So why is it that we support Ukraine in this war? Or put another way, why are we
against Russia? Let's be clear; almost all media outlets in the West, including your favorite one,
VisualPolitik, take it for granted that Putin is the bad guy and Zelenskiy is the good guy.
Side note: in case someone is going to put it in the comments, we have never
said that Ukraine is paradise on earth. What’s more, we have a long list of videos in which
we have outlined the corruption and all the shameful behavior of Ukrainian politicians.
Even when we gave a VisualPolitik 2021 award to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, we made it very clear
that we can't even guarantee that this man doesn't have some corruption scandal lurking in his past.
In any case... All of our videos start from the premise that the invasion of Ukraine is barbaric
in every sense of the word. We start from the premise that both Europe,
the United States along with liberal democracies around the world must unite to stop Putin:
we've talked about trade sanctions, rearmament in Europe and arms shipments to Ukraine.
That's the basis of all our analysis here on VisualPolitik. And many of you will ask
why, is there really no argument to defend Putin's position? What
if reality were more complex than a story of good guys and bad guys?
Well, the truth is... there are legitimate arguments to defend Putin's actions. And no,
we are not going to talk about pro-Russian propagandists.
Nor are we going to talk about some wannabe influencer trying to get famous... there are some
in every country. We are going to talk about top political analysts who would
not agree with us at all. People with enormous academic and political prestige.
Mainly, this gentleman you see here... John Mearsheimer. He has a lecture entitled "Why
Ukraine is the West's fault" which has already accumulated more than 27 million views on YouTube,
so take that for all the people that say that YouTube is only for light content!
Well, in this video, we are going to unpack many of the main theories that, in one way or another,
criticize the actions of the West and, in their own way, justify Putin's action. As
you can imagine, there is a lot of editorial positioning in this video. And, naturally,
there are many things you can discuss in the comments. All we ask is that you be respectful.
Because the questions we are asking today are;
What are the main anti-NATO theories in this Ukrainian war? Why do we think they are wrong?
What do we think are the biggest myths of the Ukrainian invasion? Today we are going to answer
these questions but first, let's look at a little bit of history.
(IDEALISM vs. REALPOLITIK)
I'm sure many of you have seen John Mershmeiher's talk. If you have not seen it,
we’ll leave the link in the description. The first thing we have to understand is
that this man represents a very specific ideology in international relations.
He is one of the main representatives of the so-called "political REALISM".
And what do the so-called "realists" argue?
According to their theory, the world is an anarchy where each State is governed by its own interests.
Unlike liberals, realists believe that it is almost impossible to achieve cooperation between
States on the basis of ethical principles. Relations are based on a zero-sum game,
where some win and others lose. Logically it follows that, in such anarchy, the law
of might is right prevails. Well, through this lens, Russia is responding to NATO's expansion,
which poses an existential threat to its security. Take a look at this map.
The question that should be asked is... Is it really possible
to speak of "NATO expansion"? The truth is that it is not!
There is a difference between expanding an organization, that is, trying to get other
States to enter... or simply opening the door to whoever wants to enter.
At the moment, NATO has not forced any member country to join the union. If it had,
Austria and Ireland would have been members for many, many years. In reality,
it is the member countries themselves that have decided to join. We are talking about democratic
governments that have applied for membership for security reasons. NATO has simply accepted them.
In any case... Many realists would say: okay, be that as it may, the fact that so many of Russia's
neighbors are entering into a military alliance that antagonizes Moscow is a threat. And this is
where the argument that many of you have heard ad nauseam these days comes in... the United States
would not tolerate Mexico or Canada entering into a military alliance led by China or Russia.
And this is where we get into hypotheticals. What would happen if Mexico were to enter
into a military alliance led by China? It is clear that Washington would try to prevent
it? The question is, would they go so far as to invade? Well there is one small precedent: Cuba.
Cuba is right beside the United States. For decades, Cuba was within the Soviet
orbit. They even starred in the famous missile crisis in 1962. In that case,
the Soviet Union was placing ballistic missiles in Cuba. It was solved diplomatically.
Since then, it is clear that relations between Washington and Havana have been anything but
friendly. But so far, we have never seen the US military invade the island. Not even
after the dissolution of the USSR. However, in this case, everything starts with this fact.
("NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership
in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO".
--NATO declaration on the Bucharest Summit, 2008)
That's right! NATO was opening its doors to Ukraine. And yes,
this was a provocation to Russia. The question is, is it really reasonable to think that Ukraine was
going to join? We have discussed this several times on VisualPolitik: no.
To begin with, the majority of its population was against it. In 2010, 51% of Ukrainians said "NO"
to NATO in order to avoid provoking Russia. But not only that! As we have already discussed in
several VisualPolitik videos, Ukraine's military did not meet any of the union's standards.
Starting with the fact that it was worn down by years of corruption. Remember that in 2014,
during the invasion of Crimea, they didn't even have uniforms to clothe
the soldiers. Put another way, NATO was risking a lot and gaining little.
And I know what many of you are thinking: if NATO was not sure that Ukraine was going to join,
why did they make that statement? Why provoke Russia? Well yes,
that is a totally valid argument. And here, Mr. Mershmeiher is absolutely right. In fact,
the solution he proposed to avoid the war we are witnessing today was very realistic. Check it out.
Of course, this is a very legitimate position. And it is difficult to refute it. Especially in
the year when this talk was given: back in 2015. At that time it was easy to think that Putin was
merely seeking the neutrality of Ukraine and nothing more. Even Mershmeiher himself thought
so. See for yourselves.However, reality has shattered even the most "realistic" theses
Putin has done exactly what no one expected: tried to take over all of Ukraine starting with Kyiv.
Let's recap what has happened since then. The Ukrainian war broke out in 2014.
That year, Ukraine was not asking for NATO membership by a long shot. In fact,
what sparked Putin's ire was THIS:
(EU-Ukrainian Association Agreement:
To sign or not to sign? - Euroactiv) Exactly! We are talking about a trade
agreement with the European Union. An agreement that sparked protests against the pro-Russian
government in Kyiv. Many want to think that these protests were a US-sponsored coup d'état.
But, let's be clear: Ukraine already had a huge pro-European population in 2014. And
a good proportion of this population lived in the capital. In other words:
it is quite realistic to think that it was many of these Ukrainians who,
with or without US help, rose up against their government. In other words: there is no need
for US intervention to explain any phenomenon. But remember that it was not even about Ukraine's
entry into the European Union. And some will say: [seriously host!] But signing
a free trade agreement with Europe basically means joining NATO... Right? Well, not really.
Just take the examples of Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden: all of them are full members
of the European Union. Not one of these four countries is a member of NATO. And,
until this year, neither Sweden nor Finland were considering joining.
Put another way: at no point are we saying that Ukraine had nuclear
warheads pointed at Russia. All of Russia's hostilities started over
a trade deal. And remember that this was not the first time Russia has had conflicts with Ukraine!
Basically, every time Ukrainians have elected governments that were not to the Kremlin's liking,
all of Europe has had problems with Russian gas supplies. We saw
this in 2005 and 2008. Put another way: unleashing Putin's wrath is really easy.
Now the question we should be asking ourselves is; Would a free trade agreement with Europe
really represent an existential crisis for Russia? And Mearsheimer's answer is this.
The question now is: Is this the right approach? It certainly makes a lot of sense. Now, if we
assume this, we will have to assume that Ukraine is not a sovereign State. Neither Ukraine nor
any small country. This is no straw man argument. It is acknowledged by Mershmeiher himself.
In other words: Might makes right. Under this principle,
Ukraine would have to accept any conditions from Russia. We are talking not only about
military neutrality but also about trade agreements and even governments.
And I know what many of you will think. This is how the world works:
it is sad but it is the reality! And yes, you may be right. But be very clear about one thing:
assuming this position implies accepting that there are countries destined to be colonies.
That is, we are talking about forcing 40 million Ukrainians to not be able to
choose the political party they want in government, negotiate the trade
agreements they want and live under their own conditions. This is not being neutral:
it is accepting to have no sovereignty and to be a colony of Moscow. It means accepting
that the West cannot choose its trade partners either. All to avoid unleashing Russia's wrath.
And the question is, is it realistic for Russia to
think that Ukraine and the West will avoid these conditions?
In the case of Ukraine, we have already seen that they will not.
It is the Ukrainians themselves who have decided to put up a fight. Even before they
had the strong support of NATO. Remember that, up until February 2022, NATO had only sent a
few Javelin missile launchers but was not even allowing them to be used on the battlefield.
More importantly, is it realistic to think that Putin was going to stop with Ukraine?
Why wouldn't he go after other countries that are also considered an existential
threat? For example... the Baltics. Russia has already launched attacks on countries
like Estonia even after it joined NATO. There was the 2007 cyber attack.
In other words: if the world is an anarchy where Might makes Right, Which side is stronger:
Russia or the United States? Why should the United States and Europe
bow to the interests of their antagonist?
(OLD, VERY OLD IDEAS)
Let's take a look at another lecture that has also been broadcast ad nauseam in the Hispanic
world. In this case we are talking about a talk by José Antonio Zorrilla, who is a Spanish diplomat.
To summarize his talk: The United States has been preventing Russia
and Europe from having good relations for decades. Well,
pay attention because now we really have to go back in time. But a long way back.
We are going to dust off one of the oldest theories in geopolitics:
the Geographic Pivot theory of history. This theory was created by the geographer
HALFORD MACKINDER in 1904. And it reads as follows.
(“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world." – Halford Mackinder)
I know! What is the heart of the earth? Well, pay attention to this map.
What you see shaded in red is what Mackinder calls the heart of the
earth. You can also find it mentioned in some books as "The Geographic Pivot".
According to Mackinder, whoever dominates this terrain dominates most of the world's natural
resources and communications. That means that, if someone were to dominate Russia
and Eastern Europe, including a good chunk of Germany, he or she would dominate the world.
And that is why the United States would want to avoid a German-Russian alliance
at all costs. The problem is that this theory may have had some validity... In 1904! Today,
the world is totally different.
If there were a pivot in the world today, it would probably be in Southeast Asia or
Asia Pacific. In Mackinder's time, Asia was not as important as it
is today. Most Asian countries were European colonies. Natural resources?
If we have to talk about resources today, the Middle East is of fundamental importance. However,
at the beginning of the 20th century, oil was nowhere near as important as it is these
days. In other words... Mackinder's theories are totally outdated today.
But speaking of outdated theories, there are many who claim that Ukraine
is dusting off other theories that seemed to have gone out of fashion forever. Yes,
let's answer the question that many of you have asked us in a thousand and one comments.
(IS UKRAINE A NAZI COUNTRY?)
You have heard it ad nauseam: Russian propaganda never tires of repeating that
they want to "denazify" Ukraine. And, the truth is that it is not only Russian propaganda. Many
intellectuals in the West are convinced that Putin is partly right. Check it out.
This gentleman is a Spanish ex-ambassador: in principle he has nothing to do with Russian
propagandists. And the truth is... He is right! In fact, if you watch some of Putin's speeches,
you will see that he alludes to the alleged "BANDERISTS".Well, these are the followers
of STEPAN BANDERA, one of the fathers of Ukrainian nationalism. During the 1940s,
Bandera collaborated with the Nazis during the invasion of Ukraine.
This man was responsible for ethnic cleansing and all kinds of human rights violations.
However, many Ukrainians consider him a national hero. In fact,
he received the posthumous title of "Hero of Ukraine" in 2010.
Interestingly, this title was given to him by pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Fortunately or unfortunately, history is full of such characters. And many of them
are elevated to the pedestals because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In other words, at the height of Stalin's purges, during the famines provoked by Russia to punish
Ukraine and the HOLODOMOR, many Ukrainians threw themselves into the arms of the Germans – and not
only Ukrainians! Finland also allied itself with the Third Reich during its war against Russia.
Sweden, which remained neutral during World War Two,
allowed the Germans to cross its territory and even collaborated with the Nazi army.
Does this mean that Sweden or Finland are Nazi countries today? Obviously not.
And even more so in the case of Ukraine. If you study their history throughout the 20th century,
you will understand that they have had all kinds of alliances... and all of them have gone wrong.
In any case, political figures change and redefine themselves. If not, just ask
Venezuelans. The figure of Simón Bolívar has been extolled as a hero of 21st Century Socialism...
Despite the fact that Bolívar was a bourgeois of the time criticized
by Marx himself. The reality is that, today,
unlike other countries such as GREECE, UKRAINE has no Nazi party in its parliament.
As you can imagine, in a country of more than 40 million inhabitants,
there are groups with ideologies of all kinds. And yes, it is true,
there are battalions within the Ukrainian army that do have neo-Nazi ideology.
For example, some units of the famous AZOV battalion. The question is,
does anyone really expect that, in the middle of an invasion,
the army would reject soldiers just because of their ideology?
I think we all understand that Ukraine at the moment is ready to recruit anyone who
wants to go to the front to fight. To use this as an argument to prove that the whole country
is under a Nazi regime is akin to living in a parallel universe.
So at this point, it is time for a debate. Do you think there are strong
arguments to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? To what extent do you think NATO
should engage with Ukraine? Should they continue to send weapons? What does the
US or NATO gain by weakening Russia? You can leave me your answer in the comments.
And please, prove once again that the VisualPolitik community is the most
respectful and civilized of all: discuss with respect and considered arguments.
And as always, remember that we continue to release new videos every week, so subscribe to
this channel and hit the little bell so you don't miss any of our updates. If you liked this video,
LIKE it and see you in the next one. Take care and see you soon.