Does Putin Care about the Costs of War against Ukraine? A Game Theory 101 Investigation

Check out my books on Amazon (paid link): amzn.to/2SiQjlp
Russia is not a full-fledged autocracy, and Vladimir Putin does not face the serious political competition on a regular basis. It would seem that this insulates him from the costs of war, which might put additional strain on the current bargaining situation with Ukraine.
Fortunately, even a leader that internalizes zero costs of war still has incentive to negotiate an agreement to avoid war. The real problem arises when a leader has an active benefit from fighting. Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case with autocrats.
But there is also a countervailing incentive at play. Autocratic leaders who leave power more often go into exile, go to jail, or are killed. This makes stable autocrats more reluctant to fight, as a poor outcome could expose them to coups that were otherwise implausible. Without a better understanding of internal Russian politics, it is difficult to predict whether Russia's regime structure makes war more or less likely.
Photo of the Kremlin (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..., Yeltsin (state.kremlin.ru/president/all..., Margaret Thatcher (www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q63508375), and polling data (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...) are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 unported: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photos of Putin (kremlin.ru/events/president/ne..., kremlin.ru/events/president/ne..., www.kremlin.ru/events/presiden..., Argentina's disappeared (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..., and the first photo of Argentinian troops (www.argentina.gob.ar/armada/g...) are licensed under CC BY 4.0 International: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The first color photo of an Argentinian leader (www.casarosada.gob.ar/nuestro-...) is licensed under CC BY-SA: 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@ycplum7062]

In Putin's case, I think he dramatically overestimated the chance for success and dramatically underestimated the costs of war. It almost appeared that the Russian forces were prepared for a triumphant parade through Kyiv, rather than actual combat.

[@stuartemmanuel3735]

You spend way too much time eating up western propaganda crap.

[@Giganfan2k1]

This comment was two weeks ago. Now there is 30k dead. Thousands of mechanized units destroyed. The last city Russia needs to claim some kind of victory has been going back and forth. Russia will probably get it at some point. In a war of pyrrhic victories... This might be the most pyrrhic of them all. I can easily see Putin rolling out the Mission Accomplished banner. While Kersion and the supply roads in the East get cut. With Russian army as exhausted as it is. I won't be able to counter attack.

[@ycplum7062]

@@Giganfan2k1 While a Russian defeat is not an existential threat to Russia, it may be for Putin. Putin may declare this a war and call for general mobilization. This would dramatically shift the advantage back to Russia. Of course, that may be the act that initiates a coup. Putin is known to be a risk taker. Honestly, I think there are way too many variables and unkowns to predict anything. Regardless, I sadly believe this war will go on for a while. Neither side isclose to exhaustion yet.

[@Giganfan2k1]

@@ycplum7062 All a mobilization will do at this point is call up Reservists. If they do that will pull hundreds of thousands of police officers, and domestic guards out of their posts. We have already seen over a dozen 'mysterious' fires all over Russia. You take away that domestic security for what? More fairly untrained soldiers? That would take months to refresh. If Putin *could* mobilize he would have done it by now. Probably to take Keiv when he was in the suburbs. The rest of the army at least knows *something* is up with the Special Military Operation. People from St. Petersburg, and Moscow have not participated for a good reason. Putin could hide the losses siberian losses. There get there and find out about how many Russians have already died. How good Ukrainian tactics are as countering their own. Their moral will plummet as well. If there was a full mobilization it isn't like they can pull soldiers, and equipment from Finnish, and Japanese boarders. There is a Perun video about troop amounts and a break down of those troops effectiveness.

[@ycplum7062]

@@Giganfan2k1 I generally agree. Technically speaking Russia is not allowed to deploy conscripts out of the country unless a war is declared and a general mobilization occurs. The troops in Ukraine are mainly contract (professional) soldiers. Some conscript soldiers were "accidentally" deployed. I don't recall if it was a 60/40 or 40/60 ratio between conscrpt and contract soldiers. A much higehr precentage of the contract soldiers tend to be sepcialists and in the technical areas rather than grunts in the front line. A new crop of conscripts are due, but Russia can not really use them unless there is a general mobilization. Russia is offering big bonuses for contract soldiers and have raised the age limit for those enlisting. I am not sure how effective that will be. Those Russian males that have the means have already started "vacations" out side of Russia. lol I hear Turkey is a very popular destination.

[@BramowitchIII]

From the perspective of Ukraine, once you give up on territorial integrity on such a scale, what stops Putin the next time he comes knocking? Not even taking into account this is not only about territorial integrity, constitutional demands, self-determination, a completely different form of governance as the Russian model, I would argue this shadow of the future needs to be incorporated to truly understand the dynamics.

[@PauloCarnaxide]

Give him an inch, he'll take a mile!

[@lexwaldez]

Exactly. Putin attacks... takes 90 km of territory and signs an agreement. He repairs infrastructure, digs in, builds military bases, and in ten years he repeats. Anyone dumb enough to sign an agreement basically deserves what is inevitably coming. Better to just fight and kill the bear to be done with it.

[@IvoPetrov13]

I stumbled upon your channel a couple of years ago when I was struggling with my advanced game theory course at university; I benefited a lot from your expertise and am only too glad to say that both the visual and narrative quality of your content has been steadily improving over the years. Kudos to you!

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks, and glad to have helped on the course!

[@TheRezro]

As side note, when war started Ukraine expected it may loose Donets, Luhansk, parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson (Dniepr is quite defensible). Maybe even Odessa, Mykolaiv, Dnieprach and Kharkov if things go wrong (claimed territories of Novorossiya). But Putin's expectations were way higher. He wanted subjugate whole Ukraine (Western part kept as buffer state), with territories of Novorossiya being the minimum. It didn't work. He overextended his force and suffer major losses. What actually lead to change in expectations. He as it is now expect to hold parts of Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donbas and focus on claiming at least whole Luhansk. But Ukrainians expectations changed. They actually expect to reclaim Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozia and Kherson. With the maximum they consider to give up is Crimea. Especially as genocide committed by Russia, highly motivate them to victory (aka another prove why war criminals are idiots). So war would still go. The problem is that Russia seams to suffer higher attrition rate and poor morale. With Ukraine actually successfully mobilizing own defenses. Which mean that longer this war go, worst position of Russia would be. Because as it is now they change chance to keep Crimea if they start negotiations. But Putin can't acknowledge defeat, what may lead to point when Ukraine may even refuse status quo conciliation prize and full lost of Russia.

[@vivekkaushik9508]

I wait for your videos eagerly. Keep dropping them as consistently as possible for you. Thanks.

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks! I have a bunch more in mind on current events, but the next one probably won't come out until next week.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

It's a repeated game. If you just give the bad guys a quarter of your country, on the grounds that they could seize a third by force and losing 25% is less bad than losing 33%, they still have all the military capability they had before. They can still seize the next 33% of your country by force, and giving them another 25% is still less bad. Repeat twice more, and you've given them the whole thing at no cost to them. Fighting them is always less bad than just giving up and handing over a slice, unless the fight is so hopeless that you might as well hand them the whole thing right out of the gate.

[@lehazyo]

Russian here: 6-4 ranks since 2000 is ridiculous: single political party in power since 2004; no presidents other than whom the previous president chose as their successor; constant pressure on indepentent mass media since 2000; strict rules on mass demonstrations since 2012; many independent candidates are banished from elections based on unplausible reasons. I guess it's 3 in 2000, 1 in 2004, 0 in 2008, -2 in 2012 and -4 since 2020

[@mshin291]

"Only 3% of democratic leaders are jailed after their term." Me, a South Korean : 0_o Honestly though, I think South Korea would be an interesting case: despite being largely democratic, a lot of our post-dictatorship presidents have ended up in jail.

[@Jason06245]

i think the case of South Korea isn't really the same. Think of every nation on the Earth has a scale of freedom. South Korea may looks like a democratic nation but its ranking would be very far behind the scale. That's why all of your presidents eventually ended up in jail or worse.

[@yunfengwu4412]

Maybe the percentage of leaders jailed after their term tells us if a country is a really democratic country.😄

[@mshin291]

@@yunfengwu4412 I'd argue that the issue is more cultural rather than governmental. We do have a highly competitive and amoral culture where it is acceptable for people to actively harm and sabotage one's rivals - as long as one does not get caught. Korea is basically a no-trust society : guess this is proof that modern democracy can't run properly under a morally bankrupt society.

[@mshin291]

​@@Jason06245 Well yes and no. South Korea is far from perfect, but a good number of research indicates that it is still on the more democratic (or "free" if you will) side. I'm comparing Korea with other nations on a similar level of democratic development, which still gives a surprising number of political revenge imprisonments. Just to make sure; I'm not defending Korea's many flaws and recent regression into populism.

[@j4kob204]

Hey mate. Like a lot of people, your videos have been invaluable for me all the way through business school. Your videos and book also helped me get my first A+ for my masters thesis. But most of all, I learned to love game theory from you. Thank you for everything.

[@yunfengwu4412]

YEAH! these videos are invaluable!

[@marlenemortler3620]

interesting how accurately he drew today's front lines 6 months ago

[@mountainexploration2435]

Just found your channel thanks for the videos!

[@thefozzybear]

When you're 69 years old and about to die from cancer and on an ego trip, Putin doesn't care about the cost of war and his people.

[@yunfengwu4412]

This is the key problem of dictatorship.

[@yunfengwu4412]

Thank you for these interesting perspectives.

[@SianaGearz]

In an off the cuff remark to journalist Venedictov, Putin said he sees two categories of people: enemies and future backstabbers. There are no friends, there are no allies. Yeltsin was a bit of a criminal but he was able to trust Putin to protect him, so he installed Putin as his successor. Putin doesn't have the inherent capability to trust anyone to protect him, and his list of crimes is long and starts the moment he took power and just snowballs from there. It doesn't matter if a person exists that would protect Putin, it hardly matters what would happen to him in reality, what matters is that he is incapable of trust. I object to the democracy line you drew on the flag. It was never a "6" on this scale, Putin made some progressive gesturing but never actually implemented anything in that regard, and it should have taken a nosedive in 2011 with forced dismantling of protests, and he started dismantling free press from day 1, started denying registration to opponents and making their life difficult from day 1, so by now, there is no parliament left, just a theatre of actors made to justify his decisions. Russia is firmly in the negative end of this scale as of 2022, potentially worse than Soviet Union was the way Gorbachev inherited it, since at least that was ruled visibly by a committee, while who holds the power in Putin's Russia besides Putin is anyone's guess. His whole rule is a story of consolidating all power onto his person.

[@brianho6625]

It would be great to hear similar analysis from William Spaniel for the costs of the War between China (CCP) and Taiwan too.

[@nihilanz4097]

Hey thanks for these very interesting perspectives. Although I highly doubt that the main reason for this war has anything to do with Putin per se, his person and power position obviously play into this as well. And what you are highlighting here is just one of these hidden factors that when combined make everything so insanely complex to understand. Very cool thoughts and ideas! Love your political, real world videos and analyzes.

[@Google_Does_Evil_Now]

Excellent video. I never knew about the leader's risk of negative outcomes after power for democratic 7% Vs autocratic 42%. Nice explanation why Putin needs to keep potential rivals weak. Which could explain why Putin put Navalny in prison, and various bosses and executives have "deathed" from windows and other means. And why he's so careful about protests or the population communicating with each other talking negatively about the war. Last week Ex-Mayor of Ekaterinburg was arrested for saying "is an invasion". Which is true. But truth is how a crime there.

[@rijajamalkhan7608]

Nice content

[@mindbomb9341]

Great videos

[@niknovikov1919]

I doubt that dictators rationally assess their risks of being killed or jailed. "It happens with others" is what most dictators probably think. There is still strong incentive to get as much as possible from the situation, because a success will be converted to increased approval rating (as it was with Crimea). "Winning" an election while actually having low approval rating would lead to protests and loss of legitimacy - as it recently happened in Belarus. However I think that such scenario is considered as a bad but acceptable outcome, since the dictator has enough police force to stay in the office till the end of his life. A good thing is that polls in Russia demonstrate that most of people are against war now and do not care about new territories - unlike taking the Crimea, which was a celebration. So the favourable "prize" now is not taking another part of Ukraine, and it is good. But still it is a shame that Putin uses territory of another country as a stake in his game.

[@yosoydpfknr2855]

Well if he go ahead and invade USA will bleed the shitt outta Russia economy throwing them more and more to poverty and misery. At the end the civilization is who suffer and who will remove him from his position Of president .

[@Tyrone950]

I would like a know how the dynamics change or not change when you add nuclear weapons?

[@TamanskayaDivision]

This channel is underrated

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks!

[@georgebarber3280]

8:42 6x worse no?

[@77thTrombone]

An interesting retrospective....

[@joshuapartridge5092]

nailed it

[@trevdmoostoos]

I don't think he does. It's the people who pay the toll. It costs him the order.

[@yazimme3784]

I reccomend you to make your video a little bit more fast paced. If I watch it in 1.25 playback speed, it is the optimal pace. Aka I feel like the space between the sentences and sometimes between words is a bit too much. Awesome video and concept as always though!

[@Gametheory101]

A bunch of people had the same comment the last few videos, and I actually tried picking up the pace in this video. :) The funny thing is that I talk way, way faster in real life. For years, the modal comment about speed on my channel was that I needed to slow down. But perhaps there has been a bit of an overcorrection, and I will keep that in mind going forward.

[@edthoreum7625]

@@Gametheory101 change nothing, the inf. Is gold- viewer has 7 speed options.

[@michup86]

So, what does this whole thing mean to what happens now?

[@craigmuranaka8016]

Good analysis. Does not look like it’s playing out that way though

[@tabinekoman]

There is nothing to worry if there are no war...

[@rolandocuevas4563]

Yes, i enjoyed and learned much from your videos, if only young people will tune in theres a lot for them to learn . In my case i am already old and its just like revisiting my history books with a big bonus of why the players made their decisions. Thank you sir

[@orlandogallardo3373]

In the case of Argentina think is correct but Russia is different besides Russia has the power to do it while Argentina had a sorry army. And equipment.

[@TheDreadedThirteenth]

This video has just popped up and considering both Ukraine and now even China have acknowledged that the whole of Ukraine INCLUDING CRIMEA ate sovereign Ukrainian territory and Russia needs to leave them this war is looking very unfavourable for Russia 🤷‍♂️

[@Briantreeu123]

Oh this is foretelling as heck

[@Globalprospective]

I like your white line idea, but there is a major flaw. If I was a nation and would go around starting a war with everyone, no matter what, if I’m the one who attacks, I always benefit?

[@youssefsammouh501]

I think this assumes that peace agreements are binding. If you settle and then attack again, now everyone else fucks you

[@Globalprospective]

The hidden costs of war are high. Like killing a neighbor for his things, you will benefit for the first few days, then hell will come.

[@righthandstep5]

Putin don't care. He wants a legacy like kaido of one piece. He will be forgotten just like kaido too.

[@drerick2626]

You may not think the cost because you’re in your house drinking wine then the soldiers will be at the battle field even some of the soldiers also will be protecting you

[@marcelohoss]

Deep thinking. Congratulations. Good video.

[@nutchanonjariyanurut4786]

Putin rn: Hmmm, good ideas.

[@youtubeoppressivecensorshi8047]

You think Ukraine will give a strip of land without a fight

[@cheekypop]

crimea 2014

[@YadroGames]

yes

[@nicolastorres147]

6:38 Imagine having shorted Bush’s approval rating

[@AaronKwekbeloved]

nope

[@hiufgterde]

Hmmm the reason for invasion of Ukraine is a matter of survival for Russia. That’s why they go all in. It’s either them or they will lose it to NATO and that’s the treath. It’s not about how much land they can grab. If that was the case they would still occupy georgia in total as well.

[@billlot5329]

Unfortunately nothing to go back to 1979 for Putin he should be asking himself why did all them countries have enough of Russia's rule and opt in for NATO instead it's called democracy ?

[@destroyerarmor2846]

Liberal democracy is a failure

[@gervasiusrovi9735]

Ukraine God bless you stand for your democratic values you soon reap the harvest...

[@irwan3064]

_The national security of Russia far outweighs the cost of the war ..._

[@edmundr2167]

This.

[@lja996]

Explain in what ways a weaker nation like Ukraine has over Russia?

[@edmundr2167]

@@lja996 a weaker nation that shares a long border with Russia over one of the largest flat areas in the world, making it one of the hardest places to protect and fortify from invasions with one of the strongest and biggest armies in Europe, armed to the teeth and with its constitution aiming to be part of NATO, whereby the US would have the possibility to Station its arms right at the border and being able to reach Moscow with its missiles in about 3 minutes. A "small" country that has been bloodily suppressing its Russian speaking and culturally Russian minorities by means of Bombardement of civilian areas and targets for about 8 years and a "small" nation that directly borders the area of Russia where about 80% of its population lives. This is no propaganda and has been stated not only by Russia for years, but also by US international security and relations experts like Professor Mearsheimer.

[@lja996]

@@edmundr2167 are you stuck back in time? That whole "buffer zone" crap is dated. Furthermore, the US wouldn't need Ukraine to strike the Russian homeland. Again, you're behind in the times and that's fine. But, Ukraine still doesn't pose a real threat to Russia. This is just a sorry land grab excuse. They did plenty of simulations, without nuclear war heads the American's defeat the Russian military. So again, why was an invasion of Ukraine needed? Those people didn't want to be under Russian rule since 1991. All the dumb asses did was weaken Russia. This war is costing Russia in so many ways that it's going to take decades for them to recover. America didn't have to do anything at this point- the Russians did the work for the US and NATO. This is a major win for the US. The US is waging a full proxy war and it's winning big time. And even if they had concerns about NATO expansion, it still doesn't give them the right to attack a sovereign nation. If they want to join the EU and NATO that is their right. They govern themselves. Let me type this so you understand "UKRAINE DOESN'T BELONG TO RUSSIA." Now, that we got this out of the way we can talk about the rest of the issues. Russia won't win this one. They thought they were going to storm it and take it in three days and it never happened. Any chance of them winning was lost when they didn't take Kiev. At this point they are dumping so much money into this and losing tons of troops and equipment. Their economy is in the shambles and won't recover for a long time ever after the dust settles. This was a mistake like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the key difference is that the US won both initial invasions and lost little to nothing. Even over the course of two decades in total 7,000 troops were killed in combat. Russia managed to lose 20,000 in a month in a half and failed many objectives. They don't even have the airspace and what makes this shit even better is they are right next to each other and they still don't have control. Even if they some how manage to take the whole country which isn't possible now; that insurgency war would be brutal. It'll be another bloody war like their failure with Afganis in the 1980s. What they should do is withdraw before they lose a lot more. If they would've just waited things out, they would've gained. Europe was already divided over the US- then comes Russia to hand the US the greatest geo political gift of all time and they managed to unite Europe back under America's orbit and now NATO is gaining two new states. So all those goals Putin set out back fired. We're not even touching on the subject of the massacres of unarmed civilians that took place. Any hope of Russia and Ukraine being best of buddies is forever dead. Even decades after this, people will still not like the Russians. So good job on that one.

[@lja996]

@@edmundr2167 also tell me how you set out to fight nazism and then do all the actions the nazis did to Poland in 1939.. it's so hypocritical. Russia couldn't even afford this war to start with. This is draining them so badly it's not even funny. Then you're fighting a ex soviet state with the know how on how your military operates with mixed in with US training and bam you get what we're seeing today. The way the Russians planned this one was so genius.

[@ilect1690]

no, its pretty easy to tell, if they started a war of agression then they don't care about the costs of war

[@Flowery0]

0:58 SOME POLITICAL COMPETITION!?!?!? DO 5 CLOWNS COUNT AS COMPETITION!?!!?

[@frankkluz9787]

The human mind - is capable - of believing - anything. - - - That is why it becomes so important - 'what' - one chooses to believe ! - - - History is loaded with many such examples.

[@miikapekk5155]

That's one long winded way of saying we don't know if Putin will invade Ukraine!

[@pacman4937]

Your videos leave out the fact that it’s now or never for Russia. In a few years (or even months) Ukraine will have a force strong enough to deter them, and missiles that can strike the heartland of Russia. Even without joining NATO, Ukraine will still be allied against Russia because of Crimea, etc. Also Russia in general is growing weaker everyday due to their population decline, lack of industry, and growth of China. It’s been suggested that Russia could cease existing as we know it today in 100 years because of this. As a result they have to get what they can get today before they’re too weak later. Also this is the only vulnerable nation left for them to penetrate from the old block that’s not allied with them already. Poland also is doubling their military and modernizing it. Russias borders will be surrounded by 500,000-1 million fully equipped troops in a few years.

[@lexwaldez]

Maybe Russia would be willing to sell Siberia to China? They'd get top dollar for their tundra.

[@manuelcapela7620]

@@lexwaldez They want to be payed in rubles. 😁

[@ralphharding859]

Does the term "Malignant Narcissist" ring a bell?

[@StPiter111]

Costs? Do you mean a profit? Look at our export numbers! 🤓🤓🤓🤓 Please, get your money ready for the next winter bills, friends😅

[@unclelar2731]

Short answer: NO

[@brianmolstad1255]

Obviously not.

[@worththewatch1517]

America being a democracy didn't care either LOL

[@diamondgamingstudiousmrdgs]

man uploaded this 8 days before the start of the invasion

[@lahcenechel1855]

Best game theory expert in political geostrategy at least in youtube. All others are fake 😑. Because they keep repeating the theory and no real life implementation.

[@Gametheory101]

It’s an honor and a privilege.

[@lahcenechel1855]

@@Gametheory101 thanks a lot

[@nikogrujic6807]

O no MAN Russia can fight any WAR for 100 YRS , with no problem !!!?? Can NATO say the SAME !!??? Don't think so !! Greetings from LAS Vegas

[@WS-zd4jz]

"Does Putin Care about the Costs of War against Ukraine"? Not in the least, whether it's monetary or human, makes no difference.

[@ianng4633]

That's flawed tho, you are measuring the outcome of war vs peace by terms of trade (counting land instead of counting dollars), but the Russian/Putin objective is not to possess the measurable amount of land in Ukraine, they just want Ukraine/NATO to NOT possess the Ukrainian land. Consider that Ukraine's current course is veering towards NATO, either a W or a L (destructive, but confined in Ukraine) will do the job, or even a politically disrupted Ukraine would be considered a W (not fire a single shot, just keep meandering troops at the border forever). Even if Ukraine offers a ridiculously favorable deal, taking the deal means that the rest of Ukraine would definitely become NATO (less Russians in west Ukraine), so under any deal short of an unconditional surrender there will be a NATO encroachment (from west of Ukraine to the settlement boarder). So basically, the only thing that Putin cannot do is agree to a settlement.

[@brutusjudas5842]

That was just to illustrate the cost/reward in concrete terms. He wasn’t suggesting that the conflict was about lives and resources. Before drawing the lines on the map he stated, “imagine for a second...”.

[@madhumitaroy4756]

Yes Provokings could be unnecessary it world people Identified

[@HeJurm]

What do you think about possible ”reputation costs” for Putin and Russia? They are demanding that NATO should not come closer and have unreasonably huge amount of military mobilized near Ukraine, and NATO/Ukraine/EU/USA seem not willing to compromise about NATO expansion to Ukraine if Ukraine wishes so. Does Putin even have the option of not doing anything and just backing off? If he would just back off, no one would take him or Russian requests seriously anymore?

[@Gametheory101]

Short answer: Even if Russia were to just back off, I still think the message has been sent. Georgia was moving toward NATO expansion in 2008, Russia intervened in the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in large part because of that, and Georgia-in-NATO has been dead in the water since then. Few in NATO are going to be excited to begin a path forward for Ukraine to join if it is just going to put us right back where we are now.

[@blazingkhalif2]

How is it unreasonable if Russia just invited Ukraine.

[@tompatterson1548]

What about autocrats who die in office?

[@nmjerry]

Does England care about the cist of operations in scptland

[@charliewilson3528]

Bullys eventually get buried...

[@sathwickborugadda4744]

doesnt everyone?

[@PauloCarnaxide]

See what happened to the Soviet Impire.... so big, so powerful... and yet, it was all a lie. I think Russia gets the same risk.

[@samesame5524]

If Putin is not caring about the cost of war, why should you worry about?

[@steveclancy6474]

4? I doubt that is correct.

[@jamesashley9127]

Obviously not true at all. Good vid. Respect, 🚑

[@johnbarker256]

War is a game?

[@MrTommy0201]

So now we know w Poetin thinks cool

[@therainforest4314]

Of course not. No different than Canada's Trudeau.

[@patrickendicott354]

This did not seem to lead anywhere other than to what almost everyone already knows. Keep things simpler. Historical examples are too numerous and dissimilar.

[@nichl474]

7:03 You should've added that Franz Ferdinand wasn't assassinated by the Serbian government itself, but by a terrorist organization inside Serbia (which assassinated a Serbian monarch as well), so Serbia herself cannot be blamed. In fact, Serbia accepted all of the demandS (!) by Austria-Hungary except for one which would've made Serbia a satellite state of Austria-Hungary. Yes, they were actually willing to compromise their own independence by accepting most demands and to negotiate as long as it prevented a war, but Austria-Hungary wasn't willing to because they were eager to have a war due to various reasons.

[@johnnymatias3027]

Princip was armed and paid by Serbian intelligence. You most certainly can blame the Serbian state for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

[@estasquecrujes]

Not entirely true and very misleading. While it is unlikely that Nikola Pasic, the Serbian PM, approved the assassination senior officials certainly aided it (notably the ultra nationalist Dimitrijevic, the head of intel). As for Serbia accepting almost all demands of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum - the one they rejected was participation of the austrian police in the investigation, for the obvious reason that they might actually investigate. Foreign police involvement in high profile investigations is these days a routine courtesy and won't turn anyone into a "satellite state". Don't twist the facts to make Serbia out to be the innocent victim, there is enough blame to go around.

[@calibvr]

LETS GO IRELAND 💪💪💪🇮🇪🟥⬜🇻🇦

[@JosueMartinez-wd3yu]

You reminded me of the question of “Who is REALLY in charge?” This question is definitely applicable to countries like North Korea 🇰🇵. Never thought such question may be applied to USSR . I mean Russia 🇷🇺

[@danwylie-sears1134]

The USSR was a superpower. Russia is like North Korea, but weaker.

[@susanpongos5854]

so pu10 and russia must be isolated no neighbors anymore

[@nestorportuguez8964]

He have his adviser they did it...hahaha

[@TheMNBlackBear]

Saving Russia from the NWO: priceless.

[@emmafuentesbaltazar8801]

I need to all good im prayer to god Amen Ama

[@Ment2703]

Vladimir... you’ve got so much corruption on your own government)

[@fredmidtgaard5487]

I do not agree with a number of details in your evaluation. It is too simple.

[@moremileyplease4387]

The costs to Ukraine have been so great only total victory will do.

[@gdr7016]

Not the territory of Ukraine, but, expansion of NATO is the main issue.

[@lahcenechel1855]

True

[@torifin755]

the expansion of NATO which at the time wasnt really the problem, hell. they never moved most of their military Infrastructure past the 1991 borders with Germany it was only AFTER Russia invades ukraine that they moved their shit over to their border. and this whole fiasco gave the west the reason why NATO should stay they didnt have a communism to fight after the USSR fell Alternate History Hub did a video explaining why the whole "NATO betrayed Russia" story was a load of Horseshit.

[@egosumhomovespertilionem2022]

There is a significant difference between Saudi Arabia and Putin's Russian regime: the Saudis have absolutely zero ambition of using military force to conquer, occupy and annex the territory of its smaller, weaker neighbors. Yes, the Saudis have intervened in Yemen, but that is really a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the only genuinely imperial power in the Middle East. Moreover, the Saudi "oppression" of its own people is religious in nature, and is really quite limited if citizens toe the religious line of the Saudi political-religious complex. The Russians under Putin, in contrast, have never stopped trying to interfere and intimidate their neighbors, including stirring up Russian-speaking minority populations in Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as occupying and annexing Crimea. Less well known are the various interventions of the Russians in the United Kingdom (assassination of Russian emigres), Ukraine (attempted assassination of a presidential candidate), and the Czech Republic (sabotage/destruction of a Czech munitions storage facility). Add that to the obvious attempt to hold Germany and much of eastern Europe hostage by creating dependency on Russian natural gas and oil exports. All told, Russia is a far, far greater threat to the western world and the US-UK rules-based order than anything the Saudis have ever imagined. All the Saudis really want is to make money and stay in power. Putin wants to create a new Russian empire. The greater threat is obvious.

[@chadbrad8100]

Authoritarian democracy

[@deeznutz3712]

Yes

[@aum1040]

You act as though perceived incentives are only about individual success. In fact, most individuals who lead countries care deeply about the success of their leadership. I'm not saying that they are altruistic per se. I'm saying that their personal evaluation of outcomes places enormous value on policy consequences that have little bearing on them personally. Putin is a clear example of this. He wants to make Russia powerful again. This won't impact him much personally. Indeed, if he was only interested in living well, he should have retired long ago. He certainly shouldn't have taken the risk of starting a war, even if he was confident in the result, since the status quo was sufficient to give him anything he wanted personally, and any disruption to that status quo puts this in jeopardy.

[@jongowan1125]

No Putin could clear less

[@Karma-dr8ky]

Does he knows what care is = me myself

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

Highly speculative and imaginary in relation of mutually acceptable settlements. These imagination assumes some kind of rational calculations. Have you heard about the power of illusions and ideologies?

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

You could well became a preacher.

[@Ese_osa]

Does the USA care about the cost of war when invading and fighting proxy wars around the war

[@jpablo700]

Yes

[@fallenangel7674]

He dont care coz its not hes money its taxpayer money so what the heck, he care for? even he spent everything to this stupid war for as long as he still in power he can keep doing it.

[@luisduron2722]

2023

[@johnrogan9420]

A drone for a killer

[@zeekmx1970]

No Cost is too great for Mother Russia to fight back against the Alphabet people.

[@williammailliw2052]

I believe it’s got more to do with Ukraine being dragged into the UN more than land this time. With American missiles already in Poland, once Ukraine joins up. America is going to place missiles in Ukraine. The reason used will be “ to protect their sovereign bla bla * which becomes a little too close for comfort for Russia. That’s why Russia is gathering troops there. So which country has missiles on americas doorstep? America would go to war if anything got closer than half the globe to them. Land is the minor issue in this case I believe

[@HeJurm]

Exactly! Imagine it was the other way around. I dont blame Putin and Russia not wanting more and more American munitions right at their own borders

[@tylermc11795]

Except the US offered guarantees about placing missies not within Russia bordering countries and conducting NATO military exercises in countries not on russias border. Russia rejected the offer, demanding a rollback of NATO to 1990. because this is actually more about Russian imperialism and how it thinks about Ukraine as more Russian than western. They see it as humiliating if the people of Ukraine recognized that it prefers being within western influence vs Russian

[@jimbeam4111]

You’re wrong. We Americans DO NOT want to fight any wars. There is no way the American public will tolerate mass casualties on a foreign land. NATO be damned. In reality it’s every country for themselves. Well disperse some weapons and cheerlead but that’s it.

[@angelomagleo8185]

@@jimbeam4111 are you sure man ?

[@jimbeam4111]

@@angelomagleo8185 100%. The American public will not stand for mass casualties

[@julianng9997]

It doesn’t affect his 200 billions you think he care

[@nicholasdickens2801]

Who cares? He’ll pay and so will Russia. Not just with sanctions and reparation costs.

[@BK-uf6qr]

I have secondhand embarrassment listening to this.