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!

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

I suggest you keep a close eye on the state of Alberta in the next 20 years.

@@joao.fenix1473 The UK and US were really only allies from the late 1800s. It was really only strongly so from WWI on. And allies turn to enemies when resources are at stake. We are also talking about NOW. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, these people know each other. We don't need to invade for resources when they can be bought. None of the Eastern European countries or Ukraine are in any shape to invade, nor in the mood to. There was no reason to believe that would change.

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

Ukraine had an agreement with Russia on military bases in Sevastopol

Yes, I wrote that above. @@prolink9590

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 ?

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!

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.

😅

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".

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.

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

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.

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

Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Russia is the aggressor.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!!

"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.

sorry! Montreux (Switzerland) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits @@roddeazevedo

What's that?

Exactly. The bums always lose

"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.

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.

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?

You misspelled “lebensraum” mein gute mann.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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*.

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.

Думаю российское

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.

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

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

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 😕

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.

Can't even dig trenches in a flat marsh.

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!!

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 🤡👌🤣🤣🤣

So incredibly true. The thought that Russia is being treated unfairly is bogus. They brought this on themselves.

Right, no one just wants Russian resources, just kumbaya.

@@frenchfry5675 we can just buy russian resources for jackshit and kumbaya. No one wants to _take_ anything from them, it's just that the whole society is so incompetent and inadequate, so without merit and achievments that they need to believe there's something of value in Russia everyone envies. While there's no such thing.

totally wrong, countries are rushing to nato because Jugoslavia didn't want in nato and we saw what tha psychopathic western nations did to them, so that was setting an example and the other eastern european countries learned the lesson and lined up to join nato...

​@@frenchfry5675Those resources have been obtained through international, voluntary trade. No need for conquest.

They never even said that, the conditions on which a country can join are clearly set. Putin was fine with them joining and even considered joining himself with Russia.

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.

On the contrary I think Russia is doing a lot of harm to herself.

You need to read what NATO did in 2014

can you explain what nato did in 2014? if its that significant surely you can tell us, rather than post a cryptic message?!@@PAIP_Studio

​@@PAIP_Studio Could you please enlightening us?

ruZZia's biggest enemy in the future resides in the far east

Germany killed at least 5 million Russians. I'd say the flat terrain is a problem

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

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.

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.

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.

Moreover, the war in Ukraine showed how difficult it is to attack in the plains...

Russia is a 18th century country living in a 21st century world.

Very well put. Russia, not entirely unlike the UK, is living in the past.

If he stops repeating fallacies, he won't be able to do these videos 😆

But but but... Nordstrom sabotage. Russia doesn't want to be a puppet of Murica like that.

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.

i don't see how russia is dying. you are pulling your "facts" out of your ass, right?