Is the US at All Culpable for the Russia-Ukraine War? | Making Sense  

You forget to mention that in that agreement Ukraine was to remain neutral...

@@Jole30 You're right. It was a huge mistake, and if Ukraine had been able to join NATO, this war would have been avoided. Trying to stay neutral as a neighbor of russia is just asking for trouble.

@@mkh123 If they remained neutral no invasion would have happened..Thats the reality..They would not have been allowed to join Nato how and that will also not happen in the future..Are you not listening to what the Russians are saying?

​​@@Jole30when did Ukraine stopped being neutral? And what was the part of the agreement where it stated that Ukraine had to suffer for a corrupt dictator unwillingness to let go of power?

@@ChauvinistTroll Are you denying the fact that 'Ukraine' publicly stated it wanted to join NATO?

completely dishonest and delusional take.

remember that it is ONLY the West that is not keeping its agreements, Russia is only reacting to how it is treated. Read more.

furthermore, Ukraine is in no way a sovereign country

@@priapulida because you said so? are you drunk?

@@ponysmallhorse ok, muting you now, troll

yes, unironically this. US officials even admit that they gave them no choice. Read more.

@@priapulida oh yeah? which one?

@@priapulida bro listen to the freaking clip you clicked on lol. Putin literally admits, in his talk with Tucker Carlson, who repeatedly asks if NATO is at fault, that actually no its just that Ukraine was always part of Russia. You are dead wrong. Just admit it but don't lie about it please, especially when your favorite dictator is telling you what his motivations are

@@radscorpion8 That's not what was said, not what P. said, not the reason for the conflict. Muting you now, troll.

If there was a pro-Russia revolution in Mexico, the way there was a pro-Western revolution in Ukraine, America would invade in a heartbeat.

Somebody completely made this up and you repeated it.

@@priapulida Lol ... I don't think so. It was Yanukovich's decision, under threat from Putin, to reverse his electoral promise of a trade agreement with the EU that caused the Maidan revolution.

​@@priapulidait's all about regime preservation. So many Russian lives lost. The country will be crippled for decades.

Demonstrably false given Russia's foreign policy decisions pre and post-2014

@@uschurch well not really crippled, they are in a much better situation than before the SMO but Ukraine is hit much, much harder demographically

In the end, Putin was terrified of being another Yanukovich.

Woah woah woah. I have never heard anyone claim Poroshenko was a Putin puppet. Between the two who ran for President in 2019 (Poroshenko and Zelensky), Poroshenko was actually more anti-Russian than Zelensky. Do you mean Yanukovych, who was ousted in the Revolution of Dignity? He was the closest Ukraine has had to a Putin puppet in the last couple decades probably....

You mean the coup orchestreted by the CIA? Yes that was a big catalyst

What is this, ChatGPT2? Poroshenko wasn't a Putin's puppet genius, if you wanted to mean the Viktoria Nuland's "couped" one.

Yes but the Americans started it so the Russians had to do it as well because... yeah well they just couldn't do otherwise. Also, stop asking for details. Also, don't challenge the assertion that the United States is "imperialistic" in the first place, please.

@@highdefinist9697 Even if one accepts that the US is imperialistic, and even if one accepts that the US has been imperialistic regarding specifically Ukraine, it doesn't shine a light on who is right or wrong here. If we accept this framing, you end up with this: Ukrainians looked north to Belarus, part of the Russian Empire. And then they looked west to Poland, part of the American Empire. And they thought about all of the terrible things that America has done. And they thought about tall of the terrible things that Russia has done. And then they decided they'd rather be more like Poland than Belarus. And the reason for this is because Poland has a democracy, and because it is richer than Belarus (like most members of the American empire). Some empires are worse than others. Some are much much worse than others. The relationship between the US and Japan or Korea or European countries is sometimes considered imperialistic, but compare that to the relationship between the USSR and Czechoslovakia, or Hungary. So calling the US imperialistic doesn't actually do anything for the conversation.

@@jaarneal Hm... that's an interesting take. I do see imperialism as a negative, since alliances should be a free choice, but I suppose you can make an argument for "counter-imperialism", as in to balance out the imperialism of others (i.e. Russia). But, in a more narrow sense of "imperialism", the USA is not imperialistic, since there is no desire to conquer territories to expand the United States - but, Russia wants to expand.

@@highdefinist9697 Yeah, it's definitely nuanced. Alliances should be a free choice, but it's arguable just how free some choices are given the incentives and penalties of various actors. And I think many people would argue that using a carrot is better morally than using a stick. And in Ukraine's case, Russia is using a stick, while the west is using a carrot. Yeah, I agree that in a narrow sense the US isn't imperialistic... but I've seen many people use it in a broad sense in order to do a bit of a bait-and-switch. "Imperialism is bad. The US is imperialistic [left unsaid is that they're using imperialism broadly]. Therefore the US is bad." And yes, I think I would say that in cases like Ukraine (or really... most practical cases), "counter-imperialism" should be considered a net positive, particularly when (like in Ukraine) there is broad-based grassroots support for aligning with an imperialistic (or merely "imperialistic") power.

You simply do not know Russia and it's mentality. Looking at her history, Russia always raged wars on her neighbours when she could. The only times when Russia were not involved in expanding, was when they were incapable of doing so due to revolution or economic hardship. Americans love to judge people based on their values and lifestyle. You are talking about some mystical agreement that ukrainians almost agreed with. Please enlighten us and tell what demands of russians were that ukrainians were happy to compromise? As an eastern european that knows both sides pretty well and understand russian mentality a bit more than westerners do, I can assure you that they cannot compromise. Ukraine won't agree to give their lands to Russia and even if they did, Russia would eventually attack Ukraine to claim for more land in the future once they would rebuild their capabilities. Russians clearly stated that Ukraine shouldn't exist, so what compromise we can talk about. Also Putin has stated his demands many times, that are a complete withdrawal of NATO troops from Warsaw pact countries that joined NATO after soviet union collapse. This is not realistic. Russia would lose to NATO for sure but they also know that the west is weak and afraid. Russia sees westerners as those who won't take any action against them because of fear, so they keep pushing forward.

A good point, I think. It's probably why the average Russian has so easily fallen for Putin's propaganda.

Sam is a king in saying nothing and his fans eat it up

They were invaded through that border and lost 15% of their entire population during WW2. It makes sense to not trust an aggressive world power and their NATO allies to set up military bases there.

Yep, and that in turn gives Putin more (bad) excuses to start hybrid wars in those countries too.

@@FreefallSCUSSR also allied with Hitler at start of ww2 and invaded Poland along with hitler. It wasn't that USSR was on the side of moral right, it was that Stalin was double crossed by Hitler and was forced to ally with other side. read on up "German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact of 1939" and how stalin invaded poland, latvia, estonia, lithuania, findland, and Romania...

Russia didn't want Ukraine to join NATO because they don't want NATO at their borders , the US wouldn't tolerate that , so why should Russia ?

@@jeremytine Do you really want to count who killed more people after WW2 , Russia or the US ?

That still strikes me as very wrong. In English, WWII would be considered a "geopolitical catastrophe", because it has obvious geopolitical causes and geopolitical consequences. And of course WWII had all sorts of relationships with borders and power, as you put it. So WWII would be considered (by most English speakers who know history) the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The collapse of the Soviet Union, although it devastated the economy of many post-Soviet states... was at the very least quite bloodless. So even if you place no value in democratic empowerment in some ex-Warsaw Pact states, it seems very strange to say that the collapse was the worst geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

LOL.. Who told you this? CNNs special experts? Zelensky was brought to power by a oligarch.. Thats not propaganda but facts..

London, but Washington mostly

@@priapulida Nothing happens in the US unless Israel gives a go-ahead. Nuland is 100% responsible for this war. Because of her family's history in Russa, the whole nation has to suffer (Ukraine has already lost 30% of its males) and the rest of the West go bankrupt. That's what they want. To destroy us as people. As a race.

1. Putin himself stated to Tucker, that the reasons for invasion were purely imperial. 2. Russia's existence is backed up by thousands of nuclear warheads. The only existential threat that Ukraine posed to the russian regime was the act of displaying, that Slavs are not doomed to be just serfs to the oligarchy, but can live in a free, liberal democracy. God forbid russians get same kind of ideas... 3. Considering that Putin found the ascension of Finland and Sweden to NATO a "non-issue", despite Russia's NATO border increasing by 100 %, and the Baltic Sea turning into Lake NATO is rather telling, that russia also understands NATO to be a defensive alliance.

@@mkh123 To me this argument borders on morality and has no weight no sense of realism when state interests and security are on the line. Yes it's wrong for Putin to invade and for Ukraine not to be free. But that sense of right or wrong is irrelevant when countries view it as existential threat , a while Putin likes to remind everyone that Ukraine is part of russian history , which is correct , to say that's the main reason is to be unaware how decision making on state level works.

@@m.deadly5952 To call it "wrong" to kill hundreds of thousands of people, wipe out entire cities and turn 10 % of the country into a mine field, is putting it mildly. It is a genocidal invasion of a scale, that hasn't been really seen since WW2. To buy into the idea of Ukraine being any sort of threat to russia, is to buy into russian lies. Russia is a part of Mongolian history, but you don't see steppe hordes trying to take it over.

It's laughable to deny it. USA are 100% culpable for this.

Assertion? Or just completely blind to the evidence?

Yet it is one that is made by all serious geopolitical analysts worldwide

@@priapulida Oh really? Like who, the esteemed John Mearsheimer and friends. Give me a break. It really is this simple... Ukrainians wanted to be Ukraine... and didn't want to be Russia... Putin... as he has said for YEARS... believes Ukraine is part of Russia. Putin tanked the EU deal (which Ukraine was not coerced into, they wanted it). Ukrainians didn't like that, and the US pushed that genuine sentiment, which had been building for years (all thanks to Putin's actions, not the US) over the finish line in 2014. The US was not the wood, it wasn't the match, it was a dash of oil at most. Expanding NATO to Russian borders? In an age of MAD, ICBMs and hypersonic missiles, this matters little.This is all on Putin.

@@priapulida Russia started the invasion, not USA.

what are you talking about? None of what was said here is true or relevant

@@priapulida everything is true. Are you saying tht Putin is lying?

@@ponysmallhorse no, troll

You can't be serious with this comment. Unless you are a child or intellectually stunted.

Sam knows exactly what he is doing. He is a propagandist at this point being used because of the cult like following he garnered when he actually was an honest intellectual trying to talk about world events in an honest way. Some of those people have saw the change and just kept going along with the things he said. I however have a really hard time listening to Sam at all now because all intellectual curiosity seems to be gone as he spits out military industrial complex talking points and tries to pretend they are some profound ponderings from his own head.

Well yes, it seems that the west still doesn't understand fully that Putin's regime is indeed an adversary, a threatening mobster-run kleptocracy out to destroy western alliances, democracy, NATO in order to grab land. From the Baltic to the Caucasus, it wants to restore a mythical empire, despite most surrounding, sovereign countries wishing for democratic law and order, citizen rights (and obligations) and all the freedoms and lack of fear that comes with that.

The West is at war with Russia, not vice versa. Putin tried everything for peace, the Western leaders tried everything to avoid it.

@@FreefallSCYep. You do wonder if they've got something on him, and he's been forced to become a propagandist under threat of blackmail.

No, Putin says hes at war with NATO because thats what Vatniks want to hear. NATO was never a threat to russia simply because its an alliance created to stop russia from attacking more European nations. And russian actions show that, if Russia is fighting NATO why do they relocate air defence systems, weapons, tanks and troops from NATO boarders to Ukraine ? Russian propaganda is simple, start conflicts and blame it on the west, 2014 is the perfect example. The Ukrainian president at the time rejectet closer ties to the EU and opted for closer ties with russia which the Ukrainians didnt want so they protestet with over a million people in kyiv alone for months until Janukowytsch fled to russia. But Russians say it was the west who paid protestors which is simply ridiculous. There is a reason why every Eastern European country hates russia.

When the one guy is an autocrat, the answer to your question is yes

Would you mind clarifying what you consider "balanced"?

@@highdefinist9697 Sure. The history and involvement that the US and west had had in that region. The view that nato expansion may not be the best thing in terms of our interests and national security. That funding Ukraine is not beneficial for our national security: that it may in fact prolong the war. That negotiation is inevitable and should be done sooner than later

​@@pjcondon466 I still don't know what you are talking about, because you are extremely vague. For example, you say "may not be the best thing" a lot, but does that mean you believe NATO expansion etc... is really bad, or do you believe they are fundamentally good, and just could have been implemented a bit better?

@@highdefinist9697 I’m saying that there is a cost of nato expansion. We are seeing that cost right now in Ukraine. There is another side besides the one Sam is exploring

@@pjcondon466 "a cost of nato expansion"... man, get to the point already! In your opinion, is the cost worth it, or not? If you can't answer even the most basic question, then there is nothing "balanced" about your opinion. It just means that you don't have an opinion and don't know what you are talking about.

John Mearsheimer would be a solid choice. Also, he's just interesting in general.

@@fuzzydunlop7154 Glenn Diesen is also very professional.

Why. It’s not a current affairs show, it’s guests that have subjects he wants to explore. Do you say this to every podcaster, when it’s a guest you agree with?

Yeah lately sam is getting more and more partisan,he does think Trump is an asteroid ready to destroy earth,but his mastery of waking up app should rend him capable to overcome personal biases,insightful people like vivek an John mearshire are shielded off his Tds bubble and limiting his insight growth

@@kadourimdou43 Well certainly no, it doesn't have to be every guest on every topic on every show. But I usually find the episodes where Sam disagrees with the guest on something to be more interesting by far.

We didn't invade Iraq for territorial expansion. The first time was because they invaded a neighbor and the second time was because intelligence said they were working with Al Qaeda and had WMDs.

According to comments, the Russian-Ukraine situation started on the day of the invasion and had absolutely positively nothing to do with the actions of anyone else leading up to that point. Just like Pearl Harbor had absolutely nothing to do with US actions leading up to the event. Simply distill widely complicated geopolitical scenarios into good and bad, black and white and call anyone who disagrees a puppet of the enemy. Then pretend you aren't being used in your own side's propganda, because only the bad guys use that.

Look up the word Culpable in law first. There is a large difference the US being culpable and the US being involved in the conflict. The US is not culpable, condemnable, blameworthy...however it definitely played a large role in it but who is really culpable in the war? Putin and Russia alone.

@@EpicLemonMusic "it definitely played a large role in it but who is really culpable in the war? Putin and Russia alone." The latter contradicts the former. And I guess that the gist of it is that if you only look at the events on a superficial and simplistic level, you're essentially right. But for any reasoning individual, context matters, and ignoring context, history, events, etc., do not accurately portray the issue. But hey, these days, truth is the first casualty of war.

@@literalghost929 we are on the same page except the extent of culpability of the US. Legally, if say I was a bully(US) that for years picked on a another bully(russia) and kept on promising a great job to him in the future but never following through and basically lying to the other Bully(Russia) who hates a kid who was once part of his family(Ukraine). In the end the kid(Ukraine) gets the job once promised to the bully(russia) and then the far away Bully (USA) tells the other big Bully(rus) to fuck off. After this the bully (Russia) kills the kid and goes to court. Who goes to jail? Just Russia, the original Bully is completely exonerated in this fake scenario and is not culpable at all, however the Bully is still a big reason this all happened, he is completely innocent in the crime but to his peers and family they know he played a role. That is what I am saying and what most of Western world is saying. Also intent matters. It has to, or else we have nothing. US intent was while in practice flawed and maybe even dishonest, the overall intent was good, whereas it is pretty cut and dry to anyone who wants to live in a world far from pre world war2 where countries just use their power to take whatever they like, we can all see who the invader is. It would be like if France one day decided to take back Canada because it basically created the nation, lots of its people speak french, Canada is the richest country in the world in resources and France wants them and the separatist Canadians were committing terrorism against France and they really should be back because in 1931 when they were finally given full independence that was because of interference of the stupid UK who controlled Canada for all these years! It sounds so stupid and it makes no sense in 2024 and is ridiculous because we know France, UK, and Canada are all very different places from each other and deserve their own autonomy, so why in fuck is Ukraine and Russia any different?

@@EpicLemonMusic " the overall intent was good," Ugh no. Got a bridge to sell ya if you truly believe that. There's plethora of places where you can still get the correct time, check out for instance Le conflit OTAN/Russie en Ukraine - François Asselineau, good summary, but most people won't even bother learning what goes against their preconceptions.

Just to think Obama sent Joe biden to take care of Ukraine. 4 years later .... 10s of thousands of young Ukrainian men are dead.

seldom are two sides equally evil, you always chose the less evil option

I live in a NATO member country. Right next to the border with Russia. All we want is to never be part again of that mobster-run kleptocracy. Gladly pay my taxes for that. And it certainly is our main priority as it is for our neighbouring NATO/EU countries and populations. In Europe we have got law, order, rights and responsibilities and freedom to choose without fear.

@@fonsvandenhove no no no, we shouldn't let silly little countries do what they want, we should let russia be big and proud and not hurt it's ego. you don't even have a separate language, culture nor history from russia. that is ultimately their argument. The only reason they don't try to make a claim on Finland is because they know how horribly they would lose that invasion (like last time)

@@kenzothecornishTV none of that is true

@@fonsvandenhove both NATO and EU are mobster-run kleptocracies, read more.

​@@fonsvandenhove It seems like an unwinnable war in Ukraine. It's already depleting a generation of Ukrainians while making practically no progress. What is the endgame? And there does seems to be a growing part of Nato constituents that want this war to end so that we can focus on keeping law, order, rights, responsibilities and freedom available in our Nato countries. Also, we have to be honest and admit to ourselves that Ukraine is not a bastion of law, order, rights and freedom. I agree that we should help to protect Ukraine, but it looks like a peace treaty would be best for everyone at the moment. ps. Is it safe to assume by your name that you're Dutch?

Yeah, in hindsight we should have invited them to NATO sooner.

@@highdefinist9697 How about 1990?

Tell me you didn’t listen to the clip without telling me you didn’t listen to the clip. Nice try tho

Is the complicated issue, that if Ukraine was to become a prosperous and free Western nation, it might give the russian population the idea, that Slavs can be more than just serfs to the oligarchy?

@@mkh123 so basically, the parallel to make is that just like America's enemies hate freedom, Putin hates prosperous and free nations?

Of course it’s complicated. by our own admission, prior to the Russian invasion, we wanted to downgrade russia militarily, economically politically, and culturally. Putting a NATO bulwark the size of Ukraine right on Russia’s border is the best way to weaken Russia. If you think the US is only supporting Ukraine out of the goodness of our heart, you are willfully ignorant and naive. It’s good business especially for our military hardware industry. Fact. The major argument to pass the 60bn aide package is that most of that will go back into the US economy.

@@theophanystudio2960 Prior to the invasion in 2014, the popularity of NATO was in the

just when it's clear they lost too

Mearsheimer, 2015: Putin will never attempt to conquer Ukraine. Putin will never start a bloody and expensive war in Ukraine, remember what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan? Also, NATO is done expanding. Reality: Putin has since invaded Ukraine and annexed 20% of it. Putin's war in Ukraine has cost far more Russian casualties and far more equipment than the Soviet-Afghan War. Sweden and Finland both joined NATO. If you want to understand what is happening over there, I think your first step should be to just acknowledge that Mearsheimer was wrong. There isn't a serious debate to be had about whether or not Mearsheimer was wrong. He was obviously wrong. The more interesting question now is to figure out why he was wrong: why was Mearsheimer's framing of the conflict wrong?

Mearsheimer has been wrong repeatedly

Exactly!!

did what? what are you talking about?

@@ponysmallhorse read more. listen to real experts on this not these two.

The U.S would be in the wrong under that “hypothetical scenario”, but that’s not the reality.

@@priapulida Dude. I know about this conflict more than most "experts". What are you on about?

Finally someone tells the truth on American lies..

Have you considered moving to Russia, and signing up for the Russian army, to help their efforts?

@@highdefinist9697 So anyone critical on how we behave arouneshould move to Russia..Is that what you call democracy? Fall for our propaganda or go to another country .

@@Jole30 Yes - because what's the point of words, if they are not followed by actions? If you really cared about Russia, you would be out there, fighting, right now. Yet, you are here arguing, because you don't actually care. And that's why Russia will lose: Lots of talk, but no action.

@@highdefinist9697 I dont care about Russia.. Where do you get those fantasies from? You can be critical against your own without being in favor for the other part.. But denying that we have behaved like savages the last 30 years is crazy, thats how goverment shills behave..They bad, we good.. Reallity is more we bad, they bad..

Sam Harris is a full blown Neo-Con. He cried at Victoria Nuland's resignation.

So...go start a podcast

How's that going for russia? They just got 1300km new NATO border, and the Baltic Sea is now Lake NATO. But I'm guessing this is some 4D chess game by Putler?

@@mkh123 Might doesn't make right. Also, don't act like this is just Putin's doing, Russians are hugely supportive of the gov.

@@NotSure723Yes. All russians are culpable.

NATO never lied about anything. There was never any kind of agreement that NATO could not include former Warsaw pact members. To claim otherwise is being historically illiterate. Even more so as NATO is not an aggressive alliance and in no way has any military infrastructure that even remotely resembles an offensive threat to Russia. To claim any such threat is to be completely illiterate on military strategical subjects.

@@mkh123 It's going great for Russia actually, read more.

Na

@@jaysonp9426 yes. Sam only interviews people he agrees with on certain topics. Political scientists have known for years that NATO expansion would provoke Russia. And US officials have openly talked about using Ukraine as a way to weaken Russia/Putin.

​@@strongblackcoffee9573Lol, do you know how/why NATO expansion happens? Small countries next to Russia are afraid they'll be invaded by Russia (for good reason), so they seek protection from a defensive alliance. Then Russia acts all offended because they can't conquer their neighbors anymore, and you think Russia has legitimate concerns :D

@@jonijokunen3542 What about the Minsk agreements?

@@strongblackcoffee9573 yeah and Russia controlling the grain supply and reparations were caused for Germany invading Poland. Your point?

Is there evidence for this? If that happened with Canada, the US wouldn’t start bombing Canada, and calling them neo-nazis or whatever.

My partner is from the Donetsk region in the Donbas. Widespread support for Russia is a myth. They understand what a dictatorial bully Putin is. They dont want to live under his rule. A vast majority of Ukrainians, even in the Donbas, do not want to live under Putin's dictatorship.

Wow... How much bullshit can you fit in a single paragraph? 1) Yanukovych overstepped his power and got ousted by the Ukrainian government - even his own party voted against him. I know that the concept of leaders being beholden to the people is alien to russians, so you're forgiven. Enjoy your Eternal Leader. 2) Listening posts? I thought those were biolabs? Or anglo-saxon attack tunnels? Banderiti training camps? Maybe attack mosquito farms - or was that last week's excuse? 3) By russian leaning people, I assume you mean the "rebels" that russia was arming, and the regular russian military? You vatniks somehow always "forget", that before the russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, there was no bombing. Even Strelkov - one of the main architects of the "rebellion" - called it a russian operation, and not an organic rebellion. Putin tells Tucker, that they invaded because of their imperialistic view of Ukraine belonging to russia, and still we have vatnik idiots making excuses, like it's 2022.

Why should we care about what Russia wants? Americans should only concern themselves with what is best for America.

@@highdefinist9697 We shouldn't, what has that to do with anything I said?