NATO, Finland, Sweden, and Russia's Domino Theory Dilemma

Check out my books on Amazon (paid link): amzn.to/2SiQjlp
Vladimir Putin claims that Russia invaded Ukraine to halt the eastward expansion of the NATO alliance. Three months into the war, Putin has misplayed his hand right into his alleged fear, as Finland and Sweden look set to join it.
This video examines Putin's execution of "domino theory" doctrine---the idea that failing to stop one threat leads to more threats down the line. Often absent from domino theory discussions is the fact that fighting wars weakens your military capacity to win other conflicts later. Thus, fighting for reputation creates a dilemma, and perhaps one that Putin poorly navigated this time around.
0:00 Finland and Sweden Are Joining NATO
0:53 History of Domino Theory
2:38 Examples of Domino Theory
3:29 Putin Implementing Domino Theory
4:18 Reputation's Downside Risk
4:48 The Habsburg Empire's Failure
5:37 Visualizing the Dilemma
7:11 Great Britain's Conservative Approach
8:27 Putin's Miscalculation
9:57 The U.S.'s Post WWII Weariness
10:51 War Exhaustion
12:03 Putin's War Exhaustion Problem
Images licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
FinnishGovernment:
www.flickr.com/photos/finnish...
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission: www.flickr.com/photos/osce_sm...
Images licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Ningyou: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
RIAN Archive:
visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/...
visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/...
Images licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
President.gov.ua:
www.president.gov.ua/en/photo...
Mvs.gov.ua:
photo/?fbid=...
Kremlin.ru:
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...

[@RegulatedMilitia]

One thing you need to correct. The attack on Kiev was not a feint. It was a part of Russia's decapitation strategy. The only people that think that it was a feint are Russian propagandists or gullible people. Actual Feints don't take the amount of casualties and equipment loss that Russia took.

[@franwi1722]

Call it a recon by force operation. Threw some forces at an enemy just to see how they react. It's not usually the go to form of recon but fits better than trying to play it off as a feint.

[@woerkntwerk5245]

That is under the assumption that Russia knew they would take those losses. If they knew that then they probably would never have invaded. The plan was to have casualties in the low hundreds not ten thousands.

[@NGCAnderopolis]

@@franwi1722 you don't do recon by having 1000's of your airborne troops killed, and sending Military police in cars.

[@franwi1722]

@@NGCAnderopolis that's how Russia does apparently. Slightly more believable than calling it a feint. At least that would be commiting important assets for gaining something like Intel instead of sacrificing units with long training times just to pretend to do something. I'm not saying it's the way it actually is, (Russia definitely thought it would just roll in and win) just that if they are pushing a cover story for the failure, recon by force that went wrong makes more sense for the assets committed than a feint.

[@spugelo359]

@@franwi1722 Oh yea? Like punching somebody isn't assault, but just seeing how they react?

[@guccikip3055]

Russia being infuriated by Finland and Sweden joining NATO is like a burglar being infuriated by a homeowner getting a camera in his house.

[@hugoguerreiro1078]

What other reason does Putin have to fear a defensive alliance that has never invaded Russia or the Soviet Union? You don't fear a defensive alliance unless you're planning to attack at some point.

[@official_alphabet_inc]

@@hugoguerreiro1078 By that logic, why is NATO even bothering discussing any Russia-related issue, as the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union has never invaded any NATO country? Membership is enough... We should not bother buying an actual alarm, when a sticker advertising a non-existant alarm system bought on eBay should suffice. I might not be a fan of NATO, or that my country is part of the alliance, but I'm *certainly* not a fan of the political leadership in Russia. That said, they have good reason to be anxious about NATO in my opinion, regardless of the fact that we have never invaded them and that we brand ourself as a purely defensive organisation. And to that very last point: things change. AEG, Audi, BMW, Ford, Hugo Boss, Mercedes-Bens, Porche, Siemens etc. all used regular labour at one point, before they started using jews in concentration camps as cheap labour. Hitler was just a local politicians before he became The Driver. Jong-Un was just a kid before he became The Democratic Leader of Some Democratic Country. Griner was just a basketball player before she became the head of an international drug smuggling cartel. The elite of the US Democrats was just rich before they became a global, blood-sucking pedophile ring using local pizzerias as a front. I was taken semi-seriously until I used my examples for comedic effect. And NATO could possible become something more than just a defensive organisation some day in the future. And even if we never end up actually pivoting that way, it's perfectly understandable that those who already are sceptical to the organisation might be nervous of this happening sometime in the future.

[@official_alphabet_inc]

Guccikip: I agree with your analogy. I do, however, think that both Russia's AND the burglars anger is (somewhat) reasonable. Even after Soviet's fall, and Russia's economic and political pivot to the West, they have never been included or seriously considered to be a part of our club. Even after they have requested membership at several opportunities, they have only been ridiculed for even asking. Even after German defence experts repeatedly has suggested that they should be included. And this is after being labelled as "Enemy of the World - Suppressor of All Things Free & Good" for several generations now. They've been on a continuous path downwards, and shit's only getting worse. I would be mad too when things seemingly is getting worse. And I would also be mad if I was so down bad that I had to (or felt like I had to) turn to robbery to make a living, and then, when I turn up on a gold mine of a potential house, I realise they have an alarm system that makes the job so much harder. PS: I obviously don't believe that some people are inherently "good" and "bad". And I can have sympathy and an understanding for other people, even though they might do things the majority label as "bad".

[@hugoguerreiro1078]

@@official_alphabet_inc the Soviet Union and Russia had a history of invading and annexing other foreign nations. Meanwhile NATO isn't even a state, it's a defensive alliance where its members have to obligation to help in any offensive actions. Your argument is like asking why you're afraid of the mafia when you aren't afraid of the neighborhood watch. They're both groups of people afterall. Furthermore, even if Russia was afraid of the US specifically, I'd like to point out the US made plans to invade the Soviet Union before they had their own nukes and decided against it. The US, not to mention any other NATO countries, haven't showed a desire to invade Russia. Meanwhile Russia has invaded NATO countries before they joined NATO, and NATO is the only thing stopping Russia from invading again, as shown by Russia continuing to invade countries outside of NATO. And since NATO countries are under no obligation to help in offensive actions it makes no difference whether a country is in NATO or not in the event there really was an invasion of Russia. Consider these 2 scenarios: scenario 1 - Ukraine in not part of NATO, and the US wants to invade Russia. In this scenario the US has to convince Ukraine to help in the invasion. Scenario 2 - Ukraine in in NATO. In this scenario the US still has to convince Ukraine to help. It makes no difference. I'd also like to point out that this war has made Russia way more vulnerable to an invasion by pulling troops away from its borders and severely damaging the Russian army, and yet they don't seem to be particularly worried about an invasion by NATO countries. This is why countries joining NATO only changes 1 thing for Russia: they can no longer invade those countries.

[@official_alphabet_inc]

@@hugoguerreiro1078 Your main point was that Putin has no reason to fear NATO because a) NATO has never invaded RF/SU and b) NATO is a strictly defensive alliance. I only tried to counter what I deem flawed logic by a) reversing your argument: RF/SU has never invaded a NATO member, so NATO shouldn't bother spending any resources countering RF (e.g. by supporting those who fight RF or inviting their neighbours to join the organisation, holding conferences on "global security", spending a single dollar on new weapons etc.) because just simply being a member is enough to deter RF. I'm not trying to say this is a fact. Quite the opposite. It's ridiculous. Just like claiming that "X or Y does not has to fear NATO cause NATO never invaded X or Y" is simply ridiculous. b) pointing out that things change. I thought that was quite obvious. Even if NATO was a strictly defensive organisation, they might one day not be. I feel like that's a very obvious, basic and true statement. Just like the fact that the universe has existed since the Big Bang, but at one point it might cease to exist. Just like Hitler was just some dude no one had heard about for a long time, until he ceased to be that, and became Der Führer. Just like we humans always believed there were some enormous difference between "us" and "them", until many of realised that the differences are almost entirely superficial or insignificant. Just like you and I, in some way or another, probably exist right now, but one day, we’ll most likely cease to exist. I repeat, things change. Even if NATO is a strictly defensive organisation today, and always has been (PS: I disagree), it might not be so tomorrow.

[@TimeBucks]

Well and clearly narrated and detailed

[@kishungamer4036]

Nice video

[@mahidahake7150]

Good

[@Maxarts7]

Good nice

[@holdenmcgroin3995]

Don't you find the narration a bit tediously slow? Feels like it's published at 0.9x speed

[@easternwoods4378]

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", Nietzsche But often leaves you to weak to fight another enemy

[@HANKTHEDANKEST]

*Harold Godwinson has entered the chat*

[@nickhanlon9331]

too

[@Zurround]

That proverb is not always true. If a person (or group of people up to a country) suffers too much trauma and pain and loss they will NOT be stronger, they will become a ruined wreck of a person (or society). It is ESPECIALLY TRUE with sexual abuse (the Russian soldiers are sexually assaulting Ukrainian women and girls and sometimes even men). Too much trauma will make a person WEAKER even if they live through it. A good example is the fictional character "Dutch" (Schwarzenegger) from the movie PREDATOR. In a series of books written in the early 1990s that was a sequel to that movie Dutch was a mess. His military career ended due to having suffered too much trauma and his only scenes were him in a bar drinking which probably means the early stages of alcoholism. His younger brother was a NYC cop and he ended up hating the Predators because he blamed their race for ruining his brother. He aspired to be a badass like his military brother and he became the toughest cop in the NYC police department but when his brother came back from South America after being the only survivor of a brutal attack on himself and his men he was not the same person anymore. He had suffered too much trauma and even though he DEFEATED A PREDATOR he was LESS strong than he had been before.

[@CRMcGee2]

Nope Nietzsche was wrong! It sounds noble, but is not true.

[@aa2339]

I prefer Joker’s twist on it.

[@zaleost]

Even military strength aside, the fact that Russia has shown its more than willing to initiate an attack in the area likely also spooked the other nearby countries in to feeling that the risk of them being invaded has gone up considerably. While before most didn't think it was conceivable that one European country would actually declare war on another so close by to them. So its fairly logical that they would be more interested in joining a defensive alliance made to deter attacks on its members.

[@dhss333]

How can any European country fear attack by Russia, given Russia's pathetic form in Ukraine? Disingenous, simplistic, inane, domino effect theory. USA drivel, bullshit.

[@DavidPoggenpoel]

11122

[@jimbails23]

From the East's point of view (ie: the opposite to your viewpoint) - Nato is not defensive but is aggressive and provocative. As someone in the middle I don't disagree.

[@ENTmath_]

@@jimbails23 yes. But from the Scandinavians perspective, currently NATO is a defensive alliance

[@shinrah4772]

@@jimbails23 The arguement that NATO is/was threatening Russia is lopsided, what NATO threatened is and was Russia's ability to meddle/determine/call what happens their former satelite countries. Putin's biggest grudge is the loss of territory and influence Russia suffered after the fall of the Sovietunion, and he wants it all back. However, those countries that left after the fall, and were/are looking to join NATO were for the most part not willing participants in the Soviet Union. I believe as sovereign states it is their right to decide what alliances and unions they would like to join. NATO has not made any overt threats to Russia, nobody thought, or talked about invading Russia, most European Countries had formed economical ties with Russia in the hopes to grow closer and make war more unlikely. Unfortunately, people like Putin perceived this as a weakness in the west, and determined that he wont have to worry too much about the consequences of taking what he wants by force, since so far it has worked out well for him. This time NATO and the West, decided to not appease and watch, and Ukraine has prepared since 2k14, and was ready for Putin who believed his own propaganda of a weak west and a corrupt helpless Ukraine. So, one might ask, would he have started this war if NATO had massively uparmed it's members, stationed 100s of thousands of troops as close to Russia's border, and constantly did what Putin did himself, threaten and rattle with the saber, if he so much as looks sideways at it. Either way blaming NATO is imho just buying into Russian propaganda, Putin is a brutal dictator and wants to expand his territory as much as he can, he's not reasonable and any perceived weakness he tries to exploit. The NATO "threatened Russia" is just a weak justification he probably doesn't even believe in himself.

[@patraic5241]

Russia had an agreement that they would guarantee Ukraine safety when they let go of their nucs. An assurance that became a lie when Russia invaded Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have similar assurances from Russia that they no longer have any reason to believe.

[@iDontProgramInCpp]

Before the invasion Putin said that the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk agreements "don't exist" anymore

[@joehill4094]

@@iDontProgramInCpp Thus why no one trusts them to follow a treaty lol

[@DDDSSDDDSSDDDSS]

Why did ukraine want nato nukes in their country? Lol its the same as the Cuban missile crisis. America did the same damn thing.

[@jpaine619]

WRONG. Russia only invaded Ukraine _after_ NATO announced, in 2008, that Ukraine WOULD (not maybe) join NATO. Prior to that announcement, Russia had taken a hands-off approach to Ukraine.

[@cbem2160]

@@jpaine619 who is Russia to decide what Ukrainian wants?? You want your neighbour to decide you do with your life??

[@danwesche9266]

Calling the battle for Kiev a feint is a stretch. It's pretty obvious the Russians thought they were going to capture the capital within a week. Even if it was a feint, it's arguably the biggest strategic failure in history. I don't think Finland and Sweden would be joining NATO right now if all Russia did was a relatively minor escalation in Donbas.

[@RobBCactive]

Right, any military person looks at the forces committed and the losses and laughs at that propaganda excuse in defeat. It's a problem that disinformation is not rooted out; there's no excuse on this one

[@fadliyaakob6001]

Being US enemy is dangerous. Being US friends are fatal - Henry Kissinger.

[@Brusanan]

I came here to say this. They didn't tie up half of the vehicles they committed to the fight as a feint. They said that to save face after they failed to take Kyiv in 3 days like they had planned. The convoy to Kyiv had riot gear and 40,000 body bags. They absolutely intended to take the city, and they thought the only resistance they would meet would be protests.

[@Brusanan]

@bruce parka And soon all of Ukraine.

[@Fuzzybeanerizer]

Ironically, President Biden "said the quiet part out loud" before the war started, and practically told Putin what he could get away with. Putin ignored his weirdly honest advice, and will now lose a thousand times as many men and probably end up gaining less for it.

[@conanmonaghan4985]

Finland and Sweden are joining for 2 reasons the main being that they were content with being relatively neutral because they believed that was their decision, Russia however said if they join nato the have made new enemies so quite rightly both finland and Sweden thought to themselves how much of our neutrality is our own choice and how much is russia able to determine what happens inside their own countries yes also because of ukraine but its really down to putin and Russia can't be seen to get away with telling countries where they do and don't belong

[@americancountryball2077]

It’ll also be easier for them to defend the Baltic states

[@KNByam]

You're free to do what you want, but do as we say or we'll attack you. Putin not very smart.

[@erlinggaratun6726]

Your views on this are correct, in my opinion. It is about protecting self-determination. At least that is how it looks from a Norwegian perspective. We also border Russia..

[@Ruzo-yc2wb]

Most of Europe is already on track to becoming pislamist shithole. So what's there to save?

[@headoverheels88]

Interesting. I didn't think about it this way. They essentially had to make a decision to be able to make a decision. Hm. I'm going to think about that for a while.

[@paulmakinson1965]

Something that has been left out is soft power and image. Those are powerful tools that the US has used wisely. Under Gorbachev, Russia gained a more benevolent image. That didn't last. Under Putin, the image was to a certain extent of a ruthless leader with no concern for human life or rules. Europe, mostly Germany, tried appeasement, thinking that they could deal with him and control his worst impulses. Even after the poisoning of Litvinenko, the Skripals, Navalny, this appeasement policy continued. Even with interventions in South Ossetia and Donbass, it continued with weak sanctions but a contract to build a gas pipeline, Nord stream 2. Putin interpreted this as weakness. The current invasion has smashed what was left of Russian soft power and solidified the resolve of Western powers. Sweden and Finland have realized that Russia is more unpredictable than they thought, that it does not care much for soft power. Actually, it does not care much for economic growth and quality of life for its population, as long as the few people of the ruling class make a shitload of money. I might add that China a similar attitude towards soft power. Under Xi Jin Ping, it has lost the image of a country wanting to join the world community of countries who follow certain rules to guarantee stability and economic growth. Xi is increasingly authoritarian and will reverse the progress made under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping to return to the bad old days of Mao Zedong. This will add further instability to the world. Authoritarians who do not care for a rules based international order and stability that bring on economic development will start wars. Especially when they believe that it is all a zero sum game.

[@rogerwilco2]

It is what happens if sociopaths run your country.

[@seamonster936]

I agree with this assessment.

[@marinashenk6769]

The USA uses powerful tools wisely, it's true, what you didn't emphasize is that the USA owns a large part of the information space and to say that it is this country that controls the flow of information is to say nothing. Knowing this, you don't think that your position is a little one-sided. For example, the poisoning of Navalny, you see, an excuse from the category "they didn't know what they were carrying, so they put chemical weapons in the luggage of the plane and no one was poisoned by chance" (Navalny's quote) sounds like the words of a person who has never been in contact with a quick-action weapon, as well as the absence of any external changes (thinness does not count, this can be achieved by various substances, ask any chemist) For example, the situation of Yushchenko (former president of Ukraine), look at his photos before and after the officially confirmed poisoning, the changes do not need to be commented on. And yes, can you provide proof of the words "extent of a ruthless leader with no concern for human life or rules."

[@google-account2460]

Disgusting comment. Typical from apologists from "the west". They never recognize their ugly crimes against humanity in every war "Nato" has been "involved" in. Do the math. Get a job at BBC. You repeat their lines pretty well.

[@Atlas_Enderium]

It’s funny that Germany tried appeasement with Russia when it clearly didn’t work with them 90 years ago lol

[@manofcultura]

Great analysis. The problem with current Russia is that Putin is a one trick pony, he literally did what he did in Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. But this time they’re fighting not only determined partisans and military groups, but an amazing psyop and 21st century decentralized Internet based command structure.

[@F.A.K.K.2]

True, just expansion of a dying leader looking to cement his future.

[@operator9858]

Um chechnya is part of russia, and georgia should have been a clue they were serious, but we tried to pull the same move in ukraine and got shut down and you act surprised? Lol what else did they tell you to think?

[@TorianTammas]

@@operator9858 What is your point that illegal wars are just a Putin thing?

[@operator9858]

@@TorianTammas if they are illegal then the US has a lot to answer for dont we? pop quiz: when was the last time the US was at peace for more then a 5 year stretch?

[@disregardthat]

​@@operator9858 b-b-b-but whatabout!!!! every time. yes, the US war on terror is tyranny in motion, does this somehow excuse Russia? get Putin's dong out of your mouth. also, educate yourself regarding Chechnya, which was originally a breakaway state in the 90s called Ichkeria. Putin's assault on Chechnya was the final campaign to crush the separatists, something which he apparently has a problem with only now in Ukraine.

[@ycplum7062]

Also, if you are bluffing about the capabilities of your military, don't get into a war that will expose your buff.

[@a64738]

He did not bluff, he simply did now know how bad his army was...

[@mikatu]

@@a64738 That is a textbook definition of bluff.... duh!

[@mikatu]

Exactly. Nowadays the russian military became a joke. And the internal opposition is stronger than ever. Even FSB is preparing to dethrone pootin.

[@humboldthammer]

Borrow + Bomb = the False Profit we the people follow since 2001.

[@tiitola]

Exactly!👍

[@MrRobertX70]

This was an intelligent, sensible and insightful presentation. Compared with the half truths and click bait videos that I’ve come to expect from Facebook, this felt to me like a breath of fresh air. I look forward to watching the rest of your content.

[@THE16THPHANTOM]

why are you still on facebook.

[@bloodyblase3074]

just stop using facebook lmao. analytical videos like these are common these days. it's just that you're still using facebook (which is a cesspool of misinformation) that made you regress decades worth of information.

[@tiitola]

Agreed 100%👍

[@KingLos95]

Wait.. Are some of you STILL using FB? SPECIALLY as a source of news? Cmon

[@mrmeow2297]

@@KingLos95 What other social media do people use these days? Discord => for gamers, Instagram => for models/rich people/advertisement companies, reddit => leftist hive mind, twitter => same. Tell me, where are we supposed to go?

[@LRRPFco52]

Biggest mistake that we make in the West is trying to understand Russia and Putin from our perspective. NATO or no NATO, it doesn’t matter, Putin was going to invade all of these places and he made this known to his foreign ministry in the early 2000s, practically after taking office. I’ve known about this since 2007. Russia isn’t comfortable with nations not under its control so close to Moscow for historical reasons.

[@zonesix3601]

It would be very difficult for Russia to take Finland they have a big military if NATO got involved like they are doing in Ukraine supplying weapons Russia would lose unless it used tactical nukes trying to get a finland surrender

[@zonesix3601]

And yeah putin been said for as long as he's been in power that he wants to bring back the Soviet union which just isn't gonna happen nobody likes or trusts Russia they are very corrupt

[@manofsan]

"Putin was going to invade all of these places" - which places? You mean Putin was going to invade Finland & Sweden? I think you're telling lots of tall tales, just like Americans told about Saddam Hussein by claiming he was trying to build nuclear weapons so he could take over the world. I see that Americans are very quick to slip into telling scary stories about other countries they often can't find on a map, in preparation for going after them. I don't think that Americans benefit from playing games of chicken against the world's largest nuclear power, which could lead to WW3 and nuclear apocalypse. How come Americans don't talk about before Putin's invasion, the bad things Ukraine was doing to the ethnic Russians who make up one third of the population there? How come Americans don't mention how the Ukrainian military was engaging in indiscriminate bombardment against ethnic Russian enclaves causing mass civilian casualties? Somehow these things escape American attention.

[@egosumhomovespertilionem2022]

@bruce parka "grown-ups"

[@Muzakman37]

@bruce parka That's all fine, but it boils down to the same thing. Do small countries (and not remotely small countries) around Russia's western fringe make decisions that are best best for them? Or do they make those decisions based on what's best for Russia and what Russia wants? Either you believe in sovereignty or you don't, that's quite a universally rational principle surely.

[@maninalift]

"the Kiev feint..." surely the claim that the march towards Kiev was a feint was a totally unbelievable post-hoc justification. They bogged down so many of their own forces, and did so in a way that didn't require even a proportionate response, never mind a disproportionate one. I'm no expert at all, please anyone tell me if I'm wrong here.

[@jeremygibbs7342]

I totally agree. The only reason Putin can claim it as a feint is that they managed some successes in the east. You don't send your elite paratroopers in to just get captured and eliminated. He made fatal miscalculations.

[@ladlem3]

Kiev was never the goal - Donbas is key. It was a classic military manoeuvre praised by numerous military analysts. But for everybody else it looked like "OMG they can't hack it so they're retreating". Russia is completely losing the information war, they're not on par with the West on this one, that is clear, but when it comes to the military actions, the win is theirs.

[@ashamahee]

@@ladlem3 I would really like to see these so called military analysts and their praise for that debacle. It was a failure from one end to the other.

[@jeremygibbs7342]

@@ladlem3 Yes a road block 40km long was a huge military tactical move. I too shall line up my generals and equipment yo be picked off one by one. Genius!

[@NGCAnderopolis]

@@ladlem3 bullshit, airborne landings, mass helicopter assaults and many kilometers of stalled convoys. You are just spouting Russian propaganda. Serious Military analyst don't spout the genius of loosing more troops than Iraq and afghanistan combined in a month, bot to mention the materiel losses.

[@kathrynck]

What Sadam failed to recognize, was that the cold war just ended, and the US had a huge military buildup (to deter USSR expansion), but no longer a USSR to deter. He poked a bored tiger which had no other distractions. If he had invaded 2-3 years earlier, the US would not have committed big resources, because the main focus would still have been the cold war.

[@richard-bq5hv]

Saddams quote is unironically hilarious though

[@philipb2134]

Saddam had the same problem as Putin: nobody will dare give him information he does't want to hear.

[@advancetotabletop5328]

Russia didn’t even notice NATO was falling apart by itself. Good work, Russia. Thanks for the videos!

[@AJSSPACEPLACE]

If anything, I think Putin has guaranteed NATO more time.

[@kummer45]

The stupidity of Russia made NATO alliance stronger than ever. He played his cards so wrong that flipped the whole table against him. This happens when there are morons and jackasses of business cleptocrats and oligarchs knowing crap about true geopolitics. If Russia where smart they would simply let NATO break apart and gain by time the old states with good trades. He went the right path assembling NATO to battle the whole world. Excellent work Russia.

[@kitsuna77]

Putin has done what think tanks, military officials, and statesmen alike could only dream of. Giving NATO a purpose and unifying it. NATO will likely be a force long into the 2100's at this rate, and honestly that might not be a bad thing. Who knows maybe after all of this is over Russia (or the states that arise from its complete collapse) can join too

[@Mainyehc]

Au contraire, they did, and thought of kicking it while it was seemingly down… except it did have the opposite effect of justifying, once again, its very existence. This is one of those geopolitical blunders for the ages, right up there with, ironically enough, Hitler and Napoleon’s failed invasions of… yep, Russia.

[@claudiohysi9203]

Dude dont even start . How did afganistan made us look ? Like rokkies what a shameful exit . Forget iraq and you guys handing Iran the keys to its parlament . Dont get me started with US . Cant even win with Iran .

[@Cyberjoker14]

You know this situation is pretty bad when Sweden, a country that has been relatively neutral since the Napoleonic Wars, Is joining NATO.

[@AnomalyINC]

Truth be told, we haven't been neutral for a long time. We have tried to take an "unaffiliated" stance...but your mileage may vary on that, since we're already NATO allies, and part of the EU and have similar deals with our fellow Nordics.

[@LordBadenRulez]

I hate the board game Risk, but it has taught me the same lessons. You fight too much; you spread your armies thin; you are pretty much screwed if one of your opponents can invade you.

[@hendrikdependrik1891]

A lesson I learned from Risk is I always lose when attacking first. Unfortunately, I always had to attack first, because everyone else was doing nothing. Doing nothing is the best thing to do.

[@lupesiodelupis241]

I think USA has the goal of controlling Europe, South America and a third continent, China needs Asia and Africa, Russia needs either 24 territories or 18 which at least two armies each. Putin changed cards, got two cannons but anyway decided that it was worth the risk to attack in order to prevent Europe from controlling the whole continent and get 5 armies per turn, he was unlucky with dices.

[@johngalt97]

You should try Risk on a computer with automated dice throws.

[@PAWAQATS1]

@@lupesiodelupis241 This is THE reply of this entire comments thread!! 😂 Brilliant call mate 👍

[@charlesharris9965]

Putin wins NATO'S salesman of the year award. 👏

[@edwardvalivonis23]

Putin won Golden Arbuz award for the best comedian of the year

[@edwardvalivonis23]

@@dixonpinfold2582 sitting on the toilet 😆

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@edwardvalivonis23 Sitting IN the toilet

[@torifin755]

*slaps roof of Ukraine* This bad boy can cause so many problems and backfires for our plans in the future

[@kolerick]

Macron in 2019: "Nato is braindead" Putin in 2022: "Let me help with that."

[@juanvilas5341]

If you push and punch others yes, you look strong but consistently your strength will decrease as for every punch you gain territory but lose military hardware and soldiers. To the point in witch the next punch will be resisted and even pushed back and then you lose, war is flexible.

[@panchtosanchez9567]

somehow also very ironic..

[@nabara6949]

*which.

[@Ruzo-yc2wb]

Okay. LIke U.S' shitshow in Afghanistan?

[@Loreless]

So others don't lose a weapon and lands and soldiers? The elite ukrainian soldiers are surrendering now.

[@zaza-ik5ws]

@@nabara6949 Spelling Nazi :P

[@gijbuis]

Why would Russia have "a core interest in limiting NATO expansion"? Why does Russia think that NATO poses a threat to their country? Realistically, the ony possible answer to this is that Russia feels that NATO limits any future ambitions it may have to expand into western Europe and restore Russian control over the territories they had during the era of the Soviet Union...

[@salahabdalla368]

Why the fuck does NATO exist? The USSR is gone and for 18 years Russia was pacifist and they still kept expanding, how can you not be worried?

[@mkgzt]

the same threats that countries like yugoslavia, libya, iraq, afghanistan, etc... faced

[@fgqgqlfqsfsffeff]

@@mkgzt Be honest with me, do you think NATO would ever be the agressor in a war with Russia? Would they really even start such a thing knowing everyone would be nuked to hell?

[@SD-ni9jh]

I mean, Russia asked to be in NATO a couple of times but it was rejected. The thing is, currently under Putin the Russian government is not pro American or pro western. America and the west can't invade Russia like they did to Lybia etc because it has nukes, so the best way to condemn any Russian danger to the western dominance is to damn in Russia. This both makes Russia's military power smaller, because with so many NATO countries on the border it is severely disadvantaged in cold war type negotiations and this also limits Russia's influence sphere. This way Russia can't really have its own supporting countries so Russia is more vulnerable to stuff like western sanctions etc when it doesn't do what it wants. So basically damn in Russia so it can't challenge the west like it used to.

[@marveloussoftware1417]

Russia is paranoid partly because they were invaded before, justifiable, and paranoid because of mal intent, unjustifiable.

[@jakephreel]

omg im related to Gaspar De Guzman and i never ever thought anyone would ever talk about him. he actually wasnt the King but the friend and advisor to the king. When the king died he passed the crown on to his son who I think was like 7 year old son or something ridiculous too young to rule on his own so Gaspar De Guzman was his "advisor"(but basically told him everything to do until he was old enough to rule the spanish empire himself) When the young king realized what Gaspar de Guzman was doing when he got a little older he had him chased out of the country. and im not sure what happened to him after. ill probably go look into it now. my grandpa used to tell me it as a bedtime story but always said it was true story and we were related to him through the Olivares part of our family. always so cool to learn about your family through someone on youtube

[@montinaladine3264]

What a really great video! Really enjoyed it. While there are thousands of videos like this one on so many subjects and no doubt most of them are well researched and accurate. However what made this one stand out for me and so different to the majority of them is that I could totally concentrate on the information given for three reasons. Absolutely no irrelevant music /annoying repetitive soundtrack or other stupid effects and noises. Just the voice with clear narration spoken at a pace that new listeners (not familiar with the subject) can easily absorb - even those whose first language is not English; and lastly, excellent graphics /pictures which were relevent and not just dug up to be used as padding. By the way, I am appalled by the huge increase in videos relying on synthetic voice narration (so obviously fake) as well as the popular practice these days of over-editing the speech, which results in every single space and natural pause between sentences and paragraphs being removed, so the whole thing becomes a fast paced, stressful and unnatural mess to listen to. I'm so glad you have not resorted to this folly.

[@jim2376]

Finland's president: "You caused this. Look in the mirror."

[@bilic8094]

It was planned well before any invasion.

[@toddr2265]

Would Putler's image even show up in a mirror?

[@jim2376]

@@toddr2265 LOL! No, it wouldn't.

[@AskMississippiAskMississippi]

“The world is in more peril from those who tolerate evil or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.” -Dr. Albert Einstein, March 30 1953

[@sinoroman]

somewhat ironic

[@frags6940]

Now let’s hope we don’t have to use his quote on nuclear weapons. 😂

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

A fatuous comment for such a great mind. It's quotable nonsense. At present, no-one is more malicious than Putin -- and that's a tough competition.

[@auggieeast]

@@davidhimmelsbach557 Have to agree.

[@Digmen1]

Obama tolerated evil in2014. But then at that time The Ukraine was a bit of a corrupt basket case

[@fogudevstuff]

Nice vid man, good editing and commentary! Keep it up!

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks, I’ve been working hard on improving editing!

[@paologat]

“… why the EU wanted to hammer UK during Brexit”. Not really. EU gave UK plenty of options from remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union all the way to no deal, whatever UK preferred. The two things the EU was firm about was that UK could not have the benefits of EU membership without the related responsibilities, and that the Good Friday Agreement would need to be upheld. UK did a great job of hammering itself because it called the 2016 referendum without any clarity on the path forward (“there is a special place in hell for those who backed Brexit without a plan”, Donald Tusk) or indeed on what it meant by Brexit (“Brexit means Brexit”, Theresa May).

[@herrakaarme]

Indeed. Quite a British perspective in the video. The populist politicians driving for Brexit promised the British voters that the UK would retain all the benefits of sitting next to a huge European market, but without any of the downsides brought by open borders and needing to accept some common rules. Quite funny the author of this video also seemed to have bought the idea, even though he's here analysing world politics and the consequences of fighting wars. How can that even be possible?

[@Ronnie1001]

This is a total misunderstanding of the UK position, driven by mainstream Fake News. Despite the Europhile Establishment holding virtually all the financial and media cards, and extending the vote registration date because the younger part of the population they expected to vote Remain had registered-to-vote less than was expected, they still lost by a margin of 4%. So they installed a Europhile Prime Minister Theresa May who created a "too stupid to be stupid" Withdrawal Agreement with all the problems you identify and many others built in, in order to make Brexit fail. Johnson only ameliorated it partly, which is why the Northern Ireland timebomb remained in the Withdrawal terms.

[@herrakaarme]

@@Ronnie1001 The words "mainstream Fake News" in your comment, straight out of the populist handbook, discredits everything else in your comment.

[@scottwaldie4979]

Yes, agree that it was a rather bizarre statement from the author. The United Kingdom is also anything but united; Brexit was an entirely English driven folly, essentially racist in nature, and voted for by English 'national front', who have dragged the other home nations down with them.

[@paologat]

@@Ronnie1001 I hope you recognize the cognitive dissonance between “UK holds all the cards” and “EU is punishing UK”. As for British media being Europhile, are you serious? 😂😂😂😂 40 years of slander against the EU and still counting… Anyway, Boris Johnson won a huge majority in 2019 based on the “oven ready deal” that you now disparage, and rushed it through Parliament refusing any extension to the implementation period. It was Remainers who wanted more time to improve the outcome, but they lost. Sorry: the Withdrawal Agreement (including NIP) was the will of UK electorate, and Brexiteers bear full responsibility for its terms. Get over it.

[@mamangisda1573]

Putin's Russia behaves like a malignant bully--promising peace if demands are met, but then beating up the neighbors anyway. Russia's aggression provided a situation where staying neutral gained no real security for Finland or Sweden, which means that the cost of joining NATO became lower than the perceived costs of staying isolated and vulnerable to a bully.

[@mrbisshie]

Turkey tried to stay neutral, but then Stalin got a bit grabby, and Turkey joined NATO.

[@Loreless]

@@mrbisshie Turkey is our Trojan horse in NATO.

[@nishanisho]

For real, Putin pushed 2 neutral countries with years of neutrality towards NATO. A lot of people in Finland didn't even care much for NATO, having only under 50% support for joining NATO. Now it's 70% ish after invasion.

[@SD-ni9jh]

No one was threatening Ukraine until the coup that made it pro western.

[@yanliew4027]

Sell out their neutral status, light weights in present day Scandinavia, like amateurs who dont know their own history !

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

The EU has never "hammered" the UK, the UK was treated as good as reasonably possible under the circumstances. The UK wanted to become an independent country with a very shallow trade deal. Treating the UK like any other country with a similar deal would have led to much more issues. The problem was, that these issues where not honestly discussed in the UK, so the UK was totally unprepared for the Brexit they desired.

[@SpeedfreakUK]

You are apparently unaware that we got the trade deal we were repeatedly told was “impossible”.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@@SpeedfreakUK Of course you did. What is your point? The problem is that the UK was unprepared for Brexit, because the necessary infrastructure was not in place. That is the reason for all that delay at the border. Well, for NI the EU agreed to long transitions in order to make it work.

[@TheStalec]

@@SpeedfreakUK no we haven’t, what planet do you live on?

[@Win32error854]

@@SpeedfreakUK What trade deal is that? Nobody seems particularly happy with what you ended up getting.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@Talorc MacAllan "Deals will and have to happen , as usual in politics it takes eons ," Yes since both sided want to get the best possible result for themselves. If one side gives in at all relevant points, it is fast and easy. The UK was in such of a hurry, that the EU could have easily shafted the UK, just like Australia did in their deal. But the EU agreed on a more than fair deal. "the EU has tried to punish Britain for leaving, that won't work we voted out and out we are ," The EU has never tried to punish the UK, it has just removed the benefits of membership, just like the UK wanted. The UK has damaged itself. "i suspect after the dust settles others will consider leaving" Well, Brexit has shown what the benefits of being a part of the EU really are. Nobody wants to make a fool of themselves line the UK. "also when the EU bully them in to detrimental areas" ???? ".........the new world order is a stupid idea that sounds great on paper but realistically will never happen ........it all takes time ," What on earth are you talking about? "the UK is better for being out of that corrupt organization,in my humble opinion it will just take time to realize that." You are funny. "the question is will there be a united kingdom 5 years from now........going by the countries in the UK and their disdain for the Union I suspect not." Well, I do not know if this will be this fast, but sure, there are hints.

[@Gametheory101]

Distinguished viewers, we've got LINES ON MAPS starting at 6:01.

[@DrumToTheBassWoop]

noice :)

[@ohad157]

That's the reason I come here for

[@George83_Thomas]

Impossible

[@cris_the_coder]

Wow! The points at the end were really solid. You opened my mind to new ways of looking at it. I appreciate the solid facts and info. This has been your best video yet!

[@SquirrelsForAll]

Wonderfully presented an no doubt, a great deal of work into research. Thank you for creating and sharing.

[@seneca983]

I have some comments: 1) Putin has less reason/justification to invade Finland. Finland doesn't have a large Russian minority nor any separatist regions and it doesn't hold any territory that used to be a part of the Soviet Union. 2) I think to join NATO you need to have no territorial disputes. At the present moment that would hinder Ukraine's, Georgia's, and Moldova's ability to join NATO (and I think Moldova hasn't been interested anyway so far, though that might change at some point).

[@pocarski]

Turkey and Cyprus have territorial disputes, but they're still in NATO. If a country's position is strategically good (like Finland and Sweden), they're likely to get accepted even with territorial disputes. Anyone on the Caucasus is very likely to be accepted because of their closeness to Iran and the Middle East.

[@seneca983]

@@pocarski Cyprus in not in NATO. If in the case of Turkey you mean the disputes over Aegean islands, I think those came only after Turkey had joined.

[@pocarski]

@@seneca983 Sorry, my mistake, mixed up EU and NATO membership. In case of Turkey I mean the dispute over North Cyprus (which might not be considered a dispute since Turkey isn't actually claiming it)

[@seneca983]

@@pocarski "which might not be considered a dispute since Turkey isn't actually claiming it" Yeah, that might not prevent Turkey from joining but even if it did Turkey joined like 2 decades prior.

[@jonroberts8396]

Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire, Putin would be motivated by that just as Stalin was

[@poopyinc.6547]

If this war continues I am going to get involved.

[@glenchadwick420]

How will you get involved? Volunteer to fight?

[@poopyinc.6547]

@@glenchadwick420 Don't put me in a situation

[@sinoroman]

who let timmy back on youtube?

[@Ruzo-yc2wb]

You sure can. Just that Russia will win the war in the long run. Don't be stupidly fixated on war games. Keep an eye out for the economic impact globally. Countries totaling 3/4 billion people will still trade with Russia.

[@nich7622]

Turf calls?

[@rogeredrinn4592]

I was sure I wouldn't like this video . . . 4 months old. However I found it timeless. I like your style so I took a chance, glad I did. Vietnam was particularly relevant, I was a 20-something then. The idea of fighting for reputation never occurred to me, Putin was sure this was Crimea part II, boy was he wrong. Thanks again for an insightful take on wars.

[@HM55-77]

Bravo.........Very good historical summary and analysis !!! Whats unique about it is that you kept it at a Macro-Level(30,000 feet level) so almost anyone can understand it

[@Digmen1]

I love history and really enjoyed that. The way you went back to the Hapsburgs and Spain and Portugal I was in my early twenties during the Vietnam war and I remember the Domino theory. It nearly happened. But somehow the west managed to invest in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philiinpines and they remained non communist.

[@electron6825]

@@vlttlv4924 very clever

[@cringe7391]

Did people actually think communism would spread to japan and Australia

[@Digmen1]

@@cringe7391 I'd never heard that before. The problem with many of these historians is that try to make the facts fit their story.

[@olddogoddments675]

Actually, Cambodia and Laos did get communist regimes. The US and China backed the communists in Canbodia because they were anti-Viet and therefore anti-Soviet. Further west, in Thailand, the government had put down a communist insurgency without US involvement. Malasia had had a communist insurgency that was totally defeated by the UK before the US got involved in Vietnam. In Indonesia there was, pre-US involvement in Vietnam, a sudden attack on the Communist party by conservative army officers and Muslim mobs which had nothing to do with any outside involvement. The PKI (Indonesian communists) were massacred in one of the largest mass killings of the post WWII era, one which hardly gets mentioned and which has been so little researched that it's still not clear to historians how many died. I think the domino theory was just propaganda in the Vietnam war, it was never going to happen.

[@kolerick]

who would have thought that investing in he people well being would work better than military or authoritarian solutions? maybe this could be used at home, in the USA... being decent isn't equal to being socialist/communist

[@MyPhobo]

If a child is going around beating up all the other kids on the playground; why would you fault kids getting together and helping each other?

[@tremedar]

Obviously the bully doesn't want that to happen. The bully wants all the kids to think on how it will be to be the one who gets slugged in the mouth if a fight breaks out, and how the bully is big and strong enough to take on all the small frys alone. Russia only sees its strategic weakness if it doesn't occupy far to its west and a few regions they could very easily defend against ground attack at, because a dictator wants to conquer, and your defensive line being very easily overrun plains does not mesh with that at all.

[@advancetotabletop5328]

Thanks for the historical examples!

[@brianrogerson9229]

A really excellent thoughtful presentation. Leading edge - and I look forward to more from you Thanks!

[@rgeraldalexander4278]

Putin and Russia have gotten exactly what they deserve...isolation and a world united against their aggression.

[@zonesix3601]

Which isn't good since they hold the largest nuclear stockpile in the world they need a way out that makes them look like they won or the Russian people will be very upset wanting Putin out of the office

[@rgeraldalexander4278]

@@zonesix3601 F Putin and his nukes. The world will not be held hostage by such a POS.

[@gjshordja]

I wouldn’t say a world united against but a part of the world , am thinking just two countries. China and India, forget some other small country which they aren’t united against their aggression.

[@TorianTammas]

@@gjshordja China knows that they make a huge pile of money with the West. So Russia us China's errant boy für raw materials. India used Russia as a Balance to Chins in the rumegion and has no use when China and Russia gets closer. So yes Russia is sn international pariah.

[@ericgrace9995]

@Black Not the bits that matter.

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

The "feint" on Kyiv was not actually a feint (Or at least, if it was, it was the worst planned and executed feint in history). It was based off of the mistaken idea they could just roll up to Kyiv and take the city with no resistance.

[@brucewilliams6292]

I really appreciate your outlook. Thanks for the video.

[@chipndahla]

Great perspectives I've missed. Thanks

[@elizdonovan5650]

After Putin invaded Ukraine, having previously stated that the troop movements near the Ukrainian border was only a military exercise with not intention to attack sovereign Ukraine ... Finland and Sweden know they can’t trust Putin not to attack them. Their only option is to join NATO for their own protection. The only protection small countries have from Putin is to join NATO. Putin should be out there on the front line with his soldiers to experience the reality of war. 🌲🌝☘️

[@erlinggaratun6726]

I like your historical angle. But it has a few missing points and some clear errors. Ho Chi Min actually turned to the US for help against the French colonists and their puppet government. Only after the US turned him down did he approach the Sovjets in stead. The same goes for Castro in Cuba, and Mao in China (Wallace wanted the US to support Mao). These were opportunities lost that the US has had to struggle with since. As for the EU 'hammering Britain' - that is not the case. Foolish British conservatives consistently hammered themselves during the Brexit negotiations. The EU could only astoundingly watch the conservatives in the UK flip-flop their way through the talks while the EU was being both cooperative, consistent and predictable. This has a structural explanation - the EU is simply a bureaucracy administering a set treaty between 27 quite different nations - it has little room for flip-floping or being unpredictable.

[@MrK-js3it]

Dont know about Cuba, but for sure it wasnt for Mao in China...Commie China sees US is a threat since the first day

[@kennethferland5579]

Yes at root the US failed to distinquish anti-colonial uprisings from genuenly socialst ones. In most cases the anti-colonials were perfectly willing or sufficiently desperate to ideologically allign with anyone who would aid them. The US as a nation which had fought it's own war to break free from being a colony was always the assumed to be friendly to such colonial independence efforts.

[@erlinggaratun6726]

@@MrK-js3it This was during ww2, before there was a Commie China...

[@bernieshort6311]

erling garatun. Two out of three aint bad. Yes the EU are consistent and predictable but not in a good way.

[@TheExard3k]

Those foolish British (English to be precise!) conservatives are about to unilaterally change treaty with the EU, possibly provoking a trade war during the Ukraine War. But I'm glad you pointed out the French involvement in Vietnam. Really is necessary to understand the tragic fate of Vietnam in the 20th century. Fucked up and treated as animal three times by crazy imperialists.

[@JeremiahNuddFilms]

Very well put together. Thanks!

[@OlusegunMokuolu]

Best analysis I have watched on this conflict

[@wokeaf1337]

5:17 France flag as the white flag, I see a man of history.

[@sharknado623]

LOL 😂

[@kolerick]

white with golden "fleurs de lis", the color of the Bourbon dynasty... it was Blue with "fleurs de lis" before, and it was the Red Banner of Saint Denis before that

[@TheBluetwo26]

Funny how the US Air power ridiculed by Saddam, would prove to be a vital element to the both Iraqi wars. There is no jungle to hide in, in the desert, and your tunnels can only go so deep before the sand fills it in from the back. In the Gulf War, the majority of Iraq's comms, radars, airfields, weapons depots, armor depots, aircraft, and scud missile capabilities were taken out in the 42 day air campaign. Then during the ground campaign, which was only the last 14 days of the air campaign from landing to ceasefire, CAS Air support and transportation gave the coalition incredible maneuverability to complete it's ground objectives faster than expected.

[@ilmaio]

Accurate, illuminated, insightful, credible analysis. Instantly subscribed.

[@XOPOIIIO]

Actually Puting presented about dozen reasonings for his invasion, and he then changed it every week.

[@toddr2265]

Putler's delusions for invading Ukraine you mean

[@-morrow]

the real, personal reasons can be found in his hour long speach before the war, rejecting ukrainian identity and statehood

[@unfixablegop]

In the old days war was an acceptable strategy. Now it's also about teaching Russia that war is no longer an option in the modern world. That's why the counterreactions have been so comprehensive.

[@user55book]

Westerns are absolute garbage hypocrites why did they not tell the same thing to USA when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan It is funny how NATO wants to encircle Russia and wants Russia not to act untill it was actually suffocated

[@ci6516]

War isn’t acceptable?? And what has Ukraine been doing to its own citizens in Donbas for the past 8 years ???????!!???!!!! You people don’t ever consider about all the people in Donbas who have lived like crap for the past 8 years merely because They want to be with Russia . Why don’t they have a right of self determination?? Ukraine started this war by attacking civilian protesters in Donbas because they wanted to join Russia after Ukraine had a bloody revolution in 2014

[@salahabdalla368]

War has always been an option for the US lol

[@loftsatsympaticodotc]

Well and clearly narrated and detailed. Well done... and thank you for NOT sounding like a robot. ;-)

[@thomasjoseph6007]

Excellent survey of of the past and current scenario. Well presented.

[@MaximGhost]

12:35 Ha! I'd like to see Putin invade Austria without going through NATO territory or NATO airspace. Austria (and Switzerland) literally doesn't have to do anything and just let NATO keep him away. Just like the saying "going Dutch" means everybody pays their own bill at dinner, "going Austrian" should mean that everybody EXCEPT one person pays the bill for dinner which that one person gorged on. BTW, if Ukraine ever joins NATO, then Moldova would then be able to "go Austrian" as well.

[@deniseproxima2601]

Austria pay for it's military and Eurofighter. It give more money to help people who are affected with the war.

[@kolerick]

Moldova has this little band of "Russian occupied" land called Transnistria... basically a relic of the cold war, when USSR had soldiers stationed in bases there... so nope, Moldova can't really go Austrian...

[@MaximGhost]

@@kolerick Sure, Moldova can still "go Austrian" regardless of Transnistria. Why not? If Ukraine joins NATO, they will simply continue to shoot down all of Putin's planes that he sends over Ukraine to re-supply the 1,500 Russian soldiers in Transnistria. After all, Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 based out of Syria when it flew over a 2-mile wide strip of Turkish land jutting into Syria. Since Turkey is in NATO, there wasn't a damn thing that Putin could do about it except cry like a little beach. (Funny how the Great Bear becomes a whiny little poosy when someone puts a stick up its arse.) The 1,500 Russian troops and the traitorous separatists in Transnistria will simply be cut off from the rest of the world just like Berlin was when Stalin cut off road access to Berlin in 1948. What Stalin couldn't do though was block off the air access since that was part of the agreement between the major allied nations ... and, Stalin didn't have the atomic bomb yet when the United States did the Berlin Airlift for a year before Stalin finally capitulated. Stalin was all bark and no bite then. Putin is all bark and no bite now. Putin hasn't even been supplying the 1,500 troops in Transnistria adequately with weapons. Why should he? It's just a shite outpost in the middle of nowhere where Russia's military commanders send low-performance conscripts to for punishment. Putin has to worry more about Finland & Sweden joining NATO, and Japan wanting the Kuril Islands back, and even China wanting more border land back from Russia in the Manchuria area. Putin thinks of China as still a peer but with China's economy 10x stronger than Russia's, China's Xi Jinping knows Russia is just a peasant has-been nation that's been spiraling downward trying to be an empire as it was during the days of Catherine the Great. But, with Ukrainians relentlessly beating back Putin's invasion force, this only lowers Russia's status in Xi Jinping's eyes even more ... and Putin now has to deal with that as well. India has already canceled its weapons import orders from Russia. Meanwhile, the Poles are eyeing Kaliningrad! So ... this leaves the ill-equipped, isolated, low morale Russian troops in Transnistria with 18 x T-64s and 2 x T-34 tanks and a bunch of AKs & bullets... that's it. Ukraine has so far taken out 650 Russian tanks in just the past THREE months and they still have a sheetload of Stugna-Ps, NLAWs, and Javelins left. On top of that, the Ukrainians have a very severe distaste of separatists at the moment. It's gotten so bad that I would venture to say that Transnistria's existence pretty much ceased the moment the Ukrainians stopped and destroyed a good portion of Putin's tank column that were descending down into Kyiv from Belarus. Now, with an unlimited supply of modern western weapons, the Ukrainians will take back Donetsk and Luhansk and then even Crimea and will finally blow up the Crimean Bridge severing Crimea from Russia for good. What's to stop them? Putin? After leaving up to 60,000 dead rotting Russians as fertilizer on the Ukrainian fields by the end of this portion of the war, what's a mere 1,500 more dead, ill-equipped demoralized conscripts in Transnistria? One thing is for sure ... being so close to Odessa, those 1,500 Russians are a stone in Ukraine's shoe that will need to be removed. The Ukrainians just need Moldova's permission and the Transnistria problem gets "liquidated" for good. Since Transnistria has been a bigger stone in Moldova's shoe since the Cold War, seems like Moldova might be agreeable with liquidation as well.

[@Present-Tense]

A combatant's capacity to intimidate suffers rapid attrition if its military reveals that its reputation was hyper-inflated.

[@stevenwilson5556]

Yes! Finland was bullied by Russia with missile trucks and Finland had a bunch of farmers drive near the border with tractors. Russia turned themselves into a laughing stock.

[@compassroses]

@@stevenwilson5556 I heard that one. Loved it!

[@Present-Tense]

@@stevenwilson5556 The immortal tractor, with its noble, war-faring associations.

[@tuckshop]

Fascinating analysis and historical perspectives.

[@medialistener]

That was a good analysis. Thank you.

[@User-he6zd]

Great video, but the comment about Argentina seems odd. "Imperial remnants" and equating defending the Falklands to the other invasions based upon a slippery slope/domino theory, when Falklands being taken by force in and of itself would be bad

[@HandlesAreDumb420]

Yeah, I disagree with him on the statement. Britain defended overseas British territory, with Brits speaking English that overwhelmingly supported being British, from invaders. It was, at a stretch a deterrent. I'd more say jist Britain doing it's thing or more of a reason for Thatcher, at the time, to continue being PM.

[@sinoroman]

some of the points in the video were definitely reaching

[@justinlance4174]

He was just using it as an example. But he was correct in many ways. Falklands has no real strategic significance. Loosing it would have been detrimental for England's reputation. But losing it wouldnt be that large a loss. So u weigh ur options in that sense. Doing nothing can cost u. And doing something can cost u. If the British lost to Argentina. Witch could have happened.

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

Also "EU hammering UK." EU treated UK quite nicely. But this was hard to understand for people who saw losing the trade benefits as punishment. Not to say it was not "punishingly hard", but it was the choice of UK, not something extra done by EU.

[@HandlesAreDumb420]

@@justinlance4174 I feel like this is a strawman...

[@docsoulman9352]

Good historical overview but I would point out that Ukraine was not “another NATO consideration”…They were neutral until Russia annexed Crimea….

[@sgill4833]

I think there was a revolution/coup over joining the EU.

[@fadliyaakob6001]

Why did they annexed Crimea? Did you dig properly?

[@lelespit3457]

@@fadliyaakob6001 What does that have to do with the civilians killed by Russians? Politics aren't more important than people.

[@NGCAnderopolis]

@@fadliyaakob6001 because they could, and hoped it would keep ukraine from aligning away from Russia.

[@SD-ni9jh]

They were neutral until a 2014 US funded coup of the neutral government

[@tiitola]

Well analysed -. full of strategic insights. 👍👍

[@Frog89mad]

good video. Just the part where you said Russia could cut Finlands lights out i didin't quite get cause they already stopped delivering that 10% electricity and it was replaced with more electricity from sweden. no outtage

[@MrSmithla]

The ‘Domino Theory’ was proposed by University of Texas professor Walt Rostow. It was scrupulously researched, solidly founded and it turned out to be completely wrong.

[@AJAtcho]

domino theory is pretty linear and doesn't factor any viewpoint other than their own

[@bradsmith9189]

The theory still holds in the case of Putin. He went into Georgia and no one did anything He then went into Crimea and no one did anything He went into Ukraine expecting the same outcome. As with Hitler and Poland before him..he ultimately pushed his luck too far…

[@TheExard3k]

Without this Theory, much of the Cold War could have been avoided. This is really a long dead horse by now.

[@Patrick462]

1. It's OK to hate the Vietnam War. 2. But that doesn't mean that the people conducting the war are evil, corrupt, war criminals, or baby-killers. 3. It also doesn't mean that the justifications used to support/explain the Vietnam War are wrong. 4. Thanks for letting us know that someone from Texas (gasps, clutches pearls) was involved.

[@MrSmithla]

Brad Smith That’s not what the theory proposes. What you’ve described is a strategy that, insofar as the Russians were concerned, worked, more or less, in two different, unconnected places that was tried in a very different place. Ukraine was much larger in both land area and population, their military far better trained. The Domino Theory is a political theory. It posited that if Vietnam fell to Communism, Laos, Cambodia then Australia would all fall to Communism. Well, Vietnam did fall to Communism, the rest did not and Vietnam is now doing all it can to attract foreign, capitalist investments and eagerly sitting in on conferences led by their former foes to try and forge a NATO-like defense initiative against still nominally Communist China. Trying a military strategy in numerous places and hoping for the same result is not a political theory about the political fate of a series of countries in a region.

[@jimhollywood2763]

Putin was allowed to continue his behavior without and real pressure to not attack. Several dominos did fall. Threaten with nuclear weapons and you could bully your way along. Arguably Putin should have been told, hands off Ukraine. But that did not happen. This all said it is imperative that Russia not gain any ground from it's actions. Meaning Russia needs to be thrown out of Ukraine. Including Crimea.

[@caryfrancis8030]

Russia has be a thorn in the side of the US. This may cause the fall of Putin. It soles a problem, for a long time.

[@danielraiter]

Insightful video, good work, thanks!

[@alexgourdine4895]

Thank you for the information, you have a subscriber in me. Most of this info I wasn't aware of. Please keep us all informed. Thank you so much again. !!!!!!!!!!!

[@philipberthiaume2314]

Clarification: The UK was not 'hammered' by the EU. What happened is more of a reflection that the UK had little to no coherent idea as to what brexit actually meant. To this day, the UK needs to grapple with the concept that what it wants is not compatible with having a land border, that can't be a land border, with the EU. This means treating NI, for goods, as outside of the UK economy or spinning it out of the union towards an eventual reunification with Ireland. Once this happens, then the UK is free and clear to have as hard a brexit as it wants.

[@MadTamB]

A Scottish person here. The EU didn't need to punish the UK. All they had to do was enforce existing rules. There never were any good outcomes of Brexit.

[@mikatu]

The problem with Brexit is that the UK had already a privilege position within the EU, no Schengen and no Euro, yet they wanted to blame all their problems on the EU. While they claim to want to be like Switzerland, they fail to mention that Switzerland pays a lot of money to the EU and they have no saying in any of the EU decisions, even when that affects them severely. The EU is based on trust and common help and support. The idea is solidarity. The UK picked the selfish way and now they need to live with that choice.

[@MadTamB]

@@mikatu Totally agree. I didn't like the fact that the video said that the EU was trying to punish the UK. They're not.

[@brownmunde0072]

Very structured explanation...

[@OUTSIDER40]

Thank you for making this video it was very interesting 👍

[@thecatinthefedora1201]

The issue with Domino Theory is that it makes the assumption that the second event is completely guaranteed by the first event, which is rarely true. In a case with, let’s say, 10 events, and each successful event leads to a 95% chance of the second event, then the chance of the final event occurring is about 60%. If the odds are a more reasonable 85%, the probability drops all the way to 20%. The simple fact is that geopolitics is a lot more complicated than a handful of linear events

[@ericconnor8419]

It makes a critical assumption that is wrong: that countries are in any way whatsoever like tiny slabs of wood. These people are insane.

[@thecatinthefedora1201]

@@ericconnor8419 mhm, obviously theyre tiny slabs of plastic lmao

[@yerpderp6800]

Yeaaaa this is a disingenuous usage of statistics. Event 1 can absolutely affect the chances of event 10 occurring, it's not an independent chain like you're making it out to be. In fact you can have an event that has 80% chance occurring if only one event occurred, and if TWO events occur then it can shoot up to 90% or something to that effect. While nothing is ever truly guaranteed, you can absolutely have a domino-like situation where a series of events drastically increases the probability for a final event to occur versus the chances of the event occuring with no buildup. Really then the image you're portraying of only a fraction spilling over to the next event is incorrect as it's more appropriate to visualize the events as building up pressure, with the more events thrown in building up even more pressure.

[@thecatinthefedora1201]

@@yerpderp6800 thats my point, Im saying it’s not an independent chain where one event leads to another. My entire point is that we’re dealing with complex systems, and a comparison to dominoes is not only oversimplified, but generally incorrect

[@woomba7]

calling it a Kiev "feint" is silly. It was never a diversion to weaken Ukraine elsewhere. Russia committed significant forces with the expectation to quickly take Kiev, then failed miserably. They only changed their focus to the east to save face in search for some kind of victory

[@boonnakbuddhakote6590]

Your commentation very useful.for many people.

[@mikevader1988]

Very well presented- Subscribed

[@craigkdillon]

Don't forget the most important future addition to NATO ---- Mighty Ireland ! ! !

[@ekszentrik]

To a considerable degree, none of this makes a difference, as Finland/Sweden are also part of the EU's mutual defence pact, and this will just get more defined over time. If Germany or France launch some aggressive adventure into Russia, which will almost certainly not happen in the foreseeable future, then the EU pact would signal willingness to opt in on joining the aggressors side. But if America launches an adventure into Russia and begs among their NATO allies for others, then Finland or Sweden will be even less willing to join compared to fellow Europeans. So to Russia it makes no difference either on the offense or defence.

[@ostrichhe4d]

Nice video with a new look at the topic I haven’t heard in many places

[@jamestan8266]

Very informative and we'll prepared presentation. Very good research work.

[@julianviefers6703]

The good thing is he can't fight Finland and schweden aswell now, let alone Nato with a war in Ukraine. The only true weapon he has is through economics but I believe Europe and the world will find a way to cope with the loss of trades with Russia.

[@wegder]

I was never a communist, the Soviet union was a monster.

[@RomiW]

Very interesting analysis, thanks! 😀

[@deusvult8544]

This just earned you another subscriber!

[@Gametheory101]

Welcome!

[@kamma44]

To try to connect the ostensible US failure in Vietnam as a direct cause for a lack of deterrence in the Persian Gulf is weak at best. The US invaded both Grenada and Panama in the 80s therefore to claim they lacked the wherewithal or political conviction for war would be wrong. Up until the first Persian Gulf War Saddam had every reason to believe that the US was its ally. The US had greatly supported Iraq throughout the 80s during the Iraq Iran War by providing billions of dollars, war material, military intelligence and special operations training. The United States even went the extra mile by giving diplomatic cover at the UN when Iran brought forth a motion to try and condemn Iraq for their use of chemical weapons. And as regards to Putin's 'dilemma' it's fairly straightforward. He tried to read off of the same play book over and over again with Georgia, Crimea and other breakaway ex-Soviet states. It just wasn't going to keep on working. But his worst mistake was showing the true hand of his military. A military with a tiny budget of 65 billion USD cannot call itself a major power. And despite Russian propaganda their failures in Ukraine have shown other European countries that Russia is not the mighty power it tried to portray itself as.

[@rogerout8875]

Ya can't say we didn't warn Saddam..

[@josephsinvula7415]

we all know its russia against the west, ukraine could have fallen ages ago if the US and its allies was not pumping weapons in ukraine so to say russia's military is week it just shows that you dont understand the whole thing, the US fought 20 years in afghanistan and lost

[@kamma44]

@@josephsinvula7415 The Russian military is weak. The Russian economy, relative to the size of its population, is also weak. The average per capita income in Russia is around 9-10K USD per year. The entire Russian GDP is smaller than that of Texas despite the fact that Russia has five times the population. Texas GDP: 2 trillion USD Russian GDP: 1.5 trillion USD UK GDP: 2.7 trillion USD Most of Russia's military stockpile is what was left from the Soviet Union. Throughout the 90s Russia had no military budget to speak of due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And it wasn't until around 2008 that they started to spend more than 50 billion USD per year. Currently they spend around 65 billion USD. Smaller than the Indian military budget and about the same as the UK. However Russia's military claims are outrageous! Russian military personnel: 1.2 million UK military personnel: 150K US military personnel: 500K Russian tanks: 12.5K UK tanks: 200 US tanks: 6.5 K Russian jets: 4K UK jets: 555 US jets: 5K Russian submarines: 64 UK submarines: 11 US submarines: 68 Russian nuclear inventory: 6K UK nuclear inventory: 225 US nuclear inventory: 5.4K Russian military budget: 65 billion USD UK military budget: 57 billion USD US military budget: 800 billion USD Looking at the data it's clear that Russia simply tries to compete with the US on paper. But the problem is the US spends more than 10 times what Russia does. Russia's military should be more akin to the Uk's considering that they have similar budgets. In fact the US spends around 69 billion USD per year on maintenance and repair of its nuclear arsenal. That's more than the entire Russian military budget and yet Russia claims to have more nuclear weapons than the US?! You need to stop believing propaganda and follow the money trail instead. Russia is not even considered a developed country. And so what if it would've beat Ukraine if the West didn't intervene? It's not like Ukraine is a military powerhouse either?! It is also a poor and underdeveloped nation. And by the way America 'lost' politically in Afghanistan and Vietnam not militarily.

[@josephsinvula7415]

@@kamma44 if Russia's military is so weak why is the west intervening in this war? why did the US secretary of state say they want to weaken russia on TV

[@kamma44]

@@josephsinvula7415 First I apologize for my long winded previous post I know it was a lot to read. At the end of the day you should make up your own mind according to the facts. You can check the data I provided and then come to your own conclusions. Better to do that then just blindly believing some random politician or person on KZbin?!

[@Akron162]

I dont think the attack on Kiev was a faint. Otherwise, good video.

[@acraigwest]

If it was a feint, it was a remarkably (even by this war's standards) incompetent one...

[@Doug_M]

It was. The Donbass region has always been the goal since 2014 after the US funded revolution in Ukraine.

[@Akron162]

@@Doug_M do you happen to watch a lot of RT, by any chance?

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

"I meant to do that!" Russian propaganda reminds me of Baghdad Bob from the 2nd Gulf War.

[@Doug_M]

@@Akron162 Go do some actual research dummy. The US government was funding Right Sector protests and deciding how the Ukrainian government would be laid out after the revolution was kicked off. There's actually a phone call between Nuland and Pyatt discussing this. Our politicians(like the Biden family) have been getting rich pouring money into the Ukrainian money laundering operations since then.

[@lexwaldez]

This was a super interesting point of view. Well presented.

[@tahahormozan]

Reputation mechanism works like playing poker, for winning bigger you must loose sometimes to get underestimated and lay trap for your own opponents. was the withdrawing from Afghanistan somehow a reputation bait to lore Russia in Ukraine’s trap?

[@tobiasL1991]

One problem here, the EU was actually too soft with the UK. People think it's the other way around when it's not! As in the EU was softer with it's rules for 3rd countries on the UK then on other 3rd countries. This whole the EU is punishing us is a myth and at this point it might have been better for the EU to actually hammer the UK for their foolish idea of thinking you can go at it alone in this day and age.

[@Psiros]

How did NATO expansion happen? I would say the hubris of an old man suffering an existential crisis who is surrounded by yes men.

[@sausage4mash]

NATO is a defensive agreement ,I think Putin was scared of ideas spreading after the orange revolution

[@sinoroman]

if you sell something well enough, the other party will most definitely agree

[@omvegan]

Who? Old man bush?

[@tremedar]

@@omvegan More like old man putin. NATO's number 1 recruiter for 2022.

[@sausage4mash]

@@omvegan what has Bush got to do with anything, I'm confused

[@jameskotsch8271]

Wow, that was informative and things I had no knowledge of

[@Revnge7Fold]

Really good analysis!!

[@rorywatt9752]

Imma be honest, this could’ve been 5 minutes, domino theory doesn’t need much explanation. Still a good video though!

[@voidwalker9223]

Yea but the extra history and factual representation uses is to back up this theory. Much more believable when you have previous events that played in similar fashion to show you that this theory is pretty plausible After all. History repeats its self. Sometimes after a week sometimes after a few hundred years

[@SteveDeNiro]

U should take it upon yourself to craft a 5 min version that conveys the same message or even better. Let us know when it’s ready.

[@davj1481]

Welcome to Sweden and Finland

[@hectorlugo655]

Great vision and the possible events to follow and perspective on events past and present, great presentation, it helps one view of events to follow, Nostradamus

[@toddbilleci8563]

Thank you. Please help me understand how the post-Brexit UK consequences are bucketed in early examples, given it was not an armed conflict and self-inflicted. Thanks again, always interesting.

[@-morrow]

brexiteers like him still try to blame to EU for everything that happened and use every far-fetched sitation to repeat that narrative

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

BTW, Putin is not for learning -- not for turning. THIS is in the nature of dictators and dictatorships. Something that you have yet to learn. Wars are NOT initiated rationally. They are gut-check throws of the dice. Primakov bent Saddam's ear WRT how the US Army would crush Saddam's boys -- because desert fighting is wholly unlike jungle fighting. Saddam was not for learning -- not for turning. And Saddam went down that road TWICE. Dictators have reputational risk, too. Duh. The more fundamental problem which eluded you: Kings and dictators have TOO MUCH AUTHORITY to learn or turn. The beauty of the US system is that even presidents can't (constitutionally) bind treaties -- the ones they created. Congress then steps in. See: League of Nations -- and many another presidential folly.

[@Amore825]

Well said 😎

[@headoverheels88]

Not to mention having a security-apparatus that is relatively merit based, not favor based. Obviously politics are heavily involved for, say, the head of the CIA, but we have a norm - even with anti-beureauceat leaders like Trump - where at the very least if you bring bad news you don't find yourself pushed out a window. Russian intelligence said Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms. Wrong. Disastrously wrong. Accurate intelligence = better decisions. Period.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

@@headoverheels88 Look at the video. His own man was shaking in his shoes during the big confab. What kind of mentality would even HAVE such a show video? Putin humiliated his 'inner (semi) circle' in that video. Think on it. Why even go through the circus? 'Twas to cross-intimidate his ENTIRE cotorie. That's what it's purpose was. Every top official was warned -- you're entirely ALONE.

[@ratatatuff]

Twice? I don't think anyone can blame the US's illegal invasion in 2003 on Saddam.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

@@ratatatuff You could NOT be more wrong. BTW, the UK and US proceeded to enforce UNSC mandates. THAT was the basis for their actions. Your assertion could scarcely be more anti-informed. As for Saddam's hanging - - there was dancing in the streets -- all across Iraq. What few knew at the time was that Saddam had corrupted the UNSC: France, Russia and Canada were all on his 'pad' -- plus the UN Secretary General. (Kofi) When these connections all came out -- the Volker Commission -- it was quite a scandal in Canada. In France and Russia the revelations produced a national yawn. But TWICE is relevant: that tyrant was not for learning. Everyone else did. His army refused to fight the UK and US.

[@richdobbs6595]

Interesting analysis, but I'll stick with my pre-invasion assessment. Concern about NATO expansion and missile flight times to Moscow was just propaganda . The real necessity of this war is to secure a water supply for Crimea, which is necessary to hold it as Russian territory. Ukraine was lost to Russia in 2014 when Putin found himself forced to seize Crimea. But he messed up by not securing Kherson and the North Crimean Canal. Then the f'ing separatist in Donbas, realizing that they would never have influence in a Ukraine absent Crimea, and thinking they would be annexed to Russia like Crimea, declared their independence. Putin attempted to muck up Ukraine with the Minsk agreement, but Kyiv didn't play along, given their support by the American Democratic party and US deep state. With the failure to replace the North Crimean Canal, and the certainty of additional arms flowing into Ukraine, and the energy and food crisis created by China and COVID, now was the only time Putin had a chance to save Crimea for the long term, and his regime in the interim. Long term demographics and energy changes don't favor Russia. So he dumped the invasion on his intelligence service and the military. Day one they secured the North Crimean Canal, and so far this control has not been seriously challenged. My guess is a commitment to supply water to Crimea is part of the eventual peace settlement. Cripples the economy of Russia for a generation, but Crimea will be secured.

[@bishopofsahs]

cliff notes

[@Amore825]

Concerning diatribe but essential..... Russia will have to at some point work out an exit strategy but if Ukraine wins back territory they may have to settle with a draw

[@Digmen1]

A good analyis, but I truly hope that The Ukraine takes The Crimea back, and the Donbass and invade Trasnistria with Modlova.

[@bishopofsahs]

@@Digmen1 Yes Asheville libra

[@nich7622]

@@Digmen1 Hope. Hope never changes...

[@LuniZZs]

did others see the round thingy that flyed by at 10:42

[@sgill4833]

Fantastic Broadview.

[@gaius_enceladus]

I think almost anyone who'd want to be in Nato is already in it. There aren't that many countries left to join. This means that most "dominoes" have already fallen.

[@sergiystoyan5260]

just wait and the dominos in russia itself will begin toppling...