Ukrainians would argue that their country is strategic. As for the U.S., there is constant risk calculations. The world has to decide where the red line is at.
very interesting debate from the US perspective. If you zoom out a bit more, you'll see something more significant evolving: It's important to note that India, Pakistan, and China are all on the same page, which is rare but significant. Brasil and Argentina went their own way and refused to condemn Russia. Germany and France became more vocal about the strategic independence of foreign policies. I think 🇨🇳 China won't necessarily help Russia🇷🇺, on a large scale, to "circumvent" the sanction, but it will help Russia to reorient its trading relationships with the west and deepens economic integration between the two countries.
I deeply enjoy a debate, like this one, where both sides make excellent points and persuasive arguments. No matter who is ultimately right, the listener is brought into a higher and deeper understanding of the issue. I think I, ultimately, lean slightly more towards Ukraine as a matter of US interests, but I think it's very important that we consider and minimize the dangers and risks highlighted in the opposing argument. The USA has made a lot of military mistakes in our foreign policy in recent decades, and it's important that we don't repeat those mistakes or ones much like them in this Russian conflict.
It's as simple as this. Do you remember the Cuban missile crisis? USA had a failed invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and out of fear that another invasion was imminent, Castro had Russia deploy nukes to Cuba, aimed at the States. USA responded with immediate threat of all out war if the nukes were not withdrawn, so they were withdrawn. This is what has happened to Russia, they're surrounded by nukes right now, as is China, and Ukraine is last strategic piece for NATO because of the Black sea. Georgia and Ukraine are the red line for Russia. After essentially 8 years of patience from Russia, the patience has run out. Here we are, with NATO whom wasn't supposed to expand east after WW2 and Russia now responding to it.
So what if the PEOPLE of those eastern states in Europe, like Poland, want some guarantees of their independence from the former Soviet Union? What, are their wishes to be sacrificed because a few narcissists in moscow have nukes?
What would be nice, everyone debating here, should have to fight if they are pro war. It's very easy to say we should fight when you mean poor people should fight for my ideals.
@@mysticx0 honestly, that's the best you got. And you're so manly that you need another man's pic as your UA-cam pic. Ok there hulkster. #menintights #imnotgay #merica-sisterwife
Ukraine asked for military assistance. Over 90% of the population supports resisting the russian invasion. Can we not advocate for giving Ukrainians weapons, when they are asking equipment to help defend themselves and their country? I have to go fight or something? Why?
not a strategi importance?? one of the main producers of food for the world? how can someone say that ? has no ideia how it will affect many country´s food needs and food prices? the "arab spring" was mad because of food prices...here we go again
@@sicko1021 no were are not, but this war has consequences....strategic consequences being cinical ,that everuone should not think it´s not their concern
I can't remember whom it was, but you can't call for a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine while saying you won't attack anything inside of Russia. SAM batteries (especially more modern systems) have sufficient range to easily reach dozens of miles inside Ukraine even if they were physically launching from inside Russian territory.
Ukraine has one new strategic resource, optic. No other country on the planet has better optic than Ukraine right now. In a 21st century conflict, international optic is very important.
Volker comes off as a lightweight who doesn't understand the inconvenient stuff. For example, the problem of a cornered Russian exec, implications of another fire-sale Russia, or various dynamics that threaten/may threaten NATO internally. Its like he's running for office or something rather than considering things that affect hundreds of millions of people.
The guy says there's no progress for Ukraine to join NATO, that's incorrect. NATO has been training 10k Ukraine soldiers for 8 years. The progress is pre-training Ukraine so once they join they can invade Russia right away.
Yeah the answer is obviously to let russia have its way. How were we ever so blind?! I guess because the US can be imperialist, we should ignore the desire of over 90% of Ukraine's population to resist the russian invasion... Just let putin have it all, let him have the arctic while we are it, after all who are we to criticize right?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Yes Russia commits irredentism towards countries in its sphere of influence, would you like to start nuclear war over that? The US imperializes countries in every corner of the globe and because they are the number 1 super power other countries cant do much of anything about that without risking the livelihood of their country and people, this is a similar situation.
@@jakobsmith4046 No, I don't support a nuclear war with russia over this. I do support what the US is doing now in Ukraine, namely sending weapons, intel, etc. Prior to this invasion, I thought that russia would be able to quickly overwhelm Ukraine and this would all be over in a matter of a few weeks, with mostly surrendering, as I imagined the russian military would be a colossus. But as we know, the russian military was very incompetent, while the Ukrainian military was underestimated. Seeing this level of resistance made putin use more brutal methods, which means Ukrainians are even more prone to resist, with over 90% of the population in support of resisting the russian invasion. I know the history of the US is very troubled, but that doesn't mean that we can't help Ukraine when they are asking for assistance.
I like how the US emphasizes the Russia's military was overated and that they are superior and would easily win. Yet, the mighty US for years failed to win in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. All much smaller and less supported armies. Wouldn't be surprised if we found out that the US army too is overrated.
So Mr. Volker's best case scenario is for Ukraine to remain a war-torn hell for the next decade so that Russia's military, economy and image can be slowly bled away. My heart weeps for the Ukrainian people suffering during this invasion. Apparently his does not.
Putin has no business invading Ukraine. He should be driven out of there and forces pushing the Russians back should press on some 10 km inside Russian territory in the vicinity of the Ukraine - Russian border. I am totally disgusted with the anaemic response of the West thus far. The only way to deal with bullies is to bully them back at whatever cost, and drive them into the dust.
@@colindant3410 Russia has reason to invade, but that doesn't diminish your point of view. I'm sure it matches the majority of those in Ukraine, and for good reason.
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Meeting Russia's demands would stop the carnage and allow Ukraine to return to normal with most of its territory intact. I understand and deeply respect the Ukrainians' determination to defend their country, but it comes at great cost. Would Russia stop at Ukraine? No, not unless Russia is once again made weak and led by a pathetic like Yeltsin. NATO on its border is an existential threat to Russia and once Ukraine's neutrality is secured Russia will do what it can to undermine NATO, especially in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland. Russia won't likely attack any of these countries physically because of their NATO membership, but there will be constant manipulation and intimidation in hopes that the cohesion of NATO will eventually be broken down and these countries either leave voluntarily or NATO becomes too weak to defend them. I know that you're thinking that that would never happen, and you might be right. I don't think the Russians will believe that it's easily achievable either. But they will try anyway, because they have to.
@@alanfriesen9837 "Meeting Russia's demands would stop the carnage and allow Ukraine to return to normal with most of its territory intact" that sounds like wishful thinking. Who would control this territory? A putin puppet, which the people of Ukraine DO NOT want. Putting the wishes of Ukraine's people aside, putin's demands for the US were to roll back NATO to pre 1999 status, meaning prior to the joining of Poland, Baltic states, etc. If the US were to back down to putin over Ukraine in the name of "stopping the carnage", he would then reiterate the demands sent to the US already, which boil down to the ROLLBACK of NATO. Why wouldn't he? All he has to do is show that he will murder civilians and shell cities to rubble, and in the name of "stopping carnage" the US will bend to his will. In such a scenario, would he be crazy enough to attack NATO? It's impossible to say, then again we all thought he wasn't crazy enough to attack Ukraine, and here we are. If the people of Ukraine do not want to live under putin's rule, and they are willing to fight to prevent a russian takeover, then I think the least the US can do is supply them as well as we can so they have the best shot. The countries of eastern Europe know what it was like to live under the soviet union, and they do not want to be part of a neo russian empire, this is why they line up to join NATO. Poland for instance still remembers the Katyn massacre. In my view, putin will not stop at Ukraine, and bending to his will now will only embolden him and the narcissists in moscow who believe that having nukes gives them the right to rule over eastern Europe.
Ukrainians would argue that their country is strategic. As for the U.S., there is constant risk calculations. The world has to decide where the red line is at.
The red line is how much could bankers man money 💰 and where is the next war to start so they could make money
There us no off ramp! Russians must go back home!
Here to learn
very interesting debate from the US perspective. If you zoom out a bit more, you'll see something more significant evolving: It's important to note that India, Pakistan, and China are all on the same page, which is rare but significant. Brasil and Argentina went their own way and refused to condemn Russia. Germany and France became more vocal about the strategic independence of foreign policies. I think 🇨🇳 China won't necessarily help Russia🇷🇺, on a large scale, to "circumvent" the sanction, but it will help Russia to reorient its trading relationships with the west and deepens economic integration between the two countries.
Kurt Volker won.
Бедные русские, которые покидают свою страну, чтобы идти и убивать за Путина и за деньги... Они почувствуют на себе тяжесть Божьей руки.
I deeply enjoy a debate, like this one, where both sides make excellent points and persuasive arguments. No matter who is ultimately right, the listener is brought into a higher and deeper understanding of the issue.
I think I, ultimately, lean slightly more towards Ukraine as a matter of US interests, but I think it's very important that we consider and minimize the dangers and risks highlighted in the opposing argument. The USA has made a lot of military mistakes in our foreign policy in recent decades, and it's important that we don't repeat those mistakes or ones much like them in this Russian conflict.
what is the purpose of sacrificing the Ukrainian people so we can put missiles at Russia's doorstep? This is stupid
It's as simple as this. Do you remember the Cuban missile crisis? USA had a failed invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and out of fear that another invasion was imminent, Castro had Russia deploy nukes to Cuba, aimed at the States. USA responded with immediate threat of all out war if the nukes were not withdrawn, so they were withdrawn. This is what has happened to Russia, they're surrounded by nukes right now, as is China, and Ukraine is last strategic piece for NATO because of the Black sea. Georgia and Ukraine are the red line for Russia. After essentially 8 years of patience from Russia, the patience has run out. Here we are, with NATO whom wasn't supposed to expand east after WW2 and Russia now responding to it.
Hi Russian troll.
So what if the PEOPLE of those eastern states in Europe, like Poland, want some guarantees of their independence from the former Soviet Union? What, are their wishes to be sacrificed because a few narcissists in moscow have nukes?
Right on! but the western liberal hegemony is pretending to sleep and refuses to wake up.
Very good episode
What would be nice, everyone debating here, should have to fight if they are pro war. It's very easy to say we should fight when you mean poor people should fight for my ideals.
take that whiny shit to twitter where they give you a safe space and a hashtag....
@@mysticx0 honestly, that's the best you got. And you're so manly that you need another man's pic as your UA-cam pic. Ok there hulkster. #menintights #imnotgay #merica-sisterwife
Ukraine asked for military assistance. Over 90% of the population supports resisting the russian invasion. Can we not advocate for giving Ukrainians weapons, when they are asking equipment to help defend themselves and their country? I have to go fight or something? Why?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 99% is east Ukraine, east Ukraine is 90% on Russia's side.
not a strategi importance?? one of the main producers of food for the world? how can someone say that ? has no ideia how it will affect many country´s food needs and food prices? the "arab spring" was mad because of food prices...here we go again
We are now the world food police, too⁉️
@@sicko1021 no were are not, but this war has consequences....strategic consequences being cinical ,that everuone should not think it´s not their concern
Uhkraine is important to the world
Watch , ' Putin Set out Demand to End War '
I can't remember whom it was, but you can't call for a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine while saying you won't attack anything inside of Russia. SAM batteries (especially more modern systems) have sufficient range to easily reach dozens of miles inside Ukraine even if they were physically launching from inside Russian territory.
Ukraine has one new strategic resource, optic. No other country on the planet has better optic than Ukraine right now. In a 21st century conflict, international optic is very important.
Volker comes off as a lightweight who doesn't understand the inconvenient stuff. For example, the problem of a cornered Russian exec, implications of another fire-sale Russia, or various dynamics that threaten/may threaten NATO internally. Its like he's running for office or something rather than considering things that affect hundreds of millions of people.
What is to be done in your view?
The guy says there's no progress for Ukraine to join NATO, that's incorrect. NATO has been training 10k Ukraine soldiers for 8 years. The progress is pre-training Ukraine so once they join they can invade Russia right away.
18:00 "Gives us the opportunity to raise the stakes"...
The opportunity to increase the probability of nuclear war.
I hope this debate was done when Iraq was invaded too. Most of points still applied.
Its so cute and naïve when someone from a hyper imperialist country like the US or UK says "we" should intervene to help blank people in X country.
The US isn't an imperialist country, and there was no one from the UK in this debate.
Yeah the answer is obviously to let russia have its way. How were we ever so blind?! I guess because the US can be imperialist, we should ignore the desire of over 90% of Ukraine's population to resist the russian invasion... Just let putin have it all, let him have the arctic while we are it, after all who are we to criticize right?
@@themaskedman221 Iraq Afghanistan Somalia Niger Venezuela Cuba Bolivia Chile China Vietnam have all been victims of US imperialism.
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Yes Russia commits irredentism towards countries in its sphere of influence, would you like to start nuclear war over that? The US imperializes countries in every corner of the globe and because they are the number 1 super power other countries cant do much of anything about that without risking the livelihood of their country and people, this is a similar situation.
@@jakobsmith4046 No, I don't support a nuclear war with russia over this. I do support what the US is doing now in Ukraine, namely sending weapons, intel, etc.
Prior to this invasion, I thought that russia would be able to quickly overwhelm Ukraine and this would all be over in a matter of a few weeks, with mostly surrendering, as I imagined the russian military would be a colossus. But as we know, the russian military was very incompetent, while the Ukrainian military was underestimated. Seeing this level of resistance made putin use more brutal methods, which means Ukrainians are even more prone to resist, with over 90% of the population in support of resisting the russian invasion.
I know the history of the US is very troubled, but that doesn't mean that we can't help Ukraine when they are asking for assistance.
I like how the US emphasizes the Russia's military was overated and that they are superior and would easily win. Yet, the mighty US for years failed to win in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. All much smaller and less supported armies.
Wouldn't be surprised if we found out that the US army too is overrated.
The audience's vote is highly telling of which side's propaganda they are consuming.
So Mr. Volker's best case scenario is for Ukraine to remain a war-torn hell for the next decade so that Russia's military, economy and image can be slowly bled away. My heart weeps for the Ukrainian people suffering during this invasion. Apparently his does not.
Putin has no business invading Ukraine. He should be driven out of there and forces pushing the Russians back should press on some 10 km inside Russian territory in the vicinity of the Ukraine - Russian border. I am totally disgusted with the anaemic response of the West thus far. The only way to deal with bullies is to bully them back at whatever cost, and drive them into the dust.
@@colindant3410 Russia has reason to invade, but that doesn't diminish your point of view. I'm sure it matches the majority of those in Ukraine, and for good reason.
What's the alternative? Do you think that if putin gets Ukraine he would stop there?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Meeting Russia's demands would stop the carnage and allow Ukraine to return to normal with most of its territory intact. I understand and deeply respect the Ukrainians' determination to defend their country, but it comes at great cost.
Would Russia stop at Ukraine? No, not unless Russia is once again made weak and led by a pathetic like Yeltsin. NATO on its border is an existential threat to Russia and once Ukraine's neutrality is secured Russia will do what it can to undermine NATO, especially in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland. Russia won't likely attack any of these countries physically because of their NATO membership, but there will be constant manipulation and intimidation in hopes that the cohesion of NATO will eventually be broken down and these countries either leave voluntarily or NATO becomes too weak to defend them.
I know that you're thinking that that would never happen, and you might be right. I don't think the Russians will believe that it's easily achievable either. But they will try anyway, because they have to.
@@alanfriesen9837 "Meeting Russia's demands would stop the carnage and allow Ukraine to return to normal with most of its territory intact" that sounds like wishful thinking. Who would control this territory? A putin puppet, which the people of Ukraine DO NOT want. Putting the wishes of Ukraine's people aside, putin's demands for the US were to roll back NATO to pre 1999 status, meaning prior to the joining of Poland, Baltic states, etc. If the US were to back down to putin over Ukraine in the name of "stopping the carnage", he would then reiterate the demands sent to the US already, which boil down to the ROLLBACK of NATO. Why wouldn't he? All he has to do is show that he will murder civilians and shell cities to rubble, and in the name of "stopping carnage" the US will bend to his will. In such a scenario, would he be crazy enough to attack NATO? It's impossible to say, then again we all thought he wasn't crazy enough to attack Ukraine, and here we are.
If the people of Ukraine do not want to live under putin's rule, and they are willing to fight to prevent a russian takeover, then I think the least the US can do is supply them as well as we can so they have the best shot. The countries of eastern Europe know what it was like to live under the soviet union, and they do not want to be part of a neo russian empire, this is why they line up to join NATO. Poland for instance still remembers the Katyn massacre. In my view, putin will not stop at Ukraine, and bending to his will now will only embolden him and the narcissists in moscow who believe that having nukes gives them the right to rule over eastern Europe.