Russian military thinking is deep nd articulate. Let's have a quick run-through and spend some time together!
Пікірлер: 329
@srve11493 ай бұрын
your content is really good quality, I know it will be difficult topic but maybe you could do a stream about military economy, in particular Russian military economy...
@Needleshapedtv3 ай бұрын
Understanding of each other is a key to coexistence . Thank you for trying.
@MarkVrem3 ай бұрын
I didn't think I was going to watch the whole thing. Great presentation!
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@user-mb7ty4ht7e3 ай бұрын
Thank you M7 , as always a superb presentation, well researched, balanced and very informative
@effrosynivetta88053 ай бұрын
Clausewitz said that line, not Lenin
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
Lenin added violent
@Mgaming613 ай бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech a very human thing to do, I guess
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
The Ukrainians seem to have adapted effectively the use of the Bradleys, especially attacking trenches.
@d.o.52383 ай бұрын
This is probably the most balanced and neutral video/analysis on the topic of the Russo-Ukranian war I've seen in a long time. Too many channels seem to be heavily biased towards one side or the other
@madrooky13983 ай бұрын
Here is another one, although this is only the English sub channel. The main channel with regular live streams is in German. www.youtube.com/@militaryandhistory An interesting observation is that especially the English speaking audience seems to want to hear "good news" only and videos with bad/sobering news are not running well, which would explain the "hurray" reporting on so many channels. The audience gets what they are asking for.
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
I commend *'Blitz of the Reich'* as another channel on military history that reflects similar impressions on Western bias and hubris without being necessarily pro-Russian - it shouldn't come as a surprise that the more one looks into actual sources and facts, mainstream narratives are deconstructed as echoing 'Voice of America' talking points. The same can be said about Russian or Chinese media, reflecting Western parlour from 'Kung Fu Master Marx' to 'strengthening productive forces', but onl such media criticism will prepare a culture where people will simply advocate their *_legitimate_** interests* , _openly_ without recouring to normative framing or deception.
@damonburroughs52833 ай бұрын
Interesting subject , glad to see you are looking well 😊
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
Inhabitants of Bucha and other Ukrainian communities would differ as to peaceful Russian occupation.
@garynew96372 ай бұрын
Get your facts right.
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
@@garynew9637 Bucha was not a massacre of civilians and a travesty? Did the Hague investigate the activities there? Why did they do that Gary?Russians didn't level Mariupol? Grozny? Cities in Syria? Russians didn't target hospitals and schools? What is in error Gary?
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
@@garynew9637 Gary the Russian economy is somewhere between the 5th and 11th largest in the world. The differences vary in purchasing parity of relative GNP to other factors. The Russian economy has been shrinking since 2022. That said Russia has vast natural resources incuding gold. But assets are of value only if there is a market ,a demand for the product, and a way to make the product available. Exchange rates have an impact on Russian cuerrency and therefore the interpretation of the size of that economy. Depleting stores and re-arranging the economy for war footings may impact the volatility and size of that economy and its stability. Future Russian children may be learning Chinese over European languages. More facts for Gary.
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
@@garynew9637 Where are the Russian T-14 tanks? Where are they being produced? Why aren't they being produced in numbers? Why aren't they on battlefields? How can they be a game changer if they are not on the battlefield? More facts for Gary.
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
@@garynew9637 How many 20 year old Russians are needed to re-populate the country and how is that effected by prolonged conflict? How much of a drain on the Russian Air Force will a Ukraine with even a small number of aircraft be on the Russian Air Force? How will a 'war economy' effect the long term Russian economy and in turn Russian Society?
@ReineDedeurwaerder-Sulmo-rz9cz3 ай бұрын
Hi!, long time no seen, how is your robot friend😊🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
@sciptick2 ай бұрын
Today I learned our gracious host is Italian, not Israeli as I had guessed.
@StrangerHappened3 ай бұрын
*A correction:* The Soviet military did not miss the IT revolution. The country was only behind the USA in how well the IT was developed up to the 1980s. Specification the military, the USSR has installed large numbers of computerised control centres in its military units throughout the country, as well was top notch in IT in air defence systems and in war planes. Take e.g. MiG-25/31 as an example to see that introduced the best multi-target tracking/aiming system of the time. Or, for a non-military example, how Buran was perfectly able to land fully automatically while Shuttle’s similar system was never reliable/robust/advanced enough, so it was not recommended to use.
@StrangerHappened3 ай бұрын
But the IT in the Soviet military in general was spotty. It was also good in e.g. submarines, but worse in many other areas.
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
The Soviets were at the forefront of *Kybernetic* (self-regulating systems) research, indeed - yet mostly on the theoretical level. As it was difficult to get a hand on a car or a washing machine, back then - so it is still with consumer electronics (see e.g. the recently auctioned BAIKAL RISC processor). There is a video essay on the Soviet Cold War research in computer networking from a Marxist perspective - structurally *_more decentralized and redundant_* due to a _political competition of the respective agency party cadres_ and never maturing beyond GOSPLAN command economy pricing calculations, but worth looking into, still.
@liammarra40032 ай бұрын
@@christophmahler do you have a name for this video essay?
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
@@liammarra4003 "do you have a name for this video essay?" 'Why Didn't the Soviets Automate Their Economy?: Cybernetics in the USSR' (2023)... The browser crashed while writing on Russian automation of command and control, so I leave it at that.
@NTraveller3 ай бұрын
Why do I hear a voice of reason, a 100% match with reality in an extremely low-profile YT channel? This is not rocket science, you can arrive to the same conclusions having dedicated two-three weeks to the topic. And the world prefers to be led by the nose and ideology. My compliments to your analysis! Great job!
@Nikolay_Grigoryev2 ай бұрын
You seem confused. The video is to examine how Russia sees war and then you go and judge based on Western ways of war.
@johnl.50413 ай бұрын
Russian:" Napoleon targeted me. WW1 Kaiser targeted me, WW2 Hitler targeted me. And now US and all NATO lapdogs target me. Why always me? Can't we live in peace together?"
@miketan48033 ай бұрын
Kaiser? And Stalin was Hitler's partner in crime until Hitler decided to seize the Balkans
@dennisstafford-cq2xz3 ай бұрын
Stalin divided Poland with Hitler. Poland and Eastern Europe were held by Soviet Russia and Soviet approved installed govt.'s. Stalin committed Holodomar upon what is now Ukraine and other atrocities upon his own people. The Russians murdered Polish Officers in the forest of Poland. The Soviets ruthlessly repressed the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1969. Russians stood aside and watched NAZIs murder the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Without intervening they watched the saughter. Currenty Russian mercenaries stoke revolts, extremism, and coups in Africa. Russians supported the brutal reprisals of Assad in Syria. Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine. NATO did not intervene in Ukraine in 2014 except for weak sanctions. Putin's 'defense concerns' strengthened NATO and forced Sweden and Finland from neutrality into NATO by Putin's blatant aggression. Sell soft power Putin to Eastern Europe--you will get no buyers. Russian defense of Ukraine's Azov and Donbas was to shell cities and their civilian populations (including hospitals and schools) until they were flattened and their inhabitants dead. Defensive actions all? Please, what malarkey. Tell trhe raped grandmothers in Bucha and the old men pedalling bicycles shot in the street how Putin was forced to invade defensively. Pedal your mischief in Moscow or hold up a blank piece of paper in a public square in Moscow and see how far your free speech in support of Russia goes.
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
@@miketan4803 maybe in the similar fashion to how Putin was Bush's partner in crime in Afghanistan until Bush exited the ABM treaty Diplomacy and even double dealing with questionable powers is not the same as a partnership. USSR also saught rapport with UK and with France before Germany but was largely stonewalled Sanctions push your enemies together, that seems a useful lesson too
@olexp90173 ай бұрын
@@miketan4803 Could you learn the history a bit? 1936-1939 several attempts of the USSR to create a system of collective security in Europe. Great Britain and France did all possible to sabotage it. 1938 - Munich Agreement signed by Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain. The result was the annexation of industrial part of Czechoslovakia (guess what kind of factories were present in that area). In the light of all this Stalin had no choice but to make an agreement with Hitler to get more time for the preparations to the war.
@GabrielVitor-kq6uj3 ай бұрын
Russia has been invaded since the Viking age... I dont get why people is so surprised that they had enough
@kingdedede10663 ай бұрын
Very nice livestream. Interesting analysis as well.
@irongron3 ай бұрын
Same. I have lived in Ukraine for a decade (Ukrainian wife) and been displaced twice. At first the title pissed me off, (you know how it how it is here, f**k ruZZia) but after watching his presentation, I gave a thumbs up. We need to understand their thinking to defeat them! This is a basic Sun-Tzu tenet. Know your enemy. This is why the ruZZians failed with their 2 week SMO. They didn't understand Ukraine at all.
@LogistiQbunnik3 ай бұрын
Thanks, always interesting to watch.
@nasosst30923 ай бұрын
Since I'm not keen to live chating, caro signiore, I've watched this video later. I admire your work and most of all your patience. I wish you well and when possible I will appreciate a thorough video about MiG31. My respects to Otis. Молодец господин.
@Jack2Japan3 ай бұрын
Oh, yes. Video on MiG-31 would be great, especially if you could discuss use in Ukraine conflict.
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
Mig-31: 1980s first implementation of *_'sensor fusion'_* and *_'data link'_* - albeit in _low production numbers_ and - _probably_ - with _assembly quality issues_ .
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
I would be interested in an analysis on the use of disinformation and soft power influencers in Europe's move towards the Right as expressed in recent elections. Does Russia have any influences here? Does Italy's slouch to the Right mean their participation in NATO will change? How would recent revived pro-fascist sympathies and nostalgia play in Italian politics,i.e. the current government's policies? From the time of Ivan III was there a period in Russian history where something approaching a shift in class mobikity or experiences approaching democracy adn liberalism ever existed in Russian Society and if so why didn't it last? Please do not include the rise of Putin as part of liberalization given the current crack down on any freedomsin Russia that Europe would take as the norm. Structurally society and government is, as always, from the top down? Your thoughts. As to no disinformation regards Ukraine: 1) Putin pblishes volmes on how Russia and Ukrsaine or one and the same, 2) there is no Ukrainian identity, 3) Russia is threatened because NATO accepted former Soviet States (not because Russia's threat toformer Soviet States drove those States to the West), 3) That Russia's Greatness (?) had to be restored, 4) Russia's sphere of influence under Soviet rule must be restored and it was Russia's right. Please remember Russia invaded Ukraine fron 3 directions. Their intent was toseize Kiev and the current government. They assumed correctly NATO would not directly intervene. The Russian military dwarfed the Ukrainian military. The Russian resources dwarfed the resources available to Ukraine withut outside help. The Russian intent was to subjugate and occupy. Nothing less. They failed. Their rationalization for the invasion preceded the invasion and was coordinated. Russia was given ample opportunity to seek alternatives for perceived grievances other than military force. Most European Heads of State made frequent trips to Moscow prior to the Russian invasion. Putin did not travel to Brussels. There was no peaceful plan for occuoation with a tube bombardment, aerial assault, missile attack, and airborne mobile pre-assault on primary targets like airports. Both the East and West used combined arms in WW2. The Russians did not invent them-the Germans did.
@pippotopazio24003 ай бұрын
EU election showed exactly the opposite of what you state: in Italy all parties supporting russia, lost (i.e. Lega, M5S, and others). So I do not believe that the support will vanish soon
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
It’s not supporting Russia, it’s about supporting a war where there’s no national interest involved.
@pippotopazio24002 ай бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech their message was clear being both close to putin (I suggest to listen "IL virus" podcast by Canestari/Biondo
@aleksandrs14222 ай бұрын
Hey I'm Russian but from over here it looks like Meloni's party is pretty popular and she's delivering an outsized number of weapons to Ukraine and she's vocally supportive of the NATO efforts to prop up Kiev government Certainly more so than most other right wing parties in the EU
@pippotopazio24002 ай бұрын
@@aleksandrs1422 her position is just a tactical position at the end. most of her party members, as well as M5S (who received proved funds from russian goverment) are pro russian. russia is a danger for russians first
@christophmahler3 ай бұрын
Errata: 1. Russian 'Military Science' goes back to Ulyanov's studies of the Prussian _'Romantic'_ officer *Carl von Clausewitz* and Svechin's studies of Prussian historian *Hans Delbrueck* while _all_ US military thought is a derivative from Swiss _'enlightened'_ Bonapartist officer *Antoine-Henri Jomini* (US Army - the US Air Force that branched out as a service with the introduction of nuclear arms follows Italian General *Giulio Douhet* - respectively, there no such thing like Romantic 'synthetic thinking' beyond Hegel's Historical Dialect in NATO, *_constructing by *rationalistic reduction_*_ and _*_Platonic deduction_* and projecting an *_idealized_* self unto others* as in nuclear 'Game Theory', rather than realizing oneself in 'the Other', immanently by 'holistic' _intuition_ ...) as well as British Geographer *Halford Mackinder* and US Rear Admiral *Alfred Thayer Mahan* (US Navy). The Russian continuity is _proven_ in *the factual political rule by 'Siloviki'* (former intelligence and counter-intelligence officers of the USSR) as well as in the large scale exercises of *ZAPAD 81* ( _replacing the deployment of nuclear arms with _*_a conventional 'Reconnaissance Strike Complex'_* due to an in advance in *_precision guided missile technology_* and *_miniaturized computing_* based *automated Command and Control* - a concept that appears in Soviet and Russian national security documents since the respective 'Revolution in Military Affairs', described by Soviet Marshall *Nikolai Ogarkov* ) - preparing the Russian Federation as *Mikhail Frunze* had demanded: to _fight_ (not just to threaten as with 'politically impractical' nuclear arms) a future great power conflict in Europe as _a protracted large scale 'people's war' _*_war of attrition_* . [Soviet 'Class Struggle' toward a _secular utopia_ had been removed from Russian grand strategy, but it's analysis of a capitalist mode of production and a bourgeois character of Western political elites and interests remains arguably valid and consensus, negating all Western advocacy of 'political participation' and 'diffusion of democracy' - analysts within the Russo-sphere will therefore never sincerely interprete the politics of Georgia and Ukraine since 2008 along the _idealized_ Western narratives. Operating behind a front along non-conventional 'small war' tactics was already mentioned by Frunze and widely practiced in WW II - therefore there is no 'Gerasimov Doctrine' on 'Hybrid War' - the latter is a Western euphemism for the terror e.g. in Chechnya in the 1990s, reflected in it's institutionalization beyond US Army Ranger School by the *Technical Directorate of Irregular Warfare* , arguably de facto responsible for the recent political murders and acts of sabotage on Russian territory] There is public debate in Russia, indeed due to the now declassified *military officer magazines like 'Military Thought'* , with think-tanks like the 'Valdai Discussion Club' de facto _state funded_ - while in the West all discourse derives originally from the social engineering by *British Empire* remnant institution *Chatham House* (the Council on Foreign Relations as the 'Royal Institute of International Affairs' New World 'lodge' - just like the 'League of Nations' and the current 'United Nations') [the recent 'Quincy Institute' e.g. could be interpreted as trying to establish a post US supremacy view, with a rapidly dwindling US Navy largely withdrawn form all forward stations in order defend the sphere of the *'Monroe Doctrine'* ...] It is arguably correct that after the defeat of Imperial Germany in 1918, an actual *'Military Science'* exists only in Russia - in contrast to the _rump_ German Federal Republic, maintained by a still operational *General Staff* - a philosophically schooled, peer reviewed discourse that is obscure to Western Research due to the *language and **_culture_** barrier* - but *_all decisive_** US military discourse is **_completely_** 'framed' by a privately owned military industry* that funds former state assets like *RAND Corporation* and e.g. it's Arroyo Center or the *Center for Naval Analyses* , _proven_ not in a factual, but *a **_normative_** grand strategy discourse* and *chronically **_impractical_** military procurement* (US strategic bombers - aka the 'Bomber Mafia', the 'Fighter Mafia' with a vastly over-engineered F-15 to match flawed intelligence on the Soviet Mig-31 program, arms that are suited to _destabilize_ the coastal 'Rim' of Eurasia as a *'Shatterbelt'* , but not for winning a protracted war of attrition due to their high production costs). Furthermore, Western militaries are best characterized by the recruitment of it's intelligence officers from a single Ivy League college: Yale (with the 'Skull and Bones' alumni network, ensuring political continuity) and with *the political caucuses (parties and their primary elections of candidates) **_de facto_** operating as cult-like **_secret societies_* (see Thomas Jefferson apologetic on the 'radically enlightened' Bavarian 'Perfectibilists', the *_Jacobin_* ideology inspired Rotunda of US Congress by a Vatican painter, currency, state and federal agency grand seals ect.). From the structural and cultural 'root' follows the respectively constructed political and military 'fruit'.
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
You should write articles brother, I'd subscribe. A little too deep for KZbin comments. But awesome. Do you have a substack or something? I don't know what the kids use these days
@martsmith62983 ай бұрын
Very interesting. Like @aleksandrs1422 I would be interested to hear more.
@Millennium7HistoryTech2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the effort.
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech "Thanks for the effort." Likewise Augusto. We are not 'on the same page', regarding a history of events and diplomacy, yet we both dissent with _a Transatlantic Puritan zeal_ that mistakes the *_liberal imperialism_*_ of _*_Modernization Theory and 'Westernizaion'_*_ as 'predetermined' and __*_chauvinist hubris_* as as a virtue... Germans and Italians have seen that stance before and can fathom the outcome. Regarding my atrociously written take on a continuity of Soviet doctrine see e.g. articles by Charles E. Bartle and the 1970s writings on the *'Revolution of Military Affairs'* by Mary C. Fitzgerald - the Soviet 1920s essays by Frunze and e.g. 'Misreding Svechin' or official Austrian *Discourse Analyses* of the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' hoax will bring You to unto 'the same page'. My claim of *a Sino-Russian re-alignment after the end of the Cold War* - the beginning of US 'China bashing' - can be documented directly from *the 'Treaty of Friendship'* of 2001 and *the 'Joint Statement'* early 2022... All *_Wilsonian_* agents of Transatlantic 'global governance' in academia will frame these international affairs along the preceeding 'Sino-Russian Split' of the Krushchev era, ignoring the 'Stately Quadrille' (major reverse of diplomatic alignments due a shift in the balance of powers) that followed from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Open Door Policy and NATO expansion into the Balkans (including a CIA operated bombing raid unto the Chinese embassy in Belgrade). It is ignorance and wishful thinking that will cost the lives of further millions (if the official numbers of the recent _obscured_ pandemic are taken as a measure of tragedy).
@christophmahler2 ай бұрын
@@aleksandrs1422 "You should write articles (...)" Thank You for the feedback. Over the years, I've heard similar suggestions every now and then by the few who seek depth - even in algorithm manipulated social media... We were lucky that the comments weren't filtered _automatically_ by the platform as it happened often to me - leading to a more than 500 pages long local log of comments... In contrast to academic publishing it doesn't take much to think out loud, _casually_ - though the more time is invested in rereading, the less atrocious spelling and sentences will be. If You could take a few topics from my comments and look into it, my work is done as _insightful and useful_ concept will likely be applied in arguments and thus spread. If You look into my playlists, You'll find a respective archive of topics that inform a more complete picture - read into the German school of *Political Geogrphy* (Ratzel, Haushofer) and You'll be on the same page on many current events. I may migrate e.g. to 'Odysee', but in the end only a platform that is outside of US influence will do - my current homelessness limits my resources and abilities, but from Your reaction one can gather where this will go, given the trajectory of events... Listen to Your instincts and inspirations (lucid dreams, heartfelt personal encounters) and pathways _will_ align.
@vojins92033 ай бұрын
nice analysis. on the russian "big mistakes" in the beginning, i dont agree completely. russia imo did know the chance of success of capturing complete ukraine with the small force they used to invade was low, definitively less then 50%. there are milions of people in russia having relatives in ukraine and vice versa, with vast amounts of information going in both directions. not a lot could have been hidden or surprising from that fact alone. so they imo knew about the low chances of a militarily decided occupation in all the areas they entered. especially because of having streched their rel small forces thin by having the front everywhere and pushing quite deep with them. but this means it was 1) a gamble, as the ukrainian government indeed could have collapsed or parts of the ukie army mutinated, etc... the gamble, while having low chances was still worth the try, as it would have relatively very few losses if successful compared to the protracted war now. also 2) it was a show of force and determination, to signal russia is serious about their goals in ukraine and they will push the issue militarily till they reach their goals. this could have ended in for russia favorable negotiation results. lastly 3) they managed to occupy and keep a large territory of the size of some mid sized european countries, e.g. of bulgaria. which is not a that bad of an achievement for the army size they started the invasion with (150k).
@Greg_lab3 ай бұрын
Since when you start a war when the chances of success are low? You do not start a war without understand what can happen if something goes wrong. You do not gamble, you must be sure of what you do
@voltaire2293 ай бұрын
@@Greg_lab i think he is saying there was a small chance that they would win a short and decisive victory, and if that fails, a high chance that they would win the protracted war we are seeing now. Even if the chances of quick total victory is 20% that is pretty good odds considering the potential prize. The backup plan was a protracted attrition war which they were confident they would win, and it looks like they were correct in this calculation. But I believe that Russia expected they could wage this protracted war without having the grow the size of their armed forces and that it would not be as resource intensive as it has become. There was definitely a miscalculation there which can be seen from their decision to mobilize 300k in 2022 which they waited to do until they didnt have a choice.
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
"there are milions of people in russia having relatives in ukraine and vice versa, with vast amount of information going in both directions. not a lot could have been hidden or surprising from that fact alone" you assumption: decision maker in touch with reality... Few years after taking office Putin was telling "rotation of power is necessary cause you go insane" ... 20 years later he illustrated it.
@vojins92033 ай бұрын
@@user-wg6zq5zu9g you might have a point there. putin was heavily critizised in russia for overly trusting western europeans. his time in germany made him have a symphatetic mindset to germans and western europe. another russian leader would have avoided that insane fallacy of believing that russia can make a fair deal with us.
@vojins92033 ай бұрын
@@voltaire229 exactly. there is also a quite recent example, where this russian approach was successful. the russian reaction to georgia attacking the russian blue helmets in their attempt to reincorporate the seperatist terrotories was a rel. small intervention with a few thousands of troops. if the georgian army had stood firm, they should have beaten this small russian force rel. easily. but the nato trained georgian soldiers simply refused to fight and smartly ran away, as they knew that there are many more soldiers russia could and would send if neccessary. this just would have led to many of them dying and their country being demolished. only for the doubtful "gain", that they take lots of russians with them to the graves. this benefit of "weakening" russia would not have been a real benefit to georgia, as it is not for ulraine, considering how much they have to pay for it. it is just a gain for the west, which has no skin in the game, just paper money.
@JabberwockyGB3 ай бұрын
I suggest that you read Col. Jacques Baud's work about Russian military approach.
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
Thanks
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
This is awesome content, as always
@csk4j2 ай бұрын
Fascinating analysis.. really makes sense to me and pieces together some mysteries
@magomedovmaksim58272 ай бұрын
Спасибо за видео, спасбо за трезвый взгляд. К сожалению понял не все, но общем интересно.
@ixtiandur2 ай бұрын
Your channel is one of the best here and I hope you'll continue what you're doing!!! Lately I noticed a trend in the manner of presenting information that may as well be in my imagination but I felt the need to write something. I knew that when current events start being talked it will be awkward. I don't think you're right about russians not trying to show the russian view. As you said they did but not through traditional media, they used influencers, polytical parties in the west and massive internet propaganda. And this is FAR more powerfull and considered part of the force for them. Because of this when the war started, millions of people already knew what side they're on. And these influence operations are even bigger now than before as more and more people are taught to search for "alternative sources". I think you're downplaying it A LOT. The west is actively trying to catch up on this front. Also they talked about A LOT of points and not only NATO expansion. Denazification, history of the territory, bombing cities with russian speaking citizens and so on basically giving a hook to grab on to anybody who wants to justify the actions they do. Putin himself gave special speeches about all these. They said it's not territorial and everytime when they propose peace it includes giving up ukrainian territory, not only neutrality! I didn't get why say Poland sending troops in Ukraine if russia goes further is dangerous? It sounded like "they're stupid to do it". Wasn't it dangerous for russia to send troops in the first place? Maybe Poland has a problem with russian territory expanding in it's direction and we should talk about it with the same serious words as the russian problem with nato expanding. You laughed a bit while saying that for russia it won't matter that it won't be NATO force but private. It should matter as much as it mattered for russia to say to the whole world for years that this is not a war but a special military operation. Maybe there's something lost between the languages but it always sounded like you're trying to teach people how not to underestimate russia and fall under west propaganda about the war and at some point it started sounding like russia is not doing something bad because what they do ok you put next to some problem in the west. You probably have seen that the pro russian comments and views on the channel are more than before and this will likely make it more diverse but will probably start being given as an example of "this west man understands us" and justify some of the agression.
@Millennium7HistoryTech2 ай бұрын
There is a general underestimation of Russia and Russian capabilities in the mainstream. This is true.
@aaabeverages71523 ай бұрын
Nice to see you 😊
@Jack2Japan3 ай бұрын
Excellent content that other sites don’t touch. Sorry I missed the livestream.
@nasosst30923 ай бұрын
On more thing.. In 1:07:27 one aspect of the question encompasses the diplomatic relations. There is real frustration of the Russian side. This was fed to the current meltdown for 2 decades now.
@b.griffin3173 ай бұрын
According to Augie (and I agree BTW) Russia considers sub-kinetic, subversional and propaganda activities to be forms of war and not merely inter-state competition short of war like in the West. However in the US this distinction is really that between Title 50 and 51 operations, or legal military activities vs. "special operations"/what the CIA really mostly does (hint: its not intelligence gathering). One important consequence of the Russia POV is there no room for "civil society" activities not aligned with the State. Such activities may make the State nervous in some ways but they simultaneously make society more resilient. An important distinction with the West (likely stemming from the 'religious economy' of the Orthodox Church as servant of the State vs. the Catholic Church's jealous guarding of its independence and alternating-conflicting-and-cooperating-independently with the State leading to a Church/State divide which basically doesn't exist outside the West).
@copetimusmaximus33633 ай бұрын
The West considers these forms of war too (and they are), they just feed the bs about "bringing freedom and democracy" to their gullible populations😅
@jamesrowlands89712 ай бұрын
One thing that you're missing here is the economics of what you call civil society. These things are costly. They allow the richer party to push agendas on the poorer party. This is true of non-state actors (oligarchs, billionaires, capital firms etc.) as well. Russia is truly a smaller economy in terms of dollars, and therefore the ability to pay NGOs, protesters, etc. and so has a legitimate reason to feel that it's state and society is under threat from these kinds of actions as it cannot use those entities offensively, and is constantly on the defence ... and in fact had it's society and economy ravaged by those entitites, to the tune of >10 million excess deaths in the 1990s alone.
@flashgordon66702 ай бұрын
This is extremely boring and the presenter talks like he’s half drowning in vodka, save yourself.
@christophmahler3 ай бұрын
Errata: 2. the so called 'Special Military Operation' in Ukraine is a _prime_ example of Soviet military doctrine as practiced already in Afghanistan when maneuver units were reorganized toward the *'Battalion Tactical Group'* with a much higher degree of training and readiness than cadre and conscription based regiments was first explored, including vast rotation on the battalion and platoon level (increasing the number of soldiers exposed to combat without increasing the number of maintained units in the Theater of Operations). One could wonder whether the campaign was actually inspired by *Frederick the Great's plans of an invasion of Austria* (see Hans Delbrück), considering it's incremental diplomatic escalation and respective 'maskirovka' (diverting unusually concentrated forces of the ZAPAD 2021 exercises - see Roger McDermott for his accurate prediction)... The effectiveness of the Russian 'Reconnaissance Strike Complex' - already practiced in Syria until the military defeat of CIA operated extremists aka 'Moderate Rebels' in Aleppo, forcing a retreat toward illegal US military bases, close to Jordan - can be measured by the promises of Western arms delivery to Ukraine in order to replace virtual all operational offensive equipment in 2022, a hopeless effort when considering the vastly larger Russian arms industry that had increased it's not only it's output, but production capacities of guided missiles since *the reforms in organization and procurement by Serdyukov in 2008* (see the respective, _vast_ *State Armament Program 2011-2017* - one should ponder, why the Russian state was it's harshest critic of it's counter-attack to missile launches unto residential areas in separatist provinces of Georgia, campaigning in mass media for *_a complete rebuild of the Russian Armed Forces_* around high readiness, contract based Battalion Tactical Groups, closely coordinated with Theater naval and air assets). *Strike weapons are to be deployed like tactical **_nuclear_** arms* - not for single cargo trains, carrying a few dozen tanks - targeting crucial infrastructure of industrial production and communications (including railway hubs and power plants) - observing optically via supersonic reconnaissance flights and other signal and human intelligence sources where equipment travels, exposes areas of increasing troop concentration before an attack or counter-attack which can then be struck. If Ukraine would not have lost _half a million men_ due to daily, systematic strikes (including technically unguided bombs and shells), it wouldn't have to demand the compulsory return of refugees from European Union territory, nor would they ask for air defenses or strike weapons of their own (ATACM, 'Stormshadow' for which additionally squadrons of F-16 would be required)... A narrative of 'Russia has lost 'a Battle of Kiev' - without _any_ verifiable documentation apart from proven MI6 propaganda outlets - or is running out of munitions' is always telling on NATO doctrine, considering the vast amount of strike munitions an air campaign for air superiority would require - not against statelets like rump Serbia or Lybia, but regional and global peer opponents like Russia and China - especially when _completely aligned against Western supremacy_ ... The reason, none of these facts are reflected in Western mass media is simply the result of _all parlamentarism, structurally being _a conspiracy against the people_ , reflected in the amount of influence of public opinion on policy (see 'Affluence and Influence') and the monopolization of news reporting by privately owned media corporations, instrumentalized to 'inform opinions' - aka propagating and _indoctrinating_ by select reporting and narrative centered 'framing'. Everything above can be learned, however from Western academic national security discourse in which authous like e.g. Condoleeza Rice are exposed as _frauds_ . 'Rule of Law': shaming of suspicious Security Exchange Commission agents and the global financial crisis of 2008 - another structural factor why the West will not outproduce China's arms industry until 2035 when the PLAN reaches peak operational efficiency and the Pacific Theater Front will be activated...
@miketan48033 ай бұрын
Tbh regardless of any doctrine, Russia is a prisoner of the Soviet doctrine since that is the inventory they've got especially after burning through what they've built since perostoica
@hassanzia62113 ай бұрын
Awesome
@EWA87552 ай бұрын
I find your analysis of avionics and weapons systems to usually be very good. In this video, analysis, especially in the could it have worked section appears skewed by ideology. The SMO in the first weeks accomplished an objective. To bring the sides together in meaningful negotiation. Istanbul. After Borris Johnsons visit the US hardened its no negotiation, no diplomacy, no talking stance. Russia adapted its doctrine to deal with the reality in front of it.
@ZubairMojaddedi3 ай бұрын
I really like your analysis. As usual very objective and seem well researched. I have thought along the lines of your points for a long time. One point i think also is overlooked, which I think is also as a consequence of Russian observations of western military doctrine. That as a consequence of the campaign off bombing Serbia plus the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russian political level if not Military, came to the Conclussion, perhaps correctly, that the level of western doctrine of bombing civilian infrastructure to the stone age, had the consequence of the long term strategic defeat, for the price of short term gain of strategic and tactical advantage. That combined with their view and perhaps because of, and maybe also the hope of strategically reinforcing the political analysis of being welcomed with "bread and salt", definitely was a contributing factor for the failures of the first weeks of the operation. I think their views on the difference between their doctrine and the western doctrine actually hasn't changed even now, because levelling of the non move able strategic assets is still within the Russian capabilities . As the destruction of powerplants/waterplants all warehouses and industrial capacity still hasn't happened. Instead the Russians primarily target military targets, and not even a big amount of obvious dual use targets. Comparitivly western doctrines even target waterplants, and then afterwards "rebuild" everything afterwards. Even the timing of the few targeted infrastucture targets by the russians are planned to be at the time of least effect on the civilian populations. I.e. As targeting electrical infrastructure on year 2 of the operation and in the spring (with least tactical advantage). The Ukrainians being able to import their needs from their allies, because Russia again not targeting even the import option. Where as the west in Serbia, Iraq and what was available in Afghanistan, utterly destroyed everything on day one. The doctrine even having a name "shock and awe". Whether the analysis by the russians of it being one of the reasons for the western strategic defeat, will be seen. The Russians having a defensive strategically outlook. They might even loose their advantage if being correct, due to western counters of "influence" strategies. I think for the russians goal a new multi polar world order. The aftermath of this strategic doctrine will actually be of more importance than the actual result on the ground. As you, i am of the opinion that ultimately Russia will prevail in Ukraine unless we get another great war in Europe. It not escalating to a world War because the Chinese waiting mostly on the sidelines militarily. Keeping the pacific and Asia mostly out of the war. I think NATO is aware of that strategy and that is the reasoning of staying out of the conflict directly for now. I think the west actually thinks that they can cut out the head of Russia and China on day one of a direct confrontations with both. Winning in Russia and gaining an advantage in China. Both thoughts being insane and ultimately wrong IMHO.
@helpmedaddyjesus70993 ай бұрын
Interesting points, so you are saying that the wests doctrine causes more damage in the long term? I assume you are referencing Afghanistan where terrorists grew up being treated poorly by the soldiers and wanted revenge once they turned 18-20
@craftsman402 ай бұрын
Hey, nice haircut!
@dennisstafford-cq2xz2 ай бұрын
Ukrainian drones on water seem quite effective and should the Black Sea Fleet detoriate further that might be important.
@flashgordon66702 ай бұрын
They think they’re still fighting WW2, with WW1 tactics and strategy, the thickos. They also think that eating potato and cabbage stew everyday is luxurious and sleeping in a bathtub of vodka is normal behaviour. And they wonder why they can’t even beat Ukraine, or finish what they started.
@luigipanebianco57373 ай бұрын
Important point to discuss further should be the different strategic approach to an existential threat, in special way when related to the use of nuclear power. It seems to me that western (NATO) attitude is to underestimate the danger to go towards a nuclear strategic exchange with Russia, because it is thought that any threat involved will never be strong enough to meet the risks of nuclear weapons use. On the contrary, Russian attitude is that any threat that they may consider existential, overwhelms any risk involved in a nuclear response. This different view may come from considerations related to the past history of Russia and geographical situation. Any underestimation of this issue from NATO may be very dangerous (i.e., think about possible consequences to the attack on the Voronezh Radar Systems...).
@madisondines74413 ай бұрын
That's immaterial though, as the only correct response by NATO to a Russian nuclear escalation is a series of proportional retaliation ,widely telegraphed and explained. No other response is a correct one. And this can be a conventional response, but it must never be an escalation or an appeasement.
@Greg_lab3 ай бұрын
Any threat like what? In the first months of the war, russians played the card of the nuclear war if nato would send things. First tanks, then jets, then attack on their territory with nato weapons. These threats are just words to scary, nothing else. There is no proof that the russian would use nuclear weapons, literally noone. Now you would answer, so nato should gamble all the time? Obviusly not, in fact they did things slowly. You can't threaten nuclear war all the time to do your dirty things
@Yutani_Crayven3 ай бұрын
@@madisondines7441 That's right. The concept is called MAD for a reason, both the literal and metaphorical sense.
@madisondines74413 ай бұрын
@@Yutani_Crayven given the unpublished probable capabilities of the SM-3 missile, true MAD is not guaranteed. I'm describing a situation where the United States matches the warhead number and target type that Russia attacks, and attacks that asset. So it doesn't need to be nuclear, but the United States' retaliation to a nuclear strike on a battlefield of Ukraine could be say, all known Russian positions in Ukraine, or a campaign to destroy the entire anti-air network in the country.
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
There's actually a real debate in Russia on trying to understand the modern western thinking with regard to nukes and how to deal with it. Russians don't really understand why the West doesn't consider nukes a serious threat anymore (which is the way they see Western behavior around Ukraine). Russia sees nuclear threat as very real and so it struggles to understand this phenomenon. One side that I find is onto something thinks the Western elites have just become either too infantile or the decision-making process has become too cumbersome so as not to be able to make major decisions that will have to be made if the nuclear threat is taken seriously. The threat is so fantastic it's like planning for a meteor strike - useless, so they don't do it. Some think the West might be woken up through use of tactical nukes, but I tend to think that is wrong. I agree with the other side, Russian use of nukes would probably be met with an almost instinctive response, the way a body reacts to a burn, before the brain can calculate the consequences of the actions. (This to me, in a way, works as a model for most recent western decisions with regards to Russia). So Russia should not use nukes under any circumstances, or make other escalating decisions even if it means the Wrest will escalate. Instead it seems reasonable to keep the conflict on the slow burn the way it's done now and watch the western elites be replaced by the next crop and Ukraine go the way of either Korea or hopefully Afghanistan. Painful for Russia and Russians, but better than the uncertainty of the alternative.
@d888152 ай бұрын
Can you do a video on the drones in the red sea what time me for future wars under maritime powers in the light of the drone military dynamics
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
Hey by the way, great idea to make the video just in time for June 12th the Russia Day! ❤❤❤
@homosepian12343 ай бұрын
Ciao ! You look good sir ! I really like your new hair style + goati 🖖🏾keep on the amazing work 💪🏾
@SerbanOprescu3 ай бұрын
I've seen confirmation of parts of your analysis - the constant reevaluation of their strategic and tactical thinking - recently, by an American military person. I didn't believe it then, I believe it now.
@oleksiysokolov35103 ай бұрын
Your take on technical issues is quite good, but your understanding of motivation of the Russians why they do all this is unfortunately really poor.
@user-uk3nx8cn4u3 ай бұрын
Fortunately!!! Arrogance is bliss in this case.
@johnmoser11623 ай бұрын
I think it's you who doesn't get it. For most of the units this was a "fun" operation. And I guess you never did military service - you just blindly follow order.
@madrooky13983 ай бұрын
So then, why do you think the Russians act like they do? It is cheap and empty talk, telling someone not knowing what they are talking about without making an actual argument.
@copetimusmaximus33633 ай бұрын
Ofc someone with a ucraneian name would have a complete and unbiased understanding of Russian motivation, riiiight
@oleksiysokolov35103 ай бұрын
@@copetimusmaximus3363 Because who else can be a better connoisseur or Russians if not their nearest neighbor?
@csk4j2 ай бұрын
you make very good points about the paralysis of Western democracy as well as our current set of misperceptions which hurt our strategies?
@docsnider89263 ай бұрын
Very interesting, one of the best presentations!
@maxgueits1242 ай бұрын
Yes...
@YahBoiCyril2 ай бұрын
23:54 oh huh. That has some interesting ramifications for pretense and escalation management.
@roundrock633 ай бұрын
Need to save this one for dinner time entertainment.
@kaffir17762 ай бұрын
I'm unimpressed with your geopolitical content and unmoved due to no real foundation for your beliefs cited. The real difference between you and Ryan Macbeth, is that you hide who you are and what your credentials are. Macbeth puts it all out there, signs his name to it and stands behind it. You're a nonperson, with no background and if you're wrong I suspect you just delete the live stream.
@TheDegenerateLord3 ай бұрын
(Scroopy Nooperz - "in the nuclear age... the real enemy, is war itself.") This is the best comment in chat by far. The rest of the comments were all simple-minded comments from simple-minded people.
@johnmoser11623 ай бұрын
And you are above the average ... ha ha. What s sucker ...
@75west2 ай бұрын
at 12:50 "we Italians" that was not my guess!
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
About "no chance to win for NATO vs Putin" - depends on definition of "win". Ukraine declared goal as internationally recognized borders (the one Russia promised to help keep safe from invasion in exchange of Ukraine nukes) - nobody talking about invasion of RF nor bombing Moscow to the ground like Mariupol. Putin not defined "win". As first step he might settle with capture of Ukraine or as much of Ukraine as possible, but you believe he can rebuild military fast = next step will follow soon.
@Max_Da_G3 ай бұрын
Ukraine never registered their borders in UN. So legally speaking there are no recognized borders. In fact as far as international law is concerned, USSR was never legally dissolved.
@user-wg6zq5zu9g2 ай бұрын
@@Max_Da_G Ukraine and RF agreed on borders on 1991, I'm not sure where you found bullshit like " USSR was never legally dissolved" but if you take it at face value - it's just mean USSR is failed state and requires external control - is it something you would like to see happening?
@laurentp79643 ай бұрын
Hi & thanks for this very interesting video, I have subscribed to your channel & am a fan, never missing anything you release. I was surprised with your statement that Russia should emerge stronger if the conflict in Ukraine came to an end, because especially regarding their air force they are losing assets that are difficult, sometimes impossible to replace like A-50s or Tu-22, plus significant numbers in the Flankers family and the experienced crews for which industrial & human capacities to replace are limited... Hoping & looking forward to reading from you !
@jettrd_utilitychnl42303 ай бұрын
There are no assets that are impossible to replace. Every time something important is out the contract to built it is getting assigned. Of course it will take some time and some money but it is a war so it is planned to loose and replace some eqiupment
@vk2im93 ай бұрын
Thank you :)
@rob25403 ай бұрын
I think the war will end when a side will lose the will to fight like a lot of mutiny and unrest at home what would have to happen for that to happen? In ww1 unrest in germany was lack of food i think And in russia it was lack of food and military humiliation. And in ww2 a lot of countries surrendered quikly why was that. Sorry for manny questions haha😅
@liammarra40032 ай бұрын
Awesome video, but thats to be expected from you.
@goster092 ай бұрын
the air defense of Ukraine is many orders of magnitude stronger than anything that NATO and the United States have faced over the past 80 years, so that claims that planes do not fly deep into Ukraine are ridiculous
@AcciaioTemprato2 ай бұрын
Dear @Millennium7HistoryTech I've never received the notification of your livestream so it's almost impossible to take part in the live chat. Could you anticipate it through a post? Thank you in advance.
@Millennium7HistoryTech2 ай бұрын
Noted
@blazinchalice3 ай бұрын
47:55 Demonstrably false. M7, I thoroughly enjoy your technical presentations but your political analysis falls short. You seem to be unfamiliar with Russian efforts to present the Russian position through mainstream news media. In the USA alone, the Russian view is presented by FOX, OAN, and even through mouthpieces in Congress who present the Russian POV in interviews in mainstream news.
@tiborpurzsas21363 ай бұрын
Since 2022 February, Russia Today news outlet is not available in my country. (Canada) I often wonder what happened to freedom of speech. Why does my government decide what I may, or may not view on the internet? It's hard for Russia to let the world know their side of the story if their media outlets are gaged around the planet.
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
Not to mention it's secondary war theaters for Putin - main effort of propaganda was in RF and Ukraine. Especially active warfare around 2014 - with "Crucified boy" and other very successful attempts of disinformation, nationalistic hate mongering and blaming on victims exactly what Putin puppets was doing.
@pat89883 ай бұрын
@@tiborpurzsas2136”their side of the story” is fabricated nonsense.
@blazinchalice3 ай бұрын
@@tiborpurzsas2136 I disagree with your characterization of Russia Today as a news outlet. It is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin aimed at the West. It fits right into M7's characterization of information warfare conducted by the Kremlin.
@hisvin3 ай бұрын
@@tiborpurzsas2136 RT doesn't speak about Russia. So it's pointless watching it if you want to learn about Russia.
@gezalesko38132 ай бұрын
that they are equal to othets.. outrageous!
@peterweller85833 ай бұрын
Hello and welcome to the forum.
@tokbucks2 ай бұрын
NATO already has boots 🥾 on ground in Ukraine 🇺🇦 so there is it.
@gheorghedoja87232 ай бұрын
To expect MSM to present Russian POV is irrational. After pandemic experience with all MSM going aligned with one POV, the only conclusion from a rational side is not to waste time and resources trying to present a different POV into Western MSM.
@Marcellogo3 ай бұрын
Carissimo, non posso che complimentarti grandemente per la tua scelta e l'assoluta serietà con cui la stai portando avanti, fino al punto di imparare il Russo per leggere in lingua originale. Giusta la scelta di comparare fin dall'inizio i diversi tipi di approccio ideale/ metodologico dei due sistemi di pensiero militare così da impostare subito il discorso nei giusti confini. Se mi posso permettere ti vorrei suggerire di comparare in un prossimo video i programmi di sviluppo di rispettivamente gli F-35 e degli aerei russi per la IA-FA di nuova generazione (quindi anche Su-35S e MiG-35, non solo Su-57). A mio giudizio entrambi sbagliati ma per ragioni opposte, con l'approccio pragmatico americano dal basso all'alto che a forza di dividere il problema in tanti piccoli pezzi li ha portati a perdersi in una palude e quello idealistico russo dall'alto al basso che ha portato un errore di impostazione iniziale (ma rilevato nel mezzo) avanti fino alla fine del programma facendogli perdere un sacco di tempo (e con tutta probabilità anche il Mig-35).
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
I am just at the beginning of the journey
@Marcellogo3 ай бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Ma ha beccato subito uno dei punti dirimenti di differenza: non è solo cosa ma come pensano. Stabiliscono prima una dottrina e poi da quella determinano le specifiche dei progetti fut...perspettivi, visto che qui le parole sono importanti.
@sebastianwolfmayr3 ай бұрын
Can you elaborate on Ryan Macbeth?
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 ай бұрын
I prefer not to, he’s a fellow KZbinr and it wouldn’t be appropriate
@Max_Da_G3 ай бұрын
I will elaborate on him. He is a propagandist and a liar.
@sebastianwolfmayr3 ай бұрын
@Max_Da_G Very patriotic and pro America/armed forces, yes. Propagandist and liar? I don't know about that. So, since you find such strong words: Convince me.
@sebastianwolfmayr3 ай бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech fair enough, I understand that
@chavdarnaidenov26613 ай бұрын
Sorry to read that you've had health trouble! Get well! Here's a preliminary exposition of a possible explanatory model of The Weird War of 22-24. Both Russia and Ukraine have a defensive doctrine, force structure, armaments etc., inherited from the Soviets. But Moscow was in the process of assimilating or parroting the doctrine of a predator-state (the effect of the Gulf War propaganda, Hollywood, games, and the moral vacuum in the post-socialist countries). E.g. the 1st 3 days of the SMO were a half-hearted parroting of the US invasions of Iraq. But this same Soviet doctrine was alive and well in Ukraine. They appealed for a re-enactment of the Great Patriotic War (1941-45). So a force that was adequate for defence tried to do an offence and met a force that was wholly designed for the role it was playing - defence. From voluntary territorial defence up to the very good S-300. Nobody would admit, but it was essentially Soviets attacking Soviets and Soviets defending themselves. Neither the West, nor Russia, nor Ukraine will like the above narrative. It's wholly against current prejudices that reign on all sides. But it EXPLAINS why things happened the way they did. By the way, Soviet interventions were always preventive in purpose, aiming to prop up a defensive buffer zone. But they always had a reverse effect for Soviet security - Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan. They always lost essential local support in a territory next their borders. (The West is geared towards initiating such experiments in faraway places that can't return the aggression) .Every time the military was placed in a role of a conqueror or occupier that it had to play with a conscript Army, based upon patriotic duty and low pay. Then you have the revolutionary consequences of even cheap hobby-drones. All sort of tactics, operations and vehicles suddenly lost much of their value. The world's militaries did not see this coming - because of bureaucratism and partiality for expensive procurement orders. These tactics and vehicles will either quickly evolve, or disappear. Turtle tanks show an almost desperate effort to save the idea of a tank through gadgets made in workshops near the front.
@homosepian12343 ай бұрын
O yeah - and say hello to OTIS from all of us at home 🏡
@mickparkinson2073 ай бұрын
Throughly enjoyed your interview with another channel Sir. Brilliant as always you are respected appreciated and loved for your knowledge and your passion for this subject! Again thank you Sir!
@jamesrowlands89712 ай бұрын
Which channel was that?
@tomeks666Ай бұрын
I have always thought you are Russian. Your Italian background came as a surprise. Regarding Russian thinking I am not sure it is that much interesting. What's the added value that someone uses word from a dictionary like "war" in a different meaning that covers both hot military conflict and changes in the international political environment that are undesired by Russian government.
@ValiantB23 ай бұрын
Regards from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
Russians also in their analysis of foreign threats believe more in capability than in messaging, values, ideology or even the current diplomatic relations. Chekhov's "rifle on the wall" principle. We might have good relations now, but that huge military base you're building right on my doorstep, that big thing can house things that can do things 😂 "Why are you doing that let's talk about it do you want anything please respond" would be Russia's reaction every time. "Those new missiles, we've got some too, let's agree to limit their number and not place them here and here".. I tend to think arms control treaties are the most Russian thing there is, in international politics. That's part of why Russia's building all those "conversation starter" treaty weapons like Avangard, Zirkon, Status-6 and Burevestnik And that's also why back in 00s when the west said that they want to put GMDs and then Mk41s plus a radar in places like Romania and Poland "against Iran" Russians were reaaaly sceptical.
@JabberwockyGB3 ай бұрын
You still have a lot of learning to do - both about the reality of Western approach and Russian philosophy. The colour revolution concern of the Russians relates to the billions spent by the US via NED and associated organisations with the CIA. Maidan was the US colour revolution to overthrow Ukrainian democracy. Russia achieved their initial objectives with the SMO because negotiations started within a week! NATO interfered to prevent agreement believing that they could destroy Russia.
@MikeisaGoob3 ай бұрын
Funny thumbnail 😂
@Keiranful3 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for your analysis on Russian military thinking, it helped me understand some pieces a lot better. I do have one point of disagreement, in that NATO expansion was the root cause of this war. Vlad Vexler does a way better job of explaining this, but here are the main points: 1) the promise of no eastwards expansion was never given. It was a suggestion floated by a negotiator on the US team that was immediately retracted by the VP. 2) Russia at one point wanted to become part of NATO, but were to proud to apply for membership, instead expecting to be invited. That they were not was perceived as an incredible slight. Now for some historical context: 3) in more than 1000 years that some kind of centralized political entity has existed in this region, it has always been autocratic (with maybe a short exception in the 90's). During that same time they had two modes: weak leaders that allow neighbors to run roughshod over them (Mongols, Swedes, or Poles for example) or strong leaders who where violently expansionist. No in between. 4) Putin was never shy or secretive about his nostalgia for the Soviet Union or admiration of Lenin. Restoring the Russian empire to its glory was always a ling term plan of his. This war (or something like it) was always inevitable, because Russia cannot accept that neighboring countries have sovereignty and agency. That is why the Poles effectively forced themselves into NATO and so many former Warsaw Pact countries followed. They know the Russian Bear and its hunger..
@wyattdean51923 ай бұрын
100% agree with this, also love clad vexler he’s great
@luisginja33483 ай бұрын
Great work👍👍🙏🙏
@Castragroup3 ай бұрын
Wow
@jdcrunchman99919 күн бұрын
I see you fine!
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
35:39 - hilarious - on paper "exclusively defensive" and "no reference to power projection" - just considering all neighbors a rightful property and if Georgia leaning towards NATO - invade and create "republics", if Ukraine businessman not ready (or unable) to sell motherland - invade annex part and create "republics", .. see the pattern? It's all defensive - as Lavrov saying "Russia not started this war, just defending itself"
@JayzsMr3 ай бұрын
he literally said they want to influence countries, pay more attention next time
@batrakov.d3 ай бұрын
Республики в Грузии были еще до вторжения.
@lavenderlilacproductions3 ай бұрын
2 minutes later he explained why they didn't follow their doctrine. Keep up
@Max_Da_G3 ай бұрын
Lying with every letter lol pathetic.
@copetimusmaximus33633 ай бұрын
Lol ucranes "businessmen" "unwilling" to sell anything😂 dude, they've sold or stolen 99,9% of the country, including the people😢
@ArcticKnight983 ай бұрын
Interesting video, although I disagree that they have gotten Crimea through military means. And it is difficult to say that they didn't manage to change the hearts of minds of people or their view towards russia in a positive way. While it is true that there was no country-wide support in Ukraine for Russia, you could say the same for the Maidan revolution movement, where it also failed to be countrywide - there was no country wide hatred towards russia, which is why areas like the Donbass and Crimea opposed it in the first place:).
@Max_Da_G3 ай бұрын
They SECURED Crimea through military means to conduct that famous referendum. If they didn't, there'd be same carnage as in Kiev.
@michaelnextdoor87262 ай бұрын
That was a long time ago. After invading their country Russia isn't exactly poplular. A lot of Russian speaking Ukrainians have switched to speaking Ukrainian at home now.
@charleswinning42583 ай бұрын
An excellent presentation, It looks like you have started down a very long road here, Russian political and military doctrine is as you say complex and dynamic, far from being 'set in stone' it is is continuously evolving, and never faster than over the last two years. An interesting facet of this confrontation has been the divergence between the west and Russia on the international diplomatic front, the west has taken a bullish and sometimes quite aggressive stance demanding nations to back them up or face punishing actions from the west, the Russian's on the other hand have gone all out on explaining the legal basis of their actions within the framework of international law but otherwise held back from directly asking nations to back them up, instead the have fallen back on long standing good relations and economic power to reward and strengthen established foreign relations. The softer approach that the Russian have taken has been very productive in the global south, the harsher western stance has however been highly corrosive to western international relations. As you pointed out, the Russian's consider this area as much a battlefield of the war as they do the active line of contact, and on this battlefield they have shown considerable success.
@gufo20203 ай бұрын
......dagli aerei siamo passati direttamente alla politica???
@ViceCoin3 ай бұрын
See you
@robtheelectric3 ай бұрын
Au ok
@wkrapek3 ай бұрын
51:36 It’s not stupid. The Russians underestimated the depravity of our elites. They only withdrew because Zelensky promised to abide by the Istanbul negotiations. The Ukrainians were caught flat footed.
@madisondines74413 ай бұрын
Depravity? Fucking please dude.
@wkrapek3 ай бұрын
@@madisondines7441 They have exterminated an entire generation of Ukrainian men by forcing them to stand up against the Russians with virtually no air support and no artillery. It was always lopsided. Now they’re virtually all out.
@madisondines74413 ай бұрын
@@wkrapekmillennium 7 must be blocking this, but Russia has taken more than twice the casualties as Ukraine. Between 450k and 500k. So what you're claiming is completely false.
@wkrapek3 ай бұрын
@@madisondines7441 He’s not blocking anything.
@YossefMan-hg9cz3 ай бұрын
@@madisondines7441based on what ?? Russia has superiority in air , artillery, mass , drones , vehicles , ew and many more How in the hell would they have twice the casualties of ukrianian forces?? Unless you believe westren propaganda blindly then there is no way logic can conclude that
@OVTraveller3 ай бұрын
As a European born citizen, I agree with you that the urgent prevailing attitude in many cases is American, especially in Australia. I recall the very strong negative attitude in the Netherlands post WW 2, based predominantly on the debts associated with the Marshall Plan and the betrayal over their East Indies- Indonesia. The Hungarian invasion changed that, but many Europeans believed that the independence shown by France in developing their own nuclear deterrent was laudable and much preferred over the acquiescence shown by Germany and Great Britain. The fear over Russia was overwhelmingly pushed by the USA and their subsequent failures in Vietnam ( ignoring the North Vietnam's dislike for the Chinese), their failure to support France's struggle in Indo China, 🎉 demonstrated all the other aggressive actions to push their own hegemony ( list too long) If we fail to understand Russia and China's psychology, motivation and primal urges, constant conflict will result.
@villiamo38612 ай бұрын
FFS - 'acqiescence' - look up Tube Alloys, look up the later McMahon Act and its consequences on the UK - ie look up the third (not the fourth) country to develop its own independent nuclear weapon.
@marioshadjikyriacou33813 ай бұрын
The ones wishes educate themselves, i challenge them to devote 2 hours...put in YT "Vladimir Pozner how west created Vladimir Putin....in Yale university"! Im 47 years old and i remember all facts mentioned by Pozner! Vladimir Pozner(90+ y.o) was journalist, correspondent of "Voice of America" in Moscow, during cold war yaers!!
@scroopynooperz90513 ай бұрын
wow. fascinating watch.. thanks for the recommend edit: 19:55 I didnt know there were declassified official archives of James Baker and other prominent US officials making a commitment to Gorbachev to not expand NATO? The Russians never tried to make an international court case the subsequent expansion of NATO since the 2000s was in fact illegal? I guess that ultimately, the words of politicians, their treaties are essentially worthless then xD The only element that is ultimately respected is the threat of conflict and destruction. Gorbachev seems to have made many grave errors.
@marioshadjikyriacou33813 ай бұрын
@@scroopynooperz9051 there is no "world police" to impose any... law! There in nothing illegal in NATO's expantion eastwards! The element seemed forgotten by many People(in West mostly), is that NATO is a MILITARY ALLIANCE! An alliance that destroyed Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, and the alliance's "sherrif" destroyed Syria with their proxys!! Americans fooled Gorbacheyev, Yeltsin(that wes easy as long as he had vodka infront of him) and now, Putin! Putin though, is not Idiot! He said "enough"!
@scroopynooperz90513 ай бұрын
Something you may find interesting - there's a KZbin channel called 'Kay and Skittles' that did a fascinating breakdown of a movie I quite liked as a youngster, called 'Enemy at the Gates". I'd never considered the propagandizing anti Soviet / Russian subtleties of post Cold War Hollywood until I watched this concise and brilliant breakdown though. Very much worth a watch.
@darkofc3 ай бұрын
👍
@TheDegenerateLord3 ай бұрын
Why does everyone keep saying the West expanded to the East as if Ukraine had no say in what their country does. As if there's not clear and Strong incentives for an eastern country to join Nato that has nothing to do with Russia other then being under their influences sucks because of corruption and being treated like 2nd class. What I'm saying is joining NATO and the EU is significantly an improvement of quality of life. Russia simply wasn't considered in this decision nor should it have been. Russia's fear of the west or Putin's fear is what lead to this not actually anything the west did. Plus who is Russia to say what a whole different country does and who they fuck with. The EU comparison is super nice to be in. "Fuck you and your fear Russia we are going to do what we want" is what I would say if I was Ukrainian. The first invasion securing their sub base and all that, okay, but you're tripping trying to control another countries future and prosperity. Ukraine was tired of being a poor Russian satellite and who blames them. NATO countries are prospers and who wouldn't want to be apart of that. In fact I say Russia get's rid of the leaders trying to hold on to this conflict and join the rest of the world in peace and prosperity. COme on Russia join this NATO hot tub the water is nice, warm, and fun. We like to party over here and I would love to party with some Russias in the future.
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
"Why does everyone keep saying the West expanded to the East" - it's miracle, M7 saying exactly Kremlin propaganda would like him to say and he still believes Kremlin propaganda did a bad job :)
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
I don't know why 'everybody' is saying this, but as a Russian, my response would be this: we say that NATO expanded because it actually did. If using true words to describe the actual reality makes your tummy hurt, well, that's a 'you' problem)) Russia surely would not be making as much of a fuss over it if Russia wasn't explicitly promised NATO non-expansion. 'Not an inch to the East' they said. So I think a good idea is, maybe next time, make sure your leaders don't build your military superpower on a broken promise of peace. P.S. Putin claims he offered Clinton to join NATO and was swiftly refused. Clinton issued no denial, could be true.
@愛を込めてロシアから3 ай бұрын
And you're saying this 2.5 years after February 2022, 2.5 years after you on KZbin and Instagram welcomed violence against my fellow citizens and suggested that we destroy our own country? It's been 10 years since you couldn't stand the shame of losing at the Olympics and blocking our athletes, 30 years since you tried to sell off my country's industry, 80 years since you've been working to destroy my country. Maybe we should play football with your head?
@user-wg6zq5zu9g3 ай бұрын
@@aleksandrs1422 Clinton told it's possible, but there procedure.. If you look at this procedure (couple Russian neighbors just followed it) one of the first and essential part of it - get majority of people to support the idea of joining NATO. We don't know why Putin decided to alienate NATO instead of trying to join, but it might be just simpler for Putin to support old soviet narrative. Words "NATO expanded" might mean the same to you with "Finland decided to join NATO", but which one more precise?
@aleksandrs14223 ай бұрын
@@user-wg6zq5zu9g for the first part, I'm confused. Are you telling of the way it actually happened (in which case, what is your source for the Clinton quote?) or how you wish it had happened? On the other part, obviously the first one is more precise. It takes a unanimous NATO members decision, an actual bureaucratic process for NATO to expand. And this process was deliberately followed. NATO is not somehow a victim to the NATO expansion process, it's the main actor doing the 'expanding'. Finland did not hold a referendum on NATO membership, which is the typical process for a democracy to ascertain the will of the people on an important national decision. So that would be less precise. The most precise to my mind would be "Finnish public was made to acquiesce to the NATO membership which will be a long term security detriment to the people of the country through the process some call manufacturing of consent. This process was deliberate and almost inevitable, considering the decision to expand NATO was made by Western elites decades ago despite assurances to the contrary, the tendency powerful bureaucracies to perpetuate themselves, and the sheer determination of NATO elites to replace trust-based security in Europe with military supremacy". A bit long, but that's precision for you. At least, my take on it
@sigma_six2 ай бұрын
The biggest problem with the US military today, is that it has solidly made itself a corporate commercial entity... this is both good and bad... the good is that it is profit oriented and therefore will continually re-invent itself to make profit... the problem is what happens when corporate interests and bureaucracy overtakes the practical necessity, pragmatism, technological precision and efficiency required for military performance... I think the Russians, out of necessity, are forced to deal with this, and as a result have created "hidden" optimal efficiencies... whereas the US has created multiple sub-optimalities when everything is said and done... the US is clearly not 20x more powerful... as their budget might suggest... maybe more like 3-4x more powerful, for example... which makes things fall back to Alliances...
@ХРЕНОРЕЗ3 ай бұрын
Russian military thinking looks something like this. Russia has no borders, only horizons 😂😂😂
@skeptik32583 ай бұрын
Norway lots to answer for.
@antonkucherov92153 ай бұрын
Greetings from Russia
@santoriniblue84132 ай бұрын
Reg the Su-57, legit pople think it is fear of loose ... this is true, but as I learned from an intrview I saw from US Strategic Bomber he argued: 1. They choose the most efficient and riskless tool capable to do the job. If an F-15 or a B-1B can do the job, no reason to deploy the B-2 or the newer B-21. As explained also in this channel, each time you deploy you deploy one of this weapons, it degrades, as all your foes and even friends try to collect data to profile its electronic signature. As the host has explained in this video, how the other side curtails the performance as even with every attack he suffers, he builds up the weapon's profile ... and specially if he recovers some duds or wreckage, valuable trasures that may allow him to test or even reconstruct one.
@libertarianbydefault2 ай бұрын
47:50 This slide is quite misinformed in many, many different ways. I applaud the research effort, but when it comes to political, historic and military points concerning the conflict, too many things mentioned are simply not true and/or make no sense. I do not believe this to be intentional but more a result of not being aware of nuances and all the facts of those and current days. Kind of sad to see that most people watching and commenting are also clueless. Would be happy to elaborate if needed.
@aleksandrs14222 ай бұрын
Hey I'm just a guy on the internet but my opinion is yes it's needed please elaborate
@garynew96372 ай бұрын
Just came from ryan mcbeths channel. The hubris in the comments about winning a war with russia is frightening.
@salty44963 ай бұрын
:)
@Malik-ur2si3 ай бұрын
You mistitled the video. It should be "What I wrongly think of how Russia thinks and operates and claim this is how Russia thinks and operates. You also forgot to add the disclaimer that "The claims made in this video are likely not true?". If you make the correction this is a perfect video, otherwise do not trust western interpretation of what and how Russia thinks as the actual thing. Don't be a military analyst, you don't have accurate information about enough military operations and you cannot distinguish between truth and fabrications.