UnHerd Club - The Ukraine Debate with Edward Lucas, Konstantin Kisin, Peter Hitchens & Thomas Fazi

[@gobabawonan2199]

Thank you for doing this - wrangling a group of talkative people with strong opinions is not easy - Freddie did what he could and will surely improve from here! Hosting these debates is important

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@flashgordon6670]

Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@petercollingwood522]

@@flashgordon6670 You are ignoring the corollory which the other side seemed incapable of enunciating, which is not surprising, which is that absent the great battle field success, Ukraine is defeated, which means Putin wins. They should at least have had the guts to say what that means. Ukraine is subjugated. Aggressive war is back (you know, that stuff they went all ape about at the Nuremburg trials) and the European citizenry, all terrified as they are of war, are going to face a future where it's a lot more likely than it was during the cold war.

[@Will46666]

It’s like stepping back forty years, to where we had genuine debates between people of opposing views.

[@robertsmuggles6871]

so true - it was like Question time in the late 70s.

[@TheWishp]

The true art of television based debate died with William F. Buckley Jr. This has been the KZbin highlight of my year thus far.

[@no.6123]

@@robertsmuggles6871 This is exactly what I was thinking Robert!

[@BRM101]

It’s a rare occurrence these days, most people only get to listen to repeaters on main stream media.

[@robertsmuggles6871]

@@BRM101 the media blithely repeat Russian/Chinese/Iranian talking points and appear to validate them. This is a major issue which blinds people to dangerous regimes.

[@MsFreudianSlip]

If these well intentioned people can't even stop talking to listen to each other, the possibility of these two countries at war coming to a negotiation seems ever so grim.

[@andrewnorris5415]

A peace deal was ready to be signed early on in March. But Johnson flew in under orders from Biden and ended it. Ever since then, Zelensky insists he will not even come to the table unless Russia gives up Crimea first, which is madness. Since March, many more deaths occurred. The Crimea bridge and Nord Steam made Putin scale up his attack.

[@daniel.lopresti]

That's what international diplomacy is for.

[@iancormie9916]

One only has to look at what Russian troops did to the residents of the towns near Kiev during the initial phase of the invasion to see what will happen to the whole of Ukraine if Russia wins. One also has to understand that Putin cannot be trusted. Ukraine had a treaty with Moscow, yet they are now fighting an invasion. How many other regions have witnessed Russian expansion over the last 20 years and , if not for NATO, what would stop Russia from continuing its expansionist policies in the future?

[@nikkylou1640]

​@@iancormie9916 oh thanks here I was thinking it was NATO moving east not Russia moving west

[@davidwright5094]

I think debates of this kind often turn that way when objective facts about recent events are disputed. It's clear from about 35 mins that the two sides are differently informed about the events of cc2014. That's a bit of a problem for attempts to draw conclusions which depend heavily on whose account is the correct one.

[@intheovaloffice]

Absolutely love these heated yet informative debates!

[@konfunable]

Not so informative since one side completely misinterpret, twist and sometimes even fake facts about what happened.

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@konfunable Yep, that's exactly what Hitchens and Fazi did.

[@ibizawind]

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you SO MUCH Freddie and Unherd for allowing a real discussion. You give me hope.❤

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@flashgordon6670]

Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@ReinisInkens]

The hubris and entitlement of Hitchens are hard to listen to. All while dodging hard questions. Amazing.

[@rahulsiddhartha9951]

Thomas Fazi is unable to make a point without it being emotionally charged, convoluted or talking over someone else drowning them out.

[@DieFlabbergast]

He's an activist: his entire career has been one long anti-US diatribe. You expect objectivity? (That's not to say he didn't make some good points.)

[@jujutrini8412]

Every one of them talked over each other, apart from Edward Lucas (who asked the most stupid question of the debate - have you been to Ukraine?).

[@elrunnerdave]

Peter Hitchens seems unable to answer simple questions, what a difference with his brother😪

[@lairofhorrors1756]

Oh wow, I knew he looked familiar, Christopher was fantastic!

[@alrightgeeze]

He's annoying as fuck tbh. Put pressure on the us, to do what Peter. We're not saying you're wrong, were saying that's not an answer. Still not seen any logical scenarios from anyone with that opinion. Is it pressure for the Ukraine to never be allowed into NATO and Russia cede a province or 2, not what I think but just 1 scenario. Wasn't difficult to think off 1

[@helmanticus8624]

This was a remarkable debate despite the interruptions and speakers talking over each other. Thank you, UnHerd, for being a beacon in these dark times and for keeping it real.

[@Pat121V]

Agreed, I'm a fan of speakers on both ides and it's not easy to chair a debate with emotions charged but Freddie did well letting everyone make their points.

[@drjukebox]

Hitchens joins the dark side saying that Ukrainians have no say in their own destiny. That is a fascist world view. People have different worth, with Ukrainians at the bottom. Despiccable. Sorry.

[@johnsmith1474]

You people who are constantly thanking youtube channels are so damned pitiful. There are tens of thousands of you hapless butt kissers wasting your time posting thanks. You never post an intelligent comment on the video, just babyish thanks yous. Just pitiful stuff. Grow some would you please?

[@aregaynega5628]

Aq+!!qaq

[@helmanticus8624]

@@johnsmith1474 An intelligent comment like yours?

[@down_under_dog]

Douglass Murray made a wonderfully insightful comment in a Munk debate the other day, about how groups of people could debate happily when they had [common facts but] differences of opinion, now they have different 'facts' and no intelligible debate is possible

[@seanmoran2743]

Douglas fully supports Neo Con Action in the Ukraine Not surprising from a Globalist I guess

[@gregorymoats4007]

Precisely what went on here

[@JustinFisher777]

I think that's right. But for me the facts are clearly on a certain side. In fact, (oof) it could be argued that each side either interprets the same facts differently or simply cherry picks certain facts to advance one's case and ignores others. Hitchens was unacceptable here, but he made a decent point when he said this wasn't a good place for getting to the bottom of things.

[@2003Rooney]

👏👏👏👏 you hit the nail on the head. Exactly what happened here.

[@ln5747]

Douglas Murray should then consider his own pure propaganda piece in Kherson giving people false facts. Destroyed his credibility with that.

[@mcs4903]

To compare Ukraine with going illegally into Iraq is ludicrous... 13:36

[@anglodoomer5995]

I totally agree. What a stupid argument.

[@robertwilson214]

Why,the west started both

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@robertwilson214 Putin started the Ukraine invasion ffs!!!

[@principleshipcoleoid8095]

44:09 the war starded in 2014. It escalated into an open war in 2022. Russia was using proxies (which included their army men, FSB agents and traitor merceneries they hired on the ground)

[@procinctu1]

Exactly

[@robertholland7558]

The conflict started in 2008, if not in 1991 with the granting of Ukrainian sovereignty!

[@procinctu1]

@@robertholland7558 ??? You mean when the Soviet Union agreed to the sovereignty and territorial borders of Ukraine? And, made security arrangements in return for Ukraine surrendering nuclear weapons? Right?

[@robertholland7558]

@@procinctu1 Russia did the same with Kazakstan, and other previous Soviet states. What is your point? Ukraine clearly breached the “security agreement “, under the auspices of the USA. The USA is as much a predator as the Russians are and it is about time the two are brought back into line. The Ukraine sovereignty experiment has failed. It must be reviewed, and that will only be possible when the USA and Russia cooperate. Putin is all for peace talks, it is the USA that is the problem because they used Ukraine for illegal and questionable activities which can never be allowed to be shown the light of day. The USA empire is not just build on goody two shoes efforts.

[@procinctu1]

@@robertholland7558 really? So, Russia is the “victim” in the war of agression they started in 2014. Nebulous “illegalities” by the USA or Ukraine does not justify Russia gobbling up the internationally agreed territory of Ukraine like a sow in heat. Is that why 141 countries voted for a resolution demanding Russia leave Ukraine in the UN on February 23rd? Russians are the “baddies” in this war. The calculus in this war is Russian Atrocities equals Western Support for Ukraine. How is that the fault of the USA. If Russia was actually “liberating” Ukraine the war would not be supported by the vast majority of the Ukrainian population. This war ends when Russia stops attacking, period. If Putin really wanted peace all he has to do is make one phone call. If you think different, you need to broaden your range of information services beyond Russian Propaganda sites.

[@everythingeastbay8255]

I’ve decided that it comes down to the fundamental belief of whether or not Putin will stop with Ukraine or continue out into other Eastern European countries. Those who favor continuing to support Ukraine with arms believe that Putin will continue west. Those who are in favor of peace talks and negotiations believe that Putin does not intent to expand the war further than Ukraine. There is, of course, evidence on both sides to defend both positions. So the debates will continue. Thank you, Freddy. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to both sides of the argument.

[@Uppernorwood976]

That’s certainly part of it, but he should have ‘stopped’ at Russia.

[@seanmoran2743]

The west says Russia is incompetent and weak and then in the next breath says it’s going to invade Europe You can’t have it both ways

[@warner476]

We’ll said!

[@G_Ozare]

Sure except when it's the Western Powers backing coups around the world, causing destabilization, death, and destruction around the world in the name of "democracy". Utter hypocrites.

[@AlexanderSeven]

If you want to know the end goal of Russia, reading Russia's draft agreements to NATO in december 2021 may very well help. This is what will be acceptable for Russia's security, and it includes basically all eastern Europe, not just Ukraine.

[@AjitB07]

I'm surprised Nord stream was not mentioned at all

[@bogdannila1478]

zelensky wasnt mentioned....many other things

[@vitaliyt8571]

Nord stream was not mentioned because there no more Nord stream.

[@fujohnson8667]

Wouldn’t fit KK and Edwards narrative. USA good , Russia bad.

[@anglodoomer5995]

It never is

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

Its no business of ours if Russia wants to blow up its own pipelines. Its not like its the first time they've done such a thing just before winter.

[@jacklondon295]

Hitchens was condescending to Kisen when he referred to the negations between the US and Noth Vietnam in Paris to broker a cease fire. The North Vietnamese repeatedly violated the truce and eventually invaded and conquered the South.

[@angryengine9616]

Kisen is an ignorant comedian. No idea why he's there.

[@derosa1989]

@@angryengine9616 Ad hominem attacks aren't facts

[@angryengine9616]

@@derosa1989 he is a comedian, that is a fact lmao

[@angryengine9616]

@@derosa1989 his ignorance on every single issue he speaks on is evident for all to see too. Nice try but wrong ;)

[@zarni000]

@@derosa1989 ok he is ignorant

[@LittleJohnnyBrown]

It's a shame Christopher Hitchens is not here. He was always the sane one. Peter just talks over everyone. Even over his partner

[@K1forMVP]

He’s an arrogant douche who talks down to everyone clear mad because Konstitin keeps picking apart his points piece by piece lie by lie, he can’t win on the substance/facts so he makes things personal.

[@K1forMVP]

Kitchens is a smug arrogant douche, clearly mad because Konstantin keeps calling out his BS and articulately picking apart his lies piece by piece lie by lie. Hitchens can’t win on the substance/facts so he makes things personal and starts insulting Konstantin. . It always these Pro Russia propagandists love Russia so much but none of them want to live there, I wonder why

[@cr0uchingtiger]

These debates are ABSOLUTE gold. I'm hearing so many alternating views here that I wasn't aware of. The world needs much more of this kind of discussion on all topics or all we're getting is one side of the algorithm.

[@Christmas-dg5xc]

Unsupervised expressions of opinions - are you serious? ;-)

[@accountantthe3394]

Oh boy oh boy, this doesn't inspire much confidence in critical thought amongst democratic countries but it's certainly a start...I guess. Coups/regime changes have been a calling card by US for decades (see Mehdi hassan's Al jazeera's Head to Head w/ Otto Reich) to incite aggression thus funding arms industries as per Hitchens here. Hell, John bolton all but said it himself on numerous occasions. It's absolutely puzzling why people don't talk about it much on this side of the aisle when it's plain as day outside the neoliberal echo chamber. US is now trying to do the same in taiwan and sadly, NATO soldiers none-the-wiser primed by the media will be spilling blood to deepen Lockheed's pockets.

[@annettemacdonald9192]

As a Canadian I wonder why U S media and our media are all in for Ukraine and any opposing opinion is not herd or also the British media that’s very suspicious isn’t it?? The Russia gate propaganda Was just proven to be a lie which will not be herd in our media in the West. Russia is hated by those people and they all have only selfish motives and we are being conned

[@stereoreviewx]

And yes, this format is very revealing of opinions and personalities Hitchens, clearly doesn’t like it scribbling on his pad, which from what I can tell. He has written nothing trying to pretend he’s above it all. What a prick

[@kevint1910]

@@Christmas-dg5xc some one please think of the children!!

[@jjbama8201]

This was a thought provoking debate. I am so glad it was had. UnHerd is fast becoming my favorite You Tube Channel.

[@wenterinfaer1656]

Theyre the same geeks that called pawgs racism.

[@bunsdad4530]

Constantine says the Ukraine does not care about donbas If that’s the case then why do t they just let the new border go up.? That seems way better than risking a nuclear/biological/EM war!

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@flashgordon6670]

Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@bunsdad4530]

@@flashgordon6670 USA would not accept Chinese or Russian millitary bases in Mexico and Russia will never accept them on its flatland border. In the early 2000s massive additional resource discoveries were made in donbas and crimea. So if nato gets into the Ukraine they will move east through the Caucasus all the way to Kabul since this is also resource rich. This will also give nato a good flank on Iran through the caspian. The problem with modern war is risk. We are not far from the point where small groups can make a nuclear weapon and we are at the point where anyone with a book can insert dna into a virus or bacteria. Ukraine has been economically oppressed for a long time to create the conditions for this. However the Ukraines resource wealth can no longer be ignored. If the Ukraine declared neutrality tomorrow, as they have been asked, the Ukraine would easily become the richest nation on the planet and not only that but the richest nation on the planet with labour union tendencies

[@maryhall3722]

Thank you Unheard for making this enlightening discussion available in full length

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@chiefkaha5650]

@@flashgordon6670 It’s different when Russia has nukes, you give Ukraine higher powered weapons and put Russia into a corner, they won’t concede, they’ll pull out their trump card and blow the world up with it.

[@yankeefederer1994]

Peter did say that absurd line about America would continue the conflict in Ukraine if the Ukrainians didn't fight. Absolutely mental.

[@pplr1]

Correct, and before that point I thought the most ridiculous comment came from his partner who tried to say Ukrainians had a duty to Europe beyond their nation as an excuse for requiring Ukraine to give Putin what he wanted.

[@DamianMoody]

No he didn't, he meant USA would push Zelensky to carry on even of the Ukrainian people didn't want to fight.

[@pplr1]

Damian Moody are you trying to cover a bit here? The Ukrainian people largely didn't want this fight but Putin made that decision for them. Since he did they have fought hard to prevent him from making other decisions for them. When asked about ending the war the 1st question a Ukrainian politician asked is what are the security guarantees?

[@DamianMoody]

@@pplr1 Sir, you address me with a sentence that ends in a question mark and yet do not clearly elucidate any question. I then fail to see what relevance the rest of your comment has to my previous one. However, there were easily achievable solutions and security guarantees available for 30 years before this happened. Find out for yourself why they weren't explored :) muting thread- have a nice weekend.

[@pplr1]

@@DamianMoody The Ukrainian politician asked a reporter who asked what were the conditions for peace. Ukrainians know full well this is not the 1st time Putin has attacked their nation within 10 years and would likely again. Why is it that you have difficulty acknowledging that Putin is the aggressor in not only this specific situation but also repeatedly?

[@sticksman1979]

Peter 'Thoroughly Unimpressed' Hitchens. He's livid!

[@TechToWatch]

Hitchens & Fazi focused on seeking fault with the west rather than explaining their solutions to the current war. Their solution, as I understand, is Ukraine surrender to Russian occupation

[@jonbaxter2254]

Also, no mention of Russia starting the invasion.

[@gobabawonan2199]

A debate of this import really deserves at least a few hours to properly unpack and discuss - I suspect a lot of the conflict came from time restrictions and not being able to speak at length on complex topics - I also understand Unherd is still learning how to do these effectively and probably wanted to keep it short for now - but please consider doing lengthier debates in future (at least 2 hours, possibly more)

[@SanctusBacchus]

Yeah, one hour is just not enough.

[@frankymacf]

I think this is a good point. However Hitchens and Fazi simply refused to cooperate with the chair which meant that much of the time that actually was available here was spent talking over each other.

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

And why wouldn’t they refuse to obey the rules?? The rule of any debate is MENTIONED THE FACTS ONLY. If the opposition keeps bringing up lies, then the other side MUST to recalibrate the facts themselves🙄

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

As for the “length” of the debate- what number of minutes, hours would satisfy you? Are you not able to search for the facts yourself? Of course, if you’re just interested in listening the men having an argument, then it is understandable🖤

[@zaccrisp9988]

​@Slavomira Krasna for me I like to hear other people make arguments I've never heard and others refute those. Add the flavour of human cooperation and the ability to argue without killing one each other, I'm having a good time in this bleak picture.

[@kondziu1992]

17:41 what "plunged a country into civil war" were groups of russian agents in coordination running around with weapons, taking charge of local government buildings, and declaring these regions independent without asking anyone around. They were paid by Russian Federation, they were supplied by Russian Federation, and they were transported and coordinated by Russian Federation from the start. It's hardly a "civil" war if you fight the forces of another country.

[@kondziu1992]

​@El Che Oh yeah! "MANY PEOPLE"... How many? Also - if some local group in a country starts to protest against their own gov't does it make it okay to take over this part of country by another country? Or do you want me to think that Russia taking over Crimea was because they wanted to protect russian speakng population? xDDD Dude! That's exactly the same reason USSR invaded Poland in September of 1939. "To protect" xD You're delusional. I may have some things wrong here and there (but not about my first post) but I can analyze FACTS! And there were lots of reports about being paid to appear on pro-Russian rallies in 2014. There were sociological studies to confirm that PART of population of Donetsk, Luhansk and other oblasts were supporters of AUTONOMY and breaking apart from Ukraine - and by part I mean around 25-30%. There were pro-Ukrainian AND pro-Russian protests and rallies in every big city of Ukraine. And weirdly - only those closest to russian border went BOOM! What a coincidence.

[@flashgordon6670]

“If you want peace then you must make ready for war.” 36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. But... Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@LancesArmorStriking]

​@@kondziu1992 "If some local group in a country starts to protest against their own gov't does it make it okay to take over this part of the country by another country?" Does it make it okay for that local group to overthrow the entire government? And for an un-elected, interim government to be installed? For someone so focused on pointing out flaws of the other side's arguments, you're painfully unaware that the pro-Ukraine side breaks it's own rules all the time, too. By the way, only about 25-30% of the British colonies wanted independence, 30% were Loyalists and the rest were undecided. Does that mean that the entire American Revolution, by your logic, should have been snuffed out? Or is it okay when you do it?

[@alekzgavriel-russo7453]

@ronan97 The polls before, during and after disagree with your position here on how popular the rebels were. The figures for pro-Yanukovych protesters were far less than those of the Euromaidan by a factor of like 20.

[@AlexanderSeven]

44:02 "first war in Europe in my lifetime" Yugoslavia: yeah, yeah, forget about me.

[@anglodoomer5995]

The migrant crisis was a war in Europe

[@anasarac5238]

I'm thinking the same when I hear the speech about war free period and precedents

[@saattlebrutaz]

Yugoslavia is another war resulting from Soviet stupidity.

[@fotoart4735]

Congratulations Freddie🎉🎉🎉 I really appreciated your comment right before the end of the debate…regardless the differences in opinion between us it is absolutely vital to have them and be able to discuss them freely without any fears of being denied or smeared… I really enjoyed this and hope to have much more of it. Well done!!!👏👏👏

[@stereoreviewx]

Yes, it was good up close and personal. I think Peter Hitchens really didn’t like it.

[@tonywilson4713]

You are absolutely right. Tom Walker the actor who plays the fictional TV presenter Jonathan Pie said this great thing about public debate. At times no matter how much you disagree you have to listen to the other side. There's a lot of what Peter Hitchens says here that's nonsense, like his notion that we can just change how our governments work, which I am staggered anyone would suggest. *BUT* he makes this point that has been lost that has been lost in public discussion about the American Neocons. Starting at 43:34 _"The public opinions of all the free countries in North America and Western Europe should be mobilizing to put an end to this cretinous, uh, Wolfowitz Doctrine strategy pursued by a foreign policy faction in the United States which is determined to prevent what it fantastically believes will be the return of Russia as a great power has been pursued since the 1990s and has led us to this. It's a crazy policy. It's done nothing but good except to Arms manufacturers and it has caused this terrible War the first war in Europe in my lifetime and I am nearly 72."_ That part of American Foreign Policy about "Regime Change" has been forgotten. So I might not agree with much of what Peter Hitchens says *but he is so right on the point.*

[@madamesaundere]

@@tonywilson4713 Before we go too far, that point he made that you quoted... is total nonsense.

[@tonywilson4713]

@@madamesaundere Are you claiming the bit about Paul Wolfowitz is nonsense? Because if you are then you really need to go check you facts. Paul Wolfowitz was Donald Rumsfeld's number 2 and basically instigated with others the Invasion of Iraq. He was part of a gaggle of neo-cons who saw that regime change, by any means, was the way for America to get what it wanted in a bunch of countries. On Iraq, he ignored the advice of military experts who didn't go along with his narrative. In the documentary ""Rumsfeld's War" there's footage of him before congress claiming military experts like Eric Shinseki didn't know what they were talking about. Shinseki was a 4 star general with three Bronze Star Medals for valor and two Purple Hearts and Wolfowitz said he didn't know what he was talking about. A couple of years later Wolfowitz got booted from his job at the world bank for giving his girlfriend a cushy job that she wasn't qualified for. Wolfowitz did his PhD in poly-sci at the University of Chicago and if you don't understand what that means I'll be happy to oblige. But before you do ask - in some circles UC is simply referred to as "Sociopath U."

[@flashgordon6670]

@Tony Wilson: Have neither you or Hitchens, heard of the war in the former Yugoslavia? Or of radical Islamic terrorism? Or the troubles with Ireland and the IRA terrorism? And what about wars and conflicts that European nations were involved in that weren’t on Europe’s soil? You can’t be that ignorant surely?

[@pinpinponpon1053]

Was Konstantin against the Iraq war ? Yes. Did he ask for the Iraqis to be armed to rebuff the American invasion ? No. I rest my case

[@greg9079]

Whats your “case” exactly? Who was Iraqs allies at the time?.

[@theartfuldodger8609]

Absurd comparison. Sadam Hussein was a thug with no political legitimacy. Americans were initially greeted as liberators before rival factions / power vaccum / religious civil war ensued. Also absurd to compare the US, a corrupted liberal democracy, to Russia, an authoritarian, one-man dictatorship.

[@JoshWiniberg]

Pretty sure he was still in school then.

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Unlike Ukraine, nobody, not even the Iraqis, thought that the Americans intended to annex Iraq. Iraq was not lead by an elected government.

[@msfwhat]

I must agree.

[@ResonantFrequency]

Peter Hitchens is master at saying nothing for an extended period of time whilst complaining about not getting to speak.

[@jonbaxter2254]

And interupting too, rude as hell.

[@yoginid672]

I come away none the more convinced either way of what should happen now - however, this was a passionate, lively debate, what we've not had since the war broke, and the very fact you have four experts (and they are, each of them, in their own way experts in this subject) with four different takes is in itself exemplary of the problematic situation and never-satisfactory-outcome of any war. Thank you Unherd. p.s. things like Mr Hitchen's demeanour, the frosty (no pun intended) relationship between him and Mr Kisin, and mics sometimes not working the best all contribute to the live atmosphere and spontaneity - no issues from this subscriber.

[@vboch1]

Very well put. You summed it up pretty straight forward.

[@kaimanyu586]

Answer is easy, war should stop.. Unfortunately there are no nations in the West who have even considered this, all they talk about is more war and weapons.. Zelensky has literally said he won't talk to Russia unless Putin is removed.. What kind of dumb demand is that? Meanwhile, Ukraine will never win this war, sending more weapons only means more death and destruction and for what? They can't win.. NATO couldn't even defeat the Taliban after 20 years of war... If NATO can't defeat some goat herserd on sandals who only have ak47, then what change dies NATO have against Russia... But I wouldn't be surprised if Western leaders need another 20 years of war before they understand... The West just loves war, there's always war and the West is always involved... And look how all these nations look like after the West leaves? None of them are better of.. But whatever, you will always find Westerners supporting war.. Now for once war has come to their own soil and look at the state of panic they are in... Normally Westerners do not care at all if 100.000s of people die because of western invasions.. Just tell me how many western nations have been punished for their illegal invasions? None, that's the West, pure hypocrites... And in the mean time they are lecturing the world about human rights and freedom... My God, the West makes me puke, I've never seen bigger hypocrites and pretenders than Westerners...

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

If two so called “experts” positioned on the left side of your screen are TRUE experts, then they must be liars, hun. Since the debate is about CERTAIN FACTS DESCRIBED by the two experts positioned on the right side of your screen🙄

[@gandydancer9710]

There weren't enough sides to the debate. Someone needed to say that if Kyiv can't win even with all the weapons the US and it allies can give it then the debated issue isn't ultimately terribly important. Kisin said Crimea is a done deal and the Donbas isn't terribly important (which makes sense, given that mostly Russians and not Ukrainians live there) so the real question is how to end the war before the Kyiv regime collapses. Putting NATO boots on the ground but with a commitment to NOT changing the current allocation of lands is the unaddressed option. If Zelensky (or Hitchens!?!) wants the 2013 borders back, too bad. And if Putin doesn't want Kyiv's remit area in NATO, too bad.

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. But... Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@richardalexander130]

Better than anything on the BBC or any msm, more please

[@freedomm]

The BBC is a joke. Absolutely unwatchable.

[@intello8953]

You mean on the BBC currently? There are plenty of great BBC documentaries let’s not be troll weirdos

[@freedomm]

@@intello8953 Nothing but government talking points. The BBC is the propaganda arm of the British government, quite understandably as they rely on funding from taxpayers. The news is biased and one-sided.

[@DAN_ZEMAN]

@@intello8953 (says the troll weirdo)

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@robertfennis6449]

Good to see Peter Hitchens is back in his fantasy world.

[@pacohoratio]

Equally, Konstantin is so shamelessly inventive, a talented story teller indeed 😅

[@eleveneleven572]

Your comment hasn't aged well 😁 Hitchens has been proven right.

[@K1forMVP]

@@eleveneleven572No he hasn’t he sat there n made shit up. Kitchens is a smug arrogant douche, clearly mad because Konstantin keeps calling out his BS and articulately picking apart his lies piece by piece lie by lie. Hitchens can’t win on the substance/facts so he makes things personal and starts insulting Konstantin. . It always these Pro Russia propagandists love Russia so much but none of them want to live there, I wonder why

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@eleveneleven572 He certainly has not. He claimed that if the US would stop supporting Ukraine, the war would end. Well the US shamefully hasn't supported Ukraine for half a year and the war is still on. Why? Because the Ukrainians understandably don't want to be under Russia's thumb again.

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@eleveneleven572 They absolutely have not!

[@jammydodger2111]

Not sure what’s up with all the pro hitchens comments. The decisive moment to me seems to be 54 mins ish, where Hitchens claims that if ukraine stops fighting america will continue the war. I don’t follow that. it came across to me more like Hitchens did not want to discuss what would happen from withdrawing support at this stage, and throughout was more interested in saying “I told you so” and digging into past mistakes. The idea that USA could snap fingers and end the war on ukraine’s behalf without ukraine losing all territory doesn’t seem reasonable. Or, if it is, great - let’s do it, but can someone simply explain how…?

[@dungcheeseMORK999]

Hitchens fanboys will blindly agree with him whether or not he is right.

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

Hitchens has been on this program several times and has built up quite a following.

[@phoenixlegend2921]

It's not possible, the Russians will not stop if Ukraine ceases hostilities it will take another half a million Russian casualties before the Russians even think about seriously considering peace

[@bagdaduk]

Yeah it seemed like Hitchens just wanted to be correct on the matter of the Americans are at fault or to be blamed no matter the stupid comment

[@tanyapedwards]

Love love love these debates please keep them coming unherd ❤️

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

Yep, why not to listen to bunch of liars and two well read men, all the while USA&UK are financing the nuclear war👌 Brilliant idea🖤

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@tigerandy]

Absolutely Ukraine should be supported in its fight against tyranny, for freedom. War is bad and you should make sure Russians understand before trying to preach that same point to the victims who are defending themselves against invaders.

[@shahinrahmanian4269]

Hitchens and Fazi are kind of journalist or activists that once Lenin called 'Useful Idiots'.

[@AhemLd]

In a Britain where an entire cadre of Marxist talking heads are spewing one singular monotone Party approved message, two lone counter-voices can hardly be likened to Lenin's useful idiots. See if, after reading a single book of Hitchens, you are still of the opinion that he is an idiot.

[@coderentity2079]

On the other hand, you aren't useful.

[@kamapublishing9949]

Ah, you mean you disagree with them...

[@sticksman1979]

The trouble with this debate is all the panelists have major flaws in their arguments. It's a bugger of an issue for sure. Fazi has not even stepped foot in Ukraine. The Hitch can never be wrong. Kisin hangs everything on the fact he's Russian and Lucas plays with his mic!

[@MacakPodSIjemom]

You must never forget, that Kisin is "a Russian" only for the gullible British or in general Western audience. He's not really a Russian (by ethnicity)...and that speaks volumes to those who have any deeper knowledge about Russian interethnic relations.

[@Simon53188]

What is a Fazi? Apologies for the question. I don't know what it means.

[@knitting4asong]

I didn’t hear China’s posture toward Taiwan mentioned. Backing the failure of territorial aggression in 2023 is more important than many people realize, apparently.

[@mrmr4622]

True, if Ukraines borders dont matter, then Taiwan is up for grabs apparently

[@jhhhjgfds]

Most countries recognize Taiwan as a part of China. Is the recent shift by the West in which they no longer consider Taiwan as part of China surprising? It seems that the West often makes decisions based solely on their own interests. This change in stance is one of the key reasons why Russia cannot afford to lose the ongoing war, and China has committed to providing assistance for as long as necessary. Additionally, the situation appears to be escalating once again, with protests gaining momentum in Georgia at the time of writing. It seems like the conflict is being further inflamed, so let's keep adding fuel to the fire.

[@Killer1260]

@@jhhhjgfds no it's not true that most countries recognize Taiwan as part of China, what are you on about?? If you're referring to the UN not recognizing Taiwan as independent, I wonder if China being a part of the security council has anything to do with it. Hmmmm ... No I don't agree that China has shown it is committed to significantly helping Russia, neither in the short nor long term. Verbal sweet-talk isn't enough, and China abusing low russian prices doesn't prove much either. You disagree?

[@andre8844]

​@@Killer1260 yes, most countries do including the US in a way.

[@Killer1260]

@@andre8844 That might very well be true. That would also be a reason why simply saying, a state isn't recognized by UN therefore they shouldn't exist, is a bad argument. If all it takes is for ONE security council member to say no to acknowledging the nation. Agreed? On the other hand, the nations that are recognized gain a lot of legitimacy, given that all security members agreed, right? So that doesn't change my position.

[@thegeneralist7527]

Imagine if Great Britain decided to restore the Empire instead of granting independence to the colonies and fostering the development of the Commonwealth. Empires fade, and the end can be peaceful and dignified. Or not.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

Exactly! Where does it end and how far back in history does an aggressor be allowed to go?

[@cmcg3738]

Unherd is providing such a vital service to political and cultural dialogue, and thus to our democracy

[@JustinFisher777]

I had to look up the background on that pedantic comment from Hitchens about the 1917 election. The voting was apparently free and fair but the resulting government was immediately dissolved by the Bolsheivks after the first day. All opposition was outlawed and politicians elected from other parties were arrested when they arrived at the capital. Hitchens, you're a real effin piece of work.

[@pedazodetorpedo]

Exactly, and KK's point was that there has never been a peaceful transition of power to real democracy. Hitchens failed to refute that.

[@alexd3253]

He probably meant the February revolution of 1917. There were some riots in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but they weren't excessive, the Tsar abdicated, the parliament proclaimed a Russian Republic and elected the new Interim Government, pending new elections planned for autumn 1917.

[@JustinFisher777]

@alexd3253 He said constituent assembly, though, which was different from the interim government, and the interim government wouldn't qualify for the point being made.

[@alexd3253]

@@JustinFisher777 That was a reply to Konstantin, who said that there never was a democratic transition of power in Russia. But in February 1917 there was, from a constitutional monarchy to a parliamentary republic. Hitchens also admitted that the Bolsheviks ruined everything with their overturn of the new government.

[@grymek737]

Listen to what he said but with a bit more attention

[@shaneemanuelle6243]

If you agree with Konstantin about the right of people to overthrow their government if the government if it act’s against a campaign pledge and with force (which I disagree they did), then we should have overthrown our own governments on their COVID policy when they used the police to enforce it

[@tomo_xD]

There is a fundamental difference though. The police in the UK were legally entitled to enforce the covid regs. The police in Ukraine weren't entitled to shoot and beat up protesters.

[@bobanrajowic]

Agree. Both Ukrainian government in 2014 and most western governments during lockdowns deserved to be overthrown. I would also respect Russian more if they have overthrown Putin during Russian lockdowns in 2020.

[@nomnomyam9379]

@@tomo_xD wrong. the cvd regulations were based on false information so no one had any right to enforce them (like falsifying IFR stratification, or lying about mask effectiveness, or no informed consent about integrity of pseudouridine mrna, etc). As for the 2014 UKR protest, there were agent provocateurs - example: the 'sniper massacre' / shootings on protesters came from the hotels occupied by the protesters, which the public mistook it as if police shot them. And konstantin is lying about "overthrow" - it was clearly a coup by usa, we have recordings of Victoria Nuland planning this. this coup is the reason why pple in Donbass didnt recognize the new govt - and for that they got bombed by the new govt for 8 years.

[@tomo_xD]

@@nomnomyam9379 Millions of people protesting to take down a government is not a coup, lol. Look up the definition.

[@jwadaow]

@@tomo_xD what about the US state department planning them? You come across as if you don't believe people can be manipulated en masse after the earlier stated era of lockdowns. How many governments deposed by the USA do you know of? Everyone can name at least one.

[@joelmalone7922]

I'd like to correct Mr. Fazi by saying that two major nuclear powers have lost long wars without using nuclear weapons to compensate for their losses. The first was America in the Vietnam War and the second was the USSR in the Soviet-Afghan War.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

You mean Mr. Kisin.

[@robertfennis6449]

This is true but i think he meant more specifically a war where people invade nuclear countries. If he really believed that there would be no point in even defending Ukraine.

[@aaronpannell6401]

​@@dixonpinfold2582And the third was the US against the Taliban.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

@@aaronpannell6401 It may please you to imagine so, but the US was never under any illusions about what was likely or even possible in Afghanistan. It turned out as they expected and they accomplished their actual goals, which were to: (i) forestall further attacks on the US, (ii) inflict heavy punishment on the Taliban, (iii) sear an unforgettable lesson into the collective Taliban consciousness (as well as that of other parties in the region and elsewhere) about just what would happen if something like 9/11 were ever attempted again, and (iv) leave unforgettable memories with the Afghan people of what things like increased human rights and education for girls might be like if they ever rid themselves of the Taliban. Thanks for your reply.

[@capitalist4life]

Here in the US, there is no debate over Ukraine.

[@mostevil1082]

There isn't really here. These two are outliers.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

Well Freddie, I didn't think I'd ever see one of your discussions get so heated. As much as I respect Peter Hitchens, I think Peter had the hardest time controlling himself. So many people, including our 'experts' have different opinions as to the history leading up to this, and how to end it in a fair way. The debate was good as I've wanted the west to continue to give Ukraine military support, but I also want the fighting to stop asap. I'm willing to have Ukraine give up say Crimea, but not The Donbass. What I won't accept is what happens if Putin (or his successor) doesn't stop, meaning he goes after Ukraine again, or invades another European country. Or what if he invades say Georgia? Freddie, I like these group events you're having. Please continue with them.

[@ln5747]

He had the hardest time controlling himself because he was the most intelligent person in the room by some distance.

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

When Putin first took Crimea, the response from some was 'just give him it, there are Russians there'. Now that Putin wants large chunks of the east of Ukraine those same people say 'just give him it, there are Russian speakers there'. Trouble is, there are areas of Poland and the Baltics with many Russians and Russian speakers. And every argument in relation to Ukraine could just as easily be made in relation to them.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

@@ln5747 I disagree. Peter is definitely intelligent but he is older and has been at this for many years. Konstantin is a breath of fresh air and is equally if not more intelligent; Konstantin is going far very fast; he's been building up to this his entire life.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

@@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304 Thanks for your comment. But now the west won't allow Putin to go into these areas. Enough is enough. Even Crimea shouldn't have happened, else what was the purpose of giving Ukraine independence in 1991?

[@ln5747]

@@sbaumgartner9848 not at all, he's perfectly old enough to understand the Ukraine conflict. Any one could start from zero and get to grips with it in a matter of weeks. Yet he fails miserably on his assessment.

[@slapshot0074]

Very enjoyable but for the future we need better control over speakers interrupting and talking over each other. Otherwise,great stuff. We need a LOT more of this in the world. Not just mindless "messaging".

[@hofzichtlaan28]

What I have yet to hear from Hitchens, when he claims that Russia needs to defend itself from NATO, is why? The border countries are Norway, the Baltics and Poland. Which of them are a threat to Russia? The purpose of NATO in the border states of Russia is defence only. There is zero potential for an offensive move into Russia. So this claim from Hitchens that this goes both ways is nonsense. Putin of course knows this as well, so the objective is to re-establish the Soviet empire where possible. Which is in the countries that are not NATO members.

[@andre8844]

If NATO is truly defence for the west, why move to the east. You need to go back to history understand the motivations for their actions and talk from there. Eastern Europe should act as a border btwn Russia and the west of which any country crossing the other should be known as the aggressor.

[@cjk8249]

Well for a good start he's defending Russians in East Ukraine who have called on him for help which has nothing to do with any Soviet Empire. it has to do with justice against an evil government commiting atrocties against his people.

[@hofzichtlaan28]

@@andre8844 If NATO is truly defence for the west, why move to the east? Why should NATO be only for the defense of western europe? And since when is Turkey part of the west? Eastern Europe asked to join because indeed they know who the aggressor crossing borders is. Ukraine couldn't join NATO in time, that is their tragedy. And I know my history, and I am from Norway. It was always about defense, first from the communist world revolution (USSR), then we discovered things were not looking up with Putin either (Georgia, Krim, etc.).

[@andre8844]

@@hofzichtlaan28 so we can safely agree that since the end of the ww2, NATO rather Russia has been the one crossing more borders. See basically all I see is security interests of main nations. This is exactly the Chinese case where they don't want American ships on its waters. People say a lot of bad things about Russia but all the bad stuff they say Russia will do, the USA backed by the EU have done it way worse. So all what westerners are promising us is that Western bad is better than Russian bad of which I don't believe that. So if everyone wants to truly be happy, then both Ukraine and Russia should Join NATO. Everyone should join NATO.

[@alekzgavriel-russo7453]

@@andre8844 They moved east because 'the east' wanted them too and there was mutual benefit. Now answer his question, would NATO ever invade Russia? obviously the answer is 'no' ergo Russian 'security concerns' are moot. On the other hand Russia's neighbors have ACTUAL concerns, Moldova has a Russia army in its breakaway state of Transdniestria (broken away under Yeltsin), Georgia had to content with Russian hard power right up to full-scale war multiple times since 1990 and Ukraine has a history of territorial head-butting with Russia ever since the Tuzla crisis in 2002. In a broader sense even NATO countries on the border have concerns, Russia has for over a decade done industrial sabotage, staged its own coups, committed assassinations all within the borders of NATO.

[@Matheusss89]

Kinda refreshing to see a 2x2 debate on a serious topic, instead of the typical american TV "debate" where it's 5 people from the side the network supports, and 1 on the other side.

[@Tancred73]

Peter and Thomas embarrassed themselves in this debate, talking over the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom, obsessing about the past and biased about the role of the US.

[@MarkKap]

Great discussion. Would love to see a part 2 (in a year?)

[@DanHowardMtl]

In a year humankind won't exist anymore.

[@lee4171]

If we're all still here!

[@EyeGodZA]

@@DanHowardMtl maybe you won’t, but I’ll be here. 🫡

[@DanHowardMtl]

@@EyeGodZA Haha. No, you won't.

[@EyeGodZA]

@@DanHowardMtl heh, I’m in the global south, bud, so even if what you say DOES come to pass, we MIGHT get some fallout, so the joke’s on you. But just relax & take a deep breath; see you next year.

[@privaatsak]

The side for continuing the war: "Russia would never accept Ukraine NATO membership." Also: "Ukraine must join NATO." 🤡

[@jakubklis6797]

So it need to be done without Russia accepting it.

[@saattlebrutaz]

The side for stopping the war: "Ukrainians should accept mass murder and domination by Russians and shut up about it"

[@tystone4834]

The side for letting Russia take over Ukraine: "we must pressure our governments for peace." Also: Never explains how stopping giving them arms results in peace

[@privaatsak]

@@tystone4834 What side for letting Russia take over Ukraine? Don't see anyone here arguing for that 🤷‍♂ Surely it should be on those advocating for more and more weapons to be pumped into the region to explain how that results in peace? We've heard much already on peace talks having had water poured all over them by Western leaders, yet the majority of pundits seem to think escalation of the war would make Putin more amenable for negotiation, it's really quite bizarre.

[@stuartwray6175]

​@@privaatsak The Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine is in play. Peace was never a priority for the US.

[@MRandomCommenterGuy]

Also interesting it Peter's implicit recognition that Russia has some kind of claim to Eastern Europe. Talks only about 'Western Europe', and operates on the assumption that any Eastern European country has no agency of their own and are just pawns of the west or Russia. That these countries are their own countries with their own agency is completely lost on some arrogant western Europeans who see the east as inherently inferior.

[@birchstudio2900]

yeah it does feel so. As if we really have no idea what we are doing.

[@nicholasfry4253]

But they are just pawns. Like what makes you think Ukraine gets to decide it's own fate when they're literally the poorest country in Europe?

[@tomashize]

Excellent. Just needed more time. Two hours with an interval perhaps. Everyone had plenty to say and it is very important to discuss what lead to the war I order to see a way out. I personally remember the war in Bosnia and it was appalling. I wish it had been ended much quicker or avoided

[@ElGhoulio]

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@militarytopfive3355]

One more question to the opposition: Why should we value the feelings of a country's elites above international law? The UN charter gives the right to every country to enter or stay out of alliances, why should this be overruled by the feelings of the Russian elites?

[@johnmknox]

It shouldn't. It is none of Russia's business whether Ukraine joins NATO or the EU. It is a decision for Ukrainians to make.

[@fujohnson8667]

Ok so by that token…should the USA accept Chinese military bases in Mexico? If that’s what the Mexican government wanted. You already know the answer so your point is invalid in practice.

[@mrmr4622]

@@fujohnson8667 Cant imagine a world where Mexico agrees to that Also it still wouldnt warrant US invading Mexico if they did

[@blazingkhalif2]

@@fujohnson8667 You know we allowed Russian weapons in Cuba right? until they put nukes and even then that was more political than the actual threat of nukes so your point is invalid. Also also why compare to America? america's an outlier in terms of having friendly neighbors and two oceans separating it from enemy nations. no other country in the world is as lucky as America when it comes to borders.

[@fujohnson8667]

@@blazingkhalif2 I compare it to America because America wouldn’t accept a hostile military alliance on its border but all the Ukraine flag shaggers think Russia should have to accept the same. Hypocrisy look it up.

[@GJK8DB9]

The more I see of Konstantin, the more I appreciate his growing participation in events like this.

[@jonbaxter2254]

He's a right proper lad.

[@appledaddy4139]

It is a really good debate. Everyone provided their opinions and evidence, and the atmosphere is hot but not necessarily hostile. Well done, UnHerd; you deserve 20X more subscribers.

[@o74769]

I would not debate on this topic because it ignores the suffering people and just saying oh yeah, lets stop supplying Ukraine, whats the worst that could happen? a few million dead ukrainians? heh i don't care as long as i can have a better life in UK... those people should move and live in that country for a few years not 3 days and coming home as experts.

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@appledaddy4139]

​@@flashgordon6670If If we can accept the perspective that this is a proxy war (the US has been directing all of this), everything is uncertain now. At the beginning, I didn't think it is a proxy war and supported Ukraine fully, but now I have totally changed my mind. No one can deny that the Ukrainians' bravery and courage are respectful, which has moved me so many times.

[@juniorjames7076]

Disagreed with many points made but...SUSCRIBED!!!! Finally, genuine intellectual exchange is back!! Are we actually civilized again?

[@flashgordon6670]

I never said it wasn’t a proxy war. The point I made is that you can’t justify sending more weapons to Ukraine, on the basis that it will help to negotiate a favourable peace, bc it won’t. If anything it will make Russia’s need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Perhaps there is justification for sending extra arms for Ukraine? But that’s not it. I rest my case.

[@Jack-Pi8ni]

Freddie mate, you had your work cut out at times, but enjoyed the debate.

[@iffler2542]

Bit of a shitshow. I was less than impressed with the way Peter conducted himself. I usually respect his calmness and reason in debates.

[@Uppernorwood976]

I get the impression that because Peter Hitchens changed his mind 40 years ago about communism, he thinks he doesn’t need to change his mind about anything, ever again.

[@seanmoran2743]

Passionate is the word

[@jimmyfaulkner5746]

Can't stand Peter he is a complete prick but he does have the habit of always being correct .

[@sgjoni]

The way that Peter was using personal attacks and name droppings really turned me off… so much so that I have a hard time stopping myself writing personal attacks on him and and the pole that is keeping up his British upper middle class demeanour…. revealing my general attitudes to that segment of British society. The sad truth is that it wasn’t long since I would have shared his point of view (2014) but now I’m disgusted by my own naïveté.

[@robbieelliot9491]

I thought Peter was reasonable and did wait. With regards to name dropping... he was trying to establish that he was also personally familiar with the ppl and history. Helps counter Konstanin who, understandably, uses his background card. Again the ppl of the Donbass are never considered Ukranian.

[@adamspeaking373]

He lost me in his first statement - blaming NATO for Russian aggression. I’ve never heard a more stupid statement in my life.

[@julianciahaconsulting8663]

NATO broke its promises to Russia about no eastern expansion. We gave our word and then reneged on it. Simple as that.

[@devilgod136]

It's not stupid. It's true.

[@bushman143]

It’s not stupid at all. George Kennan, the architect of containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, mentioned in 1997 not to expand NATO as it will make Russia more militaristic and start a new Cold War.

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@devilgod136 No it's not true: there is only one to blame for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and that is Putin!

[@ramses4321]

Do those 2 people repeating Russian talking points, do think that normal western citizens like wars? Do I have to remind them of who invaded who? Who is the agressor? Who sent their tanks rolling through a foreign country borders?

[@michaelfoley9904]

The debate needed at least another hour, maybe another one and a half to Two hours more. The debate was great but felt a but squashed. There were points on both sides of the debate that could be expanded on if time allowed.

[@Nicolo3826]

Great discussion. It makes me wonder if we should all be better versed in the history, both Russian and European, before we can truly take a justified stance. I feel I need to listen to it all again with pen and paper to really get the ideas expressed here. Freddy is a fantastic interviewer, I hope he continues to grow into the adjudicator role as this conversation may have been more enlightening were it a little less chaotic at times. Fantastic work in bringing this together UnHerd.

[@globalshiffft]

Feel free to subscribe to our channel for independent geopolitical analysis of the Ukraine conflict and global events of today!

[@huveja9799]

I'm doing that writing thing with a pen and paper, and going to check the sources, the following are some of the discrepancies, fact distortions that I'm finding 1. Kisin starts his argument by saying that Putin in his last speech mentions that Ukraine is a temporary label for historic Russian land. Putin does not say that, in his speech referring to the people of the Donbass, he literally says "to protect our people in our historical land" (you can check at minute 5:47' of the Putin's speech). Factually, at the present, that is, at the time of the speech, the lands of the Donbass are part of Russia, and factually also those lands were historical lands of Russia, and factually also, the people there are of Russian origin (and now they are Russians). At no time does Putin refer to the whole of Ukraine as an historical Russian land, as Kisin makes us believe with his words. 2. Kisin also says that Putin in his speech mentions that Russia wants to return to the "post WWII order", that is, to the state of affairs in which the USSR controlled all of Eastern Europe. This is the part where Kisin's intellectual dishonesty seems to me the greatest, if you listen to Putin's speech, he literally says that the USA wants to destroy "the basis of the world order after World War II.. and step by step they started to destroy the system of world security and control of weapons." (1:41:00' in the Putin's speech) Clearly from the context, these "basis of the world order" are those that were established through the creation of the United Nations and through the powers vested in its Founding Charter with the aim of maintaining international peace and security. That is, Putin refers very clearly to the fact that the UN Charter is an instrument of international law, and that is the basis of the world order after World War II. 3. Using the Winter War (USSR vs Finland) as a good example for Ukraine. It's actually a lousy example for the following: (a). Some sources state that the USSR's real motives for that war was to conquer Finland, and install a pro-Soviet puppet government in it. That is a speculation that is not proven, but Kisin presents it as a fact with two clear motives: i. To associate Stalin with Putin, and ii. To be able to say that Viktor Yanukovych (the legal president of Ukraine in 2014), was a Putin's puppet government in the same way as the puppet government that Stalin wanted to install in Finland. (b). Before going to war, the USSR asked Finland to cede land from the border near Leningrad in order to protect its security, and in exchange, Finland would ask for land from anywhere else. Finland refused, they went to war, finally Finland lost the war, and in the negotiation to end the war, Finland lost 9% of its territory, getting the USSR more than it had initially asked for. Was that a good deal for Finland? clearly not, but Kisin presents it as something favorable, just as it is presented today that the war is favorable for Ukraine (of course, favorable for those who do not fight in it and are very, very far from it). 4. When Kisin talks about the violent end of the legitimate government of Viktor Yanukovych (VK), he presents a very simple and convenient story: that in the VK's election campaign, he promised to sign a trade treaty with the EU, but, then while governing he backed out, so a few students demonstrated, then VK used excessive force to control such a harmless demonstration, and that escalated out of control. That is, the whole situation was VK's fault. The reality about the trade treaty with the EU is that VK refused to sign a trade agreement with the EU because he had asked for US$27 billion in loans and aid, but the EU was willing to offer $838 million. And at the same time, Russia was willing to offer $15 billion as well as cheaper gas prices. In addition, the EU demanded major changes to Ukraine's regulations and laws, but Russia did not stipulate regulatory or legal adjustment of such nature or scale. Who in their right mind would not postpone the signing of an agreement having such a lever? Because the other thing Kisin does not say is that VK didn't say that he was quitting negotiating with the EU, what he said is that he was not going to sign a deal with the offered conditions. This information can be corroborated even in Wikipedia itself, which let's say that it has nothing neutral, and titles the entry that contains it as "Revolution of Dignity". Then, what coincidentally Kisin does not mention, is that Petro Poroshenko, who was, also coincidentally, president of Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, and whose mandate can be distilled into a three-word slogan, "armiia, mova, vira" (military, language, faith), and who lost to Zelenskyy the 2019 elections due the rapid decline in the overall quality of life of the ordinary Ukrainian. That same character, who coincidentally became president, confesses that "from the beginning, I was one of the organizers of the Maidan. My television channel,Channel 5, played a tremendously important role". The Maidan is how the movement that overthrew VK is known in Ukraine, and see the lapus lingua of the citizen Petro, he was one of the "organizers", besides using his massive influence in the media to incite the population. Anyway, all this was also conveniently and casually avoided by Kisin. According to him, everything that happened was due to VK's bad faith, and the people of Ukraine "spontaneously" organized to overthrow him. 5. According to Lucas, the only sin of USA was to have been very "idealistic", and that USA must have realized much earlier the imperialist intentions of Russia, and that the expansion of NATO as a reason for the invasion is a fairy tale. Well, Lucas, to justify the fairy tale thing, argues that at the NATO-Russia Council of 2002 in Rome, Putin expresses his "gratitude and support for Russia's new partnership", but if you look the speech (I did it, and it's on the NATO website in a pdf under the name NATO - RUSSIA COUNCIL), the most similar thing Putin says to that, it is when he closes his speech and says "I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to all of you who are gathered here today at this roundtable of harmony and mutual understanding". That is, basically Putin thanks everyone for their presence at the event, something quite standard in a speech, it seems to me, but according to Lucas that is a clear example that the reason of the NATO expansion is a fairy tale. From my perspective those are a blatant example of intellectual dishonesty. I think that people resort so easily to this dishonesty because they just know how much work it takes to check all the sources one by one.

[@БогданБеркут]

​@@huveja9799 Your comment is a great example of intellectual dishonesty by itself. 1. "At no time does Putin refer to the whole of Ukraine as an historical Russian land" You're lying - "... in our time, they began to make anti-Russia out of Ukraine. The project, in fact, is not new ... It was cultivated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and in Poland, and other countries with one goal: to tear off these historical territories that today are called Ukraine, from our country." From the same speech. Previously, under historical Russia, Putin meant not only Ukraine, but the entire USSR - "The historical, strategic mistakes of the Bolshevik leaders, the leadership of the CPSU, made at various times in state building, economic and national policy, led to the collapse of our united country. The collapse of historical Russia under the name The USSR is on their conscience." From a speech on the recognition of the LPR by the DPR on February 21, 2022. 3. The Communists did a similar trick with the Ukrainian SSR and the Moldavian SSR. This is not speculation. Speculation is your attempt to construct a speaker's motive. Also, you don't understand that there are ultimatums that are supposed to be rejected in order to serve as a cause for war. "Was that a good deal for Finland?" Yes. Since 1938, Finns have observed the consequences of ultimatums on the Sudetenland, on Memel and on the passage of Soviet troops to the Baltic countries. As for Ukraine, Ukrainians want to fight until the occupier is driven out. 4. On November 29, the protest consisted of about a hundred people. At night, they are dispersed by a special police unit with unnecessary use of force. On the morning of November 30, there were already a million people in the center of the capital. Is it Poroshenko's fault? Your attempt to build a conspiracy around the fifth president who was not even the formal leader of the protest (they were three leaders of the opposition parties - Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, Tyagnybok) is simply ridiculous. It is not clear how the history of the rejection of the association should justify the use of force against the protest, and repression against its members, and even more so their murder. 5. Half a year before the war, Putin writes an article in which he tries to prove that Ukrainians do not exist as a nation. Three days before the war, he arranges an hour-long lecture in which he tells how the communists invented Ukraine and that Ukrainians do not have a history of statehood. While Ukrainian fundamentally cannot join NATO since 2014.

[@huveja9799]

@@БогданБеркут Kisin is referring to Putin's speech to the Duma on February 21, you can find the reference around that the 12:45' minute of the current video, at this time, Kisin is starting his argumentation and says: " two days ago he gave a speech or yesterday I can't remember now". In the Putin's speech to the Duma, he does not say anything of what Kisin mentions, and also for you to have references I relied on the English translation presented by Sky News, you can find it on YT under the title "'They started the war' - Putin's annual address to the nation". Therefore, either you are confusing Putin's speech, or you also have problems, as Kisin, with rearranging very simple facts according to your interpretation. I imagine what it will be like with more complex facts, like for example what happened in Ukraine in 2014. Regarding the rest that you mention, sorry, but I'm not in the business of interpreting the facts in this comment. I made my comment to show the distortions that Kisin/Lucas makes of the facts, precisely to accommodate them to his interpretation.

[@БогданБеркут]

@@huveja9799 in the literal sense of what Kissin said, Putin did not say this, but Putin considers Ukraine to be an accidental formation in the territories of "historical Russia", which he spoke about earlier and what he said in an address to the Duma. The words I quoted from this speech. "...like for example what happened in Ukraine in 2014" Рresident, who fled after signing an agreement with opposition that guaranteed him presidency until urgent election, was removed from power by parliament, in which he had a majority, by 328 votes out of 450. I guess this does not fit into your narrative.

[@JimTDF]

Nice and necessary debate. I was, however, unpleasantly surprised at how often the panelists just spoke (or almost yelled) over each other. Another thing that really made me cringe was the number of false statements made here... I do not want to go into details as it would result in a very lengthy text. It seems however that almost all of these people - who are presented here as experts - do not care much about fact checking their references, or to change their opinions about events that at some point seemed to prove something but were later found to be entirely fake. It is very tough to acknowledge your mistakes or your bias (which is often impossible to completely get rid of - since you usually do have a side you picked), but when debating in public we should at least try.

[@headshot6959]

Edward Lucas got the best of this debate. Konstantin's whippersnappery got under Hitchens' skin and he never regained his composure, Thomas Fazi was a crybaby. Chalk this up as an Edward Lucas win.

[@Dmace69]

Amazing. Well done organising this Freddie!

[@AndrewKNI]

A superb interview panel. Very interesting to hear different views. But the time went so fast. Well done Freddie for bringing your guests together.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

Agree. It should have been longer. They and we were only warming up at the 60 minute mark! Glad to see you're interested in this terrible situation.

[@peterjensen3076]

Fazi is rather informed - but the whole panel has no realistic vision for development of peace. They tend to think inside the known boxes, agreeing that conflicting interests is the future (Hitchens's referring to Yalta counts for that). None of them seem to provide a perspective for a comprehensive peace politic on the geopolitical level.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@peterjensen3076 Hitchins explicitly made the point that Yalta was squalid but kept the peace. Was Yalta an example of what you mean by "a comprehensive peace politic on the geopolitical level"?

[@peterjensen3076]

@@gandydancer9710 The gathering of all the great powers in a global security order based on the UN rules - and the dismissal of NATO, CSTO etc.

[@gandydancer9710]

​@@peterjensen3076 Ah, the UN clown show. Divvying up Serbia to extract Kosovo is legal, but Donbas self-determination isn't, because reasons.

[@domainpark4421]

Excellent debate. Unherd is simply singular and fantastic in the media landscape.

[@josephedwards9502]

PJ

[@flashgordon6670]

“If you want peace then you must make ready for war.” 36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. But... Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@runs_through_the_forest]

@@flashgordon6670 such a stupid thing to say, comparing nazi germany post 1943 with Ukraine today, is it really necessary to post this same long nonsensical comment multiple times?

[@flashgordon6670]

@@runs_through_the_forest Yes it is necessary and no it isn’t nonsensical. It’s necessary bc it’s not nonsense. I need to see how people react to it and to the truth out there. Why are you so wilfully blind and stupid that you can’t see that?

[@davidlittle8638]

Wonderful to have this format. I am an American who lived with my family for ten years in Russia, and for the past ten years, I’ve been working in both Russia and Ukraine. I am not pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia. I am anti Putin as this is his war and his alone. Without Putin, there would be no brainwashed collective and there would be no war. I could easily write a long paper in response to what I just listened to. Briefly, Peter reveals his cards when he says the US would continue the war even if an agreement were made between Ukraine and Russia. There are many very intelligent people who just get things wrong. The arguments made by Peter and Thomas are rooted in the naive and dangerous notion that Putin can be negotiated with. Putin has had his eye on Ukraine since coming to power. Peter, you like to bring up history. Did you watch how Putin took 20% of Georgia in 2008? Did you watch how Putin destroyed the city of Grozny or the way they bombed Aleppo? He is a tyrant and a thug who uses fear and control at home and abroad. He has no respect for human life. You will negotiate with him? Really? Putin could easily have secured both Crimea and the Donbas if that was his goal. It’s not his goal. His goal is to take Ukraine. He doesn’t think this country has a right to exist. Unfortunately, the only language Putin will listen to is force. Sorry Peter and Thomas, but Putin does not have a Western mindset. Ukrainians do have a western mindset -- you do, I do. Most people in the West do, but Putin does not! No amount of thinking you can negotiate with him matters. If you think it does, you are being played. You understand that he lies, right? Putin has deceived all our presidents; Bush, Obama and Trump were all played and there are plenty of stories about that. Edward is correct that if the US, and UK and Western partners understood the mind of Putin, they would have armed Ukraine to the teeth and there would be no war, or it would have been over soon enough. Putin respects strength and sees the West as weak and immoral. He completely underestimated the resolve and resilience of the Ukrainian people and of Ukraine’s Western partners. It would be a catastrophic mistake to not continue to equip Ukraine with whatever they need to push this maniacal dictator to the trash heap of history.

[@ArturVerdiev]

Thank you for your opinion!

[@zarni000]

Tell that to thr people of donbas who have endured 8 years if shelling and over 15k casualties

[@zarni000]

Putin can be negotiated with. The west cannot. Minsk proved it

[@ArturVerdiev]

@@zarni000 Have you made an effort AT LEAST read wikipedia article which says "About 14,200-14,400 people were killed in the war, the vast majority of them in the first year: 6,500 pro-Russian separatist forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,404 civilians on both sides of the frontline" Emphasis here on *the vast majority of them in the first year* and *3,404 civilians on both sides* (So in fact, you're presenting wrong information). Guess what should happen so all these people to stay alive? russia should not send their forces under cover to Ukraine and should not back separatists with money and ammo. I am from Donetsk, I was born and lived there for 28 years until 2014. If not russia people on parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions could live just fine after Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014. Nobody from the West of Ukraine would go and kill people living in the East of Ukraine. Why would anyone do so with their fellow citizens? There were no arguments between russian speaking and ukrainian speaking regions that could cause bloodshed. Maximum there would be some pilitical turbulence for a while. Negotiating with putin. That is just useless. He will lie as usual. russia will betray anything they sign - see Budapest memorandum.

[@zarni000]

@@ArturVerdiev wikipedia does not cover the full picture. Almost all independent accounts show over 15k civilians casuakties. who started it? Was it Russia or Ukraine who is denying these people basic human rights. Go join the Bandera ranks

[@timb350]

This entire debate can be reduced to one very simple fact: There is not the slightest doubt that it could NEVER have occurred in Russia...or any of the poisoned countries that openly support it (Syria, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, etc.). IOW...we are fighting for something, something that matters...a lot! That fact seems to be COMPLETELY lost on Hitchens.

[@TheMrlandman]

This discussion could have gone on for another hour. Great work, great insights, many thanks.

[@dancroitoru364]

actually after 30 minutes both sides were just repeating their stance and quoting cliches or lies by omission ...

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

What exactly would another half an hour change about your greed? Nothing.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@slavomirakrasna2111 "Your greed"? Don't be coy. If you have something to say don't be less than explicit. I for one have no idea whom you are accusing of greed for what.

[@PadHicks]

Edward Lucas "Can you chair this please?" Too right, terrible job moderating this debate.

[@rys2754]

What evidence would convince Hitchens he's wrong? I'm pretty sure none. A definition of dogmatism.

[@tentonmotto6779]

The uncomfortable truth for both sides is that NATO expansion was an unprecedented Prisoner's Dillema. It was neither an obvious and benevolent choice of action as Lucas describes it, and it wasn't a stupid malicious policy as Hitchens describes it. The West knew in 1990's that sooner or later Russia would recover, that it would hold a massive grudge over the end of Cold War and that it naturally would want to reestablish its sphere of influence. So, there were two choices: 1) Leave Eastern Europe unprotected and hope that Russia would see it as a gesture of good will instead of a sign of weakness. Then to hope that Russia would stay democratic by itself and that it would abandon its deep-rooted imperialist and revanchist attitude on its own. Then to hope that democratic Russia would be grateful for NATO's non-expansion and that it would not go after Eastern Europe. 2) Don't leave things to chance and just grab Eastern Europe while Russia is weak. Sure, it would naturally anger Russia and escalate the chance of conflict, but if the conflict was to happen anyway, the West would be in a much stronger position compared to a scenario of appeased Russia going after non-protected Poland or Czech Republic. The West chose a second option. It is very hard to say if it was a correct or incorrect choice because you may easily argue for both sides. On the one hand, there was a real chance of swaying 1990's Russia to the Western side, if the West did things right. On the other hand, even in 1990's at the height of pro-Western sentiment Russia dismissed sovereignty of the former Soviet countries with Transdnistria as the prime example. Same is true for the events of 2014. Hitchens and Fazi gasp and lament as they describe Western meddling in the Ukrainian politics. Yet, they don't mention much more overt and intrusive meddling by Russia in the same period. Yanukovych in Ukraine was increasingly moving in the same direction as Lukashenko in Belarus. He traded away Ukrainian sovereignty and independence for Russia's oil money in his own private coffers. He also went increasingly authoritarian, in line with Russia's own slide into authoritarianism during Putin's third term. So, yes, Yanukovych was democratically elected, but his conduct was extremely questionable and endangered democracy itself. Hitchens asks why Ukrainians couldn't just wait to elect Yanukovych away. Well, as Ukraine was moving closer to Russian or Belarussian election model where ruling party is controlling the elections and counts the votes, there was a chance Yanukovych would not be elected away ever again. The West could abandon the protestors and watch 40 million strategically important country sliding into authoritarian, anti-Western sphere built by Russia. Or it could act and provide logistical support and keep Ukraine in the Western sphere. It was another messy and complicated situation. Reducing it to "West bad" is to show ignorance of the nuance.

[@БогданБеркут]

You have an excellent commentary with a balanced perspective on what happened. There are a couple important things to add. - The countries of Eastern and Central Europe have agency. Therefore, "NATO expansion to the borders of Russia" is most likely "countries on the borders of Russia sought protection from Russia in NATO." From this perspective, the whole process is Russia's diplomatic defeat and its failure to reset relations with its neighbors. In addition, given the desire of these countries to provide themselves with protection in the scenario when NATO "does not go east", then Russia would most likely receive just another military alliance on its borders. And if we assume that the conflict between Russia and NATO lies precisely in the threat to the possibility for Russia to restore its influence on its neighbors, then this other alliance would be the same threat and we would probably get a similar conflict. - It is also important to note that it is intellectually dishonest to reduce the entire conflict to Russia's resentment of NATO and its attempts to ensure its own security. Because it's not true. Ukraine fundamentally could not join NATO since 2014. Russia got its own buffer zone and Crimea on top. Putin's revanchist and pseudo-historical views explain the war in 2022 much better than anything else.

[@tentonmotto6779]

@@БогданБеркут Thank you! I found the debate interesting, but also frustrating. Lucas did well, but others didn't. Hitchens was focused exclusively on pushing his biased vision of the past with no comment on the future. Kisin had good points, but he used manipulative anecdotes as his main weapon. Fazi had points but delivered those points very poorly and, frankly, he appeared hysterical. Also Fazi is very wrong to think that there was some sort of magical compromise agreement between Ukraine and Russia that would inevitably be put in the place anyway. That's just not the case. It was an agreement presented to Ukraine as ultimatum by Russia back when both sides thought Russia had the clear upper hand. The compromise was only on Ukraine's side, while in return Russia only promised to take some parts of Ukraine instead of the whole country. From Ukraine's point of view it was either to surrender to those demands and collapse as a nation or try its chances to get a better deal. Ukraine chose to fight. It was a wise choice because Ukraine understands Russia wants "all or nothing". Not because Putin is that evil, but because of the nationalist momentum in Russia itself. Even if Putin wanted, he can't compromise with Ukraine or he would face the wrath of the home-grown nationalist hard-liners. So, Ukraine chose to go the hardest, but also the most clear-cut road towards its goals with no risk of duplicity by the other side. Would Ukraine be successful? And how would that success look like? That was the most important part of the debate. From my point of view, there are only two realistic outcomes based on what happens on the battlefield: 1) First scenario is that Russia prevails, reaches administrative borders in the East and stops there because of exhaustion. Then Russia would take the two regions in the East along with the land bridge to Crimea. Neither Ukraine nor West would ever agree to acknowledge those gains by Russia for multitude of reasons, including sunken costs. The conflict would freeze for both sides to lick their wounds and inevitably go for another round few years in the future. 2) Second scenario is Ukraine pushing Russia to pre-February 24 borders with the West demanding Ukraine to stop right there. Then Ukraine would propose a ceasefire with Russia, basically acknowledging no territorial gains by both sides. It would be a very hard pill to swallow for both Ukraine and Russia, but it is the only remotely plausible deal both can agree on, if West and China would force them. Again, it would only delay the round two, but Ukraine would be much better prepared for the next fight and there is a chance of major shifts in Russian domestic politics if Putin fails.

[@БогданБеркут]

@@tentonmotto6779 The first scenario is possible, but for this Russia must hold back the Ukrainian counter-offensive in the spring and summer, or recapture the liberated territories after counter-offensive, Russia has already killed its own offensive potential near Bakhmut. As for the second scenario, it is unlikely that "West" will try to stop Ukraine. The fact is that if Ukraine is able to move the Russian army to the borders of February 24, then it is more than capable of returning the Crimea. And returning Crimea is even easier than Donbass (Donbass is hills, rivers, dense urban area with many industrial facilities - hell that can cost hundreds of thousands of lives ... well, or Ukrainian army will bypass it all from the north through Luhansk) and if Crimea is lost, the Russian regime will probably fall.

[@tentonmotto6779]

@@БогданБеркут In terms of military logic you are correct, Ukraine would have no reason to stop. If it can move back to pre- February 24 borders, it would likely be able to take entirety of Ukraine. However, I think Russia would get intensely desperate if Ukraine would be on the brink of taking Crimea. At that point Russia would massively amp up the threats to Western countries. Whether Russia does something or not, that would likely be enough for Western European countries and the U.S. to call the breaks and tell Ukraine to stop and enjoy its victory, even though it is not a complete one. Great Britain and Eastern Europeans would probably push for complete restoration of Ukraine, but it would not be enough without the U.S. support. It may go down differently, though, hard to say what's going to happen in the future.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

Your first post can hardly be beaten for its realism and intelligence. It surpasses the analysis of everyone in the debate itself. I see there is an interesting-looking thread below, but I must return to it later. For now I had to at least register my complete agreement. Why your view is not more commonly expressed somewhat baffles me. It ought to be the mainstream one.

[@Titoscudd]

Putin himself had suggested to Bill Clinton that Russia should be admitted into NATO. The UK, France and the US said absolutely not. So, who really is a threat to whom and why would Russia allow NATO to set up shop right on its border when, in recent years, NATO has gone from its original role as a defensive alliance to an offensive entity i.e. Yugoslavia/Serbia, Iraq, Libya?

[@lozah9036]

Exactly. Proves anti russian alliance. Always has been. Why they allow other soviet countries, and not russia, despite their asking.

[@billsutherland9708]

If Europe needs a military alliance it should not include the US who has proven over and over to be a threat to anyone who doesn't support the "America First" initiative.

[@saattlebrutaz]

If Ukraine wants to join NATO it's their business, moreover, NATO is not a threat to Russia. Finland joined NATO and Putins' response was 'whatever'.

[@billsutherland9708]

@@saattlebrutaz Do you also agree that if Cuba wants to join a military alliance that does not include the US it is no one else's business? Remember the nuclear threat this posed to the world in the 1960s? Cuba sixty years later is still under US sanctions because the US does not want foreign weapons in North America. The US written Munro Document will not allow North or South America to be part of any military alliance that does not include the US.

[@lozah9036]

@@saattlebrutaz not a threat to russia? Ha. Titoscudd right. Always has been an anti russian alliance. And no, they don't have the right to compromise another country's security by placing missiles on their border. That enshrined in law.

[@MrMjp58]

Great discussion. Better than anything on TV or radio.

[@AlexanderNesterov]

The side that constantly appeals to my emotion rather than to my reason will not win either of the two.

[@greggbell9837]

Thank you UnHerd. It was spirited, rancorous, and ultimately very insightful. Well done.

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@RedBricksTraffic]

This was a very interesting and informative debate. Unfortunately, it still feels very unresolved by the end of it. I'm not persuaded that any of the peace solutions presented by either side would work, and I have left this conversation feeling just as hopeless as I did before entering it.

[@kobuk]

That's because none of them are viable solutions. After having a lengthy talk with someone Ukrainian the other day (who does not share Kisen's view at all) I think the history is clear that the people of Crimea and the Donbas align with Russia and that the west and east should never have been the same country. The most likely resolution will be the near total destruction of the Ukraine and a peace deal that cedes Crimea and Donbas to Russia and forbids the Ukraine from joining NATO. I feel sorry for Konstantin that he actually thinks that giving Putin a bloody nose will result in anything except the deaths of thousands more of his people including potentially his own family.

[@zarni000]

Minsk was signed. The Ukrainians just abrogated it. It would have worked otherwise and there'd be no war

[@ArrowToTheKnee]

My plan would be that Russia has crimea, the donbas is independent and ukraine gets effectively a sort of article 5 from BOTH Russia and NATO on the condition that it commits to never join NATO or have NATO activities in its borders or join as a full member. That gives security guarantees to all, respects the wishes of those in the donbas and leaves Russia with just enough to claim a win at home. Oh and disbandment of Azov which will help with that and keep Europe safe from white supremacists training there and then coming back to us armed or battle trained. I'd be interested to know if you think that would be a suitable agreement or a likely one?

[@dariostarsky8124]

I'm wondering whether you're aware that none of the 3 (now 4) comments under your input are actually visible..? I take it you can see them on your end... What were they, I wonder? I'm just curious what YT considers dangerous to undermine the mainstream narrative... Cheers!

[@PancakeProduct]

"I support peace" is a comment awaiting removal

[@jumblyman]

It's amazing that no one expects Russia to behave like a good neighbour, the apologists on the panel act like Ukraine is a battered wife who is "asking for it". Hmm I wonder why Russia's neighbour's have security concerns.....? Russia has had centuries to get it's act together; creating a decent country worth living in takes a lot of hard boring work over generations, it's something the Russians appear to be incapable of doing - they'd rather just drag everyone else down to their level. From my antipodean perspective the anti-Americanism on the panel is a throwback to the Cold War. A lot of Europeans whine about the US but - as Ukraine has shown starkly - when things get serious the feckless Europeans are incapable of defending even their own continent and daddy US has to save the day.

[@sbaumgartner9848]

Agree. I am half Russian, but this doesn't mean I relate to what Putin is doing. Unfortunately, Russia under each of its forms of rule, has never been ruled in a democratic fashion and its citizens and citizens of other countries have paid the price. There is no change in sight as Putin's ego and need to re-write history gets bigger. It's amazing me how many people commenting here are so sympathetic to Putin and Russia. I find it terrifying.

[@freetrade8830]

@@sbaumgartner9848Catherine the Great tried and failed to enlighten Russia, if I’m not mistaken.

[@okyouknowwhatever]

@@sbaumgartner9848 I think there's a large group of people in the West who just aren't familiar enough with Russia and understand well enough what it is and what people like Putin (and his likes) wants. They hate the leadership of the West so much (understandable to a large degree) that they somehow seem to think Russia is a viable antidote to that. But just because some things are a bit effed up in the West (immigration issues, trans hysteria, et cetera) doesn't mean Russia under Putin is some great alternative. What Putin essentially is (a bit simplified) is just a Russian version of a Western Neo-con imperialist, the same people these disgruntled people in the West claim they hate so much.

[@ma7rix13]

I think we need a round 2. And before round 2, I’d like to see the couple historical facts they disagreed about determined (US-led coup?, US/UK killed the agreement in beginning of war, etc). Also, Peter’s style is so much like his brothers. Albeit, they would probably have been completely opposite positions in this matter. PS. He did say “US will keep the war going if Ukrainians stop”… Konstantine was right. Maybe Peter regrets being so flippant, but he def said it.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

No, Christopher Hitchens' style was polite even when it was acid. Charming also, and on the whole respectful. Moreover his argumentation was more thoughtful, penetrating and balanced overall. No one could fail to notice his considerable panache, nor to remember it. Thus even in death he is his brother's superior, which fact probably explains the latter's awful personality.

[@AH-qk9ms]

those "facts" cannot be "determined", so they themselves need to be debated. for example, Konstantin said that Yanukovych's move away from EU was corrupt - it cannot be debated that he moved away from the deal, but the "corruption" of it was debatable considering the terms of the IMF package that would have essentially imposed austerity on the peoples of Ukraine just to trade with Europe. he also said that police beat up students during the riots and this was why Yanukovych was deposed - while they did beat up those students, it is a lot more complicated than that. there were agitators at the riots (not the students) who came specifically to invoke a brutal reaction from the police (who originally showed up unarmed)... most of this footage was suppressed by the press coverage of the Maidan protests as well as the connections with CIA influence over those agitators - not to mention the more alarming footage where Nuland spoke to those who could have been the pro-Maidan snipers, telling them what the "head count" would need to be (the 100 protestor death toll) to successfully decapitate the Yanukovych Presidency. as for the "fact" about US/UK killing the agreement at the start of the war - it's hard to find conclusive evidence however at a conference of African leaders, Putin recently presented a treaty he claims he had made with Zelenskyy which he subsequently tore up after Putin's men backed off from Kiev (which he says was part of the agreement)... and there is reason to believe that Johnson's presence in Ukraine after the Ankara negotiations was the influencer behind this decision.

[@petercollingwood522]

@@dixonpinfold2582 Yes. Christopher was by far the smarter of the two.

[@petercollingwood522]

@@AH-qk9ms If you're prepared to believe the bs an ex KGB goon tells a bunch of African leaders I'm sorry for you.

[@alekzgavriel-russo7453]

@@AH-qk9ms It was corrupt in the sense that Yanukovych was happy...if not ecstatic about the EU deal....until Russia coerced and bribed him into abandoning in Favour of a deal with the Customs Union. That IS corrupt. Boris didn't kill the peace deal, Russian bad-faith negotiations and the Bucha/Izyum massacres killed it.

[@lift_play_boogie]

Phenomenal content. Absolutely loved it. Peter is getting on at 72 but he still stands toe to toe.

[@JosephusAurelius]

Wow, he looks good for 72, he looks like he’s still in his 50’s!

[@gethindavies]

He showed how how Kisin is way out of his depth imo

[@Tokengesture]

He is a modern day Neville Chamberlain

[@saattlebrutaz]

He's on the wrong side of the debate

[@terrygain1343]

Hitchens, who is only 72, was slumped in his chair during the entire debate. Does he have spinal problems?

[@Klompe2003]

I could easily listen to this for three more hours

[@MLE750]

Peter H needs to listen to what Anne Applebaum thinks about 'negotiating' with Putin.

[@giedreliorancaite1267]

As a resident of Vilnius, I very happy knowing that my parents and grandparents did not succumb to fear when they witnessed bullets piercing human heads back in 1991, unlike Mr. Hitchens. Their courage has allowed me to experience the blessings of living in a free society where I can pursue my chosen profession, practice my faith, speak multiple languages, engage in various fields of work, and pursue my desired education. The price of freedom may be high, but its value surpasses any sacrifice. In light of the frequent references to Churchill, it's important to note that during WWII, he didn't say 'OMG, war is horrible', he said, 'We shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home'. Why the double standard when Ukrainian are fighting for theirs?

[@peacepoet1947]

NATO should have gotten involved before Putin was allowed to annexed Crimea. Obama also allowed Russia to steal Ukrainian property.

[@eleveneleven572]

You omit the reality that NATO was the aggressor and the corrupt Ukrainian government and the neo nazi militias waged war upon the ethnic Russian population after reneging upon promises of equal treatment for 8 years before Russia had to step in.

[@shyzunk]

Peter complained about the futility and about getting nowhere with this many people within the allotted time. I think this was the most efficient debate on the subject to date. Didn't change my mind but it certainly provided more clarity.

[@jonasgeirjonsson2042]

He seemed to have very few constructive suggestions, mostly blame.

[@jonbaxter2254]

@@jonasgeirjonsson2042 All I see is a coward who wants Russia to step on him.

[@sheehan92]

@@jonbaxter2254 Peter Hitchens is a social conservative. In other words, he likes fascism. He wants the soceity to control all aspects of your life. Of course he likes Putin

[@muadek]

I deeply admire mr Hitchens, but I'm fully with Edward and Konstantin on this topic.

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

What exactly about Hitchens do you admire?

[@muadek]

@@ThomasDanielsen1000 Well, it's been a long time ago and since then I have changed my mind :)

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

@@muadek Same here - I completely lost all respect for Hitchens after he turned out to be a Kremlin propagandist.

[@gavtalk958]

This is a service to human civilisation. Akin to the ancient greek "agora". Thank you UnHerd.

[@sparrowhawk1936]

Freddie, Thank you so much for sponsoring this debate.

[@quinnishappy5309]

Peter has one point that he shouldnt be interrupted whilst interrupting everyone else.

[@Archibald_von_Munch]

I love Peter Hitchens - he does apparently have things to say, and will say them, whether anyone else is talking or not 😂.

[@Mike-fx4nu]

One person talked for essentially 15 minutes, interruptions were inevitable.

[@mostevil1082]

​@@Archibald_von_Munch he spoke a lot, but didn't say much of anything here.

[@andrew_l1900]

He also resorts to vague personal criticisms when he starts loosing the argument. It’s kind of sad

[@SAS-fn9ce]

What an excellent debate. Much needed. Gained a lot of insight.

[@waywishnew]

The dude on the left (on the photo) looks like Gorbachev from the 70s. I saw him and said, 'holy crap, these guys managed to summon Gorbachev?' These are the debates we need, where opposing viewpoints are articulated without restrictions and clash respectfully.

[@wojtekqwe1]

Final statement of Peter and Thomas was honest and straightforward: we are afraid of war in western Europe, we have our own interests and problems and we do not care of eastern Europe. The rest of their arguments is just rationalisation of this perspective.

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

Exactly. Blatant self-interest masked as virtue!

[@MurrayLake]

I can't see how there can be a debate on Ukraine when none of the participants has a clue what's actually happening on the battlefield or behind the scenes. Bottom line: if the Ukrainians are winning it might make sense to keep feeding them weapons and ammunition; if the Russians are winning a war of attrition where Ukraine is suffering 5 casualties for every Russian casualty then it's absolute madness to prolong the inevitable conclusion by pouring more weapons into the country.

[@Unbrutal_Rawr]

And how about a war of attrition that's entered its 9th year where for every 5 casualities on one side there's 5 casualities on the other, and 2 of them are civilians? Hint: it's what's actually happening on the battlefield.

[@DieFlabbergast]

We know the Russians are suffering much more casualties than the Russians. But Russia has more men to lose.

[@tonipl6640]

Russian casualties are definitely higher

[@Peteruspl]

I think you have just eliminated yourself from the discussion then. Question is if UA:RUS casualties are 1:2 or 1:3, not the other way around. This is not just Western assessments its also based on documented destroyed tanks, apcs etc. If you only count unique wreckage you will get pretty accurate ratio. This is still not enough for decisive win, Russia has 3 times the people and much more powerful industry so it can stay a war of attrition on these rates. Also, there's defeat and defeat. If UA was stomped in a week it would not end up with a partition. RUS would institute a regime change and probably made UA a client state like BEL. If RUS has to fight tooth and nail for a stalemate roughly in line of current day, the will probably not get Kherson and it will end up without a peace treaty but with a demilitarized zone like Korea. If RUS break through they will probably get Kherson and Zaporozhye. So even if RUS are not defeated and repulsed, it matters how well UA fights.

[@garretc6346]

The world needs more of these dialogues. Good job 👍

[@flashgordon6670]

36 minutes in and Edward Lucas makes the point that Ukraine, needs to have decisive military strength, in some battle victories. So they can negotiate peace, from a position of strength and that’s why the West, should be increasing, military support to Ukraine. This is exactly what kept World War 2 going on, for longer than was necessary. The Germans knew mathematically 100% that WW2 was lost, after the battle of Kursk and with a high degree of certainty, after their defeat at Stalingrad. Yet they continued to fight on, bc they needed to negotiate peace, from a position of strength. How many millions of lives, were frittered away during Germany’s decline and downfall that could’ve been spared? And why did Germany make the decision to be so stubborn and piss against a hurricane force wind? The mathematical superiority of the Allies, was beyond any reasonable doubt and we would have to recognise that the weight of Ukraine’s military power, versus the Russians, is an obvious parallel. Germany at the point of the battle of Kursk, had a lot more pluses in its favour, from all their prior successes and technological advancements, than Ukraine today, has against Russia. I’m absolutely certain that Edward Lucas would agree that Germany should’ve sued for peace, after losing the battle of Kursk and probably earlier than that. Yet with Ukraine’s case today against Russia, he’s advocating for the opposite of this logic. I just thought I’d make this point now and I hope that Hitchens and Fazi will respond along this line. An excellent debate so far. @37:25 “What would that point be, where sufficient military strength is reached, so that a negotiated peace can happen?” Konstantin: “Well no one knows.” End of debate. But... Nazi Germany didn’t surrender until their entire country was rubble and ashes. Ukraine has the chance to save most of what’s left. But to keep on sending arms piece by piece, will only antagonise Russia and make the need to conquer Ukraine that much more urgent. Pls don’t misunderstand me though, perhaps there is justification for sending more arms for Ukraine? But not on the point that it will help to negotiate a more favourable peace, bc it won’t. Just as Nazi Germany trying to develop its wonder weapons and making risky outlandish offensives backfired. If Ukraine is to be helped at all, in my personal opinion, it must be a full NATO response, not a few tanks here and there, a patriot system and a few other token gestures, bc that’s all they are and they do nothing in the long term and overall strategy to help Ukraine. I rest my case and I hope this helps.

[@GOOTERSHNOOTER]

Excruciating from Hitchens issuing noises but no answers on precisely what he would have done after Putin invaded. He had literally nothing to say, but just pretended that he did.

[@mrmr4622]

"People of the UK and US should do something to pressure their government" he said, like what kind of bs answer is that

[@ThomasDanielsen1000]

Yeah, basically his idiotic statement was something like "We should put pressure on the US government to make Putin stop attacking Ukraine"

[@paulwhetstone0473]

Thanks for this somewhat topsy-turvy debate on whether or not to continue supporting Ukraine militarily. Why no mention of the US LNG/Norwegian pipeline vrs Russia’s Nord Stream?

[@davidcarson2696]

Nobody wants to mention the Nord Stream Pipeline sabotage as its would designate the USA and Norway as terrorist countries!

[@fademasterfade227]

I'm halfway through listening to this and just had to comment how satisfying it is to hear intelligent opinions on both sides of this issue. I respect all of these participants and I'm impressed but many of the points they make so the end result is food for thought. Well done UnHerd; your channel is a beacon of hope.

[@slavomirakrasna2111]

Intelligent opinion on both sides… What exactly were you listening to? Kisin SAID that UKRAINIANS, THE ONES HE HAPPENS TO KNOW, BE IN CONTACT WITH THEM, 9?% of the inhabitants 👌 ARE WELCOMING WESTERN WEAPONS, ARE GRATEFUL FOR WESTERN WEAPONS. Where do the SHELLS OF THOSE WEAPONS MAINLY LAND? IN DONBAS. The very same Donbas KISIN CLAIMS TO BE ABSOLUTELY UNIMPORTANT FOR UKRAINE, for UKRAINIANS, for people of UKRAINE, who are WELCOMING WESTERN WEAPONS AND ARE ASKING FOR HEAVIER WEAPONS… Is it really necessary to do a simple logic conclusion here?

[@Arete1]

Probably should've stayed quiet and not comment. 90% of the comments here are like yours.. it's ridiculous

[@fademasterfade227]

@@Arete1 What's ridiculous, intelligent debate?

[@Arete1]

@@fademasterfade227 These comments. They are annoying and they saturated the comment section. Nobody is actually talking about the topic or commenting on their views.

[@quinnishappy5309]

Its funny, most comments are not about the other side being reprehensible but a general appreciation for being able to have a genuine good faith debate.

[@ry8539]

There's still a few tho unfortunately.

[@osamenmacmahandi]

One of the best I’ve listened to so far

[@nataliyamurad9693]

I managed to listen only to the half of the discussion and I had to take a break as my emotions are overflowing - I am from Ukraine although I emigrated 22 years ago - all my family, including the grown up daughter are still there. My daughter was in Kyiv during those days and I watched the events very closely anyway. I would like to address the issue of misrepresentation by the opposing side of what has happened in 2014 when the Revolution of Dignity (as Ukrainians refer to it) took place. Following the formal reasoning by Thomas Fazi, we also can consider Russia being a democratic state with the population being able to express their opinions and get rid of Putin through constitutional means - will he subscribe to that statement too? There is so much I could add on this topic and about the current war in Ukraine and whose fault it is, but I suggest that anybody interested in that in more detail read Timothy Snider and Anne Appelbaum (both very highly regarded authors). And it is a good idea to ask Ukrainians what they think and want. Currently they are being killed and tortured. Bravo to Konstantin Kisin and Edward Lucas - I salute you!

[@procinctu1]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. The current war of agression in Ukraine is a travesty that started in 2014. Russia owns this war and is the responsible party.

[@flyingberserker3965]

I would like to understand how ukraine will win the war, just tell me how?? Ukrainiand will keep fighting, the country is getting destroyed, the debt for decades to pay, the people suffering? I dont see any advances, just a long war of atriction where ukraine is slowly losing. After the first month of war there was an excellent window of peace negociations in that time ukraine still had leverage to negociate, now peace will be never achieved, i dont see why russia wants peace talks now.

[@procinctu1]

@@flyingberserker3965 Ukraine wins as long as they continue to resist the Russian war of agression and does not concede further territory. This is not WW2. There will be a negotiated peace. Russia wants peace talks now before the superior Western military hardware is used in a Spring offensive and mauls the Russian Army.

[@ninelaivz4334]

Let me ask you this first of all. Do you think the the USA or Britain give a shit about the Ukrainian people? The problem with the Ukrainians, politicians and citizens, is that they have had no hard and fast education of what happens when you provoke a military and nuclear power using your land as a base for any future possible attack and the weakening effect it has in the meantime. The Ukrainians stupidly insisted on joining NATO totally disregarding what happened to Georgia. The USA has it's red lines which we saw in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis. At that time the USA said they would go to nuclear war if the Soviets didn't remove their nukes from Cuba. The Americans were willing to destroy the whole of the western world because the Cubans were allowing the Soviets to use their land as a base to attack the USA at some future point but not only that. This would have severely weakened the USA's military strength and ability to bully the world. The Ukrainians unfortunately don't read history too well. Too many Azov nazis controlling policy in that country. I'm not pro Russian BTW. I'm just telling you that if you provoke someone more powerful than yourself you will get clobbered. This is music to the ears of the American industrial military complex. This is what those demons want; Wars to line their pockets whilst young guys who should be at work or at university are instead lying dead in a muddy ditch. It depressing.

[@RADVIX313]

Support from Canada for Russia 🇷🇺🇨🇦 You clearly are out of touch with reality. America has used you as a tool for their own selfish interest. Only if you knew the truth, maybe your perspective would change. Always question what your as the Truth...

[@irinaprishchepa693]

My Russian relatives in eastern Ukraine say that russian invasion has united all Ukrainians against Russia. Many of them even stopped speaking russian as a form of protest. They are determined to fight. That's the current reality independent of who was to blame for why it's started

[@gregorymoats4007]

Freddy attempted to get the boys to simply admit: this is where we are, regardless of who’s to blame. How shall we put a stop to the killing and destruction? That’s the question. We all know the answer and few have the stomach for it as we eat our biscuits and wash it down with tea as we watch while the Chinese listen in…

[@wellardme]

My relatives in Donbas say the opppsite that they see Russia as brotherly liberators against fascist Kiev. The war has united the rest of anti-Russian Ukrainians in the West.

[@xxvxxv5588]

Do they really russian? I guess most of them are either previously russified Ukrainians either people of mixed Ukrainian-Russian descent.

[@dobcsek]

My Hungarian relatives in Ukraine say that they aren’t willing to die for Ukraine and that they have been mistreated by Ukraine for decades.

[@irinaprishchepa693]

@@dobcsek they just do not know yet how they will be treated by Russians. They will learn I assume, soon after the west stop helping Ukraine