How Putin Fooled the Western Left
Summary
TLDREl video analiza por qué la izquierda occidental antiimperialista es indulgente con la violencia imperialista extrema de Putin. Critica a figuras prominentes de la izquierda, como Chomsky y Sachs, por malinterpretar los motivos detrás de la invasión de Ucrania por Rusia y por ignorar las verdaderas consecuencias de dicha agresión. El video argumenta que la izquierda se centra excesivamente en el imperialismo de EE. UU., desoyendo la amenaza real de la agresión rusa y la autonomía de Ucrania, poniendo en riesgo la seguridad y la democracia en Europa del Este y más allá.
Takeaways
- 🌍 El video analiza por qué la izquierda antiimperialista occidental es indulgente con la violencia imperialista extrema de Putin.
- 🗣️ "Personajes como Chomsky, Sachs, West, Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi y Gabbard son criticados por no entender la política de Putin y sus verdaderas intenciones."
- 📜 "Putin emitió un ultimátum a Occidente en diciembre de 2021, reclamando una garantía de que Nato no se expandiría hacia el este, y argumentó que sus demandas eran mínimas y legítimas."
- 🤔 "La izquierda occidental y antigua argumenta que los EE. UU. y Occidente no tomaron en serio las preocupaciones de seguridad de Rusia, contribuyendo así al conflicto actual."
- 💡 "Se sugiere que la izquierda occidental subestima las verdaderas razones detrás de la invasión de Ucrania por Rusia, centrándose excesivamente en la expansión de Nato."
- 🇺🇦 "La invasión de Ucrania por Rusia en 2014 y 2022 fue en parte para evitar la erosión del régimen en casa, con Putin buscando fortalecer su poder y control."
- 👵 "Putin se ha sentido erosionado por la generación joven de Rusia, y espera que un conflicto mayor contra Occidente y la militarización de la sociedad俄国能够帮助他 retener su apoyo."
- 🏰 "Putin ha desarrollado una sensación de misión y se ve a sí mismo como una figura única e indispensable para la seguridad y destino cultural de Rusia."
- 🤼 "La expansión de Nato no es el único factor detrás de la invasión de Ucrania; también están las necesidades de seguridad del régimen y la percepción mística de la seguridad nacional de Putin."
- ⚖️ "A pesar de que la expansión de Nato fue manejada deficientemente, no es la causa primaria de la guerra, y centrarse en ella no cuenta con la agencia ucraniana y las dinámicas del conflicto."
- 🌐 "La izquierda occidental argumenta que hay una oportunidad de paz disponible si se persigue la negociación y la diplomacia, y que se ha ofrecido a Putin una salida para evitar una derrota total."
- 💥 "El argumento de la izquierda de que los EE. UU. y Occidente son responsables de la guerra y que deberían poder poner fin a ella también es cuestionado, ya que desacredita la agencia de Ucrania y la complejidad de la situación."
Q & A
¿Por qué algunos sectores de la izquierda occidental son complacientes con la violencia imperialista de Putin?
-Algunos intelectuales y líderes de la izquierda occidental, como Chomsky, Sachs y West, han expresado escepticismo hacia el apoyo a Ucrania y no ven claramente las amenazas imperialistas de Rusia. Argumentan que las demandas de Putin son legítimas y que las acciones de EE.UU. y NATO han contribuido a la situación actual.
¿Cuál fue el ultimátum que Putin emitió el 17 de diciembre de 2021 y cómo se relaciona con su percepción de Europa Oriental?
-Putin emitió un ultimátum exigiendo que Occidente respetara una promesa de 1990 de no expandir NATO hacia el este. Él consideró que toda Europa Oriental debería ser su esfera de influencia, y argumentó que fue engañado sobre esta cuestión, lo que refleja su resentimiento y demanda de un nuevo orden internacional.
¿Cómo interpretan figuras de la izquierda como Chomsky la situación en Ucrania?
-Chomsky ha argumentado que las demandas de seguridad de Rusia eran legítimas y que las acciones de EE.UU. ignoraron estas preocupaciones, exacerbando la situación. Critica la política de Estados Unidos y sugiere que la guerra en Ucrania es en gran parte un producto de las intervenciones estadounidenses.
¿Qué argumenta Jeffrey Sachs sobre la responsabilidad de EE.UU. en la expansión de NATO y la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Rusia?
-Sachs sugiere que la expansión unipolar de NATO, impulsada por la ideología neoconservadora de EE.UU., es en gran parte responsable de la invasión de Ucrania por Rusia. Critica la arrogancia de EE.UU. y sus acciones en el Mediterráneo Negro y Oriente Próximo.
¿Qué son las dos columnas principales que explican la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Rusia según el transcript?
-Las dos columnas principales son la seguridad del régimen en Rusia, ya que Putin busca evitar la erosion en su poder interno, y la seguridad nacional en términos de la misión y visión de Putin, que se percibe a sí mismo como una figura especial y destinada a llevar a Rusia hacia un destino cultural y espiritual específico.
¿Por qué la izquierda occidental podría estar equivocada al reducir la invasión de Ucrania a un conflicto de seguridad nacional de Rusia?
-Reducir la invasión a un problema de seguridad nacional instrumentaliza la visión del mundo de Putin y no considera su deseo de un conflicto mayor contra el oeste, ni el surgimiento de un sentimiento anti-colonial en Ucrania, ni el hecho de que las acciones de Putin podrían estar destruyendo el futuro de Rusia.
¿Qué es la crítica más fuerte que la izquierda occidental tiene contra la política actual hacia Ucrania?
-La crítica más fuerte es el riesgo de un Armagedón nuclear global. Argumentan que cualquier escalada del conflicto podría llevar al uso de armas nucleares y desencadenar una guerra mundial, con consecuencias catastróficas para todo el mundo.
¿Cómo la izquierda occidental ve la relación entre la expansión de NATO y la invasión de Ucrania?
-La izquierda occidental ve la expansión de NATO como una provocación y una muestra de la arrogancia de EE.UU., argumentando que la forma en que se llevó a cabo la expansión, en lugar de ser una rápida y difusa, contribuyó a radicalizar a Rusia y precipitar la invasión.
¿Qué es la alegación de que la izquierda occidental tiene una visión tópicamente estadounidense?
-La alegación es que, al centrarse excesivamente en la crítica de la imperiosidad americana, la izquierda occidental pasa por alto los horrores del imperialismo ruso y la efectividad constructiva del poder de EE.UU. en Ucrania, lo que resulta en una visión profundamente centroamericana.
¿Qué sugiere el transcript sobre la postura de la izquierda hacia la política exterior de EE.UU.?
-El transcript sugiere que la izquierda tiende a ser profundamente crítica con la política exterior de EE.UU., viendo la acción de los Estados Unidos como imperialista y en algunos casos como un producto del capitalismo corporativo estadounidense.
¿Qué es la crítica de la izquierda a la percepción de que la guerra en Ucrania es una guerra de代理 (proxy war) entre EE.UU. y Rusia?
-La crítica es que la guerra no es simplemente una lucha entre EE.UU. y Rusia, sino que Ucrania tiene su propia agencia y ha formado un lazo cívico fuerte movido por el sentimiento anti-colonial. La izquierda occidental, según el transcript, subestima esta agencia y la complejidad de la situación.
¿Qué sugiere el transcript sobre la necesidad de una estrategia contra la agresión imperialista de Putin?
-El transcript sugiere que es necesario planificar y estrategizar adecuadamente para enfrentar la agresión imperialista de Putin, y que la democracia, Ucrania, Europa del Este y incluso Rusia mismo podrían sufrir si se cedieran ante las demandas de Putin.
Outlines
🌍 Análisis de la izquierda occidental ante la violencia imperialista de Putin
Este párrafo explora por qué la izquierda occidental, incluidos prominentes intelectuales como Chomsky y Sachs, han sido complacientes con la violencia imperialista de Putin. Argumenta que estos pensadores no han comprendido la verdadera naturaleza de la política de Putin, mostrando escepticismo hacia el apoyo a Ucrania y no reconociendo cómo el imperialismo de Rusia amenaza al oeste. Además, se examina el ultimátum de Putin de diciembre de 2021 y cómo las demandas de Rusia han llevado a una tensión creciente con Occidente, culminando en la invasión de Ucrania.
🤔 La izquierda y su percepción equivocada de las causas de la guerra en Ucrania
Este párrafo discute cómo la izquierda y el viejo izquierdismo han interpretado las causas de la guerra en Ucrania de manera errónea, centrando su análisis en las demandas de seguridad nacional de Rusia expresadas en el ultimátum de Putin. Sin embargo, se argumenta que la realidad es más compleja, con dos pilares principales que motivan la guerra: la seguridad del régimen en Rusia y la percepción mística de la seguridad nacional de Putin, que no se pueden mapear directamente sobre la expansión de la OTAN.
📜 La promesa no formalizada de no expandir la OTAN hacia el este
Este segmento analiza la famosa promesa de 'no expandir la OTAN ni un centímetro hacia el este', cuestionando su validez y formalidad. Se argumenta que, aunque se hicieron promesas, no se concretaron en documentos formales, lo que llevó a una interpretación errónea por parte de Rusia de que se había sido engañada. Además, se discute cómo la expansión de la OTAN, aunque manejada deficientemente, no es la causa primaria de la guerra, sino más bien un factor que radicalizó a Rusia y que no se debe confundir con los intereses nacionales de Rusia.
💥 Riesgos nucleares y la crítica de la izquierda a la imperiosidad americana
Este párrafo aborda el argumento de la izquierda sobre el riesgo nuclear y cómo la administración de Biden ha manejado de manera conservadora el riesgo de escalada nuclear. También se discute cómo la izquierda ve la OTAN como un instrumento de la política exterior imperialista de EE. UU., y cómo esta perspectiva puede cegarlos ante los horrores del imperialismo ruso y la realidad de la ayuda constructiva de EE. UU. en Ucrania. Finalmente, se argumenta que la crítica de la izquierda a la imperiosidad americana puede ser una forma inadvertida de pagar un cumplido en reversa a la imperiosidad americana.
🌟 La crítica de la izquierda y la necesidad de un equilibrio en la política exterior
Este párrafo destaca la crítica de la izquierda como una herramienta necesaria para mantener un equilibrio en la política exterior y cómo, aunque muchos en la izquierda no comparten los errores de los intelectuales mencionados, su papel es válido. También se menciona la importancia de tener una voz que siempre se opone a la guerra y cómo los críticos de la izquierda podrían ser aliados en diferentes circunstancias. Finalmente, se llama la atención sobre el valor de la crítica de la izquierda sobre la pérdida de confianza en las instituciones y cómo esto puede ser un recordatorio de la importancia de la democracia.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Anti-Imperialist Western left
💡Putin's extreme imperialist violence
💡NATO expansion
💡Regime security
💡National Security
💡Proxy war
💡Global nuclear risk
💡American-centric imperialism
💡Ukrainian agency
💡Cultural destiny
💡Death spiral
Highlights
Discussion on the Western left's stance on Putin's imperialism and its consequences.
Analysis of key figures on the left, including Chomsky, Sachs, West, and Gabbard.
Putin's ultimatum to the West in December 2021 and its implications.
The belief among some leftists that Putin's security concerns are legitimate.
Chomsky's argument that American interventions are to blame for the war.
Jeffrey Sachs' view on the US neocon project and its role in the Ukraine crisis.
Tulsi Gabbard's perspective on the US engaging in a proxy war with Russia.
The critique that opportunities for peace have been missed due to Western actions.
Richard Wolff's advocacy for negotiations and diplomacy to end the war.
Chomsky's call for diplomacy to prevent a gamble with the lives of Ukrainians and the world.
The misreading of Putin's motives for invading Ukraine by the Western left.
Exploration of regime security as a primary cause for Putin's actions.
Putin's sense of mission and its radical implications for Russia's national security.
The critique of NATO expansion and its handling by Western leaders.
The argument that Putin's actions are not in Russia's national interest.
The risk of global nuclear Armageddon due to the conflict.
The Biden Administration's conservative approach to nuclear escalation management.
The importance of acknowledging the agency of other countries in geopolitical conflicts.
The critique of U.S-centric anti-imperialism and its blind spots.
The argument that U.S. imperial power is necessary to stop Putin's aggression.
The defense of critique against the U.S., acknowledging the complexity of its role in global politics.
The warning from the old left about the crisis of trust in Western institutions.
The call for a strategic response to Putin's threat to national security.
Transcripts
let's talk about why the
Anti-Imperialist Western left is soft on
Putin's extreme imperialist violence
we're talking Titans of left
intelligence Chomsky Jeffrey sacks
Cornell West Richard Wolff and they're
also talking about the so-called fault
left Glenn Green World Aaron Mata Tulsi
gabbard map taibi all these voices
failed to get what Putin's politics is
all about they're skeptical of support
in Ukraine and they don't see how
Russia's imperialist implosion threatens
Us in the west we're going to lovingly
expose their ideas ask why they're
misguided and what the real world
consequences are
to understand how Putin fooled the
Western left over Ukraine we have to
turn back to tumultuous months before
The Invasion on 17 December 2021 Putin
issued an ultimatum to the West which
made it clear that he thought that all
of Eastern Europe should be his fear of
in good afternoon dear a week later he
upped the ante at an annual press
conference in Moscow we said not an inch
to the east that was a nature guarantee
in 1990 so what became of that they
fooled us
one two three four five we witnessed
five ways of native expansion why can't
they understand what it is unclear I
believe everything is clear we are
thinking about our own security
Putin concludes we are not threatening
anybody so long as we get Eastern Europe
back and so long as the West makes
amends for fooling us about not one inch
of NATO expansion to the east whether
that promise was really made we'll come
back to later what Putin is really
saying is we resent the outside world
for being mean to us the United States
runs everything and we resent it and we
demand a new international order now
this was just the latest and a long line
of Putin's increasingly radical
statements on NATO but to many it felt
like a key moment Russia observers were
beginning to feel that Putin might
really be on the war path Russian armor
is massing near the border with Ukraine
at the same time Moscow is demanding an
end to Nato enlargement and NATO
military activity in Eastern Europe
Russian President Vladimir Putin is
blaming the US and NATO for worsening
tensions he does not want a war but he's
done demanding immediate guarantees from
the U.S and no but for many leftists
think as Putin's stated concerns about
Russia's security were legitimate and
needed to be taken at face value and
when they listened to Putin's incredible
List of Demands they bought Putin's
suggestion that what he was asking for
wasn't that much gnome a
just a few months later in May 2022 the
famous philosopher scientist and
moralist Noam Chomsky went on leftist
journalist Owen Jones's podcast and
essentially blamed the war on American
interventions the state department
officially stated that in the negotiate
in the period up to the Invasion the U.S
refused to consider any Russian security
concerns okay in chomsky's the Russia's
security grievance is caused by
successive U.S administrations breaking
that promise to not expand Nato one inch
to the east were ignored while Putin
stated goals in Ukraine demilitarization
neutralization were exaggerated by the
U.S propaganda system to seem less
legitimate than they were meanwhile the
U.S rode rough shot over Ukraine's
desire for peace with its aggressive
neighbor the record all the way through
is
the Ukraine seeking some kind of
peaceful settlement the U.S refusing to
accept it and in fact moving the
opposite direction to undermine it and
Britain of course Polaris Britain
politely shining Washington's Jews in
this view the war is largely a product
of American actions imposed on Ukraine
and Russia here is Jeffrey Sachs The
Economist in public policy expert
Jeffrey says that an American neocon
project of creating a unipolar American
World which is what led to Nato
expanding will right up till Russia's
border is in good part responsible for
Russia's invasion of Ukraine the
explicit goal was to surround Russia in
the Black Sea President Putin came in he
was not anti-european he was not
anti-American what he saw though was the
incredible arrogance of the United
States the expansion of NATO the wars in
Iraq the covert war in Syria the war in
Libya against the U.N resolution so we
created so much of what we're facing
right now through our own ineptitude and
arrogance there was no linear
determination it was step-by-step U.S
arrogance that has helped to bring us to
where we are today that's the left but
what about the old left the old left is
sociologically different from the left
but it largely uses the same arguments
if the left is driven by traditional
critiques of U.S imperialism the old
left is driven by participation in the
culture wars and responsiveness to the
crisis of trust and public institutions
in the west so it's here goes the evil
American Empire again verse is our
institutions are corrupt and we can't
trust anything they do anymore here is
Tulsi Gabba so what we're seeing play
out now is
essentially a proxy war U.S is engaging
in a proxy war with Russia waging this
war using the Ukrainian military and
people as their chess pieces in this
geopolitical uh chess game the ultimate
objective being regime change with
Russia they're all arguing that since
the war was America's to start and
profit from it is also America's to end
a key facet of the western left critique
is that it is possible to off ramp that
opportunities for peace have been missed
and sabotaged and that solution is still
available if we pursue negotiations and
diplomacy here is Economist and public
intellectual Richard Wolff my conclusion
and that of many around the world stop
it end this war sit down the two sides
work out an acceptable agreement
anything is safer and better for the
world world than continuing down the
unknowable dangerous path that we are
now on and here is Chomsky again
there's one way to bring the agony to an
end quickly that negotiations and
diplomacy there's no other way
that means in this case offering Putin
some kind of Escape Hedge
some way to get out without
admitting total defeat that's diplomacy
well if you reject it you're carrying
out a grotesque experiment gambling with
the lives of ukrainians and in fact the
world and that's the experiment that the
U.S and Britain are undertaking Chomsky
has roots in Ukraine his father was born
there and he is a significant
intellectual outside the realm of
politics and some of the other people
maybe people you admire you have a
relationship with but they are not right
first most centrally they are misreading
why Putin invaded Ukraine and because
they are misleading why the War Began
they're unable to understand the ongoing
Dynamics driving the conflict so let's
go back to Putin's December 2021
ultimatum and the causes of the war
everything we've seen from the left and
from the old left tends to capture the
causes of the war in terms of Russia's
national security as expressed in
Putin's ultimate but in reality it's a
lot more complex than that there are two
primary explanatory pillars driving the
causation of the war and actually
neither of them can be mapped on to Nato
expansion let's start with the first
pillar regime security Russia's invasion
of Ukraine in 2014 and the full-scale
invasion in 2022 were done in good part
to avert regime erosion at home in the
pre-2022 world Putin was playing
president by Outsourcing his
presidential powers to his court and
then arbitrate referee conflict within
history and at one point he felt that
his refereeing Powers had shrunk and to
gain them back he thought he needed more
[Music]
there is another fact Putin felt that
the younger generation was drifting away
from him and he could put a lid on top
of them via oh Putin hoped and it still
does that a big conflict against the
West a militarization of Russian Society
will allow him to skip a generation
bringing about that today's Russian
children grow up to become Putin
supporters the second pillar of the
explanation for what is about National
Security kind of but not in the way our
leftist heroes would have us believe
Putin's conception of National Security
is both more radical and more mystical
than their understanding allowance
between 2010 and 2014 Putin developed a
sense of mission and put in the Armature
historian began making
self-aggrandizing Ventures into the past
looking for Role Models by himself and
he came to think
that he was special he got the feeling
that Russia's cultural Destiny was now
tied to the will of a single individual
this sense of mission came years after
the 2007 speech at the Munich security
conference there Putin too wanted to
reject the post Cold War European
settlement but his later rejection of it
took on a more mystical quality
foreign
[Music]
regime as though it were Brezhnev
whereas in fact it is closer to being
something like a radical Terror
organization
invoking holy values to justify violence
but here we have to consider point and
allow Nuance NATO expansion was handled
badly and Western leaders like Bill
Clinton knew that when they were doing
it before we tackle this let's clarify
the infamous not one inch to the east
promise was there a promise promises
were made repeatedly but they weren't
formalized so here is my analysis a
politician can promise another
politician something by saying it but a
state cannot promise another state
something without formalizing it on
paper and when we look at the formality
we see that the Kremlin signed a treaty
explicitly allowing the expansion of
Article 5 Eastwood when Putin says that
Russia got fooled he is half right Mr
Gorbachev got fooled because he was an
extraordinary leader and a poor
negotiator but the Soviet Union being a
state didn't get fooled because states
don't make promises to each other that
aren't on paper and what Then followed
was that the East European countries
wanted to run over from Moscow and
joined their own security because when
Russia invaded Ukraine and nearly to
give in 2022 this wasn't the first time
Budapest
Russian tanks in Warsaw but there were
Polish tanks ordered from Moscow but as
Mary sarata is in a path-breaking book
the problem wasn't that NATO expanded
the problem was how NATO expanded
for example there was a possibility of a
more rapid but more diffused expansion
which is what Clinton wanted partly
because it would avoid creating a line
by leaving Ukraine on the right yet
either way is Mary Sarah argues nothing
was more conducive to radicalizing
Russia that expanding nato in small
tranches
but while this radicalized Russia NATO
expansion is not a primary cause of War
centering it doesn't account for the
domestic regime's security causes of war
and as we have seen reducing Putin's
sense of Mission to grievances about
NATO expansion over instrumentalizes his
worldview we are not looking at a guy
who wants to alter a couple of moves on
a board game where looking at a guy who
wants to take the board game and throw
it off the table and there is something
else that the NATO expansion did its
argument implies and that is that
Putin's imperialistic death spiral
serves Russia's national interest but
any thinking Russians should know that
Putin's actions are destroying Russia's
future and increasingly odds that Russia
may not exist at all and there isn't
even a more striking Omission in that
argument and that is Ukrainian agency
since 2014 Ukraine has come together in
a Civic Bond powered by anti-colonial
sentiment and it's only an ungrounded
newspaper clipping approach to political
understanding that could lead Norm
Chomsky to say that Ukraine wants peace
more than weapons
likewise both Putin's sense of regime
security and his sense of mission are
not compatible with an off-ramp my
interpretation is that Putin wants a big
war against the west but in several
years from now meanwhile he wants a
low-level minimally globalized War
during which Western support for Ukraine
exhausts itself and Western democracies
begin to collapse and then Putin can act
from a position of strength the left
strongest case is the risk of global
nuclear Armageddon a nuclear war could
break out in a week in 30 days we we are
staring over the precipice of that
nuclear Brink now more than ever before
it would spark World War III and the
result of that is destruction of the
world my own assessment is the Russia
indeed poses a high a global nuclear
risk this is the left's strongest
argument but I have a couple of
responses one the Biden Administration
has been extremely conservative at
nuclear escalation management that is
why we've seen with each new weapon
given to Ukraine first a toe in the door
then two toes then three and then
eventually a small quantity of weapons
is delivered second Ukraine retaking
Crimea would increase Global nuclear
risk but Ukraine not retaking Crimea
Ukraine not retaking its territories
Ukraine God forbid losing Kiev which is
currently impossible would actually lead
to massive Russian escalation and high
nuclear risk
however we weigh nuclear risk we are
exchanging nuclear risk today for
nuclear risk tomorrow there is no
nuclear risk-free way of standing up to
Putin's imperialistic aggression and now
we're getting to the elephant we need to
zoom out and look at the left's
relationship with America
here is the humanist public intellectual
and presidential candidate Cornell West
causally centering American imperialism
in the run-up to the war NATO is a
instrument of American Imperial foreign
policy we've seen it over and over again
and so we're witnessing a proxy war
there
they view all U.S action abroad as
imperialists and in some cases as a
product of U.S corporate capitalism
their views are profoundly U.S Centric
they think two things first imperialism
is always bad second they're working
implicit definition of imperialism is
American eccentric imperialism just is
what America does abroad paradoxically
the U.S Centric anti-imperialism blinds
them to the horrors of Russian
imperialism and it also blinds them to
the constructiveness of U.S power in
Ukraine what they miss about imperialism
if we call the United States an Empire
is that not all Empires are equally bad
and some Global problems cannot be
solved without the projection of
Imperial power U.S Imperial power is the
only vehicle for stopping is the Putin's
aggression the truth is that the U.S
Empire is good and bad and we need it to
be good and it is good now in Ukraine
while Russian imperialism is as we have
seen irredeemably nihilistic and caught
up in a destructive and self-destructive
death spiral the bottom line is that in
denying the agency of other countries in
over exaggerating America's indeed
pervasive hand in everything the leftist
heroes of our video end up paying U.S
imperialism a compliment in Reverse in
lampooning American power in such a
reductionist way gnome Chomsky and our
other Heroes fall into the very American
eccentricism they're trying to critique
but that's not a reason to cancel them
so what do we have to say in defense of
those with critiqued first many on the
left do not share the mistakes of the
heroes of this video ask a Polish or a
Ukrainian leftist about the realities of
Mr Putin's imperialism and they'll tell
you what's up second it would be
unhealthy to have nobody in the position
that is always opposed to all U.S war
making if you support Ukraine your
opponents on the soft and Putin Western
left could be your allies another day
three the old left's warning about
collapsing trust in our institutions is
valid and it's healthy if they remind us
that in principle a correct policy
abroad could become wrong if it
destabilizes democracy at home 4. we
share a table of politics and we don't
get to win an argument by declaring
sharing but we've wanted that said the
left core analysis costs it costs us it
costs our democracy it costs Ukraine it
costs Eastern Europe and it even costs
Russia it would be a catastrophe for
Eastern Europe and for the West if a
part of Eastern Europe were lost to a
tyrant sitting atop an employment Empire
Putin threatens our national security
not just Ukraine and we need to plan and
strategize accordingly now an obvious
question coming out of them is how on
Earth did Russia end up in this
disastrous place
to understand the cultural and
historical Journey that got Russia here
watch this video next
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)