If you want a perspective from Russia, then the guy, who translates my videos into Russian made a video on his own. It is good. ua-cam.com/video/s2b6qR0c6QM/v-deo.html
🔥When Putin announced the invasion, he explained in detail the reasons, goals and methods in the upcoming military operation. If you have not studied his words, your versions of what is happening are just your fantasies, and the fantasies of the media of Putin's opponents. And if you want to know what the segregation of Russians in Ukraine is, write in UA-cam "mass neo-nazi marches in Ukraine today".
This is the attitude of Russia towards Ukraine summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski ua-cam.com/video/ow_xeYUfSVI/v-deo.html and Russia has had a recent history of being aggressive to its neighbors ua-cam.com/video/Bb0hSY1YfPM/v-deo.html
Very good video. I only had 1 thing that I disagreed with, Near the end, You said there might be another cold war with russia. I don't believe this is the case. Just compare the GDP numbers. The west gets 40 times more money than russia per year (GDP). So I really doubt that a cold war between the west and russia would actually happen. Its more likely that china becomes the wests main competitor. with russia being more of a barrier for the west, But not an actual threat
Very good analysis, but I must disagree with one thing. The west is not always against the oligarchies, if they are pro-western, as in Hungary, Turkey and Montenegro. So, the line between the democratic west and oligarchic east DOES exist, but is not as strong as someone might believe.
This isn't even exclusive to Eastern Europe. For example, S. Korea is the definition of an oligarchic nation thanks to Chaebols. But unlike Russia, the whole nation is considered extremely western leaning, arguably more than Europe.
This applies not only to the oligarchs but to everything else. You can be corrupt, commit ethnic cleansing, steal billions, even be fascist. If you are pro-Western everything is just fine.
Just the one thing, this is riddled with assumptions, agenda driven supposition, dishonest spin and finally bollox.. Search for yourself, don't swallow lazy western reportage people ❤️
The economic growth of 2004-2012 was associated not only with oil prices, but also with the active development of markets. Many Western companies invested in Russia because there was cheap labor and unfilled niches. From about 2010-2012, Russia fell into the middle income trap. But instead of reforming the economy, Putin decided to annex Crimea and introduce so-called "anti-sanctions" - to free up domestic markets for local monopolists.
Funny thing is - Ukrainian economy spiked just as much. Had troubles until ~2000, was best at 2005-2008, was ok-ish until 2014, and had it currency devalue triple after Russia went under sanctions. Curious isn't it?
@@Garchist Russia was one of the biggest Ukraine trade partners before 2014 and enjoyed huge discounts on oil and gas. After the coup that all went to trash.
As a Russian, I would say that you missed one important thing - the Russian Navy was located in Crimea, which was of strategic importance, since the collapse of the USSR, this location was leased to Russia by Ukraine, but understanding in what way further relations with Ukraine will develop, Russia went ahead of the curve and took a place for the fleet itself.
@@MichaelSmith-666 💀You seriously think Ukraine has ANY chance of re-taking Crimea? I didn't know we've gone that low, and that people could be so dumb
Pretty much, but the warmonger/imperialist attitude of americans along all their history and partly because of oligarch-owned media propaganda did have plenty of responsibility for the wars too. They see themselves as "the white saviour", teaching democracy and liberalism to the savages
@@Franfran2424 America’s warmongering and imperialist attitude can indeed be traced back to the attitude of our oligarch-owned media. But if you were to look into the ethnic backgrounds of those media oligarchs I guarantee you’ll find that “white saviorism” isn’t their motivating impetus.
Actually Russian military has very little influence in policy making - a result of constant struggle between them and inner security services which military was losing since WW2. There is a reason why military coups were not even attempted in Russia in times of political turmoil since then.
@@Eastory Two most prominent generals that went into politics in 1990-ies died under mysterious circumstances... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Rokhlin en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebed Some popular warlords from L/DNR were also assassinated. Russian security services are very serious about keeping military subservient.
@@konstantinriumin2657 Well, I don't know about the rest, but Alexander Lebed died, because his helicopter flew into the electric power lines and crashed. Such happen because a lot of politians and high military ranks think that they are the bosses and can order anything. He ordered his pilot to fly in bad weather conditions with poor visibility. Everybody on board died, sadly. The rest is just speculation.
@@konstantinriumin2657 So does that mean that the old NKVD nets after Stalin's death and the execution of Beria were still up and reconstituted as the KGB? I remember reading memoirs of Eisenhower and his first meetings with Zhukov after WW2, he stated that Zhukov was very out going and extremely likable, but after Khrushchev came to power and his later meetings with the General, Eisenhower stated that Zhukov's outlook had changed, as in he was very soft spoken and melancholic. Does that mean Khrushchev had done something to Zhukov even after he helped him take power from Beria? Strange. I also heard reports that Zhukov was decidedly against forcing Soviet power in Europe through military power, as it was stated he was against sending troops into Hungary which obviously occurred anyway.
@@peterbarca8783 Zhukov was sidelined and then essentially sent into internal exile by Khrushchev. Ironic, since Zhukov helped Khrushchev so much in his rise to power
@@you-know-who5657 we don't hate the west, it's just that the west does what it wants with no consequences so having the west stockpile weapons, possibly nuclear, on Russia's border, is unacceptable
@@you-know-who5657 yep, I totally understand the invasion. Why the fuk would you build nato shelter 400 kilometres from Moscow. Biden said it 20 years ago.
2:55 "In Russia the military and the security services are effectively responsible for running the country." I've seen at least Kamil Galeev argue on Twitter that it's only the security services that run Russia. Military is low in the dominance hierarchy and deliberately kept weak so it can't challenge the security services' domination. I don't myself know enough to say whether he's right or wrong.
You know some important russian general? This is also answer why russian services are good but military weak. PS. Last charismatic general died in "accident", Alexander Lebed, he was a competitor in the presidential election for Putin.
It is very funny to watch how people who do not live in Russia talk about conspiracies of Freemasons, the FSB, totalitarianism and the like. You sit and think "ahah, that's how it turns out, but I didn't know)))"
It should be noted that in a country run the FSB approval ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. They may show a tendency, but that tendency may be incredibly skewed. Same with military statistics, demographics, polls etc. It's not like Western governments don't skew statistics when they have the chance.
True. A lot of Russians don't support putin, but sure do hate Ukrainians and USA. Therefore support current actions, and would any other regime that would replace putin, but continue current political movements.
@@Garchist We do not hate Ukranians or USA(as people) but we do hate their actions against our country, unlike the majority of world who hates not only our actions but Russian people and everything related to Russia as of now.
This was a very watchable video, entertainingly presented and an interesting take on the reasons behind this conflict. One thing I would say about this take on these events is it seems to have Russia/Putin acting in nearly a vacuum or bubble with very little contemplation on how other external powers act for their own self-interest which may or may not cause reactions. Its more like a tennis match where people are serving the ball backwards and forwards, each person reacting to the latest set of events.
Hey, I'm just an ukrainian guy and I understand that our demands are too high for other countries which already have their own problems to deal with. So feel free to stop giving us so many precious resources as they are being wasted by us without achieving much. Thank you and Slave Ukraine! 🇺🇦
@@Eastory why didn’t you mention that the “opportunity” that presented itself was a US supported Coup which removed a pro-Russia president and a new Ukrainian government extremely hostile to Russia handpicked by the US through Victoria Nuland?
Maybe you could do WW1 on the western or eastern front. It’ll be difficult to map the unit positions as they don’t really change but there is alot to talk about for supplies, attrition, naval battles etc
I have really enjoyed your approach, although it obviously is a little biased. I am an international relations graduate and we have studied a conflict in Ukraine for quite a while now. The general consensus among the most capable conflictologists from my university is that the 2014 revolution could've been ignored by the Russian decision makers, if not for a one single factor. As you've rightfully stated, the Orange revolution have established a pro-Western government, but although there were "gas wars" and other conflicts between our countries, that have never reached a boiling point. So why the 2014 revolution was different? Kharkov agreements. What is that? That was the document that addressed one of the most important issues of the Russian-Ukrainian relations since the collapse of the USSR - naval bases in Crimea. The issue of naval bases and the Black sea fleet were central to the relations between two counties even in the 90-s. So Kharkov agreements have prolonged the usage of the Ukrainian soil in Crimea by Russian Federation in 2012 and one of the first things the new Ukrainian government has done was denouncing these agreements. This was not really covered by the Russian media, it was kind of a footnote to all the things that were happening, but it is believed that it was a turning point.
It's not a little biased but totally biased. But you made a good point, also the Kharkiv agreements were not the only fuse, you have to consider the coup with help from the west and a significant spearhead done by the nazis at that time (which is well documented leaked Nuland phone calls). The coup started after Yanukovich rejected the ransom from IMF, he was between two fences, on one hand, he had Russia with its "sanctions on imported goods, but Russia offered to buy out their state bonds and more. On the other hand IMF and further debt increase with cuts into education and social securities and many other things. BTW: the new government didn't have enough votes to be legitimate back then.
You could make a long list to add to Kharkov. 1. NATO declaring Ukraine membership as a goal. 2. NATO expansion to 14 new states. 3. CIA interference in Georgia. 4. Missile basing in Romania & Poland after the US dumped the medium range nuke treaty and Open Skies. 5. Coup government law on nationalities 6. Poroshenko's assault on Donbas civilians and address to the nation on TV: "Our children will go to school and institutes, their children will cower in basements. That is how we will win this war." 7. Arrest of opposition politicians and shutdown of opposition media. 8. Right Sector control of the Interior Ministry. 9. Continual rocketing and shelling of Donbass up to the invasion. The coup in Ukraine did not establish a "pro-Western" government. It established a corrupt government willing to move toward the $$ and willing to use the muscle of Azov & Right Sector on the streets to do violence. You are spot on about the bases, and the scenario was being primed by huge IMF loans to Ukraine, so large they would never be able to pay them back. This is the leverage for the US to offer to trade base rights for loan relief. If you want to know what the Russians think, simply listen to them. A lot of unavailable presentations are on the channel Michael Rossi Poli Sci. Check it out.
@@johnsmith1474 Thanks for another source, the more the better. BTW: Never thought that there could be a possibility of a discount on loans from IMF in exchange for NATO bases (even tho there are already training bases in there). Any documents for that?
@@plama1192 The idea about loans and bases is my own, a conjecture based on the underhanded activity by the US up to this point. The US sees no limit to it's right to meddle in foreign spaces, so you As you know Ukraine's officials at the highest level of government have not been the most ethical. As the historian Stephen Kotkin mused in a lecture (paraphrase), "The easiest & fastest way to deposit $100million in a Swiss bank is to give $1billion in aid to Ukraine." It's common knowledge that Ukraine has been accepting all manner of offensive weapons from the West right under the noses of the Russians, and was selling off some of that cache to fundamentalists in the Mideast. The level of cash flowing to Ukrainian oligarchical politicians makes the nation open to any kind of deal. This is how nations come to be owned by The West. I presume you have delved into the library of video on thegreyzone, including the excellent lengthy piece with Scott Ritter. UA-cam channel Globaltreepictures has two useful documentaries "Ukraine on Fire" & "Revealing Ukraine," both rather tawdry but full of decent interview with high ranking Ukrainian politicians from around the Maidan coup including Medvedchuk. I don't suggest videos are better than study as you seem to be doing, just adding sources.
One thing that i admire a lot from you Eastory, was that you had almost immediately, on multiple occasions, had made statements about how much of this was your THEORY, and basically lots of disclaimers before going forward with your ideas. one thing that most of the other videos covering the conflict do that makes me angry (like vox, vice, johnny harris, etc) is that they all always write “EXPLAINED!” and go forward with blabbering their own ideas and theories about the conflict but never once use those words before diving in, they never say theories, or their ideas, they all always claim what they say is 100% accurate and is literally the official explanation when it is obviously NOT! many including johnny even have inaccurate and completely wrong information throughout their video, yet them trying too hard to look like the officials”explained” video for everyone, they end up spreading lots of misinformation and fake news just because of that. i appreciate your responsible nature to give disclaimers and clearly talk without any facade behind your words, always doing an amazing job, keep it up brotha!!
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
I think the Nord stream 2 deal is extremely important for this conflict. Notice that back then Germany , Netherlands and Russia were all working together to create these Nord stream pipelines. But as they got finished, Russian "Gasprom" bought all rights to use the pipeline, turning it into a Russian monopoly. The Nord stream 2 line is a continuation of the Nord stream 1 project, which supplies most of Europeans gas. Nord stream 2 would have provided even more, which was kind of annoying for the USA, which of course also tries to sell gas to Europe. How does Ukraine fit into it? In Ukraine, a huge gas supply was discovered, and extraction of that gas started early 2022 (by Dutch Shell, who signed a 10 billion dollar contract for it). Shortly after, the USA put more pressure to cancel the Nord stream 2 deal, the same day it got cancelled Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was effectively competing with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. And there's even more. Earlier, Ukraine was blamed of having stolen Russian gas, when Russian gas pipelines crossed Ukraine, and so now, it was mining gas on its own even further irritation Russia. Let's not underestimate the role of the USA in this conflict. After all, the son of Joe Biden was a member of a Ukrainian gas company for some time. When Trump made comments about this to the Ukrainian government, Trump was blamed of abusing his power to attack the Biden family, and he almost got impeached for this very reason. But I guess, the least we can say now, is that indeed it's crazy that the Biden family is dealing in Ukrainian gas just a couple of years before the war starts. So, is this the first war about gas? - You may want to read about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuelan crisis, ... it's always about gas and petrol, which ultimately equals productivity, money, economic welfare, quality of life ... So, its a little strange that you make this a purely media-centric conflict, which appears to be about sentiment and about feelings, while of course Economy or "just business as usual", has to be an equally big factor in the equation.
in fact, the Russian army, politics and economy have one specific direction - ensuring strategic security (that is why the Russian economy is so "viscous" - it is not capable of quick maneuvers, but external influence on it is also greatly reduced)
@@ahpunana2599 Precisely because the Russian economy is very adaptive (and it must be so in the unpredictable political and economic situation in Russia), Western sanctions have not done any tangible harm. Russian business was rebuilt instantly, literally in weeks.
As an international politics student, I am an aggressive realist. John Mearsheimer is the best representation of my views I could find online. That last bit about finding the cause of the war is very significant because the problem is that we're all coming to different conclusions. The US foreign policy people, the same who wanted to go into Iraq and pursue the other foolish policies that have deteriorated the US's reputation believe that this was all Putin, he's the second Hitler etc. I believe that if we don't recognize basic realist great power logic, this will happen again and again. Russia said Ukraine couldn't join NATO. That's that. The US said Cuba couldn't have foreign troops and missiles there. That's that. Our failure to understand each other's red lines has got everyone into trouble time and time again. For me the most scary part is that this war was easily avoidable if we just said "NATO won't accept Ukraine's admission into it". However, the Taiwanese-Chinese war in the future will be much harder to avoid, and even harder to keep the US out of it, because it is both a red line for the US and for China. This is how great power wars begin. China wants it because it considers it part of China and needs to break out of the US led cage around it. The US needs to keep China in the cage and needs to reassure its allies in the Pacific (Korea, Japan, Philipines) that it will protect them, as leaving Taiwan alone against China will assure the US loses its allies there. In conclusion, I believe the US's and the EU's (although people like Merkel knew Ukraine in Nato was a bad idea as far back as 2008) foreign policy doctrines are ill equiped to prevent the next century defining war, China's reconquest of Taiwan. The major issue is that there's too much invested from both sides in Taiwan. Ukraine wasn't important to the US, which is why it was foolish to cross Russia's red line when we weren't willing to fight for it, but Taiwan is. In making a final judgement, the China-US war of 2030 is inevitable due to the immutable nature of the situation.
Taiwan is? Speaking for which countries? No same citizens wants to fight for another just because of some hazy and vague examples of freedom and democracy, not when the body bags start Piling. US can’t even win against Iraq and Afghanistan lol😂
@@regizeelement8511 The US army defeated the Taliban and Iraqi armies. But surprise surprise, the US army isn't exactly built for nation/democracy building. In regards to your Taiwan comment, are you contesting whether or not it's strategically important for the US? Because it is. It's the first line of defense against a rising pure rival to the US.
While I agree that Iraq was a mistake; it wasn’t the military who pushed it; it was the corruption in regards to the defense industry as embodied in Cheney.
Yes, but the defense industry is the most important general maker (and one of the most important politician makers), it has its people making all the decisions in the military. Corruption to this level means you can't dissociate the military from both the defense industry and the political apparatus, including Cheney.
Correct. It was Cheney with no push back from W Bush that got the ball rolling and then it became hard to oppose the war after a year of "we certainly found WMDs".
Thanks for the video. As a citizen of Russia (and I am against the war), I will share my observation. The situation compared to the annexation of 2014 is noticeably different. If 8 years ago there was a lot of enthusiasm for the bloodless annexation of Crimea, now the attitude to what is happening is extremely ambiguous. It is very difficult to assess Putin's current rating because the polls are subjective. Now only 3-6% of respondents are ready to answer questions about politics. In autumn, this figure was about 30%. Basically, refusals occur immediately after a person finds out the topic of the survey. I'd like to take a look at another study. At the end of March, people in Russia were asked: "What do you feel about the future of the country?" Only 29% answered "inspiration". 26% said "sadness", 25% - fear, 16% - devastation. The general mood is influenced by the fact that the economic situation is not getting better. Even if people don't link the rise in prices to the war, they are piling up resentment. It will definitely come out at some point. And the most important thing. Russian power has always become weaker if it loses a war.
Thank you! This is very valuable insight. What would you predict is the likely outcome of all of this for Russia in the short term? I assume that you suggest that there will be serious unrest?
It is very difficult to make forecasts because the situation is changing too quickly. Protests are hardly possible now, although in my native St. Petersburg in February and early March there were quite large rallies. Even the elections to the Duma in 2021 did not provoke such a reaction. But today in Russia there is a law on "discrediting the armed forces": for protesting, you can get a fine of 500 euros, but in some cases the "criminal" faces up to 15 years in prison. At the same time, power in Russia does not look unified, as it was in January. There is a feeling that Putin and his entourage realize that they are trapped and do not understand what to do. War is very expensive, and it is difficult to continue it under sanctions. The Ukrainian army has a huge motivation, but there is no particular reason for Russian soldiers to participate in this "special operation". There are timid reports that some units refuse to go to the front (for example, the famous airborne division from Pskov). Since the beginning of the war, opponents of the war often mention the word 'tabakerka' - a snuffbox. This is a reference to the events of 1801, when there was a conspiracy against Emperor Paul. He was killed with a snuffbox. Such a scenario is possible, but no one can give a guarantee. One thing is clear: whoever is after Putin, he must become anti-Putin. This is an old Russian tradition: each successive ruler built a policy on the negation of the predecessor's regime. And in the current conditions, this is mandatory, because only in this way it will be possible to achieve the removal of sanctions.
2:50 I would say it's much more likely the opposite: military high command opposed the US invasions more than the politicians. Post 9-11 votes with regards to use of force abroad were voted through congress almost unanimously.
Personally think the quality of content has always been excellent. I don't think it has grown more just stayed consistently good. The video on the Estonian civil war and the WW2 maps are excellent.
@@Domhnall_A_Ghalltachd I absolutely agree. It has always remained consistently good. In fact his channel inspired me to make my Military History Channel.
I have heard once that Russia's overarching defense motivation is to never permit an 1940s invasion again. Every move that the then USSR took was to prevent invasion from the west. And it was a reasonable concern if you take their point of view. The problem was in the execution. Now, after the fall of the USSR, Russia still has not lost that point of view- but things are different. They arent happy about the Baltics joining NATO, but they reasoned they could quickly re-occupy them in war. Ukraine and Belarus were entirely different. And Ukraine is the biggest western land border of all. Russia, in their view, simply could not tolerate a pro-western Ukraine- militarily, financially, demographically. For largely being farms and swamp, it was one of the largest killing fields of WWII, and Russia needs to keep the west from massing on their border. With talk of EU armies, the US military being in erratic hands, and holding a majority stake in oil, Putin acted.
But all of this ignores that Russia is the world's foremost nuclear power. There is no credible threat of Western invasion and there never was. It was an excuse all along.
Who is massing on their border? Who would possibly want to atatck a nuclear-armed Russia? And WHY? Everything that EU needs from Russia it can just buy. EU armies? Most EU countries don't even keep their commitments of 2% of GDP to defense. This is only starting to change now, in light of the current events. If any EU army will be created in the future it will be BECAUSE of Putin. The only point I agree on is the economic aspect. Ukraine has untapped deposits of natural gas, oil, uranium, iron, titanium, etc. Independent Ukraine could be an export competitor to Russia. (That doesn't justify this horrible war, of course.)
@N Fels Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Soviets of the 1920's - 1950's are the same as Russians, or the Russians of today. Modern Russians have no desire to invade and conquer Europe. All they care about is increasing their standard of living ... and you can't do that in the middle of a war.
Russia has nuclear weapons, nobody is invading them. Russian governments are more concerned about satellites and semi autonomous regions breaking away, which is inevitable anyway. It's an ego thing.
Really liked the perspective. A new Iron Curtain will be over Europe, not a nuclear one, but a technologically one. You mentioned South Osetia and Abkhazia but I think Transnistria was worth mentioning at least a few words or NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
NATO orchestrated the division of Czechoslovakia into less than the sum of its parts. Ukraine and Russia are targets for the same 'balkanization' were seeing applied to Iraq and Syria, Sudan, Libya and other places in the Middle East, too.
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
I think, for Russia, it's more about security. If Ukraine was to become a member of NATO, the alliance would have easy access into the most important parts of Russia. Potential nuclear weapons close enough for an effective first strike (?), wasn't tempting either. I'm not even sure Russia even planned to attack. Maybe they thought NATO or Ukraine would back down and formalize Ukrainian neutrality? And when that did not happen, Russia was pushed into a corner and thought this was their best chance to avoid a secutity disaster?
Ive got bad News for Russia. That was their dumbest Move. There best Units die in Ukraine right now. If Ukraine manages to get a big Win, like liberate Donezk, Luhansk or Crimea. Putin will be brought down.
@@BlockdaCoolguynato would definitely do that, after all nato was formed entirely to oppose Russia. Why do you think they rejected Russia from joining in 2002? Why do you think they are repeatedly funding this war? They act like the good guys but are realistically power and war hungry.
@@jullo12 check your facts before you go say something, then go see who accepted Russias membership and who didn't, as you need every members approval to join. And NATO isn't giving Ukraine aid, it's invidual members who have decided to. And US allies don't see the war the same way as Russians do. And also, they won't attack Russia, EVER. If you believe that Putin who said that NATO will attack Russia (who has nukes) and would risk the whole humanity, you are wrong. And also, your claims that Russia would be attacked by NATO is extremely unrealistic as Article 5 only works if a NATO country was attacked, not when a NATO country attacks other NATO country, Turkey and USA in Syria for example. Only invidual NATO countries have decided to help their allies, not all.
@@Patohd69 They also tried that in Afghanistan where my ancestors were chilling. 2.1 million dead civilians later with our president Mohammad Daoud Khan and his entire family executed I think we made our final decision regarding the idea of an alliance with Russia. Or at least I would have had we need had to leave during that massacre.
"to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west" is not much of a reason. I know that children can keep asking "why" infinitely. But I am no child, and yet the response to an answer like that is to ask: why? I don't think bias to use military force is actually true, as Russia constantly does trade with neighboring nations instead of invading them and taking their stuff. To invade clearly isn't the default action for Russia. So for them to invade another country, they must have had very heavy reasons why they needed to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west. And just saying "well they are biased to invade stuff", is not very plausible or satisfying explanation. And to be honest your other reason isn't very convincing either. I'm sure Putin was super worried about his popularity in a country with absolutely no viable political opposition or free and fair elections.
"to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west", it actually is A reason but not THE reason and it does make sense. There are multiple reasons but for now it really is a mystery as the invasion could've been avoided together with Putin's fear of a NATO rearmament. Something doesn't add completely add up I must agree. A small reason for me is because they are stuck in the past.... Let's rewind back in history: Tens of millions of people perished during World War Two, as the large areas and flat planes of the Soviet Union made it difficult to defend. When the war was over, The Soviet Union was completely devastated and in ruins. Resources and manpower exhausted after 4 years of total war, and when the Cold War started, the Soviets were almost alone against the Western Allies, as they became the new enemy, and even far stronger than the Germans have been before the invasion in 1941. When the cold war began, the US had atomic weapons and in short time would be part of NATO, which is a defensive alliance biased towards any Soviet attack, as the Western Allies saw the Soviets as their new enemy as well. The Soviets and the people, were indeed scared AF to be invaded again, and responded with the Warsaw Pact (and created the atomic bomb aswell), which helped create a buffer between the west and the east. When the Soviet Union collapsed 45 years later and during the next decades afterwards, the nations being part of the Warsaw Pact were now being implemented in NATO, even going as far as the Baltic States (they were part of the Soviet Union aswell) the buffer zones no longer existed between the West and the Russians, and even got Kalinigrad cut off from mainland Russia. On a military perspective, they still have Belarus under their complete influence, but if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, then 1) a military build up on the Russo-Ukrainian border is bad news, as there is only 400 km to Volgograd, to cut off the Caucasus, 2) Belarus aswell will just become one giant salient and can be attacked from three sides. It dosen't look like we have such intention, so they might just think we have grudges towards Russia still? mmmmhhh
@@pini1076 Putin doesn’t actually fear NATO, it’s just a justification among Russia population, but what he can’t accept is that if the post soviet country joins nato, he will loose his dominance on them, and he won’t be able to manipulate them. He considers these countries part of Russia.
Watch the real life lore video that explains that Ukraine has enough natural gas deposits to completely undercut Russia, especially if the join the EU tariff-free single market Putin could not allow that to happen
I watched the latest WW2 channel livestream and indy & sparty answered some patreon's question if you were still working with the team. Glad to see that you're working on the stuff that you enjoy most while also creating a format of mapmaking for future creators. You have the respect of everyone. Always looking forward to your videos.
How can anybody invade Ukraine with only 200k men? In 1968 the USSR invaded small Czechoslovakia with 500k men. You need at least 1 million men to successfully invade Ukraine. Even someone with little knowledge of military affairs as me can figure it out.
I am Russian, I do not support war, and I was in army in 2015-2016. I will try to explain. Russian military consists of 2 types of soliders(and NCOs): Conscripts (which was me, you have to serve for a year) and "professionals" who serve with contract and get payed for serving. (24$/month for conscript and 276$/month for contractor). During the 1rst Chechen war Russian Armed forses used conscripts in a conflict vs Ichkeria (my father was one of them). And it ended up badly, because 18-25 year old guys with little experience and motivation had a tough time learnin how to fight. This also affects public support greatly in a bad way. So Arm.Forsces are now trying to use professional soliders only. During my time in army almost every day they told us: sign up guys, come on, you will never find work outside. So my guess is that they sent pretty much every contractor they could scrap(exept for Navy, RVSN etc). Parts of contractors also serve in Armenian-Azerbaijani border, parts are in Syria. This ofc applies to privates and NCOs only, cuz officers are obviously are professionals. PMCs are also a thing, but they spread between Africa, Syria and Ukraine.
Yeah you got a point. But an important variable to think about is time period. Modern Militaries are actually smaller than their 1950 or 1960 counterparts. This is mainly because since technology and military hardware has improved drastically, nations can rely on technology rather than raw manpower to win their wars. Furthermore, a military success is not necessarily only down to the numbers. Their tactics matter as well. If they use a strategy that leads to a lot of casualties then they will need more men. So while it may seem strange that there are only 200k men. It was done in order to match the strength of the Ukrainian army. and when two armies are matched man for man , the one with the best technology usually win. I hope this helped :)
Come on. You look at things as if armies are soldiers in some kind of computer game. That they will fight bravely and effectively to the last. You know, if Ukraine was same inside as Russia - it's army would disband soon after invasion, and people wouldn't give a shit. Look at the Crimea - there were almost no fighting at all. They probably expected to have some bit of that success at least in some areas.
@@SSSFMKUltra Perhaps you can clarify for me. Conscripts are in normal brigades and divisions, correct? So if the conscripts are not supposed to fight, does the brigade go to war undermanned?
To repeat your first argument in a simpler way: Russia had lost it´s soft power influence (communism) but kept it´s hard power potential (military). And because the west is superior in soft power domains, Russia´s leadership became so desperate, that it used it´s hard power to bring others back into the fold.
To add to this, I personally think the Russian leadership got tunnel vision. China played the long game, growing into the second largest economic power of the world. This allowed them to do stuff that would usually get them sanctioned to oblivion. Force the west into relying on China for everything, and they're hands will be tied. This worked. See what's happening in Tibet and Xinjiang, and you can't tell me that if the same thing happened in a poor South American nation, it wouldn't get sanctioned into the ground. Russia, instead of playing the long game, rushed in. The loss of so much soft power probably terrified them, and made them lean on their hard power so much that they became incredibly irrational (that is to say, the military did what it wanted to do a lot more). All they had to do is do a Saudi Arabia, grow off of oil money and force the west to become compliant more and more until they can commit ethnic cleansing without the west able to do anything. Instead, they tunnel visioned, rushed to regain their glory days. Personally, I think that Russian leadership are still under the illusion that they hold the influence as they did during the Soviet era. They're no longer the beacon of communism around the world, they aren't an economic superpower anymore. In fact, their economy is smaller than South Korea, a country 171 times smaller than them (to be clear though, they still hold a low-mid economic power threshold thanks to their oil money, and comparing to S. Korea might not be really fair).
I always really like your videos, especially the blow by blow brakedown of major battles. When the full story comes to light I look forward to your video on the Ukranian War so we can see just how they managed this impressive feat.
@@Eastory Если будете освещать, то освещайте полностью события которые происходят в мире, как на самом деле начался этот конфликт? как сотрудничали Россия с Украиной? как на Украине произошел Государственный переворот вооружённым путём, который финансировал США, ведь есть даже ролики где они поддерживали этот переворот и заявили что отправили 5 млн долларов (это такая у них демократия?), какие отношение между Россией и западом были? Какими способами Нато создавало влияние над странами. Вы выставляете плохой только одну сторону.
@@ВалентинКоньков-о3ц ну с текущей ситуация, где Россия терроризирует мирных жителей и шантажирует мир ядерной катастрофой на ЗАЭС, что рассказывай за грешки запада, что нет, Россию от статуса государства-террориста это не обелит.
I really like your style of storytelling. I hope in the future you will also make an animated front of war in Ukraine (like with the war of independence of Estonia, or the Soviet front during World War II) ;p
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
What gives one country (Russia) the right to determine another country’s ( Ukraine ) sovereign right to join into any agreements i:e NATO ? Could Russia threaten to invade Canada, but won’t do it if Canada leaves NATO ? Putin said that he didn’t want NATO on his borders… if that was true why didn’t he attack Alaska?
@@algrundy8337Why US has almost initiated a WW3 after what happened with Cuba? Why they had the right to block them siding with USSR and almost wiped them off the face of the Earth? And that would US do if Mexico decides to ally with Russia and Russia gives them nukes? Answer is, no country in modern times would allow nuclear missiles from an unfriendly country to be placed in
Point of correction, Georgia attacked and started the conflict in 2008. The OSCE has said this and they are very far from Kremlin propagandists. Also South Ossetia voted by over 50,000 to about 40 to be independent im 1992 and over 50,000 to 57 to join Russia in 1992. Regardless of other conflicts, Georgia actually was the aggressor in 2008. Also, how can you suggest Russia launched a surprise attack in the northern of Ukraine. They had troops sitting close to the borders including in Belarus for months.
The theory that the US military have too much influence and that military 'solutions' are favoured by the military in the US shows a serious lack of knowledge of the US elite and political system in Washington. In fact it is the US military who often moderate the civilian politicians in the use of military force. The most extreme case was the mutiny called the "Generals' Revolt" in 2006. Retired generals who were able to say what the serving officer dared not, called Rumsfeld incompetent and negligent and drove him out of office. They extracted an agreement that US forces would be withdrawn from Iraq, and generally drawn down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military pay the human price for the civilians' military adventures, while the civilians get rich through investments. It is the revolving door of mainly civilians through think tanks, consultancies and the US government that produces a community of 'experts' who are enthusiastic about always having a war going. The most extreme are the Neocons who generally favour military interventions. The fact is that the US has a maladjusted relationship to war, which goes back to WW2. The US homeland was practically untouched by this conflict, but the US economy went through a massive boom which ended the remaining effects of the Great Depression. Since then wars such as the Vietnam war and the 20 year occupation of Afghanistan have provided a rich gravy train to entire US industries. This is why people talk about the "Military Industrial Complex", the alliance of businesses with senior Pentagon officials, all getting rich from war.
If you look into it you will find that the US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait. They did/didn't do a number of things to deter it for a start. 1) As with the invasion of Ukraine this did not happen without lots of warning. It was obvious to me about 2 - 3 weeks before the invasion that Iraq was going to invade. During this period Saddam extensively tested the water before going in. The US scrupulously avoided doing anything to deter Iraq from invading which would have been easy. If they had done so Saddam would not have gone in. They did not even warn Iraq not to invade Kuwait. They kept silent and pretended they did not know what was going to happen. At that time the US permanently stationed one Phibron of Marines in the Gulf (approx. 1,700 troops). They could have sent these into Kuwait which would have signalled "Invade Kuwait and you are at war with the US". Even as Iraq's tanks were rolling in to Kuwait, the US stated publicly it was not planning any action over the matter. It was also a lie that Bush Snr did not know about the imminent invasion. It is on public record that Gen Schwartzkopf briefed Bush 24 hours before the invasion that the invasion was about to occur. the US kept silent a pretended they were completely surprised.2) US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, said two things to Saddam weeks before all this; firstly that the US was 'neutral' in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (an out and out lie as the west has always been the guarantor of the independence and backers of these tiny Gulf statelets, many of which were created by the west in the first place). Second that America's relations with Iraq were more important than its relations with Kuwait. This was code for a GREEN LIGHT to do what he liked over Kuwait. Later when these controversial comments came to light, the State Department claimed they 'did not know'. This is totally unbelievable. The State Department surely takes a close interest in what the ambassador says directly to the supreme dictator of Iraq, and had weeks to put right any miscommunication. The fact is that it suited the US well that Iraq invaded Kuwait, as it gave them and excuse to invade the region and establish the land bases they had lost when CENTO collapsed following the Iranian revolution. From WW1 till 1979 the west maintained a system of military domination in the middle east, with a a string of bases. The "Baghdad Pact" evolved under the British which gave way (after the 1958 revolution in Iraq), to CENTO led by the US and based mainly in Iran. The Iranian revolution meant that for the first time since WW1, the west had no strong, land based system of military domination and control in the Middle East. The reaction of the US was to build CENTCOM up into a force of 330,000 troops by 1983. Over a decade the Us spent billions building air bases, arms dumps, port facilities etc. through out the "Central Region" (West Asia). All needed for a full scale invasion of the Middle East. All they lacked was the opportunity to go in. Saddam provided them with this. There was a lot which followed from this before the US could get fully established again, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 finished the job. For a rare insider witness please see: ua-cam.com/video/TY2DKzastu8/v-deo.html @@thomaskalbfus2005
My long and detailed reply to your point appears to have been censored. It committed the sin of containing facts, the one thing unforgivable in political debate in the west. @@thomaskalbfus2005
Very clear and reasonable, and concise. While not an analysis from my typically more geopolitical point of view, and likely does not examine all the complexities of the start of the conflict, it does an accurate portrayal of some that I most oftenly miss
@@Eastory I don't know if you've seen analyses like those done by Caspian Report or Good Times Bad Times but those generally are very trustworthy. Caspian Report even has a video from 2018 that predicts how the russian strategy of Eurasianism will lead to future problems. Why the war started is a very complex issue but taking a look at how geography affects international relations is critical to understanding how nations "think" and "act".
@@grovemeister04 I have seen Caspian Report. I like the geographic explanations myself. They show very well what the nations geopolitical interests may be.
Your theory is very interesting and is complementary to the realpolitik analysis of Nato expansion. You add a psychological aspect which is often neglected in war but which is quintessential.
I like how you completely ignored the most important factor, the fact that the west wasn't so happy when the Ukrainian president Yanukovich rejected the deal with the EU for a more profitable deal with Russia and together with USA publicly supported (and let's be honest, financed) the Euromaidan coup, where literally top American diplomats like Victoria Nuland joined the demonstrants. Could you imagine top Russian diplomats walking on antigovernment protests in Mexico or Canada thousands of kilometers on a different continent where they don't belong? War in Ukraine didn't begin with Crimea, it indirectly began in 2013. Oh, let's not forget the hundreds of civilians in Donetsk, Lugansk and Gorlovka, who lost their lives due to Kiev's shelling for the past 8 years, you know, when hollywood couldn't have cared less about the war, like it's caring for the last month since Russia joined.
Even if the events in 2014 were caused by the USA, why did the Ukrainians choose to elect Poroshenko and Zelinsky and stay on the course to join EU? I think the better explanation is that the deal with EU offered them better economic perspectives than Russia and it is for this reason many of Ukrainians chose to come out against president Yanukovich and keep electing pro EU politicians, because they see it as being in their economic interests.
@@Eastory look at Bulgaria. EU member since 2007.....and to what avail? Devastated economy, the money gets stolen by Western companies and their cronies on the ground. The EU has never had the goal of "helping" the East, it is simply colonization by newer, softer methods. So yes, the other commenter is totally right. I can imagine the crying and outrage if Russian diplomats supported a coup in Mexico or Canada. You cannot know what is better for the Ukrainians...in any case high prices, low wages and profits for Western companies, as in Bulgaria, are not for the benefit of the locals. Change my mind.....
I don't agree with a part of what you said, but it's an interesting point of view, with real arguments and thanks for showing off what are your thoughts.
Eastory, I totally love all your videos, but I think that you are wrong here. Russian goverment does not need to boost president's popularity in such drastic ways. If you look into russian internal politics, you will see, that opposition in our country either doesn't threat current regime, or was destroyed and exiled right before 2022. So I think, that thinking that internal politics and Putin wanting to be reelected have nothing with true reason of war. From my perspective this war looks like attempt by russian government and government-ruled-corporations to take their place in the sun. Market expansion and expansion of sphere of influence. Talking of speculation about the future - looking how russian army did not win in the matter of weeks, many see this as fail. It is, but it is also an opportunity for Russia. Look at history of military conflicts for last decades: they are either civil wars in poor countries, where both sides have very little or none of modern army; or they are US/NATO invasions im Middle East, which is also war were one side does not have proper weapons, and other side knows that. However in Ukraine we can see true modern war, like world didn't seen since WW2. Both sides are somewhat equal in their weapons. And if Russia wins this war, maybe not so soon, it'll have most qualified army in Europe, ready to fight with equal enemy. And in situation were western powers for some reason try to drive Russian government into a corner, this could lead to full scale wars in Europe. This is, however, one of the worst scenarios. Nonetheless, I think we live in a trluy historical moment. Pretty bad time to live.
I couldn't agree more about this. In my comments (If you can search it, it's posted 20-30 minutes before your comment), I also mention how Russia has gain enough potentials to fight war in Ukraine and to tolerate all sanctions from EU and USA. This is the part that I expect to see in Eastory Video, but sadly there is none of it...
In principle, there are four reasons why 83% of Russians support all this. And all this is the result of propaganda 1) ignorance of real destruction The Russian Armed Forces are wiping cities off the face of the earth worse than the United States in Iraq, for example, the nearest major city to Kiev, Chernihiv, has been destroyed by 70%. Russian aviation is bombing residential areas of Kharkov. On television, these moments are not spoken, the Russians are simply deluded, it seems like the Serbs were in the 90s 2) the status of the winner of Hitler The Russians were inspired that it was they who defeated Hitler (and not all the peoples of the USSR), and the The Russians began to consider themselves a supernation that can kill in order to eradicate some kind of "neo-Nazism" 3) Actually the very problem of neo-Nazism from the angle of propaganda Russians are sure that neo-Nazism is allegedly supported by the people and the authorities. It's fake. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, as well as in Russia, the USA, Germany, in fact, do not have the slightest influence on the authorities. And propaganda inflated this topic in Ukraine 4) Revenge to the West Russians have been pumped up about enemies in the West for decades. Now the West is supplying us with weapons. Russians are subconsciously sure that by destroying military equipment in Ukraine, they will demilitarize the "bad West" and weaken it All the reasons are propaganda for decades of the "unfortunate". Although after Bucha the Russians somehow don’t feel sorry for them at all. But I respect those 17% of Russians who are against it.
@Joanne Finkelberg, you are right, no doubt. I meant that both sides actively use somewhat modern weapons and have modern army structures. Which is unlike most military conflcts for armies of Europe in late 20th century/21th century, where almost all the time we would see how highly professional army invade some third world country.
By true modern war you mean "european" war. Otherwise pakistan with american weapons was at war with india only 23 years ago. Both nuclear states. Both with modern weapons( although one obtained it as charity and begging, other paid for everything it owns)
I seen some other media speculate Putin resorted to a military solution to gain popularity that war time presidents typically get. But politically speaking, the US was also using the military to solve things they were unable to and look at how that ended. The military isn't a nation building force. And for Russia, the military, more specifically invading isn't a foreign/public relations tool.
Нет. Это не главная причина. Главная причина в том, что Путин и российский народ имперцы до костей. Для них Украина - колония, которая не имеет права на собственное государство, а украинский народ не имеет права на свой язык и культуру.
Didnt mention NATO expansion directly once. Purely based on Russophobic EU guesswork and arrogantly dismisses the actual reasons the Russian Gov gave and are supported by the majority of independent leading Geopol analysts.
Great video as always, but you have missed few details. First, Georgia was at war with the Abkhazia and South Osetia shortly after the dissolution of USSR, and since the war ended, Russian peacekeeper forces were located in these regions, which were attacked too at 08.08.08. Then, Ukraine's president Victor Yanukovich was leaning towards Europe too, but he halted the process of "Eurointegration" so he got overthrown by pro-european movements. Third, most former soviet republics, excluding Baltic states, had close ties with Russian economy as they were in USSR. Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine's trade goods didn't gain much interest in Europe (p.e. who wants Moldavian wine, when you have French one) and had much in Russia so they have to balance between them. Belarus got sanctioned shortly after Lukashenko's election in 1994 (no Putin in Russia btw) so they leaned towards Moscow. And in my opinion aiding Donbass regions was needed to stop Ukraine from joining NATO (one of the articles requires from joining country not to have any civil wars and internal conflicts). Other info is pretty much correct. I tried to stay as neutral as I could. Best wishes, your most loyal russian viewer (or pro-putinist bot for my opponents, huh)
Good rectifying, but pretty sure Georgia caused the War by doing something they shouldn't in South Osetia, because they thought after supporting & supplying 10K troops to US in Iraq in particular that the USA would back them up somehow, but they didn't, so they got shwacked in 4 days! 2014 was a C14 Coup...
@@SaulKopfenjager Complete nonsense. Georgia responded to Russian troops illegally on Georgia soil who were bombing Georgian villages for months. Russians shot down any diplomatic settlement proposed by the Georgian side and actively worked to aggregate the situation.
I've decided it's best not to believe either side of this war. Both are churning out propaganda, I feel like the truth might be in between, but you never really know. I stopped taking the Russian and Ukrainian claims seriously when they started calling each other Nazis.
The source of information is always prone to biases due to several factors, but with modern media pumping out live 24/7 coverage, the information released is easily skewed and manipulated as who ever is retelling the story does not have all the information nor the full context.
Good to be skeptical. However the Ukrainian Azov Battalion and Right Sector do not deny they are fascists, and they practice what they preach. And I am not talking "fascist" the overused epithet for evil. I am talking the real term for a political movement. Ukrainian fascists practice historical grievance attuned ethnically pure nationalism, packaged in military form with the goal of ethnically cleansing a nation for the glory of the past. Blood and soil just like the Germans of 1940 as exemplified by their black and red flag. Ukrainian fascists are a historical reality in West Ukraine, they not only sided with the Germans in WW2, the did the German's dirty work murdering Polish, Jewish, and communist civilians. In fact they were so uncontrollable the Germans were disgusted. They take huge pride in their past and honor the nazi murderer Stepan Bandera as a national hero of Ukraine in law.
I would like to Peter Zeihan's evaluation on this summary, because while it focuses on political/military issues, it basically follows much of what he sez in terms of that AND how natural resources/economies and demographics are also driving these strategic decisions in Moscow. The fact that you came to very similar conclusions though speaks volumes about your insight...and I think your predictions in the short term at least, appear spot on! Great summary!
I disagree with the author on several points. Abkhazia and Ossetia were regions of the Georgian SSR and separated from it as a result of a bloody civil war (check out Yevgeny Norin's book about this). In August 2008, Georgia wanted to regain these territories by military means and shelled the city of Tskhinval and the Russian peacekeeping contingent, which caused the intervention of Russian troops. In the autumn of 14 and winter of 15, the Minsk agreements were concluded. They assumed the withdrawal of troops and heavy weapons, as well as the settlement of the status of Donbass and Lugansk. For all the time, the Ukrainian authorities have not been able to create a dialogue with the LDPR population and have actually sabotaged their implementation. I don't quite understand how this prevented us from joining the EU. And finally, in mid-February, President Zelensky announced the revision of the Budapest Memorandum, which was regarded in Russia as a rejection of the status of a non-nuclear country and preparation for the creation of nuclear weapons. I also recommend reading a fragment of Zelensky's interview where he answers the question about the connections of the Azov battalion with the Nazis and the use of Nazi symbols. He says that "They are what they are, they are defending their country." Sorry for my English, I used a translator for this comment.
Eu doesn't takes countries with weak institutions and economy. They want Ukraine to make reforms and after many years they can join it. Joining eu is not a simple thing
Probably due to the EU dependence on Russian gas. If Putin invaded during summer, the EU could have easily blocked Russian gas. It's harder to block gas imports when it's needed to heat homes. Why didn't Putin invade in the winter then? China forbid Russia from invading during the Chinese Olympics forcing Putin to invade in the mud season or wait for the next winter.
Putin probably didn't think about those things, since he's an intelligent officer not a military general. The invasion also took place before the mud season, so the invasion was presumed to be over by the time Ukraine fell. Which obviously didn't happen.
That weren't dumb in any way Just incorrect They attacked with the assumption that Ukraine will not be really into fighting So they thought that after a quick victory They could move to defensive positions In Ukraine if the nato were to attack So they attacked in winter Because they thought that in case of nato invasion They could stop them in the mudy terrain Brought just after Winter That's what i think was Russian plan
Hi, a new subscriber here and I came due the suggestion of The Vlogging Thru History channel. Overall I tend to agree with your analysis, however since the very beginning of the Russian invation of Ukraine I can´t help to ask myself: what´s the logic behind starting a campaign in Winter? Specially considering Russia took advantage from Winter not once but twice in his history: first against Napoleon in the early XIX Century and second against the Germans in WWII. The only reasonable explanation that occurred to me is: LAND; and not every land but one of the richest in an agricultural way. If the Russian Federation wins this war, they will master circa 22-25% of the European pastures. In the very first part of the present Century, Putin had managed to overcome the past difficulties to extract massive amounts of gas and oil witch provided him and his oligarchs a LOT of money. The next logical step is to provide western Europe what they need the most after "hooking them" with energy, witch is: FOOD. And THAT will be coming from Ukraine. Once (and IF) Putin succeeds with the invation, he will be able to make Europe and part of the rest of the western world "eat from his hand" by selling what western civilization needs the most: ENERGY AND FOOD, and become once again the eastern leader. With that accomplished, even China would be forced to look at the Russian Federation with some respect. I´m not an historian, neither I pretend to be; these were just the humble thoughts from an average middle-aged man who is interested in geo-politics. Greetings to you and every one else from NE Patagonia, Argentina. BTW: I very much like your detailed work.
main part of food from Ukraine and rusia goes to Afrika. its Algeria, Egypt etc. also food technologies not very high and effective so I dint think your opinion is correct.
11:51 As someone who alive during the start of the war on Terror. Most Americas were like "We are in Afghanistan already. Finish that first THEN think about Iraq." And It was just nonstop propaganda about how bad Saddam was but everyone knew that they were going in whether we liked it or not and they just wanted us to be "on side". I distinctly remember Hannity and O'Reilly showing clips of Saddam's goons doing bad things and if anyone dared to suggest that they should solve there own problems and/or sending in troops isn't always the right answer they were shouted down. So all the Russian peoples' protests would have done nothing to stop this.
Great video! The visuals and script are very well put together and there is a lot of insight. I think that this perspective downplays the value of the land that is being fought for--natural resources have a very strong influence in this conflict. However, I think that this video is a good high-quality resource for people to get a better understanding of the conflict! I would suggest that people also watch Real Life Lore's video on the topic which goes into a lot of detail about the resources which are involved in the conflict but doesn't have quite the same level of exploration into the social and systemics aspects as this video does. Thanks for making this. These truly are interesting times.
Did Putin attack simply become he want his approval rating more up. Isnt over 60% approval rating enough to win the election always, so why does he want his approval rating to over 80%?
I would not trust too much on today’s “President’s approval rate” stats from Russia. The stats agency is state owned and can draw any numbers, also it is criminalised to disapprove the “special operation” depending on what one does to oppose it may result 5, 8 or even 15 years sentences. I asked some who strongly disapprove what would they tell if stats agency called them, the answer was “I would lie that I do support, to avoid sudden night searches in my apartment”.
Wishful thinking. When citizens feel threatened, they rally behind their leaders.The average Russian beliefs that the West is out to destroy them. Now more than ever. When the allies, in the second half of world war two were carpet bombing the German cities, one of the goals was to get Hitler deposed. Instead Germans rallied behind him and his soldiers fought to the last men. After Putin took Crimea his popularity went up, after the invasion as well. If your country gets invaded, you hate the invaders. There is no winning the hearts and minds of the invaded! Ask the US.
@@dirgsuite5546 I think the situation is not really comparable to historical analogy you used, not even comparable to german situation of 1919 (Versailles) or russian situation in 1904 (Russo-Japan war). Those 1919 and 1904 are somewhat closer, than one you suggested.
My only disagreement with this video is the lack of agency ascribed to US/NATO. The pro-Western shift of Georgia and Ukraine for example wasn’t just the spontaneous will of the Ukrainian and Georgian peoples, but also a result of an American policy of expanding the Alliance into those regions and the activities of imbedded Western NGOs promoting the Western political model.
Agree, the governor of odessa was the ex president of Georgia (currently in prison in Georgia for corruption) and a lot of other non ukrainians got positions in the government with less than a year living in ukraine. Westerners try to paint euromaidan as the people of ukraine choice when in reality it was a lot of foreign people
Nato is not something that expands on its own, if a country does not want to join, it does not join, like for Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland. And there must be a reason if the first significant diplomatic action of all of these countries who were in the Warsaw Pact did was asking for joining Nato.
Why is literally no one quoting putin's february 16th speech? "ukraine is a communist invention" "ukraine is not a state, it's fake, no culture etc etc" "we will show you what decommunization is"
@@Sinaeb your question have pretty simple answer: Russian government embraced new discoveries and expansion during XVII century that inspired lots of famous explorers: Khabarov, Ermak, Dezhnev, later Bering. And by that policy russians went enormous distance (from Europe, through Urals and Asia at its widest point) through harsh conditions and difficult terrain to claim huge territory of eastern Europe, Siberia and even bits of America (Alaska, and more spots on the western coast as far as northern California) for their country. For example, around 60% of russian territory closer to Beijing that to Moscow. And really strong and well developed China was there for dozens of centuries, but hadn't claimed those lands because they had no expansionist targets and focused on their "inner China". Btw, Eastory could easily make pretty neat video on that topic with lots of cool visualisations.
I worked with Russian citizens. They are/were very diligent and thorough. They saved our butts many times w/ engineering repairs overnight while we slept. It's really too bad they don't have the ability to live the lives they deserve. They are smart and want to be productive. I hope the best for them. Hope we all make it through this!
Friend, don't believe this ridiculous propaganda. The video does not say a word about why Putin actually took Crimea in 2014 and started the war in 2022. Putin took Crimea because it is the most important naval base for Russia, and after the coup in Ukraine, the new authorities began to say that they would break the agreement on the location of the base in Crimea. And Putin started the war in 2022 because the Ukrainian army had been shelling the cities of Donbass for 8 years. But for some reason, neither in the Western media, nor in this video, a word is said about this. With love from Russia
@@chessvasik I will add that shortly before 02/24/2022, the attacks on Donbass intensified many times. Zelensky, who was chosen "to end the war" in the EU, also threatened that they could develop "dirty" nuclear weapons.
The author confuses cause and effect. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was nothing to threaten Europe and NATO, but that did not prevent them from expanding the military bloc 6 times to Russia's borders.
I think your arguments make a lot of sense. I mean, this is how monarchs and rulers, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, won the favour of their people for thousands of years: Bread and Games at Home and glorious Battle abroad
It seems that the major history buff channels out there each have their own take on the "why" question. Yours focus on Putin's approval rating, which is indeed a valid reason. But it's just one reason. I feel there is not one answer, but many since it's an incredibly more complicated situation than many make it out to be. Here's what I have seen covered so far on the reasons for invasion: 1. Putin's approval rating (Eastory) 2. Putin's delusion of a "greater slavic nation" (Johnny Harris) 3. Mineral, oil and gas resources in Ukraine and the Black Sea (Real Life Lore) 4. Geopolitics security (Caspian Report)
Thank you. I think there are several ways of explaining the same event from different perspectives and that we can understand it better, if we have several theories to draw from rather than one.
Really enjoyed the video! Great idea in 12:03 ! to figure out the reasons for conflicts is a good way to stop future ones, or at least make people more conscious about it (it's hard because the military-industrial complex is huge). Keep it up the good work 👍
Oliver Stone’s documentary “Ukraine on Fire” here on YT also discusses a lot of the historical and geopolitical context of this conflict I recommend you check it out
UA was ranked 6th in Europe (only after UK, France, Italy, Germany and Spain, in that order) according to Global Firepower and 11th arms exporter in the World (thus strong military-industrial complex) according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. UA ground forces had cca3000 MBTs, cca2500 IFVs, another cca3500 armoured vehicles. Artillery included 500+ MLRSs, 1200+ selfpropelled artillery and 2200+ towed artillery. Air defence was organized in 4 air defence missile brigades and 7 (11 according to some sources) independent air defence missile regiments with 250 S-300PT/PS/V1 SAMs, 72 9K37 Buk SAMs, 100 9K330 Tor SAMs, 125 9K33 OSA-AKM SAMs, 150+ 9K35 Strela-10 SAMs, 70 2K22 Tunguska SPAAGMs, 300+ ZSU-23-4 Shilka SPAAGs and hundreds of S-2/S-3 Strela, Igla, Piorun and Stinger MANPADS. UA Air Force had 145-188 modern combat aircrafts including 37-70 Mig-29s and 32 Su-27s fighter jets, 12 Su-24s and 17 Su-25s attack jets and 47 L-39s light attack/trainer jets. What happened?.
5:08 - author, you are wrong. You even didn't read the text of Minsk agreements. According to Minsk agreements, Ukraine had an opportunity to take the DPR and LPR territories as a Russian autonomic republics. Russia didn't had the proposals about Ukrainian foreign policy in the text of Minsk agreements.
This video is true, but only partially. You completely ignore the economic reasons. How can a capitalist country take such a serious step without the support of the most serious groups of capitalists in its country? The reason is that Ukraine has recently become a serious competitor of Russia and Belarus in the European markets in such categories as wheat, metals, coal, and now Ukraine has discovered gas reserves and was ready to become a competitor of Russia in a vital area for it. In general, Russia started the war to increase the profits of its oligarchs and destroy their competitors.
I was going to add something similar. I didn't realize that in 2010 or so a huge natural gas field was found in the Donbas region. Crimea with Sevastopol is where the Russian Black Sea Navy was hosted from, so no surprise on that annexation. I think that you're correct that with Ukraine leaning toward the EU and being able to compete with Russia on what they provide economically to the EU it would be bad for the Russian economy since clearly the EU would prefer to buy from one of their own members first. War seems like an atrocious way to stop that from happening, but is at least logical.
@@ShayPatrickCormacTHEHUNTER Actually i saw news that after “operation” Russia, despite the fact that it began to sell less gas in volume, increased its revenue from sales by 1.5 times
You seem to have found best information from only truthful Russian official news network, comrade. The west lies, comrade. Russia stronk because tanks made of Stalinium, comrade.
as someone who actually like Russia , the russian language , russian music and arts and soemtimes russian history and politics I confess myself disapointed on Russia's policies in regards to Ukraine and other neighbouring countries, in regards to the west and the interneal policies towards it's own devloppement , there is a strong feeling when I try to analyse russian governing policies that sometimes they do actions just to be diffrent from the west , a left over I suppose of the USSR and the Russian imperialism , the feeling of being a great country that just have to follow it's own path which must be unique and diffrent from others and it should be up to others to follow it's path ( this feeling exist in other countries though to a lesser degree like France who once was a world's superpower ( it's still a great power but it can't be compared to the US or even to the influence of the ex USSR , or current China )) I think Russia had many chances to become something great , narrow mindedness of Yeltsin and then Valadimir Putin unfortunetly put a stop to that , between 2000 and 2008 with the rise of the prices of energy , and the entrence of many western companies russia had an opportunity to modernise the country to the standards of a western country , I'd imagine of France , UK or Germany or even Italy had the ressources that Russia has at hand , they might actually easily challenge the US or china for the first spot in not only economy but also political influence as well as military power , the history of science in russia is big and long and it's sad that it's no longer used to push forward the russian indisutry to new highs even the current sanctions would hurt much much less a much more modern russia especially with it's current ressources it only needed to kep it's nose out of it's neighbour's business to carry a positive policy with them , to not hinder their evolution towards democracy , as a matter of fact I think putin's strongest way to be truly in power and be admired would have been if he had introduced strong democracy in russia , in a smart way that would make him the father of an evolution in russia , and one of it's biggest modern influencers, maybe even the man behind the chair , after all the assassinated ex prime minister of japan which is a democracy had a real big influence of it's policy from one position or the other for a long time and putin could have been that or more , he could have been a hero to ukraine , by supporting democracy there by not supporting corruption , by making it clear that he's with the ukrainian people , I think by then it's the ukrainians themsleves who would support the claim that russians and ukrainians are brothers and that relations should stay positive ,even if Ukraine join nato or eu !! Russia could have had a friend inside EU and NATO instead of an enemy ( or enemies ) Russia could have made it clear that it is not the USSR and that Russians suffred as well under communism of the USSR it could have made it clear that russians are not about to bully the balltic states but to protect them and nurture their potential and I think then that the baltic states themselves might have been and advocate of russia instead of it's enemy , russia could have had to keep it's naval base in crimea via diplomacy and discussed security concerns about NATO directly with NATO , EU as well as baltic states , Ukraine ,Belarus , and Poland ( as individual states) without starting a crisis !! at worst if Russia had a very positive relationship and strong trade with western countries and eastern europe it could have had then stronger way to do dipommatic pressure including sanctions as well without resorting to barbaric violent war practices in which the politicy makers of Ukraine ,gerogia , poland ,EU and NATO aren't the biggest victims but rather the Ukrainian civlians !! and though as trade partners of Ukraine the rest of the world including african countries that really need the grains oif russia and ukraine ( which now are under sanctions or blocked due to the war ) in the end Russia made stupid violent policies that made few gains and more political and economic losses , russia lost most it's neighbours trust and the remaining trade partners are either weiry or too far or too strong to be concerned or all three !!
he did not mention that in 2014 in Ukraine there was real an armed coup supported by western countries. After that in ukraine there was anti-russian propaganda and anti russian brain washing of ukrainians. All pro-russian voices in ukrainian society were eliminated physically. Western propaganda made everything to make ukrainians hate russians because west and NATO needed anti-russian soldiers to fight against russians. They finally achieved its goal long before the 2022
An interesting opinion, but answer a couple of questions, how can you describe the promotion of NATO as a friendly gesture? The second question, which country benefited from the US intervention, all examples say the opposite, ruin and siphoning off resources. Crimea is a separate topic, after the release of the Russian fleet, whose base would be deployed there and whether it is permissible for the security of my country, an incredible level of Russophobia was warmed up and provoked long before the military reaction. Another interesting topic is when one nation is dehumanized and demonized, are these not manifestations of Nazism, there is already a similar experience in the world.
When Putin became a president, his aim was to improve relationships with West.. He wanted Russia to join EU and NATO and that is documented fact.. It was US who pushed Russia away from Europe and you don't need to think twice why they did it... So if US don't agree on Russia joining NATO and/or EU, then how do you see Russian Black Sea Fleet being on NATO territory? 2014 coup was about Ukraines move towards Europe and Putin understood it as direct threat to his navy and acted fast before it's to late, so he annexed Crimea!! And what is happening now is just a aftermath of Ukraines goal to join NATO and then activate article 5 to involve NATO to push Russia out of black sea.. CRIMEA is strategically important peninsula and US wants to get it with blood of Ukrainian people.. It's nothing to do with history or Soviet Union.. It's only about the control of Black Sea and to stop Russia from becoming stronger.
why do hindus like russia or are you a bot? Russia must carry out decolonization. Ukrainians and Russians are not brothers and have never been. Ukrainians are Slavs. Russians are Finno-Ugric. Russia and Russians have never been normal.
-Look at the Russian national costume, it is the same as Moksha. - Kokoshnik Tatar-Bashkir. -Russian traditional house, ,,izba,, the same as the Mordovian hut. - Japanese matryoshka. - Finno-Ugric peoples have always lived on the territory of Russia and Moscow: Meshchera, Merya, Mary, Mordva, Moksha, Veps, Chud, Perm, Bulgars ... even Putin's Veps. - the bear symbol was invented by the British General Staff, the first official appearance of Russia in the image of a bear occurred in the British caricature of the 19th century, that is, in the memes of that time and portrayed Russia as an aggressive inadequacy. At the same time, if you look at the Moksha folklore, then here the bear usually acts as a stupid fool whom everyone is fanning, a fox, a hare, a Gingerbread Man, although if it were Moksha folklore, then it should be Krugobok, right? - vodka is not Russian - trepak are Caucasian costumes and Ukrainian folk dances, and already after the thirties, the Russians began to customize this image to fit the trademark of the Soviets, and therefore from now on the dancers changed the Kuban outfit to gomnasterki, outfits of the Red Army, which in turn is a rethinking of the Russian kosovorotka stolen from the Tatars who specially sewed shirts with an offset collar, which should protect against strong winds when riding through the steppes. -Balalaika, the first instruments called balalaika were simply cheaper and simplified two-stringed versions of the Kazakh Dombra, and already close to the end of the 19th century it received a third string and a triangular shape. Ukrainian Bandura 55-65 strings, and ,, Russian Balalaika ,, 3 strings HAHAHAHAHHAAHHA - the harmonica was stolen from the German Friedrich Bushman, who invented both the harmonica and the harmonica, and the Russians simply began mass production at the Tula factory, Bayan, by the way, there too. -Repin is a Ukrainian from the Cossack family of Rip, in his paintings the difference between Ukrainians and Russians is very visible: ,, Cossacks, and ,, Barge haulers on the Volga ,,, barge haulers are hired workers, among whom most often were fugitive serfs, whose task was to drag ropes river transport against the current, a rather anti-humanistic spectacle, a very difficult profession in Russia that lasted until 1930. In general, Repin often turned to both Ukrainian and Russian motifs, for example, the painting “Veschernitsy” and “Ivan the Terrible and his son” kills his son “Gaydamak” ,, Gopak ,, and ,, Manifestation ,, , I suppose you understand what I mean, add here ,, Princess Sofia, , , ,, We didn’t expect, , ,, Bolsheviks, and so on, Repin spent his last years in Finland, well not to be shot by the Russians, because they loved him very much. - and there is no slogan ,, Glory to Russia, ,, this is a modern parody of the centuries-old official Ukrainian slogan ,, Glory to Ukraine ,,
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
@@Alone1again1 have your comments been deleted? Or did you delete it yourself? When i try to look at them from notifications i can see them but i can't when i try to look at them from comments section under this video.
I don't think it's fair to claim that full annexation of Ukraine was the goal. This has never been stated. There is more than one reason that Russia would want to open multiple fronts eg relieving pressure elsewhere and increasing pressure in negotiations. You can't make it out to be a failure if the goal wasn't ever to take the country in the first place. Ukraine will not be joining the EU or NATO and Russia controls the territories they claimed to want. This still may go terribly for Russia but if this 'stalemate' continues you would be kidding yourself not to call it a win for Russia.
I was surprised to see many in the comments saying how ‘great’ this analysis was comparing to others, because it’s really not. The video is based on a number of assumptions that would have needed serious sources backing instead of just “even a blind man could see it’ kinda of statement.
@@jerryx3253 I still think this video is 10x better than most other analysis where the conclusion is Putin bad or Putin imperialist. At least there is some realpolitik here.
Zelensky’s yesterday speech is also hilariously appalling. Suggesting the humanitarian crisis in Mariupol is staged by paid actors and stories made up. While he himself publicizing the “undetermined” Bucha massacre.
I would say that taking Kiev and all the country, was a secondary principal objective... It's a secondary objective that would be extremely good to take down but if not, you have the core objective, east Ukraine
@@maxstirner6143 It would be extremely good from the Kremlin's point of view to take down the entire west, it does not mean that it was ever part of their operational goals.
Well said. As a history enthusiast, i agree looking at these conflicts from the very outside(Hawaii) with your views as reasonable and well researched.
3:56 Russia didn't invade to "bring" Georgia in its sphere, they invadded to "keep" Geogria in its sphere. It's an important difference, it wasn't a geopolitical advancment by Russia, it was geopolitically defensive.
@@caydenl.4878 funny how the ukrainians installed foreign people (like the governor of odessa, minister of health, minister of economy, etc.) in positions of power, if they had so much popular support why they didn't put them instead?
@@alexsilent5603 Georgia attacked Russia? You should pass me whatever youre smoking. Mr hitler over here telling Germans that the Poles attacked Germany.
I love your take on it, and think you might be spot on. IF I MAY add something, (I don't take credit for this, also sadly can't remember who stated it) But another reason as to why Russia is invading Ukraine, is out of a security and financial concern. (Not mentioning the obvious) If Ukraine were to join Nato, that would be a large border (Ukraine is pretty big) that Russia would have to defend. The terrain and geography of the Russia-Ukraine border, is pretty features with few natural defenses, meaning alot more equipment, manpower, resources and money, need to be increased/assigned to that border. So never mind the 'symbolic' impact of Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine joining NATO would drastically put pressure and strain on Russias Economic Defense spending budget.
Ukraine wasn't in NATO and wasn't about to join. You don't get to arrest someone because it is technically possible for them to murder someone in the future.
@@KatharOne I don't know? Do I look like the Russian Defense Ministry 😂? Countries station guards/troops on borders. Especially when it comes to Borders like that of Russia and NATO. It's just what they do. Also, to *assume* your neighbor or 'enemy' won't do X, is poor thinking.
@@KatharOne Well, other than the fact that you still need a conversation army for any operation/task. You need boots on the ground and border, for example, if an insurgency force does cross-border attacks (which is alot more plausible to happen in that part of the world, and has also). Secondly, to assume nukes would be 'flying' left and right in a war between those two, would be making another poor assumption. Remember, all sides, are aware and don't want MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which gives even more the reason to believe resorting and usage of Nuclear armaments is not as clear cut and likely... (Btw... where did your first comment go?)
@@Eastory well yeah Russians did do similar thing that they did in winter war bad logistics ✅ Horrible coordination ✅ No Air superiority ✅ Going onto the roads and getting ambushed ✅ A blitzkrieg for the war ❌
So he just conquers land so his people will like him? So it isn't him who's just completely insane, it's also the people who want him to conquer more land...I wonder if they got invaded how they would feel...
The video says a lot about the aggression of Russia, but very little about the aggression of the West. It is worth remembering that NATO has staged wars around the world much more often than Russia. Now, when all Western countries talk about Russian aggression, they forget about their fears and the blood on their hands. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan.... The list goes on.
what a stupid claim, Syria was bombed to the complete destruction of several cities by RUSSIA, to sustain Al-Asad, Libya was attacked to avoid a genocide of the people of Bengazzi, who opposed al Gadafi, it was bombed with approval of the United Nations, Yugoslavia was in the middle the Srebenika genocide and the bombing was to stop that, Iraq and Afganisthan gave shelter to terrorists, especifically Afghanistan gave shelter to Al-Qaeda which attacked US, by giving them shelter you are essentially declared war on US, so come on, stop being such putin fanboy
What makes u think a video titled Why Russia invaded Ukraine has to mention about the west’s invasion of other countries. I’m not saying that this video isn’t biased, but why are u expecting a video focusing on Russia to mention about the bad stuff that the west had done
@@greenlynxspider7294 You're right. It's just strange that in 30 years very few people have been punished for the thousands of lives taken by NATO soldiers. However. As soon as Russia showed aggression, the whole world turned away from it. As if NATO can bomb other people's cities, and Russia is strictly prohibited, given that they don't even bomb. Ukraine is bombing. Listen to the French and American journalists who keep their mouths shut. They know the truth, but the West doesn't need the truth. Ann-Laure Bonnelle had her mouth shut. For example, listen to her...
@@mariocoronel8445 Are you familiar with the news? Nazism is flourishing in Ukraine. I think you don't need to explain what Nazism is. Swastika, Hitler, Bandera, genocide. The whole world was struggling with it. The whole world is back to it. Congratulations. Europe supports Hitler's accomplices.
@@МихаилЛенин-к5в unfortunately at the current moment the west is still the leader of this world, that’s why most the countries that are ‘punished’ are the ones against them. That said although we all know that the west is bad, that doesn’t mean that those countries that were attacked are good too. Sadly the ones who suffer are innocent civilians just like us. About Ukraine bombing themselves, I don’t think that is the case. Though the west is evil, that doesn’t mean Russia is any better. I don’t think Ukraine even has the logistics and supplies to bomb themselves for so long lmao.
If you wouldnt mind, Mr Eastory, but I have a pet theory of my own. Russia is geographically a flat plain, with little natural defenses. This fact brought invasions to the Russian land, from the Mongols, to the Polish. To secure and ensure that such invasions never happen ever again, the Russian state started a century long strategy of defense in depth, taking as much land as possible. We can see this by comparing the duchy of Moscow, and how it expanded in all directions. This strategy worked wonders, and it can be seen in Napoleons and Hitlers invasion of Russia. Moreover, centuries of expansion for more buffer created a militaristic culture. If there is one thing that we cannot seperate the idea of a Russian from, its winter, vodka and guns. Perhaps this is why Putin said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy. The Russian state lost guarenteed buffers that expanded all the way to Germany, to, well, the Russian heartland. Ukraine is especially vast buffer that the Russian policymakers have essentially seen it as “Russian”, not just practically, but because it’s too vital to the Russian defense. Now for the why now: The invasions of Libya and Iraq, say what you want, created a precedent where weaker states are conquered by stronger states for idealisms like human rights. In other words, when you get weaker, and you are anti-Western, it would generally be a matter of time before an invasion is likely. Second, Russia will get weaker. Countries are moving away from oil, eastern Europe is trading mostly with western Europe, and Russia has catastrophic demography. Combining the two, the Russian policy makers most likely thought that securing a safe position now, when Ukraine will be assuredly weaker, will seal Russian security. Their calculation is that in both scenarios, Russia will be weak, but its better to be weak from a position of strength, and so they invade.
@@FlymanMS the tenets don't change though. This analysis doesn't consider factors such as the importance of international trade in a country that has enetered global markets, and the importance of face saving needs of international actors sympathetic to Russia, but the basic reasoning still stands right to me. If Russia thinks that she's getting weaker and that she needs to appear as strong as it possibly can in order to avoid being caged, then she'll do what may appear as the most valid move, that is to secure a position of at least apparent strength.
This reflects Russian security thinking, but the "buffer state" and "flat plain" would be largely irrelevant in an actual conflict with the west today. It's an obsolete idea that still has far too much weight in Russian security thinking. The idea that Russia will get weaker over time does likely play a role though.
Missed this originally, only seeing it now after a year of hyper-warmongering and propaganda resulting in a fanatical drive for war escalation. But even after only a month there was already plenty of this so it was a pleasure to hear a balanced, measured analysis of possible causes for the war from the Russian perspective. And even given a additional year of development and Russian military incompetence, it seems like your initial analysis was pretty spot on. Prolonged stalemate. Ah well, hopefully those of us pushing for peace will have more success this year.
War mongering? We all want this War to End. But for it to truly End, Russia must leave all occupied Regions. Starting with Donbass and Crimea and Ending with Moldova, Georgia and others.
The major flaw in this analysis is the assumption that Russian wants to annex Ukraine. The goals have never been stated clearly so this should just be a speculation. But I agree with you that it might end up wayyyyyyy longer than people imagine, much like the Georgia saga.
Videos like these are excellent ways of taking action to prevent conflict. Highlighting possible genuine motivations for impactful decisions (like the annexation of crimea) is great at getting people to think differently. Good job 👍.
@@miggyferreira ask yourself why every time on the TV you see money and weapons being given to Ukraine, but never you see world leaders saying we must try and make peace. they want the war to continue, they dont care about Ukraine.
Good presentation, thank you. I think the strategy of Nato and the US also played a large toll in triggering, or provoking Russia to strike at the Ukraine. Similar to how we Americans reacted when Cuba was going to allow a Soviet military base in Cuba, Russia will not allow NATO bases in Ukraine.
@@mohammedsalimahmed5230 Please clarify a bit. I have laid out my thoughts and opinion, and I am curious to know your thoughts regarding this. What do you make of this, do you share my worry this we are risking a nuclear exchange? If so, why are we doing this?
What are you talking about? Ukraine is an independent country and can choose whatever union to join. I hear Russian propaganda in your words. Is that the reason why they raped and murdered civilians? USA and NATO? Are u f kidding me? And right now Finland and Sweden are joining NATO expanding NATO for over 1000 km with Russia and Russians "don't mind". Nobody ever threatened Russian, NATO is an defence union and Ukraine needed some warranties as the rest of the countries on the world. U blind and don't see what Russian politics talking about literally saying that the whole Ukraine has to be destroyed and has no rights to exist? Dude you are either Russian propagandist (which I truly believe) or prorussian guy from Serbia and so on.
If you want a perspective from Russia, then the guy, who translates my videos into Russian made a video on his own. It is good.
ua-cam.com/video/s2b6qR0c6QM/v-deo.html
but why you didn't mention how could china influence the conflict?
🔥When Putin announced the invasion, he explained in detail the reasons, goals and methods in the upcoming military operation. If you have not studied his words, your versions of what is happening are just your fantasies, and the fantasies of the media of Putin's opponents. And if you want to know what the segregation of Russians in Ukraine is, write in UA-cam "mass neo-nazi marches in Ukraine today".
We have plenty of propoganda that talks about their perspective . The main reason. Jealousy and empire building.
This is the attitude of Russia towards Ukraine summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski ua-cam.com/video/ow_xeYUfSVI/v-deo.html
and Russia has had a recent history of being aggressive to its neighbors ua-cam.com/video/Bb0hSY1YfPM/v-deo.html
Very good video. I only had 1 thing that I disagreed with, Near the end, You said there might be another cold war with russia. I don't believe this is the case. Just compare the GDP numbers. The west gets 40 times more money than russia per year (GDP). So I really doubt that a cold war between the west and russia would actually happen. Its more likely that china becomes the wests main competitor. with russia being more of a barrier for the west, But not an actual threat
I can't wait for Eastory to make an army movement video on this war once its over.
I already have some good ideas on how to cover it.
@@Eastory i have been waiting for this very much
@@Eastory Question: What army unit would be for each circle, does it was a division or something?
@@Yamanoteline30 probably make the bubbles brigades and regiments since that's how Russian has deployed its army.
it won’t end in your lifetime cause it will go nuclear
Very good analysis, but I must disagree with one thing. The west is not always against the oligarchies, if they are pro-western, as in Hungary, Turkey and Montenegro. So, the line between the democratic west and oligarchic east DOES exist, but is not as strong as someone might believe.
100%, my main complaint with this otherwise great video
This isn't even exclusive to Eastern Europe. For example, S. Korea is the definition of an oligarchic nation thanks to Chaebols. But unlike Russia, the whole nation is considered extremely western leaning, arguably more than Europe.
This applies not only to the oligarchs but to everything else. You can be corrupt, commit ethnic cleansing, steal billions, even be fascist. If you are pro-Western everything is just fine.
The analysis awful, it's end to end agitprop.
Just the one thing, this is riddled with assumptions, agenda driven supposition, dishonest spin and finally bollox.. Search for yourself, don't swallow lazy western reportage people ❤️
The economic growth of 2004-2012 was associated not only with oil prices, but also with the active development of markets. Many Western companies invested in Russia because there was cheap labor and unfilled niches. From about 2010-2012, Russia fell into the middle income trap. But instead of reforming the economy, Putin decided to annex Crimea and introduce so-called "anti-sanctions" - to free up domestic markets for local monopolists.
I agree with the market reforms part. I did simplify it in the video and did not mention it.
How precisely could Russian economy be reformed for common good?
Funny thing is - Ukrainian economy spiked just as much. Had troubles until ~2000, was best at 2005-2008, was ok-ish until 2014, and had it currency devalue triple after Russia went under sanctions. Curious isn't it?
@@Garchist Russia was one of the biggest Ukraine trade partners before 2014 and enjoyed huge discounts on oil and gas. After the coup that all went to trash.
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
As a Russian, I would say that you missed one important thing - the Russian Navy was located in Crimea, which was of strategic importance, since the collapse of the USSR, this location was leased to Russia by Ukraine, but understanding in what way further relations with Ukraine will develop, Russia went ahead of the curve and took a place for the fleet itself.
not for long
You can also have Navy in Novorossijsk. Black sea is not that valuable 😊
@@MichaelSmith-666 💀You seriously think Ukraine has ANY chance of re-taking Crimea? I didn't know we've gone that low, and that people could be so dumb
@@andrerothweiler9191 What do you mean black sea is not that valuable? It's Russias only western port that isn't frozen for most of the year
@@iscuit Remember what you commented 2 years from now.
The graphics and maps in your videos are always superb. Watching these are both informative and digestible.
As what said. A GOOD COMMUNIST IS A DEAD COMMUNIST
.
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
But this time he has really outdone himself
Nothing can beat those animated frontlines :)
@@AdamRusiecki - With bs, cuz he gets everything wrong.
The military isn’t the ones with too much influence on the US government, the military industrial complex are the ones who do.
Great point, USA is a corporate oligarchy, not a military hunta
The Israel lobby and their neoconservative lapdogs, more than any other political/economic force, pushed America into war with Iraq
@@icebrakertrotsky97 agreed even as an american
Pretty much, but the warmonger/imperialist attitude of americans along all their history and partly because of oligarch-owned media propaganda did have plenty of responsibility for the wars too.
They see themselves as "the white saviour", teaching democracy and liberalism to the savages
@@Franfran2424 America’s warmongering and imperialist attitude can indeed be traced back to the attitude of our oligarch-owned media. But if you were to look into the ethnic backgrounds of those media oligarchs I guarantee you’ll find that “white saviorism” isn’t their motivating impetus.
Actually Russian military has very little influence in policy making - a result of constant struggle between them and inner security services which military was losing since WW2. There is a reason why military coups were not even attempted in Russia in times of political turmoil since then.
That is a good point. I was thinking myself of how much does the military have power or is it more that the security services control everything.
@@Eastory Two most prominent generals that went into politics in 1990-ies died under mysterious circumstances...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Rokhlin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebed
Some popular warlords from L/DNR were also assassinated.
Russian security services are very serious about keeping military subservient.
@@konstantinriumin2657 Well, I don't know about the rest, but Alexander Lebed died, because his helicopter flew into the electric power lines and crashed. Such happen because a lot of politians and high military ranks think that they are the bosses and can order anything. He ordered his pilot to fly in bad weather conditions with poor visibility. Everybody on board died, sadly. The rest is just speculation.
@@konstantinriumin2657 So does that mean that the old NKVD nets after Stalin's death and the execution of Beria were still up and reconstituted as the KGB?
I remember reading memoirs of Eisenhower and his first meetings with Zhukov after WW2, he stated that Zhukov was very out going and extremely likable, but after Khrushchev came to power and his later meetings with the General, Eisenhower stated that Zhukov's outlook had changed, as in he was very soft spoken and melancholic.
Does that mean Khrushchev had done something to Zhukov even after he helped him take power from Beria?
Strange. I also heard reports that Zhukov was decidedly against forcing Soviet power in Europe through military power, as it was stated he was against sending troops into Hungary which obviously occurred anyway.
@@peterbarca8783 Zhukov was sidelined and then essentially sent into internal exile by Khrushchev. Ironic, since Zhukov helped Khrushchev so much in his rise to power
I usually don’t comment on videos but I found your video very insightful and educational.
The conflict has not one reason, but a whole list
Yeah there are so many factors, geoplitics,economic reasons, hating the west, demographics,history, possible future and much much more
@@you-know-who5657 we don't hate the west, it's just that the west does what it wants with no consequences
so having the west stockpile weapons, possibly nuclear, on Russia's border, is unacceptable
this show how stupid many content creator thinking they are smart
🟡🟣 How it'll end
👉ua-cam.com/video/v11I_rm_Ymo/v-deo.html 🟡🟣
@@you-know-who5657 yep, I totally understand the invasion. Why the fuk would you build nato shelter 400 kilometres from Moscow. Biden said it 20 years ago.
2:55 "In Russia the military and the security services are effectively responsible for running the country."
I've seen at least Kamil Galeev argue on Twitter that it's only the security services that run Russia. Military is low in the dominance hierarchy and deliberately kept weak so it can't challenge the security services' domination. I don't myself know enough to say whether he's right or wrong.
You know some important russian general? This is also answer why russian services are good but military weak.
PS.
Last charismatic general died in "accident", Alexander Lebed,
he was a competitor in the presidential election for Putin.
@@RurdigRedaxe just as Lev Rohlin
Thanks, this is a good point.
Yep
It is very funny to watch how people who do not live in Russia talk about conspiracies of Freemasons, the FSB, totalitarianism and the like. You sit and think "ahah, that's how it turns out, but I didn't know)))"
It should be noted that in a country run the FSB approval ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. They may show a tendency, but that tendency may be incredibly skewed. Same with military statistics, demographics, polls etc. It's not like Western governments don't skew statistics when they have the chance.
You are correct, of course. It is difficult to believe that Putin's net approval has never been negative in his whole 20+ year rule.
@@Eastory “Pension Reform” dealed a huge blow to it
True. A lot of Russians don't support putin, but sure do hate Ukrainians and USA. Therefore support current actions, and would any other regime that would replace putin, but continue current political movements.
@@Garchist We do not hate Ukranians or USA(as people) but we do hate their actions against our country, unlike the majority of world who hates not only our actions but Russian people and everything related to Russia as of now.
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
This was a very watchable video, entertainingly presented and an interesting take on the reasons behind this conflict. One thing I would say about this take on these events is it seems to have Russia/Putin acting in nearly a vacuum or bubble with very little contemplation on how other external powers act for their own self-interest which may or may not cause reactions. Its more like a tennis match where people are serving the ball backwards and forwards, each person reacting to the latest set of events.
Thank you!
Hey, I'm just an ukrainian guy and I understand that our demands are too high for other countries which already have their own problems to deal with.
So feel free to stop giving us so many precious resources as they are being wasted by us without achieving much. Thank you and Slave Ukraine! 🇺🇦
Did you get that tennis match in the end of the comment from Death Note?
@@Eastory why didn’t you mention that the “opportunity” that presented itself was a US supported Coup which removed a pro-Russia president and a new Ukrainian government extremely hostile to Russia handpicked by the US through Victoria Nuland?
Maybe you could do WW1 on the western or eastern front. It’ll be difficult to map the unit positions as they don’t really change but there is alot to talk about for supplies, attrition, naval battles etc
I believe he already has one on WW1, though mostly on the Western front. I believe the Eastern front could contain enough content for an episode.
I sometimes get these suggestions, but as of yet I am not sure about it, because there is no consistent mapping of WWI.
There is a nice french channel that make them already. Check out "sur le champ"
@@Eastory you should do some modern day videos, like us invasion of iraq, afghanistan etc
@@Eastory Where do you usually get the unit mapping from?
I have really enjoyed your approach, although it obviously is a little biased. I am an international relations graduate and we have studied a conflict in Ukraine for quite a while now. The general consensus among the most capable conflictologists from my university is that the 2014 revolution could've been ignored by the Russian decision makers, if not for a one single factor. As you've rightfully stated, the Orange revolution have established a pro-Western government, but although there were "gas wars" and other conflicts between our countries, that have never reached a boiling point. So why the 2014 revolution was different?
Kharkov agreements. What is that? That was the document that addressed one of the most important issues of the Russian-Ukrainian relations since the collapse of the USSR - naval bases in Crimea. The issue of naval bases and the Black sea fleet were central to the relations between two counties even in the 90-s. So Kharkov agreements have prolonged the usage of the Ukrainian soil in Crimea by Russian Federation in 2012 and one of the first things the new Ukrainian government has done was denouncing these agreements.
This was not really covered by the Russian media, it was kind of a footnote to all the things that were happening, but it is believed that it was a turning point.
It's not a little biased but totally biased. But you made a good point, also the Kharkiv agreements were not the only fuse, you have to consider the coup with help from the west and a significant spearhead done by the nazis at that time (which is well documented leaked Nuland phone calls). The coup started after Yanukovich rejected the ransom from IMF, he was between two fences, on one hand, he had Russia with its "sanctions on imported goods, but Russia offered to buy out their state bonds and more. On the other hand IMF and further debt increase with cuts into education and social securities and many other things.
BTW: the new government didn't have enough votes to be legitimate back then.
You could make a long list to add to Kharkov. 1. NATO declaring Ukraine membership as a goal. 2. NATO expansion to 14 new states. 3. CIA interference in Georgia. 4. Missile basing in Romania & Poland after the US dumped the medium range nuke treaty and Open Skies. 5. Coup government law on nationalities 6. Poroshenko's assault on Donbas civilians and address to the nation on TV: "Our children will go to school and institutes, their children will cower in basements. That is how we will win this war." 7. Arrest of opposition politicians and shutdown of opposition media. 8. Right Sector control of the Interior Ministry. 9. Continual rocketing and shelling of Donbass up to the invasion.
The coup in Ukraine did not establish a "pro-Western" government. It established a corrupt government willing to move toward the $$ and willing to use the muscle of Azov & Right Sector on the streets to do violence. You are spot on about the bases, and the scenario was being primed by huge IMF loans to Ukraine, so large they would never be able to pay them back. This is the leverage for the US to offer to trade base rights for loan relief. If you want to know what the Russians think, simply listen to them. A lot of unavailable presentations are on the channel Michael Rossi Poli Sci. Check it out.
@@johnsmith1474 Thanks for another source, the more the better.
BTW: Never thought that there could be a possibility of a discount on loans from IMF in exchange for NATO bases (even tho there are already training bases in there). Any documents for that?
@@plama1192 The idea about loans and bases is my own, a conjecture based on the underhanded activity by the US up to this point. The US sees no limit to it's right to meddle in foreign spaces, so you
As you know Ukraine's officials at the highest level of government have not been the most ethical. As the historian Stephen Kotkin mused in a lecture (paraphrase), "The easiest & fastest way to deposit $100million in a Swiss bank is to give $1billion in aid to Ukraine." It's common knowledge that Ukraine has been accepting all manner of offensive weapons from the West right under the noses of the Russians, and was selling off some of that cache to fundamentalists in the Mideast. The level of cash flowing to Ukrainian oligarchical politicians makes the nation open to any kind of deal. This is how nations come to be owned by The West.
I presume you have delved into the library of video on thegreyzone, including the excellent lengthy piece with Scott Ritter. UA-cam channel Globaltreepictures has two useful documentaries "Ukraine on Fire" & "Revealing Ukraine," both rather tawdry but full of decent interview with high ranking Ukrainian politicians from around the Maidan coup including Medvedchuk. I don't suggest videos are better than study as you seem to be doing, just adding sources.
@@plama1192 Good point
One thing that i admire a lot from you Eastory, was that you had almost immediately, on multiple occasions, had made statements about how much of this was your THEORY, and basically lots of disclaimers before going forward with your ideas. one thing that most of the other videos covering the conflict do that makes me angry (like vox, vice, johnny harris, etc) is that they all always write “EXPLAINED!” and go forward with blabbering their own ideas and theories about the conflict but never once use those words before diving in, they never say theories, or their ideas, they all always claim what they say is 100% accurate and is literally the official explanation when it is obviously NOT! many including johnny even have inaccurate and completely wrong information throughout their video, yet them trying too hard to look like the officials”explained” video for everyone, they end up spreading lots of misinformation and fake news just because of that.
i appreciate your responsible nature to give disclaimers and clearly talk without any facade behind your words, always doing an amazing job, keep it up brotha!!
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
This is good observation. We always view things subjectivity but a few of us choose to admit.
couldn't agree more. i disagree with many things about this video but it made me massively respect the effort he made to illustrate his point.
@@miguelaguirre2873can u tell me which parts you disagree with him?
@@BlockdaCoolguy there's no need to
I think the Nord stream 2 deal is extremely important for this conflict.
Notice that back then Germany , Netherlands and Russia were all working together to create these Nord stream pipelines. But as they got finished, Russian "Gasprom" bought all rights to use the pipeline, turning it into a Russian monopoly. The Nord stream 2 line is a continuation of the Nord stream 1 project, which supplies most of Europeans gas. Nord stream 2 would have provided even more, which was kind of annoying for the USA, which of course also tries to sell gas to Europe.
How does Ukraine fit into it?
In Ukraine, a huge gas supply was discovered, and extraction of that gas started early 2022 (by Dutch Shell, who signed a 10 billion dollar contract for it). Shortly after, the USA put more pressure to cancel the Nord stream 2 deal, the same day it got cancelled Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was effectively competing with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. And there's even more. Earlier, Ukraine was blamed of having stolen Russian gas, when Russian gas pipelines crossed Ukraine, and so now, it was mining gas on its own even further irritation Russia.
Let's not underestimate the role of the USA in this conflict.
After all, the son of Joe Biden was a member of a Ukrainian gas company for some time. When Trump made comments about this to the Ukrainian government, Trump was blamed of abusing his power to attack the Biden family, and he almost got impeached for this very reason. But I guess, the least we can say now, is that indeed it's crazy that the Biden family is dealing in Ukrainian gas just a couple of years before the war starts.
So, is this the first war about gas? - You may want to read about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuelan crisis, ... it's always about gas and petrol, which ultimately equals productivity, money, economic welfare, quality of life ...
So, its a little strange that you make this a purely media-centric conflict, which appears to be about sentiment and about feelings, while of course Economy or "just business as usual", has to be an equally big factor in the equation.
in fact, the Russian army, politics and economy have one specific direction - ensuring strategic security (that is why the Russian economy is so "viscous" - it is not capable of quick maneuvers, but external influence on it is also greatly reduced)
@@ahpunana2599 Precisely because the Russian economy is very adaptive (and it must be so in the unpredictable political and economic situation in Russia), Western sanctions have not done any tangible harm. Russian business was rebuilt instantly, literally in weeks.
As an international politics student, I am an aggressive realist. John Mearsheimer is the best representation of my views I could find online. That last bit about finding the cause of the war is very significant because the problem is that we're all coming to different conclusions. The US foreign policy people, the same who wanted to go into Iraq and pursue the other foolish policies that have deteriorated the US's reputation believe that this was all Putin, he's the second Hitler etc. I believe that if we don't recognize basic realist great power logic, this will happen again and again. Russia said Ukraine couldn't join NATO. That's that. The US said Cuba couldn't have foreign troops and missiles there. That's that. Our failure to understand each other's red lines has got everyone into trouble time and time again.
For me the most scary part is that this war was easily avoidable if we just said "NATO won't accept Ukraine's admission into it". However, the Taiwanese-Chinese war in the future will be much harder to avoid, and even harder to keep the US out of it, because it is both a red line for the US and for China. This is how great power wars begin. China wants it because it considers it part of China and needs to break out of the US led cage around it. The US needs to keep China in the cage and needs to reassure its allies in the Pacific (Korea, Japan, Philipines) that it will protect them, as leaving Taiwan alone against China will assure the US loses its allies there.
In conclusion, I believe the US's and the EU's (although people like Merkel knew Ukraine in Nato was a bad idea as far back as 2008) foreign policy doctrines are ill equiped to prevent the next century defining war, China's reconquest of Taiwan. The major issue is that there's too much invested from both sides in Taiwan. Ukraine wasn't important to the US, which is why it was foolish to cross Russia's red line when we weren't willing to fight for it, but Taiwan is. In making a final judgement, the China-US war of 2030 is inevitable due to the immutable nature of the situation.
Taiwan is? Speaking for which countries? No same citizens wants to fight for another just because of some hazy and vague examples of freedom and democracy, not when the body bags start Piling. US can’t even win against Iraq and Afghanistan lol😂
@@regizeelement8511 you obviously didn't get it. Read his comment again
TrifarianBoi, where are you from?
@@regizeelement8511 The US army defeated the Taliban and Iraqi armies. But surprise surprise, the US army isn't exactly built for nation/democracy building. In regards to your Taiwan comment, are you contesting whether or not it's strategically important for the US? Because it is. It's the first line of defense against a rising pure rival to the US.
@@LiveYourLifeWithJoy I'm European, currently studying in the UK.
While I agree that Iraq was a mistake; it wasn’t the military who pushed it; it was the corruption in regards to the defense industry as embodied in Cheney.
And a jihadish ( crusading) president... The aggressors in wars usually are just Mirror images of each other. 👉
Does that mean that America will finally be punished for it's actions? Or will you be able to see George W Bush in daily live cus why not?
Yes, but the defense industry is the most important general maker (and one of the most important politician makers), it has its people making all the decisions in the military. Corruption to this level means you can't dissociate the military from both the defense industry and the political apparatus, including Cheney.
@@ichigocomeoutandfightmeyou6149
Nope... Hypocrisy at its finest in the western world. I can start wars and kill people.. Not you
Correct. It was Cheney with no push back from W Bush that got the ball rolling and then it became hard to oppose the war after a year of "we certainly found WMDs".
Thanks for the video. As a citizen of Russia (and I am against the war), I will share my observation. The situation compared to the annexation of 2014 is noticeably different. If 8 years ago there was a lot of enthusiasm for the bloodless annexation of Crimea, now the attitude to what is happening is extremely ambiguous.
It is very difficult to assess Putin's current rating because the polls are subjective. Now only 3-6% of respondents are ready to answer questions about politics. In autumn, this figure was about 30%. Basically, refusals occur immediately after a person finds out the topic of the survey.
I'd like to take a look at another study. At the end of March, people in Russia were asked: "What do you feel about the future of the country?" Only 29% answered "inspiration". 26% said "sadness", 25% - fear, 16% - devastation.
The general mood is influenced by the fact that the economic situation is not getting better. Even if people don't link the rise in prices to the war, they are piling up resentment. It will definitely come out at some point.
And the most important thing. Russian power has always become weaker if it loses a war.
Thank you! This is very valuable insight. What would you predict is the likely outcome of all of this for Russia in the short term? I assume that you suggest that there will be serious unrest?
It is very difficult to make forecasts because the situation is changing too quickly. Protests are hardly possible now, although in my native St. Petersburg in February and early March there were quite large rallies. Even the elections to the Duma in 2021 did not provoke such a reaction. But today in Russia there is a law on "discrediting the armed forces": for protesting, you can get a fine of 500 euros, but in some cases the "criminal" faces up to 15 years in prison.
At the same time, power in Russia does not look unified, as it was in January. There is a feeling that Putin and his entourage realize that they are trapped and do not understand what to do. War is very expensive, and it is difficult to continue it under sanctions. The Ukrainian army has a huge motivation, but there is no particular reason for Russian soldiers to participate in this "special operation". There are timid reports that some units refuse to go to the front (for example, the famous airborne division from Pskov).
Since the beginning of the war, opponents of the war often mention the word 'tabakerka' - a snuffbox. This is a reference to the events of 1801, when there was a conspiracy against Emperor Paul. He was killed with a snuffbox. Such a scenario is possible, but no one can give a guarantee.
One thing is clear: whoever is after Putin, he must become anti-Putin. This is an old Russian tradition: each successive ruler built a policy on the negation of the predecessor's regime. And in the current conditions, this is mandatory, because only in this way it will be possible to achieve the removal of sanctions.
@@YI-well I feel that you provide a better understanding of some aspects than one can read from media and analysts. It is much appreciated.
@@Eastory well, it just my feelings and impressions. Besides I read Russian media (not propaganda) too :)
@@YI-well Почему-то мне кажется что эти санкции не снимут даже если Путин уйдет.
I totally agree with your opinion.
Kyiev
Great to have independent opinion from the 3rd side and point of view!
Nice to see your coverage of this event. Looking forward to more content
2:50 I would say it's much more likely the opposite: military high command opposed the US invasions more than the politicians. Post 9-11 votes with regards to use of force abroad were voted through congress almost unanimously.
Can we just appreciate how much the quality of the content from this channel has stayed consistent and how grown? It’s absolutely amazing.
I can say the same for your channel!
Personally think the quality of content has always been excellent. I don't think it has grown more just stayed consistently good. The video on the Estonian civil war and the WW2 maps are excellent.
As what said. A GOOD COMMUNIST IS A DEAD COMMUNIST
.
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
@@Domhnall_A_Ghalltachd I absolutely agree. It has always remained consistently good. In fact his channel inspired me to make my Military History Channel.
This is a really great video. It explains some fairly complicated international politics in an easily understood way.
I have heard once that Russia's overarching defense motivation is to never permit an 1940s invasion again. Every move that the then USSR took was to prevent invasion from the west. And it was a reasonable concern if you take their point of view. The problem was in the execution.
Now, after the fall of the USSR, Russia still has not lost that point of view- but things are different. They arent happy about the Baltics joining NATO, but they reasoned they could quickly re-occupy them in war. Ukraine and Belarus were entirely different. And Ukraine is the biggest western land border of all.
Russia, in their view, simply could not tolerate a pro-western Ukraine- militarily, financially, demographically. For largely being farms and swamp, it was one of the largest killing fields of WWII, and Russia needs to keep the west from massing on their border. With talk of EU armies, the US military being in erratic hands, and holding a majority stake in oil, Putin acted.
But all of this ignores that Russia is the world's foremost nuclear power. There is no credible threat of Western invasion and there never was. It was an excuse all along.
Who is massing on their border? Who would possibly want to atatck a nuclear-armed Russia? And WHY? Everything that EU needs from Russia it can just buy.
EU armies? Most EU countries don't even keep their commitments of 2% of GDP to defense. This is only starting to change now, in light of the current events. If any EU army will be created in the future it will be BECAUSE of Putin.
The only point I agree on is the economic aspect. Ukraine has untapped deposits of natural gas, oil, uranium, iron, titanium, etc. Independent Ukraine could be an export competitor to Russia. (That doesn't justify this horrible war, of course.)
@N Fels Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Soviets of the 1920's - 1950's are the same as Russians, or the Russians of today.
Modern Russians have no desire to invade and conquer Europe. All they care about is increasing their standard of living ... and you can't do that in the middle of a war.
it wasn't a reasonable concern, noone wanted to attack Russia and noone ever will want to attack Russia, because of nukes.
Russia has nuclear weapons, nobody is invading them.
Russian governments are more concerned about satellites and semi autonomous regions breaking away, which is inevitable anyway. It's an ego thing.
Really liked the perspective. A new Iron Curtain will be over Europe, not a nuclear one, but a technologically one. You mentioned South Osetia and Abkhazia but I think Transnistria was worth mentioning at least a few words or NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
NATO orchestrated the division of Czechoslovakia into less than the sum of its parts. Ukraine and Russia are targets for the same 'balkanization' were seeing applied to Iraq and Syria, Sudan, Libya and other places in the Middle East, too.
on one side of the curtain they will heat with wood, and on the other with gas :-D
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
@@aloisschicklgruber9807 russia is a federation, so yeah balkanization is gonna happen after putin dies.
@@aloisschicklgruber9807 source?
Thanks for sharing your insights.
I think, for Russia, it's more about security. If Ukraine was to become a member of NATO, the alliance would have easy access into the most important parts of Russia. Potential nuclear weapons close enough for an effective first strike (?), wasn't tempting either. I'm not even sure Russia even planned to attack. Maybe they thought NATO or Ukraine would back down and formalize Ukrainian neutrality? And when that did not happen, Russia was pushed into a corner and thought this was their best chance to avoid a secutity disaster?
This video had way better logic
And saying that nato attacks russia is foolish, they would never do that and you know that
Ive got bad News for Russia. That was their dumbest Move. There best Units die in Ukraine right now. If Ukraine manages to get a big Win, like liberate Donezk, Luhansk or Crimea. Putin will be brought down.
@@BlockdaCoolguynato would definitely do that, after all nato was formed entirely to oppose Russia. Why do you think they rejected Russia from joining in 2002? Why do you think they are repeatedly funding this war? They act like the good guys but are realistically power and war hungry.
@@jullo12 check your facts before you go say something, then go see who accepted Russias membership and who didn't, as you need every members approval to join. And NATO isn't giving Ukraine aid, it's invidual members who have decided to. And US allies don't see the war the same way as Russians do. And also, they won't attack Russia, EVER. If you believe that Putin who said that NATO will attack Russia (who has nukes) and would risk the whole humanity, you are wrong. And also, your claims that Russia would be attacked by NATO is extremely unrealistic as Article 5 only works if a NATO country was attacked, not when a NATO country attacks other NATO country, Turkey and USA in Syria for example. Only invidual NATO countries have decided to help their allies, not all.
0:41 "Use force to make friends" cracked me up. Funny cuz it's true.
Tbh they tried that with Georgia but yea, we are still ok here
@@Patohd69 They also tried that in Afghanistan where my ancestors were chilling.
2.1 million dead civilians later with our president Mohammad Daoud Khan and his entire family executed I think we made our final decision regarding the idea of an alliance with Russia.
Or at least I would have had we need had to leave during that massacre.
Another superb content! Love from The Philippines! 🇵🇭❤️
"to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west" is not much of a reason. I know that children can keep asking "why" infinitely. But I am no child, and yet the response to an answer like that is to ask: why? I don't think bias to use military force is actually true, as Russia constantly does trade with neighboring nations instead of invading them and taking their stuff. To invade clearly isn't the default action for Russia. So for them to invade another country, they must have had very heavy reasons why they needed to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west. And just saying "well they are biased to invade stuff", is not very plausible or satisfying explanation.
And to be honest your other reason isn't very convincing either. I'm sure Putin was super worried about his popularity in a country with absolutely no viable political opposition or free and fair elections.
This is exactly why Russia invaded, because can’t accept, former Soviet countries leaving his influence
One man cannot control 100 million.
"to keep Ukraine from integrating with the west", it actually is A reason but not THE reason and it does make sense. There are multiple reasons but for now it really is a mystery as the invasion could've been avoided together with Putin's fear of a NATO rearmament. Something doesn't add completely add up I must agree. A small reason for me is because they are stuck in the past....
Let's rewind back in history:
Tens of millions of people perished during World War Two, as the large areas and flat planes of the Soviet Union made it difficult to defend. When the war was over, The Soviet Union was completely devastated and in ruins. Resources and manpower exhausted after 4 years of total war, and when the Cold War started, the Soviets were almost alone against the Western Allies, as they became the new enemy, and even far stronger than the Germans have been before the invasion in 1941. When the cold war began, the US had atomic weapons and in short time would be part of NATO, which is a defensive alliance biased towards any Soviet attack, as the Western Allies saw the Soviets as their new enemy as well. The Soviets and the people, were indeed scared AF to be invaded again, and responded with the Warsaw Pact (and created the atomic bomb aswell), which helped create a buffer between the west and the east.
When the Soviet Union collapsed 45 years later and during the next decades afterwards, the nations being part of the Warsaw Pact were now being implemented in NATO, even going as far as the Baltic States (they were part of the Soviet Union aswell) the buffer zones no longer existed between the West and the Russians, and even got Kalinigrad cut off from mainland Russia.
On a military perspective, they still have Belarus under their complete influence, but if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, then 1) a military build up on the Russo-Ukrainian border is bad news, as there is only 400 km to Volgograd, to cut off the Caucasus, 2) Belarus aswell will just become one giant salient and can be attacked from three sides.
It dosen't look like we have such intention, so they might just think we have grudges towards Russia still? mmmmhhh
@@pini1076 Putin doesn’t actually fear NATO, it’s just a justification among Russia population, but what he can’t accept is that if the post soviet country joins nato, he will loose his dominance on them, and he won’t be able to manipulate them. He considers these countries part of Russia.
Watch the real life lore video that explains that Ukraine has enough natural gas deposits to completely undercut Russia, especially if the join the EU tariff-free single market
Putin could not allow that to happen
Best damn explanation I've seen yet. Keep up the good work, this is excellent.
What a finish. "I feel u bare responsibility. I may be wrong about some stuff. " I wish more people were like you, sir.
I watched the latest WW2 channel livestream and indy & sparty answered some patreon's question if you were still working with the team. Glad to see that you're working on the stuff that you enjoy most while also creating a format of mapmaking for future creators. You have the respect of everyone. Always looking forward to your videos.
Thanks! I can't say that I enjoyed making this one, but I did find it necessary to be made, because I personally felt responsibility.
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
@@арефнар foretold what exactly? The guy was a moron and the world is well to be rid of him.
@@Eastory
Why did you feel responsibility?? 🤔😅🙃
I did not expect Eastory to make a vid out of this war so fast already lol
Yes i thought he will make video after atleast 80 years
1:23 Hahaha Żubrówka. I love you mate XD Best regards from Poland
How can anybody invade Ukraine with only 200k men? In 1968 the USSR invaded small Czechoslovakia with 500k men. You need at least 1 million men to successfully invade Ukraine. Even someone with little knowledge of military affairs as me can figure it out.
Вы правы, но похоже Путин ошибочно считал, что народ Украины сразу перейдет на его сторону.
I am Russian, I do not support war, and I was in army in 2015-2016. I will try to explain. Russian military consists of 2 types of soliders(and NCOs): Conscripts (which was me, you have to serve for a year) and "professionals" who serve with contract and get payed for serving. (24$/month for conscript and 276$/month for contractor). During the 1rst Chechen war Russian Armed forses used conscripts in a conflict vs Ichkeria (my father was one of them). And it ended up badly, because 18-25 year old guys with little experience and motivation had a tough time learnin how to fight. This also affects public support greatly in a bad way. So Arm.Forsces are now trying to use professional soliders only. During my time in army almost every day they told us: sign up guys, come on, you will never find work outside. So my guess is that they sent pretty much every contractor they could scrap(exept for Navy, RVSN etc). Parts of contractors also serve in Armenian-Azerbaijani border, parts are in Syria. This ofc applies to privates and NCOs only, cuz officers are obviously are professionals. PMCs are also a thing, but they spread between Africa, Syria and Ukraine.
Yeah you got a point. But an important variable to think about is time period. Modern Militaries are actually smaller than their 1950 or 1960 counterparts. This is mainly because since technology and military hardware has improved drastically, nations can rely on technology rather than raw manpower to win their wars.
Furthermore, a military success is not necessarily only down to the numbers. Their tactics matter as well. If they use a strategy that leads to a lot of casualties then they will need more men.
So while it may seem strange that there are only 200k men. It was done in order to match the strength of the Ukrainian army. and when two armies are matched man for man , the one with the best technology usually win.
I hope this helped :)
Come on. You look at things as if armies are soldiers in some kind of computer game. That they will fight bravely and effectively to the last.
You know, if Ukraine was same inside as Russia - it's army would disband soon after invasion, and people wouldn't give a shit. Look at the Crimea - there were almost no fighting at all. They probably expected to have some bit of that success at least in some areas.
@@SSSFMKUltra Perhaps you can clarify for me. Conscripts are in normal brigades and divisions, correct? So if the conscripts are not supposed to fight, does the brigade go to war undermanned?
To repeat your first argument in a simpler way: Russia had lost it´s soft power influence (communism) but kept it´s hard power potential (military). And because the west is superior in soft power domains, Russia´s leadership became so desperate, that it used it´s hard power to bring others back into the fold.
To add to this, I personally think the Russian leadership got tunnel vision.
China played the long game, growing into the second largest economic power of the world. This allowed them to do stuff that would usually get them sanctioned to oblivion. Force the west into relying on China for everything, and they're hands will be tied. This worked. See what's happening in Tibet and Xinjiang, and you can't tell me that if the same thing happened in a poor South American nation, it wouldn't get sanctioned into the ground.
Russia, instead of playing the long game, rushed in. The loss of so much soft power probably terrified them, and made them lean on their hard power so much that they became incredibly irrational (that is to say, the military did what it wanted to do a lot more). All they had to do is do a Saudi Arabia, grow off of oil money and force the west to become compliant more and more until they can commit ethnic cleansing without the west able to do anything. Instead, they tunnel visioned, rushed to regain their glory days.
Personally, I think that Russian leadership are still under the illusion that they hold the influence as they did during the Soviet era. They're no longer the beacon of communism around the world, they aren't an economic superpower anymore. In fact, their economy is smaller than South Korea, a country 171 times smaller than them (to be clear though, they still hold a low-mid economic power threshold thanks to their oil money, and comparing to S. Korea might not be really fair).
Excellent analysis
Communism killed Russia. It was never truly theyres.
I always really like your videos, especially the blow by blow brakedown of major battles. When the full story comes to light I look forward to your video on the Ukranian War so we can see just how they managed this impressive feat.
I am already thinking on how to cover it the best.
@@Eastory Great. Cant wait to see your video!
To do this, you need to know the real events. Both sides are now saying what suits them.
@@Eastory Если будете освещать, то освещайте полностью события которые происходят в мире, как на самом деле начался этот конфликт? как сотрудничали Россия с Украиной? как на Украине произошел Государственный переворот вооружённым путём, который финансировал США, ведь есть даже ролики где они поддерживали этот переворот и заявили что отправили 5 млн долларов (это такая у них демократия?), какие отношение между Россией и западом были? Какими способами Нато создавало влияние над странами. Вы выставляете плохой только одну сторону.
@@ВалентинКоньков-о3ц ну с текущей ситуация, где Россия терроризирует мирных жителей и шантажирует мир ядерной катастрофой на ЗАЭС, что рассказывай за грешки запада, что нет, Россию от статуса государства-террориста это не обелит.
Loving these videos. Very succinct and informative.
I really like your style of storytelling. I hope in the future you will also make an animated front of war in Ukraine (like with the war of independence of Estonia, or the Soviet front during World War II) ;p
Yes, I will try to do it after the war has reached some sort of conclusion.
@@Eastory how russia lose sir? Russia use 150k+ to conquest ukraine which it has 200k troops and 40 millions people.
@@kimkim-mh7bv I agree. Due to this difference in the forces it cannot win.
@@kimkim-mh7bv russia use 200k troops only at east-south, ukraine army must cover also west-north
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
Your continuel individual work and work with the World War Two team is to be admired. Thank you for spreading the truth in a consize narrative.
Thank You for this video Eastory. What a delightful suprise!
US could have given Russia written guarantees for not expanding NATO into Ukraine and make the invasion unnecessary
What gives one country (Russia) the right to determine another country’s ( Ukraine ) sovereign right to join into any agreements i:e NATO ? Could Russia threaten to invade Canada, but won’t do it if Canada leaves NATO ? Putin said that he didn’t want NATO on his borders… if that was true why didn’t he attack Alaska?
Sweden and Finland joining was a masterstroke by Putin, both historically had little interest, then the wee guy goes on his rampage.
@@algrundy8337Why US has almost initiated a WW3 after what happened with Cuba? Why they had the right to block them siding with USSR and almost wiped them off the face of the Earth? And that would US do if Mexico decides to ally with Russia and Russia gives them nukes?
Answer is, no country in modern times would allow nuclear missiles from an unfriendly country to be placed in
Look up on what made u.s.a angry of nukes at cuba
Point of correction, Georgia attacked and started the conflict in 2008. The OSCE has said this and they are very far from Kremlin propagandists. Also South Ossetia voted by over 50,000 to about 40 to be independent im 1992 and over 50,000 to 57 to join Russia in 1992. Regardless of other conflicts, Georgia actually was the aggressor in 2008.
Also, how can you suggest Russia launched a surprise attack in the northern of Ukraine. They had troops sitting close to the borders including in Belarus for months.
The theory that the US military have too much influence and that military 'solutions' are favoured by the military in the US shows a serious lack of knowledge of the US elite and political system in Washington. In fact it is the US military who often moderate the civilian politicians in the use of military force. The most extreme case was the mutiny called the "Generals' Revolt" in 2006. Retired generals who were able to say what the serving officer dared not, called Rumsfeld incompetent and negligent and drove him out of office. They extracted an agreement that US forces would be withdrawn from Iraq, and generally drawn down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military pay the human price for the civilians' military adventures, while the civilians get rich through investments. It is the revolving door of mainly civilians through think tanks, consultancies and the US government that produces a community of 'experts' who are enthusiastic about always having a war going. The most extreme are the Neocons who generally favour military interventions. The fact is that the US has a maladjusted relationship to war, which goes back to WW2. The US homeland was practically untouched by this conflict, but the US economy went through a massive boom which ended the remaining effects of the Great Depression. Since then wars such as the Vietnam war and the 20 year occupation of Afghanistan have provided a rich gravy train to entire US industries. This is why people talk about the "Military Industrial Complex", the alliance of businesses with senior Pentagon officials, all getting rich from war.
wow right on the money
Iraq was not a peaceful country like Ukraine, it invaded Kuwait after all, most people who criticize the Iraq War forget this!
If you look into it you will find that the US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait. They did/didn't do a number of things to deter it for a start. 1) As with the invasion of Ukraine this did not happen without lots of warning. It was obvious to me about 2 - 3 weeks before the invasion that Iraq was going to invade. During this period Saddam extensively tested the water before going in. The US scrupulously avoided doing anything to deter Iraq from invading which would have been easy. If they had done so Saddam would not have gone in. They did not even warn Iraq not to invade Kuwait. They kept silent and pretended they did not know what was going to happen. At that time the US permanently stationed one Phibron of Marines in the Gulf (approx. 1,700 troops). They could have sent these into Kuwait which would have signalled "Invade Kuwait and you are at war with the US". Even as Iraq's tanks were rolling in to Kuwait, the US stated publicly it was not planning any action over the matter. It was also a lie that Bush Snr did not know about the imminent invasion. It is on public record that Gen Schwartzkopf briefed Bush 24 hours before the invasion that the invasion was about to occur. the US kept silent a pretended they were completely surprised.2) US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, said two things to Saddam weeks before all this; firstly that the US was 'neutral' in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (an out and out lie as the west has always been the guarantor of the independence and backers of these tiny Gulf statelets, many of which were created by the west in the first place). Second that America's relations with Iraq were more important than its relations with Kuwait. This was code for a GREEN LIGHT to do what he liked over Kuwait. Later when these controversial comments came to light, the State Department claimed they 'did not know'. This is totally unbelievable. The State Department surely takes a close interest in what the ambassador says directly to the supreme dictator of Iraq, and had weeks to put right any miscommunication. The fact is that it suited the US well that Iraq invaded Kuwait, as it gave them and excuse to invade the region and establish the land bases they had lost when CENTO collapsed following the Iranian revolution. From WW1 till 1979 the west maintained a system of military domination in the middle east, with a a string of bases. The "Baghdad Pact" evolved under the British which gave way (after the 1958 revolution in Iraq), to CENTO led by the US and based mainly in Iran. The Iranian revolution meant that for the first time since WW1, the west had no strong, land based system of military domination and control in the Middle East. The reaction of the US was to build CENTCOM up into a force of 330,000 troops by 1983. Over a decade the Us spent billions building air bases, arms dumps, port facilities etc. through out the "Central Region" (West Asia). All needed for a full scale invasion of the Middle East. All they lacked was the opportunity to go in. Saddam provided them with this. There was a lot which followed from this before the US could get fully established again, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 finished the job. For a rare insider witness please see: ua-cam.com/video/TY2DKzastu8/v-deo.html @@thomaskalbfus2005
My long and detailed reply to your point appears to have been censored. It committed the sin of containing facts, the one thing unforgivable in political debate in the west. @@thomaskalbfus2005
Very clear and reasonable, and concise. While not an analysis from my typically more geopolitical point of view, and likely does not examine all the complexities of the start of the conflict, it does an accurate portrayal of some that I most oftenly miss
Thank you! I did put extra effort to look it from a different angle than most people do.
@@Eastory I don't know if you've seen analyses like those done by Caspian Report or Good Times Bad Times but those generally are very trustworthy. Caspian Report even has a video from 2018 that predicts how the russian strategy of Eurasianism will lead to future problems. Why the war started is a very complex issue but taking a look at how geography affects international relations is critical to understanding how nations "think" and "act".
@@grovemeister04 I have seen Caspian Report. I like the geographic explanations myself. They show very well what the nations geopolitical interests may be.
Your theory is very interesting and is complementary to the realpolitik analysis of Nato expansion. You add a psychological aspect which is often neglected in war but which is quintessential.
It’s not a theory. He just said what is really happening in Russia.
Whenever I see an Eastory video notification, best believe I drop everything and watch
Relatable
I like how you completely ignored the most important factor, the fact that the west wasn't so happy when the Ukrainian president Yanukovich rejected the deal with the EU for a more profitable deal with Russia and together with USA publicly supported (and let's be honest, financed) the Euromaidan coup, where literally top American diplomats like Victoria Nuland joined the demonstrants. Could you imagine top Russian diplomats walking on antigovernment protests in Mexico or Canada thousands of kilometers on a different continent where they don't belong? War in Ukraine didn't begin with Crimea, it indirectly began in 2013. Oh, let's not forget the hundreds of civilians in Donetsk, Lugansk and Gorlovka, who lost their lives due to Kiev's shelling for the past 8 years, you know, when hollywood couldn't have cared less about the war, like it's caring for the last month since Russia joined.
Even if the events in 2014 were caused by the USA, why did the Ukrainians choose to elect Poroshenko and Zelinsky and stay on the course to join EU? I think the better explanation is that the deal with EU offered them better economic perspectives than Russia and it is for this reason many of Ukrainians chose to come out against president Yanukovich and keep electing pro EU politicians, because they see it as being in their economic interests.
@@Eastory why do you try to explain something like that to russians? We obviously choose to be in a european family because we are nazi, alright.
@@Eastory только Украина расколота на проросийскую часть которую преследуют
@@Eastory you keep brushing over western errors like they are nothing
@@Eastory look at Bulgaria. EU member since 2007.....and to what avail? Devastated economy, the money gets stolen by Western companies and their cronies on the ground. The EU has never had the goal of "helping" the East, it is simply colonization by newer, softer methods. So yes, the other commenter is totally right. I can imagine the crying and outrage if Russian diplomats supported a coup in Mexico or Canada. You cannot know what is better for the Ukrainians...in any case high prices, low wages and profits for Western companies, as in Bulgaria, are not for the benefit of the locals. Change my mind.....
I don't agree with a part of what you said, but it's an interesting point of view, with real arguments and thanks for showing off what are your thoughts.
wat part
One year later and you were not wrong about the stalemate
Eastory, I totally love all your videos, but I think that you are wrong here.
Russian goverment does not need to boost president's popularity in such drastic ways. If you look into russian internal politics, you will see, that opposition in our country either doesn't threat current regime, or was destroyed and exiled right before 2022. So I think, that thinking that internal politics and Putin wanting to be reelected have nothing with true reason of war. From my perspective this war looks like attempt by russian government and government-ruled-corporations to take their place in the sun. Market expansion and expansion of sphere of influence.
Talking of speculation about the future - looking how russian army did not win in the matter of weeks, many see this as fail. It is, but it is also an opportunity for Russia. Look at history of military conflicts for last decades: they are either civil wars in poor countries, where both sides have very little or none of modern army; or they are US/NATO invasions im Middle East, which is also war were one side does not have proper weapons, and other side knows that. However in Ukraine we can see true modern war, like world didn't seen since WW2. Both sides are somewhat equal in their weapons. And if Russia wins this war, maybe not so soon, it'll have most qualified army in Europe, ready to fight with equal enemy. And in situation were western powers for some reason try to drive Russian government into a corner, this could lead to full scale wars in Europe. This is, however, one of the worst scenarios.
Nonetheless, I think we live in a trluy historical moment. Pretty bad time to live.
I couldn't agree more about this. In my comments (If you can search it, it's posted 20-30 minutes before your comment), I also mention how Russia has gain enough potentials to fight war in Ukraine and to tolerate all sanctions from EU and USA. This is the part that I expect to see in Eastory Video, but sadly there is none of it...
...still a dictator need his minions "happy" so he can rule.
I recomend CPG greys video "the rules for rulers"
ua-cam.com/video/rStL7niR7gs/v-deo.html
In principle, there are four reasons why 83% of Russians support all this. And all this is the result of propaganda
1) ignorance of real destruction
The Russian Armed Forces are wiping cities off the face of the earth worse than the United States in Iraq, for example, the nearest major city to Kiev, Chernihiv, has been destroyed by 70%. Russian aviation is bombing residential areas of Kharkov. On television, these moments are not spoken, the Russians are simply deluded, it seems like the Serbs were in the 90s
2) the status of the winner of Hitler
The Russians were inspired that it was they who defeated Hitler (and not all the peoples of the USSR), and the The Russians began to consider themselves a supernation that can kill in order to eradicate some kind of "neo-Nazism"
3) Actually the very problem of neo-Nazism from the angle of propaganda
Russians are sure that neo-Nazism is allegedly supported by the people and the authorities. It's fake. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, as well as in Russia, the USA, Germany, in fact, do not have the slightest influence on the authorities. And propaganda inflated this topic in Ukraine
4) Revenge to the West
Russians have been pumped up about enemies in the West for decades. Now the West is supplying us with weapons. Russians are subconsciously sure that by destroying military equipment in Ukraine, they will demilitarize the "bad West" and weaken it
All the reasons are propaganda for decades of the "unfortunate". Although after Bucha the Russians somehow don’t feel sorry for them at all. But I respect those 17% of Russians who are against it.
@Joanne Finkelberg, you are right, no doubt. I meant that both sides actively use somewhat modern weapons and have modern army structures. Which is unlike most military conflcts for armies of Europe in late 20th century/21th century, where almost all the time we would see how highly professional army invade some third world country.
By true modern war you mean "european" war. Otherwise pakistan with american weapons was at war with india only 23 years ago. Both nuclear states. Both with modern weapons( although one obtained it as charity and begging, other paid for everything it owns)
This is extremely simplistic. There might be some truth to it but we will never know the real reasons
I seen some other media speculate Putin resorted to a military solution to gain popularity that war time presidents typically get. But politically speaking, the US was also using the military to solve things they were unable to and look at how that ended. The military isn't a nation building force. And for Russia, the military, more specifically invading isn't a foreign/public relations tool.
Нет. Это не главная причина. Главная причина в том, что Путин и российский народ имперцы до костей. Для них Украина - колония, которая не имеет права на собственное государство, а украинский народ не имеет права на свой язык и культуру.
Didnt mention NATO expansion directly once. Purely based on Russophobic EU guesswork and arrogantly dismisses the actual reasons the Russian Gov gave and are supported by the majority of independent leading Geopol analysts.
NATO does not expand. Countries are just running away from crazy russia.
Great video as always, but you have missed few details. First, Georgia was at war with the Abkhazia and South Osetia shortly after the dissolution of USSR, and since the war ended, Russian peacekeeper forces were located in these regions, which were attacked too at 08.08.08. Then, Ukraine's president Victor Yanukovich was leaning towards Europe too, but he halted the process of "Eurointegration" so he got overthrown by pro-european movements. Third, most former soviet republics, excluding Baltic states, had close ties with Russian economy as they were in USSR. Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine's trade goods didn't gain much interest in Europe (p.e. who wants Moldavian wine, when you have French one) and had much in Russia so they have to balance between them. Belarus got sanctioned shortly after Lukashenko's election in 1994 (no Putin in Russia btw) so they leaned towards Moscow. And in my opinion aiding Donbass regions was needed to stop Ukraine from joining NATO (one of the articles requires from joining country not to have any civil wars and internal conflicts). Other info is pretty much correct. I tried to stay as neutral as I could.
Best wishes, your most loyal russian viewer (or pro-putinist bot for my opponents, huh)
Good rectifying, but pretty sure Georgia caused the War by doing something they shouldn't in South Osetia, because they thought after supporting & supplying 10K troops to US in Iraq in particular that the USA would back them up somehow, but they didn't, so they got shwacked in 4 days!
2014 was a C14 Coup...
@@SaulKopfenjager Complete nonsense. Georgia responded to Russian troops illegally on Georgia soil who were bombing Georgian villages for months. Russians shot down any diplomatic settlement proposed by the Georgian side and actively worked to aggregate the situation.
I’m not sure about Moldovan wine , but Georgian wine is to die for.
Surely their can’t be any more Ukraine - Russian videos…
Eastory - “holy my beer”
I've decided it's best not to believe either side of this war. Both are churning out propaganda, I feel like the truth might be in between, but you never really know. I stopped taking the Russian and Ukrainian claims seriously when they started calling each other Nazis.
The source of information is always prone to biases due to several factors, but with modern media pumping out live 24/7 coverage, the information released is easily skewed and manipulated as who ever is retelling the story does not have all the information nor the full context.
Good to be skeptical. However the Ukrainian Azov Battalion and Right Sector do not deny they are fascists, and they practice what they preach. And I am not talking "fascist" the overused epithet for evil. I am talking the real term for a political movement.
Ukrainian fascists practice historical grievance attuned ethnically pure nationalism, packaged in military form with the goal of ethnically cleansing a nation for the glory of the past. Blood and soil just like the Germans of 1940 as exemplified by their black and red flag.
Ukrainian fascists are a historical reality in West Ukraine, they not only sided with the Germans in WW2, the did the German's dirty work murdering Polish, Jewish, and communist civilians. In fact they were so uncontrollable the Germans were disgusted. They take huge pride in their past and honor the nazi murderer Stepan Bandera as a national hero of Ukraine in law.
@@johnsmith1474 at least they don't praise CCCP's leaders responsible for deaths of millions. 😎
I would like to Peter Zeihan's evaluation on this summary, because while it focuses on political/military issues, it basically follows much of what he sez in terms of that AND how natural resources/economies and demographics are also driving these strategic decisions in Moscow. The fact that you came to very similar conclusions though speaks volumes about your insight...and I think your predictions in the short term at least, appear spot on! Great summary!
I disagree with the author on several points. Abkhazia and Ossetia were regions of the Georgian SSR and separated from it as a result of a bloody civil war (check out Yevgeny Norin's book about this). In August 2008, Georgia wanted to regain these territories by military means and shelled the city of Tskhinval and the Russian peacekeeping contingent, which caused the intervention of Russian troops.
In the autumn of 14 and winter of 15, the Minsk agreements were concluded. They assumed the withdrawal of troops and heavy weapons, as well as the settlement of the status of Donbass and Lugansk. For all the time, the Ukrainian authorities have not been able to create a dialogue with the LDPR population and have actually sabotaged their implementation. I don't quite understand how this prevented us from joining the EU.
And finally, in mid-February, President Zelensky announced the revision of the Budapest Memorandum, which was regarded in Russia as a rejection of the status of a non-nuclear country and preparation for the creation of nuclear weapons. I also recommend reading a fragment of Zelensky's interview where he answers the question about the connections of the Azov battalion with the Nazis and the use of Nazi symbols. He says that "They are what they are, they are defending their country." Sorry for my English, I used a translator for this comment.
Eu doesn't takes countries with weak institutions and economy. They want Ukraine to make reforms and after many years they can join it. Joining eu is not a simple thing
A more indepth question of mine would be: why the hell did Putin attack in mud season. Was he so sure the Ukrainians would crumble before him?
Probably
Probably due to the EU dependence on Russian gas. If Putin invaded during summer, the EU could have easily blocked Russian gas. It's harder to block gas imports when it's needed to heat homes. Why didn't Putin invade in the winter then? China forbid Russia from invading during the Chinese Olympics forcing Putin to invade in the mud season or wait for the next winter.
Putin probably didn't think about those things, since he's an intelligent officer not a military general. The invasion also took place before the mud season, so the invasion was presumed to be over by the time Ukraine fell. Which obviously didn't happen.
That weren't dumb in any way
Just incorrect
They attacked with the assumption that Ukraine will not be really into fighting
So they thought that after a quick victory
They could move to defensive positions
In Ukraine if the nato were to attack
So they attacked in winter
Because they thought that in case of nato invasion
They could stop them in the mudy terrain
Brought just after Winter
That's what i think was Russian plan
Конечно, умники, ведь русские танки не умеют ездить по грязи.
Hi, a new subscriber here and I came due the suggestion of The Vlogging Thru History channel.
Overall I tend to agree with your analysis, however since the very beginning of the Russian invation of Ukraine I can´t help to ask myself: what´s the logic behind starting a campaign in Winter?
Specially considering Russia took advantage from Winter not once but twice in his history: first against Napoleon in the early XIX Century and second against the Germans in WWII.
The only reasonable explanation that occurred to me is: LAND; and not every land but one of the richest in an agricultural way. If the Russian Federation wins this war, they will master circa 22-25% of the European pastures.
In the very first part of the present Century, Putin had managed to overcome the past difficulties to extract massive amounts of gas and oil witch provided him and his oligarchs a LOT of money. The next logical step is to provide western Europe what they need the most after "hooking them" with energy, witch is: FOOD. And THAT will be coming from Ukraine.
Once (and IF) Putin succeeds with the invation, he will be able to make Europe and part of the rest of the western world "eat from his hand" by selling what western civilization needs the most: ENERGY AND FOOD, and become once again the eastern leader.
With that accomplished, even China would be forced to look at the Russian Federation with some respect.
I´m not an historian, neither I pretend to be; these were just the humble thoughts from an average middle-aged man who is interested in geo-politics.
Greetings to you and every one else from NE Patagonia, Argentina. BTW: I very much like your detailed work.
main part of food from Ukraine and rusia goes to Afrika. its Algeria, Egypt etc.
also food technologies not very high and effective so I dint think your opinion is correct.
11:51 As someone who alive during the start of the war on Terror. Most Americas were like "We are in Afghanistan already. Finish that first THEN think about Iraq." And It was just nonstop propaganda about how bad Saddam was but everyone knew that they were going in whether we liked it or not and they just wanted us to be "on side". I distinctly remember Hannity and O'Reilly showing clips of Saddam's goons doing bad things and if anyone dared to suggest that they should solve there own problems and/or sending in troops isn't always the right answer they were shouted down. So all the Russian peoples' protests would have done nothing to stop this.
Great video! The visuals and script are very well put together and there is a lot of insight. I think that this perspective downplays the value of the land that is being fought for--natural resources have a very strong influence in this conflict. However, I think that this video is a good high-quality resource for people to get a better understanding of the conflict! I would suggest that people also watch Real Life Lore's video on the topic which goes into a lot of detail about the resources which are involved in the conflict but doesn't have quite the same level of exploration into the social and systemics aspects as this video does. Thanks for making this. These truly are interesting times.
Did Putin attack simply become he want his approval rating more up. Isnt over 60% approval rating enough to win the election always, so why does he want his approval rating to over 80%?
I would not trust too much on today’s “President’s approval rate” stats from Russia. The stats agency is state owned and can draw any numbers, also it is criminalised to disapprove the “special operation” depending on what one does to oppose it may result 5, 8 or even 15 years sentences. I asked some who strongly disapprove what would they tell if stats agency called them, the answer was “I would lie that I do support, to avoid sudden night searches in my apartment”.
Wishful thinking. When citizens feel threatened, they rally behind their leaders.The average Russian beliefs that the West is out to destroy them. Now more than ever. When the allies, in the second half of world war two were carpet bombing the German cities, one of the goals was to get Hitler deposed. Instead Germans rallied behind him and his soldiers fought to the last men. After Putin took Crimea his popularity went up, after the invasion as well. If your country gets invaded, you hate the invaders. There is no winning the hearts and minds of the invaded! Ask the US.
@@dirgsuite5546 I think the situation is not really comparable to historical analogy you used, not even comparable to german situation of 1919 (Versailles) or russian situation in 1904 (Russo-Japan war). Those 1919 and 1904 are somewhat closer, than one you suggested.
I’m from Russia and I support Putin and 85% of my friends too but those who doesn’t support - they can say it openly🙄
1:15 LOL, the image of what appears to be a driver being robbed is hilarious and yet so true.
My only disagreement with this video is the lack of agency ascribed to US/NATO. The pro-Western shift of Georgia and Ukraine for example wasn’t just the spontaneous will of the Ukrainian and Georgian peoples, but also a result of an American policy of expanding the Alliance into those regions and the activities of imbedded Western NGOs promoting the Western political model.
Agreed. This video focuses on justifying russian rationale behind their actions, but avoids the complex territory of NATO encouragemnent
Agree, the governor of odessa was the ex president of Georgia (currently in prison in Georgia for corruption) and a lot of other non ukrainians got positions in the government with less than a year living in ukraine. Westerners try to paint euromaidan as the people of ukraine choice when in reality it was a lot of foreign people
@@fal2218 I'm pretty sure the hundread of thousands who went protesting in Kiev in 2014 were ukranian.
Nato is not something that expands on its own, if a country does not want to join, it does not join, like for Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland. And there must be a reason if the first significant diplomatic action of all of these countries who were in the Warsaw Pact did was asking for joining Nato.
@@blakedake19 hundreds of thousands according to the ukrainians, less than 30k according to britannica
Why is literally no one quoting putin's february 16th speech?
"ukraine is a communist invention"
"ukraine is not a state, it's fake, no culture etc etc"
"we will show you what decommunization is"
It's hardly a reason, just delusional casus belli.
@@roysobak1421 Yes, that's what it is. That's the reason, the delusion.
How did Ukraine become the 2nd biggest country in Europe?
@@nanaacquah3471 By being the 2nd biggest country in Europe.
Now answer to me, how did russia became the biggest country on earth?
@@Sinaeb your question have pretty simple answer: Russian government embraced new discoveries and expansion during XVII century that inspired lots of famous explorers: Khabarov, Ermak, Dezhnev, later Bering.
And by that policy russians went enormous distance (from Europe, through Urals and Asia at its widest point) through harsh conditions and difficult terrain to claim huge territory of eastern Europe, Siberia and even bits of America (Alaska, and more spots on the western coast as far as northern California) for their country.
For example, around 60% of russian territory closer to Beijing that to Moscow. And really strong and well developed China was there for dozens of centuries, but hadn't claimed those lands because they had no expansionist targets and focused on their "inner China".
Btw, Eastory could easily make pretty neat video on that topic with lots of cool visualisations.
I worked with Russian citizens. They are/were very diligent and thorough. They saved our butts many times w/ engineering repairs overnight while we slept. It's really too bad they don't have the ability to live the lives they deserve. They are smart and want to be productive. I hope the best for them. Hope we all make it through this!
Friend, don't believe this ridiculous propaganda. The video does not say a word about why Putin actually took Crimea in 2014 and started the war in 2022. Putin took Crimea because it is the most important naval base for Russia, and after the coup in Ukraine, the new authorities began to say that they would break the agreement on the location of the base in Crimea. And Putin started the war in 2022 because the Ukrainian army had been shelling the cities of Donbass for 8 years. But for some reason, neither in the Western media, nor in this video, a word is said about this. With love from Russia
@@chessvasik I will add that shortly before 02/24/2022, the attacks on Donbass intensified many times. Zelensky, who was chosen "to end the war" in the EU, also threatened that they could develop "dirty" nuclear weapons.
@@MetalSlugX27 thanks
@@MetalSlugX27 what a bullshit...
@@chessvasik this is russian propaganda
The author confuses cause and effect.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was nothing to threaten Europe and NATO, but that did not prevent them from expanding the military bloc 6 times to Russia's borders.
The author shows his bias when he glosses over the Minsk Agreements as something "Russia forced on Ukraine". That was just ridiculous.
Over the past 30 years, Russia has started 5 wars.
@@смертьтерористам Surprise me and tell me where and when.
As we see today, NATO is still actual. and opinion like "no threats after USSR collapse" is absolutely wrong. russia is a monkey with a greande.
@@wolfswinkel8906 but russia forced Ukraine to sign it.
I think your arguments make a lot of sense. I mean, this is how monarchs and rulers, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, won the favour of their people for thousands of years: Bread and Games at Home and glorious Battle abroad
It seems that the major history buff channels out there each have their own take on the "why" question. Yours focus on Putin's approval rating, which is indeed a valid reason. But it's just one reason. I feel there is not one answer, but many since it's an incredibly more complicated situation than many make it out to be. Here's what I have seen covered so far on the reasons for invasion:
1. Putin's approval rating (Eastory)
2. Putin's delusion of a "greater slavic nation" (Johnny Harris)
3. Mineral, oil and gas resources in Ukraine and the Black Sea (Real Life Lore)
4. Geopolitics security (Caspian Report)
Thank you. I think there are several ways of explaining the same event from different perspectives and that we can understand it better, if we have several theories to draw from rather than one.
Your honest attempt worths my respect but it lacks too many crucial factors. Thank you for trying to be objective! It`s rare predicament now.
9:17
That's a really colorful narrative love it
Really enjoyed the video! Great idea in 12:03 ! to figure out the reasons for conflicts is a good way to stop future ones, or at least make people more conscious about it (it's hard because the military-industrial complex is huge). Keep it up the good work 👍
Oliver Stone’s documentary “Ukraine on Fire” here on YT also discusses a lot of the historical and geopolitical context of this conflict I recommend you check it out
Excellent analysis, I can't say if it is right but at least it went beyond the typical "NATO expanding, etc, etc." Well done.
UA was ranked 6th in Europe (only after UK, France, Italy, Germany and Spain, in that order) according to Global Firepower and 11th arms exporter in the World (thus strong military-industrial complex) according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. UA ground forces had cca3000 MBTs, cca2500 IFVs, another cca3500 armoured vehicles. Artillery included 500+ MLRSs, 1200+ selfpropelled artillery and 2200+ towed artillery. Air defence was organized in 4 air defence missile brigades and 7 (11 according to some sources) independent air defence missile regiments with 250 S-300PT/PS/V1 SAMs, 72 9K37 Buk SAMs, 100 9K330 Tor SAMs, 125 9K33 OSA-AKM SAMs, 150+ 9K35 Strela-10 SAMs, 70 2K22 Tunguska SPAAGMs, 300+ ZSU-23-4 Shilka SPAAGs and hundreds of S-2/S-3 Strela, Igla, Piorun and Stinger MANPADS. UA Air Force had 145-188 modern combat aircrafts including 37-70 Mig-29s and 32 Su-27s fighter jets, 12 Su-24s and 17 Su-25s attack jets and 47 L-39s light attack/trainer jets. What happened?.
5:08 - author, you are wrong. You even didn't read the text of Minsk agreements. According to Minsk agreements, Ukraine had an opportunity to take the DPR and LPR territories as a Russian autonomic republics. Russia didn't had the proposals about Ukrainian foreign policy in the text of Minsk agreements.
This video is true, but only partially. You completely ignore the economic reasons. How can a capitalist country take such a serious step without the support of the most serious groups of capitalists in its country? The reason is that Ukraine has recently become a serious competitor of Russia and Belarus in the European markets in such categories as wheat, metals, coal, and now Ukraine has discovered gas reserves and was ready to become a competitor of Russia in a vital area for it. In general, Russia started the war to increase the profits of its oligarchs and destroy their competitors.
I was going to add something similar. I didn't realize that in 2010 or so a huge natural gas field was found in the Donbas region. Crimea with Sevastopol is where the Russian Black Sea Navy was hosted from, so no surprise on that annexation.
I think that you're correct that with Ukraine leaning toward the EU and being able to compete with Russia on what they provide economically to the EU it would be bad for the Russian economy since clearly the EU would prefer to buy from one of their own members first. War seems like an atrocious way to stop that from happening, but is at least logical.
That might be true, but that's Putin. Not the oligarchs. In fact, the oligarchs lost the most from the war.
@@ShayPatrickCormacTHEHUNTER Actually i saw news that after “operation” Russia, despite the fact that it began to sell less gas in volume, increased its revenue from sales by 1.5 times
The oligarchs have been removed from power. Putin is not Yeltsin, he bends the oligarchs
By far how much I have found, Americans tried to create conflict by grouping army & military at Russo-Ukranian borders. I don't remember exactly.
Russia armed separatists, not the US.
@@phank.s.4052 before russians, there were us military
There were never US soldiers on Ukraine but a few on training exercises, and even that was after 2014. And not on the border
You seem to have found best information from only truthful Russian official news network, comrade. The west lies, comrade. Russia stronk because tanks made of Stalinium, comrade.
@@rainman6090 i would rather read russian news than western, mostly because of their aggression on my fatherland serbia in 1999...
as someone who actually like Russia , the russian language , russian music and arts and soemtimes russian history and politics I confess myself disapointed on Russia's policies in regards to Ukraine and other neighbouring countries, in regards to the west and the interneal policies towards it's own devloppement , there is a strong feeling when I try to analyse russian governing policies that sometimes they do actions just to be diffrent from the west , a left over I suppose of the USSR and the Russian imperialism , the feeling of being a great country that just have to follow it's own path which must be unique and diffrent from others and it should be up to others to follow it's path ( this feeling exist in other countries though to a lesser degree like France who once was a world's superpower ( it's still a great power but it can't be compared to the US or even to the influence of the ex USSR , or current China )) I think Russia had many chances to become something great , narrow mindedness of Yeltsin and then Valadimir Putin unfortunetly put a stop to that , between 2000 and 2008 with the rise of the prices of energy , and the entrence of many western companies russia had an opportunity to modernise the country to the standards of a western country , I'd imagine of France , UK or Germany or even Italy had the ressources that Russia has at hand , they might actually easily challenge the US or china for the first spot in not only economy but also political influence as well as military power , the history of science in russia is big and long and it's sad that it's no longer used to push forward the russian indisutry to new highs even the current sanctions would hurt much much less a much more modern russia especially with it's current ressources it only needed to kep it's nose out of it's neighbour's business to carry a positive policy with them , to not hinder their evolution towards democracy , as a matter of fact I think putin's strongest way to be truly in power and be admired would have been if he had introduced strong democracy in russia , in a smart way that would make him the father of an evolution in russia , and one of it's biggest modern influencers, maybe even the man behind the chair , after all the assassinated ex prime minister of japan which is a democracy had a real big influence of it's policy from one position or the other for a long time and putin could have been that or more , he could have been a hero to ukraine , by supporting democracy there by not supporting corruption , by making it clear that he's with the ukrainian people , I think by then it's the ukrainians themsleves who would support the claim that russians and ukrainians are brothers and that relations should stay positive ,even if Ukraine join nato or eu !! Russia could have had a friend inside EU and NATO instead of an enemy ( or enemies ) Russia could have made it clear that it is not the USSR and that Russians suffred as well under communism of the USSR it could have made it clear that russians are not about to bully the balltic states but to protect them and nurture their potential and I think then that the baltic states themselves might have been and advocate of russia instead of it's enemy , russia could have had to keep it's naval base in crimea via diplomacy and discussed security concerns about NATO directly with NATO , EU as well as baltic states , Ukraine ,Belarus , and Poland ( as individual states) without starting a crisis !! at worst if Russia had a very positive relationship and strong trade with western countries and eastern europe it could have had then stronger way to do dipommatic pressure including sanctions as well without resorting to barbaric violent war practices in which the politicy makers of Ukraine ,gerogia , poland ,EU and NATO aren't the biggest victims but rather the Ukrainian civlians !! and though as trade partners of Ukraine the rest of the world including african countries that really need the grains oif russia and ukraine ( which now are under sanctions or blocked due to the war ) in the end Russia made stupid violent policies that made few gains and more political and economic losses , russia lost most it's neighbours trust and the remaining trade partners are either weiry or too far or too strong to be concerned or all three !!
he did not mention that in 2014 in Ukraine there was real an armed coup supported by western countries. After that in ukraine there was anti-russian propaganda and anti russian brain washing of ukrainians. All pro-russian voices in ukrainian society were eliminated physically. Western propaganda made everything to make ukrainians hate russians because west and NATO needed anti-russian soldiers to fight against russians. They finally achieved its goal long before the 2022
An interesting opinion, but answer a couple of questions, how can you describe the promotion of NATO as a friendly gesture? The second question, which country benefited from the US intervention, all examples say the opposite, ruin and siphoning off resources. Crimea is a separate topic, after the release of the Russian fleet, whose base would be deployed there and whether it is permissible for the security of my country, an incredible level of Russophobia was warmed up and provoked long before the military reaction. Another interesting topic is when one nation is dehumanized and demonized, are these not manifestations of Nazism, there is already a similar experience in the world.
When Putin became a president, his aim was to improve relationships with West.. He wanted Russia to join EU and NATO and that is documented fact.. It was US who pushed Russia away from Europe and you don't need to think twice why they did it... So if US don't agree on Russia joining NATO and/or EU, then how do you see Russian Black Sea Fleet being on NATO territory? 2014 coup was about Ukraines move towards Europe and Putin understood it as direct threat to his navy and acted fast before it's to late, so he annexed Crimea!! And what is happening now is just a aftermath of Ukraines goal to join NATO and then activate article 5 to involve NATO to push Russia out of black sea.. CRIMEA is strategically important peninsula and US wants to get it with blood of Ukrainian people..
It's nothing to do with history or Soviet Union.. It's only about the control of Black Sea and to stop Russia from becoming stronger.
why do hindus like russia or are you a bot? Russia must carry out decolonization. Ukrainians and Russians are not brothers and have never been. Ukrainians are Slavs. Russians are Finno-Ugric. Russia and Russians have never been normal.
-Look at the Russian national costume, it is the same as Moksha.
- Kokoshnik Tatar-Bashkir.
-Russian traditional house, ,,izba,, the same as the Mordovian hut.
- Japanese matryoshka.
- Finno-Ugric peoples have always lived on the territory of Russia and Moscow: Meshchera, Merya, Mary, Mordva, Moksha, Veps, Chud, Perm, Bulgars ... even Putin's Veps.
- the bear symbol was invented by the British General Staff, the first official appearance of Russia in the image of a bear occurred in the British caricature of the 19th century, that is, in the memes of that time and portrayed Russia as an aggressive inadequacy. At the same time, if you look at the Moksha folklore, then here the bear usually acts as a stupid fool whom everyone is fanning, a fox, a hare, a Gingerbread Man, although if it were Moksha folklore, then it should be Krugobok, right?
- vodka is not Russian
- trepak are Caucasian costumes and Ukrainian folk dances, and already after the thirties, the Russians began to customize this image to fit the trademark of the Soviets, and therefore from now on the dancers changed the Kuban outfit to gomnasterki, outfits of the Red Army, which in turn is a rethinking of the Russian kosovorotka stolen from the Tatars who specially sewed shirts with an offset collar, which should protect against strong winds when riding through the steppes.
-Balalaika, the first instruments called balalaika were simply cheaper and simplified two-stringed versions of the Kazakh Dombra, and already close to the end of the 19th century it received a third string and a triangular shape. Ukrainian Bandura 55-65 strings, and ,, Russian Balalaika ,, 3 strings HAHAHAHAHHAAHHA
- the harmonica was stolen from the German Friedrich Bushman, who invented both the harmonica and the harmonica, and the Russians simply began mass production at the Tula factory, Bayan, by the way, there too.
-Repin is a Ukrainian from the Cossack family of Rip, in his paintings the difference between Ukrainians and Russians is very visible: ,, Cossacks, and ,, Barge haulers on the Volga ,,, barge haulers are hired workers, among whom most often were fugitive serfs, whose task was to drag ropes river transport against the current, a rather anti-humanistic spectacle, a very difficult profession in Russia that lasted until 1930. In general, Repin often turned to both Ukrainian and Russian motifs, for example, the painting “Veschernitsy” and “Ivan the Terrible and his son” kills his son “Gaydamak” ,, Gopak ,, and ,, Manifestation ,, , I suppose you understand what I mean, add here ,, Princess Sofia, , , ,, We didn’t expect, , ,, Bolsheviks, and so on, Repin spent his last years in Finland, well not to be shot by the Russians, because they loved him very much.
- and there is no slogan ,, Glory to Russia, ,, this is a modern parody of the centuries-old official Ukrainian slogan ,, Glory to Ukraine ,,
do a mapping video about this war
As someone from Russia i agree with you, could have mentioned some more things but i guess this video would have been much longer.
This author tells Russian propaganda. He did not say that the Russians are at Ukrainian military posts and are blocking the defense of Ukrainian territory. He did not say that in 2008, Putin agreed with Western politicians to reject Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO. He stated that the population of Crimea and Donbas wanted to separate. Better listen to Ukrainian sources. You have been deceived.
Russia must carry out decolonization.
@@Alone1again1 have your comments been deleted? Or did you delete it yourself? When i try to look at them from notifications i can see them but i can't when i try to look at them from comments section under this video.
@@Novgorod_Republic cyber attack
@@Novgorod_Republic read quickly
I find your videos very interesting. Could you also do videos on the First World War? Like imperial Germany against Russia with the movement of troops
RIP Vladimir Volfovich
ZHIRINOVSKY
He foretold all this shit.
All of it.
Конец эпохи
I have tried to find, but there don't seem to be any detailed materials about the unit locations.
@@Eastory действительно смерть Жирика это конец эпохи.
I don't think it's fair to claim that full annexation of Ukraine was the goal. This has never been stated. There is more than one reason that Russia would want to open multiple fronts eg relieving pressure elsewhere and increasing pressure in negotiations. You can't make it out to be a failure if the goal wasn't ever to take the country in the first place. Ukraine will not be joining the EU or NATO and Russia controls the territories they claimed to want. This still may go terribly for Russia but if this 'stalemate' continues you would be kidding yourself not to call it a win for Russia.
I was surprised to see many in the comments saying how ‘great’ this analysis was comparing to others, because it’s really not. The video is based on a number of assumptions that would have needed serious sources backing instead of just “even a blind man could see it’ kinda of statement.
@@jerryx3253 I still think this video is 10x better than most other analysis where the conclusion is Putin bad or Putin imperialist. At least there is some realpolitik here.
Zelensky’s yesterday speech is also hilariously appalling. Suggesting the humanitarian crisis in Mariupol is staged by paid actors and stories made up. While he himself publicizing the “undetermined” Bucha massacre.
I would say that taking Kiev and all the country, was a secondary principal objective... It's a secondary objective that would be extremely good to take down but if not, you have the core objective, east Ukraine
@@maxstirner6143 It would be extremely good from the Kremlin's point of view to take down the entire west, it does not mean that it was ever part of their operational goals.
Well said.
As a history enthusiast, i agree looking at these conflicts from the very outside(Hawaii) with your views as reasonable and well researched.
3:56 Russia didn't invade to "bring" Georgia in its sphere, they invadded to "keep" Geogria in its sphere. It's an important difference, it wasn't a geopolitical advancment by Russia, it was geopolitically defensive.
Or maybe dont try and topple foreign governments
You turned everything upside down. In reality it was Georgia who attacked Russia.
@@caydenl.4878 funny how the ukrainians installed foreign people (like the governor of odessa, minister of health, minister of economy, etc.) in positions of power, if they had so much popular support why they didn't put them instead?
@@alexsilent5603 Ridiculous. At least lose the flag icon if you want to try and spread mis-info, it'll work better for ya.
@@alexsilent5603 Georgia attacked Russia? You should pass me whatever youre smoking. Mr hitler over here telling Germans that the Poles attacked Germany.
I love your take on it, and think you might be spot on.
IF I MAY add something, (I don't take credit for this, also sadly can't remember who stated it)
But another reason as to why Russia is invading Ukraine, is out of a security and financial concern.
(Not mentioning the obvious)
If Ukraine were to join Nato,
that would be a large border (Ukraine is pretty big) that Russia would have to defend.
The terrain and geography of the Russia-Ukraine border, is pretty features with few natural defenses, meaning alot more equipment, manpower, resources and money, need to be increased/assigned to that border.
So never mind the 'symbolic' impact of Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine joining NATO would drastically put pressure and strain on Russias Economic Defense spending budget.
Why would you have to defend the border? NATO can't invade.
Ukraine wasn't in NATO and wasn't about to join.
You don't get to arrest someone because it is technically possible for them to murder someone in the future.
@@KatharOne I don't know? Do I look like the Russian Defense Ministry 😂?
Countries station guards/troops on borders.
Especially when it comes to Borders like that of Russia and NATO.
It's just what they do.
Also, to *assume* your neighbor or 'enemy' won't do X, is poor thinking.
@@armablign You'd assume correctly. If Ukraine or NATO invaded Russia, nukes fly. So why need more than a standard border patrol?
@@KatharOne Well, other than the fact that you still need a conversation army for any operation/task.
You need boots on the ground and border, for example, if an insurgency force does cross-border attacks (which is alot more plausible to happen in that part of the world, and has also).
Secondly, to assume nukes would be 'flying' left and right in a war between those two, would be making another poor assumption.
Remember, all sides, are aware and don't want MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which gives even more the reason to believe resorting and usage of Nuclear armaments is not as clear cut and likely...
(Btw... where did your first comment go?)
Can you do a video of the Ukrainian war so far or when it's over
I will do it. But it must reach some sort of conclusion first.
@@Eastory well yeah Russians did do similar thing that they did in winter war
bad logistics ✅
Horrible coordination ✅
No Air superiority ✅
Going onto the roads and getting ambushed ✅
A blitzkrieg for the war ❌
So he just conquers land so his people will like him? So it isn't him who's just completely insane, it's also the people who want him to conquer more land...I wonder if they got invaded how they would feel...
eh russians still have an imperialist mindset
The video says a lot about the aggression of Russia, but very little about the aggression of the West. It is worth remembering that NATO has staged wars around the world much more often than Russia. Now, when all Western countries talk about Russian aggression, they forget about their fears and the blood on their hands. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan.... The list goes on.
what a stupid claim, Syria was bombed to the complete destruction of several cities by RUSSIA, to sustain Al-Asad, Libya was attacked to avoid a genocide of the people of Bengazzi, who opposed al Gadafi, it was bombed with approval of the United Nations, Yugoslavia was in the middle the Srebenika genocide and the bombing was to stop that, Iraq and Afganisthan gave shelter to terrorists, especifically Afghanistan gave shelter to Al-Qaeda which attacked US, by giving them shelter you are essentially declared war on US, so come on, stop being such putin fanboy
What makes u think a video titled Why Russia invaded Ukraine has to mention about the west’s invasion of other countries. I’m not saying that this video isn’t biased, but why are u expecting a video focusing on Russia to mention about the bad stuff that the west had done
@@greenlynxspider7294 You're right. It's just strange that in 30 years very few people have been punished for the thousands of lives taken by NATO soldiers. However. As soon as Russia showed aggression, the whole world turned away from it. As if NATO can bomb other people's cities, and Russia is strictly prohibited, given that they don't even bomb. Ukraine is bombing. Listen to the French and American journalists who keep their mouths shut. They know the truth, but the West doesn't need the truth. Ann-Laure Bonnelle had her mouth shut. For example, listen to her...
@@mariocoronel8445 Are you familiar with the news? Nazism is flourishing in Ukraine. I think you don't need to explain what Nazism is. Swastika, Hitler, Bandera, genocide. The whole world was struggling with it. The whole world is back to it. Congratulations. Europe supports Hitler's accomplices.
@@МихаилЛенин-к5в unfortunately at the current moment the west is still the leader of this world, that’s why most the countries that are ‘punished’ are the ones against them. That said although we all know that the west is bad, that doesn’t mean that those countries that were attacked are good too. Sadly the ones who suffer are innocent civilians just like us. About Ukraine bombing themselves, I don’t think that is the case. Though the west is evil, that doesn’t mean Russia is any better. I don’t think Ukraine even has the logistics and supplies to bomb themselves for so long lmao.
If you wouldnt mind, Mr Eastory, but I have a pet theory of my own. Russia is geographically a flat plain, with little natural defenses. This fact brought invasions to the Russian land, from the Mongols, to the Polish. To secure and ensure that such invasions never happen ever again, the Russian state started a century long strategy of defense in depth, taking as much land as possible. We can see this by comparing the duchy of Moscow, and how it expanded in all directions. This strategy worked wonders, and it can be seen in Napoleons and Hitlers invasion of Russia. Moreover, centuries of expansion for more buffer created a militaristic culture. If there is one thing that we cannot seperate the idea of a Russian from, its winter, vodka and guns.
Perhaps this is why Putin said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy. The Russian state lost guarenteed buffers that expanded all the way to Germany, to, well, the Russian heartland. Ukraine is especially vast buffer that the Russian policymakers have essentially seen it as “Russian”, not just practically, but because it’s too vital to the Russian defense.
Now for the why now: The invasions of Libya and Iraq, say what you want, created a precedent where weaker states are conquered by stronger states for idealisms like human rights. In other words, when you get weaker, and you are anti-Western, it would generally be a matter of time before an invasion is likely.
Second, Russia will get weaker. Countries are moving away from oil, eastern Europe is trading mostly with western Europe, and Russia has catastrophic demography.
Combining the two, the Russian policy makers most likely thought that securing a safe position now, when Ukraine will be assuredly weaker, will seal Russian security. Their calculation is that in both scenarios, Russia will be weak, but its better to be weak from a position of strength, and so they invade.
There is no point in applying 19th century geopolitic in 21st century world..
@@FlymanMS Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan happened in the 21st century....
@@FlymanMS the tenets don't change though. This analysis doesn't consider factors such as the importance of international trade in a country that has enetered global markets, and the importance of face saving needs of international actors sympathetic to Russia, but the basic reasoning still stands right to me. If Russia thinks that she's getting weaker and that she needs to appear as strong as it possibly can in order to avoid being caged, then she'll do what may appear as the most valid move, that is to secure a position of at least apparent strength.
This reflects Russian security thinking, but the "buffer state" and "flat plain" would be largely irrelevant in an actual conflict with the west today. It's an obsolete idea that still has far too much weight in Russian security thinking.
The idea that Russia will get weaker over time does likely play a role though.
@@hazzmati The rationale is similar only in the case of Iraq though, Afghanistan had a whole different reason behind.
Missed this originally, only seeing it now after a year of hyper-warmongering and propaganda resulting in a fanatical drive for war escalation.
But even after only a month there was already plenty of this so it was a pleasure to hear a balanced, measured analysis of possible causes for the war from the Russian perspective.
And even given a additional year of development and Russian military incompetence, it seems like your initial analysis was pretty spot on. Prolonged stalemate. Ah well, hopefully those of us pushing for peace will have more success this year.
War mongering?
We all want this War to End. But for it to truly End, Russia must leave all occupied Regions. Starting with Donbass and Crimea and Ending with Moldova, Georgia and others.
Interesting analysis, still holds up in July 2023, but I also love the humility you show at the end.
The major flaw in this analysis is the assumption that Russian wants to annex Ukraine. The goals have never been stated clearly so this should just be a speculation. But I agree with you that it might end up wayyyyyyy longer than people imagine, much like the Georgia saga.
russia just wants to hold Moscow so they are still winning
Yugoslavia was never part of the Soviet block as you are showing in your graphics ✌
Videos like these are excellent ways of taking action to prevent conflict. Highlighting possible genuine motivations for impactful decisions (like the annexation of crimea) is great at getting people to think differently. Good job 👍.
As long as people think like you, you mean?
@@miggyferreira ask yourself why every time on the TV you see money and weapons being given to Ukraine, but never you see world leaders saying we must try and make peace. they want the war to continue, they dont care about Ukraine.
@@miggyferreira Please explain what you mean here.
Good presentation, thank you. I think the strategy of Nato and the US also played a large toll in triggering, or provoking Russia to strike at the Ukraine. Similar to how we Americans reacted when Cuba was going to allow a Soviet military base in Cuba, Russia will not allow NATO bases in Ukraine.
Although I don't condone the Invasion of Ukraine, I do understand it. The west is not 100% innocent of this invasion.
@@mohammedsalimahmed5230 Please clarify a bit. I have laid out my thoughts and opinion, and I am curious to know your thoughts regarding this. What do you make of this, do you share my worry this we are risking a nuclear exchange? If so, why are we doing this?
@@mohammedsalimahmed5230 I don’t see where our freedom is at stake in the Ukraine…
@@mohammedsalimahmed5230 In other words, if we don’t support Ukraine, do you really think folks in Nebraska will end up having to speak Russian?
What are you talking about? Ukraine is an independent country and can choose whatever union to join. I hear Russian propaganda in your words. Is that the reason why they raped and murdered civilians? USA and NATO? Are u f kidding me? And right now Finland and Sweden are joining NATO expanding NATO for over 1000 km with Russia and Russians "don't mind". Nobody ever threatened Russian, NATO is an defence union and Ukraine needed some warranties as the rest of the countries on the world. U blind and don't see what Russian politics talking about literally saying that the whole Ukraine has to be destroyed and has no rights to exist? Dude you are either Russian propagandist (which I truly believe) or prorussian guy from Serbia and so on.