Really encouraging to see that the comment section isn't fooled by this thinly veiled British Colonialist propaganda.

He doesn't normally write about Russia, but all of a sudden decided to do so 🤔

@irinademina9701

3 ай бұрын

It was strange that not being a specialist in the area, he decided to speak extensively on the topic and made a number of silly mistakes. First, he speaks of the Soviet historiography and finds its influence on Putin. However, he does not know the imperial historiography, while it is much dearer to Putin. Secondly, Grushevsky (and not Khruschevsky - it must have been influenced by Nikita Khruschev) is the father of the Ukrainian history. But he never was exiled to the west. Moreover, he was an active participant of building the Soviet Ukraine and the official soviet policy of “Ukrainisation” of its people. And numerous minor things too. On the other hand, putting a historian on the sanctions list is ridiculous.

@xiaomoogle

3 ай бұрын

*Russian trolling intensifies*

@RocketGator05

3 ай бұрын

@@xiaomoogle 😂🤡

@voyd1507

3 ай бұрын

I would think because with Russian invasion on neighboring country topic became "hot"

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

And… ? What’s interesting is any country sanctioning foreign historians for their opinion.

Please stop this format, where you CHOOSE a specific expert to endorse your own biases. I have barely listened to 1minute to know how this will play out. Useless waste of time. Next time invite at least two experts with opposing views (and why not a non european, maybe an indian or a chinese professor ?) to at least aknowledge how history is complex, unfortunately subject to interpretation and thus very subjective. On this russia subject you have difficulties letting go to your biases.

@femiadesanya4116

3 ай бұрын

We saw him coming a mile off😂

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

Get back in your media bubble! it’s not safe out there beyond the warm embrace of state TV telling you how to think 😮

@tucoramirez3333

3 ай бұрын

He didn’t choose this guest - Putin sanctioned this man - me thinks thou doth protest too much 😂😂

Well if we sanction ballet dancers and tennis players from Russia....

Of course. Here in South Africa the British forced tens of thousands of Boer women and children into concentration camps and thousands died. Ask them.

@MusaA

3 ай бұрын

The UK government is not racist, they are prepared to kill or rob every race, gender or religious affiliations! I live here and the British history still writes about other habitants of this world as if they are savages!

@MrDoyley35

3 ай бұрын

U Forgot to mention that the Boers were still using slave labour at that time. One of the reasons the Boer war happened. The brits abolished slavery in 1807.

@jiggsborah7041

3 ай бұрын

@@MrDoyley35 ...A big load of Male Cows droppings. Diamonds gold iron and coal.

@MusaA

3 ай бұрын

Not on the salaries we get paid in the UK! Slavery still exists!@@MrDoyley35

@xiaomoogle

3 ай бұрын

*Russian trolling intensifies*

In the wake of Tucker Carlson’s bombshell interview with Vladimir Putin, one would think that UnHerd would want to have a real expert on Russia or Ukraine or both on the show to dissect the interview. Pace Freddie, it wasn’t mainly a discourse on early Russian history. There were two things in the interview that relating to the period since the war started that most people might not be aware of. Frist, the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which Putin quite rightly said had been blown up by the Americans along with Nordstream 1, has been repaired and is ready to ship Russsian natural gas to Germany. Second, Putin was almost certainly correct in saying that Zelensky was aware that he was joining in a standing ovation in the Canadian House of Commons to a Ukrainian former veteran of a Nazi SS Division or of Banderists allied with the Nazis who were fighting against the Red Army and were guilty of massacres of Poles and Jews and ethnic Russians. By participating in it, he dishonoured the memory of his grandfather who had served in the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War. This is why Zelensky, usually so garrulous on any subject, has had nothing to say about this incident since it occurred. Rather than this kind of an interview, we got an interview with a British historian who has never been to Russia, has no interest in going, and therefore will be not at all inconvenienced by Putin imposing a symbolic travel ban. UnHerd really is in free fall! Professor Abulafia seemed to be a nice enough man, reasonably well acquainted with Russian history for someone who has never taught it, but near the end of the interview he sounded like a crude NATO propagandist when he spoke of the huge significance of the so-called Ukrainian victory on Snake Island, a small uninhabited island in the Black Sea not too far from the port of Odessa. This is what former Swiss military colonel Jacques Baud, who actually does speak both Russian and Ukrainian, had to say about that: “It is probably in the context of this same campaign [of terror conducted by the SBU] that Darya Dugina was assassinated on August 21. The objective of this new campaign could be to convey the illusion that there is an ongoing resistance in the areas taken by the Russians and thus revive Western aid, which is starting to fatigue. These sabotage activities do not really have an operational impact and seem more related to a psychological operation. It may be that these are actions like the one on Snake Island at the beginning of May, intended to demonstrate to the international public that Ukraine is acting.” In other words, the recovery of Snake Island was a symbolic gesture, of no military significance.

@emiliachopin732

3 ай бұрын

It was Nazis, Soviets and Banderists Ukrainians who were equally guilty of massacre on the Poles

@emiliachopin732

3 ай бұрын

Please don't forget the 1940 Katyn massacre of 22,000 Polish intelligentsia exterminated by the Soviets. Putin ' version of history was heavily Pro Russian.

@andrewbaldwin4454

3 ай бұрын

@@emiliachopin732 Intelligentsia? They were Polish military were they not? Yes, it certainly was a biased account of the history. I would say that was a forgiveable omission given that the topic of his discourse was Russian-Ukrainian relations. A more important omission would seem to be the revolt of Bohdan Khmelnetsky against Polish rule in 1648, that led to Poland losing all of left bank Ukraine. Putin ignored this completely and instead spoke of the Pereyaslav Agreement of 1654 between Khmelnetsky and Aleksei Mikhailovich as if it came out of nowhere, and ignoring the existence of a Cossack Hetmanate.

@AntPictures

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewbaldwin4454 you mixed something up there. Peter the great was born in 1672. He couldn't sign any agreement with Hmelnitsky which died in 1657

@andrewbaldwin4454

3 ай бұрын

Yes, I did. That was a bad slip. Thank you for telling me AntPictures. I have corrected my error. @@AntPictures

Санкции ему поставили за конкретную статью, пусть не придумывает шпионские игры. Я хоть и рад слушать разные точки зрения и его точка зрения тут тема не полностью раскрыта чтобы судить о качестве. Но меня смущает несколько моментов: 1) зацикленность на рабах - некорректно и упрощено до такой степени что можно назвать ошибкой. Называть рабами весь конгломерат жителей племен тех времен - это грубая ошибка. Насколько мы знаем тогда существовало 5 основных понятий - свободный (причем в обсуждаемое время свободный это и воин и охотник), правитель, дружинник, долговой раб и военный раб. В то время было много племен, у каждого вождь, у него была своя дружина и многие из них ходили в набеги - поэтому я не удивлюсь как северных варваров (вера тогда была или в славянских богов которые во многом пересекались с скандинавскими, иногда чуть ли не одни и те же только на иной лад, но были и различия) просвещенные римляне с византийцами (которых грабили набегами, на которых работали, в общем тоже сложно все было) или там европейцы (вот где был сословный мрак настоящий) всех поголовно описывали в исторических записях, условно этих пиратов-дружинников называли варягами. 2) Тут упоминали Рюрика, интересный человек история которого дошла в «Повести временных лет» и там говорится что его позвали княжить (а может действительно согласились пойти под его правление силой оружия) 4-5 племен. Скорее всего он из скандинавских племен и было у него несколько братьев. Про которых тоже кое что написано. Остальное домыслы людей. Но логично подумать что если бы он был плохим правителем то рано или поздно его бы убили. Но представлять его супер человеком который пришел и милостиво возглавил кучку забитых рабов и судя по записям малой дружиной контролировал территории, ходил в набеги и отражал нападения, а также оставил потомков с надежной властью? Упрощение достойное порицания. 3) Понятно что моря это есть дороги и распространение людей. У нас вот при изучении истории России с древнейшей и до 16 века все было развитие городов было вдоль рек, а также большой воде - правда ходили только вдоль берега. 4) Вообще же у меня сложилось впечатление что профессор хорошо разбирается в теме развития прибрежных территорий, значения того или иного припортового города - ту же Одессу когда упоминали он начинал говорить свободно и радостно, чем когда другие вопросы типа древнейшей истории возникновения Руси. Наверное так и есть, просто зачем тогда обсуждать это с видом специалиста - когда знаешь половину фактов, а остальное догадки то эта ложь будет с вкраплениями правды что сильнее запутает, лучше говорить что не специалист в этом вопросе и не готов отвечать. Может ему не хватало времени, и если бы вопросы были не так далеко друг от друга или хотя бы по профилю - потому что профильный вопрос о контроле проливов и черного моря к сожалению уже пришлись на конец и мало времени уделено - а ведь было интересно послушать какие маршруты и как проходят по черному морю, и где исторически ставили патрули или фортпосты для контроля. 5) Хотел добавить об упоминании Путином русских людей - вы на западе постоянно все сводите к национальности и опять упрощаете - как можно 165 национальностей упоминать каждый раз говоря о жителях России? Многие люди в России используют русский - не как национальность, а в значении слова россиянин - да это ошибка, но она многими употребляется. Называют русскими обрусевших немцев, греков и другие народы - то есть тех кто принял подданство, историю и образ жизни. Как американцами это жителей США, так и русскими называют россиян - хотя американцами надо назвать всех жителей северной и южной Америки, а русских правильнее называть в разные времена подданные русских князей/Российской империи/гражданин СССР/гражданин России и только потом национальности. А конкретно в речи Путина шла о жителях регионов которые совокупно по нескольким признакам таким как по воспитанию, национальности, семейной истории и жизненного опыта для себя обозначили что они русские и никто не имеет права лишать их этого права. 6) Самодовольно радоваться что он никогда не поедет в Россию, и типа ему не надо. Не поедет зато обсуждает.... изучать историю Черного моря не побывав хотя бы в нескольких точках которые отличаются историческими корнями - пусть всего лишь основных странах участниках исторических действий, причем желательно и на местах и в исторических фондах. Радоваться что тебя лишили побывать в столице страны которая одна из нескольких влияет на весь мир? обладает массой исторических баз, фондов и т.п. Да и в рейтингах столиц мира стабильно вверху. Не знаю, мне вот грустно было бы - я бы хотя бы послал письмо с вопросом о причине, хотя бы для себя узнал. P.S. Если где ошибся извиняюсь, не хотел никого обидеть, просто впечатление от речей плавающее, с одной стороны культурная речь, с другой упрощения с этими обобщениями... В общем надо называть вопросы в тех областях в которых эксперт является экспертом - нельзя быть историком по всем уголкам земного шара, или это будет очень поверхностно. Тем более за 20 минут обсудить 6 тем которые так далеки друг от друга - это тогда не мнение специалиста а просто человека который информацию узнал из свободных источников - надо 2-3 эксперта спрашивать, желательно разных, и тогда правда где то покажется.

Has anyone else realized the absurdity of the word “sanction” because it can mean that you fully endorse something, but it can also mean that you have levied a penalty against something. What a useless word!!! Sometimes sanction means good, sometimes sanction means bad.

Lol yes let's let the Brits teach us history. "History is written by the victors". That being said history is being manipulated from every angle for their own agendas

@j94c

3 ай бұрын

Yes whereas Russia with it's lack of free press is sure to give an accurate, propaganda-free account of historical fact...

@MrDoyley35

3 ай бұрын

The Brits didn’t win though did they. They passed on I think?

@xiaomoogle

3 ай бұрын

*Russian trolling intensifies*

@RocketGator05

3 ай бұрын

@@xiaomoogle the bold lettering helps. You really fell for the Russiagate conspiracy I see. So gullible that you didn't notice that I said "history is being manipulated by every side". That includes Russia miss flower child. I'm American btw 🤪

@RocketGator05

3 ай бұрын

@@MrDoyley35 Their empire fell but their global influence is still present.

Yes, Putin did speak in some detail about distant history, but he also spoke in great detail about very recent history, say since NATO expansion towards the Russian border. I wonder why this gentleman, a historian, did not address this part of the interview with Putin...

@xylemrays671

3 ай бұрын

Because it’s absurd! NATO doesn’t expand, countries join an alliance because Russia is a threat. You’d have to be an absolute moron to not see that NATO is justifies by this point.

@scythermantis

3 ай бұрын

Obviously because he is a shill for British Empire and an open defender of Colonialism.

@xelix5358

3 ай бұрын

You are looking at it only as a Russia vs NATO issue and as Putin wants you to think that the then-NATO was pushing the countries to join in order to expand up to Russian borders. Nothing is further from the actual events. People accepting Putin's view never stop to think about the view of the countries NATO expanded into. They pushed hard to join the alliance as a security guarantee for their own post-Soviet independence and most importantly, they didn't want to be precarious buffer states knowing Russia wasn't exactly their friend. There is also a centuries old Russian narrative with tinges of paranoia that the West is always out to get them - even though the Russian empire was as much an expansionist and colonizing power as the empires in the west or the east. And finally, NATO wasn't pushing Finland and Sweden to rush to join after the Russian invasion - Putin only has himself to blame.

@worththewatch1517

3 ай бұрын

Because it doesn’t serve the western narrative

@rg-cc5kg

3 ай бұрын

Because eastern european countries have a right to defend rhemselves against RuZZia.? Just a thought.

Well, if you start playing the sanctions game, you shouldn’t be surprised if it is returned. In the name of accuracy you should say that they have been placed in a travel ban, that is the extent of the ‘sanctions’ right?

@KarlDMarx

3 ай бұрын

let's not forget that at some stage governments started banning Russian culture !

@jodyrosenblatt7274

3 ай бұрын

Yes, a really weak manipulative headline.

The arrogance of British trying to tell Russians their own history is astounding. Can you imagine if Russians tried to tell the British their history 😂 It wouldn't stand!

@timdarville4827

3 ай бұрын

Professional historians are objective. When history is politicised in the way Putin and the CCP do it, it is *not* objective. It is merely a *tool* in this case.

@dimsum947

3 ай бұрын

@timdarville4827 Ah it seems only Britain has 'professional historians'. Disregard all the Russian universities and lecturers that teach history. Unless the British say it, it musn't be true. What a croc lol 😆

@MrChrisayre

3 ай бұрын

one wrong word from them and they're out of a job... and you can forget the archives@@dimsum947

@davereynolds3403

3 ай бұрын

exactly

@benjaminperez969

3 ай бұрын

Alas, ad hominem. One's argument is what matters, not one's identity. One's evidence, not one's ethnicity, is what counts, argument-wise. An appeal to identity is, at best, a fallacy - at worst, it's out-and-out racism.

Freddie, you the people in the West and in UK particular, dont know much about the history of Ukraine. Ukrainians are not ethnicaly much different than the Russians excpet in the western parts. Same as Macedonians today , they are actually Bulgarians that were brainwashed by the couminists in the mid 20th century that they are a different nation with 1000s year of history... Stalin created the "national country Ukraine". But the etnnos "ukrainian" was actually mix , this was especially true in the western parts where Poles and Austro-Hungarians were present. Their language "Mowa" is itself a synthesis of Old Slavonic (straight Old Bulgarian), Polish and the local dialect "Surzhyk", which is also spoken in Belorussia and the Kuban region. And "mowa" in my opinion comes from "mulva" and the verb "mulвя" respectively. And perhaps everyone has difficulty speaking it, :) except on everyday and everyday topics.Just to add, the creation of the "Ukrainian" language, if I'm not mistaken, was an Austro-Hungarian initiative. Check about the 'Macedonian' language, how it was created in the mid 20th century. ... Best.

@urvanhroboatos8044

3 ай бұрын

From a Croatian: you are an idiot

The gentleman in the show somehow underlines the right to self-determination but does not accept that right for the people of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. His implicit statement to condemn “foreign occupation” in the Island makes me wonder how he interprets facts and history. Everything happened not long ago, British did not care about the suffering of Turks, this gentleman lived those times. A similar situation arises about the NATO expansion issue. He is definitely far from being objective.

Me sowing: YAY! Me reaping: WTF?

Hilarious how this guy just ignored the question of NATO expansion as the cause of the current war in Ukraine.

@timdarville4827

3 ай бұрын

He didn't exactly ignore it. He said it was not something he focuses particularly on.

@LA-kc7ev

3 ай бұрын

Because some of us are tired of hearing it and repeating it. It is a tired and empty argument.

@LA-kc7ev

3 ай бұрын

Interesting. I just heard him address the NATO expansion issue. He is right: Ukraine, like all the states that became independent around 1991, are sovereign and therefore entitled to chose their own military alliances. NATO doesn't "expand" militarily: Russia does that. Finally, NATO will have Russia on its borders from now into the future, and Russia will have NATO on its borders. Now Russia has new NATO countries on their border, Finland and Sweden. Why? Because they feel they need defense against Russian invasion. It is all pretty simple.

@voyd1507

3 ай бұрын

Living in the West and having never been subjected to Soviet manipulation you will never understand Russia. Do not pay attention to words, pay attention to actions.

@iAmEhead

3 ай бұрын

@@LA-kc7ev Yeah, given recent events, kind of seems like NATO expansion was more justified than ever. The countries that were lucky enough to get into NATO haven't been invaded.

It's interesting that Soviets were actually against imperialism and gave Ukraine identity. All the territory of USSR was Russia before it became Soviet Union. And the torturous historian when speaking about the education of Russian president that his worldview was Soviet fails to realise that Soviets were exact opposites of Putin's views. Putin is imperialist not socialist. In this regard all this historical discussion is one big farse. He basically doesn't know what he is talking about. Putin even said specifically that he doesn't agree with Soviet views on territory.

@davereynolds3403

3 ай бұрын

perhaps Putin is neither imperialist nor socialist 🤷🏽‍♂️ it’s so hard to see clearly when the British and Americans keep telling us what Putin is (i find this weird … but then we are talking about people who think they own the world, so owning the Putin narrative i guess is part of that mentality 🤷🏽‍♂️)

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

The Soviet Union was an "informal empire" over nominally sovereign states in the Warsaw Pact due to Soviet pressure and military presence.

@AntPictures

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCoup not exactly. Russia was an empire. Empire doesn't acknowledge the sovereignty of it's states. USSR did that and even had specific laws and programs to preserve and evolve local cultures and languages. In your example European Union is an empire because major members control minor ones through lobbying and economic pressure. By these standards all major powers are empires.

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

@@AntPictures The USSR has been described as becoming under Stalin, in a certain sense, more a prison-house of nations than the old Empire had ever been.

@AntPictures

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCoup there is a difference between reading a history book and listening to cold war propaganda. I would never suggest the latter. Commies were in many respect rooted in French revolution and were essentially much more democratic than Hollywood likes us to believe.

Quel intellectual dishonesty- i am just an observer of events, i don't take a side but then goes on to say it would be a shame if Russia won. Freddie could have challenged more on a lot of points but was enamoured of a Cambridge don perhaps - disappointed.

Minute 8:30, fred says something like "as ukrain and russia were once one nation, then ujrain must remain part of russia", this would be Putin's point. This is clearly misleading people who have not listened to the interview. His point was that ukrain was somewhat of an artificial state(he actually says that), that many parts of what is now ukrain have also been polland,hungary, germany. This was mainly to emphasize how unstable the borders were in that part of the world. As for him wanting to annex Ukraine, if you could tell your audience that he refused to incorporate the eastern provinces when they first asked for it before the minsk accords (I cannot recall if it was minsk 1 or 2). Your vision makes no sense when regarding those facts, yes you have a posch british accent which makes whatever you say seem smart, but it is unfortunately utter bs. So far this is a really bad job, sorry, could do better

@voyd1507

3 ай бұрын

After WWII when Stalin did what he pretty much wanted with the territories under his "influence" He had no existent opposition from Roosevelt and meager from Churchill. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Moldova lost some lands to USSR. He took over land nowadays called Kaliningrad (formerly Konigsberg or Krolewiec as spoils of war). And Ukraine became part of Soviet territory. Now Volodya is trying to regain former Soviet territories. To his logic Ukraine is his.But obviously you are very much in Putin's camp, not an objective camp.

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

Couldn’t the same be said of Russia? Go back in history far enough and you can draw up its “historic” borders anyway you like

@stephanjaure3344

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCoup I don't disagree

@stephanjaure3344

3 ай бұрын

@@voyd1507 how do you reconcile your ideas with the fact that he had first refused to integrate dombass region in russia during minsk accords and had said that he would rather have does regions remain in ukrain ?

@voyd1507

3 ай бұрын

Will you be able to produce a proof of this statement of his? In his many indications he lamented on dismantling of Soviet Union. In 2009 he proposed Polish PM Tusk to partition Ukraine by the river Dniepr. He was instrumental in keeping protests in Donbas and Doneck hot. He hated fact that Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Read some of his writings to NYT for example. In a nutshell: what Russia says and what Russia does are 2 different things.@@stephanjaure3344

Thanks to all the intelligent and informed posts I saved 24 minutes of my life.

@jaybee557

3 ай бұрын

With Sayers, it is essential to ‘preview’ his interviews via the comments. He’s had some real shockers over the years…

With Un-Herd, I now read the comments before I decide whether or not to listen to the episode . The comments on this have spoken clearly .

well, he skipped over the 'facts' surrounding the 'not 1 inch east' and promises given, didn't he. Like to comment on these 'facts' may have somehow validated them. Can't have that now, can we... 🤫🤫🤫

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

He (Putin) was pretty quiet about that alleged broken promise for a full 3 decades after the Baltics joined NATO. Anyone can see its convenient post hoc excuse to resume Russian imperialism

@Ramridge8

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCouppromise given? Is it written anywhere? Was it even given? If it was, does it justify to violate Budapest memorandum, which Russia signed after promise was given. Do you really believe nato membership is the reason Russia started a war?

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

@@Ramridge8 I agree. What’s more valid: a verbal “promise” by an American administration that everyone knows won’t be in power in 4 years, or a written treaty between 4 countries.

@dwl3006

3 ай бұрын

@@Ramridge8 Yes it was stated by Secretary of State James Baker to Gorbachev, read the transcript. And yes, NATO membership is in fact the reason that Russia invaded.

@Ramridge8

3 ай бұрын

@@dwl3006you are actually confirming what I said in the initial statement: it was a verbal promise before even Soviet Union collapsed. But do you really think this is the reason of the war? Do you think Ukraine would become a nato member? Do you think Russia should decide what alliances Ukraine should join? Do you think Ukraine would attack Russia if Russia would not attack Ukraine?

2 mins was enough! Putin considering the thousands of sanctions piled on him..has every right to sanction whoever he pleases! The Jewish professor should request a meeting with Putin to have a debate on Russian history! 😅 Just joking!!

Heaven forbid a national leader promoting nationalistic policies. How very non Western of him.

UnHerd really try hard to pretend they’re different from mainstream media. They’re a joke, however. And Freddy is not a serious journalist. I subscribed for a while and found out their journalism is stupid and analysis is weak at best and totally propagandistic at worst.

Somewhere between academic pastism and activist presentism-somewhere between L.P. Hartley's “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” and William Faulkner’s “The past is never dead; it’s not even past”-is an understanding of history that’s as accurate as it is useful.

16:53 if the Professor doesn't take sides on this conflict, then surely he also thinks that the Ukrainian people in the Donbass and Crimea (yes those are Ukrainians) who wants to secede from Ukraine, but later decided to join Russia - also have their rights to do so - the rights which the western Ukrainian has vehemently opposed as to causing the 8 year long civil war in Ukraine. You should've asked the professor that question.

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

You could find such groups seeking secession in nearly any country. What about the right of those Crimean’s that wanted to remain in Ukraine, or become an independent nation? Surely we can agree the way Putin annexed it - invaded and seized by Russias _little green men_ followed by a disputed referendum - is not the most legitimate way to resolve the issue.

@cooljosh2307

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCoup if it was really "invaded and seized" like you said, you'd think there could be sparks of discontent or revolt in Crimea - but in the past 9 years, we don't hear anything of the sort - and you can be certain that any kind of protests in Russia would immediately be picked up by the western mainstream media, yet there were no such things? As for Crimeans wanting to join Ukraine (of course there were but seems to be in the very minority based on the "disputed" referendum result) - we don't see or hear any oppression towards them, do we? Not like the western Ukrainians oppressing the Donbass people for wanting to secede. Of course we can dispute the legitimacy, but that's just because the collective west says so - what matters is that the Crimean people have chosen to join Russia, and the current situation there reflects that decision.

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

@@cooljosh2307 not even Putin disputes the little green men were his Russian operatives. If u can’t acknowledge that much, we live in different realities and have nothing else to discuss. Russia held a referendum seemingly to demonstrate support for annexation. But referenda do not tell us about how citizens feel or identify, especially when held during an armed occupation by Russian soldiers. Author Eleanor Knott conducted fieldwork into issues of identity and citizenship in Crimea before annexation. Her book _Kin Majorities,_ exposes a more complex reality. She claims the data collected prior to the seizing of Crime, during a time of calm, questions what we actually know about the varying identities and preferences of Crimea’s residents, at a time when annexation was inconceivable. *Excerpt from her work: * How did Crimea’s residents feel before the war? _My research shows that identity in Crimea was far more complex than a region with a Russian, or pro-Russian, majority. Few in Crimea identified as pro-Russian nationalists. In fact, only those I interviewed within pro-Russian parties and movements identified as such. Instead, many identified as ethnically Russian, but with few cultural or political ties to Russia. Many others identified as between Ukraine and Russia: as Crimean. Meanwhile, many younger people did not identify, ethnically, even as Russian speakers, rather they identified as Ukrainian citizens._

@cooljosh2307

3 ай бұрын

@@ClownCarCoup reality is - Crimea is now more prosperous under Russia than they were under Ukraine. And as I have said - no one is protesting Russia for "annexing" its historical territory nowadays. You can throw in every western author "study" or "investigation" which says one thing, but in reality says another. How many times have we been told that Russia is losing, Russia is running out of ammunition, Russia is crumbling under the heavy sanctions, etc etc - only to realize that all of those are just plain western propaganda. Since you only believe in the western viewpoints of Russia (which is very Russophobic), you are right that we live in different realities - you live in the reality of western "studies" and "investigations", and I live in the reality where Crimean people are living happily under Russia governance. Enjoy your reality.

@HecClaytos4956

3 ай бұрын

Do you have any evidence that a majority of the Donbass wishes to become part of Russia, rather than just an armed minority who seized power in 2014?

At 15:59 "...in which this cocktail of people has involved". Mixi mixi, shaky shaky and there come Ukrainians?

Why did not Sayers follow up on the professor's writings about Odessa and Moldova being "Targets" - the assumed reasons for Russian sanctions on him? If the professor in March/April 2022 wrote that Russia's "target" was (attacking?) Moldova, I guess one can understand that the Russians are not too happy about it. This does not mean, however, that i necessarily support the Russian decision to exclude the professor from having a Russian bank account etc.

@AntPictures

3 ай бұрын

Didn't know this. Very important context without which it's very hard to understand why this professor was being sanctioned. He seemed to be moderate.

@Hapotecario

3 ай бұрын

​@@AntPicturesthe Russian communist party has many voters in Russia. From that political side, that is opposition to Putin's party, there must be many professors of history with diverging views on Russia's history. Why is this professor sanctioned? Might be not because his views are different but because he is too close to Western interests.

@tucoramirez3333

3 ай бұрын

Was the professor right in what he wrote back then about Odessa ?

@arildbrock5132

2 ай бұрын

​@@tucoramirez3333I guess he was right about Odessa and wrong about Moldova. However, in any case I find it below the level of Unherd, that Sayers doesn't not follow up on the very reason for the "sanctions" against the professor. Instead of an interview about the reasons for the war we get a cozy chat about the unreasonable (and stupid?) Russians.

That which is in the past is not history? History only exists prior to 2008?

Does Prof Abulafia speak and read Russian? It is very important to know that.

What's going on? The Putin Carlson interview was a history lesson for the first half hour. So you didn't watch it?

@emiliachopin732

3 ай бұрын

What version of history ? Putin 's ??

Thank you, I am very much interested to hear the different views on the history of Ukraine and Russia. I found Putins "history lesson" very interesting, since at school history was mostly centered on the West . It is said, history is written by the winners, which makes sense to me. Maybe you can also interview the experts on eastern Europes history, he mentioned at the beginning. I also find the field of research he mentioned, very promising, to rewrite history based on all of the documents and proof we have.

It was a great interview. I am impressed with Putin's intelligence. The British lie about history all the time. 😮

@Mman.

3 ай бұрын

I agree on all three points

@xiaomoogle

3 ай бұрын

*Russian trolling intensifies*

@nickelmouse451

3 ай бұрын

lol

@MrDoyley35

3 ай бұрын

🤣 😂LMAO! 😂😂😂😂😂.

@Miroslaw-rs8ip

3 ай бұрын

Putin’s intelligence is committing genocide in Ukraine, Putin is a KGB officer not a historian. It’s all lies and propaganda man.

This guy is just a British exceptionalist colonialist apologist; I can see through his ilk from a mile away, rightly sanctioned imo.

He is a normal secret service personnel! Specialized in Renaissance... good joke.

I listened to all of the historical part of the Putin interview, and my conclusion is that propaganda and history are inseperably intertwined - and this applies equally to both East AND West. Ever since I first read "A People's History of the United States", I was hit home both the Orwellian idea of he who controls the past controls the present and that history is written by the victors by selection of facts and framing. Howard Zinn showed it is possible to write history from the point of view of ordinary people, but it's rarely done. I went through school and had the idea I was just memorizing facts instead of only one somewhat valid perspective. My mind gets more open listening to other culture's historical perspectives, or history that involves econonomics (so rarely done) by scholars such as Michael Hudson. I'd love for Michael Hudson to be on the show if possible! Or Jacques Baud, an ex-NATO officer who has written about the modern history of the Ukraine region and the lead up to war. I hope people listen to Putin if only to humanize him and promote more dialogue. I can't say his history is 'right', but I've talked to enough Russians to know this is what most Russians think, and so it's important to understand. I'm not a favor of sanctioning individuals, but I also acknowledge here in the west there's a shit ton of information control where there's hard consequences if you speak outside the narrative. Are we that different?

“I read somewhere that they grow tea in the silly isles” that says all you need to know about this guy.

@MattM-ce3qe

3 ай бұрын

Scilly Isles. Off the coast of Cornwall and the southernmost point of the British Isles.

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

@@MattM-ce3qe That’s correct. How much tea do they grow there?

@MattM-ce3qe

3 ай бұрын

He was joking. The Scillys are tiny and the British and Irish drink a lot of tea.

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

@@MattM-ce3qe I am not sure he was joking; was it funny? My take is that he is pretty much clueless about the world. Most of our tea comes from Asia and Africa.

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

NOT FROM YORKSHIRE, even if it says that on the packet.

Thank you for this talk.

Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Vladimir Putin sanctioned British historians, including Professor David Abulafia from the University of Cambridge. - The Kremlin accuses Abulafia of being russophobic and contributing to London's subversive work against Russia. - Abulafia is puzzled by his inclusion on the sanctions list as he doesn't often write about Russia. - He speculates his inclusion may be due to an article he wrote about the Ukraine War, predicting Odessa as a target. - Abulafia's work focuses on the history of the oceans, including the Mediterranean and Black Sea, rather than political commentary. - He discusses the politicization of history, both in Russia's nationalist narrative and in Western debates over colonialism and restitution. - Putin's historical narrative emphasizes the unity of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, tracing back to the Viking founder Rurik. - Abulafia argues that Ukraine's history is characterized by a diverse mix of peoples and should not be defined by an ethno-centric Russian narrative. - He believes Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has the right to align with the West or East as it chooses. - Abulafia's historical work emphasizes the importance of the seas in human history, including the Black Sea's long history of competition and trade. - He suggests that the Black Sea will not remain a predominantly Russian zone due to recent Ukrainian successes. - Abulafia thinks a partition of Ukraine, with eastern provinces remaining effectively Russian, is a likely outcome but opposes official recognition of Russian territorial claims. - He comments on the Suez Canal's historical and current significance for trade, noting the impact of blockages. - Abulafia is not particularly concerned about being on the Kremlin's sanctions list, as he had no plans to visit Russia or open a Russian bank account. - Main message: Professor David Abulafia, a maritime historian, discusses the diverse and complex history of Ukraine, the politicization of history, and the significance of the seas, while also addressing his inclusion on the Kremlin's sanctions list and the current geopolitical situation in the Black Sea region.

He kind of ducked on the issue of was there promises of not expanding NATO. I suspect he did know but didn't want to give the answer. Lol

Putin forgets that countries change boundaries. Just look at the map of the world before & after WWI & WWII.

As the historian said Putin believes what he what he is saying. The problem is the Ukrainian people have their beliefs, which run counter to his. And as they are living there and he doesn't he should leave them alone.

13:21 that city does not have recent foundations, it was merely renamed by russian empire in the 18th century

Plenty of crazy professors

Jeez...I feel sorry for the students. Putin far more cogent and enlightening.

hey Freddy i generally love your content. find this one a bit lame 😒 i’m sorry to say. this guy’s kinda irrelevant when Tucker Carlson delivered a banger & im wondering if there’s not something a little more relevant ?

May I ask if the history of the past being largely Colonialist and in large measure brutish and highway robbery almost, would it not be fair comment by reviewers to state the true nature of the hegemonic and Colonialistic behaviour?

Why do you call him "president"? 🤣

It’s a pity you didn’t ask the professor about the South China Sea and China’s fantasy claims

Whatever situation Trump and Putin achieve, that too will be only another temporary situation. When your neighbor has world domination as a goal, any stay is only temporary. And any past history is useless to re-hash as there is no moral or historic justification for world domination. Best of luck to Ukraine and Poland.

To help you, here is an example of honest journalism :kzread.info/dash/bejne/pX2J0MeliZjNibQ.htmlsi=2Hz5sWbGmb0MqBLr The guy gives as much facts as possible, tries to give the different perspectives. He also gives his own opinion, not pretending that he has none, or trying to disguise his opnion as some sort of "the only objective view of reality". Again, if you want to interview someone, it really doesn't start well if you interview a brit. Interview a non english native, or multiple experts. What would john mearschimer say here ?

NATO did not impose itself on a single country. Each country requests to join. As far as Eastern Expansion of NATO, each of those countries wanted to join because of their unsatisfactory experience with the Moscow centric Soviet Union. Given a choice between Putin’s desire to rebuild the Soviet Union by taking all former territories or becoming part of the Western Block, the vast majority of countries chose NATO. Putin’s quest to force himself on Ukraine in the name of reuniting the family is flawed because under Soviet repression it was not like a family at all. Screw Putin and his minion Trump. Bless Ukraine and all Freedom loving countries.

I listened, but couldn’t work out what got him sanctioned. Did they say?

@ClownCarCoup

3 ай бұрын

A paranoid tyrant is the simple answer. He conjectured at the very beginning it was an opinion he wrote just after the invasion about Odessa being Putin’s next obvious target 2:01 He is, of course, correct. Putin would love to control the Ukrainian coast and a land bridge to his next target: Moldova

Strange a maritime historian who makes no mention of the arctic melting with brand new sea routes opening up but mentions Suez and the cape, and guess who stands to profit from that with about 8 hours of arctic coast line .This is way more three dimensional than is being made out

LOL! Why is it cumbersome to pronounce the name of their country the way they prefer?

How very British of you and the west is obsessed with Ukrainians rights, what about Russian's rights? Why don't you interview Putin yourself? What are you afraid of?

@JagnaLesna

3 ай бұрын

Russian`s rights to do what? Attack their neighbours?

The Russian trolls are losing their minds in this comment section.

The ham-handed, xenophobic accusation against this academic says more about Putin and his Russia than any 2-hour broadcast of Tucker Carlson's gluteal osculation ever could.

Very interesting

"Which ended up being more of a history lecture" This is exaggerated and insinuating. Don't do that Freddie, it doesn't suit you.

A very wishy washy kind of fella. Not too surprised he is not Russia's cup of tea. Just ignoring the facts on recent history is quite telling.

Hmmmm . Another proof of Tucker and Vlad ‘s talent: The angriness of those two

What about “Malvinas”, what about the Atlantic Ocean?

It will be Andrew Roberts next 🙄 I saw this disturbing trend in the Salisbury Review… Ido t know who’s right about much of it, but it seems to me the sin of pride is a massive problem in western academia

Very glib. And Russians sanctioned by America are 'especially dangerous'? It's important to apply comparable standards, surely?

I wonder why the phrase " White Russia ' was ever used ?

@MusaA

3 ай бұрын

White Russia was good after the revolution and red Russia was bad!

@Mman.

3 ай бұрын

What do you mean?

@freesaxon6835

3 ай бұрын

@@Mman. It was a phrase often used decades ago to describe the area west of the Caucasus

@irinademina9701

3 ай бұрын

@@freesaxon6835 there must be some misunderstanding. There is no such meaning or usage. White Russia is how Belarus is translated. Also, the Whites were a side in the Russian civil war. There are no other meanings of White Russia I’m aware of

@freesaxon6835

3 ай бұрын

@@irinademina9701 I am old, 😐 and remember it used in Britain 60 odd years ago .... geographically

And just when one might have thought that Freddie Sayrers had evolved past a reductive jackanapes, he makes a statement at 4:44 about "reinterpreting history to burden today's generations with the guilt of the past and so on." Well, Mr. Sayers, in your typically tendentious style, you blithely sashay past the accompany reality of how today's generations also enjoy the bounty of the past at the same moment. You certainly would not have your condescending keister seated in your posh surroundings if the UK had not exploited half the world for centuries. Whatever kind of conservative you preen to represent, your cherry-picking proclivities to conveniently decide whenever present generations may or may not presume on the actions of their predecessors on balance of claiming privilege or responsibility from the past reflect a total lack of moral authority or integrity.

He’s old enough to have been there.

Well, if you go back far enough then it's the homeland of all Indo Europeans.

An interesting approach to frame the imperialistic ambitions of some countries as an attempt of intentional cultural diversivication. Like eg Hungary took parts of Romania because they were interested in their food?! And Romania later took those part back (after the population changed to be primarily Hungarian) because they didn't have enough minorities? No, not Poland that grabbed Land from Russia because they could and then had to deal with its population. 'They wanted to create a peaceful state with lots of minorities' Regardless if those minorities actually wanted to be part of this 'peaceful multi cultural nation' lol

Thank you for an informed discussion.

The house of lords own Cambridge

Putin stated Lenin created the Ukrainian state in the USSR. I have not found a historical map that shows an independent sovereign Ukrainian state that predates this. Please check historical maps at your Cambridge or Oxford libraries etc.

@rg-cc5kg

3 ай бұрын

Funnily the highest justice of RuZZia in a talk with Putin showed him a map which names a "state of the cossacks" eg Ukraine. Also the Kievan Rus can be seen as a predecessor state to Ukraine. Also: Since we have no map of Canada from the 13O0s I believe it does not rightfully exist now.

@christyfessletini8130

3 ай бұрын

@@rg-cc5kg the question was about Putin's claim about Lenin creating the state of Ukraine. Point one the Cossacks are not Ukrainian. Cossacks= Kazakh. and are found in Kuban. Kievan Rus is not Ukraine. Nobody living in Kievan rus identified themselves as Ukrainian. The concept of Ukrainian did not exist until the mid 19century and at the time it came to the fore in the austro- Hungarian empire. None of the elements you mention are evidence of an historic existence of Ukraine. Cossacks never considered themselves Ukrainian. Its historical revisionism that is now being practiced. In fact when there were feuds between warring principalities. The Cossacks joined with Bogdan xhelmnitski and thought with the Moscow principality against those situated in what is now modern Ukraine. And all of those fighting considered themselves Russian. Indeed we should look at historical usage of the word Ukrainian in British historical texts. The point is not about Ukraine existing since 1991 or from the creation of the Ukrainian soviet republic under lenin. It s about the manipulation of history for propagandistic purposes.so please the word Ukrainian in historical British texts predating , living within a sovereign state Ukrainian did not exist in history until lenin. There are Cornish people living in the UK. But there is no sovereign national state recognised as Cornwall.

@christyfessletini8130

3 ай бұрын

Nobody in Kievan rus considered themselves Ukrainian. Cossacks come from the term kazakh and did not identify with the term Ukrainian. The Cossacks even thought under Bogdan xhelmnitski with the moscovy principality in an area that is now part of modern day Ukraine. None of the combatants called themselves Ukrainian. The term Ukrainian did not exist until the mid 19th century and this happened within the austro-Hungarian empire. So please let's now find historical texts at British museums referring to Ukrainians, living in a sovereign Ukraine predating the establishment of the Ukrainian SSR. I guarantee it never existed.. There are Cornish people living in England, but there is no sovereign recognised state of Cornwall, never has been. So as Putin says lenin created the state of Ukraine in the USSR. It's an historical fact. It does not mean Ukraine is not recognised as a state since 91. But please stop with all the propaganda and historical revisionism. Putin equally never said that Ukraine should not exist. Certainly he said they are one people, for most of history this is the case. Don't listen to secondary sources that manipulate . Go direct to the text that he wrote personally. Not someone else's review.

From the beginning Rus is the name of the river in Kyiv region. the core area is Kyiv, Chernigiv, Pereyasliv regions where the river is untill now. The "core area" is called Ukraine/Vkraine if you read word as the sentence. V/U means core, center, in, inside, downarea. moscow stole the name rossia in 18 century but the word rossiyani means sown or spread out. It's evident who speaks Ukrainian language and moscow don't understand that as they don't understand Ukrainian, Polish, Bulgarian etc. You can watch any map of 16 century (the start of mapping) or earlier and see for yourself. Rus and Ukraine/Vkraine is the same territory, moscow area is swamp, undeveloped margin of Europe.

@uneasyrider1980

3 ай бұрын

Why don't you call your country Ukrus, you lobotomoized naz... swine?

Funny! Is it just me. or could this just be dubble play? Getting us to discuss the war in historic terms? Like if it is reasonable for Putin to invade.

Im still looking for old maps of the Ukrainian state to prove Putin wrong. Desperately needing help on this one. Anyone got a map 300 years ago of the Ukrainian sovereign independent state?

You sanction Russia, they sanction back. That's the gamr baby!

🙄🙄🙄

Freddie, with such pace you will soon lose all followers.

I bet Kit Klarenberg hasn't been sanctioned

@paulgally1657

3 ай бұрын

No Kit digs deep for the truth whereas this guy is an obsequious lapdog of the West. Putin loves truth tellers so definitely no sanctions for Kit.

Putin is like a betting guy who's in too deep and keeps going.

@MusaA

3 ай бұрын

He's winning that's why he keeps going! He is defeating the whole of the western world as well as NATO! Ukraine has been defeated a long way back, it is currently on a USA life support machine funded by the USA!

I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you. Jorgen Barkley

@Adrian-ge8vt

3 ай бұрын

The first step to successful investing is figuring out your goals and risk tolerance either on your own or with the help of a financial professional but is very advisable you make use of a professional.

@AnneHortha

3 ай бұрын

Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing him been mentioned here also Didn't know he has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with him and it has been super.

@AndrewSheilds

3 ай бұрын

I'm new at this, please how can I reach him?

@SherinaWilly

3 ай бұрын

I have seen many positive reviews about him. Please how can I contact him?

@Sergoisantos23

3 ай бұрын

He’s mostly on Telegrams, using the user name

Unherd, yet another "alternative" channel which is exposing itself blatantly by assuming the listeners are idiots.

boring....

Comments by the anchor are ridiculous. You mix Nationalism and Communism. Speaking to an Englishman about national identities and statemanship is however, quite amusing ))

Lot of angry russophiles in the comments. woke right

@KalomeraMante

3 ай бұрын

Fun to see some label ending in “phile” at last, all the “phobe” ones were getting rather monotonous

A “waste” of time…

This historian has offered us a very interesting interesting lesson about the origins of that area (the Vikings, the Slavs--often enslaved by the former--, the Muslim), and yet many of those who have commented here are talking about something else (like defending an idiot called Tucker Carson). Very sad.

I lived for nearly 30 years in the so-called "Russian" east, in Zaporozhye. We all spoke Russian, and every Ukrainian Russian-speaker I ever met was a patriotic Ukrainian. And NOBODY was suffering any repression or "genocide" (Putin's hysterical-tantrum propaganda line). It was as much a lie of Putin's to say that he had to come "defend" Russian-speakers (Putin would prefer to simply call them "Russians", of course) in Ukraine as it would be for the Italian prime minister to launch an invasion of America to rescue Italian-speakers in Brooklyn.

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

When did you leave the area?

@kensears5099

3 ай бұрын

@@yourbestguess I was outside of Ukraine on a visit in the USA when the invasion took place in Feb. '22. I have not since gone back to live in Zaporozhye but remain "close" in multiple ways.

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

@@kensears5099 btw when did Putin say there was a genocide? There was a massacre in Mariupol right?

@yourbestguess

3 ай бұрын

@@kensears5099 what was the nature of your work in Ukraine?

@thecoin5394

3 ай бұрын

​​@@kensears5099so you didn't care about the war in Donbass then, but you suddenly care about the war now? 😅

Please understand that Russia didn’t exist in the 8th century but became officially called Russia in the 18th century by Tsar Peter 1st who changed the name of his country from Moscovia to Russia. The current state of Russia didn’t exist until after the Golden Horde collapsed in the early 16th century, from the 13th to 16th centuries Moscow was ruled by the Horde, before that from the 8th century to the destruction of Kyivan Roos (not Russia and has no connection with the state formed centuries later!. Kyivan Roos controlled the current area of North West Russia, this state of Roos was centred in current Kyiv Ukraine so Russia has no claim on Kyiv! Putin’s claims are a falsification of history but then he lies constantly as he’s trained as a KGB officer not a historian. Furthermore a Prince of Kyiv founder Moscow in the 11 century, after the Mongol invasion in the 13th century it gained importance since their Princes cooperated with the Mongols. I stayed a year in Russia back in the late 90’s and learned much about the country, I learned that only about 63% of the Russian population were Slavic and the others non Slavic. Moscow muddied the demographics by indicating anyone born with one parent an ethnic Russian is automatically counted as a Russian despite their own ethnic identification. So the true ethnic composition is lower than what they claim! Ukraine on the other hand has about 70% ethnic Ukrainian composition with about 20% ethnic Russians who most were sent from Russia after millions of Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin. Generally Ukrainians are a much higher percentage in their own country than the Russians are in Russia. I have read many Western historical books on this area and can tell you that Putin is full of crap! He’s a madman and a terrorist who’s committing genocide against Ukrainians.

Time to unsubscribe from this channel

A cocktail of people's 🤡 isn't that the line we are given. No such thing as race ? Etc. Putin covered the Russian history in very much the same way as this Prof.

This video has more dislikes than likes.? Who agrees?

The professor sounds quite reasonable. Though I don't know much intellectually about Russia/Ukraine. The professor says he has not been to Russia in recent times which is slightly food for thought. 😅 Thanks for the insights. X

@irinademina9701

3 ай бұрын

Or never studied it specifically

What I like most about this interview is how, from whichever angle you look at Putins historical lunacy, it all is fundamentally meaningless. That must be why Putin didn’t like how it went. He looked like a fool. A country is a country based on what the people in it want it to be. The most successful nation ever was formed from a multitude of different peoples in space of 100years. The USA started as an ex European colony and 100years later became the most powerful nation on earth. They had no ethnic history at all. Ukraine has every right to do the same if the majority of its citizens want and the west supports that ambition because it works. Join the west. It’s the best!!!

@whatslifespurpose

3 ай бұрын

The USA is a settler colonial state that was built on genocide and slavery. Australia and Israel are milder examples. You have clearly not viewed the two hour interview and stuck with the initial 30 minute history lesson that Putin was giving. Carefully listen to the remaining part and try to ask why the Minsk agreements were not followed? Why Boris Johnson interrupted a peace process? Why the west interfered in 2014 Maidan Coup (Victoria Nuland handing out cookies and John McCain openly verbally supporting the protesters) Imagine a Russian MP in Capitol Hill during the riots? The West G7 share has reduced and BRICS is rising, Putin mentions that too. Listen to the full two hour interview mate and not just the first 30 minutes.

@vitalykobrusev5126

3 ай бұрын

not anymore, watch Tucker Carlson

@MrDoyley35

3 ай бұрын

@@vitalykobrusev5126 Western leaders don’t execute their rivals. And they don’t forcibly remain in power for decades. Putin is Russias biggest problem. He has divided the Rus. I don’t understand why the Rus people haven’t got rid of him yet. Are they just weak slaves?

@elibrod9981

3 ай бұрын

Hard to imagine this was written by an adult)

Congratulations professor 👏 you know you're speaking the truth when you get on poootins' list.

😂😂😂😂Old lier 😂😂😂 shame on you for your hypocrity😅😢

You sanction Russia, they sanction back. That's the gamr baby!