ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Why NATO can't treat Russia as an equal
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2024
- I take a look at the Russian desire to be treated as an equal by NATO. It is a dangerous idea because it leads to inevitable confrontation, and the current crisis with Ukraine is an expression of that.
0:00 Intro
1:24 How Russia sees NATO
3:36 Why NATO will never treat Russia as an equal
5:54 An idea for endless conflict
NATO didn’t “expand eastwards”. The east expanded NATOwards.
Yes. Something that people who parrot Russian talking points conveniently forget that independent countries have agency and have the freedom to join whatever alliance they wish. Even Russia itself was allowed to apply to join NATO and the EU. However, Russia can't accept being just another western country.
@@kyleramsey5189 Yes, Russia is indeed “a country”. An awfully corrupt, coercive, depressing, criminal, autocratic hellhole of a country. But a country nonetheless. Were it not to be so, then it might find that other countries (and some of them countries in NATO no less) are still, remarkably enough, not threatening them, or invading them, or anything else for that matter. That would probably require them to have a democratic system that worked and a cultural belief in freedom instead of serfdom and oppression as the default modus operandi. But as long as a tyrant like Putin remains the preferred choice of the majority of their largely spiteful, mean-spirited and vindictive population, that ain’t happening anytime soon. I mean, I can’t remember the last time that the Americans, the British, the French or any other country in NATO (with the exception of Germany, who don’t even say boo to a goose through the guilt of the Second World War), actually invaded or ruled over any of the following countries - Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Finland, Hungary etc. The astonishing thing is though, that Russia HAS indeed invaded these nations and controlled them through force, and in living memory too. And again, astonishingly enough, these countries are now all either in NATO, or hammering on the door to get into it, precisely because they know what the alternative is; Russia.
@@marko.rankovic "I don't blame Russia for refusing to accept Western values and become another clone."
That is not the point. Russia can be however they want to be, why should anybody care.
But they need to accept realities, the Russian economy is smaller than the economy of Italy (by now smaller than Spain). If they continue to make imperial demands on neighboring countries they will not get the reaction they demand.
This inability to see realities will destroy destroy Russia.
"Why should they do that if they already have their own brains?"
Fine use it to become industrial leader in as many fields as possible.
"There is no way you'd be happy to accept cultural values from the opposite side of the world which constant brags about itself all the time, even if they were doing better and were smarter."
That is irrelevant. China has shown the world that you can gain respect without changing your culture.
"You still wouldn't do it. It's kind of like selling your family village because you're hungry."
Buying weapons instead of food and getting yourself into trouble if no solution.
"Sometimes pride does come first, I'd say it does here."
No, humility comes first. Accept realities and build on what you really have, do not waist your time on your past glory.
"Although I do admit, I do say this with more emotion than logic but humans are emotional beings the hell can you do right?"
That is the reason why we want rational thinking people in government.
@@marko.rankovic The EU isn't the other side of the world, and I wasn't talking about values. What values do Russians have that other Europeans don't?
Some former warsaw pact nations are looking envious upon the west and their own neighbours whom have decided to embrace the ideas and influences, which made the difference in the struggle between the two blocks.
They prefer to delude themselves into thinking that it's some kind of virtue, that they don't just admit to where they went wrong and adjust their course accordingly. It's petty and nothing more.
My advise for them is to just get over themselves. Otherwise they'll continue to fail and fall behind further.
Russia to Sweden: "I'll punch you in the face if you consider joining the club that prevents me from punching you in the face".
Sweden to Russia: "Riiiight. I better join the club that prevents you from punching me the face then."
Exactly. Russia's argumentation is nothing less than admission of intent.
Well Sweden... About that punch in the face... I see you joined the cool kids after all huh? So, I never said I was going to punch you in the face you know... It was more like a gesture of goodwill... Go ahead and join them, I care not...
@@utubefuku7132 The three steps of Russian "Wester-threat-management", wether it be NATO-expansion, new weapons to Ukraine, or sanctions:
1. Before it happens: This thing you are about to do will make the world a less safe place, we will have to respond to defend ourself, and it is your fault that the world is now closer to nuclear war!
2. When it happens: This thing you are doing, it doesn't really matter that much. So, we won't take any measures. Nuclear war? Who said anything about nuclear war? You are overreacting! Typical Western "Russophobia".
E.g. Sweden? Inisignificant country. Hasn't been at war for 200 years, what can they even do? It doesn't concern us.
E.g. Himars? Overhyped western weapons system with an overly high price tag but really is not more effective than Russian weapons, so they will really only bancrupt themselves.
3. After it has happened: This thing you did, well, we undid it! So it matters even less know, and if it mattered, well then we took care of it!
E.g. Russia claiming they have destroyed Himars before they even were deliviered to Ukraine, and now has destroyed a larger number of Himars than ever have been delivered to Ukraine.
Rinse, and repeat.
This comment, the two replies to it, and the original video aged like fine wine!
Watching this 4 months, to the day, after it was posted... You're clearly correct, and, as events have unfolded, it seems Russia has chosen to become a large North Korea. My sympathy for Russia and Putin is... limited.
To me Vladolf Putin is trying to be Stalin but without the moral scruples
@@RobBCactive Lmao imagine trying to tie Putin's behaviour to Nazis. Stalin had no moral scruples xD the f are you talking about?
Russia was the same in WW2 as they are today. The Allies created this monster, when they decided to back Russia instead of Germany. Hopefully Germany will not have to sacrifice another 8 million men to repel a Russian invasion of Europe for a second time.
@@gerogemichaels7580 it's very clear, not only does he arrest, jail and murder political opposition, but he annexes parts of other countries, invades and holds BS plebiscites, has a massive propaganda operation to spread lies, used false flag operations to create pretexts, invades other countries, rants against the free world and screams about national traitors.
Launching a war of genocide is the clincher, Vladolf should face trial for his war crimes.
@@RobBCactive What I'm saying is that Russia already has a history of these things. Lenin's Soviet Republic did all of these things and more beginning largely in December 1918. When they invaded Ukraine, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for the first time.
I just don't see the need to tie Putin to Hitler when he is clearly re-enacting Lenin. In fact, this association does nothing but cloud the truth of the situation.
@@gerogemichaels7580 you should read proper history, the Russian empire collapsed and fell into civil wars. The Bolsheviks weren't able to regain all of Imperial territory which is how Finland and the Baltic states were established as part of the Versailles treaty (which was decided without any Russian input).
Parts of Ukraine were in the Habsburg empire, various Ukrainian independent states were declared, but the east was an area where the white Russians and Reds fought.
Vladolf Putin has seriously copied the play book used by the Nazis, you likely have no idea how many treaties they have broken. You should be drawing Russians attention to these ways because their excuse for war is often anti-Nazi action, the reality is Russia needs to de-nazify the Kremlin not Ukraine
The thing about NATO expansion is that those East European wanted to get in because of Russia's own aggression.
NATO is essentially a defensive alliance. Pointing to a few peacekeeping efforts doesn't disprove that view. The defensive alliance has had only one real target to defend against: Russia.
Which is why the "NATO caused this" people are so ignorant, maybe willfully. A bunch of countries were illegally occupied by russia for half a century, of course they're concerned about them doing it again.
@@prw56I wrote this reply, thinking that you were arguing against my comment, but when I re-read your reply I found that I was mistaken.
So I have changed my reply to something of a non-sequetur (sp?)
Situation: kids at school are being bullied, so most of them decide they'll hang out together. The bully goes and picks a fight with one who didn't join the team.
Seems to me that people saying that it's NATO's fault are excusing the bully.
The fact is that nobody attacked Russia.
Nobody.
Russia attacked Ukraine.
Because Putin thought the divided West wouldn't oppose him. And how did the West become divided? Putin has been waging a campaign of division since he came to power, using the well known techniques he learned in the KGB.
IS Blucher means STUPID? NATO is aggressive imperialistic organisation that invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.
@@davidadamson9105You don’t know what invade means
Also Russia thinks in terms of the US basically dictating it's will to the other western nations. That's why the think the only counterpart is the US. They see NATO and the EU as extension of American power. And they want to be the same with regard to the area of the former USSR .
Correct me if I'm wrong, internet warriors, but these days, don't countries actually ASK to be part of NATO? And way back when, weren't other countries FORCED to be part of Russia's now defunct Warsaw Pact? To the best of my layman's historical take, Poland and other countries likely joined NATO so they wouldn't be forced again.
Exactly NATO didn't force an "aggressive eastward expansion", on the contrary it's USSR/Russia that forces all of their neighbor countries to join NATO.
If you were far enough, found an other "patron", had enough political will and were honestly "insignificant" enough in large scale military planning - like Albania was, then you didn't have to be a part of Warsaw Pact. But honestly it all depended on USSR willing to accept that. I would say that 1 small country not accepting it would be more beneficial as an example of how "Just and Benevolent" USSR was, compared to their military and economic (Warsaw Pact also meant economic co-operation at least on military level) significance and value.
And yes- we (Poland) joined NATO to be protected from possible Russian aggression in the future. Which back then didn't seem imminent, but trust wasn't entirely there, so it was seen as good move. Obviously now it is seen as fantastic move.
Indeed.
But Russia is stuck in 19th century Great Power thinking.
They only consider empires and think of themselves as one.
They think "small countries" like Poland cannot act on their own. They can only be manipulated and dominated by one of the empires.
Indeed.
But Russia is stuck in 19th century Great Power thinking.
They only consider empires and think of themselves as one.
They think "small countries" like Poland cannot act on their own. They can only be manipulated and dominated by one of the empires.
I would advise Russia to become such an economic powerhouse and a trustworthy partner that the surrounding countries start breaking out of NATO and beg Moscow to join some future military alliance based on the Russian system of values, principles, rules of law and military purpose.. Not a single NATO member country was forced to join NATO. No, they all saw the benefits of a joint security of the most powerful military alliance in history comprised out of the most advanced and richest countries in the world... If you guys can build a better group I'm sure they will jump the ship in a heartbeat.
The problem is, Russia only offers violence.....they don't have anything else.
"The Russian system of values, principles, rules of law and military purpose" is abysmal. Why would any country want to join them?
@@afriedrich1452 Not the present system but a future system that they can aspire to build some fine day in the future.
If it can be done, then it makes the world a better place. 😇
@@afriedrich1452
He just said that that Russia should become everything it isn't lol.
Then the Russian system of values would be far better lol.
@@MegaBanne Problem could be, such a "marvelous" place to live already exists for surrounding countries. For some Europeans it could be better work conditions, salary, better cities (some are really nice in Russia but the rest is worse) or Christianity. And Pravoslavia orthodox christianity actually has some Independence values - but that ppl masses, who need Christianity decrease constantly.
And the ones who need it - they simply create their own Orthodox brand (Autokefalia) like Ukraine did in 2018. Because that independence is historically normal and possible in Eastern Christianity churches.
China is for example not better in values like Independence, Free Speech, work conditions - but still more improving and somehow more succesful than Russia for its citizens.
And as Russia could not offer such values- it needs violent persuasion. Or- War just for the sole cause of increasing Oil prices = more money for Russia's inhabitants. Which usually results in More money being racketteed to western banks.
So what to suggest to Russia instead of war and killing surrounding lives?
Since Russia invaded Ukraine I have been wondering why they hated NATO so much.
Thanks for this, it answers my question.
I think that if NATO countries felt they could trust Russia not to invade then there would be no need for NATO.
If you want a better explanation I recommend you look up Peter Zeihan, he predicted the war and the reasons behind it.
I recommend "Ukraine Explained : Everything You Wanted to Know and They Were Afraid You’d Ask" by Aydin Paladin here on youtube. A much longer video that goes much further into the history between NATO and Russia.
Of course some two-hour youtube video still won't give a truly full picture of the issue, but it'll help more than this one I think.
and i think Taiwan, Finland and Sweden and Korea should join NATO too
@@MrK-js3it Finland and Sweden are probably joining in a few weeks. Because all of NATO is more than happy to accept them, and ascension to NATO needs an unanimous vote of all members.
But Taiwan and Korea would need a different system, as they are not even remotely close to the "north Atlantic" part of "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". So convincing all 30 NATO members to take them in, would be close to impossible and offer very little actual benefit, as all NATO members except one severely lack the global force projection ability to effectively defend a country on the other side of the world. And the one that has said abilities already has defence agreements with Taiwan and ROK.
@@MrK-js3it NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization Are you planning to move Taiwan and Korea to the Atlantic ocean?
Russia has a GDP around the same size as Canada's. Their self aggrandizement would be a pitiful joke if it didn't cause so much suffering.
That was a well explained analysis that has stood the test of time. Obviously, if NATO had simply been part of an American Empire, then Germany would not have been allowed to sign those oil deals with Russia.
Exactly. Germany and France would have also been forced to cooperate in Iraq, and no one in NATO would be trading with China either.
Or eastern europe. Almost all of easter europe got their ressources from Russia. Its funny that they complained to America about supposed Germany dependance on Russia, when they werent willing to divest themselves.
Indeed.
Russia's military budget in 2021 was $65.9B. The USA pledged a military and economic aid to Ukraine of $33B for the next 6 months.
That's how large the disparity is.
yes we love giving our tax dollars to sht govt's we do it all the time because we also have a sht gov't
And Russia's budget includes their navy and nuclear force, which take up the majority
@@londonspade5896 Bribes and corruption eats up a large portion
@@jammadan Russia's military is 100% corrupt. The conscripts are used to stealing from their military and now that they are in Ukraine we can see them steal everything they see.
wasnt russias military budget 250b?
Russia envisaged being surrounded by buffer states forever more, with the collapse of communism/socialism, and these countries embracing self-determination and governance, they were justifiably anxious that Russia would behave true to form, and ensure their puppets held sway over all walks of life, not to mention those regime critics who disappeared, ergo, they sought to align themselves with the west, to ensure their new-found freedoms were upheld. This, of course, does not sit well with Russia. Quite how they keep a lid on their own internal boiling pot, just do some reading. NATO welcomed these states into its alliance, in return the new-fledged states feel they have something to counter the threat of communism rearing its head in these recently "freed"states. This, of course does not sit well with Russia, it dinminishes their influence, and their own perceived prestige. Like it, or lump it, on the world's stage, they have been directed to the back row. Their ego is far greater than their forces, their belief in their own infallibility, and by association, superiority, have proved to be their undoing. Until they recognise, of their own volition, that their system doesn't work, they cannot move forward. Their notion of being an equal entails the west playing appeasement politics to the playground bully.
Russia envisaged being surrounded by *vassal* states forever more
The real threat is the economic rise of Ukraine by having closer ties to the EU economy. Ukraine was growing stronger and stronger after a anti-corruption effort to model and rebuild their institutions based on sound EU good governance advice. Russia always failed at this and found excuse after excuse why a self-serving corrupt cleptocracy is the better system of public administration for their common wealth and welfare distribution. Russia is not intending at all to be a transparent meritocracy. It socially and culturally fell back into a pathetic clan mob of tribes and factions post soviet bureaucracy. The promise of economic success and wealth for Ukraine is like the force of gravity for Ukraine. That is why they fight. They know the strength and weakness of Russia closely. They know how bad the education system in Russia is and how much Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania have economically improved. They know they are tricked out of their fruit of labour and their kids perspectives for wealth and a better life by sticking with Russian demands. You just need to say water flush porcelain toilet vs outhouse. That is what Russian soldiers consider worth stealing from Ukraine and ship home to their families cabin first priority. We had many people from Ukraine work inside EU. As truck driver for eg. sending money home. Many companies hired their freelance IT experts or IT services for remote work inside Ukraine. Their Economy was really taking off in the last 20 years and they could keep their education system up while the Russian broke down. Selensky really cleaned up with corruption and Russian Oligarchs and KGB/FSB influence in their affairs. He implemented al the good advice on what to do from Poland, Estonia and Lithuania and his people love him for it. It i a logical agenda to follow up on and unite behind.
As someone born in the USSR. You are spot on. The part with how Russia sees Europe Countries not as independent but as US influence and the part with they mean with being equal. They are exactly what i hear when talk to relatives.
They are fairly right though.
NATO is not an alliance of buddies, it's a group of countries that exchange being a beach head for the US in Europe for protection from the US.
Germany is supposedly the greatest power in Europe but the US have bases in Germany but Germany doesn't have bases in the US, so it's a vassal.
Now the irony of this is NATO is being strengthened by russian aggression right at the moment russian awful military performance shows it's not needed as Russia is not even capable of invading a poor smaller country right at its border.
(Also nukes are basically useless for everyone because anyone using nukes would be nuked by the others whether it's part of an alliance or not).
I have not seen this previously (Written in July 2023) So good as background. Very sharp analysis.
Writing from the future, it's not just useful, it's insightful. Thank you.
TH-cam just suggested this 8 months old video. Yes, it is still relevant!
As usual your presentation is very well thought out. I never understood the NATO/Russia confrontation like you’ve articulated it. Thanks.
Very interesting to find this as of August of 2023, your analysis has probably become even more of a reality now than it was then.
Well said!
Wait! You're saying that NATO ignored the complaints of a non-member country - in the same way as a paint producer would ignore the advice of a fruit producer? Why is that such an intellectual hurdle for Russian administrators and intelligentsia? Do those same Russians listen to Japan or Indonesia when they object to something Russia wants to do? It's clear that Russia is a teenager throwing tantrums when it doesnt get its own way! Anyway, NATO has its own issues!
@Gordon Freeman Frankly what Russia strategy would you suggest? The Yeltzin years which included a lost Checnya war? (much the same as current one) on one hand, and on the other you have oligarchic economy which literaly bought its own police for private stuff....
what should have west/USA done? Without actuall occupation of russia and imposing some kind of system it was simply unnacceptable to let this form of economy into western markets... in fact Europe blocks such economies now even among member states (see Hungary)
Russia simply didnt have anything to offer butt gas and oil. and frankly - it still doesnt. After 30 years it completely failed to offer anything world would be interested beyond what USSR sold for half a century.
Understanding simply is - Russian political, social, and economical system is so abbysmal that noone who isnt russian wants anything to do with it. (with sympathy somewhat growing with distance) Long story short - Russians were the only ones who could have done that, and they didnt.
In particular regard it was "Yes, Yeltzin is bad, but we dont see anyone better to replace him in Russia."
@@Paerigos And adding to that, if Russia is such a formidable country, why does the rich and their leaders children prefer to live in western countries?
@Gordon Freeman This is not accurate. The US actually tried to help Russia after the Cold War. It wanted to make Russia an ally, but at the very least it wanted to prevent Russia from balkanizing and to prevent its weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist states. The plan was to gradually integrate it into the West. There was no need to make an example out of Russia or firmly establish the US as the victor in the Cold War, because that fact was plainly obvious when the USSR collapsed.
What stopped Russia’s integration into the West wasn’t the US. It was Russia. When Russia privatized Soviet assets, it was still very cautious of the West, so instead of just regulating initial Western purchase of those assets, it just banned it almost entirely (typical Russian overkill). The problem was that the only Russians with enough money to buy those assets were Soviet party officials, high ranking KGB/military officers, and the Russian mafia. So the most corrupt and malevolent people in the country ended up with all the money and assets. Turns out that those people were usually pretty terrible businessmen (understandable after decades of communism), so they then sought Western investment. Some Western businessmen probably did take advantage of the Russians’ lack of experience and law enforcement, but that’s not the fault of the US or European governments. But in any event, Russia became known for being hugely corrupt, and Western governments didn’t really like that, so they were more reluctant to welcome Russia into the West. Then Putin came into power and seemed oblivious to the fact that Russia wasn’t the USSR anymore. He demanded that Russia be admitted into NATO without going through the application process like everyone else, so of course he was rebuffed. Russia also insisted on maintaining alliances with anti-West countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. This further convinced the West that Russia could not be trusted. Then came the invasions of Georgia and Chechnya. Basically, the West saw that Russia, after flirting with legitimacy under Yeltsin but allowing corruption to ruin it, was drifting back toward its traditional imperialism and authoritarianism. Putin has gone further and further down this path ever since.
Basically, Russia has shot itself in the foot because its ego cannot accept that it is no longer a superpower and can’t control its neighbors anymore. It blames the US for this because its ego also can’t handle introspection.
@Gordon Freeman holy shit a TH-cam commentor that *actually* engages in genuine discussion, and changes his beliefs to suit the evidence?
Is this the most Based person on the planet?
@Gordon Freeman I believe the US and UK should have done things differently and where I struggle with finding what is closer to the truth, along with the other points raised and trying to factor in conditions and consequences of the things Russia suffered and how short of a time, relatively, there has been to turn it around even if their leaders did have the right intentions, mindset, etc. I would like to find an objective analysis that includes this type of consideration and if it should, and how or what way, factor in- but then if and how now that things are where they are now?
Well worth a watch 10 Months later! I was interested to see how whatever you were going to say had aged and you were one step ahead in delivering a message that hasn't aged at all and is still relevant today. Bravo, Sir! You have my respect.
Just watched this now - ten months after it was posted. Since the invasion of Ukraine it has become abundantly clear that Russia is nowhere near a peer of NATO. The impending membership of Finland and Sweden into NATO will only further strengthen the alliance. From what we have seen, perhaps Russia should reset its sights to being viewed as a peer of North Korea.
I like that insight into the Russian perspective. As Donald Kagan talked about, it seems like all three motivations for war are present: fear, self-interest and pride.
don't forget stupidity/unawareness of the likely outcome (even if they had won, they would have been the international pariah they now are anyway, just with a tiny bit more "won" territory and loot and it would have strengthened NATO cohesion regardless).
This is actually stultefyingly similar to the delusions of Japan's general staff in 1941... thinking they can end all resistance with ONE decisive strike and get everything they want without anybody putting up a fight afterwards...
@@Ugly_German_Truths I strongly believe that Russian leaders thought that the Ukrainian population would welcome them with open arms.
I definitely didn't expect your take to be as accurate as it is. A wonderful explanation of the reason things are the way they are.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
I think that this is incredibly insightful and important in seeing the misunderstanding that Russia and Putin have about what cooperation and partnerships among nations mean.
Russia been an absolute top down society for at least 500 years. The boss is always right, and every body under him better follow orders.
You can't realy blame them for not understanding somthing they never knew.
@@ImmersedInHistory So was China and now it seems they are highly cooperative... although it is not a simple task.. from English to Standards keeping, to Withstanding negotiated conditions, Produced goods colour and quality.. but willing to improve that.
@@palohagara105 China is still a totalitarian dictatorship, albeit a dictatorship by party committee. Xi does not wield absolute power. The Chinese seem to maintain some underpinnings of socialist ideology that give them a veneer of moral authority. They’re hampered by corruption but have limited it (so far) perhaps because the party’s ideological dimension. How long this will last and how long the CCP can maintain their authority to rule China is anybody’s guess.
@@palohagara105 no way, China is still extremely hierarchical, and still very much believes that Might Makes Right.
@@palohagara105 Hahahaha, where the hell did you get this delusion from? Hot tip: few chinese you've met from HK or Taiwan are not a good representation of China
This aged like fine wine.
Really enjoy your analysis and insights.
Really well made video, deserves way more views!
To sum up, it's like a Russian mafia leader wants to become a police chief.
Yep, wonderful, that was very well said. Thank you for putting into words what has been poorly formed in my mind for a while now.
NATO is a defence treaty, Russia is a nation. Happenstance NATO "contains" mostly nations that need a defence against Russia, but not as a matter of principle, only as a result from Russia being a general aggressor to be feared from.
Great insights!
This is excellent- thx !
Yeah, you pointed out what should be obvious, but, I’m afraid, is too often ignored. Love your channel and your insights. Thank you
Great insight thanks!
Excellent analysis. The problem is that Russia wants parity with the US, when outside nuclear forces it is clearly miles behind. In fact even there, Russia is wasting vast amounts of money maintaining far too many nuclear weapons and weapons systems to its concentional forces détriment.
The other problem is that the so called European (and Pacific - Korea, Japan and Australia primarily) American sphère of influence is voluntary, includes members who are NOT fully signed up (Germany and France in particular) and is based on a similar share outlook on political and cultural life. The Russian sphère would be non-volunatry and based on oppressions (eg Belarus, Crimea and various occupied parts of non-Russian states with frozen civil wars including the Donbas). Nor could Russia really beat the European part of NATO if we fought together.
The future of Russia under Putin really only ends up with Russia being a Chinese vassal state. re-Ukraine war, that was a long term outcome. It is now likely to arrive much much soooner (in the 2020s even), although China (and India) are likely to want to keep Russia at arms length politically.
The joke is that China needs help from Russia just as Russia needs help from China.
It is like two beggars asking each other for food and money.
Maybe they should aspire to Mexico instead.
You see that, too? Russia, wanting to be a great power will instead become a Chinese client *because China is comfortable with Russian corruption and can work with it*.
@Nick Brough: The main problem Russia has with NATO is that Russia feels thwarted in its ability to expand its sphere of influence militarily whenever and wherever it wishes to. That, I believe, lies at the core of every problem. I quite agree with your assessment of the Russia/ China relationship and one can only speculate how things might have been, had Russia tried genuine friendship with ex-Warsaw Pact countries, rather than unthinking belligerence. I suppose much depends on Putin's ability to survive and the great likelihood that Trump regains power in 2024 and the even greater likelihood that Biden will be a lame duck after the 2022 midterm elections. All those things could yet, and probably will, cripple NATO.
@@philipmarsden7104 If you think back to the foundation of NATO, European states were bankrupt and largely military defeated or exhausted, facing a triumphant Red Army whose leadership had the aim of spreading Communism globally and were effectively dépendent on the US. At no point were any of us within a US sphère of Influence unwillingly or because we had been conquéred. For the Eastern European members of the Warsaw pact they were all subjudgated.
You hit the mail, when stating that "The main problem Russia has with NATO is that Russia feels thwarted in its ability to expand its sphere of influence militarily whenever and wherever it wishes to". However, the reason for this is that eastern Europe were never allies of Russia other than after being conquered. Russia wants a sphère on influence under its control rather than partners with a similar point of view. Thèse countries all sought NATO membership to avoid/eliminate the risk of becoming a Russian subjugate state through the mutual defence treaty organisation, NATO.
Thats the critical différence between the US and Russia (or China).
very well put makes perfect sense thank you
Well done!
Thanks for a reasoned explanation of the relationship between Russia and NATO. It lends perspective and a sense of proportion to the Russian attack on Ukraine.
Great point!
Great video and thoughts
It is good to see your videos and they are still valid.
Sir
Continue. You are extremely good.
You made great points!
Excellent video. Thanks for the great explaination
I was going to say nice/good analysis but it became amazing analysis. Very relevant and clarifies what I feel but couldn't articulate. I would add that Russia seems to want it both ways. To act as a criminal state but to be treated as a legitimate one.
That's pretty much every state ever.
It is actually Putins ex-KGB criminals teaming up with mobsters stealing from their own people blaming the West for the results al the time.
Thank you. That is still relevant now.
seems like Russia thinks the US treats its allies the same way Russia treats it. This gets really clear in the way Russia speaks about NATO expansion. The idea that a small country can on its own volition join and talk to bigger alliance members as equal (at least on paper) would never occur to Russia
Very good insight and video
So true and relevant
One and a half year later this is still very useful, still holds true.
This video is right on the spot!
Eastern European countries and even former CCCP republics have suffered much from Russia until the 90's signed the end of Soviet Union. They don't want to be opressed anymore by the bully. This is why they are in a hurry to join NATO. Even Ukraine, Georgia and many more would gladly be in NATO. War with Russia is really a horror.
More recently, it's Finland and Sweden who apply.
The question is: will these new European countries in NATO be active members of NATO or passive members who just profit from the powerful organisation without adding a real contribution? And the true example of this situation is Hungary that has become a real nuisance in NATO and even in EU. Both organizations shoud examine the option of expelling Orban's Hungary from their ranks. We are not in a time when you can be for NATO and for Russia. You must choose. And if you choose NATO, you bend to the rules.
Interesting analysis / explanation of Russia‘s view. thanks for doing these videos !
Klog som sædvanlig 👍
Excellent
I really like your point of views, keep uploading videos
Thank you, I'll do my best. :-)
@@anderspuck , your best is clearly good enough. I hope this channel get the momentum it deserves.
That’s a excellent point.
Gentlemen strikes me as a modern day Nostradamus. Very insightful.
Fascinating
Got this recommended in July 2023 (been a sub for a few months so it isn't completely out of the blue) but I didn't realize until after watching the whole video that it is from a month and a half before the Russian invasion. What Putin/the Russian government don't get is that everyone in the "American" sphere of influence choose to be there and want to be there.
In socialist Czechoslovakia everyone was equal and some were more equal than others. Russia still wants to be more equal.
Verry revealing point of view.
Watching this in July 2023 and it all still is true.
Your analyses are astonishing. Thanks
Interesting perspective on the russian view of things. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of the term equality will bear way more justification for conflict to persuade laymens like me, then I like. Thank you for your effort.
If 1939 told us anything it is that you cannot deal with dictators.
Yes, it was useful!
Wouldn't it be nice if Anders would do his videos in Russian too? Checking his Danish CV I see that he amongst many things also is an educated language officer in Russian.
What a great idea. I wouldn't know where to find his CV, but have noticed that he pronounces all the Russian names and place-names in his videos correctly like someone who knows the language. I daresay, though, his English is much better than his Russian, as he will be using his English daily in his work with NATO, won't he? His English is superb and a great antidote to all the terrible English that one can hear on TH-cam.
Du er en meget klog mand Anders 👍
That makes sense. I regret not having seen this before. Today it is pretty much were we still stand. Russia are still in a paradigme of super powers, and sees them selves as one super power, NATO as an other. China as a third. Thats probably why Putin isn't too conserned about sanctions, because it is still 2 superpowers against one. - and I guess it means that you succeeded in making content that was still relavent. Love what you are doing with the channel
Still relative over a year and a half ago. Impressive.
This reminds me of the negotiations on "equal footing" that the UK wanted after Brexit.
Hah! Wonderful assessment.
This aged like fine wine 🍷
Shout out to Anders. This is a very precise description of the Russian regime's world view.
Can you make a video for Macron and all the other leaders who believe that appeasement, and "not humiliating Putin" is the priority today - 4 months later? They seem to be living in their own world also. I also have to realize that most government's leaders do not have capable advisors who can outline these things correctly or they at least don't listen to them - I am shocked.
Very few politicians have a sound qualification in geopolitics, geostrategy, economics and history. The vast majority are opportunists and have served their way up the party hierarchy via meetings in the backrooms of village pubs. So please do not be surprised.
Putin is not a hair better, a middle-ranking KGB bureaucrat who, through peasant shrewdness, has made it to a place where he keeps himself by means of allowances, but is hopelessly overtaxed intellectually.
I thought resolution 1244 covered Kosovo. As I recall Russia didn't think it would pass, so abstained rather than Veto - I guess they didn't want too look like they supported any side in the conflict. But after the resoltuion passed they were upset.
@Alenas Kvasninas Ah yes you are right. The intervention into what is now Serbia was deemed legal under the Genocide convention. Which I guess explains why refering to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine as Genocide is a serious matter - being as it would allow direct intervention from other nations.
@Alenas Kvasninas one of the most pathetic anti NATO perspectives are these whataboutisms related to Kosovo. People forget why Serbia was bombed….
And of today all looks like ruzzia is going to be wrecked on all levels...
russia should not be allowed to dictate to all the countries in it region, other countries should be free to chart there own course through life, russia is just a middle power if it were not for it's nukes and it cannot stand in the way of progress, if you stand in the way of progress you get crushed like russia is being, russia is being crushed for trying to turn the clock back to another time when russia was a major power which it is no longer, countries should be free of russia's attempt at dominance, russia will fade into insignificance after the sanctions bite ?
we dictate to them all the time
I agree. Russia can't be allowed to dictate to democracies.
The fundamental flaw in the idea that Russia can be an equal is that they are the main theoretical enemy of NATO.
Fundamentally, democracies can't be bullied in to anything by their enemy. Countries lacking democracy are always, to some degree, oppositional to democratic countries. What does equality, in that setting, even mean ?
@@timg1246 but Ukraine wasn't really a democracy. I genuinely want to understand and try to get at what is closest to the truth and maybe I am still ignorant of key objective historical truths ( it takes so much research to get beyond the smoke and mirrors and propaganda while also trying to keep your own potential biases in check it's maddening) but right now I am wondering about how much all the commenters know about the issues with the Maidan and believe to be the truth about much of it's pretext, advent, outcome, etc. I also wonder about the characterizations of the war or "special military operation" and subsequent analysis based on each characterization. There is so much propaganda, lies, manipulation, corruption everywhere, on all sides it seems impossible, and time-cost prohibitive, for an average normal, intelligent enough person to get relevant objective facts to get the truth, especially if you're behind the ball because you weren't doing that throughout the history (simply younger, busy, not yet aware how much you can't trust how and what you were taught or what and how the media presents anything).
The video is still relevant even after we ended up with a war in Ukraine
A year and a half in (basically), we see the weakness Russia has to offer. God help our species.....
Still a good analysis 10 months later because you're careful with predicting the future of this conflict. As it turns out, Russia is not only not 'equal' to NATO, but not even equal to Ukraine in military terms.
Scary to listen to this today.
THis is very sad. Russia could be a great society and country instead it trys to recreate a 19th century empire. Instead of building on a great people, huge resources and fantastic history it tries to be a dominant world power with a GDP smaller than Brazils, a declining population and weakening technilogical base. Instead of investing in its people it builds huge poorly equiped, led and trained army while supporting some of the most incompetent governments in the world. We cheer when Ukraine succeeds in battle but at the same time it is many young Russian men lives being thrown away by an incompetent leader.
Brilliant
What´s more to say?
Almost into the third year of the full scale war and this video has aged well. Very unappreciated actually but that is in part because of how much has happened in the mean time.
I think your view is merited by the demands that Russia made at the time and how Russia communicated about it: one of the demands involved the 'retreat' of NATO back to the early 1990's. At the time, a lot of people saw this as an unreasonable demand that NATO would never accept and therefore would 'legitimise' the full scale invasion of Ukraine. I don't actually think the Russians were making this demand for that purpose. I think they knew how unlikely it was that NATO would comply (not including the point that this is not how NATO works, but that is how the Russians think) but that they were actually really serious about it. You can see this from the way how they communicated it at the time: Putin wanted to talk to Biden, to the USA. He pretty much wanted to skip talking to Europe because in his view it didn't matter - European countries actually tried pushing themselves into the conversation. It is a really kind of Cold War point of view, believing that all matters should be discussed and decided by the big powers and that the USA is the only relevant one (that they want NATO out of the Soviet Union's former sphere of influence and the Western Balkans also proves that point). It also shows how Putin and his circle have been stuck in the past, missing how Europe has developed during that time and the reasons why NATO kept on expanding (main reason for most countries: fear of Russia). Basically: Putin and his circle are stuck in the past, while the rest of the world has moved on. And a part of the reason why this war cannot end is because Putin & Co have been moulded so much by their Cold War and post-Cold War experiences, that they cannot adapt to the new reality. What will decide how the future will look like is how much we are willing to go to prevent the return of the past, in a much uglier version, happening. And preventing that is by supporting Ukraine enough to ensure their victory and a crushing defeat for Russia. That defeat would bring plenty of new problems, but Russia has put itself into such a position that we can only try to limit the damage to ourselves and hope Russia doesn't end up going full mental.
Russia wants to be MORE equal.
Orwell said it in 1948.
Russia should be kicked out of the UN.
Its like the mafia wanting to be treated as a regular business lol
That explanation of Russia’s mindset has indeed been helpful! It explains also the mindset of some here in the US when they want to restore past “greatness” and feel victimized. Those people here in the US equate greatness with the imperial ability to dominate other countries and fellow citizens whom they consider lesser, and feel victimized by that loss of power.
You nailed it. That exactly what Russia is. If they one-o-one could conquere you or they think they could it mean you are not equal. That exactly the point why Ukraine doesn't want to be with Russia. It won't be an alliance but rather dictate of Moscow will.
There were no promises that Nato will not expand, even Gorbachev has said it.
My hope is the people of Russia will someday realize NATO is a peace keeping, defensive alliance of other COUNTRIES which prepares against military aggression. NATO is not a country and has no power beyond peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.
The fearful and the weak always make war. It takes real strength, and real power, to make peace.
Russia only holds two cards: 1) possession of nuclear weapons and 2) oil while NATO/EU hold many more cards. As long as Russian economy is about the size of Italy, it continues to be treated accordingly.
But these are both extremely important, nuclear weapons and energy.
@@maxspringfield many countries have nuclear weapons, like Pakistan, North Korea, etc. We don't treat them as equals.
Energy? Russia doesn't have a monopoly on energy. Australia has energy, Iran has energy, UAE has energy, Canada has energy, etc. But are those countries treated as equals on the world stage to the US, China, etc? China has a severe lack of energy and is dependent on imports.
Russia seems to think having an absurd number of nuclear weapons somehow makes them special. It doesn't matter if you have 200, 2000 or 20'000 it's the same consideration. Russia doesn't realise it but they're barely of better standing than North Korea.
Gas is the only card they really hold as you can get oil from elsewhere but new technology like cryogenic liquefaction of natural gas allows it to be exported in tankers like oil so no need to get it from somewhere nearby.
And people have options on energy, people can choose alternative means of electricity generation such as wind/solar and frankly even nuclear power seems preferable to being blackmailed by Putin.
@@Treblaine It is not the same consideration for any number of nuclear weapons. Russia is not North Korea. There doesn't seem to be much logic behind your assertions, and I doubt any expert would agree with you on this.
@@SoloRenegade The nuclear forces of Pakistan and North Korea cannot be reasonably compared with Russia, which holds the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Although any amount of nuclear weapons is certainly a powerful deterrent and must be reckoned with.
8 months later 👍
Interesting topic. I guess Ukraine isn't treating them as an equal either. Ukraine has to win.
Once nuclear weapons deployed I figured peer to peer (or a segment thereof) wars were, for existential reasons, no longer possible.
I wonder how many planners conceived of this?
Truly this commentary still relevant. The origin of Russia's "superpower ego" diplomacy is its nuclear arsenal. In the logic of that sphere they in fact are "equal" to NATO, and the combined countries it represents, in that they have the ability to destroy all of their foes combined. Economic relationships have altered massively since the Cold War, but relations in nuclear game theory remain as they were back then. In the 1950s-1980s diplomacy it was accepted that there were two main blocks and their leaders were the USA and the USSR. What troubles me is that this expectation of Russia to continue to be treated as it was in the past could lead to a similar mismatch in perspective about when nuclear use is justified. We assume they will see that question as we do, but so far have been wrong in guessing what Russia would and will do. The leadership does not seem rational. It decided the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO required war. Now NATO has mobilised, and is rushing military hardware into Ukraine. Russia is suffering massive losses. The ingredients are there. Taking into account the apparent "rationality deficit" in Russia, I fear the day may come when it decides to nuke some US airbases in eastern Europe.
They super don't have that power anymore. They let most of their nukes rot. Nukes are not shelf-stable. You need to regularly replace them because the thing that makes them work is unable, continually decaying, short-lived matter within their warheads.
Russia has been fairly rational though. They just made a big mistake and are now trapped in it.
They weren't willing to accept the slow NATO creep around them, so they tried negotiating, there has in fact been several attempts and warnings. NATO (well US)'s answer was "yeah, what are you going to do about it ?".
Well they are willing to go at war about it. And on paper their decision looked fairly rational: they largely outnumbered, they had rolled into Crimea or Georgia without much problem and even most western analyst thought Ukraine had little chance. So in that regard their initial plan looked fairly rational.
Then it failed big time for many factors. But they couldn't back out without some kind of win, so they tried harder, and still failed.
So they took another fairly rational decision which was refocus on the East. It seemed to be they could get some win by slow steady progress so by eating their losses they would be able to slowly power through it and reach something they could call a win. Kind of rational too, particularly considering going home with nothing to show for their losses would be a disaster.
Except it's not working either, or maybe it is to some degree. Hard to say at this point. But having Russia having a catastrophic failure and falling apart might not be great for international stability either...
Excellent point. Something that Noam Chomsky and the rest of those in the left in the US and in Europe should understand.
Tbh, Noam Chomsky is the human version of a garbage bag.
I am not on the left and don't follow Chomsky, but I want to understand, I just remain skeptical about certain stances until I can find objective facts to analyze and maybe don't have enough yet on certain premises in this video. I am willing to admit ignorance and being naive in certain areas, but when this thing started in Ukraine ( or so it seemed, I do realize it "started" much earlier) I had to try to educate myself because what was on the media seemed as propagandized as other issues were. Now I need to be convinced. Im not sure if the stances you are referring to of Chomsky and the left, but could see where Russia seems to have legitimate positions/complaints/concerns it seems. However, I would like to find objective facts that form the premises I hear and read here. It just took so long to wade through all the manipulation, propaganda, etc, and find certain truths about the history of what's been going in Ukraine for the past almost a decade I haven't had time to do as much with Putin and Russia. I have looked deeper into some of the history around the fall of the last Russian Czar and subsequent fate of Russia, but not leading up to that or after with the cold war, post cold war, Putin, etc. What I have learned and all the manipulation, corruption and propaganda to misdirect, by all sides, has left me disheartened, though.