Comments by "gerhard7" (@gerhard7323) on "David Sacks: Ukraine is turning into Woke War III" video.

You don't have to be championing Putin or his actions in Ukraine or elsewhere in order to see the far greater sense in putting an end to this war. A war that should never have started. Deliberately conflating things has become a modern day ruse whereby arguing for x automatically apparently means you're condoning y when this so often clearly isn't the case.
13
Russia simply doesn't have the military means to establish the former Soviet empire. Nowhere near. It's completely ridiculous to suggest they might. The only way it could begin to do so is to start a ground war with Nato and given that its armed forces aren't exactly faring amazingly well against 'just' Ukraine's, albeit partly thanks to significant Western input, that seems extremely unlikely.
2
@grahamdrew5512 Fair enough. You gave it a listen and I can't say fairer than that. He's been warning about this very situation arising for years and I find his analysis extremely compelling, particularly as a student of the Cold War way back when. Still, those in the West who believe that this is a war worth prosecuting to the end regardless must be mindful of where it might lead and the wider, growing consequences for doing so.
2
And America's attempts at fomenting regime change elsewhere in the world haven't exactly proven to be a roaring success to date have they? Perhaps permanent destabilisation of certain countries and regions is their state department's ultimate endgame? Even if it isn't it might as well be.
2
I would disagree and I suggest you watch Professor Mearsheimer who is one of the expert opinions you clearly crave and whom Sacks references and echoes. He has been warning about the prospect of this conflict for many years now and sadly a good many of his predictions have come to pass.
2
@grahamdrew5512 Checkout Mearsheimer on Ukraine. This goes back to Gorbachev. Ukraine was always the red line for Russia.
1
@grahamdrew5512 The other thing to bear in mind is that the lecture I'm assuming you watched (as there are many) was delivered 7 years ago.
1
I seriously recommend you listen to Mearsheimer's take on the roots of this conflict which go back to the end of the Cold War.
1
Although the US supposedly has no particular political or economic interest in the Ukraine as Sack's claims I've long found it odd that much of both Biden's and Trump's political troubles lie there.
1
Today's obsession with free speech, which sadly and ironically seems to be being defended predominantly by the political right and undermined predominantly by the political left, has come about precisely because there are those trying to squash it. Squashing the right to free speech and attempting to silence people are the primary drivers of political extremism today, particularly on the right, not the way to end it.
1
It depends on whether Russia loses the war or not really, doesn't it? On the face of it it doe seem likely that Ukraine would be a shoo in for Nato membership,, but this begs the question as to what a defeated Russia and the surrounding regions might look like. For all the talk of a post cold war weakened Russia it is still a huge, disparate country in possession of nearly half the world's nuclear arsenal and a major power broker in that region. Plus who knows what sort of leadership might replace a humiliated Putin. Russia isn't Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Libya and I would posit that Western-led regime changes in those countries can't exactly be classed as raging successes to date.
1
Judging from many of the comments on here it's pretty clear why Sacks is slightly reticent about presenting this perfectly reasonable, well argued view. Those, mostly Western I'm sure, comfortably ensconced keyboard warriors who simplistically imagine that there is some direct 'standing up to the bully' Hitlerian comparison to be made here clearly don't know their history of either the Second World War or the more recent history of this region. This is essentially a proxy war that should never have happened and Russia cannot afford to lose. The longer it drags on the harder it will be to reach an acceptable settlement and, in the meantime, could easily spiral out of control. Should that happen it'll be cold comfort for the likes of David Sacks to know that they at least did their best to prevent this insanity.
1
Huh? So the Kremlin can't be trusted to handle nuclear weapons, but the Kremlin is still currently in charge of them. Forty five percent of the world's entire nuclear arsenal in fact. In your 'dynamic future' this might well change, but the world is currently faced with today's reality not what you fondly imagine it to be one day.
1
In regard to the wider US strategic interest in perpetuating the war, the longer it goes on the weaker Russia gets militarily, economically and internally. The problem with that is that is that Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan all show that this creates a power vacuum and you can't always predict or control what follows.
1
No you're not. 'You' are defending your own country in your own self-interest which you're perfectly entitled to do as is this gentleman to express a reasonable opinion on what is happening there and his wider fears as to where it might lead. Not least because there would be no real fight without continued Western military and economic aid to Ukraine.
1
Scared of nuclear war? Russia and the US possess 90% of the world's entire nuclear arsenal between them so it's a kinda 'yeah' there from me. This is a war that Russia cannot afford to lose and even if Putin were deposed what makes you think that what follows him would be any better? And when it comes to respecting sovereign territory what makes you think the US has an unblemished track record and what makes you think that the US doesn't try and heavily determine what goes on in its own backyard?
1