Vlad Vexler - The Strategy the West Needs to Stop Putin's Aggression. 

Vlad is an absolute gem of a human being❤

Vlad - great as always ❤ Thank you 🙂 🇵🇱♥️🇺🇦

15mins in. What you guys just did and the way you dealt with it is the epitome of civil discussion.

An example of a conversation I would love to be the standard of discourse everywhere.

American citizen here, who the friendly staff of my district U.S. representative recognized my voice today, I call often. 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱

My 2 most favoured intellectuals. Thank you.

I found your channel because of the first time you had Vlad Vexler as a guest! And I watch all your videos!

Best channel since i understand English ! Jonathan and Vlad, you’re awesome 👏🏼 Thanks to the both of you ! 🇺🇦❤️🖤

Yes! Two of my favorites! Discussing the world’s most boring evil!

Thank you, Jonathan and Vlad. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦

Vlad Vexler is definitely one of the wisest people online today.

Sincere respect to You and our Vlad, dear Jonathan.

Vlad is a very high IQ individual. What a brilliant mind.

Two of my favourite human beings discussing the most important world problem,thanks fellers👍🇬🇧🇺🇦

Always a pleasure to hear you both in conversation.

Cold War barracks mentality in Russia never ended. That was clear to me back in the 1990s but we loved the collective high (and naive peace dividend) from believing so. Soviet legacy was never crushed and judged like the Third Reich. And since the Russians acquired nukes (unlike Nazi Germany) it was always impossible to dismantle the Soviet mindset. Strange how the end of the USSR and emergence of Russia has brought the world closer to nuclear disaster than ever before.

Excellent episode - Vlad is always a welcome voice of sanity.

Jonathan, have you ever interviewed Jake Broe? He is an ex-military US veteran and fully supports Ukraine.

Been waiting for this one. Vlad is a perfect guest speaker for the channel 👍

Vlad the thoughtful voice of reason thank you for your insight

This was a much better interview than the long rambling interview I watched with the ‘other Vlad’.

Jonathon--your point @ 15:20 about a lack of strategy--spot on!

Thank you both for existing and allow us to witness your conversation !

Always glad to listen to Vladimir!

I am so very happy I have found you two gentle men. Please keep going. And thank you.

Love it! Keep going strong mr Fink. We will prevail.

Vlad is awesome with his awesome insights about the mind and soul of Russian world!

We must stand up to him. No appeasement. He can only be stopped by force.

Im subbed to all of Vlads channels, good man

One of my notions is that social media has no sense of proportion. It appears to be a conversation but that's an illusion of virtual reality. There is none of the concrete reality of conversation, the body language, nuance of expression, smell or taste. It's a pitfall of our social being that we can be blind to the difference.

Thank you for having Vlad back. He has taught me to think in 3d. Aussie Sue

I love Vlad to death but a conversation with him can be best described by the Beatles song”All Around The Universe”

Thank you for your help

Hello Beautiful Communities! Great discussion you two. Many thanks

Slava Ukraine ❤ 🇺🇦

It’s funny but until now, I completely forgot why I unsubscribed from Vlad’s channel and his lovely community. And it may be hard to put it in words, but first 13 minutes of conversation reminded me why …I don’t understand his prolonged thinking, his whole persona is indigestible to me. So all in all, I am listening to „silicon curtain” nearly every single day, but today I need to make an exception. Great channel, great guests ( mostly), thank you

a very powerful conversation from both of you! How incredibly inciiteful

Vlad is doing a great service to philosophy. And illuminating the places where we can go to look for the insights we need to begin formulating the questions we need to ask.

Most cordial exchange between two powerful information warriors!

2 great humans

I always feel that personal criticism (even well meant and politely delivered) is best served in private.

Thank you both for your integrity and sustained efforts! I hope we all think more about what we can further do to help Ukraine, its region and the international “order” in which such an extreme, agonizing war has happened.

Thank you from New Zealand for the intelligent depth of this conversation!

@SiliconCurtain Dear Jonathan, Vlad made a brilliant and valuable opening move and you responded well to it. This is a great example how open, constructive conversations can be held even when one hears things about oneself that may hurt one's ego. However, @VladVexler in your opening move you mentioned prof. dr. John Mearsheimer, and I sighed, thinking: "There we go again, Mearsheimer is being mentioned, but won't be debunked. Another missed opportunity for doing this. It's not that difficult, yet, nobody does it." Granted, debunking Mearsheimer was not the point that Vlad was making. It would have detracted from it. Granted, Vlad published a short video on his chat channel on March 10, 2022 rightfully stating in it that this would require a long video. However, that long video never came, whereas both of you in your videos show your opposition to Mearsheimer's views. Frankly, you can't do this indefinitely. If you don't know whom to interview or what to write to counter Mearsheimer's theory and assertions, then stop mentioning him. Now, it's like venting your frustration and thereby you unconsciously lend him credibility, which he does deserve, but not in the way Mearsheimer anno 2024 would welcome. You're both very busy combining the tons of work for your channels with the rest of your lives. So let me help you a bit by offering you some novel avenues to debunk Mearsheimer with the help of none other than dr. John Mearsheimer himself as a starter, at least the Mearsheimer of 1993. Two years after the breakup of the USSR and in the very midst of Bill Clinton pressuring Ukraine to hand over its nukes to Russia, Mearsheimer publicly voiced strong opposition to Ukraine handing over its nukes, because this would almost inevitably lead to yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine. Source: John Mearsheimer "The case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent" in "Foreign Affairs" Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 50-66. I quote from Mearsheimer's opening statements: "A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. [...] Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. Second, [...] pursuing a confrontation with Ukraine over the nuclear issue raises the risks of war by making the Russians mor daring, the Ukrainians more fearful, and the Americans less able to defuse a crisis between them." And further in his article a prophetic warning for if one was not to head to his advice: "A war between Russia and Ukraine would be a disaster. Great power wars are very costly and dangerous, causing massive loss of life and worldwide turmoil, and possibly spreading to involve other countries. The likely result of that war - Russia's reconquest of Ukraine - would injure prospects for peace throughout Europe. It would increase the danger of a Russian-German collision [...] A conventional war between Russia and Ukraine would entail vast military casualties and the possible murder of many thousands of civilians. Russians and Ukrainians have a history of mutual enmity; this hostility, combined with the intermixing of their populations, raises the possibility that war between them could entail Bosnian-style ethnic cleansing and mass murder. [refugee streams to Europe] In addition, there are 14 operational nuclear reactors in Ukraine that might produce new Chernobyls if left unattended or attacked during a conventional war. The consequences of such a war would dwarf the death and suffering in the Balkans [+50k deaths] There's also the threat of escalation [...] For example, the Russians might decide to reconquer other parts of the former Soviet Union in the midst of a war, or might tray to take back some of Eastern Europe. [...] Unlike the Mearsheimer we have since 2014-2015, this younger Mearsheimer details why a Russian-Ukrainian conflict is likely, despite that they were rather stable at that time: 1) Russian and Ukrainian security fears leading to Mearsheimer's classic view of great power competition; 2) "The danger of hypernationalism, the belief that other nations or nation states are both inferior and threatening and must therefore be dealt with harshly." Then he describes their common history of the last few centuries as an "explosive psychological backdrop". 3) A host of disputes are already on the horizon and: "Furthermore, many Russians would change the present border with Ukraine, and some even reject the idea of an independent Ukraine. Senior Russian officials, for example, have recently been describing Ukraine's independence as a 'transitional' phenomenon and have been warning other European governments not to open embassies in Kiev [Kyiv] because they would soon be downgraded to consular sections subordinate to their embassies in Moscow." [Sic. This is 1993, under the first presidency of Boris Yeltsin with no Putin in sight yet!] 4) The problem of mixed populations on both countries. And then Mearsheimer again goes on to explain why no non-nuclear deterrent would work in the long run. So why do we see since 2014-2015 Mearsheimer take exactly the opposite stance of his 22 year younger self? Did he change his theory of international relations? No, it was and still is "Offensive Realism". However, what did change him as a person afterwards was that he dire warnings against Bush Jr invading Afghanistan, and especially Iraq, fell on deaf ears. And, if I remember it correctly, something similar applies to his warnings about the peace process between Israel and Palestine. Those issues must have revived the rebellious son who had to go from his father to West Point and serve for five years as an officer, whereas his heart wasn't in it. In some way his article of 1993 was also an act of rebellion against the foreign policy establishment in Washington. It's one thing to rebel, and even to change one's views, but at least Mearsheimer should explain why he changed his stance on why he still blames the war in Ukraine on the West, but not because of the arguments he now gives, but because we forced Ukraine to relinquish its nukes, despite the clear signs in 1993 that one day the Russian bear would attack Ukraine again. Alas, Mearsheimer remains utterly silent on this, and does not get challenged for this by his fellow International Relations Policy experts. Alas, Mearsheimer also suffers from selection bias when he presents his data to make his case that NATO expansion and so-called Western interference in the Revolution of Dignity led to the war in Ukraine. Yet despite this, Mearsheimer's accurate warning for a pending Russian-Ukrainian war at a time when only Edward Lucas voiced similar concerns, should let us give his theory of Offensive Realism a closer look, and not limit ourselves to Vlad's position that Mearsheimer has a way too high altitude view that leads to a way too low resolution picture. In essence Mearsheimer claims that every country strives to maximize its power, its fortunes, because it cannot trust any other country, because they're all doing the same. So, we're doomed like the mafia families. You never know when you'll be attacked or stabbed in the back by whom. Mearsheimer has a case when it comes to authoritarian regimes on the Eurasian continent. Putin cannot really trust his pal Xi resisting his temptation to recapture the long lost harbour of Vladivostok and its surrounding provinces, for instance. However, Mearsheimer is wrong when it comes to the maritime democracies, especially the ones with island or peninsula features. France does no longer have to fear that the UK will once invade it again, and certainly not the USA. Contrary to what Mearsheimer claims, in such cases the issue is just the opposite: the fear of being dumped (not attacked or preyed upon) by one's allies. See the issue we now have with America's financial and military support to Ukraine. This is not a novel issue. Napoleon kept on attacking Wellington at Waterloo, despite the unfavorable terrain, because he knew that unlike the North Germans whom he just had beaten back, Wellington was tempted to pull back to Ostend and ship back to England in case of a defeat. So, the selfish drive can be similar, but the risk of unwelcome behaviour is exactly the opposite: letting you down versus attacking you. Does this mean that Mearsheimer's axiomatic underpinnings are correct? No, Mearsheimer's negative view of the selfish behaviour of every country is based on Hobbes Leviathan. This is an pessimistic view of mankind and statehood by Hobbes from 1651 where the natural state of man is one of war of all against all. One can understand this for someone who just came out of the English civil war. However, I cannot agree with a scientist using this as the basis for his theory in the last three decades of our time. Primatologists, psychologists, and sociologists have found over and over again that we, humans, are social animals who have a fundamental need to cooperate, not to wage war on each other. This is what made our species evolve into what we are now. Wars can be explained by theories about emergence, or game theory, and so on. However, all this would require Mearsheimer to develop a far more nuanced basis claim on which then to build a way more diverse theory of international relations. Alas, he's not open to this, and so becomes a caricature of himself. He who in one lecture challenged his students to develop their own theories by being good at picking a strong basis from an outside discipline on which to build further, for instance as he did with Hobbes. Sad.

Bravo!

Merci Vlad et Jonathan excellent discours

I watch you Jonathan 😊 Thank you for your guests and Vlad is another channel I watch.

Thank you both.

oh! my two favorites ! Wonderful! Thank you.

"conflict can be a form of cooperation" is a great value

Lovely to see two of my favourite RU-vidrs together. Slava Ukrani 🇺🇦❤️🇺🇦

I’ve not been on Twitter since 2018 and find it useless.

Great discussion, and I want to point out that both of you gave each other a lot of space to give long, detailed answers without interrupting each other. So many interviews get derailed because otherwise interesting people don't have self-control.

I really love the first 15 minutes so far!!! Really loved the critique and acknowledgement. Very grown up and very very refreshing. I am so proud of you both so much.

America has become something I don’t recognize anymore as a democracy. If we continue down this road. I’m losing hope in people’s ability to discern truth from fiction and outright lies. We seem to following in Russias footsteps not Europes. And that is giving Putin and fascism so much oxygen it’s frightening.

rizzia never was punished on their crimes - external and internal. This is major cause of the war.

YOU ARE WONDERFUL, brilliant and sweet. I want to send hugs to you both. So informative! Thx

What a strong and comical opening from Vlad. Ballsy even. Contrasts so heavily with his relaxed tone. You both do fantastic work.

Very interesting discussions.

Thanks, two of my favourite people on one podcast! Any chance of getting Alexander Stubb since he has become president of Finland?

Excellent discoure, one of your best podcasts ever

Thank you Jonathan! Another great interview! This is my 1st. time hearing Vlad 's take on where things stand. I look forward to hearing more thoughts from him on this subject.

what a great conversation. Keep up the great work

This is a comment because i love Vlad, love the content being promoted here, love the charities here. Thank you so much.

Always good to listen to you both. A civilized and respectful opening too! 🇸🇪💙💛🇺🇦

Thank you both for your insights 🇬🇧🇺🇦🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇦🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇦🇪🇺

RESPECT, WE LOVE VLAD, DANGER OF OVER INFLATION,. YOU MAY SPEAK, I SHALL LISTEN. GREAT SHOE, SOUTH PHILADELPHIA, OUT🔱⭐.

Sweet!! My two favorite content creators in a thoughtful exchange if ideas. Something I value in a video is leaving it with something to think about. This video was a banquet of food for thought. Thank you so much!

I always love these highly insightful and educational interviews. Thank you!

bravo! Vex had tremendously interesting ideas, and that last part that included that Ukr needs to make itself relatively indispensible to many countries and perhaps especially to powerful countries, is very spot on, and it can be linked to the econ powerhouse that Ukr could become and likely will.

Love Vlad. Thank you!

"We are all living with an informationa disability." Well said!!

Two great guys ... Thank you✌🏻 🇬🇧

Jonathan and Vlad, this made my day. Yesterday, the Senate finally passed the aid to Ukraine. That was a good day as well.

❤ from 🇨🇦

Certainly raising issues, I for one had not given thought to. Thank you for a such intelligent, balanced and reasoned discussion. I am even more convinced now, as I thought previously, that the stall in capability supplies to Ukraine, was a definite choice,to limit military exuberance and somewhat slow a sudden regime collapse

Thank you Jonathan and Vlad soo much! 🌞💙 It’s refreshing to see an alliance of many pro-Ukrainian voices on social media! How can you use this collective power to puncture the main stream media bubble?!?

I’ll share the gist of the reply I got yesterday from my U.S. senator (a democrat). Make of it what you will … “As your United States Senator, I strongly support continued U.S. military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. However, I have heard from many Pennsylvanians on both sides of this issue and appreciate the valid concerns raised by critics of additional funding. Although the defense of Ukraine has so far succeeded beyond expectations, the war is not yet won, and its ultimate resolution remains unclear. Neither side has made significant territorial gains over the last year, and some analysts believe the nations are headed for a frozen conflict. Perfect justice would demand that Russia be driven from every inch of Ukrainian sovereign territory; but perfect justice is not always attainable at a strategically acceptable cost. Prior international engagements have taught us to be wary of open-ended conflicts without clear, attainable goals or practical exit strategies. The United States cannot offer Ukraine a blank check. Abandoning Ukraine now, however, would be a terrible and unnecessary mistake. Cutting U.S. support would embolden Russia to redouble its offensive, which Ukraine may struggle to repel without American help. Holding the line against Russia in Europe is not charity: it is a crucial American security interest that affects our economy, our credibility, and our moral and democratic leadership around the world. Pennsylvanians benefit every day from the safety and prosperity enabled by America’s global leadership, and spending less than two percent of the federal budget to defend an ally in its time of need is a wise investment in our future. “

Fabulous you two.

That was great To be analysed by Vlad I learned alot I have watched you everyday since the start To me you were the outside world finally seeing Russia for it's horror

This is a magnificent, real conversation and exploration of the most foundational issues facing the world today. I would like to think about this more deeply and respond right now, but it is 2:00 am and my 76 y.o. Brain is exhausted, so I will return in the morning. On another note, all of my 5 or so favorite analysts of the Ukrainian crisis, and the world’s response, are becoming noticeably more sophisticated, knowledgeable and seasoned in their presentation of the issues, events, and policies they are engaged with daily. I will return to this tomorrow. But my thanks to both of you.

Jonathan is very humble, good and intelligent human being ❤

🇬🇧❤🇺🇦

This focus on Puitin's state of mind seems to me like talk therapy in psychology. It might be helpful but there is a tendency for it to go on forever and become self-indulgent. In contrast cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) focuses on immediate strategies that produce measurable results. To that end, i prefer assessments of Putin and Russia that analyze observable outcomes. I also prefer conversations that abstract him somewhat and focus on what strategies "we" can employ that will produce measurable results.

I love you both, thank you💙💛

Coming in from Vlad Vexler’s audience, this was very interesting ❤

After seeing just 3 of Vlad's videos, I knew I'd stumbled upon a truly great mind. He is **systematically** stepping back for perspective, even when most of us are stuck in an emotional mud pit. Seeing him on here again is not just satisfying, it is actually JUST that he should get the exposure. Such an amazing Human. 12:30 When Vlad says "proud of each other" and "conflict can be a mutually elevating enterprise". Right there, right there. That is a GREEN flag if there ever was one. "We push each other up". I have so much respect for Vlad. ❤

Outstanding conversation - sober and well-informed. So crucial amidst all the hysterical noise. Thank you both.

Apparently Putin never uses the internet, and I can well believe it.

Thanks guys ❤

Great insights from the both of you. Thanks for this from the Netherlands 👍🌈

This was a great discussion. Thank both of you.

I find that Vlad's musings have become ever more vague and hazy since I had first begun following him back in early 2022. Personally, I would like the conversation to be more grounded, or at least as grounded as it was back then. Now, you get videos 15-20 minutes long conveying a message that could have easily been done in just a few and in a clearer fashion. I still value his takes, but trying to keep up with him has become increasingly more challenging for me over time.

Great show love vlads stuff his latest video is awesome must watch !!

Seeing you on Silicon curtain AGAIN made me the happiest this week!

The theatricity of discourse. How great!How direct and honest.

The opening of this dialogue was interesting & I’m glad you both can exchange constructive criticism & agreed with Vlad on the difficult information environment & we’re all trying to be as saintly as he…

Excellent all the way through. Intelligent discussion that made me think.

Very useful discussion. Thanks

EXCELLENT INTERVIEW!!!!! ...Your interviews always are, but this was - for me - extremely timely. Thank you.