Radosław Sikorski: The Munk Debate - The Russia Ukraine War, Toronto, 12.05.2022
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2022
- The Munk Debate - The Russia Ukraine War, Toronto, 12.05.2022
Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer v Michael McFaul, Radosław Sikorski
By any measure, the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a profound security risk for the world. It raises fundamental issues about the basic principles that underwrite the current international order and it threatens the specter of an entrenched, high-risk Great Power conflict. How is this fast-evolving crisis best addressed? Does it demand a resolute and relentless push by the West to punish, isolate and degrade Putin’s Russia economically, politically and militarily? Or is a solution to be found in acknowledging Russia’s security needs and finding ways to mutually de-escalate the war, sooner not later? Which of these different strategies stand the best chance of success? And how ultimately is this conflict best resolved?
_____________________
Komentarze europosła Radosława Sikorskiego oraz audycje Wolnego Radia Europa do obejrzenia na Facebooku, Twitterze, UA-cam oraz do posłuchania na Soundcloud i Spotify
_______________________
Zajrzyj na:
/ radeksikorski
/ radek_sikorski
/ sikorskiradek
www.radeksikorski.eu
Kliknąłem w filmik niechcący, a przesłuchałem całą godzinę i czterdzieści dwie minuty. Tak, jak inni komentujący, chciałbym, aby w Polsce debaty były przeprowadzane z taką klasą
Owszem debata dobra jednak pewne punkty nie wyjasnione. Np twierdzene ze nie bylo na tapecie wlaczanie Ukrainy do NATO wiec atak Rosjan pod takim pretekstem oraz negocjacje pokojowe i zakonczenie wojny zapewniajac ze Ukraina bedzie neutralna jest zupelnie bez sensu. Tymczasem mozna znalezc na necie artykul z Wall Street Journal. Cytuje Mr. Scholz made one last push for a settlement between Moscow and Kyiv. He told Mr. Zelensky in Munich on Feb. 19 that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia.The pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security. Mr. Zelensky said Mr. Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. Zeby znalezc artykul wystarczy wpisac w google Vladimir Putin’s 20-Year March to War wsj
@@sandwind123456789 przestań uprawiać ruską propagandę, Ukraina nie została zaproszona do NATO w 2008 roku i to był największy błąd, putin widząc to mógł spokojnie planować atak na Ukrainę, to go ośmieliło, opowiadanie, że atak na Ukrainę był spowodowany przez NATO i żeby zdenazyfikować Ukrainę to wierutne bzdury. Ukraińcy wiedzieli, że to walka z czasem i muszą jak najszybciej wejść do NATO zanim putin zaatakuje. niestety co się stało wszyscy widzimy. Oglądałem niedawno wywiad a Aleksandrem Kwaśniewskim, w którym opowiadał jak Borys Jelcyn tuż przed wejściem Polski do NATO prosił go, żeby tego nie robił i dawał Polsce pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa, jeżeli Polska nie wejdzie do NATO. Kwaśniewski się tylko uśmiechnął, pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa od Rosji???!!! wszyscy wiemy jak to by się dla Polski skończyło. Ukraina też dostała pisemne gwarancje bezpieczeństwa i nienaruszalności granic od Rosji po tym jak zgodziła się oddać swój arsenał jądrowy w 1994 roku, jak się to skończyło to wszyscy widzimy… miejmy nadzieje, że nie będzie mowy o żadnej neutralności Ukrainy po wojnie i Ukraina wejdzie do NATO.
@@michals6672 Wytlumacz mi czemu uwazasz ze to co pisze Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to ruska propagana? Czyli Niemcy nie chcieli zarzegnac wojny proponujac Ukrainie neutralnosc gwarantowana przez USA i Rosje ale Ukraina to odrzucila czy nie? Jest tez wypowiedz doradcy prezydenta Ukrainy z marca 2019 roku ktory dokladnie mowi ze na 99% beda mieli duza wojne z Rosja z powodu ich przystepowania do NATO i ze Rosja musi zaatakowac zanim przystapia do NATO. Jak chce to ci znajde ta wypowiedz. No chyba ze Nie tylko WSJ ale nawet doradca prezydenta Ukrainy to ruski troll i ruska propaganda to nie bede szukal bo juz wszystko wiesz sam.
I would like Poland to stop protecting the traitorous Hungarians in the EU and possibly NATO.
@@sandwind123456789 No czyli nie było zgody Niemców na włączenie UA do NATO. Do tego jakimś dziwnym trafem Finlandia i Szwecja jakoś dostają obietnice szybkiej procedury przyjęcia, RU nie bombarduje Helsinek, Putin twierdzi, że to nie zagrożenie. Tak więc jak widać, kwestia NATO to tylko pretekst, ruscy chcieli powtórzyć Czechosłowację 68, doktryna Breżniewa.
Brawo Panie Sikorski!!
If there´s ever going to be a Eurpean Union worth it´s name, I´d want Radek to be in charge of both foreign affairs and defence. Btw, I´m German. The sooner we realise that Poland economically and strategically is more important than France, Italy and Spain combined, the better it gets.
Sikirski is the only one on the stage that actually understands russia. I wonder why
Because he is Polish.
He is delusional.
@vaasdaas9587 please explain. What exactly did he say was delusional?
@@47morlockhe makes good points, don’t get me wrong, but he lacks credibility as he was among those responsible, for the extensive “reset” between Russia and the west. Indeed this was a policy which was widely supported under the Obama administration, so no wonder he sought to exercise same foreign policy in regard to Russia - but his views lack consistency in terms of his political record. Others in Poland, such as the deceased Lech Kaczyński, was warning about Russian imperialism, only to be laughed at and scoffed for “sabotaging” a strategic partnership. One can only wonder if he did not pay the highest price, for his unwavering stance..
@@kristianhorslund4941 diplomacy🤷♀ Sometimes you have to make a deal just to prove to others that your opponent isn't making it in good fait.
Świetna debata ! Brawo panie Ministrze Sikorski ! ✌️🫡
Świetne przemówienie. Chadosław Sikorski.
A British, first NATO secretary said 70 yeas ago: "NATO has been made to keep Russians OUT, Americans IN and Germans DOWN". So far, so good. Divide and reigns.
You have a well massaged brain for Russian media if your arguments can consist of anything that happened in last 200 years
So true
@@elenalychagina1923 yeah it's working- except we want US protecting European safety and Germans don't want to be militaristic society anymore and they are happy with that. Cry russian looser - russians can't even grab Donbas after 3 months of this military compromitation.
Reminds me of the saying aboit canada;
Keep the yanks out, keep the French in, hope the natives disappear
Old habits die hard aye
Yes, big mistake for reunification to take place then.
Brawo Panie Radosławie, przejechał się Pan po nich jak po burej suce
Superb and high quality debate
Pan Sikorski w znakomitej formie! Choć nie sympatyzuję z jego opcją polityczną, to serdecznie gratuluję świetnej postawy.
Dokladnie tak zgadzam się geopolityka jest mocna strona Pana Sikorskiego
A ja sympatyzuję.
Do as we say and NOT as we do seems Michael's position..
A Hippo named Chrissy
And he clearly stated the American diplomats lie. Lex Friedman just did a great podcast with Oliver Stone on Russia and Ukraine. He talked a lot about Kennedy.
@Jon Little I definitely misunderstood you! 😂
It pains me that our foreign policy bureaucracy is filled with people as petty, dumb, and willfully ignorant as McFaul. There are precious few figures like Jack Matlock or George Kennan in the current iteration of the American diplomatic elite.
He's in fact an imperialist
Debate starts at 2:35. You're welcome.
Why deleting comments??
Great lesson!
Widać, że Mearsheimer ciągle żyje w latach 80. Rosja nie jest żadną potęgą, ani tym bardziej mocarstwem. To kolos na glinianych nogach, którego populacja wymiera w zastraszającym tempie, a sama gospodarka jest mniejsza niż gospodarka wielu kilkukrotnie mniejszych krajów europejskich. Dlaczego ktoś miałby zgadzać się na ich irracjonalne żądania? Próbowano tego w latach 30 ubiegłego wieku żeby zapobiec wojnie i wszyscy wiemy jak to się skończyło.
Ja bym wręcz powiedział, że on nie tylko żyje w tych czasach, ale wręcz chce, żeby te czasy trwały. Być może to tylko takie moje odczucie, ale dla mnie to wygląda tak, jakby chciał powstrzymać zachód, żeby przypadkiem Putina nie obalił, bo się nagle świat zrobi dużo prostszy i zniknie jeden biegun.
Kolos na glinianych nogach ktory siedzi na atomie i moze Europe i Ameryke zrownac z ziemia jak zostanie przyparty do muru..... Zagrajmy w ruska ruletke i przyprzyjmy go do muru...
@@bobzaba4842 Radzę poczytać o zjawisku "stability-instability paradox" i "nuclear peace". W skrócie, jeśli dwa wrogie sobie państwa (albo szerzej obozy polityczne) posiadają broń jądrową to groźba jej użycia drastycznie maleje.
Appeasement did work though. Chamberlain's appeasement bought Britain time to build up their military. They could never have fought Nazi Germany back then. They would have lost miserably, and it would have been worse for them.
I'm not saying to blindly give in to Putin, but cutting a deal spares everyone a very costly and bloody war. If the terms are attractive enough for each side, it will outweigh the utility of the war itself.
@@zbyszanna chyba nawet nie zdajesz sobie sprawę jak bardzo masz rację z tym że on żyje w tych czasach - realiści geopolityczni bardzo ciężko trawią upadek ZSRR, bo w ich predykcjach, ten balans sił miał być podstawą pokoju i trwać literalnie setki lat. Po upadku muru berlińskiego sam Mearsheimer tak ciężko wciągał copium że zamiast przejść z tym do porządku dziennego i zacząć pracować nad nowym modelem predykcyjnym dla zmienionego układu sił w Europie, postanowił pisać postulaty abyśmy dalej utrzymywali układ warszawski, tylko po to żeby się jego model nie rozsypał.
Fakt że to nie było w naszym interesie i byliśmy w pozycji żeby nie dawać tym idiotycznym pomysłom tlenu jest pochodną jego realizmu w którym jesteś albo mocarstwem albo żetonem pokerowym, który nie ma nic do gadania i to przeświadczenie jest podstawą czemu Mearsheimer jest tak lubiany przez ruskie onuce - z założenia, na poziomie doktrynalnym ma wylane w naszą sprawczość.
How many countries were forced to join NATO? How many countries have joined Soviet Union or Russia voluntarily?
Belarus has practically joined Russia, and is now little more than its puppet state while, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, (totalling over 40% of the world population) have all sided with Russia in this conflict, and have refused to disrupt their close economic ties.
The idea of a country being forced to do something is not entirely black and white either; does Finland and Sweden joining NATO without holding a referendum mean the the populace are being forced into NATO?
@@vetrocomvetrocom9737 You probably learned this from Russia Z V news.
Who cares? Not our problem.
@@aar0n709 Russia invading Ukraine is everyone's problem.
No one country joined soviet union, all was ocupied by force..
I was a bit on the fence about liberal hegemony and realism but Mcfaul's fascinating viewpoints just turned me more into a realist than I ever was. Thank god for Mearsheimer and Walt. Loved watching this debate and I'm gonna think about this for a long time!
Tyle było mowy o ratowaniu ukraińskich żyć, ale czy im przyszło do głowy, żeby zapytać o to samych Ukraińców? Zachód nie wpycha Ukraińcom broni i nie wysyła ich na front, oni sami tego przecież chcą. Zasłanianie się troską o Ukraińców wydaje się mocno fałszywe.
Nie. Zachod im tylko wczesniej odpowiednio wypral mozgi...
Oni gadają tak jakby nie słyszeli o aneksji Krymu, wojnie na Donbasie i innych działaniach Putina. To wygląda tak jakby nagle zauważyli, że coś się dzieje na Ukrainie i stwierdzili - ratunku, kończmy to, jest niebezpiecznie! Jakaś straszna ignorancja z tego bije i brak jakiegokolwiek zrozumienia sytuacji.
@@RoboStuk Możliwe, że te wszystkie leśne dziadki właśnie taką mają 'wiedzę' jak to przedstawiłeś
US is proving to Russia that Ukraine is a,ready a de facto state!
@@RoboStuk Krym jest zapisany w historii ze dobry Chruszow podarowal Krym USRR w 1954 r jak rozliczamy prawde to o tym trzeba wspomnac , a jesli cofniemy sie dalej to Krym nie byl tez Rosyjski ,ale tez nie Ukrainski .
I can't think of a better set of participants to discuss this issue at this time than the two most prominent neo-realists and the two most prominent Putin skeptics. Either directly or indirectly the Mearsheimer school and the McFaul school have been sniping at each other since Russian aggression against Ukraine began to escalate. We need to hear these alternative viewpoints articulated and challenged. Well done Munk for making this happen.
Very interesting that there are so many comments in Polish here.
Amusingly this is no topic in Europe as we see the war of aggression on our borders. We know we are next if we don't stop Putin Today.
@@TorianTammas What country are you in? Using "Europe" broadly is a bit lazy my friend. Will Putin invade Ireland? How about Greece? You really think Putin wants to try to manage insurgencies and more conventional war in perpetuity when he has natural resources you need to buy from him? Sorry, there's no evidence he wants to "conquer" Europe. Mearsheimer's correct here.
@@TorianTammas Moldova-Kazakstan-Georgia are way more possible targets (i just hope you're not from one of these countries).
But i do believe in Ukraine and ukrainians, though i'm from Russia myself.
@@Rai2M there is no proof at all that Russia wants to completely get those countries. If NATO minded its own business what's happening in Ukraine or what happened in Georgia wouldn't have happened. Russia had literally one request: no NATO expansion to the east. But the west knew exactly what it was doing when they kept expanding. You would think that at least Russian people would understand this, but it seems that some like you have already been brainwashed by the west. you might as well renounce your Russian citizenship if you have it lol. In the future you would probably cheer as NATO invades and destroys Russia as a country, take its resources, and kills many Russian civilians. At that point Russia as a country wouldn't exist anymore. NATO isnt just a "defensive" alliance, and If you think that isnt one of NATO ultimate goals you are delusional.
@@TorianTammas "We ArE NeXt" lol how clueless can you be. There is no proof that Putin wants to attack Poland, or other countries. Even Putin is not that stupid to attack a NATO country. His main request was no NATO expansion, but alas, your overlords in the USA want different. If anything, in the future, NATO will invade Russia to take its resources and destroy it as a country, so that Russia ceases to exist, and your country, like a good boy, will do what its US masters will say.
I don’t like how other guys are screaming their point as if it would make em right kinda ruined the debate
McFaul: "we didn't kill him...😉 "
Killary: "We came, We saw, He died... Cackle, cackle... "
That's Mcfowls game. Ignoring reality as it suits. He basically says it outright. Real (whirled) diplomacy is all.... ll... eyes. But trust us.
Then he says zelensky offered the neutral UKR option. Conveniently ignoring that Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken shut that option down immediately.
@Jon Little zelensky was hand picked by kolimoivsky and Victoria Nuland to play his role.
@@gmw3083 (embarrassed to be American) ;) NOT -- but disgusted by war hawk tools 👍
💚 🇺🇸 😎
@@khersey6167 i already tummed up your comment but had no time to reply. Thought you might like to know your wirds are hidden from the thread. Might be the wird (wore). Not sure. There are many triggers for the censor bots. Spelunking wrong helps.
If you log out and view a thread you will see which of your comments are visible to to the general assembly. Yt has created a personalized safe zone play pen for all of us. So considerate.
Amazing debate!
Three native speakers and Radek Sikorski ;) chapeau bas Your Excellency
I think it's almost impossible to argue against Mearsheimer and Walt-two giants of IR.
2024 and Radek Sikorski is again FM of Poland. A proper person in a proper place. ❤
And everything Mearsheimer said is turning out to be true. Ukraine is badly losing.
Jestem porazony argumentacja oponentow, chociaz znalem zdanie profesora sprzed wojny na Ukrainie. Tu dopiero widac jaka robote powinna wykonac nasza dyplomacja. Super argumentacja Panie Radku, gratuluje zawojowania publicznosci.
Nadal zasadnicze pytanie nie zostalo odpowiedziane. Co to oznacza dokonczyc rosjan i czy wogole oni sie dadza tak dokonczyc? a moze stworzymy sobie jeszcze bardziej anty zachodnie 150 milionowe spoleczenstwo za pare lat, moze jeszcze gorszy drugi Putin nam sie objawi...co pewnie pentagonowi na reke bo przeciez nieustanna wojna to biznes i dominacja.
Specjalnie tak dobrali oponentów, żeby nawet Pan Rambosław - "magister za 10 funtów" mógł zabłysnąć
@@KH-lg3xc szkoda , że milord nie został zaproszony , byś impokazał co ? @K H
@@KH-lg3xc Its Its ITs ITs Its ITs ITs Its Its ITs. To twój poziom debat i magister za 5 funtów Andrej Dudek?
"Prof. Marshmallow" (tak go nazywam) kiedyś napisał teorię stosunków pomiędzy "wielkimi potęgami".
Początkowo nawet mi się to podobało, jako próba wprowadzenia bardziej ścisłej metodyki naukowej do dziedziny która niekoniecznie była z tego znana.
Prof. popełnił wg. mnie parę błedów, głównie w stylu "parę mostów za daleko", dokładnie chodzi o "mosty" abstrakcji. Abstrakcja jej bardzo użyteczna w tworzeniu teori, odrzucenie rzeczy mniej ważnych pozwala zająć się tymi ważnymi i zapanować nad komplikacjami.
Problem jest w doborze co jest a co nie jest ważne: jak się odrzuci za dużo to teoria może się nie stosować do rzeczywistości.
Pan Profesor odrzucił jako nieistotne: kulturę, historię, ideologię/religię i czynniki/ruchy międzynardowe (jak np. terroryzm ...). Nawet ekonomia została ledwo zauważona ...
To spowodowało że jego teoria nie tylko nie przewiduje przszłości ale i nie może też wytłumaczyć wiele historycznie znanych faktów.
Ale to by było OK, od czegoś trzeba zacząć, dobre teorie nie rodzą się od razu całe jak Atena z głowy Zeusa (albo mechanika klasyczna od jabłka uderzajacego głowę Newtona).
Niestety, Pan Profesor zamiast zacząć poprawiać swoje dzieło zamienił się z naukowca w adwokata i praktycznie niczym innym się nie zajmuje tylko ciągłą jej obroną, dokonując coraz dziwniejszych akrobacji intelektualnych, jak widać, w końcu zaprzeczając sobie.
Ma szczęście że w jego dziedzinie "autorytet" jest ciągle ceniony bardziej niż logiczna i eksperymentalna poprawność, więc ciągle ma wystarczająco duzy tłum kibiców zeby trzymać katedrę. Gdyby to była matematyka albo fizyka nikt go by dawno nie pamietał.
Świetna debata, życzę sobie, żebysmy w końcu przyjęli taką formę rozmowy w naszym kraju. Co do debaty, jest Pan doskonałą wizytówką Polski, a jej wynik tylko pokazuje, jak ważna jest dyskusja na ten temat w krajach zachodnich. Życzę zdrowia i wytrwałości.
I am Polish American and I have to say Michael McFaul, Radosław Sikorski are the globalist pigs. kanalias.
Do people in Poland study all history, when Poland was conquering Belarus through centuries? I get a feeling that Polish think they were a peaceful nation, always on the defense. Should Belarus be afraid of Polish invasion soon, if Poles are afraid of Russian?
Great debate. It seems to me, the two parties are talking past each other - they simply seem to have completely different starting points: One side argues from how they believe the world IS and the other side argues from the point of how they want the world TO BE. One is more or less a political science point and the other one political point.
All sides agree that Russia's security interests are central but they don't agree on what their legitimate interests are. That's why they're talking past each other.
Except that their belief about how the world IS doesn’t make any sense.
@@maryanchabursky9148 It makes full sense.
@@pistolpetetc no it doesn’t it pretends it is the 18th century’s with grand empires. This ignores the reality that smaller nations have a lot of say in the modern world.
@@maryanchabursky9148 It does.
In practice the world still follows the rules of Real Politique, the war in ukraine is a case in point.
I think this war is 8 years old with at least 14,000 civilians killed before this conflict escalation.
most of them in Donbass in uncontrolled territory, more than 500 are children. Murdered by Ukrainian Nazi troops. Many of them under jewish president
ahem, nope - absolute majority of those 14000 people killed were combatants of both sides. For example, during the whole year of 2021, in total, 6 civilians in DNR were killed as a result of war (landmines included)
@@Thanatos1982a yes, from both side, but mostly were killed from DNR side. All childrened who were killed were only from DNR side
@@fevgg not really, that would be statistically impossible. For example, I just checked shelling of Mariupol in 2015 by Grad rockets and it killed 40 civilians, including two children.
@@Thanatos1982a you don't have any clue what you're talking about. Nazies shelled cities and killed civilians, LDNR responded to fortified areas. That the difference. Don't apoligize Nazies
Rewelacyjna debata, gratulacje dla Pana Radosława Sikorskiego za wspaniałą wygraną i reprezentację Polskiej racji stanu.
żartujesz?
@@sebastianduchowicz2902 bardzo dobre mial argumenty w tej debacie Sikorski widac ze przekonal do swojej racji wiekszosc publicznosci wiec uwazam to za wielkie zwyciestwo i dobre reprezentowanie polskiej racji stanu
Rewelacyjna debata!!! Panie Radku nie zgadzam się z Panem w wielu kwestiach. Ale w tym temacie popieram każdą Pana tezę i każdy argument. Obyśmy znaleźli więcej tematów w którym jesteśmy zgodni, a w pozostałych prowadzili właśnie takie debaty!
McFaul is a lightweight and a hothead. All emotion and little logic, could barely stop himself from interrupting. And they sent *this* guy to Russia?? Looking at the caliber of Western diplomats surrounding this issue it is little wonder we are where we are.
How do you have debate with pathological liars and agenda driven people?
If it is clear, that Ukraine will not be member of NATO, why not fix it in a treaty?
Why there exists a treaty between USA and Ukraine what says USA will support Ukraine by entering NATO, ( "US - Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership" from November 2021)
It is in the Ukrainian Constitution that they will join NATO.
The United States already broke its promise on NATO expansion multiple times since 1990. Russia's leaders had no reason to suspect that we wouldn't just reverse course on Ukrainian NATO membership when it became convenient to do so. My goodness, we saw Trump tear up the Iran nuclear deal simply because he didn't like it. "Trust us" is not going to be a persuasive argument when we behave like this.
Cause they want to spite the Russians. Thats all this is about in the end.
Because the Secretary General of Nato said it was non of Russis'xxs business. If I were Russian & Nato was ever increasing it's proximity I would definitely be concerned...hence Putin's rise in popularity.
Because In NATO documents it says that NATO decides who can join and who can't. So if they agree to let Russia decide then it shows that NATO can be threatened into doing things and for a millitary alliance that's not a good thing.
Pan Sikorski jak zwykle z klasą i doświadczeniem. Chciałbym żeby tacy politycy zasiadali w polskim MSZ.
@@zenqq1458 premię za budowę lotniska w Baranowie i fabrykę samochodów akumulatorowych rozdawał Sikorski?
Doświadczony - chapał na niejednej posadzie.
@@zenqq1458 Zapomnieliśmy, bo jakoś nawet ziobrowska prokuratura nie jest w stanie znaleźć w tym przestępstw. Poza tym miliard złotych kary za Ziobrę przykryje każdego.
Give up nothing. Russia get out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine.
Great to find both sides being given. Very unusual these days.
Sikorski klasa, wypadł naprawdę dobrze. Cokolwiek bym nie sądził o jego działalności na polskiej scenie politycznej to trzeba to teraz przyznać.
Prawie, jak Stefan Bandera.
this is Putin's agent. Together with Tusk, they sold Poland
@@KH-lg3xc Twój komentarz kompletnie jest bez sensu, po prostu masz główkę naładowaną Banderami i Wołyniami więc twój móżdżek produkuje losowe zdania z użyciem tych słów. Zachęcam do większego otwarcia na dar myślenia.
@@RoboStuk przejechane walcem XD
I wish the debaters wouldn't resort to polemic and pathos. The side that uses facts in a calm manner gets my vote.
Facts aren't reasoned thinking. A machine can spit out facts all day long.
Yeah, let's pretend that old farts have any chances in democracy with their logic and absence of humour
Unfortunately we have always chosen either the loudest, the funniest, the best spoken to win and lead. Regardless whether they actually know what they are doing or having all the facts. That's why we always fight.
I was also surprised why they scream like politicians though this is only a debate. Makes it hard to focus on what is said.
Emotions are human. Unless they insult each other, it's how it should be.
Świetna debata
I wish they spoke more about the last 8 years.
Exactly. That's where the issue lies.
If you want to understand the issue you would need to cover the last 500 years
W czasie podpisywanie ugody perejasławskiej Moskwiczanie i Ukraińcy potrzebowali tłumacza. To były już inne języki.
Język ukraiński pozostał językiem rusińskim, opartym m in. na dialekcie połtawskim (okolice dzisiejszych rejonów "kozackich"), ale nie tylko, bo w ogromnej mierze także na dialektach zachodnich Rusinów (jak choćby dialekty Polesia czy karpackie) i na językach zachodniosłowiańskich (głównie na polskim, ale i słowackim). Kontakt z zachodniosłowiańskimi językami (szczególnie z językiem plemion lechickich, inaczej Lędzian) od niepamiętnych czasów wpływał na ukraińskie słownictwo i gramatykę.
Rosyjski z kolei także częściowo wywodzi sie z dialektów połtawskich, ale to bardzo dawne czasy. Potem ogromny wpływ wywarły na niego języki ugrofińskie i tatarskie (ugrofińskie zwłaszcza na mowę chłopów, a tatarskie - szlachty). Co więcej, Księstwo Moskiewskie przyjęło prawosławie nie z Kijowa, ale "z rąk" Bułgarii i Serbii, a wraz z tym, ogromną liczbę słownictwa południowosłowiańskiego. W cerkwi rosyjskiej używa się właśnie dlatego języka południowych Słowian (Cyryla i Metodego), a w cerkwi białoruskiej i ukraińskiej - staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego. W efekcie w rosyjskim już w XIV w. pozostało stosunkowo niewiele słów rusińskich, w porównaniu z ukraińskim czy białoruskim (albo wręcz językami dawnej Rusi Kijowskiej, do których zaliczał sie także język Nowogrodu Wielkiego).
Bajania Putina o tym, że Ukraińcy i Rosjanie to jeden naród (bo 1000 lat temu były razem w luźnym związku wielu księstw, zwanym Rusią Kijowską) to wierutna bzdura :)
@@alh6255 Dziękuję za świetne wyjaśnienie.
@@alh6255 ваши фантастические истории очень занимательны. Жюль Верн не мог бы с вами соперничать 😂 Особенно про разные народы между русскими и украинцами.
@@user-xt8ty6hr3pAh no Muscovites are just Asian hordes who have no legitimate interests in the countries west of them. Go back behind the Urals and bother us no more.
Really if you think that being part of the same multi ethnic principality a millennium ago has any bearing on ethnicity now you have no understanding of history at all
Two pacyfist,przypominaja mi 1939 i wysilki Chamberlina z Angli.Pokoj za wszelka cene kosztem innych.Poddac wszystko by tylko byl pokoj.Debilne myslenie zza oceanu,P.Sikorski w najlepszym wydaniu.
Dokladnie. Tez jestem za tym aby w putina walnac z grubej rury... Te jego atomki to zaslona dymna... Nie istnieja... A jak istnieja to jest zlom... A nawet jak nie wszystkie zlom to tylko kilka jest w stanie odpalic... A nawet jak je odpali to rosja bedzie zrownana z ziemia, a te kilka ruskich sarmatow co spadna na Polske i pare innych krajow europejskich to pestka...
Radek PLUS McFaul który w 100% popiera dokładnie ta samą opinię. Jego wieloletnia staż jako ambasador USA do Rosji, biegła znajomość języka rosyjskiego oraz nie typowo praktyczne (a nie ściśle akademickie) podejście do całej sprawy wyróżnia go od większości tzw naukowców oraz "dyplomatów". Proszę spojrzeć na jego Twitter aby na bieżąco rozumieć jego b. cenne podejście. Stąd też względnie szybkie posunięcia USA w stosunku do Ukraini. McFaul od pierwszego dnia cisnął na "closing the skies".
No wlasnie.
Wydaje się ze oni racjonalnie oceniają sytuacje, druga strona sprawia wrażenie jakby ta wojna na rękę właściwie była
Nothing will end, this is just the beginning!
thank you so much for give us information
Piękna debata pokazująca oba obozy
Dear Sikorski, Dobrie Dien,
Please Take Note:
1) India was the jewel in the British crown and yet the British didnt handover India in a Graceful Manner, on the contrary it was totally in a DISGRACE, CHAOTIC MANNER, dividing 1 country into 3 i.e. Pakistan later on Bangaldesh.
The result of division of India by Britain led the worlds largest human EXODUS i.e people Criss-Crossing India and Pakistan ca 25 million in 1947 (imagine how much would have the number been in presernt time).Sadly ill handover killed a couple of Millions of innocent civilians.
2) The handover of India was due to the AHIMSA/SATYA GRAHA,(Gandhism), Quit India Movement, miltiple Swatantra Sangram activities, And was not by the British Compassion- Dzieki
"May Peace Prevail in the conflict zone"
the majority of former crown colonies are now on fire
Why have you greeted Mr. Sikorski with "good day" in Russian?
@@brygadasfm "dobry dzień", "dobryy den'"... close enough for a non-speaker of both languages, don't you think (which I am not either as well)? It's obvious that Great Galaxy is Desi.
Mountbatten rushed the Indian/Pakistan independance because it was thought that there would even be more deaths if it were dragged out- even so, yes millions died & were displaced.
Great, another Indian that blames the British for their problems, doesn't sound very productive. How about you try to sort out your problems with the muslims instead?
if putin was not in power, Medvedev would be.. and hes MORE of a hawk these days
@Peter Facka Normally when authoritarian leaders first enter power they reform and seem democratic. Let’s not forget the west thought Russia was becoming liberal in Putins early days.
@Peter Facka is that from western media? Is so, azov got evacuated to Siberia. Putin is respected by othet small countries who get mess up by NATO
@Peter Facka forced to step down? Medvedev is still very much influential and in a position of power, leading the national security council
@Peter Facka he was the prime minister until 2020 😂😂
Or is the just more a hawk because that is what Putin wants? You have no idea and neither do I.
Germany also gave a guarantee to enforce the Minsk agreements. Wonder how that turned out.
UA did not respect it.
Germany cannot (and could not) give any guarantees for compliance with the Minsk agreements. Germany simply did not have the capacity to see that they were respected, it was an empty phrase I guess.
It's also funny how Russia practically wrote the thing, but got to waive their hands about not being a signatory to it while simultaneously blaming Ukraine for breaking it all while Russia continued to actively supply and keep the conflict going in the region.
@@ferrariguy8278 that's exactly what happened
@@ferrariguy8278 but why signed it? Minsk 1&2 were the results of nato protecting their own people from certain death or capture esp in 2015 when UA and (some)NATO forces esp high ranking Germans.
*Russia continues to actively supply and keep the conflict going. - what do you expect Russia supposed to do? Turn their backs on their own people? If they did not support or stop supporting ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, they could have been murdered by Azov, UA and nato forces. I guess the loss of 14,000 people is not enough for you eh?
And if UA respected the Minsk agreement on which they agreed and signed it, these could have been avoided but no! so look at them now. I have more sympathy with the AKs they used and being kicked by Chechens after they're killed in combat than UA's fighting forces.
Jako wyborca PiSu gratuluję Panie Radosławie rozsądnych i moim zdaniem trafnych uwag!
co jak co, ale w stosunku do Rosji od 300 lat zdecydowana większość polaków ma to samo zdanie.
@@internetowywichrzyciel6971 I słusznie.
Świetna robota Panie Radosławie! Dyskusja z Pana strony na wysokim poziomie przypominając niewygodne fakty historyczne jak traktat Budapesztański plus parę dowcipów, które podobały się widowni. Niezależnie od Polskiej polityki wewnętrznej jest Pan 'towarem eksportowym' naszej dyplomacji i na zachodzie widać liczą się z Pana głosem. Dobrze by było aby zrozumieli to Pana przeciwnicy, ale to myślenie życzeniowe. Życzę powodzenia
Szkoda ze nie przypomnial traktatow Minskich ktore Ukraina od samego poczatku lamala...
@@bobzaba4842 Nawet po krótkim wyszukiwaniu tematyki źródłowej ze strony dzienników Niemieckich (nastawionych neutralnie bądź przyjaźnie dla rosjan) można wyczytać, że obie strony te porozumienia łamały, szczególnie po ofensywie na miasto Debaltseve separatystów Donbaskich. Jest jeszcze jedna data warta wspomnienia 28.IV.2022 czyli założenie Pana/Pani konta. Śmierdzi z kilometra ruskim lub rządowym trollem.
@@bobzaba4842 Bo traktaty mińskie były nierealne. Realna była inwazja Putina. A ty pisząc szkoda że nie wspomniał jakąś strasznie wredną gierkę prowadzisz, jakbyś był jakimś ruzzkim trollem.
@@RoboStuk Lamanie traktatow podpisanych przez Ukraine jest ok bo byly nierealne ? Przesladowanie etnicznych ruskich na Ukrainie bylo ok ? A moze szkoda ze ukrobanderowcy nie zaserwowali im takiego takiego piekla jak to zrobili z Polakami kilkadziesiat lat temu... Wole byc ruskim trollem niz zdeprawowana, moralnie zgnila usraelska zaba ugotowana na koszernej propagandzie medialnej...
@@RoboStuk then both sides should not have agreed to sign them, what was the point of signing the Minsk treaties?
Overall, it was a good debate.
U.S. policy toward Iran has been a failure too: The war in Iraq enhanced Iran’s regional influence, and ratcheting up sanctions didn’t stop Tehran from acquiring the capacity to build a nuclear weapon if it ever decides to do so. Unfortunately, Trump abandoned the 2015 deal that shrank Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile of nuclear materials and extended its “breakout time,” and his administration subsequently threatened to sanction several U.S allies (all of them members of the “free world” by the way) if they stuck to the agreement (which had also been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council). And what was the end result of this brilliant demonstration of U.S. leadership? Iran is closer than ever to building a bomb, and the Biden administration has been unable to find a way back to the original deal.
What you wrote is true if you assume US goals was to prevent Iranian nuclear programme. If you assume their goal was to sabotage any agreements and any attemps to build an agreement between Iran and other countries of Middle East or, let's say Israel, for example, I would argue US were exceptionally successive. They ruined any attemp to stabilize relations between Nothern and Sounthern Koreas and Japan in a same exact way. And nobody blames US for it. An outstanding victory, I would say.
So what if they have a bomb? Only US EU is allowed to have a bomb? If US stops threatening Iran maybe they wouldn't think about creating a bomb in the first place. US has bombed and wrecked both Iraq and Afghanistan both neighbors of Iran. They know if they don't have their own bomb, they will follow suit like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. They know the only thing keeping US from invading them is their nuke. Same with Nokor
But your own comment contradicts this. The sanctions brought them to the table to discuss nuclear treaty
We are in bad hands. When McFaul says that we were addressing Russia's security concerns with this helsinki 2.0 proposal, and then couldn't for 90 minutes explain what Russia's security concerns is telling. The Helsinki 2.0 proposal was leaked to el pais newspaper and you can see what it was and decide for yourself if this path we are on is designed to end the war as quickly as possible.
The only way to stop Putin a narcissistic, imperialist bully it to teach him hiw little hus army is and that he loses. In 2014 he invaded Ukraibe and got hungry for more as it was so easy
Yeah, and can we talk about McFaul fomenting dissent and opposition forces from his embassy in Moscow??? "But but we're promoting democracy for the good of the people..." Same old USA, nothing changes.
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 hello, russian bot
@@Rai2M Hello child who has no ability to refute any claims people make against the mainstream narrative and thus must resort to unoriginal personal attacks. 👍
McFaul doesn't believe Russia has interests. He and the Polish guy spent the entire debate making up a strawman where if you acknowledge any Russian interests in Ukraine(eg Crimea where the Black Sea fleet has been stationed for 250 years) then you're telling Putin he can have all of Europe. I don't think the audience understands the history of Ukraine, the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians, and the demographics of the Donbass and Crimea.
Gratulacje
06:58 Why appease the invader. Hitler was appeased and we know how that ended.
Why repeat history?
Great debate.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
except 2022 Russia is not Nazi Germany and Putin is not Hitler. This is a WW1 situation, not WW2
What an excellent debate! It's always a good idea to hear powerful arguments from both sides of an issue. Thank you so much for recording this debate and presenting it on UA-cam.
Intellectually dishonest is excellent ?? McFaul is up there pretending there are no NAZIS !??? WTF ?
Why did Zelensky say he had to "put any agreements to a vote" in order to approve them? He's talking about the NAZIS.
Pretending there wasn't a COUP !?? Really ?? How exactly did Victoria Nuland magically pick who'd be the leader ..?
And conspirators chat logs to satisfy US requirements to kill more people so US ceases acknowledging Yanukovych admin.
@@trumanhw Wow it's very hard for a US politician to work out who will likely take a position. I guess there was a coup in the UK considering we all knew who would be PM of the UK before she recently resigned, or that most people knew Rishi Sunak would take the position after her I guess that means there was underhandings going on right?
here's an interesting exercise: pretend this entire debate is about the USA (since everything fits perfectly)
oh yes, that"Iraq peoples republic" that we all forgot of
Pretend it's about your mother
The US is an extremely aggressive power within our sphere of influence. Ask Latin America about that.
Then you need to also pretend this debate is happening inside Russia. Can you do that?
Russia and the USA are completely similar. The same values, freedoms and living standard. Who would notice the differences ?
Chapeau bas Panie Radku!
The grey haired guy arguing the con side is incredibly disingenuous. You need better moderation. The guy got away with not answering questions that were asked of him, like "what are Russia's security interests?", which the moderator asked of him.
He is a political. Escape the exactly answers - it is his main skill.
@@AZ-zo6yr more like the lack of skill of everyone around him. He should never be allowed to get away with this behavior, especially in this setting. The moderator and his interlocutors should be bringing up the fact he isn't answering questions asked of him.
We 're lying all the time !!!!!!!!!
Tok myślenia tych profesorow to jakaś tragedia. On sobie wybiera z wypowiedzi Putina co chce. Nie słyszeli o tym, ze NATO ma się cofnąć do Niemiec?
No, NATO is not supposed retreat to Germany. What Russia wanted was there were not to be any NATO bases with foreign troops in countries which joined NATO after 1997. Those countries could still be NATO members
@@jk5042 without military potential...
@@jk5042 And de facto it means: move NATO back to Germany. Can NATO effectively defend its eastern borders without troops and military equipment?
Jestem pod wrażeniem widzów, którzy byli otwarci na to, aby zmienić zdanie, i przedstawione argumenty pozwoliły zrozumieć większości na auli, że zadowalanie putina to droga donikąd.
11:40 ... ah, except for the evidence that has come directly from Putin's own mouth...
If the US doesn't allow Canada it's freedom the US would have a very big problem with Europe as well
Michael Mcfaul is disappointingly immature. To think someone like this was/is anywhere near policy making is very alarming
He's a (fuel). Like all western leaders and bureaucrats.
He made a lot of excellent points. He knows from firsthand negotiation with Putin that NATO is just a fake excuse for invading any and all ex-satellites.
I was thinking this as well and i read your comment. No wonder why we are so close to a nuclear war.. US foreign policy is driven by these clowns..
@Jon Little The style and the substance are both clearly the product of someone who does not know what he is talking about and who is so deeply steeped in Beltway perspective bias that he cannot understand nationalism in other countries, much like John Foster Dulles couldn't understand it in Latin America or Iran.
(1) "We have listened to Russia for decades." False. What does "listening" consist of in his view, exactly? In the 1990s Bill Clinton injected billions of dollars into Boris Yeltsin's presidential campaign when it was becoming clear that the economic reforms pushed by Rubin and company were wildly unpopular and the Communist Party was going to win the 1996 Russian Federation election. We then proceeded to create Kosovo from Serbian territory, right in Russia's front yard, and our Secretary of State made it clear to Russia's foreign minister that Russia would have no say in the matter despite its geographic proximity. Then we went through multiple rounds of NATO expansion, demonstrated that we didn't care about international law by invading Iraq (for which the Baltic countries got NATO membership for their symbolic support) and in 2008 made the Bucharest Declaration, which Putin called a "red line" at the time. We never withdrew the Bucharest Declaration and *15 years later* Russia invaded. McFaul is flatly and completely wrong about the US taking Russian security interests into account. This is not a serious substantive argument and it reflect the perspective bias I mentioned earlier.
(2) "It's all about Putin's definition of Russian interests." No. No legitimate Russian head of state would accept the expansion of a hostile military alliance on their border. Think back to American history. Why did multiple American Presidents from different political parties go through great lengths to wreck Latin American states that they suspected *might* have been sympathetic to Communism? Because anyone sitting in the Oval Office was going to perceive those potential threats the same way. Russia is not different in this respect. NATO expansion was never, ever a controversial topic in Russian national security circles and there was universal agreement on it. William Burns, now director of the CIA wrote a memo to Condi Rice in 2008 where he said "every Russian I have talked to from the biggest knuckle-draggers in the Kremlins to Putin's sharpest liberal critics opposes NATO expansion and sees it as a red line." I guess McFaul didn't get that memo.
(3) "Appeasement never works." Perhaps Putin thinks that attempting to appease the US for a quarter of a century proved unfruitful, no? Does McFaul realize that we are in Russia's face, and Russia is not in our face?
McFaul's immature style makes the immature and ill-considered substance of his arguments unsurprising. Sadly our diplomatic bureaucracy is full of empty suits like him.
@Jon Little A person who argues in as immature a fashion as McFaul stylistically has no credibility on substance and unsurprisingly this is true in McFaul's case, just like the other Beltway blob members.
(1) A casual examination of the historical record shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. The United States never listened to Russia's concerns. "Listening" does not imply agreement or disagreement when it comes to geopolitics, it means making concessions to respect another state's core security concerns. We didn't do that, we did exactly the opposite. Look at the record of conduct that I articulated in my last post. Since the collapse of the USSR, the United States repeatedly did what it wanted to do and disregarded Russia's concerns. Actions speak louder than words, and it was inevitable that Russia would push back. George Kennan predicted as much before Poland was incorporated into NATO. If you chose to respond again, please tell me what we actually *did* which acknowledged respect for Russia's core security concerns.
(2) "But Alexi Navalny said the opposite of what Putin said!" That's because Navalny thinks that support from the West -- not support among Russians -- is his ticket to political power in Russia. It is *not* the case that 50% of Russians agree with Navalny on national security issues. Likewise, a marginal figure like Jill Stein or Eugene Debbs wouldn't represent anything close to the national consensus on American geopolitical security issues. As you are surely aware, 90% of Russians supported the annexation of Crimea. And as you are surely aware, Putin is not doing anything with respect to Ukraine that George W. Bush didn't do with massive popular support in Iraq in 2003. The only difference is that Ukraine, unlike Iraq, is right on his country's border.
(3) If Mearsheimer said that appeasement never works then he was wrong about that. He's right about this issue substantively -- and of course, you are much more concerned with substance than style, so surely you can see that quote mining is a rhetorical technique that is not related to the merits of an argument, no?
Of course, I can tell that you will accept none of this because you, like McFaul, are so deeply entrenched in the liberal narrative of American history that you cannot accept that world history looks quite different to people and leaders in different countries, and we don't look like the good guys from their points of view. Just as Latin America about how much the US respects international law.
my national security interest is that Russia is not at Poland's eastern border
If you look at the map, if not Russia it would be China or North Korea. Think again. :) another solution to this problem is to have German-Russian border.
Brawo!!!!
Radek jestes WIELKI
this was a great debate, thanks to all of you for putting it together. I wish this was the norm of political discussion
Except that most of the con side was based on attacking Mearsheimer, while the Pro side presented cold hard facts.
@@justgivemethetruth If you call Putin's words facts, you urgently need to do a brain MRI. That's a bad symptom indeed. Mearsheimer is a Russian tool for years.
@@justgivemethetruth Mearsheimer presented only his fantasies.
@@firstone3289
Name one?
@@justgivemethetruth The skimming over Ukraine’s right to choose its own future made his whole attribute a load of one-sided BS.
The aggressor is Russia, not the Ukrainian or even NATO. The ‘interests’ of Russia are simply to establish a hegemony over more countries, more areas, and now its target is Ukraine. It’s a non-defensible interest and if successful won’t stop with Ukraine.
Oh, and to use the nuclear threat as an argument to give into Russia’s demands is pathetic. If successful Russia will use that time and time again.
Ktoś poda w końcu polskie napisy, żeby większa polska społeczność mogła się z tym zapoznać? Bo to bardzo dobra debata. Ludzie! Zlitujta się, wielu Polaków, zwłaszcza starszych nie ma znajomości angielskiego. Mam na myśli naszych rodziców np.
Angielski to jeden z nałatwiejszych do nauczenia języków. Bardzo dobrze ,że nie rozumiecie nie uczycie się to nie będziecie wiedzieć. Nie dla plebsu
@@billboner420właśnie takim podejściem się przegrywa wybory.
Pięknie Pan pozamiatał Mersheimerem podłogę :D
Not long ago on "stand up for Ukraine" conference in Warsaw
a young Ukrainian refugee activist said that
they knew that the war was coming because the systems
put the economy and money above the human.
So maybe that's this "elephant in the room" and not much of an issue between democracy and autocracy in the 1st place.
(don't they have the same "elephant" on both sides)
I'd like to know a place currently existing where money is not put above the human.
What are you talking about? One fatuous bint saying something doesn't make ut true. They didn't know the way was coming. They were shockingly badly prepared, Kyivs bomb shelters were not stocked and were locked up. Zelenskiy was poorly prepped
Michael raise his voice trying to convince...
Perhaps the current US administration would be more understanding of Russia's security concerns if Russia had formed a NATO like military pact along with other countries in the Americas. The response then by the Americans, would be quite interesting (Monroe Doctrine). The Cuban Missile crisis is a case in point.
Russia do have this alliance. Check them out, they just had a meeting.
America is not Russia
@@zhoubaidinh403 No,that's why my country México won't do never an Ukraine. America would have invaded in a second
@@teddybearmonster The key difference is that this alliance does not have members in North America, in the US sphere of influence. NATO, by contrast, is right in Russia's face.
@@master1941 That's right my brotha'...you gotta' do what you gotta' do in this dog eat dog world to survive.
BRAVO STEVE!!!!! THE SMARTEST!!!
He who shouts believes in losing the argument. 😝😝😝
He who is driven to distraction by a false argument sometimes shouts.
Bardzo dobra debata, dużo świetnych argumentów z obu stron. Warto będzie wrócić do tej rozmowy za 2 lata.
Yes
Hope the world still exists by then.
Yep
I am 50/50 at the end of it
@@jackoh5134 If world will exist, we for sure lose it after China double down on Taiwan, just a matter of time. If West would go full ham in Ukraine it would scare China but now China - US war is inevitable considering Chinese nationalism. they see that West prefers to stay out of big conflicts and will try to use it in their interests.
🟡🟡The US top rogue state in the world 🌎
U.S. policy toward Iran has been a failure too: The war in Iraq enhanced Iran’s regional influence, and ratcheting up sanctions didn’t stop Tehran from acquiring the capacity to build a nuclear weapon if it ever decides to do so. Unfortunately, Trump abandoned the 2015 deal that shrank Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile of nuclear materials and extended its “breakout time,” and his administration subsequently threatened to sanction several U.S allies (all of them members of the “free world” by the way) if they stuck to the agreement (which had also been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council). And what was the end result of this brilliant demonstration of U.S. leadership? Iran is closer than ever to building a bomb, and the Biden administration has been unable to find a way back to the original deal.
Brilliant debate, what a treat to stumble upon whilst looking for Mearsheimers more recent views on the invasion
And for what it's Worth, Radislaw is the winner of the debate hands down, just by stating the obvious..we just.dont have the option to appease anymore
@@jibbyjabs ....and add Michael McFaul's position as well
pgh, what is brilliant about that?
Wasn't Ukraine created by Russia? It was. Fact.
Is it something unfamiliar (for example to USA) to expand own territory no matter what the locals of that territory say? Give me a break.
Święte oburzenie.
Ciągle nie takie dyskusje jakie można by prowadzić. Już mnie to na początku znudziło, bo nie jest to nic, czego byle klituś-bajduś w sekcjach komentarzy nie powtarza jak katarynka. Więc jak jest dalej o czymś mądrym to niech ktoś mi poda minutę, kiedy pada pytanie o taką sytuację - Część obywateli Ukrainy nie chciała już należeć do Ukrainy dlaczego to oni są źli vs Ukraina dobra, a gdy UPA nie chciało należeć do Polski to Polska była ta zła?
W wielu krajach ludność jest mieszana. Gdyby tak nagle w USA kazali ludziom wybierać, zakazali amerykańskim Włochom mówić po włosku i zmusili do działania przeciw wszystkiemu co włoskie, a jakby ktoś nie chciał wybierać, nadal szanował swoje włoskie korzenie to byłby traktowany jak przestępca a wręcz gorzej jak przestępca? Ktoś coś? Jakieś debaty o tym?
Bo już były takie sytuacje że tak właśnie kazano ludziom wybierać, opowiadać się za jedną ze stron nawet jak człowiek był po prostu bezbronnym mieszkańcem wsi, nie mającym nic wspólnego z polityką chcącym tylko pracować i w miarę po ludzku żyć - tak było gdy nazistowskie Niemcy kazały ludziom wybierać, gdy UPA kazało ludziom wybierać. To już było i teraz się powtarza.
@@magdaty1815 by your logic rome and Greece owns all of your nation 😆 russia is going to learn the hard way why they shouldn't stand by a man who thinks he can redefine borders by massacring people. And China won't stand by, they are way too reliant on US and European trade.
@@magdaty1815 No, Ukraine was not created by Russia. Fact.
What is reason to agree to some agrement, if russia will not follow up it anyway.
Thanks
Świetna debata. Raczej nie sympatyzuję z Radkiem Sikorskim i jego partią polityczną, ale zgadzam się z nim tutaj w 200%! Gdyby takie debaty też u nas były w Polsce... Żyło by nam się sto razy lepiej!
aż się przypomniala stara debata między Kaczyńskim a Tuskiem...byli w stanie że sobą porozmawiać na spokojnie.
Sikorski to i PiS zaliczył. Był tam szefem MON, w PO był ministrem spraw zagranicznych przez wiele lat. Jest doświadczonym politykiem.
Panie Radku gratuluję, jako Polak jestem dumny, bardzo dziękuję za obronę interesów Rzeczpospolitej :)
obronę interesów Rzeczypospolitej? żartujesz? ten człowiek pchał nas w orbitę Niemiec, a wypychał z orbity USA. Jakby ci ludzie dalej byli przy władzy, dzisiaj prawdopodobnie posuwałby cię radziecki sołdat, a mamusia patrzyłaby przywiązana do krzesła.
Seems that if you talk louder people should think you are smart and that you are telling the truth. Seems like a new concept, i should try it.
It's a thing with new democracies. The same kind of people in autocracies just adjusting to new norms. It will take a while before they get to be similar to older democracies like France or England or the US.
Szczerze, może debata i jest dla Amerykanów dobra, ale dla ludzi z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej nie ma najmniejszego sensu. po 11:45 nie ma sensu tego słuchać. Skoro człowiek uważa, że Putin nie chce podbić Ukrainy, to trudno. XD Tak sobie chciał czołgami pojeździć wokół Kijowa oraz Zełeńskiego zabić dla zabawy. XDDD
tak samo pomyślałem :D
Good debate. I didn’t want to listen to some point of views, but I am glad I got through it. I feel even perhaps. I was hoping some would mention the Donbas conflict in more detail with relation to this war.
Yes it started with an illegal Russian invasion snd occupation of Ukrainian territory and the forming of Putin puppet regimes in the occupied territories.
Yes....the Donbas conflict that began in 2014....and the killing of many Russian speaking Ukranians.
@Jon Little no.. it was igor strelkov lol.. hes not too popular in the kremlin because of it.. spetznas.. chechen war veteran.. took it into his own hands with some other veterans and started taking the territory that became the DPR and LPR.. fun fact: some of the riot police from the maidan helped with that process..
@Jon Little Most things are a matter of perspective. Some would argue that Putin provoked the conflict in 2014, perhaps Putin did. Others would argue differently that it began with the Maidan uprising when Ukrainian govt decided not to sign an agreement with EU and chose to sign with Russia. All I can do as an independent thinker...is listen to all the perspectives, which of course I expect contains propangada and hyperbole. No one is innocent...and there is no good guy in this story...that I believe.
@@50kjy How are they two different perspectives? It began with Putin telling Ukrainian president not to sign an agreement with EU and sign one with Russia instead, an exclusive one at that. Since the president was in Putin's pocket he agreed. That led to Maidan because the guy had just sold out millions of young Ukrainians' lives to Putin, and that led to the president running away to Russia. Seeing that he'd just lost his leverage, Putin invaded Crimea and Donbas and cut gas supplies to Ukraine. And how no one is innocent? Are the Ukrainians who wanted to have a chance at a decent life guilty?
Jedna z najlepszych debat jakie oglądałem. Szkoda, że w Polsce takich się praktycznie nie prowadzi.
Great debate
good discussion.
we are living in a big bubble,name it NA and it appears to me the most of the audience think and act that we are safe for ever after. in contrast in my mind, War will come to us when we are willing to spend our money for it.
Ray Kad. "War will come to us when we are willing to spend money on it." Well, not just money but lots of money is being spent on this war to the utter exclusion of anything else. The west continues to poke the bear in every conceivable way possible and yet the bear stands. But if one day the bears decides to finally react ,everyone will feel that reaction without exception. And my sympathy will lie with the bear.
Better to be paying for the defense of a soveiregn nation than paying for the destruction of one.
@@edvsilas8281 The bear doesn't stand. It tosses around mindlessly.
@@sylwiatime Does this bear seem mindless to you? It seems to know what it's doing. The west seems mindless at this point.
@@edvsilas8281 Yes, Russia behaves in a totally mindless way and Russians are going to pay the price for decades.
Stephen and John, very smart and polite!!!
"Neville Chamberlain, very smart and polite!!!"
34:11 The fact that the audience laughed at Mersheimer shows people don't buy his BS!
Thank you, Mr. Sikorski, for your position and your wisdom. We Ukrainians will remember this - I definitely will.
@Leo A Have it, if you like. It hurts to read such words, but what am I suppose to do if you think like that. But again, there is no way to find out what you really think. Maybe you're just saying this wicked words without actually thinking that way. I'll just leave it there. And back to the point, for anyone who is interested, from what I see, where I'm now, what Sikorski is saying is very true. Good luck.
2:32 Start
This really shows that our Western audiences live in a bubble, enable their govts actions & collectively keep making the same mistakes having learnt nothing from the Iraq war let alone, Dubya's recent admission. The levels of disinformation around this war will be discussed in 10-20yrs time just as we now acknowledge the mistakes that led to the Iraq, Libyan, Syrian wars assuming, there's a world left standing.
Everyone lives in a bubble in Russia too if we didn't there would be no unity and we would collapse.
@@joeroganpodfantasy42 What bubble is that exactly?
@@V12F1Demon ..........The bubble of self righteousness.
Absolutely Right!
@@thetshirtblog Be ignorant elsewhere or grow up.
good discussions
Mocne
There Is No Trust ( that big problem )
That's how normal debate looks like. Thank you for the video.
In my personal view, both of spoken positions have a rationale behind. Both lines of arguments are solid. The answer to the question is not simple "yes" or "no", but in exact concerns that should be recognized.
I disagree with Prof. Mearsheimer's statement that there are only two lines of western behavior. Those lines are extremes. Russian security concerns are too vaguely defined in this discussion. Moreover, the right solution in case of Ukraine doesn't need to coincise with dealing with Russia's actions in other directions. This is complex issue, and I doubt that there is any simple answer.
the whole premise of debate is a smoke screen. Because right there are no and will be no diplomatic talks, and when they come, of course there will be compromise taking SOME Russian concerns into account, but not all.
Meersheimer's real position is "lets stop arming Ukraine and ask Putin nicely to stop" which is stupid.
Regardless of what you see as tenable position after the war, that will be acceptable for both sides, the only way to reach the stage of talks is to stop Russia on the battlefield.
Not one of them asked himself what Ukrainians think about continuing the war. If they want to fight, then west has only two options - arm them so they can defend themselves or not arm them and let their sacrifice be wasted.
@@goshky There has never been a case in history where ordinary people were asked to start or continue a war. To say "Ukrainians were not asked" makes no sense. Were the Vietnamese asked? Were the Iraqi people asked? Were the Georgians asked in 2008? Of course, no one was asked, so it's silly to make such an argument.
As I understood, prof. Mearsheimer's real position is different -- "arming Ukraine had lead to beginning of the war and respecting Russian security concerns is the first step to stop it". And I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't mean that the West should give up everything.
The things are stalemating. If you are going to negotiations, then the other side can conclude that your position is weak. The Russians will include more and more terms to the agreement. If you choose to keep Ukraine arming, then you're basically suggesting that diplomacy should be thrown in the trash and that the war should be fought until someone win or left without pants.
In my humble opinion, the West certainly can stop the war anytime if the West just will.
We are in an ideal position...an opportunity to finish Russia once and for all without sacrificing a single American life...hell, Ukranians are slaves like their brother the Russian....We would be derelict in our responsibility in do the Russian so we can do Chyner!....Lindsey Graham...
This is really good debate. 👍
Good point about NATO, John!!!