The Engineering of Consent

I'm certainly not going to click on some random YouTube link when you haven't even said what it's about. It's even less likely when you appear to be going out of your way to keep it vague. I can only conclude the same as the previous poster, that you're just throwing a rock and running away to watch from a safe distance.

I can think for myself

“there are people on both sides” of the earth being flat.
Not every opinion is worth giving a voice.

In a conflict where one country invades another and targets civilians, it’s usually pretty clear who has the moral authority

I'm glad I watched it.

My summary: a handful of scholars over the age of 60 delivers various versions and examples of "the U.S. government astoundingly fails to see Russia's point of view and has been mismanaging their relationship for almost two decades." The speakers don't approve of Putin's actions or methods, but they point out that some reaction to the U.S.'s actions has been foreseeable for some time, and a bear's gonna bear.

I found it to be of poor taste a bit that you just threw this in here as it comes off as an attempt at shifting blame when it comes from a Russian. Mearsheimer has very valid points but his analysis is totally one sided. He treats Russia as a constant, a force of nature that can't or is unwilling to adapt. Russia declared Ukraine joining the West a red line so if Ukraine tries to do so then it's their and the USA's fault if Russia invades them? Of course this line of thought absolutely has merit through the lens of realpolitiks but the major share of blame / fault lies with the country that launched an invasion of another sovereign country. You could also turn the argument around and claim that NATO declared its willingness to add Ukraine and Georgia in time and Russia should have adapted. Makes it a game of chicken where neither side swerved.

I didn't watch the whole video (only about half) but in the parts I did it wasn't discussed at all whether Russia's concerns are vaild and whether they had other choices that would have been better for them rationally. In my opinion Russia's security concerns of NATO being on their border are not valid at all. First, NATO countries already bordered Russia. Secondly, no nuclear missiles or large bases were installed in any of the newer Eastern European NATO members. Thirdly Ukraine was decade(s) away from joining NATO or the EU and Russia successfully threw a wrench into that with the Donbass and Crimea. Fourthly and most importantly Russia can destroy the whole world with its nuclear arsenal. Their borders are absolutely safe because of MAD.

Russia is not the USSR, it's not a world superpower (except for its nuclear arsenal). You can't be a superpower with an economy the size of Italy's. But Russia still behaves like one. And I'm not sure their strategy makes sense. If they wanted Ukraine to stay neutral / Russia-aligned then taking over the Crimea and starting the Donbass conflict was a mistake. You can't expect to have positive relations with a country you are in the process of slowly dismembering. The other approach which they chose in 2014 was legit, too. Russia took the strategically very important Crimea without a fight and the Donbass conflict made it very unlikely that Ukraine will ever be able to join NATO no matter how close they get. The blowback from the West was rather mild, too. It was clearly a victory for Russia. They could have stayed on this course and be absolutely fine, I think. Russia might win the war on the ground but I don't believe it will be worth the price. Not even close. The decision to invade comes off as Russian leadership caring more about projecting world superpower status than the prosperity of the country and the citizens.