Russia and the Ukraine War | Professor Emeritus Graeme Gill

As the war in Ukraine approaches the eighteen-month mark and the Ukrainian counter-offensive has fallen well short of the expectation of major early successes, the continuing capacity of both sides to continue the conflict has been called into question. On the Ukrainian side this has been discussed principally in terms of the likelihood of continuing Western support. In contrast, when observers look at the Russian side, they focus on such things as the potential crippling effect of sanctions, the growth of popular opposition to the war, and divisions within the Russian elite, as well as perceived deficiencies in the Russian military and its supply.
This talk will focus on the situation inside Russia. It will survey the effect sanctions have had on the economy and on the population, and it will survey the political landscape in the wake of the crack down on opposition that has occurred associated with the war. The situation in the ruling elite will also be broached, including the meaning and fallout from the Wagner mutiny and the strength of the position of Vladimir Putin.

[@RobertReg1]

This dude seems like the least informed person in the room

[@xysterhobbit2155]

Failure to address the Russian Ukraine treaty guaranteeing sovereignty for return of soviet Nuclear Weapons Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances 5 December 1994. The invasion breach by Russian forces of 2014 and again in 2022 as an international breach issue was not addressed - this is a flaw in the whole presentation.

[@zupazmakaronem2621]

Can you understand that USA first took over Ukraine after planned coup called MAIDAN, then Russia interviewing by Crimea annexation!? If Russia didn't annexed Crimea, then in Sevastopol there would be USA navy!!!

[@hazelwray4184]

1997 Ukraine, Russia Treaty of Friendship. Neither side will undermine the others security. That means no Ukrainian NATO alignment. The Ukrainians had no desire to be in NATO when in 2008 George W. Bush insisted they'd become aligned. What game was he playing? The Wolfowitz doctrine/Project for the New American Century?

[@tanjiro2507]

Normal he's putinist. Not mentionned Ukraine-russia treaty of Friendship: No agression or war between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine borders guaranteed.

[@daveloch905]

just one of many

[@sammenter1]

Yes, so true

[@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike]

I very much disagree with the professors conclusions

[@vulgarisopinio]

What exactly do you disagree with?

[@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike]

In fairness he had limited time allocation however.... His analysis is shallow and lacks nuance. For example his discussion on the Russian Economy neglects to mention the devaluation of the rouble, high interest rates, high number of loan defaults. The brain drain of the exodus when they invaded, i.e. young educated Russians who didn't want to be conscripted. Militarily, he neglects to mention that due to the shortage of weapons, Ukraine is fighting an assymetrical war, attriting Russian forces and destroying Russian GLOC's. The appalling lack of professionalism and low morale in Russian troops. He overestimates Putin's grip on power. Wagner was a demonstration to others of just how weak the Russian state has become. It is more like a catalyst than an end point. The fact that this war is existential for Ukraine. If they do not win their culture, society and significant gains since leaving the USSR will cease to exist. Putin has no intention of stopping and must be defeated. If successful here he will move to the Balkans or Caucases. A ceasefire or negotiated peace will benefit only Putin who will regroup, and come back again. As occurred after 2014. Ukraine must win and the collective West should render every possible assistance. All of that without mentioning the significant war crimes committed by Russia thus far and I believe in due time when sufficient evidence is gathered, the ultimate crime of Genocide. I really could go on and on... I'll happily speak at their next Russia Ukraine talk and I'll do it for free. @@vulgarisopinio

[@vulgarisopinio]

@@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike You want too much from a 30-min talk. As to your own conclusions, they are just a list of unsubstantiated claims which clearly reflect your anti-Russian attitude. Not even an attempt to be seen objective.

[@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike]

Since February 24th 2022 I have definitely become anti-Russian. Anyone who condones what they are doing is either foolish or deluded. I'll gladly wear the moniker of being anti Russian. And as for lack of objectivity, you asked me where I disagreed with the professor, that is what I provided.@@vulgarisopinio

[@vulgarisopinio]

@@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike I don’t need to argue with a person for whom history began in February 2022. MSM did a really good job with your cognitive functions. There’s one thing though: if you dream about Russia’s defeat you are up for a rude awakening one day.

[@graemeharris9779]

It's not the dog in the fight it is the fight in the dog.

[@edvsilas8281]

@graemeharris You: '' It's not the dog in the fight it is the fight in the dog.'' Is it still true if the fight in the dog is in the dog that is five times smaller and whose teeth have all fallen out and whose legs are all crippled ,as it is the case with the Ukrainian dog ?

[@AlgaeNymph]

Meanwhile, Perun is probably in the room taking notes.

[@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike]

I don't think the prof can teach Perun anything

[@AlgaeNymph]

@@MartyConlanTassieFlyBike Oh, I know. But this could be material for a future video. One on mythbusting Russian talking points, perhaps.

[@matthewnewell4517]

On what? How to deliver Russian propaganda?

[@carldavies4776]

Perun would do a FAR better job

[@carldavies4776]

​@@MartyConlanTassieFlyBikedamn straight

[@Ratkill]

"You cant trust any of their numbers" "Anyway heres the conclusions I've reached based on their numbers"

[@vulgarisopinio]

Yeah, trust Transparency international - the most objective source😂😂😂

[@Ratkill]

Even if their figures were accurate, their oil and gasoline sector relies HEAVILY on advanced extraction technology. This isn't American shale, their reserves are in remote swamps, permafrost, and required technologies developed by western companies to even access. Those companies and their engineers are gone. And since the average russian engineer doesn't understand the real-time component monitoring infrastructure, those western companies are still receiving remote data from their Russian extractors, and can see that no maintained has been done and many of these systems are close to failure

[@novorossian2279]

Professor Gill makes a great many valid points which hardline supporters of Ukraine will hopefully have taken to heart. Unfortunately he has clearly not appreciated the imperative need to solve the problem of the new Ukraine which emerged in 2014 which had U.S./EU backing and which was heavily invested in by the western powers and NATO (and also by the CIA as we now know from recent revelations in the U.S. mass media). Russia, through Minsk and Minsk 2, through the fraternal feelings expressed by Professor Gill, went every possible extra mile to prevent the necessity of going to war to bring a fully workable, mutually agreed solution. Tragically, the western powers plus the Ukrainian regime had no such intentions. By beefing up the Ukrainian military and bringing it and indeed the nation into NATO through the back door as it were plus refusing all Russian initiatives to stave off the military solution that was increasingly looming by the end of 2021, these two essentially forced Russia's hand. To individualise so much, referring always to Putin, is not appropriate. The national security threat to Russia, acknowledged in part by Professor Gill, is clear. That Putin strove manfully to avert war is also clear. What other choice did he have? If he had continued to hope that the Minsk process would continue he would have been made more of a fool that he already had by Merkel, Hollande, Porsoshenko and Zelensky. Ukraine had been ever more militarised over the years and it is clear once again that this process would have continued inexorably. Zelensky began talking about regaining Ukraine's nuclear status. The Ukrainian military, as shown by OSCE records was beginning to massively intensify shelling of the Russian-speaking regions in south-eastern Ukraine in the months leading up to the initiation of Russia's SMO. Even when the limited military intervention known as the SMO began its goal was clearly to force some sense on the Ukrainian regime in ther hope that it would accede to Russia's need that it be neutral and not join NATO. Russia did what was needful for the Russian state. It did so EXTREMELY RELUCTANTLY and with the minimum levels of force thought necessary to bring things to a point where a solution could be found quickly. As professor Gill says, it was the intervention of Boris Johnson (without doubt with Biden behind him plus others within the UK and EU) who insured that the conflict would continue. They had other goals, to weaken Russia in the hope of causing regime change (again as Professor Gill says) and potentially splitting it up into pieces and thereby neutralise it and manipulate its political processes to their needs. Russia is winning and was always going to win. The prospect of the western powers winning was anathema to the Russians as it would mean the destruction of Russia as a nation and that is an outcome that was completely unacceptable. A worse outcome could of course not be envisioned and for this reason Russia will NEVER give up until Russia is totally and irrevocably safe from such an outcome.

[@klokangeorge4005]

In the worst Is counting 50/50, but reality Is 1 rossian:4ukrainanBandera , Věry Positive 4 Poccuu, So Putin has won(not As here was Saíd - bad decision, He was pressed to do IT). Be advice,don't belive B Netaniyahu no one gesture, He Is ani new Hitler-idiotPersona(on thé other side Now), WAR Is Closer

[@debbest8546]

@@vulgarisopinio I've always held the TPI in high regard. What do you find wrong with them?

[@StuartChignell]

"Thats where the black sea fleet is based." Not anymore sunny jim.

[@cameupstarvin7351]

Islam will never surrender.

[@debbest8546]

nevermind the holodomor ...... peace in our time..... apparatchik.......

[@olgaltey3278]

Holodomor happened in 1932. What is connection to 2022?

[@popius61]

As soon as he said ‘NATO shouldn’t have provoked Russia’ his agenda was clear.

[@5patrickm]

Agreed. I was infuriated but held it together and wrote a polite part refutation see my detailed comments that starts 'Luckily for us see below about 10hrs ago I would appreciate a more objective review if you would take a look. This rubbish needs to be stood up to.

[@chrismitchell4622]

Agree 100%

[@davisutton1]

Naturally. "There is no reason for NATO, unless it's against Russia." Yeah okay fella, but that does not mean there is no reason for NATO. How many countries has Russia (USSR) attacked? Since the end of WWII? Since the fall of the Soviet Union? Of course countries bordering want an alliance against Russia because Russia always looks outwards for solutions to its own inept management, or distractions, at least.

[@MohanKaffi-vk3nr]

Popius hard to swallow reality.

[@bengaisford3304]

So did you listen to it and realise he's correct.

[@livondiramerian6999]

The truth is a blessing, lie is a curse.

[@vsnkqfo8]

Where does he get the reserve numbers of 250,000 for Ukraine? It's 900,000. Still smaller than Russia, but the ratio is closer to 34/100 rather than 14/100. Which makes a lot more sense considering the population ratios are also close to 34/100.

[@carldavies4776]

Also doesn't discuss Russian and Ukrainian demographics which shows Ukraine has a younger population...Russia is heading for demographic collapse WITHOUT this war

[@anonc2262]

One of the many academically shameful inconsistencies by a 'Emeritus Professor'

[@cooldewd35]

France in 1914-18 had a population almost identical in size to modern day Ukraine. They lost 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million permanently incapacitated...yet it did not bring France to their knees. On the contrary, while Germans were on their soil, the French were not going to give up anytime soon. Ukraine is still only scratching the surface of the manpower they can still call on. Russia may he able to call on more, but it would take an admission of total war and mass mobilisation...something that would cause social unrest in Russia. When we are talking about pain threshold, with regards to this war, Russians do not have anywhere near the raison d'etre that Ukrainians have. The ever shifting Kremlin narratives for the war has not convinced the majority of Russian even one bit. This Kremlin cucks assertion that 70% of Russians supporting the war is not even close to reality. If Putin was genuinely popular, he wouldn't need to jail opposition leaders like Navalny, Karamurza, Yashin, Roizman et al. Like the Vietnamese, the Ukrainians only need to keep doing what they are doing, and in the words of Vietnamese commander Nguyen Huu An who ordered his soldiers to "kill all they send, and they will stop coming".

[@olgaltey3278]

​​@@carldavies4776 10 mln ukranians left the country, many man just hiding becsuse they do not want to die for American interests. They learn great lesson from "fight to the last ukranian " and" it is a best spending of our 2-5% military budget "(c)

[@StuartChignell]

​@cooldewd35 what's more he's ignoring the lessons from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if Russia overruns ukraine they won't be able to hold it.

[@dimsum947]

A couple of hard truths some pro Ukrainians can't bear to hear

[@daveloch905]

Truths is a bit of a stretch, he basically made up his own casualty figures on the spot.

[@dimsum947]

@daveloch905 who do you believe, they all publish fake numbers. Ukraine Media Press Service published 300k Russians dead, Zaluzhny contradicts them the next day and says 150K dead

[@paulbobenhausen8031]

Having long term followed the AIIA, this wasn't great. Some of his analysis was outright misleading (For example, claiming Russia has 900 thousand pre war active troops to Ukraine's 200 thousand, without offering any context, like that many of these forces were naval, aerospace, security, or otherwise unengagable.) I find the worst offence to be an uncritical toeing of the Kremlin line that NATO expansion caused the war, without even the caveat that Ukranians deserve self determination, and it's not Russia's place to determine Ukraine's foreign policy.

[@scofflaw7309]

nor can Ukraine determine Russian foreign policy and for the russians ukraine joining nato was a red line which the west and nato knew but went ahead anyway (feb nato summit 2008)

[@paulbobenhausen8031]

@scofflaw7309 Wait, to be clear, is your contention of the first part of your comment that the invasion of Ukraine was legitimate, because Ukraine doesn't have the right to tell Russia what to do, so it can't tell Russia not to invade it? And, secondly, that invading Ukraine was legitimate because Ukraine might potentially join NATO at some point at the future, and that would violate a deal between Russia and a third party?

[@MohanKaffi-vk3nr]

Ukraine was neutral country until US support a coup (not democratic off course) in Ukraine to change its stance from neutral into pro Nato.

[@paulbobenhausen8031]

@MohanKaffi-vk3nr The polling really doesn't reflect that. The whole impetus for Maidan is that a very popular EU deal was dropped in favour of making a deal with Russia. That that deal was popular is well reported. More generally, Maidan doesn't have the markings of a CIA style organised coup. It wasn't a small well armed group with a good plan and the initiative, which is what you get if you're training up a coup. Instead, this was clearly a popular style revolution. Now you might argue that the impetus was a Western influence operation, but I've never seen any convincing evidence of that, and even if it were true, that doesn't vitiate the fact that the Ukrainian people wanted it democratically. Finally, it's worth noting that if this were all NATO smoke and mirrors, you wouldn't expect the Ukrainians to be fighting tooth and nail to protect their current government and allegiance. Even in the Russian information sphere, one can't deny the Ukrainians are fighting hard, at least not without accepting the most outlandish of conspiracy theories. I think 'Maidan was an American op' strays into conspiracy theory content itself, if I'm honest, but I hope this steps out why I think it's highly implausible.

[@scofflaw7309]

No its not legitimate lol but e.g. a China red line is Taiwan declaring itself independent and then China would invade so since 1950 US policy has been not to recognise Tiawan as independent - its called real politic i believe so war avoidable of ukraine neutral not nato @@paulbobenhausen8031

[@Jszar]

Whatever other value Mr. Gill brings to the wider discussion, I have to correct one of his comments. The Israeli PM is not "the Jewish Prime Minister". He does not in any way speak for me, an American Jew, to or within any government. I have my Senators and Congresswoman for that. Likewise, however little interest Netanyahu and his cabinet have in doing right by Israeli Arabs, they are as much responsible for governing well on behalf of that 20% (IIRC) of the Israeli population as for the other 80%. Such distinctions need to be remembered.

[@Juan-md6go]

The israely pollitical leaders are not Jews but they are Zionists which is quite the opposite of Judaism, so if they don't practice Judaism then the are not Jews.

[@Benn1to]

Semantics. You, and everyone else, knew exactly who he was talking about.

[@Jszar]

@@Benn1to Words matter. The idea that Jews have "dual loyalties" which can lead them to undermine their county of citizenship is an anti-semitic trope dating back hundreds of years, and has been used to justify persecution.

[@OtherSideAus]

Pedantic and rude. And boring. Yawn. We all knew what he meant.

[@OtherSideAus]

@@Benn1to watch out - they’ll accuse you of being anti-Semantic.

[@bjrnhjjakobsen2174]

The financial analysis is wrong - the Oil and gas revenues is reduced by about 47%. Domestic production is mainly war material . Domestic none war material is insignificant. China pays oil yuan and India in rupees with restrictions. Iranian consumer electronics starts production in Russia.

[@christof_7]

How did this guy get an invitation to speak at the AIIA? Usually I learn a lot from these speakers, this guy brought no new info or analysis to the topic and based all of his conclusions on CNN stories. I doubt he has any military experience or ever talked to someone from Ukraine. Just go on youtube and look at the clips of Russian soldiers appealing to Putin because they have no equipment and their commanders are telling them to charge without weapons or artillery. This bloke says "Its a hell of a lot more clear that Russian missiles have done a lot more damage than Ukrainian ones" This isn't even close to being true. Ukraine has been promised 100's of Billions to replace and rebuild damaged infrastructure, Russian Missiles have done almost no damage to the Ukrainian ability to fight this war, where Ukrainian missiles have destroyed Russian ability for all offensive operations and the effectiveness of the ENTIRE Black sea fleet.

[@andyabuteo6084]

Dude, just get real and wipe your Bias consciousness away for a while and look at the whole Ukraine war through another lens. That is healthy and would make one more enlightened about this war.... reality sucks but reality is inevitable....

[@anonc2262]

'Professor' clearly has no military expertise and bases his whole opinion on Russian polling, but didn't even talk about Ukrainian polling numbers. Even from an academic this is sloppy and irresponsible. Ukraine knows that there can be no peace deal because the Russians cannot be trusted.

[@cooldewd35]

This professor is an old school Marxist with Soviet sympathies attempting mask his deluded Kremlin bias by qualifying his conclusions. Zelenskyy is incredibly popular in Ukraine and the population overwhelmingly supports driving the Russian army out of Ukraine. Putin on the other hand lives in fear of being assassinated by his own inner circle, let alone the anger he has provoked in many Russians who did not want this war. The fact that Putin has ro jail everyone who disagrees with him openly, tells you how insecure he is. This clown just repeats Kremlin talking points with no deep analysis.

[@johnm7267]

You don’t like what he says because it doesn’t coincide with what you like to believe. Australians are so brainwashed. The ABC is supposed to be impartial yet I have caught them out telling blatant lies about Ukraine. They reported that Russia had hit a market full of people killing a 16 year old girl ( emphasised that ). It turned out it was a misfired Ukrainian Missile, but no retraction of the original accusation. A railway station was hit with lots of refugees trying to leave, the ABC blamed Russia but it was Ukraine. No apology. These incidents are proven facts not propaganda. Even with pictures proving that they are lying they still lie

[@raymondcyq]

You don’t want know the truth?

[@anneli4441]

The whole analyses of why Putin decided to go to war is wrong. The Maidan revolution of dignity was about going into EU, not Nato. One big mistake on behalf of European countries was that many did not see who had Russia become. When the Russia were to take over Kyiv militarily, it was late to realize that The Russian Federation looked upon the whole West and our values as their enemies. Not trading partners. Their imperial attitude and behaviour is despicable. Their culture is imperial. They need to loose this war badly, then maybe their attitude will become more realistic.

[@alanstuart9545]

Fully agree with you.

[@samsungtap4183]

Sure, the Russians are not into same sex marriage or changing the sex of your pre pubescent children rather they are into family vales, culture, religion. They the Russians have made no secret of that they find much of the west as lacking any moral compass and they are not alone most of the global south feels the same way !

[@samsungtap4183]

"The Maidon revolution of dignity" thats a good one, you got a smile from me. Overthrowing the democraticly elected government, killing 108 people with sniper fire and then the recorded comments of Vicky Nuland as rgards the E.U....there's a whole lot of dignity there, i think not.

[@qingzhou9983]

@@alanstuart9545 When analyzing Russian action it really only matters what Russian thinks, not what you thinks.

[@olgaltey3278]

Well, only stupid person would not notice the Usa and ukranian oun diaspora were not creators of Maidan. Not all ukranians wanted fall of legally elected president Yanukovich, not all of us wanted to join EU as another cheap resources donor. For Russians was too easy summarize 1+1

[@kasisppr]

The moment professor started to talk about NATO provoking Russia by expanding to East, he clearly showed, that he is not understanding the topic or few points in Russian or East European politics. Basicaly he lost my respect to hear his further conclusions. He simply repeating Russian whining, whitout investigation of reasons behind NATO expansion. As person from Baltic states, I know, why WE choose to join NATO (we didn't got any invites). Because Russia is our neighbor and we know, that we can not trust her. History gave us these lessons. So us wishing to be safe from Russia is not act of provokation. Russia never considered Baltic states as countries, same rethoric is used in case of Ukraine. Seeing what is happening now in Ukraine, I have no doubts of russian intensions regarding my country.

[@Luddebuilds]

Totally agree. Very well written.

[@cooldewd35]

100%

[@novorossian2279]

Professor Gill makes a great many valid points which hardline supporters of Ukraine will hopefully have taken to heart. Unfortunately he has clearly not appreciated the imperative need to solve the problem of the new Ukraine which emerged in 2014 which had U.S./EU backing and which was heavily invested in by the western powers and NATO (and also by the CIA as we now know from recent revelations in the U.S. mass media). Russia, through Minsk and Minsk 2, through the fraternal feelings expressed by Professor Gill, went every possible extra mile to prevent the necessity of going to war to bring a fully workable, mutually agreed solution. Tragically, the western powers plus the Ukrainian regime had no such intentions. By beefing up the Ukrainian military and bringing it and indeed the nation into NATO through the back door as it were plus refusing all Russian initiatives to stave off the military solution that was increasingly looming by the end of 2021, these two essentially forced Russia's hand. To individualise so much, referring always to Putin, is not appropriate. The national security threat to Russia, acknowledged in part by Professor Gill, is clear. That Putin strove manfully to avert war is also clear. What other choice did he have? If he had continued to hope that the Minsk process would continue he would have been made more of a fool that he already had by Merkel, Hollande, Porsoshenko and Zelensky. Ukraine had been ever more militarised over the years and it is clear once again that this process would have continued inexorably. Zelensky began talking about regaining Ukraine's nuclear status. The Ukrainian military, as shown by OSCE records was beginning to massively intensify shelling of the Russian-speaking regions in south-eastern Ukraine in the months leading up to the initiation of Russia's SMO. Even when the limited military intervention known as the SMO began its goal was clearly to force some sense on the Ukrainian regime in ther hope that it would accede to Russia's need that it be neutral and not join NATO. Russia did what was needful for the Russian state. It did so EXTREMELY RELUCTANTLY and with the minimum levels of force thought necessary to bring things to a point where a solution could be found quickly. As professor Gill says, it was the intervention of Boris Johnson (without doubt with Biden behind him plus others within the UK and EU) who insured that the conflict would continue. They had other goals, to weaken Russia in the hope of causing regime change (again as Professor Gill says) and potentially splitting it up into pieces and thereby neutralise it and manipulate its political processes to their needs. Russia is winning and was always going to win. The prospect of the western powers winning was anathema to the Russians as it would mean the destruction of Russia as a nation and that is an outcome that was completely unacceptable. A worse outcome could of course not be envisioned and for this reason Russia will NEVER give up until Russia is totally and irrevocably safe from such an outcome.

[@afkfromk1]

you must be a news reader, 15 min every day.........

[@JohnEboy73]

Is this Guy really a Professor or some bloke in a pub who has been given a microphone?

[@andyabuteo6084]

Get use to reality rather swallowing the usual BS that western media has been spewing about Russia since the Ukraine war started😅😅😅😅

[@samsungtap4183]

Down the pub but clearly not the same one as you ?

[@enzoist1]

He's a professor emeritus, so he's been put out to pasture, academically speaking.

[@dianag7179]

Yea, just a drunk from the next door pub 😅

[@cookml]

17:20 ‘The foreign agents law’. Whatever this guy was saying might have been nice and dandy (and might be not), but he forgot to mention one thing: the US has a similar law about foreign agents. We might have a case of Orwellian speak right here. Question to you: if a non-governmental organisation (NGO) is being sponsored by a foreign government is this organisation should be called (a) an NGO, or (b) a foreign agent, and not actually an NGO?

[@iXPilot]

Does the US law require to mark every tweet and every "Happy Birthday" post at Facebook with the horrible plaque "This message was produced by a person, who is foreign agent yada-yada"? Does the US law puts you into the foreign agents list for writing "my president is a fool" and getting a change for a coffee during your vacation in Europe (=the post was "political activity" and the change was your "funding", so it makes you a foreign agent!)? No? Then probably the US doesn't have the same law.

[@dianag7179]

Exactly, Russia copied the US agency law. It was retaliation. And the US has this law since 1920 and USSR never had it. Take it from a lawyer who has Russian degree in law as well.

[@malloc7108]

This guy seems reasonable until he talks numbers, at which point he accepts Russian proffered numbers at face value and gets Western numbers wrong by a factor of 10. He outlines some uncomfortable facts: Ukrainian recruitment issues, the slow pace of the counteroffensive, but without any context. I look forward to seeing how well these explanations age.

[@Rikaishi]

Accepts Russian propaganda regarding nato at face value too.

[@dirgsuite5546]

After 6 months the sanctions would cripple Russia's economy till Russian's elite and common people would overthrow Putin. After 9 months Russia would run out of ammunition. Etc... Did it ever occur to you that the professor is telling the right numbers and our Western media and governments are feeding us lies? If a Professors lies to the public, their career is finished. If Media lies to the public, they get promotion from their bosses and a pad the shoulder from the government. Propaganda happens on both sides of military conflicts.

[@olgaltey3278]

​@@Rikaishilooks like someone never learn

[@Vedioviswritingservice]

@@Rikaishi Both sides lie. Neither has clean hands.

[@Rikaishi]

Only one side started a war of agression.@@Vedioviswritingservice

[@Wazoox]

Remember that Putin explicitly ask to be member of NATO in 2000...

[@davidgoddard3903]

Can I suggest that analysing the motivation and reasoning of two opposed sides does not indicate support for either side, but simply serves to increase our understanding. Unfortunately he will be heard by people who have emotionally charged allegiances who cannot cope with a dispassionate analysis. We need to find a political solution which will end the death and destruction whilst inevitably will not satisfy either side. My emotional reaction was total support for Ukraine but they are dying, not me. Russian numerical superiority, an unchallenged dictator and dwindling western resolve does not allow us toa sk the Ukrainians to fight to the last man

[@romailto9299]

Another metaphor that's often misunderstood in the west is that of brotherly relations between Russians and Ukrainians. This metaphor does exist but not in the sense equality and familial love. In this metaphor the russians are the eldest brother and the Ukrainians are the younger brother, which implies inequality between a senior and a junior, the eldest brother who is elegible to inherit the familial assets and the throne and the younger brother whose fortunes and life even would be at the mercy of this elder brother. That's the true sense of the metaphor. The elder vs the junior

[@jasonwishart6800]

The questions were terrible.

[@continental_drift]

I was surprised by the lack of knowledge of the audience. Not one person challenged him on any of his talking points. The Prof didn't mention the Budapest Memorandum, where as a signatory Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security. Nothing signed by Russia is worth the paper it's written on..

[@londanintshangase]

@@continental_driftthey had to remain neutral. Talks of joining NATO don’t make you neutral now does it?

[@igosmosig38]

The only problem is the Western Countries including the US has not gone all out to supply Ukraine with all the lethal modern weapons which can help Ukraine to win the war quickly! For example had the US supplied the long range missile ATACM and the F16 Fighter Jets much earlier the war might have been over at least a couple of months ago with the defeat of Russia! So you need to ask the question why the US and NATO did not go all out to help Ukraine with sufficient and quick western weapons supply?

[@theresaadams7143]

Answer: This is all about MIC profits, money laundering, and bidens 2024 re-election. They do not care about the people of ukraine who are now refugees and are dying every day on the battlefield. If what the Americans are doing does not make sense to you, then you must dig deeper.

[@Visherex]

Yessss!

[@DGE123]

they want to drain the russian economy and destabilize russia then get rid of putin and seeing the riots in Dagestan and the unrest in the caucus states generally it will probably work, When russia is in civil war flames the poles will take Kaliningrad back and probably unseat Lukashenko.

[@felipe-vibor]

According to you

[@barrydean5752]

How deluded are you ? !

[@asdefasdef1]

The best bit was when his colleague who is of Ukrainian extraction pointed out that he was at risk of falling for Russian propaganda and then he responds with "its all Natos fault, Zelensky wanted peace but boris johnson said no" etc

[@scouterstu5856]

The US cutting the natural gas line to Europe and then predictably forcing Russia to halt grain and potash shipments after the waterborne attack on their bridge assured the Europeon economies in be general and Germany's in particularly would significantly suffer while the US benefits from becoming the principal supplier of liquefied natural gas, grain and potash.

[@Raikenbolai]

When the USA blew up nordstream and Germany just took it on the chin like a team playing champ. That room was full of people that really werent ready for some of the facts that the Proff served up @@scouterstu5856

[@user-xr3sh5mc5c]

​Professor Gill holds NATO responsible for provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. If that is true, why was NATO so absolutely unprepared for war ? I believe Putin's concern re: NATO expansion is less a security issue and much more of a potential westernization of the current republics he holds in his sphere of influence, or as someone described, his prison of nations. Losing his grasp on Ukraine would be another blow to his plan to reassemble a federation in the likeness of the USSR.

[@daveloch905]

@@scouterstu5856 except it was most likely Russia who bombed the pipeline. They had the most to gain by avoiding the default penalties they would’ve been liable for

[@dianag7179]

​@@daveloch905except, you in your Australia is so far from the civilised world that its so hard to know and find out the truth You cannot even think anymore. Russia could just turn of the pipe, it was Russian property. Had no need to explode it. In Australia ppl cannot anymore think for themselves, you ate so heavily bombed with information and how you should think and behave. And you cannot do it otherwise. They still treat you as criminals and you have no freedom really. Take from European who lived in AUS. It was suffocating

[@jimmymaciii]

What if the casualties were 400,000 Ukrainians and 50,000 Russians? Those are the figures I hear from Colonel Douglas McGregor. My bet is those figures are closer than yours.

[@cookml]

0:55 ‘Some questions on the Russian side about domestic support’. The main question on the Russian side regarding domestic support is why we don’t come on Ukraine harder and don’t finish it sooner than we currently do. Don’t forget that in the past Russia took Paris and twice (as I heard) took Berlin. This is how in Russian people’s memory the issues are getting resolved.

[@mik823]

You are correct . 200000 Russian soldiers marched in to Parris when defeating Napoleon if the Russians were empire builders and colonialists like the west they would have taken France and western Europe then.

[@romailto9299]

Except it was a Russian empire where half of the army was Ukrainians, and not the rump Russia as it is today. The same goes for Berlin. But yes, the sentiment is there. But they're going as hard as they can

[@mik823]

@@romailto9299 the Ukrainians are Russian. Look up the meaning of Ukraine. The Ukrainian states never existed until Khrushchev rewrote the borders for administrative purposes. The western part of modern Ukraine was part of the polish, Hungarian and Slovakian/ Moravian state's.

[@romailto9299]

@@mik823 ahaha. The Ukrainian state existed in the 17th century and Bohdan Khmelnitsky as head of that state signed a treaty with the Russian tsar to ally the nations. And it took Russians a good century and a half to dismantle the institutions of the Ukrainian state. In 1918, the Ukrainians created the Ukrainian People Republic and the was a Western Ukrainian People republic in the west. The bolsheviks fought against the Ukrainian state and eventually defeated it and the Ukrainian government went into exile. The way you invoke Kruschev tells me you know almost nothing about that period, beyond the popular one-line trope.

[@romailto9299]

@@mik823 interestingly, the modern Russian state never existed until 1990. When it claimed independence from the USSR on June 12. Now ashamedly renamed into the Russia day, from its true name the Russian independence day

[@ultandeburca8057]

not a clue. he's a joke.

[@karelmares4151]

In Ukraine, there is less corruption than in Russia? Have you ever spoken with someone from Ukraine?

[@jimroberts4828]

Without knowing what his opinion was, I would bet that his accessment at the beginning of the invasion was that Ukraine was finished in a few weeks.

[@moestietabarnak]

It would has been finished, in FACT it was ready to sign a peace agreement at end of March 2022, then BoJo, on behalf of the west, fly in to tell Zelensky to stop the negotiation.

[@ospfmon]

ну если Путин применит такие же методы, как Израиль в Секторе Газа, тогда да

[@drmarttitammi5186]

I do not understand the logic in the type of reasoning that if a sovereign country doesn't do as Russia wants, such as not joining NATO, Russia will invade that country and the invasion is not the fault and responsibility of Russia but instead, it is the fault of NATO and the US. What exactly legitimizes Russia to dictate the affairs of any sovereign country? Please answer that question, Prof. Graeme Gill. As an example, Finland has been under the heavy hand of Russia/Soviet Union for a long period of time. Russia warned Finland about joining NATO; "It will have consequences." Finland joined NATO anyway. Russia didn't invade Finland (again) this time but would that have been the fault of the US and NATO also? Probably the reason why Russia didn't attack Finland this time was that it had enough to handle Ukraine... Please, do explain Prof Graeme Gill. I'm keen to learn the logic. Asking because you stated that the US and NATO provoked Russia, giving the impression that it was not Russia's fault. Note that earlier Russia tried to establish a puppet government in Ukraine but failed - not considered as a provocation in any way in discussions. Perhaps, my question was provoked by the way you conveyed the message. Interesting to hear a response, though. Take into account that Putin himself has given a number of other reasons, such as Ukraine having no right to exist, genocide of the Russian-speaking population, de-Nazification of Ukraine, historical reasons, and re-establishment of the former Russian empire, as an example.

[@eddybrevet6816]

My idea of wot a Russian is was not so great, but nothing like this

[@bengaisford3304]

They made the promise when gorbie gave back west germany. Look into operation gladio, all the us invasions and cia coups.

[@debbest8546]

What he said

[@bengaisford3304]

@@debbest8546 have a check on google.

[@bengaisford3304]

@@debbest8546 your profile pic says you know all about gladio.

[@stevenandrews5245]

Thought that was very over negative especially towards Ukraine.

[@McbrideStudios]

While NATO expansion plaid a roll, I think asserting that NATO is responsible for the current situation is to validate flagrant violations of international law and good order by Russia. After all, it is Russian action that has prompted former Soviet states to REQUEST NATO membership.

[@knightsoulita4899]

With expansion, NATO master (U.S.A.) knew very well it would force a reaction by the Russian Federation: it was planned many years ago, and now this war is the inevitable outcome. Also, lol at the " validate flagrant violations of international law": go explain those "laws" to the people slaughtered with bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia by our paladin on a white horse called NATO!

[@constantinestepnov2446]

@@knightsoulita4899 "knew very well it would force a reaction by the Russian Federation" And ruzzia knew that attack on Ukraine would force a reaction in NATO, so let orks don't cry under cluster munition right now.

[@chrismitchell4622]

NATO has not expanded there is no mechanism for this if independent UN countries choose to join NATO and comply with the acceptance they are accepted into a defensive alliance that is no threat to Russia.

[@knightsoulita4899]

@@chrismitchell4622 NATO a defensive alliance?!? awww, sweet prince, keep living in your naive fantasy world!

[@KitJBenn]

Sorry my friend! A good honest information trail will not take us down the road you are wanting to take us!! Remember! Kiev entered into a conspiracy with the West and agreed to betray their own Ukraine citizens! Remember they (The Kiev betrayers) obtained weapons from the West to kill their own people including 18 police officers: Kiev with a group of Ukraine fascist neo-Nazi's entered into an anti constitutional coup d'etat February 2014!! This is where the evil (neo-Nazi) seeds started germinating. The Russians or President Putin had nothing to do with (Kiev & the West) episode One!

[@barneyleseven2854]

This is hardcore Russian propaganda.

[@mattbrody1424]

Great. Common sense, honesty, critical thinking on your own is enough to sum it up. I think many of so-called experts on Ukraine war look really stupid juxtaposition with this talk.

[@vanveen8472]

so how come they bring out these guys only after its obvious they've lost

[@smillner771]

By default this guy over estimates Russia and under estimates Ukraine / the west. Presumably, at the outset of the war, he would have said Ukraine didn't stand a chance!? I also think he is totally wrong that we, the west, would prioritise Israel over Ukraine. A comprehensive analysis, but he needs to revise some of his core assumptions... the speaker has retained some of his cold war outlook; Russia is not a rich, powerful empire, it is perhaps more akin to the Austro-Hungarian empire?. Ukraine can push further before they have to commit to negotiation.

[@pRahvi0]

I think even if the US might prioritize Israel over Ukraine, most of Europe doing the same would seem very unlikely. Europe would most likely just wish the hostilities in Middle-East calm down ASAP to avoid a flood of refugees or restrictions in oil exports from there. Meanwhile, Ukraine is literally part of Europe and geopolitically not too different to many EU countries neighbouring Russia. And yes, the assumption that Ukraine - which defends it's own existence and has already seen what atrocities happened under Russian occupation - would somehow have a worse war-support than Russia, is at the very least an interesting one. Zelensky may or may not have to go before Putin, but that's only because Ukraine is more democratic than Russia and therefore stepping down before dying (preferably in an accident) or fleeing for their life is a real option for their leaders.

[@theresaadams7143]

​@@pRahvi0 Ukraine is not democratic when the kiev regime jails the opposition and makes it illegal for another political party to exist. Zel is postponing elections as well. Any dissenting voices are jailed and no one can take pictures of the destruction by Russian missiles because they will go to jail. There is no free speech in ukraine.

[@argelmtz]

👏👏👏👏

[@novorossian2279]

Professor Gill makes a great many valid points which hardline supporters of Ukraine will hopefully have taken to heart. Unfortunately he has clearly not appreciated the imperative need to solve the problem of the new Ukraine which emerged in 2014 which had U.S./EU backing and which was heavily invested in by the western powers and NATO (and also by the CIA as we now know from recent revelations in the U.S. mass media). Russia, through Minsk and Minsk 2, through the fraternal feelings expressed by Professor Gill, went every possible extra mile to prevent the necessity of going to war to bring a fully workable, mutually agreed solution. Tragically, the western powers plus the Ukrainian regime had no such intentions. By beefing up the Ukrainian military and bringing it and indeed the nation into NATO through the back door as it were plus refusing all Russian initiatives to stave off the military solution that was increasingly looming by the end of 2021, these two essentially forced Russia's hand. To individualise so much, referring always to Putin, is not appropriate. The national security threat to Russia, acknowledged in part by Professor Gill, is clear. That Putin strove manfully to avert war is also clear. What other choice did he have? If he had continued to hope that the Minsk process would continue he would have been made more of a fool that he already had by Merkel, Hollande, Porsoshenko and Zelensky. Ukraine had been ever more militarised over the years and it is clear once again that this process would have continued inexorably. Zelensky began talking about regaining Ukraine's nuclear status. The Ukrainian military, as shown by OSCE records was beginning to massively intensify shelling of the Russian-speaking regions in south-eastern Ukraine in the months leading up to the initiation of Russia's SMO. Even when the limited military intervention known as the SMO began its goal was clearly to force some sense on the Ukrainian regime in ther hope that it would accede to Russia's need that it be neutral and not join NATO. Russia did what was needful for the Russian state. It did so EXTREMELY RELUCTANTLY and with the minimum levels of force thought necessary to bring things to a point where a solution could be found quickly. As professor Gill says, it was the intervention of Boris Johnson (without doubt with Biden behind him plus others within the UK and EU) who insured that the conflict would continue. They had other goals, to weaken Russia in the hope of causing regime change (again as Professor Gill says) and potentially splitting it up into pieces and thereby neutralise it and manipulate its political processes to their needs. Russia is winning and was always going to win. The prospect of the western powers winning was anathema to the Russians as it would mean the destruction of Russia as a nation and that is an outcome that was completely unacceptable. A worse outcome could of course not be envisioned and for this reason Russia will NEVER give up until Russia is totally and irrevocably safe from such an outcome.

[@wfchan3501]

he said the economy of Russia is better than before the transactions. Is Ruble is dropping and dropping now? Is he a professor of U Sys? what?

[@flyingpig3297]

When talking about Russia, you must take a comparative view against Ukraine at the same time. Then, it will be easier to see who has higher chance to survive this conflict.

[@MrDShaf]

There is an interesting question that the narrator avoids: what is the incentive for russia to negotiate? The only reason may be a tactical one: get a ceasefire for half/one/several years to regroup, take up all equipment left in storage (there is a bottleneck of their industry), train manpower (also apparent bottleneck), reconstitute plans with new information from the battlefield and go on next round. Why would they negotiate for anything less than total subjugation, especially if the professor's evaluations of resources are correct? And what the consequences europe, US and the world would face in that case? There are a lot of questionable points made in the presentation. At very best they are misleading. You could view that as russia acting because it's afraid. But it is not the fear that someone would steal something from them, it is a fear that they would not be able to steal anything from anybody.

[@debbest8546]

I would love to see dude's financial statements.......

[@cooldewd35]

​​@@debbest8546this guy has Kremlin stooge written all over his face. He is an old Marxist who worshipped the USSR and clearly was courted by Russian intelligence services.

[@StuartChignell]

The threat to Russia is the threat to their ability to dictate terms to their neighbours.

[@johnm7267]

What exactly are Russia wanting to steal? They didn’t go into Ukraine to steal anything, the reasons were made very clear to the west who chose to ignore them. If however you want to accept the wests narrative you are bound to come to the wrong conclusion, ie that Putin is empire building. Russia hasn’t got an army big enough to conquer any country of any size and Putin has already said he doesn’t want Ukraine. He would need a huge occupying force to contain a country the size of Ukraine.

[@GerardVaughan-qe7ml]

Shortly after The initial small invasion, April? 2022 Boris Johnson flew out to tell Z'ski to scrap a 15 point peace deal he had made with Mr. P. Also a little background going back to maybe 2010 ish. новости-украины, April 28, 2020 Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, who held the post under President Viktor Yanukovych, spoke about the activities of the biological laboratories of the US Department of Defense on the territory of his country. In his Facebook, the former Prime Minister stressed that his government had nothing to do with the opening of these centers. The decision to start this collaboration with the Americans was taken by Yulia Tymoshenko's office. And an agreement was signed between the US Department of Defense and the Ukrainian Ministry of Health on the creation of such laboratories in August 2005 under the chairmanship of Viktor Yushchenko, when Tymoshenko was already retired. " What to say ? Of course, not a single sovereign and independent country that thinks of its people and the future will let others deal with the biosecurity issues of the population,” writes Azarov. He notes that the purposes for which these laboratories were created are unknown to date, since all their activities are classified and Ukrainian citizens are not even allowed to work closely together. “Since 2005, the United States has established laboratories in Odessa, Vinnytsia, Lvov, Kherson, Ternopil and a number of other settlements in Ukraine. I insist on the fact that these are the laboratories of the American army ”, specifies the former chief of staff. According to him, after his government came to power in 2010, negotiations were launched with the Americans on this issue. In 2012, Kiev began to talk about granting Ukrainian scientists access to these centers or closing them completely. At that time, inspections of the activities of these laboratories were initiated. "We were shown something, but what we saw was not to our liking. In 2013, we sent an official letter to the US government to terminate this agreement. What happened next, you know yourself: a coup d'etat, Maidan, which, in fact, was organized by the Americans. Now these laboratories continue to work in Ukraine. Nobody controls them, they bloom,” concludes Azarov.

[@sentinel87asen]

"The foreign agent" law was created in USA and since then its used in many countries including Russia. The dame FA law is the main reason the most americans dont have the slightest idea of what Washington is doing abroad.

[@tawektawek3838]

It was only in the questions that I realised Professor Gill's talk had strayed from being a lecture into political polemic. He said Putin should not have invaded but NATO should not have provoked Putin to invade. By doing so, he morally equated NATO's willingness to talk to sovereign states about their wish to join it with a brutal, treacherous, invasion. There was no realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO while there was a frozen war on their territory, yet Putin still chose to break innumerable formal agreements his country had made. (The UN charter, the Budapest memorandum and the OSCE charter to name but three. Once Prof Gill had said the above, I reviewed all his questionable arguments and his omissions of inconvenient facts. His portrayal of Russia's economy as doing relatively well was the better part of his talk. The sanctions have not had much immediate effect. Many who supported the sanctions never expected them to, but it some in the public space did wrongly predict a quick Russian economic collapse. A country with an enormous wealth fund, that used numerous short-term measures to stimulate demand, and used restrictions on the movement of capital to prevent capital flight, was unlikely to suffer immediate harm. But, especially without western expertise in developing its oil and gas industry, its long-term prospects are grim. In his analysis of Russia he failed to do what all honest commentators should, and admit the limits of our knowledge and therefore that any conclusions have to be tentative. The Levada Center may be the least unreliable pollster in Russia today, but it's foolish to quote it without qualification. In a country where expressing the wrong views could cost you your living or liberty, answers to a stranger are never going to be reliable. How can a Russian know if the employee of the Levada centre is not secretly working for the FSB? How can Levada know? Prof Gill is right that the Kremlin's control of Russian society is so brutal, a challenge to Putin will come from within. But as for the elite, no one knows, and for Prof Gill to imply he does is dishonest. Just as no one predicted the Prigozhin mutiny, no one can know what the elite will do in six months. If Prof Gill's fans want to dispute me on this, please point to a prediction from Prof Gill that the Prigozhin mutiny would happen. However, the most serious problem with his talk was his suggestion that Ukraine will have to make peace. If someone who wants the Ukrainians to make peace, such as Donald Trump, were to win the White House, they may eventually have no choice. But they would know this would only make their medium-term situation worse. Putin prides himself on opposing the "Rules based order". If the rules based order is one where countries don't break their word, he does. But there is a downside with being a proven liar. How could Ukraine trust any promises Putin made in any such negotiation? If these negotiations resulted in a short-term peace that allowed the Kremlin time to rearm and launch a devastating renewed attack in a year, would that not be a disaster for Ukraine? If that did happen, there might be some comfort in seeing those advocating for giving Putin his victory eat humble pie. But I'm sure they would just blame this renewed Putin treachery on NATO provocation, just as Prof Gill does.

[@Draxynnic]

You know, I think that question asking him to justify the invasion was perfectly valid. The honourable emeritus professor was repeating so many Kremlin talking points he might as well be their mouthpiece. Russia's own actions have shown that any perceived threat from NATO enlargement wasn't the issue, the issue was that NATO was a hindrance to Russia being able to dominate its perceived sphere of influence. The demands Russia presented to NATO were nothing less than surrendering everything east of Germany to go back to being Russian puppets in the long term, and yet the speaker ignores that the demands included effectively removing NATO protection from everything within the former Warsaw Pact and presents them as being something that the West could have accepted. It'd be like if the PRC said they'd hold off on invading Taiwan if everyone agreed that the entire Indo-Pacific region except India, Australia, New Zealand and maybe Japan had to do what the PRC told them to. Overtures were made regarding the possibility of Russia joining NATO after the end of the Cold War. The Kremlin showed by its behaviour that it couldn't be trusted, and so NATO remained an essentially anti-Russia organisation because between Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and finally Ukraine, Russia demonstrated that it was still the biggest security threat to the rest of Europe.

[@user-zx4hb4bm6u]

This guy mixes distorted facts with fiction. How many countries has Russia invaded since WWII. When has NATO ever threatened Russia. Why did east european countries join NATO...Because they crave true independence and security. Why has Russia never attacked a NATO member..because they would be annialated...It's called collective security amongst peaceful nations professor!! This guy should climb out of his wine soaked bubble and and emerge into the real world. Ukraine is suffering and their grinding Russia down. I've studied this war from every aspect since it's commencement and have come to the conclusion that this guy knows jack about war in all of its aspects. Go home mate and open another bottle of wine. Also note. Some other comments are from Russian bots.

[@taladorsky]

Steven Gibson - Joined 25 Oct 2023 - @user-zx4hb4bm6u‧No videos

[@qingzhou9983]

You are the one that looks silly. It does not matter what do you think about NATO. For Russia's action, only what Russia thinks Matters.

[@dianag7179]

Exactly Russia has not invaded any sunce like forever. Though NATO AND THE US promised not to expand to the east europe. Only on this condition USSR withdrew its troops in 1990. Now why do we have NATO surrounding Russia all around? To dismantle the state, get their puppet to the power and pump out gas and oil for free. Just like the US and west is doing all over the world. Palestine, Syria, Yemen, iraq. 40 countries in the world. are in this situation and their ppl at constant shelling and in poverty.

[@greatgalaxy2118]

Hypocrisy: Poll in Islas Malvinas (Falklands) is Valid but the Poll in Crimea is invalid.

[@OtherSideAus]

Question time is for asking questions. Not giving speeches, opinions or your life story. To use it for this purpose is RUDE IN THE EXTREME to event organisers AND the speakers. The lack of courtesy in this room was truly appalling. I’m also ashamed as an Australian that the majority of people in this room seem incapable of having an adult objective discussion without emotionalising their questions. What is wrong with our education system? Quite a lot, it seems.

[@satanslittlehelper3]

The Russians are not having to pay $2.45/L of Fuel

[@martinalladin8981]

Something that I think was overlooked and all this talk about realism, democratic nations cannot hit their car to tyrannies., period.

[@hawkbartril3016]

If you've only seen western based media absolute b/s then I don't blame you, if I had a leader who addresses his people (without notes) for as long as he does, I would vote for him again. 80% support. And the US started this with the marking of a huge army. Russians aren't stupid. This chap gets some stuff wrong

[@Raikenbolai]

he gets some stuff wrong but i have to say this is the most rational assessment i have heard from an australian intellectual

[@dkudlay]

45:00 No. thats 1000% right. So says history, genetics and me - a Ukranian.

[@vanveakrin276]

Russian proposal to build a New Grand Canal from Irtysh river in North Kazakhstan to connect to The Volga river in South of Moscow for connection to the Black Sea to avoid the Indian Ocean..for the Future goods exchange with China..

[@sillysad3198]

negotiate WHAT???? which part of ukranians to be sent to GULAG?

[@pavelhromadka658]

So the professor takes a public document to interpret it that NATO admits somehing, not publicly :-) In fact if you read the transcript it is clear that Stoltenberg paraphrased Putin's show reasoning. Professor also tries makes us believe that Putin set forth some reasonable proposition, not bothering to quote the absurd demands of NATO basically giving up protection of its eastern members. Also mechanically comparing fictional numbers does not make much sense. Waste of an hour.

[@debbest8546]

I feel ya man. But I bet Putin paid him well!

[@andriyandriychuk]

Why is he talking only about Russia? Ukraine has an army, a population, it is not a mere territory. Enough of this ignorance. This is not a good analytics when you analyse only one side

[@tyrantonion6660]

How do you know that the angloid is lying? When his lips are moving.

[@mhall940]

Ben Hodges and Julia Ioffe . Tap into that information wellhead.

[@briandunn8216]

Who starts most wars

[@alanstuart9545]

A very one sided view and anti NATO.

[@petergarrone8242]

The question is not to give in to the Russians or not, but whether to support Ukraine or not. If the west stops supporting Ukraine, and Ukraine caves in to the Russians, that would be a geopolitical disaster. We would probably have to double or triple our defense spending as a result of the sort of world rules and order that would result.

[@chrismitchell4622]

NATO is not involved is still not involved so this talk is traitorous!

[@BrettHar123]

@@chrismitchell4622 What do you mean NATO is "not involved"? Since the US coup in 2014, the US and NATO has been funding, training and arming the Ukrainian army, while they attacked the people of the Donbass, ignored the Minsk Accords, and left over 14,000 people dead - before Russia intervened. The West has been planning this war since the 1990's, read Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard". Brzezinski spelled out that the US would never allow a peer competitor to rise in Eurasia. The war was very much provoked via the war in Donbass, why do you think the West was so ready to slap the massive sanctions, the day the Russians crossed the border, three days after the Ukrainian army began a massive bombardment of Donetsk City. Look at the OSCE reports from 21 Feb 2022, and the 50x Ukrainian military activity against the civilians of Donbass.

[@BrettHar123]

Rubbish!! Russia did not start this war, it did not want this war, they never wanted Ukraine to be colonised by the US, they never wanted to kill Ukrainians, they wanted the Minsk Accords, the US allowed the Ukrainians to violate them, where was the US and NATO, when Ukraine was murdering the people of the Donbass using western supplied weapons. In December 2021, Putin offered the US and NATO a treaty for European security guarantees, which they threw back in his face.

[@OttoOzaki]

The same was said for Vietnam, Afghanistan... In the end the so called Geopolitcal Disaster just means Wounded Pride. But if you want to make a case for Ukraine, this war would need to last for another 20 years for Russia to leave, but what world will we be living in 20 years if this war lasts for that long? I see that it will take more than wounded pride in the end.

[@douglaslund7188]

Bullshit sir, I lived in Ukraine & Russia and was in Moscow 2 weeks ago, I have many Russian friends, I’ve never seen so many LIES PUMPED OUT BY THE WEST IN MY LIFE.

[@FiikusMaximus]

Dear God. How can someone with an academic background repeat the story about Boris Johnson's visit supposedly reversing a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine? Was it perhaps rather not by the fact, that Russia on one hand was saying "here, we're offering reasonable terms for a ceasefire" and on the other it was shelling civilian settlements like Bucha and others!? Sure, it wasn't the heaps of murdered and tortured civilians Russians were leaving in their wake, it was BJ, the mastermind. I was somewhat reluctant to judge during the lecture this made me get up from my chair. Frankly, I don't even know what to say. This is just a disgrace.

[@cooldewd35]

This bloke is a pathetic Kremlin stooge.

[@enzoist1]

It's one of those quick and easy tests of seriousness: If you mention Boris Johnson making anyone do anything, you're talking out your tailpipe. The dude couldn't even stay PM of his own country, but apparently he's calling the shots in another one?

[@hrvojesvetec3058]

This guy is telling crap.."russia had a standing army of 900.000"..yeah right

[@andriyandriychuk]

All I can say is that the concept of 'escalation management' went wrong. It costed us thousands of lives. It barred us from achieving our strategic goals. And now you're talking about stalemate. What did we expect? Or was it a conscious strategy rather than 'escalation management'?

[@musicfreak8041]

It is not a very passionate performance. But honest. He squeezes out the truth like out of an uncut lemon. So he is certainly not a Putinist or a Russian friendly speaker. The truth, he found out and reveals speaks for itself. I prefer to,listen to Mearsheimer, Sachs, and Chomsky.

[@wayneguba4787]

Parents from eastern Galicia, wife in Vladivostok. You obviously don't kive in either place Talk to the Polish community in Vladivostok then go back to the border near Rzeszov. Why mislead your audience? Live there, speak the ' dialect' . That is how you become knowledgeable.

[@longandshort6639]

Another Putin apologist. I bet if he were around in 1939 he would have said Poland should not have provoked Hitler.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

There are several assumptions of his, that seem superficial. And based on these he jumps to conclusions. First - yes, Russia has 3 times the population, but in which country the motivation to go to war is higher? Ukrainians basically have no choice, because the war is forced upon them and came to their home. Even these, who do not want, will most likely have to. And there are literally millions of willing. Significant percentage of the people taking part are volunteers. In the same time - do you see lines in front of the recruiting offices in Russia? Despite the fact they absolutely bombard the population with promises, appeals, invitations and prompts, outside of small percentage professional soldiers in special units, basically all the Russian army is consistent of a) mercenaries b) people from occupied in 2014 Donbass who are forced to serve c) mobilized minorities, who's opinion is irrelevant for both the state and the white Russians and d) 40 000 convicts, literally murderers, rapists and robbers, who were taken out of prisons and sent to Ukraine with the promise of commutation of sentence in exchange for military service. I do not think this is painting a picture where Russia has an easy path for new recruits. It's a struggle for Kremlin to recruit and this is one of the main reasons why they fell way short of their military objectives. Plus, the maintenance of an army with such a structure requires a ton of money for the mercenaries (who are not an endless resource) and even that cannot solve the problem of finite amount of physically capable convicts or occupied territories population. Second - the assumption that 70+ percent support the war is heavily skewed. When Levada (the polling agency that can provide some sort of reliable data) ask the questions, the refusal to answer them is very high. And even these who do answer, still live in a country, where to criticize the war and the army is forbidden by law(!). So what kind of answer can we expect in reality? People who are against the war will either refuse to participate, say "I don't know" or directly lie they support. The reality is, in a country where to state your honest opinion is literally forbidden by law and people got real penalties for it, citing some kind of sociological data is pointless. Third - the 'Slovakia and Poland' examples are absolutely wrong. No one in Slovakia voted for Fico because of his foreign policy declarations. Plus, he will be a PM for the third time. He did not once block an EU decision to sanction Russia, when in power. It is all political rhetoric, that go forgotten the next day after elections take place. Even more so in Poland. The ruling party new they were in trouble (which the results showed after that). They created artificial 'scandal' with Ukraine, two weeks before the vote, trying to get a percent or two extra from the ultranationalist part of the society, that criticizes the Ukrainian refugees and paint them as 'ungrateful'. The second part of the scandal was real. Somebody sold a big amount of Ukrainian grain on Polish market. That grain was supposed to just go transit through Poland, as a way to evade Russian sea blockade. But somebody sensed the opportunity and sold it in Poland, because it was cheaper and opened a chance for big profit. Then the Polish producers cried foul and people started to ask who sold the grain. Because it were companies, connected to the ruling party and that would be a huge scandal before the elections, the Polish government pointed at Ukraine and and accuse them completely baselessly, they are trying to make profit harming farmers in Poland. It was intentional trick, aimed at averting the eyes of the public from the dirty deal, connected to the ruling party. It was something specific and opportunistic, that is not related to Polish support for Ukraine in any way. In reality, Poland will never stop supporting Ukraine, because the opposite means having Putin, who freshly 'conquered' Ukraine, as their neighbor. A nightmare! Long story short - his analysis sound like broad assumptions, based on compilation of headlines, taken at face value.

[@johnglaebb8434]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about this war reasons. This war is an result of the pro-western coup d'etat of 2014. It was commited by a little amount of ukrainians, but with the huge support of West. After those events most of ukrainian sober- thinking people were sure, that the war is inevitable, because Ukraine is a state, created from the mentally, historically and religious differented regions and ethnic groups. For example, Crimea and Donbass wouldn't obey to "zapadentsy" or "banderivtsy" from the West of Ukraine, who were mainly throwing Maidan, and that was proved by the history. Of course, Putin made a mistake, when his army invades to Ukraine, because he counted on the pro-russian plot inside ukrainian elites, but miscalculated. However, Zelensky was informed about the future invasion half a year before (read the article in NYT), and did nothing to prevent this war. After Putin realized his miscalculating, there were Stamboul negotiations, where Russia and Ukraine almost agreed about stopping the war. And those negotiations were canceled by the USA (read Shroeder's article). It means, that the invasion was profitable for the USA and GB, and you can guess why :)). But, most of ordinary ukrainians didn't want neither Maidan nor this war. They didn't get any preferences from Maidan, pro-eastern oligarchs have just been changed with pro-western ones. And ukrainian volunteers have already almost run out. Dozens of thousand men have fled abroad (and continue running. For example, it's very profitable business in Ukraine to transfer illegally adult men abroad these days). Now military officials are catching future conscripts in the streets, shops, clubs and so on (there are a lot of videos on tic-toc and telegram). It means, that moral of the Ukrainian army is going down, and the professor is completely right. So, he has made an obvious conclusion: there is no another way to end this war except negotiations. P. S. If you want to know more about the real reasons of this war - listen to prof. John Mearsheimer and prof. Jeffrey Sachs.

[@novorossian2279]

It was the inexorable pressure from the western powers, using Ukraine and NATO as tools, that goaded Russia into invading. Russia moved heaven and earth in an effort NOT to have to do this. Minsk and Minsk II demonstrate Russia's commitment to finding a peaceful, negotiated way though. The western powers along with successive Ukrainian regimes clearly had no intention of following through on their promises as ratified at the United Nations in respect of the Minsk accords. Both Poroshenko and Merkel have admitted as such in recent times. To have simply kept on trying to reach negotiated agreements with these people would have been foolish in the extreme. Russia offered ways out apart from Minsk. It was suggested that a new security architecture for Europe could be worked out including Russia. As Professor Gill says, Russia also offered a deal with NATO that Ukraine stay neutral, a buffer state between East and West. The West was not interested. NATO was not interested. Zelensky was not interested. Ukraine had become a de facto NATO state. Zelensky wanted Ukraine's nuclear status back. The Ukrainian military upped its shelling of the civilians in south-eastern Ukraine through January and February of 2022. Russia HAD to act. To do otherwise simply left things to fester and get ever more dangerous for Russia. Clearly neither the western powers nor the Ukrainian regime could be trusted. The SMO was the result and was ultimately the last option Russia had save for willing its own dissolution by neglect of these mounting dangers facing her.

[@grahamcroston]

​@@johnglaebb8434You clearly don't know what the word coup means - the Maidan revolution doesn't resemble a coup, it was a broad, popular movement turfing out a leader who broke his word to his people.

[@johnglaebb8434]

@@grahamcroston Thank you for reaction on my note. Well, let's see. A revolution is "an attempt to achieve fundamental and relatively sudden change in political power and political organization". Usually, after a revolution a country does a leap toward a more progressive social and economic system. So, what do we have in Ukraine now? Ukraine is the only post-soviet country, whose economic didn't reach the level of 1991. Pro-american ex-president of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili, who was a governor of Odessa region in Ukraine, said in 2015 (two years after Maidan): "It'll take about 15 years for Ukrainian economy to reach a level of 2013". The average pension in 2013 was 1470 hrn or 180 USD, in 2023 is 5350 hrn or about 140 USD. Not saying about the lost of Crimea and Donbass. Before Maidan Ukraine was the highly corrupted state, governed by oligarchs. After so called "the revolution of dignity" it has been staying highly corrupted state, and the first post-Maidan president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko was one of the biggest ukrainian oligarchs and a former minister in Victor Yanucovitch's government. The social and economic system of Ukraine has not been changed at all, only partly their elites. Where have you seen a revolution? Now 11 opposition parties are banned by the ukrainian government, there is only one join tv channel (that was said by Vivek Ramaswamy in his speech at the Hudson institute, highly recommend you to watch). And I can also remind you content of V. Nuland's "Fuck the EU" phone conversation (Google for help) and her confession about 5 billion dollars for helping pro-american groups and organisations in Ukraine "to promote democracy". Do you really think, that "the broad mass of ukrainian people" (actually, about 200 000 People, who were brought to Maidan from all over Ukraine, which had about 48 million people then) dreamed about all these changes on Maidan?

[@grahamcroston]

@@johnglaebb8434 I think Ukrainians wanted to join the EU, with all that required in the way of dealing with post-soviet corruption. They wanted Europe, not Russia. Now Russia's brutality has hardened anti-Russian sentiment, there's no going back.

[@aodhfinn]

The u s a does not want EVER , a united Europe , Russia united with the rest of the peninsula , resources and intelligence together would be too much for her private interests .

[@12272009]

What point are you trying to put across! Who pays such people and for what good reason?

[@sammenter1]

How on earth can Ukraine negotiate with war criminal Putin? I strongly disagree with this speakers comment that NATO provoked Russia to invade. Why did Russia move their forces away from Finland Russia border if they had this NATO concern. Slava Ukraini 🇬🇧🇺🇦

[@genathing903]

Sobering

[@sindibadau]

reading through these comments and comparing to comments to other articles I would submit the observation that the further from the issue at hand the commentators are, i.e. the less they really understand it, the more certain they are of their own opinions. Mr Gill is mostly right here, I am sorry...

[@Wazoox]

But the baddies can't be right! If Putin says X, than X must be wrong and a lie else the world would be unjust! Oh wait a minute...

[@mestubbs]

Mr Gill thinks he understands Russian psychology but I think he does not

[@dianag7179]

Its because you've been reading only BS western propaganda, not the facts.

[@daveloch905]

We’ll you don’t get any further from the issue than an Australian parroting Russian misinformation do you? He gets some things wrong, he invents statistics on the spot and he’s views on NATO are laughably naive

[@sindibadau]

no, they are not, one does not need to be a genius scholar to be able to count the "illegal" military interferences that NATO was involved in. Can YOU name a few, please? :)

[@susanyantha4074]

Zelenskyy needs to win it all to be able to be safe

[@pietv.d.boomen3033]

in minut 40 the question is information

[@ianmcleod48]

How did a Kremlin propagandist get an invitation to speak here? Perun, I think we need a Russian propaganda myth-busting lecture

[@AlgaeNymph]

Given Perun's occupation, he probably saw this _in person..._

[@novorossian2279]

It was the inexorable pressure from the western powers, using Ukraine and NATO as tools, that goaded Russia into invading. Russia moved heaven and earth in an effort NOT to have to do this. Minsk and Minsk II demonstrate Russia's commitment to finding a peaceful, negotiated way though. The western powers along with successive Ukrainian regimes clearly had no intention of following through on their promises as ratified at the United Nations in respect of the Minsk accords. Both Poroshenko and Merkel have admitted as such in recent times. To have simply kept on trying to reach negotiated agreements with these people would have been foolish in the extreme. Russia offered ways out apart from Minsk. It was suggested that a new security architecture for Europe could be worked out including Russia. As Professor Gill says, Russia also offered a deal with NATO that Ukraine stay neutral, a buffer state between East and West. The West was not interested. NATO was not interested. Zelensky was not interested. Ukraine had become a de facto NATO state. Zelensky wanted Ukraine's nuclear status back. The Ukrainian military upped its shelling of the civilians in south-eastern Ukraine through January and February of 2022. Russia HAD to act. To do otherwise simply left things to fester and get ever more dangerous for Russia. Clearly neither the western powers nor the Ukrainian regime could be trusted. The SMO was the result and was ultimately the last option Russia had save for willing its own dissolution by neglect of these mounting dangers facing her.

[@darrencorrigan8505]

Thanks, AIIA.

[@gunsbutnopants]

Dear god, this man and the questioners are bad. "It's NATO's fault!" "America is using Ukrainians." Not worth a response.

[@raymondcyq]

These are facts!

[@natiaandguladze]

The professor appears unaware that he's advocating the realists' agenda. I find it puzzling how the professor's viewpoint differs little from that of my taxi ordinary driver. They both seem to base their perspectives on the same data. In general, there seems to be a significant connection between a propensity for laziness, evident in relying heavily on shallow analyses from media sources, and the tendency to endorse a 'Realist' interpretation of matters concerning Russia.

[@pietv.d.boomen3033]

This is not a presentation .. only enumarate some numbers without any background

[@kenlawson554]

The Ukraine has diminished by 22%? That's not believable.

[@andreyzaycev8346]

It depends on what period. Now the number is from 25 million to 28 million (28 million convince me). But 35 years ago, the number was about 50 million people.

[@carldavies4776]

Not sure I agree with all aspects of this analysis... particularly the mooted outcome for Ukraine...think they should curate a better audience however as the follow up questions were poor...I broadly take Ben Hodges view of this conflict...if they can destroy Kerch bridge and put the land supply lines under fire I think Ukraine can effectively grind down Russia from a distance... poor logistics and winter will do the rest... F 16 beckons as does GLSDB for 2024...people REALLY need to learn to deal with opposing opinions and points of view

[@vulgarisopinio]

It must be a bliss living in a land of improbable.

[@samsungtap4183]

Russia is near completing a new Rail link in Zaparosia which will negate much of the problem of moving supplies through Crimea. It's no secret but apparently mr Hodges is out of the loop.

[@mp40submachinegun81]

@@samsungtap4183 oh so you have no idea about logistics then, nice. himars would like to meet these trains

[@BubnHubn]

Funny - I supposed, as a professor you have to have some knowledge of the international law and the concept of sovereignty, but he seems to justify the Crimea annexation on the basis of a referendum and some polls which we never know how reliable they are... So he seems to neglect the idea that a country should not be allowed to usurp territory of another country only because it feels like it has a right based on whatever... Crimea was populated by turks, greeks etc.. through its history. I rather wonder that such an educated man neglects the basic concepts which modern societies have agreed upon - respect for borders and the concept of sovereignty. Of course you can find a lot of other negative examples and come up with - and what about ... So spare it.

[@mattd6200]

Comments saying this guy is pro-Russian are nuts. He's a realist, but doesn't condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[@MeNanWazaHowitzer]

This guy is such a pessimist i think zelensky can maintain support and i believe the west will maintain too there is too much at stake

[@pRahvi0]

WTF did I just listen to? "--peace agreement worked out between the Ukranians and the Russians in April of 2022, broken by the Jewish prime minister--" (37:32-) I kept waiting but am still confused: what was the reason behind pointing out that the prime minister, who allegedly prevented peace, was Jewish? IDK, but to me it sounds like some kind of conspiracy implication, not far from the Russian propaganda. Maybe not that big of a deal in itself, maybe just a poor phrasing or interrupted train of thoughts, but... Acknowledging problems in Russian economy while not having it affect the conclusion, _not_ acknowledging problems in Russian manpower much at all while emphasizing those in Ukraine, and providing the rather wild take that Ukraine - who already (mostly) survived Russian invasion and saw unimaginable atrocities done to the invaded parts by the invader - would somehow have _worse_ situation in popular war support than Russia... those are not the kinds of things I'm gonna easily swallow coming from a presentation that already sounds like Russian propaganda.

[@pRahvi0]

If I were to speculate, I would assume he meant to say "...broken by the _Ukranian_ prime minister...", and even said so in his mind, which is why he did not understand the question concerning that exact sentence. But alas, he said Jewish and made the entire point very confusing. It would also seem they asked him to focus on stuff about Russia for a reason, as that seemed like the more grounded part of this, boiling down to that the believers in Russian quick collapse were wrong and are likely be wrong in the near future too.

[@andreyzaycev8346]

@@pRahvi0 He probably mentioned the Jew in connection with the later events in Israel\ Palestine. In general, about the peace agreement in April 2022 - true, Zelensky refused to conclude this agreement.

[@Lightemup2005]

I believe the professor is a Russian agent. He definitely acts like one on that stage.

[@olgaltey3278]

😂😂😂

[@dianag7179]

83% for Putin, not 70%. You can tell what you want but we have highest degrees from Western universities and we do know history. We Russians know What's going as eye witnessers or the eye witnessers. Don't forget that when Kiev regime started to shell Donbass regions of Ukraine in 2014 three mln ukr refuges came to Russia and another three millions came since 2022

[@roberhow2441]

Folks that old guy was completely off track. 😂 Sorry but that was nonsense. Probably get a bad comment back

[@mattd6200]

Every few seconds one of his circuits blew out.

[@gb-xo6nf]

it explains why West is getting wher it is getting, havin such grate "experts".

[@mik823]

The last Australian professor expert new nothing. this guy is only marginally more informed. Wagner is not a mercenary group. Ookraine? The guy can't even say Ukraine correctly.

[@lipgloss202]

Oh man This professor has all the russian talking points about nato. What the heck, it is not natos fault the war started. What right has Russia to dictate what Ukraine does? If Ukraine applies for nato and Russia invades ukraine for that. It is Russias fault.

[@gennarinabyrd1402]

20 months, no?

[@boonhongchan1853]

Ukraine and Russia: Essentially this conflict resulted from differences in perceptions on both sides. Decades of relentless provocation and demonization of Russia, the persecution of Russians in Eastern Ukraine even way before 2014, were perceived totally differently by both. NATO, used to continue provocations for the continuation of 'divide and rule' were totally unreceptive nor considerate of Russians' perspectives. Global sovereign states' perspectives individually have now become essential too. We note crucial opinions being expressed individually even by much smaller states. The world needs to evolve and is doing so much more dynamically now than we have previously observed. We did not experience that promised Stability and Protection promised. This approach has failed miserably over the decades, is it time for change???

[@moffig1]

Aa soon as he said "NATO shouldnt have provoked Russia" his agenda was clear. Another russian apologist.

[@wlhjr77]

russian's are very convincing to those who wish to be convinced, this speaker wishes to be convinced...

[@novorossian2279]

It was the inexorable pressure from the western powers, using Ukraine and NATO as tools, that goaded Russia into invading. Russia moved heaven and earth in an effort NOT to have to do this. Minsk and Minsk II demonstrate Russia's commitment to finding a peaceful, negotiated way though. The western powers along with successive Ukrainian regimes clearly had no intention of following through on their promises as ratified at the United Nations in respect of the Minsk accords. Both Poroshenko and Merkel have admitted as such in recent times. To have simply kept on trying to reach negotiated agreements with these people would have been foolish in the extreme. Russia offered ways out apart from Minsk. It was suggested that a new security architecture for Europe could be worked out including Russia. As Professor Gill says, Russia also offered a deal with NATO that Ukraine stay neutral, a buffer state between East and West. The West was not interested. NATO was not interested. Zelensky was not interested. Ukraine had become a de facto NATO state. Zelensky wanted Ukraine's nuclear status back. The Ukrainian military upped its shelling of the civilians in south-eastern Ukraine through January and February of 2022. Russia HAD to act. To do otherwise simply left things to fester and get ever more dangerous for Russia. Clearly neither the western powers nor the Ukrainian regime could be trusted. The SMO was the result and was ultimately the last option Russia had save for willing its own dissolution by neglect of these mounting dangers facing her.

[@mik823]

Reported to you tube for promoting BS 😂❤️🇷🇺zzz

[@mik823]

You can't convince an idiot 😂❤️🇷🇺zzz

[@warwickbrown18]

The professor’s analysis is extraordinary. In his mind the country with the largest population and economy will inevitably win a war, therefore Ukraine must and will surrender territory for a peaceful solution is wrong and ignorant. Look at the Vietnam war for just one example to the contrary. He does not understand that Ukrainian nationalism rekindled by Russia will not allow that, they will fight (they are not short of men just equipment) until they have freed the whole of their country. He trots out the ridiculous Russian (and Mearsheimer) argument that the threat of NATO provoked the Russians. Of course, NATO is not a threat to Russia. Russia is a threat to NATO that’s why NATO exists. His spin that although NATO is not a threat the Russian believe it is belies the fact that most members- until the Russian invasion - spent very little on defence, far less than NATO wanted and that nearly thirty countries would agree to attack anyone is so fanciful that even the Russians are not that stupid. He completely misunderstands the Russian economic situation not surprising as he seems to accept the Russian figures. He should realise that 6% inflation with 15% interest rates tells you that something is badly wrong or someone is lying. It is not surprising that the apologist for Russia attended and was allowed to state the Russian Government’s lies without real correction. The Ukrainians were not shelling the east of their country. It was the Russian’s that stoked into violence the economic grievances caused by deindustrialisation experienced by many countries. Any poll in Crimea is invalid under Russian occupation. Remember when Ukraine had it vote to leave the USSR the Crimea like every region of Ukraine voted overwhelming to leave.

[@andreyzaycev8346]

Have you ever seen, in a telegram or even on KZbin, how employees of the military commissariat of Ukraine catch conscripts, themselves disguised as ambulance workers, for example? So much for "enough people", so much for nationalism :)

[@arieherlaar6893]

Oh, so I'm afraid from a Russian invasion to steal our .....what ? You better think logic instead of that fnatic narrative.

[@arieherlaar6893]

Suppose Russians or Chinese would encircle USA borders through Mexico or Cuba, what should they do? Sleep wel

[@warwickbrown18]

@@arieherlaar6893 That is a false analogy. No one is trying encircle Russia. The Ukrainians have the right to be allied to whom they wish, it is not for Russia to say what another country should or shouldn't do and it certainly evil to use violence to destroy another country that poses no threat to them. America isn't telling people what they should or shouldn't do it, and the rest of free Europe, is helping the Ukrainians from being murdered and oppressed by Russia.

[@Skif147]

Is that professor Russian and the institute pro-Russian?

[@raymondcyq]

He just told you the truth and reality

[@Skif147]

@@raymondcyq I live in Ukraine.

[@lyubamikhalovsky8081]

the professor's analysis shows his low profeccional level and understanding of russian's polytics and history (although he positions himself as a knowledgable scientist). Unfortunately such analysis made a lot of confusions in the world polytics, who are not in those area of knowledge