Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: John Mearsheimer: Why Russia Might NUKE Europe

Professor, while we have you, we also wanted to talk to you about the Ukraine war, which grinds on.

And as far as I can tell, the front lines are more or less stuck.

The Ukrainians have made very effective use of drone warfare, which has helped them overcome some of their manpower disadvantage.

We can put D1 up on the screen.

There is some concern, and this is a Wall Street Journal article laying out the case,

that Putin could expand the war beyond Ukraine, striking inside of Europe.

You have also, Kiev has been striking inside of Russia.

You've had Russia escalating attacks directly on the city of Kiev.

So just give us a little bit of an update of where the war stands, and if you think that this is a realistic possibility that's being laid out here in the Wall Street Journal.

Well, I think you have to separate the war on the ground from the air war.

And when I talk about the air war, I'm talking about the strategic bombing where the Ukrainians are using drones and missiles to strike deep into Russia.

And the Russians, of course, are doing the same thing vis-a-vis Ukraine.

That's the air war.

And then there's the war on the ground.

There's no question that with the coming of drones, it's very difficult to make rapid progress on the ground.

But the Russians are nevertheless making progress. in Ukraine.

The idea that Ukraine has turned the tide on the battlefield and is rolling the Russians back, or will someday roll the Russians back,

is not a plausible argument.

The Russians are winning on the ground.

And you want to remember that they've already conquered 20%, roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory.

And they're not going to give that territory up.

Ukraine is never going to recover that 20% that it's already lost.

The only question is how much more territory will the Russians conquer?

And they will conquer more territory.

So that's the ground war.

The air war is where things are getting dangerous.

And there what's happening is that the Ukrainians are using more drones and more sophisticated drones to attack deep into Russia.

And they're hitting oil refineries, and they're killing lots of Russian civilians.

And the Russians are reaching the point where they're saying enough is enough.

And they bombed Kiev on Sunday night in ways that they have never bombed that city before.

They really turned the dogs loose, as I like to say.

And they're threatening to do even more.

They've warned European countries to remove

their diplomatic staffs from Kyiv because they are obviously intending to hit targets that might include those diplomatic installations.

But the real worry is that the Russians will hit targets inside of Eastern Europe or even Western Europe.

There are voices inside of Russia

that say it's It's time to take off the gloves and to go after targets in Europe,

because the Europeans are assisting the Ukrainians in these attacks on Mother Russia.

The argument, which is quite correct, is that there is no way that the Ukrainians could attack Russia,

could attack deep into Russia with drones and missiles the way they're doing now, without significant assistance from the West.

And if that is the case, we, the Russians, have to attack into the West if they're going to be allowed to attack into Mother Russia.

So it looks like there is a serious possibility that at some point in the future, the Russians will attack NATO countries,

and that would be potentially disastrous.

Wow.

What we've also seen, sir, can we put D3 up here on the screen?

I took note of this yesterday.

Zelensky in a new letter to President Trump and to Congress saying that he urgently needs patriot interceptors.

And in the letter, basically what he says is that they're going under, like you just said, this sustained Russian attack.

You have these drones and hypersonic missiles that are now being used by the Russians, which definitely do show an increase in the air war.

What should we make of this then from the Ukrainian side?

So if the Russians are going to escalate their attacks, then the Ukrainians, I assume, will escalate even further in terms of their drones,

not just oil refineries, but other more strategic targets.

What they're asking for patriot interceptors, the Trump administration also is in a bit of a bind because of what just happened with Iran.

They can't just give them over.

They have to really husband their resources.

What will this look like if things continue to go further?

Well, I think that there's no question that we have used up so many Patriot missiles, so many THAAD missiles, Tomahawks,

on and on in the war against Iran,

that we're in a situation where there are great limits on the weaponry that we can provide to the Ukrainians.

And of course, this includes Patriot missiles.

and patriots were their best defensive weapons and uh they're out of patriots

and uh therefore they're wide open to attacks from russia

and what uh zelensky is trying to do is convince the americans

that they should send patriots to ukraine to help ukraine fend off these russian attacks

but the fact is that we don't have patriots to give them we've expended so many weapons in the war against Iran.

So this means that Ukraine is wide open to attacks from Russian missiles and from Russian drones for the foreseeable future.

Professor, lay out for us, let's say that Russia does go forward with a strike, direct strike on a NATO country.

What do you think would happen then?

You know, what does that look like?

What actions do you believe that the U.S would would be likely to take in that scenario?

Well, if you listen to the rhetoric that comes out of Russia from sort of the principal proponents of this perspective,

And this perspective enjoys widespread support inside of Russia, especially among the elites.

The argument is that you would launch limited conventional attacks against the West.

And if that didn't convince the West to cease and desist from helping the Ukrainians to attack into Russia,

deep into Russia, then what the Russians should do is think about using nuclear weapons, not large numbers of nuclear weapons,

but just a handful of nuclear weapons to send a very clear signal to the West that the Russians mean business.

What the Russians feel they have to do here is establish deterrence.

The Russians believe, and I think quite correctly, that the West thinks that they can help Ukraine attack Russia,

and there'll be no price to pay for the West.

The West gets a free ride here.

It just can help the Ukrainians punch away at Russia.

There's no real deterrent in effect against the West.

And the Russians believe they have to establish a deterrent, and they want to do that with conventional weapons, or they're talking about doing it with conventional weapons.

But their argument is if that doesn't work, they'll use nuclear weapons.

The Russian perspective here is basically that the West doesn't understand that they're dealing with a nuclear armed adversary,

that we live in the nuclear world, and that when you begin to threaten the Russian homeland and you begin to kill Russians in large numbers,

that you are creating a situation where the Russians are going to have an incentive to strike back

and to strike back in serious ways and to try to convince the West

that we live in a world where nuclear deterrence should obtain.

You and the West may have forgotten about that, but we're going to remind you that we live in a world where nuclear weapons may be used, and we will use nuclear weapons,

if necessary, to restore deterrence.

So that's what's going on here, and it's a very dangerous situation,

because the West and Zelensky don't seem to care about Russian red lines.

The West and the Ukrainians seem to think that they can just pound away at the Russians and get away with it.

And if you look at the Iran situation, they were only able to establish deterrence by inflicting immense economic damage on the world.

And by doing that, they were able to demand a ceasefire.

Russia can read the news just like anybody else and say, okay, we have to do something similar.

Absolutely.

And by the way, just to go back to the Iran case, when you look at the Iran case and you tie that in to North Korea,

100

you see that North Korea was smart to get nuclear weapons and that Iran should have gotten nuclear weapons.

101

Because the Israelis and the Americans definitely would not be attacking Iran if it had nuclear weapons that could hit Israel.

102

And the reason they're doing that is

103

because they think they can get away with it they can get a free ride because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

104

Yeah.

105

And your point about the parallels between the Iranian case and the Russian case, I think, is right on the money.

106

That's the lesson that the Russians have taken from what the Iranians have done.

107

And this is what really scares me, because first of all, it seems that enough time has passed

108

that we've become complacent about the fact

109

that we do live in a nuclear-armed war and what

110

that means in terms of the level of devastating life-ending destruction can be wrought.

111

We also live in a time where basically every other taboo has been thrown out the window.

112

We all watched genocide on our live feeds every day

113

and no one with any power stepped in to do anything about it.

114

We call war peace now.

115

We say that Iran's the aggressors, even though we in Israel are the ones that bombed them.

116

So every previous taboo seems to have gone out the window.

117

The only one that seems to remain at this point is the nuclear taboo.

118

And it makes me wonder how long that is going to be able to hold up.

119

Yeah, I agree with everything you said.

120

And just to sort of reinforce your point,

121

Crystal, you want to remember that Ukraine invaded Mother Russia in August of 2024.

122

And you also want to remember that Ukraine

123

and both of these operations were with assistance from the United States

124

and Britain attacked one leg of the strategic nuclear triad of Russia.

125

And as I've pointed out on a number of occasions, this was unthinkable during the Cold War.

126

The idea that we would allow one of our allies to attack into Russian territory, it's just not in the realm of possibility during the Cold War.

127

And the idea

128

that we would let one of our allies with assistance from

129

us attack one leg of the strategic nuclear triad of the Soviet Union was again unthinkable.

130

But here we are in the Ukraine war and we've helped the Ukrainians to invade Russia.

131

We've helped the Ukrainians to attack the strategic nuclear triad of Russia.

132

And also it seems that we helped the Ukrainians launch a decapitation attack against Putin.

133

It's not for certain, but it certainly looks like that.

134

And you really wonder what the United States and what the British are thinking when they help the Ukrainians do this.

135

And of course, the Russians understand exactly what's going on.

136

And that's why the Russians are deeply committed to reestablishing, or maybe I should say,

137

establishing deterrence and making it clear to the West and to the Ukrainians that this just has to stop.

138

And to make it stop, they're willing to go up the escalation ladder.

139

And then, of course, the question, as we've been talking about, is whether or not they're willing to use nuclear weapons and break the nuclear taboo, so to speak.

140

Great point.

141

Well, thank you very much, sir, as always.

142

We deeply appreciate your time.

143

It was my pleasure.

144

Thanks for having me on the show.

145

Hey, if you liked that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below.

146

It really helps get the show to more people.

147

And if you'd like to get the full show, ad-free, and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at BreakingPoints.com.

148

That's right.

149

Get the full show.

150

Help support the future of independent media at breakingpoints.com.

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: John Mearsheimer: Why Russia Might NUKE Europe

Ngữ Cảnh & Bối Cảnh

5 Cụm Từ Quan Trọng Cho Giao Tiếp Hằng Ngày

Hướng Dẫn Shadowing Từng Bước

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?