This Is How Russia Can Attack NATO
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2024
- Join the VisualPolitik community and support us on Patreon: / visualpolitik
Suddenly, the relationship with #Russia has once again become red-hot. The drums of war have returned and are now beating at the highest levels in Europe. It may seem far-fetched, but the truth is that war on #NATO territory could be much closer than we all think. Do you think we're exaggerating? Well, in this video, perhaps the most important we have ever prepared at #VisualPolitik, we are going to show you why it is not so.
If you can't trust someone to defend you, defend yourself.
And that is the heart of the issue. Trump making noises that question his proclivity towards joining US partners in the event they'd be attacked in case of his reelection is enough to shake up that trust, and influence policy for everyone. A return of Trump into office just for the mere possibility of such a thing playing out would be disastrous for the whole planet, as that broken trust is not just a matter for the European allies, but everyone who has security agreements with the US.
Personally, I hope that that day will never come, and on a side note, that Trump instead of going to the oval office will be joining the general population in orange jumpsuits real soon. That leaves his sycophants and the rest of the Trump cult that used to be the responsible party in US politics, but if the orange man goes away, so will those over time. Nevertheless, the unreliability threat he put on the table will be with us all for a very long time.
Trust someone to defend you?😂🤣
Only in Hollywood fantasy. Call Terminator 🤣 "I wont be back, those are Russians, bye"
the whole scenario is ridiculous considering America defended Europe during both world wars when their was no NATO ha ha ha
@@lucemiserlohn context is key buddy. Trump said he wouldn't protect nations who do not meet their obligations to NATO. the countries along the border with Belarus and Russia all hit their 2% defense spending mark. Don't be freeloaders and take American might for granted and you have nothing to worry about.
@@lucemiserlohn you are not entitled to American lives
The Romans had a saying, “If you wish for peace, prepare for war”.
True today.
Weak Europe is a lie
And "Divide and Conquer". The US State Dept. was in Ukraine the minute the doors opened in 1990 and Ukraine - Russia relations plummeted straight to war.
How often was Rome or is the US at peace? Kind of of like we have a US Department of "Defense" that close to never defended north America, is in wars all the time, all over the world, attacks and invades countries.(hey like Rome) If you got to the US border to see the US military defending America you would have to book a flight on Alaska airlines to find the nearest US military
@@PatrickHenryggSonIt was the US president how tried to convince Ukraine to stay in the USSR
So how come Rome collapsed ?
@@PatrickHenryggSon It didn't truly until 2006. People forget that Putin was initially working with NATO. Relation plumed after he realized that Russia do not have privileged status of co-hegemon. Because that isn't actually a thing.
US never actually was at war from WW2. All what you did see were actually Special Military Operations. I suggest check in how many wars Russia was involved.
Notice how you missed out... 'if they don' t pay' cavaet that should have been included at the beginning of the video. Poland pays... Therefore the US should answer the call, right?
And will the EU? lol. Answer the call? They'd be trying to do deals, left right and centre, especially the Krouts.
yes. It's dumb countries like mine who ar enot paying because of Hippies in the government who take peace for granted. That's what Trump was criticizing.
If they dont pay 2% - notice how YOU missed that out? 😂 most NATO members dont meet his 2% target, so in effect, the video is closer than the truth to your biased version.
@@10aDowningStreet the fact that they don't pay 2% is a huge problem. Just pay if you are serious about your NATO membership.
My country isn't paying, but it seems there is always money for some woke BS
I just lost a lot of trust toards this channel because of this video. I live in Estonia and yes things are quite alarming but the kind of fact picking that the just happened here with the conveniently cut words from Trumps speech is half the problem. But hey if this version of boogeyman gets countries to wake up to the risk then fine but it's still fackt picking! I think Trump's the only leader with enough balls to look Putini in the eye anyways . Biden's kabal probably sees us just as good business for their military industrial complex - it's a machine olied with blood.
Russia can always attack NATO, winning the battle is a totally different question.
It’s not correct to say 🇫🇷 allows itself to use nuclear weapons for national defence only. The exact wording is for “national interests”, what those interests are is not defined (they call this strategic ambiguity). It could be the integrity of European territory, or just the integrity of French territory, or just the survival of Paris or whatever else.
hahahh still laughing 😄
WORLD WAR 3 CAME BECAUSE OF americonts cia, u s lead NATO ALL THIS IS EVIL... cia, pentagon, eu, satanic forces.
Mushroom clouds over Moscow will shut you up!@@jean-paulnshimiyimana764
Not like France and England don't have Nukes for themselves😂
When Trump was president, and they fired missiles at Syria, when Russian ships were on Syrian coast line, British and French submarines had failiures on launch. Considering, they have very limited nuclear potential, could they manage to inflict enough damage to Russia, before Russia devastates both UK and France? Russia has massive land where it can draw back. UK is small island. France is relatively small. Both have very dens populated areas.
@@uroskostic8570yeah because I’m sure Britain and France would give Russia plenty of time to evacuate your country is big but you only live in a small area in the west of it
@@stuatherton1459 there are also plenty of people in the East and along the southern borders with countries like Mongolia, China, and Kazakhstan though the west has the largest amount of people
@@Christ_maxxing Didn't you say they could draw back, meaning they have plenty of room to retreat? Or did you mean draw back, as in there are still people in the East?
@@oz_medias There are millions of people in the East and central Russia lol
I love how this video takes one hyperbolic statement and runs with it like it is etched in stone. It even ignores the other half of that statement which was 'if you're not paying your fair share,' and that means this entire scenario is something that NATO can opt out of by increasing defense spending.
Of course, the NATO countries closest to Russia and therefore the most likely to be attacked by it - Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, all spend more than 2% of their GDP on defence. In fact, Poland actually spends more than the US as a percentage of GDP.
But I highly doubt Trump would care. He'd just claim that they didn't pay their way and let Russia attack them.
Trump never said that. He said the USA wouldn't defend those who didn't pay their way. That means pay the 2% NATO obligation.
Why do i get the feeling there will be a sudden expansion of countries who get nukes
Sure, Ukraine is much better without them... They gave them up in exchange for protection from Russia in case something like this ever happened, I beat you no one will give up nukes, or plans to build them trusting US protection ever again. If Ukraine had them now, Russia would have never attack them.
Poland should have them IMHO
@@pepik121 Poland is actually need it for deterrence
I’ve been thinking this ever since the UK and US screwed over Ukraine by breaking the promise to defend Ukraine in the event of an invasion in return for Ukraine handing their nuclear arsenal back over to Russia. This was the deal of the Budapest memorandum of December 5th, 1994. 19.5 years later, Russia took Crimea and half the Donbas, including the powerhouse of Ukraine; Donets’k City. If Ukraine still had those nukes, Russia wouldn’t have risked it. If the UK and US kept that promise, Russia would have backed off quickly. Instead, each country proved what they were willing to do and since Russia learned they could take on Ukraine unimpeded by others, Putin decided he’d take the entire Donbas, hoping then to go as far as Odesa from which he could also collect Transnistria from Moldova. This would mean that Ukraine could be landlocked and any grain they wished to ship would have to go via Russia. On top of that, the largest lithium ore deposit of all Europe happens to be in the Donbas region, and with the need for it expanding exponentially, Russia would cash in on this rather quickly, even if sanctions were put in place. Those sanctions are ignored when it comes to oil, with India buying Russian crude oil, refining it and selling it on to half of Europe.
because you believe in all the ufo stuff
"Today`s video is brought to you by Klaus Schwab and the WEF"
exactly what a nonsense video unbelievable. this is worse than mainstream media.
About right 👍
Where it is stated so?
Nailed it
This is a propaganda video for the Left to have another craze and meltdowns.
You seems to downplay that France and UK has nuklear weapons too. This is the main reason thats prevents Putin from use nuklear weapons. France and UK may not have the same amount of arms but enough to hit Russia severly. Most of NATO countries in Europe are members of EU. So France could extend the "self defence" to cover this. UK could do the same with the argument that Russias expansion also threatens UK. But Your points are relevant and Russia and Putin must be made clear EU will respond collectively. Annother point to consider are the actual state of the Russian army just now. Russia can not handle an extension of the war. Russian production can not supply enough at the moment. They have to use tanks and arms from the 50ties and 60ties just now. The airforce are having problems with the Ukrainians just now so handling a collective EU airforce is out of the question. The navy in the Baltic can be contained by mines. Kaliningrad be cut off from sea and land. Even Belarus could be pressured to declare neutrality allthough Russia has a major presence. The use of "little green men" as on Crimea will not work because they can only come from Russia. So the main point for EU is to make it plain and simple clear for Russia that even if US are out of the picture this will not change much. A Russian attack will only deplete its forces in Ukraine because trained men and material will have to be diverted and the front will be expandet from 1000 km to additional 3000 km.
EU are just now ramping up and will catch up with Russia within 2024 on ammunition. EU collectively outperforms Russia on every stage. Most importantly because Russia has no unemployment. Meaning that every draftet man leaves a productionline and this can not be replaced. And Russia are on war-economy allready so there are no way to change the situation. EU does not have that problem. We can just expand producktion from normal daytime to 24-7. And most EU countries has some sort of defence arms industry. We have the workforce, moneys and capacity.
That's also not what Trump actually said during that speech. He said that he wouldn't defend those that aren't meeting their 2% defense commitment.
That's true but most NATO members aren't meeting the 2% commitment so most of Europe would still be in trouble
Yes and Canada is one of them so is the US gonna stand by if say China or Russia decides they'd like some real estate on the US border.
@@macroxela Actually, most of Europe after the Ukraine invasion have boosted defense spending tremendously! Poland more than anyone else. There are only a handful that aren't at this point and a couple of them are considered to be special cases. All in all, I absolutely don't agree with Trump's stance on it and I believe that's a dangerous precedent after all that's happened, but he's still being misrepresented on the matter.
@@jakewebster5084 yes and no. Yes, Europe did massively increase its defense spending after the Ukraine invasion. But no, more than a handful spend less than 2%. NATO said so itself on their annual report. 2024 is the first year that most countries will spend at least 2%. But I agree that Trump set a dangerous precedent.
@macroxela Well maybe most US taxpayers are getting tired of footing the bill for the world. 2% is not asking for much as far as I am concerned. I also believe I read recently that some of the smaller countries closer to Russia have increased there budget well above 2% just to show there not just around to be protected.
"no nuclear umbrella without the US"?
what about france amd the UK?
he answered that question, watch the video.
Watch the whole video champ
@@DacianRider i did comment too soon, but he is actually wrong on the french position on the use of nuclear weapons
@@namenloss730 how so? pls. elaborate.
@@DacianRider french nuclear doctrine is more ope ended then what he lets on
There's no country next to Russia that doesn't spend 2% GDP on defence who is in Nato. 😂😅😂
They all do it but Trump wont care.
I wonder why Putin doesn't want Trump to win, then 🤔
@@PeckhamHall Because according to Putin, Biden is "more predictable". Imagine someone like Putin calling you unpredictable.
Allowing dictators to do what they want didn't end well for the US in 1941, and most historians believe Hitler (& Japan) would eventually have North America in their sights had they secured Europe. I guess ignoring history is one strategy :P
@@PeckhamHall😂 oh?! That's a complete irony in order to confuse people, the truth is they're really trumpootin 😂
The main obstacle to Europe defending itself is ironically the decades of U.S. protection. Ever since the end of World War II Europe has been coddled and become used to the idea of their American "Big Brother" always standing guard, ready to do "violence on their behalf", to quote the saying. Three generations of Europeans have now grown up to and gotten used to this idea. This has resulted in European government building lavish welfare states requiring generous taxpayer funding, which was made possible in part because Europeans never had to tax fund their own defense. Having to now contemplate building their own armies with their own super weapons is a very difficult concept for many Europeans to swallow as that would require 1) raising enormous amounts of tax money to fund it, and 2) a complete 180 degree turn around from their current mentality, and this might prove to be the most difficult part of all. Having lived as an expat in Europe for the past 25 years, I can tell you that there are only two things foremost on the minds of most Europeans: their next holiday (usually to Greece or Spain) and their lavishly paid retirement (usually at age 60 or so) - NOTHING else matters! No European, especially no WESTERN European, has had to think about implementing and funding an effective military fighting force since the 1940's, all thanks to the United States. So this will be a pretty hard sell requiring a complete revolution in European thinking. Personally, I don't see it happening.
Yes and America wanted that dependence. It left them with the power to do what they want unchallenged. The 2 world wars actually made America into the World Suoer power and it was happy to keep the role to themselves.
Yes to all the above!
Very true, great comment.
hmmmm yes and not, Poland is heavy militarized, so Finland and Sweden, and, I didn't know and personally I am not sure to agree with that but even Italy is getting a big army.
@@virupakshawalla5734this is the paradox of power a dominant controlling influence yet scroungers and filchers freeloading and less power when confronted by a powerful foe
Nato should do nothing to stop Russia going what they want. 😊😊😊
- Are those wor drums?
- Nah man. They're theirs.
😊
What prevents, say Poland or other European countries, from developing nuclear weapons. Any US withdrawal from Europe will only contribute to nuclear proliferation.
time
Why, when they can just pressure the US to defend them :)
@@davidorellana777123 please explain HOW can a small country to pressure US ? I m all ears.
France and UK both have their own nuclear weapons.
Correct. There have likely been planners thinking about this for a while. If such technologically advanced countries as Pakistan and North Korea have them then I'm sure Europe could get them if they want. Same with South Korea and Japan.
Before you say stupid things about Russia using nukes, read about their nuclear doctrine of 2014.
I like how you're not adding the fact that there is missing context... He said that in the case of if you're not paying your 2% That's the equivalent of buying life insurance that you have to pay $500 for but you're only paying $100 and you still want the full payout.
Great observation and analogy.
Yeah, but there’s a missing detail to that. The United States have always had all the power in NATO. So that’s why most the countries in the past didn’t pay the full 2% because United States made all the decisions. You don’t realize that if you did all pay the 2% was they’re doing now. It changes the dynamic, which is probably better because now the countries have more equal say or at least should, if they’re all paying. So it’s not as simple as just saying they’re not paying. Even though now they are and many are above 2%.
Yes but context... He has a point about esp Germany but Trump actually dislikes liberal democracy and Europeans. He really has no idea of geopolitical reality (read ome books from folk who worked for him) and he simplifies to a ridiculous level. Germany and EU spent a fortune trying to integrate Eastern Europe to create stability (not saying they got it right btw). USA spends a fortune on military to projet its power and influence all over the world. That kind of public statement is aimed at his base and Putin. You tell Nati country behind closed doors. Trump is responsible for Gazza and Ukraine in large part from his policies in power. (He stopped nuclear war with NKorea though lol . Kim made more progress in his ke program under Trump than with anyone else as President)
@@serge-partykingtech5923the amount of copium you Europeans spew is hilarious
your miss quoting him, he said if they dont meet the 2% target.
He also said he'd stop support for Ukraine.
Equally disastrous for Ukraine in the short term, for EU and US in the middle term and the world, ruSSia included, in the long run. Trump as President means at best 4 uncertain years and at worst, the beginning of the end. I hope for responsible US voters.
@@patrickclaessen8114can you send me that link? All I can find is him boasting about being able to end the war quickly.
Well it's not true. Poland spends like 4 which is more than the USA. Also Europe is budgeting tons of military spending right now.
The way Trump talks about meeting allied requirements is pointless when he is saying Putin can do as he wishes. He is violating pretty much every aspect of the alliance while complaining about this and ignoring people who offer solutions.
Exactly. Dude taking things out of context to fit his narratives.
@@patrickclaessen8114 4 wars started under the democrats, and one of them is with their own state. Yes, let's hope people make a responsible vote.....
If Russia are too scared to use nuclear weapons to recapture their “own” territory in Ukraine (at least according to Russian law), what makes you think they will not be afraid to use nuclear weapons against an actual NATO member???
There own territory in Ukraine!!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂
Russia views Ukraine as territory and family they don't have the same sentimental feelings towards the rest of Europe
@@Rena-ol7dnпредставь себе , что да! Укру создали коммунисты за счёт территорий России.. можешь дальше ржать ...😂
0:29 this sounds like an intro of a War movie holy shit
Why talk abt WAR when.PEACE should be the focus
The phrasing of the French nuclear doctrine leaves the door very much open to the possibility of a first strike in the case of a "direct threat to the national interest". One could argue that an invasion of any EU member's territory by Russia would qualify as a direct threat to the national interest.
Some would argue that threatening to 'use' your nuclear weapons as an instrument in either posturing or negotiations is using the existence of them as a political instrument; and hence, that already constitutes 'use'. Now, no member of the nuclear club has a 'no first strike' policy, only a 'no first use' policy, if even that - so, in this scenario, and this line of thinking, Putin just threatening shooting his nuclear weapons already is 'first use' on his part, and thus, he'd be fair game.
Who cares about rules? We got deep bunkers with plenty stock. Keep talking until the flash appears.
@@dmitrychernivetsky5876 Pulling the big stick out in public and telling everyone that you are insane enough to put it to use is making threats. During the Cold War, no such threats have been made, it was the simple understanding on both sides that the arsenal existed to make that happen. The Cuba crisis was a moment when something akin to that happened, even though even then nobody really said it out loud. Putin is on the other hand every other day on TV telling everyone that he can use nukes. That is actively making threats. See the difference?
@@lucemiserlohnso where does the non-nuclear but equally destructive Sarmat fit into all of this? The kinetic warheads which can't be stopped by any missile would still devastate any city, like a falling asteroid would.
Using nukes first is a direct threat to your own national interest.
One thing: when someone attacks, and when one is attacked. In fact, they are two separate things.
Ukraine signed away it's security during the Budapest memorandum
This lesson is loud and clear
It seems to me that the quality of the channel has been declining lately.
The question of who sends troops to help Estionia is strange.
If he attacks Estonia, he will automatically fight against NATO countries, as he has to fight the EFP Battlegroup Estonia, which is stationed there.
Leadership from Great Britain, other troops are provided primarily by France and Denmark.
All countries there have NATO Battlegroups there.
Russia by taking the side of Syria in Syrian war and now by attacking Ukraine has proved that the world is not at all unipolar.
How do u know if there is a syrian side?
@@puraLusa just admit that you don't know what you are talking about President Bashar al-Assad has been an ally of Russia for a long time now.
@@jaopeke sure, how does that relate to the topic syrian side?
Fun fact: the aligience is older and comes from the soviet union, baath party is pro-societ socialist.
good.
As an Estonian I must add some context. Firstly, we have regular troops and a reserve army up to 45 000 men. It depends of the time given with which we can mobilize. Our territorial defense is organized by Kaitseliit (the Defense League), whose units in Eastern Estonia with the NATO troops would be the first to take on the Russian units. Secondly, this is also geographically important. There's the wide Narva river separating Estonia from Russia. It is where the Russian-Estonian border runs. Russian troops wouldn't just come on land and ride in if there is a big geographical barrier. It would be wiser for them to attack from Southern Estonia and not from the Eastern part. The Estonian scenario here is very much based on the notion that most of the Eastern Estonia is Russian-speaking but militarily it isn't THE place to attack Estonia.
It is not wise for Russia to attack Estonia, not from any direction, Estonia is not alone.
Why would Russia even enter the territory of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania? It is enough to establish an economic blockade and not get dirty about the Baltic shit
This guy's video has lots of inherent problems to do with limited research.
45 000 men is nothing! Russia would eat 45 000 in just over a month or less. It's better to have good relations with your neighbors then to talk tough with them. You talk tough with your neighbor, eventually they will fight you. Do you think Russia worries about little Estonia at all? They think the Baltic nations are a joke hardly worth even mentioning. 😂
Russia would know everything about losing 45 000, they always lose the most in every war.@@darthoblivion2615
As a veteran of the Estonian Defense Forces, I see a lot of omitted facts and realism with the scenarios stated in this video.
First off, Estonia by itself can call up over 200.000 Defenders if necessary.
We are not alone. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are ready to assist us if needed.
The unjustified sinister aggression by the Neo Soviet Russian gangster regime, against the Ukraine proves that the once believed mighty Russian military is not the invincible force as it was erroneously thought to be.
Should Neo Soviet Russia aggress Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, the fight will eventually be taken to Russia, and Russia will lose.
Europe has to grow up sometime
Do you think Finland would just watch Estonia being invaded by russia...
😂😂😂yes.
it depends on what other partners would do. Knowing Polish determination and bravery Poles wouldn't. Hopefully others will follow.
Yes
@@Spacchio No. Finland wont be watching as it will be hiding under the bed in fright.
As a finnish sitizen and military reservist officer I know that the answer is simple: Yes, finnish people would help our estonian friends. Sweden, Norway and Denmark would join us too.
Anyone gonna tell this guy that the US isnt the only Nato member with nukes?
Well watch whole video. Obviously also FR and UK has nukes, but they cant legaly use them unles mainland of them is atacked.
Maybe watch the video again. 10.00 mark
bro defo didn't watch the video
He’s aware.
Besides, the US arsenal is the only one large & versatile enough to feasibly perform a sizable & adequate second strike. The UK & France aren’t pulling that off with their small arsenals.
@@GulbisGuntarswell that sounds like they're just as liable then...
All this could happen, or Europe could, you know, pony up the defense budgets they've been dragging on for decades. They have instead prioritized early retirement for the elderly and lavish social programs, maybe they could use those to stop the Russians.
I was in West Germany during the Cold War in the 80’s. We had “Special Munitions” buried all along the Fulda gap. Worked pretty well back then, time to revisit that concept. The U.S. also has about 200 nukes, assigned to NATO Countries under the nuclear sharing agreement. Just add the Baltic states to that list and Poland.
💖💖💖💖💖
Exactly, well said 👏👏
It's no Sue-vaooky, it's Suwalki, like souv-alky
Ha. I wondered where the hell he was talking about.
Dude, I promise you we've been looking it up and we thought it was said that way because in Polish the character "ł" sounds like "oo" - or so we thought. Josh is going to kill us, haha! What does the correct form look like, like a normal "l"?
- Alberto R.
Just watch the videos on how they pronounce Japanese words…😣
Hahah, you're alright, polish phonetics are a minefield! @VisualPolitikEN
It's obviously souvlaki
That isn't what he ment
No negotiations ever.
"Sooo waaaa ook khii coridor"
😂😂😂 most terrifying part of the video.
That is the full context:
Trump took his criticism to a new level at a campaign rally on Saturday in Conway, South Carolina, when he recounted what he said was a conversation with the "president of a big country".
"Well sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia - will you protect us?" Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying.
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said: 'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay," Trump said.
But we want to ditch America!
America is Evil!
Yeah he didn't include it, but then again its a propaganda video
Thanks, they dropped the ball big time on this video. I couldn’t watch it because it was hooked on this out of context quip from trump.
Trump is in Putin's pocket anyways he is just looking for an excuse to help his buddy
Even with that context, advocating for encouraging Russia if the ally doesn't pay seems to suggest a willingness to prioritize Russian cooperation over the alliance, potentially causing strain. This suggests a pro-Russian stance, possibly aimed at undermining the alliance through unkind remarks.
What I term ‘peace dividend’ complacency and apathy. This is Europe’s new reality. Time will tell what Europeans remember and what they are made of.
Maybe, hindsight is 20/20. However, in no part that was not just enabled, but actively sought out by US policy.
NATO's inofficial reason to exist even after 1991 was
a) to keep the Russians out
b) to keep the US in
c) to keep the Germans down
There was and is a keen interest in the US to have Europe not _too_ independent from the US.
@@lucemiserlohnfinally someone says it!
@@lucemiserlohn May I politely reply.
I don’t believe it was ever to keep Ryssä out. Witness Europe’s long term relationship in trade, import and export, banking, and energy security. Rather it was created as a security against hostile aggression. No country was singled out by name, Ryssä added that component through its actions.
…to keep the US in, of course. US heritage is historically, genetically, and socially bound to Europe. Mutually best partnership through a timeline.
…point 3, that’s controversial and it’s best left to individual nations to respond. Personally Americans would never accept European dependency on the US citizens.
Thanks for the conversation and hope to work together.
@@lucemiserlohn The problem is that Trump fallow equally delusional worldview as Putin, shaped by same propaganda. Europe is already independent from US. But silent alliance between two superpowers was source of they hegemony. US was the bad cop, Europe was the girl cop. Axis of Evil want attack US not the Europe. Russia is fully aware that they can't conquer Europe, but US expeditionary forces are ironically limited to two fronts top (if even that as they switch to COIN). And there is five of more fronts what can be strike at the same time! But China do not want Europe to be involved. So Comrade Trump must leave NATO first.
@@thomassecurename3152 That saying is from time when Soviet Union was a thing. In fact Germany join NATO quite fast, so that removed them out of picture. While Europe could have hard time ageist entire USSR. But now entire Warsaw Pact is in NATO, while Russia kept at best 1/4 of the power original power (mostly the least competent one and nukes). Europe did try pacify Russia and kick out US (French and Germans didn't want them mangling in they affairs). But that obviously didn't work. Russians are psychos and Americans until now know that they can't lost Europe to China. But then Trump happen!
Europe w/ nose in the air:
“America is the only civilized country without public healthcare.”
Also Europeans:
“We can’t afford to fund our own defense, the American middle class needs to buy us bombs!!”
05:08 the what now? The "Suwa Uki' corridor? 🤣 Dear lord.
It wouldn't take five or ten years to switch to a war footing. Russia did it in less than 2 years after the failed invasion of Ukraine. The US did it in about 4 years before and after Pearl Harbor. If it takes that long, you aren't switching to a war footing - you are balancing foreign and domestic concerns.
failed invasion in ukraine?... are you living in dream land ...
@@sunilsilva8204 I'm not saying it failed completely, but it didn't take Kiev or Khariv, and it didn't hold Kherson. Compared to say the Georgian war or the 2nd Chechen it wasn't successful. The war might still succeed, but the invasion didn't.
@@sunilsilva8204 Failed, absolutely. After initial gains, which by themselves stayed way behind expectations, they lost a lot of newly gained territory pretty quickly and for more than a year have been stuck in the same place. How else would you define failure?
Completely agree
@@lucemiserlohn please wake up from deep slumber. Ukrain is the victim of NATO and the US deep state. All US and NATO is eying is the energy resources from Russia. They just want to tap into it and be rich. You can't fool the world continuosly.
Every Russian is free.... to fall out of that window.
Free falling?
So much animosity..
That's gotta be better than spending 175 years in Jail
Like Julian Assange
Thats loser talk. Thanks for confirming😂
Good comment
Little Boys cannot predict the decision of a Leader.
Russia doesn’t have enough troops. Especially willing troops. Russia cannot afford a large scale welfare and would also be incapable of waging such a war. It would be devastating for them.
The video is about 180 degrees from the meaning of the Trump quote. Trump was actually bluntly telling the Europeans exactly what this video said in 20 minutes: you need to build real militaries with real budgets and not on-paper armies like in Germany. This video said it in 20 minutes; Trump managed to say it in a couple of sentences. In the end both are right. Europe needs to be able to at least defend itself until the Americans arrive. Currently many European countries can't even do that. If Europeans had listened to Trump when he first discussed this issue as president (2017?), and not in 2022, they would have already been able to counter Russia and help Ukraine. Unfortunately, many Europeans take Trump for some kind of idiot who doesn't understand what he's talking about. Turns out, he knew, and Europeans are the ones who are confused.
I'm calling it now. If Putin attacks any country he will not help, even if they country easily exceeds 2% on military spending. He will come up with some other excuse. He is an isolationist, and compromised by the Russians.
Jeeeezuz. Trump (grade A a***ole that he his) has the same attitude to NATO as he does to accessible healthcare for his countrymen, to whit "Why should I have to pay for someone who can't pay themselves ". It's the truth and you know it. Only when he (and/or his bank account) is personally threatened will he act.🙄
Who needs you anyway? No one invited you to interfere in someone else's CIVIL WAR. Don't you have any problems of your own?
@@evgeniya7853 Ehm, who is "you"?
And still I take Trump for some kind of Idiot ( to say it in your words)
It'd be pretty damn hard for Russia to do this with its current capabilities.
They would get wiped out and they know this
@@user-pj5tl5gf6lhow? If 0.5mil of russian troops cross the Estonian border would NATO wipe out a few towns/cities in Estonia? I don’t think so.
@user-pj5tl5gf6l 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That will be the end of the NATO member countries.
@@siyakamomoh5947 how so
@@nestor.koylyak where is my reply putin boy
1:51
He said this in reference to countries not paying their nato membership
He said asked “Would you still defend Europe if they don’t pay their nato membership fee?”
I can't find your video about Iraq in 2003. Or Syria. Why is that?
This faulty information.
It’s not.
Russia won't attack NATO. Putin isn't a fool. He knows as much as NATO know that a ear between them would be nuclear otherwise NATO leaders wouldn't hesitate for a moment to send soldiers.
But this war climate is doing wonders for the war industry and all business is good business when it comes down to it.
If putin attacke the suwolki gap i can see Trump saying "we dont want WW3 over a tiny piece of land, let them have it"
@@ub3rfr3nzy94 what is that btw?
@@GothPaoki It is a little piece of land between Poland and Lithuania.
@@GothPaoki Russia is seperated from its exclave Kalinningrad by a stretch of border between Poland and Lithuania. It's mostly empty, and some millitary analysts think Russia might do a fast invason to link the two sides before NATO can react. This is because Russia used to have a deal with Lithuania to use trains to access it by land, but since the invasion of Ukraine ths access has been cut off.
As I said, it is a small unimportant piece of land, but it would, if taken by Russia completely isolate the Baltic states who are too weak to defend from a Russian invasion. Poland would trigger article 5, but some are doubtful a Trump lead government would respond to it. This would leave only the EU to defend Poland, and most of the EU is not ready for a war. The EU definitely would win in the long run, with an economy comparable to the USA and a much larger population.
I hear germany has asked for tenders to buy broom handles.
5:44 wrong France has Nukes 😂😂😂
You are forgetting the ever so popular heat seeking Missiles of love 🤪
‘The nuclear umbrella disappears’….uh, France? The UK?
1. They won't use then if not attacked directly.
2. Means of delivery. For example USA nukes in Europe can only be delivered by gravity, dropping from planes like Hiroshima.
3. Lack of scalability. You should have many small nukes to play chicken game, an eye for an eye, small town for small town.
UK nuclear weapons are a joke we have failed both tests carried out in the last 10 years
@@hshshejejdu971 1. Who said that the USA would only respond to a conventional Russian attack with nuclear weapons?
2. I am not sure what the means of delivery, etc has to do with anything.
3. The USA only has around 100 small ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons as opposed to Russia’s 1,000. If anything, France has the more flexible response capability. See ‘Perun’ s’ breakdown of French nuclear doctrine.
@@normm1619 2. It has everything to do. ICBMS have ballistic path at the end so that they can be destroyed by another missile. Only low flying preferably hypersonic missile is guaranteed to reach the target. The nukes dropped by airplanes are easy to destroy.
@@normm1619 1. Do you really believe that USA France or UK will risk nuclear retaliation over Estonia or Suwałki Gap?
Itsbetter to be ready and not do anything than to not be ready and having to do it all at once to get ready
I think the most important for us is to focus on our values as free people. Putin wants to diminish those values. Being the kind of change you want to see in the world while also being respectful and considerate. We need to stop undermining our own values and allowing others to do the same.
It boils down to hybrid warfare and nukes. And nothing else. With conventional forces they wouldn't even make it through Poland.
I am sure you are one of those doofus that thought Ukraine was winning just 2 years ago 😂😂
When this war finally comes, I hope some of you live to see the end to tell whether Russia made it through the conventional war or not.
@@henryjoe4477Do you really think Russia is winning now? Taking 1 year and over 30k casualties to take a city of 11 square miles is barely winning IMO. I think if Russia was to truly "win" this war, they wouldve taken over the entire country by now, a goal they had hoped to achieve in at most weeks.
@@henryjoe4477 Never mix crack with copium may friend. Russia is a fucking joke. Sure Ukraine will almost certainly loose land in the end but even if Russia gets the entire Ukraine tomorrow they are still a joke. 2 years and what did the "second best army in the world" achieve against Ukraine partially armed with mostly outdated NATO surplus weapons? Humiliation. All they have is those nukes. And I doubt that half of them work...
@@v3v3rca
🤣🤣😂
Himas, snow shadow, and all the different weapons as well as intelligence supplied to Ukraine are outdated. When you have kids who have never experienced or been told what a war is like, you get statements like yours. On the other hand, I suppose Russia was out to get Ukraine with over 20K soldiers on the 27th of Feb 2022. Ah! They(sure no evidence for that) claimed to win the war in 3 days.
Like I said, NATO is free to rush in like they did in Libya and even Iraq. Not sure what they are scared of like Macron asked. Russia is just a petrol station. So very easy peasy for the almighty NATO to win the fight against Russia in 3 days(you know the estimated timeline Russia was given to win Ukraine by the West).
@@Alexander-zt9kz
You need to drop your video game kiddo. This is Russia against NATO. Ukraine is just the battle field. If you are just noticing that now, I don't know how to help your ignorance.
So how is it us not honoring NATO commitments when he literally said that the europeans are the ones not paying bills
That is not true. There is no bills or fees to be part of NATO. The alliance members just agreed between themselves to try to invest 2% of their GDP to make alliance stronger. A lot have, some still haven’t achieved that goal. But again, nobody owes money to the USA or the alliance. trump is continually lying to help his russian friend who will in return try to help him win his election. Prigojin had publicly admitted russian involvement in American politics. America is being sold to russians. Shame on republicans for allowing that
NATO without the US is without nukes? That is ridiculous to say, since Britain and France have nukes on submarines!!
@@guyfawkesuThe1Just wanna point out that no one plays the whole clip hes referring to about trump saying he wouldnt back nato. They only play that one clip. then they proceed to tell you what else he said. Like, if its that bad, wouldnt you wanna play the whole clip? all he wants is the rest of nato to pay their 2%. which is beginning to happen so...
There are no bills or fees to pay to be part of NATO. Trump is just so full of it. Members agreed to try to achieve 2% of their GDP in military investment. A lot have achieved that goal, others almost, that is all. Not a rule, just a given objective. trump helping out his russian friend who in return will help him with trying to get him reelected. Reagan would be so ashamed of trump and the current Republican Party. It needs to be fixed
Commitments have nothing to do with money. They have to do with trust. The less the world can trust the US, the more it will turn to other superpowers for support. China and russia applauding Trump at this moment for isolating itself instead of being the leader of all. He is playing dangerous games at a critical moment in history. Our enemies gave De-united the United States of America with the help of the orange collaborator 😞😞
You are not honest: Stalin was Georgian, Khrushchev was, surprise, Ukrainian.
You finally got around to mentioning the nuc's.
Start paying your share. 2 percent. / country.
Honestly no country should depend on another for its defense. Treaties are good alliances are good but every country should strive to do the best it can on its own.
yes, but let me remind you ww2 was won by alliance of countries, not one country. When you deal wish blood thirsty maniac that makes a lot of effort to make huge war, the alliance is always a way to stop the bloodshed . You cant stop a dictator like hitler or putin by negotiating. Only defeat is a way for peace.
@@user-tq5ry6zl6w войну развязал не Путин. И думаю ты об этом знаешь. Но... как говорится : " Держи вора!!" громче всех кричит сам вор.
@@user-tq5ry6zl6w Don't fart while chanting slogans
There are so many holes in this hypothetical scenario that I can see trough it!
They could try; but they would get blitzed.
NATO could try they would get blitzed
France and the UK also have nuclear triad..
We talk about that too :)
- Alberto R.
There nukes don’t work
Of a mere few hundred warheads
Yes, but they require a direct threat to their countries to use them. Its in their constitution.
The uk 🇬🇧 lol please😂
This is hardly the most important video VisualPolitik has produced as its absurd and the premise is idiotic. The USA is always going to protect and participate in European friends regardless of whether or not Trump were to be re-elected. Enough of your nonsense in an attempt to get more clicks.
Watch what Russians are being fed every evening on state TV and you realize that war with NATO is almost a given at some point.
And Russia has a für chance of winning back the Baltics or parts thereof and then negotiate a truce and show the world that NATO is falling apart.
Putin would go down in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time. Why would he bot do that if it is now well within reach? And why world he prepare his people for it via state run media like he does?
This seems perfectly logical.
Will and competency. They will waste money and time all together. European bureaucracy is not capable to function in military times.
You're not being honest about the Trump-quote. It was not about all European Nato-members, only the ones that didn't fulfill the Nato recommendation of spending 2 % of their budget on their defenses. Which while crude, is understandable. If you want Nato protection, you should pay your part.
Hi Palpatine, thanks for taking the time to reply. There is nothing taken out of context, Trump once again brought NATO article 5 into play. That is the context. We have already discussed in previous videos that the 2% target neither creates bills to be paid (as Trump constantly repeats) nor is it a reliable measure in itself (there are militaries like the Greek one that greatly inflate defence spending with pension payments, for example).
- Alberto R.
@@VisualPolitikEN But with respect, that's a pivot away from what @palpatine84 is saying. The utility of the 2% target isn't the point. The point is that Trump didn't say that he'd abandon anyone, it's that he was saying that by not spending enough on defence; these countries are asking to be attacked. No, it wasn't diplomatic, but nor was it a call to arms for Russia to invade them and a tacit agreement that the USA would not intervene.
"No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want".
- Alberto R.
@@VisualPolitikENit was stupid for Trump to say that, but he is right about spending in some European countries. They need to spend that 2% on military supplies that matter in fighting a conventional force, and not just relying on the U.S.
@@VisualPolitikEN this has you people scared, doesn't it? The idea that America will take it's toys and go play with the new kids on the block over there in Asia??
as a tax paying american, I and many other americans feel our resources and our attention should be focused on actual friends and allies like South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, not the frenemies of europe.
A lot of wrong premises. The way that the war is running now, and the fact that USA/NATO countries are enraged because they are losing in Ukraine (Macron is at the top of rage because it is also losing in Africa), will make them, irresponsibly, advance to Ukraine. And once a conventional war is not favorable for Russia, nuclear war will be the following step. And forget the bombing of 3 cities that will lead to negotiations. The first nuclear bomb launched by one of the sides, will trigger the global nuclear war and the destruction of humanity.
Also the Baltic scenario seems totally unrealistic.
It seems you are adding wood to fire
You actually think any country would be willing to lose their capital or cities because Ukraine got nuked? There would be uproar and threats of confrontation but MAD doesn't make sense unless said country is actually nuked.
@@BakedMorty было бы здорово не пытаться проверять, что именно приведёт к ядерной войне.
"And once a conventional war is not favorable for Russia, nuclear war will be the following step"
Which is going to be even less favorable... Nuclear weapons are only useful as deterence, they are useless when it comes to win a war, you can only use them to force your enemy to lose, but you youself have still lost.
@@shadowpaladin8412 You should look into the Massive bunker structures that Russia has, they also run drills on their population in the cities where everyone has to get to a underground bunker complex, Understand that Russia see's a global nuclear holocaust as winnable, whether they are correct or not, they believe it.
I dont mean to burst the bubble, but would the USA itself risk a nuclear exchange with Russia? All the whataboutism about the nuclear umbrella makes 0 sense because no sane person wants to be nuked. Ultimately only a mad man would push the nuclear button. I highly doubt Russia would use nukes unless anyone else uses them against Russia or russian operations, and if Russia does use them its pretty clear that there are only 2 options: if its a small scale let it slide and go on with life, if it comes to large scale nuclear launches go on and retailate to defend whoever it is you want to defend and initiate the mutually assured destruction procedure. Everyone dies and thats it, really the choice is simple if it comes to it, no in between.
Come on, asteroid...come on, asteroid...come on, asteroid...
Where did you get your numbers from? Estonia has currently 43000 strong division plus integrated British battlegroup. 20% of its population has been militarily trained and is in national reserve pool.
Are the 22% of the population who are ethnic Russians militarily trained
@@JesterEric Only trained if they have Estonian citizenship.
Actually, I believe what he said was he will not defend whichever nation that has not pay their NATO fee or something like that. He did not say he will COMPLETELY give up on NATO
NATO contributions are voluntary. There is NO set fee. Just a recommendation that nato countries spend 2% of their gdp on their own defence.
@@TonyM540 Whether or not they are voluntary is completely irrelevant. Look at percentage of military spending for the US... 3.5% and 39% of all global military spending. Now look at almost any EU country and see that almost none of them are even above the 2% "suggestion". This is a point of pulling your own weight for the greater good. The EU is too reliant on the US and has become complacent. The comment by Trump was to try to highlight this.
@lowpolygon. And if you believe that, I have a card game you just CAN'T lose at🙄
Thanks for delineating what Trump actually said. This post is living proof that we have to defeat Biden, Hollywood and the MSM. It will be a tough job!
There is NO NATO fee. Trump just proved how little he knows about NATO.
Poland learned the lesson.
Brilliant analysis..❤this Chanel
gosh .. what crazy stuff where peace could be so easy
With Sweden and Finland in NATO the Baltics can easily be reinforced .
Plus the UK and France still hold independent nuclear forces enough to raise Moscow and StPetersberg to the ground
Did you mean "Raze" to the ground ??
Or "Raise" to the sky ??
They will not use it..
It isn’t a video game 😂
You are taking Trumps comments out of context. He said if NATO continues to not pay their agreed part of costs, then; ,,,
0:40 Ursula the Warmonger 😂😂😂
He said he won't support NATO State, which dont pay their fair share. When 60% of nato countries aren't paying, why should we keep our Promises if they can't even keep to THEIR PROMISES.
I blame Leaders from both Sides. We should have never let it get this far to begin with.
Unfortunately our leaders push more for ww3 than for peace.
Yea peace is a no option for some reason.
Actually, Putler is the only source of these problems.
only putin wants a war with europe. its not both sides
@@GothPaokiHow can you have peace when one side has no intention of keeping the peace?
For Europe and NATO, the motto of the day is the old Roman proverb: to secure peace is to prepare for war.
I was sure about our safety, because I thought- all for one.
Until today.
Somebody seams to forget about french nuclear arsenal capable of destroying Russia and their wild nuclear doctrine...
Gasp wait you mean Europe would have to defend itself rather than badmouth US and demand they defend Europe
More like Europe would start being really annoying about them joining the War on Terror, when US got attacked and now, when the tables have turned, the US is betraying those very nations, that allied them selves with them.
Its not worth it man.
Europeans consider it their God-given right to take full advantage of American protection while looking down their noses at Americans. They cant be talked out of it.
@@looseycanon While I agree that it is short sighted for the US to abandon Ukraine and talk about abandoning Europe (after all who would ever trust the US again), I also think equating helping the US against Muslim extremists with helping Europe against the worlds most heavily nuclear armed country is disingenuous.
@@DavidSmith-kd8mw The US is not abandoning Ukraine! The Republican party is. It has been clear for many years that the Russian FSB is entrenched in said party!
@@ashleylittle6776 🤣🤣
This is a real wake-up call.
Good morning!
5:35 And the hundreds of thousands of reserve troops in the Baltic countries???????
We are not heading to wartime. We are heading to peacetime. Keep imagining.
We used to believe in Europe being the peace continent but this is harder to uphold nowadays
They can attack... but then they are total destroyed.
By what? Germany has only 300 tanks, which is better than the UK's pathetic 40 Challenger 2s. This compared to the 12,000 tanks Russia already had, and the 800+ new tanks they bring online each year. 😊
As in tanks, all the other numbers go the same way.
Hot air 😮
With what army? How much will be left after Ukraine?...
With the most advanced army currently in the world, which has grown in number over 2 years of conflict. 😊
@@D64nz With a mostly obsolete army, navy, and air force that has been significantly damaged but is receiving an increasing number of weapons and has a large pool of potential recruits.
Haha, you believe Western propaganda.
@D64nz Lol the "most advanced army in the world" is arming its soldiers with 70 year old bolt action rifles and telling draftees to buy their own armor. 😂
@Benzknees Russia lost two of its flag ships to a country that doesn't even have a navy and their most used tank in Ukraine is from the 60s. 😂
Finland closed the geographic weakness of the baltic states, Russia can no longer embargo the territory with a single division.
Finland is a joke and without any importance, child.
The whole Sweden/Finland thing (both NATO muppets since decades anyway) is a pure PR joke to create the Illusion of a not incompete as impotent NATO that falls apart, because its Emperor USA is dying from its own corruption.
Really? Finland is tiny and half of Latvian Russian speaking will be fine with Russian invasion.
@@skylark386 All of Baltics will be fine. Politicians done all possible to make Russian rule more attractive. During the USSR time Baltic states were window display of USSR and now it is a wiggar's neighborhood.
Poland spent 2.4 in 2022 and budget 4% in 2024. Estonia 2.1 in 2022, Latvia 2.0, Lithuania 2.75, and all agreed to raise it to 3% in 2024. 👍
Stopped at 3:20. Propaganda alert went off.
You misunderstand the context of what Trump was saying. He was talking specifically to countries that did not meet the 2% gdp-military spending ratio that is part of the nato guideline. The baltic countries are some of the few along with most if not all countries that border russia that meet that requirement. At the end of the day NATO is a mutual defense alliance and not a charity. Europe needs to start pulling their own weight such as barely helping with the current houthi problem when a very small amount of US trade goes through the suez as opposed to 23% for europe.
Do a headcount of all the military units in play in the Yemen theater, and then tell me again how Europeans are not helping there?
As said earlier that includes Canada you know the country next door, People in other countries fully ubderstand Trump, it is his followers who have not the slightest idea of the implications of what he says.
Всё он понимает. Но если говорить правду, то это не подтолкнёт тебя к нужным ему выводам из полученой информации.
Tucker Carlson: would you ever invade NATO or Poland?
Putin: only in condition, if NATO or Poland attacks us.
Putin also said the same thing about invading Ukraine. If you believe Putain at his word you are gullible and someone else’s food.
Ukrain - not NATO@@oldworldpatriot8920
Did you send agents with nerve agents to murder on the streets o Britain . NO your mad. He smirked. He actually had the uys at the Kremlin we caught cctv and found trail they took. They said they went ti see a cathedral. If your seriously taking his word on that you need a guardian . Make a case about legitimate Russian interest and Nati expand haveca dialogue but quoting that is laughable 😂
He doesn’t invade, he conducts Special Military Operations.