UnHerd Club - The Ukraine Debate with Edward Lucas, Konstantin Kisin, Peter Hitchens & Thomas Fazi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2023
- Subscribe to UnHerd today at: unherd.com/join
Check out our upcoming events: unherd.com/unherd-live-2/
A year on from the Russian invasion, is ongoing Western involvement really the best way to end the war in Ukraine? Debating are Edward Lucas, Konstantin Kisin, Peter Hitchens, and Thomas Fazi.
#unherd #ukraine #ukrainewar
It’s like stepping back forty years, to where we had genuine debates between people of opposing views.
so true - it was like Question time in the late 70s.
The true art of television based debate died with William F. Buckley Jr. This has been the UA-cam highlight of my year thus far.
@@robertsmuggles6871 This is exactly what I was thinking Robert!
It’s a rare occurrence these days, most people only get to listen to repeaters on main stream media.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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)
Exactly
The conflict started in 2008, if not in 1991 with the granting of Ukrainian sovereignty!
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
It's a shame Christopher Hitchens is not here. He was always the sane one. Peter just talks over everyone. Even over his partner
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.
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
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.
It's not that they don't want to listen to each other, it's that they're trying to solve different problems. If you come together to talk about solving one thing, but every participant has different goals, then it's almost certainly impossible to come to a solution everyone agrees upon.
Peter speaks about protecting the UK. Konstantin speaks about stopping Russia, which is not the same thing. Edward, I think, speaks about making the life of Ukrainians better, but I'm not sure. And I'm sorry, Thomas's speech kinda glossed over my brain, even though I tried listening twice my brain just doesn't register it lol. I'll have to get back to it with more attention.
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.
That's what international diplomacy is for.
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?
@@iancormie9916 oh thanks here I was thinking it was NATO moving east not Russia moving west
To compare Ukraine with going illegally into Iraq is ludicrous... 13:36
I totally agree. What a stupid argument.
Why,the west started both
Peter Hitchens seems unable to answer simple questions, what a difference with his brother😪
Oh wow, I knew he looked familiar, Christopher was fantastic!
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
Absolutely love these heated yet informative debates!
Not so informative since one side completely misinterpret, twist and sometimes even fake facts about what happened.
@@konfunable Yep, that's exactly what Hitchens and Fazi did.
I'm surprised Nord stream was not mentioned at all
zelensky wasnt mentioned....many other things
Nord stream was not mentioned because there no more Nord stream.
Wouldn’t fit KK and Edwards narrative. USA good , Russia bad.
It never is
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.
I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you SO MUCH Freddie and Unherd for allowing a real discussion. You give me hope.❤
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.
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.
Good to see Peter Hitchens is back in his fantasy world.
Equally, Konstantin is so shamelessly inventive, a talented story teller indeed 😅
Your comment hasn't aged well 😁
Hitchens has been proven right.
@@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
@@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.
Peter did say that absurd line about America would continue the conflict in Ukraine if the Ukrainians didn't fight. Absolutely mental.
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.
No he didn't, he meant USA would push Zelensky to carry on even of the Ukrainian people didn't want to fight.
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?
@@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.
@@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?
Thomas Fazi is unable to make a point without it being emotionally charged, convoluted or talking over someone else drowning them out.
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.)
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?).
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
Also, no mention of Russia starting the invasion.
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?
He lost me in his first statement - blaming NATO for Russian aggression. I’ve never heard a more stupid statement in my life.
NATO broke its promises to Russia about no eastern expansion. We gave our word and then reneged on it. Simple as that.
It's not stupid. It's true.
The hubris and entitlement of Hitchens are hard to listen to. All while dodging hard questions. Amazing.
I don't care about Konstantin Kisin or what he says about his family. If they are in Ukraine his political stances have put their lives in danger. He's lied in virtually everything he has said. Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to be a neutral country that did business with both the EU and Russia - and the Americans would not have that.
And you are?
“The bar is open.” A proper way to end a debate.
You could see in Konstantin's face the dread of having to face over there the man, Hitchens, whom by that time he surely despised.
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.
Except that that isn’t true. Many people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Odessa, Kherson, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhzhia, Melitopol, Mariupol, Kramatorsk and towns in other regions disagreed with their government being overthrown. That is the key issue before Russia even enters into it, and that was obvious as these protests and uprisings started immediately. Difference is the only movements that survived the brutal coup government crackdowns were in Donetsk and Lugansk, as the sentiments were held so strongly and by the overwhelming majority of the population, this is demonstrated as weapons and vehicles the separatists had at the beginning came from defecting police forces and military units. All before direct Russian involvement.
@@ronan97 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.
@@kondziu1992 triggered 🤣 a lot of people like many so many too much to count. The Russians didn’t take Lugansk and Donetsk initially… and no one has stated anything “makes it okay” but using your own logic the euromaidan wasn’t okay either lol. Can you link these studies with Lugansk and Donetsk? And nah I don’t think they took Crimea to “protect the Russian population” I think they took it because they could and they wanted to, particularly because what was happening in Kiev meant that they knew keeping their fleet there wasn’t going to be a viable option and so they did what they did. Was convenient for them that over 90% of the population agreed with them. This can be shown in the 2 or three previous referenda that took place regarding crimea and it’s autonomy and separation from the Ukrainian state. And why are you talking about Poland like 80 years ago. Wipe the froth from your mouth you little monkey
“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.
@@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?
I like how Konstantin said that "Russians invade Finland" even though that invasion was planned by Stalin, who was Georgian and done by general Tymoshenko who was Ukranian. But Konstantin will pretend that he doesnt know the word "Soviet" and will use "Russians" when he talks about this period.
Just to understand your point better, what do you think of holodomor?
@@hellerase Same thing that i think about Famine in Povolzhye. Soviet crime against its own people.
He also said they got to retain their sovereignty, which is true, albeit after conceding lots of land...
He is relying on British people not be educated in the history of the world. Thank you for pointing this out.
Wait til he finds the ethnicity of the Bolshevik leaders like Trotsky!
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
Douglas fully supports Neo Con Action in the Ukraine
Not surprising from a Globalist I guess
Precisely what went on here
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.
👏👏👏👏 you hit the nail on the head. Exactly what happened here.
Douglas Murray should then consider his own pure propaganda piece in Kherson giving people false facts. Destroyed his credibility with that.
Here in the US, there is no debate over Ukraine.
There isn't really here. These two are outliers.
Hitchens and Fazi are kind of journalist or activists that once Lenin called 'Useful Idiots'.
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.
On the other hand, you aren't useful.
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.
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.
@@sbaumgartner9848Catherine the Great tried and failed to enlighten Russia, if I’m not mistaken.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Aq+!!qaq
@@johnsmith1474 An intelligent comment like yours?
Peter H needs to listen to what Anne Applebaum thinks about 'negotiating' with Putin.
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.
That’s certainly part of it, but he should have ‘stopped’ at Russia.
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
We’ll said!
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.
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.
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
Whats your “case” exactly?
Who was Iraqs allies at the time?.
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.
Pretty sure he was still in school then.
Unlike Ukraine, nobody, not even the Iraqis, thought that the Americans intended to annex Iraq. Iraq was not lead by an elected government.
I must agree.
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.
yeah it does feel so. As if we really have no idea what we are doing.
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?
A lot of know nothing 2nd rate armchair philosophers who've never been to Ukraine. Not having a Ukrainian in this debate was unconscionable.
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.
Kisen is an ignorant comedian. No idea why he's there.
@@angryengine9616 Ad hominem attacks aren't facts
@@derosa1989 he is a comedian, that is a fact lmao
@@derosa1989 his ignorance on every single issue he speaks on is evident for all to see too. Nice try but wrong ;)
@@derosa1989 ok he is ignorant
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.
Unsupervised expressions of opinions - are you serious? ;-)
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.
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
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
@@Christmas-dg5xc some one please think of the children!!
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.
Exactly. Blatant self-interest masked as virtue!
I am slightly surprised by Hitchens, that he can use his Christian faith as a justification for allowing evil to triumph over good.
I am an atheist and don't have a full grasp of this faith thing, but that wasn't how I thought it worked.
It is a kind of pacifism which is an entirely reasonable position. Peter Hitchens himself isn't starting any wars and has since his conversion more or less opposed all wars that Britain has participated in abroad. When bad things happen what do you do about it? Should Britain send a standing army to Ukraine? Should they nuke all of Russia out of "justice"? Should the CIA/MII6 go kill putin? f you are rooting for nations to fail be careful what you wish for. As Lucas and Hitchens both agree that if Russia loses than the person replacing Putin will be most likely worse. Hitchens correctly keeps bringing up the past because the pro Ukraine position wants to act like this happened out of nowhere in a kind of garden of eden where Russia is the sole aggressor. This is very much in line with the take the stick out of your own eye before doing it to your neighbor. Peter hitchen has written a whole blog post on how this doctrine is at times simply is dismissed as "whatabousim" or "ad hom." Hitchens is also entirely correct that Britain should look out for its own interests first. Britain cannot afford this kind of "charity" or entanglement. Neither can the US. As Mearsheimer would point out China is the real peer competitor to the US/west.
It depends how out of touch you are with reality.
He hasn't been brainwashed.
He knows who the real terrorist are.
It is critical to feed propaganda to people and at all costs percent them from questioning the true motives.
support from Canada to Russia.
The truth will prevail
@@RADVIX313 as a Russian who has witnessed many horrible and evil things my government has done to Russians and other countries I am disgusted with your comment. Do not support Russia. It’s a corrupt hellhole, where the police in my experience is more likely to beat you up than come and help you when you’re in trouble, where most of the money is stolen at every project, governmental or private.
@@anchovy2764 You have clearly not witnessed any american horrible things, or rather not aware of the reality of the situation.
I find the confidence in the lack of truth quite disgusting, to be honest...
Thank you Unheard for making this enlightening discussion available in full length
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.).
@@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.
@@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.
I could easily listen to this for three more hours
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.
You mean Mr. Kisin.
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.
@@dixonpinfold2582And the third was the US against the Taliban.
@@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.
A study said those in Ukraine who have family members fighting - wanted a peace deal. Question for Kisin - is his family fighting now? Are his male relatives of fighting age and likely to get called up? Are they in the country? All men of fighting age have not been allowed to leave the country since war broke out. Unless they could pay a bribe.
It's a daft description: "wants a peace deal". *Everyone* (except some minuscule proportion of psychos) wants some peace deal. The real questions are:
-which peace potential deals would one personally accept?
-which peace potential deals does one believe would be signed by all parties?
-which peace deals does one believe would be kept, after they had been signed?
Those are where individual differ.
Exactly my reaction when I heard his argument of" 91% of Ukrainians want to fight'! Really - it's why they are running from forced mobilization (many videos on UA-cam showing screaming women not letting their men to be taken by military /mobilization units ,by the thousands ? Its why mullions are in Europe and millions in Russia, left on their own accord btw?
@@davidwright5094 If ordinary people were consulted and invited to elaborate we might get an idea of where they agree. it seems the plebs are only good for fighting, being made homeless or dying for someone else's politics.
Lots is not known, and lots of just hidden or lied about - on both sides such that - how do we ever know?
Where I can find about this study? Give some links
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
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.
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.
@@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.
@@nomnomyam9379 Millions of people protesting to take down a government is not a coup, lol. Look up the definition.
@@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.
The side that constantly appeals to my emotion rather than to my reason will not win either of the two.
Freddie, Thank you so much for sponsoring this debate.
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…?
Hitchens fanboys will blindly agree with him whether or not he is right.
Hitchens has been on this program several times and has built up quite a following.
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
44:02 "first war in Europe in my lifetime"
Yugoslavia: yeah, yeah, forget about me.
The migrant crisis was a war in Europe
I'm thinking the same when I hear the speech about war free period and precedents
Yugoslavia is another war resulting from Soviet stupidity.
Thank you for these sessions
Peter Hitchens is master at saying nothing for an extended period of time whilst complaining about not getting to speak.
And interupting too, rude as hell.
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.
Exactly, and KK's point was that there has never been a peaceful transition of power to real democracy. Hitchens failed to refute that.
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.
@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.
@@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.
Listen to what he said but with a bit more attention
Peter 'Thoroughly Unimpressed' Hitchens. He's livid!
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.
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.
The side for continuing the war: "Russia would never accept Ukraine NATO membership." Also: "Ukraine must join NATO." 🤡
So it need to be done without Russia accepting it.
The side for stopping the war: "Ukrainians should accept mass murder and domination by Russians and shut up about it"
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
@@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.
@@privaatsak The Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine is in play. Peace was never a priority for the US.
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)
Yeah, one hour is just not enough.
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.
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🙄
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🖤
@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.
What evidence would convince Hitchens he's wrong? I'm pretty sure none. A definition of dogmatism.
Thoroughly enjoyed this debate!
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.
"People of the UK and US should do something to pressure their government" he said, like what kind of bs answer is that
The people I know personally who most vehemently support the continued military aid to Ukraine, are people who are originally from former Soviet controlled or influenced parts of Europe.
What benefits is this having more deaths? longer war? rising prices? Relations between Russia and the west destroyed forever?
Yeah, because they, as a society, are projecting their own crimes against their own, which happened under totalitarian communist ideology in the fight against evil (capitalist class) onto Russia... and now hate Russia with passion & a great amount of irrationality. So they don't have to deal with their own guilt. And take responsibility that they themselves were organizing societies like that, believing in a communist Utopia which never materialized.... its a easy way out.
Same people who were the most rabid capitalists after the fall, were the same people who were in high positions within the communist parties... It is unfortunately simple as that.
@@mirmimi1 oh Russia is evil but the US invading Iraq killing a million civilians based on a fake accusation of mass weapons of destruction is not evil? It’s no surprise how hypocritical but through this year I came to expect this from Westerners.
@@Nikolaievich9837 i never said that Russia is evil... That was not the point of my post. I said that communist ideology perceived the capitalists class as evil... and crimes were committed all over Eastern Europe by the people themselves, not "the russians".
@@mirmimi1 communist ideology has helped Eastren Europe. Ukraine was a thriving republic. It was after the callpose of Soviet Union many of the people in power fled the former Soviet republics with a lot of the wealth and oligarchs in the government started to rob from people. Communism is not an ideology that is meant to wipe out entire ethnic groups based on their background. Also tell me how many people have been killed by Western imperial ambitions? The Soviet’s helped 3rd world countries fight for there freedom.
I'm for people putting their foot & money where their mouth is. Send your own money &/or go to Ukraine to fight. Don't advocate to send other people's money while other people's children are dying in that war Western elite keeps burning.
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.
This was a thought provoking debate. I am so glad it was had. UnHerd is fast becoming my favorite You Tube Channel.
Theyre the same geeks that called pawgs racism.
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!
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.
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.
@@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
One of the best I’ve listened to so far
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.
Kissin dominates this debate. Hitchens loses his temper early and afterwards seems to have lost his ability to think clearly.
Peter is completely unhinged here
Kissin looks at it from a very simplistic pov. USA and Russia couldn’t care less about it from a simplistic pov.
Two pro ukranian speakers totally ignore failure to honour minsk agreements, shelling of donbass, nazis and democratic will of east ukranians.
Now they are moving to east Asia causing troubles, where they have no business in. Installing puppets and marketing is what they do best. Already see how ambitious their plan is. Forget about them honouring the deal, those people are liars.
Literally parroting kremlin propaganda
Love love love these debates please keep them coming unherd ❤️
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🖤
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@dixonpinfold2582 Yes. Christopher was by far the smarter of the two.
@@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.
@@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.
End NATO! Get the Americans out of Europe and let the Europeans take care of themselves.
btw, it's always enjoyable to watch Peter Hitchens at his most cantankerous and passionate.
Bit of a shitshow. I was less than impressed with the way Peter conducted himself. I usually respect his calmness and reason in debates.
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.
Passionate is the word
Can't stand Peter he is a complete prick but he does have the habit of always being correct .
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.
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.
I try so hard with Peter Hitchens - he is knowledgeable, however I don’t think his conclusions are very sound and he’s a pretty poor debater.
Prickly, arrogant, and doesn’t engage with the questions.
His view that Russia was provoked - is his contention that it is ok for Russia to dominate its neighbours? Why can’t Estonians live in peace with a security agreement with a powerful ally (NATO) who will never invade them? If ok for them, or Poland, or Germany, why not Ukraine?
Peter Hitchens is against states interfering in other nations affairs, but seems to give Russia a free pass in its neighbourhood?
And he kept avoiding the question KK was asking - how does he propose to stop the war? Saying “put pressure on western governments” completely misses that point, which Peter well knows which is why he wouldn’t address it. If west stops supporting Ukraine, how are we going to stop Russia doing whatever they want in Ukraine? Russia has no incentive to stop - as he believes that people like Peter Hitchens will do the work for him and convince western nations to cut and run and let Putin do what he wants in Ukraine.
Unlike his brother Christopher.
If I can't speak out of turn, my voice will be suppressed. What a self proclaimed victim
Why did no one on the pro-side point out this is a war of agression and conquest that Russia chose? It is a bit like a criminal calling the police because the residents of a house being broken into resisted the theft too much.
Kissin is a quizling puppet.
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.
True, if Ukraines borders dont matter, then Taiwan is up for grabs apparently
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.
@@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?
@@Killer1260 yes, most countries do including the US in a way.
@@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.
So glad to see people like Peter argue the case but slick operators like Konstantin are much better at debates.
Maybe because Hitchens position is just dumb.
@@ThomasDanielsen1000 Er..no, it isn't. He's just a poor debater. His brother Christopher though was brilliant and even as he supported the Iraq war eventually recanted his support for it just before he passed away.
@@V12F1Demon Hitchens just sat there and tried to lie to make his points and then got mad and started throwing insults around.
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 take a small grain of truth and then twists it to the point of flatout lying. 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
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.
Very well put. You summed it up pretty straight forward.
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...
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🙄
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.
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.
Better than anything on the BBC or any msm, more please
The BBC is a joke. Absolutely unwatchable.
You mean on the BBC currently? There are plenty of great BBC documentaries let’s not be troll weirdos
@@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.
@@intello8953 (says the troll weirdo)
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.
Konstantin Kisin has no choice of the side in this dicussion just like his grand-grand-father in the soviet-finnish war.
The more I see of Konstantin, the more I appreciate his growing participation in events like this.
He's a right proper lad.
Amazing. Well done organising this Freddie!
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?
Exactly. Proves anti russian alliance. Always has been. Why they allow other soviet countries, and not russia, despite their asking.
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.
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'.
@@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.
@@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.
More of this please...
It's obvious that Peter is not there for a discussion, he's there to enforce his opinions. What's the point of inviting people immune to dialogue to discussions? You can see visible frustration and exasperation on Konstantin's face in particular.
Edward Lucas "Can you chair this please?" Too right, terrible job moderating this debate.
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?
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.
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.
@@fujohnson8667 Cant imagine a world where Mexico agrees to that
Also it still wouldnt warrant US invading Mexico if they did
@@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.
@@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.
How do we reintroduce this format and standards into the Educational System ?
Unherd is providing such a vital service to political and cultural dialogue, and thus to our democracy
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!
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.
What is a Fazi? Apologies for the question. I don't know what it means.
Kisin and Lucas mocking Fazi for not having been to you ukraine was childish and an insult to us all,
Thats why Hitchens took them apart easily.
Hitchens was running away from direct questions like a scared mouse.
Hitchens claimed that the war would not end if Ukraine stops fighting because the US would somehow go on fightign.. not even sure what he meant. How anyone rational could come away from this thinking he took anyone apart is really beyond my imagination.
Please keep this going
The mark of good democratic debate is listening to views you don't agree with and responding back.
Great discussion. Would love to see a part 2 (in a year?)
In a year humankind won't exist anymore.
If we're all still here!
@@DanHowardMtl maybe you won’t, but I’ll be here. 🫡
@@EyeGodZA Haha. No, you won't.
@@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.
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.
Exactly! Where does it end and how far back in history does an aggressor be allowed to go?
Fantastic debate
Have you ever been to Ukraine? Have you ever been to Donbas?
Cmon kk you're of military age, always telling us to continue this nonsense, get ya flak jacket, book a flight, let's see how keen you are sat in a trench in minus 15..cheers
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.
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.
@@user-wm5rt9pw5l 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.
@@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.
@@user-wm5rt9pw5l 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.
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.
Can we have more debates please. They're great.
These guys, Peter and Thomas, do they really think they know and understand anything about Russia? Such ignorance. Why would anyone invite them to debate this issue? They don’t know the subject but probably see themselves such smart people. They may look smart but only to those who don’t know anything about Russia and its historical imperial ambitions.
Excellent content folks. Well done!
Why is no one mentioning Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt leaked phonecall 2014?
Because perhaps, unlike you, others know the context of this call.
@@user-wm5rt9pw5l "Context" go ahead please, explain the "context to me".
@@MyMared Nuland Payat's call happened during third round of negotiations between opposition and Yanukovych on the formation of a new government. A week before the call, Yanukovych officially offered Yatsenyuk position of prime minister...
@@user-wm5rt9pw5l alright so this tells me that the US had direct influence on ukrainian politics right? Why is the person or politicians from the country allowed to play such a major role in the internal politics of a foreign country that is almost half russian and at the same time campagning at the Maidan protests to get the country into the EU?
@@MyMared they aren’t suggestions from a major ally are not the same as direct control you idiot.