John Mearsheimer – katana17

Keith Woods – Ron Unz Interview – Editor of the Unz Review – Mar 25, 2023 – Transcript

admin — Sun, 26 Mar 2023 11:31:11 +0000

Keith Woods

Ron Unz Interview

Editor of the Unz Review

Sat, Mar 25, 2023

[Keith Woods, a young Irish dissident interviews Ron Unz, the jewish editor and publisher of the American Right-wing Unz Review website.

Topics discussed include: 1965 Immigration Act; how Unz became a political activist; the negative effects of large scale immigration; the Democrats and Hispanic and Asian voters; black criminality in the US; the possible US Deep State origins of Covid; US biowarfare research and use; Covid lab leak or deliberate act; Covid as possible US economic warfare; obesity and Covid deaths; conspiracy theories and cognitive infiltration; US policy in Ukraine and China; US vs China; ineffective Covid lockdowns in US; public distrust of the system; Superchats – jews and anti-White racism; Bitcoin; and more.

– KATANA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2v4bGU8-As

Published on Sat, Mar 25, 2023

Description

2:31:52
Ron Unz Interview | Editor of The Unz Review
Keith Woods
48.1K subscribers
Subscribe
538
Share
5.2K views
Streamed 12 hours ago
All my links: https://bio.link/keithwoods
The Unz Review: https://www.unz.com/

_____________

TRANSCRIPT QUALITY = 4 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(2:31:52)

Keith Woods: All right. Welcome, everyone. I’m back. I have a big guest today. A lot of you were really looking forward to this, and a lot of you have requested this before. It’s Ron Unz, the editor publisher of the Unz Review, one of my favourite websites. I often plug it at the end of streams here. You’ll notice when I’m recommending links for people to check out. And yeah, great, great aggregator of stuff that’s kind of broadly in the sort of dissident Right scene, or not even just dissident Right.

I mean, they publish people like Michael Hudson and so on. And his own series, American Pravda, is something I would recommend to everyone as well. I’ve been listening to the audio versions of that today where Ron goes over sort of revisionist history, takes on the 20th century as it relates to World War II and the JFK assassination, 9/11, and so on. And yeah, I’m excited to have one. It’s great to have you here, Ron.

Ron Unz: Hey, great to be here.

Keith Woods: Thank you. So what’s your own background? You don’t seem like the typical kind of person to end up in the position you’re in. It seems like you have a more sort of establishment conservatism background. You’ve been involved in Republican Party politics. So yeah, just like, what’s the general background there of how you made your way to kind of this side of things?

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, my original background was actually in theoretical physics.

In other words, I originally thought I studied theoretical physics in college, and I thought I’d probably be doing an academic career. And then basically around the mid 1980s, I ended up taking a detour where I took a summer job working on Wall Street. One thing led to another, and I ended up actually spending about the next ten years or 15 years of my life writing financial services software for Wall Street firms. And after about a year or so, I love to set up my own small company. And that really was sort of my main activity for a long period of time like that.

Now, I’d always been very interested in public policy and politics, and so after I moved back to California in the early mid 1990s, I ended up becoming involved in some of political campaigns out here. I just was very unhappy about what was going on in the state, and I actually ended up I didn’t expect to win, but I actually ended up challenging Governor Pete Wilson for renomination in his own Republican primary and then got involved in various other issues initiative campaigns, for example. I ran a series of successful initiative campaigns to shift California and the rest of the United States away from teaching immigrant children in their native language, so-called bilingual education towards making sure that they were taught English from the first day of school.

In other words, it seemed to me it really made no sense for children when they start school, not to be taught the English language and that ended up really being quite successful.

And in fact, bilingual education has largely disappeared around the United States because of those efforts. And I got involved in various other political activities as well. And then probably it was then probably about the mid to late 1990s when I became again actively involved in public policy, again more on the issue of international foreign policy.

In other words, I was very concerned about some of the actions we were taking, especially after the 9/11 attacks when we shifted towards the attack on Iraq, the Iraq, War, which I viewed as being probably a disaster.

And so I ended up actually providing some financial support to a magazine, the American Conservative, that was set up to oppose the policies of George W Bush with regard to Iraq and a lot of other things like that.

And so I ended up serving as a publisher of The American Conservative for about, I guess it was probably about seven or eight years. And then just about a decade ago, I ended up leaving to set up my own website, the Unz Review, which I thought would be a useful venue for my own writings.

In other words, at that point, at first I really was thinking more in terms of eventually doing a lot more writing of my own and having a website that I could basically use to publish my material on.

And then as it was, I got tied up with some software issues for a few years.

And so the website really primarily was providing a location for other writers, alternative media from the Left and the right to really have their articles published. Because in some ways one interesting thing I noticed gradually was that sometimes people, both who considered themselves very much on the Left or on the Right sometimes actually agreed with each other about many things that they might disagree with the more mainstream of the political spectrum on.

So it was the sort of thing where I felt by providing an Avenue for both people from the Left-Right libertarian camps to sort of cross-fertilize each other and trade ideas, it would show that sometimes they might agree with each other on things that they didn’t even realize. So that really had been probably the main thing I’ve been involved in over the last ten years.

And then about six or seven years ago, I ended up getting much more actively involved in going back to writing of my own. And just as you mentioned, the American Pravda series, which deals with a lot of controversial issues from the last 100 years of American society, is certainly the place where I’ve published most of my articles, basically during the 1990s. Most of my writings probably dealt with issues of race and ethnicity and social policy, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism, immigration. While probably in the last six or seven years, the focus probably has been more on foreign policy history and again, sort of looking at the history of the 20th century.

Now, one other thing I should mention is that from about the mid 1990s onward, I actually was involved in a major project to digitize the collected archives of many of America’s leading public policy magazines or opinion magazines of the last 100 years The Nation, The New Republic, National Review, Harpers, and also a lot of magazines that disappeared that had been once very influential but then had gone out of business. And by going through and digitizing all those old publications, I really came across a lot of facts and interesting aspects of American society from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s that really I’d been very unaware of just by standard college history courses or things like that.

So, in other words, it provided a great deal of background information that was new to me and new to other people. And that’s actually one reason I started questioning a lot of the history that I learnt in college. Because when you actually come across articles published in America’s leading magazines from the 1910s and 1920s and you see the picture they portray of American society is so different than what you’d always imagined it was at the time, it really just opens your mind to other possibilities.

So, I mean, that’s a fairly long introduction, but that’s basically where I came from on these sorts of issues.

[0:07:50]

Keith Woods: Yeah, you mentioned immigration. You haven’t always had sort of an anti-immigration stance. That’s one thing I noticed looking back at your articles. When did that kind of change happen? You kind of evolved your stance on immigration in around the early 2010s, is that right?

Ron Unz: Right. I’ve always had mixed feelings about immigration, but generally very opposed to many of the anti-immigration activists around.

In other words, basically, it seems to me, immigration has both positives and negatives. And probably the biggest negative that’s become apparent to me in the last, 20 years looking at American society has been the impact of large scale immigration on economic issues.

In other words, one reason, for example, for the severe economic decline of much of American society has been, I think, the very large scale immigration we’ve seen over the last 30 or 40 years. A lot of the critics of immigrants say that immigrants are lazy, they’re on welfare or something like that, or they commit a lot of crime, and I don’t think there’s really any evidence for that at all in American society. Now, it may be different in other countries, but not in America.

The problem, though, is that when you bring in a large number of eager workers who are willing to work for low wages, you obviously, by the law of supply and demand, drive down the wages for everybody competing against them in American society. And that, I think, is probably one of the strongest arguments you can make against existing American immigration policy.

And the flip side of that is the exact reason why America’s business groups business interests have been so strongly pro-immigrant because they see that large scale immigration helps to keep down the wages of the workers. And so things that are beneficial for, obviously, employers or for business groups can be very harmful sometimes for the economic interests of the workers who they’re employing by driving down their wages.

And one of the interesting things about it is if the issue were handled, I think, the right way, it would be much easier for America to solve that problem than many of these, for example, anti-immigrant groups have focused on. And the reason for that is that the groups most competing with new immigrants in American society are existing immigrants, recent immigrants.

So for example, if the issue were cast in economic terms like that, I think a very substantial fraction of America’s immigrant or recent immigrant population would be certainly very supportive of the notion of taking steps to reduce the flow of future immigrants.

And in fact, one of the issues that I raised that probably was my own contribution to debate, which really had, I think, pretty substantial impact, is the issue of one of the best it’s the minimum wage.

In other words, the whole notion of raising the minimum wage to a much higher level by itself, I think would tremendously reduce some of the immigration problems because most of the immigrants who come here are obviously willing to work for relatively low wages. If you raise the wage, the minimum wage, to something much higher, 12 or $15 an hour, it would act as a formidable deterrent towards immigrants basically coming here since they wouldn’t be able to take those jobs very easily. And it would also act as a formidable deterrent towards business groups hiring workers at a lower wage since the wage would not be that much lower. And what I ended up doing about that was basically about seven or eight years ago, I ended up shifting the debate in American society on the minimum wage and successfully causing a revival of the minimum wage as a major issue in American society.

So for example, in California right now, the minimum wage is $15 an hour where as of a decade ago it was, I believe, about $8 an hour. So we’ve roughly doubled the minimum wage in California. And the same thing, for example, has happened in various other parts of the country as well, though it’s not happened on the national level. And if more effort were put into raising the minimum wage, I think that would be a very effective means of severely greatly reducing the problems that immigration has been causing in American society and decreased a lot of the incentive for immigration down the road.

[0:12:23]

Keith Woods: Yeah, your articles on immigration are interesting. To look back at them, you were making arguments that were seemed to be very unpopular at the time, that some tropes about Hispanics committing disproportionate amount of crime actually wasn’t accurate, Hispanic immigration.

And you also pushed back, which I thought was interesting, against the narrative about the 1965 Immigration Act, right. That’s pretty popular in Right-wing circles in the US. Like, it kind of all went wrong after the 65 Immigration Act. Like that’s what opened the borders. That’s what changed this immigration policy from exclusive to Europeans to open it to everyone. You had a very different take. You said the 1965 Immigration Act actually restricted immigration because it did something about the ease with which South Americans could immigrate to the US.

Ron Unz: Sure, it’s really a very simple issue. America traditionally had an open immigration policy for basically most of our history.

And then in 1924, an immigration act was passed severely restricting immigration from Europe.

In other words, we cut off most of our immigration from Europe, and at the same time it eliminated immigration almost entirely from Asia or from Africa.

So in other words, Eastern Hemisphere immigration was largely reduced in the 1920s partly because of concern over these economic issues or political issues.

In other words, there was a movement to restrict foreign immigration to the United States, but it excluded the entire Western Hemisphere.

So in other words, we kept our open borders policy towards Latin American and Caribbean immigration.

In other words, anybody from Mexico or the rest of Latin America who wanted to immigrate to the United States would have to pay something like, I think it was $14 or $18, wait a couple of days, and they could immigrate here. So in a sense, we kept what amounted to an open borders immigration policy towards Latin America. The reason we didn’t have much immigration from Latin America for the 40 years that followed was that Latin America was tremendously underpopulated.

In other words, the population density was lower. So there just weren’t that many people who would come here. Some came, but not that many. And then it turns out, in about the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s Mexico and Latin America, the rest of Latin America underwent a tremendous population boom, a population explosion.

For example, the population of Mexico, I think had quadrupled in a period of about 50 years, even excluding the large number of Mexicans who moved to the United States. So it turns out the 1965 Immigration Act was widely perceived as increasing immigration to the United States because it reopened the possibility of large scale immigration from Europe and from other parts around the world.

In other words, we undid the 1924 Immigration Act, and Europeans suddenly could move to the United States, where for about 40 years, very strict quotas had been placed against most of the European countries.

But at the same time, the 1965 Immigration Act also imposed quotas for the first time on Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

So in other words, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, there was no limit on Latin American immigration. And given the fact that Latin America was right around then beginning to experience a tremendous population explosion. If not for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, you could imagine millions upon millions of Latin Americans moving to the United States as immigrants every year.

And so while it’s true that about 60 million Latin American, sorry, 60 million Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from those parts of the world after 1965, if not for the passage of the 1965 Act, the numbers probably would have been much higher. It could have been 100 million or 150,000,000 or something like that, simply because changing immigration law in the United States is obviously a very difficult thing to do politically.

And in fact, as you know, I mean, for decades now we’ve been arguing about it, and simply because with business groups very interested in having immigration at very high levels, they can almost always block any members in Congress to reduce immigration.

And in fact, for the last, 20 years, business groups have been making an effort to even further open our borders, to have an amnesty and increase immigration even to much higher levels than before. So it sounds, I mean, it’s very counterintuitive. And certainly many individuals focused on immigration issues are under, are unaware of the facts. But the truth is, the 1965 Immigration Act, by sharply restricting immigration from Latin America for the first time, probably prevented much more immigration than it supported.

In other words, we had many more immigrants from Europe and we had many more immigrants from Asia than we would have without the 1965 Immigration Act. But if it hadn’t passed, probably Latin American immigration would have been far larger than it ended up being.

And since the majority of our immigrants have come from Latin America, it sounds counterintuitive, but the 1965 Immigration Act probably played a role in reducing net immigration to the United States rather than increasing it. And that’s something, again, that most people aren’t aware of its the sort of thing a lot of anti-immigration websites have written on the subject over the years. And when I’ve brought it to their attention and they’ve checked into it, they’ve found out that what I was saying was correct.

And so they’ve stopped writing new articles denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act. But they obviously can’t take down the hundreds of articles they’ve previously written on that subject.

And so it’s one of these things, it amounts to sort of a mistake that got into circulation about 30 or 35 years ago that probably will never be corrected. But it’s the sort of thing with all those thousands of articles there misfortune the 1965 Immigration Act. It’s hard to say what will happen, but I mean, basically anybody can go and just check the details.

In fact, you can even read Kevin MacDonald’s book on The Culture of Critique where he actually discusses the 1965 Act and the fact that it actually, for the first time, restricted immigration from Latin America. So it’s simply a factual matter. And there are a lot of stats floating around the Internet, and that’s simply one of them.

Keith Woods: Well, I don’t mind this narrative because it vindicates the Irish, right? We always get blamed for the 65 Immigration Act. Wasn’t it Ted Kennedy?

[0:19:26]

Ron Unz: Yeah, he actually played a very minor role.

In other words, basically he was a very junior Senator at the time. And it’s true. Certainly the Irish groups and jewish groups and Italian groups were all in favour of the 1965 Act because their immigration had been cut off to the United States.

And so it was suddenly opened up again after 40 years. But the number of European immigrants the point is, Europe was no longer suffering a population explosion at the time, and Europe had also become quite prosperous by 1965 or 1970. So there wasn’t the pressure to move to the United States that there probably would have been 30 or 40 years earlier.

Keith Woods: And you mentioned this a little bit earlier when you’re talking about the arguments around immigration and the fact that you think newer rivals in the US. Could be won over to Nancy immigration position. That’s another narrative that was very popular a few years ago, this narrative about immigration that if it’s not stopped in the US the Republicans will never win another election. And eventually they’ll realize this and they’ll become sort of an implicitly White anti-migration party. Didn’t quite play out that way.

But it is interesting looking at some of the polls from the last couple of years where it seems like among what’s classified as Hispanics, however they divide that up, that it’s like 50-50 Democrat-Republican, and some of them even lean Republican. So a lot of the things people took for granted about demographics and the political process there seem to be being challenged.

I’m just curious how you see that playing out. Like, do you think the Republican Party can become a party that’s viable in this new multiracial America? And then what does that do for the debate around immigration? It almost seems like it’s taken something of a backseat since Trump. Like there was a little bit of disappointment about Trump, and now I don’t know, I get this feeling among people on the Right in the US that they almost feel like that’s lost to an extent in terms of managing the demographics, like on the state level. But yeah, I don’t know what your feelings are about that.

Ron Unz: Well, I certainly think I’m not too surprised that there’s been a substantial shift of Hispanics and Asians towards the Republican Party.

In other words, they’re right now getting the Republicans are still getting less than half, but it’s probably 40, 45, sometimes closer to 50% from Hispanic and Asian groups. I don’t think it’s so much that the Republicans have attracted them, but many of the policies of the Democrats have been so disastrous that they’ve pushed many of those groups away.

For example, I think probably the biggest issue has been the crime issue.

In other words, there’s been a gigantic rise in urban crime in many parts of the country. And you’ve probably seen some of the videos where especially attacks by blacks on Asians, many times elderly Asians have been attacked and killed just walking on the street.

And so that, I think, has caused a tremendous shift of Asians towards the Republican Party simply because when you have a situation where there was a massive increase in crime in the United States, urban crime a year or two ago, and the response of many prominent Democrats was to say, we have to defund the police.

I mean, that’s utter insanity. And that, I think, is probably the reason many ordinary Hispanics and Asians started giving another look towards the Republican Party.

Also, for example, a lot of what I guess you could call the sort of wokeness or the transgenderism, those are not things that are particularly appealing to ordinary Hispanics or Asians or Whites, for that matter blacks. In other words, a lot of people who are more ordinary working class people have been pushed out of the Democratic Party because of some of its extreme positions it’s taken.

And so, again, it’s not a question of, like all the Republicans, the Republicans gaining necessarily 60% or 70% of these groups, but there’s definitely been a shift in that direction. It’s interesting that the shift started probably about four or five years ago.

In fact, if anything, when Donald Trump was elected, he ended up actually doing much better among Hispanic voters than anybody expected.

In other words, the media portrayed Trump as being a fanatic hater of Hispanics, that he attacked Hispanics, that he said all these nasty things about them, and surprisingly enough, he actually got a much larger share of the Hispanic vote than most people expected because he ran on working class concerns.

In other words, he ran saying, I intend to improve the economic position of ordinary working class Americans. Most Hispanics are working class, and so they were attracted by that argument, even if they were repelled by some of his other arguments. And then once he came into office, the fact that in some ways the economy was doing better under him caused again, many of those people to shift in his direction.

[0:24:30]

So the funny thing about it is, even though Donald Trump was portrayed as a tremendous villain by the media, somebody who hated Hispanics, who was anti-Hispanic, racist, he actually came close to getting the highest Hispanic percentage of any Republican president in modern times, almost equaling what Ronald Reagan had done 30 or 40 years ago.

So it’s the sort of thing, the Republican Party, if it’s simply concentrated on issues having to do with these economic facts or some of these social issues like the extreme policies in the public school. Sometimes I think it just naturally and a law and order policy I think would probably do much better among Hispanics and Asians and Whites and to some extent blacks than it would be if it simply tried some of these other things.

I mean, the whole thing about it, a lot of the Republican elites tend to believe that support for higher levels of immigration is the way to win Hispanic votes, and that’s not at all the case.

In other words, Hispanics are mostly motivated by bread and butter issues, by meat and potato issues, and larger scale immigration, in other words, is not something necessarily that improves the economic posture of ordinary Hispanic workers since they would be competing against these new immigrants.

And so for that reason, I think, for example, there certainly could be some political strategies the Republicans could follow that would be much more advantageous in that way. But I don’t really see any sign of the Republicans actually adopting it, partly because the Republicans are so much the captive of the same business interests that support large scale immigration that the Democratic Party is as well.

So, I mean, from my point of view, I think many of the attacks against immigration over the last, 20 or 30 or 40 years have been severely misguided. But I do think strong arguments can be made towards reducing immigration on entirely different grounds, and I think probably those lines of attack would be much more successful than what the Republican Party or what Conservatives have tried to achieve over the years.

Keith Woods: Another thing I’ve noticed recently, especially since I went back looking at Twitter, and I don’t know if this is due to Elon Musk’s, Twitter being more relaxed on this stuff and not having shadow banning, but it does seem like there’s something of a sea change in terms of people are really discussing the issue of black crime now. And it’s not just a few kooks out there like Jared Taylor or Colin Flaherty. It’s quite mainstream Conservatives that are discussing this issue. And you go on Twitter and there’s constantly these viral videos showing what it was like in public schools for White children and so on. Yet Scott Adams and his recent outbursts, which got a lot of support, actually. Yeah.

I’m just curious about that it’s kind of something people have been speculating on lately. Why do these mainstream Conservatives that have ignored this for so long seem to be embracing it now? Or is it just an organic thing that the viral effect of this stuff being out there, and after all the years of censorship, that eventually it just reached a boiling point. But yeah, I don’t know if you have a take on that or what, …

[0:28:00]

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, all of those things are factors, but another factor is black crime in the United States has become much, much worse than it was a few years ago.

In other words, in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis that really forced a lot of the police to be adopting a much more defensive posture.

And again, there have been all these cases of, for example, police being prosecuted on grounds of, for example, sometimes even just shooting back at a black criminal and things like that. And so when you have so many police being very worried that they could become the next sacrificial lamb on something like that, if somebody takes a video of them, I think the police basically have pulled back in a lot of these cities.

And at the same time, the media narrative has been so extreme the last couple of years, the notion of, for example, police murdering large numbers of backs, killing blacks for no reason at all, that I think has in turn, enraged much of the black population.

And so there’s been a tremendous rise, I think, in the degree of black violence in many of these urban centres. Again, I mean, some of the things, for example, that have happened in San Francisco and other parts of the country, New York City as well. Elderly Asians simply walking on the street and suddenly being attacked and beaten or sometimes even killed by blacks in a random fashion. That was not something that was occurring five or six years ago. And things like that get on YouTube, they get on Twitter, and they go viral in just the way you’re saying.

So when you look, for example, at the rate of black homicides, it’s much, much higher than it was a few years ago.

Keith Woods: Do the policies of Trump have anything to do with that? He had the First Step Act, and he had a few Acts that kind of relaxed restrictions in terms of letting violent criminals out of prison early and so on. Did that play a factor?

Ron Unz: Oh, I think it certainly did.

In other words, Trump on that issue, in a sense, followed very much the liberal agenda, which was strange because.

I mean, the media portrayed him as an ultra Right-wing fascist or something like that. But I mean, he basically supported the media line of basically letting a lot of criminals out of prison.

So, for example, there’s been a tide of that.

For example, back about 20, 30 years ago, when crime was very high, there was a massive wave in California and other states to put people in prison for much longer periods of time. There was the three strikes movement, and in California, the percentage of the population incarcerated rose dramatically.

So in other words, many more people were put in prison, which might have gone too far in that direction. But on the other hand, with so many people in prison, obviously crime went down.

And so then for about 15 years, 15 or 20 years, with a decline in crime rates, partly because of those very high levels of incarceration, then there began a movement saying that we should really let more people out of prison, we should reduce sentencing, we. Should eliminate three strikes. And that ended up developing momentum of its own.

So now, for example, the number of people incarcerated in prison in California is much lower than it was ten or 15 years ago, and sentencing is much laxer. Unfortunately, one result of that is that crime rates are much, much higher than they had been, especially violent crime rates, which is what people are most concerned about.

There was also an effort, for example, on the part of various liberal or left liberal donors, George Soros being the best example, to fund District Attorneys who would be much less harsh on criminals than before. And that actually happened. The District Attorney, for example, in San Francisco was recalled from office because crime rates had spiked under his laxer policies. And there’s an effort actually to recall the District Attorney in Los Angeles for the same sort of reason.

So in other words, it’s been a mixture of a number of different factors. There was a sense that America was incarcerating too many individuals unfairly, and in many cases, those individuals were black. There were too many black men in prison.

And so that shifted towards an effort towards letting them out of prison, which resulted in tremendous increase in crime rates, especially in combination with the police being very nervous about being filmed and being sentenced if a criminal ended up dying or was an innocent person was shot in any of their actions.

So it’s a mixture of basically the police being much more cautious than they were in the past, District Attorneys sometimes refusing to press charges with the severity they had in the past, and many prisoners being let out of prison. And the result of that has just been much, much higher crime rates before.

Also, for example, in some cases in California, for example, I think shoplifting less than I think was like a couple was changed to misdemeanors.

So, for example, cases there were video cases where people would, for example, walk into a grocery store or walk into a drugstore and just fill a shopping bag with items that they then would sell on Ebay or sell on the Internet. And when someone like that basically is not prosecuted for the crimes, and when ordinary shoplifters are not prosecuted, it obviously gives people an incentive then to escalating to more serious crimes.

And here, for example, in Palo Alto, there have been many cases over the last few years of gangs of ten or 15 or 20 people coming here from Oakland or coming here from another city, rushing in a group into a high end department store and just stealing everything. Stealing, for example, Apple, looting an Apple store, looting other stores, sometimes breaking into, …

Keith Woods: Jewelry stores.

Ron Unz: Exactly. And when things like that get on the Internet and there’s a sense developing that crimes like that are not being punished, it obviously causes many other people to start considering doing something similar.

So I mean, crime is certainly a serious problem in the United States, and probably within a few years there’ll be such a reaction against it. We may go back to what we had 20 years ago with much stiffer sentencing, but at least for now, I mean, one reason there’s more concern about crime is that crime is much more severe than it was.

[0:34:45]

Keith Woods: Yeah, the popular issues for the Right are always crime and immigration. Right. I mean, you can see it with the guy in El Salvador, like, massive support for his policies. But yeah, it’s incredible. You get someone like Trump in office and he took extremely liberal positions on that issue. But I’m sure it’ll be more of a focus as maybe immigration becomes a bit more contentious and the country becomes more multiracial. I’m sure the crime issue will come more to the forefront.

But by the way, for the people watching, we’re also live on Cozy TV. We actually have more viewers on Cozy than YouTube tonight, which is interesting. The sort of old tech side is winning. There’s 500 watching there live. And you can send Super Chats if you have a question for Ron Unz on Power Chat. The link is there.

Now, actually, the reason I asked you on originally was because this thing about the origins of Covid right. The US government started putting this out that now they believe that it came from a Chinese laboratory.

And I thought it was interesting because immediately the reaction of the sort of old media types was like, oh, the conspiracy theorists have been proven correct again, and this kind of vindicates us. And we’re always right in the end, and the mainstream has to give in and not approach it with a great deal of skepticism. The government lies about everything, but not this kind of thing. And so, yeah, I went back to your articles on this because you’re one of the few people that has been pushing an alternative theory. There’s kind of been two theories, right. The sort of mainstream accepted theory was it came out of a wet market. It was like a natural mutation.

And then a lot of people speculated that it came from the laboratory in Wuhan. There are arguments for that. Supposedly someone that worked on the WHO investigation said that China pressured them heavily not to investigate the lab.

But then that’s something they would do either way, right, if they don’t want that narrative circulating. But you’ve promoted an alternative theory that you think elements of the US government or the US Deep State are responsible and that this was a means of sort of economic warfare against China. But instead of me summarizing it, maybe you can explain it to the audience.

[0:37:13]

Ron Unz: Sure. Well.

I mean, the whole thing about is when the virus first appeared in Wuhan, right towards the basically, it was first discovered probably right at the end of 2019.

So, in other words, the world started hearing about it in January, early January 2021, obviously, nobody had any idea what was going on.

In other words, a mysterious virus suddenly appeared in the city of Wuhan, and it seemed contagious it was spreading. And people also weren’t even sure how dangerous it was, what the death rate would be. And there were obviously a lot of concerns. And fairly quickly, within about a month or two, a standard narrative was formed, the sort of official narrative on the part of the American science establishment that the virus was natural.

In other words, it had mutated in probably a bat or some other form of animal, and it spread to the humans in Wuhan and then was going out from there.

So, in other words, the natural virus theory ended up being the dominant establishmentarian narrative for about a year, a year and a half in the West. And it was supported by a couple of paper, early papers that came out in nature health and in science magazine, where a number of very respectable scientists said that the virus was obviously natural.

Now, at the same time, there was a counter-narrative, fairly widespread in the alternative media and also anti-China groups that got started very early on. And that narrative was that the virus had come from a laboratory.

Keith Woods: I remember, sorry to interrupt. I remember Steve Bannon was pushing this very, …

Ron Unz: Exactly, and it got started very early.

In other words, basically, I ended up hearing it seeing on the internet in January, probably early to mid January, before almost anybody in the world was even focused on Wuhan.

In other words, before the virus had spread to any other country. And the story that they were putting out was that the virus had come from the Wuhan Institute of virology. Now, it just so happened the city of Wuhan, most Americans, most Westerners had probably never heard of Wuhan. I don’t think I’d ever heard of Wuhan until the viral outbreak.

Wuhan is a large city. It has a population of 11 million, but it’s an interior city, so it’s not the sort of city that most Westerners. It’s not like Beijing or Shanghai. And Wuhan is the site of China’s most advanced viral research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was set up, I think, about eight or nine years ago.

So it makes perfect sense. We suddenly have this mysterious virus appearing in a city in China, and by an amazing coincidence, that same city has China’s most advanced viral laboratory. So it didn’t take too much to put two to two plus two together. And to see that why many people started arguing that the virus had probably leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In other words, the argument was some people claimed it might have even been developed deliberately as a Chinese bioweapon. Others said, oh, the Chinese were just running experiments on viruses in that facility, and it suddenly leaked out.

So in other words, the two arguments that ended up being widespread for really the last three years are, first of all, the natural virus argument, which is basically that the virus is entirely natural. It simply came from some animal species and happened to appear in the city of Wuhan at that time.

The other narrative, which was supported by many members of the Donald Trump administration trump sometimes implied it. Mike Pompeo implied at some of the people of his administration is that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab leak hypothesis. And then once it leaked, it then spread around parts of the city of Wuhan and eventually spread around the rest of the world.

So, in other words, it was a Chinese virus that devastated the United States eventually when it got here, that devastated Europe that’s probably killed 20 million people around the world.

And so, again, those are perfectly plausible theories.

But one thing that made me very suspicious early on, as early as January, before almost anybody was paying attention to that virus in the city of Wuhan, when it was just getting a little bit of coverage, there was already a tremendous propaganda campaign in the alternative media, especially the anti-China alternative media, portraying the virus as having come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In other words, it happened very early on. Radio Free Asia, which is one of America’s propaganda outlets, was talking about the virus having leaked from the Institute, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as early as January 6, before anybody else in the world was even paying attention to this disease, before a single person had died in the city of Wuhan. And that basically made me suspicious about why would there have been such a massive propaganda campaign targeting China and targeting the virus before almost anybody in the world was even paying attention to some obscure disease in the city of Wuhan, which most people had never heard of at all.

So early on, I started thinking that there are obviously two possibilities. The virus might be natural, or the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology the way some people were suggesting. But there was obviously a third possibility as well. At that point, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan when America was at an extreme international confrontation with China over issues of trade, over issues of national security.

In other words, China and America were in a confrontation at that point in time. What then happened a few weeks later, …

[0:43:01]

Keith Woods: That was the time the Hong Kong protests were going on.

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Keith Woods: This is part of Covid as well.

Ron Unz: Exactly. Hong Kong protests. And there’s a lot of suspicion that America, …

Keith Woods: Well I mean, they were definitely like, funded by the National Endowment.

Ron Unz: Exactly!

In other words, basically there were a lot of suspicions that the CIA or some of the American intelligence organizations were putting together the Hong Kong protests to basically cause trouble for China to disrupt China’s control over Hong Kong.

And again, I mean, that’s the sort of thing countries do all the time. But it seems to me that at that point in time, first of all, you’ve got to understand, I mean, China already had a larger, real economy than the United States. As far back as 2014, the Chinese economy was growing much more rapidly than the American economy, and it was larger in real terms and had been larger for a number of years. China was building up it’s military, and by all measures, all American national security experts agreed that China was America’s most formidable international rival down the road. And in the immediate terms, in other words, there was a feeling that Russia was weak, Russia was declining. America, anyway, had two to three times Russia’s population, a vastly larger economy than Russia.

So China was considered the future threat for the United States. And that’s actually why, for example, when Donald Trump became into office, one of his first actions was to take economic action against China.

In other words, saying, we have to reduce China’s economic strength. We have to cut our trade ties with China. We have to block, for example, China’s technological development. And America ended up kidnapping the chief financial officer of Huawei, restricting exports to Huawei, China’s most important technological company.

So, in other words, America was taking all these actions targeting China.

And so it just made me suspicious at the time that this mysterious viral epidemic breaks out in China at the point when America is most hostile to China.

And then a few other things came out, probably by about the end of January, I’d come across some other facts which I hadn’t been aware of at the time. First of all, the virus appeared in Wuhan probably towards the beginning of probably early November, possibly late October, but more likely early November.

Now, it turns out that was exactly when Wuhan was holding the international military game, the world military games, at that point in time. And there were 300 American military officers participating in those games in the city of Wuhan.

So just looking at it logically, if 300 Chinese military officers visited the city of Chicago in the United States, and immediately after they left, a mysterious viral epidemic suddenly broke out in the city of Chicago, it would certainly make people quite suspicious of what was going on.

I also found out that it turns out in the years 2018, there had been I probably should step back a little bit. This is stuff that basically I ended up working out five months, six months later, but really all ended up falling into place.

There’s a man, for example, named Robert Kadlec who for decades has been America’s leading biowarfare advocate. As far back as the 1990s, he was writing articles saying that biowarfare was the wave of the future. Biowarfare was the best means of severely damaging an international adversary and doing it in a plausibly deniable means, in other words, so that nobody could prove what was going on, a virus would appear in another country. And he pointed specifically at the use of viruses to damage the food supply and the economy of a geopolitical rival.

Now, it turns out Robert Kadlec was brought into the Trump administration in 2017. In 2018, China was suddenly hit by a mysterious viral epidemic that severely damaged it’s poultry industry.

Then in early 2019, right at the beginning of 2019, China was hit by another mysterious viral epidemic that wiped out 40% of China’s pig herds, the largest in the world and China’s primary meat source.

So, in other words, we have America basically elevating a top biowar for advocate to the Trump administration.

And then in the following two years.

[0:47:50]

Keith Woods: What position did you say he had?

Ron Unz: In the Trump administration? Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which, strangely enough, that’s Fauci’s area, in other words, basically, he ended up being, he was basically put in as America’s chief biowarfare expert or something like that. He actually served a similar role in the George W Bush administration about 10 or 15 years earlier, but he was brought in in 2017 in the Trump administration.

And then in 2018 and, 20019, China’s food supply was suddenly hit by these mysterious viral epidemics, with some claims that the swine flu was being spread by small drones.

In other words, there were rumours in China, there were stories going around that drones were spreading the disease throughout the entire country.

And then in late 2019, suddenly the Covid virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

Now the city of Wuhan, even though most Americans have not heard of it, it’s one of China’s leading transit hubs. It’s a city of 11 million, and it’s the place where many of the rail lines converge.

China has Lunar New Year holidays, which are the equivalent of Christmas, New Year’s, and several other holidays all rolled into one. During Lunar New Year 450,000,000 Chinese typically travel. In other words, they basically travel to their ancestral villages. They travel back home again if they’ve been working in cities. So it’s by far the biggest holiday for China. Now, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

Keith Woods: That’s in February, right?

Ron Unz: Exactly, that’s basically January, February, late January, early February. The virus appeared in the city of Wuhan and then started growing exponentially. So since it was a new virus that nobody heard of I mean, the Chinese only discovered it’s existence on the last day of December in 2019, and the Chinese didn’t even realize that it was contagious until early January 2019.

Once it then began spreading in the city of Wuhan, the Chinese finally, then in mid to late January, ended up instituting a severe lockdown and managed to stamp it out. But if they waited just a couple of weeks, the virus then would have spread throughout the entire city of Wuhan. And Wuhan, being a transit hub it would have spread out throughout the entire country of China with probably tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese being infected. The result of that.

Keith Woods: I’m just sharing an image on screen there for the audience, just to illustrate what you said about the Wuhan as a transportation hub. You can see in the green is Wuhan, and it’s right in the middle of all of these lines that connect these major cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and so on.

Ron Unz: Exactly. Now, the whole thing about the virus, at first, nobody really knew how dangerous it was, and most of the evidence that come out later, obviously, it’s very much more dangerous to elderly people than younger people.

In other words, I think if you’re over 60, you have 100 times greater chance of dying than if you’re under 40. But overall, for the average American population, the death rate is something between 0.5 and 1%.

So in other words, we’re talking of a sort of bioweapon potentially that would not wipe out a population, but still it ended up killing about a million Americans.

So the result of that, if it had spread out throughout China, China would have to if tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Chinese have been infected, China then would have had to take tremendous economic measures, locking down the entire country to prevent millions upon millions of Chinese deaths. In a sense, China would have had to do, under those circumstances, very much what America end up doing once it’s spread back here. And so we would have seen tremendous disruption to Chinese society, disruption to the economy, as happened all around the world.

And so the point about it is probably the best way of looking at this type of virus, of these characteristics, is that it would have the characteristics of a very effective anti-economy bioweapon.

In other words, something that isn’t an anti-personnel weapon. It’s not intended to kill 30% or 50% or 70% of the population, but because it would be fatal to enough people, it would cause tremendous disruption in a society if it became widespread in that society.

So anyway, I’m jumping at it myself on some of that. But what I then ended up, as the pieces started coming together, one thing I discovered about a year later, which really was quite surprising, was, as I said, Robert Kadlec was America’s leading biowarfare advocate. And it turns out from January to August, 2019, he ran something called the Crimson Contagion Exercise, which was a federal state planning session, a series of exercises on how America would prevent leakage of a dangerous respiratory virus if such a virus were to appear in China.

So we’re talking about from January to August, 2019, America, under it’s chief biowarfare advocate, ran this massive planning exercises exercise to prepare itself for the appearance of a potentially dangerous Covid like virus in China. And such a virus then appeared in the city of Wuhan, just a couple of months later, which seems an awfully remarkable coincidence, if it were a coincidence.

Another factor which, …

Keith Woods: Can I just ask. I’m just imagining, like, someone that’s skeptical, listen to what they’d be then pushing back. Why did the US seem so kind of unprepared for the whole thing? It took a few months to even react, right?

[0:54:01]

Ron Unz: Exactly. America’s reaction was unbelievably incompetent.

I mean, the whole thing about it is not only that, but we botched the production of the CDC testing kit.

In other words, we did almost everything wrong. You can imagine the scenario I’m talking about, this sort of biowarfare scenario. The key factor to keep in mind is there’s absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump himself was at all aware of or involved of what was going on.

In fact, there’s tremendous evidence that he was absolutely not aware of what had happened. When the Covid virus started leaking back to the United States, and infecting people here, Trump basically said, oh, it wasn’t a problem, it would go away itself, people should ignore it, it wasn’t dangerous, that sort of thing.

So there’s absolutely no chance that he under my scenario, that he would have been aware of what had happened.

My argument is that it probably was an action taken by lower level officials in the Trump administration, probably a small hand.

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t they have foreseen that America won’t be prepared for this, and this will potentially do as much damage to the US?

Ron Unz: You see, part of it is that America dominates the world of propaganda.

In other words, America really dominates the world of media and propaganda. And one problem is you sometimes tend to believe your own propaganda.

Remember when the SARS epidemic, the original Coronavirus epidemic, suddenly appeared in China in 2002 and, 20003. It never spread much outside of China. It had a very high fatality rate, I think it was 20% or 30%.

So it was a very dangerous virus, but very few people outside of China were ever infected or died. It never spread to the United States, I don’t think. I think maybe one person died in the entire country. When the MERS epidemic, another Coronavirus suddenly appeared in the Middle East. I think it was 2007, 2008, something like that. It never much spread outside the Middle East, and not a single American ever died of MERS. So we had these two previous waves of Coronavirus infection, both of them natural.

In other words, they found the animal reservoir, neither of which had done any damage to the United States, it turns out. The National Health Organization, in late 2019, did a study on which countries in the world were best prepared to cope with any epidemic that might appear. Any dangerous epidemic. America was ranked number one. Britain was ranked number two.

In other words, all the West European countries were considered to have the best healthcare systems at coping with any epidemic of any sort that might appear. China was down around 50 or 60.

So in other words, anybody naively looking at all these international comparisons would have thought, well, SARS never got to the United States, MERS never got to the United States. The previous Coronavirus epidemics from the Middle East and from China had never done any damage to the United States. All the international bodies agree that America is best prepared at coping for any respiratory or other epidemic that might happen.

And so they might have believed that by organizing these exercises, eight months worth of planning for potentially dangerous Chinese virus that might appear that plus these other steps would basically safeguard America from any significant blowback. So it’s possible a few Americans would be infected, a few Americans would die, but by contrast, China potentially would be devastated.

In other words, hundreds of millions of Chinese might have been infected if the Chinese hadn’t reacted as quickly as they did.

And so the problem was the reality ended up being very different.

In other words, partly because of Trump’s basically unwillingness to confront the virus once it started leaking back into the United States, America basically just reacted very, very poorly.

And in fact, we had no idea how to cope with it.

In other words, our testing kits didn’t work. We refused to use the German testing kit that they’d already produced. And so for that reason, we had no idea what we do. And we ended up implementing lockdowns, then off and on for about a year or two, and then a controversial vaccination drive after that.

So the problem is, the scenario I’m talking about is not a scenario where America’s national security establishment as an organized body spent months or years planning and biowarfare attack against China.

The scenario I’m talking about is a small group of individuals, probably one or two of them near the top of the Trump administration, deciding to take this step without Trump being aware of it, without getting his authorization and simply deploying the resources, the lower level resources of the American national security establishment in this action, but without Trump or the top officials knowing what had happened.

[0:59:15]

And so, because Trump didn’t realize the virus was dangerous, he basically prevented any effective reaction once the virus unexpectedly leaked here and started infecting people. And there are a lot of other factors involved as well.

One early thing that made me extremely suspicious about the virus being more than it seemed was the fact that the second country in the world hit the hardest with Covid early on was Iran.

In other words, Iran became the second epicenter of the Covid world-wide outbreak, even though it has one of the lowest Chinese populations in the world.

In other words, only a few thousand Chinese people live in Iran, while the other countries that were fairly early, like, for example, northern Italy, has 300,000 Chinese living and working there, many of whom had returned from the Lunar New Year holidays and been infected and carried the infection there. Spain was another very country early infected. 150,000 Chinese live and work in Spain. So we had countries that basically had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, as you would expect, getting early infections with Covid because they got it from travels back to China.

And then you had the holy city of Qom, the centre of Iran’s political and religious establishment, becoming the epicenter of Iran’s Covid outbreak sooner than anyone, any other country in the world. And the infections hitting China’s political and religious elite. For example, 10% of Iran’s entire Parliament became infected by Covid before a single political figure anywhere else in the world had become infected. And that all happened.

In other words, if you trace back the pattern of infections in Iran, the first Iranians probably became infected just two or three weeks after America had assassinated Iran’s top military commander, general Kostam Suleimani.

So in other words, we have a situation where America assassinates Iran’s top military commander, and just a few weeks later, the Iranian political elites are infected with this mysterious virus, even though Iran has much less of a connection to China than most of these other countries that have not yet been infected. Not only that, but at the time all this was happening, I really was very surprised that nobody in the world noticed what was happening in Iran.

I mean, the fact that the Iranian infections had happened right after Iran’s top military commander had been assassinated and I couldn’t imagine why the Iranians hadn’t noticed what I noticed just by reading the newspapers. And then I found out a year later, not only did the Iranians accuse America of having launched a biowarfare attack against Iran and China, it was in all the Iranian newspapers. The Iranian political leaders accused them. They even filed a formal complaint with the United Nations accusing America of having launched a Covid biowarfare attack against Iran. But none of it was ever reported in the American media.

[1:02:21]

So in other words, it never got into the New York Times, it never got into the Washington Post, it never got into the Wall Street Journal.

So Americans were simply not aware of the fact that the Iranians were accusing America of having launched a biowarfare attack.

So we have a situation where basically the two countries in the world at that point in time that America was most hostile towards were China and Iran. And those were the two countries hit with this mysterious viral epidemic that had characteristics later argued obviously came from laboratory. And that’s actually something I should say from the beginning. I’m not somebody who is a trained virologist. I’m not a microbiologist. So I’ve generally stayed away from the science aspects of the issue, even though my background is in physics. Physics is not microbiology.

So the point about it is I can’t say whether the virus itself is natural or artificial. But there’s been a tremendous amount of evidence that’s come. Out over the last year or two. That the virus. That the characteristics of the virus, the genetic characteristics of the virus, the [word unclear] and cleavage sites. Other aspects of the virus are exactly the sort of thing you would expect to be produced in a laboratory and are very different than would defined in any of the other Coronaviruses that would be found in nature.

So, in other words, the individuals who are advocating the lab leak hypothesis are really making two separate points. They’re pointing to a tremendous amount of evidence that the virus was produced in a laboratory, the virus was a product of bioengineering, the virus did not come from nature.

And then they’re making the case that, well, if it came from a laboratory, well, there’s the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city of Wuhan. That’s obviously a place that must have come from the problem is that there’s very, very little evidence that the virus either was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or that there was any lab leak in that Institute.

For example, just to give an example, early on, there were all these claims made of, for example, people having gotten sick in the laboratory or the virus having spread earlier, but there’s really very little evidence for any of that.

And in fact, there have been some quite a lot of detailed examinations of the timing involved. And the timing really shows that virtually nobody in China was aware of any virus spreading until right towards the end of December, in other words, long after the virus had appeared in the city of Wuhan.

Furthermore, an Australian biologist named Danielle Anderson was actually working at the Wuhan Institute of Technology during the period in question. She was very friendly with the people. It’s a research Institute. It’s not a biowarfare lab or anything like that. And she specifically says she’s seen absolutely no sign that a virus of that type was being worked on in the laboratory, was being developed there. There were no indications of any lab leak having occurred, and she’s very skeptical of anything like that having happened.

Some Western journalists then interviewed a lot of the people at the laboratory, and there’s simply no indication that any of them were aware of anything going on, any sort of lab leak or anything like that.

Furthermore, when you look at the pattern of infections in the city of Wuhan, the pattern of infections is on the other side of the city from the Wuhan Institute of Technology.

So, in other words, if the virus had leaked out of the laboratory, you would expect at least some of the early infections to be in the vicinity of the laboratory. But instead, it’s about ten or 12 miles away on the other side of the river, centreed on the wet market that people were often talking about.

In other words, that’s clearly where the virus first appeared.

[1:06:22]

So we’re talking about a situation where there’s really quite a lot of scientific evidence and a lot of people who have great deal of expertise on the structure of viruses, on DNA issues say that the virus very clearly came from a laboratory, was bioengineered.

In fact, someone like, for example, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was the chairman of the Lancet’s Covid Commission, he really became very suspicious that the people he’d put on the commission who were investigating the origins of the virus were simply covering up the fact that the virus was artificial rather than natural.

In fact, many of the early statements that have come out, you have all these experienced biologists saying what they looked at. The structure, the structure of the virus clearly came from a laboratory.

In other words, it’s not the sort of thing you would expect to come from nature. So essentially, there are three possibilities. There’s the natural scenario, the lab leak, accidental lab leak scenario, and the third scenario, which I think is by far the most likely, which is the deliberate biowarfare scenario.

Most advocates of the lab leak scenario spend their time and effort arguing that the virus was bioengineered in a laboratory, that it has characteristics, genetic characteristics of that sort, and they have very little evidence to supporting anything like a lab leak having happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Most of the supporters of the natural virus theory focus on the fact that there’s very little evidence of a lab leak. And when you look at, for example, the spread of early infections, it’s on the other side of the city. There’s simply no evidence for any lab leak having occurred. And they tend to soft pedal the characteristics of the virus itself, which arguably seem quite likely to have been produced in a laboratory.

So we’re talking about a situation where if you look at the third scenario, which I think has the advantages of the other two, but none of the disadvantages, we’re talking about a situation where America is in a major confrontation with China and Iran, the two countries America is most hostile towards.

America has the oldest and largest biowarfare programme in the world. We’ve probably spent about $100 billion over the last 60 or 70 years on biowarfare, and suddenly a mysterious virus breaks out in China and Iran, hitting those countries right after America spent eight months in the Crimson Contagion Exercise, preparing itself for the possible appearance of a dangerous respiratory virus in China.

And so all of that, I think, is really quite strong evidence. But there’s one piece of evidence that really constitutes something closer to a smoking gun.

As I said, Donald Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with this.

And by the way, I should say that under normal circumstances, the notion of America or any major country launching a biowarfare attack against a leading international adversary without the leader of that country, without the President of the United States being aware of it, is utterly ridiculous. But the Trump administration was not a normal administration.

In other words, there were all these other things going on that were entirely kept away from Donald Trump.

In fact, some of the stories came out afterwards. Some of Donald Trump’s top aides would hide his own Executive Orders from his desk.

Keith Woods: I remember there was something published in the New York Times where it was like the headline was something like, I’m a member of the Deep State, and I’m sabotaging Trump’s administration plan to be a senior member.

Ron Unz: They just ignored him totally. Again, what I’m talking about in this case is a small group of individuals deciding that America has to strike a major blow against China, it’s greatest long term adversary, severely damaging the Chinese economy, maybe even causing the overthrow of the regime, and also probably striking Iran at the same time. And obviously, they really felt, well, Trump is not the sort of person to bring it into the loop on something like this.

So the fact that Trump was totally unaware of this meant that when the virus started leaking into the United States in the way that nobody really expected at the time, our reactions, trump basically told people to ignore it, pay no attention to it, forget about it. It would go away by itself. And so we ended up having a huge epidemic. By April, tens of thousands of Americans were becoming infected, and many of them were dying. It was spreading around the country. It was a gigantic disaster.

So for very obvious reasons, our intelligence agencies decided to try to explain to the public that they were not the ones responsible for this horrible disaster that potentially could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. And four separate intelligence sources went to ABC News and told them that the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of our leading intelligence agencies, had produced an intelligence report describing this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan, had distributed to our top officials, had sent it to the White House and ignore it.

[1:11:46]

So in other words, the intelligence agencies were trying through the leak, through the leak to ABC News, to explaining that they had warned the government of what was going on. They had warned of this terrible epidemic taking place in the city of Wuhan and the danger of it spreading. And the government, the White House had just ignored the problem.

So it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies. And basically, it’s exactly the sort of thing you would expect them to do they basically had a secret intelligence report.

Now, the truth is, probably many, many of these reports are constantly being produced, warning of all sorts of things going around the world.

And so it’s not too surprising that Trump paid no attention to it. But the key thing is, the date of the report was November. It was early November when the report was produced.

So, in other words, in early November, the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report describing a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before there was an outbreak in the city of Wuhan.

In other words, according to most of the current timelines, probably in early November, there might have been ten or 15 people who’d just gotten infected in the city of Wuhan and were starting to feel a little sick. In a city of 11 million, there’s no way the Defense Intelligence Agency or any outside source could have been aware of what was happening at that time.

So that, in effect, was a smoking gun of foreign knowledge of the events. Now, as you can imagine, the Pentagon immediately denied the existence of the report, even though four separate intelligence sources had confirmed the fact that the report existed when they leaked it to ABC News. And it had been reported by the top people at ABC, the Pentagon, when they realized they were talking about November, that the report had been produced in November, they claimed the report had never existed.

But then a week later, Israeli TV reported the fact that naturally the report existed. The report had been sent to Israel, the report had been sent to all of our NATO allies, the report certainly existed, and the report had been produced in the second week of November.

So we’re talking about a situation where the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report distributed to our NATO allies, to Israel, and to our top government officials about a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before any significant number of people have been infected. And that is exactly the sort of thing that I think demonstrates foreknowledge, again confirmed, …

[1:14:27]

Keith Woods: Just for the people watching what should people search just to find that specific report, because an interest in the report?

Ron Unz: No copy of the report was ever actually leaked.

In other words, we don’t have a copy of the report, but it was reported by four sources to ABC News and then separately confirmed by Israel that it was sent to Israel and our NATO allies. And they describe the report and that sort of thing. It’s in my articles, and in fact, there’s sort of a summary that provides links to the ABC News story and the Israeli TV news story that explain the nature of the report.

So we’re talking about a situation where if you have foreknowledge of something like that, it’s very, very difficult to explain that unless at least some people in the American government were aware of the disease outbreak before anybody in China.

In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that anybody in China and the Chinese government was aware of the virus invisibly spreading in the city of Wuhan until right towards the end of December, six or seven weeks after the American Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report talking about this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan.

So when you’re talking about something like that, again, that is basically the hard information we have. We have these news stories. ABC News, the New York Times reported the Crimson Contagion Exercise that went on for eight months right prior to the appearance of the virus.

The scenario, I think that’s most plausible to explain that evidence is, again, a small group of officials, probably one or two of whom might have been near the top of the Trump administration, decided to deal a severe blow to our Chinese and Iranian adversaries using an anti-economy bioweapon of the sort releasing in Wuhan and then separately releasing in the whole city of Qom, infecting them and damaging them.

And then they probably then notified individuals in the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that they had some intelligence report about some disease epidemic in the city of Wuhan.

In other words, it’s not at all clear whether anybody who produced the report in the Defense Intelligence Agency would have been aware of what I believe was an American biowarfare attack against China. It’s simply that they would have then been leaked intelligence probably by some of the conspirators.

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t you expect China to be aware of this, China’s own intelligence agencies and so on? And would you have expected them to go public with this?

Ron Unz: That’s the whole thing.

In other words, the Chinese, early in 2020, in February and March 2020, started making some accusations towards the United States.

In other words, they basically claimed the virus had been brought to China, probably by American participants in the Wuhan war exercises.

Keith Woods: They haven’t been disclaimed?

Ron Unz: Again, they’ve never specifically accused America of a biowarfare attack.

In other words, they’ve claimed America probably brought the virus to China, without specifying the circumstances. And I think probably part of it is there’s no proof.

In other words, it’s not that the Chinese or anybody else has proof. America dominates the world media. And so if the Chinese made accusations, people would say, well, where’s your proof? And they wouldn’t really have any proof.

In other words, what I’ve explained right here is, I think, a lot of strong evidence in favour of this scenario, but it’s not hard proof.

In other words, there’s absolutely no hard proof. It’s not like we have a confession by any of the participants of the world military games or anything like that. And the other thing to remember is the Iranians did specifically accuse America of a biowarfare attack. Their media reported, the top leaders reported it. Nothing happened.

In other words, the world media, which is under the control of the West, totally ignored the Iranian accusations and it did them no good at all.

Keith Woods: Arguably the US, just after killing Soleimani. You’d imagine Iran would maybe accuse the US of being involved regardless, right?

Ron Unz: Well, that’s actually one reason they did it, is because the timing. In other words, the fact that the disease outbreak hit the Iranian political elites like three weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander. I mean that sort of coincidence is just so amazingly strong. I mean, you know, the whole thing is the fact that the virus allegedly jumped 4,000 or 5,000 miles from the city of Wuhan in China, all the way to the holy city of Qom in Iran, which has almost no Chinese population, was just a very implausible thing.

And so the Iranians naturally put two and two together and accused America, but again, they didn’t have any proof.

Another thing I should mention is back, …

[1:19:28]

Keith Woods: You think there would have been a separate leak done by the US in Iran?

Ron Unz: Yeah.

In other words, there’s no way. It’s very unlikely it would have suddenly jumped thousands of miles to a city with almost no Chinese population. It’s possible, …

Keith Woods: I guess maybe one objection is you said like previous SARS viruses, like they didn’t leave China so the people conspiring this would have thought, well, this will do damage to China, but we won’t really have to worry about it. But if they were looking at the Covid virus specifically, what seems to make it unique is how contagious it is and how easily it spreads.

And even in January 2020, there were people saying like, restrictions lockdowns, that would all be pointless because the way this virus functions, there’s basically nothing we can do except let it spread. It’s too contagious to do anything about.

So the theoretical people planning this, would that not have factored in that, well, this is so contagious that it would be impossible to confine it to China and Iran and the whole West is going to have to deal with it.

Ron Unz: It obviously ended up being a total disaster. What you’re saying is exactly what happened. But remember the scenario.

Keith Woods: So you think they probably didn’t take exactly how the virus would, …

Ron Unz: Well, the whole thing about it is the scenario I’m talking about is typically when a government like the United States might consider an action like this, it probably would go through 20 levels of planning stages.

In other words, we’re talking about a huge number of different individuals being brought into setting up the procedures for something like that, going through all these different possibilities.

The scenario I’m talking about was basically a rogue operation run by probably a small group of conspirators in the Trump administration. Since it was a rogue operation that was kept away from Trump himself and kept away from most of other top officials, they couldn’t have basically had all these planning sessions. It was probably just a small group of people who really ran the thing more in a seat of the pants operation.

In other words, basically they assumed that some of these defensive measures like the Crimson Contagion Exercise, the fact that the SARS virus hadn’t spread, the fact that the DIA secret report would warn of the epidemic taking place in Wuhan. They probably believe that the combination of those factors and America’s outstanding public health system ranked internationally as the best in the world at coping with any epidemic.

Keith Woods: When you say elements of the Trump administrator, are you mentioning something like a John Bolton type figure that’s working with elements of the CIA?

Ron Unz: Probably the two most likely suspects.

And again, there’s no way of telling who would have been involved under my scenario, but the two most likely suspects, I think, would probably be Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State who’d previously been head of the CIA, or John Bolton, the National Security adviser. They were both ferociously anti-China. They were the leaders.

Keith Woods: Pompeo was very bullish, very against China, I think. Wasn’t he head of the CIA when the Hong Kong protest. There’s a suggestion that he may have been heavily involved there.

Ron Unz: Exactly. And for example, and John Bolton, by some accounts, John Bolton, we basically ended up kidnapping the CFO of Huawei, the daughter of the founder, when she was changing planes in a Canadian airport, and we ended up holding her for about a year, a year and a half.

I mean, it really almost caused a complete rupture with China. Allegedly, John Bolton ordered that, the seizure of a top Chinese business leader without informing Donald Trump.

In fact, the story came out about six months ago. Donald Trump afterwards said, but you arrested somebody who’s like the equivalent of my daughter in China. Why did you do that? And Bolton basically had done it without Trump’s permission.

So when things like that happen, when America basically arrests one of China’s top executives and potentially imprisons her for 20 years in the United States and it’s done by John Bolton, without informing Donald Trump of what he’s doing.

I mean, that’s exactly the scenario I’m talking about, where you had Pompeo and Bolton, either of them being senior enough to have organized something like this with a small group of conspirators around them.

In other words, their aides, their assistants. But I think probably someone like that could have arranged something like this. And the whole thing about it is, from their point of view, Trump, they probably regarded as being they probably didn’t want to take the risk of raising this sort of possibility with someone like Trump and just basically deal a severe blow to China and Iran without Trump knowing about it.

And then, obviously, once it ended up being a gigantic disaster and a million Americans died as a consequence, with two years worth of lockdowns, with all the controversies over vaccines under that scenario, obviously the people involved would be very concerned about anybody being becoming aware of what happened.

[1:24:48]

Keith Woods: All right, just one other question, because I just imagined the other thing that the audience would maybe be skeptical of is how useful Covid would even be as means of economic warfare. I’m sure people will say, well, it only really killed people that were very elderly or had underlying conditions. And even if the Chinese didn’t deal with it with severe lockdowns or whatever, they could probably more or less get on with business as usual. That is kind of the, I think, sort of dominant consensus on Covid. Now, it’s maybe worse than the common cold, but not as serious as was originally taught when it entered the West?

Ron Unz: Right. Well, you’ve got to remember, right now we’re talking about the Omicron version of Covid which is much milder than the original Wuhan version. Also, at the time the virus first appeared, nobody would be sure about the fatality rate.

In other words, remember, the original SARS that appeared in China had, I think, something like a 15% fatality rate. And early on in the first few weeks, there were all these rumours going around that the virus was extremely deadly.

So, in other words, if you’re the Chinese government, and if you have a massive spread of this virus throughout your country and you don’t know anything about the fatality rate, you don’t know that it would generally be targeting only the elderly. You couldn’t take any risks.

So, in other words, if the virus had spread throughout the entire country, probably 10 or 15 million Chinese would have died.

In other words, the original version of the virus probably had a 0.5% to 1% fatality rate. China has 1.4 billion people.

So if you multiply it out, I mean, we’re talking about many, many millions or even tens of millions of deaths in the country, plus a complete collapse of the Chinese healthcare system because it wouldn’t only be the people who would be dying, but the people who would be very sick for a period of a few weeks.

And also, the thing about China is China is a country that is much more respectful of its elderly.

So, in other words, a disease that would kill a large fraction of their people in their 70s or 80s might be treated even as a greater risk than something in the West, where there isn’t as much respect for elderly, including, for example, the party leaders in China.

So the whole thing about it is I’m not saying, for example, that the virus involved necessarily would have wiped out China’s entire population, but it probably was sufficiently contagious and sufficiently deadly that a country like China would have had to take very strong lockdown measures to control it. And if hundreds of millions of Chinese had been infected, it would have had a devastating impact on Chinese society.

The interesting thing about it is there was actually a 40 year veteran of American biowarfare who ended up writing a number of pieces on the Internet. And I ended up checking into his background, and it looks like he probably is exactly what he claimed to be. And he really was arguing it was basically in January when I came across some of his statements. He argued that the ideal sort of anti-economy bioweapon is something with a low fatality rate, but a very high rate of contagion.

In other words, something that was very infectious but had low fatality rates would tremendously disrupt a society.

In other words, if you had something, for example, that would simply kill 10% of the population, it probably would do less damage to a society than something that would infect 80%, 70 or 80% of the population. Even if only made the people sick and only killed a small fraction of them, it would tremendously disrupt a society.

So the point about is if the original Covid virus had spread around China, killed many, many millions or even tens of millions of Chinese and devastated the country, you could easily imagine the result would be a collapse of order in China.

In other words, people would blame the government for having failed in its mission to protect them. I mean, just like for example, look at all the incredible anger there’s been in the West over the fact that the governments have fallen down on the job with regard to the lockdowns, with regard to all these other policies.

So the point about it is, again, it wasn’t designed to be 100% effective at destroying China, but it was probably felt by the people involved that it would have a good chance of dealing a severe body blow to China, damaging the Chinese economy, damaging Chinese society and destroying much of the political legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party, which it probably would have if they hadn’t reacted as effectively as they did.

Because remember, even in the last six months, or a year, there’s been a lot of growing resentment in China towards the endless lockdowns to control the virus. And that’s despite the fact that the West and the rest of the world had suffered much more severely over the last couple of years than China did.

So in other words, there was some loss of legitimacy in the Chinese government even under the circumstances where 20 million people have died around the world with almost nobody dying in China until very recently.

So the whole point about bioweapons, as Robert Kadlec had written back in the 1990s, they’re a plausibly deniable means of severely damaging an international adversary.

In other words, there’s no proof America had attacked China or Iran or any of these other countries with bioweapons.

And so there’s nothing really the Chinese or the Iranians could say internationally that the global media which America controls would take seriously.

Well, one other point I should make is about six or eight months ago, the Russian general in charge of biological warfare held a press conference focused on the biolabs, whatever the 20 or 30 biolabs that Russia claims to have found in Ukraine. Biological warfare labs that he claimed were preparing biological attacks on Russia. And he actually specifically accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare attack against the rest of the world, especially China and Iran.

And again, it got almost no attention in the American media. So probably very few Americans are aware of the fact that the Russian government has now officially accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare.

So we’re talking about the Iranian government, the Russian government, and to some extent the Chinese government have all pointed the finger of blame at the United States. But since none of it is ever reported in a serious way in the American media or the Western media, probably very few Westerners are even aware of it.

[1:31:53]

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s a very interesting theory. I mean, like you said, there’ll probably never be a smoking gun. We’ll probably never know for sure. But I think out of the three plausible theories that you laid out, I think that probably is the most plausible in terms of fitting with the facts and explaining things.

Ron Unz: It’s partly, I’d say it’s the process of elimination.

In other words, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the Covid virus was bioengineered in a laboratory.

So the natural theory goes out the window.

And also they’ve never found an animal reservoir.

If it came from a laboratory. The two possibilities are the Wuhan lab that leaked out or the sort of biowarfare scenario I’m talking about. And the problem is there’s just no evidence of a Wuhan lab leak. And there seems to be a lot of other evidence that elements of the American national security establishment were aware of the viral epidemic before it happened.

So I think the combination of those two things is strong enough that it’s the sort of thing if the American media or even the alternative media began reporting the story, in other words, if it got almost any coverage at all, it could be facts would be shaken loose. But virtually all the coverage, probably 99% of all the discussion has either been natural virus or lab leak. And nobody is focused on any of this other evidence, even though it comes from mainstream media sources.

Keith Woods: Now, another thing you’ve been writing about recently, which I shared to my Telegram because obviously this has been hot topic of discussion the last few months is the topic of excess deaths. And I don’t know if I can even see that says the V [vaccine] word on YouTube. The terms are so ridiculous but related to medical treatments broadly for Covid.

But you’re one of the few people I’ve seen in the kind of brother Alt media sphere that kind of actually took a hard look at this and broke it down by demographics, by vaccination status, by country, by obesity and health status. And yeah, they’re very interested in the articles. People complain to me a lot that I don’t talk enough about the topic of side effects and excess deaths.

But honestly, it’s like the only pushback I’ve really seen from the stuff you’ve presented is kind of a lot of anecdotal evidence. There’s a lot of articles of people dying from heart attacks, young people. The problem with that is it seems like if you had Covid, you’re seven times more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine. Obviously, those numbers could be wrong, but still, in a time when a lot of people have had Covid, which does affect the heart, you would expect there’d be more myocarditis.

I mean, that’s the only thing I noticed from having Covid myself that was different from any regular flu, is I was getting like, very sharp heart pains, which was a pretty weird experience. But yeah, we know it affects the heart.

But anyway, the basis of your article is you broke it down and showed that although there are a lot of excess deaths in the US, the UK, some other countries, if you break it down by the working age population, a lot of countries actually have a mortality deficit. They have less than what would be the expected number of deaths.

And there’s a few interesting things to come out of your article. I’ll pull it up in a second while you’re talking. I should have had already. But yeah, there’s a few interesting things to come out of me.

One thing is that there’s no real correlation that can be established between the vaccine rollout and the excess deaths. Like, a lot of countries that’s pointed to they had excess deaths prior to the vaccine rollout, and then they have mortality deficit after.

Countries that have low vaccine rollout, like Bulgaria, I think it only has like, 34% uptake of vaccines. They have much higher excess deaths than some countries that have very higher vaccine rollout. There’s countries with almost 100% that have mortality deficits.

So the long and the short of it is there isn’t any direct correlation you can establish based on the numbers between vaccine status and deaths, even if there’s a lot of stories of a lot of people dying right now that’s being shared around.

And the other thing was the obesity element that you analyzed. So trying to find an explanation, you broke it down by obesity and well, maybe I’ll let you explain that aspect of it.

[1:36:30]

Ron Unz: Sure. What I focused on is the single most important factor that gives you a high risk of dying from Covid is your age.

In other words, elderly people have a vastly greater chance of dying of Covid than younger people. I think it’s probably if you’re over 60, you have 100 times higher chance of dying than if you’re under 40.

So the point is, when you’re looking at individual countries and seeing, for example, what the pattern is with vaccinations or with Covid deaths, excess deaths, it’s probably better to focus on the working age population. People who are I think the figure is generally from about 16 to about 60, 16 to about 64 in that age range. So that you’re sort of getting out of the fact that some countries have much higher elderly populations than other countries.

And then when I simply looked at those countries, I saw America had probably the highest rate of excess deaths of any country in the working age population. And strangely enough, the other countries with very high excess deaths were not the ones you’d sort of imagine.

In other words, basically, Canada, which had very different has a very different political system than the United States had very high excess deaths as well. Britain had high excess deaths. A few other countries did as well. While in the other countries, like Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands had relatively low excess deaths. And the pattern seemed to be, more than anything else, it was due to obesity.

In other words, if you look at the charts of national obesity, those countries that have the highest rate of national obesity seem to have the highest rate of working age excess deaths. Which isn’t that surprising, because we know that Covid is much more dangerous to people who have weight problems, people who are obese than people who are thin or average weight.

So, in other words, it seemed to me that rather than looking at any patterns of vaccinations, or even the particular type of vaccination, the obesity factor was by far the most important element in determining the death rate, the excess death rate for working age populations. And when we’re talking about working age populations, excess deaths, we don’t have to worry about the fact of whether we’re talking about what they died, whether they died with Covid or whether they died from Covid. We’re simply talking about the total number of deaths in that country relative to deaths under normal circumstances for the few years before.

And so it seems to me that a lot of these concerns about vaccinations, I think, to be honest, are sort of misguided, or possibly due to the fact that in the United States we’ve had such a high rate of excess deaths. And the government the fact that the government and media in the United States has sacrificed the trust of so many Americans.

In other words, it’s been so dishonest about so many things for so many years that there’s naturally a sizable fraction of the American population that immediately becomes suspicious about anything the government or the authority or the media say on anything.

And so it seems to me that probably the obesity factor, just by looking at about 15 or 20 or 30 different countries, was the biggest factor in how much negative impact Covid had, how many people Covid killed outside of the elderly range.

Keith Woods: Now, one thing is, how is the expected deaths being calculated? Because for the countries that have a mortality deficit, this is something I’ve heard before for some of these projections is the expected deaths is based on the number of annual deaths from the past five years. Obviously, the past two, three years includes Covid itself. So maybe that expected number of deaths is higher than it should be, and then you get mortality deficit, but maybe you still have some excess deaths in there. Is that accounted for or how is, …

[1:40:36]

Ron Unz: There are lots of different ways of doing it.

So, in other words, every individual person can use the benchmark for excess deaths that they want. The one I was using was the simplest one possible.

In other words, in all of these countries, I just took the average deaths for the five previous years prior to the Covid epidemic, average prior to the Covid and comparing it now, that’s certainly not perfect.

In other words, for example, in some of these countries, there had been a steadily rising death rate over those five years.

And so it might be better to use, for example, a linear interpolation method or something like that. But the simplest possible method you can use is simply to average the deaths over the previous five years and compare it to the deaths for the last three years of the Covid epidemic. And that’s basically what I use in most of those countries.

Keith Woods: So, for example, I’m just sharing an image from the article you wrote.

So this is the US for 2022, ages 15 to 64, and orange is to say that there’s excess mortality.

So you can see it actually declines a little bit as the year goes on in 2022, which yeah, I don’t know what you make of that specifically, but I’ll pull up another one you included, which is the rate for France, where there’s actually a mortality deficit, like we said.

Ron Unz: Exactly.

Keith Woods: Yes, you can see that the blue is a mortality deficit.

So there’s actually less deaths than you would expect based on the five years prior to Covid.

Ron Unz: Right. And I mean, to some extent, we’re talking about, remember working age people where the death rate is normally very low with the lockdowns most of these countries had, the result was that, for example, regular illnesses like the ordinary flu was stamped out because of the lockdowns.

And also you had, for example, a decline generally in traffic accidents because fewer people were driving, factors like that. So it depends country by country. And I’m certainly not saying the differences are necessarily as enormous as those two tables there.

But when you’re looking at 30 or 40 different countries, each of them over three or four years, and the pattern seems very clear, that the ones with excess mortality in the working age population are the ones that have the highest obesity rates in the world charts that points towards obesity as being a very large factor. And it’s sort of interesting.

One thing I hadn’t realized is that for some reason, the countries in the Anglo sphere the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain tend to have much higher obesity rates than most of the other Western countries. I don’t know exactly why. Maybe it’s Western advertising, American advertising or something like that. But for example, you have much lower levels of obesity in the continent or in the Scandinavian countries than you do, for example, in Australia or Canada or Britain, and that seems to be the closest, the most important factor with excess deaths with Covid.

Keith Woods: Another thing I could think of in terms of trying to sort of steelman the other position of people we listen to this is could you say, okay, so we see some countries have a mortality deficit, but if we had two, three years of Covid couldn’t you say, like, Covid wiped out the low hanging fruit? In a sense, like it killed a lot of people.

And so then there are people that maybe would have died in 2022 or 23, but now they’re already dead. So then, basically, if you have a couple of years where there’s a lot of excess deaths and people with underlying conditions and overweight people are dying, then you’d expect that a couple of years after that, you’ll have a lot less excess deaths because, like I said, the kind of low hanging fruit is gone. So is that something you’re factored in? Because then maybe you could still have excess deaths against what you’d actually expect if you factor that in.

But if you compare it to the five years prior to Covid, it looked like a mortality deficit.

Ron Unz: Right. But what’s interesting is many of those countries had deficit mortality from the beginning of the Covid epidemic.

In other words, the deficit mortality began in 2020 and it continued in 2021 and, 20022.

So, in other words, there was no increase in deaths during the period of those years, despite the fact that, for example, many of them had very heavy vaccination drives.

Another example, which I focused on later in a later article, was that probably the country in the world that had the highest elderly population, the highest percentage of elderly population was actually Japan.

In other words, Japan had a much larger elderly population relative to its overall size than any other country in the world. I think 50% larger percentage or twice as large as any as the next most country in the world. So you’d expect a very high rate of Covid deaths in Japan for that reason. Also, Japan then had one of the world’s most extreme vaccination drives.

In other words, there was probably more vaccine in Japan than almost any other country around the world. And the result was Japan basically had relatively low mortality rates compared to most other countries.

So, in other words, when a country with a high elderly population that follows a very heavy vaccine schedule with boosting and vaccine still has relatively low deaths, to me, that’s evidence that the vaccinations aren’t nearly as dangerous as some people say.

[1:46:16]

Keith Woods: Yeah, I encourage everyone watching again to go and check out the archives. If you just search Ron on American Pravda, you’ll find the archive there. And I think that the Covid ones are all included in that because I’m sure a lot of the audience will be very triggered by that take, but I’d invite them to try and go through your article and disprove it because I tried to sort of steelman that position. But they’re the two objections that I could think of but you’ve dealt with them. And I really think what you presented in terms of cross analyzing the data is pretty solid.

But I guess that gets us to another question, actually, which again relates to another one of your articles, which I really liked, which is I think it’s called Alex Jones Cass Sunstein and Cognitive Infiltration. It’s something like that. I shared on my Telegram a while back. But it relates to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, and obviously neither of us are blanket against conspiracy theories.

I mean, if people look at the American Bravo series, right, you have alternative texts on 9/11 and JFK, and your Covid theory and a host of other things. But you did analyze this phenomenon, which is interesting, the idea of cognitive infiltration. That there was this advisor to Barack Obama, Cass Sunstein, that wrote a paper where he talked about flooding the discourse of conspiracy theories to kind of introduce bad or ridiculous theories to kind of discredit anti-government narratives. It was actually Michael Collins Piper that talked about this a lot. You cited one of his books.

You thought an example of this was like the Sandy Hook thing, the narrative of crisis actors, which is a narrative that’s kind of persisted. I’ve seen that for other events like that since.

But maybe an obvious example people could think of is like some of the ridiculous theories that went around about 9/11. Like, that there was no planes, that there were holograms or missiles or something. But yeah, just a lot of very bad, very weird conspiracies related to 9/11.

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

I’m just curious because you’re obviously pushing this theory about the origins of Covid but at the same time, there’s been a lot of, I think, very bad, very weird conspiracies that have popped up on the Right since the origin of Covid And it seems like it kind of shifted the Right into a much more sort of conspiratorial frame. Like suddenly this old sort of Birch Society narrative about the UN controlling the world or Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates implementing global communism. This was like the very popular new frame among the Right. I’m kind of surprised in how mainstream it’s gone in terms of establishment. Conservatives talk about that kind of thing now, but you’re obviously pushing a theory about the origins of Covid.

But then you have theories out there. Covid doesn’t exist. There was these weird, like 5G theories I remember back in 2020, actually, I remember those few months. It was a weird time in terms of all the I almost forget about some of them, but like the 5G theory that there was nanobots going to be activated by 5G towers, all this kind of stuff.

So, yeah, I’m just curious. Do you think that was a case of what you described with the cognitive infiltration and flooding the zone with bad narratives. Do you think we’re seeing a lot of that on the Right?

[1:49:48]

Ron Unz: I think that’s very possible.

In other words, if you’re trying to basically hide something that is as serious as the scenario I’m talking about, one way of doing it is obviously just as you’re saying, to sort of flood the zone with a proliferation of every possible conspiracy theory so as to distract people, have them wandering off in different directions.

I mean, the strange thing about it is, in nearly all ways, my Covid scenario is actually a very mainstream establishment sort of scenario.

In other words, almost everything I’m saying about Covid is pretty much what you’d find in the New York times or most of these other publications, with the one exception being that it was an American biowarfare attack.

Now, the fact that America spent probably $100 billion on its biowarfare infrastructure over the last 60 or 70 years, the fact that we have the world’s largest biowarfare program, the fact that it’s the oldest biowarfare program, the fact that, again, it’s been giving out money through the Eco Health Alliance and all these other groups monitoring bio facilities around the world. I mean, all that is stuff you can just read in the New York times.

And the one element that is never discussed in the mainstream media is the possibility that elements of the American government might have used that biowarfare infrastructure.

And the truth is, when a mysterious, dangerous virus suddenly appears in the two countries that America is most hostile towards.

I mean, it’s not all that irrational to start wondering whether it might have been an American biowarfare attack. And when you start looking at the facts, I mean, one reason I’ve often said people are so reluctant even to raise this possible issue is because once they do, the pattern is so clear, the evidence is so strong.

I mean, the fact that basically the top Iranian leadership was infected with Covid in the holy city of Qom just a few weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander.

I mean, that’s an awfully remarkable coincidence! And when all of these factors are brought into play, I think probably people would fairly quickly decide it’s at least as plausible as the other scenarios that they’ve been discussing.

So the problem is, once you sort of open the door, I think you’ll have a lot of people starting to ask themselves whether a million Americans died and we had years worth of lockdowns because of the blowback from a botched American biowarfare attack. And when you’re talking about, for example, Americans.

I mean, the suffering Americans underwent, I mean, probably the Covid epidemic, including everything about it, all the lockdowns, the deaths, the controversy over the vaccines, everything like that this is the worst disaster to hit the United States since the Great Depression. I mean, huge numbers of deaths huge amount of inconvenience. Our entire economy was disrupted.

And the fact that there’s a very real possibility it was because of a botched American biowarfare attack is probably almost too horrifying for most Americans to even contemplate. But we really have to ask ourselves, why did we get ourselves into the situation?

In other words, America’s biowarfare facilities had already gotten back in the 19, I think it was around 1968 or 1969, there was a famous case of a nerve gas facility in Utah that leaked and it killed 5000 sheep. If the wind had blown in a different direction, the nerve gas would have probably devastated Salt Lake City, Utah, and probably killed tens of thousands of Americans. For that reason, Richard Nixon, president Richard Nixon a year or two later, ended up announcing that we were terminating, we were abandoning our biowarfare facilities, and we signed on to international conventions to ban biowarfare. So in theory, biowarfare has been banned all these years, but it’s been brought in through the back door under the grounds of biodefense.

In other words, there’s really no difference between biodefense and biowarfare.

In other words, the argument is you produce all these dangerous viruses so that you can better defend against them. And the problem is whether it’s a lab leak or whether it’s something else. I mean, we’ve now had probably 20 million people around the world die from the impact of Covid. And if Covid had been more dangerous, if it had mutated in a more dangerous rather than a less dangerous direction, we could have had many, many tens of millions of deaths around the world.

So I just think it’s just unconscionable that neither the media, neither the mainstream media, nor even almost any of the alternative media until very recently has been willing to look at the facts regarding the Covid outbreak and the evidence that I’ve been writing about now for three years.

One thing I should say is, in the last few months I’ve been very impressed with the work that’s been done by the Daily Skeptic, which is a British alternative newspaper, alternative media outlet focused on Covid. They’ve really had a series, the editor has had a series of very good articles going through a lot of these issues, connecting up the dots, and I’d certainly recommend them very much.

But, I mean, the point is, aside from The Daily Skeptic and aside from the work that I’ve done, a very small number of people here or there, almost all of the alternative media has been very unwilling to look at the reality of what probably happened.

And now that, for example, the Covid epidemic is winding down now, I think to some extent, probably the controversy over the health measures taken to control it are subsiding. I think it’s much more important that people go back and ask how this disaster happened, especially with some of the hearings that the Republicans are now having in the House about the efforts that were made on the part of Fauci and others to basically start developing some of these dangerous viruses and do some of the bioengineering that could have led to the creation of Covid.

[1:56:04]

Keith Woods: Yeah, just on the topic more broadly of China and the US. We can get to the Superchats after this topic, but I guess this relates to the whole cognitive infiltration thing. You do observe this dynamic with the old media is very anti-China and the CCP, and they’ll often have a narrative like the mainstream media or the US Government is actually like pro-China, like we’re the anti-China ones. And you just get some utterly bizarre narratives, like the balloon thing recently that Biden is passing secrets to the Chinese, and he’s also letting them fly a massive spy balloon over the US. And all this kind of thing.

But, yeah, it does work. I mean, you get these conservative Right-wing types that are very skeptical of the mainstream media, very skeptical of the government.

But then their take on the sort of neocon push for war with China, it’s like the government isn’t saber rattling enough with China. They’re too soft on the CCP.

I’m just curious where you see that going, because you see Tucker Carlson now, he’s been a figure that’s been, you know, very good in terms of pushing a lot of populist talking points and pushing back on. He’s one of the few people to push back on the US involvement in war in Ukraine, and he platforms a lot of anti-war voices, but he’s getting very aggressive in his rhetoric on China. And this whole narrative has shifted to, like, we need to withdraw from Ukraine so that we can fight China over Taiwan, this kind of thing. He has these people like Eldridge Colby on that are very hawkish on China.

I’m just curious how you see that playing out.

I mean, that’s a very big question to ask you, but in terms of, would the US be willing to go to war over Taiwan? And maybe more importantly, do you think the US is capable of reforming itself to be able to fight China, or is there just too much ideological hubris there? You’ve mentioned that to an extent already.

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, the whole thing about it is for the last 30 years, America has reigned as the sole superpower on the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And for 60 years or 70 years, we’ve done our best to try to make sure that we prevented China and Russia from moving together.

In other words, basically, that was Richard Nixon’s great success, and it was followed by the people who came afterwards.

In other words, the fact that we were able to become, in effect, a quasi ally of China was one of the reasons we won the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The one thing no geopolitical strategist in all of modern American history has ever considered is that any group of American leaders would be stupid enough to push China and Russia together again. And that’s exactly what we’ve done over the last couple of years.

In other words, we basically are almost at the verge of war with Russia right now over Ukraine. I mean, basically we are. I mean, NATO is more or less at war with Russia on Russia’s own border, which is an extremely dangerous situation. At the same time, we’re saber rattling towards China.

So the inevitable result, basically, we’ve pulled back on our agreement. Since Richard Nixon opened the door to China, we’ve always agreed that Taiwan is part of China, the One China policy. That was the pillar of our diplomatic relationship with China, and we’re not pulling back from that.

So what we’ve done is do everything we can to alienate both China and Russia at the same time and drive them together, which is exactly what happened a few days ago, the meeting in Moscow between the leaders of the two countries. We’ve also pushed Iran into that same camp, and most recently, we’ve even pushed Saudi Arabia into that camp. Even Saudi Arabia.

Keith Woods: That was very interesting, a deal brokered by China with Iran.

[2:00:20]

Ron Unz: It’s an incredibly important development! I mean, basically it means we’ve lost our strength in the Middle East.

I mean, Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations after decades of hostility through the good auspices of China and the Chinese diplomats in Beijing. I mean, Saudi Arabia has been our most important Arab ally since Franklin Roosevelt met with them, I think, in 1944 and 1945.

So, I mean, we’re talking about 70 years of an alliance that we’ve now thrown away. And Saudi Arabia and Russia are two of the leading oil exporters in the world.

I mean, the two of them together, largely together with Iran, largely control the oil market around the world.

Basically, we’ve destroyed ourselves diplomatically. I certainly would agree with all of these Republican critics of the disastrous job the Biden administration has done on these issues. But they say we should have attacked China more ferociously than we did, which is ridiculous.

I mean, the point is, China has the world’s largest industrial capability. Russia has the world’s largest storehouse of natural resources. If you combine them together, they’re stronger than the US. And NATO. And what we’ve done is push them together.

And the fact that we destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, I mean, everybody knows we did it, and most people were sure we did it even before Seymour Hersh, one of America’s most renowned investigative journalists, came out with all the details of it. The point is, we committed an act of war against Germany, our most important continental ally in Europe. We devastated the European economies because of these energy issues.

I mean, there’s a perfectly reasonable chance. I mean, it was a very mild winter. Not for the fact there was a mild winter, it would have been a terrible economic situation with the prices of energy and we still might have problems, for example, this summer because of air conditioning requiring a lot of energy. And the next winter. We have inflicted tremendous damage, economic damage upon Germany and our other NATO allies. We destroyed their infrastructure, illegally.

And so I think that is the sort of factor that went into the Saudi calculation.

In other words, the Saudis thought to themselves if we would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines of Germany, perhaps we’re not the sort of ally they should be involved with and when you take Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and a few of the other countries who have alienated around the world we’re in a very weak situation compared to what we would have been a few years ago. And what we’ve done is just so utterly irrational driving all these countries together that if we were deliberately trying to sabotage America’s strategic position we couldn’t have probably done a better job of it.

And it’s unclear what will end up happening with the Ukraine, but I mean, for example, I’ve been following very closely general Colonel Douglas Macgregor, again, very highly regarded military analyst. And he’s convinced that the Ukrainians are suffering very severe losses, and that the Russians will end up winning the war probably in the next few months and gaining control of most of Ukraine or at least as much of it as they want.

Now, again, I’m not a military expert. There are people on the other side who claim that the Russians are the ones suffering losses.

But, I mean, the fact that we’re basically right now depleting our storehouses of ammunition and weapons, much of which is being lost in the Ukraine war. I mean, basically there have been all these stories in the mainstream media of the fact that the Ukrainians right now are using up in a month the sort of munitions that America typically produces in a year.

And so if at some point we got into war with either China or Russia or some other major power around the world we’ll be in a much weaker state than we otherwise would have been and it was so unnecessary.

In other words, I’m very impressed with someone like for example, with John Mearsheimer who you’ve probably seen his lecture about how we basically spent all these years provoking the war, provoking the Ukraine war with the Russians, doing everything we could to try to avert any early peace after the war broke out.

And we’re now in a position where we basically are committing an awful lot of our military resources and $120,000,000,000 of our financial support to a regime that I think has a very good chance of losing in the next few months. And then where will it be? The Russians ended up calling up their reserves. They’re basically mobilizing and they might end up coming out of this with a much stronger military force than they’ve had in decades. And we brought it on ourselves, and now we’re looking for another fight with China at the same time, which is just insane.

[2:05:27]

Keith Woods: And you do think the US would be willing to go as far as war with China over Taiwan?

Ron Unz: Well, I hope not.

I mean, the whole thing about is China does not want war with Taiwan. China has basically said from the beginning that they’re willing to wait decades to reunify with Taiwan.

And in fact, for example, Taiwan right now, there are two political parties in Taiwan. One of them is more anti-China, and the other one, which actually was the original Kuomintang that came from China, that had been traditionally the government of China. They’re much more friendly towards China, and I think they probably have a fairly good chance of winning the next election.

So China certainly doesn’t want to start a war with Taiwan. But if we persuaded the Taiwanese to move towards independence, it’s certainly possible that China might end up demanding a blockade over Taiwan.

In other words, China could use their long range of missiles to declare a naval blockade of Taiwan, and then that either America would try to break the blockade, which would mean war with China, or America would have to give in on something like that.

So it makes absolutely no sense that we’re in one conflict with Russia right now, and at the same time, we’re looking for a new conflict with China.

Basically, under the right circumstances, we could have perfectly amicable relations with both Russia and China.

In other words, it’s a give and take situation. They have to recognize our interests in certain areas, and we have to recognize theirs in other areas. Ukraine was a red line towards Russia, and by crossing that red line, by forcing the Ukrainians over it, we started a war. Taiwan is a red line for China, and I certainly hope we don’t start another war with China over Taiwan.

Keith Woods: Yeah, I mean, sometimes people have these very structuralist interpretations of geopolitics where everything is for some very sensible, objective international relations reasons.

But I really think you can’t make sense of the strategy as it relates to Russia, except just being downstream of the ideology of the people in the State Department and genuine hatred of Russia and what it represents and genuine commitment to global dominance, basically. Because, like you said, the way it’s played out really isn’t going to benefit them in the long run. But look, we’ve gone over 2 hours. I’ll get to the Superchats now.

Ron Unz: Sure.

Keith Woods: So let’s see. Imperious sent a Superchat. He said if America wanted to devastate China economically, it would simply remove it’s most favoured trade status and hasten the already ongoing exfiltration of manufacturing into the next 14 Latin and Asian countries with better labour costs.

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. Really? It would be that important. The thing to realize is that most favoured nation status was certainly very important for China. 15 or 20 years ago when they were building up. But from what I’ve read, a large fraction of the Chinese economy is now entirely domestic.

In other words, they’re not nearly as dependent on exports to the United States as people think they are. And I would argue probably in many ways, America is more dependent on exports from China, low cost exports from China than the other way around.

In other words, if you go into Walmart or if you go into a lot of the stores, a huge fraction of our goods come from China. And if we ended up cutting off those goods, I think a large fraction of the American population would suffer even more than they are economically. And that’s certainly.

I mean, the economic scenario that he’s talking about was exactly what Donald Trump was focused on.

In other words, he was talking about decoupling America from China. But China already has a larger economy than the United States.

In fact, an interesting article by a top French policy analyst that I just was looking at a couple of days ago. If you look at, for example, on a real basis, purchase power parity basis, the productive sectors of the economy rather than service economy, which is much more nebulous, China’s economy is already three times larger in real productive terms than the American economy, already three times larger, and it’s larger overall in real terms in purchasing power parity.

So the point about it is we’ve passed the point where any of these actions America could take could really severely damage the Chinese economy. While, on the other hand, releasing a virus there could have caused devastating losses and could have really damaged the economy in a very much more effective way.

I mean, the truth is, trade issues don’t have the sort of impact of something that could have basically caused the collapse of the Chinese economy or the sort of lockdowns that could have inflicted on the Chinese economy would ultimately happen in the American economy.

And also, I’m not necessarily saying it was a sensible action to take, but I’m saying inflicting severe economic damage through a highly contagious, low lethality virus is exactly the sort of thing an experienced biowarfare expert would certainly consider. And the fact that America spent all those decades building up it’s biowar infrastructure means that some point somebody without even asking permission of Donald Trump might decide to use it.

Keith Woods: All right. Covid was a fear virus said: Those other Western countries didn’t push fear as a way to control their populations. They more or less used the well earned public trust to calm everyone. Couldn’t access debts just be explained by countries that push fear versus those that pushed calm. I have no idea what point you’re making there.

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. I mean, we’re talking about basically a million Americans died over a couple of years more than previously died if things had gone on the same way. And the pattern of excess deaths seems very closely linked to the obesity of the country.

So I think those sorts of objective factors are probably much more likely than questions of fear or lockdowns or anything like that.

Keith Woods: Anonymous said Ron Unz versus Ron DeSantis. Who wins in one on one pickup basketball game winners crown king of Florida. May the best Ron win. All right, thank you, Anonymous. Some real high quality Superchats tonight.

Another anonymous said, does Ron Unz eat onions? You don’t have to answer that, Ron. Anonymous, why did left liberals in the USA and the EU fall in line to support lockdowns and other such measures which hurt their domestic economy if the attack was directed at China and Iran?

Ron Unz: Well, I think as far as I know, the whole thing is American lockdowns actually began right my own part of the country.

In other words, the first lockdown in the United States occurred in the San Francisco bay area and was organized by the public health officer of Santa Clara county.

In fact, she lives here in Palo Alto. America was suddenly faced with this spreading virus, and we didn’t have any kits, so we couldn’t even tell who was infected, but we knew it was invisibly spreading around the country. Nobody really knew what to do.

[2:13:08]

In other words, Donald Trump and most of the people in his administration just said, oh, don’t pay any attention to it. It’s not a danger. It’ll go away by itself.

And yet suddenly there were more and more cases of people being infected in the Bay area and other parts of the country. I think what probably happened is these public health officers saw that China successfully stamped out the virus through the use of lockdowns in the city of Wuhan in the province of Hubei, and decided, well, if China had used lockdowns to stamp out the virus, the best thing we could try is something similar to that.

So, for example, the first lockdowns in the United States began here in the five counties of the San Francisco bay area. A day or two later, it spread to Los Angeles. A day or two after that, it spread to the rest of California and then New York City, New York state and other parts around the country until probably about half or two thirds of the country was locking down. The original lockdowns were intended to last only two or three or four weeks. The problem is they weren’t strict lockdowns.

In other words, China basically implemented extremely strict lockdowns in a few cities. To begin with, they stamped out the virus, and within a month or two, the country was back to normal again in the United States, because the virus was very contagious and the lockdowns weren’t at all strict or extremely strong. What ended up happening is the virus continued to spread. And so since the government didn’t really know what to do, they continued the lockdowns then going for weeks and months and for basically a year, or a year and a half.

And so the lockdowns ended up really being very ineffective. But they were ineffective not because I think in theory they would have failed, but they just were ineffective given the nature of American society. And it was simply impossible to have the very strict lockdowns that the Chinese had followed.

So, again, whether the lockdowns were a good idea or not at the time, I can’t really say, because they ended up failing. Maybe if they’d been done differently, they would have been more successful. But as it is, we ended up getting about 70 or 80% of the population infected despite the lockdowns, and we had a million excess deaths. So it’s not clear whether the efforts really ended up achieving much.

Keith Woods: All right. Yeah, this is kind of your last chance to send a Superchat, so if you want to go to Power chat, send them in. Did We Fall sent this on YouTube. I don’t know if you can see that. He said Unz Review and American Pravda are both essential reading. Does Ron foresee any great upheavals in the coming years? A Soviet collapse type event for the West where the system loses credibility and dissenting views prevail?

Ron Unz: Well, unfortunately, I think something like that has definitely been happening in the West. I mean, when you look at the tremendous loss of credibility in the American government and the American media, I mean, you know, 40 or 50 years ago, most Americans believed whatever the media and the government told them.

One reason, for example, with something like the JFK assassination, that there wasn’t much more of a backlash against what happened is the government, the elites, the media said it was a lone gunman, a random nut, and most people believed it. Most people accepted what the government told them. Even at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I think there was still a strong reservoir of belief in the government and the media.

But now we’ve reached the point. I mean, take, for example, the Covid epidemic. You have probably 20% to 30% of the American public that believes the vaccines are deadly and that the government or our elites want to kill them.

I mean, that’s much worse than, I think, almost any other country around the world. And it’s because the ruling elites in the United States, the government, the media, the corporations, most of the power centres have just been so dishonest for so long about so many important issues, that I think they’re undergoing the same tremendous loss of trust that was found in the last stages of the Soviet Union before the Soviet collapse.

I think when you look at some of the things going on in American society, or even, for example, the events right now going on in France, the protests in France, I think we’re seeing the West really undergoing much of the same disintegration that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc underwent, 30 or 40 years ago.

In other words, I don’t know whether we’re at 1985 or 1987 or 1989 or 1991, but I mean, the degree of hostility towards the American government, or look, for example, the fact that we had a protest over the Donald Trump’s election. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Donald Trump, in my opinion, was an extremely flawed candidate, and I think most people would probably agree with that. He was opposed by 99% of the American media. He was massively outspent.

The other side spent billions of dollars more than he spent in his 2016 campaign, and he ended up winning the presidency despite all those tremendous handicaps. The reason he won is that the ruling elites of the United States, as exemplified in Hillary Clinton, were so tremendously hated, so tremendously disliked, so tremendously distrusted by the American public that people were willing to vote for a reality star like Donald Trump, over basically keeping things the way they are.

And in the case of, for example, when he was running for reelection, the fact that all the elites have to get together and ban him from social media, they have to ban any reports from Hunter Biden’s laptop, all those other factors. If not for those tilts on the scale, I think Trump probably would have been reelected despite the fact that there was such a massive effort on the part of all the unified elites to get rid of him.

So, I mean, the point is, when you have something like that happening in American political campaign, it just shows the tremendous hostility there is deep within the American public towards so much of the American leadership class, the American establishment, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it. And I think that’s getting worse rather than better.

[2:19:46]

Keith Woods: All right, Imperious sent another Superchat. Very generous, Superchat. Thank you, Imperious. Always appreciate your contributions. He said:

“Should jews police their own regarding anti-White racism just as much as White people police their own regarding non-White racism? If so, how? Are words enough? Or should there be firings and fines and moderate jail time for incitement against Whites?

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, certainly one aspect of our website is that even though we cover a lot of controversial things, the fact that we have much more of an open discussion on jewish issues than most of the other alternative websites, I think, is one sort of important aspect of what we do now. The point about it is, I think the biggest problem we face on all these issues is the media.

So, for example, most people, their view of reality is constructed by the media. And if the media constructs a false view of reality, a distorted view of reality, the result is that people believe that they’re acting in a reasonable way when they’re actually not.

I mean, the perfect example is what I was saying in the aftermath of the George Floyd death.

I mean, there seems to be a lot of evidence that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and a lot of those other incidents of alleged blacks killed by the police in a wanton fashion.

I mean, the real stories are very different than what most people believe. But if the media portrays those incidents as being the random killings of innocent blacks by the police, it’s not at all surprising that you get a much higher rate of black crime, of black violence, of black attacks.

And so the media is the fault involved. In the same way, I think if more jews in the United States or the Western world became familiar with the true history of the last hundred years, rather than the media portrayed history, which portrays things in a very distorted way, their attitudes towards things would be very different.

In fact, a piece I’m just about to republish has to do with the famous case of Leo Frank, the ADL, which was the founding incident of the ADL.

In other words, we’re talking about an organization like the ADL. I would bet probably that the vast majority of people in the ADL, in its leadership, probably believe all of the propaganda that the ADL and similar organizations put out about the massive tide of anti-semitism, all of these horrible things that have been done to jews in the United States, around the world, some of which are true, but many of which are not true.

And so the point is, once we have a more realistic view of the history of the last 50 years or the last 100 years, I think by itself, that would cause many jewish individuals to take a much more reasonable approach to things than they do right now. Because they get their knowledge of the world from the same movies and TV shows that I think most other people do.

And it’s in many cases an extremely distorted view of the world, a view of the world that basically engenders a tremendous amount of hostility, most of which really should not exist.

And so that’s a very severe problem.

Now, the truth about it is that some of the criticism made against jews or organized jewish groups is correct. Some of it is not, but a great deal of it is correct. And once the facts are brought out, I think that’s the best way to have any chance at harmonious relationships between all these different groups in our society, including blacks and non blacks and jews and non-jews and other groups like that. So it’s a very difficult position. But I think the media and the false portrayal of reality by the media, by the academic community, is a large measure of the problem involved.

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s funny. Some people in the chat, like, thought you were going to dodge that question or something. They’ve obviously never visited the Unz Review guys. You should just check out the American Pravda series. It doesn’t exactly shy away from these issues.

Okay. Anan said:

“Hi. What is your opinion on Bitcoin and CBDCs?”

That’s the Central Bank Digital Currency.

Ron Unz: To be honest, I’m very skeptical of Bitcoin. It’s not something I’ve really paid much attention to or investigated, but I just don’t see why it’s worth the money it is.

In other words, basically, it’s mostly used by people who want to buy it because they hope it’ll go up in value.

In other words, it doesn’t really have an economic use. It’s not that people use it in transactions.

And in fact, given, for example, the energy cost involved, it’s reached the point where I think Bitcoin is very ineffective. It’s too expensive to use in ordinary transactions.

So that’s why some of the other crypto-currencies, I think, are more being used in that. But I should say I’m not an all expert in crypto-currency, and I was amazed when Bitcoin first became as valuable as it was, and I couldn’t imagine why it was going up. And I was not at all surprised when it went back down again. And now I know it’s gone up again a little bit the last few days. So I really don’t have a strong opinion on it.

But probably to the extent I do have an opinion, it’s probably much more to the conventional wisdom of someone like Jeffrey Sachs or someone like Paul Krugman, or someone like basically most of the leading investors, basically traditional investors just don’t think Bitcoin really makes sense as an investment, and I’ve never been involved in it myself.

Keith Woods: Yeah, I agree with you.

I mean, I’m not exactly an expert on crypto, but everything Bitcoin can do, another coin can do better. If it’s digital cash, there’s things like nano that do instant transactions with no fees and barely any energy. If it’s privacy, it has no privacy. If it’s smart contracts, it doesn’t really have that.

So, I mean, yeah, it’s purely the network effect, which how long can that last? I just don’t really buy that it’s going to be like an infinitely expanding network. The richest man in the world has already bought it and dumped it.

[2:26:22]

Ron Unz: Warren Buffett has been very critical of Bitcoin.

I mean, the truth about it is, if you remember about 15 years ago, there was a feeling that housing prices, the mortgage markets, were going up infinitely in the United States.

In other words, everybody was buying houses and speculating on houses because they felt housing prices could only go upwards. And the end result was the market collapse, and a lot of people lost everything they had.

And so it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happens with Bitcoin.

In fact, I think there was one claim that right now, the energy cost to produce a single Bitcoin is not that much lower than the lower end of what Bitcoin value was, at one point back maybe a few months ago or something like that, after one of those collapses took place.

So if at some point, obviously, the value of a single Bitcoin becomes lower than the energy mining costs of the Bitcoin that produced it, you could see a complete collapse in the Bitcoin market.

So, again, it’s not something I’d really rather stick to things where I at least have done some investigation.

Keith Woods: Yeah, I do think crypto is around. It’ll get a lot bigger and there will be huge growth there. But I just don’t think it’s Bitcoin. I think Ethereum will flip Bitcoin and other coins will take over and eventually it’ll collapse.

Okay, I think this is the last Superchat, Mike said:

“Is the suppression of all the Chinese protests in 2019 sufficient motivation for China to have released the virus? At the time, it just seemed to me like it was the golden excuse for them to shut everything down?”

I do remember some people having that narrative that was like CCP pretence to end all the riots and anti-government protests and implement full authoritarianism.

Ron Unz: I’m very skeptical of that. I mean, the whole thing about it is the only protests I’m aware of really were in Hong Kong, which is not even really part of China proper, and Hong Kong is a very small postage stamp.

So, in other words, if the Chinese wanted to deploy heavy forces, they certainly could have stamped out the protests very easily to whatever extent they wanted. There were no protests anywhere else in China, and the clamp down, basically the lockdowns then were relaxed a month or two later, as soon as they said that, they’d stamped out the virus.

It was only last year or so, when the extremely contagious Omicron version got it leaked into China, that they had to have a series of lockdowns, which they finally gave up on and ended up letting the virus spread. And ended up I mean, probably like a million extra Chinese died probably in the last six months because of the spread of Omicron. But it would have been much more serious if the original Wuhan virus had been spread instead.

So, I mean, overall, I’m very skeptical of those sorts of scenarios, and I think probably what happened in China was exactly what the government said was happening.

In other words, they found this mysterious virus, whose lethality they weren’t sure of at the time, that was spreading very rapidly and threatened to infect the entire country and potentially kill many, many millions of Chinese. But the Chinese stamped it out very quickly in the city of Wuhan, in the provinces, and then life in China went back to normal.

So the funny thing about it is, six months after that, life in China was almost entirely back to normal everywhere in the country, while it was the West and America and other parts of the world that were suffering from these very severe lockdowns.

So I really am very skeptical of those sorts of complicated explanations. I don’t think the governments in either China or the West did anything other than what they claimed to do. It’s just that the Western governments did a poor job of stamping out the virus early on when they might have been able to.

Keith Woods: All right, well, that’s all of the Superchats. Yeah, we’ve gone, two and a half hours, so I do appreciate all your time, Ron. And yeah, again, I recommend everyone check out the American Pravda series. It’s great. I’ve been listening to them today. I need to catch up on more of them. Apparently, it had a big role in red pilling Nicholas Fuentes, I’ve heard him mention that.

Ron Unz: That’s great. And what I should say is that the side of the website, if you go to our basic website, there are sections, for example, there’s the Covid section, there’s the Public Health Vaccination section, and that has some of my articles grouped in those sections.

So if you’re interested in the Covid issues, going to that section basically contains those articles summaries and also the video clip of the ABC News report regarding basically what might be called the smoking gun of the Secret DIA Report, describing an epidemic in China before it actually happened.

Keith Woods: Yeah, and just in general, Unz is a great website to visit, Anyone that’s worth reading, Andrew Joyce, Michael Jones, all the sort of big names this side of things, you’ll catch what they write republished there.

So, yeah, this was great. Thanks for joining me, Ron. Thanks for everyone that Superchatted and tuned in and take care of one.

Ron Unz: Hey, thanks for having me.

[2:31:52]

END

top

============================================

YouTube Comments

top

173 Comments

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago (edited)
Unz is wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act. What the Act did is allow immigration through family-based sponsorship which in turn has turned into what we call “chain migration”. The 1924 Immigration Act severely restricted immigration. Then, the 1952 Immigration Act allowed for certain kinds of immigrants with a preference strictly from Europe. The 1965 Act got rid of non-European restrictions and allowed immigrants to come from everywhere, but it did put country quotas and a cap on green cards. As things improved in Europe, less Europeans moved to the US and more third world immigrants who had families already settled in America had them sponsor them for green cards. Once they received green cards, they would eventually become citizens and end up sponsoring other family members left behind — chain migration. Today, the top 10 countries where immigrants are coming from, zero European countries are even on the top 10 list. Mexico ranks number one, followed by China. The rest are Latin American countries, Central American countries, and rest Asian countries. So Unz claiming it reduced Latino immigration is entirely false. Just look up the data via Pew Research.
Read more
105

14 replies

@50centpb7
1 day ago
His take on this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test, just the intentions behind the 1965 immigration act were obviously not to reduce net migration. The complete opposite was true.
26

@wangChung-on4kx
22 hours ago
This entire thing is a larp use critical thinking
2

@nickmoser7785
21 hours ago (edited)
Also prior to the 1924 immigration act we had the Nationality Act of 1790 mostly limited access to U.S. citizenship to White Protestant immigrants from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age.
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@nickmoser7785 God Bless I love you, without Christ, we are just Jews
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
21 hours ago
Am I wrong in thinking his woefully absurd take on this is purely determined by his chewish background? If everything was the same, except America was historically a chewish majority state, would he have the same take?
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Kanye I love you j-wish (Christian ) God bless

@nickmoser7785
20 hours ago
@wangChung-on4kx wrong Judaism split from Christianity not other way around. Christianity is the religion of the old and New Testament
4

@sergeytheweberian7064
15 hours ago (edited)
@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Unz is tricky with this, sorta like Rothbard. In that he did call out The Lobby and tribe’s strong connection to Communism and censoring people to the right of neocons while also being a defacto civic nationalist. And i don’t think he is insincere about it. It’s just that people of his background have rather natural tendency to downplay ideas coming from ethnonationalist camp even when they come eventually to deconstruct the rest of leftist historical and political mythology.
Show less
3

@kw8831
15 hours ago

@Sergey theWeberian I completely agree with your take. I just discovered Roy Unz several weeks ago so this has been on my mind recently. If you just read an article or two of his, you’d get the impression that he is the rarest type of Jew, a full blown based ethno-nat! but after reading many more of his works I kept getting off put by little things, & occasionally something major. It made much more sense after I discovered his heritage…
Not that his Jewishness necessarily makes him wrong or our foe. Roy Unz is not on our side & that’s okay, we should not expect that of anyone but ourselves. With that said some of his articles are brilliant and while he isn’t on our side he certainly isn’t on our enemies either. That’s fair enough to me!
Show less
3

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
I don’t think he knew the audience he was talking to
2

@glaucon7337
7 hours ago
It’s not complicated. He is saying that without it the Hispanic immigration rates would have been higher, not that it would be non existent. He explained it very clearly.
1

@musphat3311
22 hours ago
His theories on the pandemic are genuinely intriguing and thought provoking
27
Keith Woods

1 reply
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
What you thought it was the evil chinese, bruh?
, clever boy.
3

@pantsmonsterv6
1 day ago
Unz has done incredible work. Thank you!
51
Keith Woods

@LT-xb5su
1 day ago
Super excited to watch this. Two of my favorites
22
Keith Woods

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
I haven’t really read the Unz publication but I’ll give an open ear if Keith is willing to interview the owner of it. Starting off his immigration argument with saying that one of the biggest negatives of it is the economic problems that come with it is pretty milquetoast though. But I do like his perspective of having brought together people from the left and right on his website rather than being an echo chamber. I’m not sure if it will be effective long term but it’s something different.
Show less
9

1 reply
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s obviously in our faces everyday, on the streets, at work, in schools, at stores, in advertising, media, entertainment, and many other areas that the most serious problem with immigration is something other than economics.
5

@k.k8291
1 day ago
Very interesting interview. I’ve always been curious about Ron Unz given his fantastic website (its comment section is of the highest quality I’ve ever came across).
22
Keith Woods

1 reply
@bigolboomerbelly4348

@bigolboomerbelly4348
1 day ago
Totally rocking interview bros!! Im gonna start the new Ron fan club!
9

@joeshmoe4656
23 hours ago
Everyone should check out Douglas MacGregor. Excellent analysis of the situation in Ukraine. He does a lot of interviews with smaller channels Keith, you should try and get him on!
20

1 reply
@brotherjamesstrang

@brotherjamesstrang
21 hours ago
Didn’t know Unz was so soft spoke, very soothing.
8

@UndergroundFriendly
13 hours ago (edited)
29:52 while discussing the subject of increasing amounts of black violence, Keith emphasizes the word “relaxed” followed by a distinct pause.
5

1 reply
@Andrew-cc4vk

@Andrew-cc4vk
9 hours ago
I caught that too

@rorschach6809
22 hours ago
The Pravda series is amazing. Great man
4

@justinhoward218
1 day ago
Yes, fantastic work from Unz. Might need to be backed up on Bufferchute and Odysee l think lol
8

@simonaguilar3646
1 day ago
Love the website. Unz’s own articles not so much.
7

@goodmorningweimerica9741
13 hours ago
Excellent interview with Ron “in other words” Unz!
3

2 replies
@GaryHost-zb5jv

@GaryHost-zb5jv
9 hours ago
I’m glad someone else picked up on this. In other words, I watched some of his talks after seeing Keith would be bringing him on, and noticed he uses the phrase a lot.
3

@goodmorningweimerica9741
8 hours ago
@GaryHost-zb5jv yeah just seems like a tic or something. I notice a lot of intelligent people do something similar when speaking for long periods of time.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I have been for someone from our sphere to interview Ron Unz and who better than Keith Woods
14
Keith Woods

@retter2critical
9 hours ago
This was Unz-Believable!
1

@jewelcitizen2567
1 day ago
Wow… massive scoop kudos to you!
7
Keith Woods

@harryrichards4899
6 hours ago
Unz cheesin at keith is so funny
1

@hansnielsen6280
1 day ago
Great stream, very interesting
1

@indigo6981
9 hours ago
Great interview
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
22 hours ago (edited)
He’s wrong about migrants not being on more welfare & not committing more crime.
Stats across the board, regardless of nation/continent of origin, show that migrants are more likely to be on welfare. Bearing in mind that there was a time (for most of American history), when America was developing into a superpower, that migrants & settlers received no welfare at all. Welfare + mass migration is just asking for an economic disaster for the common man.
Then in terms of crime, a lot of the migrants flooding into America are coming over the Southern border, & they absolutely do commit more crime. They may not have crime rates as bad as African Americans, but it’s still substantially higher than the White population. I think it’s typically double/triple the rate, & they’re far more likely to be involved in gang activity. Then you also need to factor in that plenty of jurisdictions are now counting Hispanics as Whites, so the true discrepancy is even worse in reality.
Regardless, it’s not even about economics or crime for me, they could all be model citizens waiting on us hand & foot & I still wouldn’t want them here. It’s about the social cost, it’s about self-determination. America as a European melting pot, despite some national frictions, worked because it was formed by people with racially & culturally/religiously similar backgrounds. It’s a lot easier for these people to be absorbed into the host race/culture after a generation or two. Whereas an Indian or Muslim will always consider his interests foreign to those of a White Christian background.
In some ways it is even worse when they’re more capable migrants, because then they have the ability to obtain power & naturally, as I just pointed out, their alien interests agitate against those of the host race. You see this all the time by any alien migrant with any sort of political or legislative power. They’re not thankful towards the host people, they’re only concerned about transforming the nation to reflect/protect their interests & identity, just like chews do. In fact, the way Unz talks about immigration, not even factoring in the social/dispossession cost, reflects his own chewish out-group background. In other words, if Unz was living in Israel as part of the host race, then I’m almost certain he would be factoring in this cost, & it would likely be his primary concern.
Show less
13

3 replies

@Leathal
18 hours ago
It’s clear that even the “good ones” see the native born population as essentially indistinguishable worker units that are no longer replacing themselves through reproduction and thus replacement through immigration is the only path that can be envisioned. It’s not their culture dying out. It’s not their standard of living decreasing. With one specific exception, nations have no purpose but to fill a prescribed role in the grander global machine
Show less
2

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago (edited)
the other thing he missed with regard to immigration and crime is that you tend to see much higher rates among the American born children of immigrants than their parents. they’re most often the ones who become gang members, etc.
1

@crimson1453
5 hours ago
Thank you! This dude genuinely seems very misinformed.

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:17:10 trust level analogous to late USSR
3

@louduva9849
1 day ago
Fascinating guy. I like Ron.
16
Keith Woods

3 replies

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Glad you’re still around, Lou. Been making me laugh in the comment section for the better part of a decade.
6

@marylamb1407
15 hours ago
Unz is like Makow. “Just as Noam Chomsky strategizes to neutralize leftist anti-semitism by making it seem that Israel is a client state of the U.S. and “neo”-conservatives fund and theorize and promote only those ‘conservatisms’ which lead to bigger government, and military action abroad in favor of Israel.
Makow works the crowd that has its eyes on the NWO. He concedes to small J**ish crimes to direct what would otherwise be a beneficial anti-J**aism which could free us, to a fictional and illusory entity, the Illuminati.” Wintermute. You notice how Ron blames a lot on the CIA but never mentions the Mossad. One would think they are seperate organizations.
Read more
1

@MrTrenttness
8 hours ago

Thank you

@kirktuss4819
14 hours ago
Unz Review legitimizes the internet.
1

@calengr1
1 day ago (edited)
2:22: 01 ADL :self perception and sense of history; 2:14:15 skeptical re crypto

@thevanillamaster8103
1 day ago
Unz was one of the first people who redpilled me early on
1

@cwilliams6884
11 hours ago
proud monolinguist here, thanks ron

@yankeecornbread8464
9 hours ago
Presents a believable political explanation for why “1965” doesn’t do what we think it does, until one looks at before and after photos taken in metro areas. And not just there. Rural areas in the interior are now visibly different.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I don’t agree with Ron on the 1965 immigration act
48

14 replies
@odyssey9707

@odyssey9707
23 hours ago
Its okay to disagree with someone, believe it or not.
8

@donjuanmckenzie4897
22 hours ago
He has a point though
4

@moma8518
20 hours ago
Can you explain why? He gave good reasoning and has evidence to back it up, can you refute the reasoning he gave?
2

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@odyssey9707 sure

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@moma8518 look at America before and after 1965
17

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
@thethinredline4714

@Kevin-kb9nz
12 hours ago
To some extent its inevitable that a rich country will be flooded by a poor one when there is no or very little natrual barrier.
2

@mooseolini1447
12 hours ago
@moma8518 I may misunderstand the finer details of the 1965 act and Ron’s arguement, so what follows is my very basic and probably flawed understanding.
As far I understand it, America’s immigration policy prior to the 1965 act, stressed that only “free white men of good character”, could migrate to the US and become citizens.
After the act was passed, anyone could potentially gain citizenship.
Ron is arguing that immigration was higher prior to 1965 and lower afterwards, without regard to the race of those immigrating.
Prior to 1965 only Whites would immigrate, afterwards, any race could immigrate.
I don’t know whether or not what Ron says is true, that immigration rates were higher before the act but regardless, I know which type of immigrant I prefer.
Show less
4

@donjuanmckenzie4897
11 hours ago
@Moose Olini His argument is that 1965 Act RESTRICTED Latin American immigration, and without it Latin American immigration would have been even higher than it has been
1

@mooseolini1447
11 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 “Latin American” is a deceptive term. Latin Americans can be White, black, Mestizo, Castizo, Indio, etc.
If “Latin American” immigration was higher prior to 1965 than after 1965 (doubtful, honestly), then it would’ve been White ones who were taken in, as immigration policy at the time restricted citizenship to other races.
My point is that regardless of immigration rates, American immigration policy was superior prior to 1965 because it only granted access to Whites.
Ron seems to dismiss the relevance of racial considerations in his argument.
Show less
4

@enjoful
9 hours ago

@DudeReturns-ty1bg
3 hours ago
Dude the critical drinker complains about ethnic diversity then reinforces it.
1

@johnnywesley7695
2 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 It didn’t restrict Latin American immigration. 1965 Act opened immigration to any country through family-based sponsorship. As a result Mexico now is the number 1 country where family-based immigrants are coming from. China is second and India is third.
Show less

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
very ‘normie-tier’ COVID takes.. wild to hear people still speaking highly of the vaccine, and still speaking of COVID as if it’s a legitimate dangerous threat. I didn’t expect this chat to be so COVID dominated. As someone with several family members having had strokes and other lasting health issues just after the jab, I had to tune out.
Read more
18

6 replies
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
I betcha Keith is jabberwocky’d.
5

@cantankerouspatriarch4981
15 hours ago
Ron’s take on covid is strangely bluepilled. His views
on pretty much everything else are decently accurate.
5

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Yep super disappointing, big yikes for me.
5

@conoraq
9 hours ago
This isn’t Infowars, dunno how you ended up here but you’re out of your depth

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I am neither here nor there on the covid topic, but I know people who died from covid, who didn’t take vaccines. And no, they were not seniors. Does that mean the vaccine was not harmful to anyone? No, definitely not. But this topic is more complex. People on both sides are just obsessed with their one sided version of it and it’s tiresome.
Read more
3

@magaelectrician657
1 day ago
Raising the minimum wage would reduce immigration??? He needs to flesh out this idea a bit more….this is bonkers
10

4 replies

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Strict immigration policy and border enforcement/deportation would work better.
6

@peenweinerstein9968
16 hours ago
At least it’s a palatable proposal to a modern government… not sold on its effectiveness tho

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
@evanschulz7375 seriously I mean wtf.

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago
yeah, and he didn’t even explain that claim in any level of detail that supported his argument.

@Kevin-kb9nz
13 hours ago
Please do a follow up with his views
on the holocaust.
2

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
Very interesting. The only other person I have heard on the anti lab leak theory is Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire (also presents UK Column on Fridays).
2

3 replies
@smashedpumpking

@smashedpumpking
1 day ago
Patrick’s great, excellent speaker. Really enjoyed his recent chat with James Delingpole
3

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
@smashedpumpking yes, I saw that. I’d recommend that, it’s on James Delingpole’s Odysee channel.
2

@shayneswenson
23 hours ago
I love when he btfo’s Ukraine regime narrative enjoyers on Twitter spaces
1

@chrishsmith451
1 day ago
Interview steve sailer next
8

@thebrickton1947
1 day ago
Australia’s deindustrialisation, reduction in smoking, western diets and general affluence has contributed to the obesity epidemic, in my opinion, which is what I have seen, everyone was athletic in the 70-80s. Today, popular media promotes the obese clumsy father as an archetype, and the mass abide to the norm.
Read more
3

4 replies

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
Reduction in smoking and deindustrialization? I don’t understand how those things are supposed to contribute to obesity rates. True you have less appetite if you smoke, but there are plenty of obese smokers. It’s a non sequitur. The diets which you’ve mentioned too, is one of the biggest factors in the obesity epidemic, and a lifestyle of laziness. And I’m not sure how lack of industrialization contributes to obesity. Before industrialization most people were not obese, then some time after industrialization obesity rates skyrocketed with mass produced unhealthy food, and comfortable lifestyles.
Read more
2

@nolanhardy3320
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman what he is referring to is post-industrialization, which outsources the industrialization of a nation without removing the abundance that comes with it. This way it is different than pre-industrial state of a nation, because prior to industrialization men had to still toil in the fields. In post industrial societies, you have mostly desk jockeys and great reduction in laborious jobs.
Read more
1

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman smoking surpresses appetite, before automation when aus was expanding and industrial, a large portion of the workforce did manual labour, it ‘road the sheeps back’, and realied upon agriculure and mining, and we had a domestic industry supplying goods to themselves. I have worked many of these roles, many of which are gone due to outsourcing to chinese slave labour
Read more

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman otherwise, I agree with all your points

@gabbyk1391
1 day ago
“The largest problem I see with immigration has been economic.”
This guy doesn’t get it. Not worth conversing with him after he says something as shallow as that.
19

4 replies
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s in his genes.
5

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
He’s jewish, c’mon be fair
1

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
Any kind of argument against it, is appreciated.

@gabbyk1391
7 hours ago
@milan6555 I’m at the point now where I don’t even argue or discuss with people on YT anymore. It always leads to nothing. If someone like you ever asks to be told why something blatantly obvious is the way it is they’re trying to prove something. You can find arguments against it all day if you wanted. You’re on Keith Woods channel friend. He has entire videos about this very topic. So where did you come from and what are your motives?
Read more

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
1:34:55 I worry when people take Pfizer, CDC, WHO etc at their word, regarding COVID causing the heart issues. It seems these heart issues are vaccine caused, and they’re being blamed on COVID.
12

1 reply
@make756perday

@make756perday
19 hours ago
“If you’re going through hell keep going.” -Winston Churchill
1

2 replies
@whatda7705

@whatda7705
1 day ago

1

@MikeSmith-go8wk
18 hours ago
Unz fails to recognise that a mix of socialism and nationalism fixes everything. Therefore Unz fails.
3

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Well he is Jewish
1

@marylamb1407
14 hours ago
Honestly Keith this stream was a flop. Unz is as cutting edge as Chomsky. BTW both serve the same purpose, inking the waters of truth.
5

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:09:50 China 3x USA in real goods

@dr.johnbarron746
23 hours ago
interesting man
2

@matthewcarpenter3137
1 day ago
Wow big guest indeed.
1

@marccroft3328
19 hours ago
Not saying he’s all wrong, but be careful, Keith – since you have apparently attracted these types
5

Keith Woods
·
4 replies

@moma8518
19 hours ago
Types of what? Can you elaborate

@marccroft3328
18 hours ago
The 60% revealers & 100% diverters
3

@KeithWoods
18 hours ago
Huh
8

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@marccroft3328 What does Unz divert from?

@seapigbs4167
1 day ago
Why does Ron get so little heat?
7

9 replies
@satireofcircumstance6458

@satireofcircumstance6458
1 day ago
Don’t know. But it’s not like he and the contributers on his site pull their punches at all about the taboo subjects.
6

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
It’s a fair question. Some surmise that if the ADL and other hall-monitors bring any attention to Uno (especially his excellent article on Holocaustianity) it would only add to their ever-mounting problems. Others think that perhaps Ron is placed there as a relief valve. Who knows? Either way his American Pravda series, while not always on the money, is very worthwhile reading.
Show less
9

@Leathal
1 day ago
He’s like Norm Finklestein on the left – neither are getting their doors knocked down for mainstream speaking engagements, but they’re both oddly allowed to freely speak on forbidden topics without repercussions. (Norm is strictly anti-Israel, he doesn’t discuss the ‘bunga and is mostly pro degeneracy but it’s certainly weird how he can casually drop hard r’s in interviews and such)
Show less
7

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Do a nose check.
5

@cromartie1984
17 hours ago
and yet zemmour had lot of trials.

@marccroft3328
15 hours ago
Controlled opposition

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860
21 hours ago
In other words, on the other hand
1

@beatsbyjiro8291
16 hours ago
so funny ron is talking about american crime and woods is talking about crime being linked to immigration which is a european view, our biggest crime element has been here since the 1700s
2

@ArilandoArilando
16 hours ago (edited)
55:00

@gorillabiskut
1 day ago
Where Steve sailer at doe?

@ThomasBoyd-pe3wc
1 day ago
Based.
2

@nathanhoskins
11 hours ago
My covid related comment got scrubbed FFS.
2

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Rons c0vid take is cringe.
9

@schoenengutentag
16 hours ago
Very interesting interview. But wow, the chat is just full of nonsense and “just so-” or “heard it from dude on bitchute”-opinions.
4

1 reply

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I hate to say it, but bever underestimate the grug element within the dissident sphere.
2

@sniper6668
4 hours ago
The Giga-Jew

@KissSlowlyLoveDeeply-pm2je
1 day ago
early life
8

@dancooper4733
20 hours ago
Unz is jewish. That doesnt matter anymore, eh?
4

6 replies
@australiafair5926

@australiafair5926
20 hours ago
If you refuse to engage with any Jewish research/literature you won’t be able to participate in any public conversation. Just don’t take on a Jew as a moral/political guru/leader.
9

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Honestly no, it doesn’t. Some people will give a nuanced answer involving making perfect the enemy of the good, optics, learning from your enemies, engagement with anyone outside of the “dissident right ghetto” is worthwhile, etc. I’ll give you the real answer- we already lost, our “fight” is over, so we might as well have interesting conversations with interesting people.
Show less
2

@evolassunglasses4673
16 hours ago
He platforms Kevin Mcdonald.
2

@odinsire3879
1 day ago
Based Jew
21

5 replies
@WakaWaka2468

@WakaWaka2468
1 day ago
Nah, the only truly based J was Bobby Fischer.
16

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago
No. He’s wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act
9

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@WakaWaka2468 Otto Weininger

@odinsire3879
12 hours ago
Yeah, he is wrong about that. But overall he seems like a solid guy.
1

@alaskantundrawolf8831
1 day ago
One of the good ones, like Eric Zemmour and Doja Cat.
1

@ericmay4421
1 day ago
Unz is the best
1

2 replies
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Nah

@ericmay4421
12 hours ago
@Dixey71 Admittedly his voice can work your last good nerve.

@555Trout
22 hours ago
Weird dude. Fed sus.
1

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
He is Jewish
1

==========================

PDF Download

top

Total words in post = 27,059
Total words in transcript = xxx
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 – Updated YouTube Comments (173).

Version 1: Sun, Mar 26, 2023 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (xx).

John J. Mearsheimer – Who (Really) Caused the Crisis in Ukraine – Mar 2, 2022 – Transcript

admin — Tue, 19 Jul 2022 03:35:22 +0000

[John Mearsheimer, in this Mar 2, 2022 video, blames the West for the Ukraine crisis, explaining the existential threat that NATO expansion posed to Russia, leaving it with no choice but to take military action.

— KATANA]

John J. Mearsheimer

Who (Really) Caused the

Crisis in Ukraine

Mar 2, 2022

Click here for the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dumT4TiemuU

Published on Mar 2, 2022

YouTube Description

Who (really) caused the crisis in Ukraine – True causes and consequences of the crisis in Ukraine

111,768 views

Jun 28, 2022 John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, assesses the causes and consequences of the present Ukraine crisis, the best way to end it, and its consequences for all of the main actors. A key assumption is that in order to come up with the optimum plan for ending the crisis, it is essential to know what caused the crisis. Regarding the all-important question of causes, the key issue is whether Russia or the West bears primary responsibility. The point is not whether Russia is good or bad, but simply the objective mechanisms behind the unfolding events. This is from a video from March 2, 2022, Courtesy Committee for the Republic, check their channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBCY…

Show less

1.44K subscribers

Comments

1.3K

_____________

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.

[Added image] Map of Ukraine and areas of fighting, as of Mar 1, 2022 (click image to enlarge).

TRANSCRIPT

(23:10 mins)

[00:00]

What I’d like to do, I’d like to break my talk into two parts. I’d like to first of all talk about the causes of the present crisis. And I’d like to speculate on where this is all headed.

Now with regard to the causes, it’s very important to understand that who caused this situation is of tremendous importance! Because it involves assigning blame. You really have two choices here. You can argue that the West, and especially the United States, caused the crisis. Or you can argue that the Russians caused the crisis. But that means that whoever you argue caused the crisis, is responsible for this disaster.

And it is important to understand that this is a disaster. Ukraine has lost Crimea. It’s, in my opinion, going to lose the Donbas. And the only interesting question to me, at this point, is whether it’s also going to lose more territory in the Eastern part of its country.

Furthermore Ukraine’s economy is wrecked! It’s cities are in the process of being wrecked! The international economy is going to be badly affected by these events as they go on. This is going to have terrible consequences I think for the Democrats in the fall.

Furthermore it makes it difficult for the United States to pivot out of Europe, and pivot to China, where there is a potential threat, which is China. Furthermore, we’re driving the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, which makes no sense at all. And all at the same time we’re making Eastern Europe a very unstable region. And therefore forcing us to, if anything, up the ante there. So this is a disastrous situation.

So the question of who caused it, and who bears the blame, really matters. Now the conventional wisdom in the United States. And in the West more generally, is that the Russians are responsible for this. And in particular Vladimir Putin is responsible.

As I’m sure almost all of, you know, I don’t buy this argument at all! And I haven’t bought it for a long time.

In my opinion, the West bears primary responsibility for what is happening today.

And it was largely a result of a decision, in April 2006, to make Ukraine, and to make Georgia, a part of NATO. We were going to integrate Ukraine into NATO come hell, or high water!

Now the Russians said at the time that this is categorically unacceptable! The Russians made it clear that they had swallowed the first two tranches of NATO expansion, the 99 expansion, and the 2004 expansion. But Georgia and Ukraine were not going to become part of NATO! They were drawing a line in the sand. They said:

“This is an existential threat to us!”

And indeed in August of that year, of course, August, 2008, you had a war involving the Russians and the Georgians over the whole issue of whether, or not, Georgia would become part of NATO..

Now, it’s important to understand that when we talk about Western policy, and we focus on NATO, and expansion of NATO into Ukraine, that actually Western policy had three prongs to it. The core prong was definitely integrating Ukraine into NATO. But the other two prongs were integrating Ukraine into the European Union, and turning Ukraine into a pro-Western, liberal democracy. In effect putting in place the Orange Revolution.

And these three prongs of the strategy were all designed to make Ukraine a pro-Western country. A country in the West orbit, sitting on Russia’s border.

And again the Russians made it unequivocally clear, at the time, that this was not going to happen.

Now the first crisis broke out in February 2014. The way I like to think about this is that you had a major crisis in February 2014. Broke out that date. Then you had a major crisis breaking out in December of last year. That’s December 2021. And on February 24th of this year the war started.

[5:03]

Now what about this crisis in February of 2014? February 22nd, to be exact. It was precipitated in large part by a coup that was supported by the United States that took place in Ukraine. And resulted in a pro-Russian leader President Yanukovych being overthrown, and being replaced by a pro-American Prime Minister. The Russians found this intolerable. At the same time they were debating with the West, and with the Ukrainians over EU expansion. And always in the background at that point in time was NATO expansion. This blew up, and it had two consequences.

One is that the Russians in effect took Crimea away from Ukraine for themselves. They had no intention of ever letting Sevastopol become …

[sound becomes garbled]

The second thing that happened is that the Russians helped foster a civil war in eastern Ukraine. And, of course, that civil war festered well after 2014. But the crisis really blew up in 2014.

Then starting about mid-year and really heating up at the end of last year – I would say in December 2021 – was a second major crisis! And the question is what caused this crisis? And, in my opinion, it was caused largely by the fact that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO.

It’s commonplace in the West, especially in Washington these days, to say that Ukraine had nothing to fear regarding, … Excuse me. The United States had nothing to fear, … Start [again]. Russia had nothing to fear regarding Ukraine becoming part of NATO. And Russia had nothing to fear, because NATO was doing nothing to move forward Ukraine’s incorporation into NATO. I think in a du jour sense that’s absolutely correct. But in a de facto way that’s wrong!

What we were doing was we were arming the Ukrainians. And you want to remember it’s President Trump in December of 2017, who was under great, pressure who decided to arm the Ukrainians!

So we were arming the Ukrainians, we were training the Ukrainians, and we were forming ever closer diplomatic ties with the Ukrainians. And this spooked the Russians! It especially spooked the Russians in the summer of last year when Ukrainian military used drones against Russian forces in the Donbas region.

It especially spooked the Russians last summer when the British drove a destroyer through territorial waters, Russian territorial waters in the Black Sea. It especially spooked the Russians in November, when we were flying bombers within 13 miles of the Russian coast.

So all these events coupled with this de facto bringing of Ukraine into NATO, pushed the Russians to what Sergey Lavrov said:

“Was the boiling point.”

Lavrov was asked in January why the Russians had reached this point, and why we were in the midst of a crisis. And he said, Lavrov said in January:

“We had reached our boiling point. First expansion of NATO. Second expansion of NATO. And then all of these events associated with Ukraine.”

The Russians had had it!

So you had a crisis of massive proportions. Which, of course, resulted on February 24th in the Russians invading Ukraine. And we are now in the midst of a real war. This is not just a civil war in eastern Ukraine. Which is what we had before February 24th. We now have a real war!

So this brings us to the question of what is the conventional wisdom on this subject? And how do I think about the opposing argument? The opposing argument is that this has nothing to do with NATO expansion. It’s really quite remarkable. When you listen to people in the administration speak. And when you read editorials in the Washington Post, words like this are spoken:

“This has absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansion!”

I don’t know how anybody can say that! The Russians have been saying since April 2008, that this is all about NATO expansion! That NATO expansion into Ukraine is an existential threat to them! But Americans simply refuse to believe that. Not all Americans, but many Americans. And certainly the policy elite in this country.

[10:29]

And instead, what they have done is they have created a story that is not American policy, it’s not NATO expansion that’s driving this train. Instead it’s Vladimir Putin. And it’s the fact that Vladimir Putin is either bent on recreating the Soviet Union, or he’s interested in creating a greater Russia. But whichever one of those two outcomes you take, he is ultimately an expansionist! He’s on the march! And thank god we expanded NATO! Because, if we hadn’t expanded NATO, he’d probably be in Berlin by now, if not Paris! This is the basic argument. He is an aggressor!

There are a number of problems with that argument. First of all, before February 22nd, 20014, nobody was arguing that he was aggressor! Nobody was arguing that NATO expansion was required for the purposes of containing Russia, before February 22nd, 20014! We didn’t think he was a problem.

And, in fact, when the crisis broke out on February 22nd, 20014, we were actually shocked! If you go back and look at the newspapers at the time, the Obama administration was caught with its pants down. Why? Because they didn’t think that the Russians were aggressive.

But, of course, we had to invent the story after the crisis broke out. So that we weren’t blamed for what happened. We had to blame the Russians. So we created the story.

Second reason you want to doubt this, is that Putin has never said that he is bent on recreating the Soviet Union, or he’s bent on creating a greater Russia! He’s never said he was bent on conquering Ukraine, and integrating it into Russia. There’s no question that in his heart he thinks that it would be appropriate for Ukraine to be part of Russia. In his heart he’s made it clear he’d love to bring back the Soviet Union. But he’s also explicitly said that in his head, he fully understands that this is a bad idea!

So if you look at what he said, there’s no reason to think he’s bent on recreating the Soviet Union, or creating a greater Russia. To take this a step further, he doesn’t have the capability!

He doesn’t have the capability for two reasons. First of all, he doesn’t have a big enough military. This is a country whose gross national product is smaller than Texas’s is, right? This is not the former Soviet Union in its heyday.

Furthermore the Russians understand that occupying countries, or occupying territory in Eastern Europe is a prescription for big trouble. Most of us on this call are old enough to remember the Cold War. And all the trouble that the Soviets had. Think East Germany 1953. Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia in 1968. Constant trouble with the Poles. And one could argue that the Romanians, and the Albanians, were the biggest pain and the next they ever faced.

The Russians are surely sophisticated enough to know, that not only do they not have the capability, but the occupying Ukraine, occupying the Baltic states, would be like swallowing a porcupine! This would be crazy! So I think there’s hardly any evidence to support that.

And the final point I’d make is if you look at what the Russians are doing militarily in Ukraine at the moment it does not look like they’re bent on conquering the country, and occupying it, and integrating it into a greater Russia.

But anyway, here we are. And I think everybody is very interested in the question of where we go from here. So let me say a few words about that. First of all let me start with US policy. US policy is to double down! That’s what we’re going to do. This is what we did after 2014. Instead of reevaluating and saying:

“Maybe NATO expansion is not such a good idea.”

We went in the opposite direction! This is why I’m telling you that by 2021, the Russians understood that we were turning Ukraine into a de facto member of NATO! They understood that. So what we did after 2014, is double down. And what we’re going to do now. And what we’re doing now, is doubling down.

And what does that mean? We’re encouraging the Ukrainians to resist. We’re not going to fight for them, you understand. We’re going to fight to the last Ukrainian! But we’re not going to do any of the fighting. They’re on their own in that regard. But we’re going to arm them, and do what we can to train them at this late date. And hope that they can hang in there and duke it out with the Russians. And nobody believes they’re going to defeat the Russians. But maybe you’ll get a stalemate.

[15:44]

Now the question you have to ask yourself, this is really the key question. Is what are the Russians going to do, right? It seems to me that a lot of people in the West think that if the Ukrainians provide enough resistance, the Russians will roll over and play dead. Or maybe Vladimir Putin will throw his hands up, he’ll surrender. He’ll say:

“This was all a bad idea. I regret doing it!”

Or maybe there’ll be a coup in Moscow. He’ll be overthrown. And they’ll bring in leaders who will work out a deal with us. And Ukraine will live happily ever after. We will live happily ever after. And the Russians will be chastened! I’ve spent my entire adult life studying great power politics. I’ve learned a lot about great power politics. This is not the way the world works. And it is certainly not the way the Russians work!

You want to understand going back to what I said about the April 2008 decision. The Russians said at the time:

“This is an existential threat! This is an existential threat!”

Right. So even before the current war, Ukraine, and Ukraine becoming part of NATO, was viewed as an existential threat. Now you’re talking about a situation where you defeat the Russians in Ukraine. This is a much worse outcome for the Russians, than what happened in April 2008! And a much worse outcome that would happen in February 2014! And the Russians are not going to roll over and play dead!

In fact, what the Russians are going to do is they’re going to crush the Ukrainians! They’re going to bring out the big guns. They’re going to turn places like Kiev and other cities in Ukraine into rubble! They’re going to do Fullujahs, they’re going to do Mosuls, they’re going to do Groznys!

You know what happened in World War II, when the United States was faced with the possibility of having to invade the Japanese home islands in early 1945. The idea of invading the Japanese home islands after what happened at Ima Jima and then later what happened in Okinawa, really spooked us.

So what we did we decided to burn Japanese cities to the ground, starting on March 10th 1945. We killed more people the first night we firebombed Tokyo then we killed it either Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. And we were systematically burning Japanese cities to the ground! Why? Because we did not want to invade the Japanese main islands. When a great power feels threatened, … The Russians are going to pull out all stops in Ukraine to make sure that they win.

And then there’s the nuclear dimension to this. The Russians have already put their nuclear weapons on high alert. This is a really significant development! Because what they would do, was sending us a very powerful signal as to how seriously they take this crisis, and what’s going on.

So again, if we start winning, and the Russians start losing, you want to understand that what we’re talking about doing here is backing a nuclear-armed great power, that sees what’s happening as an existential threat, into a corner. This is really dangerous!

Go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don’t think that what happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis was as threatening to us as this situation is to the Russians. But if you go back and look at how American decision makers thought at the time, they were scared stiff! They thought that Soviet missiles in Cuba was an existential threat. And they were willing, many of Kennedy’s advisers, to use our nuclear Arsenal against the Soviet Union. That’s how serious great powers get when they think they face existential threats.

[20:00]

So, in my opinion, we are in a very dangerous situation! I think the likelihood of nuclear war is very small. But the likelihood doesn’t have to be high for me to be really scared! Because of the consequences associated with nuclear use. So we better be extremely careful here, regarding what we do in terms of pushing the Russians into the corner.

But again, I’m not sure that’s going to happen. Because I think what’s going to happen here is that in a competition between us and the Russians, the Russians will win! Now you’re saying to yourself:

“Why is he saying that?”

I think that if you think about this, you want to think about who has the greater resolve, okay? Who really cares more about this situation, the Russians, or the Americans? The Americans do not care that much about Ukraine. The Americans have made it clear they are not even willing to fight and die for Ukraine. So it’s not that important to us. For the Russians they have made it clear, it’s an existential threat. So the balance of resolve, I believe favors them.

So as we walk up the escalation ladder moving forward, my guess, and it’s just my guess, is that the Russians will prevail, not the Americans. And the Russians will prevail, because the balance of resolve favors them.

Now the question is who loses this war? I think it doesn’t matter much to the United States if we lose in the sense that the Russians prevail in Ukraine. I think the real losers in this war are the Ukrainians. And I think what’s happened here is we have led the Ukrainians down the primrose path!

We have pushed very hard to encourage the Ukrainians to want to become part of NATO. We have pushed very hard to make them part of NATO! We have pushed very hard to make them a Western bulwark on Russia’s borders! Despite the fact the Russians made it clear that this was unacceptable to them.

We in effect, and here I’m talking about the West, we took a stick and we poked the bear in the eye! And as you all know, if you take a stick and you poke a bear in the eye, that bear is probably not going to smile and laugh at what you’re doing! That bear is probably going to fight back. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. And that bear is going to tear apart Ukraine. That bear is in the process of tearing apart Ukraine.

And again, we go back to where we started. Who bears responsibility for this? Do the Russians bear responsibility for this? I don’t think so. there’s no question, the Russians are doing the dirty work. I don’t want to make light of that fact. But the question is what caused the Russians to do this? And, in my opinion, the answer is very simple. The United States of America.

Thank you.

[Screen text]

Why don’t people get this …

[23:10]

END

top

============================================

YOUTUBE COMMENTS

top

1,476 comments

Dimitris Tourtouropoulos
1 day ago
Honest Man
Saying the truth to the core
No news to those who follow what is going on in the region the last 10-15 years
It was the boiling point
That’s right
Read more
12

mrebholz
2 days ago
The war started two days after the German Chancellor Scholz cancelled the Russia-German pipeline Дружба (friendship), reacting to U.S. pressure. It was a big blow to German and central European industrial economy and will be for many years to come. Russia can divert economy to other parts of the world. Europe got a huge problem.
Read more
33

Hide 2 replies
Moa
Moa
6 hours ago
What happened to Germany’s green energy projects; looks like their not having much success with their green energy projects; and now they are wanting to reopen their coal mines.
1

getahun beyene
1 day ago
What an excellent explanation. Thank you Professor!!!!
20

T.G. V.
1 day ago
I admire this gentleman for his no non sense superb analysis…
Its indeed a “Real Politic” analysis.
With what is happening, we are all the losers.
Read more
19

Hide reply
Alino17
Alino17
1 day ago (edited)
In a Machiavellian real politic way, it is. And it is convincingly cynical to be what appened and what is going on now.

SEEMA
2 days ago
I am blessed to stumble upon this podcast. These objective views
, truth and wisdom are mind blowing.
14

Tigistu Siba
14 hours ago
I highly admire this kind of wide rage viewed person! We need to have millions of this kind to make safe our world and its creatures. Thank you, Mr. Mearsheimer!!

gilson chapple
1 day ago
I’ve thought this all along. It was American policy all along Russia’s southern border not just Ukraine.
6

jp34604
21 hours ago
I am just a regular joe (albeit a news junkie) and that was/ is EXACTLY 100% how I felt from the very beginning.
One other huge part is leaving them officially out of OPEC was wrong and the shale boom and resulting Saudi price cut flood of supply crushing the market was a huge dis to the little guy.
And cutting off the water to chrimia was what really passed them off.
If they had just gotten a bit of the respect they deserved along the way everything would have been fine. Imho!
Read more

E Notred
2 days ago
Not once did you mention the Ukrainian people. Ukrainian people are real. They exist. They have wants, needs and beliefs.
14

Hide 2 replies
Don Kaster
Don Kaster
2 days ago
And they have to have the right to choose, if they want to be part of NATO, or not!
1

befeleme
2 days ago
When I used to live in Czechoslovakia, I was drafted to serve in the Czechoslovak army, a member of the Warsaw pact. When eventually the Warsaw pact was dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union, I was happy! I expected that NATO would be dissolved as well, and from then on, peace will prevail in the world. Of course I was young and naive then; I did not know how dangerous and harmful world peace would be. That must surely be the reason why both Czechia and Slovakia are now in NATO.
Read more
23

Hide 44 replies

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide one.
1

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
You must have not been born before 1990, and haven’t looked at the past 50 years before to see how many people and countries Russia occupied and brutally oppressed for 46 years
3

charles chin
1 day ago
as long as any governing system of a country which is not subjected to the will of the people, the risk of war will always be there. Just a matter of when a loose canon guy would run wild. That is why just by looking at the way a country is run , can predict which country will cause problem in the future.
1

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@charles chin
Exactly, and Russia is not being run by the will of the people.
1

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick I was born in 1954, in one of the oppressed countries (Czechoslovakia), from which I escaped when I was 28yo. I certainly have no reason to love Russians, especially considering Russian invasion in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The fact that the Soviet Union had occupied Eastern Europe for 46 years does not constitute any evidence to your claim that Russia would overrun the entire Europe if it was not for NATO. I know enough about history and geopolitics to know that this is utter nonsense. I could use your reasoning to argue that Germany intends to enslave the entire Europe. And there would be a much better historical precedent and a more solid case for such a claim – but of course you would then say that contemporary Germany is quite different from The Third Reich.
Read more
5

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
If it wasn’t for NATO and her economic strength, Russia would have invaded any country it wished in Europe and Central Asia,
Russia tried to invade and occupy Afghanistan, she also had her eyes on Pakistan for strategic purposes.
Russia is not the biggest country in the world because people and lands joined her willingly, Russia has ALWAYS been an expansionist, their records in history speaks for itself, other nations that built an empire stopped annexing lands after the UN was created with a rules based system, not Russia, the US and her allies gave Germany back to its people even after they did what they did to the UK, Poland, France and many more, not Russia, Russia lives the idea of being an imperialist, they kept part of Germany and it it wasn’t for the push of NATO to halt their imperialist ambitions, the USSR would have gone on for eternity and no one would have stopped them
The USSR didn’t break up because Russia suddenly had a conscience, they disintegrated because the West outspent them in security measures.
Read more
2

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
I just gave you an example of them invading Afghanistan, the countries of interest in Europe that Russia didn’t invade were NATO members, this was the deterrent.

befeleme
1 day ago
@charles chin I wonder if you watched this video? It is about the causes of war in Ukraine. I do not wish to, nor have the time to discuss democracy in the US or dictatorship in Russia. It is not that black and white as you are making it seem. Both countries have issues. For example, half of US congress have stocks in defense companies, what does this tell you? There are also foreign policy and military doctrines that don’t necessarily change with a change of presidents. Lobbying is in fact an institutionalized corruption, etc. And I have not even started about foreign corruption such as Hunter Biden’s $1m/year cushy job at the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings. But this is already way off topic.
Read more
4

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick You seem to be mixing up the Soviet Union with contemporary Russia, and unable to see the double standard you are thus automatically applying to Germany, which is the one who demonstrably has a history of expansionism, subjugation, cruelty and genocide in Europe. There is absolutely no evidence for your claim that Russia would invade Europe if it were not for NATO. In contrast, the friction with Ukraine was in public sight from day one. And before that, no-one suggested that Russia had any territorial intents over Europe. About the unsuccessful Afghanistan invasion by Russia, well, we have been talking about Europe. Shifting the subject does not help. The US had also unsuccessfully invaded Afghanistan. And before that, the British, also unsuccessfully. But I guess the fact that the US have left behind $80 billion worth of weapons must be a redeeming factor; perhaps the Taliban might wish to sell some of it to Ukraine’s neo-nazi fighters. But that’s already way beside the point of this discussion.
Read more
4

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
Did you not hear what I said, since the rule based system of international law, Russia is the country that consistently violates other nations borders by forcefully trying to annex land

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick I believe you must be referring to Crimea and Donbas? This is partially covered by this video. For additional details, please refer to, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dbuf3H8oYo
As to “rule based system of international law”, I trust you will recall that (for example) the predecessor of United Nations, the League of Nations, was in place before
Germany invaded Poland and started WW2. This did not stop Hitler.
And (another example) Czechoslovakia had a defense agreement with the UK and France, but was betrayed by both when both countries signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, signing away border regions of the country, without Czechoslovakia’s consent. And Hitler’s tanks rolled in.
And (yet another example), ceasefire agreements existed between Ukraine and Russia (Minsk I and Minsk 2) but Ukraine never bothered to honor them. If she did, there would likely be no war today. But no-one seems to remember that and everyone blames Russia instead. Does this seem fair?
And oh, one more: Gorbachev was promised (verbally, unfortunately, but much evidence exists) that NATO will not expand eastward, before he dissolved the Soviet Union. And we know what happened next. You can’t justify not keeping one’s promise by the fact that Russia was aggressive in the past. Wasn’t France also aggressive in the past? And Germany? And Britain? And Spain? And Turkey? Etc., etc. Once again, I invite you to examine your double standards.
Read more
4

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
The League of Nations originally consisted of 42 nations, the world currently has approximately 196 countries, therefore the league didn’t incorporate the whole world so that everyone could agree upon each nations code of conduct, strangely enough, Russia was never part of it because she has always been a lawless land.
The UN was created after WW2 to replace the league, because this new organisation held every nation accountable and it allowed people of the same heritage and culture to rule themselves instead of some imperial nation, Russia hates this rule because she’s an expansionist.
The UN had a far more refining mandate than the League of Nations, it also included every nation on earth that wanted to participate and not just in Europe or Empires held by the colonial powers at the time.
As I said, everything post WW2 was created to not repeat what happened before, by the UN, however, Russia is the one power that breaks these rules consistently, by annexing land, holding people on bondage, tortured nations people, raped and mu-rdered her own people to spread fear in order to maintain her power.
Read more

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick I am not interested in propaganda, I am interested in truth, particularly related to this conflict, which is the subject of prof. Mearsheimer’s video, and which is also the subject of this discussion. You have been completely avoiding his points, as well as mine. So here some more points for you to avoid:
Russia, Ukraine and the west are all UN members; Ukraine was one of the
founding members since 1947. Yet, the UN and all member states with the
exception of Russia have been ignoring the human rights and war crimes
committed by Ukraine since 2014 in Crimea and Donbas region.
The International Humanitarian Law states that shutting off water to
civilians or PoW’s is a war crime, yet in 2017 Ukraine did this by
damming the Crimea canal supplying 85% of Crimeas freshwater. The
reason for this was the fact that Crimea held a referendum and voted for
Russian control and governance. By a massive majority over 80% turn out
and 96% in favour of Russia. I guess the “evil” Russia must have seemed
better to the Crimeans than the “good” Ukraine. So, Ukraine shut the
canal, broke international humanitarian law, broke the Geneva
Convention on war, broke international red Cross guidlines for conflict.
The referendum was prompted by abolishment of the two language
agreements put in place by Yanukovych prior to being chased out of
Ukraine by far right groups (Right Sector etc) all of which had for
years promised an overthrow of the Ukrainian govt and held ethnic
hierarchy views
similar to nazi Germany. When the homes of right sector
members are compared to WW2 map of Ukrainian nazi regiments they are
almost identical, these neo-nazi groups are almost all in Galicia in the
west of Ukraine, exactly where the nazi units were formed and based in
WW2.
So Russia under the referendum result on Crimea obliged them and agreed
to accept the crimeans back into Russia where they came from, where they
have been since 1783 until 1956 when still in Soviet Russia they were
“gifted” to Ukraine by USSR president Khrushchev (himself a Ukrainian).
Russia did not invade and annex Crimea. This is a western govt lie to
show Russia as evil and territoriallly driven on expansionism. Totally
missing the facts.
Then Ukraine started attacking the ethnically Russian people of Luhansk
and Donetsk in the Donbas, hoping to drive them out. They did not flee,
instead they fought back, they asked Russia to help with ammunition and
supplies. Russia agreed (much like the west is now with Ukraine, but
when Russia did it that was wrong, but two wrongs don’t make a right).
Ukraine knew that the IMF would not give fiscal support to a nation at
war, so Ukraine made up “separatists” and “terrorists” to justify
fighting them, this changed a civil war into domestic security conflict,
allowing IMF money to come into Ukraine. Did anyone call this out? No,
look at who benefits. The UN ignored and dismissed Russia everytime that
Russia raised concerns about this.
So to today’s war in ukraine: Minsk agreements were never honoured, the
west and the UN were never going to condemn Ukraine blatant criminal
behaviour and punish those responsible for war crimes and murder of
civilians. So fast forward to 24th Feb 2022, Putin goes on global TV
and states he will invade Ukraine and why, he says its to de-nazify,
demilitarise and PoC (Protect Civilians) this PoC matters because this
is what makes the invasion legal according to international law, article
51, part 7 of the UN Charter, that states that where there are
civilians being attacked and need protection any military units may
enter into a nation and protect them using force if required. This is
what Putin did.
This is when Russian broadcasts were censored in the west, and Russia
was accused of propaganda. Yet western media propagandise all day and
night without restrictions.
Another Ukrainian war crime was the forcing civilians to take up arms and
preventing them from leaving the country, this is a war crime in a
civilised nation too. Did we cry an outrage? No, we want yet more blood
of innocent civilians fighting an unwinnable war for the privilege
of living in “freedom” in the most corrupt country in Europe.
A freedom that was not under threat until they broke their own
agreements (Minsk 1 & 2), started killing men, women, children, elderly
sick and disabled, refusing medical care and Covid assistance to the
Donbas people and instead shelling them artillery and grad rockets into
civilian areas.
And that, my friend, is the truth. Check this out and get over it.
Read more
5

T.G. V.
1 day ago
@befeleme …i do not believe in policy of war but “befeleme” you did a very concise litany of valid points worth to ponder. Even J. Mearsheimer did not discuss the details you’ve just pointed out.
3

rosre aviemore
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick I can answer that for you, if Russia took the whole of Eastern Europe again they would still have a long way to go to catch the USA who have brutally oppressed every country in Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East, so research your history before posting your lies.
3

rosre aviemore
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick Russia invaded Afghanistan to stop the supply of Heron being sent across it’s border. I might add they got slaughtered by the goat herders with the supply of American weapons the same weapons that also slaughtered America soldiers and drove them out of Afghanistan as well.
2

Vaughan Oke
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick USSR, there’s a difference.
1

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@Vaughan Oke
Russia is the ;
– Creator of the USSR
– Administrator of the USSR
– Funder of the USSR
– Policy maker of the USSR
– Biggest support of the USSR
Without Russia, there would be no USSR.
–
Read more
1

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@befeleme
No one made Russia adopt communism, why didn’t the UK, US, Canada, France or Holland, do
It seems everything that Russia did or happened to it is always someone’s fault, there’s always a bogeyman to blame including NATO, the US, Germany, Ukraine, Chechnya ect.
Read more
1

befeleme
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick You do need to be fair in your claims. Your formula “everything that CountryX did or happened to it is always someone’s fault etc.” is quite universal. You can substitute CountryX for just about every country in the world and it would be valid as well.
3

befeleme
20 hours ago
@Mofleh Alrofidah Yes, NATO should have been dissolved immediately after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. That this did not happen was one of the biggest disappointment of my naive youth. I dreamt that Czechoslovakia would become neutral, independent and prosperous, just like Austria or Switzerland. It has now become a defacto colony of Germany – who occupied it in WW2. Oh the irony. I now live in Australia, but still watch the developments in Europe, with much sadness.
Read more
4

Mofleh Alrofidah
19 hours ago
@befeleme The problem is that some people are narrow minded if you criticized the NATZO they think you are supporting Putin or accepting the Russian position in their invasion of Ukraine. I really feel bad for the Ukrainian people who had their country chosen as a battle field similar to Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan and many other countries.
Read more
2

befeleme
19 hours ago
@Mofleh Alrofidah Exactly right, my friend!

Mountain Rock
12 hours ago
@Kirk Patrick but that would be like looking at the USA today in regards to WW11 and Hiroshima . Different leaders today.
1

Dan Rook
11 hours ago
@Kirk Patrick : throw in there what happened after 1945 to 1991 to Europe and USA response
1

befeleme
7 hours ago (edited)
@Kirk Patrick Please recall that this video and this discussion are about the causes of the war in Ukraine.
Much evidence has been provided to show that claims of Russia being the sole cause and instigator of the war are false and misleading.
Your only counter-argument appears to be a claim that Russia is historically evil, therefore it must be guilty even in this particular case, and any evidence to the contrary does not count. I do not subscribe to the notion that a nation is intrinsically evil, or beyond redemption. As I have pointed out before, if Germany has been allowed to redeem itself despite having been the obvious and indisputable source of the greatest suffering that humankind endured in recent history, why not Russia?
Don’t forget that, just like in physics, even in human society action breeds reaction. If I am going to continuously humiliate you and openly hate you, then you are not going to love me back, are you?
I am not a defender of Putin or Russia. Rather, I try to defend objectivity and fairness. If this puts me into the category of “Russian troll” in some people’s ignorant minds,
so be it, I can’t help it.
I really do not have the time nor energy to analyze your recent examples of Russia’s inherent badness. In my view, each one of them would require a thorough investigation of the underlying facts, and a consideration and understanding of the reasons those decisions were made, in view of the available alternatives. That would surely be time consuming, and in any case if I found evidence to the contrary to what you are claiming, you would likely fall back into your underlying position of Russia’s inherent badness that justifies any and all of your arguments. But such effort also seems unnecessary anyway, if we stick to the subject matter of this video and our discussion.
Please recall, that the Warsaw pact ceased existing many years before all the events that you cite occurred. Also, for at least 10 years after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was democratic (with disastrous results, but this is again beside the point, although it might be worth your time to investigate the reasons why Putin has turned to autocracy). NATO had plenty of opportunity to dismantle itself long before any of this happened. But it didn’t. It continued expanding despite there being no threat and Yeltsin was entertaining the world with his harmless dancing antics. I guess someone must have had a crystal ball with the ability to accurately forecast what Putin would be doing 25 years later? Our could it be simply that NATO needed an enemy to justify its existence and so it created one? With half of the US congress having stocks in US defense industry, and the institutionalized corruption in the US corridors of power that is affectionately called “lobbying”? Oh no, perish the thought!
Now, before you call me a communist or anarchist or Russian troll or whatever, please recall that the term of “military-industrial complex” was first invented by none other than Dwight Eisenhower, who warned his nation about its dangers. Do have a look at this, please, and educate yourself:

And that, my friend, is the truth. Study it and accept it. I do know it’s hard.
Read more
1

Kirk Patrick
6 hours ago
@Mountain Rock
What are you talking about ?

Kirk Patrick
6 hours ago
@Dan Rook
Explain!!

Nicholas Battaliou
2 days ago
Regarding existential threat, this is most acute for the Ukrainians, not Russia or the US. The right of the Ukrainians to choose their destiny, without being controlled by either power, is at stake. Add Donbas oil fields, the wheat basket, Black Sea exclusive access, and ethnic parity, and you have significant reasons for the land grab by the Russians. Likely outcome is that Ukraine will split on ethnic majorities, lose its Black Sea access, while Russia loses its EU gas and oil contracts. The paranoia and distrust of Russia goes back to the sacking of Constantinople, by the 4th crusade, when Venice sponsored Roman and French forces marched on Jerusalem, destroying the Orthodox city for not paying the advancing western Christian troops. Eastern Christianity has never since trusted Western.
Read more
14

Hide 7 replies
Don Kaster
Don Kaster
2 days ago
Donbas coal fields, not oil)
1

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
Is that why the Ukrainian Orthodox church split with Mockba?
1

Ozymandias Ultor
23 hours ago
@Richard Moloney To some point, maybe, but that problem in Orthodox Christianity is nothing new. Examples are numerous, first, one should know that Orthodox Christianity is not like Catholic Christianity in the sense of hierarchy. Orthodox Christians have no Pope, and were always national churches, like Greeks Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Armenian, Serbian, etc… but those can and do hold other nations, for instance, the Russian Orthodox Church is or was holding its position over Belarus and Ukraine…Serbian Orthodox Church was holding Monenegrian and had a big dispute with the Macedonian Orthodox Church which got its “autokefalia” (that is more than autonomy, that means separate head, separate church) somewhere in the 60s…And now that one is the new Orthodox Church, Macedonian Orthodox Church because Serbian Church agreed that it is separate. Something similar is happening in Ukraine, a much bigger country, and that “separation” was exacerbated with the war, but existed before, of course. I bet that in the future there will be more separate natural churches, as is common in Ortodox Christianity.
Read more

Ozymandias Ultor
23 hours ago
@Richard Moloney But, I must add, that separation of Orthodox churches on a national base means nothing in a religious sense. No, everything is the same, all Orthodox churches have the same customs, nearly identical religious calendars, same dogma…Just the language in which liturgy is held is different. It is just the way of Orthodoxy, it is not religious separation, all of those are Orthodox and have h.q. in Constintanopolis (Istanbul), where the main priest is.
Read more

Richard Moloney
18 hours ago
@Ozymandias Ultor Thanks. I was in Kyiv and Sumy 9 times. I have people in Sumy. I once asked what was the difference between the Russian and Orthodox churches. The answer I got was : ‘Power”.

Ozymandias Ultor
14 hours ago
@Richard Moloney Well, that answer is correct but just to a certain degree. Russian Orthodox Church is as Orthodox as any other, but the difference is that is very big and has a lot of influence. Creating new churches in Orthodox Christianity is slow, everything goes slow…For instance, the Bulgarian Orthodox church was waiting very long to get its “autokefalia”. Orthodoxy was raised from one state, one mighty state, the Eastern Roman Empire, and once there was just one state that was Orthodox and had the monopoly over all others, but as time went on, when Kievan Rus adopted Orthodox Christianity it was decided that the way will be such, national churches. And now, counting that old-new Macedonian Orthodox Church which is as far as I know a descendant of Ohrid Arhiepiscopy, a very important part that gave in some sense literacy to Slavic people, the number of Orthodox churches is 15, and yet there are more nations that are Orthodox, but some are under the jurisdiction of other, as is the case with Russian Orthodox Church which de iure still is the church over Ukrainian, Belorus and few more nations. So, a mix of power and inertia… And the unwillingness of some churches to give the right to some nations to have their own churches.
Read more

Barry Shaw
4 days ago
Thank you very much for your honesty it’s appreciated and needed, wish everyone could hear this.
27

1 OFF
1 day ago
Finally a man of honor speaking truth ! Thank you Sir
10

Hide reply

G Mac
2 days ago
I find it refreshing to hear an opinion so different than what’s heard on main stream media. What I wish someone would explain is why the United States wanted to expand NATO into Ukraine? Why expand NATO at all? Why do we even have NATO still? Were eastern European states threatening to drop the dollar? Is this really about the US defending its dollar? There’s a reason behind every move, behind Russia’s and behind NATO’s and behind the United State’s.
Read more
29

Hide 9 replies
Steven Devolder
Steven Devolder
2 days ago
you forget to ask why ukraine did wanted to join nato and the eu .
2

G Mac
1 day ago
@Steven Devolder I already have an idea why Ukraine “wanted” to join NATO. That’s why I don’t ask. What I do wonder though, is why I cannot see 2 of the 4 replies to my comment. C’mon YouTube, what’s going on?
3

Max Aslam
1 day ago
For more analysis check out Rtd Colonel Richard Black.
I found it very useful and it from someone within the war machine but retired.

Russell Byers
1 day ago
@G Mac Now, 21 hours later, I can see 3 of the 8 replies

TERRELL SCAIFE
17 hours ago
Very very informative I appreciate you buddy
1

Filippo Corti
1 day ago
It’s a shame all of this happened.

RC6790
1 day ago
If Russia finds something intolerable, it becomes justified in this man’s mind.
10

Inma Ullibarri
8 days ago
Excelente análisis!,! Gracias profesor por ser honesto y decir la verdad! Porque hay estas personas norteamericanas de tamaña calidad humana, inteligencia y altura moral, admiramos a USA.
53

Hide 3 replies
Nadia Sawicki
Nadia Sawicki
5 days ago
. Depends what side of the coin one sides with. Ive not heard this speach in full. So I will pass on commenting.

David Millington
2 days ago
So many think that Ukraine is winning and Russia losing this war…but did this analysis claim that Ukraine’s cities are sadly being “wrecked”?
1

Andre Schondelmaier
3 days ago (edited)
Thanks for a realistic honest account of the Ukrainian situation . 1st one I’ve heard
25

Bernard Longwe
4 days ago
I love this post and wish the whole rational and honest world will see it.
53

Hide 9 replies
Penny Piper
Penny Piper
3 days ago
Who really “owns” America?….
1

Bernard Longwe
2 days ago
@Penny Piper The devil knows.

Bernard Longwe
2 days ago
@John Scott Wake up, man. Looks like you lack honesty and rationale. Listen to John Mearsheimer again…

sergejpopov
2 days ago (edited)
The argument this gentleman is making is nothing new, actually. Any self respecting Russian is familiar with this intellectualized version. It also, in a very subtle and digestible manner, attempts to make Kremlin’s case to the westerners by checking off Kremlin’s talking points.
17

Eron Goldstone
2 days ago
This is the kinda of content we need to be watching…. Hope this vid goes viral
2

Ronald Russel
4 days ago (edited)
What will Russia do after Finland enters NATO? The border between Finland and Russia is twice as long as the one with Ukraine, so the argument about expansion NATO does not stand… because Russia withdrew a few thousand soldiers from the border with Finland a few days ago.
22

Hide 5 replies

Guy Littleford
2 days ago
They will go crazy if that happens. Of course, it won’t, because sensible grown-ups will prevail.

kosmotrekker
1 day ago
Great argument
1

Joe A E
7 days ago (edited)
A straight shooter.. very refreshing indeed to hear you Prof. Thank you v much for such pure honesty. I really hope and pray that Ukraine finds itself courageous leaders who must honestlylook Russia in the eye and say “Let us sit down as brother Slavs people and make long term peace in the region.” The horrible truth however is that once the Bear is out and has been poked in the eye, it’s very difficult if not impossible to go back to how it was before. Facts are being created on the ground and time is really running out for Ukraine. We need honest negotiations like NOW.
Read more
50

Hide 6 replies
Serge S
Serge S
5 days ago
Russians are not slavs
2

Dragan
4 days ago
@Serge S And what are they then, if not Slavs? Maybe Turks? Or Chinese?
4

Miroslav Dusin
2 days ago
@Dragan They are mix of everything but they are definitely not “Brother slavs”. With possible exception of Hitler no one else than the Russians killed so many Slavs.
1

Richard Henry
7 days ago
Great analysis of the situation.
22

Hide 7 replies

Rodmeaux Adesacra
7 days ago
Shalom, Salam, Peace, Great Analysis Yes .. Yes.. All Right..
1

John Scurr
5 days ago
Approx 40 million Ukrainians and many millions more elsewhere would not agree with your analysis of what you consider to be an analysis.
2

DJH
5 days ago
@John Scurr

John Scurr
5 days ago
@DJH Not a problem had no real intention of etertaining. Wonder if you struggling to comprehend the pointing contributed. Your puerile reply may or may not be indicative.
2

Jeff Yasmine
14 hours ago
Sr thank you so much you are a honest Man ….wish you many Years of Healthy life please God…..The World need you .thank you
.
1

David Kirksey
1 day ago
Might I add, , the Crimea’s potential North Sea scale oil reserves play another major factor in all this.
3

Sarki
4 days ago
Truth will always rise to the surface regardless of the murky water.
Thank you Sir.
18

Hide reply
tex
tex
2 days ago
Or not…

Rashad AbdulAzeem
7 days ago
Wow, truth is tough to swallow sometimes. Excellent an
25

Hide reply

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
Truth is an excuse for a poor imagination.

Rajneesh Pal
4 hours ago
Very truly said. I think Ukrainian president should also see this and should apply his brain.

Baba Bans
1 day ago
absolutly trueth and logic..
1

ozzie444
1 day ago
Excellent. AND TRUE…..

D.Ravi Chandran
4 days ago
Prof. thank you for ur brave honest opinion.. … I Salute.
16

jan slodicka
3 days ago
Professor has big understanding for Russians. Too big.
4

Hide reply
Babuli Mohanty
Babuli Mohanty
3 days ago
True analysis… Fantastic. Thanks for the post Sir
6

Anton Peniaziev
1 day ago
So russians only “find things intorelable” or “make it clear this not going to happen” , they were just minding therir business and being existntially threatened , ok.
very deep analysis …
Mearsheimer preaches to the choir of young, unexperinced americans who never served in the army and seek government opposing views
.
Read more
8

ivan ashley
4 hours ago
Putin was open and honest about his fears over Ukraine and it’s aspirations to join the EU and NATO. He was clearly concerned about the fate of former Russian people living in the Donbass region who were opposed to Ukraine’s ambitions to forge these new alliances. Because, those people looked to Russia, with whom they had strong family ties, to be a friend, ally and protector.
Read more

Y Camara
2 days ago
Indeed , very honest ,thank you sir.
1

Othmar Brunner
2 days ago
Naive question: Russia did they have absolutely no right to invade another country
It is typical in today s society the criminal always blames somebody else: oh she/he had a bad childhood, oh she/he bullied in school, oh she/he had alcoholic parents etc
10

Hide 2 replies
Eric P
Eric P
1 day ago
people who blame only the Russian Federation for this war forget that the NATO was illegal bombing Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in the last twenty years and were commiting warcrimes in those countries.
1

Sarah Grun
20 hours ago
@Eric P Most people have short memories or conveniently forgets this .. Where are sanctions on US for attacking Iraq without UN approvals ? Iraq is far away US as apposed to Russia and Ukraine. Double standard Bullies !
2

joe bloggs
5 days ago
Prof. Mearsheimer unfortunately never addresses the fundamental question : ‘Why do all of Russia’s neighbours ‘very strongly’ want protection ‘against invasion by Russia’ ?’ or ‘Why do all of these countries want to join Nato ?’
25

Hide 16 replies
Erik Ooi
Erik Ooi
5 days ago
FEAR makes people illogical
3

Teadon Urajh
5 days ago
One reason is a national pride and the belief of the ruling class that they’d be better off befriending the West. In some cases the prospect of being subsumed into NATO or a Western defence pact opens up the possibility to centralize power in a region under one regime. The reasons are varied but it isn’t as obvious as many claims.
Read more
3

Mike47
5 days ago
I think that’s fairly obvious. Russia is clearly a superpower on your doorstep so it makes sense that these countries would be anxious. This make a security packed with NATO quite appealing. Doesn’t mean that it’s the most sensible thing to do for your long term stability and security.
3

questworldmatrix
5 days ago (edited)
Russia is a the doorstep of Asia and we have no such concerns. Why does Europe have that concern, especially since historically they were the ones who invaded and colonized us? Is it mere projection of the “Russian threat”? Germany went after Russia. France went after Russia. The US went after Russia, and that’s after Russia helped against the Nazis.
Is Russia really the problem here? Or is Russia just an obstacle for another round of European expansion like they keep doing in the middle east? The US pretty much talk about their intentions to balkanize Russia as they do with China.
Read more
15

Sandrael’s Material Oblivion
4 days ago
With that protection, comes money and influence – let me guess, you don’t think people would do that for power and money?
4

T.G. V.
1 day ago
@questworldmatrix Good Point.

karenandvlad
3 days ago
What are comprehensive investigation analysis ! Im Russian living in the West , thank you so much for this report.
15

Voltron Universe
5 days ago
I just love listening to you because you are very honest.
12

Garikayi Chinhakwe
7 days ago
He predicted this 10 years back, he is a genius
44

Hide 6 replies
ps
ps
4 days ago
Not really the US have been doing this for decades,
1

amerocker
2 days ago
What do you mean by 10 years back? This interview is from 2022.

Freethinker from gh
2 days ago
@amerocker he said similar things in 2012
1

amerocker
2 days ago
@Freethinker from gh TY.

JASON MADELIN
5 hours ago
Wow, many thanks.

luke lewkowicz
7 hours ago
At the end of the WW II Russia had 12 million standing army. They all were aware that most likely they did not march across Europe as they knew about Alamo test of A -bomb.

Ki Key
22 hours ago
I just found that the US has several Biolabs based in Ukraine

Pat M
7 days ago
Zelensky was elected on a platform which included implementing the Minsk agreement. But he was threatened with death by the far-right if he did implement it. When he said he was ready to start peace negotiations, the US, UK and EU didn’t want peace. They gave Ukraine more money and weapons to keep the war going. Following his visit to Ukraine, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, tweeted: “This war must be won on the battlefield.” Solid evidence the EU does not want a peaceful, negotiated settlement. Like the UK, the EU is a puppet of the corporate controlled US, so no surprise but utterly shameful. The EU is now NATO’s ‘economic department’. US, EU sacrificing Ukraine to ‘weaken Russia’: former NATO adviser Jacques Baud. There’s no profit in a peaceful world for the US merchants of death and destruction.
Read more
121

Hide 58 replies

DJH
5 days ago

2

joe bloggs
5 days ago
The Minsk accords were never intended to work, in 1994 and 1997 Post USSR Russia signed 2 Treaties that acknowledged Crimea was Ukraine, and guaranteed Ukraine Sovereignty, but Russia had ‘no intention of removing it’s troops from Donbas or Crimea’. The leaders of the Donbas separatists didn’t attend Minsk2 and gave no commitment to implement the accords. Russia refused to allow or enforce the monitoring of the Russian border, refused to acknowledge that Russia was involved in combat in Donbas, refused to remove it’s troops from Donbas or Crimea, the list goes on ….
Read more
9

Darth Mucus
5 days ago
@joe bloggs You are being disingenuous. Crimea was to remain Ukrainian under the paramount condition that Ukraine had to remain NEUTRAL. That was the whole point. As soon as Ukraine started entertaining the idea of joining NATO, the agreement went out the window. Crimea had been russian since the 17th century. It was Khrushchev that “gave” the territory to Ukraine´s administrative sector, to facilitate USSR bureaucracy. That was it. When the USSR ended, Russia established a contract to keep the naval base, that Ukraine broke the minute they uttered the word “NATO”.
Read more
13

joe bloggs
5 days ago
@Darth Mucus No, it’s the other way round, Russia had left Ukraine with no option but to join move towards joining NATO because of Russia’s institutionalised hostility to Ukrainian independence, and in fact this has never changed. The security guarantees were a measure against existing and future Russian aggression towards Ukraine, with the carrot of continued access to Sevastopol, not a protection against potential Ukraine aggression towards Russia. This is why Mearsheimer predicted this invasion in 1993. After the fall of the USSR Russia declared ownership of all USSR facilities and assets within ‘Russia’, thus setting the precedent for all the other independent states to do the same.
This made it beyond dispute that all of Crimea, Sevastopol and the entire Black Sea Fleet belonged to Ukraine
Russia refused to acknowledge or accept Ukraine’s existence as an independent state and did everythign it could to prevent Ukraine establishing itself as such.
Russia dragged it’s feet in every obligation in finalising the divorce and bullied, belittled and rejected Ukrainian society / intellectuals etc. which left them with nowhere to go except towards the West.
The Friendship Treaty was a belated realisation by Russia that Ukraine going West was totally the fault of Russia driving them there.
The Friendship Treaty granted Russia unconditional access to and control of an undisputably Ukrainian asset and territory for an extended future period. .
Gorbachev stated in 2014 that there had never been any Treaty, contract or understanding that Nato would not expand East, nor did he mention any contract about Ukraine getting Crimea in return for not joining NATO. He also stated that at the time none of the other former soviet states would have had any issue with Nato expansion, so it would only have been Russia that objected and it never came up in talks.
Supposedly this is why P*tin ‘hates’ Gorbachev
Read more
7

joe bloggs
5 days ago
@Darth Mucus Historical facts that you don’t agree with are not my concern. I’m just giving you the short version of what was historically recognised and formalised in the Treaty’s. This is all documented. I notice that you don’t supply any actual information instead just insults, I guess that is all you have to offer. Interesting though that Russia used this exact fact to accuse Ukraine of having bio-weapons labs, the labs were from the USSR and through the Russian established rule these labs became property of Ukraine, and Russia used this fact to say the labs were Ukrainian. Burn, bra …
Read more
3

Gustav J.
4 days ago
@Pat M Interesting conspiracy.

Ivan The Terrible
4 days ago
Wrong! Gorbachev stated many times that there was a verbal agreement that NATO won’t move an inch to the EAst if Russia withdraw its forces from Eastern Europe. As soon as Russia withdrew NATO expanded East.
6

GODLOVE MBANGA
3 days ago
This kind of information you provided is always helpful to me, and helps me further my research for TRUTH. I’m done with the stereotype that Russia is the enemy “by default”.
4

Susanna Marker
3 days ago
@GODLOVE MBANGA Exactly.
1

johnpearcey
3 days ago (edited)
Pat M. You are indeed 100% correct.
1

Susanna Marker
3 days ago
@johnpearcey Who is ?

Try telling the truth.
3 days ago
@joe bloggs
You are wrong that there was no understanding that NATO would not expand Eastwards. Extracts from the US Embassy, Bonn Confidential Cable, tell a different story.
US Embassy, Bonn Confidential cable to Secretary of State, on the speech of the German Foreign Minister, Genscher outlines his vision.
Extract —
West German Foreign Minister’s Tutzing formula in his speech of Jan 31st 1990, widely reported in the media in Europe, Washington and Moscow, explicitly addressed the possibility of NATO expansion, as well as Central and Eastern European membership. of NATO., and denied that possiblity as part of his olive garland towards Moscow. This US Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington, details both Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s proposals that NATO WOULD NOT expand to the East .
Read more
4

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.
1

Susanna Marker
3 days ago
@Howard Bradley Like the EU then.
1

Vijay Vijay
3 days ago
@joe bloggs Russia failed to acknowledge Ukraine so Ukraine fearing possible Russian military action went to NATO and this prompted Russian military action.

Howard Bradley
3 days ago
@Susanna Marker yep like the EU, China, the USA, the UK..ect all the same shite

johnpearcey
2 days ago
@Gustav J. Do you not remember Zelensky promising to bring a halt to the hostilities in the East including talking about the Minsk agreement? The problem with most people is that they have such short memories.
2

johnpearcey
2 days ago
@joe bloggs Most Russians hate Gorbachev.
1

johnpearcey
2 days ago
@joe bloggs None of this really matters if the people do not agree. The leaders make up treaties and agreements all the time and many end up worthless and unenforceable. Most of the population in Crimea are actually Russian. They are happy to be a part of Russia. They were against the coup in Kiev in 2014 and wanted no part of the unrest in Ukraine. They joined Russia. End of story. The West has been stoking trouble in Ukraine for years. I was working in Kherson in 2011 and I can tell you for a fact that students were being paid by Western NGOs to protest against the government at that time. Fast forward to 2014 and Buses were being laid on to take people to Kiev to protest. The only way to resolve this is for the West to butt out.
Read more
1

Gustav J.
2 days ago
@johnpearcey I heard the Minsk agreement never came to fruition as none of the two sides stopped fighting. Putin simply tore up the agreement amid these complications in February and blamed Ukraine for the failure to implement it. After that, he committed to a full invasion of Ukraine.
See, it was Putin who escalated it, tore up the agreement and pushed this war further, not the Ukrainians.
Read more
1

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago (edited)
Who is Russia why people must bow down to her barbarism?
Russia is a totalitarian state, and to tolerate her brutality is to be no better than her.
The nations who were once part of the Soviet Union, are Russias most fiercest critics’, has anyone ever taken the time to ask why ?
It’s because these people lived under the umbrella of tyranny for ages, they witnessed first hand the brutality of the Russians, from rape, torture, mu-rder, beatings, imprisonment, loss of freedom and free speech, fear, hunger and more, they alone bear these horrors, do you know how grateful these people are to have an alliance with NATO ?.
These so called professors are speaking with a lot of education but zero wisdom, they speak from their lofty paid jobs in countries where they are free, they view Russia with sympathy, a nation to occasionally offer a sacrifice in order to appease, the question is, are these professors willing to give their own country as a token to this tyrant ambitions?
Russia must be dismantled in its current state and rebuilt as a responsible nation that respects its neighbours and the rule of law, to hell with appeasement, tyrants never know when to be satisfied and Russia is no different !!!
Read more
2

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
@Ivan The Terrible
Verbal agreements do not stand up in international court of law, there was never any agreement, name the place, time and who was present when Mikhail said this,
Putin made up these lies,
Read more

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
@Try telling the truth.
Lies, tell us where we can view this so called cable you speak about !!!
1

Try telling the truth.
2 days ago
@Kirk Patrick
You go from saying I’m telling lies, asking for confirmation to information giving. This I do and you still come back with your obsession with Putin and NATO.
You don’t like information that disproves your point. I think you are the one obsessed with your hatred for Russia/Putin.
Unbelievable.
Read more
1

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
@Try telling the truth.
I have read the documents, and I’m trying to find evidence that such a promise was made, I see none in document 4 or 6 as the narrator suggests, what the narrator has done, is paint a picture of something that’s not by implying NATO made such an agreement, when in truth it didn’t, the only discussion had, was on NATO not putting troops in East Germany, it discussed and agreed nothing about the former Soviet Slave States joining NATO
Further more, Russia has painted NATO as a threat when there is ZERO evidence to support, NATO helped Russia stabilised itself after the breakup up of the evil Soviet empire, if NATO wanted dominance, it would have allowed Kazakhstan and Ukraine to hold on to their nuclear weapons and be a force against Russia, but it didn’t, it helped Russia brokered a deal to regain these weapons to ensure the world’s security.
The lies you people tell to justify the evils of Russia is mind boggling, Russia is not a country to have any regards for in terms of its influence over its neighbours, no country have an obligation to the evil Russian design for its ambitions against its weaker neighbours, Russia want slave states, state it can rock up tanks in their square at will and have total disregard for international law.
Russian interest must not be appeased, because this interest is not for the benefit or security of its neighbours, it’s interest is in totalitarianism.
The people who support Russia are either living in secure countries where they have apathy towards their own government, or the elites in dictators states that wants the status quo to continue as it’s of great benefit to them to have the masses under their control
Read more
1

Try telling the truth.
2 days ago
@Kirk Patrick
So when I gave you an extract of Genscher’s speech, which, according to the report, was widely reported in Europe, the US and Moscow, where he states that NATO expansion Eastwards was not possible, are you saying he never said it? or that you can’t find it, so it doesn’t exist?
Read more

Try telling the truth.
2 days ago
@Kirk Patrick
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Kirk Patrick
1 day ago
@Try telling the truth.
I guess that would be you then !!!
1

Running Partner
1 day ago
@Ivan The Terrible correct

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
So tell us, what is your solution to all of this?

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
@Ivan The Terrible Verbal agreement, yes. That’s all.

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
@johnpearcey So do most in the Baltics.

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
@Kirk Patrick Dismantled, no. Broken up, yes.

johnpearcey
16 hours ago
@Gustav J. You’re a bit confused. Go and interview some real people in Donbass who will give you the true story.

Gustav J.
15 hours ago
@johnpearcey Do you have a source to these interviews?

Dilip Bhise
3 days ago
Excellent Analysis!

Magnus Landström
2 days ago
A new renaissance for neofascism
How come? Well, obviously international neo nazis from Europe began (if not earlier) during the 2010’s to gather for weaponry training in St Petersburg, Russia. A Swede called Anton Thulin was “educated” by an organisation called “Partizan” (Партизан) through links from “the Russian imperialistic movement RIM/RID” (русское имперское движение) in St Petersburg in 2015 and afterwards he went back to Sweden, where he and two other “classmates” carried out terrorist attacks in Gothenburg. They blew some bombs and were sentenced to jail (all the three convicted had links to the Russian group Partizan). In 2019, when he got out he went to Poland for more weaponry training, but was caught and expelled from Poland. Since then he has ended up on the American list of international terrorists.
RID formed their paramilitary branch “Imperial Legion” in 2008 and the that year they also began to travel to Sweden with invitations to Russia. After the war broke out in 2014, they began to send their members and foreigners, who got their weaponry training in St Petersburg, to fight towards to Ukrainians from Luhansk and Donetsk. Russian money are also given to Swedish neo nazi movements through RID, which of course gets these money from “Putins chef”, Jevgenij Prigozin, the well known Russian oligarch, who’s also the man behind the private Russian army “the Wagner group” and the “Internet research agency” in St Petersburg. The former is led by real neo nazis, Dmitrij Utkin, and has fought the wars in Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic, Sudan and of course now in Ukraine. In 2017 it was estimated that the Wagner Group had about 6000 legosoldiers fighting in different war scenes. This group is financed by the oligarchs close to Putin and is more of a branch within the GRU. The latter, Internet Research Agency (also known as Mediasintez, Glavset, Mixinfo, Azimut, Novinfo and aas the Trolls from Olgino) is well known as the Russian internet troll factory. From out of there you can expect cyberattacks and so many internet trolls, which you can’t even count. They certainly were active during both presidential elections in the US.
The links between neofascistic putinism and with far right wingers in the US and in the world are more than obvious. Get educated, since that’s the least that neofascists would want you to. And always stand up for the democratic values.
Read more
6

Daniel Gaddis
2 days ago
So Russia should decide who can and who can’t join NATO? And once they take over the Ukraine then they can decide that the country’s bordering Ukraine can’t become NATO countries?
2

Rodmeaux Adesacra
7 days ago
Peace, Paix, Pace, Salam, Shalom, is better than ever ! War is cruel !
14

View reply

Running Partner
2 days ago
Right on.
1

Prophet Putin
7 days ago
Prophet Mearsheimer is one of a kind.
23

Hide 4 replies
Silent Watch
Silent Watch
3 days ago
All I hear is American and EU greed. They underestimated Putin and Russia.The consequences is clear to see. Putin did ask to join the NATO many times. Allowing Ukraine to join NATO has caused provocation!!!
1

Miroslav Dusin
2 days ago
@Silent Watch They underestimated how bad Putin is or what kind of monster he really is. I agree.
1

Senait Dimitri
1 day ago
You have said it very well, it’s just.that Ukraine president risked everything just to become western, I hope he wakes up and see what happened to his county where his people trusted his leadership.

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
Great analysis!
1

Silver Surfer
1 day ago
It is obvious!!! Everybody sees. Please let us know. One Name. Tell it. Only the truth can save us.

missRaya
3 days ago
Right on the money, Professor!

mrebholz
2 days ago
Amen
1

backspace
3 days ago
thanks professor.
so clear, so objective.
7

Алёна Петрова
13 days ago
Bendiciones hermosa Celina que Dios te cuiden donde quiera que Vaniaa.Uno encantan tus videos.

Hide reply
Action C
Action C
13 days ago
@Алёна Петрова ¿Qué quieres decir?

Leslie Samuels
4 days ago
This is bulls all countries and peoples have a right to decide their own destiny. Russia had nothing to fear from Ukraine.
Stop being stupid NATO is not attacking any country.
13

Hide reply
Mark Frost
Mark Frost
1 day ago
I’ve said this from the start …exactly what said here…there are some very half ass people in positions of accountability…responsibility remains to be seen
1

Hiroko Robertson
1 day ago
Professor , I believe you telling truth , respect Sir .
3

Beaumont Muni
3 days ago
I totally agree with your perspective.

Juan Rochabrun
3 days ago
Very good and logical conclusion

John Smith
1 day ago
Absolutely.. NO CLUE.. what’s really happening
1

Tom Malone
2 days ago
NATO has always expanded not as a threat to Russia but due to demand from would be neighbours worried about Russian aggression.
8

Hide reply
Lovely
Lovely
2 days ago
Yet Russia never attacked other countries, nor considered them enemies, while NATO considers many countries their enemies. You can hear it in their speeches.
Also, NATO is just a defensive pact theoretically. In practice, tell me ONE country which NATO has ever defended! It was ALWAYS an aggressive force, attacking weaker countries – Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. THAT is why Russia is feeling threatened. As well as the fact that all these NATO countries on its borders have their missiles pointing at Russia.
Read more
1

Max Aslam
1 day ago
Profound analysis for the layman and the neutrals.
Those of us watching and understanding global geopolitics especially US hegemony, it is as clear as day what the US modus operandi is and that Putin is reacting.
Astonishingly, yet unsurprisingly the most concerning is that once again the US and its cohorts, on their leads, have no empathy for the loss of Ukrainian lives or property. In fact what has been omitted from the analysis is who is paying for the vast amounts of ordnance being being supplied to Ukraine or the intel they need. The US is a capitalist endeavour, they don’t do free lunches. In reality Ukraine’s debt is rising exponentially and if the hope is that Ukraine wins then the US and Blighty would have primary and direct access to natural reserves.
There is however only one chance of that happening. That’s no chance!
Read more
14

Hide 3 replies

Brian Warburton
20 hours ago
The US may be paying for the vast amounts of ordnance that are being supplied, but other countries are seeing what this ordnance can do and the orders are piling up, so in the long run the US will almost certainly make a profit from all this.

Brian Warburton
3 hours ago
@Anderson Atherley And what planet do you live on ?

English payer of German taxes
2 days ago
Before going along with this narrative, it might be a good idea to ask the Swedes and Finns why they feel threatened by Russia, and why they now want to join NATO.
12

Hide 6 replies
Gary Douglas
Gary Douglas
2 days ago
Do they really feel more threatened NOW than when the Warsaw Pact existed?
3

English payer of German taxes
2 days ago
@Gary Douglas
Sure seems like it…..

william lowther
1 day ago
America persuaded them to join, LGB
4

kenny enquiry
4 days ago
very good ， genuine opinion….

M WELSH
6 days ago
The matrix needs to be fed: Classic case of always looking for an enemy
2

Marcelo Cardoso
2 days ago
Totaly correct!

justgivemethetruth
8 days ago
Funny how a brilliant knowledgeable guy like JM can walk through all the facts in the most efficient dispassionate manner and it doesn’t seem to even matter to those people who have closed their minds off to any data. Now, why do people think it is profitable to close their minds – ever? I mean, I am in agreement with JM’s logic and narrative here … but I could listen to and be convinced of another way to look at this, if there was somewhat that explained it better or appealed to an argument or goal I held strongly. I wish people would be less dogmatic and emotional, and look at things from a global human perspective … what we are doing now is destroying people and planet … for nothing … just to support what driver is in the driver seat on the highway to global destruction.
Read more
25

Hide 14 replies
Joe Donzi
Joe Donzi
8 days ago
Colonel Douglas MacGregor is also a man of Truth and Wisdom when discussing the possible beginning of World War 111.

John Scurr
5 days ago
An element of truth in your last sentence for sure. His whole explanation of the blame concept holds no water. Is it the perpetrators or the victims who are guilty of the crime? The victims are those who have been invaded, the perpetrators are those doing the invading? Is it reasonable for the invader to use as part of the defence that somebody made them do it? Who ordered the dogs of war to be unleashed – USA, Nato, Ben and Jerry, or Putin Love multiple choice questions.
Answer that question and you”ll be a lot closer to fingering the real culprit.
This is being played out by Putin through Putin’s rules and puppeteering and only three ways to stop it. Zelensky accepting the loss of about a third of their country and thereafter bending and scraping every time Putin rings the bell for a blow job. NATO and/or the EU growing a pair and accepting the responsibility for clearing the field and understanding there is no quick fix here and the highly preferred third option would be the Russian themselves growing a pair and ridding themselves of Putrid and his ilk once and for all.

You might find this interesting. She deserves to be listened to it cost her chunks of her life in KGB cells for seeing through Putin a long time ago. Unfortunately dead now. From Toxic poisoning whatever that means in an autocratic, authoritarian country which sees you as a constant thorn in its side.
Read more
2

justgivemethetruth
5 days ago
@John Scurr
I have to disagree with you about Putin. This whole situation is a real “mindfuck”, and right along the lines of what has been happening in the media, and online, a lot of very sophisticated minfucking that started out decades ago with advertising and then PR. When you look at this ( as Mearsheimer does ) in the context and language of how countries behave and what countries do, what Russia did was totally normal, and even to be expected.
The public views
countrys’ behavior a lot like testosterone primed macho males, drunk and fighting over women, and that is just not the case. The only thing that model does is to rile people up so that no mediation or concensus can take place, and noise prevails in the public space so that the people behind the scenes can weave their corruption.
When I look at where the corruption lies, I see just as much if not more on the side of the West … America, NATO and the EU. Obviously not the whole, but a small group that profits both politically and economically by the cancerous growth of the Military Industria Complex. What Russia did is more believably explained in terms of its defense, than NATO. The premise of NATO and the US defending itself is based on memes pushed in the public mind …
1. The Putin-Hitler analogy, which is based on decades of vilification of Russia in the media.
2. The reforming the USSR notion which is absurd and being pushed by militarists who profit from war.
3. Also to a large extent lies about Ukraine being a relatable liberal democracy and civil society.
But what Putin was reacting to was real, hard, proven news and evidence of American/NATO/CIA corruption and meddling in the Ukrainian government in an aggressive attempt to challenge and hurt Russia. Obviously from the outcome there is no rational outcome to be gained by this, at this point if there ever was, and all that is happening is that countries, people and economies who just want to get by are being hurt – and worse, militaries to take sides in a new consuming military Cold War.
This is awful, and the US whether you buy my rationale for blame, is the only one to be able to stop it – and so by not stopping it, that also becomes part of the blame on the US.
Read more
2

justgivemethetruth
5 days ago
@John Scurr
Another thing I meant to say is that Russians have done very well by Putin, and Americans, assuming you are American, are in no position to judge other countries and leaders. America just loves to talk about how great it is … and look at the frickin’ facts, we are dead last in most metrics of lifestyle now, and have been for decades and are still headed lower.
Putin has shown results for the Russian people. However they measure popularity in Russia Putin rates higher in Russia than either Trump or Biden, and probably Obama – especially today when the shine of just being the first black President has worn off Obama we honestly assess the crap job he did also … and same with Bush … and same going back for a very long time.
I know you can then come back and say what-about-this or what-about-that, but the point is that it is a waste of time to name call whole countries. If you go there, then there is the question as to why we have enabled China with something like 7-9 trillion dollars and given them our jobs, factories, technology and money.
Read more
2

justgivemethetruth
4 days ago
@Brud 1
That’s a reasonable question. I think mathematicians who figure out how to poll know enough about skew to figure vaguely how to compensate for bias. So, the polls are probably not exact, but you have to remember that Putin has done a lot for the average Russian, and the Russians have seen it in their own lifetimes. You’re confusing me when you talk about technological stuff. What does it have to do with Putin’s popularity. The same way the Chinese government is working for most Chinese. The American government is NOT working for most Americans – but here I see you talking about oligarchs and that seems kind of funny.
Read more

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

justgivemethetruth
3 days ago
@Sean Hross
A search reveals no such video and no such channel? Do you have a link to it?

justgivemethetruth
3 days ago
@Sean Hross
Do you mean Switzerland? What wacky channel. Thanks for wasting my time.

Sean Hross
2 days ago
@justgivemethetruth Where are you? Because here in France I can see it. Just put a VPN in your device, then it will show. Can you find channel Giureh? Then scroll down in the video section.

Jonas Striaukas
1 day ago
sad to see that the will of Ukrainians is completely not considered in this thought, as if they would do whatever the ‘great powers’ will decide…
2

Hide reply
phil thompson
phil thompson
1 day ago
at 6.04 what he says that the Russians were never going to allow sebastopol to become a NATO naval base

El ingeniero de la letra
1 day ago
US with zelensky the authors of the war

FightingCold
1 day ago (edited)
Any argument you can make for Ukraine joining NATO could also be made for Finnland joining NATO. And yet, Russia cannot do anything about Finnland because they know they will be out-classed. This is why I truly believe Russia does not care about NATO expansion. If NATO can place missiles in Ukraine, they can just as well place any missiles they want in Finnland or Poland. Makes no sense to be paranoid about Ukraine but not Finnland. If anything, I would be more worried about Finnland joining than Ukraine joining.
Read more
6

Hide 3 replies
Antonio Domene
Antonio Domene
3 days ago
I agree with your thoughts,,,

Joe Governale
5 days ago
i was suspicious with the constant barrage of propaganda happening with this conflict started, that we (usa) and it’s vassals, were responsible at least in part for this mess. Thank you for helping get the facts out.
15

Hide 12 replies
Pa Bis
Pa Bis
5 days ago
The barrage of propaganda? Everything thing this guy says is propaganda I suggest you watch his munk debate. He skips almost all of the pertinent facts for both sides but his arguments absolutely do not hold up under any scrutiny.
4

Joe Governale
2 days ago
@Kirk Patrick this argument lacks data that could potentially support your claims. Prof. M provides data for his argument. if you can’t do the same, you’re not going to change my mind.

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
@Joe Governale
A simple historical search will satisfy your questions
None of what I have written is hidden, it’s all documentated in history, if you wish and genuinely cares for truth, you can use the internet to find all the information I list
Read more

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
@Joe Governale
What you can do if you don’t believe my points is to post counter points using facts that can be researched to prove I am lying

Randall
4 days ago
Your use of the term “Existential Threat” is strategic in drawing the comparison between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the expansion of NATO into Russia’s border countries. So NATO on the doorstep of Russia threatens Russia’s existence. Just as missiles in Cuba threatened the US, and probably more. The logical problem with the NATO treaty, is that NATO members agree to come to the aid of any members who are attacked. What if some of their members are idiots. That is why France pulled out. It is entirely predictable that sooner or later some NATO member is going to start a conflict and then claim they were attacked. Hitler invaded Poland and claimed that the Poles were attacking Germany. I say all that to say expanding NATO to the door of Russia probably isn’t wise. Turkey recently boarded a Russian grain ship and confiscated the cargo, claiming that it was Ukrainian wheat. What if Russia sends a destroyer over and says “give me back my boat and its cargo”. Looks to me like Europe is once again sitting on a powder keg. Here in the USA we are far from the flying bullets. Berlin is about 750 miles from Kiev. That is a couple days drive in a car. If we had a war that close to us, we would be paying attention a lot more. And that is exactly what is happening in Europe. They are saying “Okay maybe we need a real military budget”. Next step is “lets teach them a lesson they won’t forget”. Remember Stalingrad, even after the place was demolished, the people fought on. You are not going to beat the Russians in this war, they will not give up. I don’t l like where this is going. The only solution I could see is invite Russia to join NATO. Then at least you are not driving them into the arms of the Chinese.
Read more
2

David Edwards
4 days ago
Well I think Russia might have been better just living with NATO, Russia is ruined and it’ll only get worse. NATO hasn’t attacked anyone and you can see why Eastern block countries would want to join given Russian aggressive behaviour in the region.
10

Hide 2 replies
Maz Maz
Maz Maz
2 days ago
I agree with you but the most important thing to remember is whoever’s side you take and no matter who you want to blame, Ukraine has the right to determine it’s own future. It’s that simple.
Ukraine should be whatever it wants to be.
I believe Russians interests lies within Ukraine borders.
Read more

Markus Bieler
1 day ago
Courageous man! Telling it like what he feels is the truth of the situation. I can only imagine that he must be facing pressure in the United States when stating these opionions but he still holds firm.
As for Ukraine, I sincerely hope that this nightmare over there stops very soon, peace is restored and Ukraine can be rebuilt.
Read more
11

juancho baldo
5 days ago
Thank you for such clearly point of view based on facts from past events , it really shows now we still have honorable people who can implement wisdom and knowledge and bring to us a objectively analysis of the how and why this happens…..
9

Hide 6 replies

John Scurr
5 days ago
The ones who invaded Ukraine and created murder and mayhem won’t be in that number then if honour, wisdom and knowledge are your important values then?
Why it happened is easily explained even by someone such as I – it’s because Putin wanted it to. If he hadn’t wanted it to those Russian soldiers would be back in Russia with their families and probably looking forward to a relaxing holiday on the Black sea coast. Rather than garrisoned in the occupied areas of Crimea/Donbass etc.
Read more
2

Bournville Bill
5 days ago
@John Scurr as the saying goes , you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Facts = truth , not opinion .
2

Wakalukong Tuapekkong
5 days ago
@John Scurr. You talked so much without a one sentence mention of the 2014 US-backed and financed coup that overthrew the democtatically elected government of Ukraine.
The first thing the new, illegitmate regime did was to ban the Russian language. Why should Russian-speakers in Dombass, Crimea, Odessa, and other regions allow themselves to be persecuted by an illegal regime? They were entitled to fight the illegal regime persecuting them. So, they broke away, and asked Russia for help. This is one of the bases for the legitimacy of the Russian intervention.
Read more
5

Wakalukong Tuapekkong
5 days ago
Another basis for the legitimacy of the Russian intervention was revealed by Jacques Baud, a former Swiss intelligence officer who had worked with NATO (so much for Swiss neutrality). He revealed that Ukraine had massed troops in Donbass for a major offensive against the region, which had broken away as Ukraine had refused to implement the Minsk Agreement (which Ukraine had signed), and instead gave the people of Donbass 8 years of shelling (surely, not legitimate). The Ukrainians had opened their campaign with increased bombardment on February 16, 2022., about a week before the Russian intervention on February 24, 2022. Hence, what the Russians did was a preemptive strike against Ukraine to prevent a major offensive against Donbass. And preemptive military actions were allowed under international law.
Read more
3

Bournville Bill
5 days ago
@Wakalukong Tuapekkong thanks for highlighting those facts. The more the truth comes out the better the chance for peace .

Brijesh Pazhayathodi
3 days ago
Excellent presentation

Imotep Bangis
2 days ago
It does not matter who was responsible for the Ukrainian crisis. No matter what causes a crisis, war is not the solution. In this regard, Russia is wrong and should not win the war and Russia must be defeated. It would therefore be a lesson for other countries that tend to do the same in the future, such as China that wants to conquer Taiwan.
Read more
9

Hide 9 replies

Ivan Julian
2 days ago
Agreed. It’s like a husband who beats his wife and then says “She made me do it… I felt threatened!”
2

Ivan Julian
1 day ago
@1 OFF howaboutism at it’s finest. Otherwise known as a logical fallacy which argues “the other guy did it too… so that makes it OK.”

Derek Yank
10 hours ago
@Ivan Julian In my case, it`s the other way around.

Ivan Julian
3 hours ago
@1 OFF whatever….

Clive Campbell
4 days ago
Well said.
1

Tim Falkiner
5 days ago
If the Russians did resort to the limited use of nuclear weapons, they might argue they are entitled to use up to 37 kilotons or whatever it was the US have used.
6

Hide reply
Kamadev888
Kamadev888
2 days ago
they didn’t use nukes.
1

Tom Riviere
5 days ago
The U.S. manufactured crisis in Ukraine cannot be separated from the drive for full spectrum dominance all over the world. Today the empire uses Ukraine for its purposes, other nations will be next unless there are organized mass movements against US/NATO aggressions.
51

Hide 18 replies
martti mattila
martti mattila
4 days ago
NATO is our only hope of freedom otherwise Ruski Mir Russian take everything. God bles U.S. weapons.
5

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

John Scott
3 days ago
@erno lokhorst Interesting observation..what a world we live in..

Fallen
2 days ago
The funny thing is weapon companies selling things to middle East and even African countries causing instability out there are from NATO countries. While most people only think Russia is selling their cheap guns but most are from Ukraine

1 OFF
1 day ago
Amen! Well said

Ilya Ginsburg
5 days ago
Thanks for the truth, Professor, but I have a correction. Yanukovich never was “pro-Russian”! He have also tried to integrate Ukraine into EU, and openly said that. He just refused to sign an Agreement of Association with EU since it was very unprofitable to Ukraine. He have hoped to negotiate for a better deal, but USA and Europe had much more sinister plans for Ukraine than just integrating it into EU.
Today Ukrainian society is twisted so badly that even neutrality to Russia is considered a “treason”. That’s why even the neutral Yanukovich is considered “pro-Russian” in Ukraine now. But, thanks God, we don’t live in Ukraine (personally I live in the neighboring Belarus), and we can differ a not-anti-Russian President from a pro-Russian. In fact, Ukraine never had any “pro-Russian” Presidents – and why should it? It was a large and rich country (until the West have engineered a coup in 2014), and it simply didn’t have to be dependent on Russia!
Read more
25

Hide 18 replies
Tony McCaul
Tony McCaul
5 days ago
Correction! His version of the truth.
2

Tony
5 days ago
@Tony McCaul Youtube : can we see all replies instead of the ones that spout the MSM narrative ?
3

joe bloggs
4 days ago
@Ilya Ginsburg What does Neutral mean in ‘The Union State of Russia and Belarus’ ? Lukanshenko has been the ‘Democratically elected leader of Belarus’, since 1994 Putin has been the ‘Democratically elected leader of Russia’ since 2000. Ukraine has had 7 Presidents and from the referendum of 1 December 1991 has chosen to take it’s own path, which is what neutral really means, and Russia has refused to accept this from the beginning. This is the reason for the 1997 Ukraine-Russia Treaty which confirmed that Crimea is Ukraine, and was delayed by Russia at every moment. When will Belarus gain ‘independence from Russia’ ?
Read more

Duarte Simões
4 days ago
What a truckload of lies! Shame on you. You may fool others, you don’t fool me.
1

Ilya Ginsburg
4 days ago
@Duarte Simões Of course, you, living in Spain or Portugal (or even Latin America) know the truth better than I, living in Belarus. Who can doubt in that?

Ilya Ginsburg
4 days ago
@joe bloggs Of course, I am not going to tell you that everyone I know have voted for Lukashenko! But I have voted for him myself, for the 1st time in my life. I don’t like him, but I perfectly understood that he was the only person able to protect Belarus against Maidan 2.0. Should it happen, our Belarus would now fight “to the last Belarussian” against Russia, as Ukraine fights “to the last Ukrainian”. Becoming a Western puppet is the worst thing that can happen. Lukashenko is a lesser evil.
Your logic “nobody recognizes Lukashenko, so he couldn’t win” is absolutely flawed because you don’t take into account the Goebbels’ principle: “The more you repeat a lie, the sooner people will believe in it”. If you control all the mass media, you can twist reality, and the West is doing that for decades. Do you remember Juan Guaido who was proclaimed “a legitimate President of Venezuela”? USA have just chosen a man they liked and called him a President!
BTW, if you didn’t know, China and Turkey have recognized Lukashenko, as well as some other countries. So your “world” consists only of USA, their subordinates and small countries that have almost no relations with Belarus (but don’t want to anger USA).
I have studied the 2020 events thoroughly and can estimate total amount of votes for Tikhanovskaya as about 1 million. Belarus has 7 millions of voters, so these people are MINORITY. Attempt to depict them as “whole Belarussian nation” is just another lie of the Western propaganda.
Everything you know about Putin is false. Yes, he was a KGB officer, so what? Yeltsin was a high-ranked Communist. “Nobody votes” – maybe in Moscow, but not in the rest of Russia. And the “coup” version is simply laughable. There are elections in Russia, nobody forces people to vote, and nobody cheats with the votes. Independent polls demostrate that Putin’s rating is high.
Read more
2

joe bloggs
4 days ago
@Ilya Ginsburg No, but I bet he knows more about what the USSR did in Central and South America

Curt Johnston
4 days ago
Yanukovich was absolutely pro Russian and signing a deal with Russia prevented any possibility of Ukraine being able to join the EU. You’re speaking without knowing what you’re talking about

Curt Johnston
3 days ago
@Ilya Ginsburg he signed a loan agreement with Russia and chose to pursue economic ties with Russia, knowing full well the EU would no longer allow Ukrainian membership for doing so. This is also one of the main reasons why he was ousted by the Ukrainian people. If you didn’t know this than you have no business even commenting on this subject..
Read more

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

Pedro Balburdia
3 days ago
@joe bloggs And USA, you fool

Pedro Balburdia
3 days ago
@Curt Johnston And ? Rússia=bad , EU=good ?

CROSSMAN
2 days ago
When was this recorded

Michal Mos
8 days ago
He is talking a lot about how the West misunderstood Putin and Russians. What about asking the Eastern Europe about it? I guess Poles, Baltics, Finland and Ukraine should have the best understanding of it? But he won’t ask. The answer wouldn’t fit into his narrative of USA being responsible for the invasion.
7

Hide 3 replies

Peli Mies
8 days ago
You are right.
It is lazy excuse to say, that some third country across the globe has created a situation in Ukraine into such, that Russia had no other option than to start a large scale invasion to a country that had made no threats to attack into Russia.
And as we have seen the thousands of war crimes Russia has made in Ukraine, it’s clear that Russia does not care laws or treaties.
Funny thing is that because Putin was in China, asking Xi’s approval to the invasion; Xi wanted Putin to wait after the Winter Olympics – and because this delay, the Ukrainian frozen soil got thawn, and the Russian army columns got stuck on the roads for weeks – absolutely decimating the surprice attack.
Read more

Havoc1521
8 days ago

world lover
2 days ago
Wow!!Thnks for ur perception!!

Emily W
5 days ago (edited)
That they fight and HOW they fight is all on Russia. It’s like saying the locus of control for a country is not in the hands of the country. We are not aiming nuclear weapons at Russia or making those threats. 2014, Russia invaded and they of course armed. And wanted help. And preferred people who the West. There was a contract that Russia broke. Suddenly Russia invaded in 2014 and he did post on Kremlin site he wanted USSR territory renewal. Russia doubles down also. Countries want to join NATO for good reasons.
Read more
7

Hide reply
Jeff Stevens3
Jeff Stevens3
5 days ago
Down here in Florida I agree with you totally. I’m retired Air Force and new Democrats wanted another war. I agree with you about the responsibility is West liberals and the war mongers in Capital.
9

Hide 9 replies

Guy Littleford
5 days ago
It was Trump who started sending arms to Ukraine, Reagan who sent arms to South America, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Raw Words
3 days ago
@Guy Littleford it started from the Obama administration

Guy Littleford
3 days ago
@Raw Words The Obama administration did certainly increase the temperature. I agree. But it was Trump who started sending in weapons.

Miroslav Dusin
2 days ago
@Guy Littleford You guys have no clue what it is to live next to Russia. Listen to Alexander Stubb who (and his ancestors) has this experience. Not internet based theoretical analyses like those of professor Mearsheimer.
1

Guy Littleford
2 days ago
@Miroslav Dusin That’s true. Still, the Russians offered to allow Ukraine to remain a neutral independent state, after they had separated Donbas, which is basically Russian. Donbas is a major part of Ukraine’s economy, of course. My point is that nothing can be done to prevent this outcome. Fighting this war has no net benefit, and huge downsides for Ukraine, Eastern Europe and the world. The Russians don’t want to permanently occupy East Ukraine. They want Donbas and Crimea, and they want NATO to stay where it is, and advance no further. When peace talks are held, this will be agreed. One could argue that we should fight for Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is not feasible either.
Read more
1

David Carter
4 days ago
Finally the truth has come out
1

Khalid Hussain
8 days ago
Professor do you think the American retreat from Afghanistan was because of opening war with Russia??

Hide reply
Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
4 days ago
Good question.

Hans H
3 days ago
By what right can Russia decide that Ukraine can not join any alliance of their choosing?
11

Tim Jackson
3 days ago
This whole argument makes no sense without maps!

Christine Conti
9 days ago
Such a sad situation
4

Ulf Jansson
4 days ago
The analysis focus too much of what Russia and the USA wants. He forgets to ask what the people of Ukraine wish to have; a liberal democracy or an authoritarian corrupt kleptocracy? The same is valid for Georgia. Another question is of course whether the Ukraine is able to transform from a higfh degree of corruption to a true democracy, but that should be up to them.
Read more
8

Hide 3 replies
Zarathustra
Zarathustra
3 days ago
When the USA is involved in the policy making of the country then it doesn’t matter what the country wants. Just ask those countries who are under sanction just because they chose a route which is against the US policies.
1

Peter Galko
2 days ago
When you ask the question what do the Ukrainians want you immediately run into the question of what is a Ukrainian which then gets into the question of who’s opinion matters. If you define a Ukrainian to be someone who had Ukrainian citizenship in 2014 you do not get the population that Zelensky responds to. There are plenty of nationalists who would exclude much of the people in the Ukraine as genuine Ukrainians. That’s why we get these groups like the Right Sector perfectly willing to persecute those Russian speaking Ukrainians and deny them any political role in the state. The US used the division in Ukrainians and the greater political activism of nationalists Ukrainians to create the coup and take over the state. What Ukrainians in the east want is very clearly different than what the Western Ukrainians want. It is interesting to note that in the last census of the Ukraine before this conflict ever raised its head, about 49% of citizens were identified as ethnically Russian, but over 60% self-identified as Russian. Yet now the Zelensky regime can pass laws that ban education in Russian. Ok
Read more
1

Joe Garry
9 days ago
My own thoughts exactly.
5

Gg
3 days ago (edited)
As far as worrying about the blame I’d be more concerned about resolving the issue. We’re taking time to talk about it. People were dying and Suffering.
1

Betabit Zee
2 days ago
All this may be remotely related to the extension of the “Silk Road” initiative, (out with the old infrastructure, in with the new). I suspect a similar infrastructure realignment in northern Syria.
1

Susan Louise Darnell
3 days ago
Excellent talk

Ayobambam Enilo
3 days ago
A clear-head analysis

shunichi kinoe
3 days ago
If the US is involved on this pretty much Israel is also very involve on this

Vladimir Dula
4 days ago
“Thank YOU!”
3

Wainda Youngthain
1 day ago
in the good time of the Olympic 2008, and every time if’s the Russia Presidency’s has the national mission for the Russia, there’s a conflict beginning, to Georgia, Ukraine and the last one is to have the discussion with the USA Today, at Swiss. I have never seen any problems if’s the normal relationship is the problem, but it’s the West and the USA in the conflict made by the uk manipulation. I don’t understand what’s happening with the graduated high elite ranking for the Election , it was no faith whatsoever for the world community.
Nato always said togetherness with the democratic leadership, it’s Russia aggression even with the G20 economic discussion, which means they have no ways whatsoever to solve the problems and hasn’t seen how the people protesting for? How’s to stop for the West eruptions, why’d the government intensified with grasping your power.
How’s severe on the economic recovery process, if’s there’s no solutions from the government. How’s the increasing number of the jobless, cold trauma, no energy problems that are going to happen with your losing power.
I have ever written for the electric meaning for the industrial and it’s happening with Japan.
How’s to explain why you are the government’s? You let’s do just get your own power, not honesty to control the economic downward process of the Sanctioning the Russia, in the order of the USA today’s, from long time you used to make the truth twisted on your manipulation of the Wrongs are the Russia President.
How’s the West union in serfs for the Ukraine leadership, who’s doing for the USA Today Nazi Holocaust command.
Today’s I learned about the President Today’s Order over the Courts of no man hasn’t rights for the women opinions on the Abortive rights, no respect for the laws whatsoever especially for the USA world disorder.
How’s the faith feeling for the Democratic dictator.
Read more

D.b David b
2 hours ago
Despite the economic downturn,I’m so happy. I have been earning $ 60,000 returns from my $7,000 investment every 13days
1

Hide 21 replies
Stefano Varasso
Stefano Varasso
2 hours ago
People will be kicking themselves in few week’s If they miss The Opportunity Too Buy and Invest In Bitcoin as It retracing…..BE WISE.

David Geoff
2 hours ago
I have also been trading with him, The profits are secured and over a 100% return on investment directly sent to your wallet. I made up to $560,000 in 2months trading with him

Maxwell Macaulay
2 hours ago
The war in Ukraine is meant to open your yes to the reality in the financial system. Real estate firm and other businesses are also closed too,, only crypto holders and crypto investors are spending money with ease..

Catherine Britton
2 hours ago
I’m actually tired of worrying about stocks. It’s driving me nuts these days,I think crypto investment is far better than stock made over $39k in a week

Tavish Seumas
2 hours ago
wow that’s very nice Please how can i be able to reach out to your broker, my income stream is in a mess.please

David Geoff
2 hours ago
@Tavish Seumas He’s on what’s Apk .

David Geoff
2 hours ago
私は今幸せです✜𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓𝟏𝟑𝟑𝟔𝟎𝟐私はとても幸せです

Nicole Carla
2 hours ago
@David Geoff I also needed his info too I’ll write him thanks

Mingus Mungo
1 hour ago
Absolutely, trading investment is a safer and surest way to make more money now because I have made up to $132,000 recently from investment trading and management

Maria Yepes
1 hour ago
With an initial investment of $2,400 i made up to $11,700 in just a week of trading with him, Mr Elliot Benjamin strategies are mind blowing.

William Emma
1 hour ago
So delighted seeing my broker talked bout on YouTube, This was exactly how I got recommendation bout Mr Elliot Benjamin, At First I was a bit skeptical but eventually I gave him a trail with my little investment and I got huge profit.

Rab Ninian
1 hour ago
Count me in because I’m placing my trades with Expert Elliot Benjamin ASAP.

Karin Marciniak
1 hour ago
It’s very easy work with a professional an expert who can help you with good signals

Temple Andrew
1 hour ago
Yes working with an expert is the best way making good income in crypto Mr Elliot Benjamin has helped me a lot. with a lot of professional signals and it’s really profitable to me

Danilo Adalberto
1 hour ago
Yeah Mr Elliot Benjamin he’s a well known man in the crypto market I started working with him since 2017and it’s has been a good experience

Wiley Ruskin
1 hour ago
Please how can I get in touch with your broker??

Maria Yepes
1 hour ago
@Wiley Ruskin He’s on what’s Apk .

Maria Yepes
1 hour ago
私は今幸せです✜𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓𝟏𝟑𝟑𝟔𝟎𝟐私はとても幸せです

Wiley Ruskin
1 hour ago
@Maria Yepes I messaged your broker and he responded, thanks alot

Lockie Kyle
1 hour ago
I’m in a long term trader with him I only withdraw every 6 months and I’ve made about $90,230 since last year November it’s okay for me he’s a good man to work with

Smekx Nqumalo
3 days ago
Thank you sir for the butter pill

Employee M
1 day ago
He talks about Ukraine as about object. He does not take into account that Ukraine is a subject, i.e. it is a state with its own will. Talking about Ukraine as about object between east and west is a classical Putin’s agenda.

cally2011
9 days ago
To sum up….. nato made me do it
1

Commuter branch line
7 days ago
The Professor foretold this exact situation 20 years ago………
14

Hide 3 replies

John Scurr
5 days ago
Valeriya foretold this before the professor started making excuses for the the perpetrator and started blaming the victim. Making her point cost imprisonment at the hands of the KGB and maybe even her life eventually RIP brave lady. Mearsheimer’s opinions are of no consequence by comparison.

Read more
1

P E
5 days ago
No he did not, he did not believe Putin would attack Ukraine because doing so would create a long drawn out war.

John Scurr
4 days ago
@P E That is in response to what please.

David Rahman
8 days ago
Thank you sir for your excellent analysis.
6

Gil Orms
2 days ago
He predicted most of what’s happening in 2022 about a decade prior but my appreciation of his analysis is tempered by earlier videos in which he refers to his ‘friends’ in Beijing and Moscow.
1

bendike73
1 day ago
Ha, a concise analysis.
Watch some folks call him a “Russian bot” because he says the truth.

Jane Marett
2 days ago
No one has mentioned the fact , that suddenly Putin has become extremely wealthy, with his oligarchs . The rest of rural Russia is subject to poverty and lack of decent education. As the thefts by Russian soldiers portrays their background of poverty they come from . Putin has kept his people in low social economic situation.
5

View reply

Nick Dylan
2 days ago
Most Americans DO NOT accept this analysis. God help us

Dr.Md.Anwarul Islam
8 days ago
Great analysis
5

Andrew Visser
1 day ago
Why no mention of European involvement? It seems that you make this a purely US – Russia issue which is being played out in Ukraine. Is it the case that because the US leads NATO, the rest are led by the nose? Also, no mention of Finland and Sweden’s addition to NATO, which surely must influence the state of play in the region. I can understand how the author lays down much of the blame at the door of the US, but does not explain what he thinks drives NATO to encourage the incorporation of these countries bordering Russia to into the fold. In short I don’t fully understand his point of view.
Read more
1

Hide reply
Bernard Charlesworth
3 days ago
The gentleman is having trouble putting a sentence together.
4

Hide 2 replies
Bernard Charlesworth
1 day ago
@1 OFF I could say more .

Norberto Costa
18 hours ago
For some people, living in the shadow of US is the solution por peace in the world. So the all mighty US will protect all countries in the world from nasty external threats. Is this right, OR just a fallacy and even if US turns rule all the world the peace will prevail? Are Americans such a good persons? Or just good strategists?

Mike Callahan
10 days ago
Wise words from a wise man.
21

Hide 11 replies

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
And we are all not wise or we are trying to be wise? The fairly tale of The Kings New Clothes, so if we told he is wise man we will be as wise as him but what if he not wise then what we are? Please ask yourself that burning house, killing people by both side and destroy a lot of family in front of your face is the other people wrong doing of the past. The small lamp was killed by the wolf because of his father long time ago, the people in Ukraine died because of the past in history and they deserved to died? No it is not and all wise men on this planet have no right to speak like that.
Read more

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
lamb, sorry

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@terachai chaorattana then please give me a bit enlightment of your wisdom.
What Rusia should do oh the wise one?

terachai chaorattana
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie I have not having that wisdom only I hope they will stop killing each other, and see that wise man talking about who right or wrong, I feel it is not the time to talk about it, we have to talk which way to stop Russia to killing themself and other people, and you know it is not soldiers who died it is children, civilians and no place to live at the same time in Russia country they live happily not knowing how many life of Ukrainians struggle day by day to live and not die, I can feel that pain, can you?
Read more

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago (edited)
@terachai chaorattana when someone is forced to choose between himself or his friend who must die, then someone will still die.
Shouldn’t the choice giver be the one to stop?

terachai chaorattana
5 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie not so sure what is your question, please give me more the detail, I just want to stop fighting before talking, if grown up people hit the child in front of mister Mearsheimer what he will do, first trying to stop the grown up guy hit that boy, second lecture the people around himself the history of the grown up man and the child and let the grown up man hit the boy on and on, what do you think? Having you heard the people around the world condemned and trying to stop the animal cruelty person or country, in Ukraine it is more than that, they are human as sane as you and me, no one can kill them in case of any reason, that is all lie for the true point behind the killing.
Read more

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
5 days ago (edited)
@terachai chaorattana ok then try telling Zelensky to give up so no more people gets hurt.
Do you get it now?

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

coyote
5 days ago
What do you mean by the Threat of China? Do you mean military or economic?

Hồ Chủ Tiệm
4 days ago
This guy is a good friend of Putin. He forgot to mention that the Russian said that they was not going to invade Ukraine, the troop build up near the border was just military exercise. Putin wanted the whole Ukraine in order to control the world food supply and oil reserve in the Black sea. Lenin once said grains is the currency of currencies and Ukraine is the food basket of Europe.
Read more
8

Hide reply

Rodmeaux Adesacra
7 days ago
We’re all brothers.
2

Pip Roberts
7 days ago
For those who do not understand the gravity of what an existential threat is or what it means, I will explain.
An existential threat is one that threatens the very existence or survival of your race, people, language, nation ect.
To be faced with this type of threat is by its very nature a fight to the death, in an attempt to survive and avert being made extinct as a race tribe, people, nation etc.
Many watchingbthis probably eint understand the gravity of what Russia means when the term existential threat is used, simply falling onto “a threat to russia” and nio “a threat of being eradicated”.
Faced with such a threat level or consideration that a threat poses this level of concern for ANY nation to feel this threatened and voicing their concern is a sign to back off and stand down as the threatened nation will do ANYTHING to win.
Don’t be fooled by the western media, leaders and social media BS.
RUSSIA WILL NOT ALLOW FAILURE IN UKRAINE AND LOSS OF THIS WAR.
This war will be Ukraine surrenders, NATO & USA stfu and fo, or Russia bombs Ukraine into the stoneage or worse turn CRITICAL and goes Nuclear warfare route to ensure no one wins.
The USA, UK, EU, NATO & UN, had better get their fingers out out Ukraine, shut their mouths and walk away while some Ukrainians are still alive. While Russia is not so pissed/threatened that they go and level Ukraine or worse go nuclear. There is only one logical, humanitarian and common sense way out of this.
Walk away admit your hand was called and leave
(I’m talking to you USA, UK, EU, NATO & UN). Your bluff was called!
Read more
31

Hide 67 replies

James C
6 days ago
@Pip Roberts russia has no say in a sovereign country’s decision making.
Nato is only a threat to russian expansion & not to its sovereign integrity, the rest is russian paranoia.
Poland,Romania, Hungary & other ex vasal states to russia were correct in seeking protection from russian aggression.
Read more
13

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@James C So the Cuban crisis was just American paranoia?
5

James C
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie Where’s the relevance ?
How could an event from 1962 justify the russian invasion of Ukraine ?
4

James C
6 days ago
@Pip Roberts If Russia truly believes in the “Pyramid of Power” when will it accept that it is not at the apex of the pyramid ?

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@James C find it

The Wolf of God
5 days ago
@James C Relevance, it is literally the very same logic used to Justify the effort. What does 1962 have to do with it? Like the founding fathers didn’t know better than to enslave. Let’s stop wishing ourselves stupid.

James C
5 days ago
@The Wolf of God russia recognised Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty in 1991 & 1994
2

James C
5 days ago
@The Wolf of God LOL

John Scurr
5 days ago
@James C Just as importantly it never has been and any chance it might have had disappeared the moment Ukraine humiliated it in what was supposed to be a one week war.

David Bell
5 days ago
The most accurate statement I’ve ever seen regarding this stianyone with half a brain can see Russia did not enter this with the consideration

David Bell
5 days ago
100 percent it was called “game set match .

James C
5 days ago
@The Wolf of God “Relevance, it is literally the very same logic used to Justify the effort.” – Exactly the same logic that Adolph Hitler used to start his war.
2

Pip Roberts
5 days ago
@Øfsti Mellom you are delusional if you believe Russia is or will lose this war.
Russia has not sent its entire armed forces to Ukraine, its is only a part of it, whereas Ukraines entire armed forces are involved.
You are out of your mind to think Russia is losing or could lose to Ukraine.
Read more
1

Øfsti Mellom
4 days ago
@Pip Roberts they have not sendt their entire forces yet. Sure but they have sendt their best. And they are dead or decimated. They have spendt their best equipment. Their air force have failed. Ukranian airforce still exist. They are running out of resources. Russian car industry cant get any vital components.
3

Zak Kazi
4 days ago
Good advice.

Larry Hughes
4 days ago
Great assessment. I’m Irish. IF we were foolish enough to get tooled up by China or Russia to the extent of posing a serious danger to UK we would deserve all we got. There is responsibility in independence. This conflict has also exposed the true nature of Polish Baltic and Ukraine Nazi collaborators during WW2. Not much of what we have been told seems true.
Read more
1

Nein
4 days ago
The insanity is real. It is Ukraine that is facing existancial threath, but you don’t even recognize that.
4

Pip Roberts
4 days ago
@Chris Woollacott again face politics and economics, take a deep dive and learn something.
China and the Indian sub-continent are buying more oil and gas from putin now than the west ever did, China is the world’s leading producer, and world’s largest population. They require unfathomable amounts of energy to run the country, India one of the world’s largest populations again needs more than the whole European continent did.
European area has 750m people in it compared to 1.7 BILLION in India that’s 1.625 Billion more people than Europe.
China has 1.4 Billion. Together China and India have nearly half the earth’s population in two countries 3.1 BILLION people. You really think Russia will go broke selling gas and oil to these two alone even as a huge discount given the quantities they require, Russia will go broke?
You’re reading upside down my friend.
USA 330m
EU 750m
CANADA 40m
TURKEY 85m
MEXICO 129mAUSTRALIA 26m
NEW ZEALAND 5m
JAPAN 125m
Even all those added together don’t come close to china’s population ALONE.
Russia has over 80 Billion barrels of oil reserves making it 8th in the world however Russias consumption to reserve ratio is low meaning russias reserves (in the ground) is more than 60 times its consumption rate, it has a vast amount to spare oil for export.
So selling to the massive populations of China and India ensures DEMAND selling low to get them hooked ensures uptake and agreements to be signed. Finally Russia is swimming in money from sales, the longer it goes on in Ukraine the more money Russia gets from these two giant consumers to keep paying for their war.
To think Russia is weak, ill-trained, underfunded or any other negative is just wishful thought and clinging to false ideas of Russia historically and is by no means a real, modern, or up to date opinion of Russia position fiscally or militarily its wishful thinking and “once was” rhetorical anecdotes.
Ukraine WILL LOSE there is no possible way to win, not even the GREATEST leaders of history could win this war.
The Spartans put up a great fight at Thermopylae against the Persians…. BUT THEY LOST!
It does not matter what you think, believe, or want, overwhelming numbers be they fiscal military or any other metric dictate the outcome. The only small numbers that over come great numbers is though deception or secrecy, NEVER head to head all out war.
Just accept the truth and stop supporting death of thousands only to be proven wrong. Ukraine should surrender and stop this war and save those that are left.
But they know that Putin has no time for them now, they have broken one agreement too many, Russia cannot trust their word and Ukraine knows it, this is ehy they won’t surrender because there is no point. Russia won’t listen to more lies from a corrupt country.
This is how it is in the real world, dirty, bloody and brutally savage.
Anyone thinking the world is tame and gentle living and kind is deluded, death and savagery is all around us, in the animal kingdoms in the less westernised countries like China a 1st world country, Japan where tradition is death before dishonour etc.
This is a brutal world and brutal things happen, big stronger and piss’d off countries will slap you hard as Russia is now to Ukraine, as it was with Georgia, Chechnya etc. Don’t lie to, piss off or try to revolt and sabotage Russia, you will get put in your place. Much the same as USA, did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan (almost), Korea, etc.
Most of those were illegal, based upon lies I know I was in some of them with the British Army.
Be real! Russia is not losing the war and WONT lose this war. Russia has the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons which are NOT what the nuclear weapons treaties cover as such NATO cannot launch continental nukes in retaliation also known as strategic nuclear missiles.
If Russia is losing you think they won’t use a tactical nuke to put Ukraine in a box? Make a 30 mile area of Ukraine uninhabitable for over 5000 years. You think Ukraine or NATO wants that?
Of course not, so if Russia DOES (highly unlikely) start to lose, they’d roll out a couple dozen tactical nukes, see who wants to press the advantage against eussia on the battlefield knowing their about to lose the war to a nuke endgame.
Your mental to think Russia will lose. Why is NATO nit fighting? Why is the EU countries (stepping aside of NATO) and going to Ukraine to fight? Because they all know they will lose.
There is no rule preventing UK, GERMANY FRANCE etc independently going to ukraines defence outside of NATO. Yet they don’t, because its foolish to do so, it won’t end well, so we keep sending arms and cash until Ukraine quits or loses.
Read more
4

Shawn Ricmond
3 days ago
@James C Your deep understanding of the situation is laughable. “Russia bad, Russia bad” said the parrot.

Bhob138
3 days ago
@Pip Roberts i half agree with you, I’m not a yay America patriot. I care that my country has been comandeered my global corporations. Я учу русский язык, мне нравится русском культуры и музыка… I don’t like since 1999 i can’t talk about Russia or it’s people about a them vs the west putin was in charge of fsb the Chechnya levelling made nato an easy sell, Georgia and Ukraine still don’t even qualify but cited interest in nato and eu, putin become leader and has made it his mission to be remembered, he compares himself to Peter in his own propaganda. I love russians I hate thier gov atm. Im sure the us are pointing guns at Finland and Sweden now. So I do agree my country benefits from a Boogeyman, it’s really easy when a leader calls liberal democracy fake and says he’s going to reclaim the empire’s territories. This Ukraine crap is a lot of poetry for a land bridge to a warm port….
Read more

Bhob138
3 days ago
@Pip Roberts the grumpy neighbor that will torch your house for wanting to install a security system.
1

James C
3 days ago
@Shawn Ricmond There’s no escaping the truth.

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

Pip Roberts
3 days ago
@Bhob138 look I’m not pro Russia, I’m not Pro US either. I’m a Brit, a patriotic, law abiding tax paying monarchist. I’m a military veteran of the British Army having served 16 years in the cavalry.
I know my geo political history, and military facts and figures, Soviet and post Soviet military tactics and obviously the western military tactics which Ukraine has been taught by the west for the last 8 yrs.
My allegiances are not with any side ir nation but with humanity and law. On the surface the Ukraine war does look as it is reported, that Putin is an invading force, breaking all laws are rules and trying to make territorial gains of the pre-federal era.
However, when the history, facts, reporting, hyperbole and western Govt spin is all analysed it makes no sense, it does not add up. Its the old 2+2=5 situation.
So remove the reporting (headline grabbing), remove the hyperbole, remove western Govt spin, and examine the basic facts and geo-political history. It starts to make sense, then add in the Russian perspective BEFORE western spin and re-examine the outcomes, then look at western actions (not words actions), overlay Russian and Ukrainian commentary, then bring in non-US govt actions words etc. It all adds up to lies by the west to demonise Russia,.
I believe in truth, I don’t care where I find it, I only care who’s telling me lies. So far it’s the west, through our main stream media.
Russia, Ukraine and the west are all UN members, Ukraine bring one of the founding members since 1947.
Yet, the UN and all member states with the exception of Russia have ignored the international human rights and war crimes committed by Ukraine since 2014 in Crimea and Donbas oblast.
The IHL, (International humanitarian law) states that shutting off water to civilians or PoW’s is a war crime, yet in 2017 Ukraine did this by damming the Ctimea canal supplying 85% of Crimeas freshwater. On the basis that crimea held a referendum and voted for Russian control and governance. By a massive majority 80+% turn out and 96% in favour of Russia. (Cameras font lie when watching videos showing the ctimeans holding signs saying “US & UK Facists out of Ukraine”.
We (the US & UK) were messing in the Ukrainian political system since 2012. Crimea did not like how the pro US &UK Ukrainian govt had turned against the non Ukrainian speaking people (native Russian speakers).
This prompted the referendum as a result of abolishment of the two language agreements put in place by Yanukovych prior to being chased out of Ukraine by far right groups (Right Sector and other smaller groups) all of which had for years promised an overthrow of the Ukrainian govt and held ethnic hierarchy views
similar to nazi Germany, when the homes of right sector members is examined against a world war two map of Ukrainian nazi regiments they are almost identical, these fascist nazi right sector groups are almost all in galicia in the west of Ukraine, exactly where the nazi units were formed and based in world war two.
Back to today, Ukraine shut the canal, this broke international humanitarian law, it broke the Geneva Convention on war, it broke international red Cross guidlines for conflict, did any one of them speak up? NO!
Why? Because they are all connected to the US, directly or indirectly through the UN or NATO. Who orchestrated the overthrown of Yanukovych the CIA using NGO’s in Ukraine, CIA has had an office there for over 12 years. Hence the Crimean signs saying “fascists leave”.
So Russia under the referendum result on Crimea obliged them and agreed to accept the crimeans back into Russia whee they came from, where they have been since 1783 until 1956 when still in Soviet Russia they were “Gifted” to Ukraine as a thank you.
Then 1991 the Soviet Union fell apart, Ukraine became an independent state Crimea attached to it with ethnic Russians living there, as in Donbas, things went up and down as in all countries but the far right were getting louder and louder, then 2013 orange revolution and “Maidan” the president is overthrown and ousted, the far right move in and undo the harmonisation and integration of ethnic Russians into Ukraine since their former country collapsed for everyone Yanukovych wanted to unite Ukraine and create a harmonious nation, the far right did not. So crimea saw the writing on the wall and said “we’re off”.
Russia did not invade and annex Crimea. This is a western govt lie to show Russia as evil and territoriallly driven on expansionism. It untrue!
Then Ukraine started attacking the ethnically Russian people of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas, hoping to drove them out and flee into Russia across the border. They did not flee, instead they fought back, they asked Russia to help with ammunition and supplies ie medical and food.
Russia agreed (much like the west is now with ukraine, but when Russia did it that was wrong, two wrongs don’t make it right).
Ukraine was told and knew that the IMF would not give fiscal support to a nation at war, so Ukraine made up “separatists” and “terrorists” to justify fighting them, this changed civil war into domestic security. Allowing IMF money to come into Ukraine, Did anyone call this out? NO!
Why? Because the IMF was a part of the UN, EU and was supported by International money. Going against political bodies and national govts would not be good for business. So again the international stage stayed quiet because US & UK UN, NATO EU were all playing the same cards,get Ukraine in the EU and NATO. Ukraine has a large oil fields, the world’s 3rd largest grain exports, massive natural resource in metals etc and massive cheap manufacturing capabilities. Militarily it allows a ‘park walk’ into the don’t under belly of Russia along uts flattest route and least obstructed direct path to Moscow.
Placing troops tanks aur power and missiles in Ukraine means ghe erst could over run Russia in days to a couple of weeks.
This is the existential threat Putin talks of and Russia has done for 30 years now. The UN ignore and dismiss Russia everytime that Russia raises concerns about this.
So to today’s war in ukraine, Putin knew that the Minsk agreements were never going to be honoured, that the west and the UN were never going to vondemn ujraines blatant criminal behaviour and punish those responsible for war crimes and murder of civilians. So roll upto 24th Feb 2022, Putin goes on global TV and states he will invade Ukraine and why, he says its to de-nazify, de-militarise and PoC (Protection of Civilians) this PoC matters because this is what makes the invasion legal and lawfully done.
Russia as a UN member invoked the art 51, part 7 of the UN Charter, that states that where there are civilians being attacked and need protection ANY military units may enter into a nation and protect them using force if required. This is what Putin did.
This is when Russian broadcasts stopped in the west, and Russia was accused of propaganda.
Yet western media can propagandise all day and night without restrictions. This was true gor ghe 1991 Iraq war, 2003 Iraq war, 2002 Afghanistan war Syria the list goes on. Western media always have a real baddy that we MUST defeat to save the world.
Purin is removing nazis, the Ukrainian military to pull Ukraine teeth out and prevent more unrest later in the nation and to remove the right wing elements from Kyiv and the Rada.
There is much BS, and spin bring told and is to be expected, however historically when the western dpin and facts and genuine records are examined the story us totally different from what the west and western media report.
Ukraine are the criminals, the US, UK, EU, UN, NATO and their allies are hiding the truth and hoping for the rewards.
Ukraine is no good to the West if it is demonised by us, because they won’t cooperate with us, so we cover up the truth. A corrupt nation as Ukraine has bo problem being corrupt either other nations who accept the corruption.
We the public are told Ukraine can win, will win blah blah, and this is a total lie and impossibility.
Russias capabilities are not even being tested let alone stretched. Russia has manufacturing within its own borders to replace its weapons and munitions, its troops have fought wars in Afghanistan Syrua Chechnya Georgia and know how to fight they train often and alway use live fire not play time with laser tag or blank rounds.
Ukraine has been taught the western method of urban conflict ‘FIBUA’ (Fighting In Built Up Areas). The Ukrainians do not know this too well and F’it up, this vosts lives, massive numbers of them to ukrsine.
The arms demands by Ukraine
500 Tanks
800 Artillery pieces
Blah blah
Each tank has between 3 and 4 crew, each field Artillery has between 4 and 8 crew. If Ukraine needs that many pieces of kit, WHERE ARE THE CREWS WHO WRRE IN THE ORIGINAL TANK OR ARTILLERY ??????
500 tanks that’s upto 2000 dead or wounded, 800 artillery pieces between 2400 and 4800 dead or wounded. Yes I know dome may be unwounded but those are few and far between say 10-20%
That point is thousands of troops are dead or wounded. That rate of loss is unsustainable for the US let alone Ukraine.
Another war crime was the forcing I’d civilians to take up arms and preventing their leaving the country, this is a war crime in a civilised nation too. Did we cry an outrage????
NO! we all said “oh brave Ukraine fighting for its freedom”.
A freedom that was not under threat until they broke their own agreements, in the Minsk 1 & 2 agreements, started killing men, women children elderly sick and disabled, refusing medical care and covid assistance to the donbas people instead shelling with Artillery and Grad rockets into civilian areas.
US, UK, EU, UN, NATO, MEDIA, & UKRAINE ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS HERE NOT RUSSIA.
But in numbers they have legitimacy since they can’t all be liars can they?
YES they can, and are!
Read more
4

Shawn Ricmond
3 days ago
@James C The truth is you believe lies and your reality is false. Time will not be your friend.

Bhob138
3 days ago
@Pip Roberts if you were able to read all my comments I’ve ever wrote about this it would look like you and I say the same things but from a different perspective and a lot of ukrainians minds they have been at war. Russia could have continued to lease the port no problem it’s quite convenient that shell and other Western oil interests were in the area and now have their infrastructure seized boo Ukraine for trying to compete with Russia. I can agree I don’t think NATO or EU complies with the UN that’s a problem however it’s not a reason to turn a blind eye to Russia propagating and supporting the idea of the russophobia. I have no doubts that a lot of ukrainians don’t like Russians I found this out when I mistook a Ukrainian for a Russian in 2008 I got a pretty decent history lesson from his perspective. Now you obviously see it from a different side than I do the west and Russia have both had their fingers in this country the difference is the West isn’t holding a gun to their head. We could complain about China and Africa and the debt traps being set up there. Crimea was not a mistake the Donbas is not a mistake. The interests that really want to be served in this region are no different than one another they just wave different flags and the result is the people that live there suffer. The 18th century behavior of these people playing a big civ game with no regard for the population sucks but here we are
Read more
1

Irv
3 days ago
Nah, the UK will fight Russia until the last Ukrainian

Vijay Vijay
3 days ago
@James C In your next door neighbour house if there were armed people at their rooftops with snipers and bazookas won’t you feel threatened? How would you feel if he says I have sovereignty to do such things.?

James C
3 days ago
@Vijay Vijay If a bank has armed guards who feels threatened ?
Thanks for illustrating how Ukraine felt with russia posturing on its borders.
No-one has threatened russia’s international borders, not since 1945.
What should be done about Kaliningrad having nuclear weapons in the heart of the EU ?
Read more

David DeRolph
2 days ago
@David Bell What do you mean by “consideration”?

David DeRolph
2 days ago
@Pip Roberts Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, apparently thinking Ukraine would topple in just a few days. But, the war has been going on for about 4 1/2 months now and Russia has experienced huge losses in personnel and equipment. So, what makes think Russia will not lose this war?

xxExcelentDugxx
2 days ago (edited)
@David DeRolph Yeah, the losses are irrelevant, Russia has more weapons than Ukraine, and more armored vehicles and tanks, and artillery, Ukraine is outnumbered and outgunned, Russia does not even use it’s full force, if they did, there wouldn’t be any Ukraine, just like US carpet bombed Iraq, keep believing CNN, Ukraine has lost more equipment and weapons. And you can’t see that. And it was confirmed that Russia only lost 4000 of it’s soldiers.
Read more

Sean Hross
2 days ago
@James C Do you work for Youtube’s political section?

James C
2 days ago
@Sean Hross Haha – no.
Is there such a thing ?

Sean Hross
2 days ago
@James C Then, who are you? Because there’s something fishy about the way you comment.

Pip Roberts
2 days ago
@David DeRolph BTW, to say Russia invaded Ukraine thinking “it would topple in a few days”.
This is for,
1). conjecture on yours or another’s part.
2). Ridiculous since Russia has been watching Ukraine fight itself in donbas for 8 years,
If the Russians know anything its how Ukraine fights FIBUA, and what tactics they employ.
Russia knows exactly what Ukraine can do, will do and should do. Russia is not under ANY illusion whatsoever about what is happening, will could and may happen…
Again this is conjecture of Russian abilities, propagation of this crap is the media and state leaders and Ukraine itself.
They are not going to tell the west, “Ukraine is losing and there’s no way back for ukraine” because support and money oh and weapons stops. It’s all lies to keep you thinking that your supporting a winner, eventually the truth can’t be contained and it’ll all be a huge surprise and unexpected win for Russia.
I’m telling you now, it’s not unexpected, it’s no surprise it’s predetermined by logic and common sense, facts and not watching the media lies, go dig in historical files and films many on here predicting this very situation as far back as 6, 7 and 8 years ago.
The story you tell is the story you’ve heard from media sources, not your own fact finding missions. Try it dig unearth read everything from all sides and then come back and tell me what you think. I’ll look forward to your enlightenment
Read more

James C
2 days ago
@Pip Roberts I disagree with your questionable ‘facts’ & their exaggeration, your twisting narratives & attempts to overwhelm any argument by pure volume of content (of which a great deal is plainly wrong, or only 1/2 of the story at best).
The bottom line is that none of your ‘arguments’ justify russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.
Read more

James C
2 days ago
@Sean Hross Just someone who’s had enough of russian BS – causing problems & then playing the victim.

Sean Hross
2 days ago
@James C So am I, James. I’m not Russian, but I’m a homeless South African living rough in France; just punch my name in the internet.

James C
2 days ago
@Pip Roberts RIA Novosti’s article on the 26th of Feb prematurely celebrating russia’s victorious regime change in Ukraine is a pretty big clue as to russia’s expectations at the time.
The article was removed within 24 hrs (when they realised that Ukraine hadn’t folded), but not before it had been archived on the internet.
Maybe you should find & read that article, from what you’ve been writing it’s the sort of article that you would enjoy.
Read more

James C
2 days ago
@Sean Hross Oki doki, maybe you should look into the russian power structure (including Kirill).
SA has thrown up quite a few ex pats into the European continent as a hangover from the apartheid era – plenty of alternative communes in Italy, France & Spain that will make your living rough in Europe pretty comfortable, just don’t be too aggressive with them.
Enjoy your travels.
Read more

Pip Roberts
2 days ago
@James C do you have a link James? I’d appreciate the insight.
As I keep saying. I read all sides and deliberate using logic and understanding not ‘hearsay’ from the media alone.
You are probably correct I may erll enjoy it, thank you.
Read more

befeleme
2 days ago
@Pip Roberts This is a perfect, verifiable fact based summary of the situation, as I understand it. Extremely well put in a comprehensive form that I have not seen anywhere else yet. I wish everyone would read this!

David Bell
2 days ago
@David DeRolph cant remember or find what I said refresh my memory pls

Pip Roberts
1 day ago
@befeleme thank you

KentuckyGreg
17 hours ago
Interesting look at the Ukraine war from another viewpoint. Unfortunately Russia invaded an independent nation, did the US invade Cuba to change a political decision? For some reason Russia thinks it can do whatever it pleases in the world. Yes they have nukes, but so does North Korea and a number of other countries. I’m so tired of all the worry about Russia being backed into a corner, if they hadn’t started the war then they wouldn’t be in that situation. I love that Russia issued the red line years ago, they should have no say in what other countries do. As you said they are a Texas sized economy. they need to start acting like it.
Read more

Hide 2 replies
Keith Baldock
Keith Baldock
17 hours ago
Ukraine is not an independant nation. It became a US colony after 2014 when Victoria Nuland and her gang encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected Yanocovitch. Watch the video again and do some more research.
1

Magatism
1 day ago
The Navalny campaign by Nato was the last straw. Not to mention Belarus Khazakhstan uprisings, Armenia war, Ukrainisn coup and desteuction of Yugoslavia.
This will only end when the balance of power is restored and Nato withdraws to cease and desist.
Read more
6

Hide 2 replies
Alino17
Alino17
3 days ago
Horrible truth.
1

Natas Lestat
3 days ago
Very well said sir, too many drama teachers with too much power, creating serious safety issues & destruction to all regions of the world. What’s scary is a child doubling down. Also of concern is the idea of oil rich Ukraine lands set for drilling along Russian boarder, to cut off their pipelines, to replace with US made new Ukrainian oil contracts to support Europe instead. Don’t hear many talking about this
Read more
12

Uncle Nubby
10 days ago
He is right
2

Eric Rasmussen
9 days ago
I agree and if this doesn’t scare you then I’ll afraid you’re not being very thoughtful
4

Jose Cabrero
14 hours ago
Really? What about those in Russia protesting the war? Why the lack of morale in the Russian troops? I don’t disbelief the great points you have made but I’m just looking for context here. Why would the Russian government come up with the Nazi angle? Wouldn’t it be a lot more transparent to say let’s get NATO farther from here?
1

Santo Pino
2 days ago
I disagree.
Like this man said Russia has an economy smaller than Texas, and it’s based mainly on natural resources.
Ukraine is an economical threat to Russia, their natural resources could be cheaper for Europe.
The existential threat including Ukraine in NATO is a brain wanking excuse.
“I don’t want NATO on my border because I don’t want the risk of a conflict so let’s start a conflict.”
NATO is a 1300 billion dollar a year military expenditure compared to Russia’s 46 billion.
The Soviet Union’s border was inside Berlin for 30 years, did some cry about existential threats?
Ukraine in NATO does not change the balance between NATO and Russia, there never was a balance.
Read more
9

Hide 5 replies

Santo Pino
2 days ago (edited)
@Lovely In 2013 Ukraine and Shell signed an agreement to extract shell gas in the region Russia is now taking, Russia was successful in making it fail.
Russia has a very small economy, smaller than than my country Italy.
It takes nothing to threaten it’s economy especially if it’s mainly based on natural resources.
Russia’s natural resources travel from the north east to Europe, Ukraine would have many thousand km shorter trip.
There has never been a balance between Russia’s forces and NATO. The military threat is bullshit, just look at the numbers.
Read more

Victorious Willisorius
2 days ago
Russian real economy is larger than German. It’s already been discussed even here on YT

Santo Pino
2 days ago (edited)
@Victorious Willisorius No.
Anyway, what’s a “real economy”.
GDP nominal is the international transaction used index.
GDP PPP is the purchase power, good for internal market index.
If you look at the GDP Pro capita, Russia is way bellow the 50th position in the world.
Anyway, even it was comparable to uny European or other western countries,
People are comparing Russia with NATO and not with a single country.
There is no comparison possible.
Not only because NATO is not an economical unity, it doesn’t have s totalitarian leader over all the members.
But on a defence level, there is no comparison, there has never been a balance, the differences is power have always been gigantic, and adding a 0,1% to NATO makes no difference.
The NATO threat excuse is bullshit.
Read more

Kitty katz centeno
4 days ago
Imagine russians invading Alasca…..

Muslim
9 days ago
“The West, led by the Americans believe they’ve been entrusted by God to decide the fate of other people. the US prefers not to be guided by International Law but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their own exceptionalism, believing that they can decide the destinies of the world and that only they can ever be right” -Putin
Read more
46

Hide 8 replies

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
West and American are the symbol of area and group of people, so who is the guy which make the destroy country and killed the people it is not Russia because Russia as the same of only the symbol of the name of country and the people who live there, now tell me who is make the war in Ukraine, please not the name of country or nation, tell me the name of people who you talking to.
Read more
1

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@terachai chaorattana a question that forces people to answer as you wish.
2

Patrick Goodenough
3 days ago
I WISH THESE FOOLS CAN LISTEN TO YOU AND WISE UP

apple2911
8 days ago
Excellent analysis.
5

Gerhardus Ebersohn
10 days ago
Bravo! Hail for reality, soberness and TRUTH! God bless
11

Randall Roberts
2 days ago
I couldn’t get past the first 4 minutes of this before I had to search who is this guy. Based on what I’ve read, he should have more insight than what he’s spewing here. As I saw a comment about the Ukraine people and what they want, he doesn’t talk about that. I’ve been to Ukraine many times, I’m married to a Ukrainian woman and they detest Russia. She gre grew up under the USSR and hated hated it. Her parents hated it. They were looking forward to joining the EU until Yanukovich k abashed that and declared Russian the national language of Ukraine. Look what happened to him. My wife feels that NATO and the USA should be doing more to thwart Russian aggression. I have to say. I agree with her after what happened in Mariupol. As my Ukrainian stepsons say, Russia is a shit country. Go outside of Moscow and St Petersburg and most Russians live terribly.. why else do they steal toilets from the homes they occupy. Lots of Russian people still do not have modern conviences. This 74 year old man should be ashamed of this video. Ukrainians are proud people and will not give up the fight. We had some Russian friends who were at our house after the invasion of Crimea. They started talking about the invasion and they were soon escorted to the door by my wife for their views
. They have not spoken since
Read more
8

Hide 2 replies

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago
This speaker never stop to ask the question, why Russias former slave states all hate her and wants nothing to do with her, he’s more preoccupied about appeasement and Russias feelings, countries like Russia will never be satisfied with their position until they exercise their ambitions, Russia must change from within, no amount of appeasement will satisfy Russia until she fulfils her desire to rule Europe and intimidate who she wish with her corruption!!
Read more
4

Bill Edifier
6 days ago
The situation is a tragic.
After listening to the professor’s ideas then reading the comments posted here, I can see that the three main groups responsible (that is, to blame) for the situation in Ukraine are the USA, Russia and the Ukrainians themselves. There are other groups in the background such as the UN and still others, hidden from view but very influential. Finding a solution to the situation is not likely until pro western forces have been pushed out of Ukraine; as someone has said, the west is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian standing! Ego and pride is clouding the judgement of intelligent people, instead of working together to find a win-win solution, the actors have taken their sides and will not move from their positions, it is about power and domination; it is about status and face. Maybe it will turn into a full-blown Armageddon scenario, although I don’t think the time is quite right for that, this is just a step on the way. Until we all start working for peace, (real peace, not double-speak peace) events such as these will continue to occur.
Read more
6

Hide 2 replies
Tom Moore
Tom Moore
1 day ago
The Ukrainians chose the West. The West didn’t force them. Russia may not have liked Ukraine drifting towards the West but they didn’t have to invade (bully) an independent nation. The Russians do not have the right to decide what organization any country chooses to join. Saying the West is responsible for this crisis is like saying McDonald’s is to blame for obesity. The Ukrainians chose the West. Maybe Russia should have offered them something better.
Read more
1

Meio Lyn
9 days ago
Thank you.
2

Coos willemse
6 days ago
Skipping quite a few facts, for example the fact that nato refused Ukraine joining nato in 2008. Also the fact people have the right to chose their own fate. Also the fact that Ukraine was is the only former Soviet state with a rather ok functioning democracy.

Hide 2 replies
John Bobson
John Bobson
5 days ago
People are choosing their own fate, hence the separatist conflict in the East after the displacement of the democratically elected government in 2010.
1

Coos willemse
5 days ago
John Bobson that’s basically against international law. You just take a piece of land and say „ we are independent now@! The same with the basks the Catalonian’s or Sardinian.

myjeepzia
4 days ago

Margarita Mora
9 days ago
Thank you!
7

tara1941
4 days ago
Zelensky should take notice of this man, he can see well ahead of the situation,
1

Hide reply
Axiom23573
Axiom23573
5 days ago (edited)
I find this analysis trivial – the “poking the bear” argument assumes before anything else that the bear’s aspirations are legitimate, and implausibly combines this idea with the insinuation that the bear is merely reacting to external provocations. Neither proposition stands up to much scrutiny. The baltic states and Poland have known since 1991 that this day would come. The quality of thinking here is at the level of Putin’s press corps.
Read more
18

Hide 3 replies

Sarki
4 days ago
oh

Pedro Paula
2 days ago
Exactly.the quality of thinking of such enlightened analysis is quite poor.in fact Russia has deployed nuclear weapons to kalinegrad.this is not poking NATO ? NATO has no nukes in eastern Europe. Curious poking superpower logic only is used regarding Russia. NATO has no right to feeling pocket by Russia gestures such has stacking Georgia ,or moving nukes to kalinegrad
Read more

asuha asmaran
2 days ago
wow…

rawideasinc
4 days ago
Jeff was aware his fortune causes a war if arrested or killed .

Viraj Goa
3 days ago
West wants to poke it’s nose in everybody’s house . Thats the main cause

justgivemethetruth
9 days ago
From March 2nd 2022 and published on this channel June 28th … this is almost 4 months old now. What’s the purpose of that, to show how correct John Mearsheimer was?
6

Hide 2 replies
Jake Martinez
Jake Martinez
3 days ago
well he is correct though.

justgivemethetruth
3 days ago
@Jake Martinez
I knew that a long time before that.

NA. Ahmed
8 days ago (edited)
Professor very excellent analysis. We are all responsible for Russia Eukraine issue.
To Eukraine: If you don’t abide by the Minks 2 accord then why you signed that.
14

Hide 2 replies

Frederick Muhlbauer
3 days ago
Spell check Ukraine and Minsk

William Cunningham II
5 days ago
What is excuisitly not explained is the irrational fear of NATO. why would that be? answer, a free and industrious Ukraine would render Russia a North Korea. ironically, Russia has now done this themselves and, like north korea., will kowtow to china forever more. good job VP!
4

Hide 5 replies

Guy Littleford
5 days ago
NATO is not an economic bloc. It’s a military alliance. With teeth.
1

Guy Littleford
5 days ago
@William Cunningham II I respectfully disagree. The russification of Ukraine happened many decades ago. The area of Donna’s and much of Crimea was basically colonised. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were both countervailing military alliances, and despite the appearance of a degree of pluralis, both were administered by the US and the USSR respectively.ypu may recall that NATO, during the cold war and beyond and to this day, to a lesser degree, had missiles installed across Western Europe UK, and Turkey.
When the USSR installed missiles in Cuba, the US went crazy, almost starting a major war.
Add to this the poor treatment of Russia in the aftermath of WW2, the failure to recognise that the USSR basically won that war, and that in the post Soviet period prescribed economic Shock Therapy, which badly damaged the lives of millions of Russians, and allowed the rape of her economic assets by the Oligarchs. NATO is not a fun club, like the Commonwealth. It’s a fully fledged and highly integrated multinational military force. Russia will take Donna’s, and will keep Crimea. That could have been arranged over the negotiating table. Look up Putins demands, as issued before the invasion. Basically this was is being fought for nothing…and the collateral devastation touches us all. When peace talks are finally held, and the will be, the Russians will get what they want. And these Scandinavian states, and former Soviet satellites will never join NATO. Watch. And if you want to argue about the rights of the people to determine their destinies, I would ask that you look to Iraq, South America, Africa and to Europe. I make no apology for Russia. I’m simply recognising the nature of things.
Read more

William Cunningham II
3 days ago
@Guy Littleford Guy, appreciate the measured response. I would enjoy continuing the debate, esp with someone who disagrees with me without the hysteria so common these days, but YT comments are not the right place for a variety of reasons. I will leave it that. regards.

Guy Littleford
3 days ago
@William Cunningham II William, thanks for your measured reply. It troubles me that as we face a population driven environmental cataclysm, with looming conflicts over water and resources, the extinction of animal species and the wholesale destruction of our natural world, that we humans must be so damned stupid as to behave as we do. On this small planet we all depend, and rather than seek cooperation and progress, we destroy our only home in the known universe, while billionaires blast into space on joyrides. It’s terrible. So much suffering, death and destruction. If we are to have any chance we must all put down our weapons and be constructive. Regards
Read more

peter mannix
7 days ago
Here we are!

Phone Hp
2 days ago
Perfect analysis
Thank you so much
This sort of analysis is missing in western midia

Hide reply
Kamadev888
Kamadev888
2 days ago
its not perfect. many mistakes and he goes too easy on the us. watch the duran.

tila liyanage
5 days ago
totally true

marco martins
5 days ago
This has to do with the Gas deposits found in the southern parts of ukraine, they are unexplored but represent a threat to the russian gas monopoly over europe… starting in donbas all the way to transnistria
5

Hide 3 replies
N S
N S
3 days ago
Exactly

Frederick Muhlbauer
3 days ago
Sources please Sounds logical.but I havent heard this before

Mark Miskulin
7 days ago
Those who use MSM to gain perspective on geopolitics are the majority and I doubt any will see this content. I would like to see you as a guest on the Duran,your name has come up on occasion. I get my information from about a dozen sites which are objective and impartial. I have seen your body of work going back six years. I don’t agree on all your conclusions but you are more insightful than the other 99.9%
Read more
4

Hide 2 replies
DOG STAR
DOG STAR
7 days ago
I too follow The Duran, The New Atlas, Moon of Alabama and a few other insightful pod casters and bloggers – Mearshimer is mercilessly honest in his real politics, basically sees little to no value in altruism – his glass is always half empty – nevertheless, it’s analysis that should not be dismissed – alternatively, the M$M is hopelessly bought and sold
Read more

Mark Miskulin
7 days ago
@DOG STAR in certain smoothy ×12,Gonzalo Lira and Jackson Hinkle make your list. I also enjoy the content of those you mentioned. New Atlas is my go to site for the far east. You must be the person who always beats me to the book I want at the library. Pleasant to know not everyone is transfixed by bread and circuses
Read more

Baqir Hemraj
10 days ago
Who put Putin in power?
4

Hide 13 replies
Anthony Tofts
Anthony Tofts
10 days ago
Boris Yeltsin.

Baqir Hemraj
10 days ago
@Anthony Tofts How?

victoria kap
9 days ago
Actually, it,s not your business who put Putin in power. 83% of Russia fully support him .Can you say same thing about any US power representative?
3

Dan Rook
10 hours ago
95% support Lukachenko in Belarus. We know what’s going on there.

Derek Yank
10 hours ago
I didn`t.

Baqir Hemraj
3 hours ago
@Dan Rook We all have to suffer because of Putin.

Zak Kazi
4 days ago
Absolutely correct Mr. J.J.M. It will be a good if you can stand for the next US elections.
2

Khalid Hussain
8 days ago
John do you think that the level of alliance of west against Russia is going to melt without a war with Russia and the west is going to settle matters normal again after such an escalation??

Hide reply

Richard Moloney
1 day ago
This is an imported perspective. It’s not the whole story. He doesn’t mention Russia’s application to join NATO.

John Anderson
6 days ago
Stephen F Cohen (and now Katrina Van Heuvel) have repeatedly asserted that the US has avoided a necessary political debate on foreign policy as regards Russia. Seems to me nobody dares challenge John Mearsheimer so the debate vacuum is still in place.
4

Hide 3 replies
Pa Bis
Pa Bis
5 days ago
I suggest you watch his monk debate from about a month ago. Mersheimer was utterly destroyed. He could only debate tactically but his perspective doesn’t carry the burden of proof.

Ted Teddington
5 days ago
@Pa Bis Thanks – didn’t know this existed. Now watching it – within knowledge is something….. within ignorance is nothing.

John Anderson
5 days ago
@Pa Bis First, there was the fall of Boris Johnson. Check the analysis.

hu mystic
3 days ago
I BEG TO DIFFER, I BEG TO DIFFER, MISTER NO MATTER WHAT MIGHT DO NOT BEAT RIGHT, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE VERY INTELLIGENT,SO YOU THERE IS ALWAYS DIALOGUE, DIALOGUE, DIALOGUE WE AS HUMANS
CAN LIVE MORE LOVING either way something is very wrong about the killing and all of that IT’S wrong either way we are living in a modern times and we can dialogue yes we can dialogue we all most remember that people has feelings , we are all flesh and blood you should remember the children and we should know and understand that over the years we have had all kinds of war and attrition and still IT didn’t work out so we have to do better than we do now we cannot afford to carry on the Same way we are carrying on at this time, The children remember the children we must understand as intelligent people the children do experience psychological trauma whether they are in the tick of the action or not we have to know better and those leaders are supposed Lead They should know better that it will not only effect the children in Ukraine but it Will also affect the children throughout the world when they live and see this thing it is not right we have to set example as big people we have to set examples living human being yes sir there’s such a saying that who knows better you better regardless of all the time there is right and wrong in all of this,The children the children the Next Generation sanity depends on our attitude in this life as big big people no one should be fighting and going on like that because of any one’s decision we should be more loving and kind because of One’s clear, Choice, there should be no War,, No one should be fighting at this time the children, the children, what about the children and what about their feeling are they not human being are they to be excused are there to be ex8cused as trash blown in the Wind but about the psychological wellbeing what about yr psychological feeling in all of this children of feeling and and this will in fact affect the children of the world become a better world because of things like these big people won’t behave themselves big people cannot find time to acquire calm to resolve situation that can easily be resolved we can do it, because everyone,Yes veryone as a choices, Big people must remember the children, the children,the children think about them sir think about the children think of the damage that this will do to their psychological well-being now and in the years to come, think about it what one does not like for themselves or their kins folks one should never do it to anyone else it hurts,Images do make lasting impressions some of these Images are the kind of impressive ,,matter, that can destroy the mind and cause lasting psychological problem for years to come,They needed to be no more war,dialogue,dialogue is the medicine to Healing Society throughout the world thank you very much.blessup.
Read more
1

Erik Norberg
10 days ago
Thank you professor Mearsheimer for the only true or trustworthy explanation and analysis of the crisis in Ukraine. If Ukraine had stayed neutral like Sweden and Finland, there would not be any war, no escalating inflation in the West etc. Due to the Western propaganda it seems, generally speaking, very difficult to make people in the West to realize those “Facts”. I thank people like you, as Noam Chomsky, Stephen Cohen etc for the courage to say what is the only reasonable explanation. Thanks!
Read more
29

Hide 10 replies

Lori Davis
9 days ago
Would any victim stay neutral when they have been bullied for a very long time? Would you, as a bystander just stand and watch it happen?
Ukraine had been asking for help and it finally came forth when the bully ramped up his agressive actions. Look at the neutral countries interested in joining NATO now. The world is finally seeing the truth of the situation.
Read more
5

David Thomas
9 days ago
@Lori Davis speaking of bullies, maybe America should hold up a mirror.
7

HF Alex
9 days ago
@Lori Davis kek until thrid sentence i thought you were talking about Russia and Donbass.
2

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
Now the war will go to Sweden and Finland if we used your theory ? Why not because of Putin ? Why? Thinking can not making a war but talking all twenty year can.
1

Hirama Tamihana
3 days ago
If you reflect on Cuba and USA, and this is a repeat in reverse, by blaming Russia, there is no difference with Iraq which I believe it was totally wrong. Ukraine is on the door step of Russia, like Cuba in relation to USA. He is right this is strengthened Russia and China. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have woken up to being manipulated by Nato and USA, and are now putting their foot down.
Read more
2

Hide reply

Annette Mudde
2 days ago
?

Kathleen Harms
8 days ago
Your argument is very credible! I feel bad for the good people of Ukraine.
3

Ramiro Velasquez
2 days ago
lo sospeche desde un prinsipio , no contaban con mi..

Zahimi Ibrahim
2 days ago
I still think the primary motive for the invasion is economic with NATO expansion being a pretext. Western democracies do not pose a serious existential threat to a fearsome nuclear nation like Russia. Russia is huge but most of it is either backward or a frozen wasteland and the economic and technological power of the Soviet Union came from former western provinces such as Ukraine.
Read more
1

Eric
2 days ago
Ukraine had a working relationship with Moscow USSR for 50years that’s who supplied all their arms that happens to friendly nations in the usa’s world what went so badly wrong

YingYang 60
6 days ago (edited)
Very interesting analyses ! However, in my humble opinion, by blaming it only on the Americans he left off the hook 2 main actors that are as guilty, if not more, than the USA: 1) the EU that not only kept actively backing the American push for Ukraine to join NATO and arming the Ukranians, but doubled down by keeping on luring the Ukrainians to enter the EU and 2) the Ukranians themselves, starting from their president Zelensky, who should have know better their powerful neighbour enough to understand that by keep on doing so they were only bringing upon themselves once more the brutal grunt of the Russian bear.
Read more
4

Hide 4 replies
PlayGirl
PlayGirl
5 days ago
have you ever looked at the USA budget? Perhaps the EU and whomever is really controlling that wants all the assets of the Russian lands and ports. Besides the Russian people are hard working and brilliant.

Abubakar Sadiq
5 days ago
Well said!

John Scurr
5 days ago
Why should Ukraine not be allowed to apply for EU membership if it wishes to? It is an independent entity with a democratically appointed government freely able and entitled to make its own decisions with no input required from any other force on the planet.
Membership of Nato is more complicated than that as no nation can join Nato which has an outstanding border dispute with another nation. Ukraine clearly has a dispute with Russia evidenced by the Russian invasion of Crimea and now more recently the eastern areas of Ukraine – thus Ukraine would not be allowed to join Nato by Nato’s own rules. Once and if ever those border disputes with Russia are resolved then Ukraine may feel it wishes to join Nato and enjoy the defensive net of the Nato partners.
No western nation has invaded Ukrainian soil. Russia has so who is responsible for that invasion? The victim, Ukraine for being unfortunate enough to share a border with an authoritarian expansionist state or Russia because Putin thinks he has the right to do exactly as he wishes because nobody will stand up to him? Where Nato and/or the EU has been remiss has been in meekly allowing Putin to get away direct meddling in the affairs of the nations bordering his country. Well I’m wondering if now maybe the time for the West to show Putin he’s gone too far this time and whilst it’s okay to disagree and debate with your neighbours it cannot be right to just invade them.
Read more
1

Indeed
3 days ago (edited)
The thing is Ukraine wanting to join NATO was never an existential threat to Russia. Having democracies as neighbours is only an existential threat to the controling force of the Kremlin itself. They can’t have their own people having a flavour of democratic freedoms. I feel this video is disingenuous with the way it portrays the so called existential threat that ‘Russia’ apparently feels. Ukraine joining NATO would never have provided any threat to the average Russians security and economic prosperity. Only a political threat to the Mafia state and it’s elite itself.
Read more
8

View reply
PlayGirl
PlayGirl
8 days ago
John, brilliant assessment. I would like you to cover what happened after WWII and what is going to happen to all facets of stable peaceful life. Including small factions, food, murder, rape, prison camps, theft, war booty, reorganizing of borders, and ethnic cleansing.
4

Hide reply
PlayGirl
PlayGirl
7 days ago
And I mean after the “War” stops

Nick Dylan
2 days ago
Like Hungary in 1950’s

Tony Caine
4 days ago
The professor proved that there are indeed intelligent Americans left. The question becomes, if the West knew Russia would invade, why then did NATO provoked?
3

Hide reply
Glenn Striemer
Glenn Striemer
4 days ago

Øfsti Mellom
5 days ago
Ukraine have a right to make there own decition whether they should join
the EU or not. Russia has bullied their neighbours for centuries
10

Hide reply
Elias Bendahan
Elias Bendahan
8 days ago
Irrefutable wonderfully explained. All the rest is a dreamers reality.
1

Norberto Costa
4 days ago
Hear in my country, Portugal, europe, according Media, was without doubt Russia, and without doubt convinced almost all people. So being agaist US is almost a crime. For me the situation is more complicated than blaming Russians, for me US is more responsable than Russia.
5

View reply
chat thai
chat thai
9 days ago
professor Mearsheimer speaks rationally. And understand the problems that arise. Excellent.
4

Bluewatermoon
2 days ago
This guy nailed it. He is 100% correct on everything, but yes it’s tragic for Ukraine.

Michael Mee
6 days ago
Spot on
1

Christine Meyer
3 days ago
I do not have all the knowledge and background information, but out of it all it seems to me that Ukraine were not allowed to decide for themselves to join NATO, as if they are not their own people, they must ask big brother Russia permission
4

View reply
Paul Parker
Paul Parker
3 days ago
My mind is scarred by small children sitting at home eating sweets watching cartoons when a missile comes through the window and their life has ended , why did that happen ,” is what the world wants to know
1

Anil Kapruwan
7 days ago
Small country like Ukraine must not take side of long distance super power (especially when it’s USA-as per history untrustworthy) when another neighbour (second superpower.! It’s common sense. My opinion is not based on love of USA & Russia-it’s just thought
4

Joshua Stoneburner
2 days ago (edited)
Russia sounds like an abusive partner, “You made me do this to you.” So the question is, do you stop the abuser to save the victim or do you ignore it hoping no one else is abused?

John Bould
3 days ago
It’s an important dimension of the civic debate that needs to be had regarding who’s responsible for blowing up yet another country. While countries have a right to choose whether and with who they align and Russia doesn’t get a vote, our leaders should have found an alternative approach to allow greater Ukrainian integration without provoking a disastrous, lose-lose war. BTW, the US provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis with our own missile placements in Turkey.
Read more

春来冬去
8 days ago
Thank you
2

Jesuraj Rajendram
8 days ago
Wonderful and balanced analysis. Hope, the west and US understand the reality and do everything to stop the war and stop the complete destruction of Ukrain and the world economy
9

Hide 4 replies
Anthony Kenny
Anthony Kenny
7 days ago
Yes wonderful and balanced for a traitor
2

terachai chaorattana
7 days ago
It not that easy I think, there are more complications than he talk and think, which he not just talking like this just now he talked the same story more than twenty years and all still happen as we see, I hope he can going on to be a president and make his dream come true. Unfortunately, he only just teaching not practicing or never walk on street to protest of what he believed.
Read more

terachai chaorattana
7 days ago
The world is not class room, and we have a million people who make thing as war, what will we do instead of talking again and again that western wrong and who rights not Russia I think.

joe bloggs
5 days ago
To be fair he is cherry-picking the facts he presents to support his argument and bending all to his own narrative, just like all the other ‘analysts’, look into any of it and the situation is always different from how it is presented and does not support this particular analysis over others For instance from 2005 if not before, Gazprom were trying to suppress development of Ukraine’s gas exports and to this day Ukraine buys 50% of it’s gas from Russia despite having a 50 year supply at current usage, why is that ? He claims in 2013 nobody was saying Russia was an aggressor despite the 2008 ‘invasion of Georgia’ which Russia had still not removed it’s troops from, not sure who he was listening to then. Russian aircraft routinely enter the airspace of other countries and also fly along their borders, also naval vessels do the same, but he makes no mention of this. Russian jets carrying nuclear weapons violated Swedish airspace in March of this year but the general practice has been going on for decades.
Read more
1

Adam Dragon
4 days ago (edited)
Western greed is the problem

Shad Ali
7 days ago
This person talks a lot of sense
8

Hide reply
First-Gordon Chang
First-Gordon Chang
7 days ago
He talk full of nonsense.

Soumen
8 days ago
Thank you so much Sir for the excellent analysis and for the truth
4

Timo K
3 days ago
The key question is NOT who caused the crisis. The key issue is who invaded a foreign territory – and that’s 100% Russian responsibility, as no Ukrainian military crossed the border into Russia (be it back in 2014 or now). There can be absolutely no excuse for that, as Ukraine did not do Russia any wrong and was NEVER even in a position to do that.
Read more
4

Hide reply
james rafael
james rafael
5 days ago (edited)
Who’s playing hardball with just his mouth and providing complimentary aid and edging the globe to ww3?

missRaya
3 days ago
The problem here is that Biden is really beginning to believe in his own fiction!

richard ouvrier
8 days ago
They can say it b/c they are liars.

Jan-Peter Östberg
4 days ago
Sadly, he is basically right. So , now what?
3

Hide reply
Jason Kelly
Jason Kelly
2 days ago
Now we take down this video and blame Russia more
1

07dree02
7 days ago (edited)
Thank God that there are still people who can connect the historical data points and can see through the lense of the other side. It become very rare these days.
1

Hide reply
Jussi Lähteenmäki
Jussi Lähteenmäki
3 days ago
And disrespect the sovereignty of an independent country.

terry varta
7 days ago
Russia never meant to honor the Minsk agreement. Putin does not see the Ukraine government as a legitimate government
5

Hide 3 replies

Сергей Давыдов
2 days ago
Russia was NOT side of Minsk agreement. Russia only guarantor for Lugansk and Donetsk People Republics. And Ukraine do not honor agreement at all.

sergejpopov
2 days ago
Putin or Lavrov couldn’t have covered all of the Kremiln’s talking points better themselves.
1

Manpao Haihing
6 days ago
After everything is said and done .Might is still Right. When it is Political expedient for the so called 21century Elite, the rest may be only Political gimmick/ talks,whereas the spoil has been already agreed upon.
1

Leda Méndez
13 hours ago
To say the thruth is healthy

phish fry
8 days ago
if you are an old man who has spent his entire professional life believing russia is a great power it’s clearly hard to give up on that idea….
13

Hide 7 replies
galanis38
galanis38
8 days ago (edited)
Well, it is the largest country in the world by area, the world depends on many of its natural resources, and it has by far the largest and most advanced military nuclear arsenal in the world other than the US. I would suggest that makes it a great power.
6

michael joncour
8 days ago
the floor is yours in youtube comments, and this pathetic one liner is all you can come up with ?, come on give it your best shot, love to hear a rational assessment from a young intelligent person like yourself !!!!!!!!!!
3

joy boy
8 days ago
@galanis38 It is the largest country but most of the land is Unable to live in and North Korea and China have better Nuclear weapons And when the Soviet Union collapsed it lost what makes it a global power

PceBro
8 days ago
Troll
3

Chris Angel
7 days ago
@joy boy LOL unlike USA , RUSSIA doesnt go around showing off.. thats an American thing.. LOOK AT ME!! look at me!! look what I got…
russia plays chess! you dont know what they will do, what they have, or the next move!!!
3

Guy Littleford
5 days ago
They will flatten Ukraine.

Magnus Landström
3 days ago
14 characteristics of fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
It doesn’t matter in what shape they come, fascists will still be fascists. And who’ll remember putinism/trumpism in some years from now? ))
Read more
2

Hide 2 replies

Сергей Давыдов
2 days ago
Yes, all ths characteristics presents in ukraine.

Magnus Landström
2 days ago
@Сергей Давыдов obviously, the complete denial and the “fake news”… was already mentioned.

Toasty MacNickels
9 days ago
The violent secession of Crimea and the Donbas was undemocratic, regardless of whether those people want independence. Compare with Catalonia’s peaceful and unsuccessful attempts in Spain. Same need for autonomy, no guns, no murder. As for NATO expansion, it has been and continues to be the case that the nations previously under Soviet rule adamantly wish to avoid a return to that. NATO expansion is reactive to Soviet empire. The Russians (Soviets) could have, but never did promise non-aggression against its former colonies. In fact, at one point, even Russia was thought of as a potential future EU and NATO partner if it abandoned its imperial designs. Bottom line: It was the Ukrainians themselves who decided they preferred the West, not Russia. Why should one argue they were mere puppets with no real convictions of their own? This is demeaning and biased.
Read more
14

View 9 replies
Hanna Beraja
Hanna Beraja
7 days ago
Si usted profesor estuviera en Rusia y hablara a favor de Estados Unidos, que podría pasarle ?

Benedict
1 day ago
NATO was apathetic when Putin attacked Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas….. Putin regrets the dissolution of the USSR and wishes to re-create Peter the Great’s greater Russia. NATO’s apathy has encouraged him. That is what a friend from Eastern Europe explained to me. His people are terrified of Russia.
1

Brian Dunn
14 hours ago
BARE FACTS LOL

John Mason
2 days ago
I was under the impression that Nato is a defensive organisation rather than offensive, if this is the case why would Russia fear it, unless of course it has designs on expansion

anoj sharma
6 days ago
at least few smart people still exist.

Schuyler Butler
9 days ago
Primary responsible is the one who invaded Crimea and Donbas regions 7 years ago.
Obviously you have never lived and worked inside Ukraine.
18

Hide 5 replies

Havoc1521
8 days ago

Jonah Allen
7 days ago
And you dont know the history of Crimea that was always 98% Russian since 1700s . Given to Ukraine by Kruschev for administrative reasons , without a vote . It was taken back to Russia with a vote …suck it up …
2

terachai chaorattana
6 days ago
@Jonah Allen And what about 1600s and before that at the first century, if we should only for our benefit or alibi to do the bad thing, it is not fair, right?

Neil Douglas
5 days ago
Ukrainian General Secretary of the USSR Nikita Kruschev caused it by putting the area east of the Dnieper river into his Ukraine and not into Russia when he had the chance to do so.
3

Želimir Cvitanović
3 days ago (edited)
It seems to me that the professor overemphasizes the right and will of Russia as something given and about which there is no debate (create Putin’s will and not the will of the Russian people) and ignores the will of the Ukrainian people for democracy and separation from Russia. For me, the will and desire of the Ukrainians is more important and what Putin wants is less important, regardless of how many weapons Putin has. This is the attitude of Russian agents in the Balkans, the will and desire of the Ukrainians is not important to them, but only the will and desire of Putin.
Read more
5

GeoPolitics Junkie
7 days ago
Just remember the LPR will celebrate their Independence day July 3rd. Happy 4th of July America.

tom thumb
2 days ago (edited)
While I agree with Dr. Mearsheimer on all his points. What wasn’t discussed is the actual outcome that was known prior to the desires of the west at having Ukraine integrated into NATO.
This is the destruction of 3 direct competitors to the US. The first is Russia from a commodity standpoint along with the destruction of its economy. Second is Ukraine, and its position as a major supplier not unlike Russia in the commodity sector. Adding the elimination of its economy is a bonus. Third and I would argue the most important the culling and systematic destruction of the EU as an economic competitor. Lastly, this is in addition to the accelerating of China’s economic crisis and collapse over time.
I am proud to say that these have all been planned and orchestrated by the US.
Read more

Munir Alim
3 days ago
Wondering how much he was paid.

tinkerIn Jones
8 days ago
This might be acceptable analysis…if you submit to the theory that the US or Russia or China have the right to dictate policy for all it’s neighbors eliminating those countries sovereign rights. I reject this theory
4

Hide 5 replies
Stupid People need Green Light to make Right Turn.
Stupid People need Green Light to make Right Turn.
8 days ago
Would it be ok if russia put their missiles in cuba this time around?
3

Havoc1521
8 days ago
then you reject reality.
1

tinkerIn Jones
7 days ago
@Havoc1521 Yes…reality is every major power has whatever right they want and the world turns a blind eye or actively supports it according to whether they think something is in it for them. When the world gets tired of it…maybe reality can change to it’s intolerable and to do so you have to fight the entire world.

Simpin’ Aint Easy !
10 days ago
If it wasn’t for all the hard work Biden is doing gas would be $25/gallon. Keep that in mind this November.
2

Hide 2 replies
Brian Machado
Brian Machado
9 days ago
That is ridiculous.
1

Gola Glanman
8 days ago
Simpin …
Good one.

Krowweee
7 days ago
Who is this guy to say that US or Russia is deciding the fate of Ukraine? Ukrainians are deciding it. Ukrainians chose to break away from the Russian empire, join EU and NATO and Russians are using force to keep Ukraine from doing it. This guy is talking about Ukraine like it does not have a voice in this, but we do and it will be heard by everyone involved. Especially Russians.
Read more
4

Hide 4 replies

terachai chaorattana
6 days ago
It is his job and if he not talking like he knowing all the things aboth USA, Russia and Ukraine who will listen to him, I doubt not about him I doubt the listeners instead why they have no questions like you, it seem to me they believed every word from him, like children are very fond the fairly story teller.

Best choice access
6 days ago
NATO did it in Libya Krowweee. Who give the right to NATO to decide the faith of Libyans?
1

terachai chaorattana
5 days ago
They put their theory in to the scene and make it real by history which is past away to the audience. Ukraine is the nation as same as the other on this planet and have a right to choose which way to walk, but one country came from sixteenth century they think they can do anything they want. The question is what will the other country do and don’t.
Read more

Przemysław Abramowski
7 days ago
Brief and to the point, thank you Professor Mearsheimer. This point of view is almost unknown where I live (Poland). Some people here are calling now for an invasion of Russia… I just hope against circumstances that we are not going to make that step.
5

Hide 3 replies
DOG STAR
DOG STAR
7 days ago
I do too – my in laws live in Krakow – everyone knows PIS are lunatics but don’t know how to stop them from doing something fatally insane – we hope somehow reason prevails

africa greats woo
7 days ago
There is a prophecy by ian ndlovu. Who said russia woud ivade a small nation but will not lose that war. Wen he said it it was not making sense.
So on that basis good luck
Read more

Thomas Jose Joseph Jose
6 days ago
I doubt very much. Russias failure to rise like China is more likely. West failed to accept Russia into their fold. Russia was not rising like other countries . Top persons were complaining about poor salary. Russia will further disintegrate and more manageable to Europe.
1

Hide reply
Alpha Bogeyman
Alpha Bogeyman
5 days ago
Keep dreaming.

Ezy media network
2 days ago
I knew this sort of nonsense would come up

Marcin Benedek
4 days ago
well, sorry but, your argument is flawed. Countries are free to decide their fate. If Russia decides to “make it unequivocally clear it won’t tolerate Ukraine being part of Nato”, it makes Russia bear blame, not accepting another sovereign country’s decision makes you (Russia) a criminal state which should be banished and not seen as a legitimate country. Zero tolerance for a lack of respect for sovereignty. Other countries on international arena bear moral responsibility to make such a criminal country (not respecting outher’s sovereignty) an outcast.
Read more
5

Thomas James Dye Jr
1 day ago
True, but this is the long game….weaken Russia…

True Lies
8 days ago
The US poked the bear and blame the bear for hitting back. Its the bears fault said the west.
7

AC AC
6 days ago
Excellent analysis ! I hope more US and EU citizens get to view this, especially the politicians.
1

Gerhard Van Der poll
7 days ago
ANY independent county has the RIGHT to join ANY alliance that it so wishes to join…..On who’s payroll is the professor….whether he likes it or not….seems like he is going to be forced to except payment in Rubles…….
3

Hide reply

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
Yes including Cuba
2

paul Cusirinzon
17 hours ago
One word….. Putin

John Keith
5 days ago
One of the things that most Americans are blind to is the foriegn policy of the USA. They have designs on influencing the politics in the rest of the world. Russia and China also have those designs thus the current world problems.

Shirley Edwards
5 days ago
I haven’t listened to this professor as yet but why do they do the 666 sign with the hand

M Sand
2 days ago (edited)
Putin has stated that territory that was part of Imperial Russia should be part of the Russian Federation.
Putin has compared himself to Peter the Great and is surrounded by Russian Ultra nationalists that have been arguing that the Russian contribution to civilization can only be realized through expansionist brutal war as Russia has no other way to make its mark on the world.
Putin, months before his latest military expansion into more of the Ukraine wrote that the Ukraine is not a real country and that Ukraine longs to be restored to Russia but can not because of a few Ukrainian nationalists, nazi, drug addicts etc. Putin’s historical argument for an imperial war against the sovereign, internationally recognized nation of Ukraine will go down in history as a red flag to war along with Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925). Mearsheimer dismisses all this rather dark Hitler type ideology and logic as a head and heart argument which was last framed by no other than Thomas Jefferson in a letter about romantic love to Maria Cosway, and serious affairs of state can not be reduced to romantic notions about the head and the heart. International affairs can not be reduced to romantic literature and letters.
Finland and Sweden are joining NATO because they think Putin is not a rational and predictable actor, who could be insane or facing a type of break down induced from a long term personality disorder exacerbated by holding absolute power, and covid isolation. We can speculate as to why Putin is not a rational actor but it has been reported that even those closest to Putin in the Govt and military were surprised by Putin’s new escalation and further invasion. France and other countries that value rationality in affairs of state were also totally taken by surprise. Sec of State Blinken , a brilliant man, makes the best case that Russia’s war was a strategic blunder that Russia has already lost and will go down in history with Hitler’s invasion of Russia and the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan.
Mearsheimer makes the claim that ultimately Putin is a rational actor and that his head will always triumph over his heart. All evidence points to Putin building a fascist (corrupt) totalitarian, mobilized, and paranoid culture in Russia that has by its own logic unleashed itself on perceived external threats (see Masha Gessen Frontline The Putin Files). Putin is doing what fascist strong men always do when they have been in power a long time and yes the U.S. under multiple presidents could have done much more to prevent Putin’s rise and Russia’s turn to fascism. The voices in the state department that wanted to break up Russia rather than help preserve a large Russian Federation are vindicated.
Good Sources
Masha Gessen
Julia Ioffe
Anthony Blinkin (interviews)
Read more
15

howard reith
5 days ago
The professor never takes into account the outright theft of Ukrainian resources . Unless that is the existential threat
3

Nandor Ludvig
1 day ago
The lecturer is right about the responsibility of US foreign policy in the crisis in Ukraine, specifically about the responsibility of US advocates of NATO expansion.
Two things the lecturer bypassed. One is the sole responsibility of US military-industrial complex in pushing NATO expansion simply to make money. The other is his own responsibility, as in his position in the highest echelon of academia he could have advised about this NATO problem at least some in the typicaly incompetent State Department. I point this out not because of disrespect to this indeed outstanding scholar, but because people below the power structure of politics think they are not responsible for anything evil in politics. Yes they are, including me — and this is why I write this comment, to clear my conscience.
And one thing the lecturer failed to emphasize. That the Ukrainian people has every right to live in the way they want, while Putin has absolutely no right to move into their land with military forces and steal that land, in fact, when he started to bomb Ukrainian cities he crossed the threshold that separates human and evil behaviors. Therefore, justifying evil acts with whatever reasoning is not right, even in the highest quality academic lecture.
Finally, the lecture did not find a minute for proposing a solution. Which would be easy. Biden would sit down with Zelenskiy and Putin in Budapest, commit his administration to the policy change that NATO will not seek expansion beyond its current limits, but ask Putin to agree with Ukraine’s joining EU, because EU is just a non-threatening community of willingly participating nations. Once the discussion of the three would start in this way, I am sure they could come to a compromise guaranteeing that Ukraine would be rebuilt with a Zelenskiy-led US-EU-Russian cooperation. Which would save Putin from going to jail for crimes against humanity, as EU is a forgiving community and the US is learning to be forgiving. That simple — as Zelensky would surely be conviced that this would end the war and let Ukraine be rebuilt. With Crimea as a shared tourist paradise. If the three reject such a negotiation, engaging in a humane, personal, productive conversation — then the world must rethink how their leaders should be selected.
Read more
1

eric nichols
1 day ago
USA ALWAYS STICK ARE NOISE IN OTHER COUNTRIES BIZZ we have being doing this for over 60 YEARS

Stullr
1 day ago
Let Russia be spooked. It makes no sense to blame NATO or the US unless one simply doesn’t care about or understand the underlying issue of Russia being anti democratic and anti Liberal. That’s the crux. Ukraine is embracing liberal democracy, as the Balkans did, as Poland did and so on. It’s incapable with Putin’s Russia.
But he is right that we aren’t doing what needs to be done to ensure that Ukraine can win. As far as I’m concerned we need to get ourselves more involved to defeat Russia soundly.
Read more

View 2 replies

Sean Hross
3 days ago
Watch video “Ukraine War: Made in Ukraine” on channel “Giureh”.

Schuyler Butler
9 days ago
February 24th, 2022 Russia started the war. Did you have a problem saying this?
3

Hide 5 replies

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
he spoke only what he want to, that why it is the bad seed of believing set into all the listeners and that will make the war instead of peace

terachai chaorattana
7 days ago
@Chris Angel how about ten years from now or more than ten years, what will happen?

Peli Mies
8 days ago
It is lazy excuse to say, that some third country across the globe has created a situation in Ukraine into such, that Russia had no other option than to start a large scale invasion to a country that had made no threats to attack into Russia. An attack that was planned for years, and staged for months – propably from 2014, when Russia invaded and stole Crimea (An area that was gifted to Ukraine in 1954).
And as we have seen the thousands of war crimes Russia has made in Ukraine, it’s clear that Russia does not care laws or previous treaties.
Funny thing is that because Putin was in China, asking Xi’s approval to the invasion; Xi wanted Putin to wait after the Winter Olympics – and because this delay, the Ukrainian frozen soil got thawn, and the Russian army columns got stuck on the roads for weeks – absolutely decimating the surprice attack.
Read more
7

Hide 5 replies
Missing Peace
Missing Peace
8 days ago
You’ve done drank the entire jug of Koolaid. You live in the Matrix.
3

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago

Peli Mies
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie I’m not very fond of your make-up..
But if you yourself like it; that is what matters.

Mike Lim
7 days ago
Rubbish
3

AC Milan
7 days ago
Once more, excellent! This is 100% correct, period.
2

Yossi Allen
6 days ago
Russia wants to become the USSR again. So I dont agree with him that the west necessarily caused this latest clash on its own. Putin and his cohorts in the Kremlin want Eastern Europe back in its sphere either way.
True, I wouldnt have necessarily advocated Georgia or Ukraine in joining NATO but with this latest aggressive move, Russia has helped expand NATO.
Read more
2

Craig Burns
1 day ago
I’m afraid his views
are very narrow and short sighted

E Notred
2 days ago
The Russia is a loose confederation of territories that are on the brink of collapse, Ukraine has the greatest resolve as a nation in 100 years. This sounds like Afghanistan- the breakup of Russia.
3

Hide reply

Victorious Willisorius
2 days ago
you misspelled EU

Louis Doucet
7 days ago
Thank you

Kirk Patrick
2 days ago (edited)
Who is Russia why people must bow down to her barbarism?
Russia is a totalitarian state, and to tolerate her brutality is to be no better than her.
The nations who were once part of the Soviet Union, are the most fiercest in their opposition to Russia, have anyone ever taken the time to ask why ?
It’s because these people lived under the umbrella of tyranny for ages, they witnessed first hand the brutality of the Russians, from rape, torture, mu-rder, beatings, imprisonment, loss of freedom and free speech, fear, hunger and more, they alone bear these horrors, do you know how grateful these people are to have an alliance like NATO ?.
These so called professors are speaking with a lot of education but zero wisdom, they speak from their lofty paid jobs in countries where they are free, they view Russia with sympathy, a nation to offer a sacrifice occasionally in order to appease her, the question is, are these professors willing to give their own country as appeasement to this tyrant ?
Russia must be dismantled in its current state and rebuilt as a responsible nation that respects its neighbours and the rule of law, to hell with appeasement, tyrants never know when to be satisfied and Russia is no different !!!
Read more
5

O N
4 days ago (edited)
Mearsheimer is an excellent academic, no doubt about that. Thank God he doesnt have much influence about the war in Ukraine. Victory for Ukraine
1

E Notred
2 days ago
Ukrainians are fighting for Ukraine with assistance from a dozen nations. America has been halting inept and just plain wrong in its analysis and response to the war. Resistance was stronger and more effective than anticipated, advances on Kiev fell apart.

LetsGoBrandon
4 days ago
Ukraine poking the with their , great idea, not

Blue Cheese
3 days ago (edited)
The problem isn’t solely the US desire to bring Ukraine into NATO. The real issue is the far right , neo-Nazis / nationalism in Ukraine. The persecution of Russia speakers and ethnic Russians is ridiculous
1

Christopher Wust
3 days ago
Wisdom

Lori Davis
9 days ago
Beginning to feel that this guy may be a covert pro-russian after watching another by him and now this. He certainly has lots of information to talk about…however he fails to acknowledge that a country chooses what is best for its citizens -NOT what a border sharing country wants it to do. Would your next door neighbour demand to choose the paint colour inside your house? And attack you if you picked your own colour anyway?
Ukraine has been bullied/threatened/attacked by Russia/USSR/previous for 2 centuries. This particular attack is not new. It is however the worst attack since Holodomor; the first genocide against Ukrainians by (then) USSR. Ukraine wanted safety for her people and to have their rights respected. After being bullied for two centuries of course NATO was a viable source of help. Any human being being bullied like this would welcome help!
Yet in your opinions you fail to provide the whole truth of this situation and only the end result of countries now trying to help Ukraine…
Many countries have grievances against NATO and the United States, some very logically in fact. However they are stepping into a two century old conflict.
Ukrainians worldwide; our focus is on Ukraine, our people, our culture, our heritage, that Russia is trying to wipe us off the map. It is Genocide. Again. No matter which countries have their hands soiled in creating the current situation it is ultimately Russia whose hands are soaked in blood of Ukrainians. They are the ones committing the war crimes, the murders, the rapes, the bombings, the lies about what they are doing. They are the ones who have made the choice of committing Genocide on another country that was different from them.
Read more
6

View 9 replies
jeb bush
jeb bush
2 days ago (edited)
Making Ukraine part of the west was a flawed strategy from the get-go, as was the strategic thrust behind bringing eastern european states into the EU despite their maintaining at best a very thin veneer of the rule of law. We need much more discussion on Ukraine-Russia which goes beyond the simplistic good guy-bad guy narrative the public has been fed by the media.
Read more
1

View 3 replies
Quiet Wyatt
2 days ago
He may be completely correct (he clearly believes that he is), or he may be wrong. But whatever else his claims might be, they are without question provocative. Under the current circumstances one wonders whether being a provocateur is wise. I don’t think so.

Walter Messines
11 days ago
Follow the money? Cui Bono? Seems right and yet missing several dimensions of depth.

Hide reply
Action C
Action C
11 days ago
@Walter Money of course, but how, which dimensions? Please share your thoughts.

Rob
4 days ago
This guy is making a case for Russia being allowed to dictate how other countries organize themselves. He is an apologist for Russia. His whole argument is one sided.
The reality is countries are allowed to make their own decisions without some other country like Russia having a right to dictate that no other country or group has rights to organize themselves or joint agreements.
Read more
6

Hide reply
Rany Ith
Rany Ith
4 days ago
U Just like usd more than ruble, wish Russia print more ruble like America do with dollar, so the world no need of America anymore!
1

Henke MX
1 day ago (edited)
in the end it does not matter, no country, Not US nor Russia has the right to dictate what other countries want and strive for. It was and is up to Ukraine to decide which way they want to go. Russia is the aggressor, they invaded Ukraine, another UN Nation. there are no excuses for that.

TolitsDTerrible
5 days ago (edited)
What an old babbling fool. He didn’t even consider Putin’s essay on “historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians” which obviously showed his imperial ambition. Who in his right mind, a leader of a sovereign country, would not join a military alliance if your neighbor thinks that you don’t exist? Will you blame the west again for NATO application of Finland and Sweden?
Read more
5

Hide reply

John Scurr
5 days ago
If he can further his reputation and make a living from it I would suggest his next tirade will include that as part of the repertoire. Stalin would have called him a useful old babbling fool. There were a great many of them around in the day- some learned how to make a living from it and are still barking up that tree even though there’s a different psychopath in the branches now.
Read more
1

Patrick Kolawole
2 days ago
If Ukraine want stability and peace, let UKraine be neutral of seeking NATO membership, forgo Crimea. Donbas. whose inhabitants are predominantly Russian ethnic race.
Ukraine must be a buffer zone not pro- western as long as Russia remains global power in order to maintain peace and economic growth. US can’t defeat Russia!
Patrick Kolawole Boboye
Read more

Henry Elemuo
6 days ago
Is Ukraine not a sovereign nation? Does Ukraine have the right to join an economic union that will upgrade the standard of living of its people? Blaming the west for the current Ukraine crises seem absurd.
3

Hide reply
Ajomo Mandela
Ajomo Mandela
2 days ago
At least some Americans are speaking out and opposing the warmongering of their leaders. The British sailing of that destroyer close to the Russian coast, was the last straw for the Russians. Putin is not Yeltsin and Russia is not Iraq.

cswhcs
3 days ago (edited)
Today Zelensky have the wisdom to quote Lee Kuan Yew. Before Russia invaded his country, he should have the wisdom to be sensitive to the regional political climate which he failed to correctly read. Should have seen that the regional political atmosphere wasn’t conducive to join NATO as that will upset the big guy next door. He should have played a double game. Making friends with Russia at the same time exploring non-membership cooperation with NATO but not wanting to join as a member. Now is too late. It’ll take decades before Ukraine can be rebuilt. Putin is outright wrong to have invaded but he too is partly responsible for his country’s plight today. He should have learnt that from recent history, Putin invaded Chechnya, Georgia and then Crimea. He was very careless and reckless in his political manouvres of cozying up to the west. Zelensky may be popular in local Ukrainian politics but at the same time a lousy geopolitical politician. Today he’s begging for the west’s help and complaining that heavy weaponry is not arriving fast enough. He and his predecessors did nothing much to safeguard sovereignty and national security. Did nothing to upgrade their antique Soviet era weapons. Ukraine had 30 years of independence and self governance. Since more than 10 years ago Ukrainian girls come to my country to work as tabletop dancers in nightclubs. Mr. President Zelensky, Where did all the money go?
Read more

Rodmeaux Adesacra
7 days ago
HUMANITY …. Earthlings will destruct. Peace is better than ever. Very Great entiled to an opinion.

JJV
4 days ago
I want to apologize for this long comment.
There’s nothing new about this west blaming mumble of John Mearsheimer.
He has been one of the most famous critics of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.
Mearsheimer makes arguments that seems to make sense on the surface, but fails to uphold further scrutiny.
Mearsheimer states that this crisis started at a 2008 NATO conference in Bucharest. In that conference Nato announced a plan for Georgia and Ukraine to join the defense organization that would formally align these countries with the Western world — at least militarily speaking.
Under Mearsheimer’s logic, Russia viewed this attempted union as an “existential” threat, and therefore invaded Georgia, and later Crimea and now Ukraine, to stop their neighbors from aligning themselves with the U.S. and its allies.
Of course, the natural counterpoint to this is that Ukraine should be able to decide its sovereignty and who they want to align with. Mearsheimer counters that from a realist point of view, the leaders of Ukraine and the Western world should recognize that a “great power” such as Russia is going to have its say and that Ukraine would be unwise to “poke the bear” by aligning with the U.S.
This argument makes sense on the surface, at least when taking away the moral issues at play. Realism is much more concerned with how the world is rather than how the world should be, so this is absolutely on-brand for someone who adheres to that International Relations doctrine. However, there are very significant flaws to Mearsheimer’s argument, even when looking at the situation from a “realist” point of view.
First, Mearsheimer seems to imply that Russia’s response is what any “great power” would do — no matter the circumstance — if another power brought in military forces to a country bordering it. He gives a hypothetical example of what the U.S. would do if another country, say China, had any sort of military presence in say Canada or South America. This seems to make sense on the surface until one considers that Russia already has troops from a “distant great power” as close to its borders as Ukraine.
Mearsheimer seems to conveniently forget that Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999, without any sort of military provocation from Russia. From a land perspective, Poland is nearly as close to Russia as Ukraine. Furthermore, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all also member states of NATO, and they directly border Russia.
Mearsheimer’s claim about why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place is blatantly wrong. This was not some natural, inevitable reaction by one great power to respond to a potential looming threat to their sovereignty. This invasion was about one man — Vladimir Putin — embracing the ridiculous and ahistorical claim that Russia has every right to invade Ukraine because he sincerely believes that Ukraine is actually just a part of Russia. This justifies an invasion in Putin’s mind because he never believes Ukraine should have been given sovereignty in the first place.
Putin echoed sentiments in a speech that indicates he feels that Ukraine is not a country, and instead was accidentally “created” and mistakenly given autonomy in the 1920s by Bolshevik Russia. However, this is wrong. While Russia and Ukraine have cultural ties, Ukraine is not merely a place that was made up by Vladimir Lenin’s government. Ukraine has its own complex history that does not always include Russia. For example, much of Ukraine’s territory was in the jurisdiction of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Despite Mearsheimer’s misrepresentation of Russia’s motives, one could still make the argument that Russia is a great power that will naturally have its own territorial interest. From that point of view, one could argue that the smart realist move for the United States and its allies should have been to “back off” the moment Russia indicated that an alliance with Ukraine would be an issue.
However, Mearsheimer does not address what the “realist” goals of the U.S. and its allies are. The only attempt appeared when Mearsheimer stated the U.S. policy should focus on pivoting out of Eastern Europe entirely to make an alliance with Russia so that they can be jointly united against the other “great power” — China.
To be frank, this foreign policy analysis is incorrect and suggests that at least a part of Mearsheimer’s brain is stuck in the 1980s..
From a solely militaristic perspective, Mearsheimer is not wrong that the three great powers are the United States, Russia and China. These countries possess the most nuclear weapons and have historically held differing political interests. However, since any serious military confrontation between these would likely result in a nuclear holocaust, I fail to see how it matters if the scenario involves the U.S. and China taking on Russia, or Russia and China taking on the U.S.
The point is, if the end result is everyone dying no matter what, the “teams” involved in the conflict don’t really matter.
The other dimension one could look at when defining a “great power” would be in terms of economic power. In this regard, Mearsheimer would be very wrong about Russia’s status as a “great power.” In terms of economic power, the two clear “great powers” are the U.S. and China, holding GDPs of 19 trillion and 12 trillion, respectively. No other country even gets to 5 trillion, so it’s safe to say that this is a competition between the U.S. and China.
Russia’s GDP isn’t even in the top ten on this front, and given the fact that their main export is oil and gas, they are becoming more and more economically irrelevant as the world continues to gravitate towards clean energy.
It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their “sphere of influence” and no state has the right to protest or protect their interests.
This is, of course, a very childish point of view and does not need to be debated further.
One last thing: if NATO would for real be an “existential threat” to Russia, then it would be logical for Russia to keep guarding its borders
to Nato with sufficient amount of troops. But in satellite pictures we can clearly see that Russia has moved all those troops to Ukraine. Most recently troops from Alakurtti were moved in May.
So, when people like Mearsheimer are blaming West for everything and more, they are playing in Russia’s favor. One needs to ask only one question to realize what kind of man Mearsheimer is: Why?
Read more
2

Rhonda Sisco-Cleveland
4 days ago
It’s obviously contrived.

Ken Williams
9 days ago
Thankyou for your paid presentation on behalf of the Kremlin. Your dissertation reminds me of a presenter I listened to on a cruise ship 10 years ago. The presenter dressed well and sounded informed but the premises that were the foundation of his arguments and the logic he used to develop his arguments were completely false, and as the minutes past by more and more people got up and left mid presentation. I get Déjà vu listening to you.
When has Ukraine attacked Russia?
When did Ukraine say they were going to attack Russia?
When did “The West” say they were going to attack Russia?
When did NATO become an offensive entity rather than a defensive coalition?
When did NATO announce they were going to attack Russia and take over their land and resources?
Silence.
Has Russia attacked Ukraine? – YES
Has Russia destroyed Ukrainian civil infrastructure and killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians and displaced millions of people? – YES
Does Russia have any right to be in Ukraine? – NO
Who is benefitting from the increase in the price of gas and oil? – Russia
Who has supported the Ukrainians to resist Russia’s invasion of their country – Democracies all around the world.
What characterises all despot countries? – Autocratic dictators
What characterises all Western countries? – Democracies
What happened to Putin’s political rivals? – Poisoned and/or killed or jailed.
Who tightly controls all internal media with no criticism allowed? – Russia
The fact is Putin has an expansionist mindset and NATO was put in place (and is now increased in size) thanks to Putin threatening other countries and now demonstrating that he is prepared to wage a war to expand Russian territories.
Is Putin the only person who is “right” and everyone else is wrong?
NATO has 30 members, soon to increase. Other democracies are also aligned to NATO’s thinking. Are all these leaders wrong?
NATO is trying to contain the conflict to within Ukraine. The US could send in bombers and missiles to destroy Moscow if they want to but that is not what this all about. The US and NATO have no interest in invading Russia. Any escalation in this war is solely due to Putin. If Putin was to pull his army out from Ukraine the war would stop instantly. It is only Putin who is the cause of the continuation of this conflict.
All this rubbish about “The West” provoking Russia is total bullshit. It is the “coolaid” given to the weak minded to try to justify Putin’s unjustifiable grab for land and resources and cash.
No one benefits from this other than Putin and his cronies like the oligarchs and arms dealers.
Putin is quite happy to have civilians and soldiers die like cattle led to the slaughter.
Putin is a war criminal and you are his flunky.
Read more
11

Hide 24 replies

Lori Davis
9 days ago
YES
2

Tlou Tlou2
9 days ago
Ukraine must leave Russians in Donbas alone.
2

Shuchin Taher
9 days ago
So how many times did the cia try to assassinate castro in cuba just because it was close ally of the Soviets? I’m assuming you opposed that because cuba is a sovereign country which never attacked the usa and they had the right to have russian missiles on their soil? I’m also assuming you oppose the Monroe doctrine (look it up)? I’m assuming you would be totally ok if China or russia made a military alliance with Mexico and did military exercises with Mexico inside Mexico, and flooded Mexico with weapons and killed something like 10000 pro western Mexicans over 8 years in regions in mexico which are western friendly in an attempt to turn mexico into an unfriendly neighbor to the usa? NATO was created with USSR in mind and its existance is still justified with Russia in mind. So of course Russia will view it as a threat, and they have repeated their concerns about NATO crawling too close to their borders over and over. It all fell on deaf ears. What was Russia supposed to do? Just sit idly by as they are completely surrounded by NATO from all corners? Ukraine and Georgia in nato? NATO was supposed to be the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation. Ukraine and Georgia are nowhere near the North Atlantic and neither are Latvia, Estonia, etc, but they are all on Russia’s borders. Forget Putin, no Russian leader that gives a damn about Russia would sit idly by while the west entirely surrounds Russia with NATO bases and NATO weapons from all sides and wait for an attack to the point where its too late to defend. Russia has no reason to trust NATO because in 1991 they were given an informal promise that NATO would not expand east of Germany and look how that turned out. If you happen to be in the USA and UK, you certainly have no leg to stand on after entirely destroying Iraq, Libya and illegally occupying Syria as we speak. These are all also sovereign countries which in no way threatened the west. If you are American please convince your government to get out of Syria and Iraq as they have no right to be there. Even the puppet government of Iraq installed by USA voted to ask USA forces to leave Iraq but they still stay there by force. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Read more
7

Tlou Tlou2
9 days ago
@Shuchin Taher its a questionof race . Let put it straight.

Mutant Pig
9 days ago
@Ken Williams, I make 6 figures in the US because people like you…
1

Ken Williams
9 days ago
@Mutant Pig Congratulations, if you can make money because people like me then more power to you.
1

republica
8 days ago
@Shuchin Taher I’ll keep it simple. When Sputin invites you over for a cup of tea, go immediately, please don’t hesitate. Enjoy.

Try telling the truth.
8 days ago
The Cuban missile crisis is a good indicator of the West’s aggression towards what was at the time, the USSR

Ken Williams
8 days ago
@Jose Raagas And what about Vlad the Impaler since your hell bent on not focusing on the issues at hand. What about, what about, what about.

Ken Williams
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie You Russian troll?

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@Ken Williams Yes I am

Ken Williams
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie Why don’t you have more self respect than to support Putin Are you that afraid of him?

Yap Siauw Soen Gie
6 days ago
@Ken Williams are you?

Ken Williams
6 days ago
@Yap Siauw Soen Gie No I’m not a Russian troll.

Ray Dziesinski
5 days ago
According to the logic presented here there is no reason to ‘pivot to China’. If we step away from that issue (doing nothing) to stand with allies there who fear China domination. Your case is to give up Eastern Europe to the Russian kleptocracy. Note, the Black Sea is not Russian Territorial waters. It is recognized as national waters. How does an invasion which initially aimed to decapitate the leadership in Kiev suggest anything other than a national take over?
Having said that the Third NATO expansion was unwise. It was arrogant. To quote Yoda in Star Wars, “now things are worse”.
So why not come out with a logically consistent position and argue against a pivot to Asia? Does the ‘great power / sphere of influence’ view of the world see a better world under a US – European / China / Russia division of the globe? If so, then say so.
Read more
2

Hide 2 replies

John Scurr
5 days ago
Ray – Be careful mate you are standing against one whose word must, apparently, not be called into question. (For I am a jealous God springs to mind) In fact things are better overall for Nato now than before Putrid started his murderous Soviet – sorry we really should stick to RuSSia because to some the label is all important – expansion. The whole Northern flank of Nato never enjoyed this sort of stability or security during the whole length of the cold war. Putrid scared two considerably well armed, wealthy and industrial nations into asking for consideration for NATO membership – No Soviet leader has achieved that – Putrid, we thank you for that. I see the lauded Prof has made other clips of how Ukraine should split up. Well Ukraine came into being as a sovereign nation as a result of splitting up – by choice it broke away from Russia. Just why is this man so pro Russia/Putrid and yet so anti the nation and the nations supporting that nation which has given him the opportunity to be in a position to air whatever he pleases when the opposition would never have allowed him the freedom to do attack them in the same manner?
Read more

Shashi Menon
7 days ago
Completely agree with the Professoe’s assessment and point of view. Shame on the West for literally destroying a country for their selfish ends.
3

Steve Tran
8 days ago
This guys already forgotten the super power called Americans and a little country called Vietnam. The big guys with the big guns has to pulled out and ran home. The will’s to fight for your country and saving your homeland is the greatest weapons in the world. The invaders doesn’t have that will’s
2

Hide reply

Havoc1521
8 days ago
their were any ethnic English speaking white folks that identified with them in Vietnam, and Vietnam wasn’t on America’s borders. please use critical thinking
1

Susanna Marker
3 days ago
Ukraine is not a democratic country. It’s a large chunk of the old USSR. It has a long way to go to being anywhere near a democracy.
1

Schuyler Butler
9 days ago
Russia drove themselves towards the Chinese
1

Hans
3 days ago
This is Appeasement 101, defending an indefensible theory. NATO is not and has never been aggressive, so it’s “expansion” has always been defensive. Furthermore, blaming “the West” for things Ukrainians want, is ridiculous. Mearsheimer if an apologist for Putin. Fortunately, there are more convincing arguments placing the blame where it belongs – on Putin.
Read more

kooros mahmudian
3 days ago
Blame Gorbachev

climate change
4 days ago
I agree I think this whale is heading towards a black hole

Tony Romeo
3 days ago
Why do you think that the Russians are the goods, unbelievable?
1

FAISAL CIRCLE
22 hours ago
Our disobedience with our creator is the cause of all problems. Creator is one, some says creator has son. Creator is creator he is not male or man to have son. This is considered disobedience and cause problem for disobedient.

Yoke choy Fan
8 days ago
Do you remember what president Frank Roosevelt say we are the economy power of the world but it won’t last the time
1

Hide reply

Guy Littleford
5 days ago
Remember him saying that Pearl Harbor was unprovoked?

Mikee C
4 days ago
Excellent point sir,how hard is it for nato to say no to ukraine membership?

Danny Memmory
4 days ago
This planet is not going to make it to the fall

BrushMark Arts
15 hours ago
Maybe the US might think of minding their own business instead of snicking their ling noses into other peoples pots…….

Bruce Radford
2 days ago
Well Putin had invaded

demirel2000
5 days ago
I agree 100%, NATO getting closer to Russia means WW3

Hide reply

Ronald Russel
4 days ago (edited)
Are you serious? What about Finland and NATO?

Jorge Tomas
3 days ago
Si este tio sigue incordiando a la narrativa de los grandes medios se lo van a peinar.

brandenburg2388
5 days ago
I’d say we send Biden over to Moscow pacify the raging Russian Bear with a loaf of bread….

jacqueline toia
4 days ago
ALWAYS AMERICA

Allan Torng
5 days ago
Why is China a threat? Are you able to provide clarity to that perspective, please?

Hide reply
Ron
Ron
5 days ago
imperialists felt so! ha…………………………
1

charles chin
1 day ago (edited)
Well, I direct answer this question. Is putin, think nobody would object to this answer. Don’t need a phd to ans this question.

Mario Ferri
2 days ago
COME ON..it’s to the end..Putin will not back down..he will take less

David Gree
2 days ago
Follow the money. Gas/coal/pipeline.

yousouf kirkwood
2 days ago
USA. From Truman to Biden.

J Loterte
12 hours ago
absolutely this guy is a Pro-Russian!

MrJonasinfinity
5 days ago
Came to conference UE…most probably we (and mostly or politicians) will learn something interesting!!!

Darren Meears
2 days ago
Finally someone who tells it as it is the west must take some blame
1

Antonius Holleboom
2 days ago
Who really? Mr president Putler of course!

Annette Mudde
13 hours ago
tha bear would be blind for the rest of its life is my opinion but what do i know.

Jose Lucena Martin
1 day ago
And have you asked yourself why all the countries that were under Soviet autority wanted to join NATO?

LaurisNorstad
3 days ago
Wrong scale. Look at P. Zeihan.

ISSAIAS GEBREGEREGIS
2 days ago
I need use Olvie oil extraordinary natural natives I think sun flower also not bad ADN NDA NCA OBB .CBM. Type BL blood

Daniel
1 day ago
just put tobacco mate. its too strong what you are having dude.

Jacinto Chua
11 days ago
intelligent people should learn.
1

CF Yong
4 days ago
It’s all the UselessA fault – the disruptive and dead merchant. It’s simple as that.

James Greenier
2 days ago
Separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Papah Olke
5 days ago
EVERY EVEN in this World … NOT HAPPENED NATURALY ALL MANUFACTURED … FABRICATED and GENIOUSLY PLANNED by the MOVE of POWER of the WORLD
they LEARN thousand TIMES since THOUSAND years AGO
you ASK WHO … ???
The ANSWER is …
WHO GOT LUCKY … ???
Read more

Caro Sarda Henriques.de-Granada
3 days ago
I hope all the foreign mercenaries are listening to the chap

B T
8 days ago
Know that, the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men (Daniel 4:17). This is Bible prophesy coming to pass. What is the one thing that Ukraine is known for, unlike many other countries? The Jewish diaspora! The Bible says God will gather them through hook or crook back to Jerusalem – Ezekiel 22.
1

Wycliff Royston
8 days ago
Russia did…not the west orr the US…

Tommy Noble ( turn the other Fist )
5 days ago
NATO aggression by expansion / Russian aggression by expansion . So who’s in the wrong ?

Hide reply

John Scurr
5 days ago
There is a huge difference which you miss – deliberately or otherwise, who am I to judge? Russian aggression looking to re-establish the old Soviet empire/territories has been continuous not with what can be termed aggression but more by what could be termed invasion, mayhem and murder. It’s the Russian/Soviet/Putin way and he’s pretty successful at it because the only ones who successfully stood up to him were the Afghan warlords.
Now please point out to me where Nato expansion has been the result of Nato aggression. It has very successfully been expanded due to Russian aggression as can be seen by the request from Sweden and Finland to join. Who could’ve foreseen that?
The difference being a nation has to apply for consideration for membership of Nato. For the Russian form they only need to be invaded! This time they have invaded a former ally to bully them into their sphere of influence when clearly that nation or at least the majority of it wishes to look elsewhere for its military/financial/industrial/social wellbeing.
So perhaps you can now point out to me who is in the wrong please?
Read more

Vasilis Patsalidis
4 days ago
The USA.

William Wells
20 hours ago
Repeat. after me, Asta del vego Putin. Bush did not doooooo it. Russia is crumbling day by day as the Ukraine get stronger and stronger..

Atta Whisly
8 days ago
The dark side of America matters of coup over thrown governments in many nation countries historical
pages form of coup,so many questions.First of all about red Indians, Africains Australians and palastines every terrified.Sometine we do asked ourselves what is the credibility account of America when is not their interest or favour? Palestine is also terrified situation since sixths up till now,what’s différence between Palastine when we talking about Ukraine sovereignty?( Institute of United nation UN about Palastine sovereignty ?since treat of
Conversion referee? I dont get all this rubbish so call superpowers.
Read more

J. E. N. OCTOBER
2 days ago (edited)
One man’s opinion, even an educated opinion, can be completely off track, derailed, playing in spaces that seem reasonably connected but gaps and holes, lacking a thorough full view of historical context. For those of you who would like a equally compelling and reasonable understanding to this NATO Russia debacle, that is opposite of what you see here, then follow on to the next video. https://youtu.be/vlB-pRqdyBg. This video is more aligned with truth of the matter.
Two people can use the exact same facts, events, processes, references, speaking to the exact same scenario, but depending on political leanings, personal desires, personal agenda, the two people can also produce diametrically opposed narratives that are simply not worthy of considering if to develop new policy, new strategy, and certainly stands little chance of positioning any future solution to succeed is forming or directing NATO to deal with Russia. Simply due to distortion. Mr. Johnny, I have less credentials than you from an educational standpoint, (and not that this means anything considering depth of study or breadth of cognitive bandwidth between us) but you have less knowledge and perspective than I do. I have studied, read, researched Russian history since 1994, have been to Russia a few times, Belarus two times, Ukraine two times and have numerous dozens of colleagues from Russian, Ukraine and Belarus. I maintain several relationships even today with a handful of intelligent Russian peoples. I am also a committed long-term student and practitioner of applied psychological methods as it pertains to negotiation, sales, business development, consumer advertisement, political propaganda, military and intel psyops, and have a very good handle of techniques developed in the Soviet Union, which is still under way today. Your assessment is imperfect, lacking full substance and 360 objectivity of the situation as it has unfolded for the past 22 years – at least. Anyhow, I’m tired of gassing my digits by writing this commentary, but in a nutshell, your off the path of truth.
Read more
2

Edmund Pasan
6 days ago
Who says Ukraine is a NATO member?

Who What
4 days ago
Putin i not agressor its Usa and west always.
1

Doug Reed
16 hours ago
Noticed the illuminati 666 hand sign there, another elite clown!

juozas talandis
5 days ago
Ukrainian defenders would show you a middle finger Prof. Sounds like you would negotiate and even apologize to Hitler as well.
1

John adam
8 days ago
I understand how this war start

KGBz
6 days ago
All warz are banker warz

Scott Ola
5 days ago
The old man of wise-dom is talking wise words again…. Everyone listen and learn … gaadddammnnn ittt .. . . !!
1

ItCanBeDoneAMIGO!
2 days ago
As usually little people pay the price, the rich rull the world

Mutua CK
4 days ago
USA
1

Jeff Barbato
2 days ago
The more you push the more Ukraine won t be.

Michael J. Corrigan
2 days ago
Russia decided to start a war, and did. End of story.

Hide reply
JB Bgin
JB Bgin
2 days ago (edited)
Meh. Hitler/Putin will continue until stopped is what I heard him say.

Maureen H
2 days ago
Whoever this is he is such a doomsayers

charles chin
1 day ago (edited)
perverse logic

Сергей Давыдов
2 days ago
He forgot important factor – ukrainian fascism.

Alexandru Diaconescu
5 days ago
Cause — Putin the Graeat “Imperialism in instalments” Do not complicate the truth Mr Proffesor…..

AGF fans
6 days ago (edited)
Who has the greater resolve and cares the most, the US or Russia, the US-centric says ? , wrong question, who is fighting at home for it’s freedom and so has the greater resolve and cares the most ? We know by looking at past history, that even smaller nations than Ukraine with vastly less support and military capability have worn out and kicked out the so called military super powers like Russia and USA. Do we even need to mention Afghanistan that has a smaller population and is vastly less competent military wise than Ukraine ? There is a reason why there is an N in NATO. Europe simply can not afford that Ukraine lose this war to neighboring Russia, that is not somewhere far away in Africa or the Middle East, and the USA can not afford that NATO are going to fail, because that would be the end of the alliance and peace in Europe. Russia as a military threat and bully in Europe simply has to end here and now in Ukraine. There is no way around it, like it or not.
Read more
2

Hide 6 replies
David Qin
David Qin
6 days ago
Very well said. Ukraine with all the supports from NATO and no NATO countries will wear out Russia much sooner than Vietnam having done to the US and Afghanistan to Soviet.
1

Guy Littleford
4 days ago
Russia’s strategic path is not to occupy Ukraine in toto . It is to section off Donna’s, and consolidate their control of the Crimean Peninsula, at least the Western sector, but possibly now, the whole lot. Western Ukraine is not their objective. But they are very determined to ensure that NATO not set up there. The Ukranians have valiantly and bravely fought with ferocity and commitment, but the war is as good as lost. The recapture of Snake Island is not strategically important. The loss of Donbas is. The writing is on the wall. It’s profoundly tragic and terrible. This war could have been avoided through negotiation. Ukraine is devastated. Animals and trees have been ravaged. The people are traumatised and impoverished. It is time to negotiate the inevitable deal, and it will involve very painful compromises. The US, UK and NATO should have managed the situation with greater skill and better foresight.
Read more

AGF fans
4 days ago (edited)
@Guy Littleford .. The Russian strategy is of no importance to us Scandinavians. We are the Ancients, and ancestors of the Angles (Anglo) and the Rus’ who Putin wrongfully want to take credit for being a descendant of, and so, in his madness, he has now long passed our threshold and awakened a Viking respond to his war crimes, so if Ragnarok is what he want, then Ragnarok is what he is now going to get, and it has already been decided among the Ancients, that Russia will not be allowed to win.
The “Russian bear” now will be declawed for good, so that it will never again be able to bully and be a threat to it’s neighboring countries. So this will end here and now in Ukraine. It has already been agreed upon and so it will be, no matter what Russia think or believe they may be capable of doing.
Read more

AGF fans
4 days ago
@Guy Littleford .. Btw, There is no way this war could have been avoided, because this has nothing to do with NATO expansion or the USA, but with Putin demanding “lebensraum” and not respecting Ukraine to be a country of it’s own or the Ukrainians to be an actual people.
Putin believe that recreating a greater Russia is not possible without invading all of Ukraine at all cost, and if not possible then pulverizing all of the cities of Donbas and the Ukrainian infrastructure, which is where we, the Ancients, now are forced to step in, though we really do not want to interfere in any human disputes, but enough is enough, and so it has to end here. if Putin want to invoke Ragnarok, then this is what he is going to get, and by Ragnarok, I’m not talking about the use of nukes or any conventional weapons known to humans.
Read more

Francis Kamanga
23 hours ago
Even now Putin is not after recreating USSR. It’s America and it’s allies that think what you talking.

I don’t Know
7 days ago (edited)
The Biden’s

Patrick Okage
3 days ago
#NATO is being micromanaged by the US and EU their solitary advantage, I think the professor,s analysis is right.
1

omar168
2 days ago
Hack!

World Justice
5 days ago
God Bless Russia!! God Bless China!!!! God Bless Cuba!!!
2

JGF
16 hours ago
Bad sound

Green Peace
8 days ago
Amen

Robert Porsche
4 days ago
America

George Baso Nathan
1 day ago
Even with the current dip in crypto currency’s I’m glad I can smile back at my portfolio of $107,000built from my weekly trading I have received my sixth withdrawal which is every 14 business days per trade investing through expert Mr Arjun B Jagat
2

Hide 24 replies

LEa
1 day ago
there’s no doubt crypto investment is the key to future wealth, with the current profit of $68,000 made from my investment with Mr Arjun trading platform I’m totally convinced, he’s the best trading broker I have worked with and his strategies are so easy to adapt he’s such a blessing to me especially in this current dip

Cyn D
1 day ago
@LEa Agree with you digital currencies that were once viewed as mysterious by many in the past went sky high making millions of dollars for a lot of people including I. It’ll definitely do that soon

Nissan38p
1 day ago
@LEa I’ve been in the red for the past couple months , lost 12k couple weeks back , Indubitably I’ve got good companies but profit is still stalling how did you go about finding such – advisor ? I wouldn’t mind looking up yours

LEa
1 day ago
@Nissan38p My advisor is Arjun B Jagat , found him on Bloomberg where he was featured and I reached out at once . If you care for a little no – pressure guidance , you can look up his name. \

LEa
1 day ago
FAC>BOK (Arjun B Jagat)

LEa
1 day ago
@Nissan38p The

LEa
1 day ago
人人人＋𝟣𝟩𝟨𝟧𝟤𝟥𝟢𝟤𝟣𝟤𝟩 ෴人人꧂美国美国

Martin Mo Mu
1 day ago
I’m honestly surprised that this name is being mentioned here, I stumbled upon one of his clients testimony last two months in CNBC world news and decided to try him out…I’m Expecting my third cashout in 2days

lighten-truth
1 day ago
@LEa I also needed his info too I’ll write him than

H38LO45
1 day ago
All good investors are conversant with expert Arjun, he’s unique in the field just got to keep to his instructions and you’ll Excel. /

Show more replies

sharuk98
2 days ago
USA

David Kolkind
2 days ago
Trump told Ukrainian they belong to Russia

Banglaroad
3 days ago
Russia should set up continental missiles in Cuba and Venezuela……….right now.

Desa –
2 days ago
So sorry how come Western countries only got this man awake?

Red Hitler
4 days ago
Why is this only 55k views
?? People should share this to the Ukrainian. THEY ARE THE LOSER OF THIS WAR. Ans Zelensky needs to stop being and acting like some kind of an Avenger cartoon.

John Flanagan
2 days ago
@Nick Dylan so you joined YouTube on 22nd June and no content? Get a life troll.

Jonathan Tye
2 days ago
Finland and Sweden want join NATO why. USA fault

Ray Wolff
7 days ago
WOW: cause & affect , velocity / mass / drag , bully on the block wins every time, I have it , this
trump look alike ,hand motions hair swap for attempt at logic . NATO wat about that. Ha.. pukin
come and take my walnuts
And teach me and the kibs
ruskie but tell me it’s my fault for walking up right.
Read more

Bahia Lynch
4 days ago
Quite a strait forward answer the USA period

cana dude
4 days ago
Putin only.

Jonathan Tye
2 days ago
Disgrace for university of chicago

View reply
abawerazut
abawerazut
3 days ago
The argument that a country with the largest nuclear arsenal is worried about existential threat doesn’t make sense in my opinion. The peace or the safety of the Soviet Union during the cold war was not maintained as a result of them having a larger buffer zone with NATO, but rather because of the mutually assured destruction entailed in a nuclear warfare.
The problem seems to be that Putin doesn’t want Ukraine or any of the former Soviet Union member countries to outshine Russia in system of governance or economic prosperity because he knows that he has created a third world type of democracy in Russia. If those countries aspire to make Sweden or Denmark out of themselves and succeed that is a bad influence to Russia and consequently a bad omen to his grip of power from his viewpoint. We have to remember that this is a man who coerced constitutional amendment to rule Russia as long as he lives. American politics is greed driven but with a limit to what they can do because power is not absolute. In Putin’s case he is as greedy but with almost absolute powers which leads to the question, who is the worst evil?
So if the message here is to justify Russia’s action, it simply is sad!
Read more
2

View 3 replies
Mach Daddy
Mach Daddy
5 days ago (edited)
Mr Mearsheimer is the most unamerican american I have ever known.

Tommy Tuomaala
1 hour ago
why didnt russio moive its fleet to cuba rather than invade ukrain. better diplomatics to get us to back down.

Fred Johnson
3 days ago
Why no talk of the financial interests of the USA , big money and the Biden family,,and others?

John Luuring
5 days ago
Why doesn’t Russia join NATO? Situation resolved.
1

Hide 2 replies

Сергей Давыдов
2 days ago
Russia tried, but with Russia in NATO NATO does no reason to exist.

Robert Pennington
5 days ago
666

martin hawkins
10 days ago
You mean the panto

antborain6000000
5 days ago
Crimea was by referendum. Ukrainians wanted Russia there.
1

Hide reply

Natalka Denysenko
2 days ago
Do you really believe in referendum on the occupied territory, with armed soldiers on the streets? Is Russia a country that can organize democratic elections or referendum?

Regina Semenenko
10 days ago
Stop blaming
1

Quantum Uncertainty Workshop
2 days ago
even Turkey was smart enough to be the only vote against Ukraine joining NATO, it’s not because they side with Russia but because they don’t want to see an all out nuclear war kick off because of it.

Uli Hanel
2 days ago
Your talk or may be you want it seen as an analysis is plainly wrong.

Corneliu Ioan Marinescu
3 days ago

Alexander Seven
9 days ago
Yanukovich was never pro-Russian, what is he talking about?
2

Hide reply
Aria 900
Aria 900
6 days ago
He was. Poroshenko wasn’t
1

Chuck Taylor
3 days ago
Putin. Who else?

Gordon Russell
10 hours ago
There is no excuse for bombing apartments, schools and hospitals. Sorry.

B&W Out Channel
4 days ago
US did this in IRAN many decades back and it went poorly ever since.

terachai chaorattana
8 days ago
you

Sebastian Gil
5 days ago
Dear Prof. a simple truth nobody want to acknowledge in the west!

Quang Truong
1 day ago
This professor is talking like the uneducated car sellers, trying to sale the cars, but never know how the engine works and how the center control system works. So sorry for his time and effort to study.

funkyplasmaman
5 days ago
He talks some shite this fella, he thinks Russias neighbors must only deal with Russia, they can choose their own partners

Alain Gravel
2 days ago
Cette analyse ne supporte pas le poids historique de la culture Ukrainienne.

richard miranda
3 days ago
Who is this old woman.

Martin
21 hours ago (edited)
Putler!

Zinovi Golodner
4 days ago
It’s a strange, if not ridiculous, to blame US or NATO for Russian military operation against Ukraine. Russia throughout her history felt threatened every time it used an opportunity to conquer a neighbor country or grab a piece of neighbor’s territory. The real cause of the current situation is Russian imperial ambitions which was throughout her history the dominant policy regardless of what government was in charge. Ukraine and Georgia had all the reasons to be scared of Russian aggression. You can’t blame them for trying to join an alliance of friendly countries that would help them in need. The fall of Soviet Union is seen by the Russian government and majority of population as a disaster and a injustice to great Russia. It is unconscionable to blame the victim of aggression or its friends to blame them while the Russian Federation behaves like nazi Germany in 1930.
Read more
1

Peter ton
4 days ago
Full of crap
2

Andrew Polish Kangur
4 days ago
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!! AND CHECHENYA????? I am sorry you analysis flawed!!!!! What about Baltic States ???? So what you are suggesting Free Countries cannot decide about their own feature????? Where is your comment about imperial russian ambition???? You are so mistaken!!! Quote: putin new hitler wants an Empire !!!! even now they want Alaska ! Sorry your analysis is flawed!!!
Read more
1

Natalka Denysenko
2 days ago
This opinion is not objective. Professor is taking only the facts he likes, the ones that can be used to support his theory & skips all the rest facts. Actually, no facts are used but just the comments of Western & Russian politicians. Its not a scientific approach. My advice to people from West who want to know more on this situation: try to get info about the reasons of war that Russians are discussing inside their country & in Slavic countries. The reasons mentioned by prof Mearsheimer are exported to the West, but they are not real. And a question to prof: why did Russians occupied Moldova in 1992 by the same scenario? Why did they start two wars in Chechnya? There was absolutely no connection with NATO.
Read more

IBACb
3 days ago
Blah,blah,blah,.. It was those pesky Ukrainians and their crazy notion of themselves as being actual human beings deserving actual human rights.. I mean really, the nerve!

Darwin Biler
2 days ago
“its NATOs fault because they wanted for Ukraine and Georgia to join” – of course any alliance wants new member to join, why are you framing it as ifs an evil thing to do? What is wrong is invading another country just because you failed to convince them to not join NATO
2

Igor Karpov
5 days ago (edited)
OK, suppose someone has a big ranch and many weapons on it in his house. One day he knew his neighbour with much less land wanted to purchase a rifle and enroll a shooting sports association. So he felt an “existential threat”, and one early morning he killed his neighbour, burned his house, raped his wife, injured their son, and took the washing machine frome their house. At the court his attorney says ‘my client is not guilty, the gun seller and the shooting sports association are.” You cannot compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the USSR actually brought soviet missiles to Cuba, Ukraine’s NATO membership could not be treated as an ‘existential threat” to Russia, you are killing me. Russia has two examples, one is good, the other one is bad, the bad one is Serbia, and the good one is Canada which has 3 times less military budget, and 10 times smaller than Russia army directly borders the US, and doesn’t feel any ‘existential threat”…The problem and real reason of the war, is that Putin hates democracy , and his allies friends are dictators, he calls his system the “vertical of power” and wants to establish the same system for other countries, so people don’t think about democracy, devision of powers, etc. Ukraine historically has been a democracy with one of the first countries to have thier constitution and elected leaders, where decision making process had been democratic, And Putin hates that, and that is the existential threat for him personally and his mafia state he has built in Russia.
Read more

Tim Riverstone
2 days ago
Refreshing to hear a counter argument, not just the trashology from the war mongers.

Jonathan Tye
2 days ago
Traitor

Linda Chamuel
4 days ago
He doesn’t talk about the roots of all this situation? Why Ukraine wants to freed itself from Russia so badly? That’s the most important thing. If you don’t understand that, you know nothing! So stop this self hatred propaganda about the West! Stop being a Russian parrot. This is a nearsighted point of view!
1

PERRY MASON
2 days ago
The first 8 minutes of this guy is all I could take. So russia is nervous because Ukraine wants to join NATO?. Maybe if russia didn’t take the crimea from them (and starve millions of them during the 1930’s) Ukraine wouldn’t be looking to join NATO. So russia is nervous about the eastward expansion of NATO?, maybe if russia didn’t invade Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Georgia, (have I forgotten any?) then there would be no NATO to begin with. The aforementioned countries did not invade russia, they were invaded by russia. The russians are clearly the aggressors.
Read more
1

Eugene Wu
7 days ago
Reconstruct Soviet Union, no war will happen again.
1

Captain America America
3 days ago
IT’S ALWAYS BEST TO BE FRIENDS WITH RUSSIA. A LOT TO GAIN. TOO LATE AMERICA!
AUTHENTIC WARRIORAUTHENTIC WARRIOR
10 days ago
Hindsight bias
1

James Shiels, Sober Life.
8 days ago (edited)
Crimea voted to join russia after the far right 2014 coup in Kiev.
1

Ernest Mac Murray
2 days ago
I dont agree with anything your saying . If Ukraine is a free nation then thye have the right to join any Treaty Orginization thye want. Lunacy . Are you a communist ? you think Communism is good ? defacto Lunacy
1

Hide reply
Joseph Lopez
Joseph Lopez
2 days ago (edited)
great american talker. Vietnam was small with the great america extending its power yet that war was won in the battle field. China was nobody that time, put in mind the world order has changed now…nukes are changing the game and war perspective for its deterrence. Napoleon’s army was huge yet resilience of a country at war makes the big difference. Will America wait for the last Ukranian in this fight before their official boot soldier is deployed? Why wait when Russia has stage the battle field. This war is killing the world economy and the rich power hungry countries started this.
Read more

Reynaldo Dizon
12 hours ago
This guy is too old enough that he need to shut up his mouth and too pessimist . He need to retired because his ideas are cold war mentality.

Omuni Lihanda
5 days ago
Bare truth. Ukraine is loosing what it would have lost at zero cost of life. Not in this life will russia return the annexed lands or those it intends to annex.

Colin Broadbelt
6 days ago
At least this guy tells it as it really is ,mad yanks and nato are to blame.

Bei Zhang
2 days ago
no,no us government is the best, you my profesor are brain washed by the commis, how much did you get paid by those commis

Galaxymetta
3 days ago
Just stop Ukraine war to solve energy and food shortages. If europe wants Russia to respect its security concerns, Europe needs to learn to respect Russia security concerns and not to repeatedly break western promises not to expand Nato eastward which threatened Russia.
Since USA was prepared to start a nuclear war during the cuban crisis in 1962 to prevent Russia from putting nuclear weapons in cuba, USA should also respect Russian concerns and not pave the way for Ukraine to have nuclear weapons. The world needs mutual respect and cooperation, not selfish bullies. Cheers.
Read more

Ohisio John
3 days ago
I don’t agree with the professor anymore. I agree with many that Finland and and Sweden are joining NATO, why Russia does not attack them?. The War in Ukraine is totally uncalled for. Russia caused this war. Talking of existential threat against a sovereign Country is bogus. Crimea and now Donbas. Did these Regions wanted to join NATO?.
Read more
1

John Flanagan
2 days ago
My second comment is that his boring speech has been shortened to 23 minutes. Don’t waste your time if you support Ukraine.

Hide reply

Nick Dylan
2 days ago
So go there and fight

Poovan Ratnam
7 days ago
I wish Russia wipe out NATO out off Europe.

sergejpopov
2 days ago
Everytime this gentleman says word Russians, replace it with Putin.
Russians could give two shits about Ukraine joining NATO or EU.
1

james Gem
5 days ago
Nothing new here. Old news.

cisltd
3 days ago
You didn’t mention the 14000 Eastern ethnic Russians the Ukraine army has killed in 8 years. Not all Ukraine is pro EU or Nato. Much like Northern Ireland that there are a mix in the country.
Let Ukraine split. Pro Ruusia and pro EU.
Read more

Anton Beloborodov
5 days ago
He is deeply wrong. NATO expansion playing zero role in this crisis. Russia since collapse of USSA wanted to swallows Ukraine and Belarus. This was long term strategy.

P Johnson
4 days ago
Hey Mearsheimer, if Russia is so good, why don’t you emigrate? How is having a liberal democracy on your doorstep an existential threat? Why should that threaten a country that treats its citizens well?
1

Hide 2 replies
Vesma Dimits
1 day ago
Yes,yes ,yes why don’t he go to live in Russia ???? Simply i can’t listening his unrealistic fantasy…out of touch..and so many people accepting his mangled thought…????
2

Vijole Arbas
8 days ago
The Baltics always knew Russia is a vicious aggresor. So did others in the region. So your argument is already flawed.
1

============================================

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

============================================

PDF Download

top

Transcript Total words = 3,289
Blog Post Total words = 43,963
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Jul 12, 2022 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments.

John Mearsheimer – katana17

Keith Woods – Ron Unz Interview – Editor of the Unz Review – Mar 25, 2023 – Transcript

Keith Woods

Ron Unz Interview

Editor of the Unz Review

Sat, Mar 25, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2v4bGU8-As

Description

TRANSCRIPT QUALITY = 4 Stars

TRANSCRIPT

“Should jews police their own regarding anti-White racism just as much as White people police their own regarding non-White racism? If so, how? Are words enough? Or should there be firings and fines and moderate jail time for incitement against Whites?

“Hi. What is your opinion on Bitcoin and CBDCs?”

“Is the suppression of all the Chinese protests in 2019 sufficient motivation for China to have released the virus? At the time, it just seemed to me like it was the golden excuse for them to shut everything down?”

END

YouTube Comments

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

John J. Mearsheimer – Who (Really) Caused the Crisis in Ukraine – Mar 2, 2022 – Transcript

John J. Mearsheimer

Who (Really) Caused the

Crisis in Ukraine

Mar 2, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dumT4TiemuU

YouTube Description

TRANSCRIPT

“This is an existential threat to us!”

“Was the boiling point.”

“We had reached our boiling point. First expansion of NATO. Second expansion of NATO. And then all of these events associated with Ukraine.”

“This has absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansion!”

“Maybe NATO expansion is not such a good idea.”

“This was all a bad idea. I regret doing it!”

“This is an existential threat! This is an existential threat!”

“Why is he saying that?”

Why don’t people get this …

END

YOUTUBE COMMENTS

1,476 comments

See Also

PDF Download

Version History