NATO, Russia, Philosophy, and John Mearsheimer

[@ArmchairViolence]

YES, I'm still going to do martial arts/self defense videos! I'm just also going to occasionally cover things regarding violence that are not directly related to martial arts. That's why I named the channel "Armchair Violence" instead of "Armchair Martial Arts." This was always the plans! (Remember my Dave Grossman video?)

[@DesCoutinho]

This sounds like a NATO thing to say

[@institches2750]

I'm down. The videos on how swords work and the Dave Grossman one were cool. There are only so many martial arts topics before you get into clickbait.

[@DiphonFX]

Love it, great analysis.

[@justsomeguywithoutamustach5603]

Amazing analysis you countered every potential Russians bots talking point there is lol

[@titomala-madre]

A great video idea would be on drug cartels. I started reading the book: "Los cárteles no existen: Narcotráfico y cultura en México" by Owaldo Zavala. There is a translation by William Savinar titled "Drug Cartels Do Not Exist: Narcotrafficking in US and Mexican Culture". It's really interesting.

[@imjustsam1745]

Congratulations on using your channel to further explore another passion. I've been a fan for a few years now and this is a ride I'm happy to take with you.

[@Hector_Moira]

Fully agreed

[@YuriEHG]

There is a small chance that bro wont get shadowbanned and I believe in it

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@@YuriEHG he Just said what already is mainstream, and a Lot of nonsense

[@FightFilms]

Try an argument. You know, like the one that convinced you he is wrong. IT. DOES. NOT. EXIST..

[@kittydaddy2023]

@@FightFilms arguments in KZbin comment sections in 2024? Bro, it's 2025, deal with it.

[@Baalur]

Why should you get shadowbanned for saying the same thing the establishment and the legacy media are saying? Not saying they are wrong in this case but these opinions and observations are as mainstream as it gets.

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@Baalur he is wrong lol

[@edchristie1974]

I'm a Brit who worked at NATO HQ for 6 years, 2014-2020, including on NATO-Ukraine relations. I went over many times and I am very familiar with both Ukraine and with the Kremlin's aggression, deception, and propaganda techniques. Your video is good, a lot of well-grounded reasoning and analysis.

[@JaMeshuggah]

Aggression, deception, propaganda.. the British expertise 😂😂

[@piotrd7355]

@@JaMeshuggah How is the weather in Muchosransk near St. Petersburg Sascha?

[@JaMeshuggah]

@@piotrd7355 warmer than your mother's internal tissue

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Ruski bots still SEETHING at the "Anglo-Saksi" over Crimea

[@3nertia]

@@JaMeshuggah Welcome to capitalism!

[@Dovidius]

Very unrelated to the video, but damn. This guy: Is interested in martial arts, majored in pol-science, wears batman shirts, AND he has an emo partner. How rad is that?

[@trakkaton]

He majored in propaganda and believes any phrase he regurgitates from indoctrination camp. Like that international contracts are up to change by changing regime puppets (like ANY international contract the USA breaks whenever it "feels like it"). Ridiculous. And calling the USA a "democracy" - THAT'S RICH while the "commander in chief" is OBVIOUSLY a demented, disoriented patient. RIDICULOUS! Now make a video about MK Ultra (and how the sovereign voted on it in the "democracy"), Gladio, Gladio B, Operation Timber Sycamore, Depleted Uranium Ammunition, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin, will you? Ridiculous...

[@buckcherry2564]

When the kickpunchy guy better covers world events than LITERALLY EVERY NEWS OUTLET.

[@johnogrady2418]

When A.C. and Joe Rogan are the voices of reason in America today!!!

[@aaizner847]

@@johnogrady2418 Joe Rogan is a moron's idea of a genius. He's about to spend the next 4 years apologizing for putting Musk into the president's chair. Don't argue with me unless you're willing to put real money on it.

[@aaizner847]

Not literally every news outlet. Just the corporate ones. You should check out independent news where they have both conservatives and liberals presenting facts together.

[@aquarius5264]

well the kickpunchy scrappylad is way smarter than any news outlet

[@aaizner847]

@aquarius5264 news outlets aren't "dumb". Just corrupt.

[@TmasterinoYT]

As a student of international relations, very curious to see what one of my favourite channels about martial arts as to say about a lot of what is my field of study hahaha was not expecting this at all

[@cf7922]

LOL, it doesn't matter whether or not you think NATO is not a threat to Russia, its whether Russia thinks NATO is a threat to itself. It takes two to tango and if one side doesn't even agree that you're doing the tango, then how do you make them? through sanctions? threat of force? The situation is that one side was dancing by itself, while the other side was telling them to stop dancing since its getting annoying.

[@Nkkdxn45j]

If I understand his arguments correctly, Mearsheimer's thesis is that offensive realism is the way states operate because that is the nature of the geo-political system - there is no 'policing power' above a nation state - therefore a state's action is not a choice, it is just the natural response to the system. So, it is the way states operate, not individuals. So, in that case, Putin does not have the choice to be an offensive realist or not, any more than a train has the option to go anywhere apart from where the railway lines lead. It is just the natural response of the state, which he leads, to the structure of the system.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@Nkkdxn45j Realism attempts to describe the international system and then makes policy recommendations based on that analysis. However, no one has to take those policy recommendations. And someone who is not an offensive Realist would often have other priorities and would not take Mearsheimer's advice. Offensive Realism assumes states should make rational choices that maximize their relative power in the international system. However, there is no one forcing states to do that, and leaders are perfectly free to make other choices. Mearsheimer himself would fully admit that real leaders do not always follow Realist policies, occasionally act irrationally out of ideological concerns, and that his theory on how states act is only correct about 75% of the time. So, I believe your understanding is incorrect. Putin definitely has the option to not be a Realist. There is nothing structurally stopping states from going against Realist recommendations. After all, the US has gone against Mearsheimer's recommendations for this entire conflict!

[@InsanityInc100]

@ArmchairViolence Some comments from a half Russian half Ukrainian (there’s a lot of us, making the whole situation that much messier and more complicated) to provide additional context that I thought might interest you. All in all tho, a great video with lots of insight that’s sorely lacking in most Western analysis (in both the sympathetic and antagonistic perspectives with respect to Russia). @3:20 With regards to Russia seeming to initially support NATO expansion and military action, there are some important dynamics at play that I think you slightly neglected. Namely that Russia, at the time a now much weaker and smaller nation relative to the influence, military and economic might, and overall respect/fear that the USSR commanded, was genuinely hoping to be integrated into the West as an ally and partner. The country, and especially the elites, were in deep denial as to their newfound irrelevance compared to the clout of the Soviet Union. They naively wished and expected to still be treated as a superpower, and envisioned their former enemies in Europe and the US jumping for joy at the opportunity to make a friendly capitalist ally out of the Russian Federation. Instead, US elites and business interests began to exploit the volatility and instability of the Russian economy alongside the Russian oligarchs. This team-up greatly contributed to the “Wild 90’s” in Russia, a time of unprecedented turmoil and chaos that enabled the enrichment of a few dozen individuals and their cronies at the cost of a precipitous drop in living standards for the average Russian (accompanied by the biggest non-wartime drop in life expectancy in human history). This culminated in Putin even expressing a desire to join NATO in the early 2000’s, only to essentially be ridiculed and laughed at. Russia also repeatedly offered and attempted to cooperate with the US militarily in the wake of 9/11, only to copy the US playbook years later and use the fight against Islamic extremist terrorism as a justification and rationalization of Russian expansionism. After finally accepting that the US had no intention of treating Russia as a respected friend and equal, the Russian government almost seemed desperate enough to even want to become the US’ and the West’s loyal lapdog. So basically, until around 2005 when relations began to truly sour, Russia saw enabling and encouraging NATO expansion as a way of not just getting in good with the Americans and solidifying their relationship, but even in some sense an investment in Russia’s future influence as an indispensable partner and ally, if not outright member, of NATO. The primary motivation here was simply “if you can’t beat em, join em”, but unfortunately for Russia they never got the memo that nobody ever invited them to this party or ever actually wanted them here until it was too late, and they had already made fools of themselves. @19:30 the reason Ukrainian nationalism is often equated to nazism/fascism by Russia (aside from the historical ties between Ukrainian nationalists and invading German Nazis during WWII) is that the word nationalism has a slightly different meaning and carries a very different connotation in post-Soviet republics. Historically, in the USSR, nationalism meant ethnocentrism (there literally is no other word for ethnocentrism in Russian). That’s why a common “catchphrase” in the USSR was “there is no nationalism in the Soviet Union”. This statement wasn’t declaring that there is no nationalist spirit or national pride in the western sense. Instead, it was meant to convey that no individual ethnic groups believed in or claimed supremacy/superiority over the other groups. This was, of course, false. Prejudice, discrimination, and division definitely existed in the USSR, and although they varied in character and intensity throughout its history, they never truly went away. However, the government and broader society always publicly denounced them, and attempted to actively combat them through various measures. For example, diversification programs like preferential acceptance of those from a poor/working class background into universities, encouragement and support of the entry of ethnic minorities into government positions, etc. (for example, Stalin was ethnically and nationality-wise Georgian, Khrushchev was ethnically Russian but nationality-wise Ukrainian, Brezhnev was Ukrainian both in ethnicity and nationality, as was Chernenko, Gorbachev was ethnically half Ukrainian half Russian, and that’s only mentioning Heads of State and none of the other many posts occupied by ethnic minorities). Nevertheless, being the largest republic and individual group, ethnic Russians and Russian culture were sort of seen as the glue binding all these smaller cultures together. Stalin himself very consciously and intentionally saw himself as sort of steering or directing “the great Russian people”, in order to harness them as a powerful tool and unifying foundation for such a varied and diverse union. @43:00 forget suckers, at that point the US will be guilty of turning Ukraine into glorified sparring pads used to wear down the equivalent of a rabid dog that got into a batch of bathtub crank. In a more literal sense, Ukraine will have become a low-stakes practice run for funding an “important” country and ACTUAL ally, Taiwan, against an also “important” and ACTUAL threat to US hegemony, China. All for the low low price of hundreds of thousands of dirty Slavs. A real bargain if you ask me. And all they’re risking in the process is Europe’s gas/oil (fuck em) and one of the Third World’s major sources of food (double fuck em). Win or lose, the US is left with a revitalized a freshly-expanded NATO, plus an exhausted and war-weary Russia with severely depleted weapons, munitions, and mechanized assets reserves. I doubt this was all meticulously and diabolically planned from the start, but at some point the writing was on the wall, and the movers and shakers of American foreign policy would’ve been stupid not to seize the opportunity. Even now, while neoconservatives and liberals are at each other’s throats over whether US positions will be strengthened by increasing support to Ukraine or cutting it off and forcing a peace deal, America has already won. Liberals seem to think China gives a rat’s ass about how things go for a Russia, a country it dwarfs in every relevant AND irrelevant aspect. Conservatives seem to think that “saving money” by turning off the military-industrial complex’s spout will somehow benefit America in the coming trade war. Meanwhile, Ukraine is already suffering a demographic collapse that it is almost certainly never going to recover from no matter how things play out from here. God I wish someone would give those poor people a break, but their role in the script was decided a long time ago, and nobody is about to orchestrate a rewrite any time soon

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"This culminated in Putin even expressing a desire to join NATO in the early 2000’s, only to essentially be ridiculed and laughed at." - This is not true. Putin implied he deserved an invitation to seat at the adult's table rather than wait like the little countries in the kids' table. That's not how it works. To join NATO there's a process. You have to wait. You have to be accepted by all the other countries. You have to change your force structure and weapons to match the NATO standard. Russia wouldn't throw their vast Soviet stockpiles in the trash and buy NATO gear. They wouldn't sit in line with the other small countries. That's the true "extent" of humiliation Putin felt. Being treated equally to others is humiliation akin to people noticing his lifted soles. "Liberals seem to think China gives a rat’s ass about how things go for a Russia, a country it dwarfs in every relevant AND irrelevant aspect." - China's invasion of Taiwan is D-Day Nightmare Mode Edition. The complexity of the operation dwarfs the Three Day Sped Operation.

[@ArmchairViolence]

1. I think your assessment of Russian desires is largely correct. They wanted the West as allies, but they still wanted to be treated like the scary and formidable Soviet Union, and have people walk on eggshells around them. They did not realize that joining in with the West would mean they got treated like everyone else. I would, however, argue that they WERE being treated like a friend and equal. If France or the UK had done the same things that Russia did, we would have given them the same level of criticism. If not worse. And those countries have also been happy to launch criticism at the US over the years. Just look at the different rhetoric over Israel! However, Russia had been used to being treated like an aggressive super power. They got used to people tip-toeing around them and trying not to upset them. Once they started being treated like every other country in Europe, they felt like we were being dismissive and disrespectful. They didn't want to be treated like any other country, because they thought they were more important than other countries! But we didn't see it that way. And Russia didn't realize that any country that sees themselves as too powerful and special to play by Western rules CANNOT be our friend. They are automatically an enemy. And I don't think anyone properly communicated their viewpoints on either side, meaning that Russia felt disrespected and the West felt like Russia was lashing out for no reason. I think it was a lack of communication that led to a spiral of tensions. However, I don't think there was ever any way to work out the differences. Russia fundamentally wanted to be more special than other European countries, and we wouldn't be friends or allies with anyone that thinks that way. Also, I don't think that Russia seriously wanted to join NATO. I think they were curious about whether it was possible, but I doubt they would have seriously applied. And they were rejected because they've never had strong enough democratic institutions to qualify for membership. They wouldn't realistically make it past the application process, even if we treated them like everyone else. 2. That is interesting! When talking to a post-Soviet audience, would it better if I said national spirit/national pride to denote my definition of nationalism? Would they understand that phrase any better? 3. I agree that the US has a lot to gain, and hasn't really given a second thought to the lives that are being lost by indecision and cowardice. However, I would also argue that US interests are more aligned with Ukrainian interests than you might think, even though few people in the US recognize this fact. If the US abandons Ukraine and lets Russia tear it apart, it will confirm all of the doubts our allies have about us: That we leave our allies to die as soon as we get bored and want to do something else. That we have no ability to see anything through, and that we will prioritize our own comfort and convenience over the existence of our allies. And that sentiment will be REALLY damaging to our alliance structures, and will even jeopardize our defense of Taiwan. The Taiwanese president has explicitly said that Ukraine is a test-case for Taiwan. If we don't commit to defending Ukraine, then he won't expect us to commit to defending Taiwan either. Which means Taiwan would be forced to adopt a different military doctrine and change their procurement strategy, because they have to plan on fighting without US support. This would make future efforts to fight alongside Taiwan MORE difficult because their military is no longer built to compliment ours. Plus, China would see that we are unlikely to commit to Taiwan in the long term, so they would be more likely to invade. In addition, there has been talk of forming an "Asian NATO," which would be VERY helpful in stopping China. But no one is going to form a new, politically fraught alliance with the US if they don't believe that the US is a trustworthy defense partner! Allowing Ukraine to be destroyed massively harms our deterrence capabilities in the Asian pacific region, and it makes our showdown with China more likely AND harder to win. However, most people in the US aren't informed/smart enough to see how those conflicts connect, so they would rather leave Ukraine to die so they can "only focus on China." I think that genuinely committing to Ukraine and helping to push Russia back depletes Russian offensive abilities, gives us a new heavily militarized ally in Eastern Europe, strengthens NATO's security reputation, strengthens our deterrence in the Asian Pacific, gives us a clear victory against a strategic enemy, and ultimately reasserts US military supremacy on the world stage. Allowing Ukraine to die to exhaust Russia is an operational victory but a strategic loss. Helping Ukraine beat Russia back is an operational AND strategic victory.

[@cupidsfavouritecherub9327]

​@@ArmchairViolence on your last point, imo Ukraine has already proven America's defense promises as untrustworthy. The unfiltered fact is that if the US wanted Ukraine to win this war, they would have already won the war. Instead its a playground for new weapons tech and a tool to attrite the Russians' ability to wage war for the low low price of Ukrainian lives. Putin was never going to break the nuclear taboo for a land grab, else he would alienate the few powerful allies (and large markets) he still has in China and India. So the fear of nuclear retaliation has always been unfounded, and was proven to be unfounded over a year ago at this point, after multiple "red lines" were crossed with no consequence. They've proven that unless you're an ally of direct material benefit to the Americans, like the Taiwanese, you'll just be another pawn in the geopolitical game, to be used and discarded. Same thing happened to the Kurds

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"New weapons tech" the US is sending 30 year old ATACMS about to be retired and replaced by PrSM.

[@InsanityInc100]

@@ArmchairViolence Firstly, I’d like to express again how impressed I am with how accurate and discerning your analysis is, and not just “for a Westerner”. You have some of the most well-developed and informed commentary on the subject I have run into online from anyone, period. 1. I largely agree with your description of how Russia was treated. The Russian perspective, however, would likely characterize this as very much unequal and downright disrespectful. This is because Russia would (naively) see itself as far more important than France or the UK, which to Russia constitute glorified US client-states and obedient lapdogs, despite how reductive and inaccurate this view is in practice. Your observation that any country that sees itself as a natural exception to the West’s rules cannot be a friend is very astute. However, the Russian regime clearly views itself as an equal to the US, and desired/expected to have a sphere of influence that is equally as uncontested and off-limits as that of the US, and desired the same level of undisputed dominance in this realm. Anything less is perceived as an insult (despite Russia’s economy being roughly the size of New York state’s) and demeaning, due to the Russian government’s (and people’s) delusions of grandeur. Even in personal conversations with longtime supporters of Putin’s regime, they point to US actions/interventions to justify their own (i.e. Russia is justified in invading Georgia for the same reasons that the US is justified in its interventions in the Middle East). Although Russian membership in NATO was never realistic for a myriad of reasons, you might be surprised as to how seriously Russia viewed a potential “honorary” or “unofficial” role in the alliance. Remember that the Russian system was and is intentionally designed for nearly any and all rules/regulations to be bent, broken, ignored, or erased if/when convenient. Putin and his regime may well have thought that the US would be willing to do the same to win such a powerful former foe-turned-ally (as delusional and uncharacteristic of US and NATO behavior as this may be). It doesn’t really matter if there’s no logically conceivable way of accomplishing this, as that has never stopped Russia before from making whatever exceptions are desirable at the time. It also aligns with the unshakable belief in Russian exceptionalism, and was (at the time) their only “realistic” option for simultaneously forming/joining a powerful new coalition and gaining strong allies, while also thoroughly insulating Russia’s sphere of influence. An additional key motivation was the strained relationship with China since the Sino-Soviet split, plus serious ideological schisms post-USSR collapse, as Russia fully embraced unrestrained, unregulated “Wild East” capitalism. In Putin’s perfect dreamworld, forming a strong alliance with the US and NATO would have been the perfect way to secure and reinforce Russia’s shaky sphere of influence IF things went according to expectations (founded in delusional Russian exceptionalism). 2. In most cases this is not necessary, as this alternative definition of nationalism is largely a Soviet relic at this point. Most modern Russians and post-Soviet peoples now understand the more conventional meaning of nationalism. It is still important to be aware of the negative connotations the word carries in these places, but its use/perception is gradually shifting on its own. 3. At this point (post expansion of Ukrainian military operations into Kursk Oblast), I think you are correct about the overall alignment of interests between Ukraine and the US. I’d argue that surrendering the main contested territories (i.e. Donbas/Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea) much earlier on (but not from the get-go), and shoring up defenses as much as humanly possible w/ maximum Western support/aid during the time this would win Ukraine, would have saved many more Ukrainian lives overall. Unfortunately, I think that neither were the Ukrainian people prepared to give up so much of their rightful territory without a fight to the last man, nor was the West prepared to sink that many resources into what would then be relatively untested and unproven (and potentially corrupt) Ukrainian defenses. At this point, it seems Ukraine, partially through its own choices/actions, partially through its allies’ and enemies’, is destined to fight until it is no longer able to. I worry that this will inevitably happen only when Ukraine runs out of manpower, which they are bound to experience before the Russian Army does due to sheer numerical imbalance. I disagree with those that see the US as entirely to blame for putting Ukraine in a situation where they are likely to experience losses they will never recover from before the war ends. Ukraine certainly did its part in choosing this fate, and it’s hard to blame them considering how few alternatives there were short of complete capitulation.

[@tosch9057]

Not sure why people are so salty. I liked the video. But I do hope you also continue doing videos about martial arts/self defense/combat sports. Edit: Also congrats on marriage(?)

[@JaMeshuggah]

@@tosch9057 account ends in 4 numbers: doesn't understand why his attempt at a Daily Show segment leaves a bad taste in subs mouth's

[@ArmchairViolence]

I will continue doing martial arts videos! I'll just occasionally throw in other violence-related topics (Remember my Dave Grossman video?). Edit: Thank you! I did indeed get married a few months ago!

[@DesCoutinho]

​@@ArmchairViolencea whole other kind of violence but first few months lull you into a false sense of something. And of course muzzletoff all the best congratulations I shed a silent tear also if something

[@tosch9057]

@@ArmchairViolence Yeah, that was a good video too. I actually hadn't heard about Grossman before that video, so the whole thing was sort of news to me.

[@Silver_Prussian]

Because just like the hundreds of profesional expert on combat and battlefield operation channels that use to publish videos of knitting almost 3 years ago, major details, logical fallacies, geopolitical analysis as is being left out. And hey I am not gonna pretend I am an expert nor would I pretend that I dont have a side I support but at the very least before making any statement I think about it carefully before saying or posting anything.

[@phishdough]

The Russian bots aren’t gonna like this one buddy

[@kittydaddy2023]

Nyet

[@moneygrowslikegrass]

42 russian dislikes

[@hoodvaavdooh]

Nah, we are okay, thanks for your concern for us Russian bots though ☺️🤝

[@Memovox]

Ok, Gatekeeper.

[@yagsipcc287]

So are people who disagree and point to history bots from Russia now? Weird take.

[@unavela]

This content really becomes you, nicely done Armchair Politics

[@Bombsuitsandkilts]

Man I wish KZbin had recommended this to me, this is right up my alley. I literally get recommended videos of yours that I have already watched from years ago more than your modern stuff. KZbin algorithm sucks.

[@dahakaguardianofthetimelin4780]

The "Putin wouldn't send 190k troops to occupy Ukraine, he'd be an idiot if he did that" rant has a strong Sportsmax rant from that SNL skit "Only a really bad team wouldn't score a single point in the second half and the Jets are the best team ever, so something's not adding up here!" energy

[@jojojo701]

I've waited for this video since you've teased it a few months ago. I will inject it straight into my eyeballs

[@haskey44]

A video debunking russian misinfo from a guy who taught me how to punch people in the face was not on my list, but Christmas definitely came early this year. There are cultural and historical nuances people wouldnt know about unless they spoke Ukrainian or at very least Russian, but the other than that your work definitely deserves a high praise. Given how many Russian shills and useful idiots I've seen on KZbin since 2014, gotta admit this one is really competent. Coming from a guy who woke up today to the sound of kamikaze drone being shot down over my home, thank you! You can not really fight lies with truth, but it means a lot to me and to every Ukrainian fighting for our country's survival. Best regards from Kyiv!

[@christopheralexander195]

This was excellent content and I enjoyed it immensely. Thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgeable take on the topic.

[@dimadubnevych9164]

Regarding CIA: original protests in Ukraine in 2013 were for EU integration (Yanukovych who was elected with that promise rejected it). But they were almost calm down and it was clear that they will be over in a day/two. There were left-overs of a bunch of students and they were brutally beaten by Yanukovych. It was a turning point in protests. After which thousands of people, even those who wasn't for EU, came to the maidan in the morning on the very next day. You could observe the same in Romania not so log time ago but related to court system. CIA is not an author of that. Unless Yanukovych is CIA agent. If not that situation there would no so called "coup". NGO who kind of financed from the west were local activists who asked for grants in developing new laws and reforms, fighting with corruption. So that is the main model of real "soft force" which west used in Ukraine and it was because there were people inside the Ukraine who wanted to reform corrupted institutions.

[@sebastianaminoff9703]

Yeah, but Victoria Nuland, Biden and other top US officials marshalled opposition politicians in ousting Yanukovych, and they also made sure who was and wasn't in Ukraine's new government. While Euromaidan was obviously a large popular movement in Ukraine, the US undoubtably played a large role.

[@milosmilenkovic4610]

Excuse me but how do you think I am supposed to belive this story… Yanukovich gov started beating protesters that were peacefull and were about to break anyway?! You are aware of the countless CIA backed coups around the world right? Current example is Georgia (no not the state for you dumb americans), where CIA is planting political violence from the opposition (which is also backed up by US foreign affairs)

[@JaMeshuggah]

Excusing the CIA is admitting to being on the side of wrong and evil

[@dimadubnevych9164]

@@JaMeshuggah where am I excusing? I gave a direct unbunkable proof that CIA cannot be authors of the revolution of dignity. It is posible only and only in case if Yanukovych was a CIA agent or led by CIA agent. I now the situation from the inside and know how it looked like in reality.

[@JaMeshuggah]

@dimadubnevych9164 No actually you didn't prove anything but it's a message to others who excuse the CIA as well

[@dontblamepeopleblamethegov559]

Wow. I watched a vid on martial arts and decided to check what other videos you have. As a Ukrainian myself, I'm insanely impressed in how clearly you lay out this information. Thank you.

[@hughjanus87]

i think you're a smart guy with a good thought process, i don't think most people will stop watching you just because you occasionally make videos unrelated to martial arts, especially since there are so many charlatans out there without any kinda thought process other than whatever fits the agenda/product/whatever else they're trying to sell you, with u i'm pretty sure you'll at least present a good thought process and some decent arguments even if you turn out to be wrong about something

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@hughjanus87 You pretty much nailed my own thoughts on it. People follow my martial arts stuff for my thought process, not my expertise. Hopefully they like my thought process in other areas as well!

[@user-te6nm3gu4e]

Following your logic, if tomorrow a USA-neighboring country, for instance Cuba, decides to, in use of their own souveranity, let Chinese or Russians put military bases on their shores, thats OK. Man, what a deception to see a clever guy like you doing "geopolitics" like a child.

[@ArmchairViolence]

Cuba was allied with the Soviet Union for decades. They had a SIGNIT base there for 40 years (closed in 2002). Following YOUR logic, we should have invaded and occupied Cuba decades ago. Yet, we didn't. Cuba can be aligned with Russia. Brazil can be in BRICS, which Russia directly states exists to oppose Western hegemony. Yet, the US doesn't invade. The US is not a hypocrite, Russia is.

[@user-te6nm3gu4e]

@ArmchairViolence Your "world view" is so fucked up I think no person could ever change that. Amicable piece of advice: you, in case you are a white male, are also in the list of "enemies of the american government".

[@rdfoskff]

​@@ArmchairViolence The only reason USA didn't invade Cuba is because it doesn't need to. Sanctions have crippled Cuban economy making the lives of people absolutely miserable for decades. USA only invades when sanctions and regime change doesn't work, like in Iraq and Serbia.

[@manfromyard]

But the usa did try to invade and has targeted Cuba with sanctions ever since. Its only that the us led invasion failed, not for lack of trying. The USA invades and overthrows more governments than any other country. Its hard for other countries to believe that " this time it's different" when the history is so blatant.@@ArmchairViolence

[@trakkaton]

@@ArmchairViolence So Bay of Pigs "never happened". Cuban missile crisis "never happened". And you think that Russia could put military bases and nuclear weapons on the Mexican border or Cuba without the USA starting a military confrontation AGAIN - ridiculous. Pick up a history book.

[@sdmoralesma]

Great summary, good job, and looking forward to more content of this kind.

[@holywaterbottle3175]

Imagine being so lovable all your neighbours and former territories rush to join a military defensive alliance specifically against you

[@viacheslavprokopev8192]

This argument is so lost and wrong I don't even know where to start. 1. Not even close to "all neighbours and former territories". Former USSR states that are not rushing into NATO: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. 2. "Russia is just bad because intrinsically" - this is racism. 3. Neighbors are very often have problems and hate each other. Check Balkans, check England and Ireland, Armenia and Azerbajan, Syria and Turkey, India and Pakistan and list goes on. But your racist ass just picked out one case, Russia. 4. "NATO is a defensive alliance" - lol, I mean if you really believe this then ok. But I think we might ask Serbians or Iraqis about that.

[@Henry-by8en]

​@@viacheslavprokopev8192you should ask the Bosnians, Kosovo, and the Albanians what they think of Serbia and western intervention in Serbia But of course, you're a tankie. Ethnic cleansing is perfectly fine so long as it opposes the west right?

[@holywaterbottle3175]

@viacheslavprokopev8192 lmao bro got tilted by a joke 🤣 But in all honesty I'm thankful to russia. No other country has the power to unite different peoples and cultures by the sheer virtue of being the most awful country around. I'm also thankful to putin for showing the world russia is all bark and no bite

[@dimadubnevych9164]

Ukraine didn't want to NATO until the Russian aggression

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"Ask Serbians" - We asked. They didn't listen. Force had to be used. "Iraq" - NATO was only a peacekeeping force. Iraq was invaded by the US, Australia, UK and Poland. Not NATO.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Superb video. 👍 Thanks for taking the time to make it. I hope people share it within their social circles, because your analysis deserves more visibility. Unfortunately, unlike Mearsheimer, you're unlikely to be invited to speak about it as a geopolitical expert.

[@jinception01]

"you should know all of these people and terms in at least reasonable levels of detail" Me and my microbiology degree: *watched anyway*

[@Thegremn]

A MMA guy made a political video which was good. This is rare. Well done.

[@JaMeshuggah]

I know you can't link but what MMA guy? It certainly wasn't this video 😂😂

[@havz0r]

You misspelled 'bad'

[@joeswanson5486]

@@JaMeshuggahthis guy goes over a lot of wrestling, mma and combat hand to hand combat related videos on his chanenl

[@ArcasCorricol]

this seems like a fun direction to go. excited to see where this channel goes

[@renatfaradzhev3975]

As Ukrainian, who was born in the eastern part of Ukraine, the argument that easterners were pro-Russian and wanted to be a part of it just sounds dumb. People were literary running out of Donetsk and Luhansk when Russian paid separatists took over(because if u didn't, they would put u in "basements" or taken to the DNR and LNR army), My family were helping them with food and clothes. And it was in 2014! And saying that West overthrow the government is insanity. I HAD taken part in Maidan Revolution myself, and it taken part not only in Kyiv, but in other cities of Ukraine(and its important to say, that nobody of us were paid(and its funny to see that Russia literary paid separatists to do their "protests". Also, its funny how westerners say a lot against their governments and being pro-kremlin and still can live their lives, while u cant say anything against Russia without being put in prison or marked as "inoagent". P.S. Huge thanks for your video, its nice to see that somebody in a west doesnt make their opinions based on what rus-bots portray.

[@ZS-rw4qq]

Back when Graham Phillips' channel was still up on KZbin I saw the contrary, I saw boys from all over Ukraine volunteering for the DNR and LNR

[@JaMeshuggah]

Stop taking our money

[@lg2058]

A ton of ppl fro Eastern Ukraine will never agree with you. Particularly after years of shelling and repressions on average citizens.

[@Waltarius8]

@@lg2058 рашистский бот.

[@MrParlam]

Here's your $5, elf

[@tannerunderwood264]

21:00 I'm so glad you mentioned that video, as it's the reason I'm even "well-informed" on this subject matter. Also, unrelated but I remember your video regarding how bare-knuckle boxing/fighting would be safer for brain health and that was something super interesting to further look into. Love this style of content, I'll have to watch your channel more

[@tprnbs]

I think the most important reason was simply money. Ukraine was threatening a business crucial to the Russian economy. Shell andExxonMobil reached an agreement and obtained a license to extract newly discovered gas reserves in Donbas, and they would make money selling gas to the EU instead of Russia's Gazprom

[@dimadubnevych9164]

it is still irrational. does it worth that? it is probably a gold gass now

[@tprnbs]

@@dimadubnevych9164 Yes, you're right, but putin thought he would conquer Ukraine in a few days, and when that didn't work out, he continued the war. He didn't expect so many sanctions to be imposed because he thought he could intimidate everyone (some countries, like Germany, initially even refused to send weapons). He also didn't expect to be disconnected from the SWIFT system.

[@ArmchairViolence]

Surprisingly, I think that this is largely not a factor. A. Putin hasn't claimed all the gas. Only a small chunk of the gas is in the Donbas, with a lot of it being further West and a separate deposit in the Carpathians on the other side of Ukraine. B. Putin has claimed things that DON'T have gas. No one knows of any deposits in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson, but Putin has attempted to annex those Oblasts as well. C. The only reason to stop seize Ukraine's gas fields is to stop them from taking Russia's customers in Europe. Customers that he is ALREADY losing because of the invasion! Even if we accept that he didn't expect the harsh response, invading Ukraine is still a much bigger risk than NOT invading Ukraine would have been. D. He could leave. Once he realized how harsh the reaction was, and how much business he would lose, he could have negotiated a full end to the sanctions in order to give Ukraine the land back. That would have saved him a bunch of money, but he never attempted to do that. E. The war is expensive. If this war were about getting money, he's already lost more money on the war than he could have possibly lost to competing with Ukrainian natural gas over the next 20 years! F. No one talks about the gas reserves on either side. If Ukraine thought that this was about gas, they would have said so in order to frame Putin as an imperialist who starts a war just to steal some money. However, not even Ukraine is saying this. They are saying that this is a fight over Ukrainian national autonomy and whether they can gain freedom from Russia. And Putin is ALSO saying it's about Ukrainian national autonomy. If BOTH sides of the conflict say it's about whether or not Ukraine should be allowed to politically separate from Russia, then I am inclined to believe that they are telling the truth.

[@dimadubnevych9164]

​@@tprnbs Ok after few days he knows that it is not like that. Why he continued? irrational. "lost investments" cognitive trap? "he thought he could intimidate everyone", "thought he would conquer Ukraine in a few days", "He also didn't expect to be disconnected from the SWIFT" - then he is very naive, stupid person who lives in his own world without connection with reality and who doesn't learned lessons during 8 years. He already had sanctions for 8 years after annexing Crimea, why would full scale invasion to Ukraine it will make everyone kinder? He received a new ones even before invasion has started. "some countries, like Germany, initially even refused to send weapons" - because they were afraid of spending money on someone who will die in few days.

[@tprnbs]

@@ArmchairViolence A. He is still gaining territory in Donbas B. He wants to cut off Ukraine's access to the Black Sea, In 2012 it was discovered that Ukraine's exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea is rich in natural gas deposits, containing over 2 trillion cubic meters of gas C. Yes, but he thought it would be "business as usual" with Europe the same way as after the annexation of Crimea D, E Yep you’right, but leaving and giving Ukraine the land back would mean defeat for him, and he doesn’t like that F. For Ukraine, a better narrative is the struggle for independence and sovereignty while for Russia denazification of Ukraine and the protection of the Russian-speaking population and/or defense of its sphere of influence in the post-Soviet region

[@Lifelover992011]

Usually when martial arts/self defense people go into politics I prepare myself for the worst but this was actually very informative. Love the armchair and this kind of content, keep doing whatever you want to do

[@kamilorowski8592]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that democracies can change their mind, but that's actually the point that Mearsheimer makes. You can never know what future presidents of the US will do, so a strong military presence near your border must be seen as a potential future threat. It's the offensive CAPABILITY that really matters, not what the treaty says or what the alliance has done. It's a textbook example of a security dilemma.

[@kittydaddy2023]

I can't respect anyone disrespecting Prof John Mearsheimer

[@ArmchairViolence]

Yet, being unsure about what future actions a country might take is ALSO why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. To be more secure. Also, if you're concerned about a land invasion over the border, NATO already had a border with Russia. And Russia then provoked Finland into joining NATO, and they don't seem to be terrified. Furthermore, Russia has nukes. The idea of NATO launching an unprovoked, conventional invasion into Russia is absurd. And NATO has never stationed nukes closer than Germany and Turkey, despite having been on Russia's border for decades already. If we just look at it from a military capability angle, adding Ukraine to NATO simply does not meaningfully move the needle on a Russia-NATO war. But it WOULD protect Ukraine from Russian aggression. Which I think is obviously a much more realistic concern than NATO aggression.

[@kittydaddy2023]

@@ArmchairViolence how much are they paying you to put a positive spin on NATO? Pretty sad someone needs to shill for them, almost like it has outlived its usefulness.

[@cupidsfavouritecherub9327]

Yeah that's what i was thinking when I got to that section lol like a schizo administration is a threat in itself if it has weapons on your border. Like I don't think NATO expansion was the only or even the main reason for the invasion but I think it was definitely A reason

[@3nertia]

The Presidency is just a Scapegoat Mechanism and the President is just a puppet anyway lmfao

[@theserpentofmendes]

I'm doing Muay Thai and a PhD in IR, I think that makes me your target audience, I'm here, you found me!

[@МаксимПастушенко-н5и]

Thank you, from Ukraine!

[@nils1543]

Slava Ukraini!

[@JaMeshuggah]

Stop taking our money and surrender

[@fredeuhrbrand3789]

Go for it. Your critical and comical mind lends itsself well to this kind of content as well - take this compliment: i love the fact that you so often manage to be funny without making things up. You are just funny talking about facts. Cheers

[@Tsmowl]

You're right. Without the necessary background it's not possible to engage with this video critically/thoroughly. However when it comes to presentation it's basically like injecting some info into a vein. Well done.

[@LouisRosasGuyon]

Fantastic analysis! I will be recommending this video to a few friends who are PoliSci professors.

[@docmalitt]

Dude, kinda general knowledge quite easy to obtain if one only wants and/or cares to read more than a title of an article in media, (old..papery, or new..electronic) and just because ppl are brand new PhD's after 2 random youtube videos is not (your or anyone with basic knowledge) problem. It does help if you are interested in the region and geopolitical situation in EU and/or Balkans in particular. So just a question to many future Russian defenders...how come nobody wants to join Russian (ex, present or future - and btw by ex... nobody had a choice, they were invaded)) alliance yet NATO gets numerous demands for membership and does not expand unless all members vote unanimously - btw almost impossible... but happens from time to time.

[@JaMeshuggah]

Why are China and Iran subtly backing Russia then?

[@kez_the_reaper2657]

I know you said that wasn't a beginner friendly video but I don't know a lot about anything you covered and it was really digestible you explained that very well thank you

[@l4game]

If it's gonna be some simplistic BS like "Putin bad / delusions of grandeur / wacky historical theories / NATO expansion not a threat" than I'm gonna be dissapointed But so far the Violence Boy has delivered so let's watch :D

[@BackdoorCommando]

Please explain how NATO’s expansion could possibly be a threat to a nuclear power.

[@JaMeshuggah]

@@BackdoorCommando let us subvert you come onnnnnnn

[@l4game]

I guessed 3 out of 4, not bad😎

[@holywaterbottle3175]

Putin is bad and has delusions of grandeur. He is also the biggest driver of NATO expansion in the world. Without him Sweden and Finland would still be neutral

[@mortvald]

@@BackdoorCommando because nato is a military alliance, dance around that concept all you want say it's defensive all you want. it means that air defense can be placed at any nato country, and air defense being closer to russia border could theoratically create a situation where nato could launch their nukes from afar and also intercept the ones launched by russia in it's most vulnerable, the boost phase. in other word, it's equivalent to someone pointing the gun at your face and removing the safety pin. No one safe would want to live at the mercy of a historically merciless people. There is also the launch distance factor, the closer to the border the smaller the launch distance the higher the interception rate. the biggest factor is ukraine because it's close to key cities and facilities.

[@squidsleap]

That was great! You get reprimanded for making sense, but that was still great.

[@tjsho417]

I feel like a political discourse with you and IcyMike would be epic! ❤

[@adriancho07070707]

If NATO can have troops and bases in Eastern European countries and expect Russia to smile and do nothing, then Russia or China can do the same in Mexico or Canada while America stands still and smiles just as it did when the USSR wanted to place missiles in Cuba, right?

[@ArmchairViolence]

Putin didn't invade because of hypothetical NATO bases. Or Missiles. Or alliances. He invaded because of Ukrainian culture. Putin has explained this countless times. I covered it in the video.

[@lg2058]

​@@ArmchairViolence "This war is over NATO expansion" --Stoltenberg

[@ArmchairViolence]

@lg2058 If you believe that Stoltenberg's analysis of this war, then you would support his position that we should have sent far more lethal support to Ukraine. If you DON'T trust Stoltenberg's analysis, then his comments on the matter are meaningless. Also, please source that quote, because I can't find anything close to it. The closest I can find is when he commented that Finland and Sweden joining NATO was "the opposite of what Putin wanted," which is very different from "this war is over NATO expansion." Even if he said it, I would fully argue that he is objectively wrong. But I at least want to see the source

[@lg2058]

@ Stoltenberg doesn’t just have the analysis - he has something which has historical facts to back it up, while sending weapons with a given level of lethality is indeed just a matter of opinion which one may or may not agree with. “…actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine”. Nowhere else in that speech to the EU Parliament in 2023 did he mention many people’s favorite “this war is a war to conquer Ukraine” or “this is a war of territorial conquest”, or something of that nature. Also - I don’t understand how the quote you had in mind doesn’t fundamentally say the same thing as above (just leaving out the Ukraine part): “So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.” Indeed, this is where he was bringing up how Finland caused more NATO on his borders, rather than less. But nothing changes the fact that he mentions the original reason for why the war started, as there is no other way to interpret this. Also - the head of a Ukrainian delegation during the 2022 negotiations explicitly said what the Russians were after: “They were willing to end the war if we took on neutrality, like Finland once did, and gave assurances that we wouldn’t join NATO. That was essentially the main point. Everything else was cosmetic and political embellishments” And on top of that, since 2008 when NATO recklessly declared that Georgia and Ukraine will join the block, there have been countless protests from Russia from the very top of political hierarchy. Between all of the above - it would defy belief to imagine that the invasion was anything other than due to NATO getting close to Russia’s borders (the Black Sea region is of particular importance to them due to naval bases there + the ability to exert influence on the Middle East). There is simply zero evidence for the “war of territorial expansion” theory, and plenty related to the geopolitical dangers NATO expansion posed.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@lg2058 1st quote: He's referring to the December 2021 ultimatum, which had WAY more demands than NATO not accepting Ukraine. It's basically equivalent to a full NATO surrender and rollback across the continent and the world, and is generally viewed as so obviously unacceptable the it was meant to be rejected so that Putin could blame the war on the West for "not listening to his concerns." 2nd quote: He's directly responding to the 2021 ultimatum and taking it at face value. I don't think that necessarily indicates his beliefs on the true cause of the war, merely the basics of what the 2021 ultimatum wanted. If he does believe that NATO expansion is the cause of this war, then he's wrong. I don't use Stoltenberg as a source of analysis of policy advice. Plenty of people are wrong about this war. If Stoltenberg is wrong about it, then he's wrong about it. 3rd quote: Who said it and what's the source? I want to see it in context, as the "neutrality" mentioned could have easily included the political and cultural sphere, which would bolster my argument. I don't even know which of the negotiations he's referring to. Georgia and Ukraine in NATO: Once again, they obviously don't LIKE NATO, but membership could also be viewed as Western puppet masters exercising direct control over Ukraine. If he's protesting NATO membership, the question is WHY he's protesting NATO membership. Because he feels militarily threatened, or because the CIA is subverting Russian historic destiny? I'm not arguing for a war of territorial expansion theory. If this war is nothing about NATO expansion, then why would Putin spend the vast majority of his words on the matter discussing shared destinies and Western "direct control" over Ukrainian institutions? At the risk of oversimplifying the argument, you're sourcing very select NATO and Ukrainian officials in regards to Russian motivations. I'm sourcing Russian officials. I think the Russian officials probably understand their thoughts and motivations a bit better.

[@melvinmalonga4068]

"My -three- four favorite things to talk about are Batman, Martial Arts and organizational culture *and international relations* "

[@BeepBoop2221]

Of the good points John sometimes makes, his opinons on ukraine are not among them. Wait do Americans think liberals are leftists?

[@institches2750]

Yeah, in U.S. domestic politics, "liberal" is basically the antonym of "conservative," and those terms are nearly synonymous with "Democrat" and "Republican."

[@ArmchairViolence]

Yeah, American political terminology is basically divorced from much of the world. If you think that's bad, you should see our views on race and ethnicity! (Hint: Race is 100% based on your skin color, and we don't have any definition for ethnicity that makes any sense)

[@impact0r]

A surprisingly accurate summary. Really good work. Regards from Poland.

[@Tucktovich]

I love this branch-out into non-martial arts content - I'm also an IR guy and you did a fantastic job researching and arguing this video. I'm curious if you considered the possibility that Putin's public commentary on the illegitimacy of Ukrainian nationhood is essentially being used to justify the war to his own population and he has some other strategic reason for the invasion?

[@redactedcanceledcensored6890]

wow, this looks like a treat, I hope I'll have time to watch the full thing and actually pay attention

[@joshmeyer8172]

First you say Russia isn't threatened by NATO expansion. Then you say Russia had already prevented Ukraine from joining NATO prior to the invasion. Now you say Putin invaded because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. lol wut? I know you're trying to draw a distinction between NATO as an immediate military threat, and NATO as a symbol of western political and economic ties. But it makes no sense to frame it that way. Why not talk about, say, EU membership instead of NATO membership? You say Russia's invasion of Ukraine predictably increased NATO expansion, therefore NATO expansion couldn't have been the motivation for invading Ukraine. But you also freely concede that the invasion predictably drove Ukraine into the west's arms. Wouldn't that imply western ties couldn't have been the motivation for invading Ukraine? On the one hand you seem to believe that Putin is level headed and clear eyed when assessing the nuclear threat from the US and NATO, but on the other hand basically a paranoid schizophrenic when assessing Ukrainian democratic politics. Right after you call people out for thinking that Russian leaders can't understand democratic politics! I'm not saying Putin or Russia are the good guys. Nor am I saying that they are masters of political, economic, or military strategy. I wouldn't call Putin an Offensive Realist so much as a Narcissistic Sociopath, but in many ways the two behave similarly. Personally from where I'm sitting the simplest explanation looks like natural resources, especially natural gas, both off the coast of Crimea and in the Donbas region. To be clear, I oppose appeasement. "Offensive Realists" tend to be power hungry. If Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, there's no reason to think Putin will be content. Just like he wasn't content with Crimea.

[@ArmchairViolence]

If I talked about EU instead, the John Mearsheimer people would say "Putin views the EU as a stalking horse for NATO!" And then we're right back to square one, so it wouldn't have mattered. Western ties make sense as a motivation, but only when you view it from Putin's heavily biased perspective. I think there is a difference between Putin being a general crazy person, and him being biased on a particular topic. Even highly rational people can have blind spots, and his belief in a historic destiny gives him a big blind spot on Ukraine. Now, it's entirely POSSIBLE that Putin is just completely detached from reality in GENERAL. However, I'm assuming that's not the case, because his ability to stay in power and successfully consolidate that power over the years implies that he's not an idiot. So I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he has a very limited number of blind spots. But you're correct in that it's also possible that he genuinely DOESN'T understand how democracy politics work! Which would also be a bit concerning. The problem with the natural resources theory is that A) there are plenty of deposits outside of what Russia's trying to annex, B) there are multiple Oblasts that Russia's trying to annex that DON'T have deposits, C) everyone (Russian AND Ukrainian leadership) has been very clear that it's about Ukrainian national identity, and D) continuing the war is doing more harm to his business selling to Europe than Ukrainian competition ever could have. Plus, there's the expense of the war. If it was about money, he's losing money harder and faster by doing the war than by not doing the war. The concept "Offensive Realists and Narcissistic Sociopaths behave surprisingly similarly" is hilariously accurate lol!

[@JaMeshuggah]

Imagine believing "The John Mearsheimer people" exist or matter in this argument.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@JaMeshuggah You... don't think people follow Mearsheimer's lead? And you don't think that followers of Mearsheimer have any effect on the public debate over foreign policy? Have you lived under a rock for the past few years? Is this the first time you've seen Westerners discuss the war? Congratulations on waking up from your coma, I suppose. Which must have started before John Mearsheimer was an influential name in international relations, so... 40+ years ago?

[@JaMeshuggah]

@ArmchairViolence if you had even the slightest bit of awareness you would at least admit >97% of people involved or opinionated about this issue are not informed by John. Nor do they even know of his existence. You're either disingenuous or delusional if you want to push this.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@JaMeshuggah That's only because >97% of people have absolutely no background knowledge, and have never thought of the conflict further than their immediate gut reaction. Anyone that's interested enough in the conflict to so much as Google "cause of Ukraine war" has heard of Mearsheimer. If you had any awareness, you'd realize that you have left more comments on this video than the next 5 people combined, meaning that you are working harder to pump my video up in the algorithm than I am.

[@benjamingoldstein1111]

You did a pretty good job there!

[@l4game]

Okay, so I’m a dumbass who doesn’t know how to better use his time so I’m gonna spend it critiquing this video. I only watched it once so I might miss some points worthy of attention, but here it goes in chronological order: 1. Saying “NATO intervened militarily here and there but they had international support” is pretty weird given how NATO members are all part of the governing bodies that give said support. So of course they’re gonna vote for it. 2. Further you say “and Russia also voted in support or didn’t veto at least” implying that if Russia didn't object then it would be inconsistent of Russia to object in the future. And right after that you explain how a country (only in this case the US) is not a person, leadership changes, policy changes, etc. How do these two points coexist in your head I don’t really understand. 3. You talk about the formal reasons Ukraine couldn’t have been accepted into NATO due to territorial disputes. This is just plainly wrong I believe. Just off the top of my head - Turkey is in NATO despite their territorial dispute over Cyprus. Croatia is in NATO despite their territorial dispute (with Slovakia - another member no less!) over the Gulf of Piran. I’m sure we can look up many more. Also I believe there were also talks about placing strategic weaponry (wonder who it’s gonna be aimed at?) on Ukrainian soil even without them joining NATO. 4. When you say that Russia can’t be peeved by NATO creeping towards their borders that much since they didn’t do anything when Finland joined. Jake, seriously, what do you think Russia should have done? Start another war while in the middle of the war with Ukraine? YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE WAR SO WE PUT ANOTHER WAR IN YOU WAR. And vilify themselves some more and give other countries an excuse to enlarge their support to Ukraine? Also Finland is a nation of 5 million with 24k military while Ukraine is a nation of 37 million with 200k military (now 800k). Priorities, right? Same with tiny Estonia and whatever else tiny Baltic country right next to Russia that was accepted into NATO. 5. Now for the most bizarre and the longest part of the video. I really don’t quite get why you would read Putin’s essays and listen to his public speeches to “gain insight” into his real motivations. What you have read and listened to was nothing more than propaganda, mostly for internal use. It’s just public/popular justification of the war to the masses. I don’t know what an intelligent person like you doing thinking he will find “real motivations” there. All those ideas of “shared destiny”, “historical justice” etc… Putin is not some waco, he’s a highly pragmatic person who has been ruling the biggest country on Earth for over twenty years, he simply doesn’t think in terms like these. He wouldn’t go for such a massive gamble as a war in Europe just because he thinks “hurr it would be nice if we and Ukraine were the same country durr”. 6. About “Ukrainian self-identity”. Any self-identity for a huge part can be formed through propaganda. In today’s age especially so. Collective West (traditionally) did a good job forming Ukrainian self-identity and swaying their sympathies, Russia (traditionally) did a poor job. 7. I don’t understand why you talk in mockery about the CIA's influence on Ukraine and other countries. CIA’s meddling in other countries (supporting revolutions included) is fairly well documented. What the hell else would the CIA be for? 8. Just a minor point - “Promoting their own language is unacceptable”. One thing is promoting their own language, another is banning Russian language from schools, government, media etc. and promoting bullying campaign against those who refuse to switch to Ukrainian. P.s. Love your vids, man!

[@arandomlemon6707]

Yeah this vid is a bit of a miss but the other ones are great

[@ArmchairViolence]

1. I believe the members that would have voted against Russia include The Gambia, Gabon, Bahrain, Malaysia, Brazil, Argentina, and Slovenia. None of those were NATO members at the time. That's fairly broad support. 2. It doesn't mean that opinions and stances can't change. There are people arguing that NATO is an aggressive power and that its aggression proves it is an existential threat to Russia. By showing that Russia typically approves and cooperates with NATO missions, it shows that Russia does not actually feel threatened by NATO's actions, and has even assisted NATO on many occasions. Plus, it shows that NATO does not actually act "aggressively," and instead acts with explicit legal permission from the UNSC, or at least with broad international support. 3. The Cyprus dispute is between Greece and Turkey, which were added in 1952. The guideline regarding territorial disputes in NATO wasn't implemented until 2008. Slovakia also joined before 2008. Croatia actually joined in 2009. However, Slovakia and Croatia were already exploring plenty of legal options to settle their dispute, were nowhere near starting a war over it, and Slovakia had to explicitly consent for Croatia to join NATO, proving that the dispute was rather unlikely to escalate. Slovakia would never vote to give Croatia NATO protections in they were planning to seize the territory by force. Technically, the territorial dispute thing is a guideline instead of a hard-and-fast rule, and the Croatia case seemed (rightfully) like something with a very low risk of starting any sort of armed conflict. However, a military invasion and annexation of land, with the attacked state wanting to take it back (by military force, if possible), is exactly the kind of thing those guidelines were written to avoid, as it would be very likely to escalate and drag NATO into a war. The Ukraine example runs afoul of the guideline so hard that it's difficult to imagine a situation that could violate that guideline any harder. Plus, Russia is not in NATO, and would not be part of the voting process for Ukraine to join, so they can't get the same kind of assurances that Slovakia was willing to give. Admitting Ukraine would have been a MUCH more difficult argument to make. 4. Finland and Sweden joining NATO was an entirely foreseeable consequence of starting a major land war in Europe. Especially when it's Russia invading Westward (Fins have not forgotten to Winter War). However, Ukraine was nowhere near ready to join NATO, while Sweden and Finland could have joined at the drop of a hat (because they basically did). Meaning that Russia faced 2 choices: A: Invade Ukraine, and NATO will expand immediately. B: Don't invade Ukraine, and NATO probably won't expand anytime soon. They chose to risk/directly cause immediate NATO expansion. Therefore, I suspect they had other concerns that were more important to them than NATO expansion. 5. He absolutely would. We can learn from history that leaders are almost always upfront and transparent with their ideology. Mein Kampf genuinely does explain Hitler's worldview and motivations for the war. People typically have to have very obvious and compelling reasons to lie about their ideology. I think we can also infer that Putin is telling the truth for logical reasons. The Tucker Carlson interview is probably the clearest example. The Carlson interview was very obviously aimed at a Western audience, because that's who watches Carlson. If Putin wanted to say those things to a domestic audience, he would have had easier and better ways to get his message out. So, I think it's safe to say that he was purposely speaking to a Western audience. However, in this interview, he went on an incredibly long rant about history which absolutely no one in the West could follow or understand. No one could figure out why he did it, and even Carlson talked about how it confused him and didn't make any sense as a rational tactic/manipulation attempt. The ONLY way that Putin's history rant makes sense is if he was being GENUINE and actually telling us what was important to him irrespective of whether it makes sense to us. We can also see that Putin brings up the same issues whether he's addressing the Russian public, Russian politicians, the Western public, or Western politicians. All of these groups would likely be convinced by different arguments, yet he tells them largely the exact same things about his motivations. AND the things he is consistently saying, once understood, actually do an excellent job of explaining his actions. Even his mistakes make perfect sense in the context of the ideology he claims to have. The best explanation for this behavior is that he is simply telling the TRUTH. When someone's story is consistent, doesn't obviously benefit them, and makes perfect sense when compared with the fact, the only logical explanation is that their story is true. 6. National self-identity is actually an extraordinarily difficult thing to form. It's called "nation building," and the US very publicly failed at it in Afghanistan. How could we utterly failing at it in a place that we have direct military control over and no real competition, yet succeed beautifully in a place where we have little-to-no presence and stiff competition from a more culturally-aligned immediate neighbor? It doesn't make sense as to how we could be morons and experts at the same skill set at the same time. The much more likely explanation is simply that we ARE bad at it (because it's just a very difficult thing to do), and that the cultural identity that developed in Ukraine had very little to do with us. 7. The CIA has absolutely meddled in other countries, but it typically takes a large amount of resources, and it tends to be about as subtle as a bomb. The CIA tends to focus on key power-brokers and give them the resources (mainly money, sometimes weapons) to seize control. Plus, they are often things that the government tacitly admits to. Ukraine had none of the hallmarks of a normal CIA-backed coup. It was bottom-up instead of top down (INCREDIBLY hard to do), no one has any clear idea as to how it could have logistically been pulled off, and they would have had to do it while leaving virtually no traces of their involvement. The CIA just isn't that good. No one is! This is something that arose naturally, because it's the only way any of it makes sense. After all, why couldn't it arise naturally? Countries have had coups, revolutions, uprisings, and protests throughout history. Even before intelligence organizations existed. And no intelligence organization has ever pulled off an uprising that impressive! When the CIA tries to instigate a mass revolt, it doesn't look like Euromaidan. It looks like the Bay of Pigs! Euromaidan wasn't a CIA plot, it was dumb luck! The Ukrainians just wanted to do that. I doubt the CIA could have influenced it one way or the other. 8. They didn't ban the Russian language, it just made the Ukrainian language a mandatory part of certain spheres of public life. And, of course, it didn't legislate private communications. However, the Russian language did receive less protections than other minority languages, because it was already so common in other countries that there was no possible risk of it going extinct. The language laws were rightfully controversial, but Putin's use of that talking point has been rather hypocritical. In response to Western concerns about human rights, he has long argued that states deserve complete autonomy in regards to domestic policy. But he then gets very upset when Ukraine exercises autonomy in its domestic policy. Honestly, criticizing Ukraine for their language laws is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It just comes across as intensely hypocritical when Russia is doing it. Especially when Russia has used its own language laws to enforce the Russian language on ethnic minorities, and it has received condemnation from minority communities and from the international community for doing so. So, it's fine when Russia does it, but it's time for war when Ukraine does it! This is one of those times where Putin's stated 'ideology' is NOT consistent, and does NOT make sense when compared with the facts lol. And, once again, I'm not saying you can't criticize Ukraine for it. Even within Ukraine, it's a controversial law that was once struck down in the Supreme Court. It's just a rather hypocritical thing for Putin specifically to complain about, since he has both done things similar to what he is condemning, and he has publicly denounced the way he he is now condemning it. Thanks for genuinely engaging on the topic with me! Most of the people disagreeing just call me a brainwashed Western puppet, and I'm pretty sure they didn't watch the video lol. But you had an actual discussion, which is exciting!

[@dimadubnevych9164]

Regarding CIA: original protests in Ukraine were for EU integration. But they were almost calm down and it was clear that they will be over in a day/two. There were left-overs of a bunch of students and they were brutally beaten by Yanukovych. It was a turning point in protests. After which thousands of people, even those who wasn't for EU, came to the maidan in the morning on the very next day. You could observe the same in Romania not so log time ago but related to court system. CIA has nothing to do with that. Unless Yanukovych is CIA agent. If not that situation there would no so called "coup". NGO who kind of financed from the west were local activists who asked for grants in developing new laws and reforms, fighting with corruption. So that is the main model of real "soft force" which west used in Ukraine and it was because there were people inside the Ukraine who wanted to reform corrupted institutions.

[@altaydogahan342]

@@ArmchairViolence Congrats on getting married!!

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

1. The intervention in Libya was requested by the Arab League and approved by the UN. NATO members couldn't unilaterally get those to agree. 3. Croatia isn't in a state of war with Slovakia. Turkey is in NATO since 1952, the invasion of Cyprus happened in 1974. 4. If the reasons for the war involved NATO then Russia would have appeased Finland with some sort of guarantees or made a more credible threat. Yes, unfortunately if you start a war over NATO on your border you will have to address the NATO border expanding otherwise you just lost the strategic goal. Unfortunately when you piss everyone off you end up getting ganged up on. 6. How did the "collective west" go back in time 300 years to create a foundational myth of resistance against Russification? 7. No, it isn't well documented. Color revolutions was a conspiracy theory created by Russia to explain Milosevic losing power in Serbia because they couldn't handle the truth (Milosevic pissed off the farmers) 8. It's perfectly reasonable for countries to effectively terminate a foreign language in government and media. Especially when the invader took down broadcast towers and spread propaganda in Russian language to replace Ukrainian media, effectively brainwashing those inside the occupied area by controlling those who don't read online news.

[@redmetalpanda9051]

Wow this video was really good and informative. Thank you

[@TB-fm8kf]

It's not even clear if bake gave that promise, even gorbatschow denied it sometimes.

[@jorgi6335]

Talking about the US as if it’s a genuine “democracy” is just so last decade … you must have slept through your classes in international relations … no, I mean, you must have been a splendid student, cuz this is exactly what we learn to think in Western universities.

[@JaMeshuggah]

His political science degree proves that he's well trained! 🤓

[@jorgi6335]

@@JaMeshuggah Haha yes, certainly he is! He’s definitely well-trained in Western capitalist, imperialist ideological indoctrination. No question about that!

[@dimadubnevych9164]

what is it if not a democracy, and why it is not a democracy?

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@jorgi6335 I can tell you guys didn't watch the video, since the bulk of it was an examination of Russian political thought and Putin's own stated ideology. I spend much more time engaging with sources that disagree with me than ones that agree with me. Because it's an effective way to learn and combat bias.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@jorgi6335 Terminally online mf'ers lecturing us on Western imperialism when they simp for Russia taking over Europe and China over the Pacific

[@sebastianaminoff9703]

There are a couple things that are deeply flawed with your arguments. First of all Finland and Sweden do not have strategic value for NATO in terms of surrounding Russia in the same way Ukraine does. The Russians were willing to lose them to NATO in order to stop Ukranian nato membership. I am from Finland, and my grandfather fought the Russians during WW2, so I can tell you Finland really is not a good place to invade Russia. When my grandfather fought in the war it was -40 degrees celsius and many died due to the conditions on the ground. Ukraine on the other hand is part of the "bloodlands" and Russia has been invaded there twice in the past 100 years. US National Security advisor, and one of the founding fathers of current US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski explained 40 years ago in his book "the Grand Chessboard" that in order to make Russia a second rate power you want to surround it in the Black Sea region, and expand NATO to Ukraine. Lord Palmerston had similar reasoning when he entered the Crimean War in the 1800s. So Ukraine IS existential for Russia. Secondly, the argument that "NATO is a defence alliance so it doesn't pose any threat to Russia" is ridiculous. The US is an adversary to Russia in the same way Russia or China is an adversary to the US. You had the Cuban Missile crisis which almost ended up in Nuclear war because JFK did not want Russian missiles near his border. Well guess what? The Russians don't want US missiles or German troops on their border either. And especially not in a country they have been invaded in twice in the past 100 years. Thirdly, as it relates to Euromaidan, I don't think any serious analyst thinks it was 100% a CIA operation, clearly it was a large popular protest movement in Ukraine, but point is the US played a serious role in marshalling the opposition and making sure who was in the new government. The Victoria Nuland phone call shows as much. The extent of the US government's involvement will probably not be entirely clear for decades to come, but I don't think one can dispute it played some serious role. All this being said, I do agree that Putin also has some imperialistic tendencies, he definitely does view the Ukrainians and Russians as one people, which is problematic, but it is my strong conviction that those ideas alone would not have been enough to cause an invasion, the main issue for him was NATO. Even the Ukrainian diplomats who negotiated the Istanbul memorandum have implied the core concern in the peace negotiations was NATO.

[@ArmchairViolence]

It doesn't really matter how much he cares about Finland, because Putin himself has explained multiple times that his issue is with anti-Russian Ukrainian culture. Not NATO membership. In all of the articles and speeches that I've seen, I can't recall a single time that Putin showed any concern for NATO missiles being placed in Ukraine (why would we put them in Ukraine when we haven't put them in Poland, the Baltics, Finland, or Romania?). He's concerned about Ukrainian culture. The US certainly offered advice to Ukrainian political parties! They even asked the US for advice! But Putin, and many other people in the Kremlin genuinely do believe that Euromaidan was 100% created by Western intelligence agencies. I completely agree with you that that is an absurd belief to have, but they seem very sincere about it. NATO was unfortunately not the cause. It was just one of the pro-Western national ideas that Putin wants Ukraine to abandon (though he does certainly want Ukraine to abandon it). Not because he's afraid of NATO, but because he doesn't want Ukraine to have any pro-Western goals at all. If Ukraine had never even applied to NATO, but still developed a national identity (separate from and opposed to Russian identity) the war would have happened exactly the same. Putin's writings and speeches make that quite clear. After all, invading a country would be a pretty stupid way to convince them that they don't need protection from you lol

[@sebastianaminoff9703]

@@ArmchairViolencePutin has been vehemently opposed to eastward NATO expansion all his time in office, and he and Lavrov have time and time again expressed this. They view NATO expansion to Ukraine as a threat in the same way Americans would view a Chinese or Russian military alliance expanding to Mexico as a threat. This is not absurd, it is quite understandable. I find it absolutely insane that Americans have such a complete inability to even consider the other side's point of view for one second. Even Jens Stoltenberg has said the war is about NATO (which he of course favours). It is not a coincidence that all this aggression started when Ukraine's frontrunner in a Presidential election ran his campaign on a platform of joining NATO. It is not a coincidence that when Sakashvili started giving speeches of his great intention to join NATO in combination with the Bucharest summit that Putin went into Georgia. Also, I would add that Bill Burns (current CIA director, who was reportedly strongly considered for SecState by Harris in the event she won) wrote a memo in 2008 called "Nyet means Nyet" which outlines clearly how the entire Russian foreign policy establishment is against NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and how this is a clear red line.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@sebastianaminoff9703 I'm not saying that Putin likes NATO expansion. He obviously doesn't. I'm saying that Putin has told us over and over again that his primary rationale is Ukrainian national identity. His 2021 article ONLY mentions NATO to accuse them of controlling Ukraine and stoking Ukrainian nationalism. I don't think he even mentions possible membership. His speeches are more of the same. He doesn't like NATO expansion, but the reason he invaded Ukraine is national identity. That's why he was willing to reinvigorate Ukraine's NATO desire in 2014. Because he was more concerned with Euromaidan than NATO. It's why he was willing to cause Sweden and Finland to join NATO in order to subjugate Ukraine. Because NATO membership is a miniscule concern in the face of stiffening Ukrainian identity. He has been explicit about this for many years.

[@sebastianaminoff9703]

@ Then why did he submit a draft security proposal in December 2021 to prevent the conflict from escalating into a war? Why did he initially agree to the Istanbul memorandum in spring 2022 that would've expedited ukranian EU membership, and kept its territories intact in exchange for neutrality?

[@ArmchairViolence]

@sebastianaminoff9703 Because he was looking for solutions that would allow Ukraine to shake off its "Western puppet masters" in order to restore it's "rightful destiny as Rus people." Also, your comment actually argues against the Mearsheimer "NATO caused war" argument, because Putin apparently views the EU as a stalking horse for NATO. He would have never allowed an expedited EU membership if his problem was with NATO membership. He wanted to scare the CIA away from Ukraine. Essentially, he was trying to fight his own hallucinations.

[@lazybrick8787]

This was really good! Thank you! Edit: I’m not a martial arts guy, but f you spin this out into a separate channel, you would get a loyal viewer.

[@E2000-o1n]

Wha'da'ya know. Someone else who likes geopolitics, CCGs and martial arts. P.S. I am really impressed with your recognition and explanation of fascism in Russia. I went through a similar path to my recognition of fascism in China.

[@LilPotato93]

If you think that China is fascist, then you don't know what fascism is.

[@E2000-o1n]

@@LilPotato93 Did you watch this guy's video? Did you hear his explanation of what fascism is?

[@KazuyukiTaka]

A martial arts channel suddenly talking politics is usually disastrous; but it's nice to hear it coming from someone well-versed in the subject. Please do more of these. While my field is adjacent to polisci, it's more focused on economics, so these bits of ideological analysis are really interesting.

[@joeswanson5486]

Not all the time. Look at MMA guru he often times brings up politics on his channel about, primarily about migration in Europe and he gets loads of views, likes and donations. Half his donations are people talking about migrants

[@trueinsider513]

Ukraine will never be the same because of Zelenski doing idiotic things. Everything was good in Russian frontiers, now Ukraine basically is destroyed and they already negotiated its reconstruction AND new ideologies imposed. Its all a bankers and investors business in which the poor Ukranians have no place or worry. Obviously, no matter what excuses there are for joining or not Nato, Nato surrounding Russia IS 100% bad for Russia.. Nato is a military alliance, its not a diplomatic one..

[@arotobo]

Bro as a “poor Ukrainian” I’m hyped for foreign investment from based countries like the US. Don’t project your random thoughts onto us

[@trueinsider513]

@arotobo Its not "US investment". You already lost thousands of people in a completely unfair war because of one mans idiotic decision into going agasint an unwinnable war.

[@tedjaeckel5623]

Why don’t you debate mearscheimer.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@tedjaeckel5623 I'd be happy to debate Mearsheimer, but someone would have to arrange it.

[@seitch1]

Regurgitating US talking points in support of a money laundering operation through weapons deals for Ukraine doesn't make you an expert by any measure.

[@WorldCrucified]

Okay Russian bot

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Money laundering is done to hide the source of illicit money (drug dealing, bank robbery, etc). The money sent to Ukraine is legit US govt money. Why should it need to be laundered?

[@SantaSmellsJacobs]

Omg. This is video is great!! I'll be sure to reсcomend it to my foreign friends! Дуже дякую!

[@eoncatalyst]

As Russian, I hate when people on the west are looking at this conflict out of context. 2022 is NOT the starting point in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It was 2013 when Donbass region (East Ukraine) decided to separate itself from the rest of Ukraine. Ukrainian government didn't like it, so they started attacking Donbass and the civil war has started. Russia saw that as a threat to its national security: - East Ukrainians mainly have pro-Russian political views and want to co-work with Russia (also lots of Russian people are living there) - Since the moment when Russia non-violently annexed Crimea, Ukrainians were screaming about having war with Russia - Yes, there was NATO influence on worsening of the conflict because they reassured Zelya that if Russia will answer to Ukraine's aggression, NATO will provide support, what made Ukraine overly confident. In the period of 2014-15 Russia tried to peacefully regulate the conflict by being a mediator in the Minsk agreements. Every time Ukraine broke those agreements and continued attacking Donbass (if you do research, you'd be shocked by the horrible acts committed by the Ukrainian army to its eastern citizens). Donbass people waited for support from Russia for many years. That conflict was inevitable, and Russia did what it did simply because after many years it understood that diplomacy was useless in that situation.

[@dimadubnevych9164]

1. Conflict started at April 13 after the group of the mix russian/crimean armored men killed Ukrainian officer. 2. The amount of pro-Russian people and pro-Ukrainian people there was equal and the majority of prople were neutral. 3. Girkin, russian KGB officer, the organizer, already told that without his operation, there would be no war on Donbass. 4. All pro-Ukrainian dmonstrations on Donbass before the conflict where brutally beaten and sometimes killed (there is a video where one man was stubbed with a knife) 5. A lot of pro-Russian protestors were actually from Russia and many of they from local criminals (for example people on the video of replacing flag in Luhansk ODA was mostly Russians and not locals) 6. Local government (chosen by locals) was replaced by force with self-proclaimed leaders (like Gubariev) 7. Poroshenko proposed Putin to anex LDPR regions and in such way end the conflict. It was ok for him, because it would make elections easier for him. But Putin denied 8. If Russia wanted to secure Donbass they could annex it from the very beginning like they did with Crimea. And it will be the end. 9. Now half of Donbass is destroyed by Russian cannons and FABS and male population is almost genocided by being a cannon meat to bet more Ukrainian territory. Russia didn't treated them equally to their own soldiers.

[@ArmchairViolence]

If offering Ukraine support against Russia is simply worsening the conflict, do you believe that lend-lease during WWII worsened that conflict? Also, without Russian military support to the Ukrainian separatists, that conflict likely would not have happened at all. Does Russia bear moral responsibility?

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"Donbass region (East Ukraine) decided to separate itself from the rest of Ukraine" - Not true. Russian nationals like Igor Girkin and Motorola kicked off small skirmishes with the Ukrainian forces. Initially the conflict was just bands of Russian men taking over local government offices and bringing in paid locals to pretend they had seized the buildings. "so they started attacking Donbass" - Actually the Ukrainian forces were in such disarray that local police forces and groups like soccer hooligans volunteered to fight back. For example Azov was formed by soccer/football "Ultras" who joined forces with police officers who unlocked the armories so they could gear up and fight. "East Ukrainians mainly have pro-Russian political views" - Wrong. It's a rough 50:50 split after a large number of pro-Kiev people left to Western Ukraine to flee prosecution. In 2019 the polling suggested 20% wanted to be an autonomous region of Russia, 20% an autonomous region of Ukraine, and 30% wanted to join Russia and 30% wanted to be back in Ukraine. "Russia non-violently annexed Crimea" - They used weapons and surrounded military bases, again bringing locals to protest and act as human shields. The Ukrainian forces were not able to mount a response and if they had, civilians would have been massacred in the crossfire. To call this a non-violent annexation when Russia clearly used the implication of violence as coercion is extremely disingenuous. If I point a gun at your family to get the bank access codes, is that non-violence? "In the period of 2014-15 Russia tried to peacefully regulate the conflict by being a mediator in the Minsk agreements" - Not true, as Russian army forces were captured and shown to be taking part on the conflict. Russia alleged they had got lost during exercises and crossed the border accidentally. "you'd be shocked by the horrible acts" - Most of them fake, even Rossiya 1 the state channel has issued retractions over claims of what the Ukrainian army did.

[@havz0r]

​@ArmchairViolence there is no 'moral responsibility' in geopolitics since there is no overarching and enforceable set of values. It's only cause-effect governed by strategies and probabilistic bets.

[@mikeorick6898]

Thank you. I have relatives in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. My aunt "Slava" Stesko (RIP) was a member of their first independent parliament. She said they made three mistakes. They trusted Russia, they trusted the USA, and they elected too many crooks that embezzled defense money.

[@valygomu]

This was interesting, as a French man I just don't want my country to be involved in a war with Russia in any capacity whatsoever.

[@dimadubnevych9164]

Probably same thoughts were in 1939 about Poland

[@valygomu]

@dimadubnevych9164 Well yeah this one is original did not see it coming. Say what you want I'm not gonna pretend to "support Ukraine" from thousands of kilometers away from the frontline. And if you want to go there what help did Ukraine provide us at the time ?

[@ArmchairViolence]

Wait, do you mean what did Ukraine do to help during WWII?? They were part of the Soviet Union! The Eastern front was the most brutal of the war, and much of it took place in Ukraine

[@valygomu]

@@ArmchairViolence That's exactly why the world war 2 comparaison of Putin's Russia is Hitler's Germany doesn't work. Western Europe is not directly threatened by this conflict unless it involves itself.

[@Jordan-m2m]

Not waht i came for but im glad i did! Thank you for doing something different

[@Banished-rx4ol]

Props for finally getting an armchair that has always bothered me. Only the gullible believe nato is in the wrong here who have no idea of russia’s history with other countries like georgia. If russia had issues with being near nato countries they should have done something about Finland, estonia, Latvia, and lithuania. They also broke the nuclear treaty they had with ukraine they should have never given up their nuclear arms. The russian apologists would never understand they have a clear bias to push. I can’t wait for putin’s goodwill he earned during the 1990’s to wear off as he sends more and more russians to waste their lives.

[@DesCoutinho]

@@Banished-rx4ol living in India our media covers strange made up stories to distract attention from domestic politics. It's very brave of Europe to stand firm. It's a terrifying thing short term to prepare for war. And long term to switch the economy to war production from education health which always need more money. I presume Russia is just wasting it's resources not like you can vote out president for life. India's foreign policy seems to be scavenger from both sides. We don't pretend to have any honour

[@stewartmackenzieindaba]

Let's have more of these. I would be happy with equal or every make this more heavily biased. This stuff is great.

[@mentalgame5608]

43 Min of American Jingoism. Next time at least try and be unbiased and not leave out the following: -2008 Bucharest Summit -Minsk Agreements -2014 Ukraine Bailout l from Russia -Victoria Nuland’s activities in Ukraine during the Maidan Revolution -Victoria Nuland’s leaked phone calls with President Yanukovych.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The Minsk Agreements that Russia broke immediately with the Assault on Debaltseve and the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport? The Victoria Nuland call where people who discuss politics predicted that a politician would get a political appointment instead of the former pro-boxer?

[@mentalgame5608]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Ahh yeah the Minsk Agreement That Ukraine and other parties refused to fully enforce. Giving your predictions on a candidate is not the same as directing who should be in government.

[@paulabrahams6147]

This is an excellent video, I learnt a lot.

[@1vbAPiYk]

Weird direction for a fight channel

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@1vbAPiYk I'm branching out to violence in general. Also, no one had a problem with the Dave Grossman video, despite that also not being about martial arts.

[@JaMeshuggah]

@@ArmchairViolence very nice. Now let's see the Israel video.🧐

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@JaMeshuggah No! 😂 The comments on this video are going to be bad enough! I can't imagine the level of toxicity on an Israel video.

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

war is fight bruh, the biggest scale of people beating the crap out of each other

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

@@ArmchairViolence will you cover torture methods?😳

[@Wiu337]

Why is USA's Delegate system even considered a Democracy?

[@hillkiran]

My main concern isn’t the Delegate system, is the fact that with so much classification and unelected bureaucrats, you vote is uninformed, guided, and pointless

[@jayhizzle5765]

Because it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. They are two different things.

[@hillkiran]

@@jayhizzle5765 kinda doubt we are either a Republic or a Democracy right now. But yes 👍 a Republic is better.

[@the_j_machine2254]

​@@jayhizzle5765that is so stupid. You have elections tp choose your legislators, and the organs of state are supoosed to serve the public. America is a democratic republic.

[@IosuamacaMhadaidh]

Horrible take, horrible propaganda. Anyone who knows history knows this guy is misinformed at best but likely reading a script approved by an intelligence agency(cies)

[@GloryLorry]

Are you joking?

[@heresjonny666]

Excellent analysis. I’m so used to martial arts channels that aren’t mcdojo woo crap being full of right wing conspiracy bullshit that this was refreshing. Your commitment to informed research gives a real nice sheen to it too instead of some unhinged opinions with ‘trust me bro’. Would definitely like to see more of this!

[@anthonyhernandez4266]

Lol people being preemptively salty

[@GloryLorry]

Basically on point. Actually surprised to see such a good analisys. Thanks from Ukaine

[@institches2750]

This comment section. Clearly a bunch of people reacting before even watching the video and just repeating whatever Twitter posts and 10 second news soundbites they've consumed. I thought it was quite an academic breakdown. It almost needed a primer on international philosophy to understand the context, so maybe people just didn't get it? The video does say it's not beginner friendly, but that's never stopped me or anybody else probably.

[@Alkanaut]

I just learned that 1) you have a wife and 2) the intricacies and backstory of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in a rather eloquent and entertaining way. Great job man!

[@JosephAllen-d2e]

Please let me know if political content is the future of your channel so I can unsubscribe.

[@DesCoutinho]

Don't take this hard. He s not that into you. But sure you can agree to sub other channels and comment on other posts. You two just won't be exclusive any more.

[@petersmythe6462]

Carlson: literally nothing Putin: "Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise? I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life… He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself."

[@justsomeguywithoutamustach5603]

Great video.Russian bots not gonna like this.

[@radunicoara8057]

Great explanation, eventhough it is not about MMA. Thank you!

[@richardmcallister460]

This was a great eye-opener, thought-provoker, and I'm happy for the expansion in your channel. I'll still look forward to your smaller-scale martial content (I really loved the Fix-A-Fighter concepts!), but it's very cool to see you zoom out and do some larger scale material too.

[@ArmchairViolence]

I also love the fix-a-fighter concepts, but they take a TON of work and lose relevance so quickly that no one watches them. :(

[@Stargazer10255]

Are my soulmate or something? I'm studying political science at university, and I have a passion for combat sports and martial arts. It's like this channel was made for me! I hope you'll make more of this content, I love it!!!

[@cbeaudry4646]

NATO: lame Russia: Interesting Philosophy: You have my curiosity Mearsheimer: Now you have my attention

[@bloodwynn]

Good points, mate.

[@BH-vh3iu]

Cringe half assed copes for the western masses... I thought it would be a serious video when YT threw it at me and I read the title, I'm all about hearing all sides, but I should had known better the moment the guy presented himself as an international relations and martial arts expert, lol. I could dismantle the bs in this video point by point, but not worth the time, I wasn't even able to stomach the whole thing. The guy establishes 'Murica's corrupt declining imperialism as "the" standard for democracy worldwide, and goes on for 3/4 of an hour whining his heart out with arguments construed over and around an arbitrary faulty assumption... It's not that the US are the bad guys, it's that the world hasn't adapted to and accepted US' standards of corruption disguised as democracy, so that's what is wrong, lol. But that's what happens when you send average iq joes to college and give them a platform on YT, they get high on their own farts and make fools of themselves thinking they know better, lol. People should take Mearscheimer's scholarship and insightful realism over martial art's guy here any day, but let's be honest, the average iq for this channel's viewership must be in the two digits. I wish you 'Murican and NATO apologists a nice time as your empire crumbles. None of your copes will save you down the line. Remember this comment a decade from now. Cheers!

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

You can't dismantle it point by point because you are out of your depth. You recommend Mearsheimer, but not the Mearsheimer of the 90s who said Ukraine should retain its nukes. How insightful is he? All he does it pit a current foe against a future one. He thinks China is the threat so Russia should be an ally to fight them. 30 years ago he thought that Ukraine as a nuclear threat to Moscow would keep Russia in check. Mearsheimer's insights begin and end with whatever political goals he'd like to see achieved in the near future. Meanwhile, Assad lost. Russia just lost a naval base in the Mediterranean.

[@BH-vh3iu]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Mearsheimer doesn't offer any solution you'd deem appropriate because there's no such solution for the US. It's going to go down, it has become a reactionary force incapable of adapting or competing. The best you can do at this point is try to postpone the inevitable. Going after Syria may have bought you some extra time, but the clock is still ticking. Unless you decide to go for a nuclear reset to try your luck in a post-apoc wasteland there's no way the US can retain hegemony much longer. The convulsing has already started, Ukraine was a major defeat, Palestine was a PR disaster, Trump's recent threats towards BRICS only isolate further the US, the EU can't survive long without going back to Russian gas. You're no longer the prevailing economy, the more aggressive you get the more you push other nations into China's embrace. But you have no other choice, if you don't try to show strength by acting all aggro and tough you'll go down even faster... there's no way out, game is over, bye bye...

[@BH-vh3iu]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Where the hell did my response go? Is YT supressing dissent? Wrote a good long reply and now I can't find it. F***.

[@JinKee]

It’s weird that Russia doesn’t understand that the hegelian dialectic says that Russia invading Ukraine to prevent Ukraine’s westward trend would set up an antithesis within Ukraine to go even further westward even faster. It’s like Putin never understood Marx.

[@cupidsfavouritecherub9327]

Putin is not a communist lol

[@NamingConvensionn]

Suprisingly good video from a westerner. Usually people that arent from eastern europe have zero idea what ruzzia is. I would only add that pootin does not even recognize ukrainians as a separate nation. For pootin ukrainians are ruzzians with peculiar polish dialect. It is no wander since ruzzian empire currently occupies other nations which are literally asians as well as muslims with their own language and traditions. Yet pootin also considers them to be ruzzian even thouth they have nothing common with ruzzia (other than beying occupied by ruzzian empire)

[@ArmchairViolence]

Honestly, parts of this were really hard to understand from a Western (and especially American) perspective. I literally had to consult an Eastern European person to make sure I was understanding it correctly 😂

[@gamerpoets]

First political talk on youtube that i enjoyed watching.

[@JaMeshuggah]

You sure you wanna post this video on your combat channel?

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@JaMeshuggah Is war not combat?

[@JaMeshuggah]

@ArmchairViolence Little flying robots controlled by bugmen blowing people up is not combat. It's dystopia. Also political ranting around it is not combat. I'm just giving you good advice but you don't have to take it.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@JaMeshuggah No one had a problem when I posted the Dave Grossman video, and that was just as far from martial arts as this is.

[@AGuy-s5v]

​​@@ArmchairViolence I think it was the lack of knowledge of Grossman that made it intriguing instead of inflammatory. That and police work happens to dip into the martial arts ever so slightly. A current war, especially considering the political climate surrounding the war makes the pick a headscratcher to say the least, especially when you've stated in previous videos how hand to hand combat is not a thing the military tends to train very well for obvious weapon related reasons. But we'll see the results after this airs.

[@JaMeshuggah]

@@ArmchairViolence Didn't see that post but I'll likely have a problem with it if it's political. Don't know this literally who Gross Man? Ew

[@christophervelez1561]

Oh I like this pivot! Also I wonder if the video that an armchair appeared in the McDojoLife collab at IcyMike’s gym?

[@TheAirborneKite]

It's interesting. Being born & raised in the West, I sort of took it for granted that everyone thinks of history as being driven by people, culture and circumstance and not e.g. narratives and metaphysics. Increasingly feels like that's not as universal as I assumed. Good video!

[@luchogallardoleon]

¿Who do I believe, John Mearsheimer or Alfred E. Neuman?

[@Trilandian]

This is the best summary of the reason behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine I've watched to date.

[@Agiranto]

"Ah shit, here we go again"

[@arcturus0448]

wow what's going on in this comment section, russian bots or something? anyway whatever you're going to say me (and i'm sure a lot of other people) are interested in hearing

[@kalova6731]

@@arcturus0448 damn so criticism =bots? Kinda delusional take tbh

[@JaMeshuggah]

Multiple people disagree with me? Must be bots.

[@arcturus0448]

​@@kalova6731 yeah idk man, maybe not bots but i got a bit weirded out when i read the comments. Don't want to make a big deal out of it, just let him know there's people interested in hearing his opinion on this. Peace

[@kalova6731]

@arcturus0448 Yeah, you have a point. I just thought it's maybe smarter to post your ideas on another account, separate from his other (great) videos

[@connorperrett9559]

Eh, its sort of like a gaming channel deciding to branch off into geopolitics because they did a Let's Play of Victoria II.

[@user936]

We need to get a better camera 🥔. Other than that, I will be using your laundry list of points as future reference material 🙂 I was aware of most of this stuff but it was all scattered around in various videos I've watched. This is awesome 👍🏽

[@ShortArmStrongArm]

Nyet, comrade.

[@dacedebeer2697]

lol