Will the Kursk Offensive Solve a Presidential Electoral Conundrum?

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

It's hard to imagine Putin engaging in good faith peace talks. He annexed territory Russia didn't control to claim that Russia was being invaded. Russia actually got SMO'd and embarrassed Putin even further. I don't see why Putin gets rational all of a sudden and starts talking about peace unless its just a ploy to buy time for another offensive.

[@Only.D.G.]

@@Elongated_Muskrat Bingo!!!

[@industrialathlete6096]

Spot On!

[@umbraemilitos]

Taking Russian land gives leverage. His political opposition will have a clear signal of his weakness.

[@RuntaTQ]

Didn’t he claimed that part of Ukraine was part of Russia to allow use of military, since it “cannot” act on foreign territory?

[@macmcleod1188]

​@@RuntaTQthat is to allow use of Russian conscripts which is a subset of the military that is young, inexperienced, and has less training. Using the conscripts has a high political cost because parents don't like to see their teenage kids injured or killed in a war and there are more residents of Moscow and St Petersburg among the conscripts then the rest of the army.

[@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve]

You have forgotten one factor. If the conflict is frozen at the present line, it means that Russia has achieved gains through force. Why should every other dictator on the planet not begin to attempt the same thing as there are no consequences other than a few sanctions?

[@aliengenie8896]

Exactly this. The moment the signal is sent that a dictator can take somebody else's land by force and get to keep it without being shot back at, all hell breaks loose through every continent on the planet.

[@Gregs_sis]

maybe because fighting at the same spot really doesnt classify as "gains" and "a few sanctions" is kind of an understatement I see what you mean but Russia has lost alot if you look past the surface level. being stuck in a stalemate that sucking up alot of money and resources while being denied alot of money and resources and then having the people in your country's opinion of you get worse because now their live are being effected by the lose of those money and resources which could potentially cause backlash and/or protests costing more money and resources to squash, does not sound like a very good position to be in for a dictator but I mean maybe if there REEEEALLY desperate for some land that's probably destroyed and/or useless because what they actually want it deeper inland then maybe that's an attractive deal! not saying what you're getting at is stupid and wrong and you should be ashamed of commenting on this video but it just doesnt really make sense for that to be the take away for other countries yknow?

[@luitjen1950]

@@aliengenie8896 kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIS4qYJqhcqZhrM

[@redvenge709]

Keep in mind that this kind of aggression happens often in Africa and parts of the middle east (typically, between various tribal groups). The reality is, most of the West doesn't care if these dictators start murdering their neighbors (or even their own citizens). Not much is going to change, for the rest of the world.

[@G.A.C_Preserve]

@@redvenge709 but this is difference. Ukraine is an useful ally unlike those They're stable, near the Caucasus and its oil field and that's good enough

[@dwurry1]

Your analysis ignores two factors. 1) a weak Russia is good for the west. 2) Russia has already violated the Budapest agreements on nuclear arms and the ceasefire from 2014. The United States and the UK are committed to the military support that would commit NATO from the Budapest agreement and so there are no constraints on Russian future actions and no way to make a good agreement that will actually stop war. Thus, a weak or wrecked Russia is the only way to stop this war.

[@Cigmacica]

I love how Fussia bots lament how NATO violated the Minsk agreements, while totally ignoring that Russia violated the Budapest one

[@alexanderchenf1]

Good for the westerners who don’t look at grocery prices. Go get a grip of inflation since the war.

[@Mad_Dog_of_the_Regime]

@@Cigmacica Проклятая Россия, вероломно окружила свои территории базами нато, так ведь нельзя

[@lional4898]

​@@alexanderchenf1 until there's current banking system and money makes money for thin air inflation will take the place with no regards to other factors. And one would argue that people spend more and go to bank more when it's peaceful outside. Banks earn and after some time they shed weak ones and problems are left to the rest of people. Showing dictators that you are a pushover or giving vibes to normal countries that you can bring "democracy" to them (be the dictator) both don't help inflation either

[@robertmueller6979]

@@Cigmacica ... I just blow by the nonsense and call them invaders in WW2 and invaders now. Excuses don't matter, it's what you do that counts.

[@123asap6]

History has shown us that invading Russia is frankly terrible offense strategy but Ukraine has shown us that invading Russia is a valid defense strategy.

[@javiermoretti1825]

Up to a point. Remember that Putin won't sit on its nukes while Kiev marches into Moscow.

[@TheManofthecross]

yep especally when the plan is to just hold it long enough to achieve other goals and then withdraw aka a temporally smash and grab would be the better tactic etc.

[@georgiojansen7758]

ukraine was russia

[@balticdubai950]

what a bs...

[@petermelville5524]

It depends on the goals. Russia’s sustainability is a myth. Without the lend lease, the Axis led by Hitler would have taken Moscow. History would have had a different but still horrific narrative. Currently, Zelenskyy being so much smarter than Putin, surrounded by smart generals understands precedence and understands existential motivation. On the up-side, Putin’s Russia will be de-imperialized as a result, conversely, Western Europe will go under mobilization. But either way, China wins. When China goes into their territories lost in the 1800’s to the Tzar, then the conflict pressurizes to the North Pacific.

[@nathansamuelson]

Any cease fire that doesn't have a security guarantee for Ukraine might as well tell Russia to wait a decade and try again.

[@MatthewFors-f8x]

if they got crimea and all the land back it wouldnt matter. we could have them join NATO, russia wouldnt attack them then

[@Zomby_Woof]

The best security guarantee is NATO membership.

[@Zomby_Woof]

​@@MatthewFors-f8xNATO membership alone would gurantee Ukraine's security. But returning Crimea to Ukraine makes Russia much weaker and poorer.

[@GodsThirdEye]

@@Zomby_Wooffirst world problems

[@johnmarkson1990]

if putin breaks trumps ceasefire then USA would go all out in supporting ukraine. basically for the first time ever complete 100% support. putin wants to avoid that. just gotta hope russia next leader does too.

[@gjk282]

22:39 "Russia values Kursk more than the Donbas, and Ukraine values the Donbas more than Kursk. Thus, they would both be better off trading." This is a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Putin's goals and motivations. It's not about incorporating Ukrainian soil into the Russian Federation. That is completely beside the point. It is about rendering Ukraine as a sovereign, self-determined, democratic country a failure. That is why lines on maps only provide a very limited perspective on this conflict. Game theory in general has more to offer here on the operational than it does on the strategic level.

[@lennyztrobos8678]

Exactly. If Russia gets to keep all the lands they have taken, and then western Ukraine goes on as a free nation, that is what losing the war looks like to Putin.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

There is no trade. Ukraine doesn't have enough men to even continue the war let achieve even a stalemate. That's just western propaganda. You really must not understand military science if you believe in any kind of Ukrainian victory in this war. They can't hold what they grabbed around Kursk. They contine to lode land at an increasing ate in the Donbass. It's just a matter of time before Ukraine is forced to make peace on terms they are going find unacceptable, so they will eith take them or lose everything. These eastern European NATO members that have joined the alliance since 2008 are going to start fleeing the sinking sink when it becomes obvious to them that they have to make a deal with Russia for what's in their own best self-interrests. This is what those countries always do.

[@righthandstep5]

​@@TexanIndependenceyour opinion

[@gdbalck]

There's a major flaw in all of this. Putin has no intention of adhering to any agreement long-term. An agreement in bad faith is no agreement.

[@mbjackson8029]

You force that agreement. Collectively. His country as a whole is struggling from his decision to invade and will have long effects decades from now. It’s only a matter of time before the people of Russia and the oligarchs step in. Putin listens to Dugin more than anyone. That’s your problem. Dugin. Or how ever you spell it.

[@karsten11553]

Exactly. Whatever peace results from this mess needs to include solid barriers to prevent the russians from just returning in five years, as is their modus operandi, preferably consisting of a swift membership for Ukraine into NATO.

[@col0342]

@@karsten11553 " just returning in five years" - 5 years is too late for Putin, the degree of Russia's economy being switched on war footing will result in a fast collapse if war is stopped for longer than 1y.

[@karsten11553]

@@col0342 Possibly yes, but I am not going to hinge the future of a free Ukraine on either the trustworthiness of the Kremlin Klepto Rat, or the probable collapse of russia.

[@fi4re]

Did you watch the video? William Spaniel talked about exactly this and how Trump’s policies might try to prevent a re-escalation

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

One problem with the negotiated ceasefire is that Korea established a precedent showing you will not reclaim your lost territory for a long long time if ever. If Ukraine submits to this, it restablishes in the modern age that aggressive expansionism through military power is ultimately effective. Democratic nations by nature of deciding to obey laws and international agreements would not be able to use this tactic. This creates an asymmetric power situation which will only perpetuate the likelihood of expeditionary militant action by authoritarian regimes. This further weakens global stability and western democracy, since our current system is reliant upon globalisation. The world is always either controlled by one strong ruling party or split into camps fighting for control. As western democracy is currently in control, allowing the power dynamic to shift in any meaningful way is an admittance that democratic values aren't important. So if we truly believe in democracy, we must not give in. We have to retain as much global authority as possible. We need to outlast the little angry men until the majority of the world agrees that democracy is good and the path forward.

[@Squee.1366]

Those who propose a Korean-style ceasefire forget another fact: the Kremlin's genocidal policy. Both Koreas are still Koreas, populated by the Korean people. Whereas in the occupied territories of Ukraine, russia is pursuing a policy of deporting Ukrainians and bringing in russian colonizers. If such a treaty is adopted, in ten years there will simply be no Ukrainians left in the occupied territories and they turn into part of russia. This is exactly what Pootin is trying to achieve.

[@delancyj67]

The fact that Trump is even up for election shows the idea of democracy in the U.S is in a shaky state.

[@delancyj67]

The fact that Trump is even up for election shows the idea of democracy in the U.S is in a shaky state.

[@stefanb6539]

I don't disagree with you in total, I just want to remind you, that your proposition, that "Democratic nations by nature of deciding to obey laws and international agreements..." isn't in line with quite a lot of what happened in the 20th and early 21st century. There has been a lot of Democratic nations involvement in toppling other democratically elected leaders (Iran 1953 and Nicaragua 1973 as only the two most prominent examples), and at least the Second Gulf War as an example of a Democracy openly ignoring the international order, with a number more legally questionable actions in South and Latin America, Africa, Central Asia and South-East Asia. I am all in favor of Democracy and international law, I just would stick with Churchill's verdict, that "Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of every other form of government that has ever been tried.' over Fukuyama's wet dream from the 1990s. It's definitely not like Democracies are above cloak and dagger actions, and the boundaries between a Democracy and a cleptocratic oligarchy can be fleeting. I mean, Putin WAS initially democratically elected! Closer to topic, yes, Putin being able to boast success from his invasion would weaken the international order, but what would happen afterwards isn't a predictable automatism. The international order did not originate from its flawless record, but from generations of politics muddling together decent compromises in shady situations.

[@legion999]

Well said

[@nvelsen1975]

Historically speaking, Russia has never upheld any treaty that lacked kinetic enforcement. They broke every agreement ever signed, unless an army was keeping it from breaking.

[@CloakerM8]

When did Russia break a treaty?

[@nvelsen1975]

@@CloakerM8 Only always. The Geneva Protocol was broken extensively in Ukraine, Georgia and Syria. Russia is the only country to break the Minsk Agreements. OP-CEDAW was violated when Putin rolled back all laws criminalising violence against women, you can beat a Russian woman legally, so long as she doesn't die and you've a family or sexual relationship. WIPO Copyright existed in name only in Russia. The Abolition Of Forced Labour convention obviously is violated by Russia's use of dissidents and captives as slaves. I can go on for hours.

[@CloakerM8]

@@nvelsen1975 Russia did not sign on to Geneva just like the US didn't. Ukraine broke the Minsk agreement for trying to join NATO. OP-CEDAW is not a treaty. WIPO is not a treaty. AFLC is not a treaty.

[@nvelsen1975]

@@CloakerM8 Oh, so you're a Putin-bot... Even dumb enough to argue the Minsk agreement said anything about NATO, which it didn't. Not to mention Ukraine never tried to join NATO. Russia invaded the second Ukraine overthrew the Russian puppet ruler in 2014.

[@fadope1612]

​quote wikipedia: In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. @@CloakerM8

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Using Putin's rules, votes in Kursk are 102% in favor of joining Ukraine.

[@polygonalfortress]

Waiting for contrarian, "You can't just do that!?!?!" comments :troll:

[@nickguh1323]

You can't just do that!?!?!

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

If they want to be a peasant with no rights, they should go with Putin!

[@Faded._]

YOU CANT JUST DO THAT!!!!! 😡😡😡🤬🤬

[@dulguunjargal1199]

The Pre-emptive Referendum here says Kursk voted 102% in favor of joining Ukraine! W-W-With a 2% Margin of error! Why Stalin! Why!!

[@prfwrx2497]

The last time we had a ceasefire and guaranteed military aid, South Vietnam collapsed.

[@CultureCrossed64]

That's true, but South Vietnam was an incredibly corrupt regime that we shouldn't have been propping up in the first place. Ukraine is the same, but with the added benefit of weakening Russia. The aid will continue, and I doubt a ceasefire will come

[@rrai1999]

@@CultureCrossed64 Ukraine has become alot less corrupt since Russias sticky fingers left the country

[@yin6287]

​@@CultureCrossed64 Didn't Ukraine have the biggest corruption purge ever since the victory of the revolution of dignity? If anything, post revolution Ukraine is less corrupt than Russian one as the whole country got reformed while Russia still stays the same for the past 2 decades after the fall of USSR

[@thomasmyers9128]

@@CultureCrossed64…. South Vietnam was NOT doing their on fighting …. Like Ukraine is…. Also Afghanistan was the last to fall…. With us leaving crazy amounts of weapons….

[@procinctu1]

I think you spelled Iraq under Obama, and Afghanistan under Biden wrong.

[@Andriy_Sklyar]

As a Ukrainian, I was disgusted to watch a possible attempt to turn us into another divided Korea. I am outraged by the friendly peace negotiations with the aggressor, which do not include the immediate complete withdrawal of troops from our territory. We paid for security guarantees from the USA and Great Britain the №3 world nuclear arsenal, and we are forced to deal with the fact that they are trying to appease Russia at the cost of Ukraine's lands.

[@ludmilapoklonskaya8918]

Slava Ukraine!!!!

[@gjk282]

I don't think W. Spaniel means ill. I think he is too caught up in his own academic approach - game theory - to understand that the foundation of game theory (rational choice) does not apply here in the same way it would in a different context. I hope more Westerners wake up to the fact that Putin's goal isn't to grab some parts of Ukraine and then have a lasting peace deal, but to destroy Ukrainian self determination and independence. I try to spread the word amongst my compatriots and to pressure my government to step up aid. Ukraine must not only survive. Ukraine must win. For Ukraine, for democracy - and for Western self interest. Слава Україні!

[@DaniilIstomin-d5v]

unfortunately we have only ourselves to blame. We shouldn`t have believed US and UK in the first place.

[@The_New_IKB]

Amen

[@angeloftheabyss5265]

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that Obama didn’t honor a pledge. He did send you blankets, though.

[@MatthewFors-f8x]

Tacitus: 'A bad peace is even worse than war.'

[@andrewjames8980]

For the living yes for the people who die in the war, no. They don't have a voice

[@col0342]

@@andrewjames8980 those already dead are indifferent now. If they were asked before they died, they'd tell you they would prefer Putin never invaded.

[@satchelraidincoming636]

@@andrewjames8980 Irrelevant. Bad peace always leads to more war.

[@freedomgoddess]

wwi comes to mind.

[@ShimadaSharra]

@@andrewjames8980 a bad peace will lead to a even more cruel war short time later. If its just a stalemate now, russia will invest heavily in arms production. Sure, the ukraine will too, and so may the western states. But it all comes down to one brain fart of putin, when he decides the land he gained was not enough.

[@jameshawkins6201]

There is absolutely no way we should let Russia hold the land they have taken from Ukraine over the last decade. Letting Putin keep Crimea did not stop him from wanting more. How do you think the US would approve of us sending troop to keep Russia back when we had such a difficult time just passing the recent aid bill? I just don't see how letting Putin have his way again will help anyone.

[@brianfielder9493]

Obamas horrible foreign policy

[@flavoredrice176]

Unfortunately, without direct military intervention from a neighbor Ukraine is unlikely to retake its lost land. I think their best shot at a good outcome is to give up the land russia has claimed and revoke their own claim on it, then join NATO. They lose land, but they will never again be invaded and their people will be safe.

[@MacTac141]

@@flavoredrice176According to the Ukrainian constitution in order to cede territory it needs to be voted upon in a nation wide referendum. Good luck getting a majority or even plurality of Ukrainian’s to agree to give up some of their most resource rich and strategically valuable pieces of territory permanently. Also in this scenario does Ukraine get to keep the parts of Kursk it occupies? Only fair if Russia gets to keep Ukrainian territory right?

[@wanderer5058]

⁠@@flavoredrice176The Ukrainians under Russian occupation wouldn’t be safe, I’d say.

[@flavoredrice176]

@@wanderer5058 In this scenario, I would hope they negotiate with russia to get their citizens back that want to leave

[@todo9633]

Freezing the conflict is a terrible idea. Because what happens after? If Russia still has nukes and Ukraine doesn't, and Ukraine can't join NATO because of the border dispute and technically still being at war, then Russia can just go again in another 8 years. Meanwhile Ukraine is left dealing with the aftermath of being bombed to rubble for years and having many of their most resource rich regions conquered by their neighbor, with little to no chance to compete with Russian production of military power once Sanctions go away, as Trump wants to happen. Overall, war is terrible for young men, but rewarding old dictators for starting wars is even worse for young men.

[@michaelkirkland6573]

Missing here is that everyone fears that a peace agreement “incentivizes” wars like this. The bully nation gets something out of this behavior, may as well do it again

[@Knight_Kin]

Bad take. Russia isn't invading NATO. There is no other land go grab but Ukraine. People say this but it makes no sense. Stop justifying more war.

[@paulh.9526]

​@Knight_Kin China and, well any neighbour, India and Pakistan (and vice-versa), The entirety of the Middle East Russia and Ukraine, Moldova or Georgia, Venezuela and Guyana And many more (I'm sorry Africa I don't know enough about your geopolitics) Plenty of examples of countries that may see the precedent of a power being able to invade and then keep the land as encouraging their own plans.

[@michaelkirkland6573]

@@Knight_Kin thank you comrade Russia bot

[@tuehojbjerg969]

@@Knight_Kin RUSSIA AHS STATED THE GOAL IS SEVERAL NATO COUNTIES RUSSIA THINK NATO IS WEAK AND WONT DEFEND THE BALTIC STATES RUSSIA WINNING GUARANTESS CHINESE INVASION OF TAIWAN

[@u2beuser714]

​@@paulh.9526 But what difference would it make if countries are at war one way or another? How russia getting away with it could change anything?

[@moseszero3281]

15:45 I think the point you missed with the "long term compliance" is that if Russia is pushed back to their borders then they GAINED nothing from this war so another attempt would not be advisable. But if Russia is able to start a war every 10-15 years and gain large sections of land each time then they have an incentive to repeat the process.

[@davileite780]

By that point, the border would most likely be heavily fortified on both sides, making any advance difficult, and, again, aid. There will be lots of it if Russia breaks the agreement.

[@tomk3732]

Russia won the war. No one is pushing them anywhere.

[@tuehojbjerg969]

@@davileite780 except by that time russia will have built up gotten aid from china that would have invaded taiwan

[@MrSamulai]

With what troops though? They have a bit of a population decline, made only worse by the invasion.

[@legion999]

Exactly. If Russia gains ANYTHING they'll just do it again

[@KonglomeratYT]

The book ads at the end of these videos always give me a chuckle. This is my #1 channel for keeping up-to-date these days. You seem to know your stuff. I hope you keep going.

[@jcdisci]

That 'piece plan' is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my 60+ years of service, observations, and research. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who remembers the USSR, the Berlin Wall and the Cold War.

[@Quickshot0]

No worries, plenty of others remember. But the USA political instability clearly is making things more difficult here... Still the EU so has been trying to up its game, even if they keep doing things to slowly really.

[@charadreemurr7546]

I wasn’t alive Siri f the Cold War but I read enough history to know whatcha mean

[@TexanIndependence]

@@Quickshot0 Except now AMERICA is the (culturally) Marxist nation, and it's Russia that is the Christian nation... and instead of it being America threatening nuclear war over Cuba joining the Soviet NATO (Warsaw Pact), it's Russia threatening it over Ukraine joining NATO, what a weird reversal of history. And if you don't think NATO is an offensive alliance, just tell that to Yugoslavia and Libya. Oh wait, you can't, NATO invaded and destroyed those nations in violation of international law (no Article 5 was triggered, Yugoslavia and Libya did not attack NATO).

[@ak5659]

You're not the only one. Colleges in the US used to offer a Bachelor's degree in Soviet Studies. From what I can see not a single person with that degree is working in any media outlet in the US or for the federal government.

[@kit3091]

it's like they didn't know what happened after the 1938 appeasement

[@Burbon413]

I'd consider myself on the right side of center, but I hate Republicans who think Russia is somehow morally outstanding and that Ukraine should just surrender. If you're not from the US, there was a debate for the Republican primary where Chris Christie laid it out perfectly. Appeasement never works. It was Republicans in the 30s and 40s with their isolationist policies that led to America not aiding in the war in a fuller capacity until post Pearl Harbor.

[@josephcernansky1794]

Mostly DISAGREE with you. It was the DemonRat Party under The Great American Communist Dictator, Franklin Delano Roosevelt that REFUSED to deal with FOREIGN ADVERSARIES......he like the typical DemonRat Party focus of destroying any and all DOMESTIC OPPONENTS to their power!! It was the DemonRats that CAUSED the Depression. It was NOT the stock market crash. When the Leftist PROPAGANDA ("press") started attacking Capitalism after the crash, the money LEFT the market and HID! their wealth.... In silver and gold and oversees!! THAT is WHY FDR and the DemonRats OUTLAWED the PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of GOLD and SILVER!! DemonRats needed to prop up their SOCIALIST SPENDING to BUY VOTES and POWER. In 1932, the DemonRatic Party took CONTROL of the Congress and the "purse strings" of America's wealth. In 1932, the USA was CASH RICH!! Our National Debt was LESS THAN 2% of GDP!!! The rest of the WORLD was BROKE. The USA could have bought Greenland for less than $1 million. And HALF of Europe and STILL only been 25% in debt! Which was far less than Europe was at the time because of WW1. So, for 60 years...the DemonRatic Congress WHIPPED OUT the CREDIT CARD and BOUGHT VOTES....and POWER....ONLY for those ELITES within "The Party". Just like the Communist party in the USSR. Now ask yourself....how's our debt to income (GDP) ratio today? Fuck'n politicians....just making voters happy till the next election!! ONE DAY....THIS CHARADE WILL END!!! and it WON"T BE PRETTY for ALL of US.

[@JabesMcJabesface]

You are not alone; as someone who thought that the first Bush was one of our better presidents, I cannot understand a lot of people who called themselves Republicans in this day and age.

[@ZeSgtSchultz]

I don't understand it either, I grew up hearing about how bad communist Russia was and how bad communist China is. Why tf the right flipped over the last few years is crazy to me. We went from "fuck yeah, America first and you owe us for covering your ass these years" to " well now, the Russian people have a long, Christian history, I bet they don't like trannies either" I'm still right of center, I don't know what happened to these guys

[@rustyshackleford2719]

I don't think most Republicans who oppose aid view it in those terms. They see the national debt and inflation and that's their issue. Typically I agree with these Republicans in avoiding involvement in foreign affairs. I think this is a special case where really the only path to a long term peace is Russia losing the conflict. I also think that people who expect Trump will just abandon Ukraine don't understand Trump or American politics. Obama was against the Iraq war and the middle east wars and he simply continued the previous policies and was even more aggressive in Afghanistan.

[@procinctu1]

Where are these mythical Republicans who love Russia? You know the “Russia Collusion” narrative was a complete lie, right? None of that lie pushed by the US “News” media was ever true.

[@Владислав-ы9м5у]

You're wrong about 1 thing: Kursk is NOT more important than Donbass for the kremlin. Even now they are hesitant to pull out their main forces out of there to reinforce their own land. It's because we, Ukrainians, are fighting an empire with no incentive to stop, even to its own detriment.

[@laurentsalbert9630]

The thing is , this war would never have been a so called "stalemate" if Ukraine wasn't forced by its allies to get beaten without striking back , in the first place . Without thoses imaginary , self imposed and now sadly infamous Red Lines , something like the Kursk counter offensive would have taken place in the very first year , probably just after Ukraine routed russian forces in Balaklia ; it was the logical thing to do at this time . But the West , literally , and on many occasions seemed to do whatever it could to prevent Ukraine to win , the latest being the US arm embargo for about 7 month : this could have killed the Ukrainians , and in fact we will probably never know how toxic this decision was and still is : You don't cut critical ammo supply to someone without grave immediate and lasting consequences ( more UKr deads , more land losses , more infrastructure destroyed etc etc ). It was a stalemate because the West wanted it to be( I should say : prefered it to be) , not because the war was in a deadlock : at this time , the russian border was as empty as it was when the Kursk offensive began .

[@kurtwicklund8901]

Sorry it is not as simple as your wishful thinking would have it.

[@CultureCrossed64]

I mean it's not as simple as that. But frankly, Ukraine still exists because the West is willing to support it. If they're not willing to play ball, they won't get support

[@panjak323]

Well, Imagine a timeline where UA striked instantly back and Russia went Nuclear... What then ?

[@geodkyt]

I wouldn't say the West *wanted* a stalemate. However, the West's *weakness* in delaying providing the most critical aid sooner, and severely hamstrings the Ukrainian ability.to use the aid received by imposing severe and nonsensical restrictions on their employment, very strongly drove the current battlefield situation from Donbas to Crimea. But not because the West *wanted* a stalemate. Rather it was an excessive fear of Putin blustering over "Red Lines". Remember, the West held back almost a year on providing modern AFVs, held back at least a year on even *beginning* training for modern NATO fighters, held back a year on providing long range precision fires munitions (and then severely restricting where and how they could be used, which gave the Russian convenient safe havens close to the battlefield where they really didn't have to worry about being hit), and even delayed the immediate transfer of *Russian* style aircraft in NATO hands that Ukraine wouldn't need much time putting into operation. As a result, the 2023 counteroffensive was delayed literally as long as Ukraine could, given the weather patterns, in hopes of gathering enough Western weapons as possible. This gave the Russians time to heavily fortify - but the alternative was to attack earlier (when Ukraine was even less well prepared), or delaying until spring 2024 (when Russian would have had all winter to strengthen their lines and reconsolidate the troops).

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

​@@geodkyt It's weakness to piss away money? It's weakness to write blank checks and be put off by what the recipient does with the aid?

[@peterpayne2219]

Greetings from rural Japan. It's great to hear your thoughts on all of this!

[@samasoku]

did you marry a japanese woman?

[@tamasgyorffy1]

good to have your view! Hungary here. the few strongly pro-Ukraine here.

[@kingace6186]

I think bringing in Syrskyi as Commander-in-Chief was a brilliant move. First of all, he deserves it. Dude has a stacked resume that's even better than any Pentagon general. Second, "fresh eyes" is actually a very valid reason. It is the same concept as switching out your most battle hardened soldiers to avoid burnout. Finally, he effectiveness is already validating Zelenskyy's decision by creating a huge turning point in this war. The gamble isn't done yet, but it has already achieved massive tangible and intangible gains. The West doubts Ukraine way too much.

[@ak5659]

Agreed about the doubting. It's like nobody knows that Russia has been invading Ukraine for the past 600 years. There's nothing new about this.

[@user-jm4nj7nz6t]

This entire video is flawed, suggesting putin wouldn't restart the war because of "costs". Have you not been paying attention for the past 2 years??

[@georhodiumgeo9827]

I have to agree to some extent with this comment. Pretending that Putin is a "rational" actor in a game theory context just trying to optimize outcomes doesn't really do the complexity of the situation justice. Sometimes I think part of their strategy is to work against their own best interests just to make everything less understandable and more desperate. Russia always acts like Europe was against them but Europe had incorporated Russia into their energy, economic, and diplomatic spheres mostly to placate Russia into playing on the same team. In doing this Russia made a bunch of money from Europe and had significant pull in the west. They burned this all up just to make a point that they were outside of Europe?!? That's not rational or strategic.

[@badluck5647]

Putin's oligarchs have bought into his sunk cost fallacy. Starting a new war won't have that advantage.

[@viswajitbala7924]

​@@georhodiumgeo9827 Just over two decades ago, Putin hinted the idea of Russia joining NATO yet it never happened. Why? Europe and the US still needs an enemy to distract their internal disputes and feed their already massive military hardware industry. Why else would they all invest so much into China despite knowing its communistic nature? Bush and Obama reinstigated the cold war enigma, Kennedy and Reagan would be facepalming hard knowing the golden opportunities that they had. NATO intervention of Yugoslavia made things even worse and increased hostilities, then Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria happened. Essentially destabilizing the middle east. Somalia and North Africa too but they had nothing to gain from them.

[@znail4675]

@@georhodiumgeo9827 True, if we assume Putin to be rational then Ukraine was never invaded.

[@Hades_Space_Engineer]

​@@znail4675Putin isnot all knowing. It would have made sense if it was the same as crimea. A quick operation that does not cost him much other than a slap on the wrist from the west while giving him his ukraine back which would be a part of his empire

[@henrykri2067]

In my humble, non-professional, opinion this omits the main cause that made Putin attack Ukraine in 2022, namely regime security. He looked maybe five years into the future and there he saw a democratic and succesful Ukraine as a threat to his regime. He thought that if my regime wobbles a bit in 2027 a succesful Ukraine can tip it over. So I do not think territorial gains were important in 2022 for Putin. What he wanted were a regime change in Ukraine to a russian friendly one. Today I don't think Putin will accept anything that excludes such regime change in Ukraine. It will be to risky to his regime and therefore also to his own life.

[@ak5659]

That shows a fundamental flaw in his thinking. First off, Ukraine is almost 700 years older than Moscow. Kyiv dates back to just before the fall of Rome. Moscow is a swamp where a hunter has a shack in 1147. When the Mongols arrived they just made Moscow their base. Poland & Ukraine were the first to greet them with armies that didn't retreat. Eventually the Mongols decided neither Poland nor Kyiv were worth the effort and let them be. Once those Slavic tribes around Moscow organized themselves they picked up where the Mongols left off and have been trying to take over Kyiv ever since. There have never been non-hostile relations between the two and Moscow will lever stop being the 'barbarians from ths east' from Kyiv's perspective. Part of it is that Moscovians are the new kids on the block.

[@UniversalAwareness101]

Ukraine's ingenious move into Kursk is proving to be a success.

[@luitjen1950]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIS4qYJqhcqZhrM

[@tomk3732]

LOL!

[@Mesopotamia-v6d]

Well we have to wait and see if this was a good idea or not , maybe Ukraine will take more land, maybe Russia will stop Ukraine advancing, nobody knows what would happen in the next weeks and months

[@MacTac141]

Ukraine is going to end up taking all the territory south of the Seim River, past that it’s almost certain their advances will stop. They’ll still be holding well over 1000 square kilometres of internationally recognized sovereign Russian territory, which is a massive embarrassment to the Putin regime everyday they’re allowed to stay. Apparently Putin has set the date of October 1 as the day the military is supposed to have Ukraine off Russian territory, and past that is the mud season followed by winter. That means if Ukraine can hold another month they’ll likely be able to hold on well into 2025 which would be useful for negotiations.

[@Gjudxdkjyzddhjnr7091]

how, it's resulting in the acceleration of the Russian offensive in the east. Ukraises war aim is to eject Russia from the 1991 borders. The Kursk offensive achieves the opposite of this lol

[@marlenfras5490]

Well said. Good reporting. Thank you. Strong Ukraine. Strong NATO. Strong Poland.

[@davidschaftenaar6530]

Allowing Russia to take a big bite out of Ukrainian territory and to avert Ukrainian accession to NATO through the use of military force, sends the entire world a very clear message: Invading your neighbors to get your way on the international stage _works!_ You just need a little patience. I could see China putting that information to immediate use when it comes to Taiwan. Stopping aid to Ukraine risks destabilizing the entire rules based international order.

[@amezcuaist]

Yes ,the rule is --No joining Nato while you are fighting a war.---Perfect for Putin .

[@bjkarana]

Agreed.

[@Nik930714]

As a European who generally dislikes Trump, i have to agree with him on the point about european countries not spending enough money on your own defense and waiting for the US to keep us protected in the event of a war. He was right on this when he said it when we was president. If the EU countries had listened then, they would have spend an additional 1 trillion euros on defense by 2022. At that point when russia attached Ukraine, the EU would have had a lot more weapons and ammo to give.

[@johan8969]

@@j.t.7697 Everybody gets it at this point. They just arent keen on admitting that Trump was right.

[@badluck5647]

The EU is now spending a greater amount on Ukrainian than the US.

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

Everything he has said since and the first impeachment invalidated that. He tried to extort Ukraine ffs.

[@Holy-Tiramisu]

true, can't believe i actually agree with Trump on something

[@Llortnerof]

@@johan8969 I think this was more of a broken clock thing.

[@Anthony-em1rc]

None of this is excepable. Rewarding a dictator for attacking his neighbor is counterproductive for the sake of peace for generations.

[@edmundgennings3025]

(Barring total Ukrainian collapse which everyone in the West wants to prevent) regardless of how this ends, this will be a considerable black eye for Russia. Face saving territorial gains in exchange for massive casualties, loss of material, and ongoing even if moderated sanctions means we have already established valuable precedent.

[@millerrepin4452]

The U.S. has resources spent across the world. Focus too much on Ukraine and Taiwan (or another country) can be invaded.

[@rotm4447]

you go stop him then.

[@funveeable]

It's not rewarding Putin. It's punishing Ukraine for trying to join NATO. NATO on Russias doorstep is the same as Napoleon and Hitler on Russias doorstep, a staging ground for an invasion.

[@tbard]

@@millerrepin4452 don't focus enough on Ukraine and China will believe that she can invade Taiwan without consequences tho. It's something hard to balancce.

[@UncleDansVintageVinyl]

The switch from Biden to Harris has helped Ukraine; the Kursk offensive has helped Harris.

[@leuk2389]

Thanks for you continuous coverage. Slava Ukraini

[@luitjen1950]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIS4qYJqhcqZhrM

[@RemusCroft]

>The settlement line is better Okay, another westerner who failed to understand that Russia plays zero sum game.

[@u2beuser714]

Who should we believe , an actual political scientist who lectures in a university or a random youtuber who just happened to comment on the issue?

[@Monochromatic_Spider]

@@u2beuser714 How about believing common sense? We've seen Russia play "not at war" in Donbas for eight years. Implement an official peace and that's what they'd go back to. A drone here, some "local militants totally not affiliated with Russia" there. Constant sabotage. Constant pressure against Ukraine rebuilding. And the West did nothing about it for eight years despite a Russian invasion of Crimea. In case of a cease fire, that's what the West would go back to doing. I've seen plenty of political scientists who are smart people and generally know what they're talking about, but they seem to struggle a bit with the notion that some people might not actually do what they've said they'll do.

[@gjk282]

The one who is the expert. And i hate to say it, but in this very case, William Spaniel isn't the expert. Nor am I, for that matter, but at least I too have a degree in political sciences. The shortcomings of the reasoning in this video is that the fundamental goals and motivations of the Kremlin aren't understood. The motivation isn't to grab some Ukrainian dirt and incorporate it into the Russian Federation. It is to make Ukraine fail as a self-determined, democratic country. If you understand that, you don't theorize on lines on maps as options for peace. You acknowledge that Putin's maximalist goal can only be permitted or foiled. Middle ground isn't in the cards - not in Putin's end game.

[@RemusCroft]

@@u2beuser714 so considering your words John Mearsheimer is trustworthy source...

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

@@u2beuser714 The person who is right. Which is irrelevant to titles and qualifications.

[@scisher3294]

Let us never forget to recite: “F#%€ Mike Johnson,” for holding back Ukrainian aid for his own political gain.

[@bruceradz]

Send him to Russia.... permanently

[@scisher3294]

@@bruceradz sadly, the USA can’t deport @ss Holes just for being themselves 🫤😮‍💨

[@paddington1670]

MAGAs amirite

[@scisher3294]

@@paddington1670 you are, indeed, right.

[@badluck5647]

The political gain of appeasing Trump's BFF in the Kremlin

[@bsteven885]

WOW, I'm EARLY! Thanks, William, for keeping us "in the loop" so well.

[@NLTops]

It's a bad ceasefire because only Ukraine would concede its interests. Russia has created the land bridge and occupies most of Donbas. It has mostly achieved what it was trying to. If anything, Russia would LOVE if this turned into a cold conflict so it could lick its wounds and re-organize. If we take the Koreas as example... the DMZ might be demilitarized...but the borders on either side of it are the most militarized areas in the world. Russia would build up defenses, re-organize its military, broadly apply lessons learned about the new normal in large scale warfare, and then try again. Meanwhile, the US would reduce military aid because the conflict has subsided, which would make Ukraine relatively worse off after the ceasefire than before it.

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

Technically, there was an agreement before 2022, but Russia kept violating it. Russia wouldn't honour the previous agreement, why you trust it the next? We need to listen to the Ukrainians because they know the Russians beyond game theory.

[@jamstagerable]

Not my problem 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@jamstagerable]

Not my problem 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@NLTops]

@@jamstagerable Go to bed, you're drunk. You're even typing double.

[@13ased_American13]

Wait are you part of NL

[@i-love-space390]

You are implying that the Kursk Offensive is some sort of pin prick. One thing you failed to mention is the ground Ukraine already holds cuts an important Russian supply rail line into eastern Ukraine. They are also very close to controlling the metering station for Natural Gas exports to the EU. And even though they are digging in, they are still expanding the bridgehead. And so far the Russian forces that Putin has devoted to the defense have remained largely ineffective. The UA have captured 2000 Russian soldiers so far. They keep finding undefended areas to pierce all the time, since the current Russian plan is to put large troop concentrations in the largest towns with little in the surrounding territory. That makes them ripe for encirclement, which the UA is doing. And there is very poor coordination between the Russian Regular Army and the FSB internal security leaders in charge of the defense operation. We have not seen the end of this offensive. And it has an outsized strategic value much greater than the amount of territory they control at present. And a good indication of this is the fact that Putin keeps downplaying it. That shows he simply does not have a solution.

[@enigmabodylanguage]

I am a simple man. I see a new William Spaniel video, I click it.

[@Lemonraine26]

Me as well

[@bluebandites]

Same

[@douglasbroccone3144]

Crimea is the main problem Russia must not be allowed to remain in Crimea or it will be impossible for Ukraine to rebuild

[@funveeable]

Ukraine should not have tried to join NATO. A NATO country on Russias border is a staging ground for future invasion. It happened with Napoleon and Hitler and it has happened with Ukraine. Better to get it over with.

[@tomk3732]

Crimea is now Russia. We see whatever whole left bank of Dnieper will be Russia + Odessa. Or all of Ukraine or 90% of it will be incorporated into Russia.

[@georhodiumgeo9827]

Luhansk Donetsk and Crimea are gone. The conflict is actually over Zaporizhzhia and Kherson at this point. The second the conflict goes cold Ukraine will never be able to contest those regions ever again. Russia will flood those regions with Russians just like they flooded Crimea. There is zero incentive for Ukraine to allow this conflict to go cold.

[@gorn9161]

@@georhodiumgeo9827 Crimea is not lost. The Orcs have already had to pull their NAVY out. It's been proven that they can't protect their bridge or bases from attack. They don't even have a presentable air presence there. If all Ukraine had to attack was Crimea, the Orcs would be gone already. Ukraine has taken more land in two weeks, than the Orcs have taken in three years of a "Three Day" Operation. They've already kicked them out of Kherson, once. Don't bet they can't do it again!

[@please-wake-up-now]

This video really shines a light on how interconnected everything is! It's wild to think that strategies can shift based on politics so far away. Ukraine's bold moves in Kursk might just tip the scale in ways we can't fully predict yet. 📊🌍

[@RemusCroft]

>a lot of North Koreans would die in a process Yet another silly comparison. RoK has double population of DPRK. Ukraine has quarter population of Russia. RoK is major US non-NATO ally. Ukraine isn't. US fought with RoK against DPRK. US declared it won't participate in war against Russia in any possible case. Those conditions are not comparable.

[@baneofbanes]

Ukraine is a NATO ally dip shit. But tell me are you willing to die for Seoul? Most Americans aren’t. Are you willing to trade an American city for Seoul? North Korea has nuclear missiles capable of reaching North America.

[@u2beuser714]

Thank you but i would rather trust an actual expert and political scientist than you, a random youtube commenter.

[@EugeneTChu]

Ukraine contributed forces to coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan. They provided intelligence on Russia during US cooperation efforts prior to the 2022 invasion.

[@badluck5647]

What is with the Russian fallacy about their population size directly translating to troop size? Russians will not accept mobilization like Ukrainians do. There is a cap to the amount of troops Russia can afford to recruit. Russians see this as a poor man's war to fight, while Ukraine is mobilizing the entire male population of a certain age.

[@coconut7490]

Russia manpower pool is directly tied to them not being able to mobilize due political risk to Putin, North Korea has no such restriction. The reason why NK doesn't invade is simple because of the cost and because they don't think they can win at least there isn't a good chance they will

[@RickBerman-iv2il]

A ceasefire is ludicrous. Putin will just use the time for a second attack that now has the equipment the first needed.

[@badluck5647]

It depends. If NATO membership is included, then peace between Russia and Ukraine will be forever.

[@darylbas8216]

@@badluck5647I cannot believe for an instant Putin will accept Ukraine joining NATO under any circumstances short of Russia clearly and unambiguously being in the process of losing the war, outright. Crimea, the Donbas and every part of Ukraine that Russia has taken would have to be lost, or about to be lost before he’ll accept that. Or domestic problems have to be so serious and grave that they are an imminent threat to his government and his person, resulting in him needing to pull back the military in order to secure his power base at home.

[@redvenge709]

@@badluck5647 Except that Turkey and Hungary will veto Ukraine entering NATO. So will the US, if Trump wins.

[@badluck5647]

@@redvenge709 The screws can be tightened on them. Ukraine can cut off Russian pipelines to Hungary and watch the economy collapse. American sanctions on Turkey would destroy their economy if they ever decided to.

[@redvenge709]

@@badluck5647 Except none of that would ever happen. Hungary has already done everything to hinder aid to Ukraine and nothing has been done. The US would not sanction Turkey, especially if Trump wins. Ukraine is not going to join NATO for years, if ever, until their is regime change in Hungary, Turkey and possibly the US.

[@ParaplegicSloth]

Weren't Ukraine guaranteed protection in the 90's in exchange for giving up the nukes they inherited from the Soviet Union? Aren't America and the UK signatories of that deal? Isn't it a little Convenient and hypocritical no one wants to talk about upholding that deal and instead convince Ukraine to take another deal where they give up a a fifth of their country. Or am I missing something??

[@macmcleod1188]

This video again makes it clear that Zelinski is a rare, unique individual.

[@sage8573]

And Trump is a dime a dozen. Lets not all forget that Trump regularly threatens to end aid to Ukraine and allow Russia to do whatever they want. Nothing is Trump "proofed"

[@Alex-wg1mb]

Indeed unique. In 2014 when I stood with thousands of others in Winter supporting European choice Zelenskiy stood on the scene but with Yanukovitch. Because he is still a person who supports "Regionals". Oleg Tatarov is responsible for many protesters death on Maidan 10 years ago yet Volodymyr assigned him to presidential office. West is playing with very dangerous fire trying to keep them away from "russian" choice

[@nicoedel5606]

@@Alex-wg1mb "russian choice" ? Being raped, tortured or murdered ? Go to the front, troll.

[@bluebandites]

😂😂​@@Alex-wg1mb

[@bluebandites]

​@@Alex-wg1mb guess he changed 😊

[@Balyoz-su8kp]

Turkey is supporting Ukraine and Georgia's NATO membership since 90's.

[@johnmoreno9636]

I am impressed. There are lots of military analysis videos, but this one analyzed political decisions in conjunction with war - a whole harder level of analysis over a wide range of political actions. Even Peter Zeihan, who I respect for coming to conclusions based on statistics, has not done this sort of analysis of why Kursk. This took some smart thinking and awareness. I have subscribed.

[@Skyhanger]

Nice analysis, but some assumptions need to be reexamined. So far it seems apparent Putin actually values Donbass over Kursk. He refuses to draw reserves away from the eastern front to Kursk, preferring to weaken the southern flank instead. It seems like he values small incremental gains in Donbass over ending Ukrainian occupation in Kursk.

[@ohnoes3084]

I would agree with this however Russia has actually recently withdrawn reserves from Donbas to go fight in Kursk already, so I believe it most likely really just was them being very poor and slow to respond rather than them not valuing the region

[@floydlooney6837]

So Putin should have just kept what he held in 2020, back when the world didn't care about it.

[@josephcernansky1794]

THAT is WHY Putin is secretly doing another "mobilization" to attack Kursk in winter......he could care less about losing 500,000 untrained and ill-equipped Russian Empire Minorities in this modern "Patriotic War 2.0". He'll deal with Kursk this winter....Before Inauguration Day. Without Crimea, Ukraine is sunk as a Sovereign Nation. If Trump tries some "cease-fire" and "negotiated settlement" that does not give ALL of Ukraine back to Ukraine....then the ONLY SAFE RECOURSE is for Ukrainians to VOTE to be ANNEXED by Poland!!! THEN...Trump AND Putin will HAVE TO acknowledge that NATO is even CLOSER to Moscow!!! And Ukrainians will be able to live in peace and safety under Article 5!!!!

[@christopherellis2663]

21:03 the cause of the war has nothing to do with Ukraine 🇺🇦 the Kremlin is the problem. Address that or be silent. The Budapest Agreement must be upheld.

[@funveeable]

How about tell Ukraine to stop trying to join NATO and the war wouldn't have happened.

[@PhysicsGamer]

@@funveeable Finland sure didn't have any trouble with that. At this point no matter how the war ends Ukraine is going to be in NATO - which was definitely not a given had Russia not invaded. So Putin has tripped himself up several times over...

[@KingZolem]

​@@funveeable Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a chocolate cake recipe.

[@gdbalck]

@@funveeable Ukraine is a sovereign country. By the by, did Russia invade Finland or Sweden when they decided to join NATO as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

[@christopherellis2663]

@@funveeable you may drink that swill till your thirst for lies is sated. Don't choke on it

[@X11-e4w]

Whoever believes there is potential of having an honored agreement with Russia is a fool.

[@bluebandites]

Maga does since they believe Russia is the pivotal of masculinity and no lgtbq whatever they call it woke I think

[@funveeable]

Russia had an honored agreement when Trump was president. I didn't see any invasion during that time because Putin knows Trump would not hesitate to obliterate him. Biden didn't want to honor the agreement so that's why Putin invaded.

[@CorePathway]

Or a Maga Republican. Oh wait, same thing 😂 Seriously, how can my fellow vets support a man who constantly sh!t on vets. And the way he praises Putin is…curious if not downright alarming. There is a reason why Putin CLEARLY wants to see Trump elected. I’d like to know what that is.

[@ak5659]

Yes, and anyone who questions that is invited to look at Russia's past 600 years or so.

[@o0alessandro0o]

0:42 I can never get over that picture of Zelenskyy sitting next to Trump, back when he was still an actor faking being a politician. Then Russia invaded, and discovered that the funny comedian had balls of fscking steel. That will never get old.

[@judithvorster2515]

Very funny - I initially read 'an actor faking being a politician' assuming you were referring to Trump...

[@o0alessandro0o]

@@judithvorster2515 Zelenskyy took "fake 'til you make it" to a whole new level. You can see it in his face, he really wasn't sure what the Hell he was doing. And then Russia invaded, and all of a sudden he knew exactly what he was doing. Some people just rise to the occasion.

[@tomk3732]

No, we discovered comedian is a comedian.

[@Pitmanfamily]

He (Zelensky)is still a better leader.The guy he was sitting next to said Biden would get us into WWII.

[@o0alessandro0o]

@@tomk3732 Well, lots of people certainly laughed when Ukraine counterinvaded Russia, but I don't think Russia saw the humor.

[@namenamename390]

I've kind of gotten used to the pop culture references this channel likes to throw in, but a Joe Hendry reference was something I could've never seen coming.

[@nolol135]

At first I assumed he did that completely unintentionally. But then I see he liked this comment

[@whilecontroller]

I believe!

[@mikethemanz]

@@whilecontroller 👏👏

[@adamdymke8004]

One question, if you cut off Ukrainian military aid, how are you going to stop them from blowing up every oil and gas pipeline they can get their hands on?

[@KidBeanie]

"The lines on pants were crisp." Amazing

[@archibald-yc5le]

Your bit with Russia's costs moving to the West is very sound, but it hinges on the premise that Pu is a rational leader. This is up to debate

[@frankgulla2335]

Thank you, William for your succinct summary of the current Ukraine-Russia situation. Keep up the good work, and keep putting out the product.

[@nehrigen]

Trumps biggest issue with NATO has been corrected in that Europe has started actually meeting their requirements in NATO.

[@nuggets1833]

They don't acknowledge that and continue lying about European aid. Sucks but the grift must go on.

[@avroarchitect1793]

@@nuggets1833 Because the majority of the MAGA Republicans don't actually care about NATO keeping to the agreement, they are just using it as an excuse to push anger so they can push more isolationist policy. If they got what they really wanted the US wouls pull out of all military alliances and shut down all foreign bases that were'nt being used to make the US more money. They operate on the same business sense the Russians do of "If its not a totally favourable deal to me its not a good deal". They don't believe in mutual benefit, they just want to take everything. I was once told by one that "The US doesn't have friends or allies, we have puppets". Take from that what you will.

[@charlesjmouse]

Questions: Accepting the maker of this video is rather more expert that me: -How does this take in to account Russia's history and rhetoric? Surely a ceasefire only enables Russian rearmament before another go? -Wouldn't a 'defeated' Russia be rather less of a threat to all it's neighbors, and may even be induced to try civilized international relations? -What of 'right' and 'wrong'? If nothing else, is not a Russia seen to have made any 'gains by arms' a green light for any other 'belligerents'?* *At no point during World War 2 was Hilter offered a 'lines on maps' compromise, and with good reason. It is to the tremendous cost of us all that 'The West' was forced to get in to bed with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler on it's terms, but imagine how much worse things could have been today if Hitler's Germany had gained anything short of utter defeat from the war it started? Sometimes there is a very unhappy question to be answered: I may be able to stop right now, saving many lives today - that is of course undoubtedly a good thing that should be pursued if at all possible. But what might that mean for the future? Not to put too fine a point on it; nobody remembers anyone who died to preserve our today after only a few short years. But we will always have to live with the consequences of decisions made in the past, even those made thousands of years ago.

[@frankshifreen]

your videos are great- great analysis- I will buy both books

[@justinpaul3110]

Any negotiated ceasefire has a seriously fatal flaw of trusting Russia. That's ridiculous. I cannot see Ukraine agreeing to any ceasefire along the current lines without some outside security force guarantees. I also don't see anyone agreeing to provide that either. Ironically, anyone who thinks a forced ceasefire will end Western involvement in Ukrainine isnt thinking this through.

[@brianb2886]

The US is either not short on arms or has weakened itself to the point it can no longer support any of it's allies. For almost a year the US has sent unlimited arms to Israel, including 155 and bombs, while whining about how it doesn't have enough for Ukraine. Taiwan should be worried.

[@avroarchitect1793]

Try the entirity of NATO, the USA is proving itself unreliable as a partner when they are not the ones who are objectively the beneficiary of whatever short term gains there are available. Its refusing to uphold its end of the deal when inconvienient for them. We're all in a hard spot right now Why does that suddenly invalidate decades of security agreements, especially when working together is better for our economies over going it alone?

[@louiscarullo6034]

William…so…fun fact…there’s so much iron in Kursk oblast it causes something called the “Kursk anomaly” apparently…I am unfamiliar with the strata in Kursk…but if it’s terrain is less muddy as a result, there could be a whole other layer of strategy we are overlooking.

[@jcbeta730]

Russia can not be allowed to keep a single square inch of Ukrainian clay

[@technobladeleakedclips1827]

All of ukraine is Russian clay

[@graham1034]

I just don't understand the Trump/Republican reasoning. Despite their difficulties, Russia is China's best ally and would single-handedly help China withstand widescale western sanctions via their energy production. Weakening Russia is an excellent way to counter China and a very good return on value for the relatively low costs involved. Allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory is also tacitly condoning the same actions of China re: Taiwan, which US foreign policy is deeply opposed to. Now if Trump was wanting to make better friends with both Russia and China through some sort of diplomatic appeasement then it would at least make some sense (even if success would be highly questionable). But rewarding Russian aggression in order to counter China makes no sense at all.

[@mangoliciousfruit5750]

The only way to logically understand it I find is if you think about them taking bribes from russia, Seemingly over the decade Russian pro governments have been appearing in Europe with the right. Now I don't think the right itself is supportive of Russia but it's leaders without a doubt are. If we look at Putin and analyze that he comes from an espionage background and not a military one the blunder in ukraine makes sense but the destabilizing in the West makes just as much as sense. Putin finds democracy weak and abusable one can write it off as a conspiracy theory sure. Once maybe but the fact it's across the board with the right almost every single right-wing government seems to be either supportive of Russia or just outright indifferent and struggles with the concept of combating it. Either the right has abandoned it's traditional values and desire to grow the military sector. Or they are taking money to pursue actions they normally would never do. Thus I cannot wait for putin to die for politics to slowly go back to a norm and stabilize itself, putin and his miss information machine is currently the chaos of this political division and thriving in it. I just wish people weren't so easily distracted by keys jangling in their face.

[@WichtrudK]

First time here. That was a cool talk, and I would like to have you as a history teacher. Thank you very much for the insightful explanations.

[@ManveruT]

I'm not going to repeat what literally everyone here in the comments is saying ... but I will say one thing ... If Trump is voted back, it will be a complete disaster for Ukraine (...and not only Ukraine...)

[@ekesa07632]

Wonderful to see this video on Ukraine’s Independence Day 🗣️🗣️🇺🇦

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

It is up to Ukraine to win this war, not the United States, in the past when we tried to win wars for other countries, such as South Vietnam, it did not go well! Ukraine needs a plan B if Trump wins. I think Trump might be convinced to continue support for Ukraine, the war itself is a campaign issue to use against the Democrats, but I don't think Trump will go out of his way to rescue Putin either if it looks like he's losing the war. MAGA stands for Make America Great Again, I don't see anything in there about making Russia great again!

[@limeslam6567]

🤮🤮

[@luitjen1950]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIS4qYJqhcqZhrM

[@MAVAelitewolf-guys]

​@@limeslam6567 cringe you limeslam6567 = gay

[@EbliZ]

Good vid as usual.

[@jsoukup3900]

Your logic is so set on “western thinking “ … Putin does not think like you discussed….

[@EugeneTChu]

Putin does not act like a politician. He thinks and behaves more like a mafia boss.

[@sirfanatical8763]

@@EugeneTChu i was gonna criticize your statement but then they litereally use street slang in the kremlin

[@codygriffith8865]

My question is: how long can Russia keep this up? They are losing ground in THEIR own territory

[@tomk3732]

Till Ukraine surrenders?

[@thadtheman3751]

You know Ukraine blew up the bridges it needs to advance?

[@EugeneTChu]

Ukraine is not making the same mistakes of Napoleon and Hitler. They attempted to seize and hold distant major cities in Russia. Ukraine is holding small villages and not advancing further than their supply lines.

[@TrumpFacts-wl2ik]

Russia as a "machine" can keep this up for years. Question is, whether the Russian populace will put up with this. I pray that Russia's long winter ends, and Putin is removed.

[@thadtheman3751]

@@TrumpFacts-wl2ik So Medvedev can take over? The guy who just said that Russia should nuke the US?

[@AldrinAlbano]

I just love the way William does his "shameless plug" of his books. Love this episode though. Very intelligent objective analysis of the possibilities of a Russo-Ukrainian war conclusion.

[@Canthus13]

Holy crap. Seeing Zelensky at the beginning of the war vs now.. It wears HARD on him.

[@johnpjones1775]

Tbf if Ukraine pushed russia out of their territory, the Russian military would be so mangled that it wouldn’t be capable of a new invasion for at least a decade if not more. Remember based on Russian numbers alone roughly 1.2m Russians and foreign fighters have been thrown into Ukraine. Russia has lost roughly a million military aged men directly to the war, and hundreds of thousands to men fleeing the conscription drives. Personnel isn’t too hard to replace what is, are the ships that were lost, the tanks, the aircraft, and the artillery. The whole time russia is rebuilding their military Ukraine will be working to keep their new found advantage.

[@JohnMcAfee-se9ms]

Biden has made Russia and Iran rich by stopping every drilling project in the US, and undoing Iranian sanctions. Trump will have them poor again. They are states that get the majority of their funding from selling fossil fuels, and they wont make much of a profit on that when the US starts drilling again under Trump. Russia never embarks on wars when the oil prices are low. They cant afford it.

[@wayneknox4510]

I’m about 20% of the way through “How Ukraine Survived”, and it’s a purchase I readily endorse. You absolutely get your money’s worth. Well worth the reading, so far.

[@saysimonsaid1576]

I would suggest that an air/navel war in Asia would require different weapons than a land war in Easter Europe. But maybe the US has swimming Abrams and HIMARS we don't know about.

[@floydlooney6837]

The US has plenty of Naval/Air assets

[@saysimonsaid1576]

@floydlooney6837 and a doctrine of being able to conduct and win 2 wars at the same time. Meaning any excuse from Trump to not help Ukraine is only self serving.

[@Kalergiplansupporter]

​@@saysimonsaid1576just because America has the doctrine to fight two wars at the same time it doesn't mean we have the actual capability to do so. we have neither the manpower material nor public support to do that and the federal government as well as the dod knows that. the Europeans shouldn't need the Americans to mediate or rescue them every time their country gets invaded or their is a dispute they are first world countries act like it every European country should have a capable defensive oriented military.

[@ChaseSecurity]

@@saysimonsaid1576 "Self serving." Well he would be the President of the U.S., not Ukraine. His job is to help the US. An endless money pit in eastern Europe does little to help the Americans suffering at home. That money could be better used for our roads, and schools, and healthcare. Ending the war should be everyones objective. To be clear, I want Russia to lose this war. They have a history of evil and violence, and Ukraine has felt it more than most. But the US can't continue funding wars all over the globe. Israel is determined to drag us into a war with Iran. Taiwan with China. It needs to change. This world police B.S. has gone on long enough. I served in Iraq and witnessed this farce first hand.

[@Igor-ug1uo]

So the plan is to abandon any attempts of helping Ukraine to restore its territorial integrity and to force both sides to stop the war while ensuring that Ukraine will not get any help in the future if it decides to free its territories. Russia will be the one who will have the opportunity to repeat the Feb 24, 2022, and only then Ukraine will get assistance trying to stop the Russian advances even further.

[@gdbalck]

Only to have the cycle on repeat - We have not learned anything if we fall for this trap.

[@kf7137]

I disagree. The reason Ukraine must defeat Russia, is to make it clear that aggressive action by Russia does not yield a payoff to Russia. If Putin thinks that he can just rearm and repeat any number of times, then he will see that as a way to incrementally reach his goals.

[@Freekymoho]

Instead of threatening russia with more aid, we should just begin sending said aid

[@douglasbroccone3144]

The US could massively expand aid in 6 months

[@sparhawk5515]

Your conclusion is well thought out. I'm surprised no one else has made the same observations.

[@matchrocket1702]

Trump would ask Putin to send Russian troops to encircle Washington DC to protect him from his political rivals.

[@davidjohn-dg9lv]

Ukraine doesn't need to push Russia from the east...they just need to hold Russia territory

[@tomk3732]

For what?

[@EugeneTChu]

@@tomk3732 Publicity and future negotiations. While actual amount of Russian land under Ukrainian control is small, it is embarrassing.

[@tomk3732]

@@EugeneTChu No one in Russia cares about being humiliated - they are fighting a war not starring in a comedy.

[@InspiriumESOO]

@@tomk3732 Don't try to sound smart when you can't even understand why Ukraine controlling Russian territory is a huge benefit politically.

[@tomk3732]

@@InspiriumESOO Yes, its a benefit but to Russia. It is political posturing by Ukraine for political points in the west - problem is that it will cost them military loss. War is extension of politics by means of physical force - physical force trumps any non physical posturing. So Russian military wins trump any Ukrainian posturing for soft political wins. I.e. this is a mistake by Ukraine.

[@cathulhu3772]

You are one of the best creators on YT. Not because you preach, but because you give viewers a wider perspective and ask questions forcing broadening worldview and stoic thinking wirh a sprinkle of humor. I am so happy that algorithm gods made me found you.😮

[@krakhedd]

William, you should know better than to trust one effing word that comes out of Lindsey Graham's mouth, *especially* as it pertains to Trump; Graham's principles are 100% pliable vs. having a disagreement with Trump.

[@SplitFinn]

This only ends when Putin goes

[@dwaynegreaves333]

Excellent analysis

[@kartikeyatiwari2502]

Russia will never engage in peace talks as long as Ukraine is in kursk so this topic doesn't arise

[@rrai1999]

What about when Ukraine is in Kursk, Belgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.. I bet negotations will suddenly return to the table

[@kartikeyatiwari2502]

@@rrai1999 Russia will never agree to a negotiation as long as Ukraine has even an inch of Russian land

[@TEHSTONEDPUMPKIN]

@@rrai1999 LOL! Keep dreaming guy.

[@rrai1999]

@@kartikeyatiwari2502 Then they will be forced to the table, Russian land will continue to be lost and fortified faster than Russia can advance, so they will be forced to this table indeed

[@kartikeyatiwari2502]

@@rrai1999 You should look at the map . Ukraine doesn't even have 1/10th of Kursk.

[@crashgamesuhd]

Why do authoritarian leaders sometimes act according to the interests of their country and sometimes in their own selfish interests? Recently, you explored the strategic considerations for use of nuclear weapons. If Putin (for example via informants in the KGB) believes his removal from political power is immanent and is not willing to do a soft exit of some kind (exile in Belarus, North Korea or a similar solution), would resorting to nuclear weapons (perhaps tactical strikes, perhaps a strategic one dropped on Kiev) be a viable option to change the battlefield, establishing himself as a man of power and (hopefully) securing his future reign? The conflict of interest between personal gain and the gain of a state has been one I have been thinking about watching many of your videos. While truly democratic leaders are (I hope) heavily subject to their ideology, more authoritarian figures have the freedom to act and think in their own interest (or at least more compared to their counterparts). Another subject of interst: Why do states tend to respect peace agreements for a couple of decades and then suddenly not? Could they not immediately break their agreements? What is the enforcing mechanism pushing states to do literally anything they ever agree to?

[@Llortnerof]

Because ultimately, their country is part of their interests. Can't have power over something when you no longer have that something.

[@symbionese2348]

You know the proper use of the word /immanent/!

[@tomk3732]

Putin is not Russia. There is zero need for any nukes.

[@bigglocky395]

I rarely comment on videos but thank you for all your work! I enjoy all the videos a lot. ❤

[@thepax2621]

"A disaster in DC..." - Washington NATO summit *Rofl* 😂 Harsh but true 🤷🏻‍♀️😅

[@Ladle66]

22:39 "russia values kursk more than donbas" No.

[@UruSxs9]

it could move its 300k troops out of donbass and push ukraine out of kursk but it values donbass more

[@Ladle66]

@@UruSxs9 "It could move its 300k troops" No.

[@ronlangelaan1488]

Razor-sharp analysis and synthesis of what is going on and is at stake - thank you 🙏

[@positive_steves6992]

So as one of those Americans who prefers Harris, I don’t hate the supposed Trump-leaning preference ordering. However if you were to break up the war continues category into a spectrum of a properly funded Ukraine, a moderately funded Ukraine, and little funding, I would see the properly funded Ukraine as the superior option. It is fascinating to see this white paper tho

[@ro.7427]

Yeah, the only issue is Trump never said any of this, and his rhetoric sure doesn't match that white paper. Who knows with Trump, though, until he writes his next unhinged social media post about whatever stupid thing that pops into his head while he's taking a dump.

[@Noble713]

What does "properly funded" Ukraine mean? Russia throws 4,000+ missiles per year at Ukraine. The ENTIRE PLANET's production capacity for Patriot missiles is......500, struggling to grow capacity to 650, and then also means starving other allies like Saudi Arabia and Taiwan of much-needed missiles too. You can't just throw money into the corrupt black hole of Ukraine and expect "victory" to pop out the other end. The industry to support victory just. isn't. there.

[@dereksollows9783]

Even the narrative about NATO was USA centric and this may not reflect the sentiments and realities in Europe, and especially of those near Russia. This is an opportunity to remove the threat posed to them by a sinister force which has overshadowed the lives of so many neighbors (of Russia) for so long. I heard a lot about the United States and I realize that that is the subject of the presentation. The departure into peace settlement lines on maps certainly changed the tone to my ear. Neither party should benefit BUT the aggressor must pay. The 'victim' must not be victimized further by a treaty that makes them the loser of territory. If the west want to pay to restore Ukraine's infrastructure - that too is a big favor to Russia. As it stands China will be picking-up Russian resources in return for minimal assistance to Russia during the conflict. I feel that the west should lay claim to any Russian resource assets in which western investors had a stake before this misbegotten venture by Russia initiated. To sell-out Ukraine with a shitty 'half-and-half' treaty is not worthy of our alleged principles, and especially not to purchase the political support of one or another political interest group whose values would be 'kindly' described as parochial.

[@atlantic169]

Thanks William. Keep up the great analysis!

[@dozo502]

I would not be so sure about Turkish Veto. Erdogan stated previously that Ukraine deserves to be in NATO. Sure Turkey is not a western country and doesnt share the same values. But Turkey sees Ukraine as an important partner especially for Black sea control. Bayraktar Drone company will construct a new facility in Ukraine. Turkey had a beef with Scandinavian countries not with Ukraine. So it is an L take on that matter sorry.

[@heylolp9]

8:26 I too believe in Joe Hendry

[@johnmarkson1990]

damn wwe has made joe hendry mainstream. i remember watching his twitch streams back in 2011 to just 4 viewers.

[@nhlmori80]

the fact that William like this comment says it was not a coincidence

[@heylolp9]

@@nhlmori80 The list of places William used also said it wasn't a coincidence And I didn't say it was, noone said it was

[@nhlmori80]

@@heylolp9 no! I meant that it was a cool reference !

[@kathima6459]

I bought both books and I'm thoroughly enjoying them. Thank you Dr Spaniel!

[@Gametheory101]

Thank you, glad to hear! Please leave a revue when you are done. It really helps!

[@Trubripes]

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

[@bardigan1]

There's also the issue of the West holding Russia's seized $600B. It should go to Ukraine for rebuilding but my guess is Russia feels differently.

[@rainkloud]

Yes and to address his concerns we should invite him to Guantánamo Bay to discuss the status of the seized funds.

[@bardigan1]

@@rainkloudbest place for him, or maybe The Hague, which already has an arrest warrant out for him