TRIGGERnometry - War in Ukraine: What's Next? *Recorded Live on 9th March 2022*

Episode Date: March 9, 2022

**Recorded Live on 9th March 2022**       Sponsors: - *Babbel*  Go to babbel.com/play, and use promo code TRIGGER for an extra six months free.  - *Lost Debate* New episodes drop twice a week. Search for The Lost Debate on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/  OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/​​​ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/​​​ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod​​​ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Constantine, do you like Trigonometry? Of course, what's not to love? Incredible interviews, hilarious raw shows, plus we're going to start doing weekly satirical comedy like the ones that we used to put out. I'm Constantine Kishin and you may remember me from Myston hosting a kids TV show on Al Jazeera. And I'm Francis Foster, a man who looks like a cross

between Louis Theroux and a beaver. We are going to start doing them, but we need your help. As the show grows, Francis and I are finding it increasingly difficult to stay on top of everything we've got to do. With two interviews and three raw shows every single week, with loads of adding on top of that, we've got more work on than Justin Trudeau's makeup artist. Do you miss comedy that's actually funny? Comedy that pulls no punches. And isn't all about how we must fight the structures of patriarchal oppression by toxic straight white men. If you want real comedy, you can make that happen.

If we can get an extra 250 local supporters by March 15th, we'll be able to outsource a few of the day-to-day things that we do and free up more time to make incredible content for you. It'll be funny, biting satirical and not some worthy gimp telling you what to think. It's $7 a month which is £5 if you live in the civilised world. Join our locals community using the link in the description and help us make comedy great again. Hello and welcome to a very special live episode of Trigonometry.

I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kishen. And this is the part two to our brilliant first episode that we did on the very first day of the war in Ukraine, where Ukraine was invaded by Russia. The way the interview is going to work is going to be a little bit like this. We're going to be doing an hour, just myself and Constantine talking. We're then going to have a break. and we're going to have that break to collect your superchats and your PayPal's

where you're going to be asking questions to us. And then in the last half an hour, I'm going to be fielding your questions to the both of us or to Constantine. There we go, mate. Welcome back. It's part two. There's a lot to update everybody on. I've spent the last few days, first of all, I've spent the last few days thinking

about my own views and behavior and positions on this, but also talking to a lot of people on the ground in Russia, in Ukraine, who are involved in one way or another, but also talking to people who used to be in the Russian government, including my dad, who was a minister in the Russian government, whose job was to deal with former Soviet countries, including Ukraine. And he's got a very different view to me on all of these issues, talking to people who have advised several U.S. presidents,

talking to people who are currently in the British government, who have the inside track and all of this. So there's a lot to talk about. So we're going to talk about a few things there. The first thing I wanted to briefly talk about our fundraiser, which we'll do in a second. Also wanted to tell everybody what is happening on the ground in Ukraine

because this isn't really being covered. We're seeing refugees fleeing, we're seeing bombs exploding, but the strategic situation isn't really being properly covered, I think, in the West. I also think another thing that's really not being covered

and or understood in the West at all is what's happening in Russia. And this is very important in terms of the other stuff we're going to talk about with the fundraiser and all of that. Is everything right with the sound, guys? Yeah, we're good.

And then the final thing I wanted to talk about is we never really got a chance to deal with it. And I think some people would have got the impression that we underestimated or underplayed the importance of the NATO side of things and NATO expansion. Was Russia provoked into this? What is the historical and the broader perspective here? And again, on that, I think there's some important things that we've got to share with people. So with that in mind, let's talk about the fundraiser. Absolutely. Now, we're both incredibly proud of the fundraiser.

The amount that we've raised. Well, we should tell people the amount as of today, it's 60,000 pounds. Wow. And if you imagine how many people got involved in that and the generosity of people and their willingness to put something behind their words and the feelings. And it's not just thoughts and prayers, people are actually doing something is incredible. However, as we let people know on locals a few days ago, you and I both, I think, had a few reservations about the fact that this money that we raised initially.

was my idea and I take full responsibility for it, we originally thought that the best use of that money would be to give it to the military in Ukraine to help the Ukrainians defend their country. And we had some thoughts about it, and on reflection, I don't think that would be the best way to protect people's lives and to help people in Ukraine. And we'll talk about why, and that's really the main reason we wanted to have the discussion. But we want to ask permission of the people who gave us money to allow us to donate that to humanitarian purposes. And if you're People don't want to do that. That's their money. We'll give it back to them no problem. But let us at least explain why our thinking has changed.

Yeah. And I think it's very, very important because we did have a conversation where it wasn't uncomfortable, but it was a moment of realization from both of us as to what we've done. And it's quite a challenge when you say to hundreds of thousands of people, look, we're raising for this very, very noble cause. And then you have to not roll back on it, but admit that the money is going to be diverted to still a very worthwhile. It's not going to be diverted. If people want their money back, they can get it back. But we're offering them an opportunity to donate it to humanitarian causes.

So it's going to be given to humanitarian causes as opposed to the military. And I'll explain why that is. So the first part of that, before we get into the first part of that, I just wanted to say from my own perspective, it's been quite a couple of weeks for me personally. I've been dealing with the emotion of my family in Ukraine being this position, my family in Russia also being in a strange position as well, going on question time, talking about this on different shows. It's been very emotional.

And I think like me, for me, it's much more intense, of course, but for a lot of people in the commentary space and whatever, we've kind of all gone through the stages of grief, right? Initially, everybody was in denial. Even when I was saying the invasion is coming. No one wanted to believe it. And even when it happened, I think we all. all felt slightly in denial about what was going on. It was surreal. Then everybody gets angry.

And I think a lot of people are still stuck in that position. And I was in that position for a period of time last week. Then you go into depression. And I was definitely towards the end of last week as I was starting to really feel what was going on and knowing that my family, most of whom are basically now either in occupied territory or about to be. You know, all of that was very sad. And towards the end of the week, I was feeling very sad. And I've taken some time, and now I've actually, believe it or not, crazy as it sounds, come to a place of acceptance of what's happening. And I kind of just remembered, because, you know, I've spent a lot of time doing personal development of various kinds,

that every religion almost and every spiritual teaching is basically the same thing, which is suffering is caused by trying to pretend that you can change things that you can. And there's nothing I can do to change the situation. And the truth is, as I think we'll talk about in the second, And I don't think there's a lot any of us can do about the situation other than help people who are going to be suffering from this, which is what I really want us to focus on. So we've all got to let go of our emotions here and just look at what is going to be the right thing going forward. And I want to apologize to a few people actually in terms of my behavior last week because I got a bit carried away with the emotion of it all. And so people would say to me, well, what do you think about this thing that this guy said?

And I'd be like, well, I remember this thing he said a week ago, the last time I had a chance to read what he said, and he was wrong. He was wrong to say there'd be no invasion, so he's wrong, right? Well, actually, for example, someone like Peter Hitchens, I spent a bit of time over the weekend reading some of his articles and there's stuff I don't agree with. But there's a lot of stuff. I mean, he retweeted an article from 2017, which is absolutely accurate and bang on. And the same with other people. So I just want to say the emotions of the moment carried me away or I got carried away or whatever. And I've reflected on that, and I think that doesn't help the conversation.

So I'm going to go back to what our mission is here at Trigonometry, which is we are covering what's going on. We're chronicling the decline of Western society and the destruction of civilization. Let's stick with that rather than becoming players in this game, right? Because I think that's very important. I think that's why people trust what we do and they respect what we do because everybody knows what we think, but we try and approach things from a balanced perspective. And I think that was starting to go a little bit by the wayside last week. So I hold my hands up on that, and I apologize for that.

So with that in mind, and this is going to be a very difficult conversation, because I'm going to say some things that nobody wants to hear. That doesn't sound like you, mate. No, it doesn't. But it's going to, you know, there's a lot of things that people are not going to want to hear on all the sides of this conversation. So let's first of all look at what is happening in Ukraine on the ground. What is the narrative that we are hearing in our media right now in the West, would you say? So our narrative in the media is that we have the Ukrainian army, the Ukrainian forces, which have been supplemented by ordinary civilians, and even people as like celebrities, athletes who are putting up a plucky and spirited resistance against the Russian army.

I was going to say the Soviet seemed more appropriate, against a Russian army, and they're doing really well, and the Russian army are in disarray. I mean, I don't think that's an inaccurate analysis on the face of it. But if you look at the broader picture of what's happening, yes, the Russian army is really struggling. Yes, they are having deserters. Yes, the equipment is falling apart in some cases. Yes, they're making very slow progress. Yes, the Ukrainians are very brave.

Yes, they're fighting wonderfully. Yes, the Western weapons are helping the javelin missiles and the stingers. and yes, they haven't got complete air superiority. However, the truth of it is that, and by the way, in their position, that is what I would be doing. If I was a Ukrainian in Ukraine and my home was being attacked, I would be fighting to defend my country right now. And I have so much respect for their courage and their bravery. However, the first thing to say is, Anton, if you pull up a couple of maps that we talked about, The way that Russia approached this is they positioned their troops on the north side of Ukraine in Belarus,

on the east side in the two breakaway regions, and on the south side in Crimea. And they pushed from three directions at the same time. So they're pushing from the north, they're pushing from the south, and they're pushing from the east. And yes, their progress is slow in the north, and yes, their progress isn't particularly quick in the east, but they're making very quick progress in the south. Now, and they're all making progress. They're stalling in various areas, but they're making progress. Now, the Ukrainians are defending very bravely, but if you look at the map of Kiev in particular,

Kiev is about to be encircled. So the Russian army came down from the north side on the western side of the river, and they're about to encircle Kiev completely. Cut off supplies, cut off evacuations, cut of medical supplies, cut off supplies of ammunition, weaponry, reinforcement, all of that. So at the moment, it's looking very much like they're going to, at least in circle, Kiev. Once they do that, they're going to keep moving south. The southern group is going to keep moving north and west.

They're cutting Ukraine off from the sea to prevent resupplies and all of that. And the eastern group is pushing as well. Now, the Ukrainian army is in the eastern part of Ukraine primarily, the bulk of their army. So the moment they complete that line along the river, all of that army is going to be completely encircled and cut off. This is how in World War II, the Germans blitzkrieg the way through a huge swathes of Soviet territory. All they did is they just enveloped armies, encircled them, and cut them off. They didn't kill that many people. They were killing one for every 12 prisoners that they took. And the way they did that is by enveloping. So while Ukraine is putting up a very brave

resistance, from a military perspective, it's not looking good. So that's the first thing to The second thing to say is when you speak to people in Ukraine on the ground, they're very brave, and they're determined, and they're defending the homes. And you can only respect that and support that and all of that. But they also all say, look, if they don't quote unquote, this is how they say it in Russian-Ukrainian, close the sky, by which they mean a no-fly zone, it's a matter of time. Okay? And as I said two weeks ago, the West is not going to implement a no-fly zone,

because that would be the start of World War III. Now, there have been some suggestions of how that could be gotten around. For example, Poland said, look, why don't we give our planes to the Americans, and the Americans then donate them to Ukraine? That way, Russia can't say we gave planes to Ukraine and invaders, right? Well, Anton, if you pull up that article as well, the US have knocked that back because they know how dangerous that it. They're not going to allow planes or anti-aircraft systems, not stingers, but other stuff, to go to Ukraine. So they're not going to close the sky. And even the Ukrainians on the ground, who are determined and driven, et cetera, are all saying,

you know, it's a matter of time unless that can happen. And that's not going to happen. And the third thing that we should say as well is for reasons that we'll get into when we talk about what's happening in Russia, Russia is pulling up weaponry that it hasn't really yet used. It may use it going forward, but it hasn't yet used. And what we're talking about is not nuclear weapons. It's not quite chemical weapons, but it's horrific weaponry that is designed to flush people out from defensive positions. These are called, they have various names. The Russian call them vacuum bombs. They're called air fuel bombs in English and thermobaric munitions.

And what they do is it's a two compartment, there's two compartments in the bomb. The first explosion is a small one. And what it does is it spreads small particles of combustive material. fuel, basically, into the air around it. And the second explosion ignites it and creates a fireball that spreads rapidly, killing anyone in the fireball area. But it also sucks all the oxygen. It consumes all the oxygen in that area. So even if you don't get burned alive, you suffocate and your lungs rupture and you die in an awful way, right? And this is a way to destroy defensive positions that otherwise couldn't be destroyed. So if you've got some kind of reinforcement, bunker or whatever, as long as it's not completely sealed, right? That's what, and these are awful weapons.

And my concern is, the longer this goes on and the longer that Ukrainians are putting up a fight, the more likely it becomes that Russia is going to use heavier and heavier weapons, as they are already starting to do in terms of shilling. Just to interrupt you there, what's the radius of these weapons? It depends on the size. It depends on the size. So the Americans use them in Afghanistan to flush people out from caves, or to kill people in caves, really.

And they can be as small as a hand grenade, or they can be a huge 42-ton bomb. And Russia has all of those. So the Americans made one of these bombs called the mother-of-au-bonds, and in response, the Russians made one called the father-of-bolews. Right?

These are horrible weapons. And the longer this carries on, is my point. The more likely things like that are going to be used, right? Now, why do I think it's a matter of time, and why am I so convinced that Russia will amplify the level of destruction. You have to look at what's happening in Russia. You have to look at what's happening in Russia.

Now, I've spoken to people in Russia of all, and we'll talk about was Russia provoked and is blah, blah, blah, we'll talk about that in a second. But let's just focus on what's actually happening. So I spoke to my aunt, for example, who lives in Armenia. Armenia is a Russia-friendly country in the Caucasus, where Russian people would be welcome. And normally, there are three to four,

between Russia and Armenia a day. My aunt said last week on the day I spoke to her, it would have been Saturday or Sunday. There were 42. Wow. And that's because the people in Russia who are against this are all fleeing. Most of them are fleeing or many of them are fleeing. And the rest of them are going on small protests a few thousand at a time and being arrested. I think at the last count it's about six or eight thousand people that have been arrested in Russia for protesting.

So the people who are against this are either leaving or making protests that are not going to be effective and being arrested. Twitter is shut down, Facebook is shut down, all Western social media is shut down, all TV channels that deviate from the official line are shut down and closed. And every day on Russian television, they do three-hour marathons with this guy called Soleviov who hosts the main show, which is, it's not like question time where you get people with different. views, even in the format that, you know, people will say, well, question time doesn't really represent blah, blah, blah, sure. But it's not like that. It's one opinion, right? And it's very powerfully delivered.

I felt sick watching it. And what they're saying is there's a genocide happening in Ukraine. Ukraine is run by Nazis, et cetera, to the point where there's videos now of captured Russian soldiers saying, I thought, I'm shocked because I thought there'd be swastikas everywhere. That's what people are being told. And that's what they think. So the Russian media communication strategy is very powerful. They're showing really like emotionally driven clips of refugees, fleeing Ukrainian Nazis and all of that, quote, unquote.

So support for Putin is rising. People are blaming the sanctions and the war on the West primarily. Sure, the people who are against the war feel stronger about the war being wrong. but the vast majority of people are more on Putin's side. And they're building a kind of new... I don't know how to describe it. I think you have to see it for yourself. So we have a little video, and it's in Russian.

So I'll just explain very briefly what they're talking about. So they're saying, we are in St. Petersburg, which used to be called Leningrad, a city in which 800,000 people starved to death during World War II because it was cut off from Russia by the Germans. Germans, the blockade of Leningrad, as it was known. And they're there in St. Petersburg, and they're saying, do you really think that we here in St. Petersburg where we starve to death to fight Nazism? Do you think we're going to give up because we don't have dollars in iPhones?

And they're saying, we have to, our boys are over there in Ukraine, pulling the noose around the throat of fascism and Nazism. And it's our job here to protect our streets from traitors and provocateurs. They're talking about protesters, right? And at the end, as you'll see, they chan for Russia for Putin, for the president, right? And I just want people to get a visual sense and just a feeling of what that's like. So, Anton, let's play that video. This is a girl, Leningrad.

A world, which he's not conquered and won't. A world, he's nothundred-one. VIII,000 Leningradists, haded their lives. But they've done this. No-wholesome you think that we, we, the sons of people who had been years

died from hunger, but bitty fascists and did they're from, we're for dollars and iPhones? Svehives' we're not we never promeniaeemn't their heroes on the characters

Marvel. Soviet army and blockade the guerrowered the fascist's coles around Leningrad in the challenge of our mennics, to lastmerect

to detunctue to turn to end end of eight-litnue and the world and the the and the of the and who are

to be about about about about our our our your

and the your for Russia, for President for Russia, for

Putin for Putin for for Russia, I've just seen that to Western eyes that looks quite amateurish,

I say it, and it looks like it's presented by three fat grad students at university. Indeed. However, first of all, one of the things that people are asking in the chat is what does a Z stand for? No one knows. They've invented a new symbol that no one knows what it stands for. Now... Because there was a Russian gymnast a couple of days ago on the podium, who was roundly

criticized for that symbol. So it's a new symbol. Nobody knows what it means, but essentially what they're trying to do is create a new ideology. And the reason I brought up the point at the end, where they're shouting for Russia, for Putin. Imagine this through the Western eyes. How many American soldiers do you think are wherever they are now going for America, for Biden?

Or how many people in the UK are soldiers in the UK or people who support British soldiers would be shouting for Britain, for Johnson or for Boris? But is that part of the reason for that? Isn't that because of our democracy? Yes. Well, that's my point, exactly. the point I'm trying to make to you is I'm not saying they've got to the cult of personality stage

but Putin has become not just the president, not someone who is employed by the people to administer the country, but he's now seen as the head of state, like the queen, for queen and country, right? So in other words, there is a kind of permanence to this thing and there's a personality issue there that they're embracing. Now look, people can say I'm being critical, of this or not. I'm just telling you what's happening and I'm showing it to you. I'm not

advocating against or for whatever. I'm just telling you what's going on. Right. So Russia is building a national identity that is based around a strong leader, the nation, etc. Right. So that's what's going on. And there is no question that for Vladimir Putin now, this is existential. The entire country is now in the grips of the idea that Ukraine is overrun by Nazis, that these Nazis have committed genocide against people in the east of Ukraine, that this is the fight against fascism that Russia did and the Soviet Union did in the last century, and this is its mission. He can't come back from that.

He can't row back from that. There is no coming back from that without a win, right? So there's absolutely no question in my mind that he's going to do whatever is necessary to win the fight. And unless the West is prepared to get involved, which it's not and it shouldn't, in my opinion, purely because that would start World War III and I don't think that's a good idea. I mean, in my opinion, and I could be wrong, I could be wrong, but in my opinion, the likelihood of Ukraine, winning this is very slim and what's worse about that is in my opinion the harder the fight is is all the only thing that will change is the number of casualties on both sides it's not going to change the outcome at this point now I could be wrong but if that's what I believe and I honestly

believe that and I'm I say for the 50th time I could be wrong but I do believe that very strongly now based on the conversations that I've had with people who know what's going on I'm very uncomfortable at giving what is essentially $100,000 to Ukraine to intensify that fight. Whereas there will be millions of people in Ukraine who are desperately in need of humanitarian aid, supplies, medical equipment, you know, blankets, all that sort of stuff. And that stuff will definitely be useful. And it's definitely not going to hurt anyone, right? Whereas if that money from the fundraiser goes to the military, in my opinion, 99.9.5.000. 9%, all it will do is end up killing more people because more people are involved.

Now, it's an awful conversation to have. It's an awful conversation. And I don't want to be the person sitting here going, oh, we must just let the Ukrainians, you know, or we must force them to surrender. If I was a Ukrainian or if I was in Ukraine, I'd be fighting for my country too. But as we sit here now, I can't in good conscience give that money to be spent on weapons or whatever. So like I say, if people want to, if people are okay to trust us on this one and go with the humanitarian aid option, I would be very grateful. I'd be really, really grateful because

we've raised an awful lot of money and that money can do a lot of good. But like I said, if people want their money back because they wanted to go to the military, we'll give it back to them and we'll give them their account to which they can send it. Okay. So that's my ask. That's what I ask of people to trust us one more time and allow us to give it to humanitarian purposes, if that's okay. If not, please contact us and we'll give you a refund. And I think it's worth reiterating again that this is not a decision that we have taken lightly. No. This isn't something that we gave a five-minute conversation to. This came after a lot of thought, after a lot of discussion. This came from you having a lot

hours-long discussions with different people. This is a considered opinion. And it's something I can tell is, you know, is obviously very, very painful for you. having to make that decision. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry that I feel responsible, and I am responsible, because you and Anton and I talked about it, and that was my idea,

and I asked you if you're okay with it, and you guys were okay with it. But I think on reflection, it was my, it was a decision initiated by me, and you followed my lead on it. And I feel like I took us down the wrong path, and I feel like I took people down the wrong path. And I didn't know what I didn't know,

but it was a mistake, and I regret it. So I ask people to forgive me for that, that and to trust me one more time, to trust us one more time. Now, we've talked about what's happening on the ground in Russia and Ukraine. Now, I think there's a historical part that we should talk about here as well. There's one thing that I want to talk about when we're talking about Ukraine, which I think is very interesting and very important. And you described it as a bit of a side issue, but I still feel it's important to talk about it. And it's President Zelensky. Now, he's been painted in the Western media as this kind of incredible statesman.

Somebody who is leading, you know, the fight against his nation, against, you know, the Russian nation. He is everything that a good statesman should be. Yeah. Is it as clear cut as that? I don't know. Do you want to criticize a man who's defending his country and leading his people in defending it? I don't. I think he's an incredibly brave man.

whether he's making all the right decisions. I don't know. As you can hear from what I've said, I don't personally think Ukraine continuing to fight to the last man is the right decision. But I sit here in a comfortable London studio. He's in Kiev being bombarded every day, seeing his people being maimed and killed,

seeing children killed, seeing Russian soldiers commit atrocities and seeing his own soldiers commit atrocity because that's what war is. It's an awful thing. I'm not going to sit here and criticize Zelensky one bit. He's a man and he's done what a man should do in that

situation. And if you're a man and you want to, you know, we talk about how oh, there's the sort of feminized West, blah, blah, blah, well, when war comes, it's time to step the fuck up. You know, so I've got no criticism of President Zelensky whatsoever. I think he's doing what most people would do

in his position or should do in his position. Is he able to make the best geostrategic decisions? Is he able to on two-hour sleep a night? and threats of death every day, do the right thing for his country, not knowing exactly what the outcomes are.

Is he able to balance motivating his army at the same time of thinking about what the right peace would be? That's not for me to judgment. And people who are not in that position should really just be quiet. I have no criticism to make of him. We can talk about all this other stuff.

Did he make the right decision here? Did he make the right? But right now, the man's defending his country and he's leading his defense. I've got no word of criticism of him whatsoever. So that being the case, we're now going to move on and look at the historical context and the geopolitical context of this. So let's delve into it.

Let's. So the first thing to say, and this is something I've been thinking about a lot, let me just see how much time we've got left. So, okay, cool. So we've got another probably 20, 25 minutes before we go to our break in questions so people can submit their questions, superchats, PayPal, and all that. the one thing I've been thinking about very carefully about this situation over the last few days is the fact that any situation has a different meaning, any event has a different meaning,

depending on the perspective from which you look at it. And let me explain what I mean. So my wife and I are about to have our first child. For my wife and I, that is a huge, tremendous, just an incredible thing. It is wonderful and we're delighted and we can't wait and it's blah, blah, blah. right it's amazing on the level of the individual at the level of our friends and family and community it's a really nice thing it's lovely right but but it's not it's not the the most important thing that's ever happened in your life right it might be the most important thing in mind but

it's not in yours and certainly in our trigger family and whatever people are happy about it but it's not the most important thing in their life at the level of our nation it's a statistic one other baby is born right and the level of the planet some people people might argue, it's a bad thing because we're adding to the overpopulation of the world. Some people, I'm not saying I agree with that, but some people might argue. So your perspective determines how you look at things, right? And that's going to be important as we carry on. Now, it's going to take me a little time to set this up, but this is really important. There was a British historian called Arnold Toynbee who wrote a book called The Study of History.

And there's a lot of stuff in that that people think is not right or whatever, and he's since been quote unquote somewhat discredited and people don't agree with every way that he looked at it. And one of the reasons is that what his conclusions were very dissonant, they were very frustrating to people in the West because his central argument essentially denied Western exceptionalism and denied the idea that Western culture is better than other cultures. but we don't need to get into that because I'm not even saying what he said is true I'm just saying it's useful metaphor for thinking about this whole conflict because the very basic concept that he came up with was the idea

that on the geopolitical stage over historical periods of time, hundreds of years, it is not nations that are actors in that world but it's civilizations. So think about it in the current context if Belgium felt very strongly about what's happening in Ukraine. Is there much that they could do?

Well, they control the EU, so yes. Well, Belgium. I don't think Belgium control the EU, unless you have some information I'm not aware of, right? Sorry, I've spoken to too many hardline breaks with years. Point taken, agree. So Belgium isn't deciding what the Western world does. You could argue that America is deciding what the Western world does, right?

But if every other country in the Western world opposed to what America did, they'd really have a hard time doing it. So that's why, for example, in Iraq war, they really were desperate to get Britain on board. They could have gone and done it by themselves, right? But they were desperate to get at least Britain on board, and they wanted France and Germany, which didn't go along in that instance. So the act, and that means that, yes, America is the leading power in the Western world, right?

But there is also reverse feedback, where the rest of the civilization feeds back into the main one. Okay, so it's not Belgium or Britain or France that is doing things. It is Western civilization. And if you think about it, one of the big questions people always talk about is, why is Australia and New Zealand considered a Western country? Well, the reason is that we are all descendants of the Western Roman Empire, the Western European Christians who then spread out around the world.

So Latin America is part of Western civilization, even. North America, obviously part of Western civilization. in Australia, New Zealand, basically the descendants of the western part of the Roman Empire, right? The other civilization is the eastern part of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine and the remnants of that. And Russia is the leading nation within that civilization. And there's four others. There's the Indian, the Chinese, and the two Islamic ones, the Persians and the Arabs, right? The Sunni and the Shia and the Shia.

And his argument was that over historical time periods, these civilizations come into conflict with each other. And they are in constant struggle for land, for power, for money, for control of territory, etc. And they all have what they consider to be their own historical space. Right. So eastern Ukraine, Kiev and to the east of that, is in every way, unquestionably, historically part of the Orthodox Eastern Christian civilization, right? and Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,

they are parts of Western Christian civilization, which Stalin was able to steal, and Western Ukraine as well, because the Western civilization was having a bitch fest. They were fighting for control, who controls Western civilization. Because remember, World War II was not a World War. It started as a fight between Germany and Britain and France,

essentially for who is the top dog in the West, right? Germany wanted to be top dog, and Britain and France didn't want to let them. And that's why the conflict over Poland happened. Again, remember, I'm not saying this is true. I'm just saying this is a useful frame for thinking about the situation. So Hitler was willing to allow the Soviet Union to take Latvia, and Lithuania, what is now Western Ukraine and pieces of Poland, in order to allow him complete freedom to deal with the British and with the French.

And once he dealt with the British and the French, quite naturally, he went, well, how about we deal with the Eastern civilization, which I also want to enslave and destroy, right? Because this is how great civilizations work. They don't form permanent alliances. They can only be allied for periods of time against someone else, right? So the moment that alliance outlived itself, and particularly there's some evidence that he thought Stalin was about to attack, he began that war. So what does that mean here?

Well, NATO expansion, right? We talked about this, and when you asked me last time, I know I came across as somewhat dismissive of the idea that NATO expansion and Western influence in Eastern Europe had contributed to this process. You asked me, do you think that's true? And I said, it's impossible to tell whether this would have still happened, right? And I still agree with that, because we've been living, all of us in the commentary space, I think, in this false dichotomy, this idea that either Vladimir Putin, Putin is an expansionist authoritarian.

He was always going to go west. Or NATO has provoked poor fluffy Vladimir Putin with his bunny ears or whatever to react brutally. Of course, it's perfectly possible for both of those things to be true. And the civilizational dimension will tell you, if you believe it, that the eastern civilization will always try to push west when it can,

and the Western civilization will always try to push east when it can. So on that basis, if you look at it through history, this basically happens in Ukraine once a century, right? This basically happens in Ukraine once a century because it is on the border between these two great civilizations. And this is very important, particularly when we talk about the nuclear side of this, because you might say, and people, and I sort of questioned it as well, it's like, well, why does Russia care about NATO expanding into Ukraine? right it's like we're not going to attack them with nuclear weapons that would be insane right that would be insane at the level of the nation right no no one thinks boris johnson's about to launch a nuclear strike on russia right and it's insane of the

plaintiff carry arson that's true she can ask very nicely no one thinks that but the level of civilization and history you have to look at it in a broader scale and go look Russia was invaded by the leader of Western civilization in 1941 in World War II, before that by Napoleon, and on and on and on and on and go. So the idea that we've reached some kind of new peaceful world in which no war will ever happen again, we can have that illusion at the level of the individual, of the community of the nation, but the level of civilization, we know historically speaking, every great civilization tries to destroy its neighbors if it can,

or at least compete with them in a way that will be to the detriment of the other. And so at that level of abstraction, I mean, if you've got to be thinking it from their point of view, and I'm telling you this because that's how they think about it, I know this, that's how they think about it. If the West had complete dominance and was able to destroy Russia without being able to, without Russia being able to destroy the West in return, Well, they might not launch nuclear weapons, but they'd certainly demand things of Russia

that Russia doesn't want to give up. They could bully Russia into doing things. So we are in a new arms race, and we are in a new Cold War, as I said two weeks ago. So I think this civilizational analysis kind of helps to understand that tension and that conflict and why, of course, NATO expansion contributes to Russia being bullish in pushing westwards. Now, I personally do think that a president of a country who's been in power for 23 years, who's destroyed any semblance of democracy, any semblance of the free press, who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,

who's talked about creating the Russian world, etc., he was always going to move west if the west retreated. And think about this. What if NATO wasn't in Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc., right? do you think he would have just sat on his hands? That's the question that I think people need to ask themselves. So when people very well-educated people and people who are making good points, John Meyerheimer, Vladimir Posner,

both people I really want us to get on the show and so do you. When they talk about, well, we've provoked Putin, okay, let's accept that argument. If we were in the internet age in 1938, people would say, well, the Treaty of Versailles provoked Hitler. And just be clear, I'm not saying Putin is Hitler.

I'm not saying he has a racial animus. I'm not saying he wants to enslave everybody around the world at all. But he wants control over those territories that used to be part of his world as he sees it. So there's always an explanation of why things are happening. And in any relationship, as you know, both parties are responsible. So I do think we underplayed when we were talking about it a couple of weeks ago, the NATO angle of this, because I frankly were stuck in the false dichotomy of, well, either it's Putin or it's the West provoking him. It's both, right? So that's kind of what I think has given me this ability to

come to acceptance that this was always going to happen. And I don't know that, you know, it could have been avoided. Now, personalities matter, right? Russia could have had a different precedent and that president could have resolved this differently. America could have handled this differently. And if I had a different president, President Trump, I don't think this would have happened even now, even as far as NATO has provoked Russia or whatever. He would have found some way to negotiate or, and also he would have been much scarier for Russia to upset in the situation. So that's where we are. And that's why I think I'm asking people to let us donate this money for humanitarian causes because Russia cannot, they can't give up. they're not going to stop.

They're going to flatten what they need to flatten. Because for them, this is existential, this is civilizational. For Putin, it's personal. And the way things are in Russia now, they're not going to give up, man. The sanctions are only fueling their emboldening. Now, look, over a 10-year period, if we keep the sanctions up, yeah, people are going to get pissed off with Putin for what's going on. But they're not going to end this war.

So that's my position on it. I don't know if that makes any sense. No, it makes complete sense. I want to talk about sanctions a little bit. So there's been some very intelligent people who've been making the point that all you're doing with these sanctions is driving them further, driving Putin further and further into the arms of the CCP.

Do you agree with that? Because you're cutting them off with trade from the West. They're going to become isolated. Their only option is going to be trading with the other superpower who are obviously the Chinese. I don't know enough about that to really say what's going on. I mean, it would seem to me to be a reasonable conclusion, yeah. But it's a worry, isn't it?

Because if you isolate Russia, it's what Sun Tzu said. You've got to give them the golden bridge when they retreat. You can't humiliate them. And if you constantly isolate them and you're going to financially cripple them, then eventually that's their only option. Yeah, absolutely. The only thing is, I mean, China, from what I understand, understand. And look, as I said, I don't know much about this, so just take that with a pinch of salt. They've played a very neutral hand on this one. They've, they've, they've, they've, they've, they've,

abstained in the vote. The, they, they, they, Russian TV is full of pro-China stuff right now. So they're desperate to do that. What the Chinese are going to do, we don't know, because the Chinese are a much more natural enemy to Russia than the West is. Well, they share a border. Well, they share a massive border. And the far east of, Russia is essentially being slowly taken over by Chinese people. They're just moving there. A lot of the organized crime in the east of Russia is Chinese. I can see you've got a joke in your mind.

You sound like a Russian UK. Yeah, exactly. Well, when I used to be a translator, I used to translate a lot of stuff about the migration statistics from that area. There's a very heavy inflow of Chinese, labor, Chinese business people into the far east of Russia. So whether China and Russia are going to get along is an interesting question that I don't know enough about to answer, but that's just what I know about it.

See, to me, it's an interesting situation because you have China on one side who, superficially, I thought they would have been allied allies. But what you're saying makes it seem not the case. They might be. They might be, but we don't know, but they haven't come out. And you would have thought if they're going to be allies, they would have come out and been loud and proud. And you've got to remember as well, like, nobody actually wants nuclear war. You know, this narrative of mad Vlad or whatever, I think he's certainly dictatorial and he's becoming, you know, culty.

I don't think he's mad. And the people in charge of China, very smart people. So nobody wants nuclear war. So they're going to try and stabilize the situation as best they can and what that looks like, we don't know. I remember you said on question time that if he was backed into a corner, There was no way out.

He would. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. So let's just explore that. Well, backed into a corner is like fucking NATO troops on the border of Russia. That's what I mean. Really? Yeah.

Then, of course. Well, if NATO gets involved, I mean, that's his only play because NATO would crush Russia in a conventional war. And how much do you think this is insecurity of Russia? It's a cross way to describe it, but a midlife crisis almost. You know, Russia looks at. looking back to the glory days of Putin, looking back to the glory days of the Soviet Union. Well, if you talk to Vladimir Posner,

that's what he would say is the big Russian complainer is, we are a great civilization. And you tried to keep us in the box. We've got the most nukes in the world. Why are you trying to keep us in a box? Why are you trying to intrude on what is our civilizational territory? Why are you not treating us as an equal? That's what people would say.

And you've got to understand that a huge part, of the Russian mindset. Every nation and every civilization, they have their own myth. And I don't mean myth as in, this is bollocks and we should dismiss it and laugh at it. I mean that an idea that we all buy into whether consciously or subconsciously.

Absolutely, yeah. And the Western myth, essentially, is based lately, at least, on the American constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutional Revolution war and all of that. And the myth is basically this. We have created the perfect society, right? We have found the rules and regulations and the way of looking at the individual and society and

government that gives people maximum freedom and maximum well. And that is the purpose of life. And we are now the luckiest, most fortunate, most successful people in the world. The freest people in the world. And that's who we are. And that is our myth. And therefore, We must spread this to other people. We must share this beautiful freedom and prosperity with others. That is the Western civilizational myth. The Russian national myth is based on our long history of trying to catch up to the West. The Russian national myth is, look, we are just as good as those guys over there,

but technologically and in many other ways we've been behind. And they don't treat us the way we deserve to be treated. and we are strong. We sacrificed 20 million lives to defeat nationalism. We won that war. It was us, right? And the Americans landed right at the end of the war to take some of the glory on the beaches of Normandy,

and yeah, they did a little bit. That's the narrative. I'm not saying it's true. And try to take credit for our success. So, yeah, maybe we're a bit backward and maybe we're a bit technologically behind, but we are strong. We are strong.

How dare you not treat us as equals. That's the Russian national myth. So these two myths are colliding in a very big way. But it's also as well, you look at the economy in Russia. It's the size of it. The Italian economy, is that? But this is what I'm saying to you. This is exactly what I'm saying to you.

You are doing the Western myth to Russia. You'll go, well, you're not very rich. And I'm going, yeah, but I've got 100, however many, 10,000 nuclear weapons. What doesn't matter how rich I am when I can destroy the whole world. And this is what people don't understand. Russia has enough nuclear weapons that it doesn't need to fire them. If Russia detonated its nuclear weapons in Russia, life on Earth would end. So if you've got that kind of clout behind you, you want to be taken seriously.

Of course. And that's the issue with the nuclear age that we live in now is there are countries in the world that cannot lose in a war. Doesn't mean they're going to win, but they will not lose. You see what I'm saying? I completely understand what you're saying. And there's quite a few people who, or there's people talking about that maybe what we need to do if, you know, just get rid of Vlad, put somebody else in charge. That to me seems like a completely ridiculous idea.

It's a misunderstanding of the situation. I understand why people are saying it. Because whenever there's a problem, we saw, it's a Stalin approach, no man, no problem. Yeah. The problem you've got in Russia, particularly with what I talked about earlier, with the way that the country is right now, and also, again, the civilizational dimension of how threatened they feel. You remember Uncle Vlad, there is a sort of range of possibilities that looks like this, right? And Vlad is on the authoritarian violent side of that, for sure. But could be further in that direction.

I mean, you've got history. Correct. I mean, by historical standards of the Russian nation, remember what I said, never had a democracy ever, never had a single democratic transition of power, ever, right? Vladimir Putin, but I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't like it, that's why I live in the West, but by the Russian standards, he's pretty sort of middle of the road. He's a liberal Democrat. He's a sort of, you know, I don't know, he's a liberal Democrat. I think that's pushing it a little bit. You should know the Liberal Democrat Party in Russia

is the most extremist pro-war, bomb America party ever. It's incredible. But anyway, he's pretty middle of the road by the standards of Russian history. So careful what you wish for, my friend. And also, here's another thing. You come at the king, you best not miss.

What happens if you miss? What happens if there's an assassination attempt and you fail? Well, now his life is on the line. What's he going to do? then. You want to roll those dice? That you do not want to see that because that's when things could get. I mean, things are obviously awful. Yeah. But that's taking it to another level. Yeah. So look, the long-term perspective is we're in a cold war, in my opinion. We are going to have

to win that cold war. But there's going to be a few seat of the pants moments, squeaky bum times coming along the way, I think. Look, what the hell do I know? But that's my opinion. So eventually, for the long term, you think that what is the future of Ukraine, do you think? Well, like I said, I'm not a military expert. I'm not political expert. So I'm just giving you my opinion, and it could be wrong.

But I think Russia, one way or another, is going to win this war. They're going to enforce their demands one way or another. And their demands are to take Crimea to give independence to the two eastern regions, And the other two is really what all the fuss is about, which is neutral Ukraine, I'm using inverted commas, by which they mean going back to when Russia essentially decided who was the president of Ukraine and what policies they'll have. And by the way, Zelensky may even stay in power. They might keep him as a non-man like president, but it will be the prime minister, a Russian appointed guy basically who decides what happens in the country. So in neutral Ukraine, essentially a Ukraine that does everything that Russia wants. and demilitarization, which means basically preventing the Ukrainians from being strong enough to ever fight Russia again, removing NATO weaponry, etc.

And what they call denatification, by which they mean basically getting rid of, as we talked about before with Roger Morehouse, there is a historical issue in one part of Ukraine with Ukrainian nationalists who are of the fascist variety. And he wants to deal with those, of course, but really it's just about getting rid of people who've taken a pro-Ukrainian nationalist approach. Some of them will be Nazis, a small percentage, tiny percentage. Like in every country, there are some people who are extremists. And the rest of them will just be people who have been very vocally pro-Ukrainian and against the Russian. And it will mean also changing the cultural direction of Ukraine so that they have Russian-speaking TV and Russian-ist-torn schools. and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So it become more like Belarus, basically.

Belarus is a different case because they've gotten a president for life. It's a little bit different, but culturally probably something like that. This is one of the reasons I say that this was always going to happen because people have been persuaded by commentators in the West to think that, oh, in 2014, there was a coup, and then Ukraine took a Western direction. Well, first of all, to say it was a Western-sponsored coup is not accurate. The West was involved, for sure. Ukraine was moving in the western direction from literally 1991.

I remember my own grandfather, who was, I loved him. I loved growing up on his farm in Ukraine, in the Russian part of Ukraine. And he always spoke Russian all the time I knew him. The moment the Soviet Union collapsed, he started speaking Ukraine. And I remember it because he used to piss the hell out of me. It pissed me off because I was like, granted, I don't understand what you're saying. So many, many people in an independent Ukraine moved in a westward's direction and in a pro-Urude. Ukrainian directions to the point where, like, my wife used to say, like, why all these people

speaking Ukrainian badly when they're Russian speakers? Russian speakers were trying to learn Ukrainian, and they wanted the wealth and the prosperity and the democracy that we have in the West. And think about this. People talk about, oh, there's a Western coup. Well, President Zelensky didn't come to power as a result of a coup. The person who came to power in 2014 as a result of that revolution was, they call it the revolution of dignity, was a man called Petro Poroshenko. He was replaced in a free and fair election by Vladimir Zelensky, Volodym Zelensky, who got most of his votes from eastern and central Ukraine.

And he ended up having, I think, about 75% of the total vote. He's a freely elected man in a democracy, a Jewish comedian. So that's why all these talk about all the Nazis are running around in Ukraine. people in the West can say what they want. I'm not going to argue with them anymore. I've decided there's nothing I can do to change people's minds. I'm just going to say what I know and what I think and people can take it from there. So that's to me why this was always going to happen.

Ukraine was always going to move West, whether the West wanted it to or not. People in most countries that were part of the Soviet Union would quite like to have more prosperity and more freedom if they possibly can. And it's taken a concerted effort to keep that process from happening. And do you think the reason that Russia has these types of leaders is because it's such a huge country? Historically speaking, yes. So if you think about if you've got to control a massive country where it literally takes weeks to travel somewhere and they're completely cut off and there's no internet, no phones, no nothing. Different completely different cultures, different ethnicities, et cetera.

You have to have very strong central leadership to keep that thing going. So absolute brutality, lopping anyone's heads off who doesn't. do what you say. You have to have a strong leader. We have to have a strong leader. And also, we spent about 200 years being ruled by the Mongols. So, or have maybe even more than that. Maybe I don't remember the exact detail. My Russian history of that period is not, not very clear. But centuries of being ruled by Mongols. And the Mongols had a very simple set of laws. Yeah, there were only two things. Either you're allowed to do it or the punishment for this is death. That was their approach.

if you ride along the road and you see somebody having a meal and you don't sit down and eat with them, you die. If you are sitting alongside of the road and you're eating and you don't invite a stranger to eat with you, you die. Do anything else, you die. You refuse to pay tax, you die. And this is what they did. So they ruled Russia with an iron fist

and, you know, Russians have carried on with that tradition. We love a strong leader. Do you think part of it is that Putin could see Ukraine moving westwards, democratically elected. And he was worried that the Russian people might look at that and go, hang on a minute, they're getting a democratic election. You've been in power for 23 years, mate. Well, this is why I've always said about why Russia is so worried about these color revolutions,

the one in Georgia, the one in Ukrainian's life. It's a bad example to the children. Yeah. and sets a bad example. It's partly about NATO getting close to Russia's borders, but partly it sets a terrible example to the kids. Look at Belarus. They tried to have a color revolution there.

Overtrow a guy been in power, I don't know, 50 years or however long it's been, right? It sets a bad example. And he's got quite a high approval rating, hasn't he? Putin now, massive, of course. Of course. People in Russia blame the West for what's happening. and they blame the sanctions on the West. How reliable is that, though?

It's reliable. Really? Yeah. Because Chichescu family had it. Yeah, I've made this point before. It ain't one of them right now. Really? No.

Country is a war and people are united behind their leader. Right. Yeah. So he's stronger than ever now. I think internally he's stronger than ever. Russia is going to get crippled by sanctions. But he, in terms of his control of the country, yeah, of course he's stronger than that. And do you think he thinks that he made the right decision?

I don't know. I imagine like me he's very surprised by the strength of the Western response. I don't think he expected it to be like this from what I'm hearing. Really? Yeah. That's interesting. Should we do Q&A, mate? Yeah, let's do Q&A. So guys, we're going to come back in a few minutes with some questions from you. We'll read the superchats. We'll read the paypast. We'll see what you guys are saying. Hey, Francis, do you like podcasts and politics? No, mate. I'm a real man. I'm only interested in football, birds.

fast cars. Last time you tried to drive a car, you had a panic attack when you got overtaken by a granny. She was driving very aggressively and used disgusting language for a woman of her age. Well, for those of you who do like podcasts and politics, then you have to check out the lost debate. It's a podcast and YouTube show for political eclectics who want to escape their media bubbles and engage in good faith with ideas from across the political spectrum. It's three friends from across the political spectrum discussing the big issues of the day. He's a former Obama staffer and school principal, Corey's a former Fox Radio news host,

and Ricky's a New York post columnist. Instead of being at each other's throats, they focus on bringing new perspectives to the table in constructive debates that sound less like crossfire and more like discussions between real people. They sound like us, apart from the whole sound like real people bit. That, and they might actually know what they're talking about.

Check the lost debate out on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. Hey Francis, would you like to learn another language? No, mate. Already know foreign languages perfectly. Oi Gary, who a Libliotheca? You can't go on holiday, mate, without knowing where the swimming pool is. Le Bibliotech is the library, you idiot. Exactly. You can never be too far away from knowledge and sexually frustrated librarians.

For those of you who do want to learn a language and connect with another culture, or maybe just brush up in your Spanish for the next day. next holiday. Babel is the app for you. Babel's 15 minute lessons make it the perfect way to learn a new language on the go. Babel designs their courses with practical real-world conversations in mind. Things you're going to use in everyday life, like finding out where the bibliotech is. Babel lessons were created by over 100 language experts, meaning real people. So you learn useful vocabulary and not meaningless phrases like the ones Francis keeps uttering. Babel's teaching method has been scientifically proven to be effective across multiple studies.

With Babel, you can choose from 40 different languages, including Spanish, French, Italians and the other ones. Babel is available as an app or online and your progress will be synced across all devices. Babel is offering our listeners six months free with a purchase of a six-month subscription with our promo code, which is Trigger. Go to babel.com forward slash play and use promo code trigger for an extra six months for free. We're even going to get Francis on it. You might learn English. That's B-A-B-B-E-L.com forward slash play.

promo code trigger. I use Babel and look at me now. No, I'm a Spanish. Absolutely perfecto. Noah O'Me, Gary. And welcome back, guys. We are going to ask your questions to Constantin and to myself as well.

So let's start off, first of all, with Stephanie. And she says, please will you talk about the no-fly zone? Don't we need to close the sky now, not keep sitting and watching? I understand the sentiment, Stephanie. I really, really do. And I wish we could. I really, really do. You know, as you know, I have family in Ukraine.

I keep saying it. I really, really, I would love for us to be able to do that. But you've got to think about what that means. What does a no-fly zone mean? It means we shoot down any planes that fly in a no-fly zone. Right. So now that means we are shooting down Russian planes. What does that mean? Well, that is an act of hostility.

It's an act of war. Yeah. If I'm killing your people, that's an act of war. So then we're in World War III with Russia. And as I said, yes, the West can crush Russia in a conventional war, if it really wanted to, after millions and millions of people dying on both sides. But you've got to understand there are some countries, like I said before, that cannot lose a war. And Russia is one of them.

Russia has several types of weapons that we cannot stop. It's developing a nuclear-powered nuclear-tipped submarine or torpedo, which is gigantic. And it can basically swim under war. It can not swim. It can move underwater faster than it can be intercepted and attack coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York, etc. And there's nothing we can do to stop it. It has hypersonic missiles that no anti-aircraft system can intercept.

So if Russia wants to destroy the West, it can. And if the West wants to destroy Russia, it can. So if you want to get involved in World War III, that's how it's going to end. So my heart bleeds for Ukraine And I wish we could do something to help And every Ukrainian I speak to Says please we need to close the sky But do we

I mean We can't kill everybody in the world I mean I sometimes feel like doing it But for entirely different reasons Yeah Well thank well thank you Stephanie So let's Let's talk about this

Let's talk about a question from Dan McBean. He goes, when Ukraine is inverted commas defeated, what are the chances of a long-running, ongoing insurgent war against Russian targets supported by the West? I think it's high, based on the conversations that I've had, because of how brave and courageous and spirited the Ukrainians are. And that's my concern with the war running longer and longer. What you're going to have is more atrocities on both sides.

you're going to see that more and more people become, go beyond the point of no return in terms of how they feel, they've seen their family members killed, they've seen their cities destroyed, and that will only mean that this, you know,

that horror continues. I think that's very likely. And I think the longer the war goes on, the worst that partisan war or insurgency or whatever you want to call it will be, which is one of the reasons I'm not sure extending it is a good thing. That is the worry, isn't it, that Putin will then take over, and then what will eventually

happen is that there will be just a permanent guerrilla war? Well, it won't be permanent. But look, if this was Adolf Hitler, who wanted to enslave Ukrainians and exterminate some racial minority and whatever, we'd be having a very, and it was a non-nuclear age, we'd be having a very different conversation right now. right but I don't think we can start a nuclear war for someone who wants to control some territory now this sounds awful I say again my heart bleeds for Ukraine I want to do everything I can to support people there that's why we raise a ton of money that's why I've gone on TV and blah blah

blah I want to do everything I can I'm just being very honest with people as I always try to be about what I see based on conversations that I've had based on the military situation based on what's happening in Ukraine based on what's happening in Russia. If that makes me an appeaser, I guess I'm in a pizza. I don't know. I don't know what to say. It's just, I'm torn. But the practical reality is this. We can't start World War III in the nuclear age. And creating a no-fly zone will do that. Okay. Here's a question from XZ born. He goes, what's the difference between American billionaires and Russian oligarchs, which is a good question. Yeah, I think Russian oligarchs, well, it depends what you mean, Russian oligarchs are Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.

So Russian oligarchs are at this point essentially an appointed position. You don't rise to the position of billionaire. You get appointed to it by Vladimir Putin. So the people who are billionaires in Russia now are people who he is handpicked to be billionaires. And the people who used to be billionaires that he didn't like either in prison or dead or in exile. Right. So billionaire is it's like head of the civil service or whatever. It's like the leader of the country appoints them. In Ukraine, it's different. In Ukraine, they have a tremendous amount of influence on the country and the power and the way the country's governed. American billionaires, I imagine that American billionaires, other than the owners of the big tech companies, have far less influence on what happens in American politics than they do in Russia. Ukraine, particularly in Ukraine.

Well, thank you. That was a great answer. Tiffany Richardson asked, how are we going to convince anyone to give up their nukes in exchange for inverted commas our protection ever again after this? Well, if you're a leader of any country that has nuclear

weapons now, because the reason she's asking this question is in 1994, Russia and the Western country signed the Budapest memorandum, in which Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of Western protection. and of Russian protection.

Right. So everybody said, look, just give away your nukes and then we'll protect you. That way, this country, which is quite unstable and not clear politically, blah, blah, blah, doesn't have a nuke. Well, if Ukraine had nukes, this invasion wouldn't be happening, right? So how are you going to convince... That's why everyone wants a nuclear bomb,

because it's the one way you guarantee you don't get invaded. Good point. Fodzachs asks, when the Soviet Union broke up and they actually had a reasonable man as leader, Was there more we could and should have done to bring Russia further in from the cold? People will argue that. I remember as a kid growing up in Moscow eating American donated humanitarian aid, right? America did try to help. What America didn't want to do, and this is something Posner talks about with the Wolfram's doctrine, America didn't want Russia to become a competitor. And so it tried to keep Russia in the box.

What would have happened if Russia hadn't been kept in a box? Well, no one knows. answered to that question. One possibility is we'd be living in peace and prosperity and friendship and whatever. The other possibility is Russia would have gone back, erased itself and gone, oh, look, why is Estonia-Latvia-Latvia, why aren't they part of our sphere of influence

anymore? Right? And if NATO wasn't there to protect those countries, that could well be the case now. Because the loss of the Warsaw-Pact countries was very painful for the Soviet Union. It was very painful thing for the civilizational identity. But they were sort of willing to give it up because traditionally speaking, those countries were part of Western Christian civilization.

That's fine. Okay. Katie Kaling has asked, what do you think the best outcome for Ukrainian people, as well as the West, can hope for at this point? Look, again, I just, I need to preface everything by saying, I'm not an expert, I don't know, but here's my opinion. based on the conversations that I've had and what I understand. I think the best outcome is basically what's on the table for Ukraine now, sadly. And that is they've put up a great fight.

They've shown that it's not going to be easy. Maybe the Russians will take Kiev and then they'll surrender. I don't know. But it's basically going to be Russia taking Crimea, independence for the two eastern regions, and a cultural redirecting of Ukraine eastwards towards Russia and the sort of permanent puppet Russian government. What can I say? I mean, I don't see a better outcome.

The reason that I don't see a better outcome is, you know, I don't see how you're going to get Russia to give up on those ambitions, especially now. When, yes, they're taking great casualties. Yes, the economy is taking great damage, but they are making progress. And they, you know, it's only been two weeks, man. and they're making progress

towards what they're trying to do which is encircled the army take the big cities once they do that yeah you can have an insurgency but what's that going to change do you think it's made the West look impotent

I think the reality is that on this one the West kind of was impotent what it did though it kept signaling weakness and so it's allowed Russia to do this but I've been surprised by the strength of the response

if you remember I said two weeks ago perhaps somewhat melodramatically that NATO is over. I don't know that that's not true, but it could not be true. It could be not true. I don't know what would happen if, like, if Russia invaded Lithuania today, I'm pretty sure we'd strike back.

If Russia invades Lithuania five years from now, well, it depends on what's happened in the world. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, I do see what you're saying. So it's hard to say. I don't feel that the West has been particularly weak on this. It's done everything it can. do you know who's actually

and I never thought I'd say this come out of this with some credit it's all it's Boris Johnson he has and by the way look I texted Nigel Farras the other day going you know we had that big argument I'm starting to see your point

you know and just for the viewers and the listeners well he was saying we should say to Russia we won't let Ukraine Joe NATO would that have stopped it probably would have stopped it in the interim

yeah but then you end up in the same thing where Russia basically then takes over Ukraine, either culturally or otherwise. One way or another, Russia would be in control. That's what it means to say Ukraine won't be joining NATO. So I think this was always going to happen. Maybe in the short time this could have been avoided. Maybe we can see you've got another joke coming. No, no, no.

I was discussing with my very left-wing girlfriend about this. And she put forward that exact argument. And I said, you have the exact same opinion as Nigel Farage. I bet she was happy. She was furious. But it's an interesting point, isn't it? It's an interesting point. I don't think that would have avoided this issue in the long run.

Do you think it was inevitable, really? The moment the nukes were given up, the moment they didn't become part of NATO, Ukraine's fate was sealed. I know it's a horrible question. Yeah, I do, because for the reasons that I told you, because the people of Ukraine wanted to move west. It's not the CIA didn't manipulate it. them into doing that, right?

They want, like my granddad, he was speaking Ukrainian and lots of other people. They wanted to move in a direction of having their own country that was not aligned with Russia. That's what they wanted. And as long as they had democracy, they would keep electing leaders that would push the country in that direction. So this was always going to happen. Donna Willis asked, do you think Putin will retaliate soon against the West because of the sanctions and the support we have given Ukraine?

And if so, in what form? Well, I think they will probably try to retaliate against some of the recent sanctions like the oil embargo and all of that. Although it's only Britain and America, really, that's done that. The countries that actually buy most of their oil and gas are in Europe, and they're not doing that. So we'll have to see. We'll have to see. Probably, I'd imagine so. Okay.

They did last time. In 2014, they, like, banned Polish apples or some shit. The corporate withdrawal is from the canceled culture playbook, and this is from Jepal 2-2-2-2. U-4 or against, does it make Putin weaker, stronger? There's a question that already asked. Would it be dangerous having a Russia unplugged from the West, separate internet, etc?

I mean, it's already there. So I think it's very difficult to say. There are two options this can go, the two ways this can go. One is Russia, for some reason, just goes, you know what, this isn't worth it, we're pulling out. And then we go through a process of de-escalation. I don't see that happening. The other process, unfortunately, I see happening is Russia carries on.

We are in Cold War II, and we're going to have to win. And the way we defeated the Soviet Union is by forcing them to destroy their own economy. Yeah, sending them bankrupt, basically. Basically. So maybe that's what happens. Edvard Gotto asks, hey, hey you. do you guys think World War III has started? I'm low-key kind of scared, to be honest.

And this might seem, like, people will look at this and go, don't be ridiculous. There's a hell of a lot of people out there who are very, very anxious about this, who are terrified, who are thinking, is this to start actually of World War III? Well, if it is, then we're all going to die. All right, mate, keep it like.

In which case, if I say now that I don't think it is, I'm going to be right either way. Either it isn't or we're all dead, in which case no one is going to come back and go, I told you. So I'm going to say no. I don't think it is, but we are as close to as we've come for a very long time.

For 60 years, for exactly 60 years, since the Cuban missile crisis. We haven't been closer than we are now to World War III. But you don't think this is? No. Because there's a lack of appetite on all sides for war, basically. Okay. Bam Bam Buffer asked a very good question actually. He goes, how about compromise and send a loop specifically to help injured Ukrainian military? Send the loot. Yeah, the money that we've raised. I saw some of it. Yeah, yeah. Well, the charities we'll give it to will partly be for that. Yeah. Okay, so I think that's a very, very good idea. So thank you very much.

Bam Bam Buffer. Peter Ryan has sent one. I don't know how true it is. there might be a rumor that you've heard from your family in Russia. He goes, there have been some reports that Uncle Vlad has cancer. Big, if true. There's nothing more terrifying than a man with nothing to lose. Is that a rumor that is going around Russia or is that... I haven't heard that. Okay.

Hugh M. Bean goes, it sounds like you've given up on Ukraine. I realize Putin will probably take it. But I thought making it as hard as possible was the best option for everyone in the long term. Open to your thoughts.