAN PERSON!! They wanted to join. Putin's first speech didn't mention NATO once, but he referred to sovereign territory multiple times. It is easily available on the internet with full transcripts. The talking points are facts to these people who can't just ask a neighbor who happens to still have family there and it's ridiculous.
weird that Ukrainians do not want to become a prospering russian satellite like Belarus or Chechnya ????
EXACTLY. Weird how Putin's justification for the war was that Ukraine was historically irrelevant. These people are braindead.
This caller hasn't once thought about Ukraine's own agency
@@ObamaTheHedgehog these "pacifists" don´t give a .... about the people of Ukraine
for years they called Ukrainians brainwashed by western propaganda, because you must be brainwashed to believe your country can do better than becoming a 2nd Belarus
@@ObamaTheHedgehog No one in America or Western Europe cares about Eastern Europeans' agency. Their concern for their own agency, even after hundreds of years of wars and invasions, is described as nationalism even by American press.
Supporting allies against an aggressive invader...not much to think about.
Even if you were the one to create the aggressive posture
@jet-fury Same issue the caller had in the video, what specifically did the US/NATO do that _forced_ Russia to be the aggressor toward Ukraine? If the argument is “the possibility of NATO sharing a border with Russia,” a) they already did share a border, and b) what would give Russia a veto right over a sovereign nation’s political alliances? I’m not talking about exercising political and trade leverage, but the ability to say, “No, you’re not allowed to join that club.” Even if stopping such a thing was Russia’s intent, the invasion literally had the opposite effect and directly increased Russia’s land-border with NATO.
@@jet-fury 🥱 Anything to hide the fact this is nothing more than Russian imperialism. I guess we just ignore Russian hybrid warfare campaign on Ukraine all the way back before 2014. All in the attempt to install a puppet, and when that failed destabilize and invade the country to absorb it. Quit spewing Russian propaganda bs.
@@jet-fury How did the US "create the aggressive posture"?
@@jet-fury Strong "she made me beat her by cooking the dinner wrong!" vibes you got there.
8:35 - Yeah, I think Emma pretty much sums it all up here. Is the Ukraine-Russia conflict a proxy war for the U.S. to a degree to weaken Russia? Yes. Is it a question of the Ukrainians not wanting to be conquered by their hostile, expansionist neighbour? Yes. Might the expansion of NATO have been somewhat provocative to Russia? Yes, although it's worth noting that this was not the main reason for the war. On the other hand, is it true that a lot of countries that joined NATO were doing it of their own volition and specifically because they feared Russian expansionism? Yes, that's also the case.
I feel like so many people struggle with this, but two things can be true at the same time about something. The world is complicated. And you have to learn to navigate that.
These are really silly things to say.
By definition the war in Ukraine is not a proxy war, its 2 forces directly fighting against each other.
The "expansion" (read: growing) of NATO also isn't provocative to any sane and honest person.
To say otherwise is to promote Russian lies justifying imperialism.
The world might be complicated, but this war isn't whatsoever. Russia is 100% in the wrong, Ukraine did 0% wrong.
If anything, this war shows how necessary so-called "NATO expansion" was. If those nations hadn't been allowed to join NATO, Russia likely would've invaded several of them by now. After all, the Baltic states are a lot smaller than Ukraine and would've been quite easy for Russia to conquer without NATO protection. What this shows is that it was foolish of Ukraine to not join NATO back in 2008.
Emma is wrong to like Mearsheimer, though. Mearsheimer is the source for so much misinformation on Ukraine and is being used by Russia apologists to attack Ukraine and the US.
No country has ever been forced to join NATO.
@@sonjakozman1699 No, it's very much "so-called". The rhetorical framing of "NATO expansion" makes it out as if NATO marched into countries and annexed them. (You know, like what Russia did against Ukraine.) When what actually happened is that nations had to convince NATO to *allow* them to join.
These people act like we're just cutting them a check and not like, sending them our old defense equipment
They act like helping protect a democratic and free people from neighboring totalitarianism isn't something that benefits us all... appeasing people like Putin never ends well.
You act like the MIC prolonging conflict and buying themselves all new weapons at the expense of the taxpayer is like, good for the country.
Dick Cheney is onboard for a reason.
@@TheDreadPirateRoberts-jr2fk how would you suggest to end the conflict
@@thepolarphantasm2319 exactly. And the valuation of that equipment is the number put on it by the overpaid defense contractors that ripped the government off because they could.
@@linaskranauskas it's not our problem
Caller begins appealing to authority and fails to articulate a coherent argument.
The caller can’t articulate it, but he was correct. This isn’t proof that Sam is correct any more than Ben Shapiro is correct.
@@marti_abernathey That’s your assertion without argument or evidence therefore useless.
@@marti_abernathey"It's really very simple"
"Okay tell us then"
"Uh...uh...well some other person said it so it must be true"
Everyone who supports Ukraine knows why Russia invaded. Putin is a dictator and wants more power. Why do Russia defenders waffle and back off every point of it's so straightforward?
@@gizmo5601 there’s plenty of evidence of CIA involvement in the 2014 coup.
That’s the thing, Seder shows his skill as an entertainment debater, but not in arguing in good faith.
@@marti_abernathey no there isnt
Ukraine: "We need help from being threatened." Russia: "Oh yeah, well we'll show you not to go seeking help from being threatened!" Russia: "See, now look what you made us do!"
or as a US cop would say while beating up someone "STOP RESISTING"
😂 you do know ukraines last president was pro Russian before a violent mob killed him then a comedian/actor became president? Doesn’t something seem off to you or do you always believe cnn?
The US coup'd Ukraine buddy.
Awesome 👍😎
@@magatsmorghulis6981 abusers love saying "look what you made me do to you"
lol the key to his argument is so obvious he can’t prove it.
😂😂😂 he's such a dumbass
@@oh_k8 Ukraine has come to the table multiple times to end the war, Russia refuses. Ukraine was even going to concede Crimea completely.
So Ukraine should have accepted 20% of their country being annexed by Russia? Okay, say we took that deal. What's to stop any other country from invading 20% of other countries because that is the new red line?
You argue that because this was was "unwinnable" we should have allowed Russia to just do what it wanted and violate international law? Biden already allowed Russia to have the largest pipeline in Europe in an effort of goodwill that was not to the direct benefit of our country. So why was Russia justified to invade?
@@AlWhite-b6r "Socrates, dude." - Plato
"It's so evident, I hear it said all the time by these handful of pundits I listen to on the web!"
The caller brings up Russian stuges and is spitting out Pure russian naratives.
😂how about making an actual argument instead of repeating cnn talking points
@@hexlemorte5201I dont watch TV.
@@hochmeisterrdoesn’t mean you can’t fall for propaganda. What is the Russian narrative to you?
@@hexlemorte5201 What their leader said on television before invading. "Ukraine is a fake country that rightfully belongs to us". I think you leftists call that "imperialism". It's funny that you're defending it.
It depends. the Narative for usfull idots. Is that nato is dangerous. The internal narative is that ukraine must bean part of Russia for Russia to be an empier.
If you listen to George Galloway hahah
Free tip don’t do that
I thought the left loved that guy! My info is a bit outdated however. Can you explain why he's not worth listening to anymore?
What’s the point of listening to George Galloway? He is literally paid by the Kremlin. Why not consume narratives straight from the horse’s mouth-Lavrov, Zakharova, Nebenzya, Polyanskiy, or Putin himself?
@@kushclarkkent6669 galloway is a reactionary and a xenophobe. He hasn't had any left wing appeal for decades at this point.
@@kushclarkkent6669 Hes a tankie to start. An actual leftist condemns imperialism across the board, but folks like Galloway ignore the acts of imperialist agression done by Russia, China, and North Korea and blame their actions on America specifically, or the west more generally.
My friend helped organize a speaking tour with Galloway across Canada in 2009.
It’s pretty embarrassing for them now.
Was NATO involved when Putin invaded Chenya, Georgia, the Kyril islands?
Well you see, NATO sent them all birthday cards so Russia had no choice but to preemptively crush their sovereign-I mean Nazis.
Was bombing Yugoslavia an act of defense by a "defensive alliance" whose original stated mission was to protect against the Soviet Union (which hasn't existed anymore for decades)? Was orchestrating a revolution in Libya "defensive"?
@@stanleyz6330 Just leave out the part where NATO was intervening to stop two groups from committing genocide against each other to boost your bs narrative. 😆
Chechnya is truly the 1956 Invasion of Hungary for the 90s
@@stanleyz6330 You're being disingenuous.
Yugoslavia & Libya interventions were both sanctioned by the UN. They didn't come out of nowhere and began bombing things like you are trying to portray.
If NATO didn't used their joint military structure to carry these interventions out, individual members would have done so seperately.
Also mission statements can change over the span of half a century.
Finland joined nato on the border of Russia and Russia hasn't invaded Finland right...
They wont be invading finland or any other country. That is all NATO CIA disinformation..
@huntergatherer7796 They invaded Ukraine though.
@@waynethegreat23 what is your point?
@@dominoep They didn't though.
@Redsauce101 Oh they didn't? Are they occupying Disney World?
This was painful on so many levels. PS To make things 100% clear for those who could be confused, I dont know how after listing to the conversation but here we go: SLAVA UKRAINI!
Caller was an old moron. lol.
But most painful was the level of ignorance about the most basic realities of how and why this war started . That, and the quizzical look on Sam's face when the caller calls NATO a "hostile military alliance." from the russian view.. Sam seems unable to see the world in any light other than the USA-stamped version.
For me it was how close to the wacko on the line the MR is... :(
@@donfleming3534 NATO is only hostile if you plan on invading your neighbours. That is why Russia considers it hostile.
@@donfleming3534 The typical anti-US brain rot mixed with Russian disinformation and propaganda.
If you had a lot of Trump acquaintances like I do, you wouldn't call this "a debate over Ukraine gone off the rails." You would call it, "a typical day of the week."
This Ukrainian American thanks you for your support.
As soon as the caller referenced George Galloway I knew where this was going
....and Chris Hedges
@@davidhughes4089 Galloway is right about most things.
@@reallymakesyouthink what did you think of his letters targeted to white voters about the danger of grooming gangs in Rochdale?
@@davidhughes4089 I thought that was horrible. His policies domestically are way off but his foreign policy is normally correct.
Just looked him up. His views are exactly what I expected.
The problem with the Cuban crisis analogy is that they were putting Nuclear missiles into Cuba, and Ukraine had already given up their nukes for security guarantees.
They were putting nukes in Cuba because America had nukes in Turkey and ballistic missiles in Germany and the UK.
No there's no issue with that analogy, if Cuba or Mexico would join a defence alliance with China, Russia. or Iran, the US would flip out too.
Ironically if they hadn’t done that, then this invasion would never have happenedz
@@mx338 Would the US in your view be justified to invade Mexico or Cuba?
@@mx338the defense alliance from 1993? That simply stated in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, we will defend you?
The entire premise of their argument is always that having an alliance is an act of hostility that justifies any and all responses.
Ya, the pathetic whining of bullies, "you're only not getting beat up today cus there's like a lot of you, and some of you are actually pretty strong 😰" - Russia when NATO thrives
@@ComradeCatpurrnicus Also, "you provoked me by existing, but I have a solution for that of the final variety."
😂so an enemy alliance that attacked other countries like Yemen, that moves nukes around led by usa that has a preemptive strike policy is not a threat to you?amazing logic
In the age of capitalism, it is. Because capitalism is inherently expansionist and inherently violent.
Capitalism is inherently expansionist and thus warlike.
*Russia invades Ukraine unprovoked* RightWingers: "Biden did this."
I guess they also defend the US invasion of Iraq because it stopped Saddam from using the WMDs he didn´t have....
Lately they've pivoted to "Kamala Harris did this" out of desperation
@@thepolarphantasm2319 what´s next? "Kamala used Hunter sto start the war"
unprovoked, hahha
Well it was provoked by Nato expansion and the political take over of Ukraine by the US government.
as soon as he referenced george galloway it all made sense
Hes terrible, but Ritter is worse somehow
He was right about Iraq.
@@jujutrini8412and now he’s wrong about Ukraine. Being right once about Iraq doesn’t change that.
@@jujutrini8412 like a stopped clock
Galloway is a POS and should only be remembered as the cat in the big brother house. His anti Iraq stuff was mainly about self service and inflat8ng his own fragile ego, not middle east peace
I am against war, but Ukraine has every right to defend herself. What about all those innocent people who have been murdered by Putin,
Then you're not against war. And that is fine.
Nuance is good. Wars can be justified.
WTF are you talking about
@@samueldavid7811 You support Ukraine fighting a war of defense against an invader.
Therefor you are by definition in favor of war (read: pro war).
Is nuance really that difficult for you to grasp?
@@Khalkara Translation: you're full of shit. You're pretending that it's "anti-war" to respond to an invasion by letting the invader conquer and slaughter as they please. That actually means that *you* are the one who's pro-war, because you think launching a war is something that should get rewarded.
@@Khalkara The definition of being pro-war is "being in favor of a military solution to a political problem". He is not pro war, and not in favor of a military solution to a political problem. He is pro self-defense: He is in favor of supporting a military solution to the military problem of a sovereign nation being invaded by the military of its former colonial overlords, attempting to resubjugate it. I know this entire discussion is nitpicky, and yes, nuance matters, but I completely loathe the Magha we1rd0s that accuse people in favor of supporting a democratic nation's right to defend itself of being pro-war or warmongers.
literally so what. So what if the US was trying to get Ukraine into NATO. NATO is a defensive treaty. Does this guy think NATO was planning to invade Russia?
@@sonjakozman1699 Ironically, with this invasion, Putin proved NATO is still needed.
This is an important point. Putin is worried his people will start wanting a democratic country. It is all about corruption.
@@sonjakozman1699Sweden and Finland recently joined, they see things differently to you, wonder why
@@TheKrunelyeah that’s an important point.
It’s been deployed in non-defensive operations/conflicts
NATO broke the promise its leaders made after the dissolution of the USSR that it wouldn’t move any further East
The USA did support a coup to overthrow a more pro-Russian regime in Ukraine.
Ukraine did engage in shelling and violating agreements.
While the provocations don’t justify Russia’s invasion, Russia *was* provoked, and they *do* have legitimate national security concerns about the expansion of NATO
This guy thinks he knows more than he does because he's been bamboozled by all those "experts" he rattled off.
Yep he was just saying names and parroting other people's thoughts.
With the "experts" he listed simply being shills for Russia.
@@dominoep Yeah it is really weird. One would imagine that he had been convinced by some of the arguments these "experts" (all of whom are cranks, btw, I have no idea why Emma would think anything positive about Mersheimer) had presented, so it should be fairly easy for him to repeat the arguments that convinced him.
When was NATO 'hostile'?
And, by the way, there was not much interest in Ukraine joining NATO before Putin.
Oh yes, to join the EU.
He thinks real life is like a bad game of Civilization where two countries will say "we are forming a hostile alliance against X!"
When wasn't NATO hostile
@@LeEkek-y1texactly. NATO nowadays is inert to outside forces. Hostile to inner forces. But during it's creation it was nothing but hostile
NATO is, by definition, a DEFENSIVE alliance. It only responds when a member of the alliance is ATTACKED.
A lot of the billions in equipment sent to Ukraine is old and outdated equipment. It costs less money to give it to Ukraine than it does to destroy it. It’s expensive to dismantle old weaponry. The US was not going to use 90s tech tanks.
That's a CIA lie.
Yep. And our old and outdated surplus is clearly supperior to Russias or North Koreas. Also, the red states are benefiting far more from this aid than blue
Countries can join any defensive military alliance, just like Russia does.
Tell that to Cuba, Mexico, or any South American state, it's called the Monroe doctrine, and prevents alliances with outside powers in the Americas, which is the USA enforces with violence.
Maybe lookup the Monroe doctrine, and read some history books.
@@mx338 That's not a rebuttal, but it IS you justifying pre-emptive invasions.
@@furiousapplesack He acts as if the US has not broken it every second. Lol
@@mx338 Hmm.. so what about Cuba? Nicaragua and Venezuela? were they allowed to make alliances with Russia/China? Maybe get a reality check before posting nonsense.
10:08 Tankies always try this "What if Mexico" argument without realising Russia invaded Ukraine because of a free trade deal Ukraine wanted with EU. Not a NATO-military base.
So the scenario should be "What if Mexico makes a trade deal with China? USA would invade Mexico!"
"what if mexico would feel so gravely threatened by the USA they join a military alliance.." Oh man, thats really making russia look like the good guys...
@@AdvocatusDiaboliFin not to mention that even if ukraine joined nato that doesn't necessarily mean nato bases. Especially since it is forbidden by the Ukrainian constitution
@@RazgrizWing Fun fact: Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO in 2014. There still is a constitutional amendment that specifically states Ukraine is a neutral country and requires a referendum to be overturned. Before the invasion of Crimea, support for NATO was around 20-25%. The majority supported neutrality.
@@RazgrizWing The Baltic states and Poland have been members of NATO for many years, and neither of them have any nuk3s stationed in their territory, that whole argument is a deliberate red herring. We all know why russia fears Ukrainian membership into the EU and NATO - such memberships prevents them from dominating and controlling Ukraine through threats of violence. Puck Futin.
It’s a bit further south but Russia has their own military and economic alliance with Brazil (BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)
His sources are Galloway, Ritter...!!!??? FFS !
My reaction too. Ritter is firmly in Putin's pocket
@@victorh1458and Ritter is a convicted pedo
I think Emma should hire security. This caller is weirdly obsessed with her approval.
I sense that too
He got so excited when he thought she agreed with him, it was pretty sad
There are way too many people that only care *who* is saying things, instead of the things they're saying. It feels like celebrity gossip to me. Very parasocial.
Long time listener. Never learned a thing though. Just listened.
@Harry-hq8fi, like this is any different from your elementary, middle school, and high school experiences.
You could tell where this idiot is going as soon as he called it a "proxy war." Even before the victim blaming.
Ten days before russia's full invasion into Ukraine, Mearsheimer said they don't want to invade, except if the separatists (that Russia literally controls) ask them to.
Does this sound like someone that knows what's going in in Russia and thinks about it critically? The man is a crank, and because Sam and Emma dealt with this call so well I would hope that more knowledge of Mearsheimer would lead them to discard him as a crank. Sacks as well.
This caller doesn't know how NATO works either.
great example of hit and run source use.
It would be great if you could put in the description of these clips the date they were recorded.
That’s one guy who’s going to unsubscribe.
LOL
Thanks for those answers. Because your answers were on point and exactly how I feel about the whole thing.
Tankies man
I dont know if this is a Tankie or a Lolbertarian, on Ukraine it's horseshoe theory
@@jamesmcpherson8599 Ukraine is absolutely Horseshoe theory central
@@jamesmcpherson8599 Why not both? They think any non-US imperialism is good and Russia is land of personal liberty. They should be encouraged to move to Russia and stay, that is a net gain, they get to suffer, and we don't have to suffer them.
Liberals man
They get so mad about Ukraine, crickets about Israel tho
Yep. Maga impulse is to be the strongman…tough on Palestine, tough on China, tough on Iran…but when it comes to Russia, nothing. So why this outlier, when being tough on Russia should be what we’d expect? Solely because Trump hopes to build hotels there.
That’s the only reason why GOP is tying themselves into knots of Ukraine. Idiosyncratic whim of dear orange leader.
Oh, some of them hate Israel too.
Thank you for broadcasting the much discussed Ukraine topic. Having grown up in a former Czechoslovakia, I can tell you for certain that Ukrainians fight to be a part of Europe and NATO because they know what kind of neighbour Russia is. They know well what they are dying for. They also know that without the West, they can't withstand Putin's expansionary demands. Even if one was to argue whether NATO is the "better of the two so-called evils", Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances.
Has your caller considered why Sweden and Finland, two neutral and peaceful countries with strong economies, joined NATO so swiftly?
As for the nuclear argument; Ukraine had to transfer 1300 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia. Since Ukraine never really had any operational control of the weapons, Kremlin did, the Russian Federation "inherited" the nuclear weapons when the USSR collapsed at the end of 1991. Later in 1993, the Ukrainian and Russian governments signed a series of bilateral agreements giving up Ukrainian claims to the nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet, in return for $2.5 billion of gas and oil debt cancellation and future supplies of fuel for its nuclear energy. The agreement (Budapest Memorandum) was signed in exchange for security assurances, which Russia violated in 2014 by annexation of Crimea, and then again in 2022 by invasion of Ukraine.
ANY westerner who whole heartedly believes that Russia has been in some way "provoked" and that Putin's intentions are justifiable should wake up and ask why some 20 to 30 million ethnic Russians live outside the bounds of the Russian Federation even though they really love their motherland.
I can’t believe they didn’t correctly identify Mearsheimer as a crank as well
Yeah disappointment.
Why do you think Mearsheimer is a crank?
@goopydudest The ultimate outcome Mearsheimer wants out of Geopolitics is an alliance between the US and Russia to be aligned against China, every talking point he creates in furtherance of his goals. I don't know why this isn't talked about since for some reason he has considerable clout amongst certain kinds of "leftists".
@@jamesmcpherson8599 I’m not doubting you but I haven’t found that in anything I’ve read with Mearsheimer. That’s not much though which is why I don’t doubt you. Do you have a source for your claim?
@goopydudest RUclips likes to delete comments I make that contain links but Mearsheimer has said before "The U.S. has foolishly driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. I think Russia is the natural ally of the U.S. against China."
Source is a Nikkie Asia article.
dude sounds like what would happen if Terrence Howard and Ben Carson had a baby, which in turn makes me wonder which one of them would be the pregnant one in that situation.
He sounds like Rami Malek
Terrance Howard has transcended time and space to bring us the vibrational truth of the universe, or something like that. so probably him
Honestly, the first red flag was when he said he was from Berkeley with that smugness in his tone of voice.
Smartest Putin Defender
It's a Proxy? Yes.
Was the US promoting? No!
Does Ukraine have the right to defend itself? Absolutely.
I honestly gained nothing from this conversation not even his perspective or even the argument he was trying to make. Dude literally called in and wasted time while listing names.
Caller needs intervention badly...
A special military intervention?
The war would have been prevented by incorpating Ukraine into NATO in 1994 (as a byproduct of the Budapest memorandum). Putin would have never dared to invade any piece of its sovereign land after that.
They had a chance in 2008 alongside Georgia, but world leaders like France and Germany said no since they wanted to keep dealing with Russia, and the USA didn't do anything about. This unfortunate emboldened Putin to invade both.
"Can you provide evidence of your claim?"
And his position crumbles
Mearsheimer is not a wacko, he's just wrong.
NATO is not a hostile military alliance, it is a defensive alliance. Additionally, NATO does not want war with russia. russia has nuclear weapons.
What NATO does, is not allow russia to dominate its neighbours who are a part of NATO. If NATO was such a threat to russia, then why did russia withdraw 80% of its soldiers stationed on its NATO borders. This was never about NATO.
Ukraine has a right to defend itself. The US did not order russia to attack. russia does not consider Ukraine its own nation.
The reason for this invasion is russia has imperial ambitions, and it cannot accomplish those without Ukraine. It considers Ukrainians to be russians. Their intent is genocide. The intent is to restore glory to russia by restoring it as a superpower.
That's what this is, and has nothing to do with the threat from NATO to russian sovereignty, just russian ambitions.
NATO = Nazis
If you disagree, well...
This is not opinion
Or guessing
It's pure historical fact. And pure present fact.
The "third reich" "lost" and then joined the fourth reich. Aka the US empire. NATO is just one of its many faces. If you don't understand this, it's ok, go read more. But absolutely stfu in the mean time. Because when you defend genocidal Nazis, like the USA, or Israel (I wonder your thoughts on that little Nazi Eastern Front style murder machine?), well, what does one call one who defends a pdf file? Ok. Now what about defending Nazis? Hmm. Think, before you vomit dogshit.
@@NoName-lq6vw "It's pure historical fact."
No, it's your opinion. Which means it is the opposite of a fact.
"Now what about defending Nazis?"
Who is defending Russia? You? Hmm
you cant possibly say NATO is purely defensive alliance , Yugoslavia is an obvious example , another one would be Libya , you ether have UN approval or you dont , the joint attack on Yugoslavia happend even tho no other NATO country was part of Yugoslavian civil war , so , not a defensive alliance
@@bingbong3084 Oh yeah, preventing Serbs from committing a genocide really does have that "offensive alliance" ring to it.
So yes, NATO is a defensive alliance. It defends its members' sovereign territory and the security of its people.
A destabilized Balkan peninsula is not in the interest of its people's security, and was in defense of the Albanians who were being brutally persecuted and murdered.
In Libya NATO as an organization had little to no involvement. At most it coordinated a no fly zone over Libya, a result of Europe's internal petty politics. This was not a function of NATO, even though the coalition involved were all NATO members, many NATO members did not participate.
And again, all in support of the local population against a bloody dictator. Not instigated by NATO. There's that offensive ring again. Nothing screams bloody murder more than defending human rights.
@@bingbong3084 Yugoslavian bombings were 1) To stop an ongoing genocide, in other words: To *defend* the lives of people being genocided.
2) Sanctioned by the UN.
Same for Libya.
He sounds really lonely
Nah he sounds like he's on his 28th shot glass of whiskey and stupid.
Who isn't these days
@@kushclarkkent6669 not the terminally online people
Yep.. This conversations was like me talking to my maga friends (whom I'm sorry to say I'm not as close to anymore bc of these crazy stances). It's frustrating, and I don't need that in my life.
sure pal
As a Ukrainian, it perplexes me how a certain set of the US public is so hateful towards a country they couldn't even find on the map four years ago, as if we are responsible for the fact that there are LGBT and immigrants in their country, and their ex-wife divorced them. They see Putin like a messiah. Not joking, I sometimes watch such podcasts to see how people think. I have seen them refer to Russia as "the Ark", a Biblical reference to Noah's Ark. Yes, very crazy.
Far too many Americans get themselves tied into knots trying to find a way to justifiably abandon the Ukrainians in their darkest hour. Sometimes the US does need to avoid intervening, but this isn’t one of those times. This is strikingly similar to the black and white issue of helping during both World Wars.
Thank you caller
It’s crazy that non-MAGA people have this opinion, but I’ve heard from a lot of Swedes that spew this talking point…this being a USA proxy war should be put to rest
Hes an old school left wing ideologue that sees everything in terms of hegemonic US imperialism.
It’s by definition a proxy war? What? Zelenskyy literally goes to congress for permission to strike.
It's in your own news, lol. You just have a short memory.
It is a proxy war buddy
@@leechgully But gives a complete pass to Russian or Chinese imperialism.
Thank you, Majority Report! You're so sane (IMHO).
It pains me how bad Sam and Emma are on this topic. I would love to talk to them, there was no 2022 deal, and I wish you supported Ukraine more wholeheartedly, I think if you looked into the details, you would change your mind.
True, there was a 2022 surrender demand, nothing more.
@@karsten11553 100% but people like them, Hasan, Kyle, etc seem to parrot this point without looking into it much. I get that we all want the war to end ASAP, but what's the point if it ends in a way that Russia can just start again.
@@chesswithivan8346 Very much this. Whatever the outcome of this mess, the most important thing is to make sure that the children of the Ukrainians fighting right now isn't going to have to fight a new invasion in ten years time.
That caller certainly wanted their assertion that this is purely a proxy war to be taken as a base fact of their argument. When it wasn't, it was definitely a "oh, I got this impression from vaguely listening to [list of names], but I've forgotten why and I don't want to admit that."
I felt caught out like that in some school presentations and it's never fun, but that caller needs to learn to fold and come back later after doing the research. I don't expect that research to be compelling here, but now they know where they need to start their discussion if they want to call in about this again.
Appeal to authority fallacy, only used when the person has no argument to back them up
They were trying to have a conversation with him and he was reading off his watch history. If you think their arguments are so great then make them yourself instead of name dropping and then shopping around for analogies.
He was saying if Ukraine joined nato then those bases would exist in the future after they joined so putin invaded to primitively stop it not that i agree but thats what he was trying to say
Pre emptively
Which has proved to be a horrible strategy
He didn't say it, because he knew how stupid it would sound to say that the US should invade Mexico because it hypothetically might enter into an alliance with Russia or China, which, hypothetically, might possibly put nuclear weapons there. It's a stupid argument anyways, for multiple reasons, all relying on the audience's presumed lack of knowledge of eastern European history and geography (valid tactic if the audience is most MAGA folks, I guess): (1) There have been NATO countries on Russia's border for 20+ years. (2) The Baltic States are equidistant from Moscow as compared with Ukraine, and much closer to St. Petersburg...the argument that missiles in Ukraine would be dramatically closer and somehow create a fundamentally different security situation for Russia is thus clearly false. (3) Russia has invaded, occupied and attempted to commit physical and/or cultural genocide in Ukraine multiple times before; long before NATO existed, in fact, let alone the Biden administration. Nuclear missiles didn't exist in 1939, or 1914, or 1919-21 (Polish-Soviet War, where the USSR seized about 75% of briefly independent Ukraine). Russia still invaded. Ergo, the whole NATO nuclear missile bases thing is just a Red Herring.
@@franjkav Yes. Russia has imperial ambitions, but not the substance - either carrot or stick - to make it work.
He's talking about nukes and Ukraine got rid of the ones it had, plus NATO doesn't put nukes anywhere it doesn't have access to any. The few nuclear capable nations keep their nukes among themselves, that's why the US use UK as a base for them as the UK is already a nuclear power.
Dude sounds like a wacko
This is pure gold, nice work!
Ukraine first expressed interest in joining NATO in the early 1990s, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1994, Ukraine joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which was seen as a step toward closer cooperation with NATO, though not full membership.
However, Ukraine’s official efforts to join NATO ramped up in 2002 when President Leonid Kuchma announced Ukraine’s intention to seek full NATO membership. In 2008, under President Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine formally requested a Membership Action Plan (MAP) during the NATO summit in Bucharest. Although Ukraine was not granted MAP status at that time, NATO stated that Ukraine (and Georgia) would eventually become members of the alliance, without specifying a timeline.
Ukraine's NATO ambitions were later shelved by President Viktor Yanukovych, who took a more neutral stance after taking office in 2010. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Kyiv renewed its push for closer ties with NATO, culminating in the adoption of a new military doctrine in 2015 that declared NATO membership as a strategic goal. Since then, Ukraine has pursued various reforms to align with NATO standards, but full membership has not yet been achieved due to geopolitical concerns, particularly regarding Russia.
Don't forget when they made the rule that there should be no internal conflicts or active territorial disputes just to keep Ukraine out. People were terrified about hurting Russia's feel feels and yet they invaded anyway. The US and NATO have been putting up roadblocks to Ukraine since forever.
Yeah what isn’t mentioned here, is that is all in ukraines side. On the us side of things, nato has consistently held that
Ukraines internal conflict precludes them from joining nato in the first place.
There was nothing "neutral" about Yanukovych's stance. He was firmly pro-Russia and sought to be the Lukashenko of Ukraine.
1:22 That so-called "deal on the table in 2022 that they didn't take" was basically just Russian annexation of Ukraine with extra steps. The "deal" would've required the disbanding of the Ukrainian military, and Ukraine having to cede control of all their foreign policy decisions to Russia. Thus, Ukraine would be a complete Russian vassal state. And when Russia at a later date decided that they wanted to go all the way with annexing Ukraine, the demilitarization required in that "deal" would've made Ukraine completely unable to fight back.
That's why Ukraine *walked away from the table* and effectively told Russia to fuck off with that "deal". The narrative that this was some reasonable deal to end the war peacefully is pure Kremlin propaganda.
Championship level name dropper
And he should probably not have brought a bag full of names of champion clowns to drop.
There is a big difference between making up your own mind based on facts and opinions you have heard, and just being a blind follower of people whose opinions you deem valid no matter what they say.
I'ma paraplegic vet confined to a hospital bed and I support Ukraine!!!
I'm so sorry man. We love you!♥
Thank you. I love how you systematically dismantle and debunk this rightwing clowns theoretical rhetoric. Keep up the good work. Slava Ukrani 🇺🇦 🇺🇲
What's wrong with this guy? 🤦🏿♂️ Well, at least he was respectful.
The caller is right.
I bet this guy love talking to customer service
he thought Emma was Sam's manager.
@@nowthenzen lmao. Indeed
Sam is so good at quickly figuring out where people like this are heading and then just making them completely short circuit merely by asking questions.
You always know someone is serious when they cite George Galloway, the most sincere and not remotely grifterish politician in Britain.
how many of Galloway´s dictator buddies are still alive?
bad omen for Vlad....
And here we have the Appeal to Authority.
😂
Nato is a defense alliance not hostile lol
A quick google search will show that’s not true. They bombed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc.
@@hexlemorte5201 Oh no they stopped a genocide in Yugoslavia and Article 5 was invoked because of 9/11
The neo liberals are all angry that people don't fall for their BS anymore.
Nah, this is too much. This is crazy. You don’t know what you’re taking about.
@@nohbuddy1 and broke up Serbia to create a new country. I thought normies like your cared about border integrity a respect for sovereignty.
My dude came to have a philsophical pokemon battle. Choose which philopher to battle on your behalf.
We have military bases in Alaska right now, which borders Russia.
I personally would like to hear directly from merscheimer and sachs where they disagree with sam. Please bring them on!
What country has NATO invaded?
Apparently Russia teaches in their schools that Poland invaded them and Russia just defended themselves (lol) so who knows what the propaganda sources this guy is listening to are saying.
Afghanistan to name one..
Libya
@@huntergatherer7796 The U.S was attacked.
@@hexlemorte5201 wrong. NATO is defensive only.
🇺🇦🇵🇸 You're one of the only morally consistent leftists
Not really
Ukraine and Palestine aren't the same conflict, you can also support Ukraine's independence, but you should fiercely oppose US-American direction of a war that's only the business of Europe.
@@mx338 If the US funded and supported the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation would you say the US is wrong for provoking Israel and that the US should not meddle and leave the conflict up to the Middle East?
Or would you say the US is right for supporting Palestinians because they're being invaded by Israel?
@@sonjakozman1699 And you would call for the US to cut off aid to the Palestinian resistance? Even while Israel would be busy b0mbing Palestinian children?
@@fullcirclehistory If the US didn't fund Israel we wouldn't have this conflict to begin with, the US is at the fault of the awful state of the world, so just fully withdraw and stop meddling.
This is reminding me why i stopped being an MR member
"You know what Sam?" ..click!
Everyone was also mocking the CIA for predicting the Russian invasion..
So many holes in Sam's arguments here.
1. When did America indicate that they wanted Ukraine to be a part of Nato. Answer: 2008 Bucharest summit. Even Georgia was named as a future member of Nato. But Russia invaded Georgia and put that possibility to an end.
2. Ukraine wanted to be a part of Nato and EU. Answer: Ukraine was a divided country. Ukraianian speaking western Ukraine was pro-West but Russian speaking east was pro-Russia. The best thing for Ukraine would have been political neutrality. But the CIA funded coup toppled the pro-Russia president and installed an anti-Russia regime right at Russia's doorstep. Google Victoria Nuland's leaked "fuck the EU" comments.
3. We cannot stop the war when Ukrainians themselves want to fight Russia. Answer: If so then why did Boris Johnson of the UK rush to Ukraine to tell Zelensky that fighting Russia was what Zelensky actually wanted.
4. America didn't have nukes installed in Ukraine before Russia invaded. Answer: Why would Russia wait for Ukraine to join Nato and have America install its nukes there before their invasion. Any sane Russian leader would know it would be too late by that time.
I would love to see how America would behave if China made clear statements indicating it wanted Mexico to be under its nuclear umbrella and funded a coup in Mexico to overthrow a democratically elected pro-US government. We don't even need to imagine what would happen. There's a thing called Monroe Doctrine. Even though Mexico is a sovereign nation and in theory has the right to choose its military alliances, the sensible thing for Mexico is to stay on good terms with the US. And if that means saying no to China's potential military approaches then by all means yes. But somehow for Russia and Ukraine this standard doesn't apply.
Europe needs to stop being America's bitch. Get Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. Reject Ukraine's possible membership of Nato but offer both Ukraine and Russia memberships of the EU. Europe needs Russia for its vast natural resources and Russia needs Europe for its vast market. America is just playing divide-and-rule in Europe.
tankie detected. opinions discarded
More walls of text from the Orc supporters.. good times 😂😂
@@KaliahSheDevil Congratulations. You can stitch together two words at a time to form a short sentence. All is not lost. Afterall, you do seem to have some brain cells available for basic cognition.
@@hyiux The EU doesn't accept dictatorships as members, sorry. The Russian Federation is automatically disqualified and will very likely always be.
5:14 "I don't want to do specifics please, my arguements don't work when we do that"
People who can only have political conversations by recommending things for you to check out are infuriating. Put it in your own words or shut up about it.
Also, it's funny how uncomfortable Sam gets when they start piling compliments on him. Always a sign of trouble.
Sam is disingenuous. Ukraine never had operational control of the weapons. They were not their weapons but were holding onto them. Why is he saying that. Is it because he doesn't know. Or wants to deflect.
So the USSR wasn't a union?
Do you really think the Ukrainians couldn't have figured out how to arm the nukes or remanufacture new ones with the old material? They had the scientists, the nukes and the will had they not taken the deal. The majority of the Soviet arms industry is in Ukraine. Russia was buying helicopter engine from them until the invasion.
@@oohhboy-funhouse even funnier is that most soviet ships were produced in Ukraine including a large portion of Russian current navy. You have to wonder how much that has played a part in Ukraine victories against Russias navy
You think Ukrainians weren't apart of producing soviet union technology and manufacturing?
Its honestly disgusting to suggest it was provoked. As Emma says Ukraine has a voice too in this.
So much misogyny on the left. So disrespectful how he came at Emma and how Sam didn't let her defend herself.
I've watched for a bit, but never subbed due to the Ukraine war, if you support them, I support and sub to you, republican or Democrat.. doesn't matter too me as long as you don't take money from Russia and don't support bullies, your my kinda peeps!!
same
Sounds like he's getting his talking points from vivek ramsway when he was running for presidential candidate