Why Ukraine joining NATO would crush Russian power

Go to ground.news/Caspian to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access before October 15.

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.

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.

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????

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

Pro tip: cooperate like nowadays Germany with France and save money that does not have to be spend on building and guarding Maginot/Siegfried Line.

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.

At 14:16 you're talking about Black Sea Russian presence, but the photos shown are in fact from the opposite edge of Russia — the city of Vladivostok.

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.

I like Caspian report but in this video, and similar ones that he made before, his thesis is flawed in regards to the weeknes of open terrain. Yes Russia has long border with NATO and Ukraine that is mainly flat but it also has HUGE territory behind it. Closing the Volgograd gap would require shit ton of manpower and equipment and even more if you mean to control the territory. Remember that USA with all its allies never occupied whole of the Afganistan and current NATO army in Europe couldn't occupy Russian core if they wanted to. Long and flat border is weaknes for the defender but Russian huge territory is weaknes for the attacker as was proved in the history so far. All this is without taking nukes in the consideration.

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.

War is the main crime against men No matter what politicians say about the horrors of war for women, men have always been and remain the main victims of wars. The essence of any war can be described in one phrase: men of one country are sent to kill men of another country. War is the peak, the culmination of all anti-masculine phenomena. War is a gross violation of men's rights. This is especially true of conscript soldiers who are forced to fight on pain of imprisonment in case of refusal to serve. But even if a man goes to the front as a volunteer, he is not such a volunteer as it may seem at first glance. A man unwittingly becomes a victim of patriotic propaganda, because society will shame him with all its might and means if he refuses the "honorable" duty of all men to defend the Motherland. The clearest example of such a shaming of men was the campaign of the so-called Order of the White Feather, which took place during the First World War in Great Britain. The campaign was attended by women who handed men who did not go to the front a white feather as a symbol of cowardice. The desire of men to "voluntarily" get involved in the war does not appear from scratch. This desire is nurtured in men, is embedded in their consciousness and is constantly fueled by patriotic slogans and propaganda in the media. The idea that men are obliged to sacrifice themselves for the good of the state and the nation, to protect women and children, to defend freedom and democracy is deeply rooted in the culture of many countries. War is the culmination of men's servitude, it is the strongest confirmation that men are at the full disposal of the state. They can be used as disposable batteries, their lives are not valued and mean nothing to the government. As soon as a man passes into the category of "soldier", he is removed from the category of "man". In the understanding of generals, soldiers are resources with which you can achieve strategic goals, but not people who have their own dreams, hopes and desires. They are valuable as long as they can serve the state interests. This "dehumanization" of soldiers is very well traced when it comes to civilian and military casualties. While the death of civilians is regarded as a tragedy, the death of soldiers is perceived as the norm. The soldier's goal is to kill or be killed. Despite the fact that the victorious soldiers are praised and extolled, their servitude in the hands of the state is no less than that of the deceased military of the losing side. The death of the victorious soldiers is recognized as heroic, but does this make it less tragic? This is just a propaganda tool that encourages other men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country in the same way. For the sake of male solidarity and ending violence against men, we should reject war and all its manifestations. It is necessary to promote peace and try to stay away from all militaristic institutions, which are essentially anti-male. In peacetime, it is difficult to attract public attention to the problems of men. It is impossible to do this in wartime. Men who are shamed in peacetime for their unwillingness to sacrifice their health and well-being for the sake of the interests of women and children will be branded traitors and cowards in wartime. In difficult times, it is men who are expected to take the brunt of fate, so that women and children suffer less. In order to reduce and eliminate the servitude of men in the hands of the state, so that the world begins to show compassion for men and boys, we need to start with the idea of abandoning wars. Support associations, associations, unions, single activists who fight for the rights of men in all spheres of life. Actively use all legal means for your struggle. Remember that the life, health, safety, comfort of men are priceless, it should not be sacrificed to other social groups. We deserve to live in a world where there is no oppression, sexism (misandry and misogyny), gendercide (androcide and femicide), discrimination. Only such a world has the right to be called civilized.

Who gave them Donetsk and Lugansk? Who gave them Lviv? Who gave them Crimea?

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.

The ‘flat terrain’ argument really does not hold up anymore in the age of nukes. Moreover, Russia has showed the world how an attack on flat terrain will fail big time. In addition, NATO is a defensive organization so any country attacking Russia would stand alone. Switzerland and Austria are surrounded by NATO and they have no complains as far as my knowledge goes. It’s the countries bordering Russia that are afraid of an invasion, NATO-members and non-NATO members all together.

I think it's a quite a stretch to say that if Ukraine were in NATO it would exploit the Volgograd Gap while showing explosions on the map. Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia, it would make no sense. Also, Ukraine controlled Crimea until 2014 and no foreign power attacked Russia, so I don't think that argument holds water either. Of course now tha Russia attacked Ukraine, Crimea in Ukrainian hands would indeed be a disadvantage for Russia, but it wasn't a significant one before, especially sinceRussia kept its naval bases there.

Pretty sad, all the Ukraine had to do was to declare itself neutral and stay out of nato. Instead every eu member has suffered with hyper inflation and we can barely feed and heat our homes. Somehow this is a win?

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.

Honestly the defence of those various geographical weaknesses is what the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is for. The whole “we need a strategic position” argument is just an excuse. They lost the cold war from much more favorable ground, it’s not like setting their flag as far as Moldova will fix things this time. It’s also I think kindof presumptive to assume that the country just deserves easily defencible borders. I think if anyone has poor borders it isn’t Russia, it’s Poland, or maybe Ukraine itself, facing Russia. Even if we removed nukes from the equation, the size of Russia’s conventional military, and the depth of its equipment is more than vast enough to defend the Volgograd gap. The Soviets were in a much worse spot in 1942 than they would be even now after all the losses in Ukraine. It would be a fool’s errand for NATO to invade even without factoring in Nukes. The very first thing Russia would do is try to steamroll the baltics, which given their tactics would mean their destruction, and push into Poland, and there is no strategic justification for such an invasion, I don’t even think most NATO members even want Russia to collapse, that would be a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen basically since World War II, and just imagine trying to account for all those nukes.

Desperation propaganda is an ugly thing