“This Is Gonna Get Us ALL Blown Up!” Jeffrey Sachs On Russian Invasion
Summary
TLDRThe transcript features a debate on NATO's expansion, Russia's security concerns, and the Ukraine conflict. Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that Russia's opposition to NATO's enlargement is rooted in historical invasions and security needs. He criticizes the U.S. for past interventions and regime changes, suggesting that the conflict could lead to nuclear war if NATO includes Ukraine. The host counters by highlighting Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine and other countries, suggesting that NATO membership could deter further aggression. The discussion reflects differing perspectives on the causes and potential solutions to the conflict.
Takeaways
- 🌍 NATO expansion has been a longstanding issue, with Russia perceiving it as a threat to its security.
- 🇷🇺 Putin's demands for a ceasefire include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four occupied regions.
- 🇺🇦 The Ukrainian public overwhelmingly opposes ceding any territory to Russia.
- 🛡️ Historical context: Russia has felt threatened by Western invasions and seeks a buffer zone.
- 🔄 The US and NATO's expansion eastward is viewed by Russia as a violation of earlier promises.
- ⚖️ Negotiations are seen as crucial, with differing views on the importance of NATO's role in the conflict.
- 📜 The US has a history of covert regime changes and military interventions, influencing global perceptions.
- 🗣️ The debate highlights contrasting views on the legitimacy of Russia's actions versus those of the US.
- ⚔️ The potential for nuclear war is a concern if NATO were to expand further into Ukraine.
- 📉 Historical examples, such as Austria's neutrality, are used to argue for similar solutions to the current conflict.
Q & A
What are the main concerns of Russia regarding NATO, according to the discussion?
-Russia is concerned about NATO's eastward expansion, which it perceives as a threat to its national security. This includes the potential inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.
What historical events are cited to support Russia's concerns about Western encroachment?
-Historical events cited include repeated Western invasions of Russia, the expansion of NATO after the Soviet Union's collapse, and the British Empire's attempt to control Russia's access to the Black Sea in the 1850s.
What are Putin's terms for a ceasefire in Ukraine as mentioned in the script?
-Putin demands the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four regions currently occupied by Russia: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson.
Why does the professor believe NATO expansion is a critical issue for Russia?
-The professor believes NATO expansion is critical for Russia because it views NATO's presence near its borders as an existential threat, especially given historical promises that NATO would not expand eastward.
What example is given to illustrate successful neutrality during the Cold War?
-Austria is given as an example, which adopted permanent neutrality in 1955, resulting in the Soviet Union withdrawing and Austria not being part of the Iron Curtain.
How does the professor compare US and Russian actions in terms of invasions and military interventions?
-The professor argues that the US has a history of illegal invasions and regime changes worldwide, similar to Russia's actions. Examples include the US bombings in Yugoslavia, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and support for coups in various countries.
What is the significance of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in the context of the discussion?
-The Cuban Missile Crisis is used to highlight the dangers of superpowers placing military assets near each other's borders, emphasizing the need for distance to avoid nuclear conflict.
What are the potential consequences of Ukraine joining NATO, according to the professor?
-The professor believes that Ukraine joining NATO could lead to nuclear war, as Russia views NATO's presence on its border as an existential threat and is prepared to take extreme measures to prevent it.
How does the professor justify his criticism of US foreign policy?
-The professor justifies his criticism by pointing to the numerous covert and overt US military interventions and regime changes since World War II, which he believes have caused significant global instability and conflicts.
Why does the professor argue that the US and Russia should negotiate directly and transparently?
-The professor argues for direct and transparent negotiations to establish clear terms and mutual understanding, reducing the risk of misinterpretation and conflict. He believes this approach could lead to a more stable and peaceful resolution.
Outlines
🤔 NATO's Role and Russian Perceptions
The discussion explores the perceived threats Russia has historically faced from Western powers, particularly focusing on NATO's expansion. The argument is made that Russia sees NATO's growth as a direct threat, prompting preemptive actions from Putin. The conversation questions the West's understanding of Russia's security concerns and critiques the United States' role in expanding NATO despite assurances made to Russia post-Soviet Union.
🕊️ Historical Context of Russia's Security Concerns
This section delves into historical precedents, such as the British Empire's strategies in the Black Sea and the U.S.'s post-1991 efforts to encircle Russia with NATO. It highlights Ukraine's position as a neutral buffer state until the U.S. supported a change in Ukrainian leadership in 2014. The narrative underscores the long-standing strategic aims of Western powers and their impact on Russia's current stance.
🔄 U.S. Military Interventions and Russian Reactions
The conversation shifts to U.S. military actions in Europe and beyond, drawing parallels between American interventions and Russia's recent actions in Ukraine. Specific examples like the bombing of Belgrade, the invasions of Iraq and Libya, and the support for regime changes in Syria and Ukraine are cited. The argument suggests that these U.S. actions have contributed to the current geopolitical tensions.
🌍 NATO Expansion and Russian Aggression
This part of the discussion examines the role of NATO as a deterrent against Russian aggression. Historical examples of Soviet invasions of neighboring countries and their subsequent joining of NATO to prevent further attacks are provided. The argument is made that NATO membership could have deterred the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting a different perspective on NATO's expansion.
📜 The Importance of Neutrality and Historical Lessons
Historical examples of neutrality, such as Austria's status post-1955 and the Cuban Missile Crisis, are discussed. The argument posits that maintaining a neutral buffer state could have prevented the current conflict. It suggests that mutual agreements and respecting spheres of influence can lead to lasting peace, drawing lessons from past geopolitical events.
💥 The Threat of Nuclear War and Strategic Missteps
The potential for nuclear war if Ukraine joins NATO is a central theme in this section. The discussion emphasizes the existential threat Russia perceives from NATO expansion and the historical context of U.S.-Russian nuclear tensions. It argues for prudence and strategic distance between superpowers to avoid catastrophic outcomes.
📄 Diplomatic Insights and Core Security Concerns
Insights from U.S. diplomatic communications, particularly a 2008 memo by Ambassador William Burns, are highlighted. The memo underscores that Russia's opposition to NATO is a broad political consensus, not just Putin's stance. It stresses the importance of understanding Russia's core security concerns and the need for the U.S. to recognize these in its foreign policy.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡NATO
💡Putin
💡Ukraine
💡Crimea
💡Ceasefire
💡Encroachment
💡Annexation
💡Neutrality
💡Geopolitics
💡Sovereignty
Highlights
NATO hasn't actually encroached; Putin is preemptively acting.
Russia has historically believed in maintaining a safety buffer from the West due to repeated invasions.
The argument is that the U.S. lied, cheated, and started NATO's expansion, leading to increased tensions.
Putin's peace plan demands the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from regions currently occupied by Russia.
The debate centers on whether Putin's actions are a preemptive move against NATO encroachment.
Russia's core issues include NATO's non-enlargement and the status of Crimea, which they consider non-negotiable.
Historically, Russia has always wanted some distance from the West due to repeated invasions.
The U.S. promised not to expand NATO eastward after the Soviet Union's collapse, but this promise was broken.
The argument that NATO's expansions have consistently crossed Russia's red lines, particularly with Ukraine and Georgia.
The U.S. has engaged in multiple illegal wars and regime change operations, which undermines its credibility.
Austria's permanent neutrality agreement with the Soviet Union in 1955 prevented it from being part of the Iron Curtain.
The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 highlights the importance of keeping a distance between superpowers to prevent nuclear war.
The U.S. placing Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania is seen as breaking the security architecture.
Putin views NATO's encroachment as an existential threat to Russia's security.
U.S. interventions, like the bombing of Belgrade and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are examples of its aggressive foreign policy.
The U.S. has a history of covert regime change operations, influencing its global actions.
The debate about NATO's expansion and its impact on global security remains contentious.
Transcripts
here is this is going to get us all
blown up if we don't have a little bit
more common sense NATO hadn't actually
encroached he is preemptively doing this
you seem very reliant on accepting
Putin's world view Russia throughout its
history has always believed in keeping
some safety from the West which has
repeatedly invaded uh Russia it's good
for superpowers to keep a little
distance United States they they lied
they cheated and they started the
expansion it's an argument you've
espoused on Russian State tv yeah I tell
it everywhere why are you not as
censorious about Putin doing the thing
you feel so angry about what you say
America's done if they took uh Ukraine
as a member of NATO we will end up in
nuclear
war President Putin wants peace at least
that's what he wants you to believe the
Russian dictator has for the first time
outlined his terms for CE fire ceasefire
in Ukraine he's demanded the complete
withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four
regions which are currently occupied by
Russia which it claims to have annexed
Italy's Prime Minister Georgia Maloney
speaking this weekend's peace Summit of
world leaders said he's effectively
telling Ukraine to withdraw from Ukraine
but if Putin's real aim was to feain
innocence for his apologist and score
another propaganda Victory he may have
been successful what the debate all this
I'm joined by Professor Jeffrey saaks re
returning to uncensored Professor great
to see you
oh it's great to be with you thank you
so much purus we had a great reaction to
our last debate uh which was as Lively
and provocative as I hoped it would be
so I hope we'll get get the same again
now um I just want to ask you this Putin
peace plan isn't really a peace plan
what he's saying is all the land I have
illegally stolen I want to keep isn't
that what it boils down
to well there are two issues uh one is
no NATO enlarg M and the second is this
territorial issue it involves Crimea and
what they claim is the four regions of
Russia to my mind this is overwhelmingly
about the first issue is about NATO
because that's been the issue on the
table for 30 years territory was not on
the table until two years ago but for 30
years NATO was on the table I think the
territorial issue
if I may say uh are probably negotiable
at least in part of course there's been
a war going on for 10 years now and an
escalation during the last two years I
think the non-negotiable parts of what
Putin is saying I would guess really
non-negotiable so we have to think about
them is that NATO will not enlarge to
Ukraine and I think Crimea is
non-negotiable for
uh Russia's uh core security uh
interests and perceptions and uh history
so I think what's really absolutely core
to what President Putin is saying is he
would like to stop the war he doesn't
want to take over Ukraine he doesn't
want to take more of Ukraine uh on the
combat line right now on the contact
line he doesn't control all four of
these provinces and I doubt uh that he
would insist on that I do think that he
would uh uh hold out for Crimea almost
every Western analyst and expert agrees
with that and there are many reasons for
that but what I do think is at the core
of this all along was Russia throughout
its history has always believed in
keeping some safety from the West which
has repeatedly invaded uh Russia and
after the end of the Soviet Union in
1991 the US and Germany had said to
gorbachov and to yelson we won't expand
Nato one inch Eastward but then uh like
always with the United States they they
lied they cheated and they started the
expansion and then uh the Russians I
was observing this all along the first
expansions which were in Central Europe
didn't come too close to Russia and they
said we don't like that you cheated you
told us no uh but okay that's Hungary
Poland and Czech Republic that was 1999
under Clinton but then it just kept
coming and kept coming and kept coming
and they said with
Rising decb and uh Rising fervor stop
coming closer and their ultimate red
line has been consistent it is Ukraine
and Georgia why well it it goes back
peers to uh the British Empire to 1853
to
1856 actually to Lord Palmerston he had
an idea surround Russia in the Black Sea
uh render Russia's Fleet in the Black
Sea in sasto which was there in
1853 just like it's there in 2024 render
it essentially inoperable control the
Dells this is a long story uh and then
Russia is a second or third rate power
and President Putin is responding to
what has been a a British Imperial
attempt for uh7 75 years and a US
attempt since
1991 basically to surround Russia with
NATO and what Putin has been saying is
don't do that stop leave Ukraine as a uh
a kind of buffer zone uh and Ukraine was
perfectly happy with that and public
opinion was perfectly happy with that
and they didn't want to join NATO and in
2009 they elected Victor yanukovich who
promised them neutrality which was the
promise that Ukraine itself had made in
declaring its independence that they
would be permanently a neutral country
because they're in between West and East
they're in between Europe and Western
Europe or the European Union and Russia
so they wanted just okay we'll be we'll
be neutral but then the United States
did team up to overthrow yanukovich in
February 2014 and that's when this war
started that's when Russia stopped
saying well we'll lease a base in Crimea
rather we'll take back Crimea we don't
want it to fall into NATO hands just
like thear did not want uh sast stopel
to fall into Palmer's hands uh so this
is basically a long long story I think
the rest is negotiable uh I basically
think either the US and Europe don't
understand what they're doing which is
not
impossible or they're still on what has
been a
30-year neocon agenda which I know about
in detail which is get NATO all the way
to surround Russia because that was the
plan of big new binski and Dick Cheney
and others going right back to the 1990s
they still want to do it and they think
they can still accomplish this
say I'm GNA take all all right with
respect you've given a very very long
answer but I come back to my initial
question which is
ultimately you know I I'm listen you've
been through a lot of the history there
and some of the points are arguable but
a lot of people I've heard Express
similar sentiments about some of the
background to this and about Russia's
concern about the encroachment of NATO
and so on but it it doesn't change the
fact that Russ Russia illegally invaded
a European Sovereign Democratic country
that has helped itself to vast sways of
the land and the latest polls show that
the vast majority of Ukrainian people do
not want to seed an inch of the land
that's been taken to Vladimir Putin or
the Russians and yeah he can say I was
concerned about NATO encroachment but
NATO hadn't actually encroached so he is
preemptively doing this and if
ultimately he's allowed to take this
land what message does that send the
rest of the world rest of Europe the
other neighboring countries to Ukraine
why should we have any confidence after
Crimea after Georgia after Ukraine now
that he wouldn't just carry on attacking
and invading other neighboring countries
that's where I find your I wouldn't say
trust I don't think that's the right
word but you seem very reliant on
accepting Putin's world view rather than
perhaps the Stark reality of the
barbarism with which she's executed this
war yeah may maybe because I know too
much about the United States because the
first war in Europe after World War II
was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78
days to change borders of a European
State the idea was to break Serbia to
create uh Kosovo as an enclave and then
to install bondas steel which is the
largest NATO base in the Balkans in the
southwest Balkans so the US started this
under Clinton uh that we will break the
borders we will illegally bomb another
country we didn't have any un Authority
this was a quote NATO mission to do that
then I know the United States uh went to
war repeatedly illegally uh in uh what
it did in Afghanistan and then what it
did in Iraq and then what it did in
Syria which was uh the Obama
Administration especially Obama and
Hillary Clinton tasking the CIA to
overthrow Bashar al-assad uh and then
what it did with NATO illegally bombing
Libya to taple morar Gaddafi uh and then
what it did in Kiev in Fe February 2014
I happen to see some of that with my own
eyes the
US overthrew yanukovich together with
right-wing Ukrainian military forces we
overthrew a president and what's
interesting by the way is we overthrew
yanukovich the day after the European
Union Representatives had reached an
agreement with
yanukovich to have early elections a
government of national unity and a
standown of both sides that was agreed
the next thing that happens is the
opposition quote unquote says we don't
agree they stormed the government
buildings and they deposed yanukovich
and within hours the United States says
yes we support the new government it
didn't say oh we had an agreement that's
unconstitutional what you did
uh so we overthrew a government contrary
to a promise that the European Union had
made and by the way uh Russia the United
States and the EU were parties to that
agreement and the United States an hour
afterwards backed the coup okay so
everyone's got a little bit to answer
for in
2015 the uh Russians did not say we want
the donbas back they said Peace should
come through negotiations and
negotiations between the ethnic Russians
in the east of Ukraine and this uh new
regime in Kev led to the Minsk 2
agreement the Minsk 2 agreement was
voted by the UN Security Council
unanimously it was signed by the
government of Ukraine it was
guaranteed explicitly by Germany and
France and you know what and it's been
explained to me in person it was laughed
at inside the US government this is
after the UN Security Council
unanimously accepted it the ukrainians
said we don't want to give autonomy to
the region oh but that's part of the
treaty the US told them don't worry
about it Angela Merkel
explained in desite in a notorious
interview after the 20202 escalation she
said oh you know we knew that Minsk 2
was just a a a holding pattern to give
Ukraine time to build its strength no uh
Minsk 2 was a un Security Council
unanimously adopted
treaty that was supposed to end the war
so when it comes to who's trustworthy
who to believe and so forth I guess my
problem Piers is I know the United
States government uh I know it very well
I I don't trust them for a moment I want
these two sides actually to sit down in
front of the whole world and say these
are the terms then the world can judge
because we could get on paper clearly
for both sides of the world we're not
going to overthrow governments anymore
the United States needs to say we accept
this agreement the United States needs
to say Russia needs to say we're not
stepping one foot further than whatever
the boundary is actually reached and
NATO is not going to enlarge and let's
put it for the whole world to see you
know once in a while treaties actually
hold there an argument okay listen I
hear I listen I hear you and it's an
argument you've espoused on Russian
State TV for as well I've heard you do
that yeah um absolutely I tell it
everywhere right so and that's fine
you've been consistent I I get that but
actually isn't this if you look at it a
different way a perfect illustration of
why there should be NATO encroachment
actually because if you go through the
history since the start of World War II
in 1939 it was Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union that invaded Poland 1940
Soviet Union invaded the baltics 1940
Soviet Union annexed parts of Romania 56
Soviet Union invaded Hungary 68 Soviet
Union invaded Czech Sakia now Poland
Estonia Lithuania lvia Romania Hungary
or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia
or the Soviet Union no threat emanated
from those countries but they were
attacked by the USSR St Russia and
that's why these countries wanted to
join NATO and since they joined NATO
none of them has been attacked by Russia
again so if you were putting all that
into the mix here you might say that's a
perfect illustration of NATO power
deterring Russian aggression and that
actually if Ukraine had speeded up uh
its membership of NATO uh which many of
the people in Ukraine were actually Keen
to do if it had done that it might have
had the protection against the illegal
Invasion by Russia so in a way you could
flip your argument on its head and say
it almost proves the opposite which is
that by by not being part of NATO
Ukraine was vulnerable to the very
attack that then happened just as it
lost crime uh and my fear with Putin is
I don't trust him as far as I could
throw him I take your point about russan
about American uh military activity I
was the editor of the Daily Mirror
newspaper in England which led the
campaign against the Iraq War which I
thought was a senseless illegal uh
Invasion as well and I I've been very
critical of America yeah so you know
it's not like I'm a great U cheerleader
for for what America's done on the
military stage but purely looking at
this situation with Ukraine I just I
just don't see why allowing Putin to
keep all this land is a good
thing yeah i' I'd ask you to consider uh
a couple more dates uh one is uh
1955 fascinating date because in
1955 uh Austria very
cleverly uh agreed to permanent
neutrality on the basis that the Soviet
Union would go home home and in the
state treaty they adopted neutrality and
the Soviet Union went home and that's
why Austria wasn't part of the Iron
Curtain for the decades that followed
because they adopted neutrality and
non-nato membership now it's fascinating
and I don't want to take us uh into a
long digression but the idea of the
Soviet Union then was actually not only
with regard to Austria but it was more
strategic what they were saying was do
the same with Germany which just killed
27 million of our people after all this
was 1955 was just 10 years from the end
of World War II neutralized Germany
don't make Germany a rearmed Cornerstone
of something called NATO but make
Germany neutral and then we can end the
Cold War and this was no less
the recommend or the recommendation of
no less I should say than George Kennan
himself the author of containment George
Kennan for years in the second half of
the 1950s said we're missing the most
obvious point a neutral Germany the Cold
War could end he went on wreath lectures
in BBC to say this I think it was 1957
if I remember correctly and this is
fascinating we missed the opportunity to
end the Cold War decades earlier the
other date that I would urge you to
think about is
1962 when the Soviet Union came close to
the United States uh in Cuba the US said
Monroe Doctrine you don't come anywhere
close to our hemisphere we nearly had
nuclear Armageddon in
1962 the Soviet Union was doing nothing
different from what the United States
was doing in Turkey it was placing
nuclear
offensive missiles or weapons near the
border of the adversary I actually
kushev said I don't want war with them I
just want to do what they're doing to us
it nearly led to nuclear Annihilation
it's good for superpowers to keep a
little distance the United States is
expansionist if you say the Russians are
expansionist or the Soviet Union is
expansionist keep a little space between
them and that's what President Putin has
been saying for more than two decades
keep a little space be prudent we don't
want the United States right up against
our border and the US has really
provoked it not only overthrowing a
Ukrainian president bad judgment in my
opinion but also so unilaterally walking
out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty
in 2002 unilaterally placing ages
missiles in Poland and Romania and when
Russia say what are you doing you're
breaking the whole security architecture
the US says and I quote it's none of
your business what we do NATO's none of
your business Russia that's the formal
literal position of the United States of
America America that we can go anywhere
with any Third Country including Ukraine
or Georgia we can put our missiles
wherever we want it's none of your
business Russia well come on purs this
is going to get us all blown up if we
don't have a little bit more common
sense okay but here's what I'm struck by
here's what I'm struck by Professor talk
to you a couple of times I find you
fascinating to talk to you by the way
and I I know you have a deep knowledge
of all this albe it you have some
interpretation of of what's going on
that's different to what I have but I
respect your knowledge um and your
scholarship on this but I'm just struck
that your language towards Russia and
Putin is nowhere near as censorious as
it is about uh America about your own
country it's true and I but I but I
think that you know what I sit here in
England and think it's so weird to see
such a learned American Professor who
seems to think that a Russ that that
America is the real problem here not
Vladimir Putin and Russia when many
other people would think the complete
opposite Piers the problem is uh I I was
born in
1954 and I've seen nothing but us Wars
of choice and CIA Ops my whole life and
since I became a International
Development specialist more than 40
years ago I've seen many of them up
close and I'm tired of them you know a
very good book written in
2017 by a professor at Boston College
named Lindsay oor has the title covert
regime change she studies peers no fewer
than
604 covert regime change operations by
the United States almost all of them CIA
LED
64 During the period
1947 to 19 89 I've had heads of state
say to me personally
Piers they're going to they're going to
take me out was the term that one of
them used and I assured them this
president in uh it was Haiti Haitian
president there no no no no we're going
to get all this sorted out in my naive
way they walked this President this was
arist out to an unmarked
plane flew him 23 hours in this coup
that the US arranged to Central African
Republic and in a broad daylight
launched a coup and when I tried to get
the New York Times to at least cover the
story I wanted to read it read about it
I was told by the reporter on the beat
oh our editors aren't interested in that
so you can have coups in broad daylight
I've seen the United States launch Wars
all over the world that Americans and
others don't even know were caused by
the United States it was only decades
after the fact that Z big
binski told us that he had urged
successfully Jimmy Carter to support the
jihadists the mujahadin to try to
overthrow the government in Afghanistan
in 1979
to lure the Soviets into a trap that
would be their Vietnam we messed up
Afghanistan for more than four decades
in that little typical us regime change
if man okay but Professor look here's my
question if you feel so angry about so
many as you put it illegal military
operations invasions whatever you want
to call them by the United States why do
you not also feel that same level of
anger When Vladimir Putin for whatever
political reasons he wants to come up
with about fears of NATO encroachment
blah blah blah when he launches a
fullscale invasion of Ukraine which is
now a sovereign Democratic European
country and well it's not a democratic
country but it's a it it had a
democratic election far more democratic
than Russia it did it did a while ago it
did a while ago under martial law it was
certainly far more of a well before the
War Began it was certainly far more of a
democracy than Russia has been in recent
decades you would certainly accept that
wouldn't
you look I I think the point is so my
point here's my my point is why why are
you not as why are you not as censorious
about Putin doing the thing that you
feel so angry about what you say
America's
done all I want is when Putin says we'll
negotiate and here our terms I want the
United States to say
we'll negotiate but we have different
terms but we'll sit down with you that's
all I'm asking but his terms his terms
is reported by Russian State media on
Friday the complete withdrawal of
Ukrainian troops from the territories of
donet Lans zapara and kerson after which
peace negotiations can begin I mean
that's just you know what I I don't
believe that's just taking taking a
quarter of the country or even a third
and saying I want to keep it
okay yeah so what are our terms for
negotiations come on this is
negotiations you don't get to keep any
of it would be my
terms well fine but the bottom line is
something else the bottom Line's really
about NATO so this is you know if if the
plan okay but that's my point my point
is if the plan if the if the plan of
Biden is of course we're going to keep
pushing NATO then there's no peace then
we're just in in open War and the one
that dies is Ukraine in the end but if
the maybe or maybe rather like all these
other countries that the Soviet Union
invaded maybe if Ukraine becomes a fully
paid up member of NATO it actually stops
Russia from being so aggressive
constantly whether it was crime here in
2014 or whether it's all these areas now
in other words you you know power in
power in I'm just telling you yeah I I
I'm
telling you the following in my
assessment yeah uh if uh first of all it
can't become a member of NATO in the
midst of a war this is anyway NATO
Doctrine but if they if they if they
took uh Ukraine as a member of NATO uh
we will end up in nuclear war uh just
like we nearly ended up in nuclear war
over the Cuban Missile why would we why
would we for the same reasons we didn't
because for in the Cuban Missile CR
Comm sense prevailed right no it did it
by the way it almost didn't Prevail
every everyone was for war except for a
very small handful of people including
thank God uh John F Kennedy and Nikita
kushev and that was just about all that
saved the world but the reason is for
Russia Ukraine is their 2,100 kilometer
border and they view this as an
existential issue I can tell you for the
US this is is a game this is the game of
Risk if you know that board game this is
big briny's game spelled out in
1997 in his article in foreign affairs
called a strategy for Eurasia let's
Corner Russia this is their game for
Russia this is existential this is right
on their border they don't want the
United States right on their again sorry
to jump in but again again this is your
inter ation of that but the other
interpretation could be the other
interpretation is that to stop Russia
invading its neighboring countries
that's what NATO is about and it's
proven very successful all those all
those countries that attacked before
haven't been attacked since because
they're part of NATO so this is this is
it could be it's the other argument
could be but it no you're right you're
right but then it could be nuclear war
that's all I'm saying but why would why
would okay why would Vladimir Putin who
is apparently Elon Musk says he's the
richest man on earth and loves his
material things whether it's Shadows or
super Yachts or whatever it may be why
would somebody with that mentality in
other words not an Islamic
fundamentalist who has nothing who wants
to kill himself for the cause and
believes he's going to you know meet 70
virgins up in in uh in wherever they end
up going um why is somebody with Putin's
materialistic capitalistic mentality why
would he even contemplate Armageddon and
losing everything that's that's not what
he's about he hasn't got that mentality
he's not someone he's not a suici b
he well I I think it it's useful for all
of us uh and you and uh everybody
listening to go online and read a a
memorandum by one of our best diplomats
William Burns who happens now to be CIA
director but in
2008 was the US ambassador to Russia and
he wrote a secret memo back to condalisa
Rice Secretary of State uh Julian
Assange enabled all of us to see the
real discussion not The Superficial
patter and narrative and he explained
this isn't about Putin this question of
NATO this is the entire Russian
political class everybody
and the the N the memo famously is
called net means net that for Russia
this isn't Putin this isn't one person
this isn't a lark this is viewed by
Russia as existential this is viewed by
Russia as do not stand on our borders
period especially now that the United
States has abandoned unilaterally the
anti-ballistic missile treaty it has
abandoned the international nuclear
force now stoltenberg is
who's well anyway he's just parting the
US saying we we are going to stock up on
our nuclear armaments they're not going
to accept it's not Putin it's Russia and
by the way you would feel the same way
in their position and the United States
absolutely
felt the same way when that was tested
and we have this Doctrine by the way
which is even
more remarkable since
1823 we've said no foreign powers in the
entire Western Hemisphere not just on
our border but the entire Western
Hemisphere and that doctrine that Monroe
Doctrine was reiterated I was sitting
there when Donald Trump reiterated that
in the UN General Assembly that was for
the whole Western Hemisphere so it's
perfectly understandable and it's not
about Putin this is it's about Russia's
absolute core National Security don't
come up to our border perfectly
sensible Professor sex great to talk to
you again I I find our conversations
fasc wonderful to be with you I really
really enjoyed thank you really
appreciate it thank you very much
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
RFK Jr on Putin and War in Ukraine | Robert F Kennedy Jr and Lex Fridman
NATO Summit sent China a ‘wake-up call’: Stavridis
Постпред РФ Небензя выступил на заседании СБ ООН по поставкам западных вооружений Украине
Putins imperiale Ambitionen: Lässt der Westen die Ukraine hängen? | Auf den Punkt
Phương Tây Hết Hồn Khi Putin Họp Báo Nóng Về NATO Ở Việt Nam | Kiến Thức Chuyên Sâu
The most important video on Ukraine | Prof. John Mearsheimer
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)