Vlad's main channel ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
I am still highly intrigued by Patrushev being put in charge of ship building. It would seem to me that would be the arm of Russia's military likely to see the most money dedicated to it over the next 10 years. Nuclear Powered subs are expensive, doesn't this really put him in charge of a ton of money distribution?
Hey Vlad, I feel you. Axonal damage from GBS left me pretty much a quad. But I just wanted to say how much I admire your will. Physical issues 'DO' impact the mental condition immensely, pain, lethargy and the mourning of how we once were (PTSD)...I don't know how you deal. Even the commitment to your audience, that I know you truly love, is such a gift of the 'actual' functioning hours of your day that not many people grasp. You are simply 'amazing' !
@@gian7707 True, physical impacts mental as does mental impact physical...both systems are interdependent....problems with either system affects the other. Warmest wishes from Northern California 🌴🌞
Thank you for putting a positive spin on the term "proxy war". Ever since the invasion Ukraine's supporters have been repeating variations on the slogan "If Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, Russia won't stop". I, for one, consider that Ukraine is fighting on my behalf and can never feel grateful enough. As for the Western weapon supplies, I can't imagine how galling it must be to live in Kharkiv under daily bombardment, knowing that the enemy is within range just across the border, yet not be allowed to retaliate until they breach that border. The sooner the ban is lifted, the better. I fear the Russian response will be to place legitimate military targets within civilian settlements, but the blame for the resulting "collateral damage" will rest squarely with them.
Yes the situation in Kharkiv is really bad - it’s a big and culturally important city. Images from there today concentrate the disgraceful violence emanating out of the Kremlin.
"I fear the Russian response will be to place legitimate military targets within civilian settlements, but the blame for the resulting "collateral damage" will rest squarely with them." Sure.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2uIf the terrorist regime in Russia choses to use the human shield tactics, it will not be anything unexpected, nor something that should stop Ukrainian legitimate military operations against the “shielded” targets. Russians might wake up if that happens, finally.
I don't necessarily believe that Putin would invade a NATO country. What he's doing in Ukraine is reason enough to stop him and restore some semblance of normal behavior for land-hungry dictators.
this is not some divine law. it is simple. russia is not afraid of us, but we are afraid of russia. russia did not set this rule, this rule/restriction was set by us and russia is just exploiting it. we played that hand to russia.
You guys really are miss8ng the whole point. This is such childish and reactive response to what's he's discussing. You're exactly the problem he is talking about how we can't have conversations about Ukraine strategically and maturely. There are ppl like you just there to cry and whine at every little thing
Apparently, western philosophical outlook favors the aggressor or something. Throughout history, they've always picked on those weaker than themselves.
It's clearly true that no battle, much less a war, can be won if the aggressor can somehow remain off-limits. @Vlad, you are an impressive person. Giving examples of reasonable, responsible, mature behavior in the modern information space. Funny enough, I expressed this while misreading Mrblazed's comment, and concluded that I was a less reactive shit partially due to your efforts on this platform. I'm glad my word choice was "less reactive" 😄. I stand by the sentiment.
@isonnol he dose stand out from some other youtuber and explains things in a different way he's one of the best people who talk about russia and its politics and ukrainie war
This is even more problematic when you consider the world allows Russia to claim more and more of Ukraine's territory. This is why those pushing to agree to Putin's current proposal to end the war but have Russia keep the land it has occupied are so absurdly stupid - these will just become more lands troops and equipment can be position in which the west will disallow attacks on.
I don't completely agree with this point, despite what people say there is a limit for how much war and loss Russia can sustain and no it isn't after the last Russian person is dead. Though this means that Ukraine needs to keep enough pressure on Russia to force Russia into making choices in which it is a net negative for them no matter which one they make.
This net negative will never happen.Natural gas has given Russia power as example It will be still there in 3 or 6 years Selling it later doesn't make much of a difference
Russians were using Iranian weapons long before Ukraine could strike deep into Russian territory. Also, Ukrainians didn't invade Russia, so there's that. Russia had it all coming
@@yidavv justfying the right to strike the manufacturer of the weapons soil in self-defence. Interesting how Ukraine pointed out the hypocrisy of the West in shooting down Iran's missiles/drones on Israel.
@@tma2001 Ukraine will do that type of rhetoric because its in their advantage. but their argument isnt right. the US intervening and inrtercepting missiles targetted towards Israel (alongside many other arab countries aid) is not the same as the US getting involved in Ukraine. Unless you simply don't care for strategy, and only care about emotional appeals. I dont like what is happening in Ukraine, but the US not intercepting missiles there isnt hypocriticial just because they did for Israel. The west rightfully, has to be careful of escalation. They can and should do more than they are right now in aid for Ukraine, I can only imagine how frustrating it is for those in Ukraine. But we have to be realistic and not just point fingers to other conflicts that have no relation to each other.
Sometimes I manage to shut up when you're talking, Vlad. Very good talk today. Something you said about ethics in war reminded me of what Goering said after he bombed Rotterdam in May 1940. He said, "We did it because we can." Flippant. That night, or the next, the British bombed a little town on the German North Sea coast obliterating it and the rational the British gave was, "We did it because we can." I suppose the moral of that story is that the aggressor writes the rules. Specifically, bombing civilian targets is now on whereas before the bombing of Rotterdam it was taboo. (And there is the rule of retaliation, of course.) The Russians today think it's okay to bomb civilians. But the Ukrainians have not followed suit (usually) in bombing shopping malls and residential areas, though they do bomb power stations (which is fine by me) in retaliation to the Russian bombing of Ukrainian power stations. Things do evolve, eh. Another example is Western soldiers haven't been shooting prisoners of war (usually) for over a hundred years, whereas the Ruskkies haven't any qualms about it at all, apparently. Again, the Ukrainians have not followed suit (usually).
The "because we can" sends a message but may not be militarily effective. Dresden was a bit much and more of a science experiment. The two atomic bombs had strategic effects (and coincided with fire bombing raids by Curtis LeMay as a convincer).
Sadly as the war drags on, I too start seeing it more and more that way. In the beginning I wanted a quick response to push Russia back....ideally through diplomacy...but by any means a quick end to the fighting. In the beginning the Russian troops were very chaotic and not showing any discipline or organization...now they seem to be more focused....at the start was our best bet to get them out of Ukraine. How we (USA) keep allowing so much bloodshed is horrible. We have the power and authority to insist on peace talks....it no longer feels like help as we allow Ukraine to suffer more and more. If Russia gets a very strong position in Ukraine that will make the inevitable negotiations all that much more difficult for Ukraine. I do want us to support and help Ukraine, but in a pragmatic and logical way....not letting them bleed themselves dry and lose their land.
Hi Vlad Before I listen to you my view is yes Ukraine should be able to take the fight to Russia……whether the weapons are supplied by USA, Europe or even Amazon! Now having listened to you I have the view that the overriding issue is that Ukraine is fighting for its existence against an imperial “superpower” and it must be entitled to use the weapons that it is supplied with without limitations. The Americans will not provide Ukraine with its latest weaponry anyway. Whatever the USA sends to Kiev then Kiev should be the decider of how and where those weapons are used. Any lack of clarity in the West over its strategic approach should not act as a break on Ukraine in fighting this war.
Thank you for cutting through Vlad's babble. Vlad is like, should we even debate Ukraine's right to defend itself, lets spend 15 minutes saying nothing.
"Americans will not provide Ukraine with its latest weaponry anyway." This is only partially true. The MIM-104 Patriots we and Germany have provided are state of the art. Ukraine is fighting for all of us but we are juggling an alliance which means we have to consider allies like Germany who are desperate to avoid escalation. If we didn't have to work with allies we'd not only be supplying more weapons, the ones we send would be newer. I wish we could get there sooner and am ashamed Ukraine is being shortchanged, but these are the limitations of alliance.
Since the end of WWII, my country, the US, has been involved in proxy (and even invented) wars large and small. Ukraine is the first one I've supported. I thank you, Vlad, for calling it what it is and legitimizing it. Several hundred million of us are jittery thinking of the November election.
Dono Dono Ukraine was one of biggest Eu economics and they got ~38++ million residents now they got probably 15M++ big part flees to Eu Russia 1m+ lost in war
@@Griezeejs rule of 10% for full mobility means even with these numbers Ukraine can raise an army of at least 1.5 million. Russia's total casualties are much closer to 500k. Russia can produce an annual recruiting class of 2-400k which has been shown by the now three armies they've cycled through Ukraine. Horrible as it is the scale of attritting Russians needs to be increased greatly. It is not pleasant to say, it's awful but Russia needs to have about 2 million casualties, 2 million is too large for Putin to hide. The Iran-Iraq war 1980-1989 produced about 1 million casualties, fighting was remarkably similar (except no drones). Once they lost 1 million both sides were exhausted but even combined the two countries had less than Russia's current population. In English we are about 25% into this godawful tragedy.
100% yes. Our timidity has caused us to draw our own red lines miles below where they ought to be. Like a tourist who thinks they got a good deal on a $500 knock-off wristwatch at a Delhi bazar. It's time to for us to grow up, accept that the rules are only observed for so long as they are enforced, and stop being cowards
Hey Vlad, I feel you. Axonal damage from GBS left me pretty much a quad. But I just wanted to say how much I admire your will. Physical issues 'DO' impact the mental condition immensely, pain, lethargy and the mourning of how we once were (PTSD)...I don't know how you deal. Even the commitment to your audience, that I know you truly love, is such a gift of the 'actual' functioning hours of your day that not many people grasp. You are simply 'amazing' !
Yes. I am a bit concerned though that in the West, we demand absolute transparency of what the red lines are, whereas Putin has no need to be transparent. We lose the element of surprise with that.
Well Russia does claim that the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts as part of Russia by Russian law... so technically Ukraine has already been using them on 'Russian' soil for well over a year now. Just saying.
Ukraine has been at a significant military disadvantage, being outgunned and outnumbered and not being able to deploy western weapons against Russia's military infrastructure. Russia's intimidation tactics have proved highly effective and they've exploited the West's fear of escalation. Only the UK 🇬🇧 has given the green light to Ukraine, to use British weapons inside Russia. 👍
Look, if the UK doesn't mind becoming a target as well then by all means. Most UK people don't want to be part of the war, but the UK elites would probably survive in their bunkers. So as long as you're prepared to lose your own family and life you should support this senseless brinkmanship.
The US learned the hard way during the Vietnam conflict that if your enemy is allowed sanctuary across borders while they can cross borders to attack with impunity, there is no winning. Having said that, Russia is not going to stop with Ukraine - if they are allowed to take Ukraine. They have made that quite clear.
*Very* clear in the 6,000-word essay "On the Historical Unity Between Russians and Ukrainians" published by the Russian leader in July 2021, which among other countries mentioned Lithuania no less than 17 times.
Thanks Vlad. Very helpful. I start from Ukraine's right to defend itself - as you said, that involves considerations of necessity. It is necessary for Ukraine and its supporters to consider targets in Russia because of the aggression by the Kremlin regime. If there were no invasion by Moscow - then there would be no such necessity. Perhaps one approach is proximity or causation of potential harm by a target. That is most obvious for Moscow's bombers, missile ships and army units just across the border which are attacking Ukraine or supporting such attacks. They are attacking Ukrainians now, today, every day, including civilians. There will be different views about how far beyond those categories to draw that line of proximity but those primary categories should be clear and possible to agree on. BTW, I dislike the term 'proxy' because it might imply lack of agency by Ukraine (you said here that you do not accept that objection but my concern is how less informed and thoughtful people will understand that term). I prefer 'common interest' - as a comparison, the UK was not a 'proxy' for the US in 1940 and 1941, but the US was directly interested in UK survival and eventual victory (and even agreed aspirations in the Atlantic Charter). 'Incomplete' is a polite description for Western strategy - I'd say 'incoherent and contradictory'. The West has an extra interest in Ukraine winning this war as quickly as possible because it is enabling hostile states to develop weapons and techniques which will be used against the West later.
Of course it should. If the weapons are gifted or are to be paid for in the future then Ukraine should be able to defend herself without one arm behind her back.
Yes! France didn’t stop being an aggressive continental power until it got its clock cleaned twice. Same for Germany. Russian imperialism won’t stop until it sees that its ambitions are fruitless. If they keep it up they may lose territory to China.
When it is a crisis and an emergency.. when survival is at stake and there is necessity for action, there is little time and patience to sit down and develop a strategic plan. So I don’t fully appreciate that the answer to this question must flow from some strategic thinking and assessment. I don’t like to use the word “proxy” because in common meaning it has too much closeness to “puppet”, and Ukraine is absolutely not a puppet of the USA. I greatly respected your analogy of the neighbor and friend. And when my friend comes and asks for my help in a crisis, I will not tell him that I need to make a plan - I ask my friend how I can help, and do what I can. To me, a true friend doesn’t put strings or conditions on what help is shared. You help or you don’t. As an American, I see that our friend Ukraine needs our help and I am proud that we can provide it. I see the urgency and necessity. They need our full and unconditional support, and as global friends we must give it.
Australia has never put any restrictions on where Ukraine can use donated weapons and munitions. Why is there an intellectual failure of NATO countries that they have difficulty in understanding that a country under attack needs to retaliate to where it’s being attacked from?
I agree that Ukraine should be able to use US munitions within Russian borders. At the same time, the US is careful of not appearing to step over the line of directly confronting Russia, since Russia is so belligerent against the US. Here the term proxy war comes in. Partly, Russia is using Ukraine as a field in which to wage it's war against the West.
I'm equally baffled. The only NATO members who seem to have a clear grasp on the situation are those formerly occupied by or have had war(s) with russia. Also, France seems to have woken up recently.
@@ak5659 France I think is all talk. Keep in mind that the French support European trade with Russia so that it can finance the war it started in Ukraine. As for French capabilities, their begging Australia for the explosives to make artillery shells shows very little preparedness for boots on the ground.
Absolutely. They have been invaded. So of course it is necessary to strike the home field the aggressor. It is complete folly to restrict the use of any applicable arms. They were given, to aid Ukraine, therefore it is for Ukraine to shoulder the burdens of use. Any other answer from the donating country would be to interfere in the politics of the receiving nation.
A *Proxy* is someone who depends upon another, but isn’t directed by that other as a result. A state actor who is dependent AND directed in International Politics is a *Puppet* The Russian Federation, looking back to the “height” of Imperial or Stalinist Russia, slipped back into its own definitions from the previous centuries were *Allies* & *Proxies* & *Puppets* are all the same thing to an Empire. Those definitions also allow them to see Ukrainians as just a type of Russian and so at heart they too must also want to be ruled by a Moscow Tsar. It’s these fundamental distortions in Moscow’s lens that lets them see opposition as fascism, a lie as the truth and what’s yours as really theirs.
Thank you. This makes really useful distinctions. Russia certainly does behave as if Ukraine is a puppet of the West which is far from the truth, given the Ukrainians' resourcefulness and independence of spirit.
It’s idiotic to ask such a question when Russia attacks Ukraine with North Korean and Iranien weapons and uses Chinese electronic components in their fighter planes and tanks.
Lets hypothesise a bit. Say in WW2 the US was not at war with Germany, but was supporting the UK with bombs. UK cities were being blasted with V1's and V2's launched from the continent. The UK had bombers which could hit the launch sites and factories, but could not do so without using US bombs, which the US would not allow as it would 'escalate' the conflict. Leaving aside the fact that Germany had plans to similarly decimate US cities, when the UK was left smoking and 'under the boot', would that policy be judged as logical (and sane?).
I weep over the satellite images from a year ago of huge gatherings of tanks and equipment and vast encampments of tens of thousands of troops amassed just across the border and 'out of bounds' to Ukrainian attack. An acquaintance of mine, a combat medic might still be alive if these sitting targets had been hit
What amazes me is that there are policy makers in Washington who believe the largest land war in Europe since WW2 can somehow be contained and restricted to only the territory of Ukraine.
The west's strategy is "incomplete". Well if that isn't the eufemism of the century, I don't know what is. 😅 Yes, of course Ukraine should be able to use our weapons in Russia. If anything that should give the western politicians more strategic clarity...or completeness, if you will. Cheers!
Lurker here, just here every time to adjust and compare notes on moral compass. Sometimes it's hard to say things that may hurt others feelings, but need to be said, however it's most times never about feelings themselves. Especially when the receiving end devolves into becoming a victim to downplay or deflect any incoming criticism. You make my compass straight and true in difficult arguments! Thank you so much!!
Some people find free speech and the free exchange of ideas painful and threatening. They want them to stop, thinking that will avoid the greater pain of error.
Dear Vlad, Thank you for another well considered discussion. Of course this is not a true Proxy War, and there are good reasons to not use that descriptor in this conflict, however it is as true that this is a larger struggle between Putin's Ideology some vision of a "Greater Russia", and the West's Ideology of a world managed by a mutually agreed to "Rule Of Law". So the answer to the question should western weapons be used on Russian Territory, the obvious answer is, .....Yes. Politically, and Militarily there is no other option. Indeed there could be a powerful argument that the US and the EU should have supplied a Division of their own "...little Green Men..." at the outbreak of hostilities. However having said that, we all live under the Sword Of Damocles and so from a ThermoNuclear Geo-Political standpoint, ratcheting up the amount and types of weapons supplied to Ukraine slowly was the safest of strategies, however this safe strategy was paid for by Ukrainian lives on the front lines. Pushing back Russian logistical supply lines and depots, destroying the Crimean Bridge, and the existing rail lines in the Russian held Oblasts is a military necessity if they Ukrainians are to retake that territory, and the Crimea. To do this they will need munitions that have a "longer reach", most likely 200 to 300 Kilometers into Russia itself.
I think Ukraine should be allowed to use Western weaponry within a certain range of their borders. Especially where Russian troops, vehicles, equipment & weapons are building up & gathering together in preparation to either cross into Ukrainian territory or strike targets in Ukrainian territory should all be fair game. It's just a thought...
And what about air bases 1000km + from Ukraine that are being used for bombing sorties into Ukraine? It can’t just be build ups around the border. People are dying unnecessarily due to these restrictions
@VladVexlerChat Ukraine doesn't really have the luxury of dissecting the implications like this... what they have a problem with is Logistics, Tactics, and war strategy. Removing an income source from an opponent is a valid strategy, removing their military assets, removing their economy, their logistics, and even their stability. Not sure you grasp this Vlad, but there's a 'war' on in Ukraine right? All Ukraine have to worry out is if they get more weapons... if they can build there own, and how they can survive... for that reason if as a deity you asked a Ukrainian "I will give you victory to expel the Russians, but the down side is in this: All Russians on Earth, everywhere, will vanish..." well my guess is 90% will take it! Even if their own mother were a Russian! Thats human nature for you, a dark side of it, but we humans are apex predators, and the vast majority of us act like it. And our moral values have two sides, what we SAY we value, and our behavior which tell you what we really value!
Thanks Vlad for your vision/opinion..really gives the B. Community strenght to hang on, therefore right back to you brother; hang on🍀 Leon (The Netherlands)
sorry I’m sorry that you are experiencing such illness. I feel that you were really wonderful, intelligent conversationalist and streamer so it’s not easy to hear about your your suffering.
Vlad, just to say that I gain a great deal from your videos - they often help me to further develop my own thinking about various subjects. When I become Prime Minister I shall invite you to become one of my key advisors :)
According to international law, Ukraine has the right to defend itself inside as well as outside of its borders. They shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind their back when facing Putler's hordes. Let Putler rattle his nuclear sabre as much as he wants, he will not win the war in Ukraine and he will not win any subsequent war he starts - nuclear or otherwise. And to all countries hesitating about handing over too much materiel to Ukraine, certainly when it comes to countries in western Europe: The war that very materiel was produced to fight is here. It's in Ukraine. No-one in western Europe has prepared for defence against any other nation than RuSSia. Give everything you can, everything you have to give, to the brave men and women of Ukraine who are fighting the very war that is the reason you've been stockpiling all these years! Even from a morally weak stand point, one which puts the lives of your countrymen before the solidarity owed to the people of Ukraine, it would be the right thing to do. Or would you rather have Putler win in Ukraine and have to use your stockpiles in defence of your own country? Even from a completely egotistical perspective, bereft of any feelings of solidarity towards the people of Ukraine, surely it would make more sense to give Ukraine the means to win this war and stop it before it reaches your own country?
Thankyou very much. Over the past couple of years you have been invaluable in helping me understand how to think about Russia's invasion. Not what to think, but how, and that has allowed me to better incorporate other sources of information into my opinions and reasoning. Thankyou for this amazing service, you are a gem among people.
Dear Vlad, until now, I've been one of the lurkers who has been quietly benefiting from your discussions without contributing myself. I greatly value your suggestion on the ways to think about necessity of Ukrainian strikes deep into enemy's territory. The most devastating damage inflicted on Ukraine's armed forces and civilian (e.g., recent attack on Kharkiv's market and publishing house) and military infrastructure is caused by missiles and gliding bombs. Those are sent off from a substantial distance, which doesn't allow Ukraine to engage antiaircraft missiles (there is no way anyone can intercept the bombs themselves). The upcoming limited supply of F-16's is not going to solve the problem. What is likely to substantially mitigate the problem, would be the deep strikes on airfields far from Ukrainian borders. Thus, the acceptance of deep strikes by Ukraine should be as acceptable by the Western community as that of immediate artillery targets few dozen miles away.
I would love to hear you talk about your mental health and how you manage to keep it so good Vlad. For me it's the main sticking point for engaging with politics - if I get into thinking about politics much at all it definitely impacts my mental health, I drift away from doing things which are good for me, being active etc. My mind travels further from the peak Epicurean savouring of experiences that I feel at my best, further towards a kind of critical, fault finding frame of mind and subsequent frustration as that frame of mind bleeds into everything. I neglect my own mental and physical health and find myself despondent and struggling just to leave the house and get on with doing things that need done. I walk through a beautiful forest on a balmy day, birds singing etc... and I am angry because of the state of land ownership in my country. For example.
Vlad, excellent conversation as always. I have a question about the concept of sale of equipment. Russia has been selling military materials, equipment, and training for decades, to people and countries far removed from it's borders. The US and European countries have as well. When the equipment has been sold, granted, there are sometimes restrictions placed on the use, for instance, defense purpose, or maybe just sold and left o purchaser. So if the west has sold (at whatever discount, if any) Ukraine equipment, is it not the decision of the owner on how they will use it? For instance, if in active defense of an active attack, is it not up to Ukraine how to effectively use the material? must they strike the fist, or can they go for the more distant face? curious.. and thanks
You are nothing short of fantastic Vlad! Regardless of your channel content (which is beyond reproach) you are an inspiration for me to simply get my ass up in the morning.
I feel that way about Gaza, ethical values have receded into the background. Reactions to reactions to reactions based on emotional drivers. Doesn't matter where weapons of war come from, or what they are. It matters who wields it. War is hell.
I appreciate such a nuanced discussion on the topic. It has seemed to me that, on this topic, folk are often trying to have multiple conversations simultaneously, each with its own distinct aspects. For a loose example 1) The practicalities of war and defense against invasion 2) The geopolitics attached to the logistics of sustaining the defense of a nation At the same time such conversations can get tangled by disinformation/reductio ad absurdum/etcetera across the various online realms of social media. Thank you for taking the time to split apart the strands to make these topics more approachable
Hello, it's good to see you. I'm really the opposite. I got rarely ill, but I worked in an emergency room for 25 years. I've seen a lot. I think you are blessed with a good mental health. Best wishes.
Do the US not realise that the current restriction is an expensive sticking plaster. The funding supplied may not come around again, it just be used to the full, now...
I don't think the spectators who supply the weapons to Ukraine get to play coach. Your donations do not provide a license to set limits. Provide troops and then you can open your mouth. By then it will be obvious what needs to be targeted and by whom.
@@yidavv Yes. Following your question I watched again. I would modify my comments to include, we in the west see the world as divided into separate countries. In places like China and Russia there is an idea that there is ownership beyond their internationally recognized borders. So your question is thus, is it more important to be able to protect your territory or your right to invade that of another? I think once the decision is made there you should get all the help you can to realize your goals. But you must choose one or the other. One at the price of the other.
12:22 I would like to take this scenario a step further. Let’s say your nephew or niece is being abused by their father and you want to step in, however the father says if you do he will abuse more family members so you instead tip toe around the matter and give your nephew/niece a slingshot to defend themselves but say it’s up to them to find the rocks.
Vlad, you are such a likeable and inspiring person! I feel blessed to be a member of your community. You are a helping me a lot to stay sane and balanced in this challenging world. Thank you!
We need to take the chains off, and let Putin bear the political cost of this war he started. When his people begin facing the hardships he has put upon the Ukrainians he will have to answer for it.
Very good analogy on "where your security is dependent on the outcome of quarrel of neighbour with his wife". The claim that the Ukraine War is a proxy war is simply not true - it is more akin to breaking away from an abusive partner.
if a rabbit is running from a fox and it sees a road to cross, but an oncoming HIMARS truck is speeding down it but decides to risk the road crossing, but in the process the truck squashes the fox dead, then is the rabbit to blame?
In my opinion as soon as they weapons are gifted they are no longer western weapons. If I give my family a gift I don’t then assume it’s still mine. They can do what they want with it.
Yes. But the opinion that matters here is Putin's. He's already said he doesn't believe Ukraine has the wit to do as well as it has done, so if he believes Western intel and Western weapons were used in a strike inside Russia, it's not a huge leap for him to decide that this was a direct NATO attack on Russia, albeit passing through a (non-agency) Ukrainian proxy.
@@davidspencer3726 Because we have let him get away with him believing what he thinks matters a great deal to us and also trumps every objective reality. We have spoiled Putin in two decades and we are now paying the price.
What is your take on the Putin proposal to stop the war with the current front lines? Seems like just a catch to allow Russia to repair the massive losses and prepare to launch their next offensive in a few months or years
Hello Vlad, I asked a few questions on recent stream of propaganda and have a few more, both about the film on the 90s I asked and propaganda in general. First one: how should opposition to authoritarian state relate to propaganda? Should it just debunk the propaganda or counter-propagandize using the same methods? Is using propaganda methods against the state moral and is it long term effective (not worsening trust issues). Are you allowed to have ideological biases in your projects? About propaganda in general: does your understanding of propaganda is exclusive to state control or not? Could propaganda in general be "partisan" in a competitive political environment? What is the border between being very politically biased and promoting your political ideology aggressively and propagandizing?
What factors are involved with giving or withholding permission for Ukraine to strike Russian territory? Saying we let Ukraine do what it wants but urge them to restrict their targets to military on their own land is a reasonable political statement to soften Russia’s position against the US. About a month ago, reports surfaced that ATACMS were used to strike military bases close to (but not in or near) Moscow. It may have been the case that Ukraine actually did decide to use a few on Russian soil, so the news claimed Ukraine got permission to use them in this way. Then they backtracked and reiterated they recommend they don’t in future. It might have been mere words to calm Russia down. It also invites Russia to use up their military resources. If Russia sits on massive stocks of tanks, jets, bombs, they might be a little faster to use war vs diplomacy than if war stocks are depleted regardless of other concepts like sharing cultural and economic ties with each other. This is the sunk cost effect. It’s a bias we in the west also need to guard against. After all that effort and cost of the Manhattan Project, the likelihood the US would NOT drop a nuclear bomb on someone was pretty remote. One caution might be kept in mind. If Russia uses up all its arms, they will want to produce more, more modern and effective ones. As long as they have massive caches of Soviet weapons, they can be more inclined to not build new ones. Like their aircraft carrier that never was put into service. They keep spending resources on fixing this current one that doesn’t work. If Ukraine was to sink it, they have a reason to build a new one, that might actually work. Restricting Ukraine in some way means encouraging Ukraine to produce their own arms. This makes Ukraine more self reliant and fosters massive innovation and invention with drones and methods of combat. One more thing. When someone goes to war with us, we fight back. We tend to overlook ways of peace. Stephen Kotkin frequently talks about how the US lost the Vietnam war but they won the peace. He actually encourages Ukraine to do the same, to concede Crimea to end the war. I don’t think that’s going to happen. If it got a temporary truce it would invite Russia to turn its resources elsewhere, to fight in Georgia, Moldova and half a dozen other places, would encourage China to conquer Taiwan, and likely other people around the world would pick fights with each other. I see this the other way around. Russia could have won Ukraine by peaceful means, with economic trade and cultural ties. That may be something they try if and when they completely lose this war but not before. What other factors are involved with restricting Ukraine’s use of American aid? And how might this distract us from focusing on them winning the war... and winning the peace?
I could not agree more with your point of view. Ukraine is dependent on others for its very survival but the best way for it to achieve victory and save as many of its people as possible is for the Ukrainians to make decisions about how to use the weapons and material that we are supplying to them. After all this time and all they have achieved, it’s a real shame that the Americans and other western allies are second-guessing the Ukrainians.
Fristly, I'd say Ukraine is fully justified by using any means available to neutralise threats to its citizens and armed forces, regardless of origin and regardless of how that's achieved. As for deeming Ukraine a proxy of the US, doesn't that depend on what outcome the US is aiming for? If it's the self-defence of Ukraine's own territory, then no, I disagree...if it's only for a leadership change in Russia then, yes. Was Ukraine already a US proxy after Crimea 2014 with the ongoing help the US gave them in training and modernisation of their armed forces? Btw...If so, isn't every Nato country also a US proxy?
Hi Vlad. I didn't really understand your message until the footnote at the end, when it suddenly all dropped into place. This is quite possibly a function of me having a brain-dead evening though after a full-on work week 😆 Best wishes to you.
I have continued to support Ukraine for TWO years, with financial support. Once that money leaves my own control, I trust whomever gets it to do whatever they want. Gratefully I am not a politician, nor anyone of importance. That money becomes their money immediately. Unfortunately politics, strategic importance, conditional support often mucks up any understanding of strategies beyond Ukranian borders. When the USA, EU limit use of military support it becomes "this is mine, but I will allow you to use it under MY determination of when and where". To me that actually undermines Ukraine's agency, ability to deal with the conflict effectively. Some have called this a "poverty war" with Ukraine being impoverished, the "West" as the benefactor. Who's interests are central? USA, EU, NATO, or others?
I called for Western boots on the ground (May 16th) , following Macron's gambit in March, because I believe Ukraine was at a crisis point with too few troops - and too few more than a few other key weapons as well. I acknowledged that Russia would attack these troops even if they were in the rear areas just freeing up Ukrainian troops for front line action. And I conceded that Western air power deployment would most likely follow if only in order to protect them. The West, esp. Germany and the US have denied decisive weapons out of fear of Putin's nuclear bluster, although I think retired Gen. Ben Hodges has a clear take on why using even tactical nukes on Ukraine would be his end, sooner than later. I would provide the link to my online essay at Substack, but RUclips does not usually allow that. And I also pointed out that Israel has gotten, quite a time ago, the more advanced jets we deny Ukraine, including the F-35's the most advanced and expensive of US aircraft. When I learned courtesy of the WSJ that Switzerland has F-35' sitting in an Alpine meadow air base, that was it: what are they doing there (aside from the fact the Swiss have the money to buy them - protecting dairy herds, chocolate factories, and Davos meetings? Unbelievable. Ukraine will get some of the oldest F-16's but ones also with limited range to better keep them from going deeply into Russia. By the way, the "Piper-Cub" unmanned drones Ukraine has improvised have travelled close to 1300 miles to strike at refineries. Cruel policies that US generals would never stand for if it were their troops in such battles.
If Russia considers Crimea to be Russian, then isn’t Ukraine already striking Russia (from Russias perspective), without any escalation? Does this mean A) Russia has no “redlines”? B) They do but are aware that “escalating” will force the west to do more to help Ukraine. C) Russia knows that Crimea isn’t Russia proper.
Vlad, I don’t see the US support of Ukraine as a proxy war because the war was started by Russia. Also, the US was involved and supporting Ukraine long before the SMO began, so Russia went into this war knowing that the US was supporting Ukraine.
Thank you Vlad! As usual you provide interesting food for thought. As an American I will admit to an initial reaction to your use of "proxy war", but on reflection Washington's "geopolitical chess" approach to foreign policy has some resonance with the term. Note that this describes Washington but not Ukraine. Ukrainians have proven they are much too stubborn and independent to be anyone's passive proxy. On the larger issue, you make a good point about anti-ICBM radars, but military airfields and ammunition depots that are part of the in the attack on Ukraine should fall under Ukraine's right of self defense. In my view the the greater good of the the world's democracies is best served by restoring Ukraine's sovereign borders in order to deter further aggression. Allowing Ukraine to attack targets in Russia would be a significant contribution to achieving that goal. Anyway, thank you again Vlad. Be well, take care of yourself, I look forward to your next video.
Really need a quick response from the west about near targets. Should be 'obvious'. Interesting the complexity of distant targets. Need to keep the structure of MAD intact.
Disagree slightly, it IS (also) an ethical question. Because ultimately, Pootin also claims (ridiculous and twisted as it may be) that he is waging this war for Russia's preservation. And Ukraine can always choose to submit to Russia and become part of their brutal society and imperialist project. For most, it's not about literal self preservation, but about WHO the Ukrainians want to be. And how you wage war is a part of that question. But of course Ukraine should be free to strike military targets in Russia. War is not a judo match, you don't have to stay on the tatami.
The only concern the West might have when deciding this question is about escalation, not ethics. Vlad's example of Washington not being in favor taking out the radar providing an early warning of impeding nuclear attacks, is very significant in this respect. Such an action would inevitably make Russia feel existentially threatened, namely by the West. As a response, Russia's escalatory dynamics would be less likely to be restricted by rationality concerns such as avoidance of MAD. It is Russia who would consider the use of western weapons to be the responsibility West. If existentially threatened, Russia would hold West responsible.
Vlad's main channel
ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
I am still highly intrigued by Patrushev being put in charge of ship building. It would seem to me that would be the arm of Russia's military likely to see the most money dedicated to it over the next 10 years. Nuclear Powered subs are expensive, doesn't this really put him in charge of a ton of money distribution?
Hey Vlad, I feel you. Axonal damage from GBS left me pretty much a quad. But I just wanted to say how much I admire your will. Physical issues 'DO' impact the mental condition immensely, pain, lethargy and the mourning of how we once were (PTSD)...I don't know how you deal. Even the commitment to your audience, that I know you truly love, is such a gift of the 'actual' functioning hours of your day that not many people grasp. You are simply 'amazing' !
@@gian7707 True, physical impacts mental as does mental impact physical...both systems are interdependent....problems with either system affects the other. Warmest wishes from Northern California 🌴🌞
Thanks Vlad for your hard work and dedication...especially with the health challenges...much appreciated. 🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
@@suzannstrohmaier2578 Best regards to yourself too...from Melbourne Australia
Thank you for putting a positive spin on the term "proxy war". Ever since the invasion Ukraine's supporters have been repeating variations on the slogan "If Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, Russia won't stop". I, for one, consider that Ukraine is fighting on my behalf and can never feel grateful enough.
As for the Western weapon supplies, I can't imagine how galling it must be to live in Kharkiv under daily bombardment, knowing that the enemy is within range just across the border, yet not be allowed to retaliate until they breach that border. The sooner the ban is lifted, the better. I fear the Russian response will be to place legitimate military targets within civilian settlements, but the blame for the resulting "collateral damage" will rest squarely with them.
Yes the situation in Kharkiv is really bad - it’s a big and culturally important city. Images from there today concentrate the disgraceful violence emanating out of the Kremlin.
"I fear the Russian response will be to place legitimate military targets within civilian settlements, but the blame for the resulting "collateral damage" will rest squarely with them." Sure.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u Hello no-name bot
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2uIf the terrorist regime in Russia choses to use the human shield tactics, it will not be anything unexpected, nor something that should stop Ukrainian legitimate military operations against the “shielded” targets. Russians might wake up if that happens, finally.
I don't necessarily believe that Putin would invade a NATO country. What he's doing in Ukraine is reason enough to stop him and restore some semblance of normal behavior for land-hungry dictators.
Of course. Russia doesn’t get to dictate the terms on a war it started.
They do...through US. ( secret deal...)
@@MartinLundström-l4v
What utter rubbish, adjust your tinfoil hat you silly troll 🧌
@@MartinLundström-l4vbe so nice, anonymous user, and enlighten us all.
@user-mz3in7vo5b
... (...)... (... Secret... Deal)... (... That only exists within... your delusions)...
...
@@MartinLundström-l4v Total rot.
Russia is striking Ukraine with Iranian and North Korean weapons. Why is this a one-way thing?
And mercenary soldiers from around the world.
this is not some divine law. it is simple. russia is not afraid of us, but we are afraid of russia. russia did not set this rule, this rule/restriction was set by us and russia is just exploiting it. we played that hand to russia.
You guys really are miss8ng the whole point. This is such childish and reactive response to what's he's discussing. You're exactly the problem he is talking about how we can't have conversations about Ukraine strategically and maturely. There are ppl like you just there to cry and whine at every little thing
Apparently, western philosophical outlook favors the aggressor or something. Throughout history, they've always picked on those weaker than themselves.
@@yidavv Surely using your argument the US and UK using missiles to down Iranian missles, indicates the these countries are proxy's for Israel?
That not even a question ukrainie will never win while russia can just keep most of its equipment just across the border
It's clearly true that no battle, much less a war, can be won if the aggressor can somehow remain off-limits.
@Vlad, you are an impressive person. Giving examples of reasonable, responsible, mature behavior in the modern information space. Funny enough, I expressed this while misreading Mrblazed's comment, and concluded that I was a less reactive shit partially due to your efforts on this platform. I'm glad my word choice was "less reactive" 😄. I stand by the sentiment.
@isonnol he dose stand out from some other youtuber and explains things in a different way he's one of the best people who talk about russia and its politics and ukrainie war
This is even more problematic when you consider the world allows Russia to claim more and more of Ukraine's territory. This is why those pushing to agree to Putin's current proposal to end the war but have Russia keep the land it has occupied are so absurdly stupid - these will just become more lands troops and equipment can be position in which the west will disallow attacks on.
I don't completely agree with this point, despite what people say there is a limit for how much war and loss Russia can sustain and no it isn't after the last Russian person is dead. Though this means that Ukraine needs to keep enough pressure on Russia to force Russia into making choices in which it is a net negative for them no matter which one they make.
This net negative will never happen.Natural gas has given Russia power as example
It will be still there in 3 or 6 years
Selling it later doesn't make much of a difference
Russians were using Iranian weapons long before Ukraine could strike deep into Russian territory. Also, Ukrainians didn't invade Russia, so there's that. Russia had it all coming
Russians using Iranian weapon to strike Ukraine don't mean Ukraine is at war with Iran.... and vice versa with US weapon striking Russia.
What does Russia using Iranian weapons have to do with anything he talked about?
@@yidavv justfying the right to strike the manufacturer of the weapons soil in self-defence. Interesting how Ukraine pointed out the hypocrisy of the West in shooting down Iran's missiles/drones on Israel.
@@tma2001 Ukraine will do that type of rhetoric because its in their advantage. but their argument isnt right. the US intervening and inrtercepting missiles targetted towards Israel (alongside many other arab countries aid) is not the same as the US getting involved in Ukraine.
Unless you simply don't care for strategy, and only care about emotional appeals. I dont like what is happening in Ukraine, but the US not intercepting missiles there isnt hypocriticial just because they did for Israel. The west rightfully, has to be careful of escalation. They can and should do more than they are right now in aid for Ukraine, I can only imagine how frustrating it is for those in Ukraine. But we have to be realistic and not just point fingers to other conflicts that have no relation to each other.
@@yidavv Is not the same treatywise you mean? What about otherwise?
Sometimes I manage to shut up when you're talking, Vlad. Very good talk today. Something you said about ethics in war reminded me of what Goering said after he bombed Rotterdam in May 1940. He said, "We did it because we can." Flippant. That night, or the next, the British bombed a little town on the German North Sea coast obliterating it and the rational the British gave was, "We did it because we can." I suppose the moral of that story is that the aggressor writes the rules. Specifically, bombing civilian targets is now on whereas before the bombing of Rotterdam it was taboo. (And there is the rule of retaliation, of course.)
The Russians today think it's okay to bomb civilians. But the Ukrainians have not followed suit (usually) in bombing shopping malls and residential areas, though they do bomb power stations (which is fine by me) in retaliation to the Russian bombing of Ukrainian power stations. Things do evolve, eh. Another example is Western soldiers haven't been shooting prisoners of war (usually) for over a hundred years, whereas the Ruskkies haven't any qualms about it at all, apparently. Again, the Ukrainians have not followed suit (usually).
The "because we can" sends a message but may not be militarily effective. Dresden was a bit much and more of a science experiment. The two atomic bombs had strategic effects (and coincided with fire bombing raids by Curtis LeMay as a convincer).
Ethical answer: YES.
Moral answer: YES.
Matter of survival answer: YES.
I agree on all points.
Bad chooses by Ukraine politics. The are just USA EU puppets :( They was need Do to make independent Ukraine not slaves of globalists.
Sadly as the war drags on, I too start seeing it more and more that way. In the beginning I wanted a quick response to push Russia back....ideally through diplomacy...but by any means a quick end to the fighting. In the beginning the Russian troops were very chaotic and not showing any discipline or organization...now they seem to be more focused....at the start was our best bet to get them out of Ukraine. How we (USA) keep allowing so much bloodshed is horrible. We have the power and authority to insist on peace talks....it no longer feels like help as we allow Ukraine to suffer more and more. If Russia gets a very strong position in Ukraine that will make the inevitable negotiations all that much more difficult for Ukraine. I do want us to support and help Ukraine, but in a pragmatic and logical way....not letting them bleed themselves dry and lose their land.
Hi Vlad
Before I listen to you my view is yes Ukraine should be able to take the fight to Russia……whether the weapons are supplied by USA, Europe or even Amazon!
Now having listened to you I have the view that the overriding issue is that Ukraine is fighting for its existence against an imperial “superpower” and it must be entitled to use the weapons that it is supplied with without limitations.
The Americans will not provide Ukraine with its latest weaponry anyway.
Whatever the USA sends to Kiev then Kiev should be the decider of how and where those weapons are used.
Any lack of clarity in the West over its strategic approach should not act as a break on Ukraine in fighting this war.
Thank you for cutting through Vlad's babble. Vlad is like, should we even debate Ukraine's right to defend itself, lets spend 15 minutes saying nothing.
"Americans will not provide Ukraine with its latest weaponry anyway." This is only partially true. The MIM-104 Patriots we and Germany have provided are state of the art. Ukraine is fighting for all of us but we are juggling an alliance which means we have to consider allies like Germany who are desperate to avoid escalation. If we didn't have to work with allies we'd not only be supplying more weapons, the ones we send would be newer. I wish we could get there sooner and am ashamed Ukraine is being shortchanged, but these are the limitations of alliance.
Yes. It should. It's unfortunate but so is the invasion.
yes, they must.
Since the end of WWII, my country, the US, has been involved in proxy (and even invented) wars large and small. Ukraine is the first one I've supported. I thank you, Vlad, for calling it what it is and legitimizing it. Several hundred million of us are jittery thinking of the November election.
Dono Dono Ukraine was one of biggest Eu economics and they got ~38++ million residents now they got probably 15M++ big part flees to Eu Russia 1m+ lost in war
You support this war because no Americans are dying? Have you considered visiting a doctor? Or a priest?
@@Griezeejs rule of 10% for full mobility means even with these numbers Ukraine can raise an army of at least 1.5 million. Russia's total casualties are much closer to 500k. Russia can produce an annual recruiting class of 2-400k which has been shown by the now three armies they've cycled through Ukraine. Horrible as it is the scale of attritting Russians needs to be increased greatly. It is not pleasant to say, it's awful but Russia needs to have about 2 million casualties, 2 million is too large for Putin to hide. The Iran-Iraq war 1980-1989 produced about 1 million casualties, fighting was remarkably similar (except no drones). Once they lost 1 million both sides were exhausted but even combined the two countries had less than Russia's current population. In English we are about 25% into this godawful tragedy.
100% yes. Our timidity has caused us to draw our own red lines miles below where they ought to be. Like a tourist who thinks they got a good deal on a $500 knock-off wristwatch at a Delhi bazar. It's time to for us to grow up, accept that the rules are only observed for so long as they are enforced, and stop being cowards
Hey Vlad, I feel you. Axonal damage from GBS left me pretty much a quad. But I just wanted to say how much I admire your will. Physical issues 'DO' impact the mental condition immensely, pain, lethargy and the mourning of how we once were (PTSD)...I don't know how you deal. Even the commitment to your audience, that I know you truly love, is such a gift of the 'actual' functioning hours of your day that not many people grasp. You are simply 'amazing' !
Yes. I am a bit concerned though that in the West, we demand absolute transparency of what the red lines are, whereas Putin has no need to be transparent. We lose the element of surprise with that.
Narrow self-interest, when Scholz goes to China with corporate bosses, what hope is there, quite honestly?
Well Russia does claim that the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts as part of Russia by Russian law... so technically Ukraine has already been using them on 'Russian' soil for well over a year now.
Just saying.
Absolutely! They spin it any way to their benefit
But that acknowledges that Russia annexations actions are acceptable
@@petefrys545 those territories was never Ukrainian before 1918 year. Precise dates when CCCP give then those territories check by self.
@@Griezeejs Oh yes they were under the Ukrainian People Republic 1917-1920. You check it out instead of repeating KremlinBS
Yes but they're Ukrainian under international law
Short reply YES
Yes!!! Of course!!! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Ukraine has been at a significant military disadvantage, being outgunned and outnumbered and not being able to deploy western weapons against Russia's military infrastructure.
Russia's intimidation tactics have proved highly effective and they've exploited the West's fear of escalation.
Only the UK 🇬🇧 has given the green light to Ukraine, to use British weapons inside Russia. 👍
Look, if the UK doesn't mind becoming a target as well then by all means. Most UK people don't want to be part of the war, but the UK elites would probably survive in their bunkers.
So as long as you're prepared to lose your own family and life you should support this senseless brinkmanship.
To make this distinction on the Russian side would mean admitting that despite the legal process the occupied territory is not Russia.
It is obviously not Russia.
The US learned the hard way during the Vietnam conflict that if your enemy is allowed sanctuary across borders while they can cross borders to attack with impunity, there is no winning. Having said that, Russia is not going to stop with Ukraine - if they are allowed to take Ukraine. They have made that quite clear.
Yes, Western policy allows Russian attackers to have 'safe haven' or 'sanctuary' from Ukraine's self-defence
*Very* clear in the 6,000-word essay "On the Historical Unity Between Russians and Ukrainians" published by the Russian leader in July 2021, which among other countries mentioned Lithuania no less than 17 times.
Yes US, make themselves loose....
But Lithuania is a country where young people run away voluntary
So that is why the US bombed crap out of Cambodia, without even a 'by your leave'.
Thank you Vlad. Wife and I love watching your videos and we discuss them afterwards. Best regards
My warmest wishes to you both!!
Oh man... You're so do lucky... I would love to have a wife who would be interested in such things... Cheers!
I am also a wife that’s interested in such things 😉
And I can discuss things with my husband, sometimes.
Thanks to Vlad for his great videos!
Thanks Vlad. Very helpful. I start from Ukraine's right to defend itself - as you said, that involves considerations of necessity. It is necessary for Ukraine and its supporters to consider targets in Russia because of the aggression by the Kremlin regime. If there were no invasion by Moscow - then there would be no such necessity. Perhaps one approach is proximity or causation of potential harm by a target. That is most obvious for Moscow's bombers, missile ships and army units just across the border which are attacking Ukraine or supporting such attacks. They are attacking Ukrainians now, today, every day, including civilians. There will be different views about how far beyond those categories to draw that line of proximity but those primary categories should be clear and possible to agree on. BTW, I dislike the term 'proxy' because it might imply lack of agency by Ukraine (you said here that you do not accept that objection but my concern is how less informed and thoughtful people will understand that term). I prefer 'common interest' - as a comparison, the UK was not a 'proxy' for the US in 1940 and 1941, but the US was directly interested in UK survival and eventual victory (and even agreed aspirations in the Atlantic Charter). 'Incomplete' is a polite description for Western strategy - I'd say 'incoherent and contradictory'. The West has an extra interest in Ukraine winning this war as quickly as possible because it is enabling hostile states to develop weapons and techniques which will be used against the West later.
Russian attacked Ukraine, so all targets inside Russia are fair game, with any weapon system avaliable.
I agree and yes, it really is that simple.
Of course it should. If the weapons are gifted or are to be paid for in the future then Ukraine should be able to defend herself without one arm behind her back.
Good idea using lend lease
Vlad, I am very selfish. I wish for you to be well both physically and mentally because I want to have your wonderful discussions to continue forever.
We're all selfish when it comes to Vlad. If we could trade bodies for a day, we would. You know we would.
Yes. Like yesterday already!
Yes! France didn’t stop being an aggressive continental power until it got its clock cleaned twice. Same for Germany. Russian imperialism won’t stop until it sees that its ambitions are fruitless. If they keep it up they may lose territory to China.
When it is a crisis and an emergency.. when survival is at stake and there is necessity for action, there is little time and patience to sit down and develop a strategic plan. So I don’t fully appreciate that the answer to this question must flow from some strategic thinking and assessment. I don’t like to use the word “proxy” because in common meaning it has too much closeness to “puppet”, and Ukraine is absolutely not a puppet of the USA. I greatly respected your analogy of the neighbor and friend. And when my friend comes and asks for my help in a crisis, I will not tell him that I need to make a plan - I ask my friend how I can help, and do what I can. To me, a true friend doesn’t put strings or conditions on what help is shared. You help or you don’t. As an American, I see that our friend Ukraine needs our help and I am proud that we can provide it. I see the urgency and necessity. They need our full and unconditional support, and as global friends we must give it.
Yes they should.
Australia has never put any restrictions on where Ukraine can use donated weapons and munitions. Why is there an intellectual failure of NATO countries that they have difficulty in understanding that a country under attack needs to retaliate to where it’s being attacked from?
I agree that Ukraine should be able to use US munitions within Russian borders. At the same time, the US is careful of not appearing to step over the line of directly confronting Russia, since Russia is so belligerent against the US. Here the term proxy war comes in. Partly, Russia is using Ukraine as a field in which to wage it's war against the West.
I'm equally baffled. The only NATO members who seem to have a clear grasp on the situation are those formerly occupied by or have had war(s) with russia. Also, France seems to have woken up recently.
@@ak5659 France I think is all talk. Keep in mind that the French support European trade with Russia so that it can finance the war it started in Ukraine. As for French capabilities, their begging Australia for the explosives to make artillery shells shows very little preparedness for boots on the ground.
Just scared, awful lack of character.
Absolutely. They have been invaded. So of course it is necessary to strike the home field the aggressor. It is complete folly to restrict the use of any applicable arms. They were given, to aid Ukraine, therefore it is for Ukraine to shoulder the burdens of use. Any other answer from the donating country would be to interfere in the politics of the receiving nation.
A *Proxy* is someone who depends upon another, but isn’t directed by that other as a result. A state actor who is dependent AND directed in International Politics is a *Puppet*
The Russian Federation, looking back to the “height” of Imperial or Stalinist Russia, slipped back into its own definitions from the previous centuries were *Allies* & *Proxies* & *Puppets* are all the same thing to an Empire. Those definitions also allow them to see Ukrainians as just a type of Russian and so at heart they too must also want to be ruled by a Moscow Tsar. It’s these fundamental distortions in Moscow’s lens that lets them see opposition as fascism, a lie as the truth and what’s yours as really theirs.
Thank you. This makes really useful distinctions. Russia certainly does behave as if Ukraine is a puppet of the West which is far from the truth, given the Ukrainians' resourcefulness and independence of spirit.
It’s idiotic to ask such a question when Russia attacks Ukraine with North Korean and Iranien weapons and uses Chinese electronic components in their fighter planes and tanks.
…don’t over think it …the answer is YES! 🌻
that's a big ask on this channel😉
@@Timmerdetimmerdetim couldn’t help myself 😎
@@lisbethmllegaard8437 no need to apoligize. You were on the 🫰
Yes, absotutely
Thank you for your efforts to educate/challenge our thinking abilities. Good health days for is my sincere hope! Slava Ukraini
Lets hypothesise a bit. Say in WW2 the US was not at war with Germany, but was supporting the UK with bombs. UK cities were being blasted with V1's and V2's launched from the continent. The UK had bombers which could hit the launch sites and factories, but could not do so without using US bombs, which the US would not allow as it would 'escalate' the conflict. Leaving aside the fact that Germany had plans to similarly decimate US cities, when the UK was left smoking and 'under the boot', would that policy be judged as logical (and sane?).
I weep over the satellite images from a year ago of huge gatherings of tanks and equipment and vast encampments of tens of thousands of troops amassed just across the border and 'out of bounds' to Ukrainian attack. An acquaintance of mine, a combat medic might still be alive if these sitting targets had been hit
What amazes me is that there are policy makers in Washington who believe the largest land war in Europe since WW2 can somehow be contained and restricted to only the territory of Ukraine.
The west's strategy is "incomplete". Well if that isn't the eufemism of the century, I don't know what is. 😅
Yes, of course Ukraine should be able to use our weapons in Russia. If anything that should give the western politicians more strategic clarity...or completeness, if you will.
Cheers!
As Inspector Clouseau said, when asked what kind of "bömb" it was: "The explöding kind!"
Vlad, your contribution is a true blessing. Praying for your recovery and complete wellness 🌻
Thank you so much!
Thanks for the video, Vlad. I wish I could send you some physical health.
Yes!!!
Lurker here, just here every time to adjust and compare notes on moral compass.
Sometimes it's hard to say things that may hurt others feelings, but need to be said, however it's most times never about feelings themselves. Especially when the receiving end devolves into becoming a victim to downplay or deflect any incoming criticism.
You make my compass straight and true in difficult arguments!
Thank you so much!!
Some people find free speech and the free exchange of ideas painful and threatening. They want them to stop, thinking that will avoid the greater pain of error.
Dear Vlad, Thank you for another well considered discussion. Of course this is not a true Proxy War, and there are good reasons to not use that descriptor in this conflict, however it is as true that this is a larger struggle between Putin's Ideology some vision of a "Greater Russia", and the West's Ideology of a world managed by a mutually agreed to "Rule Of Law".
So the answer to the question should western weapons be used on Russian Territory, the obvious answer is, .....Yes. Politically, and Militarily there is no other option. Indeed there could be a powerful argument that the US and the EU should have supplied a Division of their own "...little Green Men..." at the outbreak of hostilities.
However having said that, we all live under the Sword Of Damocles and so from a ThermoNuclear Geo-Political standpoint, ratcheting up the amount and types of weapons supplied to Ukraine slowly was the safest of strategies, however this safe strategy was paid for by Ukrainian lives on the front lines.
Pushing back Russian logistical supply lines and depots, destroying the Crimean Bridge, and the existing rail lines in the Russian held Oblasts is a military necessity if they Ukrainians are to retake that territory, and the Crimea. To do this they will need munitions that have a "longer reach", most likely 200 to 300 Kilometers into Russia itself.
I think Ukraine should be allowed to use Western weaponry within a certain range of their borders. Especially where Russian troops, vehicles, equipment & weapons are building up & gathering together in preparation to either cross into Ukrainian territory or strike targets in Ukrainian territory should all be fair game.
It's just a thought...
The case for that is very strong indeed.
Wars are never fair. Ukraine has to do whatever they can to defend itself
And what about air bases 1000km + from Ukraine that are being used for bombing sorties into Ukraine? It can’t just be build ups around the border. People are dying unnecessarily due to these restrictions
@@VladVexlerChat Thank you for saying that! Your opinion means a lot to me.
@@Piden-l4bNormally, your supporters don't kick your feet away. The other side tries to do that.
@VladVexlerChat Ukraine doesn't really have the luxury of dissecting the implications like this... what they have a problem with is Logistics, Tactics, and war strategy. Removing an income source from an opponent is a valid strategy, removing their military assets, removing their economy, their logistics, and even their stability. Not sure you grasp this Vlad, but there's a 'war' on in Ukraine right? All Ukraine have to worry out is if they get more weapons... if they can build there own, and how they can survive... for that reason if as a deity you asked a Ukrainian "I will give you victory to expel the Russians, but the down side is in this: All Russians on Earth, everywhere, will vanish..." well my guess is 90% will take it! Even if their own mother were a Russian! Thats human nature for you, a dark side of it, but we humans are apex predators, and the vast majority of us act like it. And our moral values have two sides, what we SAY we value, and our behavior which tell you what we really value!
Thanks Vlad for your vision/opinion..really gives the B. Community strenght to hang on, therefore right back to you brother; hang on🍀
Leon (The Netherlands)
"Should Ukraine Strike Russia with Western Weapons?" - Is the Pope Catholic?
sorry I’m sorry that you are experiencing such illness. I feel that you were really wonderful, intelligent conversationalist and streamer so it’s not easy to hear about your your suffering.
Vlad, just to say that I gain a great deal from your videos - they often help me to further develop my own thinking about various subjects. When I become Prime Minister I shall invite you to become one of my key advisors :)
According to international law, Ukraine has the right to defend itself inside as well as outside of its borders. They shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind their back when facing Putler's hordes.
Let Putler rattle his nuclear sabre as much as he wants, he will not win the war in Ukraine and he will not win any subsequent war he starts - nuclear or otherwise.
And to all countries hesitating about handing over too much materiel to Ukraine, certainly when it comes to countries in western Europe: The war that very materiel was produced to fight is here.
It's in Ukraine.
No-one in western Europe has prepared for defence against any other nation than RuSSia. Give everything you can, everything you have to give, to the brave men and women of Ukraine who are fighting the very war that is the reason you've been stockpiling all these years!
Even from a morally weak stand point, one which puts the lives of your countrymen before the solidarity owed to the people of Ukraine, it would be the right thing to do.
Or would you rather have Putler win in Ukraine and have to use your stockpiles in defence of your own country?
Even from a completely egotistical perspective, bereft of any feelings of solidarity towards the people of Ukraine, surely it would make more sense to give Ukraine the means to win this war and stop it before it reaches your own country?
Thankyou very much.
Over the past couple of years you have been invaluable in helping me understand how to think about Russia's invasion. Not what to think, but how, and that has allowed me to better incorporate other sources of information into my opinions and reasoning.
Thankyou for this amazing service, you are a gem among people.
Dear Vlad, until now, I've been one of the lurkers who has been quietly benefiting from your discussions without contributing myself. I greatly value your suggestion on the ways to think about necessity of Ukrainian strikes deep into enemy's territory. The most devastating damage inflicted on Ukraine's armed forces and civilian (e.g., recent attack on Kharkiv's market and publishing house) and military infrastructure is caused by missiles and gliding bombs. Those are sent off from a substantial distance, which doesn't allow Ukraine to engage antiaircraft missiles (there is no way anyone can intercept the bombs themselves). The upcoming limited supply of F-16's is not going to solve the problem. What is likely to substantially mitigate the problem, would be the deep strikes on airfields far from Ukrainian borders. Thus, the acceptance of deep strikes by Ukraine should be as acceptable by the Western community as that of immediate artillery targets few dozen miles away.
I would love to hear you talk about your mental health and how you manage to keep it so good Vlad. For me it's the main sticking point for engaging with politics - if I get into thinking about politics much at all it definitely impacts my mental health, I drift away from doing things which are good for me, being active etc. My mind travels further from the peak Epicurean savouring of experiences that I feel at my best, further towards a kind of critical, fault finding frame of mind and subsequent frustration as that frame of mind bleeds into everything. I neglect my own mental and physical health and find myself despondent and struggling just to leave the house and get on with doing things that need done.
I walk through a beautiful forest on a balmy day, birds singing etc... and I am angry because of the state of land ownership in my country. For example.
Yes. Of course.
Vlad, excellent conversation as always. I have a question about the concept of sale of equipment. Russia has been selling military materials, equipment, and training for decades, to people and countries far removed from it's borders. The US and European countries have as well. When the equipment has been sold, granted, there are sometimes restrictions placed on the use, for instance, defense purpose, or maybe just sold and left o purchaser. So if the west has sold (at whatever discount, if any) Ukraine equipment, is it not the decision of the owner on how they will use it? For instance, if in active defense of an active attack, is it not up to Ukraine how to effectively use the material? must they strike the fist, or can they go for the more distant face? curious.. and thanks
Justice is not a punishment for a crime, but a promise to punish for a crime on behalf of victims.
You are nothing short of fantastic Vlad! Regardless of your channel content (which is beyond reproach) you are an inspiration for me to simply get my ass up in the morning.
How is this even a question??
I feel that way about Gaza, ethical values have receded into the background. Reactions to reactions to reactions based on emotional drivers. Doesn't matter where weapons of war come from, or what they are. It matters who wields it. War is hell.
YES!!
I appreciate such a nuanced discussion on the topic.
It has seemed to me that, on this topic, folk are often trying to have multiple conversations simultaneously, each with its own distinct aspects. For a loose example
1) The practicalities of war and defense against invasion
2) The geopolitics attached to the logistics of sustaining the defense of a nation
At the same time such conversations can get tangled by disinformation/reductio ad absurdum/etcetera across the various online realms of social media.
Thank you for taking the time to split apart the strands to make these topics more approachable
Hello, it's good to see you. I'm really the opposite. I got rarely ill, but I worked in an emergency room for 25 years. I've seen a lot.
I think you are blessed with a good mental health. Best wishes.
Do the US not realise that the current restriction is an expensive sticking plaster. The funding supplied may not come around again, it just be used to the full, now...
Hi Vlad, would you consider a chat on Taiwan and China? Especially on China as a whole and your view on the CCP and such…
I don't think the spectators who supply the weapons to Ukraine get to play coach. Your donations do not provide a license to set limits. Provide troops and then you can open your mouth. By then it will be obvious what needs to be targeted and by whom.
Have you actually watched the video?
@@yidavv Yes. Following your question I watched again. I would modify my comments to include, we in the west see the world as divided into separate countries. In places like China and Russia there is an idea that there is ownership beyond their internationally recognized borders. So your question is thus, is it more important to be able to protect your territory or your right to invade that of another? I think once the decision is made there you should get all the help you can to realize your goals. But you must choose one or the other. One at the price of the other.
Imo Russia invaded and so it is up to Ukraine .. it's their war we just support.
Stupid question. Of course it should!!!
12:22 I would like to take this scenario a step further. Let’s say your nephew or niece is being abused by their father and you want to step in, however the father says if you do he will abuse more family members so you instead tip toe around the matter and give your nephew/niece a slingshot to defend themselves but say it’s up to them to find the rocks.
Vlad, you are such a likeable and inspiring person!
I feel blessed to be a member of your community.
You are a helping me a lot to stay sane and balanced in this challenging world.
Thank you!
I am so grateful to have you. Thank you.
Good to see you out and about. Stay well my friend.
Thank you!!
how does it take you 17 and a half minutes to say "yes"? ^^
We need to take the chains off, and let Putin bear the political cost of this war he started. When his people begin facing the hardships he has put upon the Ukrainians he will have to answer for it.
Arthur Harris Said something about it.
Very good analogy on "where your security is dependent on the outcome of quarrel of neighbour with his wife". The claim that the Ukraine War is a proxy war is simply not true - it is more akin to breaking away from an abusive partner.
if a rabbit is running from a fox and it sees a road to cross, but an oncoming HIMARS truck is speeding down it but decides to risk the road crossing, but in the process the truck squashes the fox dead, then is the rabbit to blame?
In case anyone missed it, the answer is, "No, absolutely not".
In my opinion as soon as they weapons are gifted they are no longer western weapons. If I give my family a gift I don’t then assume it’s still mine. They can do what they want with it.
🎯
Yes. But the opinion that matters here is Putin's. He's already said he doesn't believe Ukraine has the wit to do as well as it has done, so if he believes Western intel and Western weapons were used in a strike inside Russia, it's not a huge leap for him to decide that this was a direct NATO attack on Russia, albeit passing through a (non-agency) Ukrainian proxy.
@@davidspencer3726 Because we have let him get away with him believing what he thinks matters a great deal to us and also trumps every objective reality. We have spoiled Putin in two decades and we are now paying the price.
What is your take on the Putin proposal to stop the war with the current front lines? Seems like just a catch to allow Russia to repair the massive losses and prepare to launch their next offensive in a few months or years
Absolutely, but that won't stop some useful idiots taking him seriously!
First comment.
44 seconds into upload.
Khello, Vlad.
Khello! How lovely to have your first comment.
Hello Vlad, I asked a few questions on recent stream of propaganda and have a few more, both about the film on the 90s I asked and propaganda in general.
First one: how should opposition to authoritarian state relate to propaganda? Should it just debunk the propaganda or counter-propagandize using the same methods? Is using propaganda methods against the state moral and is it long term effective (not worsening trust issues). Are you allowed to have ideological biases in your projects?
About propaganda in general: does your understanding of propaganda is exclusive to state control or not? Could propaganda in general be "partisan" in a competitive political environment? What is the border between being very politically biased and promoting your political ideology aggressively and propagandizing?
What factors are involved with giving or withholding permission for Ukraine to strike Russian territory?
Saying we let Ukraine do what it wants but urge them to restrict their targets to military on their own land is a reasonable political statement to soften Russia’s position against the US.
About a month ago, reports surfaced that ATACMS were used to strike military bases close to (but not in or near) Moscow. It may have been the case that Ukraine actually did decide to use a few on Russian soil, so the news claimed Ukraine got permission to use them in this way. Then they backtracked and reiterated they recommend they don’t in future. It might have been mere words to calm Russia down.
It also invites Russia to use up their military resources. If Russia sits on massive stocks of tanks, jets, bombs, they might be a little faster to use war vs diplomacy than if war stocks are depleted regardless of other concepts like sharing cultural and economic ties with each other. This is the sunk cost effect. It’s a bias we in the west also need to guard against. After all that effort and cost of the Manhattan Project, the likelihood the US would NOT drop a nuclear bomb on someone was pretty remote. One caution might be kept in mind. If Russia uses up all its arms, they will want to produce more, more modern and effective ones. As long as they have massive caches of Soviet weapons, they can be more inclined to not build new ones. Like their aircraft carrier that never was put into service. They keep spending resources on fixing this current one that doesn’t work. If Ukraine was to sink it, they have a reason to build a new one, that might actually work.
Restricting Ukraine in some way means encouraging Ukraine to produce their own arms. This makes Ukraine more self reliant and fosters massive innovation and invention with drones and methods of combat.
One more thing. When someone goes to war with us, we fight back. We tend to overlook ways of peace. Stephen Kotkin frequently talks about how the US lost the Vietnam war but they won the peace. He actually encourages Ukraine to do the same, to concede Crimea to end the war. I don’t think that’s going to happen. If it got a temporary truce it would invite Russia to turn its resources elsewhere, to fight in Georgia, Moldova and half a dozen other places, would encourage China to conquer Taiwan, and likely other people around the world would pick fights with each other. I see this the other way around. Russia could have won Ukraine by peaceful means, with economic trade and cultural ties. That may be something they try if and when they completely lose this war but not before.
What other factors are involved with restricting Ukraine’s use of American aid? And how might this distract us from focusing on them winning the war... and winning the peace?
Isn’t this self evident ?
Lurkers? 🤣😂🤣
I could not agree more with your point of view. Ukraine is dependent on others for its very survival but the best way for it to achieve victory and save as many of its people as possible is for the Ukrainians to make decisions about how to use the weapons and material that we are supplying to them. After all this time and all they have achieved, it’s a real shame that the Americans and other western allies are second-guessing the Ukrainians.
Here's a crazy idea: Let Ukraine and the NATO members who've been dealing with Russian invasions for centuries take the lead?
I agree 110%.
I hope that’s a rhetorical question
I hope you watched the video
Fristly, I'd say Ukraine is fully justified by using any means available to neutralise threats to its citizens and armed forces, regardless of origin and regardless of how that's achieved.
As for deeming Ukraine a proxy of the US, doesn't that depend on what outcome the US is aiming for? If it's the self-defence of Ukraine's own territory, then no, I disagree...if it's only for a leadership change in Russia then, yes. Was Ukraine already a US proxy after Crimea 2014 with the ongoing help the US gave them in training and modernisation of their armed forces?
Btw...If so, isn't every Nato country also a US proxy?
❤ back
Hi Vlad. I didn't really understand your message until the footnote at the end, when it suddenly all dropped into place. This is quite possibly a function of me having a brain-dead evening though after a full-on work week 😆 Best wishes to you.
Warm wishes your way Neil! Hope the full on week wasn't too stressful.
I have continued to support Ukraine for TWO years, with financial support. Once that money leaves my own control, I trust whomever gets it to do whatever they want.
Gratefully I am not a politician, nor anyone of importance. That money becomes their money immediately.
Unfortunately politics, strategic importance, conditional support often mucks up any understanding of strategies beyond Ukranian borders.
When the USA, EU limit use of military support it becomes "this is mine, but I will allow you to use it under MY determination of when and where".
To me that actually undermines Ukraine's agency, ability to deal with the conflict effectively.
Some have called this a "poverty war" with Ukraine being impoverished, the "West" as the benefactor.
Who's interests are central? USA, EU, NATO, or others?
I called for Western boots on the ground (May 16th) , following Macron's gambit in March, because I believe Ukraine was at a crisis point with too few troops - and too few more than a few other key weapons as well. I acknowledged that Russia would attack these troops even if they were in the rear areas just freeing up Ukrainian troops for front line action. And I conceded that Western air power deployment would most likely follow if only in order to protect them. The West, esp. Germany and the US have denied decisive weapons out of fear of Putin's nuclear bluster, although I think retired Gen. Ben Hodges has a clear take on why using even tactical nukes on Ukraine would be his end, sooner than later. I would provide the link to my online essay at Substack, but RUclips does not usually allow that. And I also pointed out that Israel has gotten, quite a time ago, the more advanced jets we deny Ukraine, including the F-35's the most advanced and expensive of US aircraft. When I learned courtesy of the WSJ that Switzerland has F-35' sitting in an Alpine meadow air base, that was it: what are they doing there (aside from the fact the Swiss have the money to buy them - protecting dairy herds, chocolate factories, and Davos meetings? Unbelievable. Ukraine will get some of the oldest F-16's but ones also with limited range to better keep them from going deeply into Russia. By the way, the "Piper-Cub" unmanned drones Ukraine has improvised have travelled close to 1300 miles to strike at refineries. Cruel policies that US generals would never stand for if it were their troops in such battles.
If Russia considers Crimea to be Russian, then isn’t Ukraine already striking Russia (from Russias perspective), without any escalation? Does this mean
A) Russia has no “redlines”?
B) They do but are aware that “escalating” will force the west to do more to help Ukraine.
C) Russia knows that Crimea isn’t Russia proper.
Why, Vlad, you're aware of Michael Ignatiev, that would-be prime minister of Canada!
Vlad, I don’t see the US support of Ukraine as a proxy war because the war was started by Russia. Also, the US was involved and supporting Ukraine long before the SMO began, so Russia went into this war knowing that the US was supporting Ukraine.
Thank you Vlad! As usual you provide interesting food for thought. As an American I will admit to an initial reaction to your use of "proxy war", but on reflection Washington's "geopolitical chess" approach to foreign policy has some resonance with the term. Note that this describes Washington but not Ukraine. Ukrainians have proven they are much too stubborn and independent to be anyone's passive proxy. On the larger issue, you make a good point about anti-ICBM radars, but military airfields and ammunition depots that are part of the in the attack on Ukraine should fall under Ukraine's right of self defense. In my view the the greater good of the the world's democracies is best served by restoring Ukraine's sovereign borders in order to deter further aggression. Allowing Ukraine to attack targets in Russia would be a significant contribution to achieving that goal. Anyway, thank you again Vlad. Be well, take care of yourself, I look forward to your next video.
Really need a quick response from the west about near targets. Should be 'obvious'. Interesting the complexity of distant targets. Need to keep the structure of MAD intact.
Disagree slightly, it IS (also) an ethical question. Because ultimately, Pootin also claims (ridiculous and twisted as it may be) that he is waging this war for Russia's preservation. And Ukraine can always choose to submit to Russia and become part of their brutal society and imperialist project. For most, it's not about literal self preservation, but about WHO the Ukrainians want to be. And how you wage war is a part of that question.
But of course Ukraine should be free to strike military targets in Russia. War is not a judo match, you don't have to stay on the tatami.
The only concern the West might have when deciding this question is about escalation, not ethics.
Vlad's example of Washington not being in favor taking out the radar providing an early warning of impeding nuclear attacks, is very significant in this respect.
Such an action would inevitably make Russia feel existentially threatened, namely by the West. As a response, Russia's escalatory dynamics would be less likely to be restricted by rationality concerns such as avoidance of MAD.
It is Russia who would consider the use of western weapons to be the responsibility West. If existentially threatened, Russia would hold West responsible.