Radosław Sikorski: The Munk Debate - The Russia Ukraine War, Toronto, 12.05.2022
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- The Munk Debate - The Russia Ukraine War, Toronto, 12.05.2022
Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer v Michael McFaul, Radosław Sikorski
By any measure, the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a profound security risk for the world. It raises fundamental issues about the basic principles that underwrite the current international order and it threatens the specter of an entrenched, high-risk Great Power conflict. How is this fast-evolving crisis best addressed? Does it demand a resolute and relentless push by the West to punish, isolate and degrade Putin’s Russia economically, politically and militarily? Or is a solution to be found in acknowledging Russia’s security needs and finding ways to mutually de-escalate the war, sooner not later? Which of these different strategies stand the best chance of success? And how ultimately is this conflict best resolved?
_____________________
Komentarze europosła Radosława Sikorskiego oraz audycje Wolnego Radia Europa do obejrzenia na Facebooku, Twitterze, TH-cam oraz do posłuchania na Soundcloud i Spotify
_______________________
Zajrzyj na:
/ radeksikorski
/ radek_sikorski
/ sikorskiradek
www.radeksikor...
Sikirski is the only one on the stage that actually understands russia. I wonder why
Because he is Polish.
He is delusional.
@vaasdaas9587 please explain. What exactly did he say was delusional?
@@47morlockhe makes good points, don’t get me wrong, but he lacks credibility as he was among those responsible, for the extensive “reset” between Russia and the west. Indeed this was a policy which was widely supported under the Obama administration, so no wonder he sought to exercise same foreign policy in regard to Russia - but his views lack consistency in terms of his political record. Others in Poland, such as the deceased Lech Kaczyński, was warning about Russian imperialism, only to be laughed at and scoffed for “sabotaging” a strategic partnership. One can only wonder if he did not pay the highest price, for his unwavering stance..
@@kristianhorslund4941 diplomacy🤷♀ Sometimes you have to make a deal just to prove to others that your opponent isn't making it in good fait.
Świetna debata ! Brawo panie Ministrze Sikorski ! ✌️🫡
2024 and Radek Sikorski is again FM of Poland. A proper person in a proper place. ❤
And everything Mearsheimer said is turning out to be true. Ukraine is badly losing.
Brawo Panie Radosławie, przejechał się Pan po nich jak po burej suce
How many countries were forced to join NATO? How many countries have joined Soviet Union or Russia voluntarily?
Belarus has practically joined Russia, and is now little more than its puppet state while, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, (totalling over 40% of the world population) have all sided with Russia in this conflict, and have refused to disrupt their close economic ties.
The idea of a country being forced to do something is not entirely black and white either; does Finland and Sweden joining NATO without holding a referendum mean the the populace are being forced into NATO?
@@vetrocomvetrocom9737 You probably learned this from Russia Z V news.
Who cares? Not our problem.
@@aar0n709 Russia invading Ukraine is everyone's problem.
No one country joined soviet union, all was ocupied by force..
Thank you, Mr. Sikorski, for your position and your wisdom. We Ukrainians will remember this - I definitely will.
@Leo A Have it, if you like. It hurts to read such words, but what am I suppose to do if you think like that. But again, there is no way to find out what you really think. Maybe you're just saying this wicked words without actually thinking that way. I'll just leave it there. And back to the point, for anyone who is interested, from what I see, where I'm now, what Sikorski is saying is very true. Good luck.
McFaul: "we didn't kill him...😉 "
Killary: "We came, We saw, He died... Cackle, cackle... "
That's Mcfowls game. Ignoring reality as it suits. He basically says it outright. Real (whirled) diplomacy is all.... ll... eyes. But trust us.
Then he says zelensky offered the neutral UKR option. Conveniently ignoring that Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken shut that option down immediately.
@Jon Little zelensky was hand picked by kolimoivsky and Victoria Nuland to play his role.
@@gmw3083 (embarrassed to be American) ;) NOT -- but disgusted by war hawk tools 👍
💚 🇺🇸 😎
@@khersey6167 i already tummed up your comment but had no time to reply. Thought you might like to know your wirds are hidden from the thread. Might be the wird (wore). Not sure. There are many triggers for the censor bots. Spelunking wrong helps.
If you log out and view a thread you will see which of your comments are visible to to the general assembly. Yt has created a personalized safe zone play pen for all of us. So considerate.
Brawo Panie Sikorski!!
If there´s ever going to be a Eurpean Union worth it´s name, I´d want Radek to be in charge of both foreign affairs and defence. Btw, I´m German. The sooner we realise that Poland economically and strategically is more important than France, Italy and Spain combined, the better it gets.
@@8ace02As a Pole, I'm somewhat optimistic about Merz. What do you think?
@@skullmaster6888 At least Merz would listen to Sikorski, I guess. Sikorski nails it on every aspect imo.
This really shows that our Western audiences live in a bubble, enable their govts actions & collectively keep making the same mistakes having learnt nothing from the Iraq war let alone, Dubya's recent admission. The levels of disinformation around this war will be discussed in 10-20yrs time just as we now acknowledge the mistakes that led to the Iraq, Libyan, Syrian wars assuming, there's a world left standing.
Everyone lives in a bubble in Russia too if we didn't there would be no unity and we would collapse.
@@joeroganpodfantasy42 What bubble is that exactly?
@@V12F1Demon ..........The bubble of self righteousness.
Absolutely Right!
@@thetshirtblog Be ignorant elsewhere or grow up.
Widać, że Mearsheimer ciągle żyje w latach 80. Rosja nie jest żadną potęgą, ani tym bardziej mocarstwem. To kolos na glinianych nogach, którego populacja wymiera w zastraszającym tempie, a sama gospodarka jest mniejsza niż gospodarka wielu kilkukrotnie mniejszych krajów europejskich. Dlaczego ktoś miałby zgadzać się na ich irracjonalne żądania? Próbowano tego w latach 30 ubiegłego wieku żeby zapobiec wojnie i wszyscy wiemy jak to się skończyło.
Ja bym wręcz powiedział, że on nie tylko żyje w tych czasach, ale wręcz chce, żeby te czasy trwały. Być może to tylko takie moje odczucie, ale dla mnie to wygląda tak, jakby chciał powstrzymać zachód, żeby przypadkiem Putina nie obalił, bo się nagle świat zrobi dużo prostszy i zniknie jeden biegun.
Kolos na glinianych nogach ktory siedzi na atomie i moze Europe i Ameryke zrownac z ziemia jak zostanie przyparty do muru..... Zagrajmy w ruska ruletke i przyprzyjmy go do muru...
@@bobzaba4842 Radzę poczytać o zjawisku "stability-instability paradox" i "nuclear peace". W skrócie, jeśli dwa wrogie sobie państwa (albo szerzej obozy polityczne) posiadają broń jądrową to groźba jej użycia drastycznie maleje.
Appeasement did work though. Chamberlain's appeasement bought Britain time to build up their military. They could never have fought Nazi Germany back then. They would have lost miserably, and it would have been worse for them.
I'm not saying to blindly give in to Putin, but cutting a deal spares everyone a very costly and bloody war. If the terms are attractive enough for each side, it will outweigh the utility of the war itself.
@@zbyszanna chyba nawet nie zdajesz sobie sprawę jak bardzo masz rację z tym że on żyje w tych czasach - realiści geopolityczni bardzo ciężko trawią upadek ZSRR, bo w ich predykcjach, ten balans sił miał być podstawą pokoju i trwać literalnie setki lat. Po upadku muru berlińskiego sam Mearsheimer tak ciężko wciągał copium że zamiast przejść z tym do porządku dziennego i zacząć pracować nad nowym modelem predykcyjnym dla zmienionego układu sił w Europie, postanowił pisać postulaty abyśmy dalej utrzymywali układ warszawski, tylko po to żeby się jego model nie rozsypał.
Fakt że to nie było w naszym interesie i byliśmy w pozycji żeby nie dawać tym idiotycznym pomysłom tlenu jest pochodną jego realizmu w którym jesteś albo mocarstwem albo żetonem pokerowym, który nie ma nic do gadania i to przeświadczenie jest podstawą czemu Mearsheimer jest tak lubiany przez ruskie onuce - z założenia, na poziomie doktrynalnym ma wylane w naszą sprawczość.
Tyle było mowy o ratowaniu ukraińskich żyć, ale czy im przyszło do głowy, żeby zapytać o to samych Ukraińców? Zachód nie wpycha Ukraińcom broni i nie wysyła ich na front, oni sami tego przecież chcą. Zasłanianie się troską o Ukraińców wydaje się mocno fałszywe.
Nie. Zachod im tylko wczesniej odpowiednio wypral mozgi...
Oni gadają tak jakby nie słyszeli o aneksji Krymu, wojnie na Donbasie i innych działaniach Putina. To wygląda tak jakby nagle zauważyli, że coś się dzieje na Ukrainie i stwierdzili - ratunku, kończmy to, jest niebezpiecznie! Jakaś straszna ignorancja z tego bije i brak jakiegokolwiek zrozumienia sytuacji.
@@RoboStuk Możliwe, że te wszystkie leśne dziadki właśnie taką mają 'wiedzę' jak to przedstawiłeś
US is proving to Russia that Ukraine is a,ready a de facto state!
@@RoboStuk Krym jest zapisany w historii ze dobry Chruszow podarowal Krym USRR w 1954 r jak rozliczamy prawde to o tym trzeba wspomnac , a jesli cofniemy sie dalej to Krym nie byl tez Rosyjski ,ale tez nie Ukrainski .
Three native speakers and Radek Sikorski ;) chapeau bas Your Excellency
Do as we say and NOT as we do seems Michael's position..
A Hippo named Chrissy
And he clearly stated the American diplomats lie. Lex Friedman just did a great podcast with Oliver Stone on Russia and Ukraine. He talked a lot about Kennedy.
@Jon Little I definitely misunderstood you! 😂
It pains me that our foreign policy bureaucracy is filled with people as petty, dumb, and willfully ignorant as McFaul. There are precious few figures like Jack Matlock or George Kennan in the current iteration of the American diplomatic elite.
He's in fact an imperialist
Świetne przemówienie. Chadosław Sikorski.
Debate starts at 2:35. You're welcome.
Kliknąłem w filmik niechcący, a przesłuchałem całą godzinę i czterdzieści dwie minuty. Tak, jak inni komentujący, chciałbym, aby w Polsce debaty były przeprowadzane z taką klasą
Owszem debata dobra jednak pewne punkty nie wyjasnione. Np twierdzene ze nie bylo na tapecie wlaczanie Ukrainy do NATO wiec atak Rosjan pod takim pretekstem oraz negocjacje pokojowe i zakonczenie wojny zapewniajac ze Ukraina bedzie neutralna jest zupelnie bez sensu. Tymczasem mozna znalezc na necie artykul z Wall Street Journal. Cytuje Mr. Scholz made one last push for a settlement between Moscow and Kyiv. He told Mr. Zelensky in Munich on Feb. 19 that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia.The pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security. Mr. Zelensky said Mr. Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. Zeby znalezc artykul wystarczy wpisac w google Vladimir Putin’s 20-Year March to War wsj
@@sandwind123456789 przestań uprawiać ruską propagandę, Ukraina nie została zaproszona do NATO w 2008 roku i to był największy błąd, putin widząc to mógł spokojnie planować atak na Ukrainę, to go ośmieliło, opowiadanie, że atak na Ukrainę był spowodowany przez NATO i żeby zdenazyfikować Ukrainę to wierutne bzdury. Ukraińcy wiedzieli, że to walka z czasem i muszą jak najszybciej wejść do NATO zanim putin zaatakuje. niestety co się stało wszyscy widzimy. Oglądałem niedawno wywiad a Aleksandrem Kwaśniewskim, w którym opowiadał jak Borys Jelcyn tuż przed wejściem Polski do NATO prosił go, żeby tego nie robił i dawał Polsce pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa, jeżeli Polska nie wejdzie do NATO. Kwaśniewski się tylko uśmiechnął, pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa od Rosji???!!! wszyscy wiemy jak to by się dla Polski skończyło. Ukraina też dostała pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa i nienaruszalności granic od Rosji po tym jak zgodziła się oddać swój arsenał jądrowy w 1994 roku, jak się to skończyło to wszyscy widzimy… miejmy nadzieje, że nie będzie mowy o żadnej neutralności Ukrainy po wojnie i Ukraina wejdzie do NATO.
@@michals6672 Wytlumacz mi czemu uwazasz ze to co pisze Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to ruska propagana? Czyli Niemcy nie chcieli zarzegnac wojny proponujac Ukrainie neutralnosc gwarantowana przez USA i Rosje ale Ukraina to odrzucila czy nie? Jest tez wypowiedz doradcy prezydenta Ukrainy z marca 2019 roku ktory dokladnie mowi ze na 99% beda mieli duza wojne z Rosja z powodu ich przystepowania do NATO i ze Rosja musi zaatakowac zanim przystapia do NATO. Jak chce to ci znajde ta wypowiedz. No chyba ze Nie tylko WSJ ale nawet doradca prezydenta Ukrainy to ruski troll i ruska propaganda to nie bede szukal bo juz wszystko wiesz sam.
I would like Poland to stop protecting the traitorous Hungarians in the EU and possibly NATO.
@@sandwind123456789 No czyli nie było zgody Niemców na włączenie UA do NATO. Do tego jakimś dziwnym trafem Finlandia i Szwecja jakoś dostają obietnice szybkiej procedury przyjęcia, RU nie bombarduje Helsinek, Putin twierdzi, że to nie zagrożenie. Tak więc jak widać, kwestia NATO to tylko pretekst, ruscy chcieli powtórzyć Czechosłowację 68, doktryna Breżniewa.
I can't think of a better set of participants to discuss this issue at this time than the two most prominent neo-realists and the two most prominent Putin skeptics. Either directly or indirectly the Mearsheimer school and the McFaul school have been sniping at each other since Russian aggression against Ukraine began to escalate. We need to hear these alternative viewpoints articulated and challenged. Well done Munk for making this happen.
Very interesting that there are so many comments in Polish here.
Amusingly this is no topic in Europe as we see the war of aggression on our borders. We know we are next if we don't stop Putin Today.
@@TorianTammas What country are you in? Using "Europe" broadly is a bit lazy my friend. Will Putin invade Ireland? How about Greece? You really think Putin wants to try to manage insurgencies and more conventional war in perpetuity when he has natural resources you need to buy from him? Sorry, there's no evidence he wants to "conquer" Europe. Mearsheimer's correct here.
@@TorianTammas Moldova-Kazakstan-Georgia are way more possible targets (i just hope you're not from one of these countries).
But i do believe in Ukraine and ukrainians, though i'm from Russia myself.
@@Rai2M there is no proof at all that Russia wants to completely get those countries. If NATO minded its own business what's happening in Ukraine or what happened in Georgia wouldn't have happened. Russia had literally one request: no NATO expansion to the east. But the west knew exactly what it was doing when they kept expanding. You would think that at least Russian people would understand this, but it seems that some like you have already been brainwashed by the west. you might as well renounce your Russian citizenship if you have it lol. In the future you would probably cheer as NATO invades and destroys Russia as a country, take its resources, and kills many Russian civilians. At that point Russia as a country wouldn't exist anymore. NATO isnt just a "defensive" alliance, and If you think that isnt one of NATO ultimate goals you are delusional.
@@TorianTammas "We ArE NeXt" lol how clueless can you be. There is no proof that Putin wants to attack Poland, or other countries. Even Putin is not that stupid to attack a NATO country. His main request was no NATO expansion, but alas, your overlords in the USA want different. If anything, in the future, NATO will invade Russia to take its resources and destroy it as a country, so that Russia ceases to exist, and your country, like a good boy, will do what its US masters will say.
Give up nothing. Russia get out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine.
Stephen and John, very smart and polite!!!
"Neville Chamberlain, very smart and polite!!!"
I don’t like how other guys are screaming their point as if it would make em right kinda ruined the debate
I think this war is 8 years old with at least 14,000 civilians killed before this conflict escalation.
most of them in Donbass in uncontrolled territory, more than 500 are children. Murdered by Ukrainian Nazi troops. Many of them under jewish president
ahem, nope - absolute majority of those 14000 people killed were combatants of both sides. For example, during the whole year of 2021, in total, 6 civilians in DNR were killed as a result of war (landmines included)
@@Thanatos1982a yes, from both side, but mostly were killed from DNR side. All childrened who were killed were only from DNR side
@@fevgg not really, that would be statistically impossible. For example, I just checked shelling of Mariupol in 2015 by Grad rockets and it killed 40 civilians, including two children.
@@Thanatos1982a you don't have any clue what you're talking about. Nazies shelled cities and killed civilians, LDNR responded to fortified areas. That the difference. Don't apoligize Nazies
thank you mister Radoslaw. You said everything right. being a Ukrainian, who as well was in Euromaidan, the way you described all the story and your arguments are precisely correct.
and I'm thankful.
we would be more safe in trenches with the Poles rather than with those from the west Europe either ❤️🇵🇱🇺🇦
Radoslaw and Michael selling that snake oil.
John Mearsheimer is a national treasure and should be a household name in America.
Cant believe the nonsense of McFaul, Sikorsky
My vote is for Mearsheimer, Walt ✌️
Yeah, Putin has gotten a raw deal in the media; we all know NATO poses an existential threat to Russia.
Doesn’t everyone recognize that Putin didn’t have to make up a long list of strange rationales for invading… no, he just needed to point out the threat from NATO to his people, who of course worried about NATO on a daily basis. With his well prepared military and the vast majority of the public willing to counter this clear threat… it’s only a matter time before the Ukrainians wished they had cut a deal while it was still possible.
Realists… they love their theory so much, they’ll conjure up any excuse to make it relevant.
That's because you're a shill for Russia.
@@RedXlV No, i am not…. Far from it,
but I prefer reality rather than fantasy when it comes to people lives & future of all mankind.
I prefer be more fair, unbiased and listen to all sides claims so then to support real peace.
Know that propaganda methods can be used by any and from both sides (east/west)
Some of the propaganda principles are to act like a charming hero that argue in loud voice, smirk on others speeches, use emotional spiritual narratives, use public speculations as solid facts, exaggerate or skip facts to support them.
I saw some of that in McFaul and Sikorsky
@@amirtawfik7495 "reality" maybe in putin's world
Two pacyfist,przypominaja mi 1939 i wysilki Chamberlina z Angli.Pokoj za wszelka cene kosztem innych.Poddac wszystko by tylko byl pokoj.Debilne myslenie zza oceanu,P.Sikorski w najlepszym wydaniu.
Dokladnie. Tez jestem za tym aby w putina walnac z grubej rury... Te jego atomki to zaslona dymna... Nie istnieja... A jak istnieja to jest zlom... A nawet jak nie wszystkie zlom to tylko kilka jest w stanie odpalic... A nawet jak je odpali to rosja bedzie zrownana z ziemia, a te kilka ruskich sarmatow co spadna na Polske i pare innych krajow europejskich to pestka...
Radek PLUS McFaul który w 100% popiera dokładnie ta samą opinię. Jego wieloletnia staż jako ambasador USA do Rosji, biegła znajomość języka rosyjskiego oraz nie typowo praktyczne (a nie ściśle akademickie) podejście do całej sprawy wyróżnia go od większości tzw naukowców oraz "dyplomatów". Proszę spojrzeć na jego Twitter aby na bieżąco rozumieć jego b. cenne podejście. Stąd też względnie szybkie posunięcia USA w stosunku do Ukraini. McFaul od pierwszego dnia cisnął na "closing the skies".
No wlasnie.
Wydaje się ze oni racjonalnie oceniają sytuacje, druga strona sprawia wrażenie jakby ta wojna na rękę właściwie była
Superb and high quality debate
Great debate. It seems to me, the two parties are talking past each other - they simply seem to have completely different starting points: One side argues from how they believe the world IS and the other side argues from the point of how they want the world TO BE. One is more or less a political science point and the other one political point.
All sides agree that Russia's security interests are central but they don't agree on what their legitimate interests are. That's why they're talking past each other.
Except that their belief about how the world IS doesn’t make any sense.
@@maryanchabursky9148 It makes full sense.
@@pistolpetetc no it doesn’t it pretends it is the 18th century’s with grand empires. This ignores the reality that smaller nations have a lot of say in the modern world.
@@maryanchabursky9148 It does.
In practice the world still follows the rules of Real Politique, the war in ukraine is a case in point.
I wish the debaters wouldn't resort to polemic and pathos. The side that uses facts in a calm manner gets my vote.
Facts aren't reasoned thinking. A machine can spit out facts all day long.
Yeah, let's pretend that old farts have any chances in democracy with their logic and absence of humour
Unfortunately we have always chosen either the loudest, the funniest, the best spoken to win and lead. Regardless whether they actually know what they are doing or having all the facts. That's why we always fight.
I was also surprised why they scream like politicians though this is only a debate. Makes it hard to focus on what is said.
Emotions are human. Unless they insult each other, it's how it should be.
Dear Sikorski, Dobrie Dien,
Please Take Note:
1) India was the jewel in the British crown and yet the British didnt handover India in a Graceful Manner, on the contrary it was totally in a DISGRACE, CHAOTIC MANNER, dividing 1 country into 3 i.e. Pakistan later on Bangaldesh.
The result of division of India by Britain led the worlds largest human EXODUS i.e people Criss-Crossing India and Pakistan ca 25 million in 1947 (imagine how much would have the number been in presernt time).Sadly ill handover killed a couple of Millions of innocent civilians.
2) The handover of India was due to the AHIMSA/SATYA GRAHA,(Gandhism), Quit India Movement, miltiple Swatantra Sangram activities, And was not by the British Compassion- Dzieki
"May Peace Prevail in the conflict zone"
the majority of former crown colonies are now on fire
Why have you greeted Mr. Sikorski with "good day" in Russian?
@@brygadasfm "dobry dzień", "dobryy den'"... close enough for a non-speaker of both languages, don't you think (which I am not either as well)? It's obvious that Great Galaxy is Desi.
Mountbatten rushed the Indian/Pakistan independance because it was thought that there would even be more deaths if it were dragged out- even so, yes millions died & were displaced.
Great, another Indian that blames the British for their problems, doesn't sound very productive. How about you try to sort out your problems with the muslims instead?
How do you have debate with pathological liars and agenda driven people?
If it is clear, that Ukraine will not be member of NATO, why not fix it in a treaty?
Why there exists a treaty between USA and Ukraine what says USA will support Ukraine by entering NATO, ( "US - Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership" from November 2021)
It is in the Ukrainian Constitution that they will join NATO.
The United States already broke its promise on NATO expansion multiple times since 1990. Russia's leaders had no reason to suspect that we wouldn't just reverse course on Ukrainian NATO membership when it became convenient to do so. My goodness, we saw Trump tear up the Iran nuclear deal simply because he didn't like it. "Trust us" is not going to be a persuasive argument when we behave like this.
Cause they want to spite the Russians. Thats all this is about in the end.
Because the Secretary General of Nato said it was non of Russis'xxs business. If I were Russian & Nato was ever increasing it's proximity I would definitely be concerned...hence Putin's rise in popularity.
Because In NATO documents it says that NATO decides who can join and who can't. So if they agree to let Russia decide then it shows that NATO can be threatened into doing things and for a millitary alliance that's not a good thing.
Rewelacyjna debata, gratulacje dla Pana Radosława Sikorskiego za wspaniałą wygraną i reprezentację Polskiej racji stanu.
żartujesz?
@@sebastianduchowicz2902 bardzo dobre mial argumenty w tej debacie Sikorski widac ze przekonal do swojej racji wiekszosc publicznosci wiec uwazam to za wielkie zwyciestwo i dobre reprezentowanie polskiej racji stanu
Germany also gave a guarantee to enforce the Minsk agreements. Wonder how that turned out.
UA did not respect it.
Germany cannot (and could not) give any guarantees for compliance with the Minsk agreements. Germany simply did not have the capacity to see that they were respected, it was an empty phrase I guess.
It's also funny how Russia practically wrote the thing, but got to waive their hands about not being a signatory to it while simultaneously blaming Ukraine for breaking it all while Russia continued to actively supply and keep the conflict going in the region.
@@ferrariguy8278 that's exactly what happened
@@ferrariguy8278 but why signed it? Minsk 1&2 were the results of nato protecting their own people from certain death or capture esp in 2015 when UA and (some)NATO forces esp high ranking Germans.
*Russia continues to actively supply and keep the conflict going. - what do you expect Russia supposed to do? Turn their backs on their own people? If they did not support or stop supporting ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, they could have been murdered by Azov, UA and nato forces. I guess the loss of 14,000 people is not enough for you eh?
And if UA respected the Minsk agreement on which they agreed and signed it, these could have been avoided but no! so look at them now. I have more sympathy with the AKs they used and being kicked by Chechens after they're killed in combat than UA's fighting forces.
W czasie podpisywanie ugody perejasławskiej Moskwiczanie i Ukraińcy potrzebowali tłumacza. To były już inne języki.
Język ukraiński pozostał językiem rusińskim, opartym m in. na dialekcie połtawskim (okolice dzisiejszych rejonów "kozackich"), ale nie tylko, bo w ogromnej mierze także na dialektach zachodnich Rusinów (jak choćby dialekty Polesia czy karpackie) i na językach zachodniosłowiańskich (głównie na polskim, ale i słowackim). Kontakt z zachodniosłowiańskimi językami (szczególnie z językiem plemion lechickich, inaczej Lędzian) od niepamiętnych czasów wpływał na ukraińskie słownictwo i gramatykę.
Rosyjski z kolei także częściowo wywodzi sie z dialektów połtawskich, ale to bardzo dawne czasy. Potem ogromny wpływ wywarły na niego języki ugrofińskie i tatarskie (ugrofińskie zwłaszcza na mowę chłopów, a tatarskie - szlachty). Co więcej, Księstwo Moskiewskie przyjęło prawosławie nie z Kijowa, ale "z rąk" Bułgarii i Serbii, a wraz z tym, ogromną liczbę słownictwa południowosłowiańskiego. W cerkwi rosyjskiej używa się właśnie dlatego języka południowych Słowian (Cyryla i Metodego), a w cerkwi białoruskiej i ukraińskiej - staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego. W efekcie w rosyjskim już w XIV w. pozostało stosunkowo niewiele słów rusińskich, w porównaniu z ukraińskim czy białoruskim (albo wręcz językami dawnej Rusi Kijowskiej, do których zaliczał sie także język Nowogrodu Wielkiego).
Bajania Putina o tym, że Ukraińcy i Rosjanie to jeden naród (bo 1000 lat temu były razem w luźnym związku wielu księstw, zwanym Rusią Kijowską) to wierutna bzdura :)
@@alh6255 Dziękuję za świetne wyjaśnienie.
@@alh6255 ваши фантастические истории очень занимательны. Жюль Верн не мог бы с вами соперничать 😂 Особенно про разные народы между русскими и украинцами.
@@ЕлизаветкаБогдановаAh no Muscovites are just Asian hordes who have no legitimate interests in the countries west of them. Go back behind the Urals and bother us no more.
Really if you think that being part of the same multi ethnic principality a millennium ago has any bearing on ethnicity now you have no understanding of history at all
I wish they spoke more about the last 8 years.
Exactly. That's where the issue lies.
If you want to understand the issue you would need to cover the last 500 years
The important thing to note here is you can win debates by lying.
Sadly believing more of the lies and not the truth.
It shows the intellectual level and maturity of the audience that it chooses to be influenced by the war mongerers even when the stakes are as high as the possibility of global nuclear war !
Nice.
Emotions are stronger than facts.
And I was impressed with how the emotionals kept repeating claims the realists had just disproved. If you just keep repeating a lie no matter what, people will tend to believe it.
Yeah, both former Politicians were lying.
1:15:48 So basically Russia was justified (in their minds, anyway) in going to war in Ukraine. Thinkers knew that already, but it is nice to see a policymaker admit it. We are constantly lied to. Do you see it yet?
No one starts a war they don't feel is justified. Hitler felt justified in France and Russia. Stalin felt justified in Poland. Japan felt justified in China. Just because you are justified in your mind does not at all mean that you are justified in reality.
@kızgın tosbağa EXACTLY!!
@kızgın tosbağa For Afghanistan, I think it was to support the communist government which was fighting an insurgency in the 1980's. For Syria, to me it seemed like an attempt to keep Assad in power and commit war crimes against the civilian population. Any other whataboutisms you want to elaborate on?
@kızgın tosbağa So what? How does it make Russia's war any better than the American wars?
@@arturganczarski500 Then maybe we can discuss sanctions against the United States and NATO countries? Oh, yes, you can't condemn yourself. After that, you have the audacity to teach someone morality. Hypocrites.
This debate showed one thing - people are really stupid. I feel sorry for Prof Mearsheimer.
People are waking up tho. Growing support is recognisable in the world for anti-globalist ideas. Of course the collective west is not going to wake up, but the rest of the world is on the right side, and even in the west, there has been growing concern about the ideas that the globalists are advocating for.
I'm appalled by how two populists playing on people's emotions changed the poles so radically in the span of practically one hour
Yeah, I also feel sorry for stupid people
Point, by Michael McFaul, that "US didn't go along with NATO enlargement after Bucharest 2008" is simply wrong (or a purposeful lie). US, on the contrary, have been pushing this yet another enlargement, and who really stood up against, were Germany, the UK, and France.
Agreed. McFaul was fake.
So the result of the debate is people prefer all out war against Russia until they destroy Ukraine or themselves over peace talks, what sort of people would choose this path!
Ukrainians are choosing to fight for freedom, democracy and liberty. What are you going to do about it? Americans are not dying in Ukraine and we are not asking them. They did die in Afganistan. Ukraine is not Afganistan, we will not surrender, our leader did not flee next day. Ukraine does not want to be part of Putin's regime.
Ukrainians fight for themselves when Russia ignored diplomatic efforts, you can give them weapons to defend or watch them die or get enslaved (like East block after WW2). What sort of people want them to surrender against their will?
@@midi5581 - Enslaved? Hardly, they're just trying to stop the slaughter in Donbas
@@TM97531O - Why the draft then?
It’s a tactic to vote contrary to your belief in the first round and then vote for what you actually believe in the final round so that your side wins.
I don’t think many people get into a debate on such grave implications without preconceived opinions. I certainly wouldn’t go to a debate to be persuaded I’ll go to see my side win! I don’t know maybe I’m unlike 88% of the people 😁
Great lesson!
The same people that say it's ridiculous to expect a democratically elected leader in Ukraine to let a piece of his country go, think that the only road to peace in the Balkans is Serbia recognising Kosovo as independent because it's already a fait accompli.
One rule for me and another rule for you
Well if the democratically elected leader commits genocide against another ethnic group in his country, others are going to take issue with it. Especially after they failed to act in Rwanda and Srebrenica just a couple of years earlier. Your argument is limping pretty badly.
Double standards
@Peter Facka there's always "differences"
@Peter Facka yes they are "significant differences". The same people that say Hungary isn't a democracy, think UK a literal kingdom with an unelected upper house is a democracy.the same people that say Putin is a lunatic for saying Russia is exceptional (which I've never heard) believe that a us president shouldn't be elected unless he believes in American exceptionalism...and so on and so on...but there's always "significant differences" in every situation isn't there?
@Peter Facka please you can say whatever you want to me, just don't compare us (Serbs) to Poles. We have enough problems
here's an interesting exercise: pretend this entire debate is about the USA (since everything fits perfectly)
oh yes, that"Iraq peoples republic" that we all forgot of
Pretend it's about your mother
The US is an extremely aggressive power within our sphere of influence. Ask Latin America about that.
Then you need to also pretend this debate is happening inside Russia. Can you do that?
Russia and the USA are completely similar. The same values, freedoms and living standard. Who would notice the differences ?
my national security interest is that Russia is not at Poland's eastern border
If you look at the map, if not Russia it would be China or North Korea. Think again. :) another solution to this problem is to have German-Russian border.
Radek jestes WIELKI
Nothing will end, this is just the beginning!
U.S. policy toward Iran has been a failure too: The war in Iraq enhanced Iran’s regional influence, and ratcheting up sanctions didn’t stop Tehran from acquiring the capacity to build a nuclear weapon if it ever decides to do so. Unfortunately, Trump abandoned the 2015 deal that shrank Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile of nuclear materials and extended its “breakout time,” and his administration subsequently threatened to sanction several U.S allies (all of them members of the “free world” by the way) if they stuck to the agreement (which had also been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council). And what was the end result of this brilliant demonstration of U.S. leadership? Iran is closer than ever to building a bomb, and the Biden administration has been unable to find a way back to the original deal.
What you wrote is true if you assume US goals was to prevent Iranian nuclear programme. If you assume their goal was to sabotage any agreements and any attemps to build an agreement between Iran and other countries of Middle East or, let's say Israel, for example, I would argue US were exceptionally successive. They ruined any attemp to stabilize relations between Nothern and Sounthern Koreas and Japan in a same exact way. And nobody blames US for it. An outstanding victory, I would say.
So what if they have a bomb? Only US EU is allowed to have a bomb? If US stops threatening Iran maybe they wouldn't think about creating a bomb in the first place. US has bombed and wrecked both Iraq and Afghanistan both neighbors of Iran. They know if they don't have their own bomb, they will follow suit like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. They know the only thing keeping US from invading them is their nuke. Same with Nokor
But your own comment contradicts this. The sanctions brought them to the table to discuss nuclear treaty
34:11 The fact that the audience laughed at Mersheimer shows people don't buy his BS!
Jako wyborca PiSu gratuluję Panie Radosławie rozsądnych i moim zdaniem trafnych uwag!
co jak co, ale w stosunku do Rosji od 300 lat zdecydowana większość polaków ma to samo zdanie.
@@internetowywichrzyciel6971 I słusznie.
this was a great debate, thanks to all of you for putting it together. I wish this was the norm of political discussion
Except that most of the con side was based on attacking Mearsheimer, while the Pro side presented cold hard facts.
@@justgivemethetruth If you call Putin's words facts, you urgently need to do a brain MRI. That's a bad symptom indeed. Mearsheimer is a Russian tool for years.
@@justgivemethetruth Mearsheimer presented only his fantasies.
@@firstone3289
Name one?
@@justgivemethetruth The skimming over Ukraine’s right to choose its own future made his whole attribute a load of one-sided BS.
The aggressor is Russia, not the Ukrainian or even NATO. The ‘interests’ of Russia are simply to establish a hegemony over more countries, more areas, and now its target is Ukraine. It’s a non-defensible interest and if successful won’t stop with Ukraine.
Oh, and to use the nuclear threat as an argument to give into Russia’s demands is pathetic. If successful Russia will use that time and time again.
We 're lying all the time !!!!!!!!!
Brilliant debate, what a treat to stumble upon whilst looking for Mearsheimers more recent views on the invasion
And for what it's Worth, Radislaw is the winner of the debate hands down, just by stating the obvious..we just.dont have the option to appease anymore
@@jibbyjabs ....and add Michael McFaul's position as well
pgh, what is brilliant about that?
Wasn't Ukraine created by Russia? It was. Fact.
Is it something unfamiliar (for example to USA) to expand own territory no matter what the locals of that territory say? Give me a break.
Święte oburzenie.
Ciągle nie takie dyskusje jakie można by prowadzić. Już mnie to na początku znudziło, bo nie jest to nic, czego byle klituś-bajduś w sekcjach komentarzy nie powtarza jak katarynka. Więc jak jest dalej o czymś mądrym to niech ktoś mi poda minutę, kiedy pada pytanie o taką sytuację - Część obywateli Ukrainy nie chciała już należeć do Ukrainy dlaczego to oni są źli vs Ukraina dobra, a gdy UPA nie chciało należeć do Polski to Polska była ta zła?
W wielu krajach ludność jest mieszana. Gdyby tak nagle w USA kazali ludziom wybierać, zakazali amerykańskim Włochom mówić po włosku i zmusili do działania przeciw wszystkiemu co włoskie, a jakby ktoś nie chciał wybierać, nadal szanował swoje włoskie korzenie to byłby traktowany jak przestępca a wręcz gorzej jak przestępca? Ktoś coś? Jakieś debaty o tym?
Bo już były takie sytuacje że tak właśnie kazano ludziom wybierać, opowiadać się za jedną ze stron nawet jak człowiek był po prostu bezbronnym mieszkańcem wsi, nie mającym nic wspólnego z polityką chcącym tylko pracować i w miarę po ludzku żyć - tak było gdy nazistowskie Niemcy kazały ludziom wybierać, gdy UPA kazało ludziom wybierać. To już było i teraz się powtarza.
@@magdaty1815 by your logic rome and Greece owns all of your nation 😆 russia is going to learn the hard way why they shouldn't stand by a man who thinks he can redefine borders by massacring people. And China won't stand by, they are way too reliant on US and European trade.
@@magdaty1815 No, Ukraine was not created by Russia. Fact.
McFaul's body language tells you he was plain lying and very comfortable doing that no matter how many human lives are lost...very evil fellow
Amazing! A real life body language expert in the audience!
Świetna debata
Imagine an American diplomat talking about morality
He would know better than all of us due to experience.
@@NotMe-bz9pl pretty sure Ako was sarcastic, and rightfully so
@@ovidiudraghici9941 What makes you think I was not?
Mearsheimer: "Putin is not an Imperialist". Didn't realize this was a comedy show.
he's right though
@@vicpetrograd sorry what?
@@juancsmixThat's not an argument :)
@@vicpetrograd Who said it is? I'm just asking you to clarify. Putin is not an imperialist?? Explain.
@@juancsmix well basically I agree with Maersheimer on the fact that Putin does not want and never wanted to conquer all of Ukraine (let alone other countries). His reasons for invading Ukraine are more rational than that. So the word "imperialist" (meaning wanting to conquer other countries/territories just for the sake of domination) is not appropriate
if putin was not in power, Medvedev would be.. and hes MORE of a hawk these days
@Peter Facka Normally when authoritarian leaders first enter power they reform and seem democratic. Let’s not forget the west thought Russia was becoming liberal in Putins early days.
@Peter Facka is that from western media? Is so, azov got evacuated to Siberia. Putin is respected by othet small countries who get mess up by NATO
@Peter Facka forced to step down? Medvedev is still very much influential and in a position of power, leading the national security council
@Peter Facka he was the prime minister until 2020 😂😂
Or is the just more a hawk because that is what Putin wants? You have no idea and neither do I.
Perhaps the current US administration would be more understanding of Russia's security concerns if Russia had formed a NATO like military pact along with other countries in the Americas. The response then by the Americans, would be quite interesting (Monroe Doctrine). The Cuban Missile crisis is a case in point.
Russia do have this alliance. Check them out, they just had a meeting.
America is not Russia
@@zhoubaidinh403 No,that's why my country México won't do never an Ukraine. America would have invaded in a second
@@teddybearmonster The key difference is that this alliance does not have members in North America, in the US sphere of influence. NATO, by contrast, is right in Russia's face.
@@master1941 That's right my brotha'...you gotta' do what you gotta' do in this dog eat dog world to survive.
Chapeau bas Panie Radku!
FYI: Ukraine never "owned" the largest nuclear stockpile; those were always controlled by Moscow. East Germany and Poland had Soviet nuclear weapons at one point too, but those were also pulled out. This is like saying Turkey had to give up its nuclear weapons in 1962 when in fact those were US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey as part of NATO, and the US removed them in exchange for pulling Soviet missiles out of Cuba. Also, Crimea - which is majority ethnic Russians - was "gifted" to Ukraine by Khrushchev in a controversial gesture to the Ukrainian Soviet. Those populations and their territories will be annexed by Russia, and the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists have given Russia the perfect reasons to do so.
This is not entirely correct. As Mearsheimer pointed out in his 1993 piece, the Ukrainians were developing a native command and control system for use of those warheads, and perhaps even have the capability to use some of them at short notice.
Exactly. All of the actual know-how on how to use those weapons was with Russian members of the Soviet armed forces.
@@elliottcovert3796 So the Ukrainians had the technical means to build the missiles(they were designed and manufactured in Dnipro) but they couldnt figure out how to reprogram the launch software or how to sit in the silo control room and turn the two keys and push the two buttons simultaneously. Interesting theory....
The difference is that Ukraine was ther center of Soviet missile design, the ships produced in Ukrainian shipyards were kept, the nuclear missiles made in Ukraine and stationed in Ukraine were kept. The command and control system was indeed Moscow based, the accord was to prevent Ukraine from building their own nuclear command system and bringing those nukes online again.
Abe Aboud . As to actually who owns the nukes in Ukraine isn't relevant ,we all know that these nuke are US owned. Also, if I lived in the Donbas under constant bombing by the Ukraine for 8 years and 14,000 Donbas casualties, I'd most certainly would prefer annexation /protection by Russia.
Despite of the entertainment nature, this debate is still the more rational discour in the West. Pitty that the audience sided with the "Fight Until the Last Ukrainian" party.
It was Stalin's mistake to let nazi alive. We should dispose all Ukrainian Nazies
There is no alternative, after war crimes Ukrainians wount give anything, it might be logical from a side but to give Russia anything after starting the war with the dumbest arguments in history will mean only a couple years of ceasefire
Not long ago on "stand up for Ukraine" conference in Warsaw
a young Ukrainian refugee activist said that
they knew that the war was coming because the systems
put the economy and money above the human.
So maybe that's this "elephant in the room" and not much of an issue between democracy and autocracy in the 1st place.
(don't they have the same "elephant" on both sides)
I'd like to know a place currently existing where money is not put above the human.
What are you talking about? One fatuous bint saying something doesn't make ut true. They didn't know the way was coming. They were shockingly badly prepared, Kyivs bomb shelters were not stocked and were locked up. Zelenskiy was poorly prepped
1:36:38 Sums up the whole debate: after one minute the audience laughs at Mearsheimer's ignorance of Russia and Putin. Russia's entire history is that of an imperial great power. Sikorski is Polish and knows that very well. So do many other nationalities living around Russia, and within Russia itself - Chechnya, Tatarstan, and 19 other colonies. Mearsheimer is popular with those who have axes to grind against America, and little else.
Świetna debata. Raczej nie sympatyzuję z Radkiem Sikorskim i jego partią polityczną, ale zgadzam się z nim tutaj w 200%! Gdyby takie debaty też u nas były w Polsce... Żyło by nam się sto razy lepiej!
aż się przypomniala stara debata między Kaczyńskim a Tuskiem...byli w stanie że sobą porozmawiać na spokojnie.
Sikorski to i PiS zaliczył. Był tam szefem MON, w PO był ministrem spraw zagranicznych przez wiele lat. Jest doświadczonym politykiem.
Seems that if you talk louder people should think you are smart and that you are telling the truth. Seems like a new concept, i should try it.
It's a thing with new democracies. The same kind of people in autocracies just adjusting to new norms. It will take a while before they get to be similar to older democracies like France or England or the US.
He who shouts believes in losing the argument. 😝😝😝
He who is driven to distraction by a false argument sometimes shouts.
11:40 ... ah, except for the evidence that has come directly from Putin's own mouth...
West will never agree that it's their provocation 😂
Because it isn't.
@@objectivistathlete that's what I was saying 🤭
Great job Mr. Sikorski and Mr. McFaul for winning the debate and the Munk School of Global Affairs for organizing it.
Good debate. I didn’t want to listen to some point of views, but I am glad I got through it. I feel even perhaps. I was hoping some would mention the Donbas conflict in more detail with relation to this war.
Yes it started with an illegal Russian invasion snd occupation of Ukrainian territory and the forming of Putin puppet regimes in the occupied territories.
Yes....the Donbas conflict that began in 2014....and the killing of many Russian speaking Ukranians.
@Jon Little no.. it was igor strelkov lol.. hes not too popular in the kremlin because of it.. spetznas.. chechen war veteran.. took it into his own hands with some other veterans and started taking the territory that became the DPR and LPR.. fun fact: some of the riot police from the maidan helped with that process..
@Jon Little Most things are a matter of perspective. Some would argue that Putin provoked the conflict in 2014, perhaps Putin did. Others would argue differently that it began with the Maidan uprising when Ukrainian govt decided not to sign an agreement with EU and chose to sign with Russia. All I can do as an independent thinker...is listen to all the perspectives, which of course I expect contains propangada and hyperbole. No one is innocent...and there is no good guy in this story...that I believe.
@@50kjy How are they two different perspectives? It began with Putin telling Ukrainian president not to sign an agreement with EU and sign one with Russia instead, an exclusive one at that. Since the president was in Putin's pocket he agreed. That led to Maidan because the guy had just sold out millions of young Ukrainians' lives to Putin, and that led to the president running away to Russia. Seeing that he'd just lost his leverage, Putin invaded Crimea and Donbas and cut gas supplies to Ukraine. And how no one is innocent? Are the Ukrainians who wanted to have a chance at a decent life guilty?
No mention of the Minsk accords? No mention of Ukraine shelling the Russian speaking citizens in Donbas for the last 8 years? Still, it was an interesting debate. Especially John who is the master of foerign affairs.
Minsk accords? You mean the French/German peace treaty on Russian terms so that they could continue doing business as usual with Russia? I see you drank a ton of the russian propaganda coolaid of the donbass. How about you mention the downing of MH17 if you want to get into details?
Stop preaching russian bullshit propaganda.
You overdosed on russia today.
@Peter Facka please listen carefully to what you are saying.
You say that shelling of citizens is unacceptable, we can agree on that.
Yet shelling of peaceful ctizen has continued for 8 years in Donetsk and Luhansk. Exactly what WE are against.
There is something of a meme going around in Russia, it goes something like "where have you been those 8 years?", but this is absolutely understandable - those matters are complicated and very hard to comprehend and act against. Ukraine forces in 8 years have killed, lets assume what you say is the truth, half of what Russian forces have killed in those 3 months of basically same people(geographically). Yet somehow this is OK for Ukraine to do that, because I don't see an backlash in your message towards Ukraine goverment.
Please clear that up for me. Is there a quota for killed people to become a bloody dictator? Or can a democratically elected goverment justify killing of its own citizens? Can they do that to Crimea as well, since, from Ukraine PoV, this is still Ukraine territory and they can do whatever they please with their citizens?
@@theBaka9 there was no war in eastern Ukraine until Russia invaded and supported the separatist there. The UN report takes up wrong doings on both sides. As far as I see it Russia is to blame here. And you don’t agree. So how can it end? Apparently with one side loosing the war. How can one make agreement with a state that lies all time, Russia, and sez one thing and then do the other. You don’t agree on that either. So here we are.
Thumb up to professors John and Stephen
Bardzo dobra debata, dużo świetnych argumentów z obu stron. Warto będzie wrócić do tej rozmowy za 2 lata.
Yes
Hope the world still exists by then.
Yep
I am 50/50 at the end of it
@@jackoh5134 If world will exist, we for sure lose it after China double down on Taiwan, just a matter of time. If West would go full ham in Ukraine it would scare China but now China - US war is inevitable considering Chinese nationalism. they see that West prefers to stay out of big conflicts and will try to use it in their interests.
🟡🟡The US top rogue state in the world 🌎
U.S. policy toward Iran has been a failure too: The war in Iraq enhanced Iran’s regional influence, and ratcheting up sanctions didn’t stop Tehran from acquiring the capacity to build a nuclear weapon if it ever decides to do so. Unfortunately, Trump abandoned the 2015 deal that shrank Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile of nuclear materials and extended its “breakout time,” and his administration subsequently threatened to sanction several U.S allies (all of them members of the “free world” by the way) if they stuck to the agreement (which had also been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council). And what was the end result of this brilliant demonstration of U.S. leadership? Iran is closer than ever to building a bomb, and the Biden administration has been unable to find a way back to the original deal.
06:58 Why appease the invader. Hitler was appeased and we know how that ended.
Why repeat history?
Great debate.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
except 2022 Russia is not Nazi Germany and Putin is not Hitler. This is a WW1 situation, not WW2
Thinking that this war is about anything else than putins hunger for power is just plain wrong. It is a second Hitler.
If only security interests were as simple as just "being invaded". Imagine how few wars America would have started if that were the case.
That is a great point. Unfortunately John and Steve didn't point out this conceptual shift.
@@jackoh5134 its a typical straw man argument. The con side used a few of them in this debate.
@@jackoh5134 It's only my opinion but I lean towards Walt and Mearsheimer. The other side did seem like they put up a good argument though. But in the end to back a heavily armed nuclear power into a corner is really a very risky thing to do. Appeasing Hitler and being wrong is completely different from being wrong about Putin. There may be no second chance.
@@ronparks8875 Quite shocking how so many seem willing to March forward with this assortment of neocons from various countries; with the US leading the way. Given the debacles in the Middle East over the last three decades, you’d think people would be more skeptical of their motives.
@@ronparks8875
The bigger issue with the appeasement argument is war changed. Getting Austria and Czechoslovakia increased Germany's ability to wage war. Gaining Ukraine or all the post Soviet Republics isn't going to change the situation for Russia in a full scale war with the US. Conventional forces engage, losing side launches, nuclear exchange occurs.
It only comes up because thinking is not as valuable as labeling things double plus ungood.
Piękna debata pokazująca oba obozy
The grey haired guy arguing the con side is incredibly disingenuous. You need better moderation. The guy got away with not answering questions that were asked of him, like "what are Russia's security interests?", which the moderator asked of him.
He is a political. Escape the exactly answers - it is his main skill.
@@AZ-zo6yr more like the lack of skill of everyone around him. He should never be allowed to get away with this behavior, especially in this setting. The moderator and his interlocutors should be bringing up the fact he isn't answering questions asked of him.
Brightest minds of the world vs. Liberal politicians
John and Steve did a great job. I am very thankful for them.
McFaul admitted he'd lie when it suits him. Not sure why anyone should take him seriously after that.
When did he admitted he lied when it suits him?
Ya know who is telling more lies than anyone...is the Russian state. Who could trust them...they must be defeated kn the battlefield
@@warbler1984 Russia is winning, and there is nothing the West can do about it.
The idea that Navalny, if elected President, (or any other Russian for that matter) would accept NATO in Ukraine is absolutely bonkers.
Seriously...? No Russian? Vladimir Kara Murza? Who leads a country actually matters
And the idea that we should let Russia dictate terms is ridiculous. After the shit they've pulled in Ukraine they should definitely be in NATO. I mean everyone just ignored the Budapest memorandum
@@warbler1984 you're missing the point...Kara Murza is not even remotely electable and nor is he trying to be. That allows him to take the courageous positions he does. If he actually were trying to get elected his position on Ukraine would be untenable. Doesn't mean he isn't right but it's not realistic in terms of what the Russian people and perhaps more importantly the national security apparatus expect or would allow.
Well argued from both sides,but Stop the war! Whatever it takes.
"Peace for any price" policy of the Western Countries was the very reason why WW2 started. We cannot force the Ukrainians to yield in any way to satisfy a paranoid dictator's view of his nation's security interests. You cannot reason with someone while he is holding a gun against your head, threatening to blow your brains out.
So be first, smart one. Give Putin your own house and family as slaves. Maybe he will accept and end the war. ;-)
Rationalism vs emotionalism.
I think you meant Kremlin speaking points vs rationalism.
If the US doesn't allow Canada it's freedom the US would have a very big problem with Europe as well
The 2014 overthrow of president Yanukovych was NOT a coup, Mr. Sikorski?? By saying this, you prove that you cannot be taken seriously as a discussion partner.
Nope it wasn't
@@piotrmackowiak9636 Kolega, widzę, z tych, którym nikt nie wmówi, że czarne jest czarne.
@@paulski2960 He fled to Russia on 21 February, it was not protesters who "stormed the Rada" and kicked him out
Sikorski...All emotion, little self-control... what a drama queen 👑. Poland really has become Americanized.
imagine you are beaten by English nationalist in Scotland if you utter scottish/galeic words or put/pin/hold scottish flag. That is what happened with Hungarians living in west ukraine (who were cut from their mother country in 1920 by Treaty of Trianon). I live 50 miles form Ukraine border and we know. there is even a law, you can check, which forbids in school to use your own language in school. If you use/pin/waive Hungarian flag there you are beaten until you bleed. Same applies for Russians there. But you in the west media bubble do not hear these. The Minsk agreement was to assure these rights but Ukraine ignored it with the support of the west.
Zelensky has a multi million euro palace in Tuscana, Italy, he has had it even before he became president. Where do you think that money came from? His wealth is estimated 1,5 billion USD. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and is far from being a democracy
Russia cannot be beaten only talks give peace but USA does not want it. Even if Ukraine wins back all territories, what is guarantee Russia will not go back some months later? Nothing.
Ukraine is in ruins, the economy is bankrupted, the people fled, those who stayed are in life lasting war shock. The war does not seem to end soon. There is no winner in this.
The solution is to respect the concern of Russia and for Ukraine to respect minority rights.
The beneficiaries of the war are USA and China. USA gas 4x more expensive than Russian, makes EU/Germany uncompetitive, end of EU economy. EU/UK will crush due to incompetent leaders who think a long term stable peace and prosperity in Europe is possible without or by "beating" Russia (whatever it means) and a strong European/German economy based on cheap Russian gas scares the hell out of the USA. Prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, NATO expansion and the oppression of minorities in ukraine led to this. This is the west paying the cost of freedom. the west decided to pay the »cost of freedom«, so pin the ukrainian flag onto your shirt and enjoy the western style of living while it lasts.
Is this the best that the pro-NATO crowd could come up with? Two placeholder imperial aparatchiks with a barrage of silly, incongruent arguments. Against Mearscheimer? What a joke.
You see, the American goal is being accomplished. To destroy tyranny and promote liberty.
This is why America and the west are digging their own graves. It's a process.
Fxn yt sx
@Leo A my first thought is that the results were fixed. Not unlike Eurovision.
@Jon Little I don't think so. And that isn't quite fair or polite. John's work is the more exposed than any of them. What more, else can we expect to hear. He has made his point for years and he's older than all of them. We can't expect him to be entertaining, pleasing the crowd, he doesn't know how. He's sticking by what he teaches.
There Is No Trust ( that big problem )
BRAVO STEVE!!!!! THE SMARTEST!!!
Szczerze, może debata i jest dla Amerykanów dobra, ale dla ludzi z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej nie ma najmniejszego sensu. po 11:45 nie ma sensu tego słuchać. Skoro człowiek uważa, że Putin nie chce podbić Ukrainy, to trudno. XD Tak sobie chciał czołgami pojeździć wokół Kijowa oraz Zełeńskiego zabić dla zabawy. XDDD
tak samo pomyślałem :D
People like Mr Sirkowski ruined the dream for a truly United EU
This desperately needs to be redone.
Amazing debate!
we are living in a big bubble,name it NA and it appears to me the most of the audience think and act that we are safe for ever after. in contrast in my mind, War will come to us when we are willing to spend our money for it.
Ray Kad. "War will come to us when we are willing to spend money on it." Well, not just money but lots of money is being spent on this war to the utter exclusion of anything else. The west continues to poke the bear in every conceivable way possible and yet the bear stands. But if one day the bears decides to finally react ,everyone will feel that reaction without exception. And my sympathy will lie with the bear.
Better to be paying for the defense of a soveiregn nation than paying for the destruction of one.
@@edvsilas8281 The bear doesn't stand. It tosses around mindlessly.
@@sylwiatime Does this bear seem mindless to you? It seems to know what it's doing. The west seems mindless at this point.
@@edvsilas8281 Yes, Russia behaves in a totally mindless way and Russians are going to pay the price for decades.
I think it's almost impossible to argue against Mearsheimer and Walt-two giants of IR.
"Giants of IR" sounds like a joke compared to Sikorski, an actual Foreign Minister in command of foreign intelligence and a member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group.
@@skullmaster6888 Sikorski is a willing lapdog for US hegemony and imperialism, these muppets in the EU and NATO are going to bring us to a nuclear apocalypse
Yeah if you're from ruSSia
Jhst one question to people that laughed at the idea that Putin is not imperialist. How many countries did he conquer in his 18 years or reign? Because for example in 2008 conflict in Georgia, Russia army was basically in Tbilisi, yet Georgian state still exists today as sovereign nation.
Facts don't matter to these people, either these people are emotional idealists, or they are bots. Which is which I am not sure, but facts and reason don't matter to them, They have a narrative and we are going over a very dangerous precipice because of their inability to get their heads out of their asses.
You need to understand that there are ethnic Russians in some of these former USSR states. And so if countries like Ukraine and Georgia become pro western, these ethnic Russians feel they are being broken away from their motherland Russia, and in return start to fight for a break away. It doesn’t help if Russophobia starts running rampant in that country. That’s why Putin always says the break up of the USSR left about 24 million Russians out of the country.
Didn't the U.S. then threaten to fire missiles at Russia if they didn't back down? It was mentioned in docummentary - Putin: The New Tsar by Mikheil Saakashvili
@@loczyn lol no we did not threaten Russia with missiles over Georgia. Georgians got themselves into a bind because of their idiot president at the time and wanting to crush their separatist regions who've been in conflict with since the Soviet Union collapsed. What bush did was he told the Georgians to cut it out and that we are not coming to their aid.
also, maybe it is just a coincidence, but US was heavily involved every time in those former USSR republics before Russia had to react with force...
For a so called "realist" Mearsheimer's argument doesn't hold up to the light of reality.
Roots
Exactly. He may call himself a "realist," but really its simplistic theoretical thinking. No nuance. I can't understand why people agree with this simple and cynical thinking.
Just watched the whole debate. As a Russian inside Russia I'm strongly inclined to agree more with the opinions of Michael McFaul and Radosław Sikorski. Especially with Sikorski as he practically voiced my opinion as well on the situation. I understand the point of view of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer - their approach is reasonable but is somewhat selfish and won't bring about a lasting peace in the long run. In my opinion Russia as a nation surely needs to let go its imperial ambitions of reconquering its former territories like many powers before her did in the past, this phantom pain of a wider empire poisons its population and stuns it on the way forward to a better, more developed and prosperous future. I absolutely agree with Sikorski in that Putin has been consecutively undermining Ukraine on its path to democracy and western integration, and has resorted eventually to open invasion, all because he himself doesn't believe in democracy and sees it as a threat to his rule in Russia and to his sway over similar-minded autocrats in the former Soviet republics and spheres of influence. In his mind ordinary citizens of a country have no agency of their own and can only be 'masterminded' by foreign governments and intelligence agencies to overthrow their corrupt authorities, whom he instead could easily influence through bribes and coercion. In fact he viewed the domestic protests in Russia and the push for democratic reforms and fair elections by opposition in the same manner, that it was all orchestrated by the US. State Department and CIA. He's stuck that way in the Cold War era mentality on the brink of paranoia and out of touch with reality. But as Michael McFaul said, it doesn't mean he is genuinely concerned about NATO posing any kind of an offensive threat to Russia, he just made it up to be a threat, over time, as an excuse for his aggressive politics. That notion is needed largely for domestic consumption in order for him to stay in power for as long as possible while this 'threat' remains. So appeasing him won't work, he's only going to view it as weakness on the part of western democracies, which he would then find a way to exploit for his and his only gain which might have nothing to do with Russia's best interests. It's easier to understand when you remember that he's been in power for around 20 years, and basically none of his positive goals came to fruition, because it was impossible for the country to grow economically past a certain point with all the corruption permeating our systems of government. He could have started reforming the court system and the federal system (or at least to not further degrade them), have held fair elections and allowed the grow to continue but he chose not to, as it would've meant he could lose power through elections and would've been held accountable for his misdeeds in the office. So when McFaul says Putin used to be different I think it's because he was pretending to be a democrat, as he thought such were the rules of the game he was then playing, just like he'd pretended to be a communist before that, in the Soviet Union times, and that everyone else around him were pretending too. He payed the lip service but he honestly believed that he could find the right approaches just to the right people at the top everywhere, and that popular opinions in the countries he was negotiation with didn't matter or could at least be easily swayed to his side by those right people. So whenever he could not negotiate some 'mutually beneficial' division of spheres of influence with democratically elected leaders and got declined he took it as personal offences, like they were not treating him and his country as equal, and that's why he gradually stopped pretending. It really feels like because of all during the course of the last 20 years or so my country has once again missed an opportunity to become a country for its people, but instead it yet again remains a territory with a populace deceived and picked to the bone by its selfish ruler and his sycophants. History does indeed rhyme for Russia. And as Sikorski said a war lost for Russia could sober her up and make her look inward for a change, start making things right at last. I wish peace and all the best for independent Ukraine, its people and their state, and freedom and positive change for Russia!
What about the us
Mearsheimer was the weakest in this whole round. Tbh, I do not actually know why he is still that much invited in that round. All he does is repeatedly stating the same points, justifying them with all ways the same out-of-context arguments (e.g. Putin as he is saying acknowledges the indepence and sovereignity of Ukraine...at the same time he violated the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty by annexing Crimea)
and when asked usually turns to the audiences and tells them "what they must understand" instead of answering the particular question/topic at hand.
And ye, I also agreed the most and found Sikorski the best in the whole round. Likely because - being grown up in a Soviet ruled country - I could pretty much related to his point of views and experience.
We don't need history lessons here
@@donsong9958 All good mate? It wasn't me making stupid historical claims in the first place. Thank you, have a nice day.
Michael raise his voice trying to convince...
This was really good.
The Canada invasion talk was funny as hell.
then what are we worried about
@Peter Facka what on earth are you talking about?
@@TomorrowWeLive Allied intervention in Russian Civil War?
To make America gtreat again. Let's break there pointless borders. At least you speak the same language and use same measure system))))