Tap to unmute

Putin Will Never Invade Ukraine: 3 Reasons For & Against - TLDR News

Share
Embed
  • Published on Jan 27, 2022
  • TLDR Global: ru-clip.com/user/tldrglobal
    Russia/Ukraine Playlist: ru-clip.com/p/PLY...
    We've been talking about the potential of Russia invading Ukraine for months now, and while tensions have been slowly ratcheting up it's not yet happened. So in this video we go through 3 reasons why Putin will & won't actually end up invading Ukraine.
    Follow TLDR on Facebook: TLDR-News-EU...
    Follow TLDR on Twitter: tldrnewseu
    Follow TLDR on Instagram: tldrnewseu
    Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
    Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
    Support TLDR on Patreon: www.patreon.com/tldrnews
    TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
    TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
    Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
    Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
    TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
    TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
    ////////////////////////////////////////
    1 - www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/us...
    2 - SamRamani2/status...
    3 - www.reuters.com/world/europe/...
    4 - www.euractiv.com/section/poli...
    5 - www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...
    6 - www.economist.com/leaders/202...
    7 - www.economist.com/leaders/202...
    8 - francska1/status/...
    9 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiS...
    10 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Uk...
    11 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiS...
    12 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiS...
    13 - www.researchgate.net/figure/D...
    14 - kyivindependent.com/national/...
    15 - www.economist.com/europe/2022...

Comments • 4 378

  • R.
    R. 3 months ago +398

    No, the title to the video didn't age well. But the video itself contains intelligent analysis, acknowleges the possibility of invasion, and invites varying opinions.

    • Mj Wolda
      Mj Wolda 11 days ago

      Definitely didn't age well

    • The Man Who Speaks
      The Man Who Speaks 13 days ago

      BAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAA

    • Bohan Xu
      Bohan Xu Month ago +2

      "the title to the video didn't age well"
      how?... It's even stated again at 1:10

    • Map Of The Soul: Tag Me
      Map Of The Soul: Tag Me Month ago +1

      I think it aged well

    • 9
      9 2 months ago +2

      Idk why are u saying that. If you actually read the title you'll see it didn't actually say russia won't invade Ukraine

  • Mightko
    Mightko 2 months ago +57

    The analysis is actually very good. All the reasons that against invasion now confirms the real dilemma that Russian soldiers are current in , it also confirms the dilemma that Russia is current in. From a rationale person's perspective (based on Western thinking), it is in Russia's best interest not to invade Ukraine, it is simply not worth it, too risky and too costly. However, a reasonable person's rationale underestimates Putin's ambitions and his personal resolve.

    • Cécile Honda
      Cécile Honda 12 days ago +1

      Yes, this video is a guess and only a guess.

    • Paul Henry Newtman
      Paul Henry Newtman 19 days ago

      you don't even know the difference between rational and rationale.

    • Al Mar
      Al Mar 2 months ago +2

      This sums it up really well

  • Lord Gryphon
    Lord Gryphon 3 months ago +231

    I appreciate that you mentioned tipping of "pro western/eastern" balance in ukrainian politics in favour of the west. Large portion of pro eastern areas in Ukraine are now destroyed, depopulated or annexed and this will probably not change. Rump part of eastern ukraine can no longer affect ukrainian politics efficiently. There is also strong shift of perception towards nato in ukraine, from indecision towards clearly pro NATO. As for me i think and hope war wont escalate (it's already ongoing since 2014 although on low level)

    • Siana Gearz
      Siana Gearz 2 months ago

      Since the carpet bombings of Kharkiv, Russia won't find any friends left in Ukraine, not one, not a single one - and that's a Russian speaking and very Russia friendly city traditionally. Everyone in Ukraine knows several people from Kharkiv or someone who studied there, it's basically nation's college, with 300 000 students at any given time.

    • StavroGavro
      StavroGavro 3 months ago

      @Mantas V interesting, but the workers that come to work for 4.5 Euro are from 2021-2022 and they are the once who tell me about Lithuania. "information" and reality are oftentimes very different. And maybe my info is outdated (general doctrine) the reality is sadly still the same today.

    • Mantas V
      Mantas V 3 months ago +2

      @StavroGavro your info is stuck in 2000s

  • James Pettit
    James Pettit 3 months ago +48

    I cannot thank you enough for presenting information in such a way that you leave it to your audience to develop their own views based on the facts. Thank you! You’ve earned my subscription.

    • sponish0
      sponish0 3 months ago

      @Owen Willard I feel a lot of you just throw out the word propaganda as a buzz word. Something not being 100% neutral doesn’t mean it’s propaganda

    • Owen Willard
      Owen Willard 3 months ago

      you fell for their trap. the whole video is propaganda. the only difference is that they leave you with the illusion of choice at the end. it’s basic persuasive essay stuff. address your reasoning to back your opinion, then address counterclaims. finally summarize why your opinion is correct and leave the viewer to “decide” what there opinion is after all the heavy persuasion. all the videos on this account are setup in this way and it’s honestly kind of dangerous. for a source that prides themselves on leaving the viewer to decide, they sure format their videos like persuasive essays. and the title is literally an opinion stated as if it’s a fact, which in my opinion is a big red flag. a truly unbiased video might be titled “will russia invade ukraine?”, rather than a very biased title like “putin will never invade ukraine”. it’s important to really search for the motive behind anything political, because no source is truly unbiased.

    • Yi Wang
      Yi Wang 3 months ago +2

      ​@James Pettit I think it's more like pretending to present information unbiasedly from both sides, but only show it from their view. And present it in a way that makes viewers think they come up with their own conclusion. Because after all It's just either evil putin do bad thing or evil putin don't do bad thing yet. isn't it?

  • Proudhand
    Proudhand 4 months ago +5708

    So did Germany send 5000 helmets twice for a total of 10,000?

    • fuzzb0x
      fuzzb0x 2 months ago

      😂😂😂 the editing of this channels videos is awful, I'm guessing quality control and fact checking is not a high priority

    • Shawn Milum
      Shawn Milum 3 months ago

      Well, they are sending ATGMs and SAMs now! LMAO

    • Wendigo The Bot
      Wendigo The Bot 3 months ago

      yeah

    • Nick Rog
      Nick Rog 3 months ago

      @DRAGON. from India Do you have an App on the App store & Google Play Mr Dragon ?

    • MrInovasoft
      MrInovasoft 3 months ago

      @Steiner's Offensive You have the funniest name, I swear! You must be 100% german!

  • Dan Young
    Dan Young 3 months ago +36

    this aged well.

  • Yevrah
    Yevrah 3 months ago +23

    this aged well

  • MrHallen
    MrHallen 3 months ago +69

    Correction: Sweden is not a NATO state (as is implicated in the clip ), though the country is part of EU. Finland has the same status.

    • Drago Miloje
      Drago Miloje 2 months ago

      @Nikolaj Brødbæk
      You like it or not Russia is right.

    • Nikolaj Brødbæk
      Nikolaj Brødbæk 2 months ago

      @Jack Spencer The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program whwere both Russia and Sweden and many other Nations are members of.

    • Nikolaj Brødbæk
      Nikolaj Brødbæk 2 months ago

      @Jack Spencer You clearly have no clue what IU was talking about with a comment like that, Let me guess your American. LOL

    • A-10 Warthog
      A-10 Warthog 3 months ago

      + Romans 10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
      In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
      In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
      Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." And please repent of all of your sins and be baptized by the Holy Spirit before it is too late, you will never know when the time will come 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • TomheT 000
    TomheT 000 3 months ago +5

    One more pro: Russia relies on hard power for its global status, and backing down can be interpreted as showing weakness to internal and external adversaries.
    One more con: The prolonged threat of war is also effective as a mean to undermine Ukrainian political health. Russia has an easier time maintaining its mobilization on the border and may collect collateral benefits from it (strengthening the ties with Belarus and legitimacy over Crimea) while Ukraine will be economically strained despite foreign aid. The western supporters will also eventually pull out of an economic burden that bears no result.
    My personal guess is that there will be no invasion: While the prolonged stalemate favors Ukraine defensive capabilities, it is also prejudicial to its politic and economic stability. Russia has already taken its most important strategic objective in crimea, so the pressure put on Ukraine without the actual invasion can be enough as a show of force to anyone within Russian sphere of influence.
    There is just no appetite for a full scale war that could drag in multiple countries.

    • twoquickII
      twoquickII 3 months ago +1

      That's what I was thinking. I don't think Putin is the kind of guy who would like to be seen as a paper tiger! You make great points. In the Donbass region, the Russians have great lines and can bring up reinforcements quickly. If the Ukrainians need to quickly respond, many of their biggest weapons need to come from the West. Ukraine can ill afford to place troops just in the Donbass region, as the attack could come from even further south, like troops coming from the Crimea from land and sea...that would cut Southern Ukraine in two as Russian would be able to control the south part of the Dnieper river completely. Or, it could come from the North through Belarus and onto Kiev itself. Belarus has stated that it would (not like they would have much choice) let Russian troops pass through and stage it's troops there in the event of an all out Russian/Ukranian war.
      And yes, Crimea has been taken years ago and gives the Russians dominance over the Black Sea. That's enough of a threat to, over time, control Eastern Ukraine without any invasion.

  • GermanGreetings
    GermanGreetings 3 months ago +1

    You explained the options quite well. Thank you, TLDR !

  • LMLMD
    LMLMD 3 months ago +26

    Putin is a pretty good strategist, and I think no one really knows what his game plan is. Just sitting on the border building up troops seems like a bluff, but it can be a good option. While it technically gives the Ukrainians a chance to prepare, there's no denying their forces are hopelessly ill-matched. By making them fully mobilize and by having exercises in the east (Donbass), south (Crimera) *and* north (Belarus) all at once, he's forcing the Ukrainians to run flat-out just to cover the huge swathes of the border under threat. Purely by sitting there in force, the Ukrainians assets are being worn down. Eventually they'll be unable to maintain such a high level of readiness, and when they have no choice but to start dropping down to a lower level of preperation, morale drops, support ebbs and the battle is half won before the first shot in anger in gets fired. Or maybe it is a bluff, and next year he can do the same again, and again, and again.

    • Luke Watson
      Luke Watson Month ago

      "Putin is a pretty good strategist" 🤣 lmao
      "Ukraine forces are hopelessly ill matched " 🤣🤣 how can you get so much wrong in one paragraph?

    • SpiDey
      SpiDey 2 months ago

      Turned out he is not

    • President of Science
      President of Science 2 months ago +1

      Putin is a good strategist lmao

    • Bocão
      Bocão 3 months ago +1

      @Berzerk I disagree on one point: The US hasn't learned it yet...

  • EagleFive
    EagleFive 3 months ago +24

    I don’t understand why Putin tries so hard with military invasions instead of just building up the economy in their own country. It’s so stupid that in 2022, people are losing their lives over stupid stuff. A lot of these countries need reform, and I think it will happen with this new generation that has access to technology and more education.

    • jSkrat Nyarlathotep
      jSkrat Nyarlathotep 3 months ago

      @Omar B nope, that is so not true. They do have Anapa, Gelendzhik, Sochi - that is outside Azov sea. But what they really are interested in in Crimea is the existing military bases on a land they've used to rent. Apparently they are incapable of building similar bases on their land, i don't know why else would they invade us.

    • jSkrat Nyarlathotep
      jSkrat Nyarlathotep 3 months ago

      He is in charge for already 22 years. No one can think straight being so far from the real people for so long

    • Omar B
      Omar B 3 months ago

      It’s also because crimea is Russia’s only warm water access, so if they let go of Crimea and Ukraine becomes part of NATO then yeah Russian economy gets crippled. So they are looking out for their economic interests

    • Just Pótátóes
      Just Pótátóes 3 months ago +2

      Wait so Russia doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO as it is getting too close to Russia but:
      1) By invading Ukraine, they will be moving towards NATO countries themselves.
      2. Russia already borders like 1 or 2 NATO states like Estonia and Latvia

  • Hugi
    Hugi 3 months ago +10

    This aged like fine wine

  • Graham Thomson
    Graham Thomson 3 months ago +2289

    The trouble with a bluff is that it can become difficult to back down from.

    • Stephen Jenkins
      Stephen Jenkins 2 months ago

      @Dima K. Random US diplomats supporting this or that candidate doesn't equate to much. Merkel publicly supported Biden in the US Presidential election, and nobody freaked out. Hell, multiple world leaders have done that. Same thing.
      Again, I don't subscribe to your way of thinking. If Ukraine wants protection and to join NATO; that's their right as a democracy. They want to be with Russia? That's their right too.

    • Olsen Fernandes
      Olsen Fernandes 2 months ago

      @Timm Rogers You might want to check the time the comments were posted before you start screaming at me.
      I do think that Putin has made a very stupid decision and has dragged the rest of Russia and Ukraine down with him. I feel bad for both sides that are suffering because of 1 person.

  • blingblong
    blingblong 3 months ago +12

    So this didn't age well...

  • Moonatik
    Moonatik 3 months ago +9

    There's also another reason: If Russia did go through with an invasion and occupation of Ukraine, they would face and endless and destructive occupation, more damaging and on a larger scale than the one in they've dealt with in Chechnya for so long. Between facing military losses, insurgency, international repercussions, and problems at home, it's really a diminishing returns adventure, even if an occupation of Donbass would mean Russian oligarchs get a nice cut out of profit from the slave labour mining industry there.
    Nobody understands this better than the Ukrainian state itself. Notice how they're not referring to Russia as an existential threat in English language diplomatic stuff, but as a "bad neighbour".

    • Tim
      Tim 3 months ago

      comparison to chechnya is off by a mile, its a place were people are born with dagger in one hand and ak in the other, hundred of those bearded guys will make ukraine army run losing their sht

    • twoquickII
      twoquickII 3 months ago +2

      Around 50-60% of Uke citizens said they would actively resist (armed resistance too). Someone broke down the math, and said if Iraq and Afghanistan were the metric...Russia would have to have 325,000 soldiers in Ukraine permanently to quell the insurgency. With what would happen with sanctions/banking/trade...could they really do that for 20 years? Even if it were just the Donbass region, that still is 100K + troops to keep the boots on the neck of insurgents. It would be UNBELIEVABLY bloody and costly. Perhaps these moves to the border and the escalation is to bluff the Ukrainians into giving up the Donbass region. However, as a poster above said...it's easy to bluff, but it can be harder to back down from a bluff. Especially if it is Putin who could look like a paper tiger...I don't think he would like that image.

    • volairn70
      volairn70 3 months ago +1

      Yeah, it is hard to imagine this scenario being ultimately profitable for Russia.

  • chding zuure
    chding zuure 3 months ago +4

    This is the first more or less actually objective video you've made on this issue and I applaud your for it.

  • JRSB
    JRSB 3 months ago +6

    All I know is my husband is a Marine, and I want him home with me and his family. I can only imagine how many other military wives and families feel the same way.
    Even if it is a bluff, this feeling I’ve been dealing with isn’t pleasant. However, I’m trying to stay strong for him and my family.

  • _-_-_
    _-_-_ 4 months ago +1978

    Thank you, Germany. We appreciate this move, we believe it was not an easy decision. Every helmet counts!

    • Zylnex xd
      Zylnex xd 3 months ago

      @Tobias Harstel no they didn't. Ukraine rejected the helmets

    • jSkrat Nyarlathotep
      jSkrat Nyarlathotep 3 months ago

      I love how ironic it sounds

    • wookie2222
      wookie2222 3 months ago

      @Volker Siegel What about the Holodomor (Millions of Ukrainians died during the 30s, when the Soviets 'reformed' their agriculture). Since having millions of peoples killed back in thad period is such a good reason for Germany not to intervene, why is Russia then intervening in the Ukraine? That whole logic is inconsistent.
      Russia has killed millions of Ukrainians in the 30s and is attacking that same country now again. A country, that's population majority is against a closer course towards Russia and for a closer cooperation with the EU is invaded and threatened to be attacked.
      One of the things that in my eyes had to be learnt from WW II is that in Europe, peacefull dialogue and economic cooperation are key to prevent war and all the suffering that comes with it. So, learning from WW II should mean to see Ukraine as a country that wants to take part in theese processes and support it on its way towards us.
      And there is illogical bigotry. Germany and Germans have no problem whatsoever to critizise Israel. Even, when Israel is clearly attacked by terrorists or foreign aggressors - Germany as a country stands firmly on the side of Israels, but Germans and German media can't stop to critizise Israel for certain actions or portrait it as the aggressor even when it was clearly attacked.
      Now we have country on EU-borders that masses its troops and makes ready for war and German government, media and people are only too willing to let this country invade a sovereign other country and carve it up as it wishes, because of all the bad things Germany did in WW II and a pipeline?

  • Mike Tayon
    Mike Tayon 3 months ago +5

    Well, it looks like you were/are WRONG!!!! Russia just invaded Ukraine today!

  • Scrubby 211
    Scrubby 211 3 months ago +14

    What baffles me is even if it were a bluff, they’ve constructed field hospitals and transported blood supplies and military supplies near the border, and who knows what else they’ve got going on near the border. Isn’t that a little bit too much money for just a bluff ??

    • Apple Jack
      Apple Jack 3 months ago

      @timur bakarov nice try Ivan,..NATO is a Defensive Treaty not offensive,..Putin knows this

  • Alexei-Amin Shayya-Shirokov
    Alexei-Amin Shayya-Shirokov 3 months ago +10

    Personally I think that an invasion is unlikely; Russia's ultimatum is intended to cause a rift between the Anglosphere and a Franco-German EU, which was largely successful judging by the responses of said blocs. An invasion of Ukraine would essentially undo this rift and keep the Franco-German tandem well within the broader, US-dominated West.
    Some Russian and Ukrainian analysts have suggested that this buildup is a smokescreen intended to distract the West (specifically its Anglo-American component) from other events, namely the CSTO intervention in Kazakhstan and the possible deployment of Russian weapons systems to other parts of the world, namely Latin America.
    This is also not the first time that Russia holds military drills at the Ukrainian border, nor is this the first time the West showed concern of an imminent Russian invasion, so "losing face" isn't really an argument that the Russian public takes into consideration. If anything, the Russian public would consider not facing another 2015 (sanctions, currency slump etc) a foreign policy win.

    • sponish0
      sponish0 3 months ago +1

      Yeah you were wrong there

    • jSkrat Nyarlathotep
      jSkrat Nyarlathotep 3 months ago

      But the same is true for invasion into Ukraine in 2014. Before Ukraine was divided on east and west, pro-NATO and pro-Russian parts, and invasion actually did undo that rift and made east Ukraine pro-NATO as well.

  • Meido In Hebun
    Meido In Hebun 3 months ago +20

    This is the first more or less actually objective video you've made on this issue and I applaud your for it.

  • Ben Thyme
    Ben Thyme 4 months ago +1650

    I would say that this was intended as a bluff but that doesn't mean Putin will back down if it means losing influence.

    • Adam Courtenay
      Adam Courtenay 2 months ago

      @Bachelor how's this comment aged? as i said. russia relies on EU trade, the west IS NOT anti russia. if the west was anti-russia before the Ukraine invasion, we would have sent your economy tumbling decades ago.

    • phooogle
      phooogle 2 months ago

      @StavroGavro Bet you feel silly now. Russo bot boy.

    • Victor Roque
      Victor Roque 2 months ago

      Narrator: It was in fact, not a bluff

    • tr33c
      tr33c 3 months ago +1

      This aged poorly

    • RandomBirdBoii
      RandomBirdBoii 3 months ago

      @Владислав Пронин Poland Żegańska 1 Warsaw

  • Ante Sabo
    Ante Sabo 3 months ago +11

    Well, this didn't age well.

  • KillerNinja0911
    KillerNinja0911 3 months ago

    I feel that Russia would have more to lose this time around seeing as more people are aware and are watching. That coupled with harsher sanctions will certainly deal crippling blows. If they do invade and take the Donbas region, I feel that the rest of Ukraine will be more inclined to partnering up with the rest of the EU and join NATO. Furthermore, I feel that There wouldn’t be anything that Russia could do at that point. Nuclear options?.. maybe, but we just have to wait and see.

  • junk
    junk 3 months ago +20

    Well this was a fucking lie

  • Bobby Brown
    Bobby Brown 3 months ago +3

    I love that this video is so well constructed and everyone is blasting him for saying 5000 helmets twice😂😂

  • ANTY SPI
    ANTY SPI 3 months ago +688

    I still think that the primary objective of this troop buildup was to extract political concessions from Ukraine and NATO. The threat must be credible for that to achieve. The key objective was most likely to block any NATO membership of Ukraine and turn it into a neutral buffer state. As the US and NATO have now so firmly rebuffed this, other options may have become more likely. Painting the situation as absolutely dire and showing Russia in a most unfavourable light in order to win support for their stern response to Russian demands, the US and NATO might have pushed the Russian government into a corner where they either
    1) back down and acknowledge their diplomatic and strategic defeat
    2) raise the stakes by building up more troops
    3) take some military action after provoking the Ukrainians into firing the first shot.
    I still think that 2) is the most likely option, followed by 3)

    • Demetrios1999
      Demetrios1999 3 months ago

      @Sub Sune Then stop commenting! 😏

    • Miles Dunstan - Daams
      Miles Dunstan - Daams 3 months ago

      @Demetrios1999 ukrain is different due to cultrule importance and geography

    • Sub Sune
      Sub Sune 3 months ago

      @Demetrios1999 because i wont comment

    • Demetrios1999
      Demetrios1999 3 months ago

      @Sub Sune Strange message. I enjoy meals, films, etc... But theories?
      And if you don't want to comment, why do you comment that you will not comment? 😏

    • Demetrios1999
      Demetrios1999 3 months ago

      @Miles Dunstan - Daams It means Russia don't like NATO because they want to attack (or at least menace with the possibility) their neighbour estates. And this threat is the main reason for so many states to want to join NATO.
      Finland and Sweden had stated their will to join NATO if Russia attack Ukraine.

  • Aaditya. Panikulam
    Aaditya. Panikulam 3 months ago +4

    This is the one time I am sad to say:
    This aged well

  • Anthony Atherton case
    Anthony Atherton case 3 months ago +1

    Great video, wonderfully done . Thank you

  • Bhangra Fan
    Bhangra Fan 3 months ago

    A lot of the economic problems of Russia have been contributed to by the collapse in oil prices from 2014. This was down to Saudi Arabia flooding the oil market. Some in Russia suspect that Saudi Arabia was using oil as a geopolitical weapon against Russia in connivance by the west. The sanctions so far carried out, and those suggested are generally believed to have been ineffective. Really tough sanctions that would block Russia exports of gas and oil would hit Europe severely as well as Russia. Targeting oligarchs and other individuals sounds clever but hasn't had much effect so far. Such suggestions are not really a serious deterrent.

  • Cymatilus
    Cymatilus 3 months ago +24

    4:23 I'm German, and this has become a joke in recent days. "Yes! 5,000 helmets will definitely help the Ukrainians against the Russians! They cannot be defeated anymore!"

    • Erik Blue
      Erik Blue 3 months ago +6

      The Danish sent 500,000 kroner to the Ukrainian state. Funny thing, a main news station here accidentally wrote 500, so everyone making fun that their grandma is more generous than Denmark lol

    • Sphere723
      Sphere723 3 months ago

      Are they nice helmets at least?

  • Giacinto Boccia
    Giacinto Boccia 3 months ago +649

    The issue with it being a bluff is that it would cost Russia a lot, western countries would still increase their efforts and diversify gas suppliers because they saw how vulnerable they were.

    • mat ham
      mat ham 3 months ago

      @MinaOlenElla 2 weeks... still no war

    • Ciprian Magda
      Ciprian Magda 3 months ago

      @Johnny Mlad Fortunately Russia taught half of Europe how to live with almost nothing. They kept the eastern half in darkness, hunger and cold, just to have them live a little bit better. Those times are not that far away and many of us still remember how you can survive without water, electricity, rationalized food (half a bread per day per person is just an example), very low quality food, and so on and so forth.

  • Miss- H0T Girl-C0me 0ver L!ve

    I still think that the primary objective of this troop buildup was to extract political concessions from Ukraine and NATO. The threat must be credible for that to achieve. The key objective was most likely to block any NATO membership of Ukraine and turn it into a neutral buffer state. As the US and NATO have now so firmly rebuffed this, other options may have become more likely. Painting the situation as absolutely dire and showing Russia in a most unfavourable light in order to win support for their stern response to Russian demands, the US and NATO might have pushed the Russian government into a corner where they either
    1) back down and acknowledge their diplomatic and strategic defeat
    2) raise the stakes by building up more troops
    3) take some military action after provoking the Ukrainians into firing the first shot.
    I still think that 2) is the most likely option, followed by 3)

    • Cyril Sneer
      Cyril Sneer 3 months ago

      4) Do a deal with Germany, France (both have veto powers) and Ukraine and shut the US out. Which is what Putin is doing right now.

  • soiung toiue
    soiung toiue 3 months ago +2

    Thanks for clarifying this issue, even if its so complicated! 👍

  • Andrey aka Pushkin
    Andrey aka Pushkin 3 months ago +15

    I have no idea what's going on in Putin's head, but the "won't" arguments are stronger than "will" in this video.
    1) Ukraine will not become a proper "Western" state any time soon. There's still some 40% of Ukraine's population that is closely associated with Russia. Even if they wouldn't go as far as outright supporting Putin, cutting the ties completely would be unthinkable.
    2) No comment here.
    3) Crimea was different. No one seriously expected Russia would actually annex a foreign territory breaking the treaty it had following the break-up of the USSR. Not to mention that Crimea has twice the percentage of ethnically Russian population compared to Donbas. So I wouldn't look at what happened then as any indication.
    And most importantly:
    Won't 4) Kazakhstan. Putin suddenly has a bigger headache, balancing the powers in Kazakhstan that is arguably more important than Ukraine. Even for a total megalomaniac, having two fronts right now would be excessive.
    The main reason why "will" may prevail is if Putin thinks his rule is threatened if he won't. I don't think people with sensible modern mentality can comprehend how little Russian elite actually cares about the good of the country, compared to their personal benefit.

    • Jhan Niber
      Jhan Niber 2 months ago +1

      @kukul roukul so, how's it going?

    • Mr Exists
      Mr Exists 3 months ago

      " Even for a total megalomaniac, having two fronts right now would be excessive." that aged poorly as soon as you said it, did you forget operation barbarossa? that was exactly a megalomaniac starting a second front

  • Ammolite04
    Ammolite04 3 months ago +8

    Great video! One friendly suggestion would be to avoid plosive sounds by angling your mic a bit off axis. Otherwise it can get distracting.

  • itsme lukario
    itsme lukario 3 months ago +5

    This aged so well

  • Sergey
    Sergey 3 months ago +13

    Russian here
    In your third argument, you did not take into account the fact that in 2014 the Ukrainian army was in complete disarray, and Putin was quickly able to take advantage of this situation. He had the surprise factor on his side. Just as in 2008 in Georgia. Those who support Putin have a saying "Putin outplayed everyone," that is, he did what was not expected of him. Now everyone is expecting an invasion, it is logical to assume that he will do the opposite.
    My prediction: Russia will recognize the independence of Donbass and will move a lot of troops and weapons there to prevent the Ukrainian army from taking over these areas in the future. Because then they would have to face a contingent of the Russian army officially, not just "rebels"
    Overall you did a good analysis, I will subscribe to the channel :)

    • Sergey
      Sergey 3 months ago +1

      @William Gill_Esq.
      Yeah, that's what I meant

  • Loo wai
    Loo wai 3 months ago +6

    Yes, yes he will.

  • The Templar Marshal
    The Templar Marshal 3 months ago +3

    I wouldn’t say the Russians don’t have enough force in the area for a full on invasion. NATO strategists have said for years now that the Russians could overrun one or two Eastern European countries with just 30 BTGs (Battalion Tactical Groups). There are over 60 BTGs on the western and northern borders of Ukraine. Belarus is also planning to get involved with this as they have been letting Russian troops build up with theirs on Ukraine’s northern borders, and even according to Belarus’ own ministry of defense publications there shouldn’t be any troops doing exercises in any locations near the border.
    In addition to this, the Russian Baltic fleet is active right when they shouldn’t be due to the fact that their home port is currently frozen and the last images we got of the Minsk and her battlegroup they were sitting heavy in the water, which makes us believe they are bringing forces to Crimea. All in all, Ukraine is looking at a three pronged attack from the East, North, and South. I’m of the mind that it’s coming, and it’s going to be ugly.

    • Erebus Von Mori
      Erebus Von Mori 3 months ago

      Last estimate I saw for the troops needed to both take and occupy Ukraine is 600,000. Personally I'll start worrying when 400,000+ are built up on the border.

  • Jorge Garcia
    Jorge Garcia 3 months ago +320

    Timing and surprise will be key factors. You get attacked when someone thinks you've let your guard down. His options remain open, even if the probability of invasion is much lower than non-invasion. He's already accomplished some goals, for example discouraging a Ukrainian military push into Donbas and causing anxiety within Ukraine--if it generates open political and social fractures, that may be a likely trigger point.

    • Jorge Garcia
      Jorge Garcia 3 months ago +1

      @Han Solo Please find your princess Lea, have some fun, chill out and then come back, and I'll get back to you.

  • Max Volpe
    Max Volpe 2 months ago +1

    I'm really glad they left this up to preserve the conflicting mentalities that we were all considering

  • Castiel Kahnwald
    Castiel Kahnwald 3 months ago +28

    The Ukraine must have been very relieved to hear that Italy wasn’t sending any troops.

    • UnholyWrath3277
      UnholyWrath3277 3 months ago

      @Furibundus it's ok to have been wrong 👌

    • Furibundus
      Furibundus 3 months ago

      @UnholyWrath3277 Bla, bla bla....

    • UnholyWrath3277
      UnholyWrath3277 3 months ago

      @Furibundus that's great they should have naval superiority against the Austrians who were not exactly a naval powerhouse themselves. The Italians won the conflict on their side. They simply underperformed for said capabilities drastically

    • Furibundus
      Furibundus 3 months ago

      @UnholyWrath3277 Lots of words and omissions, comparisions with other periods, few facts. Common nowadays from pro-russian countries. The Italian navy saved the Serbian and Montegrin armies (plus many civilians) by evacuating them in 1915/16 from Albania.

    • UnholyWrath3277
      UnholyWrath3277 3 months ago

      @Furibundus casualties are not the only statistic to look at. I'll use Yugoslavia in WW2 as an example. They inflicted very few casualties on the axis in comparison to say the soviets. They did however force the Germans to maintain 250000 troops in the region to suppress partisans. A quarter of a million men that would be much better used to break say Stalingrad at crucial points. That is hugely more important then the couple thousand Germans they actually killed in combat

  • Nogarda
    Nogarda 3 months ago +3

    Considering the relationship Russia has with Belarus, I would never invade from the east, when I can attack the head and get Kiev from the north. But If I was going to do it, I'd have gathered troops elsewhere in Russia en masse, then just rolled them out overnight into Kiev and seized control. a bit like the military coup in Myanmar. An assault would have been lightly defended at most, but the troops would be required for a defence and holding the capitol. But he squandered that offensive.
    So this is basically bluster, but the irony of his position is, it's not preventing ukraine from joining Nato, but pushing them toward it. His demands were ridiculous to begin with. But I have a feeling this only disapates when Ukraine and/or NATO agree some sort of hands off deal to prevent conflict. But Putin started this BS to begin with, and I genuinely don't see Russia walking away with what it wants without some sanctions.

    • Hubba Bubba
      Hubba Bubba 3 months ago +1

      @Andrey aka Pushkin Attacking the western Ukrainian territories would absolutely make sense from a military point of view. If there was a minor attack in the east to annex Donbass, there would be massive military aid sent to Ukraine and Russia would have some military danger in their backyard for a very long time. By invading via Belarus and occupy the western parts, Putin could declare independance for the most western regions populated by Rus and Hungarians and thus create a small buffer against 3 Nato countries.
      He would also be able to disarm Ukraine from lethal weapons, such as navy, air force, air defence and modern armour. He could leave them with old Soviet junk tanks andkKalashnikovs, which would be enough for a pro-Russian puppet regime to stay in power, but would pose no imminent threat to Russia if that regime would fall.
      With the eastern pro-Russian parts of Ukraine encircled, they would have to surrender. They will have no fuel for extended warfare and Donbass regions would be fighting for their independance with Russian aid. They would stand against the Ukrainian army even back then, so in this scenario they would be able to go more on the offensive and de facto declare full inpependence.
      Pro Russian regions would be able to form a state of their own, or have referendums to join Russia, like Crimean did. It's not only the East, but also the Odessa region have a majority of Russian speaking population. If that region joined, it would be next to Transnistria, who are also pro-Russian separatists in Moldova, this having in best case a friendly border as buffer towards west, in best case have another region wanting to join them.
      I'm not saying this is a likely or easy to play out scenario, just that your slag off towards Jannie isn't justified.
      Regarding Belarus, you are totally right that the country has traditionally balanced between east and west and has tried to be independant, but friendly with with Russia. Now, as Lukashenko's power base has become weaker and he has pretty much burnt his bridges with the west thanx to the quarrels with Poland and Lithuania, he may not end up having too many other options than becoming a puppet of Kreml in order to stay in power.

    • Andrey aka Pushkin
      Andrey aka Pushkin 3 months ago

      @Jannie Meyer I'm sorry but that makes zero sense and shows basic lack of understanding. First of all, Belarus will not get into the direct confrontation with anyone, and won't be a proxy for Russia. They are more independent in their politics than it might seem, not to mention how shaky Lukashenko's position is already. And secondly, what is the point of the war anyway? The only objective that anyhow makes sense for Putin is to annex in some form additional Ukrainian territories; attacking non-Russian regions are not achieving this goal in any way or form.

    • Jannie Meyer
      Jannie Meyer 3 months ago

      Agreed. Eastern Ukraine is mostly Russian speaking and more pro Russian. He would not want to attack ‘fellow’ Russians that will also cause a backlash from the Russian population. My guess? He will go for the jugular, Kiev the more pro NATO section of Ukraine, attacking from Belarus.

  • Hyperion
    Hyperion 3 months ago

    The reassuring thing is that if Russia did invade, they would ultimately find themselves in an increasingly worse position economically and internationally. For the west and nato it’s a win win

  • A Malik
    A Malik 3 months ago +723

    Let’s say it a third time “Although Germany did recently send them 5,000 helmets”

    • Comical Maz
      Comical Maz 2 months ago

      33rd time: "Although Germany did recently send them 5,000 helmets"

    • MadTechnocrat
      MadTechnocrat 2 months ago

      @gurufabbes1 1th time:"Although Germany did recently send them 1000 antitank weapons and 500 stingers"

    • A-10 Warthog
      A-10 Warthog 3 months ago

      + Romans 10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
      In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
      In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
      Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." And please repent of all of your sins and be baptized by the Holy Spirit before it is too late, you will never know when the time will come 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Innocent O.
      Innocent O. 3 months ago

      @Joe Gould 🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • gurufabbes1
      gurufabbes1 3 months ago +1

      32nd time: "Although Germany did recently send them 5000 helmets"

  • Ryan McDonald
    Ryan McDonald 3 months ago

    A good video overall but you don’t go into enough depth about the more complex relations between the ‘evidence’ you gave and the effect on potential invasion which makes it hard to come to a conclusive answer.
    Firstly its clear that if Ukraine is not invaded and annexed by Russia following this build up, that they never will be, and that in fact he has, instead of ensuring Ukraine never join NATO, ensured that they definitely will in the future and that they will therefore likely join the EU at some point in the distant future. The reality of this could mean that he is more likely to invade now as he has basically set a timer for Ukraine because if the invasion is prevented, it will be in the west’s best interests to bring Ukraine into the fold and gain a member who directly borders Russia, something that will be seen as an immense failure for Russian influence which is mostly rooted in their military sway (and gas).
    Barring Ukraine from Nato is completely absurd and he must have known the west would not have accepted such terms (unless he is that naïve) so why create the situation. His overall goal may be to cause more tension between western states.
    Though nominal damage has really been done here because as you mentioned the west has been given more time to come to a greater point of unity on this issue. The firing of Germany’s Naval Chief for suggesting, in a leaked meeting to Indian officials that Crimea is not recoverable for example, and the continued delivery of anti-tank weaponry from western allies. Furthermore Germany, the EU’s biggest hold out confirming that Nord Stream 2 will be cancelled in the event of an invasion, essentially ensures in the case that Putin invades it will eventually end his career.
    This is because the economic effects will be more severe due to likely more extreme sanctions than when Crimea occurred and NS2 cancellation. The fact that the country is already far worse off economically compared to before the Crimean incursion, ensures that Russia will have enough anti-Putin sentiment to begin some sort of opposition. Russians are not anywhere near as pro-Putin as they were pre and post Crimea, as they have seen a noticeable loss of money in their pockets and rises in domestic prices. At the end of the day, the Russian people will put themselves before Putin, eventually after being given enough pressure from his unwillingness to help and actively damaging their individual economic situations, they will feel personally attacked by his failure.
    From the analysis of the situation its highly likely that there will not be an open war. British and American troops are in the country training Ukrainian troops and thus Russia will not want to risk a big player having just cause for retaliation. The already degrading economic situation in Russia (where stocks have been falling for obvious reasons) and the potentially severe long-standing repercussions as well as the likelihood of Putin being ousted severely rising following war, mean he will not do it. Additionally, as time goes on, Russia will see diminishing return and increasing loss when it comes to starting a war, a blitzkrieg, a sort of rush in of Russian troops (pardon the pun) would have been infinitely more effective.
    But all this begs the questions, why is he doing this if he isn’t planning real war? Or will he go to war anyway? Is Putin simply a glory seeking Russian nationalist with a crazy Russia-Ukraine unification obsession? (that last one is a definite yes). Did he genuinely think he would be able to bully his way into getting what he wants or is he trying to turn the west’s gaze away from something real happening? Who knows?

  • FrostSpike
    FrostSpike 3 months ago

    Regardless of a Russian invasion, do you think that Ukraine will end up being "partitioned" in order to stop the ongoing civil war / separatist activity there? It'd be a messy business either way.

  • rogink
    rogink 3 months ago +1

    I like to think I keep on top of news reporting around the world, and especially conflict areas like Ukraine. I've not seen any other news source - I mostly read BBC, Telegraph, and (ahem) occasionally Guardian - but none has pointed out that by losing Crimea (and possibly the Donbas) Ukraine has become less Russified. OK, that doesn't really make much difference as whether Putin would invade.
    I understand part of the delay for movement is that the winter has been mild, so Russian tanks would find it harder to move without the ground frozen. So global warming might save Ukraine!

  • Nuredin Salih
    Nuredin Salih 3 months ago

    I think Russia has to.
    It wants and needs a land connection to Crimea to fully utilize the harbor.
    It can't afford to transport everything through Ukraine and pay toll to deliver goods from and to the harbor in Crimea.
    One might be able to prevent a war by Ukraine guarantee Russia land access, usage and right to build own infrastructure and militarize and protect the infrastructure as well as a favorable agriculture trade treaty.
    Ukraine wouldn't do that, can't do that, but this would save lives.
    Russia can only use the Bosporus for so long.
    That's also why Erdogan is pushing for a second chanel.
    The window is closing. 100-150 years left for profit to be made due to climate change.

  • Alpex
    Alpex 4 months ago +472

    "Naaaah Hitler won't invade rest of Czechoslovakia, he promised me!"
    -Neville Chamberlain, probably
    Edit: 24th of February, Putin has decided to invade Ukraine. I swear on my honour that i will never forget this day and will never forgive the warmongering imperialists of Russian oligarchy.
    Slava Ukraina. 🇺🇦🇹🇷

    • FemboyShitposter
      FemboyShitposter 3 months ago

      @Piotr D. Slovakia was a client state of Germany during ww2.

    • Bocão
      Bocão 3 months ago

      @Ikari dono It depends a lot on what parts of the EU we're talking about. Things don't look promising in Romania or Bulgaria, for instance, and the EU only gets things done when the Germans throw money in... Yes, I agree, living standards in *many* EU countries is fantastic, but it is hard to say the EU is working great. Even relatively wealthy countries in the EU have been going downhill since the creation of the eurozone. There are cracks everywhere. Unfortunately, the future of the EU does not look so bright and, honestly, I don't think the EU will be ever able to resolve its internal issues.

    • Ikari dono
      Ikari dono 3 months ago

      @MakiENDzou A you are correct in many ways and wrong in a few - I will not react to everything but let's go through one major point - let's take civilian aircraft industry as an example because it's important industry and shows the issue well - how many aircraft manufacturers were there in germany between wars? quite a few - today we have one in europe and even it the 1st or 2nd largest economy in the world (depending on how you count it) is too small for it - as technology progresses R&D costs go up and that cost needs to be spread over more units sold ... and consolidation is inevitable - Airbus today is not just one factory as it was common 100 years ago but it's a chain of subcontractors and companies who are located in western southern and eastern europe and even outide of it - and it's important to note that this trend will not slow down - now let's take a look at what is going on in russia: there is UAC which came to exist from bancrupted remains of traditional russian aircraft manufacturers maybe just like Airbus did - and now they are trying to find a way to survive - the thing is that russian market is too small for this day and age so they need to succeed outside of russia - so they need to compete with Airbus and Boeing - and then year 2014 came and it suddenly became apparent that the whole aircraft (MC-21) needs to be buildable in russia only - which is an issue because so far they intended to do it globaly, Airbus style and now not just that they have to use more expensive domestic approach, they also need to change it on the go - that means delays and further development costs and that directly results in further disadvantage over Airbus and Boeing - there are chances that MC-21 will fail to get international interest and that might be the death of russian civilian aircraft industry - now tell me are you more "sub-human" in eastern europe working sub-contractor factory for healthy business like Airbus, protected by all of those employee protection laws that is EU famous for or are you "sub-human" in russian where the governemt can't give you such protection because they need their economy to be as competitive as possible (from what I've heard from many russians I've talked with it's pretty horrid there) in an aircraft parts factory that is basicaly doomed to go bankrupt in few years or jus hang on barely ... sure there is inequality in europe but the lower ones are still better of - when it comes to food you can still eat healthy in eastern europe if you want to especialy if you cook for yourself - I know a few people who are complaining constantly about this food inequality and that they can't afford better food ... and then they buy overpriced useless clothing, shoes, etc. - so yeah - I'd rather have an ok-ish job that is not trying to work my soul from me, feeling safe because law is giving me some assurances not be threatened to lose it so I can live quality life outside of work and that is what EU is good at - if you were to take those things from me due to macro-economical effects, politics or whatever then I'll start to feel "sub-human" - and I think that as the time will go on russians will see that they should have started with economical integration to europe long time ago ... or they'll just burn in self-made hell :D

    • MakiENDzou A
      MakiENDzou A 3 months ago

      @Ikari dono I think to it is finally time to answer your comment. In EU not all people are treatment equal. First i need to say how people are not leaving EU, but they go from one part to another. People from eastern EU are moving to western EU. I come from country that has that problem. People are leaving my country and going to the west. Western EU needs 2 groups of migrants, talented and intelligent people like doctors,scientists,athletes,ect that will earn money in these countries, stay there and work for them for rest of their lifetimes. So by that way in western EU are coming people that would can to a lot of help their own countries. Second group of people are going to work some jobs that for example normal German would not do. Normal German will do some normal while that migrants are going to work like construction workers, truck drivers, street and building cleaners, so mostly some physically difficult jobs. That people will work these jobs few years and then come back to their countries where they will can to work normal jobs but for smaller salary.
      So migrants in Western EU countries just work jobs that people from western EU countries can’t or don’t want to work.
      Now i should explain what i meant by “subhuman”. In reality people from eastern EU countries are treated like people from western EU. Best way to see this is by quality of food. Food in western EU has a lot of better quality then that one in eastern EU. While organic food in western EU is actually organic and healthy, organic food in eastern EU is mostly genetically modified. I can send you sources for this if you want. Technically it is legal to sell same food but with different quality in different countries but just because it is legal it doesn’t mean to it is good or right.
      EU’s free market is not same for Germany and for example Bulgaria. German industry is a lot of stronger then Bulgarian so it is a lot of larger chance to Germany will sell a lot of more its goods in Bulgaria then Bulgaria in Germany. Epilogue of it is to Bulgarian small and medium businesses will not even can to compete with German companies in their own country. So in Bulgarian supermarkets there would be a lot of more German goods then Bulgarian and Bulgaria will be economically dependent on Germany.

  • William Lloyd
    William Lloyd 15 days ago +4

    Very interesting to watch this video 70+ days into the invasion.

  • Leamalol
    Leamalol 3 months ago +5

    This aged well

  • ManishDino
    ManishDino 3 months ago +5

    This aged well

  • Theo Cartwright
    Theo Cartwright 3 months ago +10

    Well this title aged well.

  • failinator1
    failinator1 3 months ago +434

    I really appreciate your work and I know that it is very hard producing videos like this, but I think it is time for you to invest into a proof-reader or proof watcher.
    There were again some errors in this video, 4:23 two times the same line, 7:42 "a steep drop in Russian attitudes towards Russia"
    I don't want to be the grammar nazi here, I just think it would look more professional. Love your work, guys.

    • Ashley Lee
      Ashley Lee 3 months ago +1

      constructive criticism, nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with that 😅

    • Gala
      Gala 3 months ago +1

      Two times the same line was a punt looks like you are the one who needs to invest more time into world affairs.

    • Jacku Dark
      Jacku Dark 3 months ago +2

      @Eevert L Also saying Germany evuated their staff, they didnt

    • Eevert L
      Eevert L 3 months ago +8

      Also parts like
      7:32
      9:03
      9:07
      and
      9:36
      where the image covers part of the text are really annoying to read

    • shanks n
      shanks n 3 months ago +2

      It's hard work producing videos like this....he's done well with what I presume is a limited budget here

  • MrScaryJoe
    MrScaryJoe 3 months ago

    A bit of a correction, Sweden did actually send equipment to Ukraine, They sent anti tank Javelins to the Ukrainian Military like a week before this video was uploaded.

  • K.Ferenc
    K.Ferenc 3 months ago +3

    "No, germany will not attack poland! They have an alliance with brittain and france. And brittain and france is really strong, france has the best military! They are allies, so they have to help. We'll be fine."

  • Santiago Gomez
    Santiago Gomez 3 months ago

    The issue with it being a bluff is that it would cost Russia a lot, western countries would still increase their efforts and diversify gas suppliers because they saw how vulnerable they were.

    • timur bakarov
      timur bakarov 3 months ago

      It was not bluff cause there was no plan to invade in the first place.

  • XChickoNuggo
    XChickoNuggo 3 months ago +6

    this aged well

  • Bachelor
    Bachelor 3 months ago +174

    I think we should remember that when you want to attack, you don’t try to attract much attention to your actions. There was no explicit preparation for invasion in Georgia, in Crimea. Did anyone say a word about suspicious battalions on the borders then? Russian army is capable to leap to Ukrainian borders from their usual positions in a day (like there was in Georgia). There is no military strategic sense in coming a bit closer to your potential enemy and wait.

    • Wendy James
      Wendy James 2 months ago

      @Markotram it was based on a story that "happened" near Gori by the S. Ossetian border. And is quite easily verifiable. This is just a fake narrative that goes from one russophobic source to another.

    • Markotram
      Markotram 3 months ago

      @Wendy James that is not what my Georgian friends tell me, nor what I saw in the exhibition in Tbilisi a few years back, saw in a documentary and read in several sources which I am too lazy to lookup atm. Could have been Abkhazia and not Ossetia by the way. But it was not some vague story based on one vague source.

    • Emperor Arima
      Emperor Arima 3 months ago

      You know the build up to World War 2 was basically the same thing. Nations that thought war was inevitable building up arms and mobilizing troops.
      Hell in WW1 Russia was to take so long to mobilize troops that Germany made plans around that.
      And that was with less complex armies, and less means of detection.

  • oakie oak
    oakie oak 3 months ago +2

    Ehhh, There's a very good reason why Russia hasn't invaded by now, CHINA. Specifically the winter Olympics being held in China. Putin wouldn't dare wage a war during the Olympics as that would piss China off to a new level not yet seen. It will mostly likely happen after. Also, you can't just invade a country. Theres a lot of prep you need to do; setting up infrastructure, setting up logistics, troop training, setting up vehicles for regional deployment, planning, etc. With today's technology, the big one being satellites, we were alerted early to the Russian build up. And yes while the more they wait, the more Ukraine can set up defense is true. Russias military and its doctrine can easily plow through any Ukrainian defense. A russia vs Ukraine war would look a lot like desert storm. Russia will use its massive airforce and tank force to plow straight to its key objectives. Ukraine flat geography make it perfect for tanks and planes. Evidence: The Ukrainian military quickly put down the fighting in the revolting provinces only to be driven back by a small Russian task force, who's goal was to keep the revolution alive.

  • Hazel Cutting
    Hazel Cutting 3 months ago +1

    5:15 he just did. Started broadcasting within Russia that nato is planning an invasion of Ukraine. This will prime the Russian people to see a Russian invasion of Ukraine as defensive rather than offensive

  • Lion Lissauer
    Lion Lissauer 3 months ago +2

    Escalation is a serious concern at this point but personally I think the question of "whether or not" doesn't seem to cover it. It may rather be a question of "how" for at it matters. First of ll, the psycological aspect of warfare these days has rather shifted towards a more hybrid form of warfare that includes more tools like economic sactions, the use of (dis)information and the gravity point here in this particular case is the threat of who will deal the first blow and what chain of events will be set off as a consequence of that. This, as opposed to the "classic" style of thinking along the lines of who is dealing the final decisive blow.
    To me, full-scale invasion of Ukrainian territory by Putin seems highly unlikely for a number of reasons. Even though the Russian army seems powerful enough to succesfully invade Ukraine and reach Kiev it would cost the Russian state millions of cash, resistance from the local population wil nevertheless be too strong, it would be too much of an upkeep in terms of state finances, militairy equipment and human lives and sooner or later the invasion would become increasingly unpopular among the general public (somewhat comparable to the US invasion of Iraq). On top of that, it would put Russian troops right on the border of NATO territory which would impose an even greater risk for Putin and economic repercussions would potentially cripple the Russian economy as a consequence>
    However, what Russia CAN do is temporarily block Ukraine's access to the Black Sea. Again, this won't hold up permanently but since Ukraine holds several important seaports across the Southern coast it would potentially deal a massive blow to the Ukrainian economy, sufficient enough to destabilize Ukraine for a long time. It could increase its militairy aid to the breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in order to drain Ukraine's militairy budget and further weaken Ukraine's overall economy. In turn, economic sanctions from the West would definitely increase and to the naked eye it would seem like Putin would shoot himself in the foot by doing so. But after a period of economic distress Russia's financial buffers have since increased, meaning they may be able to hold out for at least a little while.
    Finally there's two major threats the West could impose on Putin in terms of sanctions. First, there's the cutting off from Nord Stream 2 initially explicitly ruled out by Germany as a possible sanction but recently left open for debate. This would cause a massive blowback to both sides of the conflict: Europe heavily relies on the supply of Russian gas and these days gas prices have been on an alltime high. Cutting off the gas supply would mean a massive shortage for Europe with enormous consequences. In turn, Russia heavily relies on the profits made by gas export and even during the darkest days of the Cold War Russia NEVER cut off its gas supplies to the West... and for a good reason. Another possible option that's been frequently discussed recently is cutting Russia off from the use of SWIFT, thus barring Russia from international trade to a large extent. This could prove to be a massive blow to Russia's economy and in the past it has imposed on Iran succesfully. But it's a threat you can only make once: these days SWIFT-like international monetary systems have emerged regionally, albeit on a much smaller scale compared to SWIFT. The EU has it's own little system on the side, Russia has it's own SWIFT-like system mainly used for bilateral trade in its Eurasian spheres and China's own Yuan-based system is increasing in size. The possible risk of cutting off Russia from the use of SWIFT may have a regionalization of international trade as a consequence and an increased use of these regional systems at the expense of SWIFT. In the long run, this could mean a massive economic loss for the US and at worst losing its economic er even political gravity point on a global scale.
    In conclusion, with all this taken into account and Russia's history of international policy it's mostl likely this will remain a "frozen conflict," much like the Georgian or Moldavian cases. Russia's aim seems to be destabilization and keeping the upper hand in the former Soviet spheres of influence.

    • Lion Lissauer
      Lion Lissauer 3 months ago

      @Marcus Hennings It's pretty much my point actually: nobody wants an all-out war, at worst it's gonna be a few scuffles and some sanctions as a reprisal. But the true danger lies in who's gonna deliver initial strike which sets the whole thing off. From there on out the situation can become highly unpredictable...

    • Marcus Hennings
      Marcus Hennings 3 months ago +1

      Imo he's hoping someone gives him a reason and starts it for him. I certainly wouldn't preemptively place sanctions and continue verbal exchanges because that will just give him the excuse he's waiting for.

  • Psyese Ease
    Psyese Ease 3 months ago +1

    I think he'll invade, but I hope he won't.
    As always, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

  • TheKobiDror
    TheKobiDror 3 months ago +316

    It's hard to find final conclusions. The problem is that everything is possible disregarding the possibility of getting real.
    From the western media coverage it looks like Russia is less likely to invade - for now. But one wrong statement could make every gameplay irrelevant.

    • Diomedes_D
      Diomedes_D 3 months ago

      "But one wrong statement could make every gameplay irrelevant"
      Thank God we've got Boris Johnson as PM. 😰

    • Kiril Govedarov
      Kiril Govedarov 3 months ago

      He could be waiting for enough weapons from the west to arrive so they could later fall in the hands of some revolutionaries or who knows who. Same old isis scenario.

    • MrLowbob
      MrLowbob 3 months ago

      Putin is a goddamn chess player. Not in the sense that he is some genius, but he tends to play the long game. its also not all about foreign politics. I don't know what the current status is, but domestic politics might also play a role in what will happen. "helping the ethnically russian populace in ukraine" could be a move to sell it to the domestic audience and might very well work as a diversion for other inner conflicts, too. I don't know enough about russian inner politics and whats going on there, so this is a wildly random guess without any insight, though.

    • Булат Кульгильдин
      Булат Кульгильдин 3 months ago +1

      @Geo MS Crimea voted in 1994 referendum, and one in 2014. Also look how many ukrainian troops joined russia'n military, also look on naval officers.

  • Nelyrion s
    Nelyrion s 3 months ago +4

    Half the damage is already done, even without an invasion.
    - Russias action have driven Ukraine closer to west
    - Risks severe sanctions towards Russia that will damage their economy and military capabilities
    - NATO and EU military budgets and troop positions have increased severely. Their actions have also sparked NATO interest in Sweden and Finland, one of the few neighbouring countries that aren't members of NATO.
    - Germany and Russias deeper economical cooperation regarding energy has taken a big beating and may not happen anymore.. Nordstream 2 being a part of that.
    Russias either intended but halted invasion or bluff have done irreparable damage both to Russias geopolitical position, economy and the trust countries have towards the country and leader. Putin is in a vice now. Either he invades and takes the consequences, sending Russia into a worse state than before, or he backs down, and appear weak, which is sort of.. well.. what makes Putin, appearing as a strong leader.. it wont go down well in Russia and public opinion.
    I've already seen propaganda from Russia where they are shifting to the excuse that they are just there to protect the rebell regions from Ukrainian offensive. Which is kinda funny, cause it's Ukrainian territory, not Russian.

  • Jack Henderson
    Jack Henderson 3 months ago

    Ive been saying this a while and i think Russia idea in putting troops on the border was to gauge the reaction. Maybe if the reaction wasn’t so severe they’d have done it already.

  • Resident Evil
    Resident Evil 3 months ago +5

    Well this aged well

  • DarkeSolace
    DarkeSolace 3 months ago

    The issue with it being a bluff is that it would cost Russia a lot, western countries would still increase their efforts and diversify gas suppliers because they saw how vulnerable they were.

    • 2D Watermelon
      2D Watermelon 3 months ago

      dude why you copy some random comment

  • phooogle
    phooogle 3 months ago +205

    I'm quite liking the West's response to this in the arena of military build-up. Slowly adding forces rather than sending a massive force over - gives Russia time to see it happening without it looking too aggressive.

    • Marcus GH
      Marcus GH 3 months ago

      @N Fels It sounds like you play too much war thunder lol... you clearly have never been to a real war kid, I volunteered in Armenia, we could do nothing against frontal t72b3 and t90 armor, only the old azeri t72a's would cook off.

    • N Fels
      N Fels 3 months ago

      @Marcus GH
      Are you aware of the effects of putting a couple ATGMs into a Russian armoured unit? Catastrophic kill on every target you hit because of bad Russian tank design, and the rest probably routs after that.
      The Ukrainian army is seasoned, professional and strong. They've already stopped everything the Russian army can throw at them for 8 years now. All they need is a technological edge that they can use. Such as a few Javelins to put the fear of god into any Russian tankers.
      Plus we've already seen decades ago what it does to the Russian airforce if the other side has decent AA. Personally I think we should our old SPAAGS over. They were phased out and retired because we have better missile defenses now, but stuff like the Gepard/Cheetah puts so much fire downrange it can utterly prohibit Russian airforce use and probably flush out a whole Russian column by itself. (as long as the ammo holds. Especially the Cheetah with its larger caliber only has ammo for half a minute of sustained fire).

    • Not Me
      Not Me 3 months ago

      @Jeff Hockey the way I understand this situation. No nato troops in ukraine atm, russia invaded crimea, ukraine seeks allies, russia got mad and actually mobilized troops and blame nato, nato denies russia demand of barring ukraine joining nato citing ukraine sovereignty, nato suggests to not station troops inside ukraine even if ukraine joins nato. Russia still mad and threatens war. Who is doing the pushing?

  • Tobias Unknown
    Tobias Unknown 3 months ago

    It just shows what the German government position always was: Nord Stream 2 is not bargaining chip for Russia, but also can be used against them.

  • Komment King
    Komment King 3 months ago

    Very very informative. Thank you.

  • Thamian
    Thamian 3 months ago +4

    It is worth noting that there is a very simple reason that Russia hasn't invaded yet - it's been a very mild and wet winter thus far, with the result that the ground in much of Ukraine is really rather muddy - not ideal ground conditions for a rapid tank offensive against a determined and entrenched opponent.

    • VORASTRA
      VORASTRA 3 months ago

      Well... Most of Ukraine is covered in snow and ice.

  • Barello Smith
    Barello Smith 2 months ago +2

    I don't see why people would say, this video is wrong. First of all it didn't actually predict that Putin would or wouldn't invade. But most importantly it perfectly predicted the consequences of an invasion for Russia and that it was a bad strategic idea!

  • John Smith
    John Smith 3 months ago +10

    This didn’t age well

  • JaRiS993
    JaRiS993 2 months ago +2

    the title is bad for now, but in this vid. you can see the second part of vid. was right nobody didnt believe he would attack but there was a possibility of russia attacking ukraine

  • Bennett May
    Bennett May 3 months ago

    A week ago I thought he was going to invade any minute, but now it’s starting to look more like a giant bluff to gain more power through negotiations

  • SpaceCube
    SpaceCube 3 months ago

    4:35 this is somewhat incorrect.
    yes, croatian president said he'd ''recall all their troops from Ukraine in case of an invasion''
    he ommited the part that there were no croatian troops in Ukraine in the first place.
    Croatian soliders from Poland and Lithuania did come home. however, they came back a couple of days before, as planned rotation within NATO's poland/lithuania battalion(s)?. so that return had nothing to do with recent events.
    the government, which de facto has all the power in it's hands, did confirm croatia remains and will remain solid member of NATO.
    the president, however, seems to be riding on the right-wing-y wave of populism and putinofilia, which, sadly, remains as strong in Croatia as in rest of western Europe (khhm, Germany khhhm)

  • Keltik0ne
    Keltik0ne 3 months ago +109

    It's quite odd that the UK government is actively blocking sanctions on the 50 or so oligarchs that have been flagged as Putin's money holders, who also happen to own quite a lot of London property and donate heavily to the Conservative party.

    • Resugram
      Resugram 3 months ago

      Although Germany did recently send them 5,000 helmets.

    • Tom K
      Tom K 3 months ago +1

      Sanctioning them would be stupid PR move by UK for local consumption. First of all none of them have any major holdings so minimal loss. But the message would be clear, UK is not country of law and order.
      These that do have lots of property are not exactly friendly with Putin, usually they are criminal element. Sanctioning them would be great especially for Putin.

    • History maker
      History maker 3 months ago

      he probably was in a downing street party. Sue Grey just wanst able to talk to him

    • D H
      D H 3 months ago +2

      It’s not odd, it’s classic Tory cronyism

  • Michael
    Michael 3 months ago +1

    8:34 ''we're not saying it's anything like a modern European state yet''
    It _is_ a modern European state. What was this supposed to mean? It almost sounds like a derogatory statement towards the country. Just because they don't tend to agree politically or are as wealthy as other nations in Europe doesn't mean it isn't a country of modern Europe. Be careful about how you describe the country, it might belie some issues with how you see certain countries.

  • Marcus Rowe
    Marcus Rowe 2 months ago +6

    Spoiler- he did invade

  • BruceLeedar
    BruceLeedar 3 months ago

    0:36 I know it's just an 'illustrative' graphic, but it's a bit silly to seemingly show Western aid coming through Belarus and Moldova, since they are Russian-aligned and some of the Russian troops are stationed there.

  • Chaitanya Lokhande
    Chaitanya Lokhande 3 months ago

    Should have also mentioned implications/consequences, if it were a bluff!

  • InternetChunk
    InternetChunk 3 months ago +1

    Maybe he's taunting/checking the West's response (like with Crimea) before he commits to an invasion or maybe it's a slow process so nobody would notice the changes?

  • xenuburger
    xenuburger 3 months ago +3

    Sending weapons to Ukraine increases the chances of an invasion so the Russians can remove them like in Georgia 2008. However, Zelensky is trying to calm things down. He is under some pressure but he is no tie-eating criminal like Sakashvili.

    • VORASTRA
      VORASTRA 3 months ago

      @Klesh13 xD lmao

    • Klesh13 xD
      Klesh13 xD 3 months ago

      Yeah, he's a simple pianist 🙂

  • Logan S
    Logan S 3 months ago

    A bluff is normally utilized if there is a gain to an objective. What advantageous gain would Russia achieve if its current actions was a bluff? It's why I feel that a bluff is less likely. Russians have placed great amounts of energy, resources and costly displacements of its troops. Its logical to think their actions have a greater reward in mind rather than a neighbourly military meeting at the border to annoy Ukraine and the west.
    If there is an advantage to be gained from this bluff, then perhaps someone could provide one, because these military movements are directing a path towards a severely costly war, in human lives as well as economics.

  • Patrick Gill
    Patrick Gill 3 months ago

    yeah, you know a man's serious when he's ordering more lubricants...
    on a more serious note.
    If you look at history, from the bronze age until the start of the cold war, Russia has been a major player, or at least a major consideration, in nearly every European conflict, accord, economic venture and even arts and literature. Despite having a huge (sparsely populated) Asian territory, you can't get away frim the fact that Russia is essentially a European country.
    NATO is a group created in order to use political and economic pressure as well as military alliances to "contain" Russia, and by "contain" I mean to effectively ostracize Russia from Europe. The reason for this was to prevent the spread of communism, but that reason became obsolete after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since then, NATO "containment" has only grown.
    As I see it, the current reasons are 1) so the EU can dictate fuel prices when dealing with Russia, and 2, (more impotantly in my opinion) so that the balance of power remains in the west. Consider the influence and leverage Russia would have had if it had been able to join the EU. Either this would have been disharmonious and Russia would have bullied almost everyone into making concessions, or it would have been more harmonious (stranger things have happened) and the Eurasian Union would currently be an economic and military superpower who would dwarf the US. I think this might explain why the US is so heavily invested in "containing" Russia. If you look at every single conflict the United States of America has been involved in after the first world war, they have 1 thing in common: oil.
    As a clueless but naieve optimist in a country far removed from any of this, as an idiot shouting his unqualified and unsolicited opinions in the comments, I feel that despite their bloody history, Europe and Russia have a hell of a lot to gain by closer, peaceful cooperation, increased trade and more mutually beneficial defence agrements, bilateral assurances of cooperation, considestion and peace. This would also require countless concessions on the part of the Russians to work. Perhaps a more autocratic leader like Putin wouldn't like to make the required changes, but if properly implemented, I feel that they would revitalize the Russian economy and be of great benefit to the Russian people.
    I also feel that Europe being friendlier with Russia would grant the EU a tremendous advantage in dealing with countries such as China and India.
    But Russia and Ukraine have oil and so we will see a war...

  • Mark Chaplin
    Mark Chaplin 3 months ago +1

    I don't think it's a bluff, and judging by how busy Borispol Airport is, alot of Ukrainians don't either. Those that can leave are doing so.

  • David L
    David L 3 months ago

    love the editing and animation but sometimes elements block text, which is distracting and hurts readability.

  • LuisMiguelMarado
    LuisMiguelMarado 3 months ago

    It would be good if the editors gave the channel a sub. They might catch some of those mistakes they've been making all this time... 🤣

  • 3STYL
    3STYL 3 months ago

    Well russia annexed Crimea pretty easily even with tons of hostility so... I think something is gonna happen

  • Stefan
    Stefan 3 months ago +63

    I hope that the politicians will solve this crisis in a mature way. So without starting another military conflict. It is the common citizen who suffers the most during a war. Innocent men, women and children. Ordinary people, who just want to build a normal life. We really should avoid a conflict.

    • SchusT
      SchusT 3 months ago +2

      Actually, the EU (mostly Macron) and putin agreed that we should not fight

    • Romanke
      Romanke 3 months ago +6

      NATO should be limited then

  • Rod Willett
    Rod Willett 3 months ago +1

    I think the deciding factor is how secure Putin feels about his own position and future. The more secure he feels the more likely this is all bluff and postureing. If he's feeling weak insecure and threatened by internal forces, he may see the uncertainties of war as opportunity, instead of being all about downside risk.

  • Ratzfatz
    Ratzfatz 3 months ago +2

    I would really like to say that Germany will stay by Ukraine's side but with our current government I have serious doubts.

  • Jose aca
    Jose aca 3 months ago

    Honestly this could be a very costly move for russia if they decide to follow through, not only in terms of sanctions, but human lives, it doesnt look like ukraine will be caught with their pants down a second time and a lot of the western supplied equipment could be very dangerous to russian troops

  • Andrew H
    Andrew H 3 months ago +1

    Anyone who knows about the troops on the ground, the planes in the air, and the ships in the sea knows Putin is about to invade.

  • TheDragonaf1
    TheDragonaf1 3 months ago +1

    Ah yes the old saying:
    Ukrain" hey can you help us, we need man power, weapons, you know? The big boy stuff!"
    Germany "Sure we will give you helmets!"
    Ukraine "Err...thanks...."