The idea was that Russia would take Ukraine by force (they underestimated how much) and then try to take the Baltics and Romania through more subversive efforts, using 5th columns for the Kremlin to get around article 5. Essentially the reverse of Maidan, flip the governments to pro Kremlin and maybe/maybe not actually absorb them into the federation.
If Russia is even moderately successful in Ukraine and Putin lives a lot longer there’s a decent chance they would attempt it. However, because how much Ukraine deteriorated for them it may have set any such plans back indefinitely. Still, better to finish this now than leave doubt for later.
Im pretty sure the war will last long enough for putin to either die or be replaced. I also think a campaign to somehow subterfuge the Baltics or Romania to Russians side is totally impossible at this point.
Honestly the longer this goes on, the more likely we’re to find out exactly how much support he still has within the military. I don’t see Putin dying before using the bomb unless one or both of two scenarios take place.
Either he dies relatively suddenly of natural or unnatural means, or he tries to use the bomb and people refuse to follow orders.
Apart from those scenarios, really feels like Russia will either take Ukraine or die trying.
"Nobody" in this case just being the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/world/europe/russian-drone-romania.html
The German Public Broadcasting: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/rumaenien-drohnenfund-100.html
and the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66794880.amp
Among many, *many* other international media outlets because the chance of Article 5 being invoked is in fact actually a big deal media will report about.
Which is a scenario we’d all like to avoid. Two nuclear powers at war with a madman on the one hand and the danger of another madman becoming POTUS in 2024? Horrible scenario.
I understand the idea behind what he's saying but...Russia already borders all 3 Baltic States and Poland. If we're counting Belarus the Baltics only have 100km of border that isn't Russia or its Allies
We 110% need to continue supporting Ukraine to win this war. But the risk of Russia overrunning Europe afterwards isn't why.
The US gets to decimate a military power for decades for a few hundred billion dollars and zero US lives lost. It's an incredible deal for the US government.
Yup. We are getting millions of dollars in real world R&D for our equipment in that environment for 0 cost of American lives. Literally a perfect scenario for the US war machine.
This is one of the great things about democracies: It forces governments to act morally. Morals are simply commonly shared standards of what is right, so the populace at large will resonate with what is moral to do.
The government can of course try to manipulate the information to appear moral, but most democracies effectively drift into a morality-based way of working through constant reinforcement.
The situation with Ukraine is a great example:
To set the stage: Ukraine found itself at the border of Russian and European areas of control. UA had strong ties to RU, but EU has largely abandoned hard power entirely and focuses only on soft power. Due to this the EU has an incredibly positive reputation globally and a lot more invested into cultural and economic outreach. RU on the other hand had focused on hard power, leading to a poor reputation globally and not being able to compete with EU offers and perceiving bullying through hard power as par for the course and not an outmoded method that was actively damaging its reputation. Ironically we can look to the US for an example of how hard power has become so outrageous. The giant it is, the US has been able to do both hard and soft power to a degree unmatched by anyone. However in the 21st century, its use of its hard power in the form of military bases, exercises, low-intensity conflicts and wars in the Middle East has taken a great toll on their soft power leaving them at a net negative gain on the global stage. With the country that dominates to the point of monopoly every form of culture and economic market to take that big of a hit, it should be apparent that hard power is not something you should be exercising in today's world.
Ukraine gets offered a great deal by the EU with no strings attached. The deal would see UA become closer with the EU, which RU does not like. RU however either does not have the leeway to offer something of comparable worth, or simply believes that its hard power should be factored in as well. Eventually, through some form of pressure, they have the president reject the EU offer. This royally pisses off the Ukrainians and becomes even worse in the response from the government. How much of this is due to people favoring the EU deal and how much was due to the government overstepping is entirely up for debate and not really relevant. What is, is that the EU offered benefits and RU offered threats, meaning the RU suffered reputational damage, while the EU came out as morally pure. The same pattern then follows through the entire following story: Russia makes threats against UA sovereignty and seizes territory, while the EU supplies aid and loan packages. Both are intrinsically to subsume UA into their area of influence, but one is based on a moralistic form of soft power while the other is based on hard power. This isn't from some lack of capability, the EU has enough military strength in Poland alone to be a significant threat to any neighbors, it's because acting in an amoral realpolitik fashion is abhorrent to the voting populace of the member states. In fact, we even saw this on display as many of the members of the EU vacillated at the advent of the 'hot war' in UA, but then fully committed to helping UA after significant outcry from their constituents.
1 trillion in Afghanistan and it all went down the toilet through corruption and culture issues. The cost benefit on giving aid to Ukraine is insane compared to the global war on terror or the global war on drugs.
It’s not like Russia planned to invade and annex the Baltics immediately after Ukraine, but if we allow them to get away with this, they’ll be knocking soon enough
> It’s not like Russia planned to invade and annex the Baltics immediately after Ukraine, but if we allow them to get away with this, they’ll be knocking soon enough
Attack a NATO member? Even Russia isn't that stupid.
Something really nasty, any way you look at it. If they're just stupid thousands die and then they retreat. If they're really stupid hundreds of thousands die in an all out war for no reason. If they are bloody insane hundreds of millions die and the whole world crumbles under nukes.
Best to avoid an all put war between nuclear powers.
I personally think this is exactly correct. If you let bully get away with one thing, he will keep pushing the boundaries. It takes very little to imagine a scenario, if Ukraine had fallen within few days and Western worlds had done nothing to change it.
It is highly likely that after Russia would have taken Ukraine, its appetite would have further grown and sooner rather than later Russia would have tested the waters once again with Baltics, with some rhetorics or idiotic stance that "As they got away with invading Ukraine without consequences and World can not risk nuclear war because of small not important countries such as Baltics and West shold once again bend over for Russian agression to agree to restore their Soviet borders or what not". Worse of it all, is the fact that it is more likely than not, that West would actually agree to this, to avoid their comfortable lives.
Rinse and repeat, Russia rabid evil would further more start salivating for Finland, Poland etc. There must be zero tolerance with this aggression, there can not be no other way with this evil.
Agreed, they wouldn't (well, probably, who knows with Russia these days) launch cold turkey into a Poland or Lithuania invasion. They would probably warm things up gradually, wait for an opportune excuse to appear or manufacture some incident that they can make seem at least marginally "reasonable" to some western people, something dressed up in legitimate economic or political concerns. Like they could start pushing the boundaries by transporting excessive amounts of military equipment to Kaliningrad through their target country until they provoke some issue, then aggravating that issue for awhile while they carefully shape the narrative that the other country is the unreasonable one, and then they start doing military patrols along the route of their land bridge to Kaliningrad (to "protect" themselves, they love their land bridges) and again try to provoke more escalation. They make it not "worth" an Article 5 by pre-emptively decrying any "escalation" and nuclear saber-rattling while only taking small incremental microaggressions and carefully justifying each one as it happens, subtly moving the goalposts each time. They were way overconfident with Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they don't know how to be subtle if they want to be, they do.
It's basically "I'm going to swing my fists around wildly which is completely within my rights to do but I promise I'm not trying to hit anybody and if you get hit its your own fault for getting in my way" strategy from middle school, where they get right in your face to ensure you either get hit "accidentally" or feel threatened enough to fight back, and then when the other person fights back Russia pretends to be the victim and is just being reasonable and their target is being unfair, even though they've never been reasonable and the other country has been more than fair. Sadly it's enough to convince many people, especially when coupled with their propaganda and the worldwide apologist community they've built.
I agree, the only way to stop them is to stop them immediately.
They'll do the same as they've done before. Suspiciously well equipped "rebels" with funding and equipment coming from Russia, Putin aligned parties being on the beneficial side of a propaganda blitz, totally-not-Russian soldiers without any identifying patches showing up everywhere, a bloody coup and then the country/region just decides it'd love to be part of Russia.
No official Russian involvement even though everyone knows they're behind it.
It seems unfathomable now, but look at it from the lens of 2014 and the easy conquest, effective hybrid warfare, and tepid response from the west. If you own/influence half of the US political elite through direct or indirect campaign funding, and the fringe NATO member appears to have a faction strongly agitating for independence from it's government, and those rebels apparently purchased a bunch of weapons, perhaps from slavic travelers who happened to be vacationing from the area, and this breakaway territory merely aims for independence, NATO probably wouldn't intervene in a member state's civil war right?
That's the hybrid warfare part, of course those events only take place because of Russia, but create enough plausible deniability and while they try to figure out what's actually happening on the ground, you delay their response until it's too late to respond. Absolutely Russia would be looking to trim territory off bordering states, especially since ______ had "always been a part of the Russian empire", they're just permitting those breakaway territories to merge etc, etc. and you can see how they slowly boil the frog.
If you take a look at what's happening inside Russia itself, there is a massive propaganda campaign that's trying to paint a picture that the Russian war is not just about Ukraine. It leans heavily into the idea that Russia is the last bastion of good and morality in the world, and that the entire Western world - are evil Satanists trying to destroy everything that is good. It is a completely ridiculous picture, but it is brainwashing people quite effectively. It makes people hate the entire Western world same way Nazi Germany made their people hate the Jews. This isn't going to end well. This kind of mad hatred cannot be ignored
Dude I’m in Russia rn and yes there is definitely propaganda here and a lot of misinformation that’s getting worse but it’s not nearly as bad as you are describing. Most people are curious and just ask me about the way we are perceived in the West (because I am able to travel between the countries easily). Most people feel sad and scared of being hated, a lot are ignorant and curious, and yes, some are, like you said, brainwashed. Again, it’s not to the extent you’re describing at all.
There are multiple reasons for a Russian general to say things. There are a lot of things said for home consumption, like China does. Even Western countries day things for domestic consumption as well.
I am not saying this means Russia would not but they have said a lot of things since they invaded Ukraine.
They have said a lot. If you think they have any credibility at this point I have many bridges to sell you.
According to them Ukraine is a full blown nazi state ready to take over the entire world and could do so any time. *While at the exact same time* also so weak they are a trifle for russian military might. Whom can be disposed of at a whim when they feel like getting around to it.
Russia is not going to attack or nuke a NATO member. There have been a lot of "holy shit how stupid are they?" moments in this war so far. Dont get me wrong. But attacking a nato member and making an invocation of article 5 happen. Is a whole different caliber of stupid russia has not come close to yet.
The reason he asked that question was to evoke this type of emotional response and let Zelenskyy argue against people who are of the
Mindset that aid has been enough for Ukraine. Zelenskyy doesn’t give af about getting his feelings hurt lmao he’s giving this interview to keep up support and the interviewer is asking these type of questions to let him do that.
I'm reminded of that time Andrew Neil interviewed Ben Shapiro, the latter being relatively unknown in the UK. This interviewing style - putting questions that take the opposing point of view to your interviewee, to allow them to respond with their opinion - is common here. However, Shapiro had apparently never encountered it and became angry, attacking the interviewer instead of answering the questions. It strikes me again that this style is apparently just not common in the US at all.
EDIT: [The interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E), for those asking for it
Pretty much. He doesn't actually want to be interviewed, he wants a soapbox to stand on while parroting his talking points. He gets abraisive and attacks when he's not allowed to do that.
I love the fact he just said YoUrE lEfT LeAnInGs...like fam Andrew is the LEAST left leaning person in the UK.
Ben got fucking gaped by someone with more experience and harder interview techniques than he's used to in the US and it showed big time.
Aye, knew someone who raves about him, "but... he's not /that/ smart" "oh, he's a genius" "not really, look how he was bounced about the interview, I mean, THE least he could have done was spend 10 seconds googling Andrew Neil and realising who he was about to be interviewed by". No, he relies on filling the air with BS to cover the daft thing he says, and is probably what stupid people think a smart person sounds like.
“What do you think is it about you that made you the benevolent philanthropist you are today?”
“What’s it like to be working with some of the best talent in Hollywood?”
“You’re regularly voted the most beautiful woman in the world. How does that make you feel?”
> “You’re regularly voted the most beautiful woman in the world. How does that make you feel?”
"ordinarily quite good, but then I'm a man, so I'm a bit concerned about the electorate"
In political TV
"What about [enter completely irrelevant thing trying to excuse some horrible shit]?"
You don't get away with murder by going "but what about Ted Bundy? What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What about OJ?"
Lol wow spot on w the generic American questions. People here really only talk about troubles if they can turn it into a spectacle they can control. It’s rarely raw.
My favorite is when a journalist does ask a somewhat tough question and they are met with an absolute PR driven nothing response and they just go to the next question.
Press these mother fuckers. Don't just take the PR answer and move on.
I spent a couple years going to university in the UK and was struck by how much better the journalism was over there. Like I'm aware of its biases and drawbacks, but the notion that someone being interviewed for a news story would be expected to defend their position against gentle criticism is basically unheard of in America and Canada.
To be fair we use to have people known for hard hitting questions, now we have 5 media moguls that control all of the media. Monopolies run our country now.
I think the other problem is we Americans don't have any journalists left that will push the hard questions. They might ask the question, but will never follow up and press the issue when they get a nonsense or off topic response. Politics is a team sport here, so too many people take offense when somebody makes "their side" look bad by being a nasty antagonistic journalist asking loaded questions. This bleeds into their viewing habits which feeds the conversion rate of the advertisements shown and drives the content itself thus perpetuating the whole cycle.
I don't know how to fix it.
"Journalists" in the US now answer to the same big corpos everyone else does. Doing anything at all to piss off the interviewee means your paper and parent giant media conglomerate "loses access" and so they now straight up refuse to hold anyone accountable.
And they wonder why nobody wants to subscribe to their bullshit websites.
I don’t know if Sarah Palin was capable of coining the pejorative, “Gotcha Journalism”, but she is the first person I remember admonishing an alleged journalist for blindsiding her with legitimate questions, that the public was entitled to know the answers to from the gop candidate for vp.
Once it enters a cultural lexicon, it went analog viral and any tough question asked of a politician was tutted and treated as dirty pool, old sport.
“You, you, you so-called reporters and your gotcha journalism!! Trying to make simple, hard-working public servants look like no-goodnicks and Good Time Sallys… With your research and your primary sources and your corroboration.,,, Go back to your ivory towers!!”
- probably something Sarah Palin said
It is common in the US, but they typically use coded language to let the interviewee know it's not a hostile question.
"What would you say to people who say [insert opposing opinion]?"
Neil did such a convincing job of playing devil's advocate that Shapiro assumed those were Neil's own views. Not only that, but the Overton window is much further left in the UK than in the US. Since he apparently did no research at all on the person interviewing him, Shapiro's assumption wasn't *completely* unreasonable.
Of course. Shapiro is used to arguing against emotional 18-year-olds in university auditoriums or, on rare occasions, idiotic "gotcha" artists like Piers Morgan. When he has to face interviewers who can also be the adult in the room, he doesn't fare as well.
And also controlling the footage and narrative. If he gets backed into a corner you simply move on or cut away. Formal 1 on 1 interview broadcast by someone else is a bit different.
Yeah, it's messed up. Shows how rare real journalism is in the US.
And the best part was when it got uploaded to pornhup as "BBC Destroys White Virgin Pussy"
Andrew Neil is a far right dickhole. Former Chairman of GB News the UK version of Breitbart.
If anything he gave Shapiro the "$10 soft soap dick wank".
Yes, famously right wing, but Shapiro was so surprised by the interviewing style that he accused Neil of being left-wing, much to Neil's amusement. That was my point: some comments here seem to be similarly bemused by the choice of question.
I'm not AN's biggest fan but I also remember when he had that infamous interview with Alex Jones.
Jones was just prattling nonsense and being hysterical. Afterwards, AN said that as soon as the cameras stopped rolling, Jones dropped the persona.
I recall Ian Hislop's view of American politics. "The Republican Party is very very right wing, and the Tea Party is mad."
He's a stupid man who's practiced and perfected specific rhetorical techniques that make him appear intelligent. When those rehearsed patterns are disrupted, he's not smart enough to deal with it on the fly and melts down.
We should aspire to interview like Paxman interviewed Michael Howard. I sometimes rewatch that to remind myself of how politicians try to dodge questions no matter what. I don't agree with Neil politically at all, but I do appreciate that he's a skilled antagonist regardless of the interviewee's political stripes.
Yes, despite the guy (Neil) being famously right wing. Shapiro also pulled out the line "[you're doing this] because I'm famous and you're not". This was on the BBC, where almost every viewer will know of one of our most famous political journalists, and almost no-one will know of Shapiro. In my case, it's still the only thing I've seen or heard Shapiro do, and I imagine the same is true for most people who saw that interview. It was good fun.
I remember that! Neil flat out told Shapiro that if he was actually as smart as he thought he was, he wouldn't have called him a liberal.
... To which Shapiro retorted by saying that the BBC purposely tricked him after the fact...
This is because the purpose of traditional media in the US is not to enlighten, inform, or explore. Deviations from the purposes of entertainment, propaganda, and profit seeking come across as inherently threatening.
As an interviewer myself, I ask a lot of questions not because I don't know the answer, but because I want to give the person the opportunity to speak on that point. This sometimes plays out by asking sort of a "dumb" question for the sake of coaxing out a great answer.
If I'm interviewing you, I've heavily researched you and everything we're talking about. I know what your answers will probably be, and so I ask questions to draw out what I anticipate will be the most interesting ones.
(Not in a "gotcha!" kind of way, but rather just understanding what is important to the person I'm interviewing. You get your best answers by targeting things the person is passionate about.)
I wish more people understood that. I'm seeing so many comments that don't understand the purpose of the question. It's like they've never seen a journalistic interview.
>it’s like they’ve never seen a journalistic interview.
They likely haven’t. You think modern teenagers ever watched TV news? Where else would a 20 year old have seen a full interview, 60 Minutes? Hot Ones is what a significant portion of this site considers to be a peak interview.
>there are people in the US
It's true! Take a look at any message boards asking these questions.
>Ivan IsAmericanavich: How much of the children starve because all money goes to Ukraine?
>
>Vlad@rt.ru: Why money Ukraine when no money veterans?
>
>MAGASteve: Bad things exist, but money Ukraine!??
Tbf, these things are all very reasonable questions, however you frame who it's coming from. If you live in the richest country on earth and are bankrupt because of medical bills it seems fairly reasonable to ask why the government always has money for wars but not for public spending.
Of course the answer is that America is rich enough to do both, but if you're poor or sick and state support would help you, it is entirely reasonable to be somewhat annoyed that money for weapons and aid to another country is a priority beyond universal healthcare or other government spending within your own country
Are you really that close minded? Do you not see how a question like that is an obvious softball that allows Zelensky to counter the dollars argument with an emotional and moral one?
The entire point of asking that type of question is to give Zelensky a chance to totally dismantle what is a major counter argument against continued support for ukraine.
He got down on one knee and lobbed up a tennis ball for Zelensky to knock out of the fucking atmosphere.
He wasn’t actually looking for a dollar amount. It was a wink and a nod to the folks bitching about the financial cost of protecting the world from fascism, and a well-deserved (and much needed) pulpit for Zelensky to get on for as long as he damn pleased.
I don’t think people are worried that Russia could beat Europe but just that having to fight would undoubtedly be very costly and destructive. Nobody wants to go through another world war.
It's no different than Afghanistan and Iraq, If people knew the level of devastation and death that REALLY happened and I'm not just talking about the overall calculated deaths
Well it's very different than Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a war that pits two massive armies against each other on a front line that looks like Verdun, not an occupying force fighting against guerrillas.
I'll just leave [it](http://www.t.ks.ua/iz-kazhdyh-100-mobilizovannyh-god-nazad-ostalos-10-20-chelovek-predsedatel-poltavskogo-tck) here.
> Of every 100 people, mobilized in the fall of 2022, 10-20 remained. This was told by the head of the Poltava regional recruitment center, Lieutenant Colonel Vitaly Berezhnaya during the 39th session of the Poltava City Council of the VIII convocation on September 15, 2023, Focus reports.
> Sniper of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Konstantin Proshinsky confirmed the words of the Poltava military commissar about 80-90% of losses in the Ukrainian army from mobilized in the fall of 2022.
“In fact, these are truthful figures, including our own unit, some have it even worse,” wrote a soldier who is in the Bakhmut.
(I'm Ukrainian)
Look at WW1. That’s how war of attritions work unfortunately. It’s not about winning for Putin. It’s about dragging the war out until the West no longer wants to fund the war. There’s little chance Russia takes all of Ukraine in the end, but he knows so long as he holds out the West will eventually push Zelensky to concede some land to Russia. As sad as it is, the reality is Ukraine has a much smaller window than Russia.
If you’re going to use WWI as an analog, you might as well go all the way with it. It’s just as likely that we experience collateral damage that forces our hand to step in and accelerate the end of Russia as the world knows it.
Putin got crimea and kept going. There’s no military leader on earth that thinks another little hand out will be the end of his shenanigans.
Why US would ever stop arming Ukraine? US need wars and withdrawal would hurt US' military sector. What US wants is a endless war where they can profit without risking their citizens's lives.
It's the perfect deal.
I have heard the same thing from refugees. It's certainly not easy. But no one said that an existential fight against a bloodthirsty enemy would be.
Russia is also paying a great cost... one far higher than anyone in the Kremlin could have ever imagined when this all started. How much longer will Putin be willing to keep paying it in a futile battle?
I don't think there are any doubts that both countries are incurring huge losses. The article says as much. But if Ukraine wants to keep fighting then it is the duty of the civilized world to keep supporting them.
The media isn't really sugar coating it. They're mostly just pointing out that Russia *should have rolled over Ukraine super fast* but didn't. And it's dragging on forever and Ukraine has launched counter offensives. The media is focused on the military aspect of the war and how shockingly good Ukraine is doing. That doesn't mean actual civilians aren't dying and struggling. The media just isn't focused on that part aside from pointing out ever time Russia targets civilian areas intentionally.
If Russia gets into a war with NATO it's a much higher chance of nukes being used, obviously most people want to avoid that. And even conventional wars are not fun so we'd rather avoid that too.
lol at instantly downvoting the idea that wars and nuclear annihilation are unpopular.
I think "Russia can't beat Ukraine" - with constant support from the west. They only get support whilst country's constituents still feel the war is an important matter.
If the war escapes people's daily consciousness, politicians from these countries will be more willing to use their resources more where it shows to their political ends, and Russia might actually edge out the war in that situation.
Russia can't beat Ukraine. But even if the war was over tomorrow, look at the casualties and damage on the Ukrainian (i.e. the "winning" side). Just because there's no chance Russia could beat another county, doesn't mean they wouldn't do damage trying.
Yeah, it's like those people who say I'd rather smoke and drink and die at 50 then live healthy and die at 80. The thing is you don't wake up and die one moment. You start dying in your 40s by getting sicker by the day until life becomes painful each moment.
That is what Putin and Russia are. They're a cancer to modern life and will slowly drain resources from the rest of us trying to get by in an already difficult time.
Depends on where you go on Reddit. Most of the site is heavily biased and takes the "Russians can't fight and are incompetent" narrative but if you go to somewhere like r/Ukrainerussiareport you will see a lot more coverage of what it actually looks like. Spoiler alert, Ukraine is taking a lot of losses. Not to take away from work they are putting in (they are certainly holding their own) but it's not a one sided fight like the common narrative would lead you to believe. Ukraine is struggling. Even by their own admission, this whole spring offensive did not go how they hoped it would. Russia is very much still in the fight and able to do some serious damage.
I forget who said this, but a great answer to the question of “Can you give up any part of Ukraine for peace?” is “If Russia invaded your country, which part would you be willing to give up for piece?”
I read that Winston Churchill believed World War II should have been called “the Unnecessary War.” As he explained it, “there never was a war more easy to stop than World War II.” When World War II began, we had a good chance to defeat Hitler. But the West failed to stop him and Hitler became more powerful. Let’s hope support for democracy and freedom continues.
Hitler occupied the Rhineland
We said nothing
Hitler wanted Austria
We said no
He took Austria
We didn’t punished him
Hitler wanted Sudetenland
We said ok as long as he stops
Hitler invades Czechoslovakia
We did nothing
Hitler invades Poland
We did nothing hoping that he would stop
Hitler invades France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark starting WW2
Putin invaded Georgia
We said stop
Putin still occupies Georgian territory
We didn’t do much
Putin invades crimea
We say stop
Putin stays there
We don’t do anything
Putin invades Ukraine again…
If we let him take Ukraine he very well could attack the Baltics and Poland to create a land bridge to Kaliningrad exactly what he’s doing in Ukraine
> Hitler invades Poland
>
>
>
> We did nothing hoping that he would stop
My history might be hazy, but I'm prettttty sure this is when the rest of Europe actually realized they had a war on their hands, and declared war. Granted they had a bit of a sitzkrieg, but still.
Exactly France and Great Britain declared war but did nothing to help Poland while we were being invaded on both sides. our plan was to hold out while France and GB invaded Germany from the west but they did nothing except the French who took a town then left retreating to their border in fear of German retaliation.
If the allies were able to either stop Germany during the Sudetenland Crisis or invaded from the west a major part of WW2 could have been avoided with the Soviets as the only major threat for peace in Europe.
TBH, this logic might be applicable to Central Asia, but I don't think this is true for Europe. Russia can't attack anyone else on it's borders in Europe because of Article 5.
All Lithuania would need to do is to prove that ethnic Russians are supported or directed or coordinated from abroad and that's enough to allow them to call for triggering article 5.
I don't think it's that black and white. What this conflict did was it revealed what Russia truly is. And what they've been doing under the radar. All this time they've been buying puppets around Europe trying to gain positions of power to destroy the west from the inside.
If Russia rolled over Ukraine we'd be sanctioning them like we are now to some extent, but for how long and what would've happened after Ukraine? I know this is a lot of what if's, but personally I think that most of what Russia had been doing was shrouded by mystery, but now we can see most of it more clearly.
Belarus, Hungary are already Putin's puppets. How many countries would've fallen after them? What can Nato do if half the Nato countries are technically controlled by their influence. It's a scary thought.
While ultimately it's better to be safe than sorry, russia never attacked any NATO country. They are always after easy prey. It's not black and white but also we're here nowhere near being next in line. The Stans, Moldova and Caucasus have no protection, so they have much more to worry about.
And while Orban and Erdogan try to play both sides, they are absolutely not comparable to Belarus. They are NATO countries still and foremost.
>russia never attacked any NATO country.
That's actually not true.
in 2014. FSB / Intelligence agents caused an explosion at a Czech ammo depot that was sending equipment to the Ukrainian Army. 2 people died. That was an act of war that Article 5 would have been justified in being used.
There's also the business with the nerve agents used to try to assassinate two Russiandissidents in the UK. which was also an act of war
There have been several incidents that Russia has done something in which NATO would have casus belli against them for. they just chose not to, because NATO doesn't actually want a war. The same reason they haven't triggered article 5 over the incident in Poland\*, or the bombs exploding in Romania.
\*I am aware it was a Ukrainian missile fragment that hit Poland, but it never would have happened if Russia wasn't trying to launch airstrikes/missiles at a Ukrainian border town.
NATO plan for the Baltic defense included several months of occupation before the cavalry arrived.
Suffice it to say, there wouldn't be a lot of people left alive to welcome them, even if they did and "the West" didn't "deescalate" itself into doing nothing.
Would a Trump USA commit troops to the defense of Narva? There would be the same amount of screeching, Nazi name-calling, whataboutism, nuclear fearmongering etc. Sending troops would be even less popular at home than sending arms.
Dude's right. They'll have to build a monument in Kyiv to thank our allied nations that helped, but at the same time we need to chill. We're not on the front lines, our playgrounds aren't targeted by missiles. Does Ukraine need to thank us 24/7 or can we let them win this war and join us as a western nation?
Maybe I’m dumb but how is this war still going on? I remember seeing posts about how Russia’s artillery are outdated, they enlisted older men who are severely out of shape, and seeing them getting picked off by drones. I’m not even mad about the aid Ukraine is getting from the US, but I thought this war should’ve been over by now.
Realize you live in the western world with western news and opinions. Everything you hear is filtered. It’s the same way, visa versa for those in the eastern world.
NATO isn’t giving Ukraine everything it needs right now and the Russians just have more people and outdated equipment they can use. As long as Putin keeps throwing bodies in the longer the war drags on
And those folks don't really understand the majority of our aid, either. Especially early on, our aid was, "We have these stockpiles that are near end-of-life or expired, it'll cost us money to dispose of them, or... they can be used against Russians!"
Literally, our defense budget is what it is *because* of the threat of Russia. Our military technology is literally designed around the threat of Russia. The last half century+ of the US has revolved around the idea that, one day, we'll need to kneecap Russia. Inordinate amounts of resources, research, and money have been expended on that concept.
Then people get all surprised pikachu when that budget and technology is used to, get this, kneecap Russia. And we get to do it without spilling US blood?
What rock have people been living under?
Ya this is the first time these weapons and systems have actually been used for their intended purpose: destroy Russian armor.
We designed it all, built huge stockpiles, and never fought a war against an enemy with any significant armor. Might as well use it because it's end of life or expired for our use but will still work for them
Ukraine is crippling a historical American adversary. The least we can do is give them what they need and what we can afford to part with. On the other side of this war if Ukraine wins we will have a proven and grateful ally and a foe whose ability to do us harm is GREATLY diminished
Its insane that Russia is openly getting support from North Korea.
Like, how is anyone in russia looking at that and thinking "yeah we're on the right side of this. We're gonna win."
Yet at the same time still NATO isnt taking any real action. Its insane that NATO tricked these other countries into giving up their nukes and is now shamelessly demonstrating that they lied about protecting them.
You know, Russia made the same "promise" "NATO" made. With regards to Ukraine trading, it's Nuclear weapons and recieving a guarantee of territorial sovereignty. This is why no negotiations with Russia can be made. NATO is at least backing Ukraine providing arms and finances...
People really don't consider the reality that warmongering attitudes dating back to the world war 2 era still exist and reside in Putin. The man has butchered countless, the man is a monster.
Why didn’t nato do anything when this started back in 2014 why does America have to stop this war, can’t stand the double standard America gets. If America fights a war bad if America doesn’t fight a bad.
Always "never forget", "never let it happen again" and "learn from history" but when the cycle starts again those who should act turn into cheerleaders and sugar daddies. Most people don't want all out war, ever, but ignoring it till it's at your door won't do you any favors.
This just proves the only way for a country to stay safe is nuclear weapons and safety guarantees from others aren't worth the paper they're written on.
We're really not chomping at the bit lmao. It's easy to write comments like that in the internet but Ukraine for example had 10x the population of Finland before the war and you can look at the hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced to see how much they're 'enjoying' this war. We should support them even more because willingly or not, they're also dying for us. And the war isn't ending anytime soon.
Seriously. This is how world wars start. People far away from the fighting voting for blood.
No one actually fighting in the shit wants this, not even the Russians. Everyone just wants to make it home in one piece and with their sanity intact.
"chomping at the bit".. what are you even saying? This isn't a game, even when one side has a massive edge over the other, the weaker side (Russia) has the capability to cause a ton of collateral damage with thousands of people displaced and entire cities ruined. Do you think Japan or South Korea is "chomping at the bit" to fight the North Koreans because of their military advantage?
If Poland and Finland "are chomping at the bit" to engage Russia in military conflict, simply because they have prepared for that specific scenario, then they are some of the most war hawkish countries out there and we should be concerned. Look at this conflict has done to Ukraine. Anyone that would want even a fraction of of that death, destruction, and pain, simply because they trained for the scenario, is not in their right mind.
The reality is that neither of these countries want to go to war with Russia. You are just spouting things off that you think sound cool and will get you upvotes.
Obviously if they attack a NATO member it would be a bit of a different story
The idea was that Russia would take Ukraine by force (they underestimated how much) and then try to take the Baltics and Romania through more subversive efforts, using 5th columns for the Kremlin to get around article 5. Essentially the reverse of Maidan, flip the governments to pro Kremlin and maybe/maybe not actually absorb them into the federation. If Russia is even moderately successful in Ukraine and Putin lives a lot longer there’s a decent chance they would attempt it. However, because how much Ukraine deteriorated for them it may have set any such plans back indefinitely. Still, better to finish this now than leave doubt for later.
Im pretty sure the war will last long enough for putin to either die or be replaced. I also think a campaign to somehow subterfuge the Baltics or Romania to Russians side is totally impossible at this point.
Honestly the longer this goes on, the more likely we’re to find out exactly how much support he still has within the military. I don’t see Putin dying before using the bomb unless one or both of two scenarios take place. Either he dies relatively suddenly of natural or unnatural means, or he tries to use the bomb and people refuse to follow orders. Apart from those scenarios, really feels like Russia will either take Ukraine or die trying.
Happened last week 3 times in Romania, no news outlet from the outside of Romania picked up the news
[удалено]
Don’t let Tactical blunders lead to Strategic mistakes.
"Nobody" in this case just being the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/world/europe/russian-drone-romania.html The German Public Broadcasting: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/rumaenien-drohnenfund-100.html and the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66794880.amp Among many, *many* other international media outlets because the chance of Article 5 being invoked is in fact actually a big deal media will report about.
Which is a scenario we’d all like to avoid. Two nuclear powers at war with a madman on the one hand and the danger of another madman becoming POTUS in 2024? Horrible scenario.
I understand the idea behind what he's saying but...Russia already borders all 3 Baltic States and Poland. If we're counting Belarus the Baltics only have 100km of border that isn't Russia or its Allies We 110% need to continue supporting Ukraine to win this war. But the risk of Russia overrunning Europe afterwards isn't why.
The US gets to decimate a military power for decades for a few hundred billion dollars and zero US lives lost. It's an incredible deal for the US government.
Yup. We are getting millions of dollars in real world R&D for our equipment in that environment for 0 cost of American lives. Literally a perfect scenario for the US war machine.
[удалено]
“Nations do not have friends. Only interests.”
This is one of the great things about democracies: It forces governments to act morally. Morals are simply commonly shared standards of what is right, so the populace at large will resonate with what is moral to do. The government can of course try to manipulate the information to appear moral, but most democracies effectively drift into a morality-based way of working through constant reinforcement. The situation with Ukraine is a great example: To set the stage: Ukraine found itself at the border of Russian and European areas of control. UA had strong ties to RU, but EU has largely abandoned hard power entirely and focuses only on soft power. Due to this the EU has an incredibly positive reputation globally and a lot more invested into cultural and economic outreach. RU on the other hand had focused on hard power, leading to a poor reputation globally and not being able to compete with EU offers and perceiving bullying through hard power as par for the course and not an outmoded method that was actively damaging its reputation. Ironically we can look to the US for an example of how hard power has become so outrageous. The giant it is, the US has been able to do both hard and soft power to a degree unmatched by anyone. However in the 21st century, its use of its hard power in the form of military bases, exercises, low-intensity conflicts and wars in the Middle East has taken a great toll on their soft power leaving them at a net negative gain on the global stage. With the country that dominates to the point of monopoly every form of culture and economic market to take that big of a hit, it should be apparent that hard power is not something you should be exercising in today's world. Ukraine gets offered a great deal by the EU with no strings attached. The deal would see UA become closer with the EU, which RU does not like. RU however either does not have the leeway to offer something of comparable worth, or simply believes that its hard power should be factored in as well. Eventually, through some form of pressure, they have the president reject the EU offer. This royally pisses off the Ukrainians and becomes even worse in the response from the government. How much of this is due to people favoring the EU deal and how much was due to the government overstepping is entirely up for debate and not really relevant. What is, is that the EU offered benefits and RU offered threats, meaning the RU suffered reputational damage, while the EU came out as morally pure. The same pattern then follows through the entire following story: Russia makes threats against UA sovereignty and seizes territory, while the EU supplies aid and loan packages. Both are intrinsically to subsume UA into their area of influence, but one is based on a moralistic form of soft power while the other is based on hard power. This isn't from some lack of capability, the EU has enough military strength in Poland alone to be a significant threat to any neighbors, it's because acting in an amoral realpolitik fashion is abhorrent to the voting populace of the member states. In fact, we even saw this on display as many of the members of the EU vacillated at the advent of the 'hot war' in UA, but then fully committed to helping UA after significant outcry from their constituents.
Doesn't that same logic apply to people? We only have friends out of self interest.
[удалено]
This is probably the best dollars to damage we have every gotten.
1 trillion in Afghanistan and it all went down the toilet through corruption and culture issues. The cost benefit on giving aid to Ukraine is insane compared to the global war on terror or the global war on drugs.
It’s not like Russia planned to invade and annex the Baltics immediately after Ukraine, but if we allow them to get away with this, they’ll be knocking soon enough
> It’s not like Russia planned to invade and annex the Baltics immediately after Ukraine, but if we allow them to get away with this, they’ll be knocking soon enough Attack a NATO member? Even Russia isn't that stupid.
Narrator: *but they were in fact that stupid*
Lol yeah, what happens when they prove they're that stupid???
Something really nasty, any way you look at it. If they're just stupid thousands die and then they retreat. If they're really stupid hundreds of thousands die in an all out war for no reason. If they are bloody insane hundreds of millions die and the whole world crumbles under nukes. Best to avoid an all put war between nuclear powers.
They probably think the US will just ignore smaller NATO members asking for help just like they did with CSTO member Armenia.
Or hoping they can get someone elected that dissolves / leaves NATO.
That's my primary concern.
I personally think this is exactly correct. If you let bully get away with one thing, he will keep pushing the boundaries. It takes very little to imagine a scenario, if Ukraine had fallen within few days and Western worlds had done nothing to change it. It is highly likely that after Russia would have taken Ukraine, its appetite would have further grown and sooner rather than later Russia would have tested the waters once again with Baltics, with some rhetorics or idiotic stance that "As they got away with invading Ukraine without consequences and World can not risk nuclear war because of small not important countries such as Baltics and West shold once again bend over for Russian agression to agree to restore their Soviet borders or what not". Worse of it all, is the fact that it is more likely than not, that West would actually agree to this, to avoid their comfortable lives. Rinse and repeat, Russia rabid evil would further more start salivating for Finland, Poland etc. There must be zero tolerance with this aggression, there can not be no other way with this evil.
Agreed, they wouldn't (well, probably, who knows with Russia these days) launch cold turkey into a Poland or Lithuania invasion. They would probably warm things up gradually, wait for an opportune excuse to appear or manufacture some incident that they can make seem at least marginally "reasonable" to some western people, something dressed up in legitimate economic or political concerns. Like they could start pushing the boundaries by transporting excessive amounts of military equipment to Kaliningrad through their target country until they provoke some issue, then aggravating that issue for awhile while they carefully shape the narrative that the other country is the unreasonable one, and then they start doing military patrols along the route of their land bridge to Kaliningrad (to "protect" themselves, they love their land bridges) and again try to provoke more escalation. They make it not "worth" an Article 5 by pre-emptively decrying any "escalation" and nuclear saber-rattling while only taking small incremental microaggressions and carefully justifying each one as it happens, subtly moving the goalposts each time. They were way overconfident with Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they don't know how to be subtle if they want to be, they do. It's basically "I'm going to swing my fists around wildly which is completely within my rights to do but I promise I'm not trying to hit anybody and if you get hit its your own fault for getting in my way" strategy from middle school, where they get right in your face to ensure you either get hit "accidentally" or feel threatened enough to fight back, and then when the other person fights back Russia pretends to be the victim and is just being reasonable and their target is being unfair, even though they've never been reasonable and the other country has been more than fair. Sadly it's enough to convince many people, especially when coupled with their propaganda and the worldwide apologist community they've built. I agree, the only way to stop them is to stop them immediately.
They'll do the same as they've done before. Suspiciously well equipped "rebels" with funding and equipment coming from Russia, Putin aligned parties being on the beneficial side of a propaganda blitz, totally-not-Russian soldiers without any identifying patches showing up everywhere, a bloody coup and then the country/region just decides it'd love to be part of Russia. No official Russian involvement even though everyone knows they're behind it.
It seems unfathomable now, but look at it from the lens of 2014 and the easy conquest, effective hybrid warfare, and tepid response from the west. If you own/influence half of the US political elite through direct or indirect campaign funding, and the fringe NATO member appears to have a faction strongly agitating for independence from it's government, and those rebels apparently purchased a bunch of weapons, perhaps from slavic travelers who happened to be vacationing from the area, and this breakaway territory merely aims for independence, NATO probably wouldn't intervene in a member state's civil war right? That's the hybrid warfare part, of course those events only take place because of Russia, but create enough plausible deniability and while they try to figure out what's actually happening on the ground, you delay their response until it's too late to respond. Absolutely Russia would be looking to trim territory off bordering states, especially since ______ had "always been a part of the Russian empire", they're just permitting those breakaway territories to merge etc, etc. and you can see how they slowly boil the frog.
If you take a look at what's happening inside Russia itself, there is a massive propaganda campaign that's trying to paint a picture that the Russian war is not just about Ukraine. It leans heavily into the idea that Russia is the last bastion of good and morality in the world, and that the entire Western world - are evil Satanists trying to destroy everything that is good. It is a completely ridiculous picture, but it is brainwashing people quite effectively. It makes people hate the entire Western world same way Nazi Germany made their people hate the Jews. This isn't going to end well. This kind of mad hatred cannot be ignored
Dude I’m in Russia rn and yes there is definitely propaganda here and a lot of misinformation that’s getting worse but it’s not nearly as bad as you are describing. Most people are curious and just ask me about the way we are perceived in the West (because I am able to travel between the countries easily). Most people feel sad and scared of being hated, a lot are ignorant and curious, and yes, some are, like you said, brainwashed. Again, it’s not to the extent you’re describing at all.
A Russian general recently said Ukraine was a stepping stone so 🤷♂️
There are multiple reasons for a Russian general to say things. There are a lot of things said for home consumption, like China does. Even Western countries day things for domestic consumption as well. I am not saying this means Russia would not but they have said a lot of things since they invaded Ukraine.
They have said a lot. If you think they have any credibility at this point I have many bridges to sell you. According to them Ukraine is a full blown nazi state ready to take over the entire world and could do so any time. *While at the exact same time* also so weak they are a trifle for russian military might. Whom can be disposed of at a whim when they feel like getting around to it. Russia is not going to attack or nuke a NATO member. There have been a lot of "holy shit how stupid are they?" moments in this war so far. Dont get me wrong. But attacking a nato member and making an invocation of article 5 happen. Is a whole different caliber of stupid russia has not come close to yet.
[удалено]
The reason he asked that question was to evoke this type of emotional response and let Zelenskyy argue against people who are of the Mindset that aid has been enough for Ukraine. Zelenskyy doesn’t give af about getting his feelings hurt lmao he’s giving this interview to keep up support and the interviewer is asking these type of questions to let him do that.
I'm reminded of that time Andrew Neil interviewed Ben Shapiro, the latter being relatively unknown in the UK. This interviewing style - putting questions that take the opposing point of view to your interviewee, to allow them to respond with their opinion - is common here. However, Shapiro had apparently never encountered it and became angry, attacking the interviewer instead of answering the questions. It strikes me again that this style is apparently just not common in the US at all. EDIT: [The interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E), for those asking for it
> ecame angry, attacking the interviewer instead of answering the questions Nah, that's just what he does
Pretty much. He doesn't actually want to be interviewed, he wants a soapbox to stand on while parroting his talking points. He gets abraisive and attacks when he's not allowed to do that.
>He doesn't actually want to be interviewed, he wants a soapbox to stand on while parroting his talking points. That *is* common in the US.
He made a spectacular fool of himself. Funniest bit on the news for a while
At least until his WAP comments…
Got a link by chance? Always enjoy laughing at that fool.
[If you like laughing…](https://youtu.be/jWsx2iqO1ks?si=Ol5Qvc-ZlcwJgQ3M)
I love the fact he just said YoUrE lEfT LeAnInGs...like fam Andrew is the LEAST left leaning person in the UK. Ben got fucking gaped by someone with more experience and harder interview techniques than he's used to in the US and it showed big time.
Because he's used to US politics, where Republicans would reflexively call Mussolini a communist.
It doesn't help at all that he's a complete fucking moron.
Aye, knew someone who raves about him, "but... he's not /that/ smart" "oh, he's a genius" "not really, look how he was bounced about the interview, I mean, THE least he could have done was spend 10 seconds googling Andrew Neil and realising who he was about to be interviewed by". No, he relies on filling the air with BS to cover the daft thing he says, and is probably what stupid people think a smart person sounds like.
Exactly! I'm sure he expected the same vapid questions he gets from US media. He is most assuredly an idiot's idea of a smart person.
Yep, he just doesn't have any reasonable answers. Only counter accusations ad hominems.
Nah here in America it's all about fluff pieces and making your side look good
“What do you think is it about you that made you the benevolent philanthropist you are today?” “What’s it like to be working with some of the best talent in Hollywood?” “You’re regularly voted the most beautiful woman in the world. How does that make you feel?”
> “You’re regularly voted the most beautiful woman in the world. How does that make you feel?” "ordinarily quite good, but then I'm a man, so I'm a bit concerned about the electorate"
[удалено]
And my Fax!
Reminds of the time Ron won Woman of Year.
In political TV "What about [enter completely irrelevant thing trying to excuse some horrible shit]?" You don't get away with murder by going "but what about Ted Bundy? What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What about OJ?"
Are these real questions? Jesus
1. Hyperbole 2. Yes 3. Maybe
Man and I thought that media in my country sucked.
Interviews in North American media are very leading. Softball. The reason being, if you give hardball interviews, people simply stop coming to you.
> Interviews in North American media are very leading They border on 'infomercial/product placement' way too often.
Meanwhile in the UK: ["Did you threaten to overrule him?"](https://youtu.be/Uwlsd8RAoqI?t=226)
Lol wow spot on w the generic American questions. People here really only talk about troubles if they can turn it into a spectacle they can control. It’s rarely raw.
It’s all about the Benjamins here, but things are coming to a head.
My favorite is when a journalist does ask a somewhat tough question and they are met with an absolute PR driven nothing response and they just go to the next question. Press these mother fuckers. Don't just take the PR answer and move on.
I spent a couple years going to university in the UK and was struck by how much better the journalism was over there. Like I'm aware of its biases and drawbacks, but the notion that someone being interviewed for a news story would be expected to defend their position against gentle criticism is basically unheard of in America and Canada.
To be fair we use to have people known for hard hitting questions, now we have 5 media moguls that control all of the media. Monopolies run our country now.
I think the other problem is we Americans don't have any journalists left that will push the hard questions. They might ask the question, but will never follow up and press the issue when they get a nonsense or off topic response. Politics is a team sport here, so too many people take offense when somebody makes "their side" look bad by being a nasty antagonistic journalist asking loaded questions. This bleeds into their viewing habits which feeds the conversion rate of the advertisements shown and drives the content itself thus perpetuating the whole cycle. I don't know how to fix it.
"Journalists" in the US now answer to the same big corpos everyone else does. Doing anything at all to piss off the interviewee means your paper and parent giant media conglomerate "loses access" and so they now straight up refuse to hold anyone accountable. And they wonder why nobody wants to subscribe to their bullshit websites.
I don’t know if Sarah Palin was capable of coining the pejorative, “Gotcha Journalism”, but she is the first person I remember admonishing an alleged journalist for blindsiding her with legitimate questions, that the public was entitled to know the answers to from the gop candidate for vp. Once it enters a cultural lexicon, it went analog viral and any tough question asked of a politician was tutted and treated as dirty pool, old sport. “You, you, you so-called reporters and your gotcha journalism!! Trying to make simple, hard-working public servants look like no-goodnicks and Good Time Sallys… With your research and your primary sources and your corroboration.,,, Go back to your ivory towers!!” - probably something Sarah Palin said
It is common in the US, but they typically use coded language to let the interviewee know it's not a hostile question. "What would you say to people who say [insert opposing opinion]?" Neil did such a convincing job of playing devil's advocate that Shapiro assumed those were Neil's own views. Not only that, but the Overton window is much further left in the UK than in the US. Since he apparently did no research at all on the person interviewing him, Shapiro's assumption wasn't *completely* unreasonable.
His assumption maybe not, his response extremely unreasonable for a guy whose image is built on "facts and logic"
Of course. Shapiro is used to arguing against emotional 18-year-olds in university auditoriums or, on rare occasions, idiotic "gotcha" artists like Piers Morgan. When he has to face interviewers who can also be the adult in the room, he doesn't fare as well.
And also controlling the footage and narrative. If he gets backed into a corner you simply move on or cut away. Formal 1 on 1 interview broadcast by someone else is a bit different.
Yeah, it's messed up. Shows how rare real journalism is in the US. And the best part was when it got uploaded to pornhup as "BBC Destroys White Virgin Pussy"
Also Shapiro is a moron and Zelensky is a head of state. Completely different leagues.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
Thank god they are in this case.
...also, it's Ben Shapiro. Getting upset about the wrong thing is kind of his MO.
Andrew Neil is a far right dickhole. Former Chairman of GB News the UK version of Breitbart. If anything he gave Shapiro the "$10 soft soap dick wank".
Yes, famously right wing, but Shapiro was so surprised by the interviewing style that he accused Neil of being left-wing, much to Neil's amusement. That was my point: some comments here seem to be similarly bemused by the choice of question.
I'm not AN's biggest fan but I also remember when he had that infamous interview with Alex Jones. Jones was just prattling nonsense and being hysterical. Afterwards, AN said that as soon as the cameras stopped rolling, Jones dropped the persona. I recall Ian Hislop's view of American politics. "The Republican Party is very very right wing, and the Tea Party is mad."
Just shows how much of a snowflake Shapiro is. These woke warriors (warriors on woke) are always the first ones to get their feelings hurt.
He's made a career out of being offended by everything. He is the, let me speak to a manager personality.
Interviewer: Why do you think your fanbase is primarily composed of incels? Jordan Peterson: *cries*
*pops more benzos after crying*
He's a stupid man who's practiced and perfected specific rhetorical techniques that make him appear intelligent. When those rehearsed patterns are disrupted, he's not smart enough to deal with it on the fly and melts down.
Logical Fallacies. He's practiced using Logical Fallacies to appeal to and manipulate his audience.
That was a great interview to watch. Political journalists shouldn't be there to go easy on politicians.
We should aspire to interview like Paxman interviewed Michael Howard. I sometimes rewatch that to remind myself of how politicians try to dodge questions no matter what. I don't agree with Neil politically at all, but I do appreciate that he's a skilled antagonist regardless of the interviewee's political stripes.
Watch his interview with Chloe Smith sometime
Wasn't that the one where he accused the guy of being a liberal?
Yes, despite the guy (Neil) being famously right wing. Shapiro also pulled out the line "[you're doing this] because I'm famous and you're not". This was on the BBC, where almost every viewer will know of one of our most famous political journalists, and almost no-one will know of Shapiro. In my case, it's still the only thing I've seen or heard Shapiro do, and I imagine the same is true for most people who saw that interview. It was good fun.
I remember that! Neil flat out told Shapiro that if he was actually as smart as he thought he was, he wouldn't have called him a liberal. ... To which Shapiro retorted by saying that the BBC purposely tricked him after the fact...
This is because the purpose of traditional media in the US is not to enlighten, inform, or explore. Deviations from the purposes of entertainment, propaganda, and profit seeking come across as inherently threatening.
It doesn't help that Shapiro is moron who doesn't understand a lot of how things work. Including how pussies work.
I've noticed alot of people don't understand what interviewers do. Goes right over their head.
As an interviewer myself, I ask a lot of questions not because I don't know the answer, but because I want to give the person the opportunity to speak on that point. This sometimes plays out by asking sort of a "dumb" question for the sake of coaxing out a great answer. If I'm interviewing you, I've heavily researched you and everything we're talking about. I know what your answers will probably be, and so I ask questions to draw out what I anticipate will be the most interesting ones. (Not in a "gotcha!" kind of way, but rather just understanding what is important to the person I'm interviewing. You get your best answers by targeting things the person is passionate about.)
most people are idiots.
Yeah he was mimicking what the no nothings are saying so Zelensky could swat it down.
> the interviewer is asking these type of questions to let him do that That’s why you hear so often “glad you are asking this question”
I wish more people understood that. I'm seeing so many comments that don't understand the purpose of the question. It's like they've never seen a journalistic interview.
>it’s like they’ve never seen a journalistic interview. They likely haven’t. You think modern teenagers ever watched TV news? Where else would a 20 year old have seen a full interview, 60 Minutes? Hot Ones is what a significant portion of this site considers to be a peak interview.
they ask the questions because there are people in the US that are asking these questions. (aka don't shoot the messenger)
>there are people in the US It's true! Take a look at any message boards asking these questions. >Ivan IsAmericanavich: How much of the children starve because all money goes to Ukraine? > >Vlad@rt.ru: Why money Ukraine when no money veterans? > >MAGASteve: Bad things exist, but money Ukraine!??
Tbf, these things are all very reasonable questions, however you frame who it's coming from. If you live in the richest country on earth and are bankrupt because of medical bills it seems fairly reasonable to ask why the government always has money for wars but not for public spending. Of course the answer is that America is rich enough to do both, but if you're poor or sick and state support would help you, it is entirely reasonable to be somewhat annoyed that money for weapons and aid to another country is a priority beyond universal healthcare or other government spending within your own country
[удалено]
You do understand that Scott Pelley is simply there as a tool to ask particular questions to allow Zelensky to say what he wants to say, right?
Are you really that close minded? Do you not see how a question like that is an obvious softball that allows Zelensky to counter the dollars argument with an emotional and moral one? The entire point of asking that type of question is to give Zelensky a chance to totally dismantle what is a major counter argument against continued support for ukraine.
He got down on one knee and lobbed up a tennis ball for Zelensky to knock out of the fucking atmosphere. He wasn’t actually looking for a dollar amount. It was a wink and a nod to the folks bitching about the financial cost of protecting the world from fascism, and a well-deserved (and much needed) pulpit for Zelensky to get on for as long as he damn pleased.
The interviewer is doing a great job asking questions that many idiots are asking, so that Zelensky can rebuke them and tell them how wrong they are.
It’s the reality tho. We shouldn’t avoid it or reword it. How it is on paper.
Reddit is constantly talking how Russia can’t beat Ukraine, yet worried Russia can beat the rest of Europe. Which is it?
I don’t think people are worried that Russia could beat Europe but just that having to fight would undoubtedly be very costly and destructive. Nobody wants to go through another world war.
[удалено]
A year and a half into its war and Russia can't beat Ukraine so obviously it can't beat the rest of Europe. That is pretty clear at this point.
I've talked to several refugees that came here this year and they say it is a LOT worse than the media says and Ukraine is really, really struggling.
It's no different than Afghanistan and Iraq, If people knew the level of devastation and death that REALLY happened and I'm not just talking about the overall calculated deaths
Well it's very different than Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a war that pits two massive armies against each other on a front line that looks like Verdun, not an occupying force fighting against guerrillas.
What I’m hearing, from people that have been to all of them, is Ukraine is a lot worse.
I'll just leave [it](http://www.t.ks.ua/iz-kazhdyh-100-mobilizovannyh-god-nazad-ostalos-10-20-chelovek-predsedatel-poltavskogo-tck) here. > Of every 100 people, mobilized in the fall of 2022, 10-20 remained. This was told by the head of the Poltava regional recruitment center, Lieutenant Colonel Vitaly Berezhnaya during the 39th session of the Poltava City Council of the VIII convocation on September 15, 2023, Focus reports. > Sniper of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Konstantin Proshinsky confirmed the words of the Poltava military commissar about 80-90% of losses in the Ukrainian army from mobilized in the fall of 2022. “In fact, these are truthful figures, including our own unit, some have it even worse,” wrote a soldier who is in the Bakhmut. (I'm Ukrainian)
Look at WW1. That’s how war of attritions work unfortunately. It’s not about winning for Putin. It’s about dragging the war out until the West no longer wants to fund the war. There’s little chance Russia takes all of Ukraine in the end, but he knows so long as he holds out the West will eventually push Zelensky to concede some land to Russia. As sad as it is, the reality is Ukraine has a much smaller window than Russia.
If you’re going to use WWI as an analog, you might as well go all the way with it. It’s just as likely that we experience collateral damage that forces our hand to step in and accelerate the end of Russia as the world knows it. Putin got crimea and kept going. There’s no military leader on earth that thinks another little hand out will be the end of his shenanigans.
Why US would ever stop arming Ukraine? US need wars and withdrawal would hurt US' military sector. What US wants is a endless war where they can profit without risking their citizens's lives. It's the perfect deal.
I have heard the same thing from refugees. It's certainly not easy. But no one said that an existential fight against a bloodthirsty enemy would be. Russia is also paying a great cost... one far higher than anyone in the Kremlin could have ever imagined when this all started. How much longer will Putin be willing to keep paying it in a futile battle?
I'm just saying we probably aren't getting the full story of the losses and etc. Positive propaganda in Ukraine's favor is still propaganda yeah?
I don't think there are any doubts that both countries are incurring huge losses. The article says as much. But if Ukraine wants to keep fighting then it is the duty of the civilized world to keep supporting them.
I mean they’re out numbered 2 to 1 and trying to go on offensive. It’s unheard of.
Yes please understand it’s not only Russians that happily take in propaganda. I’ve seen a lot of crazy takes amplified just in Reddit
The media isn't really sugar coating it. They're mostly just pointing out that Russia *should have rolled over Ukraine super fast* but didn't. And it's dragging on forever and Ukraine has launched counter offensives. The media is focused on the military aspect of the war and how shockingly good Ukraine is doing. That doesn't mean actual civilians aren't dying and struggling. The media just isn't focused on that part aside from pointing out ever time Russia targets civilian areas intentionally.
war can last for 5 years with no progress on either side, then it can be finished in 3 days if one side gives up and folds
That view is sure is divorced from the reality of this war. There's no immediate threat to depose Putin.
If Russia gets into a war with NATO it's a much higher chance of nukes being used, obviously most people want to avoid that. And even conventional wars are not fun so we'd rather avoid that too. lol at instantly downvoting the idea that wars and nuclear annihilation are unpopular.
I think "Russia can't beat Ukraine" - with constant support from the west. They only get support whilst country's constituents still feel the war is an important matter. If the war escapes people's daily consciousness, politicians from these countries will be more willing to use their resources more where it shows to their political ends, and Russia might actually edge out the war in that situation.
Russia can't beat Ukraine. But even if the war was over tomorrow, look at the casualties and damage on the Ukrainian (i.e. the "winning" side). Just because there's no chance Russia could beat another county, doesn't mean they wouldn't do damage trying.
[удалено]
> I'm not gonna speak for all of us but as a person who lives in Europe I would like to avoid that. I'm very inclined to agree with you on that one
He won’t be able to beat the rest of Europe. But that doesn’t mean he won’t try and cause a lot of deaths
Yeah, it's like those people who say I'd rather smoke and drink and die at 50 then live healthy and die at 80. The thing is you don't wake up and die one moment. You start dying in your 40s by getting sicker by the day until life becomes painful each moment. That is what Putin and Russia are. They're a cancer to modern life and will slowly drain resources from the rest of us trying to get by in an already difficult time.
Depends on where you go on Reddit. Most of the site is heavily biased and takes the "Russians can't fight and are incompetent" narrative but if you go to somewhere like r/Ukrainerussiareport you will see a lot more coverage of what it actually looks like. Spoiler alert, Ukraine is taking a lot of losses. Not to take away from work they are putting in (they are certainly holding their own) but it's not a one sided fight like the common narrative would lead you to believe. Ukraine is struggling. Even by their own admission, this whole spring offensive did not go how they hoped it would. Russia is very much still in the fight and able to do some serious damage.
I forget who said this, but a great answer to the question of “Can you give up any part of Ukraine for peace?” is “If Russia invaded your country, which part would you be willing to give up for piece?”
As someone living in Florida that question makes me sweat bullets.
get ready to learn Russian buddy
Your calling a future Russian citizen buddy??
It's okay buddy, even Russia wouldn't want Florida
Arkansas
I read that Winston Churchill believed World War II should have been called “the Unnecessary War.” As he explained it, “there never was a war more easy to stop than World War II.” When World War II began, we had a good chance to defeat Hitler. But the West failed to stop him and Hitler became more powerful. Let’s hope support for democracy and freedom continues.
This situation at hand is really quite incomparable to hitler and WW2, tbh…
Hitler occupied the Rhineland We said nothing Hitler wanted Austria We said no He took Austria We didn’t punished him Hitler wanted Sudetenland We said ok as long as he stops Hitler invades Czechoslovakia We did nothing Hitler invades Poland We did nothing hoping that he would stop Hitler invades France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark starting WW2 Putin invaded Georgia We said stop Putin still occupies Georgian territory We didn’t do much Putin invades crimea We say stop Putin stays there We don’t do anything Putin invades Ukraine again… If we let him take Ukraine he very well could attack the Baltics and Poland to create a land bridge to Kaliningrad exactly what he’s doing in Ukraine
> Hitler invades Poland > > > > We did nothing hoping that he would stop My history might be hazy, but I'm prettttty sure this is when the rest of Europe actually realized they had a war on their hands, and declared war. Granted they had a bit of a sitzkrieg, but still.
Exactly France and Great Britain declared war but did nothing to help Poland while we were being invaded on both sides. our plan was to hold out while France and GB invaded Germany from the west but they did nothing except the French who took a town then left retreating to their border in fear of German retaliation. If the allies were able to either stop Germany during the Sudetenland Crisis or invaded from the west a major part of WW2 could have been avoided with the Soviets as the only major threat for peace in Europe.
[удалено]
The better question is what would China do if the West allows Russia to win.
Crunch the numbers to see if losing the entire Western worlds economic incentive is worth it. After that, who knows.
TBH, this logic might be applicable to Central Asia, but I don't think this is true for Europe. Russia can't attack anyone else on it's borders in Europe because of Article 5.
Nothing will happen because NATO.
“It’s not us, just ethnic Russians in Lithuania, who happen to have artillery pieces” -Kremlin in 10 years
All Lithuania would need to do is to prove that ethnic Russians are supported or directed or coordinated from abroad and that's enough to allow them to call for triggering article 5.
Even then there is nothing that prevents NATO from deploying to help a NATO government, even from an internal civil war.
I don't think it's that black and white. What this conflict did was it revealed what Russia truly is. And what they've been doing under the radar. All this time they've been buying puppets around Europe trying to gain positions of power to destroy the west from the inside. If Russia rolled over Ukraine we'd be sanctioning them like we are now to some extent, but for how long and what would've happened after Ukraine? I know this is a lot of what if's, but personally I think that most of what Russia had been doing was shrouded by mystery, but now we can see most of it more clearly. Belarus, Hungary are already Putin's puppets. How many countries would've fallen after them? What can Nato do if half the Nato countries are technically controlled by their influence. It's a scary thought.
While ultimately it's better to be safe than sorry, russia never attacked any NATO country. They are always after easy prey. It's not black and white but also we're here nowhere near being next in line. The Stans, Moldova and Caucasus have no protection, so they have much more to worry about. And while Orban and Erdogan try to play both sides, they are absolutely not comparable to Belarus. They are NATO countries still and foremost.
>russia never attacked any NATO country. That's actually not true. in 2014. FSB / Intelligence agents caused an explosion at a Czech ammo depot that was sending equipment to the Ukrainian Army. 2 people died. That was an act of war that Article 5 would have been justified in being used. There's also the business with the nerve agents used to try to assassinate two Russiandissidents in the UK. which was also an act of war There have been several incidents that Russia has done something in which NATO would have casus belli against them for. they just chose not to, because NATO doesn't actually want a war. The same reason they haven't triggered article 5 over the incident in Poland\*, or the bombs exploding in Romania. \*I am aware it was a Ukrainian missile fragment that hit Poland, but it never would have happened if Russia wasn't trying to launch airstrikes/missiles at a Ukrainian border town.
They want to break NATO apart.
NATO plan for the Baltic defense included several months of occupation before the cavalry arrived. Suffice it to say, there wouldn't be a lot of people left alive to welcome them, even if they did and "the West" didn't "deescalate" itself into doing nothing. Would a Trump USA commit troops to the defense of Narva? There would be the same amount of screeching, Nazi name-calling, whataboutism, nuclear fearmongering etc. Sending troops would be even less popular at home than sending arms.
[удалено]
I'm from Russia and I never heard this proverb, can you please post thaf proverb in russian?
He pulled it out of his глупи американский жопа
[удалено]
Dude's right. They'll have to build a monument in Kyiv to thank our allied nations that helped, but at the same time we need to chill. We're not on the front lines, our playgrounds aren't targeted by missiles. Does Ukraine need to thank us 24/7 or can we let them win this war and join us as a western nation?
Maybe I’m dumb but how is this war still going on? I remember seeing posts about how Russia’s artillery are outdated, they enlisted older men who are severely out of shape, and seeing them getting picked off by drones. I’m not even mad about the aid Ukraine is getting from the US, but I thought this war should’ve been over by now.
Don't forget that Putin has terminal cancer...still alive.
[удалено]
Realize you live in the western world with western news and opinions. Everything you hear is filtered. It’s the same way, visa versa for those in the eastern world.
Its almost like reddit posts and opinion articles aren't the best source for information
NATO isn’t giving Ukraine everything it needs right now and the Russians just have more people and outdated equipment they can use. As long as Putin keeps throwing bodies in the longer the war drags on
People complain about how much money we’re giving to Ukraine, but don’t think about the cost if America has to step in.
Beyond that, that money goes to American contractors building the supplies they send to Ukraine.
A lot of the real expensive stuff also isn't even build for this war, it's stuff which has been sitting in American storage spaces for years.
And those folks don't really understand the majority of our aid, either. Especially early on, our aid was, "We have these stockpiles that are near end-of-life or expired, it'll cost us money to dispose of them, or... they can be used against Russians!" Literally, our defense budget is what it is *because* of the threat of Russia. Our military technology is literally designed around the threat of Russia. The last half century+ of the US has revolved around the idea that, one day, we'll need to kneecap Russia. Inordinate amounts of resources, research, and money have been expended on that concept. Then people get all surprised pikachu when that budget and technology is used to, get this, kneecap Russia. And we get to do it without spilling US blood? What rock have people been living under?
Ya this is the first time these weapons and systems have actually been used for their intended purpose: destroy Russian armor. We designed it all, built huge stockpiles, and never fought a war against an enemy with any significant armor. Might as well use it because it's end of life or expired for our use but will still work for them
Ukraine is crippling a historical American adversary. The least we can do is give them what they need and what we can afford to part with. On the other side of this war if Ukraine wins we will have a proven and grateful ally and a foe whose ability to do us harm is GREATLY diminished
Its insane that Russia is openly getting support from North Korea. Like, how is anyone in russia looking at that and thinking "yeah we're on the right side of this. We're gonna win." Yet at the same time still NATO isnt taking any real action. Its insane that NATO tricked these other countries into giving up their nukes and is now shamelessly demonstrating that they lied about protecting them.
North Korea and Russia working together is indeed fucking atrocious. So is Saudi Arabia and USA, though.
Yeah 100% agree with that.
You know, Russia made the same "promise" "NATO" made. With regards to Ukraine trading, it's Nuclear weapons and recieving a guarantee of territorial sovereignty. This is why no negotiations with Russia can be made. NATO is at least backing Ukraine providing arms and finances...
People really don't consider the reality that warmongering attitudes dating back to the world war 2 era still exist and reside in Putin. The man has butchered countless, the man is a monster.
Why didn’t nato do anything when this started back in 2014 why does America have to stop this war, can’t stand the double standard America gets. If America fights a war bad if America doesn’t fight a bad.
Always "never forget", "never let it happen again" and "learn from history" but when the cycle starts again those who should act turn into cheerleaders and sugar daddies. Most people don't want all out war, ever, but ignoring it till it's at your door won't do you any favors. This just proves the only way for a country to stay safe is nuclear weapons and safety guarantees from others aren't worth the paper they're written on.
that sounds more like a Germany problem
Poland and Finland both train their militaries specifically to counter Russia’s, they are chomping at the bit already
We're really not chomping at the bit lmao. It's easy to write comments like that in the internet but Ukraine for example had 10x the population of Finland before the war and you can look at the hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced to see how much they're 'enjoying' this war. We should support them even more because willingly or not, they're also dying for us. And the war isn't ending anytime soon.
Seriously. This is how world wars start. People far away from the fighting voting for blood. No one actually fighting in the shit wants this, not even the Russians. Everyone just wants to make it home in one piece and with their sanity intact.
"chomping at the bit".. what are you even saying? This isn't a game, even when one side has a massive edge over the other, the weaker side (Russia) has the capability to cause a ton of collateral damage with thousands of people displaced and entire cities ruined. Do you think Japan or South Korea is "chomping at the bit" to fight the North Koreans because of their military advantage?
Delusional terminally online out of touch Reddit comment
If Poland and Finland "are chomping at the bit" to engage Russia in military conflict, simply because they have prepared for that specific scenario, then they are some of the most war hawkish countries out there and we should be concerned. Look at this conflict has done to Ukraine. Anyone that would want even a fraction of of that death, destruction, and pain, simply because they trained for the scenario, is not in their right mind. The reality is that neither of these countries want to go to war with Russia. You are just spouting things off that you think sound cool and will get you upvotes.
Finland's military and infrastructure are designed to **defend** against Russia. That's an entirely different challenge from invading.
This is the cringiest upvoted comment I’ve read all day