📊 If you appreciate our work, please leave a comment, thumbs up, or both. Your help will improve the algorithm and allow this video to reach more people on UA-cam. 📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT ➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
Good video. The scholzing by Ukrainian allies - in particular Germany and the United states - is frustrating. Wich is quite an understatement. So we see the curse in disguise: how aid is delivered with a big catch : limitations in numbers, as well in targets. But this might result in a unforseen development. On the other side, money flows into Ukraine, supporting the current innovation in warfare technology - in particular in drones, but also other systems like missiles. Not to mention the domestic weapon industry, as well international partners placing their factories in Ukraine. Its a paradox: we aid Ukraine, but we also stimulate them to become more independent. In particular the U.S wants to contain Russia, but it might create a new military powerhouse. A nation with western standards - but not overreliant on western (and in particular - american) systems. So when Ukraine enters NATO it will not be just a new member - but it might become the next power after the U.S, even before France, Turkey and even the United Kingdom. There will be cooperation - but also a strong Ukrainian-based military industrial complex: exporting, not just importing. U.S politics dominates NATO and western politics. They want Russia contained and Ukraine to survive - but still keep the Russian nation intact to some degree. But keeping a balance intact will not only prolong the war - it will prove to be impossible in the end. Thus, the unstoppable force of Ukraine could eventually adapt and overcome its restrictions by developing its own powers and weapons, tipping the scale to its advantage. Russia slowly degrades, Ukraine slowly upgrades. True - this is just ONE scenario. Ukraine is kept under constant pressure and this might continue for years. Pressure can make diamonds from coal - but can also crush it. Its a purge, wich shows whether it will be forged into steel or goes back into the rubble. This vision is certainly not the playbook of the United States. And when a new administration in Washington drops out of NATO or steps back in participation, this might result in more nations to consider their own nuclear weapon program - accelerating the proliferation. Then, you get a new military power in Eastern Europe with nukes, bordering a wasteland of the failed Russian Federation. Either a weak state with nuclear weapons, or several warlords, civil wars and other states like Turkey and China projecting their power, compensation the gap. A future carved by choices - and no vision or choice is also a choice with consequences. Predictions rarely manifest as foreseen - rather then a mix of scenario’s, or another variant. Also, new flashpoints will turn up in later times, weaving a new path. But to some degree, we should consider a more solid vision as western nations how we want Ukraine to evolve on the long term. I dont say this scenario is a bad one - some people will love it. But as it can manifest in many different variants with dangerous side effects, we should consider a more solid approach. As stated by many : the western world has no real vision, just kicks the can on the road.
NATO has figured out that war brings profit to companies and also to them personally. How many politicians have told Ukraine to kick back a portion of their aid to certain NGO's and "Charities" in exchange for continuing to get aid from the West. Trump is having none of this corruption. Russia will be stopped and Putin will lose, but their is more than one way to skin a cat.
“Despite NATO’s seniority, the organization is still younger than the future president of the United States. Who ever that may be. However unlike the species Homosapiens, the alliance does not suffer from cognitive decline with age.” GTBT you spitting bars now mane. Love from TX.
@@MelioraCogito before you ask that inane question, first remedy your own medical crisis - namely, your liquified brains leaking out of your nose, ears, and mouth.
I'm ashamed of our government. Supporting Ukraine shouldn't even be a debate. Yet politicians try to convince: (That if we give Ukraine aid/Then we cannot support our own people in our own country?) ~It's a trick question that plays off people's emotions. People don't understand that EVEN if support for Ukraine got blocked, that DOES NOT mean that all of a sudden America will start providing a ton of support for our own people & our own country..) It's all a trick mind game type of argument but a lot of people fall for it hook line & sinker. It totally makes sense to be frustrated with the current state of our country & how poorly our country is doing at taking care of our own people! BUT that's not going to change if support for Ukraine stops? We live in strange times. The entire world should be behind Ukraine and should go after Russia now because no one should be okay with allowing what Russia is doing. The world should go after Russia while their pants are down. Russia should never get away with these war crimes... Let me just reiterate, It's insane to me that these terrorist attacks from Russia are still ongoing. How has geopolitics not united and seen how important it is to focus on stepped up and PUTTING RUSSIA IN IT'S PLACE! Russia is acting so cocky and it's because of the way the world has failed to respond to ANYTHING Russia does.. More countries NEED to support Ukraine & decide that Russia can't keep getting away with this. Russia has gotten away with committing atrocities for years now. We must unite to help Ukraine. It should not be a difficult choice.
I agree. British populists claimed that after Brexit there would be millions of extra money for the National Health Service. The NHS is still waiting for that extra money...
Biden bears a lot of blame for this. He occupies the leader’s position the whole time during the war, but never made a clear case on why we need to stop and how to defeat Putin. Not everyone follows international relations or is familiar with history. It leader’s job to explain and bring people around to support important causes. A leader needs to lead, not just issue commands. Needless to say, I won’t be voting for him again.
@@PapaOscarNovember If my memory serves me well, the USA's biggest concern after the collapse of the USSR were the nuclear weapons that were stationed all over the USSR. The US didn't like the idea of many former Soviet republics (Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others) becoming independant and having nuclear weapons. I believe there is a similar fear that Russia might collapse into chaos if they militarily loose the war. I guess Biden (and his security advisors) have decided it is in America's interest if Ukraine doesn't kick the Russians out with a big victorious blow.. But it is also in America's interest if Russia bleeds and weakens. So the solution is helping Ukraine just enough so they don't crumble. Just my two cents of course. It is very cynical, but that's how geo-politics work.
@@cybercat2025 went to hungary 2.5 months ago. can say this top comment and the second is full of Shit lmfaoooo It's about not having migrants coming into the country and ruining things etc. Economy etc but cleary you aren't affected by it since you can comment dumb shit without going to that actual country. Btw I'm from canada if that will tell you any common sense from an outside point of view. Enjoy your inflation and work 3 jobs just to survive. Cheers mates
His whole "peace talk" nonsense is just a roleplay to get votes from the uniformed hungarians and sadly its been working... (the goverment + orban's pets owning the majority of hungarian media is big help for putin jr.)
@@hello-rq8kf _“you_ [sic] _mean when, right?”_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 **Fun Fact:** 54% of adult Americans have, at best, the literacy skills of 6th-graders (prepubescent 11-year-olds). (Source: U.S. Dept of _‘Edu-muh-cation’.)_ The only poll that counts is the one on Nov 5th, MAGAt. Try not to have an epileptic spastic seizure “when” he loses yet another election, notwithstanding his already stated goal that he will claim it was stolen from him “when” he loses.
Ultimately the election of Trump would have one advantage. It will be clear that the US is not a reliable ally. It would force European countries to work together and spend more on defence, but it would also allow the Europeans to take their own position towards for example the Middle East and China. So far the EU has never found a way to agree on foreign policy. But the financial crisis, Brexit and covid have shown that Europe can work together when under serious threat.
But this signal that the US is unreliable was already sent with Trump's first election. The second election will only foreshadow what will happen in the EU: a further push to post fact populist right parties.
If any nation, especially first world european nations, has to rely on the defense of another nation via USA. Then, you deserve to be conquered in no other era of humankind. Does another nation rely on another independent nation for defense. Unless they are protectorate, puppets, clients, or vassals. All of which the European countries are not so get your head out of the sand and start taking things seriously.
The European governments are in terminal decline. Their economies peaked in 2019 and will not surpass trap point in our lifetimes due to demographic collapse. If anything, the Ukraine conflict has shown that Europe is too weak to fight back without American support. Don’t be surprised if in the next 50-80 years that Europe becomes a colony of the U.S. in much the same way that Greece was to Rome
@@AmericanAdvancement Europe peaked in 2019 ? My country has been in decline for 60 years. The UK has been in decline for 80 years. Until then, the pound sterling was the world reserve currency, not the dollar. Anyway let's say that Europe peaked more than half a century ago. Some European countries even peaked much longer before that. Europe does not need to be stronger than the US. They only need to be stronger than Russia. And that is not a problem. Russia's GDP is the size of Italy's GDP. It will take more effort and time, and the human cost (for Ukrainians) will be higher. Bur Russia won't win. As for Europe becoming an American colony. Nah, the USA has also reached its peak. They're in decline but don't realise it yet. Putin did not give a sh*t about the US when he invaded Ukraine. He (rightly) believed the US would stay out. China won't ask Washington for permission when they decide to invade Taiwan. The Saudis refused to lower oil prices when the US asked for it. The US doesn't tell Israel what to do, it is Israel who tells the US what to do.
Help to Ukraine (or lack thereof) mirrors the core of NATO's collective defense problems. Individual countries do first and foremost not agree what the threats to NATO are and how imperative each of these are. Secondly the lack of investments into (mainly) European militaries is not only a matter of +/- 2% of GDP, rather it's a matter of how you interpret article 3 of the NATO charter: "...the Parties ... will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack." What exactly do we mean by this? And if we mean less, is 2% GDP necessary? If we mean more, is 2% necessary or maybe even more? With the war in Ukraine I think it's becoming clear to not only politicians but also voters that it's impossible to quantify defense. Saying 2% is easy. But identifying threats, their gravity and agreeing on the appropriate means to counter these threats, is not only very hard. With varying positions on security - especially in Europe - it's almost impossible. Which is why my point stands: NATO needs to start discussing what article 3 actually means and not just leave it at "2%". If we don't, article 5 will be impossible to invoke
You have a point. I was just thinking to myself earlier with a different comment that I was writing, that the thing that worries me about European defense isn't so much its funding, as it is its readiness level and it's capacity to expand if a genuine threat were to appear. Honestly, the latter especially is something of a problem all throughout NATO at this point, not just Europe. We've become accustomed to super advanced weapons that are outrageously expensive due to the doctrines adopted during the 2000s-2010s, and are no longer configured to fight a large scale war. Manufacturing for weapons and ammunition that isn't high-end is severely lacking. Combined with the perception of weakness in European militaries - what with them being largely unbloodied for the past 30 years outside of small deployments of forces attached to American military operations - and it's a problem that just throwing more cash at the issue isn't going to solve. At least not quickly.
The assumption that Trump will be kinder to Russia may not play out. If you listen more closely he said that he would bring Russia to the negotiation table and if it didn't respond that he would INCREASE aid to Ukraine. Also if you remember when the USA left Afghanistan he strongly criticized the way the USA left and I think he is unlikely to accept an end to the Ukraine conflict that looks like a loss for the USA. As Putin seems inflexible and also needs a win for his domestic audience there is a good chance that Kiev would need to agree to whatever Trump asks and that USA support in Ukraine increases until Russia throws in the towel.
A lot of Europeans don't really understand what Trump is about, because their perspective is mainly informed by media soundbytes. > Trump's position about this conflict has always been that it shouldn't have happened, that it was a result of diplomatic breakdowns and opportunism (the botched Afghan withdraw being pointed to frequently as an example of the US signaling weakness, creating a perceived opening for a strike) that came as a result of bad policy on the part of America and several European countries, particularly Germany & the aforementioned United States. > Trump's solution to the conflict has always been to get both parties to the negotiating table to foremost hammer out an end to the fighting. Both Russia and Ukraine at this point are too invested to just *stop* without some kind of strong international pressure on both sides to stop. Outright military victory against Russia in this issue is a pipe dream. Sure, if the conflict is drawn out we can make it hurt Russia more and more, but the cost to do so to the people who live in Ukraine is monstrous. As an aside, If you, as an international person looking in, are okay with spilling gallons of Ukrainian blood just to further weaken Russia in a conflict they really can't lose w/o escalating things into WW3, then you don't really care about Ukraine - what you care about destroying Russia. Which, if that's what you want fair enough, I can absolutely understand the perspective of wanting to make Russia cease to be a threat. But, don't hide behind the sentiment of "We HaVe To SaVe UkRaInE!!" - be honest about what you're trying to achieve. > Thus, if the situation were to evolve in such a way that Ukraine was willing to negotiate, but Putin wanted nothing more than a surrender in all but name? Yeah, Trump's going to escalate on that, and escalate hard. Similarly, though, if it's the opposite, where Putin and Russia are willing to negotiate but Ukraine is going to fight to the bitter end, he'll cut funding. That's just how he works.
Trump is all about populism. If leaving from Afganistanie would have been cheered for, he would brag that this is him who planned it and pushed for it. He will do anything that his supporters wants, whenever its good for America or not
@@ASNS117Zeroyah that’s a load of bullshit, and and the populist isolation crowd he has been cultivating, including naming an isolationist Vp, won’t accept it. If you think he can end this war you’re an idiot.
Loss for the USA? I thought USA didn't even arrive to the conflict yet. By the way, Putin has stated that Russia will never stop before its minimum demands are met.
he's sticking to fairly popular opinions. Even most of Bidens supporters recognize that he's well past his prime and just get contrarian because they dont like agreeing with Republicans and similarly many Republicans support aiding Ukraine but dont like to do that openly since they dont like agreeing with the Democrats. I know some diehards in either group and most liberals i know even said in 2020 that they were voting for Harris more then they were voting for Biden since many people didnt even expect him to make it this long and similarly I know quiet a few diehard Trump fans who still support Ukraine. Hell my boss has had a "Vote Trump" bumper sticker hanging over his desk for the last 8 years straight and he's gotten his friends and employees to boycott celebrities that support Russia, like my boss is a rare Steven Seagal fan and he stopped watching a movie the second he saw the actor and went on a tirade about him all because Seagal is a Putin supporter. Partisan politics has lead to a lot of weird stuff like that where people toe the party line even when they disagree with it, sometimes they do it fully knowing that the part itself doesnt even really support their own line but both the voters and the party keep it up simply because they dont want to agree with the other side.
Great content today. And one more time, listening from New Zealand 🇳🇿 and your accent is so refreshing and engaging to listen to compared to the rise of bot- voice or even North American accents.
@@sassenspeyghel4155 Obviously lol. And they're right. The single biggest thing this election cycle has proven, is that there needs to be an age cap for elected officials. Maybe it can be something we can adjust in the future as technology in medicine improves and lifespans increase, but we really need to see to adding an age cap for political critters. Maybe retirement age +5? So if you can retire at 65, you cap out in terms of being eligible for elected office at 70?
NATO does however have Poland as leadership stalwarts along with Finland, Sweden now and Italy (who would have guessed!) Then there is of course the fact that of France the UK and Germany its unlikely that all three will emerge much weaker, at least one of those is bound to bounce back into the throne room, any one of which given the chance would grab the steering wheel. And although small, the E. European and Baltic voices of NATO are now listened to more than ever. The last thing Russia wants to see is NATO mobilize right now, cos thats a race they have zero chance of winning, hell China and mathematically even the US would be left in the dust if the EU started a 5% of GDP mobilization. And thats what it is looking like to be honest... The party time of 'Peace Dividend' is well over now, its the next morning now and time to clean up the mess.
If a war between NATO and Russia breaks out then the Russians will go straight to the nuclear option since they cannot win a land war against the alliance
People blaming Europeans to let USA protecting them, need to understand this : - South Europeans don't need USA for their own protection and are actually competiting with them over many issues (Turkey, Morroco, Libya, etc..). - Western European don't need USA protection either. Countries like France or UK have military budget that are close from Russia. Russia is not a threat for their in anyway. - Eastern Europeans do need USA, but those are too small countries to protect themselves from Russia and they do pay a lot for their defense. The mistake might have been from Eastern Europeans to chose Americans for protection instead of Western Europeans. But that can understanding as USA is not a direct competitor for them in EU and they do have a bigger military. So the entire question is not "Should Europeans protect themselves", they already do that. But "Should Eastern Europeans trust Americans or Western Europeans for the job and should Western Europeans accept it".
The problem is Western Europe has not been really great at providing that sort of protection. France and Britain do not have industrial strength or or military equipment to really do that. And Germany isn’t even in the ballpark. If you look at the data, France has 500 tanks inventory, Britain has about 250, and their air forces pretty small. Never mind all of the logistical needs. Western Europe could absolutely provide the protection if they really wanted to, but it would require them to spend significantly more money than they are now. And western European countries don’t seem to really wanna do that.
This take just isn't based on reality. Those "Southern Europeans" aren't even in Europe. Those are the Middle East and Northern Africa, respectively. Western Europe has been almost completely demilitarized since the end of the Cold War and is only now just starting to get back into rearming despite numerous voices outside of Europe practically begging them to get their shit together. Just look at their collective budgets, readiness levels, downsizing, and public statements from Washington officials toward Europe regarding European defense. Western Europe has a verifiable history over the past century of not being able or willing to defend its allies/see to its commitments. Just ask Poland if you want a practical example, or the various horrific state of affairs that Europeans left in their wake upon their exit from Africa. Eastern Europe has every right not to want to trust Western Europe for defense. Look at their track record in the past century - whether they'll even honor a treaty is extremely up in the air. By comparison, the United States is much more reliable of an ally.
@@ASNS117Zero Impressive, you managed to get everything wrong. You have the tiktok level of geopolitic. Turkey against Greece, Morocco against Spain, Libya against Italy. Often USA take the side against Europeans in those conflicts/crisis, that's why Southern Europeans feel very little concerned toward NATO and USA which is at best neutral, at worst an enemy. And let's not even talk about Cyprus that is occupied by a NATO country. NATO is not an alliance to protect Europe, never was, never will. Western European budget is exactly the budget and the army they needs. The biggest threats for us are on overseas territories (which are not covered by NATO) or we don't have any (Belgium, Netherland, Danemark, etc..) Why increase it ? To defend Eastern Europeans ? Why defending territories that are in US sphere of influence ? It doesn't concern us. My great grand father was literally killed in a war started to defend Poland independence, we kept our words, always did. While Polish people begged Germany to invade Czechia in 1938 so they could save their ass (that didn't worked lol). We have 0 lessons to get from them. We also have 0 lessons to get from USA either when it's about leaving Africa or Middle East. We are the one dealing with the worst refugee crisis in human history THEY created by bombing and invading middle east for 10 years. Africa is far better now that the state we found it in the 2010s after USA passage. Sure, Eastern Europeans has every right to chose USA protection over Western Europe. They are a very reliable ally right ? That's why everyone are very confident USA will commit to their role in the next 10 years right ? I mean, it's not like they are about to become isolationist exactly when things start to get heated like they did in the 1900s and 1930s right ? They are reliable remember ! Ask the Kurdes, the Afghan Republic, Hussein, South Vietnam and every other countries they backstabbed how reliable they are. I am sure eastern Europeans are very happy with USA at the moment and are not begging Western Europe for protection at all, because USA is such a reliable ally.
Something important to know, for all who interested in history and/or support Ukraine: Rus' ought not to be confused with modern “Russia”, which derives its name from the Rus' but historically is a completely different state, which almost all its existence was at war with the Rus'. Just like the Holy Roman Empire was actually Germany, “Russia” is actually Muscovy, despite their best attempts to convince everybody otherwise. Its name “Russia" received only in the 18th century, when Peter I simply changed Muscovy’s name into the “All Russian Empire” (Russia originates from Rosia, name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Rus') Under the reign of Cathrine II Muscovites where even punished for continuing to identify as Muscovites, and were forced to call themselves Russian. Lands that Russia (Muscovy) claims were part of the original Rus', but actually weren't, are Novgorod, Suzdal, and Ryazan, since in historical texts of XI-XII centuries they are mentioned as separate entities from Rus'. They can be considered parts of extended Rus', although their culture was distinct from main Rus'. In 1493, Muscovite duke Ivan III appointed himself to be the Great Ruler of All Rus'. No other kings acknowledged that. From that point on Muscovy started to make false claims on Rus' ownership. “Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine and not the other way round, despite what Soviet and Russian (Muscovite) historians have been trying to say for years. A Slavicised Finnic, then later, Mongolized offshoot. Kyiv was a developed cultured capital when Moscow was just another swamp village. Moreover, in the Italian sources of the 15th century it is likewise mentioned, that Russia is bordered by Poland to the west, Lithuania and Livonia to the north, and *Muscovy* to the east, further proving that Russia historically speaking, is an exonym of Ukraine, that was stolen by Muscovy. Germany used to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, that didn’t mean they became the Romans, and all of a sudden had a right to claim whole of Italy and its history, but yet, that’s exactly what Russia (Muscovy) did in regards to Rus'-Ukraine, which is a horrible injustice!
I doubt that in France Melancon in France will rise to power tbh. There are also alot of left leaning elected people in France that don't want him in power. I think Macron, while it'll be difficult, will be able to create a stable coalition.
Wait until the next German election, and there won't be much left, but a neoclassical ex Black Rock manager (Merz) who won't see the profits in helping Ukraine, fixating on outdated austerity politics while further engaging in the typical corruption where a lot of money is spent on purely bureaucratic bills that have no real-life effect whatsoever, and merely serve marketing purposes. His party has always been about maintaining power without changing anything, but also personally profiting from this situation.
Because if you attack said insolation nation, I'm assuming you're talking about the US. Yeah, good luck living within 48 hours if your an organization and if you're a nation, you're dead.
@@user-xu1tn9ds8u Ожели Украина вступит в НАТО и ЕС, то это не имеет смысла, ибо русские считают территории Украины и Белоруссии своими! Получится ситуация, коль Украина вступит в НАТО и ЕС: Европа будет думать, что Украина их территория, а Россия будет считать, что Русь едина и между русскими идёт гражданская война! -
@@user-xu1tn9ds8u Буде Вы не заметили, русские уже давно иностранных солдат и инструкторов на Незалежной воспринимают как интервентов, пришедших на русскую землю! -
Wonder why you didn't cover the assassination attempt in its own video. Its almost like you are biased as you unironically called him an authoritarian before. Look, its fine to have your own political slant but being this one-sided while portraying yourself so professionally is delegitimizing.
@@darken2417and his own party tore those people apart. Trump is a self serving megalomaniac. Nothing he does is sincere. You’re the one being one sided here.
@@KaloyanKasabovthe supreme court simply reminds everyone that trump has rights just like any other presidents before him and no, political assassinations are not welcome in this constitutional republic
@@KaloyanKasabov UA-cam hid my reply so I'll keep it brief: Delusional, at the RNC he literally had people talk about diversity and poses with rainbow flags. Looked like a straight up progressive convention. Granted, I think this is cringe but being impartial and fair means seeing things how they really are and putting aside your bias. I want these sorts of channels that pretend to be serious and fact-based to be a good source of information.
The United States has since the end of WWII, has guaranteed the prosperity of western and even now Eastern Europeans as well as many other parts of the world by insuring free trade at great expense to ourselves. Europeans and others are now going to have to show the fortitude to maintain their privileged status.
Not at the expense of the USA. USA have funded this guarantee with free money from your printers. Not to mention that being the worlds police come with certain privileges in terms of self-interests like oil and other ressources and diplomacy in general. When Trump inevitable wins and starts pushing nationalism and semi-abandoning (he won't leave NATO) allies. EU will be forced to stand on its own, but by doing so, it will also be more independent in the future. This means USA will have less leverage on the geopolitical stage. Is all this good or bad? I don't know - you can decide for yourself.
@@Furri1bia I would say that author just presents the perspective of east-european coutry. It should be obvious that eastern europeans won't hold russia side of this conflict. Who once was under russian thumb knows what it brings, and definitely will not want the history to repeat.
seen other channels discuss how we got into them in the 70s, had no good use case, so put it on the shelf. So the speed is all about dusting it off and slapping new tech into it.
@@redfro4992 yeah it was stupid expensive back then and with the treaties we wanted it didn’t really make sense, even now it feels like we’re doing it because of Russian propaganda lol Like what happened with the Foxbat. Russia claims to have a thing we build something to outclass that claim only to realize it was just a claim. Patriot systems “questionably operated I might add” have been knocking hypersonics out of the sky, That shouldn’t be a possibility let alone a probability
I especially like the Victor Orban video because Trump seems to like the dude. It's scary. I think Kamala Harris will take his place. Rumors say that Obama spoke with Joe on this subject.
I think it's kind of ironic that everybody in Europe didn't want to pay their fair share into NATO but soon as Russia invade Ukraine they had all kinds of money for their budgets but for years it made the United States pay for their defense it's my personal belief we should get out or write a new deal
Because european nations didnt believe there to be a war so spending more on military made no sense. Only after russia invaded ukraine they wanted to spend more on military to support ukraine. There was always money for military but no will
you are missinformed on the "fair share" the 2% is not the share to pay to NATO, it's what the alliance, back then, saw as the target that each country should spend on THEIR OWN defence. the military budget is just for each single country and include wages of soldier, office workers, provvision and maintanance (which in avarage take 60%ish of the total budget, depending on the country military profile) it is NOT a budget that is payed to NATO Also, for hell's sake, the USA budget need to be shared across 2 effing ocean ( among 11 aircraft carrier, 100s of other ships, 1000 of tanks, other vehicles and the army wages)
So in other words during the 60s 70s 80s 90s and early 2000s European militaries put less than 2% of their budget into their own military defense is that what you're saying and their belief was why should they they had the United States protecting them and to be quite honest with you we should not be in European affairs anyways somehow we got stuck with that over 100 years ago and we're still all up in your guys's business
@@tomsmith476 again, missinforamtion and missintepetration. -USa need to ship their army oversea, rasining cost a lot (i suggest ryan mcbeth for some info on the matter) and again, thei budget cover BOTH ocean, and maint of honestly too many vehicles. -the GDP increased in all this time you know? the 2% of 100 is 2, the 1,5% of 200 is 3, the 1% of 400 is 4. The detractor of state that do not reach the 2% always skip on this part -again, the idea that USA did all the heavy lifting is wrong, and the bases in europe they are using are paid by the country they are in -the spending depend from country to country. on top of the wages, upkeep of building, provvision of food and ammo, maint of vehicles, maint of aircraft (more expensive), eventual maint of naval vessel (awfully expensive) what you need change depending oon the country. for example, italy will spend less on land vehicles but more on aircraft (like the 7 billion euro for F35 and F22 they are sending to USA) and way more on ships -some country are logistically incapable to spend that much. if luxenburg actually spent on their army (which is 900 men btw) 2% they'll need a bigger country just in parking lots -AGAIN, Nato is about collaboration within existing infrastructure, not cumulative budget -most manufactoring of weapon happen in the USA, for which EU country are paying the USA, with their budget, not NATO, but the detractor also skip this part
That is stupid. Neither Russia nor NATO want it. Russia, becouse they want to play role of indemendent imperium. NATO because noone trust Russia at this point. Not to mention, they had a chance for it in early 2000' but Putin demanded they would be asked for it, and they would be let in without asking for permission to other allies. He thought he can make deal with America to split "spheres of interest" just like they did in ribentrop-molotov pact. That just show what is Russian perception of alliances of equals, and obeying of treaties
📊 If you appreciate our work, please leave a comment, thumbs up, or both. Your help will improve the algorithm and allow this video to reach more people on UA-cam.
📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT
➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
Thank you for uploading epicness as usual 😎
Good video.
The scholzing by Ukrainian allies - in particular Germany and the United states - is frustrating. Wich is quite an understatement. So we see the curse in disguise: how aid is delivered with a big catch : limitations in numbers, as well in targets. But this might result in a unforseen development.
On the other side, money flows into Ukraine, supporting the current innovation in warfare technology - in particular in drones, but also other systems like missiles. Not to mention the domestic weapon industry, as well international partners placing their factories in Ukraine.
Its a paradox: we aid Ukraine, but we also stimulate them to become more independent. In particular the U.S wants to contain Russia, but it might create a new military powerhouse. A nation with western standards - but not overreliant on western (and in particular - american) systems.
So when Ukraine enters NATO it will not be just a new member - but it might become the next power after the U.S, even before France, Turkey and even the United Kingdom. There will be cooperation - but also a strong Ukrainian-based military industrial complex: exporting, not just importing.
U.S politics dominates NATO and western politics. They want Russia contained and Ukraine to survive - but still keep the Russian nation intact to some degree. But keeping a balance intact will not only prolong the war - it will prove to be impossible in the end.
Thus, the unstoppable force of Ukraine could eventually adapt and overcome its restrictions by developing its own powers and weapons, tipping the scale to its advantage. Russia slowly degrades, Ukraine slowly upgrades.
True - this is just ONE scenario. Ukraine is kept under constant pressure and this might continue for years. Pressure can make diamonds from coal - but can also crush it. Its a purge, wich shows whether it will be forged into steel or goes back into the rubble.
This vision is certainly not the playbook of the United States. And when a new administration in Washington drops out of NATO or steps back in participation, this might result in more nations to consider their own nuclear weapon program - accelerating the proliferation.
Then, you get a new military power in Eastern Europe with nukes, bordering a wasteland of the failed Russian Federation. Either a weak state with nuclear weapons, or several warlords, civil wars and other states like Turkey and China projecting their power, compensation the gap.
A future carved by choices - and no vision or choice is also a choice with consequences.
Predictions rarely manifest as foreseen - rather then a mix of scenario’s, or another variant. Also, new flashpoints will turn up in later times, weaving a new path. But to some degree, we should consider a more solid vision as western nations how we want Ukraine to evolve on the long term.
I dont say this scenario is a bad one - some people will love it. But as it can manifest in many different variants with dangerous side effects, we should consider a more solid approach. As stated by many : the western world has no real vision, just kicks the can on the road.
The war would not have happened if NATO had not forced Ukraine to become a NATO country and carried out the 2014 coup.
NATO has figured out that war brings profit to companies and also to them personally. How many politicians have told Ukraine to kick back a portion of their aid to certain NGO's and "Charities" in exchange for continuing to get aid from the West. Trump is having none of this corruption. Russia will be stopped and Putin will lose, but their is more than one way to skin a cat.
Good times? No, bad times.
Bro did NOT hold back lmfao
Absolutely based
@@Flesjemetwater i do believe he is truly down about this situation.
“Despite NATO’s seniority, the organization is still younger than the future president of the United States. Who ever that may be. However unlike the species Homosapiens, the alliance does not suffer from cognitive decline with age.” GTBT you spitting bars now mane. Love from TX.
_“GTBT you_ [sic] _spitting bars_ [sic] _now mane.”_ [sic] 🤦🤦♂🤦♀
🤔 WTF does _“… splitting bars now mane”_ mean?
I don't know president macron's infamous 'braindead' comments given its full context wasn't exactly unjustified
@@MelioraCogito before you ask that inane question, first remedy your own medical crisis - namely, your liquified brains leaking out of your nose, ears, and mouth.
Based Polish man cant stop spitting facts 🗣📠🔥‼
One of the best geopolitical channels on YT
For real 🙌
~a random canadian subscriber dude
I'm ashamed of our government. Supporting Ukraine shouldn't even be a debate. Yet politicians try to convince: (That if we give Ukraine aid/Then we cannot support our own people in our own country?) ~It's a trick question that plays off people's emotions. People don't understand that EVEN if support for Ukraine got blocked, that DOES NOT mean that all of a sudden America will start providing a ton of support for our own people & our own country..) It's all a trick mind game type of argument but a lot of people fall for it hook line & sinker. It totally makes sense to be frustrated with the current state of our country & how poorly our country is doing at taking care of our own people! BUT that's not going to change if support for Ukraine stops? We live in strange times. The entire world should be behind Ukraine and should go after Russia now because no one should be okay with allowing what Russia is doing. The world should go after Russia while their pants are down. Russia should never get away with these war crimes...
Let me just reiterate,
It's insane to me that these terrorist attacks from Russia are still ongoing. How has geopolitics not united and seen how important it is to focus on stepped up and PUTTING RUSSIA IN IT'S PLACE! Russia is acting so cocky and it's because of the way the world has failed to respond to ANYTHING Russia does.. More countries NEED to support Ukraine & decide that Russia can't keep getting away with this.
Russia has gotten away with committing atrocities for years now. We must unite to help Ukraine. It should not be a difficult choice.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You've been brainwashed by the globalist mainstream media
I agree. British populists claimed that after Brexit there would be millions of extra money for the National Health Service. The NHS is still waiting for that extra money...
Biden bears a lot of blame for this.
He occupies the leader’s position the whole time during the war, but never made a clear case on why we need to stop and how to defeat Putin. Not everyone follows international relations or is familiar with history. It leader’s job to explain and bring people around to support important causes. A leader needs to lead, not just issue commands.
Needless to say, I won’t be voting for him again.
@@PapaOscarNovember If my memory serves me well, the USA's biggest concern after the collapse of the USSR were the nuclear weapons that were stationed all over the USSR. The US didn't like the idea of many former Soviet republics (Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others) becoming independant and having nuclear weapons. I believe there is a similar fear that Russia might collapse into chaos if they militarily loose the war. I guess Biden (and his security advisors) have decided it is in America's interest if Ukraine doesn't kick the Russians out with a big victorious blow.. But it is also in America's interest if Russia bleeds and weakens. So the solution is helping Ukraine just enough so they don't crumble. Just my two cents of course. It is very cynical, but that's how geo-politics work.
…. Orban is such a disgrace…
Putin's little pet
@@cybercat2025 went to hungary 2.5 months ago.
can say this top comment and the second is full of Shit lmfaoooo
It's about not having migrants coming into the country and ruining things etc. Economy etc but cleary you aren't affected by it since you can comment dumb shit without going to that actual country.
Btw I'm from canada if that will tell you any common sense from an outside point of view.
Enjoy your inflation and work 3 jobs just to survive.
Cheers mates
His whole "peace talk" nonsense is just a roleplay to get votes from the uniformed hungarians and sadly its been working... (the goverment + orban's pets owning the majority of hungarian media is big help for putin jr.)
Fot wanting peace?? @@cybercat2025
Trump said he is a "tough guy".
Europe, please step up. If Trump wins, it's all up to you guys 🇲🇽❤️🇪🇺🇺🇦
you mean when, right?
@@hello-rq8kf _“you_ [sic] _mean when, right?”_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 **Fun Fact:** 54% of adult Americans have, at best, the literacy skills of 6th-graders (prepubescent 11-year-olds). (Source: U.S. Dept of _‘Edu-muh-cation’.)_
The only poll that counts is the one on Nov 5th, MAGAt.
Try not to have an epileptic spastic seizure “when” he loses yet another election, notwithstanding his already stated goal that he will claim it was stolen from him “when” he loses.
They’ve been stepping up. Europe has surpassed US in terms of Aid. But Your cult leader just wants Putin happy
Stop this doomerism, Trump has a history of being harder on Putin, he won't avoid supplying Ukraine with support.
This assertion is based on what?
fantastic work
Bro decimated both US candidates in the first minute and thought we wouldn't notice
Ultimately the election of Trump would have one advantage. It will be clear that the US is not a reliable ally. It would force European countries to work together and spend more on defence, but it would also allow the Europeans to take their own position towards for example the Middle East and China.
So far the EU has never found a way to agree on foreign policy. But the financial crisis, Brexit and covid have shown that Europe can work together when under serious threat.
But this signal that the US is unreliable was already sent with Trump's first election. The second election will only foreshadow what will happen in the EU: a further push to post fact populist right parties.
Buddy the European governments aren’t any more competent and reliable than the American governments is.
If any nation, especially first world european nations, has to rely on the defense of another nation via USA. Then, you deserve to be conquered in no other era of humankind. Does another nation rely on another independent nation for defense. Unless they are protectorate, puppets, clients, or vassals. All of which the European countries are not so get your head out of the sand and start taking things seriously.
The European governments are in terminal decline. Their economies peaked in 2019 and will not surpass trap point in our lifetimes due to demographic collapse. If anything, the Ukraine conflict has shown that Europe is too weak to fight back without American support. Don’t be surprised if in the next 50-80 years that Europe becomes a colony of the U.S. in much the same way that Greece was to Rome
@@AmericanAdvancement Europe peaked in 2019 ? My country has been in decline for 60 years. The UK has been in decline for 80 years. Until then, the pound sterling was the world reserve currency, not the dollar. Anyway let's say that Europe peaked more than half a century ago. Some European countries even peaked much longer before that.
Europe does not need to be stronger than the US. They only need to be stronger than Russia. And that is not a problem. Russia's GDP is the size of Italy's GDP. It will take more effort and time, and the human cost (for Ukrainians) will be higher. Bur Russia won't win.
As for Europe becoming an American colony. Nah, the USA has also reached its peak. They're in decline but don't realise it yet. Putin did not give a sh*t about the US when he invaded Ukraine. He (rightly) believed the US would stay out. China won't ask Washington for permission when they decide to invade Taiwan. The Saudis refused to lower oil prices when the US asked for it. The US doesn't tell Israel what to do, it is Israel who tells the US what to do.
Help to Ukraine (or lack thereof) mirrors the core of NATO's collective defense problems. Individual countries do first and foremost not agree what the threats to NATO are and how imperative each of these are. Secondly the lack of investments into (mainly) European militaries is not only a matter of +/- 2% of GDP, rather it's a matter of how you interpret article 3 of the NATO charter: "...the Parties ... will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack." What exactly do we mean by this? And if we mean less, is 2% GDP necessary? If we mean more, is 2% necessary or maybe even more?
With the war in Ukraine I think it's becoming clear to not only politicians but also voters that it's impossible to quantify defense. Saying 2% is easy. But identifying threats, their gravity and agreeing on the appropriate means to counter these threats, is not only very hard. With varying positions on security - especially in Europe - it's almost impossible. Which is why my point stands: NATO needs to start discussing what article 3 actually means and not just leave it at "2%". If we don't, article 5 will be impossible to invoke
Ukrainw ia not a NATO member. I would agree if Ukraine would be a member but they aint
@@ysahli I'm perfectly aware. I was using Ukraine as an analogy to how NATO countries conduct security matters.
You have a point.
I was just thinking to myself earlier with a different comment that I was writing, that the thing that worries me about European defense isn't so much its funding, as it is its readiness level and it's capacity to expand if a genuine threat were to appear.
Honestly, the latter especially is something of a problem all throughout NATO at this point, not just Europe. We've become accustomed to super advanced weapons that are outrageously expensive due to the doctrines adopted during the 2000s-2010s, and are no longer configured to fight a large scale war. Manufacturing for weapons and ammunition that isn't high-end is severely lacking.
Combined with the perception of weakness in European militaries - what with them being largely unbloodied for the past 30 years outside of small deployments of forces attached to American military operations - and it's a problem that just throwing more cash at the issue isn't going to solve. At least not quickly.
Hubert narrated this! That makes me happy!
The assumption that Trump will be kinder to Russia may not play out. If you listen more closely he said that he would bring Russia to the negotiation table and if it didn't respond that he would INCREASE aid to Ukraine. Also if you remember when the USA left Afghanistan he strongly criticized the way the USA left and I think he is unlikely to accept an end to the Ukraine conflict that looks like a loss for the USA. As Putin seems inflexible and also needs a win for his domestic audience there is a good chance that Kiev would need to agree to whatever Trump asks and that USA support in Ukraine increases until Russia throws in the towel.
A lot of Europeans don't really understand what Trump is about, because their perspective is mainly informed by media soundbytes.
> Trump's position about this conflict has always been that it shouldn't have happened, that it was a result of diplomatic breakdowns and opportunism (the botched Afghan withdraw being pointed to frequently as an example of the US signaling weakness, creating a perceived opening for a strike) that came as a result of bad policy on the part of America and several European countries, particularly Germany & the aforementioned United States.
> Trump's solution to the conflict has always been to get both parties to the negotiating table to foremost hammer out an end to the fighting. Both Russia and Ukraine at this point are too invested to just *stop* without some kind of strong international pressure on both sides to stop. Outright military victory against Russia in this issue is a pipe dream. Sure, if the conflict is drawn out we can make it hurt Russia more and more, but the cost to do so to the people who live in Ukraine is monstrous.
As an aside, If you, as an international person looking in, are okay with spilling gallons of Ukrainian blood just to further weaken Russia in a conflict they really can't lose w/o escalating things into WW3, then you don't really care about Ukraine - what you care about destroying Russia. Which, if that's what you want fair enough, I can absolutely understand the perspective of wanting to make Russia cease to be a threat. But, don't hide behind the sentiment of "We HaVe To SaVe UkRaInE!!" - be honest about what you're trying to achieve.
> Thus, if the situation were to evolve in such a way that Ukraine was willing to negotiate, but Putin wanted nothing more than a surrender in all but name? Yeah, Trump's going to escalate on that, and escalate hard. Similarly, though, if it's the opposite, where Putin and Russia are willing to negotiate but Ukraine is going to fight to the bitter end, he'll cut funding. That's just how he works.
Trump is all about populism. If leaving from Afganistanie would have been cheered for, he would brag that this is him who planned it and pushed for it.
He will do anything that his supporters wants, whenever its good for America or not
@@ASNS117Zeroyah that’s a load of bullshit, and and the populist isolation crowd he has been cultivating, including naming an isolationist Vp, won’t accept it.
If you think he can end this war you’re an idiot.
BS populist propaganda by the republicans
Loss for the USA? I thought USA didn't even arrive to the conflict yet. By the way, Putin has stated that Russia will never stop before its minimum demands are met.
Brave man to talk US politics, no matter what you say, half of your viewers are going to be annoyed. Here is a donation to the risk you took. Thanks!
he's sticking to fairly popular opinions. Even most of Bidens supporters recognize that he's well past his prime and just get contrarian because they dont like agreeing with Republicans and similarly many Republicans support aiding Ukraine but dont like to do that openly since they dont like agreeing with the Democrats. I know some diehards in either group and most liberals i know even said in 2020 that they were voting for Harris more then they were voting for Biden since many people didnt even expect him to make it this long and similarly I know quiet a few diehard Trump fans who still support Ukraine. Hell my boss has had a "Vote Trump" bumper sticker hanging over his desk for the last 8 years straight and he's gotten his friends and employees to boycott celebrities that support Russia, like my boss is a rare Steven Seagal fan and he stopped watching a movie the second he saw the actor and went on a tirade about him all because Seagal is a Putin supporter.
Partisan politics has lead to a lot of weird stuff like that where people toe the party line even when they disagree with it, sometimes they do it fully knowing that the part itself doesnt even really support their own line but both the voters and the party keep it up simply because they dont want to agree with the other side.
Great content once again!!
Great content today. And one more time, listening from New Zealand 🇳🇿 and your accent is so refreshing and engaging to listen to compared to the rise of bot- voice or even North American accents.
Another Excellent Analysis 👌🏼
Love your work! Keep going hard! We need it!
0:40 the US needs an upper age limit NOW
For it's Presidency, right?
For it's Presidency, RIGHT?!?!
@@sassenspeyghel4155 For everything.
Political.
@@sassenspeyghel4155 Obviously lol.
And they're right. The single biggest thing this election cycle has proven, is that there needs to be an age cap for elected officials.
Maybe it can be something we can adjust in the future as technology in medicine improves and lifespans increase, but we really need to see to adding an age cap for political critters.
Maybe retirement age +5? So if you can retire at 65, you cap out in terms of being eligible for elected office at 70?
They can't leave because of all the dodgy deals they have done, being in Congress gives them some level of protection
Another excellent "special report". Thank you, Mr Hubert Walas et al.!
Watching this a month later - holy shit, how things have changed.
thank you!
NATO does however have Poland as leadership stalwarts along with Finland, Sweden now and Italy (who would have guessed!) Then there is of course the fact that of France the UK and Germany its unlikely that all three will emerge much weaker, at least one of those is bound to bounce back into the throne room, any one of which given the chance would grab the steering wheel. And although small, the E. European and Baltic voices of NATO are now listened to more than ever. The last thing Russia wants to see is NATO mobilize right now, cos thats a race they have zero chance of winning, hell China and mathematically even the US would be left in the dust if the EU started a 5% of GDP mobilization. And thats what it is looking like to be honest... The party time of 'Peace Dividend' is well over now, its the next morning now and time to clean up the mess.
If a war between NATO and Russia breaks out then the Russians will go straight to the nuclear option since they cannot win a land war against the alliance
Don't stop using that song
Modern irony is an understatement
Again showing why this channel is one of the best in the geopolitical stage. Balanced view 👍
How so? This is pretty obviously pro nato
@@SA2004YG having a bias doesn't mean you lie. Views are one thing. Facts are another
Balanced lol.
@@KaloyanKasabov I never said anything about lies, I was referring to the "balanced" claim
Not slightly balanced. Heavily biased.
People blaming Europeans to let USA protecting them, need to understand this :
- South Europeans don't need USA for their own protection and are actually competiting with them over many issues (Turkey, Morroco, Libya, etc..).
- Western European don't need USA protection either. Countries like France or UK have military budget that are close from Russia. Russia is not a threat for their in anyway.
- Eastern Europeans do need USA, but those are too small countries to protect themselves from Russia and they do pay a lot for their defense.
The mistake might have been from Eastern Europeans to chose Americans for protection instead of Western Europeans. But that can understanding as USA is not a direct competitor for them in EU and they do have a bigger military.
So the entire question is not "Should Europeans protect themselves", they already do that.
But "Should Eastern Europeans trust Americans or Western Europeans for the job and should Western Europeans accept it".
The problem is Western Europe has not been really great at providing that sort of protection. France and Britain do not have industrial strength or or military equipment to really do that. And Germany isn’t even in the ballpark. If you look at the data, France has 500 tanks inventory, Britain has about 250, and their air forces pretty small. Never mind all of the logistical needs. Western Europe could absolutely provide the protection if they really wanted to, but it would require them to spend significantly more money than they are now. And western European countries don’t seem to really wanna do that.
This take just isn't based on reality.
Those "Southern Europeans" aren't even in Europe. Those are the Middle East and Northern Africa, respectively.
Western Europe has been almost completely demilitarized since the end of the Cold War and is only now just starting to get back into rearming despite numerous voices outside of Europe practically begging them to get their shit together. Just look at their collective budgets, readiness levels, downsizing, and public statements from Washington officials toward Europe regarding European defense.
Western Europe has a verifiable history over the past century of not being able or willing to defend its allies/see to its commitments. Just ask Poland if you want a practical example, or the various horrific state of affairs that Europeans left in their wake upon their exit from Africa.
Eastern Europe has every right not to want to trust Western Europe for defense. Look at their track record in the past century - whether they'll even honor a treaty is extremely up in the air. By comparison, the United States is much more reliable of an ally.
@@ASNS117Zero
Impressive, you managed to get everything wrong.
You have the tiktok level of geopolitic.
Turkey against Greece, Morocco against Spain, Libya against Italy.
Often USA take the side against Europeans in those conflicts/crisis, that's why Southern Europeans feel very little concerned toward NATO and USA which is at best neutral, at worst an enemy.
And let's not even talk about Cyprus that is occupied by a NATO country.
NATO is not an alliance to protect Europe, never was, never will.
Western European budget is exactly the budget and the army they needs. The biggest threats for us are on overseas territories (which are not covered by NATO) or we don't have any (Belgium, Netherland, Danemark, etc..)
Why increase it ? To defend Eastern Europeans ? Why defending territories that are in US sphere of influence ? It doesn't concern us.
My great grand father was literally killed in a war started to defend Poland independence, we kept our words, always did.
While Polish people begged Germany to invade Czechia in 1938 so they could save their ass (that didn't worked lol).
We have 0 lessons to get from them.
We also have 0 lessons to get from USA either when it's about leaving Africa or Middle East. We are the one dealing with the worst refugee crisis in human history THEY created by bombing and invading middle east for 10 years.
Africa is far better now that the state we found it in the 2010s after USA passage.
Sure, Eastern Europeans has every right to chose USA protection over Western Europe.
They are a very reliable ally right ? That's why everyone are very confident USA will commit to their role in the next 10 years right ? I mean, it's not like they are about to become isolationist exactly when things start to get heated like they did in the 1900s and 1930s right ? They are reliable remember ! Ask the Kurdes, the Afghan Republic, Hussein, South Vietnam and every other countries they backstabbed how reliable they are.
I am sure eastern Europeans are very happy with USA at the moment and are not begging Western Europe for protection at all, because USA is such a reliable ally.
@@mrsupremegasconok your arguments are typical Russian propaganda lies at this point.
This is a joke right? Western Europe has sold out Eastern Europe multiple fucking times.
What time to be alive lol
Grab your popcorn, the shows heating up. #Ominous music
What an irony indeed. 100% based.
3:00 not really "hypersonic"
Best polish video
why don’t you use autogenerated english translation and voiceover? Such a nice tool
J Beeman? Who cares about that guy? He's done.
wow
Great video GTBT! Russia will loose and pay
Something important to know, for all who interested in history and/or support Ukraine:
Rus' ought not to be confused with modern “Russia”, which derives its name from the Rus' but historically is a completely different state, which almost all its existence was at war with the Rus'.
Just like the Holy Roman Empire was actually Germany, “Russia” is actually Muscovy, despite their best attempts to convince everybody otherwise.
Its name “Russia" received only in the 18th century, when Peter I simply changed Muscovy’s name into the “All Russian Empire” (Russia originates from Rosia, name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Rus')
Under the reign of Cathrine II Muscovites where even punished for continuing to identify as Muscovites, and were forced to call themselves Russian.
Lands that Russia (Muscovy) claims were part of the original Rus', but actually weren't, are Novgorod, Suzdal, and Ryazan, since in historical texts of XI-XII centuries they are mentioned as separate entities from Rus'. They can be considered parts of extended Rus', although their culture was distinct from main Rus'.
In 1493, Muscovite duke Ivan III appointed himself to be the Great Ruler of All Rus'. No other kings acknowledged that. From that point on Muscovy started to make false claims on Rus' ownership.
“Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine and not the other way round, despite what Soviet and Russian (Muscovite) historians have been trying to say for years. A Slavicised Finnic, then later, Mongolized offshoot. Kyiv was a developed cultured capital when Moscow was just another swamp village.
Moreover, in the Italian sources of the 15th century it is likewise mentioned, that Russia is bordered by Poland to the west, Lithuania and Livonia to the north, and *Muscovy* to the east, further proving that Russia historically speaking, is an exonym of Ukraine, that was stolen by Muscovy.
Germany used to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, that didn’t mean they became the Romans, and all of a sudden had a right to claim whole of Italy and its history, but yet, that’s exactly what Russia (Muscovy) did in regards to Rus'-Ukraine, which is a horrible injustice!
EXCELLENT AS ALWAYS
That German "Koffers" were empty is quite an uninformed statement. States never run out of fiat money.
HUMANS... an epic movie series.
Everyone loves American escalation when it benefits them lol.
I have 100 dollars. This video has relevancy.
Aaaaaaand it's gone!
НИКТО
НЕ ПРИДЕТ. Посмеялся над этим
Great video
I doubt that in France Melancon in France will rise to power tbh. There are also alot of left leaning elected people in France that don't want him in power.
I think Macron, while it'll be difficult, will be able to create a stable coalition.
Wait until the next German election, and there won't be much left, but a neoclassical ex Black Rock manager (Merz) who won't see the profits in helping Ukraine, fixating on outdated austerity politics while further engaging in the typical corruption where a lot of money is spent on purely bureaucratic bills that have no real-life effect whatsoever, and merely serve marketing purposes. His party has always been about maintaining power without changing anything, but also personally profiting from this situation.
5:54 Belarus? Maybe North Korea?
Great analysis as always. One small thing, the word "communique" is pronounced "com-yoon-i-kay", not "comm-yoo-neek".
How is an isolationist leader seen as strong
Little Rocket Man is seen as strong by his own people. Trumpy is seen as strong by his own people.
@@Minchya
Let’s see how this isolationism will end for you americans 😂
@@ENR_NEIt’ll be better than most lmao. Europe would have it way worse if we went isolationist
@@sparks1792
You are very wrong my guy
Because if you attack said insolation nation, I'm assuming you're talking about the US. Yeah, good luck living within 48 hours if your an organization and if you're a nation, you're dead.
Surprise! Its not Biden,
Maybe the NATO should have NATO than keeping Russia a permanent enemy when the US Changing it’s opinion on the whole idea of world police
1:03 "game" is such idiotic pseudo-learned language
Virgin Russia vs. Chad NATO
Trump 2024
yep
Ukraine poses zero strategic benefit to America.
Says the Chinese. What next, Taiwan has no strategic benefit for America?
It doesn't. Aside from being a zero some game.
Trump won't abandon Ukraine, he won't want to take an L for Putin.
judging by the calls of the rest of maga, I doubt this
Trump will stop aid to Ukraine and claim it as a victory because he "ended" the war.
L?
Can't he blame it on Biden? (Which would be factually correct too.)
@@hyhhy Trump got his pals in Congress to cut off military aid for 6 months, so he deserves blame too.
Biden has dropped out. I wonder how this will effect the calculus.
4:11 lmao. This is either a terrible stock video, or AI. "VIRUS". Nukes. Random coding? lol
President Putin of Ukraine 🫣🤦🏻♂️
brings fear to whom blud
Definitely, the Russians who are pursuing their interests will not let Ukraine go to the European Union!
Going to the EU is not problem, NATO is problem
Вступление Украины в ЕС и НАТО не имеют смысла, так как Россия будет действовать точно так же, как и сейчас!
@@user-xu1tn9ds8u
Ожели Украина вступит в НАТО и ЕС, то это не имеет смысла, ибо русские считают территории Украины и Белоруссии своими!
Получится ситуация, коль Украина вступит в НАТО и ЕС: Европа будет думать, что Украина их территория, а Россия будет считать, что Русь едина и между русскими идёт гражданская война!
-
@@user-xu1tn9ds8u
Буде Вы не заметили, русские уже давно иностранных солдат и инструкторов на Незалежной воспринимают как интервентов, пришедших на русскую землю!
-
@@user-xu1tn9ds8u
С точки зрения России Беларусь и Украина - это та же Россия, если Вам сказать правду!
-
You mentioned Russia bomb a children hospital, please make a video on Israel ( How many hospitals, schools etc they have bombed ?
Wonder why you didn't cover the assassination attempt in its own video. Its almost like you are biased as you unironically called him an authoritarian before.
Look, its fine to have your own political slant but being this one-sided while portraying yourself so professionally is delegitimizing.
Buddy, just cuz you want a king, doesn't mean we're gonna hold our punches on how things look like
@@darken2417and his own party tore those people apart.
Trump is a self serving megalomaniac. Nothing he does is sincere. You’re the one being one sided here.
@@KaloyanKasabovthe supreme court simply reminds everyone that trump has rights just like any other presidents before him and no, political assassinations are not welcome in this constitutional republic
@@KaloyanKasabov
UA-cam hid my reply so I'll keep it brief:
Delusional, at the RNC he literally had people talk about diversity and poses with rainbow flags.
Looked like a straight up progressive convention.
Granted, I think this is cringe but being impartial and fair means seeing things how they really are and putting aside your bias.
I want these sorts of channels that pretend to be serious and fact-based to be a good source of information.
🙂👏
The United States has since the end of WWII, has guaranteed the prosperity of western and even now Eastern Europeans as well as many other parts of the world by insuring free trade at great expense to ourselves. Europeans and others are now going to have to show the fortitude to maintain their privileged status.
Buddy Eastern Europe is one of the most pro American regions of the world.
Not at the expense of the USA. USA have funded this guarantee with free money from your printers. Not to mention that being the worlds police come with certain privileges in terms of self-interests like oil and other ressources and diplomacy in general.
When Trump inevitable wins and starts pushing nationalism and semi-abandoning (he won't leave NATO) allies. EU will be forced to stand on its own, but by doing so, it will also be more independent in the future. This means USA will have less leverage on the geopolitical stage.
Is all this good or bad? I don't know - you can decide for yourself.
Comment
This channel has become a parody of itself.
Can you elaborate?
@@imcbocian Pro Western, Pro Globalist bias to the point of wishful thinking.
True
@@Furri1bia I would say that author just presents the perspective of east-european coutry.
It should be obvious that eastern europeans won't hold russia side of this conflict. Who once was under russian thumb knows what it brings, and definitely will not want the history to repeat.
@@Furri1bia No arguments here. What exactly is here pro Wester or pro globalist? Where do you see wishful thinking. Are you just making stuff up?
You misspelled the last é in communiqué 😛
Can we acknowledge the stupidness that America went from no interest in Hypersonic weapons to fielding hypersonic weapons in less than four years.
America went all in on lasers while rivals went all in on hypersonic
seen other channels discuss how we got into them in the 70s, had no good use case, so put it on the shelf. So the speed is all about dusting it off and slapping new tech into it.
@@redfro4992 yeah it was stupid expensive back then and with the treaties we wanted it didn’t really make sense, even now it feels like we’re doing it because of Russian propaganda lol
Like what happened with the Foxbat. Russia claims to have a thing we build something to outclass that claim only to realize it was just a claim. Patriot systems “questionably operated I might add” have been knocking hypersonics out of the sky,
That shouldn’t be a possibility let alone a probability
@@redfro4992 sheesh UA-cam has been on one with deleting comments since last week
I recommend you watch habitual line crosser's video on what hypersonic missiles really are
enough trump speculation jesus christ find new topics.
You are a chad
Genocie 7
Russia will rise. Z
😂😂😂😂
I rely on this channel for clear and cogent analysis that is almost entirely free of politics.
This is an atlantist polish channel.
How is it free of politics lmao. Bloke is pro Atlanticist and interventionist
You never know maybe Trump will convince Russia to pull back to 2014 borders.
wishful thinking
Maybe he’ll get me a pony. No, a unicorn!
@@KaloyanKasabov we gone find out lol
@@KaloyanKasabova possible reality
Ukraine already lost it's population
All live in Germany now…
:0
I especially like the Victor Orban video because Trump seems to like the dude. It's scary. I think Kamala Harris will take his place. Rumors say that Obama spoke with Joe on this subject.
I think it's kind of ironic that everybody in Europe didn't want to pay their fair share into NATO but soon as Russia invade Ukraine they had all kinds of money for their budgets but for years it made the United States pay for their defense it's my personal belief we should get out or write a new deal
Because european nations didnt believe there to be a war so spending more on military made no sense.
Only after russia invaded ukraine they wanted to spend more on military to support ukraine.
There was always money for military but no will
you are missinformed on the "fair share"
the 2% is not the share to pay to NATO, it's what the alliance, back then, saw as the target that each country should spend on THEIR OWN defence.
the military budget is just for each single country and include wages of soldier, office workers, provvision and maintanance (which in avarage take 60%ish of the total budget, depending on the country military profile)
it is NOT a budget that is payed to NATO
Also, for hell's sake, the USA budget need to be shared across 2 effing ocean ( among 11 aircraft carrier, 100s of other ships, 1000 of tanks, other vehicles and the army wages)
So in other words during the 60s 70s 80s 90s and early 2000s European militaries put less than 2% of their budget into their own military defense is that what you're saying and their belief was why should they they had the United States protecting them and to be quite honest with you we should not be in European affairs anyways somehow we got stuck with that over 100 years ago and we're still all up in your guys's business
Nobody made the "US" pay for its defense. It was a request approved by the US themselves
@@tomsmith476 again, missinforamtion and missintepetration.
-USa need to ship their army oversea, rasining cost a lot (i suggest ryan mcbeth for some info on the matter) and again, thei budget cover BOTH ocean, and maint of honestly too many vehicles.
-the GDP increased in all this time you know? the 2% of 100 is 2, the 1,5% of 200 is 3, the 1% of 400 is 4. The detractor of state that do not reach the 2% always skip on this part
-again, the idea that USA did all the heavy lifting is wrong, and the bases in europe they are using are paid by the country they are in
-the spending depend from country to country. on top of the wages, upkeep of building, provvision of food and ammo, maint of vehicles, maint of aircraft (more expensive), eventual maint of naval vessel (awfully expensive) what you need change depending oon the country. for example, italy will spend less on land vehicles but more on aircraft (like the 7 billion euro for F35 and F22 they are sending to USA) and way more on ships
-some country are logistically incapable to spend that much. if luxenburg actually spent on their army (which is 900 men btw) 2% they'll need a bigger country just in parking lots
-AGAIN, Nato is about collaboration within existing infrastructure, not cumulative budget
-most manufactoring of weapon happen in the USA, for which EU country are paying the USA, with their budget, not NATO, but the detractor also skip this part
First?
Yes
I thought this channel is not biased well there goes another channel from my subscription list .....
Don't lie, you thought it was another pro russian propaganda channel, right?
What if... Hear me out. Russia is allowed into NATO on the condition that they withdraw from Ukraine including Crimea, and pay for reconstruction.
XDXDD
That is stupid. Neither Russia nor NATO want it.
Russia, becouse they want to play role of indemendent imperium.
NATO because noone trust Russia at this point.
Not to mention, they had a chance for it in early 2000' but Putin demanded they would be asked for it, and they would be let in without asking for permission to other allies. He thought he can make deal with America to split "spheres of interest" just like they did in ribentrop-molotov pact.
That just show what is Russian perception of alliances of equals, and obeying of treaties
Lol
@@imcbocianWhich was perfectly acceptable deal if American really wants to pivot to Asia.
German post 1990 union agreement... Is it still being respected?
There was never any agreement. That's nonsense spouted by vatniks.
Which signed agreement do you refer to?
The real question is: since the Euro crisis and Schäuble, still respected?
Ok
8:33 this didnt age well lol :D
Błagam, nie czytaj "data" jako "data", tylko "dejta". To okropnie kłuje w uszy.
Obie formy są poprawne...
So many ai generated photos