Why Ukraine joining NATO would crush Russian power
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2023
- Go to ground.news/Caspian to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access before October 15.
Ukraine joining #NATO would revolutionise the #geopolitical map. #Russia would be placed in an irreversible chokehold - outflanked on land, air, and sea. Defence spending would surge, but it wouldn’t do much good.
Support CaspianReport
✔ TH-cam membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat
#ad #sponsored
Go to ground.news/Caspian to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access before October 15.
No
Consider covering Europe-Middle East - India Economic corridor or (IMEC).
I think there will be some poetic justice in this, that due to the lack of condemnation of the UPA genociders and that bastard Bandera, Ukraine will lose its independence.
But it will also be poetic justice if, after rejecting UPA and Bandera, it joins NATO or the EU.
Ukraine must choose - live in harmony with Poland, furfilling its dreams to became a part of the West (NATO, UE), rejecting the UPA and Bandera, or still keeping monuments of those nazis and perish.
I wonder what will they choose. What do you think?
Waiting for video on Canada vs India recent development
Glad to see a more reputable sponsor. Please, just stop promoting Masterworks!
Most statements in this video would need "if Russia didn't have nukes" added to the end to be factually correct. At least I don't see any scenario where NATO randomly goes to war against Russia, seizes Rostov, Volgograd, Krasnodar, Stavropol... and the Kremlin response to that is to only use conventional military means and then just give up if that doesn't work.
Also I don't know how many radical geopolitical changes we need for Armenia and Azerbaijan to both join NATO.
I don’t think Armenia and Azerbaijan can really join NATO realistically even if they got on the same page and joined at the same time a la Greece and Turkey. Neither one can really “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” seeing as neither have coasts on any body of water connected to the Atlantic. Georgia is kind of a stretch but would be 100% a prerequisite for Armenia and Azerbaijan joining as well.
And totally agree with you - Russian nuclear weapons totally invalidate most of this video. In the same way, Russia is not totally crumbling just because Finland joined NATO.
That's not true. Nukes are great deterrents but they are useless if used. China would turn on Russia if Russia uses a nuke. So thinking nukes do anything beyond ensuring NATO doesn't step into Russia's internationally agreed borders is foolish. Nukes don't help in a negotiation over Ukraine because if Russia agree to the deal then the nukes are not part of the equation. Either this war will bleed Ukraine and Russia dry (and their demographics are both terminal) or Ukraine will force Russia out or they will find a deal which will include international guarantees to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine won't fall for the same deal they signed with the US and Russia in the 90s when they had the 3rd largest nuke arsenal in the world. This time the deal will include NATO signatories even if that doesn't make Ukraine officially part of NATO but merely protected by NATO
Don't forget Georgia.
Those that read this should not look at this as what NATO would want to do but what Russians tell themselves what NATO wants to do. Even then, it’s not reallly the Russians saying that to themselves, it’s those Russians who truly believe that the Soviet Union was undermined from the inside and that the greatest loss in history was it’s destruction. It’s those who believe it can be revived, there are multiple problems for them in regard to what it would cost in blood and treasure, who’s blood and what treasure, and if you were to actually accomplish the goal the inability to control the vast streams of corruption that have been built into the making of such an entity and the system was always a house of cards waiting to collapse. This whole thing seems to be something that came out of a drinking session between a very persuasive academic and a leader who thought he was going to Staples, “That was easy.”
Exactly this. Why the paranoia? The word "vulnerability" was used numerous times, yet what nation is the mysterious force that seems destined to invade Russian lands??
At least three problems with this:
1. It asserts that an independent Ukraine would aggressively seek to control the Volgograd Gap. But in its 30 years of independence Ukraine had shown no inclination to seek territory within Russia or influence over territory within Russia. In addition, Ukraine seeks to be in the EU and NATO. Whether this will come to pass is moot, but either would be moderating influences; as the current conflict has shown, both EU and NATO states have been very wary about provoking a nuclear armed Russia. Nobody really covets Russian territory - except in the east where China has a huge grievance and Japan a rather smaller one.
2. It neglects the effects of climate change. Russia's northern coast will soon become ice-free. This will open far greater possibilities than are presented by the Black Sea, which is in any case bordered by NATO states with a long and tortuous path through these states to reach the open ocean. Even if Russia owned Ukraine, Sevastopol, and its ocean access, is actually rather vulnerable and it is destined to become more of a tourist resort than a military base.
3. Lots of countries have large land borders. They manage their security by getting along with their neighbours, something Russia seems to struggle with.
Once the northwest passage opens up long term, Russia's other strategic problem will rear its ugly head - it has basically no population in the east and it borders a country with 1.4 billion people who desperately wants to shake off the US naval encirclement of, who will, at the same time, also desperately desire large bodies of freshwater. Russia's east is definitely under threat as the Chinese eye the decrepit state for its access to the Northwest passage and Lake Baikal
The only reason they struggle with that is because they all want to join NATO.Like Georgia bragged in 2008 that they would have NATO bases and then Russia went in. The problem has been NATO expansion, some in the Clinton admin pointed this out and how it would lead to a conflict like this. Well they lost in the 90s and well here we are.
Hey bud ever thought about the maidan revolution and how this radically altered russo ukrainian relations? A years long war between ethnic russians in eastern ukraine and western ukrainian nationalists.
Expert take. You must have been studying geoplotics in havard. Is that true?
@@pietero.o6792 That came rather late in the day. You might like to think how Ukrainians were affected by events from the poisoning of Yushchenko in 2004 to the trade war launched by Putin on Ukraine in 2013 and his subsequent personal pressure on Yanukovych.
These events led to Maidan.
Maidan did not trigger a war between Western Ukrainians and Eastern ethnic Russian separatists. Western and Eastern Ukrainians would have taken it in their stride, and separatists were very much a minority in the East. It took a good deal of malevolent interference by the Kremlin to foment this violence. Igor Girkin has been quite open about the pivotal role of Kremlin-backed mercenaries, and the MH17 enquiry was pretty clear that the Kremlin was pulling the strings.
Excellent analysis, if this was the 19th century 😂
На этом канале каждой стране угрожает война с соседями) за территории. Походу автор очень старый.
Russia was invaded twice in the 20th century. Not the 19th. And US continues to invade countries on every continent of the planet in the 21st century
It almost as if that’s the reason they fight….
It’s almost as if there’s a reason Eastern Europe wants to join NATO.
@@NikojNisto-gw8rc except there are. That’s how Eastern Europe joined nato. Hell Finland which is right on the border with Russia was overwhelming in its public support for joining anti.
I’ve heard this before, “russias long border makes it vulnerable “. That was true like 80 years ago but now Russia has 6000 nukes, no one is that stupid to invade Russia anymore. It’s nukes neutralized that threat permanently.
Not true. Only thing nukes managed to neutralise is any future total war like conflict (for example WW2). Limited conflicts on other hand, like for Taiwan, Volgograd gap or Baltics are realistically possible and could be done without escalasion into total nuclear war.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato declared a "special military operation" and was heading into russia nukes would fly.
Putin would see that "special military operation" as a existential war and retaliate with non tactical nukes within its own territory & escalate from there.
They wont do that in ukraine at present since nato would treat that as triggering article 4.
so my point stands, no one will invade a country that has nukes, if ukraine kept its nukes russia wouldn't have invaded it.
@@Azz156 They would not, because of nature of limited conflict and simple fact that you do not want get nuked. As such limited conflict would stay and be counter by conventional force. Nukes would realistically fly only if limited conflict transformed itself into total conflict, aimed at removal of current government and occupation of every part of country.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 if nato tried to invade the 800k gap between Ukraine and Volgograd with the intent of cutting the caucuses off from Moscow that would be a scenario for non tactical nukes. It’s literally in russias military doctrine.
@@aleksaradojicic8114it is true and you would have to be a complete dangerous moron not to realise it
Pro tip: cooperate like nowadays Germany with France and save money that does not have to be spend on building and guarding Maginot/Siegfried Line.
Well during the good old Soviet days there wasn't fortifications within the Soviet Union because they were all supposed to be friends
NATO is a gang. They cooperate together in expence of others. Germany and France (and other NATO's members) don't have to spend money to guard themselves from each other but everyone else in the world have to spend ton of money to guard themselves from NATO.
@@mrj4616 It "miraculously disppeared" way after Russian became hostile by invading Ukraine. The pipeline was already down when it was destroyed. If it was their try to cooperate, they're really bad at it.
Don't try to place Russia as a victim. "Wow I can't even invade my neighbour in peace"
@@mrj4616 You mean the pipelines through which Russia was no longer delivering any gas, in order to punish Germany for supporting the neighbour Russia had just invaded? Yeah, I think they'd kind of given up on co-operation by that point.
@@mrj4616 russia reneged on contractual obligations to deliver gas to germany, this was a violation of the signed agreement they had, just as Germany was getting ready to launch legal action miraculously the pipeline blew up making it impossible for russia to follow through with their contractual obligations and funnily enough it was just before winter and the perfect time for russia to deprive europe of gas, do you think that is a happy coincidence?
Look at the situation from the other side:
1. NATO was created in response to the USSR, but for some reason, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO only began to develop, allegedly from the "aggression" of Russia
2. The USA and Canada are like Russia and Ukraine, and now imagine that Russia has an alliance to deter US aggression and Canada joins this alliance and what will the USA do????
1. After the fall of the Soviet Union, several neighbouring countries did indeed move quickly to join NATO. They suspected that the hold of liberal democracy might be tenuous and that a Recovered Russia would return to its imperial ways. They were right.
But NATO took the peace dividend in other ways, by closing military bases, reducing military expenditure (witness Trump's exasperation with his NATO partners on this score) and improving communication and openness with Russia via the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997.
2. False analogy. Canada does not need to deter US aggression. The last time the US invaded was in 1812. Russia/USSR has invaded most of its European neighbours in the last 80 years, with varying degrees of brutality, and has always maintained a sense of entitlement towards them.
Ur gay
'Dragon's can be beaten.'
Well this didn't age well seeing as Ukraine has run out of men according to now, well, everyone and it is question of week when will they sit down with russians to settle new borders if they are lucky. If Russians decide to press on, which they might, they wil most likelyl reach Danube and Ukraine will be reduced to Galicia.
The ‘flat terrain’ argument really does not hold up anymore in the age of nukes. Moreover, Russia has showed the world how an attack on flat terrain will fail big time. In addition, NATO is a defensive organization so any country attacking Russia would stand alone. Switzerland and Austria are surrounded by NATO and they have no complains as far as my knowledge goes. It’s the countries bordering Russia that are afraid of an invasion, NATO-members and non-NATO members all together.
А́ что такого есть у Швейцарии или Австрии ради чего хотелось бы вторгнуться? Население, которое кормить надо будет? Ни ресурсов, ни земель свободных, ни ископаемых. Россия - это богатство, вот и лезут сюда Европа и США, которые по ввели грабить и убивать ради своих интересов. Европа и США должны быть изолированы, пока прилично вести себя не научатся.
@@user-bk1jb9qj6t Если Россия так богата, почему довоенный ВВП на душу населения составлял всего лишь 15 392 доллара? Для сравнения, для Швейцарии это 92 371 доллар.
NATO is defensive 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Those i know wich are from those countrys don't fear russian invasion. They have some probleme with russian influence in national affair but that's it. It's the exact same thing for Canada and mexico with the U.S or vietnam, thailand, philipine with china.
@@evilleader1991 yes their is no mecanism to compell other nato members to join in an ovensive war. That is the reason germany and france could tell George W. Bush to fuck as he wanted to invate Iraq.
I like Caspian report but in this video, and similar ones that he made before, his thesis is flawed in regards to the weeknes of open terrain. Yes Russia has long border with NATO and Ukraine that is mainly flat but it also has HUGE territory behind it. Closing the Volgograd gap would require shit ton of manpower and equipment and even more if you mean to control the territory. Remember that USA with all its allies never occupied whole of the Afganistan and current NATO army in Europe couldn't occupy Russian core if they wanted to. Long and flat border is weaknes for the defender but Russian huge territory is weaknes for the attacker as was proved in the history so far. All this is without taking nukes in the consideration.
Yes tell that to mongols 😂. Flat terrain is terrible. Your thesis is flawed afghanistan = mountains. Check what NATO did to Iraq (twice) and then you will understand russians fear
Nuclear escalation doesn't happen instantly. Look at India and China, they have skirmishes along their border all the time. Those smaller, non state threatening conflicts don't necessitate a nuclear response. Border lands must have some sort of military presence, or you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of issues. Nukes prevent total war, historically anyway, but conflict will continue to happen.
The Caspian Report also failed to take Russia's current stronghold within Ukraine. Without starting a new World War, I don't think Ukraine will ever regain areas lost in the Donbas or Crimea.
@@AndyFromBeaverton they probably could who knows
Volgograd gap is historically a Kuban region where Ukrainian language was dominating, people are mostly of Ukrainian ancestry. Muscovites are still mocking Kuban people claiming they are dumb like Ukrainians. After Ukraine wins there will be a turmoil within Russia, it will be very tempting for regions to keep resources and transit checks incentivizing Siberian and Kuban regions to leave empire. NATO won't need to do anything just fuel Russian civil war a little bit and that will be the end of Russia.
"Reliance on Russian Oil and Gas" - you mean the very things that Ukraine bombed and therefore attacked Europe and Russia at the same time!
At 14:16 you're talking about Black Sea Russian presence, but the photos shown are in fact from the opposite edge of Russia - the city of Vladivostok.
My only problem with this is that it plays the myth that Russia was always posed to be against NATO, which after 1990 it simply wasnt. Economically it was intergrated massively in western countries and had every chance to join the rest of the western world in a global prosperous and peaceful economy. Do not mistake the relentlessness of this war as an existential one for Russia. It is not. Its existential only to the Putin regime.
I have one question: why was the invasion of Ukraine necessary for the maintanance of Putin's leadership? To put it another way, why do you think that Russia not taking action against Ukraine would put Putin at risk?
@@User-jr7vfeasy answer: because Putin chose to make politics on the narrative of a second empire in sowjet style while going into opposition to a lot of western developments of the last few decades.
So a ukrainian Population chosing another way than this would inevitably show the russian ppl that there could be another fate for them too, and that they can create their own destiny.
@@User-jr7vfRegime survival. If the russian people see their "brother" peoples in eastern europe prosper as part of the west, they might just think how about the do some goverment change
@@User-jr7vf This video can explain it much better than i do: /watch?v=rkuhWA9GdCo
but just incase you can't copy a link: most of russia is useless frozen tundra. they need more fertile land to grow. they need the newly discovered natural gas discovered under ukraine. their demography is in a downfall and they are running out of military age men as younger and more intelligent men migrate to the west in search for better opportunities.
Totally agree. And if this is true, why isn’t Russian power ALREADY crushed by Finland joining NATO? It’s because NATO isn’t invading Russia while they have nuclear weapons, full stop. This makes the whole premise of this video a little bit irrelevant.
Just a small caveat to put things in perspective... Switzerland has a 1935 km long border with some major powers like France, Germany and Italy, is completely surrounded by NATO and yet nobody feels like Switzerland is facing an existential threat.
But on top of that, Russia has nukes and a lot of them. Even if Russia had only 100k professionnal soldiers army, which they could easily afford, no country would dare invade, because:
A: they would be basically alone, without the support of any other country
B: winning against Russia would only mean a nuclear response wiht nobody to cover your ass
In other words, Russia doesn't have any vulnerability. The stakes couldn't be lower for Russia. Especially as NATO powers would already crush Russia in a conventional war (a nuclear war resulting in the annihilation of basically both sides).
Finally, Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO had Putin not invaded (again) in february 2022. Ukraine and the USA tried in 2008 (way before the 2014 events) and it was very strongly rejected.
In a word; terrain. It has natural defenses I.e, mountains protecting it . The video highlights Russia perceived weakness dues to contiguous bordering nations with flat terrain that rolled across Europe and into Russia
This isn't to excuse Russian imperialism, but the situation is completely different. Switzerland is a natural fortress. If Switzerland was flat open country, it would have been absorbed by its larger neighbours centuries ago.
@@mossyslopes Emphasis on the adjective "perceived". Which is the point.
literally nobody in the west wants to invade russia, not only is there the nukes but it would cost trillions to upgrade russian regions to actually be productive. nobody wants to stomach that cost.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Most of the swiss cities and industrial centers are not in that "natural fortress". And it was conquered by France in 1798.
But I could point to Sweden and Norway who share a 1630 km long border without any problem.
China and its 22800 km of borders ;p ?
The point is, a long border doesn't mean you absolutely have to maintain a gigantic army, and that's even before considering the existence of nukes in the russian arsenal.
As some have said below, @CaspianReport I'd really like to understand how important the Volgograd gap is in the age of nuclear weapons. Any terriotorial assualt so deep into Russian territory would prompt a nuclear response, rendering most territorial advantage moot, no? Maybe it helps from a 'grand brinkmanship' perspective but apart from that I struggle to see the gap as that important.
А кто сказал
Что будут применять ядерное оружие в таком случае?
_
Введение войск на юг России -- это повтор судьбы Карла 12 и Наполеона
Они все погибнут
Так как воевать на большой территории России -- сложно
_
Наполеон, Гитлер и Карл 12 проиграли России не потому, что они хуже воевали. А потому как территория России слишком большая. Снабжать армию сложно, нечего было даже есть.
What if a nation becomes immune to nukes in future?
@@user-nw2qe5pr5s ну как бы при вторжении на нашу территорию, мы имеем право применить ядерное оружие, согласно нашей доктрине сдерживания.
Russia's wars in the age of nuclear weapons are more about the leaders' personal prestige than any real geopolitical threat. Russia thinks that they somehow have the right to dictate the fates of their smaller neighbors however they see fit. When said neighbors band together in opposition, Russia claims to see this as a "threat", not because the smaller, non-nuclear-armed neighbors would pose an actual threat, but because it undermines Russia's imperial ambitions and status as a world power.
Could you do a video about why Russia wasn’t integrated to western institutions like the EU or NATO after the USSR fell? It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. Feels like such a missed opportunity, even if Russia would have demanded special independence and privileges (like when UK was in the EU). Even today countries in the EU like Poland or Hungary follow their own more independent foreign policy, why couldn’t Russia have been integrated in a similar way? Feels like the biggest mistake after the end of the cold war, alienating Russia for them to then inevitably turn to China. This is perhaps the most consequential legacy of foreign relations in the 90s early 2000s, the people who were involved in it will be judged for this in the future.
Yea, we kinda just handed over Russia to China.
There are plenty of videos on the subject, although I'm not sure if Caspian Report has one
You are thinking, maybe it's cause the west has wanted the spoils of Russia since forever. Can't get the gems for cheap if the sovereignty is still stable.
There were attempts but it all stopped when Russia brutally attacked Chechnya. The brutality shown there made it obvious Russia didn’t change and would likely destroy nato or EU from within
But I assume you are a f8sc1st supporter of Ruzzia / Putin and don’t see the problem with such a government being part of EU/NATO
It’s wild, the assumption that having a long flat border means Russia has to be paranoid and expansionist. The US and Canada have a 2400 mile land border, a good chunk of which is flat, and yet somehow we have managed not to take up arms against each other for the last 150-200 years. We should stop accepting this explanation of Russia’s expansionist behavior as reasonable. It’s just crazy to think that Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic countries, or Finland are chomping at the bit to invade Russia in modern times. Yes, Germany invaded Russia 80 years ago. But this also happened to most of Europe, yet those countries don’t still center their foreign policy around that.
"It’s just crazy to think that Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic countries, or Finland are chomping at the bit to invade Russia in modern times."
They don't need to invade, they need to intimidate. Makes you wonder what the Russians are planning, doesn't it?
Apples and Oranges. Canada ever since it became a dominion was reliant on the United States by commerce. The United Kingdom from the half of the 19th century onwards has been an ally to the United States, they were both industrialized nations by this point. Ukraine was frontier, much of its land disputed by the Poles, Turks and Russians. Ukraines concerns and customs and completely different from Canada and the U.S. both Anglo nations came from the same country in around the same. Ukraine and Russia despite sharing many commonalities have diverged ever since thE Lithuanians conquered the land in the 15th century
Do you consider Canada as an independent state? 😆😆😆
Militarily, security-wise, and economically it’s just a California-size appendage of the US masquerading as a post-national identity-hollowed out state.
Canada is weak they wouldn't be a problem if they weren't friendly anyway
I suggest you keep a close eye on the state of Alberta in the next 20 years.
The maps showing Armenia and Azerbaijan in the same alliance are... creative. They might as well have included the countries of Middle Earth.
Lol
You never know what fantasy is going on in the minds of russian leadership. They seem pretty detached from reality.
Well, both Turkey and Greece are in NATO, so go figure. Strange things happen sometimes. The situation is very similar - and maybe NATO membership is the only thing preventing conflict in Cyprus.
Those countries have already been subject to Russian invasion, and/or, Russian support of separatist movements. So, if in the politicians minds, NATO can guarantee protection (depending on how things turn out to be with Ukraine), then "imaginative" is not the word you would want to use, but may something closer to "possible".
The word does not submit to your liking bro, but to geopolitics
@@user-ij8ef2ck4u thanks for bringing that up, as a greek, I also believe that NATO is THE major reason that we haven't and we won't fight a conventional war with Turkey and I actually hope that we fid a way to cooperate more on a regional level. Same could work for Armenia and Azerbaijan too
It's just all about how Russia needs to attack and control Ukraine to be the mighty power it's entitled to be, and how Ukraine shouldn't have a claim to its own territory and autonomy to decide who they make business with to avoid hurting poor little Russia. Basically it dismisses Ukraine's self-determination and sovereignity entirely in favour of Russia's paranoid dreams and megalomaniac demands.
This is the sense of priority of people who "understand both sides of the story".
Moldova: (giggles) I'm in danger! :)
Honestly the defence of those various geographical weaknesses is what the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is for. The whole “we need a strategic position” argument is just an excuse. They lost the cold war from much more favorable ground, it’s not like setting their flag as far as Moldova will fix things this time. It’s also I think kindof presumptive to assume that the country just deserves easily defencible borders. I think if anyone has poor borders it isn’t Russia, it’s Poland, or maybe Ukraine itself, facing Russia.
Even if we removed nukes from the equation, the size of Russia’s conventional military, and the depth of its equipment is more than vast enough to defend the Volgograd gap. The Soviets were in a much worse spot in 1942 than they would be even now after all the losses in Ukraine. It would be a fool’s errand for NATO to invade even without factoring in Nukes. The very first thing Russia would do is try to steamroll the baltics, which given their tactics would mean their destruction, and push into Poland, and there is no strategic justification for such an invasion, I don’t even think most NATO members even want Russia to collapse, that would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen basically since World War II, and just imagine trying to account for all those nukes.
If a country wanted easily defended borders they could always give land to their neighbours and move the border back to a natural barrier.
@peterroe2993 selling land off? Honestly that would be a valid strategy, if not for Russian pride.
Regardless, we shouldn't so flippantly disregard this excuse. See what John Mearsheimer says on this topic. He's been prophetic over the years, so it'd be prudent to at least give it some thought.
@@peterroe2993 Or the aggressors could not be so aggressive and not want to control everything up to the Russian border...?
@@andreymaslov9871And the late Stephen Cohen.
This exclusively militaristic analysis reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. Never mind that most European NATO members gave up on defence spending after 1990, that the US couldn’t beat the Taliban after trying for 20 years, that the biggest threat to Russia is probably China, we’ve got to control that Volgograd gap!
Yeh - Maybe it was more important when people fought with horses and spears. Maybe even when tanks didn't have the issue of a cheap drone sending its turret flying. The nature of wars change with the advent of new technologies. Maybe the military ideas written in the books in 1900 don't apply so much today.
The thing is that nations of the West were not willing to commit enough resources to war in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq and there was no plan what to do after those regimes are overthrown. There was no equivalent to Marshall plan or any plan to win hearts of locals and to establish working governments.
Russia couldn't beat the Taliban either, they spent time dying their also, just earlier. Enemy mightve had a different name but it was the same game
@@robert48044 One little difference, when USSR was fighting them, they were funded and armted by US, and USSR was actively destroyed from within, by elites to start privatizaion. But, when US was fighting them, Russia not anly was not funding them, but was helping US.
@@MrToradragonMeaning, you lost. Don't twist words!
This is probably your best video
As militarily exposed as Russia is to Europe, you'd think they would try to be better at diplomacy.
The threat of force is all the diplomacy they know, they are just too weak to make it work. Shouldve tried soft diplomacy.
Russias government just doesn't align with European and American ideology.
An external enemy is helpful for maintaining a dictatorship
Ну да. Ваши дипломаты - crap men
Only power works. Diplomacy is always backed by military prowess
If Russia wants access or security, then why are they not forming alliances and partnerships with the countries they are looking to overthrow, instead? There will never be any justification for what Russia has done, only excuses.
Russia had an alliance with Ukraine, Nuland and her cronies overthrew that government through a coup. The Yanukovych government was doing deals with Russia as opposed to Europe. Much like what happened to Qatar and Syria. American's and Europeans didn't want to compete on their own merit and attempted to hobble the competition! Now Europe's industry and military is getting destroyed!
Yeah, they did. Then America funded a coup in it's ally and the Donbass War occured.
It’s funny how the same people that talk about “muh democracy” only support the democratic process as long as it goes their way. The same people that say it’s racist to tell Hispanic immigrants to speak English support the Ukrainian government banning the Russian language. The same people that claim to be anti-war and that the DoD gets too much money all the sudden are all for war and an additional 15% in military spending for Ukraine but not us. The same people running around calling everyone but themselves Notsee’s sending a hundred billion to real ones.
Fuck Ukraine and everyone that is slobbing their knob.
Russia asked to join NATO, the US declined. If u and ur 32 likes want to stay a sheep, its easy. Just don't read and listen to mainstream news. Now if this happend, how many other stuff happend that the media doesn't tell us? Too many.
U great f...up, thats what russia and Ukrain had before maidan revolt, west whants war
I think it's a quite a stretch to say that if Ukraine were in NATO it would exploit the Volgograd Gap while showing explosions on the map. Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia, it would make no sense. Also, Ukraine controlled Crimea until 2014 and no foreign power attacked Russia, so I don't think that argument holds water either. Of course now tha Russia attacked Ukraine, Crimea in Ukrainian hands would indeed be a disadvantage for Russia, but it wasn't a significant one before, especially sinceRussia kept its naval bases there.
Ukraine had an agreement with Russia on military bases in Sevastopol
Yes, I wrote that above. @@prolink9590
Just one more thing - until 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia, NATO countries were spending 1% of their GDP on defense. Since then, NATO has taken the Russian threat seriously and committed to a 2% of GDP allocated to Defense. The 2022 Russian invasion is the final straw. Now NATO countries are starting to spend on defense. This conflict is all Russia's doing.
why did nato leaders admit that it is THEIR fault, then?
@@bigpicturemediacompany2412the only thing they admit is not spending enough on defense and seeing how evil ruzziaNazis are.. nice try vlad
@@bigpicturemediacompany2412
Do you mean why they didn't support Ukraine as they should have done? Maybe because Moscow has been blackmailing them with cheap gas and oil. Now go to Ukraine, they need a lot of fertilizer.
Oh wow 2%?! So serious lol
That's bs, Russia will have 1.4 million in Ukraine. Russia has the best technology and weapons in the world. Also their manufacturing of weapons is the highest in the world. Russia has said they will use nukes and China has their back too. Whatever you're smoking must be pretty strong. You might want to do a little more research and quit believing the mainstream media.
I think you're giving the emperor's paranoia more credit than it deserves.
This video heavily stresses the importance of Rearealpolitik and Environmental Determinism on foreign policy. While these lenses can be useful for looking at a given situation, it's important to check the assumptions that come with them. Namely: The Russian state can only exist in opposition to foreign nations, the Russian state must expand to survive, the Russian state must be superior to survive, NATO is looking to invade, Russia has a right to be more powerful than NATO, Russia has no way to deter invasion without strength, etc.
We're assuming that nations are all motivated to murder each other until only one big nation is left. They never co-exist, they're just waiting for the right time to strike. I think Putin sees the world in this zero-sum way, but very few liberal nations agree. Germany is completely encircled by nations that have historically invaded it, and it's military is minuscule. AND YET, It's one of the biggest players on the European stage, and you'd get laughed at if you said they should be afraid of French invasion. When we don't treat each other like prey animals, it's actually really easy to not exterminate your neighbor.
I also think your implications regarding Ukrainian Revanchism are kinda gross. It reminds me of the racist "fear of retribution" trope in the US. "I oppressed you, but if I stop oppressing you, you'll oppress me for oppressing you. So don't you see? I HAVE TO OPRESS YOU!" It's circular logic used to justify doing something evil. Even if you don't agree with it, I think it's irresponsible to present it to an audience uncontested.
To truly cooperate with the EU, Russia needs to comply with the EU's governance standards. I.e. become a democratic state, thus enabling deeper integration and trust.
That's one way to provide security to Russia.
Unfortunately, Mr. Putin created an autocratic state. And he knows very well that by resigning from power he won't only lose his power, freedom, and maybe even life - he can put the whole country in deep political instability. And that's something he absolutely doesn't want to do - mostly because of his personal life and freedom part, obviously.
So there is only one option left for him - wage an unnecessary war.
And that's and example of autocratic regime destroying their nation's future. They confront national interests with their leader's interests.
Nowhere are all those assumptions made, not even by russians. “The Russian state must be superior to survive”. Everyone, even Russia acknowledges the wests dominance, it’s just a delusional assumption not made by anyone. The russian state is inferior yet it still survives today.
On the other hand the original purpose of NATO has always been soviet/russian containment.
Finally: “no way to deter invasion without strength”. That’s just true in any situation.
About NATO being a defensive alliance and the west only shoring up against potential russian aggression, you should look up the “security dilemma”. It’s analogous to the prisoners dilemma but in foreign relations, where both sides are pushed to outcomes not really desired by anyone.
Well, Ukraine once had the Western part of the Volgograd Gap, Kuban Oblast, under their control. And Budanov has made a map in which that part of Ukraine is restored as well. However, the Russian solution to that sort of revanchism (trying to get any form of American influence out of the entire European Plains) only pushes Ukraine and NATO further into the Volgograd Gap.
The fact that you talk in the term of "rights" means you don't understand geopolitical realism
@@CinemaVenatorITA yeah this is a persistence pattern in CR's analysis that always leaves me screaming/crying/smashing my keyboard etc.
Russia then: I think I’ll f*ck around
Russia now: I’m finding out
Karma
@@NikojNisto-gw8rc Russian bot detected
Very interesting and informative 😊
Realized CaspianReport made an obvious mistake in his map at 6:29 because Finland is, in fact, not part of NATO. Every map from the 2010s and today shows that Finland is excluded from NATO.
Finland is in fact a part of Nato, they joined it.
As of April 4, 2023, Finland is part of NATO lol
Bro lived under a rock 💀
Bro has NOT followed the news recently 💀
Finland joined NATO April 4 2023 and has been a member since.
Yes, maintaining a military presence along a 2000 km border can be expensive. But launching an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is even more expensive.
"Unprovoked". If you need to use words such as "unprovoked" to describe an invasion you know its everything else than that.
Russian intel figured that in the long term it won't be. Russian intel was atrocious
Invasion is a one time investment while guarding 2000 km is for eternity.
@@Max_Jacobyalmost sounds like you're justifying a genocidal war
@@scotthenderson292it is a justified war. Get over it.
They have power? Damn...must be really good shovels.😅😅
I'd like to see something on the taxation and economics of why it is so important to Russia to hold these lands. And why Russia isn't able to have the kind of growth of Soviet or a mutually beneficial relationship with this long flat border, or the EU
"t is so important to Russia to hold these lands" Its our lands lol from 9 century. Lol
Literaly, not your land@@user-ss2oq8kr4y
russia do it not because of economic, but because of russian suprematism and fascism ideas. They just have fake myth that Kyiv Rus' was their gold age state, and Kyiv was capital. That why they are so obsessed with Ukraine. Because they build moscovian history on Ukrainian. Because Ukraine territory always been more developed and cultured.
@@user-ss2oq8kr4y Lol, no. Your lands is Moscow, which litteraly translates from Finish language as shit river.
Ukraine never been lands of modern russian. Ukraine used to be land of ruthenians (old name of Ukrainians), but in those years modern russians called themselves as muscovites. Russia had name Muscovy up to 1721.
And even when russia stole Ukrainian name, there were never majority of russians in any region which is now Ukraine.
@@bodia1406 You don't know history all to well. Try reading Western sources at least.
If the Soviet Union comes backs, it would be called the Soviet Reunion
😅
Yes you can see yourself out.
The question I like to be answered is: how many times Soviet Union/Reunion and neoSoviets can trip over it's economy and collapse?
RSSR
@@maciek_k.cichonAs many times as it takes until the economy of the rest of the world collapses along with it, so spoiled children cannot be raised to think "we should just all have it good and nobody deserves more than the other as that's unfair".
I do want to point out that conflict because of geographic vulnerabilities aren’t inevitable.
We could say the same thing about Germany and France which is what happened through history until they created a common market and were determined to prevent conflicts from ever happening again.
For instance, why is Russia worried about geographic vulnerabilities from NATO but why do we not see Ukraine fretting about its vulnerable border with Poland? It is only because Russia sees itself as an empire and is the only nation in Europe that wants to expand, which is when only when all of this starts to become relevant.
@@samwallace6509yea kinda funny how one of the few things literally all of Europe agrees one is voting to join a defensive alliance with the US. It’s almost like there’s a massive empire to their east that’ll try to expand relentlessly. Even Ireland, which isn’t part of nato is thinking about joining because of Russia insists on holding military drills right over their internet cables
@@steffenberr6760 If you think Poland-Ukraine relations have always been harmonious, you really need to pick up a history book.
They just have a common enemy at the moment. And they still have plenty of issues over refugees, agricultural trade, etc.
@@elephantman2112not what I said at all. But what you say goes to show that history and vulnerable borders geopolitically does not mean Poland and Ukraine are doomed to fight one another. Just how France and Germany do not anymore
@@steffenberr6760why does NATO need to expand towards Russia when it has refused Russia admission into it as a member while designating Russia as its sole enemy.
In historical hindsight, Russia cannot wait until a similar attack as WW1/2 happens again and the perils of such a war begets Russia again. Learn from history or it will repeat over and over until you learn.
CaspianReport just went fully mask off 😂😂😂
In one sense Russian rationale is irrational if not paranoid.😂
I don’t see any feasible time in the future where Ukraine would control the Volgograd gap. I think that is an unrealistic supposition.
Hard to imagine. Rostov on Don, not so much.
Russia will be divided after oil and gas revenues completely evoporates this is the only thing that holds them together. So we can expect to see it happen anywhere between 50-200 years
@@Rikimkigsckgood point. Any time you’ll want to persuade say an American to uphold Paris agreements and decarbonization, remember to add that failing to move on makes Russia stronger and it’s in their best interests to keep climate change going.
The point was NATO, not Ukraine
Because you ignored the history
Personally I would disagree. Your analysis rests on the main point that Russia is invading because of this geographic vulnerability and to prevent Ukrainian accession into NATO. However if that were the case it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years. Every time Ukraine tried the reaction was always "ehhhhh maybe next time". But the war has basically guaranteed a closer relationship between the West and Ukraine. And even if Russia had succeeded in the complete takeover of Ukraine it would have always resulted in Finland, Sweden joining NATO as well as pushing Moldova firmly towards the west. That would have shortened the "frontline" on the mainland but as you already put in another video, created a NATO lake in the Baltic. Personally I think the only valid explanation to the war is imperialism. The thought that Russia has been wronged and had its lands unfairly taken away from them. You could hear it in Putins speech where he mentions the loss of Finland and the Baltic states being a great Russian tragedy.
You are wrong dude. Russia never planned to take over Ukraine. The goal was purely to make sure Kiev doesn't join. Nato made this a proxy war.
"it could have just kept up the tacit support of the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics. They alone were enough to prevent Ukrainian EU and NATO accession as evidence by the last 9 years." A very valid point.
Why keeping minimum if you can go all in and take everything? Especially if you have a decade left to remain in history.
@@leGUIGUI Nonsense dude. People were dying left and right. Zelensky said he wanted to join nato, and nato supported that. This war was 100% going to happen the moment Joe Biden became president. One way or another, it was pre-destined. Something big was going to happen, Putin went in before it could happen.
Exactly!!!
Ukraine joining NATO, regardless of the military implications, doesnt mean that any ship with a NATO member flag could navigate the Black Sea, because of the Montreal Treaty...
sorry! Montreux (Switzerland) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits @@roddeazevedo
What's that?
thank you Shirvan I really enjoyed how you explained things, and the graphics were phenomenal
Sounds good on paper, that Russia attacks its neighbors from a strategic necessity. But the war in Ukraine showed us one important thing - Russia is not afraid of it neighbors attacking it. The Finland border has 20% of it previous soldier count and the same tendency remains all across Russia border.
Russia has an imperial sentiment and political instability, that's what drive it to wars most of times, not a strategic necessity.
Never understand the imperialists, they still follow the tradition of war. It doesnt matter on what type of turncoats they will become.
Exactly, the war has only expanded the border with NATO. They have thousands of Nukes, nobody is going to invade Russia in some operation barborosa 2.0. The west is so scared of escalation we debated for months sending tanks to Ukraine, and then find sent a few dozen. We put restrictions on western weapons be used in Russia. As you said its nothing more then an excuse for Russia to be imperialistic.
Well said. Caspian videos are usually very good, but this was just an 18 minute Putin Fever Dream. Poor Russia, always the victim somehow. Nevermind the centuries of pillaging and annexing its neighbours..
💯 absolutely! @Everyone we need to make this comment highlighted! 👍👍👍
There is a fine line between political instability and threats from neighboring territories in Russian geopolitical reality. Chechnya is the best recent example. Chechnya was internationally recognised as an integral part of the newly independent Russian Federation after the dissolution of the USSR, but de facto it was taken over by a seperatist government led by general Dudaev, which proclaimed the Republic of Ichkeria. Furthermore, this separatist regime was reliant on support and aid from foreign states and regimes such as Qatar and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well international Islamist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. These organisations sent money, weapons, and soldiers to Ichkeria (Chechnya) to fight against the Russian government on its borders.
So the Chechen crisis can be seen either a manifestation of internal political instability within Russia, OR as an external threat on Russia's border (since Chechnya is a border region which had independent contacts with foreign states). Moreover, Chechen separatists had territorial claims to parts of Dagestan, which is another Russian province in the Caucasus, and launched raids and invasions into those regions (which were not separatist but under Russian control). Would those incursions be considered "political instability" and "internal infighting" between regions of Russia? Or would they be considered attacks from a hostile and independent neighboring state? To Russia, it really doesn't matter. The Chechen wars were a huge social and political burden on Russia, and an enormous drain on economic, military and administrative resources which held back its progress in many domains for over a decade. Emigration and corruption were rampant partly because people didn't want to live or have children in a country where terrorist attacks were a daily occurrence, and officials were intent on simply embezzling as much money as quickly as possible while in office, in order to then emigrate with their families and retire abroad. It is only after the Chechen conflict was settled c. 2007 that we began to see quick and significant improvement in living standards and quality of life here, first primarily in Moscow, and then elsewhere across the country. The fact that the Georgian provocation was resolved very quickly and efficiently in 2008 was also a huge help in this regard.
There is a common argument that a nuclear-armed country such as Russia does not need to fear foreign invasion. If that were the case, then why do all the nuclear powers, such as the USA, Israel, France and China, still maintain conventional militaries? The answer is that nuclear weapons are not a replacement for conventional military structures. Possession of nuclear weapons alone does not help in a situation such as the Chechen crisis. Whom is the Russian government supposed to nuke in order to resolve it? Nuke Chechnya? Nuke Afghanistan or Qatar?
The Russian Federation has over 190 ethnic groups and over 20 republics reserved for specific titular ethnic groups which have their own official languages alongside Russian. Many of these are located on Russia's borders. Many of those also have some linguistic or ethnic commonalities with peoples across the border in neighboring countries.
The total length of Russia's land borders is over 22,000 km. The easiest way to attack and threaten Russia is to fund groups from frontier ethnic minorities to organise uprisings, protests and terrorist attacks along those enormous, indefensible borders. Stoking low-intensity warfare through convoluted channels of funding, aid and propaganda: it is impossble to defend against this with nuclear arms. There is no target, or at least not one that would be commensurate to a low-intensity (but still serious) threat, because a nuclear weapon is a high-intensity response.
Ukraine today, in terms of the kind of threat it poses to the Russian Federation, is like a Chechnya on steroids that's 100 times bigger. Chechnya's border with the rest of Russia is around 750km. The Ukraine-Russia border is over 2000km. The potential for low-intensity cross-border harrassment is extremely high (think of the raids into Belgorod by the "Free Russia Legion" and other groups like that.) If Russia pulls out all troops from Ukraine today and retreats to its official borders, we will have a situation that's similar to the one after the Hasavyurt Accord that ended the first Chechen war, except much worse. If Russia didn't send its troops in the first place, we would have the situation we had before the First Chechen War, except much worse.
How is Russia vulnerable even if your predictions come true? Any serious attempt on their national territory would result in ultimate retaliation…
Shervan sometimes appears to have Russian sympathies in his videos I've noticed.
Sometimes it seems people like to pretend that nuclear weapons don’t exists.
Same question about nukes in Cuba. Why america was so scared? They could nuke Cuba in any time but they don't want Cuba as a threat in a first place.
@@Max_Jacoby they were afraid cuba would get nukes which would then mean there would be a nuclear armed enemy right on their doorstep.
No one wants to be surrounded by enemies…we the west declare Russia as an enemy therefore I understand they wouldn’t want to be surrounded by us
The easiest and cheapest thing for Russia to have done to ensure its security would be to build good relations with the EU and not give off a sense of aggression towards its neighbors.
This would have been the best for EU as well. Europe can't be a superpower without Russia. Sadly the EU couldn't act as a whole (like always) when the USSR fell and the US had it it's own way. The moment Yeltzin took power it was over. If Europe had supported Russia's economic crisis and helped them have a mild and healthy change to Free Market from Socialism then maybe eveything would be different.
It tried but Clinton shut that down.
Think about it.
2014 then took it down a road no one could return from.
Same for China. If China really wanted to reunite with Taiwan and fraternize with its other neighbors, Xi shouldn't have ruined relations by being an aggressor
They did try, back in late 90s and early 2000s, and were rebuffed (they wanted to join NATO, offered help to the USA in their war against Al Quaida, tried to create closer ties to Europe...) The "sense of agression" they gave off came afterwards and as a result of repeatedly pissing them off on purpose. If you corner a rat, he will bite. If it's not a rat but a frigging nuclear power... The war in Ukraine was 30 years in the making but both sides did their best to make it inevitable.
Russia tried it. EU want use Russia's resources. Nothing changed from Hitler times. Ukraine created Nazi battalion. Financed it. And banned Russian language. Stole all factories and houses from Russian investors.
When you do such things to your close neighbor- what would you expect? The war ? Or good relations ?
Great strategic analysis
Russian propaganda
Yes, if Ukraine was inducted into NATO before the war it would have been a huge crush to russias geopolitical and strategic situation, but only from the mindset of an enemy. if it just collaborated and built itself up economically through partnership with europe it wouldnt need any of this, it would be far more prosperour than it will be now in the next many decades.
are you smoking crack or something? They DID BUILD THEMSELVES UP ECONOMICALLY THROUGH PARTNERSHIP WITH EUROPE. Why do you think NORDSTEAM being destroyed was and still is such a big deal? Why do you think that Germany went from being the largest economy in Europe to being the WEAKEST economy in Europe in just one years time, its so bad that words like "de-industrialization" are being thrown around willy nilly. And it was not just gas and oil, it was many other commodities as well. Which by the way is why the russian economy is actually growing, because as it turns out people ignore sanctions when its convenient for themselves and what europe wont buy other growing economies are happy to snap up.
Exactly, but Russian chauvinism sees cooperation as “weak”
But that's also considering that the other side would want that...
@@rob6927Ukraine wanted more EU in terms of trade and prosperity, but a majority rejected the idea of NATO membership. Now they’re hungry for both. Before 2014 Ukraine was the border between East & West, now the easternmost portion of Ukraine is the border. By trying to control Ukraine Russia could potentially lose both Ukraine and its pacific coast. Economically speaking the goose is cooked, for the next few decades Ukraine will look west and not be a land in between. The economic development of Russia’s pacific region is controlled by China. The west wanted to invest in Russian energy and development, no more.
By trying to control Ukraine, Russia will lose both east and west. Only Hitler could be this bad at strategy last century.
Thank you for this comment!
I'm so tired of western analytics explaining how russias imperialist policy is geographically justifies "becaise security".
What about Europe having the same problem of being exposed by flatland to Russia? Would it have been justified for Poland to invade Russia, "because it needs to control the flatlands"?
Such a biased logic.
Vatniks: ruzzia can't lose because it has nukes
Also vatniks: ruzzia needs more living space because NATO!!!1
You misspelled “lebensraum” mein gute mann.
Who was your research assistant? Girkin?
Ukraine does not derive from borderlands whatsoever. The closest it gets to it is something to the extent of "ending". Ukraine almost literally means country-land. Where did you get the translation?
It's unfortunate that those in power analyze geopolitics in terms of Domination rather than Cooperation. 😢
geopolitics=sphers of influences
Cooperation is fleeting
It's just game theory - Nash equilibrium tends to value hard power solutions over soft power solutions.
War is the continuation of politics by other means.
~Carl von Clausewitz
Politics is the continuation of war by other means.
~Just me
In other words, as long as we create rulers, we cannot create society. As long peace, freedom and solidarity are just written on papers, but not lived.
🗽🤷😉
It's all a game of chess in the end
Sounds like the 100th video titled "impact of Ukraine joining NATO on russia*. It's not even milking content dry, it's squeezing the content for the last drops.
Who gave them Donetsk and Lugansk? Who gave them Lviv? Who gave them Crimea?
The year 1939 called... and it wants its "importance of flat terrain theory" back.
Germany killed at least 5 million Russians. I'd say the flat terrain is a problem
Germany and France post WW2, Scandinavia after 1905, those are just two examples that shows that old enemies can find peace through other means than power.
Hope you find it too
True but French and Germans have high IQ while Russians don't. As an Indian I lived in Novosibirsk for three years and I was shocked how uneducated and poor people were. It like rural areas of India. It's the third largest city and it always smell like sh/t because houses don't have sewer system. Moscow is the only modern looking city Russia has.
Ger rid of the propaganda and very few ordinary Russians are mortal enemies of the West or even Ukraine). In the West (Germany and to the West of it; Eastern Europe has suffered too much from Russia for this to be true) there are hardly any mortal enemies of Russia for the simple fact that noone cares about Russia. Russia with 20% of its citizens not even having a toilet in their flat is just a ridiculous country like Saudi-Arabia. Take away their oil, and they are nothing.
Maybe our grandchildren finally will. For now it’s too late for us.
@@Rikimkigsckare you really Indian? Hard to trust over youtube comment.
@@studytime2570 lmao what do you mean first time I see someone says I fake being Indian lmao is there some advantage of being Indian or anything I am not aware of? 😂😂 I am flattered though looks like we are in the right way becoming a super power.
Russia is working on that self fulfilling prophecy.
Even better, do a video where you discuss the American vulnerability to Canadian invasion. Wait that would be ridiculous because, outside of Russia, geography isn't destiny.
In the words of Sarcasmitron in his excellent "Shut Up About NATO Expansion" video: "... and also, and I cannot believe this needs to be explained to f***ing geopolitics experts, Russia has a nuclear deterrent! They do not need land buffers! At all! What, is it the 19th century? Are they worried about General Mannheim's zombie army? Do they also need more crossbowmen for their star forts?"
@@ElysianFrostTell them that, they're the ones that need to hear it.
@@ElysianFrostYou are right. The whole war is just Putin's pride. He doesn't like the fact the Soviet Union fell. Calling it the biggest catastrophe of the previous century. And WWI and WWI happened in that same century. It shows what's important to him.
Trade is the main factor, if they are contested more in the black sea and the caspian sea they're shipment costs would be crippling.
Having nuclear bombs gives them protections but geography is still vital. Russia still has to protect their vital points to avoid immediate toppling and that is a shitton more spending. It's better to launch nukes with protected boarders and not have to debate if hitting the enemy capital is better than destroying the steppes to stop the charge.
I think this war has placed Russia in a precarious position, if they fail the economic disaster will be immense. I can also see a rapid destabilization of the current regime as Putin's "oopsie we invaded" was a political disaster.
@@HistoryNerd8765 I mean, for all that Russia blusters about NATO and pretends it needs strategic depth, they actually seem well aware of this. They are very clearly not worried about NATO making a grab for Kaliningrad while Russian forces are tied up in Ukraine. Finland's about 90 miles from St. Petersburg and Russia pretty calmly accepted Finland joining NATO because they knew they had little ability to stop it *and because they knew that NATO forces taking St. Petersburg from Finland was not actually a serious threat*.
"No other nation on earth has a military vulnerability of this scale and magnitude" Canada?
In fairness, Canada hasn't suffered as many large scale invasions as Russia.
@@haroldb1856
Exactly. America hasn't repeatedly invaded and slaughtered millions of Canadians
The reason why we're not drawing battle lines on maps around Germany's borders is because we don't treat Germany like it was still the 1930s. Russia's problem is that it still wants to be treated like it was the 1930s.
Germany isn't treated like it was in 1930 because it lost half of its territory, its population expelled or killed, its military castrated and its economy under the influence of two superpowers
Germany also still thinks it's a leading global player like it's still the early 20th century, too. So, honestly not a surprise that other aging relics of European empires are confused by the reality of modern geopolitics.
@@Lusa_Iceheart "reality of modern geopolitics" but still has a swarm of NATO members to its doorsteps. They understand that they are in danger, and you cannot deny it.
@@evryatis9231 Of course it can be denied - accurately too.
NATO is a defensive alliance. Anybody attacking Russia would not trigger Article 5. Moreover, every NATO country has a far smaller military than at the end of the Cold War, with their inventories in various states of decay. There was no sign until the Ukrainian war that these countries were arming or had any real hostile intent.
It's also true that NATO has not made these countries join - they joined on their own (as soon as the Cold War was over) to be defended from Russia.
Self-serving propaganda to justify the war is only that, not reality.
That is exactly what Putin has been trying to avoid. He wanted to openly trade with the West as equal partners. He wanted to save Ukraine from financial collapse under a tripartite effort between the EU, US and Ru so nobody could claim dominance over Ukraine. He wanted to share the responsibility and intelligence over the global war on terror. He has been rebuffed at every stage. What the Caspian report does not mention is why the West wants to provoke Russia, presumably to initiate some sort of political collapse. It is because Russia is the worlds largest single source of all the critical raw materials needed by the West to maintain their dominance over the coming decades. The West (aka the USA) cannot tolerate the idea that they may be dependant on Russia in the future.
I like how most military analysts and Russian propaganda try to explain the Russian aggressions on Georgia, Ukraine, etc as vital to ensure Russia's security in the desire to obtain smaller borders on natural barriers. What they all forget is that Russia is the largest country by far and also has the biggest nuclear arsenal. With the exception of China (and USA), Russia does not border any nuclear power, but still tries to justify its imperial ambitions by trying to get secure natural borders. Look into Europe - most countries don't have natural and short borders, but they did not invade each other in almost a century. Also there is the example of Canada-USA border - one of the longest and least natural barrier in the world, but this did not lead USA to invade Canada or acquire territory to the North. Russia borders only peaceful democracies on the European side united in a defense alliance called NATO, alliance that itself never invaded any country ever. To have the biggest country in the world and the most powerful nuclear arsenal and still cry that you feel unsecure and need even more territory, is called hypocrisy and imperialism. Russia as a state needs to disappear, the Prison of nations needs to free up its peoples and let them govern themselves freely.
"Russia borders only peaceful democracies on the European side united in a defense alliance called NATO..."
Guess which countries have conducted the most number of invasions in the last century or even in the last few decades.
"NATO, alliance that itself never invaded any country ever."
The Afghan war was a Nato war. It was not even in Europe, supposedly where Nato claimed to operate.
Russia has the largest nation on earth by land area. The oft-repeated line that they're just trying to secure Moscow is a holdover from a time when Russia was every bit the aggressor that they fear, and were nearly conquered in wars they had no business fighting. Russia is a deeply cynical and paranoid nation that only exists due to the remoteness of it. Had it been a nation any closer to Europe, the Middle East, or the Far East, it would've ceased to exist as a polity long ago. Instead, the world has let it fester in the periphery, and what we have is a hostile outlier that never matured.
Agree with everything, except your statement that NATO is mere a defensive alliance.
Re: Also there is the example of Canada-USA border - one of the longest and least natural barrier in the world, but this did not lead USA to invade Canada or acquire territory to the North.
America tried and failed to annex Canada in 1812. The only thing that stopped them was military opposition. And America annexed 45 percent of Mexico.
@@sreekr”The Afghan war was a NATO war”
Yes, and it is literally the only war in which NATO ever acted as a unified whole. In addition, George W. specifically invoked Article V in response to the bombings of September 11th, 2001. He argued that this constituted an attack on a NATO member state by a hostile nation (the Taliban). It was (technically) a defensive war. I’ll be the first to admit that the Afghan operation was a complete $#!tshow and probably shouldn’t have happened, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda shot first.
“Guess which countries have conducted the most number of invasions in the last…few decades.”
NATO didn’t exist until about 75 years ago, so I’m not sure why you reference a century. And, as mentioned above, NATO has only ever gone to war once, in Afghanistan. Member states have conducted operations and interventions around the world, it’s true: _without_ the support of the rest of NATO. NATO member states are in no way obligated to assist their allies in offensive interventions, and never have been.
You seem to be arguing that NATO is like the United States, in that it has a single foreign policy. That’s just not true. Every member state maintains its own foreign policy. If you have to strawman, at least patch the holes better.
did this guy just suggest ukraine would try to take volgograd if it joined nato? who tf paid this guy lmao
From the Ukrainian standpoint, its a defensive war with the sole expansion being the potential recapture of Crimea itself, pushing further than that would escalate the conflict.
@@swedichboy1000 agreed, this guy literally showed animations of ukraine bombarding the volgograd gap with explosions while saying that if ukraine was in NATO, "kyiv would likely use the opportunity to exploit the volgograd gap", tf? he's been paid off
What software are you using to make these visuals? I'd love to know
Думаю российское
What's the need of a NATO expansion if Russia can have peace of mind? To have no worry about security in its region would have resulted in a different scenario right now in Ukraine. The reason why NATO was a paper tiger these last 25 years was because of a docile eastern Europe.
The region of the Baltic nations with Poland have a different motif for self-preservation compared to the rest of Western Europe, while under the umbrella of the United States.
Is this a re-upload? I swear you tackled this topic before.
It's a fallacy that russia's geopolitical problems should be anybody else's concern. "Oh no, the Soviet Union collapsed". That was 30 years ago.
Do you apply the same standard to other countries?
Couped not collapsed.
@@user-op8fg3ny3jyes. Not like we care about indias border for example
I agree, NATO and Western Countries should stay completely out of this conflict.
I agree that a nations politics should be their own, until their politics affect another countries politics, then it becomes more peoples problem.
Great video! Keep up the good work!
Just a reminder, Southeast Europe is waiting to long for a new video 😅
Glad you got a sponsor
Still the Caucasus or ‘Volgograd gap’ is size of France.. It is only ‘narrow’ in comparison to the rest of the country.. but objectively it’s massive. and who in the modern world would be (even potentially) interested in invading there..
Exactly. This is like an argument that Ukraine is important for Russia because from Moscow to the Ukrainian border there are 600 kilometers... Several European countries or half of Ukraine itself can fit into this distance. How much land exactly does the largest country in the world need to feel secure?
@@user-wm5rt9pw5lThe problem with Russia is a lot of undeveloped land. The areas around the capital are developed but almost all are rural and underfunded.
how is this not all just paranoia?
how is this a justification to invade Ukraine?
who in their right mind would have attacked the russian mainland when they have THE BIGGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN THE WORLD???
Ask Yugoslavians/Iraqis/Syrians/Libyans......
Ukrainian regime has been killing Russians in Donbas for 8 years. And for 8 years Putin tried to avoid military resolve. USA didn't want any of it, they wanted this conflict to escalate.
@@haroonsuresh2326 the list is far far longer than that too.
congrats you figured out this entire narrative is realpolitik nonsense to justify their invasion
@@haroonsuresh2326 congrats on your regurgitated russian propaganda. truly an enlightened critical thinking individual. it amazes me that people who have no relation to EU or even live in a post-soviet state think they get to tell us that we're supposed to lay down and let the russian state force their politics on ourselves when it already happeend once and the entire eastern bloc decided they had enough. barely 70 years later, we're supposed to be okay with it now, because some indian diaspora says so? laughable.
Russia had the opportunity to solidify its Western boarders and turn Europe into the financier of adventures in Central Asia and East Asia. Instead they decided to attack their biggest trade partners, go to war with the greatest military alliance on the planet, and isolate themselves. Russia is now paying the price and should not be allowed to escape this quagmire unmolested.
How rich, to underplay the threat of Ukraine in the first place making Russia appear as a crazy aggressor while in the same breath bragging how Ukraine becoming a militarized state would be devastating to Russia. 21st century newspeak never ceases to amaze me.
Exactly.
The bums always lose
In order to be allowed into NATO Ukraine would either have to expel all Russian troops from all of its internationally recognized territory (including Crimea) or agree to a peace deal where they accept losing the territories which they do not control and are then allowed to join NATO (which would in no way be guaranteed). Both these scenarios are incredibly unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Never say never. They're showing the resolve there.
@@matt-eu-poland front lines have stabilised and stagnated. This is like ww1
Crushing Russia is dangerous.
Slow bleeding is the answer.
@@julianshepherd2038 crushing Russia is not dangerous. It's the only way. You win wars by fighting not by moderate behavior.
@@julianshepherd2038 Russia needs to be crashed decisively.
"Dragons can be beaten" is such a powerful line, very true
Dragons don't exist, but if they did, they would be unstoppable.
the thing you forget is... it toke a lot of sacrifice and strength to beat it
It’s a war of attrition, dragons like terrorism cannot be defeated. You’d waste away trying to fight them.
Ask USA in Afghanistan.
@@themaplebeefI am pretty sure a missle or a tank round can kill a dragon
@@KelemKelemno, terrorism was killed in Afghanistan, the terrorist invaders ran out of the country with their tails between their legs like the hyenas they are.
Unsurprisingly there are similarities like this in history. Ww just cant forget so we can deal with things better. I hope with all my heart that this and other conflicts get resolved and we just help each other (ideally)
This video does highlight Russia’s security concerns, some of them based on history. It doesn’t make me sympathise with them, however. If they wanted to keep countries like Ukraine in their sphere of influence, then it would help to treat them well and get on with them, not drive them away to the Europeans. Russia is like a desperate guy chasing women who’ve repeatedly rejected him - the harder they try to get people to stay with them by force, the more they achieve the opposite effect and drive everyone away.
you do know that they TRIED THAT ALREADY. Before this war started there was a point where ukraines economy was crumbling, the west offered some help but then russia countered by offering SIGNIFCANTLY MORE the result was a western staged coup, and the rest as they say is history.
Russia wants it's warm water ports and land bridge to said ports, no matter the cost.
framing neighbors as a 'spheres of influence' is some 18th century imperialist nonsense. allies, partners.. even friends - that's different. someone you lord it over and who's kids you bully vs someone you have over for a bbq and let swim in your pool. big, big difference, and the choice (when people have a choice) is more than obvious.
@@karLcxThe USA literally has a doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine which is totally based upon American Imperialism. What’s your thoughts on America committing over 80 regime changes since WW2? What’s your thoughts on America’s 850 military bases around the world?
@@maxsportsman2416 america isn't NATO. let's keep it relevant.
This point of view has been well discussed.
It always amazes me that the border regions of Russia are seen as such a meaningful security issue. No country on that border is poised to be a military threat. They belong in an alliance whose security guarantees they would lose by attacking.
Russia is simply living in a world that was half a century ago. They can choose to not man the border and everything will be fine. Russia still has one of the most effective deterrents in its arsenal.
Russia is fighting against windmills with this train of thought. They are the only country who has engaged in offensive military actions in the region as of late. The rest of Europe have “civilised” beyond that.
Exactly, Shirvan is assuming that Russia is being run by rational 4D chess thinkers who are trying to act rationally. If that were true, and doing anything could appease them, Sweeden would not have broken their 200 year old Neutrality.
Fact of the matter is, Russia is Ruled by an insecure greedy warmongering egotistical fool.
Tell us about the Munroe doctrine….😂🤣😂🤣😂
True, Russia is indeed Paranoid with it's Obsession with 'Security', and so what if NATO has expanded Eastwards to it's borders, each country has a sovereign right to join whatever organisation it chooses, indeed Russia can apply to join NATO, why not, I know they did before. Are the Baltics going to invade Russia? Nope. Is Finland going to? Nope. Is Ukraine going to? No. Is NATO going to? Unless they want Nuclear War (which they don't), then No. Unless Security is defined by Russian Military Adventures outside of it's Sovereign Borders as agreed by majority of countries in the UN, Russia is doing just fine!
@@marcusaetius9309nobody has taken the Monroe Doctrine seriously in 100 years
ummm which country has fought conflicts on nearly every continent in the last 50 years(hint: it's not Russia)@@priceprice_baby
It’s wrong to say “no other country has a vulnerability of this magnitude” in regards to Russia’s 2,000 km Western border. The US and Canada share an 8,831 km border. Russia would be wise to emulate the U.S. and Canada by minimizing military threats by being a good, peaceful neighbor.
literally this
Dumb lmaoooooo
That _would_ be possible had its neighbors not joined an alliance that's hostile to it (aka, the Baltic states)
@@alexvig2369 imbecile ask WHY would a defense alliance be a threat to anyone other than hegemonic corrupt country ??
Not quite the same as the US Canada border isn't a plain. For the eastern half It is broken up by the great lakes and in the west the mountain ranges make another fourth of the border unfit for mechanised manoeuvre warfare as well as shielding almost all of the Alaskan border
You made a mistake about the origin of the name Ukraine. It comes from the Slavic word land, just as England means the land of the Angles, or like the self-name of Germany (Deutschland), the land of the Germans (Deutsch), and Ukraine (Україна) means the land (Край) of the Ukrainians.
if you had studied Russian, you would understand why this is not a mistake
@@user-pg5bt7ym7y what does the Russian language have to do with it? I am writing to you about the name of Ukraine, which sounds the same in both Ukrainian and Russian 🤦
@@villiamkost5095 because Ukrainian is a mixture of Polish and Russian)) Ukraine has historically been the edge of Poland and Russia)) it's perfectly displayed in languages)) that's what I meant when I commented on you
@@user-pg5bt7ym7yfunny cuz the Russian language draws its roots from Ukrainian, which is far more ancient.
How about an episode regarding the conflict happening in your country right now.
Interesting video, but historic invasion routes are irrelevent when Russia has 6000 Nuclear warheads at it's disposal. An army that threatens Moscow would soon find it doesn't have a home country to return to. No, the expansion of Russia's borders are entirely due to the ambitions of one man to restore a lost empire.
Uhm ... nope!
Actually it is not so simple. Effectiveness of nuclear weapon is highly exaggerated. Russia has about 1.5k deployed nuclear warheads. In case of premtpive US strike, it can probably lose half of it or even more. US can attack missile subs, strategic bombers bases and deployed ICBMs directly. So we have like 500-700, several hundreds would be intercepted by current US missile and air defense, so we have something like 200-400. Then compare it just to officially 750 US military installations abroad. If they hit population areas, yup, casualties would be hundred of thousands or even millions, but some people in Pentagon can decide it is a reasonable price for winning in the third world war. And I have not even mentioned other NATO allies.
Overly simplistic. The world is far more complex than this, but it's a cute bubble you live in, so easy for you.
The main long term goal for NATO is to come as close as possible to Russia and perform the first strike on her nuclear arsenals disarming the country. THIS is existential threat and Russia will fight to the end to prevent this.
The nuke excuse is dumb. No one wants to blow up their own territory or start a nuclear war. Conventional forces would be used first.
I have zero interest in invading Russia. My problem is their inability to respect borders. Keep your nukes in check, stop invading neighbors. But Russia doesn't seem to be able to do that.
Their history is based on the never ending invasions of neighbouring countries. Guess why they are the largest country in the world..... They cannot live without it.
The wise option for ukraine was to remain neutral. Ukraine could've become the prime example of being peace keeper. This is the result of paid comedian ruling the country.
@@atharvaswami5726 we were neutral until 2014 when russia invaded us at our lowest point. that was long before Zelenskyj was elected president
@@atharvaswami5726 "Clever" advice. Living next to a big neanderthal who already attacked you like 100x in the past and you had to be his slave for a long time you can be a slave forever or try to find a help.
How Many countries has Russia invaded in the past 80 years compared to the US??? The hypocrisy is unreal 🤡👌🤣🤣🤣
When the quality of this channel goes down the sewage....
Why?
Also “Ukraine” can sound similar to “borderland” (окраина) in Russian, but in Ukrainian it sounds similar to “country” (країна), to be more precise “in the country” (у країні). Not very original name for a country but as it is. Btw, the word “borderlands” sounds totally different in Ukrainian (околиці).
Where does that theory of the origin of the word come from?
край (край чего-то) по украински будет край
@@rob6927this is not theory, this is linguistics of a native speaker 😅😂😊
@@scpmr а вертолёт и бумеранг как будет по украински? 😮
@@Wow4ik4ik без понятия. К чему этот странный вопрос?
NATO is a defence treaty. NATO doesn't "want" to invade Russia. It's countries threatened by Russia, which want to join NATO instead.
The natural border between Eastern and Central Europe seems to be the Dnyepr/Dnipro. It might boil down to that with Kiev being a gateway
What’s the difference between attack and defense when defense in this case means surrounding you with troops and installing anti missile equipment to such an extent as to castrate your opponent?
@@fredrikengstrom5771It's defence. Russia has been invading Eastern Europe non stop since like 1700,so if Russia doesnt make changes than Eastern Europe will build strong defences. And that doesnt mean castrating Russia,it means castrating Russia's ability to destroy Eastern Europe. NATO has prevented a Ukraine from occurring in Poland,for example. Finland and Sweden saw what Russian diplomacy looked like and scrambled to join NATO. Putler fanboys like you will not be looked kindly upon NATO.
@@xa-12musk8 Russia had no war ambition before the 2008 NATO summit in Budapest where NATO insisted on expanding into Ukraine and Georgia.
@@fredrikengstrom5771dont argue with paid nato commenters buddy its no use
@@pietero.o6792 Russia is the one that started the whole paying people and bots,lol.
These supposedly Russian boarder vulnerabilities are way over-blown! Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. Totally under estimating Russia's ability to protect itself.
So what? Didn't america claim the entire western hemisphere as its own and threatened war on whoever would disturb that?
It’s not the world’s largest nuclear power. Its nukes probably work as well as their 1940s tanks. You must still think Russia is the 2nd most powerful military in the world 😕
...And people wonder why Russia invaded Ukraine... 'unprovoked'?
well made video's you even incorporated your advertisement into the video so seamlessly i watched it in stead of skipping past it ???
If Russia fears that she's vulnerable in her borders, well that's exactly how we all feel all the time having her (a Behemoth of a country) on our borders.
Ok Stefan!
A behemoth of a country... what a perfect way to describe Russia!! Even it's shape on the map reminds of a Behemoth!! A gargantuan beast pointing towards west!!
Imagine a Russia that replaces its KGB dogma and invests in it's own people and innovation...
Imagine a USA that replaces its CIA dogma and invests in it's own people and innovation...
What and you mean invents the airplane, the transistor and the internet? And striped toothpaste. @@dr.embersfield1551
@@dr.embersfield1551 why not both? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@dr.embersfield1551 “but what about..!”
What about it? How does America doing something shitty justify Russia doing something shitty?
Incidentally plenty of Americans would love to see us rein in the rampant overspending in our military and take some of those resources to build a functional healthcare and education system. I’m one of them.
@@dr.embersfield1551US poor people Lives much better than poor in Russia.
Guys, you're doing a great job making those videos!!!
But I have to make an important remark(!!!) - word "Ukraine" doesn't actually signify "Borderlands".
The name of the country comes from the word "Край" ("Krai"), and despite the fact that this word also has a meaning "edge", the main meaning is "Land" or "Country"!
And prefex "U" in Ukrainian means "in", so the name "Ukraine" basically means "In the Land"!
Yeah but why doesn't Europe deserve Ukraine? Those same plains that made Russia vulnerable make Europe equally so, with Russia able to funnel troops into Poland and Germany. I'd say they deserve more protection than Russia
Only Ukraine deserve Ukraine. But Europe and Ukraine share a common interest. In standing united against the empire.
I think Napoleon and Hitler have something to do with it...
Europe is not Europe, there is a parasite within. We can have normal relations or at the very least worry about Russia AFTER we deal with the far more destructive force that is inside our governments
words, nothing but words you have killer@@hkonhelgesen
This isn't the 19th century anymore. The idea that moscow feels threatened by flat terrain is laughable.
Can't even dig trenches in a flat marsh.
Ukraine's name or self-name has no relation to "borderlands". The self-name of Ukraine is "Ukraina" (stress on the 3rd syllable ''i'' - UkraIna), where the "kraina" part in the Ukrainian language stands for "country" and in some cases may refer to "land or lands". For example, "Z yakoyi Vu krainu", - means "Which country are you from?". Another example, "Shotlandia ce vusokogirna kraina", means "Scotland is a highland country". The pre-fix "U" in Ukrainian is a preposition "in" in English and in the old writings "Vkraina" is also commonly found, where "V" stands for the same preposition of "in" in English. Prepositions "in" or in Ukrainian "u" and "v" can be used interchangeably. "Ukraina" or in the old manner "Vkraina" means "in the country" or may mean "in the land", therefore, it has no meaning of borderlands and actually has the opposite meaning to what was said by the author of this video.
Although the name "in the country" may sound somewhat strange, for Ukrainians who lost their statehood for the Mongol invasion, "in the country" meant the territories or lands of the former Kyiv Rus, the middle age kingdom founded by Norsemen in the 9th century with the kingdom's capital in Kyiv.
The meaning of "borderlands" has been given by Russians no more than "to mock" Ukrainians. Here is what it is. Although in the Russian language, there is no word "kraina" which means a "country" in Ukrainian, it is "strana" or "gosudarstvo" in Russian. But there is a word "krai" (stress on the 1st syllable ''a'' - krAi), which means "edge" or "side". For example, "Ya zhivy na okraine goroda", - means "I live on the edge of a city". By changing "U" to "O" Russians came up with "Okraina" (stress on the 2nd syllable ''a'' - OkrAina), like if it is "a land on the edge" or "land on a border", i.e. "borderlands" or not a real country. This has been used as a mocking term and suited Russian imperialistic narrative, as if they were in the center i.e. in Moscow and Ukraine laid out "on the borders". Of course, "Okraina" or "borderlands" has never had any historic or scientific accord in relationship to Ukraine, but this has never been a factor for Russian ideology.
Now I am wondering what sources Caspian Report using?
Lviv is a Polish city, hence why it resembles a "slice of Europe." The Ukraine, as it was primarily called right up until this recent reignition in conflict between it and Russia, was historically always a "borderland" or arguably a "province" of Polish/Lithuanian powers as well as Russian. Far longer than its very short "independence" since the breakup of the Soviet Union. People need to realize this in order to understand the conflict, otherwise it's just blindly believing the current propaganda, regardless which side you align with.
That does not mean it should allow Russia to invade but it also means its not a random act of aggression by Putin. Historically and recently it was Russian territory. It's like trying to claim the War of 1812 was a random invasion against the US by the Brits. There's much much more to this conflict than people realize but please atleast don't pretend this is an "unjustified" war. There is no such thing, wars are either all unjust or all fair game.
No one in NATO would care for Russia if they played nice. There is no need for them to try to "defend" the broders.
I know right? Come back to me when France, Germany, Sweden, Italy etc are mobilising millions of men for the march on Moscow, lol. This stuff is just so ridiculous.
So True Russia is a pretty poor country as well if you don't count oil and gas and these resources wouldn't be attractive to launch a full scale invasion. So it would make zero economically sense to invade Russia.
@@RikimkigsckOne third of all resources in the world are located on the territory of Russia. If you want your economy to function, you need resources, or perhaps even better, CHEAP resources. We see what is happening with Libyan oil after the assassination of Gaddafi, so don't try to sell anyone the "it makes zero economic sense" story.
They just want influence they tasted in past, they know no one will want to attack a nation with so many arms
Russia would have not a single soldier in Ukraine, if Ukraine had been treating minorities as equal citizens.
But after the Ukrainean army has bombarded the Donbas civilians for 8 years Russia finally had enough.
If Switzerland would persecute French speakers in the west of the country and shell Geneva and Lausanne with heavy artillery the French government would not even try to resolve this with diplomacy let alone try to talk for 8 years. The French would attack at once with everything they have.
There are too many things left out of this video.
First is the strategic depth of Russia beyond the Urals, duly demonstrated in WW2.
Second is the defensive nature of NATO and its incentives to keep the status quo, with a contained and preferably cooperative Russia, without being ensnared in another nation-building effort.
Third is relative friendly stances of Kazakhstan and Iran towards Russia thus ensuring its strategic depth.
Fourth is the fact that the Nazi Germany towards Stalingrad / Volgograd was a part of a pincer movement to take over the Middle East (the other prong was the North Africa / Afrika Korps campaign) and eventually join hands with Japan in India, thus depriving the UK from ME oil and from its most important (then) colony.
Fifth is the fact that Russia is a patchwork of nationalities and there's a genuine fear that pushing it may break it apart and then become something like a messy Yugoslavia in steroids that serves no one purpose (except for China who could take over present East Russian oil-rich territories).
Sixth, Russian nuclear weapons are the major deterrent against potential invaders. Russian doctrine requires their use if its survival / continuity is threatened.
With so many relevant things deliberately left out I wonder if the purpose of this video is just to launder the Russian narrative of vulnerability.
What Russia is vulnerable to is having a free, prosperous and democratic Slavic neighbor next door. It makes a bad comparison for the kleptocratic totalitarian regime in power in Moscow.
What do you expect from a n@zi propaganda channel? They talk about Ukraine but conveniently omit to mention Bandera and his UPA army which killed 200.000 Polish women and children in WWII. They might try to hide it, but Poland remembers.
@@markalexander832 lol this is such a stupid idealistic argument. Firstly Ukraine is much poorer than Russia. Secondly the Baltic nations that're already in the western alliance haven't really had any effect on Putins' regime. He was as popular as ever for the last two decades. Surprising as it may be to hear, not everyone on Earth is a closet liberal. One look at El Salvador in recent years should tell you that. You aren't the model for humanity.
@@markalexander832 When exactly was Ukraine going to become free, prosperous and democratic?
@@cron1165 They are already largely free and democratic (at least those parts not under Russian occupation). Prosperity will come with progress against corruption and closer ties with the EU. Check out Poland or the Baltic states for examples. Meanwhile the Russians will remain under sanctions and mired in a totalitarian kleptocracy.
War is the main crime against men
No matter what politicians say about the horrors of war for women, men have always been and remain the main victims of wars. The essence of any war can be described in one phrase: men of one country are sent to kill men of another country. War is the peak, the culmination of all anti-masculine phenomena.
War is a gross violation of men's rights. This is especially true of conscript soldiers who are forced to fight on pain of imprisonment in case of refusal to serve. But even if a man goes to the front as a volunteer, he is not such a volunteer as it may seem at first glance. A man unwittingly becomes a victim of patriotic propaganda, because society will shame him with all its might and means if he refuses the "honorable" duty of all men to defend the Motherland. The clearest example of such a shaming of men was the campaign of the so-called Order of the White Feather, which took place during the First World War in Great Britain. The campaign was attended by women who handed men who did not go to the front a white feather as a symbol of cowardice.
The desire of men to "voluntarily" get involved in the war does not appear from scratch. This desire is nurtured in men, is embedded in their consciousness and is constantly fueled by patriotic slogans and propaganda in the media.
The idea that men are obliged to sacrifice themselves for the good of the state and the nation, to protect women and children, to defend freedom and democracy is deeply rooted in the culture of many countries. War is the culmination of men's servitude, it is the strongest confirmation that men are at the full disposal of the state. They can be used as disposable batteries, their lives are not valued and mean nothing to the government.
As soon as a man passes into the category of "soldier", he is removed from the category of "man". In the understanding of generals, soldiers are resources with which you can achieve strategic goals, but not people who have their own dreams, hopes and desires. They are valuable as long as they can serve the state interests.
This "dehumanization" of soldiers is very well traced when it comes to civilian and military casualties. While the death of civilians is regarded as a tragedy, the death of soldiers is perceived as the norm. The soldier's goal is to kill or be killed. Despite the fact that the victorious soldiers are praised and extolled, their servitude in the hands of the state is no less than that of the deceased military of the losing side. The death of the victorious soldiers is recognized as heroic, but does this make it less tragic? This is just a propaganda tool that encourages other men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country in the same way.
For the sake of male solidarity and ending violence against men, we should reject war and all its manifestations. It is necessary to promote peace and try to stay away from all militaristic institutions, which are essentially anti-male.
In peacetime, it is difficult to attract public attention to the problems of men. It is impossible to do this in wartime. Men who are shamed in peacetime for their unwillingness to sacrifice their health and well-being for the sake of the interests of women and children will be branded traitors and cowards in wartime.
In difficult times, it is men who are expected to take the brunt of fate, so that women and children suffer less. In order to reduce and eliminate the servitude of men in the hands of the state, so that the world begins to show compassion for men and boys, we need to start with the idea of abandoning wars.
Support associations, associations, unions, single activists who fight for the rights of men in all spheres of life. Actively use all legal means for your struggle. Remember that the life, health, safety, comfort of men are priceless, it should not be sacrificed to other social groups. We deserve to live in a world where there is no oppression, sexism (misandry and misogyny), gendercide (androcide and femicide), discrimination. Only such a world has the right to be called civilized.
The assumption that Ukraine wishes to attack Russia and take territory from it is... pretty flawed. The assumption that Nato necessarily would also wish to attack Russia after helping free Ukraine is also... well, where is the evidence for that?
now would be a great time to invade russia. when wagner thunder runned to moscow, i think it was only old wheeled apc's that appeared in moscow.... the vast bulk of russias land and air military is tied up in ukraine.
@@specialingu that's true, but their nuclear deterrence is still massive, and it just isn't in NATO's interest to start a nuclear war, or in it's modus operandi. It needs the russian people to realise that the life they could have under democracy would be so much better than the life they currently have under the depot that is Putin. Russia could be fabulously rich, but unfortunately they are ruled by gangsters who have stolen the money for themselves.
NATO is seen as desiring to attack Russia is in part on Russian paranoia (thank Napoleon and Hitler) and NATO eastward expansion since 1991. The reasoning might be flawed, but it’s real.
Because you have no critical thinking skills and have not been following this conflict since it actually started in 2001...
Russian paranoia and propaganda.
"It would be an encirclement that Russia would be unable to overcome". Perhaps at that point, Russia would forsake its imperial predisposition and embrace mutually beneficial cooperation with their neighbors and the rest of the planet.
Wtf ?
"An encirclement that Russia would be unable to overcome" - What happened to the Russian Far East? Did the indigenous peoples of Siberia rise up in revolt against their imperialist oppressors in Moscow? And then join NATO?
Maybe if they weren't a nuclear state
Maybe if the USA was encircled by china maybe they would finally embrace mutually beneficial cooperation with their neighbours and the rest of the planet.
Interesting that you don't apply these same standards to the USA which coupes every country that remotely threatens it half way around the world. Is that considered "mutually beneficial cooperation with their neighbors and the rest of the planet?"