VLAD REACTS: Anders Puck Nielsen on RUS-NATO WAR
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- @anderspuck video -
• NATO-Russia war: Can i...
Vlad's brief Twitter thread where I concentrate what say in this video
x.com/VladVexl...
Vlad's main channel
/ vladvexler
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
/ vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com...
Anders Puck Nielsen video -
ua-cam.com/video/ZY7GPBSyONU/v-deo.html
Vlad's brief Twitter thread where I concentrate what say in this video
x.com/VladVexler/status/1751627559203164564?s=20
Vlad's main channel
ua-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
I agree with Vlad's addendum to Ander's insight.
Being Swedish, I do feel an attack on Finland would almost inevitably drag Sweden into the war, and probably Norway and Denmark too. The Nordic countries are rather integrated. We've enjoyed passport-free travel with open borders since 1954. We all share an ingrained animosity towards Russia and the people here are staunt supporters of Ukraine. Nor, Den, Swe, Fin recently agreed upon the Nordic Air Commander's Intent, aiming towards a 'Unified Nordic Airforce'. Nibbling at Finland could turn out hard to chew, NATO or not. Just imagine the VKS going up against some 250 F35's, JAS-39E's and various AWACS and stuff.
I think a prodding attack could be on the table, but Finland, now as well as then, makes an unnecessarily painful target.
(Edited for bad english)
Agree, i find that any attack on any nordic country would automatically engage the others. There would be no understanding whatsoever among the populace that another Nordic country could be thrown under the bus. And once all the nordics are engaged, i really struggle to see how the rest of NATO/EU wouldn't be dragged in as well.
Just so noone thinks I missed the point of Russia not explicitly starting an all out war from square one, instead using assymetric methods (like damaging under-sea cables from fishing boats, not that this would ever happen, derp, derp), irregular warfare, sort-of attacking, prodding, demanding decisions, giving ultimatums and generally dicking around. All of that doesn't change my point.
Whenever Finland itself claims to be under attack, Sweden's going with that. This must look shaky from outside. Let's remember that Finland was a part of the same Swedish country for over 600 years, being referred to as The Eastern Half (Östra Rikshalvan).
This was my problem with his scenario as well. It should also be added, that aside from all senses of brotherhood and solidarity, a Russian incursion into Finnish Lappland directly threatens northern Sweden and northern Norway. So even if one follows the realpolitik school of though, Sweden and Norway are likely to fight. And it would of course be spun as Nordic solidarity. This would in turn most likely increase popular demand within Denmark to join the war. And then it spirals. Scandinavia is rather dear to many Germans.
I think that too, Scandinavia would respond together against a Russian aggression. Along with baltic states..
I am from Donbass. And in 2021 people in Kyiv basically had no clue about what is going on in Donbass. It was too far away. It did not influence them directly. You are wrong.
I think your third footnote is the most important one. It explains while the Baltics remain the most likely next battle ground: failure of NATO to defend Estonia, Latvia and/or Lithuania would not only prove Article 5 dead, but also provide evidence that "the collective West" adheres, like Russia and China, to the "spheres of influence" world view which implies that might is right in international relations.
Do you believe that the West does not believe in the spheres of influence? Of course they do. They only want others to believe that spheres of influence do not matter anymore because they want to increase theirs. The very existence of NATO is the bold evidence that the West adheres to the spheres of influence even more than Russia and China. I remember there were times when the West tried to convince 3rd world countries that protectionism is bad and economy should be open and liberal. They've been doing so only to wipe the local producers and to take a grasp of the local markets. However, once their own economies were in danger, they imposed strong protective measures against China and many other countries. China is the largest world car producer, but you won't find any Chinese cars in Europe. Luckily major world powers which are not part of the west understand this tricks perfectly well.
I believe Russia can suceed making Trump afraid enough to void Article 5. Putin can just blackmail and say that he will nuke New England killing millions if USA intervenes to protect mere 6 million Balts. Trump seems to believe that Russia is a superpower somehow (they are just a major power with nukes to blackmail with) and that their claims of "spheres of influence" are legit. The delusions of geronts like Trump and Putin could be so strong that actual signed treaties are not worth anything when push comes to shove.
In reality the best way of ensuring peace is to credibly theaten to remove Moscow from the map if Putin touches the Baltic states. Call the bluff and double dare Putin so to speak.
It is an important point, but I don’t think it necessarily rules out the possibility that a first aggression to challenge Article 5 could happen some other place that would be more manageable. But of course from a military point of view it is very important for NATO that the deterrence in the Baltic states is solid.
Russians confuse EU opinion on the Baltics. They are 100 percent the same as Germany or Spain.
Closer ties with Russia are possible if they grow up stop being corrupt and make their economy stronger. Russians have to earn respect they can't demand it. They will learn that one way or the other. That's up to Russians.
The Baltic states is actually the final stage when former NATO members from East Europe ,after NATO vanishes will give up and fall back under Russian influence. As Nielsen said ,Russia wants NATO and even EU to break so they will deal individual with each European country and control them by resources and energy deals. This happened already in the past when Germany and others had preferential deals with Russia and already these days countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and others are reluctant to follow EU and NATO actions.
Ukraine is _NOT_ Russia's. (Nor America's; nor "the West's".)
The Baltic nations are _NOT_ Russia's. (Nor America's; nor "the West's".)
Ukraine is its own country, and so are the Baltic nations, and *_the reason_* they've all been drawn toward NATO is exactly _because_ Russia is seemingly incapable of getting these facts through its thick skull. (They're all drawn toward NATO as a means of self-preservation against an aggressive jerk of a neighbor.)
And, I think maybe Putin does not understand some of the things talked about in the book "Antifragile" because NATO and the West have not been so defensively invigorated and strengthened for decades as they now are---specifically due to Russia's atrocious behavior.
Exactly what I was thinking, Ukraine is independent of both sides...sadly due to it's geography it finds itself right in the middle between Russia and Europe.
Lol but you depend on us to defend yourself and feed yourself. Please.... you are not sovereign
@hmmm2564 you mean Ukraine depends on the USA/Europe for defense? And aid? Before the war Ukraine was mostly farmland but I think most nations (minus the wealthy nations)under attack would have trouble keeping supply chains running smoothly for food. Russia also is running out of eggs I saw.
hmmm2564, you're terrible at trolling. You're saying that ridiculous statement to an American.
@@jamesedwards6173 lol 🤣. I'm ridiculous. what's ridiculous is that USA setup Ukraine to fight on, but now is backtracking their messages and funding. Lol keep your fake concerns to yourself
Just watched our friend Anders video this morning. I am glad to see this addition from you Vlad. Always appreciated!
Glad I'm subbed to both you & APN. You're both fantastic & knowledgeable.
Agreed - me too!👍
The general message that Russia will challenge article 5 is very valid and very important, but I really disagree with Nielsen's idea that northern Finland would be a possible target for this. The Estonian city of Narva seems much more likely owing to it's position directly on the border and 95% Russian population. Capturing the city with a Crimea-style swoop in would seem the most controlled way to challenge article 5, while giving isolationists in the west strong arguments to decline intervention.
The Baltics are too densely populated, Putin will never nuke the Baltics with nuclear weapons because it is too close to Russia(Kaliningrad), Belarus, etc.
All Putin wants is for Nato to break apart which can only happen if article 5 doesnt take place, in that case everyone and their grandmother will distrust Nato.
But In the event that NATO actually implements Article 5 and Putin has to withdraw from a potential war and has to enforce a ceasefire because his plan didnt work out in the end, he may nuke Finland since it is more lenient in that regard, it is huge and has only a population of 5 million... cause let us be honest here for a moment, if article 5 is implemented and Nato goes to war with Russia, only a nuke is able to stop the war that comes to Russia.
There would be a rapid intervention. If no one else immediately responded, I can't imagine Poland sitting on their hands in that scenario. If the Putin regime waited too long before trying that, Poland may well be inclined to make use of their large stock of new hardware from the RoK.
Am I crazy? The marginal cost to defeat Russia in an article 5 conflict for a US tax payer is near zero? 10 B2 bombers (assuming a 50% readiness rate) could each drop 16 2,000 lb bombs where ever they would like. A single 100 kg Ukrainian drone made international news for shutting down Russian oil exports for a week. That fact that it is framed as anything close to a fair fight is crazy?
Pretty much, basically if the west escalated and took it to Russia tomorrow. It would take about 3 days of air superiority before their country collapsed.
It wouldn't be a fair fight if all of NATO responded, but the question what if they don't. If a couple of powerful NATO members, for reasons of avoiding escalation, or simply to limit costs, decide not to come to the aid of the attacked party, then article 5 dies. There is no enforcement mechanism to make sure that article 5 is honoured, and all of NATO is built on the trust that it would be.
Yes, but you have a sizeable portion of the US in thrall to the likes of JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson with their "forever wars", "regime change wars" and "not our business" rhetoric. I can assure you that a lot of people outside of the US are looking at the US and asking themselves if defence agreements with the US or promises from US administrations are worth anything.
You aren’t finishing your scenario:
If Poland and Finland are drawn into the fray, as an attack on Estonia would cause, who on Earth will give a damn about whether Article 5 survives? Remember, Russia gets trounced in weeks under that scenario.
So Russia is burnt toast without any Americans or British seeing battle. Go on, tell us how horrible that is. ANY negative consequences?
@@MrAwaweA country not fulfilling their obligations in a conflict would be a disaster for that country. Essentially they will cease to exist as a NATO member and will no longer be protected.
Russia wants to provoke article 5 but not actually fight NATO. Guess that's why we call it Russian roulette...
😂😂
Haha!
'Nuclear war just entered the chat'
Russian roulette with all our lives ...
@@charlesduckerson7078 Conventional told nuclear war to sit down and watch the beer, they'll be back in a short while.
@@paulohagan3309 russia is a mad bum running around small village. He can kill somebody in his rampage. But not everyone. How's your 15 rubbles per post doing?
All this makes me more convinced than ever that Putin will do everything in his power (or everything he BELIEVES to be in his power) to get Trump elected.
Getting Trump elected might be a bad move, Its Trumps last term he might want to make the history books as the president that defeated Russia.
You might be onto something there.
But "everything in his power" is very limited.
Last week Lavrov spoke interestingly about the looming US elections.
He was very dismissive about relations between America and Russia changing if Trump is elected.
I think we in the west give more importance to what Trump has said about ending the war than is actual fact.
For Russia to stop now there needs to be serious negotiations regarding their security. These negotiations would take years so most probably won't happen.
If Trump wins and actually has the power to cut funding to Ukraine then Ukraine will obviously lose very quickly.
But Russia's security concerns will not be taken seriously.
And so we will have more war.
@@markbryant4641 Russia's security issues vs Putin's security issues- making it all the more messy. And I don't see Trump as being able to "seriously" deal with ANYONE'S issues-including his own. Yeah-whatever kind of peace would be fleeting.
Russia's military is far too weak to carry out a successful operation against a NATO member in the next decades. NATO is now much more alert than before 2022 and is steadily strengthening its deterrent force. Meanwhile Russia is losing innovative potential due to diminished access to advanced technology. Yes, no doubt a landbridge to Kaliningrad for instance [via Belarus] is on the Kremlin's agenda but the required attack on NATO member Poland would be a recipe for disaster, assuming that article 5 is serious. I also assume that Russia can't afford to structurally leave their Asian/Pacific flank underdefended or worse [because of the top heavy commitment in Ukraine]. So I think Russia will concentrate on actions like provoking unrest in the Baltics with their large Russian speaking minorities, cyber attacks, informational/media initiatives in Europe and so on. The West has issues too, of course. One of them being the political uncertainty in the US this election year.
That is being willfully ignorant. Russia has much more military capabilities than people expected. They have ramped up the military industry which is out producing all of NATO in artillery and equipment. NATO hasn't even started to ramp up production since the war started. Russia is only using 25 percent of its military in Ukraine and they are holding off all of NATO.
@@huntergatherer7796
According to Ben Wallace in February 2023 Russia had over 90% of its forces committed in Ukraine. Seems incredibly high so I assume he meant the active or operational part of the army. And remember, NATO soldiers aren't even fighting in Ukraine. Yes, RU has shifted production capacity partly to manufacturing of military stuff and in artillery they are quantitative champions. But they have also lost huge amounts of equipment that have to be replaced somehow and in the most advanced weaponry Russia is not very productive. Zooming out a bit and finally, I don't think Russia's economic base can sustain the colossal costs of its military adventure in Ukraine for 2 or 3 more years.
@@jeroenschoot-l5h the Ben Wallace lol. I would taken anything he says with a ton of salt.
Thanks, Vlad. Very useful addition.
I wonder to what extent there is in the Kremlin an urge to punish Finland for the NATO accession. It seems like something they might like to do - maybe not with the aim of annexing Finland but just to make a statement.
Only thing what Russia can do against Finland is sending salem seekers to Finnish border. Russia cant do anything else to us, and they know it.
Maybe you should start thinking more possibilities what can actually happen and not totally imagined ones?
Even on its own Finland is too strong militarily for Russia, let alone added NATO's 5'th, that they are not going to consider attacking.
If you imagined that Ukraine had a strong will to defend her self, you can bet that the Finns will double it. When you add to this scenario a well trained and equipped 500 000 men reserve, a strong air force, Europe's largest artillery and the world's best crisis preparedness and difficult forest terrain Russia's difficulties in Ukraine begin to look small...
Not to mention, there is nothing in Finland Russia really needs.
Attacking Finland has a risk of historical embarrassment for Putin. Winter War II, but worse. Better try something new.
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110Except a BIG army. Don't know how Pootin will be able to steal that, though. 😅
The idea is to find something with the following criteria:
- part of NATO by territory
- low value
- can a faux nationalist reason be made ("They were hurting poor ethnic Russians" or "Russia needs this river bank as a natural border" or "This tiny, uninteresting island was historically always debated")
The idea is not to freak out every member of NATO, but to make sure there will be enough countries that say "Well, that little thing is not worth the potential nukes or lost soldiers... I have election this year!". And then the true resolve was tested.
@@begr_wiedererkennungswertthe SU defeated Finland in the winter war. The SU took large chunks of Finland including the largest shipping port in Finland in the peace Treaty. Finland survived as a country but has to remain neutral during the cold war. Their largest trading partner was the SU.
The situation that Anders Nielsen mentioned was Russia intentionally triggering a clear article 5 situation that was not serious enough in the eyes of most NATO members to actually cause NATO to step up and militarily intervene, and his hypothetical example was Lapland in Finland. The failure to respond to an article 5 violation and request for help would effectively render NATO toothless and give Russia increased leverage in Eastern Europe.
The problem for Putin is that the example used, Lapland, WOULD trigger a response from the Nordic nations at a minimum, and more than likely a response from the Baltic states and Poland. Even a Trump Presidency would be pushed to respond to a direct challenge to US interests in the region, especially a clearly naked aggression where Article 5 was requested by the aggrieved country, Finland in his example. Would Russia be willing to trade losing Kaliningrad for empty land in Finland or the Baltic states, because once article 5 is triggered, Kaliningrad would be invaded regardless of any and all threats about what would happen if "sovereign" Russian territory is invaded, something that has been threatened and ignored in the areas of Ukraine that were annexed. The four Ukrainian provinces annexed by Russia are all partially occupied by Ukraine, and Crimea, also annexed, is militarily attacked on a daily basis by Ukraine. Are not they just as much part of Russia as Kaliningrad in the eyes of the Russians? Where is the nuclear response for Ukraine occupying "Russian territory"?
One of the concepts that Anders threw out there was that Putin needs a military action in order to stay in power, and to be honest, there are easier targets out there with little to no risk of bringing in a NATO and/or US response. What about Kazakhstan or the other countries that were once part of the Soviet Union? Doesn't Putin need to step in and "stop the genocide of Russians" living in these countries? Are these not fictional nations that are historically part of Russia, as they have accused Ukraine of being?
These are logical (IMO) thoughts, and as we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin doesn't always make logical decisions, or he has faulty intelligence and makes a bad choice based on that faulty information, so this still could go sideways.
The point is that Putin wants NATO weakened, he wants the West to fall, not to conquer them militarily. Just as the West did not want to go to war with the USSR, but wanted it to fall.
Kazakstan and the central republics have aligned with China. Russia will as they are told by China. The dictator is running out of unaligned small nations to bully.
I think Narva in Estonia would make much more sense than Lapland. It's a relatively small town with a significant Russian-speaking population, largely sympathetic to Russia.
@@pawelstuglik4737 The problem with Narva in Estonia is that Estonia would invoke article 5 and this would result in some countries (perhaps most) responding, especially the Nordic countries and Poland. This would put pressure on the other countries and there would be overwhelming pressure in the USA for the US to step up and honor its commitment to NATO, and this would be a bipartisan commitment, not just Democrats.
My own scenario would be Svalbard, where there is a Russian settlement (essentially almost abandoned) and Russia could claim the remaining Russians were being persecuted, and they were occupying the part of the island where this settlement is located.
@@stephanledford9792 Russia would probably only attack Narva after some successful election manipulations in the West. Even if some of NATO countries responded, this could be enough to fracture the alliance.
Vlad ...please, please, please... keep up the good work.
You are, somehow, one of the few people on this planet that can get my hands to stop shaking. I just want you to know, what you are doing ...whatever it is... it's working. Thank you, brother.
Thx as always, Vlad. As a Latvian, I certainly feel very involved and take this all personally. But I can not and will not live in fear. (I have to say that to myself to (almost) believe it). Right now we must support our brothers and sisters in Ukraine. And I pray that dictator lover Trump does not get elected.
Love and appreciate always, Aleksandra
Thank you Vlad!
Lots of love
Love back!
Russian forces crossing the border in some remote corner of Finnish Lapland wouldn't be a smart move. Escalation would be pretty much guaranteed. I believe a country with a stronger pro-Russian political faction would be more likely (there is none of any significance in Finland).
Russia will seek a confrontation only if it hurts.Baltic countries are too small and not relevant.Ukraine not joining NATO still the main goal
Good point. Romania?
@@danielheckel2755 Greater Serbia (Kosovo or the Serbian part of Bosnia)
Lapland would also be a shitshow for Russia in terms of terrain and weather.
But we also cannot trust Kremlin to do decisions based only on realistic estimates.
@@danielheckel2755 They don't have a land border. I don't see Russia just landing there with marines, Ukraine would have a field day sinking Russian ships near the coastline.
Hitler had the same religious conviction about the decline and weakness in the West.
Huh? Hitler himself is from the West and most of his allies are from the West, and considering how he rolled across Europe, he was not far from the truth. Great argument.
He wasn't particularly wrong considering how he pretty much took over Europe and lost for the most part because of US and USSR involvement
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u rubbish.
And the same support from the religious right.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2uremember that the russians supported his actions in the beginnig because they thought it was nice that someone was fighting the decadent west. Until they themselves got attacked. There is no nation as cynical as the russian nation.
I’m not sure about Finland being the target to test NATOs article 5. The Finnish have a strong military and I suspect would wipe the floor with the Russians in a conflict. Surely, Putin would rather try to provoke a conflict with a weaker military opponent
Youy are so funny when you are so wrong. If our military is tiny, we have up to 900 000 army if war comes to us. So, is it really tiny? Also we have more artillery than many european countries combine. But in peace time army is abt 28k only, dont let it fool you. Only real threat to us in war time is if ships cant come to our ports and supply lines cut. Or if Russia use nukes. Everything else what they have will be destroyed even more so than Ukraine does. Russians cant invade us with military, thats sure thing. And they know it.
But they can send salem seekers to our border, that is threat what is lot more real.@@huntergatherer7796
@@huntergatherer7796 They have Leos and F18 and the most artillery of any EU country and a very high readiness among the population to defend their own country. There is always room for improvement, but it most definitely won't allow for a "small, riskless and limited military operation". They also have neighbours and other friends that will definitely help them.
Finland has compulsory military service and could field every male between 18 to 60 along with the strongest artillery in europe. Good luck invading through 3 choke points surrounded bt marshes, mountains, lakes and forests. Russia is fighting in their ideal condiyions in Ukraine - wide plains and they are toothless
"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" - George Orwell "Russia has always been at war with the West" - Vladamir Putin
Me watching this video someplace in remote Finland: FUCK!
I think the West failure to defend Ukraine in 2014 has given Putin high hopes for the Baltics.
Couldn't agree more. I kept waiting for Obama to send military support because I loved how he talked about our American love of liberty. Support never came.
Before the revolution of 2014 Ukraine had a democratically elected government. And the West engineered its overthrow. To me that is not under dispute.
And in my opinion, the West was wrong to overthrow the govt. But America just can't stop its long held policy of installing puppet regimes.
With the West getting ever nearer to the Russian border the Russians had to act.
I dont think so, on the contrary I think Putin decided to invade in 2022 despite not being prepared for it because once they are in Nato, that possibility vanishes.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican to be fair to Obama, he did try and get Europe to pressure and sanction Russia but the Germans refused. And deepened ties with Russia even after the Crimean annexation
I didn’t care for that fact that Obama didn’t stand up to Putin over Crimea, but to be fair it a world away. Europe could have stepped up as the much more immediate presence in the region - they utterly failed to do so. The US military is powerful but Europe could have at least tried to stand up for itself.
Just saw Anders' video earlier today, it was wonderful to hear your take on it. Never stop, Vlad❤
Thank you so much.
Please Vlad.
Comment on the infrastructure collapse, (like the burst pipe in Novosibirsk) and how it affects the war.
Collapse? Nothing breaks in your country? Now imagine that Russia is tens of times larger than the average country. I can give you such news every day.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2uLmao go play your balalaika, put your ushanka on and don't forget to bow to vovochka's portrait on the wall.
@@Bac4-qu6qg7sk4v Did I offend you in some way?
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u it's mildly offensive how Russians instead of displaying empathy to people suffering in places like Podolsk, Elektrostal etc. try to downplay it by countering with essentially "b-but in America they mistreat black people" The crappy state of Russia's infrastructure is actually more analogovnet than you may think - mostly a result of putinite corruption and misallocation of funds to silly prestige projects, personal gains for the nomenklatura and expansionist adventures. Imagine replacing soviet era central heating pipes instead of wasting hundreds of billions of $ on warmongering and counteracting the resulting sanctions 😎
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2uWell no, the infrastructure in my country is not collapsing. It's a typically Russian problem. To be more precise : a crumbling infrastructure is a typical symptom of countries with a high level of corruption, combined with insufficient resources for infrastructure maintenance. In case of Russia, it appears to be mainly a shortage of skilled and experienced workers. So the question is : where are the workers?
Russia poses a significant global threat due to its aggressive actions and destabilizing behavior. The country has shown a blatant disregard for international law and norms, as evidenced by its annexation of Crimea in 2014, and it's illegal war in Ukraine.This illegal act violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries. It is vital that the international community takes a firm stance against Russia's actions, holding Russia
accountable for its behavior. Failure to do so risks emboldening Russia and allowing its aggressive behavior to continue uncheck ed, with dire consequences for global peace and security. The most effective way to deal with the threat from Russia is through military and economic aid to Ukraine.
We will see if USA and NATO will stand for this international law regarding countries sovereignty or will be more like falling for the old areas of influence concept and consider Ukraine to be under Russia's control .
I would make 2 points. Firstly, the govts representing 85% of the worlds population do not support the West in this matter.
Secondly, you do not mention American threats to the global order.
@@joepaluka9031 YES, this is because the West is seen ,convinced by Russia and China propaganda that their are the former colonizers of their world and they believe that is the reason they remain behind. Which is only 25% true. Russia is an empire and still colonized other nations these days stealing their resources but for some reason nobody see that. In fact the technological progress developed by the west these days helps those 85% to open their eyes. But do they see the whole picture?
@@joepaluka9031 counterpoint: governments of China, Iran, North Korea do not represent the population in those nations, they RULE them.
Same for Russia btw., the farce of elections notwithstanding.
At some point it has to become territorial, then Russia has a problem. And their decline is faster than Europe’s decline. Plus Russia has to worry about a China that’s already revised their maps of Manchuria with Chinese place names.
Spitsbergan. Nato Norway Russian territorial dispute.
The issue is that the only real "strength" RuZZia has is army. (even if performing poorly in Ukranian lands).
IMO it's a non-starter. The russian navy is embarassing itself enough in a closed sea like the Black Sea against a country without a navy to even think of starting blue water operations against NATO navies around Spitzbergen.
We will be lucky if the USA protects Canada after Trumps election
He will give Alaska to putin as a gift to his best friend.
A Trump win is highly unlikely.
@@alexandruraresdatcuwhy didn’t Putin invade Ukraine while trump was in office?
@@apsoypike1956 You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Canada and the US have ALWAYS been aligned. It is advantageous to appear on the world stage to NOT TO BE.. And looks like you bought that hook line and sinker. Canada is able to do things the US is not by appearing to not be aligned like getting the hostages out of Iran or brokering a deal to purchase a Shkval torpedo for study. Or gathering intel on China and the acquisition of the Chinese battle plans for the invasion of Taiwan.. Canada has ALWAYS been aligned with the SAME goals globally as the U.S, Bu there is an inherent advantage in NOT appearing that way...
@@alexandruraresdatcu he will further the withdrawal from Europes defence and further restriction of access to USA markets , but that process is happening no matter who is in power.
There is a "Joe Blogs" video that is also worth watching on this. Worth taking seriously. Putin's rationality is in another universe and it is not a sane one
"Anders Puck Nielsen needs no introduction on this channel." Who is he? I've never heard of him before.
Take it from me, you would do well to review his UA-cam work product. I've always found his "take: on things to be very well thought out and worthwhile.
He is a former Danish navy or military expert doing an excellent youtube channel about the war
as intellectualism fades into obscurity, Vlad Vexler offers a rare & introspective respite, thanks Vlad..
13:20 On that footnote. I cannot speak for every nation in NATO or the EU, but I did do some homework on Belgian defence policy. Its strategy basically entirely relies on cooperation/collective defence in the EU (and NATO by extension) for Belgium's very limited forces. (Those are public declarations, pretty sure one was called the 'STAR-plan')
Given that no/limited response on Article 5 triggering would fundamentally reduce that strategy to rub(b)le, it would be imperative for Belgium to honor that commitment for its own security's sake if such an event would occur. And I'm pretty sure that this underlying idea being false would result in the need for an _incredibly costly_ miltary buildup, which certainly at this time would not be particularly welcome given budgetary constraints.
Outside of Belgium I can't be as certain. I'd say I believe that besides maybe a few exceptions, Eastern Europe would not be keen on letting an aspiring NewSSR(tm) attack a fellow allied member. Given its military pride and political aspirations for/in Europe, I'd doubt France would like to yield political influence on the continent by reneiging on such obligations either.
Of course nothing is _certain;_ changes in political policy can be notable after an election in some European countries. However I think unlike governments, these underlying matters would take a long time to change.
I think Russia hoping for a situation where triggering NATO's Article 5 without a full NATO response misses an important point. Namely that almost all of Russia's closest targets (bar Ukraine and Moldova) are EU members, which also has a military defence clausule (Article 42). It is not quite the same as _also_ throwing the US military against something, but I don't think anyone would like fighting a medium to long conflict with a sixth of the global economy.
[Not to mention it would also require no US troops being deployed (NATO) where the invasion occurs at that time. Not impossible, but very unlikely given recent developments.]
That is a very good point. Many EU countries have scaled back their militaries in past couple of decades which can now be seen in for example sheer lack of capacity to produce ammunition and other consumables to Ukraine.
But EU *does* have industrial might, which is what ultimately wins or loses long wars. It's just a matter of repurposing it.
@@JariJuslin Keep in mind that this is for _long_ wars, and it also is a matter of political will. However, if the Russian army would fare this poorly against Ukrainian forces, considerable changes would be required to both manage a more succesful campaign to occupy _multiple_ countries with staffed NATO bases _quickly_ whilst holding the front _everywhere else._
They're not _impossible_ changes, the Kremlin probably relies on democratic decline to reduce the defence forces present enough for example. But I'm rather convinced that the odds of defenestration for the blokes having to plan this would be intolerably high.
About those Nato troops, even before joining we've had continous training with Americans, British and other troops here in Finland. If russia was to invade it would strike on those guys too
I think Finland is too clearly an Article 5 issue, and Finland is viewed too favorably in the West. If it is the Baltics, it will be from Belarus with deniable Green Men. But that will be hard, because the Baltics aren't viewed as being particular corrupt or controversial. The USA supported the Baltics independence for the entirety of their "participation" in the USSR. Instead, it will start with a controversial questionable issue that is a NATO interest, but where its not clear cut that NATO is in the right. I think it will be supporting Serbia to reclaim the Serbian populated areas of Kosovo. The next likely hot spot will be Russia supporting a declaration of independence by the Serbian populated areas of Bosnia, with a request for annexation into Serbia, with the war spilling over to Croatia. The final hot spot would be a war between Iran and Azerbaijan, with Russian aid to Iran and Russian "Peace Keepers" in Armenia, whether they want them or not.
Interesting scenarios. Last, Iran with Azerbaijan against Armenia. The issue is that Armenian has been allied to Russia for decades and not a "wedge" where NATO would get involved in regional expansion.
@@sumotony Agreed. The main issue I see there is that USA and Iran is at loggerheads forever, that folks like Azerbaijani's oil. And Turkey is Azerbaijan's strongest ally. Turkey is I think the second largest armed force in NATO, yet have ambiguous feeling regarding Russia. So it a really complex area, with perhaps something that Russia could do to stir things up. But I don't think losing Turkey is an existential threat to NATO.
I think everybody speak about the Baltics and Finland when in fact the move will be in Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria!
One comment is better than the other.
@@ChaosAI24 From a power projection POV, I don't think that makes sense. That would require to win overwhelmingly in Ukraine so that it becomes a client state like Belarus. I just can't see that happening in less than a decade.
I think if NATO went to war against the russian federation there would be a 48hr blackout followed by an announcement all the russian leaders have decided to retire to a nice farm in Siberia. Crazy
I would like to know what you think about NATO expelling Hungary. It seems that Hungary, under Orban, is on balance, making NATO weaker at a time when NATO strength and unity are vitally needed as deterrent to war.
This would turn into a nuclear conflict. Can we NOT do this.
Once I read about different types of aggression. One was "exploratory aggression": when the aggressor does violence for the sake of feeling out the actual limits of a relationship.
Hello dear Vlad! What a coincidence, I just watched Anders' video and was thinking about sending the link for it to you in order to find out what you make out of it.😀
A very interesting video indeed! Never thought about that kind of situation. I find Anders' videos and analysis very convincing ...
I believe this is factored into the British decision to sign agreements assuring Scandinavia nations that UK would come to their aid regardless.
Reality is that even though Russia would lose a conventional war against NATO badly, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be stupid enough to start one.
The two things are separate issues and should not be conflated.
I see the Canadian Arctic as the principle target Russia can attack. First of all, it would bypass Europe and second, would anyone get involved for a few islands of snow?
Watch developments on the Serbia-Croatia border.
Just watched Anders this morning, & really appreciate you filling the question out for us. Thanks so much for getting this video out so quickly too: hope you have a restful night! 🙏💙
I'm old enough to know I can leave this mess behind, but if things keep sliding away from simple international respect for other countries, other cultures, then you will have to either step up, push politicians and governments to LEARN respect or fave the repercussions.
It comes right back to each person, can you respect your own neighbours, locally and internationally or not?
Perfect shortie on the subject, amazing work, Vlad! Just the perfect accents and attention points. Looking forward for more! Wishing you well.
Vlad, just wondering whether you have any thoughts on Boogie Woogie vs the CCP?
Regarding their borderlessness running out Eastern Europe. the recent messaging regarding Alaska would be in direct contrast to this. Now, I find it difficult they would make any serious claim on Alaska, nor even an attempt at Finland, but I thought the contrast was important enough to mention.
Why does Anders think that an attack on Finland; esp. a strategic region such as the Arctic, would ellicit a weaker response than an attack on e.g. the Russian-speaking areas of Latvia or Estonia?
Because almost no one lives there and it's a small portion of a geographically larger country. Contrast the Baltics where even a small area annexed is a large part of the country.
He is wrong! His theory doesn't make any sense on so many levels.
I don't contest the claim that Russia might challenge NATO. I just don't think that the place where they'll do it will be Finland (excl. ongoing hybrid war operations).
Finland's border isn't disputed in any way. It doesn't have a sizable Russian minority. It has a powerful and highly motivated army, good neighbors, and a fair bit of capital of goodwill in the West it could cash. This is not 1939 -- and even then, it's not like no one cared.
I have been consistently against relying on the USA for our security. It's been clear at least since Obama that they want to isolate and withdraw from Europe. That said, even a total idiot like Trump understands the strategic importance of the Arctic to North America. He tried to buy Greenland, after all.
The existence up to this day of Kaliningrad, renamed from Konigsburg has puzzled me. I think it demonstrates for Russia a wedge to use driving US from European territorial defence. At the time of Kremlin seizure of Crimea, I longed to hear of 'western saboteurs and agents active in our enclave' as a reversal of the 'unknown men in green'. Unfortunately in these times that would likely trigger a huge response in occupied Ukraine. A land, sea and air blockade would be a positive demonstration of NATO resolve, while simultaneously questioning the validity of a non-contiguous border, granted by a defeated formerly sovereign power ie. Germany
Definitely agree with a lot of Vlad said.
I also think if Putin attacks NATO it will also be from a crumbling from the inside. Sort of like a fall of Rome situation where the fall and crumbling is self inflicted and internal. For example just today you had Trump publicly question NATO and basically insult the organisation by saying “European Nato allies won’t help us if we ever got attacked” so it’s things like this this sort of public questioning of the organisation, this seeds of doubt, internal conflicts that could potentially lead to the ultimate destruction of the organisation and thus lead to a conflict. I actually think its also possible that if a conflict happens, could happen if Nato falls apart by countries questioning the organisation, some pulling out like the US under Trump if that happens, etc.
Hopefully none of this happens but I think it’d actually possible that Nato could start to fall apart in next few years especially given the rhetoric of prospective future US presidents here
This doesn't work on Europeans. They know that the only country to invoke Article 5 is the USA. Why have Americans forgot that?
The people of the USA hold the key, if Trump gets in I believe that is a tipping point where WW3 becomes inevitable.
This is the trick to living in a global village: Finding the virtual pub that people like Vlad and Anders go to
I think here in the USA we first had societal decline, which inevitably led to democratic decline.
Thank you for another interesting video.
I disagree with you on the point of Finland being a potential target for new Russian aggression.
If I remember correctly, Russia occupied Finland in 1809 as a result of Alexander I reaching a deal with Napolean. Alexander I suggested to the Swedish king Gustav V Adolf (Sweden occupied Finland at the time) that he join Napolean's Continental System. Gustav V Adolf refused which led to a short war between Sweden and Russia, in which Russia emerged victorious.
Finland achieved independence in 1917, despite the machinations of the soon-to-be Soviet Union.
In 1939, after concluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with another continental dictator, the Soviet Union under Russian leadership invaded Finland in December. What is interesting about Anders Puck's commentary is that it describes exactly how Russia started that war.
In the post-WWII environment, Moscow indirectly controlled Finnish politics, not by being a "Good Neighbor", but by being a threatening one.
Also, I suspect the Russian government feels betrayed by Finland for joining NAT0. Several commentators have pointed out that the Russian government has a mafia mafia-style world outlook. If this is true, it is necessary to punish Finland for not honoring t
In addition, Finland is the most convenient country for an invasion or an incident in Europe - there is no third country between it and Finland. Poland has no border with Russia. Russian forces would need to pass through Belarus. This would, at least potentially expose Belarus to NATO attack.
I think Anders Puck's argument makes good sense about Finland being a potential flash point for a new crisis, given Russia's historical actions.
Puck cant be more wrong. Thing is that Russia know they cant do anything to us, except send salem seekers to border. Main thing is that Russia KNOW that.
Therefore people should think something what can actually happen instead totally imagined threats.
While Finland shares a long border with russia, if you look at it on the map, the terrain massively favors the defender. We are talking about hundreds of km of forest and lakes, pure wilderness essentially.
russia doesn’t have the logistics to push through that, especially under fire.
Thank you for your comment. I am reflecting on the historical record and Anders Puck's video. The thesis of Puck's video is that Russians will seek a way to see whether NATO will stay together. He proposed a scenario where Russia staged a limited attack in a remote section of Finland to see how serious NATO was about Article 5. So, if the goal is to see how unified NATO is, logistics are not that important - two companies ( From I understand, the average size of a Russian company is about 80 soldiers - if you have a better figure I will take it ) of conscripts, prisoners, and migrants to test NATO. In addition, an interesting question that is worth pursuing is if Russia were to attack and hold a piece of Finland for three to four weeks, then withdraw how would NATO respond to an inclusion followed by a withdrawal. Second, the historical precedent is there.
Thank you good sir
Thank you!
Could also NATO respond in a similar way if ruSSia takes a piece of Finland then we take back a piece of Königsberg?
Königsberg is russian because nobody wanted it. That hasn't changed.
or recover St. Petersburg that was once a Swedish fortress.
Russians cant take part of Finland and they know it.
It may be possible that something explosive ending up in Finland "by accident" won't trigger article 5...
But any attempt trying to cross the border to Finland by tank or artillery would meet an answer...
First by the Finns themselves who's been preparing for this moment since the 70s... next to show up would be the airforces of the other nordic countries that now share airspace...so, in no time the airspace above Finland would be saturated with their own and other nordic jets... if it's really an article 5, NATO pilots would know exactly what to do... blind and disarm the enemy.
So, the part of RU I usually call eastern Finland, would be useless strategically within a few hours... (because someone was stupid enough to put their d¥ck into a hornets nest that doesn't trust putler at all).
At this time the rest of NATO may be waking up to a new reality. The nordics don't need to wait for NATO approval, and I hope that the Baltic states will join this rapid response group in the future. (Not that the nordics would wait for NATO approval if any of them call for assistance)
We have pre-approved action, so a Norwegian F35 breaking the sound barrier across DK and SE is something that we can talk about later, insurance and all.
US and UK sure has the most hardware. But don't underestimate the rapid response that the nordics are ready to provide, should Finland or the Baltics suddenly be under attack.
At the same time, NATO is at the moment gathering a huge amount of equipment to do the largest exercise in 40 years in the Baltic Sea... it would be outright silly of Russia to attempt anything towards our corner of the world before June.
Interesting viewpoints, but I would offer a suggestion on the presentation. "Omit needless words", as the classic Strunk & White advice goes. People are busy, so please consider making your points in a more concise manner. (Anders Puck Nielsen's videos offer a good example.) To help with this, write a script, then stick to it.
These facts are from Jan 2024 " foreign affairs". Reliable i presume. The USA economy has gone from being the same size as the EU in 2008 to being twice as big in 2023.
I believe on shoring and protection of North American markets will cause the collapse of Germany and China and yet further expand American wealth and economic sophistication. We all believe that, and the failure of the rest of the world including China and Europe will make the power imbalance yet more vast. For Canada Australia Japan and maybe the UK the task at hand is to get a berth on the new ship thats sailing as very very junior seamen. Mexico in its unique way will be under America's protection and in economic Union.
The world has changed , its not because of Trump or the failure of Democracy. But the Europeans need to secure energy , nuclear , Caspian nat gas , what ever. They need competent militaries and to do their best with the old nation states. The United States will no longer tolerate or bribe Europe with military protection and predatory access to USA markets. And frankly it doesnt affect us if Russian armies roll over Germany. Maybe it never did. But NO one republican or democrat supports continuation of the Bretton Woods , Gatt , Nato post WW 2 American international system.
First of all, I love hearing your perspective, you are very insightful and thought provoking. A few thoughts I have... Russia provoking Article 5 without garnering a unified response from NATO is like playing with fire. After Ukraine they have burned up too much of their credibility with NATO and I would argue NATO is more likely to respond in a united way than before the Russian invasion, just look at how many NATO countries are supporting a non-member(Ukraine).
I understand this idea that NATO is fractured and if article 5 was invoked some countries may not respond. The problem is Russia's invasion of Ukraine has done a lot to degrade the view of both Russian superiority and righteousness in the west which makes NATO more likely to respond. Another problem is there is no precedent for ignoring article 5, so that's a huge gamble on Russia's part to assume that will happen because of some minor political differences. This doesn't mean Putin understands this, but it makes war more likely because I think he will underestime the response.
lastly, the problem I see between starting a conflict is Finland. Finland has been more tolerant of Russia, but they risk turning them into the Baltics in terms of popular opinion. I actually think Russia would be better off provoking the Baltics because they already dislike Russia a great deal so the opportunity cost of making someone who hates you already is low. What I think will happen is if Russia does any kind of military escalation with Finland will reinforce the idea that no one is safe from Russia and further strengthen NATO cohesion.
Putin/RU is body builder, lots of muscles to look at. These muscles are mostly for show, as we know now. I hope NATO has some real muscles. As long as RU knows it is for show, and NATO is for real we are safe. No body builder will dear to attack actual boxer.
Russia is nearly bankrupt. It will run out of money before the leaves fall this autumn. Russia's military is pathetically weak and despite some difficulties with recruiting the US military is unbelievably powerful. The US has warned Russia that if it attacks a NATO country not only will the US defend it but it will take out Russia's military forces in Ukraine. The US is not frightened by Russia's threats. For those reasons I don't think Russia will attack any NATO country. Hatred of Russia but not Russians is enormous in the United States.
I appreciate your philosophical perspective but in my mind if you got no tanks, no money, no gas, no oil, no "people", no decency, no moral.... You not gonna be seeing it out long term with any NATO aligned country.
I disagreed with Anders on that video. Nordics, Balts and Poland are not going to roll over. And if they don’t, Western NATO will inexorably be drawn in.
A lot of people don’t know in 1938 UK and France were deeply pacifist and averse to war and the US deeply isolationist. It didn’t save them then and it won’t today. The West is also far more united institutionally and vastly larger than it was then.
It's possible that parts of the West will fall apart, but the most likely entity to really fall apart is - Russia. It's already seriously frayed, aided by the disastrous invasion of Ukraine. (Russia unleashed chaos, which ends up including a lot of blowback on itself, a lot of which is still to play out.)
There's one big question - and some connected questions - that come to mind right away - what happens to Russia's nuclear arsenal? How much of that arsenal actually works as intended, rather than being too deteriorated, creating new hazards? How much of a hazard is that arsenal, in all possible ways? And so on...
I do not think Finland would NEED to trigger Article 5 to stop Russia .
As I commented on Anders presentation, Putin underestimates NATO and European resolve at his peril. Is attacking NATO worth the risk? Of course not. At best Putin makes a gain in Europe. Then NATO responds. It HAS to not because of Article 5 but because democratic states will respond if pushed too far (as the Kaiser and Hitler discovered) .
But even if Finland succeeded without NATO, doing it alone would prove that Article 5 is empty and thus make NATO look a failure.
So Putin does not need to win that war to make NATO look weak.
@JariJuslin before Ukraine I would say Article 5 most likely not be triggered.
Now however... if any NATO Nation is invaded... good luck telling Poland to chill out. Most NATO Nations would activate it. Hungray, Slovakia and Turkey are the exceptions. Most others would go to war I reckon. Maybe the US might not with Trump. As Trump is a total idiot who bases his foreign policy on those who boost his ego. Once Europe is in flames, Russia and China shall go after the US and we all know that the US cannot fight a war without the help of allies. Since WW2 the US has not won a war they've started alone!
The US, the whole main reason all this is happening, is now once again trying to pretend it's not their issue. So most of Europe follows the US into x2 Middle East conflicts but when a real actual war comes... the US says it's not their fight. Typical US in every World War!
Theres also this to be said about American involvement in Nato and its activities keeping trade and navigation open world wide.
If the USA accepts a global role it is easier for the Isreali lobby to involve the USA in support of the apartheid Isreali state which destabilizes the middle east. The American fleet will be nearby in the Eastern Mediterranean . It will be harder to say being savior of the world isnt our business anymore. Nato also handicaps American diplomacy by guaranteeing Cyprus and Greece when in fact a successful foreign policy would throw them to the wolves and support Turkey. All these problems should have been adressed when the USSR fell. And Germany should have been abandoned long ago when it failed to intervene to stop genocide in Kosovo. American support for Nato and Germany certainly should have ended when Merkel made Germany dependent on Russian energy against American wishes.
The greatest flexibility of response will come to a system with the greatest diversity of input.....this is the strength of democracy
I dont think anything deeply threatens the United States either militarily, or economically or intellectually. Social media isnt a plus of course. And we will be better with protected markets and more managable military commitments.
But i do worry about Britain the only English speaking nation adjacent Europe and the only one seriously damaged by WWONE and Two.
The threat from the continent has been more than military , more than Louis the 14 th or Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin. There is also a system of ideas over the water that have had the potential to endanger us. One of the worst threats was political absolutism of the sort James the second adopted and which transformed France of Louis the Fourteenth and Denmark of Federick the Third and Christian the V or Sweden of Charles the X1. These countries destroyed their arostocracies and became as despotic as Russia. ..more so than the moments at which Ivan the Terrible kept his Boyars and Appanage Princes with in a constitutional order. I mentioned that when my father was a boy before WW One we burned the Pope on Bonfire night. That is reference to us rejecting yet another toxic ideology of the continent. An insidious combination of modern liberalism and romanticism broke down some of our national independence and resistence to European ideas after the Napoleonic wars. We legalzed Romanism. thats a big
change.
You can almost feel the proximity of the continent in London as a Canadian i find this deeply eerie and unsettling.
But there are several ways to protect ourselves from ideas from the continent. One of the best is to marginalize intellectuals in the salutary manner of the USA. A University with toxic ideas floating around endangers no one if intellectuals aren t respected. But i deeply fear for a Britain in close economic and military union with the continent. It will become less like America. Loose some of its virtue and greatness . And its hubris to think we HAD to avoid converging with intellectual and political opinions over the water. We could have been conquered by Nazis or become an absolutist Roman Catholic state like Bourbon France. God didnt ordain our uniqueness and success and our superiority to the continent. This has to be consciously fought for.
Germany has to become a major regional military power . And obviously the right model is the American system post WW2 or the mid Victorian British system. Both were collegial and restrained. Considering its absolutely over whelming size and power the USA has been remarkably collegial and consultative . Its a good model : The Kaisers , or Hitler or the Teutonic Knights are bad models as im sure the Germans know.
A focus on defense and the military will have other benefits for Europe. It throughs into focus the demographic crisis and the need for education , good health and opportunity for the poor half of society. You cant have a strong military and not have good schools , good health care and security and opportunity for the poor. For the wealthy , wealth can not survive or even exist if the borders are not held and the state is not protected. And that survival ultimately depends on the military despite the illusions of internationalist liberals. Its better to pay 80% of your income in taxes for the military and social services than to have an enemy army roll over you. And no flying away to the Cayman Islands or Malta isnt a solution. Yr better paying taxes and making do with a bit less in a happy secure country.
You need to speak a little quicker to hold more peoples attention. I was 2 minutes in and still had no clue what you were trying to say. It would also help if you gave a quick summary of what you'll be speaking about at the start of any video. At 5 minutes I gave up. Sorry.
@VladVexlerChat The Putin regime has always been a balancing act between the technocrats and the security establishment (until recently). This Nadezhdhin character is an establishment player, could he be a 'plant' in the sense that the technocrats are going to 'manage' him into the Presidency, to normalise the government and relations with the world, tap Putin on the shoulder when the results come in and say "Putin mate, the people have spoken".
There was another well-known politician who thought about a European state that, once you prodded it, it fell apart. He failed miserably and to the demise of millions.
'Ukraine belongs more to Russia': this view is shared by the West, and is an important reason why Western military aid is half-hearted.
Not Finland. The Lithuania better for them, Finland was already tested at WW2 and it was tough nutt, they will not repeat that again. Soviet army was 3x bigger and was struggling
Well, on the face of it, the west does not seemed to have had any real issues with the ruzzian takeover of Crimea. Their response to the 2022 invasion was a bit stronger, for a while at least, but deep down do they acknowledge that 'Ukraine is not theirs'. Ukrainian views on where they belong would come distant second, if the west really is playing the same game of power politics as Putin.
As for regime security, I see that tied to the state of the economy. If the economy falters, the regime will fall. There is some speculation that with the Putin regime moving Russian economy more and more on war footing, the militarised economy will need perpetual war to sustain itself, leading to war becoming mandatory for regime security. In the end, how certain can we be that Russia will be experiencing a socio-economic collapse within the next five years or so, or how certain can we be that something similar will not start in the west.
The United States is going to elect a President that wants to withdraw from Nato and erect tariffs and close our markets. We ll be lucky if the USA defends Canada with whom it shares values culture and commin interests . What do you think will happen to continental Europe which is alien and whose survival is irrelevant. You people are completely mad over there.
I want to stick up tor Fukuyama a bit here. He gets way too much of a bad rap because of over reading into his thesis. Specifically in relation to this video, the idea that economic liberalism necessarily and automatically leads to liberal democracy is an exaggeration. Economic liberalism is better understood as one of the possible pre requisites to liberal democracy, or to being a contributing factor to liberal democracy, or to increasing your odds of getting and keeping a successful liberal democracy. Not a guarantee; not necessary and sufficient all on its own. Liberal democracy also requires many other things that economic liberalism can't provide all on its own; things like coherent and cohesive national identity and secure borders.
would you react on Emmanuel Todd’s comments on Ukraine russia war ?
It really depends on the number of shovels and old WW2 era rusty rifles the Russians can get their hand on.🙄
The assumption that seems to me the most flawed in this discussion is that NATO is a sitting duck, passively waiting for Putin to make a move.
Russian conviction on our decline seems to be a misunderstanding of our populist era. We've had these eras before and will again, as a correction to our democratic establishment being out of step.
Very to the point.
Concerning democratic decline in the West: what are your thoughts on the protests against the far right in Germany?
100000 in a country of 80 Million
Certainly not important just a distraction
Upcoming election will show the real picture
We have a civil society woohoo. I can't believe it. But, it's not a very clever or deep one, judging by the pictures I saw. If I have the time and something happens in my city again, I might go and talk to the people.
Here in Germany, everybody is trained to say Hitler is evil in school (otherwise you can literally fail school), and that is about the depth the avarage German has when it comes to identifying with democracy. In fact, when Vlad describes politically disengaged Russians, I always felt that describes Germany just as well. And defending democracy requires to be for something, having a positive vision what democracy is and what it's purpose is. (Something I wish Vlad would make a dedicated video about, regardless of how strongly I probably disagree with him - the West totally avoids this topic apart from some die hards in America, I often feel of fear we have to all agree precisely for democracy to work. But if that is true we have already lost so let's talk about it.) You cannot be just against something and make a positive difference.
But hey, there is a point where many engange in Germany poltically after all, and it is not when it is too late (just barely). I worry they have no clue what they are doing, but at least that is something to work with.
@@goenzoy712 You forgot a zero, and that's still a low estimation.
The real picture might not show in the next election because most are extremely disappointed with the Ampel, but still don't share the far-right mindset of AfD and CDU under Merz/Linnemann.
There's no democratic alternative right now.
Do call Linnemann far-right?
@@goenzoy712 Linnemann’s (and Merz’s) personal convictions may be more economy-liberal than far-right, but they both act like populist entrepreneurs in the CDU, and their recipe seems to be, to have more punch than the moderate part of the AfD. An „AfD with substance“ Merz called the CDU, and Linnemann goes along with this.
From copying the AfD-erection-angle and colour from their logo, to copying the AfD talking-points, to increasing division and resentments against „those refugees, immigrants,“, „those lazy people“, to phantasizing about punishments for disadvantaged groups and testing the water for coalitions with the AfD, to sharing disinformation. They place a lot of small tests, and if people are too appalled, they paddle back.
They may not be ideological, but they open the door to the far-right, out of calculation, while the moderate conservatives, who see one of the CDU’s most important tasks in defending democracy against the far-right, are pressured to not complain too loud.
If the context for the definition is Russia attempting to challenge article 5 via hybrid war, rather than conventional war, that is already the case since at least the Tallinn cyberattacks. If hybrid war is already the case and total war is not the context for discussion, we're sort of merely re-arranging your main points atm (regime security, institutions & decline etc). As to the regime mindset - conflict is never not an option for any nation state. Great power escalation, yes that's a different matter.
I'd be more interested in how Putin might try to re-capture the former soviet bloc outside nato - as neo russian empire in the form of belarus. While the CSTO seems in harder regression than western defence treaties, would there actually be any western, chinese, indian or regional resistance to re-imposing control over parts of the caucasus or eurasia for e.g.?
As for contemporary hybrid war, putin already chose to act against poland and finland as major nato threats/targets - by manufacturing migrant crises at their borders recently. As for traditional conflict, if anything their ukraine strategy was first to interfere in domestic politics and create instability, use proxy and clandestine/unmarked forces to create civil war/secession movements, then move to full scale invasion.
So - hybrid conflict is already real, traditional conflict (outside more cold war type scenarios of accidental rapid escalation from some strike or sortie) would present itself in fairly clear stages to avoid triggering article 5 (at least given hindsight of donbas/crimea/ukraine).
As for whether putin/russia *could* (edited from "would attempt to") actually challenge article 5 via finland or estonia territorially, in the context of say, Trump collapsing nato and the far right collapsing eu solidarity...that is mostly a strategic military question.
It seems like regardless of nato or not, the strategy is destabilise, divide and then invade, as the order of events the regime pursues. I'm not sure Putin could divide Finland or Estonia, territorially or demographically, at least in the short to medium term, and thus doubt whether he *would try* to invade any nato territory - if he can't first create a space to do it in, as with ukraine (which had no nato). Hybrid war doesn't need the same type of space to keep challenging article 5, or institutions more generally.
I thought the west wanted migrants flooding into their countries. Isn’t that just Russia giving the west what it wants?
When I watch his video I was thinking about you Vlad.
The thesis paper was released by Christian Mölling.
Russia needs to consider how many Americans are here because of the Pogroms. A lot of resentment.
Hey I have the same mushroom shaped lamp in the back on the left
is that a solovey madeup bullshit about article 5 again
We are at an important point, where munitions and kit is becoming limited, and that could affect the outcome, these wars can turn very quickly. This is whilst the Americans have stepped away for a moment to reflect, or at least be held hostage by the GOP and pork-barrel politics. Luckily the UK, Germany and several countries have reaffirmed their commitment and are sending more munitions and kit. But there is definitely a danger that Putin's objective, now, involves provoking war with NATO, there have already been minor incidents which seem designed to test NATO's reactivity. We should definitely prepare now, we can't wait, but we just hope it doesn't happen. I just hope that there is some sort of miracle where that other candidate, against the war, beats Putin in the election. A democratic overthrow of Putin would, I think, be the best outcome, even it exceptionally unlikely.
I fully agree here!
I don't know if this is naive, but I would assume that NATO command has already simulated many of these different scenarios and has pre agreed plans already on the shelf that are constantly being tweaked and updated.
A lot of these pre agreed plans may not involve the attacked country invoking article 5 anyway. E.g. a probing attack of a few thousand Russian soldiers in Northern Finland without significant air defense is pre agreed as not requiring a NATO response as Finland or a Nordic alliance doesn't actually require wider support.
I also presume that NATO must also be adding alternative plans that require less US resources in anticipation of the risk of a lower level of commitment.
If the internet is thinking about it, the professionals must have done it too.
I would like to point out a long ago video by Vlad. It was about nuclear discussion in the Kremlin. In that video, Vlad missed the point of the discussion in the Kremlin about using nuclear weapons. The point of those discussions around the Kremlin about nuking a city in Poland were exactly a way for Russia to test Article 5. Exactly what is discussed at the start of this video. It wasn’t meant as a realistic proposal, but as a thought experiment to European countries to consider.
Putin could invade the Estonian island of Naissaar. It is 18.6km2 and has a population of 9. It juts out into the Gulf of Finland. Would NATO go all-in if that tiny island was quickly taken in an overnight operation?
At the beginning of the war two years ago, POTUS Biden stated clearly in a public address that every inch of NATO territory would be defended. So, I guess that means yes.
Yes
Some convoluted thinking there Vlad. It's interesting to postulate that the Kremlin feels/thinks like this and that NATO would behave in such a way, but, there is evidence that russia just woke NATO from a slumber where such a move might have succeeded and there is also evidence that 5 years is nowhere near enough time for russia to the point where they'd take such a chance.
Yes, but he thinks that the western society and democracy is degrading and Russia should have their area of dominance in the former Republics and former Eastern Block. The Russian world should survive according with him as is still present there.
I saw the Anders Puk Nielsen video, shortly after it cameout and thaught at the end, what would Vlad think of Anders’ view. And here it is, thank you!
It is totally a territorial war, but also tesing their boundaries.
russias agression is simply just from paranoia
Thank you Vlad. This is very helpful. Illuminatingas usual.
I did watch Anders' video. I feel, it was a bit of a 'straw man' engagement... as I would think scarcely anyone paying attention ought to think Russia 'attacking NATO' is likely, especially after Putin's 2021/2022 speeches. (But, I admit... that might be just my perception.)
You are right. It was the worst video he has made so far. Completely ignores the fact that Russia is closer to collapse than victory and neither scenario will allow it to open another conflict in the next 10 years, if ever. Anders seems to have the same self-serving delusion of most western militaries and arms industries that need to exaggerate the threat to ensure their budget.
This channel is the definition of word salad.