Why Did Russia Choose Invasion Over Nukes? || Ask Peter Zeihan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- For years I’ve warned that a war between Russia and Ukraine was inevitable, but why didn't Putin just play the nuke card? As an add-on, we'll also be touching on some new Russian alliances that could rub the US the wrong way.
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zei...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the UA-cam Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#russia #ukrainewar #nukes
After watching Peter for a while, I think I’ll sum it all up with: We’re fucked, but the other guys are fucked more.
That's politics baby.
Fr😂
No were are not !! Russia is fucked , nd Ukraine i at the moment, but they will recover, russia will fall apart, and once more have to rebuild !!
@@luisekjeldsen1515 Don't know...depending on the election outcomes in the US, Putin can be able to dictate the "peace"...from that point on they will go up unfortunatly...
Top comment, fricken hilarious
I think there is a big difference between using nukes to demand tribute from other countries and using nukes to deter an invasion
deter russian invasion
And that's what's so revealing about russia, they are not actually concerned about their own security, they just have geopolitical ambitions that require invasion of other countries
@@sakusto Really, so allowing NATO to position troops and weapons on Russia's doorstep, with no natural defensive barriers is reasonable to you? You think the US would allow China/Russia to stage weapons and troops in Mexico?
@@jrapp1468 yeah but its not likle the US or Nato are actually gonna attack Russai withoiut some serious provocation
@@jrapp1468 the US would certainly not invade and annex territory, claiming it was theirs by right anyway etc.
Also, what difference is there between NATO troops in Ukraine and NATO troops in Finland?
Is Finland gonna be attacked next?
Is it completely untenable for Russia that NATO troops will be stationed less than 150km from StP?
Is there any scenario where NATO would attack Russia ignoring the 6000 nuclear warheads that Russia would launch at NATO countries? Do you REALLY believe that? Who would agree to this? Macron? Scholz? Biden? Trump? Trudeau? Sunak?
Do you actually have any real "dangerous" scenario for Russia?
Zeiny misunderstood the question. He asked why does Russia feel the need to occupy territory for national security, when the ownership of nuclear weapons guarantees national security from external states.
I always thought it was a BS rationale that Russia needed to occupy all neighboring territories until they gained some geographic barriers for security reasons. Zeihan cited the same rationale in the past as well. Here he modified the rationale to say Russia has to occupy in order to exert influence.
I suppose you can say any successful democratic country that borders Russia is a threat to Putin because Russian people might see that and decide they want a different government. Then no geographic barrier can prevent that.
@@dcc70there’s a kernel of truth to that, there is an interview from Russian state tv with an elderly man from Kherson shortly after the invasion when they were forcing Russian passports on the locals. The old man surprised the crew because he was a former Russian Soviet military officer that wanted nothing to do with Russia and wanted to live in Ukraine.
Short answer is Russia is flat with very few natural barriers within their borders
@@dcc70 Russians and Ukrainians are among the largest demographic minorities in each others country, if not THE largest. People have relatives, employees, friends etc all on both sides of the border. One of them is in the process of becoming more aligned with Europe, purging its old Soviet-minded corruption, more prosperous, more democratic, more pointed to the future - while the other one is still a land of outhouses and dirt roads. Putin apparently couldn't let his people see that.
Ocean access.
The warsaw pact actually invaded Czechoslovakia in 68, although soviet troops outnumbered others 5 to 1, but still, thats a precedent.
actualy they did not. it was the coup, it had to be put down.
funny thing, i hear so much about Czech and Hungarian unreasts, but noone mentioned what was done with Itallians and how brits used nazi to fight greeks in their own country right after WWII.
@@kotbayun6731 Ah, Greece. A proxy between imperialists in London and Moscow.
And as for 'had'... 'had to be in ruSSia, and nowhere else'.
yes, Peter knows nothing about Muscovite horde ....
Soviet moles inside the CIA and Western Intelligence identified all the resistance groups who remained after WWII in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, then eliminated them before their “liberators” arrived in 1956 and 1968. The CIA was seeded with 20 double agents from Belorussia, Nazi intelligence, Russia, and Eastern European nations who were assets before, during, and after the War. Many came in on false defector or genuine recruitment channels into the OSS, including guys like George de Mohrenschildt. Many saw the freedom and superior political-economic model of the US and West and ceased being Soviet assets, but many did not.
Yup, that is Peter`s weakness. He likes to listen to himself and sometimes forgets to take a step back (or to take a breath and count to five). I still like to listen to him.
China deployed to Tibet and india and vietnam maybe more😊
Russia was in cuba and nicaragua and grenada and georgia and ...maybe many more
I think he meant overseas deployment, not including port visits
Soviet troops helped overthrow
Haile Selassie (1974) The MO
is KGB inciting rebellion and
Soviet troops to back up the
local rebels.
@@here_we_go_again2571 To be fair, there was the Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, various small nations in Central America and lets throw Hawaii into the mix.
What about the Warsaw pact countries invading Czechoslovakia? That is those countries deployed outside their own country
Czechoslovakia was in Warsaw Pact.
You're correct. Peter, I've noticed, sometimes has a habit of misspeaking and I believe what he meant to say was that no Soviet ally ever deployed troops outside of its own... or other ally's... territory.
Czechoslovakia, being a fellow Warsaw Pact member, would not have, in the opinion of the Soviets, amounted to an international deployment since Moscow thought of all of them as their own.
Both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia , as far as I know, were in major civil wars before anyone stepped in to do anything, and those that did, stepped in to stop the fighting so they could be broken up into the new states that they are now.
@@TalRohan Czechoslovakia was never in civil war.
@@TalRohan Civil wars, by definition, mean wars on one's own territory and thus would not qualify as international deployments.
And when was Czechoslovakia involved in a civil war?
Cubans were on Grenada. Clint Eastwood even made a movie about it.
Those Cuban Regulars were no match for Gunny Highway
A Cuban friend of mine only escaped being sent to Angola because he had already started college...
@@wellesmorgado4797my dad’s doctor is Cuban, he got sent to Angola. He managed to gtfo out of Castro’s grasp after he came home.
There was a small contingent from the DDR during the uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1968
Yeah....terrible movie!
It is called Mutually Assured Destruction
Is it any surprize to anyone the Russians are masters at Russian roullet?
I always listen to Peter Zeihan! ❤
Isn't Russia directly downwind?
Yes, and your point is? The ywill kill a few hunred thousand and another 100.000 get terminal cancer. You think that interests the russians in what way?
Yes. It is. If they ever care.
Exactly!! It's pissing in the wind. I think the wind factor is a key reason to consider Russia's threats of short-range attacks as a lot of bluff. Prevailing westerly winds would have to be a launch consideration for the Russians in nuking Europe, so the weather forecast would dictate, and maybe serve as some warning to the targets. Like the Nevada Test Site should have done decades ago with its atmospheric tests before contaminating the Southwest with wind-driven fallout. Even if NATO showed restraint in a Russian attack on a NATO state or Ukraine, wind driven nuclear fallout would still potentially affect several other countries to the east. As stated, if they ever care.
You had Polish soldiers in Prague...
Poland was not an "ally" of Russia
exactly, he forgot that - rather significant - event.
@@Matt_K well, technically we were an "allied" state, in actuality more of a hostage state. Still - the troops were deployed.
But then again, russia doesnt have, and never had allies, because they dont consider anyone an ally - they have tools, not allies or friends.
@@michajastrzebski4383 they used warsaw-moscow pact countries like toilet paper.
@@albertmaziarz6739 yep, they did use us. Yet, still, on paper and technically, it was that we were an allied nation.
Peter what’s the impact of Saudi Arabia not extending the petroleum dollar agreement? Thanks
Did someone really ask why Russia hasn't used nukes? A dumber question I could not imagine.
You are in a room with pz fan boys. They aren't the brightest bulbs out there.
He asked why Russia hasn’t threatened to use nukes.
The Russian strategic situation hasn’t changed in the last 400 years. If they occupy Warsaw, Romania, and the Baltic states, they are as secure as possible against invasion.
The question: why invade Ukraine when you can withdraw from the No-first-use treaty instead?
He asked why Russia chose buffer zones for defense against invasion when they have nukes.
Everyone in this thread is wrong, Ya'll need to clean yer ears out.
@@SonnyBubba They threaten to use nukes every day almost.
The questions I submitted were Superior to these.
Not sure why questions that were so easy were addressed.
Perhaps your superior queries will be addressed at another time.
Hi, would love to hear Peter's take on sodium batteries, cheap Chinese EVs, and western countries basically putting an embargo on those imports.
He has talked a lot about all these issues. I'd recommend you watch all of his videos. Either side of the new "iron curtain" you fall on or support, he's certainly worth watching.
@@robkafczyk2752 Difference is that then east had traded barriers and this time is west who has them
China has 10Ks of EVs dumped after manufacture just deteriating-the govt wants to claim they are being made but they arent all being purchased-they slap a plate on them so a sale is recorded then haul them off to the car dumps to rot. Maybe when China implodes they will mine those dumps for materials for resale for someone who actually sells the Evs. Peter covers this.
@@dzonikg Not sure what you mean. Would appreciate if you were to elaborate.
@@dzonikg Not sure what you mean. Would appreciate if you were to elaborate.
Our "nuclear blackmail" is cutting off either shipping lanes or USD access. It's also not as effective, but somehow Peter makes it seem we have absolute superiority. It does make us feel good but probably not a good bet
Ask Peter: Is there a scenario for internal change in Russia and a restoration of it's status as a trade nation? Is such a scenario necessary to avoid a nuclear confrontation? You've previously stated Russia will dissolve into breakaway states, but they will still have nukes to kill the planet five times over. How does this stabilize?
I'm puzzled by the deliberate placement of a collection of alcohol bottles and the unusual stacking of books. I don't follow the signal being sent.
well organized
Mostly empty bottles of booze too for some reason
Dude is single.
Very single....
I am reminded of I comment I once saw in a book on Northern Ireland by someone who had seen too much horror: "Draw the curtains, have a whisky, a wank, and forget what's out there."
As much as I like to listen to Peter talk, take what he says with a grain of salt. I am a Bulgarian and I'd like to say that contrary to what he staited, we were one of the five Warsaw Pact nations that deployed troops in Czekoslovakia during the Prague Spring. There was even a very famous graffiti here in Sofia about 10-15 years ago, by which the Bulgarian street artist apologized to the Check people, for our tanks participating in the invasion of their country. Peter is extremely articulate and intelligent, but we gotta remember that this is a double edged sword sometimes. I guess what I'm trying to say is, confidence and being articulate is not equal to being factual and that's what we gotta remember, nowadays more than ever.
The last point is just not true for example, the NVA of the GDR was delpoyed in czechia unter the soviets to crush the revolt
Exactly, unfortunately en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia
none of this video was true.
East Germany and Czechoslovakia were both Warsaw Pact members during the Prague Spring of 1968.
If peter zaihan is wrong about this minor detail, makes you wonder how wrong he is about other major things like the supposed COLLAPSE of certain countries
Don't forget the Prague Spring!
On 20th of August, 1968 Warsaw Pact countries invaded Czechslovakia to crush the Prague Spring.
Truth to be told, it was a much less bloody invasion than anything the Soviet Union did over its existence. The Hungarian revolution of 1956 was invaded by soviet forces alone, and the threat of a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Poland was enough to make everyone calm down in Poland in 1981.
If you have no arguments on merits (Russian Mir means poverty, decline, oppression and corruption), no wander they have to make allies by force. All Central Europe joined West because we WANTED to. Voluntarily. And Ukraine wanted the same with their Maidan revolution. This is part that russian propaganda and people thinking about geopolitics as a game of big powers always miss.
The Maidan revolution was a CIA-staged coup.
Germany is an american vassal since ww2.
Central Europe joined the Western alliances because they're terrified of Russia.
I disagree, many countries chose to stay with russia VOLUNTARILY namely caucasian countries (although that is changing) and central asian republics (ex ussr) armenia noe changes course but before the invasion they were fully aligned with russian, also tajikistan uzbekistan were fully on board with russia. So to say that nobody chose russias side is wrong.
I don't see my comment anymore, but I completely misread your comment. If you see my previous post, please completely disregard it.
4th minute, Peter states that only Cuba invaded other country, but there was 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. USSR, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria invaded CSSR to prevent reforms lead by Dubcek. Although they were hoping there will not be resistance by the Armed forces, they did know for sure.
another proof zeihan does not know everything. any western europaen remotely alive at that time knows there were other warsaw pact countries involved, though mostly symbolically
To your comment about the (paraphrasing here) ‘US interfering with international shipping that China, Russia, Iran would end the next day’, at that point wouldn’t those countries then feel threatened and retaliate?
Probably same reason Americans chose 20 years of failure in Afghanistan over nukes
Wow there are some dummies in here. Some of you folks need to go back to the 100 level UA-cam videos…
20 years moving piles of rocks around and your suggestion is we should have used nukes to move those piles of rocks around?
4:11 Warsaw pact troops in Prague 1968 (there were tens of thousands of troops and thousands of tanks) , the Soviet forces in Hungary 1958 also had troops from Warsaw Pact countries
these are only assumptions...
You had Polish troups in Czecoslovakia 1968.
A real no brainer question, but Peter answered it interestingly.
there was global maritime shipping even before america became a country ....
because the British Empire supported it
The British Empire also did not support the shipping of unaligned powers. The US keeps a safe ocean for all regardless of interest. If that changes the landscape changes radically.
Buncha junks
For the powerful empires, yes. For the smaller nations, your ship is going to get pillaged and there was nothing you could do about it. The South China Sea being a main route that US protected. Now it irks China.
Much easier to disrupt with current tech than it was. Ask the houthies.
Thank you for the great video.
Quetion is really stupid one
Zeihan isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Great comments from peter. Well explained.
CHANGE THE FORMAT, slightly.
Have Peter start with a monologue that addresses the question written in the title. Then....the host can ask follow up questions
I think there's interesting parallels between Turkey and Russia. Turkey used to have its usual coup d'états to maintain its secular constitution. The last and unsuccessful attempt took place in 2016 demonstrating that Turkey was now a mature, strong, democratic nation. Modern Russia is barely thirty years old, with still a relative recent history of invading surrounding sovereign nations to maintain its security. Note also that the policy of Bush and Blair dealing with regime change in Iraq had a profound influence upon the Russians coming up with their strategy in dealing with rising Ukrainian nationalism.
Soviet, Polish, Hungarian, GDR and Bulgarian soldiers attacked Czechoslovakia in August 1968. My father was mobilized in winter 1981 for attack into Poland which was prevented by Polish coup d'etat.
Prague Spring? The USSR itself, plus Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary all invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968.
you forgot the east germans
I usually agree with Peter, but didn’t other countries in the Warsaw Pact other than the USSR successfully deploy to Czechoslovakia in 1968 and achieve their mission? Granted that was a long time ago and a relatively short distance for those Eastern European neighbors. Just seeking accuracy.
The claim no one other than Russia put troops outside of their own border aside from Cuba is patently wrong. China deployed 2.4 million troops to Korea during the Korean War and to a much lesser extent into Vietnam and Rhodesian Brush War.
The last few videos Peter has released have been riddled with poorly researched adhoc responses like this or claiming the swing towards the political right in Europe hasn't had anything to do with immigration.
Unfortunately, Peter makes assertions that often go wrong. He said only about 18 months ago that Russia would lose. Anyone following carefully will appreciate that Ukraine cannot and will not win. Indeed, it will become a rump state and a landlocked one at that. Also, He says China has only deployed outside of China once (to Djibouti). Then what about the 1979 Vietnam invasion where it was spanked?
Or that Gaza was a "tempest in a tea pot". He's got a fascinatingly confident smug delivery, but it's basically the same stuff as Stratfor George Friedman or a Condi Rice neo con generality
Anyone carefully following sees that russian has no chance. Indeed, russia will become more poor than it already is, with no modern technology for its population and army. Russia will never take Odessa, for example. It is too poor and too backwards to do so. Ukraine´s strength is the assistance from the west, the EU and the USA. Putin has lost the goodwill of both, and is their enemy now, without having allies of the same calibre at its side.
@@sifu64Zeihan literally comes from Stratfor. And his track record is just as "good".
How will Russia get the troops and material to take the entire coastline when they barely can advance a couple of kilometres from their own border (the recently failed Russian offensive)?
50 percent of Russian conquest of Ukraine regained by Ukranians troops (the famous "it's a faint" line), to you is like peanuts right?
04:10 - what about Polish troops deployed to Czechoslovakia in 1968? My own grandfather woke up in his AFV to find out these were no manouvers but an actual invasion of a neighbouring country. Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.
I want a drink now and its 5;45 AM. Thanks!
😂
Short term consequences and long-term consequences the action can be very different
Weird question. Putin did not invade to destroy cities and reign over the ruins. His goal was to regain control over the rebellious province by force, because in his understanding, Ukraine is not a country, but a territory, and Ukrainians are not a nation but simply the population of these territories. All Ukrainian assets would be divided among his accomplices, and those who disagreed would be sent for re-education, and maybe even quietly executed. This is exactly what Prigozhin was talking about in the last months of his life, completely discarding fairy tales about the Nazis and the salvation of some Russian-speaking population. Now, more than two years after the start of this “brilliant” military operation, the gloves have been thrown off and the Russian army is simply leveling cities with missiles and bombs. But not because they hope for victory, but because in their military doctrine it is written to destroy what they cannot capture. Nevertheless, if the Russian army collapses at some stage and is forced to leave part of the territories already recognized as part of Russia, then Putin can press the button regardless of the consequences.
Kinda like US invading afganistan, Iraq and Vietnam?
@@dirtmcgirt168 And how Russia invaded Ukraine in the twenties of the last century, followed by invasions of Finland, Poland, Afghanistan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia and again in Ukraine.
Peter you are mistaken about deploying forces by warsaw pact, it happened in Hungary and Czech Republic in 1960s
Why was this so short? Where’s the full version?
Sound quality is really bad. I hardly understand anything.
WHY? Because of the: Prevailing Westerly Winds.
Zeihan is today’s version of Max Headroom. He spews words, and sometimes they make sense.
Which nuke card do you mean -- strategic or tactical?
The CIA's mouthpiece holds forth. It was to forestall a nuclear conflict that Putin initiated his "special military operation." Including Ukraine in NATO would have meant US nuclear-tipped missiles minutes away from St. Petersburg and Moscow. How would the USA feel with Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada?
'How would the USA feel with Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada?' We already know the answer from history. In 1962, and they did not like it.
ukraine ask for admission to european union not nato , dont spread russian lies manure
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons for sovereignty. The US has no interest in putting nuclear weapons in Ukraine. That's just another excuse for the illegal invasion. One of many excuses.
@@albertmaziarz6739 Ukraine does what the USA tells it to do. Stop spreading US manure.
Given the realities of game theory over enough turns of play…once you play the asshat repeatedly…you will lose eventually. But looking back at history, some of the most aggressive leaders turned out in the long run to be pathetic at long term strategy!
how many times has america done the occupation?
Many times. At least they also leave again.
How many?
US withdraws after interventions, Russia stays and incorporates land. Its their official goal - to incorporate Ukrainian lands.
See the difference?
at least once, and they still havent left after more than 300 years.
whataboutism as it is expected.. l
Hi Peter (and team)! Very curious about your perspective on what signs we would see that would mean China is imminently going to invade Taiwan? We’ve seen them buying gold and selling US treasuries heavily, what would happen in the weeks and even days/hours before the invasion?
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds observes that the US used to worry about how to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and now all it has to worry about is how to close it.
Interesting perspective. China has deployed troops around the world, a lot of it is clandestine operations. Same with North Korea and Iran.
Thanks!
No credit or mention of the one that asked the question.
Czechoslovakia in 68 involved whole Warsaw Pact.
Once Europe had been stabilised after WW2, the strategic purpose of the blue water American fleet was, arguably, not so much to police international waters to maintain peace for peace's sake, but to enable the export of western production to areas in the East where reasonable upskilling combined with cheap labour and low (or indeed reversible) social protections allowed low cost manufacturing to boost profits. Profits were boosted by importing those cheap products from the East to the West to be sold at western prices, again under the protection of US blue water naval power.
The corollary is that the threat of the loss of American jobs, through exporting more production, served to depress US wage demands. This, in concert with the "trickle-down theory" / Reganomics, has stagnated American wages for DECADES, while assisting the upward flow of wealth to the richest portion of the US population, whose ownership of the machinery wealth production has sky-rocketed.
Mr Zeihan do not forget about joint warsaw pact forces invasion on Czechoslovakia in 1968.
It annoys me that the map behind you doesn’t have New Zealand…
Just a bit of a correction on one of your points, china has a deployment of un peacekeepers in South Sudan that are their to help secure their oil rights under the guise of un peacekeeping
Cuba deployed troops to Ethiopia during the Ogaden war in 1977
Factcheck , there were Polish troops in Czechoslovakia in ‘68, alright
Nukes ARE used by just having the ability to use them
Even at the height of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, Russia was insecure. It’s a condition that cannot be allayed. And their belief in a constant existential threat is an existential threat to the West. We must work hard to contain their ambitions.
"Cuban" advisors (without "Cuban" military uniforms) were also in Grenada. You may recall the response.
These days they're called Wagner(?) private security and adventure variously in Africa and the southern globe regions. It gives granddad vlad that plausible deniability when things go boom.
It seems to be working in Georgia sadly
Peter please comment on the recent end of the Petro dollar deal!
ruble printet from now on toilet paper
Spot on analysis concerning what happens when US realizes portions of our oligarchy actively profit from financially supporting our enemies who rely upon the US Navy as security iso trade. Remove that support and two enemies (far and near) collapse. And hopefully there are no ‘Dulles brothers’ around to save them.
What about the BRICS ? Is that not moving the dial without war ?
BRICS is an acronym, not an alliance.
You do know what those letters stand for right? They are an economic alliance at the very least and several of those letters lend military aid to each other. So alliance? In at least some areas yes. The fact that they have even more countries requesting membership is a little troublesome to say the least for the western powers.
The wind
The coalition of the BRICS nations will ultimately be a problem for the US. Saudis Arabia just ended the petrodollar agreement with the US. China and other countries have slowed their purchasing of US treasuries and started buying gold. And with the loss of the petrodollar these countries will not have to hold US dollars anymore. This can cause hyperinflation here as those dollars return. I am waiting to hear Peter dismiss this as insignificant.
Because the actual number of nuclear States on Earth is significantly higher than the official number. This places is countries the size of Moldova right next to Russia in terms of force and danger. So if Russia would have entered with nukes right away, they couldn't have been sure that they wouldn't get a nuclear response by Ukraine itself or by another unofficial nuclear Nation. Because technology improved over the last 80 years, it is not necessary anymore for a state to source plutonium or uranium to build a nuke. The list of weapons capable nuclear material is now longer and encompasses metals that are unregulated and traded freely... if you know how to transmutate them.
Cubans were also sent to Ethiopia in 1977
Is the US not entirely dependent on the energy and manufacturing output of the nations cargo it protects?
So if they’re “gone the day after” where does that leave the US and it’s Allie’s in terms of energy and goods?
u.s.a. number 1 oil producer in the world , 21 percent saudis 13 russia 2022-10 percent 2024 -6 percent , u.s.a. number 1 liquid gas producer export to europe , russian gas export 2013-417 billions 2024 50 in 2025 zero.
It's amazing how this guy changes his tune...
You had Polish troops in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Hey Peter, make video on Saudi Arabia dropping the petro dollar.
There is now an abundance of countries asking all the same question...why can they have nukes and we not?
Part. in view of the Budapest Memorandum.
Nukes will go ballistic and the day the nuclear cascade begins, is coming closer.
Clip function? Please consider. Thank you in any case for your analysis and insights. ❤
A nuke can’t guard a street corner
Yes, great perspective on the US Navy sure, Britain, France, Australia, and others contribute to securing the trade lanes. The pirates and rogue states would shut it all down if we knocked our ships for a week.
Q: For years I’ve warned that a war between Russia and Ukraine was inevitable...
A: Such war would be impossible since Ukraine is only historical Rusь, Rosia, Russia or Ruthenia on this planet. As for the Muscovite-Ukrainian war, it never stopped since 1486 when Muscovy invaded Severia (northeastern Ukraine) for the first time. Speaking of modern time, this particular iteration of the same war has been started in 1991.
Not technically true that there were never Soviet ally troops outside of their own countries. There was the Prague spring (and one of the most shameful chapters of my country's past) when Bulgaria along with Poland and Hungary helped the SU invade CZ.
I think Peter and John Mearsheimer should get on a show together and debate the Ukraine situation
mearsheimer father of reason wiping poo tin ass for living b.t.w. in are polish house we have toilet plunger vladimir poo tin
its also possible that nukes have never been real (in the sense of how powerful they are)
governments lie to people in the name of deterrence all the time
the damage to hiroshima/nagasaki didn't look much different than all the other cities that were firebombed, just more extensive
Actually durring the Prague Spring in 1968 the Soviets sent Hungarian troops into Czechoslovakia.
Outside of some choke points no body needs us navy and on those choke points like red sea US navy can do little to none. So no one needs US navy to show of force besides US. US budget will not allow these expensive excursions anyway since debt clock is ticking and rises by $1 trillion about every 100 days. Current policy is unattainable.
What are these easy questions everyone else could also answer with no.
Give him some hard questions, the man has some backround knowledge.
does the invasian of Czechoslovakia in 1968 count as a deployment? Even though they were quickly replaced by Soviet-only occupation force, Polish, East German, Hungarian and Bulgarian forces took part in the invasion.
....Yes, replaced by pro russianpeople
Poles were into Bratislava in the 60’s!
Zeihan is supremelly confident and awefully wrong as always. Even during soviet era Moscow wasnt able to force allied coubtries to deploy troops outside their border??!!! Excuse me! Have you ever heard of Prague Spring??
Would you consider creating long form videos of you just talking about different topics on spotify? Really enjoy listening, but would rather hear you talk about whatever you want, then repeat yourself on different podcasts.
What if it was a joint venture between China and Russia?
I don't understand how the u s navy pulling out of the global protection rocket will necessarily prevent the chinese from protecting their own oil shipments. They're Navy is perfectly capable of escorting their own Energy shipments through critical areas.
China does not currently have a blue water navy. That is what stops them.
@JM-pu3xb this is a myth. They are perfectly capable of sorting tankers through dangerous areas and they have base support IN those areas. As long as they aren't doing glo al warfare their navy is perfectly adequate to insure safe shipping in critical areas
sorry peter small correction: poland did deploy troops to czech republic in 1968
In this video: a stupid question gets a stupid answer
No Soviet ally sending troops to another country to fight but Cuba? How about China to Korea which was not easy for the US to recover partly from.
russian population 1945 -143 millions 2024 -144 , in 79 years grew 1 million , u.s.a. 196 millions