Comments by "pplr1" (@pplr1) on "Professor Tim Wilson" channel.

@DanFeldman-Edge The USSR had an alliance with Cuba throughout the bulk of the "Cold War". There were no US military bases in Ukraine when Putin decided to invade. I've often heard claims like you made by those trying to avoid putting responsibility on Putin for his own actions. Finland and Sweden joined NATO because Putin's recent actions made it clear he is willing to rock the boat to rebuild an Imperialist Russia.
3
The US and Russia never stopped communicating. They may not attend each others photo opts but phone calls have been occurring between the 2 throughout the war Putin started.
3
I'd call into question if Mr. Mearsheimer is much of an expert these days. I watched him seem to forget the "Cuban Missile Crisis" was over missiles. There are other times he manages to fail at history. Not only is he getting older but I suspect he valued his ideology over historical facts. Mr. Sachs I feel is running from his own history including that he is part of how oligarchy came to rule Russia's economy (he encouraged disregarding corruption concerns as there was a rapid privatization of the Russian economy.)
3
Let me contradict your arguement with 1 the last times IMO that Mearsheimer wrote something interesting. It was back in the 1990s when Ukraine was being encouraged to give up its nukes and he suggested that Ukraine should not because if it did then Russia would be tempted to invade. I'll add to it that Putin has thought about invading Ukraine for years-this was never about NATO and has long been about Putin's desires to conquer or rule over Ukraine and other places outside Russia.
2
Ukraine was officially Neutral until after Russia occupied Crimea. Ukraine moving from its Neutrality happened as a response to Russian actions.
1
@silafaupaulmeredith7251 The US offering NATO membership doesn't change in Ukraine was Neutral at the time. Also the way NATO works is that multiple nations (not only the USA) have to agree for Ukraine to join NATO plus the nation its has to decide to join NATO. Like I pointed out earlier, Ukraine did not change its official position until after Putin occupied Crimea. Also your mentioning of the Monroe Doctrine makes me suspect you listened to too much Mearsheimer and his multiple failures when it comes to history. 1st Cuba-part of the Americas-had an alliance with the Soviet Union throughout most of the "Cold War". So actual history already disproved the notion Security alliances cannot exist. 2nd both the USA and Russia have missiles that can be launched across the world. Neighboring nations are not needed. 3rd a little fact that Mearsheimer often leaves out when he brings up the Monroe Doctrine is that for years the USA didn't enforce it-the British Navy did. It was an easy excuse the British could use to undermine other powers colonies in the Americas. Did you forget that Canada was part of the British Empire for decades after the Monroe Doctrine was created. Why do you think that is?
1
If Mr. Sachs insists on making excuses for a warmonger like Putin then I'm ok with labeling him a villain. Especially by misrepresenting things like claiming there was supposedly a coup in 2014 Ukraine arranged by the USA when what actually happened is a corrupt former Ukrainian President fled the backlash his own actions-including breaking his campaign promises and using security forces to attack peaceful protests.
1
Trump's current actions (which I suspect Mr. Sachs would like some of) risk bringing a worse war later.
1
@user-fi2tl9zc9k Many of the nuclear warheads in both the USA and Russia are from a time when the Soviets and USA did not get along. For a time the USA tried to get along with Russia. That may be part of why the US response to Putin's occupation of Crimea was so muted. Eventually the USA realized that Putin doesn't want to be friends. EDIT: David Sachs may be part of the reason the US-Russian friendship ended since he was part of a US team that gave very destructive advice to a Russian government trying to adjust to its new situation.
1
@stu281 Yes they did. Not only was it pointed out that the Soviet Nuclear program included Ukraine but since Ukraine helped build some of the Soviet nukes they could have both tried to break through the security related to the launch codes for the nukes there at the time and build new nukes. Considering Ukrainian abilities both are possible-it would take time and effort but would've been inside the realm of the possible.
1
@indycoon The USSR was dissolved and equipment from it often left in whatever nation that equipment happened to be in at the time.
1
@indycoon A Russian Speaker is the current President of Ukraine and Putin wants him dead. The Russian language has not been banned nor have ethnic Russians lost their ability to vote. To claim this is supposedly to protect ethnic Russians is to repeat a propaganda lie. Many (probably most) ethnic Russians do not want to be under Putin's control.
1
@stu281 The Red Army stopped existing. The nukes were left in Ukrainian territory thus in Ukrainian possession. If the UK dissolved and the a former UK military left a bunch of equipment in Wales then the government in Wales would have access to it and could decide what is done with it.
1
@stu281 Source? Also Ukraine was offered money to turn over the nukes to Russia-it took the money. Why would Ukraine be in a position to turn if the nukes if it supposedly had no access to them?
1
@indycoon The Budapest memorandum was part of an effort to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons in the world in general and Ukraine in specific. Also it was never about how close they were to Europe but simply as part of an anti-nuclear weapons effort. Putin's attack on Ukraine is decreasing the chances other nations were ever give up nuclear weapons.
1
@stu281 You made the claim. If asked for a source you should be able to provide. Plus if I apply the logic then Russia removing military installations would include removing the nukes, thus they wouldn't have been in Ukrainian territory anymore.. yet they were.
1
@stu281 I see you have yet to name a source. Also from the history that played out there is good reason to question your interpretation. Why would others be encouraging Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons if there were no nuclear weapons to give up? Seems very odd.
1
"Do your own homework." Funny that is what I was encouraging you to do.
1
"yeah but I’m right and you’re dead wrong." In your own mind.
1
@stu281 Lol. See someone is mad about being questioned.
1
Something that I think is missing from many discussion about Mr. Sachs and I feel ought to be brought up is his own role in making Russia the corrupt and oligarchic nation it is today. Mr. Sachs was among those pushing for rapid privatization with little regard for corruption in the former Soviet turned Russian economy. Thus some of the long term problems of modern Russia are due to Mr. Sachs and his earlier efforts.
1