I can't imagine how hard it is for Andriy... I can't imagine how to be diplomatic when your dealing with just the horror of what Russia is doing to his country, loved ones and friends. Huge thanks to Andriy, your voice is so important to be heard ❤🇺🇦❤
Samuel Charap's opinion was overruled by his insistence in referring to ruz's brutal invasion of Ukraine as "the conflict"; it really jumped out. Always great to hear from Fiona Hill, and thank you Andriy Zagorodnyuk for participating from the war zone.
The sheer distance between what Russia considers an acceptable peace and what Ukraine considers an acceptable peace makes it seem unlikely that even after years these governments could come to an accord. Either Russia must obtain an absolute military victory (which seems practically impossible) or it must have a change of government, as the current government is committed to continuing this war no matter how much of Ukraine they are kicked out of - even if that figure was 100% Putin would not be willing to accept his defeat. As such regime change in Russia is unfortunately the only goal that makes any sense for both Ukraine and its allies, despite the inherently risky nature of that.
This is a wise comment Peace is not possible because Russia won't stop unless it is forced to Now having accepted that we are left with an industrial war between a combined economy of 49 trillion and an economy of 900 billion This only has 1 outcome Russia has along long long history of colaps total and utter colaps And this time will be no different the crushing sanctions the ever increasing military aid for Ukraine will bare fruit at some point lets be perfectly clear the Utter stupidity of the standard Obama state department position that there is no military solution to this crisis is incomprehensible After the US was absolutely defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan lost Iraq to Iran and Asad stuck it out for a complete victory in Syria These are all prof that the US intelligencia is intellectually bankrupt Ukraine is fighting for its own land and its right to exist full stop Putin is fighting to keep his job But Russian troops are not There interests are in no way aligned at some point Russia will back away and putin will be left holding the bag
I disagree with the idea that Ukraine cannot win this war. It is very easy for people in the west to say Ukraine should compromise and concede land to Russia, but as an American, I can tell you that we would not give up one inch of land to such an enemy. Also, the west needs Ukraine in NATO. With Ukraine as a NATO member in the east and Finland and Sweden in the west, Europe is a lot safer than before. That is a just return on Europe's investment in Ukraine. That makes all their aid dollars worth it.
"With Ukraine as a NATO member in the east and Finland and Sweden in the west, Europe is a lot safer than before". If Ukraine is in NATO, it means that the alliance inherits an active war zone with a nuclear-armed power. With Finland in NATO, it means that the alliance's frontier with that same power has expanded by 1,300km (leading to a commensurate increase in the risk of inadvertent clashes). Hard to see how Europe would/will be "a lot safer" under these circumstances.
The Ukraine doesn't have enough men to liberate all their territory and the Crimean peninsula. They're taking heavy casualties on the offensive. it was a desperate gamble for Zelensky and he's losing.
Samuel C.'s entire line of reasoning is predicated on the inability of Ukraine to make significant territorial gains in any timeframe. It's strange that he's arrived at this conclusion so prematurely when most military analysts agree that the jury is still out even on the 2023 summer offensive effort, let alone the war as a whole. We know that Russia is rapidly depleting its Soviet materiel stockpile inheritance and that its pace of operations cannot be sustained indefinitely, so whatever might come next, it's safe to conclude that the current phase of the war is transient, not permanent.
Running NATO right up to Russia's border via Ukraine makes Europe less safe. It is intolerable to Russia, in case you haven't been paying attention. And it is unethical. You cannot infringe on Russia's inherent right to security.
I've been a currency trader since 2006 and found this video to be very insightful. 0:00 - 2:57 Introductions 2:57 - 7:59 Andriy Zogorodnyuk: Sentiment regarding the ongoing phase of the war is positive and optimistic. 7:59 - 14:56 Fiona Hill: How has the Putinist theory of victory had it's domestic and diasporan credibility affected by the Prigozhin affair? 14:56 - 20:55 Samuel Charap: Arguing the case that the conflict will end in a stalemate and that therefore an armistice is necessary. 20:55 - 27:34 Andriy: Arguing the case that an armistice is nonviable if Vladimir Putin remains in power. 27:34 - 33:12 Fiona: Arguing the case that Russia is unwilling to engage with an armistice and that the solution has to involve a global diplomatic coalition. 33:12 - 36:53 Samuel: Arguing the case that expectations of Russian bad faith behavior should not sway efforts to seek an armistice. 36:53 - 42:36 Audience Q1: Does either side currently have any outcomes that they consider integral to declaring victory? 42:36 - 46:39 Audience Q2: What factors are important to consider in expecting whether Russia will fire any nuclear weaponry in the conflict? 46:39 - 49:36 Audience Q3: Can we expect China to be a constructive partner in resolving this conflict? 49:36 - 52:03 Audience Q4: What issues can we expect in establishing a criminal tribunal specifically for the mass abductions of Ukrainian children? 52:03 - 56:35 Audience Q5: Is Putin trying to wait out upcoming western elections? 56:35: Andriy: Closing statements. Before watching this, I had six open questions in my mind: . First, would the Hoover Institution's suggested theory of victory (where Crimea is so thoroughly blockaded without invasion that it effectively turns into Darfur) meaningfully erode political will in the Global South to participate in the support for Ukraine and in the separate ostracization of Russian diplomacy? . Second, are there any precedents for the Prigozhin affair more recent than the beginning of the Time of Troubles, and if so, what can be learned from them? . Third, the historian Kamil Galeev has an ongoing campaign arguing that the import of machine tools and the import of machine tools servicing is an under-sanctioned weak link in the Russian war machine. Is this correct, like oil supplies to the Axis in WW2, or is it overblown, like area bombing and targeting of ball bearing production in WW2? . Fourth, the anonymous collective of investment bankers known as Doomberg has put forward the argument that the Russian oil and gas industries have been able to almost entirely mitigate the ending of Haliburton/Shell/Schlumberger servicing for their sites with the mass hiring of Indian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani and Thai national petrochemical, geotechnical and chemical engineers, possibly as much as 2000 skilled laborers and designers a month. What Western-Asian diplomatic efforts can be done to reverse this? . Fifth, in the hypothetical event of a Republican US presidency withdrawing the USA from NATO, would there be reasonable concerns about nuclear proliferation in Czechia, Germany, Poland, Sweden and the Visegrad group? . Finally, Russian-language antiwar sources have showed that there was a rising movement of anti-Ukrainian revanchism in Russian book sales, films and television as early as 2006. Was any part of this organic outside of the United Russia constituency? Was it even organic inside the constituency or was a centrally manufactured trend? . I've still got these questions but I reckon that with a few more panels of this quality I could probably start figuring these questions out on my own.
I'm no analyst or specialist of any kind. But, as someone living in a country which has for centuries been impacted by Russia's expansionist policy and for which the war in Ukraine is critically important, I do follow things carefully and try to stay informed. I'll leave my not completely uninformed comments here, hoping they help you a little. I believe you can find many incidents which at least vaguely resemble the Prigozhin affair in the October revolution. There was also an attempted and failed military coup against Gorbachev. Granted, not at all the same, but it goes to show that under extreme conditions (for at least part of the population) forceful opposition to the regime in Russia can definitely happen. I do believe technology trade is where the global north, if you so want to call it (I prefer to call it the democratic countries of the world - I find it more appropriate for the particular context of the war in Ukraine, since its essential stake is the standing of the rule-based world order that those democratic states have been working on since WW2, more than it is about Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty) still has a huge potential to hurt Russia. It's not just machine tools and machine tools servicing, it's everything that can be used to either build or operate machinery of any kind or manufacture industrial products. Withholding such products from Russia would hugely accelerate the degradation all of of Russia's directly productive sectors, including agriculture. That would be something impossible to keep from the population. Turning the population against the war - which won't happen as long as they are able to fill their stomach, even if their quality of life diminishes - is the most effective way to end the war on Ukraine's terms, IMO. I believe Russia's mitigation of the multinationals servicing and operating Russia's oil and gas industries withdrawing from Russia is not an actual solution to the problem, just a temporary band-aid. Those companies weren't providing manpower alone, but also equipment, and, more importantly, skills and knowledge that are in short supply, sometimes no supply at all elsewhere. Without those companies, Russia's infrastructure for oil and gas extraction and transportation will slowly degrade until there's nothing left of it, or until it's operated at a medieval level of technology, with correspondingly high costs and low yield. And I'm not sure that's something to be reversed. Accelerated, maybe. At the current state of military technology, with a few nuclear powers (France and the UK) already present in Europe, I believe not one other European country will do anything about nukes. As interceptor and defense technology continues to evolve, nukes become a smaller and smaller threat. European missile defenses are not yet at the level at which North American missile defenses are, but are already quite capable. And they'll continue to get better. If politicians in the countries you enumerated perceive Russia as a threat, those systems will get better at a lightning speed. A well set up missile defense system, especially in the context of a weak and corrupt Russian army, one that's appallingly bad at maintenance and is supported by am industry in ruins, would likely catch everything that Russia might able to through at Europe. Even if one or two missiles make it through, manage to launch their warheads and those warheads all explode, while that would be a humongous humanitarian catastrophe, it would barely scratch the paint of NATO military power, even without the US, in a European continent freshly scared into military development by Russia's aggressiveness and an US withdrawal from NATO. A conventional, non-nuclear common defense force of Europe would have no problem defeating a weakened Russia without using nukes. Investing in an expensive and controversial nuclear program would clearly be the dumber variant. In a way, I believe anti-Ukrainian sentiment amplification was indeed centrally manufactured, but just indirectly. Russian propaganda inside Russia is very powerful inside Russia, and always was, due to on one hand Russia being a large country, with a large internal market for news and media, amounting to a rather large echo chamber of any kind of Russian propaganda (the whole world will comment on CNN clips on YT, even if they're strictly about US-internal affairs, almost no non-Russian will do so on Russian TV clips, even if they're about international affairs), on the other hand the Russian government's (read: dictatorship) ability to control what information reaches its subjects (I make no mistake here, Russia's dictatorship doesn't consider Russians, citizen, but subjects), being outmatched only by China. If Russian state-controlled or state-affiliated media started to subtly push an anti-Ukrainian narrative since 2006, it definitely led to an increase of anti-Urkainian media sales, the more so since it was building on centuries of Russian anti-Ukrainian sentiment. The war in Ukraine isn't the first time that Russia tries to suppress Ukrainian national identity. In fact, it is what Russia, with varying degrees of intensity, has continuously been trying for the last several centuries. I hope this helps, at least a little.
Great timestamps, but I'm very confused why you felt the need to mention you're a "currency trader", seems out of place and makes your whole comment odd.
Amazing that Samuel mentions acheivement getting the Korean armistice, then 1 day later after this program aired we have N. Korea threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USA (because one of our subs surfaced at S. Korea). So, I can understand why Ukraine would resist an effort to negotiate armistice with Putin.
There was no other choice. It was that or drop nukes on north Korean and Chinese troops. What we have now is far better than what we were going to be forced to do to keep South Korea going
Exactly! That would be like doing an armistice with Nazi Germany. There is no way they would stop being belligerent or give up their imperialist goals.
N Korea only gets loud when we threaten them. It’s just that we on,y hear of their reaction, and not our action. We brought nuclear warhead armed submarines to s Korea shores for the 1st time in decades, and as an obvious result, n Korea feels threatened by our threat. We often fly nuclear bombers straight at n. Korea’s border and then last minute cut away. This is to ‘send a message of strength’ and to test their radars to see how quickly they can respond if we were to bomb them. I think it’s obvious these actions are unnecessarily provocative.
Yes, the result being that Putins critics inside the Russian military and inside politics want a swift and decisive victory. They feel that appeals to diplomacy have failed outright.
You missed the whole point. Ukraine is waiting for F16s. The war can not end until Ukraine is fully armed and has had a chance to fight fully armed. Wherever the war stabilizes after they fight their best fight is where it will end. Isn't it obvious that they can't fight all out and also can't start negotiations while waiting for weapons that could turn the tide.
Blinken said today if we approved F 16s, it would take months, so whenever they approve them, it'll be next year, too late for the spring offensive. Which means alot of soldiers and resources will be gone by that. Feels like we need a new strategy because it's not destiny that Ukraine will enter negotiations from a point of strength, it could be forced to negotiate from a point of weakness. If this goes on until US elections, that will be bad.
Samuel Charap is one of the Kremlin's Valday Club assets who are generally commanded and run by the Soviet agent Dmitry Simis (Дмитрий Саймс) and a few others. Validay Club assets also include Professors Jeffrey Sacks and John Mearsheimer, Tom Graham (the one who publicly said that we were learning several times more money from the Russian think-tank than anything else), and several others. Charap is actually explicit about it. Key to remember is that it was the USA and UK who stripped Ukraine of its effective defences in 1994-1999, making her give long-range missiles, heavy jet bombers, and nuclear weapons to Russia. Now, Russia is using those missiles and bombers to bomb Ukraine. The West is hypocritical when it waits for any success of Ukraine until winter, and then it cancels its help while they did not provide the necessary weapons for Ukrainian victory, which should have already been given to Ukraine in 2022, including ATACMS, tanks, F-16s, F-18s in big numbers. Even tomahawks, for that matter. I wouldn't have to write this if people in the West did not confuse the Ukrainian military with the US and NATO militaries and the Russian military with Iraq and Afghanistan, but: -- During the 1991 Gulf War, 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets. -- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets. This time, the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 3rd Infantry divisions. Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power, so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow, and drones. -- Whereas in US and NATO operations, the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for Russian equipment, ammo points, command centres, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects. -- Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit Russian vehicles and static objects. A massive drawback. Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, while Ukraine's range is limited to: Excalibur range: 40 km GMLRS range: 84 km Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers -- Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a Russian target and the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve the HIMARS range, but the production line is not yet running .) Now, if you're Russia, you must park your heavy equipment outside of the GMLRS range, and Ukraine can't hit it.
Hard to believe Charap keeps getting invited as an “expert”. All experience is in Washington while listening to smooth-talking Muscovites speaking about not offending Putin and respecting the odious Russian empire.
Anyone who thinks there should be a realistic negotiated solution is a Kremlin asset? Delusional. Jeffrey Sacks actually worked for the Ukrainian government.
You are missing the point that this was always meant to be a war of attritition with partisan disruption, to wear down and distract. And that using old stock makes every sense: otherwise handing free samples on to Russia.
Samuel Charap? The guy who authored the 'legendary' article published in January 2022 in Foreign Policy "The West’s Weapons Won’t Make Any Difference to Ukraine". What a brilliant mind he has 🤣🤣
Thanks for the reference, that article is a fascinating read 17 months into the conflict. I wonder why Mr Charap was not introduced as a Russia's representative here - he is clearly a Russian asset.
According to media Ukraine was able to win the battle of Kiev without any such weapons. Plus a calm assessment is that new weapons make difference for about 3-4 weeks before Russia finds A work around.
While it is uncertain how the current conflict in Ukraine will end, historical parallels can be drawn from the Winter War (Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939). In that war, Finland demonstrated resilience but ultimately had to make territorial concessions. Similarly, Ukraine might prevail in its struggle, but there could be the possibility of conceding Crimea. However, it's important to note that each situation is unique, and the outcome of the current conflict may differ from historical precedents. Diplomatic efforts and various factors will ultimately shape the final resolution.
And note: Finland gave the Soviet Union territory, but not their people. 40 000 people living in those areas were all evacuated and were not left to live under Soviet occupation. 40 000 might not sound like many, but Finland's population as a whole was under 4 million at that time. When people talk about concession of territory they always say it is impossible because Ukrainians would have to live under Russian occupation. I'm not saying Ukraine should concede territory, but I'm not quite sure how giving up territory and people have to necesserily go hand in hand? Is it because it is thought that Russia sees Ukrainians as Russians and therefore would do everything in their power to keep them from leaving?
From 2018 The planning of WWIII. “A bipartisan commission appointed by Congress issued a lengthy report Tuesday backing the Pentagon’s plans to prepare for a “great-power” war against Russia, China, or both, making clear that the Trump administration’s belligerent policies are shared by the Democratic Party. Safe in the knowledge that its findings will never be seriously reported by the mass media, the authors of this report do not mince words about what such a war will mean. A war between the United States and China, which according to the report might break out within four years, will be “horrendous” and “devastating.” The military will “face greater losses than at any time in decades.” Such a war could lead to “rapid nuclear escalation,” and American civilians will be attacked and likely killed. It is impossible to understand anything in American politics without recognizing one fundamental reality: the events and scandals that dominate political discourse, which make it onto the evening news and into headlines on news sites and social media feeds, have precious little to do with the considerations of those who actually make decisions. The media talking heads play their assigned roles, knowing that the most important topics can be discussed only within very circumscribed limits. Those who actually make policy-a select group of high-ranking members of Congress, Pentagon officials, and think-tank staffers, as well as White House aides-speak an entirely different language among themselves, and in publications they know the general public will not read, and the media will not seriously report.
“Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could “create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”, according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week. The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war - which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset. “Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”
The comparison with the Winter War does not apply here. Finland was alone vs an overwhelming USSR army. Today, Ukrainian land army is about equal or even superior to the Russian army. Every day, Ukraine army is getting stronger and Russian weaker. There is also a HUGE impact of the social media... In the Winter war, USSR soilders didnt know why they fought but Stalin easily manipulate the information... Now, every day, there is trousands of Russian soilders talking to their family and making videos on how the situation on the frontline is hopeless. Soilders lack food and ammo. This war will only end in 2 ways: 1) Putin leave power and the remplacent withdrawal from Ukraine land or 2) Russian Army and economy collapse. Everyone in the world knows that if Russia can keep some land, they will come back for more. Like in WW2, the only option here is total Ukraine victory.
Merkel of Germany, Holland of France, and Poroshenko of Ukraine all admitted in interviews in the last year that they had no intention of following Minsk or Minsk 2. They just wanted to buy time for the USA to continue to arm and train the Ukrainian army. All Ukraine had to do to end the civil war was to change the constitution to allow "states" within Ukraine as specified in Minsk and Minsk 2. But that was a bridge too far for the Russia haters and wor mangers in western Ukraine and the USA because then they could allow Russian as a secondary official language in their "states". The horror!
Yep, Ukraine and the EU are completely untrustworthy.
Рік тому+1
They did not even have the intention to take the Minsk agreement seriously. Both sides just wanted to gain time and prepare for the next phase of war. As it was admitted publicly by the former german and french leaders.
As even Merkel has publicly admitted that Minsk was never committed to by Ukraine but was a tactic to allow for building the Ukraine Army to take Crimea and Donbass.
What an incisive look into this topic. Dr. Hill's answer to the question of whether Russia will resort to nukes was telling and frightening. Particularly as it looks like Putin's plan to take over Ukraine does not seem to be workable. Putin's trying to wait this one out, and count on the benefit of being a much bigger country in the long run. Thanks to Andriy's incredibly precise and knowledgeable contribution to this discussion - from a country currently at war. It's clear that we (the rest of the world) have to support Ukraine in protecting the notion of democracy and national borders. It is clear to see the damage that is occurring to Ukraine, I fear that this will set Russia back generations (thanks to Putin's notion of the return of a czarist Russian empire).
you answer me why you are drawing Ukraine into NATO?Do you know that the eastern territories are Russian land?Do you want to defeat a nuclear power?Most likely you want to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Fiona kept trying to give Sam an out, but he kept doubling down on a position that appears to appease Putin and be generous with Ukrainian land and callous with Ukrainian citizens.
Taking the Lindsay Graham "fight to the last person" position is the most harmful to Ukrainian citizens. Not making the simple change called for by Minsk and Minsk 2 - allowing states in Ukraine - was very harmful to Ukrainian citizens. But it wasn't just the western Ukraine militants that refused, their militant USA puppeteers did as well.
I wouldn't have to write this if people in the West did not confuse the Ukrainian military with the US and NATO militaries and the Russian military with Iraq and Afghanistan, but: -- During the 1991 Gulf War, 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets. -- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets. This time, the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 3rd Infantry divisions. Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power, so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow, and drones. -- Whereas in US and NATO operations, the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for Russian equipment, ammo points, command centres, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects. -- Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit Russian vehicles and static objects. A massive drawback. Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, while Ukraine's range is limited to: Excalibur range: 40 km GMLRS range: 84 km Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers -- Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a Russian target and the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve the HIMARS range, but the production line is not yet running .) If you're Russia, you must park your heavy equipment outside of the GMLRS range, and Ukraine can't hit it.
Solid input of information. Now some analysis based on it: The United States wants a never ending war, this time without putting boots on the ground. That's why Ukraine will ultimately collapse.
Sam should go to the Ukraine and post from his car...he is a classic couch quarterback. Is Andriy in the car out int eh field, to try and find a hot spot, or to avoid call-tracing-targeting tech? Great program showing positioning from dif. sides. Those of us far from the Ruscist scorched earth need more passion. Yes, Putin is all in. We need to be all in, to get him.
Samuel Charap has no skin in the game. As Peter Zeihan mentioned about historical Russian losses in a war, the casualties might be need to be greater than 1 million. Diplomacy might be similar to President Truman's terms to Japan.
Samuel Charap is way too far out over his skis. At this point in the war, it is too early for to draw any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise. I recommend that he spend time in Ukraine to feel the groundswell of support that Ukrainians have for their leader & soldiers, and how much justified hatred they have toward Putin, his regime & the Russian populace writ large. This is not a situation where both sides have a legitimate claim - Russia invaded a sovereign country and has committed war crimes indiscriminately. Ukraine's position clearly is to expel Russia completely from it's territory and to justly recover war reparations, which is a minute fraction weighed against Ukraine's suffering. I do not see the Russian Federation surviving this conflict. It will collapse from within, with fissures now beginning to emerge.
Charap said Ukraine should surrender before the Russian invasion started. FA needs to do better when choosing their “experts“ who have spent little time outside of 5 star accommodations in Putin’s Valdai Conferences since 2010.
Ukraine has no just in fighting, it's already lost its future in demographics, meanwhile the idea the Russia will dissolve unites all people within Russia even those who are against the war
So the biggest country in the world will collapse and the smaller country in the conflict, which has already lost more than 20% of it's territory and almost 25% of it's population, (9 million people have left Ukraine, 3 million went to Russia); somehow the smaller country won't collapse, even though it is collapsing by any measure? Stellar analysis. How do you come up with this stuff?
I'm not familiar with Samuel but if thinking Ukraine was going to be defeated quickly is the criteria for muting speech, you would have to mute the vast majority of the world to talking about the war.
There were unwinnable wars in the past like those in Vietnam or that on Afghanistan. But this onecertainly not because Ukraine wants independence and democracy and wants to fight for it, and has enough size for it.
The ukraine will likely be balkanized. This conflict is existential for both of the parties and it is very much optional the west. The economic war is teetering as well for the west, the world has spoken, it's time that we listened instead of dictated.
The "winnability" of the war is logically distinct from Ukraine's desire for victory. The former does not follow from the latter at all. Sometimes, as righteous as a country's cause is, and despite the strength of its will for combat, it may still be defeated.
Ukraine isn't fighting for democracy or independence. As of March 2022 they were fighting for Crimea, since that is all the peace negotiations would have given Russia (Donbas "states" in Ukraine as in Minsk and Minsk 2) . But now they are fighting for a larger part of eastern Ukraine as Russia is unlikely to just ask for Crimea going forward.
Is it right to recognize the existence of the Donbas population? Or do they not count as either ukrainian or human beings worthy of freedom, safety, and self determination? We cannot forget there has been an ongoing civil war for a decade. The civilian population there continues to suffer indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian military. It’s not difficult to understand why they would not like to return to the rule of Kyiv. Whether we like it or not, they must be considered in this war and when it comes to negotiations. Is self-determination a right? How about in this case while a decade has passed without resolution or pause in violence? Is territory of more value than human life? If so, how many lives exactly? It seems self determination is the only solution in this case, unless we would prefer to see many more deaths, violence indefinitely, and all for an uncertain future.
(1) Is Putin in such a difficult national political situation that he would likely engage in a 'Scorched Earth' policy with Ukraine ('If I can't have it, neither will anyone else')? And if so, how should such actions be approached internationally...? (2) How must the UN reform to remain a credible international organisation (given that It is clear there is no enforceable consequential 'World Law' only unenforceable mutual group agreements)... ? Or wil it fade like the 'League of Nations' did?
I dont think the UN need fade away (the critical need for global cooperation is acknowledged by many more today than was the case during the era of the League of Nations) nor must it reform to avoid any "fading away". It may continue to operate as it does now, far into future. The principal reason why this may be the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future is that any meaningful reform of the UN would have to radically change the eligibility criteria for membership of the Security Council from its implicit current elibility criteria of the principal victors of WW-II. It is increasingly unjustifiable for the interests of Europe to have privileged representation (2 permanent seats are alloted to UK & France) and, informally, by the EU - while the massive economies of Brazil and India (and others) remain unrepresented. Besides the issue of privileged representation, mermbers of the Secuity Council each has veto power over any decisions made their peers. This privilege is afforded members of the General Assembly. However it has never been offered to members of the General Assembly. It is rare for the privileged anywhere to renounce their privilege voluntarily and there's little reason to hope that the members of the Security Council would act differently. Another often-cited weakness of the UN is its having no mandate to enforce its rulings, leaving nations able to ignore such rulings with impunity and without suffering consequences. Large powerful countries (e.g., the U.S., Russia, China) avoid recognition of the jurisdiction of yhe ICC as they have concluded that they would rather exert their power umtrammeled by any ICC rulings. Why would such nations be willing to give up their other currently-held privileges?). Rather than risking possible major conflict, the UN General Assembly may simply opt for the status quo leaving the UN to limp along for some time longer.
Ukraine should have declared neutrality and held back from rash russophobic, derussification legislation. Revolutions (2014) generally lead to civil war. If Putin had wanted Ukraine he'd have taken it in 2014/15. Angela Merkel said that, 2022.
I would say if Russia decides to scortch the land they took from Ukraine and leave, it would be OK from the perspective of Ukraine, as long as Russia leaves.
How come no mention is made to Russia's demand for NATO to NOT continue to expand? There will be no end to this conflict unless the United States address that issue. (Honestly, I expected a much more structural approach from a Foreign Affairs panel.)
You must be a framing carpenter, roofer, or Peter Zeihan follower because you smoked that nail home. My bit of trim work. If the first condition happens or gets close without the 2nd condition unfolding, we will most likely see a nuclear incident, which is the way I see things playing out. Putins got too tight a grip on the regime with public support, and I don't see him backing down no matter what. He knows the West will keep squeezing like a boa until Russia completely falls if he quits. They're already set for a great contraction and collapse from within. Not many options for Vlad. Never a good idea to corner a desperate animal unless you are prepared to kill it. It is WWIII, after all.
Ukraine has lost over 350000 of their military. The kidnapped conscripts are given two weeks training before they are sent tot he front line to die or surrender. They will not last much longer. The 'grand' two month old offensive has been a disaster. 26000 Ukrainians lost in the last two weeks alone. What's left of Ukraine will kill Zelenskyy adn family and his crew.
Russia was said to be, by Churchill [with variations], "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma in a black box." I disagree, as that implies that there is no information or understanding. I have said that when you look behind the Maskirovka Curtain, you see a performance of Ruski Kabuki. I have also used the expression, "Putin is the Potemkin president of a Potemkin regime with a Potemkin military. I had the advantage in university of excellent professors, the most influential being the daughter of a Beneş government minister for Modern European History. I have also benefited from having interactions with Estonian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and other Europeans. The non-Russians tend to put the Russians in the same category as the Huns, Mongols and [sometimes] Ottoman Turks. I completely understand and support Ukraine for two reasons. In 1774 the Crown issue the "Coercive Acts," abolishing the colonial parliament and, worse, local government by town meeting. The parliament refused to be abolished and met outside Occupied Boston as a revolutionary regime that usurped all Crown authority and continued receiving elected delegates from the towns. The town meetings refused dissolution and began arming and training expanded militias. When the Redcoats massacred the Concord town militia, the other town militias forced the retreat of the Redcoats under heavy fire, then put occupied Boston under siege. It took three waves of attack by the Crown forces to take the Bunker Hill fortification, a victory one of the British Generals called Pyrrhic. My ancestors were there, and the forced evacuation of Boston by cannon brought by Washington and the Continentals is still remembered in the Evacuation Holiday here. In University, one of my housemates was a Ukrainian refugee, and some colleagues at work were middle aged Ukrainian refugees. They told me of the long standing atrocities of Russia against Ukrainians. They said, in fact, "Give us tanks and we will drive the Russians out." This was in 1980, and they now have the tanks and the outraged will to drive the barbarian invaders out of their country. The Russians, in an extreme example of own-goal shooting, have turned what could have been a friendly kindred people into righteously vengeful enemies with a blood feud against them! Free and threatened people will fight fiercely for their lives, families and homeland. Slava Ukraine!
As pro-Ukraine as I am, this is unfortunately a big possibility. It's mines all the way down. And Putler seems to content to let the whole fucking world burn.
Well, yes, it might take that long. Not a good time table for people with a 5 minute attention span, I'm afraid. But if it does end by 2027, it'll be on par (or quicker) than most other major conflicts during the last 120 years.
Absent a dramatic endgame-level breakthrough in the next weeks/ months, isn’t a slow but steady recapture of Ukrainian land a winning strategy? Since a second Russian mobilization seems to be off the table, isn’t a slow but sure “death by a thousand” cuts a winning strategy?
Listening to this distinguished panel, I do unfortunately get the US centric view, as if the US were the only meaningful contributors the the war effort. While it is true that the US often receives more media attention when it comes to supporting the Ukrainian war effort, it is important to acknowledge that Europeans also play a significant role in contributing to the conflict. European countries, both individually and collectively, have been actively involved in various aspects of support for Ukraine. One notable example is economic assistance. The European Union (EU) has provided substantial financial aid to Ukraine since the start of the conflict in 2014. This aid includes loans, grants, and financial reforms, all aimed at helping Ukraine strengthen its economy and stability. Additionally, many European countries have been providing military support to Ukraine. This support ranges from training and advising Ukrainian armed forces to sending military equipment and supplies. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Poland have all been involved in military cooperation and assistance. Furthermore, European countries have been proactive in imposing economic sanctions on Russia in response to its involvement in the conflict. Sanctions have targeted key sectors of the Russian economy, aiming to put pressure on Russia and encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It is essential to recognize that the involvement of different countries can vary in terms of magnitude and priorities. The perception that the US is the primary contributor may be due to various factors, including media coverage and geopolitical dynamics. However, European countries do indeed contribute in a meaningful way to the war effort in Ukraine, both politically and economically.
America made a deal with Europe to be our allies against communism in exchange for defense and free open maritime trade after WWII. Very few Americans are actually aware of this and how the "world order" deal works or did work since it's ending now. I don't blame Europe for coasting on defense or making deals with Russia for energy or not wanting these deals to unwind. Unfortunately, war and international conglomerates don't care about anything but making money and therefore pushed and played Europe and Ukraine against Russia. I'm assuming you are European. Whatever the case, I wish Europe the best because they will bear the brunt of this cruel, senseless, and unnecessary game of greed that is most likely going to get much worse before getting better. Best wishes
But Europe is under occupation by the USA evidenced by the number of US troops on European soil............ so what would you expect them to say especially when all public statements have to be cleared by Washington first
And Europe’s losing here (big time) … so is Ukraine, so is Russia 🤔… so who’s winning ? Lockheed a Martin & the USA’s military industrial complex … how can we stop that 🤷🏽♂️
It's a long path, but there's clearly a path. The path will require either 1) Putin or his successor to agree to a ceasefire and leave voluntarily, or 2) be fought back to the borders guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum, at which point a frozen conflict like the Korean War would ensue. Either way, Ukraine would be very welcome as a NATO member, as it'd be both Europe's most experienced military, and a great place to base NATO forces.
Why is Stephen Walt never part of any discussion on this channell? This panel is too one sided and equal minded, and could use a few challenging positions and questions. To blame everything on Putin and to hope when he's gone everything is blue sky again is a little bit too simplistic. This is not up to this prestigious magazine's standards.
Some issues simply don't have two sides. Rarely has a nation been as innocent as Ukraine, and it must be fully compensated with reparations and all land assured it by the Budapest Memorandum back in its hands. There's simply not two sides to this issue.
Charap's message is as incoherent as his article in Foreign Affairs on how the US should push Ukraine to begin diplomacy. He uses examples from the last seventy years that do not really apply here. The applicable conflicts he should be comparing are WW I and WW II. In both of these, a belligerent aggressor took territory and the war did not end until they were broken. I can easily imagine Charap advising western leaders in 1942 to start meeting with Hitler to determine how much territory he would get to keep. Just read a much better opinion piece, also in Foreign Affairs, that Biden should tell the Russians to start the work to get rid of Putin so that they can get out of the war and become part of the wider world and not turn into a larger North Korea. I watched this video because Fiona Hill was listed on the thumbnail. She is brilliant as always. The Ukrainian gentlemen also brought a welcome perspective.
Thank you for an incredible discussion. But I have to comment on one thing I found absurd. Charap's "both sides will continue to be a threat to each other." ??? Russia has demonstrated it is a massive threat to Ukraine. Ukraine is NOT a threat to anyone. They are defending themselves. Based on Russia's past behavior, to imagine the idea that Russia can be trusted with any agreement is ludicrous. Zagorodnyuk and the Ukrainians know this.
> to imagine the idea that Russia can be trusted with any agreement is ludicrous. One case I think Russia COULD be trusted is if they're forced to pay full reparations to Ukraine in order to get trade sanctions lifted. (In fact it might be taken out of Russia's hands, with the sanctions replaced by a import/export tax regime that ends once it repays Ukraine). I believe the reparations would now be comperable to one year of Russia's entire GDP. A Russia that sees that its aggression has such a cost would probably be a Russia that doesn't do it again soon.
Wow you are way off on this comment... just wow. There's been a war in Ukraine since 2014. Look it up. Zelensky himself took credit for derailing Minsk Agreement. Try not to be defensive. The info is out that that contradicts your comments completely if you are open to it.
Incidentally, while I am not an expert, I returned from Kramatorsk on July 18 after having been there for eight days. Currently in Kyiv. I concluded the counter offense was not going well and the next day it was reported that it was on pause. Before I learned that the counter offense was on pause, and on the day before it was announced by the media, I concluded this war will last for years to come. It had been nothing less than negligence by the USA to only decide to provide cluster bombs weeks after the counter offense had already started as well as its failure to provide mine clearing equipment. How could the military, the news military commentators, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and President Biden so badly screw this up. I have seen the morale of the Ukrainian soldiers less than 20 miles from Bakhmut during brigade rotations on July 10 and their morale in other areas where soldiers are close to the front. It is good morale despite what I can only guess are large causalities, and as such, after having tried to find out, but was unsuccessful at doing so. There is great activity and vehicle movement to and from the front and supporting positions. While I get nothing but "thank you for your support" from soldiers as I talk to them, as solely a private citizen, and attorney, for what value that may add, if any, they don't complain to me about needing more medical aid, ammunition, heavy and long-range missiles, and air defenses. It is clear they need it. The Ukrainians are struggling to remove the Russian weapon systems behind the lines. I raised the question why can't the Ukrainians completely take out the Kerch Bridge. This last time, a few days ago, the railroad appeared to be operational. One lane of the bridge was operational. The bridge can be quickly repaired. The first time it was alleged that a truck had exploded. This last time a surfboard drone. The long range missiles either are not being used by design, perhaps to allow Ukrainian deniability, which seems unlikely, or their missiles cannot reach it. (Albeit, Russia can with more difficulty use its long boarder to move supplies in even without the bridge.) Obviously, the West is not giving Ukraine what it needs. What other targets can't the Ukrainians not hit for the purpose of taking out their defense systems? In the meantime, Russians launch missiles from the Black Sea and hit Odesa. How unfair is this. The catastrophe
The term "counter-offensive" itself is unhelpful. Even if large Russia was slowly pushing Ukraine back, it'd ALREADY be a shock that they're not crushing Ukraine. The fact Ukraine is holding the line or even advancing a meter here, ten meters there, is almost beyond incredible. We HAVE to stop portraying this incredible result as being somehow a disappointment or even tantamount to a defeat.
Simple answer. All those pretty fancy shiny military equipment the American military industrial complex takes trillions of US tax dollars for do not meet the advertized glamour. The S500 and integrated air defense sytem can take out any jet. Russia quickly figured out how to take out drones. The tanks America builds are far too heavy for the deep soft organic soil and marshes of Eastern europe, they sink then are stationary target to missiles. Russia manufactures all of its weapons and has all material requried. The West has to import and build things all over the place. Then there is BRICS and BRICS+. Tehre is no one in those groups who want to help the bully who forced their policies on them
We Irish, in our wisdom, peaced-out and lost six counties out of 32. We have had schizo violence pushed down to the lowest level of society, drug gangs with bombs, and a polity that floats ethereal above facts. A mass atrocity has not been excluded from the possible endgame. Good luck Ukraine with your wish of people dying being stopped...
Many thanks for this presentation. Fiona Hill impressive as ever. I did not know the two men in the presentation before but after listening to their first two segments I was struck by the dichotomy between Andriy and Samuel. One was a man arguably on a battlefield in his car making short, clear indisputable points and the other, a boy in his bedroom reading off a vacuous list from the children’s colouring book “Appeasement by numbers”. Samuel appears completely tone deaf to the last year or the last 100 years. He is divorced from reality, human nature and the behaviour of the Russians. Armistice is a frozen conflict in the modern world which is exactly what the Russians want so they can regroup. Nobody is going to accept that. After watching the presentation I researched Samuel. He has been consistently wrong about the conflict and constantly soft and appeasing for Russia. I question his motivation and funding. This war ends when one side runs out of money, men and materials and is crushed by the other side. Given that the West can supply Ukraine with money and materials in perpetuity, with or without the USA, the outcome is already written. Russia lost last Spring. Russian capitulation is required to facilitate, reparations, war crimes tribunals and atonement. Just a matter of time.
Russia already lost? I don't know why Biden said this. Why would anyone repeat it? Putin still a major player: Huge occupied territory held, Russian defenses strong, Russian unlimited artillery, USA limited, blocked grain to world, time on the side of Putin, Russian subjects' existences not included in Putin's calculation. The West, particularly the USA, not in it to win it. Media: Excellent dialogue. Sam's role in dialogue not easy one. Andriy and Fiona very good. Of course, none really spoke about the continued and extreme weaknesses of USA and NATO in their support of Ukraine. The West has no Churchill leader, while Ukraine does.
Message to Charap and any other part time analyst: the best US diplomacy in this conflict is more HIMAS, JDAMS, ATACMS, F16's and mine removers for Ukraine. Another year of intense targeted strikes against Russian forces will degrade them to the point where there will be a civil war in Russia, the fracturing of the state of Russia and, ultimately, resulting in peace for Ukraine. The US, given its fickle election cycles and poor history of negotiated conflict resolution (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), should not be holding the diplomatic whip hand in this conflict. Any 'agreement' that forces Ukraine to compromise with Dictator Putin will end up like the grain deal.
Russia already lost? I don't know why Biden said this. Why would anyone repeat it? Putin still a major player: Huge occupied territory held, Russian defenses strong, Russian unlimited artillery, USA limited artillery rounds, blocked grain to world, time on the side of Putin, Russian subjects' existences not included in Putin's calculation. The West, particularly the USA, not in it to win it. Media: Excellent dialogue. Sam's role in dialogue not easy one. Andriy and Fiona very good. Of course, none really spoke about the continued and extreme weaknesses of USA and NATO in their support of Ukraine. The West has no Churchill or FDR leader. Ukraine has Zelenskyy. Censor?
I’m curious what made US has changed her mind recently and suddenly on Ukrainian’s NATO membership. We all know Ukraine can’t recover all her territories without NATO
Charap could find himself or at least his reputation in the company of Mearsheimer and Chomsky, the former almost certainly falling directly or indirectly on the Kremlin's payroll and the latter's IR credentials being nonexistent and getting by on his laurels as a frequent keynote speaker at commie pow-wows. Kyiv's theory of victory probably doesn't lay in a sort of barnstorming final offensive a la Kharkiv, but more so in line with retaking Kherson: a gritty campaign of attrition. In the unlikely event that Russia does evacuate all the land it's taken since 2022, never mind 2014, Putin certainly cannot let the conflict die lest Ukraine is quickly incorporated into NATO and Russian pride is irreparably damaged forever. For Kyiv more so than Moscow, battlefield conditions will likely be the means to an end, not the end itself. The three hallmark events of the war so far, being Russia's retreat from Kyiv, Ukraine rapidly retaking Kharkiv, and Wagner's not-coup, all happened very quickly and without much warning. As their summer counteroffensive slowly develops, Kyiv may now be looking to make life in "New Russia" so unbearable for Russian soldiers that they mutiny rather than overrun Russian lines as happened last fall. A Russian Carnation Revolution if you were, though Estadio Novo Portugal and Putin's Russia are more different than they are alike. Moscow's theory probably depends heavily on what happens in Washington in Fall 2024. The one arena where Russia has made gains is in the information warfare space. In the leftist English speaking internet, "Kiev N@zi regime" and "NATO empire" rhetoric abounds but what's really salient, especially in the US, is the "nO MorE oF My TaX doLlARs tO UkRaiNe!1" crowd. Russia may be crossing their fingers that Trump does the unthinkable by winning again and throwing his predecessor's foreign policy in the bin. US aid to Ukraine stopping would be a critical blow to Ukraine's chances of victory, though not fatal. Finally, Sam's Zoom filter is craaazzyy X-D
"...the former almost certainly falling directly or indirectly on the Kremlin's payroll..." What is this evidence-free bilge? It seems that a person can just fling about any kind of bullshit slur these days with impunity. How about you actually, you know, provide a counterargument to Mearsheimer's position?
The US taxpayers need to be reminded that their tax dollars are footing the bill for the world's 3rd largest nuclear arsenal that they had Ukraine give up and hand over to Russia. In fact, what has been paid so far in terms of that bill is peanuts
One thing nobody seems to discuss in any of the videos about this war is what will happen to the 30% Russian speaking people in Ukraine after the war. Can we expect a major ethnic cleansing of the Russians like what happened in the different Yugoslav/Kosovo wars? The West actually supported the ethnic cleansing there so can we expect the same in Ukraine? For years the current Ukrainian government did more and more to restrict the different ethnic minorities, not only Russian but Polish, Hungarian and Romanian speakers too.
It's a good question. There are many Russian speakers in today's Ukrainian-controlled territory, though, and Ukraine is showing no signs of cleansing them. In the 2012 era, A COUPLE of members of the Rada in Kieva said there should be a law that Russian media should require equal-sized translations in Ukrainian side by side, but they didn't get as far as even officially proposing it, I believe. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine as long as they're not willful collaborators. I doubt more than a few hundred once-Ukrainian Russians would have to leave. Also note, those Russians are only there due to Stalin purposefully starving the Ukrainians and moving Russians into the region. No Russian families there go back more than 110 years.
Ukraine is trying to attack extensive defences with the largest minefields in history with no air cover. Can’t be done and they are being slaughtered. This panel is delusional.
I enjoyed the discussion. But it was West leaning. Russia negotiated the Minsk agreement with the West and Ukraine never intending to honor it. Russia warned he would invade if the West continued with NATO and Ukraine. Now Ukraine will cease to exist. Great job.
I also agree with Andriy Zagorodnyuk's approach. Poutine can't rule Russia forever. The current constitution allows him to govern for another 12 years after 2024 so he must retire at the young age of 83, if he doesn't die beforehand. Since Russia is an autocracy no one has a sense of who would be Poutine's successor or when or under what circumstances a succession and could happen. All of this is muchore predictable for democracies. Regardless of how events evolve, Poutine's successor could repudiate his policies and let Russia recover from its self-inflicted wounds.
First and foremost, the counteroffensive gambit has failed. While there is still considerable combat strength left in the Ukrainian military, including more than 60% of the NATO-trained and -equipped 60,000-strong cohort Ukraine had assembled in the past eight months, fundamentally flawed assumptions about the quality of the force on which Ukraine and its NATO allies had placed their collective hopes for victory over Russia have been exposed. In short, Ukraine lacks the military capacity to overcome Russian defenses.
37:20 minimum outcome for Ukraine by Andriy Zagorodnyuk: free our territories so people are not suffering any longer; includes 10's of thousands of children illegally removed from Ukraine. Also question of legal convictions and justice 38:40 Russian definition of victory by Fiona Hill; Putin wants to retain occupied territories and not lose anything. 40:40 NATO definition of victory by Samuel Charap; Russia has already lost. but NATO official policy of not getting into details about goals. Putin is vague about victory and boundaries, classic Putin is keep options open.
Why are we listening to individuals like Samuel Charap, members of the Valdai Club, a Russian think tank? What would history make of those who would invite friends of Goebbels during WWII into a friendly debate? This is **exactly** the same thing. Outrageous!
prolonging this war is paramount to world arms industries. the world weapons manufacturers are making a killing out of this war esp. the artillery industry.
The arms industry makes a killing from submarines, aircraft carries, next gen aircraft and other such high profile projects. Artillery shells, small arms, HIMARS, etc are small potatoes by comparison and definetely not paramount. Biden had to convince the industry to restart these long stalled production lines only by guaranteeing long contracts. God bless Joe Biden for that!
And i hear the medical establishment is making a killing out of curing people. That's why we will keep falling ill. Solid logic you got there. Auto mechanics are conpiring to make cars more prone to breaking. I'm sure you could think of a few more "great' analogies. Chomsky much?
I agree with Samuel Charap that an armistice is a possible medium-term solution but only if Poutine remains in power and he comes to the conclusion that continuing his war in Ukraine poses a bigger threat to remaining in power than saying for peace. I don't believe Ukraine poses any direct military threat to Russia.
Russia did not have huge victories in WWI and they had very costly victories in the East during WWII because the U.S. and UK was winning victories in the West and the US was supplying USSR in the East.
Thanks for this insightful conversation. What I learned in this conflict though is that the West is rather willing to sacrifice the best Ukrainian and (!) Russian people (those who oppose the regime) to prevent Putin's regime from collaps and to prevent China to become more powerful. As long as we don't consider thousands of starving people Korean solution seems to be a good one.
First, Ukraine will never accept any "Korean scenarios". Second, if Ukraine sees that Western security guarantors refuse to fulfill their obligations and press on Ukraine to start negotiations, Ukraine will fall under Chinese influence = China will become more powerful. China has already changed their narrative. Now they declare that territorial integrity of Ukraine is top priority.
15:43 ~15+ months? We're coming up to 1 and a half year on August 24th(!) ... plus the Russian troops amassed on the borders to Ukraine in both Russia and Belarus also was well-known for several months. So eighter this discussion had been reordered a while ago, but got uploaded now ~7 days ago according to UA-cam (as of today being the 26th of July) - or they started to think about this topic of "how will the war end" relatively late imo - this whole humanitarian nightmare in Ukraine already shouldn't even have started, we had to impressively deter on our part; meaning an effective deterrence demonstrated by the entire West/NATO/US/UK/& all of Ukraine's other true allies.
Excellent insights, specially from the real ground in Ukraine as well as Berlin. The other guy is too far from reality. How could you sit at a negotion table with gang criminals... even your cup of tea could be life threatening! Thank you for organizing such an outstanding conversation. 🎉❤
This panel is way too biased to be taken seriously. First, the introductory remark that Ukraine had been promised NATO membership someday when it’s qualified is an absurd promise; it’s like telling a oarodkeguc that he ciujd sun the marathon if he practiced enough to qualify as a world-class runner. Second, any Russian autocratic leader would not want Ukraine to join NATO or the EU, or to become a progressive democracy. It’s not about Putin but about an autocratic superpower protecting its nation. Third, China cannot allow Russia to lose while the West cannot allow Ukraine to lose. Fourth, Russia is unlikely to give up the 20-25% of Ukraine it controls, as it controls the Black Sea as well. Fifth, Russia has won the war and achieved its objective which essentially paralyzed Ukraine as it continues to pulverize and depopulate Ukraine. Any unbiased observer must see the reality.
Samuel Charap talks out of his butt. Any outcome other than a Russian defeat is a loss, not for Ukraine, but for the informal alliance of democratic countries that help Ukraine. What he doesn't seem to understand is what's at stake for the democratic countries of the world. The conflict in Ukraine isn't about Ukraine. It's about the current world order. Since WW2, the democratic states of the world, led by the US, to some extent even coerced by the US (and I'm talking about the UK and France here, not about Germany or Italy or Japan), have been building a world order based on international regulations and institutions, in which, eventually, the use of military force in international relations should be no longer be either acceptable or feasible. What's at stake in Ukraine is precisely this rules- based world order. If Putin gets to keep even a tiny piece of Ukrainian land, without being forced to pay war reparations, every single country on the globe, including democratic states with weaker ties to the powerful Western democracies, will get a strong message that this world order is shaky, and under certain circumstances it makes sense to challenge it. The immediate effect will be an increased frequency of at least small scale military standoffs. That, in turn, will seriously damage international economic relations and commerce - the foundation of Western strength and welfare. Therefore, there's no way around it. If the war ends in a stalemate where Russia keeps even a tiny gain, that will be a huge defeat for the community of democratic countries. China will definitely get the message, as will many African and South American countries. The influence and importance of Western style democracies throughout will be seriously diminished. I can't believe a professional analyst is too stupid to see this. OTOH, if Putin vanishes, I don't see the war in Ukraine continuing on Russia's terms. Putin vanishing will generate a fight for power in Russia, among multiple factions. Whoever will win, will need, at least for a short while - measured in several years, even if the most acute period will be the first few months - to stabilize his power. This will mean there will be far fewer resources made available for the war. With many people in Russia against the war, although not openly, ending the war in Ukraine will even score some points among Russians. This should make it easy for Ukraine to retake all of its territory. Nevertheless, in light of what I explained above, Ukraine retaking all of its territory isn't enough. Russia not paying war reparations and not formally signing a peace treaty would still send out a strong message that a nation could get away with causing hundreds of billions of damage to a neighbor without consequences. That's definitely not a strong security guarantee for any peaceful nation in the world. Therefore, the only ending that's at least acceptable for democratic states in the world, is a clear defeat of Russia. Not necessarily one that's disastrous for Russia, but one which sends a clear and strong message throughout the world that you can't, at the state level, even if you're a huge country with a lot of resources, use brute force to support your political goals, disregarding international law and order, without suffering the consequences. And one that's accompanied by safety measures that should definitely make things worse for Russia in case it does not fulfill its obligations in the under the peace agreement. Now, obviously, unless Ukraine's going on the offensive and takes Moscow, there's got to be some negotiations, in order to reach a peace agreement. However, Russia has repeatedly proven, especially during the last few years, that it only understands one language: brute force. Therefore, there's no way Russia will negotiate in a credible way before it is pushed into a very tight corner. Which is why it is premature to talk about negotiations of any kind now. Despite the obvious stupidity (IMO) of Samuel Charap, he got to speak most of the time, in the clip. Which makes me believe it wasn't really meant to be a level-headed discussion about the conflict, but more of some subtle ad for pushing Ukraine into negotiations - at a point of time when negotiations are clearly in nobody else's interest but Russia's - anybody pushing for negotiations, right now, would be perceived as weakness by Russia, and just encourage Russia to fight the war further.
A realistic appreciation of the situation is not a capitulation. If Ukraine had abided by the Minsk II accords this would never have happened at all. Poroshenko (and Merkel and Hollande) all admitted there was never the intention to live up to Ukraine's obligations.
I can't imagine how hard it is for Andriy... I can't imagine how to be diplomatic when your dealing with just the horror of what Russia is doing to his country, loved ones and friends. Huge thanks to Andriy, your voice is so important to be heard ❤🇺🇦❤
One of my favourite person is Fiona Hill. She always talks sense to me. Have been following her since Trump days.
Samuel Charap's opinion was overruled by his insistence in referring to ruz's brutal invasion of Ukraine as "the conflict"; it really jumped out. Always great to hear from Fiona Hill, and thank you Andriy Zagorodnyuk for participating from the war zone.
Charap always sitting with Putin…
They needed one fabulist for the panel. He lives in a college library, detached from reality.
Its perfect newspeek, to give obvious things diferent names than what they act. are.
This is not a kindergarten full of victims. They are responsible for a state in real world.
Thank you for watching the news
Fiona Hill speaks brilliantly
On the contrary, she is rabidly anti-Russian and completely delusional. All she can do is spout off western media talking points.
The Ukrainian representative is absolutely right.
Fiona Hill is always worth listening to carefully.
RS. Canada
She's able to take the salient aspects from someone else's point and incorporate it on the spot, with what her original argument was.
The sheer distance between what Russia considers an acceptable peace and what Ukraine considers an acceptable peace makes it seem unlikely that even after years these governments could come to an accord. Either Russia must obtain an absolute military victory (which seems practically impossible) or it must have a change of government, as the current government is committed to continuing this war no matter how much of Ukraine they are kicked out of - even if that figure was 100% Putin would not be willing to accept his defeat. As such regime change in Russia is unfortunately the only goal that makes any sense for both Ukraine and its allies, despite the inherently risky nature of that.
This is a wise comment
Peace is not possible because Russia won't stop unless it is forced to
Now having accepted that we are left with an industrial war between a combined economy of 49 trillion and an economy of 900 billion
This only has 1 outcome Russia has along long long history of colaps total and utter colaps
And this time will be no different the crushing sanctions the ever increasing military aid for Ukraine will bare fruit at some point lets be perfectly clear the Utter stupidity of the standard Obama state department position that there is no military solution to this crisis is incomprehensible
After the US was absolutely defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan lost Iraq to Iran and Asad stuck it out for a complete victory in Syria
These are all prof that the US intelligencia is intellectually bankrupt
Ukraine is fighting for its own land and its right to exist full stop
Putin is fighting to keep his job
But Russian troops are not
There interests are in no way aligned at some point Russia will back away and putin will be left holding the bag
Regime change has always been the preferred outcome of this US proxy war against Russia
Regime change in DC or Kiev works too.
You should read Former US Ambassadors to Russia Burns Memorandum: Niet means Niet (No means No) from 2008
Or Ukraine could have a change of government ... or growing casualties could force Ukraine to change its war aims.
I disagree with the idea that Ukraine cannot win this war. It is very easy for people in the west to say Ukraine should compromise and concede land to Russia, but as an American, I can tell you that we would not give up one inch of land to such an enemy.
Also, the west needs Ukraine in NATO. With Ukraine as a NATO member in the east and Finland and Sweden in the west, Europe is a lot safer than before. That is a just return on Europe's investment in Ukraine. That makes all their aid dollars worth it.
"With Ukraine as a NATO member in the east and Finland and Sweden in the west, Europe is a lot safer than before".
If Ukraine is in NATO, it means that the alliance inherits an active war zone with a nuclear-armed power. With Finland in NATO, it means that the alliance's frontier with that same power has expanded by 1,300km (leading to a commensurate increase in the risk of inadvertent clashes). Hard to see how Europe would/will be "a lot safer" under these circumstances.
The Ukraine doesn't have enough men to liberate all their territory and the Crimean peninsula. They're taking heavy casualties on the offensive. it was a desperate gamble for Zelensky and he's losing.
Samuel C.'s entire line of reasoning is predicated on the inability of Ukraine to make significant territorial gains in any timeframe. It's strange that he's arrived at this conclusion so prematurely when most military analysts agree that the jury is still out even on the 2023 summer offensive effort, let alone the war as a whole. We know that Russia is rapidly depleting its Soviet materiel stockpile inheritance and that its pace of operations cannot be sustained indefinitely, so whatever might come next, it's safe to conclude that the current phase of the war is transient, not permanent.
Such nonsense. Forget it.
Running NATO right up to Russia's border via Ukraine makes Europe less safe. It is intolerable to Russia, in case you haven't been paying attention. And it is unethical. You cannot infringe on Russia's inherent right to security.
I've been a currency trader since 2006 and found this video to be very insightful.
0:00 - 2:57 Introductions
2:57 - 7:59 Andriy Zogorodnyuk: Sentiment regarding the ongoing phase of the war is positive and optimistic.
7:59 - 14:56 Fiona Hill: How has the Putinist theory of victory had it's domestic and diasporan credibility affected by the Prigozhin affair?
14:56 - 20:55 Samuel Charap: Arguing the case that the conflict will end in a stalemate and that therefore an armistice is necessary.
20:55 - 27:34 Andriy: Arguing the case that an armistice is nonviable if Vladimir Putin remains in power.
27:34 - 33:12 Fiona: Arguing the case that Russia is unwilling to engage with an armistice and that the solution has to involve a global diplomatic coalition.
33:12 - 36:53 Samuel: Arguing the case that expectations of Russian bad faith behavior should not sway efforts to seek an armistice.
36:53 - 42:36 Audience Q1: Does either side currently have any outcomes that they consider integral to declaring victory?
42:36 - 46:39 Audience Q2: What factors are important to consider in expecting whether Russia will fire any nuclear weaponry in the conflict?
46:39 - 49:36 Audience Q3: Can we expect China to be a constructive partner in resolving this conflict?
49:36 - 52:03 Audience Q4: What issues can we expect in establishing a criminal tribunal specifically for the mass abductions of Ukrainian children?
52:03 - 56:35 Audience Q5: Is Putin trying to wait out upcoming western elections?
56:35: Andriy: Closing statements.
Before watching this, I had six open questions in my mind:
.
First, would the Hoover Institution's suggested theory of victory (where Crimea is so thoroughly blockaded without invasion that it effectively turns into Darfur) meaningfully erode political will in the Global South to participate in the support for Ukraine and in the separate ostracization of Russian diplomacy?
.
Second, are there any precedents for the Prigozhin affair more recent than the beginning of the Time of Troubles, and if so, what can be learned from them?
.
Third, the historian Kamil Galeev has an ongoing campaign arguing that the import of machine tools and the import of machine tools servicing is an under-sanctioned weak link in the Russian war machine. Is this correct, like oil supplies to the Axis in WW2, or is it overblown, like area bombing and targeting of ball bearing production in WW2?
.
Fourth, the anonymous collective of investment bankers known as Doomberg has put forward the argument that the Russian oil and gas industries have been able to almost entirely mitigate the ending of Haliburton/Shell/Schlumberger servicing for their sites with the mass hiring of Indian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani and Thai national petrochemical, geotechnical and chemical engineers, possibly as much as 2000 skilled laborers and designers a month. What Western-Asian diplomatic efforts can be done to reverse this?
.
Fifth, in the hypothetical event of a Republican US presidency withdrawing the USA from NATO, would there be reasonable concerns about nuclear proliferation in Czechia, Germany, Poland, Sweden and the Visegrad group?
.
Finally, Russian-language antiwar sources have showed that there was a rising movement of anti-Ukrainian revanchism in Russian book sales, films and television as early as 2006. Was any part of this organic outside of the United Russia constituency? Was it even organic inside the constituency or was a centrally manufactured trend?
.
I've still got these questions but I reckon that with a few more panels of this quality I could probably start figuring these questions out on my own.
I'm no analyst or specialist of any kind. But, as someone living in a country which has for centuries been impacted by Russia's expansionist policy and for which the war in Ukraine is critically important, I do follow things carefully and try to stay informed. I'll leave my not completely uninformed comments here, hoping they help you a little.
I believe you can find many incidents which at least vaguely resemble the Prigozhin affair in the October revolution. There was also an attempted and failed military coup against Gorbachev. Granted, not at all the same, but it goes to show that under extreme conditions (for at least part of the population) forceful opposition to the regime in Russia can definitely happen.
I do believe technology trade is where the global north, if you so want to call it (I prefer to call it the democratic countries of the world - I find it more appropriate for the particular context of the war in Ukraine, since its essential stake is the standing of the rule-based world order that those democratic states have been working on since WW2, more than it is about Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty) still has a huge potential to hurt Russia. It's not just machine tools and machine tools servicing, it's everything that can be used to either build or operate machinery of any kind or manufacture industrial products. Withholding such products from Russia would hugely accelerate the degradation all of of Russia's directly productive sectors, including agriculture. That would be something impossible to keep from the population. Turning the population against the war - which won't happen as long as they are able to fill their stomach, even if their quality of life diminishes - is the most effective way to end the war on Ukraine's terms, IMO.
I believe Russia's mitigation of the multinationals servicing and operating Russia's oil and gas industries withdrawing from Russia is not an actual solution to the problem, just a temporary band-aid. Those companies weren't providing manpower alone, but also equipment, and, more importantly, skills and knowledge that are in short supply, sometimes no supply at all elsewhere. Without those companies, Russia's infrastructure for oil and gas extraction and transportation will slowly degrade until there's nothing left of it, or until it's operated at a medieval level of technology, with correspondingly high costs and low yield. And I'm not sure that's something to be reversed. Accelerated, maybe.
At the current state of military technology, with a few nuclear powers (France and the UK) already present in Europe, I believe not one other European country will do anything about nukes. As interceptor and defense technology continues to evolve, nukes become a smaller and smaller threat. European missile defenses are not yet at the level at which North American missile defenses are, but are already quite capable. And they'll continue to get better. If politicians in the countries you enumerated perceive Russia as a threat, those systems will get better at a lightning speed. A well set up missile defense system, especially in the context of a weak and corrupt Russian army, one that's appallingly bad at maintenance and is supported by am industry in ruins, would likely catch everything that Russia might able to through at Europe. Even if one or two missiles make it through, manage to launch their warheads and those warheads all explode, while that would be a humongous humanitarian catastrophe, it would barely scratch the paint of NATO military power, even without the US, in a European continent freshly scared into military development by Russia's aggressiveness and an US withdrawal from NATO. A conventional, non-nuclear common defense force of Europe would have no problem defeating a weakened Russia without using nukes. Investing in an expensive and controversial nuclear program would clearly be the dumber variant.
In a way, I believe anti-Ukrainian sentiment amplification was indeed centrally manufactured, but just indirectly. Russian propaganda inside Russia is very powerful inside Russia, and always was, due to on one hand Russia being a large country, with a large internal market for news and media, amounting to a rather large echo chamber of any kind of Russian propaganda (the whole world will comment on CNN clips on YT, even if they're strictly about US-internal affairs, almost no non-Russian will do so on Russian TV clips, even if they're about international affairs), on the other hand the Russian government's (read: dictatorship) ability to control what information reaches its subjects (I make no mistake here, Russia's dictatorship doesn't consider Russians, citizen, but subjects), being outmatched only by China. If Russian state-controlled or state-affiliated media started to subtly push an anti-Ukrainian narrative since 2006, it definitely led to an increase of anti-Urkainian media sales, the more so since it was building on centuries of Russian anti-Ukrainian sentiment. The war in Ukraine isn't the first time that Russia tries to suppress Ukrainian national identity. In fact, it is what Russia, with varying degrees of intensity, has continuously been trying for the last several centuries.
I hope this helps, at least a little.
🤔 have you watched any interviews from Silicone Curtain?
If not , well worth doing so 😊
basically a biased discussion. Thanks for saving me the time.
Great timestamps, but I'm very confused why you felt the need to mention you're a "currency trader", seems out of place and makes your whole comment odd.
Amazing that Samuel mentions acheivement getting the Korean armistice, then 1 day later after this program aired we have N. Korea threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USA (because one of our subs surfaced at S. Korea). So, I can understand why Ukraine would resist an effort to negotiate armistice with Putin.
There was no other choice. It was that or drop nukes on north Korean and Chinese troops. What we have now is far better than what we were going to be forced to do to keep South Korea going
Exactly! That would be like doing an armistice with Nazi Germany. There is no way they would stop being belligerent or give up their imperialist goals.
N Korea only gets loud when we threaten them. It’s just that we on,y hear of their reaction, and not our action. We brought nuclear warhead armed submarines to s Korea shores for the 1st time in decades, and as an obvious result, n Korea feels threatened by our threat. We often fly nuclear bombers straight at n. Korea’s border and then last minute cut away. This is to ‘send a message of strength’ and to test their radars to see how quickly they can respond if we were to bomb them. I think it’s obvious these actions are unnecessarily provocative.
Poor Sam, backed himself in the corner and having to concede the whole lets negotiate and hope for a miracle approach is doomed to fail
As Prof. Kotkin has said...The whole Prigozhin thing was very much an unwitting referendum.
The whole Prigozhin thing was just a big scene made by Putin to trick the world.
Yes, the result being that Putins critics inside the Russian military and inside politics want a swift and decisive victory. They feel that appeals to diplomacy have failed outright.
"Coexistence with psychopathic dictators is not possible".
Christopher Hitchins
So true
Christopher Hitchens...responsible for the first ever metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug.
If Putin is a psychopath, why was Russia in peace negotiations with Ukraine in March 2022? Is it possible to be both elected and a dictator?
Unfortunately the world is stuck with Biden at least until November 24.
Do you mean Hitchens? Tututut.
The US is the psychopath!
You missed the whole point. Ukraine is waiting for F16s. The war can not end until Ukraine is fully armed and has had a chance to fight fully armed. Wherever the war stabilizes after they fight their best fight is where it will end. Isn't it obvious that they can't fight all out and also can't start negotiations while waiting for weapons that could turn the tide.
No Plane can live for long in Ukraine's Sky the F16's are neither Magic or invisible Majick
Blinken said today if we approved F 16s, it would take months, so whenever they approve them, it'll be next year, too late for the spring offensive. Which means alot of soldiers and resources will be gone by that. Feels like we need a new strategy because it's not destiny that Ukraine will enter negotiations from a point of strength, it could be forced to negotiate from a point of weakness. If this goes on until US elections, that will be bad.
And u clearly think it will stop at Wilremain in the boundaries of those 2 countries 😀😀
They are coming.
Samuel Charap is one of the Kremlin's Valday Club assets who are generally commanded and run by the Soviet agent Dmitry Simis (Дмитрий Саймс) and a few others. Validay Club assets also include Professors Jeffrey Sacks and John Mearsheimer, Tom Graham (the one who publicly said that we were learning several times more money from the Russian think-tank than anything else), and several others. Charap is actually explicit about it.
Key to remember is that it was the USA and UK who stripped Ukraine of its effective defences in 1994-1999, making her give long-range missiles, heavy jet bombers, and nuclear weapons to Russia. Now, Russia is using those missiles and bombers to bomb Ukraine.
The West is hypocritical when it waits for any success of Ukraine until winter, and then it cancels its help while they did not provide the necessary weapons for Ukrainian victory, which should have already been given to Ukraine in 2022, including ATACMS, tanks, F-16s, F-18s in big numbers. Even tomahawks, for that matter.
I wouldn't have to write this if people in the West did not confuse the Ukrainian military with the US and NATO militaries and the Russian military with Iraq and Afghanistan, but:
-- During the 1991 Gulf War, 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets.
-- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets. This time, the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 3rd Infantry divisions. Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power, so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow, and drones.
-- Whereas in US and NATO operations, the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for Russian equipment, ammo points, command centres, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects.
-- Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit Russian vehicles and static objects. A massive drawback. Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, while Ukraine's range is limited to:
Excalibur range: 40 km
GMLRS range: 84 km
Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers
-- Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a Russian target and the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve the HIMARS range, but the production line is not yet running .) Now, if you're Russia, you must park your heavy equipment outside of the GMLRS range, and Ukraine can't hit it.
Hard to believe Charap keeps getting invited as an “expert”. All experience is in Washington while listening to smooth-talking Muscovites speaking about not offending Putin and respecting the odious Russian empire.
Anyone who thinks there should be a realistic negotiated solution is a Kremlin asset? Delusional. Jeffrey Sacks actually worked for the Ukrainian government.
Is it not the case that everyone who takes a critical or even sceptical view of the western position is a Russian agent ?
Wow, you are SO brainwashed.
You are missing the point that this was always meant to be a war of attritition with partisan disruption, to wear down and distract. And that using old stock makes every sense: otherwise handing free samples on to Russia.
Samuel Charap? The guy who authored the 'legendary' article published in January 2022 in Foreign Policy "The West’s Weapons Won’t Make Any Difference to Ukraine". What a brilliant mind he has 🤣🤣
Thanks for the reference, that article is a fascinating read 17 months into the conflict. I wonder why Mr Charap was not introduced as a Russia's representative here - he is clearly a Russian asset.
I hope that's sarcasm.
Yep, he was right.
According to media Ukraine was able to win the battle of Kiev without any such weapons. Plus a calm assessment is that new weapons make difference for about 3-4 weeks before Russia finds A work around.
He was correct. The only difference Western weapons have made is a higher death toll, especially for Ukrainians.
While it is uncertain how the current conflict in Ukraine will end, historical parallels can be drawn from the Winter War (Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939). In that war, Finland demonstrated resilience but ultimately had to make territorial concessions. Similarly, Ukraine might prevail in its struggle, but there could be the possibility of conceding Crimea. However, it's important to note that each situation is unique, and the outcome of the current conflict may differ from historical precedents. Diplomatic efforts and various factors will ultimately shape the final resolution.
And note: Finland gave the Soviet Union territory, but not their people. 40 000 people living in those areas were all evacuated and were not left to live under Soviet occupation. 40 000 might not sound like many, but Finland's population as a whole was under 4 million at that time. When people talk about concession of territory they always say it is impossible because Ukrainians would have to live under Russian occupation. I'm not saying Ukraine should concede territory, but I'm not quite sure how giving up territory and people have to necesserily go hand in hand? Is it because it is thought that Russia sees Ukrainians as Russians and therefore would do everything in their power to keep them from leaving?
From 2018 The planning of WWIII.
“A bipartisan commission appointed by Congress issued a lengthy report Tuesday backing the Pentagon’s plans to prepare for a “great-power” war against Russia, China, or both, making clear that the Trump administration’s belligerent policies are shared by the Democratic Party. Safe in the knowledge that its findings will never be seriously reported by the mass media, the authors of this report do not mince words about what such a war will mean. A war between the United States and China, which according to the report might break out within four years, will be “horrendous” and “devastating.” The military will “face greater losses than at any time in decades.” Such a war could lead to “rapid nuclear escalation,” and American civilians will be attacked and likely killed.
It is impossible to understand anything in American politics without recognizing one fundamental reality: the events and scandals that dominate political discourse, which make it onto the evening news and into headlines on news sites and social media feeds, have precious little to do with the considerations of those who actually make decisions. The media talking heads play their assigned roles, knowing that the most important topics can be discussed only within very circumscribed limits.
Those who actually make policy-a select group of high-ranking members of Congress, Pentagon officials, and think-tank staffers, as well as White House aides-speak an entirely different language among themselves, and in publications they know the general public will not read, and the media will not seriously report.
“Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could “create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”, according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week.
The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war - which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”
The comparison with the Winter War does not apply here. Finland was alone vs an overwhelming USSR army. Today, Ukrainian land army is about equal or even superior to the Russian army. Every day, Ukraine army is getting stronger and Russian weaker. There is also a HUGE impact of the social media... In the Winter war, USSR soilders didnt know why they fought but Stalin easily manipulate the information... Now, every day, there is trousands of Russian soilders talking to their family and making videos on how the situation on the frontline is hopeless. Soilders lack food and ammo. This war will only end in 2 ways: 1) Putin leave power and the remplacent withdrawal from Ukraine land or 2) Russian Army and economy collapse. Everyone in the world knows that if Russia can keep some land, they will come back for more. Like in WW2, the only option here is total Ukraine victory.
Absolutely right. It’s also worth noting that no-one has ever won a war of attrition against Russia.
Sam's proposal: "Trust the country that broke the Minsk agreement that they will respect a new peace treaty."
Merkel of Germany, Holland of France, and Poroshenko of Ukraine all admitted in interviews in the last year that they had no intention of following Minsk or Minsk 2. They just wanted to buy time for the USA to continue to arm and train the Ukrainian army. All Ukraine had to do to end the civil war was to change the constitution to allow "states" within Ukraine as specified in Minsk and Minsk 2. But that was a bridge too far for the Russia haters and wor mangers in western Ukraine and the USA because then they could allow Russian as a secondary official language in their "states". The horror!
Sadly, Russia is hardly unique in breaking treaties... so using that logic, no treaty is possible.
Yep, Ukraine and the EU are completely untrustworthy.
They did not even have the intention to take the Minsk agreement seriously. Both sides just wanted to gain time and prepare for the next phase of war. As it was admitted publicly by the former german and french leaders.
As even Merkel has publicly admitted that Minsk was never committed to by Ukraine but was a tactic to allow for building the Ukraine Army to take Crimea and Donbass.
No one asks questions what happens if russia wins...
No-one asks because: 1. they're unlikely to win, 2. even if they do win, they lose, 3. God help us all if they win. Conclusion: Ukraine MUST win.
Which it invariably will do.
Good point. To that I would ask the question "Who's next?".
Then, they continue invading to take back and control the geogrhaphic choke points to protect the motherland.
Potsdam Conference is what happens. Probably harsher this time.
Winning the Peace is the most important thing, you can win the War but lose the peace.
What an incisive look into this topic. Dr. Hill's answer to the question of whether Russia will resort to nukes was telling and frightening. Particularly as it looks like Putin's plan to take over Ukraine does not seem to be workable. Putin's trying to wait this one out, and count on the benefit of being a much bigger country in the long run. Thanks to Andriy's incredibly precise and knowledgeable contribution to this discussion - from a country currently at war. It's clear that we (the rest of the world) have to support Ukraine in protecting the notion of democracy and national borders. It is clear to see the damage that is occurring to Ukraine, I fear that this will set Russia back generations (thanks to Putin's notion of the return of a czarist Russian empire).
you answer me why you are drawing Ukraine into NATO?Do you know that the eastern territories are Russian land?Do you want to defeat a nuclear power?Most likely you want to fight to the last Ukrainian.
People are rally optimistic here, as if there are parallel universe.
Fiona kept trying to give Sam an out, but he kept doubling down on a position that appears to appease Putin and be generous with Ukrainian land and callous with Ukrainian citizens.
Taking the Lindsay Graham "fight to the last person" position is the most harmful to Ukrainian citizens. Not making the simple change called for by Minsk and Minsk 2 - allowing states in Ukraine - was very harmful to Ukrainian citizens. But it wasn't just the western Ukraine militants that refused, their militant USA puppeteers did as well.
Only Biden and Zelensky are callous with Ukrainian citizens.
Dolts
I wouldn't have to write this if people in the West did not confuse the Ukrainian military with the US and NATO militaries and the Russian military with Iraq and Afghanistan, but:
-- During the 1991 Gulf War, 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets.
-- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets. This time, the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 3rd Infantry divisions. Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power, so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow, and drones.
-- Whereas in US and NATO operations, the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for Russian equipment, ammo points, command centres, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects.
-- Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit Russian vehicles and static objects. A massive drawback. Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, while Ukraine's range is limited to:
Excalibur range: 40 km
GMLRS range: 84 km
Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers
-- Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a Russian target and the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve the HIMARS range, but the production line is not yet running .) If you're Russia, you must park your heavy equipment outside of the GMLRS range, and Ukraine can't hit it.
Solid input of information.
Now some analysis based on it: The United States wants a never ending war, this time without putting boots on the ground. That's why Ukraine will ultimately collapse.
Sam should go to the Ukraine and post from his car...he is a classic couch quarterback. Is Andriy in the car out int eh field, to try and find a hot spot, or to avoid call-tracing-targeting tech? Great program showing positioning from dif. sides. Those of us far from the Ruscist scorched earth need more passion. Yes, Putin is all in. We need to be all in, to get him.
Fiona you are absolutely right.
Fiona Hill is articulate astute and a great communicator.
Shout out to Andriy Zagorodniuk. You need to invite more Ukrainians. Try Matviychuk, Hrytsak, Plokhiy
Samuel Charap has no skin in the game. As Peter Zeihan mentioned about historical Russian losses in a war, the casualties might be need to be greater than 1 million. Diplomacy might be similar to President Truman's terms to Japan.
I agree 💯
Zeihan wants to depopulate Russia and expropriate its natural resources. Not sure he is alone I'm that view.
It ends when Ukraine says it ends.....end of.
The unconditional surrender of Ukraine will end the conflict.
It could end when there are no more Ukrainian men left to fight.
Samuel Charap is way too far out over his skis. At this point in the war, it is too early for to draw any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise. I recommend that he spend time in Ukraine to feel the groundswell of support that Ukrainians have for their leader & soldiers, and how much justified hatred they have toward Putin, his regime & the Russian populace writ large. This is not a situation where both sides have a legitimate claim - Russia invaded a sovereign country and has committed war crimes indiscriminately. Ukraine's position clearly is to expel Russia completely from it's territory and to justly recover war reparations, which is a minute fraction weighed against Ukraine's suffering. I do not see the Russian Federation surviving this conflict. It will collapse from within, with fissures now beginning to emerge.
Charap said Ukraine should surrender before the Russian invasion started. FA needs to do better when choosing their “experts“ who have spent little time outside of 5 star accommodations in Putin’s Valdai Conferences since 2010.
Ukraine has no just in fighting, it's already lost its future in demographics, meanwhile the idea the Russia will dissolve unites all people within Russia even those who are against the war
So the biggest country in the world will collapse and the smaller country in the conflict, which has already lost more than 20% of it's territory and almost 25% of it's population, (9 million people have left Ukraine, 3 million went to Russia); somehow the smaller country won't collapse, even though it is collapsing by any measure? Stellar analysis. How do you come up with this stuff?
I'm not familiar with Samuel but if thinking Ukraine was going to be defeated quickly is the criteria for muting speech, you would have to mute the vast majority of the world to talking about the war.
There were unwinnable wars in the past like those in Vietnam or that on Afghanistan. But this onecertainly not because Ukraine wants independence and democracy and wants to fight for it, and has enough size for it.
The ukraine will likely be balkanized. This conflict is existential for both of the parties and it is very much optional the west. The economic war is teetering as well for the west, the world has spoken, it's time that we listened instead of dictated.
The "winnability" of the war is logically distinct from Ukraine's desire for victory. The former does not follow from the latter at all. Sometimes, as righteous as a country's cause is, and despite the strength of its will for combat, it may still be defeated.
They want democracy so bad they arrested opposition leaders and will be cancelling elections.
in Their mind Taliban were fighting for their independence
Ukraine isn't fighting for democracy or independence. As of March 2022 they were fighting for Crimea, since that is all the peace negotiations would have given Russia (Donbas "states" in Ukraine as in Minsk and Minsk 2) . But now they are fighting for a larger part of eastern Ukraine as Russia is unlikely to just ask for Crimea going forward.
Outstanding presentation FA !!!!
Wild that Joseph Nye asked a question! Great discussion
Is it right to recognize the existence of the Donbas population? Or do they not count as either ukrainian or human beings worthy of freedom, safety, and self determination? We cannot forget there has been an ongoing civil war for a decade. The civilian population there continues to suffer indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian military. It’s not difficult to understand why they would not like to return to the rule of Kyiv. Whether we like it or not, they must be considered in this war and when it comes to negotiations. Is self-determination a right? How about in this case while a decade has passed without resolution or pause in violence? Is territory of more value than human life? If so, how many lives exactly? It seems self determination is the only solution in this case, unless we would prefer to see many more deaths, violence indefinitely, and all for an uncertain future.
(1) Is Putin in such a difficult national political situation that he would likely engage in a 'Scorched Earth' policy with Ukraine ('If I can't have it, neither will anyone else')? And if so, how should such actions be approached internationally...? (2) How must the UN reform to remain a credible international organisation (given that It is clear there is no enforceable consequential 'World Law' only unenforceable mutual group agreements)... ? Or wil it fade like the 'League of Nations' did?
Bakmut. Grozny. Scorched earth is Rusky Mir.
I dont think the UN need fade away (the critical need for global cooperation is acknowledged by many more today than was the case during the era of the League of Nations) nor must it reform to avoid any "fading away". It may continue to operate as it does now, far into future. The principal reason why this may be the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future is that any meaningful reform of the UN would have to radically change the eligibility criteria for membership of the Security Council from its implicit current elibility criteria of the principal victors of WW-II. It is increasingly unjustifiable for the interests of Europe to have privileged representation (2 permanent seats are alloted to UK & France) and, informally, by the EU - while the massive economies of Brazil and India (and others) remain unrepresented. Besides the issue of privileged representation, mermbers of the Secuity Council each has veto power over any decisions made their peers. This privilege is afforded members of the General Assembly. However it has never been offered to members of the General Assembly. It is rare for the privileged anywhere to renounce their privilege voluntarily and there's little reason to hope that the members of the Security Council would act differently. Another often-cited weakness of the UN is its having no mandate to enforce its rulings, leaving nations able to ignore such rulings with impunity and without suffering consequences. Large powerful countries (e.g., the U.S., Russia, China) avoid recognition of the jurisdiction of yhe ICC as they have concluded that they would rather exert their power umtrammeled by any ICC rulings. Why would such nations be willing to give up their other currently-held privileges?).
Rather than risking possible major conflict, the UN General Assembly may simply opt for the status quo leaving the UN to limp along for some time longer.
Ukraine should have declared neutrality and held back from rash russophobic, derussification legislation. Revolutions (2014) generally lead to civil war. If Putin had wanted Ukraine he'd have taken it in 2014/15. Angela Merkel said that, 2022.
I would say if Russia decides to scortch the land they took from Ukraine and leave, it would be OK from the perspective of Ukraine, as long as Russia leaves.
UN has long been discredited.
How come no mention is made to Russia's demand for NATO to NOT continue to expand? There will be no end to this conflict unless the United States address that issue.
(Honestly, I expected a much more structural approach from a Foreign Affairs panel.)
So much cognitive dissidence and propaganda here It's unlistenable.
🗽🇺🇸We stand with Ukraine🧑🤝🧑👭👫👬🗣️Stand proud, brave and have faith🇺🇦🇺🇸🌻💙💛🫂with much Love🙏
Fiona Hill will be remembered as one of the most important and influential statespeople of our time.
Russia loses half a million soldiers or crumbles politically from within. Unless one of those two things happens, they're staying there for a while.
You must be a framing carpenter, roofer, or Peter Zeihan follower because you smoked that nail home.
My bit of trim work. If the first condition happens or gets close without the 2nd condition unfolding, we will most likely see a nuclear incident, which is the way I see things playing out. Putins got too tight a grip on the regime with public support, and I don't see him backing down no matter what. He knows the West will keep squeezing like a boa until Russia completely falls if he quits. They're already set for a great contraction and collapse from within. Not many options for Vlad. Never a good idea to corner a desperate animal unless you are prepared to kill it. It is WWIII, after all.
So we are already halfway there - pretty uplifting isn't it. Just give them more to reach these levels faster!
Ukraine has lost over 350000 of their military. The kidnapped conscripts are given two weeks training before they are sent tot he front line to die or surrender. They will not last much longer. The 'grand' two month old offensive has been a disaster. 26000 Ukrainians lost in the last two weeks alone.
What's left of Ukraine will kill Zelenskyy adn family and his crew.
Russia was said to be, by Churchill [with variations], "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma in a black box." I disagree, as that implies that there is no information or understanding. I have said that when you look behind the Maskirovka Curtain, you see a performance of Ruski Kabuki. I have also used the expression, "Putin is the Potemkin president of a Potemkin regime with a Potemkin military. I had the advantage in university of excellent professors, the most influential being the daughter of a Beneş government minister for Modern European History. I have also benefited from having interactions with Estonian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and other Europeans. The non-Russians tend to put the Russians in the same category as the Huns, Mongols and [sometimes] Ottoman Turks.
I completely understand and support Ukraine for two reasons. In 1774 the Crown issue the "Coercive Acts," abolishing the colonial parliament and, worse, local government by town meeting. The parliament refused to be abolished and met outside Occupied Boston as a revolutionary regime that usurped all Crown authority and continued receiving elected delegates from the towns. The town meetings refused dissolution and began arming and training expanded militias. When the Redcoats massacred the Concord town militia, the other town militias forced the retreat of the Redcoats under heavy fire, then put occupied Boston under siege. It took three waves of attack by the Crown forces to take the Bunker Hill fortification, a victory one of the British Generals called Pyrrhic. My ancestors were there, and the forced evacuation of Boston by cannon brought by Washington and the Continentals is still remembered in the Evacuation Holiday here.
In University, one of my housemates was a Ukrainian refugee, and some colleagues at work were middle aged Ukrainian refugees. They told me of the long standing atrocities of Russia against Ukrainians. They said, in fact, "Give us tanks and we will drive the Russians out." This was in 1980, and they now have the tanks and the outraged will to drive the barbarian invaders out of their country. The Russians, in an extreme example of own-goal shooting, have turned what could have been a friendly kindred people into righteously vengeful enemies with a blood feud against them! Free and threatened people will fight fiercely for their lives, families and homeland. Slava Ukraine!
It ends when one side collapses.
The thought of negotiations brings to mind Churchills opinion on that matter: "You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth".
Russian troops must be pushed out .The west and Ukraine can beat Russia, any other opsion is more costly.
You should join the Ukrainian army and show them how it's done. I'm sure the Russians will flee in terror when they find out you're on the scene.
How ?
I'm optimistic that Ukraine will achieve a decisive breakthrough in the spring offensive of 2027.
As pro-Ukraine as I am, this is unfortunately a big possibility. It's mines all the way down. And Putler seems to content to let the whole fucking world burn.
Well, yes, it might take that long. Not a good time table for people with a 5 minute attention span, I'm afraid. But if it does end by 2027, it'll be on par (or quicker) than most other major conflicts during the last 120 years.
You can't be serious. The na5i5 will be history long before then.
Absent a dramatic endgame-level breakthrough in the next weeks/ months, isn’t a slow but steady recapture of Ukrainian land a winning strategy? Since a second Russian mobilization seems to be off the table, isn’t a slow but sure “death by a thousand” cuts a winning strategy?
Audrey was great!
Listening to this distinguished panel, I do unfortunately get the US centric view, as if the US were the only meaningful contributors the the war effort. While it is true that the US often receives more media attention when it comes to supporting the Ukrainian war effort, it is important to acknowledge that Europeans also play a significant role in contributing to the conflict. European countries, both individually and collectively, have been actively involved in various aspects of support for Ukraine.
One notable example is economic assistance. The European Union (EU) has provided substantial financial aid to Ukraine since the start of the conflict in 2014. This aid includes loans, grants, and financial reforms, all aimed at helping Ukraine strengthen its economy and stability.
Additionally, many European countries have been providing military support to Ukraine. This support ranges from training and advising Ukrainian armed forces to sending military equipment and supplies. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Poland have all been involved in military cooperation and assistance.
Furthermore, European countries have been proactive in imposing economic sanctions on Russia in response to its involvement in the conflict. Sanctions have targeted key sectors of the Russian economy, aiming to put pressure on Russia and encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
It is essential to recognize that the involvement of different countries can vary in terms of magnitude and priorities. The perception that the US is the primary contributor may be due to various factors, including media coverage and geopolitical dynamics. However, European countries do indeed contribute in a meaningful way to the war effort in Ukraine, both politically and economically.
America made a deal with Europe to be our allies against communism in exchange for defense and free open maritime trade after WWII. Very few Americans are actually aware of this and how the "world order" deal works or did work since it's ending now. I don't blame Europe for coasting on defense or making deals with Russia for energy or not wanting these deals to unwind. Unfortunately, war and international conglomerates don't care about anything but making money and therefore pushed and played Europe and Ukraine against Russia. I'm assuming you are European. Whatever the case, I wish Europe the best because they will bear the brunt of this cruel, senseless, and unnecessary game of greed that is most likely going to get much worse before getting better. Best wishes
But Europe is under occupation by the USA evidenced by the number of US troops on European soil............ so what would you expect them to say especially when all public statements have to be cleared by Washington first
Europe had its chance. Then again, it also had Scholz and Macron.
And Europe’s losing here (big time) … so is Ukraine, so is Russia 🤔… so who’s winning ? Lockheed a Martin & the USA’s military industrial complex … how can we stop that 🤷🏽♂️
There's no path to NATO for The Ukraine.
It's a long path, but there's clearly a path. The path will require either 1) Putin or his successor to agree to a ceasefire and leave voluntarily, or 2) be fought back to the borders guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum, at which point a frozen conflict like the Korean War would ensue. Either way, Ukraine would be very welcome as a NATO member, as it'd be both Europe's most experienced military, and a great place to base NATO forces.
I NEED THIS ON MY PODCAST APP!!! THANK YOU>
Why is Stephen Walt never part of any discussion on this channell? This panel is too one sided and equal minded, and could use a few challenging positions and questions. To blame everything on Putin and to hope when he's gone everything is blue sky again is a little bit too simplistic. This is not up to this prestigious magazine's standards.
Why is blaming everything on utin simplistic? It happens to be true.
Some issues simply don't have two sides. Rarely has a nation been as innocent as Ukraine, and it must be fully compensated with reparations and all land assured it by the Budapest Memorandum back in its hands. There's simply not two sides to this issue.
Charap's message is as incoherent as his article in Foreign Affairs on how the US should push Ukraine to begin diplomacy.
He uses examples from the last seventy years that do not really apply here. The applicable conflicts he should be comparing are WW I and WW II. In both of these, a belligerent aggressor took territory and the war did not end until they were broken. I can easily imagine Charap advising western leaders in 1942 to start meeting with Hitler to determine how much territory he would get to keep.
Just read a much better opinion piece, also in Foreign Affairs, that Biden should tell the Russians to start the work to get rid of Putin so that they can get out of the war and become part of the wider world and not turn into a larger North Korea.
I watched this video because Fiona Hill was listed on the thumbnail. She is brilliant as always. The Ukrainian gentlemen also brought a welcome perspective.
Wow, what a high-powered panel! Thank you.
Thank you for an incredible discussion.
But I have to comment on one thing I found absurd. Charap's "both sides will continue to be a threat to each other." ??? Russia has demonstrated it is a massive threat to Ukraine. Ukraine is NOT a threat to anyone. They are defending themselves. Based on Russia's past behavior, to imagine the idea that Russia can be trusted with any agreement is ludicrous.
Zagorodnyuk and the Ukrainians know this.
> to imagine the idea that Russia can be trusted with any agreement is ludicrous.
One case I think Russia COULD be trusted is if they're forced to pay full reparations to Ukraine in order to get trade sanctions lifted. (In fact it might be taken out of Russia's hands, with the sanctions replaced by a import/export tax regime that ends once it repays Ukraine). I believe the reparations would now be comperable to one year of Russia's entire GDP. A Russia that sees that its aggression has such a cost would probably be a Russia that doesn't do it again soon.
Wow you are way off on this comment... just wow. There's been a war in Ukraine since 2014. Look it up. Zelensky himself took credit for derailing Minsk Agreement. Try not to be defensive. The info is out that that contradicts your comments completely if you are open to it.
Incidentally, while I am not an expert, I returned from Kramatorsk on July 18 after having been there for eight days. Currently in Kyiv. I concluded the counter offense was not going well and the next day it was reported that it was on pause. Before I learned that the counter offense was on pause, and on the day before it was announced by the media, I concluded this war will last for years to come. It had been nothing less than negligence by the USA to only decide to provide cluster bombs weeks after the counter offense had already started as well as its failure to provide mine clearing equipment. How could the military, the news military commentators, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and President Biden so badly screw this up. I have seen the morale of the Ukrainian soldiers less than 20 miles from Bakhmut during brigade rotations on July 10 and their morale in other areas where soldiers are close to the front. It is good morale despite what I can only guess are large causalities, and as such, after having tried to find out, but was unsuccessful at doing so. There is great activity and vehicle movement to and from the front and supporting positions. While I get nothing but "thank you for your support" from soldiers as I talk to them, as solely a private citizen, and attorney, for what value that may add, if any, they don't complain to me about needing more medical aid, ammunition, heavy and long-range missiles, and air defenses. It is clear they need it. The Ukrainians are struggling to remove the Russian weapon systems behind the lines. I raised the question why can't the Ukrainians completely take out the Kerch Bridge. This last time, a few days ago, the railroad appeared to be operational. One lane of the bridge was operational. The bridge can be quickly repaired. The first time it was alleged that a truck had exploded. This last time a surfboard drone. The long range missiles either are not being used by design, perhaps to allow Ukrainian deniability, which seems unlikely, or their missiles cannot reach it. (Albeit, Russia can with more difficulty use its long boarder to move supplies in even without the bridge.) Obviously, the West is not giving Ukraine what it needs. What other targets can't the Ukrainians not hit for the purpose of taking out their defense systems? In the meantime, Russians launch missiles from the Black Sea and hit Odesa. How unfair is this. The catastrophe
The term "counter-offensive" itself is unhelpful. Even if large Russia was slowly pushing Ukraine back, it'd ALREADY be a shock that they're not crushing Ukraine. The fact Ukraine is holding the line or even advancing a meter here, ten meters there, is almost beyond incredible. We HAVE to stop portraying this incredible result as being somehow a disappointment or even tantamount to a defeat.
Simple answer. All those pretty fancy shiny military equipment the American military industrial complex takes trillions of US tax dollars for do not meet the advertized glamour. The S500 and integrated air defense sytem can take out any jet. Russia quickly figured out how to take out drones. The tanks America builds are far too heavy for the deep soft organic soil and marshes of Eastern europe, they sink then are stationary target to missiles. Russia manufactures all of its weapons and has all material requried. The West has to import and build things all over the place. Then there is BRICS and BRICS+. Tehre is no one in those groups who want to help the bully who forced their policies on them
We Irish, in our wisdom, peaced-out and lost six counties out of 32. We have had schizo violence pushed down to the lowest level of society, drug gangs with bombs, and a polity that floats ethereal above facts. A mass atrocity has not been excluded from the possible endgame.
Good luck Ukraine with your wish of people dying being stopped...
Excellent!!! Thank You FA!!!
So the 8 year long civil war never happened? Is that what Fiona thinks?
It was not a civil war, it was a Russian invasion. Why lying about that?
Many thanks for this presentation. Fiona Hill impressive as ever.
I did not know the two men in the presentation before but after listening to their first two segments I was struck by the dichotomy between Andriy and Samuel. One was a man arguably on a battlefield in his car making short, clear indisputable points and the other, a boy in his bedroom reading off a vacuous list from the children’s colouring book “Appeasement by numbers”. Samuel appears completely tone deaf to the last year or the last 100 years. He is divorced from reality, human nature and the behaviour of the Russians. Armistice is a frozen conflict in the modern world which is exactly what the Russians want so they can regroup. Nobody is going to accept that. After watching the presentation I researched Samuel. He has been consistently wrong about the conflict and constantly soft and appeasing for Russia. I question his motivation and funding.
This war ends when one side runs out of money, men and materials and is crushed by the other side. Given that the West can supply Ukraine with money and materials in perpetuity, with or without the USA, the outcome is already written. Russia lost last Spring. Russian capitulation is required to facilitate, reparations, war crimes tribunals and atonement. Just a matter of time.
A lot of delusional people here .
Russia already lost? I don't know why Biden said this. Why would anyone repeat it? Putin still a major player: Huge occupied territory held, Russian defenses strong, Russian unlimited artillery, USA limited, blocked grain to world, time on the side of Putin, Russian subjects' existences not included in Putin's calculation. The West, particularly the USA, not in it to win it. Media: Excellent dialogue. Sam's role in dialogue not easy one. Andriy and Fiona very good. Of course, none really spoke about the continued and extreme weaknesses of USA and NATO in their support of Ukraine. The West has no Churchill leader, while Ukraine does.
Message to Charap and any other part time analyst: the best US diplomacy in this conflict is more HIMAS, JDAMS, ATACMS, F16's and mine removers for Ukraine. Another year of intense targeted strikes against Russian forces will degrade them to the point where there will be a civil war in Russia, the fracturing of the state of Russia and, ultimately, resulting in peace for Ukraine. The US, given its fickle election cycles and poor history of negotiated conflict resolution (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.), should not be holding the diplomatic whip hand in this conflict. Any 'agreement' that forces Ukraine to compromise with Dictator Putin will end up like the grain deal.
Fantastic discussion of immense and immediate relevance
It'll be interesting to see how this ages
Russia already lost? I don't know why Biden said this. Why would anyone repeat it? Putin still a major player: Huge occupied territory held, Russian defenses strong, Russian unlimited artillery, USA limited artillery rounds, blocked grain to world, time on the side of Putin, Russian subjects' existences not included in Putin's calculation. The West, particularly the USA, not in it to win it. Media: Excellent dialogue. Sam's role in dialogue not easy one. Andriy and Fiona very good. Of course, none really spoke about the continued and extreme weaknesses of USA and NATO in their support of Ukraine. The West has no Churchill or FDR leader. Ukraine has Zelenskyy. Censor?
I’m curious what made US has changed her mind recently and suddenly on Ukrainian’s NATO membership. We all know Ukraine can’t recover all her territories without NATO
Charap makes a pretty big assumption that there will be no Ukrainian breakthrough. He has a shortsighted peace at any price viewpoint
.
Charap could find himself or at least his reputation in the company of Mearsheimer and Chomsky, the former almost certainly falling directly or indirectly on the Kremlin's payroll and the latter's IR credentials being nonexistent and getting by on his laurels as a frequent keynote speaker at commie pow-wows.
Kyiv's theory of victory probably doesn't lay in a sort of barnstorming final offensive a la Kharkiv, but more so in line with retaking Kherson: a gritty campaign of attrition. In the unlikely event that Russia does evacuate all the land it's taken since 2022, never mind 2014, Putin certainly cannot let the conflict die lest Ukraine is quickly incorporated into NATO and Russian pride is irreparably damaged forever.
For Kyiv more so than Moscow, battlefield conditions will likely be the means to an end, not the end itself. The three hallmark events of the war so far, being Russia's retreat from Kyiv, Ukraine rapidly retaking Kharkiv, and Wagner's not-coup, all happened very quickly and without much warning. As their summer counteroffensive slowly develops, Kyiv may now be looking to make life in "New Russia" so unbearable for Russian soldiers that they mutiny rather than overrun Russian lines as happened last fall. A Russian Carnation Revolution if you were, though Estadio Novo Portugal and Putin's Russia are more different than they are alike.
Moscow's theory probably depends heavily on what happens in Washington in Fall 2024. The one arena where Russia has made gains is in the information warfare space. In the leftist English speaking internet, "Kiev N@zi regime" and "NATO empire" rhetoric abounds but what's really salient, especially in the US, is the "nO MorE oF My TaX doLlARs tO UkRaiNe!1" crowd. Russia may be crossing their fingers that Trump does the unthinkable by winning again and throwing his predecessor's foreign policy in the bin. US aid to Ukraine stopping would be a critical blow to Ukraine's chances of victory, though not fatal.
Finally, Sam's Zoom filter is craaazzyy X-D
"...the former almost certainly falling directly or indirectly on the Kremlin's payroll..."
What is this evidence-free bilge? It seems that a person can just fling about any kind of bullshit slur these days with impunity. How about you actually, you know, provide a counterargument to Mearsheimer's position?
What evidence do you have that Mearsheimer ever received money from Russia?
The US taxpayers need to be reminded that their tax dollars are footing the bill for the world's 3rd largest nuclear arsenal that they had Ukraine give up and hand over to Russia. In fact, what has been paid so far in terms of that bill is peanuts
You're SO brainwashed.
LMAO 🤣 Noam Chomsky as a keynote speaker at commie pow wows.
Great comment 👍
One thing nobody seems to discuss in any of the videos about this war is what will happen to the 30% Russian speaking people in Ukraine after the war. Can we expect a major ethnic cleansing of the Russians like what happened in the different Yugoslav/Kosovo wars? The West actually supported the ethnic cleansing there so can we expect the same in Ukraine? For years the current Ukrainian government did more and more to restrict the different ethnic minorities, not only Russian but Polish, Hungarian and Romanian speakers too.
It's a good question. There are many Russian speakers in today's Ukrainian-controlled territory, though, and Ukraine is showing no signs of cleansing them. In the 2012 era, A COUPLE of members of the Rada in Kieva said there should be a law that Russian media should require equal-sized translations in Ukrainian side by side, but they didn't get as far as even officially proposing it, I believe. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine as long as they're not willful collaborators. I doubt more than a few hundred once-Ukrainian Russians would have to leave.
Also note, those Russians are only there due to Stalin purposefully starving the Ukrainians and moving Russians into the region. No Russian families there go back more than 110 years.
Charap is naive. Agreements are just words on paper. Of course Putin will violate ANY agreement.
If Russia isn't crushed this time around, not only will the cancer come back, but it will just encourage China to have a go at Taiwan.
Why does Russia collapse and pull out of Ukraine?
1. Military
2. Political
3. Economic
Ukraine is trying to attack extensive defences with the largest minefields in history with no air cover. Can’t be done and they are being slaughtered. This panel is delusional.
I enjoyed the discussion. But it was West leaning. Russia negotiated the Minsk agreement with the West and Ukraine never intending to honor it. Russia warned he would invade if the West continued with NATO and Ukraine. Now Ukraine will cease to exist. Great job.
The Minsk agreement duplicity caused the Russian special military operation. The Minsk agreement terms looks like a win for Ukraine today.
Probing insights into a difficult subject!
Brilliant stuff. I noticed that i didn't read the articles, but didn't jnow there's a UA-cam channel too.
I also agree with Andriy Zagorodnyuk's approach. Poutine can't rule Russia forever. The current constitution allows him to govern for another 12 years after 2024 so he must retire at the young age of 83, if he doesn't die beforehand.
Since Russia is an autocracy no one has a sense of who would be Poutine's successor or when or under what circumstances a succession and could happen. All of this is muchore predictable for democracies.
Regardless of how events evolve, Poutine's successor could repudiate his policies and let Russia recover from its self-inflicted wounds.
First and foremost, the counteroffensive gambit has failed. While there is still considerable combat strength left in the Ukrainian military, including more than 60% of the NATO-trained and -equipped 60,000-strong cohort Ukraine had assembled in the past eight months, fundamentally flawed assumptions about the quality of the force on which Ukraine and its NATO allies had placed their collective hopes for victory over Russia have been exposed. In short, Ukraine lacks the military capacity to overcome Russian defenses.
37:20 minimum outcome for Ukraine by Andriy Zagorodnyuk: free our territories so people are not suffering any longer;
includes 10's of thousands of children illegally removed from Ukraine. Also question of legal convictions and justice
38:40 Russian definition of victory by Fiona Hill; Putin wants to retain occupied territories and not lose anything.
40:40 NATO definition of victory by Samuel Charap; Russia has already lost. but NATO official policy of not getting into details about goals. Putin is vague about victory and boundaries, classic Putin is keep options open.
I' have always been a fan of Fiona Hill and it was great to hear Andriy Zagorodnyuk's input. We could have done without the other 2
Why are we listening to individuals like Samuel Charap, members of the Valdai Club, a Russian think tank? What would history make of those who would invite friends of Goebbels during WWII into a friendly debate? This is **exactly** the same thing. Outrageous!
Great to see some intellectual debate instead debating ones pronoun.
Russia will not do so unless at their own terms. You don’t seem to know you cannot negotiate with a madman gangster.
Are you talking about Biden or Putin?
prolonging this war is paramount to world arms industries. the world weapons manufacturers are making a killing out of this war esp. the artillery industry.
The arms industry makes a killing from submarines, aircraft carries, next gen aircraft and other such high profile projects. Artillery shells, small arms, HIMARS, etc are small potatoes by comparison and definetely not paramount. Biden had to convince the industry to restart these long stalled production lines only by guaranteeing long contracts. God bless Joe Biden for that!
What's your solution? Appeasement at any cost? Needs must.
Ammm! So why are they not ramping up their production?
Last time I checked , there is still a serious shortage of ammunition all around.
And i hear the medical establishment is making a killing out of curing people. That's why we will keep falling ill.
Solid logic you got there. Auto mechanics are conpiring to make cars more prone to breaking. I'm sure you could think of a few more "great' analogies.
Chomsky much?
@@sshender3773 In fact, car mechanics are getting less work with car manufacturers conspiring to make cars un-repairable
I agree with Samuel Charap that an armistice is a possible medium-term solution but only if Poutine remains in power and he comes to the conclusion that continuing his war in Ukraine poses a bigger threat to remaining in power than saying for peace.
I don't believe Ukraine poses any direct military threat to Russia.
Putin can never retire. He’s likely to go nuclear to REALLY make a name for himself.
Russia did not have huge victories in WWI and they had very costly victories in the East during WWII because the U.S. and UK was winning victories in the West and the US was supplying USSR in the East.
80% of German causalities were inflicted by USSR
🇺🇦
Thanks for this insightful conversation.
What I learned in this conflict though is that the West is rather willing to sacrifice the best Ukrainian and (!) Russian people (those who oppose the regime) to prevent Putin's regime from collaps and to prevent China to become more powerful. As long as we don't consider thousands of starving people Korean solution seems to be a good one.
First, Ukraine will never accept any "Korean scenarios". Second, if Ukraine sees that Western security guarantors refuse to fulfill their obligations and press on Ukraine to start negotiations, Ukraine will fall under Chinese influence = China will become more powerful. China has already changed their narrative. Now they declare that territorial integrity of Ukraine is top priority.
53:40 Citation needed: he doesn't take Ukraine or the war seriously.
15:43
~15+ months?
We're coming up to 1 and a half year on August 24th(!) ... plus the Russian troops amassed on the borders to Ukraine in both Russia and Belarus also was well-known for several months.
So eighter this discussion had been reordered a while ago, but got uploaded now ~7 days ago according to UA-cam (as of today being the 26th of July) - or they started to think about this topic of "how will the war end" relatively late imo - this whole humanitarian nightmare in Ukraine already shouldn't even have started, we had to impressively deter on our part; meaning an effective deterrence demonstrated by the entire West/NATO/US/UK/& all of Ukraine's other true allies.
Learning curve: zero.
Excellent insights, specially from the real ground in Ukraine as well as Berlin. The other guy is too far from reality. How could you sit at a negotion table with gang criminals... even your cup of tea could be life threatening! Thank you for organizing such an outstanding conversation. 🎉❤
This panel is way too biased to be taken seriously. First, the introductory remark that Ukraine had been promised NATO membership someday when it’s qualified is an absurd promise; it’s like telling a oarodkeguc that he ciujd sun the marathon if he practiced enough to qualify as a world-class runner. Second, any Russian autocratic leader would not want Ukraine to join NATO or the EU, or to become a progressive democracy. It’s not about Putin but about an autocratic superpower protecting its nation. Third, China cannot allow Russia to lose while the West cannot allow Ukraine to lose. Fourth, Russia is unlikely to give up the 20-25% of Ukraine it controls, as it controls the Black Sea as well. Fifth, Russia has won the war and achieved its objective which essentially paralyzed Ukraine as it continues to pulverize and depopulate Ukraine. Any unbiased observer must see the reality.
“To deprive them ability to defend latter?!”… It’s July 23! ‘Later’ is when?
Samuel Charap talks out of his butt. Any outcome other than a Russian defeat is a loss, not for Ukraine, but for the informal alliance of democratic countries that help Ukraine.
What he doesn't seem to understand is what's at stake for the democratic countries of the world. The conflict in Ukraine isn't about Ukraine. It's about the current world order. Since WW2, the democratic states of the world, led by the US, to some extent even coerced by the US (and I'm talking about the UK and France here, not about Germany or Italy or Japan), have been building a world order based on international regulations and institutions, in which, eventually, the use of military force in international relations should be no longer be either acceptable or feasible.
What's at stake in Ukraine is precisely this rules- based world order. If Putin gets to keep even a tiny piece of Ukrainian land, without being forced to pay war reparations, every single country on the globe, including democratic states with weaker ties to the powerful Western democracies, will get a strong message that this world order is shaky, and under certain circumstances it makes sense to challenge it. The immediate effect will be an increased frequency of at least small scale military standoffs. That, in turn, will seriously damage international economic relations and commerce - the foundation of Western strength and welfare.
Therefore, there's no way around it. If the war ends in a stalemate where Russia keeps even a tiny gain, that will be a huge defeat for the community of democratic countries. China will definitely get the message, as will many African and South American countries. The influence and importance of Western style democracies throughout will be seriously diminished. I can't believe a professional analyst is too stupid to see this.
OTOH, if Putin vanishes, I don't see the war in Ukraine continuing on Russia's terms. Putin vanishing will generate a fight for power in Russia, among multiple factions. Whoever will win, will need, at least for a short while - measured in several years, even if the most acute period will be the first few months - to stabilize his power. This will mean there will be far fewer resources made available for the war. With many people in Russia against the war, although not openly, ending the war in Ukraine will even score some points among Russians. This should make it easy for Ukraine to retake all of its territory.
Nevertheless, in light of what I explained above, Ukraine retaking all of its territory isn't enough. Russia not paying war reparations and not formally signing a peace treaty would still send out a strong message that a nation could get away with causing hundreds of billions of damage to a neighbor without consequences. That's definitely not a strong security guarantee for any peaceful nation in the world.
Therefore, the only ending that's at least acceptable for democratic states in the world, is a clear defeat of Russia. Not necessarily one that's disastrous for Russia, but one which sends a clear and strong message throughout the world that you can't, at the state level, even if you're a huge country with a lot of resources, use brute force to support your political goals, disregarding international law and order, without suffering the consequences. And one that's accompanied by safety measures that should definitely make things worse for Russia in case it does not fulfill its obligations in the under the peace agreement.
Now, obviously, unless Ukraine's going on the offensive and takes Moscow, there's got to be some negotiations, in order to reach a peace agreement. However, Russia has repeatedly proven, especially during the last few years, that it only understands one language: brute force. Therefore, there's no way Russia will negotiate in a credible way before it is pushed into a very tight corner. Which is why it is premature to talk about negotiations of any kind now.
Despite the obvious stupidity (IMO) of Samuel Charap, he got to speak most of the time, in the clip. Which makes me believe it wasn't really meant to be a level-headed discussion about the conflict, but more of some subtle ad for pushing Ukraine into negotiations - at a point of time when negotiations are clearly in nobody else's interest but Russia's - anybody pushing for negotiations, right now, would be perceived as weakness by Russia, and just encourage Russia to fight the war further.
A peace deal is the only way
Charap always pleading the Kremlin case for Ukrainian capitulation. Disappointing. Pleading capitulation since before February 24, 2022.
A realistic appreciation of the situation is not a capitulation. If Ukraine had abided by the Minsk II accords this would never have happened at all. Poroshenko (and Merkel and Hollande) all admitted there was never the intention to live up to Ukraine's obligations.