How should Britain Respond to Russia and Ukraine Crisis? | Panel Discussion | Oxford Union 

“War is young men dying and old men talking” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

But where is counter argument? They all agree!

expansion of NATO 'wasn't aimed at Russia'..........well that assumption was obviously a mistake wasn't it?!!!

Three speakers, essentially one view. Depressingly predictable.

4 people who agree on everything don't make for an interesting discussion

There was never a post-cold war peace dividend. People forget Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Yemen, Libya, Iraq. Be real you learned puff pieces.

these panellists are all in agreement wheres the dissenting view?

May be someone should remember "budapester memorandum" - very embarassing for UK and US. It's easier to blame Putin then to realize how UK and US cheated on Ukraine.

I think the gentlemen should listen to the arguments of Prof. John Mearsheimer in his videos on this question (among them one of 6 years ago!).

Old men with glorious imperialistic mindset showing concerns for the Ukrainian people but at the same time pouring fuel into the fire 🔥.

Completely one-sided view of the narrative. The whole idea that it was unprovoked and no one saw it coming is completely false. Russian has been talking about this for 20 years, the west chose to ignore their security concerns and kept expanding NATO to the east. If China and Russia were to convert Mexico into a “like-minded” nation and have their nuclear weapons stationed and pointed at USA, how do you think US would react??? The events unfolding today are part of a bigger geopolitical picture, zoom out to get a better view. About the three esteemed guests, I recall Noam Chomsky's quote: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

The first gentleman was so emotional, he left logic to fly out of the window!

Nothing but one-sided propaganda

14000 dead in Donbass last 8 yrs, Europe has eyes closed. what need to discuss now?

Oxford Union shouldn't be biased ...rigged debate...These gentleman's haven't brought any logical conclusions.As a layman from India, this Ukraine crisis have brought the weak side of Oxford

I would have expected a more balanced discussion at the Oxford Union. Unless we have to the courage to self critique our own expansionist policies with respect to an expanding NATO after 1991, it will be hard to reach a solution to this problem. The US and NATO are not innocent parties in this game of raw power!

Unprovoked? How naive of a statement is that?

Oxford union debates I have seen so far have always been representing both sides of a coin, even if showing up some extreme aspects sometimes. But here I see the very basic principle of inquiry compromised. Good, bad or ugly, Russia has a view. Russia speaks of that view with specifics most of the time! And there are intellectuals all over the world who study and analyse that view and present that view irrespective of their agreement or disagreement with it. This kind of one sided badgering of Russia doesn’t help to change the situation in Ukraine. But it definitely appear to cast a great shadow about the compromising of the debate and discussion in this great ancient institution of learning and public and intellectual discourse.

The coin has two sides and we ignore one.

Massive amounts of oil. South shore of Ukraine. Russia needs more oil to sell. American oil was ready to drill when Putin moved. They bailed. Putin wants that oil.

If you have any doubt what most Ukrainians want; just look at where the refugees are going and where they are NOT going. Looks like a vote to me. The UN says that so far: Poland has taken in 505,582 refugees Hungary 139,686 Moldova 97,827 Slovakia 72,200 Romania 51,261 Russia 47,800 Belarus 357

of equal interest will be more than ten talks given by John J. Mearsheimer, an American Professor of Political Science on RU-vid, on this subject.

Wow, invite three people with basically the same view... is that really a discussion?

Such learned opinions,,... either he'll carry on his path of destruction or a way will be found to stop him can be. Laser sharp analysis on display here. Couldn't they find someone from the nearest pub to join the panel?

Three or eight of these guys, or one John Mearsheimer - if you care for history and the truth.

These academics are half the bloody problem

Very little information about the what actually led to the Russian invasion

According to one estimate by a Russian economist, as many as 200,000 Russians have left their country since the start of the war in Ukraine, with more than 25,000 alone arriving in Georgia since Russia's invasion began.

It looks as though 1% of the world’s population can disrupt and cause suffering for 99% of the ordinary people, as in the wealth of the 1% keeping the workers of the world in a state of poverty or one pay packet from it. When will we wake up and realise that we can live in harmony on our shared home (Earth) and live out a lives in peace with enough to eat and with love towards each other. MAD!!!

Expert Guy No1: "This can go one of two ways... Either Putin will continue to use massive force, or the West will find a way to stop him" Thank God for the 'Experts'.

I think the world would be better off if more people watched talks like this. In depth, controversial, educated, reasoned. They don't frame the conversation as "right" or "wrong" but simply as is.

Decades go by and nothing happens, and then days go by and decades happen. -lenin

And of course Trump thought Putin was a genius for doing this. Had to chuckle at Professor MacFarlane's assessment "that since the end of the cold war NATO was an organisation looking for a mission, it's now got one (in spades)".

From SA ....so enjoy the panel....so knowledgeable and clearly explained 🙄 thank you

First speaker began with "Unprovoked", I turned off at once.

These people are nuts.

Old men who have enjoyed fruitful and relatively carefree lives telling young people they have to be willing to suffer economically... Says it all really...

Why won’t you start off with the foreign interference in Ukraine well before 2014, for a better prospective! Next, ask the question: Is NATO expansion a threat to Russia?

Am disappointed by this Oxford panelists. Sorry

Not much gleaned from this exercise.

Please see university of Chicago video. They covered the very subject in more details, four years ago. Spooky. You will be surprised how the speaker was discussing the issues how prevent the current war. It has been mentioned below in some of the comments.

China negotiator: "Hey, we wanted to invade Taiwan, wait for your turn Mr. Putin"

Another point by Sir David, that we should realise that there will be sacrifice expected from the populace of the liberal democracies. My point back to all three gents is, to what extent the erosion of national pride (or nationalism) in the West, which organisations like the EU etc tend to dissipate, is needed for people in a country to endure sacrifice & pain? How do we maintain nationalism, the required ingredient for coping with pain, while maintaining a stable liberal order? (The two often seem deeply at odds with each other)

One-sided panel,ridiculous💀

This narrative that Putin spend too much time on its own during COVID and what he needs is a bit of fresh air so dumb that I can’t even find a word for it, let alone how irresponsible it is to talk about the leader of the largest nuclear superpower on those terms diplomatically. This is something going on since 2014, and it has very little to do with Putin’s alone time, and very much with the expiration of Minsk agreements.

Send in Oxford students and ex Oxford students like Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove to fight for Ukraine’s freedom…

PROFESSOR JOHN JOSEPH MEARSHEIMER, ON RU-vid WHY THE WEST FAILED

Knowledgeable panel. Thank you 🙏

I’m not impressed by the “experts”. All seem to be on the same page with no mention on a role Britain could have played via advocating against NATO expansion

Britain playing the 'we side with the innocent'. What were the reasons for flattening Iraq? Oh.... yeah... none.

Would Russia impose sactions against Ukraine for joining NATO if they get nukes? Of course not . He only is telling his people that Ukraine can get nukes and points to us just one minute away Moscow. So Russia supported its president

"You have given the choice between war and dishonor, and you chose dishonor, and you will have war." - Winsten Churchil, 1938 Regarding the Munich Agreement between Chamberlain(British PM) and Hitler.

This seems a bit one sided and a little like propaganda 😬

I just have to think about Trump's desire to reduce America's involvement with NATO and his "close" relationship with Putin.

Staying OUT of it. The famous "FOCK-OFF!!"

Poke the BEAR shame on him , poke the BEAR for 8 years prepare expect CONSEQUENCES.

Seriously disappointed by this "discussion" and the Oxford Union. As some others have observed, the three speakers were of one opinion and all failed to mention important historical context: 1. No mention of the 1990 promises from NATO countries that they would not expand eastward. 2. No mention of USA withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. 3. No mention of the 2008 NATO invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to join, over the objections of the French and Germans. 4. No mention that the 2014 Ukranian "revolution" was a US-backed coup which installed a pro-USA/anti-Russia government. 5. No mention of the 2015 Minsk-2 Agreement which Ukraine failed to implement. 6. No mention of USA withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. 7. No mention of USA withdrawing from Treaty on Open Skies in 2020. Many important voices in the US warned about the dangers of NATO expansion eastward (e.g. George F Kennan, Jack F Matlock, Henry Kissinger and William J Burns). Russia repeatedly warned the west that they viewed Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO as an existential threat which they would not accept. Russia repeatedly asked for a new European security architecture to replace the Cold War architecture the USA had trashed. All warnings and requests were ignored as the USA, fuelled by their uni-polar moment, pursued this predictably dangerous strategy. While I condemn Russia's attack on Ukraine, I believe I understand, at least in part, why it happened.

All that was needed was to say that ukraine will not be in NATO. but you have to have principles! and now is better, we still have principles but there is no ukraine anymore. it is important to have principles!

UN/NATOs part in the war in yugoslavia? If I recall it only took action to enter yugoslavia when many nagged it to death to go and then stood there as genocide happened and only used their arms when UN forces got shot at etc as genocides happened outside their compounds across the street. A slight counter to the reckoning of Russia and Germany is the ones for the internment camps made by the allies during ww2 where are those? I don't like armed conflicts generally speaking but what putin said "if any country joins then they are their enemy" ....it just sounds almost like a statement that Hitler or Stalin would make, just it's Putin with implied nukes. Also if this happened not at Europe's doorstep but somewhere else far away noone would care let alone cover on the news independent or by corporate news agencies. I really don't see anyone from Russia getting charged for war crimes etc at the Hague.

If China plays peacemaker, that'd be a big win for China. Touche.

The UK, European Union and the US have a huge part to play with the crisis now playing out in Ukraine. Having NATO move ever closer to the Russian boarder does not help. European Union given Ukraine the carrot and stick to join the EU. Not to mention the killing of Russian speaking eastern Ukraine near the Russian boarders. Where was everyone for the past 8 years. We need to have balance. What did the West do In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. I don't hear of any war crimes against the following governments for their part. WMD lies killed millions of people. Where was the outcry. Blonde hair and blue eyes count for more I guess. The Monroe doctrine that US held has largely been kept quiet. Look at the Cuban missile crisis. How would the US feel if China had a base in Mexico or Canada. Im sure the European Union and in particular Germany is happy to pay 7X more for natural gas from the US. Most NATO members are now going to spend more money on arms. So it's a win win for the USA's Military industrial complex and the oil and gas industry. It's would be in the US interest to keep the Ukraine crisis going.

its pretty clear - By increasing the cost of living of course.

No provocation?!

Tell us something we don't know ..

I ask you question : when Ukraine give up nuclear weapons whom declare to protect Ukraine borders and freedom INSTEAD ????

So Russia couldn’t join nato as it did not share western democratic values. Interesting viewpoint (!) that goes unchallenged in this respectable debate chamber. How about Turkey which has the second largest army of Nato? Leaving aside the obvious contradictions contained in the term: “western democratic values” , could anyone possibly describe Turkey as a democratic country? Also on the question of Nato, if you were really interested in getting a glimpse into the truth of what it is all about, you might want to ask the relatives of the hundreds of journalists, academics, intellectuals and trade union representatives who have been kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the NATO death squads in Turkey.

Nobody with concerns over American foreign policy. Why?

It would have been more informative had each speaker introduced himself, state his experience and current position so that viewers knew where they were coming from.

Well in cyprus, britain reacted with execution of greek independence fighters and forbid refugees to cross british teritory during the invasion and sended them back to die.

The three at the table are very good and wise men! I initially watched with some scepticism; I expected some pompous ideology of the situation, but they all proved to be very well knowledged and full of understanding. Though we need to also now recognise how destructive and bereft of knowledge the media are? Not just in Russia but also very deliberate from here in the west!

Tell The real truth. The world is watching. Please!!!

Echo chamber.

The point about China's long memory is an interesting one. Just before China's invitation to Nixon in '72, the Soviet Union was on the verge of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China...hence the opening (see the writings of General George Meany for details).

The benefit of the London Laundromat is that there are financiers in London who know where the money came from and where it is

Y. Bulat In the history of the human race, most atrocities are not committed out of envy, greed or some innate character flaws, but because of a trait we experience positively - because of obedience.

The focus of many people in the unlikely event of a nuclear war is the initial blast, which could cause mass casualties and unimaginable devastation. When the U.S. detonated nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 77 years ago, it leveled the cities and killed more than 100,000 to 200,000 people from the blasts or radiation sickness. But according to scientists, the horrors of a nuclear war could affect the whole planet. Clearly, one or two nuclear impacts would not have global effects but the impact of 100 weapons the size of the one that fell on Hiroshima would lower temperatures around the world to below those of the little ice age that occurred from roughly 1,300 to 1,850. That would result in crop failures and famine on a large scale. Here are the large scale impacts 1. Five megatons of soot and ash would fill the sky, bringing about a nuclear winter. 2. After one year, the average temperature of Earth would fall by about 2 degrees. After five years, the earth would be three degrees cooler than before. Twenty years down the road, it would warm up to one degree below where it was before the nuclear event. 3. That might sound beneficial, given all the talk about global warming today, but lower temperatures means less rain. Five years after the detonation, rainfall would be at 91% of current levels. After 26 years, we would still see 4.5% less rain than we did before the war. And the reduced rainfall would bring about global drought conditions. 4. Depending on the region, growing seasons for crops would be 10 to 40 days shorter, resulting in widespread famine. 5. The ozone layer would diminish due to the radiation, ultimately becoming as much as 25% thinner for the first five years after the event. After 10 years, there would be some recovery, but it would still be 8% thinner. This would result in a rise in skin cancer and sunburns. And the increased ultraviolet rays would put plant and animal life that survived the initial blast at risk. It wouldn't necessarily take 100 missiles for those theories to be tested, either. The United States' modern B83 bombs are 80 times more powerful than the weapon it hit Hiroshima. Russia has tested weapons that are even more powerful. Scientists warn that ripple effects of a nuclear war could be devastating for everyone on Earth. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine.

After watching a real intellectual Mearsheimer talk and then this it really shows that amateur ideological nature of this rhetoric. Not one mentioned the NATO's insistence to expand east. Not one spoke of Russia's clear red lines they have been stating again and again regarding NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia. Not one spoke of the Minsk agreement, and the encouragement the US and UK gave to Zelensky to be uncompromising and not to adopt the Minsk agreement that was signed by Ukraine and Russia. These signed stipulations including having all talks include the Donbass leaders as well as provide greater autonomy in the constitution for the Russian speakers in the East. It seems the term global order only applies to agreements the US and UK agrees with. The last speaker does not even flinch when they equate the Russian violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty over the civil war in Donbass by first supplying the separatists with weapons and then invading the rest of the country with the exact same analogy of China and Taiwan. China has been complaining about foreign powers inserting themselves in their own domestic issues and violating their own territorial integrity and sovereignty over their own civil war with the most recent one starting in the 1950s when the US air dropped weapons to the Nationalists, and used US naval forces to defend Taiwan when the Nationalists fled there. Russians inserting themselves in Ukraine over Donbass is analogous to the US inserting themselves in China over Taiwan.

Good that one of the speakers mentioned at the end the term 'the near abroad' used sometimes to describe the Baltic States.

Johnson needs to stop mouthing platitudes and pretensions of taking the Oligarchs assets and actually do it ,regardless of the obligations the conservatives owe these criminals. Claim all their property and bank accounts and make it available to Ukrainian displaced families NOW Mr Johnson ,all of it , That is 100 per cent of it ,never mind who their friends and connections are within the Conservative establishment

Britain needs to stop talking trash and pretending that your military are still relevant in today's world. Also stop following every little stupid things that the US is doing or are telling you to do!

Hope this is not true, especially the last part: --- From Alexander Artamonov "In 2018, the former head of the Internal Security Service of the French Ministry of the Interior, General Yvan Blot, a former member of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee of France, sent me a document that he asked to make public only after his death. He died the same year. The document is a summary (in German) of the minutes of the NATO meeting to elaborate the Barbarossa-2 plan. It goes about the plan to create permanent hotbeds of tensions on the borders with Russia, organise provocations against local Russian-speaking population and openly prepare for a war with Russia. At the same time, judging from conversations with several French generals, the author of this article came to realise that NATO was planing its attack on Russia through Ukraine, rather than directly. As we all can see now, the document was not just a waste of paper. Unfortunately, there is even more terrible information to it. It concerns a possibility of a nuclear provocation on the border with Russia to develop a large-scale conflict on the European continent. On Saturday, February 19, after the start of the large-scale Ukrainian aggression in the Donbas, one of my sources at the Commission on Defense and Security of the European Union contacted me and said that in order to implement Operation Barbarossa 2, they may arrange the delivery of a US nuclear warhead from Germany to Ukraine."

So simple disband NATO. Talk too much

Why was there no mention of the Minsk Agreements?

Guy on the right: "This is what happens to pants when you use a cheap laundromat"

Lots of very interesting and valid points made, but the keynote question was almost completely ignored and only alluded to " En passant" at the very end. In my opinion despite The West offering useful but ultimately futile and tokenistic defensive support and sanctions, there is a tacit acceptance that in the short term Ukraine cannot and arguably should not be prevented from being occupied. The West's tactics is to play the longer game by destabilising and ultimately eliminating the Putin regime by internal dissent. How long that might take and the horrible consequences for Russians meanwhile is, of course, unpredictable and another matter. Whilst it is understandable that Ukrainians would want to defend their country heroically, there is also the argument that passive resistance would have avoided such horrible loss of life and destruction so that when Putin is removed, the country would be more or less intact for when it is reclaimed as a sovereign state.

In reply to the opening statement that this attack was "unprovoked" - From the UN High Commissioner, when compared to the previous period, there was a 51% increase in Donbass casualties between February 1 and July 31 2021, accounting for 62 killed and wounded civilians. 81% of civilians died from Ukrainian shelling and more than 80% of hits during the reporting period led to destruction. Among the victims were young children. The number of ceasefire violations from February 1 to July 31 increased by 369%. With these harrowing figures, there has been at least 3,390 confirmed civilian deaths since April 14, 2014.

The only real question here, is, did she purposely chose to wear those pale pink shoes?

If you don't stand now, who will be left to stand when he comes for you.

For Boris Jonson: the best thing you can Do is just the same as what NaTO did. Stay Talk Only and No Action. Let Ukraine Fight Russia alone, throw Ukranian understand the bus.

Crimea was significant, but have we forgotten and forgiven Salisbury, or Litvinenko, etc etc etc? We always seem to bluster for a bit and then roll over and forget, so why wouldn't Putler factor that into whatever thinking he is doing?

Speak the truth you all are responsible for this

God I love listening to wise, thoughtful political scientists.

The first person who was talking about wondering what is in Putin’ mind when Putin in several media TV appearances has said exactly what is in his mind and what he wants or doesn’t want. He has been saying that he wants a firm commitment that Ukraine won’t join NATO and that Ukraine honour the Minsk agreement and stop bombing Donbass where Ukraine has killed 14,000 people. ( Russia today has been berated for killing 400 people ). There are numerous distinguished people including Henry Kissinger who said the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe was a mistake and the results of that mistake are what is happening now in Ukraine. So to look for some mysterious reason in Putins head as though the attack was irrational due to some mental aberration on the part of Putin, shows that this man has nothing to offer the debate and has been chosen because of his biased opinions. . Ask just one question, why before the war in spite of numerous requests Ukraine could not be admitted to the European Union. The answer is because of its continuing violations of the Minsk agreement, because of the fascists in the government, its human rights violations against ethnic majorities, having a reputation of the most corrupt country in Europe and the overthrowing of the elected government ( albeit a pro Russian, corrupt government) by a violent coup. Probably and this is speculation, NATO is worried about Ukraine joining because they are worried about the basket case government there. Zilensky’s election to president was paid for by an Israeli oligarch Kolomoisky and he, Zilenski, has now been exposed as corrupt as the previous President Poroshenko, having money offshore and giving top jobs to friends and relatives. This expose’ is from The Guardian .Of course this panel was a set up from the start, just like the BBC discussion panels, but then what would you expect from a bunch of generally anti working class, arrogant Tories who wouldn’t know their arse from their elbow.

Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” -Theodore Roosevelt

How my generation can see the present problem is very informative and so very important but I feel equally hypocritical…

Tell us the truth

At the end ukraine will be divided into two different countries, its already been establish behind closed door.

From a distant shore "The quarrel is with Putin and his clique". An eminent contribution to the analysis of this troubling problem. As for a solution, look no further than Putin and his clique.

Doesn't the high degree of corruption in Russia disqualify them for EU membership? This has been used as a reason to deny Ukraine EU membership, which using Transparency International's ranking of corruption, is only slightly less corrupt than Russia .

Search out the Americans that are living in Ukraine, men that are married to Ukrainian women. The Duran is interviewing them.