Vlad's main channel ru-vid.comvideos Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB 00:00 Hello beautiful community 1:35 West and USA position on the war 25:15 Russia's position on the war
Democratic incapacity notwithstanding, the votes in both the House and the Senate reflect the will of the people according to polls, about 75%. Americans seem to share the identity of the Ukrainians, a free people facing domination.
I would even say, before that. With the rise of the Tea Party, for example. The moderates were already hard pressed by them when Trump was still a pipe dream. We have the same with the democrats whose moderates also experienced a take over by progressives and wokenists, we see the spill over now in the student protests in Columbia and in other Ivy League Universities.
@@MagMar-kv9ne I used to consider myself a progressive....not anymore...they went too far for my taste. 😆 Here in California we are seeing many problems....in LA the violent crime is bad and up here around San Francisco it is more issues with stealing. So many stores have left San Francisco because we can not maintain some level of law and order. People just steal large amounts of merchandise from stores....and they never get punished. It has gotten out of hand...but LA is still worse.... with assaults and murder.
@@MagMar-kv9ne True enough. Some people might call the split between the corporatists and the populists. The Democrat party may have the same division but they still act as a single voting bloc in congress.
The Republican Party, as a coherent machine, has not been split in two. Rather, it has been relatively swiftly consumed and re-made by Trumpists since 2016. The Republican Party is now the Trumpists' party. The Trumpists own the elephant. The Trumpists own the GOP. All of the branding, and all of the associated assets. All of the institutional ontology. The Trumpists own it. There is no split. It's one of the most disturbing things I've watched happen to my country in my (not short) lifetime. There are Republicans (who are Trumpists, per the transitive property), and there are former Republicans who are (understandably) having a difficult time accepting this new reality. As someone else notes, moderates have been slowly---but systematically---getting squeezed out of the GOP since, I dunno, the Clinton era? Long before Joe the Plumber came on the scene. But that's almost irrelevant now. Trumpism has no ideological foundation, unless "fleece the rubes" is an ideology.
Bullshit. I'd expect like 30-40% support of a single candidate to be huge, so in a democratic organization people make concessions, appoint specific people as their VP, negotiate position. Even if Trump had like 50% support that'd be amazing in any large group. He has 72% support among Republicans - and the remaining 28% aren't 'against' him, most of them just want someone else.
It really is this bad. The Western countries that do not feel immediate danger to themselves are just scholzing around. I find it infuriating how they can think keeping both sides from losing is a valid policy.
@@garethmartin6522 No, if we would not have expaneded NATO, russian troops would be probably dancing already in Warsaw and Berlin. And they would not stop there. Actually, the ONLY thing that prevented a russian attack earlier WAS NATO.
@@MagMar-kv9nebut Russia is weak, pathetic, can't even take on a small country like Ukraine? Westoids, are you not tired of this double think? Why are so obsessed with having a big external enemy? Can't you just live normally and respect interests of others?
Watching your videos makes me think and look at things in a different way . I never expected that was possible since i am stubborn . Thank you for showing me that 🤟💙
Strategy? What strategy? Our so called leaders have not internalized the fact that long wars almost inexorably escalate. One thing leads to another. Populations become more radicalized. Military action becomes more destructive. Consider US civil war, Napoleonic wars, 30 years war, world war 2, Vietnam war, just to take a few random examples. Our goal should be a short war that Russia loses. It would have been better if we had realised this in 2022, but we are where we are. In any case, I can say that for those of us living in countries bordering Russia this is becoming an existential threat if Ukraine loses.
I don't think that's true. I think, in fact, that people in power realized at the latest after the first 6 months of the war that it would likely be a long one and finishing it quickly would be far from a safe bet, and are planning accordingly. I think the real reason we're so slow arming Ukraine is BECAUSE decision makers realized a year and a half ago that there was real risk of escalation, in basically any scenario. I think a core aspect of our middle-of-the-road approach to Ukraine aid is that we're helping them while also allocating resources to preparations/deterrence for/against a possible major war with Russia & co. It isn't a lack of awareness that Russia is an existential threat; quite the opposite. I think awareness of that threat is at the core of both US and EU policy.
That's ridiculous. Wars between major powers that are peers always become long attritional wars. The Russians accept this fact, the West tries to deny it. Denying reality is a disastrous strategic choice. Vlad is incorrect about Ukraine and sovereignty. It is not sovereign it is a proxy for the West. The West has supported the Ukrainian fascist (neo-Nazi) nationalists, encouraging them to pursue an existential war against Russia. They need this war to define the Ukrainian national character. They are driven by nihilism.
@VladVexler Thank you for taking the time to talk about this. As a person who has health issues, I appreciate your effort! Your talks help me to see more clearly what is going on. You have a background and the talent that make your voice an important part of the effort to understand what we are seeing at this point in history. I hope you continue feeling better. Thanks again!
Thank you, Vlad, for your analysis. Please take good care of yourself, I wish you better health again soon. Lots of love and listen to you whenever you are strong enough. 🤗 🇺🇦 Перемоги і миру всім українцям! 🇺🇦
really looking forward to your video on what Ukraine can contribute to the discussion of global law & order. this is a topic we discuss daily, and your take would be greatly appreciated!
Turns out the peaceniks who wanted to negotiate after the Kharkov offensive weren't Putin appeasers after all, they understood that was the best conditions would ever be for Ukraine.
I greatly appreciate the way you occasionally make predictions about what will happen. And I especially appreciate that at least a couple of your previous predictions happened as you said (all I can recall right now is saying that, the war would move to even more to Russian territory in '23). It's a very human way of talking about this stuff, so even if you got something wrong, I would trust you quite a bit from now on. And given the current gloomy outlook, I would probably celebrate a little, but I'm sure you understand! XD Feel better soon.
I think that one 'end' to which the ongoing support for Ukraine is aimed is the eventual and final exhaustion of the Russian military ground forces - not in terms troops but instead concerning their supply of armoured vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs etc) and artillery systems. Through conscription Russia will be able replace personnel losses for a long time to come , but what they can't do is manufacture (or obtain from other countries) anywhere near enough armoured vehicles and artillery systems to replace the absolutely huge losses of these that they've suffered and continue to suffer on a weekly basis. Ground forces (troops) are not tenable without the support of armoured vehicles and artillery. Some experts believe that Russia - despite the massive stocks it had at the start of this war - has another 18 months left before they arrive at this situation of complete depletion.
@@henriikkak2091 Ramping up Western production would certainly help, especially if it was the type of production that increased the already high rate at which Russian armour and artillery is being destroyed. But the basic thesis of some experts - and they might of course be wrong - is that if Ukraine can survive intact for another 18 months, then the tide will turn because Russia will essentially have run out of armour and artillery.
The US said when this started that we have two goals in Ukraine. Goal one: To help Ukraine stay a sovereign nation. Goal two: To degrade the russian military capability. This has been the strategy from the beginning. Wear russia down to a point that they cannot continue to threaten others. It's unfortunate for Ukraine, but it's necessary to do this in stages to avoid a potentially catastrophic outcome involving a far larger number of countries. The West ( not Ukraine) only wins when russia can no longer fight. However, Ukraine can reach its goals before that. All they have to do to succeed (from the Ukainian perspective) is push russia back across the border. If Ukraine were to do that before russian capability is reduced enough, russia could just attack someone else (Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.) Again, this is an extremely unfortunate situation for for Ukraine, but one that is necessary to stop russian aggression long term.
The west both massively overestimate Russian material losses and massively underestimate their production capacity. They most likely already have the capacity to replace their material indefinitely, and it’s only going to get worse from there. We ALREADY had that goddamn conversation about everything from men, to shells, to missiles. They. Are. Not. Going. To. Run. Out. Just like they haven’t every month of the past two years.
Great help in my thinking thank you Vlad. I hope you can talk soon also about evolving dynamics in Europe.re Russia's war behaviour - perhaps particularly Germany but also Europe in total
I met people in my employment history who had experience of living in countries under sanctions . One from Cuba ,one from South Africa ,one from Iran - All said sanctions were not as effective as hoped -as there were so many work arounds ! We do NOT learn from history ! Your point about the drift in the regime to align with Dugin is worrying - and as you say has nothing to offer ! Might is still right sadly - as you say we need to be honest about our limitations and hope for strategic renewal and democratic regeneration - hope you can explore these topics further in the future ! Very interesting input !
Living in Iran, Cuba or South Africa is hardly living a life of peace and security, quite the opposite unless you are in line with the dictators or corrupt, the West has problems but not nearly as many as the corrupt or dictator countries where their "rule" is not as solid as they indicate, including Russia and China all do badly, the US economy is 40% bigger than China's with a quarter of the people (...and China's real debt burden is 57 Trillion USD on and off books debt and the US one is 37 Trillion USD)!?!
I feel that Russia should pay attention to the contributions of Dugin's daughter to foresee their economic, political, and long-term future. Comparatively, Trump has been as vociferous as the Oracle at Delphi about his plans for Putin.
@@TomTomicMicall of that « 40% » is pure financial graft. A tech sector that values high without actually producing anything tangible or useful to anyone except to a handful of shareholders and a bunch of outright scams.
I don't think that anyone has ever controlled an economy. Economies happen, as the result of lots of decisions, mostly by ordinary people, under the influence of policies whose actual effects are usually very different from their supposedly intended effects. A devastating degree of kleptocracy is possible, both within and between jurisdictions, but that bears little resemblance to actual control.
I never heard anyone before this video state that the primary goal of the US was "escalation management". If that was ever stated and I just didn't hear it, shame on me, I guess. However, if you are correct, then that changes my position on this conflict 180 degrees. I totally oppose doing ANYTHING where my primary goal is "escalation management". I take that position for two major reason: first, it is a losing strategy, and the LAST thing I want to do is to go into ANY endeavor with the goal of LOSING, not tiddly winks, not checkers, not chess, NOTHING; and second, "escalation management" as a strategy is a brilliant recipe for a forever war, and war is painful, and damages everyone, without any benefit to anyone. If I had known that the worthless and despicable so-called US strategy was to be "escalation management", I can assure you that I would have bombarded my representatives in Congress with messages opposing the US doing anything in this war. I would have vehemently opposed the recently passed "aid" package to Ukraine. I would have opposed giving them any and ALL assistance. I would have told them that they should blow up our bullets, and everything else rather than give it to Ukraine. Why? Because even giving Ukraine our garbage would only prolong and increase people's suffering. It is not only IMMORAL, it is positively EVIL. Put simply "escalation management" is an IMMORAL and EVIL concept, and I reject it out of principle.
One word: nukes. Every war the US has fought since 1945 has been a matter of escalation management, so as not to engage direct with another nuclear power. It was true in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan in the '80s, and it's true in Ukraine.
I think we can say that if the goal was escalation management it has been a failure. The biggest incentive for Putin to escalate from 2014 onwards has been Western hesitancy. Even incidents the Skripal poisonings on UK soil demonstrated to Putin that he can do anything he wants without any meaningful repercussions.
With regret, I think Ukraine is going to need to mobilise. And certainly to fortify. My strategy on this would be the Reagan strategy in Afghanistan, which is to keep opposing the Kremlin until they leave. Reagan also forced the Soviets into an arms race that caused shortages in the Soviet civilian economy and eventually became unsustainable. That should be our strategy.
I look back and see a massive difference the EU, US and others could have made IF anyone in government had taken Russian aggression seriously. IF Ukraine was given support in 2014, the difference would be immense. WE don't pay attention to what happens in other countries with a reality of what happens to those countries if we ignore the needs. This MUST be a lesson for all of us. Attacking ANY sovereign country is NOT acceptable to any of us, any more. Ignore and FAFO. Don't. 🇺🇦🔱
If the defense of Ukraine were taken seriously early on, the destruction and loss of life would have been less. The Arsenal of Democracy is being dribbled out with funds going back to the Pentagon in exchange for its old equipment. It's a political win, a win for the Pentagon, and a loss for the Ukrainians.
This all began because western nations literally didn't take Russian warnings seriously. If we had, many many people who are dead could have still been alive. This is our responsibility, we need to confront that and own up to it.
"F Ukraine was given support in 2014, the difference would be immense. " If Ukraine had taken its own defense seriously it would not be begging for weapons.
Your channel is wonderful and engaging, thanks so much! P.S. Would it be possible to position the mic slightly farther to minimize mouth noises like clicks and swallowing?
"Preemtive follower" you smiled as you sayed it, I started giggling. It's actually a very useful analytical and descriptive concept, and will stick in my mind and vocabulary. Quite a lot of political analysis of events going on can benefit by clear awareness of this. (in any scenario, not just this war) OK, it's actually pretty basic game theory, but the term will effectively communicate a phenomenon, even to non-academicly minded people. People aren't on average dumb, even it they never attended university. Thank's for sharing your thoughts Vlad! 😘 P.S. Can't help wondering what you sound like, playing the piano featuring behind you.😄Without art, life looses much of the point of beeing a human. But I get it, you publicly perform as a philosopher, not as a musician.
With Dugin the paradox is how transactional he is, despite his mystical visions. In terms of transactionality and desiring an audience he is a more reflective intellectually systematic version of Russell Brand. One difference with Dugin is that he wants not just an audience but political influence.
You're flushed, and you're doing the head tilt again, I'm very concerned for your wellbeing, as much as I hang on your every word, I worry that you may be pushing too hard, please, mate, take care of yourself.
Thanks for framing the situation in Ukraine so succintly, Vlad. One of the three parties is going to have to move their chess piece, and from all appreances, it won't be Russia.
So i might be no professional, but as for strategic stuff i have read my Clausewitz^^. The Regime has reached a plateau of stability. It is like a Medusa(Edit,thanks for pointing that out) that keeps regenerating at the same rate you hit it. To break this deadlock we should look towards the mythology. The Medusa is defeated by showing it its own ugly face. The key word is "Mirrored response". The biggest single mistake the collective west made in its strategy, is to not allow Ukraine to strike into Russia proper. The greater picture in the mirror is only complete when Ukraine gets to take and hold a piece of Russian territory, it will stretch russian defenses, hamper its offensive capbility, and multiply domestic unrest, wich is the key to a ukrainian Victory by regime collapse.
In which legend was the hydra defeated with a mirror? Maybe you are talking about medusa? Are you sure that Ukraine can seize, and most importantly, keep anything on Russian territory?
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u Ahhh true it was the Medusa. Dang it. It would be much harder now for shure, but very little would have quite the impact there. Iv ukraine manages to put some continued pressure on Belgorod it would propably surfice.
"We don't have a strategy." First, there is no coherent "We" so to speak that could have a definitive strategy. The closest there may be to a sufficiently identifiable strategy would be one held by the President of the United States. And, if the President does hold a definable strategy, it very well may not be made fully transparent to the public, for purposes of negotiation, whether or not it's "proper" or even legal for a President to keep the public in the dark to any degree.
Well, there kind of is a 'we', although the definition is nebulous. For example, in WW2 there was a 'we', an Alliance, with a clearly defined goal (to keep fighting until the capture of Berlin). This endgoal was shared much more broadly than just in the mind of one or a few leaders. It was obvious to every journalist, every man on the street. If you contrast that with the war in Ukraine, there is an Alliance delivering support, but the end goal is ambiguous at best.
Have you seen freedom and democracy indices in the past eight years? The USA is not the leader of the free world. It ranks somewhere between Estonia and Latvia. It remains the biggest military power but it's also taking a backseat in NATO. The political will "to police" the world is lacking, and will be gone completely after Biden. I don't think Americans have realized yet that the USA has already lost its global status. It's not the sole superpower. There are at least three significant poles. To be fair, though, I don't think that the EU or the European arm of NATO have yet understood this either.
Thanks Vlad. I still think it is 2023! I wish it was! I love your thoughtful verbal essays. I agree - Moscow wants control of Ukraine, as a step before trying to remake the European balance of power, pushing back US influence from Eastern Europe by some opportunistic means - a confrontation which could get out of hand. Supporting Ukraine is the best way to prevent that risk. Even a dying empire is dangerous. The West lacks strategy, understanding, vision, ambition, leadership, commitment. Our political elite grew up on 'it's the economy, stupid!' and treating the electorates like consumerist infants. But now 'it's national security, stupid!' The situation is scary but the way to deal with fear is to master it and develop a way forward, not to hide under the blankets like a child. As you say, the win on US aid was great and vital but Western strategy is deeply flawed. There is no assurance about future US support. Europe has to really step up now, today (not just make fancy speeches) and be ready to support Ukraine without any US help from 2025, as this war might go on well beyond that. And Article 5 might look shaky, as you say. Trump is ignorant, erratic, egotistical and loves making deals - his first book was 'Art of the Deal'. I don't see enough building of that defence pipeline. The comment from Shapps (UK Defence Secretary) that he would not be able to spend 3% of GDP (if he got it) shows the terrible position. It means that, even with years of warning, we cannot restore defences because there are sparse foundations on which to build. We cannot do so, and there is no sustained political will to do so, and no serious thinking. All the more reason to start seriously now (and thoughtfully, not to just waste money). European leaders worry about scaring their populations by telling them the truth about the scale of the danger from Moscow. They don't have a deep understanding of defence or national security or history - for decades, defence was about preventing terrorism and demonstrative politics, not about being ready for long, large scale existential conflict with a near-peer adversary (hopefully to prevent such a war). So, we need democratic activism to educate our leaders and fellow citizens.
I agree with most of what you're saying except your criticism of Europe. I live in a very different bubble here in Finland. We have close ties to the Baltics, Poland, and other Nordic countries of course. No one is sleeping.
💛💙💜💙💛 Vlad, my mother was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and she died on Saturday. I was too busy to keep up. I'm trying to catch up now. 🇺🇦 🌏 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
hey Vlad, have you ever thought about doing a poll of your audience's political positions, a bit like the political compass but with a social dimension too? It would be more complicated than a simple RU-vid poll and probably require an anonymous Google form but you could do a (7-point?) Likert scale for each dimension -- economic left/right spectrum, socially progressive/conservative spectrum, authoritarian-libertarian spectrum then we get to see howyour audience is distributed for each of those issue areas and if you want to make it even more interesting we could define 3 possible positions on each scale (more A / centre / more B) and have each person select the combination that describes them we could see what the trends are, among the 27 possible permutations
"We" need to realise which is the best option Russia getting a victory or Ukraine getting a victory, if Ukraine gets its victory and shores up its borders the war stops, if Putin has some sort of victory the war continues either continuously or in bursts to suit their limited economy, that is what he and his lackeys are saying, that is what we should counter strongly!?!
Hey Vlad and wonderful community. Question. Do you think there is much of a chance of Putin doing a Hitler, in that, I've lost and my country doesn't deserve to survive as it's failed me, and hit the red button?
I don't think it's that bad...the USA/Western Europe would not go into Russia and actually try to overtly change the government. German leaders at the end of WWII knew their time was up and they were dead men walking...but the Russian government does not have that level of existential threat looming, so no need to self destruct.
There's numerous forward positioned NATO brigades totalling several thousand troops in each of the Baltic states and Romania and Poland. I cant see Russia challenging Article 5 with troops. Can only challenge with missile or bomb. NATO may then respond by taking out Rostov or some other large city, excluding Moscow. Then we will see what happens i guess ...
Vlad: With regards to Russia testing Article 5......have you considered Russia persuading the likes of Hungary and/or Slovakia to split off from NATO and perhaps EU in order that the current leaders can preserve their political and economic power by becoming a vassal of Russia (similar to Lukashenko).
Do you think they should stop being a US vassal? As for these countries, Orban is a temporary phenomenon, and talk about the totalitarianism of Fico is comparable to talk about the totalitarianism of Erdogan or Meloni, they are simply exaggerated.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u Not at all. I was asking a question about whether Russia could succeed in splitting off the likes of Hungary or Slovakia from NATO or EU and thus become a vassal of Russia. I was not taking a moral view about whether they are totalitarian or already a vassal, just suggested it as an option in order they preserve their power and asked whether Russia would want to offer that option to them.
@@davidfont2513 Most of these countries are headed by political opportunists, let’s call them that. And there are simply more benefits from NATO and EU. However, the same crisis may happen as happened with the USSR, where the Baltic countries became the catalyst in a sense. So these are potential mines under the EU and NATO, but which are unlikely to leave their convenient places for the sake of Russia or even BRICS.
I don't think the US strategically want Russia to 'lose' the war in Ukraine, being concerned about what China might gain by a defeated Russia. Cynically they are just happy if Russia's military and economy is ground down and though Ukrainian lives are lost in the process, US troops are not dying en masse. More importantly the US military industry is doing well by supplying more weapons to allies as a result of the war.
So, Vlad, around the 18 minute mark you seem to imply that the wing of the Republican Party that opposes further Ukraine funding is "ceasing to be constitutional", and I feel that perhaps some clarification might be in order. Do you mean specifically in regards to using parliamentary measures to fight Ukraine spending, or are you just applying some sweeping generalization to them as a group without specific regard to the legislative tactics in the Ukraine funding battle? Especially if it is the former, I wish you would elaborate, because they are ROBUSTLY engaged in the constitutional process (even if in a losing effort). Spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives, and the House is under no obligation to rubber stamp the president's desires. I say this as a conservative who vehemently disagrees with the neo-isolationist movement among Republican Party, but there is nothing inherently or specifically unconstitutional there.
I'm sorry, when did the cold war end? The correct answer is that it did not end. How is our current situation any different? Mutually Assured Destruction is still the standard. To say nukes are not a "clear and present danger" is just fanciful naivety.
The ‘postwar settlement’ was that, basically, borders are fixed and unalterable, we work with what we’ve got. At least, that was the Western Europe position going forward. Even the Soviets accepted that so long as they got ‘buffers’ as part of the deal. Putin doesn’t just want the buffers back, he wants more. That’s just the return to pre-Soviet Russian policy of uncharted borders and The Wild East. The west still hasn’t decided where the slapping point is located. US military superiority is massive, should it choose to bring out the big kit. Only Russian nuclear kit is stopping it. Eventually the Pentagon and NATO will have to draw the line and defend it, and if it turns ugly, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Otherwise, Russian threats with menaces will become actual nuclear weapon use and STILL NATO won’t respond out of fear of massive destruction. Russia already uses threats with impunity. What would it do if it became convinced it could actually use tactical nukes with impunity and the NATO response would be ‘calm down, calm down’! Fairly soon we have to draw the slapping line and get ready to slap hard if it’s crossed. Watching Russia now is like ‘Bluffers’ Guide to World Domination’!
I tried hard to see a link between provable facts and the concepts presented. Couldn't do it. I'm afraid the presenter has spent too much time following his own thoughts and not enough looking at facts and statements. I tried,
Would really like to see your analysis of the part of Duginism in today's Russia, not just with respect to Mackinder's World Island geopolitical theory, but with respect to any clash between Dugin's and Putin's orthodox conservatism versus the extreme liberalism of the West. Is this a real issue for Putin, or is it just a way to divide the West culturally?
I may be pessimistic about the long-term viability of democracy, but I am far more pessimistic about the long-term viability of the Russian cleptocracy.
Russias economy dropped below Italy's last year, in ten years it will fall below another five countries at least, it is trading with China and India, long time "allies" but it is not making the same money that it did from supplying Europe and its gas supplies are 50% reduced as they do not have LNG plants and it has nowhere to go unless Russia pays for another pipe to China, overall their economy has considerably increased running costs due to the war and a significant reduction in revenue, this is not going to get better anytime soon, Russia does not have a functioning industry at present as it spends all its money on a wartime economy!?!
Is Putin's Russia more like Germany in the 1930s or more like the USSR? They both relied on the politics of us versus the other, whether class or nation. The idea being that there is no higher moral calling than helping your side and harming the other. And are things tilting in Trump's direction? The betting markets are starting to say no. He relies too heavily on his most extreme supporters and they drive away the less extreme votes he needs.
Say that Trump is elected, how many Supreme Court judges might he end up appointing during his term? And what kind of Supreme Court would the US then end up with? How would that affect the robustness of US democratic institutions?
