Is Putin Right About Nato's Eastward Expansion? - TLDR News
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 03. 2022
- Sign up for Brilliant (and the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldreu
One of Putin's biggest complaints currently is that NATO betrayed its commitment regarding eastward expansion, moving ever closer to the Russian border. So in this video, we evaluate Putin's claims and if NATO really has broken its commitments.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldr-news-eu-100757392...
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewseu
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewseu
Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
The greatest recruitment tool for NATO has always been Russia's behavior. if they were not such a difficult neighbor to have, then fewer countries would feel the need to seek defensive alliances.
The reason they wanted all of Eastern Europe for 50 years wasn't due to Rissian behaviour. But German behaviour times two.
@@CigarRegal There are no parallels with the current conflict.
Did you not watch the video? Russia's "difficult neighbor" behaviour came solely reactively due to America's threats and expansion.
What kind of behaviour are you talking about? Russia in the 90's was a failing impoverished state that almost entirely didn't care about whatever was happening outside of its' border.
It also suffered a devastating default on obligations in '98, is that the behaviour that makes war alliances expand a year later? 🤔
@@suburbanyobbo9412 of course not ;) not even to unite our people, reclaim our former lands and so on?
Umm, speaking from a Hungarian POW (edit: POV) at the time, NATO did not have to encourage the Eastern European states to join. Russians did that job for them! We had 40 years of comradely Russian occupation, thus when put to referendums, NATO membership was confirmed by an overwhelming majority.
from czech POV, since Russia invaded czechoslovakia in 1968 czech people feel betrayed by russians, hate russians and are afraid of their expansion
(btw POV = point of view / POW = prisoner of war ;) )
@@lordmartinak Hungary was also invaded by the russians in 1956 (as well as 1848 but that didn’t really count into this). After 50 years of oppression, how do they expect countries to happily jump into close relationships with them?
From a Romanian POV, we were terrified Russia would invade us and return us to the dark days pre-89. NATO was the only way we could have a future.
Fuck all Russia apologists.
Prisoner Of War?
@@florianflocke959 PoW is commonly used abbreviation for Prisoner of War ... meaning captured soldier
From a Lithuanian perspective, and I think I speak for many of us, we didn't need much encouragement from the US, EU, NATO or anyone else to join any western alliance. The Russians brought so much suffering over the centuries, so much oppression and pain. Countless people exiled to Siberia, sent off to labor camps and prisons to die in the cold. They tried to erase our history, language and overall our Baltic identities and replace it with their own people and customs.
Of course after the people managed to liberate themselves from the Russian grasp and their "union" they started looking westwards. Where else?
EU and NATO is far from perfect and it needs to be actively worked on by all the nations involved to improve it all, but at least they weren't the ones exiling our families off to a frozen wasteland to endure slavery and torture.
And America doesn’t
@@yaraelpoof7242 Which Country is called the US republic after the US invasion?
also, answer me if Crimea is now Ukraine or Russia?
@@andycarter8224 yes it is, say it to russian people, they already said its russian land.Unreal,but fact. Probably all Europe is "russian land".
@@andycarter8224, I can bet they created the parallel universe for the first time in history, as they don't live in the real world anymore.
Russia: “ YOU TURNED THEM AGAINST ME “
NATO: “ you have done that yourself “
Russia: "You will not take them from me!"
NATO: "Your anger and your lust for power have already done that. You have allowed this dark lord (Putin) to twist your mind until now, you have become the very thing you swore to destroy (fascist)."
Line which divides the difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions is written on sand and when core security interests of a nation is threatned those lines are washed by the waters of National Security Interests.
Countries joining NATO is just a fact of the modern world, and not all NATO expansion are considered a threat to Russia but expansion over areas where Russia considers it would undermine its Core Security interests would justify for Russia to erase those difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions or Cross that red line.
Consider this
1. After Ukraine's NATO ascession, for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or western unilateralism or imperialism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member ie Russia can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee. And collective NATO members could hold Russia on its knees.
2. Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
3. From Ukraine, Moscow is just 300km. And ukraine is seemelessly integrated into russia across the European plains with no Geographical frontiers.
4. From Ukraine, west could block Russia's only access to warm waters from black sea both with Crimea(eventually annexing) and by blocking Southern russia across Caucasus, which is just 600km from its extreme ends.
Remember Russia intervened in Georgia for this reason and same goes for Ukraine. And Russia was silent for ex-Soviet members like Hungary, Romania etc joining NATO.. which doesnt pose such significant security threat as Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO do.
5. More importantly with no access to warm waters from black sea, it would lose its access to Mediterranean sea and its role in affairs of Mediterranean and west asian states and russia would inevitably become a landlocked state. Thus west asian affairs and Africa would fall entirely under the influence of west.
6. With nato next to its borders. it would have to increase its military expenditure that would inevitably bankrupt russia and lead to further divisions.
7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was suspended by Trump in 2018 and this meant that previous ban on all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500-1,000 km (short medium-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range) is not applicable now and this opens up for placing US missiles even nuclear ones all countries bordering Russia including non-NATO ones.
*More importantly why Russia doesnt want NATO in its borders is because of LACK OF TRUST*
-- West broke its promise by expansion of NATO and Military encirclement of Russia and when such trust is broken which threatens core security interests it would be absurd for Russians to believe that NATO and West would not meddle in anyway to keep Russian influence forever checked.
--- Also NATO expansion for Russian represents American Hypocricy and double standard.
As expansion of NATO is not just expansion of military encirclement but also American sphere of influence. THis would include trade (Energy, Arms, Space, Techonolgy etc..), culture & habits.
But all the while America denies anysphere of influence to other countries (not even in their borders) through interference in internal affairs, creating regional conflicts, regime change, coups, etc..
You might ask, Isnt joining nato or eu Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy?
---Yes. Joining nato or EU is Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy.
But sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt and make best out of what are its possible's options - Like Japan, South Korea, India (and wait for your turn), all latin american countries or overplay the card like Cuba, Ukraine and wait for consequences.
Ukraine that SHOULD have been pursued to improve the livelihood of it's citizens, if that was the real aim, without putting them in the cross-hairs of either West's or Russia's problem. Here it could have benefited from both Russia and West.
Ukraine could have played the character of India or South Korea here. Consider South Korea, neighbour of china, democratic and captalist like US but neither politically or militarily a threat to it - china even favors united korea under south korean government as long as it was not hostile to it.
Also being buffer state doesnt mean your foreign policy are limited, consider india, its economy both socialism and captalist as in mixed economy, its has good foreign and economic and political relations with Russia US China, Security challenges with China are present but that doesnt mean it has to choose one over or against other in economic politic and social spheres.
What i mean is when your relative strength is reasonably small in international affairs and when you are neighbour to a super power, you necessarily have to incorporate that relation in both your domestic policy and foreign policy, last thing you want to do is poke that Russian bear esp when that bear is standing next to you..
As explained the case of South Korea and India, your foreign policy options are not restricted here.
As the word ukraine derived from "ukraina" means "borderland, unless it had plans to become afghanistan who's geostrategic importance comes from location on the map linking South and East Asia to Russia and West, who also has similar geostrategic importance and influence it should have used its wisdom well esp when it has seen itself what being struck between two super powers - both during world war and as in case of afghanistan.
Do i diminish any blame on Putin for lives of Ukrainaian citizen?
--- No. This war is for sure on Putin and I don't make my comments to diminish any blame ascribed to his name. But though actions on grounds can be ascibed to him but who is the real reason for the cause of that action. Its definitely the West.
Also geography matters, it might seem US have used soft power to persuade their security interests but instead US have only shifted area of active zone to areas beyond Atlantic as US have built bases elsewhere in africa asia and Europe but moment China builds some military bases exercising their economic might in latin America or elsewhere challenging Monroe Doctrine you will see power is just power.. Here core security interests are the line when that line of soft and hard is erased.
@@prasadmv511
1) West isn't threat for Russia but for Putin's regime
2) Russian government is perceived as biggest threat in Europe. Specifically from central Europe to east. Russian politic is unnecessarily aggressive and hostile. The worst fears just materialised, now.
3) With recent discoveries of natural resources of oil and gas in Black sea I don't have any reason to believe single thing Putin and his fellow d*ckheads says. Especially, ideological BS. For what I care they could only fear they will lose one of their main incomes. If UA will start to sell it to rest of Europe it's over for them. Because lets face it no one wants be dependant on country which constantly bulling all around.
NATO: it's over putin we have high military
Putin: you underestimate my nukes
NATO: no don't try this
Putin: launch all nukes
NATO destroy all nukes in Russia
Putin burning in nukes
NATO: you were the powerful one it was said that you will destroy China not be like them bring balance to the world not lead to destruction
Putin while burning: I hate you NATO
NATO:you are our brother Putin we love you we will not kill you we have promise to master biden 🤣🤣🤣🤣 we will not follow path of great historical sith Adolf Hitler who turned dark side to become sith lord
Russia had secret ai system project government was working on that turn fired Putin into Darth Vader who make clone army, jets and death Star and build his own empire with his master joshep stain who was alive by mastery immortality with secret russian invention he was kept in secret museum to rule world he was named by palupatine meaning immortal
Year 2120 Darth Vader destroyed NATO by his death star to take revenge and become king 👑 of the world
He breathing in a death Star window with his master palupatine
lattacku could not have said it better .If you are faced with a well armed and aggressive neighbour you turn to a friendly country for help as it is just common sense.
Russia: "Verbal agreements are legally binding"
Also Russia: "that nuclear disarmament deal in Ukraine, where we promised to uphold and recognise Ukrainian territorial sovereignty, as WRITTEN in the deal, is worth jack shit"
We still hadn't recognized the new government of Ukraine after maidan revolution(or why we can get away with calling it unlawful regime). So yep, until we recognize government of Ukraine, those agreements really worth nothing.
@@user-ik7zl9rl2x how convenient, considering current regime in Russia is completely unlawful due to violating constitution and laws of their own country and placing Putin as ruler for life basically, despite the fact that by law he was supposed to be replaced ages ago.
@@user-ik7zl9rl2x no worries, I'm glad that you invaded. It's a pleasure for us to see how underdeveloped Russia is and how weak Russian Army and Russian air force is. Clown army, clown leaders..
@@user-ik7zl9rl2x Well in that case, we don’t recognize Russia as having a legitimate government at all. Look at that. I just de-legitimized the entire Russian invasion. Not that the treaty Russia signed with Ukraine not to invade didn’t already do that.
@@user-ik7zl9rl2x well in that case, USA promised USSR to not expand so yeah, USSR doesnt exist so the promise is invalid.
To be fair Eastern European countries wouldn’t have joined NATO is they didn’t feel threatened by Russia in the first place. And now we all know they were justified in their fear.
Also, Russia is not entitled to deciding what organisations Eastern European countries can or can’t join.
Considering how high the anti-Russian sentiment is on those countries due to Soviet occupation, they would.
@@sandoristar7597 Yeah, of course if you occupy and oppress a country for 45 years, don't be surprised that when they break free, they immediately run to the arms of your opponent for defense.
Russia IS entitled on deciding such things. Just like Napoleon was entitled in deciding to expand France, just like the USA is entitled on deciding to save the world from Iraq, just like the USA is entitled on deciding to kill Gaddafi.
It's not whataboutism, it's realpolitik.
Exactly, and NATO is not some fungus or slime, which would grow in some direction. Sovereign and democratic countries have asked for entry, and other sovereign countries agreed. Organisations can't grow like ... bamboo.
@@deaansugee Are you saying its tottaly fine what US did to Iraq
Slovak guy here. I am so glad that towards the end you mentioned the fact that we had referendums in the new Nato member states. We CHOSE to be members. Most of the people here wants to be part of west as it offers stability, economic growth, and respect of human rights. What does Russia has to offer? Absolute poverty, corruption and certain death if you cross the “wrong” people? Who would want to join that? They are a laughing stock of world, should they not have the natural resources they would be a third world country. The only thing why world respects them are the nuclear missiles. Should they not have them, the country would break apart long time ago, and china would be the first one to take a piece. That to me is most shocking - they run for help to their biggest enemy.
"..the west offers stability, economic growth and respect for human rights"
Yes, you can argue that an organization like the EU does this. However, NATO is s purely military alliance, and as such does not bring economic growth or care about human rights.
Russia offers cheaper energy sources. Therefore everything is cheaper. Because it has plenty. What else do you need actually?
The Russians, line the Chinese, are a proud people. Maybe if we in the West had been more benevolent right after the fall of the USSR, we would have gained an ally such as Germany, Italy and Japan after WW II. Instead, people resort to this language of humiliation and offense.
As a Scandinavian, I too could suggest that Slovakia has contributed absolutely nothing to the EU (which is a fact, as Slovakia is a net negative contributor to the EU budget) except, made us more beholden to authoritarianism, corrupt corporate interests and racially motivated migration policies.
Hurtful language that doesn't exactly motivate friendship and cooperation, no?
@@Serbo-Greek political and human rights are a great starting point.
@@Emanon... This presumes though that had the west not chosen to expand west, Russia wouldn't have fallen in the same state of dictatorship, militarism and pride for the lost empire. The Eastern European countries obviously didn't believe that so they rushed to join so they don't lose what they had just gained. It's a good reminder that Russian people went back to a strongman type of leader and government, largely because of internal issues - crime, corruption and secession. I don't think the West can be blamed for that. So if you rewind the clock and it turns out that Russia would have gone down the same road anyway, your presumption seems naive. Eastern European countries would be in a much, much worse state right now and some of them probably wouldn't even have their independence. The West would have still reacted to that, as it would be seen both in the population and in government as a major step back in the world and we would be right back where we were with a new Cold War. Or, in today's situation all the same, except Russia would have had a lot more satellite countries than just Belarus.
I'm from the Baltics and if there is anything that history has told me is that the Soviet regime was very unfriendly towards people of my culture. Not only did Soviets rule with an iron fist but they LITERALLY sent thousands of people to Siberia for SLAVERY where alot of them died of starvation. My grandmother was one of those people but she was lucky to have broken a leg on her way there and was then sent to Omsk hospital, where she met Russian friends who then helped her escape back to Latvia. If there is anything that history and my family have taught me is that the Russian government has always been very corrupt and bad people because of their military might over smaller countries like mine. The countries that joined NATO did so not because they were persuaded, but because of fear from what Russia could do to them if they didn't have some insurance of defence. I don't hate Russians but Vladimir Putin is a very bad person for invading Ukraine and causing a crises in EU. He is out of his mind for bombarding and killing innocent civilians who have nothing to do with politics. People who just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity are now running away from their home and friends because of a war that Putin started. And he has the audacity to say that these people are "nazis" while he himself is acting literally like Adolf Hitler. If anyone defends Putin they can go F themselves
But literally all of our historical leaders ruled with an iron fist. Russia is an absolutist state. Also can you call putin an imperialist not a nazi. It sounds better tbh from a Russian
THIS RIGHT HERE!
Like seriously, I just can't understand Non-Russian People unironically sympathizing Putin.
I can understand actual Russians considering what there Media and censorship is like but Non-Russians? Those that live in LITERAL DEMOCRACIES? Like bruh.
Well as someone who actually know history and geopolitics you forget thatt he biggestbterrorist has been the USA!Theyve been in perpetual war globally since WWII,or plotting coup after coup to overthrow governments who didn’t tow their narrative, plus they continue to fund apartheid Israel who has been killing Palestinians for 70 years, supplying arms to Saudi to kill Yemenis, they’ve assassinated many African leaders, and supported apartheid South Africa, went into illegal wars ar son Iraq, Libya, and Syria causing the biggest t refugee crises since WW2! And here you are making comments, when Russia had not killed as many as the USA and its allies and no one even sanctioned them nor charged their leaders with war crimes!
@@gerryburntwood9617 Literal whataboutism.
@@gerryburntwood9617 that is nice and all but people will tend to first secure their own security. The majority of controversial things USA did in the most recent history, (a peak you could say) were happening in the 80s-2000s at which time it was kept secret or swept under the rug more thoroughly than today, also absence of internet and smartphones in the 80s and 90s (and till end of 2000s decade still absence of smartphones) meant less quick access to independent information, whistleblowing and collecting evidence.
The things would really start come out to light in larger quantities only afterwards, at which point all these recent NATO expansions already took place
So essentially, your argument is null. Plus it still does not change the fact that a country will seek another stronger country to gain security from its former oppressor. Whatever US did was happening outside of Europe, so for an European country that sees the rest of Europe not meeting the same fate as middle east and being under US's protection, this was logical step to take.
Further more Soviet regime existed for the best part of the century and it did things that would make US, NATO and Hitler blush. No side is innocent so trying to blaming only one side for the past while the other side is dong wrong in the present is ignorant. Should we ditch everything and help the past while ignoring the present? Should we ditch a person that is choking on food to instead go perform autopsy on already dead corpse?
This crisis shows how strong nation can slaughter weaker one for its personal goals. After this crisis is done it can be used as incentive to objectively judge others and investigate. But at the moment the largest conflict at hand is happening now, in Ukraine. That is the priority to look at now.
Further more the body count do not justify anything. Just because you kill less innocent people than the other guy in your campaign does not make you any better. You still killed innocent people.
Finland is an excellent example for eagerness to join Nato. Until the Putin aggressive war against Ukraine, interest in membership was so low that it was not a topic. That changed dramatically, and now a majority is in favor of being part of this security pact. Of course, they also have historical bad memories with the Russian invasion during the 2nd world war.
Indeed. Russia has only itself to blame for its neighbouring countries seeking protection from it.
Yes and before any eagerness to join nato there werent even talks about invading finland, i wonder if it will change now.
Tensions between russia and ukraine risen exactly because they wanted to join nato, as long as ukraine was neutral nothing happened.
@@davoodoo8042 first russia invaded crimea
@@davoodoo8042 Ukraine would never be neutral. Russia would not allow Ukraine to be a democracy. Ukraine would be neutral just like Belarus is "neutral". You either don't understand what is happening or you are a Russian bot.
@@davoodoo8042 nothing but Russian occupation of crimea, war with Russian backed terrorists in luhansk and Donetsk and etc...
Speaking of treaty obligations, Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal because Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty.
@@iljenshumilin467 🤢
@@iljenshumilin467 hey Kremlin bot, ask to be paid in toilet paper instead of rubles
@@iljenshumilin467 legally, even Russia didn't recognise the regions independence referendums which were held at gunpoint and were exceptionally fraudulent(one person could vote several times), only recently did Russia actually recognise them. The regions themselves seceded illegally, according to the Ukrainian constitution they can only secede if they agree to hold a nation-wide referendum which they refused to do.
Technically the nuclear arsenal in Ukraine was Russia's it was merely stored in Ukraine, it was part of the agreement when they became independent countries it went back to Russia, it was never Ukraine's nuclear arsenal, just like how Turkey stores nukes but those nukes belong to NATO and aren't Turkey's nukes.
So truuue
Thanks, nicely laid out with plenty of details that had eluded me.
Thanks for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument. It's vital that your NEWS organization be honest and fair, especially in these tense times. Thank you for what you do; I'm happy to support you on Patreon.
The word "needlessly" does a lot of the heavy lifting. Russia having invaded its neighbours several times since the fall of the Soviet Union makes it fairly obvious that the countries seeking membership of NATO aren't doing so needlessly.
I will ask you a question. If an anti-US coalition led by Russia and China wanted to put Mexico in it and put weapons on it..How would the US react? Would Mexico have every right to want to enter?
Exactly. The answer to their question is, “No!” Next question. Putin knows Ukraine has massive gas and oil reserves: offshore in Crimea, in the Donbas region and now in the west, by the Carpathian Mountains. For the first time Putin can’t reach them. He doesn’t want to drill them himself. He just wants to ensure NO ONE does. His pretexts for his claims are exactly that! “Pretexts.” How can ANY, “deal,” with the Soviets have any standing if the, “Soviets,” are not a thing?
Yea? What neighbours other than Ukraine has russia invaded?
Do you know why they invaded Ukraine in the first place?
To protect the Russian people living in Ukraine, innocent people that were abused for decades by the neo-nazzi paramilitary troops of Ukraine.
@@Martincic2010 What Mexico does is up to Mexico. If it feels militarily threatened by the US, it makes a ton of sense for it to join a coalition of countries that can keep it safe.
Now, if China and Russia are the ones pushing for Mexico to join, and Mexico doesn't want to, then Mexico should be able to tell them to go away, just like Finland and Sweden have been telling NATO "no" for decades.
What is first chicken or an egg?
Russia also promised Ukraine not to invade if they gave up their nuclear weapons.....
The Budapest document committed the powers to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and the “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. It also committed them to not using their weapons against Ukraine “except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.
@@Sujal9253 the US promised to not invade Ukraine in that agreement
It's not an invasion, it's a "special military operation" to friendly country.
@@scratchy996 sure if you trust Putin's propaganda. There are also 30 biochemical labs in Ukraine as well. Also a whole country of Nazis
yeah russia is sending gifts to ukraine (cluster bombs on childrens playgrounds)
Thanks very much. Extremely helpful.
Great video!:) you have really analised all aspects of the subject. I have learned a lot. Thank you!
This is a catch22 situation: by attacking Ukraine, Putin justified the expansion of NATO
Ukraine wanted to join NATO and the EU before they got attacked, the West put their own president on Ukraine because the current president at the time, was friendly to Russia and didn't want to join the EU.
Also Ukraine is divided into 2, look up the map of Ukraine by language or culture, it's split in half.
@@pierrereynaud784 wrong everything you said Poroshenko wanted to join NATO and he was after yanukovich , but zelensky did not want , secondly there is no split pretty much all country speaks russian but not russians , third PUTIN DID NOT CARED ABOUT NATO , he cares only about 1 single thing Land he want`s the land and nothing more which means he has to do mass ethnic cleansing a thing he already does , why he want`s the land ? if he get`s that land he will have enough power over world agricultural markets of cereals to manipulate them as he want`s , we all know this in east and we knew russia will attack and it will not stop in ukraine moldova north kazakhstan prebaltics are next 100% and last stop will be east germany probably around 2030-32
@@pierrereynaud784 once you get power over the ceral markets you can manipulate foreign goverments at your own will whenver you want however you want in anyway you please to do so .
He doesn't care about NATO, all he cares about is keeping power in Russia. NATO are a good excuse for him to use, to get more powers.
Russian speaking Ukrainians are resisting the invasion just as much as Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians. Having Russian as your first language does not mean you identify as Russian and want to live in Russia, any more than speaking English means you identify as English and want to live in England.
Also: Eastward expansion was 18 years ago and NATO never violated the agreements to not move large numbers of soldiers to border countries, establish permanent basis or bas nuclear weapons there.
Russia on the other hand has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, fought five wars against European countries in the last 20 years and has been openly threatening anyone east of Germany.
The official reasons for the invasion of Ukraine also did not actually make reference to this. Instead they refer to the unity of all Russian speaking people and protection of Russian minorities in other countries. This suggests that this is ideologically driven and not out of fears for there security.
Unlike the alleged NATO agreement to not expand eastward, which was apparently verbal at best, Russia's guarantee to never invade Ukraine is actually in writing. So there is no question who broke treaties and who did not.
The more one thinks about this, the scarier it gets: if the Russian goal is to ensure the safety of Russian speaking people with the use of force (as we currently see it), then all of the Baltics with their Russian minorities are the logical next target. Putin also redefined the term Russian quite a lot and it's not hard to see why many counties inside NATO (the Baltics) and outside of it (Finland and Moldova) are scared of aggression from Russia: if Putin stays true to his logic, one of them will be the next target.
Valid point.
What DID happen though is that the us unilaterally pulled out of the armament treaties it had with Russia.
@@bomschhofmann1644 considering the giant f**k up this invasion was, there won’t be another target anytime soon. Even if they manage to actually win militarily in Ukraine and achieve regime change, controlling Ukraine will drain their resources and they might never succeed at stabilizing the country. It will likely drag Russia down with it.
They were not suppose to move Eastward NATO expansion has reignited the Cold War.
Why did nato exist after the dissolution of the USSR. because the main function of nato buoan is only to fight the world but against all parties that are hostile to the west. so the disbandment of natio is very important for world peace
Your guys channel is just awesome
Being from Poland I can atest there was great support for Poland joining NATO among all political forces even post communists. If Russia wasn't that country which threatens in neighbours all the time we wouldn't probably care about NATO. But I think joining NATO was one of most important things that happened in Polish history after fall of communism. What Western world does not understand is that putting obsession is not about NATO but about actually recreating Soviet Union, That's his true goal.
Not the USSR, but the Russian Empire, or the Greater Russia. USSR was just a commie version of the imperial Russia.
@@domrogg4362 I think what he means, essentially, is Putin wants to expand the borders of Russia to the previous borders of Imperial/Czarist Russia, the Soviet Union, or the extant Russian state, (and here is the operative phrase), which ever is more (meaning greatest extent).
I am from Ukraine, and I can say that we are very thankful for the support and help from Poland at those days. Putin said that "fall of USSR was the greatest catastrophy of XXth century". And most people from nations that had been once under Moscow control actually got that the guy wants USSR restoration.
You should go deeper. Polish&Russian history started long before. 1612 - polish intervention, then Russians move to west and so on…
@@botifypro I think the entire history of Central and Eastern Europe isn't adequately known nor studied in the West especially America. It really is a shame. That said, I am sure some will compare the Defense of Kiev with Thermopylae and Stalingrad.
“NATO would not expand needlessly eastward.” Given the current situation I still think this holds up. Russia makes sure that a country needs to be part of it to not be invaded
Just like the US invades countries that don’t have nuclear weapons.
Putin did say openly, that Ukraine cant join nato, because he was afraid they would claim Crimea back and nato would be together.
he knows he can abuse Ukraine and Belarus, but knows he cant win a war against the entire NATO
@@jermag whataboutism
Why did nato exist after the dissolution of the USSR. because the main function of nato buoan is only to fight the world but against all parties that are hostile to the west. so the disbandment of natio is very important for world peace
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa NATO disbands = West getting invaded.
Poor little Luxembourg. TLDR kicked them out of NATO.
The quality of research and journalism at TLDR is appaling.
Yeah, and we were a founding member back in 1949, poor tiny Luxembourg
@@lyampetit144 wait people live in Luxemburg? Though it was just a street corner with a UN HQ in the middle lol
@@vulcanmemes9770 It even has an army of around 800 men. I saw two of them myself standing next to a military jeep.
Thank you for your impartial analysis.
in Poland literally the next day after the first free elections in 1989 EVERYONE agreed that the next thing we need to work is to join NATO as this is the only way we could somehow reduce (at list by tiny bit) chances of Russia attacking and occupying us again. Regardless of the political association, all our governments were pushing for NATO membership as hard as only possible.
Absolutely... if by expansion he means former soviet countries applied to join and were accepted.
It's the fundemental difference between NATO and Putin. With NATO it's "Please can I join", with Putin it's "You're not allowed to leave".
Why did nato exist after the dissolution of the USSR. because the main function of nato buoan is only to fight the world but against all parties that are hostile to the west. so the disbandment of natio is very important for world peace
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa You are either hopelessly naive or a troll. Maybe both.
@@bobjohnbowles He couldn't spell nato right, so you might want to through ignorant or stupid in there just for good measure.
But they did leave the USSR and Russia never did anything. the USSR was a union of many sovereign countries under control from Moscow with Ukrainian, Russian and Georgian dictators taking control through history.
We think Stalin=Russia but stalin was georgian and controlled the USSR which is not Russia but includes Russia
@@Michael-st9ky Wdym "never did anything"? In the Baltic states the Russian USSR soldiers massacres protesting civilians.
It's quite telling that when many ex-soviet bloc countries got freedom to choose, they quickly turned against USSR/Russia. Russia could have rejected the legacy of USSR, but Russia embraced it instead.
@PrestonSartorius yes, let's bring up irrelevant whataboutism to move attention away from what is being discussed. While at it, do you wanna talk about summerian city states fighting between one another? I mean Russia did its things, sure, but what about the war crimes in ancient times? /s
@PrestonSartorius Are you really using the "they are no angels" line on countries? Fuck man. The brainrot is real.
@PrestonSartorius hey bro, the "/s" stands for sarcasm in case you didn't know. Are there nationalists, neonazis, criminals, corrupt politicians, drug dealers in Poland and Ukraine? Of course there are. They can be found in virtually every country. And just because Poland is doing a good thing right now, it doesn't mean that Poland or Hungary or Turkey are magically more democratic. Issues still persist with press freedom, women rights etc. No fking shit! Everyone knows things aren't black and white.
But at the end of the day, one country has constantly been the invader or agressively expanding its sphere of influence through bullying and threats in Eastern Europe in the last 10, 20, 30, 100-150 years, and that country is Russia. It's the only one left in eastern Europe with expansionist ideas. Austro-Hungarian empire is no more, neither is the Ottoman, British, or French Empire. The German empire of old lost 1/3rd of its territory. None of them obsess with territorial expansion, let alone claim what Putin is claiming, that other countries simply belong to them and have no right to exist (like Putin is claiming that Ukraine is essentially a fake country). Every country in the Russian sphere of influence has always been on the defense. Why is it so damn hard for your lot to just condemn the one thing that Russia shouldn't have done, which is invading a country, especially a democratic one (no matter how flawed)... It really makes you sound like an authoritarianism and imperialism apologist.
In their defense, I say that is difficult to reject times where people were happy and watching their country develop so quickly. "Bringing back the USSR" doesn't have the same meaning here in the west as it does in today's poor Russia.
@@sergioTGH You can also say that about the British Empire though. Or the French Empire, or pre-WW2 Germany. Things being "better" in the past is not necessarily true, and especially not true to the victims of your happiness. Sometimes, you have to understand why your nostalgia is not the only view of the world that matters, and russians have failed to do this.
The two big takeaways for me here are:
1. There was never a formal, legally binding agreement. And there's no reason it couldn't have been formalized if they had indeed agreed to it. It's a simple enough idea to write down "NATO will not expand eastward". That shows that it really wasn't agreed upon.
2. Yeltsin in 1993 did not object to Poland's accession, further evidence that there was no agreement to non-expansion.
In conclusion, Putin and his apologists are, again, full of it.
I dont think that it would be possible for such an agreement to be anything but verbal. NATO (ok lets cut the BS, its the US) would never allow to look so weak, especially in a time where Russia was in a really bad situation. Yeltsin in 1993 could only drink and lose internal wars. The reality is that US used all their assets to push Russia back into a corner. Putin has to go yesterday there is no doubt about that. But Im not convinced that even if Russia was the very model of democracy and good neighbor, the US would step back with the continuous disrupting operations and gasslighting. In the end Im afraid that the more Russia is marginalized the more the russian people is entrenched and regress even more to nationalism and isolation.
Poland is not Ukraine or Georgia.
Line which divides the difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions is written on sand and when core security interests of a nation is threatned those lines are washed by the waters of National Security Interests.
Countries joining NATO is just a fact of the modern world, and not all NATO expansion are considered a threat to Russia but expansion over areas where Russia considers it would undermine its Core Security interests would justify for Russia to erase those difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions or Cross that red line.
Consider this
1. After Ukraine's NATO ascession, for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or western unilateralism or imperialism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member ie Russia can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee. And collective NATO members could hold Russia on its knees.
2. Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
3. From Ukraine, Moscow is just 300km. And ukraine is seemelessly integrated into russia across the European plains with no Geographical frontiers.
4. From Ukraine, west could block Russia's only access to warm waters from black sea both with Crimea(eventually annexing) and by blocking Southern russia across Caucasus, which is just 600km from its extreme ends.
Remember Russia intervened in Georgia for this reason and same goes for Ukraine. And Russia was silent for ex-Soviet members like Hungary, Romania etc joining NATO.. which doesnt pose such significant security threat as Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO do.
5. More importantly with no access to warm waters from black sea, it would lose its access to Mediterranean sea and its role in affairs of Mediterranean and west asian states and russia would inevitably become a landlocked state. Thus west asian affairs and Africa would fall entirely under the influence of west.
6. With nato next to its borders. it would have to increase its military expenditure that would inevitably bankrupt russia and lead to further divisions.
7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was suspended by Trump in 2018 and this meant that previous ban on all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500-1,000 km (short medium-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range) is not applicable now and this opens up for placing US missiles even nuclear ones all countries bordering Russia including non-NATO ones.
*More importantly why Russia doesnt want NATO in its borders is because of LACK OF TRUST*
-- West broke its promise by expansion of NATO and Military encirclement of Russia and when such trust is broken which threatens core security interests it would be absurd for Russians to believe that NATO and West would not meddle in anyway to keep Russian influence forever checked.
--- Also NATO expansion for Russian represents American Hypocricy and double standard.
As expansion of NATO is not just expansion of military encirclement but also American sphere of influence. THis would include trade (Energy, Arms, Space, Techonolgy etc..), culture & habits.
But all the while America denies anysphere of influence to other countries (not even in their borders) through interference in internal affairs, creating regional conflicts, regime change, coups, etc..
You might ask, Isnt joining nato or eu Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy?
---Yes. Joining nato or EU is Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy.
But sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt and make best out of what are its possible's options - Like Japan, South Korea, India (and wait for your turn), all latin american countries or overplay the card like Cuba, Ukraine and wait for consequences.
Ukraine that SHOULD have been pursued to improve the livelihood of it's citizens, if that was the real aim, without putting them in the cross-hairs of either West's or Russia's problem. Here it could have benefited from both Russia and West.
Ukraine could have played the character of India or South Korea here. Consider South Korea, neighbour of china, democratic and captalist like US but neither politically or militarily a threat to it - china even favors united korea under south korean government as long as it was not hostile to it.
Also being buffer state doesnt mean your foreign policy are limited, consider india, its economy both socialism and captalist as in mixed economy, its has good foreign and economic and political relations with Russia US China, Security challenges with China are present but that doesnt mean it has to choose one over or against other in economic politic and social spheres.
What i mean is when your relative strength is reasonably small in international affairs and when you are neighbour to a super power, you necessarily have to incorporate that relation in both your domestic policy and foreign policy, last thing you want to do is poke that Russian bear esp when that bear is standing next to you..
As explained the case of South Korea and India, your foreign policy options are not restricted here.
As the word ukraine derived from "ukraina" means "borderland, unless it had plans to become afghanistan who's geostrategic importance comes from location on the map linking South and East Asia to Russia and West, who also has similar geostrategic importance and influence it should have used its wisdom well esp when it has seen itself what being struck between two super powers - both during world war and as in case of afghanistan.
Do i diminish any blame on Putin for lives of Ukrainaian citizen?
--- No. This war is for sure on Putin and I don't make my comments to diminish any blame ascribed to his name. But though actions on grounds can be ascibed to him but who is the real reason for the cause of that action. Its definitely the West.
Also geography matters, it might seem US have used soft power to persuade their security interests but instead US have only shifted area of active zone to areas beyond Atlantic as US have built bases elsewhere in africa asia and Europe but moment China builds some military bases exercising their economic might in latin America or elsewhere challenging Monroe Doctrine you will see power is just power.. Here core security interests are the line when that line of soft and hard is erased.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart
Consider this
1. After Ukraine's NATO ascession, for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or western unilateralism or imperialism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member ie Russia can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee. And collective NATO members could hold Russia on its knees.
2. Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
3. From Ukraine, Moscow is just 300km. And ukraine is seemelessly integrated into russia across the European plains with no Geographical frontiers.
4. From Ukraine, west could block Russia's only access to warm waters from black sea both with Crimea(eventually annexing) and by blocking Southern russia across Caucasus, which is just 600km from its extreme ends.
Remember Russia intervened in Georgia for this reason and same goes for Ukraine. And Russia was silent for ex-Soviet members like Hungary, Romania etc joining NATO.. which doesnt pose such significant security threat as Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO do.
5. More importantly with no access to warm waters from black sea, it would lose its access to Mediterranean sea and its role in affairs of Mediterranean and west asian states and russia would inevitably become a landlocked state. Thus west asian affairs and Africa would fall entirely under the influence of west.
6. With nato next to its borders. it would have to increase its military expenditure that would inevitably bankrupt russia and lead to further divisions.
7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was suspended by Trump in 2018 and this meant that previous ban on all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500-1,000 km (short medium-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range) is not applicable now and this opens up for placing US missiles even nuclear ones all countries bordering Russia including non-NATO ones.Democracies make their own decisions.
NATO is a defensive alliance.
-- True. But for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or imperialism or unilateralism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee.
-- Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was also for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
-- Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
Countries joining NATO is just a fact of the modern world, and not all NATO expansion are considered a threat to Russia but expansion over areas where Russia considers it would undermine its Core Security interests would justify for Russia to erase those difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions or Cross that red line.
Putin and Russia need to join the west and grow up
@@prasadmv511 Small footnote: I know Western democracies, including USA, are rife with corruption and shady military-industrial complex stuff, but at least we can still elect politicians and occasionally sneak in a few improvements to the system. For example, the state of Maine recently upgraded its voting system from First-Past-The-Post to Instant Runoff (aka Ranked Choice). This is only a small change, and only one US state, but it will help to get away from the current GOP/Democrat duopoly / 2-party system, and there is more new blood running for presidency these days than ever. Sure, many of them are inexperienced, and maybe wouldn't be great presidents, but, as we get more and more different presidents, "the establishment" will inevitably get shuffled around and replaced with more progressive 21st century people, as it should. I'm sure the same can and will happen for Russia, but it will be delayed due to the inflexible mentality of one single man with an absolute grip on power. And we have to survive this. So it would be good if the Russians saw it that way too and could accelerate it somehow... but I guess that's wishful thinking.
Excellent!! Thank You!!!
In short, no.
.
.
Longer answer, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
"If his speeches are to be believed"
Well... I'd prefer not to do that
Actually putin means what he says. Also about "we will go to Heaven, and they will just die". He is doing it now. And he will start war with NATO eventually, would Ukraine fail to stop him now.
Super good channel and info. Cheers.
Putin: *complains about defensive alliance moving eastward
Also Putin: proves them why they need to join nato
Putin doesn't want the Western to Influence the East for obvious reasons also bro Yeah they did proved it but Ukraine had been a mess ever since they decided to become independent when they could have joined Russia and have so many benefits 💀😂
@@heavenly5545 How exactly would Ukraine have benefited from being in Russia?
There's a reason the countries on Russia's doorstep want to join the most. They're countries we wouldn't normally protect but are ones that Russia wants to maintain control over.
I’m sure that america would be fine if European countries joined nato
Funny how it's "control" when it comes to Russia. But "protection" when it comes to NATO.
@@SSJfraz Countries within NATO still have their autonomy. Russia's close allies are nothing more than vassal states.
@@reviewtechussr good point
@@reviewtechussr We have the illusion of autonomy, just as we have the illusion of democracy and choice. But that's all it is, an illusion. The only thing worse than not having freedom, is being fooled into believing that you do.
whats important to remember about this whole "west vs east, the US vs Russian influence in europe" is the actual individual sovereign nations of europe. countries that join NATO or the EU do so out of their own free will. it was their choice, and if they want to utilize the same type of military exercises that made other NATO nation militaries formidable, within their borders, then that is their right.
I remember when Russia set out demands, lines on the map, for how far american and NATO warplanes and military exercises were allowed to go into europe (weeks before the invasion of ukraine). what struck me as befuddlingly bizarre was that the line went from the top of sweden down to the bottom of sweden.
Not only was sweden treated as non-existant territory not belonging to a country with the ability to make its own decisions, but finland was disgarded completely.
Thats how Russia views europe, thats how Russia views the world. as territories, and if your country isnt large enough you dont even get the courtesy of having your governments thoughts and considerations heard, nevertheless even respected.
and that is why NATO expands east, because no country (except Belarus and Serbia) wants anything to do with Russia and their bullshit.
Let's be real, big countries in general don't care about smaller countries, it's not limited to Russia. Did the US ask the Middle East population if it was ok to invade to weed out some extremist groups and take oil? Realistically, Russia's gdp and military isn't anywhere close to the US and Nato, I don't buy the perspective that they want to restore Soviet Russia and seriously go toe to toe with the West. They can bully some smaller country that's pretty much it, the US has been doing that for decades. It's not okay by any means but some people are blowing things out of proportions saying they want world domination.
I also find the entire debacle of whether Eastern countries is justified joining Nato because Russia is aggressive, or Russia aggression is due to Nato expanding ridiculous. It's like asking whether the chicken or the egg comes first, there's no real answer to the question. If both sides keep playing that game the only end result is the fighting will escalate.
Morally speaking, countries should be free to decide whatever alliance it wants to join. Strategically speaking, they should take into account whether that would raise tension and drag their country to war. I'm the citizen of a small country myself, historically we've had to do a lot of humiliating things to survive, ranging from paying reparations despite winning the war, ceding land among other things. If we pull the card we are free to do whatever is morally justified we'd be dragged into endless wars fighting over every inch of territory and probably lose independence altogether.
Is coercion - free will?
@@hieudominh4113 If you don't do what is morally right/justified you will live in perpetual serfdom and humiliation, deprived of dignity and rights. It may not seem like a bad idea to you if it allows you to survive, but people living in Eastern Europe (with minor exceptions) have had enough of Russia's imperialism and would rather risk their lives going to war than living under another one of its dictatorships.
@UC92FCJpM0zPbMadaxu5djOA Ahh the revolt where the russian puppet Yanukowich started to shoot at unarmed protesters. Yes, I remember. And what was the reason again to invade Georgia in 2008? And also for the reindtallation of Assad in Syria? And what is russia doing in the central African Republic, while we are already at russias agression?
It was USA that set the bar too low and ruined Russia-NATO relationship
And no your claim is 100% fault and just speculation
Russia wants to maintain Russia, they don't want to be like USSR, they don't want to collapse, that is what they wanted
Bush made a speech threaten Russia and said that "All Europe will be under NATO 1 day". And bet Putin still remember that speech till this day
As for the first part, I think you missed a very important nuance:
NATO not moving "one inch eastward" was *NOT* about new countries joining; at that time, all countries to the East of East Germany were still within the Warsaw pact and no one foresaw that falling. New countries joining was never even imagined possible, let alone discussed.
What was discussed, and what the inches eastward were mentioned was about NATO installations, bases and armies, moving from West Germany into East Germany. That was what was promised, and up until recently, no NATO troops or bases were constructed or posted in any of the new members.
Was the Warsaw Pact really still that stable then? It was disbanded only a few months later.
This very much.
@@bmobmo6438 Of course it wasn't stable, but that doesn't mean they actually thought it would fall apart. Much less that after decades of pro-Russian communist propaganda and education, that those countries would like, much less join the West.
@@tn7648 1) I need a source for that. Preferably in German, I speak German so I want to make sure this isn't a mistranslated.
2) The fact that he, according to you, talked about "both inside of Germany..." to me very strongly indicates that he was indeed talking about NATO installations and bases.
@@tn7648 "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht, das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten, das gilt übrigens nicht nur in Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverleiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."
Absicht.
Do you know what Absicht means?
Intention.
He said that in 1990, BEFORE the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, they had no *INTENTION* of expanding east.
That's not the same as a promise, verbal or otherwise, that it will never happen. He simply stated that at that time, they weren't actively planning on expanding eastwards.
I think this is the fairest, most well balanced analysis and report on the issue. When discussing this on line I will forever link this post to any comment section or website discussing this matter!
Let's not forget that in 1994 Russia signed a treaty that recognized the borders of Ukraine. These include Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. So if we are going to talk about broken promises, lets start with one that is actually in black and white.
Very Good Point!
Borders are racist and xenophobic
@@jamesart6568 We're talking about international treaties, not Russian government policy.
@@666Tomato666 Xenophobic racist
The treaty was with the legitimate government and not with the revolutionary puppet
I'm Lithuanian and can say, before even watching the full video, it's not the NATOs faults. It's Russia. If they weren't just aggressors that had occupied Eastern European lands ridiculous amounts of times and the last 200 years, also, Rusofication, Siberia and other shit. We would have not joined, but now we need protection, we want NATO, Russia is too much of a thread. So basically it is not nato is the people who want some protection from Russia.
I am sure any country wanting to join the Russian "alliance" can do so without NATO meddling. My guess is no one really wants to join, except dictators who need protection against their own people...
@@la7dfa this
@@la7dfa well I guess Finland, Sweden are planning to become a dictator lands and definitely not because of Russian aggression... as are the baltics...
@PrestonSartorius baltics were dictators between wars? what.the.fuck. you are even on about?
@PrestonSartorius it is true that we (Baltics and Poland) were authoritarian dictatorships during the interwar period, but that doesn’t change the fact that the soviets were brutal imperialist that didn’t listen to any agreements they signed with anyone. And the fact that you say that the soviet union collapsed peacefully is a little uneducated. The protest were put down HARD, a lot of people were arrested, beaten, soviet tanks were rolled in and during January 13th in 1991 in Lithuania 13 people died
Another BRILLIANT video! tyvm!
This channel really is a good source for information. Thank you.
To paraphrase Alternate History Hub: "NATO's greatest sin was simply keeping its doors open. Eastern European states wanted to join NATO because of Russian aggression, & Putin just proved them right."
Exactly. Everybody with two brain cells can see the truth by comparing the internal situation of these countries. In Russia the people have no freedom of speech and the opposition is in jail, exile or murdered. Even if the Western countries have their own problems, people have basic rights. This is so easy.
Alternate History Hub's video on the situation was great, I would definitely recommend it to others
Yes quite right
What russian aggression? Not joking, all ive seen is aggression towards georgia over the same issue, nato expansion. Theres also syria but everyone's bombing that country.
@@NathanCroucher Yea, I'm a bit confused myself. I don't remember any armed conflict with Putin's Russia on anything that did not involved NATO moving to his borders. I fully understand why these individual countries wanted to join. But at the same time, people are fools if they refuse to see Russia's perspective in this. Which is to say that this conflict was almost certainly unavoidable, because Eastern Europe wouldn't stop looking westward, and Russia would always be wary of that.
"Nato promised Russia..."
You cannot enforce something that is not written and signed, because it would end up as a "he said-she said" scenario. Putin should know this basic fact in international diplomacy.
Your Majesty, to be fair, I believe Putin knows this very well. He is just calculating that many rubes will fall for his Lies. And sadly, they are.
Also democratic countries change. What George Bush senior said doesn't apply for next guy. Countries vote different presidents based on what people want. Just because Putin killed democracy in Russia doesn't mean they don't act in another country.
It wasn't even Russia, it was the Soviet Union. There wasn't much room to expand back then, but the fall of the Soviet Union changed things. Suddenly there's room, and Russia's aggressive predisposition only makes the neighbours want to turn away from it.
A public speech would have counted, but a backroom promise without witnesses? Nah
Both parties are scummy here, but NATO membership is voluntary - which superceded any mouthwash
No wonder he was piss off the USSR fell
Great balanced analysis as always.
A major factor is alot of the nations that were part of the former Soviet Bloc and Warsaw Pact suffered greatly at the hands of their Soviet leaders. After the USSR collapsed and NATO was still standing many people likely wanted to join NATO and eventually the EU to have closer ties with the west especially after seeing the economic prosperity the European NATO nations including West Germany had in comparison to their own under the thumb of the Soviet Bloc.
So... the soviet leaders as the Georgian Stalin, and the Ukranians o Kruckchev and Breshnev.?
I'm from Hungary, so my point of view is obviously not objective, but my opinion is that if there even was an agreement between USA and USSR about not including the former "allies" of the USSR, that wouldn't have been ethical; this agreement would basically expose the small countries of the region to potential USSR/Russian aggression, allowing the superpower to invade or heavily influence the internal politics of these countries. Being a military superpower shouldn't allow any country to control it's neighbouring countries.
At the moment I would be terrified if Hungray wasn't a NATO member. (Although it could be argued that tha current war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened without the NATO expansion. But maybe it also wouldn't have happened if NATO had expanded all the way to Russia.)
I am sooo glad that Poland, hungary, rumania among others are part of the EU, God knows how far is really thinking Putin to expand his kleptocratic regime
Totally agree. Hello from Slovenia.
There wouldn't be a war potentially. Ukraine would just be exactly like Belarus. In fact, even Hungary would be like Belarus.
Loool Google Monroe doctrine
i guess we will never know now because nato did recruit east european countries close to russia lol.
when neighbouring countries join nato because they're afraid you'll invade them, so you invade a neighbouring country to show that they have nothing to fear. genius.
(also LOL'd at the way you pronounced visegrád. it's VEE-SHEH-GRAAAD)
It's either a chicken and egg kind of problem, or Russia would always invade Ukraine as they see it as part of it's territory.
@@endianAphones : No! It’s really not and it chills me that a channel like this tries SO HARD to be, “even handed,” that it forgets what a legitimate point of view looks like and starts giving the Gravity Deniers equal, “weight!” See whaddi’ did there? 😉
Maybe Putin just needs to get over this false assumption that the expansion of democracy is any of his business? Maybe he needs to stop pretending that he’s not still just a Soviet Union thug? Otherwise, how could ANY, “deal,” (spoken or otherwise) still be valid? The Soviet Union is supposed to be gone! It’s like someone walking into a music store and demanding they fix their car, because the place used to be a garage! It’s f*cking lunacy!
I’m sick of channels like this acting as though merely having an opposite view should be validated in some way!? I oppose the MOON! No! I insist that there’s no such thing and that projected hologram in the sky must go! Now I’m entitled to equal time to debate this on news channels, create a cult following and get to debate it in Washington on Capitol Hill! F*cking madness!
This computer expert should learn more history and maybe learn just how many PEOPLE were DYING in the west, just so they could spread Democracy to the east! Instead of acting like, just because Putin says the moon isn’t real, we all have to nod our heads and say, “Tell us all about it, Puty?”
F*ck that guy and F*ck this channel! Putin is in Ukraine to prevent them from developing their MASSIVE gas and oil reserves. Period! It’s an armed robbery, with NO, “alternative view,” and NO justification. A few Kremlin Kleptocrats have had the west eating out of the palms of the hands and they’re now shocked that the west doesn’t want to lose control of energy security? They haven’t studied their history either. Ever since the term, “Energy Security,” has existed, for over a hundred years, the west has NEVER let the east take away their control over that. And Putin will NOT be an exception. He’s not, “special.” He has no, “argument.” He a f*cking thug who’s threatening nukes and BLUFFING.
But accident do happen if you keep letting a maniac wave a loaded weapon around. So it’s time we made it clear: we are no longer doing business with the maniac! They can depose him in a palace coup or they can have a revolution. But only an IDIOT let’s a mad man wave a loaded weapon in their face a second time! F*ck Putin! He’s done!
@@endianAphones The second.
Line which divides the difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions is written on sand and when core security interests of a nation is threatned those lines are washed by the waters of National Security Interests.
Countries joining NATO is just a fact of the modern world, and not all NATO expansion are considered a threat to Russia but expansion over areas where Russia considers it would undermine its Core Security interests would justify for Russia to erase those difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions or Cross that red line.
Consider this
1. After Ukraine's NATO ascession, for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or western unilateralism or imperialism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member ie Russia can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee. And collective NATO members could hold Russia on its knees.
2. Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
3. From Ukraine, Moscow is just 300km. And ukraine is seemelessly integrated into russia across the European plains with no Geographical frontiers.
4. From Ukraine, west could block Russia's only access to warm waters from black sea both with Crimea(eventually annexing) and by blocking Southern russia across Caucasus, which is just 600km from its extreme ends.
Remember Russia intervened in Georgia for this reason and same goes for Ukraine. And Russia was silent for ex-Soviet members like Hungary, Romania etc joining NATO.. which doesnt pose such significant security threat as Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO do.
5. More importantly with no access to warm waters from black sea, it would lose its access to Mediterranean sea and its role in affairs of Mediterranean and west asian states and russia would inevitably become a landlocked state. Thus west asian affairs and Africa would fall entirely under the influence of west.
6. With nato next to its borders. it would have to increase its military expenditure that would inevitably bankrupt russia and lead to further divisions.
7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was suspended by Trump in 2018 and this meant that previous ban on all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500-1,000 km (short medium-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range) is not applicable now and this opens up for placing US missiles even nuclear ones all countries bordering Russia including non-NATO ones.
*More importantly why Russia doesnt want NATO in its borders is because of LACK OF TRUST*
-- West broke its promise by expansion of NATO and Military encirclement of Russia and when such trust is broken which threatens core security interests it would be absurd for Russians to believe that NATO and West would not meddle in anyway to keep Russian influence forever checked.
--- Also NATO expansion for Russian represents American Hypocricy and double standard.
As expansion of NATO is not just expansion of military encirclement but also American sphere of influence. THis would include trade (Energy, Arms, Space, Techonolgy etc..), culture & habits.
But all the while America denies anysphere of influence to other countries (not even in their borders) through interference in internal affairs, creating regional conflicts, regime change, coups, etc..
You might ask, Isnt joining nato or eu Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy?
---Yes. Joining nato or EU is Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy.
But sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt and make best out of what are its possible's options - Like Japan, South Korea, India (and wait for your turn), all latin american countries or overplay the card like Cuba, Ukraine and wait for consequences.
Ukraine that SHOULD have been pursued to improve the livelihood of it's citizens, if that was the real aim, without putting them in the cross-hairs of either West's or Russia's problem. Here it could have benefited from both Russia and West.
Ukraine could have played the character of India or South Korea here. Consider South Korea, neighbour of china, democratic and captalist like US but neither politically or militarily a threat to it - china even favors united korea under south korean government as long as it was not hostile to it.
Also being buffer state doesnt mean your foreign policy are limited, consider india, its economy both socialism and captalist as in mixed economy, its has good foreign and economic and political relations with Russia US China, Security challenges with China are present but that doesnt mean it has to choose one over or against other in economic politic and social spheres.
What i mean is when your relative strength is reasonably small in international affairs and when you are neighbour to a super power, you necessarily have to incorporate that relation in both your domestic policy and foreign policy, last thing you want to do is poke that Russian bear esp when that bear is standing next to you..
As explained the case of South Korea and India, your foreign policy options are not restricted here.
As the word ukraine derived from "ukraina" means "borderland, unless it had plans to become afghanistan who's geostrategic importance comes from location on the map linking South and East Asia to Russia and West, who also has similar geostrategic importance and influence it should have used its wisdom well esp when it has seen itself what being struck between two super powers - both during world war and as in case of afghanistan.
Do i diminish any blame on Putin for lives of Ukrainaian citizen?
--- No. This war is for sure on Putin and I don't make my comments to diminish any blame ascribed to his name. But though actions on grounds can be ascibed to him but who is the real reason for the cause of that action. Its definitely the West.
Also geography matters, it might seem US have used soft power to persuade their security interests but instead US have only shifted area of active zone to areas beyond Atlantic as US have built bases elsewhere in africa asia and Europe but moment China builds some military bases exercising their economic might in latin America or elsewhere challenging Monroe Doctrine you will see power is just power.. Here core security interests are the line when that line of soft and hard is erased.
Thank you for making this video, very underreported
A very good video. Very informative and great structure.
A little feedback though. It would be really nice if you could put all sources in the description naming them sth. like S1, S2, .... Would just make it easier to fact check and would make the information more transparent.
When the US and the USSR were discussing the expansion of NATO with regards to the unification of Germany they were NOT discussing it about whether any other country would be admitted into NATO (this makes sense since almost all Eastern European countries were in the Warsaw pact or even USSR or strictly non aligned and neutral, the USSR wasn't ever going to discuss whether those countries would be able to join NATO, that doesn't make any sense at all), however they did discuss the NATO bases in Western Germany and whether NATO would move their bases or put new bases in Eastern Germany. They agreed that no NATO base or soldier would move an inch closer to the USSR bloc within Germany, and to this day that is still true, there are 0 NATO bases in Eastern Germany.
All NATO bases are now also infinitely far away from the USSR, on account of it no longer existing.
@@Llortnerof so basically NATO is incapable of breaking that agreement
😂😂😂
Feels strange to leave out the context of the quote, both timewise and where Nato would or could move at that point. Would have at least liked for the video to say that there is more context for it and check out with a link or something.
@@katamed5205 Exactly.
We really wanted to join in 1999 because we knew what Russia was doing Chechnya. Also they started to claim Crimea just after the collapse of the soviet union. It was clear for the central European countries and their citizens that the soviet union is gone but the Russians and their style of foreign politics didn't change. Which was creepy.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't know anything about history but judging these NATO expansion. All ex-soviet are scared to see what happen in Chechya and Belarus. Where else can they find security if not NATO. People who don't live in Warsaw pact countries wouldn't know the pain.
Ignoring the fact that the cechians were Islamic extremists
@@yaraelpoof7242 they weren't at the beginning. They turned extremists because of genocides committed by the Russian military. They just wanted to be free. But Yeltsin didn't want to let them go because the people of the other republics under the boot of Russia could start rebeling. Now they will. Russia already failed in Ukraine next will be Chechnya, Belarus and then we will see. Maybe China will feel sorry for the people of Vladivostok and decide to liberate them in special operation.
@@hofimastah so why can’t the people of Donbas be free they clearly want to join Russia they are getting genocide by the Ukrainians
@@yaraelpoof7242 Nonsence, there are no leaders of Donbass elected by people, only moscow puppets. There is no wish of the people to join russia, only putins desire to restore ussr.
To be fair, if I was the president of Russia, I would also be concerned by a hostile military alliance bringing troops and weapons to my border. With that said, I wouldn't have invaded Ukraine or Georgia but rather tried to build Russia up as an economic power house and thus make neighboring countries willing to partner up with Russia. So I kind of understand why Russia and Putin feel threatened. But what do I know, I'm just a random person on the internet
I’ll grant you that, though I feel your proposal would just postpone the next war between alliances for years. Still, there probably wouldn’t be an invasion of Ukraine with that strategy and it is possible the two alliances would decide to work together. Still, two opposing European alliances is basically what preceded both world wars and what dragged a number of nations into the first one.
Nah, I don't agree with that. I think Putin voices all sorts of grievances, real and imagined, to justify invasion particularly of such a large country inside Europe on NATO's borders because when such a step is taken we all start to think of WW1, WW2 and appeasement. Russia will say whatever it takes to make it ok. NATO's charter is defensive, NATO has never threatened Russia, its member states have not threatened Russia and the people living in those member states have no interest in invading Russia. NATO's deployment of troops near Russia's borders are well outnumbered by Russian counterparts. I don't believe for a second that Russia has felt militarily threatened by NATO as a first strike force. He could have engaged in more peaceful cooperation with NATO as was established after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was mostly arrested when Russia invaded Ukraine the first time in 2014, among other things.
However, I do believe that Putin is not Western as in sharing common values in democracy or rights of the population. From the angle of his desire to restore the glory of the Soviet empire, the West *is* a threat and NATO expansion has meant Russia can no longer forcefully act on its neighbours as it did in the Soviet Union's day. Ukraine likely would have joined NATO eventually and for a guy that doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country and should be part of Russia, acting before that happened seemed to be on his mind.
@@aralbrec often the unthinkable happens and a big country like russia has to plan for the future. The monroe doctrine allow anyone to deploy troops in neither south nor north america and thinking about china for example having a military coaltion with mexcio would start world war 3.
No that’s not a problem here, it is just an excuse. To fulfil Putin’s wet dreams. He is a sociopath. And that’s a problem here. He is mentally sick and adjusting reality to his needs.
John F Kennedy was also just a random American president who threatened WWIII, when a hostile alliance tried to build a base in Cuba.
Good episode
I dislike discussions taking place on other channels / news sources that boil everything down to a game of ping pong between USA and Russia like the sentiments and desires of Eastern Europe's multi million strong populations don't matter. Populations of the Eastern European countries OVERWHELMINGLY want to be in NATO. And yes it is because of Russias behavior. So cheers to TLDR for acknowledging that (and f**k Pootyboi for completely dismissing it).
Yeah I see everyone saying "but Russia can't tolerate Ukraine in NATO" like Ukraine should tolerate being alone against an aggressive Russia on its borders.
@@JoeWilliams-bp5nm Thing is that Ukraine didn't want enter NATO but EU, believing in they formal ally. Immediately after that Ukraine learn beforehand why all ex-Warsaw Pact slav..countries begged to be in NATO.
When your plan is backfiring so bad, that even Finland wants to be in Nato KEKW
What about what the latin american or middle eastern countries wanted? Or the chinese?
@@TheRezro i guess you need to talk to Ukrainians more lol
I'm Romanian and I must say it's 100% Russia. After the WW2, the hole of Europe was destroyed. Say what you will about the Americans with their invasions, but the truth remains. The EU countries that remained under their influence, are the countries that now are doing well. The countries that remained under the Russian iron curtain are still after 30 years struggling to recover. Russia was the worst thing that happen to eastern Europe in the 20ed century. It seems that will continue well into the 21st century as well.
@PrestonSartorius All eastern european countries I have looked at had their GDP growth stagnated and it only started going up couple of years after USSR collapsed. And in regards to people's freedoms they are much better now than as Soviet puppets. Excluding Belarus.
The main reasons for that were that USSR wanted a) to punish the Germans and their collaborators and b) they wanted to create a huge buffer zone, so the next invasion from the west would have to cross thousands of km before they reach soviet mainland. They never wanted to make everything nice and comfy for you. They didnt have the resources even if they wanted to. Only later in the cold war when they saw the american ''hearts and minds'' doctrine, they tried only to a point to move towards abit of social structure and meagre socialy beneficial meassures. But in reality with the USSR blown to pieces during WWII (a USSR that had not even recover from the civil wars) they could never compete with a US with intact infrastructure and comparing minimal losses.
It would be also useful to keep in mind that probably every soviet official and officer serving in DDR and surrounding socialist republics that used to fight for the nazis, had lost family members and lived in horrible conditions.They were not there to make friends. They were there to take revenge and despite official policy, individuals with an agenda are not easily controled. US didnt have that problem, because the soldiers that had a grudge were sent home and new batches were shipped in, that were able to see German civilians for example as people and not targets.
@@adilzade3022 exactly USSR is not Russia and Russia has no business on the UN security council
I try to remember without checking on internet but I think Russia invaded Romania since it exists 11 times during its history. Those are 11 reasons to join NATO without any pressure from the militar alliance. I will say it again to our western friends just in case they didn't got it enough: we love nato because we fear Russia.Thanks, have a nice evening and enjoy your sarmale.
@PrestonSartorius Literally none of whats being said in this thread is true. Firstly, judging a state socialist country by its GDP, which is broadly a measure of capital based profit and wealth, is ludicrous. Every nation in the Warsaw pact post war was a wreck, and before the war half of them were feudal backwaters or fascist states.
In comparison, by the 1970s every single socialist nation in Europe had full employment, guarenteed healthcare from cradle to grave, guarenteed education including university, guarenteed housing as a human right, staggering achievments for any country to make, let alone countries that were comparatively impoverished compared to the USA, which escaped both world wars without a scratch and had full dominance over international markets.
Were they perfect states? of course not, they would still be here otherwise. Romania doomed itself by taking IMF loans and enforcing austerity measures, the Russian exceptionalism played a huge role in the breakup of the USSR, the catastrophic handling of the planned economy in Poland led to the Solidarity movement toppling the government.
But lets be real: every one of those states would still have been there today if it weren't from constant sabotage, economic warfare, espionage and proxy war instigated by NATO. The Warsaw Pact was literally formed as a response to NATO, and even then it was formed as a last resort after the Soviet union was refused entry for being "a dictatorship". Whats even funnier is NATO calling the soviet union undemocratic when the Soviets had universal suffrage since 1919 yet the Americans didn't allow black people to vote a full 50 years later and Britain and France held huge portions of the worlds population in colonial servitude. To top that off, since 1963 France along has murdered 22 African presidents.
But to all the absolute meltlets arguing that because GDP is higher in these countries now that these countries are doing better, I would beg you to actually think about the material conditions in those countries for a second. Even before the war, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary and the Baltic states are depopulating at a rate never before seen in peacetime history. Amnesty international estimated up to 3 million Russians died prematurely as a result of the privatisation in the 90s. the average life expectancy dropped 10 years, again, the highest single drop in recorded peacetime history.
And what do the newly capitalist countries have to show for it? they have "freedom". The freedom for 5 billionaire former party members to seize all the media and industry that was previously in public hands, which they now use to control and promote a right wing neoliberal narrative, resulting in huge public support for NATO. And if you doubt the power of the media, I'll remind anyone who has bothered reading this far that it took a mere 11 days of invasion for giant protests to form across the west calling for a NATO no-fly zone, or in other words calling for nuclear war, all as a result of media sensationalisation of what is already a tragedy in Eastern Europe. Christ, even this channel is talking about the common narrative that "Russia's invasion is going terribly" after day 6, when it took the might of the US military over a month just to topple Saddam Hussein, but our billionaire media pushes it, so we accept it at face value despite even a moment of introspection revealing how ludicrous it is.
What else have they got? almost exclusively far right governments, prime examples being Russia and Belarus, a few actual dictatorships in the central asian former soviet republics, then a few proto-fascist governments like Poland, Hungary and Ukraine, where certain opposition parties and news channels are banned, reversals on Soviet era labour and womens rights such as the rights to abortion, utterly devastated unionisation rates, decimated pensions, constant levels of unemployment, the reintroduction of systemic homelessness and in almost every case the reversal of Universal healthcare and education which is particularly tragic to see in countries which were the first countries in history to implement such systems.
Be you a communist or not, there is a deep history to the socialist history of eastern Europe, what we are told and taught in the west is a fraction of the truth and mired in propaganda, propaganda so strong you can actually see in in polling when the youth of the former socialist countries are broadly happy with the system they have now, whilst the older generations who actually lived under socialism are united in their contempt for what they lost.
A Bulgarian news agency recently published a fascinating article on the matter, arguing that in trying to understand the geo-political struggle between the US and Russia, the West views eastern Europe more as an object, than a subject, that actively had a foreign policy that it pursued. Because of the fear of Russia and the need for security and faster integration into Western Europe, the Eastern countries desired to join NATO, many of these countries actually being battleground not too far back, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, and others still being haunted by their time as Soviet republics, the Baltic states
Right, as oppose to how Rusia sees Eastern Europe. With much respect, respectivly!
Diplomacy is such BS. If verbal agreements are so important then why do we bother with treaties ?
Why would anyone be frightened at a defensive alliance unless they were aiming to forcibly build an empire?
Would US trust Putin if he was expanding towards the US while saying "it's all defensive", don't think so. Putin is a shithead but I understand where he's coming from
the problem is every major power is trying to build an empire; one way or another.
@@n-wordsinparis1734 because why make a rival alliance instead of working towards the good graces and joining the already existing massive defensive alliance? Unless you want to expand under your own "defensive" alliance and topple the existing one
@@Reivehn Except Russia did attempt to join Nato after the fall of the USSR and were told it would never happen.
@@n-wordsinparis1734 totally wrong parallel
Its so unfair that the actual agency of the countries in the discussion is so often glossed over. Its always Russia this or America this. These countries wanted to join NATO and its not fair for the other states to invade them over this issue.
Russia has no right whatsoever in influencing what alliance a sovereign county joins. Putin has this hysteria that Russia being the continuation of ussr means they can control previous members
Each country can ask to join, but is up to NATO (or to be more realistic, the USA) to accept them in.
Indeed. Russians think they are entitled to tell other countries what alliances they can join
@@M.M.83-U In asking, those countries are making a decision. And each country is free to make its own decisions.
@@thetowerfantasymusic Yes, and responsible for it. The USA decision to accept those countries is a menace/danger to Russia, or at least to Russia's goal to remain a global power.
Thoughtful coverage whether it fits into a particular country(ies) narrative or not is greatly appreciated.
Very scholarly. Thank you.
Even if the promise was binding towards USSR, the USSR had disolved and no longer existed at the time NATO expanded. Russia is not the only successor state to the USSR, and the other post-soviet states were in favour of NATO expansion, so there is no way the promise could have been valid at the time.
That's the same excuse russia made for breaking minsk agreement with Ukraine..russia said it made the agreement with the old Ukraine government
So fairs fair afterall but unlike the USSR the Ukrainian government didn't fall apart so russia is just bitter
No, Russia is official successor of the entire USSR. Mostly it comes to paying Soviet Union debts only by Russia not by all ex-Soviet states. But agreements are also implied.
@@bachelor3846 Russia will be the successor state as soon as they reparations for Holodomor and communism in general.
@@ancalyme No such formal criteria or request) 🤷🏼♂️
Anyway, Ukrainians were Soviets also. What reparations can be payed for your own population? The fact that now they are different countries doesn’t change anything.
@@weeguy52 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is established, comprising a confederation of Russia, Belorussia, Ukraine and the Transcaucasian Federatio
Russia taking on debts, does not make it a successor, because there are many calculations that show that Russia was abusing other USSR nations as it was taking more of their recourses and capital, than putting back into the countries. Thus preaty much using them as colonies. So Russia abused the fact the Goverment for USSR was based in Moscow, thus they are responsible for any depts as they were the ones that spent the money.
So that argument for debts = treties , does not stand here.
I mean when push comes to shove if a country gets or feels threatened by the east side of Europe, then there’s no denying that they’ll be open to joining NATO
I mean when push comes to shove if a country gets or feels threatened by the west side of Europe, then there's no denying that there will be some reaction against NATO
@@tryndamereflux7823 yeah which creates a cycle of feeling threaten by each other. One feels threatened so they take action, which the other side takes action in return, causing more tension amongst each other
Everything moves around one premise.
The will of Russia to accept not being a world superpower anymore.
If you want to move on from "We got nukes therefore we are important", you have to accept that your country has the GDP of Italy, so it should start seeing itself as a voice in a choir, doing its tradings and caring for its growth.
If you don't accept the premise and you want Russia to be a superpower despite its actual economic power, you end up like Putin, claiming that role with weapons and through military expansion.
But, if that's the case, you just justified NATO's expansion, because you are stuck with the COld War mentality and you are actually a threat.
They may not be rich but they have leverage with gas and oil
@@Real-Ruby-Red
Not for long.
Instead of using GDP for measuring economic power, try thinking of what would happen if the country suddenly disappeared from worlds economy, how would it be affected. Its a much better measurement system.
@@overloader7900
World would go on either ways.
You can buy gas and oil from other places, and the future is green energies anyway.
@@ChristianIce "The future" Which is not right now, look at the prices of gas and fuel in Europe right now.
"No."
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
Russia also promised not to attack Ukraine in 1994, such hypocrites
Why did Ukraine give up nuclear warheads? Russia and NATO promised “security guarantees” to Kyiv. A fact that some of my Ukrainian friends are now saying Ukraine should probably keep 1/3 or 1/4 of them.
If NATO really dreams about expansion, the the first country they will focus on is Finland.
First the excuse of NATO, then Neo-Nazis, then Bandits, then the claim of genocide(Russians stated they found mass graves). Which one is it then?????
Ukraine can't spend money on those nuclear weapons and it didn't have enough money to keep them at the time they are REALLY expensive to maintain and keep
On wikipedia this is stated: "Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program. In exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine received financial compensation , as well as the security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum."
Why can't it be all of them? Like during World War 2 with Germany, we only discovered the Nazis and the camps at the end of the war, not at the beginning.
On top of it, some Ukrainian articles state that USA and Russia threatened North Korea level sanctions, unless Ukraine gives up it's nukes. In hindsight, USA should have put a similar pressure on Russia, but they thought for some reason that Yeltsin is the good guy here and will build a stable democracy
@@pierrereynaud784 Because all the of the claims are unsubstantiated bullshit, that's why.
Putin: "All our ex-colonies want to join a defense alliance against Russia. Even after I threaten them for dire military consequences. Clearly, NATO is the problem!"
"settling the record straight" Do you mean... SETTING?
If I saw all my past enemies forming a club, I'd be worried.
And if you saw why even your past 'friends' are joining that club, maybe it reflects something about yourself.
Countries have every right to join a defensive alliance if they wish. None of these countries were forced to join NATO, the door was just left open for them.
Yes, and this is still a very real threat to Russia. Plus NATO was under no obbligation to accept them.
@@M.M.83-U How else would Russia invade Ukraine. NATO was under no obligation to deny them either.
@PrestonSartorius So when eastern european countries applied to NATO for safety from Russia, NATO should have been like: "Nah sorry you can't. Because we made a deal with Russia that you can't join. Your country needs to be a defenseless buffer to make Russia feel safe."?
I don't disagree but Cubans might want to have a chat with you when they thought having an alliance with Russia and stationing some of their missiles 500 miles from the USA
@@oscarmachado9607 US and NATO offered a concession to Putin where they wouldn't put ground-launched missiles and permanent forces in Ukraine. Putin rejected that offer.
It is incredibly dangerous that you left it until the very end to clarify that Russia's reasons do not justify invading Ukraine
Finally a non-biased view on things. Thank you. Understanding where the agression is coming from is a step towards resolution and hopefully a long term peace.
Line which divides the difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions is written on sand and when core security interests of a nation is threatned those lines are washed by the waters of National Security Interests.
Countries joining NATO is just a fact of the modern world, and not all NATO expansion are considered a threat to Russia but expansion over areas where Russia considers it would undermine its Core Security interests would justify for Russia to erase those difference between soft power persuation and hard power military actions or Cross that red line.
Consider this
1. After Ukraine's NATO ascession, for Geopolitical reasons for maintaining global prominance or western unilateralism or imperialism, even minor border skirmishes with Non-Nato member ie Russia can be labelled as attack on its members and thus invoking Article-5 guarantee. And collective NATO members could hold Russia on its knees.
2. Also Russia expanding security interests by establishing military relations with Cuba in 1962 was for a defensive action for deterrence and not for offense. This is a fact, but not NATO expansion, as the threat from Soviet Union ended following its collapse, NATO's ulteriour motives were disguised under ideas of democracy and liberalism.
Also with military might of US and NATO, defensiveness is democratic or liberal way of telling its offensive strength. Just like Britian used to say to Pre-Independent and Colonolised India, we are here to give India a Democratic and Modern Direction.
3. From Ukraine, Moscow is just 300km. And ukraine is seemelessly integrated into russia across the European plains with no Geographical frontiers.
4. From Ukraine, west could block Russia's only access to warm waters from black sea both with Crimea(eventually annexing) and by blocking Southern russia across Caucasus, which is just 600km from its extreme ends.
Remember Russia intervened in Georgia for this reason and same goes for Ukraine. And Russia was silent for ex-Soviet members like Hungary, Romania etc joining NATO.. which doesnt pose such significant security threat as Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO do.
5. More importantly with no access to warm waters from black sea, it would lose its access to Mediterranean sea and its role in affairs of Mediterranean and west asian states and russia would inevitably become a landlocked state. Thus west asian affairs and Africa would fall entirely under the influence of west.
6. With nato next to its borders. it would have to increase its military expenditure that would inevitably bankrupt russia and lead to further divisions.
7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was suspended by Trump in 2018 and this meant that previous ban on all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500-1,000 km (short medium-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range) is not applicable now and this opens up for placing US missiles even nuclear ones all countries bordering Russia including non-NATO ones.
*More importantly why Russia doesnt want NATO in its borders is because of LACK OF TRUST*
-- West broke its promise by expansion of NATO and Military encirclement of Russia and when such trust is broken which threatens core security interests it would be absurd for Russians to believe that NATO and West would not meddle in anyway to keep Russian influence forever checked.
--- Also NATO expansion for Russian represents American Hypocricy and double standard.
As expansion of NATO is not just expansion of military encirclement but also American sphere of influence. THis would include trade (Energy, Arms, Space, Techonolgy etc..), culture & habits.
But all the while America denies anysphere of influence to other countries (not even in their borders) through interference in internal affairs, creating regional conflicts, regime change, coups, etc..
You might ask, Isnt joining nato or eu Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy?
---Yes. Joining nato or EU is Ukraine's soverign decision and its alone and russia shouldnt put veto on its foreign policy.
But sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt and make best out of what are its possible's options - Like Japan, South Korea, India (and wait for your turn), all latin american countries or overplay the card like Cuba, Ukraine and wait for consequences.
Ukraine that SHOULD have been pursued to improve the livelihood of it's citizens, if that was the real aim, without putting them in the cross-hairs of either West's or Russia's problem. Here it could have benefited from both Russia and West.
Ukraine could have played the character of India or South Korea here. Consider South Korea, neighbour of china, democratic and captalist like US but neither politically or militarily a threat to it - china even favors united korea under south korean government as long as it was not hostile to it.
Also being buffer state doesnt mean your foreign policy are limited, consider india, its economy both socialism and captalist as in mixed economy, its has good foreign and economic and political relations with Russia US China, Security challenges with China are present but that doesnt mean it has to choose one over or against other in economic politic and social spheres.
What i mean is when your relative strength is reasonably small in international affairs and when you are neighbour to a super power, you necessarily have to incorporate that relation in both your domestic policy and foreign policy, last thing you want to do is poke that Russian bear esp when that bear is standing next to you..
As explained the case of South Korea and India, your foreign policy options are not restricted here.
As the word ukraine derived from "ukraina" means "borderland, unless it had plans to become afghanistan who's geostrategic importance comes from location on the map linking South and East Asia to Russia and West, who also has similar geostrategic importance and influence it should have used its wisdom well esp when it has seen itself what being struck between two super powers - both during world war and as in case of afghanistan.
Do i diminish any blame on Putin for lives of Ukrainaian citizen?
--- No. This war is for sure on Putin and I don't make my comments to diminish any blame ascribed to his name. But though actions on grounds can be ascibed to him but who is the real reason for the cause of that action. Its definitely the West.
Also geography matters, it might seem US have used soft power to persuade their security interests but instead US have only shifted area of active zone to areas beyond Atlantic as US have built bases elsewhere in africa asia and Europe but moment China builds some military bases exercising their economic might in latin America or elsewhere challenging Monroe Doctrine you will see power is just power.. Here core security interests are the line when that line of soft and hard is erased.
When Russia moves their nuclear weapons away from Kaliningrad, then we'll talk. I don't see NATO crying about it, Kaliningrad is right in the heart of Europe, 250KM from Warsaw, 250 km from Copenhagen, 530 KM from Berlin, 1100km from Brussels.
Weird, when NATO countries encircled Austria, Austria did not feel the need to invade anybody.
Austria after WW2 wrote a constitution that legally bound it to remain neutral like Switzerland. Though it is allied with the west & is part of the EU it cannot legally join NATO.
@@dougr.2245
Well, look no further than Russia to see what it means to be "legally bound" to an agreement.
(Spoiler: zilch).
@@unduloid what like the US illegal invasion of Iraq, Syria, the embargo against Cuba that’s literally only there because the US failed to overthrow a government that wouldn’t let US businesses rape the country?
@@BattlestarZenobia
Whataboutisms. Boring.
@@BattlestarZenobia You mean the wars that were marginally opposed by the western public? and protested against, without said protests being silenced? if russia wants to embargo another country then guess what, they are fully in their right to do so
Very good
Could you please link sources for the declassified documents, as well as all the other sources you used.
Turkey is still the Easternmost member of NATO. NATO hasn't moved further East since 1952.
Turkey is not europe... so they dont care. Putin refers to eastern europe not the most eastern nato country..
@@froglifes6829 In that case Norway is the Easternmost NATO member in Europe and has been since NATO's founding.
@@Jonassoe Ukraine is more east than Norway thats why its called "eastern expansion" because NATO is going east..
there was never an explicit promise for NATO not to expand west, they just promised Gorbachev that they wont deploy troops in East Germany, and the russian elites understood that as an implicit promise not do deploy troops East of Germany
The promise was to USSR, which no longer exists, btw. Neither does its regime. There can be legal continuity for written treaties transferred to one of the subsequent countries, but not for informal ones.
@@noldo3837 What you are saying is really absurd. It is exactly the same as saying we will drop a nuclear bomb in two cities because there are military facilities and will make the enemy surrender faster. Just because you would "prevent" more casualties and the fact that there were military facilities there excuse the fact that you vaporized civilians ? Is it ok to bomb a hospital because there are hostile troops hiding inside it ? Is it ok the bomb an entire country's civilian infrastructure after a decade long sactions just so the country can be invaded easier ? The truth of the matter is that NATO ain't a charity nor is it a goody two-shoes organization/alliance. The truth is that NATO is the tool with which the US can use sof military power in their goal of controlling all of the planet. There is nothing holy about it. It is a military organization through and through and there is nothing defensive about it. The only time article 5 was ever invoked was in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Let me give you a question to think about. Why would someone from the Middle East bother to perform terrorist attacks in the US with no fucking reason ? It's naive to think that NATO wants the good of the world or anything similar. If they did they wouldn't have been repeatedly refusing any Russian Integration of any form to NATO other than them bowing their head. NATO could have very well prevented this war from errupting but they were the ones who procured the spark. They then remained passive aggressive. Their stance of either you bow your head to me or we do nothing. The best case scenario for Ukraine would have been to have reached an agreement before open conflict even started. Why would they wait for conflict to start before even attempting in negotiating ? Why would Zelensky prefer seeing his cities burning and his citizens dead before making concessions ?
@@alexandervlaescu9901 I did not want to discuss opinions. I have stated facts. At that moment it was USSR. And USSR does not exist anymore. And it was not a written treaty anyway. These are facts. For example Baltic states, which were by then PART of USSR, which requested NATO not to expand* (NATO can't "expand", but that is another story), are now within NATO. I have only stated a fact that informal agreement with now nonexisting party is not binding in any way. These are facts. Your and my opinions are irrelevant.
@@noldo3837 And treaties are just a piece of paper someone at some point signed. What is so binding of them ? Who is enforcing them ? Treaties work on an honor system. How is it any different from a world leader making a verbal promise than signing a treaty (other than someone trying to claim that something was said when it clearly didnt) ?
@@noldo3837 This is a very uneduacted take. Within international law, the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR and all treaties and agreements that applied to the USSR apply to Russia. All Soviet embassies became Russian embassies, Russia aquired the USSR's seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and all of the above was accepted by the rest of the former contituent states of the USSR. This is pretty basic stuff.
I’m glad you framed yourself differently so we can see more of your space. It’s a nice set!
That thumbnail is BASED.
"remember, NATO is a defensive alliance, there is no expansion"
Libya & Yugoslavia: hold my beer
The Yugoslavia one was justified. The government was genocidal
correct comment, wrong video
Yugoslavia was about protecting minority groups from being wiped out by a bigger neighbour acting , well rather like Russia is acting today, or do you excuse mass murders as just one of those things? And of course Russia has not involved itself in Libya either has it???
Uhm... Sure, NATO went there, but it was approved and mandated by the UN Security Council... which you know... requires unanimous decisions among the permanent members and includes Russia and China.
"On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace - a no-fly zone - and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters.""
@@thysonsacclaim How is Libya now? Not to condone Putin's invasion but its just as evil to support Western invasions like Libya which has left the country a hellscape beyond imagination (far more suffering there and in Iraq, Afghanistan than in Ukraine so far) We invaded and destroyed that country, levelled it and left nothing but rubble, chaos, death, famine and disease. It was not for "humanitarian" reasons, our governments love ruthless, murderous dictatorships, they have installed and propped up most of them. They invaded Libya because Gaddafi was planning on creating an African currency and trading block in Africa so the continent could protect its interests. This would have harmed western profits and control in the region so the decision was made to simply destroy the country entirety, and it was done. Putin is doing what our state's have been doing for decades, its just closer to home and easier to point the finger at someone else then at your own, but those who cannot see the hypocrisy are destined to promote mindless barbarity
There's no doubt that the Americans were irresponsible and are partly to blame for the escalation that led to this war, but NATO's expansionism was not offensive but rather defensive. Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO to be better secured against a possible Russian aggression, as well as wanting a closer interaction with the West, due to its obvious better quality of life.
In the case of Ukraine, due to its shared history and family ties with Russia (especially in the East), Putin was probably scared that a closer integration of Ukraine into the West might propel Russians to want the same if Ukraine was to have a better quality of life than Russia, something he could not tolerate.
At the end of the day, the main factor here for the war is one; Russia's inability to have evolved in the past 30 years. Russia actually went backwards, not forward. Its imperialism now resembles more a 19th century state than a 21st century one; bullying it's neighbours with military invasion and conquest if they refuse to accept their demands. The justifications that Putin gives are eerily similar to Hitler's justifications in 1939, and he needs to be stopped, preferably from the inside. Hopefully more and more Russians will wake up and realise that he is not the saviour of Russia, but rather its henchmen.
Also independent states voluntarily WANTED to join NATO.... why blame NATO?
Why did nato exist after the dissolution of the USSR. because the main function of nato buoan is only to fight the world but against all parties that are hostile to the west. so the disbandment of natio is very important for world peace
It is sad to see what kind of an awkward nationalistic and reactionary state came from the Soviet Union
Russia wanted to join the west and nato, bill clintons aids werent to pleased
The Americans (and to an extent NATO) set a precedence in the Balkans, in 1999 in Serbia/Kosovo, later Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria that it is OK to intervene in a country if you deem that the country is not run well or has an internal conflict. I am not defending Russia, but seen from outside, Russia's actions in Chechnya, later in the 2000's in Georgia and the region and Crimea in 2014 and lately Ukraine are not different that what the US did followed the established precedence. It's a game of influence.
A straight honest analysis. I like it.
Where do you put your sources? I can't find them in the description.
Everyone is talking from a perspective of empires and spheres of influence, what about the nations in eastern europe who are being traded like cattle? Shouldn't we be allowed to decide our own future and alliances? Most of us want to be in Nato because we fear russia more than anything else.
Yeah I don't get this. Eastern Europe has been great up by Russia for a long while, and abused for it.
Nato just sees you as a tool to weaken their enemies
@@hornyfuckinturtle And without NATO we would be just free real estate for Russia.
I think it's important to mention that the "no inch eastward" quote refers to NATO military bases and other complexes in eastern Germany. That's why to this day there are no such bases and complexes in the eastern part of Germany.
srsly? :D
Thanks for showing both sides of conflict.
Good video.
The key word is “needlessly” - NATO won’t needlessly expand east. Well it isn’t needless for those nations that don’t want to be invaded by Russia. Who is Russia to decide what is and isn’t needless expansion? Russia literally invaded Ukraine in 2014 already??!! How is it needless?!
When russia tried to expand into cuba, America stopped it
That Wouldn't Happen Though If Putin Wasn't Threatened back in 2004-2007
@@rex_syfer887 You realize NATO is gonna expand now that Russia is giving neighboring countries a really good reason to join?
Russia wants it's neighbors small, poor, weak and under it's control.
Who has said small countries do not deserve adequate defence?
Ok, i'm Mexican, who is going to protect my country from U.S.A?
@@master1941 You can't even protect Mexico from your own
You know the old saying a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on
Verbal agreements are only worth the paper they're printed on.
*We in Central and Eastern Europe could not care less what Putin thinks of NATO enlargement*
You will definitely care about those Russian nukes exploding over your house though.
@@KillerofWestoids we also have nukes, next door in Germany.
Russia: * bullies its neighbors *
neighbors: * join a club that is an insurance against Russian influence *
Russia : * invades the countries that arent in the club so they wont join *
When Russia says that there are western weapons in the russian borders, dont forget that there are also russian weapons in the borders of those western countries. and there arent NATO bases on the russian border. There arent basis on the baltics, despite Estonia wanting them.
They should be grateful that we freed the them from enslavement by the Germans
@@comradeigor9859 They were free since 1919 before the USSR invaded again in 1939, and no they don't want your "liberation" for 50 years
@@danielojaaru2344 I didn't care they want us or not fact is if we weren't there nobody of them would be alive today
@@comradeigor9859
You can't justify enslaving a country by saying that you freed them in the past. That's just asinine, and that's putting it mildly.
@@unduloid who said enslaving
So in short - when you make deals be sure to make the other side write that down and sign the deal.
Gorbachev said NATO expansion was not discussed and there was no agreement in a 2014 Kommersant interview.
From polish perspective joining NATO was the best decision made in XX century.
Lithuania too. There's no way you can convince us joining NATO was a bad idea after seeing that happened to Ukraine and Georgia.
As a Swede I'm envious, I hope my government finally leave our historical neutral stance behind and fully side with NATO in the coming months or years considering Russian aggression
@@midaeium As a Swede, you are pretty far down on Russia's wish list. That said, NATO membership would be a good thing.
Countries has joined Nato because Putin is unable to have friendly relations to it's neighbours. Putin has pushed countries to Nato members by his own behavior. Most Russia's neighbours would like to have friendly relations were both benefit with Russia.
hes jammed in communism and cold war times, he should let the progress go and let Russia develop its own towards democracy.
Russia doesn't like The Western because they allow to much freedom why do you think everyone in The US is so much messed up than in Russia?
@@heavenly5545 Hard to say, but the west is more than just the US... There's the UK, Finland, Sweden, Spain, etc...
You lost me when you said its only FORTY pages long 😂😂😂😂
5:07 I hear 'informal', I see 'formal'