Russia doesn't need any mountains, it has 6000 nuclear warheads. One of the reasons Russia is doing so poorly in Ukraine is down to the fact that those 6000 nuclear warheads are very expensive to maintain, and all that money is going to waste if the Russians are going to pretend their nuclear arsenal doesn't exist.
It's tragic that Russia is still trapped in a feudal mindset where it imagines that it's security is primarily associated with acquisition of territory. More tragic that it wants to vassalize all of its neighbors, but at the same time it is a terrible and cruel liege that makes all of its vassal states hate it. If it had sought allies and friends rather than slaves and vassals, just how much more secure would it's borders be than ever if they were secured by tanks and rifles.
Bro, US sacntioned Iran for starting Nuclear development if not bcs of fear, They also approached India for the same reason. China is commenting on Quad Alliances of Asian Countries. all these 3 so called Super power are delutional and paranoid, no different
@@AdamOctorachmadi I see. In your view "approaching India" while maintaining a generally friendly relationship, is exactly the same as crossing the border and flattening cities. Pathetic comparison.
"Russia's national interest" - Russia had been accepted as a partner in the world economy. If it would have chosen the path of cooperation instead of confrontation, this policy would have been in Russia's real national interest. The February invasion of Ukraine was a major mistake.
Well said. Most countries do not want war. War is bad for economic stability and the environment. I wish Russia, China and North Korea could understand this.
They have a 1930s viewpoint for some reason. No one was going to attack Russia through any of these listed weaknesses. They have nukes and no one has showed any interest in stealing their land. Only reason Ukraine wanted in NATO is because they were afraid of Russia, correctly it seems. Russia can make whatever strategic reasoning it wants, it comes down to a dictator wanting to expand his empire. So glad this is going terribly for them. Putin has completely ruined the "tough" image of Russia in a matter of weeks. Best thing that could happen is some military leader or oligarch "fires" Putin so they can get back to making money. This war benefits no one. Even if they win the Russian people will be far worse off.
@@jackdanson2 Also the fact that huge deposits of natural gas and oil was discovered in Crimea just before the 2014 takeover suggest that the official motives are pretty BS.
@@jackdanson2 i think it's bcs nato literally controls every sea trade rout going in and out of Russia and Ukraine being so close to russia it would not only mean putting alot of soldiers in ukraine-russia border but also that nato could control every vessel entering Russia through the azov sea which is very important for russian trade.if ukraine had joined nato Russia would have become de-facto puppet state of usa and nato and all of that done without even firing a bullet.
Sadly, when you look at everyone as an enemy, they become one. If Russia had set out to be a part of Europe instead of against it, they wouldn't have to worry about invasions or blocked access.
Actually it was postulated by Yeltsin early on that Russia would be accepted into the european community - but what happened when they opened up is with little knowledge of capitalisim they country and former state run industries were ransacked by western companies - Putin was a reaction to this - the old tsartist faction supported his ascendancy. He represents a grouping of power centres in the country.
@@greatestgoals2617 Where did you get your history lessons? That is BS. What happened to state run industries is that they were sold off, not to westerners, but to the domestic oligarchs. Putin wasn't a reaction to anything. He worked his way into Yeltsin's loyal circle, and when several prime ministers were scapegoated as failures, Putin was put in as the 6th or so. And then Putin used false flag operations within his own country to grow his image and after Yeltsin left people voted for Putin because he seemed strong in response to Chechen bombings (which were actually probably his own doing). Russia never largely opened to the west. It opened just enough to lull the west into thinking Putin might be a good guy. He never was.
@@dxelson I would argue that every American State in the South, Midwest, and Rocky Mountains has done exactly that. No one in those states trusts the coastal elites, especially the South whose own Confederate identity has lived on through the generations. But the world beyond the coasts is such that the interior states are better off making friends with their coastal counterparts, even if they do hoard all the country's wealth and frequently make decisions that are well out-of-touch with the plight of the interior. Russia has good reason to do the same with the much wealthier Europe. It's shared border with China is full of disputes and not well defended in the least bit. In another 20 years the dragon will be faced with the same decision Japan made in WWII. Expand into Siberia or expand into the Pacific. It may well just be a big enough beast that it can afford to do both. At which point, who is going to defend that Russian territory? Russia by itself is far too weak in the east to do that on it's own. If it wishes to retain any of it's Asian territory it will have to make friends with the EU
As a video for 2022, this video has so many things wrong. Geography counts for little against advanced powers. An enemy could say, cut you off from the financial system and take $400 billion of your money permanently crippling your economy and your military which will waste away and never recover from the lack of funding. Or cut off your access to semiconductors dooming your tech progress and ensuring you fall decades behind. Those are far more "existential threats" than the fantasy of imaginary enemy tanks slowly moving to Moscow. The solution is simple: if you respect the rule of law and the territorial integrity of other sovereign states, the world will respect yours. Nice video for describing the situation of a hundred+ years ago, but it is grossly misleading today.
@ed-te1fp Yes, this video has so much disinformation, it seems to have been scripted by the Kremlin. Of the many falsehoods, probably the largest is that "Sevastopol is as important as Pearl Harbor" plus effectively the Port of Los Angeles. That is a brazen lie. Prior to Russia's invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia had no commercial trade train link to Sevastopol - it was an isolated port leased from Ukraine surrounded by Ukraine. Novorossiysk, however, is a Russian warm water port on the Black Sea on the OUTSIDE of the Kerch Straight and connected directly to the rest of Russia. So, the Kerch Straight is NOT A CHOKEPOINT. Saying otherwise is like saying "your front door is a chokepoint for me between your bedroom and my kitchen".
All of Russia's strategic woes would disappear overnight if they changed their attitude from imperialism and isolationism to collaboration and good neighbourness with the other european countries, as all the EU do (and the UK is now psying a high price for being out). There is a lot to be gained by being one of the team instead of a perpectual adversary.
All of NATO's woes would also disappear overnight if they changed their hostile their imperialism attitude by not moving to the east. There is also a lot to be gained by being one of the team instead of a perpetual adversary. Lack of self reflection is the problem you see if both parties look at each other exactly the same way.
@@ttemp2631 But... but they lost. They lost, man. They lost when their nuclear plant blew up, they lost when we demolished the wall and they lost when we put Pepsi ads in the Moscow Square and Gorbachov in Pizza Hut ads. Why don't they just get into the fold, triple their citizenship's average salary, improve their infrastructure, and shut up? They lost.
@@ttemp2631 dont give me that whataboutism bullshit, man! That doesnt cut it to all of us who are not Putin's putains. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romenia are in NATO and Ukraine and Moldova want to be in NATO because of Rusdia's history of being a shit neighbour. Russia is imperialist and all tge excuses it uses ring hollow in today's world. Russia could be in NATO itself too if it wasnt such an imperialist fossil.
Yes, Russia's concerns are understandable, but it doesn't justify the killing of civilians in this war. Though yes, it's also avaricious that a country with a land area that is already equal the size of the surface area of Pluto will still want more land.
Did you not watch the video how can you call it avaricious lmao you are just brainwashed so you sed something random As far as people getting killed it's war they could do more if they wanted to and have what's left of Ukraine the very next day
@@dt-lg2oc man you are brainwashed. No one wants to attack Russia. It’s always Russia attacking others, and it has been this way since WW2. Look at how many times they attacked their “allies” during the Cold War. If Russia was a democracy this would have never happened. Each EU country has exactly the same “concerns” about their neighbours, but you don’t see the French strategically invading Belgium to protect themselves from an attack.
@@dt-lg2oc Russia could be at the heart of Europe, one of the great powers but they have chosen paranoia and dictatorship. I laugh every time they refer to themselves as a democracy.
@@dt-lg2oc you’re quite thick aren’t you. My point is that this doesn’t happen because we cooperate with each other. Germany went full Russian before this war, and no European country thought that it’s a good idea to invade them. Germany doesn’t even have a proper army, France would have invaded it as fast as Nazis invaded France in WW2. Democracies don’t invade each other. This is Putin’s war.
The vid does well to display the Russian leader's viewpoint, but it is still a heavily biased viewpoint. The main invasion route (measured by success) from the West were actually not the North European plains (which were by the way often very muddy and swampy), but the rivers the founders of the Kievan Rus used to get into the country. They were then defeated by the Mongols and Tatars, which used the southern route between Ural Mountains and Caspian Sea into Ukraine (which is mostly flat land, so no geographical obstacles here) and then northwards along the rivers. The Teutonic Order never targeted Russia, it was only interested in the Baltic coast lands (which led nevertheless to conflict with Russian expansionists). The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was a competitor to Moscow, but the competition was mostly for the rich wheat-growing regions in northern and western Ukraine (while the Crimea was inhabitated by Goths and Tatars, and the coastline held by the Ottomans). During the 17th and 18th century Sweden became a major power around the Baltic Sea, often in conflict with Russia, while Russia allied with Austria and Prussia to annex Poland and Lithuania in the 2nd half of the 18th century. The first serious invasion of Russia after the defeat of the Mongols was that by Napoleon, which failed due to logistics problems. The second one was the assault by the Nazis, which also failed due to logistics problems. (That are actually far less invasions as most countries in Europe lived through.) So the wide plains (and Belorussian swamps) in the West are no weakness, but a strength in terms of defence. Therefore former Russian leaders expanded mostly to the South (rich soils, better climate) and the East (vast lands and resources, for the most time not well organized tribes). Russia perceives itself as landlocked, since most harbors in the North and the East are only usable during summer. St. Petersburg was founded as the gate to the Baltic Sea, and after the Ottoman Empire started to decline, Russia used the opportunity to conquer harbors at the Black Sea - but that is also a landlocked sea, the only exit controlled by Turkey. To re-conquer now the Ukrainian coast will not help there, at the contrary - targeting cooperation with Western Europe like some tsars did would have served the purpose of gaining wealth and maintaining power far more. The war was one of the most stupid moves Putin ever did, ideologically blinded by a fascist view to history (and geography).
this is the ultimate armchair EUIV players analysis. The fact you glossed over two entire invasions of Russia before WW2 tells anyone all they need to know about your knowledge of history
really tho? this seems to be heavily based on strategic theories that where written when canals where cutting edge infrastructure. they're not marching columns of line troops in there, or pulling horse drawn artillery. Even without capturing the sea of Azov, with modern technology NATO could just take Moscow if it wanted, but it doesn't want to, because no one wants to live in a smoldering irradiated ash wasteland that would inevitably follow. Russia can keep what they have. no one cares. just keep there hands off everyone elses stuff.
@@GenocideWesterners In the independence referendum on 1 December 1991, the people of Ukraine expressed deep and widespread support for the Act of Declaration of Independence, with more than 90% voting in favor, and 82% of the electorate participating. Ukraine IS "theirs." It belongs to the citizens of Ukraine. 👍
@@GenocideWesterners centuries ey? "theirs"? would that be the Russian Empire? oh they're gone... or the Bolsheviks maybe? oh wait no... The CCCP was only 1923-1991 so that can't be it...
it's interesting, this kinda puts into context why Russia is desperate, as well as the depths of its diplomatic failures. They alienated Ukraine in 2014, while antagonizing nato. Enraging the powers who could take advantage of these weaknesses, while ensuring that Ukraine would be hostile. While I agree with the economic issues losing control of its ports could have, I am skeptical of the military aspect of this. Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal and makes it clear an invasion of their land will be met with nuclear force. While there is of course always value in "just in case" there is no existential threat from direct invasion anymore, the threat of such has been essentially rendered moot by Russia's ability to simply erase an attacking nation with a nuclear strike. This would make the military threat posed by a hostile Ukraine moot.
Agree 100%. This is more about Putin being worried about a revolution at home given his paranoid belief every revolution that toppled a dictator was instigated by the US. A Democratic wealthy Ukraine foments unrest at home, and magnifies his failure as a leader.
@@artnull13 Exactly. N∙A∙T∙O∙ countries would never have invaded Russia {in any futuristic possibility either} even if Ukrain would have become a N∙A∙T∙O∙ member due to the sheer reason that Russia has got an enormous number of nuke warheads.
@@artnull13 LOL "democratic, free, wealthy Ukraine." You don't know shit. Let's drop that false pretense. This is what the typical Western privileged and smug asshole thinks as he consumes US State Department propaganda. No wonder the rest of the world hates you. And it's funny how the "international community" that has sanctioned Russia represents only Europe, Oceania, and the US. The rest of the world, most importantly China and Iran, are behind Russia. You couldn't even get a country like India, which you want to use against your other Cold War against China, to condemn and sanction Russia. The US petrodollar is over. Chinese Yuan is being accepted for oil payments. You're in for a complete shock when this is over, when the dollar loses its significance and dominance.
So, how Russia could have kept fleet in Sevastopol without giving exorbitant gas subsidies. And regarding Ukraine, their level of corruption ant treatment of minorities makes them ineligible for EU membership. If they not clean own room, will be eternal candidate like Turkey. See West Balkan for reference.
We would join both NATO and EU. Russian bear is wounded right now, and have a huge casualties against Ukraine. Russia could be a major player in a region, with a mass ''soft power'' of russian speaking minorities of surrounded countries, but it chose to be an empire...
I think more of the thought is that everybody may be friendly now, but there's nothing that says you friends will be your enemies tomorrow. Agreements being broken happens every time it can happen. Threatening to nuke other countries because they cut off access to the oceans is a bit extreme, that would be the only military option for Russia they could use if other nations turned on them. Also, historically countries tend to like to attack Russia once they start becoming too powerful.
@@daddy_1453 yeah, that's why there is no wars between European nations... Putin's Russia is just another empire, which would dissolved in one way, or another
Sort of a weak analysis. I'm pretty tired of hearing about the north European plain, and its risks do to lack of geographic barriers, in an era of attack helicopters, Manpads, ATGM, and hypersonic missiles. For all of the invasions of Russia, the last one that succeeded for more than a couple of years was the Mongols. The issues particular with this invasion: Water supply for Crimea, Russian demographic collapse, American abandonment of Afghanistan, European dependence on Russian natural gas, American arms supply to Ukraine, the Chinese triggering of a global energy crisis -- not a word about them.
I don't know if it's a weak analysis but I see your point or points otherwise. Particularly, I think that demographic collapse, when correlated to the decreasing size of their military, makes the Black Sea and its maritime borders an especially existential issue.
I agree that these security issues exist in some sense but they have nukes. The threat of being invaded is zero because they’d end the world. As far as trying to be its own economic bloc outside of the EU in order to give its own oligarchs more money and influence this action seems a bit more reasonable. But it is hard to rationalize sending poor Russians to die for billionaires. Also the United States is the global navel guarantor so any attempt to hamper the flow of ships through international canals or straights will cause the US to respond aggressively.
It's not just security issues, but economic too. Anglosaxon's centuries old standing agenda is too keep Russia contained, underdeveloped, poor. Last thing in the universe they want, is Russia's economy size of Japan, for example.
@@__3800 Literally nobody in the west gives a flying fuck about Russia having the economy of Japan, or more realistic, the west would love for them to have that since that would mean it would be westernized and fully part of the European economy. If Putin was okay with Russia being a regional power equal to France and Germany instead of wanting a super power everything would be fine. Europe hasn't viewed Russia as an opponent for 30 years and Putin just ruined the best position Russia has had in decades by uniting Europe once again as an opponent. If the Russian government hadn't so desperately wanted Europe to be its enemy, it wouldn't.
I think it is less about winning potential catastrophic conflicts between NATO and Russia, and more about maximising one's potential options and thereby limiting costs. For instance, having a smaller border with your neighbours means that you will need to spend less on defensive infrastructure, while at the same time being able to project far more power.
@@trismegistus2881 That's also a good reason for NATO not to want Ukraine as a member - we would have a huge border with Russia to defend. So why was Putin convinced that Ukraine was going to be in NATO? And what's his problem with Ukraine being in the EU, a purely political organisation mostly concerned with trade?
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine solely for geostrategic value, feel you overlooked/watered down a lot of things. The “North European plain weakness blah blah” is sort of null when you have 6000 nuclear warheads and a large standing army
It isn't though. Because what used to the threat of a land invasion has transformed into the threat of HAVING TO HAVE TO fight nuclear bomb vs nuclear bomb. Have you ever heard of siege warfare? You cut off any and all access for food, manpower, and and arms to a castle you are trying to capture. In this case, the siege tactic has turned into Article 5. The more NATO countries that can border Russia, the the higher the efficacy of besieging Russia with the threat of mutual defense. And just like the US basically told Russia to back the fuck off of Cuba, Russia will never allow who they consider as enemies to sit comfortably in what they consider THEIR backyard. Think European KIngs during the medieval times. Cousins sacked cousins. Same Chinese dynastic wars. Etc, etc. The victim is always the regular folks too naive to the reality of how the world works (from the perspective of the leaders of the world's super powers.) The "it's sort of null when you have 6000 nuclear warheads and a large standing army" is a fallacy. Because you don't have to actually fight Russia to defeat them. The thing is, those sitting in their thrones will never accept defeat - if it is a death like cancer kills. Not when you have the option to threaten the nuclear option. In other words, the Kings of the major Lion Prides in the world will fight, literally tooth and nail, to the death before they willingly surrender their reign, and over what they consider their domain.
So what you’re saying in this jumbled mess of analogies and darwinist geopolitical musings is Russia is striving for autarky? Russia already had access to lots of resources and trade before they hit the diplomatic suicide button. Taking more land in Eastern Europe will not automatically fix Russia’s inability to produce high tech chips, semiconductors, diversify their economy etc. You also didn’t address the geopolitical aspect at all. The North European plain weakness may have been an issue for Russia when there were German panzer divisions roaming around but that’s an antiquated argument now. NATO was not created to “siege” Russia, but to defend states FROM Russia. Many NATO countries were trading happily with Russia before Feb 22. Geo strategy is a minor reason for this war, if at all. This war is about Putin staying in power by appealing to Russian imperial ambitions, and crushing a rising democratic, sovereign, and economic Ukraine. That is all
Exactly!!! Russia needs more population, more access to warm water sea ports and more productive farm land. They are suffering from depopulation and a declining birth rate while sitting next to the country with the biggest population on Earth…
Another great video! I was a bit sad that Central Asia and Vladivostok weren’t examined in more detail, but I can understand the emphasis on the European Plain given its importance to the security of Russia’s core, the events surrounding Ukraine, and the amount of material you can fit in this timeframe.
As important as ‘boots on the ground’ still are, all these historic invasion routes seem fairly trivial having passed through the atomic age. Everyone knows that invading Russia would mean nuclear weapons being used. No one would risk it. Hell, no one would attempt to even invade NK with its tiny nuclear weapon potential. Russia is like uber-nuke territory.
@@BuddyLee23 are your sure, that nucklear shield would be a garantee in a 20 or 50 years? 100 years? Are you sure, that in a future, people won't invent some weapon to completely disable somehow nuke shield? I'm talking about some IT technologies? The ability to block orders and commands and freeze enemy tacktics? Or maybe some satelites who can shoot down those missles as soon as they leave the ground? What if one day we wake up in the world, where nukes doesn't mean anything? I think geopolitics is the only thing that would allways be relevant.
From Croatia: Excellent lecture. Thank you. But still, I think it is extremely unfair for a stronger neighbor to hold a weaker one hostage to his security. No one has the right to such behavior and perhaps the time has come for a fairer solution for the Ukrainian people, who are not to blame for their neighbor being a bully, armed to the teeth and paranoid. I think that everyone who behaves like that deserves and in the end gets bigger, stronger and more violent than themselves ..... Eg. China can easily pass through Manchuria and take over a huge space from the Pacific to Murmansk, from the Urals to the Bering Strait ...... It has ore, oil, gas, a huge space for its soon two billion people ... This is how he lets Putin wear out and defeat yourself.
I see this and have believed this is their intentions. Just let Russia implode. They... No Sorry . He ,Putin is destroying a once great Legacy. If this turns to a 3rd WW. If any survive it. That country will never be spoken of again. It's name would be banned. Hopefully it's PEOPLE can resolve this and take back what is theirs.
That has always been the way of the world... historically speaking, either a nation was a colonizer or a colony. Conflicts are ultimately caused between empires of similar power, with their colonies or tributary states along for the ride. Since WWII, we have ultimately said that this is wrong and the result was decolonization, but that ignores the geopolitical reality of national, economic, and security interests that defines countries- hence the phrase, a nation has no allies, only interests. It may be cold to say it, but the reality of human nature itself operates on the principle of self-interest, not selflessness, and in fact to do so, often causes the collapse of the nation-state. Plus, we need to take into consideration that the modern nation state only exists because of Napoleon, where we understand a state is ultimately defined by the people group living in the identified geographic area, not by the authority of the territory owned by the sovereign. This is what has caused the majority of modern conflicts and civil wars and wars of unification. Everything from the Israel-Palestine conflict, to the break up of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and to the decolonization of the British Empire.
Those flat planes, so-called "invasion doorways" were tried many times, as you said yourself, by Nazis, by Napoleon, all of them have failed, because of the vast flat land (which also tends to get very muddy, resulting in stuck armored vehicles), there is basically nowhere to hide and is easy for a defender to destroy an attacking force. so no one in their right mind will ever launch a land invasion through this route and Russia's fears are pure paranoia. I don't know why Russia thinks so highly of themselves, no one needs or wants to invade them, just chill...
@@osplayer1 Yes, but it is impossible to conquer Russia by land, no one is going to waste human, army and economic resources to do this for oil, it's just not worth it. The west much more prefers to get Russia's oil by trade.
@@osplayer1 They also have a lot of nukes. No one in his right mind will attack Russia....maybe only China but that is far east from the European planes. ;)
Your last sentence; why are they so arrogant that they think democratic European nations "threaten" russia?? No it is just the Kremlin, they cant have a functioning democracy on there border, because it threatens their power
The dumbest part is that if Russia were to integrate to the West (and they can, they are European and Christian, what keeps them apart is their mindset, their refusal to develop a working democracy and their unwillingness to let go of past grievances) they would have 0 concerns on their western front. -They could join NATO- (not realistic, sorry), integrate economically with Europe and become friggin rich. Poland, Lithuania, Rumania, etc., joined the West and are reaping the benefits of that partnership. They have 0 feelings of insecurity towards the US since they are partners and allies, no need of Buffer States and such. But Russians, unfortunately, keep thinking like in the USSR (minus communism).
Spot on. Russia sees the west, that has no territorial claims on it, as the enemy. China claims a great deal of Russian territory (including Vladivostok), yet they're seen as friends. Go figure.
@@awf6554 Actually, the last claim between the PRC and Russian Federation was settled back in 2004, with both sides exchanging a few tiny river islets. The PRC currently does not have any territorial disputes at all with Russia, though the ROC (now Taiwan, Matsu, Penghu, and Kinmen) still maintains claim on some territories.
By integrating with NATO, Russia would be subservient to a higher authority above itself. What Russia wants is a sphere of its own, led by Russia, with Russia at its centre. Similar to the US-led NATO and World Order.
@@auburntiger6829 None "officially" perhaps. Interesting that only in 2020 Chinese diplomats and state media were reminding the world that Vladivostok originally belonged to China. China has growing interest and influence in Central Asia also, traditionally Russian sphere of interest. China does what's best for China. History shows its common communist background with Russia is meaningless when it comes to international relations, even though both are fascist states now.
Yeah and we in Germany have like zero buffers in all directions. Russia should grow up and get with the times. But Putin wont let anyone get educated. You cant always pull the history card. Russia could finally become another country of Europe.But good video and thank you for making it so visual.
@@justjohn9067 I partially agree, but I'm interested in hearing historical context of Ukraine and more about it's own defensive strategies in the south and east before 2014 and after. Also from Ukrainian perspective Belarus (that is Ukraine northern border and Chernobyl) is an enigma worth exploring
Yeah a paranoid autocracy on its border that although they acknowledge Kiev as birthplace of Rus civilization, somehow believe Moscow owns Ukraine. I would love to see Putin & his generals set on fire on the streets of Kiev! My soft spot for normal Russians will degrade if they continue to be cowardly appeasers themselves, then they will truly deserve to suffer!
@@f-86zoomer37 Crimean constitutional crisis, Tuzla crisis, gas wars, constant r*ssian intervention into our politics. Yeah, "zero". Oh, and Ukraine first stated NATO aspiration in 90's, and first request to join was in 2008. Finally, there was never any coups in Ukraine.
Interesting video, I see the similarity to the USA's efforts to "control" it's southern neighbours. But 1). What is Putin afraid of? NATO's structure is defensive in nature,, it's very difficult for it to be aggressive. Suggesting this about Putin recreating past glory. 2). Why does Russia get to dictate Ukraine's foreign policy? 3). If Russia wants Ukraine to do it's bidding try the carrot/stick approach. Supply cheap oil/gas, cheaper than a war. Make Ukraine dependant. Look at Germany's current dilemma. 4.) By again invading them Putin pushes his neighbours toward NATO.
@@KaisarTheWiseMonkey Was NATO even involved in Libya, Syria or Afghanistan? Where they do get involved somebody is killing their neighbours. Remember Sarajevo? I'm no NATO fan boy, but they don't start wars.
2:38 it wasn't Kublai Khan, the overall ruler of the Mongol Empire was Ugudei Khan at the time (Kublai's uncle), the conquest was overseen by Batu Khan who established the Golden Horde.
Can't help but notice the way you white wash Dugin by presenting a Russian nationalist and outspoken fascist as if he were nothing more than a geopolitical expert. Does this channel mean to implicitly support Russian fascists?
Sean, thank you for your comment! Absolutely not, and we firmly oppose his extreme ideology. In order to present the viewer with a more comprehensive analysis of Russia's Strategic perspective, we wanted to include Dugin's works, not for his ideas but mostly because of how inlfuential his work has been among Russia's political and military echelons. This channel only support open and objective analysis, that help the viewers understand and learn about geopolitics and IR related issues. I hope that can clarify our position! Thank you!
@@Kamome163 thanks for the quick reply. I will take you at your word. In the future, may I suggest that when you cite a source known to have problematic political views, you explicitly mention this as a disclaimer and as a way for your viewers to understand what you do and do not mean? If you create a video about German geo-politics prior to WWII, and you mention not Hitler, but someone less obvious, like Himmler and then neglect to mention that this person is a high ranking Nazi, people might easily draw the wrong conclusion and assume them to be no more than an academic or otherwise reliable source. That's how white washing always works. Thanks.
Russia already have own Nato called CTTO. That make no senses for them join to Nato, exactly on some Nato members countries have some Russophobia from cold war era
Very 19th century thinking. Russia would be stronger as an ally and partner with the world. What you mean to say is For Putin to have his fantasy of resurrecting the failed Soviet state Ukraine is key. Look how powerful Poland is by being a partner and ally to the world compared to the weakness of Putin’s Russia
I remember learning about the drive towards warm water ports being the key feature informing Russian geopolitics in college in ‘97. Didn’t think I’d see it in action. But it’s the Russians assertion (and reality) that this is an ‘existential’ issue that’s got me so worried. They or at least putin see this as an actual threat to the survival of Russia. What will he do to preserve his vision of Russia? What would America do if faced with an ‘existential’ threat?
The only existential threat is for Putin to keep his power. If Russia was a democracy this would have never happened, it’s very possible that Russia would have been in NATO and the EU by now
For the US, it is why their military bases are scattered all over the world so, no threats can be too big, too far. And with power projections, any close geographical threats are kept in check..
@@mynameisChizzle Most countries ask for our bases also, we don’t force them on them, they get economic inputs & security protections. We haven’t been perfect actors, we need to improve, and should be more restrained in foreign entanglements, with other allies helping carry the water, but the entire globe has benefited from US (mostly benevolent) security stability. We could have invaded Cuba easily, they aren’t a scary military power, but contrary to anti U.S. propaganda we aren’t a unrestrained greedy imperial tyrant. Soviet Cuba missile activity was an aggressive posture with an tyrannical ideological conflict causing Soviet empire builder.
This is the story from the Russian perspective. But what about the perspective of Ukraine and other states bordering Russia? Their strategic concerns are far more serious, & more existential than Russia's. At least Russia has a huge hinterland to provide defence in depth. If every one of Russia's neighbours was as paranoid and militaristic as Russia, there'd be a constant state of war in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Far East.
Went into a great depth into a situation, made me understand why Russia is doing this invasion. I still don’t support the invasion, I just understand why there doing this. Thanks for this great video man. :D👍 #LongLiveUkraine
It makes the diplomatic antagonism that Russia has postures toward Ukraine this past decade totally stupid. Russia and Ukraine ought to have a "special relationship" like the UK and USA enjoy. Diplomatic efforts should have been oriented to how positive actions could cement the two countries. It should be a strong Alliance between the two countries. But Putin couldn't get his cut of the corruption from Ukrainian politicians.
Reading through a lot of the comments here, I was happy to see this one. As someone who is also strongly against the invasion, and has donated to charities and organizations helping Ukraine and the refugees, I thought that Kamome did a good job at trying to understand what Russia may be thinking here. It seems a lot of people are misunderstanding it as an attempted justification though
@@GlanderBrondurg This. Prior to the Russian occupation of Crimea, Ukrainians loved Russia while hating the Western powers. There was no appetite whatsoever to join NATO. All of this "Russophobia" is literally in response to Russian aggression. In short, Russia caused this geopolitical catastrophe. Not even talking about moral qualms, Russia's actions in 2014 effectively doomed its own influence in the region for decades.
@@stephenjenkins7971 This is patently false. For the last 30 years, US and other Western-aligned nations have lobbied in Kyiv to create an atmosphere that's advantageous to them; Trying to instil a liberal democracy in Ukraine. This worked in the Western portion of Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the predominant language- The Ukrainians who've always loved Russia were the Ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Southern & Eastern Ukraine. Euromaidan in 2014 was, if we ignore our pro-Western bias, to the Eastern Ukrainians & Russia, who supported the (corrupt and awful) Yanukovych, an illegal coup that was both supported & lightly guided by Western powers, that led to a West-looking government in Kyiv. You cannot claim that there was no appetite whatsoever to join NATO, when Crimea was invaded AFTER this coup took place, which created a government in Kyiv that publicly announced they would be seeking to join the EU and possibly NATO. That forced Russia's hand- however despicable the illegal invasion is- into doing what it did to try and secure its national interests. I'm in no way condoning Russia's actions from 2014 to now- War- Any war- is something that should be considered illegal, wrong and to be avoided at all costs, but we can't exclusively blame the Russians for the problems; Ukraine was promised since the 1990's that they'd eventually be able to join the EU/NATO and become a Western-like prosperous nation, while we've effectively just been exploiting them with our giant multinationals, trying to extract their oil, gas, cheap labour & whatever else. But now that they're in trouble, we're backing out, realising perhaps a bit late that if you're going to poke the Russian bear with a stick for 30 years, eventually it's going to take a swipe at you. Russia cannot offer Ukraine anything close to what we can offer it (EU/NATO), but by rejecting Russia's influence and trying to get closer to the West, Ukraine got the secret hidden third option: Turn into an active warzone that neither side will want. Honestly, it's a sad state of things, and it's mostly Russia's fault, but we've not made it easy for the Ukrainians.
@@digitaligentsia Ukraine overall opinion on Russia: Oct 2008 was 88% positive, Sep 2009 was 93%, Sep 2011 was 80%, Jan 2012 was 86%, April 2013 was 70%, and Jun 2014 was a massive drop off at 35%. What are you even talking about? You're literally doing nothing but repeating Kremlin propaganda based on nothing but Putin's imagination. There was no coup in 2014; it was a series of protests which convinced the Parliament to LEGALLY remove Yanukovych from power. No Westerners were involved in making the protests, unless you consider US diplomats talking about who would be awesome from their POV to be Ukraine's President somehow equating to literally choosing it themselves? There was ZERO interest in joining NATO up until Crimea was invaded. It was the threat to their sovereignty that created that want. Why is Russia some God-ordained nation that gets to invade and attack everything it considers a marginal threat in the 21st century, exactly? Even when it never once proclaimed it wanted to join NATO??? You are supporting Russia by repeating Kremlin lies unironically. Just like you also can't say you don't support fascism if you believe that there really is a Jewish cabal controlling the US, you can't say you're not supporting Russian imperialism and fascism by repeating these lies that have NOTHING behind it but Putin's propaganda machine saying so. By your logic, Russia has been poking the US with a stick since the 1940's, thus any and all suffering Russia takes is a fair and just retaliation. This "Russia is just reacting to Western poking!" crap is a thin veneer. It doesn't work for people that aren't psychopaths. The West holds zero responsibility for Ukraine; if it wants to join NATO/EU, that's their problem -Russia has no say in the matter barring something extreme like nukes being involved. Because that does involve everyone and is an ACTUAL threat to their existence.
Kamome’s best work yet! Your video light up my eyes. Thank you bro. Every country’s geography dictates its maneuver and conflicts will happen. Will continue to do so into the end of our race. Edit* wars are a product of ego and greed which is sadly something most can’t suppress or overcome throughout human history. The passive aggressors or the outright aggressors, will always fight it out and many innocents will pay the price.
Jeff! Thank you so much for your super cheering comment! that's the sad truth, war are some of the worst acts that humans can do against other humans, but they have been doing that for millennia and still in the XXI century conflicts are happening. Geography and leader's ego and greed are constant of the worlds politics and International Relations.
@@Kamome163 considering russia invaded ukraine and inflicted so much damage and suffering on ukraine, i doubt ukraine will promise they wont join the eu or nato now. I think the key factor in this war is the economic war. putin was able to wage an expensive war and pay for it, and cover the expenses of running the country with his reserve fund. from what we are seeing from the rouble value drop from 49 to 1 usd in july 2022 to 82 to 1 usd in april 2023. I believe he has running out of or used up his reserve fund already and is printing money. Thus the drop in the value of his rouble as it degrades as he prints money as he cant get loans. As he continue to print money, we are going to see high inflation in russia turn to out of control hyperinflation in a few months. Once inflation gets too high as with the ussr in 1990 where it hit 245 percent, it callapses the economy. Took 3 years for the ussr , but with russia's heavily sanctioned economy and declining oil revenue and the loss of 51 percent of their energy gdp to eu by pipeline, i give them 6-12 months.
The issue here overlooked by many is NATO expansion. America went nuts over missiles to be placed in Cuba, which was an answer to the missiles in Turkey. But somehow, NATO can creep to the Russian border without an answer. Warsaw pact is gone, so no other reason other than undermine the defenses of Russia.
Talking about fighting wars to gain buffer territory in 21st centure Europe is just plain dumb. 1) NATO obviously has no intention of attacking Russia out of fear of nuclear retaliation. 2) It doesn't matter if there are 1000km or 10km of buffer territory, NATO military force is so overwhelming to the point it doesn't matter at all. 3) ICBM doesn't care about where your border is. The reality is that NATO is not a military threat, rather a political one. Once a country decides to join NATO, it's over for Russian influence in that country. It can't be messed with militarily anymore, as, again, that would mean declaring war on entire NATO.
To be fair this kind of video is what actually attracts people who actually may have professional knowledge in geo politics, although it's undeniable theres alot of people here who doesn't know what they're talking about.
If you lack warm ports, by some Port wine and warm it up. Dont start killing civilians. and with a warm port you can negotiate trade deals with other countries that will give more wealth. Switzerland has 0 sea ports warm or not warm.
@Glogderp Glogderpson Please, no one believes that trash. Every single of those countries had Russian involvement as well, not to mention IS and a few other terrorist groups that not even Putin would accept, but actually help defeat.
Great analysis! Thank you! I just wonder… Does any of those geopolitical factors mentioned really truly matter? Since Russia has nuclear arms, nobody will invade… From my (semi-uneducated) perspective, it’s all about Putin’s ego and his idea of restoring Russia to its former greatness
Agreed. He has complete hate for Ukrainians, economic factors are only secondary benefits to conquering Ukraine. Besides he won’t have control of Black Sea without turkey
Russia owns nukes sure, but there’s a reason they still have a massive military, same with every nuclear state China still wants to displace the USA as the top naval power regardless of their nukes
@@looinrims Thank you for replying. But that’s connected to offensive military capabilities. Since they have nukes, I reckon they basically don’t need their military for defensive purposes. And if that’s the case, that would logically negate the need for a ‘buffer zone’ between Russia and NATO, right? Or am I missing something?
But, nobody was trying to attack you Russia. If you wouldve just been cool, the world would just want to trade with you and you couldve had a powerhouse economy by now.
That's not how geopolitics works, if strategists don't plan for the present state of affairs, they plan for protecting a nation in the long term because who knows what the future will bring
No it won’t happen if they dare to join eu or nato tsar nuke will definitely fall on west Ukraine no doubt but Russia made many speech to eu about this problem for past 8yrs but nobody listened to it that’s the main problem with eu as they are influenced by usa !!!!
I like your analysis. However you left out a salient Factor in why Russia took over Crimea and hopes to take over Ukraine. Shale oil and natural gas. The eastern part of Ukraine near the disputed territories contains shall all deposits all the Crimea and Southern Ukraine contains huge untapped resources natural gas in the Black Sea. Follow the money.
the extent russia goes to not be aligned with europe is quite interesting. Is there any russian that can explain it to me? This is a genuin question. Im from a monoetnic coutry that has almost the same borders since 1140's, with very few invasions, so there are some things that migth look obvious to me but might not be that way for others
It is explicit US policy to prevent the alignment of wider Europe with Russia. The British loathe the Russians. The Russians are paranoid as paranoid can get. The Germans invaded Russia 80ish years ago. Overall, the EU is weak and function as an American neocolony (in a security context). Stir and bring to the boil et voila!
Another great job with your video. It's always great and informative to see others perspectives. Why countries, groups, & organizations do what they do, and their motivations behind them
well again, the "protection from invasion" angle would be relevant in 1944. The invention of the atomic bomb, has made it virtually impossible to invade a country with nuclear weapons.
It is a pity that you do not mention the fact that Russia has thriving railways connecting to various rivers, other Asian countries and is expanding capacity of lines to the Pacific. When Brezhnev thought that the Trans Siberian Railway could be vulnerable to Chinese attack he ordered the building of the BAM and engineers carefully strengthened the rail bed in case of future thawing of permafrost. Relations with China are now less ideologically opposed and China is capitalist but has a party known as communist. China's Belt and Road initiative could lead to using Russian routes and generating wealth in Asian Russia all the way to Europe and improving the prosperity of the "stans". The BAM expansion and plans to cooperate with Japanese transport interests have been developing and as Japan imports most staples the main market for Russia could be what happens to be the most prosperous area of the world as Europe and N. America decline. Speed matters far less than reliability of supply and there are sparsely populated towns left over from when the BAM was built to accommodate people to develop new industries and revive old ones, thus Russia could be entering a more global phase more quickly than the Western obsession with European Russia suggests. Certainly Russia will protect itself from massed forces in Europe no matter what 'regime system' overall the vast country has and the same applies to those in the Caucacus who wish Russia ill. This is etched into Russian history over millennia and we need to think in those terms.
Stephen! Thank you for the great comment. I'm sorry I failed to mention this in the video, but this is part one of a series on Russia, focusing on its European border and on the sea. You are right. Russia's rail system connects the country throughout, effectively pushing its telluricracy over the northern and central Eurasian continent. Interesting that you mention a more global phase for Russia. IMO another major transport factor has been new airlines popping up in Russia, many of which adopted the LLC model. This has meant that many regions of the vast country could effectively move and get in contact whit Russia's center.
Where does this urgent NEED to defend itself come from? It all came down to no one wanting a Soviet state that swallows up everything bordering them. That part of Russia is over, and German Kaisers no longer reign, there is no urgent threat to the West... America's antagonism was always rooted in the communist anxiety. Also Japan's with us im confident in that.
Very interesting video... obviously, historically, Russia's vast geography was both a blessing and a curse, but so was that of Germany, France, etc. This day in age, geographical shortcomings are inconsequential when you have the most nuclear weapons in the world, and NATO will always control those maritime choke points, there's no way around that. All of this can only be described as a regime's perverse and misremembered fondness of a failed empire that was based on a completely unworkable social system that breeds corruption at its core. Russia, and particularly average Russians, would be far better off to play by the international rules and embrace the miracle of free markets, they could probably have become the most powerful country in Europe. But instead, their dictator is obsessed with his own legacy, which now includes setting Russians back 30 years.
Setting Russia back 30 years? That's a bit optimistic. Russia waged an unpopular war using conscripts and their economy is crashing at the same time, this was basically the economic climate that triggered the February Uprising and the October Revolution.
Nice summary. Would be nice to gen an update now after one year of war. My heart goes to all innocent who suffers from this war, specially those in Ukraine.
Turkey will most likely never close off the bosporus to Russia, but nato, using Spain, England (Gibraltar) , with Morocco's assistance could close off the Med to Russia rendering Russia's black access almost useless.
@@sgrant9814 point I’m making there’s a huge difference between the UK and England - so putting Gibraltar in brackets next to England is factually incorrect. I really didn’t think I needed to spell it out.
@@MWXYT i do and i even used to live there.. the montreaux agreement allows turkey control of the Bosphorus ...it can open or close it at will. Even tho turkey is a nato member they have historically shown a willingness to go their own way, most recently i syria and the purchasing of russian armaments and planes, something no other nato member has done. Imo, nato member or not , turkey can no longer be fully relied upon to do as nato asks and will only do what is in Turkey's interest.
You should have titled this as Russia's view point. Now do Ukraine's "weaknesses" in Russia. People are tired of hearing how the 6'5 boxer is terrified of a 5'0 painter
Great content. I think its very accurate. However, many analists suggesting NATO/EU membership is the pretext for the war in Ukraine. I think there is more than geographically and strategic dept. Crimean coast has one biggest untapped oil/gas reserves and large rare metals deposits in Europe. Did anybody thought that? Even if there were triparte conferences/agreements between with the involved parties. There was even EU membership offered to Russia. No Russia wants exclusive rights on Ukraine to restore the old Soviet glory and exploit the riches of the country which is their core business. Nothing else.
Algorithm for foreigners to join the Foreign Legion of Ukraine: Step 1. Apply to the Embassy of Ukraine in your country with the intention to join the Foreign Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine (ask a military diplomat or Consul, contact details - on the Embassy website): There are three ways to apply: 1) come to the Embassy physically; 2) phone call; 3) write to email. Step 2. Specify what documents and clothing (equipment) you need or recommended to have. Documents: internal document (ID or passport); passport to travel abroad; documents confirming military service (service in law enforcement agencies) and participation in the combat actions; other documents as requested by military diplomat or Consul. Step 3. Arrive at the Embassy with documents for an interview with the Defense Attache and settlement of visa issues with the Consul. Step 4. Write an application for enlistment in the Territorial Defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under a contract on a voluntary basis (the Defense Attache assists). Step 5. Get instructions on how to arrive in Ukraine and about the necessary documents and equipment. It is recommended, if available, to have military clothing or its elements, equipment, helmet, body armour, etc. Step 6. Go to Ukraine in a defined way. Representatives of Ukrainian Embassies, Consulates (abroad) and Territorial Defense in Ukraine will provide assistance on the way. Contacts will be provided at the Embassy of Ukraine in your country. Step 7. Upon arrival in Ukraine at the collection point to join the Foreign Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine (sign the contract) and together with fighters from other countries and Ukrainian soldiers go to fight against the Russian occupiers.
You clearly outline, like a series of strategic chess moves, the geo political concerns from a 19th & early 20th century perspective. What you omit to explore is the alternative approaches. If EU and separately ASEAN had applied the same framework their members would have been at war for the past half century. Through agreement, cooperation and harmonisation countries can achieve their strategic objectives without going to war. There is nothing that preordains that Russia could not be a member of the EU or NATO. There need not be an assumption of conflict with the West. Keep in mind that at best Russia is a middle economic power, not much bigger than Australia and the Russian people have a lot to gain from improved economic growth. He real problem with your perspective is that it completely fails to recognise the will of the Ukrainian people. Putin has embarked on this folly because he is a 19th century enigma, a despotic Tsar in an age of democracy. The presence of democratic Ukraine, with all its flaws, is a threat to Putin’s very autocratic existence. Unfortunately for him he has orchestrated the invasion not like an intelligent chess master but a reckless poker player.
Dean, thank you for the comment. I agree with your point that regional organizations like the EU and ASEAN can smooth the strategic needs of historical enemies (look at France and Germany), however it is also important to have a forward looking and open leadership, such was in France and Germany after the 2WW. That same war sparked the goal of peace in EUrope and cancellor Kohl himself warned European leaders of not forgetting the war lessons. IMO Putin's political greed and persona are a main reason for this invasion, however, Russia's Geography is a constant weakness to its security policy.
You merely repeat the ideas of Peter Zeihan. They are good, but limited. Geography is not the determinant it once was. Mongol horsemen are not going to come over the steppes. Plus, other nations are even more vulnerable than Russia, yet they are not paranoid like Russia. [Poland, Germany, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, have all been conquered more times than Russia has]. Yet, they all behave more normally and rationally than Russia. BTW...Russia has NOT been conquered since the Mongols. Germany had wars raging all over it, Italy has been conquered, Poland was dismembered, Lithuania was conquered -- as examples.
Excellent video. The solution to Russia’s geopolitical weaknesses, at least in the West, is to become a fully functioning democracy. Democracies don’t go to war with one another.
Even then i think the interests of Russia and west would conflict also remember that Russia is orthodox Christian and not catholic west so they wouldnt get along too well
But that would also mean the end of the Russian Empire as we know it. Most Russian Republics and territories inside of the Federation would like to become independent, and no one in Moscow unfortunatelly would accept that.
Thank you so much Ray! I totally agree with you. This conflict is not only destroying Ukraine but Russia as well. I'm not really sure if the "Democracies don’t go to war with one another." really holds true, but that's definetely much less probable of two countries going to war the more closer ties they have, like France and Germany for example
I understand, but dont justify. The country with most nuclear weapons in the world feel vulnerable? Besides Ukraine wasnt going to be part of NATO while the invasion happened. Putin is trying to resolve problems of XXI century with metods of XIX century. Very old fashioned way to understand power today.
I find the assertion that Russia needs to secure land buffers against NATO unpersuasive. Russia controls the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and until only recently, Western Europe relied heavily on Russian natural gas. There is no scenario where NATO would actively invade Russia not in the least because it's no longer the 1800s. War is unprofitable.
Berlin is also incredibly vulnerable to invasions from the eastern steppe plain. I think it is justified if Germany extends its borders beyond belarus and up to the border with Russia. Historically speaking Berlin and Germany has been invaded plenty of times from this direction and there are no natural barriers between it and Russia for example with things like mountains. Also an extension of germany's natural borders to the atlantic ocean to the west seems logical and completely reasonable. Paris and the French be damned of course, they aren't a real people anyway and historically that is Frankish (germanic) territory so an extension of germany's borders westwards makes total sense for the protection of the germanic heartland. French neighbors only have a few hundred kilomters to go to reach Berlin and this needs to be at least several thousand kilometers for berlin to feel safe. Finally the scandinavian countries and the baltic sea are a pivotal area for germany. Scandinavian countries can choke germany's naval and maritime trade and access if they deem it necessary and this is a strategic threat to the german heartland and economy so these nations will need to be annexed in order for germany to feel secure and able to move about in the baltic sea without impediment. I think you can guess where this is going. Russia can fuck off. They have plenty of territory to safeguard their land. Any demands for more land for 'security' reasons comes at the expense of other people and cultures who equally feel threatened by the short distance Russia has to their cultural and political centers so again Russia can fuck off, everyone in this area is in a vulnerable position. Stretching your borders isn't going to create peace or stability, opening up diplomatically and economically and cooperating with each other on the other hand is a proper and decent way to ensure peace and stability.
Excellent presentation. I would like to point out that if Russia actually got itself into the 21st century and accepted the rule of law, democracy and free trade relationships with it’s neighbours it ,and it’s people , would be happier and all these problems would (mostly) go away.
Martin, thank you so much for your comment. Absolutely true! If she did that, that would've been much better for everyone. Lives, homes and happiness have been lost over so many conflicts started by Putin. The last one is Ukraine, but let's not forget Chechnya and Georgia too. Many people have died including many Russians trying to stop that, Anna Politkovskaja is a major example that we should remember.
Russian society has been sick in many ways that go beyond Putin. One can't actually put all the blame on him. For some reason it's hard for Westerners to comprehend that a White Christian country can infact be alien enough in culture so as not to actually be an automatic potential successful liberal democracy.
Russia has already been in alliances with Europe. It used to be one more European power. Russian nobility used to speak french and send it's children to be educated in France. But as the century of enlightenment and revolutions overturned monarchies in Europe, Russian conserved it's medieval absolutist monarchy (serfs and all). The destiny of Russia split from that of western Europe. The communist revolution did not change the absolutism ingrained into Russian culture and mentality, quite the contrary. Russia has remained in the past in many ways, absolutism inherited from the Czars, might means right in diplomacy, even the way of conducting warfare with medieval tactics like siege and wholesale destruction of cities.
The Hog Rider card is unlocked from the Spell Valley (Arena 5). He is a very fast building-targeting, melee troop with moderately high hitpoints and damage. He appears just like his Clash of Clans counterpart; a man with brown eyebrows, a beard, a mohawk, and a golden body piercing in his left ear who is riding a hog. A Hog Rider card costs 4 Elixir to deploy. Strategy His fast move speed can boost forward mini tanks like an Ice Golem in a push. At the same time, he can also function as a tank for lower hitpoint troops such as Goblins as he still has a fair amount of health. Most cheap swarms complement the Hog Rider well, as they are nearly as fast as him and usually force more than one card out of the opponent's hand. The Hog Rider struggles with swarms, as they can damage him down and defeat him quickly while obstructing his path. Barbarians in particular can fully counter him without very strict timing on the defender's part, though be wary of spells. A Hunter can kill the Hog Rider in 2 hits if placed right on top of it. However, if you place something in front of the Hog Rider, the Hunter's splash will damage the Hog Rider and hit the card in front of it more. The Hog Rider in conjunction with the Freeze can surprise the opponent and allow the Hog Rider to deal much more damage than anticipated, especially if the opponent's go-to counter is a swarm, or swarms are their only effective counter to him. Skeletons and Bats will immediately be defeated by the spell, while Spear Goblins, Goblins, and Minions will be at low enough health to be defeated by a follow up Zap or Giant Snowball. However, this strategy isn't very effective against buildings as the Hog Rider will take a while to destroy the building, giving the opponent ample time to articulate another counter. Against non-swarm troops, it can deal a lot of damage during the freeze time, but this can allow the opponent to set up a massive counterpush. For this reason, players should either only go for a Hog Rider + Freeze when they have other units backing it up from a counterattack, or if the match is about to end and they need to deal as much damage as possible. It is not a good idea to send in a Hog Rider simply to destroy a building, especially if it is the only building targeting unit available, as defeating Crown Towers becomes substantially more difficult. Spells or simply waiting out the lifetime of the building are more effective. The exception to this is an Elixir Collector placed in front of the King's Tower. If a Hog Rider placed at the bridge, he can destroy the Collector for a positive Elixir trade, though the damage from both Princess Towers will usually mean he does not survive to deal any damage to them. However, if the opponent sends in defending troops, it can be an opportunity to gain spell damage value. In a deck with several low-cost cards, it might be worth it to simply send the Hog Rider against one building. These decks shuffle their card rotation quick enough, that they will arrive to their next Hog Rider before the next building arrives in the opponent's card rotation. Long-ranged troops like Musketeer and Flying Machine can snipe those buildings, preserving some of the Hog Rider's health, possibly allowing it to get some Tower damage. When there are buildings placed in the middle to counter the Hog Rider, understanding the placement of the Hog Rider and the type of building placed can help the Hog Rider to bypass certain buildings. Passive buildings such as spawners and Elixir Collector have a larger hitbox than defensive buildings; which means that if a passive building was placed 3 tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, then it is impossible for the Hog Rider to bypass that placement as the Hog Rider will get pulled to that building. Defensive buildings have a smaller hitbox than a passive building, which means if that if a defensive building was placed three tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, a Hog Rider placed at the very left or right side of the Arena may be able to bypass it due to its smaller hitbox. If the player has a building already placed down in the center of the arena, and the opponent tries to bypass it with a Hog Rider at the edge of the arena, they can use certain air troops to push the Hog Rider towards the building as it jumps over the river, effectively denying the bypass attempt. They must be already hovering over the correct placement, as very quick reflexes are required to correctly perform this technique. For Bats, Skeleton Dragons, and Minion Horde, they should be placed right in front of the Hog Rider as soon as it is deployed. For Minions, Skeleton Barrel, Mega Minion, Flying Machine, Electro Dragon, Baby Dragon, Inferno Dragon, Balloon, and Lava Hound, stagger the above placement one tile to the right if the Hog Rider is placed on the left side of the arena, and vice versa. They can also use ground troops to achieve the same result. Something like an Ice Golem deployed at the Hog Rider’s landing spot will obstruct his path and force him to go around the unit, which causes him to be closer to the building instead of the Crown Tower. The Hog Rider can kite Very Fast non-building targeting troops due to his own Very Fast speed and building only targeting if he is placed on the fourth tile from the bridge, slightly into the opposite lane. He can also stall grounded units when placed right at the bridge. He will pull them towards him while deploying, and then be untargetable by them when he jumps over the bridge. After landing, he will pull them back. This can be useful when the player needs to deal damage in the same lane they are defending. It will also help separate troops behind a tank in a large push. A Tornado placed on the second tile front of the player's King's Tower and staggered two tiles towards the Princess Tower will activate it without any damage dealt to the Princess Tower, helping them in defending future pushes. This can also be a method of mitigating all damage dealt to a Princess Tower, but doing this more than three times may result in the King's Tower's health being low enough to be targeted directly, opening up the possible threat of a back door three crown. A better alternative is to pull the Hog away from the Princess Tower into the attacking range of all three Crown Towers, which will negate all damage as long as none of them are already distracted A very powerful combo is the Hog Rider, the Musketeer, and the Valkyrie, typically referred to as the Trifecta. The Musketeer will defend against most troops, while the Valkyrie can protect her and the Hog Rider from swarms or high damage units. The Hog Rider is used to deal damage to the tower. This can be effectively countered by Lightning, one-shotting the Musketeer and severely damaging both the Valkyrie and Hog Rider. The Minion Horde is also effective, but the enemy can Zap them and the Musketeer will one-shot them all. Even if the Musketeer is defeated, the Hog Rider and Valkyrie will have enough time to severely damage the Tower. The Hog Rider should be placed behind the Valkyrie to give it a boost so that it stays in front of the Hog Rider, protecting it. A Hog Rider combined with a Goblin Barrel can be awkward for the opponent to defend against. Timing it so that the Hog Rider is tanking the tower shots for the Goblins is the most effective way to deal damage. However, a Barbarian Barrel can shut this down with minimal Tower damage for a positive Elixir trade, as long as the Goblin Barrel was placed directly on the Tower. Pairing the Hog Rider with the Balloon can deal devastating damage. If executed properly, the Hog Rider will act as a tank while the Balloon threatens to deal massive damage. The Hog Rider can also destroy any buildings attempting to slow down the combo. However, this combo is very vulnerable to swarms and anti-air cards as neither of the troops target anything but buildings. Additionally, they are easy to separate, due to the disparity in move speeds. Alternatively, the Hog Rider and the Balloon can be played in different lanes to spread the opponent's defenses thin. However, a building or Tornado can bring them back together for an easier defense. The Hog Rider can be paired with the Lumberjack as both a swarm bait and damage combo. It is a very fast combo with an extremely high damage output potential, so the enemy will likely try to counter it with a swarm. If this happens, use a spell like Arrows to render the opponent defenseless. If they manage to defeat the Lumberjack, the dropped Rage will make the Hog Rider even more dangerous than it normally is. A fast and deadly combination is the Hog Rider and Mini P.E.K.K.A. combo. Both units are fast but the Mini P.E.K.K.A. does much more damage and does not attack only buildings so the Mini P.E.K.K.A. can deal with troops like the Executioner and Musketeer. However, this combo can be defeated with swarms like Skeleton Army, which will defeat both of them since neither of them can deal area damage. They are also unable to target air troops, so the Minion Horde can stop this easily. A risky play is to deploy the Hog Rider at the bridge as soon as the match starts. If the opponent does not react fast enough, the Hog Rider will deal a significant amount of damage to the Princess Tower. This can also allow the player to quickly scout the opponent's deck if they happen to react to him fast enough
That's a lot of valid thinking... for the age of Imperialism. None of it is really important nowadays. Now you can't flow goods if your rubles become rubble and you can't buy or sell.
An excellent presentation Kamome. I appreciate your hard focus on the geopolitical effects on strategy. Because if people forget how national holdings and assets lead to competition, humanity will never learn from conflict.
In a none-aggressive world with pacifist neighbours the seeking for a "security zone" in fact is the ultimate aggression. Did any one watching this video question how Russia itself became that wast? I don't know this channel, but this video sounds like 25 years of Putin speak as preparational justification for war ...
Moebius, thank you for the comment! No justification here, the video simply wants to explain how geography affects Russia security policy. We at Kamome stand with the Ukranians and we will in fact donate part of the proceedings of this video to the refugees. If you fully watched the video, we talk how Russia aggresively expanded from its core. If note, please check that out!
@@Kamome163 Well, maybe I already heard too much of this nonsense wording of Russia's "strategic interests" - especially from European "Putinverstehers". From this p.o.v. you blew the same horn. Telling the same story over and over again is essential to make people believe in blunt lies (e.g. Trump's election). Arguing with a brief reference of Russian aggression cannot distract the focus from the overall topic of this video. This all is important to consider! But nice to read that you donate to Ukraine. This in fact is more than just warm words of solidarity. 👍
I don't understand why geography and history is important now, Now that they are nuclear bombs! You put one foot in Russia and boom... Why the need for "buffer zone" ?
But why then did they build St. Petersburg "the window to the west" right on the Swedish border? I think that their biggest fear is that if the fellow Slavic state of Ukraine becomes a European democracy and if it becomes economically successful then how can the Russian leader keep his own population from wanting to follow suit.
How conceited Putin was. Bright enough were him and his advisors to see the need to secure the choke points on the mouth of the Azov sea. Yet too conceited to realize that Building a Gilbraltar-esque naval base on their existing territory was much less costly than annexing Crimea and especially much cheaper than invading Ukraine as a whole. NATO aligned Ukraine wouldn't change shit, if the other side of that channel is locked down like a fortress. Besides, the north European plain lies at the Baltics, as the name suggests. Pushing towards Ukraine doesn't decrease the frontiers to such a degree that it's worth pursuing a war that neither Russian sovereign reserves nor her demography can afford. A best defense is a good offense - that is, one that is decisive, and whose success not conditional to the will of the enemy. Fact is, Russia has no good offense to rely on. The next best thing is a comprehensive defensive structure. To make the price of aggression too costly for the aggressor. You know, just like what Ukraine is doing to you. Fuck controlling Ukraine, if they could turn that Azov strait into a turkey shoot gallery, nobody would dare invade Russia that a way, for the price of breakthrough is most definitely not worthwhile toan aging Europe with little fighting manpower to spare.
>to make the price of aggression too costly for invader Russia has that covered since mid 60's when medium and long range ballistic missiles were developed. Unless of course nuclear deterrent is in same sorry state as the rest of Russian military, and something like AEGIS ashore in Poland really is a big problem for Russia.
Good video but I question all these military strategy like how come Russia can feel unsafe with NATO if they have the most nuclear weapons? No country would dare to invade Russia as long as they have nukes, this the reality of Russia in the 21st century, the strategy laid out is 19th century when only conventional weapons were used.
Like the Caspian Report, your analysis of the political geography/topography of Eurasia is critical in advancing our understanding of the tensions there.
This channel is by far the best unbiased and real geographic and geopolitical analyser of what motivates nations to act as they do. Thank you so much, you have compiled great facts for those who understand the core of geopolitics and are not distracted by the avalanche of MSM hysteria. Thanks a bunch.
Nato was created by the United States for the destruction of Russia, after the demise of Russia, Nato promise that they will not move east, but they did not keep their word to Russia, if it was you what you would have done, protect your country, or let them encircle you.
The problem with Russia is that it still see itself as the same level as that of the EU and USA when it's no longer the case. In fact their absurd dedication and belief to this being the case, has hurt them more than it benefited them. Imagine if they had the full trust of Europe, just the sheer amount of trade that will flow to and from them would easily make their country and their people one of the richest countries in the world. Yet they still stick to this backwards mentality that war is a world necessity or something. And their reasoning of invading ukraine is laughable in today's age, it's like France decided to invade Germany because Poland has an easy route to invade Paris. Smh
8 months into the conflict and with most russian troops near NATO being sent to ukraine , i think the whole notion of russia taking natural defenses outside it's borders to defend against foreign invaders no longer stands the test of time , nuclear weapons and nuclear detterence is a game changer and no one is suicidale enough to attack russia proper and risk nuclear exchange , don't get me wrong a fully integrated ukraine with the west even with just the territory it currently holds is a geopolitical nightmare for russia , but still i think the notion a mentioned is outdated imo
Thank you for this in depth information, I no longer listen to the mainstream media here in the US, but do choose to be informed, I find this unbiased, and informative.
Same the western media is the propaganda of no truth and very biased they only tell you about USA and no transparency in information; the us media is so ignorant to the fact in the world affairs
I understand the need for a buffer but if France and Germany could not take Russia in the past why would they even try today or in the future? And the fact they could drop a small nuke on any incoming army.
Kuwait-Iraq1990-1991 Bosnia and Herzegovina1992 Kosovo-Montenegro-Serbia1999 Afghanistan 2003 Somalia 2009 Libya 2011 🤔 Seems like a lot of offensive operations for a purely defensive alliance..
@@Sn00pzor it was a while ago and who can remember all the details but if think back NATO did intervene in that civil war, I'll be it implementing a UN security council approved no fly zone although there was a fair amount of scope creep. At any rate the point stands not a defensive action by the "purely defensive alliance"
@@codyleonard7392 That is because you do not understand what "defensive alliance" means. And it was not NATO, it was the United Nations. The UN troops consisted mostly of NATO or Nordic troops simply because those are the democracies with the most military power. I am pretty sure Russia has taken part ins some UN sanctioned actions as well. Of course, right now, if Russia did not have nukes and veto power in the UN, they would have been sanctioned and their port would have been blockades and there would have been no fly zones over Ukraine. Just lika Irak when they invaded Quwait, which by the way was US and a whole bunch of Arabic countries. The wars in Africa have also mainly been fought between local dictators and coalitions of more democratic African states. Of course, Africa had a huge influx of questionable ethical investments from China, Russia and the West alike, fuelling the problems.
If the plan really was to make the biggest buffer it kinda seems stupid in hindsight that they didnt just move the capital more center to siberia.. guess it did pay off in a way to be on europes border tho still kinda begged the question imo
Glad to see that someone is covering the strategic importance of ukraines southern coast to Russia. I’ve been saying that the seizure of the southern ports is far more important and realistic for Russia, Kiev is an distraction/cherry on top.
The push towards Kyiv have way too many resources allocated to it to just be a 'distraction'. The reason why the northern assault was slow is because Russia attacked during the spring thaw. Why they did that is probably gonna be on the list of Russia's strategic blunders in this war.
nato: haha russia you will collapse before you take over ukraine russia: *invading ukraine* nato: any second now russia: still invading ukraine nato: 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 3, 2, 1, come one collapse already. russia: *destroying cities* nato: atleast you aren't destroying cities because you are so weak russia: *eating ukraine* nato: oh i think i see it collapsi- oh wait no, russia: *finishing* nato: HOW DID YOU DO THAT???
