How Putin Fooled the Western Left

Summary

El 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

00:00

🌍 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.

05:02

🤔 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.

10:03

📜 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.

15:04

💥 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.

20:07

🌟 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.

Keywords

💡Anti-Imperialist Western left

El término se refiere a un sector del pensamiento político occidental que se opone a la imperialismo, pero que, según el video, podría ser complaciente con la violencia imperialista de Putin. En el contexto del video, este grupo no fully comprende las políticas de Putin y está escéptico sobre el apoyo a Ucrania, lo que podría tener consecuencias negativas para la seguridad del oeste.

💡Putin's extreme imperialist violence

Se refiere a la forma agresiva y expansionista que ha adoptado Putin en su política exterior, especialmente en relación con Ucrania. Este término describe las acciones militares y las demandas territoriales de Rusia que han llevado a conflictos y tensiones internacionales.

💡NATO expansion

La expansión de la OTAN se refiere al crecimiento del número de países miembros de la organización y a su influencia geográfica. En el video, se cuestiona si las promesas de no expansión hacia el este fueron violadas, y cómo esto se relaciona con la percepción de seguridad y la política exterior de Rusia.

💡Regime security

La seguridad del régimen se refiere a las acciones tomadas por un gobierno para mantener su poder y control dentro de sus fronteras. En el contexto del video, se sugiere que la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Rusia fue en parte para fortalecer el poder interno de Putin y evitar la erosión del régimen.

💡National Security

La seguridad nacional es la protección de un país y su gente contra amenazas internas y externas. En el video, se discute cómo Putin ha reinterpretado este concepto en términos más radicales y místicos, vinculando el destino cultural de Rusia con su liderazgo.

💡Proxy war

Una guerra por procurador es un conflicto en el que dos o más potencias utilizan a terceros para luchar por sus intereses, sin entrar directamente en conflicto. En el video, se sugiere que Estados Unidos está utilizando a Ucrania como un procurador en su disputa con Rusia.

💡Global nuclear risk

El riesgo nuclear global se refiere a la posibilidad de un conflicto nuclear que involucre a múltiples países y que pueda desencadenar una guerra nuclear a gran escala. El video discute esta amenaza en el contexto de la tensión entre Rusia y los países occidentales.

💡American-centric imperialism

El imperialismo centrado en América se refiere a la percepción de que Estados Unidos actúa de manera imperialista en sus relaciones exteriores, y que su influencia global es la principal fuerza detrás de muchos conflictos internacionales. El video argumenta que esta perspectiva puede ser sesgada y desviar la atención de otras formas de imperialismo.

💡Ukrainian agency

La agencia ucraniana se refiere a la capacidad de Ucrania para tomar decisiones y acciones propias en respuesta a las circunstancias internacionales y a la agresión externa. El video sugiere que algunos sectores de la izquierda occidental subestiman la voluntad y la capacidad de Ucrania de luchar por su independencia y soberanía.

💡Cultural destiny

El destino cultural se refiere a la percepción de que el curso histórico y cultural de un país o nación está predeterminado o está influenciado por factores más allá de la acción humana inmediata. En el caso de Rusia, según el video, Putin ha desarrollado una sensación de misión y ha buscado modelos en el pasado que reflejen su propia visión de la grandeza rusa.

💡Death spiral

Un ciclo de muerte se refiere a un proceso de deterioro auto-accelerado que conduce a la destrucción o colapso de un sistema o entidad. En el contexto del video, se utiliza para describir la forma en que las acciones de Putin están llevando a Rusia hacia su propia destrucción.

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