RUSSIA | Why Ukraine Really Changes Everything

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been heavily criticised internationally. However, many observers suggest that it is no worse than the invasions carried out by the West in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, in 2001 and 2003, or against Yugoslavia, in 1999. But is this really the case?
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay. Here I take an informed look at International Relations with a focus on territorial conflicts, secession, independence movements and new countries. If you like what you see, please do subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and benefits, consider becoming a channel member. Many thanks!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE kzbin.info...
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL / jameskerlindsay
Since 1945, the international community has built up a set of rules governing how states interact with one another. This is built on the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. As shown, every invasions is, by definition, a violation of sovereignty. What sets them apart from each other is the extent to which they may violate the other two principles. As shown, however, while Western interventions may have violated two of the three principles, and even then in ways that did not necessarily benefit intervening countries directly, none of its actions went against all three of these basic tenets of international relations. In contrast, Russia has entirely ignored all of them - and has done so for its own benefit. The fact that President Putin has implicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons if NATO or any power directly intervenes to help Ukraine makes it all the more troubling. To this extent, Russia's war against Ukraine goes far further than anything we have seen in the post-Cold War Era. Indeed, it threatens to fundamentally undermine the entire system of international relations established after the Second World War.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction and Titles
0:42 The Foundations of International Relations
2:15 Russia and Ukraine's Sovereignty
3:32 Russia and Ukraine's Territorial Integrity
6:30 Russia and Ukraine's Political Independence
9:05 Why Russia's Actions are So Worrying
10:39 The Implications of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine
RELATED PLAYLISTS
Current Issues and Disputes • CURRENT ISSUES AND DIS...
International Relations, Independence and Secession • INTERNATIONAL RELATION...
Secession and Independence in the Post-Soviet Space • Ukraine-Belarus | The ...
===============
FURTHER READING & USEFUL SOURCES
Charter of the United Nations www.un.org/en/about-us/un-cha...
===============
MY BOOKS
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2MPY3W2 [PRE-ORDER]
The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2FaaBU2
Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans amzn.to/35jiBN2
The Foreign Policy of Counter-Secession amzn.to/2Qinm5t
My other books amzn.to/2MlP13u
===============
MY PROFILES & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
Twitter / jameskerlindsay
LinkedIn / james-ker-lindsay-b31b...
Academia.edu lse.academia.edu/JamesKerLindsay
Research Gate www.researchgate.net/profile/...
===============
EQUIPMENT& TOOL USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
Camera: Canon XA40 amzn.to/3CLinzy
Microphone: Røde VideoMic NTG amzn.to/2MAHBZj
Key Light: Elgato amzn.to/3D85kJx
Accent Lights: Aputure MC amzn.to/3kkoGSS
Teleprompter: Parrot 2 amzn.to/2VLcRsm
Tripod: Geekoto 79" Carbon Fibre amzn.to/2wWMNT1
Channel Analytics: TubeBuddy www.tubebuddy.com/JKL
Channel Graphics: motionvfx.sjv.io/NKB34O
===============
KEYWORDS
#Ukraine #Russia #InternationalRelations
#InternationalPolitics #CurrentAffairs
#Statehood #Independence #InternationalLaw
DISCLAIMER: Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

The conflict in Ukraine has attracted a lot of online 'whataboutery'. This is the tactic where someone responds to criticism of one situation by referring to another. It is a crude and unsophisticated form of debate. But sometimes one just has to confront it. This is the case with Russia and Ukraine. I have heard a lot of comparisons with Western invasions elsewhere, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. But just how much do these cases hold up? As ever, I would be keen to hear your thoughts and comments below.

[@User-he6zd]

Great video, just wanted to add in terms of international support we've seen massive sanctions upon Russia, India and China increasingly forced into a more awkward neutral position as Russia further escalates, as well as a massive amount of direct aid and arms supplied In addition to this, we've seen (assumed) significant live intelligence sharing, and transfer of aircraft-- very expensive materiel. This is definitely an unprecedented move, with NATO effectively committing to aid Ukraine in every way possible except attacking Russia themselves directly (The news about aircraft transfer has been up in the air for days and only confirmed minutes ago, though, so it's not like you made a mistake!) This helps send a stronger signal to countries that, like Russia, seek to use "escalate to de-escalate" tactics and military power to violate territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of other countries

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@User-he6zd Thanks. I think you’re right. I also think India and China are finding it increasingly uncomfortable. As they should. As I tried to explain, Russia has violated every single principle of modern international relations by its action in Ukraine.

[@User-he6zd]

@@JamesKerLindsay Yup! I genuinely wonder if, in the very worst case, Russia falls back to its usual doctrine of levelling cities with mass indiscriminate bombing of civilians and civilian infra, how China and India will react My hope is that they would move from less awkwardly neutral to more aggressively pushing for peace, calling for explicit de-escalation from Russia's side-- but they also have the clout and power to simply to nothing and toe the same line

[@mouniash]

Whataboutism is not meant to refute the central claim but to show hypocrisy and double standards. And it's valid as long as you're comparing similar things. In this case invasions. Yes Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong but the West has so much bloods on their hands with yes Yugoslavia, Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria if we just stick to recent years that they are in no position to take the moral high ground. Sorry your position is very west centric. I live in North Africa and my view is how most people here assess the situation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not worse than any other invasion no matter what specious arguments you can make. And if the West equals the world then yes Russia is a pariah. But the West isn't the world. Sure it's the most prosperous and powerful region /block but that still doesn't make the world nor the international community.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@mouniash OK. I made my point. It’s up to you whether you want to agree or disagree. But I would say that ignoring the across the board violations of international law by Russia because you dislike the West is extremely short sighted.

[@historywithhilbert146]

Excellent video and very well made points here. Will certainly be sharing!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Hello there Hilbert! Thanks so much. That’s incredibly kind. By the way, I’m a big fan of your channel. :-)

[@historywithhilbert146]

@@JamesKerLindsay The honour is mine in that case! Feel free to get in touch if ever you're wanting to collaborate on anything together in the future :)

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@historywithhilbert146 Will do. I’m sure there’s lots of ideas to talk about!

[@heatrayzvideo3007]

Hilbert! Love your channel.

[@PoliticswithPaint]

Very interesting video! I think most people somehow know that Russia's invasion is something we've not seen for quite a while in international politics but could not quite put in words why that is. Thanks for doing exactly that!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much PwP. I always value your thoughts. Really glad you thought it hit the right note.

[@FredoRockwell]

I totally agree with PwP. You clearly explained the issues in a way that I knew was necessary but couldn't do myself. Not nearly as well. Thank you!

[@ollifrank6255]

@Finite Automata This is Russia invading Ukraine. The US is miles away over the Atlantic and, yes, has invaded other countries and killed people. Does this give Russia the right to invade Ukraine. If your country has a big neighbor, does this give that big neighbor the right to invade your country?

[@ollifrank6255]

@Finite Automata what’s funny, lol? The US did not increase its security, nor is Russia currently increasing its security. Rather the opposite. Ukraine requested in 2008 to join NATO to increase its own security. NATO said no, but politely said maybe in the future. Had the Baltic countries not joined NATO, they would have been invaded long ago. Putin has an imperialistic mindset.

[@ollifrank6255]

@Finite Automata I am saying that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US. Yes , the US is in Poland and in other European countries, and we also know the history of WWII and later of the Cold War. What interest would the US have in invading Russia? But Putin has interest to invade Ukraine as a prosperous Ukraine would be a political threat to his throne

[@dasddasddasdable]

As a Western scholar, I appreciate that you also criticize Western actions at the end. The US has violated these rules, eroding their strength. But to try to justify Russia's actions on that is simply a whataboutism argument.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Yes, I don’t think the West has considered its own actions nearly enough. It has eroded key principles, even if it felt that it was doing it fur the right reasons. But this invasion crosses all sorts of boundaries - and certainly can’t be justified on the grounds of preventing human rights abuses, let alone trying to introduce democracy (as badly mismanaged as it was following Western invasions).

[@Travelvision2020]

Because whataboutism I s just a deflect the west are hypocrites

[@metaphysicalnaturalist988]

@@Travelvision2020 Whataboutism is hypocritical by definition

[@frankrenda2519]

its the wests fault end of story

[@monsieurmorin]

@@frankrenda2519 Wow what a compelling argument

[@marcusperkins553]

Thanks James, this is so helpful. Putting emotion aside (which is incredibly difficult at this time), I was struggling to comprehend the sheer significance of this event beyond the 'invasion' narrative. On a side note, the events in Ukraine may well be the catalyst for a global revolution in dealing with the often massive corruption that permeates through elites on all sides, as clearly exposed by this appalling war. Just as an example, how can it be that the son of a wealthy KGB agent is a Lord in our parliament and owns a huge house in the middle of a royal park? How much money is swilling around for that to happen? I'm even starting to wonder if Vladimir is paying Boris to make it as difficult as possible for Ukrainian refugees to enter the UK. It's almost as if nothing matters as long as elites and their friends are making obscene amounts of money.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much Marcus. And great points about various Russians oligarchs here in the U.K. Yet more questions that really need to be asked about this government’s behaviour!

[@rogerwilco2]

Both the UK and USA have an election system that is easy to corrupt in the Computer Age. First-past-the-post is easy to game. This attracts dishonest, amoral and immoral people even more than power and politics usually does. It allows small groups of wealthy people to have an enormous influence and easily polarize the media.

[@zen4men]

​@@JamesKerLindsay Scrub out 'this' government’s behaviour - ALL government’s behaviour. We all know the system is fundamentally corrupt, and that all law is hypocrisy, where the weak are forced into obedience, while the strong go through it with a coach and horses. Having exposed police trafficking boys to a duty solicitor for decades AFTER his arrest in a public loo with a 15 year old boy, and being run through a rigged court on a Public Order Act charge based on a conspiracy between the police and the solicitor, with complainant-witnesses supplied by the solicitor - and never subject to the slightest cross-examination due to the seizure of my self-defence - I know just HOW bent English government is. And this is my THIRD such experience. But I did personally convict a council solicitor under the Public Order Act, who spray painted in 4 attacks a sign I displayed accusing him of crimes, and inviting him to sue me 'to prove to the people you claim to serve that it is'nt true'. Clearly SOMEONE did not like me playing lawyer, convicting a local government employee covering up planning committee rigging, and planning minutes being falsified, in a plot to reverse a 16 to zero planning approval vote to a planning refusal decision. This is the quality of people running England nowadays!

[@King__Gammer]

I’ve been following the invasion closely, and I can’t believe I completely overlooked the wider impact of the invasion. I concur with the point if US, and EU had established a strong rule based international system, this crisis could have been avoided. As I’ve seen Russian government officials justify the invasion on the grounds, that USA also invaded Iraq. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

[@snewsom2997]

No but one wrong does set precedent.

[@nouveauprofil]

We can conceive WW3 as something entirely different and new. Something absolutely terrifying and never seen before. While WW1 and WW2 and past imperial wars pitted 2 big blocks... WW3 could take the form of multiple regional open conflicts being fought at the same time with little to no relation between them. All medium powers could decide that the big powers being busy with their own conflicts, now could be the time to settle their regional borders and problems once and for all. Is it too far fetched to imagine China blockading Taiwan, India taking over Sri Lanka or Jammu-Kashmir; Colombia and Venezuela, Egypt and Ethiopia, Algeria and Morocco and so many more using the Ukraine conflict "distraction" and complete paralysis-decay of international order to settle their quarrels violently once and for all while everybody else has more pressing matters to attend to? Especiall in the broader context of dwindling ressources and demographic timebombs...

[@King__Gammer]

@@snewsom2997 I agree.

[@rosameltrozo5889]

The west should have accepted Russia's backyard as theirs and the Ukrainian leadership should've been more pragmatic, then we wouldn't be in this situation

[@wli2718]

@@rosameltrozo5889 Last year China is looking to build a naval base in Equatorial Guinea (Africa), to which USA responded angrily, saying Africa is America's backyard and the Chinese should stay out. The distance from Equatorial Guinea to Washington DC is 9,600km. i wouldn't be surprised if the president of Equatorial Guinea is overthrown next year and the new pro-US regime bans the Chinese naval base.

[@HCUhardcoreUnited]

This is why like your content. You don't let emotion become part of telling the story. You tell like it is, from an educated, articulate and unadulterated viewpoint. Which is quite hard honestly.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I know that it can come across as cold, but sometimes it is important to look beyond the emotion of the situation and break it down. This is not to say for one moment that the suffering isn’t important. It is hugely important. But understanding the roots of that suffering is also crucial if the international community is to try to stop it from happening in future.

[@VladVexler]

James thank you for working! I really appreciate this. You accompanied me over a long cup of coffee.

[@dab4351]

Good video. Thanks for taking the time to reply in the comments, it helps to see responses to various criticisms.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I do try. It’s quite difficult given the numbers. And many times I have to repeat answers already given. But it is important to give it a go.

[@drinimene9126]

A perfect quote at the end. Very good job!

[@harrelsonyee4467]

Thank you Prof. for this video. I found your channel just recently and I'm really enjoying ur contents.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. And a very warm welcome to the channel!

[@JaumeSabater]

Nice, informative video, Professor. Whenever you see fit, I would love to hear your insightful point of view on the conflicts happening in Yemen, Syria and Palestina from the same point of view you used in this one (rules of international relations defined in the UN chart).

[@robrob9050]

Hahaha, he is bit silent on the question

[@riiitch]

Fantastic video as always James. Interesting to mention the confederation idea. The Russia Belarus Union State on paper looks barely in existence, yet no doubt behind the scenes Russia controls Belarus in many ways.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great point. The Union State is a strange beast. I did something on it a while back. It is interesting to consider where it stands now. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHLbY5SMq9yZbtk

[@riiitch]

@@JamesKerLindsay oh awesome I'll definitely check that out. It's certainly a fascinating set up. Looking forward to your next video!

[@BarnOwl61]

I honestly think Belarus is only a sovereign state in name, but completely onder direct and firm control of Russia. I personally think Ukraine will suffer the same faith as the former food provider for the Soviets. I so hope that all parties keep their cool and not drag us I to WW3. I also understand that the former Baltic states are getting very, very nervous about this Big Bulley behaviour Russia has showed us. It is sad to see Russia behave just like Adolf Hitler in 1939. Same excuse to invade another neighbouring sovereign state. The Russian government is no better than the Fascist regimes they hated so much.

[@seneca983]

@@riiitch But Belarus is not a Russian puppet. Lukashenko is able to play Putin. He promises union with Russia but never delivers (unless he can become the leader of Russia) and through it is able to get benefits like gas and oil at below market rates from Russia.

[@omarmohamed6701]

An indepth, informed analysis of fundamental areas of international relations. Enlightening. I learned a lot from this video and intend to listen to it several more times.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much Omar. I am really glad that you found it interesting. I hoped it would lead to a bit more discussion about the deeper significance of what is happening in Ukraine. This could really change the whole pattern of international relations.

[@anthonystewart677]

@@JamesKerLindsay Very interesting take on events and perceived wider implications relating to the current international order. With that being said, there is a major geographical difference between the actions of Russia and NATO, and that is, NATO via the international community or vice versa has largely embarked upon wars of projection to supposedly protect its interests or those of the dominant member states. It is the main reason for no apparent changing of borders after illegal interventions, although it could also be argued that all such actions across the middle east and especially within Syria are part of a wider plan seeking to develop a Greater Israel at some point in the future. By contrast, Russia and Ukraine are contiguous and both share a common history. As generally western powers have sought to strengthen the international order unnecessarily via ceaseless NATO expansion, Ukraine's present and some would say illegitimate regime has thought it prudent to place itself in the position of becoming a threat to Russia by way of courting international approval and seeking the possibility to have tactical nuclear weapons placed on its soil on behalf of the bloc as Romania was also previously looking to do. Thus an existential threat to the whole idea of Russia is looming despite reassurances from the protagonists and it is therefore not and should not be something that is ignored by Russia regardless of who is in power. Vladimir Putin has made it very clear in the past to those who seek a world without Russia as a major player that his opinion is that such a world should have no right to exist. As such, some people are playing a very devious and dangerous game at the moment and a lot of it is very underhanded and stemming from those who you appear to suggest are responsible for maintaining the peace since WW2. Given their dismissal of Russian concerns and constant arming of a sovereign neighbour composed of what should be classed as many terrorist elements that is still launching military attacks against Russian speakers in the East of the country despite the Minsk agreements and while painting Russia as an enemy, is it any wonder Russia has chose to nullify the threat before the undoubtedly corrupt Ukrainian government gained NATO admission which would mean that any future defensive action by Russia could be met with what would amount to a manufactured Article 5 response? The threat to Russia and its sovereignty has undoubtedly been far greater leading up to this action than any threat to any other nation or nations in recent years that led to acts of western aggression. Based on Ukraine's failure to simply be as a neutral state, we are now in a mess that could blow out of all proportion based on many people across the globe seriously lacking the ability to view things from the Russian perspective. The whole operation has been aimed at destroying military capability which lies in the hands of extremists, and anyone who stands or voices opinion against that is someone who endorses it when it suits them. Certainly some innocent lives will be lost and that is a tragedy, but it is nothing compared to what could happen if opinions and beliefs do not change very rapidly. At the end of the day it is not like any of those so-called leaders care about innocent lives, is it?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@anthonystewart677 Thanks. But I just don’t but into the whole ‘Russia was threatened by NATO and do is justified in attacking and occupying Ukraine’ story. NATO was never a threat to Russia. It is 30 sovereign states that are not going to agree to a war if aggression against a nuclear armed state. Besides, why is Russia allowed to extend its influence over Belarus and yet NATO can’t do the same with Ukraine. Indeed, NATO has never demanded that Russia stay away from Belarus or else it will attack. Moscow does not get to treat other countries like its vassals and attack them when they don’t comply. It is utterly unforgivable and there is no reasonable justification for this war. Let’s stop pretending that there is.

[@anthonystewart677]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the reply. We shall have to disagree, I'm afraid. The whole purpose of NATO was to counteract the threat of the former Soviet Union and since the fall of it NATO has aggressively expanded, when in reality it should have been disbanded. Therefore, the threat I would say is real, and I am sure many Russians would feel the same way. Recent studies by the likes of the Rand corporation looking at the best options to destabilize Russia are not imaginary, whereas the placing of Tomahawks or their silos on NATO soil in the likes of Romania supposedly to counteract threats from ISIS are not genuine. Russia is and has been being encircled on its western borders for quite some time and has been voicing concern about it for many years. With regards to Russia extending its influence over the likes of Belarus; once again, they are adjoining and share common ancestry/history. To claim that it is a wrong for Russia to have influence there is akin to claiming London should have no rights or influence over Scotland or Wales at all. Why should NATO exert control over Ukraine? The only reason they are able to do so and have looked to take full advantage of the fact is due to the CIA sponsored coup. It is antagonistic expansion of the bloc and is tantamount to implicit changing of borders without direct conflict. I would like to agree with you on the point that 30 sovereign states are never going to agree to wage a war of aggression against Russia and do so to an extent but, that would only be insofar as them being aware of the Nuclear capability you mention. If Russia never had that as a deterrent, then I am sure its resources would be viewed as legitimate objectives by any means by some of those members involved by way of spewing out their undoubted hypocrisy. I would like to have thought none of those countries would have agreed to attack the state of Syria while besmirching its leader as a vile and evil tyrant as he sought to fight his country out of constant terrorist attack from people we were supposedly fighting against and based on demonstrably false accusations of chemical weapons attacks. Sadly, they all did it with impunity. I feel it is very rare for a war to be justified but on this occasion I would say it is, as I fear the consequences if it hadn't occurred would be far worse down the line. I am still not fully convinced this will not be the case based on current insulated and westernized views of Russia. Then we would all have to ask ourselves the question: was it worth all of us dying and humanity being erased for American subversion techniques in a former soviet union member that has its militarily predominantly consisting of far-right ultras and other assorted fascists while pretending they are the epitome of democracy? I think not.

[@kugul1683]

Thanks for the video! This indirectly has to do with the conflict, of a do you think that a possible annexation of Moldova in Romania can become a possibility because of the threat Russia could pose with Moldova outside of Nato and the EU?

[@xberman]

Thank you again for providing such great content

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. Always appreciated.

[@carolynt5445]

Whoa, a Tuesday video! But yeah, you hit the nail on the head with the idea of a sovereign polity (sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence), and the progression from Moscow's side is just too wonky to accept as "understandable" in the least. Nothing more to say on that. Hope you're staying safe and healthy, and sending best wishes to all from the US! ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm opposed to the Russian choice to invade Ukraine, and am in no way justifying and feigning ignorance to other invasions by NATO members. Don't worry, I hate everyone equally lol.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Carolyn. I know. It was a bit of an oddity. But I really wanted to say this. I also want to tackle some other subjects in my regular Friday videos. (This Friday will be completely different.) All good at this end. I hope all is well with you!

[@violetsrayreikishop2]

@@andrewzhou4228 stop trolling

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

Dear Professor, I'm genuinely glad that you share your knowledge with us, so that a history-geopolitis enthusiast like me can learn from a top notch source. The only thing that worries me that Putin is not going to back off, because if he does so his political life or even his own life will end and all his dreams will come crashing down. If he does not back down, the excessively harsh sanctions might force him to utilize nuclear threat to confront the sanctioning countrie, and WWIII becomes a reality. All the world, including Putin and his enemies are now stuck between a rock and a hard place

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I’m really glad you found it interesting. I agree. We are at an extremely dangerous moment in international relations. I still like to believe that everyone will keep calm. But we do need to think about how we understand the rules of the system in future. I think we need a reset. But I really don’t know how we do it.

[@peterfireflylund]

Putin may not have a choice but his underlings do. We should do everything we can to make their choice easy.

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

@@peterfireflylund you are probably from a democratic western country. You don't know how the things work in dictatorships. If the dictator falls, all his friends and subordinates will fall too. They will never destroy the head of a system that made them who they are

[@fearlessgeneral120]

@@JamesKerLindsay A Reset? Like build back better and the great reset?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@fearlessgeneral120 No. not really. I’m using the term reset to denote an attempt to return to the original understanding of principles. That’s all. I’m not comparing it to any specific ‘resets’ of the past.

[@brianfoley4328]

Outstanding synopsis and analysis, Thank You.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much!

[@realhawaii5o]

Professor, what is your perspective regarding the possibility of Russian invasion of Moldova?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much for raising this. I might try and tackle this in the next few weeks.

[@thirtysixnanoseconds1086]

thoughts on UN refering to the war as a "special operation"

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I cover this in the video. It’s merely a euphemism for invasion. Any unwanted military violation of another country’s sovereignty is, by definition, and invasion.

[@thirtysixnanoseconds1086]

@@JamesKerLindsay frustrating Russia is able to exert this control at an international level

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@thirtysixnanoseconds1086 Yes. It really does raise questions about the UN. But on balance I do believe that the UN is an instituting worth protecting. This is why this action must be widely condemned and why countries like India (especially given its history of non-alignment) and China should get off the fence.

[@samirmonako1527]

@@JamesKerLindsay i really heat the NATO look what they have done to libya, I'm from North Africa this is so close to me if the NATO have done this to my neighbour so they can do it to my country, SO no the NATO is not important at all and it should not exist, you saying this because you are eurpian u don't care about democracy at all .

[@leorkoubi4626]

@@samirmonako1527 We are talking about the UN not NATO.

[@ourcollectivewisdom8769]

This was an excellent breakdown of why this invasion is different in many ways. Thanks for the clear and concise explanation!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much.

[@slimjimvortivask7350]

Spectacular work prof. The continuing war saddens mr greatly

[@lvoldum]

I was waiting for this video - thanks for once again making me wiser 👍

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Dano! How are you doing? It’s been a while. I hope all is well with you.

[@lvoldum]

@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, thanks, I’m very well. Have just been too busy lately (so many videos to see, so little time). You look well, so I assume you are 👍

[@user-en7ir2jp8y]

Thank you for this excellent analysis professor! One argument that I would like to point out that, in the case of Yugoslavia, a regime change was not formally proposed but was, indeed, carried out in 2000., with a pro-western government taking power. The same status applies today, where western ambassadors are still the shadow governors and have an absolute control of politics and policies. The necessity of changing the Milosevic government was best felt by the Serbian people and was reflected heavily on our living standards but now, 20 years on, the majority of people feel betrayed and wary of the west's further promises of good intentions.

[@robrob9050]

I agree with you. When you read that UK ambassador is going directly to government meeting bypassing Ministry of Foreign affairs with own requests, so you know it is vassal state. Since they know that they can be overthrown in 10 days with 10 million EUR ( widespread unpopularity, African level of corruption, criminality) they carry on whatever is asked for them by colonial rulers. If they do not listen soon will be released from mystical sources mp3 recordings with juicy conversations to few selected media (like in Northern Macedonia and Gruev affair ) and shit will hit the fan. They know that very well and listen and do what is required of them. So it is win win for both sides. Puppet state doing required job, interests of involved served. Gringos do not care what you feel about these political geniuses you see on your shitty state TV or do you have something to eat or not. They are more intelligent then Slobo babe, but they will ultimatively fail too, since you can falsify everything but not economy. It is going to be very interesting day for them anyway.

[@user-en7ir2jp8y]

@@robrob9050 You are so correct, my man!

[@robrob9050]

@@user-en7ir2jp8y I hate to be correct in this case, but sadly it is that way

[@raulepure9840]

I think serbs elected the "pro-western" government and after they elected others less prowestern, maybe this is democracy and hasless to do with forced government changing by external forces. Regarding the betray feeling, there is no reason for this, UE is not a charity fundation. Before feeling betrayed by any in this world you need to choose, i know it is a hard choice to do but you have do do it one way or another. You will find many to cry and console you about your misfortunes but is just a waste of time, be realist.

[@dr.fawzikatranji4908]

Well done… I learned a lot. I think your last 3 minutes resonates most with me… rules have been bent for so long. Eventually it would be broken. My heart breaks for all the refugees who have to suffer through this.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I think it was really important to try to set out the points.

[@miloradsrdic9418]

2007 Putin gave a speech in Munich where he asks for a new set of rules and but no one listened and US carried on ruling alone. And now we have no rules, and who's to blame?

[@GuzziHeroV50]

On day 1 of this terrible invasion, I said "Russia may not be following America / UK's lead when it comes to invasions, but the pair's actions effectively wrote Russia a permission slip". Putin has seen certain other countries do whatever they like without repercussion, and figured he could do the same.

[@cuttysark57]

I found your framing in terms of the trifecta of violations to be helpful. Nevertheless, Mearsheimer, and others will point to the relatively greater significance of Ukraine to Russia because it couldn't be any deeper inside its geopolitical sphere of influence. I think they make a powerful case that the "West" was extremely provocative in the decades leading up to the invasion. I appreciate "spheres of influence" may not have any legal basis, but as Chas Freeman has written about recently they are nevertheless indispensable in understanding the world. I think this is important because it changes how we think about the significance of the invasion itself (leaving aside potential escalation and other knock on effects).

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. But I guess my response would be that this rather overlooks the fact that Russia is an aggressively imperialist power in its own right. It is tempting to look at it and think that it is the aggrieved party. It isn’t. It is a state built on colonialism, like so many other European powers. But unlike the other European colonial powers, it has never really had to contend with decolonisation. And where examples exist of countries having broken away from Russian control with collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen continuous attempts by Moscow to thwart that independence and deny them their agency. If Russia really offered them something, then they would perfectly at liberty to engage with Russia. NATO doesn’t force anyone to join. But Russia doesn’t offer them anything. So, I’m far less inclined to accept the Russia was provoked line than some observers. And I certainly don’t think that Ukraine and others should be subjected to a de facto Russian veto on their sovereignty because Putin couldn’t deal with the collapse of the USSR and that the Russia that emerged offered nothing but threats and cheap energy to keep the former republics in its geopolitical orbit.

[@cuttysark57]

@@JamesKerLindsay I think Mearsheimer et al agree that the invasion is unjustified, criminal aggression. Walt emphasized this at a number of points in the Munk Debate. However, provocation is another matter. They argue the Russians were provoked over decades, and that senior people in various US administrations understood that this is what US policy was doing. They point to US analysis that the de-facto incorporation of Ukraine into Nato would be the "brightest of red lines" in the Kremlin, whoever was running the country. They argue the US, by cavalierly disregarding geopolitical red lines -- in effect treating Russia as a defeated power -- was relentlessly driving the world into this avoidable tragedy (which they argue could have been avoided had Ukraine been made into a buffer state, militarily neutral). Anyway, the point I was making above was that this realist analysis is surely relevant to the question you were addressing in your video about the significance of the invasion. Had Russia invaded Japan, say, the significance and shock would be far greater. But not for any legal reason (legally the crimes would be equivalent), but for realist reasons of spheres of influence -- Japan being since WWII in the US sphere. As criminal and horrific as the Ukraine invasion is, it is a great power asserting its dominance over its sphere of influence which it sees as being under threat from the encroachment of another great power. Whereas an invasion of Japan would look much more like an offensive move. To put it another way, from the Kremlin's point of view, Ukraine is a domino one step removed from Russia itself. In the Q&A session 2 weeks ago with Mearsheimer in Florence, Mearsheimer said the Kremlin lives in mortal terror of a Colour Revolution in Moscow itself. In effect they see Ukraine like the US saw Indochina during the Vietnam War, as a domino which could lead to the loss of Japan. Except this is far closer to Moscow, and a much more acute concern, than Vietnam was to Washington. Bringing up these parallels is not to play whataboutery to justify anything, but rather to highlight the contours of power, and the nature of conflict in international relations -- because it shows what no purely legal analysis can reveal, which is the recklessness of US policy towards Russia over the last 20 years. And I think this casts light on the significance of the invasion, and how we should think about it in the wider contexts. I certainly hope for a day when, maybe under federal world government, there is justice and peace. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is abhorrent, and I hope an antiwar movement can prevail in Russia (as it ultimately did in the US to end the Vietnam War). But the world today is run by rival mafia gangs where a fragile peace can only be maintained by either one dominant superpower or though some tense multipolar balance. In prevailing legal theory (pax-Americana it should be noted!), Ukraine is free to join Nato. But in the real world, the most powerful mafia gang has roamed deep into a rival's territory and is behaving extremely provocatively. Both gangs have large nuclear arsenals, and both would ultimately fight to the death, and have come within a hair's breadth of destroying themselves on a few occasions in the past.

[@christopherhenderson6232]

@@cuttysark57 this is a well-thought-out and well-expressed perspective, and I thank you for sharing it. Complicating the picture is the presence of newly found resources in eastern Ukraine- coal and iron reserves. ("spoils of war?") In an important sense, I feel the quest for who caused what is interesting, but not relevant (even peace terms will be based on who now occupies what). Mearscheimer's view is not satisfactory because it disregards the agency of all involved parties- especially the Ukrainians. Ukrainians wanted to be in the EU because they didn't want to join a defunct, back-water and impoverished Russian-dominated confederation (like Belorus has). They feared Russia (like Sweden and Finland do) and therefore sought out the protection of Nato- and this was encouraged by the West- who, cynically, had no desire to directly intervene if it all blew up. But there were factors other than sphere of influence viewpoint- the fact that Putin and many Russians (including the Orthodox Church) do not see Ukrainians as a separate, well-defined, self-determining people, but rather as an entities that need to be folded into Russia World (the old imperial Russia). Now, though, it's all academic and war crimes are occurring in real-time (including the deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia) . Definitely Ukraine, and also definitely Russia, will wind up in worse shape than before the war started- and maybe also Poland, the Balts, and many other places in the global South- and maybe even the US. It was a tragic series of mistakes with consequences that are still unfolding- I think that Ukraine was doomed by the desire of Ukrainians to become a normal , open, prosperous European state, not corruption-ridden like Russia, not wanting to live in perpetual fear of Russia- now there are war crimes, and ruined cities, fear and misery, (as you point out) and starving people in the developing world.

[@EdMcF1]

The Ukraine was a UN member before Russia, which only joined the UN on inheriting the USSR's seat. The Russian invasion differs from Afghanistan and Iraq in that it is combined with an assault on the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Very true. I have actually made a video on their membership of the UN in 1945 kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGG1qIqQjcqVY5I And you are right about the key differences, as I make clear in the video.

[@NikolaHD]

Does that make US interventions legal and justified?

[@monsieurmorin]

The Afghanistan intervention was legal. The Iraq one was not. The professor will tell you as much.

[@ruslan-pe3wx]

@@monsieurmorin How Afghanistan invasion is legal when Taliban declared that it has nothing to do with 9/11, which turned out to be truth.

[@ishxyzaak]

Wait what? You completely missed the point of the argument. The argument is that civilians are k!lled unjustly by an organized military. In any case, doesn't america put in place their own puppets when they go to these countries? How is that any different from what's happening now?

[@anthonyrancourt2131]

Great content. Thank you!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed.

[@MrRocksW]

Really enjoyed this video, great summary

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much.

[@agnivnandi5538]

This is the finest and most neutral analysis of the war so far I've seen. Totally changed my view tbh

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed. I am really glad you found it useful.

[@Dogsnark]

Excellent analysis of the Russian invasion. The all but universal condemnation of Russia’s actions suggest the many recognize that this action is, at its root, different from other recent armed conflicts, and that it is wrong in every way, even without knowing exactly how. Professor Ker-Lindsay has succinctly and understandably described exactly how Russia’s action is wrong.

[@felixcat9318]

Superb analysis and presentation, subscribed.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed. A very warm welcome!

[@peterhumphrys]

well summarized, thank you

[@30secondsflat]

Thank you for breaking down not only the political dimensions of this conflict, but the moral ones as well. This is a ugly precedent that the world will have to come to terms with for years to come.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I hope that in some way it contributed to the debate about the conflict.

[@kgroovr]

And Iraq was not an ugly precedent? They admitted the evidence was fabricated. Why are the US military still there?

[@kgroovr]

@@JamesKerLindsay Your opinion is obviously worthless or paid for.

[@talltroll7092]

@@kgroovr Nothing that happened in Iraq justifies a Russian invasion of Ukraine. By that logic, use of chemical warfare in Syria justifies a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia by NATO, because WMDs are OK now

[@kgroovr]

@@talltroll7092 Compare the civilian death toll from "Iraqi freedom" to this invasion and get back to me. If you want to start an all out nuclear exchange because of unsubstantiated CW claims, go ahead. But first realise that US propaganda is more effective and ubiquitous than Russian or Syrian.

[@dragisaobrenic1201]

Putin's rhetoric aside, we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be. Anyway, unilateral actions against any country is the primary violation of international law. The other two are relevant yes. But the damage is done. And in the majority cases things are never the same. Friendly governments are installed and so on. Others are made economically dependent. How sovereign are they. Does territorial integrity mean anything if you have no sovereignty. We shouldn't make excuses for any power professor.

[@georgedevries3992]

"we still don't know what the end result in Ukraine is going to be." Well Zelensky said recently he is willing to discuss the matter of Donbas and Crimea with the Northern dictator. As well as that he will not join Nato anymore because they failed him.

[@dragisaobrenic1201]

@@georgedevries3992 My main pushback to what the professor was saying is that there really is no difference between what Russia is doing now to what the US and allies did in the past. Both are and did leave death and devastation behind. I thought the professor was doing gymnastics in trying to white wash the US incursions.

[@kokica007]

@@dragisaobrenic1201 my thoughts exactly

[@ibrahimn22]

Yeh alot of gymnastics No mention of Palestinian

[@xsu-is7vq]

@@kokica007 i think he’s just trying to avoid getting called a Putin supporter since that’s what you’ll get labeled if you say anything about possible role of US/NATO in precipitate this war.

[@nabilalhami1681]

Now that you have uploaded a video on Tuesday, will there be a video on Friday (the usual schedule)?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Yes. I wanted to do this now as I wanted to look at a completely different topic on Friday. Really, it couldn't be more different.

[@sergiip619]

Thank you for raising awareness of this issue

[@youriefavre9003]

I have been following this crisis from day one and now I realise that I have completely overlooked this from a wider perspective. I appreciate your efforts in making the situation clearer for us.

[@sirierieott5882]

Clear, concise and an excellent brief on why Russia's aggressive invasion and war with Ukraine is vitally important for the risk it brings of international peace and security.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed!

[@racso932]

Well put James. Very good video.

[@Asamations]

Really enjoyed your video James! It's sad that other people attempt to justify illegal acts by pointing at other illegal acts. Two wrongs, don't make a right! Also I wasn't expecting you to post yesterday so I wonder if you will post Friday as well? Good luck with the trolls and bots btw :) My own Ukraine video is about to come out, and although I tried my best to represent both sides, I have started to receive these annoying comments on my own channel.

[@dainomite]

Thank you for the deep dive looking at the legality of sovereignty and territorial integrity as it relates to the current Russo-Ukrainian War. I thoroughly love your content James and the approach you take to present it!

[@anirudhparthasarathy3387]

A very necessary video at this time when all I see is so much misinformation, false equivalence and mindless whataboutery. As you pointed out in the end, other invasions that are cited could be condemned, but this ought to be opposed.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much Anirudh. I thought long and hard about this one. I wanted to get the tone right. Not easy. But hopefully I got the point across.

[@christhomson8924]

what about the occupation of palestine?

[@tanker00v25]

@@christhomson8924 trolling or serious?

[@jamesbond4810]

@@tanker00v25 Most those who are concerned about that place are chasing clout/trolling.

[@tanker00v25]

@@jamesbond4810 I know, just not sure in thus scenario

[@Humungojerry]

it’s very useful to hear it explained clearly from an academic perspective, ie the principles of international relations (sovereignty etc) and how they have been violated in previous wars - taking away the moral debates around particular examples, it informs how countries view the rules and how they behave - both in terms of considering breaking the rules but also how they act defensively if they expect others to break them. confusion on this is at the root of a lot of arguments about western interventions i think

[@lachlanbell8390]

"There are some ideas so absurd, only an intellectual could believe them" -- George Orwell This "academic perspective" is a prime example of that Orwell quote. It's also a load of bollocks. These are the words of someone who's spent their entire adult life dealing in abstractions, without any connection to the real-world, practical reality of such ideas. The reality is, there's nothing "unprecedented" about this particular conflict - other than the fact it's the first time since the end of WW2 that any other country has had the courage to stand up to the US, and take a firm stand that there's not one set of rules for America, and another set of rules for everyone else. This guy unironically said that the US had a legitimate basis for invading Afghanistan - WUT??? Absolute rubbish. He also creates this artificial distinction between the plethora of examples of the US violating these principles, and this one, singular example of Russia violating these principles, purely because Russia is (purportedly) violating 3 principles at once, while the dozens of instances of US violations only violated 2 principles concurrently at a given moment in time. So it's OK for the US to violate multiple principles multiple times every decade since the 1950's, but one instance of Russia doing the same thing is somehow an unprecedented crime that tears all international law to shreds? GTFOH. The fact is, Russia has infinitely better grounds for this incursion than the US has had for ANY of its DOZENS of incursions within recent decades. All the flimsy pretexts America gave for invading foreign nations (which were transparently lies to anyone who's not easily duped by obvious propaganda) are CLEARLY present in Ukraine - except they're actually real in Ukraine, not fabricated like they were for all the USA's military adventures. If these have been deemed sufficient grounds for invasion by the US, then they are sufficient grounds for invasion by Russia. If they are NOT sufficient grounds for invasion by Russia, then they were never sufficient grounds for America. The entire basis for laws is that they apply to everyone equally - nobody is above the law. Either these actions are legally justified - in which case Russia is justified - or these actions are not legally justified - in which case America is guilty of numerous crimes, and has yet to be held accountable for a single violation among dozens & dozens. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and America doesn't get to unilaterally grant itself exemption from any & all legal culpability. This pointdexter is wringing his hands over the idea that Russia might be creating a new international order of "might makes right" when in reality we've been living under a "might makes right" international order for 70-odd years already.

[@Humungojerry]

@@lachlanbell8390 he didn’t say the US had a legitimate basis. he was making the point that regardless of the merits of their claim to have a legitimate basis, it sets a bad precedent. it’s mildly critical of the US if anything. the academic perspective isn’t the only relevant perspective, not by a long shot, but it’s useful to think of the principles in abstract, dispassionately, so that we understand what they are for. furthermore the US may have been bent on regime change (a folly in most cases) but it wasn’t intending to seize territory, that’s the big difference with russia. you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the point.

[@INeedJesus4sure]

Very good analysis, thank you

[@TheLocalLt]

Thank you professor for doing another video on this morbid topic, it’s terrible to see so many people killed, soldiers and civilians To add to your points about Russia wanting to eliminate Ukraine’s political sovereignty, Putin talked in his initial Monday morning speech that recognized the Donbas republics about the idea that Ukraine was created by “Bolshevik Communist Russia” and that it was (at least after the annexation of the Zaparozhian Cossack vassal state in the mid-1700s) previously until 1917 just an unofficial region of the Russian Empire comprising several different governorates, blaming Soviet Russia for “creating” the borders of the Ukraine SSR and thus the State of Ukraine, with Putin going so far in the speech as to refer to Ukraine as “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine”. This clearly-stated belief of Putin’s was then furthered by the map accompanying Alexander Lukashenko the other day, depicting Ukraine exactly as idealized by Putin in his speech: as several Russian governorates. However it’s beginning to look like that may not happen, Russia is advancing ever so slowly but they are in trouble. If they turn up the heat to Syria-mode then wheat are they left with if they win? A bombed out wasteland with a population that hates them and is going to be constantly fighting them in the rubble-filled streets, all while sanctioned by the entire world except Communist China, who may also be sanctioned for their would-be support? And they certainly can’t contemplate defeat, as that would mean the end of Putin, and all that would follow, but from Putin’s perspective it would mean the end of everything, so defeat is not an option. However it is possible that Russia’s oligarchs see how much of a Pyrrhic victory it would be, and force Putin out before he is either defeated or victorious, resetting the previous status quo under a new leader in Putin’s circle. In relation to how we got here, there are a lot of events that have caused this, but mostly I think this was inevitable. The biggest factor is simply Vladimir Putin and his life experiences, after watching the Soviet Union collapse and, more importantly in his mind, the territories of the former Russian Empire slip away even as Russia finally shed Communism, he has set himself on a Hitlerian mission, a Napoleonic mission, and he always has been. He built off of the Russian-backed puppet states created in 1992 and invaded Georgia in 2008, made Belarus’ own strongman, who once had his eye on ruling Russia, into a puppet, created more new puppets in Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The reality is that only the plane shootdown and subsequent Russian denials of involvement and “freezing” (while thousands were still being kille) of the frontlines in the Donbas War stopped Russia from annexing or creating puppet states across all of southeastern Ukraine in 2014. All that said I think he has miscalculated. Putin probably could have had much of Ukraine via that same piecemeal fashion, never escalating enough to set off a total firestorm. The total invasion is totally unexpected by almost everyone, seems reckless, and now that the more “civilian-friendly” tactic of not carpet-bombing cities seems to not be working, and as Putin gets weaker by the day, the options for Putin are narrowing to a choice between bad (takes over Ukraine, but international pariah and has to expend huge financial and military costs to quell incessant rebellion and also rebuild for their own use of the country) and worse (Ukraine wins victories significant enough to either trigger either an overthrow from Putin’s inner circle, or the total collapse of the regime). Prayers for the civilians involved.

[@chito1irigo]

Very enlightening on what the Russian action on Ukraine imply. But I hope you can do a similar, in-depth, intelligent, "detached" analysis on why Russia did what it did. Pls give us the entire picture not only starting from Feb. 24, 2022 but eight years before that. Pls provide us with your analyses particularly on what agreements were made and who violated such agreements so that we can have a better if not more objective picture of the conflict. I hope you're not one of those who claim that Putin is a crazy, megalomanic, power-hungry imperialist. Thank you.

[@alexandro_lux]

I doubt he will. People are much more fixated on the end result (the actual invasion of Ukraine) rather than what led to it.

[@livinthefilm]

Thank you very much.

[@domc1364]

great video, will there still be one on friday?

[@r2sav175]

I feel like Taiwan, Finland, Sweden & Moldova (via Transnistria) are possibly next to face aggression - and in the long term, a geopolitical fight for Sri Lanka by superpowers, this is just the start of a Cold War 2.0. Just like NATO & Russia, the label “special operation” / “humanitarian mission” has been exploited by Sri Lanka at the peak of the genocide in 2009

[@Cptnbond]

Sweden and Finland are members of the EU and according to the Mutual defense clause (Article 42.7 TEU), which say: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, following Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Thus, not as vulnerable as you may first think. Secondly, there is a solid bond to the UK and regular military cooperation between Finland and Sweden, and a trilateral agreement with the USA. You will likely see "harassments" via cyber-attacks and other provocations.

[@tanker00v25]

@@Cptnbond and a third point is that Finnish armed forces would definitely kick russian ass

[@Cptnbond]

@@tanker00v25 I agree 100%.

[@tanker00v25]

@otto Lincoln they are even stronger yes

[@VladTevez]

11:32 kudos!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. It is important to state. It is also worth remembering that a lot of Western countries opposed the invasion of Iraq on these grounds. Saddam Hussein was a horror, but by engaging in regime change we were opening the way for others to follow. The problem is that the US was at the height of its power at the time. It just didn’t think of a world where others would claim the same rights to act.

[@VladTevez]

@@JamesKerLindsay Another fundamental difference is that the western governments were critisized by their oppositions and their citizens for those actions. In Russia we would be in jail

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@VladTevez Great point!

[@SithStayer97]

great subsumaition of this case of conflict under international law, fantastic accentuation of the fatality of this war, as a breach of one of the core ideals of the international order

[@rictechow231]

A very good espousal ... thank you

[@rafaeterna1081]

Legitimately curiosity here : isnt israel palestine conflict check all those three? Whichever side you're on you can argue the other party violated all thre

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. You are absolutely right. Both sides have indeed violated - or attempted to violate - all three. I think the key difference is that they aren’t P5 powers and haven’t attempted to violate the rules with the threat of nuclear retaliation. (Israel has nuclear weapons, but hasn’t threatened to use it to support an offensive action, as a Russia has in Ukraine.) But you are right, Israel-Palestine has seen these rules violated as well.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@deshaun9473 We need to be clear and precise. The State of Palestine has been admitted as an observer by the UN. When the UN assessed its bid for membership, it found that it met the criteria for Statehood. The application was only rejected by the United States. For the majority of the world, Palestine is a state. The United States and Israel may disagree. But many others see it differently. And the way that sovereignty and Statehood works is that a country is a country if a country recognises it as such. In other words, whether Palestine is a state is based on where you live.

[@Michael-yf1wo]

As far as I am aware, this is the first time opposition to the indefensible Russian invasion that involves a substantial economic responses on the part of nations, international organizations, and corporations, now including McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo. Your video got me reflecting that McDonalds statement is interesting as it cites "our [corporate or "System"] values mean that we cannot ignore..." - but this is not an affirmation of the three core principles of the international system you discuss. Perhaps the international system is a multi-polar environment that includes the foundational international principles you discuss, but also international corporations, and the 'might makes right' assertions of those in the nuclear / WMD club. I worry that Putin might be inclined to use the tactical nuclear ace up his sleeve and I don't think much effort will be made to justify it in the court of international diplomacy. 'Might makes right' must be a consideration in responding to this illegal and unjustifiable invasion.

[@RomiW]

… very well said! Thanks😄

[@user-vd4kg1xz9r]

Good insight. 😎👍

[@derekgreen7319]

While I agree with many of your points. But when the USSR collapsed it little choice but to do whatever the victor of the cold war wanted. When you've been beaten into the ground. Claiming that it's your ground that you bled on does little good.

[@nemokenash]

Ok i'm on 5:32, you are talking how there is no country that benefits from Kosovo independece, how about US with biggest military base in Balkan region on Kosovo? I'm now on 9:40, if the West is finances the protests and forcing propaganda to take down the goverment, like in Yugoslavia, does that mean interfering in the politics of another country? In Serbia, that time Yugoslavia, civilians also got killed when Nato drop bombs.(Nato - an alliance that only defends its own members) Which Nato country they defended? The only reason why there was far less civilian casualties than in Ukraine is because Serbian soldiers didn't hide themself behind residential buildings and when Serbian army was defeated Serbia surrendered, there was no need that civilians die even more. You know that Ukranian government does not allow men to leave the city, even when they do not want to fight, and a large percentage of Kiev residents declare themselves as Russians. But anyway there was a civilian casualties in Yugoslavia, breaking international laws and I did not see Nato or Us in Hag court. It's double standards. The Russia have all rights when they say "We don't want Nato on our doorstep". I feel sorry for Ukranian people, they fell for Western empty promises, and the West is now in the first row, watching and listening how Zelensky begs for help, and doing nothing to help Ukraine and doing everything to reduce the growth of Russia's and China's economy. It's just what's in their interests, no hard feelings( famous Us saying).

[@vladimirukropina4337]

Svaka čast,a mogao si da pomenes i još otimačinu resursa,infrastrukture od strane američkih kompanija

[@floppa6042]

odlicno si opisao...nadam se da ce ovaj prof. dati komentar, mada..eh brate

[@somefatbugger]

Thank you

[@technologyandsociety21C]

Nice job!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you!

[@Boge_Ludi]

I would say that this video is a great counter to whataboutism, if people would listen and comprehend the valid points you are making. Academic discourse often provokes agitation due to its perceived detached "coldness". People's emotions are a key aspect of decision making. Many "average people" feel that academics don't care about them and ignore their plight. I'm speaking from personal observation. Sometimes people can't articulate any immediate reasons, they just feel wronged, or if someone shifts topics - they feel ignored. I would personally use your argument in the future to give "whataboutists" a concise and solid response, which takes their specific view into account. Thank you!

[@metaphysicalnaturalist988]

Whataboutism is hypocritical by definition. It defeats itself in the moral argument. It has no standing in common law. If you are tried for murder, the point when you start using the defence that the guy in the next courtroom also murdered someone is the exact moment when educated people stop taking you seriously. You're done. It's over

[@bigbeautifulape5283]

I think this is the first video I've watched where I feel have very differing thoughts, though I don't think you made a weak case, I just think I come at it from a different point of view. 1. While I agree that Russia is breaking the rules of an established international order, I don't think that's surprising. I suspect that as the West weakens we'll see more countries doing so as they feel there that for the first time there is an alternative to survival that doesn't necessitate either working with or being subservient to the US. It doesn't seem strange to me that many countries like Russia or China did not seek to impose their will when they were weak and reeling but would do so when they feel they're strong enough or that it's their last chance to do so. As we shift towards a multi-polar world, I expect we're going to see a lot more countries falling out of step with US and the global order it held together over the last few decades. For now it can still attempt to keep allies and poorer countries in lockstep, and maybe it will work (we'll see what happens to Russia), but if it doesn't then it has to be accepted and a new international order must be reached that still retains the same concerns over human rights first and foremost. 2. While I don't think the theoretical perspectives are irrelevant or have no basis in the real world, I just think numbers and real life on the ground are ultimately going to matter more to me than anything else. This invasion has displaced millions already, but thankfully the number of dead as far as civilians go is still in the low hundreds-thousands and hopefully it won't go any higher. If Putin ends up taking Ukraine with only 10.000 civilians killed, it would be extremely difficult for me to pretend even for a second that this is anywhere at Iraq levels where even the US government estimates there have been hundreds of thousands killed, and some human rights organizations suggest the real number might be up in the millions. Just like I don't really care about a country having rights in its legal code if they're never respected, it would be impossible for me to condemn this invasion as worse than Iraq or other American interventions abroad if the number of dead is ultimately so much lower and most of the infrastructure remains intact. Of course, it's possible this changes even tomorrow and Putin begins carpet-bombing the whole country into rubble and we end up seeing of the greatest losses of human life in history. But so far, it hasn't happened, and I hope that Russia's fear of any real retaliation from the West will keep it from ever happening. At the end of the day what I'm always going to give primacy to is the lives of ordinary people as they are and not as they might reflect upon other matters when viewed through the kaleidoscope of some theoretical framework. I don't think that one Ukrainian dead equals 10 Iraqis killed because it's more destabilizing to the international order, the same way I don't think a country with technical rights is civilized compared to one that lacks them if they both ultimately behave in the same way towards their citizenry.

[@merryn9000]

Very thoughtful response! I think this is an interesting area to dig into

[@wakatene75]

I couldn't agree more. As much as I respect the professors take on international relations (avid subscriber here!) I dont think it really matters if you break one, two or all three of the rules, either way its destabilising and corrosive to the international order. Perceived exceptionalism and security concerns will always challenge convention. Legitimacy is built on human rights, not on how many rules you didn't break.

[@merryn9000]

I guess a counter argument might be that Putin's actions set a precedent for future actions that result in even more loss of life than that seen in Yemen, Iraq etc..

[@lhaviland8602]

"This invasion has displaced millions already, but thankfully the number of dead as far as civilians go is still in the low hundreds-thousands and hopefully it won't go any higher." They haven't even started the sieges yet my dude.

[@igor7195]

Appreciate that you mentioned other similar actions,video and presentation are non biased and accurate. I personally agree with 98% of what you presented in video except for end-every of those actions mentioned should have been, and should be opposed. Greetings.

[@scottlyons8130]

So Great This would be a great opening for doctorates in polysci thesis.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you! :-)

[@Todd.B]

That video should be played be played at the next UN meeting. Thank you, Prof., incredibly well explained and laid out.

[@NasserAljoudi92]

Your argument is well put, James! Unlike the US and Europe, "Russia's actions in Ukraine go far beyond anything we've seen before." Unlike the Anglo-European attempts at simple violation of sovereignty and regime change in brown/dark, Third World "uncivilized" peoples' countries, Russia goes a step further by attempting to change current borders and annex some parts of the "white, relatively civilized, relatively European, Christian" Ukraine. When you say it like this James, I am reminded (allow me to digress a little, please) by a David Rennie who, like many others, complains about intellectual property theft when it comes to China. He talks about how the West, specifically America, complains about how some Chinese companies steal Euro-American technologies. But there also is something interesting, and similar to what you are saying here James, that he invokes. He says; "the American government will tell you [meaning China] sure, [the American government] sp[ies] and steal[s] stuff, but not for commercial purposes." This means that China, on the other hand, spies and steals, not only for governmental and homeland security purposes, but, going a step further, to commercialize and sell what it steals. The question is, should other countries in the World wait for the US or Western Europe to set a precedent, or continue, as you have said, "erod[ing] those rules" while other nations wait by the wayside? Hell No! The long 19th century is over. My point here is that white, Anglo-Euopean-centric people like you, implicitly or explicitly, are saying that if this "bad" thing or this next step we Euro-Americans did not do post-1945 (interesting date by the way, a date that purposefully omits and forgives whatever has happened before, like the American territorial conquest of Mexican lands) you Russians/Chinese or other brownies and darkies around the World dare not do, lest we economically sanction you, or outright invade and topple your governments, respectively.

[@Dani-ir3kk]

exactly, well said, the UN is after all a western institution trying to control actions of other countries

[@thomasokun4139]

@@Dani-ir3kk The UN is an institution created by the victorious parties in the second world war. Hence it's founding permanent members were the victorious powers (SU, USA, ROC, UK). It was created by and to the represent the interests of these nations, not "the west".

[@thomasokun4139]

1945 is not in any sense accidental or ideologically motivated. The end of the second world war created the modern world of international relations. It is not designed to "cover up" previous violations by western countries, as it also naturally omits the countless violations commited by non-western states before its founding (such as the arab conquests of the ME and Iran), since none of these entities could be held to this standard as it did not exist (right of conquest was seen as totally legitimate until at least the first world war).

[@lukejohn6139]

Thank you, another wonderful video, explaining an aspect of this terrible war I hadn't really considered. The consequences of a change of mind about what the new 'rules' could be doesn't bear thinking about..

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much Luke. I hoped it might generate a bit of discussion and thought about the wider implications of what we are seeing. This really does go beyond anything we have seen in a long time.

[@anasmedia886]

Interesting Video

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you. I hope it will generate a bit of discussion about what we are seeing in Ukraine and why it is so different from other conflict we have seen.

[@dr.batman2530]

I have a question. You argued that though Crimea indeed once was a part of Russia when under USSR, but after the breakup of USSR since Russia accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea, this action in 2014 violated the fundamental principles of territorial integrity. So basically what you're implying that because Crimea wasn't a disputed territory pre-2014, Russia's annexation is a naked aggression. (Granted Russia did some legal gymnastics by first recognising Crimean independence and then moved for annexation). So here's my question: If an invasion happens in a disputed territory, like say India invading the Pakistani-Administered Jammu and Kashmir or say China invading Senkakku island, how are you going to contrast these hypothetical events with Ukraine? Would they count as violating territorial integrity? How would you define these events? Or even contrast this with Indian invasion and liberation/annexation of Goa, a territory which according to Europe and NATO was "integral part of Portugal, not a colony" before 1961, the way French overseas territories are, but not recognised as such by India (though was once recognised by independent India as Portuguese territory at one point)? I know international community had condemned this then, but now everyone accepts Goa is an Indian state just like say Gujarat. You could enlighten these different examples and contrast them. That would be helpful. Thanks.

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

Goa was known as colony even though Portugal didn't accepted it. World was going through decolonisation process that's why countries accepted India invasion. Whereas France gave up their indian territories peacefully.

[@dr.batman2530]

@@ShubhamMishrabro today there are so many overseas territories of France. One is close to India (Reunion Island). France defines most of those inhabited territories as integral departments. EU accepts this. This was the case with Pondicherry also. Portugal did the same. By Portuguese law, Goa was just a province and Goans were Portuguese. Many western nations supported this idea but ofcourse Asia and Africa didn't. All this in contrast to British Empire where indeed they were colonies and colonial subjects were not full citizens and they didn't send their representatives to house of commons (not the case with France and erstwhile Portugal). That's why liberation of Goa became such a controversial issue back in 1961. NO WESTERN POWER recognised this and all condemned it. Even Latin America opposed it as they were uncomfortable with the idea of "hindus defeating superior Catholics in warfare". It was a Soviet veto which prevented UNSC rap on India (another reason why India is still friendly with Russia). Only when in 1974 there was a regime change in Portugal, they accepted India's sovereignty over Goa. Post facto Portugal's allies forgot all this and everyone accepted that Goa was India's. But during 1961, one could easily argue (especially those who are not Indians or Portuguese) that the invasion then was a territorial violation of a sovereign state and a conquest. But ofcourse de-colonialisation angle made this complicated legally, even if Portuguese law and western consensus thought Goa was a mere province not a colony.

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

@@dr.batman2530 yes many were not happy with invasion. France tried this with Algeria too.

[@lenanderstamatto9193]

Amazing video as always! As someone who had to hear other academics around me defend the Russian invasion on the grounds that "the U.S. did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan!" and struggled to explain why this is different in a way that didn't sound apologetic towards NATO, this is a godsend. Thank you for all your hard work!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. I’m really glad it helped flesh out some of the arguments. I also heard a lot of that talk and felt that it didn’t capture the real significance of this war over others.

[@Hoopsnake]

Another thing to consider in those comparisons is the internal aspect, both within alliances and states themselves. For better or worse, the American public elected a President who invaded Iraq, and then re-elected him. Throughout all of it, Americans were free to say whatever they wanted, and even openly condemn the invasion. Similarly, other NATO countries were free to not participate in what they considered to be an unjust invasion, just as they were free to give aid in Afghanistan. Iraq is of course muddied by the fact that the public was purposefully misled about certain details - but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation. It sounds pedantic (after all, the invasions happened regardless), but compare this to Russia, where Belarus is being dragged along whether it wants it or not, and where the Russian people aren't even allowed to describe it as a war, nor condemn it. The internal dialogue isn't just muddled by misinformation, it is flat out not present. This seems like a minor quibble, but I think it stands that if a move like Putin's needs to have massive censorship in order for it to be carried out, that should cast some shadow of a doubt as to its true intentions.

[@danyks4847]

@@Hoopsnake ""but that public was also free to discover and report on that misinformation."" not really, they were leveled by everyone as just crazy conspiracy theory people... it was fun to watch how Obama was gifted the nobel peace prize the same week he was sending new troops to the middle east!!!...

[@gris587]

Just discovered this channel. As someone who has read Hans Morgenthau's book, your videos provide an actual practice of his perspectives on status quo.

[@adamwood3234]

Another very good video 👍

[@idk-lz4nl]

In relation to Taiwan, doesn't American (and other Western) support for their self-determination also defile the territorial integrity of China? Simply put, America and Western support for Taiwan is not support for the ROC (a political entity that is not recognized by most) but much rather for the continuation of the status quo also equate to the violation of Chinese sovereignty, and territorial integrity? Furthermore, since America has an _unofficial_ but still present military force in Taiwan (which it stationed without the permission of PRC authorities), wouldn't this also technically be an invasion of sorts?

[@duybear4023]

I fully support unification once the CCP is defeated. Besides, China violated Tibet's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. There's a reason China is hated and feared by their neighbors.

[@idk-lz4nl]

@@duybear4023 I do not remember asking for your obtuse opinions. Many neighbors of China are on good terms with it. The majority of the world recognizes Tibet as a part of China. Anyways, this whataboutism is diverting from the topic at hand and question I asked.

[@SurfinScientist]

Very good points made! Yes, certain western countries do have some self-reflection to do too. In particular, the conduct of the Bush-Cheney government with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq has likely "inspired" the likes of China and Russia to behave themselves in similar ways, but even under Obama the foreign policy conduct of the US government was not praiseworthy. Let's hope for a positive outcome for Ukraine in this war without too much further casualties, and let's hope that self-reflection on the western side takes place once things have settled a bit.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much. I completely agree. I think that Western countries do need to reflect on this, as you say. We haven’t been very good at thinking about our part in undermining international law. The problem is how to reset the international system, and whether it is even possible now. Also, we would have to accept that doing so would have important, and potentially unpleasant, consequences. The notion of humanitarian intervention would have to be set aside. But if this stops wars of aggression like this, which was justified by stopping a ‘genocide’, then maybe that is the price we have to pay. It is a tough moral, legal and political problem.

[@gubernatorial1723]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for clarifying that point, the sore nub of the matter. That's hard to swallow. My New Zealand, like all small countries, is religious about the post-war international system though.

[@bannanachops]

Excellent video. :)

[@mat3714]

Loved the ending.

[@williamlloyd3769]

Assuming Russia wants a friendly proxy government in Ukraine you have to think about how close Belarus was to having a neutral / anti-Russian government just a few months ago.

[@noop9k]

Let me answer you as a Belarusian. Most Belarusians are quite naive about this, but those who actually understand, see armed uprising against Lukashenko as impossible. Lukashenko has a police state when aggressive uneducated human trash is recruited into his police, brainwashed, armed and given many privileges for their loyalty(state-sponsored housing they couldn’t otherwise afford, early retirement with good pensions, etc.). Normal people are unarmed. Still, the regime can be toppled temporarily, probably not without significant bloodshed. Then what? Russian tanks roll in and flatten our cities if we resist. Game over. The only reasonable way for a Belarusian to resist Russian imperialism is to fight in Ukraine and then, when Ukraine is secure from Russian attacks, move back and do something about own country. Only in that order. If Ukraine can’t do it, pointless to even try in Belarus.

[@NathanCroucher]

@@noop9k what makes you think life will improve if you become a democracy? Look around the west, we have a big increasing problem of inequality and low wages, im in AUS and for people under 30 its near on impossible of owning a home, theres also job insecurity. Also democracy only needs to keep 51% of the people happy.

[@noop9k]

@@NathanCroucher Poland started from the same state and improved greatly. Wages, food, living standards much better in Poland than in Russia. (Moscow is not Russia, it is a parasite that feeds on Russia) Same applies to most other exUSSR EU states. Actually, Russian median wage is below minimum wage in most of these states and therefore illegal. And this is Russia, sitting on immense amount of natural resources. All neighbors under control of Russia are dirt-poor authoritarian regimes. Democratic ones fare much better. But I do agree that the smaller EU states are economically dominated and exploited by Germany & to lesser degree France/Italy. Still, very far from exUSSR misery under dictatorships. And I spent plenty of time learning history and have no problems understanding why authoritarian “socialist” shit states can’t function well.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

The argumentation of this video holds only to an extent: out of the three principles, we should expect a clear difference between cases where two were violated instead of one or three. But the magnitude of difference is still relevant. One couldn’t with a straight face argue that Russia leaving one of these areas untouched would have resulted in significantly lesser response. Nor could one argue that change of boarders would have made the european nations open their society to Afgan civilians escaping the destructive invasion, let alone condemn United states to the extent we rightfully condemn Russia. This proportionality can not be explained without acknowledging that nations act accordingly to less noble aspects of the conflict: that the aggressor is not united states, leader of Nato and the so called western world, but in fact a perceived antagonist of USA and the west. And also that the civilian victims in this case are white, and europeans. Their suffering can not be normalised by framing their culture as other, or by pointing to past wars, dictatorships and injustices (wast amount of which were the result, often intended result, of european intervention). This is how much we should have cared about every invasion, violation of sovereignty, and refugee. Because this is the first modern case so called western society is not blinded by explicit or underlying racism, relationships or alliances with the aggressor, or beautiful stories about spreading democracy through forced regime changes and slaughtering of the supporters of the “illegitimate” political system the sovereign nation had previously. Obviously the past and still ongoing injustices do not in any way justify Russias assault on Ukraine. But the inverse should be true: Russias invasion should at last reveal the immoral and unjustified nature of past and present conflicts and coercion UN and europe has silently accepted. Russians can’t claim geopolitical balance, local minorities, elections they themselves rig, Ukrainian far-right groups or other fringe extremists, alliances they feel threatened by or any such reason to justify their invasion. But neither can european states or USA.

[@pr0newbie]

The context matters greatly too. The Russian assault on Ukraine at their border is for national security reasons against meddling by the West. America goes around the world to plunder and control key resources, which is essentially neo-colonialism.

[@Boo_351]

@@pr0newbie Plundering and controlling key resources also applies to the invasion of Ukraine as well. In the 2010s, both oil and natrual gas were discovered within its borders and Ukraine contracted western oil companies for drilling and refining. This allows Ukraine to not only compete against Russia in the European energy market, but also use it as a springboard to develop itself. This wasn't an issue initially due to the pro Russian government, but the change in 2014 meant it would be out of Russia's influence. Thus the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insugency, which not only scared the contractors away but the two regions hold most of said gas and oil. A third key resource would be fresh water as Crimea only gets fresh water from a canal from Southern Ukraine. After the annexation Ukraine cut off the canal. This is causing desertification, worsening living standards in Crimea, and making it more costly for Russia to maintain Crimea and retaining support from the locals. Annexing southern Ukraine would fix that issue from the Russian side.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

@@pr0newbie The west won't attack Russia so long as they have the threat of Nukes, why do so many people not understand this? To conquer a nuclear power simply means asking the leader whether they are going to press the button, and we all know what Putin would do. "national security" is not, and will never be the reason Russia invades anywhere. Ukraine wanting to join the EU and NATO for protection and economic benefit is not "western meddling", but this doesn't matter, because it's not "western meddling" that prompted this, it is an actually independant Ukraine. As for the US, they also deserve condemnation for their actions, although I believe it's more to fuel the military-industrial complex that is draining the nation than anything else.

[@pr0newbie]

@@Boo_351 I genuinely doubt that Russia would have annexed them if Ukraine were neutral, nor were it due to economic reasons, because otherwise they would have done so long ago. National security is pararmount in light of the US's meddling of affairs and funding of the Azov battalion, despite Putin's efforts for a diplomatic resolution. This is certainly a very murky affair. The Misinformation propaganda and escalation doesn't help and it's the common man in the world that will suffer if we follow the US and prescribe the wrong treatment. Case in point - So far the biggest winners are the US Military Industry Complex and Gas companies. We will suffer from high inflation

[@Boo_351]

@@pr0newbie First of all, the Azov battalion didn't even exist before the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass insurgency of 2014 as it was created to fill in the lacking Ukrainian military manpower. Without the Russian annexation or support of Donbass insurgency, they would still be some fractured far right soccer hooligans. The US funding of them wouldn't even be a question without that never mind the US cutting off funding to Azov in 2018. Regarding the natrual resource, Russia didn't attack untill 2014 for the obvious reason; Ukraine was pro Russia at the time when the resource was discovered. The annexation of Crimea happening right after the toppling of the pro Russian government already shows that diplomacy was not in the books with the new government. Ukraine hadn't been politically neutral since until the first few years after its 2nd independence (its 1st ended with a soviet invasion), its just that its stance didn't matter as they lacked much avenues to develop themselves and their economy remained in the hands of the oligarchs. If neutrality or a pro russia stance was all that Russia wanted, they would have invaded in 2004 when Ukraine flipped pro EU and was actively seeking to join it. A pro west or neutral Ukraine with the ability to develop, arm itself, and have leverage over Russia's economy by competing in Russia's biggest pie of its GDP, oil and gas, in a market Russia dominates definitely would be seen as a threat by Russia even if Ukraine never joins EU or NATO. Now this isn't to say national security isn't a concern, a Ukraine that could defy Russia and lower Russia's soft power and economic power would already fall under national security even if there is no military threat. If considering a military conflict between NATO and Russia, the CSTO currently has a geographic advantage as the entire baltics becomes a salient and the only land front being eastern Poland. Ukraine in NATO flips that on its head with Belarus being a salient. Whether NATO was capable of such an offensive is a question of its own, though the current invasion solved its two biggest problems: the lack of a reason to exist and the lack of European commitment. Anyways, my point is that control of natural resources can't be discounted considering the timing and long term outlook. Though depending on what a nation sees as a threat anything can fall under national security, whether that be natural resources or governments that don't play along.

[@paulwally9007]

Brilliant analysis.

[@talmoskowitz5221]

There has been plenty of commentary in the past twenty years of the breakdown of the Treaty of Westphalia consensus. So why the surprise, and how does ToW match the post WW2 consensus with this three point test? How does the invasion of Ukraine fit and extend the recent pattern? What unstated fourth test remains to be violated in the future? What other rules remain to be broken in the future?

[@milangovedarica6952]

I would argue that there were countries benefiting from the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. US and its allies have gained concessions of the province's rare metal mines and installed military bases for good. Meanwhile Albania and the breakaway government in Pristina have introduced a borderless regime - in effect a customs' union.

[@chawk6201]

Kosovo?

[@milangovedarica6952]

@@chawk6201 Yes, the province of Kosovo & Metohija.

[@Cor6196]

Thank you! I was born in the US in the 40’s, so I’ve “lived through“ Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and was wondering why my horror and disgust at the invasion of Ukraine were so much more vivid now than in times past. Partly I thought, “It’s Europe, it’s a cultural relative, it’s white. You’ve helped expand my views. It’s as if each of our ugliest wars had pushed hard against the the thin skin of civilization (like from the inside of a balloon pushing outwards and NEARLY creating holes into the anarchy that boils outside the balloon). The Russian invasion of Ukraine breaks right through that thin balloon and into the maelstrom of Might Makes Right.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I think we shared the same feelings. I just had a sense that it broke boundaries and wanted to get a better sense of why. I’m so glad you found it useful. Best wishes from London!

[@visigoth9271]

@@JamesKerLindsay It's truly startling because it blows down our understanding of what lengths the "other" that we don't understand is willing to go to. As much as we hear of Taiwan, I don't know if I previously expected China to actually go in. Now, I'm not too sure an invasion won't happen.

[@williamthebonquerer9181]

@@JamesKerLindsay when people say ukriane gets attention because it's white it ignore how little attention the Yugoslav wars had.

[@grievancemafunga833]

a rare but a balanced argument from a British academic. The default position of most western scholars and citizens from the Western Europe is an outright condemnation of Russia without breaking the pieces apart. Powerful, Western and Eastern nations have their share of blame. An example has been set for China on how to deal with Taiwan should she dares declare her independence. World leaders should quickly call for and negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and restore her land boarders. We in Africa has seen the ruthlessness of Western powers in Libya and would not want Ukraine to be reduced to rubbles as well. Thank You Prof

[@omegaasura21]

Very well put Prof. Some small states like Singapore have grasped this early on. But hoping more will understand what really has happened here, which is extremely serious.

[@srinarayan2687]

Singapore isn't a state. Singapore is a country ✌🏽

[@matthewkarloski4775]

I feel like people should also note the similarities between this and Cuba. Both nations had spent time as a territory under their neighboring superpower, becoming free with the blessing of the superpower, and eventually opposing them, and the neighboring superpower seeing that the nation might play host to it’s rival’s military and nuclear weapons. And both Cuba and Ukraine are next to the heartland of the superpower who for decades hasn’t had to worry about such a geopolitical threat. Also both in the terms of their backer (Russia for Cuba and US for Ukraine) backed away from militarily defending them when a crisis rose up. And both superpowers funded and supported rebels within the other’s nations (Bay of Pigs for US, DPR and LPR for Russia) as well as both were heavily involved in disrupting the internal affairs of Cuba and Ukraine. Yet there’s one big difference between both of them, how it ended. America never once declared war on Cuba and launched a military invasion with American boots and aircraft, despite coming close several different times and not even when the Soviets fell, while Russia did with Ukraine. One must ask themselves why America decided to show some level of restraint while Russia didn’t? I’m not trying to paint America as a perfect nation either. America has definitely made some bad decisions, but these 2 crises are so similar in nature that comparing the two should be appropriate. It can help determine how both the US and Russia address what they consider “external threats to their nation’s heartland” in future conflicts

[@jogabhambra6606]

Don’t forget about the US nukes in Turkey. You should watch or read ‘The untold history of the United States’.

[@MrM323]

This conflict gives strength to Ray Dalio argument in his Principles for Dealing with a Changing World Order. As USA's global dominance is being superceeded by China's we are going to see more wars. The last time there were such wars was when the American order was exclipsing the European (predominantly British) order. USA can't afford to maintain the world order anymore. While this is the first sign of such a war where the agressor will likely gain significant territory, it probably won't be the last time. With a shift from West to East and increasing competition for commodies this probably won't be the last time we see a war of agression in this generation. We are at the terminal phase in the "the typical big cycle behind empires rises and declines" chart. Regional powers are going to take advantage of a shifting world order. On a side note, you didn't comment on Israel seizing the Golan heights, whether you agree with it or not, that violates all three of your mentioned principles.

[@noop9k]

I consider this as a good development since Syria/Iran/Russia are not the friends of the free world while Israel, despite all its flaws, is.

[@Chlzweb7053]

Thank you -(personal Tairua NZ)

[@dukeh32]

Good video, I have a question, You say that the NATOs campain did not result in regimechange. Is that accurate given the subsequent "color" revolution, handing over of the former leader to a "trail" and untimly death.

[@neokorteks2009]

James, let's be honest and admit that the aforementioned rulebook stopped being valid the day bipolar world stopped existing. No punishment no laws. What indeed is different this time is that it is done with relative impunity by someone different than the US.

[@neokorteks2009]

Good video nevertheless. Never in my life have I heard a brit say that intervention in Serbia was breach of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[@mg4361]

He actually very directly accuses the west of planting the seed for this situation, watch at 11:32

[@erjonhoxha5074]

@@mg4361 and later adds that the reasons for doing so may have been strong, in an effort to stop human rights abuses

[@abc-eq9so]

@@erjonhoxha5074 So if Republic of Srpska would become a part of Serbia because a certain numbers of countries wants it so, your would be fine with it, even agree on it. Or even better, Northern Kosovo.

[@erjonhoxha5074]

@@abc-eq9so yes. If Northern Kosovo truly is a Serb majority as they say I don't understand fighting over it. On that note Presheva and RS should also be joined with the nation that they want (Albania/Serbia) Though I would imagine it'd be really easy to screw with the voting system considering this is the Balkans. All in all, what I'm saying is, people's will should probably determine who they want to be with. Not economic reasons (land).

[@eshvartz]

If I'm not mistaken, the only recent history event that's similar in brutality, civilian casualties, deliberate war crimes and amount of refugess is Syria. And Syria was mostly like that because of russian intervention.

[@williamthebonquerer9181]

Syria probably would still be at war even if Russia didn't keep asad in power

[@FilipPetrovic999]

Dear Professor, I am glad that you are doing your best to be objective. Although I still disagree with you on some issues, I think you are doing a great job! My view of the world is a little simpler, and I don't understand much about international law, but I wonder if you think that NATO is more responsible than Russia with earlier violations of international law. If the United States was the first to start violating the basic principles of international law, isn't it logical that other countries should follow the same path after that? It is logical that non-compliance with certain rules by one side, leads to non-compliance with the same rules by the other side. Why would someone respect some rules that limit him, when his biggest rival is the first not to respect them. I would really like to hear your opinion on this. All the best! Also sorry for bad English, I hope you understand my question 😂

[@alexandrosnaoum1318]

So just because on was an a$$hole I can be as well... That's a logic that kids have. If modern states ruled by adults are still find such kind of excuses cool then we are doomed. Let have some to press the button and clean this planet from humans.

[@geopolitics94]

Fantastic analysis

[@filippoardizzone8216]

Well, that was extremely well put. I must admit that I have never been keen to Western Countries and their military operations abroad. What you said about promoting democracy doesn't really fit well in the narrative of how those conflicts actually happenes. Still, I do believe that Russia is a threat and that we must oppose these horrible acts of violence in the way you did, both from a humanitarian point of view and from a more academic one. Great video, as always, I look forward to coming back to these comunity.

[@ramziabbyad8816]

What about Israel and Palestine?

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Before being russian teritory, Crimea was also Ottoman, Tatar, Visigoth, Roman, Greek, Scythian etc pp.

[@samatha1994]

Very interesting (just working my way back through some of your previous videos, having watched the one about Russia's behaviour with the Kuril Islands). I hasn't thought about those three aspects. It does seem like Russia, Putin, has decided it has does not want to be part of wider international law, with a return to "might is right".