Myths About A Russian Defeat in Ukraine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- For uncensored, ad-free videos and detailed analysis check out my Substack at:
prestonstewart.substack.com/
Let's discuss what would happen if Russia were to lose the war in Ukraine. This isn't an assessment of how the war is currently or a prediction of where it's headed, rather we're looking at the argument that if Russia were to lose, this would somehow be a catastrophic event felt around the world. There are three main arguments raised in this sense: that a Russian defeat would lead to domestic political instability in Russia, that it could lead to the collapse of Russia and that Russia would go nuclear before this happens. None of those are likely and we walk through each in this video.
00:00 Introduction
01:29 Fear of political instability
05:22 Fear that Russia would collapse
10:12 Fear of Russia going nuclear
Sources
Timothy Snyder discussion: / 1782418319460458591
Chatham House: www.chathamhouse.org/2023/06/...
Politico: www.politico.com/news/magazin...
Twitter: / prestonstew_
TikTok: / prestonstew
Instagram: / prestonstew_
Contact: preston@warstories.co
#russia #ukraine #ukrainewar #russiaukraine #putin #warinukraine #history #militaryhistory #war
![พรากรัก - เต้ย อภิวัฒน์ [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ShT2ltn8GBE/mqdefault.jpg)
"The only thing we learn from history is, that people don't learn from history"".
Thank you for the content as always.
He is an a hole this would be the death nail for Russia that is what America wants and that is what he wants.
Yeah so many example, Hitler tried, Napoleon tried, Sweden tried.
@@sleepyjoe7843
Poland too before all of them. None succeeded.
Good analysis, but you are leaving one thing out. The wars we lost were on the other side of the planet, Russia deems this one existential since it is on its doorstep, or in their opinion historically Russian land and people.
In their opinion? Kiev is the one of ancient Russia capitals.. Ukraine it's just a region of Russia with own dialect... Most of ukrainians speak russian because it is their native language..
I wouldn’t count Afghanistan or Iraq as a loss. What did we lose, a pile of rock and dirt populated by irrational people bent on constant conflict? The defense industry has squeezed these conflicts till they are no longer profitable and then we left.
Yes and there being hit also
Yeah. Its ifferent losing a war to the country on your border..
@@187Rajahukraine are civilized. Russia is just a fascist hellhole. Huge difference
Next: What if earth stops spinning?
Well, obviously it'd be the Martian's fault, so we better invade Mars now!
Good job brother. We look forward to your videos.
Keep them coming and God bless.
Thanks for the update
Well thought out and presented
I appreciate your videos and your point of view on such topics. You are one of my main go to people for daily updates and the hard work you and the team do is very appreciated.
Keep up the great work! Thanks
Daily updates???
Having a negotiated end with a neutral Ukraine would be the best scenario. At this point its quite clear that except nuclear weapons, Russia will use all its might to flatten Ukraine and grind down the Ukrainian army. The fundamentals aren't simply in Ukraine's favor in a war of Attrition whether that's demographics, or industrial capacity. Fighting the war to the last Ukrainian essentially means the end of Ukraine.
Even nuclear weapons aren't completely out of the question as Ukraine's attacks into Russia proper such as Belgorod and Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. If Russia looses significant industrial output due to these attacks, Russia may even consider nuclear weapons since this is not like Iraq or Afghanistan for them but more like Texas/California as I've mentioned below.
Since Putin controls Russia more or less with an Iron grip, we must try to view the outcome of losing the war from his point of view, and why he will do almost anything to avoid the same. Before him, pretty much any leader of the Russian Empire, the USSR, and even the Russian Federation that lost a war lost political power or their life within a couple of years after:
•Peter III overthrown and executed by his own wife Catherine II after losing the Seven Years War.
•Tsar Nicholas II lost the Russo Japanese War and was losing WW1 during which he was deposed by the Bolsheviks and eventually executed.
•Nikita Khrushchev lost political power within 2 years of the end of the Cuban missile crisis, where publicly perceived that the Soviets backed down.
•Mikhail Gorbachev lost political power within 2 years of pulling out of Afghanistan, and ultimately even the Soviet Union collapsed.
•Boris Yeltsin resigned within 3 years of losing the First Chechen War.
A leader like Putin seems to be a far better to negotiate with than a leader like Prigozhin. I think most people would agree that had he won the coup, he would have taken an even more brutal approach to the war. Throughout Russia's history, tyrants were tolerated, losers were replaced with more brutal but more effective leaders that would win wars. Defeating Russia may mean that Putin is overthrown but it is highly likely that whoever replaces him will be far more brutal and make Ukraine pay a heavier than it is already paying.
"Fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, But..."| Why Putin's War Has Jolted Ukraine's "Foreign Fighters"
th-cam.com/video/TVHOX3NyTSM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3LCqZJ296Byl-9Y3
Great video and insight. Thanks for this
Yeah if Russia lost I hardly think it will impact much. The United States could easily replace their energy production. Some raw materials and grain would be the biggest impacts.
are you on drugs?
If there would be little impact if Russia loses why do people play up the fear if Russia wins? It's to sides of the same coin.
@droppedpin7536 well, certainly part of that fear is where Russia may target next. There has been rhetoric coming from RU state media suggesting continuing in to Moldova, Poland, etc.
There is not this fear if Ukraine wins, as they aren't trying to annex sovereign countries.
@@droppedpin7536 Those who "play up the fear" are mainly those who supports or sympathizes with russia, it's just a pathetic attempt to make everyone who supports Ukraine to lose hope and be afraid of supporting Ukraine.
The thing is that Russia is not loosing at all...
Great insights in what could be an or is possible Preston, thanks for the air craft carrier vid that was awesome as well as this channel
If Putin really was super keen to use nuclear weapons he would have done so already. In December 2021 he laid out his 'red lines' which if crossed would result in him authorising the use of nuclear weapons. Those 'red lines' have now been crossed yet no nukes were launched.
There was a moment in June 2023 when Putin could legitimately have used tactical nuclear weapons but that moment has passed.
Prigozhin's forces had captured Rostov-on-Don and an army was marching on Moscow which at the time was mostly undefended.
If Putin had chosen to use tactical nuclear weapons on Russian territory to defend the capital city against such an existential threat he would have been entirely within his rights to do so. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if negotiations failed and the PMC Wagner forces did not turn around half-way to Moscow...
Your argument is wrong, Russia can never use nuclear in Ukraine, for they consider them as close brothers and sisters. Instead with USA will be the first country that Russia will start nuclear. Because many of you in USA think that USA is superior than Russia. That’s why you minimize Russia . They can knock anywhere in USA if it comes to serious war 😊😂😂😂
I am not really sure the points of the Russo-Japanese war or the Soviet-Afghan war are good examples of wars that "Those states continue to survive" Both are examples of when a loss of a war directly led or significantly contributed to the collapse of the country.
True
Good examples, as those are wars that Russia lost. The Russ agents often get over-excited and make claims about never having been defeated.
@@thinkerly1the ckaij is true in terms of never losing a war on their own soil since the early 17th century and the Time of Troubles.
Otherwise, Russia's track record in imperial european wars is about average, slightly elevated from all the drubbings they kept giving the Ottomans.
@@fillosof66689 ww1 Russia lost on its own territory.
@@WagesOfDestruction to an extent. Although despite the mismanagement and losses, in later years of the war it was having an advantage against the Austro-Hungarian forces and would have stabilized the front against the Germans if not for the collapse of the whole state - twice in a row.
I just don't see a response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon within Ukraine that is existential to Russia or Putin. What would NATO's response really be? Boots on the ground in Ukraine? Attacks into Russia territory? Certainly not a nuclear response of our own. More sanctions are the most likely response but we've seen how much of a deterrent that has been.
It would result in Russia losing everything they owned out side of its sovereign borders at the very least. I'm not sure if NATO would outright invade but it would be open season on everything else.
US officials have said that they have outlined to Russia what their actions would if they used nuclear weapons in Ukraine and that it would be a conventional response. What exactly they told Russia they would actually do was never stated but I would guess it would involve at minimum destroying the rest of the Black Sea Fleet, what is left after what Ukraine has sunk of course. They might also supply Ukraine with a lot more long range weaponry and the permission to use it against targets just over the border within Russia to cripple their ability to supply the Russian army in Ukraine. The most extreme US response I could imagine would be a massive air campaign to gain aerial superiority over Ukraine by destroying Russian air defense sites which would enable American aircraft to hit any target in Ukraine at will which would lead to a Russian loss in a few months at most I'd think.
Whatever the actual threat was it would have to be something that had a big enough impact to really make the Russians aware that they would suffer serious consequences or they wouldn't have bothered to make any threats at all.
@@oryxland3994 Russian mentality is very hard to read or predict. if they decide to do it, no threat from anybody would stop them.
@@alitariq3442 Although it's important to not assume your enemy will always make logical choices at the same time I would echo the same argument Preston does in this video in response, is it likely that Russia, and more specifically Putin, will want to turn a war in Ukraine that does not threaten the existence of the Russian state into one that does? Because using nuclear weapons most definitely ups the stakes immensely and no one in Russian power circles would be blind to that. In that context the US telling Russia that there would be consequences to using nuclear weapons and that they would be quite severe might very well have an affect on Russian decision making.
They'll never use a nuke - because then every other country wouldn't be deterred by Russia having nukes and there'd be no reason other countries with nukes to be using them on Russia - and they realize that fact.
Insightfull!!
Thanx
Thank you!
While I do agree with your points, the argument becomes very tricky when you start talking about formally annexed territories. On paper, if Russia considers these territories their own, they should defend them in any way possible. In particular, the biggest issue is Crimea. This isn't an area they occupied 2 days ago, this has been Russian territory (at least according to their own laws) for 10 years now. But either way, you could say that they would probably give it up if it comes to that (which it probably won't, given how the war is going) rather than start a nuclear exchange.
But then you come to one part of the argument you missed - who says Russia would start a nuclear exchange? If Russia were to start using nukes in this hypothetical situation, they certainly wouldn't just immediately nuke the whole world. They would most likely use one (or several) tactical nuclear weapons to target larger formations of the Ukrainian army and then counterattack or whatever. They wouldn't be nuking the US or NATO. In this instance, it would be extremely hard for the US (or other NATO nuclear countries) to justify a retaliatory strike on Russia, when they weren't targeted themselves, nor are they even formally at war with Russia. With this in mind, Russia certainly may be more willing to use a couple tactical nukes if it came to that. And again, while I agree with your points that Russia probably wouldn't be willing to end the world (including themselves) with a full nuclear strike on the west, that isn't really what would happen anyways, or at least not initially. Technically speaking, it would have to be the west/NATO starting that full on nuclear exchange, and again this would be hard to justify since it wouldn't directly concern them.
But in the end, this is a completely different story than the one we're witnessing in reality, so I don't think it's necessary to worry about that scenario.
I don't see the world including China taking the use of tactical nukes lightly. While the west would not make a nuclear strike back they may arm Ukraine with nukes as a deterrent.
Also Russian generals have the final say in launching nukes. Would they actually do it and perhaps jeopardize their own people?
No just no...If Russia used tactical nukes the US would not use nukes but would definitely be in Moscow within a week or two to make a point.
@@user-iv7us4gp4l you are joking , right?
If Russia used nukes, they could pick a spot on land that they claimed and say it was used on their territory.
@@user-iv7us4gp4l you cant be serious. You do realise that in that particular scenario you are suggesting, by invading Russian mainland you would then actually put them in a situation where they would launch nukes on the US? You can't be that stupid to actually believe what you just said?
0:30 I'd say around half of countries in wars lose wars, Preston, lol. Excluding conflicts where there are more countries on one side than the other, or one side isn't a state.
Alliances tend to win wars, if only because nations like to hitch onto the winning train.
Virtually ALL countries in war LOSE, some lose much more than others.
@@shadowdragonsdentrue, but that’s the big big picture, but there’s winning and losing in terms of achieving military objectives.
Not true
For one many times its a lot of countries against few(like the wars with iraq) second, in many cases two sides can be relatively satisfied with the result(korean war for example)
Wars are just rackets those who profit gonna win.
Great analysis and summary. Well done.
I think there is two big differences. If you are of the opinion that Russia is fighting on the war on what they think is their own territory than your calculus doesn't hold.
He explained that pretty convincingly.
Even in the chaotic 90s, Yeltsin's Russia acted independently, for the country to collapse, it would take a lot more than a defeat in Ukraine
However a defeat in Ukraine will greatly weaken the regime in Moscow and Russia itself is made up of different nationalities that if they sense weakness could make a attempt at independence. Afterall it did happen after the Russian Empire collapsed following their surrender in the first world war.
@@planderlinde1969 Most of Russia's ethnic republics are majority ethnic Russian, or heavily eavily Russified (Yakutia), the only exception is smth like Chechnya and it is tiny
@@planderlinde1969 IMO nothing gonna happen. President may come out and say: "Special millitary operetion completed successfully. Ukraine is demilitarized, denazified and de-whatever else". People gonna prase him more than ever. And those minor nations are too oppressed to do anything because noone wants another Chechen war.
Seems like they exploit western's fear of collapse. In 2022, when Ukraine has liberated large chunk of accupied territory Medvedev litterally screamed: "Dont push us, or we gonna collapse!"
@@planderlinde1969 an every time something else has raised no matter how many times you try westernize Russia u will fail in the end
@@AngelSonevski You have a bad idea of the reality in Russia. Russia can only exist with a strong centralized leadership. That's why Putin is so annoying to the West. In addition, the West will most likely never give up trying to destroy the largest country.
Maybe you should first define what you mean by "Russia losing", because without it the whole video seems kinda pointless.
use your brain
Did you watch the video? He clearly explains that not a lot will happen at this point. We have to wait and see.
Losing = not achieving your main targets. Ie Recovering Ukraine for your sphere of influence, setting up a puppet/friendly government, siezing the main Ukranian cities and centers of power...
@@eddiemundedboy5280 To present at least some theoretically plausible scenario of Russia losing would be a nice base for evaluating consequences of such loss, wouldn't you agree?
@@Princip666plausible scenario? Russia is barely winning now. It isn't much of a stretch to see them run out of steam and get pushed out of Ukraine. How about this. The west finally decides to help Ukraine win and starts seriously enforcing sanctions and stops worrying so much about Putin escalating because they realize that he's the only one who needs to worry about the other side escalating. That is the direction this is headed. The west is becoming less cautious. We've seen this time and again. First it will be Frwnch advisors, then coalition advisors, before you know it there are embedded special forces units calling in air strikes from US carriers. One way or another this isn't going to end well for Russia.
Good stuff. Thanks
Great video dude
Thank you
Bigger question is why are people literally dying to get in the US and people are literally dying to get out of Russia? Where have I seen this before and how did it end?
People aren’t during to get out of Russia. They also have an issue with illegal immigration.
can you stfu. Propaganda, my little freak. Pure and simple. I left thattoilet nation 11 years ago, drugs,crime, no healthcare, mass illegals, skyrocketing rent prices, the entire nation is collapsing, lgbt,trans, wtf....Russians are not immune to yankee propaganda, manyfriends believe in murka being better,...tell them about trans,crime, villennce they just smile....out of twelve, who emigrated, four returned to russia,one to belarus, two want to return and the restare mum.
Dude Russia arguably has an immigrant INFLUX crisis, they really have to crack down on that btw. No one's climbing barbed wire with boolets swishing above their heads to leave lol, the borders are open (unlike in Ukraine where they actually swim under fire to escape)
Thanks for the update. Keep safe.
Don't worry he is not fighting in Ukraine 😅
Thank you
Thanks, what I could see as an example of the topic is the Falkland war. If I understood what you said pointing at.
Your arguments are what would Russia do if they lost the war. In my mind the big question is "What will Rusdia do to avoid losing the war."
Good content. Robust! Always very much liked your channel. Few compare to it or come close.
Thanks a lot, really appreciate that!
Great stuff! Makes sense.
I really enjoy your mostly objective updates on foreign conflict. Thank you.🇺🇲
Russia would do the same thing the US would do if we were about to lose a war in Mexico - we'd use nuclear weapons. Medvedev has said they would use them. Take him at his word.
The major issue here is that most people in the West considers Russia and Ukraine as two sides of some peace agreement, fire stop etc. Russia considers Ukraine as it's province lost by bad politics of USSR and that is it. It is, not near, but somehow like Ukraine wants Donbass back after war. Russia won't stop until it is fully exhaused or politically unstable. In another case they will exhaust Ukraine, then defeat, and then perform genocide as already did in 1933-1934.
Сложно истощить энергетическую державу.
you made mos tof that up.
Ahhh, no.
@@cerberdog6667 РФ многонациональное государство с кучей внутренних проблем и индиферентным к политике населением, тем более к войне.
@@attilamarics3374 I live in Ukraine, I know people whose grandparents starved to death, my uncle's father was exiled to Siberia. Maybe you don't know that russians are already doing on occupied territories ?
100% valid points. Thank you!
He just came back f on Nato summit. Nato pourpuse is to destroy Russia. He is blowing smoke to make Russians at ease.
Thank you, Preston.
This is like a therapy session for all the ukraine fans who dont realize what happens.
Must be hard for you Russ agents to accept reality. Per capita income? One fifth of the US. Your average Russian would be eligible for food stamps as an impoverished person. Law? Your dictator has changed your Cnostitution 3 times and violated it many times; he is now in his fifth "term". You could have invested in Ukraine, once your greatest trading partner. Instead, you decided to kill hundreds of thousands of people. You decided to steal land. A tragedy for the Ukrainians -- and for you. You gave up being a great civilization, and becam mass murderers.
😂😂😂
Bandera fans anonymous
Exactly 🥴😂😂
Russian fans have been in a mental asylum for 2 years
Belgian here. 62 years old. Grew up near NATO headquarters with a Pershing parked on the front yard, and an SS-20 trained on the backyard. When the Wall came down in late 1989, there was this fear of "The Red Star Going Supernova". It was about the thousands of Russian tactical nuclear weapons (not the big intercontinental ones) falling in the hands of Russian 'Warlord Generals'. They would use some on each other, in coup attempts, and sell off the rest on the black market, thus triggering worldwide runaway nuclear proliferation. It didn't happen. Mainly because of Gorbachew, Yeltsin, and the peaceful transfer of power between the two, in 1991. If it weren't for them, 1991 would have become 1919 again: Russian civil war, this time with nukes.
My argument being: Putin is no Gorbachew or Yeltsin.
Gorbachew and Yeltsin are the one to blame for poverty in Russia in 90s and infrastructural negligence, they were worst leaders of all.
Another good one. Thanks. 👌🏼
You got some solid points.
I am so sick of our naive fellows who really believe our propaganda machines, that everybody is wanting democracy when the majority on earth doesn't even know what that is.
In Germany we say "Was man nicht weißt, macht auch keinen heiß".
Losing war in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq is not an existential threat to the US since its thousands of miles from US. But losing a war in Ukraine which is just next door to Russia is an existential threat to Russia which would justify the use of nuke.
Bro forgot a dude in a cave, told other dudes to fly planes into a building and the Pentagon. Anyone is a threat, especially with gullible idiots like the Palestinians protestors, you can be a threat without even risking your own. As Pat said not everyone in Putin circle isn't willing to go nuclear. NATO stepped back when he threatened to nuke us, which works in his favor.
I'm not dying for a country that I care less about and ruined my economy because they believe the US and NATO are helping them when in reality Ukraine is a proxy force like the Mujahedeen to push back Russian influence.
How is it an existential threat to Russia?
and Ukraine does not have nukes. there is no real nuclear deterrence.
US and NATO are not going to use its nukes as retaliation.
if they do, thats the end of world. are we , the West that stupid?
i am not sure.
Great arguments. Ty,
I like how you smile during your entire analysis
Russian defeat? That is what we are speculating on right now with severe ammo, infantry, and AA shortages for the Ukrainian army? I can understand if you have been working on this video for a good while now, just feels like strange timing with what is currently happening.
Given the fact US aid just passed, the Russians aren't going to win.
They might not LOSE, but it's just not realistic for them to reach Kyiv or any other major city one Adiivka at a time - 9 Billion of the 60 billion US aid was ALREADY sitting in Europe, waiting to be shipped immediately. It's also worth mentioning that it passed in both chambers of congress with about 70% - Trump couldn't veto the current congress.
Are the Russians winning RIGHT NOW? Yeah, slowly. But that's not going to last.
Unless something radical happens, like the total collapse of ruzzia or EU getting into war economy, I don't see Ukraine winning. At the same time I don't see ruzzia winning aswell - their main objectives were to sieze Ukraine and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
You haven't watched the video at all or you don't understand english.
Obviously you don't know that Ukraine has already conquered Moscow ?
Russia will lose this war. Their recent gains are marginal and Ukraine has enough support coming through in the mid term. The ma8n reason Russia will lose is because they will eventually be out produced by the West. Their soviet stockpiles are dwindling and rusting. Russia came into the war with huge stockpiles but weak new production capacity. The West came in with small stockpiles, except USA, and enormous capacity. Time is not on russian side. Sorry to tell you this but economics wins over ideology.
Now do myths about an Ukrainian defeat
Myth: Nothing much would change.
Reality: The very high purity neon that Ukraine has about half the world's supply of would fall into Russian hands, enabling them to be a major source of cutting edge microchips for the foreseeable future.
@@flagmichael you are kinda too late. Neon was a byproduct of steel production in Mariupol
Myth 1) ukraine will be saved by based russia lmao
@@flagmichaelwould you be so kind to explain to me how russia would become a leader producer of something they have neither the technology nor the knowhow to produce? I am a bit at a loss here...
@@enricogattone432 Is there a need to explain the joke?
Спасибо, теперь буду думать к чему бы этот прогрев🤔
Man, u the best. I just love ur logic. Please never change this way of saying things the way they are. And one curiosity I really have and I would love to hear your opinion is about why and how is it possible that world condamns Israel while all the guilt of the war is of the same Palestinians that today they cry and before the war they celebrate the attack on Israel. Keep it this way, man. Every time I go on TH-cam, I'm looking to see if you posted something new, and you do it often, which is awesome. I can tell u really love what you do. Please don't change this way of saying the things. Thank you for all your effort and good content you have done until now. It is just the best and most enjoyable to listen.
I don’t think Putin can afford a defeat because it would be very humiliating for his army and country, I understand that Russia might be also trying to get out of this war but they don’t want to be the first to give in.
Western sources are claiming between 50-60k Russian fatalities so far that’s not enough to make a population turn on their government and be against this war Russians are obviously not happy with the performance but they are not a liberal population they are fiercely loyal nationalists anybody who thinks Russians will rise up and force the Russian government to stop this war is delusional and views Russians like their Americans they are not.
They won’t give in nor support a withdrawal
Of course Putin doesn't want to give in. Nobody wants to. Did AH want to give in? No, we forced him to.
Russia is trying to conquer the largest country entirely in Europe, if they want out of this war they want it with their military goals accomplished, so they can rest and move on to invading the next country. Putin , a grandson of Stalin's chef, has set out to delete countries from the map and anything short of that is certainly something very humiliating for him.
I don't anticipate Russia winning, but their current position will not be a loss either. Russia will probably not conquer all of Ukraine but they will most likely keep the territory they have gained.
A Russian loss might not be existential for Russia, but perhaps it would be for Putin. So how would he react to a possible loss?
Well said!
No matter how this war ends, US should really worry if Russia as revenge on the Western aid to Ukraine decide to start arming different factions in areas where [US] is militarily involved. Facing rebels with AK-47 is one thing, them having access to advanced surface-to-air weapon systems is a very different thing.
One point I raise in counter-argument to Preston/Chatham House etc is: Did anybody think a full-scale conventional invasion by Russia was the option they would take back in 2022?
My point is the perspective, emotional level, and available information may cause decisions that are not logical or reasonable at all.
Well Soviet Union did collapse when it lost to taliban but it come back just weaker
the taliban didn't emerge until several years after the soviet withdrawal. they lost to a coalition of Afghan militias and islamist groups funded and armed by the US, out of which emerged al Qaeda. another result of this proxy war was when the soviets withdrew, thousands of mujahadeen fighters returned to their countries and began islamist insurgencies, including in egypt and algeria. in fact the biggest factor in creating jihadist groups has been US intervention and invasion in the middle east, including ISIS
@@jackblack7827from your description of events it sounds like all of the unrest in the middle east is the fault of the Soviets. You said something along the lines of a coalition of militias that came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and then went home to start their own terrorist groups. Thanks that helps clear some things up.
@@toddlawrence6872 нет, всех этих ребят спонсировала США. Потом США кинула их и они обиделись. А 11 сентября 2001 года случилось то что случилось...
When did the Soviet Union return? I must have missed it.
@@JekaZMD Russian federation?😅😅 what do u think putin doing Ukraine and Georgia and if ukriane falls then he go for Moldavia
Great analysis, thank you !
Sorry but the examples about Russia losing wars at 6:00 are a little odd...Losing the 1905 war triggered a revolt in Russia and eventually lead to the collapse of the Russian Empire a decade later. The loss in Afghanistan (in 1989, not 79 btw) was a major factor in the Soviet Union's disintegration...We're not all worried about these now because they happened decades ago; (and incidentally, the current Ukraine war is a direct result of the soviet collapse, so it's not like we're not living the consequences of Russian military defeats even decades later)
So them "winning" or "loosing" makes no difference on grand scheme of things...
U.S. once consider using nukes when chinese enter the korean war.
Yeah, the American general of the theatre wanted to nuke the Chinese-Korean border to halt the incoming reinforcements. Only the American president stopped him by telling him no repeatedly.
For those who are interested how true defeat of Russia could look like, it is the so-called "Istanbul agreement of 2022". But this chance is now gone.
The top secret KGB agent Boris Johnson managed to save the day for the Motherland in the last second. Even if it cost him the position of Prime Minister of UK. As a true Russian patriot.
What did this defeat look like?
(1) Russia totally withdraws troops from Ukraine, except only (!) Crimea. It means Russia agrees to withdraw recognition of the LPR and DPR independence.
(2) Russia preserves the current political system in Ukraine. By law it is neutral, but in fact it is strongly anti-Russian, so Ukraine could continue building its anti-Russian nation.
(3) Russia supports economy of Ukraine by lowering custom barriers and providing its gas and oil with huge discount. Sounds like reparations to me.
Thanks solely to Boris Johnson, this very much shameful scenario did not come true. He will get his recognition, I suppose he is a secret agent in service to president Putin.
@@Kilo500you don't understand how strong the connection is between Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians. This is a connection of one ancestral blood, one story, one faith, no one can break it. If the Istanbul Agreements had been allowed to be signed by Ukraine, Ukrainians would have rejoiced, because they would not have had to die for the interests of NATO. Russia would not have lost anything, because the heart of most Ukrainians is always on Russia's side. Zelinsky was chosen for peace with Russia, so that he could come to an agreement, but he betrayed the Ukrainian people by dipping them in blood. Most Ukrainians are still on the side of Russia, which is why there is a huge partisan movement in the Zelensky concentration camp itself, which helps Russia in liberating the Ukrainian people from the NATO occupation, because most Ukrainians fled Ukraine and do not want to fight, therefore the remaining part of Ukrainians hides from Zelinsky's Gestapo, which catches people like cattle and sends them to the slaughter is at the front, so the Ukrainians surrender in brigades to the Russians, because they know that their brothers will help them and will not kill. You didn't realize that when Russia's special military operation ends, the result will be that the Eastern Slavs will unite into a single force, and residents of the EU and the United States will look around the world for a place where they can eat a crust and drink a glass of water. But will they find a country in a multipolar world, who will feel sorry for them?
A breath of fresh air, thanks
US and China will never let it happen.
Americans would be wiser to think about what if Russia wins the war.?😅
Both are important questions. This is just one of them.
@@michaelharris8111 well said
There's going to be a negotiated settlement where Russia keeps some Ukrainian lands, but both sides will claim victory. Ukraine can say they exist at all thus thwarting Russia. Russia will say it only wanted to weaken the 'nazi' state and successfully did so by taking 1/5 of its land. Life (for those of us not dead lmao) will go on
Sooooo let me get this right. It's no big deal to the Russians if they lose but if they win it's a huge deal to the Americans?
The establishment of US nuclear bases in all the NATO countries bordering russia would be so quick the installations would look blurred 😅
There might be some break away states in ethnic areas but few of those are armed and many have had moat their young men drafted and have disproportionate losses compared to the Russians in the West, the muscovites
Lol y'all can't even attack nokor. Lol dmbaassssss
@@JayJay-xy5ch no ide wtf you are talking about I am not attacking anything
"Muscovites" is a term invented by the Polish when they were at war with the Dutchy of Moscow, it's not an actual term that describes any particular nation. If you don't know stuff that is that basic your opinion on this topic isn't worth a damn. And the only "ethnic area" that has a potential for that is North Caucasus, always has been. And where the NC is barely able to survive without the federal government pumping them full of money, the rest of the "ethnic areas" would just wither up and die real fast. If the federal government cuts their logistics off they'll turn to stone age real fast, they wouldn't even have to bring in any troops to suppress a separatist movement in the far East or Tatarstan or whatever if they wanted to. That is if they even start one (they wouldn't, because they didn't ride the short bus to school like you did)
I think it's because of fiction writers that we think this way about Russia
Exactly. Everyone grew up for reasons ok...it was kissinger, just f*cking Kissinger really that it was thought Russia had to be around for whatever reason.
Political instability is a "factor" that needs consideration we need to prepare for, but every factor doesn't get the same weight and during an active war it is a secondary factor.
Would love to see a similar analysis about “what if Israel loses”
people have long said that the Soviet-Afghan war was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians themselves have been trumpeting how important this war is and if they are going to go from life and death rhetoric to "it's ok" after tens of thousands of deaths then Russia as we know it could collapse
This is how it is different: through political manipulation of domestic differences, the biggest military alliance that the planet ever seen has effectively turned a part of Russia in to an Unti-russia. This is not akin to united states losing some obscure expedition Afghanistan, the place where most can't point the right continent where its located. It's akin to the conquest of India. Where England played off the domestic politics to exploit the population. It's akin to the conquest of America, where the same tactics were implemented.
Now why it's done, when Russia was willing to play the game fair for 30 years is a different question.
When US threatened war and considered all options, when USSR tried to position nuclear weapons in Cuba, where they bluffing ? I don't think so. Similarly I don't think Russia will sit and wait for US/NATO to positions their troops and weapons including missiles in Ukraine without escalating, including using nuclear weapons. I think it will all depend on what exactly a defeat scenario might be.
You understand the cuban crisis was a response to missiles being placed in turkey, and the bay of pigs invasion, right?
We moved closer to Moscow with Finland's accession to NATO than any territory Ukraine possesses. We're on the doorstep of St. Petersburg & Muscovite clowns can't do shit about it. Wtf are they gonna do if all their military power is utterly spent in Ukraine, and they still end up losing? Nothin.
I think the Russians may give up on the Donbas if it turned against them but only if some sort of security treaty were signed preventing Ukraine from getting any nukes or having nukes stationed on that territory.
But Crimea? They will use nukes before giving that up
Russia is a fat, feeble old lady.
I feel like one aspect that you overlooked in your analysis is the role that nukes play in preserving Putins regime. He is the ultimate say in whether nukes get used and from a perspective of his personal incentives, If he feels like he’s gonna end up like Mussolini or Gaddafi… he’s more incentivized to use them. I do agree with all the points you made as they pertain to Russias interests and a Russian loss in the war, but I don’t think “Russia” has any say in the matter.
"there's only one bullet in that revolver" ahh logic
I am not sure about technologically lagging, I mean they even have their own aircraft now
"Putin's already lost the war. "
-Biden, July 14, 2023
lol Biden as a source ? He probably don’t even remember saying that
Biden is right on, great call. Putin has lost more than the war, he's lost his Army, 15,000 tanks and IFV's, nearly 1/2 million dead Russians, his sanity, his overseas wealth fund, ability to get help from the West, as well as most of his economy. Lots of loss for Putin...
"Hepda dipa huma huma, Children rub my legs wi-wi-wi lotion"
-Biden
@@Chiraqboy-Theplugshit Right. 😂
@@BigTimeRushFan2112 He doesn't even know who Putin is. If Russia already lost, then what's the point of continuing to ruin our economy for Ukraine? Biden saying someone already lost is the most hilarious thing to say and the fact you and this dude took him seriously is even more funny. Even Putin a clown for saying he wants Biden to win, although it's a lie.
Bots and tankies in the comment section are not happy about this one, Preston.
“This is a war to preserve all democracy and freedom of speech!!” … “if you have an opinion counter to ours, you are a Putin shill bot and should be censored!”
Hans is so excited he's going to get another swastika tattoo and make a quick run to Walmart to buy another tiki torch before he nuts in his mom's basement.
The lessons that must be learn is that the a prolonged war always favour defenders. I will like to know in history any country who has won a prolonged war?
Fear of political instability: We need to learn the lessons of the collapse of the USSR. I remember when we weren't that far sighted and were more enamoured with congratulating outselves over the collapse of the USSR and didn't think much about how it would play out long term. And the west very much has in the past tried to influence Russia internally, from propping/supporting up Boris Yeltsin to indirect methods like introducing Shock Therapy. As well as the coups, epidemics and crime rates that Russia had in the 90's. Which all factored into the Russia we all "know and love" today. So there is this.
Fearling collapse: I like how this Synder guy mentions Crimea, Russo-Japanese War (Which totally didn't have a destabilizing effect in 1905... Ha!), Afghanistan (which totally didn't influence the USSR's collapse at alllll lol.)... but also completely skips WWI? That blew Russia apart into a decade long civil war with 10+million deaths, where the Bolsheviks had to fight tooth and nail to bring so many countries back into the fold. Russian balkanization is a possibililty given how ethnically diverse Russia is (190+ ethnic groups), and how badly it is treating it's ethnic minorities. Also regarding that quote from Politico talking about "centrepetal forces" and "powerful security services"... Pretty sure the USSR had those aspects far more down pat in 1989 (centrally planned everything and its KGB) than Russia does today in many aspects. So I remain skeptical of that attempt at downplay.
Nuclear question: I'm less concerned about "Russia" going nuclear, but again, learning from history. When the USSR collapsed there was a real fear of illegal nuclear proliferation of Soviet weapons and there 100% was a massive market in conventional ones. Even to the point Ukraine had to sign a treaty with Russia to hand over it's Soviet stokpile of nuclear weapons (woops). If we take instability/collapse/balkanization into the equations, we're not gauteneed a "Clean"(ish) breakup like the USSR's and it would be a first if Russia broke up this time round more like Yugoslavia, and less like the USSR, especially given Russia's oligarchic/Mafioso leaning way of doing things. So while I agree Russia going nuclear isn't the threat, Russian instability, corruption, balkanization could lead to a clandestine black market arms trade in nuclear weapons. (glances nervously at Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/IS)
Now I agree that Russia could very well not collapse, but this whole "Nahhhh Russia won't" also smells a bit irresponsible and too relaxed on par with the cavalier attitude we had in the 1990's towards post-Soviet instability. In fact it almost (almost, not going to commit to a full accusation) smells of propaganda to "not worry about the peace, just focus on the war." type of mentality. And that, has its own set of problems. Now, I hope Ukraine wins, and I think sending everything we got to them is the right thing, but we shouldn't let our guard down to long term possible problems post-war, however that may look.
Thank you for the video, quite mindful as usual, with no exaggerations, etc. The only mistake about all these assumptions is that oligarchs somehow make any decisions in Russia. Actually, they have zero power in Russia, they will do whatever Putin wants. Due to this, the decision to use nukes will be made by Putin and his inner circle which contains only people from military and special services. So, yes, Russia will probably never use nukes to defend Donbas, since it's the "new Russian territory", but I am absolutely unsure in terms of Crymia. If there is a threat to Crym Putin actually might potentially use some tactical nukes.
Putin is XI’s bitch now smoothbrain.
Professor Steven Kotkin of Stanford University, a preeminent historian, just published a paper on this in Foreign Affairs. Y’all might want to give that a read.
That's a weird comment. Any info on why we should read it? maybe some kind of summary or tl:dr?
Probably disputes most of this.
@@vitorossi7839 He juxtaposes examples from history to present several broad outlines of Russia's near future and what can be done to confront, compete with, or counter each development. Steven Kotkin is always very much worth a read.
It was pretty thoughtful.
@@MROJPC Yeahh, I would rather suggest you read the Rand papers, it's much more realistic 😉
Please share this across your socials folks, people need the reality check.
the reality check is regardless of NAFO support Ukraine is and always was going to lose and had zero chance against Russia. Ever. Never has never will.
@@Ozark-nq9uu ok
@@Ozark-nq9uuyeah no chance ruzzia will lost 2/3 of it black sea fleet right? ?
@@Ozark-nq9uuif it starts going bad NATO will step in. If that happens the kit that will help the Russians will be a good pair of running shoes. Unfortunately it sounds like they don't even have socks.
Preston, you talked about Russia annexing parts of Ukraine which are now legally Russia. Is it legal to annex territories of other countries? On what terms?
I was told in an online discussion about Israel that annexing new territory is illegal under some law of war/ convention
It is neither legal nor illegal. These are usually ratified through treaties, which are basically countries accepting de jure the changes that happened de facto.
Aka it's everyone else saying "Fine this land is now yours, okay, we accept this because otherwise things will be too complicated and tiresome for us".
Russia is not going to lose
Its unlikely that russia will lose militarily, however its very likely that russia will lose it war of aggression against Ukraine inside Russia due to high casualties, high inflation, a collapsing economy, infrastructure failure and political unrest.
Its very likely that russia will lose its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian federation doesn't have the economic depth to maintain its invasion of Ukraine at its current level.
The Russian invasion force is losing equipment at a high rate, it is currently replacing those losses with stockpiled soviet era equipment (80%) and newly built equipment (20%). The soviet era stockpiles are being depleted at a rapid rate and will be exhausted by 2026.
Russia is suffering very high casualties, there is a limit to the number of casualties that the russian people will accept.
Russia is probably going to lose. Just like in 1917.
Russia is going to fail.
Yes, I cannot see Ukraine taking the territory Russia has seized, eg Crimea, so how can Russia lose? If it stopped now, it would have a sizable chunk of Ukraine.
Depends on how they lose.
I have to say the quality of the material you produce is consistently so high that I have to conclude that you have an excellent team helping you with the research and supporting you. Well done for the excellent work, it is impressive!
YES
Well, those arguments counts for EU & US tenfold. After all, it is not Russia brewing troubles at their borders with inclination to proceed brewing troubles inside of them.
Brewing touble at their borders ? You guys are laughable
@@3cosmoyeah, it's ruzspeak, "trouble at the borders" is the translation of "defending against genocidal invaders" in Common Speech 😅
If Russia loses, they'll do like they did after the first Chechen war. They'll adapt and come back strong after a year of "modernization" and Russia will NOT fall it's not the Soviet Union, Russia economy has somewhat grown. Either or Russia is gonna have a problem. Win or lose.
If Russia loses, Ukraine will be incorporated into NATO and Russia won’t have a second chance
Grown let me hear you analysis of their growth and the medium to long term outlook for their economy.
The growth of the russian economy is due to military spending.
No
No chance
Problem is, Russia's neighbors know it too and Ukraine's not Chechnya. Russia's western frontier will be heavily militarised and united.
And Russia, win or lose, has already lost. It failed it's strategic goals. It wanted Ukraine as a buffer state and NATO discredited. Instead it will have an extremely hostile Ukraine as a neighbor and NATO nations along it's entire western border.
If russia loses Ukraine will join NATO. There will be no 'second chance'
The fact the war has managed to last as long as it has, not to mention the manpower and resource loss, one could argue they've already categorized this as a major defeat for Russia.
The Russian population is still many millions more than two years ago if counting those in the occupied areas. And lives lost have been primarily those with low monetary value while they have been replaced with those with higher monetary value.
It's simply a matter of how hollowed out the structures become.
I am very faithful to ur Chanel. No propaganda at all
the difference is that russia says that this war is existential to them. not just some spat with japan over one city region or some ideological wrestling in asia that the US could do without.
So what. I don't care what the Russians think will happen if they lose. The rest of us know they're being ridiculous. A democratic Russia would be welcomed on the world stage, and their citizens as free as Americans or Europeans to travel anywhere, and as prosperous, too.
@@phillipdavidhaskett7513 Of course it matters because the opinions of Russians dictates how much they are willing to fight in this war. If Russia feels like a loss will cause some terrible times then they are more likely to fight harder in order to win.
If they feel nothing bad will happen then they are more likely to want an end to the war.
This is why I feel like many people who support Ukraine, calling for the end of Russia really doesnt help their cause
From their perspective, it IS an existential fight to them. If you look at it from their POV, NATO is steadily encroaching upon "their sphere" and is now on their doorstep.
Try to imagine how we would react if Russia or China brokered an alliance with Canada or Mexico and wanted to station troops there. Our respoinse would be a solid "Oh, HELL NO!" and we wouldn't stop fighting until every Russian/Chinese troop was gone.
This is ultimately a contest not of Russia/Ukraine, but between Russia/NATO in terms of dedication to the fight. Russia will throw everything that they have into this war. They will spend millions of troops to "win" it and every ruble they can muster for it. It's their backyard - they aren't leaving.
How long until the West gets tired of it? We will get tired of it before th Russians will.
orcland aka russia will also say this about their invasions of Moldova, Georgia, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, etc... if they should succeed in Ukraine.
@@festivus7065 But they (Russian leadership at least) aren't actually worried about NATO attack. Otherwise, it's hard to see why Russian troops have been withdrawn from borders with NATO countries to instead fight in Ukraine:
“Russian forces near Norway at '20% or less' than before Ukraine war, Norway's armed-forces chief says”, 17 Sep 2023, Reuters
“Finnish border ‘pretty empty’ of Russian troops”, says Helsinki, 14 Aug 2023, Financial Times
I feel like a lot of countries in Europe are coming to this same conclusion now
Thank you so much Preston!!! Made me feel better to hear you.
Sanctions on a net resource exporter is nothing more then a tax upon those citizens using those resources. Energy, minerals and food are its major exports. Notice inflation in those sectors?
Great video. The issue is that you've done it on the least probable outcome at the moment. Russia is winning and none of the fundamental metrics favor Ukraine. The front hasn't stabilized since the loss of Avdivka. Next video... Myths about a Ukraine loss. What does that mean for Europe, Nato and the US?
Probability that Ukraine will win is 0%
Very sober understanding of the situation. Most objective english speaking channel on the Russian-Ukrainian war, respect. I'm monitoring russian and ukranian speaking telegram channels, but coming here for a reset after a brainwash :)
They are a nuclear power, just remember.
STOP SAYING FIRST
stop shouting gramps
first
Old man yells at cloud.
@@Daniel-xs8tr and shakes fist
Довольно наивный взгляд на геополитику от бывшего морпеха. То, что ты крут на полигоне или даже в бою, не свидетельствует о том, что ты понимаешь политические процессы. Пфф, подумаешь, Украина войдёт в НАТО и начнёт шантажировать Россию размещением у себя стратегического ядерного оружия в 300 км от Москвы в обмен на экономические и политические уступки, подумаешь. Что-то США не так спокойно отнеслось к ядерным ракетам в Кубе. Даже, помню, чуть всю Землю не испепелили во время Карибского кризиса. Давайте эту параллель оценим, как так вышло.
Idiotic fearmongering, not a single NATO country that shares a border with Russia has stationed nuclear weapons and Ukraine would be no different. Russia decided to put some of their nukes in Kaliningrad though, and then they have the gall to accuse NATO of being aggressive...
@@Kofferrwhy did Nato continue expanding after the fall of the soviet union?
@@VamosFumando-ko3ov Because Eastern Europeans countries wanted security guarantees and protection from yet another Russian invasion.
...Параноик ты глупый...как и многие из вас и сцыкливый боишься НАТО...другие страны которые в НАТО не состоят и они его не боятся сцыкун ты долбаный продолжай бредить нападением и т.д. у этого морпеха аналитика получше твоей так что...
@@Kofferr...Right you are right...
I think the 'fear' of political instability is actually the *hope* for political instability. That's why the two major English speaking countries worked to stop a possible peace deal back in April, 2022. Just as Putin miscalculated the amount of support for Russia vs. resistance to Russia in the Ukraine, so too did 'we' miscalculate the strength/weakness of the Russian economy, political system, and military.
You need to define the length of time when you use the word future in your arguments. Is it 6 months, a year, a decade? It makes a difference.
Now you can wake up from that dream.
For the algorithm