Why Ukraine joining NATO would crush Russian power

Ukraine joining #NATO would revolutionise the #geopolitical map. #Russia would be placed in an irreversible chokehold - outflanked on land, air, and sea. Defence spending would surge, but it wouldn’t do much good.

Support CaspianReport

Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9

Join us on Facebook or Twitter

Watch CaspianReport in other languages

#ad #sponsored

[murpledurple]

Most statements in this video would need "if Russia didn't have nukes" added to the end to be factually correct. At least I don't see any scenario where NATO randomly goes to war against Russia, seizes Rostov, Volgograd, Krasnodar, Stavropol... and the Kremlin response to that is to only use conventional military means and then just give up if that doesn't work.

Also I don't know how many radical geopolitical changes we need for Armenia and Azerbaijan to both join NATO.

[zoisbekios]

My only problem with this is that it plays the myth that Russia was always posed to be against NATO, which after 1990 it simply wasnt. Economically it was intergrated massively in western countries and had every chance to join the rest of the western world in a global prosperous and peaceful economy. Do not mistake the relentlessness of this war as an existential one for Russia. It is not. Its existential only to the Putin regime.

[wnbyyyr]

Look at the situation from the other side:
1. NATO was created in response to the USSR, but for some reason, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO only began to develop, allegedly from the "aggression" of Russia
2. The USA and Canada are like Russia and Ukraine, and now imagine that Russia has an alliance to deter US aggression and Canada joins this alliance and what will the USA do????

[bala_clava]

So Russia's cautions regarding Ukraine joining NATO is not a "russian propaganda" and is actually vital for Russians? Why does the West condemn Russia for doing what any other country would do being on its place lol

The most pro-russian aimed-be-otherwise video I've seen so far 💀

[JohnDoe-lcyj]

If Russia wants access or security, then why are they not forming alliances and partnerships with the countries they are looking to overthrow, instead? There will never be any justification for what Russia has done, only excuses.

[joe_ninety_one]

At least three problems with this:
1. It asserts that an independent Ukraine would aggressively seek to control the Volgograd Gap. But in its 30 years of independence Ukraine had shown no inclination to seek territory within Russia or influence over territory within Russia. In addition, Ukraine seeks to be in the EU and NATO. Whether this will come to pass is moot, but either would be moderating influences; as the current conflict has shown, both EU and NATO states have been very wary about provoking a nuclear armed Russia. Nobody really covets Russian territory - except in the east where China has a huge grievance and Japan a rather smaller one.
2. It neglects the effects of climate change. Russia's northern coast will soon become ice-free. This will open far greater possibilities than are presented by the Black Sea, which is in any case bordered by NATO states with a long and tortuous path through these states to reach the open ocean. Even if Russia owned Ukraine, Sevastopol, and its ocean access, is actually rather vulnerable and it is destined to become more of a tourist resort than a military base.
3. Lots of countries have large land borders. They manage their security by getting along with their neighbours, something Russia seems to struggle with.

[sergirakhmania]

Excellent analysis, if this was the 19th century 😂

[alankochan]

Lviv is a Polish city, hence why it resembles a "slice of Europe." The Ukraine, as it was primarily called right up until this recent reignition in conflict between it and Russia, was historically always a "borderland" or arguably a "province" of Polish/Lithuanian powers as well as Russian. Far longer than its very short "independence" since the breakup of the Soviet Union. People need to realize this in order to understand the conflict, otherwise it's just blindly believing the current propaganda, regardless which side you align with.

That does not mean it should allow Russia to invade but it also means its not a random act of aggression by Putin. Historically and recently it was Russian territory. It's like trying to claim the War of 1812 was a random invasion against the US by the Brits. There's much much more to this conflict than people realize but please atleast don't pretend this is an "unjustified" war. There is no such thing, wars are either all unjust or all fair game.

[lepetitroquet]

Just a small caveat to put things in perspective... Switzerland has a 1935 km long border with some major powers like France, Germany and Italy, is completely surrounded by NATO and yet nobody feels like Switzerland is facing an existential threat.
But on top of that, Russia has nukes and a lot of them. Even if Russia had only 100k professionnal soldiers army, which they could easily afford, no country would dare invade, because:
A: they would be basically alone, without the support of any other country
B: winning against Russia would only mean a nuclear response wiht nobody to cover your ass

In other words, Russia doesn't have any vulnerability. The stakes couldn't be lower for Russia. Especially as NATO powers would already crush Russia in a conventional war (a nuclear war resulting in the annihilation of basically both sides).

Finally, Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO had Putin not invaded (again) in february 2022. Ukraine and the USA tried in 2008 (way before the 2014 events) and it was very strongly rejected.

[XGenKaneShiroX]

Realized CaspianReport made an obvious mistake in his map at 6:29 because Finland is, in fact, not part of NATO. Every map from the 2010s and today shows that Finland is excluded from NATO.

[rumchjoe]

Just one more thing - until 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia, NATO countries were spending 1% of their GDP on defense. Since then, NATO has taken the Russian threat seriously and committed to a 2% of GDP allocated to Defense. The 2022 Russian invasion is the final straw. Now NATO countries are starting to spend on defense. This conflict is all Russia's doing.

[dmm]

The easiest and cheapest thing for Russia to have done to ensure its security would be to build good relations with the EU and not give off a sense of aggression towards its neighbors.

[eliseleonard]

It’s wild, the assumption that having a long flat border means Russia has to be paranoid and expansionist. The US and Canada have a 2400 mile land border, a good chunk of which is flat, and yet somehow we have managed not to take up arms against each other for the last 150-200 years. We should stop accepting this explanation of Russia’s expansionist behavior as reasonable. It’s just crazy to think that Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic countries, or Finland are chomping at the bit to invade Russia in modern times. Yes, Germany invaded Russia 80 years ago. But this also happened to most of Europe, yet those countries don’t still center their foreign policy around that.

[Azz]

I’ve heard this before, “russias long border makes it vulnerable “. That was true like 80 years ago but now Russia has 6000 nukes, no one is that stupid to invade Russia anymore. It’s nukes neutralized that threat permanently.

[geirgaseidnes]

The assumption that Ukraine wishes to attack Russia and take territory from it is... pretty flawed. The assumption that Nato necessarily would also wish to attack Russia after helping free Ukraine is also... well, where is the evidence for that?

[Conradlovesjoy]

It almost as if that’s the reason they fight….

[drpapa]

Yes, maintaining a military presence along a 2000 km border can be expensive. But launching an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is even more expensive.

[Berkana]

This notion that Russia is "exposed" because of the northern European plain and their long border without natural geographic defenses is badly outdated, and you shouldn't repeat these fallacies. Europe doesn't even have the demographics nor the political will to support such a hypothetical invasion that crosses so many national borders. That would take an army of nearly a million people to pull off, and would cost far more than any European nation would want to pay. Nobody even wants to invade their cursed country full of alcoholics with tuberculosis and delusions of grandeur, polluted since Soviet days and led by corrupt incompetents. The age of conquest is over; the tournament of the day is getting rich, not conquering land. Russia is still making decisions based on a game nobody is playing. And the first thing that should be stated when the notion of invading Russia comes up is that nobody would invade a country armed with nukes with an explicit policy of using them in the case of existential threat.

Reasoning about Russia with a 19th century mindset about geography constraining or permitting invasions simply doesn't make any sense in an age where missiles and nuclear warheads and aircraft make these surface geographical considerations irrelevant.

[alman]

"Reliance on Russian Oil and Gas" - you mean the very things that Ukraine bombed and therefore attacked Europe and Russia at the same time!

[larutouchiha]

Doesn't this explain why US shouldn't have pushed to get Ukraine into NATO since Russia sees it as an existential threat?