What a shame that Ukrainian lives are being spent because of this political balancing act which seems to ignore the cold realities on the ground at least in my laymans view of things.
Absolutely. I Can perfectly understand the Biden administration's worry at the beginning of the war but I think it is now clear that it's time to let Ukraine win. Otherwise russians will never learn 😢
It's a shame that Russia decided to spend those Ukrainian lives in the first place just because Putin wanted to try and leave a legacy by stealing Ukraine and buying them another 20 years before demographic collapse.
The problem is that the balancing act is what has been keeping the Ukrainians somewhat safe. When they attack something inside Russia (especially stuff the Russians consider important), they get retaliation on their cities' infrastructure (like power plants). As long as it's military vs military, it's semi-fine. But if Russia decides to just finish off their key civilian infrastructure, Russia might get some condemnation, but it'll be all over for Ukraine. Of course, it's doubtful if you can truly exhaust Russia while playing a defensive game. Negotiations were the right path for this. But it's almost too late now.
@@Leto2ndAtreides I'm pretty sure at this point that Ukrainians will run their country on bicycle pedal power to keep the lights on if they have to. Besides, the Patriot batteries are defending a fair amount of critical infrastructure now.
Ukrainian lives are being spent in order for the US to win the "great game" of "geopolitical competition." The goal, as set forth in 2019, was to sacrifice Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. To "extend Russia." The balancing act is to avoid "damaging counter-escalation." The US is willing to make a pawn sacrifice of Ukraine, but doesn't want to risk any of its other pieces in the "great game."
@@gerryhouska2859 Nah, there isn't a collective organising things in the background according to a common agenda in Russia. There are just powerful individuals and their hangers-on. Right now Putin has them in check, but if he loses control they're all going to fight. Whether to grab more power, or just to avoid getting thrown out a window if they lose their power.
If Russia "Gain", thus in any shape or form, any agreement such as De-Escalating, peace or any other treaty, is just a temporary halt for Russia to Reload, re-stock & mobilise. ... Only way conflict can change, is if Russia changes their narrative. At present it would mean Russian unconditional surrender. So WAR will continue, FOREVER if neccesary, until that will occur. - More is comming, much more, in every shape or form... Civil,military,trade, terror and diplomacy..... Same - Same.... All Methods apply!
It seems as though, as Europe ramps up it's own production, the US's reticence will become less relevant. It's clear that in many parts of Europe the idea that Ukraine victory will cause a Russian collapse is a positive.
Russia will almost definitely use nukes before it's actually defeated. NATO has forgottent the Cold War common sense, that you can't really win against a nuclear opponent.
Hmm, sadly many countries like Italy have a core of people who think to make peace you just need to be peaceful and disarm yourselves and others will to, that peace does exist, it's called the hun peace when everyone is dead
As an American it’s frustrating that I have to choose between a president who is needlessly prolonging the war while denying Ukraine the opportunity for total victory, or the guy who openly supports Putin and calls him a genius.
How much of this is rooted in domestic politics? I get the feeling that democrats are holding back in an attempt not to own the Ukraine cause, because it will provoke republicans (those that are not already Putin friendly) to turn against it. Reelection might embolden the Biden administration to be more openly supportive.
Great analysis, as always. My take out of it: we as Europeans should consider our own interests instead of always fingerpointing to the US-Administration. And we have plenty of reasons why Ukraine‘s victory is essential and basic for our own survival of European democracies.
While I understand the premise of the US policy I think it is flawed as there is no compromise to be had with Russia as they view the entire war as existential. It is the same with the Baltic states. I believe the Russian regime will topple or change drastically as any type of lasting peace with this regime is doomed and we will have to deal with its collapse regardless and we put ourselves in a worse situation by trying to avoid it.
🇦🇺💙💛✌ 🇺🇦 Exactly! The ultra right is gaining a lot of ground in Europe which has caused Macron to call a snap election in France. Just when it looked like Europe (mostly) was banding together to up its support for Ukraine, could Macron being toppled cause France to stop its support for Ukraine?
@@dpelpal I don’t think that narrative is very productive. They are not stupid and they have a lot of resources. They have also gained experience in Ukraine esp in drone warfare. We should plan and prepare accordingly.
@@Hochspitz Russia is doing a lot op propaganda ops but also trying to directly influence the European Parliament by some politicians running their errands (for money, ideology or other reasons). It is weird that Russia can use our open systems against us by stoking conflicts.
@@crabapple1974 The Rushin army is a total joke, and their officer corps is in fact stupid and uneducated. They're lost 500,000 men and can't even take 10% of the second poorest country in Europe. .Russia does not have "resources". The standard of living in Rusha is just above that of Uruguay and below Costa Rica. The only reason "escalation" by Rusha' is taken seriously at all in the media is that it generates clicks. Any real examination of the entire Rushin' state will only result in belly laughter.
What a messed up world. Real people are dying while we imagine outcomes. What if the allied did that to us in WW2. We need to get our European house in order. Ukraine needs to be the example for Putin.
America did exactly this to Russia in WWII. They sent equipment, but did not send their own soldiers to invade the European mainland until almost 3 years after Germany had declared war on them. They only invaded when it became clear that the Soviets were going to win, and this was primarily to ensure that they did not take all of Europe in the process. They wanted both Germany and the Soviet Union to bleed each other dry so that neither could be a serious threat to Europe for the next 50 years and that's what happened.
To be honest, that’s exactly what happened in WW2: The Americans did support the British on some level but just after Pearl Harbor the decided that enough is enough and stepped fully in. But that was before the atomic bomb in a time where Germany or Japan could not retaliate on an existential level.
Wow! This is a really mindblowing video with an insight and understanding that is really on the spot. Thank you so much for your contribution Anders. Hilsen Sturla fra Norge
Thanks, Anders. Your analysis is something many of us have understood to be the case for quite a long time but your putting it into words makes it much more portable and available to policy makers and voters to keep in mind. Thanks!
Thank you, sir, for this objective truth! As an American, I get it. You are spot on. I hope that key people in this country hear and consider your words carefully! Blessings on your continued sharing. 🙏🏻
Thank you Anders fora thoughtful talk on this topic. As am American I can tell you that this is a sad but true state of affairs. It seems easy for the United States government to accept a protracted war, as long as it's not Americans dying. Sad situation.
Anders, to avoid the scenario of the Russian state collapsing, would not a good strategy be to help Ukraine win the war decisively earlier rather than later? My thinking is that if a Ukrainian victory comes quickly, the Russian state and Putin should be able to survive since the internal political structures will not have been erroded over a long period of time so that Putin and his government will still be sufficiently resiliant to withstand a loss in Ukraine. If instead the conflict continues, Putin's position will only suffer along with his internal support making a full collapse more likely, not less. Thoughts?
My thoughts exactly. There's also the economic angle. If the war ended soon, Russia would have made massive financial sacrifices for sure, but the economy is still mostly intact. If it's still going on in 2026, that's a different story. Right now Russia is on that path, because it's confident it can outlast the West. I'm not sure if they've seriously thought how paying a terrible price for some slices of bombed-out, depopulated land would actually benefit them, but that's what they're going for. One of the reasons encouraging them to grind it out is this kind of escalation management that can easily look like lack of conviction and weakness to people like Putin and siloviki.
Ukraine "victory" was only possible in 2022. It would be too bloody to reclaim all that lost territory back if the Russians entrench themselves further.
Wars for profit are ALWAYS fought slowly to increase profits from weapons manufacturing . No quick war ever made much money so what you want is not what weapons industries want .
not sure how it'd pan out ofc, but ii suspect putin's regime itself might collapse even if the state economy doesn't. much of his (very questionable) support stems from his aura of power, his 'strong man' image, a defeat at the hands of a nation he claims doesn't even *exist* might be too much - he might find himself enjoying moscow's scenery from a new angle as he falls from some window... & after that a power-grab by whoever's closest to the throne... that could even lead to civil war as russia's oligarchs for gangs to try & take over?
Winston Churchill - 'You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.' - To Neville Chamberlain History doesn't repeat, but it surely does rhyme.
UK didn't win a single battle alone in WW2, after 1943 all the heavy lifting was done by Americans on the Western and Pacific theaters, Brits were more like a bystanders.
Excellent video Anders. I'll just add that Europeans cannot continue needing permission from the USA to fight wars. Europe would be better off buying Japanese or Korean weapons than US weapons, let alone buying European-made, where that is at all possible. The USA acts and gives permission based on what is best for the USA, and although the USA is a pretty good ally, generally US economic and territorial interests are distant from European interests.
This overlooks the fact that European countries themselves are often dragging their feet on aid. France in Italy have given a decimal amount and Germany still drags feet on key systems.
European's don't need permission ffrom the USA to support Ukraine. The problem is that many European governments, especially Germany, share the same, flawed, analysis with the Biden administration.
The flaw in the American strategy is that regardless of their rhetoric Russia cannot afford to have their war escalate outside of Ukraine. They are over committed with Ukraine as it stands. Imagine Russia having to also fight one or more NATO militaries with modern NATO equipment (not the obsolete army surplus stuff they have been giving Ukraine)!
Exactly. Rusha' simply doesn't have the ability to "escalate". They're nearly losing to Ukraine after mobilizing their entire country. That's because their army, equipment, and logistics are a total and complete joke.
Depends which country you are talking about, quite different capabilities between countries. The thing with NATO is it's founded on defence, if one NATO country chooses to directly get involved others are not obligated to defend them under Article 5 I believe. If Russia attacks first there is no question.
As was said before, Russia may attack without the possibility of winning. Imagine Russia keeps attacking Finland and gets nowhere, but Finnish soldiers and civilians are getting constantly killed. What then? Russia can say, "oops, let us talk peace, you like not being killed, right? Give us Ukraine and we'll stop attacking Finland. "
The American strategy is fine, the issue is whether they miscalculate. So far, their strategy is doing exactly what it needs to do - leave Russia the hope of winning so they continue to think they still have a chance and continue to burn away more and more of their 50+ year vehicle and equipment stockpiles as well as their military-aged men. Eventually, Russia will have too few secret police left to keep the people in line as they will have all died in Ukraine, and then the country will fall into civil war.
'I am thoroughly sick of the pathetic, self-limiting approach of the west' The self limitation is because unlike Iraq, the west knows the bear has real WMDs that will incinerate all US and European cities. It is dangerous and naive to think otherwise. Get it ? The west is pathetic because of its false pride which led it to spurn negotiations. Did you feel sick about that ? Or you are only feeling sick because you Russia made you impotent ?
You’re not understanding what’s being described here. If the Ukrainian’s with western help you seem to want, throw Russia out in a humiliating rout, Russia may collapse into chaos with catastrophic consequences for the world.
@@billyponsonby Russia is the biggest threat to the World currently and has threatened to use nuclear weapons if it doesn't get its way, the West can't afford to pay a price of Russia getting its way because it will not stop, it must be broken up otherwise there will not be peace!?!
@@billyponsonby Spot on, and also left unstated is the definition of 'winning' means to the U.S. vs Kiev, and helps explain why Biden fully supports 'Victory' for Ukraine, while still falling short of describing what the scope of that 'victory' be acceptable and would actually look like.
@@billyponsonbyAnd yet if Russia is able to win territory, and keep Crimea then they will see it as a win. Which do you want? An imperialistic world power with nukes, or breakaway regions with nukes? You're afraid for your own wellbeing, leading to Ukraine's defeat. Ukraine will lose because of the west's self centredness. Russia will not collapse, and therefore they will keep pushing until all fighting age men are dead, and they have more than Ukraine.
It is missing the fourth and in my opinion most likely type of escalation.: that the Kremlin realise the tide has turned against them nd they cannot possibly hope to win or even survive in the long run with their current _conventional_ strategy. In that case they would have to actually _do_ something riskier. Or quit.
@@harmless6813 If it is cynical to think that the American government and people would tend to value 350 million American lives more highly than 40 million Ukrainian lives (actually much less as most people successfully flee conflicts) then I suppose so.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, and this is your most important video on this war so far. I wish Biden would stop trying to save Putin's hold onto power and leave that task up to Putin. As is, the US is trying to solve all problems at the expense of Ukraine and their people.
US has very little stake in the success of Ukraine, they only have a stake in preventing the success of Russia, and in preventing nuclear war. Before the war, US was doing $2B in annual trade with Ukraine, which is a miniscule amount. The only other significance to the US is that maybe 10% of Americans can trace their lineage back to either Russia or Ukraine. US can afford to run out the clock on Putin and Russia, it's Ukraine and arguably Europe who cannot afford it, so if they want this fight to end more quickly they should pay up.
@@theredscourge I agree that Europe should lead the effort to aid Ukraine, but there are two factors that make this more complicated. First, the European defence industry is unable to keep up due to long term severe underfunding, and it will take years before it can at least match Russian production. Second, if Biden's fears remain in place, whatever increase in aid Europe manages to produce will be counteracted by the US cutting it back to keep the balance and prevent Russia from collapsing. Biden might even push on the EU to slow down if they are too successful. So I don't see how Ukraine can win unless the US stops trying to save Putin's regime from collapse.
Always look forward to your work. A treat to have access to professional content. 👌 In passing, I have an issue with thugs, in this case, Russia. Slava 🇺🇦 from 🇨🇦.
One additional point here is that Russia now has placed it's economy on a war footing, so every aspect of it's economic survival is increasingly dependent on the war continuing. The peacetime domestic economy is rapidly being replaced and it would take massive changes to get it back now. They can't win, but they can't stop.
that depends on how you define "win". russia has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the world. only whyte folks support zelenski and his orcs and the juice against palestine.
"They can't win, but they can't stop." I agree. This sounds like a recipe for an almost complete meltdown at some point. Similar issues haunted, then cursed the post-war Soviet economy.
thanks for the video. could you do a video on what euro goals are when it comes to ukraine. do they share the same views as the americans that you stated in this video.
Oh my god. Thank you for this Anders. I’ve been trying to explain “The West”’s seemingly incoherent strategy towards Ukraine for 2 years but couldn’t as well as you have. The US does not want to risk a complete collapse of Russia, meaning Putin’s regime, because of the danger of a country that size having civil wars where nukes are stuffed in every corner of its geography. Russia can’t be allowed to win but also Ukraine can’t be allowed to completely humiliate Russia. It’s all but guaranteed this settling into a war of attrition. It has to be incredibly frustrating to Ukrainians but they also need the support. I think the hope is that the war gradually becomes too costly for Russia with every day Russians suffering to the point that Putin claiming some limited victory and ceasing the greater conflict is well received among Russians. One can hope.
I find it fascinating how irrelevant Ukraine and Ukrainians are in the whole story. The official goal is the borders from 1991. That means somehow expelling 4-5 million Russians and 600k+ soldiers from Ukraine. I think it is simply not possible, and even if it somehow happens in 5-10 years, what will be left of Ukraine and Ukrainians? Absolutely nothing, it will never recover, at least not in this century.
But can Russia declare a "limited victory"? Do you think that if Russia steps back and says, "We'll stop attacking, but keep what we've got," Ukraine will say, "Ok, keep it"? I don't think so. Ukraine is going try to take back all of their own territory, and that can only be seen as a loss for Russia.
My god where have you people been....that IS the primary objective of the USA is bring Russia to it's knees. They have said it time and time again. Ukraine is a means to an end and the USA don't give a rats arse about the poor Ukrainians dying in the hundreds of thousands.
@@Curt_Sampson Yeah, there are two giant problems with America's strategy, in addition to what was said in the video about how Russia doesn't seem to want negotiations because they think time is on their side and that it is the West, not Russia, that is in decline. The first problem is that Ukraine could lose, and very badly. The Ukrainian military or political system/society could just collapse and the Russians could then just take over the entire country or most of the country. I don't know how the US doesn't consider this a serious possibility, especially if their plan results in Ukrainians being forced into a war of attrition against a country that has a much larger population and economy. What will the US do if Ukraine starts to run out of soldiers or if Ukraine's society becomes depopulated and the rest surrender? Why on Earth take such a huge risk? Why not just help Ukraine win when Ukraine can still win? The second problem, and the one you are referring to, is that Ukrainians will not accept a deal that leaves the country without a viable future. Ukraine is struggling to have a future, and letting Russia take a giant chunk of territory while not receiving any concessions in the form of security guarantees is going to make Ukraine's future very uncertain. Just think about it, how would the Ukrainian population react to a settlement that leaves Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian attacks? How will Ukraine develop its economy without foreign direct investment because investors do not want to take the risk of investing in Ukraine? Basically, what is the Ukrainian government's argument for its population to not just leave the country? Ukrainians can move to European NATO countries if they want, and many millions have already done so.
You are right. This kind of "micromanagement" in the last decades has brought us to this absolutely dangerous situation and it will never solve the problems with Russia and China behind all this. Garry Kasparov was telling us the truth and what we should do all the time. We should have listened to him earlier and we should listen to him NOW!
Is there a problem with Russia and China? May I ask WHERE China has invaded? Maybe the only people the world needs to solve the problem with are YOU? List of countries INVADED, bombed/attacked by the United States (along with NATO countries) after World War II: Korea and China (1950-1953) Guatemala (1954) Indonesia (1958, 1966) Haiti (1959) Cuba (1959-1961) Guatemala (1960) Congo (1964) Laos (1959, 1964-1973) Vietnam (1961-1973) Cambodia (1969-1970) Guatemala (1960, 1967-1969) Grenada (1983) Lebanon (1958, 1983, 1984) Libya (1986, 2011) El Salvador (1980s) Nicaragua (1972, 1980s) Iran (1987) Honduras (1988) Panama (1989) Iraq (1991) Kuwait (1991) Somalia (1993) Bosnia (1994, 1995) Sudan (1998) Afghanistan (1998) Yugoslavia (1999) Yemen (2002) Iraq (1991-2003) Iraq (2003-2015) Afghanistan (2001-2015) Pakistan (2007-2015) Somalia (1992-1994, 2007, 2008, 2011) Yemen (2009, 2011) Libya (2011, 2015) Syria (2013 - present) Bombing YEMEN and LEBANON - right now + Supplying weapons to the Israeli army to exterminate the population of Gaza - right now
One thing: US presidential elections. Another thing: no loss for Ukraine but no loss for Russia. The US is trying to keep things as they are. They will fail though.
Thanks for this clear presentation of the paradox of US assistance. I wonder if the Kerch Bridge is still standing because of behind- the-scenes talks about conditioning aid on Ukraine not taking any major steps that would be catastrophic for the Russian regime.
I think it is still standing because they can easily watch it and get a lot of information about Russian logistics and troop movements, and because if Ukraine ever musters the forces required for a Crimea offensive, they can blow the bridge once Russia reinforces Crimea, then switch gears and launch an offensive some place else while Russia slowly struggles to move the reinforcements out of Crimea.
1) estimates of the number of cruise missiles to properly bring it down were hideous. (The leaked phone call suggest 60-70) 2) Ukrainian intelligence have stated it is no longer being used to provide any significant supply or logistics, the Russians using other routes. 3) given 1, is it worth it at this juncture for a PR exercise? It's not like Ukraine is sitting with 100's of missile with the range.
I think the european countries relied on America to protect them. They are now thinking of a european army. By the time they get that in place this war will be over I assume
Because to date they've been freeloaders. This is why a Trump victory in Nov 2024 is the best possible outcome - Europe will man up and defend itself for the first time in decades, and everyone can stop criticizing US for trying to be the world police, and maybe it can spend some of its military funding on something productive for a change.
This is two questions in one. 1) A lot of European leaders agree with Biden. In general Northern and some of Eastern Europe have wanted to help Ukraine, where Southern and Western Europe have not 2) Europe does not have enough production capacity, because we have not been investing in defense.
What you describe in this video is a de facto war of attrition. Both sides believe time is on their side, which means if they can just hold out a little longer than the other guy, then victory will be theirs. The West is more than able to outlast Russia militarily & economically. This leaves the infamous question of political will and determination on the part of the West. If the West were to become directly involved militarily (i.e., committing troops), I would expect it to be preceded by greater exposure of war crimes, treatment of POW's, and so on.
Great analysis as always. I also think your criticism of it is spot on. It is not trivial and risk free but we need a better policy for this. It is out of touch and also counterproductive. How to solve this is not trivial. But Russia sees itself as at war with all of NATO and is doing hybrid attacks in our countries and preparations for even more (all the foreign drone fliers around infrastructure and other points of interest). We have to realize that we are aswell and act accordingly. The current Russias regime has goals that are so far any acceptable compromise that a negotiation is only possible when they are defeated. This is risky but there is no other way as I see it. But thankfully there are smarter men than me :)
Thanks Anders, a convincing analysis, if somewhat depressing. Come November the choice is going to be between a presidential candidate who appears to be poorly advised (not just on Ukraine) and a candidate who would be unbelievably badly advised.
it's worse than that. usakistanis have two candidates who are openly for jenna side in palestine. and whyte folks refuse to vote for a black man again.
Presidents do not run the US wars for profit the Pentagon does . Administrations make politics the DOD sells weapons for profit and keeps wars lasting as long as they can so more profit can be made ..
Isn't it a bit dismissive to say the US administration doesn't understand what the effects their policy will have? Both militarily and politically there are probably no or few nations with more or better Intel in general and especially on Russia. Maybe a better perspective is that this is their best policy they can afford with the political capital they have.
I would worry that there is a difference between data and understanding. I agree they have the data but does that translate into understanding? On the other hand, I don't understand American politics enough (beyond the fact that it is broken) to know what limitations Biden is operating under.
Thanks Anders, you have described an potential American strategy that fits the events as they have unfolded, however it implies that American actions are will fully causing the excessive loss of Ukrainian and Russian lives. If the sum of Americas strategy is to prolong an attritional war then, whatever the outcome, America would be the immoral warmonger. This is not a winning strategy for America, I am sure that other actions are being taken to expedite the end of the war while achieving the required strategic outcomes. To do any less would be morally indefensible.
American who strongly supports providing Ukraine with whatever it wants and allowing Ukraine to fight its war against Russian aggression as it sees fit🎉
The supply of weapons and the provision of military assistance to one of the warring parties AFTER the outbreak of hostilities automatically transfers the "assistant" to the category of an active PARTICIPANT in the conflict. NATO missiles on Russian territory legitimize Russian missiles on NATO territory. This is a "two-way street". Russia will also conduct the war as it sees fit
@@evgeniya7853 By that logic North Korea, Iran and China are all active participants in Russia's war against Ukraine. Of course Russia can conduct the war as it sees fit but it is having an extremely difficult time fighting *just* the Ukrainians armed with old NATO weapons. If Russia attacked a NATO country it would be signing its own death sentence.
@@alwood1993 First of all, Russia never intended to attack a NATO country... or any country at all. However, in the case of aggression against Russia, one should not delude oneself - At "moment X" Russia will not care at all whether the aggressor country is a member of NATO or not. It's just that military bases on the territory of these countries will cease to exist... as are the countries themselves within their current borders... Secondly, the conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with either the United States or Europe. This is a civil confrontation within Ukraine. However, if the United States and Europe decide to become active participants in SOMEONE ELSE's conflict... In the end, they should not complain about the CONSEQUENCES for themselves after the defeat in Ukraine... Thirdly, China, Iran, and North Korea have nothing to do with the conflict in Ukraine. However, they have every right to defend themselves against the aggression of the United States and NATO. To deal with the aggressor in a MIRROR WAY - to impose sanctions against the above, to arrange terrorist attacks on the territory of the above... Or TAKE REVENGE on the West on the territory of Ukraine... That is, to do in relation to the United States and Europe the same thing that the United States and Europe are doing in relation to them... The RESULT, in case you don't know, is that on January 31, 2024, the International Court of Justice refused to recognize Russia as an "aggressor state". The court also rejected Ukraine's claim under the ICFBT to hold Russia responsible for the crash of Boeing flight MH17. As a result of the proceedings, Ukraine was completely denied all claims for compensation or other forms of satisfaction
@@evgeniya7853 Russia has attacked Georgia, then Donbas, now all of Ukraine in an effort to maintain influence over its former USSR states. Russia is badly losing the war with +100,000 dead and counting. Add a fertility crisis into the mix and Russia is doomed to the history books. Slava Ukraini
*Putin meets with his top General* Putin: Did you take Kyiv? General: No Putin: Did you take Kharkiv, Kherson, Odessa? General: No. Putin: Well what did you take then in Ukraine?! General: _Three washing machines, a toilet, and 2 fur coats!_ 😂
@@stranger299aRussia hasn't even taken half the Donbass, and not one capital city. After 2 years. After losing 500,000 men. Not to mention the entire planet laughing at their "army"😂😂😂
The problem with international politics is that every country only sees things from their own perspective. Understandable but not really helpful. The UN was , at one time, supposed to help in resolving conflict by democratic methods. Long since debunked as most countries just ignore the UN knowing that they are actually funding this facade. What I really can't understand about the American position with regards to Ukraine is the logic. America has fought multiple wars in the name of freedom and democracy against the overwhelming will , traditions and values of the endemic population. Many American lives were lossed and probably trillions of US dollars were wasted. Ukrainians want to and are fighting their own battles all they are asking for are the tools to do it. In recent history we saw an Afghan puppet goverment 100% subsidised by the US run away without even trying to fight for their own country. Every single dollar that was spent in Afghanistan was wasted. There is no democratic legacy remaining there. If God forbid Russia prevails in Ukraine NATO will face the proposition, long term, of facing off against this unrelenting Ukrainian spirit. It might take decades for Russia to indoctrinate Ukrainians but they have centuries of experience in indoctrination. I think that if you asked any NATO commanding officer if they would rather fight Ukrainians or Russians in a ground conflict, they would choose not to fight Ukrainians.
Afghanistan cost something like 1-2 TRILLION USD, not adjusted for inflation. To prop up ridiculously corrupt largely child molesters (look up why Afghan commanders always had small boys as "assistants") Imagine if we gave that level of support to Ukraine. While yes, there is probably some corruption in Ukraine i don't think you'll see zelensky fly to Dubai with a brief case filled with a hundred million in us tax dollars.
Ukrn has time and time again forced its population specially men into fighting and had ppl deserting leading to surrender or retreat from more than 20 city/towns. You wont need to fight ukrn due to casualties and declining birth rates
What Ukrainian spirit, gopher? 70% of the population of Ukraine are ethnic Russians. Most of whom VOTED for joining Russia. Some voted TWICE - for a better understanding of those suffering from slow thinking. Those suffering from slow thinking in the West still did not understand. At the moment, almost 10,000,000 former "Ukrainians" are Russian citizens + about 6,000,000 Ukrainians live in Russia as refugees. Initially, Russia did not need Western Ukraine. Let them protest with themselves there
I don't know where this fear of escalation on the collapse of Russia comes from. The USSR collapsed but it had little impact on the West, for instance. I don't understand the optimism about a durable negotiated settlement either. Everything Putin has done shows he will discard any agreement when it suits him, for example once he has rearmed. The American approach seems to be a triumph of wishful thinking over the realities of the situation. In some ways it seems a recipe for perpetual, or at least protracted, war. Russia will not approach the end game the same way that the US does and according to independent polling, the support for the war is very high in Russia. I suspect the Ukrainians have a much better understanding of Russia than do people in the US. Also the policy of too little too late and self-imposed red lines that crumble in the end comes across as weakness and hesitancy to Russia. They would never concern themselves with such considerations. They must be made to fear the West, because that's the real restraint on their behavior.
You want Russian collapse, because it brings with it a change for systemic change. You don't to push Russians back to living under a totalitarian dictatorship. They have a better idea of living in a democracy now than in the early 90s so if there's a collapse, they might be better positioned to demand for real liberal democracy and to make it happen. They will keep on being a danger to others as well as to themselves until they can purge their society of the tsarist model of rule they've used for centuries, though under a couple of different guises.
The fear that Russia is falling apart is a fear of Russian nationalists. By means of Putinian nuclear war scare propaganda, which isn't always stupid and illogical, this fear has also been instilled in some people in the West.
Brute force and ignorance! And as Khodorkovsky says: Caution and delay is read as WEAKNESS to putin and that means ESCALATION. So American restraint just sounds like a come on to russia.
Thank you for being a voice of clarity and sanity in an often schizophrenic world. As an American I have been extremely frustrated by what I consider misguided policies in Washington that are sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Unfortunately I think you are correct that things will continue on the current path. If the White House changes hands in January I expect they will get worse. Eventually something will break the impasse you describe where both sides think they can win in the long run. On the Russian side it could be the exhaustion of their financial reserves and legacy weapon stockpiles, for Ukraine it could be the rise of right wing authoritarian parties cutting support. The outcome isn't certain, but difficult times are guaranteed.
@@robgrey6183 Your concern about the southern border is a lie. You and your allies killed the bill to solve it in order to keep it as a campaign issue. You don’t care about Ukraine because you support the dictator attacking it. The border crisis you have created is bad, but not an existential threat to the United States. You and the dictatorship you support is.
@@robgrey6183 When a compromise to solve the border problem was finally agreed to, giving the critics roughly 80% of what they wanted, they reversed themselves and killed it. Their leader said he wanted to keep it as a campaign issue. Also, Ukraine and the border are separate issues. There is no reason for government to not be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
@@robgrey6183 it's lucky that it's not then huh. the right's PR departments adore the useful idiots who'll buy any crap they spew & put people in power who have nothing but their own greed at heart...
You mentioned the Americans a lot.. What about the whole of Europe.. Surely the Europeans have cause and effect? Russia has also made itself a testing ground for new weapons... Thx
@@Percival5 I don't like History Legend, because it's full of information, which is in outer space and weak people regurgitate his north Korean balloon tactics.
Europe's strategy is the same as it has always been. Wait and see if the US will see Europe as too big to fail and pay for the whole thing. If they have any sense, they are bracing for a Trump victory and are preparing to fund Ukraine themselves. Ironically this would bring an end to the war far faster than if Biden were to win again.
NATO was created to counter Russian aggression, and as the most member the United States has always called the shots (the Secretary-General is largely a PR role). That is why no British or French Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles were fired into Russia until after Biden gave the green light, even though the British and French had publicly endorsed the policy weeks earlier.
it's weird that he says "americans". most americans DONT support ukraine. only usakistanis and their canadian pets do. and they arent americans, but europeans.
Anders you are say what General Ben Hodges has been saying of thr Biden Administration, they need to say: We want Ukraine🇺🇦 to win, dtsting a true strategy & work with Ukraine, guve what they need to win the ear out right.
According to Ben Hodges Ukraine is always winning. He is an eternal optimist But I think that this is a dangerous message, because we need to convince Western leaders to send enough weapons to avoid a defeat. If Europen leaders think that Ukraine is winning, then they will stop sending weapons.
Thanks for all the likes, & I really want the Biden Administration to SAY, 'I WANT UKRAINE TO WIN', and give Ukraine all the weapons they need to win. Simple. Russia is the aggressor here.
Thanks for all the "likes" everyone. I hope the Biden Administration says "WE WANT UKRAINE TO WIN"! Then just give Ukraine all they need to wipe Russia with the floor. Jake Sullivan is the most cowardly idiot for an advisor to President Biden.
It will take years for even economic powerhouses like Germany to have a consistent military budget without relying on an emergency pool fund, the war will likely end by then.
7:03: _"3. Russian collapse leads to escalation"_ - that's a really odd theory. Russian collapse would not reasonably favor someone that wants to escalate an already impopular war. The idea of Russian nuking itself because it is collapsing by of some internal enemy doesn't make sense. It isn't logical.
You know what dictatorial leaders have done time and time again when internal threats become to problematic? They produced a war to unite the people. "Now is not the time to quarrel, now everyone has to unite to defend the mother/fatherland". Works really well with the russian mentality.
@@anderspuck Putin prioritizes system stability over anything else. His biggest fear is not NATO or Ukraine but Protests. 1989 he was a FSB Bureaucrat in Dresden when 100km away in Leipzig the Monday Demonstration started wich ended with the collaps of eastern Germany. 2014 Euromaidan Protest ended the reign of Yanukovych. Putin will not let this happen In Russia.
@@anderspuckfor once, I agree. Further, regardless of popularity or impopularity of the war, we need to recognise that there are people in Russia more hawkish than Putin. That there are groups pushing for escalation, just as there are in the US. With leaders in Ukraine, EU, and Russia, all viewing the war as existential, the dangers of escalation are real.
The arrogance you must have to try to impose a peace which neither side of the war thinks will work is utterly baffling. Then again, we are dealing with the US.
Neither side wants anything less than complete victory. Anything else will not be received with gladness. And Ukraine may not be able to achieve “complete victory” based on the course of the war so far. So the US is correct.
Europe is already stepping up without NATO. So, if the US pulls out with assistance to NATO after November Europe will be in a position to take the slack to help Ukraine in its effort to stay a free sovereign country.
@@blacklion8208 why isn't that happening now, why didn't it happen during the 6 month pause. Why are all of you here all mad at the U.S. if "Europe is already stepping up"
@@genxunclekey because most European nations relied on the US for their safety, and it is hard to change a mindset. We are slowly understanding that the US will not always help us unconditionally and that they have their own goals. It will take years to sink in, but it has started.
Ukraine’s victory condition don’t cross Russia’s definition of territorial integrity. The issue has always been about the third point. Having to deal with the internal collapse of a nuclear state. There isn’t much you can do to avoid this outcome though that doesn’t make Russia stronger. In the end a faster Russian collapse is probably better for everyone in the long term (including ordinary Russians), but this also carries the highest risk of a nuclear incident (not a full scale nuclear war), which needs to be avoided if possible. The “historic inevitability” of something you wish to happen though is a trap in politics. The West’s (and Ukraine’s) desired outcome is a return to 1991 borders and end of the war. To happen that needs a difference government in Moscow. To achieve that by force will threaten Russia. The best you can do is undermine Russia financially and protect Ukraine militarily and economically. Tbh this is the US policy, but it’s never been very clearly communicated, because of a fear that Putin (and domestically Trump) will exploit that policy.
I find it fascinating how irrelevant Ukraine and Ukrainians are in the whole story. You said, the official goal is the borders from 1991. That means somehow expelling 4-5 million Russians and 600k+ soldiers from Ukraine. I think it is simply not possible, and even if it somehow happens in 5-10 years, what will be left of Ukraine and Ukrainians? Absolutely nothing, it will never recover, at least not in this century.
Russia declared the annexed territory as part of their territory now, so technically you are incorrect. But practically speaking you are correct, as they could just change their law right back to how it was before and de-recognize those territories. Russia would only agree to do that if something happened to Putin though.
@@theredscourge "they could just change their law right back" shows your utter contempt for Russia. Why won't Ukraine just change their law to hand over the four oblasts? It would be so easy.
@@e3498-v7l ...because it was Russia who stole the territory from Ukraine, not the other way around? And yeah, contempt seems like the appropriate attitude towards the Russian state right now. It's contemptible.
Remember Vietnam, where they tried to micro-manage the war from Pentagon and the white house, it did not go well, and in the end, US got tired and left, this is what Russia is hoping, will happen again!!!
Nice summary. You substantiated and extended my understanding. While expecting the other side to collapse can bolster resolve, at some point reality will prove out and the weaker side will collapse. It reminds me a lot of back during the Iran v Iraq w*ar. In that case we just wanted the fighting to continue and there to be no clear winner.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. As an AMERICAN I want total victory. The return of ALL her territories. After that, lets talk about the "Russian Federation" falling apart; only then can the West feel safe. Russian reparations and trials for war crimes must never be forgotten either.
This is probably the best explanation I have seen, since the war started, about why the Biden administration has slow-walked aid to Ukraine so much. I always thought It had something to do with worries about escalation, but this lays out exactly the scenarios Biden fears might happen if Ukraine definitively wins. Excellent analysis!
It is exactly that! The opinion, even from same person, swings a lot. Not sure if this is a characteristic from our times where there is too much information and people have very short term memory... It is ridiculous!
What a shame that Ukrainian lives are being spent because of this political balancing act which seems to ignore the cold realities on the ground at least in my laymans view of things.
Absolutely. I Can perfectly understand the Biden administration's worry at the beginning of the war but I think it is now clear that it's time to let Ukraine win. Otherwise russians will never learn 😢
It's a shame that Russia decided to spend those Ukrainian lives in the first place just because Putin wanted to try and leave a legacy by stealing Ukraine and buying them another 20 years before demographic collapse.
The problem is that the balancing act is what has been keeping the Ukrainians somewhat safe.
When they attack something inside Russia (especially stuff the Russians consider important), they get retaliation on their cities' infrastructure (like power plants).
As long as it's military vs military, it's semi-fine. But if Russia decides to just finish off their key civilian infrastructure, Russia might get some condemnation, but it'll be all over for Ukraine.
Of course, it's doubtful if you can truly exhaust Russia while playing a defensive game.
Negotiations were the right path for this. But it's almost too late now.
@@Leto2ndAtreides I'm pretty sure at this point that Ukrainians will run their country on bicycle pedal power to keep the lights on if they have to. Besides, the Patriot batteries are defending a fair amount of critical infrastructure now.
Ukrainian lives are being spent in order for the US to win the "great game" of "geopolitical competition." The goal, as set forth in 2019, was to sacrifice Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. To "extend Russia." The balancing act is to avoid "damaging counter-escalation." The US is willing to make a pawn sacrifice of Ukraine, but doesn't want to risk any of its other pieces in the "great game."
Russian instability is inevitable when Putin “goes”. Seems silly to believe it can be avoided
poo tin is just the figurehead, the FSB will find another.
@@gerryhouska2859 I don’t think that will work at all. Everyone will think they should be the king.
Hold your breath and wait for it. You seem to be a waste of oxygen anyway.
@@gerryhouska2859 Nah, there isn't a collective organising things in the background according to a common agenda in Russia. There are just powerful individuals and their hangers-on. Right now Putin has them in check, but if he loses control they're all going to fight. Whether to grab more power, or just to avoid getting thrown out a window if they lose their power.
Seems silly? And what the hell do you know about Russia?
You'd think that escalation management is fundamentally flawed as Russia escalates regardless.
Rusha' cant escalate. Their army is a joke and their country is too poor. Sorry for the bitter truth lol.
@@dpelpal Get informed.
@@vasilispatsalidis5683 I'm one of the ones that realizes that Russia is a total joke.😂
@@dpelpal Yes sure, but it is far better to be informed.
If Russia "Gain", thus in any shape or form, any agreement such as De-Escalating, peace or any other treaty, is just a temporary halt for Russia to Reload, re-stock & mobilise.
...
Only way conflict can change, is if Russia changes their narrative.
At present it would mean Russian unconditional surrender.
So WAR will continue, FOREVER if neccesary, until that will occur.
- More is comming, much more, in every shape or form...
Civil,military,trade, terror and diplomacy.....
Same - Same....
All Methods apply!
It seems as though, as Europe ramps up it's own production, the US's reticence will become less relevant. It's clear that in many parts of Europe the idea that Ukraine victory will cause a Russian collapse is a positive.
The French elections called yesterday may change that. This business is crisis after crisis.
Russia will almost definitely use nukes before it's actually defeated.
NATO has forgottent the Cold War common sense, that you can't really win against a nuclear opponent.
Hmm, sadly many countries like Italy have a core of people who think to make peace you just need to be peaceful and disarm yourselves and others will to, that peace does exist, it's called the hun peace when everyone is dead
@@Leto2ndAtreidesthat is outside both common sense and russias nuclear doctrine, very unlikely
@@Leto2ndAtreides It will not.
As an American it’s frustrating that I have to choose between a president who is needlessly prolonging the war while denying Ukraine the opportunity for total victory, or the guy who openly supports Putin and calls him a genius.
Boy I can sure identify with that. Listening to this video was both frustrating and sad.
How much of this is rooted in domestic politics? I get the feeling that democrats are holding back in an attempt not to own the Ukraine cause, because it will provoke republicans (those that are not already Putin friendly) to turn against it. Reelection might embolden the Biden administration to be more openly supportive.
As a Brit I feel your frustration, but given the choices, I know which I would choose & it’s not the orange bloke!
Too right. It annoys the hell out of me.
@@humphreybradley3060 It’s not even a decision, it’s not even about politics anymore. This election is a moral choice of good versus evil.
This guy is absolutely the best Danish, English speaking, Ukraine war analyst on TH-cam!!
Not English, I think it*s more or less American
That sounds sarcastic. Unless there are more Danish, English-speaking, Ukraine war analysts that I'm not aware of.
I've watched a lot of these Danish , English speaking TH-cam Ukrainian war analysts. And I have to agree, he is the best of them.
@@humushumus2219& yet you're here, Boris
Not to mention his interesting middle name
Great analysis, as always. My take out of it: we as Europeans should consider our own interests instead of always fingerpointing to the US-Administration. And we have plenty of reasons why Ukraine‘s victory is essential and basic for our own survival of European democracies.
While I understand the premise of the US policy I think it is flawed as there is no compromise to be had with Russia as they view the entire war as existential. It is the same with the Baltic states. I believe the Russian regime will topple or change drastically as any type of lasting peace with this regime is doomed and we will have to deal with its collapse regardless and we put ourselves in a worse situation by trying to avoid it.
Not to mention that in reality, the Rushn' army us a laughable joke.
But that doesn't get clicks for the media.
🇦🇺💙💛✌ 🇺🇦 Exactly! The ultra right is gaining a lot of ground in Europe which has caused Macron to call a snap election in France. Just when it looked like Europe (mostly) was banding together to up its support for Ukraine, could Macron being toppled cause France to stop its support for Ukraine?
@@dpelpal I don’t think that narrative is very productive. They are not stupid and they have a lot of resources. They have also gained experience in Ukraine esp in drone warfare. We should plan and prepare accordingly.
@@Hochspitz Russia is doing a lot op propaganda ops but also trying to directly influence the European Parliament by some politicians running their errands (for money, ideology or other reasons). It is weird that Russia can use our open systems against us by stoking conflicts.
@@crabapple1974 The Rushin army is a total joke, and their officer corps is in fact stupid and uneducated. They're lost 500,000 men and can't even take 10% of the second poorest country in Europe.
.Russia does not have "resources". The standard of living in Rusha is just above that of Uruguay and below Costa Rica.
The only reason "escalation" by Rusha' is taken seriously at all in the media is that it generates clicks. Any real examination of the entire Rushin' state will only result in belly laughter.
What a messed up world. Real people are dying while we imagine outcomes. What if the allied did that to us in WW2. We need to get our European house in order. Ukraine needs to be the example for Putin.
Imagine if the axis had nuclear weapons in 1945. Then go away and think again.
America did exactly this to Russia in WWII. They sent equipment, but did not send their own soldiers to invade the European mainland until almost 3 years after Germany had declared war on them. They only invaded when it became clear that the Soviets were going to win, and this was primarily to ensure that they did not take all of Europe in the process. They wanted both Germany and the Soviet Union to bleed each other dry so that neither could be a serious threat to Europe for the next 50 years and that's what happened.
you can always do your part. I heard they are welcoming volunteers with open arms.
To be honest, that’s exactly what happened in WW2: The Americans did support the British on some level but just after Pearl Harbor the decided that enough is enough and stepped fully in. But that was before the atomic bomb in a time where Germany or Japan could not retaliate on an existential level.
@@Magurae They did not decide enough was enough, Germany declared war on them.
Thanks. You deliver the best Ukraine intell briefings on TH-cam by far.
Thank you for taking a step back from the headlines and giving a sober perspective of the bigger picture. I wish more people heard your voice!
Thank you. Glad you find it helpful.
Wow! This is a really mindblowing video with an insight and understanding that is really on the spot. Thank you so much for your contribution Anders. Hilsen Sturla fra Norge
But it's wrong and worthless. Come back in 2mo and see if anything he says holds up (it wont)
Thanks, Anders. Your analysis is something many of us have understood to be the case for quite a long time but your putting it into words makes it much more portable and available to policy makers and voters to keep in mind.
Thanks!
Thank you, sir, for this objective truth! As an American, I get it. You are spot on. I hope that key people in this country hear and consider your words carefully! Blessings on your continued sharing. 🙏🏻
Thank you Anders fora thoughtful talk on this topic. As am American I can tell you that this is a sad but true state of affairs.
It seems easy for the United States government to accept a protracted war, as long as it's not Americans dying.
Sad situation.
Anders, to avoid the scenario of the Russian state collapsing, would not a good strategy be to help Ukraine win the war decisively earlier rather than later?
My thinking is that if a Ukrainian victory comes quickly, the Russian state and Putin should be able to survive since the internal political structures will not have been erroded over a long period of time so that Putin and his government will still be sufficiently resiliant to withstand a loss in Ukraine.
If instead the conflict continues, Putin's position will only suffer along with his internal support making a full collapse more likely, not less.
Thoughts?
My thoughts exactly. There's also the economic angle. If the war ended soon, Russia would have made massive financial sacrifices for sure, but the economy is still mostly intact. If it's still going on in 2026, that's a different story. Right now Russia is on that path, because it's confident it can outlast the West. I'm not sure if they've seriously thought how paying a terrible price for some slices of bombed-out, depopulated land would actually benefit them, but that's what they're going for. One of the reasons encouraging them to grind it out is this kind of escalation management that can easily look like lack of conviction and weakness to people like Putin and siloviki.
Yes, I’m with you guys, there. 👍👊
Ukraine "victory" was only possible in 2022. It would be too bloody to reclaim all that lost territory back if the Russians entrench themselves further.
Wars for profit are ALWAYS fought slowly to increase profits from weapons manufacturing . No quick war ever made much money so what you want is not what weapons industries want .
not sure how it'd pan out ofc, but ii suspect putin's regime itself might collapse even if the state economy doesn't. much of his (very questionable) support stems from his aura of power, his 'strong man' image, a defeat at the hands of a nation he claims doesn't even *exist* might be too much - he might find himself enjoying moscow's scenery from a new angle as he falls from some window... & after that a power-grab by whoever's closest to the throne... that could even lead to civil war as russia's oligarchs for gangs to try & take over?
Winston Churchill - 'You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.' - To Neville Chamberlain
History doesn't repeat, but it surely does rhyme.
There will be no war with Rusha. Their army is a total joke and Rusha' is too poor.
Get real, people.🙄
UK didn't win a single battle alone in WW2, after 1943 all the heavy lifting was done by Americans on the Western and Pacific theaters, Brits were more like a bystanders.
Difference is, Germany didn't have nuclear weapons.
@@Pepe-pv2nk No, the difference is that Rusha' has a total joke army and Germany had a strong army.
Coming back to the present day, ru'ss'hyia is a joke militarily and weak politically, but strong in misinformation.
Funny how those "escalation management" people managed NOTHING after 2014.
Yes, and the same bad advisors that worked for Obama are advising Biden.
Yup. Escalation _mis_management would be more appropriate.
Exactly. It is the same Obama era US policy people who are still trying to make their old broken de-escalation solution work.
Exactly. They have not been able to force Ukraine to comply with the Minsk Agreements ratified by the UN and recognized by the international community
@@evgeniya7853 'Hahahhahahhaahahha. And Russia promised to protect Ukraine after giving up nukes. Fuck Russia. GTFO, bot.
Thank you Anders, for a once again brilliant analysis! ...and the bitter truth for Ukraine.😢
Excellent video Anders. I'll just add that Europeans cannot continue needing permission from the USA to fight wars. Europe would be better off buying Japanese or Korean weapons than US weapons, let alone buying European-made, where that is at all possible. The USA acts and gives permission based on what is best for the USA, and although the USA is a pretty good ally, generally US economic and territorial interests are distant from European interests.
This overlooks the fact that European countries themselves are often dragging their feet on aid. France in Italy have given a decimal amount and Germany still drags feet on key systems.
The problem is that Europe just weakened itself more with the result of the elections.
The problem is that Europe just weakened itself more with the result of the elections.
European's don't need permission ffrom the USA to support Ukraine. The problem is that many European governments, especially Germany, share the same, flawed, analysis with the Biden administration.
Japanese and Korean weapons are also from the US
The flaw in the American strategy is that regardless of their rhetoric Russia cannot afford to have their war escalate outside of Ukraine. They are over committed with Ukraine as it stands. Imagine Russia having to also fight one or more NATO militaries with modern NATO equipment (not the obsolete army surplus stuff they have been giving Ukraine)!
Exactly. Rusha' simply doesn't have the ability to "escalate". They're nearly losing to Ukraine after mobilizing their entire country. That's because their army, equipment, and logistics are a total and complete joke.
A conflict with 1 NATO country automatically engages ALL Nato countries
Depends which country you are talking about, quite different capabilities between countries.
The thing with NATO is it's founded on defence, if one NATO country chooses to directly get involved others are not obligated to defend them under Article 5 I believe. If Russia attacks first there is no question.
As was said before, Russia may attack without the possibility of winning. Imagine Russia keeps attacking Finland and gets nowhere, but Finnish soldiers and civilians are getting constantly killed. What then? Russia can say, "oops, let us talk peace, you like not being killed, right? Give us Ukraine and we'll stop attacking Finland. "
The American strategy is fine, the issue is whether they miscalculate. So far, their strategy is doing exactly what it needs to do - leave Russia the hope of winning so they continue to think they still have a chance and continue to burn away more and more of their 50+ year vehicle and equipment stockpiles as well as their military-aged men. Eventually, Russia will have too few secret police left to keep the people in line as they will have all died in Ukraine, and then the country will fall into civil war.
"They are not going to hurt themselves in the process of taking revenge" - How optimist!
Keep up the great analysis ...!
I am thoroughly sick of the pathetic, self-limiting approach of the west; it is dangerous and naive.
'I am thoroughly sick of the pathetic, self-limiting approach of the west'
The self limitation is because unlike Iraq, the west knows the bear has real WMDs that will incinerate all US and European cities.
It is dangerous and naive to think otherwise. Get it ?
The west is pathetic because of its false pride which led it to spurn negotiations. Did you feel sick about that ? Or you are only feeling sick because you Russia made you impotent ?
You’re not understanding what’s being described here. If the Ukrainian’s with western help you seem to want, throw Russia out in a humiliating rout, Russia may collapse into chaos with catastrophic consequences for the world.
@@billyponsonby Russia is the biggest threat to the World currently and has threatened to use nuclear weapons if it doesn't get its way, the West can't afford to pay a price of Russia getting its way because it will not stop, it must be broken up otherwise there will not be peace!?!
@@billyponsonby Spot on, and also left unstated is the definition of 'winning' means to the U.S. vs Kiev, and helps explain why Biden fully supports 'Victory' for Ukraine, while still falling short of describing what the scope of that 'victory' be acceptable and would actually look like.
@@billyponsonbyAnd yet if Russia is able to win territory, and keep Crimea then they will see it as a win. Which do you want? An imperialistic world power with nukes, or breakaway regions with nukes?
You're afraid for your own wellbeing, leading to Ukraine's defeat. Ukraine will lose because of the west's self centredness. Russia will not collapse, and therefore they will keep pushing until all fighting age men are dead, and they have more than Ukraine.
I have been following the war closely from the beginning. Therefore I don't say it lightly when I say you have given me a new perspective. Thank you
I don't think I've commented before. I just want to thank you for your efforts and work.
Excellent perspective and information. 🇺🇦
Your best analysis to date.
Many thanks from the UK 🇬🇧.
H
it s fokin chewsday innit
THE BEST UKRAINE WAR ANALYSIS EVER, BAR NONE!
It is missing the fourth and in my opinion most likely type of escalation.: that the Kremlin realise the tide has turned against them nd they cannot possibly hope to win or even survive in the long run with their current _conventional_ strategy. In that case they would have to actually _do_ something riskier. Or quit.
I always enjoy your videos. I always learn something or understand things from a fresh perspective. Thank you.
You're always worth the time watching, Anders. Tack.
*Tak :) I'm sure he appreciates the gesture nonetheless!
Serendipity - early morning here in DC, and lo and behold, what do I find on YT Anders!!! Great analysis - as always!
your videos are great, they help me to stay informed but also keep a calm mind. thank you !
Fascinating! It makes so much sense, and is so depressing.
This strategy leads to maximum casaulties for both countries
This is a Europe problem. The risk of a nuclear armageddon is more relevant to the US than the loss of every last Ukrainian life.
@@theredscourge I guess our middle name is cynicism?
@@harmless6813 If it is cynical to think that the American government and people would tend to value 350 million American lives more highly than 40 million Ukrainian lives (actually much less as most people successfully flee conflicts) then I suppose so.
It isn't about human lives or doing what you think is right, this is about power/money
@@bradmodd7856 profit too
Thank you for your insightful and detailed analysis.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, and this is your most important video on this war so far. I wish Biden would stop trying to save Putin's hold onto power and leave that task up to Putin. As is, the US is trying to solve all problems at the expense of Ukraine and their people.
US has very little stake in the success of Ukraine, they only have a stake in preventing the success of Russia, and in preventing nuclear war. Before the war, US was doing $2B in annual trade with Ukraine, which is a miniscule amount. The only other significance to the US is that maybe 10% of Americans can trace their lineage back to either Russia or Ukraine.
US can afford to run out the clock on Putin and Russia, it's Ukraine and arguably Europe who cannot afford it, so if they want this fight to end more quickly they should pay up.
@@theredscourge I agree that Europe should lead the effort to aid Ukraine, but there are two factors that make this more complicated.
First, the European defence industry is unable to keep up due to long term severe underfunding, and it will take years before it can at least match Russian production.
Second, if Biden's fears remain in place, whatever increase in aid Europe manages to produce will be counteracted by the US cutting it back to keep the balance and prevent Russia from collapsing. Biden might even push on the EU to slow down if they are too successful.
So I don't see how Ukraine can win unless the US stops trying to save Putin's regime from collapse.
Always look forward to your work. A treat to have access to professional content. 👌
In passing, I have an issue with thugs, in this case, Russia.
Slava 🇺🇦 from 🇨🇦.
Tak for Update Anders, jeg er 100% enig i din analyse som altid
One additional point here is that Russia now has placed it's economy on a war footing, so every aspect of it's economic survival is increasingly dependent on the war continuing. The peacetime domestic economy is rapidly being replaced and it would take massive changes to get it back now. They can't win, but they can't stop.
Rushin' military is a total joke and Rusha is too poor to do anything beyond Ukraine. It will be exactly the same as when they lost in Afghanistan.
that depends on how you define "win".
russia has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the world.
only whyte folks support zelenski and his orcs and the juice against palestine.
Russia is Cocaine Bear, basically.
"They can't win, but they can't stop." I agree. This sounds like a recipe for an almost complete meltdown at some point. Similar issues haunted, then cursed the post-war Soviet economy.
Sounds like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game.
Thank you
Excellent
In-depth
Brilliant analysis
He is nato propagandist
@@Marko9515 aw did reality hurt your feelings?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @Anders. Always good food for thought, and much appreciated.
Thanks for solid analysis. I will be the most intelligent person at the lunch tomorrow
thanks for the video. could you do a video on what euro goals are when it comes to ukraine. do they share the same views as the americans that you stated in this video.
That would probably vary from nation to nation - the closer to the Russian border the more they would be aligned with Ukraine.
Oh my god. Thank you for this Anders. I’ve been trying to explain “The West”’s seemingly incoherent strategy towards Ukraine for 2 years but couldn’t as well as you have. The US does not want to risk a complete collapse of Russia, meaning Putin’s regime, because of the danger of a country that size having civil wars where nukes are stuffed in every corner of its geography. Russia can’t be allowed to win but also Ukraine can’t be allowed to completely humiliate Russia. It’s all but guaranteed this settling into a war of attrition. It has to be incredibly frustrating to Ukrainians but they also need the support. I think the hope is that the war gradually becomes too costly for Russia with every day Russians suffering to the point that Putin claiming some limited victory and ceasing the greater conflict is well received among Russians. One can hope.
I find it fascinating how irrelevant Ukraine and Ukrainians are in the whole story. The official goal is the borders from 1991. That means somehow expelling 4-5 million Russians and 600k+ soldiers from Ukraine. I think it is simply not possible, and even if it somehow happens in 5-10 years, what will be left of Ukraine and Ukrainians? Absolutely nothing, it will never recover, at least not in this century.
But can Russia declare a "limited victory"? Do you think that if Russia steps back and says, "We'll stop attacking, but keep what we've got," Ukraine will say, "Ok, keep it"?
I don't think so. Ukraine is going try to take back all of their own territory, and that can only be seen as a loss for Russia.
My god where have you people been....that IS the primary objective of the USA is bring Russia to it's knees. They have said it time and time again. Ukraine is a means to an end and the USA don't give a rats arse about the poor Ukrainians dying in the hundreds of thousands.
The US has absolutely no clue how Russians think. This is especially true of Biden's so called "advisors".
@@Curt_Sampson Yeah, there are two giant problems with America's strategy, in addition to what was said in the video about how Russia doesn't seem to want negotiations because they think time is on their side and that it is the West, not Russia, that is in decline.
The first problem is that Ukraine could lose, and very badly. The Ukrainian military or political system/society could just collapse and the Russians could then just take over the entire country or most of the country. I don't know how the US doesn't consider this a serious possibility, especially if their plan results in Ukrainians being forced into a war of attrition against a country that has a much larger population and economy. What will the US do if Ukraine starts to run out of soldiers or if Ukraine's society becomes depopulated and the rest surrender? Why on Earth take such a huge risk? Why not just help Ukraine win when Ukraine can still win?
The second problem, and the one you are referring to, is that Ukrainians will not accept a deal that leaves the country without a viable future. Ukraine is struggling to have a future, and letting Russia take a giant chunk of territory while not receiving any concessions in the form of security guarantees is going to make Ukraine's future very uncertain. Just think about it, how would the Ukrainian population react to a settlement that leaves Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian attacks? How will Ukraine develop its economy without foreign direct investment because investors do not want to take the risk of investing in Ukraine? Basically, what is the Ukrainian government's argument for its population to not just leave the country? Ukrainians can move to European NATO countries if they want, and many millions have already done so.
You are right. This kind of "micromanagement" in the last decades has brought us to this absolutely dangerous situation and it will never solve the problems with Russia and China behind all this. Garry Kasparov was telling us the truth and what we should do all the time. We should have listened to him earlier and we should listen to him NOW!
Is there a problem with Russia and China? May I ask WHERE China has invaded? Maybe the only people the world needs to solve the problem with are YOU?
List of countries INVADED, bombed/attacked by the United States (along with NATO countries) after World War II:
Korea and China (1950-1953)
Guatemala (1954)
Indonesia (1958, 1966)
Haiti (1959)
Cuba (1959-1961)
Guatemala (1960)
Congo (1964)
Laos (1959, 1964-1973)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-1970)
Guatemala (1960, 1967-1969)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1958, 1983, 1984)
Libya (1986, 2011)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1972, 1980s)
Iran (1987)
Honduras (1988)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994, 1995)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Yemen (2002)
Iraq (1991-2003)
Iraq (2003-2015)
Afghanistan (2001-2015)
Pakistan (2007-2015)
Somalia (1992-1994, 2007, 2008, 2011)
Yemen (2009, 2011)
Libya (2011, 2015)
Syria (2013 - present)
Bombing YEMEN and LEBANON - right now +
Supplying weapons to the Israeli army to exterminate the population of Gaza - right now
Outstanding summary of the beliefs involved. Critical points to understand Europe’s challenge.
One thing: US presidential elections.
Another thing: no loss for Ukraine but no loss for Russia.
The US is trying to keep things as they are. They will fail though.
Alone the thought that Ukraine could win against a nuclear weapons power is scary no matter how this war ends
Things are already different. The biggest Ukrainian hydro carbon reserves are already in russian controlled territory.
@@goenzoy712 I think Russia dismantled most of its nuclear and sold the parts on ebay to get food money in the 1990s😂😂😂
@@dpelpal
_That wouldn't suprise me!_ lol
@@goenzoy712weird comment considering the USSR & US both lost in Afghanistan, & the US lost in Vietnam
Thanks for this clear presentation of the paradox of US assistance. I wonder if the Kerch Bridge is still standing because of behind- the-scenes talks about conditioning aid on Ukraine not taking any major steps that would be catastrophic for the Russian regime.
Some people say the bridge is still standing as an escape route for the russian army back to Russia. I don't think they use it much now
I think it is still standing because they can easily watch it and get a lot of information about Russian logistics and troop movements, and because if Ukraine ever musters the forces required for a Crimea offensive, they can blow the bridge once Russia reinforces Crimea, then switch gears and launch an offensive some place else while Russia slowly struggles to move the reinforcements out of Crimea.
1) estimates of the number of cruise missiles to properly bring it down were hideous. (The leaked phone call suggest 60-70)
2) Ukrainian intelligence have stated it is no longer being used to provide any significant supply or logistics, the Russians using other routes.
3) given 1, is it worth it at this juncture for a PR exercise? It's not like Ukraine is sitting with 100's of missile with the range.
Why is it so unthinkable that Europeans would actually help Ukraine regardless of what the Americans give?
I think the european countries relied on America to protect them. They are now thinking of a european army. By the time they get that in place this war will be over I assume
Because to date they've been freeloaders. This is why a Trump victory in Nov 2024 is the best possible outcome - Europe will man up and defend itself for the first time in decades, and everyone can stop criticizing US for trying to be the world police, and maybe it can spend some of its military funding on something productive for a change.
This is two questions in one.
1) A lot of European leaders agree with Biden. In general Northern and some of Eastern Europe have wanted to help Ukraine, where Southern and Western Europe have not
2) Europe does not have enough production capacity, because we have not been investing in defense.
@@anotherelvis 2. Who's problem is that?
Euros have always expected Americans to pay, ble*d, and d*e for them.
Thank you for being you
Thank again for your clear analysis Anders.
What you describe in this video is a de facto war of attrition. Both sides believe time is on their side, which means if they can just hold out a little longer than the other guy, then victory will be theirs. The West is more than able to outlast Russia militarily & economically. This leaves the infamous question of political will and determination on the part of the West. If the West were to become directly involved militarily (i.e., committing troops), I would expect it to be preceded by greater exposure of war crimes, treatment of POW's, and so on.
Great analysis as always. I also think your criticism of it is spot on. It is not trivial and risk free but we need a better policy for this. It is out of touch and also counterproductive. How to solve this is not trivial. But Russia sees itself as at war with all of NATO and is doing hybrid attacks in our countries and preparations for even more (all the foreign drone fliers around infrastructure and other points of interest). We have to realize that we are aswell and act accordingly. The current Russias regime has goals that are so far any acceptable compromise that a negotiation is only possible when they are defeated. This is risky but there is no other way as I see it. But thankfully there are smarter men than me :)
Thanks Anders, a convincing analysis, if somewhat depressing. Come November the choice is going to be between a presidential candidate who appears to be poorly advised (not just on Ukraine) and a candidate who would be unbelievably badly advised.
When was a POTUS last well advised on foreign policy?
I don't recall one being so served.
Both represent the US wars for profit Industry . It is so large it is our second largest economy behind Health Care with profits in the trillions .
it's worse than that.
usakistanis have two candidates who are openly for jenna side in palestine.
and whyte folks refuse to vote for a black man again.
they would elect Obammy in a second LOL
Presidents do not run the US wars for profit the Pentagon does . Administrations make politics the DOD sells weapons for profit and keeps wars lasting as long as they can so more profit can be made ..
Thank you. As always some useful insights to help me understand what is going on.
Excellent assessment, as always. Thank you very much!
Isn't it a bit dismissive to say the US administration doesn't understand what the effects their policy will have? Both militarily and politically there are probably no or few nations with more or better Intel in general and especially on Russia. Maybe a better perspective is that this is their best policy they can afford with the political capital they have.
I would worry that there is a difference between data and understanding. I agree they have the data but does that translate into understanding?
On the other hand, I don't understand American politics enough (beyond the fact that it is broken) to know what limitations Biden is operating under.
Thanks Anders, you have described an potential American strategy that fits the events as they have unfolded, however it implies that American actions are will fully causing the excessive loss of Ukrainian and Russian lives. If the sum of Americas strategy is to prolong an attritional war then, whatever the outcome, America would be the immoral warmonger. This is not a winning strategy for America, I am sure that other actions are being taken to expedite the end of the war while achieving the required strategic outcomes. To do any less would be morally indefensible.
You bring morality into geopolitics. That is your first mistake. And don't think this is good or bad. It just is.
American who strongly supports providing Ukraine with whatever it wants and allowing Ukraine to fight its war against Russian aggression as it sees fit🎉
The supply of weapons and the provision of military assistance to one of the warring parties AFTER the outbreak of hostilities automatically transfers the "assistant" to the category of an active PARTICIPANT in the conflict.
NATO missiles on Russian territory legitimize Russian missiles on NATO territory.
This is a "two-way street". Russia will also conduct the war as it sees fit
@@evgeniya7853 so be it🍾
@@evgeniya7853 By that logic North Korea, Iran and China are all active participants in Russia's war against Ukraine. Of course Russia can conduct the war as it sees fit but it is having an extremely difficult time fighting *just* the Ukrainians armed with old NATO weapons. If Russia attacked a NATO country it would be signing its own death sentence.
@@alwood1993 First of all, Russia never intended to attack a NATO country... or any country at all. However, in the case of aggression against Russia, one should not delude oneself - At "moment X" Russia will not care at all whether the aggressor country is a member of NATO or not. It's just that military bases on the territory of these countries will cease to exist... as are the countries themselves within their current borders...
Secondly, the conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with either the United States or Europe. This is a civil confrontation within Ukraine. However, if the United States and Europe decide to become active participants in SOMEONE ELSE's conflict... In the end, they should not complain about the CONSEQUENCES for themselves after the defeat in Ukraine...
Thirdly, China, Iran, and North Korea have nothing to do with the conflict in Ukraine. However, they have every right to defend themselves against the aggression of the United States and NATO. To deal with the aggressor in a MIRROR WAY - to impose sanctions against the above, to arrange terrorist attacks on the territory of the above... Or TAKE REVENGE on the West on the territory of Ukraine... That is, to do in relation to the United States and Europe the same thing that the United States and Europe are doing in relation to them...
The RESULT, in case you don't know, is that on January 31, 2024, the International Court of Justice refused to recognize Russia as an "aggressor state".
The court also rejected Ukraine's claim under the ICFBT to hold Russia responsible for the crash of Boeing flight MH17. As a result of the proceedings, Ukraine was completely denied all claims for compensation or other forms of satisfaction
@@evgeniya7853 Russia has attacked Georgia, then Donbas, now all of Ukraine in an effort to maintain influence over its former USSR states. Russia is badly losing the war with +100,000 dead and counting. Add a fertility crisis into the mix and Russia is doomed to the history books. Slava Ukraini
Thank you so much for your analysis. You have really helped my understanding of
this conflict.
A perceptive analysis, one that I support and find convincing.
*Putin meets with his top General*
Putin: Did you take Kyiv?
General: No
Putin: Did you take Kharkiv, Kherson, Odessa?
General: No.
Putin: Well what did you take then in Ukraine?!
General: _Three washing machines, a toilet, and 2 fur coats!_
😂
You forgot the women's lingerie and German autos.
You forgot Mariupol
@@goenzoy712 Russia cant even take 10% of the second poorest country in Europe after losing 500,000 men. 😂😂😂😂
@@goenzoy712 He is refering to major cities and Mariupol isnt one of them
@@stranger299aRussia hasn't even taken half the Donbass, and not one capital city. After 2 years. After losing 500,000 men. Not to mention the entire planet laughing at their "army"😂😂😂
The problem with international politics is that every country only sees things from their own perspective. Understandable but not really helpful. The UN was , at one time, supposed to help in resolving conflict by democratic methods. Long since debunked as most countries just ignore the UN knowing that they are actually funding this facade. What I really can't understand about the American position with regards to Ukraine is the logic. America has fought multiple wars in the name of freedom and democracy against the overwhelming will , traditions and values of the endemic population. Many American lives were lossed and probably trillions of US dollars were wasted. Ukrainians want to and are fighting their own battles all they are asking for are the tools to do it. In recent history we saw an Afghan puppet goverment 100% subsidised by the US run away without even trying to fight for their own country. Every single dollar that was spent in Afghanistan was wasted. There is no democratic legacy remaining there. If God forbid Russia prevails in Ukraine NATO will face the proposition, long term, of facing off against this unrelenting Ukrainian spirit. It might take decades for Russia to indoctrinate Ukrainians but they have centuries of experience in indoctrination. I think that if you asked any NATO commanding officer if they would rather fight Ukrainians or Russians in a ground conflict, they would choose not to fight Ukrainians.
Afghanistan cost something like 1-2 TRILLION USD, not adjusted for inflation. To prop up ridiculously corrupt largely child molesters (look up why Afghan commanders always had small boys as "assistants") Imagine if we gave that level of support to Ukraine.
While yes, there is probably some corruption in Ukraine i don't think you'll see zelensky fly to Dubai with a brief case filled with a hundred million in us tax dollars.
Well said sir.
Ukrn has time and time again forced its population specially men into fighting and had ppl deserting leading to surrender or retreat from more than 20 city/towns. You wont need to fight ukrn due to casualties and declining birth rates
What Ukrainian spirit, gopher? 70% of the population of Ukraine are ethnic Russians. Most of whom VOTED for joining Russia. Some voted TWICE - for a better understanding of those suffering from slow thinking. Those suffering from slow thinking in the West still did not understand. At the moment, almost 10,000,000 former "Ukrainians" are Russian citizens + about 6,000,000 Ukrainians live in Russia as refugees. Initially, Russia did not need Western Ukraine. Let them protest with themselves there
The west escalation managed after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, but Russia fully invaded Ukraine anyways in 2022. It's a poor strategy.
Always insightful
Thank you
A really interesting analysis, as always. Thanks.
I don't know where this fear of escalation on the collapse of Russia comes from. The USSR collapsed but it had little impact on the West, for instance. I don't understand the optimism about a durable negotiated settlement either. Everything Putin has done shows he will discard any agreement when it suits him, for example once he has rearmed. The American approach seems to be a triumph of wishful thinking over the realities of the situation. In some ways it seems a recipe for perpetual, or at least protracted, war. Russia will not approach the end game the same way that the US does and according to independent polling, the support for the war is very high in Russia. I suspect the Ukrainians have a much better understanding of Russia than do people in the US. Also the policy of too little too late and self-imposed red lines that crumble in the end comes across as weakness and hesitancy to Russia. They would never concern themselves with such considerations. They must be made to fear the West, because that's the real restraint on their behavior.
You want Russian collapse, because it brings with it a change for systemic change. You don't to push Russians back to living under a totalitarian dictatorship. They have a better idea of living in a democracy now than in the early 90s so if there's a collapse, they might be better positioned to demand for real liberal democracy and to make it happen.
They will keep on being a danger to others as well as to themselves until they can purge their society of the tsarist model of rule they've used for centuries, though under a couple of different guises.
The fear that Russia is falling apart is a fear of Russian nationalists. By means of Putinian nuclear war scare propaganda, which isn't always stupid and illogical, this fear has also been instilled in some people in the West.
Brute force and ignorance! And as Khodorkovsky says: Caution and delay is read as WEAKNESS to putin and that means ESCALATION. So American restraint just sounds like a come on to russia.
Thank you for being a voice of clarity and sanity in an often schizophrenic world. As an American I have been extremely frustrated by what I consider misguided policies in Washington that are sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Unfortunately I think you are correct that things will continue on the current path. If the White House changes hands in January I expect they will get worse. Eventually something will break the impasse you describe where both sides think they can win in the long run. On the Russian side it could be the exhaustion of their financial reserves and legacy weapon stockpiles, for Ukraine it could be the rise of right wing authoritarian parties cutting support. The outcome isn't certain, but difficult times are guaranteed.
As an American I could not care less about Ukraine while OUR southern border is wide open.
"right wing authoritarian parties" just won the EU elections.
@@robgrey6183 Your concern about the southern border is a lie. You and your allies killed the bill to solve it in order to keep it as a campaign issue. You don’t care about Ukraine because you support the dictator attacking it. The border crisis you have created is bad, but not an existential threat to the United States. You and the dictatorship you support is.
@@robgrey6183 When a compromise to solve the border problem was finally agreed to, giving the critics roughly 80% of what they wanted, they reversed themselves and killed it. Their leader said he wanted to keep it as a campaign issue. Also, Ukraine and the border are separate issues. There is no reason for government to not be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
@@robgrey6183 it's lucky that it's not then huh.
the right's PR departments adore the useful idiots who'll buy any crap they spew & put people in power who have nothing but their own greed at heart...
You mentioned the Americans a lot..
What about the whole of Europe..
Surely the Europeans have cause and effect?
Russia has also made itself a testing ground for new weapons...
Thx
I think you made a mistake you mean ukraine ryt??😂this war is fought inside Ukraine not Russia and Ukraine they were told to not attack Moscow
@@Percival5
I don't like History Legend, because it's full of information, which is in outer space and weak people regurgitate his north Korean balloon tactics.
Europe's strategy is the same as it has always been. Wait and see if the US will see Europe as too big to fail and pay for the whole thing.
If they have any sense, they are bracing for a Trump victory and are preparing to fund Ukraine themselves. Ironically this would bring an end to the war far faster than if Biden were to win again.
NATO was created to counter Russian aggression, and as the most member the United States has always called the shots (the Secretary-General is largely a PR role). That is why no British or French Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles were fired into Russia until after Biden gave the green light, even though the British and French had publicly endorsed the policy weeks earlier.
it's weird that he says "americans".
most americans DONT support ukraine.
only usakistanis and their canadian pets do. and they arent americans, but europeans.
Thank Anders. Well explained, as ever 👌
Thanks!
Jake Sullivan must be fired.
Anders you are say what General Ben Hodges has been saying of thr Biden Administration, they need to say: We want Ukraine🇺🇦 to win, dtsting a true strategy & work with Ukraine, guve what they need to win the ear out right.
According to Ben Hodges Ukraine is always winning. He is an eternal optimist
But I think that this is a dangerous message, because we need to convince Western leaders to send enough weapons to avoid a defeat.
If Europen leaders think that Ukraine is winning, then they will stop sending weapons.
Thanks for all the likes, & I really want the Biden Administration to SAY, 'I WANT UKRAINE TO WIN', and give Ukraine all the weapons they need to win. Simple. Russia is the aggressor here.
Thanks for all the 'likes' everyone. Just hoping the Biden Administration-President should FIRE 'Jake'. He's a coward. Let Ukraine WIN.
Thanks for all the "likes" everyone. I hope the Biden Administration says "WE WANT UKRAINE TO WIN"! Then just give Ukraine all they need to wipe Russia with the floor. Jake Sullivan is the most cowardly idiot for an advisor to President Biden.
What if/when European countries start being able to arm Ukraine by themselves without American help?
Would that change things?
Depends on how badly they want to arm Ukraine
It will take years for even economic powerhouses like Germany to have a consistent military budget without relying on an emergency pool fund, the war will likely end by then.
Thanks Anders, for sharing your expert view on this, Striking analysis!
Mind Blown
7:03: _"3. Russian collapse leads to escalation"_ - that's a really odd theory. Russian collapse would not reasonably favor someone that wants to escalate an already impopular war. The idea of Russian nuking itself because it is collapsing by of some internal enemy doesn't make sense. It isn't logical.
It is not unreasonable to fear that Putin can attack NATO directly if he is fighting what he perceives as western hybrid warfare to topple his regime.
You know what dictatorial leaders have done time and time again when internal threats become to problematic? They produced a war to unite the people.
"Now is not the time to quarrel, now everyone has to unite to defend the mother/fatherland". Works really well with the russian mentality.
@@anderspuck Putin prioritizes system stability over anything else.
His biggest fear is not NATO or Ukraine but Protests.
1989 he was a FSB Bureaucrat in Dresden when 100km away in Leipzig the Monday Demonstration started wich ended with the collaps of eastern Germany.
2014 Euromaidan Protest ended the reign of Yanukovych.
Putin will not let this happen In Russia.
@@anderspuckfor once, I agree. Further, regardless of popularity or impopularity of the war, we need to recognise that there are people in Russia more hawkish than Putin. That there are groups pushing for escalation, just as there are in the US. With leaders in Ukraine, EU, and Russia, all viewing the war as existential, the dangers of escalation are real.
The arrogance you must have to try to impose a peace which neither side of the war thinks will work is utterly baffling. Then again, we are dealing with the US.
And what about ruzzia?
Neither side wants anything less than complete victory. Anything else will not be received with gladness. And Ukraine may not be able to achieve “complete victory” based on the course of the war so far.
So the US is correct.
There is also the secret 4th option. That USA is intentionally prolonging the war untill Russia collapses. They just can't say that one out loud.
Can the war not be winning with out America later on when Europe get up in speed regarding making the required ammunition
Europe is already stepping up without NATO. So, if the US pulls out with assistance to NATO after November Europe will be in a position to take the slack to help Ukraine in its effort to stay a free sovereign country.
@@blacklion8208 why isn't that happening now, why didn't it happen during the 6 month pause. Why are all of you here all mad at the U.S. if "Europe is already stepping up"
@@genxunclekey because most European nations relied on the US for their safety, and it is hard to change a mindset.
We are slowly understanding that the US will not always help us unconditionally and that they have their own goals.
It will take years to sink in, but it has started.
@@chefchaudard3580 So all the Europeans here that are all mad at the U.S. didn't help the situation either, but are still only mad at the U.S.
@@genxunclekey My cuntry is using 1,4 % of GDP on the war in Ukraine, how much is US using?
Great video. Super insightful and cool to hear it so well explained
Ukraine’s victory condition don’t cross Russia’s definition of territorial integrity. The issue has always been about the third point. Having to deal with the internal collapse of a nuclear state. There isn’t much you can do to avoid this outcome though that doesn’t make Russia stronger. In the end a faster Russian collapse is probably better for everyone in the long term (including ordinary Russians), but this also carries the highest risk of a nuclear incident (not a full scale nuclear war), which needs to be avoided if possible. The “historic inevitability” of something you wish to happen though is a trap in politics.
The West’s (and Ukraine’s) desired outcome is a return to 1991 borders and end of the war. To happen that needs a difference government in Moscow. To achieve that by force will threaten Russia. The best you can do is undermine Russia financially and protect Ukraine militarily and economically. Tbh this is the US policy, but it’s never been very clearly communicated, because of a fear that Putin (and domestically Trump) will exploit that policy.
I find it fascinating how irrelevant Ukraine and Ukrainians are in the whole story. You said, the official goal is the borders from 1991. That means somehow expelling 4-5 million Russians and 600k+ soldiers from Ukraine. I think it is simply not possible, and even if it somehow happens in 5-10 years, what will be left of Ukraine and Ukrainians? Absolutely nothing, it will never recover, at least not in this century.
Russia declared the annexed territory as part of their territory now, so technically you are incorrect. But practically speaking you are correct, as they could just change their law right back to how it was before and de-recognize those territories. Russia would only agree to do that if something happened to Putin though.
@@theredscourge "they could just change their law right back" shows your utter contempt for Russia. Why won't Ukraine just change their law to hand over the four oblasts? It would be so easy.
@@e3498-v7l You say I have contempt for Russia like that's a bad thing.
@@e3498-v7l ...because it was Russia who stole the territory from Ukraine, not the other way around? And yeah, contempt seems like the appropriate attitude towards the Russian state right now. It's contemptible.
Remember Vietnam, where they tried to micro-manage the war from Pentagon and the white house, it did not go well, and in the end, US got tired and left, this is what Russia is hoping, will happen again!!!
I so hope US intelligence has decision makers with the same level of IQ and analytic skills as this guy.
Nice summary. You substantiated and extended my understanding. While expecting the other side to collapse can bolster resolve, at some point reality will prove out and the weaker side will collapse. It reminds me a lot of back during the Iran v Iraq w*ar. In that case we just wanted the fighting to continue and there to be no clear winner.
Washington wants stability. They are not looking to find out what Russia would do if faced with a clear defeat.
Great job. Love your explanations
If Trump wins, then what?
Thank you for great video.
Nobody knows.
He is unpredictable.
@@chefchaudard3580 Wrong, we all know, the aid to Ukraine stops
Not even Trump knows
Trump won’t win as the dems gonna cheat and steal the election as they did in 2020.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. As an AMERICAN I want total victory. The return of ALL her territories. After that, lets talk about the "Russian Federation" falling apart; only then can the West feel safe. Russian reparations and trials for war crimes must never be forgotten either.
You may want that. But American leadership apparently doesn't.
Watch Tucker's recent interview with Jeffrey Sachs. American policies in Ukraine, going back decades, have 100% brought us to the current situation.
@@loukreu For most Americans, "Tucker" is a Russian shill. 🤣
@@loukreu "Tucker" is a Russian shill, a total stooge. I don't need to watch. 🤣
The return of all RUSSIAS territories is inevitable. Ukraine is not a real nation, it is Russian borderland
A very interesting perspective. Thanks!
This is probably the best explanation I have seen, since the war started, about why the Biden administration has slow-walked aid to Ukraine so much. I always thought It had something to do with worries about escalation, but this lays out exactly the scenarios Biden fears might happen if Ukraine definitively wins. Excellent analysis!
Thank you for sharing your view on this topic. Very interesting.
Happy Pride Month Anders! You have come a long way 👍
I don't know enough or have enough experience to have an opinion in such political matters, this is why I watch Anders, Thank you
Thank you, great analysis.
Great video, many thanks!!
This analysis is spot on. It corresponds to rality down to utter detail.
Excellent analysis and assessment. Thank you.
It is exactly that! The opinion, even from same person, swings a lot. Not sure if this is a characteristic from our times where there is too much information and people have very short term memory... It is ridiculous!
Great Analysis!