UKRAINE | Time for NATO Troops?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- As the war in Ukraine reaches a pivotal moment, a debate has emerged about whether NATO should play a more direct role in the conflict. This discussion has intensified following the recent controversial suggestion by French President Emmanuel Macron that NATO could deploy troops to Ukraine. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin fiercely rejected the idea, warning of a dangerous escalation and even a nuclear confrontation. Likewise, other Western leaders have distanced themselves from Macron's proposition. Nevertheless, many are now asking whether it is, in fact, time for NATO to send combat troops to Ukraine?
As the war in Ukraine enters its third year, there are concerns about where the conflict is heading. While Ukraine continues to fight off Russian advances despite suffering heavy losses in a failed counter-offensive in the second half of 2023, international support has waned amid shifting global focus and domestic political challenges. As a result, the possibility of a Russian victory looms, potentially reshaping the foundations of contemporary international relations. However, Macron's comments at a European conference have divided opinions. While crucial members - such as the United States, Britain, Germany, and Italy - have distanced themselves from the remarks, other European nations have said the idea should be on the table. But while direct NATO intervention appears unlikely due to the risk of nuclear escalation, there is an ongoing discussion about the moral imperative to support Ukraine against Russian aggression, as well as the broader implications of inaction on European security and international norms.
MY NEW BOOK!
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know
Oxford University Press global.oup.com/academic/produ...
Amazon amzn.to/2MPY3W2
Audiobooks.com www.audiobooks.co.uk/audioboo...
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please subscribe. Even better, perhaps consider becoming a Channel Member or supporting the Channel through Patreon. Thank you!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
ua-cam.com/users/JamesKerLind...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER
/ jameskerlindsay
JOIN MY PATREON PAGE
/ jameskerlindsay
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:46 NATO and the Ukraine War
01:35 The Russian Invasion of Ukraine
02:30 NATO and Western Support for Ukraine
03:23 Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive against Russia
05:02 Reactions to Macron’s Comments on NATO Troops
07:10 Should NATO Send Combat Troops to Ukraine?
09:38 Other Forms of NATO Assistance to Ukraine
11:27 Opening a Debate over NATO Troops in Ukraine?
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
North Atlantic Treaty Organization | NATO
www.nato.int
President of France
www.elysee.fr/en/
Ukraine Support Tracker | Kiel Institute for the World Economy
www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-ag...
General Breedlove Interview | Times Radio
• Leaked Russian militar...
Putin’s Nuclear Blackmail | Atlantic Council
www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
kit.co/JamesKerLindsay
MAP CONTENT
www.themaparchive.com
DISCLAIMERS
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.
#Ukraine #NATO #Russia
Macron certainly sparked a lot of controversy with his comments about the possibility of NATO combat troops in Ukraine. But how do you feel about the idea? So, do you think the time has come for NATO to take a more direct role in Ukraine? Or is this just too dangerous an escalation? As always, I'm looking forward to hearing your views and comments below.
NATO is part of the wider military industrial complex. Why support that organization?
🌚🌝
There are already foreign legions there. I don't understand why he was out in the open. Russia's trade with Europe is carried out through Georgia and Armenia. In fact, there is no evidence of tension between European countries and Russia.
Personally, I think NATO and the west f..ed up right from the start by giving Russia a list of things they "wouldn't do", because of that we've heard nothing but 2 years of nuclear threats, and it's worked incredibly well for Russia in limiting aid to Ukraine. Having said that, I think it was a brilliant move on Macron's part. By stating the most extreme position the conversation can work back from there, let's maybe try the Taurus or Patriot missiles first kind of talk. This directed change of conversation put NATO in the driver's seat instead of debating from a position of what we won't do which only strengthens putin. Have a great weekend Prof.
Even if ,we all know very well that this war should never end, till Ukraine becomes free again
Although
We must see deep for the reasons of this conflict.
Western countries, want to put a hand on the Russians nature sources
Hahaha .. with what can nato do anything, we dont even have ammunition
same old story of history repeating itself....
nuclear war has never happened before
Have you forgotten that nukes have been thrown into civilians during WWII?
@@theapple3160 Nuclear war was supposed to break out after we sent:
- Javelin
- Tanks and Vehicles
- Patriot and other air defenses
- Every week in between these whenever Medvedev had a drunk meltdown
Where are the nukes? I'm sitting here in London waiting for Russia to sink the British Isles like they promised in 2022. 🤡
@@theapple3160 sheeps dont care about facts or context
@@theapple3160 but it will happen sooner or later. Chekhov's rifle principle.
There is no such thing as 'nuclear blackmail'.
It is a fact that both sides have nuclear weapons. Getting into a hot war could easily spiral out of control. That is a statement of fact and common sense, not 'blackmail'.
And moreover, I would question the motives of anyone dismissing warnings of nuclear war as 'blackmail', as an excuse to escalate an already appalling situation even further.
both side have nuke so how likely one side start the nuke first. not likely because both side will suffer the same fate. would you press that button knowing that your family and relatives will go through the same shit your enemy going? it’s a fucking no. it fall under the self preservation category.
what would other countries suppose to do then?
@@superjnovaannularaurora9065 By that logic, there was no risk of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Of course, nuclear war is in no one's interests. But the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The point is that de-escalation is difficult to achieve in a hot war. In which, a nuclear confrontation (either deliberate or accidental) is a very serious and real risk, and one that shouldn't be dismissed as 'blackmail'. It's just common sense.
@@Behemoth29 back down and give up when someone threatening using nuke. is that the logic we seeing here?
@@superjnovaannularaurora9065 Don't escalate to the point where nuclear weapons have to be discussed in the first place?
Again, pointing out the threat of nuclear war is common sense to any rational person, not 'blackmail'.
It's amazing to me how willing some western commentators seem to be to support a path that might lead to nuclear war and even without that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their people. I think this is because they are so disconnected from reality and thinking they are untouchable, but this is far from the truth. May God save us from their hubris.
Indeed. I hope UA can keep as much territory as possible but these commentators and politicians are insane
It’s funny because none of them would sign up to fight on the frontlines yet expects every Tom, Dick and Abdul to fight.
If this does go nuclear I hope all these reporters are at the front to give us minute by minute updates.
It's because nuclear war might be inevitable if we do nothing as well. Think of it this way, if Russia wins Ukraine, they have now learned what will stop NATO from getting involved. What if Russia continues it's campaign? What if they start taking over Moldova, or Georgia next? When would enough be enough? One thing we've learned from Hitler is you cannot trust what these leaders say, that a single country will be enough. Had Britain and France not gave into the initial demands of Hilter, WWII would have never happened. So yes, I understand where some of these leaders are coming from as history has shown us what can happen if we DON'T do anything. War can still happen, and with it, even more deaths. That being said, this is bad news all around. I certainly wouldn't want to be a world leader making these disussions right now.
Their leftist brains simply thirst for Russian blood but only if someone else is doing the shedding of it. That's why they cheer like sheep on all these comment sections
You said "Popular support for the war" was declining. What you meant to say was popular support for Ukraine? It's a confused statement.
Okay. Where do you sign up? 🎉🎉🎉
You touched on the real issue towards the end of your video, but I'm surprised you didn't give it more prominence. The issue is Western support to Ukraine - the West as the "arsenal of democracy" in FDR's phrase. If we, and especially the US, were more serious about supplying Ukraine with all it needs to win this war, then the question of sending NATO troops to fight in Ukraine need simply never arise.
Thanks. Maybe this is what Macron intended. Recognising the Western support hasn't been as strong as it could be, perhaps this is his way of saying that unless more is done, troops on the ground may be the only way to resolve this. I think Western Governments recognise how important it is for Ukraine to win, but have so far been extremely cautious about giving it the tools to do so. Perhaps that discussion is now coming to the fore.
Exactly.
@@JamesKerLindsay Western governments should read the history books on the wars with Russia, as well as Nassim Taleb's book Antifragile, which applies to the Russian mindset.
@@JamesKerLindsayWhy are troops "the only way to resolve this"? What happened to negotiations, treaties, and the like? Utrecht, Versailles, I don't know. Something like that. Why is negotiating, which has been done throughout history, now a taboo subject? Or have we really reached Fukuyama's End Of History?
@@timstapleman yes exactly ! Why noone talks about diplomatic efforts to solve the problem?!
Putin even offered negotiations on the basis of Istanbul Papers. Why Selensky forbids negotiations by Presidential decree even he is running out of soldiers ?!
the real Question is Can NATO afford to start a direct fight with Russia ?
Nato should jot irresponsibly instigate WW3 .
Nato wanted to crush Russia economically by imposing thousands of sanctions !
They mostly failed.
Ukraine counter offensive failed militarily .
then Why should Nato push whole world into WW3 just for Ukraine .
I stated what I really thought about the situation and UA-cam wouldn’t post the comment.
I doubt that
I know, it happens so often lately.
@@TheBlinky81 happens all the time
100% UA-cam is deploying censorship HARD. Is this UA-cam or china?
I just posted a longer comment, UA-cam deleted it
Been waiting for Professor’s analysis.
There’s no emotion in the world of geopolitics but end of the day nations are made up of emotional people.
Unlike Russia, NATO countries cannot send troops (or more support) officially without public approval.
Popular support, unfortunately, is a propaganda/narrative problem.
Current propaganda portrays Ukraine as fighting for a greater cause (NATO).
Fighting for the interest of a foreign military alliance isn’t greater, but a Lesser cause than fighting for the land and the people.
Ukraine garnered unanimous support from western media and society alike at the earlier stages of the war, when they were portrayed as fighting for the people and the land.
With the war dragging and people losing interest, the narrative changed to fighting for NATO and cost efficiency of weakening Russian threat. While this is a attempt to bring the conflict more personal to the westerners, this narrative effectively turned the war of survival to a mere proxy war.
Who ever came up with this idea is probably a bit detached from the people, or significantly overestimated their government’s popularity among the voters, or have no idea how human empathy works.
@anotherbacklog Excellent insight about how framing Ukraine's national defense as "protecting the West" counterintuitively makes people in the West skeptical of Ukraine's motivations. Fighting for personal survival is more believable than fighting for a global cause.
Have you seen any articles/videos discussing this phenomenon in more depth? I would love to understand more about it.
@dan-andreiiliescu4813
Thanks for the reply. Personally I haven’t come across discussions on this particular viewpoint, but this is what I observed from media and responses, the rise of anti war sentiments corresponding to the “fighting for the west” narrative.
The closest thing I have seen is an analysis by channel Defense Politics Asia.
ua-cam.com/video/ssCR1qPav_g/v-deo.html
Hope you find it informative.
France is know for loosing wars 😂 the us not going
Why should Nato intervine?
Nato is not attacked or is Nato not a defensiv organisation
Defensive organisation??? Did you sleep through 1999?
NATO has not magic weapon or vehicle, war is not a videogame, those who think NATO can use continental missiles.. are way too blind to realease Rusia has it too
With how weak Russia has revealed itself to be, it wouldn't surprise me if half of the missiles Russia has are dead in the water at this point. Obviously, I don't want to test this theory but everything they've shown us so far has shown us that they are a lot weaker than they originally appeared. They are winning just because they are willing to throw more bodies at Ukraine. Technology wise, Russia is now about 2 generations behind the US with military weapons.
The war is already here
@@lindsiria Question- if Russia is as weak as the western narrative says, what is the problem, exactly? On one hand they/re supposed to be a group of unorganized, poorly equipped and drunken idiots. On the other hand, they're supposed to be a danger to the western world that will just keep attacking nation after nation if they're allowed to defeat Ukraine, to the point that we're here, talking about nato sending troops to Ukraine. It's the Russia of Schrödinger- they're super weak and a danger to everyone at the same time. Let's assume they're in fact as weak as you think and just defeated the second biggest army in Europe plus all the military and economic support (there's an entry on Wikipedia for all the public support Ukraine has received so far) by luck or something. Then what's the problem and why are we even having this conversation? They probably won't defeat Ukraine, and if they do, they'll be harmless to the powerful nato nations. Or even better, why doubt about sending troops? Send a couple of battalions, conquer Russia and everyone will be back for supper.
In case it escapes somebody, I'm being sarcastic. I somewhat feel like I should clear that...
@@lindsiria their weapons and manpower is still at the top. Economy is still strong.
If Europe involves, their economy will shatter and they will loose badly......
russian bot
"To a start, many point to a moral responsibility to act"
Well then, nobody is stopping them to go to Ukraine and fight- and they can take Macron with them
Funny how in Gaza or Yemen suddenly there's no moral responsibility to act
That’s what their talking about sending troops to stop pitons insanity
@@FOLIPEthat’s not Europe
@@Clapperofcheeks5000If you know anything about the war besides surface level facts about the war, he's really not that insane.
Active support of Latvia, Estonia and the Netherlands in the NATO (essentially US) war with Russia sounds like the help of three skunks in a battle between two bears.
Send Boris, Macron, Trudeau, and Biden to the front line.
Exactly.
And in Russia a similar comment about Putin on social media could get you 15 years in jail. You fail to see the gravity of this conflict.
send pootin putler to the frontline of the invasion and war he started.
when russians were seeing biden as he wandering around, they would get confused
sure
🙂
Dont forget Victoria Nuland ;)
I laughed with the phrase "sanctity of European borders".
We saw that with the case of Kosovo
russian bot
@@gozulumii4439 Is there essentially something to answer? You were shown the actual use of double standards.
@@gozulumii4439 no he is right,you are ignorant.
Единичный голос разума! Благодарю! Демократия- для меня это синоним лжи, лицемерия, геноцида и грехопадения! Перед смертью поймете! Все перед Богом стоять будем!
@@gozulumii4439 Yes you got me Sherlock! Anything less cliche?
As Putin showed. With Crimea, you don't have to say anything just send little green men....
👍
@@johncale1849they sure did.
Of course Russia sent their guys in.
Someone had to protect Russian speaking civilians from those AZOV TYPES!
Thats why the GLOBAL MAJORITY SUPPORT PUTIN
@@johncale1849but they straight up did?
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN SINCE 3 CENTURY. NEVER BEEN UKRANIAN
"Could or should NATO send combat troops to Ukraine?"
Fuck...no...
NATO might however send troops to occupy regions west of the Dnieper if they feel Ukraine will collapse. Ukraine is trending towards a collapse with the lack of *military* funding (most current funding from Europe is humanitarian). Given this I can definitely see Ukraine being split German style with a puppet NATO “democracy” state west of the dnieper and a Russian occupational state east of the dnieper, perhaps kyiv being split like sarajevo.
@@Alastair_Adana doubtful. USA doesn’t care enough about Ukraine to risk direct war with Russia. They wanted to trap Putin in a quagmire. Not step into one of their own
James, what's wrong with Macron The Rooster? Today he said on France 2 that the French defense industry is not ready for a high-intensity conflict and Paris does not intend to take the lead in escalating the conflict in Ukraine. Do I understand correctly that Macron speaks first and thinks later?
I'm sure he thinks he's some sort of genius. Another example of over promotion
Some see 80 years of rules-based international order, others see 80 years of proxy-wars. And then there's still the problem (no matter how we feel about it, or what is fair or just) that a NATO-Ukraine remains completely unacceptable to Russia. That's the key point to understand why this mess happened, why it continues to go on despite substantial losses compared to rather modest gains, and why it won't stop anytime soon.
There is no rules based order, that's pure US propaganda, there is international law, there's the UN charter, which the US violate more than anyone else... but no rules based order.
Мммм! Здравый смысл! Приятно! Редко встретишь, на просторах интернета! Благодарю! Надеюсь, мы все не умрем в ближайшем будущем! Хотя, перспективы велики! 🤷♀️
The same France that ran out of ammo in Libya....
Russian and Chinese propaganda victim
British troops would make no difference, we have a piss pot military.
The cookie monster is gone . I suspect a change in u.s policy
USA is desperate. They Can't quit. They Need to take Russia! Policy change won't lead to Peace. IMHO
@@Finness894 What are you talking about, the US always quits. We will juts turn around and leave the issue.
Hey there @@AbcDino843 . I was just thinking that US took Iraq, and the Gold disappeared. Then they destroyed Libya, and the Gold disappeared. Then they created ISIS to take Syria, but Russia interfered and made the US look like Fools! So now US needs to use Ukraine to weaken Russia so that they can carry on with their world domination. (pretty crazy, eh?!)
Missing all the context from back in 2014 as to why this conflict is a thing.
They always do
Because it’s not the subject of this video. He’s made countless videos explaining the whole conflict. Stop justifying Russia’s actions just because you’re misinformed on the events that happened 10 years ago.
Because it doesn't matter, even if Donetsk and Crimea legitimately left willfully Russia can't just take whatever it feels like all in the name of history or corruption.
I'm Canadian but just because I'm pissed off at my government that doesn't mean I can convert my land to the USA.
The answer is no. It would be a catastrophe if NATO was to get directly involved.
It would be catastrophic if nato won't get involved.
@@wabalaladabdabcatastrophic for who ?
Globalists ?
Agree .
But nato has no right to fight for a country that is not in nato !
Going to ukraine is not a defensive war.
Ukraine is not part of nato
How about a democracy in Ukraine oh wait that was 10 years ago .
Says a guy who has never been to Ukraine
Yes the West caused the coup in Ukraine!!
I think it would be appropriate to refer to the OSCE’s Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the US, U.K., Russia and (half-heartedly in separate documents) China and France. If the P3(4?) ignores this it can hardly be surprised when other countries call them untrustworthy and look to develop their own WMDs.
People should actually try reading Budapest Memo, there are NO security guarantees. It tells the signatories to "don't invade Ukraine", not "help Ukraine if they are invaded".
The closest section to aiding Ukraine is a provision that if Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons, signatories are obligated to report to the United Nations Security Council and seek resolution which the US and UK already did! (even if technicallt this only applies when nukes are used).
Ukraine has never had nuclear weapons, the Russians took their own to Russia
Very good analysis of the dilemma. The West needs to step up the support to Ukraine big time including long range weapons, removing loopholes to sanctions and allowing western weapons to be used against Russian territory. This latter restiction was always ridiculous. The bottom line is that Putin can't be allowed to take over Ukraine. This would open a Pandora's box of dangers, as well as being morally reprehensible. If the West doesn't provide a lot more support to Ukraine than currently, sending NATO troops might be the only way of defeating Putin; and his threats need to be confronted. But this wouldn't be necessary if Ukraine gets all the help it needs now.
People seem to forget the west isn't omnipotent and Russia isn't powerless. This all reeks like hubris
Putin has always wanted Ukraine to confirm Neutrality-status. This is the only way out of that mess !
@@eddastrohmayer251 A lot of good neutrality did Ukraine in 2014!
ROFLMAO 😅
@@nigelgarrett7970 Ukraine never did "good neutrality" - it's CIAgamble what brought them in that mess!
Dobrý den
💓🇨🇿⏰🇸🇰💓
Děkuji za Vaše vysílání
💓⏰💓⏰💓
Is it time for NATO troops in Ukraine? Absolutely NOT! That time was 2 1/2 years ago when Putin started marshalling his army on the eastern border. If NATO had responded the way it should have at the time, there wouldn't have even been a war to begin with and we wouldn't be in this mess.
Of course, for that to happen, NATO would've had to have had the troops, the material, the equipment..... and the f*cking guts.... to do so. And since we lack all of those things, Putin is no more afraid of us than he is of a kitten. And here we are.
I actually thought the same thing. To have had troops as a deterrent. But they only choose to put troops in the Eastern countries of NATO instead which didn't do much.
Do you realize Russia has nukes?
@@eddwincedeno5387deterrent against being attacked not to police the world
So do we, Mrs. Scholz.@@FOLIPE
@@FOLIPE lol and how many red lines has Russia set? Any western weapons, Nuked. Tanks or armored vehicles Nukes. HIMARS, you better bet Russia is sending Nukes. They said multiple times that doing something would mean nuclear weapons from Russia and every time nothing happened because they're just trying to deter with empty threats. I think the one line Russia would never let someone cross is an invasion of Russian soil. If Russian nuclear threats meant anything NATO would've been nuked multiple times already.
I’m 29 and from the UK and like fuck would I become conscripted into the British Army. I’d rather go to prison. The vast majority of other peoples I know also believe this. Imagine trying to defend Ukraine’s borders when we can’t even defend our own from migrants coming in small dinghies.
You have your “leaders” to thank for that.
@@braxxian Leaders we need to remove. Both Labour and Conservative. Unfit to govern.
i agree totally. but we wouldnt need to be conscripted to fight russia. it would take a matter of weeks for nato to disable russia as a country obliterate its army in ukraine, they have no capabiltiy to fight against the best western tech, stealth fighters, heavy bombers, apache gunships. its nuclear thats the worry but still that wouldnt lead to conscription. a nuclear war mostly ends russia as a people and probably does horrific damage to the west in days.
@@marcr3170
No.
Russia has a very formidable air force and has the capability to disable NATO's airbases and ports.
The Russian terrain cannot be conquered or even held unless you have the vast infantry like China.
@@bika7788 Why would I fight for a nation and government that will make me a minority in my own country? (UK)
My dear professor, WHY ARE YOU TELLING BLATANT LIES?
WHY ARE YOU NOT TELLING WHO PUT A STOP TO THE PEACE NEGOTIATION WHICH TOK PLACE IN ISTANBUL.
You mean the FACT that the Ukrainian negotiators reported that they couldn't trust their Russian counterparts, and the FACT of the massacres of Ukrainian civilians in places like Bucha?
@@nigelgarrett7970
"MORE SPECIALISTS THAN AMBASSADORS": Scientists calculated - the USA carried out hundreds of military interventions
The United States has carried out 392 military interventions from the American Revolution in 1776 to 2019, a new scientific study shows.
Currently, the US has more special forces in foreign countries than it has ambassadors, said Monica Duffy Toft, co-author of the study and a professor at Tufts University.
In their research, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the authors used more than 200 variables and calculated that the number of American interventions is increasing, since half of them have occurred since 1950, and a quarter after the end of the Cold War in 1991.
- The cumulative impact of what we discovered is surprising. We did not expect either the quantity or the quality of American interventions to be so great - Sidita Kushi from Bridgewater State University, co-author of the study, told "Middle East Eye".
Since 2000, the US has been involved in 30 level four (use of force) or level five (war) interventions, the authors report.
- The post-Cold War era brought fewer conflicts in which the US could defend its vital interests, but American interventions continue in large numbers. That militaristic pattern persists even during times of relative peace and direct threats to the security of the US - the authors state.
The analysis includes different types of interventions, from wars, through operations against insurgent groups, covert operations, deployment of troops to demonstrate force or threat... The study showed that over the past two and a half centuries, 34 percent of US interventions were in Latin America and in the Caribbean, 23 percent in East Asia and the Pacific, 14 in the Middle East or North Africa, and 13 percent in Europe.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00220027221117546
@@nigelgarrett7970 Nazi roots of the COLLECTIVE WEST
Indian removal took place under Andrew Jackson the president of United States, who started, the bloody Black Hawk War in 1832 and opened to white settlement millions of acres of Indian land that had belonged to Indians.
The Trail of Tears, forced displacements of hundreds of thousands of American Indians, between 1830 and 1850 by the United States government.
Jim Crow laws from late 1870s established white supremacy and codified the segregation of whites and Blacks.
Nuremberg Race Laws is a copy of Jim Crow laws. The only thing the Nazis had to do was to cross over the word nigger and enter the word Jew. Hitler and the Nazis have not come with anything new; they had just copied what was so successfully practiced in the US democracy by the Democratic Party.
It turns out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and other key Democrats were fans of Adolf Hitler and fascist Benito Mussolini.
The patriarch of neo-liberalism admitted to drawing considerable inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini.
(FDR) called Mussolini “admirable,” and was “deeply impressed by Mussolini.”
A diary kept by President John F Kennedy travelling in Europe, revealing his fascination with Adolf Hitler, is up for auction.
Robert Byrd, an American politician served as a United States senator for 51 years. the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.
Byrd recruited 150 members to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.
Byrd became a recruiter and, was elect “the top officer in Klan”.
In December 1944, Byrd wrote to Senator Theodore G. Bilbo: I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side.
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to Samuel Green, the Ku Klux Klan's Grand Wizard, stating, "The Klan is needed today.
The same year, he was encouraged by the Klan to run for the Congress, took his seat in January 1947.
The National Democratic Convention founded KKK and, the KKK was a terrorist arm of the democratic party in USA.
Both presidents, Clinton and Obama went to Robert Byrd funeral, and he was Hillary Clintons mentor.
Sources:
FDR Praised Mussolini and Loved Fascism
JOHN GRIFFING
Dinesh D'Souza
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
NASA, Nazis & JFK The Torbitt Document & The Kennedy Assassination
@@nigelgarrett7970 Whoever supports Ukraine is a Nazi and supports Nazis
Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT
ua-cam.com/video/5SBo0akeDMY/v-deo.html
Ukraine: On patrol with the far-right National Militia - BBC Newsnight
ua-cam.com/video/hE6b4ao8gAQ/v-deo.html
The far-right group threatening to overthrow Ukraine's government - Newsnight
ua-cam.com/video/sEKQsnRGv7s/v-deo.html
Inside A White Supremacist Militia in Ukraine
ua-cam.com/video/fy910FG46C4/v-deo.html
Operation Gladio - False Flag Terrorism: BBC Timewatch [1992] Full Documentary
ua-cam.com/video/1hJrQisPVk8/v-deo.html
The Origins of Ukraine’s Fascists & Why It Matters, w/ Historian Tarik Cyril Amar
ua-cam.com/video/5C7DE2KFJHs/v-deo.html
Tucker: This is why Democrats are taking us to war with Russia
ua-cam.com/video/wGvO8b-tiaM/v-deo.html
The salutation ”Glory to Ukraine/ Slava Ukraine” is a Nazi salute, it means that you are a NAZI, good for you!!!
Pentagon by the hand of their puppet Boris
No "NATO" "combat troops" to fight in the front line. Instead individual countries should send technical specialists, maintenance personnel, staff officers, intelligence people, advisers and training instructors, logistics co-ordinators and medical staff.
Good
If Macron wants a war with Russia let him go and fight it.
Imagine Russia had troops in northern island fighting British colonisers.
Northern "Ireland" ? ⚔
What British colonisers? British hasn't had a colony since 1997 and voluntarily allowed a Scottish referendum on independence. You're an 1diot.
Imagine actually understanding what the situation in Northern Ireland is like and not embarrassing yourself as an ignorant fool on the internet
@@Vaultboy-ke2jj last time I checked it was still occupied by the British, unless you know something we don’t!
@@jakel8627 except they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and as far as I am aware they still occupying Northern Ireland.
Thing is 'nato countries' don't have to go fight in Ukraine 'as' nato participants. They can just fight there under the flag of France or the Netherlands or the Baltics. Nato clause 5 only takes effect when the country itself gets attacked.
A bit sheepish to drag the whole nato into it and if Putin wants to nuke nato or Ukraine, he might as well put a nuke in his own ass too because he's going to get it there eventually.
Putin looking at that nuclear warhead button and be "Time for that ?"
Время! Пора!
He who resorts to nuclear threats is nothing but a coward. Putin is disgusting.
Nato simply does not have the ammunition necessary to intervene in Ukraine. Moreover, at least Germany has virtually no air defense and would capitulate upon the first Russian cruise missile strike on infrastructure.
If Nato ountries got involved directly, they'd increase their ammunition capacities tenfold. I think the biggest concern would be the use of nuclear weapons.
If the NATO included the US (which it would), we would have the ammunition to kick Russia out of Ukraine. Between a naval blockade and air superiority, NATO likely wouldn't even need to land troops. Most of what the US has given Ukraine has been older gear and weapons. We've barely touched our modern weaponry.
Why have they not done so already ? Because they cant. @@nc8507
Russia produces more ammunition and shells than the US and EU combined and its not me saying it but US officials themselves.@@lindsiria
@@coshynoat the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine 155 mm shells went for 2k a piece now it's going rate is 8k someone is making the big bucks.
If Macron wants to make himself popular by having bodies of French soldiers flown back into France, then go a head. For example the UK has 20,000 frontline battle troops. After month in Ukraine you would have 5000 dead and 5000 injured could any Prime Minister deal with the backlash from that?
Thanks, but I’m not sure it would play out like that. If NATO states commit troops, they will also commit to using the weapons that will defend them, and which they have denied to Ukraine so far. This is why Putin is so nervous. The moment that any major NATO state enters this conflict directly is the moment that Russia quickly heads towards a decisive loss.
@@JamesKerLindsay agreed.
@@JamesKerLindsay hear, hear 💪
@@JamesKerLindsaysure if nato wants an open direct war with Russia and bet on how unwilling Russians are to use nukes
Joe Biden shit his pants 2024@@JamesKerLindsay
NATO seems forever between a rock and a hard spot - whether to put troops in Ukraine or avoid it so as not to risk nuclear escalation. My opinion? Troops would not be necessary if Europe/U.S had not underestimated the Russian invasion in the early months and gotten complacent...
Either way, Ukraine is a sovereign nation despite the Kremlin's delusions. Russia's constant resorting to nuclear threats shows us just how weak and cowardly Putin really is.
What are they going to shoot with !? Potatoes and tomatoes !? The discussion shows that their stocks are not depleted and that they should transfer them to Ukraine NOW !!😠
I'm a strong supporter of Ukraine, but I don't think having NATO boots on the ground is a good idea. I'm frustrated that we haven't given Ukraine more aid (get it together, Congress!), and would like us to help them until the end, but there must be a red line somewhere.
Having NATO boots on the ground was, right at the very beginning of the invasion, considered out of the question, as was the idea of closing Ukraine's airspace. Are memories so incredibly short? Why is there a debate about this now? Why NATO troops, and not a diplomatic intervention? Why violence, and not a peaceful solution? Why stupidity, and not a serious discussion?
Let russia and ukraine fight it out. Usa needs to leave world affairs alone. We have been meddling in things that aren’t our business since ww1, its time to step aside
@@Austii42 OMG!! Someone replied with common sense. Thank you. This is most unusual.
Hello@@timstapleman NATO troops or Closing the airspace is a declaration of WAR. America knew NATO could not win against Russia and that is why they didn't do it. USA hoped that Sanctions would break Russia. Ooops!
The reason they want to send boots is because aid isn't working... I know you were told Russia is losing and it is a stalemate but those were all a lie, ukraine lost mariopol, bakhmut and marinka when ukraine was still getting aid. Ukraine claimed to have killed a lot of Russians but ukraine is the ones in need of 500,000 more soldiers.
Nowadays in Europe, liberation from Nazism is considered occupation. The Western MSM has so whitewashed Nazism in Ukraine that it almost comes across as sympathetic.
Soviet military commander of World War Two, Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov was right when he said: We have liberated Europe from the Nazis and West will never forgive us for that.
Russians will never forget that current members of the EU once fought on Hitler's side against Russia. History has repeated itself. Now the EU has replaced Hitler and we are there again, all of Europe once again at war with Russia. Therefore, it is important to know your history.
But Russia and yourself have forgotten the dividing up of Poland, the Balkans and the Baltic states with Nazi Germany, or that when Germany invaded France their army was supplied with Russian fuel and fed with Russian grain.
@@nigelgarrett7970 It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use their own arguments.
You sure have never heard of Stalin asking all of Europe to make an agreement with the Soviet Union against Germany. All these countries and many more have made pacts with Hitler against Stalin and went to war with Hitler against the Soviet Union.
Yes it is in that imperialism is a no no. As all things in history, everything is multipolar with several sides and facades. I consider Soviet liberation from nazism a good thing. However, there were reasons for the uprisings in the SSR's and it would be anything but delusion if one were to ignore the fact how much control Stalin exerted on these countries making them anything but free, and indeed more similar in characteristic to occupied countries after all. As for what Zhukov said, I think it was a response towards geopolitical tensions at that time in terms of ideology which I deem has absolutely no meaning in this conflict for which the reasons are different. As for the statement that some EU members fought with Hitler... Yes they did, but that doesn't make them Nazis now mate. Also who is the new Hitler by the way. At last let's rephrase that Russia is and has by itself started war in Europe. As much as you might justify it as denazification (because of a few extremist that literally every country has), nato expansion (its still a defence pact) or saving the Russians in Ukraine (just go to Russia), these things are anything but reasons to harm the sovereignty of a country and ruin the lives of so many innocent people. I will consider the occupation of Ukraine a dark mark in Russian history.
@@nigelgarrett7970 To be fair, the USSR's cooperation with Germany was a desperate measure to appease to it after the USSR found itself no real allies in the west (under the appeasement mania), especially after the Munich agreement. For Stalin, collective security was his main goal and if Germany couldn't be halted then make your worst enemy your best friend to ensure that it doesn't attack you. Obviously this would prove very much delusional and the Soviets would unfortunately suffer under this on the 22nd June of 1943. Nonetheless, the economic agreement was useful even for the USSR in that raw materials and even military technology was traded and most of all, through occupying countries a buffer zone between the heart of the USSR and Germany was created.
@@borislavtrivunovic9690 So please tell me why Stalin signed a pact with Germany in 1939 when British and French negotiators were trying to get an agreement with him?
Perhaps you can also tell me which pacts against the USSR the following countries signed: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia?
Desperate.
You started the war, you fight the war.
"The sanctity of European borders" crushed in 1999 when NATO brutally attack Serbia and occupied Kosovo.
Eine Entsendung von Bodentruppen würde NATO entzweien, da einige NATO Länder sich an solch einer Entsendung nicht teilnehmen würden, z.B. Türkei, Ungarn, Spanien Italien usw. Eine Entsendung von Bodentruppen gegen Rußland ist den Wählern in diesen Staaten nicht zu vermitteln. Das würde eine Eskalation bedeuten und damit wäre das Land, das Truppen entsendet eine Kriegspartei. Das muß nach meiner Ansicht, unter allen Umständen verhindert werden. Wenn die Franzosen das tun wollen, sollen sie das tun aber bitte nicht andere Länder nicht mit reinziehen.
Napoleon BonaMacron
🇷🇺😎🇸🇰🇭🇺
Yea, this should just stop. No one wants another world war! Why even send troops when several nations are being treatened with nukes? This war cannot escalate.
@@MartinBohunbut a little one
No, NATO absolutely should intervene. And at least this would show clearly who are the cowardly leaches within NATO, who don't deserve NATO. For example Scholz, who is an absolute disgrace...
Macron just said that all options are on the table. If the Germans had spent as much per capita as the Baltic States.... if the Western Allies had provided aid, sufficient to drop the Kerch Bridge and if the Western Allies had provided sufficient resources to cross the Dnipro...... the war could have been won. At least, if Crimea had been cut off, there would have been a negotiated settlement.
The problem for the West is they decided to stop Russia but they never decided to win. As an ex military person, I've never seen such incompetence. Putin just has to wait till Trump gets elected.... even if Trump doesn't get elected, the Americans will be engaged in their own civil strife.
NATO won't send troops. They don't need to. Foreigners can volunteer.... just change uniforms
Of course in some level the problem is lack of western commitment. Realists argued from the beginning this conflict was stupid becuase naturally the west wouldn't be as committed to it as Russia would, and that leads to losing! Commitment is also in part structural
"So far the bulk of western support has come from the USA, Germany and Britain" while displaying a graphic that clearly shows the EU has given the most financial support. I'm assuming he was referring to military support and misspoke, but still misleading
This war is not NATO war, if NATO wish to fight for UKRAINE then they should know that this will bring the humanity to brink of extinction, European leaders and the US has been giving false hope to Ukraine that they will win this war and misleading a nation to a complete disastrous and complete failure. Ukraine will look back in twenty years time and will never forgive and forget how EU and US destroyed there country.
I believe no one has the appropriate to fight for a nation which has Neo Nazis.
Just give them bagels and white flags based on French military history...
I know it’s a joke, but I’m never sure quite why this myth persists. Even as a Brit, I recognise that the French military is far tougher and more effective than most people realise. Since the end of the Second World War, it has staged far more military actions than is generally known, and could even have more combat experience than the US.
It is not myth, that is why it persists. Of course they are tougher than British Army, but a women volleyball team is more powerful than the British Army (as their current function is to maintain an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the USA called GB). @@JamesKerLindsay
Stop poking the Bear, dude.
With all this talk of nuclear weapons, I'd like to see a video on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It entered into force in 2021 and currently has 70 parties, including Vietnam Mexico Kazakhstan South Africa Peru Austria Ireland etc., and a further 27 signatories including Brazil Indonesia Algeria. The treaty plainly bans nuclear weapons.
Those countries don't have nuclear weapons, only 9 countries do.
@@fredo1070 That is the point, most countries of the world want no nuclear weapons, period.
The treaty doesn't apply to the countries which had the nukes when it was signed and for all those which don't care at all. And beside that there is no enforcement to punish those which don't respect its provisions.
you can’t enforce that at all, if a country has them what can you do
@@theapple3160 That's my point and what I have hinted at. If you want to join, fine if you want to leave and build your own nuke stockpile that's fine too. Sort of like the Kyoto or Paris protocols on climate.
Greetings from Ukraine.
Well, as many of us see the situation from here it seems like Europeans got scared especially after Trump's speech about not helping NATO states if it doesn't pay 2% of its budget to military sphere. The situation is not that much visible from abroad but it's critical. Especially we have a decline in morale here. A lot of people are feeling like we are all "abandoned". Or they speak like "The West will give us weapons only in drops (or chicken feeds) - to ensure we won't fall immediately but won't win soon". A lot of factors badly influence people's spirit, like long-time of the war, casualties. But among the major factors: delay of American aid + results of counter offensive.
Either it's a joke or not, either it is a declaration of the plan or just a rhetoric but Macron's speech seems like indeed somewhat improved people's mood. Maybe they feel there is a new hope. Though we already got used to ruined hopes...yet still continue hoping.
Why don't you go to the negotiation table? But please don't tell me that Putin does not want... he offered negotiations on the basis of Istanbul- paper, which is fair ! Why Selensky forbids negotiations by Presidential decree ?
Europeans want peace and not further escalation!
@@eddastrohmayer251 well, let us see. We already had:
1 - Budapest Memorandum by which russians agreed about our independence and territorial integrity instead of us giving away nuclear weapon - which was later violated by them;
2 - we had Minsk 1 - which was later violated by russia;
2 - we had Minsk 2 - which was later violated by russia;
besides we know the history of Chechnya that also signed an agreement with russia in Khasavyurt Accord back in 1996. And it was also then violated by russia.
what's the use of negotiations with russia if we know exactly that russia will violate any agreement we sign with them? For just talking?
@@andriipohrebniak9370
You are not telling truth!
As to Minsk: Ask Angela Merkel - She openly said it was just negotiated to win time for arming Ukraine ! And Selensky openly refused to implement it !
As to Istanbul 2022: The Ukrainian (!) head of negotiations said that it was Boris Johnson who interfered and brought an almost finished agreement to fall. This paper was even on Selenskys homepage some days before he was ordered back to the battlefield-approach !
- Ukraine pokers high without soldiers and ammonition... and you can be sure:
European people are running out of patience and want to see an end to this senseless war !
@@andriipohrebniak9370
Since you don't feel a need for negotiations, can you please give us an example in the last 3,000 years of recorded human history, where a smaller country has survived, beaten or prospered after going to war against a neighboring country, that was much bigger and stronger than them?
If Ukraine doesn't negotiate their only other option is to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Anyone with an elementary understanding of military history will tell you, that will never happen. The only way that would be possible is if NATO intervened and that also, will never happen. Ukraine isn't that important, that the Western elite and politicians will initiate WW3.
NATO doesn't care about Ukraine, they care about weakening Russia.
The longer Ukrainie waits to negotiate, the more Ukrainian lives , infrastructure and territory ( Odessa )will be lost forever...
@user-ks4vl1jl7j 1. Prussia against Austria, russia and France; Vietnam against USA; Greece against Ottoman Empire; American colonies against British Empire; Israel against Arabic states;
wanna more examples? :)
2. And what we get with negotiations?
russia will accumulate more resources, train more soldiers, prepare better and attack us again in 10 years - this time Ukraine will cease to exist.
How much i like all those "experts" who live in a comfort on the West and teach us how to live properly without any clue what russia is. I envy you really.
Do you really think we "enjoy" the war?
Do you really think we are not tired of the war?
Do you really believe we wouldn't negotiate if there was any guarantee of a long-lasting peace later on?
You are right. NATO doesn't care about us. That's why we care about ourselves. We have no choice.
wonderful idea.. especially from Macron as twice as many frenchman already died in Ukraine than in Afghanistan. This is real war not goat herder execution....
Pro-war vibe heavy on this one. 😟
Yup.. Nuke war is a necessary step reasoning. Notice also the start of the war in 2014 is completely missing it's context here.
Putin could end this tomorrow if he wanted to. But he wants as much land as possible and when the west plays weak it benefits him. Putin invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and the west tried to ignore it. How did that work out in the long run?
@@the0ne809so could the west, this is the logic of those who don't want to concede but the other side can resist so some concession has to be made
@@FOLIPEconcessions to what exactly? Keep more of Ukraine? You know the war began in 2014 and Putin could easily have kept Crimea and part of the donbas but that wasn't enough. He wants more. How many times does he have to say Ukraine is not a real country so you could understand where he is coming from.
@@the0ne809 the war begann in 2014 when the legitimate president of Ukraine was overthrown by the West and flew to which country? To Russia! So the regions that supported the legitimate elected president, the eastern regions, are the legitimate ancestors of the Ukrainian state. Not the Kiev.
Can any actually provide a quote of Putin threatening Nukes? I have heard him warn that a clash with NATO risks an escalation which could lead to a Nuclear catastrophe, which is an obvious fact that many have said. On the contrary, on at least 3 occasions he has repeated the Nuke policy: Such weapons would only be used in retaliation or if the *Russian state* might fall.
Putin is stupid to threaten NATO with nukes. Has he ever heard of "mutually assured destruction?"
It's why he needs to be removed from power.
Конечно он это знает
Last week an ex-German general was giving a lecture about the war in Ukraine he gave the figure of Ukrainian soldiers dead as 500,000. Does any NATO country want WW1 levels of death for their troops? To put this in perspective British dead 250,000 in WW2.
The idea is laughable. The only reason Macron can openly speak like this is because he knows that there is ZERO chance of him having to back it up.
If NATO deployed troops, it means the US deployed troops. As long as nuclear war didn't erupt, the US alone could push Russia out of Ukraine in a matter of weeks with deaths ranging in the low thousands. Don't forget, the US had two separate governments (Iraq and Afghanstan) surrender in less than 48 hours, and these were countries on the other side of the world. Now, holding these countries is a different story (and one we fail at) but actual invasions/stopping invasions? The US has the skills, bodies and weapons to do so easily.
Besides.... You say 250 thousand british dead....( I mean World War II)
You must realize that the most of those deaths, were from indian, asian various, and people from many places, who fought in first line for the royal army....
Today it would be worst, because, nowadays they dont have other nation's conscript to send as cannon fodder.
Today there will be hundred of thousands, or millions of "real englishmen" ( white, well dressed and drinkers of tea at five oclock)
Will UK sacrifice its own population???
@@lindsiria your statement is beyond ridiculous. Comparing Iraq and Afghanistan experience with fighting Russia alone exposes how little you understand war. There is a reason why the US has done absolutely EVERYTHING it can to avoid direct confrontation with Russia on the battlefield.
@@dariosuruguay8911 of course it won't. As usual, the proof is in the pudding, look at the lates British budget. Does it look like a budget of a nation seriously contemplating a war? It is all just public posturing.
We knew from the start that Russia is not losing the war. Resistance is pointless
Nato will declare war to Russia ? this is worrying .
What is worrying is that Russia invaded and annexed the territory of a sovereign state and used nuclear threats to do it.
@@JamesKerLindsayand NATO has attacked and invaded sovereign countries before. This is no different except that Russia at least had a strong case for intervention
It’s nonsense that Europe hasn’t move thousands of troops in as logistics yet. + No Fly Zone over 3/4 of Ukraine.
i get this feeling that a peace deal is inevitable, the political leaders probably know this but doesnt wanna admit it. sucks to be those thrown to the frontlines for this.
peace deal = returning to the 1991 borders of course
Maybe us Americans will openly admit it on November 6th 😂
Peace deal is literally impossible with an aggressive party, Ukraine has no other option but to fight.
@@mohhie that is an interesting statement. because Putin did ask NATO to return to its 1991 borders as well. seems like a reasonable offer if you ask me.
Peace is preferable!
But I have a feeling that this is going to drag on for quite a while longer. The world is taking away USA's income. No one is buying their debt or IMF loans. Petro-Dollar is being replaced. They are Desperate to take over Russia. I hope I'm wrong.
Love your videos James & you are as informative as ever. Sad to note that you have changed the intonation with which you say "an informed look", however, moving the primary stress from the "in-" part to "-formed" - I have for the past year enjoyed getting into the routine of watching your vids weekly and have become quite accustomed to an *in*formed look 😔
I should have prefaced my long essay below with these words: Thanks ever so much for your very interesting, and excellent, presentation. The discussion in the comments is also very interesting. Some of the commentators have excellent points to make. I also have to say that I really don't know as much as I should about the importance of international law; I don't know to what extent national governments should be concerned to uphold international law if doing so is otherwise not in the best interests of their own people; and to what extent international law is a real thing. By the last what I mean to say is: given that enforcement of international law is impossible (given that we lack any real enforcement mechanism), does all that paperwork mean any more than a hill of beans, anyway? Don't we, in fact, have a state of very anarchy, internationally? Sure, international law "works" so long as everyone has a vested (economic) interest in maintaining international security (in trade, for example). But when that law is inconvenient, don't they just say, to heck with it? That's the impression I have, anyway.
Thanks Elizabeth. Excellent points on international law. My view is that it is certainly not perfect, and it is largely unenforceable, but it is the best that we have and I think it is worth trying to preserve as best we can. But what we are seeing now in Ukraine could well undermine the system altogether and lead to a real state of international anarchy where powerful countries can do what they want. All this will not only lead to more conflict, it will inevitably see the emergence of nuclear proliferation as countries rush to develop their own weapons either to threatens neighbours or to defend themselves. Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine has been utterly illegal and irresponsible from start to finish.
Thanks for your reply. I have the horrible feeling we're headed towards something way, way worse than we're dealing with now. It's very scary, and hugely depressing.@@JamesKerLindsay
1944 should we land troops in Normandy??
It wasnt nesessary, Germany was already defeated, you only wanted lands and German research
Has Russia invaded and occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, and Slovakia?? Has NATO been attacked or bombed by Russia or a close ally??
You guys friom western countries didn't realize yet that NATO has already llost the war in ucraine.
Always find it very interesting, and funny when Western people from Western countries, in particularly the uk, and the United states, talk about violating sovereignty period when the UK's whole history is about violating sovereignty how many colonies did they have, how many commonwealth countries did they have, how many slave colonies did they have? Who violated middle eastern countries, African countries still affected today.... knock it off.
It's called spreading/promoting democracy.
So it sounds like you would consider murdering someone because “well, people have murdered people all throughout history so it’s okay”
What US or UK person is okay with expansion today? If u wanna criticize the people of the past that’s fair, but hold them accountable not the people of the present. If the father is a murderer but the son is a peacemaker, that doesn’t make the son a hypocrite🤦🏾♂️
And they still do it in the 21.century, such hypocrites.
@@youngtidepod3507they were ok with the attack on Serbis and took 15% of our territory, so why bullshit us about the holy sovereignty of countries? They were ok with an invasion of Afganistan, Iraq, Lybia and Syria in the last 25 years, but they are now appaled by Russia foing the same, not on the other side of the globe but on it's border, protecting ethnic Russians.
Bunch of BS from the imperialists.
@@youngtidepod3507 I have a British name l!! . .. I am a black American, I have a very West African phenotype but I speak a European language, / the language of my conquerors, that was stuffed down my enslaved ancestors throats, we still live in a post European / eurocentric civilization where Western Europeans are the ruling class. And no matter what you say you cannot argue against the fact that the United States looks at Iran as their enemy when the American slash British involvement in the Middle East, the Iranian government is the sole reason why they exist today.. when you have British people running around here in 75 years ago. Placing in a group of European refugees pushing out other groups of people who have been there, and right now literally allowing people to start human beings to die babies being pulled out of rubble. People being oppressed for Generations common nothing you said made sense to me, this isn't about the Ukraine.. this is about the United States having hegemony over the globe. China can't even reunite with an island that belong to them. Because the United States doesn't want it, yet! The United States have military bases, illegally mind you. In syria, in iraq, they have a drone base in Mali these governments don't want them there...!!!
Absolutely
i am amazed that no one asks : why should nato fight for ukraine ?
Ukraine is not in nato and never was .
But nato is in ukraine .
So nato should stay the fuck out of this war , unless that was the plan all along , and if that's the case , then fuck nato !
Freedom isn't Free.
Freedom does not exist
@@lauriew3517 oh yes it does
Guess you are volunteering to go over there? Otherwise, quit gambling with OTHER peoples' lives.
I live close to Karl Poppers old house in London. The need to be intolerant of the intolerant has never been greater.
@@obeselord9501 Richard H. Bube of the Stanford University argues that basically, the "absolute freedom does not exist in the created universe", because it fails to take into account objective reality; "absolute freedom is characteristic only of chaos and is incompatible with order."
May I suggest a return to Moldova to comment on this week's announcement of military co-operation with France following what President Maia Sandu has described as attempts by Russia to trigger a coup? R (Australia)
Sandu is even more unpopular with her people than Macron is with the French which is an achievement on it's own. The average Moldovan sees her as little more than a western transplant and has no desire to embark on some madness like "reclaiming" Pridnestrovie or even waging war against Russia.
У всех европейских ( и нескольких лет в США) политиков стало модно, обвинять в неудачах Россию! Интересная тенденция, не находите? Очень удобно!!! 😉
Countries should stick together and if one is attacked, all should come to it's aid. If not, then there wouldn't be cooperation, international law and order, and progress in world.
Did you feel like this about Iraq and Libya?
Did you feel like this about God chosen people country??
Is ukraine a NATO country
@@elcormoran1no
@@elcormoran1 I'm not talking about specific defence alliances, but of each UN countries rights to interveen, right to help and rights stop all kinds of breaches of international law and human rights. Even without specific defence alliances, countries can have relationships between themselves. I'm speaking of countries, who's role is to uphold order and international system. Because what's the point of country, if one is just watching, how other country is totally destroyed? And here I'm not speaking about Ukraine or any other specific country, but about idea. Each society in any country of world have the right to live peacefully and to prosper, without any malign outside influence or dirrect attack.
The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is responsible for scuttling the chance for peace, prolonging the war. Would be nice to confont him with some tough questions.
This war didn't begin in 2014, it began with the Victoria Nuland engineered Maidan coup in 2014. Angela Merkel herself admitted that the Minsk agreements were just a tactic to buy NATO time, to build up a NATO trained army in Ukraine.
NATO exoansionism has hit it's limits.Roll back project Ukraine, project Georgia (which already failed in 2008), and you'll have peace.
Putin is to blame for invading simple as that
Spot on
Numbers are promised budget, not delivered ones, and EU at the scale of US is number one contributor!
Well said. Good reporting. Thank you. Go Democracy.
NATO was fighting third world countries in midle east and africa and think they can fight russia. if they get involved directly and militarily, then its world war 3. its not like bombing serbia, iraq, libya, afghanistan and somalia where these countries do not have the capability of declaring war on them thus leading into ww3.
It is a fact that Russia suffered two defeats against Afghanistan and faced bankruptcy as a result. Similarly, Iraq, once considered the 4th strongest military power in the world, saw its government and military destroyed within a mere 3 weeks. Despite this, Russia has managed to persist in its ongoing battle with a weaker military force for two years now, and even claimed a modest 20% gain.
🤡
@@NewBeginnings413we created and armed the taliban most notably with stingers missiles to defeat Russia in Afghan, the Russians did not arm or train the Taliban who beat us.
Iraqs army and air force etc were operating kit some 30 years out of date.
Remember the yanks were kicked into touch by Vietnam even though the yanks had more of everything.
We have never fought anyone who can fight back remotely except the Falkland’s.
War with Russian ground troops is something different.
The west is currently being bankrupted by Russia, we are boring huge amounts of money whilst Russia runs a budget surplus and has virtually no debt. Russia has most of the resources that China wants and this is the key point, China won’t want anything to happen to its key supplier.
NATO and its wonder weapons have been shown to be not very good.
Idc what statistic you show me, Iraq was not number 4.
Also Idk what anyone's talking about USA never lost in Iraq or afghan, for some strange reason though the USA thought converting Afghanistan to democracy would somehow work despite the fact they think our way of life in the western hemisphere is degenerate which I do agree with, but at least we're free.
@@DividendFiendHaving a productive conversation with someone who disregards factual information and clings to their beliefs can be a challenging task.
However, the United States' efforts to transform Afghanistan into a free nation despite their long-standing internal conflicts are commendable.
In 1945, Germany seized the opportunity to embrace democracy and freedom, which enabled the country to flourish and become one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Conversely, Afghanistan failed to utilize the resources provided to them and discarded them due to fear of retribution.
The entire premise of this topic is undermined by the fact that analysts agree there are US, UK and French troops on the ground in Ukraine already with trainers, advisors and technicians being present in the country long before Russia’s invasion.
С 2014г🤷♀️
As it has already been said time and time again, Putin only respects strength. I think Macron's comment was on point, I think he meant to get Scholz to work up a little sweat. I also think we should listen a lot more openly to the Baltic states as these Peoples absolutely know what's up. And finally, much of Putin's military so far has turned out to be papier-maché and I think we should call his nuclear bluff.
NATO countries would likely bleed to a point, but we'd make it allright - and at the same time we'd be sending Xi Jinping a clear message to back off from Taiwan.
Poutine n'a jamais respecté la population russe !
Et voilà ce qu'il continue à faire !
Provoqué etc....etc....
Il trouvera se qu'il cherche s'il continue.
Celà a assez duré !
Beaucoup trop duré !!!!
Pour moi , j'pense que s'il a annexé la Krimmé , construit le pont de Kertch etc.... Russifier cette zone ...
C'est pour avoir un accès total au palais à plus d'un milliard de dollars qu'il a fait construire aux abords de la mer noire !
À voir le documentaire " La fortune cachée de poutine"
Visible ici sur youtube....
Pour comprendre tout son parcours criminel, diabolique et de voleur etc...
somehow the reclutance to send in troops to stop a brutal dictator is somewhat reminisant of the world after the conferance of Munich in 1936. as much as I like to prefent a new world war, the question we have to ask our selfs is at what price to our morals, Ideals we do so. and in that light we should see Macrons Comments. perhaps the chancelor would be wiser if he prefents history from happening again. and call Putins bluff
If Hitler had 5 Megaton hydrogen bombs attached to ICBM's that could reach any place on earth this debate would not have existed.
There is one very big difference between the start of WW2 and now.
Macron has no fucking clue with whom he is dealing with. Russia of 2024 is anything but Russia of 2022. France troops will face modern sophisticated battle hardened army that was forged in the fire of war on a well established and fortified ground. France has no fucking clue what real modern war is, they will be obliterated by Russia's experience alone and then by weapons. This will be an absolute disaster. Russians are already using machine vision on their drones, and France military doesn't even have a remote idea what it is like to be in a drone warfare to begin with. They don't know EWAR, they don't know trench warfare, they don't know missile warfare, they were never attacked by MLRS, by strategical missiles, by anything pretty much. It's a virgin army for fucks sake. France doesn't even have nearly enough production capacity for ammunition let alone any stock of ammunition. There was a chance back in 2022 for sure, but Russia of 2024 is a whole different beast..
Is France ready for 50,000 of casualties at the bare fucking minimum in first month that will be needed to partially adapt to modern warfare? Is France ready to mobilize it's citizens after that? Because what France has right now, won't be nearly enough. Is France ready for general mobilization in Russia and sudden boost of moral and incentive to join Russian army because war will get the status of Great Patriotic war. There will be hundred thousands in line to join army if that ever happens. And even worse, other countries will join this war on Russia's side as well. You really think anyone will miss a chance? Macron needs to touch some grass. This is bravery and stupidity. Not a very good combination for a leader.
And if he is trying to create a precedent to force everyone else to join this suicide mission.. this isn't going to end well. For France. Because everyone will drop France all alone against Russia. And unlike Ukraine, France army isn't some "brothers" or "one people" or slavs to Russians. There will be no mercy for any French people who wield their weapons against Russians in this war. There will be no POWs. At least first few months hell of unfiltered warcrimes will be unleashed that's for sure. There is no doubt about it.
Long story short - Go for it. It's a good plan. Nothing can go wrong.
When NATO goes in it will be a combined force. France won't go it alone.
Another thing is if Nato made the move to send in troops maybe China would see that as the perfect opportunity to go after Taiwan.
@@browngreen933 You really wanna bet entire nation on it? Macron's proposal already got busted by everyone, and shit didn't even happen yet. Imagine if this idiot decides he is somehow better than Napoleon or something.
@@browngreen933 France + 3 drunk Baltic Monkeys in support :)
@@browngreen933 Combined force wiped out in minutes by high ton tactical hypersonic nukes hahah. You think Russia will wait for NATO army to enter Russia? Hahaha...
NATO can send technical support personnel, but frontline troops might be too much. Ukraine just needs more and better weapons.
Well, no one would be obligated to.
It is not like article 5 was triggered 1stly, because when you attack you can't claim on what is mainly a defensive alliance. So if the French want to go, let them go by themselves (So, to be clear, not NATO, the French. And on top if that if they country gets struck with missiles, they should also not cry about being attacked either and call for defence, because they then started it).
Macron should get himself to the front and set an example.
We knew Russia was getting ready to invade Ukraine MONTHS IN ADVANCE. We should have sent troops into Ukraine BEFORE THE INVASION EVEN HAPPENED to discourage Russia and prevent them from starting it in the first place. Instead, we bent over and pulled everything out of Ukraine and literally let it happen. We are completely complicit in the cause of this war. We should have been there from the very start. Our weakness and hesitation is what allowed Russia to do everything it's doing right now, and our leaders are still weak and hesitant. It doesn't help that we have traitors in our governments who want to appease Russia rather than push back against our enemy and an unwillingness and inability to provide the aid Ukraine needs as a result of our inability to step in in the first place.
What does NATO troops in Ukraine mean is the question. There are a myriad of ways in which a member of NATO could use its forces in some capacity inside Ukraine's borders - the majority of those have nothing to do with introducing another belligerent party into the conflict. For example, a NATO contingent could be stationed along the border, giving Ukraine freedom of movement for the forces it currently has deployed there. As long as no shots are fired, they'd just sit there. Or they could be deployed in Western Ukraine and run logistics for incoming hardware, do repairs, all sorts of roles. None of those would bring them to the contact line in direct engagement. Would that be a wise move to make? That is very hard to tell. The risk of such forces to come under attack, whether intentional or unintentional, is very high. Of course, were there a desire to fabricate a casus belli for NATO to go in, having tripwire forces in Ukraine to come under attack would be the surest way to do it. Which in itself also acts as a deterrent for Russia, as they would probably not want to trip that and thus avoid any situation where they could attack those forces. Either way, bringing NATO contingents into Ukraine definitely increases the risk of widening the conflict - what exactly the reasons and calculus behind such a move would be determines ultimately if such a risk is worth it or not.
There are 600k troops in the south of the country mulling around and poised to strike when NATO arrives. They do not care for tripwires if you act, Russia is done with the bs and will hit. This is what the observers in the East are saying.
Thanks. I agree and mentioned this in the video. There are all sorts of other ways that NATO forces could support Ukraine without being at the frontline.
@hellbentlegion The thing to remember is that if NATO sends in troops it will almost certainly defend then with whatever it takes. This is what Russia fears. It knows that it simply doesn’t have enough forces to tackle NATO in any serious measure. It has struggled with Ukrainian forces that don’t have the most sophisticated weaponry available. This is why it makes nuclear threats.
The only way The Ukraine could win is by NATO becoming a belligerent party. You are delusional if think the Ukraine has a chance in hell of defeating the russians- as in driving them out of Donbass and Crimea
@@JamesKerLindsay You are complete wrong, how many combat ready Soldiers can NATO deploy to Ukraine???
Did you ever try to investigate that fact even a little?
Russians have right now, ready more man power that Ukraine+NATO can put together for a long time.
Just use simple Math not propaganda, Russians troops in Ukraine+ locals from Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk+ 300.000-400.000 ready troops(Russian only) in Belarus+ fresh troops in Russia near border to Ukraine( which they use for roll over of soldiers to rest them)...
Come on, we are looking about 1 Mil of Soldiers for Russians + Air Superiority with strong Air defense for Russians
Nato all together right now and next 6-12 months do not have more than 100.000-150.000 combat ready Soldiers to deploy to Ukraine and can not produce, train more faster !
Many nato troops are already on the ground just undercover when avdeevka fell the soldiers retreating had all different flags on the helmets It will be definitely interesting to see if a full blown ground war evolves between Russia and Nato.
End of Northern Hemisphere - I suppose it could be interesting for those of us who live far enough away
You got Paul or Tyson?
@@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrection What's surprising Paul opened up as a huge favorite -360 I couldn't believe it.
@bilic8094 Yeah I was surprised too but Tyson is mid 50s
@@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrection Tomorrow the ufc miami is on I usually play the method of victory in the fight through the hard rock app it's always decent plus money.
The European countries you mention that said no sending troops are not really a factor in NATO militarily. The UK, Germany and Italy are not military heavyweights. I am not certain about Italy, but Germany and the UK have let their ground forces atrophy. They, along with many other countries, have dispensed with mandatory military service, as has the US. In all cases, as far as I can tell, there is at least some talk about bringing it back.
The military center of gravity has certainly shifted in Europe to those countries that are much closer geographically to Russia.
Better late than inaction. Defend the Europe's forefront now.
In the Budapest Memorandum of 12/05/94
For example, the EU violated paragraph 3. Yanukovych refused to sign an economic agreement with the EU; he only signed it under pressure. (This agreement was not even translated into Ukrainian so that parliamentarians could read it!!!)
For example, paragraph 2 was violated. It says that force will not be used except “for the purposes of self-defense or in any other way in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” In our case, the “different image” is the population of Donbass, as well as the construction of NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine.
Interesting point 5...
“The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm with respect to Ukraine their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that does not possess nuclear weapons, except in the event of an attack on them or their territory or dependent territories, in their
armed forces or their allies..."
Werds
Your lies are hilarious. It was Russia that sanctioned Ukraine, in violation of the Budapest memorandum:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_embargo_of_Ukrainian_goods#:~:text=From%20the%20end%20of%20July,imports%20from%20Ukraine%20to%20Russia.
Also, Yanukoych singed nothing. You can’t even keep your lies straight
@@jjreddick377 If you know how events developed in Ukraine in 2014 and beyond, then open the Budapest Memorandum and see how it was violated. Only after this did Crimea pass to the Russian Federation.
@@staspastukov5944 I know exactly what happened. You are openly lying. Russia put sanctions on Ukraine in 2013 in response to Yanukovych negotiating with the EU. This is a fact a a violation of Budapest
Ja het is tijd,vroeg of laat gaat het toch gebeuren
Wat gaat gebeuren? Dat de zon op komt.
Great courage of French president yes let's send in nato troups in and end this we have nuclear weapons to so can't be threatened by putin
My guess would be that Macron's comments are partly an attempt at strategic ambiguity regarding Ukraine, and partly an attempt to score political points at home regarding upcoming EU elections. If strategic ambiguity is indeed his goal, then I would be inclined to agree with him as the EU's current stance towards deterring Putin clearly hasn't been very effective.
Thanks. I would agree. But there is also the possibility that he is trying to encourage other states to act more strongly by presenting the more extreme option and making it clear that unless more is done now - and there is a lot more that can be done, as I outlined - then the alternative down the road may have to be a combat troop deployment.
Personally I think sending NATO troops would be a mistake that simply leads to dangerous escalation and essentially makes the Russian propaganda about fighting NATO correct. We should be supplying them what they actually need; Intelligence, economic funding, ammunition, and hardware. Ukraine is very capable of doing what needs to be done we should be enabling to do it.
That is MAD for
NATO's scared.
I think the momentum is now lost with the Ukrainians; they made great gains 7-8 months ago, even back on the initial invasion holding back the Russians. But dithering and indecisiveness such as the Poles giving them their fighter jets, German and British tanks, American supplies etc should have come in thick and fast to drive the Russians out or at least force a peace deal. Now the Ukrainian Armed Forces are exhausted and battered, losses and injuries of experienced soldiers replaced with inexperienced conscripts; what Ukraine needs is not just more firepower, they need more men (SW reference).
Also Prof Lindsay is right, Moscow has deterred NATO or any friendly country from direct intervention with the threat of nuclear missiles. Putin is unpredictable and despite being intelligent it may not be an idle threat. Nevertheless, countries have in the past placed security "observers" in an allied country to train military personnel. Russia would hardly declare nuclear war of US, Polish, French soldiers were as far back as Kiev training new Ukrainian personnel. They are not directly fighting, taking no casualties and deters Russia from a full takeover even if they did make major breakthroughs in the East.
Blame everyone except yourself and the Comedian right?
@@josephshields2922That’s the case here, Vladimir
If the West wasn’t ruled by naive out of touch bureaucrats then the a WWII style of NATO equipment would have expelled the Russian menace from civilised lands
Nope...when things are going well, stay the course. Western countries just need to continue supporting Ukraine with weapons, Intelligence, and technology. Long haul thinking is needed here, let Ukraine and Russia fight it out. It would be better if Ukraine wins...but Russian losses still makes supporting Ukraine with military support worth the effort. I agree with Macron making the statement...time to counter Russian threats by promising that NATO can retaliate.
Thanks a lot, Brian. It is interesting to read the various views about Macron's real intentions. I think there could be a good argument to suggest that this is really about giving NATO partners something to think about. Either they go all in to support Ukraine with everything they can short of troops at this stage, or the alternative will be that they will have to send troops if Ukraine looks like it is about to lose. How will historians cover this in the future? Will they say that the West gave into the Russian nuclear blackmail and thus held back, therefore prolonging the war?
Napoleon and Nazi's said the same thing
You know you're an evil psychopath when you talk so nonchalantly about hundreds of thousands of lives. Killing hundreds of thousands of Russian 18 year old boys is worth your political ambitions. Okay Adolf.
@@lauriew3517 and Stalin and Putin.
@@JamesKerLindsay Professor...were it in my power I would appoint you as General Secretary of the United Nations...and then I'd have more faith in it.
Its hightime
Proč se vůbec nepíše o smlouvě 2+4 sjednocení Německa, která je již několik let porušována a dává tak Rusku právo na obnovení NDR?????
A dále většina lidí nezná, neb je cenzura porušování smluv západem: Výroba plutonia k jaderným náložím; nacizmus; bio laboratoře; základny NATO, i CIA; sankce; likvidace plynovodů ze strany NATO (USA); nedodržování podmínek ke sjednocení Německa již při útoku na Bělehrad; a podvodná jednání u dohod v Minsku?????
If instead the current trajectory continues, and Ukraine is finally exhausted, and parts of Ukraine are ceeded to and annexed by Russia in a negotiated settlement, is that the end of the international system / post-war settlement as we know it?
In my opinion this war might be the catalyst that could lead to a Bretton Woods type global shift in power. China paying for oil in Yuan, the Saudis cutting oil production along with Russia despite US warnings. The endless money printing has led to uncontrollable inflammation in the US. Russian sanctions have backfired in the EU threatening food security. A zeitgeist shift that could reshuffle the world powers is looming, nothing will ever be the same.
" is that the end of the international system / post-war settlement as we know it?"
We are already there. Just the details need to be worked out.
Unless the US uses nukes to keep their hegemony going, which is their only remaining option.
All bets were off after Yugoslavia. A new type of organization needs to immerge instead of UN and NATO that includes EVERYONE.
@@andreikoto4810 I also feel that Kosovo changed everything. The territorial integrety of states was supposedly sacrosanct, but this glaring example shows that it ain't necessarily so - sometimes the right of self-determination trumps that as far as the West is concerned.
If Kosovo can have independence, why not Somaliland?
I’m honestly shocked the Russians don’t have the capacity to take land east of the Dnieper
Are you also shocked by the US results in Afghanistan?
@@mythbuster6126 The US obtained control of the entirety of Afghanistan within a few months of invasion and maintained control of the country with very few troops until withdrawing in 2021.
Taking land is not part of their strategy. They are perfectly capable. Does the fact that there have been no manned missions to the moon mean that the USA is incapable of such missions? Or is it that they don't consider it to be a useful venture? The myth that Russia is incompetent is unhelpful. And completely untrue.
@@timstapleman Tell them tell them, they all seem to follow the same narrative.
In fact NATO fights against them.
They most probably are in Ukraine, I can almost guarantee the SAS/SBS are there already & have been for time .