The conflict in Ukraine has attracted a lot of online 'whataboutery'. This is the tactic where someone responds to criticism of one situation by referring to another. It is a crude and unsophisticated form of debate. But sometimes one just has to confront it. This is the case with Russia and Ukraine. I have heard a lot of comparisons with Western invasions elsewhere, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. But just how much do these cases hold up? As ever, I would be keen to hear your thoughts and comments below.
Great video, just wanted to add in terms of international support we've seen massive sanctions upon Russia, India and China increasingly forced into a more awkward neutral position as Russia further escalates, as well as a massive amount of direct aid and arms supplied In addition to this, we've seen (assumed) significant live intelligence sharing, and transfer of aircraft-- very expensive materiel. This is definitely an unprecedented move, with NATO effectively committing to aid Ukraine in every way possible except attacking Russia themselves directly (The news about aircraft transfer has been up in the air for days and only confirmed minutes ago, though, so it's not like you made a mistake!) This helps send a stronger signal to countries that, like Russia, seek to use "escalate to de-escalate" tactics and military power to violate territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of other countries
@@User-he6zd Thanks. I think you’re right. I also think India and China are finding it increasingly uncomfortable. As they should. As I tried to explain, Russia has violated every single principle of modern international relations by its action in Ukraine.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yup! I genuinely wonder if, in the very worst case, Russia falls back to its usual doctrine of levelling cities with mass indiscriminate bombing of civilians and civilian infra, how China and India will react My hope is that they would move from less awkwardly neutral to more aggressively pushing for peace, calling for explicit de-escalation from Russia's side-- but they also have the clout and power to simply to nothing and toe the same line
Whataboutism is not meant to refute the central claim but to show hypocrisy and double standards. And it's valid as long as you're comparing similar things. In this case invasions. Yes Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong but the West has so much bloods on their hands with yes Yugoslavia, Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria if we just stick to recent years that they are in no position to take the moral high ground. Sorry your position is very west centric. I live in North Africa and my view is how most people here assess the situation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not worse than any other invasion no matter what specious arguments you can make. And if the West equals the world then yes Russia is a pariah. But the West isn't the world. Sure it's the most prosperous and powerful region /block but that still doesn't make the world nor the international community.
@@mouniash OK. I made my point. It’s up to you whether you want to agree or disagree. But I would say that ignoring the across the board violations of international law by Russia because you dislike the West is extremely short sighted.
@@JamesKerLindsay The honour is mine in that case! Feel free to get in touch if ever you're wanting to collaborate on anything together in the future :)
Very interesting video! I think most people somehow know that Russia's invasion is something we've not seen for quite a while in international politics but could not quite put in words why that is. Thanks for doing exactly that!
@Finite Automata This is Russia invading Ukraine. The US is miles away over the Atlantic and, yes, has invaded other countries and killed people. Does this give Russia the right to invade Ukraine. If your country has a big neighbor, does this give that big neighbor the right to invade your country?
@Finite Automata what’s funny, lol? The US did not increase its security, nor is Russia currently increasing its security. Rather the opposite. Ukraine requested in 2008 to join NATO to increase its own security. NATO said no, but politely said maybe in the future. Had the Baltic countries not joined NATO, they would have been invaded long ago. Putin has an imperialistic mindset.
@Finite Automata I am saying that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US. Yes , the US is in Poland and in other European countries, and we also know the history of WWII and later of the Cold War. What interest would the US have in invading Russia? But Putin has interest to invade Ukraine as a prosperous Ukraine would be a political threat to his throne
As a Western scholar, I appreciate that you also criticize Western actions at the end. The US has violated these rules, eroding their strength. But to try to justify Russia's actions on that is simply a whataboutism argument.
Thanks. Yes, I don’t think the West has considered its own actions nearly enough. It has eroded key principles, even if it felt that it was doing it fur the right reasons. But this invasion crosses all sorts of boundaries - and certainly can’t be justified on the grounds of preventing human rights abuses, let alone trying to introduce democracy (as badly mismanaged as it was following Western invasions).
I’ve been following the invasion closely, and I can’t believe I completely overlooked the wider impact of the invasion. I concur with the point if US, and EU had established a strong rule based international system, this crisis could have been avoided. As I’ve seen Russian government officials justify the invasion on the grounds, that USA also invaded Iraq. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
We can conceive WW3 as something entirely different and new. Something absolutely terrifying and never seen before. While WW1 and WW2 and past imperial wars pitted 2 big blocks... WW3 could take the form of multiple regional open conflicts being fought at the same time with little to no relation between them. All medium powers could decide that the big powers being busy with their own conflicts, now could be the time to settle their regional borders and problems once and for all. Is it too far fetched to imagine China blockading Taiwan, India taking over Sri Lanka or Jammu-Kashmir; Colombia and Venezuela, Egypt and Ethiopia, Algeria and Morocco and so many more using the Ukraine conflict "distraction" and complete paralysis-decay of international order to settle their quarrels violently once and for all while everybody else has more pressing matters to attend to? Especiall in the broader context of dwindling ressources and demographic timebombs...
The west should have accepted Russia's backyard as theirs and the Ukrainian leadership should've been more pragmatic, then we wouldn't be in this situation
@@rosameltrozo5889 Last year China is looking to build a naval base in Equatorial Guinea (Africa), to which USA responded angrily, saying Africa is America's backyard and the Chinese should stay out. The distance from Equatorial Guinea to Washington DC is 9,600km. i wouldn't be surprised if the president of Equatorial Guinea is overthrown next year and the new pro-US regime bans the Chinese naval base.
Thanks James, this is so helpful. Putting emotion aside (which is incredibly difficult at this time), I was struggling to comprehend the sheer significance of this event beyond the 'invasion' narrative. On a side note, the events in Ukraine may well be the catalyst for a global revolution in dealing with the often massive corruption that permeates through elites on all sides, as clearly exposed by this appalling war. Just as an example, how can it be that the son of a wealthy KGB agent is a Lord in our parliament and owns a huge house in the middle of a royal park? How much money is swilling around for that to happen? I'm even starting to wonder if Vladimir is paying Boris to make it as difficult as possible for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK. It's almost as if nothing matters as long as elites and their friends are making obscene amounts of money.
Thanks so much Marcus. And great points about various Russians oligarchs here in the U.K. Yet more questions that really need to be asked about this government’s behaviour!
Both the UK and USA have an election system that is easy to corrupt in the Computer Age. First-past-the-post is easy to game. This attracts dishonest, amoral and immoral people even more than power and politics usually does. It allows small groups of wealthy people to have an enormous influence and easily polarize the media.
@@JamesKerLindsay Scrub out 'this' government’s behaviour - ALL government’s behaviour. We all know the system is fundamentally corrupt, and that all law is hypocrisy, where the weak are forced into obedience, while the strong go through it with a coach and horses. Having exposed police trafficking boys to a duty solicitor for decades AFTER his arrest in a public loo with a 15 year old boy, and being run through a rigged court on a Public Order Act charge based on a conspiracy between the police and the solicitor, with complainant-witnesses supplied by the solicitor - and never subject to the slightest cross-examination due to the seizure of my self-defence - I know just HOW bent English government is. And this is my THIRD such experience. But I did personally convict a council solicitor under the Public Order Act, who spray painted in 4 attacks a sign I displayed accusing him of crimes, and inviting him to sue me 'to prove to the people you claim to serve that it is'nt true'. Clearly SOMEONE did not like me playing lawyer, convicting a local government employee covering up planning committee rigging, and planning minutes being falsified, in a plot to reverse a 16 to zero planning approval vote to a planning refusal decision. This is the quality of people running England nowadays!
Whoa, a Tuesday video! But yeah, you hit the nail on the head with the idea of a sovereign polity (sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence), and the progression from Moscow's side is just too wonky to accept as "understandable" in the least. Nothing more to say on that. Hope you're staying safe and healthy, and sending best wishes to all from the US! ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm opposed to the Russian choice to invade Ukraine, and am in no way justifying and feigning ignorance to other invasions by NATO members. Don't worry, I hate everyone equally lol.
Thanks Carolyn. I know. It was a bit of an oddity. But I really wanted to say this. I also want to tackle some other subjects in my regular Friday videos. (This Friday will be completely different.) All good at this end. I hope all is well with you!
Here's my point. The reason for the genuine ANGER that a lot of people feel, particularly in the Third World, is the fact that while Russia is condemned, the U.S. and Britain saw no consequence whatsoever for its war crimes and atrocities particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the invasion of Iraq which left for than a million killed and millions more displaced. And further to that point, EVERY TIME we try to point out these things, we're immediately accused by people like Spartacus Olsson on RUclips of supporting Putin or engaging in "Russian propaganda", as if any criticism of U.S. actions means support for Russia. I was even in fact compared to Vladimir Putin when I brought up U.S. led interventions in the Middle East. No one was to this day held accountable and punished for their war crimes against Iraqis, Syrians, the Libyans, Yemenis, Kurds who were victimised for decades by the U.S. and it's allies. Indeed, not only are U.S. war criminals protected, they're respected! And resources looted from the middle East are kept by U.S. companies in violation of international law. The whole world knows that. And furhermore the racist double standard in in focusing on the suffering of blond haired and blue eyed Ukrainians victimised by Russia while ignoring the Arabs, Kurds and Africans victimised by the U.S. and Britain really is a painful thorn in one's side; an overt and irritating reminder of U.S. hegemony in the Third World and our inability to do anything about it. Every time we bring these things up we are shut down, including this poster. So what voice do we have against the U.S. and it's allies?
Dear Professor, I'm genuinely glad that you share your knowledge with us, so that a history-geopolitis enthusiast like me can learn from a top notch source. The only thing that worries me that Putin is not going to back off, because if he does so his political life or even his own life will end and all his dreams will come crashing down. If he does not back down, the excessively harsh sanctions might force him to utilize nuclear threat to confront the sanctioning countrie, and WWIII becomes a reality. All the world, including Putin and his enemies are now stuck between a rock and a hard place
Thank you so much. I’m really glad you found it interesting. I agree. We are at an extremely dangerous moment in international relations. I still like to believe that everyone will keep calm. But we do need to think about how we understand the rules of the system in future. I think we need a reset. But I really don’t know how we do it.
@@peterfireflylund you are probably from a democratic western country. You don't know how the things work in dictatorships. If the dictator falls, all his friends and subordinates will fall too. They will never destroy the head of a system that made them who they are
@@fearlessgeneral120 No. not really. I’m using the term reset to denote an attempt to return to the original understanding of principles. That’s all. I’m not comparing it to any specific ‘resets’ of the past.
This is why like your content. You don't let emotion become part of telling the story. You tell like it is, from an educated, articulate and unadulterated viewpoint. Which is quite hard honestly.
Thank you so much. I know that it can come across as cold, but sometimes it is important to look beyond the emotion of the situation and break it down. This is not to say for one moment that the suffering isn’t important. It is hugely important. But understanding the roots of that suffering is also crucial if the international community is to try to stop it from happening in future.
2007 Putin gave a speech in Munich where he asks for a new set of rules and but no one listened and US carried on ruling alone. And now we have no rules, and who's to blame?
In fact, Ukraine collapsed and ceased to exist in 2014. Now it's just post soviet territory with pro-nazi regime. Russia, successor of USSR, just taken their territory and people back. I see nothing wrong with it.
Pro Nazi? That's why no far right parties won seats in parliament? Is Iraq a pro communist country because it has communist militias in its army? Zelenski was democraticly elected more than Putin can say
Very enlightening on what the Russian action on Ukraine imply. But I hope you can do a similar, in-depth, intelligent, "detached" analysis on why Russia did what it did. Pls give us the entire picture not only starting from Feb. 24, 2022 but eight years before that. Pls provide us with your analyses particularly on what agreements were made and who violated such agreements so that we can have a better if not more objective picture of the conflict. I hope you're not one of those who claim that Putin is a crazy, megalomanic, power-hungry imperialist. Thank you.
The Ukraine was a UN member before Russia, which only joined the UN on inheriting the USSR's seat. The Russian invasion differs from Afghanistan and Iraq in that it is combined with an assault on the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
Very true. I have actually made a video on their membership of the UN in 1945 ruclips.net/video/z0RwWZXeb-0/видео.html And you are right about the key differences, as I make clear in the video.
Wait what? You completely missed the point of the argument. The argument is that civilians are k!lled unjustly by an organized military. In any case, doesn't america put in place their own puppets when they go to these countries? How is that any different from what's happening now?
Fantastic video as always James. Interesting to mention the confederation idea. The Russia Belarus Union State on paper looks barely in existence, yet no doubt behind the scenes Russia controls Belarus in many ways.
Thanks. Great point. The Union State is a strange beast. I did something on it a while back. It is interesting to consider where it stands now. ruclips.net/video/VAx2aVvwf8w/видео.html
I honestly think Belarus is only a sovereign state in name, but completely onder direct and firm control of Russia. I personally think Ukraine will suffer the same faith as the former food provider for the Soviets. I so hope that all parties keep their cool and not drag us I to WW3. I also understand that the former Baltic states are getting very, very nervous about this Big Bulley behaviour Russia has showed us. It is sad to see Russia behave just like Adolf Hitler in 1939. Same excuse to invade another neighbouring sovereign state. The Russian government is no better than the Fascist regimes they hated so much.
@@riiitch But Belarus is not a Russian puppet. Lukashenko is able to play Putin. He promises union with Russia but never delivers (unless he can become the leader of Russia) and through it is able to get benefits like gas and oil at below market rates from Russia.
Your argument is well put, James! Unlike the US and Europe, "Russia's actions in Ukraine go far beyond anything we've seen before." Unlike the Anglo-European attempts at simple violation of sovereignty and regime change in brown/dark, Third World "uncivilized" peoples' countries, Russia goes a step further by attempting to change current borders and annex some parts of the "white, relatively civilized, relatively European, Christian" Ukraine. When you say it like this James, I am reminded (allow me to digress a little, please) by a David Rennie who, like many others, complains about intellectual property theft when it comes to China. He talks about how the West, specifically America, complains about how some Chinese companies steal Euro-American technologies. But there also is something interesting, and similar to what you are saying here James, that he invokes. He says; "the American government will tell you [meaning China] sure, [the American government] sp[ies] and steal[s] stuff, but not for commercial purposes." This means that China, on the other hand, spies and steals, not only for governmental and homeland security purposes, but, going a step further, to commercialize and sell what it steals. The question is, should other countries in the World wait for the US or Western Europe to set a precedent, or continue, as you have said, "erod[ing] those rules" while other nations wait by the wayside? Hell No! The long 19th century is over. My point here is that white, Anglo-Euopean-centric people like you, implicitly or explicitly, are saying that if this "bad" thing or this next step we Euro-Americans did not do post-1945 (interesting date by the way, a date that purposefully omits and forgives whatever has happened before, like the American territorial conquest of Mexican lands) you Russians/Chinese or other brownies and darkies around the World dare not do, lest we economically sanction you, or outright invade and topple your governments, respectively.
@@Dani-ir3kk The UN is an institution created by the victorious parties in the second world war. Hence it's founding permanent members were the victorious powers (SU, USA, ROC, UK). It was created by and to the represent the interests of these nations, not "the west".
1945 is not in any sense accidental or ideologically motivated. The end of the second world war created the modern world of international relations. It is not designed to "cover up" previous violations by western countries, as it also naturally omits the countless violations commited by non-western states before its founding (such as the arab conquests of the ME and Iran), since none of these entities could be held to this standard as it did not exist (right of conquest was seen as totally legitimate until at least the first world war).
Well done James. Someone has finally understood, called out and criticised the violation of Serbia’s territorial integrity by the west thus eroding the basic principle that the west brings up anytime it suits them i.e. Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Indeed. And that’s why it is so disappointing that so many people in Serbia are cheering Russia on. Ukraine never did anything against Serbia. It hasn’t recognised Kosovo. And yet far too many people in Serbia (most Serbs) support Putin against Ukraine because, well, NATO attacked Serbia. It really is incredibly depressing.
Ok i'm on 5:32, you are talking how there is no country that benefits from Kosovo independece, how about US with biggest military base in Balkan region on Kosovo? I'm now on 9:40, if the West is finances the protests and forcing propaganda to take down the goverment, like in Yugoslavia, does that mean interfering in the politics of another country? In Serbia, that time Yugoslavia, civilians also got killed when Nato drop bombs.(Nato - an alliance that only defends its own members) Which Nato country they defended? The only reason why there was far less civilian casualties than in Ukraine is because Serbian soldiers didn't hide themself behind residential buildings and when Serbian army was defeated Serbia surrendered, there was no need that civilians die even more. You know that Ukranian government does not allow men to leave the city, even when they do not want to fight, and a large percentage of Kiev residents declare themselves as Russians. But anyway there was a civilian casualties in Yugoslavia, breaking international laws and I did not see Nato or Us in Hag court. It's double standards. The Russia have all rights when they say "We don't want Nato on our doorstep". I feel sorry for Ukranian people, they fell for Western empty promises, and the West is now in the first row, watching and listening how Zelensky begs for help, and doing nothing to help Ukraine and doing everything to reduce the growth of Russia's and China's economy. It's just what's in their interests, no hard feelings( famous Us saying).
Excellent analysis of the Russian invasion. The all but universal condemnation of Russia’s actions suggest the many recognize that this action is, at its root, different from other recent armed conflicts, and that it is wrong in every way, even without knowing exactly how. Professor Ker-Lindsay has succinctly and understandably described exactly how Russia’s action is wrong.
Thank you for this excellent analysis professor! One argument that I would like to point out that, in the case of Yugoslavia, a regime change was not formally proposed but was, indeed, carried out in 2000., with a pro-western government taking power. The same status applies today, where western ambassadors are still the shadow governors and have an absolute control of politics and policies. The necessity of changing the Milosevic government was best felt by the Serbian people and was reflected heavily on our living standards but now, 20 years on, the majority of people feel betrayed and wary of the west's further promises of good intentions.
I agree with you. When you read that UK ambassador is going directly to government meeting bypassing Ministry of Foreign affairs with own requests, so you know it is vassal state. Since they know that they can be overthrown in 10 days with 10 million EUR ( widespread unpopularity, African level of corruption, criminality) they carry on whatever is asked for them by colonial rulers. If they do not listen soon will be released from mystical sources mp3 recordings with juicy conversations to few selected media (like in Northern Macedonia and Gruev affair ) and shit will hit the fan. They know that very well and listen and do what is required of them. So it is win win for both sides. Puppet state doing required job, interests of involved served. Gringos do not care what you feel about these political geniuses you see on your shitty state TV or do you have something to eat or not. They are more intelligent then Slobo babe, but they will ultimatively fail too, since you can falsify everything but not economy. It is going to be very interesting day for them anyway.
I think serbs elected the "pro-western" government and after they elected others less prowestern, maybe this is democracy and hasless to do with forced government changing by external forces. Regarding the betray feeling, there is no reason for this, UE is not a charity fundation. Before feeling betrayed by any in this world you need to choose, i know it is a hard choice to do but you have do do it one way or another. You will find many to cry and console you about your misfortunes but is just a waste of time, be realist.
Putin's rhetoric aside, we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be. Anyway, unilateral actions against any country is the primary violation of international law. The other two are relevant yes. But the damage is done. And in the majority cases things are never the same. Friendly governments are installed and so on. Others are made economically dependent. How sovereign are they. Does territorial integrity mean anything if you have no sovereignty. We shouldn't make excuses for any power professor.
"we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be." Well Zelensky said recently he is willing to discuss the matter of Donbas and Crimea with the Northern dictator. As well as that he will not join Nato anymore because they failed him.
@@georgedevries3992 My main pushback to what the professor was saying is that there really is no difference between what Russia is doing now to what the US and allies did in the past. Both are and did leave death and devastation behind. I thought the professor was doing gymnastics in trying to white wash the US incursions.
@@kokica007 i think he’s just trying to avoid getting called a Putin supporter since that’s what you’ll get labeled if you say anything about possible role of US/NATO in precipitate this war.
The good professor is presenting Russia as doing all these actions out of a whim. Forgets that Ukraine's integrity guaranteed in 1994 was based on a neutral Ukraine, not inimical to Russia, which informally changed in 2014 with the US backed coup that was a regime change in Kiev, bringing an ultra-nationalist faction in power, and formally in 2019 with the change in constitution to move Ukraine in NATO, which is a military alliance against Russia. Forgets that Crimea voted in 1991 as well as in 2014 to separate from Ukraine and re--unite with Russia, of which was historically being part of. Forgets that Ukraine has decided to sort out the autonomous Russian population in Donbas by the power of arms and not by negotiations and that the international community has approved a resolution (Minsk 2) since 2015 which Ukraine declared that it will not implement and instead has prepared for years to take back control via armed forces, rather than negotiations. Forgetting all these facts and focusing on what Russia has been doing since February 24, 2022, without providing the full geo-political context (i.e. musings in the US of a desire to split Russia in several pieces), makes the good professor a rather partial historical advocate.
I feel like people should also note the similarities between this and Cuba. Both nations had spent time as a territory under their neighboring superpower, becoming free with the blessing of the superpower, and eventually opposing them, and the neighboring superpower seeing that the nation might play host to it’s rival’s military and nuclear weapons. And both Cuba and Ukraine are next to the heartland of the superpower who for decades hasn’t had to worry about such a geopolitical threat. Also both in the terms of their backer (Russia for Cuba and US for Ukraine) backed away from militarily defending them when a crisis rose up. And both superpowers funded and supported rebels within the other’s nations (Bay of Pigs for US, DPR and LPR for Russia) as well as both were heavily involved in disrupting the internal affairs of Cuba and Ukraine. Yet there’s one big difference between both of them, how it ended. America never once declared war on Cuba and launched a military invasion with American boots and aircraft, despite coming close several different times and not even when the Soviets fell, while Russia did with Ukraine. One must ask themselves why America decided to show some level of restraint while Russia didn’t? I’m not trying to paint America as a perfect nation either. America has definitely made some bad decisions, but these 2 crises are so similar in nature that comparing the two should be appropriate. It can help determine how both the US and Russia address what they consider “external threats to their nation’s heartland” in future conflicts
I found your framing in terms of the trifecta of violations to be helpful. Nevertheless, Mearsheimer, and others will point to the relatively greater significance of Ukraine to Russia because it couldn't be any deeper inside its geopolitical sphere of influence. I think they make a powerful case that the "West" was extremely provocative in the decades leading up to the invasion. I appreciate "spheres of influence" may not have any legal basis, but as Chas Freeman has written about recently they are nevertheless indispensable in understanding the world. I think this is important because it changes how we think about the significance of the invasion itself (leaving aside potential escalation and other knock on effects).
Thanks. But I guess my response would be that this rather overlooks the fact that Russia is an aggressively imperialist power in its own right. It is tempting to look at it and think that it is the aggrieved party. It isn’t. It is a state built on colonialism, like so many other European powers. But unlike the other European colonial powers, it has never really had to contend with decolonisation. And where examples exist of countries having broken away from Russian control with collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen continuous attempts by Moscow to thwart that independence and deny them their agency. If Russia really offered them something, then they would perfectly at liberty to engage with Russia. NATO doesn’t force anyone to join. But Russia doesn’t offer them anything. So, I’m far less inclined to accept the Russia was provoked line than some observers. And I certainly don’t think that Ukraine and others should be subjected to a de facto Russian veto on their sovereignty because Putin couldn’t deal with the collapse of the USSR and that the Russia that emerged offered nothing but threats and cheap energy to keep the former republics in its geopolitical orbit.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think Mearsheimer et al agree that the invasion is unjustified, criminal aggression. Walt emphasized this at a number of points in the Munk Debate. However, provocation is another matter. They argue the Russians were provoked over decades, and that senior people in various US administrations understood that this is what US policy was doing. They point to US analysis that the de-facto incorporation of Ukraine into Nato would be the "brightest of red lines" in the Kremlin, whoever was running the country. They argue the US, by cavalierly disregarding geopolitical red lines -- in effect treating Russia as a defeated power -- was relentlessly driving the world into this avoidable tragedy (which they argue could have been avoided had Ukraine been made into a buffer state, militarily neutral). Anyway, the point I was making above was that this realist analysis is surely relevant to the question you were addressing in your video about the significance of the invasion. Had Russia invaded Japan, say, the significance and shock would be far greater. But not for any legal reason (legally the crimes would be equivalent), but for realist reasons of spheres of influence -- Japan being since WWII in the US sphere. As criminal and horrific as the Ukraine invasion is, it is a great power asserting its dominance over its sphere of influence which it sees as being under threat from the encroachment of another great power. Whereas an invasion of Japan would look much more like an offensive move. To put it another way, from the Kremlin's point of view, Ukraine is a domino one step removed from Russia itself. In the Q&A session 2 weeks ago with Mearsheimer in Florence, Mearsheimer said the Kremlin lives in mortal terror of a Colour Revolution in Moscow itself. In effect they see Ukraine like the US saw Indochina during the Vietnam War, as a domino which could lead to the loss of Japan. Except this is far closer to Moscow, and a much more acute concern, than Vietnam was to Washington. Bringing up these parallels is not to play whataboutery to justify anything, but rather to highlight the contours of power, and the nature of conflict in international relations -- because it shows what no purely legal analysis can reveal, which is the recklessness of US policy towards Russia over the last 20 years. And I think this casts light on the significance of the invasion, and how we should think about it in the wider contexts. I certainly hope for a day when, maybe under federal world government, there is justice and peace. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is abhorrent, and I hope an antiwar movement can prevail in Russia (as it ultimately did in the US to end the Vietnam War). But the world today is run by rival mafia gangs where a fragile peace can only be maintained by either one dominant superpower or though some tense multipolar balance. In prevailing legal theory (pax-Americana it should be noted!), Ukraine is free to join Nato. But in the real world, the most powerful mafia gang has roamed deep into a rival's territory and is behaving extremely provocatively. Both gangs have large nuclear arsenals, and both would ultimately fight to the death, and have come within a hair's breadth of destroying themselves on a few occasions in the past.
@@cuttysark57 this is a well-thought-out and well-expressed perspective, and I thank you for sharing it. Complicating the picture is the presence of newly found resources in eastern Ukraine- coal and iron reserves. ("spoils of war?") In an important sense, I feel the quest for who caused what is interesting, but not relevant (even peace terms will be based on who now occupies what). Mearscheimer's view is not satisfactory because it disregards the agency of all involved parties- especially the Ukrainians. Ukrainians wanted to be in the EU because they didn't want to join a defunct, back-water and impoverished Russian-dominated confederation (like Belorus has). They feared Russia (like Sweden and Finland do) and therefore sought out the protection of Nato- and this was encouraged by the West- who, cynically, had no desire to directly intervene if it all blew up. But there were factors other than sphere of influence viewpoint- the fact that Putin and many Russians (including the Orthodox Church) do not see Ukrainians as a separate, well-defined, self-determining people, but rather as an entities that need to be folded into Russia World (the old imperial Russia). Now, though, it's all academic and war crimes are occurring in real-time (including the deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia) . Definitely Ukraine, and also definitely Russia, will wind up in worse shape than before the war started- and maybe also Poland, the Balts, and many other places in the global South- and maybe even the US. It was a tragic series of mistakes with consequences that are still unfolding- I think that Ukraine was doomed by the desire of Ukrainians to become a normal , open, prosperous European state, not corruption-ridden like Russia, not wanting to live in perpetual fear of Russia- now there are war crimes, and ruined cities, fear and misery, (as you point out) and starving people in the developing world.
On day 1 of this terrible invasion, I said "Russia may not be following America / UK's lead when it comes to invasions, but the pair's actions effectively wrote Russia a permission slip". Putin has seen certain other countries do whatever they like without repercussion, and figured he could do the same.
Clear, concise and an excellent brief on why Russia's aggressive invasion and war with Ukraine is vitally important for the risk it brings of international peace and security.
So in Ukraine Russia has violated all three of the naughty interlinked concepts whilst the US has only violated two of the three concepts a myriad of times. The world shall decide which is worse: the violation of all three once or twice or the continual violation of two of them going back to the sixties. Remember the best argument against 'whataboutery' is good, oldfashioned hypocrisy
An indepth, informed analysis of fundamental areas of international relations. Enlightening. I learned a lot from this video and intend to listen to it several more times.
Thank you so much Omar. I am really glad that you found it interesting. I hoped it would lead to a bit more discussion about the deeper significance of what is happening in Ukraine. This could really change the whole pattern of international relations.
@@JamesKerLindsay Very interesting take on events and perceived wider implications relating to the current international order. With that being said, there is a major geographical difference between the actions of Russia and NATO, and that is, NATO via the international community or vice versa has largely embarked upon wars of projection to supposedly protect its interests or those of the dominant member states. It is the main reason for no apparent changing of borders after illegal interventions, although it could also be argued that all such actions across the middle east and especially within Syria are part of a wider plan seeking to develop a Greater Israel at some point in the future. By contrast, Russia and Ukraine are contiguous and both share a common history. As generally western powers have sought to strengthen the international order unnecessarily via ceaseless NATO expansion, Ukraine's present and some would say illegitimate regime has thought it prudent to place itself in the position of becoming a threat to Russia by way of courting international approval and seeking the possibility to have tactical nuclear weapons placed on its soil on behalf of the bloc as Romania was also previously looking to do. Thus an existential threat to the whole idea of Russia is looming despite reassurances from the protagonists and it is therefore not and should not be something that is ignored by Russia regardless of who is in power. Vladimir Putin has made it very clear in the past to those who seek a world without Russia as a major player that his opinion is that such a world should have no right to exist. As such, some people are playing a very devious and dangerous game at the moment and a lot of it is very underhanded and stemming from those who you appear to suggest are responsible for maintaining the peace since WW2. Given their dismissal of Russian concerns and constant arming of a sovereign neighbour composed of what should be classed as many terrorist elements that is still launching military attacks against Russian speakers in the East of the country despite the Minsk agreements and while painting Russia as an enemy, is it any wonder Russia has chose to nullify the threat before the undoubtedly corrupt Ukrainian government gained NATO admission which would mean that any future defensive action by Russia could be met with what would amount to a manufactured Article 5 response? The threat to Russia and its sovereignty has undoubtedly been far greater leading up to this action than any threat to any other nation or nations in recent years that led to acts of western aggression. Based on Ukraine's failure to simply be as a neutral state, we are now in a mess that could blow out of all proportion based on many people across the globe seriously lacking the ability to view things from the Russian perspective. The whole operation has been aimed at destroying military capability which lies in the hands of extremists, and anyone who stands or voices opinion against that is someone who endorses it when it suits them. Certainly some innocent lives will be lost and that is a tragedy, but it is nothing compared to what could happen if opinions and beliefs do not change very rapidly. At the end of the day it is not like any of those so-called leaders care about innocent lives, is it?
@@anthonystewart677 Thanks. But I just don’t but into the whole ‘Russia was threatened by NATO and do is justified in attacking and occupying Ukraine’ story. NATO was never a threat to Russia. It is 30 sovereign states that are not going to agree to a war if aggression against a nuclear armed state. Besides, why is Russia allowed to extend its influence over Belarus and yet NATO can’t do the same with Ukraine. Indeed, NATO has never demanded that Russia stay away from Belarus or else it will attack. Moscow does not get to treat other countries like its vassals and attack them when they don’t comply. It is utterly unforgivable and there is no reasonable justification for this war. Let’s stop pretending that there is.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the reply. We shall have to disagree, I'm afraid. The whole purpose of NATO was to counteract the threat of the former Soviet Union and since the fall of it NATO has aggressively expanded, when in reality it should have been disbanded. Therefore, the threat I would say is real, and I am sure many Russians would feel the same way. Recent studies by the likes of the Rand corporation looking at the best options to destabilize Russia are not imaginary, whereas the placing of Tomahawks or their silos on NATO soil in the likes of Romania supposedly to counteract threats from ISIS are not genuine. Russia is and has been being encircled on its western borders for quite some time and has been voicing concern about it for many years. With regards to Russia extending its influence over the likes of Belarus; once again, they are adjoining and share common ancestry/history. To claim that it is a wrong for Russia to have influence there is akin to claiming London should have no rights or influence over Scotland or Wales at all. Why should NATO exert control over Ukraine? The only reason they are able to do so and have looked to take full advantage of the fact is due to the CIA sponsored coup. It is antagonistic expansion of the bloc and is tantamount to implicit changing of borders without direct conflict. I would like to agree with you on the point that 30 sovereign states are never going to agree to wage a war of aggression against Russia and do so to an extent but, that would only be insofar as them being aware of the Nuclear capability you mention. If Russia never had that as a deterrent, then I am sure its resources would be viewed as legitimate objectives by any means by some of those members involved by way of spewing out their undoubted hypocrisy. I would like to have thought none of those countries would have agreed to attack the state of Syria while besmirching its leader as a vile and evil tyrant as he sought to fight his country out of constant terrorist attack from people we were supposedly fighting against and based on demonstrably false accusations of chemical weapons attacks. Sadly, they all did it with impunity. I feel it is very rare for a war to be justified but on this occasion I would say it is, as I fear the consequences if it hadn't occurred would be far worse down the line. I am still not fully convinced this will not be the case based on current insulated and westernized views of Russia. Then we would all have to ask ourselves the question: was it worth all of us dying and humanity being erased for American subversion techniques in a former soviet union member that has its militarily predominantly consisting of far-right ultras and other assorted fascists while pretending they are the epitome of democracy? I think not.
Amazing video as always! As someone who had to hear other academics around me defend the Russian invasion on the grounds that "the U.S. did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan!" and struggled to explain why this is different in a way that didn't sound apologetic towards NATO, this is a godsend. Thank you for all your hard work!
Thanks so much. I’m really glad it helped flesh out some of the arguments. I also heard a lot of that talk and felt that it didn’t capture the real significance of this war over others.
Another thing to consider in those comparisons is the internal aspect, both within alliances and states themselves. For better or worse, the American public elected a President who invaded Iraq, and then re-elected him. Throughout all of it, Americans were free to say whatever they wanted, and even openly condemn the invasion. Similarly, other NATO countries were free to not participate in what they considered to be an unjust invasion, just as they were free to give aid in Afghanistan. Iraq is of course muddied by the fact that the public was purposefully misled about certain details - but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation. It sounds pedantic (after all, the invasions happened regardless), but compare this to Russia, where Belarus is being dragged along whether it wants it or not, and where the Russian people aren't even allowed to describe it as a war, nor condemn it. The internal dialogue isn't just muddled by misinformation, it is flat out not present. This seems like a minor quibble, but I think it stands that if a move like Putin's needs to have massive censorship in order for it to be carried out, that should cast some shadow of a doubt as to its true intentions.
@@Hoopsnake ""but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation."" not really, they were leveled by everyone as just crazy conspiracy theory people... it was fun to watch how Obama was gifted the nobel peace prize the same week he was sending new troops to the middle east!!!...
Did the Ukrainian government respect the rights of its citizens in the Donbass during the last eight years ? Also note the atrocity in Odessa on May 2nd, 2014.
2:15 I don't find this argument valid because there are definitely ways in which countries are not really independent in their economic policies. A good case would be Greece in the early 2010s that had its hands tied behind its back when trying to wrestle with increasing debt. Germany was pretty stubborn in lowering its surplus to the point where the ex fed chair Bernanke criticized them for making the recovery difficult. There is more literature on this by other economists. So, yes, Russia's invasion is unprecedented in terms of their overt stance on simply invading and conquering, but really, I find the argument you presented here a little shallow. 3:54 this point also seems weakened by the fact that the UN has the security council mechanism to veto which really violates the idea of egalitarianism. I just find it semantical saying that Iraq doesn't count because territory wasn't annexed. That doesn't make it any less wrong especially when thousands of people died based on a false casus belli. And in 5:19 you argue that annexation wasn't the goal. I think the point you are making here is that wars are only bad when annexation is involved and I don't think that holds. It really feels like you are treating these wars too differently which is why you are seeing a lot of whataboutism.
How far back in time do you regard as the modern era? Perhaps you could comment on the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1959. Tibet is facing a deliberate attempt to destroy its language, culture, and indeed national existence.
Nice, informative video, Professor. Whenever you see fit, I would love to hear your insightful point of view on the conflicts happening in Yemen, Syria and Palestina from the same point of view you used in this one (rules of international relations defined in the UN chart).
a rare but a balanced argument from a British academic. The default position of most western scholars and citizens from the Western Europe is an outright condemnation of Russia without breaking the pieces apart. Powerful, Western and Eastern nations have their share of blame. An example has been set for China on how to deal with Taiwan should she dares declare her independence. World leaders should quickly call for and negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and restore her land boarders. We in Africa has seen the ruthlessness of Western powers in Libya and would not want Ukraine to be reduced to rubbles as well. Thank You Prof
Well done… I learned a lot. I think your last 3 minutes resonates most with me… rules have been bent for so long. Eventually it would be broken. My heart breaks for all the refugees who have to suffer through this.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, thanks, I’m very well. Have just been too busy lately (so many videos to see, so little time). You look well, so I assume you are 👍
I would say that this video is a great counter to whataboutism, if people would listen and comprehend the valid points you are making. Academic discourse often provokes agitation due to its perceived detached "coldness". People's emotions are a key aspect of decision making. Many "average people" feel that academics don't care about them and ignore their plight. I'm speaking from personal observation. Sometimes people can't articulate any immediate reasons, they just feel wronged, or if someone shifts topics - they feel ignored. I would personally use your argument in the future to give "whataboutists" a concise and solid response, which takes their specific view into account. Thank you!
Whataboutism is hypocritical by definition. It defeats itself in the moral argument. It has no standing in common law. If you are tried for murder, the point when you start using the defence that the guy in the next courtroom also murdered someone is the exact moment when educated people stop taking you seriously. You're done. It's over
Dear Professor, the Russian president often speaks of NATO's violation of 'agreements' of eastward expansion and ignoring of Russia's demands of said issue. How much of this is true, or rather, how does the West see this?
I would argue that there were countries benefiting from the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. US and its allies have gained concessions of the province's rare metal mines and installed military bases for good. Meanwhile Albania and the breakaway government in Pristina have introduced a borderless regime - in effect a customs' union.
The main issue with your argument is that these wars are not independent. Also, I think we should not use any false actions to explain another false action. The blood is in the hand of all countries in the UN security council so what is the point of the UN regulations. For me, it doesn't really matter if they violate all or any so called principals. Once a war started, it is unacceptable. On this matter, NATO countries should be held accountable first (which was and will never happen), not the Russia.
I feel like Taiwan, Finland, Sweden & Moldova (via Transnistria) are possibly next to face aggression - and in the long term, a geopolitical fight for Sri Lanka by superpowers, this is just the start of a Cold War 2.0. Just like NATO & Russia, the label “special operation” / “humanitarian mission” has been exploited by Sri Lanka at the peak of the genocide in 2009
Sweden and Finland are members of the EU and according to the Mutual defense clause (Article 42.7 TEU), which say: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, following Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Thus, not as vulnerable as you may first think. Secondly, there is a solid bond to the UK and regular military cooperation between Finland and Sweden, and a trilateral agreement with the USA. You will likely see "harassments" via cyber-attacks and other provocations.
James, let's be honest and admit that the aforementioned rulebook stopped being valid the day bipolar world stopped existing. No punishment no laws. What indeed is different this time is that it is done with relative impunity by someone different than the US.
@@erjonhoxha5074 So if Republic of Srpska would become a part of Serbia because a certain numbers of countries wants it so, your would be fine with it, even agree on it. Or even better, Northern Kosovo.
@@abc-eq9so yes. If Northern Kosovo truly is a Serb majority as they say I don't understand fighting over it. On that note Presheva and RS should also be joined with the nation that they want (Albania/Serbia) Though I would imagine it'd be really easy to screw with the voting system considering this is the Balkans. All in all, what I'm saying is, people's will should probably determine who they want to be with. Not economic reasons (land).
Another brilliant analysis from the Prof. The current crisis in Ukraine represents a fundamental turning point in history. Sadly, we are seeing the abandonment of a doctrine promulgated by the EU whereby trade was seen as a way of binding nations together in peaceful coexistence. Integrating Russia economically with the EU was seen as a way of preventing conflict and war due to the mutual interest and benefits that trade brought. Sadly, the EU did not reckon with Putin, who despite this doctrine initiated and then ramped up egregious human rights violations and sought to cynically exploit the West with the end of reconstituting a fallen empire. Putin of course, in true narcissistic form, would be the emperor. The EU and the West tolerated Putin's prior transgressions, however the illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine was a tipping point. The only good thing to come from this mess is that the EU, the West and particularly Germany has now woken up, and concrete steps are being taken to eliminate dependence on Russian resources and at last they are strengthening NATO. Just one last point, and I hope you will do a video on this, is that some think Putin will then move on to attack former states of the Soviet Union that now are NATO members. I am reminded in this of the 'domino theory' that led the US into the disastrous conflict in Vietnam. The justification was that if one state become a communist regime, those next to it would similarly fall. This proved erroneous. Based on the problematic display of Russian conventional military forces in Ukraine, even Putin would have serious second thoughts about transgressions that would invoke article 5 of NATO and confronting the military forces of a unified NATO. He's testing the limits by invoking threats of nuclear war, a very dangerous and irresponsible game of brinkmanship, however Putin is a very dangerous man. We should have seen this years ago.
you should also address the constant transgressions by US policies againts fundamental Russion interests of security, most notably to lure Ukraine - against all official confirmations towards Russia - into NATO. And arming and supporting right wing groups in Ukraine in order to bolster up these attempts. Not to mention the US cooperation with Ukraine on biochemical weapon research and development centres in Ukraine.
While I agree with many of your points. But when the USSR collapsed it little choice but to do whatever the victor of the cold war wanted. When you've been beaten into the ground. Claiming that it's your ground that you bled on does little good.
Appreciate that you mentioned other similar actions,video and presentation are non biased and accurate. I personally agree with 98% of what you presented in video except for end-every of those actions mentioned should have been, and should be opposed. Greetings.
Thank you professor for doing another video on this morbid topic, it’s terrible to see so many people killed, soldiers and civilians To add to your points about Russia wanting to eliminate Ukraine’s political sovereignty, Putin talked in his initial Monday morning speech that recognized the Donbas republics about the idea that Ukraine was created by “Bolshevik Communist Russia” and that it was (at least after the annexation of the Zaparozhian Cossack vassal state in the mid-1700s) previously until 1917 just an unofficial region of the Russian Empire comprising several different governorates, blaming Soviet Russia for “creating” the borders of the Ukraine SSR and thus the State of Ukraine, with Putin going so far in the speech as to refer to Ukraine as “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine”. This clearly-stated belief of Putin’s was then furthered by the map accompanying Alexander Lukashenko the other day, depicting Ukraine exactly as idealized by Putin in his speech: as several Russian governorates. However it’s beginning to look like that may not happen, Russia is advancing ever so slowly but they are in trouble. If they turn up the heat to Syria-mode then wheat are they left with if they win? A bombed out wasteland with a population that hates them and is going to be constantly fighting them in the rubble-filled streets, all while sanctioned by the entire world except Communist China, who may also be sanctioned for their would-be support? And they certainly can’t contemplate defeat, as that would mean the end of Putin, and all that would follow, but from Putin’s perspective it would mean the end of everything, so defeat is not an option. However it is possible that Russia’s oligarchs see how much of a Pyrrhic victory it would be, and force Putin out before he is either defeated or victorious, resetting the previous status quo under a new leader in Putin’s circle. In relation to how we got here, there are a lot of events that have caused this, but mostly I think this was inevitable. The biggest factor is simply Vladimir Putin and his life experiences, after watching the Soviet Union collapse and, more importantly in his mind, the territories of the former Russian Empire slip away even as Russia finally shed Communism, he has set himself on a Hitlerian mission, a Napoleonic mission, and he always has been. He built off of the Russian-backed puppet states created in 1992 and invaded Georgia in 2008, made Belarus’ own strongman, who once had his eye on ruling Russia, into a puppet, created more new puppets in Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The reality is that only the plane shootdown and subsequent Russian denials of involvement and “freezing” (while thousands were still being kille) of the frontlines in the Donbas War stopped Russia from annexing or creating puppet states across all of southeastern Ukraine in 2014. All that said I think he has miscalculated. Putin probably could have had much of Ukraine via that same piecemeal fashion, never escalating enough to set off a total firestorm. The total invasion is totally unexpected by almost everyone, seems reckless, and now that the more “civilian-friendly” tactic of not carpet-bombing cities seems to not be working, and as Putin gets weaker by the day, the options for Putin are narrowing to a choice between bad (takes over Ukraine, but international pariah and has to expend huge financial and military costs to quell incessant rebellion and also rebuild for their own use of the country) and worse (Ukraine wins victories significant enough to either trigger either an overthrow from Putin’s inner circle, or the total collapse of the regime). Prayers for the civilians involved.
Thanks for the video! This indirectly has to do with the conflict, of a do you think that a possible annexation of Moldova in Romania can become a possibility because of the threat Russia could pose with Moldova outside of Nato and the EU?
A very necessary video at this time when all I see is so much misinformation, false equivalence and mindless whataboutery. As you pointed out in the end, other invasions that are cited could be condemned, but this ought to be opposed.
The message in your video is so significant. Many in China and Russia etc would argue the international rules established after world war two and since being upheld by the US hegemony doesn't matter, but it has been fundamental for the overall world peace and decolonization in the last 70 years, and countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China etc whose development depend on export and international trade have benefitted from the international rules massively without contributing any to uphold it. On the other hand many of the USA actions such as regime change and country destroying plus rebuilding have cost so many lives and have been sabotaging the system. So those who seek the demise of international rules and substitute it with authoritarianism and those people in democratic countries who are doing the sabotage jobs both deserve condemnation and opposition.
I cover this in the video. It’s merely a euphemism for invasion. Any unwanted military violation of another country’s sovereignty is, by definition, and invasion.
@@thirtysixnanoseconds1086 Yes. It really does raise questions about the UN. But on balance I do believe that the UN is an instituting worth protecting. This is why this action must be widely condemned and why countries like India (especially given its history of non-alignment) and China should get off the fence.
@@JamesKerLindsay i really heat the NATO look what they have done to libya, I'm from North Africa this is so close to me if the NATO have done this to my neighbour so they can do it to my country, SO no the NATO is not important at all and it should not exist, you saying this because you are eurpian u don't care about democracy at all .
Thank you for breaking down not only the political dimensions of this conflict, but the moral ones as well. This is a ugly precedent that the world will have to come to terms with for years to come.
@@kgroovr Nothing that happened in Iraq justifies a Russian invasion of Ukraine. By that logic, use of chemical warfare in Syria justifies a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia by NATO, because WMDs are OK now
@@talltroll7092 Compare the civilian death toll from "Iraqi freedom" to this invasion and get back to me. If you want to start an all out nuclear exchange because of unsubstantiated CW claims, go ahead. But first realise that US propaganda is more effective and ubiquitous than Russian or Syrian.
Thank you for the deep dive looking at the legality of sovereignty and territorial integrity as it relates to the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thoroughly love your content James and the approach you take to present it!
The argumentation of this video holds only to an extent: out of the three principles, we should expect a clear difference between cases where two were violated instead of one or three. But the magnitude of difference is still relevant. One couldn’t with a straight face argue that Russia leaving one of these areas untouched would have resulted in significantly lesser response. Nor could one argue that change of boarders would have made the european nations open their society to Afgan civilians escaping the destructive invasion, let alone condemn United states to the extent we rightfully condemn Russia. This proportionality can not be explained without acknowledging that nations act accordingly to less noble aspects of the conflict: that the aggressor is not united states, leader of Nato and the so called western world, but in fact a perceived antagonist of USA and the west. And also that the civilian victims in this case are white, and europeans. Their suffering can not be normalised by framing their culture as other, or by pointing to past wars, dictatorships and injustices (wast amount of which were the result, often intended result, of european intervention). This is how much we should have cared about every invasion, violation of sovereignty, and refugee. Because this is the first modern case so called western society is not blinded by explicit or underlying racism, relationships or alliances with the aggressor, or beautiful stories about spreading democracy through forced regime changes and slaughtering of the supporters of the “illegitimate” political system the sovereign nation had previously. Obviously the past and still ongoing injustices do not in any way justify Russias assault on Ukraine. But the inverse should be true: Russias invasion should at last reveal the immoral and unjustified nature of past and present conflicts and coercion UN and europe has silently accepted. Russians can’t claim geopolitical balance, local minorities, elections they themselves rig, Ukrainian far-right groups or other fringe extremists, alliances they feel threatened by or any such reason to justify their invasion. But neither can european states or USA.
The context matters greatly too. The Russian assault on Ukraine at their border is for national security reasons against meddling by the West. America goes around the world to plunder and control key resources, which is essentially neo-colonialism.
@@pr0newbie Plundering and controlling key resources also applies to the invasion of Ukraine as well. In the 2010s, both oil and natrual gas were discovered within its borders and Ukraine contracted western oil companies for drilling and refining. This allows Ukraine to not only compete against Russia in the European energy market, but also use it as a springboard to develop itself. This wasn't an issue initially due to the pro Russian government, but the change in 2014 meant it would be out of Russia's influence. Thus the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insugency, which not only scared the contractors away but the two regions hold most of said gas and oil. A third key resource would be fresh water as Crimea only gets fresh water from a canal from Southern Ukraine. After the annexation Ukraine cut off the canal. This is causing desertification, worsening living standards in Crimea, and making it more costly for Russia to maintain Crimea and retaining support from the locals. Annexing southern Ukraine would fix that issue from the Russian side.
@@pr0newbie The west won't attack Russia so long as they have the threat of Nukes, why do so many people not understand this? To conquer a nuclear power simply means asking the leader whether they are going to press the button, and we all know what Putin would do. "national security" is not, and will never be the reason Russia invades anywhere. Ukraine wanting to join the EU and NATO for protection and economic benefit is not "western meddling", but this doesn't matter, because it's not "western meddling" that prompted this, it is an actually independant Ukraine. As for the US, they also deserve condemnation for their actions, although I believe it's more to fuel the military-industrial complex that is draining the nation than anything else.
@@Boo_351 I genuinely doubt that Russia would have annexed them if Ukraine were neutral, nor were it due to economic reasons, because otherwise they would have done so long ago. National security is pararmount in light of the US's meddling of affairs and funding of the Azov battalion, despite Putin's efforts for a diplomatic resolution. This is certainly a very murky affair. The Misinformation propaganda and escalation doesn't help and it's the common man in the world that will suffer if we follow the US and prescribe the wrong treatment. Case in point - So far the biggest winners are the US Military Industry Complex and Gas companies. We will suffer from high inflation
@@pr0newbie First of all, the Azov battalion didn't even exist before the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insurgency of 2014 as it was created to fill in the lacking Ukrainian military manpower. Without the Russian annexation or support of Donbass insurgency, they would still be some fractured far right soccer hooligans. The US funding of them wouldn't even be a question without that never mind the US cutting off funding to Azov in 2018. Regarding the natrual resource, Russia didn't attack untill 2014 for the obvious reason; Ukraine was pro Russia at the time when the resource was discovered. The annexation of Crimea happening right after the toppling of the pro Russian government already shows that diplomacy was not in the books with the new government. Ukraine hadn't been politically neutral since until the first few years after its 2nd independence (its 1st ended with a soviet invasion), its just that its stance didn't matter as they lacked much avenues to develop themselves and their economy remained in the hands of the oligarchs. If neutrality or a pro russia stance was all that Russia wanted, they would have invaded in 2004 when Ukraine flipped pro EU and was actively seeking to join it. A pro west or neutral Ukraine with the ability to develop, arm itself, and have leverage over Russia's economy by competing in Russia's biggest pie of its GDP, oil and gas, in a market Russia dominates definitely would be seen as a threat by Russia even if Ukraine never joins EU or NATO. Now this isn't to say national security isn't a concern, a Ukraine that could defy Russia and lower Russia's soft power and economic power would already fall under national security even if there is no military threat. If considering a military conflict between NATO and Russia, the CSTO currently has a geographic advantage as the entire baltics becomes a salient and the only land front being eastern Poland. Ukraine in NATO flips that on its head with Belarus being a salient. Whether NATO was capable of such an offensive is a question of its own, though the current invasion solved its two biggest problems: the lack of a reason to exist and the lack of European commitment. Anyways, my point is that control of natural resources can't be discounted considering the timing and long term outlook. Though depending on what a nation sees as a threat anything can fall under national security, whether that be natural resources or governments that don't play along.
What's the use of 'territorial integrity', 'sovereignty' and all these institutions when they are thrown away the moment a powerful nation decides to do so? If you cant reinforce the rules, whats the point of them?
Very good points made! Yes, certain western countries do have some self-reflection to do too. In particular, the conduct of the Bush-Cheney government with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq has likely "inspired" the likes of China and Russia to behave themselves in similar ways, but even under Obama the foreign policy conduct of the US government was not praiseworthy. Let's hope for a positive outcome for Ukraine in this war without too much further casualties, and let's hope that self-reflection on the western side takes place once things have settled a bit.
Thank you very much. I completely agree. I think that Western countries do need to reflect on this, as you say. We haven’t been very good at thinking about our part in undermining international law. The problem is how to reset the international system, and whether it is even possible now. Also, we would have to accept that doing so would have important, and potentially unpleasant, consequences. The notion of humanitarian intervention would have to be set aside. But if this stops wars of aggression like this, which was justified by stopping a ‘genocide’, then maybe that is the price we have to pay. It is a tough moral, legal and political problem.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for clarifying that point, the sore nub of the matter. That's hard to swallow. My New Zealand, like all small countries, is religious about the post-war international system though.
Another great video 👍.I'm glad to hear someone from the west acknowledge that western countries (especially the US) have somewhat justified breaking the international law over the past 30 years which made Russia more prepared to do the same in recent times. Of course it doesn't justify anything Russia did or will do in Ukraine, but it shows that the west is far more hypocritical that most people like to admit.
There is not a flake of blame to be placed on the west for what Vladimir Putin is doing, it is him and him alone that is responsible for what is happening in Ukraine.
@@samthomas1457 well majority of russians are backing him (from popularity surveys) so it would seem you are wrong in implying this war is putins personal war. The historical context is the correct lens to view this war as the actions russia is taking are explained thru a geopolitic logic analysis. Russians arent willing to have a nato base near their border while the west has completely disregarded this with nato expansionism. So it would seem western foreign policy did effect the involved parties' calculus that produced the current outcome.
Hi James, this video is very useful to understand the difference between NATO bombing and Russian invasion. I personally agree with your argument. But I have seen Western scholars who say that NATO bombing was not violation of international law. How should we consider that kind of argument? Is there any validity in that kind of argument?
Assuming Russia wants a friendly proxy government in Ukraine you have to think about how close Belarus was to having a neutral / anti-Russian government just a few months ago.
Let me answer you as a Belarusian. Most Belarusians are quite naive about this, but those who actually understand, see armed uprising against Lukashenko as impossible. Lukashenko has a police state when aggressive uneducated human trash is recruited into his police, brainwashed, armed and given many privileges for their loyalty(state-sponsored housing they couldn’t otherwise afford, early retirement with good pensions, etc.). Normal people are unarmed. Still, the regime can be toppled temporarily, probably not without significant bloodshed. Then what? Russian tanks roll in and flatten our cities if we resist. Game over. The only reasonable way for a Belarusian to resist Russian imperialism is to fight in Ukraine and then, when Ukraine is secure from Russian attacks, move back and do something about own country. Only in that order. If Ukraine can’t do it, pointless to even try in Belarus.
@@noop9k what makes you think life will improve if you become a democracy? Look around the west, we have a big increasing problem of inequality and low wages, im in AUS and for people under 30 its near on impossible of owning a home, theres also job insecurity. Also democracy only needs to keep 51% of the people happy.
@@NathanCroucher Poland started from the same state and improved greatly. Wages, food, living standards much better in Poland than in Russia. (Moscow is not Russia, it is a parasite that feeds on Russia) Same applies to most other exUSSR EU states. Actually, Russian median wage is below minimum wage in most of these states and therefore illegal. And this is Russia, sitting on immense amount of natural resources. All neighbors under control of Russia are dirt-poor authoritarian regimes. Democratic ones fare much better. But I do agree that the smaller EU states are economically dominated and exploited by Germany & to lesser degree France/Italy. Still, very far from exUSSR misery under dictatorships. And I spent plenty of time learning history and have no problems understanding why authoritarian “socialist” shit states can’t function well.
Thank you! I was born in the US in the 40’s, so I’ve “lived through“ Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and was wondering why my horror and disgust at the invasion of Ukraine were so much more vivid now than in times past. Partly I thought, “It’s Europe, it’s a cultural relative, it’s white. You’ve helped expand my views. It’s as if each of our ugliest wars had pushed hard against the the thin skin of civilization (like from the inside of a balloon pushing outwards and NEARLY creating holes into the anarchy that boils outside the balloon). The Russian invasion of Ukraine breaks right through that thin balloon and into the maelstrom of Might Makes Right.
Thank you so much. I think we shared the same feelings. I just had a sense that it broke boundaries and wanted to get a better sense of why. I’m so glad you found it useful. Best wishes from London!
@@JamesKerLindsay It's truly startling because it blows down our understanding of what lengths the "other" that we don't understand is willing to go to. As much as we hear of Taiwan, I don't know if I previously expected China to actually go in. Now, I'm not too sure an invasion won't happen.
I have been following this crisis from day one and now I realise that I have completely overlooked this from a wider perspective. I appreciate your efforts in making the situation clearer for us.
The USA Suggested in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia regime change. Or Frace change or kill any of the former colonies and change the regime. What do you say about that? My problem is hypocrisy. Let everyone live in peace and stability will come without western intervention as well. No sugar, coating. Remember " not an inch from eastern Germany" NATO promise?
Legitimately curiosity here : isnt israel palestine conflict check all those three? Whichever side you're on you can argue the other party violated all thre
Thanks. You are absolutely right. Both sides have indeed violated - or attempted to violate - all three. I think the key difference is that they aren’t P5 powers and haven’t attempted to violate the rules with the threat of nuclear retaliation. (Israel has nuclear weapons, but hasn’t threatened to use it to support an offensive action, as a Russia has in Ukraine.) But you are right, Israel-Palestine has seen these rules violated as well.
@@deshaun9473 We need to be clear and precise. The State of Palestine has been admitted as an observer by the UN. When the UN assessed its bid for membership, it found that it met the criteria for Statehood. The application was only rejected by the United States. For the majority of the world, Palestine is a state. The United States and Israel may disagree. But many others see it differently. And the way that sovereignty and Statehood works is that a country is a country if a country recognises it as such. In other words, whether Palestine is a state is based on where you live.
How about the Israeli - Palestinian conflict? Can a case be made for violation of all three (sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence) by Israel against Palestine?
Yes. But Israel-Palestine is also a very different type of conflict with a very different set of dynamics. For example, Palestinians will point out the Israel is violating the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the territory set out for the Palestinian state. This is true. But Israelis will also point out that the State of Israel only exists today because it survived an attempt by its Arab neighbours to violate all three principles at several points of its existence. This is also true. It isn’t really as straightforward as people like to argue from one side or another. It needs to be tackled separately from the debate here, taking on board these various complicating factors.
As far as I am aware, this is the first time opposition to the indefensible Russian invasion that involves a substantial economic responses on the part of nations, international organizations, and corporations, now including McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo. Your video got me reflecting that McDonalds statement is interesting as it cites "our [corporate or "System"] values mean that we cannot ignore..." - but this is not an affirmation of the three core principles of the international system you discuss. Perhaps the international system is a multi-polar environment that includes the foundational international principles you discuss, but also international corporations, and the 'might makes right' assertions of those in the nuclear / WMD club. I worry that Putin might be inclined to use the tactical nuclear ace up his sleeve and I don't think much effort will be made to justify it in the court of international diplomacy. 'Might makes right' must be a consideration in responding to this illegal and unjustifiable invasion.
Turkey violates both the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus and also doesn't recognize Cyprus as a state. So I think all 3 elements are violated in the case of Cyprus by Turkey. Furthermore Turkey has occupied 1/3rd of Cyprus which had a Greek majority (like every other part), and went on to ethnically cleanse the great majority of the native population and replace them with its own Settlers from Turkey. So this is even worst compared to what Russia has done to Ukraine (so far). I hope we do not return to a lawless era, but at the same time I hope that international law will be applied equally everywhere (e.g. Cyprus, Serbia and Ukraine), otherwise any country with power can make up excuses and propaganda to justify any illegal action.
Thanks. I tackled this in another comment a few days ago. Turkey didn’t violate all three. It violated sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Cyprus still exists as an independent state. Crucially, it’s also worth bearing in mind that the Turkish invasion was prompted by Greece’s coup. Turkey therefore argues that it was invading to stop union with Greece. In that regard, Cyprus was caught in an impossible position. Faced with two invasions, it either lost its territorial integrity to Turkey or its independence to Greece. It couldn’t win.
@@JamesKerLindsay Ukraine also still exists as an independent state. And as far as I know even Russia still recognizes Ukraine. So Turkey is worst in this regard also. Regarding the coup, which was the excuse of Turkey (and not a valid reason), the coupists lost power within 5 days from the day of the invasion, in both Cyprus and Greece, and Turkey continued with their invasion, occupying more land, which they still keep decades after their cheap excuse expired. Russia also has excuses for their invasion. According to them what happened in Ukraine in 2014 was a coup, there was a genocide against the Russian population of Ukraine, there are Nazis in Ukraine etc. P.S. What do you think about a BBF solution for Ukraine with political equality between the Ukrainians and the Russians?
@@JamesKerLindsay Which would be the case if the Acheson Plan was implemented in 1964, when USA was promoting the dissolvement of RoC through the double enosis. A "what if" scenario about a double enosis concerning the International Law would be interesting.
@@JamesKerLindsay It is unfortunate that we disagree. It comes down to the fact that the British collaborate with Turkey, and use the Turkish minority in Cyprus as an excuse to occupy parts of our island (Turkey 37%, UK 3%). A truly free Cyprus wouldn't serve the geostrategic interests of Turkey/UK, just like a truly free Ukraine wouldn't serve the interests of Russia. Both Russia and UK/Turkey can make up excuses to justify their actions, but in the end of the day it is all about interests and none of them cares about anything beyond this despite their very impressive theatrics.
The current international order exists because of the Pax Americana, the "might makes right" of American hegemony. The fact is, as the rest of the world caught up economically and militarily with America, America would no longer have the power required to enforce Pax Americana, because not all powerful nations hold the same political values that America and her satellites believe in, and as those nations become powerful enough in relativity, the Pax Americana will fall. It's been a pleasant historical aberration these past 30-40 years, but we are entering a new century of empires, and there's really not anything that can be done to stop it. Russia today, China tomorrow, possibly Brazil, Turkey, or Uzbekistan after that, nations will do whatever seems necessary to benefit themselves if America is viewed as powerless to stop them.
Nuclear weapons will still deter most invasions, even without America's help. No country can attack a nato or EU member since they are all still defended by nuclear weapons.
This video deserves more views. This video talks about a current scenario from an intellectual and conceptual point of view. Besides there is no scare mongering going on her. Brilliant!
Correction: @8.35 NATO had indeed repeatedly said that Yugoslavian president Milosevic had to be overthrown and "brought to justice" so what you said there is inaccurate.
Sorry, but it wasn’t inaccurate at all. Overthrowing Milošević certainly wasn’t an objective of the war. There was no effort to march on Belgrade to oust him. Certainly, the US and others would not have been unhappy if Serbs got rid of him - as they did. But they certainly didn’t have this as a formal objective. When we discuss these things, we need to be precise.
@@JamesKerLindsay you just said the correct phrase, "formal objective". In other words, it was informal objective and after that, Libya, Iraq and Syria had the same fate, war and change of regime. Either way, Sandam Husain, was executed by its own people, Gaddafi the same ans almost Basar Al Assad. A very common strategy with a very common objectives, formal or informal.
@@dimitriskouris7949 Sorry, you are deliberately choosing to misread my words. The term formal objective doesn’t mean it was an informal objective. I was clear about this. If it happened, no one would shed any tears. I have written extensively on Kosovo and I have been very critical about the handling of the issue by the United States and Britain. But it is important, as I said, to be precise when dealing with these things.
@@JamesKerLindsay I did not deliberately misread your words. I drew a conclusion based on the events since then and up to now which in my opinion they present striking similarities no doubt. So we agree to disagree. Nevertheless, thank you for your great videos and keep up the good work.
If I'm not mistaken, the only recent history event that's similar in brutality, civilian casualties, deliberate war crimes and amount of refugess is Syria. And Syria was mostly like that because of russian intervention.
Well, that was extremely well put. I must admit that I have never been keen to Western Countries and their military operations abroad. What you said about promoting democracy doesn't really fit well in the narrative of how those conflicts actually happenes. Still, I do believe that Russia is a threat and that we must oppose these horrible acts of violence in the way you did, both from a humanitarian point of view and from a more academic one. Great video, as always, I look forward to coming back to these comunity.
In relation to Taiwan, doesn't American (and other Western) support for their self-determination also defile the territorial integrity of China? Simply put, America and Western support for Taiwan is not support for the ROC (a political entity that is not recognized by most) but much rather for the continuation of the status quo also equate to the violation of Chinese sovereignty, and territorial integrity? Furthermore, since America has an _unofficial_ but still present military force in Taiwan (which it stationed without the permission of PRC authorities), wouldn't this also technically be an invasion of sorts?
I fully support unification once the CCP is defeated. Besides, China violated Tibet's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. There's a reason China is hated and feared by their neighbors.
@@duybear4023 I do not remember asking for your obtuse opinions. Many neighbors of China are on good terms with it. The majority of the world recognizes Tibet as a part of China. Anyways, this whataboutism is diverting from the topic at hand and question I asked.
However, the NATO-led intervention in Serbia didn't lead directly to Kosovo's independence, and that was stated in the 1244 resolution. Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008, and the International Court of Justice in 2010 concluded that the declaration of independence didn't break international law. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't make sense to me that these principles have validity while a state is actively conducting ethnic cleansing against one ethnic group, something the regime in Serbia did. How about the self-determination principle?
Thanks. I discussed many of these issues in this and other videos. On the point about self-determination, this is an issue that causes a lot of confusion. The right of self-determination leading to independence is only recognised on colonial settings. (By this we mean overseas colonies. Kosovo was not a Serbian colony.) In other cases, it means a right to self-rule or autonomy unless the parent state grants it the right to secede. Kosovo did not have the right to independence. That was why it’s supporters said it was a ‘unique case’. The problem is that you cannot have unique cases in law. The law applies or it doesn’t. By the way, you raise the ICJ case on Kosovo. This did not say anything about whether Kosovo had a right to independence or whether it is a state. It simply said there was nothing to say it couldn’t *declare* independence. Any territory can do, unless specifically prevented from doing so. But that doesn’t make it a country. It just means that it is a territory that has said it is a country. What matters is whether that is accepted. It’s a seemingly technical issue, but actually very important. The judges were clear that they said nothing about Kosovo’s actual statehood. In any case, while there is no disguising Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, and I personally think that it makes more sense for a Kosovo and Serbia for them to part ways, all this means that Kosovo did not have a right to unilateral secession.
I have a question. You argued that though Crimea indeed once was a part of Russia when under USSR, but after the breakup of USSR since Russia accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea, this action in 2014 violated the fundamental principles of territorial integrity. So basically what you're implying that because Crimea wasn't a disputed territory pre-2014, Russia's annexation is a naked aggression. (Granted Russia did some legal gymnastics by first recognising Crimean independence and then moved for annexation). So here's my question: If an invasion happens in a disputed territory, like say India invading the Pakistani-Administered Jammu and Kashmir or say China invading Senkakku island, how are you going to contrast these hypothetical events with Ukraine? Would they count as violating territorial integrity? How would you define these events? Or even contrast this with Indian invasion and liberation/annexation of Goa, a territory which according to Europe and NATO was "integral part of Portugal, not a colony" before 1961, the way French overseas territories are, but not recognised as such by India (though was once recognised by independent India as Portuguese territory at one point)? I know international community had condemned this then, but now everyone accepts Goa is an Indian state just like say Gujarat. You could enlighten these different examples and contrast them. That would be helpful. Thanks.
Goa was known as colony even though Portugal didn't accepted it. World was going through decolonisation process that's why countries accepted India invasion. Whereas France gave up their indian territories peacefully.
@@ShubhamMishrabro today there are so many overseas territories of France. One is close to India (Reunion Island). France defines most of those inhabited territories as integral departments. EU accepts this. This was the case with Pondicherry also. Portugal did the same. By Portuguese law, Goa was just a province and Goans were Portuguese. Many western nations supported this idea but ofcourse Asia and Africa didn't. All this in contrast to British Empire where indeed they were colonies and colonial subjects were not full citizens and they didn't send their representatives to house of commons (not the case with France and erstwhile Portugal). That's why liberation of Goa became such a controversial issue back in 1961. NO WESTERN POWER recognised this and all condemned it. Even Latin America opposed it as they were uncomfortable with the idea of "hindus defeating superior Catholics in warfare". It was a Soviet veto which prevented UNSC rap on India (another reason why India is still friendly with Russia). Only when in 1974 there was a regime change in Portugal, they accepted India's sovereignty over Goa. Post facto Portugal's allies forgot all this and everyone accepted that Goa was India's. But during 1961, one could easily argue (especially those who are not Indians or Portuguese) that the invasion then was a territorial violation of a sovereign state and a conquest. But ofcourse de-colonialisation angle made this complicated legally, even if Portuguese law and western consensus thought Goa was a mere province not a colony.
The conflict in Ukraine has attracted a lot of online 'whataboutery'. This is the tactic where someone responds to criticism of one situation by referring to another. It is a crude and unsophisticated form of debate. But sometimes one just has to confront it. This is the case with Russia and Ukraine. I have heard a lot of comparisons with Western invasions elsewhere, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. But just how much do these cases hold up? As ever, I would be keen to hear your thoughts and comments below.
Great video, just wanted to add in terms of international support we've seen massive sanctions upon Russia, India and China increasingly forced into a more awkward neutral position as Russia further escalates, as well as a massive amount of direct aid and arms supplied
In addition to this, we've seen (assumed) significant live intelligence sharing, and transfer of aircraft-- very expensive materiel.
This is definitely an unprecedented move, with NATO effectively committing to aid Ukraine in every way possible except attacking Russia themselves directly
(The news about aircraft transfer has been up in the air for days and only confirmed minutes ago, though, so it's not like you made a mistake!)
This helps send a stronger signal to countries that, like Russia, seek to use "escalate to de-escalate" tactics and military power to violate territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of other countries
@@User-he6zd Thanks. I think you’re right. I also think India and China are finding it increasingly uncomfortable. As they should. As I tried to explain, Russia has violated every single principle of modern international relations by its action in Ukraine.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yup! I genuinely wonder if, in the very worst case, Russia falls back to its usual doctrine of levelling cities with mass indiscriminate bombing of civilians and civilian infra, how China and India will react
My hope is that they would move from less awkwardly neutral to more aggressively pushing for peace, calling for explicit de-escalation from Russia's side-- but they also have the clout and power to simply to nothing and toe the same line
Whataboutism is not meant to refute the central claim but to show hypocrisy and double standards. And it's valid as long as you're comparing similar things. In this case invasions. Yes Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong but the West has so much bloods on their hands with yes Yugoslavia, Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria if we just stick to recent years that they are in no position to take the moral high ground. Sorry your position is very west centric. I live in North Africa and my view is how most people here assess the situation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not worse than any other invasion no matter what specious arguments you can make. And if the West equals the world then yes Russia is a pariah. But the West isn't the world. Sure it's the most prosperous and powerful region /block but that still doesn't make the world nor the international community.
@@mouniash OK. I made my point. It’s up to you whether you want to agree or disagree. But I would say that ignoring the across the board violations of international law by Russia because you dislike the West is extremely short sighted.
Excellent video and very well made points here. Will certainly be sharing!
Hello there Hilbert! Thanks so much. That’s incredibly kind.
By the way, I’m a big fan of your channel. :-)
@@JamesKerLindsay The honour is mine in that case! Feel free to get in touch if ever you're wanting to collaborate on anything together in the future :)
@@historywithhilbert Will do. I’m sure there’s lots of ideas to talk about!
Hilbert! Love your channel.
Very interesting video! I think most people somehow know that Russia's invasion is something we've not seen for quite a while in international politics but could not quite put in words why that is. Thanks for doing exactly that!
Thanks so much PwP. I always value your thoughts. Really glad you thought it hit the right note.
I totally agree with PwP. You clearly explained the issues in a way that I knew was necessary but couldn't do myself. Not nearly as well. Thank you!
@Finite Automata This is Russia invading Ukraine. The US is miles away over the Atlantic and, yes, has invaded other countries and killed people. Does this give Russia the right to invade Ukraine. If your country has a big neighbor, does this give that big neighbor the right to invade your country?
@Finite Automata what’s funny, lol? The US did not increase its security, nor is Russia currently increasing its security. Rather the opposite. Ukraine requested in 2008 to join NATO to increase its own security. NATO said no, but politely said maybe in the future. Had the Baltic countries not joined NATO, they would have been invaded long ago. Putin has an imperialistic mindset.
@Finite Automata I am saying that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US. Yes , the US is in Poland and in other European countries, and we also know the history of WWII and later of the Cold War. What interest would the US have in invading Russia? But Putin has interest to invade Ukraine as a prosperous Ukraine would be a political threat to his throne
As a Western scholar, I appreciate that you also criticize Western actions at the end. The US has violated these rules, eroding their strength. But to try to justify Russia's actions on that is simply a whataboutism argument.
Thanks. Yes, I don’t think the West has considered its own actions nearly enough. It has eroded key principles, even if it felt that it was doing it fur the right reasons. But this invasion crosses all sorts of boundaries - and certainly can’t be justified on the grounds of preventing human rights abuses, let alone trying to introduce democracy (as badly mismanaged as it was following Western invasions).
Because whataboutism I s just a deflect the west are hypocrites
@@Travelvision2020 Whataboutism is hypocritical by definition
its the wests fault end of story
@@frankrenda2519 Wow what a compelling argument
I’ve been following the invasion closely, and I can’t believe I completely overlooked the wider impact of the invasion. I concur with the point if US, and EU had established a strong rule based international system, this crisis could have been avoided. As I’ve seen Russian government officials justify the invasion on the grounds, that USA also invaded Iraq. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
No but one wrong does set precedent.
We can conceive WW3 as something entirely different and new. Something absolutely terrifying and never seen before. While WW1 and WW2 and past imperial wars pitted 2 big blocks... WW3 could take the form of multiple regional open conflicts being fought at the same time with little to no relation between them. All medium powers could decide that the big powers being busy with their own conflicts, now could be the time to settle their regional borders and problems once and for all.
Is it too far fetched to imagine China blockading Taiwan, India taking over Sri Lanka or Jammu-Kashmir; Colombia and Venezuela, Egypt and Ethiopia, Algeria and Morocco and so many more using the Ukraine conflict "distraction" and complete paralysis-decay of international order to settle their quarrels violently once and for all while everybody else has more pressing matters to attend to? Especiall in the broader context of dwindling ressources and demographic timebombs...
@@snewsom2997 I agree.
The west should have accepted Russia's backyard as theirs and the Ukrainian leadership should've been more pragmatic, then we wouldn't be in this situation
@@rosameltrozo5889 Last year China is looking to build a naval base in Equatorial Guinea (Africa), to which USA responded angrily, saying Africa is America's backyard and the Chinese should stay out. The distance from Equatorial Guinea to Washington DC is 9,600km.
i wouldn't be surprised if the president of Equatorial Guinea is overthrown next year and the new pro-US regime bans the Chinese naval base.
Thanks James, this is so helpful. Putting emotion aside (which is incredibly difficult at this time), I was struggling to comprehend the sheer significance of this event beyond the 'invasion' narrative. On a side note, the events in Ukraine may well be the catalyst for a global revolution in dealing with the often massive corruption that permeates through elites on all sides, as clearly exposed by this appalling war. Just as an example, how can it be that the son of a wealthy KGB agent is a Lord in our parliament and owns a huge house in the middle of a royal park? How much money is swilling around for that to happen? I'm even starting to wonder if Vladimir is paying Boris to make it as difficult as possible for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK. It's almost as if nothing matters as long as elites and their friends are making obscene amounts of money.
Thanks so much Marcus. And great points about various Russians oligarchs here in the U.K. Yet more questions that really need to be asked about this government’s behaviour!
Both the UK and USA have an election system that is easy to corrupt in the Computer Age.
First-past-the-post is easy to game.
This attracts dishonest, amoral and immoral people even more than power and politics usually does.
It allows small groups of wealthy people to have an enormous influence and easily polarize the media.
@@JamesKerLindsay Scrub out 'this' government’s behaviour - ALL government’s behaviour.
We all know the system is fundamentally corrupt, and that all law is hypocrisy, where the weak are forced into obedience, while the strong go through it with a coach and horses.
Having exposed police trafficking boys to a duty solicitor for decades AFTER his arrest in a public loo with a 15 year old boy, and being run through a rigged court on a Public Order Act charge based on a conspiracy between the police and the solicitor, with complainant-witnesses supplied by the solicitor - and never subject to the slightest cross-examination due to the seizure of my self-defence - I know just HOW bent English government is.
And this is my THIRD such experience.
But I did personally convict a council solicitor under the Public Order Act, who spray painted in 4 attacks a sign I displayed accusing him of crimes, and inviting him to sue me 'to prove to the people you claim to serve that it is'nt true'.
Clearly SOMEONE did not like me playing lawyer, convicting a local government employee covering up planning committee rigging, and planning minutes being falsified, in a plot to reverse a 16 to zero planning approval vote to a planning refusal decision.
This is the quality of people running England nowadays!
Whoa, a Tuesday video! But yeah, you hit the nail on the head with the idea of a sovereign polity (sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence), and the progression from Moscow's side is just too wonky to accept as "understandable" in the least. Nothing more to say on that.
Hope you're staying safe and healthy, and sending best wishes to all from the US!
ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm opposed to the Russian choice to invade Ukraine, and am in no way justifying and feigning ignorance to other invasions by NATO members. Don't worry, I hate everyone equally lol.
Thanks Carolyn. I know. It was a bit of an oddity. But I really wanted to say this. I also want to tackle some other subjects in my regular Friday videos. (This Friday will be completely different.) All good at this end. I hope all is well with you!
@@andrewzhou4228 stop trolling
James thank you for working! I really appreciate this. You accompanied me over a long cup of coffee.
Good video. Thanks for taking the time to reply in the comments, it helps to see responses to various criticisms.
Thanks. I do try. It’s quite difficult given the numbers. And many times I have to repeat answers already given. But it is important to give it a go.
Here's my point. The reason for the genuine ANGER that a lot of people feel, particularly in the Third World, is the fact that while Russia is condemned, the U.S. and Britain saw no consequence whatsoever for its war crimes and atrocities particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the invasion of Iraq which left for than a million killed and millions more displaced. And further to that point, EVERY TIME we try to point out these things, we're immediately accused by people like Spartacus Olsson on RUclips of supporting Putin or engaging in "Russian propaganda", as if any criticism of U.S. actions means support for Russia. I was even in fact compared to Vladimir Putin when I brought up U.S. led interventions in the Middle East.
No one was to this day held accountable and punished for their war crimes against Iraqis, Syrians, the Libyans, Yemenis, Kurds who were victimised for decades by the U.S. and it's allies. Indeed, not only are U.S. war criminals protected, they're respected! And resources looted from the middle East are kept by U.S. companies in violation of international law. The whole world knows that. And furhermore the racist double standard in in focusing on the suffering of blond haired and blue eyed Ukrainians victimised by Russia while ignoring the Arabs, Kurds and Africans victimised by the U.S. and Britain really is a painful thorn in one's side; an overt and irritating reminder of U.S. hegemony in the Third World and our inability to do anything about it. Every time we bring these things up we are shut down, including this poster. So what voice do we have against the U.S. and it's allies?
Dear Professor, I'm genuinely glad that you share your knowledge with us, so that a history-geopolitis enthusiast like me can learn from a top notch source. The only thing that worries me that Putin is not going to back off, because if he does so his political life or even his own life will end and all his dreams will come crashing down. If he does not back down, the excessively harsh sanctions might force him to utilize nuclear threat to confront the sanctioning countrie, and WWIII becomes a reality. All the world, including Putin and his enemies are now stuck between a rock and a hard place
Thank you so much. I’m really glad you found it interesting. I agree. We are at an extremely dangerous moment in international relations. I still like to believe that everyone will keep calm. But we do need to think about how we understand the rules of the system in future. I think we need a reset. But I really don’t know how we do it.
Putin may not have a choice but his underlings do. We should do everything we can to make their choice easy.
@@peterfireflylund you are probably from a democratic western country. You don't know how the things work in dictatorships. If the dictator falls, all his friends and subordinates will fall too. They will never destroy the head of a system that made them who they are
@@JamesKerLindsay A Reset? Like build back better and the great reset?
@@fearlessgeneral120 No. not really. I’m using the term reset to denote an attempt to return to the original understanding of principles. That’s all. I’m not comparing it to any specific ‘resets’ of the past.
This is why like your content. You don't let emotion become part of telling the story. You tell like it is, from an educated, articulate and unadulterated viewpoint. Which is quite hard honestly.
Thank you so much. I know that it can come across as cold, but sometimes it is important to look beyond the emotion of the situation and break it down. This is not to say for one moment that the suffering isn’t important. It is hugely important. But understanding the roots of that suffering is also crucial if the international community is to try to stop it from happening in future.
A perfect quote at the end. Very good job!
2007 Putin gave a speech in Munich where he asks for a new set of rules and but no one listened and US carried on ruling alone. And now we have no rules, and who's to blame?
In fact, Ukraine collapsed and ceased to exist in 2014. Now it's just post soviet territory with pro-nazi regime. Russia, successor of USSR, just taken their territory and people back. I see nothing wrong with it.
Pro Nazi? That's why no far right parties won seats in parliament? Is Iraq a pro communist country because it has communist militias in its army? Zelenski was democraticly elected more than Putin can say
Very enlightening on what the Russian action on Ukraine imply. But I hope you can do a similar, in-depth, intelligent, "detached" analysis on why Russia did what it did. Pls give us the entire picture not only starting from Feb. 24, 2022 but eight years before that. Pls provide us with your analyses particularly on what agreements were made and who violated such agreements so that we can have a better if not more objective picture of the conflict. I hope you're not one of those who claim that Putin is a crazy, megalomanic, power-hungry imperialist. Thank you.
I doubt he will. People are much more fixated on the end result (the actual invasion of Ukraine) rather than what led to it.
The Ukraine was a UN member before Russia, which only joined the UN on inheriting the USSR's seat. The Russian invasion differs from Afghanistan and Iraq in that it is combined with an assault on the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
Very true. I have actually made a video on their membership of the UN in 1945 ruclips.net/video/z0RwWZXeb-0/видео.html And you are right about the key differences, as I make clear in the video.
Does that make US interventions legal and justified?
The Afghanistan intervention was legal. The Iraq one was not. The professor will tell you as much.
@@monsieurmorin How Afghanistan invasion is legal when Taliban declared that it has nothing to do with 9/11, which turned out to be truth.
Wait what? You completely missed the point of the argument. The argument is that civilians are k!lled unjustly by an organized military. In any case, doesn't america put in place their own puppets when they go to these countries? How is that any different from what's happening now?
Fantastic video as always James. Interesting to mention the confederation idea. The Russia Belarus Union State on paper looks barely in existence, yet no doubt behind the scenes Russia controls Belarus in many ways.
Thanks. Great point. The Union State is a strange beast. I did something on it a while back. It is interesting to consider where it stands now. ruclips.net/video/VAx2aVvwf8w/видео.html
@@JamesKerLindsay oh awesome I'll definitely check that out. It's certainly a fascinating set up. Looking forward to your next video!
I honestly think Belarus is only a sovereign state in name, but completely onder direct and firm control of Russia. I personally think Ukraine will suffer the same faith as the former food provider for the Soviets. I so hope that all parties keep their cool and not drag us I to WW3. I also understand that the former Baltic states are getting very, very nervous about this Big Bulley behaviour Russia has showed us. It is sad to see Russia behave just like Adolf Hitler in 1939. Same excuse to invade another neighbouring sovereign state. The Russian government is no better than the Fascist regimes they hated so much.
@@riiitch But Belarus is not a Russian puppet. Lukashenko is able to play Putin. He promises union with Russia but never delivers (unless he can become the leader of Russia) and through it is able to get benefits like gas and oil at below market rates from Russia.
Your argument is well put, James! Unlike the US and Europe, "Russia's actions in Ukraine go far beyond anything we've seen before." Unlike the Anglo-European attempts at simple violation of sovereignty and regime change in brown/dark, Third World "uncivilized" peoples' countries, Russia goes a step further by attempting to change current borders and annex some parts of the "white, relatively civilized, relatively European, Christian" Ukraine.
When you say it like this James, I am reminded (allow me to digress a little, please) by a David Rennie who, like many others, complains about intellectual property theft when it comes to China. He talks about how the West, specifically America, complains about how some Chinese companies steal Euro-American technologies. But there also is something interesting, and similar to what you are saying here James, that he invokes. He says; "the American government will tell you [meaning China] sure, [the American government] sp[ies] and steal[s] stuff, but not for commercial purposes." This means that China, on the other hand, spies and steals, not only for governmental and homeland security purposes, but, going a step further, to commercialize and sell what it steals.
The question is, should other countries in the World wait for the US or Western Europe to set a precedent, or continue, as you have said, "erod[ing] those rules" while other nations wait by the wayside? Hell No! The long 19th century is over.
My point here is that white, Anglo-Euopean-centric people like you, implicitly or explicitly, are saying that if this "bad" thing or this next step we Euro-Americans did not do post-1945 (interesting date by the way, a date that purposefully omits and forgives whatever has happened before, like the American territorial conquest of Mexican lands) you Russians/Chinese or other brownies and darkies around the World dare not do, lest we economically sanction you, or outright invade and topple your governments, respectively.
exactly, well said, the UN is after all a western institution trying to control actions of other countries
@@Dani-ir3kk The UN is an institution created by the victorious parties in the second world war. Hence it's founding permanent members were the victorious powers (SU, USA, ROC, UK). It was created by and to the represent the interests of these nations, not "the west".
1945 is not in any sense accidental or ideologically motivated. The end of the second world war created the modern world of international relations. It is not designed to "cover up" previous violations by western countries, as it also naturally omits the countless violations commited by non-western states before its founding (such as the arab conquests of the ME and Iran), since none of these entities could be held to this standard as it did not exist (right of conquest was seen as totally legitimate until at least the first world war).
Well done James. Someone has finally understood, called out and criticised the violation of Serbia’s territorial integrity by the west thus eroding the basic principle that the west brings up anytime it suits them i.e. Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Indeed. And that’s why it is so disappointing that so many people in Serbia are cheering Russia on. Ukraine never did anything against Serbia. It hasn’t recognised Kosovo. And yet far too many people in Serbia (most Serbs) support Putin against Ukraine because, well, NATO attacked Serbia. It really is incredibly depressing.
Ok i'm on 5:32, you are talking how there is no country that benefits from Kosovo independece, how about US with biggest military base in Balkan region on Kosovo?
I'm now on 9:40, if the West is finances the protests and forcing propaganda to take down the goverment, like in Yugoslavia, does that mean interfering in the politics of another country?
In Serbia, that time Yugoslavia, civilians also got killed when Nato drop bombs.(Nato - an alliance that only defends its own members) Which Nato country they defended? The only reason why there was far less civilian casualties than in Ukraine is because Serbian soldiers didn't hide themself behind residential buildings and when Serbian army was defeated Serbia surrendered, there was no need that civilians die even more. You know that Ukranian government does not allow men to leave the city, even when they do not want to fight, and a large percentage of Kiev residents declare themselves as Russians. But anyway there was a civilian casualties in Yugoslavia, breaking international laws and I did not see Nato or Us in Hag court. It's double standards. The Russia have all rights when they say "We don't want Nato on our doorstep". I feel sorry for Ukranian people, they fell for Western empty promises, and the West is now in the first row, watching and listening how Zelensky begs for help, and doing nothing to help Ukraine and doing everything to reduce the growth of Russia's and China's economy. It's just what's in their interests, no hard feelings( famous Us saying).
Svaka čast,a mogao si da pomenes i još otimačinu resursa,infrastrukture od strane američkih kompanija
odlicno si opisao...nadam se da ce ovaj prof. dati komentar, mada..eh brate
Excellent analysis of the Russian invasion. The all but universal condemnation of Russia’s actions suggest the many recognize that this action is, at its root, different from other recent armed conflicts, and that it is wrong in every way, even without knowing exactly how. Professor Ker-Lindsay has succinctly and understandably described exactly how Russia’s action is wrong.
Thank you for this excellent analysis professor! One argument that I would like to point out that, in the case of Yugoslavia, a regime change was not formally proposed but was, indeed, carried out in 2000., with a pro-western government taking power. The same status applies today, where western ambassadors are still the shadow governors and have an absolute control of politics and policies. The necessity of changing the Milosevic government was best felt by the Serbian people and was reflected heavily on our living standards but now, 20 years on, the majority of people feel betrayed and wary of the west's further promises of good intentions.
I agree with you. When you read that UK ambassador is going directly to government meeting bypassing Ministry of Foreign affairs with own requests, so you know it is vassal state. Since they know that they can be overthrown in 10 days with 10 million EUR ( widespread unpopularity, African level of corruption, criminality) they carry on whatever is asked for them by colonial rulers. If they do not listen soon will be released from mystical sources mp3 recordings with juicy conversations to few selected media (like in Northern Macedonia and Gruev affair ) and shit will hit the fan. They know that very well and listen and do what is required of them. So it is win win for both sides. Puppet state doing required job, interests of involved served. Gringos do not care what you feel about these political geniuses you see on your shitty state TV or do you have something to eat or not. They are more intelligent then Slobo babe, but they will ultimatively fail too, since you can falsify everything but not economy. It is going to be very interesting day for them anyway.
@@robrob9050 You are so correct, my man!
@@ЂорђеКозић I hate to be correct in this case, but sadly it is that way
I think serbs elected the "pro-western" government and after they elected others less prowestern, maybe this is democracy and hasless to do with forced government changing by external forces.
Regarding the betray feeling, there is no reason for this, UE is not a charity fundation.
Before feeling betrayed by any in this world you need to choose, i know it is a hard choice to do but you have do do it one way or another.
You will find many to cry and console you about your misfortunes but is just a waste of time, be realist.
Putin's rhetoric aside, we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be. Anyway, unilateral actions against any country is the primary violation of international law. The other two are relevant yes. But the damage is done. And in the majority cases things are never the same. Friendly governments are installed and so on. Others are made economically dependent. How sovereign are they. Does territorial integrity mean anything if you have no sovereignty.
We shouldn't make excuses for any power professor.
"we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be." Well Zelensky said recently he is willing to discuss the matter of Donbas and Crimea with the Northern dictator. As well as that he will not join Nato anymore because they failed him.
@@georgedevries3992 My main pushback to what the professor was saying is that there really is no difference between what Russia is doing now to what the US and allies did in the past. Both are and did leave death and devastation behind. I thought the professor was doing gymnastics in trying to white wash the US incursions.
@@dragisaobrenic1201 my thoughts exactly
Yeh alot of gymnastics
No mention of Palestinian
@@kokica007 i think he’s just trying to avoid getting called a Putin supporter since that’s what you’ll get labeled if you say anything about possible role of US/NATO in precipitate this war.
The good professor is presenting Russia as doing all these actions out of a whim.
Forgets that Ukraine's integrity guaranteed in 1994 was based on a neutral Ukraine, not inimical to Russia, which informally changed in 2014 with the US backed coup that was a regime change in Kiev, bringing an ultra-nationalist faction in power, and formally in 2019 with the change in constitution to move Ukraine in NATO, which is a military alliance against Russia.
Forgets that Crimea voted in 1991 as well as in 2014 to separate from Ukraine and re--unite with Russia, of which was historically being part of.
Forgets that Ukraine has decided to sort out the autonomous Russian population in Donbas by the power of arms and not by negotiations and that the international community has approved a resolution (Minsk 2) since 2015 which Ukraine declared that it will not implement and instead has prepared for years to take back control via armed forces, rather than negotiations.
Forgetting all these facts and focusing on what Russia has been doing since February 24, 2022, without providing the full geo-political context (i.e. musings in the US of a desire to split Russia in several pieces), makes the good professor a rather partial historical advocate.
Outstanding synopsis and analysis, Thank You.
Thank you very much!
I feel like people should also note the similarities between this and Cuba.
Both nations had spent time as a territory under their neighboring superpower, becoming free with the blessing of the superpower, and eventually opposing them, and the neighboring superpower seeing that the nation might play host to it’s rival’s military and nuclear weapons.
And both Cuba and Ukraine are next to the heartland of the superpower who for decades hasn’t had to worry about such a geopolitical threat.
Also both in the terms of their backer (Russia for Cuba and US for Ukraine) backed away from militarily defending them when a crisis rose up. And both superpowers funded and supported rebels within the other’s nations (Bay of Pigs for US, DPR and LPR for Russia) as well as both were heavily involved in disrupting the internal affairs of Cuba and Ukraine.
Yet there’s one big difference between both of them, how it ended. America never once declared war on Cuba and launched a military invasion with American boots and aircraft, despite coming close several different times and not even when the Soviets fell, while Russia did with Ukraine. One must ask themselves why America decided to show some level of restraint while Russia didn’t?
I’m not trying to paint America as a perfect nation either. America has definitely made some bad decisions, but these 2 crises are so similar in nature that comparing the two should be appropriate. It can help determine how both the US and Russia address what they consider “external threats to their nation’s heartland” in future conflicts
Don’t forget about the US nukes in Turkey. You should watch or read ‘The untold history of the United States’.
Thank you Prof. for this video. I found your channel just recently and I'm really enjoying ur contents.
Thank you so much. And a very warm welcome to the channel!
I found your framing in terms of the trifecta of violations to be helpful. Nevertheless, Mearsheimer, and others will point to the relatively greater significance of Ukraine to Russia because it couldn't be any deeper inside its geopolitical sphere of influence. I think they make a powerful case that the "West" was extremely provocative in the decades leading up to the invasion. I appreciate "spheres of influence" may not have any legal basis, but as Chas Freeman has written about recently they are nevertheless indispensable in understanding the world. I think this is important because it changes how we think about the significance of the invasion itself (leaving aside potential escalation and other knock on effects).
Thanks. But I guess my response would be that this rather overlooks the fact that Russia is an aggressively imperialist power in its own right. It is tempting to look at it and think that it is the aggrieved party. It isn’t. It is a state built on colonialism, like so many other European powers. But unlike the other European colonial powers, it has never really had to contend with decolonisation. And where examples exist of countries having broken away from Russian control with collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen continuous attempts by Moscow to thwart that independence and deny them their agency. If Russia really offered them something, then they would perfectly at liberty to engage with Russia. NATO doesn’t force anyone to join. But Russia doesn’t offer them anything. So, I’m far less inclined to accept the Russia was provoked line than some observers. And I certainly don’t think that Ukraine and others should be subjected to a de facto Russian veto on their sovereignty because Putin couldn’t deal with the collapse of the USSR and that the Russia that emerged offered nothing but threats and cheap energy to keep the former republics in its geopolitical orbit.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think Mearsheimer et al agree that the invasion is unjustified, criminal aggression. Walt emphasized this at a number of points in the Munk Debate. However, provocation is another matter. They argue the Russians were provoked over decades, and that senior people in various US administrations understood that this is what US policy was doing. They point to US analysis that the de-facto incorporation of Ukraine into Nato would be the "brightest of red lines" in the Kremlin, whoever was running the country. They argue the US, by cavalierly disregarding geopolitical red lines -- in effect treating Russia as a defeated power -- was relentlessly driving the world into this avoidable tragedy (which they argue could have been avoided had Ukraine been made into a buffer state, militarily neutral). Anyway, the point I was making above was that this realist analysis is surely relevant to the question you were addressing in your video about the significance of the invasion. Had Russia invaded Japan, say, the significance and shock would be far greater. But not for any legal reason (legally the crimes would be equivalent), but for realist reasons of spheres of influence -- Japan being since WWII in the US sphere. As criminal and horrific as the Ukraine invasion is, it is a great power asserting its dominance over its sphere of influence which it sees as being under threat from the encroachment of another great power. Whereas an invasion of Japan would look much more like an offensive move. To put it another way, from the Kremlin's point of view, Ukraine is a domino one step removed from Russia itself. In the Q&A session 2 weeks ago with Mearsheimer in Florence, Mearsheimer said the Kremlin lives in mortal terror of a Colour Revolution in Moscow itself. In effect they see Ukraine like the US saw Indochina during the Vietnam War, as a domino which could lead to the loss of Japan. Except this is far closer to Moscow, and a much more acute concern, than Vietnam was to Washington. Bringing up these parallels is not to play whataboutery to justify anything, but rather to highlight the contours of power, and the nature of conflict in international relations -- because it shows what no purely legal analysis can reveal, which is the recklessness of US policy towards Russia over the last 20 years. And I think this casts light on the significance of the invasion, and how we should think about it in the wider contexts. I certainly hope for a day when, maybe under federal world government, there is justice and peace. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is abhorrent, and I hope an antiwar movement can prevail in Russia (as it ultimately did in the US to end the Vietnam War). But the world today is run by rival mafia gangs where a fragile peace can only be maintained by either one dominant superpower or though some tense multipolar balance. In prevailing legal theory (pax-Americana it should be noted!), Ukraine is free to join Nato. But in the real world, the most powerful mafia gang has roamed deep into a rival's territory and is behaving extremely provocatively. Both gangs have large nuclear arsenals, and both would ultimately fight to the death, and have come within a hair's breadth of destroying themselves on a few occasions in the past.
@@cuttysark57 this is a well-thought-out and well-expressed perspective, and I thank you for sharing it. Complicating the picture is the presence of newly found resources in eastern Ukraine- coal and iron reserves. ("spoils of war?") In an important sense, I feel the quest for who caused what is interesting, but not relevant (even peace terms will be based on who now occupies what). Mearscheimer's view is not satisfactory because it disregards the agency of all involved parties- especially the Ukrainians. Ukrainians wanted to be in the EU because they didn't want to join a defunct, back-water and impoverished Russian-dominated confederation (like Belorus has). They feared Russia (like Sweden and Finland do) and therefore sought out the protection of Nato- and this was encouraged by the West- who, cynically, had no desire to directly intervene if it all blew up. But there were factors other than sphere of influence viewpoint- the fact that Putin and many Russians (including the Orthodox Church) do not see Ukrainians as a separate, well-defined, self-determining people, but rather as an entities that need to be folded into Russia World (the old imperial Russia). Now, though, it's all academic and war crimes are occurring in real-time (including the deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia) . Definitely Ukraine, and also definitely Russia, will wind up in worse shape than before the war started- and maybe also Poland, the Balts, and many other places in the global South- and maybe even the US. It was a tragic series of mistakes with consequences that are still unfolding- I think that Ukraine was doomed by the desire of Ukrainians to become a normal , open, prosperous European state, not corruption-ridden like Russia, not wanting to live in perpetual fear of Russia- now there are war crimes, and ruined cities, fear and misery, (as you point out) and starving people in the developing world.
On day 1 of this terrible invasion, I said "Russia may not be following America / UK's lead when it comes to invasions, but the pair's actions effectively wrote Russia a permission slip". Putin has seen certain other countries do whatever they like without repercussion, and figured he could do the same.
Clear, concise and an excellent brief on why Russia's aggressive invasion and war with Ukraine is vitally important for the risk it brings of international peace and security.
Thank you very much indeed!
So in Ukraine Russia has violated all three of the naughty interlinked concepts whilst the US has only violated two of the three concepts a myriad of times. The world shall decide which is worse: the violation of all three once or twice or the continual violation of two of them going back to the sixties. Remember the best argument against 'whataboutery' is good, oldfashioned hypocrisy
An indepth, informed analysis of fundamental areas of international relations. Enlightening. I learned a lot from this video and intend to listen to it several more times.
Thank you so much Omar. I am really glad that you found it interesting. I hoped it would lead to a bit more discussion about the deeper significance of what is happening in Ukraine. This could really change the whole pattern of international relations.
@@JamesKerLindsay Very interesting take on events and perceived wider implications relating to the current international order. With that being said, there is a major geographical difference between the actions of Russia and NATO, and that is, NATO via the international community or vice versa has largely embarked upon wars of projection to supposedly protect its interests or those of the dominant member states. It is the main reason for no apparent changing of borders after illegal interventions, although it could also be argued that all such actions across the middle east and especially within Syria are part of a wider plan seeking to develop a Greater Israel at some point in the future.
By contrast, Russia and Ukraine are contiguous and both share a common history. As generally western powers have sought to strengthen the international order unnecessarily via ceaseless NATO expansion, Ukraine's present and some would say illegitimate regime has thought it prudent to place itself in the position of becoming a threat to Russia by way of courting international approval and seeking the possibility to have tactical nuclear weapons placed on its soil on behalf of the bloc as Romania was also previously looking to do. Thus an existential threat to the whole idea of Russia is looming despite reassurances from the protagonists and it is therefore not and should not be something that is ignored by Russia regardless of who is in power.
Vladimir Putin has made it very clear in the past to those who seek a world without Russia as a major player that his opinion is that such a world should have no right to exist. As such, some people are playing a very devious and dangerous game at the moment and a lot of it is very underhanded and stemming from those who you appear to suggest are responsible for maintaining the peace since WW2.
Given their dismissal of Russian concerns and constant arming of a sovereign neighbour composed of what should be classed as many terrorist elements that is still launching military attacks against Russian speakers in the East of the country despite the Minsk agreements and while painting Russia as an enemy, is it any wonder Russia has chose to nullify the threat before the undoubtedly corrupt Ukrainian government gained NATO admission which would mean that any future defensive action by Russia could be met with what would amount to a manufactured Article 5 response?
The threat to Russia and its sovereignty has undoubtedly been far greater leading up to this action than any threat to any other nation or nations in recent years that led to acts of western aggression. Based on Ukraine's failure to simply be as a neutral state, we are now in a mess that could blow out of all proportion based on many people across the globe seriously lacking the ability to view things from the Russian perspective.
The whole operation has been aimed at destroying military capability which lies in the hands of extremists, and anyone who stands or voices opinion against that is someone who endorses it when it suits them. Certainly some innocent lives will be lost and that is a tragedy, but it is nothing compared to what could happen if opinions and beliefs do not change very rapidly.
At the end of the day it is not like any of those so-called leaders care about innocent lives, is it?
@@anthonystewart677 Thanks. But I just don’t but into the whole ‘Russia was threatened by NATO and do is justified in attacking and occupying Ukraine’ story. NATO was never a threat to Russia. It is 30 sovereign states that are not going to agree to a war if aggression against a nuclear armed state. Besides, why is Russia allowed to extend its influence over Belarus and yet NATO can’t do the same with Ukraine. Indeed, NATO has never demanded that Russia stay away from Belarus or else it will attack. Moscow does not get to treat other countries like its vassals and attack them when they don’t comply. It is utterly unforgivable and there is no reasonable justification for this war. Let’s stop pretending that there is.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the reply. We shall have to disagree, I'm afraid.
The whole purpose of NATO was to counteract the threat of the former Soviet Union and since the fall of it NATO has aggressively expanded, when in reality it should have been disbanded. Therefore, the threat I would say is real, and I am sure many Russians would feel the same way. Recent studies by the likes of the Rand corporation looking at the best options to destabilize Russia are not imaginary, whereas the placing of Tomahawks or their silos on NATO soil in the likes of Romania supposedly to counteract threats from ISIS are not genuine.
Russia is and has been being encircled on its western borders for quite some time and has been voicing concern about it for many years.
With regards to Russia extending its influence over the likes of Belarus; once again, they are adjoining and share common ancestry/history. To claim that it is a wrong for Russia to have influence there is akin to claiming London should have no rights or influence over Scotland or Wales at all.
Why should NATO exert control over Ukraine? The only reason they are able to do so and have looked to take full advantage of the fact is due to the CIA sponsored coup. It is antagonistic expansion of the bloc and is tantamount to implicit changing of borders without direct conflict.
I would like to agree with you on the point that 30 sovereign states are never going to agree to wage a war of aggression against Russia and do so to an extent but, that would only be insofar as them being aware of the Nuclear capability you mention. If Russia never had that as a deterrent, then I am sure its resources would be viewed as legitimate objectives by any means by some of those members involved by way of spewing out their undoubted hypocrisy.
I would like to have thought none of those countries would have agreed to attack the state of Syria while besmirching its leader as a vile and evil tyrant as he sought to fight his country out of constant terrorist attack from people we were supposedly fighting against and based on demonstrably false accusations of chemical weapons attacks. Sadly, they all did it with impunity.
I feel it is very rare for a war to be justified but on this occasion I would say it is, as I fear the consequences if it hadn't occurred would be far worse down the line. I am still not fully convinced this will not be the case based on current insulated and westernized views of Russia. Then we would all have to ask ourselves the question: was it worth all of us dying and humanity being erased for American subversion techniques in a former soviet union member that has its militarily predominantly consisting of far-right ultras and other assorted fascists while pretending they are the epitome of democracy?
I think not.
Spectacular work prof. The continuing war saddens mr greatly
Amazing video as always! As someone who had to hear other academics around me defend the Russian invasion on the grounds that "the U.S. did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan!" and struggled to explain why this is different in a way that didn't sound apologetic towards NATO, this is a godsend. Thank you for all your hard work!
Thanks so much. I’m really glad it helped flesh out some of the arguments. I also heard a lot of that talk and felt that it didn’t capture the real significance of this war over others.
Another thing to consider in those comparisons is the internal aspect, both within alliances and states themselves. For better or worse, the American public elected a President who invaded Iraq, and then re-elected him. Throughout all of it, Americans were free to say whatever they wanted, and even openly condemn the invasion. Similarly, other NATO countries were free to not participate in what they considered to be an unjust invasion, just as they were free to give aid in Afghanistan. Iraq is of course muddied by the fact that the public was purposefully misled about certain details - but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation.
It sounds pedantic (after all, the invasions happened regardless), but compare this to Russia, where Belarus is being dragged along whether it wants it or not, and where the Russian people aren't even allowed to describe it as a war, nor condemn it. The internal dialogue isn't just muddled by misinformation, it is flat out not present.
This seems like a minor quibble, but I think it stands that if a move like Putin's needs to have massive censorship in order for it to be carried out, that should cast some shadow of a doubt as to its true intentions.
@@Hoopsnake ""but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation."" not really, they were leveled by everyone as just crazy conspiracy theory people... it was fun to watch how Obama was gifted the nobel peace prize the same week he was sending new troops to the middle east!!!...
Did the Ukrainian government respect the rights of its citizens in the Donbass during the last eight years ? Also note the atrocity in Odessa on May 2nd, 2014.
2:15 I don't find this argument valid because there are definitely ways in which countries are not really independent in their economic policies. A good case would be Greece in the early 2010s that had its hands tied behind its back when trying to wrestle with increasing debt. Germany was pretty stubborn in lowering its surplus to the point where the ex fed chair Bernanke criticized them for making the recovery difficult. There is more literature on this by other economists. So, yes, Russia's invasion is unprecedented in terms of their overt stance on simply invading and conquering, but really, I find the argument you presented here a little shallow. 3:54 this point also seems weakened by the fact that the UN has the security council mechanism to veto which really violates the idea of egalitarianism.
I just find it semantical saying that Iraq doesn't count because territory wasn't annexed. That doesn't make it any less wrong especially when thousands of people died based on a false casus belli. And in 5:19 you argue that annexation wasn't the goal. I think the point you are making here is that wars are only bad when annexation is involved and I don't think that holds. It really feels like you are treating these wars too differently which is why you are seeing a lot of whataboutism.
This is the finest and most neutral analysis of the war so far I've seen. Totally changed my view tbh
Thank you very much indeed. I am really glad you found it useful.
Professor, what is your perspective regarding the possibility of Russian invasion of Moldova?
Thanks so much for raising this. I might try and tackle this in the next few weeks.
How far back in time do you regard as the modern era? Perhaps you could comment on the Chinese
invasion of Tibet in 1959. Tibet is facing a deliberate attempt to destroy its language, culture, and
indeed national existence.
Nice, informative video, Professor. Whenever you see fit, I would love to hear your insightful point of view on the conflicts happening in Yemen, Syria and Palestina from the same point of view you used in this one (rules of international relations defined in the UN chart).
Hahaha, he is bit silent on the question
a rare but a balanced argument from a British academic. The default position of most western scholars and citizens from the Western Europe is an outright condemnation of Russia without breaking the pieces apart. Powerful, Western and Eastern nations have their share of blame. An example has been set for China on how to deal with Taiwan should she dares declare her independence. World leaders should quickly call for and negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and restore her land boarders. We in Africa has seen the ruthlessness of Western powers in Libya and would not want Ukraine to be reduced to rubbles as well.
Thank You Prof
Well done… I learned a lot. I think your last 3 minutes resonates most with me… rules have been bent for so long. Eventually it would be broken. My heart breaks for all the refugees who have to suffer through this.
Thank you so much. I think it was really important to try to set out the points.
I was waiting for this video - thanks for once again making me wiser 👍
Thanks Dano! How are you doing? It’s been a while. I hope all is well with you.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, thanks, I’m very well. Have just been too busy lately (so many videos to see, so little time). You look well, so I assume you are 👍
I would say that this video is a great counter to whataboutism, if people would listen and comprehend the valid points you are making. Academic discourse often provokes agitation due to its perceived detached "coldness". People's emotions are a key aspect of decision making. Many "average people" feel that academics don't care about them and ignore their plight. I'm speaking from personal observation. Sometimes people can't articulate any immediate reasons, they just feel wronged, or if someone shifts topics - they feel ignored. I would personally use your argument in the future to give "whataboutists" a concise and solid response, which takes their specific view into account. Thank you!
Whataboutism is hypocritical by definition. It defeats itself in the moral argument. It has no standing in common law. If you are tried for murder, the point when you start using the defence that the guy in the next courtroom also murdered someone is the exact moment when educated people stop taking you seriously. You're done. It's over
Dear Professor, the Russian president often speaks of NATO's violation of 'agreements' of eastward expansion and ignoring of Russia's demands of said issue. How much of this is true, or rather, how does the West see this?
What about Israel and Palestine?
According to Putin, people in Crimea voted in their own election, to become part of Russia. They were not forced to become part of Russia.
I would argue that there were countries benefiting from the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. US and its allies have gained concessions of the province's rare metal mines and installed military bases for good. Meanwhile Albania and the breakaway government in Pristina have introduced a borderless regime - in effect a customs' union.
Kosovo?
@@chawk6201 Yes, the province of Kosovo & Metohija.
The main issue with your argument is that these wars are not independent. Also, I think we should not use any false actions to explain another false action. The blood is in the hand of all countries in the UN security council so what is the point of the UN regulations. For me, it doesn't really matter if they violate all or any so called principals. Once a war started, it is unacceptable. On this matter, NATO countries should be held accountable first (which was and will never happen), not the Russia.
This was an excellent breakdown of why this invasion is different in many ways. Thanks for the clear and concise explanation!
Thank you very much.
Thank you again for providing such great content
Thank you so much. Always appreciated.
I feel like Taiwan, Finland, Sweden & Moldova (via Transnistria) are possibly next to face aggression - and in the long term, a geopolitical fight for Sri Lanka by superpowers, this is just the start of a Cold War 2.0. Just like NATO & Russia, the label “special operation” / “humanitarian mission” has been exploited by Sri Lanka at the peak of the genocide in 2009
Sweden and Finland are members of the EU and according to the Mutual defense clause (Article 42.7 TEU), which say:
"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, following Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Thus, not as vulnerable as you may first think.
Secondly, there is a solid bond to the UK and regular military cooperation between Finland and Sweden, and a trilateral agreement with the USA. You will likely see "harassments" via cyber-attacks and other provocations.
@@Cptnbond and a third point is that Finnish armed forces would definitely kick russian ass
@@tanker00v25 I agree 100%.
@otto Lincoln they are even stronger yes
Superb analysis and presentation, subscribed.
Thank you very much indeed. A very warm welcome!
James, let's be honest and admit that the aforementioned rulebook stopped being valid the day bipolar world stopped existing. No punishment no laws. What indeed is different this time is that it is done with relative impunity by someone different than the US.
Good video nevertheless. Never in my life have I heard a brit say that intervention in Serbia was breach of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
He actually very directly accuses the west of planting the seed for this situation, watch at 11:32
@@mg4361 and later adds that the reasons for doing so may have been strong, in an effort to stop human rights abuses
@@erjonhoxha5074 So if Republic of Srpska would become a part of Serbia because a certain numbers of countries wants it so, your would be fine with it, even agree on it. Or even better, Northern Kosovo.
@@abc-eq9so yes. If Northern Kosovo truly is a Serb majority as they say I don't understand fighting over it. On that note Presheva and RS should also be joined with the nation that they want (Albania/Serbia) Though I would imagine it'd be really easy to screw with the voting system considering this is the Balkans. All in all, what I'm saying is, people's will should probably determine who they want to be with. Not economic reasons (land).
Another brilliant analysis from the Prof. The current crisis in Ukraine represents a fundamental turning point in history. Sadly, we are seeing the abandonment of a doctrine promulgated by the EU whereby trade was seen as a way of binding nations together in peaceful coexistence. Integrating Russia economically with the EU was seen as a way of preventing conflict and war due to the mutual interest and benefits that trade brought. Sadly, the EU did not reckon with Putin, who despite this doctrine initiated and then ramped up egregious human rights violations and sought to cynically exploit the West with the end of reconstituting a fallen empire. Putin of course, in true narcissistic form, would be the emperor. The EU and the West tolerated Putin's prior transgressions, however the illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine was a tipping point. The only good thing to come from this mess is that the EU, the West and particularly Germany has now woken up, and concrete steps are being taken to eliminate dependence on Russian resources and at last they are strengthening NATO. Just one last point, and I hope you will do a video on this, is that some think Putin will then move on to attack former states of the Soviet Union that now are NATO members. I am reminded in this of the 'domino theory' that led the US into the disastrous conflict in Vietnam. The justification was that if one state become a communist regime, those next to it would similarly fall. This proved erroneous. Based on the problematic display of Russian conventional military forces in Ukraine, even Putin would have serious second thoughts about transgressions that would invoke article 5 of NATO and confronting the military forces of a unified NATO. He's testing the limits by invoking threats of nuclear war, a very dangerous and irresponsible game of brinkmanship, however Putin is a very dangerous man. We should have seen this years ago.
you should also address the constant transgressions by US policies againts fundamental Russion interests of security, most notably to lure Ukraine - against all official confirmations towards Russia - into NATO. And arming and supporting right wing groups in Ukraine in order to bolster up these attempts. Not to mention the US cooperation with Ukraine on biochemical weapon research and development centres in Ukraine.
While I agree with many of your points. But when the USSR collapsed it little choice but to do whatever the victor of the cold war wanted. When you've been beaten into the ground. Claiming that it's your ground that you bled on does little good.
Appreciate that you mentioned other similar actions,video and presentation are non biased and accurate. I personally agree with 98% of what you presented in video except for end-every of those actions mentioned should have been, and should be opposed. Greetings.
Thank you professor for doing another video on this morbid topic, it’s terrible to see so many people killed, soldiers and civilians
To add to your points about Russia wanting to eliminate Ukraine’s political sovereignty, Putin talked in his initial Monday morning speech that recognized the Donbas republics about the idea that Ukraine was created by “Bolshevik Communist Russia” and that it was (at least after the annexation of the Zaparozhian Cossack vassal state in the mid-1700s) previously until 1917 just an unofficial region of the Russian Empire comprising several different governorates, blaming Soviet Russia for “creating” the borders of the Ukraine SSR and thus the State of Ukraine, with Putin going so far in the speech as to refer to Ukraine as “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine”.
This clearly-stated belief of Putin’s was then furthered by the map accompanying Alexander Lukashenko the other day, depicting Ukraine exactly as idealized by Putin in his speech: as several Russian governorates.
However it’s beginning to look like that may not happen, Russia is advancing ever so slowly but they are in trouble. If they turn up the heat to Syria-mode then wheat are they left with if they win? A bombed out wasteland with a population that hates them and is going to be constantly fighting them in the rubble-filled streets, all while sanctioned by the entire world except Communist China, who may also be sanctioned for their would-be support? And they certainly can’t contemplate defeat, as that would mean the end of Putin, and all that would follow, but from Putin’s perspective it would mean the end of everything, so defeat is not an option.
However it is possible that Russia’s oligarchs see how much of a Pyrrhic victory it would be, and force Putin out before he is either defeated or victorious, resetting the previous status quo under a new leader in Putin’s circle.
In relation to how we got here, there are a lot of events that have caused this, but mostly I think this was inevitable. The biggest factor is simply Vladimir Putin and his life experiences, after watching the Soviet Union collapse and, more importantly in his mind, the territories of the former Russian Empire slip away even as Russia finally shed Communism, he has set himself on a Hitlerian mission, a Napoleonic mission, and he always has been. He built off of the Russian-backed puppet states created in 1992 and invaded Georgia in 2008, made Belarus’ own strongman, who once had his eye on ruling Russia, into a puppet, created more new puppets in Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The reality is that only the plane shootdown and subsequent Russian denials of involvement and “freezing” (while thousands were still being kille) of the frontlines in the Donbas War stopped Russia from annexing or creating puppet states across all of southeastern Ukraine in 2014.
All that said I think he has miscalculated. Putin probably could have had much of Ukraine via that same piecemeal fashion, never escalating enough to set off a total firestorm. The total invasion is totally unexpected by almost everyone, seems reckless, and now that the more “civilian-friendly” tactic of not carpet-bombing cities seems to not be working, and as Putin gets weaker by the day, the options for Putin are narrowing to a choice between bad (takes over Ukraine, but international pariah and has to expend huge financial and military costs to quell incessant rebellion and also rebuild for their own use of the country) and worse (Ukraine wins victories significant enough to either trigger either an overthrow from Putin’s inner circle, or the total collapse of the regime).
Prayers for the civilians involved.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the video!
This indirectly has to do with the conflict, of a do you think that a possible annexation of Moldova in Romania can become a possibility because of the threat Russia could pose with Moldova outside of Nato and the EU?
Very good analysis, thank you
A very necessary video at this time when all I see is so much misinformation, false equivalence and mindless whataboutery. As you pointed out in the end, other invasions that are cited could be condemned, but this ought to be opposed.
Thank you so much Anirudh. I thought long and hard about this one. I wanted to get the tone right. Not easy. But hopefully I got the point across.
what about the occupation of palestine?
@@christhomson8924 trolling or serious?
@@tanker00v25 Most those who are concerned about that place are chasing clout/trolling.
@@jamesbond4810 I know, just not sure in thus scenario
The message in your video is so significant.
Many in China and Russia etc would argue the international rules established after world war two and since being upheld by the US hegemony doesn't matter, but it has been fundamental for the overall world peace and decolonization in the last 70 years, and countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China etc whose development depend on export and international trade have benefitted from the international rules massively without contributing any to uphold it.
On the other hand many of the USA actions such as regime change and country destroying plus rebuilding have cost so many lives and have been sabotaging the system.
So those who seek the demise of international rules and substitute it with authoritarianism and those people in democratic countries who are doing the sabotage jobs both deserve condemnation and opposition.
thoughts on UN refering to the war as a "special operation"
I cover this in the video. It’s merely a euphemism for invasion. Any unwanted military violation of another country’s sovereignty is, by definition, and invasion.
@@JamesKerLindsay frustrating Russia is able to exert this control at an international level
@@thirtysixnanoseconds1086 Yes. It really does raise questions about the UN. But on balance I do believe that the UN is an instituting worth protecting. This is why this action must be widely condemned and why countries like India (especially given its history of non-alignment) and China should get off the fence.
@@JamesKerLindsay i really heat the NATO look what they have done to libya, I'm from North Africa this is so close to me if the NATO have done this to my neighbour so they can do it to my country, SO no the NATO is not important at all and it should not exist, you saying this because you are eurpian u don't care about democracy at all .
@@samirmonako1527 We are talking about the UN not NATO.
So Great
This would be a great opening for doctorates in polysci thesis.
Thank you! :-)
Thank you for breaking down not only the political dimensions of this conflict, but the moral ones as well. This is a ugly precedent that the world will have to come to terms with for years to come.
Thank you so much. I hope that in some way it contributed to the debate about the conflict.
And Iraq was not an ugly precedent? They admitted the evidence was fabricated. Why are the US military still there?
@@JamesKerLindsay Your opinion is obviously worthless or paid for.
@@kgroovr Nothing that happened in Iraq justifies a Russian invasion of Ukraine. By that logic, use of chemical warfare in Syria justifies a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia by NATO, because WMDs are OK now
@@talltroll7092 Compare the civilian death toll from "Iraqi freedom" to this invasion and get back to me.
If you want to start an all out nuclear exchange because of unsubstantiated CW claims, go ahead. But first realise that US propaganda is more effective and ubiquitous than Russian or Syrian.
If Russia is not respected, then don’t ask them to respect others. That rule overrides the mentioned ones.
Thank you for the deep dive looking at the legality of sovereignty and territorial integrity as it relates to the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thoroughly love your content James and the approach you take to present it!
well summarized, thank you
The argumentation of this video holds only to an extent: out of the three principles, we should expect a clear difference between cases where two were violated instead of one or three. But the magnitude of difference is still relevant.
One couldn’t with a straight face argue that Russia leaving one of these areas untouched would have resulted in significantly lesser response. Nor could one argue that change of boarders would have made the european nations open their society to Afgan civilians escaping the destructive invasion, let alone condemn United states to the extent we rightfully condemn Russia.
This proportionality can not be explained without acknowledging that nations act accordingly to less noble aspects of the conflict: that the aggressor is not united states, leader of Nato and the so called western world, but in fact a perceived antagonist of USA and the west. And also that the civilian victims in this case are white, and europeans. Their suffering can not be normalised by framing their culture as other, or by pointing to past wars, dictatorships and injustices (wast amount of which were the result, often intended result, of european intervention).
This is how much we should have cared about every invasion, violation of sovereignty, and refugee. Because this is the first modern case so called western society is not blinded by explicit or underlying racism, relationships or alliances with the aggressor, or beautiful stories about spreading democracy through forced regime changes and slaughtering of the supporters of the “illegitimate” political system the sovereign nation had previously.
Obviously the past and still ongoing injustices do not in any way justify Russias assault on Ukraine. But the inverse should be true: Russias invasion should at last reveal the immoral and unjustified nature of past and present conflicts and coercion UN and europe has silently accepted.
Russians can’t claim geopolitical balance, local minorities, elections they themselves rig, Ukrainian far-right groups or other fringe extremists, alliances they feel threatened by or any such reason to justify their invasion. But neither can european states or USA.
The context matters greatly too. The Russian assault on Ukraine at their border is for national security reasons against meddling by the West. America goes around the world to plunder and control key resources, which is essentially neo-colonialism.
@@pr0newbie Plundering and controlling key resources also applies to the invasion of Ukraine as well. In the 2010s, both oil and natrual gas were discovered within its borders and Ukraine contracted western oil companies for drilling and refining. This allows Ukraine to not only compete against Russia in the European energy market, but also use it as a springboard to develop itself. This wasn't an issue initially due to the pro Russian government, but the change in 2014 meant it would be out of Russia's influence. Thus the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insugency, which not only scared the contractors away but the two regions hold most of said gas and oil. A third key resource would be fresh water as Crimea only gets fresh water from a canal from Southern Ukraine. After the annexation Ukraine cut off the canal. This is causing desertification, worsening living standards in Crimea, and making it more costly for Russia to maintain Crimea and retaining support from the locals. Annexing southern Ukraine would fix that issue from the Russian side.
@@pr0newbie The west won't attack Russia so long as they have the threat of Nukes, why do so many people not understand this? To conquer a nuclear power simply means asking the leader whether they are going to press the button, and we all know what Putin would do. "national security" is not, and will never be the reason Russia invades anywhere. Ukraine wanting to join the EU and NATO for protection and economic benefit is not "western meddling", but this doesn't matter, because it's not "western meddling" that prompted this, it is an actually independant Ukraine. As for the US, they also deserve condemnation for their actions, although I believe it's more to fuel the military-industrial complex that is draining the nation than anything else.
@@Boo_351 I genuinely doubt that Russia would have annexed them if Ukraine were neutral, nor were it due to economic reasons, because otherwise they would have done so long ago.
National security is pararmount in light of the US's meddling of affairs and funding of the Azov battalion, despite Putin's efforts for a diplomatic resolution. This is certainly a very murky affair.
The Misinformation propaganda and escalation doesn't help and it's the common man in the world that will suffer if we follow the US and prescribe the wrong treatment. Case in point - So far the biggest winners are the US Military Industry Complex and Gas companies. We will suffer from high inflation
@@pr0newbie First of all, the Azov battalion didn't even exist before the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insurgency of 2014 as it was created to fill in the lacking Ukrainian military manpower. Without the Russian annexation or support of Donbass insurgency, they would still be some fractured far right soccer hooligans. The US funding of them wouldn't even be a question without that never mind the US cutting off funding to Azov in 2018.
Regarding the natrual resource, Russia didn't attack untill 2014 for the obvious reason; Ukraine was pro Russia at the time when the resource was discovered. The annexation of Crimea happening right after the toppling of the pro Russian government already shows that diplomacy was not in the books with the new government.
Ukraine hadn't been politically neutral since until the first few years after its 2nd independence (its 1st ended with a soviet invasion), its just that its stance didn't matter as they lacked much avenues to develop themselves and their economy remained in the hands of the oligarchs. If neutrality or a pro russia stance was all that Russia wanted, they would have invaded in 2004 when Ukraine flipped pro EU and was actively seeking to join it. A pro west or neutral Ukraine with the ability to develop, arm itself, and have leverage over Russia's economy by competing in Russia's biggest pie of its GDP, oil and gas, in a market Russia dominates definitely would be seen as a threat by Russia even if Ukraine never joins EU or NATO.
Now this isn't to say national security isn't a concern, a Ukraine that could defy Russia and lower Russia's soft power and economic power would already fall under national security even if there is no military threat. If considering a military conflict between NATO and Russia, the CSTO currently has a geographic advantage as the entire baltics becomes a salient and the only land front being eastern Poland. Ukraine in NATO flips that on its head with Belarus being a salient.
Whether NATO was capable of such an offensive is a question of its own, though the current invasion solved its two biggest problems: the lack of a reason to exist and the lack of European commitment.
Anyways, my point is that control of natural resources can't be discounted considering the timing and long term outlook. Though depending on what a nation sees as a threat anything can fall under national security, whether that be natural resources or governments that don't play along.
What's the use of 'territorial integrity', 'sovereignty' and all these institutions when they are thrown away the moment a powerful nation decides to do so? If you cant reinforce the rules, whats the point of them?
Very good points made! Yes, certain western countries do have some self-reflection to do too. In particular, the conduct of the Bush-Cheney government with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq has likely "inspired" the likes of China and Russia to behave themselves in similar ways, but even under Obama the foreign policy conduct of the US government was not praiseworthy. Let's hope for a positive outcome for Ukraine in this war without too much further casualties, and let's hope that self-reflection on the western side takes place once things have settled a bit.
Thank you very much. I completely agree. I think that Western countries do need to reflect on this, as you say. We haven’t been very good at thinking about our part in undermining international law. The problem is how to reset the international system, and whether it is even possible now. Also, we would have to accept that doing so would have important, and potentially unpleasant, consequences. The notion of humanitarian intervention would have to be set aside. But if this stops wars of aggression like this, which was justified by stopping a ‘genocide’, then maybe that is the price we have to pay. It is a tough moral, legal and political problem.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for clarifying that point, the sore nub of the matter. That's hard to swallow. My New Zealand, like all small countries, is religious about the post-war international system though.
Well put James. Very good video.
Another great video 👍.I'm glad to hear someone from the west acknowledge that western countries (especially the US) have somewhat justified breaking the international law over the past 30 years which made Russia more prepared to do the same in recent times. Of course it doesn't justify anything Russia did or will do in Ukraine, but it shows that the west is far more hypocritical that most people like to admit.
There is not a flake of blame to be placed on the west for what Vladimir Putin is doing, it is him and him alone that is responsible for what is happening in Ukraine.
Nope.
@@samthomas1457 well majority of russians are backing him (from popularity surveys) so it would seem you are wrong in implying this war is putins personal war. The historical context is the correct lens to view this war as the actions russia is taking are explained thru a geopolitic logic analysis. Russians arent willing to have a nato base near their border while the west has completely disregarded this with nato expansionism. So it would seem western foreign policy did effect the involved parties' calculus that produced the current outcome.
Russia has been using this playbook since Transnistria, well before the western shenanigans started.
Hi James, this video is very useful to understand the difference between NATO bombing and Russian invasion. I personally agree with your argument. But I have seen Western scholars who say that NATO bombing was not violation of international law. How should we consider that kind of argument? Is there any validity in that kind of argument?
Not in a legal basis, these so-called scholars are just on a payroll
Assuming Russia wants a friendly proxy government in Ukraine you have to think about how close Belarus was to having a neutral / anti-Russian government just a few months ago.
Let me answer you as a Belarusian. Most Belarusians are quite naive about this, but those who actually understand, see armed uprising against Lukashenko as impossible.
Lukashenko has a police state when aggressive uneducated human trash is recruited into his police, brainwashed, armed and given many privileges for their loyalty(state-sponsored housing they couldn’t otherwise afford, early retirement with good pensions, etc.). Normal people are unarmed. Still, the regime can be toppled temporarily, probably not without significant bloodshed.
Then what? Russian tanks roll in and flatten our cities if we resist. Game over.
The only reasonable way for a Belarusian to resist Russian imperialism is to fight in Ukraine and then, when Ukraine is secure from Russian attacks, move back and do something about own country. Only in that order.
If Ukraine can’t do it, pointless to even try in Belarus.
@@noop9k what makes you think life will improve if you become a democracy? Look around the west, we have a big increasing problem of inequality and low wages, im in AUS and for people under 30 its near on impossible of owning a home, theres also job insecurity. Also democracy only needs to keep 51% of the people happy.
@@NathanCroucher Poland started from the same state and improved greatly. Wages, food, living standards much better in Poland than in Russia. (Moscow is not Russia, it is a parasite that feeds on Russia) Same applies to most other exUSSR EU states. Actually, Russian median wage is below minimum wage in most of these states and therefore illegal.
And this is Russia, sitting on immense amount of natural resources. All neighbors under control of Russia are dirt-poor authoritarian regimes. Democratic ones fare much better.
But I do agree that the smaller EU states are economically dominated and exploited by Germany & to lesser degree France/Italy. Still, very far from exUSSR misery under dictatorships.
And I spent plenty of time learning history and have no problems understanding why authoritarian “socialist” shit states can’t function well.
Really enjoyed this video, great summary
Thank you very much.
Thank you! I was born in the US in the 40’s, so I’ve “lived through“ Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and was wondering why my horror and disgust at the invasion of Ukraine were so much more vivid now than in times past. Partly I thought, “It’s Europe, it’s a cultural relative, it’s white.
You’ve helped expand my views. It’s as if each of our ugliest wars had pushed hard against the the thin skin of civilization (like from the inside of a balloon pushing outwards and NEARLY creating holes into the anarchy that boils outside the balloon). The Russian invasion of Ukraine breaks right through that thin balloon and into the maelstrom of Might Makes Right.
Thank you so much. I think we shared the same feelings. I just had a sense that it broke boundaries and wanted to get a better sense of why. I’m so glad you found it useful. Best wishes from London!
@@JamesKerLindsay
It's truly startling because it blows down our understanding of what lengths the "other" that we don't understand is willing to go to.
As much as we hear of Taiwan, I don't know if I previously expected China to actually go in. Now, I'm not too sure an invasion won't happen.
@@JamesKerLindsay when people say ukriane gets attention because it's white it ignore how little attention the Yugoslav wars had.
Thank you for raising awareness of this issue
I have been following this crisis from day one and now I realise that I have completely overlooked this from a wider perspective. I appreciate your efforts in making the situation clearer for us.
The USA Suggested in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia regime change. Or Frace change or kill any of the former colonies and change the regime. What do you say about that? My problem is hypocrisy. Let everyone live in peace and stability will come without western intervention as well. No sugar, coating. Remember " not an inch from eastern Germany" NATO promise?
Legitimately curiosity here : isnt israel palestine conflict check all those three? Whichever side you're on you can argue the other party violated all thre
Thanks. You are absolutely right. Both sides have indeed violated - or attempted to violate - all three. I think the key difference is that they aren’t P5 powers and haven’t attempted to violate the rules with the threat of nuclear retaliation. (Israel has nuclear weapons, but hasn’t threatened to use it to support an offensive action, as a Russia has in Ukraine.) But you are right, Israel-Palestine has seen these rules violated as well.
@@deshaun9473 We need to be clear and precise. The State of Palestine has been admitted as an observer by the UN. When the UN assessed its bid for membership, it found that it met the criteria for Statehood. The application was only rejected by the United States. For the majority of the world, Palestine is a state. The United States and Israel may disagree. But many others see it differently. And the way that sovereignty and Statehood works is that a country is a country if a country recognises it as such. In other words, whether Palestine is a state is based on where you live.
How about the Israeli - Palestinian conflict? Can a case be made for violation of all three (sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence) by Israel against Palestine?
Yes. But Israel-Palestine is also a very different type of conflict with a very different set of dynamics. For example, Palestinians will point out the Israel is violating the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the territory set out for the Palestinian state. This is true. But Israelis will also point out that the State of Israel only exists today because it survived an attempt by its Arab neighbours to violate all three principles at several points of its existence. This is also true. It isn’t really as straightforward as people like to argue from one side or another. It needs to be tackled separately from the debate here, taking on board these various complicating factors.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you.
As far as I am aware, this is the first time opposition to the indefensible Russian invasion that involves a substantial economic responses on the part of nations, international organizations, and corporations, now including McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo. Your video got me reflecting that McDonalds statement is interesting as it cites "our [corporate or "System"] values mean that we cannot ignore..." - but this is not an affirmation of the three core principles of the international system you discuss. Perhaps the international system is a multi-polar environment that includes the foundational international principles you discuss, but also international corporations, and the 'might makes right' assertions of those in the nuclear / WMD club. I worry that Putin might be inclined to use the tactical nuclear ace up his sleeve and I don't think much effort will be made to justify it in the court of international diplomacy. 'Might makes right' must be a consideration in responding to this illegal and unjustifiable invasion.
Great content. Thank you!
Thank you very much indeed.
Turkey violates both the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus and also doesn't recognize Cyprus as a state. So I think all 3 elements are violated in the case of Cyprus by Turkey. Furthermore Turkey has occupied 1/3rd of Cyprus which had a Greek majority (like every other part), and went on to ethnically cleanse the great majority of the native population and replace them with its own Settlers from Turkey. So this is even worst compared to what Russia has done to Ukraine (so far). I hope we do not return to a lawless era, but at the same time I hope that international law will be applied equally everywhere (e.g. Cyprus, Serbia and Ukraine), otherwise any country with power can make up excuses and propaganda to justify any illegal action.
Thanks. I tackled this in another comment a few days ago. Turkey didn’t violate all three. It violated sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Cyprus still exists as an independent state. Crucially, it’s also worth bearing in mind that the Turkish invasion was prompted by Greece’s coup. Turkey therefore argues that it was invading to stop union with Greece. In that regard, Cyprus was caught in an impossible position. Faced with two invasions, it either lost its territorial integrity to Turkey or its independence to Greece. It couldn’t win.
@@JamesKerLindsay Ukraine also still exists as an independent state. And as far as I know even Russia still recognizes Ukraine. So Turkey is worst in this regard also. Regarding the coup, which was the excuse of Turkey (and not a valid reason), the coupists lost power within 5 days from the day of the invasion, in both Cyprus and Greece, and Turkey continued with their invasion, occupying more land, which they still keep decades after their cheap excuse expired. Russia also has excuses for their invasion. According to them what happened in Ukraine in 2014 was a coup, there was a genocide against the Russian population of Ukraine, there are Nazis in Ukraine etc. P.S. What do you think about a BBF solution for Ukraine with political equality between the Ukrainians and the Russians?
I tackled this in the video. But I can see there’s not much use in pursuing this. We’ll just have to disagree.
@@JamesKerLindsay Which would be the case if the Acheson Plan was implemented in 1964, when USA was promoting the dissolvement of RoC through the double enosis. A "what if" scenario about a double enosis concerning the International Law would be interesting.
@@JamesKerLindsay It is unfortunate that we disagree. It comes down to the fact that the British collaborate with Turkey, and use the Turkish minority in Cyprus as an excuse to occupy parts of our island (Turkey 37%, UK 3%). A truly free Cyprus wouldn't serve the geostrategic interests of Turkey/UK, just like a truly free Ukraine wouldn't serve the interests of Russia. Both Russia and UK/Turkey can make up excuses to justify their actions, but in the end of the day it is all about interests and none of them cares about anything beyond this despite their very impressive theatrics.
Thank you -(personal Tairua NZ)
The current international order exists because of the Pax Americana, the "might makes right" of American hegemony. The fact is, as the rest of the world caught up economically and militarily with America, America would no longer have the power required to enforce Pax Americana, because not all powerful nations hold the same political values that America and her satellites believe in, and as those nations become powerful enough in relativity, the Pax Americana will fall. It's been a pleasant historical aberration these past 30-40 years, but we are entering a new century of empires, and there's really not anything that can be done to stop it. Russia today, China tomorrow, possibly Brazil, Turkey, or Uzbekistan after that, nations will do whatever seems necessary to benefit themselves if America is viewed as powerless to stop them.
Nuclear weapons will still deter most invasions, even without America's help. No country can attack a nato or EU member since they are all still defended by nuclear weapons.
Thank you
This video deserves more views. This video talks about a current scenario from an intellectual and conceptual point of view. Besides there is no scare mongering going on her. Brilliant!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. If you do know anyone who might find it useful please do share it.
Correction: @8.35
NATO had indeed repeatedly said that Yugoslavian president Milosevic had to be overthrown and "brought to justice" so what you said there is inaccurate.
Sorry, but it wasn’t inaccurate at all. Overthrowing Milošević certainly wasn’t an objective of the war. There was no effort to march on Belgrade to oust him. Certainly, the US and others would not have been unhappy if Serbs got rid of him - as they did. But they certainly didn’t have this as a formal objective. When we discuss these things, we need to be precise.
@@JamesKerLindsay you just said the correct phrase, "formal objective".
In other words, it was informal objective and after that, Libya, Iraq and Syria had the same fate, war and change of regime. Either way, Sandam Husain, was executed by its own people, Gaddafi the same ans almost Basar Al Assad.
A very common strategy with a very common objectives, formal or informal.
@@dimitriskouris7949 Sorry, you are deliberately choosing to misread my words. The term formal objective doesn’t mean it was an informal objective. I was clear about this. If it happened, no one would shed any tears. I have written extensively on Kosovo and I have been very critical about the handling of the issue by the United States and Britain. But it is important, as I said, to be precise when dealing with these things.
@@JamesKerLindsay I did not deliberately misread your words. I drew a conclusion based on the events since then and up to now which in my opinion they present striking similarities no doubt. So we agree to disagree.
Nevertheless, thank you for your great videos and keep up the good work.
Thanks. :-)
If I'm not mistaken, the only recent history event that's similar in brutality, civilian casualties, deliberate war crimes and amount of refugess is Syria. And Syria was mostly like that because of russian intervention.
Syria probably would still be at war even if Russia didn't keep asad in power
Before being russian teritory, Crimea was also Ottoman, Tatar, Visigoth, Roman, Greek, Scythian etc pp.
Well, that was extremely well put. I must admit that I have never been keen to Western Countries and their military operations abroad. What you said about promoting democracy doesn't really fit well in the narrative of how those conflicts actually happenes. Still, I do believe that Russia is a threat and that we must oppose these horrible acts of violence in the way you did, both from a humanitarian point of view and from a more academic one. Great video, as always, I look forward to coming back to these comunity.
Great lecture! Learned a lot. Agree with these views. Putin should be stopped.
Thank you!
Use wespon and go stopp him.
In relation to Taiwan, doesn't American (and other Western) support for their self-determination also defile the territorial integrity of China? Simply put, America and Western support for Taiwan is not support for the ROC (a political entity that is not recognized by most) but much rather for the continuation of the status quo also equate to the violation of Chinese sovereignty, and territorial integrity? Furthermore, since America has an _unofficial_ but still present military force in Taiwan (which it stationed without the permission of PRC authorities), wouldn't this also technically be an invasion of sorts?
I fully support unification once the CCP is defeated. Besides, China violated Tibet's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. There's a reason China is hated and feared by their neighbors.
@@duybear4023 I do not remember asking for your obtuse opinions. Many neighbors of China are on good terms with it. The majority of the world recognizes Tibet as a part of China. Anyways, this whataboutism is diverting from the topic at hand and question I asked.
However, the NATO-led intervention in Serbia didn't lead directly to Kosovo's independence, and that was stated in the 1244 resolution. Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008, and the International Court of Justice in 2010 concluded that the declaration of independence didn't break international law. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't make sense to me that these principles have validity while a state is actively conducting ethnic cleansing against one ethnic group, something the regime in Serbia did. How about the self-determination principle?
Thanks. I discussed many of these issues in this and other videos.
On the point about self-determination, this is an issue that causes a lot of confusion. The right of self-determination leading to independence is only recognised on colonial settings. (By this we mean overseas colonies. Kosovo was not a Serbian colony.) In other cases, it means a right to self-rule or autonomy unless the parent state grants it the right to secede. Kosovo did not have the right to independence. That was why it’s supporters said it was a ‘unique case’. The problem is that you cannot have unique cases in law. The law applies or it doesn’t.
By the way, you raise the ICJ case on Kosovo. This did not say anything about whether Kosovo had a right to independence or whether it is a state. It simply said there was nothing to say it couldn’t *declare* independence. Any territory can do, unless specifically prevented from doing so. But that doesn’t make it a country. It just means that it is a territory that has said it is a country. What matters is whether that is accepted. It’s a seemingly technical issue, but actually very important. The judges were clear that they said nothing about Kosovo’s actual statehood.
In any case, while there is no disguising Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, and I personally think that it makes more sense for a Kosovo and Serbia for them to part ways, all this means that Kosovo did not have a right to unilateral secession.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for your answer.
I have a question.
You argued that though Crimea indeed once was a part of Russia when under USSR, but after the breakup of USSR since Russia accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea, this action in 2014 violated the fundamental principles of territorial integrity.
So basically what you're implying that because Crimea wasn't a disputed territory pre-2014, Russia's annexation is a naked aggression.
(Granted Russia did some legal gymnastics by first recognising Crimean independence and then moved for annexation).
So here's my question: If an invasion happens in a disputed territory, like say India invading the Pakistani-Administered Jammu and Kashmir or say China invading Senkakku island, how are you going to contrast these hypothetical events with Ukraine? Would they count as violating territorial integrity? How would you define these events?
Or even contrast this with Indian invasion and liberation/annexation of Goa, a territory which according to Europe and NATO was "integral part of Portugal, not a colony" before 1961, the way French overseas territories are, but not recognised as such by India (though was once recognised by independent India as Portuguese territory at one point)? I know international community had condemned this then, but now everyone accepts Goa is an Indian state just like say Gujarat.
You could enlighten these different examples and contrast them. That would be helpful. Thanks.
Goa was known as colony even though Portugal didn't accepted it. World was going through decolonisation process that's why countries accepted India invasion. Whereas France gave up their indian territories peacefully.
@@ShubhamMishrabro today there are so many overseas territories of France. One is close to India (Reunion Island). France defines most of those inhabited territories as integral departments. EU accepts this. This was the case with Pondicherry also.
Portugal did the same. By Portuguese law, Goa was just a province and Goans were Portuguese. Many western nations supported this idea but ofcourse Asia and Africa didn't. All this in contrast to British Empire where indeed they were colonies and colonial subjects were not full citizens and they didn't send their representatives to house of commons (not the case with France and erstwhile Portugal).
That's why liberation of Goa became such a controversial issue back in 1961. NO WESTERN POWER recognised this and all condemned it. Even Latin America opposed it as they were uncomfortable with the idea of "hindus defeating superior Catholics in warfare". It was a Soviet veto which prevented UNSC rap on India (another reason why India is still friendly with Russia).
Only when in 1974 there was a regime change in Portugal, they accepted India's sovereignty over Goa. Post facto Portugal's allies forgot all this and everyone accepted that Goa was India's.
But during 1961, one could easily argue (especially those who are not Indians or Portuguese) that the invasion then was a territorial violation of a sovereign state and a conquest. But ofcourse de-colonialisation angle made this complicated legally, even if Portuguese law and western consensus thought Goa was a mere province not a colony.
@@dr.batman2530 yes many were not happy with invasion. France tried this with Algeria too.
Russia has been in an equally isolated position several times in the last 200 years, this is nothing Russia will not be able to weather.